And the NRA said "Amen"

The fact that you think law abiding citizens should be treated like criminals while alcoholics get a free pass makes you a hypocrite.  You can source any alcohol law you want.  You won't find a single one that requires a background check on it's purchase.

And for the record, the NRA nor I are against background checks.  Proposed laws that deny law abiding citizens access to guns is the one and only issue we have.  The mental illness database restriction is a liberal cause.  I've already posted an explanation regarding how the proposed laws will allow the government to decide who gets to own a gun or not regardless of their mental issues.  If allowed, this will be the first step towards completely disarming the American populace. 

The regulation of firearms to keep them out of the hands of criminals is no more successful than regulating cars to keep drunks from driving them.

Come to think of it, is there any law prohibiting a drunk from buying a car?  Any law prohibiting someone from buying a car for a drunk? 

What is the answer to idiots taking a gun and shooting up people and places.  The answer ain't no, no, no or yes, yes,yes.

People tend to forget that the first 10 amendments were not intended to be amendable as they were deemed "Natural Rights" versus being legal rights. The inclusion of the Ninth Amendment was so that the Bill of Rights would not be construed as being a list of revokable privileges given to the people from the government and other rights considered natural rights not mentioned were at the mercy of the federal government. The right to have the means to defend oneself was never meant to be controlled by politicians.

Jt, society has the right to deny rights to those who misuse their rights to harm others or are too mentally handicapped to exercise their rights. That is what the courts were set up to handle. Modern politicians only seem to punish the honest law abiding citizen.

Stanky, the sales counter has got to take that job over.  The courts are too slow and biased.

The M1 Garand was chambered for the .30 GOVT, or .30-06.  The M14 was/is chambered for the 7.62 NATO, similar to, but NOT identical to, the .308 Winchester.

The answer? Good men and women, trained and armed. Unfortunately, some misinformed individuals think this means 'the police'.  SCOTUS would disagree, and has, with such folks.  Per SCOTUS, law enforcement officers HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT individual citizens.

U.S.-made military ammo uses copper, not steel-jacketed bullets.  Soviet ammo, though, uses copper-washed steel-jacketed military ammo.  Armor-piercing .30-06 ammo from WWII has a hardened steel insert inside a lead core, encased in a copper jacket.

Can we keep these bullets out of whacko's hands?

Jt, it would be better to remove the steering wheel from their hands first going by statistics.

Per this review, a 22LR is as deadly:

http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=10742

No more than you can keep a drunk from wanting another drink, a habitual motor offender from driving, a spousal abuser from beating his wife, or a druggie from looking for his next fix.  However, remember this:   'Those that sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.' - Ben Franklin

so, everyone is agreeing to :

• mandatory registration of all firearms;
• licensing with written and practical tests;
• frequent renewal including updated photo and medical questionnaire;
• specialty licensing and training for specialty products;
• product registration and mandatory liability insurance policy;
• effective enforcement of product safety and use regulations;
• key locks and other anti-theft devices;
• manufacturer-funded safety research;
• adoption by manufacturers of identified best safety features in spite of additional cost;
• industry or publicly funded awareness and safety campaigns; and
• restriction of high-performance, unsafe products to private courses/ranges.

because we already do all these things with 'motor vehicles'. if not, where's the comparison.. and why bring it up?

Once again, you failed to grasp the gist of other posters that was understood by everyone else.  I know it's hard for you, but try to keep up.

Nearly all that you listed already apply to guns, with the exception of a few.  The previous posts had more to do with the purchase of alcohol, not purchase of vehicles.  Only requirement to buy alcohol, be 21 years old.  You still haven't shown me where modes of transportation are listed in the Constitution as a "right".  I'll be waiting patiently for this Constitutional revelation.

I've never filled out a medical questionnaire to get a drivers license.

Many states do require practical and written test to acquire a carry license.  Before the new law, I was required to get a new carry license every year.  A background check was also performed before I receive the license.

High performance guns require special background checks and the cost to own is much more than the average American can afford.

Gun manufactures continually upgrade their products with the safety technology as long as it does not inhibit it's intended function.  NRA, among others, provides a multitude of gun safety classes.  Our own police department (Florence) provides gun training.

Every gun I've ever bought in the last 10 years had a trigger lock included in the box.  Also, the owners manual has exact instructions how to safely store and use the gun.

There is no Constitutional protection connected to being able to drive a car.

As an instructor, I have NEVER taught someone to 'kill' an attacker.  Even in LEO academies, officers are NEVER taught 'to kill'.  An attacker is ONLY shot enough to STOP THE ATTACK, hence the reason for targeting the 'center of mass' of an attacker, since that is where the most vital organs are and the greater chance of rapid blood loss, resulting in shock and incapacitation can be accomplished.  Aiming for a small target, such as a knee, leg or shoulder during a life-threatening incident is only asking to MISS.  Breaking the pelvic girdle can also STOP an attacker, but MAY NOT necessarily STOP the attack.  STOPPING an attack QUICKLY is of the utmost importance, NOT killing someone.

I trained at FLETC http://www.fletc.gov/ and I agree you are trained to stop the threat and shoot to center mass if available if not largest part of exposed bad guy.

y'all are scaring the children with all that killing/destroying organs talk. Dog you sound like you are waiting on a chance to do some shop-talk around the camp fire after shooting up some body parts.

I'm gonna try to condense all these posts.  There is a lot of things that a sensible, legal gun owner has to do.  The constutition says that you can have a gun or guns.  I have pistols, rifles, and shotguns in my house.  Instead of raising such a ruckus about our right to bear arms, we have that, lets move on.  Lets come up with ways that we can stop loonies from getting a gun and shooting up people and places.  If America would do that, we could solve the problem.

________________

you can't, jt. they can't get past 'you're gonna try to take our guns'. every approach has been tried .. and failed. there's no reasoning ... only 'all you liberals wanna do is take our guns."... you'll see.

If I pull my gun out, then i fear for my life and/or safety, and my intention is to kill before i am killed.  I dont play the 'stop, i have a gun' game.  As an LEO, i can see that as being part of your training.  But i have also heard instructors in the classes in TN say that a dead intruder cant sue you for their injury.

A gun owner has to understand that, when they pull their gun, there is a good chance someone is going to die.  That knowledge and understanding should make a person think long and hard about what situation requires the use of the weapon.  When i pull the trigger, i expect the person on the other end to end up dead.  If the situation had not escalated to that point, my weapon would have never been drawn.

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it.”

Guess witch liberal said this.  I just gave you a hint.

Capt.  Lets talk about pointing the gun and expecting the other person to be dead.  

Chattanooga Tn.  A man caused a disturbance at a place of business.  The police responded.  The man fired one shot and killed one policeman, the police fired 40 something bullets, hit the man 12 times and he lived.

New York,  the police shot 9 bystanders while trying to shoot one bad guy.

Did you get the same marksmanship training as those professional gun users?

==================

Wonderful idea. After that we can come up with ways to keep all the loonies from getting their hands on other weapons, drugs, alcohol etc, and having "bad thoughts" that make them do things. Then do away with their "enablers", the ones that don't want them punished, because, well, because they are loony. Great country isn't it? Commit the most horrendous crime and people will rally around you to make sure you aren't mistreated, abused, injured, or your feelings hurt. The victims? Well, as one killer said, "it just wasn't their day".

Your point?  Best I can get out of this rambling is YOU think cops should not be issued guns because they are not lethal to bad guys but are to good guys?

The point is, they are not getting the best marksmanship training.  Take the gun in your right hand, steady it with your left hand sight down the barrel and shoot.  That's great until something happens to rush your shooting.  When the emergency starts, there is not enough time for all that and bullets start spraying around and hit unintended things.  You need to learn point and shoot, not point, aim and finally shoot.  Point and shoot can be learned, but it would take thousands of practice bullets.  Could the local law agencies afford that?

I’m beginning to formulate that there are way-too-many cops with guns.

Certainly the ones on this forum.

Thanks to gun ban efforts and the EPA; no, they can't afford it.  Ammo is not cheap.  Cops may shoot their weapon a few times a year with department supplied ammo.  Any other time they must pay out of pocket.  Did I mention ammo ain't cheap?  Try finding 22lr for under 10 cents a trigger pull these days.

For the last time that element does exist in some elected officials:

Discussing why the 1994 act only prohibited the manufacture or import of "assault weapons", instead of the possession and sale of them, Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."^[29]

Mrs. Feinstein was speaking about certain "assault rifles". Not all guns. The same assault rifles that had been banned from 1994 to 2004. 

I don't agree with her on the issue, but to use that statement as an example of the government coming to take your guns, is a bit disingenuous. 

I could find quotes by Republicans that are in congress that have fought for and continue to try and get bills passed that would make gay marriage illegal. To make it illegal for gay couples to adopt children. In other words deny them equal rights. They couldn't care less about the Constitution when it comes to something they feel strongly about. Speaking of the Constitution. Do you know there are several Tea Party/Republican congress members that want to do away with the 17th amendment. They don't think the people should have a vote on who gets elected to the Senate. You good with that? Does that mean they will succeed? Do they have the support of ALL Republicans? 

Jank, dems are united in limiting gun access to law abiding citizens.  Another apples to oranges comparison by you.

Some states are in fact, confiscating semiauto rifles:  http://www.theblaze.com/storie...lls-down-your-spine/

If not for a governor veto, California would have passed a law banning semiauto hunting rifles.

Gay marriage is not guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

I believe your statements are disinginuous with no merit whatsoever. 

as i said, nothing but "they're gonna take our guns'... i rest my case!