"I don't know why a responsible gun owner is worried about whether a permit for a revolver is FOI-able or not."

Since he's never displayed the gun, threatened anybody, or made an issue of it, he figures it's nobody's business what he does and doesn't want or deserve to be targeted by the haters.

But he's got the gun for his protection. What's the problem. Are they afraid somebody that doesn't have guns will shoot them. You know if it were public you could all get together, watch tv, get drunk, and play shoot-em-up.

Is this a prelude to or in lieu of citizens' mental health records becoming available to the public ?

Vast majority of the perpetrators at schools, theaters, universities have had documented mental health issues.

Anyone familiar with "...And Then They Came for Me?"

There is the argument put forward by many gun owners that simply brandishing a hand gun can save lives or the idea that a perpetrator is unlikely to break into a house if he thinks the owner has a weapon; in other words, simple ownership is it's own deterrent. If that is true, where is the deterrent unless people know you have the weapon? I know some will assert that NOT knowing whether a household has a gun is the real deterrent, but that requires that a majority of households actually be armed...which is not the case.

Since the number of people who own guns is going but the multiple ownership and gun sales is going up, I submit that a large part of the resistance to a national registry and public access to it, comes from the ever dwindling hard core group of gun owners who also harbor feelings of general antipathy toward all things government.

To my mind, I have a right to know who around me owns weapons for two reasons; 1) weapons attract theft and 2) I want to know if an argument with a neighbor could possibly escalate to lethality.

@culheath, perhaps you also then have a right to know which citizens around you drink alcohol, take recreational drugs, take legal psychiatric med (because if they run out of them or forget, or take them with alcohol, they can become a danger to themselves and society) have mental health issues, are veterans that may have PTSD, may have had childhood trauma that left them with PTSD, have a black belt in a martial art, drink/drug AND own golf clubs, baseball bats, kitchen knives, plastic dry cleaner bags...?

@cul

"1) weapons attract theft".... so we should tell the thieves where the guns are?

"2) I want to know if an argument with a neighbor could possibly escalate to lethality".... good reason to be a good neighbor. And, your neighbor could beat you with a rock if you're an assshole.

I live in NH where an estimated 70% of homes here have a gun, no gun licensing or registration is required and CCW is shall issue . We don't seem to have the problems that are in your mind.

How about we do this - draft a clause where we gun owners who have permits go on public record so as long as ALL resident households having NO GUNS go on public record as well. For EVERYONE to see.

What's fair is fair, right????

Let's see, sooo many things to really to consider. Our constitutional right to bare arms. This was put in the constitution so we could protect ourselves not only from home invaders but also against both foreign and domestic governments that wish to take away our rights as a nation and individual rights. When we take away our legal rights to defend ourselves we are giving government the power to control us, removing our rights. It is an evil and sick act what was done. We always want something to blame. In this incident is the object that this mentally ill person used, a gun. While we are at it, how about outlawing everything that kills people wth out provication such as cars, planes, trains, motor cycles....... When our homeland is under attack by terrorists how many of you will wish you had a gun to defend yourself and your loved ones? Oh, sorry, that's right you gave that right away!!!!!

culheath

To my mind, I have a right to know who around me owns weapons for two reasons; 1) weapons attract theft

Until the list was published just how were the weapons "attracting" theft? Since no one KNEW where the weapons were the thieves had no clue they were there.

2) I want to know if an argument with a neighbor could possibly escalate to lethality.

You mean you want to know who you can bully/piss off because you think you are bigger and better until they produce an equalizer? MOST gun owners don't get into arguments and resort to a firearm. They reserve their use to self defense and defense of those they care about. The ones you should truly be concerned about are those who don't have a firearm legally and thus are MORE likely to use them in an argument.

"What's the problem. Are they afraid somebody..."

That's exactly the problem Gramps - I don't need you letting the air out of my tires at 3am because you have a twisted sense of involvement.

www . wsbtv.com /news/ local/ womanhiding

champagnesaber...

I own and I am happy to let people know if it will keep fool and killers out of my house. The above-referenced link, which happened locally, is why I own- this was 1 of 3 instances yesterday. However, my permit was bought with MY money, as was MY gun, and I had to pass the tests, not anyone else. So, as a law-abiding citizen, YOU or anyone else that wants to know about me, then YOU should go and look it up yourself, which leaves a trace as to what you were snooping around about me for in the 1st place.

Culheath- simply putting a box for a flat screen television outside for the trash attracts theft. Gun records are private in Georgia, which I, too, think is foolish but it shouldn't be for a blanket access (see above comment). But, as I stated above, if you are drawing ANY government assistance or you get something on the government dole, then why aren't your mental records being blasted out for public knowledge? Or your criminal records? The guy in the above-referenced link had been arrested 8 times since 2008, just being released from his last arrest in August 2012...let that sink in for a minute.

I am glad to carry- I wish they would let me carry on my hip instead of concealed. But brandishing a weapon doesn't make me safe but it makes me a little less of a victim than any other time. As it relates to school shootings, simply registering guns would go a long way in absolving any issues. Not taking them away, but registering them. If someone steals my gun- never say never but don't think it is going to happen- and kills someone, at least my registered gun can be reported and the person responsible tracked down.

Edited- MSN doesn't like me to link so I had to type in spaces...

You mean you want to know who you can bully/piss off because you think you are bigger and better until they produce an equalizer?

No, I mean I want to know that the neighbor I am having a dispute with doesn't have an attitude like yours. I didn't bring up anything about feeling superior or aggressive toward my neighbor, you did.

1) weapons attract theft and 2) I want to know if an argument with a neighbor could possibly escalate to lethality.

1. Nothing like telling the theives where to go to get what they are after.

2. It is the unregestered weapons owner or gun that you need to be afraid of.

Now I have been around guns my whole life and have never shot anyone nor do I brag to anyone in the neighborhood. I have a couple of neighbors that occassionally hunt. We don't drag our guns out and show them off to one another. There is no reason, we know what a gun is. All this stuff is going to do is set up a situation where I feel I will have to take measure to take protecting myself and property to another level.

I don't carry nor have applied for a carry permit. I don't feel I have to arm myself to go anywhere in my own country.

I say provide more and better escape routes for schools. Moving targets are harder to hit than those huddled togather in a corner. Even people that we know to be sane can flip out at any time so I don't think arming teachers, who are not combat experienced, and have never been baptised by fire, is a wise thing to do. In my life time, 65 years, I have seen 2 normal people go over the edge and never heard a reason as to why they flipped. Both times it was no a stressful situtation. There are stories abound about people flipping out, the big one today are people on planes. If you check into it there are documented stories of people flipping out at home, in cars, on the streets, almost every place you can think of. In the days of the ATBM/ABMs two men on duty were armed and lock into a confined area when on duty, with orders to shot the other guy in case he should flip out. The Government is well aware of this.

Cheetah

"I don't know why a responsible gun owner is worried about whether a permit for a revolver is FOI-able or not."

How about these reasons:

Former police officers who have arrested thugs, rapist, muders and gang members now have their address published and now have to worry about the safety of themselves and family members.

Or a person who buys a gun because a threat was made against them and moved so that those who threatened them couldn't find them now have their names and address published.

Or why not let a convict felony who can't legally own a gun know exactly were they can find one.

If you are going to print the names of law abiding gun owners why not print the names of every convicted felon.

How about naming the people convicted of a DUI. People should know that their neighbors is a drunk and has a drivers license.

How about naming all people that have had a mental issue and are in therapy. The neighbors should know that their neighbor may be the next wacko.

Why not name those people that hire an armed service for protection.

You see how well thought out a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy can be. Will the news source be held responsible for someone injuried or killed because of this action?

"What's the problem. Are they afraid somebody..."

That's exactly the problem Gramps - I don't need you letting the air out of my tires at 3am because you have a twisted sense of involvement.

• Lol! Or letting Grampa TAKE all of the tires off your car because a twisted sense of ENTITLEMENT, but then again - I doubt they would fit on his Pinto.

@cul

“We’ve got over a quarter-billion guns in people’s homes. And they’re mostly in the suburbs and rural areas where there is virtually no crime and no murder. So why is that?" Michael Moore, Dec 21, 2012

You're argument just isn't aligned with reality.

No, I mean I want to know that the neighbor I am having a dispute with doesn't have an attitude like yours. I didn't bring up anything about feeling superior or aggressive toward my neighbor, you did.

Maybe try not being a crappy neighbor.

No, it's a really @!$%#ty reason to be a good neighbor. You are saying that an armed neighbor should be shown deference just because they are potentially lethal...that's bully reality and should not in a civilized society be the default.

I think it's YOU who has the paranoia problem, sweet cheeks. Trust me, you'd be a neighbor I'd go out of my way to AVOID.

Common, Common, Common, read it again in context - we're on the same side.

@Chzhead

"champagnesaber...

"I own and I am happy to let people know if it will keep fool and killers out of my house. The above-referenced link, which happened locally, is why I own- this was 1 of 3 instances yesterday. However, my permit was bought with MY money, as was MY gun, and I had to pass the tests, not anyone else. So, as a law-abiding citizen, YOU or anyone else that wants to know about me, then YOU should go and look it up yourself, which leaves a trace as to what you were snooping around about me for in the 1st place."

Kindly follow the thread, from the beginning. I'm strongly on your side.

The Journal News has effectively lost its impartiality as an objective reporter of the news by publishing the names of permit holders. What's laughable is that they are against the constitutional right to bear arms and yet hired armed guards to protect themselves, obviously because they felt threatened - the same reason that most law abiding citizens own guns. One reason that the Journal News might have done this is publicity - their circulation dropped and they terminated many of their employees. This is, however, not the way to increase readership. It clearly backfired on them. I bet that many people will cancel their subscriptions. I feel bad for the employees of the Journal News who had nothing to do with this decision.

@culheath

I have a great number of guns and a couple neighbors like you. Never shot any of them. And yes, gun ownership causes some theft, but that is exactly why it is none of your business who has/owns one. Be carful, the next items to be banned are knives. Then what, golf clubs? Focus on the real problem, mental health.

Aahhh! The great state of New Hampshire whose motto is "Live free or die". Those four words says it all. Right now, I don't feel this great Country is living free. More gov't regulation and loss of rights is killing the very spirit that makes the USA the best in the world. The big gov't agenda is killing us all.

DSmith-1497218

@culheath

I have a great number of guns and a couple neighbors like you. Never shot any of them.

What does that even mean..."neighbors like you"?

In all this talk we forget about on segment that is put at risk by publishing permit holder's names and addressees, Retired Members of Law Enforcement. I can't speak for other states, but NY requires retired members to have carry permits. We spent years of our lives protecting you, now let's let the bad guys know where we live? They do remember us.

I thought that the idea was that gun ownership discourages crime such as burglaries because the crooks never know whether or not they might encounter an armed homeowner. If a chance is a deterrent, wouldn't certainly be even more of one? Gun owners should want their names published.

SnakeEyes23 ...(#1.30)..."I and other members of my family don't own any firearms in the house"

If I live next door to you and my house has the RED DOT on it, would it be OK with you if I put a sign on my lawn with an arrow pointing to your house saying

THE PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR DO NOT BELIEVE IN GUN OWNERSHIP. I PROMISE NOT TO USE ANY OF MY WEAPONS DEFENDING THEM OR THEIR PROPERTY.

You leave for work at 7am....Your pretty wife and 2 year old are home alone all day...And my sign or the interactive map from the newspaper is letting any thug know which house to hit.

Disclosure of who has guns makes it easier for burglers to find a target worth breaking into when no one is home. Great idea.

When I was 12 a man broke into our house. He had watched our home for months. I heard him at my own window many nights--he actually whispered things to me, taunting me, telling me to get up and tell my parents that he was there. I did run several times to tell, but always by the time my father got outside, the man was gone, so I was considered insane by my parents until the morning the man changed the rules.

Throughout the night I had heard my window-whisperer. He had taunted me to get up and go tell as usual, but I didn't, because I didn't like the fact that my father looked at me like I was crazy, and he had stopped going out to check anyway... and I sort of worried I might be crazy too. I had heard prying at the bathroom window screen, but still I didn't get up to tell. When my older sister got home around two in the morning, she accidentally left the back door unlocked. The man came in our house at some point after that; there is really no telling how long he was there, except that he couldn't get the screen off the window, so he must have come in after she came home. My little sister woke up scared in the middle of the night, and my dad went to lay down with her. This was almost a nightly occurrence, probably because this sick individual whispered at more windows than just mine. My mom was left sleeping in her room alone, across the house from everyone.

At six in the morning, I woke to my mother screaming my father's name repeatedly. I ran from my bed, thinking wild thoughts, afraid my father was beating her or had a heart attack. When I saw my father run out of my brother and sister's room in front of me, I knew that he wasn't hurt or hurting mom, so I followed after him, not knowing what was wrong with my mother. I stopped in the kitchen as a streak of a person ran out from the hall to my parent's room, naked on the top, wearing only red underwear. My mind went wild again, and I thought it was my mother, gone crazy, running frantic out the back door. As the back screen slammed, I stopped cold, thinking she had shot herself on the back porch, but then I heard her screaming again in her bedroom, and I realized that the streak of a person was not my mother, so I followed the window-whisperer and my father out the back door and was there just in time to see this man leap like a gazelle over the six foot privacy fence--how he had always made his escape (I was decidedly not insane). My mother came out of her room, bleeding buckets from her head, holding the pieces of the brick the window-whisperer had used to bash her in the skull--her hard head and the waterbed saved her, I think.

Our intruder was caught two days later because his own neighbor and our neighbor worked together by chance and were able to put the pieces together--his neighbor had seen him return home from a run around 630 that morning, wearing only red shorts and no shoes (his shoes came off at the back of our fence as he ran from my father). The man who whispered at my window was sentenced to 122 years in prison for what he did to my mom and what he did to other women: an elderly woman was sodomized with a broom handle; a little girl, 9 years old, was raped in the anus; a woman who was 8 months pregnant was raped... What would he have done to my mother if he had managed to kill her and she had laid there silently? Undoubtedly he would have raped her corpse, because he was demented, and instead of waking to my mother's screams and chasing the window-whisperer from my home, I would have woken to my father's cries of agony when he found her in the morning, raped in a puddle of blood.

What does this story have to do with guns? Well, when I was thirteen, we had moved to a new house and my bedroom had old-fashioned shutters. One night I had gotten out of the shower and was standing in front of my mirror in my room, examining the way my body changed, when I heard a thump on the wall outside my window. I didn't panic, I just threw on my towel and went and told my father there was someone outside my window. My dad, who had learned his lesson, grabbed his shotgun and snuck quietly out the front door while I returned to my room, dropped my towel and continued examining myself, as if nothing in the world mattered but the shape of my breasts.

I heard through the window the rapturous sound of that gun being cocked as my father asked in an angry drawl much like Dirty Harry, "What are you doing?" The young man, who had taken over the post as my window-whisperer, fell from his five gallon bucket, shaking, pissing himself, and answered, "I'm takin' a whiz." Then he ran, and he never came back.

I will never live in a house without a gun.

I live in a 'green state' on this map. However, once upon a time, the local newspaper looked into acquiring the list of residents who had permits to carry weapons. A reporter went across the street to the courthouse and up to the sheriff's office, where the clerk simply refused to disclose that information, even though it is supposedly public record. That, as I recall, was pretty much the end of the story.

There is the argument put forward by many gun owners that simply brandishing a hand gun can save lives

A great many crimes in progress through the years have been short circuited when someone carrying a handgun let the perpetrator see it. Usually, it wasn't drawing and 'brandishing' it so much as it was merely revealing a holstered sidearm by brushing the concealing garment, such as a coat or jacket, back. Most of the time, the attempted crime ended when the perpetrators ran off. In the majority of the cases, the crime in progress was an attempted robbery where several accomplices entered a business and took positions and acted in such a way that it was obvious they were about to rob the establishment but had yet to present a weapon. No one ever knows how such things would turn out...they may not have had a weapon, or one they wouldn't want to deploy after seeing someone aware of what's going on having a weapon. Other than robberies, rapes tend to be the crimes most commonly deterred in this manner. In all cases, the key factor was that the person or persons attempting to commit the crime were not counting on any kind of significant resistance and preferred flight over fight when it came down to that. I would think that in most cases, the criminals were not especially hardened or overly dangerous, rather amateur in nature and perhaps often first time offenders. It is possible that would-be criminals who fled such encounters decide not to try anything like that again, too.

the idea that a perpetrator is unlikely to break into a house if he thinks the owner has a weapon; in other words,

If the occupants of a home are armed, burglars generally don't want to be there. If no one is home, however, then that's a different story! In some cases, those who have a permit to carry a pistol or revolver are very likely to have other firearms and their home, if unoccupied at the time of a break in, could be a treasure trove for a burglary ring. In many areas, especially more urban in nature, a person who has a permit to carry a weapon is quite likely to be carrying it and they don't own any others. When that's the case, no point in breaking in...a weapon worth stealing isn't going to be there. On the other hand, anyone caught in that house when the occupant comes home is likely to have a rough time...

I know some will assert that NOT knowing whether a household has a gun is the real deterrent, but that requires that a majority of households actually be armed...which is not the case.

It depends on the neighborhood. In many more rural areas, the majority of households are armed and any uninvited guests definitely run the risk of finding a shotgun pointed in their direction should they show up. Most people - namely young men who tend to do things like this - realize early on it's not a good idea to be an uninvited guest at someone's house! In urban and suburban areas, this hardly applies at all, and bad guys know it.

Let's see, sooo many things to really to consider. Our constitutional right to bare arms.

I don't remember seeing anything about it in the Constitution, but I keep my arms bare whenever I feel comfortable doing so. I'm wearing a sleeveless shirt right now!

Former police officers who have arrested thugs, rapist, muders and gang members now have their address published and now have to worry about the safety of themselves and family members.

I suspect this is the main reason the county sheriff's clerk wouldn't release this information to the newspaper. A significant percentage of the permit holders are current and former law enforcement officers, who otherwise have unlisted or unpublished phone numbers and whose names and addresses do not appear in the phone book.

a number of compelling arguments on both sides, but the fact is, the second amendment contains the phrase 'well-regulated' but does not contain the word 'anonymous'.

Lu, did you ever think about investing your money in an alarm system? Or, maybe you could get a cell phone with 911 on speed dial. That way you wont have to keep a loaded pistol under your pillow.

JW, on this you are a fool. The reason guns are a deterrant to opression is the SAME REASON labor unions are a deterrent to abuse...the mere fact that they COULD be there will force the opressing party to consider whether the opression is worth the battle.

I am a left leaning moderate. I support the left and the right, where they are respectively logical. Guns are designed to shoot, and the more reliably, the more accurately; the better. All my guns, a significant number, have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car. In this history of this country, the only people we have disarmed are the ones we have wanted to opress, and THAT is the purpose of a second ammendment; preserve the security of a free state. The state is not the governor, not the president, not the jackass congress who cant pass gas. The state is every citizen and every American, and the second ammendment exist to keep them from being opressed by any power, foriegn or domestic.

No law restricting things in the history of this country has has as much impact as education. The problem is (along with so many other things) this has been radicalized by both rediculous parties. Responsable gun owners need to sit down and talk with the completely ignorant Diane Feinstiens of the world and work on laws that will work. Notice how every law she pushes is already a law in Cali? How's that working for them? We need meaningful legislation, and expending political capital to prove a partison point like "guns are made to kill" is not rational.

Well, if we can do this, we don' wet just have a public record of the entire inventory of my house. Not only do I have a hunting rifle and two handguns, but I have several computers, a couple big screen TVs, a new car, I have a safe with some cash in it, an expensive telescope. Also have a teenage daughter. This is where I live on google maps, and here's how you get to my house from your house. Since you now know my where I live, and the name of the person owning the house, you can possibly go to facebook and discover, I'm going to be out late with the wife to see some old friends...it's a perfect time to come and steal stuff from my house and maybe have your way with my daughter.

Are you anti-gun people so blind? This isn't the way to push your agenda. You're endangering people with this nonsense.

Restricting and regulating gun ownership and outing gun owners who abide by and go along with these restrictions is so far removed from the words of the Second Amendment without an amending amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How did it ever come to this?

@Culheath,The fact is, we all have a right to have a firearm. We also have a right to privacy. It is NONE of your business who owns a firearm. And just because you think it is, does not make you correct or entitle you to the information. In order to be a free nation, you must accept the rights of others. By limiting those rights, because of your control issues, is not tolerable.

As for the newspaper, they are basically punishing those exercising their Constitutional rights. How would they like to be required to expose all of their sources? Which by the way, seems to do more harm then good by itself, as they are often incorrect in their reporting.

Culhealth, #1.4- I don't understand why your comment is collapsed.

I don't think it's really a matter of "Right to know", as you're stating for use in your comment, as much as it is more a matter of Your RIGHT "to the expectation" that you are SAFE, in your Home and out in Public, ie, (4th Amendment, "Secure in your Person"). That is the "Civil Servant Police's" job and "burden", not Yours and not a "prosecutorial burden", per se, either. Why wouldn't ALL weapons be registered with the Police Department of the Municipality where they're housed? (In the same way that you register your car, BUT, with NO EXCISE Tax....just a registration) And that list (registry) could be confidential from Public View. The Police in and for the Community need to know where the weapons are and the Public only needs to know that there are weapons at some places (Homes) in the Community, but the Police have a handle on that. Publicizing Owners is actually creating not only an unwarranted "Underclass" but also an unwarranted detriment of jeopardy to that very same Underclass, "Non-Owners". Underclass, as in being UNarmed.

This is another issue heading to "inane", when it doesn't have to be. AND, here is Diane Feinstein, AGAIN, with arbitrary loopholed language of "Most" legal weapons would be registered; BUT, then again, the Writer of this Article is also NOT letting the Public know what Diane Feinstein means by "Most", but obviously not all.

Ortho, thanks for your input! BTW...we wont be in town for Easter, so don't plan on coming over for dinner. Oh, and be careful with those firecrackers...I would hate to see you lose another finger.

I agree !!! We should also make an example of these news papers and other media who violates the rights of the people. Since this paper has shown the criminals where the gun permit holders as well as dissarmed citizens are. If anyone of these are victomized by a breakin and items stollen, Sue the hell out of the paper by them using journalistic malpractice and endagering their family. They can also be held accountable for violating their Constitutional rights to privacy if they are not permit holders.

The people should follow all of the workers , jounalists, editors, and owners of the paper to their homes, and get it published. Lets see how they like it having their families endangered,

" If a chance is a deterrent, wouldn't certainly be even more of one?"

Barry, you're far more capable of logic. Burglary and robbery are apples and oranges largely dependent on the time of day and involve either the desire for stealth or the willingness for confrontation.

JW,

The man who was at my window was the same sort of crazy as the men who have perpetrated mass-shootings. He had no gun.

I do have an alarm system and dogs that might wag or lick someone to death and a ferocious little cat that will beg for food from anyone and a gun that I am not afraid to use on someone who has no right to be in my home or on my property looking in my daughters' windows. But you'd have me just let the cops handle things, like the cops were able to solve the crime after the man raped an old lady, or then after he raped a child, or then after he raped a pregnant woman... The cops didn't even solve the crime in this case--a couple of ordinary citizens who happened to work together did.

I assure you I won't ever shoot anyone. I won't have to, as the sound of the gun being cocked is enough to make people piss themselves and run.

A few years ago, I worked in the mall across the highway from the Journal News. One night a gang fight took place at mall closing. Another time a boy was badly beaten outside one of the restaurants. There were many other incidences of crime that took place in the mall and on mall property. NONE of these incidents were reported in the Journal News. Why? My guess is that much of the Journal's ad dollars came from mall related businesses and they did not want their readers to know just how unsafe the mall could be. They didn't find it necessary to report crimes that occurred, but find it necessary to report who has a gun permit? Rockland County is so much better than the News Journal....which should perhaps be re-named the Selective News Journal.

culheath Comment collapsed by the community

There is the argument put forward by many gun owners that simply brandishing a hand gun can save lives or the idea that a perpetrator is unlikely to break into a house if he thinks the owner has a weapon; in other words, simple ownership is it's own deterrent. If that is true, where is the deterrent unless people know you have the weapon?

So do NEVER leave your house or what? I think it is safe to say the vast majority of gun owners leave their homes on a regular basis and when they do they leave most of their guns behind in their unoccupied house. So yeah, let's put even more guns in the hands of criminals by telling them exactly where to go and steal them.

You must think that thieves who are going to steal guns are tech savvy. Any thieves who would bother to look up such information in order to steal weapons are going to be organized enough to get the information where it is normally available or not

What the @!$%# are you talking about??? How "tech savvy" do you have to be to pick up a @!$%#ing newspaper with a nice little map of all the places you need to stake out?? And of course we all know damn well that as soon as that info becomes available people of your ilk will plaster it all over the net just like these ass-holes did with their little newspaper. As to your second point, please do explain how these "organized" thieves get info that is not publicly available? And if it is so easy for them then surely you can pacify your own paranoia and check on your neighbors without any new laws.

Lu, I am glad that you feel safer having your gun at your side. The problem is that our country has so many guns floating around that every psycho has fairly easy access to them. That may not be the case with you, but it certainly is with many other gun owners. Just because you have bad memories from your childhood that are eased by having a loaded weapon at your side doesn't justify the other problems that society now faces because of the huge number of guns that are everywhere. We need to step back as a society and face the fact that we have not only armed ourselves, but also the criminals, the psychos, kids, Mexican drug lords, and everyone else. Remember, with so many guns available, the next time you cock your gun might only result in an automatic weapon being opened up on you.

Things that could be changed 1 note from family Dr. stating your not bipolar or on any personality altering drugs or have a problem that could make you unstabile. 2 keep killers in jail,DON"T LET OUT EVER. 3 automatic 5-10 yrs. for gun crime plus time for the crime. 4 if some in home has a dangerous mental problem,guns in safe,unless carrying,not to be left out. 5 if a convicted felon gets out of jail and is caught again with a gun,automatic 5 yrs,if used commiting a crime 10 yr plus time for crime. 6 In CT. local,state and F.B.I. have knowledge of who has legal guns and permits. As far as putting names in papers of gun owners fine,as long sex offenders,drug users,drinkers,wife beaters, people with dangerous mental problems,speeders and any others I missed.Also put names of people who have alarms and who don't. Sen feinstein (ban guns)does have a permit to carry in Cal("wonder if she takes it DC?)

The problem is that our country has so many guns floating around that every psycho has fairly easy access to them.

Just as every psycho has easy access to poison, knives, bombs, rope, etc., etc.

Jim Jones murdered over 900 people with poisoned kool aid. Guess if we had banned kool aid, it would have never happened.

debi, do you even understand how silly your post is? an amending amendment? ;-) better, 'regulating gun ownership....is so far removed from the words of the 2nd...' then you handily post the text of said amendment, which begins ' A WELL REGULATED....' and again, i don't see the word 'anonymous' in there anywhere...

how did it ever come to this? sadly, it came to this because too many people with guns did too many sad and horrible things. in a perfect world, guns wouldn't exist, but this is not a perfect world, and nobody but idiots propose collecting and destroying every firearm on the planet. that ship has long sailed. but all sides of this issue have to have a rational discussion on mitigating the damage caused by the fetishism of weapons in our society, without screaming slogans at each other. eventually, if solutions are not found, the list of atrocities will become to burdensome, and the second amendment will be gutted or removed entirely, which will likely result in the fracturing of the U.S. if this happens, it will not only be the fault of the NRA whackjobs who propose arming school kids with uzi's, but those of us responsible gun owners that failed to look for ACTUAL solutions to the never-ending list of innocent victims of gun violence.

short of outright bans, which i agree would be counter-productive in many instances, what can we do? as responsible gun owners, we HAVE to preach education, responsibility, and accountability. no one should ever handle, much less own, a gun until they understand how it works, how to shoot it, how to store it properly, and the laws regarding its use. personally, i took a class by the NRA, before they went @!$%#ing nuts. a couple hours of training and facts before we allow joe blow to own a tool capable of mass casualties seems like a good start. we need to force gun owners to secure their weapons. if someone can enter your house and leave with a gun, without using explosives, you don't deserve to own a gun. period. I own 11 guns, and i would stake my freedom on the fact that NOBODY will EVER walk out of my home with any of them. EVER. and we need to track all guns and ammo. if a gun or bullets are used in a crime, it should take seconds, not days or weeks, to track it. possession of unregistered or stolen guns or ammo have to have draconian punishments.

are there better ways? probably. but until we start looking for solutions rather than victory, we'll never find them. most importantly, the right to own a gun cannot be more important than the right not to have one used upon you.

have a great day

JW,

You are making making assumptions about me and being condescending to boot.

I sincerely hope you and your family never have to endure the sorts of real life circumstances that cause bad memories.

We should ban bricks and broomsticks and sex up the anus and sex with pregnant women.

Debi, don't forget firecrackers! And, what about earthquakes, and floods, and meteors? On the plus side, I would feel a bit safer in a crowded theater if the psycho out to kill me was armed with a knife, or a rope, or poison...instead of three automatic weapons with over sized clips of ammo. But, lets not let logic get in the way of dealing with this runaway problem.

Lu, oddly enough, you are the only one I wasn't being condescending toward. You described a real problem (hopefully you didn't embellish) that would lead me to believe you really feel a need to have a loaded weapon at your side. I was merely trying to let you know that there are other things that can provide you with better methods for dealing with potential attackers, that won't place you in a position where an armed attacker thinks they need to take you out before you fire on them. Plus, I wanted you to understand that your desire to have a loaded weapon doesn't supersede society's need for less weapons in the hands of psychos. But, for the rest of you, I am being condescending....just as you would be to a small child that you were tired of arguing with.

JW: You watch way too much TV. This may help culhealth to understand as well:

The Supreme Court ruled: "...fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

As such, 911 equates to government sponsored dial-a-prayer. The police cannot do a thing until AFTER a law is violated. They can only intervene in certain SPECIFIC circumstances. When it comes to life in the real world, cops are pretty much nothing more than janitors. They just show up to take a report and clean up the mess.

As far as being of public record, technically, it shouldn't be a problem... However, when an "organization", (such as a newspaper), decides to publish that information, it would be no different than yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It jeopardized the safety and well being of the communities at large. Putnam County New York's Clerk of Courts was absolutely correct in denying the FIOA request to the newspaper for that very reason. Don't believe me?

Burglars applaud move to publish gun owners' addresses

Now the criminals, (who do NOT abide by the laws, no matter WHAT they are.), have a good idea of where the easy PREY is, AND where they can scope out for POTENTIAL places to STEAL guns from. Realistically speaking, MOST gun owners are not easy targets for gun theft.

Also, consider the following:

There are an estimated 300,000,000 privately owned firearms in the US.
There were 11,105 firearm homicides in 2010 in the US. {CDC}
{NOTE: CDC reports that there were approximately 600 accidental firearm related deaths that same year.}
That is 0.000038 percent of guns used for gun violence.
It also means there were 299,988,507 guns in the hands of completely safe people.
99.999962 percent of guns are owned, used and enjoyed by safe, law abiding citizens.

We just have to keep things in a proper perspective, and remember that Utopia does NOT exist, evil people DO exist, and we MUST have the necessary tools available to defend ourselves from those evil people, and that it's physically impossible to keep everyone safe all of the time. We can only do the best we can...

"By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ ‘the security of the nation,’ and The RIGHT OF EACH CITIZEN ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment STILL remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which EVERY CITIZEN MUST BE READY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEFENSE OF HIS COUNTRY. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will ALWAYS be important." -- John F. Kennedy

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -- Thomas Jefferson

JW,

Never once did I claim to have a loaded weapon under my pillow or at my side--I merely said I would never live in a home without a gun. An armed attacker is already thinking about taking you out, whether or not you show them you are armed as well, otherwise they would not come in armed (with guns or knives or bricks). If the armed attacker is just taking your television and gold, no big deal, but what if the armed attacker is taking your daughter? You just going to let him do it?

Your desire to have an unarmed society does not superseded society's need for less weapons in the hands of psychos either. Taking the rights of self-protection away from law-abiding citizens in order to try and catch those who would commit gun crimes makes about as much sense as taking the penises away from all men, in order to try and catch the rapists.

Thanks, Spiddy! So, here we are! All of you gun lovers who have been pushing for everyone to own, and pack, weapons...along with the money loving gun manufacturers...have resulted in us having 300,000 privately owned guns. Now, some argue that they have been so successful in getting guns out into the public that we need to be afraid of them and get even more guns out there. Those of us who are saying, "Whoa, stop the presses! We need to rethink this "need" for everyone to have a firearm strapped to their side." are written off as idiots. Well, from where I stand on this issue, and the research I have done concerning what happens when guns are NOT available, I don't think I am on the "idiot side" of this problem. In fact, I remind myself of my father who used to say, "Slow down with those firecrackers, kid. You are going to blow a finger off!"

Did your father say that, JW, or are you embellishing?

Uh, Yeah... The research is easy. History has shown what has happened when weapons of any kind are not available to the citizenry of any country/empire that bans them...

Hitler.

"What luck for rulers that men do not logically think." -- Adolf Hitler

Mao.

“Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.’” -- Mao Tse-tung, 1938, inadvertently endorsing the Second Amendment

Stalin.

Pol Pot.

Amin.

Shoguns.

The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings.” -- Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Shogun, August 1588

See a pattern?

"Throughout history, there have only been two groups of people that have never been allowed guns: Slaves and Conquered Nations. And which one are they trying to make us in America?" -- Sheriff Richard Mack

@MysteryRhee

"as much as it is more a matter of Your RIGHT "to the expectation" that you are SAFE, in your Home and out in Public, ie, (4th Amendment, "Secure in your Person"). That is the "Civil Servant Police's" job and "burden","

While you're reading SCOTUS Gonzelas vs. Castle Rock, you'll quickly realize that the police have no Constitutional duty to protect you.

That's what the 2nd Amendment is for, you have the right and the duty to protect yourself.

JW-1532016

Thanks, Spiddy! So, here we are! All of you gun lovers who have been pushing for everyone to own, and pack, weapons

And exactly which gun lovers are you referring to. I don't know anyone that thinks everyone should "own and pack" weapons. Maybe your point would seem more valid if it wasn't so full of @!$%#.

@sicchimp

"the second amendment contains the phrase 'well-regulated' but does not contain the word 'anonymous'."

When you finish reading SCOTUS Heller vs. DC, get back to us.

JW is now recovering in the hospital. He got rid of all his fireworks because his father tried to teach him responsibility and he ended up hating fireworks as an adult. A criminal got some illegal fireworks across the border...probably some fireworks from Obama's fast & furious program. The criminal looked on the newspaper database created by other firework haters and found out who had fireworks or not. Naturally, JW did not. The criminal targeted his house and broke in and shoved a firework into JW's face. He squatted and cried like a little girl wishing he had some fireworks. The criminal beat him senseless in front of his wife and then raped her. He robbed them completely and kidnapped his daughter and sold her to the underground sex trade. Before he left, he set the house on fire. JW woke up in the hospital having lost everything. He's now wishing he had fireworks now. If only he had fireworks before.

Criminals will get fireworks even if you ban them all....and these firework haters are only identifying who is an easy target. I hope the other firework haters appreciate them.

champagnesabre

"1) weapons attract theft".... so we should tell the thieves where the guns are?

"2) I want to know if an argument with a neighbor could possibly escalate to lethality".... good reason to be a good neighbor. And, your neighbor could beat you with a rock if you're an assshole.

I live in NH where an estimated 70% of homes here have a gun, no gun licensing or registration is required and CCW is shall issue . We don't seem to have the problems that are in your mind.

Agree big time with you! Thanks.

sikchimp, #1.53- I don't understand your name (moniker, handle, etc..)

EXCELLENT!!! Nice Post!

champagnesabre, #1.62- I've not even yet read Citizens United! :)

@champagnesabre- heller is a very curious choice for a precedent to cite- while it says that an outright ban is unconstitutional, it makes very clear that some regulatory oversight is legal and permitted under the second amendment. it also has nothing to do with whether or not gun ownership should or should not be private. (besides the facts that privacy is not constitutionally protected, and the facts that Scalia is a notably dishonest jurist who believes that the constitution is an inflexible mandate when he agrees with it, and has no significance when he doesn't)

heller is mostly concerned with whether the residents of the District of Columbia have the same rights as residents of states. when it comes to the second amendment, scotus says they do. when it comes to abortion, elections, or almost any other issue, scotus says no. that's your precedent? REALLY bad case law, that is tailor picked to violate the constitution?

you ought to actually READ the cases you cite before posting.

Lu, did you ever think about investing your money in an alarm system? Or, maybe you could get a cell phone with 911 on speed dial. That way you wont have to keep a loaded pistol under your pillow.

I don't know where Lu lives, but I live in the woods and it takes law enforcement 25 minutes to get to my place. When you are a woman alone, even two minutes would be two minutes too long when a man is intent on harming you.

I've had to use my gun twice this year to run off men who thought I would be an easy target. My dogs are my daytime security system, but at night I bring them inside. When they alert me, I don't let them out because I don't know if the intruders have guns and I don't want my companions shot. I fire into the air and if they don't fire back, then I turn the dogs out.

@Mystery Rhee- i once wrote a poem where i concluded humanity was just a bunch of diseased monkeys.... that eventually got turned around to sikchimp... i do a couple blogs under that name, and perform musically under that nom de plume.... nothing that mystical about it, and besides, i kinda have a 'thing' for monkeys.... that tattoo of Abu from alladin and all.... have a great day

sikchimp

i kinda have a 'thing' for monkeys

A chimpanzee isn't a monkey.

and, @champagnesabre- i'm not anti-gun. I own 11 of them, including a .40 cal glock and a couple vintage .22 winchesters. i'm anti-gun culture. anti-gun fetishism. and anti stupid and irresponsible gun owners. we need solutions, not screaming. if those of us that are responsible owners do not stand up and help craft solutions to the HUGE violence problem we are facing, those losers who refuse to secure their guns, and scream NRA slogans will make the decisions for us.

Spiffy, give it a rest. You and your cronies having stockpiles of pistols, rifles, and ammo will not prevent the government from wiping you off the face of the earth should they so desire. Military technology has passed you by. Throwing out a few tyrants names pulled from the annals of history doesn't negate the fact that we need to deal with this problem in an intelligent, reasoned way. Guns are all over the place and so are psychos who are ready to use them in theaters, schools, and malls. I have no problem with you owning a rifle to shoot Bambi's mother with, or a shotgun to blast the rattlesnake that wandered up on your porch, or even a six shooter that you can brandish through the window at some shady character who is trying to break into your house. But, arguing that people need access to automatic weapons, which are primarily the ones used by the psychos, is utterly ridiculous. If you are worried about Hitler or Mao taking over, then you need to find a much better way of dealing with that than hitting the gun shows and stocking up your weapons cache.

@Backcountry164 SHUSH YER MOUTH! this is 'merica, we don't understand those subtlies.... besides, the main difference is that chimps don't have tails...

merry 12th day of christmas, 12 drummers drumming for everyone!

JW I am mostly left leaning.

Firecrackers have killed more people than my guns. Ted Kennedy's car killed more people than my guns.

The posturing of your friends on the left has been moving guns like nothing else could. Every time Diane Feinstien opens her trap, gunstores sell out. You see, since actual gun owners like me are willing to talk about gun laws but no one on the far right or left will listen, YOUR crew is responsible for selling out gunstores everywhere, ammo everywhere, mags everywhere; to people who may or may not be responsable. Congratulations. You just increased the number of guns in potentially unsafe hands. I hope it feels awesome.

just remember this is America ..and like the middle east we have gangsters / terrorist /politicians

and with out guns we would not have this great country we loved so much,we felt very good about killing the native tribes

we are the first nazies and we still have camps to prove it

...it makes very clear that some regulatory oversight is legal and permitted under the second amendment.

Once you get past the words "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", can you personally cite where in the Second Amendment "some regulatory oversight is legal and permitted"?

I would be fine with this list only if they had a list of everyone that took mood altering drugs like Prozac and Wellbutrin. after all it is this group that has the highest likelihood to flip out and kill people.

sikchimp,#1.70- I was being facetious, BUT, Thanks for the reply. Great Bio!

Now, can you substantiate your claim that "privacy is not constitutionally protected"?

Today is "New Year" Day, for me, because yesterday was the 12th and last Day of Christmas. (if I counted right :)

um, that statement is in reference to District of Columbia v Heller, as you well know. would you like to distort or mis-represent anything else i've said while you are at it?

and, yes, i can personally cite where the second amendment allows oversight.... try the first 3 words. when you learn to read, get back to me.

@Mystery Rhee- the constitution itself doesn't explicitly give us the right to privacy, and the courts have fought over it for quite awhile, check out this link:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

my anniversary is tomorrow, so i have some vested interest in making sure the 12 days of christmas are over before we celebrate... ;-) here's the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Days_of_Christmas

oh, i'm near seattle, so it is still jan 5th for me, if you are somewhere that it's the 6th already, you are of course correct....

Maybe you're only capable of reading up to three words per sentence, so let me tell you what the fourth word says: "militia". It doesn't say arms or anything else having to do with regulating arms.

When you learn to read past the first three words, you can get back to me. Better yet, don't.

Uh, JW. My big-ass stock pile you fear so-o-o much, currently consists of A shotgun, A rifle, and A revolver. And I SERIOUSLY plan on expanding that, as I am able to.

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -- George Santayana

You said:

we need to deal with this problem in an intelligent, reasoned way.

I think it's been said enough that everyone at least agrees with that. But the key words are Intelligent and Reasoned. And nothing from the anti-gun crowd suggest anything close to either of those.

But then you said:

...arguing that people need access to automatic weapons, which are primarily the ones used by the psychos, is utterly ridiculous

Since the NFA of 1934 went into effect, there have been absolutely zero crimes committed with automatic weapons. The are cost prohibitive to the average person, and they are HIGHLY regulated. Now if you actually meant semi-autos, the whole banning thing falls flat on it's face, as the only ones they always want to ban are just the "scary looking" ones, and have zero functional difference between them and the "regular" ones. It's all smoke and mirrors. Period. There is literally no difference between guns and cars in this matter. Same engine, different body.

If you are worried about Hitler or Mao taking over, then you need to find a much better way of dealing with that than hitting the gun shows and stocking up your weapons cache.

Yes, Aspire to their human decency, and then beat them over the head with the proverbial olive branch... {sarcasm...}

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't." -- Unknown

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

wow, see, you ARE the problem. hope you lock your babies up tight so kids can't get ahold of them. wow, the stupidity of those who would rather plunge this great country into chaos rather than take responsibility for their actions is flabberghasting. wow. may your god have mercy on your soul, and of any human unlucky enough to come in contact with you. blocked.

I guess then that it would be ok to make public everyone with a drivers license. I mean, if there is no harm in publishing my personal information, there should be no problem in publishing everyone's.

I find it very telling that when these anti-gun libs felt threatened, the first thing they did was hire ARMED guards. I guess guns aren't so bad when they want them. Hypocrites!

http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm

why is it so hard for people to read the US constitution? its written in plain english.

sikchimp

(besides the facts that privacy is not constitutionally protected,....

yep who cares about the 4th amendment and what it says, this person just ignores anything in the US constitution and instead lets other people tell him lies.

no one has any right to someones private information regardless of what it is, NONE! this is not debatable to any extent as the 4th amendment makes it clear:

Article the sixth [Amendment IV]The right of the people to be secure in their persons,houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

this amendment applies to all entities public or private, you have no right to any citizens private info unless its reasonable and a warrant is issued. newspapers cant get warrants so they are in violation of our constitution (well the government is for giving the info) both need to be prosecuted. this is the right to privacy clear as day but i guess the people would rather let other people tell them lies of whats not in the US constitution rather than read it themselves.

we dont have arms for self protection, our founders didnt have that in mind, its for protecting us from the government because all governments in history has at one point enslaved its citizens, ALL!

sikchimp

and, yes, i can personally cite where the second amendment allows oversight.... try the first 3 words. when you learn to read, get back to me

do you even understand the US constitution at all? when you learn comprehension get back to everyone. you understand the commas in the 2nd amendment or not? the part about "well regulated" is followed by a comma so that changes its meaning. "well regulated" has absolutely nothing to do with government regulations of arms and the context of the amendment is referring to the militia being part of the state, not federal.

Article the fourth [Amendment II]^[3]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

people like you want control over others choices through government regulations. you let the "leaders" tell you what is reality while ignoring anything out of place. government is not the answer, it is the problem. consolidation of power into fewer hands always results in tyranny, this is historical fact.

sikchimp, #1.81- Thank you for the links. I definately will check them out but I was really more hoping for an abbreviated oral argument "straight from the Chimp's mouth", as above in Heller. Nay, Nah, No way? I have to be finished up here in half an hour to get to a "Family" New Year gathering. Spaghetti Dinner, with nitrite-free chicken sausage on the side. HAPPY ANNIVERSARY!

P.S. I've heard many warnings about not relying on wikipedia. And the time on the bottom of the comment kind of "unshields" privacy a little and lets you know which Coast I'm on, No?

Spiddas #1.61: "Throughout history, there have only been two groups of people that have never been allowed guns: Slaves and Conquered Nations. And which one are they trying to make us in America?" -- Sheriff Richard Mack." England and Australia, for example, have very strict gun laws and none of their populations are conquered or slaves. I am in favor of gun ownership but disagree with your premise.

Swagganaut:

Unfortunately, the term "sheeple" was invented for those who lost their ability to comprehensively read and are complacent in allowing the government to do their thinking for them.

England and Australia, for example, have very strict gun laws and none of their populations are conquered or slaves.

"And what about the argument most often made by the Left quoting the success of oppressive gun laws in countries like Australia and England? A recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal by Joyce Lee Malcolm shows that argument to be hollow: “After a school massacre, the U.K. banned handguns in 1998. A decade later, handgun crime has doubled.”

Malcom’s article details what happened after Australia banned many guns following a 1996 mass murder of 35 people by a madman with assault rifles. The country tightened registration laws, banned assault rifles, pump-action shotguns, and also forced a buy back of more than 600,000 guns. What effect did this have on crime?

“A 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides “continued a modest decline” since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was “relatively small,” with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.”

During the same period in America, deaths attributed to firearms dropped by nearly ten times the decline seen in Australia. Restricting or confiscating handguns seems to have had almost no effect on homicides in Australia and the stats also show that the law had no real effect on suicides.

“Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up,” Malcom notes.

And what about the oft-cited British gun laws? Have they done the job?

Restrictive gun laws have been around for almost 100 years in England, and Malcolm reports that getting a permit requires proving to police that you have a “good reason” for needing a gun. Self defense is not considered to be a good reason in England. Following a 1987 shooting in the British town of Hungerford, the Brits enacted stricter controls. And in 1998, a near-total ban on gun ownership followed another mass shooting. Were these moves a success?

Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time."

Isn't taking away the ability to defend oneself a form of being conquered?

I own guns. Some of them are SEMI-automatic. Last week I went to the range and there were lots of people with lots of guns. Thousands of rounds were fired. Everyone hit what they were aiming at. You know what? Not one person was killed or wounded. Kind of blows the theory that guns have only one purpose.

Harold

Ok .... you win. Semi-automatics can be used both to kill people and to entertain those who are easily entertained.

Obama Loves Illegals: Here are the best numbers I've been able to locate...

"According to noted criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck of Florida State University, every year some 650,000 Americans use firearms to thwart criminal assault. That's 12,500 a week." -- Time Magazine, Sunday, June 24, 2001

Kleck is a charlatan whose made-up statistics add to the unreasonable fear that drives the purchase of unneeded and dangerous guns in this country. You have to want very badly to justify a stupid decision to buy an assault weapon to believe the fantasy that is pushed by Kleck and the NRA.

culheath

To my mind, I have a right to know who around me owns weapons for two reasons; 1) weapons attract theft and 2) I want to know if an argument with a neighbor could possibly escalate to lethality.

1) weapons do not attract theft -- the possibility that something of value might be lest unattended and available for the taking attracts theft. I am betting that you do not have any firearms at all, yet you still lock up your home and car when you leave them unattended....

2) Every argument has the possibility of escalating to lethality. The real question is "Do YOU have the maturity to not allow the argument to devolve into childish name-calling and insults -- thereby vastly reducing the probability the argument will escalate to a lethal end?"

I cannot, nor will not, guarantee the maturity level of anyone except myself. That is why I choose to exercise my RIGHT to defend myself, my home, and those around me with whatever tool happens to be the most efficient at the time. If you wish to limit yourself to your fists, while the person attacking you has a knife -- or an illegal firearm -- that is your choice.

Do not presume to make my choice(s) for me.

SnakeEyes23

I and other members of my family don't own any firearms in the house. And fortunately, there hasn't been any incidents of robbery or someone breaking into our home as a result.

Yes, fortunately, you haven't yet had a need to defend yourself and family against someone who is determined to harm you and your family. But when that time comes, I am sure you will rest comfortably in the knowledge that when you really, really, really need the police to show up within seconds -- they will arrive only 5 to 10 minutes after you call them. If you are able to call them...

That is why I, and so many millions of others, exercise our Constitutional RIGHT to possess and bear arms.

now lets get the addresses of every NYP plate holder & press parking permits,press permits ,photogs/cameramen,microwave truck permits .news anchors and journalist and publish there legal address for the public record ,we should have a right to know where all the press lives!!! its a two way street !!!

JW-1532016;

Don't forget kitchen knives, they are so freaking dangerous! I had one jump up out of the drawer last night and fling itself across the room, trying to impale me!! OMG, if it had been a gun I would have been killed!!!

Yes, that was just as stupidly inane as your assertion that "firecrackers" are dangerous and should be banned just because SOME people are stupid enough to misuse them.

Quacked

You own guns and I don't. As a result my house is much safer than your and you and members of your family are far more likely to die from a gunshot than I am. In addition, no gun that I purchase will ever end up in the hands of someone who should not own a firearm because they are a criminal or mentally ill.

1. Domestic violence far too often becomes deadly because a gun is readily available in the home
2. Kids get into their parents' stuff. When that "stuff" includes firearms, kids get shot.
3. Depression is common and so are suicidal thoughts. When guns are readily available suicidal thoughts are more often fatal than in homes where guns are not present.
4. Many people have anger management problems but have never been convicted of a felony. Lots of those people have guns. Bad things happen when angry people have guns.
5. Lots of people have firearms in their home to protect themselves but do not have the skill to properly protect themselves or the judgment to understand when it is reasonable to shoot and when it is not reasonable. As a result they are dangerous to themselves and the families they believe they are protecting.
6. Far too many people who have guns, usually the ones that have lots of guns with lots of firepower and large capacity magazines, arm themselves in case the government comes after their guns. Therefore, they justify treason which is defined as illegal in the Constitution with the Second Amendment of the Constitution. [That proves they are not smart enough to earn the right to bear arms.]

@sikchimp;

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Let's take those last four words -- "shall not be infringed". What is so difficult to understand about the meaning of that phrase? "Shall NOT be infringed".... It doesn't say "...except for when ever whoever wants to possess and bear arms happens to have been suspected of, arrested for, convicted of or spent time in jail/prison for a crime to be defined and/or specified at a later time".

Now, let's take those first four words, "A well regulated Militia". What, exactly, is a "militia"? Is it a standing Army that is paid for by the Government to do only what the Government tells it to do? Is it a paid police force? Or is it the free Citizens of the nation who are called up in time of need (war, emergency, etc)? The meaning of "militia" that the "Founding Fathers" of the U.S.A. knew and lived by was definitely not the first two options, because they were definitely not in favor of depending upon any kind of mercenary Army (you know, the kind that has to be paid to wage war and defend the nation it is worn to defend...).

Now for the reason for that 2nd Amendment. First, it allows the Citizens to have the means with which to most effectively and efficiently defend themselves. Second (and this is where it is important to remember what a "militia" really is), it allows the Citizens to learn how to shoot and actually hit what they aim at BEFORE there is any need to raise an army. Imagine how much faster even the U.S. Army could be put in the field if there was no need to teach soldiers those basic, simple things such as how to properly load, hold and fire a rifle or handgun.... That is the original, and the real, reason for any Citizen Militia.

Now, about that word you brought (or someone else) up, "anonymous".... True, that word does not appear anywhere in the 2nd Amendment, nor should it need to appear anywhere in the Constitution. I am fairly certain that even you would never agree to having your name published in any list of people who have ever been ticketed for even the most minor traffic violation -- or of people who happen to own a specific breed of "dangerous" canine.

Sorry donny, Kleck actually used a scientifically acceptable mathematical process for obtaining his numbers. And it's a damned sight more accurate than pulling number out of your ass like the anti-gunners do. Just like post #1.101. Not one single source? Typical. Just opinions {And we all know what opinions are like, don't we?!} The road to Hell is paved with the kind of "good intentions" you'ld like to impose on everyone. There's a short list in post #1.61

As far as your so-called "assault rifles", the NFA of 1934 defines and Assault Rifle as one with select fire automatic. They are referred to as Class III weapons. If you go to buy one you will have to come up with the cash for the hefty tax stamp {that comes with a full rectal exam from Uncle Sandusk..., er, I mean Uncle Sam}. And absolutely NONE have ever been used in a crime since the inception of the NFA of 1934.

As I stated before, if you actually meant semi-autos, the whole banning thing falls flat on it's face, as the only ones they always want to ban are just the "scary looking" ones. And is zero functional difference between the "scary looking" ones and the "regular" ones. It's all smoke and mirrors. Period. There is literally no difference between guns and cars in this matter. Same engine, different body is just like same receiver, different stock.

Utopia does NOT exist, evil people DO exist, and we MUST have the necessary tools available to defend ourselves from those evil people, and that it's physically impossible to keep everyone safe all of the time. We can only do the best we can. Those that believe we can "Save 'em all" are simply delusional.

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." -- Plato (423 BC – 348 BC)

The police are not required to protect you {Warren v. DC}. They are just the "clean-up crew". 911 is government sponsored dial-a-prayer. If someone is attacking your family and you just happen to see a gun and a telephone, which one would you grab first? I care about my family's safety enough to have the necessary protection.

This PROPERTY is protected by a Shotgun 3 nights a week. You guess which three.

”If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” -- The Dalai Lama

”A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” -- Sigmund Freud

@culheath

You may want to read the latest report from the FBI in that more people are killed with hammers than by assault weapons! I say we responsible gun owners should demand that all owners of hammers; from ballpeen to sledge need to register their hammers with the authorities and let all of their neighbors know that they are in possession of said hammers.

Also, if you are a professional that wields a hammer daily, you need to have a special tax levied against you due to your extreme knowledge on how to utilize this "weapon" to its fullest.

You are an absolute idiot!

The Quaked One: This ought to help explain "...shall not be infringed." for the readership.

Infringe, in-fringe': v.i. 1. To break or violate a law. 2. To trespass or encroach; followed by 'on' or 'upon'; as, to infringe upon one's rights. syn. - Violate, transgress, encroach, infract, intrude, invade, trespass. -- Webster's Universal Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged, 1937)

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED.
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE TRANSGRESSED.
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE ENCROACHED UPON.
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRACTED UPON.
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INTRUDED UPON.
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INVADED.
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE TRESPASSED UPON.

The First Amendment is not absolute, as "free speech" and "the press" can be limited by the safety and welfare of the People. That is why what that NY newspaper did was inappropriate, and they SHOULD be sued for jeopardizing public safety. The media is NOT above the law.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Abridge, a-bridge' v.t. 3.To deprive; to cut off. -- Webster's Universal Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged, 1937)

The Second Amendment, however, IS absolute, as it most certainly states: "...shall NOT be infringed".

BTW - Old Arnold "The Governator" has a tank. What's this about citizens not having access to military weapons.... The 2nd Amendment at work...

don97524;

You do not own guns. I do own guns. You are far more likely to victimized by a criminal who is determined to rob, burgle or murder you than I am. Oh, and I am not likely to be shot by any of my guns -- unless they miraculously come to life and attain self-aware intelligence.

But since you are so very worried about people being shot just because there are guns in existence, how about you go try to convince your local police to stop carrying guns while on duty? Yes, that should help prevent a lot of gun-shot injuries and deaths. Just be ready to have your sanity questioned.

Now for your list...

1. Domestic violence becomes deadly because far too often someone thinks that the best way to "prove" something is through the use of violence.
2. Kids get into their parents' "stuff". When that "stuff" includes alcohol and drugs, kids end up drunk and, all too often, dead. Not because they are drunk and drugged -- but because of what being drunk and drugged does to the body and mind, and what kids, already immature and irresponsible, do while drunk and drugged.
3. Depression is common and so are suicidal thoughts. But a person can easily kill themself without a gun -- all they have to do is jump off a bridge or drink poisoned kool-aid. Hell, people easily and painlessly kill themselves by running a hose from their car's exhaust into the passenger area of the car and just sitting in the car with the motor running.....
4. Many people have anger management problems and own -- and drive -- cars. Just think, all those short-fused people driving on the highways, only one perceived insult away from a "road rage" incident.....
5. Lots of people own cars, yet do not have the skills to properly control a car, nor the judgment or maturity to know when and when not to do certain foolish things while driving that 1,000+ pound behemoth of death. As a result, they are a danger to themselves -- and everyone else who happens to be on the road with them.
6. Far too many people who do not have guns, or who think that guns are "evil" and that only the police and military should have guns, think that defending against a tyrannical government that ignores its own laws and does whatever the Powerful and Wealthy command is "treason"..... You are like a flock of sheep, willing to be led to slaughter by those you choose to represent you.

Spiddas;

Thank you, but that was not necessary. And I support the right to arm bears.......

The First Amendment is not absolute, as "free speech" and "the press" can be limited by the safety and welfare of the People.

Is that based on an interpretation by the Supreme Court because just as the Second Amendment doesn't allow for any exception, I don't see where the exception limiting free speech for the safety and welfare of the people exists.

The Quacked One: I've read your posts and understand that it was not necessary for you, or anyone else who stands for the BoR, et al. It was directed toward the uneducated sheeple/zombies who have a hard time wrapping their little minds around what happens in the real world. And you probably got that as well.

I agree, we should arm the Bears. Even if they are in Chicago. ~_o

@JW How many times do you incorrectly call them "automatic" weapons? Pretty much negates everything you say afterwards since they are SEMI-automatic and the vast majority cannot fire automatically. Maybe remove your head from your a$$ before you open your mouth and people could understand you better, but as long as you continue to call them automatic weapons I will continue to think you are a moron that knows nothing about guns. I would also bet money that you have never held or shot a gun in your life. Do us all a favor and actually go to a range, rent a gun, and actually try to shoot it under ideal conditions before you create an opinion and try to tell me what type of guns I can or cannot have to defend myself with.

You are also wrong about the police or any military for that matter. They are humans to and do not like getting shot at either. Given the choice they would pick unarmed people to bully or oppress just like criminals do since they cannot shot back. When our military busts out the tanks and bombs and it willing to use them on its own citizens it is pretty much to late, but even then they would still prefer people to be unarmed. I wonder why the police stay out of the hood unless they are there in "force". I wonder why Israel prefers that Palestinians be unarmed even though they have tank, planes, and bombs, AND they use them.

According to you there is this increase in gun violence and some great pandemic if we do not do something this instant, but the data says otherwise. In fact our population has gone up and so has the numbered of registered gun owners, yet homicides by guns are actually down according to the FBI. Maybe stop buying into the media hype? Take a look at the number of deaths caused by "rifles" and how they compare to shotguns, knives, blunt objects like hammers and clubs, or even bare hands, fists or feet. They ALL beat out the number of deaths caused each year by rifles. Some of those deaths were caused by bolt action or lever action "hunting" rifles too and the true number of victims from semi-automatic "assault" rifles is even less. Strangulation and asphyxiation combined almost add up to the number of rifle deaths each year. It does not matter the tool, if someone wants to kill you they will find a way.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

(You can also just search for FBI crime stats and it is "Expanded Homicide Data Table 8" if you hate links from stranger since it does not want to copy and paste the table without adding a bunch of blank spaces in front of it. I do not have a Facebook page or others because people do not need to know that much information about me. If they want to know more they can ask me directly.)

Most rifles weigh over 6 pounds each and they are not something one would carry with them everyday on their person since they are so heavy. Of course if you actually shot one or held one you would know that. I wonder why so many gun deaths are from small lightweight concealable handguns...I wonder? How many deaths are we really going to save each year even if we outlawed ALL rifles? Approximately less then four hundred a year. There are more accidental gun deaths per year then that and agree that people should take some kind of safety course before being given a gun.

If you are really interested in "saving" lives you are barking up the wrong tree. Your energy and efforts could be much better spent elsewhere. The fact that I have felt the need to write so many things about this subject is also a waste of my time when I could be doing something better with my time besides having to defend guns from paranoid morons. If you want to be unarmed and wait for the police to come and save you or your family's a$$es that is your choice, but not mine. Fix the families in America and we would save more lives. What is the divorce rate in this country? How is the economy doing btw? Why do people want to kill other people in the first place? Fix those problems instead of blaming a tool, because if forced to those same people would simply find the next best tool.

How is a sword or machete that can decapitate you less efficient then a gun other then the range. Given 8 minutes how many unarmed cornered children could someone kill with a sword or machete? How is a 100 pound woman going to defend herself against a 200+ pound man while she waits 8 minutes for the police to arrive? How does a father defend his family from a crazed person that set their house on fire in California and was waiting for the police to arrive when the man came back with a gun and killed the whole family? I remember that specific story because I thought that the father was white at first and how much of an a$$ I was for thinking/assuming that at first. If only that father had a gun he and his family might still be alive. God made humans, guns make them equal.

Spiddas

You can rant all you want about your rights and defending yourself and the inadequacy of the police ..... and still my gun-free home is much, much safer than your home that has guns. Enjoy your false sense of security.

Quacked

You countered each of my well-reasoned points with illogical drivel. Congratulations. You actually make my point because you demonstrate how irrational a large percentage of gun owners really are.

Debi: First off, great posts.

No, I'm not basing it on what the SCOTUS may or may not have said. I am only basing it on what the definitions of the words being used actually are. Just like with the Second Amendment. While "... shall not infringe." is very straightforward and to the point, "... shall make no law... abridging" allows the government some "wiggle room", so to speak.

They cannot fully deprive or cut off freedom of speech or of the press, but because the government has been charged with the task to "insure domestic Tranquility", and "promote the general Welfare", {ie - public good}, they can limit it, WITHIN REASON... {key words.} This is why we take it as common place that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie house is inappropriate, and illegal. {The same may hold true when yelling "Movie!" in a crowded firehouse.} The same ought to hold true for that NY newspaper that published the names of all of the CCW holders. I hope a class action is brought forth and restitution made. As I stated above, the media is not above the law and they need to be held accountable.

Hope that helps explain my point. {Now for the quotes...}

“Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons. The possession of a good rifle, as well as the skill to use it well, truly makes a man the monarch of all he surveys.” -- Col. Jeff Cooper

“People who object to [privately-owned] weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically 'right.' Guns ended that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work.” -- L. Neil Smith

“An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.” -- Col. Jeff Cooper

“One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.” -- Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840

“Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.” -- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775

donny: You're just another legend in your own mind. Five PERSONALLY known generations in my very, very large family, and NEVER an instance of death by a gun. Let alone "in their own house". Now my great grandfather {maternal paternal} did chase off more than a few with his old shotgun! My house is actually more safe than yours, as I have the protection I might need in case of a home invasion. You will be waiting for the cops to come clean up the mess, caught with your pants down...

"Respect the tool" applies everywhere. I did not fully respect a band-saw and almost lost a thumb to it. {Ban band-saws! sarcasm} The same thing goes with a gun... Be it Nail GUN, Staple GUN, and Hand GUN. Rifle and shotgun, too... Uneducated about the tool means an uneducated fool...

"You cannot save the planet. You may be able to save yourself and your family." -- Clint Smith

"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That's ridiculous. If I have a gun, what in the hell do I have to be paranoid for."-- Clint Smith

Spiddas:

The word "abridging" (cutting off, depriving) to me, still doesn't appear to grant "exception". I believe if the authors wanted the government to have "wiggle" room, they would have said something to the effect of "except when it affects the welfare and safety...". The government cannot cut off or deprive...no exception stated.

The problem with applying to "insure domestic Tranquility", and "promote the general Welfare", to our rights is the government could then use this to quash any governmental dissidence; just as they have limited the people's right to peacefully assemble.

Debi:

Like I said, I'm going by the actual definitions of the words and the correlation between the various founding documents, and I think it comes across fairly clear. My guess, this is where the SCOTUS have gotten theirs as well. Based on that, I believe the evidence points to the conclusion I came to.

I've done a quick search and read of a handful of sites that have info on the subject. You might want to give them a quick look to see the intricacies involved with how what is determined to be off limits, and why. Hope they help.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time,+Place,+and+Manner+Restrictions

http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educationforfreedom/supportpages/L04-LimitsFreedomSpeech.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions {Not necessarily the best source, but has merit.}

But you see Spiddas, when courts begin adding words, their own interpretations and "public interests"; such as, national security, justice or personal safety to an Amendment, it waters down and weakens that Right as it was written and intended. Rights then become a matter of opinion by the political court flavor of the month. That's why our Constitution today is hardly worth the paper it was originally written on. From one of your sources:

"Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over
the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited,
but there are some general tests that help."

Sorry, but I still for the life of me don't see the correlation between "abridged" and "exception". Lol

But still, the definition of the word "abridge(ing)", in and of itself, is neither all encompassing nor absolute. That is the contentious part of the amendment. It's not definitive like, "...shall not be..." is. Unfortunately, that is what leaves it open to interpretation. But I also believe that is why they also included the phrases: "...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." to keep those in government aware that EVERYONE can question the actions of the government and its officials, on every level.

So I guess my question to you would be this:

Based on your view of the First Amendment, where do you stand regarding the NY newspaper that published the names of all of the CCW holders, both legally and morally?

I believe they were in the wrong on both counts, as I posted in #1.57, and should be held accountable. Too many times the media has abused it's rights in the name of ratings and agendas. When does the rights of the media supercede the rights of the People? During the days of "Constitutional Carry", no one gave it a thought. But this is the conflict created by the actions of that paper.

Something to think about, anyways.

Actually, the First Amendment is definitive:

"Congress shall make no law...; or abridging (depriving, diminishing, condensing) the freedom of speech, or of the press;...

Nowhere does it allow for exceptions.

The right of the people peaceably to assemble is not limited to an amount of time or require a permit, as has become the norm in which the government limits that right.

The Fourth Amendment states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

How did it become legal when driving through a checkpoint, located inside the United States, to be ordered to pull over into the "secondary" area to be searched, without a warrant or without probable cause?

As for publishing the names of CCW holders, if they are a matter of public record, I don't think they did anything wrong. That being said, the media has far too much power controlled by too few people.

Debi, you don't think they did anything wrong? Are you aware that they gave out the names, addresses, telephone numbers, wives names, and childrens names of every law enforcement officer that any low-life with a beef against could use to target them? There were approximately 8,000 law enforcement officers on that list, many of whom have reported harrassment of themselves and their families. I guess you have no problem with that. I do.

The Fourth Amendment states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

How did it become legal when driving through a checkpoint, located inside the United States, to be ordered to pull over into the "secondary" area to be searched, without a warrant or without probable cause?

Believe it or not, you are not required to submit to those searches. You just haven't learned how to lawfully deny them. According to the law, under those circumstances you must be a "belligerent claimant". If anyone asks me if I am a "US CITIZEN"?, my response is, "No, I am an Ohioan and an American Citizen. I did not immigrate to America to become a 'subject' of the District of Columbia (aka - The Corporation of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.)." {Believe it or not, that has more power than you could imagine. And it took me quite some time to figure that one out.}

If you are living in the Southwest, you may want to look into what this guy, {link below}, who has been successful both in and out of the courtroom, has to say in dealing with those unconstitutional "checkpoints" they have placed well within the border. He KNOWS his Rights and deals with these people accordingly!

http://www.youtube.com/user/CheckpointUSA

That said, I'm going to have to remain firm in the belief of what I've written. When it says "abridge(ing)", the definition means "To deprive; to cut off". It does not say it cannot be limited. Essentially, they can limit it under certain circumstances, but they cannot totally stop it, deprive it, or cut it off. Otherwise they would have used a word that forbade the limitation of free speech/the press.

Basil Romeo:

England and Australia, for example, have very strict gun laws and none of their populations are conquered or slaves. I am in favor of gun ownership but disagree with your premise.

IIRC, since they have instituted their strict gun control, violent crime in general has gone up something like 600%. I believe that info was through UN reports. Also, you have to be making some pretty good money just to be able to buy even the basics, in order to protect yourself and your family. It doesn't mean that you can't have anything. It just makes it that much more difficult for the average person to do so.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

SetYouFree:

I wasn't aware they published addresses, telephone numbers, etc.

Spiddas:

I've seen the Youtubes of agents beating the crap out of Pastor Anderson when he attempts to exercise his Fourth Amendment. Even though it's wrong, they're still allowed to continue operating this way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUzd7G875Hc

http://salem-news.com/articles/may202009/preacher_beating_folo_tk_5-20-09.php

Then he must sue them. If he does not, he proves the point of the position of the slave. The bullies must be put in their place. It's not until the People stand up, en mass, that they will comply with the law. It's time for the dog to regain control over the tail. It's no different than that Utah State cop who has been busting people for false DUIs and such over the past several years. She's been fired and now both her and the State are getting sued because of it. That is part of what Jefferson meant by "dangerous freedom".

Fired Trooper Accused of Faked DUIs

The government could care less about those pesky little lawsuits. The taxpayers pay any amounts awarded to the victims and no one involved is held criminally or financially accountable. Nothing changes and the beat goes on. Our system has been set up so that very few, either protected under the cloak of government or financial privilege, are criminally punished or held accountable.

And that's just where those of influence and the power of setting policy, no matter what political party, want it to remain. Contrary to popular belief, voting the people's will is an exercise in futility.

Based on the way you present it, I agree that little can be done. It would have been no different in the late 1700's. But the key word was "en mass". Believe it or not, there are a growing number of people who have been fed up that are joining together and taking action. They are quietly growing and taking the necessary actions to get the "tail" back in check. And at least they are doing something other than just having a defeatist attitude and rolling over to die...

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen". -- Samuel Adams

I presume you're not in Ohio, but there might be someone at the following link that can help you hook-up with a group close to where you're at that can give you some real hope that things can get changed with too much of a "firestorm". http://www.pccoh.com/

“Education is dangerous - Every educated person is a future enemy...” -- Hermann Goering

{BTW - You're dead-on correct regarding the voting. The only difference between the candidates they "GIVE" us to "choose" from, is the spelling of their names. That's been going on since the early 1900's.}

A tidbit for you interest, many people have lost their fire arm they bought to protect their homes with because they hesitated before they fired. Why, because at the last instant they realized they were going to kill someone. That instant cost them and that is fact.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/ex-burglars-say-newspapers-gun-map-wouldve-made-job-easier-safer/

Article with interview of former burglar, who explains publicizing gun ownership a jackpot for criminals who want to steal guns AND who want to know who is not able to defend themselves.

And many a perp has lost their life because the gun owner didn't hesitate. And that is fact too

Given the fact Barrys friend Al Gore just sold his failed Liberal cable channel to "Patriotic" Al-Jgoreza ( a known torrorist mouthpiece), pushing for a deal 12/31/12 so he didn't have to pay the NEW O"BAMMA TAXES starting on 01/01/13....Don't want to pay your "fair share" Al? The way it's looking we need to hold on to our 2nd Addmenments rights.........

Why are we chastising and singling out LAW ABIDING citizens who, on all accounts, have acted responsibly by registering their firearms? Of course, left out of these little "inquires", are the criminals who have obtained firearms illegally and thus have no documentation. What does this accomplish other then to serve some twisted and misguided knee-jerk agenda aimed at the wrong people?

Here's an idea: Let's release the information of all people currently on public assistance and watch the collective Left go into conniptions, on the basis of "invasion of privacy".

Double standards abound, as always.

As long as they're demanding public access to everyone that has a gun, they should also be allowed to publish the names of anyone that has aids or any other communicable disease. While we're at it, they should also include publishing the police/criminal records of everyone no matter how trivial the transgression.

Perhaps homeowners should be required to post signs on their front lawns that state whether guns are present or that the house is a gun free residence.

It seems that the radical left wing anti-gun newspaper (Journal News, based in Nyack, N.Y) that started all this is now employing armed guards for protection. Isn't it rather ironic that they rely on guns for their protection but would deny the average citizen that same option?

6dogs

That instant cost them and that is fact.

Post a VIABLE source for your "FACT". If in "fact" you are unable to, your "FACT" is that much supposition, hyperbole, innuendo and uninformed inane drivel.

The idea of publishing the names of gun owners is just a bad idea for a number of reasons, including:

First, I would doubt there is any evidence to support an argument that a criminal would target a home for robbery just because they knew it contained a gun. While guns may be stolen frequently, it is more likely they were taken by a thief who was in the home to take anything of value they could find. However, since thieves probably wait for people to be gone before they enter a home, advance knowledge that weapons are present may actually increase the likelihood of theft.

Second, since the ownership of guns is such a 'hot button" right now, it is possible that anti-gun radicals could target the homes of owners for demonstrations or protest rallys. While a responsible gun owner would not use or show his weapon in such a case, the protest could easily lead to a verbal or even physical response. If you doubt that would happen, explain to me the actions of the Westboro Baptist church. How would they do if you published the names of known gays/lesbians?

Again, it comes down to the fact that even if something is legal doesn't mean it should be done. And by the way, I would probably be classified as a "liberal" on most issues. But the far-left position on this one is just wrong. Pandora's box is already open and it can't be closed now. Legislation won't work because it would be unenforceable.

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2009/11/03/why-you-shouldnt-show-anti-gun-signs/

Boy, are we illogical today.

What, crime doesn't happen in America?

With good reason, grandpa, very good reason.

I think grandpa hasn't changed his Depends in quite a while, and the stench has further dissolved his brain.

At first I was worried about Grandpa but then I realised

he was either a troll or not in full command of his mental

facilities. Old people without home protection are very

lucky. When the thugs kick in the door they won't suffer

too long.

Well, grandpa, I don't show off what I got and you don't know. greatgreatgrandpa.

With your mindset I am afraid that you would be the first person to run to the government if it ever were tyrannical and squeal on all your neighbors in order to get favoritism Gramps.

6 Now that is really intelligent!

Seeing so much rational, thoughtful dialog here... damn, these gun owners are hostile.

I grew up around guns and was raised on venison, I've done some target shooting, and am not for taking away small handguns or hunting rifles.

But tell me one good reason anyone should have an automatic or semiautomatic that has NO good use other than to KILL PEOPLE.

I'm married to a teacher, have a step daughter and niece who are teachers, have a 1st grade grandson, and happen to have a sibling with a serious mental disorder. My step daughter's (possibly soon to be fiance) boyfriend ran out the DAY of the Sandy Hill shooting to buy a COUPLE MORE assault rifles. At this time I have NO desire to be around this little scumbag. Do any of you think I trust this little gun enthusiast with this girl's life? Really? Someone who displays that level of selfishness and immaturity scares me more than anyone I've ever known with a mental disorder. So tell me... what happens if the relationship goes sour? I've known too many women who have put up with mental, emotional and physical abuse... guns are just one more tool for domestic terrorism in the household.

I'm all for publishing the names of the gun nuts in my neighborhood... would you believe they were having a rootin' tootin' good time blasting away on Christmas. And who are the sick individuals?

Grandpa stated: "With your mindset I am afraid of you having a gun"

And many are afraid of people such as yourself, that push to have peoples rights taken away from them, that we have had from the day this country was founded. My uncle died when he was 19 years old using a gun, to help us keep those rights during WW2 and after, and yes, his own guns were passed on down to me, and I am very honored and very proud to have them today. And another thing grandpa, not everyone feels the need to just lie down, roll over, and allow the government and people like yourself to walk all over them and the rights they were given, just because of a government agenda, and the fear mongering from people like you that brought it on. When you start understanding, that once you take one right away from the people, that one right after another will follow, and when you run out of rights to take away, your nothing more than a slave to those who you turned your rights over to. Our government already dictates enough to the people through the Federal Reserve charging us interest on every dollar printed, and the IRS through taxes, both of which they will never let you get away from, and those are just two.

.

Grandpa-2986035

My country leaders are making me paranoid. SO do you have a sign in your yard my house is not protected by fire arms??? might want to ge one so people know they do not have to worry.

I grew up around guns and was raised on venison, I've done some target shooting, and am not for taking away small handguns or hunting rifles.

But tell me one good reason anyone should have an automatic or semiautomatic that has NO good use other than to KILL PEOPLE.

What good are small handguns except for killing people? They are particularly well suited for killing people in close quarters...that's the idea behind having the small handgun by the bed...to kill anyone who might break in. Killing people is occasionally a good thing. Another good reason, is for protection during civil unrest. You think the cops or the national guard is always going to be there to protect you? Look at Katrina. Better yet, look at Bosnia, Rwanda, Nazi Germany, USSR, Cambodia...the genocides go on and on. What would a weaker America look like? What if in 50 years the United States economy has diminished greatly and doesn't have the resources to keep the peace? This is a pretty ethnically diverse country. What if the different ethnic groups start fighting with each other? You ever had your neighbor knock on your door at 3am to cleanse the neighborhood of your race? These events happen over and over throughout history....and America is not immune to them. They will happen...they have happened. Europeans committed genocide against American Indians. They did it against the African slaves they brought over. Our ugly human nature doesn't go away because we have easy credit and fat bellies...it's just temporarily mollified.

@glimmmerr

But tell me one good reason anyone should have an automatic or semiautomatic that has NO good use other than to KILL PEOPLE.

Range rifle to protect livestock from predators; backcountry rifle to protect yourself from the same.

This may come as a shock to you but not everyone lives in your narrow little world.

EYERACE

It makes no sense if one has a permit for CONCEALED carry that the State would REVEAL that information.

Au contraire, mon ami, do you think it reasonable that people should not know that someone in their midst is armed? It would be a pretty paranoid world to have to think that everyone around you is armed. Mutually assured destruction may have been a workable principle for the cold war between nations, but it seems like a paranoid and irrational way to live domestically. I don't particularly want the paranoia of some elements of society who would feel naked without their concealed weapon determining the general safety of the public. I just don't trust that most gun owners are properly vetted or trained.

Au contraire, mon ami, do you think it reasonable that people should not know that someone in their midst is armed?

In a society where gun ownership is legal, you should always assume the "other person" has a gun. And in a society where gun ownership is illegal, you should always assume the "other person" has a gun and will be more likely to use it.

culheath,

Your beliefs and comments are to say the least wrong headed.

As a retired law enforcement officer I have a unique view of these things. I live in a small town and I assume that most of the homes have at least one firearm. Who has or hasn't isn't of interest to me. The only people that would have the most interest in a printed list are the criminals that break into houses. Unless it's someone paranoid like yourself.

During my career I had the occasion to interview burglary suspects and was told many times that the odds of a home being armed and someone being home was near the top of concerns. Almost without exception suspects involved in daylight burglaries said the reason for breaking in during the day was the least chance of confronting an armed owner.

Also not mentioned is the people that have moved to get away from an abusive spouse or had a restraining order against someone. They purchase a firearm for protection. Now all the person who is hunting them has to do is check the printed list to know where they went.

When I read your posts I think of the saying I heard several years ago about the press, "The right to know supercedes the right to exsist".

culheath,

bet you'd be happy if the guy next to you was armed legally if you were minding your business and a criminal pulled his illegal one and then got shot by the legal one...

I would. Probably kiss them full on the mouth- even if it was a toothless woman.

Paul71-1655761

Thanks for that input. I'm still weighing this whole topic and can see valid reasoning on all sides. As I said, it's a tough nut.

Personally, I think the US would be a safer society without the massive proliferation of arms into a smaller and smaller group of owners. My main concern is the lack of vetting, theft of legal guns onto the streets and a doubt that most gun owners are properly trained...that includes most LEOs.

When I read your posts I think of the saying I heard several years ago about the press, "The right to know supersedes the right to exist".

Well I don't know where you heard that, but it's patently absurd since "knowing" is a subset of "existing". I find it odd that you get that from my posts.

Chzhead,

No, I mean I want to know that the neighbor I am having a dispute with doesn't have an attitude like yours. I didn't bring up anything about feeling superior or aggressive toward my neighbor, you did.

Maybe try not being a crappy neighbor.

Tell that to the neighbor who's dog whines and yaps 24/7 and operates under the notion that "love me, love my dog" is a reasonable excuse for not having to be responsible for his pet.

culheath

Au contraire, mon ami, do you think it reasonable that people should not know that someone in their midst is armed?

Ummm, do you not understand the meaning of the word "concealed"???? Perhaps you'd prefer we all carried our guns openly? I wonder if you'd even leave your house if that were the case, lol!

It would be a pretty paranoid world to have to think that everyone around you is armed.

To "have" to think?? LOL! If you "have" to think everyone around you is armed because you don't know for sure then paranioa is something you are clearly VERY familiar with.

I don't particularly want the paranoia of some elements of society who would feel naked without their concealed weapon determining the general safety of the public. I just don't trust that most gun owners are properly vetted or trained.

Please don't try to transpose YOUR paranoia on to others. Most of us who carry aren't remotely concerned with "the general safety of the public" in regard to stopping crimes. WE just want the opportunity to protect OURSELVES. If you are the victim of a crime that's just tough @!$%# for you, odds are incredibly high that I, or anyone else, wouldn't be in a position to help you whether I had my sidearm or not.

You need to send your "note to legislators" to your legislators. They don't give a f'k about newsvine.

Our government has a history of confiscating guns from licensed legal gun owners while leaving gang members with their illegal guns. I won't be licensing or registering anything.

You're clearly delusional.

@david

Enlighten yourself of the Katrina gun confiscations.

"another gun nut I see on the internet".... name calling, you fail.

@David Farris: They did just that in New Orleans:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/national/nationalspecial/08cnd-storm.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.infowars.com/new-orleans-mayor-admits-illegal-gun-confiscation/

Farris, thanks for the display of lack of knowledge that is typical of the anti 2nd Amendment crowd.

I have no idea what your intentions are. You say "law abiding citizen" but where is my reassurance? Your hyper paranoia would indicate that I can't trust you.

@upstate

We have no idea what your intentions are when you buy that fertilizer or diesel fuel. You are probably a law abiding citizen so I guess we'll have to trust you.

Or, maybe we should permit, license, register and document the purchase and ownership of everything?

There's a blonde joke in there somewhere.

Uhhh, do these lists also included motives behind the purchase? Your argument is as pitiful as the attempt to justify these lists.

upstate John maybe you would be happy in china,russia, england or Canada where criminals are rewarded and good guys defending there homes and loved ones are prosecuted.

Interesting name you have, why should I trust you and why shouldn't I be able to verify? How do I know that you have a single ounce of "personal responsibility"?

upstate John

How do I know that you have a single ounce of "personal responsibility"?

Now who sounds paranoid?

Interesting name you have, why should I trust you and why shouldn't I be able to verify

To make the firearm purchase in the first place I was verified by the very government you want poking their collective noses in every corner of YOUR life. Or don't you TRUST that very government that you claim ALL gun owners are paranoid of?

Just asking a question. Yo are the trust but verify dude.

And that will do what for you?

Upchuck John, I'd be willing to bet that if you found out and moved, it would be good for the neighborhood. You sound like a paranoid, loudmouth fool.

Let me know whether it's safe to even talk to him. Same goes for you.

Jim, it's you folks that are paranoid. No, I wouldn't move but I would let him know I have guns too. You think every gun owner agrees with you? haha

John, you're a victim of the feminization of America.

I didn't know we were ragging on women now. I thought they had second amendment rights too. And for the record, not a victim here. Beat cancer so far and I'm not afraid of macho paranoids or imaginary criminals. But you can stay under the bed if you like

then ask. if not, you need to individually go and request it, if it is available through FOI in your state. Then, it is flagged that you looked. Fair enough.

upstate,

That's about as paranoid as it gets.

Your neighbor may own a gun and not have a permit. Maybe he doesn't carry conceal, thus no need for a permit. What if he has a shotgun that he inherited from his father or grandfather?

If deciding to talk to your neighbor depends on if he has a gun in the house you have some serious personal issues to work on. I on the otherhand have assumed all my adult life that most homes have at least one firearm in them and the thought of deciding to talk to a neighbor depended on whether or not they have a firearm never crossed my mind.

John, why don't you just go ahead and tell him you have a gun? That way his privacy can be respected and he can let the cops know he might be living next to an unbalanced armed person?

maybe ask them to go to the range with you?

Why should I trust you? I don't know you from any other "law abiding citizen". You people argue as if we should all trust you but the derision that you view our questioning with indicates that you would just as soon shot us as discuss it to come to a meaningful solution to a BIG problem.Stop hating.

Parents have a right to know whether their kids will be playing at a house that has guns in it and whether those guns are appropriately stored.

John, why would you trust anyone? Or do you think only legal gun owners kill people for no apparent reason?

culheath-

then you ask. why the bloody heck do you let your kids go to someone's house and not know them? I would never do that, even with my teenagers. ESPECIALLY with teenagers.

culhealth:

One would hope that a parent concerned about that would be able to *gasp* communicate with the other child's parents when their kid heads over to someone else's house to play. If any parent asked me that question, I would not in any way be offended. It never hurts to check on these things, and make sure that if there are guns at another parent's house, they are properly stored and locked up. They are just making sure their own kids are safe. Anyway, any type of public registry will not provide information as to whether those guns are properly stored.

Why anyone would feel the need to look up this information instead of simply communicating with other parents is beyond me.

culhealth:

Then I want access to everyone's medical records as they pertain to mental health. I want to know if my kids are at someone's house who has mental issues.

ktd0410,

Couldn't agree more. However it's possible that people wouldn't feel comfortable asking (or revealing) another parent about the state of arms in their possession.

. For instance, I want to know if my neighbor is storing dynamite in his basement or cooking up meth in his kitchen...illegal you say...why? When you consider that more people are killed by gun accidents every year than are blown up by meth labs or dynamite, where's the proportion?

My bottom line on all of this is that if you are going to own potentially harmful or even lethal tools, then a high degree of responsibility and openness comes with that ownership.

just another face in the crowd

culhealth:

Then I want access to everyone's medical records as they pertain to mental health. I want to know if my kids are at someone's house who has mental issues

Fair point...but not exactly parallel.

By the way, and this is not aimed at you particularly...the name is heath...not health. culheath :)

I think publishing or making public the names of legal gun owners is a bad, bad idea--many potential negative consequences with pretty much no chance of positive results. No point. Very stupid.

But as far as parents being able to ask other parents whether there are guns in the house before the kids have a playdate...look at how polite and calm people here on the newsvine are toward each other. Does anybody really think that a parent asking another parent this question isn't going to get them all hopped up & angry? But a list of who has a permit doesn't really give a parent any more useful information. A family could easily have other guns that aren't registered or keep their registered guns unlocked. List of permit holders doesn't help or solve a single thing.

And, for the record, although I consider myself an independent moderate who wants common sense responsibility in the government (a pipe dream these days), most of you Fox watchers would probably consider me a flaming liberal because I am pro-choice and couldn't give a hoot about who marries whom.

Cull Heath,

I would recommend that you move inside, bar your windows, only have necessities delivered, and speak to no one. You are one paranoid bitch.

Spelling intentional...

Sue -835775

Only difference will be the jews went without a fight.

The Jews put up a hell of a fight in many places. They just didn't have many guns to fight with. Sticks and stones don't do much against machine guns.

Well said Windancersong-1494878 !

Windancersong and Art

"Paranoia runs deep, into each life it may creep, It starts when you are always alone, step out of line the man may come and take you away."

Wow, you folks are well-rationalized paranoids. Unbelievable!

Yeah, but it's a fine line between paranoia and vigilance. You know the saying, "Even paranoids can have real enemies."

Maybe you can develop more pro-social skills for dealing with your enemies or learn not to have so many.

Kamaaina-(Wow, you folks are well-rationalized paranoids. Unbelievable)

Having an understanding of world history and governments which abused their citizens, the founding of the United States, being observant and understanding human nature, is not being paranoid. I don't even own a gun.Though a veteran and expert marksman. It is better to learn from history, then ignore its lessons.

How on earth you come up with paranoid from simply pointing out examples from history, is a leap too far in my book, to even make sense. Then pointing out facts from statements made in the past week from folks in Congress and the Senate, surely doesn't make me loony either. Seems you are stretching things to fit your own agenda, and just dumping reasonable comments into a catch all box, because you don't have a decent comeback. But that's okay. I'm not that worried about those in high offices.

Yet, I do deeply care about my neighbor's rights, and we are all responsible to ever be watchmen on the towers of Liberty.Blindly trusting our political leaders to sacrifice their best interests to do what is right for the American people, now that would seem truly unbelievable

Kamaaina-(Maybe you can develop more pro-social skills for dealing with your enemies or learn not to have so many.)

There's a difference between saying my enemies, versus I am their enemy. The first is another person's choice, the second, is how you view others.Big difference.When it comes to changing how your enemies see you, good luck.

Excellent Point Windancersong! Remember it didn't start with just the Jews. The mentally Ill were taken first and killed. With our Government passing Laws in secret, and slipping other laws in there that don't even pertain to the cover, we are at risk of having big surprises shoved down our throat. These Anti Gun laws that they are trying to pass are full of fringe items that set up the American Citizen for a gantlet of lost Freedoms. Not to mention Laws being passed that they are not subject to, but we are! Take a look at the 28th Amendment. They have been dismantling it for years. Mental health evaluations for legal registered Gun owners? Very dangerous subject. We will be at the mercy of the Evaluator and if he / she has an agenda or is threatened, will haul whom ever they want to a mental institution ....... or the ovens. I am a vet with Honorable Discharge, I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemy's foreign and domestic. Sleepy time is over. This is not a Video game. You do not get to respawn and try again! The death of our Freedom will be Final! This is not Hollywood! My Grandfathers fought in WW II to protect this Same Oath.

We live in a Very Violent World. To take away the protection of the people to defend themselves is a violation of our Human Rights, always has been and always will be.

We must Defend our Freedoms from those who wish to take them. Please Wake Up America. This is Still the greatest Country on the Planet ! Stop this Tyranny in it's Tracks.

Benjamin Franklin quote, or a Buffalo Springfield song lyric... Which is more relevant??? Guess it depends on your mentality

What does criminals registering guns or not have to do with legal registering guns. Does it give them an advantage or put the the legal owner at a disadvantage?

Yes culbreath, gun registration does put criminals at an advantage. The above posts about criminals registering their guns was sarcasm, and registration lists would only help them with their devious motives.

I have no idea if you are a law abiding citizen or not. Just cause you say so? Because you haven't gotten caught yet? Seems that every illegal gun started out as legal in the hands of a "law abiding citizen".

SaneGunOwner,

You sound like a smoker from the 50's before people woke up to the fact that your smoking killed innocents. The reality is your gun affects me individually and as one of the masses of guns America is drowning in.

Guns in the USA give new meaning to "second hand smoke" except their harm to all is immediate when lit up.

With smoking laws, the USA was a leader. We are the dullards among civilized countries with gun control.

upstate John

I have no idea if you are a law abiding citizen or not. Just cause you say so?

Well if you've bothered to get a permit to carry your gun as required by law a rational preson would be able to conclude that you are most likely "law-abiding". Duh.

registration is a step closer to confiscation. all you need then is a made up excuse.

and If I walk out my side door, I'm a step closer to the Atlantic Ocean. What a nimrod argument.

Sue -

Your argument is total rubbish. No state or federal government has ever registered anything prio to confiscation - ever.

The US government confiscated silver and gold certificates by simply taking them out of circulation - no registration. The US confiscated gold currency the same way. In fact every government confiscation has been done directly WITHOUT registration.

Pro-gun fanatics are analogous to the Tea Party (an in many cases probably one in the same. The Tea Party has nearly killed the Republican Party by holding it hostage with its antisocial, irrational demands. Pro-gun fanatics are holding America hostage with their paranoid rants and history re-writing. Both are branding themselves as subversive groups of antisocial dissidents.

There is something that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot all had in common: they required all guns to be registered and then shortly thereafter confiscated them.

Nearly every government in the world that disarmed their citizens first required that all guns be registered. It's not practical to confiscate them without setting up a database of what and where.

Fighting gun registration is the first line of defense.

(Interestingly, Canada had a registry but disbanded parts of it in April 2012. It was enormously expensive and never aided with the solving of a single crime. Lookup "Canadian Firearms Registry")

Kamaaina,

You claim the "pro-gun fanatics" are paranoid and yet go on to say they are "subversive" "dissidents".

Irony?

sorry Jim, but you left out hipocritical.

Feinstein is a complete hypocrite and moron who's playing politics to benefit her self and her party. Bet she has armed security too besides being armed.

sex offenders are criminals law abiding gun owners are not simple. appears to you though it isnt.

Sue -835775

sex offenders are criminals law abiding gun owners are not simple. appears to you though it isnt.

How about sex offenders that legally own guns? Should sex offenders be barred from owning weapons?

cant legally own guns tard--but then again they are criminals so hey dont care

Sex offenders armed could accidentally shoot themselves where it hurts the most and that's not a bad thing.

Jumbo, sex offenders' names are known only AFTER they have committed a sex crime. "Paranoid" (your word, not mine) gun owners' names aren't known because they haven't committed a crime. If they do commit a crime, not only with their names be published but, they will lose their right to legally own a gun.

Felons cannot legally own guns.

Gun owners are not criminals, idiot, they have a right to their privacy.

I dont really give a sh*t if you know I have guns or not it is the Criminals who would use the info as a shopping list . Perhaps putting MORE evil guns on the street .

So you, as a law abiding citizen, plan to fail at securing your weapons?

I have a sign in my window...if my dog misses you, I won't. I'm not waving them around in my front yard. They are in my house, my car, and on my person when I go to the store or take a drive.

I'm 5'4", somewhat decent-looking, and I drive a decent car and carry myself like I am worth something. Step to me to take what is mine and you won't like it. Step to me because I pissed you off and you wanna throw down with fists, fine. We can do that. Step to me with the intention of killing me, raping me, or hurting my family and taking what isn't yours, then it's a new ball game.

Chz...

Yup, a fine example of an American gun owner. I think everyone has a right to know who you are.

Noone has a "right" to know anothers personal business, what they own, or what they carry.

Yep. Depending on where you live, there's a solid 5 min response time minimum.

Mabey they might use bows and arrows, swords and sheilds?

How many time do you have to be told, we don't want to take your guns away. We just want to try to find a way to stop all the gun violence. More guns hasn't worked very well. All you NRA types that only want more guns could you come up with a solution, besides more guns.

Thanks to Obama and anti-gun lefties on The Hill for increasing the sales of semi-auto rifles and high capacity magazines. Their political agenda has backfired on them more than ever. Keep going, you're doing great for gun stocks and sales.

Grandpa, "How many time do you have to be told, we don't want to take your guns away. We just want to try to find a way to stop all the gun violence." Please tell me how knowing if I have guns or not is going to impact gun violence in any way? If a legal gun owner were to flip out and start shooting, how would that list make any difference. Just the fact that they were shooting would be the best clue, don't you think?

If there was a list of legal gun owners in your neighborhood how would that affect the way you live? Would you check the list to see if any of your friends were on the list and if they were you would steer clear of them and their homes? Who is paranoid here?

"How many time do you have to be told, we don't want to take your guns away. We just want to try to find a way to stop all the gun violence."

How about we also know who is on mood altering drugs? that might change peoples mind to mess with their neighbor if they know they are on Prozac.

If more guns are not the answer... then I would imagine that the Newtown schools are operating status-quot. (No armed guards or added security) I don't know how they are operating, but I would think that things have changed.

Gramps,

What would you suggest?

You can't steal a gun from a gun owner! You'll get blown away. Guns offer protection from thefts, rapes, assaults, murders, school shootings, massacres, bad breath, bad relationship and bad spelln.

Dam right, glad you finally see the light Kamaaina, leave us alone.......................

A. Some people own more than one gun or may leave their gun at home for reasons that seem good to them. Target for thieves when they are not home.

B, Posting who has a gun announces who doesn't have a gun. Now you know where to rob any time with impunity, maybe visit for a little bit of the old ultraviolence.

So what about knifes bow arrow cross bow and lions tigers and bears?

you brain dead, a gun owner usually has more than one, lets say i carry one, leave a couple home, the crooks know i have at least one, so they break in my house when i am not home steal the other 2, 3, 4, doesn't matter, their you go. going to sell them to the druggies or gang's and they will be used to kill, what is the big ass deal anyways, the paper guy in New York is an @!$%#. period, did this crap he started bringing those kids back, NO, the one that murdered those poor babies, killed his mother stoled her guns just like a crook would and went on a killing spree, because he was a mental retard and should have been locked up, and now because of this we have a president that wants them all, tyrancy is all this is, and we find out the truth about what happened in the school we all might be shocked or we will never find out the truth. who is lying about what guns did the job and what guns were in the car?? we may never know.? do you believe your government?, i don't, not since 2008. this is how i feel about the whole damn thing, from the theater to the school. who is doing it? sick people that needs help.