jdavisnburton Loc: Burton, MI

Both.
Whatever works.

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

so far all of those doing the mass shootings belong to the sane party that is pushing all these laws mostly with stolen guns so since stealing is illegal and murder is illegal how are more laws going to stop any of it, I see them as a way for a repressive gov't. like we have now to learn who owns guns so they come get what other reason is there?

beenthere2 Loc: Florida Panhandle

jd; LAWS will not stop fanatics, or unstable people. law abiding people dont do these sort of things!

beenthere2 Loc: Florida Panhandle

alex; well put!

jdavisnburton Loc: Burton, MI

Frankly, Alex, I doubt if you know who's really responsible for the mass shootings, or if they are using stolen guns.
If, in your apathy, you surrender to the chaos, what alternative solution(s) would you propose?
As long as you refuse to participate in the process, "the government" will naturally seem repressive (or oppressive).

jdavisnburton Loc: Burton, MI

You can speculate how anything and everything will not work, but that mode of rationale is counter-productive to finding practical solutions.
Of course laws alone are ineffective. Laws are, by definition, rules of conduct by which people are governed within a civilized society. Thus, those who resist rules of conduct are "lawless", or, uncivilized.
What course of action(s) would you suggest that we take *collectively, in an effort to reduce the mass shootings?

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Is it the responsible gun owner's fault that Prosecutor's do not fully enforce current laws? NO

The most interesting part of the CO theater shooting was the fact that within a two block area were two other theaters; however, the one in which the incident occurred was the one with a prominent sign declaring it a "gun free zone".

New and interesting fact is the school system for Sandy Hook has decided to hire armed guards. It was a very costly lesson for them to learn.

As to one requirement you wish to impose is a background check for "any" transfer of ownership of a gun. First, there will be ice cubes in Hades before you tell me whether I may give or sell a gun to a well known family member or long term friend! Secondly, how exactly would you propose a private citizen obtain such background check?

Everyone seems to TOTALLY IGNORE the fact these incidents ALL took place in "GUN FREE ZONES". As to your belief the Founding Fathers would not have written the Second Amendment had they had foreknowledge; "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people's liberty teeth." George Washington.

Comment Loc: California

I think those gun haters should give up this automobile. Autos kill 30,000 more Americans annually than guns. The auto are registered. The drivers are licensed but, it does not stop the killing. Go back to the horse and buggy days. Oh! let us not forget hospitals where thousands die annually from mistakes.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Blunt objects need background checks. :mrgreen:

beenthere2 Loc: Florida Panhandle

jd; be alert to your surroundings and always be PREPARED!!

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

with the liberal press doing the reporting if they finally admit it after weeks of trying to blame the conservatives you can be pretty sure they are finally forced to print the truth as to what to do about it treat the mentally ill but then we would be a one party system be there would be no liberals

beenthere2 Loc: Florida Panhandle

alex;we are a one party country. One that thinks! dems only seem to follow like sheep to slaughter!!

jdavisnburton Loc: Burton, MI

As I previously stated, laws alone won't prevent anything. The fact that you (and a few others) insist that I'd expect that is incredible.
The fact that the Colorado shooting occurred within a gun free zone should avail that (additional) charge to the shooter, -should the prosecutor "fully enforce the current law". Otherwise, without the charge, the defendant's changes of being freed on a technicality are increased.

Furthermore, IF legislation were passed requiring background checks for "any" transfer of ownership of a gun, you could actually go to hell if you chose to break the law, as far as I'm concerned. Also, there are websites that avail information on how to obtain background checks (or, at least criminal records) on anyone. Otherwise, the process could be handled through a local law enforcement agency.
Possessing a firearm is not the same as possessing a home, or a vehicle.
That stated, I'll say again, there are no absolute rights, regardless of your interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Your claim to the right to own a firearm does not trump the interest of public safety. Additionally, you're overlooking, or omitting the part regarding , "a well regulated militia".

jdavisnburton Loc: Burton, MI

It takes a natural imbecile to confuse homicides by firearms (mostly intentional), -with death by automobiles ("accidents", -as you plainly stated).

jdavisnburton Loc: Burton, MI

I guess you're another one who believes that we should arm everyone, and see what happens.