Moran Proposes ‘NRA Members’ Gun Safety Act’

by ARLnow.com December 20, 2012 at 1:25 pm 11,791 282 Comments

In the wake of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., Congressman Jim Moran is proposing a bill called the “NRA Members’ Gun Safety Act.”

The bill will “implement five commonsense gun safety reforms that polling shows are supported by at least 63 percent of NRA members,” according to a press release (below, after the jump).

The National Rifle Association is holding a “major news conference” tomorrow (Friday). In its first public statement since the Sandy Hook massacre, the organization has said that it’s prepared to offer “meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.” Details about the NRA’s proposals have yet to be released.

Moran’s bill would require background checks for every gun purchase and for gun shop employees, prohibit individuals on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns, require gun owners to report to police when their guns are lost or stolen, and establish a set of minimum standards for concealed carry permits.

On Wednesday, President Obama called on Congress to act on gun control legislation. He appointed Vice President Joe Biden to lead an effort to draft policies intended to reduce gun violence.

File photo

Congressman Jim Moran, Northern Virginia Democrat, today introduced the “NRA Members’ Gun Safety Act” to strengthen vulnerabilities in our gun safety laws. The bill would implement five commonsense gun safety reforms that polling shows are supported by at least 63 percent of NRA members.

“The NRA as an organization is out of step with its membership on many commonsense gun safety measures. Polling shows nearly two-thirds of NRA members support the five simple ways to improve gun safety included in this bill,” Moran said. “The NRA’s absolutist position on gun issues is an impediment to the safety and security of the public. This legislation is designed to highlight that schism, offering popular proposals even NRA members support to prevent more gun-related tragedies.”

Research by Republican pollster Frank Luntz shows the five gun safety reforms in this legislation received overwhelming support from both gun owners and NRA members. The provisions, several of which are drawn from gun safety legislation introduced by democratic lawmakers, also enjoy support from gun safety advocates.

Specifically, the popular provisions in the legislation would:

  • Require background checks for every gun purchase (74% NRA member support);
  • Require background checks on gun shop employees (79% NRA member support);
  • Prohibit individuals on the terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms (71% NRA member support);
  • Require gun owners to report to police when their guns are lost or stolen (64% NRA member supports); and
  • Establish minimum standards for concealed carry permits (63-75% NRA member support for each standard)

Moran continued: “The NRA has an opportunity to be proactive in the face of the Newtown tragedy, playing a constructive role in protecting the public in ways that do not undermine the 2nd Amendment in the eyes of their own membership.”

Currently, there are between 250 million and 300 million guns estimated to be owned by Americans. Each year, approximately 100,000 people in America are shot with a gun, and over 10,000 are murdered using a firearm. According to the Children’s Defense Fund, in 2008 and 2009, 5,740 children — “one child or teen every three hours, eight every day, 55 every week for two years” — were killed by guns.

To read a fact sheet, please visit: http://moran.house.gov/sites/moran.house.gov/files/documents/FactSheet_NRAMembersGunSafetyAct.pdf

To read Moran’s OpEd in the Huffington Post, please visit: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-jim-moran/gun-safety-even-nra-membe_b_2338553.html

To read the bill, please visit: http://moran.house.gov/sites/moran.house.gov/files/documents/NRAMembersGunSafetyAct.PDF

  • novasteve

    Yet none of his suggestions would have prevented the CT shooting. It’s hard to report a gun stolen when you are dead. He didn’t have a carry permit for the handguns, and if anything shooting training made him a better shot. He wasn’t on a terrorist watch list (and wouldn’t that just wind up discriminating against Muslims?). And background checks on gun show employees? Again, what do gun shops have to do with this shooting? He stole his mother’s guns after killing his mother.

    Another pointless, feel good measure which is all democrats ever do.

    • office dickwad

      Hey Everybody! There’s DONUTS on the other thread!

    • spaghetti

      All these points are actually quite logical. I actually support Moran, but if he really wanted to propose legislation that would have helped prevent a shooting like the one in CT, maybe he could have suggested banning high capacity magazines and/or assault rifles. It just seems like he might be trying to take advantage of the situation.

      • Homer

        MMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Spaghetti!

    • dk (not DK)

      I can’t believe it, but I agree with steve. We need a ban on high capacity magazines and assault rifles. We need limits on ammunition purchases. And we need a major national buy-back effort.

      • novasteve

        Who I’m not saying there should be an assault weapon ban because how they are defined is absolutely without any logic and reason.


      This guy, everyday, this guy. I guess, we should listen to NOVASTEVE and not do a do thing.

  • Givingtree

    Of the deaths from gunshots, how many were related to legally attained and owned guns?

    • Captain_Obvious

      does it matter ?

      • novasteve

        Of course it matters. Because it shows whether gun control works or not.

        • Vik

          So would more guns in Chicago be the solution? The good people who aren’t causing problems who are unarmed, and probably don’t want to own or be near a gun, should arm themselves and then the crime would go down?

          • Mike Honcho

            Ever heard of Mexico? Gun control seems to be doing wonders down there. If you’re a member of the Cartel, you have a gun. If you’re not, you’re screwed. Let’s take the guns away from everyone, because a few people can’t handle them, instead of taking them away from the people who are causing all the pain and suffering. If you’ve seen a mental health professional in the last 5 years, you have no business possessing a weapon, and if you don’t secure you’re weapons, you should be put up on charges comensurate to the perpetrator.

          • Vik

            So would it be better if more people in Mexico had guns? I bet a lot of Mexicans who don’t have guns now don’t ever want them. Nobody disagrees with keeping guns away from dangerous people. We all agree on that.

        • just some stats

          Let’s look at the figures then –
          Couln’t be clearer really:

          • dk (not DK)

            Now THAT is one amazing graph.

          • Steve

            Interesting selection of countries. Note the ones not included (i.e. Russia, China, S. Africa, Brazil). So yeah, it could be clearer.

          • Ballston Lurker


          • bobbyV

            Of course the homicide rate with a firearm will increase as you have more firearms. What we should really be looking at is the overall homicide rate.

      • Douglas Parker

        Not to the dead children, no, I suppose it doesn’t.

    • Swag

      Every gun was legally obtained at some point.

      • bman

        that’s not true. fast and furious operation.

  • novasteve

    you ever notice that liberals only seem to care about gun violence when whites get killed in suburbs, but ignore the daily inner city black on black shootings. 445 school age kids have been shot in Chicago this year, but that’s just local news. 18 people were shot in chicago the weekend of the Newtown shooting. There have been weekends where 85 people had been shot in Chicago, but that remains a local story. But you get a movie theater or a school shot up 2x a year, and that’s international headlines, but the daily shootings and killings are ignored. is it because the libs dont’ care about minorities? Is it because guns are already banned in cities and further gun control couldn’t do anything so they want to pretend it’s not happened? What is it? Don’t give me that “dog bites man” rubbish because if school shootings were daily events you wouldn’t excuse the media not covering them as a “dog bites man” story.

    • JamesE

      LIBERALS!!!!!!! LIBERAL MEDIA!!!!!!!!

    • Captain_Obvious

      but school shootings and theater shootings aren’t daily events, so you answered your own question. Furthermore, those victims had no reason to think they were threatened. These inner city shootings you reference are more or less gang related and those victims, by way of being in a gang, do have a reason to feel threatened.

    • Vik

      You rely on the same logic that the gun lobby has spoon-fed people for years. The problem is not just gun control; it’s the ubiquity of guns. The gun lobby doesn’t even want their supporters to agree with the premise that more guns = more gun crime. They want people to believe that guns at schools, restaurants, movie theaters, bars, etc. will lead to less crime.

      Places like Chicago have more guns, so using that as an example is actually counter-productive to your argument. Gun control is a means to an end, but the end-goal should be less guns because less guns means less gun violence. If you don’t even agree with that premise, than there’s very little to gain from a discussion about this, IMO.

      • novasteve

        Chicago has more guns despite the rules. so if the rules you propose on everyone don’t work in a city, why do you expect it to work on a national level? The guns are illegal in chicago, yet they have the most gun violence. Less guns means less violence? Then please explain Switzerland and Israel. Everyone and their mother in Israel has a gun. When I was last there every place I entered had security ask me if I was carrying as you can’t bring them into places..

        So how do you propose actually getting rid of guns without shredding the 4th amendment like you wish to do to the second amendment?

      • Clarendon Expatriate

        Grammar police: Fewer guns vs. less guns.
        Having gotten that out of my system…Guns are durable. They do not easily wear out. there are some 270M guns in private hands in this country. Any gun control legislation that does not couple bans on production, sale and possession with confiscation is a waste of time. And you must confiscate them all and miss none. Are you prepared to support that? If so, which other of your rights under the Bill of Rights are you willing to sacrifice? 1st Amendment, 4th, 5th?

        You cite Chicago as an example of many guns = much violence. Chicago has very strict gun laws. A better explanation would be many illegal guns = much violence. There is a big difference there.

        Ever notice that many of these incidents with large numbers of people being killed are happening in “gun-free” zones. Movie theaters, schools, etc. Examples are legion of people stopping shooters with legal firearms. The media will not report them so you have to do some digging on your own. Easy enough to find the stories/statistics.

        • Captain_Obvious

          will you please provide some examples/stories/stats to back you up ? And please, none where the person is already in law enforcement or off-duty. I want legit stories involving everyday citizens.

          • KalashniKEV

            NICK MELLI.

            Legally owned and carried guns prevent crime all-day-long all over the country. The thing is, a crime that doesn’t happen it’s news…

          • rubbish

            Then how come despite all these guns in the USA we have such a high homicide rate….one that seems to be directly proportional to gun ownership….?

          • Captain_Obvious

            Should I take your word for it or is there REAL proof ?

          • Just Sayin’

            Here are some legitimate stories involving everyday citizens intervening to end mass-shooting events with their own privately owned weapons. That’s what you’re looking for, right?



            I assume you asked the question that you did because you assume that it has never happened? You are wrong.

          • Captain_Obvious

            You fail to mention that two of these “everyday citizens” were a police officer and a sheriff’s deputy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

            I’m not doubting that it has ever happened, but it seems to be rare.

          • jsut talkin’ crap

            Nobody is saying in never happens…but just because it occasionally does work out that way (and the NRA make sure it gets top exposure) it is just a drop in the bucket and does not counter the overwhelming evidence that more guns make us a lot less safe.

          • m

            According to the Wall Street Journal, the shooting at the shopping mall in Oregon last week ended when a shopper with a concealed carry permit drew a gun and pointed it at the shooter, who then immediately shot himself. The article didn’t say the armed shopper was a law enforcement officer – the implication was that he or she was not.

          • novasteve

            The concealed carry person was actually violating the policy of the mall because it was a “gun free zone”. If he didn’t violate it, a lot more people would have died. He wasn’t a cop.

        • Vik

          Thanks for the correction. But Chicago, tough gun laws or not, has a lot of guns. That’s what we should be looking at, because the gun lobby doesn’t even agree that more guns leads to more gun crime. They think more people in places like Chicago should have guns and that that would lead to less crime.

          I have noticed that a lot of these massacres occur in areas that are gun-free. Ft. Hood isn’t the norm. But, these massacres are usually happening with guns, so guns are the problem. Just because the gun control that we have now, with loopholes of all kinds and little federal regulation, aren’t working doesn’t mean that getting rid of guns should be something we shy away from.

          I am in support of banning what we call assault rifles, more background checks, gun bybacks, and plenty of other things. We need to keep try to lower the amount of certain types of guns in this country.

          • novasteve

            Military bases are actually gun free zones. If the soldiers were allowed to be armed, and they weren’t hindered by political correctness, they could have stopped the shooter there before it happened or if not, they could have defended themselves. If they don’t trust our own military with weapons, then that’s just pathetic.

            Banning assault rifles? What is an assault rifle other than something that looks scary to liberals? Please explain to me why a semi auto in 30.06 is okay but if a bushmaster isn’t? Because it looks scarier to you? What’s the logic. And the definition of assault rifle is changed constantly by liberals, and it has ZERO to do with the actual assault rifle gun definition which is based upon the StG-44.

            All thse comments stating “Bushmasters belong with only people wearing military uniforms: are idiotic. The military doesn’t use it. It’s a civilian version. It doesn’t fire 3 shots per trigger squeeze. The military versions do. They are semi auto.

            Don’t you worry about ignorant people making policies for us? especially ones that violate the constitution?

          • KalashniKEV

            If you look at the statistics in places like Florida and Louisiana, more guns have meant less crime… dramatically less crime.

            (also, military installations are the most Gun Free zones there are- and those regs are enforced aggressively)

          • Captain_Obvious

            So explain the high crime in inner city areas where there is an abundance of guns.

          • novasteve

            Explain the low crime in areas where there is low gun ownership? There are plenty of places where people have weapons. Even people around arlington have CCWs… Why is violent crime so much lower here than across the river?

          • jackson

            Considering the suicide rate among military, it’s probably a good thing bases are gun-free zones.

        • Josh S

          Why will the media not report them? Is it a conspiracy?
          And I wonder about this legion of examples that no one knows about except those who “dig” for them – do any of them have to do with mass murder situations?

          Also, does a gun know whether it is illegal or not? If not, then what is the difference between “many guns = much violence” and “many illegal guns = much violence?” Cause especially in light of the Ritholtz chart presented above, it seems to me that the equation boils down to “guns=violence.”

          • irrelevant BS

            that obviously shows, in an obvious way that many guns = much violence. Not sure what your point is but it is obvious that this sh!t has to stop.

          • novasteve

            it shows that gun restrictions don’t work. that our most dangerous places are the places we have the strictest gun laws. Just banning things won’t give you anything other than a feel good moment while you trash our rights.

          • Josh S

            I don’t know whether all those other countries ban guns or not. But fewer people own them there and gun violence appears to be much lower there. It would be useful to know if there are fewer guns because of laws against them or because people elsewhere just aren’t as fascinated by them. I’d guess it’s both.

            And yes, we’d also want a similar chart maybe state by state showing gun ownership and gun violence just within the US.

    • Swag

      As opposed to conservatives who never seem to care about it.

      • Vik

        Not to mention that there are examples from the US and around the world showing that less guns means less gun violence. Japan had 11 gun murders in 2011.

        The gun lobby’s most fervent supporters just go from straw-man to conspiracies and use empty talking points and circular logic when defending their position. They ignore common sense.

        • Vik

          And if Japan isn’t a valid comparison for cultural reasons, look at Canada which has more hunting rifles and shotguns per capita than the US, but has far less assault weapons.

          • novasteve

            Please DEFINE assault weapon.

          • Circular Logic

            You’re calling out “circular logic,” but evidently contradictory arguments are okay?

            Perhaps you can reconcile the “less guns means less gun violence” comment with your next comment which cites a higher per capita gun ownership rate and significantly lower gun violence in Canada vs. the USA.

        • Clarendon Expatriate

          How about Isreal. Lots of rockets but very low gun crime. Everyone is armed.

          • Vik

            Yes, we can go back and forth with this. You need a license, which isn’t easy to get, to get a gun in Israel. There’s also other requirements. Israel also has a bunch of policies and public services that US conservatives would label as bad that leads to them not having such a messed up society in the first place.

          • drax

            Things move fast – this was posted a few minutes ago:


            The Truth About Israel’s Gun Laws

            Key points:
            1) Israel has a lot fewer guns than we do.
            Fact. Israel has 12 times fewer guns per capita than America.

            2) Israel bans assault rifles.

            3) Israel has no individual right to bear arms.

            4) Israel sharply limits ammunition purchases.

            5) Israelis views gun ownership as a burden.

          • KalashniKEV

            There is no country or population worth comparing to the US- Not the subjects of the British Crown, not Israel, not any Scandinavian place.

            This is one of the most violent cultures on the planet today. This is also among the top countries which grants the greatest degree of freedom to it’s citizens.

            Our rights are enshrined in the Constitution and BOR- and none of them are negotiable. I will not be punished for another man’s crime. Not happening.

          • Josh S

            Kev, every time you take off your shoes at the airport, you are being punished for another man’s crime. Also, all of your rights under the Bill of Rights have been curtailed to some degree by the Supreme Court – none of them are absolute.
            Stop with the hyperbole.

          • KalashniKEV

            Josh- we’re in 100% agreement on the TSA.

            This a a red line though.

          • i find it interesting(/amusing?) that with all of the references to israel i’ve seen this week, i haven’t seen anyone pointing out that along with many guns, israel also has a population that, with a few exceptions, completes compulsory military service.

          • novasteve

            @ Josh

            However traveling other than getting welfare benefits without a residency waiting period, is not a constitutional right. Gun rights are.

        • Empty Talking Point

          “…there are examples from the US and around the world showing that less guns means less gun violence.”

          Are there? You’ve cited examples of correlation, but I haven’t seen the causation argument you’re making, i.e., “less guns means less gun violence,” particularly as it relates to legally owned/acquired guns. And I’m also assuming you’re not envisioning your utopian fantasy in which no such thing as a gun exists (i.e., “zero guns means less gun violence”).

          • Vik

            Use you common sense. Do you think more guns makes us safer? Do you think that if Japan and countries in Western Europe had more guns that they’d be safer?

            We don’t need a utopian fantasy, but you’re displaying the disconnect that we have in this country. We can’t even agree with the notion that fewer guns will lead to less gun violence.

          • Vik

            Sorry for the typos.

          • Empty Talking Point

            My common sense tells me you’re missing the point. By asking whether more vs. fewer guns is the answer, you’re still ignoring that I don’t think there’s a direct causal relationship. You’ve made this point for me, in fact, by pointing out that Canadians have MORE guns per capita and less gun violence. You even held them out to be culturally similar to us. So maybe it’s not strictly about quantity of guns? Maybe??

            If anyone is disconnected, Vik, it’s you… from logical constructs.

          • drax

            “Common sense” is often wrong.

            If you were in a room with 100 people, and none had guns, you’d feel safe.

            If you were in a room with 100 people, and 10 of them had guns, you’d be scared.

            If you were in a room with 100 people, and all of them had guns, you’d feel safer than the one with 10 guns.

            If you can find a way to get to zero guns, okay. Good luck with that.

          • Vik

            Go ahead and cherry pick. Canada has more of a certain type of gun per capita. They don’t have more handguns and assault rifles. Would you agree, Empty Talking Point, a really appropriate name, that we should reduce the quantity of certain types of gun in the US?

          • Vik

            Drax, so you think that everyone arming up is better than trying to get rid of guns?

          • Vik

            Empty Talking Point, see this link from an earlier reply in the thread.


            It doesn’t jive with what you said I was suggesting.

          • Empty Talking Point

            I would agree with my previous comment(s), i.e., that your contention, “less guns means less gun violence,” is a conclusion for which the only evidence you can muster is your “common sense.” I would also agree that your subsequent comment contradicts it.

            I’m not cherry picking, per se. I’m pointing out the flaws in your argument. Would you agree, Vik, a really appropriate name, that your unequivocal argument that “less guns means less gun violence” is a dramatic and perhaps incorrect oversimplification of the problem? Would you agree that your mistaken identification of the root cause of gun violence could result in your also mistakenly identifying a solution? I would agree with both.

          • Josh S

            Drax –

            Why would I feel safer in the room when everyone was armed? Mutually assured destruction? Personally, I don’t think I would feel safer in that situation. It seems to me that the device exists to kill people. The more there are of the device, the greater the chance that one will be used to kill someone. Whether it’s via murder, accident, suicide, or whatever.

            And the US has far and away the highest gun ownership rate and far and away the highest gun violence rate. How do you explain that?

          • causation

            Well if the examples of correlation do not prove a causation..you need to come up with some kind of explanation for this overwhemingly strong correlation….Any thoughts? I’d be inclined to go with the obvious one.

          • Vik

            Exactly, causation, it’s just talking points in response. We know that human nature can be complex, that various circumstances and situations that people face in their lives lead them to do bad things. But, you have to break them down into component parts to attempt to fix the problem as a whole. The proliferation of certain types of guns, lax laws or no, is a problem, faulty gun control is a problem, mental healthcare is a problem, education, economics, etc. are all contributing factors.

            But, the proliferation of guns, and especially certain types of guns, is one of the biggest problems. People who support having more guns around have failed to show how that makes society safer.

          • causation

            so..by your logic all of these other complicated factors – mental healthcare, education, economics, they all somehow magially align in the exact same proportions as gun owenrship and gun deaths. That is truly amazing! Or is the most obvious explanation perhaps a better one?

          • Vik

            Causation, I think we agree with each other. What I’m saying is that there are other factors involved in our lives that contribute to our behavior and that gun advocates try to obscure the real issue by suggesting that we fix everything else besides guns, as if that’s feasible, and ignore the negative effects that guns have on our lives.

          • Empty Talking Point

            the US has…far and away the highest gun violence rate. How do you explain that?

            Josh S., I’d explain by saying your premise is likely false according to this ranking, which is specifically about gun deaths (vs. general “violence”):

            Cross-reference it with this list, and you’ll see that there’s not a direct correlation between gun ownership rates and gun death rates.


          • drax

            I believe this isn’t as simple as either banning all guns or arming everyone to the teeth.

          • drax


            Let me try again.

            You’re in a room with one other person. He has a gun, you don’t.

            You’re in a room with one other person. He has a gun, and so do you.

            Which scenario makes you feel safer?

            You’d feel even safer if nobody had guns, I’m sure – but do you think that will ever happen?

        • LetsTalkFact

          Not really. Check out a well cited journal article that determines that basically there is no correlation between the amount of guns, and the amount of homicides by gun.


          • lets’ explain this then
          • LetsTalkFact

            ?Looks like a correlation to me

            Agree. One issue with that graph is cherry picked data. IE: They picked specific countries, and left others off the list.
            The other issue, is that what appears to be correlation doesn’t equal causation. This simple graph doesn’t look into any other factors. That’s why looking at how the analysis is performed through a properly cited study is more useful than a simple cherry picked 2 axis chart. For example, that chart is homicide committed by firearm. If you changed that to show all homicides compared to the amount of guns in the country you don’t see that nice line. Does it matter if more guns has no correlation to the amount of murders, or does it matter if that amount of guns correlates to the amount of gun murders? I would prefer amount of MURDER to go down, not just the amount of gun MURDER.

      • John Fontain

        Swag, you beat me to the punch.

    • Captain_Obvious

      Also, you should stop with the inner city argument as those people are more likely to have guns and are getting killed still. There goes the “more people should conceal carry” argument.

    • Fox News

      I dont’ see coverage of this on fox news either Steve – so what’s you point?

    • KalashniKEV

      What are they getting shot with?

      Chicago has a handgun BAN…

    • KathyInArlingtonVA

      We “Libs” care about anyone being killed by a gun unless it is a criminal in the act of a crime. 18 people were killed in Chicago, but they weren’t Kindergartners and they weren’t all in one building, which is why this is such a big story and has caused so much emotion in the U.S. and all over the world. How can you not see that?

      • novasteve

        445 children of school age have been shot in chicago this year. So if shootings are spread out, it’s not as bad? The daily occurrence is ignorable, but not the rare mass occurrence? Seriously, the shootings in major US cities are COMPLETELY ignored by the national media. It didn’t make national news that 80 people got shot in a single weekend in Chicago.

        Also, how will did those gun restrictions stop Breivik in Norway? He killed 77 people, yet guns are illegal there. Not Chicago, not Newtown, CT, but NORWAY.

        • KalashniKEV

          I still don’t understand this Chicago thing… there is a Handgun Ban in effect. Don’t these murderers know that?

    • bman

      sounds racist to me.

  • Gun owner

    Although Moran is generally a moron, these recommendations seem pretty reasonable. HOWEVER, most of them already are law, at the state level.

    • novasteve

      How are they reasonable? None of his proposals would have impacted the school shooting. He just wants to make it look like he’s doing something.

      • Gun owner

        Oh, I completely agree. But if I need to throw the Left a few breadcrumbs, such as requiring background checks for gun store clerks, to protect the 2nd Amendment that they so sorely want to eliminate, I’m fine with it.

        • KalashniKEV

          Inches add up to miles.

          No compromise.

  • Novanglus

    As an NRA member who supports reasonable gun control, I know that not a single one of these measures would have prevented Newtown, Virginia Tech, Aurora, or any other major threat to our safety.

    Instead, we just need to add the following to the list of controlled weapons under the National Firearms Act:
    – military-caliber ammunition (including .223, .762, and .553).
    – weapons that shoot that ammunition.
    – detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, regardless of caliber.

    Most NRA members don’t own any of these weapons. And for those who do, putting them under NFA control wouldn’t “take them away,” it would just require registration.

    • novasteve

      What would your “military calibre” ammunition thing accomplish? What’s wrong about .223 or 308 Win (7.62 Nato)? Is former military ammo okay like 30.06? The older calibre bullets are more powerful, longer range, bigger bullets.

      What is wrong with a .223 which is the civilian version of 5.56 Nato? Because the guns that fire them look scary? But not all look as scary as others? So would you want a Ruger Mini 14 banned because if fires the same ammo as a Bushmaster?

      Your argument makes zero sense.

      • KalashniKEV


        Lack of knowledge on the subject is right there on the surface. No way this guy is in the NRA.

    • novasteve

      Just an example of your logic, you would want 9mm to be banned since militaries use them in handguns and in submachine guns, but .44 magnum is okay because militaries don’t use it?

      Also, if you were to limit magazine sizes, why would you need to ban the weapons that fire .223 or 308 win? Shooting up people with 10 30.06 rounds is a justifiable risk but not if 223 is used with 10 round clips?

      There’s no logic. You just want to ban a gun because of what they look like.

    • brendan

      .223 isn’t just ‘military caliber ammunition, it’s also one of the common cartridges for varmint rifles. would guess a lot of nra members own at least one varmint gun.

      not terribly familiar with the other rounds. isn’t the .762 an older cartridge tho that would mostly impact collectors?

    • dude

      7.62 is the same as a 308, a very common deer rifle. Do you think we should ban sporting guns too?

      • novasteve

        That’s the goal of the gun grabbers. Incrementally to ban all weapons, but times like this gives them an excuse to do it quicker.

    • Novanglus

      Okay, apparently my source was wrong on calibers. Sorry about that.

      • KalashniKEV

        “source” LOL.

        You clearly have no knowledge on the subject, and getting shot with 5.56×45, .22 LR, or 7.5 French doesn’t make a darn bit of difference.

        NOW I ask you honestly- was the goal of what you proposed to prevent future tragedy, or simply impose tyranny?

        • Josh S

          Just because a suggested policy may not be a sound one doesn’t mean that it must have been suggested for ulterior motives.
          The world really is far more gray than you give it credit for.

          • novasteve

            May not be ulterior motives, but does going through a catalog and banning things which look scary make sense?

            Will all the AR-15 looking 22lRs get banned as well? they look “Scary” but are 22LR.

        • drax

          The whole “gun control is only about tyranny” thing is only going to backfire, Kev. People want to do something about little kds being shot to death, that’s all.

          • KalashniKEV

            That is wholly untrue. Case in point- Feinstein has had her legislation crafted for years just waiting to capitalize on a tragedy such as this. That sick woman was in front of the cameras selling oppression *before the last body was removed from the school*. The plan she has unveiled, and will introduce 04 Jan, would do *nothing* to prevent another tragedy such as this- she’s just singing her same old song and hoping we’ll wear her chains this time.

          • novasteve

            They want to APPEAR like they are doing anything. Kids are shot to death all the time in major US cities, but the media completely ignores those.

          • drax

            So what, Kev? Who cares about Fienstein? She’s not here.

            I’m surprised the nuts haven’t come out with a conspiracy theory that Lanza was brainwashed by Obama to shoot up the school so he could have an excuse to confiscate guns. Maybe they have though – you are probably on some loony right-wing gun nut sites where that would be going around, so you tell us.

          • KalashniKEV

            Actually, that came out of your own loony head, believe it or not. Think about that.

    • johnny b

      .223 is NOT a military round. A rifle chambered for .223 should NOT shoot the military 5.56 round, however a rifle chambered for 5.56 CAN shoot .223 safely.
      Also just what the heck is .762 and .553?
      .762 would be just shy of 3/4 inch and .553 just over 1/2 inch.
      If you are an NRA member you certainly don’t know much about guns.
      If you think NRA members don’t own any .223 semi-autos then you have never met a hog hunter, nor I bet, tasted wild hog fresh off the smoker….makes farm raised pig taste like chicken.

      BTW– Registration is just the first step to confiscation!


      • KalashniKEV

        He is not an NRA member. He is lying.

    • Hikin’ the pike


    • Marc

      So, if I have a Remington 700, in .223 Rem for shooting varmints (prairie dogs, coyotes, etc..) it would be a NFA weapon, but the same Remington 700, in .243 Win (a bullet with better external and terminal ballistics) would not be?

      By the way .223 Rem isn’t a military caliber, 5.56mm is the military version (higher pressure round)

      Also, Mexico bans civilians from owning any guns in military calibers, and of course we all know that there is no problem with gun violence in Mexico, right?

      • brendan

        meh. you’re right about the first part, but comparison to mexico is the foundation of a straw argument. completely different situation.

    • KalashniKEV

      I’m calling BS.

      • No

        I think you mean Talking BS

    • novasteve

      I’m not an NRA member and I used to own a weapon that used 308 Win. But the gun isn’t that scary looking, since it was an M1A. But then again, it’s semi auto, so maybe that will be banned..

      And do you notice people in the media are going after the 10mm Glock? That’s almost the same was my .40SW glock.

      Why did they single out 10MM but not the .40? Also, what about a glock in .45ACP???

      All of these proposals are based in hysteria and complete ignorance about firearms.

      I’m constantly hearing people talk about assault weapons, which are not something the public can buy anyways. Changing the definitnion of assault weapons to include anything you don’t like makes it a useless definition.

      And when people propose banning semi autos, are you including handguns too?

      And for the extremists who want all guns banned, are you prepared to disarm the police too? Otherwise we’d be even worse off than Britain. At least their police aren’t armed for the most part. You’d be making the public completely defenseless, then when you add in we lack a right to police protection in the USA…

      • KalashniKEV


        • “worse off than britain”

          LOL – I’d like us to be “worse off than britain” 0.25 gun deatsh per 100,000 as opposed to 10.2 in the USA. We wouldn’t have to eat kidneye pie.

          • KalashniKEV

            Would you accept their dramatically higher rate of violent crime as well?

            Perhaps you should just move, old Bloke? Take Piers Morgan with you.

          • novasteve

            Oh great.. Did you know they are now banning knives in the UK because of the knife related killings they’re having now?

            if you took away the inner city violence in the US, we’d have similar homicide rates to weatern european nations DESPITE the guns.

          • LOL

            “if you took away the inner city violence in the US, we’d have similar homicide rates to weatern european nations DESPITE the guns.”

            And iF you took away the murders there’s be a lot less homicides!
            You people are so funny.

    • TSM

      “Most NRA members don’t own these weapons…”

      Okay, in the past 20 years, the .223 has become the most common common rifle cartridge sold, and is a favorite for competitive shooters. The 762 round, also known as the .308 Winchester round, is perhaps the most popular and effective cartridge used by hunters as a deer cartridge. Both these rounds are popular because they are effective as self defense, hunting, and target shooting rounds.

      The solutions you are addressing miss the practical issues with and legal standards/test that are required for abridging / derogating from an enumerated right under the Constitution. The “rational test” basis is not valid, governments don’t have the discretion to make a judgement call on this.

      Government, whether federal, state, or local, has the onus of clearly and objectively showing that any restrictive proposal would be based on relevant data and credible studies. You can’t just institute a change like you are proposing without doing things like you propose.

      What’s more, the military caliber restriction you are proposing cuts right to the essence of the kind of arms that were deemed core to the 2nd amendment. The Heller case in 2008 addressed in places that military caliber firearms would be especially protected under the second amendment precisely because they are suitable for militia and self-defense.

      Also, one of the key problems is that doing an NFA approach without basing this on some kind of serious research would amount to an arbitrary banning for people who can’t pass the higher financial hurdle associated with NFA. I understand that for each gun there is a tax that is $200 per gun. I’m not sure, but there may even be a higher hurdle with background checks as well. To the extent that background check standards are higher than those needed for regular pistol purchases (simple fbi instant checks), these may also amount to a de facto banning or eventual confiscation for those that were once legally able to buy something and now not allowed to keep it.

      I think other lawyers would argue that in light of the facts associated with mass shootings, such actions would amount to an arbitrary form of civil rights discrimination.

  • arlseand.

    Wow…read the actual bill and by page three you would realize no NRA member or the NRA would ever agree with this action. It close the so called “gun show loophole” whcih woudl require background checks for private gun sales. Shameful pretending to introduce a bill NRA members would never support….but would you expect anything less from Moron

    • brendan

      yeah, i think the polling data Moran cites is off…

      too lazy to look up but might be a wording issue. simply put, closing the ‘gun show loophole’ is definitely not something most NRA members support.

      • KalashniKEV

        There is no such thing as the Gun Show Loophole.

        • bobbytiger


        • drax

          Call it a “personal sale loophole” then. It’s still a way around most gun sales laws that apply to dealers.

  • novasteve

    Just a reminder to the libs who want to shred the 2nd amendment and thus the 4th amendment when you come collecting them. They will search EVERYONE’s homes. That means, you will be taken out in handcuffs by the police when they find your pot, your illegal prescription drugs, your dubbed DVDs, etc. They won’t just go to people who they know have guns homes. Your measures wont’ accomplish ANYTHING unless you come collect guns. So are you prepared to have police search your homes? Anything they find illegal will get you arrested. Think about it as you dream about shredding the constitution fo ryour feel good moment.

    • Captain_Obvious

      you’re crazy. No one is gonna take the guns you already own, legally. Get a grip on reality, not everyone is out to get you.

    • tin foil hat salesman

      I have a special offer on for Christmas at the moment. Buy two tin foil hats and get a Mayan Calendar for free!

      • novasteve

        You have liberals in the national media talking about confiscating weapons, so how do you propose doing it in a way that makes sure all the weapons are collected?

        I hope you hid your bag of pot really well when you get your wish. Because the police will search your home as well.

        • Captain_Obvious

          If you act quickly, you can get a 3rd tin foil hat !!

        • jackson

          I refuse to believe you are really this paranoid. Our country survived a civil war. No one is going to confiscate legally owned weapons you have now. You KNOW that. A ban would just make your gun suddenly a lot more valuable.

          • KalashniKEV

            …and make us all a lot less Free.

          • jackson

            And it is NEVER going to happen.

          • novasteve

            So why are liberals in the media talking about collecting guns? Do you ever read editorials in the washington post? Eugene Robinson.. Ever read him?

          • Captain_Obvious

            those are just opinions. No one is gonna collect guns. You don’t actually believe that, do you ?

          • Nottrue

            The last federal assault weapon ban did not remove previously bought legal guns from owners. However, that does not mean that is how any new legislation will be written. Several states that have restrictive gun laws HAVE been written to it is legal to keep the already legal guns you have. So no, we don’t “KNOW” that until the legislation is actually proposed and studied.

          • KalashniKEV

            Better to let them overreach and fail.

            If they want to protect schools they should be focused on protecting them.

    • brendan

      but none of this matters because the world is ending tomorrow right?

      ridiculous, black helicopter type perspective, novasteve.

  • Swag

    I’ve always wondered why wannabe domestic terrorists focus so much on bombs when they could simply grab a gun and start shooting up a restaurant.

    • ‘splody pants

      wow! Good thing John Malvo and the Fort Hood guy never thought of that….

      • nom de guerre

        Is John Malvo a hybrid of John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo?

      • Josh S

        They were terrorists now? Says who?

  • Becoming Indifferent

    You are a bit confused with your calibers–.223 caliber and 5.53 mm are the same. And I think you mean 7.62mm, not .762 caliber; for many years, 7.62mm was the standard round for NATO forces.

    And Vik, many rural and small town communities have a lot more guns than people (I lived in Indiana for a couple of years after growing up here and was stunned at the number of guns people owned), but there’s little, if any violent crime. So the the argument more guns=more gun crime isn’t quite correct.

    • Vik

      So would less guns in your town lead to less crime or more crime? It probably would go down, but I think before we ever deal with this issue, we need to decide as a society whether we want more guns around or less guns around. By prohibiting certain types of people from getting guns and different things, we’re at least implicitly suggesting that more guns is not the answer. And I don’t think this is a topic that can be efficiently tackled from just a state level.

  • NotanNRAmember

    Maybe you should make some laws about the metric system there, novanglus. That .762 calibre round is difficult to get, isn’t it?

    • Curious George

      Also, any modern, non-black powder, weapon above .5 inch is considered a destructive device by ATF and falls under the 1934 National Firearms Act. You can get them but you have to go through the same process as for an automatic weapon i.e. federally registered and tightly controlled.

      There are a few sporting exceptions to the .5 inch rule. 12 gauge shotguns and, on a case by case basis, very large bore sporting rifles can get waivers from the destructive device rules.

  • Alex

    I would love to hear DC talk about the mental health issues that seem to be the root cause of many of these violent acts. We find out Lanza was on antipsychotics, that he was not just mildly autistic but more than likely had much deeper issues — and his mom with her $25k a month alimony payments decided to take as many vacations as she could (from her son, whom she left alone at home) than have him get the treatment he needed (such as being institutionalized).

    Now we’re talking about gun control as the #1 priority, but gun violence related deaths are down 18% since the assault weapons ban was let to expire in 2004 and car accidents still kill 3.5x more people than guns every year. On top of that, 1 out of 2 Americans will die of cancer, heart disease or diabetes, but like mental health, these physical health issues are largely ignored to the detriment of our ever increasingly obese society.

    I am extremely skeptical that any of the measures Moran is proposing will have a tangible impact on preventing massacres. Where there is a psychopath with an undiagnosed or improperly treated condition, there is the potential for mass violence.

    The largest massacre we saw in this country took the lives of 87 people, and it was gasoline, not guns, that was used to perpetrate the horrific act:


    • b

      kind of a scattered argument you put forth but…

      1) mental illness, while at the root of most mass shooting events, is not the root of most gun violence. should target the main problem, or the news headlines? I think both Moran’s bill and the polling data he cites are flawed but it’s better than nothing and does make an attempt to reduce illegal access to firearms.

      2) details of the treatment, or lack thereof, still hasn’t been publicized or confirmed.

      3) your implied correlation between the decrease in gun violence and the expiration of the assault weapons ban is ridiculous. medical care and survival rates have increased and the overall number of homicides has decreased.

      4) while you cite other causes of death, you don’t make any real argument so not sure what the point is. gun violence remains one of the top causes among young adults.

      5) again, the Happy Land thing has little, if any relevance to any discussion. I think you’re hinting at the idea that those attempting to commit mass murder can do so without firearms, but that doesn’t mean gun control is a bad idea. you can get fat without eating fast food every day, but that doesn’t mean limiting your intake of fast food is without merit.

      • TSM

        Again, people are missing the importance, salience of the civil rights aspect of this argument.

        B, you suggest that, ultimately, it would be right for the government to prescribe and regulate your intake of fast food. The government has no place in this.

        I know the anology is not a great comparison, but the point I’ve raised elsewhere on this thread is that the government is restricted in its capacity to act…by the Constitution.

        The right to armed self defense as embodied in the 2nd amendment and clarified by the SCOTUS, requires a very high standard for the government…they don’t have much discretion on their own. They need to show serious studies or risk going down an unconstitutional route, and handing the Second Amendment Foundation and lawyers like Alan Gura a fat check for legal fees.

        Also, the 14th amendment also adds to the government’s burden (no state can abridge rights, and immunities….).

        Your point 3 is kind of off…do you mean causation? There is very clearly a correlation, this is not ridiculous. Its been well publicized. JOHN LOTT, the economist, actually argues in his book More Guns Less Crime about causation, but Alex doesn’t.

        I’m not totally in love with Lotts book, because there are some methodology questions raised that undermine his conclusion with various datasets. But I do find compelling his case studies about guns driving lower crime rates, bans raising violent crime rates.

        You should see the charts of violent crime rates dramatically lowering in Washington, DC starting six months after the SCOTUS forced the DC government to legalize pistols for self defense.

        Going the other way, you should see the charts produced for the violent crime rates soaring in the UK after they banned pistols and most other guns.

        Here is his blog, with has been pretty active lately.


    • KalashniKEV

      Thank you, Alex.

      That was a Truth Bomb.

    • bobbytiger

      Stop, stop. Too many facts.

  • using thought

    The only concern for the NRA is maximum gun and ammunition sales. They have become for the most part shills for the industry, which of course is the only thing important to “real Americans.” Gad.

    • KalashniKEV

      Ironically, if anyone is driving people to purchase guns and ammunition it is Obama.

      The NRA is an organization that is dedicated to preserving our second amendment rights as well as promoting safety and marksmanship programs.

      • promoting safety


  • esmith69

    I hate to agree with Novasteve, but I think all of these things that Moran is suggesting are basically worthless. I mean, they might help prevent general gun violence, but are going to do nothing to help prevent these massacres.

    However, I also do not think the answer is simply allowing all sorts of people (including teachers) to arm themselves. I read an article online the other day about somewhere in Texas where they’re trying to do that.

    I know it would be costly to implement, but I still think we need to implement some kind of psychological evaluation as part of the background check that is part of buying guns. That way would could maybe keep some of the people who are not quite right in the head from purchasing guns. It wouldn’t help with incidents like Newtown, but it could have definitely helped prevent the Virginia Tech incident (he purchased the guns himself and he was most definitely NOT right in the head, and it sounds like everyone who ever even spoke to him could tell that right away).

    • oh say what?

      what percentage of gun violence takes place in the form of a 5+ victim shooting?

      i’m all for expanding access to mental health treatment, and requiring a more thorough background check but…..while mental illness might be at the root of most massacres, it’s not the cause of a majority of gun violence….

      should we be targeting the problem or the headlines?

  • MikeinARL

    It’s a complicated issue, however, I am all for Jim Moran keeping guns our of his own son’s hands. Can’t we all agree on that?

    • MikeinARL

      *OUT* of his own son’s hands.

    • Novanglus

      I think that would poll at 100% of NRA members( unless he is one).

  • KalashniKEV

    It appears that Moran has wasted no time bathing himself in the blood of the innocents to further his sick political agenda.

    This is a man who truly has no shame.

    • …or just perhaps

      He is hoping to do something to prevent further bloodshed. Whereas you have no shame – you consider your right to play soldiers more important than the safety of our children.

      • novasteve

        Moran’s proposals would not have impacted Newtown in the slightest. It’s a feel good measure. To look like something is being done.

        And no do ubt you want more restrictions. How can you justify collective punishment? Should cars be banned because we have so many people flip their cars here in Arlington? Punish everyone for the actions of a few?

      • KalashniKEV

        Besides violate the 10th Amendment… what does Moran’s proposal do, exactly, to prevent this from happening again?

    • drax

      Now Kev is talking about people having no shame.

  • Givingtree

    Yes captain obvious it matters. Obviously. Or I wouldn’t have asked it. I haven’t been able to find an answer. Moran’s ‘fact’ sheet doesn’t actually distinguish between the legally or illegally which means the stats are incorrect. You can’t improve the situation with laws on guns that are outside of the system already.

  • novasteve

    Will a liberal at least state the possibility of amendment or repealing the second amendment, and thus also the 4th amendment to enforce it, but then do other people get to repeal amendments they don’t approve of, or just the left?

    • Captain_Obvious

      no one is gonna repeal the 2nd amendment. You can use your credit card for the tin foil hats, by the way.

      • tin foil hat salesman

        Actually I’m only taking gold….we all know that the whole banking system in America is based on fraud

    • no need to amend or repeal it

      Just put an end to the current ridiculously inclusive interpretation of it. Well regulated militia? (we’ll ingnore that part) Assault weapons and everything else are covered though.

      • novasteve

        The only person here is you and your fellow libs for ignoring the Heller decision. it’s SETTLED LAW.

        Gun ownership is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. It says well regulated miltia, not the guns anyways. Regulations on what they can do, where they can be quartered, what actions they could take.

        • Brian

          As the Roberts supreme court has shown several times, ‘Settled Law’ can be ‘unsettled’

    • brendan

      lemme guess, you’d like to do away with those pesky reconstruction amendments…

    • dk (not DK)

      Last I checked, no one gets to repeal an amendment unless the requisite number of state legislatures vote to do so. So yes, anyone gets to repeal any amendment they want to. As long as they have the votes.

  • RightWingWhacko

    Look, I think Moran is way past his past due date but,
    this is simple: Does one have a right to live or does one have a right to own a gun?
    The two can co-exist and the answer is in the middle. Being able to own something that shoots 100 bullets in 30 seconds may be someone’s right but it tells me they’re a lousy shot.
    Limit the gun’s ability to fire all these rounds and everyone still has the right to own a gun.
    That’s called common sense with a degree of safety added.

    • KalashniKEV

      That’s called infringement.

      “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      • Nuclear weapons salesman

        Right on!

      • Josh S

        We get it – you’re an enthusiast.
        But the first amendment grants me freedom of speech yet somehow I can’t say whatever I want whenever I want.
        It’s called balance. We balance my rights with your rights.
        Same thing applies to the Second Amendment. It ain’t absolute. If you believe it is, you haven’t been paying attention.

        • novasteve

          Ah, but su ddenly voter ID to vote is racist and impermissible though.

          • drax

            For God’s sake stay on topic for once.

          • novasteve

            No drax. No. You are proposing violating my 2nd amendment rights. so what’s to stop me from brining up lib accusations of violating other rights? And what’s to stop you libs from violating more rights since you’re very willing to do it to the 2nd amendment.

        • KalashniKEV

          No… we don’t balance our natural rights. We don’t bargain with them at all, in fact.

          • Josh S

            Again – I don’t think you’ve been paying attention. This isn’t a utopia. It’s reality and in reality, we all compromise a little bit to live together. To me, that is as plain as the sky is blue. I’m not rendering a normative judgment one way or the other. *Should* we compromise? Not answering that question. *Do* we compromise, whether explicitly or not? Absolutely. Without question.
            Also, the right to bear arms is hardly a natural right. The right to defend yourself may be one, but using guns to do so (or using those guns for any other reason) is not. It is quite easy to imagine a society where no one has or needs guns. So that makes it hard to think of owning them as a natural right.

          • KalashniKEV

            It’s you who needs to step into reality.

            How do you propose to defend yourself from an armed attacker? …or even one of greater strength? Numchuks?

            None of the rights enshrined in the BOR are negotiable. None shall be compromised. You can try to legislate them away, but they will still be there because they come from nature, and… if you choose to believe, God.

            IF you want to create an “outlaw class” like prohibition, or perhaps take a few political prisoners, then that’s on you. It’s not going to make kids any safer.

      • Common sense

        There’s your answer wacko – from the gun nut’s mouth himself – no common sense and no restrictions.

        • KalashniKEV

          My rights are non negotiable. You are welcome to bargain with your own if you like.

          • drax

            It’s not about negotiating rights, it’s about defining them.

          • KalashniKEV

            I guess I’m just an optimist- I tend to define Liberty for our citizens as broadly as possible. Those who would seek to place limits on our Freedom provoke anger.

          • Brian

            Should people have the right to own grenades? RPGs? Flame throwers?

          • novasteve

            @ Brian. When libs make their cosmetic bans, like banning bayonet lugs, despite Obama thinking they are ancient weapons, or grenade launcher pegs What do they accomplish when you can’t buy a grenade launcher let alone a grenade?

          • Brian


            I’ll ask again. Should people have the right to own grenades? Flame throwers? RPGs?

            They are, after all, arms. If there should be no limits on our right to bear arms, as it seems as though KEV is suggesting, then that means things that I mentioned above should be legally available to buy and own.

          • KalashniKEV

            If I allow the government to have access to grenades, why would I not also allow myself to have them?

          • KalashniKEV

            Additionally, there is tremendous risk in Prohibition efforts, because they make all unconstitutional laws invalid. Currently everyone is playing ball.

            If a person is now some kind of “outlaw” and subject to imprisonment for what he’s got under the bed today, what’s to keep him from making a (currently illegal) modification to fully automatic? What’s to prevent him from making IEDs?

            If you are willing to create an “Outlaw Class” who you are now going to consider “Criminals” then don’t be surprised if a few of them turn into real, actual Criminals.

          • Brian

            Since there should be no limits, If you can have grenades, why not a schizophrenic?

            One pillar of a advanced civilization is that the government has a monopoly on legal sanctioned violence. Which is why they have an army for war, a police force, etc.

          • KalashniKEV

            Brian- feel free to get “advanced” and surrender the means of resistance.

            My government works for me, though… I guess I’m just old fashioned.

          • Brian

            Good luck with your resistance the military. I’ve seen scores of Iraqi’s trying to ‘resist’ with AK-47s and it didn’t go too well for them.

          • KalashniKEV

            So you’ve got some sand in your boots, do you?

            You’re not the only one.

            MOLON LABE.

          • TSM

            We can all assume there is agreement that the right to life is a natural right, a human right enshrined by various international treaties even. But the right to life is not absolute. I can deprive you of your life under certain circumstances. And so can the government…like in times armed conflict.

            From an international human rights law point of view, the key concept is “Arbitrariness.” Government and people can’t go around “arbitrarily” depriving people of their rights to lifes. So, to the extent others are not being arbitrary, people can sure as hell deprive people of their right to life.

            And their right to keep and bear arms.

            I’m probably the biggest pro-gun guy I know, and this is the crux of my problem. People on both sides of the debate are being absolutist about their views. Neither will work. Neither can work for legal reasons and practical reasons.

            But, at the same time I say this, its really pretty difficult to see how anything the Obama administration can propose would be much more than arbitrary and ultimately unconstitutional. Bans are not an option…Heller proved this. “Reasonable” restrictions on semi-autos and hi-cap mags are not an option either…this would be arbitrary when challenged to strict constitutional scrutiny and found irreconcilable with the scholarship and research shows that more gun controls tends to coincides with higher crime rates and that the less gun control tends to decrease crime rates.

            Again, I refer people to the John Lott blog. There are some truly insightful displays of quantitative information there.

  • Just Sayin’

    I’m in favor of his submitting the “Patrick Moran Stop Violence Against Women Act” and the “Patrick Moran Voter Integrity Act” at the same time as this, frankly useless, law.

    If the goal is to actually reduce gun violence, it would be far more beneficial to do away with “Gun Free Zones” for holders of licensed carry permits, and to repeal much of the current anti-drug legislation.

    • KalashniKEV

      I propose we do away with NFA ’34, GCA ’68, and the Reagan Ban… I call it “The Patrick Moran felony dodging smash girlfriend’s head into a trashcan Jim Moran punch a Kid in the face Act.”

      It actually has nothing to do with any of that, but hey, I figured while we’re appropriating peoples names to put on legislation, why not have Moran offer his own?

  • McChipstah

    Let’s take it one step further. Let’s not just arm teachers, let’s issue a gun to every child born in the U.S. upon entering kindergarten… gun training and ownership is now as necessary as learning how to read/write… a necessary “life” skill.

    • Just Sayin’

      That isn’t funny. Nor is it incisive. It’s probably better to say something that is either funny or incisive.

      But you do bring up a good point. Gun ownership and especially gun training is a life skill.

    • KalashniKEV

      We don’t have to issue it. If Obama can force someone to buy his healthcare, I see no reason why he can’t force a person to buy anything else.

      • Naked man

        It’s bad enough the government forces us to buy pants. Down with the pants!

      • drax

        Nobody is being forced to buy healthcare, Kev.

        • novasteve

          But they are being forced by the government to buy health insurance. And then that gives the government the “ability” to regulate health insurance despite being unconstitutional violation of the 10th amendment. It’s like if the federal government passed a law requiring you to buy cans of paint or face a tax, then the government can tell home depot what kinds of paint they must offer, at what price, and certain people have to pay different prices..

          • Josh S

            Are you declaring your abilities as a Constitutional scholar to be greater than those of the Supreme Court?
            My, my.

          • Brian

            It’s actually not like that at all. Not every single human being in this country, by virture of their birth, is in the market for cans of paint. Other citizens are not forced to pay for their refusal to buy paint on their own when they can afford it.

            You can thank your friends the Heritage Foundation for coming up with this common sense alternative to Universal Health Care, and for your pal Mitt Romney for creating the model for it in practice.

            But when a dem agrees this Republican idea a good idea to improve health care, suddently it’s tryanny.

          • KalashniKEV

            Mitt Romney… what a true warrior against socialism!


            Fail. Try again.

  • KalashniKEV

    Can we get rid of the P250 graphic and replace it with something that doesn’t suck?

    It’s affecting my ability to focus on the topic…

  • Arlingtoner

    Just because someone supports gun-control does NOT meant they want to BAN guns. Some of those on the right need to get that through their heads. Certain measures need to be taken to make the gun buying and owning experience better (certain guns and clips not being available).

    Also – i am ALL for requiring mental health exams to not only the buyer, but ALL family and tenants living in the same house.

    • KalashniKEV

      Oh, wow… so you’re going to help me out and make my life better by telling me what I can and can’t own? Robert Gibbs… Is that you???

  • Jeff

    As an NRA member, concealed carry permit holder, and an owner of a 9mm S&W and a Rock River Arms AR-15, I can honestly say I have no issues with any of the items in the proposal. That being said, let’s not believe that any of these laws will prevent something like Sandy Hook from happening again.

    I have no good and realistic solution to preventing these tragedies, but here’s what’s wrong with a few arguments, realistic or not:
    Ban magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds – OK, so one just shows up with more magazines. I can do a magazine exchange in less than 3 seconds on either firearm.
    Ban military caliber weapons – there’s more powerful caliber firearms that are not military caliber that would quickly fill the market
    Ban guns – too many out there already, and the firearms will last for decades, if not centuries

    Let’s say for the sake of argument that banning guns was feasible. We live in a very large country. It is more likely we’re going to find someone really crazy in our country of 300 million people than in many of the European countries (typically around 60M population) cited in examples of gun control “working.” Crazy people will find a way to do damage and kill people if they REALLY want to. Look at the Oklahoma City bombings. Someone could easily plow a car into a crowd or detonate an IED in a mall. It is actually scary how easy it is to make an explosive device with commonly available, legal materials. They don’t always work too well, like in the case of the attempted bombing of Times Square not too long ago, but they have the potential.

    Let’s also look at China – even more people, and private citizens cannot own guns period. On the same day as Sandy Hook, a man stabbed 23 children at school and one adult. None died – which is a huge difference – but attacks can still happen. A year ago, 8 children were slashed with a box cutter at school by a woman attacker. In 2010, 16 were killed and 83 injured in 7 separate attacks with knives at schools (Note: those numbers include staff). In that same time period in the United States (2010 through before Sandy Hook), two school staff members were killed in two separate shootings (the staff members were targeted specifically, rather than a random act), and two students were grazed by bullets in a third incident. China is proof that even if you take away the guns, crazy people find other ways of pulling off an attack.

    • CCW-NOVA


    • so what you are sayng is

      …basically… we’re [email protected]$ed so we shouldn’t try and do anything.

      • Steve


        Nice sloppy pronoun usage

        • “we”

          WTF are you on about steve?

    • Josh S

      Hey, people still die from infections, I guess we shouldn’t make antibiotics.

      • Vik

        I know you’re being sarcastic, but while we’re at it, maybe more nukes is what the world needs as well?

      • novasteve

        The over prescription of antibiotics is going to make them useless anyways.

    • Seconded

      Also an NRA member and AR-15 owner (but otherwise consider myself very liberal) and agree with you on all points. I don’t have any problem with the suggested Moran rules as they are all common sense. But it’s also worth pointing out that none of them would have mattered.

      I’m honestly not sure what I think of the whole “assault rifle” thing anymore. I own and shoot one because darnit they’re interesting and fun to shoot. But with nuts like this, I’m starting to wonder if maybe it isn’t becoming a case of “this is why we can’t have nice things.” Sure I and 99.99% of owners am safe with mine, but maybe the damage those crazy few do just outweighs it all. Maybe I can give up my shooting preference for the greater good (and/or sanity). But the problem is as you’ve cited – they are already out there. If they were to be banned outright, I’d guess maybe 1 out of 10 would be turned in. Is that worth it? Who knows.

      But I tell you one thing – If we’re going to go down that road, you’ve got to ban semi-autos outright or nothing at all. Not another one of those cosmetic bans like the Clinton one. And semi-auto handguns too. Otherwise you’re not changing a damn thing. If we could magically wipe out all of the semi-autos in the US and only allow private ownership of revolvers and single-shot rifles (lever, bolt, or pump), then I could live with that as an enthusiast and someone who chooses firearms for self defense.

      But note that I had to use the word “magically” – because that’s the only way that it’s gonna happen.

    • Jeff

      The point of my post is everyone comes up with these dream scenarios about how to stop things like this from happening. They won’t. Instead of trying to point fingers at guns, point fingers at the people. Work from that end to reduce the frequency of these events. China doesn’t have guns, but attacks keep happening. What’s next, try to take away knives? No. Get people the help they need. We didn’t take away planes after 9/11, even though the attack wouldn’t have happened if planes didn’t exist.

      • Vik

        We can do both. Why does it have to be either/or?

  • Just A Mom

    Just breaking into all the testosterone here (boys with their toys) to say, we moms don’t know all the technical ins and outs of these guns – you;re right. But we wonder why anyone would need to own a weapon whose only purpose is to kill large numbers of living things really quickly (“Assault Rifle?” “Semi Automatic?” Seriously, why doesn anyone need to own one of those things? And yes, NovaSteve, they are scary looking because they do scary things, like mow down kids.

    • novasteve

      It’s called the bill of rights, not the bill of needs. Nobody needs to be promiscuous, yet that kills people but we don’t outlaw it.

      • Jackson

        You bring that up a lot (in a thread about guns, even). You really seem bored that people are out there having sex.

        • novasteve

          Exhibit 353,350 of liberals using an ad hominem attack when they have no argument. So you only care about deaths if people are killed by guns?

          • red herring

            Exhibit 953,350 of this poster posting completely off topic BS as he has no argument

      • Just A Mom

        Again, I ask…why does anyone need to own an item whose only purpose is to kill lots of living things very quicky?

    • Jeff

      Part of the problem is “semi-automatic” makes things sound a heck of a lot worse than it really is. Semi-automatic firearms have many applications that are NOT to simply “kill large numbers of living things really quickly.” Many hunting rifles are semi-automatic, yet don’t have high ammunition capacity. It is sometimes necessary in hunting to fire two shots quickly – if your first shot wasn’t a kill shot, you need to be able to fire a second to put the animal down as humanely as possible and as quickly as possible before it gets away and dies a slow death while suffering. The other aspect is that firing semi-automatic. Sure, I don’t NEED to. But why simply outlaw something simply because it isn’t NEEDED? One doesn’t need a Ferrari capable of traveling at 200+ MPH – a machine easily capable of killing innocent bystanders when used improperly. One doesn’t NEED fireworks – another device that’s easily capable of killing innocent bystanders when used improperly. They key to firearms, as with anything, is RESPONSIBLE use.

      • Just Sayin’


        So, for folks like “Just A Mom” who think you can quickly and easily identify a weapon’s capabilities through a quick visual review, feast your eyes on this baby! Scary?

        Also, a valid question….WHY does anyone need to own one of these things. Well, I’m fairly certain that this sort of thing is a life saver when the electricity is off for two or more weeks, and the Whole Foods and Giant are shut down. When civil society breaks down, if only for a few days or a few weeks, this starts to become the sort of thing that saves yours and your family’s life.

        Look, you may disagree with the idea that being prepared for catastrophic events means being prepared for the eventuality of violence being directed against you by multiple armed assailants. Maybe they would be intent on taking your food and fuel, committing rape of assault, or just taking advantage of the breakdown of civil society to prey on the week. I have no doubt that a lot of our fellow citizens prior to Hurricane Sandy probably felt the same way, and can at least imagine the worth of this type of defense now. Most of our lives in NoVA are fairly comfortable and stable. But civilization is paper-thin on the ground, and a week or two of no gas, no food, nowhere to spend cash or use a credit card….and suddenly predators will be out to do harm.

    • KalashniKEV

      “only purpose is to kill large numbers of living things really quickly”

      I hear this a lot lately, is that what you really think????

      You need to get out more. The weapons you refer to are popular with shooters for the same reason they are used by professionals- they are accurate, reliable, ergonomic, and light. These are just the regular type of guns people own- and you probably know at least half a dozen owners and just don’t know it.

      • need to get out more

        actually I’d rather stay in if there really are a lot of nut cases out there with these things.

        • KalashniKEV

          And you are free to do that. Hide under the bed if you like. Freedom can be terrifying for some people.

          What if you can’t control everyone? Think about it… people just going around doing whatever the heck they want. A sensible person would have to be prepared for any contingency that should arise.

          Now consider that any legislation passed will only affect those inclined to follow the law in the first place- and will have no effect whatsoever on criminals.

          Terrifying… I know…

          • Josh S

            But this kid in CT wasn’t exactly a criminal, was he? So yes, I see what you’re getting at about criminals who want a gun will find a way to get a gun. There are bad guys out there right now with bazookas and the like, I’m sure.

            But what about the nut case who flips out one day and starts shooting people? If all he has lying around the house is a gun with a smaller magazine, and it’s not fully automatic, etc, etc – doesn’t this slow him down a bit and perhaps make the final tally not as bad? It seems to me this is the point of the proposed legislation. I don’t think anyone really thinks it stops all gun violence. But perhaps it makes some of it not as bad? Is that so completely naive?

          • KalashniKEV

            “But this kid in CT wasn’t exactly a criminal, was he?”

            My head just exploded. I will follow you though… for the sake of discussion:
            “doesn’t this slow him down a bit and perhaps make the final tally not as bad?”

            No, because there was no armed security presence at the facility and those who were there working were deprived of their right to defend themselves. The attack began and ended at a time of the killer’s choosing. He could have used a katana, a ginsu knife from the kitchen, or even a Louisville Slugger and killed *exactly* as many kids as he wanted to kill.

            We secure the things we care about by *protecting* them, not making them more vulnerable. The only answer is to protect our schools, not make a Soft Target softer.

        • Just A Mom


          • Just A Mom

            (My +1000 was for the person who said they’d rather stay in if there are lots of people out there with these things…)

      • drax

        Whatever their purpose, it’s not self-defense.

        • KalashniKEV

          They serve a myriad of purposes. Self Defense is certainly one of them.

          I wouldn’t want to face danger with anything other than an AR-type rifle in my hands. I also enjoy casual marksmanship, competition, and recreation with the same rifle. I can hunt with it too… it’s probably the most VIBRANTLY DIVERSE rifle ever made.

          • Brian K

            Do you carry your AR-15 with you wherever you go?

          • KalashniKEV

            That’s my business, not yours.

          • Brian

            I’m becoming more and more convinced that you are a troll.

            Good job, sir.

    • TSM


      People who argue the above question are irrelevantly projecting their personal views into the debate. You are wrongly framing the issue, it’s not about what you think or you approve of.

      The debate about arms rights is fundamentally a debate about civil rights, rights that are enumerated explicitly in the bill or rights. And how they can be balanced. This requires a whole new line of argumentation for an intelligent discussion.

      EVERYBODY, please consider the analogy of pornography as free speech. It helps make things a bit easier to comprehend the fundamental issue. Sure, objectively, you don’t need to publish porn or sell or buy or use it for you personal benefit. You can find alternatives, but the issue here is of personal choice. If somebody want’s it, this should be sufficient. When would it be appropriate for anyone other than the person him/herself to deem what is appropriate.

      It is completely irrelevant if most people hate porn and see it as an evil. Porn literature is a form of speech, and the supreme court has determined it is protected.

      So, now view semi-autos with large capacity magazines as the porn option in the armed defense domain.

      You can’t go on moralizing about somebody’s personal choice of tools for the job of self defense without sounding kind of like strident jerk.

      The logic could go on to absurdity. Lets assume you, Ms. Just a Mom, like hi-fashion Italian high heel shoes. Lets say, you like them a lot. And you have 200 pairs. Would it be appropriate for anybody to say “what in the world do you need those for, you have too many, and to boot, you don’t need high heels. You really should buy sensible or reasonable shoes from Walmart, the kind with flat soles are more appropriate for walking.”

      Of course not!

      My point is that you, Just A Mom, are not too much unlike like that smug and socially bigoted Mr. Piers Morgan. Both of you are not thinking about the legal and constitutional implications of this debate. And, you are probably thinking a bit too selfishly and being simply dismissive of the rights, interests, and preferences of others.

  • ShutupFatty

    FFX County vs Britain crime rates were gun related crimes by the way

  • novasteve

    People votes cost lives. Should voting be restricted? How many people died from the Iraq war? That was a result of a presidential election for a candidate and a congressional vote, of congressmen that the public voted for… Should people’s voting rights be restricted because their vote can result in the deaths of others if we’re talking about taking away people’s rights?

    Speech in the USA can lead to deaths in Pakistan. Shall we shred the 1st amendment while we’re at it?

  • bobbytiger

    Wonder if Moran’s Gun Safety Act will work any better than the 1990 Gun Free School Zones Act. 2 to 1 odds, says “no”. Make that 10 to 1.

    • novasteve


  • novasteve

    Kev makes a good point. Why are people here proposing collective punishment? What have I or Kev done other than exercise our constitutional rights? Any other groups you want to collectively punish for exercising their rights? We don’t even collectively punish people for drinking and driving, and driving isn’t a right. Why don’t they install breathalizers in all cars? Why not punish all drivers like you propose to do with gun owners?

    • drax

      Outlawing something is not “punishment” steve. We do ban all drivers from driving drunk, even those who could make it home safely.

      • KalashniKEV

        There are many ways to commit a massacre- and the biggest school massacre ever did not involve a firearm.

        The real problem is the 24/7 news cycle, and the fame and attention given to the killers. We need to look at scaling back first Amendment rights too. I’m sure BHO would be more than willing to take a crack at it…

        • drax

          Nothing to do with “collective punishment” though.

          Ironic that you want to collectively punish homeless people for the crimes of a few, crimes that non-homeless people also commit.

          • novasteve

            It has nothing to do with collective punishment, yet you still want to make law abiding people pay the price for the actions of deranged individuals. The homeless are committing crimes constnatly. Me owning an M1A isn’t a crime, yet libs like you want to make it one. It’s not a right to live in a bum mansion. But guns are my right, and you are trying to take that away. I hope you are intelligent enough to see the differnce.

            What is it with liberals and banning things?

          • Josh S

            Make law-abiding people pay the price?
            What price? You can’t buy large magazines, for example? How is that a price?
            And you already can’t buy hand grenades – do you consider this a price you are paying?
            It’s kind of a twisted way of viewing it all in light of what exactly it is that inspires the wish to enact these kinds of restrictions. Other people are slaughtered and when talk comes up of restricting access to the kinds of weapons that allow the slaughter – your response is to selfishly complain that you won’t be able to enjoy your gun collection as much? Or to begin with the shrieking about 2nd amendment violations? As if your right to own guns is being threatened. It’s not. Own and colect and shoot all the guns you want, but let’s try to take some steps to restrict the availability of certain kinds of guns and accessories.

          • KalashniKEV

            Molotov Cocktails are illegal. Did it stop FireBum Leon?

            The only thing that’s going to protect our schools is to actually PROTECT them. All of this tyranny has been on the shelf just waiting for tragedy to strike. I’ll bet more than one slave peddler had a tingle up the leg on that morning. In time their true agendas will be exposed. They are Evil people, and unworthy of the Freedom we enjoy.

            It’s not acceptable. It’s not gonna fly.

      • novasteve

        Drax, driving isn’t a right, gun ownership is. And despite drunk driving being banned, lots of people still do it. So if you were logically consisitent, you would take cars away from people because some drink and drive. That’s what you propose to do with guns.

        • DCBuff

          While not suggesting we take away guns of any type, this is another argument you are making lacking in common sense. We do regulate cars very heavily, requiring certain types of safety features (e.g., seat belts) and prohibiting certain kind of vehicles from being licensed for street driving (e.g., Formula 1 race cars). So, by your analogy, we should in fact not allow the general public to have certain types of guns because we don’t allow the public certain types of vehicles on our streets.

    • Just Sayin’


      When you deprive the responsible gun owners of legally owned firearms, you are taking weapons away from the people who are, by definition, prepared to risk their lives in the deadliest of confrontations in order to neutralize a murderous threat. However you feel about guns and whatever life experience brought you to your conclusion, dear reader, the one thing we should NEVER seek to reduce or eliminate are people willing and prepared to defend themselves and others, especially when the already high bar to do so legally insures that they are properly trained, legally informed, and morally motivated to do so.

  • JimPB

    The sad fact is that we don’t have solid scientific knowledge for determining the merit of the assertions from those who support “gun rights” and policy change proposals by those who support “lives first.” This deplorable ignorance arises in good part from NRA opposition to Federal support of scientific gun research. Perhaps the NRA will now end its opposition, or at least cease opposing U.S. support of gun violence research.

    The following is quoted From the NY Times THE STONE column of December 20, 2h12:
    The N.R.A.’s Blockade on Science
    “… amazingly — there is no current scientific consensus about guns and violence. The most thorough and authoritative analysis is the 2004 report by a panel of leading experts, “Firearms and Violence,” sponsored by the National Research Council. Its startling conclusion was that we simply don’t know enough to make scientifically grounded judgments about which approaches — from gun-control measures to permission-to-carry laws — are likely to work. The panel’s primary recommendation was simply: “If policy makers are to have a solid empirical and research base for decisions about firearms and violence, the federal government needs to support a systematic program of data collection and research that specifically addresses that issue.” Or, as an expert quoted in the Times article on the report said, “The main thrust of it is, we don’t know anything about anything, and more research is needed.”

    • Just Sayin’

      Considering the law now requires your healthcare provider to question you about guns in your home, I’m utterly incredulous that noble and selfless researchers into the merits of private gun ownership are just plum out-of-luck due to those nefarious bastards at the NRA. Is Federal funding the only recourse? Because I’d bet that the Pew foundation and other foundations of the sort throw millions of dollars at this subject as a matter of course.

      Also, the National Research Council suggested that more research is needed? Isn’t that kind of like Jack Frost saying we need more snow?

      • novasteve

        Are insurers allowed to ask about people’s sexual practices or who they associate with? Why about guns, which is a constitutional right? You can get killed by your knives, the cleaning agents you have, the bleach in your laundry room, the CO from your automobile exhaust etc..

        Singling out guns becaues the left is at war to disarm americans as part of their “utopia”

      • KalashniKEV

        Can we put the doctors/ guns thing to bed already? It’s FAKE.


        Who would not get up and walk out if a doctor asked that question?

      • Josh S

        All those who have been questioned by their healthcare provider about guns in their home, please raise your hand. Aint’ happened to me.

        You may have trouble understanding how science and research works if you think it odd, or funny, or strange that the NRC called for more research.

        • Just Sayin’

          It happened to my wife and I on Dec. 5th and again on Dec. 6th at Virginia Hospital Center. Two days, both times = not fake.

          • Just Sayin’

            To be fair…once was Arlington Women’s Center, the next time was actual VTC staff.

          • KalashniKEV

            Did you walk out on them?

            I’m personally of the opinion that a doctor’s primary focus should be practicing Medicine, and would be extremely suspect of any “professional” who had other interests or motives.

  • novasteve
  • novasteve

    So if saving kids lives is the primary goal, then you would do everything and anything to save the lives of kids, not just in the context of guns. What about women who make poor decisions in who they date like picking criminals? In the Philly news now there’s a situation where a woman’s boyfriend beat her 5 year old kid to death. The boyfriend is a convicted drug dealer. The kids was horrible beaten, burned with cigarettes, and then died. These stories are more common, much more ocmmon than mass shootings in schools. yet they are local stories. you either care about kids or you don’t. Dont’ use kids as an excuse to take away my rights if you only care about saving kids in one context.

    • red herring

      Exhibit 953,351

    • Brian

      So you’re saying, if you think automatic weapons with extended clips should be more regulated to lesson the chances of mass school shootings, that means you are okay with drug dealers beating and killing kids?

      Got it, thanks

      • novasteve

        A lot more kids get killed by abusive boyfriends/husbands than get killed in mass shootings. A LOT MORE.

        • and your point is?


          • novasteve

            Why aren’t you targetting the highest rates of death of children?

        • Brian

          Abusive boyfriends/husbands using violence on their kids is illegal and is acted on whenever police hear about it.

          I am not sure what your point is????

          • novasteve

            But kids still die from abusive parents, and don’t you think it’s more likely when a violent felon is knowingly put into the situation?

            Yes, it’s illegal to beat up kids. It’s also illegal to steal guns and it’s illegal to shoot up a classroom. But the left wants to ban guns as a solution. If that’s the case, then ban relationships with violent people to protect kids.

  • Lilly

    Regarding the post that Florida and Louisiana and the south in general have had lower rates of deaths/violence due to guns because there are more guns owned, would you please share the source/link for that data?

    All I have found is a detailed report, with government data from 1999-2009, which shows that the south is in fact the most violent part of the United States (i.e, has most number of fatalities due to assault).

  • KalashniKEV

    This chart explains it well:


Subscribe to our mailing list