We better band together......

.....with all the recent talk about banning weapons, we hunters better unite and be vocal. We all know that the gun control nuts won't be satisfied with just banning assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, they will continue to chip away at the 'next most-deadly' until our deer hunting will look a lot like this:

After Pres. Bill Clinton's statement about how they lost seats after his assault rifle band and VP Bidens statement I think a lot of gun owners feel that the battle is won and we can all go home now. If you trust any of the lies that either men have spoken in the past I guess you can go back home and wait for them to collect your gun!! Obamacare was a dead duck guess who got that rammed down our throats.. We need to continue to fight by calling, sending letters and even going to our State Capitals to peacefully demonstrate for our 2nd amendment rights. This has nothing to do with hunting with a 20 or 30 round clip but has everything to do with America becoming a socialist country or worse. I don't know how to paste web links but if you go to ruger guns they will have links to email senators, congressmen, president and vp.

I guess I'd like to know how you cannot see a bias and the libs using the school shooting as a tool to advance their anti-gun agenda? It's very clear that both sides are using the Ct. shootings to push their agenda. In the end there won't be much change in current gun laws. IMHO.

That's because the media here gets it's rocks off by focusing on guns guns Guns! Their ratings are higher, thus more $$ and they can justify their attacks on 'libs', as you put it, or conservatives or folks like a few of us who are independent thinkers. (BBC is touching on the subject of mental health, at least) How can they (US media) argue mental health? It would mean they would need to make time to learn something about mental health, sanity and insanity, honesty and dishonesty. That's the easy part. As they learn, they would start to see how neuroses and other mental issues affect them at times. Even if they could make it past that, how could they broadcast that information without losing millions of viewers who are now relating a bit too much with what's being said. Now, that cuts a bit too close to the bone. Who wants to watch that, especially the extreme right, gun totin' nazi, skinhead, southern, 'pry it from my cold dead hands', 2nd amendment folks? What a dilemma. Be mentally evaluated to own a firearm (which means they probably wouldn't pass) or have magazine size and 'black' weapons limited. Even the mentally ill could see what's the best route to keep their arms full of ... well ... arms.

I consider myself in the middle but in regards to mental health issues in Obamas plan what is it you don't understand.

You've got to be kidding me!!!!!!! #2 #14 #16 #17 #20 #21 #23 Yea Feinstein is far left on this one but then again.....

renowned-author-obama-wants-military-leaders-who-will-fire-on-u-s ... www.examiner.com/.../renowned-author-obama-wants-military-leade... 2 days ago – Learn more about how Examiner.com can help your site. ... Renowned author: Obama wants military leaders who will fire on U.S. ... "The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not," the ... Can this "renowned author" be serious or is this a joke?

i can't remember a post by grandview that i totally agreed with until now! well done. also to comment on the discussion on banning the black guns, these freaks use them because they look "cool" and that look makes them feel more powerful. but close quarters shooting fish in a barrel, a 12ga pump riot gun with the longer tube magazine (8 or 10 shot i believe) filled with buckshot is the more efficient weapon. no one is arguing to ban those.

Soooo ... Grandview, if I can't make it from here to there in one step, why bother walking? Really?? My reaction to that would be..........one step to "what"? If the "what" is a reduction in gun violence, then you have to ask what the appreciable difference would have been if Lanza had been carrying a legal rifle as defined under the previous "assault weapon" ban..........or any of the proposed AW bans being offered. It's pretty disingenuous to state the primary effort is to reduce gun violence rather than prohibit a type of gun. In fact, a type of gun that's on the statistical bottom of gun violence related incidents. I don't own one. Never wanted to own one. But the effort expended in trying to ban them is effort wasted in reducing gun violence. ... or do we just do away with everyone with a mental issue? Well, you can continue to recognize the mental issues and warning signs after the fact..........which is what has happened in most cases thus far. Or treat it a bit more seriously and attempt some intervention. The problem also manifests itself in incidents other than gun violence. ........especially if you take a moment to think about all these folks who want to take on the US military with their high capacity pea shooters. No mental issues here, right? That's a popular misnomer........that gun owners are preparing an offensive against the US Military. The 2nd Amendment provides that the right of the people to defend themselves, with guns, against a tyrannical government, won't be taken away. The strength in that right is the right of the entire citizenry to be armed........providing a greater force than the standing army. At present that's ~45-55 million armed households against a standing army of about 1.5 million, and a reserve of about 1.5 million. Now.......the US military has larger and more destructive weapons, but it's unlikely the will be used as a tyrannical force (B-52's carpet bombing or stealth bombers and smart bombs) to destroy the 45-55 million households in the country. That wouldn't leave much of a tax base to run the next version of the government. The standing army (or in combination with local law enforcement.......which is not a given) would be required to go house to house to affect this tyranny........and an armed citizenry of the present size is a rather daunting opposition. Now.......you can debate how realistic this scenario is, but the fact that the provision is there is what makes it unrealistic. Further.......the Constitutional Amendment that provides this "check" on the government in place, is directly contrary to that very government inhibiting its enactment. Which is exactly what gun control and gun bans do. And in the discussion of what weapons should be available to the citizenry that may be subject to facing the standing army........shouldn't they be allowed to be armed in the identical fashion? You know they aren't as of right now.......and the proposed bans makes the inequity greater. That's as pragmatic an explanation as I can muster.

Soooo ... Grandview, if I can't make it from here to there in one step, why bother walking? Really?? ... or do we just do away with everyone with a mental issue? That could be half of the country ... with the other half suspect, especially if you take a moment to think about all these folks who want to take on the US military with their high capacity pea shooters. No mental issues here, right?

Instead of banning more weapons, how about we do more to enforce the laws we have. I know I'm asking the impossible according to the VP http://www.youpolls.com/details.aspx?id=12197 Oh, and one other thing. I'f you're a nut case, making a high capacity magazine is a snap. Download the CAD file and print one out on your rapid prototype machine. http://defdist.tumblr.com/ I'm sure passing gun laws will make a huge difference

im tempted to make and post a video showing how fast i can discharge two 10-shot clips duct-taped together, then reload and fire another. but such a display would be lost on our legislators anyways, so in the end it would just be a sad waste of expensive ammo. one could argue the wisdom of legislators making laws about things they have little to no experience with. but unfortunately that problem goes well beyond gun control in our country.

..... so why not minimize the damage? Because "minimizing the damage" is not the proper response to these types of incidents. And the belief that it is......fosters the belief that slaying 10 children rather than 20 is somehow preferable. It isn't. The ACT is wrong. NOT the implement used.......nor the measurable level of carnage. Like it or not, America, in part....if not whole, is a violent society. And this is America's version of the "suicide bomber". Until you concentrate on solving the myriad of problems that fosters this turbulent society....and people who react violently within it, you have no hope of preventing future attacks of similar nature. And until you can remove the impetus to violence............the best course of action is to thwart it where it arises. Ticking off implements one piece at a time is fruitless. You can't remove them all, and it's unconstitutional to attempt such a blanket edict.

Can I buy a 100 round magazine for my 12 g. or 30-06? If I can, I'm not seeing where. Whether it was 11 shots ... or 10 ... or one well placed(?) shot, was it necessary? Why not one not so well placed shot? That same day 22 children in China were attacked by one person with a knife. All survived. We don't seem to have the ability to fix crazy, especially if it's temporary craziness, so why not minimize the damage? ... that is, unless you are a gun nut that believes the Prez made up this whole Newtown thing to take our guns. Then none of this even matters.

I could get behind banning any import, we just need to make sure it doesn't negatively affect our ability to export. Banning high capacity magazines might be reasonable but it is not a solution. A solution is eliminating gun free zones. A solution is adding law enforcement to inner city zones with the highest rates of violent crimes. Banning high capacity magazines just won't change anything. Do you really think that banning large magazines will save lives? It is just a waste of time and money to add legislation like that. First we have to identify the problems to find the solutions. As a society we are producing some extremely disturbed and violent young people with the desire to mass murder people. How about we increase funding for universities to study what is making these young people this way? What is the real problem here. It is the guns? I don't think the guns have anything to do with it.

"reasonable solutions" sounds good. Is reducing high capacity magazines reasonable ? Can we ban the import of foreign made ak47's ??? That way American gun makers are not hurt. And the law would be against foreign exporters, not American citizens. Is this reasonable? I'm all for the second amendment. I just don't know the way forward. I don't want the anti's calling the shots. Therefor we must act in their place. Trouter