No surprise as most of the anti gun crowd knows very little about guns. They want to ban guns with " 100 round clips" weapons that " can shoot 6 bullets a second" . then present ideas that already are the law.
This gun control debate on a federal level will be like HC. They never fixed the problems with it because they never actualy understood the problems with it.

Bullpoop.

The NRA has done everything it can to throw a monkey wrench into gun control, so the laws on the books are not effective and government agencies are hamstrung when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of people who are irresponsible.

One example, the Congress has inadequately funded the CDC when it comes to gathering information on gun deaths. Although we treat auto deaths as a medical crisis, conservatives refuse to treat gun violence as a medical crisis.

And make no mistake, we have a crisis in America today where too many people die from gun violence, this gun violence does not occur at the same rate in other industrialized nations.

The NRA does not care about civil rights, it exists to protect the gun industry's profits. Smarten up.

@Ray, care to take a stab at how many in the granite state are employed by the "gun industry"? (or take that further to the small arms defense industry?)

to the people who waste time playing with words while children are slaughtered....

"Clip: A device for holding cartridges together, usually to facilitate loading. Widely used as a synonym for "magazine" (although most firearm authorities consider this substandard usage). Technically, a magazine has a feeding spring, a clip does not."

In other words its a technical difference that has no bearing on maintaining the right of citizens to own their guns while keeping WMD out of the hands of the wrong people.

Charlie,
the ATF said that 57% of guns used in crimes can be traced back to 1% of gun dealers, but the ATF is unable to trace guns because the NRA succesfully lobbied to hamstring the ATF. The ATF can only inspect a gun dealer once per year. A dealer is not required under federal law to keep inventory.

"the ATF said that 57% of guns used in crimes can be traced back to 1% of gun dealers, but the ATF is unable to trace guns"

If they are unable to trace them then how did they come up with 57%?

You know as well as I do Ray that the first step to taking all guns is to know who has the guns and where they are........

No answer on how many in the granite state are employed by the "gun industry"? (or take that further to the small arms defense industry?)

Charlie,
the government doesn't "take guns away", unless they are used in a crime or someone has them illegally. They couldn't even go in a person's house without probable cause and a search warrant via a judge. So your thing about "first step in taking guns" is wrong. That's why the police have buy back programs, that is people turn in guns voluntarily.

The government can regulate arms, that is who gets them and ensure that they don't get into the wrong hands. Much like it regulates other rights such as the right to free speech. The government also gathers information on materials that could be potential weapons to stop people from blowing up buildings, so yes, it is in the public interest in the police knowing who has weapons, not to take them from law abiding citizens, but to prevent people who have criminal intentions from carrying them out.

And the number of people in NH in the industry is irrelevant. The point is that the NRA does not stand up for rights, but is instead a corporate lobbyist, lobbying for the interest of profit.

And those results when looked at daily since CT are dropping. In 4 weeks unless there is another shooting it will be a dead issues as the debt ceiling will consume the news.
You folks were talking about gun control 20 yrs ago, and you will be talking about it 20 yrs from now.

1013 gun deaths since Newtown Steve.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Investigators believe a Cobb County man shot and killed his elderly mother and sister and then himself inside a Sandy Springs home, police said Thursday.
A co-worker checking on a friend who didn’t show up for work made the gruesome discovery Wednesday and called 911 shortly before 4 p.m., according to Capt. Steve Rose with Sandy Springs police.

HAZARD, Ky. (WDRB/AP) -- Hazard Police Chief Minor Allen confirms that a third victim has died after a shooting at Hazard Community and Technical College.
Allen says the 12-year-old victim died just before 4 o'clock Wednesday afternoon at University of Kentucky Hospital. State officials confirm one man and one woman were also killed in the shooting. All related...

The old, the young - some guy pulls out his weapons and takes away the only thing we all have - life... even if you had both victims holding a gun at the time, they most likely would have still been killed... dead... the aggressor in a gun fight has a deadly advantage.

Steve, just because something's difficult to achieve doesn't mean it can't be done - it just means we need to work harder to do it.

steve forte
''And those results when looked at daily since CT are dropping. In 4 weeks unless there is another shooting it will be a dead issues''

Steve please dont give the loony liberals any ideas

Actualy it wasnt " developed for soldiers for battle because of its capacity to kill."

When you get that part correct , get back to me.

See this is part of the problem with gun control. People who want it know nothing about guns.

Steve,
assault rifles were developed for soldiers in a war.

The AK - 47, the M15 and M16 developed for soldiers. The Bushmaster modeled after the M-15.

The capacity to kill in the type of warfare fought by troops, within a certain area.

So tell us Mr. Steve who knows all. If the assault rifle was not developed for its killing capacity in warfare, why was it developed?

Maybe for humanitarian purposes? To tickle the enemy into submission?

Im talking about nationwide. The gun crime is tossed way too many times. You people want to ignore the crazy and the criminal while being concerned with the person who isnt going to kill you.

Steve,
you are wrong, "us people" do not want to ignore the crazy and criminal. It's the combination of the crazy and criminal and easy access to military weapons that's the problem.

As far as I'm concerned, the people that are law abiding and responsible have the right to bear arms. I have many years ago once been involved in competition riflery, I have exercised my second amendment rights responsibly, so I know where you are coming from. (And I was pretty good at it until old age changed my eyesight).

No one has access to military weapons Ray stop spreading lies... the military and law enforcement have select fire weapons which can fire multiple rounds with one squeeze of the trigger ie. fully automatic. These weapons have been regulated since 1934 with the NFA and then again in 1986, civilian ownership is not even legal for full auto (true assault rifle) unless the fire arm or the mechanism that operates the trigger of the firearm (sear) is made prior to the 1986 ban and since there are only a finite number of those out there a fully auto civilian colt m16 lower receiver only will cost you between 13000-20000$ and months of waiting for approval through the ATF. The weapons you are going after are the same as any other semi auto hunting rifle ie. a 30-06, and is a less powerful caliber than most other weapons out there that are not being called on for a ban. The only way that these rifles that you want ban are even related to military ones is cosmetically, they look alike, but in no way function the same. Pull your head out of your fourth point of contact and stop spreading lies. Your trying to ban something because it looks like something, oh and BTW FBI stats show that your so called assault rifles account for less than 1% of all firearms deaths in 2011. A ban has no hope of protecting anyone except for the criminals, because it will mean less people being armed with tools.

Nick,
stop accusing me of lying. You are the one who plays fast and loose with the facts.

The Bushmaster is a military style weapon. Its origins is in the M-15.

Too bad you people controlled by the NRA always distort the facts.

Doesn't matter if its semi-automatic or automatic. It's a weapon based on those developed for military use.

This is a nationwide problem.

Assault weapons are military weapons used in warfare. How many wars have been fought lately in NH?

I don't believe the proposals include anything that is manufactured in NH - and if we produced cocaine here? Would that be OK because of the jobs?

And no one should be killed by anything unnecessarily - that means we should do all we can to stop all these causes, and this thread is about weapons.

Good grief... logic just thrown out the window - do you honestly believe this *stuff* or is it part of the talking points package?

Why do you need a rifle designed for modern military use for killing humans in order to hunt varmints?

It's not the number of people killed in NH with assault rifles last year that's important, it's the potential for people to be killed this year and next year that's important. This is a nationwide problem.

I used to shoot groundhogs with a .22 or 9mm rifle with a scope. Not for fun, to keep the cows and horses from stepping into the holes. Didn't get a "man card" like you get with the Bushmaster, didn't need one. (Am kind of wondering why anyone needs a bushmaster to become more of a "man", what they might be afraid of, but that's another story).
Anyhow, after the first shot all the critters would disappear - except for the dead one, and we'd have to wait until they came back out. So I'm wondering why 30 - 100 rounds. Must be more of the "feel like a man" thing maybe?
We also didn't have frangible bullets like the ones used on those little kids - the ones that are advertised with "now you see him, now you don't". The groundhogs didn't turn into a red mist, but they were still definitely dead, and we'd fill in the hole after.
You know, the more I think about it, maybe the key to the whole "I need my AR-15!" thing is the looks of the rifles, the big magazines, all the cool stuff you can buy to make smaller pieces out of bigger animals, maybe it's gotten so that a lot of these people don't feel like a man anymore unless they have their guns to prove it. Maybe they are afraid, but not of criminals.
Wonder how many AR-15s would be sold if they were all pink.

Steve:

> whats the differance between a wooden stock remington .223 with a 7 round
> magazine and a bushmaster ar-15 in .556 nato with a 7 round magazine?

I would have thought sure that a smart gun-nitpicker like you ("Clip" vs. "Magazine") would already know this. There's no such thing as a ".556"; there *IS* 5.56 mm ammunition. And if you'd like to better understand the differences between .223 and 5.56 mm, here's one (of many) websites that can explain it to you:

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=55149

Tell me why it's relevant?

its for the militia - before we had a standing army - and if you'll look a little into history you'll see another reason it was put in there. It has to do with slave hunting.

Jan-ever hear of the Federalist Papers?

Federalist paper 28 is quite interesting on this subject. He writes that when a governmnet becomes too powerfull or tyrannical

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

Salemvoter,
The Federalist Papers were written in advocacy of ratification of the Constitution. The Constitution gave the US a stronger central federal government over the Articles of Confederation.

The papers have no legal status, so your quote has no legal standing.

It's the constitution that matters, and no where does it say that the second amendment was put there so that the people could mae a revolution against the American government.

A strict literalist like Scalia would say that this notion that the second amendment is for the people to have arms as a guard against an overpowering government is nonsense. It doesn't say that.
...

The Second Amendment isn't for hunting. Agreed. It's for militias allegedly "necessary for the security of a free state."

Militias are no longer necessary for the security of a free state, therefore the justification for a right to keep and bear arm through the Second Amendment has been nullified.

But, being that the right still remains, why aren't we allowed to possess and use rocket propelled grenade launchers? After all, they're an "arm" which can be "kept and borne," and they're very useful in a militia.

The reason you can't keep them isn't because they're not necessary for hunting or for personal protection, but, meanwhile, as mentioned above, they're still very useful for the militia purpose of the Second Amendment and literally fitting to its terms.

The reason you can't keep them is because they're too dangerous. Our Second Amendment rights have been infringed. Thank goodness.

Ray- I agree thatthe Federalist papers do not have legal status. I never said they did. The papers were written in 1787-1789 by framers of the Constitution.... Hamilton, Madison and Jay... to explain the meaning of the Constitution and its amendments and seek its ratification. The papers help explain the debates and reasoning that occured amongst the framers of the Constitution and the Judiciary has used the papers, to this day, to determine the intent of the framers on areas of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has referenced the papers almost 300 times when delivering decisions.

Salemvoter,
You conservatives cannot have it both ways.

On the one hand Justices like Scalia pretend that they only take what the constitution says literally, on the other hand, you pretend that the constitution should and can be interpreted based on intent as written in the federalist papers.

Sorry, such actions based on political expediency do not equal justice under the law.

Ray- As for Justice Scalia. Your argument does not hold water and if you did some research on him you would agree. To help you below is an excerpt from an interview Justice Scalia had with Pierce Morgan,

Morgan: You're such a Constitutionalist and always go back to the way they framed the Constitution and so on. They debated all that. That's is, in it's way, legislative history isn’t it
Scalia: What is? What is?
Morgan: The framing of the Constitution. They debated all that. That is, in a way, legislative history.
Scalia: I don't use Madison's notes as authoritiave on the meaning of the Constitution. I don’t use that. I use the Federalist Papers, not because the writers of the Federalist papers were present, One of them wasn’t. John Jay wasn't present. I use them because they were intelligent people at the time and that what they thought the language meant is likely what it meant.
Morgan: Why do you have such faith in those politicians of that time. These days if some current politican created some constitution, people wouldn't have faith, the burning unflinching faith.
Why are you so convinced that these guys over 200 years ago were so right?
Scalia: You'd have to read the Federalist Papers to answer that question. I don't think anybody in the current Congress could even write one of those numbers.
These men were very, very thoughtful.
I truly believe that there are times in history that genius bursts forth in some part of the globe,

As I look at this discussion about gun control, what none of you seem to understand is that the Bill of Rights were adopted to limit the powers of the Federal Government.
Gun control is not the responsibility of the Federal Government.
It is a state issue only.

Salemvoter,
just goes to show that Scalia is a political hack.
On the one hand he represents himself as a 'literalist", taking the view that it's not intent upon which he interprets, but what the constitution says that's most important. Then on the other hand, he looks at intent.

The fact is that the constitution needs interpretation, that's why the Supreme Court exists, and in that interpretation, intent is utilized.

Which is why Scalia is an elitist. He castigates other's use of intent, yet he thinks that his own use of intent comes from Mount Olympus.

The sad fact is that Scalia is a political hack.

> Atlant . its the same bullet.

Actually, it's *NOT* (as you would have seen had you perused the link I provided).

Again, I'm surprised a smart guy like you doesn't understand this.

> Seeing your apparently a pro whats the differance between an 8 shot
> shotgun with buckshot and an ar-15 with a 30 round magazine?

Probably about this much (gestures with his fingers to make the eeny-weenie-***** sign) with regard to the user..

>Seeing your apparently a pro whats the differance between an 8 shot shotgun with buckshot and an ar-15 with a 30 round magazine?

ar-15's with 30 round magazines are used in mass murders and shotguns are not? Did I get it right? Do I win anything?

If the NRA were a lobbying organization for the liquor industry, they would insist that drunk driving is protected by the first amendment, and that every driver has a right to have an open bar in the back seat, and the real problem is that the cars aren't protecting the occupants well enough from the law-abiding drunks.

The NRA does everything it can to prevent America from working on the problem. The Republicans are in the pockets of the NRA.

Who is rewriting the Constitution?

Tell you what, I'll memorize everything about weaponry, and you go live with a family that has just had their kid's face blown away... go hold the mom's hand as she finds the clothes to bury him in... go sit with the dad staring off into space thinking of the game he was gong to take his son to... go explain again to the brothers and sisters why the shooter had the right to bear arms.

Get your heart beating again F.R. this is human life vs. a few rules to help keep our kids alive.

Right you are, honey!

@JAN

I have lost friends to gun violence, have you? I have spent time holding their hands in the hospital while doctors tried to replace ther face. Save your preaching for someone else until you can say the same...hopefully, you won't have to. I AND my lost friend support the right for law-abiiding people to own guns. I know he did, until he died..way too young to a criminal.

I'm not only sorry for your loss, but for the dep pain it caused.. And yes, when I was in elementary school a mate shot his dad to death in a hunting accident... Almost destroyed the kid, man, that left a scar on a whole community.

But it was an accident, the whole family was experienced hunters and my friend had taken the NRA training. Nothing except fate could have intervened, so what law aside from totally eradicating all weapons would keep gun accidents from happening? None...

But Newtown? There is a whole list of ways we can work toward making this kind of massacre a thing of the past.

No right is absolute... None.

The basics of Life, Liberty , and the Pursuit of Happiness are even subject to rules and regulations. Get a grip and help us deal with the holes in the processor so we can leave this problem in the past, and stop arguing this endlessly.

Nicely put Peter Walker. I would add that Jan's emotionally-driven, false choice argument that we must give up our Second Amendment rights or children will die is exactly why people do not trust our legislators on this issue.

What right has no restrictions Michael?

And no one is asking for the 2nd to be erased, your hyperbole is showing.

Give 'em heck, deary...

Jan: Are you one of those who 'put all their faith in government'? Demands (cradle-to-grave) constant-entitlements? Are you one of those who believes in a 'living Constitution', a document that can change as the times change?

I believe in 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'. PERIOD! Those who are lazy and have no drive in life, who feel they can not live up to those standards have the right to seek their dream elsewhere.
So far it has worked for me, but I do not want them preventing my children, or my grandchildren from pursuing 'the dream'.

"Already proposed for New York state:

Tactical and strategic choke point. With rolling VIPR teams on the roads they can ambush at will whomever they wish looking for persons, arms, and materiel.

Along with it being an outright strategic act of war on our Liberty to defend from tyranny, a litany of acts of treachery, treason, and tyranny, this is in direct contravention of Article 10 of the US Constitution-Powers Prohibited States. Of course it is in direct violation of the 2nd, 4th, 9th, Amendments."

"No right is absolute"?! WRONG! You have the right to DIE!

Thanks Peter for your thoughts. I believe the argument that Obama is making regarding our duty to protect the children is a dangerous course of action -- and that similar arguments will be made again in the future over different issues.

It is extremely sad that tragedies like this occur, but the restrictions that Obama wants to put into place will not prevent similar events from happening again in the future. If additional events do occur in the future, will they lead to additional restrictions? History has shown that violent crimes are higher in areas where there are strict gun laws.

What's to prevent a politician from saying that drunk drivers kill innocent children -- and that we must stop people from driving intoxicated -- to protect the children... so we must ban alcohol sales... or perhaps only the alcohol with a certain percentage by volume.

I believe in personal responsibility. I believe this incident is leading to the infringement on our 2nd Amendment Rights, as well as a violation of the separation of powers by the president if/when he signs the Executive Orders that he is threatening to impose.

Yes, she would. Absolutely. And good for her. Where do you see anyone trying to take away her gun?

"[A] gun kept in the home [is] 43 times more likely to be involved in the death of a member of the household than to be used in self-defense," says Art Kellerman, an E.R. physician and injury prevention researcher for Emory University.

Mr. Clark, I believe you.
I bet for every story about a gun saving a family there are 20 about a kid shooting his sibling or friend with one.
Amazing how many people buy into the NRA propaganda, isn't it?

" A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard." "

"Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year."

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

They discuss the Kellerman stat from 1993:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.fourexamples.asp#times

Frankly, I like the "3-strikes" rule: the third felony & one's in for life!! End of story.

Has she been arrested? Is anyone trying to take away her gun?

thats because its not about saving lives as they claim. Getting rid of guns has always been on the liberals wish list.They feel that public support right now is the highest its been in a while and probably will be. Thing is that support is decreasing daily now that the initial shock is wearing off.

The rifle absolutely was used to kill those kids, along with 30 round magazines taped together filled with frangible ammunition that causes maximum tissue damage to the target (they are advertised as being able to blow up a groundhog), and they were each shot at least 3 times, up to 11 times, in a span of about 8 minutes.

Yes - quotes from the Medical Examiner etc.. Look them up. You may have to put 2&2 together:
- All injuries (except Lanza) were from a rifle.
- All had multiple gunshots - from 3 to 11
- Bullets used were meant to cause maximum tissue damage (frangible)
- From the time of the 911 call to the police arrival and Lanza suicide was 8 minutes
- hundreds of rounds of ammunition were expended, hundreds more available
- 30 round magazines were taped together to lessen the time to reload
- the first classroom was wiped out in 3 minutes

These facts are all available in quotes from authoritative sources. Oh, and every single one of those guns and bullets was bought legally, by a "responsible" gun owner.

Adam Lanza was described as "troubled", but like many other "troubled" youths, by his aunt.

Adam Lanza was not a criminal with a gun until he became a mass murder.

I'm sure there's much more to this story. I'm also pretty sure that all of the above statements are factual, and they suggest one screwed up society, especially when so many of us are insisting that the solution is as simple as "we just need more guns, and lock up the crazy people".

Quotes are not the same as seeing the actual ballistics report. So 8 mins to respond huh so what your saying is the only thing that could have stopped him is someone else who was armed on campus, which could have possibly prevented this murderous rampage. BTW she was not a responsible gun owner, she had a troubled son who had access to her firearms in no way was she responsible don't try to lump her in with the rest of us.

And his Mother was a criminal because she gave her guns to her son before dying?

For shooting American Soldiers and Police......

The history of the assault rifle shows that it is a device developed for soldiers under specific battle conditions. It's purpose is for military use under specific battle conditions.

......ITS NOT THE GUNS !!!!

ITS THE MORALE LESS SOCIETY THE PROGRESSIVE / COMMUNIST DEMOCRATS HAVE FOUGHT TO CREATE !!!
Bolshevik obama supporter bruce springsteen called for the shooting
of all the the 1%ers in his new album and the hollyweed obama
supporters promote gun violence daily with their shoot em and kill em
all films ...but we cant touch that ,thats our Freedom of Speech, our
First Amendment right, so what do they do ? they do the second best thing ... they go after the Second Amendment. the simple twisted minds of progressive
/ communist democrats will ,with a gun if necessary ,defend to their
death their First Amendment rights...... but they dont believe in
"We the Peoples" Second Amendment rights,

its Bolshevik obamas core supporters that have created this society !!!
,
they are the problem , not guns

I wonder how many rounds a determined killer with a back pack full of
loaded 5 round clips can get off before the cops show up ?
I own many of the guns Bolshevik obama and the communist democrats want baned the big difference is none of my weapons are ''assault weapons '' there all defence weapons