By Cynthia Tucker

Gun Advocacy Has Now Become Parody

June 14, 2014 12:00 am Category: Memo Pad, Politics 230 Comments A+ / A-
Gun Advocacy Has Now Become Parody

When I was growing up in the Cold War era, teachers instructed their pupils in the fine art of ducking under the desk as a shield against a strike from an atom bomb. That was a futile exercise, of course: A desktop provides no protection from the powerful destructive capacity of a nuclear weapon.

But it allowed teachers and their charges to pretend to have a defense against a frightening communist enemy whose might nearly equaled our own. It created a psychological barrier against helplessness.

These days, teachers train to protect their students from armed madmen who shoot up schools. They are taught to recognize not just the sound of gunfire in the hallway but also to hear the bone-chilling thump of an empty clip hitting the floor. They learn to hide their students; they memorize escape routes; they practice throwing ordinary classroom tools, like staplers, at an armed assailant.

As schools search for solutions, a manufacturer’s spokesman said sales of a product called the “Bodyguard Blanket,” a bulletproof covering that might offer a bit of protection from a school shooter, have been surprisingly strong. Why wouldn’t it sell quickly? Since the December 2012 Newtown massacre, there has been, on average, a similar incident every five weeks, according to CNN.

However, there’s a huge difference between the dangerous enemy we confronted in my youth and the current menace: Average citizens could defeat the lunacy now threatening our children. We are not helpless. Instead, for reasons that I simply cannot fathom, we are paralyzed by a crazed gun lobby.

It’s difficult to adequately describe our sense of defeatism in the face of the firearms fanatics. We don’t fight back when they insist on laws allowing guns in schools, in bars, in churches. We throw up our hands when they resist background checks. We shrug when another child is gunned down at school.

Oh, polls show our support for common-sense measures that would curb the death rate. After Newtown — when 20 small children and six adults were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School — 91 percent of Americans supported background checks for firearms purchases at gun shows and private sales. Yet the Senate could not manage to pass a bill that closed the “gun show loophole.”

It’s unlikely that any of the senators who voted against the measure will be called to account in the only way that matters — with defeat. While 41 Republicans (and five Democrats) voted against the bill, the GOP is expected to gain seats in November’s elections. What kind of message does that send to the gun fanatics?

Meanwhile, the gun lobby’s favorite arguments for its positions have been, well, gunned down. Gun advocates claim that widespread firearms ownership by responsible law-abiding citizens would help to stop the carnage. They insist that a would-be school shooter, for example, would be killed before he could hurt anyone if only teachers were armed.

Experience shows it rarely works that way. Earlier this month, anti-government extremists, husband-and-wife team Jerad and Amanda Miller, killed two police officers in Las Vegas, ambushing the officers as they ate lunch. The couple then went to a nearby Walmart, where they encountered an armed citizen, Joseph Wilcox, who spotted Jerad and tried to stop him. Wilcox, too, was shot dead.

Facts, however, don’t faze the National Rifle Association and its allies, who have long since descended into a lunacy that rivals parody. Consider this: Recently, gun fetishists in Texas have begun demonstrating their support for “open carry” laws by carrying their heavy-duty weapons into restaurants. They’ve posted pictures of themselves with their assault-style weapons — civilian versions of rifles such as the AK-47 — strapped to their backs as stunned diners look on.

The NRA posted an opinion piece on its website discouraging those antics: “It makes folks who might normally be perfectly open-minded about firearms feel uncomfortable and question the motives of pro-gun advocates,” the writer said. Guess what? Within a few days, a backlash ensued from the gun cult, and the NRA disowned the commentary.

This is Alice-down-the-rabbit-hole madness. What does it say about the rest of us that we allow it to rule?

(Cynthia Tucker, winner of the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a visiting professor at the University of Georgia. She can be reached at cynthia@cynthiatucker.com.)

AFP Photo/Karen Bleier

Gun Advocacy Has Now Become Parody Reviewed by on . When I was growing up in the Cold War era, teachers instructed their pupils in the fine art of ducking under the desk as a shield against a strike from an atom When I was growing up in the Cold War era, teachers instructed their pupils in the fine art of ducking under the desk as a shield against a strike from an atom Rating: 0

More by Cynthia Tucker

View Of Black Men As Thugs Is Deep-Seated Prejudice

Since when did shopping while black become a crime?

Read more...

Obamacare Is Not The Disaster It Was Predicted To Be

Even in Alabama, conservatives are giving up the fight against the ACA.

Read more...

Return Of Troops To Iraq Is Genuine Failure Of Leadership

You have to give the bloodthirsty jihadists of the Islamic State (also known as ISIL or ISIS) credit: They may be savages, but they know us well. They used well-produced, high-quality videos of their grisly murders of American journalists to provoke the United States into a bipartisan frenzy of retribution. It worked too well. Not

Read more...

Tags

Comments

  • howa4x

    It is all about gun sales under the guise of the 2nd amendment. The NMA, the national murder association, has made a pact with the devil, the gun manufactures to get kickbacks to fund the organization and give it the money to have clout in legislative races. They are the mechanism to spread fear of guns being taken away by a god help us,a black president. The murder of children doesn’t phase the gun industry and they consider it at worst collateral damage, and sometimes actually good advertising for their central mission which is profit from gun sales.
    It is up to us to demand accountability of our representatives to protect us and our children. We have to say forcibly it s unacceptable behavior to have children at risk just for attending school, and we have to fight back and stop being complacent. There are far more of us than gun nuts.
    The 2nd amendment was not given by god like the 10 commandments. It was written by people who were forming a country in a mostly frontier wilderness, with a citizen militia that needed guns at home, to protect the country. It was never thought of at the time, that 300 years later the fight would be over having military assault weapons at home, whose only real purpose is killing people effectively, and 74 school shootings a year. We are the only industrialized country in the world to have more regard for gun ownership than the protection of children. This is the real legacy of the gun culture and the NMA.

    • http://www.examiner.com/political-rebuttal-in-national/michael-ross Michael Ross

      It’s a fairly simple con.

      Step #1: Threaten all politicians with retribution (either in the form of withholding campaign contributions, or death threats) who even think of compromising on gun sales.
      Step #2: Sell as many guns to as many criminals and crazy people as possible.
      Step #3: Wait for one of the criminals or crazy people to go on a killing spree.
      Step #4: Tell all of the law-abiding and sane citizens that the only way they can defend themselves is to buy as many guns as they can.

      The NRA’s purpose is to sell guns, not to handle them responsibly, and they don’t see those 91% who favor common sense gun control as anything other than people still waiting to be bullied into buying a gun.

      • dave

        Michael you only forgot one thing,after step 4 its repeat as OFTEN and as LOUDLY as possible. Why do most gun own
        ers and buyers not KNOW what a money whore the NRA is ? Or maybe they don’t care ?.The nra gets a dollar for EVERY new gun sold by gun makers. Why would the nra NOT pro-
        stitute itself for that kind of money. As a sane rational non gun owning adult i just don’t understand the rationale that children can be murdered with no consequences concern- ing the method. Why is it that you need a license to drive a car,a hunting license to use a gun to hunt and shoot and kill animals,BUT,use a gun to kill another person or shoot up a school,and the nra says MORE guns are needed to defend ourselves ?????? How the hell does that even make sense ??????????? Why is there any less of a responsibilty to go along with your ‘ right ‘ to own a gun ?????????

        • http://www.examiner.com/political-rebuttal-in-national/michael-ross Michael Ross

          The reality is that they DO know what a money whore the NRA is. They just don’t care. If it weren’t for the NRA, they wouldn’t have the capacity (or at least the illusion of the capacity) to brutally murder anyone who dares to disagree with them.

          No matter what industry you are in, the easiest buck will always be made by pandering to fanatics. The NRA may claim to be trying to enable us to defend ourselves against criminals and crazy people, but criminals and crazy people are their best customers.

          • joe schmo

            Why does the NRA have money. Well, because many many citizens are concerned they will lose their second amendment rights. Gun owners need a voice.
            NRA supports RESPONSIBLE gun ownership.

            As far as fanatics go. Speak for yourself.

          • 1EdMeadows83

            I don’t have to speak for myself in regards to fanaticism. You just did that admirably.

          • joe schmo

            Huh, like many wacky liberals, you just don’t get it and you have become overtly extreme in your belief system. Since when do you get off telling US what to do. That comes from ‘your’ fearless leader.

          • Sand_Cat

            We’re all laughing. Got any more great lines?

          • 1EdMeadows83

            I usually get bored with dumb people after several exchanges on one of the sites. I can’t go that long with you. I’m already bored beyond measure and will not respond to any more of your inanities.

          • Candice White

            I am sick to death of the NRA and the rest of you gun nuts. These are the same people who claim to be Christians which clearly they are not.

          • joe schmo

            Yup, I can see why…… the better to protect ourselves from people like you my dear…..

          • jnap

            dear Joe, take your gun to church, you might not like what the preachers says, especially if he talks about gun deaths, so you can shoot him.

          • joe schmo

            Dude, this is a very big Country. The amount of gun deaths are few and far between when compared to countries who have gun control. Look it up.

          • jnap

            I have looked it up and you are full of sh&&.
            The US leads the world in gun related deaths for a developed country.

          • joe schmo

            Oh no I’m not, what are you looking at Liberal think tanks. I try to find less biased information if I can find it:

            In an independent research paper titled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?,” first published in Harvard’s Journal of Public Law and Policy, Don B. Kates, a criminologist and constitutional lawyer, and Gary Mauser, Ph.D., a Canadian criminologist and professor at Simon Fraser University, examined the correlation between gun laws and death rates.
            While not new, as gun debates nationwide heat up, the paper has resurfaced in recent days, specifically with firearm advocates.“International
            evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions [have] all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative,” the researchers wrote in their introduction
            of their findings.

            The study goes on to say:

            …the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.”

            http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/

            Here is the entire report if you care to read it, but I know you won’t.

            http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

            Get over it. Guns aren’t going away too soon. by the way, in case you haven’t noticed, the 2nd amendments allows us to own guns…..

          • jnap

            Just imagine Joe what happens when a bullet coming from a randomly fired gun goes into your chest. First it punctures your skin, then it hits a rib breaking it and causing splintering bones to spread out and damage surrounding tissue and organs. Next it enters a lung which deflates causing you to gasp for breath within a few seconds, then it penetrates the pericardium which causes the heart to be impacted by the wave of force in the fluids of the body. The heart is nicked but not severely damaged but the bullet continues on to your spine fracturing a vertebrae and lodging in your spinal column.
            As you lay there please contemplate, for the few seconds or minutes you have remaining of consciousnesses, that even though you have been shot, aren’t guns great and the answer to all of the worlds problems. As blackness enfolds you smile and enjoy the freedom to possible die clutching your gun, if you can find it, in your hand swearing that the second amendment is the greatest right ever granted by the Constitution and that it supersedes the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
            Fear not, the NRA will just say that you were of no importance and that they will continue the fight to assure that as many people as possible are killed and maimed by guns just so they can continue their quest to arm every man, women and child in the country.

          • joe schmo

            Then I have to ponder on the fact, was it the government man who shot me for protesting or was I stabbed by a knife in much the same manner only this time I suffer more from the stab wounds that pierce my body. Either way I was totally unable to defend myself because I had nothing.

            At least with a weapon I would better be able to protect myself and my family if need be from a tyrannical government or someone coming at me with a knife. The criminal element will know I mean business and leave me alone.

            Since it seems, you no longer like the Constitution or the Amendments, then as far as I know, this is still a free country and you and your communist compatriots are free to leave for a place more kin to your belief system and that is the WHOLE point.

          • jnap

            I am a citizen of the US and have the right to fight you in your beliefs that the gun is the answer to all of the problems you have in your life. I will fight you with something far more powerful, the written and spoken word. Who the hel& do you think you are to suggest that I go to some other country if I don’t like you paranoid people walking about and threatening people with your guns. And yes you are threatening because many of us are afraid that you are not responsible to have a gun on your person and might just pull it out and start shooting.
            If you like that kind of world why don’t you go to Iraq and fight?
            This is my country as much as your and I will fight you until we have laws that protect me from people like you.

          • joe schmo

            YOU ARE A COMMUNIST! You are no longer patriotic nor do you want to adhere to the Constitution of the United States of America or the Amendments therein. JUST LEAVE IT ALONE. IT WAS SET UP FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND THAT PURPOSE WAS TO PROTECT US FROM YOUR WAY OF THINKING. It has checks and balances don’t you know. You do not want to say the pledge of Allegiance. You hate Christians and Christianity. You would rather burn the flag or hang it upside down than look at it. You are ashamed of this country. So why would you want to stay? Oh, that’s right, at the moment things are going your way. They are certainly not in our favor or fair.

            If you no longer believe in the 2nd amendment and want to remove it, you are more than welcome to leave. How many times do I have to tell you, it is not the guns causing the problem, liberal laws have caused society to go nuts! Just like our lax immigration laws, gun laws have gotten just as lose. Start enforcing the laws we have.

            Dude, in case you haven’t noticed this is becoming like Iran. We no longer see eye to eye.

            Are you crazy, your media has really gone overboard on your gun fears. Normal citizens would never, I repeat never use guns against anyone unless there was chaos.

            This is your Ameritopia, look around you, do you like what you see? Everything has gone the liberal way. Boy if you call this bliss, I wonder how bad hell really is…..

            Next time you think you are in the right, take a really good look at the stars and stripes. Think about that ultimate sacrifice soldiers gave in dying overseas during fruitless wars. Dig down deep. Do you feel anything at all or do you feel nothing. If you feel the latter than you no longer have any regard for America and you are no longer a patriot.

            You won’t quit fighting nor will I! If we don’t get our shit together, we are as good as doomed. Ponder on that for a while.

          • Wedge Shot

            Why don’t you shut the F up.
            You are deranged and I wouldn’t thrust you with a water pistol. Take your gun and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine.
            I will fight your kind until common sense takes hold.

          • joe schmo

            You liberals no longer have any common sense so why would I respect or tolerate you. You no longer tolerate us.

            If there were ever any type of chaos, not saying there will be, I would not want to be on your side. Just saying…… All you have are a bunch of filthy mouths yabbering at walls…..

          • joe schmo

            Really, sick of it huh. Why not move yourself to another country like Cuba where everyone is suppressed, don’t own guns, and own their souls to the government.

          • Justin Napolitano

            Hey Joe, there’re called laws. Laws enacted to help everyone survive not just the paranoid people that think the answer to every problem is a gun. The NRA’s answer is guns, more guns, gun up the wasoo, guns in every car, boat, plane, truck, bus and train. Guns in every school, bar, church and store. Guns, guns guns.
            I hope one of those millions of bullets doesn’t find one of your family members. Just think about how proud you will be of yourself when someone shoots one of your family members. You can say so what they were just collateral damage and I still have my gun.

          • joe schmo

            Hey Justin, you must be a youngster. Normally I wouldn’t care, but since I keep getting corrected about my grammar on this site….. ‘There’re’ is they’re as in they are. Yup, like I tell everyone here who constantly corrects my spelling, it just keeps getting worse the younger the generation gets due to that wonderful humanistic school system we all had to endure.

            ….Nowadays, why do you think that is? I mean guns everywhere (not that there weren’t guns everywhere before. Guns are getting poked at nowadays because of all the hyped up media) Why do you figure people believe they need to have weapons to protect themselves?

            One personal answer may be: we have gotten broken into in broad daylight. Someone kicked in our door. Just imagine what would have happened if we would have been home and left defenseless? There are also other forms of weapons that help protect people such as bows. I know a story about a young 12 year old girl who knew how to shoot a bow. Her parents left her alone one day and two intruders broke into her home. She instinctively, got her bow, sat on top of the steps and shot one of the intruders in the leg while the other ran. What do you suppose would have happened to that poor defenseless child if she would not have known how to shoot that bow. Do you want to get rid of those next?

            What you all don’t realize is the fact that MOST people who own firearms have had gun safety training or they are responsible. Never used to be a problem years ago. Why is it an issue now? It is called non tolerance. Something we have never had before….and just who do you think started that?

            There has always been violence. Whether there are guns or no guns crime will continue. I believe it will only escalate if there is no means for defense and, once you disarm the masses, the government can come in and do what they want to you. Maybe that is the plan. Of course you are all on board with that, right?

          • jnap

            Yup, two hundred thousand gun shootings a year shows real responsibility. have you shot anyone lately, or at least thought of doing so?

          • disqus_il6KG9d3VM

            OMG, Joe. What fearless leader are you speaking of, Ronald Reagan who was shot with a gun? Or Jim Brady who was was him and suffered a terrible disability from the bullet that hit him? They started the Brady Bill for sensible gun laws. President Reagan didn’t have to tell me that we need to solve this problem. There are some extreme beliefs here, but it is not the Liberals.

          • joe schmo

            Of course, you would bring that up….and….just who’s lunatic side were the would be killers on? You see your side resorts to violence whenever they don’t agree with what is happening politically.

            …..and what, praytell, beliefs are you referring to?…. Seems like every time there is violence it is directed at a Republican. Did anything ever happen to Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, or Obama? Not that I know of and, yah, what about Kennedy? Nowadays, he probably would have been considered a moderate Liberal. I was just a babe when he got shot, and we are really not sure about that story.

          • joe schmo

            Good try. John Hinckley Jr. was a registered Democrat. In fact, most assassins were…..LOLOLOL
            Maybe we should let you have your way and take all liberal guns away. Since we don’t have a problem with them we should be able to keep ours.

            By the way, John Kerry owns a gun…… Not ALL liberals are against weaponry.

          • joe schmo

            Yah, and why don’t you walk down the streets of Watts and Compton unattended at night. See how safe you feel….

          • http://www.examiner.com/political-rebuttal-in-national/michael-ross Michael Ross

            Since when is it fanaticism to suggest that people who actively seek to use weapons against us should not be permitted to have said weapons? That’s not extremism — that’s common sense. It’s on par with suggesting that people who are drunk shouldn’t drive.

            And the NRA has money, not because of “concerned citizens,” but because of the gun manufacturers. The gun manufacturers are privy to the NRA con — the one where they arm the terrorists, then tell us the only way we can protect ourselves from the terrorists is to buy guns too.

            That’s not some great revelation. It’s common knowledge. It just doesn’t always look that way because of the criminals, crazies, and low-IQ thugs like yourself who are as personally invested in keeping the country broken as the manufacturers are.

          • joe schmo

            Low IQ. Yah right. If I were such a low IQ, I wouldn’t even bother. Remember the phrase,,,,,’ignorance is bliss.’ This is a perfect example on how you bully. You start to cuss and it eludes to the fact that you have nothing more intellectual to contribute.

            No, common sense means enforcing the LAWS on the books.. and hell yes the NRA not only has money contributed by gun manufacturers but also concerned citizens. When the common citizen felt that their rights were being infringed upon, it was only natural for them to purchase guns. The proof is in the pudding. More guns less crime, as indicated by the FBI.

          • Justin Napolitano

            Unless, of course, you are the recipient of a bullet from one of the millions of guns floating around.
            Perhaps you will tell yourself what a great idea it is to have a gun with you in the millisecond that a bullet transverses your body. You can say to yourself “Yes I am dead but at least I had a gun with me when I died, wasn’t I the smart one”?

          • joe schmo

            Isn’t it better than having someone with a gun, break the door down in your home (and yes we have had this happen in broad daylight, luckily we were not home). You stand there unarmed and they kill everyone in the house and then rob you.

            ….or you are walking down a dark alley or a street on the bad side of town. Do you really think you have the guts to do this and survive.

            Although both incidents can be handled with a knife as well. So get rid of the guns and the idiots will still have weaponry. What’s that you say, let us now get rid of all knives. It just keeps getting more ridiculous.
            When will you understand that it is PEOPLE not GUNS that kill.

            If someone were to break into my house and I had a gun there would be a 50-50 chance of survival. The odds are in my favor. When you look at the other alternative it is more like 0-100% in favor of the perpetrator. Which do you really think I would choose?

          • sigrid28

            Since we have almost universal availability of refrigeration within the U.S.–not worldwide–we have dramatically fewer cases of food poisoning than in the past. But we also have MORE now fewer food recalls, as the public demands via the FDA that the food we purchase be safe to eat. As you say, “the proof is in the pudding.” Better regulation of the sale of guns and ammunition would amount to even less crime, which is a good thing.

          • joe schmo

            Yes, and since I have been in Agriculture most of my life I can also forewarn you that, we have more cases of bacterial recalls than ever. So those refrigeration units are sometimes null and void as a comparison. I have seen evidence of people defecating in the fields vs using the Rent-a-can. So don’t give me that bull.

            Why don’t you add to that list making sure the mentally challenged are checked on by mental facilities and the police.

            Huh! As far as the ammo goes. It is being bought up by our government and made scarce. That is already being done subliminally. People who buy guns have a waiting period before they get the gun so that their backgrounds can be checked. Anything else you want to eliminate on that list until we no longer have a 2nd amendment? Let’s just whittle away more and more of that blasted Constitution shall we.

          • Sand_Cat

            You’re right. Someone obviously wiser than you said “A fool and his money are soon parted.”

          • joe schmo

            I can honestly refer that to your side as well. Let’s see how far Mr. Bloomberg’s and Mr. Weinstein’s money goes. Fat chance fighting this cause. Too many people on the right support the NRA including your very own Dems:)

          • Sand_Cat

            Touche, I guess. The difference, of course, is that no one’s taking anyone’s guns or trying to, while armed psychopaths are daily slaughtering children and other innocents minding their own business. You can certainly say truthfully that gun owners are positively terrified the UN or Obama, or aliens from space are coming for their guns, far more afraid than those of us who don’t want to be massacred for some lunatic’s 2nd Amendment rights. What you can’t say without lying is claim there’s any rational basis whatsoever for the gun owners’ fear.

          • joe schmo

            Yah, right!

            ‘President Obama commented on his “greatest frustration” during his years in office. His greatest source of frustration is not the fact that
            jobs remain scarce and the economy remains weak. It’s not the fact thathis signature legislative achievement, Obamacare, is a mess and was
            rolled out poorly and remains unpopular. It’s not even the fact that he hasn’t yet thrown the nation’s borders entirely open (though he’s
            certainly getting there).

            Barack Obama is frustrated because you just won’t let him send federal agents to your house and take your guns. You can tell in the
            clip, from the tone of his voice, that he is very displeased with the fact that you can still buy a gun. He dislikes that fact, intensely.’

            Obama says a few things in the clip that, upon closer inspection, turn out to be untrue. He says gun violence is rising. It is not. He says you should have to undergo a background check before buying a gun, which you already do have to do if you buy from a federally licensed
            firearm dealer.

            Obama also praises Australia’s approach to guns. Which is praise fromthe President of the United States for full-on confiscation of guns. Because as Charles Cooke points out, that’s exactly what Australia did.

            So, it’s official and on the record now. Despite his acknowledgement that the Second Amendment exists, President Barack Obama is frustrated
            that you didn’t let him do away with it — and with your natural right to defend yourself.

            This man wants to render all Americans into a state of permanent victimhood.”

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-8i92ClSzc

            More like common sense than fanaticism.

          • Sand_Cat

            This isn’t Australia.
            Yeah, it’s common sense, but common only to the mentally deranged fanatics who will defend murderers to protect their precious guns from non-existent threats.
            The only serious threat they face is that their fellow gun nuts will slaughter sufficient children and commit enough other outrages for rational people to finally say “enough is enough,” which still isn’t anywhere close to happening, but you guys are working on it, by god.

          • http://www.heritage.org/constitution kenndeb

            Have you noticed that most of these mass shooters turn out to be democrats? Ever wonder how many of these shooters are doings so to help the Emperor fulfill his dream of weapon confiscation?

          • Sand_Cat

            Yes, I’m sure you and the other right-wing fools and liars have declared them to be Democrats, but they still got their guns because people like you are afraid the UN, Hillary, Barak, or god knows who is coming for your guns.
            Just keep shooting up children and random bystanders long enough, and maybe some day the sane and rational people will actually take the guns from the nutcases. That’s about the only way it would ever happen, but you’re so desperate to prove yourselves right and your insanity justified, you’d never think of agreeing to anything reasonable to forestall the need. In any case, it’s probably a long time off.

          • jnap

            What total nonsense.

          • joe schmo

            Yes, and it isn’t Europe either. It is AMERICA so let’s stop trying to make it what it isn’t because, in case you haven’t noticed, things are not too cool right now.

            Face it Sand_Cat you can defend this buffoon of a President all you want. The Gun issue is far from dead. Do you really think people are going to get rid of their weapons now when this country is in chaos.
            Never!

            You people are losing it! Literally.

          • jnap

            Yes, America home of the gun fools and home of the murderers. 32,000 people killed in America last year by guns and several hundred thousand wounded.
            Be careful, Joe the fool, a bullet might have your name on it.

          • jnap

            You are completely delusional in addition to being a fool.
            No one is coming after your gun so you can go back and make love to it, caress it, oil and clean it and hope for the day you get to use it to “save the day like John Wayne”.
            I just hope you don’t kill some innocent person while you are at it.

          • joe schmo

            Too much common sense for that.

          • Candice White

            No they are not fanatics they are fools who don’t give a damn about anyone, gun owner don’t need a voice the NRA is just a tool of the gun industry.

          • joe schmo

            You are the fools. If you don’t think your government is going to take over this country then and there, you have another thing coming to you. Maybe in another 100 years when you and yours have beaten down 1/2 the masses then just, then maybe you will be right, but I see big changes for this country…. The pendulum could always swing back the other way. Then what? You will be hating life or you will suck it up and meet in the middle like it should be.

          • jnap

            Been paranoid long?

          • joe schmo

            Don’t trust you or the government…..

          • joe schmo

            Whether it be the The Wall Street Journal, owned by Rupert Murdoch, the Tea Party activists which was started by grass roots citizens, or the NRA which is supported by gun makers but largely also supported by gun enthusiasts on both sides of the aisle, seems there is a pattern. What you make out to be Corporate freaks are mainly American’s fighting for the belief in America’s uniqueness. Something that you are trying so hard to break. Think about it.

          • jnap

            Ya, we are unique alright, we kill each other with guns like no other country and want to deny health care to millions. That makes us unique and very stupid.

          • joe schmo

            Who’s denying anyone healthcare. After all, you got your way with Obamacare didn’t you. ‘Ain’t’ it grand.

            WE HAVE A 2ND AMENDMENT. Remember, you extreme Leftist.

          • jnap

            You are or have been since you are obviously a Republican shill? You folks can’t get over the fact that Obama is the President. I really feel sorry for you because you, on a daily basis, have so much hate in your heart you are backup up with bile.
            I kind of like that fact.
            You will die one day and just pray it isn’t from one of those guns you have based your entire life on.

          • joe schmo

            Wow, are you wrong. I voted for the idiot in 2008 as an independent because I was sick of what Bush had done. Little did I know how bad this dude was and how he would single handedly take this Country apart piece by piece. Not only that, instead of being a uniter he is a divider. You can see the results as we speak. Oh and what about that horrible health care. I know of people who have had to pay much more and others who don’t have to pay a thing and have horrible quality heathcare. What about that role out…. Not only was it outsourced, it didn’t even work. Do you realize that ANY American company would have killed to have that contract and, trust me, if there would have been a mistake heads would have rolled. You just don’t do that in advertising. Your livelihood depends on your clients. Sloppy and unorganized. Typical Democratic way of doing things. Look at Solyndra.

            Militia pertains to weaponry type. ‘Militia’ that’s how you wish away that 2nd amendment.

            “The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of INDIVIDUALS to keep and bear arms.

            -enabling the people to organize a militia system.
            -participating in law enforcement;
            -deterring tyrannical government;[56]
            -repelling invasion;
            -suppressing insurrection,
            -facilitating a natural right of self-defense.’

            Apparently, these laws were enacted even before the Constitution and Amendments came into play.
            Your opinion on guns is VERY unAmerican. Tolerance my ass….

            Huh! Sure we are all going to die one day and I am far from miserable. Lucky for me I don’t have kids. The kids are the ones you should feel sorry for because they have to suffer the consequences of your actions and that ginormous debt incurred by a communist Democrat who’s wife has her sites are set on the white house (just sitting there like the Cheshire Cat), a psuedo Republican and a communist-anti-colonial Democrat:) We are really getting below the belt, that’s for sure.

          • disqus_il6KG9d3VM

            Fanaticism is people who insist on purchasing military style weapons, even waving them around the streets scaring children, and adults. It is not normal when you can’t take your child into an ice cream parlor free of gun nuts. The NRA has not been responsible for years. The more mass gun deaths we have the more crazed they become. Follow the money.

          • joe schmo

            …..And who does that? Not in this state they don’t. In fact, I have never seen a gun used in an unprofessional matter in any State I have been to. Not saying there aren’t lunies out there, but for most that is just plain flat out ridiculous.

        • Dominick Vila

          The operative words are greed and irresponsibility.

      • disqus_il6KG9d3VM

        Hold the NRA responsible. Take away the laws that protect them. We should be able to sue them.

        • joe schmo

          Are you nuts! Liberals always jump the gun. Leap before they think about the consequences. Tell me how do you suppose that will cure crime. Your dreaming if you think criminals won’t have guns or smuggle them in. Then where do you think that leaves honest citizens?

          I recall just recently a news article about a gentlemen who had a home invasion where 4 robbers broke into his home. He had a gun and while on the phone with 911, the dispatcher ask about the screaming in the background. In a not so nice voice, the home owner told the dispatcher that he shot one of the robbers in the rear end. Now you tell me, if that gentlemen would not have been able to protect himself, where do you think he would be right now?

          • Dominick Vila

            Where does that leave honest people? In the capable hands of our law enforcement agencies.

          • joe schmo

            Dominick, that story about the robbers,,,,,the first time the dude called 911 he got voice mail. Besides many cities have cut down on law enforcement to help cut their cities budgets. It cost Australia $500,000 million to get rid of their guns. Too much money with the deficit we have. No America is not ready to get rid of the 2nd Amendment. When there is less crime, we can think about it. We are not Australia or parts of Europe. We are AMERICA. Why should we change it into something it is not. Why fix what wasn’t broken to begin with. Just enforce the laws which are not being enforced. Simple as that.

          • Dominick Vila

            $500 million is a bargain if it helps reduce the out of control violence we have in the USA. In any case, nobody proposed getting rid of the Second Amendment. My post was meant to be a reminder that the 2nd could be interpreted as needing a well regulated militia (the National Guard and law enforcement agencies) which, if properly funded, are very capable to deal with domestic threats and crime. Especially, if every Tom, Dick and Harry is not allowed to buy lethal weapons regardless of criminal record, mental problems, or stated goals (hate groups).
            I don’t have a problem with people owning a handgun or a rifle for protection or sport, as long as they keep their weapons out of reach of children and others.
            I know a person who needs strong medication to function and not only owns a gun, she actually got a concealed weapons permit. This person is so unstable, mentally, that anything could trigger a violent reaction. There is simply no logical justification for her to own a gun and carry it to the workplace or when she goes shopping or partying. Paranoia is treatable.

          • Sand_Cat

            Costs too much to stop the killing, huh? No surprise there.

          • Duckbudder

            “,the first time the dude called 911 he got voice mail. Besides many cities have cut down on law enforcement to help cut their cities budgets.” Because Shitheels like you cry like little titty-babys when asked to pay for it in the form of taxs.

          • jnap

            We are not trying to get rid of guns, we just want all of those that have them be part of “a well regulated militia”.
            Just like it says in the Constitution.

          • joe schmo

            Bullshit…..let’s widdle away at the Constitution one Amendment at a time and let’s move around to another when the heat starts stirring up the patriots. Let’s move on to immigration, then back to guns, then to taxes. ‘Round and round we go, where we stop must be Hell.’

          • jnap

            What? How much have you been drinking today?

          • http://www.heritage.org/constitution kenndeb

            When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Police are only good at solving crimes, not in preventing them.

          • Independent1

            The NRA and gun manufacturers should be prosecutable for lying to the American public. Studies have shown that owning a gun increases by 4.46 times the probability that someone carrying a gun will be shot and possibly killed during a home break-in or an assault.

            Yet gun manufacturers keep contributing to the NRA as it spews the lie that owning a gun will provide self-protection to the average American who is untrained in using a gun. Just like the tobacco companies lied to people about cigarettes by not telling people that smoking may kill you, the NRA and gun manufacturers are lying to people by not telling them that owning a gun is more of a liability (increasing the probablity by almost 5 times that the gun owner or someone in his home will be killed by the gun they just bought), than the gun will ever be a means of self-protection.

          • joe schmo

            No, they are not lying. They are securing our 2nd Amendment right. Haven’t you done your research. Countries that have less guns have more violent crimes. Guns deter crime.

            2014 article from Wall Street Journal:

            ‘A new FBI report says that violent crime continues to fall nationwide, which might annoy liberals because gun purchases continue to rise.’

            The left likes to link violent crime to the proliferation of guns in the country, so it’s worth noting that the crime reductions described in the FBI report correlate with a steady increase in firearm sales. “Gun records checks, fueled by a post-Newtown boom of gun sales, hit a new high in 2013, and industry analysts expect ammunition to be the big
            seller this year as consumers catch up to all of those firearms purchases,” reported the Washington Times last month. “More than 21
            million applications were run through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System last year, marking nearly an 8 percent increase and the 11th straight year that the number has risen.”

            http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304914204579393493981280048

            http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/fbi-more-guns-less-violent-crime/

            These are fairly recent articles and I can pull up other statistics as well. Both Switzerland and Israel are allowed to have guns in their homes.

            How do you get off telling people what they can and cannot do. Isn’t this America or is it Communist Russia. All the things you liberals mention were looked over back in the day. Why do you think you get to execute your POWER over us. Well you cannot. It was a choice whether you wanted to smoke or own a gun. Pot over Cigarettes, seriously!

            Gun ownership is not going to end anytime soon. So get over it. You people are just minion bullies with a mouth and that is all there is.

          • http://www.examiner.com/political-rebuttal-in-national/michael-ross Michael Ross

            A similar study also found that gun ownership is actually way down in this country. Ergo, yes, the proliferation of guns in the country IS linked directly to violent crime.

            Also, the NRA is not enforcing the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bare arms FOR A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA, not for any low-IQ schmuck who doesn’t want to pay taxes like the rest of us.

            There’s those pesky communist facts getting in the way again.

          • joe schmo

            You only see what you want to see. You walk around with eyes wired shut

            ‘The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals[1][2] to keep and bear arms.’

            Of course, you are Communists because you want equal everything for everyone. Equal money for everyone. Spread the wealth around. Leave all the countries acquisitions in the hands of Father Government who now are the protectors of humanity, the bourgeoisie that owns everything including your soul. Now doesn’t that sound like you? You have no clue what you are asking for……

            Cussing is juvenile and says absolutely nothing in response. I already know when you are losing it. You start cussing me out and you no longer have any information to inject.

          • 788eddie

            And just where do criminals get their guns, “schmo”?

          • http://www.examiner.com/political-rebuttal-in-national/michael-ross Michael Ross

            Right now, a lot of them are buying them legally. And sure, some of them would STILL be able to acquire them, but the vast majority of them wouldn’t.

            There’s that pesky difference between “eliminating” and “greatly reducing” that you NRA whores keep trying to pretend doesn’t exist.

          • joe schmo

            Like I said before that right has never changed. It is because the laws are no longer strictly enforced and criminals who kill are not executed that we have problems.

            Isn’t it ‘what’ you NRA whores……. You all keep correcting me. Might as well….

          • iamproteus

            Sorry, Joe, but you’re wrong again. Michael is right. Perhaps if you were to brush up on your reading comprehension skills, you would find that you’ve been wrong on a few other points as well!

          • joe schmo

            Not really. Just a differing point of view. One that stands for all this great Country once stood for. The Country you are so determined to transform into some kind of misconstrued Communist nation. Just because the anti-colonialist in office wants it that way. You liberals are fools.

            ‘The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression,
            and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.’

            ……and the debate continues…… Maybe you need to do more research because If find that most of you don’t. At least, I get to see both sides of the aisles opinions. From what I see I think I will stick to the Conservative side thank you very much.

          • http://www.examiner.com/political-rebuttal-in-national/michael-ross Michael Ross

            And who’s fault is it that those laws were gutted and our politicians threatened not to enforce whatever was left of them? Oh, yes, the NRA and its affiliates.

            There’s another one of those pesky facts that you hate so much.

          • 1EdMeadows83

            Nope. Michael is correct and you’re wrong. Again.

          • joe schmo

            Prove it! Bet you cannot. It is just way toooo much work. You are not a Conservative so how would you know. Agreeing with me says absolutely squat.

          • 1EdMeadows83

            A lovely made-up story but a lie as flagrant as the lies that are profused by the NRA. If I thought it would change your warped mind I could make up several stories that enhances my anti-gun stance. A side note. Your is the possessive form of you. I think you meant YOU’RE dreaming… Don’t worry I see stupid grammatical mistakes all the time from gun nuts.

          • joe schmo

            I wish it was a lie. If I hadn’t seen it on the news myself and heard the 911 call I would not have believed it. There are many many more stories such as that one. Another example using a different weapon, a young 12 year old girl was at home by herself when her home was invaded. She was trained in archery. She sat at the top of the stairs and shot one robber in the leg while the other ran off. Do you really want these innocent people to become another statistic while the criminals roam free.

            I think the only retort you have for me is my grammar which is not that bad. I can see by your profile image that you are OLDER than me. YOU had a better education. Try moving down the ladder to modern day America. We are last in reading. 32 out of 32 compared with the rest of the world. How do you think the writing stacks up today. Have you looked at the writing of young people lately. Worse than ever…. Certainly worse than mine. I think it was a fantastic idea to get rid of tenure in California. That judge had done us a favor, but there is always an appeal. So we continue to have lousy teachers…..

          • TZToronto

            You forgot steel instead of steal “. . . and who’s to say someone will not steel guns from legal gun owners.”

          • 1EdMeadows83

            Oops, I missed that one!

          • http://www.examiner.com/political-rebuttal-in-national/michael-ross Michael Ross

            You’re deliberately trying to confuse the difference between “curing” crime and reducing it by 90%.

            Yes, there will always be crime. There will also always be sickness, but that doesn’t mean we cut all of our medical R&D and halt our vaccination programs. Likewise, there will still be fires here and there, but that doesn’t mean we throw out all of our building codes and let entire cities become fire traps. The fact that it will still happen does not mean we do everything we can to prevent as much of it as possible.

            What, pray tell, makes crime so different?

            I already know the answer, but since you and your ilk are so invested in denying it, I’ll say it for you: Money and power. You and your ilk don’t even want to consider curbing this nation’s gun violence epidemic, not because you can’t see any solutions, but because the very obvious solutions would not benefit you personally. The gun manufacturers would suffer huge profit losses, the NRA would lose its funding, and you and your ilk would have to live with the fact that you can no longer theoretically buy a gun and kill someone with it on the same day.

            “If at first you don’t succeed, give up” is never a responsible policy.

          • joe schmo

            Money and power. Yes the money and power of the Government wanting to control the masses. That is the part you do not understand.

            I beg to differ on the answer to gun violence. We believe that mental facilities should be reinstated. Perhaps even law enforcement should do more searches on risky individuals (Case in point – Isla Vista). This could be done at a fraction of the cost of eliminating guns completely. The gun manufacturers will go underground and their system will become more lucrative. Will be hard for the NRA to lose its funding because there are way too many gun enthusiasts on both sides of the isle. As for buying a gun and killing someone on the same day, in our state you have to wait 24 days to get your weapon once you buy it due to background check. I’m sure it is different in all states…..and who’s to say someone will not steel guns from legal gun owners. Done all the time.

            If at first you don’t succeed, you never give up, period.

          • http://www.examiner.com/political-rebuttal-in-national/michael-ross Michael Ross

            You keep beating your guns about “eliminating guns completely,” completely heedless of the fact that NOBODY ANYWHERE HAS EVER SUGGESTED THAT.

            You and your ilk aren’t just willfully ignorant of the problem. You’re willfully ignorant of the debate. The Constitutional rights you are fighting for do not exist, the “gun grabbers” and “big gub’ment tyrants” you can’t shut up about don’t exist, and the ideological opposition you are trying to debate doesn’t exist.

            But the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the existence of anything does not negate its relevancy. The gun violence epidemic is real, the NRA’s complacency with the causes of the epidemic is real, and our common sense solutions to the problem are all real.

            End of story.

          • Bobnstuff

            I bet he didn’t do it with a ak47 or any other of the guns that trying to regulate.

          • joe schmo

            Probably not. I have no problem giving up assault rifles with a clip above 5 shells. I think the problem with most gun advocates is the fact that this is the first step in getting rid of guns altogether.

          • disqus_il6KG9d3VM

            Joe, you just made one sensible statement. This is why many people who want to make it safer for our kids to go to school, the movies, or anywhere are working for sensible gun laws. No one is trying to take all guns away. Some in my family like to go hunting…they use a NORMAL rifle. When they get home they put it in very high safe hiding place. Personally I won’t have a loaded gun in my home. I feel safer without one. But, I have no problem with people who are afraid, having a gun ‘in the home’ for protection. This is what many of us want: A ban on assault weapons (they belong in the military or in law enforcement) and high capacity magazines, which kill multiple people in a minute. And, of course background checks on every gun sold. Those three things will not remove the second amendment, but will make our Country safer. It will save the lives of children. That is what adults are her for, to protect the children.

          • http://batman-news.com Pete Perez

            google “obama wants to confiscate guns” recent remarks by President Obama. Always brought up “NOONE wants to take away your guns” BS.

          • joe schmo

            This is a good one.

            http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/06/10/obama-admits-that-he-wants-to-confiscate-your-guns/

            Pure dictator this guy, pure dictator.

            Thanks, Pete:)

      • joe schmo

        It is not so much the NRA that is at fault. It is society as a whole. Our ‘uber’ Liberal laws are partially to blame along with violent movies and video games. What it will take is harsh punishment, but how do we get people to pay for their actions when our own government lies constantly and they get away with a multitude of crimes against this Country.

        I think you will be hard pressed to find citizens that will hand over their guns when our society is so violent. Even if we did get rid of the guns, criminals would find other means to kill or they would smuggle in weapons from somewhere. It is sure to be a lucrative racquet.

        • http://www.examiner.com/political-rebuttal-in-national/michael-ross Michael Ross

          What “uber” liberal laws? Have you been watching the news? At all? The whole problem is that there are no laws PERIOD about gun ownership!

          Spoken like a true NRA whore: “It’s everyone’s fault except for mine (so buy a gun!).”

          • joe schmo

            So what do you purpose genius? If you get rid of guns then what? Do you really think the world will be holding hands.

            Newsflash – there have always been gun laws, The problem is that the laws have gotten so lax and the punishment so lean that humans believe they can get away with anything. There is a thing called being responsible. It is not guns that are the problem it is society. The emotional content of which you should be all to familiar with.

          • http://www.examiner.com/political-rebuttal-in-national/michael-ross Michael Ross

            First, I propose that you learn how to spell “propose.”

            Second, I propose we start universal background checks and 24-hour waiting periods for all gun transactions.

            Third, I propose that the 2nd Amendment purists actually take a look at the 2nd Amendment for once and note the part that says “for a well-regulated militia.” To that end, I propose that assault weapons and high-capacity magazines be restricted to use by vetted militias (as in the Crips & Bloods, KKK or Cliven Bundy don’t get to just say “we’re a militia” and keep their guns).

            Fourth, I propose all guns manufactured in the future be equipped with the recently-developed “smart gun” features to combat gun thefts and black market sales.

            Finally, I propose that all firearms seized in criminal proceedings either be brought up to code or partially disassembled so they can only be used as display pieces.

            Yes, there will still be criminals with guns, but it will mostly be on account of the NRA squealing about “big gub’ment tyrants comin’ fer’ yer’ guns” and preventing us from disarming the criminals who bought them all legally.

            Eventually, however, said criminals will have to go to much greater lengths to get their guns, and said guns will be of a much lower quality.

            I don’t envision a future of no gun fatalities — that would be far too naive. But I do envision a future where gangs start fighting with homemade crossbows because the only guns they can find on the black market are the junky centuries-old crap you see on Pawn Stars. And, by extension, I envision a future in which the NRA, American terrorists, the wannabe tyrants in the Tea Party, and Ted Nugent are unable to force their backwards policies into law by threatening to murder anyone who dares to disagree.

          • joe schmo

            First off, what are you and ‘English’ guru. Seems that is all you liberals know how to do is correct spelling and grammar. Blame it on the liberal education system.

            Secondly, I agree with your second statement but how much further are you willing to take it. Seems that once you start restricting gun laws then it is on to the next stage. Getting rid of guns altogether.

            Thirdly, why are we having problems with this now. We never have in the past. I say stricter death penalty laws. People would be less apt to hurt anyone. It has been proven.

            Fourth, good luck on that one.

            Fifth, sounds good but does not make much sense.

            Sixth, good luck on criminals not having guns. Don’t we still have a plethora of drugs coming across the border or grown in our forests. That has not been stopped.

            If things get chaotic, I think I would rather be on the side of rednecks (that’s what you like to call them), bikers, military veterans, military and law enforcement. Sorry, many are gun owners and they know how to use them. I don’t see what you see at all with regard to bows and arrows. Oh, by the way many of those redneck goobers that you so hate know how to use them.

            Your modern view of the world, at best, is a delusion. Very typical of liberals. Can’t see the forest for the trees. If reality were in your face you wouldn’t even know what that is. We have gun laws. They need to be enforced just as we have immigration laws that need to be enforced. That has not change. What has changed is your ideology.

          • disqus_il6KG9d3VM

            The old slippery slope argument is bogus. It is the law that I have to get a license for my car…well that must mean that soon they will be coming to take my car.

          • 1EdMeadows83

            Joe your stupidity is absolutely astounding!

          • joe schmo

            No, I would say yours is. Why do you think you have any common sense when I see nothing to warrant that. We have gun laws. We have immigration laws. Why do you think they are not being enforced? What has changed to the extreme is your side and your incentive to FORCE your agenda on us. You push us in the corner and we resist.. Talk about the ‘Dark Ages’ revisited.

          • dave

            Nobody in their right mind is SERIOUS about ‘ getting rid of guns ‘. Apart from the wackos who would gladly start shooting at anybody the thought was trying to,
            WHO would do it ?? Just think the govt, that can’t do much of anything right on a large scale trying to take MILLIONS of guns from mostly legal gun owners ??? You have got to be kidding !!! I personally could care lees about YOU or anybody else that actually knows what a gun is used for and has some experience with one. The people i and most of the rest of non gun owning america are worried about it is the ones that don’t seem to have a clue we don’t like guns waved in our faces to prove a point.We don’t like the idiots that walk into restaurants and other public places with guns strapped on and even fingers IN the triggers. Check out the 2 geniuses in the pictures at chipotle?

          • TZToronto

            You say that the existing gun laws aren’t being enforced. So if the gun laws are not being enforced, why don’t you contact the NRA and tell them that you want existing gun laws to be enforced to the letter of the law and that they should lobby for such strict enforcement? Better yet, how about calling your Senators and Representatives and telling them that you want existing gun laws strictly enforced? Maybe you have done these things. If so, what response did you get? If not, why haven’t you?

          • joe schmo

            The NRA is an excuse. Why don’t you tell me, and I mean, get online and do some research. Exclude the NRA, upload the information, and explain to me where the problems lie. What has changed in history to account for the problems we are having now?

            There always was a 2nd amendment. There have always been guns allowed in the U.S. So what has changed? Peoples ideology because of the media? Copycat crimes? Why has crime, in your opinion, gotten so bad? According to the FBI it has gone down. The guns sure haven’t changed. They do not have a brain and Americans have always had them.

            In answer to your questions which I know you will tag me on in the next post.
            1) What does the NRA have to do with enforcing gun laws, all they do is protect us from losing our right to bear arms. Enforcing gun laws has to do with our representatives in the GOVERNMENT. Seems they are the lax ones. Let’s just say that the Government needs to start enforcing the laws on the books. Who do you think will start screaming. It won’t be Conservatives.
            2) Why don’t you call your representatives and tell them that you want stricter laws enforced on criminals who KILL humans.
            3) Why haven’t I? Dumb question but oh well. I feel our Constitutional right as a sane individual to protect our self from anyone who wishes to do us harm. If I could walk on the streets of NY or LA at night, unguarded, without a weapon then I would say there is no use for guns. It has been done in the past, but it means severe punishment to those who kill and that is something you would never tolerate because you believe in civil liberties for everyone. Makes me wonder what you think about Al Qaeda and the beheading of innocents and Christians in the Middle East?

        • Suralin

          ‘Uber liberal’ laws? Seriously, what?

          Moreover, who exactly, in your scenario, would be harshly punished?

          I am, however, forced to agree with your point about top-down gun Prohibition being utterly ineffective (as with every other form of top-down Prohibition for which there is significant market demand, like for alcohol or abortions).

        • 1EdMeadows83

          You probably never heard of a country called Australia. After all it’s on the other side of the world. Anyway, Australia had a murder problem similar to ours but the Aussies solved it:

          State laws govern the possession and use of firearms in Australia. These laws were largely aligned under the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA). Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.

          Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states allow an owner to store or borrow another person’s registered firearm of the same category.

          Are we Americans so stupid that we can’t control the carnage that is being perpetrated by lunatics with easy access to guns?

          • joe schmo

            Did they really…..

            ‘Statistics demonstrate that crime rates in
            Australia have increased substantially since the government there
            instituted a gun buy-back program in 1997.’

            Read more at http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp#T217zF3X04AFEcL5.99

            I do not disagree with you on the Firearms licensing. I ask you again, why are we having this problem now? We never did in the past.

          • Independent1

            Come on Joe, that article you linked to is over 13 years old and it’s full of crap. Here’s some statistics from a Washington Post article 3 days ago:

            Almost every modern nation in the world has far lower rates of gun violence than the U.S. For example, gun homicides are seven times higher in the U.S. than in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Other democratic nations with gun safety laws do not experience our levels of gun violence.

            Fact is joe, even in the U.S. of the 20 states with the highest rates of gun ownership (more than 45%), the majority of which are red states, also have the highest rates of homicides committed using a gun. Carrying a gun DOES NOT make anyone safer, in fact, carrying a gun increases your probability of dying young as much as 4.46 times greater than if you didn’t have a gun.

          • joe schmo

            Well, here are some that are more current for you:

            More Guns, Less Crime (Feb. 2014 Wallstreet Journal)

            ‘A new FBI report says that violent crime continues to fall nationwide,
            which might annoy liberals because gun purchases continue to rise.’

            http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304914204579393493981280048

            and another:

            http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/fbi-more-guns-less-violent-crime/

            Like we really should rely on our government…LOL

            Great news: ATF lost dozens of its own weapons
            posted at 9:21 am on February 26, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

            http://hotair.com/archives/2014/02/26/great-news-atf-lost-dozens-of-its-own-weapons/comment-page-1/#comment-7773577

          • Independent1

            All the websites you’re referencing are right-wing biased websites. But besides that, FACTS do not bear out what you’re saying.

            Fact is, that the five most violent states in America are also high gun ownership states.

            Fact is, that the states that lead the nation in homicides are also high gun ownership states.

            And here’s a study from the American Journal of Public Health which also says you’re wrong.

            A new study of gunviolence published by the
            American Journal of Public Health found that states with greater levels of gun ownership tend to have higher rates of gun-related murder. The study, conducted by Boston University professor Michael Siegel and coauthors Craig S. Ross and Charles King III, examines this relationship in all 50 states from 1981 to 2010. The researchers
            found that “for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent.”

            Sorry, I’ve done to many studies on my own to buy into the BS you’re posting.

            High gun ownership in Red States is one of the reasons why people in Red States live on average 2 year shorter lives than people in blue states which have by far lower gun ownership rates.

          • joe schmo

            Wall Street Journal, Conservative! LOL No way. Forbes is another one that can go either way. I try to look for articles that meet somewhere in the middle. Not always possible on either end is it?

            There is so much information out their that contradicts what you are stating. I have read time and time again how countries that have guns have less crime.

            The article I just uploaded is current. I will state to you what most of you say to me when I upload a dated article. It is not current (2010). My info came from stats produced by our very own FBI.

            Your second source, I never believe most of the research done by learning institutions because they are extremely liberal and tend to be liberally bias.

            Maybe you are referring to the criminals in Red states that live 2 years less because an armed citizen was able to stop them in their tracks.

            Of course, you will come back with some other ridiculous response. Liberals always have to feel superior to everyone.

          • Independent1

            Go pound sand. If you’re so clueless that you don’t even know that the WSJ is owned by Dow Jones which is owned by Rupert Murdoch – Mr. Right-Wing idiot himself who also owns Fox News, then you have no business even posting on the NM. We don’t accept posts from people as clueless as you are!!

          • joe schmo

            Go ‘F’ yourself. You are one of the reasons we are becoming the ‘Divided States of America.’ Get a clue and wake up you idiot. We are already history.

            ‘WSJ….. (close to neutral – their focus is on the economy) ‘ (exactly what I thought.)

            Most places it states WSJ is neutral or close to that. So go stuff yourself. I don’t really give a crap if the paper is owned by Murdoch. It’s all about business and economics. You are just pissed because it’s owner is a Conservative. Unfortunately for you it is one of the most read papers and you just can’t fathom that.

            …..and we have had to have Leftist media garbage stuffed down our throats from the 60′s to beyond. At least now we have a voice in FOX and other outlets. Infuriates you!

            Look at this:
            NY Times
            Huffington Post (have pulled info from)
            Washington Post (have pulled info from)
            Seattle Times
            NPR (the worst of the worst. Soros just about owns everything including you)
            Yahoo
            Reuters
            CNN (…and they used to be center)
            NBC
            ABC
            CBS (I was told by one of your ilk that they were Conservative, LOL)

            If you don’t like my posts, you don’t have to respond! I am just the pesky fly that keeps reminding you that you are helping divide this country.)

          • Independent1

            Oh! Absolutely!! Can’t you just see that it’s us independents and liberals that are spouting totally absurd conspiracy theories and lies 24/7 in all kinds of appearances and in the media!!! Yeah, and we’re all running around with weapons slung over our shoulders marching into places where guns have no business of being!! And we’re spouting complete nonsense about escalating wars all over the planet like by a bunch it idiots!!

            Yeah! Can’t you just see all those liberals and independents running scam scandal congressional committees trying to lie our way through spewing more BS than has ever been spewed since the creation of man!!!

            Wow!! You come out looking more like a complete idiot every time you make a post!!!

          • joe schmo

            Don’t totally count on the Independents. Remember, they can go either way…..

            You are so hopeless…. Not trying to change you, dude. Don’t really care that you do not believe what I say. That is not the point as to why I am on your site. Just trying to state that your side too tells lies by pointing them out whenever they are way off the mark in articles posted here against Conservatives.

            ….And who runs around with weapons slung over their shoulders unless they are lunatics. Most gun owners don’t. That’s a bit fanatical don’t you think? You think we are the fanatics.

            You don’t have to believe me, but this is the most corrupt and divisive idiot we have ever had in office, and don’t start this shit about it’s because he is black. That is suppressive talk and far, far from what many Conservatives believe. If you cannot see there is a problem with ANYTHING in this Country, then your media and our Dictator-in- Chief have succeeded in deluding you. Your eyes are truly wired shut.

            Remember what Hitler did with with German people. Kind of like what Obama is doing with you or what Marx/Engels did through the use of propaganda in the Media with the Russian people. Only difference is the Conservatives are not that desperate and see some of the writing on the wall. We ‘ain’t’ buying it.

          • Independent1

            Your posts are so full of horse manure that you must be wearing hip boots.

            Here’s the kind of actions that are deceitful and treasonous:

            FACT 1. In Robert Draper’s book, “Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives” Draper wrote that on inauguration night, 2009, during a four hour, “invitation only” meeting with GOP Hate-Propaganda Minister, Frank Luntz, the below listed Senior GOP Law Writers literally plotted to sabotage, undermine and destroy America’s Economy.

            FACT 2: Draper wrote the guest list included:

            The Guest List:

            Frank Luntz – GOP Minister of Propaganda
            Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
            Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)
            Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA),
            Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX),
            Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX),
            Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI)
            Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA),
            Sen. Jim DeMint (SC-R),
            Sen. Jon Kyl (AZ-R),
            Sen. Tom Coburn (OK-R),
            Sen. John Ensign (NV-R) and
            Sen. Bob Corker (TN-R).

            Non-lawmakers present Newt Gingrich – Failed GOP candidate for President

            Let’s see you explain your way of this one clueless:

            UPDATE: Eric Cantor Plotted to Sabotage US Economy in Secret Meeting with Hensarling & Luntz

            http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/11/1306103/-Eric-Cantor-Jeb-Hensarling-Kevin-McCarthy-Plotted-to-Sabotage-US-Economy-in-Secret-Meeting

          • joe schmo

            Just like you wouldn’t believe anything WND and Drudge report state, I have little regard for The Daily Kos or NPR. They are as liberal as the first ones I mentioned are conservative.

            UPDATE NOTHING – I guess you didn’t know this, but Cantor has been cancelled out. He doesn’t even know what he is going to do in the future. Conservatives are so tired of the same old same old. We don’t like McCain, McConnell, Boehner, (although they both got in) Ryan etc…. The RINO lot. They are the mild ones in bed with the liberals. That is why they don’t act on anything. They just have a voice that says, ‘Cross that red line and we will…..’ Do what?….and they do noooothing. What do you think will happen if conservatives start to vote in more Ted Cruz’s or Rand Paul’s? Yup, they will do their job. What will liberals do? Will you resort to violence like you always do?

            Just as you think we are fanatics so are you. You will not admit it but you are just as paranoid as you think we are.

            Ahhhh….there’s that destroy the economy thing again. I’m just curious about that one when our side does, really, nothing. I think Bush (psuedo Repub) and Obama have done enough already to ruin and divide us. I’m sure that both parties are in cahoots together, but the conservatives are on to it and we are trying to eliminate the baggage. Maybe if both types of Repubs are in office they will balance each other out. Right now the RINO’s are too liberal for us. Well, they better start scrambling because their constituents are after their jobs and we don’t even need term limits.

          • TZToronto

            You make the mistake of assuming that when two things are occurring at the same time that one of them is causing the other. Sometimes the two things are actually unrelated. The decrease in violent crime is due, in part, to the aging nature of the population. The increase in gun purchases is due, in part, to the lax laws you mention. Using the car analogy, I could say that the incidence of fatal accidents involving 90-year-old drivers is at an all-time low even though car purchases are at an all-time high. Therefore, the decrease in car fatalities involving 90-year-olds must be due to the increase in car purchases.

          • joe schmo

            Nicely stated, however; being a very large nation also indicates that violence is hard to gauge. With regard to mass shootings which seem to be at the helm of the anti-gun debate, here is an article that explains my premise for believing that gun laws should be maintained:

            ‘Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.

            In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

            Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.

            Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.

            Almost all of the public-policy discussion about Newtown has focused on a debate over the need for more gun control. In reality, gun control in a country that already has 200 million privately owned firearms is likely to do little to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. We would be better off debating two taboo subjects — the laws that make it difficult to control people with mental illness and the growing body of evidence that “gun-free” zones, which ban the carrying of firearms by law-abiding individuals, don’t work.

            Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff.

            Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.”

            Mass shootings are a good example how it may be in a world with no guns because the perpetrator attacks the innocent.

          • Independent1

            And let’s dispel the notion that most mass murderers have mental illness which is also wrong. From that same article in the Washington Post:

            4. Gun violence is not due to mental illness.

            It seems intuitive that anyone who commits a mass shooting must be mentally ill, but this is a misuse of the term “mental illness.” Mental illness is a term reserved for the most severe mental disorders where the person has severe symptoms such as delusions or hallucinations. Decades of mental health research show that only a small proportion of persons with mental illness commit violent acts, and together they account for only a fraction of violent crime. Some mass shooters have had a mental illness. Most do not.

            Most Mass murderers are not mentally ill in the clinical sense of the word; they’re simply radicals just like the bunch of radicals who stood up to confront the feds for Bundy – two of which ended up killing two cops and an innocent guy with a gun.

            Most mass murderers are no different than the radicals who are walking around today in Texas claiming open carry – they’re simply people with radical ideas; they’re not clinically mentally ill. So the NRA’s additional lies about guns don’t kill it’s mentally ill people, is just one more misconception being spewed by the NRA.

            Guns kill people a plenty even by accident – and that includes people trained to carry them like cops.

          • joe schmo

            You stated:

            “It seems intuitive that anyone who commits a mass shooting must be mentally ill, but this is a misuse of the term “mental illness.” Mental illness is a term reserved for the most severe mental disorders where the person has severe symptoms such as delusions or hallucinations. Decades of mental health research show that only a small proportion of persons with mental illness commit violent acts, and together they account for only a fraction of violent crime. Some mass shooters have
            had a mental illness. Most do not.’

            WOW! You would make the Devil himself look innocent of any wrongdoing.

            ‘First, the mental-health issue. A lengthy study by Mother Jones magazine found that at least 38 (that’s over half) of the 61 mass shooters in the past
            three decades “displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings.” New York Times columnist David Brooks and Cornell Law
            School professor William Jacobson have both suggested that the ACLU-inspired laws that make it so difficult to intervene and identify potentially dangerous people should be loosened. “Will we address mental-health and educational-privacy laws, which instill fear of legal liability for reporting potentially violent mentally ill people to law
            enforcement?” asks Professor Jacobson. “I doubt it.”
            (Latest example – Isla Vista, CA) (This is what I mean by Liberal)

            Criminals deranged or radical attack the innocent. That means ‘defenseless’ people like those in schools, churches, malls, stores, etc… How do you really think that taking guns away will make things safer? The criminal element will still find weapons to use and then more lives will be lost. I suppose you really don’t care because you are so infuriated with ‘gun toting, back slapping, redneck, NRA loving, goobers. You want your way and that is it. No bend allowed. It makes you mad that someone else can have an opinion other than yours. You know there are different kinds of people in the world. You just can’t except that fact and that is where the problem really lies……and those gun toting lunatics that you so candidly hate, well, they are only trying to protect them self. Do you really think someone is going to do anything to them when they see a gun? Don’t think so.

            I can remember a time when seeing a rifle in a gun rack hanging in a truck was commonplace. Did anyone scream back then. Nope.

          • disqus_il6KG9d3VM

            As I was saying above. There are more laws regarding getting a drivers license, registering a car, renewing that license every year, drinking, speeding, selling said car. Harder to drive than getting a gun. Even though a car while it can cause deaths it is made for transportation, while a gun is made for killing.

          • http://batman-news.com Pete Perez

            Because of the 1996 shooting, Australia confiscated firearms.
            President Obama outright lied about Problem solved. Now people are being killed by fire. One of many arguments is that other means will be used.

            Childers Palace Fire – In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.
            Monash University shooting – In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.
            Churchill Fire – 10 confirmed deaths due to a deliberately lit fire. The fire was lit on 7th of February 2009.[6]
            Quakers Hill Nursing Home Fire – 10 confirmed and as many as 21 people may have died as a result of a deliberately lit fire in a Quakers Hill nursing home. The fire was lit early on 18th of November 2011.
            Post as Pete Perez

            +

            disqus_il6KG9d3VM 1EdMeadows83 • 21 hours ago
            As I was saying above. There are more laws regarding getting a drivers license, registering a car, renewing that license every year, drinking, speeding, selling said car. Harder to drive than getting a gun. Even though a car while it can cause deaths it is made for transportation, while a gun is made for killing.see more 1 Voting has changed. Learn more

            Reply

            Share ›
            Twitter
            Facebook
            Link

            +

            joe schmo 1EdMeadows83 • 2 days ago
            Did they really…..
            ‘Statistics demonstrate that crime rates in
            Australia have increased substantially since the government there
            instituted a gun buy-back program in 1997.’
            Read more at http://www.snopes.com/crime/st
            I do not disagree with you on the Firearms licensing. I ask you again, why are we having this problem now? We never did in the past.see more 0 Voting has changed. Learn more

            Reply

            Share ›
            Twitter
            Facebook
            Link

            +

            Independent1 joe schmo • 2 days ago
            Come on Joe, that article you linked to is over 13 years old and it’s full of crap. Here’s some statistics from a Washington Post article 3 days ago:
            Almost every modern nation in the world has far lower rates of gun violence than the U.S. For example, gun homicides are seven times higher in the U.S. than in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Other democratic nations with gun safety laws do not experience our levels of gun violence.
            Fact is joe, even in the U.S. of the 20 states with the highest rates of gun ownership (more than 45%), the majority of which are red states, also have the highest rates of homicides committed using a gun. Carrying a gun DOES NOT make anyone safer, in fact, carrying a gun increases your probability of dying young as much as 4.46 times greater than if you didn’t have a gun.see more 4 Voting has changed. Learn more

            Reply

            Share ›
            Twitter
            Facebook
            Link

            +

            joe schmo Independent1 • 2 days ago
            Well, here are some that are more current for you:
            More Guns, Less Crime (Feb. 2014 Wallstreet Journal)
            ‘A new FBI report says that violent crime continues to fall nationwide,
            which might annoy liberals because gun purchases continue to rise.’
            http://online.wsj.com/news/art
            and another:
            http://dailycaller.com/2014/02
            Like we really should rely on our government…LOL
            Great news: ATF lost dozens of its own weapons
            posted at 9:21 am on February 26, 2014 by Ed Morrissey
            http://hotair.com/archives/201…see more 0 Voting has changed. Learn more

            Reply

            Share ›
            Twitter
            Facebook
            Link

            +

            Independent1 joe schmo • 2 days ago
            All the websites you’re referencing are right-wing biased websites. But besides that, FACTS do not bear out what you’re saying.
            Fact is, that the five most violent states in America are also high gun ownership states.
            Fact is, that the states that lead the nation in homicides are also high gun ownership states.
            And here’s a study from the American Journal of Public Health which also says you’re wrong.
            A new study of gunviolence published by the
            American Journal of Public Health found that states with greater levels of gun ownership tend to have higher rates of gun-related murder. The study, conducted by Boston University professor Michael Siegel and coauthors Craig S. Ross and Charles King III, examines this relationship in all 50 states from 1981 to 2010. The researchers
            found that “for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent.”
            Sorry, I’ve done to many studies on my own to buy into the BS you’re posting.
            High gun ownership in Red States is one of the reasons why people in Red States live on average 2 year shorter lives than people in blue states which have by far lower gun ownership rates.see more 3 Voting has changed. Learn more

            Reply

            Share ›
            Twitter
            Facebook
            Link

            +

            joe schmo Independent1 • 12 hours ago
            Wall Street Journal, Conservative! LOL No way. Forbes is another one that can go either way. I try to look for articles that meet somewhere in the middle. Not always possible on either end is it?
            There is so much information out their that contradicts what you are stating. I have read time and time again how countries that have guns have less crime.
            The article I just uploaded is current. I will state to you what most of you say to me when I upload a dated article. It is not current (2010). My info came from stats produced by our very own FBI.
            Your second source, I never believe most of the research done by learning institutions because they are extremely liberal and tend to be liberally bias.
            Maybe you are referring to the criminals in Red states that live 2 years less because an armed citizen was able to stop them in their tracks.
            Of course, you will come back with some other ridiculous response. Liberals always have to feel superior to everyone.see more 0 Voting has changed. Learn more

            Reply

            Share ›
            Twitter
            Facebook
            Link

            +

            Independent1 joe schmo • 9 hours ago
            Go pound sand. If you’re so clueless that you don’t even know that the WSJ is owned by Dow Jones which is owned by News Corp, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch – Mr. Right-Wing idiot himself who also owns Fox News, then you have no business even posting on the NM. We don’t accept posts from people as clueless as you are!!see more 0 Voting has changed. Learn more

            Reply

            Share ›
            Twitter
            Facebook
            Link

            +

            joe schmo Independent1 • an hour ago
            Go ‘F’ yourself. You are one of the reasons we are becoming the ‘Divided States of America.’ Get a clue and wake up you idiot. We are already history.
            ‘WSJ….. (close to neutral – their focus is on the economy) ‘ (exactly what I thought.)
            Most places it states WSJ is neutral or close to that. So go stuff yourself. I don’t really give a crap if the paper is owned by Murdoch. It’s all about business and economics. You are just pissed because it’s owner is a Conservative. Unfortunately for you it is one of the most read papers and you just can’t fathom that.
            …..and we have had to have Leftist media garbage stuffed down our throats from the 60′s to beyond. At least now we have a voice in FOX and other outlets. Infuriates you!
            Look at this:
            NY Times
            Huffington Post (have pulled info from)
            Washington Post (have pulled info from)
            Seattle Times
            NPR (the worst of the worst. Soros just about owns everything including you)
            Yahoo
            Reuters
            CNN (…and they used to be center)
            NBC
            ABC
            CBS (I was told by one of your ilk that they were Conservative, LOL)
            If you don’t like my posts, you don’t have to respond! I am just the pesky fly that keeps reminding you that you are helping divide this country.)see more 0 Voting has changed. Learn more

            Reply

            Share ›
            Twitter
            Facebook
            Link

            +

            TZToronto joe schmo • 17 hours ago
            You make the mistake of assuming that when two things are occurring at the same time that one of them is causing the other. Sometimes the two things are actually unrelated. The decrease in violent crime is due, in part, to the aging nature of the population. The increase in gun purchases is due, in part, to the lax laws you mention. Using the car analogy, I could say that the incidence of fatal accidents involving 90-year-old drivers is at an all-time low even though car purchases are at an all-time high. Therefore, the decrease in car fatalities involving 90-year-olds must be due to the increase in car purchases.see more 1 Voting has changed. Learn more

            Reply

            Share ›
            Twitter
            Facebook
            Link

            +

            joe schmo TZToronto • 27 minutes ago
            Nicely stated, however; being a very large nation also indicates that violence is hard to gauge. With regard to mass shootings which seem to be at the helm of the anti-gun debate, here is an article that explains my premise for believing that gun laws should be maintained:
            ‘Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.
            In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.
            Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.
            Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.
            Almost all of the public-policy discussion about Newtown has focused on a debate over the need for more gun control. In reality, gun control in a country that already has 200 million privately owned firearms is likely to do little to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. We would be better off debating two taboo subjects — the laws that make it difficult to control people with mental illness and the growing body of evidence that “gun-free” zones, which ban the carrying of firearms by law-abiding individuals, don’t work.
            Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff.
            Economists John Lott and William Landes conducted a groundbreaking study in 1999, and found that a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools.”
            Mass shootings are a good example how it may be in a world with no guns because the perpetrator attacks the innocent.see more 0 Voting has changed. Learn more

            Reply

            Share ›
            Twitter
            Facebook
            Link

            +

            Independent1 joe schmo • 2 days ago
            And let’s dispel the notion that most mass murderers have mental illness which is also wrong. From that same article in the Washington Post:
            4. Gun violence is not due to mental illness.
            It seems intuitive that anyone who commits a mass shooting must be mentally ill, but this is a misuse of the term “mental illness.” Mental illness is a term reserved for the most severe mental disorders where the person has severe symptoms such as delusions or hallucinations. Decades of mental health research show that only a small proportion of persons with mental illness commit violent acts, and together they account for only a fraction of violent crime. Some mass shooters have had a mental illness. Most do not.
            Most Mass murderers are not mentally ill in the clinical sense of the word; they’re simply radicals just like the bunch of radicals who stood up to confront the feds for Bundy – two of which ended up killing two cops and an innocent guy with a gun.
            Most mass murderers are no different than the radicals who are walking around today in Texas claiming open carry – they’re simply people with radical ideas; they’re not clinically mentally ill. So the NRA’s additional lies about guns don’t kill it’s mentally ill people, is just one more misconception being spewed by the NRA.
            Guns kill people a plenty even by accident – and that includes people trained to carry them like cops.see more 2 Voting has changed. Learn more

            Reply

            Share ›
            Twitter
            Facebook
            Link

        • TZToronto

          You just said that violent crime is decreasing. How can society be more violent when violent crime is less prevalent than it used to be? . . . And that’s racket, not racquet, but I suppose you can kill someone with a racquet, too.

      • irishtap

        Every word – absolutely factual.

    • latebloomingrandma

      Great post! I have to remember that line about it not being one of the 10 commandments. Murder, however, is.

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    We all know the answer to the growth of guns in the wrong hands..limit the number of guns that can be manufactured. We do this with the most lethal chemicals and drugs. Why not guns? Further, the only reason the NRA really deliberately misinterprets the 2nd Amendment, completely ignoring the words, “well regulated” is because Article 1, Sec. 8 outlines what that means in terms of what is and isn’t “regulated.” Those words stand in that Amendment for a reason..to prevent unregulated militias from coming out of the woods and causing a Civil War for government takeover.

    • http://www.examiner.com/political-rebuttal-in-national/michael-ross Michael Ross

      The NRA and its conspiracy theory peddlers are already screaming their heads off about that, and we haven’t even tried it yet. Larry Pratt and some of his brain-dead allies in Washington (Fleming, Stockman, Gohmert, the usual suspects) insisted that the DHS was buying up ammunition to make it more scarce to the public as “backdoor gun control,” even though they all knew their ammo purchases were consistent with the years prior.

      The truth is that these people aren’t just irrational. They consider rationality to be an evil communist plot or something. Half of them just want to maximize profits for the firearms industries, and the other half hate democracy and want to feel like they could murder all of the liberals in America if they wanted to.

      • Eleanore Whitaker

        I think most of these gun addicts are paranoid schizos..Look at the way they think: Any stranger on the street is a “potential threat” and they feel they must be more armed than our trained police, National Guard and military. How sick is that? No matter what the NRA says or does now, not a dime more of their lobbyists and sponsors money is going to matter. Americans are fed up. There already was a mass protest by women who are sick and tired of sending kids to school to get shot.

        I think that those good ole good ole gun nut CON politicians are about to lose their jobs for all their support of the NRA. That was inevitable. People see their gun advocacy as a direct threat to the future of their children. Isn’t it enough that we have to worry about foreign terrorists without these freaks of nature adding to that?

    • dave

      Sad to say eleanor ,you’re right. The original intent was to be able to protect/defend our new country against another country trying to attack us. Now we seem to need guns more to protect us from EACH OTHER !! The armed services all require an oath to protect the usa from ALL threats FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC !! The perversion of the 2nd amendment by most domestic so-called militias will need to be dealt with in the future,ALL who threaten the peace and security and safety of the majority of this country will be treated as DOMESTIC TERRORISTS if ARMED conflicts with govt. forces/troops ever happen. Did those idiots in arizona REALLY think if bullets started flying the feds would simply have packed up and gone away ?? Not hardly,the next step would have been the national guard,[also sworn] to protect from DOMESTIC TERRORISM .

  • SueBumblebee

    Why can’t local counties vote for no guns as they do for no alcohol? NIMBY works well against corporate interests trying to invade communities! I’m sure the restaurant associations would take action if patrons got up and walked out if someone came in with an openly displayed gun.

    • dave

      I have some bad news for you sue,in some states laws that were enacted to do just that have gone to the supreme court and been OVERTURNED !! Washington,D.C. had a ban on concealed carry for years,the gun lobby ended up funding an appeal to the supreme court and WON !! In some states open carry is legal,BUT a church,
      store,bar etc, was given the option to refuse to allow them.Not sure if a sign is required or just a verbal warning??

  • paulyz

    The problem isn’t guns per se, it is how the people have changed in our society. When I was a young boy, we all had guns. We walked down the roads with loaded, uncased rifles. I am talking in a city of about 55,000 people. We even got picked up when we hitch-hiked with these loaded weapons. We went down to a river and shot at different things or set up cans and bottles. There were never any problems. Same during Deer Season in Wisconsin. There are about 600,000 hunters with weapons in the woods and nobody is hurting anybody, and very few accidents. The problem isn’t guns, it’s the bad people in society that have them. Don’t go after innocent, law-abiding people and our 2nd. Amendment RIGHTS!

    Can you imagine this happening now-a-days?

    • latebloomingrandma

      So—–how do you know who’s the good guy with a gun and who is the bad guy?

      • BuzzLOL

        . the bad guy is shooting innocent people… next question, please…

        • dave

          Not all bad guys dress in camo or dark clothes,not all good guys look like good guys. When you can GUARRANTEE YOU know the difference let me know and i”l stop worrying about morons running around showing off their guns. Did you miss the fact that the civilian killed in the mall shooting pulled his gun and was shot and killed by the bad guy and his wife ???

          • Independent1

            Not only was the “good guy” killed by the bad guy and his wife, but also, during the Navy Yard shooting a year plus back, 3 of the people killed in that rampage were also carrying guns.

            What this article and many others fail to bring out is that guns in the hands of the average American are far more a liability that can lead to their early death, than they are in any way shape or form, a means of self protection.

            Of the 165,000 gun related deaths that occurred from 2000 to 2011, just a little over 1,300 of them were justifiable homicides for the purpose of self-defense; Less than .8% of the gun deaths over an 11 year period were related to someone successfully using their gun for self-protection. What actually happens more often than not with someone carrying a gun, is they end up being shot trying to use their gun for self protection.

            In fact, according to an article from the medical education department of the state of Utah, people who carry a gun, stand a 4.46 greater risk of being shot and possibly killed than someone who is unarmed during a break-in or other type of assault.

            See this:

            The issue of “home defense” or protection against intruders or assailants may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed
            suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman et al, 2005). Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

            And note at the end of that excerpt from the article, that owning a gun greatly increases the probablity that the gun someone owns will be used to injure or kill someone in their home by as much as 5 times for women and children. The NRA lies as usual when it claims that a gun is actually a form of self-protection for the average American.

            Here’s the link to that article where it says more than 200,000 Americans end up being shot each year needing an ER visit and 31,500 plus Americans died by guns in 2010 almost equalling the death toll from auto accidents.

            http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

          • dave

            The 31,000 figure is bad enough,but even worse is that about 10% of those deaths EVERY year are CHILDREN !!!!! How can we as a so-called civilised nation live with that !!!!

          • Independent1

            Exactly! One of the saddest incidents I’ve come across the past week or so, was the story of a young couple with a 2 year-old moving to a new home. They left their 2 year-old in their car while they moved stuff into their new place only to have him find a loaded revolver in the console between the front seats and somehow point the gun at his head before it went off. What they thought was a gun the would protect them, ended up being the gun that killed their 2 year-old. Sadly the NRA’s lies go on and on without anyone mounting an effort to really try and stop them from being able to continue their lies!!!!!!!

    • dave

      How many hunters are REQUIRED by STATE LAW to have a hunting license ??????????????????

    • Independent1

      From what you’ve posted, someone would have the impression that the red states with the highest gun ownership, more than 45% of the residents own guns in many red states, would be the safest states in America because more than 1/2 the people own guns; but unfortunately, the opposite is true: the states with the highest gun ownership, which are more often than not red states, also have the highest incidences in the nation of all forms of violence and homicides – include homicides by firearms.

      • Suralin

        That there is a correlation is pretty clear, but I must ask whether the data shows that it’s the *cause* of the increased crime, or the *effect*?

        • Independent1

          I guess I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. So let me give you just a few more statistics.

          America is the only nation on the planet where more than 2 people per 100,000/yr die violent lives; and in the U.S. the average is over 6 people die each year per 100,000 population. Finland is actually the only other country where more than 1 person/yr dies a violent life. And what contributes to these high violent death totals is the fact that the U.S. leads all countries on the planet BY FAR in gun ownership.

          In addition, the U.S. has dropped now to around 50th on the planet with respect to life expectancy. And it’s the violent deaths that occur, not only from firearms but also from auto accidents in the U.S. that are contributing to that low life expectancy – just think of it, the U.S. is 50th in life expectancy behind many countries that are considered to be “developing nations”.

          Even if you look at auto accidents, the vast majority of them occur in red states. Of the 25 states in the U.S. with highest auto accident rates, 23 of them are red states. Most conservatives balk at that and ask what Red States can be doing that would result in higher accident rates. My thought is, the same thing they’re doing that results in far more firearms deaths occurring in Red States – like, not enough police, lax regulations allowing unqualified drivers to drive, people to get away with speeding too much, maybe too many people who don’t even have a license driving – I don’t have a definite answer, but when more than 90% of a measure that leads the nation are red states – that’s not by accident.

          And by the way, general violence is no more prevalent in the U.S. than anywhere else, it’s just that when violent acts occur (other than auto accidents I’m talking about) , people in the U.S. more often end up dead while people in most other countries end up in the hospital still alive – and why is that?? The increased prevalence of GUNS!! Excess GUNS in America ARE THE PROBLEM!!!!!

        • Independent1

          By the way, if you’re looking for a good source of statistics on just how bad the situation with respect to guns has gotten in America, you need look no further than an article published by the medical education department of the state of Utah. And being Utah is kind of telling- Of the red states, Utah is the only state where longevity of its residence is projected to be to age 80; while there are 9 blue states with longevity projected to 80 and even 81.

          Once again I believe its partly due to the excess violence where a gun is involved that is why the overall average longevity is 2 years shorter in red states than for blue states.

          If you’re interested, here’s the link to that article:

          http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

    • disqus_il6KG9d3VM

      That was then, this is now.

    • Suralin

      There’s been a big change in population density over the past bunch of decades, tho; fewer people are living in the backwoods or small towns, and more are living in cities or built-up suburbs.

      In both of the latter cases, it tends to be seen as less necessary to carry a gun, since the cops are usually pretty close by. It becomes dangerous to fire guns in built-up areas, too, with the danger of ricochets or hitting bystanders.

      For obvious reasons, there’s also no hunting in the city limits (or in a lot of suburban municipalities), so that reason for carrying a gun goes right out the window.

      So I guess, in summation, a lot of it is familiarity. More people are urbanites now, and are thus used to seeing guns deployed only in dire situations (police actions, gang violence, etc), not as just an everyday thing one’s neighbors all have.

  • SueBumblebee

    Hiding behind the second amendment is ludicrous. The original intent of the second amendment was to protect citizens from an oppressive government, (the British), through national defense. Since then, GUN lobbies have used the second amendment to promote gun sales and people with no sense of American community have used the second amendment to own guns that are not needed! I don’t see how the right to have a gun supercedes my right to the pursuit of happiness. Perhaps our parents blew it when they let kids run around with BB guns shooting at will. Who is to blame for the changes?

    • Independent1

      Sue, ex Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens agrees with your opening comments. See his opinion here:

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/11/1291429/-Justice-Stevens-Supreme-Court-has-Misinterpreted-the-Second-Amendment?detail=email

    • disqus_il6KG9d3VM

      Our right to life is paramount.

    • Suralin

      Actually, I had a thought.

      Leaded gasoline was everywhere when most of the current far-right types were growing up. It is a proven neurotoxin, after all. I wonder if it’s a factor.

      Heck, we could probably get them to go get CAT scans by starting a rumor about an evil government plot to such effect.

      • Jrigney

        Your ignorance is only to be outdone by your condescending arrogance.
        The next time you have a thought…..let it go.

  • Bob Williams

    I’m sure you are right that if we outlaw guns, they would no longer be a problem. After all, criminals always obey the laws. And outlawing drugs certainly solved that problem, so you folks are on the right track. Keep doing what you are doing – I need the entertainment.

    • latebloomingrandma

      Regulating is not outlawing.

  • devilindetail

    We know how to change this dynamic. There are a number of groups pushing for gun regulation. It is hardly control since it stops no one who is responsible from legally owning a gun. There are a number of Senators who voted against ANY gun regulation, who are up for re-election this year and should be voted out. Let’s help with do both, support gun regulation groups and vote the bums out. We have only ourselves to kick by not embracing these efforts to bring sanity back to government in Washington.

  • Dominick Vila

    I have not yet heard a single logical justification to the need to arm ourselves to the teeth, buy semi-automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, and not strengthen our gun laws to make it more difficult for criminals, the mentally ill, and known extremists to purchase lethal weapons.
    Guns may not kill people, but those determined to kill someone certainly benefit from having access to one.
    The British are not coming. The problem is right here, at home, where millions of fellow Americans are so afraid of everyone else that they feel compelled to arm themselves to cope with their fears and insecurities.
    The problem is, indeed, not associated with responsible gun owners. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to determine who is going to leave a gun laying around, accessible to a kid or an unstable adult, and who is not. Make the gun owner responsible for crimes committed with their weapons (with the exception of reported and confirmed burglaries), and there is a good chance those responsible gun owners will act accordingly.
    People don’t need a semi-automatic weapon to hunt Bambi. Those who buy that kind of weapon do it because of paranoia or because they plan to use it against fellow human beings for reasons known only to them.

    • sigrid28

      “Make the gun owner responsible for crimes committed with their weapons”: Exactly. The president proposed recently limiting the availability of bullets, with a logic that is pure and bracing. I’d add the idea of putting a vin number on each bullet that tying it to its owner. But for this to work, there has to be a systematic way to assign liability. At the risk of repeating myself, I would like to offer my idea of how to do that.

      A modest proposal (with deference to Jonathan Swift):

      Late at night, at the end of a session of Congress, before a long recess, by secret agreement (to keep interference from the NRA at bay–you know, “behind closed doors,” as Mitt Romney would say), EVERY member of Congress, House and Senate, could vote to hold gun sellers liable who allow unqualified buyers to purchase guns, as well as gun manufacturers, requiring them all to carry malpractice insurance, just like doctors. Gun owners would have to carry liability insurance as well, just like car owners. Our lawmakers would be as crazy as a disaffected lone gunman on a spree not to vote for this policy, and here’s why. As soon as the president signed this legislation, money would immediately spray out all over the country like heavy fire from the kind of assault weapons we usually think of as mowing down children at school on a winter’s day or folks in movie theaters on a summer’s night. Americans accustomed to gun violence need not worry. There would still be lots of action, only with much more money in the mix, like a Hollywood movie come to life in our own living rooms. With liability insurance, gun sellers and manufacturers would be able to compensate victims or become open to the friendly ministrations of the courts and–voila!–lawyers, expensive lawyers (just like most members of Congress). Like lowering taxes on the top 1%, our lawmakers would be extending a helping hand to members of their own profession, while giving private citizens the chance to fight back against gun violence in the courts when not compensated correctly through the private insurance system. Actuaries would decide how the family of a victim of gun violence should be compensated, or the decision would be passed on to a jury of one’s peers. Here’s where the built-in fairness of our court system would play a role. Another advantage for members of Congress and the ruling class would be that NRA campaign finance could be replaced with donations from the insurance industry. It will be flush with cash, because it will still be likely that someone will be killed by a bullet every 17 minutes, resulting in claims, counter-claims, and family income generated via court-room drama (an added bonus). How so? Even though more costly, our gun lovers would sooner part with their first born than drop one piece from their cherished weapons arsenals. Thanks to the additive of insurance to the gun culture in America, however, business–as well as every blunderbuss in the country–will be booming!

      • latebloomingrandma

        If there’s money to be made, someone will go for it.

      • dave

        If someone could figure out a way to sue the gun MAKERS it would make a difference in a hurry !!!!!

        • Jrigney

          Sorry Dave, I don’t mean to be rude, but there are big gaps in your knowledge of American Civil Law, and/or the business of Manufacturing.
          Such a legal precedent would open up automobile manufacturers to liability when some goofball goes off the deep end and runs a bunch of people down with his (whatever kind of) car. Some machine tool company would find themselves getting sued whenever some bonehead puts a drill-bit through his hand. And so on.
          The person wielding a firearm is, and must be, the person responsible for the deeds or misdeeds done. As it should be.

          Most certainly, this is where the Tobacco Industry analogy will come into play, but their misdeeds were deliberately marketing to children, and deliberately making their product addictive.
          I don’t believe that applies here.
          Yes, I know I am probably going to get get a lot of flack back for this, but what I am saying is:
          Beware of unintended consequences.

          • sigrid28

            Then why are there so many recalls by car manufacturers? They are avoiding the legal consequences of liability for accidents and deaths resulting from defects in their cars. Then why must all car owners carry car insurance? They have no other way of compensating those hurt in accidents and paying for damages. The only reason there is no liability attached to gun manufacturers and no liability insurance required of gun owners is because the NRA lobby has successfully opposed this–not because it couldn’t be done.

          • Jrigney

            Not very well thought through at all.
            A new insurance-selling requirement will boost the GDP? Absolute nonsense.
            Fatten the pockets of the Financial Services Industry, who’s Lobbyists buying power already calls the shots in both legislative houses? Most certainly.

          • Independent1

            The gun industry is using the NRA to tell the lie that a gun will protect you even though studies show that people who carry a gun end up being shot and sometimes killed as much as 4.46 times more often than someone who doesn’t own a gun. How is that any different than tobacco companies selling cigarettes and failing to tell people that smoking could end up killing you.

            Fact is, the gun lobby in order to sell guns is deliberately funding a gun ownership club that is LYING TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. And for that, gun manufacturers should be prosecutable for the lies that they are paying to have distributed by the NRA!!

          • FredAppell

            That’s exactly what happened to that poor bastard inside the Vegas Walmart last week. He tried to be a hero by confronting the shooter with his own gun and ended up getting shot by the wife of the shooter. I’d say it was his own fault for failing to properly access the entire situation before trying to be a hero that led to his own death. Brave yes; but definitely more foolish than anything else. He was given the opportunity to escape like everyone else was but I guess he saw things differently, what a tragic waste!

          • Jrigney

            Yea, that’s the American Compassion we’re talking about! “it was his own fault” the stepping up and trying to contain the situation.
            Still…..if you ever (god forbid) need to engage, fire from cover, and know the difference between “Concealment” and “cover”.

          • FredAppell

            I have a great deal of compassion for many things but I also believe in personal accountability. The victim was given a choice like everyone else in the store to leave unharmed but he chose another path. The two police officers shot dead in the pizzeria by the same shooter weren’t given that choice. The officers were ambushed as they sat eating their lunch and then had their bodies desecrated with the symbols of the killer’s defiance. Now I admit my choice of words describing the Walmart shooting victim were in bad taste, that wasn’t my intent and I do feel sad that he didn’t survive. That being said, it won’t surprise me in the least if we hear many more of these type of stories in the future. No amount of gun carrying citizens and no amount of laws are going to prevent these tragedies from repeatedly occurring. It’s too late to put the genie back in the bottle.

          • Independent1

            Unfortunately, he was just one more statistic that proves the NRA’s lie that a gun is needed for self-protection. Unfortunately once again, that’s not the case when a gun is in the possession of the average person who really doesn’t know how to use it.

            That’s why, of the 165,000 homicides that were committed by gun between 2000 and 2011, only a little over 1,300 of them were justifiable homicides for the reason of self-defense. That’s less than .8% of the homicides committed in a 12 year period were the result of someone trying to protect themselves. Even if another 1,300 had whipped out their gun and scared someone off with the gun they carried, that would still make using a gun for self-protection occurring less than 2% of the time. A drastic contrast to the lie the NRA keeps spouting about how protective owning a gun is supposed to be.

            Fact is, that owning a gun accomplishes only one thing for the average person in America; it makes them almost 5 times more likely to die and early death; often as the result of carrying that gun they just purchased. A gun is by far bigger threat to someone’s life than it will ever be a protector of that life.

          • FredAppell

            I think this national epidemic of gun ownership is a national embarrassment and it’s going to be with us a long time. Both sides accusing the other of irrationality is not going to bring it to an end ever. No matter what though, people will still find a way to kill each other, the only difference being is that fire arms are made with the sole purpose of killing while most other items are not. Are we a wondrous species or what?

          • Jrigney

            OK, well….whenever I see a bunch of capital letters and exclamation points, I know that a rational fact-based discussion is out the window. Over & out.

          • Independent1

            Typical right-wing biased clown’s cop out.

          • Jrigney

            Ah….name-calling and nastiness.
            In any debate, that is the surest indicator of “I’m out of ideas & I no longer have a valid point to make”.
            Further, your referring to a person who volunteered many hours at an Obama Campaign phone-bank in 2008, as “right-wing”, is yet another indicator of your willingness to speak with seemingly self-satisfied assurance, on matters of which you have no real knowledge.

          • joe schmo

            Jrignery, you are so right. They just don’t get it. They think we are the devils that want to change this country into something it is not when in reality it is the liberals that want that change. Obama wanted to ‘transform America.’ He most certainly tried to do that and he has taken the liberals with him and he has turned them against the Conservatives. Divide and conquer. I have not changed my opinion once in my lifetime. My opinions are still the same as they ever were. All we can do is stand up for what we believe in and speak up against the minion bullies who are FORCING their ideology down our throats. They always preach Coexist when they themselves don’t even engage in what that term prevails. Keep fighting the good fight and never give up:)

          • joe schmo

            We don’t give up that easily. Like I said before, in a time of chaos, I think I would rather stand with the Rednecks, bikers, military veterans, military and law enforcement….. Where will you be?

          • joe schmo

            No, what you don’t understand is that it is the people who support the gun industry and the NRA. Remember,,,,, ‘We the People.’ I think that is something you are forgetting…

          • Independent1

            Not so!! It is not ‘we the people’. It is we the Koch Bros that are driving the NRA along with the gun manufacturers. More than 75% of the people are against what the NRA stands for; and that’s including NRA members themselves.

        • joe schmo

          LOL, you will do anything to exude your power. It will only become a raquet and turn regular citizens into criminals.

  • HUNTERVIC

    Question

    Since when does the general public qualify as “a well-regulated militia” as stated in the Second Amendment?

    Facts are, they simply do not qualify as such due to the facts that it has no recognized, organized or prevailing leadership and there are no records of its training or capability to use available weaponry.

    Okay, NRA gun nuts_ including Mr. St. Pierre_ let’s see your answers to the above.

    • dave

      You don’t really expect a SANE RATIONAL ANSWER DO YOU??. What the 2nd amendment fanatics refuse to see is the words well-regulated militia. Someone said the lobby of the nra offices has the 2nd amendment word for word,EXCEPT for those words !!!!

    • disqus_il6KG9d3VM

      There should be no military style weapons allowed in the hands of any Rambo who wants one. A gun in your home for protection if you feel the need for one. Or A hunting rifle for hunters. Otherwise join the Military if you want to play with assault weapons, then see how fun that is. Dumb loons who wear rifles strapped outside their clothes in places we take our children is not acceptable. Many children who know about the 20 little children who were massacred, and had to practice what to do if that horror came to their school, don’t need the fear of seeing one in the ice cream store, or their fast food place. Or any place where normal people congregate.

    • Dominick Vila

      The arms industry, and the NRA, have worked around the constitutional requirement for a well regulated militia by taking advantage of the poor syntax used in the Second Amendment to separate gun rights into two distinct categories: the need for a well regulated militia (the National Guard and law enforcement agencies), and the right of people to own weapons. Unfortunately, their well orchestrated campaign, greed, and the paranoia of so many, allow them to succeed at our expense. Collective insanity prevails.

  • ExRadioGuy15

    On Facebook, I’ve written two notes that debunk EVERY Gun Nut/Ammosexual talking point…ALL OF THEM…
    Suffice it to say, however, that the title of this article is correct…the Gun Nuts are so insane that defense of “Gun Nuttery” has become a parody.
    The sad fact is that it’s “tragic parody” :( ssmdh

    • Jrigney

      The pejorative “Gun Nut” is not helpful, if you really want to communicate with those who’s views don’t line up with yours.
      To a law-abiding firearms owner, the term “Gun Nut” is the rough equivalent of calling a person of color the N-word. It shuts down communication, and turns the entire thing into a f**k-you-fest.

      • dave

        Most law abiding gun owners are NOT gun ‘ nuts ‘,most of the rest of us know that. Its the ones who refuse to accept any responsibility to go along with owning a gun that seem to be causing most of the problems. Some of them ARE willing to go to any lengths to keep their guns no matter what and then can’t figure out why most of the rest of the country is more scared of them than criminals. Some very calm cool thinking in arizona by federal officials may have stopped an absolutely horrifying,[to most americans],event from hap-
        pening. These people were supposedly willing to put women in front of the men to get shot at first ?????? Who in their right mind would do this ???

        • sigrid28

          Misogynists, that’s who.

          • Jrigney

            I have been trying to introduce a different perspective to an entrenched ideology. Clearly a fool’s errand. So continue on with your polarization and hatred, and just as surely your opposing number will do the same. And you can trade your CAPITAL LETTERS and exclamation points and half-dozen sequenced question marks that only impersonate an actual question.
            And never compromise….and never accomplish anything.
            I’m outa here. I need to go weep for the future of my country.

      • disqus_il6KG9d3VM

        It doesn’t matter what you call the’ nice’ people who strap on guns to show off in public, they will never communicate with normal people. And, no it doesn’t mean the same thing as the N word, that was used to denigrate people for just being who they are. Gunners choose to buy many guns including military style weapons or weapons which only belong in the hands of law enforcement.

      • Joseph

        I know both “law abiding fire arms owners” and “gun-nuts”. I chose not to try to have communicatin with “gun nuts” because they have nothing of consequence to communicate.

        • Jrigney

          Atta Boy, Joseph. Buggar that “Trying to be reasonable” shite. Let’s keep calling these people we don’t see eye-to-eye with dehumanizing names, because that has worked so well so far…..

  • irishtap

    In my view the NRA is in danger of becoming a “terrorist organization”. Wayne LaPierre will, manipulate verbage of the second ammendment, to mislead NRA members ‘and’ public – for express purpose to frighten them into a state of zealotry. Zealots with guns is a dangerous,volatile mix when their fetish and definition (Second Amendment) of how they receive the right to ownership of a firearm, comes under scrutiny. I’ve looked at background and statements of some NRA board members, and each person has a penchant for extreme right wing politics and controversial statement – no exceptions. This is an organization operating and relying, chiefly on propaganda and ignorance.
    What the ‘gun rights crowd’ fails to understand: All this rediculous grandstanding (carrying guns into public places) will eventually ‘backfire’ on them. When the collective common sense of the public has been viciously insulted – there is push back. Groups form, they organize and push relunctant politicians to act.
    Federal law for obtaining a ‘death instrument’ should be made onerous and written with unambiguous, harsh consequences should an unlawful incident take place with “your weapon”..regardless of circumstances. People desiring to own a gun should be ordered to undergo complete psychological testing aside from a background check. Provide proof of ownership of a quality ‘gun safe’. Applicants should provide written statement of “why a gun is considered necessary for them to own” and kept on record. They must also complete extensive firearms training at an accredited training agency. Gun owners will be required to carry firearm ownership insurance. No prospective ‘gun owner’ shall attend a ‘gun show’, unless having obtained a permit to do so. After completion of all criteria, an applicant must wait an additional six months to receive his/her purchase. All private firearm transactions, must take place at the nearest FBI office.
    Fees collected from mandatory requirements for obtaining firearm(s), will be used to increase ‘buy back’ programs in high risk, inner city neigborhoods. This money could also pay for additional “unlawful firearms intelligence” where citizens have opportunity to claim various rewards when a tip brings confiscation and conviction of person holding an undocumented firearm.
    Finally – make it a felony for public display of a gun – I’m done with these damned idiots masturbating with their guns in public, frightening unsuspecting sane people. Get active and PUSH BACK – HARD. Swift and severe punishment for subverting the law, is all these unstable idiots understand.

    • disqus_il6KG9d3VM

      The NRA is already a terrorist orginazation.

      • irishtap

        True.

    • joe schmo

      No longer LaPierre rather Porter. At least do your research. You don’t know squat about the organization you are referring to….

      If things weren’t so bad we wouldn’t feel like we were living in the wild wild West.

      • Joseph

        I know all I need to know. It went from a gun safety organization which I joined when I was10 years old to a front for radicals and gun manufacturers. Now the public image of the NRA is a fat scruffy yokel with missing teeth and a desperate need to “be somebody”.

        • Jrigney

          I’m not the NRA’s biggest fan. But Christ almighty…”The NRA is a terrorist organization”? Really?
          By your measure, The Chamber of Commerce is a terrorist organization, for they do essentially the same thing.
          For God’s sake, Man, engage your brain before you begin typing.
          Oh, and BTW, learn how to spell the word “Organization”.

          • Independent1

            And the Chamber of Commerce is about as radical and right-wing biased an organization as the GOP itself. What planet are you living on? It sure isn’t Earth.

          • Jrigney

            Really? OK.
            And what other planet have us Human Beings managed to explore so far?
            Listen, I get your ham-handed attempt a sarcasm, but you are missing the point—deliberately I think.
            I might not be tremendously fond of either the NRA or The US Chamber of Commerce. But it was flat-out stated that these are “terrorist organizations”. And I am merely pointing out that anybody with a reasonable grasp on their sanity & factual information can tell you that this is bullshit. Ask around.

            Which brings us back around to one of my original points: Shrill accusations and factually-challenged hyperbole is going to get us precisely nowhere.

          • Independent1

            It depends on your definition of terrorists. In the realm of politics, terrorists are those who are spending big bucks spreading lies and distortions in an attempt to get politicians that they can control elected into office. And despite what you think, that definition clearly fits the Chamber of Commerce. It has spent millions the past several elections publishing TV ads spewing lies and distortions in an effort to sway elections in favor of candidates that will become beholden to their biased cause.

            And none of the facts I post are factually-challenged. That’s clearly a figment of your imagination.

          • Jrigney

            “It depends on your definition of terrorists.”? What? Huh?
            No, it most certainly (deleted expletive) does not.
            Terrorist: People with a political or ideological agenda forwarded by acts of terror, intimidation, bombings, death-threats backed up by actual assassinations, flying airplanes into buildings full of people…that kind of shit.
            Once again, I have no great love for the US Chamber of Commerce, but they are not a “terrorist organization” by any stretch of a sane person’s imagination.
            Look, if a person were just simply being an idiot, I would say to myself: “OK, this person is an idiot, they can’t help it”. But being an idiot is one thing….actually choosing idiocy is quite another.
            Your going to get the last word here, Idiota de la Indepeniente Una. So blather away, however fanciful you care to make it. I am arguing with an idiot, and with all humility, I’m afraid that makes me an idiot too.
            Gotta go do some non-idiot stuff now.

      • irishtap

        Go FOX yourself moron.

  • JPHALL

    I wonder how the gun nuts will react when a bunch of nonwhite men start parading around with weapons. I bet their reaction will be the same as it was when the Black Panthers did it back in the 1960′s.

    • ps0rjl

      Then they will really get crazier and need bigger and better weapons. Look how most of them are about a black President. Just as our electing a black President was a call to arms for these people, black people or Latinos will drive them crazy. It will be a glorious day for the NRA and gun manufacturers.

    • dave

      The nra and lapierre the wacko will use it to sell even MORE guns !!

  • Jrigney

    These kind of forums are commonly a clearing house for all kinds of factually-challenged nonsense. But even measured against that relatively low bar, rarely have I seen such a display of vitriol, hyperbole, and just out-an’-out rubbish.
    It is not going to be helpful toward a thoughtful and civilized discussion of the issue, which is what we must have. If we try to do this with anger and screaming and name-calling, we will get nowhere fast (the current state of affairs, in other words). Our poor country is polarized enough, let’s all just try to take it down a notch or two.
    Otherwise, the extremist anti-2nd-Amendment buffoons on one side will just energize the extremist pro-gun buffoons on the other, and then you get things like…..people showing up a fast food outlets, carrying box-magazine-fed semi-auto rifles—convinced that they need to send you a message, even if the message is: “Look at me, I’m just as big an idiot as you are”.
    BTW…Would you knuckleheads PLEASE leave your CAR-15s at home?!

    As for you others—at least try not to respond with the typical hateful, vile rubbish, and please give this a little bit of open-minded thought.

    —Guns are here to stay, they are a fact of our lives. Nobody is going to be able to wave some legislative magic wand at ‘em and and make ‘em disappear. It is a fool’s errand to try. Making something illegal does not equal making it unavailable, it makes it expensive. If you disagree, go have a look at this country’s spectacularly failed “War on Drugs”. And the concept that we could sew the seeds of a huge black-market in illegal weapons should scare the crap out of all of us.

    —We have a sociological and mental health crisis in this country, and a startling number of people seem to want to throw a hardware “solution” at it. If we tackle the wrong problem, we’re doomed to failure.
    Politicians (sorry, but mostly Republicans) have been systematically dismantling public Mental Healthcare for decades, and other Politicians (sorry, but mostly Democrats) have been making it more difficult to get a family member involuntarily committed to treatment.
    And where do these dangerously unbalanced people go for help now?
    We have had auto-loading firearms in this country for 150 years. This phenomenon of people bringing guns to work or school with the intent of making their co-workers and/or classmates dead? This is a far more recent development.

    Folks, before you jump all over me, take it down a notch and think about this. There are millions of people in this country who value their 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights, & we need those people working with us, NOT against us, to solve these problems. Otherwise, we will be just like our current Congress—battle lines & posturing, scorched earth tactics, and precious little actually getting done.

    Once again, I’d love to consider your thoughtful responses, but if you are going to come back with a bunch of hate & name-calling…take a deep breath, and then…leave it out.

    • Independent1

      How about starting with undoing the mistake the right-wing biased Supreme Court made in 2008 when it bastardized the meaning of the 2nd Amendment by misguidedly giving the average American citizen the misguided notion that they have the ‘RIGHT’ to own a gun – when the 2nd Amendment, as it was ratified by the states, DOES NOT give the average citizen that right. The 2nd Amendment as written by Madison is clearly intended to guarantee the right of gun ownership, only to those Americans who are INVOLVED IN MILITIA ACTIVITIES with respect to the need to protect the sovereignty of the individual states from attack by foreign governments. At the time the 2nd Amendment was written, there was no standing federal army, there were no formal law enforcement activities that could be counted on for protection anywhere outside some of the very populated original cities. All of that has changed over the passed 200 plus years, making the 2nd Amendment for all practical purposes, meaningless to virtually all American citizens – it does not provide any rights to 99.999% of today’s American citizens.

      The above is not my opinion, but rather, the opinion of ex Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens (see the links at the end of this post) – and was the interpretation of virtually every judicial court in America for well over 200 years – from the time the Amendment was ratified, until the right-wing biased judges on the SCOTUS who appear to be beholden to the NRA decided to reverse more than 200 years of judicial interpretations in order to serve the interests of the gun lobby.

      So what is needed, is for sanity to reign on the SCOTUS, hopefully by appointing some honest judges to the court, instead of those that appear to have been bought out by right-wing conservative interests – the buyouts being evidenced by the grossly distorted decisions that have been enacted by the SCOTUS ever since the misguidedly handed to the 2000 election to BUSH when he clearly would have lost a recount had Florida been permitted to complete its recount – and also considering that Bush had lost the election by over 1.5 million popular votes as it was; and have passed other idiot decisions like Citizens United.

      If we can reset the misguided interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that was handed down in 2008, then we can go about treating firearms as they should be treated – owning them is a privilege no different than owning a car. Purchasing a firearm should involve all the record keeping and formality needed in order to purchase and license an automobile. All guns should be registered, there should be some form of identification on them that ties them to their owner, and guns with respect to their owners should be traceable just as automobiles are traceable via their VIN numbers.

      Included in purchasing a gun should be the need to be trained on their use, just as getting drivers license requires a road test and qualifying exam, there should be same for a gun. A gun owner should have to prove that he or she is qualified to use one – and that includes a bonefide reason for the gun ownership and the ability to pass a background check and other medical reviews.

      Here’s the links to John Paul Stevens interpretation of the 2nd Amendment:

      An excerpt first:

      The Washington Post has published an opinion piece from Justice John Paul Stevens in which he analyzes the history of the second amendment, and recent Supreme Court decisions to support his contention that the interpretation of the Second Amendment advanced by the NRA (and recently accepted by the courts) is contrary to the intent of the framers. According to Stevens:

      For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

      When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/11/1291429/-Justice-Stevens-Supreme-Court-has-Misinterpreted-the-Second-Amendment?detail=email

      • Jrigney

        And therein lies the rub:
        Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is clearly different from a tremendous amount of other’s.
        I myself get something different out of it than you apparently do.
        Still, I am not here to defend recent Supreme Court decisions. I am still reeling in jaw-dropped disbelief at “Citizens United”.
        But you are missing a practical point.
        Guns are low tech. Anybody with a halfway decent machine shop can crank out copies of a selective-fire Kalishnikov.
        Try to make them illegal and we have not have made them go away. We will all get an ugly lesson in unintended consequences. Albert Einstein once said “many of the problems that we face today, started out as the ‘solution’ to some other problem”. Close quote.

        Further, when you start in with that “The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee your right to keep and bear arms” hooplah, you have de facto called to arms (no pun intended…well OK, a little bit of a pun intended) a huge host of committed political enemies. A terrible negotiating position.

        • Independent1

          No one is suggesting making them illegal. They should be controlled just like we control owning a car.

          Where did you get any idea I suggested making them illegal? And the interpretation I’m suggesting for the 2nd Amendment WAS THE INTERPRETATION FOR MORE THAN 200 YEARS IN AMERICA until the corrupt group of fake right-wing judges decided to create their own misguided interpretation WHICH REBUTTED MORE THAN 200 YEARS OF DECISIONS!!!

        • joe schmo

          What don’t Liberals understand. WE HAVE A SECOND AMENDMENT. They seem to rewrite and misconstrue the Constitution and the Amendments.

          Well, I might add some are not for gun control.

  • leadvillexp

    Ms Tucker isn’t fully right in what she says. Duck and cover during the Cold War was effective. Outside of the ground zero blast inatilly most people would be killed by flying debris, such as glass. A good site to see is nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ it will let you see the blast zones near you. As for a blanket to stop bullets, it is much like duck and cover. It might stop handgun bullets but may not stop high power rifle bullets. The way background checks are proposed they will not work. Only law abiding people will obey them. The laws that are proposed now will take guns away from people that obey the law and leave only the people that disobey the law with guns. The background check would only check when you purchase a firearm not when you steal one, and M16s have been stolen from the military, or if you have mental issues at a later date. I am against any gun control laws as they are written today, they are useless. While not perfect may I suggest licensing all firearms owners and users. It could be done as HAZMAT is on CDLs with a background check every five years. It could be put on the drivers licence. This could be used in all states. It could also be used to buy ammunition. With one swipe of the licence the seller would know if it was valid and up to date and that it was ok to sell to the person. it would not infringe the Second Amendment as there would be no registration. Not all regulation is bad, but laws written while emotions run high are not usually well thought out. The lawmakers and the NRA are not the bad guys. Most politicians want to be reelected and will do as they think the people want. While the media likes to portray the gun control people as the majority, in truth they are not. There is a large silent pro gun group. Who do you think supports the NRA and who do you think its’ members are?

    • Independent1

      What you’re saying is all well and good, but we need to start back with the fact that the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT give anyone a right to own a gun, only in the minds of a bunch of very misguided and biased current Supreme Court fake judges. The misguided decision that the current idiots passed down in 2008, undid more than 200 years of previous court opinions. The 2nd Amendment provides the “right” for gun ownership, only to those Americans who are involved in a bonefide militia type activity, which today, is virtually no one. Guns today should be licensed and tracked exactly like automobiles are licensed and tracked; with the addition that someone looking to license a gun should have to pass background and mental evaluation tests.

      See this:

      The Washington Post has published an opinion piece from Justice John Paul Stevens in which he analyzes the history of the second amendment, and recent Supreme Court decisions to support his contention that the interpretation of the Second Amendment advanced by the NRA (and recently accepted by the courts) is contrary to the intent of the framers. According to Stevens:

      For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

      When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/11/1291429/-Justice-Stevens-Supreme-Court-has-Misinterpreted-the-Second-Amendment?detail=email

      • leadvillexp

        You are wrong. The Second Amendment gives the people the right to bear arms. If you look at the wording, A well regulated milita being necessary to the security of a free state (,) the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It clearly states the right of the people. This can be traced back to the English Bill of Rights of 1684. It tells the King he can not disarm the people. English common law states the rights of self defense, resistance to oppression and the duty to act in defence of the state,Our forefathers saw the possible future and accounted for it. The musket of 1776 was the M16 of today. Read the English Bill of Rights. The reason for armed citizens is that a government can do what it wants to an unarmed populace.

        • Independent1

          You don’t read very well do you?? You read right over the “A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state” bit didn’t you?? You ignored that phrase just like the NRA is ignoring it by not including it in the version of the 2nd Amendment that is up on their walls.

          Madison wrote the 2nd Amendment for only ONE PURPOSE, to ensure that states maintained a well regulated militia because there was no federal standing army. Given that no state needs a well regulated militia anymore beyond the National Guard, the 2nd Amendment is meaningless; except of course to corrupt right-wing extremist judges on the SCOTUS who have been bought and paid for by the NRA!!!!!!

          • leadvillexp

            A well regulated milita is necessary to the well being of a free state and also the right of the people to have arms. It does not say the right of the state to keep and bear arms. It says the right of the people. There is a comma between them.

          • Independent1

            There’s no “and also” in that sentence. The right of the people to bear arms is connected to a “well regulated milita”. The right to bear arms is only for those who are involved in militia activity. NOthing extends that right to “all the people”.

  • disqus_il6KG9d3VM

    The NRA and their gun lunatics have gone from radical zealots to bat-crap crazy. How many deaths will it take before they come out of their daze?

    • joe schmo

      How many innocent deaths will it take before you believe that we are just not safe.

      • Independent1

        And we’re not safe because right-wing zealots keep voting against creating better gun control laws. Not laws that take guns away, but laws that keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them.

        And for the average American owning a gun for self-protection only increases the probability almost 5 times, that the gun they buy will end up shortening their life, or the life of someone who lives in their home (more likely than not their wife or one of their kids).

        When guns result in around 200,000 people needing to go to the ER because of a gun-related accident; and more than 31,000 people dying, almost equaling deaths from auto accidents, better laws need to be enacted.

        See this from the red state of Utah:

        The issue of “home defense” or protection against intruders or assailants may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman et al, 2005). Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

        http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

  • shiznit

    If guns had never been invented the death count would be the same. The problem lies not in a weapon, but the soul.

    • Bud Friend

      You should really rethink your comment. It makes no sense.

      • shiznit

        Sorry…Next time I’ll attempt to be more pedantic.

        • Joseph

          You were sufficiently pedantic. You just did not make any sense.

          • shiznit

            Then I’ll go to the trouble to lay it out for you stupid asses that can’t see any further than one checker move ahead. It doesn’t matter if there are guns or not. If a person is inclined to do evil things it doesn’t matter if they have a gun, a knife, a sword, or a rock in their hands. They will still kill you no matter what.

          • Jominith

            “…. If a person is inclined to do evil things it doesn’t matter if they have a gun, a knife, a sword, or a rock in their hands. They will still kill you no matter what.”. Mister “shi—t, if you believe this you obviously are the stupid ass.

            Even though a killer-to-be with “a knife, a sword, or a rock” in his/her hand can still kill you the killing job just got a whole lot more difficult. And if the victim-to-be is bigger and stronger the killer-to-be you bet your “stupid ass” he/she may decide not to try it at all. And explain to us “stupid asses” how many knives, swards or rocks the killer-to-be can carry into a theater, a classroom or a mall to commit mass murder? Do you for a moment think that carrying an AK47 with a couple of large capacity clips does not facilitate mass murder?

  • Bud Friend

    The problem lies directly on the weapon. Ask yourself this question, Why were guns invented? You know why — to kill.

    It’s really that simple.

  • George Sanders

    Why is it so difficult to realize that people who are responsible firearms owners are not the issue here. If today, all firearms were illegal, the responsible firearms owner’s would be without firearm’s. The Police who are mostly thugs and criminals with a badge would have absolute power and the criminal’s and people who murder would still have firearm’s illegally. Just what is wrong with this picture? What is wrong is I cannot protect my home, life, and have peace of mind knowing if you break into my home or attack me or my Family on the street, or in my car, then you would be shot dead without hesitation. I, the responsible firearm owner, combat veteran, that carried death in my hands at age 18 by order of this government, would be the hapless victim. Sorry but the argument that banning firearm’s and ownership of such, does NOT hold up. PERIOD!

    • holyreality

      Pardon me for asking a personal question but I must ask.
      Does your knee jerk whenever you hear someone call for stricter filters for buying a weapon?
      Nobody except the most extreme liberal wants anything like banning all firearms.
      You may very well be a responsible owner. Misfits and losers who believe that shooting up theaters, schools, fast food joints, churches and 7/11s is the solution to their problem are a problem. As it is now, your kneejerk reaction to post in public shows you support these losers’ access.

      The decent thing to do is to force them to the hazards of the black market that will not take anything from you but just might prevent another nutjob from going to their gunsmith or gunshow to buy one.

      • George Sanders

        No it does cause a knee jerk reaction inme. Like so many Knee Jerks and their reaction’s every time someone is shot, or some mass murder takes place using a firearm as a weapon, I must remember where I live; in America. I guess it may be because when I was drafted at age 18, sent to a war in Vietnam which I wanted NOTHING to do with, given a rifle and the power of death over so many lives, I have to wonder if we exist in a reality, or what the media and a mass society of human being’s living in a world fueled by greed and despair by the GOP, want?

        So, just what or how do YOU define a “misfit” or “Loser”?
        I think maybe you are knee jerking and just do not know what to say with any intelligence.

        It is easy being an armchair quarterback. The decent thing to do is ENFORCE LAWS, make sure the death penalty is nation-wide and make sure that penalty is carried out very swiftly. What also could be done as a “social justice” is to look back in history a few year’s when the beloved and demented R. Reagan destroyed the Mental Health system in this country. Like so many GOP/assholes, he too destroyed “good things” let me know if you know any REPUBLICAN, at all, since Lincoln (he too is debatable) that did anything good for the Nation and it’s people?

        • holyreality

          Thanks, Ike comes closest. But the good things are more in what he did not do.

          Now if arms buyers were as qualified as yourself the problem might not be as severe. My knee jerk reaction now is a yawn if the death toll is in single digits. This new normal, how many died, more or less than ten in the past week is sad, and 2nd fetishists defense of every person’s “right” to arms lies at the root of the problem. Watering and feeding these roots is the mental health care vacuum GOPer love to slash budgets for, but still easy access to arms is the root.

          • George Sanders

            You make a valid point. However, it is not the firearm that kills. This is a reality. Thanks for the dialog. Enjoy the day. There will always be people that kill. I killed 23 human beings for my country, in a small country called Vietnam in 69-71, through no choice of my own, before my 20th Birthday. I am still haunted at age 63.

          • holyreality

            Thanks for your humanity, the burden you bear is beyond what I imagine I ever could handle.

            It is not the firearm that kills, I agree.

            However easy access to autoload rifles and hi-cap magazines that make it far to easy to slaughter scores lies at the root of this new normal. Feeding this root is mental health resources slashed by stingy politicians and a block of mental health flags from background checks.

            Future killers would be hard pressed to knife, or bludgeon scores of innocents the way rifles can.

            I support the 2nd, in service to a loyal militia the right to bear arms including fully automatic rifles, rocketry, and ordnance should be included, so long as it is within service in a militia. It could be private, public, additionally these weapons must be registered and insured against liability.

  • tdm3624

    I applauded the NRA when they made their statement, “It makes folks who might normally be perfectly open-minded about firearms feel uncomfortable and question the motives of pro-gun advocates.” They should have stood their ground against the members who disagreed with that statement.

scroll to top