Gun Control Idea

How about a periodical mental check for gun owners? And if you live with someone that has mental problems, then also no gun permit.

'....And if you live with someone that has mental problems, then also no gun permit.....'

.

oooh! ooooh!...and, if you live with someone who vaguely has mental problems, then no automobile registration for you!

.

...and if someone in your neighborhood acts a little kookoo, then you own a car or have control of a commercial vehicle!

.

...ya know, a vehicle in the wrong hands is way more dangerous than a hand gun, and people just leave their vehicle keys laying around.

.

So as long as we are saving everyone with our great ideas, we should get the low hanging fruit first, so to speak.

.

.

oooh! another one! ...and, No chainsaw ownership by anyone residing within 1000 ft of any lady with more than 3 cats!

.

.

I'll keep thinking...

.

Someone in another post said it better, 'You can't protect against crazy.'

Which is true, even if you make yourself crazy trying.

I agree! if you have any debt also no permits, the list goes on and on!

I said, "You can't defend against insanity."

But, these discussions always devolve into hysterical arguments with the doomsday worriers crying that they can only defend their family with 30 round clips.

My advice to them is, learn how to shoot.

Shotgun is best for home defense.

I have two cans of long range wasp and hornet spray handy. Shoots a 30' stream. I'll just blind the intruder with that, and kill him with his own gun.

'....these discussions always devolve into hysterical arguments with the doomsday worriers crying....'

hmmm. ...and the lack of effective defense against what you view a crazy perspective is frustrating?

Here is a better idea for gun control: A firm grip, a balanced stance, and a smooth trigger pull.

This solution does address criminals with guns.

You got the wrong name. Its more Baretta, right?!

Mr. Bond went a step ahead and only he could fire his gun due to technology.

But this chip will still not address the availability of guns for almost everyone. You have to restrict sales of guns to the public.

Ways to go is presented worldwide but feel happy to invent something new.

Metal detectors detect guns just as we'll. I think you would find it nearly impossible to talk your way into any American Legion, VFW, DAV, Elks, Lions, Moose, etc. meeting with this idea.

Who wants to give up their father's, grandfather's, or great grandfather's gun? Not me...it's a family heirloom which is not going anywhere anytime soon.

Good luck with that.

>Metal detectors detect guns just as we'll.

No, metal detectors work only at very close range. RFID can be detected from 20 ft away. A cop could stand on a street corner with an RFID detector and spot every gun nearby. And RFID detectors are ultra cheap when compared to metal detectors.

Hey, I'm not trying to take guns away from citizens. Just making it more difficult for the bad guys.

Would this not mean you get shot before you even produce your gun? How about finding out first, if its your gun and not somebody elses?

RFID chips for everyone! You can earmark Gangsters which would probably be easier than doing it all for the 600 Million guns.

Hey, earmarking is not a bad idea. How about surgically implanting an RFID chip in every convicted criminal? That way, banks and liquor stores and such would always know when one walks in.

Metal detectors can work at longer ranges...we just don't use those. They are primarily used for entry control, the same way that RFI is used all across America with loop detectors for inventory control.

Metal detectors are invalide for the same reason that RFI chips wouldn't work...identification of the where the actual RFI chip is. If a cop is standing on a corner and there are 10 or more people around and his detector is going off, he'll have to track it down. What would he do...Detain every person in a 20 foot radius until he finds the gun with the chip? I see a lot of lawsuits coming from that.

Spotting every gun near by wouldn't really do anything for you any more than a metal detector, though.

It wouldn't be difficult at all for a bad guy to remove the chip and be on his merry way.

How about RFID'd bullets that read the RFID of the firing hand? (LOL) And another thing. When ALL the "bad guys" die and can't themselves tell a story for me to study, I get suspicious. Innocence age should have died a few years ago. S.M.

GA. That's what I was thinking. If it's inaccessible the RFID signal is blocked by the metal; if it's accessible it's easily removeable. [Did you mean Newtown, CT type incident?]

The problem with any gun control idea is that the legal, law-abiding gun owner will comply; the criminal will not. So what's the point? The 'real' baddies will have their own machine shop to make the parts they need -- or IMPORT them from Mexico where all those 'Fast and Furious' guns are, that the Obama Administration gave to the drug cartels.

Even if somehow all guns were confiscated, nothing would stop a crazy person from using a bottle of gasoline and a match to kill a lot of people very quickly. -- And no one needs a 7 day waiting period or a psychological evaluation to buy gasoline and matches.

'...[Did you mean Newtown, CT type incident?]....'

I don't want a repeat of the Newtown, CT incident either, but I was referring to local officials in Louisiana using gun registration records to illegally search and seize weapons of law abiding citizens...leaving them without the firearms many needed the most right then for protection against those who were not law abiding.

RFID doesn't transmit well through metal, so forget about internal placement.

RFID, especially when it's a passive RFID technology is used. 'they use this to identify cattle btw.'

The chip itself (Reciever) is powered by the RF waves transmitted by the Transmitter worn or implanted by the shooter.

'....The chip itself (Reciever) is powered by the RF waves transmitted by the Transmitter worn or implanted by the shooter....'

The tags, whether passive or active, act as transmitters. The passive tags also act as receivers for both signal and necessary power.

Your correct.

Every time the government tries to put a stop to, or take control of something, a new criminal enterprise is born.

Not to be to harsh but trying to make the gun harder to use, isn't a solution. Mentally unstable people, criminals, and other individuals who shouldn't have a weapon of any sort will find a way to have a weapon. Just look at what happens in prisons, with the creativity in making weapons. Also take a hard look at the UK and how unsuccessful their gun laws have been. Criminals still have guns, and knives, but the average subject is defenseless now.

Rather, have people be armed. I know, it seems like a radical notion. However armed societies tend toward greater levels of courtesy and politeness. Also its much easier to self police and remove credible threats. Waiting for police to show up for 20 minutes is not only too long, but the damage is done in the first minute or two.

Guns do not kill. People kill. And they will use any weapon at their disposal to kill.

Pardon? In 2009 there were some 15,000 murders in the US - 9,000 committed by gun. In the UK there were some 600 murders - 40 committed by gun. Taking population into account, the UK had far, far fewer murders in general and in particular by gun.

Also, I have no idea what metric you're using for "armed societies tend toward greater levels of courtesy and politeness". I'd be happy to see any data backing that up, as offhand I can think of many examples where the opposite is true.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/fbi-crime-stats-show-an-armed-public-is-a-safer-public/

You may also want to google, "swiss gun ownership".

That is a quote by Robert Heinlein. It makes sense from some perspectives not so much from others. Documentation will probably seem about as reasonable as one sees the quote.

.

Southern hospitality is a signature of probably the best armed part of the US.

.

Remember, polite does not mean pacifist and what is considered polite can vary significantly in different locales. Failure to be polite in a polite society could get you shot.

.

Another example is listening to how politely people talk to the police, versus say a mail delivery postal worker.....Similar familiarity and uniform, but one is armed......'....oh, yes Sir, I have my registration right here....'

But in the UK, the homicide rate per 100,00 persons is nearly twice the US rate...by other means. Violence is violence no matter what the instrument used.

And the issue of "assault weapons" (God how I hate that incorrect term....no such thing exists and is a politically-motivated INVENTION), less than 2% of ALL homicides in the USA are committed with a semi-automatic rifle or any type. That's nearly statistically irrelevant, yet the liberals and lamestream media rant obsessively on about the "assault weapons"......call it SELECTIVE OUTRAGE if you will.

I currently disagree with the tought of taking guns away from the average law abiding American citizen will solve nor reduce the numbers of the American gun related violence. Many of the crimes commited by the criminals in America are using guns that have been stolen and are passed around their "gang" to use and are considered community property for the "members" to use then stashed for the next member to commit their crime. The criminals will always have guns. For them there is not much of a deterant as the jail time they could expect to face for even murder is "doable" for them and they know they will once again be back on the street realitively soon. Recently an individual in America was sentenced to 25 years in prison for commiting an ID theft and cyber crimes. A local "gang" member who commited murder got 12 years. An Ohio governor just stopped an execution of a man the shot a motel clerk in the back of the head twice that the court sentenced him to death. Instead of carrying out the execution, the American tax payer, law abiding citizen has to continue feeding, clothing and providing for his needs for the rest of his life. He should have been executed with in 30 days of his court sentence (my opinion). This was not a case of possible error of having the wrong guy on trial either for the consideration of court appeals and reviewing of documents presented.

I currently believe we should start by executing the individuals that are sitting on prison death row on or before January 31, 2013. Start executing the drug dealers the next month and with in 30 days of their guilt by their peers in the court room. Execute a convicted indivual with in 30 days of a crime that results in a death that involved a weapon of any kind. The patrons of the drug dealer should get a minimum of 12 months in jail/prison. ...........

I could continue nit-picking other various crimes/infractions that also resulted in the death of another human being too, but I think the gist of my direction of thinking has been portrayed. The American ocuntry has allowed weak soft individuals weaken their judicial system and punishment imposed and actually carried out that it has removed the intended deterant for the criminals. The time does not fit the crime any more. The time is less. The defense attorneys job should be that thay make sure that their client does not recieve additional changes for something not related to the alledged crime not get their client set free for a crime that they know their client has commited and perhaps confessed to.

Another article in the local newspaper about a young adult that commited an armed robbery recieved his sentence of two years and the reporter stated in their article that the defendant looked at his attorney in total disbelief. The found guilty by his peers individual honestly believed that the attorney would somehow work out a deal or handle the court room in such a way that he would not see the inside of a jail or prison cell and walk out the front doors of the court house a free man to continue life as normal. This is a problem in America, and perhaps in other countries, that many individuals in America can commit crimes of any nature and not recieve punishment that fits the crime and certainly not something that may make a hugh impact on that individuals' mind to really make a change of course in their life when they get out of jail/prison.

I had a cousin that in May of 2005 murdered his mother, two grand parents, two fellow friends/classmates then took his own life. There was some mental health issues mentioned in the findings. I can personally relate to some of the events that have taken place in America in the past few years.

OK, so I will concede that I currently feel there is not a logical reason or need for the average American to have a gun magizine that holds 10, 13, 15 or more rounds of amunition, but the fact remains that the massive murders that have happened the past few years, the individuals that commited these crime had multiple magizines of bullets anyway. It may not have done much to deter these individuals if they simply had to carry a couple more magizines with them to their intended target location.

Well, enough from me for now. I do not believe that the American politicians in power in Washington D.C. have a clue how to curb the violence in the country. It seems that most of the really and truely believe that if they ban guns in the country that murder and gun related crimes will cease. The only ones with guns will be the law inforcement and the criminals. The criminals probably will out gun the law inforcement in most cases too.

Sorry, but no. Execution is arguably an ineffective deterrent to criminals who have nothing much to live for in the first place. However, speedy executions are certainly an exceedingly appealing notion to a State which:

A) wants to use body count as a metric for how well crime is being fought.

B) doesn't care to let costly justice get in the way of A.

Time and again innocent people have been exonerated after being on death row for years - sometimes decades. All because corrupt or overzealous police, prosecutors and judges have chosen to put their own glory above all else.

Time and again innocent people have been exonerated after being on death row for years - sometimes decades. All because corrupt or overzealous police, prosecutors and judges have chosen to put their own glory above all else.

Tell that to Teresa Halbach's family

Steven Avery is a terrible man, to be sure. But the point stands. You're suggesting that we feel OK with taking away the rights of the innocent (even if that means some will die) in order to stop or at least diminish the potential for a few criminals to commit terrible acts?

I'm sorry...but isn't that exactly the same arguement that gun-control advocates are making right now?

You're suggesting that we feel OK with taking away the rights of the innocent

No, never even suggested that. My point is not only releasing a guilty man of a crime, but also giving him a second chance to commit and even more hannis crime.

I'm sorry...but isn't that exactly the same arguement that gun-control advocates are making right now?

No, I am challenging your statement:

Time and again innocent people have been exonerated after being on death row for years - sometimes decades. All because corrupt or overzealous police, prosecutors and judges have chosen to put their own glory above all else.

Of being absolute. And its not, when you think you can paint the solution with one large paint brush, that is in my opinion, foolish. And the same with gun control. It's just as complex.

Are you saying the DNA evidence was wrong and he was actually guilty of the crime for which he was exonerated?

EDIT: I have your answer in #41. Sorry for the double inquiry.

Phoenix911:

I often agree with your comments. Even when I don't completely agree, your comments are usually still well reasoned, good points.

.

The preceding comment is not something I would have expected from you. The implied reasoning is spurious and the comment as a whole is emotionally charged and divisive.

.

Monday morning quarterbacking is simply not available in real life. Although a life would probably have been saved by keeping this man wrongly incarcerated for a crime he did not commit, are you really arguing that using DNA to exonerate those wrongly incarcerated is a bad thing?

.

Just so we are clear, because there is some ambiguity, which, if any, of the following did you intent to imply:

1. DNA evidence is unreliable?

2. Once incarcerated, no one should be set free, even if they are proven to be innocent of the crime for which they are incarcerated?

3. Anyone accused of anything should be locked up forever or shot?

4. Something else?

.

Here is some of my own Monday morning quarterbacking.....This guy plead guilty to dousing his cat in gas and oil then tossing it in a fire. That type of cruelty is something that should warrant monitoring and supervision for at least a few decades.

.

His crimes were heinous and unjustified and unforgivable. I doubt however that spending over a decade in prison for a crime he did not commit made him more compassionate, empathetic, or safer to be around.

The reason I posted it, Not all people that was proved innocent by DNA testing are only innocent by legal technicality only. I just wanted to make that point. Which I'll explain later here.

The implied reasoning is spurious and the comment as a whole is emotionally charged and divisive.

Yes, it does have a touch of emotions doesn't it. And there is a reason for this, I'm from the community where this happened with Avery.

And that's why, to make the best of it, it's the reasons I really don't care for politicians or even a communittee putting 'gun control' front and foremost (especially politicians) after a tragedy like this in Newtown. With emotions involve, an attitude of 'we have to do something' for the sake of 'doing something'.

This is where cooler heads prevail.

As far as:

are you really arguing that using DNA to exonerate those wrongly incarcerated is a bad thing?

Avery was incarcerated, and was released because of he was not the actual rapist, what was not proved, was that he had 'absolutely nothing' to do with it. When he did.

That link did not go into detail what the monster did to her. And some will contest that prison did this to him, when in fact it is well documented, that Avery was a sadistic monster before he was incarnated. But no, he didn't rape the girl 25-30 years ago of which where he was exonerated of the actual rape from.

And when the jury is looking at the charges, what do they look at. With all the charges accumulated, This should put him away for a very long time. Avery was a dangerous man.

Our legal system is not the best, but it's the best we have. And if the charge of rape were removed/dropped from the list of the trial. Two things may have happened. (quarterbacking here.)

1. The time sentence would have beenabout or near the same, or
2. He would have been left go, for a number of reasons.

Avery was not a good person.

So yes, I'll put a warning here:

** WARNING THIS RESPONSE MAY BE SLANTED DUE TO EMOTIONAL BAIS **

'....innocent by legal technicality....'

...is still innocent.

.

This may seem at first glance to be a ridiculous stance, but the ramifications of the opposing view are simply unacceptable.

...is still innocent.

That is true, you must have missed my warning.

so lets try to bring this back closer to on topic, with this question.

Would Teresa Halbach be around today if she had a CCW? I think she would have atleast have had a chance.

....and I'm back to agreeing with your well reasoned comments.

your well reasoned comments.

Thanks,

TO DO LIST

• Pull the wool over truth is not a compromise - CHECK

Yeah....

I'm a sucker for things like: sound sane logic, assertions supported by effective documentation, and well developed reasonable arguments.

My naivete' might even lead me to support arguments with the qualities above, with complete disregard for the intent of the original author.

Woe be unto me! Only a fool would judge an idea based solely on its merits, with no eye toward whether it originated from someone congnizant of the truth in their words!

Phoenix911,

It is very unfortunate that some, albeit a very few people have been sentenced to death either mistakenly or by nefarious prosecutors. However, when this is done two murders are committed and the original perpetrator runs around free from prosecution of that crime. No one is served well by this.

This is a country of the people by the people, writing proper laws, like committing insane folks to a proper place or decreasing the capacity of magazines to the capacity allowed for legal hunting use, is not unreasonalbe.

Punishing legal, law abiding gun owners for crimes committed by others, is hardly a reasonable way to run a country either.

Using one example is no way to write laws either, we have in excess of 300,000,000 citizens, we write a single law, driven by one single thought for all of them, takes more than a single knee jerk reaction. .

Using one example is no way to write laws either, we have in excess of 300,000,000 citizens, we write a single law, driven by one single thought for all of them, takes more than a single knee jerk reaction. .

Thats is so true, but this one example was put forth that exonerating an innocent person what was guilty on other charges is not always good. Even thou he was innocent of THAT crime, but this is the best system we have, which gave him his second chance.

And like I stated earlier of the post being bias.

Stay safe!

I don't remember hunting in the second amendment....

By the way, I heard an explanation of the 2nd Amendment that finally clarified the wording for me -- what that part about the 'militia' was intended for.

"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."

In terms of personal freedom, the second half is the key wording in stating that 'the people' have the right to keep and bear arms and this right shall not be infringed. Under our form of government, each state can create a militia (which is separate from the army, national guard, etc) which any citizen may be called upon to serve in.

So the arms the people have a right to own are the type of arms that a militia man can own and bear. Which means that the people have the right to own any type of arms that a regular militia man would need. Thus any kind of handgun, rifle, automatic or semi-automatic, is within our rights to own. By this same token, the typical militia man would not be expected to have his own grenade launcher or stinger missle launcher. So owning these types of weapons could be controlled by the states and/or subject to the approval of Congress. Any state could regulate its militia - but not by infringing on this right to keep and bear arms.

I cannot fathom a more perplexing explanation. You're stipulating that each state can form it's own private army - with reasons and limitations entirely unclear - and yet each member must bizarrely provide their own weapons, ammunition, etc. And to further muddle the matter, those weapons can't go beyond a vague and imagined definition of "what a militia man would be expected to have". What?

Frankly, the Second Ammendment is a rather pointless law if the envisioned purpose is to somehow allow for a militia to overthrow an undesirable government. It seems glaringly obvious that such rebellious militia members by definition already no longer care about that government's laws and what weapons it says can be legally posessed. (I rather doubt Confederate soldiers wrote to Lincoln for permission to fire their cannons at Union soldiers.) Further, that government isn't going to look the other way as someone actively tries to bring it down simply because they wave the 2nd Ammendment at it.

You need to remember your history.

At the time the Constitution was drafted the Colonies were worried about another war with England, and they were worried about other countries trying to invade, of pirates invading towns and raping/pillaging (= terrorists), of some indviduals with delusions of glory starting their own kingdoms, of an Indian uprising, etc. So it's not so much about rebelling against the new US government as it is in helping to keep out other invaders who might try to conquer the growing nation, or 'occupy' a city for ransom, and so forth.

Yes, it's unlikely now that a militia will be needed to keep the Canadians from taking over Buffalo, but there are terrorist scenarios where having an armed populace is useful. The police, national guard, and the army can't be everywhere all the time. They couldn't respond to a Mexican drug cartel moving into Texas as quickly as a bunch of the locals could. Maybe that's why it hasn't happened.

Oh, I'm aware of history. I was just repeating an oft-cited 2nd Ammendment rationale given by pro-gun activists.

But you're sure right about those countless "terrorist scenarios" where having an armed population is useful. Because nothing thwarts terrorists' preferred method of killing by using bombs left somewhere or mailed in or strapped undetected to their bodies like a man with a rifle locked up securely at home.

Exept maybe Chuck Norris. If we just shuttle Chuck Norris from city to city along an underground rail system so terrorists couldn't know his location at any given time, we'd be just as safe from them as if everyone carried a gun - without all the accidental deaths in the meantime. And frankly Chuck needs the work.

Those that give up their right to the 2nd Amendment are bound to lose all the other Amendments....

I swear that a lot of Americans have never read Hamilton's Federal Papers. Same with the writings of Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and G. Washington.

Nor do most Americans comprehend the true meaning behind those writings. If they did, then things in this country wouldn't be so polarized in a political sense.

<ignore>Anonymous Poster</ignore>

Got two good answers so far in the midst of all the pontificating and silly answers--basically saying that RFID can't transmit through metal. That was all I was after--a technical answer from this technical group.

And if we affix the chip outside the gun, it can easily be removed.

So that settles that--it won't work.

I'd suggest you use more technical terms in your thread title. "Gun Control" is going to get responses to what it alludes to. If you had a question about RFID chips and metal, that's what you should have asked.

Nice. You start a thread on gun control, and finish off by thumbing your nose at the people that responded to the subject of gun control.

Well, there WERE a lot of silly off-topic answers.

You're right, though--put "gun control" in the thread topic and advocates come out from both sides to spew opinions, no matter what the question asked.

Geez, imagine the number of weird, opinionated, crazy responses I'm going to get from Bambi killers and gun haters alike when this question hits the CR4 newsletter.

Hey gun nuts on both sides! This is a question about RFID, not whether or not we should take your guns away! Please spare us your pontifications.

RFID should in the title would help like RFID Gun Control......maybe

Please spare us your hot button thread titles, like Taxation and Gun Control, followed by your phony shock at the responses, as if you are somehow above it all. Thanks.

sounds like 'Yahoo News Reporting'.

Even if you could think of a way to embed the RFID chip into the gun in a way that would work, I imagine someone would just come up with a shielded holster which would either block the signal entirely or at least diminish it to the point of being fairly useless. But you definitely get points for trying to think up something that could help!

Thanks, mate.

Something simular with technology to trace the guns, is what to happen under the Bush Administration with Operation Wide Receiver had flaws because of the risk involved to expose 'gun walking' over the border.

But to have, in my opinion an incompetent administration initiate this, then you'll end up having an operation like 'Fast and Furious' which was just downright reckless.

Now under these it was easier because they just have to trace the guns, but with the technolgy you suggest it would be cost prohibitive to own a gun........ which of course will work in its own way.

Hell no, gun laws won't work from keeping guns out of the criminal's hands.

I'll share a secret with y'all. You can make a one shot firearm using a Bic pen and an appropriately-sized steel ball bearing as the projectile.

That's as far as I describe this device. During Jungle Survival School, we were taught how to make these if we were in a pinch...ya know, MacGiver-style!

And mum's the word, okay?....By this I mean don't tell O'Bummer and his pal Joey, or else they'll ban it too.

Magazine and a pencil...zip gun style.

Ronald Reagan was the last person in the Whitehouse that when he talked, actually had substance,

Curious that he exhibited this personal accountability by repeating "I don't recall" some 124 times during his Iran-Contra testimony. And the only effort he made to explain the failings on his watch was that he was so busy doing so many good deeds that he couldn't be bothered to pay attention to possible bad things which might be going on.

'I feel ...... your pain'

And not curious that someone criticizing one of the most popular presidents in our (my at least) lifetime posted anonymously.

Greetings.

I find it interesting that we have the Military that protect our land.

We have the State Police to patrol and protect in the states.

We police to protect our cities.

We have sheriffs to protect our counties.

We have alarms to protect our banks.

But we don't have anyone to protect our schools.

Switzerland Requires (last time I talked to a Swiss) that every person :

1. Have a weapon

2. Every person have ammo for that weapon

3. Every person be qualified with that weapon.

I was watching a show years ago and this anti-gun person was talking to this Swiss person about being neutral and having weapons?

She said what if your country was attacked by a nation that had twice as many people as you have, what would your county do?

His answer was "we all would have to shoot twice."

Where do these Bully Lunitics go to hijack planes, or shoot innocent people?

They go where there are no Legal guns.

Where no legally owned weapons are allowed and law abiding citizens obey the law.

If these Lunitics and Fanatics that hijack planes and shoot people knew that there Were Armed People and that they would be killed or wounded and beat up and jailed, guess what they would be Chicken and would't do it.

The ARMY taught us "You live or you die, you kill or be killed."

Wake up people!

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? AV1611 King James Bible Jeremiah 17:9

For the love of money is the root of all evil AV1611 King James Bible 1 Timothy 6:10

You don't fight aggresion with words and rules and laws.

That will only apply to law abiding people.

The Bullys, the Fanatics, the Chickens, the Low life are subdued by everyone carrying a firearm and/ or having one.

Don't be a statistic.

In Chicago, there have been 446 school age children shot in leftist utopia run by Rahm Emanuel and that produced Obama, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc

Do you here that in the news?

Get a gun, get ammo, get qualified.

Be a Solution.

Oly

You got a little bit of everything in there.

I agree that armed security for our kids is the answer, but let's just chill out today.

Merry Christmas.

Did you know that approximately 1/3 of our schools in the USA (over 23,000) already have armed guards or police in them already?

So, why the big stink and moral indignation (more like continued rant to me) over the NRA VP's statements?

Some people just don't get it, are ignorant, or just too damn lazy to check out the facts...

It's not part of a much bigger political agenda...... IMHO of a master plan.

I understand BO has some industrialists on his panel for consultants,

I love it when a plan comes together.

"Expect a Executive Order confiscating ALL firearms in this country"

Impeachment!

Hussein will probably make an eloquent speech similar to this.....

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." --Adolf Hitler, 1935

No one will impeach or resist.

IMO, That sounds fabricated.........

She said what if your country was attacked by a nation that had twice as many people as you have, what would your county do?

That was not a she that said that, that was the German Kaiser who said that to a Swiss Militiamen back in WWI.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro5.html

#191