@Eddy....I wasn't aware that the rifle he used was an AR-15. The early report I read was two handguns and a rifle is what was reported. That's beside the point since most of the incidences involved handguns.

As far as the constitutionality of controlling and regulating ammunition, I don't think that it has been passed by any legislative body that could be challenged in the courts. I know New Jersey and Illinois have been debating about the control of ammunition and the taxing of such.

Your attempt to use the example to control the abuse of the internet just doesn't make it. Try again.

If I wanted to move to Europe I would, but I prefer staying here and being a pain in the butt of right wingers.

@Eddy and @Lyle --- I agree with some points from both of you. First and foremost, our right to bear arms is one of our protections against tyranny by our government.

I also believe we have a right to protect ourselves --- within reason.

A shoulder fired tactical nuke would fit the description of "arms" , but was not and could not have been envisioned by our Founders.

The guns themselves should not be banned, nor the ammunition. But I think a reasonable solution would be to limit the amount of rounds that a gun can have loaded, perhaps 8 being a good number, as it is the highest number of rounds that revolvers carry.

I believe that the 8 round restriction should also apply to every day patrol cops, with only special response teams having an exception. We have seen too many instances of cops putting out 15 rounds in military fashion, instead of the judicious use that is inherent in having a police revolver (38, 357, 45) that has 6 rounds, and actually taking aim.

Before our military switched to the 9mm in political acquiesence to NATO, the standard military side arm, the 1911 45 ACP held 8 rounds in the clip.

I brought up in another comment here the example of Diallo who was shot at over 40 times by 3 NY cops, who missed more than half of their shots --- at an unarmed man.

Keep our right to bear arms --- but within reasonable tactical limits.

@David -

You raise an interesting point, whether intended or not. If the true intent of the second Amendment is to prevent "tyranny by our government," then doesn't it also reason that the people should possess a greater firepower than that held by the government?

I mean showing up to a nuke fight with an Glock or even an uzi... I'm guessing that the government's going to win with the nuke, right?

Accordingly, shouldn't the people be allowed to possess nuclear weapons?

The name is Edward. Or Eddie.

Eddy? I've never known an "Eddy" :)

@JRH Nukes for Everyone !!! Not so much ............ This is one of those cases in which something may be logical, but defies all Common Sense.

As to taking a Glock to a Nuke fight --- if our own military gets to the point that they would use Nukes on their own --- all is lost anyway.

But Nukes aside --- those folks in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc, seem to have done pretty well against hi tech warfare.

"Actually, it was an AR-15 that was mostly to blame Lyle. For a liberal, I'm shocked you missed that."

Yeah, those AR-15's are an unpredictable lot. Just jumping up and going off all time by themselves. AKM's are the same. What to do.

@$$andNonsense -

Hoffa personally prefers the M41A pulse rifle, with an over/under pump action grenade launcher, as his weapon of choice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am76xV8Aubk

Add the flamethrower, and you're ready to rock and roll in case of an Alien invasion!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2Qn_LkOhGg

@David -

Can I at least have my own SR-71 Blackbird, or a Mig-31 Firefox?

@Edward Willing...Sorry to have misspelled your name. I inadvertently used a feminine spelling.

The US Constitution was enacted by our founding fathers because a bunch of gun totting yahoos refused to pay their taxes, and order was needed for this country to advance. The T-Baggers are looking to steer us in the opposite direction.

As far as the usual belch about socialism, one of the most socialistic organizations in the country -- the NFL -- is one of the most successful in the country.

@Keith Schmitz
"The US Constitution was enacted by our founding fathers because a bunch of gun totting yahoos refused to pay their taxes, and order was needed for this country to advance. The T-Baggers are looking to steer us in the opposite direction."

That is the dumbest post I've seen here in a long time. You have no idea what the founders intended. Every single piece of writing regarding the founding of this nation, the arming of the citizenry, and the structure of government was to empower the citizens to be a check against the government, and to be safe.

"As far as the usual belch about socialism, one of the most socialistic organizations in the country -- the NFL -- is one of the most successful in the country."

That just beat the previous comment as the dumbest I've read in a long time. Bravo for two records in one post.

Edward: Why so snarky. Lyle is just proposing something. There are multiple sides to this issue. Lyle's attempt to offer a stopgap of unfettered weapon purchases is reasonable. What's with banishing him to Europe and the Socialist slam? Not a nice way to disagree. It would have been much better if you were to have countered his idea with one of your own, rather than going to that tired old rude manner of response you on the Right love to use, when your capacity is lacking to offer a thoughtful idea of their own.. Go Rude. Attack and demonize. A lame, lazy, and ignorant tactic. The right has successfully demonized; the Poor, the Liberals, Women, Immigrants and The President of the United State of America. Must be nice to have a Readers Digest of opinion available when lost for cogent words of your own.

Come on Ed don't you know these libs are blaming Bush for this...

David:
"I think a reasonable solution would be to limit the amount of rounds that a gun can have loaded, perhaps 8"
Back to the discussion of multiple attackers & how many rounds miss their target (about half, under stress).
If you choose to limit your ability to protect yourself, that's your choice for you. You don't get to decide for me.

"the highest number of rounds that revolvers carry"
Wrong. There are revolvers with higher capacity. Of course, they're mostly .22, but we're not talking about effective calibers, just overall capacity.

And the 1911 does not use clips.

"one of the most socialistic organizations in the country -- the NFL"
I'd say that's a flaming example of consumerism & capitalism.

"a stopgap of unfettered weapon purchases"
Those 'unfettered' purchases are only the privilege of those who ignore laws.
The good citizens are subject to a host of laws which infringe our right.
What other right would you consent to being controlled by the gov't?
What other right are you willing to pay a tax, register with the gov't, let them poke around in your life to see if you're suitable before you're allowed to exercise it?

The 2nd Amendment argument is a canard. No amendment is sacrosanct.
The 1st Amendment did not stop Congress from passing an anti Child Porn bill, which if I used the logic behind the 2nd Amendment argument, Congress stepped on the 1st Amendment.

The 1st amendment is not very clear about what is specifically covered by free speech. No more specific than the 2nd Amendment is specific about which guns are covered, and hi capacity clips and semi auto rifles.

"abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press," what does this mean? It is open to interpretation, if not, then no Anti Child Porn Law.

No out cry at that action We agreed Child porn presented a danger to society and we easily passed a law banning Child Porn. Unfortunately for the Child Porn Industry, but good for society, the porn industry did not have a big enough lobby, with enough money to defend the 1st Amendment.

The 2nd amendment defense is a weak. What happened to the NRA's hunter- sportsman argument. The NRA was all about the 2nd Amendment and law abiding citizens.

I for one do not trust law abiding citizens with guns. Every mass murderer is described as a nice, law abiding citizen by friends, family and teachers.

@Eddy....Where did I even quote the constitution? Controlling ammunition wouldn't infringe on anyone's rights. You're spinning now.

It has yet been clarified as to what the 2nd Amendment actually means. Do you apply it with an understanding of those who had overcome the control of the British Crown. Or do you apply it to as those who feel a need to protecti themselves from the Government. Or the people who think they need daily protection from who knows what. Hunting has become a sport, not a necessity for feeding yourself and family. Sport is a polite appellation, particularly when the other side doesn't get to defend itself. In most Sports both sides get to have the ball. So, is hunting a Sport, or a lethal game of hide and seek. This whole 2nd amendment argument is beyond the right to bear arms. I has become more of an issue of the right to sell arms. The NRA is no longer a Sportsman's organization. It's a lobby for gun manufacturers. So, which argument is the most realistic, and applicable to modern society? There are not enough weapons to rise up against the US Government. There are the local police, the State police, the ATF, the national guard and 3 branches of the military who are not on ships to contend with if there is a fantasized uprising. It's not the armed Government, it is the laws which need to be the object of an uprising. And you do not need guns to do that. I have yet to meet, and I have met many, who buy a gun for self protection; who have not romanticized, how they would act if confronted with a need to fire a gun at another human being.

You may love your constitution, but don't understand it. No Amendment is sacrosanct.

Where were you when Congress stomped on the 1st Amendment.
They passed an anti Child Porn Law. I don't for a second condone Child Porn, I am just making a point of the Congress outlawing something so clearly protected by the 1st Amendment.

We as citizens decided it worth ridding us of Child Porn. A clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

Background checks for gun purchases, no effing way, the 2nd Amendment is not specifically clear re:, Background checks, semi auto rifles, extended clips, and cop killing ammo. Yet is proclaimed to be.

Having a gun is no guarantee of safety. Another law abiding gun owner bent on killing people will step up. People will die whether the they have guns or not. I,e.; Fort Hood, and every cop who died on duty.

The gun is an adolescent male adult's toy. A necessity for the paranoid para- military Mountain dwellers. The increasing size in the population of people of color, a Negro POTUS, women's rights, public education, fluoride in our water, and a host of other conspiracy theories which encourage paranoia in others..

These are dangerous people, with self fulfilling prophecies. It never works out for the paranoid. They're ill. We live with this ticking time bomb.

Boston Bombers were Domestic Terrorists. Whatever their motive it makes them no less Domestic Terrorists, with their brand of paranoia.

David; You sound like Archie Bunker, who suggested; if everyone had a gun there would be no gun violence. Also, the assailant had body armor on head to toe. I don't know if you have ever fired a hand gun. They're not that accurate. Others would have been killed or injured. That is one of the silliest suggestions which the right always proposes.. Case in point. Arizona shooting episode. A gun owner upon leaving the Super Market next to the shooting location, saw a man with a gun, he pulled his weapon and was about to shoot when someone in the crowd told him the guy with the gun had just wrestled it out of the gunman's hand. Bam! almost another dead body. Incredibly useful in the right hands. David; how do you intend to tell who has the right hands? You need to sit down, think things out before presenting them in a public forum. More guns, less crime? I'll check out that preposterous theory. Written no doubt by a rabid Right Winger who lives in constant fear of the Government putting us all in camps. Well, we are facing a bigger enemy, who has already succeeded in doing that. More later, if your interested.

I checked oput mr. Lotts book. To make his proposal the most affective. Everyone would have to have a gun, and have a holster in view. Criminals don't think that specifically about the victim having a gun. There are armed convenience store owners who get robbed all the time. The thought of the owner having a gun doesn't not deter the criminals. Why did the towns in the old west, particularly Dodge City, not allow guns inside the town limits? Dodge City passed an ordinance that guns could not be worn or carried north of the "deadline" which was the railroad tracks. The south side where "anything went" was wide open. In 1877 the population was 1,200.

You position was lost at "if" there are no "ifs." The subjunctive mode; would've, should've, could've, were and If is basically meaningless. If a frog had wings it could fly. I don;t know that for a fact, but it's one of the best examples of the uselessness of "if" statements. "If" the gunman hadn't had access to weapons of death. Why do you start with a gun fight?

If President Cheney had listened to Richard Clark, they may have stopped the airplane hijackers before they boarded the planes. That was a very doable "if." The evidence was there. Condoleezza Rice dismissed the study and intelligence memos.

Aurora: Most people trained to handle a gun, generally are no trained under fire.

My niece, who served 2 tours in IRAQ, has a purple heart. She ,told me there is nothing that prepares you for taking fire. Particularly when people are dying around you. She was shot by a sniper. Not much defense vs a sniper before he kills someone and everyone who gets shot in combat is well armed.

That is my argument for gun lusters who espouse the "what if Tyranny paranoia scenario."

Once the incoming firing begins, the Militia, Preppers and Survivalists will surrender..

This whole gun thing is the most juvenile thing the people of America have had to deal with in the History of this country. Guns, really. That is the core of our society, armed citizens above all else. We need jobs not guns.

Lott's study trash. "The Truth about Guns" blog calls it undulating lies, Lott's premise was guns are good, so he was obligated to support that position, therefore the undulating lies.

Most street weapons come from "nominee purchases" at gun shows, or theft. A law abiding citizen goes to a gun show and buys as many guns as possible, these guns end up back in the neighborhood being sold at a big profit. Honest commerce, except their customers are criminals. Filed down serial numbers increases the street value. Most guns taken by law enforcement in NYC come from out of state, some have been traced back to gun show purchases. Maryland is Paradise to "nominee purchases." . Without background checks this conduit for guns will be come much bigger. Private sales will exceed gun shows in time. There is MONEY in the re-selling of guns. LOTS OF MONEY.

The Militias hoping to overthrow the Government; any one of our enemies would be happy to provide weapons to these traitors and seditionists.

The USA does it all the time. Weapons sales are bigger than illegal drug sales..

I am assuming you have never been close to armed criminals. Well have, I live in a large east coast city, my profession opened a lot of strange doors, doors where I have had guns pointed at my face. Not fun. If I had a gun, there was no possibility for me to have pulled it out without dying before I could reach it, cock it and fire it. Me dead!

@Tom Mannis....By using the term of centuries I was using literary license to indicate that it would probably be impossible to remove all the handguns. The only firearms I feel that are the problem is handguns. Granted a long gun with full automatic capability would be more of a problem, but they are not as concealable.

My point doesn't have anything to do with conceal and carry. I already said that we couldn't ban firearms, including handguns. I didn't say ban handgun ammunition but to regulate it and make it more difficult for irresponsible people to get their hands on it. Someone who can legally own and purchase ammunition wouldn't have a problem to purchase it.

I will admit that i don't want handguns on the streets, but that's like shutting the barn door after the horses have already escaped. The only way to bring some kind of control is through ammunition. Of course there would continue and increase the black market, but it would severely curtail ammunition on the streets.

@JRH...There isn't anyway to prevent someone from spreading widespread murder and mayhem if that's their intent. Look at Oklahoma City. However, I think the greatest threat comes from those who are committing street crimes. Handguns play a significant role in the commission of that crime. My suggestion is nothing more than finding a means to slow down easy access to ammunition. Any weapon is useless if you can't get the ammo or large quantities of such.

@Lyle -

Knifes are also frequently used to commit street crimes. Suppose you are successful in taking away the ability to use guns in committing street crimes. Won't that just increase the use of knifes and other weapons in committing street crimes? Then, what will you propose we do to curtail knife crimes?

People inclined to commit crimes are going to find a way to do it no matter what. You're fighting a losing battle.

@JRH...C'mon, the slippery slop argument; guns to knives. Look at Great Britain where most of the murders are by knives and it's a miniscule rate to ours. A knife is up close and personal and it's much easier to defend yourself under those circumstances. Spin it again Sam.

@Lyle -

Do your numbers on Great Britain include Northern Ireland prior to 1994?

"Legalize drugs, outlaw ammo", I need that as a bumper sticker on my VW micro bus.

Lyle- Illinois, the only state not to have some sort of conceal carry and has more gun laws on the books had nearly three times the murders that Aurora CO had this weekend. 35 murders in Chicago this past weekend. 272 this year. What exactly is your point?

If a bad guy wants a gun, he/she will find one. If they want ammo, he/she will find it legally or illegally. But the point that others have made here are right. The federal governmant does not have the right in way, shape or form to violate my ability to protect myself and my family. Sorry, but if that theater had not banned handguns, perhaps lives could have been saved!

Motion Carried!!

Richard Head - You are arguing against a point that most agree on: Its very difficult to take out a heavily armed and armored nut with heavy weapons others normally do not carry in their waistband, using surprise attack, gas and smokebombs. The next argument is what if everyone in the theater had a sidearm. 500 people shooting at the gunman would have stopped him. Sorry, but it is not a spring day at the firing range environment, it is smoky, screaming chaos. Many of those in the audience were kids and teens. Your thinking you would have loved to be in the front row with your Colt .45 Magnum, if only management would have allowed it, and you would be a hero today. Or quickly dead, more likely.

Dirk, Would you feel the same way if the gunman had returned with the loaded gun he had in his car? Of the 500 people in the theater, how many do you really think would be carrying a gun, 5?

Once again, the Archie Bunker defense, If someone had a gun they could have ended the killing spree. First, the assailant had on body armor head to toe. He was firing in rapid succession. who ever had a gun in the theater would have had to be Annie Oakley to be able to find a weak spot in the armor and make the most amazing shot in the world. If it's a handgun and not close enough, the fact of someone having a gun or many people having guns means nothing, shots would have been flying all over the theater. Trying to return fire when being fired at is the most inaccurate of all situations, you would have had more dead and injured. People would have been firing at each other in the dark not knowing where the gunman was, it was a dark theater, with people trying to get out and screaming and panic. Not the ideal circumstance for a citizen gun owner. Law enforcement would have had a problem putting the guy down. Trying thinking through your comments in the future.

@Bren -

So, how would you determine if a person was telling the truth about their intended use for guns? What uses would be considered acceptable? Who gets to decide what uses are considered to be acceptable?

Hoffa - You seem to be so easily baffled by some problems, such as effectively keeping guns and nuts separate, then you act like a puppet dictator know-it-all when implementation of highly questionable, extreme right wing policies is proposed on another blog.

@Dirk -

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at with such a bogus correlation, but I'll play along!

The nuts tend to be pathological. So tell us oh great one, how do you propose we keep guns out of the hands of nuts?

The intended use of handguns...is killing people. The intended use of assault weapons is killing people. If we start by cutting out classes of weapons specifically designed to kill people... We will have begun to reduce the amount of people killed. A Glock is much easier to secret into a movie theater than is a shotgun or rifle. If the smith and Wesson didn't have a 100 round mag... Fewer people would have died. If this madman had attacked the audience with a knife, I am pretty certain he would have been subdued and obviously many people could have escaped unharmed. nothing prevents a crazy person from killing someone... But we sure as he'll don't have to provide them with opportunities to harm seventy people at a crack. The arguments supporting the laws that allow for such slaughter are reckless and result in more of the same.

Hoffa - Here are a few ideas for keeping nuts away from guns. The NRA and the gun industry, as well as gun lovers in general, should actually want and vigorously endorse better screening of gun buyers. Gun buyers should be a member of a certified gun organization, particularly for handguns and automatic weapons. That organization should vouch for the buyer. A number of other members should vouch for the buyer. There would be penalties for vouching for a buyer later proven to be bad guy. There would be the same restrictions on ammo, armor, clips, etc.
If the government is not to be more involved with guns, organizations ought to step forward before things really get out of hand and the pendulum swings toward government gun control. Same principle as industries use, they try to police themselves to keep the government out. Instead, the NRA and others just seem to want unlimited guns and almost total freedom of ownership.

@Dirk -

So, mandatory association with a private organization (much like mandatory joining of a union and forced dues collection) and vouching (requiring others to be willing to take responsibility for your own bad acts) are your proposed solutions. Yeah, they would definitely appear to fit the mold and mindset of your typical liberal/Democrat. Nevermind that such laws would disenfranchise 1) those that don't want to join a private organization in order to exercise their constitutional rights; and 2) loners that don't want to associate with others.

Effects of Dirk's solution:
Disenfranchisement
Discrimination
Loss of Freedom
Diminishment of Personal Responsibility
Arbitrarily punishes those who do nothing wrong
Ect.

Is that honestly what you consider to be the American way?

"… the NRA and others just seem to want unlimited guns and almost total freedom of ownership."

Nevermind the 2nd Amendment, which is a part of that pesky document called the constitution. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just burn the constitution and start over on building your ideal utopian nation?

Mr. Hoffa, I don't think there's an easy answer. The Aurora murderer purchased his guns legally. And quite a few of the guns used by criminals are those taken in home burglaries, according to a report I read. I ponder whether civilian ownership of semi-automatic weapons, at least, would withstand a voter referendum. I believe the NRA, one of the most powerful special interest groups in this country (and that's saying something) is the only, and belligerent voice insisting that civilians should have the weapons of war. Special interest groups and the opportunistic legislators that enable them are taking this country in a bad direction.

Jimmy Hoffa - You ask for an idea, and then BAM, you try to annilhate the respondent. .
This reminds me of a sociopathic boss I once had. He would call a meeting, say that he was looking for fresh ideas to a problem, and encourage a response. Then when a person gave an idea, he would essentially destroy that person in front of the group if the idea t did not agree 100% with his beliefs. He died at 47 from a series of strokes that left him increasingly paralyzed, but pathetically still struggled to work and continued to destroy people, until the final and merciful stroke.
You have no ideas for keeping nuts and guns separate. Your pathetic conclusion is that we must live with the chance that we, and our children, must endure the chance that a diabolical and insane mass murderer will enter our church, our school, our home and lay waste to our lives, just so boys with killer toys can have absolute freedom to swagger with and collect instruments of human destruction. You do seem to be auditioning for a role as a new Batman villian, should we call you Subman. after your sandwich shop?

@Bren -

The only reason that lobbies such as the NRA are so powerful is because they're supported by so many people. In a populist vote, I'm guessing that your referendum fails.

So, what special interest groups are bad, and which are good, because you apparently don't take issue with many powerful, wealthy, and influential special interest groups, but then lambast others with conviction and vengeance?

How do you not see this as a hypocritical double standard when you make such generalized statements that contradict your previous postings on specific issues?

You need to stop spinning everything, as one day, you're going to make yourself ill from how dizzy you must be getting!

"Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself."

@Dirk -

Did you honestly expect that Hoffa wouldn't respond, debating the merits of your suggestions? That's the purpose of the forum, isn't it?

I didn't mean to annihilate you - Hoffa's intent was only to offer some constructive insight and debate.

"You have no ideas for keeping nuts and guns separate."

It's an impossible and fruitless endeavor. Guns aren't the problem - people are. If the family unit that Holmes was raised in was closer and more values oriented, do you think that this would have happened at all? As a nation, we've strayed from family and from values. That's the real problem. But again, what can government do to remedy that problem?

While there is no definitive right or wrong answer on this issue, all of the recommendations made by the left on this board would act to punish the righteous just to kowtow to the would be lunatics. I'm sorry, but that's just not the vision of America that Hoffa grew up with. The slippery slope is a big one and we've already ventured too deep down that path. If we keep going, it will inevitably lead us to dystopia. It'll be THX 1138 for real!

As the gun lobby, gun enthusiansts, and 2nd Amendment interpreters push to preserve the way it is, and deregulate guns even further, we will continue to have these mass shootings, and they will most likely even increase as more and more guns are sold, and rules loosened. People will get sick of it, and even more likely, afraid. Certain businesses are already suffering from the Holmes disaster. If it gets to be a pocketbook issue, where people stay home and order through the internet or phone instead of going shopping, a movie, a restaurant, or public event, and/or adequate security gets too costly for the brick and mortar businesses, even the conservatives will come around to realizing what these shooting disasters ultimately cost in billions of dollars.

Mr. Hoffa, I offered no referendum. I wish you would take the time to read my posts!

@Bren -

Hoffa read and understood your comment:

"I ponder whether civilian ownership of semi-automatic weapons, at least, would withstand a voter referendum."

And Hoffa pondered a result to your pondered premise!

BTW- Still waiting for all those citations or admissions you owe Hoffa!

@Dirk -

Although Warner Bros. refuses to release the official box-office estimates on the film out of respect to the tragedy and its victims, industry estimates place it as being either the second highest or highest grossing opening for a wide release film in our history!

Sure looks like business is just fine, as Americans don't react to psychopaths - proof positive that the American way is preserved!

Thank God a good little "conservative" like you and your twin Saul don't have acces to firearms. You are the types that would either kill yourselves or someone else 'cause your meds ran out. What a messed up individual living in some drug induced dimension. Do you live in daddy's barn doofa?

$$andNonsense -

I sense a lot of hostility in your posts directed towards Hoffa. You may want to consider some anger management classes.

Dang, I ran another home run on Doofa.No anger here dude but you have a ton of self identity issues you need to work out before you are the next to "go around the bend" as the Brits would say. Get those meds son. Posting utube video addresses of your favorite felon isn't healthy.

Hoffa, very cool video posts

$$andNonsense, please get the help you so desperately need.

At least with Bren or Lyle there is an intelligent conversation.

hoffa - cool, but you totally digress. What does a model SR71 Blackbird in Germany have to do with this blog?

@$$andNonsense -

"Dang, I ran another home run on Doofa."

In addition to anger management issues, Hoffa's also starting to detect some issues with self confidence.

Might I suggest watching Gabriel Byrne's 'In Treatment' on HBO, as it will give you an idea as to what you can expect from therapy.

@Anti -

Thanks - I thought it was pretty cool.

@Dirk -

See conversation with David above. David said that it would not be common sensical to allow people to have nuclear weapons, despite the logic of his assertions concerning the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment suggesting otherwise. In response, Hoffa asked if he could at least have his own SR-71 Blackbird, or a Mig-31 Firefox?

Thus the video of the RC jet powered SR-71 model!

However, if you'd prefer Hoffa to have his own nuke, then I better start watching the Manhattan Project (1986) again! Cynthia Nixon was smokin in that film ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMzZY8hR-5I

Flushed Saul out, that crafty cubey rat on the bosses clock. Another home run on the predictable! You girls should get married.

Hmmmm, If my bosses clock is running at 9:55pm on a Saturday, I must be putting in alot of hours!

@Darrell...Where did I say you couldn't buy ammunition? State laws in many states regulate how many rounds you can carry in your shotguns. As a hunter I used to use a 12 gauge pump shotgun with a plug in the magazine, limiting me to one in the chamber and three in the mag. It was no big deal.

As far as keeping all ammunition from guns, don't be ridiculous. Regulations on handgun ammo is not the same as banning firearms. I think you need to get a grip on your imagination.

Lyle, the shotgun law is Federal law, and it only applies to waterfowl hunting (3 rounds, lead-free). It was done to conserve waterfowl, nothing else. If you are hunting other birds, or shooting trap, or defending your home, you can put as many rounds in your shotgun as you desire (other than the few states with "assault weapon" laws that prohibit more than 10 rounds). .

What type of ammo law do you think could have prevented this shooting? No more than 50 rounds at a time? He could have made two trips back to the store and still committed his same crime. But while not stopping people like Holmes, that sort of law would have have a huge impact on target shooters, who often go through hundreds of rounds on one trip to the range. And it would have a huge impact on the true purpose of the 2nd, which is not duck hunting or trap shooting: it is the right to protect your home and country. Face it, your idea is unconstitutional and it would be ineffective at preventing mass shootings. You didn't think this one through before you wrote it, did you?

@Taoist -

That sometime happens on Patch - try altering your post slightly, like adding a punctuation mark, and re-posting. I bet that does the trick!

According to the Bible, G-d used water to kill every land dwelling creature on the planet with the exception of a few birds and those aboard Noah's Ark. Don't you think the government should be monitoring water usage/purchases? What about cars? How about knifes? Lead pipes? Alcoholic beverages? Fatty soft drinks above 16 oz? Where should government monitoring / regulation of our activities stop exactly? Who gets to decide what should be monitored and according to what standards?

Holmes could have done a lot more damage with a homemade flamethrower or explosives package. Because he chose to use guns, the amount of damage he inflicted was relatively minimal compared to what it could have been had he used other means. He could have taken out the entire theater or even the entire building.

You're not going to stop the true psychotics from hurting others - all you'll do is cause them to come up with more creative / imaginative ways of doing it, which could be even more damaging than firearms.

Once again, your asking the mass of our society to curtail to the psychotics - give up some freedom because doing so will make us all safer. But it won't! Not from the people like Holmes at least.

Seeing as how you like to dismiss voter fraud due to the lack of convictions, and therefor see no need in strengthening our election laws, let me ask you this:

How many people die from violent firearms injuries that were resultant from a non-confrontational situation in this country each year?

Just as in your argument against Voter ID, you appear to be asking for a solution to a problem that hardly exists and won't do anything to effectively stop such problem anyway.

Don't you find that to be a bit hypocritical?

I'm Hoffa, and I'm just sayin!

@Tao - Yes, you really make sense, but not being that conversant in psychology, are you aware of any studies linking gun extremism to sexual inferiority, either as a complex or real? That would be interesting reading, perhaps a best selling expose of what drives these people to so cock and covet their killing machines.

Tao - for a moment there, I thought you were referringto people with "Coexist" bumper stickers.

I have to agree with Taoist Crocs last paragraph with a modification on the Afghanistan bit. And speaking of protecting ourselves from the tyranny of our government... Should we support gun sales to all the nations on the planet that have suffered under the tyranny of our government as well...on the same basis? By god...let's just arm everyone... GUN Planet! Yeehah!

@Darrell...I did not say that I wanted to ban all guns. I don't know where you got that. I do want to more closely control handguns. Since we can't ban them, then we should put regulations on ammunition. I am not advocating that you can't purchase ammo, but I do want to limit people building ammo dumps in their homes.

@Lyle -

So, you want to eliminate people like Bert (Michael Gross) from Tremors (1990) from our nation?!?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFNBUs7O-h4

Come on - Bert's as American as sliced bread! And when prehistoric underground creatures wake up and start tearing into people's homes, you'll be glad that people like Bert exist ;-p

@JRH...Instead of Bert's approach, I would much rather have C 4. Safe to handle, can be molded into any shape and packs a big punch.

Shape it into friendly Mr. Squirl, then kill all the golfers.

Why keep it connected to showings of the movie?

"Gun extremists, you are under scrutiny now more than ever."

What in the hell is that supposed to mean exactly?

Just leave then, Dirk, because we are all sick of irrational libtards like you who think you can legislate against psychopaths by infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens. Our Bill of Rights was written because of people like you, and we will never compromise our freedoms because of people like you who are incapable of logical thought processes, and base all of your opinions on emotion.

Bazinga.

@Darrell...I don't understand why you want to argue your position with ad hominem attacks with people who you don't agree with. That being aside; I think the real issue is not being able to completely prevent incidents such that recently occurred in Aurora, but the continued use of firearms in the commission of crimes and the general safety concerns for all of society.

In my reading of the "Federalist Papers", the intent of an armed citizenry was based on more than just personal protection and the ability to sustain oneself; but as a means to protect the excesses of government through tyrannical action. Also included is a defense against a professional military from advancing a coup d'etat on a legitimately constituted government. Even if one agrees in principle with the stated intent, antecedent conditions have changed making the original intent moot in present society. Of the three stated purposes, only the self defense intent remains valid. Given that, what does it mean?

Does that mean that one can possess unlimited amounts of lethal ammunition? Does that mean that one can have ammunition clips of the size that only makes sense for formal combat intent. Of all the years I carried a 1911A Colt Service Automatic, I was only allowed one clip of 8 rounds. I had a much higher probability of having to discharge my weapon in self defense than those civilians carrying for self defense. Yet they feel the need to have multiple clips and extended clips. Why is this necessary?

Darrell - I am not leaving the country, staying right here, voting and stating my opinion. Darrell, your comments are a self-indictment, it is you that seem to be foaming and irrational, and frankly, scary in your attitude and temper. Yes, Darrell legally with an Kalashnikov AK-74 assault rifle with a monster clip is a totally real vision.

Dirk, I don't have a temper, but I do have an attitude from people like you. I am just sick of libtards trying to change the way we do things in this country. The Bill of Rights is not negotiable. Love it or leave it.

Lyle, self defense could require a lot more than 8 rounds in a pistol. Apparently you don't pay much attention to the news, but gangs often commit home invasions with multiple people. And there have been numerous "flash mobs" around the country where large groups of hoodlums are attacking people. And in addition to self defense, you are correct that one of the reasons for the 2nd was prevention of a tyrannical government. That purpose is not outdated or invalid, no matter how large and high-tech our standing army is.

And BTW, your 1911 was fed by a magazine, not a clip. Clips are not spring loaded. M1 Garands use clips. M16/M4 mags are loaded with stripper clips. Your incorrect use of the term shows just how ignorant you are on this subject. And since you were obviously just a typical squid and not in a combat MOS, the chances of you ever discharging your 1911 in the line of duty were actually much less than the chances of a civilian using a pistol for self defense. Civilians use guns for self defense millions of times per year in this country. How many times does Naval personnel from a support MOS fire in self defense? Almost never. I'm surprised that they didn't just give you one round to carry in your shirt pocket like Barney Fife.

@Darrell....My 1911A was carried strictly if I was shot down in enemy territory. Fortunately I didn't have that experience after 667 combat flight hours. Excuse me if I didn't use the proper nomenclature. Needless to say, I was not in a support role as you call it. But, I am not interested in your ad hominem attacks.

In any case, what is your real reason for opposing any type of regulation as I have described? Are you preparing for some kind of armed insurrection or the collapse of society into anarchy? What you are advocating goes beyond all reason.

I've known a number of personality types that are obsessed with firearms and weapons. Invariably they are misreading the environments in which they live and a preparing for a mythological situation. Those who embrace the myth see themselves standing at a cabin door with their flintlock held across their chest protecting their family from danger. It's just a myth and no more including all the arguments supporting the myth.

Lyle, you claimed that "what I'm advocating goes beyond all reason". What? All I'm advocating is NO NEW GUN LAWS. How is that unreasonable? What's "unreasonable" is thinking that you can stop mass shooting by restricting guns and ammunition and creating "gun free zones" like that theater, where people can't defend themselves. It is completely irrational and illogical. Mexico bans almost all private gun ownership, and they have one of the highest gun homicide rates in the world. Criminals don't pay attention to laws!

And I am not "obsessed with guns", as you claimed. I am obsessed with liberty and honoring the oath that I took to support and defend the Constitution. It sounds like you took that oath too, but you don't seem to honor your word, or else you would not be advocating irrational gun and ammo policies that infringe on our rights.

Lyle, why don't you explain to us how self defense is a "myth"? I think the thousands of innocent people killed every year would disagree with you (if they were still alive to talk about it). And I think the estimated 2 million people who used a firearm in self defense every year (in the U.S. alone) would also disagree with you.

Try reading some true stories about it: http://www. americanrifleman. org/BlogList.aspx?cid=25&id=21

@Darrell...I haven't abandoned my oath to uphold and defend the constitution and I find it insulting for you to suggest such. What I am proposing is reasonable and doesn't violate or infringe either the content or intent of the constitution. Your statement of how many homicides are prevented each year through people's ability to defend themselves is highly suspect. It is my understanding that the only reason gun fatalities are down is because of the quick response of early responders and early trauma intervention, saving those who would normal be fatalities. It is not the increased numbers of guns but the increase in medical response.

Read, Lyle:
http://www.americanrifleman.org/BlogList.aspx?cid=25&id=21

I'll bet Chris Newsom would have liked to have had a gun for self defense:
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/news/local/channon-christian-christopher-newsom-murders/

Darrell...It's pretty obvious that you don't know how to cite supporting data without using biased sources. What you want me to read is meaningless and has no authoritative quality at all. For you this is an emotive issue and you believe what you want to believe, regardless of evidence. You are a classic example of someone who only looks at things that support your preconceived notions, beliefs and myths. Find something else to play with because this has been a fail.

Lyle, those "Armed Citizen" stories are all take from the newpapers and reprinted by the NRA, and they all cite their source. There is nothing biased about them; they are factual news articles. If you had bothered to read the link, you would have known that. You are really good at making a fool of yourself.

If anyone has failed here, it's obviously you. You refer to facts as "myths" and propose unconstitutional restrictions that couldn't do anything to stop shootings like the Aurora theater massacre. Everything you have written on this page is irrational and illogical, and you should be embarrassed by it.

Darrell... I don't know what your formal education consists of, but It is fairly obvious that you missed some things during the process. Anecdotal evidence is not scientifically reliable. That's is all that you have presented. The NRA is one of the most biased organizations out there and only presents information supporting their political and ideological positions. If I were to accurately guess that which afflicts your thinking and reactions, I would guess that you have some organic problem with your Amydalae. Normal people don't walk around with the kinds of fears that you display.

Lyle, I'm not afraid of anything or anyone. But thanks for showing everyone what a retard you are, which gives even less credibility to your editorial that the Patch made the mistake of publishing. You are in such complete denial of reality that it's actually comical. You can keep being one of the sheep and praying that the wolves don't come after you, but don't try to force your choice on the rest of us.

@Darrell....Like most reasonable and rational people, I live my life based on probability and not possibility. I don't deny either the risk or reality of the potential for violence, but I take reasonable precautions to not place myself in harms way.

To not be fearful of anything or anyone is very telling. This is the statement of a deluded soul displaying a level of immaturity that one normally finds in a middle school male. You should be more reluctant to get involved in these discussions since you are so ill equipped to participate.

Lyle, there is nothing "reasonable or rational" about anything that you have written here. You are truly deluded. And quit making assertions about my character or mental state, because you don't know anything about me.

@Darrell...You need to stop now. Your digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole. You'd be surprised how much you have revealed about yourself through your ineptitude. However, if you wish to continue and reveal more about your pathos, then have at it.

To all rational people out there - We have a clear and present danger in people like Darrell. Do not believe that our nation's civilization could not be lost to extremism and violence. It is not six shooter days, it is Kalashnikovs and bombs, and these are Ameridan citizens, not foreign terrorists. What are we becoming?

@Dirk -

When have Darrell, AWD, or Alfred ever said that they wanted to use their weapons on the offensive? To the contrary, all of their comments appear to be in the context of use in the defensive, and only when absolutely necessary.

Not only do you intentionally misinterpret others, but you see right-wing conspiracies all around.

I'm curious - how exactly did you become this way? An overdose of Rachel Maddow? Or something else?

Happy - Did you mean Switzerland? In Sweden, handguns are strictly regulated and usually only allowed for members of gun clubs.

I wonder how the Tutsi would have felt about concealed carry.

A terrorist wins by drawing in suckers like you.

Keith, the Founders would not have allowed "gun free zones" like that theater or VA tech, where the people are disarmed so that people like Holmes can massacre them. But they would have been appalled at people like you who think that you can stop criminals by infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Safety is an illusion that doesn't exist anywhere, and you can't create it through misguided legislation.

Keith, I agree with you about the Founding Fathers. At the time the Constitution was implemented, settling was going on and there was an uneasy peace with Britain, a time of uncertainty. The Revolution was still on people's minds; the War of 1812 demonstrated how fragile relations were with Britain. I believe they would ask the same questions as many of us do today--for what purpose do you own a gun of such power?

@Bren -

The Supreme Court of the United States has found that much of the intent behind the second amendment was in allowing the citizens to keep the government in check and from becoming tyrannical. Ergo, logic would dictate that the populace should be allowed to own weapons at least equal in strength to those in use by the nation's military. Otherwise, how could the people effectively rise up against a tyrannical government? A lot of good a glock does someone in a nuke fight!

BTW - Still waiting for the citations or admissions you owe me!

Daniel - And your source of information for this revelation? Gun Digest?

[#2] Facilities for the mentally disturbed near extinction, in the USA. Jails to be used as substitutes to the mental institutions? Something here is just not logical in our conclusions, for the solutions we prescribe to, at present.
We presently educate our mentally handicap to a life of violence and crime. Mix a graduate of this system with liberal gun laws and we can perceive and identify one source, that triggers the travesties of violence that are implanted within our society. Exploding time and time again, as conditions allow.
Thus examples of tragedies will continue to emerge. A sane intelligent solution to prevent these abominations’ is required. Is it a financial moral question or the fear that lurks within the darkness of our corruptive failures to our society. Which ever be the motive to act, so be it. Flawed policies can not be ignored. They are but two of the ingredients that advocate these abominations’.
Oh by the way EDDY, we are all socialist, including you. Step out of the Fox’s den and breathe in some fresh factual reality.

@Bernard -

"A sane intelligent solution to prevent these abominations’ is required."

OK, so what exactly would constitute such a solution?

@Loren Regan...I received my initial firearms training in the college ROTC program. I was trained on the M1, M14 and the 1911A. After I joined the Navy and began flying, I carried the service automatic as a sidearm and that was only while in a combat zone. I hope this answers your question.

cough cough....bull@#$% cough cough

Anna, "working together to find a solution" is not possible with people like Lyle. He thinks that we need to sacrifice liberty to prevent tragedies like this, which is both unconstitutional and ineffective. If you want to limit tragedies like this, then stop creating "gun free" zones where people can't defend themselves. That is the only way that we can "work together to find a solution", because the Bill of Rights is not negotiable.

anna b. - Oh, now I get it. I was thinking a libtard was a liberal leotard, and trying to imagine that!. Either way, you are giving a good debate pointer. When a commenter demeans another commenter through name-calling, their credibility score plummets, and the rest of what they say will generally be lightly regarded.

Thankfully Darrell, the solution to mass killings is not up to you, We do not have to live with the occasional, becoming frequent mass killing, so Darrell can sit at night and fondle his AK100 assault rifle and 500 bullet clip.

@skinnyDUDE...No amount of gun control could have prevented the incident in Aurora. It is one of those things that represent an anomaly and is very difficult if not impossible to prevent. However, just as in Chicago, we must begin to take a rational approach to the violence. This is precisely why I want to approach the problem through regulating ammunition for handguns. I think it is a fertile area for discussion. I don't see any reason to further regulate ammunition for long guns since most violent crime is not committed using long guns. My own personal choice for home protection is a 12 gauge pump shotgun with '00' buckshot. Beyond that, I don't see the need for a handgun/s. Also, if I were to carry a handgun in public it would be in a visible carry condition. Makes more sense than CC to me.

@ Lyle
That's good. I am happy you are free to choose what is best for your safety. I am happy I am as well. That's the basic point. Fortunately , it is a a right under the 2nd Amendment.
The NRA got ALL its power because too many wanted to go way beyond what you propose . This is always the case. They over reach and the push back grew into a power Democrats and Republicans dont want to take on.
Reality is their is not the political will to attempt what you prescribe. Because Most people think all people have a right to protect themselves. And your comments of gun ownership is in line with that. The ammunition review I will say might have some traction but clearly the Dems would over reach and it would never pass. The only hope that would have is very straight forward, limited and tiny bites of the apple. I think we both know in the current climate its unlikely.
Even Moderate Democrats in many districts would not succeed if they get in the cross hairs of the NRA and its huge membership.
Obama certainly isnt comfortable with the subject as his administration was running guns to the bad guys in FAST AND FURIOUS. We both know that situation makes him and the attorney general look extremely bad. That black eye on his administration and the election cycle will leave Obama quiet on any new gun or ammo laws. I doubt he will utter a word on the matter. Status quo is likely for now. The devil would be in the details on the specifics of any new law as well.

SkinnyDude, the NRA was originally created to teach rifle marksmanship and safety. It didn't become politically involved until the 1960s, when liberals began to wage their irrational war on the 2nd Amendment. We now have over 4 million members (and growing). And every time some libtard politician goes on TV and calls for more gun restrictions, we gain even more members. Liberals just can't grasp the fact that Americans don't want their draconian gun laws, or the fact that they are unconstitutional. Their inability to learn that is just more proof that liberalism truly is a mental disorder.

Did you watch that video yet, Lyle? I realize that you have a closed mind and you don't want to read or watch anything that might contradict your naive views on this subject, but you really should watch it.

@Brian .....Weapons dont bring peace?You forget about the them stopping Hitler.You likely be speaking German if we passed a law and said dont shoot kids. Wait...Its already on the books. You want more gun laws moved to Chicago where citizens are droping like flies and they have the defenses of a sheep. Again ..History teaches if you want to defend yourself you dont do it with a HUG .......cause the other guy might blow your head off. Alot of kids die everyday . Younger than 6 . I will say that is a shame. Life is too fragile . But burying ya head in the sand doesn't prevent anything . YOUR IGNORANCE is clouded by thinking a word in a book will stop a madman. The destruction you fear was already prevented in World wars with the WEAPONS you fear. They've extended your life already. So until you convince the Bad guys to drop they're guns. You need to find a brain cell that works . Because the sad realities of the world don't allow us to be Sheep and not be sheared. You are making the worldly calculation that if we had no defense we be safer. That's the height of Ignorance. Perhaps the World is poised to destroy itself. But those who are fighting to protect the likes of you always will have a thankless job.

@skinnyDUDE...You're being much too melodramatic.

@ Lyle and you think Brain was being Rational lol

@skinnyDUDE....Brian is being perfectly rational, given where he is coming from. Now the question becomes whether or not his position can become a reality.

@Brian
Tell the family of the murdered military officer that with all of his weapons training concealed carry laws demanded he keep his gun and home while the criminal is able to walk into a movie theater guns blazing. Explain to the other families how one person with the legal ability to carry a firearm could have ended this rampage nearly as soon as it started.

Mutually assured destruction has prevented WWIII for the last 60years. It is the only thing preventing the use of nuclear weapons. It can also work in a movie theater. Not unlike the Kennedy threat worked in Cuba, most people will consider twice using a weapon when they have an equal chance of not surviving the encounter. Will this stop all murder, of course not, it won't even stop all gun murder. NOTHING WILL. The best we can do as at minimum stay even with the bad guys.

@Brian -

Guns aren't the problem. People are the problem.

Anna, I just call 'em like I see 'em. It's not my fault that Lyle is too emotionally and intellectually retarded to look at this issue rationally.

Darrell - Keep it coming! I want to hear more from you! Thank you for your perspective. Keep up the dialogue! Do not let your fellow gun nuts try to shut you up. We have found our best spokesman for the extreme right since AWD and Alfred!

McBride - What is this with your sudden and unexpectged modicum of moderation? Are you seeing some fault lines in the absolutist gun nuts positions?

@Bob Dole -

So, you want to eliminate people like Bert (Michael Gross) from Tremors (1990) from our nation?!?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFNBUs7O-h4

Come on - Bert's as American as sliced bread! And when prehistoric underground creatures wake up and start tearing into people's homes, you'll be glad that people like Bert exist ;-p

Nope, Dirk, nothing's different. You need to stop relying on your ability to read between the lines and consider ditching your pigeonholing system.

JRH, giant worms change everything.

Based on the rest of your post, I don't think anyone's going to argue with your last statement.

Daniel S. - Your analogies are poorly thought out. Comparing an almost universal mode of transportation to a killing instrument is irrational. Cars are used by nearly everyone, every day, guns by a much smaller number, infrequently, at least at present. Alcohol is its own problem, often connected with both auto and, particularly, gun deaths. Think.

Rees - Yes, this movie theater incident cuts across U.S, society much more than previous gun atrocities . Everyone can imagine themselves or their children in a theater like that, previously a sanctum for a couple of hours from the reality outside.
We just cannot accept the extreme right position that nothing can really be done because of their interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution can be reinterpreted to not be totally absolute as to gun ownership, or there is an amendment process if necessary. It is a hellbound train as we arm ourselves to protect our families from ever more powerful weapons. Does anyone want to ultimately carry a Kalashnikov everwhere to match a nut gone wild's arsenal?

Dirk, what are these "ever more powerful weapons" of which you speak? The guns that Holmes used are no more powerful than guns from 100 years ago. Actually, the AR is a lot less powerful than the M1 Garand, which was our standard issue in WW2.

There will always be psychopaths that want to harm others. You can choose to be a victim, or you can choose to defend yourself and your loved ones. If you choose to be one of the sheep, that's fine, but don't try to force your choice on the rest of us. As I said earlier, the 2nd Amendment is not negotiable. If you don't like it, then leave!

Rees, respect needs to be earned. And I have no respect for people who advocate infringing on the Constitution which I took an oath to protect.

Dan, liberals can't admit that their ideology is responsible for much of the lack of moral fiber in our culture today, and since their humanistic philosophy is that all people are inherently good, they refuse to admit that some people are just inherently evil and dangerous, so they attempt to blame the inanimate objects (guns) rather than admit that their entire ideology is a failure. Liberalism truly is a mental disorder.

I believe several states put restrictions on purchasing large amounts of ammonium nitrate after the Oklahoma incident. Did you get your undies in a bundle over that?

You've got an item that's been purchased, specifically, for the purposes of going out and shooting up a theater and killing as many people as possible. I've never read a report where someone has stockpiled alcohol or bought a car that goes 200MPH so they could get in their car and mow down a crowd of people. If you can't see the difference, then you're the one with the thinking problem.

They've started limiting the amount of Sudafed and cough syrup a buyer can purchase in a specific time period, which inconveniences large families with allergies quite a bit. But of course there's no Constitutional right to have an un-stuffed nose.

All I'd like is a sporting chance to reach the exit if I have the bad luck to be in the vicinity of someone who's gone off the rails. There must be a way to limit the rapidity of fire or the size of ammo magazines without trashing the Second Amendment.

No Randy, there isn't a way to do that. And if you wanted to reach the exit of that theater, don't ban guns in that theater. Someone could have shot him in the face and ended it quickly.

Daniel S. For handguns in Sweden you need to be a member of a gun club for at least 6 months and shoot three gold series (46 of 50 possible on int. pistol target at 25 m) and a fast series 6 shots in black in under 10 (?) seconds. Your club then can write a statement that you are active and need your own gun for competition. How easy this is depends on the club as well as you.
If you already have guns it might be possible to sneak by this requirement by joining a club and bringing a written statement from a club in your country that you are a active and safe member, or something like that.

There is no official limit on how many handguns you can have, but they usually have to be of different types so you can use them for different types of competitions.

What handguns you can buy is only limited to what sort of competition you can use them for. As it is nothing is impossible.

There is a (very) remote possibility to get a gun for protection, but that is extremely unusual, and those licenses are limited in time.

Licenses for handguns issued after 2000-07-01 is limited to 5 years. After 5 years one has to reapply,

Sweden has a much broader definition of criminal sexual behavior and more progressive attitudes towards what constitutes sexual victimization (Sweden has been a pioneer in its approach to rape - for instance it was one of the first countries in the world to outlaw marital rape in 1965).

The homicide rate in Sweden is about 1 in 100,000 population.

Dan, actually there are MILLIONS of ARs in civilian hands. Granted, many people own more than one. But it's safe to say that more than a million Americans own one.

Steve - If you are so against "socialism" , get off the roads. You benefit a lot from government built infrastructure, now don't you. I am subsiding your big old Escalade being out there on the interstate.

Changing the subject, 2012 Liberal playbook in action

Road use tax on every gallon of fuel
Annual Registration taxes for licensing
Property taxes
Business property taxes
Income taxes
Business income taxes
Sales tax on vehicle

Type of vehicle driven is irrelevant. A "gas guzzler" should be appreciated as more taxes are paid per fill up to subsidize the road you use thanks to me. Price tag of vehicle reflects taxes paid at time of purchase. You're welcome.

@Steve...As usual, you immediately go to the absurd.

Its called Logic, you Rube, try it sometime

It's called faulty logic, Jessica. The purpose of tires on a vehicle and ammo in a gun are very different.

Do you support that absurd argument?

@Randy
One could however, make the argument the food should only be purchased in proper calorie allotments. Should the government impose food restrictions on say the number fries in a happy meal or ounces in a soda (oh, wait some have already tried)? Since your logic is that high availability of ammo is dangerous, it would be fitting that high availabilities of calories is just as dangerous. Thus we must place restrictions on calories and then people will stop getting fat.

The problem is that it won't stop people from getting fat, just as regulating ammo will not stop gun violence.

Honestly, J.B., I wonder if you can read. Steve's point about tires is preposterous, because tires on an automobile are meant to provide better function and, yes, safety. Bullets are for putting into flesh, to make it hurt or die. (Unless you're into target shooting, which I have been.)

My point is, who really needs a hundred round clip to target shoot or hunt? It would be something to consider, just like we've all decided that the right to bear 'arms' doesn't extend to nuclear devices.

We only care about deaths from guns? How caring.
Out come is the same. Bullets are used for target practice for sport and competition.
Tires are used to provide less resistance and grip for a vehicle.
Both used in the wrong way cause deaths. Tires cause more deaths than bullets in the USA. Tires need to be banned immediately to save lives because, of course, it's not the humans fault.

We care about all deaths. We can maybe do something about the preventable ones. I fail to see how the improper use of tires added to the extra deaths in the Texas accident. Less overloading of the vehicle, everyone wearing a seat belt -- now that might have saved some lives. Who knows?

Other than that, I give up. You can't argue with stupidity.

Obviously you've never driven without tires...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54V6TYqF1ac

What we really should do is outlaw iron.

Iron is widely used to make parts for vehicles, guns AND ammo!
It's a win win win

Wisconsin is already on the front line of this new movement with all democrats saying no to a taconite mine.
Bravo dems, THANK YOU for preventing tragic future deaths.

I thought the explanation for voting against the taconite mine was a bit wrinkled. Thanks for ironing it all out for us. Steve.

Anytime. It also created one more bennifit that I originally overlooked, but my mind is no where near the brilliance of a liberal.

By voting against the mine they voted against jobs. With no job to drive to there is less risk of deadly traffic accidents. With no job comes no disposable income. With no disposable income you can not enjoy a new blockbuster hit. If you can not enjoy the theater you will not get gunned down. With no customers the theater will go out of business. Less people will be employed furthering the cycle of vehicle and gun related deaths and in their brilliance less iron demand.

This is what we call a perfect solution.

We must ban these high-capacity pick-up trucks. Anyone can just walk in and buy one. These types of weapons should not be on the streets. No one, outside of the police and military, needs a pickup truck with a high-capacity bed like that.

Well perhaps you can explain to me the necessity that makes being able to obtain 6000 rounds of ammo over the internet something we dare not even broach for consideration.

Would it have made any difference if it was 60,000 rounds? The attack in question required less than 200 rounds of 3 different types of ammo, that would not be very hard to amass under most any conditions or restrictions.

I understand that and no it wouldn't, but I do question the sense of being able to obtain, frankly, any large amounts of ammo over the internet. It's no great secret that it's pretty easy to misrepresent oneself in this venue. Which is why there are other substances and products one can't purchase legally online.

So small amounts would be OK?

I'd rather we don't sell ammo over the internet at all, but, yeah, If the 16 yo down the street gets ahold of someone's CC and orders ammo, I'd prefer he be limited to a small amount and not think he was gonna set up a business for himself reselling stuff he bought in quantity.

I honestly don't care how much you can buy at a brick and mortar location where someone can verify you are who you say you are.

I think the 16 yo. would be in violation of several current laws.

Yes they would, however apprehension might not precede them getting their hands on a pile of ammo. Whereas at a brick and mortar location, they're unlikely to get past the ID stage.

Most if not all ammo must be delivered to a person, not just left at an address. I imagine the delivery person would be subject to imprisonment if they were to deliver a package to a person underage to accept such contents. I had to make a half dozen phone calls to pick up ammo at UPS hub, that I ordered from a company, because I am never home when UPS comes. The vendor said I cannot pick it up at UPS, that it had to be delivered to the address on the box and only delivered to the name on the box. This was a big name company in the firearms supply marketplace. The fiasco was a result of a lawsuit stemming from a CA. case against them.

What "fiasco" are you referring to?

Well Bob McB, the fiasco was in trying to pick up my ammo. Over-regulation was the problem. The lawsuit was about ammo being sold to someone who was not eligible to buy ammo in CA and picked it up in a neighboring state, to by-pass that law. That is what I was conveyed by the business I made my purchase from. The company policy was ridiculous that they wanted to enforce for me to pickup my ammo. If it wasn't for UPS having intelligence, I would not have been able to. The name on the box matched the ID, and the photo matched the person, and the ID address was the same as the box address, What more do you need to prove you are that person? But the company said no, I have to have it delivered to my address on the box, that I cannot pick it up at the UPS facility! Imbeciles . . . . they did say I could use UPS as my address though, and then it would be okay, huh? Yes, that is the honest truth of the situation.

I see. And did you need this ammo for some line of work you do?

Well Bob McB, do you work for the FBI, BATFE; is it any of your business why I purchase ammo? Is this the type of regulation you'd like to see? Why don't we question people in bars why they are drinking before we serve them? If they say they had a bad day, or are angry over something, then they should be denied. If they say they are celebrating then they should be denied, because alcohol is a depressant and it doesn't make sense. Maybe we should call the police and tell them there is a person who is poisoning themselves here that needs medical help? Wouldn't it be considered insane to poison yourself, even if ever so slowly? Technically, there is not one good reason to drink alcohol, even those health reasons that change back and forth are poor excuses.

No need to get defensive there, Daniel. I was just trying to determine whether or not you felt the inconvenience you were put through was unjustifiable based on some professional need you had for the ammo. As it appears it's more of a hobby, I'm inclined not to agree with you that the precautions taken amounted to a "fiasco".

Do you regularly order ammo via the internet? If so, are you always required to be present to sign for it when it's dropped off? If so, are you always required to provide picture identification? If the answer to both of those questions is (honestly) "yes", then I'm less inclined to be as concerned about ordering ammo over the internet than I would be sans those requirements.

I will add this on the ammo delivery. I do purchase on the internet quite often. There are some fabulous deals to be found from certain places, some with FREE delivery if you buy a case. That could be 500 to 5000 rounds depending on the case pack made by the manufacturer. I never ordered from that other place again and have had zero issues with other vendors. I pick up my package directly at the UPS hub near me, ID required and signature. One time I actually called a big name vendor and the delivery service and gave them the riot act. I was supposed to receive a delivery, but there was no attempt to deliver notice on my door. I checked on-line and the tracking number said delivered. There was no package outside anywhere, I even checked the outdoor trash to see if someone stole it and put the box in the trash, nope. I looked up and down the neighborhood to see if it was on another door and checked my immediate neighbors for possible delivery acceptance, nope. I called the delivery service who said they would have to call the driver to see what they did with package. I was really worried that someone stole a package with ammo, could have been a kid, who knows. I told them they should not ever leave a package that needs to be signed for and has a HAZMAT classification with anyone but the package addressee. They called me back in about 15 minutes and told me where it was; bottom line, I had to go pick it up there. The driver failed to acknowledge that he brought it back.

Dan, that is very true about the online ammo prices. I can buy Federal GMM in .308 online for about half of what it sells for in local stores.

I think its safe to assume you two guys aren't the traveling PR wing for the pro-gun side of the equation. When someone gives you an opportunity to address what might be a popular misconception regarding internet sales of ammo, you might want to get right to the point and do that, if you can.

Part of what you're battling here is an image of self-interested neanderthals clinging to their weapons at all costs. I asked a couple of straightforward questions precisely because I wanted to get away from the bad analogies and over-the-top, out-of-focus blather that surrounds this issue continually. Instead I got what appears to be complaints about UPS' service, a couple of incidental recitations of other deliveries and information about cost savings available.

I'm in the middle on this. I don't own guns, don't want to own guns, don't care if you own guns, don't think gun ownership had anything to do with this. I'm going to try again here. If you guys don't know, maybe someone else will. I'm pretty much singularly concerned about this point, only.

Is there some sort of standardized regulation in place, whether it be classification of ammo as a particular type of material or something specific to ammo itself that assures that, in every instance, the utmost in care is taken to assure that it was ordered by and delivered to someone who can legally order and take delivery of the same?

You know BMcB, you remind me of one of my brothers, you think because you ask a question, it is the duty of others to do just that. It's as if your questions and what you want to know are the only important issues. That's unfortunately not true. Just like your response to the "fiasco" I mentioned. You think it's irrelevant and a non-issue; fact is, it was mindless after I shared the fact that they said I could use UPS as my address. I don't live there! I have no documentation that proves anything with that address. But you didn't catch that stupidity. In addition, it appears you are concerned about a point that is pointless. Mr Holmes could have gone to an ammo store and bought 6000 rounds if he wanted to; there is no limit. They wouldn't question why, they would say, will that be cash or credit, thanks, happy shooting. They might ask if you want to open a charge account with them too. I explained as much as I know. When I order ammo, it has to be signed for, cannot be left at the door. It's against the law to buy ammo under a certain age by law. I don't know if there is a law regarding ammo delivery, but I don't really care. What I care about, are people trying to mess with my rights because they believe they can control the uncontrollable through some mindless regulations.

You could have just said you don't know and don't care, Dan. Well, essentially that's what you did say.

I'm trying to give you an opportunity to look like something other than a selfish boor and address a concern regarding the distribution of ammo. You either can't or won't do that. No skin off my back.

You guys spend time whining about being persecuted while at the same time you cop an attitude that plays right into the arguments those who would actually take your rights away make. You're your own worst enemy.

I have answered your questions more than once. If you are so concerned, go do your own research. Instead, you berate people for some unknown reason.

Consider my berating a warmup for the inevitable attempts to regulate sales of ammo in the not so distant future. You might want to bone up a bit on the issue. You can bet those who would love nothing better than regulate and/or restrict your access to ammo are.

All of my internet orders were sent "adult signature required".

So when you ordered, Greg, it was pretty much like anything else? Payment method is confirmed (shipping address, if different from billing, confirmed), order entered and you're done?

mags is easier than both

Except they are not clips, a clip is a different device. It is a plastic or metal strip that has ammunition pre-attached to it, not a housing that You load the ammunition into.

And 92 years ago we gave organized crime the gift that keeps on giving by enacting Prohibition. Make something illegal, you make it profitable, and organized crime has a stake in seeing to it that the maximum number of people want it.

That's why I don't think 'gun control' will work. Why should it work any better than Prohibition or the war on drugs?

The "intrusion of the Federal Gov't into our personal life [sic] through medical records" is actually the creation of a database to monitor the effectiveness of certain devices such as hearing aids, pacemakers, etc. Private medical/pharma databases have been developed which I believe share far more insight into a person's physical and emotional state than a hearing aid.

Thank you C. Sanders, it's that old saying; "where there's a will, there's a way". What we need to regulate is the "Will" to do Evil.

Look up.

Already touched on this. Actually the correct way about it is to ban the tires. But we are taking that even further in WI by banning iron mining. Vehicles, guns AND ammo use iron in their parts.

do we really want to go there?, let's just say not here.

Lyle, I don't think any of us expect to change their mind, but hopefully we can convince them of the futility of their agenda, because Americans don't want what they want. Within their small circle of like-minded friends, they probably get so much reinforcement of their belief system that they don't understand that most people don't want it.

Anyone can purchase or own a car, with none of the requirements you listed. Nothing in the law can stop even a 5 year old from purchasing a car.
If your list did have merit, would you require the same for additional guns?
Do you understand the difference between a right and a privilage?
Answer these, then I'll flame you.

Rees, a person does not take tests every time they buy a car; only when they get a driver's license to drive on public roads. A person can legally buy a car with no driver's license, not register it, don't put insurance on it, and drive it around their farm for their whole life, and never have in inspected, as long as they don't take it on a public road. There is also no constitutional right to drive a car on public roads, but there is to own a gun. So your analogy is a TERRIBLE one (in numerous ways), and your suggestion is even worse.

Thank you Cindy, you are a breath of Fresh Air. It is after all A PEOPLE issue and not an inanimate object issue, no matter how you want to twist it. Based on the mom's remark when notified, the media has made it appear as if she was not stunned, why is that? Why haven't we heard anymore from the parents . . . getting their legal council together?

Thanks for mentioning the airplane thing, did people already forget about the guy in Texas that flew the plane into the IRS office in protest? Wouldn't it have been easier to just walk or attempt to walk in with blazing guns . . . . "But, for several decades, Joe Stack also had been battling the Internal Revenue Service -- and nursing a grudge." I have been saying for years on the internet, Society is messed up. We cannot regulate ourselves out this situation, we need a healthy society to fix this and that is not going to happen anytime soon enough.

Have we ever had or how will we ever get, a healthy society. Give me a good set of butcher knives and a meat saw and I can be Ed Gein. Give me a knife and a barrel of acid and I can be Jeffrey Dahmer. Give me a pair of hands and I can be the Boston Strangler. Until we figure out and fix what happens in the brain that causes these people to react this way, no laws are going to stop it.

Exactly Mau! It does not matter what gun laws are put into effect. This tragedy, in one form or another, would have happened in our society. Not because this person had guns and ammunition but because this person had a mental illness.

AWD, let's be honest here.....your purchasing a gun and going through all of the necessary concealed weapon classes has to do with legislation that was passed through and the legalization of concealed weapons in the state of Wisconsin last year. That was the doings of Wisconsin Republicans, not the Democratic President of our nation. This isn't a fact that changed for just you, this is a fact that changed for a LOT of Wisconsinites last year because they could now do this legally. A lot of Wisconsinites went out and bought handguns and took concealed weapon classes.

I will not try to dispute nor confirm the rest of your post. However, as one Wisconsinite to another, I have to call bullshit when I see it. ;-)

The UN Treaty is a back door into furthering gun control, it is not a direct threat to regulation here. Over time it most certainly will evolve into more, as all laws seem to do. That is why it was a blessing when the bogus assault weapons ban expired. That is another reason gun sales have increased; people buying AR's and similar type weapons before a new ban is enacted. As for BO the gun saleman; It is a known fact that gun sales usually increase before a Presidential election, however it is true, they've been running at record pace since BO took office. Some of that can very likely be attributed to the awareness and increase of possible terrorist threats in addition to states that have relaxed their rules, like Wisconsin, Illinois (the last hold out on CCP) and just the fact that their are newer and better models coming out on a regular basis. In addition, a lot more women are getting training across the nation and purchasing a carry weapon.

Since we started the TSA gropings and irradiating, how many incidents have we had? None.

On the other hand, we've had at least a couple of situations were something has occurred on board a plane that was initially interpreted by some on board as being of a similar nature. Had we had a plane full of armed individuals, who's to say one of them wouldn't have acted on their own initial impression and starting popping off rounds?

There are places where it's inappropriate for the general populace to be carrying firearms. You guys just have to deal with that. Thousands of feet in the air in a pressurized metal tube is one of those places.

Yes, gunfire on a plane. Very smart. That's one of the main criticism I had of a cinematic masterpiece called 'Flight of the Living Dead'.An air marshall starts firing off his gun wildly in the cargo hold (under some considerable panic and stress) sending bullets through the cabin above, hitting passengers and causing decompression.

As for security at the mall, I'm not about submit to a pat-down just to buy a Cinna-Bon. Maybe in a few years . . .

Shooting people in planes works well in the movies....it doesnt work well in real life. More guns on planes now!!! No screening! Great solution Mr. White Knight.

Call the movie stupid, not me. But would armed civilians on planes necessarily carry guns with that kind of ammo like Genius Mike up above was suggesting?

Johnny can't read.

No screening Johnny. They can bring on hand grenades in the Knights thriller.

@Johnny Blade....Sorry, but I have to correct you; he was not receiving unemployment benefits, but a stipend as a PhD student. This is a common practice in a large number of doctoral programs, especially where the doctoral student is expected to teach. I don't know if Holmes was teaching or not or if it was payment for lab research activity. Most of the time doctoral programs are so intense that students are unable to work outside jobs. Doctoral programs in the sciences are the most demanding and it is not uncommon for the candidates to work 60, 70, 80 hours per week often time going days without sleep during critical experiments.

We need to ban advanced college degrees.

$20,000 from the fed to buy guns. Someone contact Eric Holder immediately.

Sounds like these doctoral programs are pretty illogical if they are expecting people to work such unhealthy amounts of time. That is not good for ones psychological balance and might be cause for them to go off the deep end. Days without sleep, highly recommended by the medical community, not. And these people are supposed to be intelligent? Explains a lot about our society.

@Daniel S...Medical doctors also routinely put in those kinds of hours while going through internships and residencies.

@Lyle, and because this illogical behavior has been going on for decade after decade, does that make it logical? I think not. It is as illogical as the shift changes they do to police, firemen and even at some retailers. Health Professionals repeatedly suggest 6 to 8 hours sleep, and they say it takes weeks to readjust to sleeping at different time periods, but the practice goes on and with people in professions where SOUND MIND & BODY are key to their PERFORMANCE.

@Daniel S...I don't agree with the long hours and I do think it is harmful over the long term. If one looks at the life expectancy of cops and firefighters, they all have shorter life expectancies. I can't help but think it has to do with the crazy hours they put in. In recent years this has begun to change and the police and firefighters now have to take time off.

What are you some kind of a putz? To draw that line is the sign of someone with way to much time on their hand, or one of those; the Government is the evil empire, and what silly notion can i find to circle everything wrong with America back to the Government. That is about the most prize winning comment of all time. It's laughable to think you came up with such an inane observation.

The friggin government sent Billions to Sadam F Hussein to back his war on iRanians including the chemicals to make WMD? 20 K doesnt even register on their machine folks.

Most of the recently reported problems on flights seem to be of a variety that could probably be best sorted out by a nun with a metal edged ruler.

In lieu of that, plastic sporks for everyone. Perfect for eating just about anything, and for poking the individual in front of you who has reclined his seat back into your face.

Your assuming there will be enough people who would risk their lives to kill a trained terrorist. I can imagine a plane full of citizens, most of whom can't slice a tomato, armed with a knife, and some scary guy threaten to kill a hostage. ALSO, the terrorists would have gotten knives, better than a box cutter. You have to think about your ideas before airing them in public. Just take moment and think it through.

Is this a comedy show you are proposing? Stewardess comes on the speaker. "in case of a terrorist incident a small cardboard bow will lower down from the overhead. It contains one regulation boy scout knife. Grasp the handle in your non dominant hand and pinch the back edge of the blade between your thumb and forefinger. Pull. The blade will open. After that, try to stab the guys in the black masks."

Let's list ideas.

I don't believe I said anything changing gun accessibility. As for JEH being conscious of the acts he carried out, I believe he is aware of more than people think. There are all sorts of explanations for what took place, more than one are likely to be the truth. Question is, will JEH share those reasons or maybe the letter he wrote that has been discovered answers all of the questions? One day we might know, unless somehow a lawyer is able to seal it from public knowledge. The book you speak sounds somewhat interesting, and some also seems predictable past on past history. Goodnight everyone z . z .. z ... z zzzz

Yeah White Trash, you come off like someone who believes in God.

@AWD...You are pushing the limits of credibility. This incident has nothing to do with anything except James Holmes went off the rails.If anything, you expect these kinds of incidents in a free an open society.

Too bad they hadn't lived during the Crusades, or in Northern Ireland. Too bad they werent indigenous people getting religion from the Conquistadors. Don't get me going on people who have high moral standards. This empire we live in still promotes itself as Judaeo Christian.... Genocide cleared the stolen lands for Christians, we fought vicious civil wars with fellow believers, we continue to live off the suffering of other cultures and are currently ramping up drone warfare as a new global nightmare. The bomber is symptomatic of the uber-culture that sees killing as some sort of brutal if not god given right...... In that culture memmbers of various religions stand side by side with their areligious fellow warriors... Participating in a global war OF terror.... Not AGAINST terror. Who profits from this battle over graveyards? Multinational corporations do....immensely. While the common people fly apart on computer monitors as "pilots" strike them down from the other side of the planet,the CEOs and CPOs and hundred VPs watch their offshore bank accounts grow.

Here's the problem with your remark. Never use the definitive word like ARE. It indicates an expertise based in research, hard data, irrefutable evidence. It is presumptuous of you to have such a final answer to the world;s woes. Also, suggesting that you have some key to everything, and adding the word Progressive, you are suggesting that people unlike yourself are to blame. For if it was up to you, all human behavior which stuns and confuses the world is the result of some lack of belief in a mythical entity, which has stood by and watched the Aurora incident, the earthquakes, the floods, the unnecessary deaths of babies from disease of the entity's own creation. Now I am suggesting if you have any influence over this mythical entity, pray for some compassion for those of the fallen and sick who by no fault of their own, are struck down by violence and disease. Now I find it would be a lot easier if One being adjusted its behavior,rather than telling billions of beings to accept this conundrum you refer to as God. So use your certainty and influence to change one beings inexplicable behavior, so millions do not have to needlessly suffer. It's a 2 way street. And, the almighty and all power have an advantage; mere mortals do not have.

First we are told we are all sinners. Then we are told some of us are more culpable, due to our lack of a certain belief. Here is where I have to ask,how does that work. We are all to blame,but many of us are more guilty, because we have chosen to not adjust our world view because of the pleading and certainty of the self anointed avatars who walk among us. The chosen few who have seen a light of surety which apparently only shines on them as a result of their self constructed belief system. To me if someone came to my house and started to tell me how to properly raise my family, I would be taken aback by such presumptuous behavior and suggest a prompt exit from my house. So people of Faith, save your breath and leave the rest of us alone. It is our right to select our own moral course, the dos and don;ts are not a secret. There are millions of good human beings who have followed a behavioral path which does not lead to some fictional damnation.

You mean like turning your other cheek to the person who just smote you? How's that for a limp-wristed victim, jessica?

The great theologian, Roger Williams of Pilgrim fame, once said in a dispute with his fellow Faithful regarding their intention of getting involved with the system of governance. "If you mix Religion with Politics; you get Politics. And shazaam here we are a Christian nation, where are leaders are bound by caveat to adhere to one specific belief in order to qualify for a job they are otherwise more than capable of doing very well. Great leadership is filtered out of politics through the very fine sieve of Religion, and not just any Religion but a Religion of a Politically Powerful sect of believers who are beyond certain it's the only one. Proclaimed with the threat of eternal damnation.. It has been said before, as the Constitution protects our freedom of Region, it also is suppose to protect our freedom from Religion. People emigrated to America due to Religious persecution by the prevailing faith of their homeland. I feel at times, the influence of a particular Faith has over our country causes more harm than good. Religion was wisely separated out of Politics by the wise men of the latter 1700s. Some where along the line it is has been able to insinuate its self into our daily lives by the influence it has over legislation which reflects a specific belief not shared by all the citizens of the USA. And this insidious plan to create a national religion tends to drive a wedge between families, neighbors and innocent bystanders. It's an intrusive force.

The 2nd Amendment. We continue to argue over its meaning tragic incident after tragic incident. Do we to accept it as the Colonists did in order to sever their ties from the rule of a King. Do we chose to accept it as a line of defense against our Government, one which has; local police, state police, the ATF, the National Guard, the 3 branches of the military not on boats. This lack of trust of the Government re: guns is a pathological mind set, enhanced by those who benefit monetarily from this mania; gun manufacturers and their mouth piece the NRA. Once a sportsman's group, it's now a lobbyist for the Gun makers. They perpetuate the mythology of gun rights. Hunting, self protection, and the 2nd Amendment A right lifted to a supernatural level, an 11th commandment so to speak, by the influence of the NRA and the gun lobbies over the national discussion of where guns fit in our every day life. We are never going to be able to control the Auroras. There is no commonality of thought, philosophy, religion or politics with the assailants. It's is a part of life, and we will sadly have to live with it as long as humans inhabit the earth. It will happen again, and with alarming frequency. As there are freak storms, which kill and destroy, there are freak incidents of violence. No common cause. It's not the guns, if you eliminated every gun, there would be bombs, fires, stabbings or baseball bats, what ever is available, for some one to inflict death..

Darrel, please. The NRA has not been a sportsman centric organization in years. It's a gun lobby for gun manufacturers. Who suffers if assault weapons are banned, not hunters. Who suffers if extended clips and drum clips are banned, not hunters. Who suffers if you can't buy, for personal use, 6000 rounds of ammo, not hunters. Then why does the NRA get all crazy when assault weapons are challenged? They do play up the we need weapons to protect ourselves against the government argument. That's just blowing smoke up gun owners arses. I could care less how many guns people have, but I don't like the NRA trying to pass it self off as a sportsman's group. baloney!!

My response to your LEAVE THIS COUNTRY shout out. GO F**K YOURSELF!!
I don't give a rat's ass how many guns people own. Build an arsenal for all I care. Means nothing to me. Interesting that a putz like you reads my comment and all you respond to is a passing remark about the much lauded NRA. Who gives a shit about that Lobbyist for gun manufacturers.

As usual Lyle, you are missing the point. Obviously the NRA needs to protect the gun manufacturers to protect our right to buy one (especially from frivolous lawsuits that were intended to bankrupt the industry at taxpayer expense). But their primary base is NOT the gun makers! It is the over 4 million Americans who are supporting members. And yes, most hard-core liberals are Communists at heart. Modern Liberalism shares most of it's ideology with Communism; they just don't like to be called that anymore, due to the negative perception that many people have of that term. It sounds so much nicer to call themselves "progressive".

@Darrell....You come across as a real extremest. You'd make ole' Joe McCarthy proud. Calling all progressives and liberals as communists at heart is just as ridiculous as calling all right wing conservatives Nazis or White Supremacists. It just isn't true. I have found very few socialists who don't support capitalism. Regulated capitalism, but capitalism none the less.

As a social democrat I don't want to regulate or prevent you or anyone else from owning a firearm. I just don't care. What I do care about is all the unregulated handguns that are on the streets and used in the commission of crimes. The only reasonable answer is to regulate ammunition. If a bad guy can't get ammo, but a good guy can; then the bad guy is going to be at a disadvantage. A gun without ammo makes a pretty poor hammer.

The NRA, by the way I belonged to it 40 years ago, is maintaining membership and power by scaring the hell out of its members and potential members. You can deny it as much as you want but they are dependent on fear, pure and simple. The blacker they paint the picture the more people will continue to arm themselves to the teeth in preparation for that time when they will use deadly force.

Out of curiosity, what branch of the military did you or are serving in? How many combat tours? Were you or are you an NCO or officer in a combat unit?

com·mu·nism (kmy-nzm)
n.
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2. Communism
a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

Sure sounds like the Progressive agenda to me! Besides Lyle, it was the Southern Democratic party that was the white supremacists; need I remind you of Se. Byrd?

The above definition is what you have been spouting since you started posting. By the above definition, you are a communist.

@Brian Dey....LMAO! You're just too funny. Regulated capitalism is not communism in anyway shape or form. Centralized control and planning never worked with any communist nation. I do support regulated capitalism to protect small businesses, workers and consumers. Maybe if you would have completed your education you wouldn't make such wild statements. ; - P

Rube, you lie everytime you open your cake hole.

Lyle- Obviously completing yoursdidn't help, did it? But please, of pompous one, tell me where that deinition doesn't fit.

You support unionism or organized labor for the good of all members. You supported the Obama administration on TARP, and you want every one to participate so that there is some kind of higher social order.

Nothing you have ever stated resembles any kind of capitalism. Spin it all you want, but that psych degree sure hasn't helped you at all.

And I'm proud to be successful despite not having a degree. Because if a degree means acting like the jerk you are, you can have it!

Hey fake black guy. Lyle could run intellectual rings around you so fast it would make your head spin like Linda Blair in the Exorcist.

@Brian Dey....LMAO! Little do you know of what you speak. Capitalism worked pretty well for me.

Keif 'the thief' Schmitz endorsing Lyle "I don't pay my bills" Ruble?

Hey knucklehead, what else don't you know about?

@Lyle, and what sort of legislation is going to stop a bad guy from getting ammo? The same type that stops them from buying guns? There is no legislation that stops bad people from doing anything, except for the Ultimate Penalty being applied, once they are convicted the first time. That legislation my deter others from pursuing criminal activity, but nothing mankind can legislate, will ever deter evil violent insane criminal acts in it's entirety, nothing. Legislation only prevents honest people from having access to the goods and services they desire. In addition, unless you are going to outlaw reloading, you will not stop criminals from being able to make their own ammo. Where there is a will (good or bad) there is a way. Unless you plan on implanting mind control devices in everyone, there will always be sickos, and as society continues it's progression of sickness, expect it to worsen. As much as I don't like believing it, I do however, believe if we re-elect the man from Chicago, we will sink further into the abyss of darkness of evil in the USA.

I think it's important to realize that the entire firearms related industry is one of the few bright and shiny stars on the beat down economy. From actual weapons, ammo, parts & accessories, training classes and range memberships, billions $ and $ billions are being spent yearly. Oh yeah, I forget to mention the carry conceal weapons permit fees and licenses required in some states. Plus these industries also require the services and goods of countless other industries in the packaging, delivery & marketing of these products. It was mentioned that there are separate entities when it comes to sporting and military weapons. Well, Smith & Wesson provides handguns for many LEO depts., Beretta makes the current military 9mm handgun, Lewis Machine & Tool makes the AR for the British Army, and there are many other manufacturers of both sporting and military/leo weaponry. The divide between the two is actually more like a back rub of support to each other. I must say, it is interesting to see the NRA take all the heat, when there are in fact other large 2nd supportive organizations out there. I guess it's a good thing, it gives them the freedom to reach the goals that keep us Free to protect ourselves.

@Daniel S....There is a distinction between the military arms industry and the manufacturer of small arms for civilian purposes. The former is part of what President Eisenhower called the "industrial military complex". The latter are supporters of sporting arms and self protection. Each has its own lobbying interests. For the military industrial complex it is all about government contracts and international sales, while manufacturers of small arms, it is the maintenance and growth of retail sales, primarily domestic. Therefore, we have two different concerns which are not directly connected. It is fully possible someone who supports the sale and ownership of sporting arms and be opposed to military arms. It takes so many more variables to determine a person's policy support.

Danny: Re: your interesting defense of gun manufacturing as an economic plus. Here another lethal trade which adds to the economy: The single largest marketplace for illegal drugs continues to be the United States. Although the market has decreased dramatically since its heyday in the mid-80's, close to thirteen million Americans still think nothing about occasionally buying a gram of cocaine, a few hits of ecstasy or a quarter ounce of weed to party with their friends on the weekends. A hard core group estimated at between 5 and 6 million have more serious drug habits, and may spend $100-$500 dollars a week on purchasing their drugs. These two groups - hard core users and casual users - spend approximately $60 billion dollars a year, according to U.S. government estimates. Imagine a typical weekend in New York City. Experts estimate that at least one percent of the population - 80,000 plus - spends $200 on illicit drugs. That alone would amount to $16 million dollars a week or $832 million a year. And that's just New York. All those kids employed to sell the drugs. The cars, clothes, food, and jewelry bought by drug dealers. The users reselling their stash. Mo' Money, Mo' Money, Mo' Money. So using your example of the economic value of gun manufacturing. The drug trade makes a huge contribution to the economy as well. Both sell potentially lethal products. Drugs don't kill, users kill.

Willy, keyword ILLEGAL drug trade. It does not support the taxation system of the USA. Trickle down yes, but not as LEGAL manufacturing does. It does not employ the same numbers of people that LEGAL manufacture of weaponry does. It costs the country billions in LEO manpower hours, lost production in companies and ruins thousands and thousands of lives a year. In addition, those illegal drugs are behind a reasonable portion of the murders that take place in our society. Nice try though.

Why not just ban everything and let the government decide what we can and can't have. Oh yea, that is what the commies did. You and Comrade Lyle are letting your true colors show.

Fiscal and social conservative. Rght wing definition for heartless and selfish. Your such a twit. The point is my friend, no one does any thing on their own. If you're not employing at least 10,000 people your modicum success is not a tale of interest to the upper class.. I asked you to not use slogans and talking points to explain your dislike 4 Obama. That leadership bit is hackneyed Right Wing BS. You voted for Alan Keyes because he was your kind of Negro. That does not excuse you for your racism. Obama held a majority which was not filibuster proof. Stop f**king around with the tired sloganeering and talking points. Where the hell are your own personal analysis of the situation. You're boring me, with zero support. Not one vote. That's zero. Why do you insist on such inane juvenile hyperbole? Race has everything to do with it. You have not given me one personal honest reason. Your entire comment is built on slogans and tired talking points. Biased, misinformed clap trap. Man you really hate this guy. It can't be anything you said in your comment. That's not even original BS. It has got to be race. You have not convinced me otherwise. You are a lazy right winger, Ducky. Own up to it. Nothing to be ashamed of. Well the lack of orginal ideas and thoughts, that is to be ashamed of. Classic Right Winger. Hate, contempt and misinformed. BOW-RING!!!! I've heard it too many times before. Same tired crap.

And you my friend are a true dem (jack ass). Tell me why you love this idiot with out using the Mr. Ed, MSNBC slogans and one liners. You can't because all you are is someone you loves to hate rich. Well, it's because of the rich you hve a life moron. If someone didn't take a risk to start a business, than you you would be eating dirt. And if you are a pub;lic worker, let's say teacher, it's the rich that pay the taxes so you can put a roof over head. Lazy one is someone like you that thinks retirement is the gov's responsibility, healthcare is someone else's responsibility.

Grow a pair and stop asking everyone to take care of you loser. You are the misinformed. If the only reason you voted for this clown was because of color, than you my friend are the racist.. Now prove your not ignorant and vote for someone else this time.

And yes, I voted for Alan Keyes, not because he was black, but because I felt he was the best candidate you racist idiot.

Go preach you crap to someone else. I'm done with lefty idiots like you and Lyle who say a whole lot about nothing and whine every time you can about those rich evil white folk.

@William Eib ... there is a spill on aisle 9. Get back to work.

Your comment; "bringing others down to raise others up." So you are alright with what has been done over the last 35 years. That is, "push others down to raise others up." Wages have been flat, corporate profits at historic levels. It only got that way by allowing the Corporations and the obscenely wealthy; to have their way with the Government via Tax Cuts, Deregulation of the Financial Markets, loop holes and exemptions. We cut their taxes which made them richer, and we got, what? Nothing. The Job Creators got what they wanted and still no jobs. The GOP cried out "Job Creators," "Job Creators.". The Corps and wealthy are not job creators. They got their cuts and unemployment went through the roof. How thick do you have to be to not see what's going on here. The rich get richer, don't help with jobs, and the rest of us are going down. Man, you is brainwashed.. Forget about Obama, I don't care about him, for a minute, think about your country. That's where my position comes from. Romney is a supply sider. It failed under Bush, and what makes you think it will be different under Romney. His plan calls for a 5 trillion dollar tax cut for the rich, and a trillion more for the Pentagon over the next 10 years. That's 6 Trillion more added to the deficit. You can eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and every other social program and it will never be enough to cut the deficit. We do not have a deficit problem, we have a revenue problem.

My comments are about the current economic situation. Not Obama But, I may have challenged your assessment of him. My main gripe is the last 35 years, which led to the 2008. An obsession with Profit Taking. Not making a profit. There is a difference. As you have stated re: your own business, you're looking to have a healthy bottom line, and hope to grow. Profit Taking, is nothing like that. Produce as much Profit as possible, via clever schemes, gaming the system, buying legislation to remove impediments to profit. There is no humanity in that. Move jobs overseas, leave behind the unemployed. Ice water for blood, a contempt and no empathy for others. This Greed Rush began in earnest in the 70s. Find the most sympathetic Party, buy their loyalty. Spread the Largess, to the other party as well. First and foremost, gain allegiance from the easily manipulate. Get taxes lowered, deregulation. Develop a free market for Profit Taking. This is not Capitalism, this is Corporatism. Rule of Government and Economy. The Corps. have no allegiance to America. It's a ruthless world view which has no time for the underclass.except as consumers and cheap labor.. It's not about Obama. But, he is an impediment. They're putting up a Billion to get rid of him. They want something they can't get from Obama. Unfettered Profit taking.
They're putting up a billion to get rid of him. That billion will bring them a 100 fold return. That's my gripe. Not wealth envy.

@WIlliam Eib - Yet the richest families in america Gates Waltons and Buffet are all self made men/ families . If you are just a laborer you dont deserve to be a millionaire. These fortunes were built by productive men in productive companies that hired countless 1000s of people . They delivered value to consumers with better and affordable innovative products. They made billions but Society benefited. Your class envy is tied to ignorance because your not successful enough or smart enough to make everyone elses life better. Because that is how you obtain wealth. It is a by product of the consumer approving what you do . Instead you whine that you dont get a cut of the profits because you didnt do any of the work . ZERO and yet you still benefit and whine. Ignorance is bliss.

So wrong again oh Eib one. Many businesses, including my own were used with capital we earned and invested into our companies, with no loans or investors, and for the first three years, to build the business capital, I worked with no employees.

Hmmm... Seems a lot of my small business owner friends did the same thing. And yes, oh wise one. some jobs do not warrant high wages. Some jobs are entry level, to get you in the door and prove your worth. If you don't believe that, then that explains why you are not in business. We all have to start somewhere, and yes, if that means working at McDonald's and maybe two three other jobs, that is the way we and our parents did it.

These self-righteous "oh I have a college degree" folks want the world handed to them because wow, they got a piece of paper. You mine as well use it to wipe your butt if you are not ambitious and willing to prove your worth othr than that piece of paper.

And Corps are experiencing hefty profits because a., they are sitting on their money until better times, b., they moved over sees where a customer service rep isn't demanding $50k for speaking on a phone, c., if they could, they moved overseas where they are able to succeed and make a profit, or d., the automated so they don't need as many employees because unions also got greedy to the point they pushed themselves out of a job. Not to mention the over regulation and Obama picking winners and losers.

If i so easy than you do it and we will take your profits to be fair . Your a joke . The left pays people to stay at the bottom with welfare and food stamps and countlless wasteful and meaningless programs . The wealth they take is squandered and unproductive. So you idea is to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. It is a ignorant view of logic . The world economy has made employment a different type of world. But your solution only gurantees one thing .......Less investment in America . A smaller Economy . And FAR less to go around to even more wasteful useless programs designed to keep people fat lazy and ignorant for generations to come. Government dependence is not the answer . Government is far more the problem than the solution . If you want people to succeed you dont give them so many reasons to stay at the bottom and than blame it on the ones paying the freight .Get a Clue !

What does any of this have to do with the topic of gun control?

@William -

At the very least, could you please try to keep the anti-conservative liberal brain dumps courtesy of the Daily Kos on topic?!?!

@Williams Eib: So high, mighty, arrogant and yet clueless. You might be inclined to be an academic or other with a guaranteed paycheck and little to do to earn it.

Sure they should. The subtlety in the Right wing abuse, is countered by direct abuse. What's the problem.

@William -

You never did explain in your rant why if Mr. Dey was able to do it, others aren't able to do it. Everyone has the same opportunity as Mr. Dey did. He didn't receive anything special, did he? Mr. Dey isn't even that highly educated. There's nothing extra-special about Mr. Dey, is there? So why aren't others able to replicate for themselves what Mr. Dey did for himself?

I have empathy for those who truly deserve it - the truly disabled, the truly disadvantaged, the wounded veterans, etc.

But how many of the freeloading in this nation are truly deserving? So, what's the excuse for the rest?

@William -

In this rant, you never did explain what:

"The loans to start up the company, the investors, the early employees with the skills and imaginations."

"If you are just a laborer you don't deserve to be a millionaire."

"Explain why Corporations are experiencing historic profits, and still no jobs."

"Under paid over worked losers."

"Eisenhower"

etc.

have to do with the whole gun control debate.

Of course gun manufactures are engaged in a for profit business. Do you honestly think that people don't already know that?

I don't believe that any of those advocating against gun control on this board are in fact gun manufacturers and/or distributors, do you? If so, who?

So obviously, there are plenty of reasons beyond profit motive that people oppose gun control, correct?

So, I'm not really seeing your point here.

BTW - Try breaking up your posts into paragraphs by using the 'Enter' key on your keyboard - it would make them so much easier to read!

"I am not a suggesting of a socialist solution, ijust a return to the times when every citizen had the ability to participate in a thriving economy. Either through starting their own business or having a good paying job."

So, what exactly is it that is stopping people from doing this now?

Hoffa, I'm surprised you asked a question like that. We all know that the biggest obstacle preventing citizen's from participating in a thriving economy is...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
GOVERNMENT!

So instead you blame alleged right-wing policy positions?

Where's the logic in that?

Laziness is just an pleasing explanation to justify greed at the top and to justify not going anything thru government.

Facts only a tiny minority are what you could call lazy. For just about everybody in this country, they are defined by their job and derive satisfaction and self-esteem by the their job.

For those people who are supposedly ripping off the system (Romney could fall within that category) bet if you peeled back their personality what you would find is a depressed person or someone who has had bad luck and has given up. Saying they are "ripping off the system" makes them feel like they are in control of things.

Calling people lazy is a justification, not an explanation.

@Keith -- Replace "lazy" with "unable to delay gratification" and the argument is accurate.

So you favor nationalization, or the governmental ownership/operation of all business, right?

@JRH...The distrust and dislike of corporatism is not the same thing as advocating the nationalism of business. As a small businessman I came to distrust the corporatism that the government supports. It wasn't the problem of too much regulation but the fact that I was forced to play on an uneven playing field written and designed by the corporatists.

"Because Obama is disliked by them, he appeals to me."
You like all the Freeloaders following his music.
"Obama is an impediment to unfettered Profit Taking."
He just plays with kids on a different block, same game.

@Lyle -

Point taken. Remember, conservatives don't like the government picking and choosing winners and losers either. I think crony capitalism or corporatist politics are universally despite by all. But to get away from such, we have to get away from the party traditionalists. The Tea Party has made massive inroads in cleaning up this problem on the GOP side. But so far, there's been no similar corresponding effort to clean up the problem on the Democratic side.

That's why anyone who's serious about fixing these problems would either be supporting a Tea Party candidate or some third party / independent candidate.

@William -

Obama has proven to be just as much a Corporatist as GW Bush was - Obama just supports a different set of Corporatists. So how can Obama appeal to you if you truly mean what you say? Or is there a difference between Corporatists, and the ones that Obama are beholden to are good while the ones Bush were beholden to are bad? If that's the case, you'll have to elaborate on your reasoning here.

Shouldn't you be endorsing a third party or independent candidate if you truly mean what you say?

So, what horse are you backing in the Presidential race?

Daniel: The signs are all around you. I am not happy to be where we are. High unemployment, rising poverty. This doesn't concern you. And to prove my point about you being hooked. You probably are ready to tell me it's all the Liberal;s and Obama's fault. That's is what you have been led to believe. Why are the Billionaires trying to get rid of him. To make it better for you. Dream on. He threatens to raise their taxes and reinstate the Glass-Steagle act, and other regulations which they abused and caused the 2008 crash. Think for your self, man. These people you defend don;t give a crap about you.

1% control most of the wealth. The lower half of that top 1% has far less than those in the top half; wealth, income and influence are super-concentrated in the top 0.1%, The top 20% controls 93% of the wealth of America. The other 8o% has 7%. The under class controls 7% of the Wealth of America. That's not much influence over Government. Corporatism Rules!

Do you think that 91% is a fair tax rate?

We made it easier to accumulate wealth. Millions unemployed, the poverty rate is rising, demonized social safety net, national health-demonized, Obama - demonized. Citizens United. If we keep defending this rise of the Oligarchs, it's going to get worse. Gov.Walker w/ Billionaire Diane Hendricks, "we're going to make WI a right to work state, starting w/ eliminating Collective Bargaining, by using Divide and Conquer." Pure Corporatism. Obama is in their way. They demonized him, and spread that to much of the nation. I ask why people dislike him. I can't get an honest answer. All slogans, talking points, and muddle politics. Never a cogent reason. All imposed remarks. Divide and Conquer has neighbor vs neighbor. Incivility. Birtherism, Racism, Anti-Liberal. Anti-GOP. Socialism. All propaganda spread by the media; Radio, Cable and Network TV, Newspapers, Internet content. Corporate owned or supported. There is no Big Brother, we have a collective of obscenely wealthy Corps. and Individuals who are calling more and more of the shots. Those not at the top are the under class. We are 300 Million. 1% control most of the wealth. The lower half of that top 1% has far less than those in the top half; wealth, income and influence are super-concentrated in the top 0.1%, The top 20% control 93% of the wealth of America. The other 8o% has 7%. The under class controls 7% of the Wealth of America. That's not much influence over Government. Corporatism Rules!

@William -

So, all corporatists are against Obama? Then how come Warren Buffet, George Soros, Bill Gates, Jeffrey Immelt (GE) etc, or many of the largest corporatists in the world, are all supporting and backing Obama in this election?

Is there a difference between corporatists? Are those backing Obama somehow good while those backing Romney are bad? If so, why? What distinguishes corporatists as good or evil?

And what about Obama cutting checks from the public coffers to his corporatist buddies, such as Solyndra and the like? Obama's crony friends have made off with billions of the taxpayers dollars. Is that what Obama meant when he said "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody?" It may have been good for his corporatist buddies, but I fail to see how that money helped any of us peons.

You claim that Walker is a corporatist puppet and Obama isn't, but you can't point to single check written from the State of Wisconsin that went to Diane Hendricksen or the Koch Bros, can you?

Not to mention, Obama had nearly four years now to raise taxes, reinstate financial regulation, etc. If that's what's needed to jump start and reinvigorate our economy, then why didn't he do any of those things yet? Health care reform could have easily waited for his second term.

Your opinion about Obama doesn't really hold much water in reality, does it?

@ William
You don't Unite for OPPOSING views. The occupy crowd is tiny as it has not got legs. It has liberal news coverage but few members ,volunteers or even a platform that they endorse. They are just against success as far as the average person thinks. The class envy crowd. That's pretty hard for most to embrace if you are trying to build a life rather than beg for an existance.. We seen this time and time again. You are not going to get the tea party to join forces with the entitlement spread the wealth victim crowd. Give me break

skinny, a small correction. I have observed many hours of Occupy live feed; no more than a few moments of it came from traditional media (usually when police were breaking up camps). All the video I have seen, including numerous examples of police brutality in Oakland California and New York; and the saga of the Amarillo 13 were live streamed by the groups themselves.

@William -

So for a political movement to have credibility, it should only try to influence the process with agitation, as opposed to directly participating in it. How exactly is that any different than lobbying, which you supposedly hate?

This wasn't a very logical comment!

While there is some overlap with Occupy, there isn't very much. And Occupy never gained any credibility, yet alone influence or power.

Wasn't Hoover the one who raised taxes to those levels? So if the high taxes are what pulled us out of depression, as you assert, then why didn't it work for Hoover? In all reality, WWII is what pulled us out of depression - not high taxes, not FDR, not the new deal, not the TVA, etc.

"The Wealthy need to contribute more toward the survival of the Middle and Working Classes."

So the middle and working classes are unable to sustain themselves? You make those classes sound they contain a bunch of derelicts.

Actually, in all reality, it's the greed of middle and working class consumerism that sold themselves down the river. Instead of buying and supporting domestic goods, they turned to purchasing cheaper foreign made products because it meant that they could have more possessions. But what they didn't realize is that their demand for cheap products was also killing their own jobs. What a bunch of MORONS!!!

BTW - What kind of car do you own?

I have to agree with W Eib. The Corporatocracy plays above left and right which are terms that mire the rest of us in perpetual verbal conflict while they call the shots. They pull the strings of both Republicans and Democrats....or at least hold their leashes, choose which way to walk today and how long to stay out. We don't read much about them in standard rags as they own the media. They are long distance runners not reactionaries... Willing to back a rook or a bishop today, knowing they will sacrifice him in a few moves. If you simply ask who profits from most of what goes on...the larger moves in our world...not the small stuff, you find yourself heading into very rarified air in which flags and campaign buttons mean nothing.... That's for the little folk, tossed to keep us happy like beads from a mardi gras float.