The more school shootings the better the donations to their agenda groups, like bloomies mommies.


They bitch and whine "Ohhhhh it's to expensive." or "Our schools shouldn't have SRO's it makes for an oppressive learning enviroment let's ban guns instead!"

They can't understand why their cute little no guns signs aren't working...."Well maybe the print was too small"




"few rules regulating guns"....someone needs to talk to someone about their NRAphobia, and read a few of the thousands of rules on the books instead. Something tells me this writer is a "gunshow loophole" true believer.

"It's those automatic killer clips! I tell ya!"

No, really. What would a moderate gun controller be? You have to figure he would be somewhere on a sliding scale between complete, unfettered access to and possession of all kinds of firearms and a total and complete ban on all firearms including the police and military.

So where does moderate fall on that scale?

Here's what I figure moderate gun owners support.

Most moderate gun owners agree on the need for a process that prevents people who are legally barred from keeping and bearing firearms from gaining access to them.

Most moderate gun owners agree on a requirement for enhanced training and certification for civilians to carry concealed firearms.

Most moderate gun owners agree on the need for firearms safety training, safe handling, and secure storage.

What more do moderate gun controllers want?

I hold a current concealed carry license and I carry a gun where and when it is legal to do so. Oddly enough I find that when I do carry I am non-confrontational and don't even curse in traffic. I own three pistols and one shotgun. I would also be quite happy to comply with the following.

1. Require all gun owners to obtain a state issued license for firearm OWNERSHIP that requires extensive background checks including fingerprinting, safety training, and rigid testing.
2. Require the purchase of gun ownership liability insurance.
3. Require the registration of all handguns.
4. Require the registration of all long guns with a capacity of five rounds or more (leaving out most hunting rifles and shotguns).
5. Make private sales of firearms require background checks and appropriate registration.
6. Make it a federal offense to make an unreported and unregulated sale or purchase of a firearm of any type.

While few gun owners would be considered potential mass shooter risks, handguns and larger capacity long guns all have the potential to be used in mass shootings. More regulation and control is necessary. The points I've made do not infringe upon my rights under the second amendment, I can still own all of the firearms my heart might desire. I would remind those who might object of the first three words of the second amendment "A well regulated." I have to produce photo identification to vote in my state. I have to purchase a license to marry. I must possess a license to operate a state inspected and registered car while maintaining liability insurance. I have to get a sonogram/ultrasound and pregnancy options counseling if I wish to have an abortion, and I have to return to the same clinic later to have it performed. The nearest clinic to where I live is a six hour drive away. Voting, marriage, owning and operating a car, and getting an abortion are all legal rights I have as an American and yet I have to jump through various regulated legal hoops to exercise any of those rights. I in no way believe the right to own a firearm is somehow sacrosanct and should not be above the government's concern for the common good or general welfare.

Do any of these positions make me a moderate with regard to gun control? I don't know, but I know that to the NRA side of the argument any of my six points make me a gun confiscating freedom hating tyrant. To the opposite extreme I am still a overcompensating blood thirsty savage who bears responsibility for all of the firearm related deaths in this country. Maybe I am a little of both and maybe that makes me a moderate.

You own firearms and are so scared you must carry one around hoping to shoot someone.



I will put sarcasm on but to many controllers here what I said is true to them.

the thought of shooting someone has me reconsidering the whole issue. In my lifetime I've been threatened many times, stabbed once, and shot at twice. While that might not justify a decision to carry for many, you have a point about fear or being scared. I think for many of us, the fear comes from the thought of a lack of control in a given situation. As for the idea that I am hoping to shoot someone, that is quite a leap on your part. After some contemplation I accept your point that I am not a moderate, at least among the DU faithful.

I saw the sarcasm sign. I just got to thinking about what you said literally as I'm sure some feel that way without the sarcasm. So I guess that was for them and not you.

holds at least five rounds. My father's Model 94 .32Winchester lever-action hunting rifle (made in 1904) holds 11 rounds. Almost every bolt-action hunting rifle I can think of holds five rounds. Your number 4. idea does not work for me.

All these rules about drunk driving...
If you kill a person while DUI, you do some time, get out, take a test and get to drive again.

If you shoot someone while drunk, you do a lot of time and never get to own a gun again.

...to make the tiny handful used in drunk-driving collisions or as escape vehicles easier to catch. Or proposing making the seats uncomfortable and difficult to adjust because we don't want escaping felons to have an easy time of driving away from the cops.



There is a denial of vulnerability that exists here. We, as a people, are routinely in geographical situations where we are horribly, horribly vulnerable to death or injury in the event of a random homicide event, whether it be a shooter, a stabber, or a guy with a bomb. Avenues of escape can be limited even to the fleet-of-foot; the disabled due to injury, illness, or age are even more vulnerable. Police response is an average of several minutes away. Despite the clutching of pearls of some, there is unlikely to be a person carrying concealed in the immediate vicinity. And a person carrying concealed who is perhaps in the area but outside of the immediate vicinity is likely to run away as well; they carry for PERSONAL protection. One side in this argument both mocks CCWers for having Rambo mentalities AND for not running into danger.


So what efforts can (again) be proposed to stop the carnage? The guy had a rifle and several pistols; assuming that rifle was an AR-type rifle and had been banned and confiscated, how would that have lowered the body count when a) there were several pistols available and b) other rifles and shotguns could have been substituted?

What effect would a magazine limit have when the shooter has several guns and a generally helpless, trapped population of victims?

The perp bought the guns legally, so background checks were in effect.


There exists no hardware-based solution for this situation. None. Unless you're going to try to knock the clock back to 1850. If he had burst in there with a lever-action rifle and a trio of six-shooters, we'd have just as many dead people. Ten rounds of .44 Mag in the rifle, and 18 rounds in the handguns. All before reloading. That's plenty of kill 9 people trapped in a classroom.

If you can't get out of bed before 10:00 a.m., if you can't contribute money, if you can't go door-to-door, if you can't hold a meeting after work, if you can't do what is necessary to clean yourself after the morning constitutional, don't smugly ask others to do your dirty work, while you still bellow for "just the first step" in controls and bans.

What an arrogant, lazy twit.

You know, we're the folks you are calling gun humpers, ammosexuals and pre-criminals.

When we speak you tell us to stop repeating NRA talking points.

While you dream of a world filled with dancing unicorns, we are getting effective laws passed, such as removing guns from DV offenders.

So far it has done us no good to try to work with gun control because the first time we question the least facet of a gun control proposal we are back to being ammosexuals who want no restrictions on guns at all.

The OP means 'moderate' in relation to that posters wants and desires legislatively, rather than 'moderate' on an objective scale.

On an objective scale, what that poster deems as 'moderate' is far from it.

Never forget the "child killers."

That's the one that always puts me right in an accommodating and compromising frame of mind...