Actually I do care about gun control and support the president's plan. There is absolutely no reason for a civilian to have a weapon that can spit out 100 rounds in a matter of minutes, if not seconds, as an example.

In order to enact the proposed regulations the president must win, which means I will win.

I.e., your comments make no sense.

actually, there's NO reason for a politician, or YOU for that matter, to decide how many rounds I can shoot per second as long as I abide by the law. Since there's ZERO proof that these overzealous gun regulations stop, or even deter crime, I suggest we focus on REAL issues...not the kneejerk stuff thrown together by anti gun nuts.

There's knee-jerk responses to gun control on both sides of the issue.

This article sums it up nicely...

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/08/158433081 … at-we-dont

Yes we need more laws to be ignored.

We already know your opinion, it's what ever the President tells you is your opinion. No thinking required.

I.e., your comments make no sense

We're not worried about YOU.  It's not about you and the other law-abiding citizens.  We're worried about the other fucking assholes out there who are not law abiding or rational.  Yes, there may be millions of high capacity magazines out there already, but let's stop dumping more onto the market and into the gun runners hands.

If a water pipe bursts in your house while you are away, do you say "fuck it, the damage is already done," and leave the water running?  Of course not!  You shut the water off and start work on repairing the damges.

That says it all. Me, the government have it all wrong. You should be allowed to own a weapon that can fire 100 rounds or a hand-held rocket launcher because it is none of our business.

If the law is passed that says that you cannot own a magazine that holds in excess of 10 rounds I am happy to know you will obey the law.

I am not anti gun -- I am, however, in favor of a child's right to live.

And what, exactly, would those "real" issue be, hmm?

SHHHHH! Hold on there, friend ... um, (whispering) he's one of them. Yeah.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thanks for that. It only proves what I have said about you forever -- if you ever had an original thought it would die of loneliness.

I am a tree-hugging Obama-loving liberal and I vote. That's no secret. If you object then may I suggest you gather a petition to enact a law that would make my opinions and vote illegal.

I support the president. He's my guy and the more you mumble negative things about him only let's me know that I am right.

How about real protection for schoolchildren?  As one NRA person put it - We think our money is worth protecting with armed guards, we think our officials are worth protecting with armed guards, so don't our children deserve as much?

Then why didn't the SCOTUS strike down the previous 10 year ban on semi-auto assault weapons?

What makes you so certain the SCOTUS will not uphold any possible limits on magazine capacity, other than wishful thinking on your part?

Don't be flattered you obviously missed the sarcasm. Everyone is welcome to their opinion, how does that old saying go? Oh yeah Opinions are like assholes everyone has one! It's just amazing how much toilet paper some use. I just want a law on voting that equals that in which will soon be needed to purchase a gun if you have your way. background checks, ID's mental evaluations. It's only fair I have the constitutional right to buy and own a gun granted to me by the constitution just like my right to vote.

Now your opinions are just that and they are no where near facts as with almost all of your post's.

SCOTUS never heard a challenge to the '93 AWB.  There were a few lower court cases and obviously the law was upheld.

However, today is a totally different judicial landscape.

Today we have the Heller and McDonald rulings and we also have a "conservative" court.

If the 93 AWB were to pass or the current DiFi proposed AWB were to pass, the legal precedent is already in place to repeal most, if not all, of the provisions.

The reason why I believe SCOTUS would not uphold limits on magazine capacity would take a long time to explain but basically it comes down to "common use" and "level of scrutiny" that the court would apply.

so then show me real facts that the myriad of OTHER gun laws have reduced crime significantly. How's that murder rate in Chicago again? Tough when facts don't back up your arguments huh?

The difference being that there is a huge problem with gun-related violence and death caused by individuals in this country, but almost no incidence of individual voter fraud at the ballot box, so that argument does not hold water.  There's little evidence of mass voting fraud by one or the other political party, although there are strong suspicions about our last elected Republican President. (Did I say elected?)

Doesn't matter Constitutional right to own gun and vote. The constitution is more spacific about gun right SHOULD NOT BE INFRINGED. I stick by the old stance never seen a gun jump up off a table and kill anyone without a human hand on it. the problem is not the gun it's the person holding it.

wait a second...."huge problem"? As compared to what?
Murder rate is down year over year.
I seriously think we need to censor and make illegal Democratic whining....THAT seems to be SERIOUSLY on a rise over the last 6 years.

try 12 years since they lost the Gore v Bush race

Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's not the hand held rocket launcher that brought down the passenger plane, it was the guy who pulled the trigger...

Based on that we should have no laws against any lethal weapon, because the weapon is never at fault.

I'm back to my previous thoughts: you don't have a clue. You just mimic what someone else says and consider that an original thought. I.e., guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Please...

Did such a case make it to the Supreme Court?

Nope.  The arguments against the ban were too weak to make it up the appeals ladder.

Your problem is, among others, is that you cannot prove a negative. We do have gun laws that prevent the average citizen from owning a machine gun, and I think it obvious that absent machine guns on our streets lives have been saved. Yes, I know people can get special permits to own a machine gun, but you can't buy a fully automatic weapon at Walmart.

The murder rate in Chicago? If you mean gun death rates, yes it is high. Absent the guns there would be fewer gun deaths.

You might compare the number of gun deaths in Louisiana to the gun death rates in New York? This in response to your standard "Chicago" comments.

Louisiana has very few gun laws and their death rate is roughly 20.5 per one hundred thousand. New York has tougher gun laws and their death rate is roughly 5 per one hundred thousand.

You also might want to compare gun death rates in countries where guns are nearly banned, such as Japan, and compare that to America's gun death rate which is close to 30 per day.

You're in over your head. You listen to FOX and/or Hannity and/or read the NRA's talking points and vomit what the say/write as facts.

Your problem is you do not think through what they say.

BTW, the thread is about what laws might pass, and what gun laws might not pass? I also pointed to the fact that the NRA had a 0.83% success rate in the last election, which I say portends disaster for the NRA.

You didn't comment on any of that. Just rant, rant, rant.

Yeah, tell that to the parents of Sandy Hook. I am so sure that will make them feel better.

I consider over 30,000 deaths a year by guns to be a huge problem, as do most rational thinking individuals.  Although 1992-1993 was a peak period for gun-related deaths, and the numbers fell until 2000, they have been steadily climbing ever since.  This chart shows that gun deaths nearly equal accidental car deaths, and may soon exceed them.

Jim Ball wrote:
Nope.   The arguments against the ban were too weak to make it up the appeals ladder.

...or because it was primarily a cosmetic ban on new firearm sales and did not prohibit the possession, use or sale of firearms that were already owned by law abiding citizens.

Also, there were still new firearms available that had the same function and use as the banned firearms, they just didn't look as scary on the outside.

Yup, we "whined" our way to win 5 of 6 of past national elections. We whiners and criers also won the Senate and the White House in 2012. We also elected President Obama to a second term.

As insulting as you try to be, your insults avoid one big fact; people such as yourself, along with your ideas, do not coincide with the majority of Americans and that is why 2014 is so important.

Your motto seems to be: "We lost and here are our demands."

Did anyone blame the box cutters for 9/11???

Jim Ball wrote:

I consider over 30,000 deaths a year by handgun to be a huge problem, as do most rational thinking individuals.  Although 1992-1993 was a peak period for gun-related deaths, and the numbers fell until 2000, they have been steadily climbing ever since.  This chart shows that gun deaths nearly equal accidental car deaths, and may soon exceed them.

Thanks for posting that information. It does appear that some think a reduction in gun deaths from 30,000 per year to 28,000 per year is an improvement.

Overconfidence about 2014 will be to the peril of the Democratics.

ROFLMAO what a joke. One day maybe you won't be told what to say and when that day happens you will be speachless

Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  It all depends on whether or not the Republicans are able to silence the Tea Party nutjobs and let a more moderate voice come through.  If the Tea Party folks continue to be the loudest, the Democrats will continue to solidify power.

Jim Ball wrote:

I consider over 30,000 deaths a year by guns to be a huge problem, as do most rational thinking individuals.  Although 1992-1993 was a peak period for gun-related deaths, and the numbers fell until 2000, they have been steadily climbing ever since.  This chart shows that gun deaths nearly equal accidental car deaths, and may soon exceed them.

And?  Gun laws will not stop criminals.  Only the honest and law abiding will be affected.  What part of "shall not be infringed" is so bloody difficult?