I couldn't have said to better myself James. I grew up around guns, hunting, and target shooting and to villify gun owners is just plain stupid. Just goes to show how fucking retarded Democrats are. 

Beautiful guns, to be sure. You raise good points, and I HOPE nobody's talking about collecting family heirlooms, nor everyday tools, but chances are, somebody is. Every law that's passed is a reaction to something that's already happened, and many of them, while well-intentioned, are poorly conceived and poorly written.

Having said that, though, is there any good reason to allow clips with a large number of rounds in the marketplace? Should guns be sold without any background check at all?

I'd encourage every responsible gun owner to join in a civil and reasoned conversation, right now. Maybe the answer to Newtown and Columbine isn't regulation of gun ownership, but social reform, starting with each of us. But the hystrionics need to chill. The TN nutcase that stated that if gun control passed, he might start killing people didn't help the debate. Nor does the NRA with its absolute stances.

I guess I'm a liberal when it comes to politics, but I'm a responsible gun owner. I think I'm turning redneck. O_O 

I flat out do not agree that either guns or people are solely the problem, and that the other is not. No, both factor in. But that extends itself to a philosophical discussion that could take up a whole separate space.

What works for having/using guns for those out in the country will not work for those in the cities. While guns are very much part of your history, I myself have never even held, much less fired, a real gun in my life. I do, however, have "hunter" relatives.

As much as "compromise" is often a dirty word these days, I don't see any viable solution that doesn't involve forms of compromise here. I think there's at least some room for regulation here (some - I am not pushing for great, sweeping weapons bans), but such laws will have to be worded very, very carefully. In any case, however, I fail to see how the current "status quo" should continue to be acceptable.

Removed at request of blog owner

I didn't grow up around guns.  I'm a city boy...no wild pigs to contend with.  My dad wasn't a hunter; never owned a gun in his life.

I learned how to shoot in the Army.  Fired that M-1, but found the M-14 more accurate.  My real weapon of choice was an 8 inch howitzer...very accurate and fired from a respectable distance.

I was 70 years old before I purchased a personal weapon...Ruger SP101:

I moved out of the city.  Despite a good security system in our new home, I wanted more protection.  I have a carry permit, but generally leave the revolver at home.  I don't go to places where I'm likely to need it and I still haven't seen a wild pig.

₪₪₪₪₪₪

The current "gun control" debate has taken the expected turn toward political arguments, which will never provide a solution to the tragic incidents we witness all the time.  (Multiple, non-self defense shootings occur about once weekly in the US.)  If our politicians take the time to sit down and reason out what will actually work to curtail such shootings, then we may make some progress.  But instead they will take the easy way out...pass legislation in haste based on poll results rather than consider the real issues:

     1.  Assault weapons serve no purpose in self-defense or putting food on the table.

     2.  Large capacity magazines serve no purpose in self-defense or putting food on the table.

     3.  It is possible to require registration of all weapons without infringing anyone's Second Amendment rights.

     4.  It can be made illegal to transfer a weapon without recording the transaction, gun shows and private sales included.

     5.  Mentally disturbed persons can be denied gun ownership and gun owners can be made responsible for keeping their guns away from the mentally disturbed and made criminally and financially liable for failing to do so.

These are among the factors which should be considered, but the debate will lead us elsewhere.  There will be lobbying and positioning and threats of un-Constitutional action, but there will be no effective solution.

₪₪₪₪₪₪

That nutcase from Tennessee has had his handgun permit suspended (Article).

Responsible Tennessee gun owners like Lacey and me are the norm.  And, Lacey, converts make the most devout rednecks.

The problem I have with the current administration and gun control is their opportunism (never let a tragedy/crisis go to waste) and their strategy of incrementalism

We saw this opportunism during the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010. It ended up being a multi-billion dollar shake down where local democratic constituencies were rewarded and others were punished. I fully expect the Newtown tragedy to be milked for all that it's worth. It's already in motion and it is pretty disgusting.

Second- the left, when they are trying to sell something that nobody wants, try to sell it in increments. OK. We allow a little gun control this year. A little more next year and a little more the year after. It all sounds reasonable but before you know it, all you can get are pellet guns and yet you can be sure that their black-clad storm-troopers will have the best of everything.

The second amendment is NOT about hunting. It's NOT about sporting rifles vs mean old black guns of the same caliber that look scary. It is about yet another check and balance: the balance between the people and the federal goverenment. When the constitution was written, the state of the art infantry weapon was the musket. The framers wanted the people to have the same firepower as the soldier because they had just fought a long, bloody war and their enemies first move was to confiscate and destroy all of the weapons that they could find. The intention was to keep politicians honest and they don't like it. That is why as they steal our future, thy hide behind bullet proof glass and the Secret Service.

Their are democrat power-brokers that want a total ban. They have said so. They live in mansions and have private security- with guns. Nancy Pelosi is one of the hypocrites. She wants a country where only the rich can afford security. Not quite a person of the people that her publicist would have you believe. 

If the Feds are serious about gun violence, they should get their balls out of their purse and go after the most problematic groups: gangs and insane people. When you look at the real statistics, the mass shootings are relatively rare. Most gun crimes are drug related and involve ex-cons. Trying to ban or restrict honest, law abiding people access to weapons is an act of abject cowardice.

The place to start is keeping guns out of the hands of felons- which do have them, and people that are mentally ill.

They are afraid to go after the real problem because they might be called racist or mean. Besides- it's easy to get law-abiding people to comply with the law. Taking on the gangs might be hard work.

The big difference between democrats and republicans: republicans kick our enemies ass. Democrats kick our ass.

I fully agree with one point, James. Anybody who's not mentally competent shouldn't have access to a gun. All the mass killings we've seen are committed by people who aren't competent. And those people rarely show up on the radar for background checks.

Mental illness, whether it's batshit insanity or moderate depression, is a societal problem, and all the legislation in the world won't make as much difference as being involved with the people around us, and seeing to it they have the support they need. That can be as simple as just being nice, or seeing to it that the withdrawn kid who won't look you in the eye (read Adam Lanza here) has someone to talk to about stuff.

In the Constitution, the second amendment refers to the need for a "well-regulated militia" as the justification for keeping and bearing arms. They were talking about citizen soldiers, called up to fight invaders. Times have changed, since we have the National Guard. The Constitution also prohibits requiring citizens to house and feed soldiers, yet we have a vast standing army supported by tax dollars.

What's going to come out of this discussion? Some poorly-written law or executive action. Why? Because our government has to be seen as "doing something." That's why I urge responsible gun owners to get involved in this discussion. Don't leave it to the government. Talk to your rep and senator. Express your misgivings about proposed government actions or suggestions to address mass killings. Keep talking to them until they listen.

Leftist Bulllshit is not allowed in this blog.

Go sell it somewhere where people with free goverenment phones are buying it.

A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers.  The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him "Why do you carry a 45?"  The Ranger responded, "Because they don't make a 46."