Yet the horror still happens.

Maybe criminals don't abide by the gun laws.  Maybe criminals will never do so, no matter how many we write and how well written they are.

If we really wanted to stop this we would outlaw the manufacturing of guns.

If you were for changing the constitution so we amend the 2nd amendment allowing the feds to do so then I'd support you because I don't really want or need a gun.

But that's not the law of the land.  

So I'm offered a choice.   Support more laws on top of already useless laws that won't prevent anything or support freedom.

Favoring and supporting with your vote are two different things.

If the red state democrats thought this was so popular that it'd help them politically they'd have voted for it.

If wanting means I'd rather have A then B then yes most of Americans "want" it.

Plenty of lobbying organizations out there but somehow the NRA has super powers?

As Tip O'Neill was fond of saying, "Politics ain't beanbag." You want to be effective in this business and get something done, you better be prepared to play some hardball when necessary -- because if you want people to do the right thing politically, quite often you have to compel them to do so. Strident rhetoric means schitt in this particular neck of the woods. The players who are good at this game will see right through you, and whatever you saying won't amount to much if anything, unless can demonstrate that you're prepared to put your money where your mouth is.

Harry Reid has proven that he can indeed play hardball, as he showed effectively in his 2010 re-election campaign against Sharron Angle. His primary problem is that he's quite often been clueless regarding WHEN to play it in the legislative arena.

1. as mentioned Tom Colburn was willing to extend background checks to gun shows and internet sales, and since he is a solid conservative/pro gun it would have been enough to bring on board others to make the 60 cut off

2. since the Dems-Schumer would not drop the "private seller record sales" he lost the supposed reason "extended back ground checks"

there are a few folks, both on left and right that hold extreme views, and have an agenda to push and they do it in incremental steps, just as Dianne Feinstein only wants to ban "certain" weapons, but her opinion is to ban all

they have to get their Fixx, one thing leads to another

Speaking for myself only, it's my considered opinion that the majority of the gun control bills introduced out here this session were politically motivated and part of an efort to capitalize on the national outrage over the Newtown massacre.  

For the record, the vast majority of firearms in Hawaii are long guns, i.e., hunting rifles. Possession of both military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines of more than 10 rounds are espressly prohibited in the islands. Further, handguns in general are strictly regulated, and require a separate permit for each pistol.

Handgun permits require the applicant to complete and pass a state-certified gun safety course, and first-time permit seekers are required to pay for their own fingerprinting. Even firearms inherited by relatives are expected to be registered with the county police. Failure to do so in willful disregard of the law can be charged as a felony, and is punishable with stiff fines up to $10,000 per weapon, plus up to five years' imprisonment.

Persons with sufficiently dangerous criminal backgrounds or mental health histories aren't allowed to possess firearms -- period. And concealed weapon permits are very difficult to obtain, being granted only by county police chiefs on a case-by-case basis. Generally, you have to be registered security or law enforcement personnel to get one.

As I noted above, I'm not sure what more we can do out here, other than perhaps regulate the public sale of ammunition. There was a proposed bill that was introduced in January which would have done just that, but it was deferred by the House Judiciary Committee in February, and it's not going to be resurrected any time soon.

Since no notice is given to people applying for driver's (or other) licenses that they have a perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regulation system of licensure, the state has committed a massive construction fraud. This occurs when any person is told that they must have a license in order to use the public roads and highways.

The license, being a legal contract under which the state is empowered with policing powers, is only valid when the licensee takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away his or her rights knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily.

Few know that the driver's license is a contract without which the police are powerless to regulate the people's actions or activities.

Few (if any) licensees intentionally surrender valuable rights. They are told that they must have the license. As we have seen, this is not the case.

No one in their right mind voluntarily surrenders complete liberty and accepts in its place a set of regulations.

    "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."

Edmund Burke, (1784)

No, "buts," no,"just a few," no "o.k. just some."

NO LAWS??

Because, unless you agree that there should be no laws whatsoever, your argument about buying some smack, or laying down a bet, is simplistic crap.

How about baseball? Should it have rules? Maybe the next time the Cubbies have a lead over the Mets in the seventh inning they should just walk off the field, and declare themselves the winner.

Of course we must have rules, or laws! That's what separates humans from all other species. Republicans believe in social Darwinism......survival of the fittest. Not me!