In response to:

Gun Appreciation Day Draws Huge Crowds to State Capitals Nationwide

Steve276 Wrote: Jan 19, 2013 6:41 PM
Certainly proves a point I've been making for weeks. The politicians, especially Democrats and the Ultra-Liberals, had better remember that millions of their constituents are gun owners and do not take it lightly, that their representatives in Congress might "infringe" on their right to "keep and bear arms," with new, unreasonable laws. There is room for improving things like background checks and holding people responsible for their actions. Biometric weapons, limiting the size of magazines, banning look alike "assault rifles" are only adding fuel to the now raging fire. There are already millions of them out there, legally owned. Don't make things any worse than you already have politicos. You may lose your comfortable career.
Ms Kelly Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 2:36 PM
Steve:

“The politicians… had better remember that millions of their constituents are gun owners and do not take it lightly, that their representatives in Congress might "infringe" on their right to "keep and bear arms…”

I’m sure they are trembling in their shoes. What exactly does this mean? We speak of using guns to protect us from tyranny, but we are already facing tyranny. Are you talking about using the vote? What good does that do. Every political analyst in the country said Obamacare would be declared unconstitutional. Look what happened. Every Republican and conservative journalist said Obama would lose the election. Look what happened.

Cont. below
Ms Kelly Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 2:36 PM
Do you really think rallies accomplish anything? When the Tea Party rallied Washington with a million people, Obama did not even notice. When conservatives stage rallies, the media ignores us.

It’s past time for us to use our Second Amendment for something other than pontificating.
SMyles Wrote: Jan 19, 2013 6:51 PM
"There is room for improving things like background checks and holding people responsible for their actions" To me that's conflating (maybe wrong word) issues.

I'm totally against the first part - "Improving background checks" because it's Nanny State invasion of privacy.
I'm ok with the - "holding people responsible" part. But not in the sense that party A steals party B's gun. Kills with it, now party B is responsible. No way.
SMyles Wrote: Jan 19, 2013 6:54 PM
That being said, my guns, except the one(s) I'm keeping warm, are always locked up. That's my "personal" responsibility.
Luscious Lars Wrote: Jan 19, 2013 7:09 PM
They make it sound as if background checks are such a rousing success at stopping prohibited persons from buying guns. Obama made the claim that over the past 14 years, 1.5 million prohibited people were stopped from getting a gun because they failed their background check. Sounds like that's really something, doesn't it? over 99.9% of those were people who were later cleared. Their name appeared close to someone who was prohibited, and under further investigation, the gun transfers were completed. They prosecuted less than 100 of that 1.5 million. It's a felony for a prohibited person to even ATTEMPT to purchase a firearm and it's also a felony to lie on the 4473 forms for your background check. You'd think that they would have prosecuted
Bigdogoffthechain11 Wrote: Jan 19, 2013 7:11 PM
Our current background checks are sufficient and will work even better when those involved comply with law. I have no objection to the program.
Luscious Lars Wrote: Jan 19, 2013 7:13 PM
...more than 100 people out of 1.5 million if all 1.5 million were really prohibited persons. Let's say all of them were. Then our government let 1,499,900 people who just committed at least one, if not two felonies, walk away. How many of them would have then been able to get a gun from one of their homeys or fellow criminals on the street? If you think Obama is being 100% honest in all of this, he's just blown some smoke up your kiester and your smoke alarm battery is dead.
SMyles Wrote: Jan 19, 2013 7:13 PM
Thank you Luscious for the info. Good stuff. Are there links to read further?
SMyles Wrote: Jan 19, 2013 7:17 PM
Those involved? What does that mean?
Bigdogoffthechain11 Wrote: Jan 19, 2013 7:26 PM
The mental health community have a duty to identify the mentally ill, have them adjudicated by a court, and report all of this to the NICS to prevent them from acquiring firearms. They are not doing this, and that is the crux of the problem.
SMyles Wrote: Jan 19, 2013 7:34 PM
"The mental health community" WTF What "community"? Once again, jerkonachain is clueless.
Gun Appreciation Day, a grassroots movement started in response to President Obama and Washington Democrats' recent rhetoric on gun control, drew big crowds to state capitols nationwide that consisted of strong supporters of the Second Amendment. The show of strength by gun supporters couldn't go unnoticed.

Thousands showed up in New York, where Governor Andrew Cuomo recently signed a new strict gun control measure designed to make "assault weapons" illegal and limit magazine sizes. In areas of the country where open-carry is allowed, supporters proudly - and responsibly - exercised their Second Amendment rights.

In Boston,...

Related Tags: Guns