But this is just another opportunity for them to yelp about something, while they meanwhile contribute just about nothing to the real economy or public welfare.

Typical rightwing nonsense....

There I will have to disagree with you. President-elect Obama has a history of voting for any gun control measure that has crossed his path since he has served in the State & United State Senate. I believe this history will continue. High ranking members of a Democrat controlled Congress are avidly pro-gun control & now that they have a Democrat in the White House....????

I've been taught from a young age that guns are not toys are lethal and dangerous. I shot my first pistol around age 7 or 8 i think.. and a rifle around 10 or 11. Use to target shoot with my dad, but not all kids have reasonable and responsible parents when it comes to guns.

The key is education and safety and moderation as with most things.

we need some sort of gun-control.. but it needs to be just enough to keep us all safe... but not to much as to take away the 2nd amendment right to bare arms.. the problem is.. we cant agree on where that line is.

Let's put it this way: You make every effort to set up the law so that if someone violently breaks into your home, takes a gun and uses it in a crime, you shouldn't have liability. But if you casually leave your guns totally unsecured with ammo nearby, etc. so that little Billy takes the gun and shoots little Alphonse you have some liability.

Of course, I don't think that if you are sitting in your car with the door unlocked, and someone 'carjacks' it you shouldn't have liability either. That is quite analogous to the case of someone breaking into your home to steal your gun.

#1 the laws in place need better enforcement.

#2 guns should be taken seriously and repsepcted

#3 certain prosecuted criminals should not possest them

#4 they should be stored propery.

The rest of the details. to ban/ not to ban. whats conisdered reasonable and responsible storage and safety. and whether or not a person whose gun is stolen should be charged with something or not. will always be up for debate.

we as a country have got to find a comman ground to deal with this issue. till now.. at least we know one industry is thriving for the time being :)

That’s what make the shooting of officer Parks so sad. He is one of the good and decent ones and he ends up getting shot. Live just isn’t fair sometimes.

And Roscoe I personally know a guy who was convicted of domestic violence and not only got all of his gun returned to him but has purchased more.

And if you think Obama is all warm and fuzzy with the 2nd amendment, I would remind you that he supported the DC gun law that has recently been judged unconstitutional.

I love all the liberal desires for restrictions on guns. What about cars?? They are much more deadly than guns, based on fatality statistics, and are used in crimes to a much greater degree than guns are. Where is all the clamoring for "reasonable" restrictions on cars??

Lost in all this discussion are two of the reasons there is a 2nd amendment. To insure our ability to defend the country and to insure citizens protection against an unjust government.

And I also agree that a real problem is posed by the fact that many of them do.

As it happens the only gun I own is about 50+ years old and was a gift, so I wouldn't know much about current laws.

It seems to me that Obama doesn't disagree much either, from what I know about it. I don't think he would wish to or could take away any law-abiding citizen's right to protect their persons or property with a gun.

That said, I am sure there will be arguments "on the edges" about various cases of what should and should not be allowed or required of gun owners, and so on (such as questions about concealment laws, etc.).

As I'm sure most are aware, you cannot legally purchase a firearm if you have been convicted of a felony, domestic violence charges, are judged to be mentally incompetent or, (and I don't recall the exact wording), have a hx of drug/alcohol abuse. Those laws are already in effect & if you knowingly purchase a firearm under any of those conditions, you have committed a crime.

Your name, address, DOB & SS# is provided when you purchase a firearm & an immediate check is conducted. I don't know for certain, but I believe that information is linked to the gun you purchased. So, to some degree, I believe there is "registration" in place.

That's the point here.

If you have a record of violent crime you have no right to a gun. If you can't demonstrate understanding of gun safety (I would argue) you ALSO shouldn't have a gun. If you are clearly violently 'imbalanced' you shouldn't have a gun.

Past these things, let people have guns. No problem. And if they are registered when sold it is easier to track any gun that might be used in a crime.

But there will also always be a discussion about what is reasonable then too (such as automatic weapons).

To make it simple, in those arguments, I usually take the side of the cops. If cops want to ban a certain class of weapons and they have an argument why that is safer/better, I will generally (but not exclusively) agree with them.

If you are law-abiding why not?

That way, at least you are likely to keep some weapons away from nut cases and dumb criminals. And that way you have one more violation of law with which to charge 'bad guys' who commits a crime with guns too.

(a) little Billy takes Daddy's gun and shoots little Joey,

(b) Big Fred gets POed at his wife, girlfried, son, neighbor, etc. and blows him/her away,

(c) 15-year old Darnell carries a cop-killer pistol in his belt and takes out a hard-of-hearing old lady at the convenience store he is robbing one afternoon...

So exactly how do the responsible gun owners deal with these cases? That's all I want to know.

Or do they just say:

Not my problem! No one should be denied a weapon or EVER be held responsible for someone else's misuse?

Of course, at that point the party pulling the trigger is not law-abiding. But I want to know how you responsibly prevent these crimes if you have basically support the idea that ANYONE should have a right to virtually ANY type of gun.

As far as the Uzi comment? I don't even know anyone who possesses one. In thinking about it, the only place I see them is on TV! (And those depicted on TV are usually automatic weapons, and thus not owned by the general public.)

UZI UZI UZI - I guess that name does sound rather ominous.... No wonder it's thrown around in discussions like this.

Everyone should have the right to protect themselves however the see fit, with whatever means they can. I do however, think there should be some way to test persons wanting to own a gun, just like you should to be a parent. NO BRAINS NO GUN!

Ultimately, you should be held accountable if you screw it up, just like everything else in life.

The real question to ask is: How do you tell before the fact of use, who is a "law abiding citizen" under all circumstances where possible misuse of a firearm might occur? If Jason Berecz had a clean record (or clean enough by NRA standards), then he would have been a "law abiding citizen" up until that moment he aimed his weapon at a cop and pulled the trigger. But of course, with the right weapon, that cop is dead. With a lesser weapon, maybe not. So how do you know these cases before the fact?

Moreover, any reasonably written law regarding owner resposibility would exempt such cases. Moreover, the chance that any prosecuter or office of law would hold an owner responsible for someone breaking into thier home stealing a car and gun, etc. etc. are most certainly, realistically evaluated as being ZERO.