Regulation

[alleyyooper]

 Since there has been many acts of firearm violence in the USA in the last few years there is now talk of regulating gun owner ship by millions of law abiding citizens. Many of the violent acts were committed by persons who were not in there proper minds for lack of a better way to describe them.
Regulating gun owner ship will only tend to cause a minor hard ship on a person bent on committing those acts.  It is soon to be 100 years since many in America took up the cry there are to many drunkards laying in the cities gutters of this country. A law was passed to totally ban the making, sale and possession of alcohol. This law caused a period of lawlessness this country has never seen before or since the law was repealed. Men made fortunes boot legging and smuggling the alcohol to those who just had to have it at any price. Finally the law makers came to their senses and repelled this law that was causing so much lawlessness   in the land.
Why would a ban of fire arms be any different, I see a major black market in fire arms if there were a total ban on owner ship.
Maybe we should instead take a look at the total picture of what is happening in this country at this time. First we should look at the education system that is lacking in fire arm safety training. In my generation nearly every father or grand father taught their children fire arm safety. Today many families do not have father figures or grandfathers to teach children. Since the states has seen fit to teach sex education in schools why shouldn't we teach fire arm safty. Just because the calsses are taught in school doesn't mean every one should own a fire arm but that wouldn't be such a bad idea either, Like the Swiss.
Before we regulate firearms we need to take a long look at the music industry that records and sell music of violence. We should also take a good look at the video industry. They sell games that contain fire arm violence.  Players are rewarded with high scores for killing people. This crap is sold today and parents buy the stuff for their children. Many of those parents were told that the cartoons of my time were to violent for children to watch.
We should also take action with the media, Yes the media. Who else gives these persons who commit acts of violence their 15 minutes of fame. Names of those persons should never ever be seen or heard for day going into weeks.  Just plain perp would be enough to describe these insane persons. Not a great sports figure, not rich and famous, not a whiz in school but want people to see your name across the country all you have to do is kill a bunch of people. 
Tis a shame that law makers we have elected have their heads so far up, the sun can never be seen, by them.
Maybe we should regulate the health industry so Americans in all walks of life could get treatment for all their ailments mental as well as physical. The money to fund it could come from cutting the fat cats in Washington pay in half.
 
It isn't all Democrats even though the GOP would like you and love you thinking so.
The Bradies were members of the GOP party and the ones who first pushed for the ban on black rifles and extra copaisty mags.
 
   Al

[spruce]

Good post Al - but it's far too logical and has way too much common sense to ever be considered by politicians!
 
You're right, there are a few anti-gun republicans, but they are miniscule compared to the number of anti-gun democrats.  Even the democrats who bill themselves a pro 2nd amendment will almost always knuckle under to party pressure and vote for some kind of restrictions on gun ownership.
Remember, Bart Stupak's vote was the one that brought us Obamacare.  He was steadfastly opposed to it on moral grounds concerning government funded abortions - UNTIL the party put pressure on him and he fell in line!  I'm sad to say I voted for him, but I don't think I'll ever trust another one.  "Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me"!!!

[spruce]

Reference the Bradys:  Sarah Brady really had no official connection to the Republican party other than thru her husband.  Her involvement in organizing the Brady campaign is certainly understandable due to the emotional trauma she undoubtly suffered from the severe wounding of her husband James.
If you recall, the Brady campaign was aimed at handguns, not assault weapons when originally organized.  I think it's revealing to note that no action was taken by Republicans to pass legislation to ban handguns (or "assault weapons").
It was not until 1994 when we had a Democratic president and a Democratic controlled House and Senate that the assault weapons ban was passed.  Also significant, I think, is the assault weapons ban was allowed to "sunset" in 2004 when we had a Republican president and a Republican majority in the House and Senate.  Does anyone really think the Democrats would have allowed that bill to sunset if they had held the majority?
 
And can anybody tell me how the shooting of President Reagan and James Brady with a handgun was in any way related to "assault weapons".  Obviously it wasn't.  The Democrats were in power in 1994 and they took advantage of the opportunity to pass more restrictive gun laws - something they WILL do whenever they have the majority in the House and Senate.