Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Thursday, November 23, 2017

WASHINGTON — Have we gone stark raving mad?

The question is brought to mind by the new gun law signed last week in Georgia by Governor Nathan Deal. You might have thought that since the United States couldn’t possibly have more permissive firearms laws than it does now, nothing more could be done to coddle the gun lobby and tip the balance of our statutes away from law enforcement. Alas, you would be wrong.

The creativity of the National Rifle Association and other organizations devoted to establishing conditions in which every man, woman and child in our nation will have to be armed is awe inspiring. Where imagination is concerned, the best absurdist artists and writers have nothing on the NRA. No wonder Stephen Colbert has decided to move on from the realm of satire. When parody becomes reality, the challenges facing even a comedian of his talents can become insurmountable.

You might not have thought that the inability of people to pack while praying was a big problem. Georgia’s political leaders think otherwise, so the new law allows people to carry guns in their houses of worship. True, congregations can set their own rules, but some pastors wonder about the confusion this provision will create, and those who would keep their sanctuaries gun-free may worry about being branded as liberal elitists. Maybe the Georgia Legislature will help them by requiring a rewrite of the Scriptures. “Blessed are the peacemakers” can become “Blessed are the gun owners.”

You will also be able to tote weapons into bars and their parking facilities if the bar grants you permission. I can’t wait to see the next beer ad depicting a gunfight over who pays for the next round.

Georgia thinks you should be able to take guns into government buildings that don’t have screening devices or security guards. Second Amendment enthusiasts tend not to like tax increases, but as The Associated Press reported, the city of Vienna, GA, (pop. 3,841) would have to shell out about $60,000 a year to increase security at city buildings. “Do we raise taxes to provide the police protection or do we take the risk of potential injury to our public?” asked Mayor Pro Tem Beth English, who also is president of the Georgia Municipal Association. Too bad if this gun lobby subsidy comes out of the school budget.

Oh yes, and while conservatives claim to hate the centralization of power, this law wipes out a series of local gun regulations. The gun supremacists just don’t trust those pesky local elected officials.

257 Responses to The Gun Supremacists’ Folly

  1. Legislators cave over gun violence for the same reason they permit the fossil fuel industry to threaten our supplies of fresh air and water. Until the rich can no longer buy politicians, we are at the mercy of mad men.

    • So let me get this straight you want to ban every gun from the common citizen because you trust these same Bought politicians.

      Smart Plan.

      Next thing we will see is some Rich guy named Putin Koch will buy himself into politics and become a defacto dictator. Oh wait thats russia. That can NEVER happen here. 20 years after a total gun ban we will be just like russia mark my words. Some rich guy will buy our politicians and we will lose all control.

      Sometimes the threat of deterrence is the deterrence for the ridiculous.

      • Does PK stand for “Putin Koch”? Here’s the half-baked idea you use to win arguments: Whenever possible express what you say in such enormous generalizations that discussion no longer makes sense. No party in this country has proposed “a total gun ban,” yet you think it’s effective to toss out that idea as if it had any particle of truth to it. Fear mongering is a bully’s tactic, worthy of your anagram–but it isn’t very impressive, on this comment thread, anyway.

        • You may call it ‘fear-mongering”. I call it common sense. The fact is that none of us has a CLUE what some future (0r current) administration might try to do. Hussein Obama has already made it plain that he’d like to disarm all of us. If this insane left-wing madness were ever to actually succeed, we’ll all be total slaves to a totalitarian government.

          • Did I call you a name? You’re whole post is name-calling and idiotic attempts at insults to rational people.

            You haven’t even a coherent argument, just a lot of paranoid delusions, and I bet you’re armed to the teeth for when the UN – or is it aliens? – comes for your guns.

          • “Rational”?
            I haven’t sen anything “rational’ from you. Just left-wing knee-jerk rants.

          • I could suggest he is quivering in fear. I find the scared nuts, with guns, more dangerous than the street gangs.

          • “Nuts”….”Idiotic”…..interesting. I find that “Gun-Nut”, in particular, is the favorite all-purpose pejorative slogan that has long been slung around, to describe…..i don’t know….anyone who owns a firearm, I’m guessing.
            But here’s the rub:
            Once you let that Genie out of the bottle, your position immediately loses ground.
            In any debate, the side that starts in with the name-calling and hurling of insults, is the side that is out of ideas, or far worse, has an agenda that they are actively trying to conceal.
            But hey! If screaming, insults, and zero exchange of meaningful information are your thing, then go hire an agent, and try to get yourself booked on FOX (what’s laughingly being referred to as) NEWS.

          • No, gun nuts doesn’t describe anyone who owns a gun. I own guns. I am not obsessed with them and I am not so scared, they are weapons to protect me against the THEY.

          • WHAT?! YOU OWN GUNS?!?! Why….you GUN NUT!.

            Are you getting the point?
            Me calling you a “Gun Nut” makes about as much sense as you casting that terms at someone else.
            If you are not a Clinic Psychologist, and you have never met with the “patient”, I would encourage you to withhold the “diagnosis” of insanity.

          • There are nuts with guns out there and they are the ones you should be leery about.

          • You talent for missing the point…or perhaps it is more accurate to say, “Ignoring it completely”, is truly remarkable.

          • And since when is banning assault-type weapons “disarming us”?? No American that’s not involved with some type of military activity has any business owning an assault-type weapon!! And even the right-wing biased Supreme Court said it’s within the 2nd Amendment to ban those types of weapons!!!!!!

          • Assault weapons are made for one reason to kill people. Does the average person deserve protection from the gun nuts, or not?

          • If you can’t disable a burglar or hunting prize with 2 or 3 shots, maybe you ought to make yourself a slingshot. Remember David and Goliath?

          • And what “cogent argument” to you have that’s not based on lies and distortions from Faux News??????

          • Like where are the specifics on “Obama has already made it plain that he’d like to disarm all of us”??? That’s so much BS it’s beyond absurdity. You have absolutely no quote from Obama that remotely implies ‘HE WANTS TO DISARM US”!!!!!!!!!!

        • Sigrid and Cat

          Your comments about my generalizations show how truly ignorant you are about
          how the banning is proceeding and being pushed primarily by the democratic

          So either your ignorant or a liar trying to confuse the poor people who read
          this thread. I assume you’re a lying
          shill. So let me get more specific.

          Proof is last year these anti Gun bills were introduced in the CA legislature. Let me remind you this is last year’s bills

          This is death or effective banning by a thousand paper cuts and it gets
          repeated every year. The idea is to ban parts
          and pieces are create rules not based on reality to effectively ban all
          firearms and the ones that shoot rubber bands.

          Assembly Bill 169, Assembly Bill
          180, Assembly Bill 231 Assembly Bill 711, Assembly Bill 48,

          Senate Bill 53, Senate Bill 299, Senate Bill 374, Senate Bill 396, Senate
          Bill 475, Senate Bill 567, Senate Bill 683, Senate Bill 755, Senate Bill 47, Senate
          Bill 293,

          In one of these bills they
          effectively ban all older guns because some of the older manufacturer never made
          less than 10 round magazines because the firearm is not manufactured anymore. Ban means you cannot possess. That means take away! What do I do with the firearms gifted to me
          by my father or grandfather. Now mind
          you these are legally possessed and/or registered firearms.

          Some of these bills Ban small .22
          rifles that just because they are semi automatic or grandfathered weapons like
          some that I have from my father. YES
          BAN. That means take away and destroy
          and arrest those in possession and give them a felony.

          This is not done in one bill but
          multiple bills that effectively ban firearms and their use.

          Calling a small .22 rifle that is
          not evil and black plastic color a assault weapon does not make it so.

          I can entitle a bill assault weapons ban and put any number of named
          weapons that are not assault weapons in it and people like you who are ignorant
          to what the weapon is will believe that is a evil assault weapon when it is a
          .22 rifle that most people plink around with for target practice.

          Now to top it off the primary sponsor of
          the BAN has been caught- running guns.
          So like I said take guns away from me the good guy and give them to the

          California Democratic State Senator and candidate for California Secretary
          of State, Leland Yee, a gun control advocate, has been charged with conspiring
          to traffic in firearms and public corruption. The charges are part of a
          26 person criminal complaint and a major FBI sting operation. (There is your
          PUTIN you ignorant sap).

          Fools like you want to give away your gun rights and then put your lives
          into control of other people who use organized crime to use real guns. Who do you think those guns he wanted to run
          would be used against. You—> you
          dummy and you know what you wouldn’t have a gun to protect yourself against the
          organized criminal he was giving them to.
          (now are my words so farfetched).

          That is how a Putin gets into power and stays in power.

          That is why our founding father wrote the bill of rights in its entirety. Because they realized that the world has bad
          people in it and they wanted the good people who were brave to have some guns
          to protect the people in a bubble like you.
          And a voice to say it.

          • I don’t know about ignorant, but you certainly aren’t coherent. But go ahead and rant and rave away. It’s kind of amusing.

          • Yes, I’m aware that you and your friends are working overtime to deny the vote to anyone who disagrees with you, something that I would never consider.

          • I bet you never crossed party lines in your life with your vote. Do you grab your party flyer and vote down the line someone sent in the mail OR read about the issues and make a decision for yourself.

            You’re single handily doing a great job of polarizing me from ever giving another democrat a chance like I did last 2 elections. I don’t know if I can trust a party that won’t hear my voice at all on this issue. Yes I even put my money where my mouth was and donated. How about you. Think about it. That is why I get emails from this site because I donated to the cause.

            You paint yourself as a party that looks at the issues but your just as extreme in your outlook as your opposition.

            I wish you are everyone would educate themselves about the issues and try to take a balanced approach.

            You being a shill for some agenda

          • And there you go with the sheer BS!! You never voted Democratic in the past 2 elections you don’t have the brains to rationalize the need to vote anyway other that dumb!! Go bury your head somewhere LIAR!!!!!

          • I am sorry you can’t handle the truth that I voted for Obama the last 2 elections. And I donated 150$ of my own money.

            You forget that President Obama very clearly stated he supported the 2d amendment in his debates which I watched. You see Mr Independent I look at all the issues before I vote. With those words and His promise WHICH HE BROKE I voted for the man. He used every executive order he could to push gun control.

            Unfortunately he has been the president of broken promises and broken trust and so I will not give Hillary the same chance I gave Obama.

            Trick me once shame on you …trick me twice shame on me.

            You can’t spout all the vitriol and pablum you want but the truth is the truth. So stuff it.

            I know it hurt your brain to not be able to pigeon hole me.

            I am more independent than you would ever dream to be.

            On social issues I am very democratic in my leanings… because government should stay out of everyone’s personal affairs. Men, woman, black, white, gay, 1st amendment, 2d amendment etc. Live and let live.

            I also believe that big business without some government oversight will get out of control.

            But government and regulations and the waste in governments from the big to small is out of control in general. When a city fireman or policeman or employee can make 150,000 with pension but a similar employee in the same county makes $65,000 something is wrong.

            Basically I am a less government in most things including social issues so fall through the cracks on both parties.

            Sorry I don’t fit into your mold.

          • What utter nonsense!! I still don’t believe one word of your absurd rant. Obama has not broken his promise about guns, only in your demented mind!!

            A group did a study of the promises that Obama made while he was campaigning over a couple years in his run up to the presidency and they accumulated over 500 promises that he had made. Well back in early 2012, they went through the list of promises Obama had made to see how many he had kept, and they found that he fully kept over 250 of them and partially kept over another 100, blocked only from completing those by the obstructionist GOP Congress and that of the remaining ones he had been unable to address – it was once again the obstructionist GOP Congresses that had blocked those.

            I’m old enough to remember FDR’s fireside chats and of the presidents I’ve lived under since FDR, no other president has been as concerned about doing everything he can to help Americans live their lives better than Obama aside from FDR. And NO PRESIDENT has done more for this country since FDR than Obama.

            So you can take your unwarranted criticisms, however, by saying that I’m not suggesting I’ve agreed with everything he’s done, but when push comes to shove, Obama is hands down the best president America has seen in the last 7 decades!!!

          • Well since your admittedly older maybe you don’t remember his earlier McCain VS debates and his responses on the issue. I tried to Youtube it but just can’t seem to find it because they only show a lot of Romney debates and you wouldn’t believe me anyway.

            Your coming really close with your negativity of me just stopping responding to you. But don’t call yourself independent when your a Super Liberal Mr. Fireside chat boy.

            But I AGREE 100% that the President was blocked by obstructionist on many issues. Its unfortunate that he couldn’t fulfill his agenda on the fronts I agree with…………………. but I thank god that the GOP was there to block him on another so called assault weapons ban.

            Another point I concede is I believe Obama did TRY to keep his promises and my wording was too strong. But I also believe he told little white lies to try to get what he wants. I don’t believe in hindsight he really cares about the 2d amendment and gun owners. I think he carroted his answers in such a way as to appease people like me.

            I did believe him that I could keep my insurance….. I now pay 80 dollars more a month and my deductible jumped $4000. But I have pre-natal care…..or I should say I am paying for someone elses pre-natal care. My old insurance policy actually covered me better in almost every way that matters to me.

            Actually its bad that our congress is paralyzed the way it is but if the metric’s for me voting for Obama puts me in with the likes of you I have to speak up more.

            Mr Non-Independent the world is made up with shades of grey and your extremism is bad.

          • I’m no super liberal but you can be assured I’m deadly against super right-wing extremists which is what the GOP has turned into. Since FDR, I’ve actually voted Republican 3 times in presidential elections. And despite what I think were failed presidencies, I still believe the Republicans I voted for were more than qualified to be president – but once there lost total perspective with anything but serving the wealthy.

            And there you go pointing out just one more GOP lies: Obama did not lie about someone being able to keep their doctor or insurance plan. It was the insurance companies who lied. When ACA was being developed, Obama had a meeting with the CEOs of most of America’s largest health insurance companies; in that meeting they agreed to do everything they could to make ACA work. However, when the time came for ACA to take effect, they did everything they could to destroy ACA rather than make it work. They falsely
            cancelled policies that had been grandfathered by the ACA legislation; in many cases they actually committed fraud which could have been
            prosecuted by the way they
            gimmicked their policies.

            And ‘little white lies to get what he wants” – wow!! What BS.

          • Why did Obama cave and not push a single payer system. If the cancellations were illegal why did he not prosecute them?

            I would have supported him going after the insurance companies. He should have made the insurance companies offer up the old policies to those eligible but NO they got away with it with out a peep. Were there any prosecution or did I miss something? What about the housing debacle any prosecutions there? Are we still derivativing our way back to prosperity in the stock market?

            Do you call that good management on his part?

            It is the result of a person who hasn’t had enough real world experience getting things done except winning elections. The insurance company boondoggled him into Obamacare and he spent his political capitol on it.

            You call that being the best president ever. I had high hopes for him but the results are flying in the face of reality.

          • And in case you’re wondering about voter suppression, a judge in Wisconsin just banned Wisconsin’s Voter ID law as totally irrational; the judge actually said: “no rational person could be worried about it.”

            Just one more evidence that you and your kind are totally irrational!!

            Here’s the whole article for you (Voter ID laws are consistently being declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!):

            A federal judge invalidated Wisconsin’s photo ID requirement Tuesday, in at least the third court ruling to strike down the law.

            The ruling is an overwhelming win for plaintiffs, who argued that the voter ID law suppresses ballot access in the state. And while the decision could be overturned on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the law has also already been blocked by two state court decisions, one of which is still in effect. In March, Gov. Scott Walker (R) threatened to go so far as calling a special session to pass a modified law so that some ID provision is in place during the November election.

            U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman found not just that the law disproportionately deters minorities and low-income individuals from voting; but also that purported instances of voter impersonation are so infrequent, if they exist at all, that “no rational person could be worried about it.”

            He points out that Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) lawyers could not identify a single instance of known voter impersonation in Wisconsin’s recent past, even though that is the primary justification for the requirement that voters show photo identification. He also found that 9 percent of registered voters lack the sort of qualifying ID required under state law — enough to change the outcome of the election, particularly because many of those same individuals who lack an ID also lack the birth certificate necessary to obtain an ID.

            “[T]he photo ID requirement results in the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race or color” in violation of the Voting Rights Act, Adelman concluded. While Adelman’s ruling focuses on the Voting Rights Act, a state ruling also found that a voter ID law would overrule 132 years of Wisconsin precedent.

            Wisconsin is the second state in two weeks to have its photo ID law invalidated. Last week, a judge struck down Arkansas’ law. And witch hunts in a number of states that continue to seek out instances of voter fraud have only reinforcedthe notion that it is less common than being struck by lightning.

          • Remember Ohio? They closed some districts early and did not allow early voting in those districts and extended hours in others. The early closed ones were heavy Democrat voting districts.

          • Maybe we should be careful, creeps like PK may just panic and run out and go on a shooting spree with that assault weapon he’s so afraid Obama will be after.

          • I am not worried about Obama because Unfortunately he is going to be cautionary tale about our divided times……………… because people like you won’t listen to people like me in the middle.

            And by the way me isn’t just me but many people I know in my personal network who will continue to vote for the lesser of 2 evils. We are tired of the likes of idamag’s and Indendent1’s saying what the agenda is…….

            So we the Real Independents are going to keep voting for the next guy because we will remember how we got burned by the last one.

            My firearms are for my defense and the defense of my friends and family and anyone else for that matter including you as misguided as you are. But I agree there are some who can handle responsibility and some who cannot .

            Wish a real 3rd party will get traction……the stay outta our lives party.

      • Whoever said anything about banning every gun from the common citizen? I don’t know of any American politician – even the most liberal – who has ever proposed that, but even SCOTUS hard core right justice Antonin Scalia stated (in the majority opinion) that, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

        You’ve been listening to Super-Patriot La Pierre and his false, but hopeful self-fulfilling prophesies too much. It’s his hope that the government will try to this – thus providing the spark for the gun-owners to revolt and take over the country.

        • No one has advocated blanket confiscation of guns or banning all guns. Well, no one except the gun lobby who wants to sell more guns. “The land of the free and the home of the brave” is really the land of the scared and those fears were instilled in gullible people.

        • If you have a clue on how a gun works… the existing makes and models and look at all the laws that were proposed the last 2 years in California legislature you would not say that!

          I posted them above for you but you might have to understand a LITTLE about guns to know how tricky some of these bills were.

          Most did not pass but the fact that they were proposed at all speaks otherwise.

          • You’re right, I know zilch about guns, but there are infinitely more types and variations of vehicles, chemicals and foods, for example, as there are guns, yet we seem to be able to promote a high degree of public safety by exercising some degree of control over their use. So the fact that you are some kind of f-ing firearms genius as opposed to my abyssmal ignorance thereof, means absolutely nothing.

            I know that guns, in the hands of the wrong people, do kill people, and lots of them, and that a few, radical gun owners and organizations exercise the power to keep authorities from withholding access of these people to guns. It’s also obvious that the more ammunition (magazine capacity) available, the more people can be shot, faster and easier.

            So what else do we have to know, genius?

          • Well let me try to answer your question.

            Since I live in the out of control gun control state I will tell you what I think would be right fair and reasonable.

            The 1st thing you have done which is wonderful is to understand you’re admittedly ignorant about firearms.

            The state of California has done some good things and MANY bad things with regards to gun
            control. The problem is CA is the poster child of overdoing the gun control where it doesn’t matter. Gun Owners have to worry that once they agree
            to some limitations they will get stricter and stricter to the point of being ridiculous.

            For example I understand that some states have 0 day waiting period and California is 10 days.
            While I think the 0 wait is not good I think 3 days is reasonable. But in California its 10 days which is too long. In today’s electronic era why is it so
            long. Is the check system that unorganized? Can you give us gun owners any assurances that once we agree to something it won’t get out of control. That is the worry.

            That just one example and I can go on and on.

            Another point is CA has pushed rules under the guise of safety to ban whole classes of pistols that are available readily EVERYWHERE else in the nation.

            That was never the point when this drop test came into existence. No modern firearm will fail a drop test. But they added all these conditions that
            don’t make sense to limit the field of guns to choose from. I can buy a generation 1 firearm because it passed the test before it became ridiculous and cannot buy the generation 4. Functionally the later generation is better has the same safety features and is easier to handle so therefore SAFER. But guess what I can’t get it.

            HOW do we avoid the slippery slope that is California in the rest of the nation.

          • Well, PK, you’ve made some very perceptive comments, and your knowledge of firearms and CA laws is awesome, but you’ve been listening to the NRA fearmongers for too long.

            So, it’s pointless to argue about guns or CA law with one so knowledgeable about these things, except to note how unfortunate that an inanimate object, which can harm no one by itself, has so enslaved the minds of those who – thanks to the NRA – kneel before it.

        • Hitting the “agree” button on my own post was obviously a mistake, since I obviously agree (although I could be wrong) with my own comments.

      • So who said anything about banning every gun from the common citizen? SoWho better to express the constitutionality of gun-control than than Justice Antonin Scalia, who, speaking for the majority of the Court, stated, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

        • You remind me of a historian I saw on the history channel who was holding up a musket and said when the founding fathers wrote the second
          amendment they didn’t mean this….. and then held up an evil black rifle….

          What this INTELLIGENT historian forgot was that at the time the musket was around and second amendment was written …..the musket was the finest firearm in the world and was on Parity with the firearms that the most power army in the world carried…

          The founding fathers trusted the citizenry to have the intelligence and the capability…..(they even required it) to defend themselves from all threats. The requirement was that Every male from 16 to 60ish be required to know how to use a firearm. Since I don’t like to discriminate I say lets require the woman to know how too.

          Please before you speak again read the 2d amendment primer by Les Adams and then render your opinion.

          Since it seems you like to quote the law and research things

          Thanks and come again.

          • Okay, PK, so the musket was the state-of-the-art weapon of its time, but what difference does that make? Unless aimed at two people right together, or an explosives container set in a crowd, its use could only kill one person at a time – unless you count the shooter. And who’s waiting around for what is, at best, a slow and clumsy reload. But wait a minute, there’s another way; Shooter X could preload, carry and shoot a dozen muskets at once. a piece of cake, right?

            Incidentally, when is the last (or any) time that anyone has heard of mass murder with a musket? The jawbone of an ass, maybe, but not a musket.

          • Still, those muskets – unless used in very unusual or creative ways – could only kill or maim one person at a time, and even then, only with considerable time and effort expended to do so.

  2. As a gun owner, it scares me more when a state passes a law that allows someone to carry a concealed firearm into a church or a bar than it does when a state passes a law limiting the size of the magazine you can possess.

    • The law says its up to the bar owner and/or the church to decide if guns are allowed. The law simply says guns are allowed if the bar or church says it ok.

        • For that matter, what could be wrong – using Tea Party logic – with parishioners who venerate a man of peace carrying lethal weapons to a place of prayer and reflection?

          • I can’t disagree with that but I think Twain should have included ” and really trying to understand what it says.” Unfortunately, many people read the bible and either pick and choose the verses that imply the way they’re living is within God’s word; or they read it so coursely that they don’t really understand what it’s telling them. And believe it or not, seeing the direction that many churches are taking these days
            that includes the ministers, priests and pastors, etc.

          • Well, he also said something like
            Most people are disturbed by the passages in scripture they don’t understand; I’m more disturbed by those I do understand.
            You sound like someone who honestly tries to understand what is written while maintaining the faith that the god therein is good, and we’ll all understand some day, and I respect that, but I lost that ability some time ago.

          • Thanks, but for me the Bible is just an ancient history book that in addition to highlighting the tragedies and superstitions that prevailed at a time when science and knowledge were in their initial stages, also establish a contrast between what happened long ago and the realities of today. The latter should give us pause. I can only imagine how are descendents will judge us on issues like this a millennia from now, when the opportunists that benefit from our ignorance and superstitions are just a distant memory confined to the annals of history.
            Instead of reading the Bible to find spiritual comfort, I prefer to learn more about the life of prophets, such as Jesus Christ, whose example ought to be our compass and something worthy of being emulated. Biblical passages, especially those that describe the violence and prejudice that has existed since the beginning of mankind, should never replace the example established by the Man that we claim to venerate.
            When people go to a Christian Church, their decision should be influence by the need to learn more about the Man they venerate, rather than what Emperor Constantine and the Bishops of Nicosia want us to believe. Bringing guns to a place of prayer, a place where we purportedly reflect and learn more about our values, highlights the dichotomy between who we claim we are, and who we actually are.

          • History? Well, I guess it’s a good original source for ancient superstitions and the willingness to commit atrocities in their name, though how many actually took place is debatable.

          • He was speaking figuratively of course: living by God’s Word (the sword) and dying daily (figuratively) by not getting involved with the many enticements of ‘the world’ (read Devil) that would not be sanctioned by God.

          • But that was in the context of calling out sin, not killing people. The ‘sword’ he was talking about was the word of ‘Truth’, not that actual weapon that would be used in battle. If you really believed Jesus’ words about the sword applied to an actual weapon – you’re nothing more than another totally clueless CINO – Christian in Name Only!!!!!!!!!

          • The commandment says, “Thou Shalt not kill.” I guess there was fine print at the bottom. You need a magnifying glass to read the disclaimers.

      • Unfortunately, not all bar owners are as smart as Miss Kitty in “Gunsmoke,” who required all customers to check in their guns at the door. It helped that she was dating the Marshal who felt the same way about gun violence.

        As for churches, if you ever read parts of the Wesley-Calvin debates on predestination, or the things that the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople wrote about each other in excommunicatin each other over adding “Filioque” to the Nicene Creed, or for that matter read about the Spanish Inquisition, the St. Bartholemew’s Day Massacre in France, or the witch trials in Salem, I’m not sure I would want either side armed if a similar theological dispute comes up in church today.

        • I agree. Yet, today, it seems to me, religion is more about the collection plate than parsing the difference between Presbyterians and Episcopalians, especially if you tune in on TV to one of the evangelicals preaching the doctrine of prosperity–a message for our time, an era in which elections can be bought and sold, and there’s one law for rich men and another for poor.

      • That’s just the first step. The next step (that they’ve already implemented in FL) is to eliminate the provision that the property owner determines whether his area is gun-free (i.e. in FL it is now legal to carry onto any privately owned property.) The final step is to mandate that everyone carry everywhere.
        However, the liability laws still haven’t caught up. If an armed person fires in a school (at an armed bad guy) and kills a student, where is the liability? In FL today, it is legal (the courts have already ruled) to start a fight and while losing the fight become “in fear for your life” shoot the person you attacked and walk away uncharged. Does this make any kind of sense?

        • It makes sense if we no longer value life, either our own or the other guy’s. We all know there are countries–not ours until now–where life seems less valuable than it does here.

          We are so careful about the safety of our children, for example. Yet in France, at the Paris zoo, no fencing separates the lions from visitors, just a huge mote. One day when we lived in Paris and visited the zoo once a week, when my son was four years old, rumor had it that one of the lions had escaped and run into the underground. Millions of Parisians fled to the streets above, the same people who did not hesitate to visit the zoo with their children in tow. The elementary school in Paris did not lock the gate to the playground, though it was a block from the river. Childproof caps on aspirin, Hah! Medications are routinely dispensed in boxes and shiny foil, so you can pop them out like candy.

          When we devalue the lives of our children, what does it mean? Behaviorally, I suppose it means on some instinctual level we are not as concerned as we used to be about replicating our DNA. Of course, that is a chief characteristic that separates children from adults. Perhaps fetishism with guns is a national regression, a group hysteria that reduces us to a juvenile state in which personal pleasures are our chief concern.

          • It is an oddity. Maybe with 300 million present the GOP just no longer thinks individuals are that important? Maybe more so now that two out of five don’t look like them, it’s time to cull the herd?

          • WHO values life? Seems to me it’s the lefties that champion abortion on demand, which has killed more babies than all the gun crimes combined.

          • It’s a proven fact that more abortions happen where they’re illegal than when they’re legal because the agencies that provide them “legally” actually counsel women wanting an abortion about the downsides of getting one. While when where they are illegal, this doesn’t happen.

            So banning abortions accomplishes 2 things: more abortions, and more dead women due to botched abortions done by anyone with a coat hanger. So it’s actually those pushing for banning abortions that are less pro-life!!!

          • One thing that might contribute to abortions is the lack of sex education in the schools. The religious right (who is neither) says sex education will give them ideas. In states where sex education is stilted so it doesn’t really educate (mine is one) the rate of teen births is higher. Sex education needs to accept the fact that copulation exists and teach kids to be responsible instead.

          • It’s truly unfortunate that the people who are the most adamant for pushing to ban abortions, also seem to be the same people who also are against virtually everything that would reduce the need for abortions in the first place.

            In addition to better sex education as you point out, these people also are usually against the use of contraceptives, and especially any government monies being used to pay for contraceptives which would not only cut down on abortions but which would also save the government lots of money it ends up spending to subsidize the costs of raising unwanted children (latest estimate I’ve seen is that it costs around $275,000 to raise a child from birth to age 18); and then these supposed ‘pro-life’ bigots are also generally against even family planning.

            Sadly, they generally have a totally misguided notion of what the bible actually says and like the Pharisee’s of Jesus time they are living in the past, and are absolutely determined to follow through on their gross misinterpretations of the truth.

          • What you need to do is list the so-called lefties by name and the so called righties who oppose it. I happen to know Democrats who are against abortion and Republicans who are not.

      • So does the law somehow exempt the church, bar or whereever from being liable if by allowing open carry on their property it results in someone being killed when some hothead carrying a weapon loses his or her temper and blows someone away; or do you suppose the victim’s relatives can sue the bar or church for having made such an unwise decision?? (I’m a bit surprised the movie theater in Fla hasn’t been sued by the wife of the guy who was killed when he tossed a bag of popcorn on the hothead ex cop. Or maybe that lawsuit is still in the works and just hasn’t been filed yet.)

  3. This gets crazier everyday. When are gun sensible owners going to wise up and realize that the NRA is only whipping up their members so the gun manufacturers can sell more guns. The NRA is only a lobbying group for the gun manufacturers. Over 85% of their funding comes from gun and ammo manufacturers. What really galls me though is seeing LaPierre as a staunch defender of the2nd Amendment and the Constitution. If he is such a defender, then why when he was younger did he avoid service in Vietnam by using a 2S deferment? You would think such a patriot would have been in the forefront. I guess he is just another big mouth chickenhawk.

    • We will get sensible when the true agenda of total banning and disarmament of every legal gun owner stops.

      I can name many laws in CA that are not sensible and only hurt me the legitimate gun owner. The bad guys DO NOT obey the rules.

      • Talk about being sensible, PK, if La Pierre’s Legions would only give the government that has fought their battles and kept them free for 240 years as much trust as they give a snake-oil salesman whose sole purpose is to make money for the gun industry, few Americans, including myself, would hassle any gun-owners.

        • Fact is, a LOT of us, including myself, trust THIS “government” a lot less than any snake oil salesman on the planet, and they have EARNED our distrust.

          This is precisely why we NEED the Second Amendment.

      • Which means you’ll never get “sensible” because you all cling to that fantasy with a desperation that’s hard for rational people to understand.

    • I know bashing the NRA is popular in here but if you are going to do it, you should not spread false information.
      That is part of the problem – too much mis/dis information being spread out there.
      People dont have factual information to make *reasoned* decisions/analysis on the issues.
      1) The 5mil members and many of the 100mil gun owners in the US are pushing the NRA to fight the gun ban and confiscation movement like in here. So the driving force is the gun owners. And that is a significant number.
      And dont say “no one is coming for your guns” – it has already started in NY and Conn.
      It is advocated often in here and many other places.
      And *privately* the current admin has discussed that as a *Goal*.

      2) The NRA is not just a lobby group for mfgrs.
      If fact its primary functions are:
      The NRA developed and maintains(for 100yrs) the gun safety, training and certification systems for this country and that includes the Police(Ask your local Cop). And it includes the Gun Permit system and training requirements for that. When was the last time you heard of a Permit Holder(and there are millions-most all background checked) committing a gun crime? Could happen, but extremely rare it would be.

      The real root problems I see are:
      – Gangs and their drug trade – Driven by trying to escape poverty leading to violent behavior.
      90-95% of gun crime comes from here.
      – A broken Welfare system that forces Fathers(Role Models) out of the homes.
      – A broken Mental Health System that Medicates everyone with psychotropic drugs and sets them loose among us. And no one can put them on a gun no-buy-list for fear of “whatever”.
      – A broken Health System – The US spends far more than anyone and ranks what? 50th now.
      – Wage disparity – the gap widens.
      And just a general erroding of various social systems in the US. And downgrading of the middle and lower classes.
      We do still have the most Billioniares.

      Take guns away and the level of violence does not change. They will find another way. But it is much easier to blame guns than fix the broken systems/root problems. And the Billionaires are not going to help with that.

      • I have a question: How and why are criminals and drug dealers, mental cases, welfare dads.acquire these weapons of mass destruction? All guns start out as legal products with law abiding owners. Somewhere in the chain of ownership this can change. Gun registration, required liability insurance, and tracking of sales could help eliminate the unlawful and violent use of guns. At least we could establish who sold the weapons to criminals and the insane. The gun lobby wants to blame everyone else but themselves. Someone needs to be held legally and financially responsible when a gun is used to cause injury, emotional damage or death.

        • The individual who uses a gun in a violent way should be held Primarily responsible.
          As for the chain of control – any illegal activity should also bring consequences to whomever.
          I think all your concerns are valid and should be addressed in some way.
          And many “are” “to a degree” depending on the state.
          I, and most other honest(ie non-violent) gun owners, dont have a big problem with these things.
          But – Gun Bans and Confiscation from legal owners is a Non-Starter for me.
          And this is where the major “rub” and what all the resistance is about.
          It is often advocated in here, at the national level and has been discussed as a “goal” by the current admin.

          ps I carry personal gun liability insurance.
          Local, State and DHS certified/CCW/Pistol – Fully Checked prints etc.
          And I am now trained to a combat shooting level above SWAT Police with a pistol.
          Closer to Navy Seal Pistol Split times(multi hit) from what I know.
          I still practice real-life gun fight scenarios at least weekly.
          I am not a casual target shooter. But you do have a point here – most (even permit holders, are not trained to the level they will need in a real gun fight).
          But that is solvable with training.
          And I much prefer “them” with guns(even partially trained) to the Gangs and Psychos.
          I have been attacked and shot at 3 times(1 shotgun, 2 rifle)(all in the mountains)- but been lucky so far.
          Figure my luck has run out so started very serious combat training a while back.
          The root problems of violent behavior driving gun violence are not so easily addressed.
          Violent behavior causes – Gangs and the Drug Trade, Psychotropic drug use/prescribed(usually by young white men) and no controls on them. They are out there among us and WILL kill again

          • Sorry, you sound reasonable except for the part where you start talking about “Gun Bans and Confiscation,” which are seriously advocated by no one but thoroughly marginalized individuals and groups that gain strength mainly when people read stuff from “responsible, law-abiding gun owners” like you.

        • “I” personally am all for background checks. Problem is (as the NRA points out) the criminals dont do background checks and most of the gun crime is coming from them(90-95%) – Gangs and psychos.
          To have a real impact on gun crime we will have to address the Gang/Drug trade problem – somehow. And the psycotropic drug use/ prescribed or other wise obtained by young white men problems somehow.
          So a big push on background checks will not have the impact we all need/want – ie – a significant reduction in gun crime

          • I used to do background checks for employees in sensitive positions. With our pipeline to the FBI we did very well. If they were criminals we knew about it.

          • I am for it and think most gun owners are for it. But again, with more than 90% of gun crime coming from Gang related violence that alone will likely not have a big impact on reducing gun crime(the untimate objective). Also in reviewing our state stats on this I noticed that only 1-2% of applicants were denied permits. So, while this should be done it will not (I believe) have the bigger impact we all desire on reducing gun crime.

            Addressing the mental health, psychotropic drug problem will (I think) reduce significantly the odds of mass murders. But this will not be easy.

            Addressing the Gang Gun Crime issue will have the greatest impact on overall gun crime since most of it comes from there. But again it will not be easy since it involves poverty, the welfare system failures, etc. To me – we should start with legalizing all drugs except the ones that lead to violent behavior. That might put a crimp in the gang activity, the cartels too.

            I dont have all the answers but think I have identified at least some of the real, major causes.

            And, again, to me – fundamentally one must address the causes of violent behavior in order to be able to address and at least mitigate them. Removing guns does nothing about reducing the violent behavior. The level of violence will continue at the same level with different weapons. A large(well documented/supported) Harvard Law study showed this very clearly.

            And banning gun types only has the effect of disarming honest gun owners.
            Which other studies have shown do actually serve as a deterrent to crime.

            Many in here say *”no one” is advocating banning or confiscating you guns*
            But Fienstein, Boomberg and even the current admin have stated that as a future objective.
            And even some in here. And it has already started in NY and Conn

          • I can avoid areas where there is gang activity and feel safe. If every nut nob, paranoid, person is carrying a gun, I won’t feel safe. As I have said over and over, a scared person with a gun is dangerous.

          • You have made a valid point in that we do need to find the causes of the violent behaviors which seem to have increased. 85% of solving any problem is identifying it. Another thing, you said, that I agree with is that as long as drugs are illegal, it promotes the black market and increases criminal behavior. History has shown that. In the 20’s when liquor was illegal it spawned the gangs of that day. Again, we have the initial behavior that leads to drug use. There is another needed study. However, I have a problem with legalizing something because they are going to do it anyway and it there are laws, there will be lawbreakers. So where do we go first? Do we try to limit the number of shots in a clip or do we find out where the violent behavior comes from? I am concerned about the number of people who have become paranoid. Scared people with guns are dangerous. Does this phenomenon come from the lack of socialization that is becoming prevalent or is someone fostering that type of behavior?

          • I agree, (untrained)scared people with guns ARE dangerous. My personal solution to that was to become trained to a level above the average SWAT operator. And I practice defensive combat scenarios weekly to stay sharp. I even help the police with their shooting. Now I am not nearly as scared or paranoid. I used to be scared of being attacked, but not much now – I dont want it, dont look for it, try to avoid it. In fact I learned and practice “Conflict Avoidance” Techniques. And increased awareness techniques to avoid a conflict if possible. Some things I have learned in the various gun courses I have taken. Some from the NRA. We have an old saying “The best gun fight you can be in, is the one you avoid”.
            In short, I am more comfortable/calm, a quiet kind of calm, knowing I can, if necessary, likely repel an attack on me or my home. I have cameras at home and a sign(Surveilance) in the yard to try to keep them away. I dont want to have to shoot anyone even a home invader.
            The signs are a very good deterrent(ask any security pro).

            People who know me, like my Pastor, trust me. He once told me – “I sure do feel a lot more secure knowing you are out here”. I was “asked” to handle our church security.
            During prayer, everyones head is bowed and eyes closed and vulverable – not me, I am watching the entry doors.

            Side note here: Through no fault of my own – I have been attacked and shot at 3 times(in the mountains) so I am not working from imagined threats and paranoia. Others paranoia has been my reality.

            So to be simplistic and summerize 1st:
            Gun ownership – Require one have a “permit” “before” you can even buy a gun.
            Gun Permits – Add a psychological and mental health evaluation to the process and specific about antidepressant use. Add defensive combat class. Defensive training that includes avoiding shooting by-standers, what we call “non-threats”. We practice this a lot
            The process (here anyway) already includes – Criminal background ck, finger prints, gun safety training, shooting accuracy qualifying, gun handling, birth ceritficate, etc about the same as police qualification.
            Gangs and guns – Legalize drugs and undercut them.
            Tax drugs, empty the jails, balance the budget.
            I know many police who agree with this.
            Antidepressants – Put users on a gun and permit watch list(ie deny).
            Everyday Predators – Learn awareness/avoidance techniques and gun safety and training as a back-up. And some hand to hand defense techniques.
            Gun Free Zones – Either provide sufficient *armed security* or allow Permit Holders to carry.
            Permit Holders – Increase required actual combat training.

            Paranoia – A general increase in the level of paranoia – could have something to do with the general decline of the US as the leader in various social areas – Health Care, Mental Health Care, Education, etc Also we almost had a near total Govt shutdown not that long ago – not a good sign. No police, no military, no welfare?
            Plus a general feeling, by many, that the US is approaching a period of social unrest to maybe anarchy in some areas and some regions.
            The gun confiscations actually done during Katrina.
            The gun confiscations called for by Finstein, Bloomberg, and others. Reports from sources like Salon that the Admin desires confiscations as a future goal.

            Justifications and logic:
            Where to start – hmm – Some things like changing the Gang and Drug trade and killing will be hard. Not sure how the old drugs became illegal in the 1st place – things like cocaine used to be legal. In fact Pres Theodore Rosavelt had to take cocaine at times to help with a nasal condition he had. He was given cocaine for relief of this condition the night before he made the speech on the attack on Pearl Harbor. I suspect making most of the older drugs illegal has something to do with religion but not sure. I would just legalize everything(subject to medical pro input) that does not promote violent behavior. That would undercut the gangs, but then what might they do(unintended consequences?) is cause for concern. But might be worth a try.

            On violent drugs ie the new age Anti-Depressants, ALL the school and most all the mass killings have been done by young white men age 16-26 on or coming off an Anti-depressant.
            I did that research on my own on wikepedia and other sources.
            With the medical privacy laws now they cannot be put on the gun watch list. Does their privacy outweigh the public need for safety/security from them? I dont think so but some do and it is now the law. It would take a national law which would be hotly contested at the Supreme level probably. But this is a known problem which I think has the best chance of working ie something being done. If every one realized and understood that the killings at Columbine, VT, Sandy Hook, etc all were driven by Anti-Depressant use we might be able to get somewhere with this. ps the killings at Columbine, VT and most others were done with shotguns and pistols, not rifles.
            Again – its not the car, its the driver.
            It is either that or turn every school into a fortress with armed guards.

            Also understand here – the so-called Assault Rifles being used are not really “Assault” rifles.
            They look like one but they have the same features as a standard semi-auto hunting rifle. And they have now become the most popular rifle in the country. And are used extensively for hunting and sport. And they come standard with 30rd magazines(ie clips). But I assure you you can do just as much damage with a pistol- and some have, it just was not little children. So it did not strike as hard a cord.

            As for high capacity magazines – “I” dont want to be limited here. Even at my high level of training I want as much fire power, as many shots as possible if faced with say 2,3,4 attackers especially if they have guns. Predators, including home invasion types usually run in groups of at least 2. Limiting magazine(clip) size would likely just put me at a disadvantage and not have an impact on the predators since they dont follow the laws anyway.
            There was a case in GA 2yr ago – a woman hid in the attic closet. A bad guy found her, she shot him in the face with a 5shot revolver all 5 shots and he still lived, he ran off but she was out of ammo. If his buddy had been up there what would she do then? What if there had been 3 of them. And I say it is not the gun or the magazine it is the violent behavior that is the problem.

            As a final thought – I think there is a good chance we(the US) is headed to a period of social unrest/breakdowns and perhaps some form of anarchy etc I dont want to be without a gun(especially an assault rifle) if that happens. The gangs have assault rifles. And I want to be at least equal. Other than I use it for sport and hunting that is another reason why I want to keep mine. I am trained in how to use it too. But pistols are easier.
            Most all my neighbors are good people but in a breakdown situation many will become predators. There is a saying here too – “Hope for the best” but “Prepare for the worst”.

            So maybe I used to be/feel somewhat paranoid and vulnerable, but now I feel comfortable, calm and fairly secure.

            Seems to me our efforts to reduce gun violence would be better spent in mitigating the above areas(the causes of violence) than demonizing honest gun owners and restricting our ability to defend ourselves

          • Boy!! You really suck in those NRA lies don’t you. If you really believe the lie that 90-95% of gun crime is done by known criminals who can get around a background check, you’re even more clueless than you look from your posts.

          • This is a Florida rule.
            “No state requirement that a Brady criminal background check be done on people buying guns at gun shows if they are sold by “private” individuals or gun “collectors.””

          • Oh I found this interesting about Florida as well.

            “Florida – No state restrictions on gun-trafficking such as a limit on the number of handguns that can be purchased at one time. Gun traffickers can easily buy large quantities of handguns at gun stores and resell them on the street to criminals. This is an especially severe problem in Florida. Because of its weak gun laws, traffickers buy guns in Florida and ship them to northern states with stronger gun laws, where they are later used in crimes. In recent years, Florida has been the #1 source for crime guns recovered in other states.”
            Don’t you find that interesting?

          • You’re right they shouldn’t be, but apparently they are being sold to criminals and more in Florida than anywhere else.
            I’m all for having a written test with some simple questions to determine whether you know how to handle/store/shoot a gun. I’ll bet you won’t get the NRA to go for it though, and if they don’t go for it neither will the politicians, they know what side their bread is buttered on.

          • I will admit, special interest groups and lobbying professionals do get in the way of honest politics. Most of the time whether it be the NRA or whoever the truth gets stretched so far out of proportion it makes it almost impossible to have a honest discourse on anything that involves politics.

          • To add to what you say…on the one hand, when both sides have different parts of the same side of an issue they argue about that….Ok….

            But, then on the other hand when they are on opposite sides they naturally argue about that but the game is always played for votes and re-election.

            Brinksmanship seems to be what wins in our politics today

          • Which is probably why when law enforcement in Boston did a check on where the guns came from used in crimes around that city, they found that more than 65% of them came from out of state.

            And that’s probably why there is so much crime around Chicago, where the gun laws are fairly strict; strict gun laws do very little good when states like Florida do virtually nothing to keep guns out of the hands of gun traffickers who can put them in the hands of gangs and known criminals.

          • Florida has an outlet around background checks, if you are telling the truth, all you have to do is feel threatened and you can kill someone and get home free.

          • Well, to buy from a gun store you will fill out paperwork for the background check, a fact. However, if say I want to sell you a fire arm then you’re right, no background check is required, but if I have any suspicion that you are by law not allowed to have a gun and I go ahead with the deal I and in as much trouble as you. That is, if you get caught.

          • If there is a private sale in some states you have to transfer the gun to the sold party and the paperwork goes to the sheriff and the background check may or may not be carried out but probably should

          • Interesting, I don’t know anyone that has ever bought/sold a firearm in a private exchange, just in stores like Bass Pro Shops.

          • Now, feeling threatened is not reasonable cause to use deadly force. Yes, there is that ‘stand your ground’ law but it isn’t necessarily a stay out of jail card. Since the Trayvon Martin Zimmer situation I would be willing to bet the ‘stand your ground’ will be scrutinized very thoroughly.

        • I have never heard anyone was coming for anyone’s guns unless that person was a felon. However, they will soon be taking that law away. After all, we are trampling on the felons’ rights to the Second Amendment, aren’t we? Besides there is a lucrative market out there if guns are sold to felons.

      • Since there is no gun ban, why should I believe anything else you say. The only proposed ban was on multiple clips of more than 7. If you can’t protect yourself with 7 shots, You probably can’t protect yourself with a gun.

    • Right on! Wayne LaPierre, super-patriot of The National Rifle Association, who claims to so love American values, and be so concerned with protecting and defending the Constitution that he passed on shouldering a gun for his country against its enemies, but encourages his countrymen to shoulder their guns – and to fear, and oppose their own country and countrymen.

  4. With ALL the guns being sold one would think people would be dropping like flies if what you folks are saying has any merit, but is doesn’t. And if the truth be told, there are already many carriers that go to a bar, then again, people are not dropping like flies. Sure, in a bar things can get very tense, and the one that goes and pulls the weapon is going to have a problem. The weapon is not necessarily a GUN. Maybe the problem is ALCOHOL, hmmm. It too is legal. So let’s add another ingredient, drugs.

      • No we haven’t because guns haven’t been as prevalent until recently! If the NRA and gun freaks hadn’t deliberately misinterpreted the 2nd amendment to suit their purpose and their greed, we wouldn’t be having this argument.

        • Please forgive me for calling you on this, but that’s not so.
          We have had an abundance of auto-loading firearms in this country for a century and a half. During WW2, Japanese Admiral argued against plans for an invasion of the Mainland precisely for this reason.
          Only recently have disturbing trends in insanity been boiling to the surface, like for example, high school students been deciding that a whole bunch of their classmates need to be dead.
          Let’s get ourselves on to a fearless examination of the root causes of these problems. Because blaming inanimate objects that we are never going to be able to completely get rid of, is criminal idiocy.

          • What information are you referring to?
            That we have had an abundance of auto-loading firearms in this country for a century and a half?
            Common knowledge.
            That the Japanese High Command knew full well that an invasion force sent against the American Mainland would be promptly massacred–with the active assistance of an armed populace?
            Common knowledge.
            That we have a mental health crisis in this country that we had damned well better address in a meaningful manner….and that feel-good band-aid approaches like restrictions on people who are already law-abiding firearms owners, do not qualify as a “meaningful manner”….
            While this doesn’t seem to be common knowledge, It is my fervent hope that it becomes so soon.

          • Saying it is common knowledge does not make it common knowledge. You need to cite your sources. I seem to remember when assault weapons were banned. So, as I said, your information comes from where? Common knowledge doesn’t cut it.

          • I’m sorry, but you are wrong about that. These things ARE common knowledge. If you do not know them, fair enough. You would know them if you had bothered to check, as I have. What I know, I know from a lifetime of paying close attention. Please forgive me if publishing a bibliography of everything that I have ever read, or doing your research for you, are not practical propositions.
            But let’s see if I can briefly help:
            Regarding my 1st point, the Navy Colt, the Henry Repeating Rifle, and the Sharpes Carbine all date from the 1850’s & 60’s.
            Regarding my 2nd point, I encourage you to study US History….once again, as I have.
            I have to say that I kind of like it when say: “Common knowledge doesn’t cut it.”.
            I enthusiastically encourage you to look into these things for yourself.

          • I encourage you to back up your claims with credible sources. Common knowledge is not a source.

          • OK, This has all gotten a little too silly for me.
            “Common Knowledge” = “Information that is known by everyone or nearly everyone”. End quote.
            I encourage you to do your own research legwork, I am not here to teach remedial History or Civics.
            If you think you can poke accuracy holes in what I have deemed “common knowledge”, knock yourself out.

          • Common knowledge is not a source. It is a generality and changes from generation to generation and area to area. Common knowledge in the 1200’s is that there were dragons and knights were paid a lot to go slay them. They came back with tales about their prowess. Common knowledge in the 1600s were that illnesses were caused by miasmas and could be prevented by not breathing night air. Sometimes something everyone thinks to be true turns out not to be true. I can imagine you trying a case in a court of law and your evidence is common knowledge. How the judge would laugh. There have to be facts and statistics to back up what you say.

          • You are missing several clearly stated points, so it’s fairly obvious that your are missing them deliberately. That makes this rather circular “conversation” a waste of time, so these few seconds spent typing this will have to draw that to a close.
            So by all means, chew on the little “Common Knowledge’ bone of yours to your little heart’s content. You get the last word here, Sport.
            Over & out.

      • So I guess an average of 200,000 injuries per year already that require an ER visit due to gun accidents with about 70,000 that require significant medical treatment aren’t an indication of guns going wild?? Not to mention the 11,000 or so homicides and 19,000 or so suicides that also take place. That’s close to a quarter million injuries or deaths inflicted on Americans by guns each year already and you don’t think there’s a problem with possibly making that even worse????

    • Of course when an alcoholic or a druggie gets high, he’s only hurting himself. If he’s carrying, innocent people may suffer or die!

    • Don’t know where you’ve been, but here in the real world, people HAVE been dropping like flies. Maybe it only seems real to you if it happens to someone in your family.

      • Several fast food restaurants, one shopping mall, one elementary school, a theater, four workplace shootings, three college shootings – all within three years.

  5. Well, Lapierre HAS to keep up the rhetoric because if he doesn’t, he’ll lose that high paying job with the NRA. It’s called job security.

  6. Long on Liberal rhetoric, sarcasm. ridicule; short on facts. The one fact not mentioned is that as more people are armed, crime goes down and so does gun violence. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

        • The problem I have with this link you posted is how the information was collected. It’s really kind of shady if you ask me. For one thing – no police data was used in this report. It was completely created by surveys conducted via the US census department. This is not very accurate to begin with. I read the surveys. There was a different survey just about every year the survey was given. This is not consistent in any way shape or form. The information in the survey is not conclusive. And finally – those were given to only 90,000 households in the US!!! Who determined which households got the surveys? Who determined the accuracy of the surveys? Even if the surveys were given to different households each year they were given, the information would still be very skewed. They would have had to be given to the same people each year to get a better idea if things actually changed over time. These were not in this case. The report is flawed so badly, the information is not viable and I’m not buying it. As well, worldwide statistics prove this report wrong anyway. How about police records to create the stats? Hmmm – an idea that would be awesome, but not show what the NRA and their supporters want to hear. It is questionable at best when in recent years there are been so many mass murders. But then, those families probably didn’t get a biased survey to fill out.

        • I’m not even going to bother reading what obviously must be a right-wing propaganda piece. I’ve done my own research and Know without reading some dumb article that they are categorically wrong!!!

          • Let’s start with increased homicide rates:

            From the Huffington Post: 9/12/2013

            A new study of gun violence 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.”

            The authors note that, though they can’t prove a causal relationship between higher levels of gun ownership and homicide, “states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.”

          • Sure,

            And the states with the highest rates of drug-infestation and gang wars? Guns do not kill people. People kill people. No guns? they’d use something else.

            I don’t trust ANY ‘fact” from the Puffington post.

          • You drink that NRA koolaid by the gallon, don’t you??

            Dumb is as dumb does.

            See this from LiveScience:

            You sure fit into the typical conservative Low IQ category (note that folks with low IQ tend to become conservatives who love guns and the NRA) :

            There’s no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

            The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

            “Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood,” he said

          • Here’s a list of the states with the highest murder rates:

            § Firearms
            Mortality per 100,000 – 2010


            Note t hat not only is TN the most violent state overall with SC second, TN is #10 in murder rate and SC is #11 and they both have gun ownership rates over 42% (I was a bit high in comment above) .

            Notice except for NM that they’re all red states. (NM is sandwiched between TX and AZ and acts a lot like a red-state even though it often votes Blue).

          • Here’s some more stats you might like to see:

            15 of the 20 states with the highest average rates of homicide over the past 5 years are GOP-RUN STATES. With Louisiana being by far the murder capital of the contiguous states of America followed by Mississippi, New Mexico, Maryland, South Carolina, Alabama, Arizona, Michigan, Missouri, Tennessee, Georgia, Illinois, Arkansas, Oklahoma, N. Carolina, Nevada and Florida.

            And all of those states have gun ownership of 35%.

          • So by your logic, according to your totally meaningless statistics, we should ban REPUBLICANS, not guns!

          • Absolutely, Republicans should not be allowed to govern; they know absolutely nothing about governing. Virtually every red state is a disaster aside from cutting budgets and keeping taxes low so the rich can keep as much of their money as possible while the less fortunate SUFFER!!!!

            As an example, Texas, which should be a shining light for Republicans, when compared to every other state in the nation, ranks within the worst 5 in more than 90% of 23 measurements of governing quality: such as corruption of the state government, the inability of the police forces in the state to provide adequate protection, the percent of the people in the state living in poverty, how little it pays its teachers, etc. and is even ranked as the worst in the nation with respect to its healthchare delivery system, the number of people who have health insurance and the pollution of its environment.

          • Republicans do not even like each other. They are pretty rigid in what they allow each other to think. A Republican cannot even vote his conscience or he will be labeled a RINO and destroyed by the t party.

          • If you’d like to go back to 2009, here’s the firearms mortality list for 2009:

            -19 of the 20 states with the highest firearms mortality rates are GOP-RUN STATES;
            with Louisiana leading the nation in firearms mortality followed by Wyoming, Alabama, Montana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Nevada, Tennessee, Alaska, New Mexico,
            Oklahoma, S. Carolina, W. Virginia, Missouri, Arizona, Kentucky, Georgia, Idaho, Florida and N. Carolina

            (By the Way: LA has led the nation in firearms mortality for the past 14 years.)

          • Last but not least, here’s a list of the five most violent states in 2013:

            – The five most violent states in the nation are all
            GOP-run states, led by Tennessee then S. Carolina, Louisiana, Florida and Nevada.

    • Crime goes down??? Where did you get that absolute nonsense???

      Fact is that red states not only lead the nation in their rates of gun ownership, they also lead the nation in violence. Tennessee has a gun ownership rate of over 50% and leads the nation in violence – followed closely by South Carolina which also has a gun ownership rate close to 50%. While in contrast, virtually every New England state has a gun ownership rate of less than 15% and also rank near the bottom of American states in violence. You really need to stop drinking all that NRA Koolaid!!!!

      • Please name the sources for your statistics.

        I can tell you that Washington DC which up until recently had has almost NO legal guns, has had the highest gun crime rate in the nation…

        • Washington DC is not a state – it has no representation in Congress and therefore is not included in statistics BY STATE!!!!

      • Just in case you doubt my comment about Red States leading the nation in gun ownership as well as gun related mortality, here’s a list of the top 20 gun ownership states:

        1. Wyoming – 59.7%
        2. Alaska – 57.8%
        3. Montana – 57.7%
        4. South Dakota – 56.6%
        5. West Virginia – 55.4%
        6. Mississippi – 55.3%
        6. Idaho – 55.3%
        6. Arkansas – 55.3%
        9. Alabama – 51.7%
        10. North Dakota – 50.7%
        11. Kentucky – 47.7%
        12. Wisconsin – 44.4%
        13. Louisiana – 44.1%
        14. Utah – 43.9%
        14. Tennessee – 43.9%
        16. Oklahoma – 42.9%
        16. Iowa – 42.9%
        18. South Carolina -42.3%
        19. Kansas – 42.1%
        20. Vermont – 42.0%

        At least 16 of the 20 are absolute red states.

        • I live in Idaho and we do not lead the nation in drug use. We are a backwoods state where people don’t get exposed to a lot of diversity in thinking and thus are easier to convince THEY are coming to get them. However, a lot of our gun violence involves domestic disputes and fighting over a woman.

      • “More Guns Less Crime” by Professor James Lott. County by county all official LE statistics prove that the more legally owned guns there are the lower the overall crime rate is. BTW in the studies of “deaths per 100,000” notice how they don’t back out CRIMINALS who are killed during the commission of a crime or gang on gang deaths committed with illegal guns.

        • Sorry, but the professor is clearly WRONG!!

          Crime related statistics prove the professor wrong!!

          The states with the highest gun ownership rates CLEARLY have the highest homicide and over all violence rates!!!

          You can see for yourself in the following lists:

          Firearms Mortality per 100,000 – 2010
          MT-15.4;NM-14.9;AZ-14.6;NV-14.5; TN-14.4;

          States with the highest gun ownership rates:

          – The five most violent states in the nation are:
          Tennessee; S. Carolina; Louisiana; Florida and Nevada. (FLA and NV also have gun ownership rates over 35%)

          • I just looked up several sites about the Mississippi professor. He has always been a strong supporter of the NRA. He did make the statement attributed to him, but there is no evidence of a study being done. A few minutes ago, I received a call from a survey (?) company. The questions were slanted in such away as to affect the answers. The first question was I going to vote for president. Affirmative. Listed three parties and asked which one I belonged to. None. Can’t accept that answer. Rephrased, was I conservative, moderate or liberal. I am conservative in some areas, liberal in others, and moderate in others. Wrong response again. Listed some areas and asked which were important to me. Of course, Obamacare was on the list. From the list, education. What about moral issues? I keep my nose out of other people’s crotches. Then I was told the survey was closed and they didn’t need my answers after all. I wonder what that study will show.

          • Yeah! What you found in that survey is why it’s my feeling that publishing polls on political candidates or politically sensitive issues should be illegal within 6 months, or at least some fairly long period of time, prior to an election. It’s become very clear, at least to me, that over the past several years the vast majority of polling organizations have become very partisan and their polls are deliberately biased (by as you point out skewing the questions in a way to get the answers they want) in nothing more than an attempt to skew the outcome of the upcoming election.

            Of course, with the Supreme Court now virtually nothing more than the judicial arm of the GOP, like Faux News is the propaganda arm of it, the likelihood of getting anything like a ban on polls set up would be an impossibility.

        • Professor Lott’s study included which groups and which control groups? Which states? Number of people interviewed and who were they?

    • If history is any indication, the next “mas shooting” will occur in a place where the victims are not allowed to carry a gun.

      • And what difference would that make? Or are you suggesting that a gun will fire itself at the bad guy? There is absolutely NO concrete evidence, by way of police records, that show this to be true.

        • And besides, if that good guy with a gun stumbles onto a mass shooting, does he know for sure, who is the shooter is

          • So, by your logic, keep everyone disarmed except the criminals.
            If enough people are armed, nobody is going to “stumble into” a mass shooting. it will be over before the guy can get off a second shot.

          • And a few dozen innocent bystanders will be killed. Will the people that shoot the bystanders be tried or walk free?

          • The logic is thus: I watched a show on television. They were talking to members of a SWAT team. Their concern was training and mental conditioning. One of them said, in a dangerous situation, even they had problems with the proper reaction.

          • Case in point the Tuscon shooting when Gabby Gifford was injured and four people were killed. I was watching the special news bulletin, minutes after the shooting happened. A female reporter was interviewing by standers. She talked to a man who said he was in Walgreens when he heard the shots. He took the safety off his gun and ran outside. He took a bead on the man holding a gun. Someone knocked his arm down and said that was not the shooter. He almost shot the hero who took the gun away from the shooter.

        • And your point is?
          I’ll draw you a picture. You just wandered all over the issue without making ANY valid point except to demonstrate that you are stuck in “anti-gun” mode.
          “Where were the good guys with guns”? They were banned from the property by left-wing gun-hating laws.

          • Two of the most well-known events that fly in the face of the “good guys with guns on the premises” are the VA Tech shooting (SWAT on campus and responding in minutes neither caught nor shot the guy) and the WA courthouse shooting (where the first guys shot were the defenders with guns.)
            More guns around certainly means more bullets flying, and if you’re trying to get a bad guy down I guess that’s desirable. More bullets flying also means more collateral casualties. Most “casual owners” don’t visit shooting ranges often enough to make their ownership a viable deterrent. Every weekend I see “casual owners” who can’t load their shiny new toy, who point it at others, who can’t hit their own target at 25 yds, etc. Those people carrying in a school are the best defense answer the NRA has?

          • Well you sure are not going to stop gun violence by banning guns. You just make it easier for the bad guys with guns. They will get them, one way or another.

            Owning a gun is only half the equation. LEARN HOW TO USE IT is the other half.

          • I don’t think anyone is trying to BAN GUNS but some regulations with who and what type of gun would be helpful to prevent another Sandy Hook.

          • All the regulations and background checks on earth would not have averted the Sandy Hook tragedy. the guy was a nut-case who was obsessed with mass murders. But nobody knew that until it was too late.

          • There’s no effort to ban guns. There is an effort to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the mentally insane, felons, etc. Certain classes of guns (with the lethality of military weapons) do not belong in civil society, and the criminals who wield them are as often stopped by a 9mm as by another military weapon.
            There is NO REQUIREMENT to learn the proper use of a gun. Anyone who decides to pick up a shiny new toy gets one. Want a gun in NYC? Register as a collector and buy your first hundred tomorrow.

          • I know that THEY are coming to get you and you are concerned, but get your facts straight. No one has ever advocated banning all guns. If the shooter in Tuscon had not had the multiple clip, less people would have been hurt and he was only subdued and had his gun taken away, when he ran out of shells.

      • Really?? Is that why the last mass shooting was in a Navy yard where at least 3 people were carrying weapons and all three of them ended up dead???

        And is that why studies have shown that people who try to protect themself with a gun during a break in are killed 5 times more often than folks who don’t try to stop a break in with a gun??

        The NRA’s mantra of guns are good for self-protection is a BIG FAT LIE!!!!!!!!!

        All having a gun does is increase the probability by at least 5 times that you’ll be killed by that gun you’re carrying or own.

        • “studies have shown that people who try to protect themself with a gun
          during a break in are killed 5 times more often than folks who don’t try
          to stop a break in with a gun”
          WHAT studies? Facts, please.
          So if a guy is trying to break into my house, steal my stuff and rape my daughter, i should just let him in? Talk about insanity…

          “Citing four separate studies between 1988-2004, the assessment from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council
          says crime victims who use guns in self-defense have consistently lower
          injury rates than victims who use other strategies to protect
          themselves (other strategies include stalling, calling the police or
          using weapons such as knives or baseball bats).”

          • A study that was done of 626 actual assaults where a gun was used by the assaiilant: Here’s the results from the 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.

          • Sorry to have to keep asking you, but WHAT studies? WHERE? BY WHOM?
            Just because some news guy says “studies have shown” doesn’t prove anything.

  7. I am an independent who finds himself aligned with the Democrat’s stance on any given issue, far more often than I find myself in agreement with the Republican side.
    Be that as it may, I have always found the Democratic Party’s apparent hostility toward The 2nd Amendment puzzling, and deeply troubling.

    Because I am not viewing this situation through some kind of dogmatic fog, this backlash in Red-State Georgia seems fairly predictable to me.

    Leave the word “Crazy” out of your comments, Mr. Dionne. We are not going to have meaningful discourse on this issue (as we must) by hurling pejoratives.

    Further, some view the theory that we are going to be safer after laws that inhibit ones ability to defend themselves are passed, as the text-book definition of that word.

    Oh….and by way of fact-checking, the reason that Mr. Stephen Colbert is leaving his satirical TV Show, is that another network has put a BIG Cheque with a lot of zeros in front of him. Don’t kid yourself that it has anything to do with anything else.

    • 30,000 dead Americans every year from gunshots, 3,000 of them children should stop the nonsense about whether guns should be limited and governed. But because of politics and those that want a gun and feel that they have to have one with them at all times shows how paranoid we have become. If everyone is armed then everyone will be subjected to be shot and any time. i guess the next step will be to allow fast draw gunfights and duels.

      • Well, that was definitely passionate. Fanciful….but certainly passionate.
        Alas, high emotion isn’t what is needed to sort this all out.
        If you think somebody in Washington is going to wave some sort of legislative magic wand and make guns go away, then you have very clearly not been paying much attention to the Country’s spectacularly failed “War on Drugs”.
        Just as certain places like Colorado, Oregon, and California are just beginning to wake up from that nightmare, the idea of sewing the seeds of a huge black market in illegal weapons frightens the sh*t out of me.
        Wasn’t it Albert Einstein who once said “Many of the problems we face today started out as the ‘solution’ to some other problem.” ?

        • So let’s do nothing and allow guns to proliferate and become the basis of our society. A gun in every home, car, bus RV, backpack, school, church, bar and college. If you can’t afford one then have the government provide you with one. Children should be encouraged from the age they can hold a gun to learn how to load and fire it. Get into an argument or disagreement, have a problem with someone or something use the gun to resolve it. Shoot first and worry about who get shot latter.
          If someone has a gun out assume they are going to shot you so fire first. Police, not knowing who is the bad guy and who is the good guy will have to fire at everyone and hope they got the right person. Is that the world you want to live in. Well considering how things are going in this country that is the world we will soon live in.
          Oh, I forgot to mention that you should have your affairs in order at all times, coffins ready to contain your wife, children, grandchildren and yourself.
          If you want to live by the gun you will die by the gun. Be prepared.

          • Silly hyperbole does not a thoughtful argument make. I’m clearly not going to get you to consider any viewpoint but your own. Over & out.

          • OK, You have read my view of the future. one that appears to be coming true with each day; what is yours? What positive spin can you put on everyone owning and carrying a gun?

          • I am not trying to “Spin” anything. I am not given to “spin”, in fact the exact opposite is the case. When I see nonsense, I call “B.S.” on it. Live your life as you see fit. I’m not trying to sell you on anything. I am only bothering with this on the outside chance that I will be able to shed some light on the terrain we find ourselves traversing. I have paid far more attention to this issue than the average bear, and the pervasive amount of sheer stinkin’-thinkin’ and emotional knee-jerk responses to, for example, the latest tragedy, is nothing short of alarming. Ill-considered herd-mentality decision-making, and Domestic Policy, are an exceedingly bad combination.
            With firearm ownership comes immense responsibility, as it should. If you choose not to assume that responsibility, fair enough, go with god.
            But I am not trying to kid myself—or anybody else—that some sort of Utopia lies at the end of our Rainbow. Some people will mistreat you or victimize you, simply because they think they can get away with it. Depending on where you live, Law enforcement can be anywhere from 3 to 60 minutes away—I personally have spent many minutes ON HOLD in the process of making a 911 “Emergency” Call. And the Police carry Firearms primarily to protect themselves. Not you.
            This is not spin, these are facts.

          • If you shoot a person you can always claim you felt threatened. That is a valid defense in Florida.

  8. I have one question about the Georgia situation. If a gunfight breaks out, in a bar or a church or a government building, and the police arrive, how do they know who are the good guys and who are the bad guys? Do they just shoot anyone with a gun?

    • The early Crusaders had the perfect slogan. It seems that the liability laws accompanying these new “free carry” and “stand your ground” laws will be worked out through the courts over the next few decades. Until then plenty of innocents will be killed by shoot-throughs, misses, ricochets, etc. and if the CDC can get any funding, we’ll find out whether the armed, untrained citizen is a reasonable match for the well-trained crook.

      • You got your logic backwards…pray and spray is the gangsta method of gun fighting.

        The Chicago drive by is evidence that shitheads can’t shoot when little innocent children are most often there victims

        • Sure. Gets used a lot by those who just don’t care, or are scared. It is also used a lot in the US military by those being fired at: “The studies showed that…in spite of the huge amounts of money spent by the military services in training combat infantrymen to be marksmen, few were capable of firing effectively beyond ranges of 200 to 300 meters in the heat of battle. “Spray and pray” would come to be the practice on the future battlefields of Vietnam.”

          Or: “Consider a 1998 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery that found that “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.” ” (Scientific American article
          “The Science of Guns Proves Arming Untrained Citizens Is a Bad Idea”)

          “Researchers found people who lived in homes with firearms were between two and three times more likely to die from either cause, compared to those who lived in homes without guns.” (Reuters “Gun access tied to greater suicide, murder risk: study”

          And then there’s:”Guns are a top target for home burglars looking for something they can easily sell on the street.
          An estimated 230,000 guns per year are stolen in home burglaries and property crimes, according to a study by the Department of Justice.
          “Any burglar that goes in a house and finds guns, their eyes are going to light up,” says former ATF Assistant Director Mike Bouchard. “That’s the first thing they’re going to take.”” (World News “‘Hot’ Guns Fueling Crime, US Study Says”

          Try googling these:
          ‘If I Only Had a Gun’: 20/20 Special

          • Thanks for a thoughtful reply.

            The decision to own and or carry a gun for self defense or to use for hunting and sport is a personal decision that brings with it a hefty responsibility.

            There are risks involved as there are risks involved in all human endeavors.

            For me the data doesn’t influence my decision to own and posses firearms. It simply tallies up failures–and failure is a fact of life.

            The data doesn’t suffice for creating guns as more dangerous than anything else humans can die from when there is a failure attributed to human error.

          • Living is all about assessing risks and deciding which are worth taking. The current discourse is all about guns and who owns them, not about how they will be used and who CAN use them. They are simply shiny new toys to the great percentage of new users (if my experience is the judge) and are commensurately more dangerous than in previous generations (both more killing power and fewer trained users.) Added to the statistics about risks in THEIR homes are the risks to ME AND MINE by the untrained user who decides to interject himself into a dangerous situation and start shooting. Even if I reduce the idiot to abject poverty through tort, there isn’t a judge who will put him in jail for his recklessness, and even that wouldn’t restore a dead child to me.
            We now have 300 million guns in this country. A generation ago, that number was smaller. A generation hence it will be larger. Of those 300 million, roughly 250,000 are stolen every year. A generation ago that number was smaller, a generation hence it will be larger. In spite of the incessant screeching about “gun grabbing”, the number sold LAST YEAR hit a 27-year high. Which guns have been grabbed? How do you assess the risk that the guns stolen from my neighbor’s house will be used on me? Why should his poor choices put me at higher risk? Especially when the current environment leaves me absolutely no way to mitigate that risk, or apply for relief should the worst happen.
            We are now rapidly approaching the gun density nationwide that was present in “the old west” of about 1.7 guns per person. In Georgia it is now legal to have your gun in the bar. How long before it’s legal to settle your barroom pool game dispute by “stepping outside for a second amendment solution”? Oh, yeah. With “stand your ground” it’s legal now. Does a requirement that drunks leave their guns with the bartender interfere with their A2 rights?

    • Responsible law abiding gun owners know that when law enforcement arrives to holster the smoke wagon and taking to law enforcement is a choice but not running away which is what the bad element will do when the blues roll up

  9. No hostility toward the 2nd amendment. Just at the inaccurate interpretations of that amendment by the Right. Culprits are evil-doers by definition. The culprits in this case are the gun manufactures. The regulation of guns was/and still is a threat to these business’s, and as long as they and the NRA promote the falsehood that bad feelings can be removed or lessened, by transferring your anger, not to a peaceful resolution, but instead to a lethal weapon, we will continue to see senseless killings. I was always told that if you plan to use your lethal weapon as a defense, then “shoot to kill.”

    • Please give us the specifics on this alleged “misinterpretation” of the Second Amendment.
      What part of “shall not be infringed” has been misinterpreted?

      • And what part of a “well regulated” militia has been misinterpreted? The purpose of that clause was to make sure the federal government could not disarm state militias. “A well regulated Militia, “being necessary to the security of a free State”, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Meaning, the people have a right to possess arms…….when serving in the militia. And the word militia refers in the federal period to an organized and trained body of citizen-soldiers. What it doesn’t say is ‘Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

        • Thanks for underscoring my point.
          The ON:LY rationale for thisadministration’s desire for more stringent gun control is to disarm the people into total slavery.

          • As ex Supreme Court Judge John Paul Stevens has recently pointed out, for well over 200 years it was an accepted fact that the 2nd amendment APPLIED ONLY to people engaged in militia activities.

            And the end of your comment only proves how much of a complete idiot you really are:

            It wasn’t until 2008 when the Republicans in SCOTUS bastardized the interpretation of the amendment to appease the NRA that there was any notion that the amendment applied to the general population.

            If you don’t believe that, here’s something from John Paul Stevens on that:

            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.”

            If you’re really interested in what ex Judge Stevens thinks, here’s a link to the article:


      • If you were a well read person you would know that the Colonists were upset with The Crown for foisting taxes on them that they did not want. The multi-national corporation of the day, The India Tea Company, sought and received sole distributorship of tea. They affixed prohibitive taxes on the tea in the form of stamps. This was just one thing that angered the Colonists and they adopted the stogan. “No taxation without representation.” To emphasize their point, they dumped a ship load of tea into the ocean. The ;p******g match was on. King George removed their duly elected officials and disbanded their militias. He sent his own in. King George’s men took control of whomever’s home they wanted and expected the homeowner to feed and house them and keep their horses. He sent his own legislators. Now, the Colonists are fired up.They form their own militias from untrained men, who happened to have guns for the purpose of putting meat on the table. When they wrote and submitted the Declaration of Independence, they fully expected to be arrested and hung for treason. The Minutemen used their own guns. These were brave people. And if you bother to read all their arguments for each Amendment, you might find out what they really meant.

      • I suggest you read all the arguments for and against each amendment and then tell me what the Constitution says. THEY are coming to get you.

  10. The other side of this issue is in California I cannot get a CCW to carry anywhere when I have a legitimate need. As a person who has to pick up thousands of dollars I have to carry a gun locked in my trunk with my ammo seperate. I cannot get a CCW because no one except legislators can get one in Los Angeles. So at the time when I’m most vulnerable in the parking structure going to my vehicle. I have to disarm myself and unload and hide everything in my trunk. Instead of safely getting in my vehicle and driving off.

    There is no logic on both sides of the aisle.

    That is why when I see the pendulum swing back in the favor of the gun owners in other states I cheer. There is pettiness and lack of reason on both sides where people are legislating things that ARE NOT reasonable just because they know they have the majority. Welcome to partisan politics.

    • “no one except legislators can get one…. You mean a legal gun. Just like I said POS politicians crowing about gun violence are packing to protect their own smelly hides or they employ the FBI/CIA blackwater goons but you can’t protect yourself against a troll/goblin/zombie with the only think that will STOP IT! I’d leave California

  11. I do not see why anyone is upset with unrestricted gun laws since 60% of gun deaths are suicides. Their are approximately 32,500 deaths from guns each year. Of those deaths 19,500 are suicides, 500 police shootings, 11,000 homicides, under 1000 are accidental and the rest would be justifiable homicides which is what gun owners are concerned with, that is, justifiable killing. Do the math if anybody is able to do math. Oh, yes, the figures are compiled by the FBI but the NRA wishes to conceal the statistics from the public.

    • If you read all the arguments that preceded each amendment, you will learn what the amendment means. The framers, of the Constitution, never foresaw such mass mental illness and paranoia or they would have made sure the second amendment was not up for interpretation.

  12. Some states are choosing to loosen laws, others are choosing to tighten laws. Should be a clear contrast in a decade or so if this trend continues.

  13. There is legal carry for self defense that applies to law abiding citizens who choose to take responsibility for the safety of themselves, family and their community and there is gun violence which to me implies the illegal uses of guns by the ever increasing population of trolls, goblins, zombies and the occasional idiot with a pistol license (damn them!!).
    I think it odd that the folks like Ex-Mayor Bloomberg are so aggressive to stack on more useless gun controls but when he and his ilk leave the house they have a platoon of body guards staked out all around they so they don’t end up being a victim of “gun violence”
    The problem we have is two fold:
    1. The existing policies for gun control are at best inconsistently and/or inadequately enforced.
    2. The recent horrible instances of “gun violence” could not and never will be prevented before they happen because humans don’t naturally posses the gift of prescience
    And finally, I believe the media could be more fair and balanced with its reporting on “gun violence” I venture to guess that most of the anti-gun people in the country rarely if ever hear about the many…many cases where a law abiding responsible citizen with a legal gun STOPS a troll/ goblin/ zombie dead in its tracks before it can carry out its EVIL deeds.
    Truth: The police investigate more violent crime than the prevent which is why they train and advocate legal carry for responsible law abiding citizens.
    The anti gun Major Bloomberg’s are going to save you when the balloon goes up and SHTF. In that unfortunate situation, we have to be “perfectly innocent” and ready to roll the ball when evil comes unexpectedly our way

  14. Still, blaming the gun, rather useless. As has been said so many times, the gun is not what makes the decision, but the person holding it does.

  15. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) or O’care or health care reform has been delayed, filibustered and obstructed for 102 years too long since 1912, when former President Theodore Roosevelt unsuccessfully attempted to introduce national health insurance for the first time in history. ACA or O’care is a trailblazer, a first step toward real health reform. Like Social Security and Medicare, Affordable Care Act or O’care will pave the way to single payer or Medicare- for- all, despite GOP-TP lies and distortions that favor greedy for-profit insurance companies that caused half of the nation’s bankruptcies.Congress should be creating jobs with decent living wages instead of merely subsidies or government assistance. We, the People, should be ” repealing ” the 30 Republican governors, death- panels- in- disguise, and GOP-TP now controlling the House of Representatives, disguised as corporations, who clearly have been enacting bills into law systematically protecting corporate welfare, tax breaks, oil and farm subsidies for the top wealthy one percent but totally ignoring the best interests of 99 percent of working families struggling to pay bills. And the only thing we should be replacing is Republican “We- don’t- care- insurance” with Affordable healthcare or O’care instead of wasting $60 million taxpayer dollars in their 52 unsuccessful attempts to “repeal without replacement” A.C.A. 52 times. Realized it or not, you have been misled and fooled into voting for GOP-TP (Greedy Obstructionist Psychopaths-Tea Potties) who now control the House of Representatives by their promises to create JOBS for millions of jobless Americans. Instead you have been deceived and bombarded with Fox News 24/7 propaganda but no jobs created for the past 5 years. Hold these Congressional Republicans accountable for the JOBS promised. Vote out of office all these lying scumbags, scofflaws and career criminals, overstaying members of Congress. Have a clean sweep of all undesirables on Election Day 2014 and 2016. Redress these wrongs. Demand JOBS NOW !

  16. ‘Oh yes, and while conservatives claim to hate the centralization of
    power, this law wipes out a series of local gun regulations. The gun
    supremacists just don’t trust those pesky local elected officials.’

    Of course we don’t. We don’t trust either side because both sides have the same face:)

    “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which
    Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where)
    the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
    -James Madison

    “1. So, disturbed kids are taking guns to school and killing teachers and classmates. We better make sure kids can’t get guns.
    So, disturbed kids are taking guns to school and killing teachers and
    classmates. We better find out what’s making these kids want to kill,
    fix that, and then they won’t want to use guns to kill teachers and

    See what I did there? Which statement makes more
    sense? Don’t bring up politics. Don’t refer to statistical data. Don’t
    nervously look at your cell phone. Just read the two statements and be
    honest with yourself. We can do better. We’re smarter than this. WAKE
    -Aaron B. Powell, Guns Part 2

    “These kids spend a majority of their time in school, and if they’re not
    having a positive experience, they can become depressed. In some cases,
    they lash out, grabbing whatever weapon is available to them. It can be
    an assault rifle, a knife, a Molotov cocktail, poison, Indian burns or
    MMA. But if you take one weapon away, these kids are just going to grab
    the next thing available to them. Maybe they will use a gun with a
    smaller clip, limiting the amount of lives they can take. Or maybe
    they’ll get more creative, and think of something far more terrible. So
    taking a weapon away won’t really solve anything, and this is my point
    -Aaron B. Powell, Guns

    Guns are not the problem… the people using them are. Do you feel safe walking the streets at night? If you said yes, there would be no need for weapons.

  17. What a load of bovine excrement!

    Hussein Obama has already made it plain that he’d like to disarm all of us. If this insane left-wing madness were ever to actually succeed, we’ll all be total slaves to a totalitarian government.

    First, entirely disrespectful. Second, only to deluded morons–maybe you– who spout this inane pornographic drivel has Obama made any such thing clear. Personally, there would be a lot more living Americans every year if some people–whose aim of their gun barrel is likely no better than the acuity of their rhetoric and hyperbole–were in fact disarmed, or simply denied a gun purchase in the first %^&*#@ place. Third, what left-wing madness are you referring to? I’m smart, have a reasonably high I.Q., I can’t think of anything. Oh, do you mean Obamacare? Nothing mad about that, my plan has recently paid for procedures I never got and would never have gotten under any Republican’t rule, and I guarantee you that’s the case with millions of other Americans, making a sick joke of the toxic fog belched out by the dogs at Fox, the primped pimps for news that is often short on factual sense and induces cringes and spasms if one watches for too long. (Like, about 30 seconds.) Fourth, you may be too blind to see it, but the Koch suckers and Tealiban are taking you a lot closer to a totalitarian government–corporate fascism or some uniquely American breed thereof– than the likes of Elizabeth Warren or Alan Grayson are *ever* going to do. Go watch Wizard of Oz. Get a brain, some courage, and a heart.

  18. Dione is a fool! This nation was founded upon guns, protected time and again by guns in the hands of citizens turned soldiers and will continue to be so. His extremism, typical of the liberal rant is so old and worn out as to be irrevalent! He knows nothing of the NRA, it’s history, purpose and what it has accomplished. His lack of understanding of the 2nd Amendment is appalling, but given his liberal mindset, it’s expected. The liberal idea that no citizen has the right to life and to defend it by use of force is cowardess at it’s peak! It is a foolish and dangerous belief that only the police and military can carry and use firearms. Neither are delegated with the sole duty of protecting your life in a time of crisis. None of them will do so. The police will be the first to tell you that their job is to bag and tag the victims, and take reports. The smart ones will tell you up front that it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to protect yourself and your family. NOT THEIRS! It is not the realm of politicians not qualified to dictate to me and others what we can and cannot own in the way of firearms to defend ourselves.

Leave a reply