All you gun nuts are stained by this

I wonder if the donations will match what's pouring in to the Brady Foundation and the other gun-control groups who have HAD ENOUGH?

LadyJazzer wrote: I wonder if the donations will match what's pouring in to the Brady Foundation and the other gun-control groups who have HAD ENOUGH?

Brady foundation: Less than 40,000 members and less than 4 million in donations.
Even if they double that, they are still pretty silent except for the slanted media types in the HuffPo and other places.

The NRA has just a few more members and larger budget. lol

http://goldandgrains.blogspot.com/2009/ ... ation.html

WORLDWIDE HISTORY OF GUN CONFISCATION
Found this today. Something to think about. You may not want a gun in your house, but you might be glad you neighbor has one in his.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Meanwhile another Fast & Furious gun was found at another Mexico crime scene.

Letting guns walk across the border and not even telling Mexico what you were doing. Thanks! And these are just the guns found at scenes of crimes, not the ones that are used time and time again. 60,000 estimated deaths in Mexico's drug war and the US goverment was arming the bad guys.

Why has crime in Australia increased since the gun ban?
Since the gun ban:

Armed robbery up 69%
Assault with guns up 28%
Gun murders up 19%
Home invasions up 21%
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 046AAdBouU


Australia Bans Guns, Crime Rate Increases | Gun Control Fail .
[youtube:m8zfde2t][/youtube:m8zfde2t]

"Some people say...."

Under the rock.

archer wrote: Would you rather take your chances with a knife or an assault rifle CG? If the dude in connecticut had attacked the school with a knife, I doubt the casualties would have been as high, nor really would he have been able to blast his way into the school. So many excuses being given for the assault rifles we have allowed to be distributed through the country. What is the purpose of an assault rifle? The name alone gives it away...."assault". Ok, assault on what?

The only people who refer to them as "assault" rifles are the ones who wish to villainize them prior to making outlaws out of law abiding citizens.

If we are going to engage in speculation about what might have reduced the number of casualties that day, shall we include speculating about how many innocent children would have died if the killer were busy defending their own life from someone who was actively shooting back at them while the children and the teachers huddled in closets waiting for the police, who were only a few minutes away when each and every second counted most, to arrive on scene?

Tell me something archer, as the president stands there on the podium surrounded by armed guards, are those guards armed for assaultive or defensive reasons? Why then are you so quick to conclude that your neighbors are not similarly armed for similar reasons? Why would you conclude that an "assault" weapon in the hands of the police are for the protection of the citizens while the same gun in the hands of your neighbor is not for the protection of themselves and their families?

Given that 99.999% of all "assault" weapons and high capacity magazines that are sold are sold to law abiding citizens for traditionally lawful purposes, would not a better, more accurate, descriptor of the weapon be a "defense" rifle?

archer wrote: please don't tell me they are designed for assault on a paper target.

I have no issues with hand guns or hunting rifles, but I do think assault rifles and high capacity clips should be banned in this country. For those who want to kill....assault....people, lets make it as difficult as possible to cause such mass carnage as these weapons are designed to do.

No, they are designed to defend the life and liberty of the person in whose hands the weapon is born from whomever would desire to take it from them. The weapons are designed to be highly effective in defending that life and they are well designed and well suited for that purpose. One uses the weapon to punch lots of holes in paper targets to be "well disciplined" in the use of that weapon should it ever be necessary to punch lots of holes in someone who is determined to do injury to the person who is armed with that weapon. This is something that your local police officer does on a fairly regular basis with the weapon he has in the trunk of the car that, in your words, is designed to cause mass carnage. Do you have a problem with this "mass carnage" weapon in the hands of the police officer who arrives armed with it when called by a citizen to come to their defense?

I would also appreciate it if you would define "high capacity" magazine for me. Is that a magazine which holds 30 rounds or more? How about 20? 10 perhaps? The killer at Virginia Tech used 10 and 15 round magazines and managed to kill 33 people all without the need for the "high capacity" magazines that you "think" should be banned. The killer in Aurora earlier this year found his "high capacity" drum magazine useless after less than 30 rounds were fired. Most of those killed and injured by him were killed or injured by a shotgun which held a maximum of 5 rounds and handguns which held perhaps as many as 15 rounds. Please illuminate us as to how banning "high capacity" magazines would have reduced the number of people killed and injured given this reality.

You do know that an M1 Carbine is also a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine (20 rounds), right? And you are aware that the round it fires is larger, being a .30 caliber weapon instead of a .22 caliber one, right? Is this also to be labeled an "assault" weapon, or is it only those weapons which cosmetically look more sinister than the utilitarian M1 Carbine? How about the Ruger Mini-14, Mini-30 or Mini-6.8? Are any of these an "assault rifle" when it is outfitted with a sporter stock, or only when it is outfitted with one that has a pistol grip and a folding/collapsing stock? How about the traditional western lever action repeating arms? Those can be chambered in 357 Magnum, 45 Colt and even 44 Magnum, which significantly increases the number of rounds that fit in their tubular magazines. Are these "assault" weapons as well because of the number of rounds which fit in their magazines when chambered in these calibers but not an "assault" rifle when chambered in 30-30 Winchester which reduces the number of rounds which fit in the magazine to 5 instead of up to 15 when chambered in one of the pistol rounds?

And I, personally, would rather have an AR (short for ArmaLite, not "assault rifle") than a knife if I were put into a position of having to take my chances armed with one or the other if ever I am forced into a position to defend myself or my family. And I want the "high capacity" magazine, actually more than one of them, as well under that set of circumstances. Is it really a reasonable measure to deny to the 99.999% of the citizens who purchase these arms for defensive purposes the ability to choose that weapon over any other because 0.001% of the weapons are used by criminals for criminal purposes?

And isn't the banning of an "assault" weapon a bit like banning whiskey to cut down on drunk driving if most of those caught driving while intoxicated have been drinking whiskey? Wouldn't the drunk simply switch to tequila, or vodka or rum if their whiskey was banned and unavailable for purchase? That may stop people from getting drunk on whiskey and then getting behind the wheel, but will it stop them from getting drunk on something else before they get behind the wheel?