Up to the point of engaging in terror, they are quite unfettered.

Don't be surprised when some houses are burned down.

that make it easy to plan and carry out domestic terrorism, the internet and unfettered travel being two of the biggies.

Is is safe to assume you support restrictions on both of them? Or is it just guns?

And 100 round magazines.

These ain't your daddy's peashooters, they are weapons of war that are designed to inflict mass casualties in a rapid and sustained matter.

Easy to buy and readily available to anyone ready to make a point in a crowded area.

Yes, I support restrictions on mass killing machines.

Hell, knives kill 5 times as many people as rifles.

Va Tech showed us you don't need "weapons of war" to kill 32 people.

Banning assault weapons is a feel good measure and nothing more. You are fixated on a weapon that is one of the least likely murder weapons out there.

Banning large round clips is another good measure.

When some mentally imbalanced killer is out to do his thing there are ways of preventing higher body counts.

If you refuse to consider preventative measures, then I can see why you feel as if nothing can be done to avoid mass killings.

1. The Va Tech shooter had been declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice and ordered to seek outpatient treatment. The school knew of his problems but did nothing. Here was the response to this - note that the NRA supported it:

That if they didn't have such a negative political influence, perhaps we could inact measures that could prevent the passive facilitation of mass casualty terror and gun violence in general?

Basically today, they're more of a problem than a solution, is this not a reasonable assertion given their recent stance?

lets get corporate money out of politics.

If you could ban the NRA, what is to stop a conservative government from banning Planned Parenthood for "killing babies"? It is a two edged sword you are recklessly waving around.

What is not banning assault weapons, if it isn't a "feel good measure and nothing more?" Who actually needs an assault weapon, other than "conservatives" with their imaginary losses of freedom from their inane and perverse ideological notions of "limited government?"

I am not decided on the issue of gun control but I have to tell you the empty slogans, ad hominem arguments, and just plain emotional junk coming from pro-gun types is really not helpful.

of the long list of things used to murder people, why are you starting at the bottom of the list and not the top?

If you were serious about saving lives, you would reflect on the facts and call for a ban on handguns.

I think the entire assault weapon ban is all about making political points while avoiding the hard battles.

My problem here is that I don't see a whole lot of either balance or common sense and at the moment I don't know what to make of it. All sides need to calm down, and as for politicians their reluctance to deal with this clusterfuck is about the only thing that makes any sense to me.

Yes I would like to see fewer deaths but that's not the only thing at play in all of this.

I would recommend spending some time reading the FBI crime reports. They strip away the emotional component and lets one look at actual data. If nothing else, it will allow you to see the trends and demographics of violent crime.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

Part of the problem with the ongoing debate is that people fixate on what is emotionally compelling while ignoring the bigger but more mundane issues.

The key is for the NRA and any other party trying to muck this up to STFU.

To a ridiculous notion that you have to be allowed to have your own definitions? Someone has to make these decisions. We should allow them to make the decisions and we should move ahead.

If the decisions that are made lead to functional legislation, that's great. If they don't then we have to revisit and adjust.

The "argument" about assault weapons is a canard. It's a complete waste of time. It's an obfuscation.

and once they went away gun control will rule the day.

The NRA understands and reflects the views of a huge chunk of American society. Those views have to be accommodated even if the NRA went away.

They're not the only ones but that's no excuse.

But here is what one can do with an AR-15 equipped with a 30 round magazine.

I'm really sick and tired of the whining. There are plenty of weapons to use for hunting and no one is trying to impinge on anyone's right to hunt. That's a canard. No one will suffer if certain characteristics of assault weapons are deemed to be illegal.

What characteristics of semi-automatic rifles do you think should be made illegal?

What I want is an end to the b.s. We have elected officials. It's their jobs to hold hearings and to craft laws based on our best interests.

What should be illegal is campaign contributions from special interests because I see no difference between those contributions and bribery. Cut the crap and let the legislators do their jobs.

SWINE!

and feel that they should be labeled in the pile as the KKK

Oh, wait...you're probably buying into the re-definition of what appears to be a completely apolitical mass murder as "terrorism.," aren't you? Because, you know...people were terrified.

Take your pick.

Those murders of abortion doctors certainly wouldn't make guns the "terrorist tool of choice" for domestic acts of terrorism, though. There have been six people killed by anti-abortion terrorists using firearms, and another nine wounded. The body count from bombs dwarfs that.

But hey, don't let me derail the Hyperbole Express...

...what one could get at these venues legally (and without the spin) is beyond logical.

You can get 50 cal rifles that can shoot a target at around a mile away and get bullets for overseas that explode on contact....

NRA protects gun shows like they're a fetus

All NRA members should be on the terrorist watch list also!



Guns and Ammo in the hands of civilians is the real problem.

but I have to disagree with this. I would argue that the NRA seems to want a society like the "Old West" where people are basically free to tote guns around anywhere and everywhere without many (if any) restrictions.

However their rhetoric amounts to fear mongering with the intention to strengthen their stranglehold on our political system.

That results in the absence of restrictions on mass killing weapons and the inability to screen people who are hellbent on engaging in violent acts.

The laws are ineffectual and everyone knows this.

The next domestic terrorist will easily equip himself as well as his predecessors.

I'm still not sure I agree with what you're saying but I do often worry about their attempts to whip up people's fear of the government by telling everybody that "the government" wants to start coming into people's homes and taking their guns despite the fact that nobody seriously supports such a thing.

While I don't agree with a lot of the people they support calling them "domestic terrorists" is obscene and in insult to those who have been ravaged by real terrorism. They're a legitimate organization lobbying to protect one of our fundamental rights enumerated in the constitution. This is as ridiculous as when the right calls the ACLU a terrorist organization. I think you've stared too long into the abyss and become what you held in contempt.

To think, if we'd just treat all muslims as terrorists and set them up in special camps 9/11 would never have happened.

if it wasn't obvious.

End of rant....

Given the fact that drunk drivers kill people with automobiles, and the manufacturers want people to have unfettered access to them.

The NRA didn't become as powerful as it is today until the 1970s when Gun Prohibition Advocates started advocating the Prohibition of Handguns, then Semi-Automatics, and for some Gun Prohibition Advocates, all guns.

Mark Borinsky founded the National Council to Control Handguns in 1974

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Campaign

Also involved was Nelson T. (Pete) Shields III whose son, Nelson 4th, was shot and killed in San Francisco in 1975, a victim in a series of racially motivated killings of whites by four blacks that came to be known as the Zebra killings.

"We'll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily - given the political realities - very modest. We'll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.


Then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_to_Stop_Gun_Violence

In 1974, the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society formed the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, a group of thirty religious, labor, and nonprofit organizations with the goal of addressing "the high rates of gun-related crime and death in American society" by licensing gun owners, registering firearms, and banning private ownership of handguns with "reasonable limited exceptions" for “police, military, licensed security guards, antique dealers who have guns in unfireable condition, and licensed pistol clubs where firearms are kept on the premises.” In the 1980s and 1990s, the coalition grew to 44 member groups. In 1989, the National Coalition to Ban Handguns changed its name to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, in part because the group felt that "assault rifles" as well as handguns, should be outlawed.

Another factor contributing to the change in the NRA was the realization that the "Fudds" (those who believe the only purpose of owning guns was to hunt) would be perfectly willing to sell out other guns owners as long as they were allowed to keep their hunting guns. And since fewer gun owners hunt than in decades past, the non-hunters were not about to let themselves be sold out.

As a non-hunting gun owner I personally don’t give a damn about hunting. I have never hunted, and don’t want to. I’m not opposed to it philosophically. But I think the prime purpose of the RKBA is self and home defense, not hunting, target shooting or gun collecting.

Gun Prohibition Advocates sowed the wind, and reaped the whirlwind. Gun Prohibition Advocates have no one to blame but themselves. You do not attempt to take people rights and freedoms away, and then claim it's their fault when they react in what you believe is a negative manner.

I think that we all have our answers.

As long as Americans will defend guns above all, even in a culture rampant with gun violence such as ours, even with the availability of weapons of war which only have the purpose of inflicting mass casualties, even as it seems that no reasonable mitigation to gun violence is tolerable... We're not going to find answers to this problem.

We simply lack the moral and political will, even on a lefty, liberal discussion forum.

I found it fascinating that people would wholeheartedly jump to the defense of the NRA, in spite of their recent lie-filled, fear-obsessed rhetoric, political grandstanding and profit motivated grip that it has on this country.

There were no suggestions that reducing human poverty, unemployment, mental illness, misery, ignorance and dispair could reduce our levels of violence, as well as doing something about reducing the availability of mechanisms of death and destruction.

No point in making our society safer, fairer and more just in the face of the free-flowing availability of guns and ammo.

No, apparently none of that is possible.

So, all I have to say is enjoy your guns, your gun obsessed society, the fear and anguish that comes with the irresponsible use of weapons by many people and willingness to name all of that stuff "Freedom".

Thanks again for your participation.