PeterS

Enough were unboxed in order to kill the ATF agents! And it wasn't the FBI that started the fire but Koresh so at least put the blame where it rightfully belongs. As for Oregon we have a group of men who were poaching on public land and started a fire on in order to cover up their activity. One of their own group, a relative, testified to this and why they are serving a minimum 5 year sentence. What Bundy's trying to do, especially at a sanctuary for Tweety Bird of all places, I don't really know, nor, I'll bet does Bundy, which is why his 'attack' was so ill planned that they didn't even bring supplies. Did they think Tweety was a going to fight back thus they would go down in a hail of beaks, so as martyrs to the cause forever they not need to plan on eating? What exactly were these people thinking--or were they? Maybe that's the best explanation of all...

RWNJ

None of that changes the fact of how the Feds behave. Remember Randy Weaver? Militia groups exist because of incidents like that. Our government is out of control. Any idiot can see that. Which makes you worse than an idiot.

buffalo Loc: Texas

The guns were all bought legally as in investment anticipating a government ban that would cause the value of them to increase.

Koresh and McLennan County sheriff, Jack Harwell, were friends. Even he has stated that the massacre was unnecessary. He has stated that he could of gotten Koresh to come to the sheriff's office and talk with the ATF agents. But that is not what the agents wanted. The liar and provocateur in the Waco massacre was the federal government.

But I can tell by your response that you are a moonbat that believes everything the government tells you sheople excusing the mass murder of innocent civilians.

Here educate yourself:

http://www.infowars.com/from-waco-to-libya-18-years-of-humanitarian-mass-murder/

Big Bass

That fits Hillary to a "T".

mark13 Loc: usa

Since 1917, the World Wide average yearly slaughter rate of disarmed citizens by their government is +/- 1,300,000 per year [not including the millions who died in WWII as collateral damage of waging war.]... in America the government citizen slaughter rate is some +/- 147 .

So, in heavily Citizen Armed America I am about +/- 8,843 times less likely to be murdered by the American government than I am by governments in the rest of the disarmed world... which is way more favorable odds for me not to be murdered by the American government than the odds on you winning with the ticket you are buying in the + 1.3 billion dollar lottery.

Of course, buying or not buying a lottery Ticket probably won't get you murdered by the government whereever you live... the roving criminal predators in every society will negatively bias the citizen to citizen death rate odds.

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

AuntiE: You can't make anything fool proof!....Because fools are so ingenious! We all have our idiot moments...I'm sure that Police Officer was disciplined and penalized after He notified his superiors weeks, months are even years ago on the lost!

Comment Loc: California

Peters is not smart . He just thinks he is.

straightUp Loc: California

Me too.



OK, I see where you're going with this... so kind of a Big Brother thing... a switch from 'gun' control to 'people' control. After all, guns don't kill people - people do, right? Sarcasm aside, I am not opposed to checking profiles to a certain extent because I *do* agree that *people* kill people. I'm just always wary of how far far a government will go with "people control".

That being said...

items #2 and #6 I feel should be done anyway, those items being matters of upholding the law. #1 is a good idea so long as the FBI has the budget for it. Finally, I'm sure that items #3, #4 and #5 would have a positive impact on the rate of gun violence but I doubt this approach would save as many lives as the approaches the NRA is so opposed to... (namely, anything that regulates the small arms industry).

The problem is that you're relying on the effectiveness of your law enforcement. So it's good that you start off with item #1, but what if law enforcement budgets start to limit their resources? Then what? How many homicides before fiscally responsible law enforcement catches up and gives NICS a name to add to the database?

Many innocent Americans are dying because of people with guns that don't even have criminal records such as the "normal" people that suddenly go postal, or the accidents of well-meaning but careless gun owners, or the criminals that are clever enough to elude authorities for a while... NICS has zero effect on any of these.

Even the stronger punishments won't have any impact on any of the people with guns that never consider the consequences of their actions, which usually includes the crazies, the careless and the more audacious criminals.

Again, I'm not saying your suggestions won't help... they will certainly help reduce repeat offenses. But I just don't see how it would have ANY effect on first-time offenses which covers a LOT of homicides and that's why I support partial bans on guns - not so much to prevent crime, (we both know how ridiculous that would be) but to reduce the impact of the crime we can't prevent. Fully automatic weapons are optimized for killing as many people as possible. We can reduce the people killed just by swapping that AK-47 out for a pump-action rifle or a two-barrel shotgun, both guns being perfectly suitable for home protection.

Aside from the obvious impact such bans have on the small arms industry, I really don't see why we can't limit the civilian population to firearms designed for hunting, recreation and home protection. Why do we also have to give them military-grade assault weapons designed for battle?

Now before you or someone else jumps in with the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, let me explain one more thing...

I have always been a supporter of the 2nd Amendment fully understanding that the right to bear arms is intended to give the people a way to fight the government should it get out of hand. I'm right there with any Libertarian on this, but I also know that the 2nd Amendment was written at a time when they were using muskets. Do you know how long it takes to load a musket? A firearm in the late 18th century was not seen as a particularly dangerous item in the hands of one person, but if everyone has one, then it would be possible to assemble something effective like an insurgency.

I realize that by the same token, the government and it's potential for tyranny have also upgraded their armament. So one might think the 2nd Amendment should allow for some partity with regard to firepower. But the truly sad thing is - it wouldn't make any difference because the government upgrades are far beyond what civilians can ever hope to achieve. Those NRA members don't have aircraft carriers, fighter jets, helicopters, interconnected databanks or satellites in orbit or advanced drone programs. I don't want to make this sound hopeless because if things get bad enough people will always find a way, but I'm telling you... Nothing in small arms today can give the citizens parity with the government, so it's pointless to use that as an excuse to keep assault weapons on the casual market.

straightUp Loc: California

LOL - Well, I haven't heard that one yet. Do me a favor and let me know when the black helicopters arrive OK?

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

What, exactly, is a "casual market"? The only "market" that sells assault weapons is called the "black market" and those sales are illegal. I have never seen an assault weapon for sale in a licensed gun shop, pawn shop, or at a gun show. However, at gun shows, you will often see demilitarized assault weapons for sale.

Saw a really nice STG 44 at a gun show once, but it was inoperable, just a showpiece. (The Sturmgewehr 44, BTW, was the first assault rifle ever made.)

You must have a valid Type 3 FFL or higher to legally purchase, own, or sell an assault weapon.

straightUp Loc: California

Any market where you or I can walk in and legally buy a gun without requiring an Act of Congress.


That's because of the partial bans that I support, that the NRA does NOT support.


Again, thanks to gun control laws.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Umm, many police cruisers are outfitted to carry weapons other than handguns--such as shotguns and M16s. It isn't unusual to see a parked police vehicle with such weapons in secure racks inside. No doubt they store them in the trunks also.

In any case, stealing guns is at the bottom of the bad guys methods of obtaining firearms. Criminals prefer must faster ways to get them. Funny thing is, not a single gun control law, either on the books or proposed, will ever prevent criminals from acquiring whatever guns they need.

straightUp Loc: California

What does that have to do with what AuntiE just said? She says an officer lost his gun and you're response is to blabber about all the different kinds of weapons the police might have. It doesn't seem relevant.


I wonder how many millions of times you've been told that no one actually expects any gun control laws to prevent determined criminals from acquiring guns and how many millions of times you chose to ignore that because it takes away the only argument you have.

peter11937 Loc: NYS

That is up to the fool in the presidency. The Bundy group, whether they shoot or not, they are headed for jail. The only question that remains is how the situation ends, without shooting or with shooting and that's out of our hands.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

The point you are missing is your reference to an AK-47. Unless you obtain a Type 3 license, pay a quite large fee, go through an extended special background check by the BATFE, you cannot own such a weapon.

The 1934 National Firearms Act made ownership of such weapons, as well as sawed off shotguns, illegal, except under special exceptions.