Ron Paul: Gun control push after Tucson massacre is ‘despicable’

You can notice when someone walks up with an assault rifle.

A handgun you can't notice. And limiting the magazine capacity of handguns only would not prevent you from competing.

70 foot deer?
it just isnt

yeah if you cant hit what you're shooting with 10 shots you shouldn't be shooting.

ok that was funny, Not so true cause i tote guns and trust me Im not allowed to tote a bible. Born wrong for them folks.

i know right.most of the gun toters arent religious.they are on thier own trip, like us

They follow each other in the constitution and historically they follow each other in removal under tyrannies. first the guns go and then because government no longer fears her people speech just ends up on the chopping block. We the people have the right to be dangerous, just like we have the right to say what we please.

The congresswoman who got shot at Tuscon was a liberal and was anti-gun control.

Who's fucking braindead here?

how is this about liberals? a sick individual murdered people. weapon of choice is secondary...

To be brain dead requires having had a live brain, which doesn't seem to ever have been the case with katsmetalarmy ;)

Hi there Im a liberal and Im so anti gun control its ridiculous. But hey im just a liberal right. come off that high horse before you shoot yourself in the foot. Oh look at that you done did.

DEAR TROLLS, KEEP YOUR THOUGHTS TO YOURSELF THEY DO NOT WORK. NO ONE WANTS TO KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS. YOUR THOUGHTS ARE USELESS. TROLLS ARE BRAIN DEAD

i agree but sometimes you need an event like this for support to push legislation through the process to make it law

That is not really a valid list, there is a crime data website that you could pull crime stats from to be more accurate.

http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/cri-crime

To be honest your list is just about as valid as his. Until someone actually quantifies the positive/negative effects of gun control and the scientific community accepts those results your arguments falls under the correlation does not equal causation category.

No, he's responding to the opportunists and informing people to not fall for it. I'm pretty sure he's not hoping to get better 'ratings' or anything for saying these things.

He's just saying what needs to be said before we lose sight of what's important, instead of letting our fear lead us to rash decisions in law making. That's kinda what a congressman is supposed to do.

It's not a great opportunity to have to remind people that taking away law-abiding citizens rights, making them more vulnerable is not the correct response to a tragedy. He's simply speaking out against the ridiculous reactions of a few scared people who don't understand the proper role of government. If people really think arresting people for speaking and limiting law-abiding citizens access to guns, then go ahead, by all means, pass the laws and see what happens.

It's sad to admit, but eventually another tragedy will occur, no matter how many laws you pass, and it will happen in new ways people never thought possible. And even then, like in the past, no one listens to the "i told you so" and things will just keep getting worse and worse.

I think it's important to discuss these things now, while the emotions are fresh, lest we forget the gravity of the decisions at hand. He's a congressman, he deals with passing laws. He's basically reminding everyone not to lose sight of what's important and to not let fear control our decision making (or for his fellow congressman: law making).

ok but if a crazy sob doesn't lack confidence then what?

Liking guns mean liking to kill or compensating for an impotent little dick, or getting a false feeling of power because one has none. Disgusting.

LOL No it doesn't. Your comment was "disgusting".

That is... ... ... interesting. A little disturbing...

I like guns, its not that I like to kill, although i do enjoy hunting, its not that im impotent, I just enjoy guns I have always had a gun. I'm not a crazed murder, I'm not some sort of sick psycho, I just like to stroll through the woods and plink around with my .22 shooting tin cans, and really whatever else is handy.

Nobody deserves to be shot.

Anybody breaks into my house again they will get what they deserve.

If only you had genitals...

They will get a hugely disproportionate reaction from you, nothing to do with what they "deserve". Vengeance is an ugly thing.

Murderous tyrants deserve to be shot, or at the very least shot at.
I don't think that violence solves all problems, but it needs to be reserved for times when all else fails.

Has your home ever been broken into? Your bedroom violated? Your dog beaten? It was 2-1/2 years ago & I still can't sleep through the night, I wake up at every little noise.

Nobody, but nobody, touches my dog.

He hasn't been the same since. Floyd Pinkerton just don't trust people anymore. (except me of course) he's lost his innocence.

I disagree - they deserve to spend the rest of their lives in prison where they can perhaps find redemption. There is no saint without a past, there is no sinner without a future. To shoot them is simply stooping to their level.

Yes, and worse - but I have never sought revenge nor dreamt of shooting anyone should they do what has already been done to me in the past.

Not revenge. I catch someone in my house lookin to do me or mine harm & they will have a big problem.

You've got a bad case of post traumatic stress disorder, this makes you ineligible to have and handle a gun, because a gun in your hands can only spell disaster.

"The main treatments for people with PTSD are psychotherapy (“talk” therapy), medications, or both. Everyone is different, so a treatment that works for one person may not work for another. It is important for anyone with PTSD to be treated by a mental health care provider who is experienced with PTSD. Some people with PTSD need to try different treatments to find what works for their symptoms."

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd/...

What kind of a big problem? Hopefully not one involving a gun. Anyone like you who has a bad case of PTSD should not be allowed anywhere close to a gun, and never be allowed to take the law in their own hands. Nobody, whether sane & balanced or not, should ever be allowed to take the law in their own hands, in fact.

I'm talking about self defense, damn.....& you don't know me, you don't know my story, don't label me. Its not ptsd, that's ridiculous. It may be a healthy bit of paranoia seeing as i know my house was robbed by someone who knows me & my habits.

Words and activism can do little to quell the rage of a bloodthirsty dictator or tyrant.

Revolution and rebellion comes in the form of death and bloodshed, whether it's caused by the oppressed or the oppressor. Even if you sentence that tyrant to life, he will not give himself up willingly. You will have to fight, you will have to be willing to die and willing to injure, maim, or kill. There are just some men who cannot be logically debated or reasoned with. It is unfortunate, but this is the world we live in. Ideally, people would be able to come to a rational conclusion without being blinded by their power and ignorance. However, a realist take denotes that every civil change in the world was met first with violence before it was embraced by acceptance, even non-violent ones.

If the tree of liberty must be cleansed time to time in the blood of tyrants, then the ones with guns should not be regulated to just the tyrants. The right to bear arms is the last right of the citizen to defend the homeland from enemies within the homeland, including a corrupt government.

How many would have to come to harm before it is acceptable to take up arms?

The true height of ridiculousness is reached when faceless bloggers dole out psychiatric evaluations based solely on a couple lines of text. Or in other words, if the pen is indeed mightier than the sword then taking such an assessment at face value by virtue COULD be more dangerous than looking down the barrel of a gun while pulling the trigger to determine if it is loaded.

Big logical fallacy is big. To defend your wellbeing does not constitute taking the law into ones own hand because BY LAW we are entitled to that right.

You should watch Gone Baby Gone, it might change your mind when you say "nobody...should ever be allowed to take the law in their own hands..."

Joseph Duncan : Killed an entire family and raped two beautiful children then killed the little boy, out of the mom the boy friend and the two kids only the little girl lived, that's just one crime involving the rape and murder of small children he is guilty of there are more. he should be shot. If someone threatens my family they will be shot.

that's funny.

although i was looking at the glee in his eyes.

exactly... any questions as to why he feels gun control efforts are "simply despicable."

With proper medical care, yes, absolutely.

If you are looking for something to blame, you can probably blame the school for not being able to properly manage the students and their environment. That and letting a child enter the school with a loaded weapon.

That's the kids parents fault.

i don't blame anyone but the kid.
but don't tell me it would have happened if we had proper regulation. with a proper screening process, with air tight tracking of weapons, and less of a gun loving culture-- some teen wouldn't randomly have a hand gun in his bag for no apparent reason.

by your rationale you want to blame VT for their shooter since they flagged him for being disturbed but did nothing. you want to blame this Tucson guy's school, parents, and friends since they didn't do anything about his weird ramblings. and finally you want to blame our intelligence community/government for not stopping terrorists before 9/11?

that's not the debate, can you stop the CRAZY from getting better than police grade weaponry.

Actually, with proper medical care and drugs, you can regulate "crazy".

I know it's counter productive, but you comment is: BOOM! HEADSHOT!

^'d

Can you elaborate? PM if you can 'cause I sometimes forget to check for responses.

funny

In Massachusetts we have a 10 round limit. Although you can get a high capacity license which allows for I believe 15 rounds. Much more in depth application process for the high cap. Why anyone would need more than that, I don't know, bad things probably.

Yes! You do not need to have a clip that holds fifteen rounds or more.

Yet they are still far too lax. This insane gun culture in the USA makes it one of the most dangerous countries in the world.

No I would not support such a ban. Why should a person be good with 12 rounds of .45 but bad with 13? Is it somewhat inherently bad to possess a large capacity magazine and the opposite with a lesser mag or is it the intention of some that possession of a large capacity mag is prima facie evidence of intent to shoot innocents? Sorry guy but I can't make that leap of logic.

Agreed, but the gun culture is one of the main root causes.

The 1911 (.45) magazine holds 7 rounds in the military mags, 8 in the normal carry mags and 11 round mags for the gun are common. If you can fire El Presidente (course of fire, google it) in < 8 seconds with zero down the mag capacity means little. Gun handling is much more important than mag capacity. Reloading a revolver with speedloaders can be done in less time than a lot of people can reload a semi auto like a Glock or M&P. Again, gun handling is KEY. All this talk about mag capacity is relatively meaningless. What IS meaningful is to practice the mechanics of slide lock reload, tactical reload, clearing the weapon. Carry plenty of mags and always, always carry a backup.

comment of the day

you're talking about people who are experienced, and speed loading and such.
what about someone who just gets they're hands on a gun because they're too angry or crazy or whatever to deal with life.

the only tool they have is they can shoot 30 rounds without stopping, isn't that bad? i don't think anyone is claiming 12 is ok but 13 is bad. it's that 11 is normal, why do you need 30 rounds? why do you need to carry that around town? what are you afraid of, or what is going to possibly "go down" that you need that much firepower on you when shopping at the mall? or keep in your nightstand, it doesn't take that many bullets to deter a thief.

that's the question.

I beg to differ. Switzerland has a "gun culture" where everyone is trained on using a gun and how to fire it. However, they do not have the violence problem that America has. It's not guns that are the problem... It's the people.

Paratus has a point. If it’s a logical fallacy to assume every crazy with an inclination to shooting a lot of people with a gun will invariably learn to reload and fire quickly isn’t it also a logical fallacy to assume that every use of a high capacity magazine will be during the commission of a crime?

I understand what you are saying and the fact that someone can blow 30 rounds downrange without any gun skills can be arguably 3x worse than a single mag of 10. Large capacity magazines, however, do not guarantee large capacity injuries. The fact that the AZ shooter fired some 32 times with the results he had tells me he was not competent and reinforces my previous statement. It would be the same as sticking the M16 over the wall above your head and firing the entire mag rock and roll. Even though one can argue that luck is very important in a gunfight ( I'd rather be lucky than good) at least a modicum of skill should accompany the luck. However it is difficult to regulate the skill, perhaps fortunately as the AZ results show I guess which leads us to the regulating the tool argument.
My view of this is if a person can carry 7, 11 or whatever they can carry 30. Sorta like deadly force, if you are justified in shooting the bad guy once you are just as justified in shooting him 5 times. I guess it boils down to the use of the word "need" and who establishes what number we "need". I would not carry 30 rounds due to weight and feeding issues. The 30 round Glock mags were mostly used for the Glock 18, a fully auto pistol that is REALLY rare. The 30 rounders were because of the full auto capability of the gun. Anyhow, I am not comfortable with some government entity deciding that I can't have a 30 round mag but I am suddenly trustworthy with an 11 round one. This is a question that should be left up to the individual and personal responsibility. If one has no personal responsibility and does bad things with his 30 round mag then he should go to jail. Telling someone in Phoenix or Tampa that they cannot have a 30 round mag because some idiot capped some people in Tuscon is absurd. It's a poor mechanic who blames the tool.

That is simply not the case. I don't know from where you got such a wrong idea.