Holmes was completely protected by ballistic gear, the theater was dark and filled with teargas. It's extremely unlikely that another theater goer could have shot him dead in his tracks.

Brian- Over 60% of police officers who were killed in the line of duty in 2010 were wearing body armor. Yes, an armed citizen could have stopped this whacko.
Check the facts on the FBI's website:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/leoka-2010/officers-feloniously-killed

Brian- A torso hit with any decent caliber weapon (.32 or more) could have temporarily debilitated this idiot, even with his protective gear, allowing someone time to rush him. Protective gear does NOT mean that bullets just ricochet off you. The guy was standing in front of the screen and was quite visible. Saying it is "highly unlikely that another theater goer could have shot him....." is pure ignorant conjecture on your part. There are a lot of people out there who carry and are excellent shots.

It's way past time for us to start talking about sensible gun control like bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. That's a good start. Background checks at gun shows and regulation of internet arms sales also make sense. Handguns are a thornier issue but we need to rethink how they are regulated as well.

There are over 30,000 firearm fatalities a year in the US. They are one of the leading causes of death for males between the ages of 15 and 44 (right behind auto accidents). You find this acceptable? However, gun control alone will not solve this epidemic. We have to stop cutting community mental health programs and start emphasizing mental health as a part of any comprehensive health care plan.

"the facts do not support any gun control"

In fact, the NRA really needs to look into making sure that semiautomatic assault rifles don't jam during use. Our Constitutional rights are being violated.

There's nothing about what you're proposing that's 'sensible.' Assault weapons are of the same caliber and roughly the same size as many rifles. And what difference do high-capacity magazines make? If he hadn't been able to get a hold of an assault weapon, he would have used the Glocks. Or the shotgun. And they wouldn't have jammed.

And even given the senseless killings here, guns still save more lives than they take. You really want to be upset about something? What about all those large, dangerous automobiles on the roads? Where is the outrage over those? Hell, they kill more people than guns.

Look at the stats from the last useless assault weapons ban. Crime never dropped after it. Went up, actually. And the repeal? When all you heard from the left was how many people were going to die senselessly? Oh yeah, crime dropped. Funny how the facts never support the bans.....

"Guns save more lives than they take" - You're joking. There is zero evidence of that. That doesn't even make sense. If you're going to spout "facts" about crime rate etc. I'd like to see some stats to back that up. And no NRA sponsored studies please.

Of course I'm not joking. Take your head out of the sand and look at the numbers. Good source here:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

This site looks at facts and figures, pretty simply. Let's look at DC since their gun ban:

* During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.[37]

Very easy to quantify lives saved.

Britain?

* Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.[42]

* Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect.[55]

* In 2005, 96% of the firearm murder victims in Chicago were killed with handguns.[56]

Of course this makes sense, Brian. Criminals love unarmed victims. When people can fight back, the criminals tend to back off. I'm not really sure how you don't see the correlation. In a perfect society, where nobody has guns, then yeah, you probably don't need them. But in this world, in this day and age, you do.

And as long as I'm on this train of thought, you know who else hates an armed populace? Dictators, oppressive governments, entities like that. Sorry, no, I'll keep all my guns, thank you....

Following your logic Brian, we should get rid of all of our cars too.

Also, places like Chicago, New York City, and Norway... all have some of the strictest guns laws and tell me how well they've worked. Aurora has very strict gun laws, see below
See Aurora Code Sec. 94-146a: "It shall be unlawful for any person to fire, shoot, or discharge any firearm; crossbow; bow and arrow; slingshot; blowgun; BB gun or pellet gun, whether powered with gunpowder, compressed air, or gas cartridges; gas gun; or any weapon whatsoever within the city limits. However, such discharge, firing, or shooting by any law enforcement officer, federal, state, county, or city, in the course of his or her official duty shall not be deemed a violation of this subsection, and such discharge, firing, or shooting at commercial, private, or public shooting ranges or by authorized classes of schools or universities at all times under proper instruction and supervision as may be authorized or permitted by law shall not be deemed a violation of this subsection."

*** Aurora Police Department confirmed this is the case within the city limits and without a conceal-and-carry permit from the appropriate county. See Aurora Code Sec. 94-144.5.

Karsten, I spent a little time perusing "Just Facts" and this supposed "impartial" site is anything but. I wouldn't trust any of their facts farther than I could spit. Random charts that reference no source data are highly suspect. This site was obviously thrown together by some yahoo wanna be author with a political axe to grind. Enter at your own risk.

And nobody wants to take away your guns. We already prohibit the sale of certain weapons, for most of my life for example it was unlawful to carry a switchblade in the state of Georgia. What purpose do assault rifles serve?

Brian, the site is chock full of references at the bottom of the page. Not arranged very neatly, but it's there. Find it interesting that you wouldn't trust the data. Not real surprising, but interesting. The data is all over the place. Haven't found any other way to interpret it yet. Still boils down to the idea that gun control laws have never reduced crime, 'shall-issue' states have better crime rates than 'may-issue' or Illinois, and the data for the last assault weapons ban does not in any way justify reinstating it.

And what use does an assault weapon serve? Doesn't matter. Hunting, sport, recreation, whatever. Again, no reason to ban them. By your way of thinking, we could pare down to about 2 or 3 choices in weapons total to choose from since, really, what purpose does it serve to have 800 choices when 2 would do? Why have .40 caliber when we already have 9mm and .45?

Brian- You would be amazed if you disseminated those 30,000 firearms fatalities. In 2010 62% of police officers killed in the line of duty were shot by black people (who represent 12.9% of the US population). Are you a proponent for special laws to control black people? I would hope not. Here is the FBI website that lists these statistics:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/leoka-2010/officers-feloniously-killed

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/16/national-rifle-association/wayne-lapierre-said-violent-crime-jurisdictions-re/

Hehehe.....

And make sure you don't use those dern pencils that misspell words....that'd suck....

That was a sarcastic comment I was making. Guns can't kill by themselves. They need people to pull the trigger. Therefore, it is people with guns that kill.

Or people with cars. Or people with spoons that are getting fat. Outlaw spoons....

I've heard this poll quoted before and while I've found the story in Police Mag that cites the poll, I've had no luck finding the actual poll. From Police Magazine March 2007:

"Roughly 18 percent of more than 8,500 POLICE readers responded to our gun control survey. And well, the vast majority of you feel that the people of the United States should continue to enjoy their right to bear arms. More than 88 percent of a diverse population of American law enforcement officers who read POLICE Magazine gave a thumbs up to the Second Amendment of the Constitution."

I'm actually surprised any LEOs feel we shouldn't continue to enjoy our right to bear arms. I've never heard anyone call for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. If you have a link to the actual survey I'd love to see it. As I'm sure you're aware polling data can vary wildly depending on how the question in asked.

Hey Brian, you read about the tragic truck accident in Texas last night? I anxiously await your blog about how trucks should be banned now. Oh, wait....they were illegals. Make that your blog about how illegals should be banned. Just want you to be consistent here.

I disagree NGW. Re-read those comments. Pretty nasty. Statistics don't match up, either . . . how many more vehicles on the roadways vs automatic weapons? People with guns kill when those people are evil, crazy or both. We shouldn't make it easy for them to get their hands on military grade weapons. Buy online, no background check; buy at gun shows too easy as well. (Somebody above said "Assault rifles, etc., generally bought by collectors" . . .flimsy reason; justifies ? please! They can take a photo and frame it.) Holmes bought huge stock of ammo online. Those venders should have reported. Multiple deliveries to one residence from firearms distributors . . . if you see something, say something . . . regardless of whether mandated by law. You may be saving the life of someone you love or know.

Obviously GD you havent bought a gun online or at a gun show lately, if ever...the 'gun show loophole' was closed years ago. If you buy at a gun show now, you have to fill out out all the paperwork and go thru the background check just like if you bought it in the store...and if you order one online, it has to be shipped to a licensed firearms dealer, and when you go to pick it up you have to fill out the same paperwork and go through the background check also....

Jeff- I can appreciate your motives. This kind of massacre along with any other loss of human life to guns (or anything else) is heart breaking. Please consider for a moment the one group in the US who are banned from gun ownership, convicted felons. It is against the law for any of them to own a hand gun, bravo. Do they still get hand guns illegally and use them to commit more crimes? Absolutely.
If we lived in a cotton candy world with marshmallow clouds, I would agree with you. But, as you know, we don't. No matter what laws are in place, bad guys and whackos will still have guns, of all kinds.
If you live in the country or if you live in the urban jungle, dialing 911 is akin to dial-a-prayer. It only takes seconds for a bad guy(s) to kill you and your entire family (home invasions and car jackings are for more prevalent than episodes like Colorado).
If you have a wife or child, I feel it is your duty to protect them. It's also the duty of your neighbors and family.
The majority of police officers are against gun control. Please mull that over for a few minutes
I am a good guy and I am armed. Good people need guns. Brian Crawford has a gun, ask him.

So...the answer this author gives is to institute a gun ban that really doesn't do anything to prevent any crimes of the sort. Good answer....well thought out....

Jeff both articles make to much sense for most of the people who posted on this topic, I loved them both and agree. I've never owned or shot a gun, don't need it, don't want it.

Jeff, In many fundamental ways I agree with this article. However, when assault rifles are banned, the buffer zone to hand guns is then gone. I do not trust our government enough to allow them any further latitude.
The Dude, Nobody is trying to make a law to tell people they must have a gun. I respect that you don't feel you need one or want one, no problem. I would just appreciate the same respect for those who do feel they need/want one. Cool?

So it's because of the large magazines. You know, if we limited available weapons to single-shot powder rifles, there would really be FAR fewer people killed.

You can't account for the crazies in this world with laws and regulations, you can only prepare for them the next time. If that large-capacity mag hadn't been legal, he probably still would have had a couple of 30-round mags, or a pocketful of 10-rounders. And they don't jam. And reload is extremely quick. So in reality, probably wouldn't have made a difference either way.....

Wow. "shouldn't be in the hands of private citizens" "the right not to be killed by them" "right to go to a movie, a mall, school, church . . . anywhere . . . without fear of being mowed down"

Deciding what should or shouldn't be able to be purchased right out of the box. Dictating rights that, in reality, we don't have. I agree with you on one thing - things like this shouldn't happen. It sucks. That said, the statistics do support exactly what you say they shouldn't. Banning guns increases just such incidents. And especially smaller, one-on-one killings. I say that the statistics on crime vs gun control absolutely justifies less control, thereby stopping even more of these senseless, tragic events.

As a Conservative, my pro-life stance has to do with innocents. With the intententional killing of the unborn, children, women, the unarmed, the lawful. I actually couldn't care less about the criminals. In fact, I get a warm, fuzzy feeling when I hear a DRT (Dead Right There) story about some criminal piece of crap getting wasted during the commission of the robbery. Oh, if only there were more of those.

And while I'm responding to you, how about a name, rather than hiding behind some anonymous avatar? Hard for me to take you seriously.....

Tammy - I believe if you will read my post again, you'll see that I acknowledge the "crazy in him" and those like him. I wasn't referencing your mention of a bomb, just assault rifles. People with guns kill. Of course guns alone can't kill. People can kill without guns, too. I know that. That's a duh argument to me. Assault: definition according to Webster's, "1. A violent verbal or physical attack. 2. An unlawful attempt or threat to do physical injury to another."(key words, violent, unlawful) The very name/description gives it away as to purpose and intent. Right, Holmes and others like him can do their damage without semi- and auto- weapons. But sure does make it faster and easier, more convenient and in sick minds, more fun, to take out many more victims and create a scenario that's harder to take him down than if he only used handguns (without magazine) or rifle. I didn't say guns are the problem, just certain guns - semi- and automatic, use of multiple round magazines, etc. To your argument that criminals get them off the street and they don't think like you and me, agreed. Perhaps, then those weapons should not be manufactured and distributed except for legal military use.

I've never had the pleasure of meeting Brian Crawford, so can't claim him as "my buddy", but I do know he owns guns. No need for me to ask why; I can figure that out all by my lonesome. Re-read my comments if you need to, but I did not say anything anti-hand gun or sport guns! I think some of the posters on here just skim through and pounce on their trigger (pun, yes) words and don't trouble themselves to read the full content. Typical of Republicans to take out of context words spoken by someone with opposing views (hello again, Mr. Romney and gang!). My son-in-law is a gun enthusiast but not a hunter b/c he's a veterinarian and a vegetarian. Hunting animals is against his personal convictions. He goes to the practice range to shoot. My daughter has a hand gun. It is their constitutional right to own guns and shoot them legally. I respect citizens of the USA having the right to certain firearms. Thank you!

Just for clarification the only firearm I currently own is a Marlin model 336 30-30 Winchester style deer rifle my father purchased for me when I was 16.

I would say the voice of reason herein is that of Brian Crawford's. He's well researched and knowledgeable. His blogs and posts aren't based on raw emotion. Of course criminals and crazies with no criminal record are going to get whatever they can to inflict as much mayhem as possible. That's why those assault weapons should not be so readily accessible. That is the point. Maybe all human beings should walk around with their assault weapons if we should go with your logic, Mike, Tammy, et al. Then when anyone hears gunfire or feels threatened, just start shooting. Doesn't matter if they're not trained, possess good judgment or even sane. People in the audience wildly shooting in that theatre? Many more casulalties.

Of course Brian's is the voice of reason for you here, GD...it agrees with your view. Funny how that works out.

And maybe we should all walk around with assault weapons at all times. Would probably help. That being said, most people I know that carry on a daily basis do a lot of training and practicing. Very few people that I'm aware of actually take carrying a weapon with any level of nonchalance. Just sayin....

I read that article on eminent domain mortage seizures and called attention to it for others who are interested in this subject. Hopeful that action spreads! Thanks for the link!

Hunh...at least I'm not scared to use my real name. You make statements about what should and shouldn't be. We have no right to protection in this country. That's already been taken up by the courts. The government and the police have no duty to protect us. We have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Basically meaning that the government does not have a right to take these away from us, but no duty to provide any of the above. This is the thing with rights. We have a right to own and carry firearms. Does not mean they are provided to us. That's the difference as I see between the conservative and the liberal mindset. Nobody owes me anything. Unlike the left, which seems to feel that everybody is entitled to everything.

Except the right to defend ourselves, obviously.....

Just be sure and look before you shoot. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/22/off-duty-cop-shoots-kills-son-after-mistaking-him-for-intruder/

Tragic story Brian. And yes, always look before you shoot.

The owner of Chic-fil-a has a right to be against gay marriage. If you don't want to eat at one of the best fast food restaurants available because of that I doubt anybody cares. Chic-fil-a has great food, the BEST service and represents an excellent value. Personally I don't give a darn either way about gay marriage, let them do whatever makes them happy. But if a respectable dude is against it I won't let it stop me from enjoying his wonderful place of business, that's just silly. Some people are for gay marriage, some against but most really don't give a tinker's darn either way. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. Can't people have different opinions and both be good people?

Some people yell discrimination but they're not discriminating at all, they serve everyone equally. They just don't agree with gay marriage.

I too have always admired the closed on Sundays policy but I once had a young lady work for me who left CFA because she felt she was discriminated against once she became an un-wed mother. I haven't eaten there since.

So no eating at Chick-fil-A! Good for you Athens Mama...you're really going to show them. Using your above rationale I'll assume that you have completely exiled any family members, friends, or acquaintances that don't support gay marriage because they have no "right" to their beliefs. Only your beliefs are important. Just looking for clarity from a flaming liberal....whatever that is.

And I would agree with that sentiment about people being too dumb to have firearms. At the same time, there are people that are too dumb to drive cars, as well, we don't try to take them away. I'm not against taking a course to carry, although it does go against the spirit of having a 'right.' But I will concede that point.

To your point of ammo count, where do we draw the line? I have probably 1500 rounds of .22, 600 rounds of .40, and a few of other calibers. For me their range loads, as every time I go I shoot at least 50, usually 100. Or if I'm out in a field somewhere shooting one of my .22s, I'll go through 3-400. Given these numbers, the amount of rounds I have is not excessive. But are we to set arbitrary numbers off what somebody feels may be too many? 2000? 6000? What if somebody goes to the range twice a week and runs through 500 rounds each time? And they get a deal to buy 6000? Now, again, those numbers don't seem to be too extreme.

My point is, it doesn't make sense to set limits based on...what, feelings?

Regarding magazine capacity, I carry a 12-round magazine. If I need my gun, I want to have enough rounds for most basic encounters without having to carry extra magazines. If I could get a 20-rounder for it I would. It comes down to convenience for me. At the same time, do we need a 100-round drum? Probably not.

Seems to me Mike that the "chickens" are the real Americans hiding behind their guns.

Thank you Brian. I would have been disappointed had you not come up with that one.

Mike Horsman: OMG! Calling me a chicken? People who resort to name calling do so when they can't back up their position or answer intelligently. Thank you, Brian Crawford, a gentleman and a scholar. Impressive! So, Mike, only pistol packing conservatives/Republicans are real Americans? And you're giving them hope? I'm sad for you. BTW, I'm quite self-reliant but I do appreciate police and fire protection. I have an alarm system and many neighboring dogs. My husband used to be called out at night on his job. I've never been a fraidy cat, and we've never had guns. Had three little girls, relatives and friends with kids. Never wanted to take a chance with an accidental shooting. That poor policeman in NY who shot his son b/c he thought he was an intruder . . . you know he was experienced and well trained. If you have a gun on your nightstand, hear something, react, shoot first and ask questions later, you're a danger to yourself and your family. And may end up a grieving fool. All armed people aren't polite. Many of them are arrogant know-it-all bullies. And you know what bullies are . . . they're cowards. George Zimmerman comes to mind. Uh, oh, sorry, Brian, hope I didn't open up another can of worms.

Obviously, they're not strict enough. The police and military not adequate. No plans to travel to Mexico, but you go ahead and report back to us. Unlike many on here, I don't pretend to be a firearms expert or authority. But then, I have common sense and good reading comprehension.

Oh, Mike. Don't be so silly. Of course all the government has to do is declare 'no more assault weapons' and POOF! They'd be all gone. Isn't that the way it works?

Spare me your conspiracy theories Mike Horsman. Don't think I'm the dangerous one. I'm not packing heat with a happy trigger finger. And to Karsten Torch (hehe) you're silly yourself. Got to start somewhere, assault weapons ban is a logical place. Next, ban manufacturers in USA from selling to anyone but the Pentagon. Don't allow import into this country. Check out the cargo ships with at least as much attention as at airports. Should have been doing that anyway since 9/11. There, how's that?!

OK, quit avoiding the question and tell my why this step is logical. What is it that makes you so sure this step would solve anything? Or is it just because you 'feel' like this is the way to go?

You know, NGW, some of those crazies snap that go around with loaded guns. Some are like Zimmerman - get in over their heads with their bravado and end up killing a kid. Some people like that unfortunate NY cop, hear something, think they hear something, are dreaming, are on a sleep-aid like Ambien (that stuff makes people do crazy things). All killers aren't planners. Thought the subject was assault firearms, not hand guns. Okay, planes a little harder to get your hands on. Assault weaponry, apparently easy. We don't have to make it fun and easy for them.

You still didn't answer the question. How many in this country?

Since GD seems incapable of answering direct questions, let me have at it....

I don't have an exact number, but you're right around 2% of all homicides are committed with an assault rifle. This number holds steady whether we're talking one on one or mass killings.

OBL was taken out by Navy Seals, military. Not talking about military being banned from weapons of war. Geez, pay attention, people.

Too much typing. Not important enough, since it's not your name. So....

You need to take another look at the data. It doesn't multiply with those weapons. Oh, unless they're made illegal. Then the number goes up. Repeal the ban on them and the number of crimes and death drops. So...using logic (stay with me here) does it make more sense to drive the numbers up by banning them, or keep them low by allowing them?

I don't know, Jim. I'm not in law enforcement or into statistics. I don't watch much of the local news with their reports of stabbings, shootings, fires. When I do watch local it's WXIA b/c they do try to offer other stories and some positive news. If just 1, too many, though. Haven't been watching Wolf Blitzer or CNN. Another generalization. Killers are people with weapons. Can't stop all tragedies, but don't have to make it easy. Personally, I don't like any guns, but that's my business, so you're preaching (yelling with all the !s) to the choir about hand guns. So excited, you may need to calm down. Those who are into them, their business as long as they're legal. You'll never get the NRA to allow Congress to pass hand gun controls beyond what's already on the books. Well, not until Democrats are again in control of the House and Senate, and they will be sooner or later. Most powerful lobby, except maybe big oil, in Washington. Local govts., there's where it will happen. But, assault weapons ban? More possible. Just wait until some bigwig in the Republican Party or their big $ donors are personally affected by a tragedy involving assault firearms. Just takes one voice to effect even major change. But doesn't always have to be a big voice, can be a whisper.

Thank you, Jim. Apology appreciated and accepted. Are your last few sentences directed at me or just general statements of explanation for your stance? I hope the latter. I don't see how anything I said could be taken as a personal attack.

Tammy, don't trouble yourself feeling sorry for me. I was answering a rant by Jim about Atlanta crime stats, which was off subject. He did apologize and I appreciate that. To clarify, I'm not into studying statistics myself. I don't need to spend my time doing that. Doesn't mean I think they have no value. Stats don't give the entire picture, though. The human factor comes into play. One Aurora massacre: 12 dead, 58 injured . . . those are the statistics that speak to me. Funny you should call me partisan (which I am, don't deny, more so after the election of 2008 and you guys lost, then the really ugly came out. Republican Congressional leadership meeting the very night of the inauguration to plot and plan how they would stop anything and everything this President does, no matter the damage to the nation). I only recently signed in to make comments on Patch after spending several months reading blogs and comments. I noticed right away that you're one of the most partisan of all. Your last sentence applies most aptly to you. Thank you for implying that all this falls on me, that if only I agree with you and your kind everything will be fixed. Flattered, but, sadly, it's not true :D

GD, Do you hear yourself?
"I'm not into studying statistics myself. I don't need to spend my time doing that."
Then, "One Aurora massacre: 12 dead, 58 injured . . . those are the statistics that speak to me."
What I am reading is that only stats that "speak to you" are worth paying attention to. I am reasonably sure you don't mean that. If Tammy had made a statement like that she would have faced a poop storm.
Please, because I really want to understand, explain why only stats that "speak" to you are important. Perhaps a rephrase would clear it up for me. No offense intended and I do value what you have to say, given that we are both Americans who want the best for each other.

Tammy, you aren't seriously trying to pin the mortgage bubble on a Democratic congress are you? There are no facts that could remotely lead to that conclusion.

Economy does better under Democrats, or has in the past with a little co-op from Reps. Last 2 yrs of Bush: beginning of Great Recession with 2 unfunded wars, unfunded Bush tax cuts causing huge revenue gap while engaging in those 2 unfunded wars, unfunded Medicare Part D, housing bubble burst all over everything else and, yes, Bush policies relaxing financial regulations was hugely responsible. Our area's economy was largely supported by the housing and mortgage industries. Of course we suffered. About the gun issue, well, "I'm kind of" NOT going back as far as Reagan. (side note: President Reagan, god that he is for the elephants, was a moderate by today's right-wing standards). You're trying to put words in my mouth. I never said Republicans do nothing. They do plenty of obstructing. Can you say filibuster, used more by this Congress than at any other time in history. If they're gonna pull that crap, they should at least have to stand at the podium and talk and not get to use a procedural filibuster. My not so humble opinion (based on current events and recent history).

The Dems certainly weren't blameless but why would I trust some random blog for the truth about anything. That whole piece sounds like it was written by the RNC and might have been for all you know. Who is T J Hancock?

Why should we trust MSNBC? Who is Brian Crawford? Talk is cheap folks. Tammy you are not alone. Obviously many Conservatives rely on Fox News as it is one of the only major media sources that isn't Liberal.
Of course Fox is biased. OMG, look at the Washington Post, look at MSNBC, look at CNN. Media, in general, is biased. Your best bet is news sources outside of the US.
I'm taking it to the voting booth. Romney would not be my first choice but I promise I am voting for ANYONE but Obama. I would like to see a non-republican/democrat in office but we are still a couple terms away from that possibility (No, I am not talking Tea Party, something a little more "middle of the road"). I just want a candidate that I can get excited about, is that too much to ask?
The whole thing boils down to a mechanical question. What works? Conservative, perhaps, Liberal, perhaps. Republican or Democrat, no. It's time for a real change, away from the two power machines to a new party. Mark my words, that day is coming.
Brian, thank you for saying that the Dems are not blameless for the bubble burst. Tthe Republicans were not blameless either. You likely bring a lot to the table when it comes to being a great guy, even though you piss me off sometimes :-) I appreciate anyone who has a passion for something.
Tammy, thank you. You are awesome. You and yours are welcome at our house for a beer anytime, maybe some target practice too :-)

Mike.... you have it exactly correct. Nice post.

Jim- Good man. People forget (myself included sometimes) that we are all on the same team. This division only serves to take our attentions away from the beast. We are all Americans.
If I were in a foxhole with any of you, I would fight for you, even Brian Crawford, as long as my assault rifle did not offend him ;-)

Thanks for the clarity, Jim!

Thanks for the compliment above. Males and females can all be smart, just in different ways and respond in different ways. I hope Tammy wouldn't get overly excited or nervous and miss her target in that situation. I'm sure there would be some guys or gals there to tackle the shooter, throw a chair or something. Stray bullets hit innocent bystanders sometimes and there are always kids in McD's. What if she caused the shooter to go on a rampage and make it even worse? Also, cops (including undercover ones) like McDonald's, so if they're present I say let them do their job. Nobody wants a dead hero. Wouldn't be a hero if missed the perpetrator and shot innocents, would be a criminal. You bet I would dial 911! And finally, what's with calling me GD? Like Karsten? Can't you bring yourself to write Democrat? GD has a bad connotation for me, as it probably has for others posting. You can say GA Dem if that suits you, and I would appreciate it! Thanks very much!

GD- So I extend an olive branch and you try to whip me with it. Very nice. I was calling you GD because I was trying to be expeditious using your initials. You have imagined the rest. I have one word for you, estrogen. Thank God you don't have a gun.

Probably both. Again, not your name, and if you're relating that to the usual G.D. that people talk about, not a lot I can do about that. GD is the initials for what you have, just like make people will refer to me as KT. Just kind of makes sense. But fine, I'll figure it out.

I don't engage others who don't use their own name. We all know Steve, so we'll talk to him. But yeah, as a general rule, those who don't use their own name don't really get any time from me. But you're actually entertaining and seem more intelligent than many, so thought you were worth the effort to respond to.

I do find it funny, though, that you don't feel the need to look at data. Just go off feelings, not using any kinds of facts. I've given facts and numbers, so no need for me to do the research. Already have. I'm just asking you to back up your opinion with facts as to why you feel your opinion holds any validity. That's not judgemental, that's common sense. Obviously that's too difficult. That really reduces your credibility. To pretty much 0. Thanks for playing, though....

Jim, you're right, and it is a shame. I believe everybody has a right to feel as they want to, but as soon as they start impeding on my rights, they need to have some good reasoning or documentation. Just saying. I know firearms aren't for everybody. And I would never look down on somebody because they made the decision not to use firearms or deadly force to defend themselves or somebody else. I get that. I will also ask them if they wish me to do so should they need protection.

I was called all kinds of worse. Of course, had nothing to do with my initials.... ;)

Jim, those calling you an unflattering name were probably children. I don't think it's too much to ask adults to address or refer to a commenter by their chosen name instead of one that is the same as one of blasphemy. They are pot shots from those who want you to answer their questions, explain yourself, but skip right over what is answered and asked of them. Guess they're reaching for their "guns" . . . the best way they know of defending themselves against any adversity, real or imagined. I know it's because they can't bring themselves to write the word Democrat as if it is contagious, which instead might be healing to them :D. So immature it's funny.

The same could be said of a conservative blogger. It's a matter of perspective. Brian's blogs show that he is thoughtful, intelligent, articulate and well-researched. That scares a lot of people it seems. They don't like or agree with his opinions, so they blast him. He has an answer to their comments, and that makes some folks mad. I have read conservative blogs but find them so objectionable and anger-filled because they're mostly straight out of Fox News (?) talking points or Glen Beck (blech!) or Rush Limbaugh - a hot air opportunist, that I can't participate. Makes me wonder why some of you come here. It must be the back and forth that you guys really enjoy. You just can't always handle it, get in over your heads, take your ball and run home. Then come stealing back because you can't stay away. Brian hasn't done the dividing. It's the name calling, taunting comments and unwillingness to consider and respect opposite opinions and discuss them like grownups.

Good read. Thanks. There's a lot there that we probably agree on.

NGW- That is an interesting read. It seems that politicians on both sides are the problem. Perhaps we should stop arguing among our selves long enough to point our fingers at the real bad guys, those in Washington DC. As long as Democrats and Republicans are made to believe they are each others enemies, the government is going to continue to rob us both until nothing is left. The less powerful we make the Federal government, maybe the less and more manageable our differences would become.

Excellent quote. I think the Washington Post gave Obama credit for that one.

I rest my case.