In response to:

Angry Gun Control Debate Does Collateral Damage

Duke Nuk'em Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 6:43 AM
Gun owners need to compromise? 1934 - National Firearms Act 1968 - The Gun Control Act 1986- Firearms Owners Protection Act 1993 - Brady Handgun Violnce Act 1994 - Feinstein's Failed "Assault Weapons" Act 1995 - Guns Free School Zones Act We've have compromised ENOUGH! No more infringements!
rficara Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 12:15 PM
Real compromise means BOTH sides concede some point to reach a commonly acceptable outcome. "Compromise" with gun grabbers means "You give up all of this and just be glad we're not taking them all at once,"

Ray from Bloombergia

The Great Gun Debate shows American political discourse at its irrational worst; with both left and right promoting panic and hysteria that distracts attention from the nation’s truly menacing problems. Instead of addressing crushing deficits, economic stagnation, political gridlock, and the erosion of middle-class security, politicians and pundits obsess over gun violence—one of the few challenges where the United States has made dramatic progress in recent years.

How can the president and his supporters work themselves into a self-righteous lather over minor regulatory adjustments that have been tried before with no measurable impact on the rate of firearms...