Quantcast
U.S. & World

National Rifle Association says Congress will not pass weapons ban

Comments

Return To Article
  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 13, 2013 11:14 a.m.

    The story should be about how the will of the elected representatives of the people was just openly influenced and changed by a powerful, monied lobby. We should be screaming mad about how our society is taken hostage by big pharma/tobacco/guns/industry/banking or whatever.

  • Cool Cat Cosmo Payson, UT
    Jan. 13, 2013 12:24 p.m.

    People may complain about lobbying groups (like the NRA for example), however the truth is that these groups exist because people support them. Congress pays heed to what they say because many times they represent a large part of their constituency, and so since they want to get re-elected, they try to keep that constituency appeased.

    I am a part of that constituency, and I support gun rights, the second amendment, and the NRA. If congress, the president, or anyone else thinks that I and the others like me are going to lie down and cower in submission when they threaten to unconstitutionally take away our rights, the which have been bought with blood, they are sadly mistaken.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 13, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    I guess we will find out soon if Congress is owned by the People or by special interests like the NRA.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 13, 2013 1:17 p.m.

    It'll be compromised away. Look for the high capacity clip limit and requiring background checks on all gun purchases to be the main final target of the legislation.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Jan. 13, 2013 1:23 p.m.

    @Cool Cat: Some rights are worth being taken away. Those such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc. Those such as insinuating one has a bomb and intends to blow up a plane. And, yes, those that take away our rights to AK-47s, which have absolutely no purpose for public use!

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 13, 2013 1:41 p.m.

    Innocent people are not protected by disarming innocent people.

    I should not have to give up my right to have the weapons suitable
    for home defense and for the militia because others misbehave.

    The governments militia i.e. police and national guard can not
    always be counted on to be there for you.

    Like it or not, the second ammendment is still part of the
    constitution.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Jan. 13, 2013 2:18 p.m.

    Of all groups Mormons ought to understand what happens when you surrender your weapons.
    The Nauvoo Legion was disarmed and they lost the Prophet and their city.
    The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting.
    The more our politicians want us identified and disarmed, the louder we must protest.
    Just like the right to assemble and the right to speak out, the right to bear arms is an anti-tyranny measure.
    I hope we never have to use it, but we must be able to do so if required.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 13, 2013 2:26 p.m.

    Do we have a president or a king?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 13, 2013 2:28 p.m.

    @cjb
    The second amendment does not allow for a lack of regulation just a lack of a total gun ban like those that some cities had.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 13, 2013 2:32 p.m.

    xscribe,

    You don't like the rights of the people, or the NRA? Then I suggest packing your bags.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 13, 2013 2:56 p.m.

    Did I miss something, who is trying to take away anyone's right to bear arms? The extremely conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia has even said that the second amendment is not absolute. The overstating of this proposed legislation would be somewhat comical if this wasn't such a serious matter. This is not 1776, the framers had no way to see what kinds of weapons the average person would be able to obtain in 2013. That's why they left the language strong enough that the right to bear arms couldn't be taken away, but flexible enough it could interpreted to meet the current needs of American society.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 13, 2013 3:49 p.m.

    If any bill is to be passed by Congress, I ask that a provision be
    inserted into the bill allowing hunters and target shooters and
    other gun users use silencers.

    Every time a gun is shot without hearing protection, the
    shooter and those around him or her suffer hearing loss.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Jan. 13, 2013 5:17 p.m.

    @Fred44

    It all depends on what mean by "not absolute", but it is in black and white that this right shall not be infringed.

    -
    -
    @atl134

    Exactly how can you regulate a right? Especially with out infringing on that right?

    And do NOT use the "well regulated militia" as an excuse. 'Regulated' as it was used circa 1789 meant functioning or working.

    In other words, the intention of the 2nd amendment was for citizens to be able to act military if ever necessary. The Final and Ultimate check and balance. It is unwise to take that right away, or regulate (in today's vernacular) it away.

    -
    -
    -
    It seems the answer to every problem to the left is to punish the innocent, the law abiding,

    common sense tells you that fixes NOTHING!.

    The answer is education, from gun education to moral education.

    That has always been the answer.

    Not to have big government have more and more control control over you.

    The left seem to be today's 'kingmen', they want a king to control and dictate their lives and to take care of them from cradle to grave, they do not want true freedom.

    True freedom requires a moral education.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 13, 2013 5:31 p.m.

    The strawman argument put forth by "Say No to BO" and others that somebody wants to disarm somebody else is dishonest and laughable.

    We are talking about where we should draw the line here people, nothing else. Does anybody think small nukes should be available US citizens to posses and carry? What about anthrax and other chemical weapons? What about hand grenades and launchers?

    Nobody is trying to disarm everybody and I believe most people understand this. How about we quit the demonization and dishonesty and have an adult-like discussion about where we should draw the line for a change?

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Jan. 13, 2013 5:48 p.m.

    Man does that pesky Constitution get in the way of Liberal, Socialist, communist thinking.

    Cosmo said it dead perfect.

    One Old man Read Cosmo again as to what special interest is. It is not always abortion rights supporters.

    Xscribe: How about we decide what we have use for. It is not up to you to decide what I want or do not want. Again if Liberals do not want it no one else should either.

    Fred44 Please explain where the language of the Constitution and specifically the Second Amendment is flexible. Again liberals.

    Finally all of your read Cosmo again.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    Jan. 13, 2013 5:54 p.m.

    Cosmo,

    The NRA membership is approx. 4 million. That amounts to just over 1% of the total US population.

    "Congress pays heed to what they say because many times they represent a large part of their constituency, and so since they want to get re-elected, they try to keep that constituency appeased."

    Your idea is right, but your numbers are off, which is the flawed logic that both you and our elected officials make all the time with regards to lobbying. 1% should not be able to prevent debate on legislation the majority wants to talk about.

  • Allisdair Thornbury, Vic
    Jan. 13, 2013 6:15 p.m.

    It is incredible to see the NRA tail wag the dog

  • Elcapitan Ivins, UT
    Jan. 13, 2013 6:31 p.m.

    The general population has the advantage of gun ownership. Gun owners are not a minority in most parts of the country. The NRA stands up for the rights of this great cross section of Americans and the reason they are "big and powerful" is because they stand up for gun owners issues with regards to efforts on the left (a minority) to regulate and disarm the majority.

    There is a limit in this high tech society as to what people should be free to own and use.
    A 47 types may be a target. Most gun banners do not even understand how to describe what they want to ban and use the wrong descriptions and words in legislation so watch out folks. There are zillions of these military type weopens out there. What is the government going to do about it is the question. Many NRA members have no use for such weopens and they have no practical use except for law enforcement to meet the bad guys with equal force. And, this may be the ultimate reason law abiding gun owners want the too. Go NRA, you understand how to defend our second amendment rights.

  • Elcapitan Ivins, UT
    Jan. 13, 2013 6:44 p.m.

    Most pistols owned by the American public and used for conceal carry and other lawful purposes have the possibility of large capacity clips (15 rounds or so) and also for the regular 10 round ones. This comes awfully close to the Military Assault type weopens which operate in the same manner if semi automatic. Semi automatic is what many of todays shotguns, rifles, and postols are.
    Because of this, banning of semi automatic weopens, like some are suggesting who do not know firearms terminology is a slipery slop when it comes time to propose legislation. That is why we have the NRA to represent us and protect our rights.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 13, 2013 8:39 p.m.

    Truth "not absolute" are not my words that would be Justice Scalia's words. To the best of my knowledge there is no one proposing that anyone's right to bear arms be infringed upon. But no where in the constitution does it guarantee the right to bear any and all arms that an individual would choose. I believe that the language as in most places in the constitution was chosen very carefully.

    mohokat I would suggest that you maybe do a little reading from those who wrote the constitution. They in now way had the ego to believe they could foresee every potential situation 200+ years into the future. To that end they provided checks and balances and gave the executive, legislative and judicial branches different powers and responsibilities. These checks and balances allowed them to write a living document flexible enough to meet the needs of future generations.

    I find it amusing when the far right wants to attach a literal interpretation to parts of the constitution while ignoring literal interpretations of other parts. They want to be the ones to decide what that interpretation looks like, and then call other people names who may disagree.

    Funny stuff

  • On the other hand Riverdale, MD
    Jan. 14, 2013 6:35 a.m.

    To the NRA sympathizers out there, what do you all plan to do with your assault rifles?

  • JohnInSLC Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 7:52 a.m.

    "[W]ho is trying to take away anyone's right to bear arms? The extremely conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia has even said that the second amendment is not absolute."

    Fred44:

    Justice Scalia's comment centered on prohibiting felons from owning firearms. His opinion in "Heller" also said firearms in common use cannot be banned. The semi-auto modern sporting rifle is now in common use, having been with us nearly 50 years.

    When our President initially said we need to give up our freedoms for security, I assumed he was also talking about the freedoms of those known to be mentally ill, like the Colorado theater shooter and the Newtown shooter, and the freedoms of those who visually perpetrate gratuitous images of gun violence which feeds the mentally ill. But there is no serious discussion to further limit freedom of speech by banning gratuitous gun violence from movies, or to further limit the freedoms those who are obviously mentally ill.

    Nor will there be. We all know the gun-grabbers simply want to dance in the blood of innocent victims to promote their agenda, and they seem to be taking you and others here along for the ride.

  • JohnInSLC Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 8:11 a.m.

    "To the NRA sympathizers out there, what do you all plan to do with your assault rifles?"

    other hand:

    I turned my full-auto assault rifle back to Uncle Sam 40 years ago when I was honorably discharged. As to the semi-auto modern sporting rifle I then bought, I still plan to use it to hunt and protect my home and family, just like I have for 39+ years.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Jan. 14, 2013 8:53 a.m.

    Liberals own guns, period. Liberals just aren't paranoid that all guns are going to be taken away, like a lot of the righties would like to have us believe. Again, this argument has been going on since I was a kid, and not much has changed. And it won't change. And I always love the, You should live somewhere else if you don't like it mentality that some seem to always post. That's such a grown-up comment.

    Oh, and to those who think they need their weapons to fight the government, if necessary: Good luck with that!

  • JohnInSLC Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    "Justice Scalia has even said that the second amendment is not absolute."

    Fred44:

    His comment in Heller were directed to the limits of ownership (no felons), and not at the rights of law-abiding citizens to own firearms in common use. The semi-auto modern sporting rifle has been in common use since Colt introduced the AR-15 nearly 50 years ago.

    When I see discussions on limiting the freedom of speech of those who purvey gratuitous gun violence in the name of entertainment, and on limiting the freedom of the violently mentally ill that continue to walk among us, then your point of view might be more credible. But I don't expect that to happen, which means the usual suspects of political gun-grabbers are simply dancing in the blood of innocent victims (of the mentally ill who have been deeply influenced by violent movies and games) to further their long-standing agenda. Too bad they are taking you and a few others here along for the ride.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 8:57 a.m.

    Fred44 Liberals do in fact believe the Constitution is living and therefore subject to change. In may be subject to additional ammendments but the ones that are there are cast in stone. Having said that please with your knowledge of what the framers thought or did not think please explain the flexibility in the words. "Shall not be Infinged". They sound quite absolute to me. Words have a meaninng.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Jan. 14, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    As much as I'm loathe to, I think the NRA will be proven right. Congress will talk, hold hearings, say some noble things, but in the end will not be able to get a ban on assault weapons passed. What a sad commentary.

    Why so many Americans feel the need to own weapons like that is a sickness that can only be cured by a spiritual awakening on an individual level. That's something that can not be legislated.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    Public policy at its worst. Political knee-jerk reactions to a tragedy will result in unintended consequences and not really fix the problem.
    Holmes and Lanza are examples of untreated mental illness.
    Without a rifle Holmes would have cooked up bombs similar to the ones found in his apartment.
    This is all about the White House not letting a crisis go to waste in order to further its agenda.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Jan. 14, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    "This is all about the White House not letting a crisis go to waste in order to further its agenda."
    ______________________________

    Nor should it. That's what responsible and effective governing is about.

    I think the White House will lose the fight this time around. But the proliferation of assault weapons in our sciety will continue to grow into an increasingly unbearable menace to public safety that outweighs any possible benefits of availabily for public ownership. We may not have reached the threshold yet but I think we will in due time. The arguments for assault weapon public availability are growing increasingly hollow.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 10:57 a.m.

    People have rights and groups such as lobbyists have been given almost excessive powers by this Supreme Court, in elections and maybe in other decisions. Lobbyists say they represent their portion or segment of people. However, they can wield a large propotion of money to buy people and their votes, whether citizens as a whole or their elected officials who gain by just being elected once to Congress. In an age when people are inundated by the flow of information, not all of it valid or true, people just can't screen or strain all that data for true knowledge or just plain truth.

    Lobbyists have public relations and information people that twist information to show their inputs are valid and "true" but may be far from the real truth. Lobbyists can be good but since governments have these people register and certify there must be a potential for lobbyists to have more than their normal agenda, but a hidden agenda.

    The NRA has many points in their various agendas, some good and others may not be good. The second amendment is important as all sections of the Constitution of the United States of America. When people push one, beware.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    "...political gun-grabbers are simply dancing in the blood of innocent victims...".

    The people who grabbed the killing machine away from the coward who shot the congresswoman in AZ were political killing machine grabbers dancing in the blood of innocent victims?

  • JohnInSLC Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    There You go Again, look up "metaphor", and then don't ignore the word "political" in mine.

    Ignoring facts seems to be part of the Talking Points here.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    Jan. 14, 2013 11:49 a.m.

    I guess in many peoples minds those that support the constitution are just a "special interest" group. It's sad that you have forgotten what your grandfathers fought for.

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    Jan. 14, 2013 12:09 p.m.

    Hey Jimmy,
    Don't know about your grandfather...
    I know that my grandfathers and ancestors surely did not put their lives at risk for what the NRA and those associated with it, are are promoting in the year 2013.
    Common sense will win, Jimmy.

  • rnoble Pendleton, OR
    Jan. 14, 2013 12:30 p.m.

    I still wonder why we want to provide another item for prosecution for those who commit atrocities such as what happened in Connecticut, Colorado, and Oregon recently. It is as if charging those people with murder is not enough so we need to charge them with having a gun illegally too.

    So if you want to keep guns away from criminals or the mentally ill or anyone else you just need to provide appropriate incentives. Maybe we should tax all gun manufacturing at a extremely high rate so that guns are too expensive to own. Then those who do choose to own will protect them better from theft.

    We could also buy all the guns off the street using the proceeds from the extremely high taxes.

    It is disingenuous to use all gun deaths to support a ban on high capacity guns because of an atrocity. These mass murder events are a tiny part of the gun death statistics but because of the nature of the victims receive a disproportionate share of the media attention.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 12:33 p.m.

    Freedom is what I believe in. However, freedom has some limitations for the rights we enjoy. We give up some rights to benefit the whole. However, freedom does not mean that a person, whether classified sick or not, has the right or liberty to kill others that are defenseless as many of these deaths are. However, employees have rights to be protected and safe in the workplace. Students, including the teachers, who are employees should feel protected in their place of learning and teaching. However, even though there are plenty of rules and regulations prohibiting those kinds of actions be people who have plotted their way to commit the acts of violence, cannot be stopped by even armed personnel at a site, whether a mall, school, church or other public or private place. Malls have had security but violence still occurs in those locations. People who plan these types of actions do the planning to get around those locations. You can't build a wall around people to protect them. We are a society of freedoms that we enjoy and give up freedoms, rarely. Go to countries without freedoms and even they die at hands of others even their governments.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 1:15 p.m.

    Say No to BO
    Mapleton, UT
    Of all groups Mormons ought to understand what happens when you surrender your weapons.
    The Nauvoo Legion was disarmed and they lost the Prophet and their city.

    =============

    Wrong.

    That happened in Missouri - under STATE law.

    At the time, Conservatives argued that States Government was superior to Federal Government.
    The Civil War 19 years later clarified once and for all they were wrong.

    ....funny, it's not much different than Conservative today.
    Right down to seceding from the Union....

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    xscribe
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Oh, and to those who think they need their weapons to fight the government, if necessary: Good luck with that!

    [Agreed. The tribesmen in Afghanistan and Iraq with their AK-47s against the U.S. Military, and that was without using our WMDs or heavy weaponry. BTW - Even the tribesmen in the mountains around Pakistan were better trained than Billy-Bob and his frineds with their weekend keggers. Hardly the highly trained or "well regulated malitia" the 2nd ammendment protects.]

    rnoble
    Pendleton, OR
    2:30 p.m. Jan. 14, 2013
    I still wonder why we want to provide another item for prosecution for those who commit atrocities such as what happened in Connecticut, Colorado, and Oregon recently. It is as if charging those people with murder is not enough so we need to charge them with having a gun illegally too.

    [Only James Holmes in Aurora Colorado faces any charges. The others committed suicide after their crimes, so no charges could ever be filed. Case closed.]

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 14, 2013 1:46 p.m.

    Mohokat you said "Liberals do in fact believe the Constitution is living and therefore subject to change". So if only the liberals believe the constitution is subject to change why are the republicans always proposing a balanced budget amendment? Are republicans now liberals? You also said "In may be subject to additional ammendments but the ones that are there are cast in stone". You made this statement in reference to the constitution and its amendments. I am assuming you are not familiar with the 18th amendment? It was passed and then repealed with the 21st Amendment. Maybe things are not in stone after all.

    JohninSLC glad you brought up the 1st amendment. This is a great example of an amendment that is not an absolute. There are many restrictions that have been placed on ones free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom to assemble.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 3:08 p.m.

    @LDS Lib Actually, the Nauvoo Legion was asked to surrender their weapons by Illinois Governor Thomas Ford. They complied. And they were at the mercy of militias in Carthage who kept THEIR guns. Neither the state nor the feds protected the Saints.

    The Missouri problems were earlier.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 3:11 p.m.

    @the truth
    "Exactly how can you regulate a right? Especially with out infringing on that right?"

    We have the right to free speech but people aren't allowed to make death threats. We have the right to freedom of religion but religions can't offer virgins to volcanoes.

    "'Regulated' as it was used circa 1789 meant functioning or working."

    Rules are often used to make things functioning or working properly. I think my well-regulated argument holds quite well along with the fact the Supreme Court in 2010 said nothing about gun regulations not being allowed, just no total gun bans are allowed.

    Besides... the 21st amendment gives us the right to have alcohol. Utah has shown that you can definitely put regulations on that right.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Jan. 14, 2013 3:40 p.m.

    Say No to BO,

    "....the Nauvoo Legion was asked to surrender their weapons by Illinois Governor Thomas Ford. They complied. And they were at the mercy of militias in Carthage who kept THEIR guns. Neither the state nor the feds protected the Saints.
    ______________________________

    The Nauvoo Legion refused Ford’s pleas to disarm and kept its guns right down to the departure from Nauvoo a year and eight months later. The decision to leave Nauvoo was by mutual agreement worked out between Governor Ford and Brigham Young. Yes, Joseph and Hyrum were murdered, and yes, the Mormons were forced out of Nauvoo. But neither event was due to a lack of firearms in the possession of the Saints.

    The Nauvoo Legion was twice the size of the Illinois state militia. Governor Ford, who has been much maligned in some Mormon-written histories, was hated by both sides. But it is due largely to his credit that President Tyler didn’t have a total civil war on his hands in Western Illinois.

  • Jack Aurora, CO
    Jan. 14, 2013 3:57 p.m.

    For those cite the limitations of the First Amendment as the Supreme Courts decision regarding yelling "fire" in a crowded theater......it's all about intent. The intent of yelling "fire was to incite panic and terror in a crowd for the amusement of a few. No one is advocating the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to instill panic, et cetera. The 2nd is there as a necessary right. When a person misuses that right, it is removed. Felons may not possess firearms as a result of misuse. For the vast majority of firearms owners, we haven't misused that right, so don't advocate that it be removed.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Jan. 14, 2013 5:16 p.m.

    @Craig Clark
    Not according to John Taylor.
    HC Vol 7 page 113
    Ford "disbanded" and "disarmed" the Nauvoo Legion.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 12:02 p.m.

    a gun ban is a fraud - it is all political and doesn't do ANYTHING to make people safer from gun violence. What it does do is take guns away from lawful and legal gun owners who want to protect themselves and family. Most people have NO idea what an "assault weapon" is. First of all a SEMI-AUTO handgun OR rifle is NOT an assault weapon contrary to what the Obama media is reporting. Biden and Obama are clueless and my 12 year old nephew knows more about guns than they do - much more!! A 223 round from a semi-auto rifle is an excellent deer rifle but it is also a great weapon for home protection. A TRUE assault weapon is a FULL AUTO rifle such as an M-16 and really has no use outside of military. I have no problem restricting the sale of FULL AUTO guns. This is all a back door attempt to remove the 2nd Amendment of the constitution which the radical communist left would love to do - there is no gun ownership in communism and the Michael Moore's of the world would love nothing better than to live communist rule.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 12:08 p.m.

    Thank heaven for the NRA! Being a proud member of the NRA I see this organization as THE one org that the radical communist left can't break simply because gun ownership reaches into the heart of America from EVERY state to EVERY state. The communist left (Michael Moor, Bill Maher, Hollywood and of course the Obama media and the big chief himself in the White House etc..) won't stop trying to ban all guns but this isn't gay marriage and it isn't immigration and it isn't some other social issue - it is the very HEART of what an American is. Gun owners live in liberal and conservative states and everything in between and regardless of what party you belong to you still reserve the right to protect yourself and family from bad guys.

  • ST Layton, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 4:32 p.m.

    I guess we will find out soon if Congress is owned by the People and the Consitution or by liberal special interests and Obama.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 8:49 p.m.

    Time for sanity and control over non sporting weapons used frequently by crazy people.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 1:39 a.m.

    If a bill is written to close the gun show loophole, an amendment should be added to allow shooters to use silencers. This would protect the hearing of hunters and others.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 1:58 p.m.

    re:one vote

    The guns used at the grade school were semi-auto hand guns. I own a .40 cal and my son owns a 9mm - both semi-auto handguns. These are ALL non-sporting guns. What in the name of heaven does sporting or non sporting have to do with owning a gun?? A concealed permit has nothing to do with hunting or sporting - it has EVERYTHING to do with protection of your self and your family. By the way - do you own a gun?? Have you shot a semi-auto hand gun? Are you aware that a semi-auto 9mm handgun is THE most common gun owned my LAW OBEYING citizens in this country for self protection? Holy geez - left wingers truly are clueless people.