This is the Reaction Republicans Have to Horrific Gun Violence.

Are these really the people we should be listening to when it comes to sensible gun policies in this country? The 2nd Amendment doesn't prevent us from having sensible gun restrictions. Most NRA members want sensible gun restrictions. Only Republican legislators at the state and federal levels pander to the gun lobby. We pay for their obsession with guns with our children.

Jan Brewer Signs Bill Making Colt State Gun

PHOENIX -- Arizona's governor has signed a bill designating the Colt Single-Action Army revolver as the state's first official firearm.

Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill without comment on Thursday. Legislative supporters argued that the designation was appropriate because the revolver was widely used during Arizona's territorial days.

Opponents say it was inappropriate to give the official designation to an out-of-state company's commercial product. Colt is based in Connecticut.

Democratic Rep. Albert Hale also says the gun was an instrument of destruction that was used against Native Americans.

 

Really?
Are you so anti-2nd amendment that you are offended by a ceremonial designation from Old West days?
C'mon and tell us how this "statement" will make it easier for criminals to possess & mis-use firearms.

 

You don't find it just a little insensitive given the recent shootings in Arizona? Honestly? Isn't it a bit like heading down to Alabama right now and making the tornado the state whether phenomenon? If there hadn't been a recent tragedy, no one would think twice about making the Colt the state gun. I don’t even know why a state needs a state gun. It is only in the face of the heinous carnage like we witnessed in Arizona that these types of legislative acts become so callous and cold. Imagine what the parents of the young girl that was gunned down think of this type of legislation and its timing. I know that doing that would take a bit of compassion and empathy on your part and those are foreign concepts to you but many of us are able to imagine something beyond the psychological imperative need for guns.

 

There is your problem You are "imagining" too many things.

 

Your problem is making comments that make you sound even dumber. We all have our crosses to bare.

 

Still imagining, huh?

 

I think its kind of stupid. The Manchester 73 was used just as much. Also stupid is the comment by the Dem. It wasn't used only to kill Indians. And I' m sure that a stray bullet might've hit a Child or two as well. Why didn't he bring that up? It's a silly thing to even bring up. I guess you don'tive out west. Here is a strong cowboy mentality here. And I say good. Planes still fly over NY even after 9/11. So I don't get that recent shooting argument.

 

It's also thumbing the noses of the dead and the injured victims of the Gabby Giffords shooting. That was my point. Was it really necessary for Republicans to pass this bill less than four months after an Arizona gunman killed 6 people including a 9-year old girl and injured 13 others with a handgun? Since this is just a silly symbolic act, what was the purpose of passing it now? Fine, pass any silly symbolic act you want but not on the heels of a tragedy.

 

I doubt most sane people would make the same connection you do, dr moen. From your hyperbole it seems like you're channelling some idiot like Alan Grayson.

 

Sanity is exactly what is at issue here. Where is the sanity in passing this bill this close to a tragedy? The connection you speak of is fairly direct. You have to be insane not to recognize the connection. Thank God you're not a Psychiatrist!

 

K

If they did it a year from now. You would've still posted this. It's only something on paper man. It's not like Arizona is requiring everone to own one. When would it be appropriate to sign such a non important bill like this one. It's just BS so stop fretting over it.

 

I have had to live with the state bird of Illinois being a damn Cardinal every day of my life.

 

Here are a couple more to add to your list

Amphibian Eastern Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum)
Fish Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)
Fossil The Tully Monster (Tullimonstrum gregarium)
Fruit GoldRush Apple (Malus xdomestica Borkh)
Insect Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus)
Mineral Flourite, natural crystalline form of calcium fluoride.
Prairie Grass Big Bluestem (Adropogon gerardii Vitman)
Reptile Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta)
Soil Drummer Series
Snackfood Popcorn

State soil? State Prairie grass?

 

Three questions.

1. What did that article have to do with "sensible" gun restrictions as you repeat several times?

2. How many more laws need to be on the books before we achieve "sensible"?

3. Are we to assume you are sensible?

 

I guess you are in charge of how much time should pass before passing this law is appropriate. Since the Gifford shooting, we have watched hundreds of people die in Egypt, Libya, and Syria, thousands die in Japan, and hundreds die in the tornados in the South this week. To most, the Gifford shooting seems an eternity ago. Not to mention, Gifford was shot with a semi-automatic Glock with a 30 round clip, not a single action 6 shooter. This is just another example of your left wing lunacy. A desperate partisan attempt to politicize anything done by a well liked Republican.

Thumb your nose at that.

 

I see both viewpoints, and probably have one myself that both sides would bash, but here-goes: Guns make it too easy to kill other people. In most situations where a gun is not present, tempers can calm to the point where the people involved can walk their separate ways unharmed. Add the gun though, and the short period of extreme anger present during the argument can result in death. People know a bullet can kill, but reason during a heated argument isn't easy to maintain, or may never have been present at all. They aim the gun and pull the trigger in moments of extreme anger.

Now to counter: Americans have the right to bear arms. Try to take that away and we'll just build our own, laws be damned. We have this right because in the old days people needed the ability to defend our country, and protect themselves from harm. Yes, they have been used for the wrong purposes also, but that doesn't affect our right to own them (when used properly). The debate now is do we still have that right, given the ease of acquiring and using illegal weapons. I say absolutely, the types of dangers we face may have changed, but our rights haven't.

My point of view (expanded): The right to bear arms does not mean the right to have weapons capable of excessive damage. By that, I mean no one really needs a fully-automatic (as fun as they are), or a grenade launcher (VERY fun!), or other weapons outside of what would be needed for reasonable protection and enjoyment. But personally, I think that those who have proven themselves should be able to own these types of weapons, as long as the police (or whatever agency) keeps a close eye is on them.

Handguns are an issue, but I see no reason to make them illegal. Yes, innocents are being killed at an ever increasing rate, and that is a horrible thing, but there is no way, short of complete loss of our personal rights, to remove them from our society. And as I already mentioned, take it away if you must, I can always build another. It would take draconian measures to remove all guns from America, something only a few insane people believe would be a benefit, and they wouldn't even succeed. So, I see no reason to even try.

 

Uh... the handgun homicide rate is the same as it was 30 years ago. Where did you get your info that "innocents are being killed at an ever increasing rate?"

BTW, there is no shame in admitting that you took literary license to make your point.

 

Add a knife to the situation. Add a baseball bad to the situation. Add any sharp, heavy, blunt object to a situation where somebody is as enraged as you say and there can be death. I hope you blame cars for drunk driving deaths too. You better stay consistent.

In 1778, citizens owned the same weapons as the military had. I don't want people debating on what's "sufficient enough" firepower. Next you'll be discussing how much free speech is sufficient.

Yeah, that's what we need. More police supervision since they are super-human and have special powers beyond normal US subjects. lol Hey, maybe they could come up with a program to get neighbors to tattle on each other too!

People like you are as much of a problem as the antis. Either join the pro-gun side or don't discuss it publicly.