House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

This is irrelevant to the thread.

For one thing the wife was not criminally insane, so the extensive background checks people want would not have prevented her from gaining access to guns. For another, I don't imagine she needed that many rounds to finish off the intruder. None of the proposed gun legislation I'm aware of would ban people like these two from owning guns.

You're playing fast and loose with the truth here.
Sarah Brady called for the bill in 1985.

It was introduced into Congress in 1987, while Reagan was still President.

That it was not sent to the Clinton for signature until 1993,
in his first year in office does not alter that it was a product
of the shooting of Reagan and Brady.

Your remark about Sarah Brady was snotty and unnecessary--i'm not surprised by that at all. She and her busband were long-time activists in the Republican Party and for conservative causes. It was hardly a case of a "private citizen mouthing off." This is another sample of your idiosyncratic and self-serving description of how highly you value civility.

This is irrelevant to the thread.

For one thing the wife was not criminally insane,

so the extensive background checks people want
would not have prevented her from gaining access to guns.

For another, I don't imagine she needed that many rounds to finish off the intruder.

None of the proposed gun legislation I'm aware of would ban people
like these two from owning guns.

Oylok wrote:

For one thing the wife was not criminally insane,

R u suggesting that the Congresswoman was "criminally insane" ?

Even more so than the overtly violent rhetoric is the constant and never-ending drumbeat of extreme and sometimes paranoid rhetoric to back it up. I'm sure I don't have to go into Glenn Beck or the vagaries of Fox, or Rush Limbaugh; but you ought to also consider the extreme rhetoric regularly utilized by elected Republicans.

She was negligent in failing to bring her guns with her.
What good do thay do at home, when u r out??
Its like failing to buckle your seatbelt.

Do u support "equal protection of the laws ?"

Your remark about Sarah Brady was snotty and unnecessary--i'm not surprised by that at all.

She and her busband were long-time activists in the Republican Party and for conservative causes.

It was hardly a case of a "private citizen mouthing off."
This is another sample of your idiosyncratic and
self-serving description of how highly you value civility.

Whether or not a bill "sees the light of day" is irrelevant here--it "saw the light of day,"
was eventually passed and signed.

You apparently don't know the provisions of the Brady Bill.
It is concerned with background checks,

and distinctions between types of firearms are irrelevant.

I though the gun nuts always prided themselves on their detailed knowledge of weapons and the issues. I guess that doesn't apply to you.

umm, he hasn't killed a rising star in the democratic party, not yet anyway

Hi as an old army man. I believe firing guns are a blast But I believe if we invested more money in well placed. Cameras I think it would be alot better deterant than, "OMG I dont want to break in because they have a gun". Argument. I mean well lets look at facts, Banks have guns are still robbed, Armored cars have guns and are still robbed, On the other hand a simple camera along with a sign saying 'Smile you are being filmed for the protection of this neighbor hood' . In my opinion that would scare the heck out of most criminals. Now I am not arguing about the right to bear arms........ I belive it is our right to do as we chose. And I believe this conversation stared from the actions of a person that happened to be mentaly ill. Ohh geez I think my mentally ill mind is going to left field again........ Well I hope I was able to get my point of view accross Thank You for reading