There is a petition on the WH web site to impeach her for her attack on the constitution. If you care, go and sign it.

What‘s the real threat here — guns or the government?

Trick question. They keep pushing and pushing, eventually something is going to snap and it will not be pretty.

I sure hope people are blowing up phones, emails and the postal service going to their representatives and senators!!! We can´t let this happen.

Just saw on Drudge that Cuomo is looking to get sweeping gun laws by the time of the State of the State speech. OK by me if the Second Civil War starts in NY.

I keep hearing gun rights supporters pooh-poohing every single idea that comes out. This article does the same. Instead of waiting for others to come up with ideas you don´t like, why not put forward some fresh ideas?

How can we keep guns, especially those which can fire multiple times within a few seconds, out of the hands of those with serious mental illness? I don´t think anyone truly believes that the 2nd Amendment exists so that psychotic people can have unlimited rights to weapons. So how can the rights be preserved for law-abiding citizens and still make it difficult for people suffering from psychosis to get hold of weapons?

And I get tired of the straw man that psychiatrists can´t reliably tell who is a risk and who isn´t. The families can...and with today´s laws, the families plead for help and get a cold shoulder...because the law says that their loved ones have the ´right´ to be psychotic. Privacy laws make it difficult for psychiatrists to talk with the families to get their take on the situation. In virtually every case, someone close to the perpetrator knew he was becoming less stable, but was helpless to do anything about it because of current laws.

Oh, so let me get this straight. The liberal democrats seek to stop the sale of firearms to serious mental cases only. They don´t want federal records of every firearm transfer, public or private. No universal gun registraton is under consideration by liberal democrats. No ammunition sale database is on their agenda. No problem then. Who could oppose such a reasonable gun control? /sar

The problem is that mental illness has been used by totalitarian regimes to suppress dissent. If you don´t agree with the government, you must be crazy. Certain quarters are already suggesting that gun ownership is a form of insanity, itself.

#5 In general I agree but don´t fall for the head-fake regarding semi-auto large capacity magazine arms. This is century old technology. There is much confusion bantered about confusing semi auto with full auto as well as creating the impression that some recently developed technology has caused our problems.

The Left´s endless crusade for perfect safety and security will inevitably lead to the complete subjugation of citizens to the state. Leftists are more than willing, in fact eager to trade liberty and autonomy for security. This applies in every venue, not just gun ownership. Leftists are determined to regulate or outlaw absolutely everything that might cause harm of any kind. The harm need not be physical. Speech codes, which trade liberty of speech for psychological comfort, are an example of the same mentality. There is, of course, nothing wrong with desiring to reduce harm. The trouble arises when there is no awareness or consideration for the tradeoffs involved. Liberty and safety are not synonymous, and are sometimes at odds. Those whose only aim is safety are bound to end up surrendering liberty - unless, of course, they are selective in their assessment of risk. Far, far more young people die in automobile accidents each year than are gunned down in schools by lunatics wielding semi-automatic weapons - but we do not hear screams of outrage and demands for stricter driver education and licensing. The carnage is simply deplored and ignored. Gun control zealots would save many more lives by directing their efforts to traffic safety instead of taking the easy, emotional, symbolic path they have chosen.

#5, Just in case you´re on the up-and-up, let me point out the fallacy.

I lost a good friend when her psychotic son killed her - with a kitchen knife. He threatened three other children in the home who escaped while she was struggling with him. It does not matter what a psychotic person kills people with, they still die. Truly psychotic people are dangerous. You can not make them less dangerous by regulating everyone else.

Therefore, the solution is not more regulation of guns, or knives, or baseball bats. It is more treatment solutions for psychotic people. But that is not what our government is trying to do.

Broken Record Post:
Write your congress critters and tell them to:
1. Demand that the obysmal won make gun control work in Chicago for at least one year FIRST,
2. See if obie will give up his secret service taxpayer funded protection.

Just pointing out that Sen FineSwine is a fine swine.

I see that the resident troll chimed in.

A quote I read that put what happened at Sandy Hook. Columbine and other places into a relavent context

“. . . too many parents nowadays foster the latent mischief by a policy of laissez faire, pampering their pert urchins like pet monkeys whose escapades furnish a fund of amusement as irresponsible freaks of no serious import. Such unbridled young scamps, for lack of correction, develop too often into headstrong, peevish, self-seeking characters, menaces to the community where they dwell, and the blame rests with their supine and duty-shirking seniors.”

I´d love to write to my Senator, but what good would it do to write to Feinstein?

FTA: "Under Ms. Feinstein‘s nomenclature, millions of quite common and quite popular semiautomatic handguns, shotguns and rifles (the latter two simply because they have a pistol-like grip) would be banned."

#5 never addresses the meat of an article but consistently chooses to change the topic to make everything about an extremely low percentage lunatic fringe. There is nothing on the up and up with such posts. I also notice the lack of said poster´s weighing in on related threads dealing with Chicago gun violence - where guns have been "banned" nor are there any responses to articles where progressives have published lists of registered gun owners. Those type of articles show the absolute fallacy of thinking that the the gun banner´s arguments are well intended. #5´s employers are seriously underestimating the intelligence of the majority of folks regular to this forum. I apologize if I´m out of line in noting the repetitive nature and obfuscation around a given article´s theme common to a particular poster´s submissions but I´ve been reading them for weeks and feel compelled to call foul.

No evidence indicates that psychiatrists or psychologists are better at predicting violence than anyone else. None.

The single valid predictor of future violence is a past history of violence.

None of the spree killers recently in the headlines had such a history - as far as publicly available facts indicate.

There has been absolutely nothing in the information released thus far to suggest that the Sandy Hook killer was dangerous to others. Such information may exist. It has not been made public if it does. The mother was obviously devoted to her son. Had she realized or even suspected the risk, she would certainly have acted to prevent what happened. It is completely false and misleading to say the law makes emergency involuntary psychiatric evaluation for dangerousness difficult or complicated. It does not. The problem people are referring to without realizing it is the difficulty of establishing and maintaining civil, i.e. longer term commitment and and treatment. The media has done an abysmal job of making this important distinction clear. The issue with all of the recent spree killers was not civil commitment but the apparent failure of anyone involved to intervene with an emergency psychiatric evaluation. There may well be fault here, especially in the Jared Loughner and possibly the Batman killer cases, both of whom were deemed dangerous and disturbed by someone ahead of their crimes.