Support President Obama

Democrats need your help to pass President Obama's second term agenda. Sign up and show him you have his back!

Email:


Zip Code:


Thank you for signing:
Support President Obama
Now take more action from our partners!
 

Memo Pad

|

America’s Love Affair With Firearms Is National Insanity

April 7th, 2012 12:00 am Cynthia Tucker

It has been 46 years — nearly a half-century — since Charles Whitman, a troubled ex-Marine, climbed atop the iconic University of Texas Tower to use it as a staging zone for a shooting spree. He killed 16 people on and around the campus, including his wife and mother.

The nation, while sobered by a second World War and stunned by escalating political turmoil, was still naive in many ways back then — halfway through a violent decade that would rend the political and social fabric. The youthful president, John F. Kennedy, had been assassinated just three years before. It’s no surprise that Whitman’s massacre horrified Americans from coast to coast.

But in the years since, we’ve adjusted too well to the armed madmen in our midst. A massacre on a college campus barely garners notice outside its immediate locale. Last week, when disgruntled ex-student One Goh allegedly opened fire in a classroom of Oakland’s tiny Oikos University, killing seven and wounding three others, the news drew low-key coverage outside California. After all, it was just the latest of several campus shootings so far this year.

And Whitman seems an amateur by current standards of senseless carnage. In 2007, Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people and wounded 25 at Virginia Tech. By then, of course, the 1999 Colombine High School massacre, during which Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 13 before committing suicide, had long since faded from the news.

Cho came from an immigrant family, but his massacre suggests how thoroughly American he was. (The same is true of Goh, if he is, as suspected, the perpetrator.) Other countries have generated a few homicidal lunatics, but murderous frenzies by gun-toting maniacs are a particularly American form of madness.

And that madness is stoked and sheltered, nurtured and fed by another kind of crazy — a widespread denial about the price of our love affair with firearms, a disbelief that borders on delusion. Future historians will look back on the nation’s refusal to enact sensible gun regulations with a wry fascination, much as present-day researchers ponder witch-burnings.

We weren’t always so irrational about gun ownership, though firearms were a more utilitarian household item 40 years ago, when more families hunted game for sport — and for the dinner table. In 1968, after nearly a decade of high-profile political assassinations, Congress passed the most stringent firearms regulations since the 1930s, despite the vigorous protests of the gun lobby.

In the intervening years, though, the gun lobby has only grown more powerful — and more radical and more unhinged — pushing past the limits of sanity. Its activists have battled to allow firearms on college campuses, in bars and in churches. Its members have persuaded state legislatures to pass notorious “Stand Your Ground” laws, such as the Florida statute implicated in the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

Continue Reading >> 1 2



  • mertsj

    Sign me up with the lunatics who don’t want to lose any more freedom.

    Does Ms Tucker presume that a government that condones newborn babies being killed by a doctor because their mothers don’t want them will protect her?

    Does Ms Tucker presume that a government that killed dozens of its own citizens at Waco will protect her?

    Does Ms Tucker presume that a government that performed the Tuskegee experiment will protect her?

    Talk about a lunatic.

    • awakenaustin

      What a wonderful selective review of life and history. Maybe you could enlighten us with a list of the specific freedoms you have lost and the event or action which led to you losing that freedom. Could you also explain which government took the freedom, if it was a government, the composition of that government (i.e., who was in power in which branch), whether it was a specific agency or department, and the date. Any other substantive background would be greatly appreciated.

      I am also incredibly interested in hearing the facts of the government which condones the killing of “newborns.”

      • mertsj

        Perhaps you do not know that it is legal in some states to bring in a doctor (different from the abortionist) to kill a newborn who has survived an abortion. And that the president voted for this when he was a state senator in IL.

        The freedoms lost are little things that add up to big things as the years go by.

        Perhaps you did not know that I used to be able to sell eggs to my neighbor and now if I want to do so, I must obtain a $20 permit from the state and a $60 permit from my county. Since I do not have enough eggs to sell to recoup the cost of the permits, I have lost that freedom.

        Perhaps you did not know that I used to be able to go behind my house and throw a line in the river and catch a mess of bull heads for supper. Now I have to get a fishing license.

        Used to be I could run tile and drain my fields and plant crops. Now my field is a “wetland” and can’t be farmed.

        Used to be I could put my kids in the car and go to town. Now I have to buy car seats and fasten my seat belt or be fined.

        Don’t you see? The list goes on and on. And I know, you are probably going to say, but these are good things. And maybe they are but the fact remains that we are all less free.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_B6RROC4IUESHT322QS5VJVPYRM Lynda

          And you owning a firearm will somehow change any of these issues that you fear are happening. Can you explain just how that will happen?

    • Drew_a

      The government hasn’t gone far enough it should kill all idiots, to stave off overpopulation, it should enforce its liable and slander laws more forecefully and kill them for they brainwash people and halt progress. and finally they should also kill all police officers that write more traffic tickets then all others combined as they hurt the local economy and bring corruption to the court systems. Take away the guns! compare to prohibition if you must but the truth is it will only be temporary when simply owning a gun will signify your intentions eventually the risk will exceed the benefits of hunting, sporting, oh yeah and killing people who tend to typically deserve it, but not always. YAY safety! BOO stupdity.

      • mertsj

        Better be careful with your wish that the government should kill all idiots.

        Who’s to say you won’t be defined as an idiot?

        • Drew_a

          I have a feeling you are on the list well before i am, but oh boy it sure is fun to think about. I think the conspiricist is up close to the top of the governments idiot list. But i’m definitely against seat belts. Seat Belts don’t kill people guns kill people

  • nomaster

    Were it not for the second amendment and our right to have and bear arms we would simply be another country at the mercy of its corrupting power structure. What keeps us free is the right our founding fathers gave us to maintain and bear arms and our sacred constitution. As our rights gradually disappear as American citizens by the crazies scared of terrorism allowing our congress to take away our protections under the bill of rights, if there is a God we better start bending our knees.

    • bmerbob

      The right to bear arms is what keeps us free? That sounds like a whole lot of rationalization.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=742558462 Mark S. Schroeder

        Rationalization? I hardly think so. Most of the countries in the Middle East where there Governments have turned into ruthless killing machines whose victims are men, women, and children with no means of defending themselves much less fighting back. The only thing that stands between our Government turning into a Totalitarian regime is its legally armed American citizens. If laws are passed prohibiting gun ownership it would strip responsible, honest American Citizen’s from owning a gun, leaving criminals who operate with illegal guns full reign over the defenseless American Public. Sure the Cops have guns, but in the majority of violent crimes (rape, murder, and robbery) the Police usually arrive at the crime scene after the suspects have fled, leaving a path of destruction in their wake.

        “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Thomas Jefferson Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

        • bmerbob

          Respectfully disagree. In my view, your argument fits right in with the rationalization to which I referred.

          Take the example of Zimmerman and Martin in Florida. The fact that we have so many armed people results in incidents such as this. And while there are recent examples of mass shootings in Europe, the US has the edge in that category, has for some time and probably always will. There should be a difference in comparing our “civilized” 21st century society with those nations who are not so called democracies and still practice the societal ways of the previous 2 centuries.

          How many of the crimes you mentioned have been stopped by non-police with arms. It just doesn’t happen.

          The US has the highest per capita prison population in the world, certainly of industrialized nations. We should acknowledge that we are by nature a violent and militaristic people. That is not disputable. Check the history of our armed conflicts, military, Indian wars and conflicts and the disputes like the Lincoln county wars.

          Let’s just own up to the fact that we love guns and fighting and just live with that national personality. But, in my opinion, “justifications” such as yours are exactly rationalization I mentioned.

        • Drew_a

          Respectfully?! that was just retarded skip can’t have his gun so the FBI will show up and kill everyone?! I think 3rd grade yes go back to 3rd grade. Surprised your vocabulary is so good

      • dockilldare

        “When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…”

        George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention

        “The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world not destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them … the weak will become prey to the strong.”

        Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War

        “Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms.”

        James Madison

        • bmerbob

          Those are all quotes from a far distant long gone period in history. While they were relevant for the times, times have certainly changed and we should be changing with them.

      • nomaster

        There is not rationalization because it will be what keeps us free. I retired from law enforcement after 36 years and just like any other prohibited item in American culture, the illegal will always be plentiful. Take for instance illegal drugs, they will always be there no matter how many billions or trillions you throw into the so called war on drugs. They are worth too much illegally and there will always be another drug pusher or drug lord among the impoverished that will die if it takes to sell them. So it would be with guns, they will always be available if illegal for the criminals only.
        Did the prohibition amendment end the use and availability of alcohol? No it didn’t, it created a monster criminal underworld that still haunts us today.
        What you call dockilldares statements as quotes only are some of the realities that can show people to how to be free. If sheeple you want to become then let the politicians chain you.

  • highpckts

    I do wish everyone would “read” the 2nd amendment!! You are allowed to bear arms in order to form and maintain an organized and well armed militia!!! You don’t belong to a militia!! You are an ordinary citizen who is gun crazy!!!

    • dockilldare

      Amendment II

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      do you mean this second amendment that i cut and pasted from the bill of rights? see accoerding to this you dont need to be in the militia to own or carry a gun. if that were not the case there would be an “and” between the lines and not a comma. its really just basic and simple english maybe you should learn to read.

      • highpckts

        What went wrong with the second amendment is 2 supreme court judgements that totally misinterpreted that amendment.
        In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

        So now we are “carrying” in schools, restaurants, playgrounds, etc. The state and federal governments, however, do not allow firearms on the grounds! Why?? Because someone would shoot the person or persons that is getting paid by the NRA to promote this insanity!!

        • ottokristen

          After the horrible shooting in Tucson Arizona, in the wee days of young year 2011, the honorable members of the US Senate and House of Representatives were contemplating arming themselves with handguns.
          Many people think it as a great idea. I would like to know why and how they came to this deduction.
          I know that the Constitution of United States gives the right to every citizen of United States to be armed.Just read it.It was meant to keep arms in case of British retaliation.
          But this was written more than two hundred years ago ,when here all over the land was so called “wild, wild west”,when gun fight was nothing out of the ordinary. Let’s hope that we got over the growing pains, or did we?
          I lived during the Second World War and before age six I knew all about guns ,ammunition and all that jazz.
          Later in the army I handled everything from Scorpion 7.65 mm up to 85 mm antiaircraft gun.
          I have seen what 9 mm Parabola or 6.35 mm Browning can do to a human body. Also I have been a competitive marksman in target shooting. I am stating this only to show that I am not completely ignorant in these matters.
          Let’s say we seriously thing about this idea of US lawmakers carrying handguns, to where?
          On their way to meet with their constituency? Maybe OK .On the way home? Maybe OK.
          On their way to chambers? Maybe not OK. And if they decide to go true with it, all of these lawmakers and representatives must have a regular shooting practice beside a specialized law enforcement training on about bi-weekly bases ,to be efficient and successful in case of an attack.
          In the Constitution our forefathers talked about different kind of guns than todays “beauties”, with split hair precision ,extremely high cadence if automatic and probably more lethal than the front end loading antiques of those days.
          Besides, the gun psychology is very tricky. I tell you a story what happened to me few years ago in Naples Florida.
          I was pushing a heavy and balky load on a dolly out of Home Depot exit which was blocked with a big Cadillac. I could not move back because the slope of the exit ramp, so I was stuck for quite a long time. Finally a middle age gentleman (my age)in shorts comes out from the store and flicking his car lock opener. By this time I was fuming and I said to him;”Why don’t you just drive right in, to make it easy on yourself.” The man got really agitated ,maybe he did not get what he wanted in the store and I just poured an oil on the his fire. Among the names he threw at me he said that if I don’t like it he is going to use the gun stored in the glove compartment.
          So here you have it. Gun psychology. It comes down to a fact that if some psycho, with a government blessed easy access to obtaining guns, wants to do his carefully planed killing, he will unfortunately succeed. The second amendment to the US constitution is the great part of the problem. Gun culture. I think that an obligatory waiting period, while purchasing a gun would be a good idea.Not good enough.
          Or to get rid of the guns all together.But it won’t happen, unfortunately for many lives ,which is going to be wasted by our “beloved” guns.

          • rustacus21

            I love this post, b/c it explores many of the angles the media CONSTANTLY overlooks, which causes us all over time, to simply 4get… that guns are not just in the hands of too many folks, but that these are ‘UNSTABLE’ folks, w/out many of the basic functional capacities that many of we ‘normal’ (?) people possess & take for granted. I had completely forgotten about the Congresswoman Gifford tragedy, as well as the manic, crazed & cowardly attacks, being FILTERED thru the Fox network, indulging in that poisonous ‘elimination’, ‘doing-away’ with, ‘getting rid of’ language they constantly use, dividing & pitting Americans against each other, while they laugh all the way to the bank!!! The gun issue is going to have to be dealt w/at some point, so that those who are incapable of such an awesome responsibility. They don’t care that the unhinged take this too far; its all about $$$…

      • highpckts

        I think you should reread that amendment! Its starts out by saying “a well regulated militia”!! I fail to see how you get individual rights out of that??

        • http://www.facebook.com/terango.lf Leonard Terango

          Didn’t the first Constitutional Congress, with 20 of the framers , and George Washington’s signature, mandate “that every able bodied male citizen had to posses a fire arm”, sometime around 1794-or-96?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_B6RROC4IUESHT322QS5VJVPYRM Lynda

            If you read Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention you will find that the founders biggest fear was a standing army. That is why they decided upon a well armed militia. It fit the times, since most folks lived on and off the land and a firearm was necessary for putting food on the table and for family protection.

        • dockilldare

          the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. it is simple plain english, im sorry you have no english comprehension skills. again if you knew how to read and comprehend you would know that, see agian if there was a requirement for any gun owner to be in the militia it would read “…free state and the right of…” buyt it does not..

          as for your comment about reducing crime, i think you should take a look at the FBI’s yearly report on violent crime, it states and has done so every year since 1989, that the places with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime rate. examples, camden nj, chicago il, washington dc, new york city, boston mass. to name a few. before you try to quote brady center lies let me set you straight on some truth. i know your going to come back with the brady lie about higher populations, well lets see of the named cities only new york has a higher population than miami, and new york’s is far higher on the ecconomic scale. so dont even try to use brady lies here.

          “Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed. ”
          Sarah Brady
          she may as well have quoted the communist manifesto or mein kampf great person to follow..

        • montanabill

          Read the part that says, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=682816874 Kenneth Langdon

          You are just plain stupid. The 2 amendment is not just for Militia but if you must know everyone in this country is part of the Militia. Better find out Something about the Militia it sure isn’t the national Guard Stupid! Put your Trust in King Obama AH. Not me!!!

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MY4XD4DLKQT4L6SAW5XEYEOFIU Brent

          The Supreme Court managed to arrive there, 9-0 in fact. Unanimous…. But if they didnt, who is the miltia? Are they not ourselves..? I am not going to re-write the whole quote. but read damn history book, jeez. This is like grade school stuff.

      • joyscarbo

        I do not and would not own a gun. I don’t believe that there are crazies who wish to do me harm around every corner. That being said, I have no problem those who own guns for the purpose of hunting and who handle and demonstrate due dilligence and caution when securing that weapon.

        Unfortunately, that hasn’t been the case lately in my state. Just in the month of March, 1 child was critically injured and 2 others killed because irresponsible gun owners left their weapons within the reach of young children. In the case of the two children who were killed, the owners-both with permits to carry a firearm- had left their kids unattended in a vehicle with their unsecured weapon. One of these gun owners was a police officer. The “civillian” gun owner was charged with manslaughter, while the cop was not charged, which makes absolutely NO sense to me. A police officer should be held to an even higher standard of maintaining a secured weapon when children are within arms reach of that weapon.

        And don’t give me that, “Uhhh the kid shouldn’t have touched the gun.” They’re dead and they wouldn’t have died had the owner of the gun had responsibly secured that weapon.

        The truth is that you gun-toting nuts are 4.5 times more likely to be the victim of a shooting and 4.2 likely to be killed by a gun. You’re also more likely to engage in lethal domestic violence. The USA has the distinction of having the highest rate of homicidal violence in the industrialized world. And we have no need for a malitia. Good luck, “good old boys,” and “nut jobs.”

    • Louis Klugh

      That’s where the insanity aspect comes in. People misconstrue the amendment to mean that every frustrated nut should have a gun and so you walk down the street and wonder which particular nut is apt to shoot you as you try to lead a normal life. If this keeps up, I see a good opportunity for riches due to investing in holster belt manufacturing and sales as we continue to regress to the days of the open frontier with cowboys doing the “Wyoming stance.”

      The rich corporations are not entirely to blame. they’re just benefitting from the the unfortunate legislation passed by congressmen who, despite the religious zeal some of them wear as badges of honor on their cuffs, pretend to be righteously indignant in their pursuit of guns for the sake of guns.

      The extra thrust, beyond the power of the rich corporations to buy congressmen, results from the need for middle aged men to substitute for the natural loss of virility from aging, it seems to me. And if you can’t figure out what I mean, you may well be one of them.

      • jimackermann

        And so you are challenging my “manhood” because I can’t understand what you are trying to say? I am doing my very best not to berate you as you did me. To the best of my knowledge, “nuts” are legally prevented from owning a firearm. Did you know this??? It is very OK with me that someone and or anyone in this country can make a profit. If there are no profits, this country is down the tubes.

        I am so totally bored with the rich corporation argument. Sorry, it is a fact of life. If there are no “rich corporations”, who will supply you with food, your cell phone, your electricity. And what I know, many of these “rich corporations are struggeling to stay alive. (Maybe not the oil ones, they have a built in profit margin just like the government).

        At the end of the day, me thinks you may be afraid. And I will tell you this. There are some “nuts” out there. They are “good old boys”. If you try and take their guns away, they will come after you with a vengance. All they want to do is be left alone. They cause no harm. If you stir them, you will not have a nice day.

      • Guns4Good

        Speaking as a young person who is an avid shooter, the idea that every older person who shoots is compensating is one of the stupidest sweeping generalizations I have ever heard. Also, if you don’t like guns, don’t buy one. The mentality you people have is “STOP LIKING WHAT I DON’T LIKE”. Also, the West during the “wild west” period was actually one of the most peaceful and safest place/periods to live.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_B6RROC4IUESHT322QS5VJVPYRM Lynda

      I think it would be a good idea if everyone would read Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Conventions. Within those pages will be found comments on the construction of the Constitution and the amendments. Many of the arguments will sound familiar today. From my reading of Madison’s remarks it appears clear that the 2nd Amendment was proposed to counter the founders fear of a standing army. That fear of the potential tyranny of a standing army made great sense considering the recent revolution. The idea of a well armed militia was put into place as a foil against such a standing army. Of course the majority of the population at that time lived on the land and each home certainly required a firearm to provide food and protection. The last time I check we have large and strong standing military and most of us get out food from the supermarket. BTW, I’m a gun owner and I’m not afraid of my government or sensible gun laws.

    • joyscarbo

      Thank you Jesus that SOMEONE said this!!!!

    • Guns4Good

      Actually, quoted from US Code 10 USC § 311,
      (a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

      (b)The classes of the militia are—
      (1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

      (2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

      Also, The terms “people” and “well regulated militia” are separated by a comma, showing them both to be two separate entities. Do you have any reading comprehension?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Marin/1664996613 David Marin

    This argument, once again is based on sophist assertions at several points which undermine other valid aspects of its content. As a liberal gun owner – yes, we are actually plentiful but not given to chicken-little responses – I maintain that the issue is closer controls on gun ownership and usage, not willy-nilly prevention of them. This has nothing to do with party affiliation, abortion, Al Quaeda, a national health plan, or any other alignment of issues brought forward by fundamentalists on either side of the issue. The surest way to prevent highway deaths by drunk drivers is to eliminate all cars, there is no provision anywhere in the Constitution which guarantees ownership of an automobile except the private property guarantees going back to the Magna Carta which also, incidentally, give you the right to own gopher poison and handguns but do not allow you to use either on your neighbor. This is likely the reason why the President, an intelligent legally educated person has not attempted to interfere with legal , sane ownership of potentially dangerous tools. Here come the screamers and the name-callers, I can hear the keys clackingt already…

    • dockilldare

      im an independent and i agree with you. i will not be voting for obama again but not becouse of his stance on gun control. there is plenty from our president that is reason to not reelect him beyond gun control. but you are right in your comment that we can not prevent violent crime by banning guns, i like your analogy and comparison with the drunk drivers, we have the right to bear arms as a means of defence against a tyranical goverenment, this is clearly stated in the federalist papers as well as many of the personal writings of the founders.

      • http://www.facebook.com/ksstarbuck Kathlyn S. Starbuck

        A vote against Obama is a vote for our continued downward spiral.

        The *only* way to prevent violent crime is to ban civilian gun ownership. I know this because it’s the only thing we haven’t tried yet!

        • nomaster

          Ban all guns even for civilians and the only ones to have them are the criminals. They will buy them on the black market or steal them. The police are there but they can’t be everywhere.

        • 86thTransVietVet1

          Kathlyn, A Government that can strip you of your right to possess a firearm is a Government that can dictate how you live your life and they can wantonly take your life from you. Check out China, Cuba, North Korea. The second ammendment is there to protect the Citizens from the Governmen. Learn your Constitution and read the Federalist Papers!

        • 86thTransVietVet1

          A vote FOR Obama is a vote for Socialist takeover of our nation. If you want that Kathlyn, move to Europe and see how you like it!

          • rustacus21

            Socialism. Communism. Marxism. All failures & soon to be joined by ‘capitalism.’ I jest of course, but only tyrants thrive in the afore-mentioned ‘ideologies’. But Democracy, it takes intelligence, commitment, perserverance & unity, to be a part of this way of life. Those of low intellect & cognitive capacities think it even remotely resembles U’r descriptions, basing their perceptions on a single representative. U voted Conservative, so of course U have no confidence in Democracy. U can’t ‘visualize’ how it benefits those beyond U’r self or U’r ‘tribe’. America is a national ‘community’, bonded to our belief in the Democracy that gives us all an opportunity to be/have/do INDIVIDUALLY & NATIONALLY better. If that’s ‘socialist’, GIMME MORE!!!

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/QBATUCQVGXJTVJLLY4EWCGAF5M james

          leave the country and see what its like “civilized” countries over in Europe are like where there are dozens of stabbings every day and only the criminals and police have guns. Cops cant be every where at once and you most likely lost your life to a junkie who robbed you. Yes dont forget that in many other countries that are “civilized” unlike the US you are taxed out the ass (if you are one of the lucky ones to have a job), you dont really own your property because the gov can take it without lawful cause, if you defend your self against a burglar in your home you go to jail, drug cartels and human trafficing are public and own the police, your kids are most likely going to either become alcoholics or drug attics. This is what happens when you get a nanny state where everything is done for you and the average citizen does not care whether they work or not because they do not have to WORK to live. It starts with guns and goes from there. a government cannot maim a country that is armed and ready to fight the wrong kind of change.

          If your smart you wont vote obama because this is all he has to offer. He and most of the demo party cannot understand the concept that you have to earn your success, it is not entitled to you simply because you breath air. Life is hard and anyone who thinks they can elude this concept is not rational. Life demands everyone to literally succeed or die. Only the strongest survive. and the last comment you made represents exactly what the demo party is like. They are grasping at straws to make things work BECAUSE NOTHING THEY DO ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE.

    • http://www.facebook.com/ksstarbuck Kathlyn S. Starbuck

      The way to prevent *drunk* driving accidents is to prevent alcohol, not cars. The way to prevent *driving accidents* is to prevent cars.

      And the way to prevent people from *shooting* other people is to take away their guns. They can still kill using knives, string, pillows, etc., but they can’t *shoot* each other without guns.

      • 86thTransVietVet1

        A Government that can take away your right to possess a firearm is a Government that can take away any “rights” they want, i.e. North Korea, Cuba and any other communist country you want to mention. Get a hint, understand that the founders of this Nation was concerned about that type of situation could develop if the Citizens were not able to protect themselves against such a Government! And for anyone to think taking away guns will stop killings is not very smart or they are out of their minds!

  • cfcrawmer3

    If you’re in doubt about trusting your government ask a Native American’s opinion!

  • howa4x

    I live in a state that banned automatic weapons 20 yr ago and no govenor has repealed the law, not even our current conservative republican Christe. It is very popular and is the 3rd rail to ultra conservatives who even mention repeal. Shows it can be done. Everytime there is a school shooting somewhere else most will say they are glad it won’t happen here. That’s not to say we don’t have gang violence, but it is endemic to inner cites and has a lot to do with our archaic drug laws and the numbness that young Afro-Americans have for each other. When you have no sense of community that happens.

  • wheatfire15

    Personally, I hope you all kill yourselves then we on the outer, who WILL miss all those wonderful belly-laughs your ‘culture’ give us, will sift thru the shit and turn that country in to something honorable.

  • grannyk8

    American men are in a love affair with guns. Why do men in other civilized countries manage to get along without this ego-booster, while Americans strut and brag and threaten; “Stand Your Ground”, really? They see an opportunity to draw behind every tree, shoot-outs in the grocery store, attacks from the pulpit; they see themselves as the hero who saves the day, in an everyday world, where odds that he’ll shoot someone accidentally are likely the same as the opportunity for any life-saving action on his part. The paranoid reaction borders on the insane; you sound, and look, foolish. Put on your big-boy pants, leave your childish fantasies behind, and live as a responsible adult; that’s what we expect from you.

    • http://www.facebook.com/ksstarbuck Kathlyn S. Starbuck

      big guns, big trucks…

      Compensation, I guess.

  • Southlib1

    If you want to talk about national insanity, let’s talk about drug policy. Far more victims, far more deaths, far more costly to the societal fabric than guns.

  • BimmerDr

    As usual just another way we the left are eating ourselves from with in. Taking away another “freedom” is not going to help our cause at all. Forgive me for pointing this out folks , but legislation takes months or longer when a corporation can just write a check! Get it? We need to be the party of “yes we can” not the party of “no you can’t.” Beside anyone who thinks they can go down to their local WalMart and purchase something that’s going to protect them from things like the F22, a smart bombs or drones has a screw loose? Please like drop all the BS and focuse in on the shit that matters. Remember, dumb people usually do dumb things remember that the next time we take money away from the educational system.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/HHC4HPZKDPRDMNJ5E5HGMPTUQY steven

    Having restrictions on firearms will not curb the whack jobs of our society. All it does is empower you and your like minded cronies to push me around.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/7BTDSRRH32L7ETAASE33P5AMOY Brian

    A drunk driver is commiting a crime for which he can be stopped and arrested. A lunatic with a gun is exercising his constitutional rights until he kills somebody-or, these days, somebodies. How does any society in which its members feel the need to go about armed call itself civilized? I guess that having to live barricaded and armed in your house is the price of freedom.

  • RBHK

    I am a democrat who has served my country and I enjoy shooting as a sport. I have never hunted but own a variety of weapons each designed for a particular type of shooting. I am opposed to military rifles because there simply is no need for them with the variety of weapons available to the shooter. It would appear that your article would prohibit my right to own and enjoy this sport of shooting simply because you do not enjoy or have a desire to shoot and own a weapon. Let me offer a couple points to ponder. If there were no guns mass poisonings might just replace the shootings and there are clubs, knifes and any number of other weapons that could be used to carry out murders.Drunk drivers kill more people than anything else and we know how that regulation turned out. The same thing would occur with guns. There will always be someone willing to sell a weapon to anyone with the correct amount of money and then only the illegal weapons would be around. The vast majority of shootings today are committed with illegally owned guns that are not registered and purchased illegally.The problem is not with the guns rather it is with the people which hold life to be so worthless that they have no problem taking one for almost any reason.For those who use or sell drugs there is no difference wether they kill you with a drug or shoot you. The result is the same.The laws on the books in some states are sufficent to control the problem if they were enforced properly. Finally let us remember, Japan did not invade the USA during the second world war because they feared the armed population.there is a saying never say never. Our government , as poor as it currently is, could one day attempt to be oppressive just like Syria. An armed population speaks well to contain such an incidence.

  • highpckts

    Again misinterpretations of the amendment! You better start bending your knee to duck when some lunatic aims a gun at you because he can!!

  • highpckts

    Please tell me why a “responsible, honest , American citizen is so afraid to go about his “honest” business without a gun? Pick his kids up at school with a gun! Eat at a restaurant with a gun! Go to church with a gun!! There has to be a happy medium! Where do you think these kids that are shooting up schools get these guns? Their responsible parents!!

  • highpckts

    What freedoms are you speaking of?? If you are so unhappy here with so many of your freedoms taken away, then pick a country that is so much freer and move!! And please list those freedoms that you lost on your way out!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kashmir-Singh/100002910244345 Kashmir Singh

    Say, “Farewell to arms!” all over the world.

  • pintail4

    She’ll never get my vote. The right to bear arms has been law since time began. Rest assured, people are not going to just give up their fire arms regardless of what anyone says. If people want to see a riot, just try takeing their guns away from them.
    Criminals won’t turn their guns in. You can be sure that the death rate from armed roberies and other crimes commited by criminals would far out weigh the deaths caused by the crazies running around with guns today. It would be a field day for crooks

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_B6RROC4IUESHT322QS5VJVPYRM Lynda

    This indeed is a violent country which should be the direction of the discussion. Why as a society is there so much distrust, suspicion and fear among our citizens? There are certainly events that we can point too that happen abroad that are often used to distract us from our own violence. You’ve heard them before. Some fool in Europe shoots a few or holds up in a theater until killed by the police and the response is ‘see it happens everywhere and it is not the guns.’ If that were only true we could all sleep better. If you spend just a few moments on the web you can easily find the statistics on violent crime and murder in other industrial countries. Most of those countries have very few guns in private hands and their murder rates are far lower than ours. It is not just man’s inability to exist peacefully among his peers and/or access to guns that drives such crime and killings. If it is just our nature to kill then the argument that without guns the killings would be done with other weapons would make sense. It does not. Look to Canada a country with a percentage rate of gun ownership up there with ours and only a small fraction of crime and murder rates. Europeans don’t murder each other like we do with or without guns. We had better come to grips with our violent behavior, face the truth and try and find a sane and logical solution to our problem.

  • perplejado

    I find the comments regarding this piece puzzling and off the mark. First of all, with regard to the drunk driving analogy, we require everyone who drives on the highways to have a driver’s license. In order to have a driver’s license one must be tested both physically and for one’s knowledge of the laws and regulations of the road. If someone drives drunk they loose these privileges. Yet, gun violence escalates and we genuflect to the second amendment and the gun lobby and allow them to lead around by the nose without nery a whimper. No licenses or little regulation is necessary to purchase and own a gun. I, for one, find the logic displayed on this page to be indemnic to the problem and an example of gross ignorance. By the way, President Obama is not going to take away anyone’s firearms, because the last time I checked there was still a congress poplulated by Republicans and since there is no chance that such a law could pass, and further more, there is no other way that the president has available to him to carry out such an idotic idea.

    • http://www.facebook.com/terango.lf Leonard Terango

      The difference between a driver license and and gun ownership is that auto’s use the public space. You can operate a vehicle on private land w/o a license, registration, or insurance. Unless you carry a weapon into public space, you shouldn’t need a license. Read my original post on social responsibility.

    • kajungator

      Since when perplejado did the President need congress to pass his agenda. Fast and Furious was an attempt to control gun ownership in this country. But they got caught. No congress needed, here or many other areas. Look around and wake up, your rights and liberties are evaporating every day and Dem & Rep are asleep, and doing nothing to stop them. Why after this president was elected did the Christian Monitor magazine, run an article about the sale of guns in this country tripled. Heck it was even hard to find ammo for any guns, within the first year. I guess everyone is just stupid and paranoid in this country for no go reason. But then again they may know something you don’t perplejado, and you would be wise to find it out.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4JK5UTBYBW34I6QZZXYEBMSTT4 TEN-OF-WANDS

    FIREARMS and the fundamental RIGHT OF CHOICE TO KILL (not to be confused with the right to kill, which I renounce with the same vigor as the rest of society) ARE THE ONLY REMAINING INSTRUMENT AVAILABLE TO THE INDIVIDUAL TO ADDRESS THE HOPELESSNESS AND HELPLESSNESS INFLICTED BY GLOBAL INSTITUTIONS !!!

  • dutchman_koo

    I am an European. As you undoubtly know we have strict laws concerning the ownership of guns. Private citizens are forbidden to own guns. The result is that the deathrate of accidental or intentional shootings in Europe is way below the American record. What surprises me is the intense concern many Americans have about unborn life and a far less concern about the risks for born life getting killed (see the very high murder count).
    Another thing that surprises me is that most Americans want as little governement involvement in their lives or in society as a whole on the one hand but on the other hand blaming the president as head of this governement for many things that are or going wrong in the economy and society, even as these things were caused by former governements. And you want the president to correct these failings!

  • excavatoreddie

    Read your history books. The first thing that dictators do is take guns away from citizens. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and the rest of you ignorant liberal left wing FUCKHEADS are only preparing the American citizens to be weak by trying to take away firearms. Who the hell do you think is going to have weapons, when they are taken away from law abiding citizens. Let me answer that for you blind bastards. THE CRIMINALS. You can’t depend on a cop for protection of your property and well being in this day & age. They’re either preoccupied with getting sued for shooting someone or busy harrassing people for minor infractions. I”ll keep my guns and protect myself and my family from the criminals, myself, thank you.

  • Junebug78

    How do we get rid of guns? Like we got rid of drugs? It is easy to find fault of the government for not taking away all the guns, but someone must come up with a way to do that. So far all I see
    are people telling us how bad it is to let anyone and everyone have a gun, but no worth while
    plan to get rid of them. People only obey the law when it suits them so a law that prohibits the
    ownership of guns is a waste of time. We have laws prohibiting the sale and purchase of drugs.
    and there is no shortage of unlawful drugs. You can buy drugs or guns almost anywhere.
    Maybe it’s all because of the people. Start with the children in grade school and teach them
    that guns and drugs are bad. Do you have a better idea?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_F3AEVYAEPTF5EQAQBKY7B4IUSU EAT THE RICH

    our guns are the only reason w didn’t invade us.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_F3AEVYAEPTF5EQAQBKY7B4IUSU EAT THE RICH

    no guns? no freedom. ask any suvivors from pre ww2 germany what happened there.

  • http://www.facebook.com/terango.lf Leonard Terango

    I’m a progressive “down the line” with most social issues, however, as tragic and as the senseless the examples are, I do not agree. Just because someone else is sociably irresponsible, I should not have my fundamental right to defend myself revoked! My states (WV) concealed carry permit and castle law reinforce my security. I suffer from congestive heart failure and can not defend myself physically anymore. WV has the lowest crime per capita than any other state. And this is mostly influenced by cultural norms, part of that norm is you will get yourself shot if break-in to a home. Concealed carry is the great equalizer among the physically weaker citizens. We don’t have law enforcement response times of minutes, most homes are a half hour or more from the Calvary arriving. The solution is not a “one size fits all” solution. And while I despise the NRA’s rhetoric, and methods, they are the most effective lobbing group in maintaining my security. I’m not afraid of Obama(I voted for him&will again) taking my gun rights away, primarily because there is not a US congressman or senator from most of the country that could survive the vote to prohibit weapons in any way. I’m ex-Navy, specialized in ordnance and was trained in rules of engagement & use of deadly force. Until I violate the law, no one is going take my means of primal defense from me. Gore lost in 2000 because of this very issue (he lost TN) and the Dems will loose again if this is pursued again.

  • washbag

    Could it be that we need more guns rather than less guns ? If the message were buy more guns rather than take away the guns would the NRA still back you up ? If we advocated EVERYBODY should carry a gun and a childs first expensive birthday present should be a gun would the NRA still back you up ?Guns in the classroom , guns on College campuses , guns in Church , guns at the carwash , would the NRA still back you up ? At what point is the NRA going to say enough ? Does that point exist for this society ?
    If you show children movies and heroes with guns do you expect anything different. Guns are so pervasive in our society that removing them or even regulating them is all but impossible at this point. Another excellent case of money(NRA) dictating to the people the way we WILL live. It’s wrong on so many levels it’s difficult to know where to begin !!

  • LYNNA CROCKETT

    A militia is intended to fortify our armies should the need arise in a national crisis. Made up of ordinary citizens, without pay, for the purpose of defense and security, is a militia. Why should laws be made to disarm the population when a few are abusing the law? Once again, the whole should pay a price in the interest of controling a few? Blame the ones who commit the crime and leave the others out. Highpckts, militias are made up of individuals who own guns to help national security OR just to own them because it is their right. Kathlyn they can’t kill with knives and other things if a person has a gun to defend himself! Why is that so hard to see? Criminals will get guns. When people began to be murdered after gun bans, what will be your answer then? The framers of the Constitution intended for us to have guns and like it or not, we get to have guns. Go live where the population is disarmed, or read about those countries. See what has happened to the citizens. See if it makes a difference.

  • jimackermann

    I don’t own a weapon. The Constitution say you can own one. I know many people that do own weapons and they own them responsibly. if I have to, I will go buy a gun to fight the idiots that want to take them away. And by the way, I would just love to see the day that you had to turn in your firearms to the silly government. Wear your bullet proof vest.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/DTU75MYZOTCQOAEXNQZTPNJYWI Zealot Screamer

    Are there really proponents of allowing firearms in bars? People who must posess firearms in the normal performance of the jobs or forbidden to consume alcohol on the job. I grew up around firearms, and have consumed copious volumes of alcohol all over the world. Allow me to posit that,mixing alcohol and firearms are a far too often, either by intention, accident, or coincidence a dangerous or fatal combination.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/DTU75MYZOTCQOAEXNQZTPNJYWI Zealot Screamer

    To anyone reading my last post, the fact that I typed “or” when I intended to type “are” is a perfect example of my alcohol cosumption.

  • 12915142019

    If there had been someone around with a gun that could shoot back, these mad men could have been stopped before they did so much damage. And if they new there was other people with guns that could shoot back maybe they would have thought twice before shooting in the first place and not done it. On prepared people are sitting ducks. When the guns are taken away they are taken from law-abiding citizens. The lawless can always get a gun if they want one. When good people are disarmed and can’t protect themselves then there at the mercy of the crook.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PZBYB6RP3Y6IOKIZD2I7LSRAFY Baba Rien

    “That’s the very definition of crazy.”

    Nope, in any other country that would be the very definition of sane. Let’s hope this secret plan does exist and will be realized, as the u.s. public is too deluded to see reason.

  • dockilldare

    another brady follower who completely disregards the published findings of the FBI. Kathlyn since 1989 the FBI has posted its findings on violent crime, they find that those cities and states with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime rate. now i have already addressed this with another of you anti gun folks, so i will not go into it again here. just check out my reply to high pockets below. but i will pose a question to you, similar to the analogy in this article. since there is a high crime rate and you think we should outlaw guns, let me ask this, im not a felon, i am a retired paratrooper now why should i have my rights taken away? why should you, pres. obama (or any other president / politician) or sarah brady tell me what i can shoot at the range? havent i earned my rights through my service? if not then we should also ban cars as there are a hell of a lot more deaths per year via drunk driving then gun deaths in this country. there are hundreds of sensible gun laws on the books already, background checks, waiting periods, the six month registration and taxation on all real assault weapons. (a semi auto is not an assault weapon)

  • montanabill

    Obviously, then if guns cause destruction, then automobiles, causing orders of magnitude more destruction, must be eliminated along with motorcycles and bathtubs. Did you know that most men in Switzerland belong to their militia and have guns in their homes?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_B6RROC4IUESHT322QS5VJVPYRM Lynda

      OK, you’ve got me. I can’t see the connection of citizens in Switerland having guns at home enters into your reply. Here is some info you for regarding those guns.

      An army issued personal weapon the Sig 550 rifle for enlisted men and a 9mm Sig-Sauer semi-automatic pistol for officers and medical personal at home. Until Oct of 2007 they were issued 50 rounds for the rifles and/or 48 rounds for the pistols. The ammo packages were sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use had taken place. That ammo was intended for use while travelling to the army barracks in case of invasion. When was the last someone invaded Switzerland?

      After October of 2007 the ammo had to be returned. by March of 2011, more tht 99% of the ammo had been returned. When service time expired the militiamen have the choice of keeping their rifle. If they keep it, the weapon is sent to factory where the fully ato function is removed.

      All of those solutions to unwanted use in Switzerland sound like reasonable solutions to some of our problems. Is that what you had in mind when you brought Swiss men having firearms at home? It does not appear so.

      • montanabill

        You must have missed the part about recreational shooting being a pretty large sport in Switzerland. The point is that the U.S. is not unique in the private possession of guns. Our culture’s acceptance of the ‘thug life’ that promotes the indiscriminate use of weapons is large part of the problem. Most of those shootings involve people who, legally, are not allowed to have weapons. You will it very seldom (I can’t think of an incident) where a member of the NRA is involved in a shooting that was not self-defense. In my neighborhood (not Montana), to be unarmed would put you at a great disadvantage with the thugs. The knowledge that a citizenry is well armed is also a deterrent to a would be dictator who is elected to power. I distinctly remember a recent incident where one such narcissist wanted to have his own ‘police force’ in addition to his czars.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=682816874 Kenneth Langdon

    The 2nd amendment was and is still today in effect and should be so. Our founding father did not trust the Federal Government then and today I trust the Federal government even less. I look at what is in office and Hillary Clinton! Most of us Americans would die if required to keep and bear arms. I trust no government as our founding father’s trusted no Government. I truly think it is time to make these government officials follow there oath to protect Constitution as they swore to do on taking office. Most of them in office today should be considered traders and tried as such. We have the best Congress that Money can Buy!

  • sleeprn01

    It is obvious that Mr. Wayne LaPierre has passed 9th grade civics. First, The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, it’s the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. Second, the President is in the executive branch which makes neither laws or decides on spending. Third, to get a Constitutional amendment passed or revoked is fairly complex. It first goes the congress, then it goes to the states where 3/4 of the states must ratify the new amendment, then the amendment goes back to the congress. The last attempt to amend the Constitution was back in the early ’70s which was the extremely controversial Equal Rights Amendment which would have caused very radical sweeping changes in American which the country probably would not have survived. It would have provided equal rights to women, this radical idea was, fortunately, defeated by the above process, for as god knows we don’t want equal rights for all, unless of course your an old white, heterosexual, land holding male. Please Mr. La Pierre learn something about your country before you open your mouth and make yourself look like a total ass.

  • AIMPOINT

    Every previous commentator’s positions were overruled in 2008 in District of Columbia v Heller : Individual right to own a gun.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MY4XD4DLKQT4L6SAW5XEYEOFIU Brent

    We should probably scrap some other parts of the Bill of Rights too… The realites faced by men in the founding generation were not new then, and they have hardly changed. The strong still pray on the weak, disarmed people are still at the mercy of tyrants, free men and women that are armed still provide for their own defense…

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MY4XD4DLKQT4L6SAW5XEYEOFIU Brent

    Where did those numbers come fromm brady? LCAV? Guns are used defensively somewhere between 1000 and 2500 times a day in the US. Firearms in the hands of free people are a net benfit to society.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MY4XD4DLKQT4L6SAW5XEYEOFIU Brent

    Chicago, DC…. You know, America’s killing fields after 30 years of gun bans… What about Mexico? Guns are effictively banned there? Maybe we can adopt their model….

  • http://www.facebook.com/kalleoskar.isaacson Carl Oscar Isaacson

    Not only have we given in to the gun lobby, but the popular media has begun to cultivate a new image of guns and gun ownership as part of the exciting world of “guys blowin’ stuff up.” Look at Mythbusters (one of my favorite shows) and the trouble they got into — related to a cannon shot that went astray. History channel also hots “Top Shots,” “American Guns” and “Sons of Guns.” Rick the “Pawn Star” deals in antique arms and regularly goes to the gun range to blow stuff up. Show Time has “Lock and Load.” And expect more.

    This is not to say that hunters, fire arms enthusiasts and gun range shooters have it all wrong. It is to say that this is partly wrong. Yes, blowing stuff up has its thrills. But the thrills are accompanied by a rather casual attitude towards guns and gun violence that perhaps even encourages us to carry firearms. After all, it’s all in fun — until a Trayvon Martin gets shot. And then

    We sadly do nothing.

  • rustacus21

    I’m conflicted on the ‘Rights’ issue, but not 1 bit on the meaning of the 2nd Amend. At the time of its insertion, the nation was at war. There were threats from w/in & outside & it was MORE than difficult to distinguish 1 from the other. 2day, we are under a completely different threat, w/the Fox network creating ‘enemies’ out of thin air & where they DO NOT EXIST!!! I applaud & am so hopeful & encouraged by the actions of the anonymous Tulsa citizen, that defied their ‘cultural’ orientations & yielded to their morality & virtue, by turning in 2 murderers. Now, the same thing needs to happen in Sanford & across the nation, where the ENTIRE national community needs to show up & declare these types of maniac laws come off the books NOW. The trauma this nation has been thru (2001-2009) is the precise reason so many Americans are coming apart, emotionally & psychologically. Now is the time to turn TO – NOT on each other. Tighter gun controls could have prevent 90% of the tragedies this year alone. But in modern society, we should trust each other enuff to say to each other ‘as an American, I have U’r best interest at heart, the SAME WAY I’m sure U do mine…’ Race, culture & class aside, this is the true meaning of PATRIOTISM! By trusting our Liberal/Progressive instincts, we won’t have to keep referencing back to the Constitution for meaning – we’ll already be living it…

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/QBATUCQVGXJTVJLLY4EWCGAF5M james

    Are you ffing kidding me!?!?!? I dont care where you are, if you are not ready to defend your life you do not deserve to have it. It is the way all animals on the planet work and WE ARE ANIMALS TOO. People act crazy, do stupid things, get depressed, want to beat or kill things with or without reason JUST LIKE OTHER ANIMALS. It happens, get over it and thank god that your still here today. Take away our technology and see how people treat one another, cause it wont be pretty. The only tragedy is that we have had our claws trimmed back and in essence turned the average citizen into a marshmallow. So no guns are not crazy. But hey cause of people like you wanting restrictions, I am not allowed to shoot god dam punk who wants to shoot up a school because there hopped up on ambien and anti-depressants and I cant even carry a knife on campus (so i hope my good ole ball point will do the trick). So thank you for your dim witted fear mongering because these articles are what prompt idiotic laws that only limit our self defense.