And your point of all this is??? Attitude is everything, if you don't have safety attitude around firearms, you should not have them. I have thrown shooters off my range, or refused to issue a training certificate because they had the wrong attitude about firearms.

For some unknown reason, I found myself listening to a conservative radio program in my car this morning. It was some kook named Neil Bortz. A caller asked him a question about his viewpoint on "assault rifles". Bortz jumped on the caller by shouting at him to "define an assault rifle" and then ridiculed him with what he said was Diane Feinstein's definition of an assault rifle.

He then went on to say "within common reason" that civilians should have the same weapons as the military to include 100 round drum magazines for rifles, "streetsweeper shotguns" - but not Stinger missiles - since they cannot be used for target practice or hunting. WHAT A NUT CASE !!!

Assault weapons should only be used in wars, not for every day use. When you go out hunting, why do you need a continuous spray of bullets to kill one animal? The same for self-protection. Really, what purpose do they serve? This discussion should only be about limiting them or getting rid of them for sale to the general public. A lot of amazing people were killed for no purpose in CO. How would you feel about assault weapons, if one of the people killed were one of your loved ones?

The difference between our views is clear. I am concerned about the killing of anyone and feel we should work on reducing killings wherever these killings occur. You, on the other hand are not concerned with the killing of innocent people who cannot afford to move out of the inner city. It's only when the people you consider 'normal', certainly no those untouchables living in the inner cities, are involved that you become concerned.

Please tell us which people you consider to be 'normal' and their lives worth something and which ones are not worth bothering with. It's a legitimate question that progressives starting with Woodrow Wilson had no problem answering. You, Buggy, Dale etc have identified yourselves are progressives. What is your answer to this question?

I agree with you, but the right will always fall back on the belief that people not guns kill. Yes it is silly and ridiculous to fee that way, but they do and they truly believe it. As WOW REALLY as we feel, they are sincere in their feeling that Guns have no responsibility in the killings.

Did everybody read that on june 1 Maria anna Cruz Lopez of Lewiston MD backed her SUV over 5 children killing her 8 year old daighter? Let's ban all vehicles that are capable of backing up.

The title of this thread is 'gun control' not 'hazardous driving'.

BTW: if the Colorado shooter's name were Mohammed Mohammed, the FBI would have been at his house before the ammunition was delivered.

The usual evasion from the truth. I was not the person claiming that we needed to worry about 'normal' people and not be concerned about those other people who live in the areas that drug deals happen. I expressed the idea that we needed to be more concerned about the thousands of people killed in drug violence in the inner cities than the recent tragedy in Aurora or the Treyvon Martin affair. As a progressive you followed the party line believing that some people are better than others and have a greater right to live.

So lets try the question again. Why are you more concerned about the people who died in Aurora and Trevon Martin than you are about the thousands who die in our inner cities?

I'll let your silly question go unanswered. This appeared to be your idea of intelligence and originality.

BBQ asks, "So lets try the question again. Why are you more concerned about the people who died in Aurora and Trevon Martin than you are about the thousands who die in our inner cities?"

My answer is: When did I ever say that I was more concerned about the people who died in Aurora and Trevon Martin than I was about the thousands who die in our inner cities? Please cite my posts where I said that.

All are tragedies. Needless killings and just about all take place with guns. This thread is about gun control. I never brought up gun control. I mentioned 100 round drum magazines and full body armor and buying 6000 rounds of ammo at one time - but nothing about controlling guns. It looks like you answered yourself about gun control.

For all you libs who would like to take away our 2nd amendment rights, your WRONG AGAIN!! Gun possession does NOT increase violence. Australia and England have banned personal ownership of guns but it hasn't made their countries any safer. In Australia violent crime is UP. England ranks second in violent crime. Switzerland has the highest per capita firepower in the world, but it is one of the peaceful countries in the world. The U.S. where gun ownership is legal is NOT even in the 10 most violent nations and the number of people who privately own guns has increased. So you libs who don't want guns, don't buy them, but for me and my family we will defend ourselves against thiefs, murderers, rapists, etc... Sleep tight ... I know I will

The liberal problem is that they want to lock up the gun and not the criminal.

After all the most hardened criminals might be rehabilitated. That cold hard gun will never feel remorse.

And you think we are a silly and ridiculous?

I just hope somehow the problem gets better. My personal opinion is it would be easier if we would make it harder for disturbed people to get large amounts of guns and ammunition.

I should clarify what I meant by normal people:

I refer to those that have shown no sign of criminal behavior BEFORE THEY FLIP OUT. If they show major personality change, keep an eye on them.

The people that I do not care if they die or live are the career criminals.

I know some of you would hug and forgive the man that rapes your child or kills your wife. You are a saint, I could never forgive them and I would love to be the one to throw the switch that takes their life away.

Well anyway, that is what I meant and I apologize for the misinterpretations by some. Also, PLEASE remember, this is only one mans opinion and feelings about career criminals that are responsible for the vast majority of murder.

I really have not seen an "liberal" posting on here that said gun possession should be eliminated in the USA. A couple have said the types of guns might be limited to hunting or personal protection weapons instead of the "assault type of rifles" with the capability of putting out hundreds of rounds in a minute. I have always said if a person wants a gun for their home protection, go buy one.

I would like to know how many times IN THE VILLAGES that you have felt so unsafe from "thiefs, murderers, or rapists" that you thought you needed a gun. You can include specific experiences both at home and on the streets since lots of Villagers do carry weapons.

Let me answer that questions for hulababy:

Just like auto insurance, do you cancel your at the end of each day when you know that you are not going to drive anymore. How about home owners insurance, do you really need it? Nice to have, even nicer never to have to use it.

BTW, that includes IN THE VILLAGES, but from what I have seen of some of the drivers IN THE VILLAGES, , I upped my auto insurance. :laugh::gc:

Gun control is not going to be an issue in this election. Nobody wants to touch it.

Calls for Gun Control Stir Little Support - U.S. Election 2012 - CNBC

Gun Control Bill Not Likely To Be Taken Up By Senate, Says Senior Dem Aide

Continue your healthy debate on it, but it is falling on deaf ears.