Joe I am typing this slowly for your benefit as you seem to be a bit special and slow. If there were no guns owned by this last killer or his mom, well there would have been no guns. It's that simple.
As for FEAR...That is what is driving the gun industry. The gun dealers and the NRA are using fear to get rich and they are laughing as they count their millions. The simple minded gun-huggers are the suckers

that's part of the talks of fixing some of the gun laws. one should not have available to their mentally ill child, husband, wife, etc any gun that can be in reach. Unfortunately, the mother is at fault here as well. everyone should get a back ground check and the gun show loop hole should be fixed. other things to address is the mental health issue where healthcare companies want pretty much nothing to do with and a cultural shift. not one person in administration said anything about banning all guns. more tea party talk amongst themselves

Bravo! That is exactly the problem we're trying to solve. If the paranoids on the right could somehow undertstand that no one is trying to take all their guns away or torpedo the constitution and realize this simple mathematical fact we could do something positive for a change. And that simple mathematical fact is that if we can somehow limit the available fire power the next disturbed individual has access to then theoretically we can reduce the number of fatalities in the next incident. I realize that is a bizarre concept to grasp but sadly that is where we are at. Simply put, if the Sandy Hook killer had only enough fire power to kill ten little children in stead of twenty then the parents of the last ten children to die would not have had to pick out coffins for their babies. I know that is a disgusting reality to live with but it's the truth and the NRA and its brain washed followers need to shut the hell up and get out of the way.

Mark and Tony, the problem is there ARE people trying to take guns away, and they're well funded too.

Therefore, the discussion gets dominated by the fringes.

I havent heard of it. please post youtube video links where obama administration is saying they are confiscating ALL guns. Yes, there are citizens saying that as well, just like there are citizens and some business owners, CEOs etc saying they will start killing people if gun laws are passed. complete psychos are on both sides of the issue. Responsible gun legislation is now far fetched. Heck Reagan wanted that as well, Bush Snr. I guess they were communists as well.

lets not forget chris christie, republican, who wants gun control passed too. all communists!

I didn't say the Obama Administration, I said there are people who want to take away all guns. The United Nations for one, The Brady Center, Mayors of major cities (Bloomberg and Emmanuel are just a couple), senior Democratic legislators in Washington (Feinstein, Schumer, etc.).

I'm not making a political statement though. It's simply a fact that there are strong parties who have publicly stated they want to ban gun ownership by private individuals, and those in favor of responsible gun ownership can't forget that they are there.

Again that leads to the discussion being dominated by the fringes and that's a shame.

@Mark How's the ban on drugs working out??? How about drunk driving???? Seems criminals don't care about what laws there are they will do what they want when they want. You don't know a damn thing about the constitution specifically the 2nd ammendment. So shut your damn mouth. The constitution was meant to limit government not the citizens. The 2nd ammendment was written to make sure that we the people could defend ourselves from a corrupt givernment. We are suppose to be able to match strength with our government but I wouldn't expect a moron like yourself to understand that.

Tony ask and you shall receive. This is Diane Feinstein, the Senator who proposed both the 1990's "assault weapons" ban and the the currently proposed bill.

http://youtu.be/NeRR7MwllH8

Nice Rich, thanks for providing. That was from nearly 20 years ago, and has nothing to do with the obama administration that I asked for.

I did come across that BIG anti-gun Republican "conservative" Reagan's statements on gun control

“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.” - Reagan

“Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.” - Reagan

and Regan's statements are even older, so what is your point with that? Diane Feinstein is still holding office, those comments are still relevant. Regan is not in office, he is not even alive. The legislation Feinstein proposed will not ban AK-47's, they are already for all intents and purposes banned. She is hoping to ban something that looks like an AK-47.

She said it herself, the only reason that she is not proposing to ban all guns is because the votes are not there. So she is doing the next best thing, banning semi-auto guns, especially the ones that look scary. Literally the only thing stopping her is that the votes aren't there. She wants them all, her words, not mine.

this is good old mitt on his anti gun stance as governor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaUvmWHzqJ0

most recent mitt wanting to ban assault weapons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF-jdo7DZRw

he flipped many many times to dupe even 1 vote. but these are his flip flops on gun control. god forbid he was in office. it might be worst. according to his "own" words not mine

It's a bit late for that and there is always an excuse from the knee jerk gun-huggers. Just ban them assault weapons they belong in the battle field not the streets of America.

from another article on this site....

"An editorial by the Harrisburg Patriot News opines that Corbett won't earn a second term as a result of his controversial moves on issus such as electroral college politcs and mandatory vaginal ultrasounds for any Pennsylvania woman seeking an abortion."

so forcing one's beliefs onto woman's bodies....already passed. just thought it was related. don't forget Paul Ryan's question of forcible rape and magical rape, and whether an abortion would be legal even if a legitimate rape occurred. not my words, but theirs. its sickening.

That ultrasound bill you speak of did NOT pass. good call on that one

Hi Rich, the very notion to try to pass something so ridiculous. What's your take on Paul Ryan's assertion on magical rape and legitimate rape? Maybe these crazy views had something to do with their major landslide lost in the election. ?

New rule no more abortions just have your baby and drop he/she off at the nearest Church its easy to put a cross up lets see how you do when the crosses are babies talk about ignorance !!!!

Chris Christie believes in strict gun control...we will see if he has that same view if he runs for President or will he flip flop like Mitt did. Time will tell. In New York the Republican Senate passed the bill that Democrat Cuomo signed into law. Both sides having issues of hypocrisy again. But it always has been this way (see Reagan's anti gun rants above)

Not true bill. Gun violence in New York is the lowest in the nation. And what's with the hmmmm? Are you a sarcastic 10 year old girlie? I would let you see a PG13 movie let alone close to a gun

Chicago has very strict gun control laws, but there were 435 murders by guns in 2012. http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/010213-639108-500-murders-rahm-emanuel-chicago-gun-ban.htm?p=full

yes and most of the guns brought into the city come from surrounding areas not Chicago itself. NY is on the list with some of the least amount.

the states with the most gun ownership....ironically have the most deaths by guns

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

"government gone rouge"- is that, like, Sarah Palin?

Actually, the Second Amendment is in the context of a militia. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states the roles of the militia: "To execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions."

Nothing in there about "government gone rouge". "Suppress insurrections" sounds quite the opposite - suppress citizens gone rogue.

For Nazaretti:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision