Comments on: Gun Control Change We Can Believe In

By: Buck

Buck — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 03:33:10 +0000

Some one needs to direct him to the lady that emptied a five shot revolver into one of societies neglected to defend the lives of her children and herself , and while her LUCK held , the , the sub-human excrement is STILL wasting the atmosphere of millions of innocents by breathing .

By: Shawn Grammont

Shawn Grammont — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:33:32 +0000

We should be working on creating laws that take care of these mentally sick people instead of passing failed anti-gun laws.

By: vince flow

vince flow — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:47:25 +0000

Do you really believe that any type of gun control will keep guns out of the mental ill person and the unlawful person,,, better think again ,,, instead of gun control ,you should be working on mental illness control,, and try to keep out the so called “hero” image ,, that the press keeps on showing ,,there`s where your problem is lying .and also ,quit showing these events over the internet and TV stations,,just to sell more ads ,, and I may add take surveys that are honest, and quite giving your opinion ( the press) and let the legal permit holders be heard. this my opinion of this whole political money wasting scheme ,,,,,

By: John Gnauck

John Gnauck — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:23:22 +0000

The Firearms Act of 1934 was not about gangsters. It was about a government who was afraid of the unemployed and angry WWI veterans. These veterans were experienced with guns.
The current government is taking defensive action against preppers, TEA partyers, and others. The popularity of the Congress is at a low.
The Innocents of Sandy Hook are being exploited.

By: GunE8

GunE8 — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:48:16 +0000

“Any plan must include an honest assessment of the situation… This is necessarily predicated on identification of the real issue…”

Herein lies the inherent problem- for the real problem is never fully disclosed and accepted, rarely accurtately identified, let alone corrected by our government. By the time the policies and programs are implemeted, their effects are negligible, if any, on the initial problem. The effort ends up as more law, diluted and a tax-payer burden.

By: Bill Baker

Bill Baker — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:37:01 +0000

Overreaching gun control is being proposed by Feinstein and her friends at least in part they think that if they propose ridiculous amounts of Gun Control that we will concede to some and come off feeling that at least they didn’t get what they wanted. Truth is, that’s kind of the plan every time. Reach too far so that when we ‘compromise’ they get more than they would have in the first place, and most of us feel relieved that they didn’t win what they wanted. Compromise on nothing. Nothing proposed would have affected Connecticut in any way.
MOLON LABE

By: Bill Baker

Bill Baker — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:27:03 +0000

‘personal protection doesn’t really require the ability to shoot multiple rounds in seconds.’

Interesting opinion, so he contends that you can protect yourself with a gun that shoots a bullet every few minutes? People tend to forget that in a panic situation people don’t always hit the target, let alone if the attacker isn’t stopped by the first round. When I’m being attacked I kind of want the ability to shoot as many rounds as I feel necessary in the situation. I’m pretty sure there is a reason police don’t carry around guns that hold 3 bullets and have timers to keep them from being shot more than once per second…