"She says the group supports the Constitution's Second Amendment, but feels regulation of guns is within constitutional limits."

Aww this poor lady - she doesn't see that taking away part of a constitutional right or changing how its interpreted is only the beginning. Enjoy protesting with that 1st ammendment right which is in no way safe. You don't see that by weakening the foundation of one ammendment is only the beginning to the decline of your freedom.

After "gun violence" protests, will committees form to protest against "car violence" at car dealerships?

I think Ms Simon would saves more children by protesting in front of Planned Parenthood. But saving lives is not the purpose of the protest is it?

Here is a Sheriff that knows the score.

I'm Sheriff David Clarke and I want to talk to you about something personal: your safety. It's no longer a spectator sport; I need you in the game. But are you ready? With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option. You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. But are you prepared? Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family."

What the police really do is zip up the body bag. These poor misguided protesters would deny the 2.5 million americans that defend themselves annually from violent crime the right to that defense.

The operative sentence from Sherif Clark is: "You have a duty to protect yourself and your family."

I'm sure this protest will have lots of media attention! Wonder how factual the signs will be. Perhaps signs with the truth on them should be prepared and a counter protest done at the same time.

These folk are well intentioned, but have either no clue, or are following the media/administration lead in the recent insanity.

They would be more effective picketing the homes of criminals if they can find them than the NRA. The NRA isn't even vocal enough against registration! Gee. Soon one will have to register in order to express his political views! History has demonstrated clearly that registration is the first step to confiscation. Background checks that also tell the government who does and who does not have guns are dangerous enough, even if we do need some way to monitor the mentally ill.

Why aren't they picketing pharmaceutical companies that produce the mind altering drugs most multiple shooters have been on over the past 20 years or so? That would also be more effective.

Disarming the innocent never did anything toward protecting the innocent. Indeed. That merely leaves them more vulnerable.

I suppose they would prefer that this lady was raped and killed. Even the anti gun Clintons agree that 1.5 million people defend themselves annually.

A woman in her early 50s was getting out of the shower when the bathroom lights suddenly went out. An intruder collided into her in the dark, causing her to fall backward into the shower and injure her back. She fought the man, but he put a knife to her throat. “She was telling him that she has money and please don’t hurt her,” said Police Cpl. Edwin Ritter, adding that the attack was an attempted sexual assault. The intruder forced the woman into her bedroom, but that’s exactly where she kept her .22-cal. pistol. She broke free, retrieved the gun and shot her would-be rapist several times. He ran outside, collapsed and died. “Thank God she’s okay and she had a weapon to protect herself with,” said a neighbor. “She’s a nice lady, just a sweet lady.” (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Atlanta, GA, 05/12/11)

Why do people think that something considered sensible would have any effect on senseless acts?

Reasonable regulation of guns and gun owners in clealy within the scope of the Second Amendment, as this Supreme Court has affirmed, even while recognizing the right to keep and bear arms.
Of course, the "reasonableness" issue will be litigated by all parties for some time to come.
But it is clear the absolutist interpretations of the Second Amendment by the NRA and even more radical gun rights lobbyists are beyond the Supreme Court's ruling.

Absolutest interpretation would be........ what?

Yes Java we believe in the constitution and the rights it provides. Are you saying that the Second Amendment is a radical idea?

I don't follow some of this logic. Sorry. Where does it say that anyone wants to take away all your guns? Keep them if you feel they keep you safe. But regulation to help - of course not stop - keep them out of criminal or criminally insane hands. Bullets that pierce the policeman's vests....necessary, really? AK-47s? I'm not following. When the Constitution was written there was no idea of the types of ammunition available in today's market. Do you really think our forefathers would want that? Do you really think that you are the militia they were talking about? Sad that we can't have a decent conversation about this without hearing "rather be raped" and brining in abortion into a separate discussion. Deflecting the true problem here....

The Holder Justice Dept is prosecuting 40% less firearm related crimes than the previous administration. We should be prosecuting the laws that are on the books now and see how that works. Anyone caught with an illegal firearm should get the mandatory seven year sentence. In DC , Chicago and Detroit they ignore illegal gun crimes. A young man in DC was given probation for having an illegal handgun, six months later while stealing a car, he shot and killed a policeman. Stupid!

How about protesting for the enforcement of the existing laws.

Java, yes I do know the answer but I doubt you do.

Bottom line we are talking about “People Violence” not “Gun Violence”. Killing a human being by any means is illegal in this country, well except with a scalpel which is Planned Parenthood or maybe by court order or maybe in war or maybe in self-defense. Ok, it’s ok to kill another human being if society says it’s ok. To the point, another law or two on guns won’t make any difference were killing is concerned. It only affects law abiding people. History has shown us that our Constitution is under constant assault by some people that would like to do away with all of it. Chip, Chip, Chip. I am not willing to give one inch on any of these assaults.

There is already conversation that the constitution has out lived its usefulness. Obama seems to have little use for it and dislikes its restrictions. I also am not willing to give one inch.

As Virginia says, disarming the population is step one in controlling the population. First we must know where the guns are before we can confiscate them. For our own good of course. Homeland security has already stated that the Tea Party is a terrorist organization along with NRA members, anti abortionists, those that believe in self determination, along with of course the KKK and Neo Nazis. Strangely the communist party is not on that list.

The next step is to eliminate dissension, and that has started by demonizing Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. The MSM should heed the cliche, " they came for jews and I did nothing because I was not a jew'.....................

So, Sally, actually I'd say that poor mother was held personally to account. I see no necessity to hold all the law abiding citizens who happen to be gun owners to account for her stupidity. All that is assuming media reports were correct, and so far no official report has been released by law enforcement. Gun registration will serve only one purpose...to inform government where all the guns are. Evidently you think government will protect you and your family. But, even the courts will tell you that they cannot. In history, clearly we have seen that registration allows tyrannical government to confiscate, the next step. The police chief out in San Diego just did tell media "why, we could disarm everyone in just a few years!" so who will protect your family then? That mother who shot an intruder just recently had a semi-automatic pistol that held only 5 bullets, and she used every one, and the guy got himself to the hospital. She stopped him, but if there were two? Suppose there were two of them? Or a hoard coming after your only food supply? Are you so certain there's safety in your future? Show me where, in history, disarming the people had a positive affect on their safety? To the contrary, history has demonstrated how vulnerable people become when they can't protect themselves. You don't know who will be in charge in a few years. Media has scared folks, and government would love your guns!

AS Jefferson said; "A government that is big enough to give you what you want, is big enough to take what you have." The libs want us to make the Govt big enough to do that.

I think background checks are fine. Registration only tells the Government where all the guns are, so at some future date they can collect them. It serves no other useful purpose. You still refuse to confront the fact that 2.5 million americans defend themselves annually from violent crime. If you don't like that number, think its too high then use the Anti-gun peoples figure of 1.5 million.

Convict, it will never be difficult for criminals to obtain guns. They are criminals for cripes sake. What will registration do to deter criminals? Enforce the laws that are on the books. The Holder Justice dept has prosecuted 40% less gun crimes that the previous administration. Lets use the tools we already have before we go off half cocked (pun intended) and pass even more laws.

DGeorge, the Holder Justice Department was part of the Fast and Furious scandal, and that just could be one of the main reasons they haven't bothered to prosecute...they would have to prosecute themselves. Out of control government, not accountable to the people, will never protect the people. Convict just doesn't seem to get that. His arguments are all straw men, or red herrings.

Show proof that registration ANYWHERE ELSE IN HISTORY has served as a way to lessen violence... if you can't - then get the facts straight and back off. People have a right to self defense. It's not a "privilege" and it's God given.

I can not believe how simple minded you two can be. What do you think our streets would be like if we didn't require people to register their vehicles, require licensing (registration) of drivers and that vehicles undergo an annual safety inspection? Do you think our roads would somehow be safer because any fool could buy a car without having any form of oversight?

I know, I know. Driving a car is a privelege.

BTW, do you think we have a right to keep guns out of the hands of the insane, felons and terrorists? I ask because, if you believe this to be true, then you necessarily accept that the government has the responsibility and authority to set limits on who may and may not own Arms.

Convict, your "if/then" arguments are simply childish. Did you not read and comprehend what "we two" have said? You did not respond in any way to the issue at hand. If you truly believe government will protect you, it's you who are simple minded. The Founding Fathers acknowledged that government cannot be trusted. That's why they wrote a Constitution to LIMIT the power of government. Much more recent history demonstrates the issue clearly. You are looking for a simple solution...... take rights away from law-abiding citizens in order to achieve some sort of safety. Criminals and the insane don't obey laws. Only law-abiding citizens do. Your solution will leave the innocent more vulnerable, not more safe! Your piling on law after law after law is foolish and destructive of our liberties, and those of our children and grandchildren. You won't keep guns our of the hands of the insane, felons or terrorists by making laws. Waste of time...and only hurts the innocent. Those you wish to control will not comply.

Umm . . . there were only 4 protesters.