I don't know if theses online petitions every actually go anywhere, but if you believe so, here is one that aims to classify WBC as a "Hate Group" and revoke their 501(c)3 tax-exempt status.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...group/tNVz4V7Q

They needed 25,000 signatures by 1/15/2013, and so far they received 38K in two days.

Why did you ignore Danzig's post about Australia?

If you read what people are saying, instead of NEEDING to post your conservative talking points you would realize I am not advocating taking all guns away from people.

I'm for stricter regulations on who can purchase a gun. A lot stricter. And a ban on weapons that average people have no business owning. There are enough things out there that dudes with small pricks can buy to help ease their pain. Weapons don't need to be one of them.

Right, no reason for average person to own assault weapons..military and police only..If average Joe needs a handgun for home protection, fine...Keep it away from the kids..

I just hope the guys breaking into Average Joe's house only have handguns. If they show up with an assault rifle (they really don't care what the law says), Joe is screwed.

This sort of answers the question I guess. People need military assault rifles because people might theoretically break into someone's home with a similar gun.

Interesting.

a shotgun is great for home protection. especially when loaded with number one buck. no need for fabulous accuracy when you get a nice pattern with the right choke.

my husband and i firmly believe in the 2nd amendment, and being able to defend ourselves.
we own ZERO assault rifles. now, my .270 knocks a deer in its tracks, i have no doubt it would do the same with a human. you see, if someone tries to break in-you already know their point of entry. they, however are at a disadvantage, as they don't know where you, the homeowner, will be located.

I think a majority of hunters feel the same way as you. There is no need to own an assault rifle.

100% agree with the advantage and disadvantages of home owner vs. intruder. Tried to explain this to friends many times. In addition, they probably don't know the layout of your house, in the dark. If you're smart you'll be well covered with a better vantage point on them should they be stupid enough to seek you out, as opposed to just grabbing the flat panel TV from the living room and running.

Yep, shotgun ideal for home defense too. Not to belabor the point, but if some nut some years from now tries a similar incident by walking into a school with one or more shotguns, you know what the next legislative initiative will be like, right?

sorry. i don't buy the slippery slope argument, that today assault rifles, tomorrow your 12 gauge. but then, i don't buy the 'gay marriage will end up with polygamy/bestiality' slippery slope line of 'reasoning' either.
there's no such thing as a rapid fire, large magazine shotgun that holds hundreds of rounds. the only older model rifle i know of that can be shot repeatedly without reloading would be whatever gun john wayne is using in his movies.
i have a .30/.30 winchester, but it's funny...i only get a few shots before having to reload!

we already have a line of demarcation between legal/illegal weaponry for the citizenry. it's time to move the line a bit-you know, back to where it was before the ban ended. and why was it just for a time, rather than permanenet?

Oh, I don't mean to imply that there is some concerted effort to make the slope slippery - except for radical anti-gun people whom are probably in the extreme minority.

But the "slippery slope" can also mean the reaction to the particulars of a negative event. If (or God forbid when) the next nutjob attacks a large number of innocent people, if he uses a shotgun, that will become the next focus of legislative action just like the rifle is today. Instead of firing rate, the emphasis will be on the extreme damage created in a blast "cone" when the victims are crowded close together, like in a line, or an elevator.

Again, i disagree about that contention. I would imagine that most crimes that involve guns are not assault weapons. Yet you don't see that push being made.

At any rate, there is a variety of things that need to be considered to help stop these mass shootings. I just read an article in todays paper about strengthening background checks, increasing funding for states to improve their checks...

But i have to say that mentioning banning some types of weaponry should not immediately conjure up images of all guns being confiscated. Not gonna happen. The now defunct assault ban didnt lead to it when it went into effect before.
In response to dui crimes, penalties were stiffened, attitudes were changed. What was once commonplace is now a serious crime. We need to approach this in the same way. People can still drink, they just have to get a designated driver.

I am on my phone because we are on the road. I want to suggest reading 'we dont have to live this way', by dan gross for the hartford courant. I dont have a way to post a link; i just read it in todays paper.

A stat in the article caught my eye. Under current rules 40 % of gun sales dont require a background check. That is unacceptable.

You are not driving eh?:)

Nope. Tony drives. I read, or am on the phone. Btw, saw a great sign in regards to phones and driving:

Honk if you love jesus. Text while driving if you want to meet him.

And whacky..Most home invasions are committed by multiple perps, Joe is outnumbered..by the time he reaches his locked up assault weapon he's a gonner..the bad guys are after valuables then they go...now you alive to dial 911..

:) Yeah have seen that one...

I have my judge on the nightstand. I might not get them all, but they may change their minds about staying where they werent invited when those 44 and. 410s start flying.

Yikes!!

But i was talking about average Joe not Annie Oakley:D

An email was circulating couple years ago about guns and liberals...Did a search and found it.


You're walking down a deserted street with your spouse and two small children?

Suddenly, a dangerous
looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your
hand is a .357 Magnum and you are an expert shot.
You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Liberal Answer:

Well that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever
done anything to him that is inspiring him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about
the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say
about this situation? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he
just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was
stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a
conclusion.


Additional Details

Conservative Answer:

BANG!

Southern Conservative Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
click.....(sounds of reloading).

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
click.

Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips?"


My question, why the fk are you walking down a deserted street with your wife and kids!

Yeah, its a beast.