Sarcasm noted, along with your obvious disregard for reality and knack for hyperbole.

Society places all sorts of restrictions on fundamental Constitutional rights -- for example, the old "your freedom of speech doesn't include yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" or slander or discussing bribes on a tapped phone line, and the freedom of the press doesn't permit libel or inciting riots.

Illinois is one of the few places that even requires a permitting process like FOID to possess (i.e. touch) a firearm or ammunition, yet accidents and incidents happen all over the country. With all the onerous restrictions we have here, it should be a gun-free paradise, but of course that's not the reality. Once again, Illinois has put its full faith in government to protect us, and government has failed -- at something as basic as faxing a form from the court clerk to the ISP.

Sarcasm aside, you are an idiot.

As the Supreme Court has confirmed, the Constitution provides us with the right to bear arms. Plus, the NRA has never advocated that the mentally ill be provided access to guns.

The good news is that statements like yours merely serve to demonstrate the illegitimacy of the arguments of liberal gun grabbers. Keep up the good work!

Wait - what? Yes, the NRA does strongly advocate that ***ANYONE*** is allowed to own a firearm no matter who they are, how stable they are and what they have done in their past.

NRA is a bunch of idiots

Republican convention - sorry for the mistake.

The Supreme court has also deemed corporations as people and just recently decided its okay to strip search someone for something as little as jaywalking or unpaid parking tickets. The constitution uses the words "well regulated militia". For those of you who like to argue on the constitution being taken literally word for word, I don't believe gun owners today belong to such a thing.

Duly noted, and thoroughly agree with you.

If the libs outlaw citizens being able to possess a firearm, who will be the ones taking the guns away from the gangbangers? Oh, that's right, no one will take them away from the gangbangers!! Even in DC--where until last year or so it was illegal to own a firearm--the gangbangers still had guns. The same in Chicago.

Your statement makes it sound like citizens have guns to stop crime in the cities. I know that isn't what you meant, but I fail to see how keeping everyone else armed will keep gun violence down in impoverished areas or with gangs. They shoot people regardless of if they think they are armed.

I understand that current policies aren't working well but why (as I know I've brought up before) try to put out a fire by throwing gas on it? Or just ignore the problem and say if they have it, why can't we?

I don't really want to take guns away from people who aren't killing each other, but our current policies aren't working. Personally, I feel that it might be time to try other things. The guns that all the gangs and undesirables have started somewhere legally. As developed nation we should be able to come up with a mixed solution.

Neither, Sully. I was merely pointing out that it isn't possible to protect all of the people all of the time and taking away a law-abiding, FOID-possessing citizen's right to own a firearm leaves them vulnerable. However, you already knew that, didn't you?

If I said the sky is blue, you would say it's gray. I've come to live with that fact, Sully. No big deal. Maybe you can start an argument with McCloud now.

But if we have better control and restrictions over at least the manufacturing and initial distribution of firearms, that can go a long way to also making sure that people are not vulnerable. Just as there are flaws in the system for illegal weapons confiscation, so too are there flaws in the f.o.i.d. system, conceal carry systems and many others. Ironing out all the flaws may result in more bureaucracy, but it will help keep people from killing one another. Which should be our overall goal here.

"Ironing out all the flaws may result in more bureaucracy, but it will help keep people from killing one another."

Oh puhlease! People kill because they want to, not because of the availability of firearms. It's already illegal to kill, more laws and bureaucracy won't help.

You may be willing to give up liberties in favor of security and bureaucracy, but don't try to force me to go along with you...

I'm not trying to force anything on you. I'm just presenting alternatives. Yes, killing is illegal and people will do it no matter what. So why make it easier? Guns kill people. Someone does have to squeeze the trigger, but the gun is the tool. Strict regulations starting at the first point of sale down to the end buyer will result in less guns in the hands of criminals, which will equal less murders and accidental deaths carried out with a gun.

lol... we all know that it's liberals who are for 'liberty', as long is they agree with it. otherwise, they want it regulated or outlawed, etc..

this reminds me of how the left recently tried to get Rush Limbaugh kicked off the airwaves, and how they have, for years, tried to get rid of conservative talk radio.

If conservatives don't like what they hear on the radio, they change the channel.

Sully, abortion is not my issue, either, but i find it somewhat hypocritical for liberals to try and portray themselves as the party of compassion, yet they don't have a problem with ripping an unborn, totally helpless and defenseless child, from the womb.

I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but support the rights of gays and lesbians to marry since 98% of them are liberals and they won't procreate, which i think is a good..no, great thing.

As to your many points about regulation, i am in agreement with you, as are most conservatives. I really don't care too much about social issues, though.. what i really care about is a balanced budget.

Scott Walker is doing a great job. It's not easy. He's not going to make everyone happy...this is not like t-ball. Everyone doesn't go home a winner. But the union folk up there have been getting a GREAT deal off the backs of the other taxpayers in Wisconsin. They didn't chip in on their pension at all? They only paid 6% towards health insurance? ridiculous. Where do you get a deal like that? Oh. Public service unions, that's where.

Yes Chris, 90% of talk radio is conservative. The liberals keep trying, but nobody is buying. Ads, that is. And being that running a radio station is a business, well, if nobody wants to advertise on your show, unless you are NPR and get money from us taxpayers, nobody is going to want to listen to that crap.

What? How silly. You think that there is a gaggle of folks walking around with fully automatic legal uzis? Really - in the 1970's-ish, the US Govt outlawed all fully automatic weapons from import to the US. Furthermore, there are only several which can be found in the US let alone purchased by anyone having very specific credentials.

The difference is that you rarely hear about an innocent bystander being strangled to death while two gangbangers fight it out. Have never heard of a drive by stabbing. But keep telling yourself that if you had a concealed weapon, you would be some sort of sharpshooting superhero. Snort.

did you see where O'Keefe asked for Holder's ballot and would have gotten it if he wanted to? said he was going out to the car to get his I.D. "i'll be back faster than you can say furious"

classic line. you gotta love that kid. If he were a liberal, he would be featured on 60 Minutes right now. They love that kind of journalism...unless it's by a conservative.

Sully, who are talking to? if it's me, the answer is 'no'. There were a lot of things Bush did that i didn't agree with. However, it never occurred to me that he did not love our country. Can't say the same for the man in office now. And before you come back with the pre-programmed: "racist', let me tell you that i have voted for black men to be president before. it's got nothing to do with race, it's got everything to do with a radical past filled with radical associations... Obama did not grow out of being a leftist.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200709280009

It isn't doctored, because it already is a flat out lie. Here is one example (I'll hold back the other 9,395,204)

"Guess what? Faisal Shahzad is a registered Democrat. I wonder if his SUV had an Obama sticker on it." --Rush Limbaugh, lying about the failed Times Square car bomber, who is not registered to vote, May 4, 2010

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/rushlimbaugh/a/limbaughquotes.htm

McCloud, you forgot to mention CNN.

CNN pushed the meme that Zimmerman described Martin with a racial slur 'coon' on his phone call to the police.. they had audio EXPERTS play that tape over and over, played it for guests on their shows..played that tape 100 times, implying that Zimmerman was a racist.

It turns out that after more audio experts got rid of the white noise on the audio, he was saying 'cold'. It was a chilly and rainy day.

NBC made the 'mistake'...honest mistake, they swear.. of selectively editing audio to imply that Zimmerman was racist.

ABC played games, on two different occasions, with video...trying to imply that Zimmerman did not suffer any injuries after allegedly getting his head knocked off the pavement several times, and despite witness and police accounts which said that his head was bloodied.

ABC eventually (sigh) showed that Zimmerman did have a gash on the back of his head. They would never have admitted as much, but other news outlets were showing the gash on Zimmerman and they just couldn't lie about it anymore.

The MSM 'acted stupidly' here. They made a rush to judgment in an effort to fan the flames of racial tension, which they feel will help Obama re-energize his base for the upcoming election. Shameful stuff.

Actually, Rush was kind of pioneer in the selective editing field. One example: http://mediamatters.org/research/200709280009