If you join the NRA in the "stick your head in the sand" crowd you'll have it there while laws are being passed involving guns.

DUI laws were created when it was apparent that drunk driving was killing people...and when they needed to, they made the penalties far stricter. Cars are vital to the entire economy, comparing them to guns is stupid.

If the NRA were testifying on DUI laws they'd contend that if we all drank more when we drove then we'd all be equally drunk and it wouldn't be a problem any more.

If Drunk Driving were outlawed, then only outlaws would drive drunk! Can't have that now, why let the outlaws have all the fun?

Fish on...

Todd

Pfffttt...

DUI laws, irregardless of how strict they are, don't stop the thousand upon thousands of deaths anymore than MORE gun laws will stop criminals from shooting people.

To think otherwise is beyond stupid.

True! And no matter how vetted this guy was the gov't figured that issuing him a weapon/s was a good idea. They even gave him top notch training and paid him.

Can anyone explain why people with DUI's are still legally able to buy liquior? Seems not allowing it would same hundreds if not thousands more than banning assualt rifles. Like its being asked, is it about the guns or about saving innocentlives?

im listening to CNN right now, and read some of what he said...

to me, it sounds as like he is extremely pissed off at the LAPD, he stated that the department hasnt changed since the Rampart and King beating days, they are worse than they were before (corruption wise)... and he is fed up with it...

im all for changing the way corrupt police officers work ect... but this isnt the way to accomplish that....

this is like a modern day, real life Rambo situation...

RvW, something is going to change, whether you like it or not.

The form of that change will depend on a lot of things, but one thing is for certain, 100% for certain;

If your contribution, like the NRA's, is to compare guns to spoons, airplanes, and DUI's, then your contribution will be ignored.

The gun and ammo industry has long, long, long bullied everyone into going with their position, and Americans aren't going to let them this time. This isn't an opinion, this is a fact...too much has happened in a short time for business as usual to go on.

Just a few short years ago Wayne LaPierre raised his hand and testified to Congress that he and the NRA fully support closing the gunshow loophole, that every sale of a handgun should only be made through the lens of a background check.

Now everyone, including the great majority of the members of the group he represents, is on board with that...and not surprisingly he and the NRA are officially against NOT onboard with anymore. They're going to get ignored now, too, and it's their own fault...they are farther and farther outside the mainstream every day.

I guess the options are to ignore the problem, and then be ignored, or embrace the fact that something is going to change and participate in the change.

Fish on...

Todd

It's about saving innocent lives from gun violence...which, not surprisingly, has nothing to do with cars, planes, trains, or spoons.

Thousands of people die every day...and if the choice is to stop all deaths or we're not going to talk about guns at all, then that's a wrong choice, besides being nonsensical.

You guys are arguing over whether there should be a change or not...that train has left the station. There's going to be a change...either get on board and shape the change, or get left at the station...that's the reality of what is happening right now.

Fish on...

Todd

Not to make light of this whole situation but -

Would you use assault weapons to get rid of them or find some other way?

This guy nails my thinking about assault weapons in his manifeso. Why does anybody need them?

The other one somewhat similiar to this is the nut case (who happened to be a Muslim) who shot up Fort Hood. Where did he get his gun?

The problem with the NRA and those who drink their Kool-Aid is that they don't see being "right with the 2nd Amendment" as having anything reasonable done at all...anything that they don't like is defacto "violating the righ to bear arms"...

The NRA has appointed themselves judge, jury, and executioner on any issue involving the 2nd Amendment, and the truth is that they are none of the above.

Fish on...

Todd

PS If you own a Blue Pickup park that MF'r!!

I expect that the o/u on innocent people killed by LAPD should be 4 1/2.

I got a fiver on the under

Todd, Change is inevitable but change just for the sake of change is stupid. Have you seen the size of the book of ATF laws on firearms?

What would YOU do, if you were King, that would have prevented Newtown, Aurora, Columbine or VA tech? Assuming the 2A is in force (inow.. saying.. I'd have all guns confiscated won't work).

How would you, with 100% certainty, prevented those tragic shootings within the framework of the 2A?

This is a good discussion and I think the exchange of ideas is what's needed.

I don't disagree with any of that, Hank...that's how legislation is supposed to be written.

When a background check requirement is put in, though, everyone who votes for it will get an "F" from the NRA...and everyone should give the NRA a big "F-U" back.

Fish on...

Todd

I don't know any silver bullet that would solve all gun violence overnight, RvW, and I don't think anyone does.

That, however, should not stop people from making changes anyway.

Since we can't 100% stop all traffic fatalities should we get rid of all traffic regulations?

A mandatory background check for any handgun sale is a no brainer...no one should be against that. It's only a start, but it's moving in the right direction.

The NRA would tell you that it is a quick few steps from there to banning all guns...that's where they have left reality behind...the only slippery slope they should be worried about is the one they stepped on the first time they compared spoons to guns, and have been sliding down headfirst ever since.

Fish on...

Todd

All that's true, so long as when you say "most states" you mean "in less than half the states".

Fish on...

Todd

Dealers are required to do it everywhere...that's not "the loophole". The loophole refers to private sales of handguns, and 33 states do not require background checks (including Washington State).

It's referred to as the "gunshow loophole" because in most states you can go to a gun show and buy a gun from a dealer, fill out the forms, pass the background check, and then get your gun...or go to the table next to the dealer's where a private gun owner is selling his guns, hand him some cash and walk out with the gun.

Fish on...

Todd

Maybe this guy and his manifesto is the domino that knocks so many people over that something has to/will be done.

I know the genie (or perhaps djinn in this discussion) is out of the bottle, but clearly stop selling these weapons to the general public. Stop selling high capacity magazines. Start a buy back and offer market. Do not sell ammo or reloading equipment for these weapons.

What would it take for Dogfish to give up his AR?

Perhaps it wouldn't matter. Some F with a couple of hand guns, and a bunch of clips, a bit of practice could take out as many or not more 3rd graders.

F'it , I am going to get a CWP so I can shoot back. What would you recommend?

People kill People, people will continue to kill people, been that way for thousands of years.

Todd, I understand your feelings about universal backround checks and won't argue that point, BUT how would that have prevented ANY of the recent killings?

and you got it FP.