“What good does it do to ban some guns. All guns should be banned.”

...and while we're at it, that pesky 1st amendment should go to! NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!

Handguns? Yes! Semi-automatics? Yes! Hunting weapons? No!

All senators should be checked for brain damage.

NO gun should be banned. "Ban them all" is the end game of gun control. Criminals don't care if guns are banned. Most legislators have brain damage!

If you want to kill, be brave and take a knife

Why is it that it is allways Jews like Finestien, Schumer, Metzanbaum and others who are so adamant about taking away our right to self-defence? Perahps I am just an "anti-Semite" who doesn't understand that we should not point out the wrong doings of the "Chosen People".

Yeah, because the weapon of choice makes all the difference in the world - Heaven forbid a firearm be used when a knife can just as easily do the trick. Murder is murder, regardless of what weapon is used. Firearms and crime, in reality, have little to do with the 'gun-control' battle – That argument is a façade - This is either true or gun-haters are complete ignoramuses (I don't use this term condescendingly, but literally)... Just like Robert said - "If you want to be brave... take a knife" - this statement shows the true inward intent of those who want to ban guns. They readily admit that crime will continue through other means, even when guns are off the street, but still continue to argue that guns equal crime and that safety will abound once they are gone. In reality, of course, we see all the evidences against this logic - but they still pursue it, why? Because it's not about guns and crime - it's about control. In whose hands should the control reside? The people's or the government's? Robert inadvertently admitted the whole flaw to this liberal philosophy: Murderers are still murderers, whether they have a gun or not - if they don't have access to a gun, they'll use a knife. At the end of the day, it has nothing to do with ‘gun-control’ or establishing peace - it’s about totalitarian control.

Simply translated: "The People cannot be trusted."

Hey, Brian Pickett in Tampa, we can meet halfway between Miami and Tampa and resolve your Jewish problem.

Brian D. Pickett, Tampa, Florida: So, uh ... what? Now YOU are in a position to throw stones - on an issue that doesn't pertain? - Brilliant! I'll make you a deal. I'll spring for the cost of getting you a grey cell - so you'll have a matching pair. BTW, it's always, not allways. - and no, I'm not Jewish, I'm amazed.

The FOUNDATIONS for supporting either side of the 'gun control' debate have an extraordinary similarity (in geometry 'similar' means same shape regardless of 'size' so I regard it as apropos in this use) to the FOUNDATIONS underlying debates between religious factions; they're imbued with the fervor of religion and not with the fervor of logic. As I see it, and granting the rather 'localized' interests of either side in this debate, the debate has factionalized participants into two camps consisting of one camp which advocates a surreptitious modification of our Constitution (gun 'control' faction) via laws that go contrary to the law of the land, and one camp which advocates keeping the Constitution intact (gun 'rights' faction). There's an easy solution to this dilemma: Amend the Constitution - and while we're at it let's eviscerate the fourth amendment so it reflects current actuality on the ground. Let's also eviscerate the first amendment to reflect the various 'popular' movements to censor, restrict, or ban certain types of expression like burning pieces of cloth printed with red, white, and blue ink. Helo-o, it's a piece of cloth, Sparky - a symbol - like a word is a symbol! Heck, let's just chuck the entire thing and come up with a theocratic Constitution. I mean, that's working really well in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, isn't it? || "... The relatively limited ban was, however, far less than the gun-prohibition lobbies had wanted, and far less than they still demand. By refusing to re-enact the sunsetting 1994 ban, Congress has accurately recognized that the real issue at stake is not just the manufacture of some particular firearms, but the fundamental goal of the gun-prohibition lobbies: the creation of ADMINISTRATIVE authority to ban and confiscate firearms used for self-defense." http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200409130630.asp

Pickett, That she's Jewish is irrelevant. There are idiots from every race, creed, religion and color. There are a lot of Jews who recognize the importance of the 2nd amendment...some painfully remember their inability to stand up to to the SS after they were disarmed. Point out her stupidity all you want, but her "wrong doings" belong to her alone and don't belong to any group (though on this issue, they seem to belong to a majority of her political party) If your agenda is bigotry, it doesn't belong here - or anywhere else. You've made me do a crazy thing...agree with Terry from Occidental. --An amazed Lutheran from the Heartland PS - Terry, you've lost it...abso-friggin-lutely lost it. You urge us to apply logic in breath and then compare the current administration to a theocracy from the middle east in the next? Good luck to ya'...

Helberg; where do I start? - LOL - Ok, uh, ... firstly, 'Howard', no matter how feminine the name sounds to people in the 'Heartland', is NOT a 'she' - unless there's something YOU know that the rest of us don't. Aww, c'mon, you can share. - ROFL - Secondly, just EXACTLY where do I "... then compare the current administration to a theocracy from the middle east ..." (in this post, that is - could happen though, ABSENT our Constitution)? BTW, it's 'Feinstein' NOT 'Finestien' - I just thought 'Pickett' had enough on his plate. Sigh, that's 'luck fer ya'.

Terry, Was referring to Feinstein, also noted in his response, but I should have been more clear, so now I've agreed with you twice. If you look at your response right "above" mine, "let's just chuck the entire thing and come up with a theocratic Constitution. I mean, that's working really well in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, isn't it?" While I understand there was some tounge-in-cheek in there, you seemed to be implying that that's what "the other side" would like done...

Helberg, "tongue-in-cheek"? Deyathink? LOL - Seriously though, I was, in fact, making a sarcastic reference to the leanings of SOME people towards blurring the lines between 'de jure' (law) and religious 'law' which is "working really well in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, isn't it?" As an aside, I'm not sure that arbitrarily dividing up a population into 'sides', a la sports teams, really makes sense unless there's an expectation afoot that the 'members' of the 'sides' will adhere, point for point, to the 'party line' in military lockstep. I'm not suggesting that's your view. I'm suggesting that the language used counts.

Fair enough and that was kind of my point to Pickett...

I actually appreciate Pickett for the 'bad example' value of his 'contribution'. I tend to regard that sort of outlook as being due to 'not getting out enough' (translation: 'being cloistered'). I mean, if you have limited experience, it's likely you'll have limited perspective - usually second, third, or Nth-hand perspective.

Well if you are going to take guns away from private citizens start with Cheney and then take the planes away from Bush 9/11.

I couldn't agree with you more, Senator, but I think that's a big step to take all at once. Obviously people can't accept a huge jump like that. I think what we should do first is get rid of the need for guns (I don't think there is much reason for them anyway, but that point aside) and then the abandonment of guns will follow.

Isn't this the guy who said he wanted the "Phase Plasma Rifle" banned? why are people still listening to his garbage?

So Robert, lets see now. You must think that Jack the Ripper was a brave man!!!

Well-said Dr. Metzenbergowicz. Now just give everyone as much money as you have, and we can afford to have armed body guards and live in gated communities like you.

That's right-- take the guns from the merchants and shop owners, the bankers and businessmen. Then when the Brown Shirts and Geheime Stadtpolizei come marching down the streets, we can all go for a train ride. Rather ironic, isn't it?

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Article II, Bill of Rights, US Constitution, December 15, 1791 >>> "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William S. Smith, Paris, Nov. 13, 1787

Ernst - You are awake! Americans better wake up.