Hixter

Yes, it would inconvenience me greatly in terms of my time and my finances if I had to trudge over to a facility that does background checks every time I wanted to give a firearm to my son. It would also create a database of legally owned guns that could be used in future confiscations. I've never said that we should stop enforcing current laws. I've said many times that adding additional laws "to save our children" is a political smokescreen and won't do anything to solve the problem. Your drinking/driving observation is a perfect example of criminals doing criminal things despite knowing

No and no. My thinking is quite rational and that petition is full of crap. It claims that there are hundreds of deaths each day due to gun violence; the actual number is less than 25.

And yet you could molest a child tomorrow, so what would keep things like that from happening in the future? Politicians would insist that more laws would need to be written to "save" us. I would never sell a firearm to the crazy-eyed guy with the kooky orange hair. To be honest, I wouldn't sell to anyone I didn't know personally. To be even more honest, I wouldn't sell my guns.

I wasn't talking about people who sell guns for a living at shows; as far as I know they have to perform background checks if selling guns is their profession. It's not a loophole because most of the sales are by an individual to an individual. It's the same as if I sold a rifle to my neighbor -- it would be ridiculous for the government to expect me to run a background check on him.

Gun show sales are considered individual-to-individual sales.

Yes, with the exception of individual-to-individual sales. Such sales can be divided into 2 types: 1) Nice Guy buys gun from other Nice Guy and would willingly comply with a background check, if required by law. 2) Bad Guy buys gun from other Bad Guy on the street. No background check required.

First of all, background checks aren't new. They are already required -- I went through yet another one two weeks ago. You're uttering the same "if it saves even one life it's worth doing" motto that our politicians are using to justify their new laws. I'd agree 100% if we lived in a perfect world and laws cost nothing to enforce.

That's incorrect. It explicitly mentions things like pistol grips and barrel shrouds. Such features don't make the slightest difference as far as "danger" is concerned, they're merely cosmetic items that make a gun look "scary." Feinstein's bill also exempts government officials, cops and retired cops, so it's yet another case of "laws are only for the little people." America's gun violence problem is rooted in gangs and the drug culture. How many of those street crimes were committed by people who purchased their handguns legally. I'd reckon the numbers are in the single digits, percentage

I have no problem with background checks, but they won't make the slightest difference in gun crimes.

I'm with you on enforcing current laws but I can't fathom how they can be strengthened with any meaningful effect. Something like, "Ok, Mr. Mental Patient, not only can you not buy guns, you can double-not buy guns."?

With the replacement drummer (from Daltrey's band, I think?) or was Zak Starkey back on the kit?

It's already illegal for the mentally ill to purchase a firearm, so how would additional legislation help?

No pins necessary -- I think it's quite obvious that he's crazy. I also recognize that gun violence is a problem -- my complaint is with the way it is being addressed by our elected officials. This Dorner freak is a perfect example of the fact that: All spree shooters aren't white. Cops and soldiers aren't the only people who can be trusted with guns. All people who own "assault" rifles aren't rabid conservatives with an NRA membership. We should be concentrating on treating mental illness, not passing more gun laws.

The rogue cop's manifesto applauded Feinstein's "assault" rifle ban and made clear that he's in favor of gun control. He's an Obama-loving, gay rights-promoting, NRA-hating spree killer. Wrap your head around that.

The article I read said that post offices currently open on Saturday will remain open on Saturdays. My mail consists of bills, advertisements, credit card offers and pleas to refinance my VA loan; I could do without the USPS entirely.

Senator Feinstein's "assault" weapon bill exempts "government officials." Of course it does, laws are only for the little people. http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=5dffbf07-d8e5-42aa-9f22-0743368dd754

The treaties are supposed to be legally binding, but the United States, Europe and Japan are expected to abide while China, India and Brazil are given a pass. It's as much about redistribution of wealth and power as it is saving the planet. That's why the treaties are doomed to fail.

When the people who claim it's an emergency start acting like it's an emergency, then I'll believe it's an emergency.

Al Gore flies private jets around the globe to preach about global warming to paying audiences and his home burns through $2500 in gas and electricity every month. Russian mobsters control huge chunks of the carbon offset market and nations like China -- the world's biggest polluter -- are given a pass because they are "developing." The whole thing reeks of fraud and money grabbing. Check out the smog at the airport in Beijing last week.

It looks like just under 2 million to me: http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm Participants are up more than 75% since 2007. Yikes.

Only 2 or 3 percent of illegal immigrants work in the agriculture field. Most are doing construction and labor work. I'm fine with allowing them to work here as long as they are sponsored by their employer, pay taxes and follow the rest of our laws. As it stands, they are a leading source of identity theft. Many of my Latino friends have been victims of identity theft, since it wouldn't make much sense if Jorge from Monterrey carried an ID that read "George Jones."

I've heard the story firsthand a number of times. But if they don't pass through customs/immigration and have the appropriate ID and follow the law, they should be turned back.

It shouldn't be any easier to walk across the border than it is to clear customs at an airport.

The law is the law, right? What if it's someone violating gun laws -- would it be "picking on them" to suggest that the laws be followed?

If that's directed at me, I'll point out that I never "picked on" anyone. I never said they were.