Wrong, we have a difference of reality - I live in the real world. I own, understand, maintain and use a variety of guns, and have never injured or killed anyone with them. I have a large group of friends who are in the same boat. You live in a fantasy which can only exist in your head and seek to prevent gun owners like myself from owning guns even though that is our guaranteed right according to the Constitution. Your belief that the soldiers' parents were used as "props" for pushing a war is entirely foolish as the war (which was based on evidence from both our own and British intelligence) was already ongoing and had no need to be pushed, nor is there any proof that public opinion regarding the war was swayed one way or the other by their presence. Also, the fact that you "would NEVER voice" your opinion to those parents simply paints you as an intellectual and moral coward. I don't call names or insult lightly, and only use them where they are appropriate, as is the case with those who seek to create laws, in violation of the Constitution, for the pretence of "protecting us" from people WHO IGNORE THE LAW, ANYWAY! As has been proven, the laws you idiots continue to propose do nothing but limit the ability of law-abiding individuals to defend themselves from criminals who will obtain and use weapons regardless of any existing or proposed laws.

"Kuro.....you mean that law abiding people such as his mother would obey? If that had been the case, things would probably have been quite a bit different" Lanza's mother was following the law. Adam Lanza had no history of violence, and his mental disability (Aspergers Syndrome) is not commonly linked to violence, so there is no reason to assume that a background check would have prevented him from obtaining his own firearms. In other words, the only way to "prevent" something like Sandy Hook from happening would be to ban all guns from the country - which, of course, is your intent. Of course, that would simply put us in the same boat as Australia and England, both of which have banned guns, and have seen an increase in violent crimes using clubs and knives. You liberal scum will stoop to any low to push your agenda of stripping away the right to keep and bear arms.

If you were honestly concerned about having "MORE survivors," then you would be seeking to ban the possession of blunt instruments (~1800 murders) and knives (~700 murders) before you went after those "scary, black" rifles (~350 murders). The fact that rifles are one of your primary targets puts the lie to your purported concern.

Wow... So you don't see any difference in the war deaths of soldiers who were killed in service to their country versus the senseless deaths of children murdered by a lunatic in "gun free zones"? Are you truly so clueless? Apparently so. Let me explain it to you: The parents of soldiers were being honored for the sacrifices and heroism of their children - they were not being used as props to push an unconstitutional political agenda. The parents of the murdered children were being used to create an emotional talking point (and creating "unassailable victims" to silence any opposition to that talking point) for the sake of attacking the 2nd Amendment rights of responsible gun owners - it had nothing to do with honoring the dead or consoling the parents. Thank you for once again confirming your own idiocy with yet another ridiculous post.

Again, considering that the .223 round (AR15) is too weak to be used for most hunting, no, I'd say it is not a high-powered weapon, particularly in comparison to the many other firearms out there. As a gun, of course it can do harm, but it is far less powerful than the much cheaper and easily available 7.62x54r - the old Russian military round. But then, considering your true goal is to ban all civilian owned firearms, the point is not about the actual power of the guns - that just forms a useful talking point when dealing with the ignorant. Considering that in the case of murder, knives kill 3 times as many as ALL rifles combined, and that blunt instruments kill twice as many as rifles, yet it is most often the "scary, evil, black assault rifles" that liberals choose to go after demonstrates the lies of the leftist agenda. It isn't about a "safe society," and it never has been - it is all about the elimination of the 2nd Amendment to ensure society's complete reliance and subserviance to government.

Once again, you are an idiot who continues to be willfully blind to reality as you pursue the leftist gun control agenda. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, every form of violent crime increased after 1996 (the year guns were essentially banned - "regulated" in the minds of leftist swine who prefer to hold guns responsible for crime in their blatant pursuit of civilian disarmament, under the pretence of a "more peaceful society"). While the numbers of robbery and homicide have fallen slightly in more recent years, there is nothing to link those declines with gun control legislation. More importantly, violent crimes like assault and sexual assault have continued to increase each year and can be directly attributed to people being less able to defend themselves. There is a reason guns are called "equalizers" - they don't rely on the physical strength of the wielder to be effective. http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html

The rule used to be "life, from cradle to grave." Now it's "death, from womb until assisted suicide."

Your reading comprehension needs work. CC said you should have stopped at saying "Correct" - similar to "stopping while you are ahead." Instead, you proved your own ignorance by continuing past that point.

Gabby Giffords is nothing but a puppet / parrot for her husband who uses her as a prop for his upcoming electoral bid. There is a reason she was not permitted to retain her office. Claiming that getting shot gives you special knowledge of guns is like saying that have your tonsils removed gives you special knowledge of surgery. Keep on spouting your ignorance - all you are doing is proving us right.

We already have background checks - we don't need more background checks as they would not have prevented Lanza or Holmes from obtaining their weapons. The root of the problem are the "gun free zones" which strip law-abiding citizens of their ability to defend themselves, leaving them sitting ducks until the shooter runs out of ammo or the police get there, especially when combined with the constant attempts by leftists to make those "zones" nationwide through anti-2nd Amendment legislation.

"IMO one of the questions on a background check would concern whether you have any FAMILY MEMBERS residing with you that might also pose a threat to the public." Adam Lanza had no history of violence and did not have a condition which commonly results in violence. His mother didn't own any illegal weapons, nor were her weapons "high powered" - they were actually too weak to be used for hunting anything larger than most varmints. Your "reasoning" falls flat on its face. You and Enrique should really get a clue (preferably more than one) before you keep demonstrating your ignorance as to reality.