To Tom Franklin's point about "how the product (gun) actually is used"... If you ban or excessively regulate the similarly capable militaristic looking versions of weapons, the criminal will simply use the non-militaristic looking weapon. It's silly to debate gun control based on cosmetics and impossible to do so based on vague ideas about "how the product (gun) actually is used". Silly.

To Art Wheaton's point that “The media does not distinguish well between automatic and semiautomatic [weapons]..." He's certainly got that right. How many times in the media are weapons refereed to as "Automatic" when they aren't? Constantly. People who know nothing about guns shouldn't be in the position to regulate them. Period.

Mainer's have a lot of firearms and that's fine by me. I'm comforted by the fact that just about every household around me has firearms. That has to make some of the would-be home-invaders take pause and maybe reconsider busting into the home of a gun owner. Again, that's fine by me.

Regards,

Mike

“In my view the most politically astute move the gun lobby could make today would be to renounce the extremists in their ranks and embrace common-sense regulation of such weapons and handguns,” Sounds like oppression by the minority...

If a person does not have a felony conviction,this is no reason why he shouldnt have the right to own any gun of his choice as long as it isnt full automatic.without a federal permit.This is a right we have written in our bill of rights.Anti gun people should get a grip on reality and not screw with ones rights.Its pure and simple.The bad guys are going to have the automatic weapons no matter what anyone says.It makes my blood boil to have to debate this foolishness.Guns dont kill people the bad guys with the guns do.

James Brady was shot with a 22 revolver.

Tom Franklin: “I’ve been bothered by the line-drawing issue, how we distinguish between sporting guns that need little regulation versus guns that are commonly used in crimes —" The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting.

The Far Left liberals love to scare people with lies about these so-called "Assault weapons" which are owned by countless honest and true Americans. Just look at what our government leaders are attemtping to do with their pro-socialism push, and this should open-your-eyes to numerous red warning flags. It's time for positive change in Maine.

Let's get real here. If I was to commit a gun crime I would not waste my money on an AK47,SKS, AR15,9mm Glock or other low power in-accurate hunk of junk. I would get me an old WW2 M1 Garand in 30-06 that is semi-auto and will shoot right through one side of a car and out the other including whoever was sitting in it. The only reason to have any of the above is to plink at targets with a high rate of fire and low recoil. When I was in the military we fired on the range on full auto and even the M16 was not that accurate... we called it spray and pray. Put a lot of lead in the air and hope you hit your enemy. But I still see no need to ban them... it can be kinda fun to bang away a lot of ammo in the old gravel pit.

Remember, guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

I suppose someone is now going to tell me that assault weapons are used for target shooting, or give me some line about how you need an assault rifle to defend youself. Yawn.

You know what scares me more than a crook with a junk gun and no firearms training? A SWAT team dressed in black with hooded faces and a no knock warrant kicking in some old ladies door by mistake and when she pops out of the bedroom with her old 38 revolver she is shot to death. It happens all too often in this country.

“Obviously this is a big sticking point for many who oppose regulations such as background checks,”

I have never heard of someone who opposes background checks. The NRA supports background checks.

Bangorian....nope, I am not going to tell you that I need my 'assault weapon' for target practice; but I do have it if the need arises!

Do you remember when the great 'RED' flag came into Pearl Harbor, oops, or the subs that were in Maine; nope, didn't think so...

My point is, I am a law abiding citizen; should I have what I want as long as I pay for it and obey the law?

I have never had the Government /State buy me anything, not even food stamps! So, why not? limit me on what I work for?

If other people don't/can't afford these 'guns of mass destuction' DON"T tell me that I can't and try to make it 'Law'!

You may change your way if we are ever 'invaded'?

Oh, just for the record, I did have a home invasion; which could have been different if I didn't have a weapon. My wife was petrified as well as I..but the rifle was empty and the two left anyhow...think about this tonight at 12:30 am....I still do.

Peace out...just my opinion, or is this allowed? Do you want that changed, also?

I support background checks!

Tom Franklin is just after money to fill his pocket....like most lawyers...

Bangorian, no one will do so because you're too close minded to accept reality/common sense. I wonder if senility is the major factor?

I agree with Franklin in that we don't need the NRA to tell us how to think about guns. I believe in the right to bear arms even though I do not own a gun. I have often thought that I should know how to use one if I ever needed to. However, I do believe in background checks because of domestic violence issues and criminal acitivity here in the U.S. involving guns. It's a minor convenience in order to keep our society safe, as Mr. Franklin points out. Anyone that doesn't have anything to fear shouldn't complain about background checks. I am a former victim of domestic violence in which a gun was used against me.

What never ceases to amaze me is how little research most have done in this area before they write laws, or even newspaper stories.

In the context of military firearms there is no such thing as an 'assault weapon' unless of course you are using a weapon to 'assault' the enemy. In that case an assault weapon could be anything..an entrenching tool perhaps.

The proper term, in this context, is assault rifle. Jot that down for further reference John Holyoke.

The very first assault rifle was deployed by the German Schutzstaffel aka the Nazi SS. Hitler was, at first, unimpressed with the design and forbid its production. Nazi leadership, realizing the value of the firearm, tricked Hitler by playing down some features of the rifle and playing up others. Hitler finally relented and allowed the rifle to be produced. The rifle I am referring to, of course, is the seminal StG 44 (Sturmgewehr 44 or "storm rifle model 1944").

The assault rifle is a well defined concept. Not all "evil black rifles" qualify as assault rifles...though they do often look the part.

To be a true assault rifle the firearm must possess three main features. It must combine the characteristics of a carbine, submachine gun and automatic rifle.

Carbine: the rifle must be short in overall length. This is usually accomplished by shortening the barrel and the stock from lengths that are usually seen on a sporting arm.

Submachine gun: Submachine guns were smallish, select fire or automatic firearms that fired pistol ammunition and had high capacity magazines. The assault rifle utilized this concept and, in addition fired a more powerful round. For example, in the case of the sturm gewehr the traditional 8mm mauser round was shortened. This gave an intermediate powered round that was controllable when fired on full automatic, but still powerful enough to perform satisfactorily at ranges up to 300 meters.

Automatic rifle: the third criteria of an assault rifle is they are fully automatic. Full auto isn't exactly correct, however. Assault rifles are designed as 'select fire' meaning the shooter can, at his/her discretion, choose between fully automatic, semiautomatic and in some cases short bursts by flipping a lever.

The '94, klinton crime control bill did not ban assault rifles. Assault rifles are already banned and have been since 1968. Ever since then it has been illegal for civilians to own or transfer any firearm capable of automatic fire without a permit from the federal government. Klinton's crime bill was ridiculously stupid, ineffective and did nothing to reduce crime.

I hope this clears up, for most, what constitutes an assault rifle. Hopefully, if the government, and it's media weenies, can at least get their terminology correct we'd all at least have a common starting point.

The scenario that you illustrate, bubbalouie, also frightens me, also. It's Nazi-like, isn't it? And it does happen too many times, with no apologies from the SWAT team, either.

bubbalouie, no weapon is accurate in the 'spray and pray' method. Ineffective at best.

Why don't we have back ground checks for free speach? How about due process? The Bill of Rights lays out specific areas where the rights of the people may NOT BE INFRINGED UPON. Just as a person should not yell "fire" in a theatre, we have no laws making it illegal. What if there really was a fire in theatre? Laws which blanket the entire society with restrictions are against the founding priciples of this country. We are all free Men and should be treated as such until, as individuals, we have proven ourselves not be.

Do we still have freedom? When you answer that remember that "freedom" was originally meant to say "free from government control of our lives". Still feel free? I don't.

Yes, an AR-15 properly constructed makes an excellent target weapon, out to as far as 1200 yards in competitive shooting matches.

Try the 6.5 Grendel cartridge with a 24" match-grade barrel and an appropriately-rigid receiver, and you would have an excellent weapon that would perform better than most shooters can. AR-15s, AR-10s, and other similar weapons are great for targets, plinking, and even small game, such as coyotes. When lying in the prone position at the range. properly set up, it is of great benefit not to have to reload often - thus, the beauty of 20 and 30-round magazines.

If criminals showed a strong favoritism for red convertibles, would we suddenly need laws banning them? No. And the same holds true for picking and choosing certain weapons that have a legitimate purpose in the hands of honest Americans, and deciding they should be outlawed.

Oh it is very effective in a battle situation JoshuaWS. It's why the army no longer uses bolt action rifles except for sniper teams. It keeps the enemys head down while you get close enough to get him. I have been a firearm user most of my life... I say most because in the last 10 years or so I have laid down my gun and picked up a camera for "taking" trophy game animals. But for years I was a collector, re-loader, and target shooter as well as a hunter. I was and expert marksman with every weapon used in the Vietnam War and after became interested in long range target shooting. I owned custom built rifles and shot thousand yard targets. I think when it comes to firearms, ammunition, and accuracy I know what I am talking about.

I agree windfuture. Even with the standard issue M16 on semi automatic I could hit a man size target every time at 500 meters. It is how the gun is constructed that makes for accuracy. The more you refine the tool the more accurate work it will do. And with like minded people one can spend many enjoyable hours discussing powders, bullets, primers, calibers, ballistics, etc. It involves a lot more than just picking up a gun and firing off a shot for many. If the 2nd amendment does not even come into the issue it would be a shame to see such an enjoyable passtime go. The 2nd amendment gives us the right to protect ourselves from the government as well as our homes and property.

A 223 is extremely fast and accurate...Ammo use to be cheap, not anymore. Should be tons of it when we get done in Iraq....

Notice that in Iran, where people are protesting a tyrannical government, it is only THE GOVERNMENT WHO IS SHOOTING. The citizens cannot defend themselves.

Tyranny can happen anywhere, with any government. Humans all have the same nature and it has not changed since Nero.

Who cares?

Take all guns and melt them down into a scrap heap of metal.

I see many, many good comments on this thread. Anne_of_mdi said it for me...about guns and all. Very true. I just began to get interested in gun collection about a year and a half ago, and I have in my collection the following weapons so far: 9mm Uzi; 50 cal. Desert Eagle; 2 M1 Garands; M-14, 2 357 cal. weapons; AK-47; 2 pre era 1900 spun-barrel single shotguns; 1880 Winchester rifle; 9mm Glock (personal weapon w/concealment license); and 1 12-gauge shotgun for bird hunting. Hoping to add more within the next gun shows and Internet searching in the future, though.

I have taken courses in gun safety for all the weapons I collected, and have a "collector's license" which I take with me to gun shows. As a sporting gun enthusiast, and use the available police and government ranges near where I live, it is surprising to see so many "collectors" and other gun enthusiasts who like to get into this sport. Mostly we discuss the type of guns and their historical values, and test-fire weapons we do not have brought in by specialized gun owner/collectors who have weapons dating back to the Revolutionary War. Most of the owners of the weapons got into gun collecting, like I did, but many years ago...lots of Vietnam vets (like me), even some WW II vets, police, SWAT teams, and others are also involved discussing and firing guns at the range and club where I belong to.

It is nice to get into a hobby of sorts. My neighbor and business associate has a boat and loves to fish. Fishing is not for me and I hate water, especially deep ocean salt water. Texas seems to have gun regulation problems of their own right now. Ammunition is being withheld in some counties due to some crazy rules which came down from Austin. So, what are people doing about it? Stocking up and/or loading their own brass. Nice comments above, though...I even learned something about weapons from the posters here. I'll pass this information on to my friends at the club by way of my laptop I carry with me.

bubbalouie, "AK47,SKS, AR15,9mm Glock or other low power in-accurate hunk of junk" and then you go on to say in another comment "Even with the standard issue M16 on semi automatic I could hit a man size target every time at 500 meters. It is how the gun is constructed that makes for accuracy." Which is it?

It is both.... if you stop your nit picking.... lol. On semi auto fire the M16 is moderatly accurate. On full auto any weapon will rise up from the recoil and you have to "fight " it back down on target causing many of your shots to miss. I consider the M16 standard issue to be a hunk of junk. You can hit a man at long range on semi auto but with a properly set up 308 sniper rifle and scope you can hit an egg at that range.

When I crack on to mine she does tend to rise a little.....

Of course the 10.25 inch barrel tends to hide the amount that it is rising.

You can be all fancy as you want to. But for my money the 30.06 Springfield round is still the bomb. I've shot more deer with that round than any other.

BTW the 5.56mm/.223 round that the M-16 fires is lethal out to 500 meters, but it is not a great long range hunting cartridge. The military adopted it for its light weight and lethality at fairly close ranges. Studies showed that soldiers rarely saw their enemy at ranges in excess of 500 yrds.

Gun control is as pointless as drug control....laws have little effect on what people spend their money on, in fact the only effect these types of laws have is to create a black market...the top two sources of criminal and terrorist funding globally are the arms trade and drugs trade, respectively. In the case of gun-control, the only people affected by the law are the law-abiding ones....the criminals will get guns either way. I'm just going to guess that the multiple-felon gang-bangers running around the inner city with firearms didn't pick them up at their local gun shop. Laws that seek to control the ownership or purchase of ANYTHING are boud to fail, and not only fail, but create a whole host of problems more burdensome to society than the problems caused by that which these laws seek to control the transfer of in the first place. Guns, drugs, prostitution, these are all legitimate issues within society, but laws and law enforcement are rarely productive in mitigating these issues.

Peace, people (but carry concealed)

Tom Franklin wrote: “These are extraordinarily minor inconveniences that we accept in order to live in a more safe and civilized community".

Mr. Franklin, how does a ban on any weapon that makes someone like you feel good, change the mindset of the individual that was hell-bent to commit a crime?

What would we do without sheep? The wolf would go hungry and the sheep dog would have no work.

A society in which only criminals are armed is hardly a safe society....now a society with no guns at all, that's a safe society, but its never going to happen.

MaineCWPtraining;

I am a 25+ year CWP holder.

The issue is not hunting weapons or assault weapons.

Citizens also need the ability to protect themselves from oppressive government. There would be no need, if our representatives voted for the peoples wishes...but they obviously do not do that, as it is clear from the 11/3/09 vote, when we had to over turn their BS.

More important is...do people fear their government or does the government fear the citizens?

I believe at this time that people fear the government. They (government) take, take, take...and impose new law after new law. When will there be enough laws? Enough taxes? I believe that the government is out of control already...obviously. Wages are and have been flat, yet they keep raising taxes, they vote themselves pay raises, and give themselves healthcare (at our expense) that the citizens could only dream of. Anyone recall casting your vote to give your representatives the power to give themselves a raise? I do not. Do you recall voting to give them the healthcare that they enjoy? I do not. They simply seized this power for themselves, and we lay down and take it.

See what happens if someday you loose the ability to pay your taxes. The government will come and seize everything that you have worked your whole life for, home, land, everything.

WTF266...we need laws to protect society from people like you. If we didn't have laws, folks such as yourself would probably run around shooting everyone they didn't like the looks of because that, to you, is a legitimate solution to society's problems. My issue with gun control isn't that whack jobs like you should have the right to bear arms, but with the fact that its useless overall. Society is safer from people like you without bans on guns, because at least police will know you have these guns before you barricade yourself in the local post-office, pointing your gun at perceived homosexuals while ranting crap you heard on the latest talk radio show. You may not understand this, because you surround yourself only with people who agree with you and consume information only from sources sharing your biases, but America is liberalizing, not conservatizing. You are becoming a minority. If the people in Maine were as scared of the government as you seem to think, why did they vote down TABOR for a third time on november 3? What you think of as a great conservative outcry from the majority of Americans is really a small group of people whose voice is amplified by FOX and other media outlets with an interest in continuing neo-conservative policies. The neo-con generation is dying, and good riddance to them, I say. Within ten years this murmur will have completely silenced and gone to its grave with other dead political idealogies from the American past.

tom Franklin: The N.R.A. does not control the gun owners. They are the voice of them.

There is a huge distinction between a semi automatic weapon and a fully auto, military weapon. I firmly support the 2nd amendment and our constitutional right to bear arms. The US Supreme Court has ruled that this does not just apply to a State Militia or the National Guard. I would however support a ban on grenade launchers. As far as home defense , give me a 12 gauge pump shotgun loaded with double odd buckshot. In the dead of night there's just no mistaking that sound of a round being chambered. Gets the bad guys attention every time. And speaking of home defense, dear people, if you hear a sound downstairs in the middle of the night please do not go prowling around with your weapon searching for bad guys. Now you are on offense, not defense. There could be several intruders, in concealed positions, down there. Military doctrine generally holds that when assaulting a position you need a 3 to 1 advantage in manpower. You going downstairs by yourself: Advantage, Bad Guys. If you hear something that goes bump in the night the best course of action is to gather your family in one room, assume a defensive position with a clear shot at the door or other point of entry and call the POLICE. Alert the police to what is happening and especially mention that you are upstairs and armed. This could prevent a tragedy from occurring. Stay Armed. But Stay Safe.

John Kennedy was not shot with an assault rifle. nor was Ronald Reagan. Malcolm X was shot with a series on handguns in a city with STRICT gun control laws. John Lennon was also shot in New York. Dwight didn't use an assault rifle either.

Although this makes for good trolling, and gets people all excited, the truth is that gun violence by criminals is not even in the top ten causes of death in the USA. The real killers are cholesterol producing foods, accidents in and around the home, and death by car. My thought is why are legislators not targeting Ice cream, cake, bathrooms and ladders?

Australian Police Entrance Test

An Australian man is seeking to join the Police force

The Sergeant doing the interview says: "Your qualifications all look good, but there is an attitude suitability test that you must take before you can be accepted."

Then, sliding a pistol across the desk, he says:

"Take this pistol and go out and shoot six illegal immigrants, six drug dealers, six Muslim extremists, and a rabbit. "

"Why the rabbit?"

"Great attitude," says the Sergeant. "When can you start?"

HHS III - "the truth is that gun violence by criminals is not even in the top ten causes of death in the USA. The real killers are cholesterol producing foods, accidents in and around the home, and death by car. My thought is why are legislators not targeting Ice cream, cake, bathrooms and ladders?"

There are a few reasons why the the Gov wants to outlaw guns instead of the real killers of millions of people in this country. First and most important, when guns are for the people to own or posess, the government will have all the guns and all the power. What will we do then, fight back with Twinkies, cigarettes and vehicles?.. I think not. People need to stop living in the illusion that the government is somehow in place to protect and server the people, it is not. We are here to serve the government, plain and simple. Our government, Federal, State and local, rules by force (violence). Think about it, what happens if you break a law that the government says you have to follow?... You go to jail. Don't pay taxes... go to jail. The next logical step is to ban guns, and throw all gun owners in jail. Who will defend the rights of the people, when the government has no one to fear? What will stop them from having absolute power? What will they do first? End free speech? Take away your right to vote? Tax you to death?

The Bill of Rights was not written by a bunch of morons, our forefathers were looking at the big picture. Simply put if you take away the right to bear arms, then you will find all of these "rights" you assumed to have by living in country ruled by a "democratic" government will be gone and you, the people, will have no recourse.

i dont see a problem with people owning an AK or an AR .i dont have one because i dont see the need.i have a semi auto shot gun might not have the range of the AK or the AR but who needs range when some one breaks in to your house at 2 in the morning.if i need range i will just pull out the 300 ultra mag..

Cold dead hands, I will never give up mine.

We are living in times exactly like the New England colonists were back in the mid 1700's only most people don't have the ability to see it.

Joshua: Pretty strong words that you wrote to WTF266...I like his theory better than yours..You must be associated with Tom Franklin, right? Not to worry, as you have a right to your opinion, also..

Why should we, as citizens, have to rehash the same laws (re-vote) every year to just to vote them down; again and again..Waste of our time and money, don't 'ya ' think?

Ex: tabor/gay marriage; etc...

JoshuaWS: If you were ever in a firefight; 'Spray and Pray' would really be 'effective' and not ineffective as you say; been there, done that..have you?

ElectraGlide: where you been,Bro?

joshua... you dont have a clue you just talk to hear what your voice sounds like.

your a moron if you think society is safer today then it was in the 60's.

according to the united states crime statistics per 100,000 the murder rate in 1960 was 5.4% and the murder rate in 2008 was 5.4%

look it up.there is only a .3% increase since 1960.

sorry that should have been 5.1% in 1960

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html

Telefunkinu47...your 10.25 inch barrel ...in your dreams!

Ok, check out this article..this is in the United Kingdom..free of guns..

Now, you all that are against guns; this is the way Maine and even the USA will be like..

pease out

oops, Peace out...we all make mistakes

NO pal, 10.25 and 14 inch...

Yeah 2 not just 1...

May check book wasn't dreaming pal.....

RileyB, I'm not even sure what you're argument is, and your poor grammar only makes it more difficult to discern....but thank you for bolstering my original point with your statistics (however weak they may be), which was that despite a litany of laws designed to alleviate society's ills through force, America is no safer a place (and keep in mind that your numbers are per 100,000, and the population, thus the number of murders, has increased greatly). However, you must keep in mind that it is typically folks on your side of the political fence who are in favor of most of these laws, except in this one particular case (gun control). Laws that seek to control human behavior always make us less safe, and it is because of this I am against almost all forms of gun control. I also happen to think that people should have the freedom to spend their money on whatever they feel the need to spend their money on, and that includes guns. Anybody who is going to buy a gun at a gun shop or any other retailer for that matter is probably a law-abiding citizen anyhow, so what would be the point of barring them from doing so? My other point, likely the one you picked up on, was that the folks raving about fighting the government's "socialist agenda" with their guns are not only retarded, but also deal a great deal of damage to their own cause by making all gun owners seem, to the outsider, insane and dangerous. Maybe you are one of these folks, or maybe your reading comprehension isn't that great...who knows, people in the back woods of Maine aren't always the most intelligent lot LOL. What we really need is eugenics, not gun control

Americans(and MR Franklin) need to remember that the second amendment was not written so that people could have the right to hunt with a firearm. It was written to ensure that the government would not become so powerful that it could impose it's will on the people. A quick look at the history of gun control around the world should make this fact painfully obvious. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only adversely affect the law-abiding citizens

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! Please watch the following documentary and LEARN from the past.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwdO2FLg1Rs

One of the first things on hitler's agenda, after illegally seizing power, was to begin to pass laws that made it increasingly more difficult for GERMANS to own firearms.

By the time hitlers SS was rounding up Jews for 'relocation' to camps; most has already surrendered their arms to comply with law.

There are people who are uncomfortable with firearms for one reason or another. To those folks I say avoid firearms.

I do ask this.Help us who do support the Second Amendment and make it our practice to keep and bear arms.

THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT HERE TO HELP YOU. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT YOUR FRIEND.

As much as there are numorous good and valid points being made here, may I remind you all that the second amendment was not created for the rights of the "sportsman" as both sides of this arguement seem to suggest. it was created and stands today as an insurance policy for the american people. we have the right to bare arms for many reasons, the most important being to protect ourselves from our government. a people that are armed are in control, our forefathers knew this and went to great lenths to infuse this essential liberty into the structure of our constitution. that being said, the regulation of "military like" arms directly undermines our constatutional right. our weapons can look military because they are by definition and purpose, military arms. it troubles me that the presumed advocates of my gun rights stand for "sportsmans rights" instead of the rights of americans to defend there freedoms and liberties in general.

it troubles me that the presumed advocates of my gun rights stand for "sportsmans rights" instead of the rights of americans to defend there freedoms and liberties in general. "

We stand in agreement Sir. May I simply suggest that peacetime, sporting uses of firearms keeps the use of firearms in practical, everyday usage. What we don't use, we lose.

Before the US became a politically correct, socialist class of sheeple, there were many, many programs that advocated and supported civilian, sporting firearms programs. The Civilian Marksmanship Program comes instantly to mind. In this program surplus military firearms were actually issued/sold to civilians for the express purpose of encouraging shooting and marksmanship. I personally own several military arms from this program and I shot regularly at a CMP affiliated club.

The Boy Scouts of America is another example before it went all weenie, politically correct socialist. We were ENCOURAGED to practice marksmanship and our regional scout camp had a rifle range.

Germany, before the rise of hitler had many, similar programs many involving youth that encouraged marksmanship. Some of the finest marksmen and, finest firearms, came from prewar Germany. Of course, hitler ended all of that.

8:14 AM, Joshua;

Yes I remember you fag boy.

Pay no attention to Joshua, he is still fighting the homosexual war and feeling quite inadequate.

He is among the sheep who are afraid to stand up against the government for any reason, and also believes everything they say.

Also, YES Joshua, you are very lucky that there are laws to protect people like you, so don't push it before we take those laws away too.

hmm...ask your mother if I'm a fag, she'll tell you. She might have done a crappy job raising her child, but at least she's good for an hour or so....probably what your dad thought too.

Mr Franklin should be the first to step down as he is caving to the anti gin crowd in Washington and taking us 1 step closer to Socialism. DIsarm and control. Any form of gun control is just the beginning.

Me Franklin how about you work on getting rid of Lobbiests?? Any comment?

To those that are with Tom Franklin: the rest of the story...

The AR in "AR-15" rifle stands for Armalite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. "AR" does NOT stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle."

´ AR-15-style rifles are NOT "assault weapons" or "assault rifles." An assault rifle is fully automatic -- a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.

´ AR-15-style rifles look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but function like other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearms, firing only one round with each pull of the trigger

"These are extraordinarily minor inconveniences that we accept in order to live in a more safe and civilized community." Yet Maine has the lowest rate in the country of being a victim of a gun crime as well as the lowest violent crime rate. Shockingly, Maine received a very low score (12 out of 100) from the Brady Campaign. Mr. Franklin, are you suggesting we impose laws similar to the ones in sates with much higher gun crime and violent crime rates? Is your point gun ownership or crime? See, I couldn't care less what another law-abiding free man does; I'm worried about the criminals (while Mr. Franklin is worried about the law-abiding citizens). Economist John Lott has already shown that more guns = less crime. In addition, the sunsetting of the "assault" weapons ban and the significant increase in gun sales since last November has coincided with the lowest violent crime rates since the mid 1960s.

“When AK-47s and AR-15s become commonly used by criminals, it would make sense to restrict their purchase to buyers able to prove they are responsible and law-abiding." (1) These firearms are definitely not commonly used in crimes and (2) the protections are already in place. Given that, this sounds more like a progressive restriction on gun ownership. I'll go out on a limb and suggest this man voted for our current President.

"...it seems to me the test is..." I'm glad you self-appointed yourself to shred the Constitution. Thanks but I'm more capable of handling my own affairs than you are handing my affairs. See, Americans needed state-of-the-art firearms for the day to defend their freedoms and establish this country. Recognizing that, the Founding Fathers codified perpetuating this into the Bill of Rights.

"Maine hunters and sportsmen don’t need the NRA to tell them how to think." Correct, we tell the NRA what we want done and that is to protect our freedom, our right to own firearms, and our right to defend ourselves and the lives of our friends and family.

Bangorian: weapons aren't capable of actions (e.g., swimming, running, or assault). Please define EXACTLY what an assault weapon is. Also, I don't need your (liberal) permission to purchase, own, or legally use a firearm. If you don't want one, don't buy one.

bubbalouie: please cite at least a dozen instances of the "it happens all too often in this country" no-warrant police home invasions you so reference. I can cite hundreds of specific instances where firearm owners used those firearms to protect themselves against criminals. If you are to do a little reading, pick up "More Guns, Less Crime" and "The Bias Against Guns."