But but but I need my assault rifle to slaughter deer with.

Time to go after the manufacturers under RICO

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-7124704/Unfriendly-fire-A-former-NRA.html

...He's still pro-gun, but he takes the NRA's top brass to task for what he considers money-hungry management.

In 1991, Mr. Feldman became head of the trade group American Shooting Sports Coalition, later Council (ASSC), and in that role he adopted a moderate, pro-compromise tone that irked his former NRA coworkers. They leveraged their clout against him, and in 1999 he left the gun movement.

"Ricochet" is an expose that doesn't really expose anything. For example, Mr. Feldman reveals NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre's compensation (about $900,000) as though he's breaking news, but in fact that's public information. The American Institute of Philanthropy has even included Mr. LaPierre's pay as number four on its "Top 25 Compensation Packages" list. Contrary to the book's publicity, Mr. Feldman's case relies on logical reasoning, not insider dirt.

I know everyone yells about people getting killed with guns. Do you really think these criminals will not find guns anyway? My concern is that in trying to keep criminals from having guns, guns are taken from regular folks who aren't committing crimes. I do not count on law enforcement to keep me safe-- that is something I can do for myself. Police often come after the fact to pick up the shell casings and distribute body bags. Fascists take away people's guns. In this country we have an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms. I would, however, support mandatory conscription into the armed forces or other training for all citizens-- then, at least there's a good chance of finding someone nearby who's armed and knows how to use it in times of need. Might help eliminate drug dealers, too.

"I know everyone yells about people getting killed with guns. Do you really think these criminals will not find guns anyway?"

What does that have to do with anything? I am sick and tired of people who consider this idiocy to be a good argument against tighter gun control. By your logic, there shouldn't be laws against murder. After all, they don't stop people from murdering.

Whether the NRA like it or not, easy access to guns is a major public safety issue, and owner licenses and gun registrations are simple common sense answers to this. So is heavy punishment for criminals who use guns in violent crimes.

I can handle people who have *a* hand gun and/or *a* hunting rifle (as opposed to many of them). But when it comes down to it, I'm much more scared of people with private arsenals than I am of my government.

I would, however, support mandatory conscription into the armed forces or other training for all citizens...

So you are opposed to limiting the number of handguns that residents of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and its surrounding suburbs can buy every month (many of which are then illegally sold on the streets in Camden, New Jersey) but you believe that the government should be granted the authority to engage in mandatory conscription. There is a huge gap here, Metric, between what you write you believe in and what you, in fact, actually believe in. Do you see it? 

I see I'm not needed here. Carry on...

re: the earlier comment that "Fascists take away people's guns."

Uh, actually this idiotic comment, (often regurgitated by the NRA) is a crock of sh*t.

During WWII, the Nazis actually DISTRIBUTED free guns among the people, in order to help repel the impending Allied invasion.

What's more, many of the world's most free and prosperous democracies today (from Sweden to Denmark to Japan) have very tough anti-gun laws (oh, and incidentally, very little violent crime, as well).

Meanwhile, the U.S. is awash in guns (and yet that didn't help us during the past eight years when the Bush/Cheney Crime Family shredded our Constitution).

Marc McDonald
http://www.beggarscanbechoosers.com

I live on Chicago's south side (Englewood), one of the nation's most violent city's. Accept for hunting rifles Chicago has an outright ban on guns within city limits. I first moved to Chicago in '07 from Florida and wasn't a gun owner until moving here (I won't say what type I own). I don't have a closet full of weapons nor do I advocate having such an arsenal. But I do know you must protect yourself. And the level of protection really depends on the environment in which you live. I didn't need a gun when I lived in Bradenton, Florida. But I quickly found that living here in Chicago I'd be stupid not to have one, especially given the high level of corruption, mismanagement, and naked incompetence of the Chicago PD. (Case in point: Recently, a 14 year old boy her in Chicago impersonated a police officer for 6 hours while riding in a patrol car with his "parner". This included going to morning role call.)

Now, we can talk all we want about limiting guns to law abiding citizens but criminals will find their way to them, often before law abiding citizens. While Chicago's gun laws are among the stricktest in the nation it hasn't done anything for gun violance, as Chicago is one of the nation's most dangerous cities to live in. No gun law will change that.

No gun law will change that.

Enforcing gun laws would. If your gun laws are no more than statements of principle, you're right.

But, for instance, some dick is sponsoring an amendment to the bill to give voting representation to D.C. residents that would make it illegal to check a gun purchaser's age, or block people who have been institutionalized for mental problems from buying guns. Those are statements of principle that would get someone killed in short order.

Effective gun laws cannot absolutely end gun violence but they absolutely would reduce the odds of encountering it.

But I quickly found that living here in Chicago I'd be stupid not to have one, especially given the high level of corruption, mismanagement, and naked incompetence of the Chicago PD.

Lots of folks in Chicago own guns. One of my paternal great aunts who moved there in the 1920s routinely carried a gun in her purse and she was packing one the first time I met her in 1957. I have no problems with people owning guns. I own guns. I have problems with politicians and fanatic gun huggers who believe that cities like Philadelphia don't have the right to limit the number of handguns a single individual can buy in one month or one year.

Now, we can talk all we want about limiting guns to law abiding citizens but criminals will find their way to them, often before law abiding citizens. While Chicago's gun laws are among the stricktest in the nation it hasn't done anything for gun violance, as Chicago is one of the nation's most dangerous cities to live in. No gun law will change that.

How many guns can you shoot and carry at one time? Owning a few pistols and rifles seems okay to me but I fail to understand why you may need an assault rifle or several assault rifles.

The only folks in America that can't get guns are law abiding urban dwellers like myself.

Rural folks have them.

Urban criminals have them.

But, not a law abiding urban dweller like me.

You can get a gun, rik. Even in New York City there's a time limit by which they must issue the gun permit or explain why. Or you can use the method urban criminals use, since gun control laws aren't enforced anyway.

Don't confuse that with a carry permit though, concealed or not. Whole different set of implications...that is the one that affects public health and safety.

It would be hard to argue that our nation's drug and gun policies are not substantive causal factors in the current crisis in Mexico.  

No less than they are causal problems in our domestic issues.