Ann, not everyone in your district wants Missouri to be a "Right to Work" state. Evidence shows that this merely destroys middle class wages in a "race to the bottom.

You've hit the nail on the head. However, Ann won't vote against John. She is the epitome of the political insider. She will do as she is told. I'm sure at the recent orientation she learned to say, "Yes, Mr. Speaker, of course, Mr. Speaker, right away, Mr. Speaker." We need new blood and we need to end the professional political class now.

What is wrong with the top 1% paying their fair share? I say let the rate go back to what it was before the Bush tax break for the top 1%

Social Security is not an entitlement. I pay for it, and my employer pays for it. The government does not pay into Social Security. They take money out of Social Security and replace it with a government bond. The government has already spent the money that we put into Social Security and they are not able to redeem the bonds so now they want to change the rules. The only way Social Security is an entitlement is because I paid for it, and I'm entitled to it. Remove the cap on Social Security withholding and we'll be okay

What don't you like about a .223 caliber? Try to be specific. It's just a measurement.

1st , you should be respectfully banned from calling persons "idiots" and "retarded".
on this discussion forum.Do you want to respond to the "cartoon" of Urinating 1st?
In answer to all your questions here, it takes one word."CONSTITUTION"
Why don't you ask the person who carries a gun WHY?Mass killings are frequent now, just like the internet has made mass Pornography frequently available.I do not know of anyone who carries a .223-caliber rifle.Warped minds of our young kids are the reasons for these mass killings."Hatred" spewed by adults toward one another is penetrating the minds of our young ones.Freedom to "smoke" mind harming drugs is going to add to mass killings.Liberals will blame "guns" instead of the Drugs. That Mr reverseMan is why you would never accept what I have to say.
Right before your eyes, is the result of Liberalism. Better find the biggest weapon you can, because we have a whole class of "irresponsible" and lazy young kids among us.
I don't call them "idiots" or "retarded". I say they are mis-guided.
Why don't you make a list of all Mass-killings past ten years.
I am sure you will see a pattern.
Start with Benghazi-Libya. You know, that one that we were all told happened-"BECAUSE OF A VIDEO".
Innocent American's not at war were murdered. And our great President decides to
keep it a secret.That is what our Young kids are being taught today.
No personal responsiblility and no shame is Acceptable.
Chicago has mass killings weekly-Go figure!

that it is a rifle, not some handgun that a person has to feel protected

Would you please tell us Why you should have a car that Goes 125 MPH?
That is excessive , would you agree?.

Would you please tell us why our local TV's need to show nightly mass killings and Big-Guns in their shows? Would you Ban any Gun violence movies/Videos?
I wonder if you even agree that Movies and videos ARE warping the minds of our Children?

Finally, If the US bans Large guns, how would we protect against criminals (terrorists) having large guns. The right to bear Arms is NOT old. We have the right to bear any arm that puts any of us on equal firearm defense.
Many people buy large cars , not because they need them. They buy for "fear" of being "creamed" "Killed" by a Larger vehicle. It's that simple.
It did not take a large weapon in CT killings.

Guns is not the problem. So, let's admit the problem is "MENTAL derangement".
(especially among our Young generation)
We might Ban all Gun Ownership by any family member having a "psychiatric" background. (I would extend that Ban to the Parents of the child under care) NO EXCEPTIONS. Then the only way a "mentally disturbed" person could Gun-kill is to steal it from outside the house. (The same way they might steal a car.)
I would mandate that at least One person in every Business carry a Gun to work.
No customer or school should depend on Security services only.
No Citizen should depend on local protection by 911, when seconds count.

Guns and what else? Would you include CARS? People do Kill people using Cars, can you agree with that?. Knives? Bombs? Hands? Poison (mass killings possible)
Water--Drownings? Gas? Airplanes? (911)
What has changed is that the Killers are now killing themselves. That takes away the WHY's. Society is pleased to know the WHY's, thinking another Law can solve the "ROOT PROBLEM OF ----CULTURE.

wait PaulRevere how many times have you heard of mass killings that are done with cars,knives,bombs,drownings,gas. Everytime there's a mass killing it is with a gun

"...is done by "mentally disturbed". They can be more easily Banned from Society , than Guns. "

Can we start with you?

You really think a person should be able to have 6 guns like this guy did. And you don't buy a car that can go 125 mph with the intent of killing someone dumbass

You really think a person should be able to have 6 guns like this guy did. And you don't buy a car that can go 125 mph with the intent of killing someone

Caffeinated: No you can't have 6 pipe bombs. That statement proves you lack any understanding of the current law. My point is that currently law abiding citizens who can pass a background check are allowed to possess as many guns as they want. Its all about the law. People break the law everyday, our society doesn't routinely change laws because of law breakers. I won't stand by and have laws changed that also change my rights as a law abiding citizen. Rape is illegal, what would you suggest we change under the law to prevent that? Speeding is illegal, littering is illegal, driving without a license and on and on. So the question is: do you change the rights of the honest person based upon the behavior of the dishonest person?

I'm not saying that everybody who has a gun needs to turn it in. I want stricter gun laws so not just any nut can walk in and buy a gun. What's the harm in that Mr. Completely?

" That statement proves you lack any understanding of the current law."

And that statement proves you lack any understanding of semantic argument. I wasn't making a statement on current laws, I was making a statement on the ludicrously lax nature of our current laws regarding weapons caches.

If it's perfectly fine for someone to own a cache of 6 semi-automatic weapons, why isn't it perfectly fine for someone to own a cache of pipe bombs? We can have them registered. They're both intended for killing large numbers of people. Why not?

ReverePaul: Nuts can't buy guns now at the FFL level. The secondary market could use some tweaking however anyone who knows what time it is simply requires a purchaser on the peer to peer level to produce a valid CCW so at least we know we're selling to someone who has passed a criminal background check in recent years. As far as mental health goes, its like any type of health, we're all healthy until we're not. No way to predict if and when someone goes crazy..

So, can I have 6 pipe bombs? You know... for practice bombing and self-protection.

How is it my business? Because I don't want to be in a country where a person can buy 6 guns and kill 20 children with them. Can you give met 66 reasons why a person can have 66 guns? Can you even give me one reason? Because I never see stories about guns being used for good. All I see is senseless murders committed every day. Are you going to argue that we should keep guns because it's a constitutional right? You do know when the constitution was written they didn't have guns that could fire 100 rounds within minutes. Piers Morgan said last night that there is an average of 35 murders with guns committed in Britian compared to 12,000 in the United States. But I guess that's not due to the strict gun laws Britian has. You'll probably just brush off that fact though and say if the "liberal" media is saying it it's not true.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c2#/video/world/2012/12/15/pmt-panel-gun-control-debate.cnn