Anonymous wrote:Because with gun control only evil people will have guns...and they will kill you and your family and there is nothing you can do to defend yourself.

This is absurd. Gun control isn't going to hurt the homeowner who wants a gun for self defense. It's going to hurt the nutjobs who buy dozens of weapons, the ones who want to buy assault weapons. Law abiding citizens will always be able to get a gun.

Because with gun control only evil people will have guns...and they will kill you and your family and there is nothing you can do to defend yourself.

W/o guns How would Scott Walker and Paul Ryan get their buds to kill those turbans

Anonymous wrote:1540 here. Maybe I should not have used that phrase "connect the dots". But what I meant was, we need to be less squeamish about finding individuals unqualified for gun ownership based on mental health issues. As an example, Cho from Virginia Tech. This person basically did not talk to anyone. We are not talking about shyness here. He was effectively mute and scared many people with his writing. The professors, bless their hearts, tried to reach him. I can only guess what will come out about Holmes.

So called "gun nuts" (which I call taxpayers) will not have any problems with keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill and sociopaths. And if the ACLU has any problems with that, well f 'em.

Something seems off about your post. Can we send someone to evaluate you? To be sure you are not a threat to anyone else, and of course the results will be completely confidential, unless a medical professional determines that you have an issue. Anyway let us know because we are thinking about putting you on a list. You might want to consider car trips for vacations for a while.

I truly don't understand why anyone would be opposed to gun control. Other than brainwashing by the conservative media and NRA.

I think the argument that "criminals will get them anyway" is incredibly weak and complacent. With that logic, why do we bother to outlaw drugs? Criminals get them anyway. And sell them to kids.

I believe that there's no good reason to own an assault rifle, etc. How does one justify having these weapons on the market? If you want to own a handgun for protection or a hunting rifle, you should have to go through a background check, a test to prove that you understand the laws and know how to accurately fire a weapon, and a process to track your past gun/ammunition-buying activity. If this were the case, Holmes would never have qualified to buy 3 guns and $20K worth of ammunition. OK, he could have bought them illegally, but he may not have had the resources and mental capacity to pull that off. And there would at least be a chance that he would get busted in the process.

DH owns a hunting rifle. He would not see it as an infringement on his rights if he was forced to prove that he is responsible, stable, and qualified to own a gun. I compare it to driving a car. Also a deadly piece of machinery but we have to continuously prove that we are capable of driving and that we know the rules/laws of driving. Nobody sees that as an infringement. I know there's no "right to drive car" amendment, but still a valid comparison, I think.

let's keep in mind that the "Right to Bear Arms" was given to us at a time when guns were much different and a bullet could likely be stopped by a heavy coat.

1540 here. Maybe I should not have used that phrase "connect the dots". But what I meant was, we need to be less squeamish about finding individuals unqualified for gun ownership based on mental health issues. As an example, Cho from Virginia Tech. This person basically did not talk to anyone. We are not talking about shyness here. He was effectively mute and scared many people with his writing. The professors, bless their hearts, tried to reach him. I can only guess what will come out about Holmes.

So called "gun nuts" (which I call taxpayers) will not have any problems with keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill and sociopaths. And if the ACLU has any problems with that, well f 'em.