Google +LinkedInPinterestYouTubeInstagramTwitterFacebook

What’s your view on the Senate’s rejection of bipartisan gun control legislation?

 

View more polls

 

dkochuyt

April 18, 2013 - 3:03pm

more restrictive gun laws will not prevent tragedies from happening like newtown or the little girl shot in a drive by in Chicago Illinois has some of the stringent laws and has some of the highest gun violence in the country start looking at mental health issues and leave the law abiding gun owners of the country alone

ghostler

April 18, 2013 - 3:11pm

I find it rather interesting that Boston and Massechussetts have perhaps the most restrictive gun laws, and that a terrorist / murderer chose to plant a bomb in open view that created unfortunate death and unthinkable injury to the spectators and participants in the Boston Marathon. My condolences for the victims and loved ones of those affected.

Bill Rohman

April 18, 2013 - 3:14pm

What is it that the courts,congress and the President do not understand about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"?

schmankman

April 21, 2013 - 1:13pm

Bill;
In what you say I could agree. However, The Congress has never passed any bill (Not even a Bill of Rights bill) that was only one line. It is really amazing how people like Jefferson, Adams, etc., had such a handle on the overall workings of a democratic government, that they pretty well insured the rights of United States citizens in years to come. No, there were no assault weapons then, & beside the military, throughout the years, until recent times, "extreme" weapons were mostly in the militia & some law enforcement agencies.

AZErnie

April 18, 2013 - 3:15pm

Along with my American Legion membership, I am an NRA life member with strong 2nd amendment beliefs. As we have seen over the past week, guns, bombs and knifes are not the problem, people who wish to injure, maim, and kill are. I do support gun show background checks, the sponsors should provide an 'official' to perform the check for all gun sales, private or dealer. This is not gun registration, but to prevent felons or crazies from getting guns at these events.

genie

April 18, 2013 - 3:23pm

I'm a 92 yer old vet WWII, 4 battle stars, was issued an M1 as a weapon. No weapons since leaving Manila after end. Think that the 2nd Amendment is obsolete in the 21st century. Assault weapons are for combat only! In the last 30 years over 1 million gun deaths. Time for us to do something, in fact it is long past time.

AZErnie

April 18, 2013 - 6:07pm

Perma, thank you for your service. The 2nd amendment is not to allow Americans to have guns for hunting, or just for personal protection, it is for the citizen's army, which protects us all from a future hitler, stalin, putin, or whosoever would try to deprive us of our hard fought freedoms. These days will never pass, vigilance is required of us all.
A true and faithful government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry.

gwjohns45

April 22, 2013 - 11:35am

In this gun control battle everyone seems to forget why the 2nd Amendment was put there in the first place. When this country was fighting for its independence, it needed TRAINED people who could shoot, clean and repair their weapon. If you take away "Assault Weapons", you will be taking way valuable training. Training is what makes a better soldier would you not agree?

Russ Earley

April 18, 2013 - 4:58pm

Any incumbent in the US senate should be voted out of office. The people thre are not getting the job done. I am ashamed to be a republican.

plumboro

April 18, 2013 - 5:24pm

as a vietnam, 3 tour vet, and a strong proponant of the right to keep and bear arms. I am dismayed and saddened that the resolution failed. The resolution would not infringe on your rights. What it was saying was those that frequent gun shows and purchase firearms with out checks, because they can't purchase them legally would be required to go through nics to acquire a weapon. If I must go through checks before I purchase a weapon , and I gladly do, Why shouldn't all be required to go through the checks. why should gun shows be exempt.

Battman

April 18, 2013 - 8:44pm

We will probably have our membership cards shot out of our hands, Glad to see at least one with common sense.

dbrownusa

April 20, 2013 - 2:36pm

I could not agree more! This was an important measure that could have removed the loophole allowing felons and the mentally ill unfettered access to weapons. Shame on those senators who succumbed to the notion that this legislation would in any way hamper responsible individuals from acquiring a gun.

holdcraftm

April 18, 2013 - 5:26pm

Expanded background checks would not have prevented the Newtown tragedy. That is a fact. Our Constitution protects every citizen's right to own and bear arms and criminals don't care about gun laws, they will get what they want regardless. So from my vantage point new expanded guns laws will only restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. The root cause of the Newtown tragedy was mental illness and that is the area where any preventative actions should be taken.

Bob95490

April 19, 2013 - 12:11am

No criminals do not care about gun laws any more than they care about any other law; that is why they are called criminals. Requiring background checks at gun shows will not prevent criminals from acquiring guns. FBI gun crime statistics show less than 1/2 of 1% of guns used in crimes were purchased legally. Requiring background checks at gun shows won't change these numbers.

Speaking of which, the idea, as discussed by another, that because x number of people have been murdered by guns this demonstrates a need to restrict or eliminate citizens' 2nd Amendment rights is as ludicrous as demanding motor vehicles be outlawed because x number of people have been killed by motor vehicles. The 2nd Amendment protects citizens from tyranny,both from without and from within. To propose eliminating all the citizens rights because some citizens simply won't or can't obey the law is the height of insanity. Those favoring such action should be ashamed of themselves.

Not counting the current terrorist action in Boston, the majority of the mass shooters have been individuals taking medically prescribed psychotropic drugs that come with clear warnings about aberrant behavior in patients taking these drugs. It would probably go a whole lot further toward protecting society if Congress and the President put forth the effort they have in attempting to further impact 2nd Amendment rights in preventing the administration of these medications outside of a hospitalized setting.

ddutton11

April 20, 2013 - 9:30pm

You hit the nail right on the head. One approach would be to put some of the responsibility for these folks on the doctor prescribing the drugs without keeping tract of the patient. Many people knew that the young man that shot all the children needed a lot of help but wasn't getting it. We are our Brother's keeper so we all must keep our eyes open to wacky things going on around us and get the people in authority involved. Better to be a watchful neighbor than to get shot.

holdcraftm

April 18, 2013 - 5:36pm

Given some of the comments I read above and in light of the Boston Bombings, maybe we should pass laws restricting the right of citizens to purchase Pressure Cookers, ball bearings and nails. If killing people is the criteria to use maybe automobiles should also be added to the list? That is the logic being used by those wanting to restrict gun ownership. Newtown would not have been prevented by the new laws proposed - the kid was not a criminal and had no record, so a background check of him or his mother would have not prevented them from acquiring the weapons used in the Newtown killings.

drsonnie

April 18, 2013 - 7:42pm

I wonder if the dead children support the legislatures that vote to do nothing to protect children in the future.

Bob95490

April 19, 2013 - 12:22am

I wonder if dead children support citizens that support abortion. But then I remember that dead anyone, adult or child, no longer support or object to anything. That being the case, the only thing that counts is the living. I think that allowing the living to decide whether to support those in the legislature that support the issues (not issue) that best correspond to their own is not just the best course of action; it the only course of action.

Panentheist

April 18, 2013 - 8:14pm

There are exceptions to "every rule." There is necessity in our country to think critically and we must be prepared, and to ACT on the tragic trend plaguing our nation with rampant and raging re-occurrences of gun crime violence within the past 14 years. Additionally, sad to say, the United States (currently) has the INFAMOUS distinction of having the highest fire arms (i.e. gun related felonies involving) injuries and fatalities of ANY NATION in the WORLD!

The ISSUE is this! What takes PRECEDENCE? The WRITTEN DOCUMENT of our nation's "forefathers" originating over two hundred years ago known as the Constitution of the United States; and of which the 2nd Amendment has become the most controversial amendment in the 21st century (C.E. and/or A.D., in the U.S.); and that gives authority for the nation's "militia" to own and bear arms; when ITS sovereignty is threatened by enemies both foreign and domestic; or the LIVES OF LIVING PEOPLE (American men, women, and children) threatened by, and acts committed by would be assailants, assassins, criminals, and terrorists.

What takes PRECEDENCE as Vice-President Joe Biden recently alluded to on NPR news media, and in his response to Congress as to what the latter is "to say to the NRA" (National Rifle Association) about (erroneously) perceived too restrictive gun control laws; and also complained by the latter as, infringing on their rights to own and "carry" weapons? Or, what do we say to the parents of innocent elementary school children SLAUGHTERED at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut that occurred on December 14, 2012 ON THE NECESSITY OF PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN with more stringent gun control laws; that include background checks to keep firearms out of the hands of convicted criminals, and those suffering with mental illness?

CLEARLY THE ANSWER IS PROTECTION OF HUMAN LIVES TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER A "PIECE OF PAPER" DOCUMENT, REGARDLESS OF WHOM HAS WRITTEN IT, OR ITS HIGHLY ASCRIBED SIGNIFICANCE! U.S. historical protocol, law, tradition, written counsel, statutes, legal adjudication, is subject to written amendment, volatility, error, argument, misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and being misconstrued.

The RESPECT and SANCTITY OF LIFE IS NOT SUBJECT TO DEBATE!INNOCENT HUMAN LIVES ARE NOT EXPENDABLE! The growing gun crime violence (in terms of frequency, severity, global and local growth patterns, and simultaneity, is indicative of, and) must be "a wake up call" for Americans and members of Congress; to arouse and stir vigorously from their environmental and attitudinal, marginal, comatose state of minds; and that something must be done to REDUCE these tragedies pronto! Like right now for increased protections from gun crime violence, perpetrated by those with criminal and mental illness backgrounds.

Also, more stringent background checks are NEEDED for those with "rap sheets" involving crime, and more programs for the diagnoses and treatment of the mentally ill are necessary to REDUCE these crimes. It's impossible to COMPLETELY ELIMINATE gun crime violence as long as there are those with criminally intended and mentally ill minds. But we can TRY and must REDUCE these increasing "gunfights at the [NOT] O.K. corral."

Bob95490

April 19, 2013 - 12:26am

The answer to this is easy; the Constitution and the Bill of Rights take precedence.

Battman

April 18, 2013 - 8:30pm

"Expanded background checks would not have prevented the Newtown tragedy. That is a fact. Our Constitution protects every citizen's right to own and bear arms and criminals don't care about gun laws, they will get what they want regardless."

I see all the NRA Parots are out in force.
As a veteran, ex-competition shooter, and a KS resident Concealed Carry Permit, and TX non-resident Concealed Carry permit I find anyone that thinks background checks has any determent to the second amendment, the you better review the laws governing full auto weapons and yelling fire in a theater.

AS a gun owner and Concealed Carry, I will be out campaigning in my state to show these repuglickons for what they are. If you can't stand a background check you don't need to own a sling-shot.
AS FOR THE NRA AND THEIR DRAFT DODGING LEADERSHIP,my wife (Ex- Chief of Police) and I dropped the NRA 1987.
This one message from American born Al-Qaeda Adam Yahiye Gadahn telling Muslims it is easy to get weapons from gun shows and carry out random attacks on Americans should trump all other arguments.

mrbill9047

April 18, 2013 - 9:12pm

It is sad that so many have been injured by fire arms in our society in other terms than defending our country. We do need adequate background checks on ANYONE purchasing a firearm ANYTIME, ANYWHERE. I also believe that in my beloved America, we have developed into a passive nation, making more laws mandating the enforcement of the laws we already have that are not being taken serious in the first place. Forget all the fluffy words and tell it like it is. Stop selling guns without the proper precautions.

Curtis

April 19, 2013 - 12:01am

Oddly, it is the President that is charged with ensuring that the current laws are enforced. Now why are the laws for gun registration not being used?
Also, the 2nd amendment speaks of the right to bear arms in the context of citizens being able to protect themselves from all enemies, not for hunting food. How will you feel when you only have your hunting rifle to go against Obama's army with their machine guns and missiles?

Feagles

April 19, 2013 - 1:10am

Gun violence in the USA is a problem. I know your thinking DUH!! Well that's the same way I feel about a knee jerk solution to the problem and everyone saying thank god we did something, now we can move on. Does anyone think that the defeated proposal could have prevented Newtown? Let's put our heads together and address the real concerns. Do I have answers? No! Do I think that the House and Senate can up with something better? Well they are well paid to try to do better. Listen to the discourse and if anyone is making sense let them know. If they're not, Remember that and vote them out. They are there to represent us. If they aren't or can't TRASH THEM. It won't fix the problem tomorrow, but a concerned public will go along way toward getting their attention.

waycar14

April 19, 2013 - 3:05am

It is time to change our travels from a democacy to a tyrant social state. We have traveled just to far in socializing our form of govenment, and a very sick members of congress. Term limits of all office holders and curb the interest groups from their power. Keep the guns, this is our only security for our beloved country people.

Gwilson66

April 19, 2013 - 8:24am

If gun control worked, Chicago wouldn't be the killing capital of the nation. The current Liberal Administration wants to destroy the Constitution so they don't have to obey any laws/rules and can continue to drive this country into the sewer faster than they are doing right now..

kycruiser1

April 19, 2013 - 10:28am

Gun's are not the problem. Congress needs to focus more on immigration than on a leftist agenda such as gun control. Boston is a prime example of the problem, one from Russia and the other from another soviet bloc country. We are too eager to nationalize anyone who says they want to be American. I believe it is only a matter of time before a group or individual slips across our southern border and causes real mayhem. Our founding fathers saw the need for guns to protect ourselves, that is why it is in the constitution.

Capt. Norman

April 19, 2013 - 10:31am

It is a victory for those of us that are LAW ABIDING CITIZENS of the United States of America. I really don't understand what part of 'shall not be infringed' that our politicians don't understand. The Constitution of the United States of America is the highest law of the land, and IT can ONLY be changed by the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. NO ifs ands or buts about it!! If we don't hold our politicians feet to the fire, and bind them down by the chains of the Constitution, they are going to walk all over us.

shooterman

April 19, 2013 - 12:39pm

If registration is not in the future plans of Obama and his pack of liberals, Why does the application for NICS have to include Make, Model, Serial No, and Caliber? Are they qualifying the firearm or the purchaser? As soon as they establish a registry and find out the costs of administering it, the only logical way to to cover the costs is to tax it. When the taxes have been raised to the point where they are no longer affordable, Confiscate the property. Registration, taxation, confiscation. Think about it...The 2nd amendment has successfully been circumvented.

Ullarskjaldberi

April 19, 2013 - 4:30pm

I have sold firearms for various licensed dealers in 6 different states over the past 30+ years.

The state with the fewest number of restrictions vis a vis law abiding citizens was Vermont. At the time they had the highest estimated ownership of firearms per capita in the Republic. They also had the lowest level of crimes related to the unlawful use of firearms.

The state with the highest number of restrictions vis a vis law abiding citizens was Illinois. I'd say, from my anecdotal observations, that firearms ownership was near the median per capita for the US. They have nowhere near the lowest level of crimes per capita related to the unlawful use of firearms, most predominantly in urban areas.

As a member of the Jury of the Whole as a US citizen, I have yet to be convinced beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that restrictions upon the liberty of law abiding citizens to obtain, keep and bear firearms has a mitigating effect on those who would use them unlawfully.

Over the course of having sold several thousand firearms over the years, 2 of my customers were investigated, only one of these inquiries was criminal rather than administrative.

LieutenantCharlie

April 19, 2013 - 5:03pm

The Democrats today seem to want to violate the Rights Granted by the Constitution and take away Freedoms. I was a Democrat for fifty-two (52) years, but will no longer support a Party against the Constitution.

shooterman

April 19, 2013 - 5:47pm

Just to make myself feel better, I recently did a little bookwork on definitions.

Merriam-Webster Defines the word "Infringe," as used in the Second Amendment, as "To encroach upon, in a way that violates law or the rights of another"

It goes on to define "Encroach" as "To enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another."

Does this sound at all familiar???

Clarence Kronlein

April 20, 2013 - 10:58am

Well, I am in agreement with most of the posts. Congress and the Representatives of the People need their asses kicked! It's time for them to react to to people they are supposed to be representing and not the dang lobbyists for whatever non-gun control people that are lining their pockets. Americans take a vote! Remove these greedy and self-satisfying politicians - start letter campaigns, e-mail, face-book and all the media. Scare the bejesus out of them and maybe they will finally listen to the people!

martipr

April 20, 2013 - 1:21pm

If any of the new proposed laws would prevent another tragedy I would be a total supporter. However anyone that can think or will think can plainly see non of the proposed laws, if they had been in effect at the time, would have prevented Newtown, the theater shooting, the Arizona shooting or any other. These new proposals are either one of two things. 1. The typical non-thinking, brain dead knee jerk reaction to do something, anything, even if it is wrong and regardless that it is useless. 2. The action of the gun control nuts who stoop so low capitalize on these very real tragedies to farther their personal agenda.

ddutton11

April 21, 2013 - 4:17pm

I find it hard to believe that our President could support Gun Control to protect our children on the one hand and promote Abortions with the other hand. More than 4000 children died during abortions on the same day as Newtown. That's something to pray about.

Rider Bob

April 22, 2013 - 11:02am

Guns are not the problem. Guns have existed for years and do nothing until taken up by a human being who perceives that violent acts are the means to their aspirations. The U.S. has a violence problem, not a gun problem. Violence permeates every aspect of our daily lives from the TV news, to movies, to songs, to video games, to professional, and even college and high school sports. We are a society that thrives on it and it has grown to the point of being inescapable.

It should alarm us... not only that we have allowed violence to flourish in our society, but how quickly we are to abandon our constitutional liberities if someone could, and would, just restore order.

leaningleft

April 27, 2013 - 8:04am

I think it it a slap in the face to this Veteran that any lobbying group can purchase the vote from the people that we put in office to do our will. I don't care which party you or me are associated with in this case it was what the MAJORITY of Americans wanted and deserved. I didn't think it was " of the people, by the people and for the NRA cash that is so freely available"

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Tell us what you think