Shimkus joins GOP protest of Obama gun plan; Davis does not sign

Shimkus joins GOP protest of Obama gun plan; Davis does not sign

WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. John Shimkus, R-Collinsville, is one of 77 House Republicans to sign a letter to President Obama, protesting his gun control initiatives.

Shimkus and Rep. Randy Hultgren, R-Winfield, were the only Illinois Republicans to sign the letter that hit Obama for not considering "the voices of millions of law-abiding Americans who support the Second Amendment."

U.S. Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Taylorville, whose district includes Champaign-Urbana, did not sign the letter.

The letter, dated Jan. 23, said that the congressmen "believe that at its core the problem is not the absence of law but rather a lack of respect for human life and human dignity."

"While your proposals assume the answer is more laws and fewer guns," the letter says, "millions of other Americans want an increased ability to protect themselves and their families. As we remember the victims of Sandy Hook, let us not overlook the many citizen heroes who have prevented or thwarted similar tragedies with their right to bear arms."

In a separate news release, Shimkus, a nine-term congressman whose 15th Congressional District includes Danville and parts of Champaign County, said that there "are many laws currently on the books that need to be fully enforced. We do not need more laws."

"In addition, states need to be doing their part in providing criminal and mental heath records into the background check system," the news release said. "Finally, we must understand that we cannot regulate the evil that creates a lack of respect for human life."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
billbtri5 wrote on February 01, 2013 at 12:02 pm

on most court cases I have read about, gun crimes, the "technical" ones they are talking about, are NOT even charged by police and prosecutors...I would encourage anyone to follow the cases involving guns and see for yourself..

it would seem more efficent to simply enforce existing laws to their maximum to deter criminals from even having guns....but if government is going to give criminals a "free pass" on gun charges there is really no downside in it for them...

the push for new gun laws is a broader move to disarm the American people for reasons unknown...


SaintClarence27 wrote on February 04, 2013 at 8:02 pm

" enforce existing laws to their maximum to deter criminals from even having guns" - Isn't that exactly what the executive orders did? 

screwtech02 wrote on February 01, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Oh no, the current regime knows EXACTLY what it is doing, make no mistake about it.....


Dissarm the population, first step to Dictatorship.....  History will repeat itself, question stands, are you ready??

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 04, 2013 at 8:02 pm

Until, in 4 years, they turn over power to the next regime... voluntarily?  You cannot possibly believe that we're moving towards a dictatorship, right?

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 01, 2013 at 3:02 pm

More conspiracy theory comments.  What needs to be done along with reasonable gun regulations is to identify the conspiracists on a data base.  Add them to the mentally ill who should not have guns.  If they want to fantasize about the "evil government" to the extent that they are not loyal to the government of their fellow citizens, the "evil government" should make their fantasies come true.  A little boy is being held in a bunker by a conspiracy theorist who kidnapped him; and is threatening to kill him because of the "evil government".  It is high time to round up the conspiracists who want to damage America.  At the very least; confiscate their guns, and put them on a watch list. 

bluegrass wrote on February 04, 2013 at 12:02 pm

Said the person who constantly claims the government is "stealing" his retirement money.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 04, 2013 at 3:02 pm

The legislators, and governor may attempt to steal it; but it will be a court that decides if the theft is legal, or not.  Either way; I am not buying an assault rifle with 30 round magazines to get my pension back.  If my pension is stolen; it will be with the encouragement of you, and others like you.  Go ahead, bluegrass, and try to spin reasonable gun control into pension reform.  Guns in the hands of conspiracy nuts, and the mentally unbalanced is the subject.

bluegrass wrote on February 04, 2013 at 5:02 pm

The legislators and governor have already stolen it, and my previous comment has nothing to do with pension reform.  My point is that you belittle people for their contempt and fear and distrust of government, and yet you openly admit your own contempt and fear and distrust of govenment.  But somehow, because your distrust is different and unique to your situation, in your mind it is somehow more righteous and worthy.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 04, 2013 at 5:02 pm

I know, right????2?

People who say they feel the need to be ready, at the drop of a hat, to violently oppose the duly elected government of the United States and, in the process, shoot to kill American cops and military personnel, are on EXACTLY THE SAME LEVEL as people who fear pension raids.

Anyone who thinks different is just calling me a NAZI!!!!!1!

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 05, 2013 at 12:02 pm

bluegrass;  I am not advocating violence toward the state government.  I am not buying an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine to "take back" state government.  I use law, reason, and words to defend my pension; not violence.

jdmac44 wrote on February 01, 2013 at 4:02 pm

170,000,000 people were disarmed and subsequently slaughtered by their governments in the 20th Century.  Not a theory, a fact.  Oh I know, it couldn't possibly happen here, like it did to the Native Americans.  But we're so enlightened now, 150 years later.  It's not enlightenment, it's prosperity and having everything your way, but there's no guarantee it will stay that way, in fact it's very unlikely.  Believe what you like, just don't push those beliefs on me.  If you believe guns are so abhorrent, there are hundreds of other countries that have them heavily restricted, the US is the last place that is truly free in that respect, so I'm not going anywhere and I'm not budging.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 01, 2013 at 10:02 pm

Uooo...... the boogey man is coming..    Better get you gun, and hide under your bed.  The military that fights your wars for you, and the voters who elected the current government are getting ready to come for you....

Get real.  No one in their right mind believes that "the government of the people, and by the people" is going to slaughter them.  Drop the paranoia, and put down the gun.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 02, 2013 at 2:02 pm

I know, right????22?

I need my sooper dooper military style assault rifles to shoot those Americans in the military and those American cops who ARE PLOTTING AGAINST ME and other REAL AMERICANS and TRUE PATRIOTS!!!!!!!11!

Just like that REAL AMERICAN and TRUE PATRIOT Gordo Liddy said, I'm ready to shoot those jack booted thugs!!!!!1!

TRUE PATRIOTS and REAL AMERICANS like me know that sometimes, to be TRULY PATRIOTIC and REALLY AMERICAN, you have to fight against the TYRANNICAL government duly elected by a majority of voters. THAT INCLUDES SHOOTING AMERICAN COPS AND MILITARY PERSONNEL.

All you FAKE AMERICANS who are not TRUE PATRIOTS just wouldn't understand the logic that leads to this deeply held belief.

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 04, 2013 at 8:02 pm

I'd like to see the specifics in the 170,000,000. Are you including Stalinist Russia? Pol Pot? Armenia? Hitler? Iraq?

Less about disarmament and MUCH more about dictatorship. As a matter of fact, not about disarmament AT ALL.

tander_UC wrote on February 01, 2013 at 10:02 pm

guns need to be in the hands of people who are qualified and required to use them.

there is no argument from any normal citizen that an 'assult rifle' or '60 round' magazine is needed.  ever.  for anything.  you can't hunt with that.  anyone saying anything different is a 'foxtard'.  kids have access to loaded weapons, and then innocent people die.  this has to change.



bluegrass wrote on February 04, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Another impressive and compelling argument, even managing get the term "'tard" in there.  I guess it makes you feel better to pretend to care about innocent people, while at the same time disparaging other innocent people with mental and physical challenges.  But I guess it's okay to use the term "tard," as long as you're making fun of Fox News, and defending reasonable, common sense violence control like telling all "normal" people what they can and can't have or what they do or don't need.  Is that it?

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 04, 2013 at 4:02 pm

Please define "normal" people.  Do you include the conspiracy nuts in the group?  People are told what they can, and can't have all of the time.  My neighbor cannot have a tiger on a leash.  He cannot have a .50 caliber, full automatic, Browning machine gun either.  He cannot drive his car at 100 mph down the road either.  Keep reaching for a defense to keep guns for who ever can buy them.  

bluegrass wrote on February 04, 2013 at 5:02 pm

I cannot define define "normal" people.  The word was intentionally plagiarized from the previous comment to make a point.  I would ask you to please define "conspiracy nut."  I wonder if your definition will include the term "foxtard."  What do you think about that term, Sid?  Do you think it has a place in a reasonable conversation about common sense legislation?  

Also, what does, "..guns for who ever can buy them," mean?

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 04, 2013 at 5:02 pm

I know, right????2?

He probably thinks anyone who just says they're ready to violently fight the govermint elected by a majority of Americans and shoot to kill American cops and military personnel is a "conspiracy nut"!!!!11!

That just CRAZY!!!1!

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 05, 2013 at 12:02 pm

bluegrass;  No, I do not think that the terms "tard", or "foxtard" have a place in a reasonable conversation about common sense legislation.  I did use the term "conspiracy nut".  I used it due to the increase of conspiracy theorists.  The recent gun crimes in the public eye involved people who hold conspiracy theories.  The debate over gun regulation has created media, and public comments regarding conspiracy.  There is a population in this country who believe that the American government is evil.  They believe that they will defend, or take back the country from phantom evil govenment.  Whether they are deranged, or misguided makes no difference.  Profits from gun sales have soared; and the manufacturers really do not care who buys guns.  Therefore, "guns for who ever can buy them".  The NRA reversed itself recently on their previous stand on background checks.  The NRA wraps itself in the public relations flag of America to get members to support it's politics; but it gets it's behind the curtain money from the manufacturers. 

Now, what can we agree on bluegrass?  Can we agree on stricter sentencing on those who are caught without a Firearms Owner ID?  Can we agree on an updated national data base for background checks?  Can we agree on strict training for those who are first time gun buyers?  Can we agree on the elimination of high capacity magazines?  What is your starting point on gun regulation?

bluegrass wrote on February 05, 2013 at 12:02 pm

There are a small group of people in this country who think the government is evil.  There are also a fringe group of people who think that corporations are evil.  There are fringe groups of people who think that only green energy is the way, and all oil producing entities are evil (Al Gore was one before he sold his fake soul for a cool $100 million to Al Jazeera.)  There are groups of people who think that eating meat, drinking milk, and frying eggs is evil.  Is every person who doesn't like the fact that corporations use their influence on politicians prepared to carry out domestic terrorism against a specific company?  Are all persons who maybe ride their bike to work or who recycle willing to commit arson like members of the Earth Liberation Front?  Do all vegans stand ready to engage in illegal acts like the Animal Liberation Front?  Are all people who think the government can be evil prepared to bomb government buildings and kill innocent people, like Obama supporter and friend Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground?  The answer to all those questions, is a resounding, "No."  But we see comments comparing distrust for the government akin to wanting to be the member of the Posse Comitatus milita, or a conspiracy nut.  

Let's utilize the resources we have at our disposal to do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals without infringing on my rights.  Let's enforce the laws on the books, and let's get to work on the IL concealed carry law so I can get my license.  That's my starting point.  Not only that, a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives agree with me, a majority of the U.S. Senate agree with me, and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with me.  But I guess that must make me a fringe, conspiracy nut kook.


Sid Saltfork wrote on February 05, 2013 at 4:02 pm

No, it does not make you a "fringe, conspiracy nut kook".  Essentially your position is that nothing needs to be changed except stricter enforcing of the existing laws, and creating an Illinois conceal and carry law so you can hide your gun in public.  No give on your part regarding reasonable gun regulations.  Just more guns with more jail time for the "bad guys". No upgraded national data base for comprehensive background checks.  No restrictions on types of guns, or size of magazines.  Just keep things the same; and hurry up so you can carry a hidden gun.  Yeah, I understand your "reasonable conversation on gun control". 

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 06, 2013 at 10:02 am

I would be fine with literally ALL of that if we could better ensure that criminals do not have access to guns. The problem is, though, that preventing criminals from having guns necessarily requires some hoops to jump through for purchases, including national databases, gun registration, comprehensive background checks, and sales records requirements.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 06, 2013 at 12:02 pm

I agree.  A majority of gun owners agree.  It is the rabid Second Amendment interpreters, the conspiracy theorists, and the right wingers that do not agree.  There should be an up-down vote in the Senate, and House of Representatives with each congress person's vote being publicized.  This is a national issue that should not be allowed to drift into doing nothing about it.

alabaster jones 71 wrote on February 01, 2013 at 10:02 pm
Profile Picture

That's right!!!!!  This is all just a plan to disarm the citizens so the government can then enslave them.  That's why we need high-capacity magazines and armor piercing kill American soldiers when they come to our doors to take us to the concentration camps.  But worry not, our guns will totally fend off their tanks, aircraft, missiles, etc.  

Sure, they can launch a missile thousands of miles away and aim it right into your living room, but we're all such good aims that we can just shoot those missiles out of the sky!

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 04, 2013 at 2:02 pm

These politicians are more interested in protecting their political contributor base than the second amendment. If the NRA ceased to exist the 2nd amendment would still be there. 

"millions of other Americans want an increased ability to protect themselves and their families"

Sure great idea. Let's all participate in an ever increasing armed escalation. Easily modifiable Bushmasters and 100 round drum magazines for everyone the weapon of choice of bank robbers Emil Mătăsăreanu and Larry Phillips Jr

What could go wrong? If people feel the need to be armed all the time then we are no longer in a free society. We need to get back to the due process of law and order and stop with all the Posse Comitatus militia wannabe nonsense.

bluegrass wrote on February 04, 2013 at 4:02 pm

All over the country shelves once stocked full of ammunition and arms are now now bare.  People who never considered purchasing firearms have felt compelled to do so.  Ironically, this massive transfer of arms an ammunition from stores to homes has been put into motion by the very administration that would like to stop it.  The Obama administration, in it's Quixotic attempt to pass gun control legislation, is partially responsible for this escalation.  

Obama and his ilk are also responsible for membership of the NRA increasing by around a 250,000 people since they rekindled this this national conversation.  If the NRA ceased to exist, the 2nd Amendment would still be there.  If the ACLU ceased to exist, the first amendment would stil be there, whatever that means.  However, I do enjoy the fact that we live in a country where people can pool their resources and ban together to protect the Constitution, and our liberty, and the legacy of that liberty.

What does it mean, "We need to back to the due process of law and order"?  In the minds of many people on this board and the media and the left, anyone who disagrees with their arbitrary definition of "commons sense" or "reasonable"  legislation is defined as a break away, black helicopter fearing survivalist prepper.  Some even use terms like Posse Comitatus milita, which is just a backdoor attempt to call "NAZI."  What is reasonable about that?


mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 04, 2013 at 5:02 pm

You're right!!!!!!1!

People call others extremist nutcake loony toon cookoo conspiracy nuts just because they say they're ready to violently fight the govermint elected by a majority of Americans and because they say they're ready to shoot American cops and military personnel.

That's no different than calling them NAZIS!!!!!!!!!111!

And that of course means they lose, by the rules of the intertubz.

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 04, 2013 at 8:02 pm

Seriously - what all has Obama ACTUALLY done? Mostly, it seems like far right scare tactics, where people CLAIM that Obama has tried to take guns away. Is that even true?

bluegrass wrote on February 05, 2013 at 9:02 am

What has he actually done, and what are the consequences of his attempted assault weapons ban?  What he has actually done is threaten new gun control measures, and is actively campaigning around the country for, among other measures, an assault weapons ban.  

And what are the results?  In addition to new NRA members and a massive arms and ammuntion purchasing  party, see George Will's article from the Washington Post.  I'll pull what I believe is pertinent, "Since he (Obama) was inaugurated four years ago, there have been 65 million requests for background checks of gun purchasers.  Four years ago, the price of Smith and Wesson stock was $2.45.  Last week it was $8.76, up 258 percent.  Four years ago, the price of Sturm Ruger stock was $6.46.  Last week it was $51.09. up 691 percent." 

Let's give Obama the benefit of the doubt.  Let's say he is NOT trying to take guns away.  He is threatening to take away not just the freedom, but the ability to purchase certain guns and magazines in the future.  One can argue semantics all day, but that it, in essence, the same thing.  

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 05, 2013 at 1:02 pm

So you agree that with the campaigning, he's not moving towards some sort of dictatorship, as many of the conspiracy theorists like to believe. 

And again, I think those results are from the marketing of some kind of end times ideology combined with a persecution complex to the right wing. It's not from Obama. Also, I would have to see the background check numbers in the 4 years prior for that number to be meaningful at all. Finally, stock prices don't measure sales.

bluegrass wrote on February 05, 2013 at 2:02 pm

I don't agree with that entirely.  Not enough people actually listen to Obama, and understand that he believes in what he says.  He's pushing his agenda any way he can, and recently we've seen the courts catch him and rein him in a little, with almost no comment from the mainstream media.  He's pushing conflict, class warfare, and we're all eating it up and yammering for more.  

I'm confused.  You do believe the NRA and right wing conspiracy nuts are the cause for so many people joining the NRA, purchasing guns, a nationwide run on ammnuntion which has created a shortage, and gun manufacturers doing so well.  But, if I say that Obama and his threats helped to create that run on supplies you question the reliability of the numbers.  Stock prices don't measure sales, but, call me a right wing conspiracy nut, I suppose perhaps sales might have a place in a profitability equation.  

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 05, 2013 at 8:02 pm

How have the courts caught him and reined him in a little? What cases are you talking about?

My point about the campaigning was that the fact that he's campaigning, as you put it, shows that he needs public support to get things done - this isn't moving toward a dictatorship at all (as one of the people below says). It's the same as it's always been, with the exception of a mobile right wing media contingent to make claims of Obama taking our freedoms - which isn't happening at all. So far, all Obama's done is advocated for *some* regulation, and nothing's even been done.

bluegrass wrote on February 06, 2013 at 9:02 am

Just google "Obama recess appointments" and you'll find it.  You'll also find most of the articles written don't just report the facts, they also spin the ruling for the president.

In addition, but for a completely ridiculous stretch ruling by John Roberts, Obamacare should have been thrown out completely.  

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 06, 2013 at 10:02 am

There's really no legitimate constitutional reason to throw out the ACA unless you advocate the overturning of centuries of constitutional law (which would also invalidate an awful lot of other law). Your recess appointment case is well-taken, though. I forgot about that, and that supports your argument.

bluegrass wrote on February 06, 2013 at 5:02 pm

I know this is a gun control thread, sort of, but there were 4 other justices, including Kennedy, and plenty of judges before them who did think there was good reason to throw out the the Affordable Care Act.  In order to get it passed Obama argued that compelling an individual to purchase health insurance by charging them money was NOT a tax, rather it was a fine, which makes it unConstitutional.  However, in front of the Court he argued it WAS a tax and is NOT a fine, to make the case it is Constitutional.  Because it was intentionally written without a severability clause, if part of it was found to be unConsititutional the whole thing should have been scrapped.  John Roberts argued that, and I'm paraphrasing here, although he agreed as written it was probably unConsitutional, it just wasn't his place to determine whether language definitions in legislation affect Constitutionality.  There is your invalidation of centuries of law - definitions have no meaning.  

mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 06, 2013 at 6:02 pm

Roberts voting to uphold the ACA is PROOF POSITIVE that Obamao is PLOTTING TO TAKE MY GUNS!!!!!!!11!


I need my guns to shoot the American cops and military who are plotting to take my guns.

Don't call me crazy. I'm the only American who has a relative who was in a war so DON'T YOU DARE criticize my paranoid fantasies of the tyranny of a govermint duly elected by a majority of Americans!!!!!

bluegrass wrote on February 07, 2013 at 8:02 am


SaintClarence27 wrote on February 06, 2013 at 6:02 pm

I disagree that a fine is necessarily unconstitutional. There were 4 justices who thought that a fine was constitutional. I realize that you consider yourself an originalist, but I'm not sure how Health insurance would not qualify as commerce between the states. Further, there's no reason that the government *can't* fine someone for not carrying health insurance - they do that for auto insurance (although state rather than federal).

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 05, 2013 at 12:02 pm

bluegrass;  You use the sentence "However, I do enjoy the fact that we live in a country where people can pool their resources and ban together to protect the Constitution, and our liberty, and the legacy of that liberty" on the topic of gun control legislation.  Are you advocating the use of violence toward a government that you do not agree with? 

You object to the derogatory terms of others, the media, and the "left".  You question "We need to back the due process of law an order".  Do you believe in the use of violence as a substitute for the due process of law and order?

bluegrass wrote on February 05, 2013 at 1:02 pm


Sid Saltfork wrote on February 05, 2013 at 4:02 pm

Yeah, seriously.  Your comments beg the questions.

bluegrass wrote on February 06, 2013 at 9:02 am

Wrong.  You beg the question, and it's a ridiculous question, and I'm pretty sure you know it.  I shouldn't do this, but I will.  If you read the comment, you would see that I mentioned the NRA and the ACLU in the comment IMMEDIATELY preceeding my statment about pooling resources to protect the Constitution.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these two groups who pool resources (money, time, education, leadership, websites, attorneys) to protect rights of the people through the Legislative and Judicial systems of our governments?

If you have read anything I have ever written on this board, which I know you have, then you would know by now I am a conservative, and somewhat of an originalist as relates to the Consititution.  The Constitution has paved the way for the greatest nation on the face of the earth to come into being, while allowing for over 200 years of the PEACEFUL transfer of power.  Let this burn into your brain for a moment.  The Constitution, not a living, breathing peice of wet paper, The Consitution, is the formula that has provided for the PEACEFUL transfer of power.  I have always and will always defend that document, having even taken an oath to do so.  People in my family, have sacrificed their health, safety, and even their lives to defend the Constitution of the United States.  I have never, in any of my statements, advocated violence against any local, state, or U.S. government entity, nor do I now.  To accuse me of that is inflammatory and insulting, and any interpretation or conclusion that gets you to the place where I have, is born of your own perverted take on reality.

SaintClarence27 wrote on February 06, 2013 at 10:02 am

While it can be argued that the NRA and the ACLU both pool resources to protect rights, I don't think it's really a fair comparison. The ACLU also protects the rights of those with whom they disagree. The NRA makes no attempt to do so, and is instead a rather partisan institution.

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 06, 2013 at 10:02 am

I agree with SaintClarence27 The ACLU protects speech and the communication of ideas, the NRA protects the implementation of the prospect of death. Words vs. Bullets

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 06, 2013 at 1:02 pm

bluegrass;  Your family is not the only family that has served this country.  You believe that the Constitution is set in stone similar to the Ten Commandmants.  I believe that the Constitution was written over 200 years ago based on what the Founding Fathers believed, and saw at that time.  Times change based on technology, political beliefs, and national culture.  The U.S. is not facing a return of English sovereignty, or a dictatorship.  Flintlocks have been replaced by semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.  Crime involves guns more now than 200 years ago.  The Constitution has under gone change over the years.  The First Amendment being one example.  Reasonable gun regulations will not infringe on a law abiding citizen's right to have a gun.  Your strict interpretation of the Constitution plus your political view of the current party in power, and doing nothing on reasonable gun regulations puts you in the camp of the most true believers of NRA followers.  The NRA, and the ACLU have nothing in common.  One is an advocate for law, and the other is a front for the gun manufacturers.

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 04, 2013 at 9:02 pm

A man who uses violence to express himself only does so because he lacks the intelligence to know his own mind.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 05, 2013 at 12:02 pm

What if his mind advocates violence?  What if he feels wronged by his government?  Isn't that what is being spouted by the conspiracy theorists now?  Isn't that what we see in the news regularly?

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 05, 2013 at 12:02 pm

Absolutely that is what we are seeing. It is one thing to have a violent thought it is quite another to use violence. All these violent incidents were carried out by people who had some kind of rationalization for why they should. Someone was out to get them or they were settling a score or they were going to make an example of someone or an invisible man in the sky told them to, etc. It's the delusional sense of entitlement thwarted. It is internalized pathology.

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 05, 2013 at 10:02 am

I pledge allegiance to the NRA membership card of the red states of America and to the high capacity magazine for which it stands, one nation, under "god", indivisible, except when it comes to interstate background checks then everybody do their own thing, with liberty and justice for only those who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time with a high caliber weapon to take the law into their own hands regardless of their mental instability.


Clayson C. wrote on February 06, 2013 at 2:02 pm

Don't ban, rather work on keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill. Those who have criminal intent do not abide by laws hence the bans only effect law abiding citizens. Banning is only a step towards total dissarament and the video links below shows whats happened overseas.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 06, 2013 at 5:02 pm

Yeah.... sure..... the evil government is going to disarm it's citizens.  "I saw it on youtube.  It must be true."  Girls are not allowed an education overseas.  Adulterers are stoned to death overseas.  Criminals have their hands cut off overseas.  People eat bugs overseas.  Is that going to happen here also?

Clayson C. wrote on February 06, 2013 at 8:02 pm

It's not just youtube, the youtube links were to news feeds, it's all over the news! Don't be blind like they were in Austrailia and England, it's exactly how their firearm ban took place. Now law abiding citizens are in jail for defending themselves, families and homes. People cowher in their homes at night and are defensless against armed intruders.

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 06, 2013 at 9:02 pm

People cower in their homes at night in England, and Australia because armed intruders abound?  Come on, we both know that not to be true.  Well at least one of us knows that.  Your being overly dramatic in your conspiracy fantasy.

Piers Morgan is from Great Britain.  He never mentioned the people cowering in their homes. The BBC has never mentioned it either.  The State Department has not issued any traveler warnings for Australia, or England.

Clayson C. wrote on February 06, 2013 at 10:02 pm

I take it you didn't watch the videos from youtube which are news feeds. I can provide more links to news feeds from Austrailia and England but what's the point right, some peoples minds are already made up and no amount of reasoning can change them.


mark taylor's ghost wrote on February 07, 2013 at 8:02 am

If you don't adopt my crazybug paranoia and gun nuttery then your mind is just closed and you obviously just refuse to accept reason!!!!!1!

We'll see if you're still laughing when all these black UN helicopters come after you for real!!!!1!

When they come for me, I'll have all my guns locked and loaded and ready to go!!!!!!111

Bulldogmojo wrote on February 07, 2013 at 12:02 am

"Cower in their homes"

If you stick a camera in the faces of a dozen "Gun Collectors" in THIS country they are going to use the same rhetoric and they are still in possession of all their weapons. Watch Fox snooze

I'm sure millions of people in Australia and England get up every day eat a bowl of cereal go to work go home watch a little TV and go to bed without anything ever happening to them their whole lives. They also don't have to go to their school and identify their kid's bodies from a bloody shooting spree.

No one could collect 300,000,000 guns. we are trying to stop the one man apocalypse weaponry and the possession of any weaponry by the mentally ill and the criminals. The NRA claims they want the same thing but in 141 years hasn't lifted a finger to ensure that sort of containment. If they had we would not be having this chat would we? Because the parameters to keep the fringe away from firearms would be in place and completely effective.

How did General/President Eisenhower word it? "We must guard against the unwarranted influence sought or unsought of the Military industrial complex and its grave implications on our Government, our economy and even the very structure of our society." How is Bushmaster or Glock, or Smith and Wesson NOT part of that complex? They are very much a part of it.

Did it ever occur to you that the Tyrannical government you fantasize is coming may rise up from this very machinery that proclaims that it is there to help you protect yourself through the over reaching interpretations of the second amendment and the supply of armaments?

BTW, who calls up a gunstore and says, "Yeah that gun they used to kill all those school kids, I want one of those." ?? Just asking

Sid Saltfork wrote on February 07, 2013 at 5:02 pm

One of the YouTube links is from the Wall Street Journal.  The Wall Street Journal is now one of Rupert Murdock's papers.  It used to be a creditable, non-political, financial source.  Orson Welles' Martians' invasion could make news in today's media.

Watch the PBS Newshour for creditable, and non-partisan news.