By David Cay Johnston

How The NRA Impeded The Boston Bomber Investigation

April 20, 2013 12:00 am Category: Memo Pad, National News 276 Comments A+ / A-
How The NRA Impeded The Boston Bomber Investigation

The intense hunt for the Boston Marathon bombers illustrates another way that the National Rifle Association helps mass murderers — by delaying how quickly they can be identified.

The inability to quickly track the gunpowders in the Boston bombs is due to government policy designed and promoted by the NRA, which has found a way to transform every massacre associated with weapons into an opportunity for the munitions companies that sustain it to sell more guns, gunpowder and bullets.

The price for such delays was put on terrible display Friday morning when the two brothers, who had been caught on video placing the bombs, killed one police officer, wounded another and carjacked a motorist, creating conditions so unsafe that the 7th largest population center in America spent Friday on lockdown.

But for the NRA-backed policy of not putting identifiers known as taggants in gunpowder, law enforcement could have quickly identified the explosives used to make the bombs, tracking them from manufacture to retail sale. That could well have saved the life of Sean Collier, the 26-year-old MIT police officer who was gunned down Thursday night by the fleeing bomb suspects.

Had the suspects in the Boston bombings killed by slipping poison into bottled water or canned food at a factory, or lacing spinach in a field with a deadly chemical, it would have taken only minutes to a few hours to identify exactly where that food was manufactured and how it moved through the food chain.  That would have quickly narrowed the search for suspects.

With many food products you can use a smartphone app to scan the product’s barcode and learn where, when and by what company the product was made. Cans and bottles also come with codes printed or stamped on them to help stop foodborne illness by tracking products to their source.

“With almost any food these days you can quickly track it from the source to the store where it was sold,” according to Bill Marler, a Seattle litigator who specializes in food safety cases and sponsors the website Food Safety News.

Had the Boston bombers used a plastic explosive, it would have included identifiers that would have allowed a quick trace. Those taggants exist because the NRA does not oppose them.

Why is that? Why this breach in the NRA’s Maginot Line of defense against reasonable regulation of guns and ammunition?

The answer appears to lie in who makes plastic explosives like Semtx, which was used to bring down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. The world’s main supplier was not a company that finances the NRA, but Libya under Moammar Khadafy.

That this one breach in NRA policy traces directly to the economic interests of the American munitions industry provides powerful evidence of what motivates the NRA – profits.

That the gun makers have managed to turn each massacre into a spike in sales of both expensive rapid-fire weapons and ammunition adds to the evidence that the NRA should be viewed as the mass-murder lobby.

The major source of plastic explosives may also be significant in understanding the NRA’s willingness to go along with taggants for plastic explosives, which are much more powerful than gunpowder.

But gunpowder, like guns, are extremely difficult to trace because for more than three decades the NRA has fought to make sure it’s difficult to almost impossible to do.

That difficulty results not from the technical issues at hand, though the NRA tries to make people think that’s the case by mischaracterizing a 1980 government report.

In the case of guns, the NRA claims anything remotely resembling a gun registry or a national database tracking guns from manufacturer to retail sale would help the government disarm the citizenry. In this the NRA fuels the fantasy that in the event the American government turned on the people, bands of armed patriots could defeat the military with its trained soldiers, aircraft, drones, advanced weaponry and communications.

Iraqi households almost all had guns, too, but that did not protect them from their country’s military or the invading American-led ground forces a decade ago.

Bombs have long been used in America for personal, criminal and political purposes. The frequency of bombings may surprise many people given the intense focus on the Boston bombs.

Roughly 5,000 bombings and attempted bombings are reported in the U.S. each year, according to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms reports.

The ATF data, like that the FBI gathers, takes a broad measure, counting bombs made from matchsticks as well as dynamite.

Pages →  1 2

How The NRA Impeded The Boston Bomber Investigation Reviewed by on . The intense hunt for the Boston Marathon bombers illustrates another way that the National Rifle Association helps mass murderers -- by delaying how quickly the The intense hunt for the Boston Marathon bombers illustrates another way that the National Rifle Association helps mass murderers -- by delaying how quickly the Rating:

More by David Cay Johnston

Heritage Tries Its Hand At News, But Forgets The Facts

The Daily Signal,  The Heritage Foundation’s online “news” website, debuted Tuesday, offering up vagaries and unverifiable assertions aplenty, but too few empirical facts and little in the way of attribution. Its first video was a publicist’s dream, a puff piece that no serious news organization would air. What appears in The Daily Signal matters because

Read more...

Walmart On Welfare

Next time you drive past a Walmart, think about how much in taxes you pay to subsidize the nation’s largest private employer, owned by the nation’s richest family. Your cost this year: $24 if you are single, $49 if you are a couple, and $99 if you are a couple with two kids. And you

Read more...

NFL’s Defense Of ‘Redskins’ Falls Woefully Short

Using slurs seems a simple issue:  It is morally wrong and offensive. But to Roger Goodell, the NFL commissioner, “the issue is undeniably complex.” Goodell wrote those words in a very sophisticated and carefully crafted Feb. 27 letter defending the name of the football team in the nation’s capital. The National Memo has obtained a

Read more...

Tags

Comments

  • http://mohammeddressup.com/ I Zheet M’Drawz

    Here we go…they’re going to politicize this issue, but blaming the NRA?!?!
    Take it elsewhere please.

    • http://www.facebook.com/dominick.vila.1 Dominick Vila

      Nobody blamed the NRA for the Boston bombings. This article is about the effects of a gun-control related policy that prohibits the use of identifiers (taggants) to expedite the identification of the source of explosives. The latter is critical for the successful and expeditious conclusion of a police investigation.
      What is wrong with society doing everything possible to prevent crime, expedite the apprehension of criminals, and protect innocent people?

      • davidcayjohnston

        Thank you, Mr. Vila

      • RobertCHastings

        That’s clear and simple; I just hope it’s simple enough for SOME posters here to grasp.

      • mike

        I guess we will never know what Mondale and O’Neil were thinking, with large majorities(Senate 58-42, House 277-158) in 1979. What I want to know is where they got the quantities to make the bombs and grenades. As to the Oklahoma bombing the truck axle helped ID the rental truck.

      • Independent1

        Dominick, my hunch is that the NRA is opposed to taggants because the makers of gun powder oppose having to put them in their product as it would complicate a little their manufacturing process, thereby costing them a few bucks. So then again, it’s – let’s be more concerned about money (corporate profits) than maybe saving lives.

      • tdm3624

        Because if we did everything possible to prevent crime and expedite the apprehension of criminals, we would be giving up many of our privacy and 4th amendment rights. I don’t know if that is worth it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1362702462 Madelaine Ayers Henne

      Wrong again!! It’s about the NRA’s policy! Reread the article and get off your gun toting high horse!! facts are facts!!

      • lana ward

        Martial Law=Boston yesterday, the whole country soon! LIKE IT????

    • Sarvepalli

      “Take it elsewhere…”? Keep wishing. The NRA is the problem not the solution and they deserve being blamed for what they’ve done to our nation.

  • docb

    Another example of how our safety is threatened to support corporate profits…instead of the will of the people..Shameless and more destructive than expected but prurient and evil none the less!

  • option31

    Oh for pete’s sake the writers of these articles on National Memo are getting infantile. Next it will be the NRA’s fault it’s a cloudy day and your picnic was ruined. Your bias and single brain cell is working over time.

    • RobertCHastings

      No, stupid, it’s only reasonable to assume that what the writer claims is correct if taggants in the powder used in the Boston bombs would have helped the FBIor otheragencies to quickly identify the bombers. And it is apparent that a clearly identifiablemarker in the exloxive WOULD have led to quicker apprenhension of the bombers. I realize that may be aboveyourlevelof logic, but it is very simple logic. If the weapons (guns, exlosives, biologicals, etc.) are easily identifed as to source and components, then perpetrators would be caught much more quickly. Too tough for you? Do I have to make it simpler or can you handle it from here?

      • option31

        You’re grasping for straws. It is NOT reasonable to assume they would have been caught sooner. If a powder maker makes a million pounds of powder and splits it into 1 million 1 lb canisters and sells those million canisters nation or world wide how much time would it take to track those canisters down? How would they have traced it to these specific two guys in three days? Using you “logic” Peter King has it right when he stated nail and ball bearing purchases should be reported also. Good greif a little common sense and critical thought – obviously beyond your capabilities.

        • Joyce Young

          who made you the expert? so let’s just sit back, do nothing, and let the NRA dictate how the rest of the American people live, die and fear the mighty gun-holders. Listen bud, any information that would help identify terrorists is worth it in my book. Why don’t you go live somewhere else and let the rest of us live in a safe country.

          • lana ward

            Martial Law= Boston yesterday, the whole country soon

          • http://www.facebook.com/bryant.schroepfer Bryant Schroepfer

            Oh yea? So the man who disobeyed martial directives and saw blood on things and saw the man…is under arrest? Huh? What about the dunkin doughnuts? Plus I know for a fact that f*.**** would find people on the street and try to kill them or take them hostage . so no martial law on the protection of US citizens. when we storm Iraq and Afghanistan you’re safe why aren’t you talking about the military coming to the US then when that happened ?

        • RobertCHastings

          Apparently you have no understanding of the vast store of materials the FBI has on hand for just such eventualities. Even state agencies can identify make and model of automobile from a paint chip. As the article stated, it is possible, with a product’s UPC code to get a great deal of information about that product. Many food-borne illnesses are tracked down precisely in this manner by the CDC. And, as the writer further claims, products like Semtx DO have markers because the NRA is NOT supported by themanufacturers of that explosive. All you have to do is read the article, do some reasonable research, do some of your own CRITICAL THINKING, overcome your personal biases, and you too could come to the same conclusions that most reasonable people do. Oh, sorry, I realize that is asking entirely too much of you.

        • Sarvepalli

          Mouthing the usual NRA talking points is not convincing, option.

          If nothing else the NRA has finally convinced me that the 2nd should be repealed. They and their fanatic followers have proven by their actions that they will not compromise on even the weakest gun safety regulations. You need look no further than the recent Senate vote in which a minority beholden to the NRA thwarted democracy by obstructing any and all regs supported by a majority of Americans.

          It’s time to start building a movement over the long term to repeal the anachronistic, 18th century, 2nd amendment. It’s doable just like the movements to end slavery, end prohibition, gain suffrage for women, civil rights for minorities.

          • RobertCHastings

            While their membership of 4.5 million gunowners comes nowhere near encompassing the entire gun owning public, they do seem to wield an inordinate influence. Many NRA members/gunowners are sane, reasonable, people, some of whom actually support universal background checks. The large majority of people in the US actually support the universal background check proposal. I guess Congress didn’t get THAT memo, just the one from the NRA. Rather than repealing the Second Amendment, it needs to be made abundantly clear to ALL supporters of universal background checks that the NRA is operating with an agenda that involves ONLY making more profit for the weapons industry. People vote their own self interests, and when people realize they are being duped and played, they will change their votes. (maybe)

          • plc97477

            II personally know of a number of reasonable gun owners who have dropped their membership from the nra because of their stand.

          • Sarvepalli

            Robert, your own debate here, especially with option31, is proof alone that no amount of reasoning or common sense is going to change anything. At this late date, it’s painfully obvious that gun fetishists are not going to compromise their right to stroke their guns even if it means the slaughter of millions of Americans. They’re too myopic to see that the very policies they’re advocating is resulting the the very thing they fear. That alone indicates that you are not going to get through to people like option31 even if their argument is little more than sophistry.

            The source of the problem is not going to be solved by half measures like background checks, registration, etc. The source of our gun problems, unique to the U.S. alone, is the 2nd Amendment which is also unique to the U.S. alone. Until we begin to consider the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, which NRA propaganda teaches us is unthinkable, nothing is going to stop the mass murders. It will take time but I think the American public is finally waking up to that fact.

            Unfortunately, it may take the inevitable continuation of more mass murders before we begin to see real movement toward doing the right thing, which is to repeal the 2nd.

          • RobertCHastings

            So right you are! It is beyond dispute that those countries in which guns don’t exist or are under severe regulation are much safer than the good old USofA. But try convincing the NRA or the Congressmen they own.

          • Sarvepalli

            I’m not implying that repealing the 2nd will be easy or quick. But we have to begin somewhere and now’s the time. Big things have little beginnings.

          • RobertCHastings

            Repeal is extremely difficult, as was demonstrated by the Prohibition of Alcohol. It requires, first and foremost, recognition by those who supported it that it was a mistake. Prohibition led in the 1920′s to rampant lawlessness (seen the movie “Lawless”?), and open violation of all the provisions of the 18th Amendment throughout the country. Such a turnaround in this country regarding the 2nd Amendment would involve open warfare.
            Perhaps,to approach this issue incrementally might work. Several years ago mayors ofsomelarge cities got together and attempted to sue the gun manufacturers, meeting with resistance and the eventual passage of laws prohibiting such suits. As with everything involving guns, thatwas pushed by the NRA and the weapons industry. IF (a very big word) it were to become legal to sue gun manufacturers, much could be done to hasten the downfall of our “gun culture”. Requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance on their guns is a good idea presented by the President, and is eminently reasonable. The many gun owners who treat their guns with respect and caution fully understand why such a measure could be necessary, just like all who own and drive cars understand the need for liability insurance.
            The big bugaboo for the NRA regarding universal background checks is the “fear” that this will give the government the opportunity in the future to confiscate all guns. To reasonable people who have lived here all their lives and who love this country dearly, this fear is misplaced and grossly exaggerated. However, to those who believe the government is capable of such complicity, it is not beyond reason.
            There are many groups that absolutely refuse, even in the face of reason, to consider the validity of gun control. This is why I feel a gradual approach, incrementally, to the many issues surrounding the gun question is more feasible than attempting the repeal of the Second Amendment.
            There are steps Congress and the Supreme Court can take to ease any plan to work into gun control or Repeal. As reading the Second Amendment shows, it is very brief and very simple, requiring some clarification and clear definitions. As the weapons in use in 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified are NOT the weapons available today, the real intent of the Founders may be unknowable. However, by a judicious search of the popular documents on the subject from the era, a clearer understanding of their intent may be intimated. I honestly believe they had no desire to arm any individual citizen with the capability, on his own, of killing dozens of others, something people in 1791 had no capacity for. As many have indicated, the Second Amendment was a way the Congress had of assuring that we had an armed standing army. That is no longer needed as we have one of the largest and best equipped militaries in history by comparison to our potential enemies.
            What are your thoughts?

          • Sarvepalli

            I agree with most of what you’ve written Robert, with reservations about the other.

            Yes, repeal will be extremely difficult but is worth the effort considering what’s at stake. It will require the American people to wake up to what the 2nd Amendment is doing to the nation. Until now, gun fetishists have intimidated many into believing the 2nd is a sacred cow and not to be questioned. For the most part the debate has centered around issues surrounding the 2nd but never focused on the 2nd itself as the problem. That’s the first step. To focus on the 2nd as the problem. As time goes by, that meme will take hold as more and more people are made aware. Past experience indicates that it is a realistic goal. It was the same arc that finally led to the repeal of slavery, among other movements.

            Regarding your recommendation for an incremental approach as opposed to repeal of the 2nd; the two are not mutually exclusive. However, we’ve been futilely trying the incremental approach for generations but to no avail due to the obstruction of gun fanatics. You’ve touched on some of the emotionally charged hyperbole/hypotheticals that the NRA and its enablers use to circumvent any regulation. In other words, the incremental approach is not working and meanwhile almost 600 men, women and children are dying per week. For them, time has run out. I recommend a two pronged approach. Strategically, we should repeal the 2nd, which will take a sustained long term approach while at the same time tactically working incrementally to pass regulations on the state and federal levels. It will have to begin with targeting those politicians who are bought and paid for by the NRA. Educating the public will have to happen in tandem because decades of NRA fear mongering propaganda will have to be countered. And it has to be done while realizing that both approaches will be very difficult at first but in time will be successful. Life belongs to the persistent.

            Regarding your second sentence, that the repeal of the 2nd will require those who supported it to realize it was a mistake, you’re speaking of me. I’m a gun owner. Multiple guns. I bought my first gun, a Ruger 6 shot, 22 cal pistol, when I was 12. I’m trained to use firearms. I’ve supported the 2nd for over 6 decades but have never supported the NRA. But after Newtown+, as well as the recent Senate vote in which the minority subverted our democracy by obstructing even the mildest reforms, I’ve concluded that the source of the problem is the antiquated 2nd; for all the reasons you’ve given in your comment above and more. As you state, the 2nd is not needed anymore. And I’m not alone. I represent many like me who feel the same and we’re organizing.

            The endless equivocating over the intent of our 18th century Founders, as well as all the circular arguments as to the efficacy of one reform or another like background checks, registries, assault rifles, high cap. mags, etc. are little more than dancing around the primary issue…the 2nd. As you mention, no amount of logic, reason, or deaths of innocents will deter the gun fanatics from wanting the cheap thrill of stroking their guns at the expense of our nation. We have to move around them like water around a rock if we are to seriously address the horrible weekly mass murder unique to the U.S.

            I could care less what the Founders’ intent was; we live in the here and now and we need solutions that have nothing to do with the Founders’ intent. For me as a citizen, my conscience dictates that that time has come.

          • RobertCHastings

            As a long-term NRA member, you understand that the focus of the NRA today is NOT what it was fifteen to twenty years ago. As the gun manufacturing lobby has become more deeply invested in the NRA, the rhetoric against Second Amendment changes or outright repeal has been seriously ratcheted up. Twenty years ago, the NRA did not have the political clout it does today. This is borne out by the mere fact that during the Reagan administration a ban on assault weapons was easily passed. Talk of such a move today immediately brings shouts of insurrection.
            Education on this issue is an absolute necessity, and bringing to light all those in Congress and state legislatures who have been corrupted by the gun lobby is equally necessary. When over 90% of the people in this country support universal background checks and 90% of Republican Congressmen back away from it, it is apparent that our Democracy is not working the way it was intended.
            Until there is an actual majority in Congress that will in good faith act on reasonable changes in our current gun control regime, there is virtually no chance of repeal of the Second Amendment. One of the favorite sayings of political pundits is that all politics is local. Perhaps our politicians, whom most of us take part in electing, need to be forcefully reminded of just who it is that has put them into office, and who will assure that, if they do what WE want of them, will keep them in office. And it is imperative that we make certain they understand what we expect of them.

          • plc97477

            Impressive post. Thank you.

        • walker442

          ‘If a powder maker makes a million pounds of powder and splits it into 1 million 1 lb canisters and sells those million canisters nation or world wide how much time would it take to track those canisters down’

          With barcodes, they could be tracked to the store that sold them within minutes. Store scan provides time/date of sale. CCTV gives positive ID.

          2-3 days would be classed as negligence. 6 hours should be more than enough.

        • RobertCHastings

          So, what Peter King said has no validity? Even your state Bureau of Criminal Investigation can find a car’s make and from a paint chip left at an accident scene, and the car can be readily found. When land-and-groove characteristics are registered, the offending weapon can be found in a crime, and the current owner can be caught. DNA samples are used daily to convict or to free individuals. Data samples are available at the FBI for innumerable products, samples that are readily available in closing criminal cases. Do you really have no understanding of what tools are available to forensics experts? Even Sherlock Holmes had a vast store of knowledge, presaging today’s forensic examiners. A little understanding of how criminal investigatiions are carried out and brought to successful conclusions is apparently beyond YOUR capacity.

          • option31

            Did I say it did not? Read what I write instead of assuming you are superior and reading between the lines.

            Sure Kings idea to register nail and ball bearing purchasers has validity, I was pointing out how ridiculous this is getting, but apparently I should have spelled that out for you as you are unable to do the thought process on your own. . Registering nail purchasers is something you support apparently. If you you register everything that is purchased along with the purchaser sure you can track it down. Do you want to live in that kind of world? Apparently you do, for most of us though that is not a appetizing option.

            Even if what you propose was implemented its not like these weapons,
            guns, nails ball bearing, powder etc.. are going to walk into the police
            station and give them selves up. See in case you have noticed their are these new fangeled devices called cars that have 4 wheels and can travel across great areas of land from one place to another in a short period of time so a criminal could buy say a pound of nails in Florida and travel to New York. So Mr. Superior Human how does the purchase from Florida get tracked to New York? No matter what system you come up with to hem in innocent law abiding citizens the criminal class will be one step ahead. Criminals by
            their nature DO NOT follow the law. What you are suggesting is a police state at best or slave state where everything is watched.

            One thing I have noticed in life is the most intellectual vacant people usually resort to name calling in these forums and if you were in person you would show your intelligence by yelling, Thus you have nothing else to go on but attempting to bully and brow beat. You started off calling me stupid and now have implied I am ignorant and do not understand, I do understand perfectly I just don’t think a free person should not have these limits or intrusions. If you were 1/10th as smart as you thought you were you would notice that.

            You and others are always talking compromise but your idea of compromise is you’re going to state what you want to do and the other side has to compromise 100% with what you propose, no questions asked. Lacking the 100% your way you will, brow beat, bully, name call, use whoever or what ever to get your way.

          • RobertCHastings

            The idea, dumb fuck, is to catch the criminal (in this case, read “bomber”) as quickly as possible. The registration or the tagging of dangerous items in no wise jeopardizes your freedom (except perhaps your freedom to do harm). Tagging the powder used in the Boston Marathon bombs would have led to their being traced to 1)manufacturer, 2) distributor, 3) retail outlet, 4) purchaser. It has happened before on items like the bbs and nails. Bombs have been identified, sometimes, by the peculiarites of their construction, back to the individual who made them. IF the powder used in the Boston bombs had had some sort of chemical tag, it COULD have led to the two brothers much sooner. However, because some people value their “freedoms” more than they value the lives of others, this did not occur. In fact, as the article indicates, the process was slowed down because the powder COULD NOT be traced. This process is ALREADY in use in the products I named in a previous post on this topic. What part of that don’t you understand? If it is possible in some products, why is it not possible in ALL products? One reason COULD be that the people who sell that product don’t want it to be traced, and why would they not want it traced? You tell me what valid reason the NRA has in not wanting a criminal like the Boston bomber caught as quickly as possible. For that matter, what possible interest do they have in not tagging gunpowder? Could it lead to lawsuits? That is unlikely as legislation was passed a few years ago making weapons manufacturers immune from civil action, again at the behest of the NRA. This is not paranoia, it is fact. Tagging of gunpowder can lead to a quicker arrest in cases like the Boston bombing, period. Those who resist such a move do so for reasons that you apparently don’t understand, or just don’t WANT to understand. By tagging gunpowder, no one’s rights are being trampled, no one is being prevented from buying gunpowder, no one’s cache of gunpowder is in danger of being confiscated by the Gestapo. There is no intrusion upon your rights or liberties by the tagging of gunpowder.

          • option31

            Again you show an even lower level of intelligence than previously ever so quickly sinking into the sewer with progressively worse language , and that should be offensive to all here whether they agree with me or not. Why can you not just try being civil or is that above you? I have lived in poorer – rough sections of town and work in a poorer rough section of town and those people far out class you, they are civil and even when we disagree we do not stoop to the level you have.

            As far as being held unaccountable no manufacturer can guess what somebody is going to do with their product. Just like this board I would suspect the people running it would expect civility, courtesy and certainly not gutter language – so now that you have outted yourself as an offender with out common sense, civility, courtesy and one that cannot control themselves that tells me why you think everybody else should be registered and what they buy. You apparently could be one of these immoral people and you think everybody else is also.

            Read your whole rant and nowhere did I see a call for pharmaceutical companies to be held accountable for the mind altering drugs the majority of these murderers use, so your rant on the NRA and gun manufacturers ring hollow. Do you know or even care that several hundred thousand people a year die from these companies drugs and the families are not allowed to sue, even though these companies have lied to the FDA about the results? Or how about the 10′s of thousands that die from doctors leaving stuff behind during surgery or not properly washing their hands? Are these people any less important than any others that die from these types of acts?

            You did not answer the question regarding that new fangeled device – automobile – so I’ll ask again if this stuff is purchased in Florida and taken to New York how is it tracked? How about gasoline, diesel fuel, paints, etc…. If everything is tagged and everybody has to be centrally registered prior to purchase how do you expect to do that? A RFID in everybodies arm that when they go through the check out they are instantly registered along with what they buy?

            As far as taggants in powder I have read research that states it is a problem and research that says it is not. For the safety of law enforcement until it is proven conclusively it should not even be considered. If the powder burn rate differentiates from round to round it will effect accuracy – and accuracy counts in life and death. It also could effect the speed – that effects bullet drop and ballistics.

            I’m not going to call you names because your doing such a excellent job of proving to all here what you are – so keep digging your hole.

          • RobertCHastings

            As for tracking an automobile bought in Florida to it sultimate location in New York, how ddo YOU think that happens? VINs are on every vehicle, serial numbers on virtually every part, identifying characteristics in the paint and fabrics,etc. A stolenor illegally transported motor vehicle can be
            identified in any number of ways, if it is on law-enforcement’s radar. And who in the world said anything about registering EVERYTHING? Just another one of your assumptions? The RFID e-mail has been circulating for years, just so folks like you will bust a gasket over the implications. There IS NO SUCH plan except in the demented mind of a paranoic, or the cynical mind of a right wing agitator, and you fell for it.
            Taggants in powder affecting the explosive force or burn rate is a questionable assertion. Taggants seem to work in Semtx, a much more explosive explosive than gunpowder and have been used to successfully trace and capture criminals.
            The rest of your post, which definitely declares your ignorance, is not worthy commenting on. If I have offended you, I really don’t give a rat’s ass – talk to someone about it who gives a shit.

          • http://www.facebook.com/bryant.schroepfer Bryant Schroepfer

            Wow. You must be 12.

          • RobertCHastings

            LONG time gone. It takes a lifetime of practice to become a curmudgeon.

          • Sarvepalli

            A larger question raised by the discussion of taggants, which also touches on registration, is the fact that the gun fanatics’ position is contradictory. In the past when I’ve suggested that guns should be treated the same way we treat cars…VIN numbers, yearly licensing, training, insurance, drivers license, etc. a great howl arises from the gun fetishists.

            However, after all their fears are addressed and the point is made that they have no problem with being in a registry, etc. with their cars so why do they object to the same with their guns, the standard response is that cars are not Constitutionally protected and guns are. In other words, their fall back position is the 2nd. That’s one of the reasons why I propose to take that arrow from their quiver and repeal the 2nd. The 2nd is the primary reason our nation cannot do anything about our weekly mass murder other than stand by and watch while hoping it doesn’t happen to us. This is not the way to run a 21st century nation.

          • RobertCHastings

            Points are well taken. ANY motor vehicle in the country can be traced by the elements of its vehicle registration, a required feature of ALL motor vehicles. Even off-road vehicles have VIN and registration requirements. Insurance and regular inspection are required of them if they are to be used on the roads, as well as periodic testing for proficiency of the operator. I don’t know about you, but I have not heard anything about the government making plans to go out and confiscate all motor vehicles. While we ALL resist this to some extent, that is to be expected, especially when it costs us money.
            So, what is the issue the gun lobby has with universal background checks and a registration data base? The Second Amendment, as you imply, is standing in the way of reason. However,I still feel the more reasonable approach (and the more easily attained) is to require the same things we require of all motor vehicle operators 1) registration, 2)licensing and training, 3) insurance, 4) periodic inspection, 5) a process of verifiable transfer of ownership.

          • http://www.facebook.com/bryant.schroepfer Bryant Schroepfer

            You call people stupid right away. Try debating an issue and stop saying you have better manners. why don’t you just yell and yell and
            yell and not anybody have real word in edgewise then when they get mad you can portray them as the predator and the unstable one.

          • plc97477

            You seem to be having trouble sticking to the subject.

          • Sarvepalli

            I agree, pic. Plus he’s got ad hominem arguments down to an art.

          • option31

            and since you support tagging inanimate objects and the people that by them can I safely assume since these two murderers were muslim you would support making muslims register as a couple of them are murderers. Also since the deaths of innocents bother you to the point of wanting a police state what’s your take on US drone attack last week that murdered 12 children? Or is that okay because US Government did it and they are not Americans? you’re in a blind rage and won’t see the forest because all the trees are in the way.

          • RobertCHastings

            1) Where in my post did I say or imply tagging “the people that by them”?
            2) If you want to tag Muslims, why don’t you want to tag Christians, or Americans?
            3) Who (except you) has said anything about a police state?
            4) Whee did Isay anythingabout carte blanche approval of the government’s drone program?
            You seem to be the one who is blind, reading entirely too much into postings with which you disagree. Considering your apparent biases, it would be reasonable to assume that you seriously would approve of destroying all the trees so we could have a clear and unobstructed view.
            You immediately make a statement about my post based on statements that are NOT in my post. I have no problem with tagging “inanimate” objects, so they can be easily traced back to those who commit crimes with them. As for tagging people, where did you get that one? I have read and reread my post and find nothing in there that could be interpreted as wanting to tag people – that is YOUR construct. Convicted criminals are, in a way, tagged, for their fingerprints and DNA are on file. Those who have no criminal record (such as the two Boston bombers) have neither on file – to obtain a visa they are printed. Where did the drone strike you refer to occur? In the US? Least we forget, the drone program was NOT started by Obama, and during the time of Obama’s presidency fewer drone strikes have been made thanduring the Bush years, and you bleeding-heart conservativesjust have toblame Obama for all of it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/bryant.schroepfer Bryant Schroepfer

            Looks like you’re filled to brim with stupidity. Nobody wants a police state. You are the one whom wants it. You need an enemy. Start with yourself, the person who thinks Muslims would be registered if explosives were. Jesus why don’t you create an anonymous nuke program and say the government has them and nukes dony kill people, people kill people.

          • option31

            LOL I NEVER said register anybody, quite reading between the lines and making your own scenario up as to my beliefs. I said ” and since you support tagging inanimate objects and the people that by
            them can I safely assume since these two murderers were muslim you would
            support making muslims register as a couple of them are murderers” How do you get that I support registering them out of that? I am pointing out that since people are calling of the registration of inanimate objects maybe they would support registering animate ones that have a tendency for violence also. Follow the logic of this and that is where it leads. that is NOT in anyway what I want or advocate.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1362702462 Madelaine Ayers Henne

      Seriously? That’s all you can say? Infantile by stating facts? Guess that would be the kettle calling the pot black but the right wing is really good at that!

      • lana ward

        The pot is black and white

      • option31

        Using most of the respondents logic here all muslims are the cause of this and should be registered or tagged in some way so we can track them. I’m beginning to understand that the left wing nuts are just as crazy as the right wing nuts. The right wing nuts blame the government for everything bad and the left wing nuts blame the NRA. Both are intolerant but claim to be tolerant, they are tolerant as long as you agree with them. Both have their favorite evil doer and will NOT let anything get in their way to blame their favorite target – even if they look ridiculous do so.

        • sunmusing

          You seem to have difficult time understanding what you are reading….I have read the same thing and you aren’t even close to understanding this thread…troll

          • option31

            I’m guessing since I seem to have hit a nerve deep down people know I am close to right other wise their would be some facts and not the nastiness and name calling.

          • Sarvepalli

            Well, if nothing else option31, you’ve confirmed my conclusion that the only solution to the U.S. gun problem is to repeal the 2nd. For me the debate is over. I intend to dedicate myself to ending the 2nd Amendment even if the movement to do so outlives me. Thanks for the encouragement.

          • cp1969

            Fanatics like you are the reason no legislation gets passed.

          • Sarvepalli

            You must have been napping during the recent Senate vote, cp1969.

            Unless you think the majority of the American people are fanatics, the will of the majority was obstructed by a minority of gun fetishists who thwarted democracy. And that was why no legislation was passed. Moreover, this will be the status quo until we take the Constitutional argument away from the gun fetishists. To do that we will have to repeal the “sacred” 2nd. It will take time but it will happen.

            Like other civilized nations, we will still be able to keep our guns without the 2nd, only we will also be free to pass common sense laws and regulations to prevent the deaths of millions of innocents that now occur daily.

            What’s fanatic is to want the right to stroke your guns at the expense of millions of innocents dying.

          • option31

            Well why not take out the 2nd? The 4th and 5th have been neutered at best if not totally destroyed. The morning talking heads were talking about limits on the 1st, so why wouldn’t the 2nd be included? Why not just destroy the whole document and be done with it? That’s the road we’re headed down, have been for decades. And honestly if you listen to certain politicians that is their goal, ” Peter King (R-NY) says that Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzokhar Tsarnaev should be treated as an enemy combatant and does not deserve to be informed of his Miranda rights to remain silent because the “battlefield is now in the United States.” … “Also, the battlefield is now in the United States.”
            A battlefield is where you have no rights, and that is what King wants. No surprise….

            What people do not seem to understand is correlation, once you let somebody dismantle one their are others wanting to dismantle the others. But hey according to you and others I’m a DF, stupid ignoramous, because I look at the big picture not one minute part.

            And to put all your minds at ease I am NOT a conservative as they have done so much damage to the Bill of Rights it is beyond belief -n 4th and 5th so now the liberals can go after 2nd and 1st and the job will be complete – congrats to both sides!

          • Sarvepalli

            You can go after any amendment you want, option. I don’t care. My goal is to end the needless deaths of innocent people due to a flawed amendment to the constitution. If you can make a case that other amendments lead to untold death and injury then have at it. BTW I never said nor implied you were a “DF, stupid ignoramous” and you’re wrong to accuse me of such.

            Regarding the sentiment of your comment, I’m also in favor of a constitutional convention. I agree with Jefferson that each generation should write their own constitution. We’ve labored too long under an outdated document written by 18th century land owners while under the influence. We can do better.

          • option31

            I never once said go after any amendment, I think they should all be protected, so where you got the idea I said or want to go after amendments I do not know. My point was the 4th and 5th have been trashed by the conservatives and now the liberals want to go after the 2nd and both are going after the 1st. NOT ME!

            The country is already headed for a split as the coasts citizens have different needs and wants than the inter mountain west and east to the Missouri River citizens, and neither wants to be rules by the other. A ConCon would bring that to the fore front and the country would be Balkanized. A reminder or caveat here – just because I say something does not mean I advocated it – such as the above, or previous posts I am however pointing out possible outcomes and think maybe those outcome should be avoided.

            I’ll give you the point that you never called me those names and I should not have included you in that statement. My apologies!

        • http://www.facebook.com/bryant.schroepfer Bryant Schroepfer

          Stupid-ass. Most people think…timothy mcveigh. Right wing. Davidian. look it up and how many right wing terrorist acts have been committed

        • plc97477

          As a proud liberal I don’t blame the nra for everything. Just those things they are guilty of.

    • irishtap

      I’d rather possess a single brain cell than none at all option31. Ignorance might be ‘your bliss’, my friend, but it never leads to progress for man…only downfall.

  • Lovefacts

    For those whose kneejerk reaction is to defend the NRA or the Republican party, stop and think. The NRA is responsible for insuring that taggants weren’t required in black gunpowder, just as they are the ones preventing universal background checks. The lack of taggants makes it harder for the FBI, ATF, or state police to tracker bombers. The lack of universal background checks makes it difficult to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or the insane. However, the NRA is NOT responsible for the illegal use of gunpower or weapons.

    • RobertCHastings

      Too bad some of the posters here do NOT love facts, they just get in the way of their generally incorrect opinions.

      • Sarvepalli

        I couldn’t have said it better myself, Robert. Facts don’t matter to gun fanatics and their NRA enablers. All they have are tired worn bumper sticker slogans, not facts.

        • http://twitter.com/BlueRick BlueRick

          And they also have the ear of the congress (ie: republicans). We are being manipulated by a very small yet powerful and rich lobby.

    • gwen

      The fact that people wear clothes makes it harder for FBI to spot bombs on people. We should not have traceables in gun powder when gun powder is not an illegal substance. By doing so you are assuming everyone with gunpowder is suspect of a crime. The NRA is not just preventing govt intervention regarding guns, they are standing in the way of govt intervention in your everyday life, the slippery slope that says, most gangs use bandanas, lets put tracers in bandanas. Not all guns kill people, therefore not all guns should be traced. Get it?

      • plc97477

        So only guns used by criminals or crazies should be traced. Would you like to explain how that is going to happen.

        • http://www.facebook.com/jehrico76 Joshua Conner

          Very good point. Our government hasn’t proven competent at keeping drugs out of our country over the last 30 years of the war on drugs…what makes anyone think any amount of legislation is going to somehow enable our government to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? The NRA or any other group isn’t the problem here. This idiot author is trying to pull a jedi mind trick on you all and get you chasing a rabbit away from the real story.

        • http://twitter.com/normdprune Ernest Mann

          Nail on the head here. Since criminals do not and will not register weapons (they are criminals) their weapons will not be traceable anyway. The only traceable weapons will be those owned by law abiding owners, who do not use their guns for criminal purposes. On the other hand perhaps we should have a law requiring all makers of IEDs to paste a universal product code on the casing, so we can quickly find the maker.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lord-Byng/628747040 Lord Byng

        Without taggants, everybody who deals with gunpowder IS a suspect for a crime. What taggants would do is allow innocent suspects to quickly and easily prove their innocence and allow the real culprits to be found.

        Your logic leads to accusations against innocent people.

        Wouldn’t you rather make it easy for the government to know that you’re innocent?

        • sean

          aren’t we automatically innocent until proven guilty? by your logic everyone who buys a pound of powder is automatically suspect of a crime.

          • plc97477

            How did you get that from what he said.

          • sean

            from his first sentence

        • Colin Campbell

          And with taggants they are anyway. All a taggant in gunpowder would do is indicate that the stuff was sold in one of several thousand stores in the US.
          Taggant technology in gunpowder is a waste of time.

          • Abraham1771

            Wow, you were able to remember all 9 words of this important NRA talking point.!
            Congratulations.
            Now repeat it as often as possible in as many postings as you can!

          • http://twitter.com/normdprune Ernest Mann

            Why can’t you deal with the problem instead of scapegoating?

        • http://www.facebook.com/matthew.fox.988 Matthew Fox

          False. Numerous innocent suspects would be tied to a bombing event due to having purchased powder with the same taggant. therefore the system would clutter-up and ultimately slow down the process of tracking the offender.

        • http://twitter.com/normdprune Ernest Mann

          We have a presumption of innocence in this country. Why isn’t that enough?

    • plc97477

      Why then does the nra fight taggants?

      • murphmobile

        Because they are ineffective and potentially dangerous to people who reload.

      • Colin Campbell

        Because taggents in gunpowder are a waste of time. All a recovered taggant would tell the police is that the gunpowder could have been purchased at any of thousands of shops across the US.

        The NRQ has been proposing a different technology than taggants but this is hindered by the fact that the manufacturer of taggants has several well connected political officials as stockholders.

    • Colin Campbell

      The NRA opposes taggants because they don’t work. The lot sizes of gunpowder production mean that any powder with a particular taggant would wind up a thousand of stores around the country.

      The NRA has been pushing a more effective technology. (Notice how the article left this out?)

  • AlphaFactor

    Taggants have been studied by the government and the National Academy of Sciences for almost forty years.
    Studies have shown that taggants used in gunpowder can alter the chemical makeup and cause it to be more dangerous, leading to a high risk of spontaneous combustion. The ATF recommendation is that they not be used in gunpowder.
    Not that I would want a little thing like facts to get in the way of a hate rant against the NRA, so carry on.

    • Sarvepalli

      The studies were incomplete so no conclusion can be made as to risk, danger, etc. Until viable studies are done on taggants, which the NRA opposes, the technology will not be developed. Which is what the NRA wants. They don’t want taggants to be used because it might lead to a registry/background checks/loss or our freedoms/blah…blah…blah.

      All of this NRA gibberish would be moot if we simply repeal the 2nd. Gun fanatics will not compromise on any regulation of their sacred right to stroke their guns. The source of the U.S. problems with guns is the 2nd. Repeal the 2nd.

      • gwen

        lol. you would favor a repeal of the 2nd amendment if it led to a Civil War? Really? Just like that. Then while people are dying because they are being shot by SWAT gun raids, why not just nationalize everything so the police are replaced with military police and then whoever’s president can order them around like a little Napoleon. Gee whiz, follow history much?

        • Sarvepalli

          In case you haven’t noticed, gwen, “people”..men, women and children, are already dying from being shot. Hundreds of thousands of people. Your hypothetical is based on something other than reality.

          The reality is that doing it your way is resulting in the very thing you fear. The case I’m presenting is based on the fact that too many have been killed by guns at this late date and it’s because of the 2nd amendment. It’s time to begin to consider its repeal. We can do better.

          • http://twitter.com/normdprune Ernest Mann

            What assurance do we have that you “can do better”? Also please cite your source for hundreds of thousands of people dying from being shot. Even in gun-controlled Chicago (TIC) that seems like an exaggerated number.

          • Sarvepalli

            Ernest, in giving you the benefit of the doubt, I had copied the link from from the National Center for Health Statistics and was going to send it until you commented below calling me an idiot. At that point you lost the benefit of the doubt.

            If you want to discuss an issue like an adult, then I’ll oblige. Otherwise, we have nothing to say to each other.

          • rick slick

            when your life is on the line, and you need help in seconds, the police is only minutes away.

          • Sarvepalli

            And if a frog had wings, it wouldn’t bump his ass.

          • Independent1

            And exactly what do you think the odds are that you will ever be in the situation where someone is threatening your life and you’ll actually either have your gun readily at hand or have the time to go get it??? Well one of the most telling statistics is that of 75 million crimes committed each year where someone barndishes a gun, in only 1% of those crimes was someone actually able to protect themself with a gun they were able to come up with. That’s .01% of the time – not the ficticious 2.5 million times out of the 75 million crimes which is still only 3% of the time like the gun lobby would like you to believe. Do you even realize that by owning a gun and keeping it in a home, that you have just increased by up to 5 times, the probabllity that either you or someone else in your home, most likely a woman or child, will be killed with that gun. Yep! When you buy a gun, the probability that the gun you buy will be used to kill someone, far outweighs the probability that you’ll ever in your life time use that gun to actually protect yourself. And believe it or not, insurance companies are starting to realize that increased risk, because on applications or insurance, some insurance companies are starting to ask: Do you own a gun? And if you do, you’re going to start paying higher rates for all types of insurance and maybe even a mortgage – because a killing in a home, is a big detractor to seeling that home for a bank, should they end up with a foreclosure because the owner was killed by a gun. Just a thought to the wise – owning a gun isn’t all roses

          • The Daily Snail

            Hundreds of thousands IS an exaggeration, even though I personally don’t agree with the way the 2nd Amendment is being interpreted by many Americans.

      • sean

        The problem doesn’t lie in the 2nd amendment but the first amendment. How often have the media had their own spin on things or glorified the story to their own gain. Or plain gotten the facts wrong in a rush to scoop the competition. Life would be much better for us all if we repealed the First amendment

        • Sarvepalli

          Then by all means, do what I’m doing and start a movement to repeal the 1st, sean. However, this thread is about the 2nd and guns. Freedom of speech is not the issue here. You might consider starting your own thread as well where there’s some interest in your issue rather than try to change the issue at hand.

          • sean

            Sorrry Sarvepelli. I was being tongue in cheek and saying in a round about way why don’t we abolish all the amendments just cause some people don’t like them. Most people like the ability to have free speech and the ability to think the way they want to so I didn’t think you would be against that. Apparently I was wrong and can’t use that one as an example. The Constitution is there for a reason and can’t be abolished just because it isn’t working for some. Otherwise why not just get rid of rights 4 through 6 while we are at it.

          • Sarvepalli

            I’m not against free speech, sean, otherwise I would not have encouraged you to use it. As I said, if you feel as strongly as you implied then by all means pursue whatever goal you feel strongly about. I was just trying to make the point that that isn’t the topic at hand on this thread. Simply because I didn’t engage you in debate or take you to task doesn’t mean I agreed with your “tongue in cheek” comment.

            BTW It’s difficult to write tongue in cheek or sarcasm in a dry medium like this. Few people get it. It’s called Poe’s Law and is worth being aware of.

          • http://twitter.com/normdprune Ernest Mann

            Made we need an emoticon, like LOL. Let’s adopt TIC.

          • http://twitter.com/normdprune Ernest Mann

            I thought this thread was about Boston bombers investigations. But turns out you think it is about the 2nd amendment. Bit of a stretch there. I bet it’s because you don’t give a rat’s patoot about the bombers – who incidentally were captured in amazingly short time. You are just out to get the NRA and take away my lawfully held weapon. So, I’ll turn in my gun if you shut your mouth.

        • http://twitter.com/InspireDebate Inspire

          Well said Sean. This is David Cay Johnston distorted view.

      • http://www.facebook.com/bridgesjsjr J.s. Bridges

        So – you’d like to repeal the 2nd Amendment?

        Then, we could – say – repeal the First, as well…so we wouldn’t have to LISTEN TO YOUR BULLS**T anymore!!

        The SOURCE of the U.S.’s “problems with guns” is people LIKE YOU who think the U.S. Constitution is a “bug”, instead of a “feature”.

        For the record: There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to support yur brain-dead idea that the NRA “opposes viable studies of taggants in gunpowder” – in point of fact, they commissioned some studies on that very issue – some of the ones (there were independently-done studies, as well) that demonstrated the high likelihood that a) such taggants would be far more of a hazard than was warranted, and b) using such taggants would NOT materially aid in any foreseeable criminal investigation to any effective degree.

        Why not find out FACTS – and then USE them – if you’re going to discuss an issue, BEFORE you enter the discussion?

        • tobyspeeks

          You just make shit up, call it a fact and go with it. You’re so used to Fox News doing it you think it’s the correct and honest way to engage a debate. http://ota.fas.org/reports/8017.pdf

          Everything you said was either from a bad source or an out right lie. I’m going with out right lie. Remember, progressives check facts or in your case, we check your bullshit because most likely things that you tea baggers say is bullshit.

          • The Daily Snail

            Don’t vote him down, he’s telling the truth!

      • http://twitter.com/normdprune Ernest Mann

        Shall we repeal your sacred right to sound off like an idiot?

        • Sarvepalli

          Said the pot to the kettle…

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pete-Peters/1267613683 PeteH

        @Sarvepalli; using Obama “logic” and his false arguments – you are either in favor of the 2nd Amendment, or you want to give criminals more power to rape, rob and murder law-abiding citizens.

        • Sarvepalli

          Pete, it is that sort of ludicrous Black & White, Either/Or substitute for thinking that is one of the reasons we’re in the mess we’re in regarding gun violence. It is also an example of the “false argument” that you attribute to others.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pete-Peters/1267613683 PeteH

            I’m using Obama logic, like when he says “You’re either for sensible gun laws, or you don’t care about our children being gunned down” (paraphrasing)

          • Sarvepalli

            I think you just made Obama’s point whether you know it or not. Have a good day, Pete.

    • Independent1

      I’m guessing that you got the info on taggants from the NRA itself which is obviously a good source. I’ve done a little checking and your claim about taggants creating a problem is only speculation, it has not been proven. And as one article pointed out, taggants can also be explosives themselves and that the people facing the biggest risk would be the manufacturers or people putting the taggants into the powder itself. I also was unable to locate any source that says the ATF has recommended against using taggants – would you like to provide a pointer to where you found that. Here’s basically a good summation from one article as to why the NRA is so opposed to them:

      They are concerned about tort liability,” manufacturers are worried about being sued over the improper use of their ammunition or explosives. Worries about the cost of adding taggants to gunpowder were also raised by the Institute of Makers of Explosives. NRA officials seem more concerned about government use of technology to trace either firearms or the gunpowder used to make ammunition. Fear of government use of tracking technologies is also echoed online.

      And since you seem to be gun lobby supporter, maybe you’d be interested in seeing just how much the gun lobby distorts facts:

      The gun lobby claims that people must carry guns to protect themselves from being killed by criminals; but facts show that most homicides occur between people who know each other and don’t occur in situations where someone is expecting to have to protect themself. So, for example, of the homicides that occurred in America during 2010, less than 3% were justifiable homicides for the cause of self- defense.

      The gun lobby also would like Americans to believe that guns are used about 2.5 million times a year for self-defense; but according to the Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey, the actual number is just a fraction of that; being again less than 3% of the gun lobby’s grossly inflated number (actually less than 75,000 times – nowhere near 2.5 million).

      Also, of about 30 million crime victims recorded for the years 2007-2011, less than 1% of the victims were actually able to find and use a gun for self-defense purposes: that means out of 30,000,000 crime victims, less than 300,000 were actually able to protect themselves with a gun; even though Americans own around 300 million guns.

      And finally, in any given year, far more Americans have their guns stolen, about 230,000, than are ever able to use their gun to defend themselves, less than 75,000 out of about 75 million crime victims. Pretty sad isn’t it for all the hype the NRA puts out; and especially considering all the mass killings America has suffered the past decade that were committed by killers who couldn’t have purchased the guns they used and therefore were only able to use a gun to kill a lot of people because they stole the gun from a relative.

      • http://www.facebook.com/bridgesjsjr J.s. Bridges

        “…maybe you’d be interested in seeing just how much the gun lobby distorts facts:”

        Followed by – what? – a long string of “facts” that are:

        1) Not referenced or substantiated by anything whatsoever.

        2) Therefore appear to be only your personally-held, CREATED views – not “facts” nor factually presented at all – put forth to try to discredit, apparently, Stuff You Don’t Like – all of which is absolutely true.

        My, what REASONED argumentation you offer…NOT!!

        • Independent1

          No, my initials aren’t NRA. I don’t make up fake numbers like Wayne Lapierre and his group of corrupt hoods that are doing nothing but trying to hoodwink Americans into buying more guns with fake statistics about fantasy self-protection. If you’re interested in seeing the study done by Josh Harkinson that was published by Mother Jones – go to the Mother Jones website and look up the article – Challenging the myth that guns stop crime. Now why would the NRA want to create grossly exaggerated statistics about how effective it is to arm yourself for supposed self-protection??? Oh I see!!! To sell more guns which translates into what?? MONEY!!!!!!!!!!

        • Independent1

          If you’re a real gun lover, be prepared for the price of owning a gun to skyrocket soon, especially if you own a house or need insurance. In doing some checking on buying some insurance, I’ve noticed that a lot of companies are starting to include the question “do you own a gun” as part of their applications. Guess why? Because companies are starting to realize that owning a gun creates a liability to you and others in your family – far higher probablities of being killed by your own gun. Yep!! Studies show that for example, the chances that a spouse or child in a home will be killed by the gun you own go up by 5 times over that of homes with no gun. Even health insurers are finding that guns create a lot of health claims with over 100,000 serious shootings/year and around 30,000 people being killed – around 19,000 of them being suicides. So insurance companies for sure are going to start charging more to gun owners, and it may not be long before finance companies do, because owning a gun, increases the possibilities of a death happening in that household, which actually can even make a house hard to see should the mortgage company have to foreclose. HMMMM!!! Owning a gun is not self-protection – it’s increasing the gun owners liability for everything!!!! Many Americans are getting pretty fed up with people carrying around guns!!!!!!!

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pete-Peters/1267613683 PeteH

            Your numbers are way off and the Kellerman study about a gun in the house being used more likely on/by a family member on another family member has long been debunked, yet still repeated by the intellectually lazy/dishonest.

            Kellerman used numbers from a handful of high-crime counties and extrapolated them, unlike the study by John Lott Jr. who did the most comprehensive study on guns and crime using numbers from every county in the US.

            If insurance companies are in fact using these numbers it’s to squeeze more money out of policyholders, not because those numbers are factual.

          • Independent1

            It’s not my numbers that are off, it’s your delusional mind. In another post you claimed there are 8,000 gun deaths and 3,000 suicides – those numbers are totally ridiculous. There are over 100,000 shootings per year and virtually everyone knows that gun deaths are almost exceeding car deaths. You’d better get your head out of the sand. – and studies HAVE PROVEN that the risk of being killed by a gun for women and children that live in a home that has a gun are at least 5 times that of women and children who live in a home without a gun.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pete-Peters/1267613683 PeteH

            Which Study? The long-debunked Kellerman study?

            Criminologist Gary Kleck is a Liberal. He is a
            member of the ACLU, Amnesty International, Independent Action, Democrats 2000,
            and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations. He is a
            life-long registered Democrat, as well as a regular contributor to Democratic
            Party candidates.

            When he got done crunching the data regarding guns and crime he found results
            that shocked him. At a minimum, Americans use firearms 2.5 million times per
            year in direct, face to face defenses. And that is Kleck’s admittedly
            conservative estimate. Additionally, only 1% of the time is the thug shot, and
            only 0.1% of all encountered thugs are killed.

            For his research, Kleck won the prestigious Hindelang Award for the most
            significant work by a Criminologist.

            He has testified before Congress and state legislatures on gun control
            proposals. His research was cited in the Supreme Court’s landmark District of
            Columbia v. Heller decision, which struck down the D.C. handgun ban and held
            that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

            Where is your evidence?

            How many prestigious awards have you won for your work in Criminology?

            Has the SCOTUS cited your “work” or have you testified before
            Congress regarding gun control proposals?

            Anti-gun advocate John Lott Jr. performed the most comprehensive study ever
            done on guns and crime using stats from every county in the US and came away
            with the inescapable conclusion – More Guns = Less Crime.

            He has compiled the stats into book form:
            “More Guns, Less Crime”

            And since he was a true, open-minded liberal, he changed his stance from
            anti-gun to pro-gun after the overwhelming factual evidence that he sought out
            to back his anti-gun position proved him wrong.

            There is an academic, peer-reviewed, long-term study of the effect of various
            public policies on public, multiple shootings in all 50 states over a 20-year
            period performed by renowned economists at the University of Chicago
            and Yale, William Landes and John Lott. It concluded that the only policy to
            reduce the incidence of, and casualties from, mass shootings are
            concealed-carry laws.

          • Independent1

            You sure took a lot of time to rant some pure BS!!! You’re absoluely delusional!!

          • Sarvepalli

            Using the rate of gun death/injury to date, gun death/injury is projected to surpass auto death/injury this year. Maybe we should start considering regulating guns the same way we regulate cars.

            Anticipating the inevitable, predictable, fall back response from gun fetishists that I’ve seen in other forums; “Cars aren’t protected by the Constitution and guns are.”…my response to that is to take that arrow out of the NRA’s quiver by repealing the 2nd.

    • davidcayjohnston

      You might try reading what I wrote about this before making such ill-informed and out-of-date comments about my piece.

      • Independent1

        Thanks for the article! Very informative!!

      • plc97477

        I too would like to add my thanks. I really learned a lot from the article.

      • sean

        I read it. and you made an ill informed article

      • http://www.facebook.com/bridgesjsjr J.s. Bridges

        1) Total trash opinion, unsupported by actual facts, is total trash, no matter how impassioned the “argumentation” or marginally-skilled the artifice involved in the writing, and no matter how often read.

        2) The actual facts, and the logical reasoning that may be drawn from them, do not support your clearly-incorrect projections of “reasoning”. Your “piece” is not only wrong on the facts, it is wrong on its central premise, and wrong on the “reasoning” it includes.

        3) Taggants, had they been present in whatever materials (the nature of which are not currently known publicly) were used by the bombers in Boston, would have done nothing whatsoever to aid in or advance the investigation that followed. Speculation that, somehow, they would have “helped” materially in the investigative process is just that – groundless speculation, apparently only advanced by YOU; i.e., pointless rhetoric.

        4) “The NRA”, clearly, did NOTHING to “impede” the investigation, whether by opposing the controversial, speculative, and highly-questionable idea that taggants should be required in gunpowder as an “aid to investigation” or for any other purpose, or by any other means. Therefore, the VERY TITLE of your little screed – in addition to its entire theme and “reasoning” – belies nothing more than your personal dislike of an organization, one that has as one of its present-day major functions to defend and protect the individual rights of U.S. citizens – ALL of them – with respect to armed self-defense and defense of personal property, as well as others’ lives, well-being and property.

        5) Therefore, your “piece” is – and was – as others have pointed to, ill-informed, pure speculation, WRONG as to actual facts, and incorrect as to its speculative theme and “conclusions”.

        • davidcayjohnston

          You’re entitled to your opinion, but you agree there are no factual errors in my piece.

          Also taggants your understanding of the science and of how investigations work is simply deficient. Have you read the classic texts on criminal investigation? The literature on how all manner of materials made by man and many made by nature can be analyzed and, with a sound recordkeeping regime traced quickly? Evidently not. I have and, indeed, my work has resulted in criminal prosecutions resulting in long prison sentences, many civil enforcement actions and I personally hunted down a stone-cold killer the police failed to catch.

          And as for “impede,” the NRA’s success in blocking taggants (except in plastic explosives) certainly did hinder, delay, cramp and otherwise interfere with the investigation as it has with many other investigations and this from an organization whose CEO called law enforcement “jack booted thugs” in a previous bombing investigation.

        • Independent1

          As said by a clueless lover of the NRA. Here’s another article with some facts you’ll probably question too, but just more clear evidence that guns are a clear liability to the gun owner, his or her family and every other US citizen; Guns contribute to the US’s very poor ranking in the world on life expectancy. It’s from a British newspaper the Daily Mail and was published on 4/21/2013.

          Gun Violence Contributes to America’s Low Life Expectancy

          The United States has far more violent deaths than any other wealthy nation in part because there are so many residents who own guns and store them in unlocked places in their homes. The lax gun rules are a major contributor to the low life expectancy rate that Americans have compared to their global counterparts.

          A new report reveals that of the 17 wealthiest countries, American males have the lowest life expectancy of 75.6 years and their female counterparts are the second lowest in the rankings coming in at 80.7 years. The blame placed on guns comes just weeks after the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School and as politicians make calls for stricter gun controls.

          The United States has about six violent deaths per 100,000 residents and none of the 16 other countries included in the review came anywhere close to that ratio. Finland was closest to the U.S. ranking with slightly more than two violent deaths per 100,000 residents.

          ‘With lives and dollars at stake, the United States cannot afford to ignore this problem,’ said the report from the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine. The researchers said there is little evidence that violent acts occur more frequently in the United States than elsewhere. It’s the lethality of those attacks that stands out.

          ‘One behavior that probably explains the excess lethality of violence and unintentional injuries in the United States is the widespread possession of firearms and the common practice of storing them (often unlocked) at home. The statistics are dramatic,’ the report said. For
          example, the United States has the highest rate of firearm ownership among peer countries — 89 civilian-owned firearms for every 100 Americans, and the U.S. is home to about 35 to 50 per cent of the world’s civilian-owned firearms, the report noted.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pete-Peters/1267613683 PeteH

            And that is an opinion article that shows *zero* cause and effect.

          • Independent1

            Only in the mind of someone intent on blocking out the truth. This wasn’t an opinion article – it was an article based on facts – Americans have a lower life expectancy than people in 17 other similar industrialized nations and one major cultural factor difference between these countries is that Americans own dramatically more guns than of these other countries and have similar amounts of violence but Americans die at 3-4 time the rate from that violence than people in other countries for one reason – GUNS. And you say this is zero cause and effect – how clueless can someone get!! You’ve proven very much!!! This article by itself proves that guns don’t protect people, they kill them!!!

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pete-Peters/1267613683 PeteH

            Really? How about countries like Brazil or the Philippines were guns are banned but they have higher gun murder rates than the US?

            You can’t compare other countries to the US because we have immigrants from dozens of different countries here, gang problems such as MS-13, Nortenos, Surenos, Crips, Bloods, Mexican Mafia etc…

            If you want to play that game, then let’s bring Switzerland into the equation, where Adult Male in Switzerland is required to own a
            Fully-Automatic SIG 550 Assault Rifle, a Hi-Cap magazine and ammunition.

            In 2010, The annual rate of homicide by guns per 100,000 population was 0.52 in
            Switzerland.

            In 2010, The annual rate of homicide by guns per 100,000 population was 3.67 in
            the US

            Why is it that every Adult Swiss Male has a fully-automatic Assault Rifle, yet
            they are banned in the US but the US has a firearm murder rate 7x higher than
            that of Switzerland?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pete-Peters/1267613683 PeteH

            http://www.assaultweapon.info

            (Use arrow keys to navigate to next page or the previous page)

            A child under 12 is more likely to drown and die in a
            backyard swimming pool than to be shot and killed by an “Assault
            Weapon”

          • Independent1

            Obviously from a website mantained by the NRA or a member of the NRA. Plus it’s an absurd statistic, it has no relevance to the argument about banning assault weapons.

          • Independent1

            Please stop quoting crime rates from the FBI – the FBI only keeps statistics on crimes that have a federal significance. The FBI does not concern itself about all crimes – that’s not their job – that’s why they’re called the FEDERAL Bureau of Investigation.

            And trying to compare America’s crime rates to places like the Philipines and Argentina are an exercise in absuridity – the Philipines is not an industrialized country, it great deal of it’s population still live in huts and pigmy type indian villages; and Argentina is part of the South American culture which is far different from the US and Europe. That’s why virtually every house not only has bars on the windows but also an 8 foot high wall with glass around the top – I lived there (South America) for over 10 years – my sister was born in Chile. And so then you choose to compare America to the one nation in the world, Switzerland, where every child is brought up with guns because every family is suppose to own them; and therefore obviously has not only very close family and country ties, that they have a much stronger sense of morality that American’s obviousl do.

            Be my guest, go bury your head in the sand, but when that gun you own, if you own one, ends up killing someone in your household, don’t forget I warned you that studies have proven that in homes that house a gun, the risk that someone in that house will be killed BY A GUN, goes up by as much as 5 times.
            And I know you’ll blow this off too, but another study done that was published by Mother Jones has shown that the NRA mantra of you need guns for self-protection is nothing but a farce: Fact is that of 75 million crimes committed each year with someone brandishing a gun, only in 1% of those crimes was the victim of the crime able to protect him or herself by using a gun (75,000 times a year out of 75,000,000 crimes; not the absurd 2.5 million times the NRA so blatantly lies about.)

          • http://www.facebook.com/barry.lessinger Barry Lessinger

            if you studied deaths by drowning you would find a greater risk of drowning if you had a swimming pool thaqn if you didn’t , better ban pools and cars
            and most gun deaths are from handguns not rifles

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Warren-Lewis/1343270569 Warren Lewis

            As usual, it fails to cement any kind of cause-effect relationship between gun ownership rate and murder rate. It also, tellingly, fails to quantify that ‘loss’ of life expectancy, rather just using the exciting word ‘major’. There are countries with higher gun ownership and lower murder rates, and countries with lower gun ownership and higher murder rates. If you want some kind of causal link, inspect countries and cities that have really clamped down on guns, and the subsequent change in crime and murder rates. They skyrocket- Australia, Britain, Chicago, DC. It’s pretty clear for people who will look. Then look at states that have enacted concealed carry, and their subsequent murder and crime rates. They have always gone down. This doesn’t prove that carry laws are the cause of the decrease, but it DOES prove that more pervasive gun ownership/possession does not increase those rates.

        • Sarvepalli

          J.s. You could have saved yourself the time required to type your unconvincing reasons by simply stating “You’re wrong David, and I’m right!” In essence that’s what your comment boils down to. Otherwise, you’re simply straining at gnats.

      • rick slick

        Your piece is quite a misleading piece of trash. I could write an article “pressure cooker manufacturers aided terrorists” and be equally factual. Troll.

    • RobertCHastings

      I think the article deals with that issue. Semtx, although not the same composition as gunpowder, still successfully carries identifiers. If the FBI is able to identify a bullet fragment (no identifiable lands or grooves) as to lot and manufacturer merely by its chemical makeup, I feel reasonably safe in claiming thesame could be done with gunpowders without having any deleterious effect on the product by mixing in a chemically inert taggant.

      • http://www.facebook.com/bridgesjsjr J.s. Bridges

        Sorry, wrong again.

        If you actually READ the study report referenced by Johnston in his silly little screed against the NRA, you will perhaps find the actual facts:

        1) Unless they are “encapsulated” – a fairly-expensive proposition, one that, if required for gunpowder products would HUGELY inflate the cost of the product, without demonstrably increasing the usefulness of the taggants involved under real-world conditions – there is NO SUCH THING as “a chemically inert taggant.” When you add anything that will act as even a marginally-useful taggant to gunpowder or black powder, you are adding, in essence, a chemical contaminant – one that immediately begins to react with, and therefore alter the chemical composition (and thereby alter the SAFETY IN USAGE) and consistency, of the powder. NO EXCEPTIONS.

        2) Gunpowder and commercial explosives such as Semtex differ enormously, both in how (and out of what) they are made, and how they work (smokeless gunpowder is NOT an “explosive” at all; it does not explode in use, but simply combusts very fast. Technically, black powder is a “LOW explosive” – it explodes, but at a relatively low-energy level – and is primarily a mechanical mixture of three chemicals – which is rather-quickly DESTABILIZED by introduction of bare taggants in the mixture. Semtex and other “commercial” high-explosive materials are largely-stable (at ordinary temperatures and pressures) chemical compositions that can tolerate a high level of “contaminants” – such as taggants – without interaction or deterioration). Taggants work o.k. with stuff like Semtex – but NOT with gunpowders. It is NOT the same thing at all.

        3) Incidentally – for a number of fairly-obvious reasons, although the FBI would LIKE you to believe they can do otherwise, it is NOT generally possible for any lab, no matter how sophisticated to “identify a bullet fragment (no identifiable lands or grooves) as to lot and manufacturer merely by its chemical makeup.” Ain’t happenin’, bub.

        Try again – this time, pull the other leg, it’s got bells on it.

        • RobertCHastings

          Looks like you have done a lot of research on the topic, and possibly some background in chemistry. Thank you for the input and the correction, IF your analysis is correct. However, I suspect your motivation is somewhat different from mine and, as such, may have led you to different conclusions.
          INERT, by definition, simply means that there is no chemical interaction with surrounding elements. By definition, an inert taggant would, therefore, have no interaction or effect on the powder(or other element) into which it is inserted. Therefore, if would not affect the explosive or flammable characteristics of its host. There are, according to the periodic table, many inert elements, some cheaper than other (of course) that could readily combined, with no adverse effects, in varying mixtures, that culd effectively be used to identify various explosives – perhaps not to the degree that would make it easy to readily identify the product as to who just bought it, but at least to manufacturer. The rest of the identification process MIGHT involve some additional time. However, it has been done. Powder residue at a crime scene has, on more than one occasion, been used to positively link it to other ordnance by the ATF and the FBI.
          If the black powder used in the Boston Marathon bombs is a low energy explosive, it is questionable that the insertion of an identifying taggant would have any significant impact on any predictable and consistent ignition characteristics.
          It is beginning to sound as if rather than using logic you were perhaps using emotion in your analysis. There are plenty of purveyors of propaganda out there who would employ just such partial truth as you have demonstrated to further their agenda, inserting just enough “truth” to make their claims appear to be plausible.

          • Independent1

            Robert, ‘Bridges’ appears to me to be trying far too hard to discredit any comments that may be putting a bad light on the NRA not to have a vested interest in the NRA itself. You don’t suppose JsBridges is an alias for Wayne Lapierre, do you?? Or maybe he’s an NRA board member!! Hmm!! I wonder!!! He’s starting to sound pretty suspicious to me. Yours isn’t the only commenter in this comment thread that he’s trying to discredit!!

          • RobertCHastings

            I have to agree with you, especially since he is so resistant to reasonable and logical argument. He has apparently become so blinded by his own ideology that he excludes all opposing viewpoints regardless of the facts or logic.

    • Abraham1771

      What bulls##t. There is no such NAS study. Show me the website?

      And the NAS is a private entity (thank God), not an arm or agency of the Federal Government. But they do not have their own independent budget. research has to be financed in each case independently!

      Remember the studies financed by R.G. Reynolds which showed that Tobacco Smoke does not trigger lung cancer? Right! Taggants are use less. Keeping records of mass gun sales by the ATF along the Mexican border are illegal!

      But I find a press release by the National Academy of Sciences

      “Identification taggants — materials coded with information that can
      be added to the powder by the manufacturer and read by investigators
      before or after detonation — and an associated record-keeping system
      could be of further assistance in tracking down bombers in cases where
      current forensic techniques fail, the committee said. But additional
      research on these systems is needed to determine whether they are safe
      and effective.”

      And that

      “Research should be conducted to develop and test taggants that
      would be technically suitable for inclusion in black and smokeless
      powders should the future threat level warrant their use.”

      Guess what: the Gun Lobby, and the $1Million they privately hand to LaPierre (look at his life style) every year, makes sure nothing happened in research.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mitchell.lieberman Mitchell Lieberman

    this is the sickist article i have ever seen.
    how about if all the people locked in there homes yesterday scared to
    death a terrorist would break in had guns they wouldnt have felt as
    defenceless . if these dumb cities would allow the good people to have
    guns crime would be drastically cut, but the dumb liberals would rather
    protect the criminals and terrorists. duhhhhhhhh

    • davidcayjohnston

      Obviously, you did not read my column or, possibly, you utterky failed to pay attention to what I wrote.

      In the future, read first, and pay attention to the facts, so your comment bears at least some relationship to the facts in my columns.

      In this case people would not have been on lockdown (and officer Collier might be alive) but for policies due to NRA lobbying, policies hobble law enforcement and slow the identification and capture of mass murdersrs (like Timothy McVeigh) and the Boston bombers.

      • angelsinca

        Obviously, you didn’t research taggant effect before forming the nonsensical hypothesis to brand the NRA as mass murderers. Can’t wait to read your version of those responsible for the abortion of millions of potential children.

        • davidcayjohnston

          Again, you obviously did not read my piece before commenting. It includes a link to the 1980 “study” and explains why it is not a study, addresses the technological issues in gunpowder then and now and suggests a solution.

          BTW, I have written on policing for decades, including for police publications, and my work has stood up to scrutiny by others and been substantiated by events over time, is cited in some scholarly books on law enforcement and have owned many guns in my life, loaded my own bullets and got a near perfect score in LAPD simulated combat training.

          Now go read both pages of my National Memo column, please, so you stop polluting the conversation here with your fact-free posts.

          • angelsinca

            Thank you for the reply David. The credentials are impressive yet irrelevant to this monlogue.I couldn’t make it to the second page of your rant; I was unable to make it past your ridiculous assertion that the NRA are mass murderers. If the article wasn’t so blatantly biased toward an anti-gun agenda, it may have my more palatable.

    • Independent1

      You believe far too much of what you hear from the NRA – owning a gun for the purpose of self-protection creates a far bigger risk to yourself and your relatives in that you or one of them will be killed with the gun you buy, than the probablity is that you will ever be able to use the gun you buy to protect yourself. Of 30 million gun-related crimes that occurred over a 4 year period, 2007-2011, in less than 3% of those 30 million crime incidents was someone able to actually protect themself using a gun they had with them or was able to get from somewhere in their house, office or whereever. And that’s despite the fact that Americans own more than 300 million guns. So now, just what odds do you really think you or anyone else has that owns a gun is actually going to be able to use it to protect themself?? Very very low odds.

      Actually, the odds are far greater that the gun you buy will end up killing you or a family member or a friend than the odds are you’ll ever use that gun to protect yourself. Owning a gun for perceived self protection is only a fantasy that the NRA sells to Americans so they can sell many many more guns. Do you know that if you own a gun, that you’re more likely going to pay more for life, heallth and maybe even homeowners insurance because insurance companies are now realizing just how high the odds are that a gun owner is going to be killed by their own gun or kill someone else with it? When I tried to do an insurance quote a few days ago, about the 4th question I had to respond to was, do you own a gun? And do you know why someone inserted a provision in Obamacare to prevent doctors from asking people if they own a gun? Because statistics show that gun owndership is hazards to your and your family’s life and health (more than 100,000 people each year are injured by guns, the vast majority of them in the home); and among other reasons the gun industry doesn’t want doctors making health insurers aware of that so they can charge gun owners higher insurance premiums.

      What a sales job the NRA is doing, convincing millions of Americans to buy something (a gun) that is far more hazardous to their own life and health and that of their family’s and friends, than it will ever become a true saving factor of their own life. Talk about a snow job!!!!

      • cp1969

        You make a lot of claims and back them up with no sources at all. Not the least of which are your “what are the odds statements.” Funny thing is you talk about gun control and owning a gun yet from your own post you mention nothing about the 30 million crimes all legal owners? What is a gun related crime exactly? Again, what is your source? I had a police officer tell me that if 2 people get into a fist fight on the front lawn and the owner has a gun in the house that was not even used that can be considered gun related just because he owns it. I guess you didn’t think about that during your copy and paste session.

        • Independent1

          Actually, my initials aren’t NRA – I don’t just make up numbers like Wayne Lapierre and his henchmen at the NRA apparently do hoodwink millions of Americans into buying guns based on bogus claims. By the way, have you written Wayne and his henchmen and asked where they come up with their totally nonsence statistics??? I doubt it. (By the way a gun crime is robbery, break-in, etc. to say a bank, a home, a convenience store, etc or a street mugging, where the victim reported that the robber, mugger, etc., brandished a gun.)

          I got the gun crime related stats from an article published by Mother Jones that was based on research by Josh Harkinson. You can find it on the Mother Jones website by searching for the article: Challenging the myth that guns stop crime. Josh produced his stats mostly using graphs and pie charts which would be tough to show in this comment thread, so I just translated the numbers he had in his graphs into words. And the stuff about insurance I did by checking out some insurance applications on different websites where I found that a lot of insurance companies today are asking applicants if they own guns because they’re recognizing that with around 100,000 gun shot related accidents each year, plus 30,000 or so gun related deaths, that owning a gun carries quite a bit of baggage with it – So I’m fairly sure that it’s not too long before owning a gun is going to add considerable expense to a lot of things people need in their lives – like insurance and maybe even renting an appartment, etc. etc.

          But here’s my graph translation from Josh Harkinson’s charts in its entirety:

          The gun lobby claims that people must carry guns to protect themselves from being killed by criminals; but facts show that most homicides occur between people who know each other and don’t occur in situations where someone is expecting to have to protect themself. So, for example, of the homicides that occurred in America during 2010, less than 3% were justifiable homicides for the cause of self- defense.

          The gun lobby also would like Americans to believe that guns are used about 2.5 million times a year for self-defense; but according to the Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey, the actual number is just a fraction of that; being again less than 3% of the gun lobby’s grossly inflated number (actually, a gun crime victim is able to use a gun to thwart a crime less than 75,000 times each year – nowhere near 2.5 million).

          Also, of about 30 million crime victims recorded for the years 2007-2011, less than 1% of the victims reported that they thwart a crime by using their own gun (few were victims were apparently able to find and use a gun for self-defense purposes): that means out of 30,000,000 crime victims, less than 300,000 were actually able to protect themselves with a gun; even though Americans own around 300 million guns.

          And finally, in any given year, far more Americans have their guns stolen, about 230,000, than are ever able to use their gun to defend themselves, less than 75,000 out of about 75 million crime victims. Pretty sad isn’t it for all the hype the NRA puts out; and especially considering all the mass killings America has suffered the past decade that were committed by killers who couldn’t have purchased the guns they used and therefore were only able to use a gun to kill a lot of people because they stole the gun from a relative.

    • Independent1

      Here’s an article that you might also find of interest that’s related to what I was saying about how many gun owners are just openning themselves up to having themselves or a family member or a friend seriously injured or killed just from the act of buying a gun:

      The United States has far more violent deaths than any other wealthy nation in part
      because there are so many residents who own guns and store them in unlocked
      places in their homes. The lax gun rules are a major contributor to the low
      life expectancy rate that Americans have compared to their global counterparts.

      A new report reveals that of the 17 wealthiest countries, American males have the
      lowest life expectancy of 75.6 years and their female counterparts are the second lowest in the rankings coming in at 80.7 years. The blame placed on guns comes just weeks after the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School and as politicians make calls for stricter gun controls.

      The United States has about six violent deaths per 100,000 residents and none of
      the 16 other countries included in the review came anywhere close to that ratio. Finland was closest to the U.S. ranking with slightly more than two violent deaths per 100,000 residents.

      ‘With lives and dollars at stake, the United States cannot afford to ignore this
      problem,’ said the report from the National Research Council and the Institute
      of Medicine. The researchers said there is little evidence that violent acts
      occur more frequently in the United States than elsewhere. It’s the lethality
      of those attacks that stands out.

      ‘One behavior that probably explains the excess lethality of violence and
      unintentional injuries in the United States is the widespread possession of
      firearms and the common practice of storing them (often unlocked) at home. The
      statistics are dramatic,’ the report said.

      • angelsinca

        “One behavior that probably explains the excess lethality of violence…is widespread possession of firearms”

        One behavior that “probably explains” the obsession over weapons is ignorance and fear promoted by the 4% that seem to believe guns are a paramount issue. Where was this deep concern before Obama appeared with his one-of-many agendas?

    • walker442

      ‘if all the people locked in there homes yesterday scared to
      death a terrorist would break in had guns they wouldnt have felt as
      defenceless’

      The most likely outcome in that scenario is that a few of them would have ended up being shot accidentally by police. Conversely, it’s inevitable some of these frightened people would have shot at police officers as they went door to door.

      • plc97477

        We probably would have had a lot more deaths because too many people shoot first and ask questions later.

      • Admiral Kerfluffle

        So you admit that the police are prone to accidentally shoot innocent people. Those 9 unarmed people on the streets of New York that the Keystone cops shot would agree. The “highly trained” police that somehow allowed a 19-year old kid to escape from them after they had him pinned down. All of their millions of dollars of gear was worthless. A citizen found him. This was a bungled effort from start to finish. They most exciting aspect of this whole sad affair was that these cops get to drag their million dollar gear out of storage and drive around in their combat vehicles, all in pursuit of a skinny teenager. The display of the militarization of our police forces should give pause to every citizen. They are armed no differently than our military forces. Who are they armed against? Who are they expecting to battle in our communities? You? Me? The boogyman? And the sheep line the streets to cheer on the Armored Personnel Carriers and Battle Gear? This isn’t your neighborhood cop anymore. These are soldiers. Battle ready soldiers. Your tax dollars at work.

  • JohnRNC

    Unlike firearms, the Bill of Rights does not specifically guarantee the right to eat safe food, drink clean water, breathe clear air, or drive a car. Therefore the government is [relatively] free to regulate activities that create unsafe conditions in these arenas without fighting major constitutional battles. It seems clear to me that a reinterpretation of the second amendment is in order. Such as – make a list of firearms that were available to citizens in the late 1700s and make sure that every american has one. Right to bear arms satisfied! Everything else should be licensed, tagged, & tracked – just like driving a car.

    The gunpowder issue is a great example of the way the NRA abuses its influence to block regulation of a substance that is not literally protected by the 2nd Amendment – since it is a component of ammunition and not an actual firearm. I see nothing in the 2nd Amendment that protects components of firearms or ammunition.

    • tdm3624

      Then perhaps we should make a list of all the materials people used to express their opinions, such as parchment paper and printing presses, and say Right to Freedom of Speech satisfied! The Freedoms we have are not bound to devices that were in use in the late 1700s. If we went along with that theory then police should only be able to use 18th century technology to get a warrant for a search.

      P.S. I’m not trying to be mean in this post.

      • JohnRNC

        I get your point. I was being sarcastic.

        My point is that we must stop hiding behind out-dated, literal interpretations of the 2nd amendment and develop a balanced system that protects the rights of the public to own weapons and provides [effective] measures for public safety.

        Many have described the Constitution as a “living” document with the capability of being adapted to circumstances that the authors could not have conceived. One of the most recent reinterpretations being the SCOTUS decision that the use of money to influence government policy is protected as free speech. While this ruling doesn’t prevent others from speaking, it certainly mutes their voices. It chips away at what little objectivity there is in government because monied interests will always take precedence over the interests (health & safety) of the general public – who, by comparison, are left with parchment and printing presses.

    • sean

      it doesnt say right to bear arms from the 1700′s it says the right to bear arms. Lets apply that rather shallow logic to all the other amendments as well.
      “Free speech is only free if it is written on parchment with a quill”

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lord-Byng/628747040 Lord Byng

        I don’t understand why you gun rights people exclude nuclear weapons. They are certainly a kind of “arms”. If the right to bear arms means anything, it means the right to own a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile, as well as a fully automatic AK-47, along with any smaller weapon. Because once you start drawing a line, it’s a slippery slope; if they take away my hydrogen bomb, how long before they come for my shotgun too?

        How am I going to defend my home and my rights if only the government has nuclear weapons?

        • sean

          I don’t understand you anti gun people with your flawed logic”. :)
          I’m sure you can think of a good reason why an individual can’t own a nuclear weapon that has the potential to kill hundreds of thousands people and poison the land for decades to come. Think about it for a bit and if you can’t, get back to me I’ll help you out

          there are multiple (legal) justifications for having a gun but none of them apply to having a nuclear missile.

  • floridagadfly

    If “the government turned on the people” it would be a slow, dark, cold and lonely death for most. There does not need to be a single shot fired if you can simply shut off electricity, water, food and communication. The argument about an armed takeover of the citizenry is simply designed to stoke fear, and weapon sales.

    • Sarvepalli

      “The argument about an armed takeover of the citizenry is simply designed to stoke fear, and weapon sales.”

      Agreed floridagadgly, not to mention the irony of the fact that the very anti-any-gun-reform positions of the NRA (and their complicit followers) have resulted in the very thing they claim to fear…the deaths of millions. Only not at the hands of the feared government which, again ironically, the gun nuts expect to safeguard their gun rights. The only solution at this late date is to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

  • tdm3624

    I am pro-gun and I wouldn’t oppose taggants in gunpowder, as long as good studies were done to make sure that it was safe. And as long as it didn’t drive up the cost of the powder too much.

  • http://twitter.com/EMS58227602 EMS

    90% of Americans want common sense gun control….but not enough of the 90% DEMAND IT. Where were the loud demonstrators when the Senate sandbagged us? Why wasn’t the NRA offices blocked by protesters?

    Bottom line…..DEMAND Fillibuster Reform.
    DEMAND a Constitutional Amendment overturning Citizen’s United
    DEMAND both of them be done at the same time, and immediately.
    Until those demands are met to the satisfaction of the voters, NOTHING will change.
    Doing that will be the first significant and most important step. INSIST ON IT. WE MUST.

    • http://www.facebook.com/silence.dogood.9212 Silence Dogood

      Real data indicates that only 4% of Americans are concerned about the gun issue. Pay attention.

      • angelsinca

        ALL of them are here and misquoting the 90% poll stat.

    • http://www.facebook.com/silence.dogood.9212 Silence Dogood

      Well your at it get ride of money from the putrid unions as well.

      • Mimihaha

        I hope you work 6 days a week, since it’s the unions that made that idea obsolete.

        • http://twitter.com/normdprune Ernest Mann

          Important point here – “made”. That is history. Today the unions are political hacks whose only interest in workers is as a source of dues.

    • gwen

      that 90% is from a poll of 1700 people. Lets not vote and take polls and follow them. The same poll of people were 40% against stricter gun laws.

      Surveillance video is enough to find suspects along with paper trails, internet, phone records – the feds are already into everything with the Patriot act and DHS data centers. But guess what! It didn’t prevent anything. Didn’t the bombers see the “BOMB-FREE ZONE”, sign? Did they register that bomb?? As soon as they get your common sense control and start taking arms from people on meds (see NY), or a history of depression, anxiety, ADHD, autism, delusional religious people, that will eliminate 90% of guns. And you will think you’re safe, right, because it made common sense? YOU cried TAKE AWAY MY LIBERTY so I can be PROTECTED! You DEMANDED for the govt to watch you and control your every move to KEEP YOU SAFE. And when they point their SWAT rifles in your face you will say YES SIR! I can do nothing for myself! I need you to tell me what to do!

      wake up from the fantasy of a better life with more govt control. trust you neighbor not the govt.

      • Abraham1771

        I am more afraid of my gun nut neighbor then of the Government employee / agent / soldier who lives up the road. Or of the black UN helicopters!

        • http://twitter.com/normdprune Ernest Mann

          Why? Has your neighbor threatened you? File a police report.

    • leadvillexp

      90% want it? Common sense gun legislation? That is not what was proposed. It involved banning and was full of loopholes. It was feel good legislation done on emotions. Good legislation takes time and is well thought out. If you want background checks why do it only at a puchase? What about years later? How about licensing all firearms owners and users? It could be done like Hazmat is now on CDLs and put on the drivers license with a five year background check. It would not hurt the Second Amendment as there would be no registration. The license could also be used for ammunition purchases. We have the right to have the same weapons the military has. Who do you think supports the NRA? it is people like myself and my son. When you ask why just look to New York State and Governor Cuomo who rammed the SafeAct down our throat using a “Mesage of Necessity”. He didn’t even give the legislators time to read the bill.

      • Abraham1771

        Common sense and the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment requires that only members of the militia (National Guard now) have a “right” to bear arms. Just like in Switzerland, a democracy since 1271.

        For everybody else it is a “privilege”, which needs to be earned like a driver license, and the privileged’s name need to be entered into a National Honor Roll, a weapons registry.

        And by the way, in proper 1776 English only soldiers were “bearing” arms, which expression came from schlepping a 50 pound halberd. Everybody else was carrying a musket or a pistol. But then again while the framers of the Constitution were trained in proper English, many in London, the NRA is barely able to run their spellcheckers,evidenced by the frequent use of “there” instead of “their”. Their spellchecker ain’t helping you there, blood splattered NRA buddy!

        • http://www.facebook.com/bridgesjsjr J.s. Bridges

          Hey, Abie – per no less authority than the Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution, you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!! There IS – and always has been – an INDIVIDUAL right to self-defense (as well as defense of others) that is, in the U.S., spelled out and guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

          Your “interpretation” of history and the plain meaning and intent of the U.S. Constitution is hilariously, moronically incorrect, as is your incompetent characterization of the NRA and its members.

          Here’s a clue: The establishment of a nation-wide registry of guns – much less one including a listing of all gun-owners – is ALWAYS followed, soon after, by confiscation of those registered guns – with the populace, soon after THAT, subjected to whatever “rule of law” those who own and operate the Central Government decide is a “good idea”. NOT HAPPENIN’ HERE, Abie!!

        • leadvillexp

          You are wrong. Weapons change over the years rights don’t, unless they are given or taken away. As to the National Guard being a Militia, that was pretty much over in1903. The Federal Militia Act of 1903 took away the right of the Governor to have State armies. In the 2007 National Defense autherization Act it took away sole control by the Governor and put the President of the United States in charge, pretty much incorporating the Militia into the US Military.
          The Second Amendment has its roots in the English Bill of Rights back in 1688. I would recommend reading “The Heritage of our Right to Bear Arms” from The St. Louis University Public Law Review, Gun Control Symposium. It is by Congressman Cliff Sterns and is a short read. It gives a very good history of the Second Amendment and can be found on the net. You will see that the Second Amendment encompasses a lot more than just a militia.

    • Colin Campbell

      Actually the survey did not say what you think it did. All it did was determine that the US population approves of background checks for firearms purchases – something that we already do.

      When the questions were asked about how many people approved of _increased_ restrictions on firearms ownership a significant majority were opposed.

      Something you really need to do is learn to look things up for yourself. If you had you would have been aware that the claim you used is bogus.

  • candor

    Terror supports the profit margin. Terror supports the politicians receiving money from corporate people who support terror, like those making profit from war. Terror allows them to tighten their grip on the money stream they worship. Terror allows them to distract us from the collusion in crimes corporate boards and politicians engage in every day. Terror allows them to keep us in our place.

  • http://www.facebook.com/barbara.m.oreilly Barbara O’Reilly

    on the other hand, if gunpowder were traceable, then they would have used STOLEN powder, thereby wasting the police’s time by sending them searching after the wrong person. thereby impeding the investigation.

    argument fail.

    • Independent1

      Stolen it from where? A store? I doubt seriously many or any individuals would buy and store enough gunpowder to make several bombs. If enough gunpowder were stolen from a store to make several bombs, don’t you think law enforcement would have suspected somebody was trying to make a bomb long before they were ever used? There would have been a search for these two nutjobs long before the bombing took place. Argument still valid!!!

      • David Chamberlain

        You have to much faith in the government, they react and are not proactive.

  • irishtap

    Think about it people: The NRA was able to block even the most modest (common sense) legislation 90% (NINETYpercent) of the public favors. The NRA did this by use of threatening action against lawmakers voting in favor of passage of a bill designed to promote the safety and well being of the American public. This is not only a moral outrage, it exemplifies a profound lack of respect for the lives of American citizens, regardless of political leaning. This organization, by feverishly acting to deny a basic background check for someone purchasing a device designed to take life is – in and of itself a purveyor of terrorism. NRA attacks anyone, with misinformation (outright lies) it see’s as someone even willing to dialogue about advancing firearm regulation. If NRA, by virtue of it’s intractable nature and ties to firearms industry, is unable to fashion ‘real and favorable’ argument and debate, on the merits of empirical data not propaganda, it should be considered an domestic enemy – otherwise aiding and abetting injurious (and or deadly) crimes committed against the American people.

    From 1968 to now the number of death by gun in this country far surpasses all American soldiers who perished while serving in all wars.

    We MUST NOT DIGRESS, from this struggle people, the NRA has proved it’s ability for egregious and diabolical action. It’s high time these Godless sociopaths are taught the lesson of what the allies of ‘integrity and moral imperative’ can do. We need to make this ‘terrorist organization’ feel the full force of our rightful rage and indignation to their reprehensible insult to the American people.

    • angelsinca

      You folks should stop misquoting the “90% supports…” BS. Take ‘the struggle’ to something that matters, like education. Its need is obviously imperative.

      • irishtap

        I agree education is very important but, don’t you think we need to dialogue about how to keep us a little safer from firearms? Would this conversation be “B.S.”, as you put it, if your best friend or your child or parent was the victim of a gun crime – that possibly could have been prevented? You site the need for better education angelsinca well: we can ‘learn’ more about this subject and perhaps implement change to make us a little safer, via connecting openly and honestly, rather than succumb to what is an ‘unacceptable’ man made problem.

        • angelsinca

          Education about ourselves, our world, and the entire truth about weapons will keep us all safer.

          • irishtap

            I don’t disagree with you, I simply think this gun topic goes hand in hand with the epidemic of deadly violence in our country and requires our immediate and intensive focus, to mitigate it. I’m interested to learn what you mean by ‘truth about all weapons’. Have a nice day angelsinca.

          • angelsinca

            “I’m interested to learn what you mean by ‘truth about all weapons’.”

            Acknowledgement that weapons saves lives is a good start. The unfortunate thing about politicizing any event is that only half the truth is recognized and used to prop up the agenda.

            ” this gun topic goes hand in hand with the epidemic of deadly violence in our country”

            Agree, but attacking the NRA and gun owners with more ineffectual laws is like flattening the tires on the first responders at a deadly outbreak so the disease isn’t spread. This is why I mention education to combat using violence to solve issues. It should start with the parents, and reinforced in the schools and churches, then supported by society with intelligent solution, not political posturing. Getting back to basics, parenting classes and community involvement will be the ultimate deterrent.

          • irishtap

            Very good points, I couldn’t agree more.

    • plc97477

      We need to do that by making sure we do not vote for people the nra backs.

      • irishtap

        You couldn’t be more correct, plc97477.

  • http://twitter.com/Billyorbit Billy The Kid

    What a load of crap.

  • Mark McKennon

    I just posted this elsewhere. It works here too.

    Keep the water running! There will be blood–to wash off the hands of 46 back turners. From here on out, until universal background checks become law in all 50, the gun deaths caused by those who obtain guns illegally — transactions this law was designed to reduce–will belong to those 46 Senators (including 4 Democrats kowtowing to the NRA) who voted NO.

    Senator comes from a Latin word meaning “elder men” or, by extension, “wise men.” Wise? That describes a fookin’ brand of potato chip, not these people. There was no impending compromise of 2nd Amendment rights, no gun registry, no list of guns for the Feds to seize–those were BLATANT LIES THE NRA TOLD TO GETS ITS WAY AND KEEP GUN MAKERS IN PROFITS. AND THESE 46 BELIEVED THEM!

    I will encourage Pres. Obama, VP Biden, and others who expended great effort in getting this legislation passed to tally all subsequent murders by guns that were illegally obtained and/or by means that may well have been thwarted by this legislation. Among the corpses will be more children and innocent citizens and bystanders. So that Wayne LaPierre still has a job and the conservative right can continue
    to thwart the President at every turn! Thank you, Senators!

    Millions of people still believe in the USA. But with political ignorance and cowardice like this on full display, it grows harder and harder.

    On average, 87 gun murders a day! More gun deaths in the
    last 45 years than in 230 YEARS OF AMERICAN WARS! 46 Senators and all NRA gun fanatics, including you, LaPierre, all you manly men obsessed with shooting things from your hard tubes but oblivious to the carnage: Millions of us almost
    look forward to the day when some nutjob who was able to buy a gun because of the lack of reasonable gun laws puts a round in the ass of someone in your family. Perhaps that’s the best way to get sensible gun laws in this United States of Annihilation.

    • cp1969

      The Democrats had the majority in Congress from 2007-2010 and the last year was a super majority in both houses of Congress and control of the White House. They passed a 800 billion stimulus and a Heath care bill without a single Republican vote. If they really wanted to pass gun control they could have done it but they didn’t. Why do you think that is? You going to blame the NRA for that also? People like you it’s blame the NRA it is all about scapegoating and demonization. There was a guy in Germany that was real good at that also. Quote from user Irishtap ” the NRA has proved it’s ability for egregious and diabolical action. It’s high time these Godless sociopaths are taught the lesson” People like this are the real reason legislation failed.

      • plc97477

        Apparently in this day and age a majority does not cut the mustard we need a super majority. Have needed it since Obama was elected.

    • Sarvepalli

      Your post, Mark, only confirms my conclusion that the only viable solution at this late date is to repeal the 2nd Amendment. The NRA minority are not going to compromise on even the weakest proposals for gun safety and the recent Senate vote proves it. It’s time to consider the repeal of the 2nd.

  • leadvillexp

    Mr Johnston doesn’t know what he is talking about. He is just anti NRA.The reason the NRA is against taggants is that they change the properties of loading bullets. The amount of gun powder in a shell is measured when you add taggants that amount changes. As for foods and bar codes I have yet to see any on my food, only the package. What happens when you add poison, remove the food and get rid of the package. As for plastic explosive they don’t need taggants as the government knows where most of it is made and it can be identified by its chemical makeup. Another thing is his statement that a band of armed patriots could not take on the government is also wrong. Any one that remembers Viet Nam and the Viet Cong will know what a bunch of ill equipped people can do. They won against the most powerful nation in the world. The Taliban won against the Russians in Afganistan. The people of Iraq were not willing to fight for their government. The only thing he said that makes sense is that most people don’t know how many bombs are made every day from household materials. Remember almost every farm uses fertilizer and that can be stolen.

    • davidcayjohnston

      @ leadville,
      Read the quote I included from the linked-to OTA report, so old it was prepared with a typewriter. Science has advanced a great deal since government prepared reports with typewriters.

      • leadvillexp

        I have no problem with taggants if they do the research and prove it won’t change the charge. If that is the case the military should also have these in their powder.Sorry, I didn’t see the second half of your article until you asked me about it. I still disagree with the rest of your article. The point is the citizens should have firearms equal to the governments. Remember the government works for us not the other way around. I am not against reasonable legislation. I have suggested to many legislators licensing all firearms owners and users like Hazmat is on CDLs. It can be done on a drivers license with a five year back ground check. This would also work with ammunition. It would not be a problem with the Second Amendment as it would not be registration. I am not pro anybody. I am a Republican and a Life member of the NRA. I voted for President Obama in the last two elections and believe in most of what he stands for except gun control. I have also had my disagreements with the NRA. You have to compromise and fix things from within. Never give up rights to be safe or soon you may loose all.

  • formerrepublican

    Was “gunpowder” actually used in those bombs? Last I heard it was supposed to be a high explosive. Supposedly the police found “homemade” explosives; a high explosive is actually easier (and safer) to make than good gunpowder.

    Cans of black powder are sold off the shelf; I didn’t find any restrictions on it in MA, and I don’t think any records are kept. Even if it could be traced to a specific store it would tell very little, especially if the buyer used cash and waited a few months to use it. You guys don’t really believe in CSI, do you?

    Something doesn’t add up:
    1. Americans are “overwhelmingly” in favor of more gun control;
    2. Senators afraid of losing their next election if they support it.
    #2 has _some_ credibility, suggesting that #1 is (surprise, surprise) just another lie.

    • plc97477

      They are not afraid of losing the next election they are afraid of losing nra funding for their next election.

      • old_blu

        Exactly!!!

    • EdZachary

      I guess the answers to #1 and #2 depend upon how you ask the questions. I personally think that Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of gun control that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane, but doesn’t restrict legitimate, law abiding citizens from owning guns. Unfortunately, too many people extrapolate from the first premise to laws that violate the second…impacting law abiding gun owners.

      • http://twitter.com/InspireDebate Inspire

        Well said.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1096238065 Adam Kane

      I simply won’t vote for anyone who was against background checks. I will single-issue vote in 2014. I really think it’s that important. I can protect myself with my gun, sure. But what about when I have teenage children? Is completely unregulated freedom worth them getting gunned down senselessly? Sorry, I’m all for regulation. I simply don’t love guns more than innocent people.

      • http://www.facebook.com/avery.coor.1 Avery Coor

        Single issue vote! Really? So it doesn’t matter if they are for complete domination and one world order, or no one can vacation unless they say so? You’re a damn idiot to “single issue” vote! Back ground checks are done for a majority of sales and criminals do not obey the law anyway! If you are for regulation, you might as well turn your gun in now! Do you seriously believe the new gun control law is aimed at criminals? When did you notice a criminal EVER obeying a law? I pray you never have a teenage child with your logic, or should I say “lack of”!

        • The Daily Snail

          Criminals often buy guns just as easily as law abiding citizens do in your country, if not easier because of the gun shows, which for some stupid reason DON’T require background controls. I don’t know if you noticed, but Adam Lanza took the guns he used from his mother- who I severely hope was not a criminal- after she bought… them… legally. You have no right to call the person you replied to an idiot, when you have not taken in all the facts either. I’m not calling you an idiot, I’m just pointing out you’ve missed a few facts.

          • http://www.facebook.com/jimmy.allen.7792052 Jimmy Allen

            The dealers at gun shows are licensed by the Central (Federal) Government and are REQUIRED BY LAW to perform a NICS check on EVERYONE who purchases a firearm from them.

            You reference “your country” as if you are not a citizen of the United States of America, which, if true, makes your uninformed, false comment irrelevent.

            ” You have no right to call the person you replied to an idiot, when you have not taken in all the facts either.” Note that your ‘fact’ is wrong.
            I suggest that if you are not a citizen of MY Country that you concern yourself with YOUR Country and keep your nose out of OUR business. The FIRST thing I learned when I relocated to the South over 40 years ago is “WE DON’T CARE HOW YOU DID IT UP NORTH”

          • Sampson Greenovich

            The Adam Lanza case was never closed and Sandy Hook was a False flag nothing even happened there making that a terrible example.

        • CEMQ

          Avery Coor

          It is you who is an idiot. “Criminals don’t obey the laws”. Really? Why don’t we then abolish ALL laws?

          There is a saying “Better keep your mouth shut and let people wonder than to open your mouth and show your ignorance”.

      • The Daily Snail

        It’s a horribly sadistic choice. Do you, as the American public, vote the Dems who voted against gun control out of the house, or do you keep them in to stop Mitch McConnell becoming majority leader for the Senate, which basically means any further gun control movements are f***ed either way?

  • http://twitter.com/ReeceEddie Eddie Reece

    Good lord! You people really are clueless!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Hector-Von-Duffy/100000146718236 Hector Von Duffy

    OMG this is the best. You guys are nearly as waked as the Tea Party conspiracy folks!!! I love it!

  • John Homan

    It seems to me that if a matter comes up for discussion or a vote, anyone who has gained a benefit (financial or otherwise) should be excluded from the process because of conflict of interest, potential or real.

    John Homan,
    Queensland,Australia

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1124226307 John Ecash

      So during every way, the people should not vote and should be excluded from the process because of conflict of interest?

  • angelsinca

    That the gun makers have managed to turn each massacre into a spike in sales of both expensive rapid-fire weapons and ammunition adds to the evidence that the NRA should be viewed as the mass-murder lobby.

    No, it should not. The writer of this statement, David Cay Johnston, should considered extreme and detached from reality. The spike in sales can be attributed to liberal-induced weapon control policy, and the unintended fear of weapon removal invoked by the president.

    • David Chamberlain

      Who is the criminal here? The NRA, did they set off a bomb? Then hang them…but no they did not.

      • plc97477

        They did not set of the bomb but they did slow down our ability to catch those who did. If we could have caught them sooner we could possibly have saved the life of the campus policeman and kept them from harming and scaring others.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1124226307 John Ecash

          Just think, if we had no privacy at all, if big brother watched us every moment, we could have caught them sooner and we could possibly have saved the life of the campus policeman and kept them from harming and scaring others. PLC97477 I vote that you should be the first to live the life where big brother watches you all the time.

        • David Chamberlain

          The National Mining Assn opposes taggents also and so has the FBI over the years.

  • David Chamberlain

    The NRA did not set off a bomb, terrorists did. The government does not need to know everything I do, Thank you NRA for defending my rights. I also thank the ACLU. BTW the bombers got caught, the focus should be on…how did they get the items? The police officer would still have been in danger because they still would have needed to track down the terrorists and there were dangerous…the NRA once again is not the one who shot the police officer. You are way off topic with this post. Immigration reform might be a good start also, why were they allowed in the country?

  • NYY80401

    Liberal troll food; short on fact and long on hype.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Cygnus.Antipode Chuck Dirkson Powersteel

    The gun-control nuts are just as clueless as the Republicans that lost the last election. They believed their own hype. The whole Join-The-Bandwagon technique doesn’t really work. It sounds good to the “True Believers”, but in reality, not so much. Most people like their rights and are not eager to give them up an inch at a time.

    • Sarvepalli

      Most American do not own guns. The wishes of most Americans were obstructed by a gun nut minority who thwarted democracy in the recent Senate vote. The facts dispute your opinion, Chuck.

      • http://www.facebook.com/Cygnus.Antipode Chuck Dirkson Powersteel

        Yeah, I’ve heard it all before. Republicans try to chip away at abortion rights an inch at a time and Democrats try to chip away at gun rights an inch at a time. When you elect them both into power everybody loses. They pass more laws, revoke more freedoms, and apply greater and greater controls. You can pick your poison or you can chose NOT to accept more restrictions on liberty. The anti-abortion crazies shove dead fetuses in your face to guilt you the same way the anti-gun crazies shove crime victims in your face. Neither has moral authority because both are hypocrites. It’s old and boring.

        • Sarvepalli

          Aah, the time worn tactic of trying to change the issue when all else fails. The issue at hand, is the 2nd Amendment, Chuck. Try to stay on point if you can. I’m not going to take the bait.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Cygnus.Antipode Chuck Dirkson Powersteel

            Rights are rights. They come for mine today and when emboldened by apathy they come for yours tomorrow. It’s pretty easy to understand.

          • Sarvepalli

            Simplistic slogans are easy to understand for some but understanding how to address the rate of ongoing mass murder will require much more than that.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Cygnus.Antipode Chuck Dirkson Powersteel

            Guns have been around since the beginning of America. In a way it is a nation born of firearms owners. The violence epidemic is new. Might as well blame the space shuttle or American Idol.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Hix/100001804129861 John Hix

        One does not have to personally own a gun to believe in the 2nd amendment just as one does not have to vote although the freedom to vote is a principle of our democracy. Support the constitution and believe in it. Just because people pull the parts out of their religion that they want to live by, you can’t do that with our constitution.

        • Sarvepalli

          The Constitution is not a holy, sacred document. Nor is it called the “Second Commandment of our Constitution…under Glock, with licenses and ammo for all.” Even the Founders supported shockingly severe gun control laws.

          The Constitution is flawed just like anything touched by humans and the Founders themselves were the first to say so. Delegate Nathaniel Gorham of Mass. told Madison that “Don’t worry, James. This government you just designed? It’s doomed.”

          There is nothing wrong with suggesting that the parts of the document that have become irrelevant for our time, be repealed or revised. The 2nd is the perfect example of why the entire Constitution is due for a much needed tune-up. And the Founders put provisions in the Constitution to do just that.

          Personally I would repeal the 2nd but it’s very likely that most would rather revise it given that, among other things, it’s poorly written and thus ambiguous, causing of much of our modern day controversy surrounding the issue.

  • http://twitter.com/_harddisk_ Marco Schuster

    The Dem/Rep battling aside, “tagging” the gunpowder would not have helped the people dead or injured by the blasts, as well as the policeman. It needs time to track down the batches used to make the bombs, then to track the places where ammunition of this batch got sold, eventually resold by private people, and then to hope the CCTV records are still present.

    Oh, and if you’re a criminal and want to avoid being tracked, just wait half a year after buying. In this time frame, the CCTV records of you buying the stuff will be gone for good.

  • kgelner

    Why should you make gunpowder more expensive for a whole nation just to catch criminals once every few decades?

    Using your argument we would well say that your reluctance to place publicly monitored CCTV cameras outside your house is preventing criminals from being caught. Or in fact perhaps we should have to check in with the police when we move more than two blocks in any direction? That sure would make things easier for police.

    • davidcayjohnston

      Interesting point on costs. Please read my earlier National Memo column on why the NRA’s School Shield program would cost at least $36 billion — and by the NRA’s own arguments would not work.

      • kgelner

        I didn’t say School Shield was a good idea. A far better plan is to let teachers be armed if they wanted, and subsidize proper pistol training. An armed teacher in each classroom at Sandy Hook would have prevented MANY little kids from being killed; rather than waiting in a locked room and hoping an armed intruder would not come in and kill everyone, the teacher could have covered the door and defended the room.

        Such a program would cost almost nothing, and increase the security of our schools greatly.

        • davidcayjohnston

          If you think arming teachers is a good idea you may want to read the rich literature on actual combat shootings or just notice that in the Boston bombing shootout how many shots did not hit their targets.

          “Shots Fired” is an excellent study by the late James Fyfe, who was with the NYPD. There is plenty of scientific literature on how police, who are trained, when confronted with suspects who shoot back miss even at extremely close range, shoot each other, shoot innocent people, not for any foul reason but because of the adrenalin and fear in such situations — and you think grade schoiol teachers are going to be effective against an intruder who has plotted? Fantasyland. And I say this as someone who got a near perfect score in the LAPD’s combat simulation training, for which I had no preparation and did it cold.

          • kgelner

            If you don’t think it’s a good idea you should try reading what I said. Having a firefight with someone in another car is quite different than sitting behind a desk covering a door which is the only way into a room. It wouldn’t even take a hit, who is going to go through a door with someone firing at you?

            That’s the key factor all the anti-gun people ignore, that being fired back upon GREATLY changes the power dynamic and psychology of the attacker. No longer are they all powerful as they surmised. It’s not mistake that gun-based attacks happen where the attacker knows no-one will be armed.

  • Dalek_1963

    The NRA? Is this a joke? Who let in these unwanted, non-white, muslim aliens in the first place, the NRA? Who conspired to try and hide the identification of the wanted men, the MSM or the NRA?

    • nicholasi

      Charlton Heston, former head of the NRA, once said, “If you want to take my pressure-cooker, you’ll have to pry it from my cold dead hands!”

  • ar-15_4_all

    I would rather be one of your so called right wing gun nuts than be defenseless in the hands of a liberal criminal. You call me crazy but you are willing to give up our nations amendment’s. If you think they will just stop with the 2nd you truly are the crazy one.

  • http://www.facebook.com/laurence.lance Laurence Lance

    This claim is nothing more than another load of nonsense. The FBI Crime lab
    has more then enough instrumentation to track explosives. Spectroscopic
    analysis, and comparison with known sample will yield the identity of any
    explosive. The NRA has nothing to do with this.

    Criminals do not buy guns at gun stores nor at gun shows.

    As to background checks; All retail sales of all firearms, all interstate
    transfers, all Internet sales, and any retail sale at any gun show or other
    public venue is subject to Federal Law, form #4473 and background
    checks.

    The “Universal Background” checks are gun registration which is never been show to be useful in crime prevention but is an important step to gun confiscation as has happened in Germany, England, Australia and Canada. For nayone interested in the racist roots of gun control look up “No Guns For Jews” and “No Guns For Negros”. It may open some eyes to learn the turth.

    • dtgraham

      Certain kinds of high capacity magazines and semi automatic weapons are banned in Canada, but what other confiscation has taken place in Canada? You can still buy a gun there despite background checks and gun registries.

      • Malaka68

        And? So you try to debase Laurence’s post because people can still buy guns in Canada as long as they submit to a registry? Do you routinely take to such childish debate when someone holds an ideal opposed to your own? You know that Canada has acknowledged the complete and utter failure of their long gun registry right? How that 97% of all use of the registry is solely by law enforcement to see if the person whose door they are going to go knock on owns a gun or not right? Yeah that’s just what I want… A trigger-happy cop on edge as they come to tell me that I parked too far away from the curb. Or how about how the registry was projected to cost no more than 2 million dollars per year, but by the end its cost overruns were costing over 64 million per year. How about this little tidbit… in the first 20 years of the long gun registry in Canada it helped solve a whopping NINE crimes. Gun registries are nothing but a government’s way to control its people.

        • dtgraham

          “The racist roots of gun control”, and ‘reasonable gun control always leads to total confiscation’, and I’m the childish one? Holy Christ man.

          Look you idiot, I was just pointing out that people still seemed to have the freedom to purchase a gun in Canada despite the “gun confiscation” there…funny thing that. Follow me now?

          Yes, there were cost over runs with the registry and some questioned it’s usefulness (conservative groups mostly) but it had support in both the general public and by police groups across the country who claimed that they referenced it daily as a useful tool. When answering a domestic disturbance, it’s helpful to know that 5 or 6 guns have been registered to this family and residence as opposed to none. That was an example that was often cited. It also led to people storing their guns in a safer manner because John Smith doesn’t want to hear that his registered stolen gun was used in a crime last night. Lastly, you’re less likely to use your own registered gun in a crime, and that was the only way to obtain one legally. It helped the police one hell of a lot more than nine times although never with parking “too far away from the curb”. You just get a ticket on your windshield for that.

          The gun registry had it’s sceptics but it was hardly considered a complete and utter failure. The present Conservative gov’t there cancelled it as soon as they got a parliamentary majority but all of the opposition parties pledge to restore something similar; and all of the polls have the Conservatives being swept out of office in 2015.

          Even with the gun registry, no law abiding citizen was stopped from purchasing different types of guns. That’s the point. Registries are just one of many tools to hopefully produce a safer society. It has NOTHING to do with “controlling people”. Argue against it on the basis of cost and effectiveness if you must, but I’m not interested in your far right paranoid fantasies and blatant falsehoods. I’ve checked out many of the stats and numbers produced in these pro gun rants, here at the Memo, and found them all to be pure B.S. so far.

          Despite the length of this post, getting into it with gun nuts is the last thing I thought I’d be doing because there’s no rational discussion to be had there. I’ve read too much of this paranoid gun shit and I’m not interested in it. I’m sorry I responded to Laurence’s post in the first place.

  • Henry Linneweh

    This drivel, is what it is. NRA did not impair a bombing investigation
    NRA deals with rifles and pistols NOT bomb’s and there is more
    to this than meets the eye….

  • Colin Campbell

    Why is it that every liberal idea on gun control involves something that won’t work? (such as taggants).

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1546535227 Carl Geers

    If you people think that universal background checks are going to stop crime you are lost. Since when have criminals ever followed the rule of law? It’s just crazy to think that by stripping away rights we are somehow going to be safer. I believe in the right to bear arms, I believe in the freedoms assured by our fore fathers and I believe they would be spinning in their graves at what some of you are willing to give up for an absolutely dismal chance at increasing the public’s safety from the criminally minded.

    Let’s work toward helping people with mental illness. Let’s tackle the endless greed that takes from the poor and the middle class. Let’s decide to create a healthier America that treats it’s citizens with kindness and respect from childhood. There is no simple fix for where we are but I do guarantee that making it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain firearms will have no bearing on violent crime. There are too many methods available to those that want to create terror to even bring them up.

    For the record, I don’t own any firearms and I’m not a republican.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Richard-Tebaldi/1327043585 Richard Tebaldi

    More bullshit from a life long left wing liberal! Remember the Holocaust! Would guns be favorable for the people then? The people cannot be protected as well as the can protect themselves.

  • http://twitter.com/BlueRick BlueRick

    We are all pawns of the gun lobby, the NRA, and the republican legislators that vote as a bloc. VOTE THEM OUT! Pass legislation controlling guns and associated material. BAN the NRA and gun manufacturers from any contact with legislators…

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1124226307 John Ecash

      So you are a pawn of the gun lobby and the NRA?

  • http://www.facebook.com/jjwitter James Witter

    The bad guys will still get the guns and weapons no matter what laws are put in place. There is such a place as the black market. duh

  • http://www.facebook.com/jjwitter James Witter

    I think every law abiding citizen should have a gun. or should i say guns

  • http://twitter.com/Druannawow Druanna

    It’s amazing. I thought that just the talking heads on MSNBC and CNN were frothing at the mouth to somehow blame this on the pro-gun crowd. Nope – there’s hundreds of people with the same desperate mindset on display right here!

    You people are pathetic, but never let it be said that you refused to scrape the bottom of the barrel when screeching your extremist, bigoted insanity.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1124226307 John Ecash

    David Cay Johnston is columnist for Reuters, specializing in economics and tax issues. What does the NRA have to do with economics and tax issues? David Cay Johnston, you are out of your element. A wise man speaks when he has something to say, a fool speaks because he can. David, we get it, your against guns and will spin the truth to fit your agenda. My advice, speak about topics you are educated on, and not topics your are text book ignorant of.

  • http://www.drbillykidd.com/ Dr. Billy Kidd

    That’s an interesting approach: the NRA is a mass-murder lobby. I had no idea that NRA lobbying stopped materials from being added to gunpowder production that would allow it to be traced back to its point of production.

  • http://www.facebook.com/richard.dickson.395669 Richard Dickson

    This is at least the tenth case I’m aware of where the FBI has failed to stop someone. I will cite examples of Anwar al-Awlaki, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, Carlos Bledsoe, USAF Col. Martin Beecham, Army Lt. Col. Robert Butts, Army Col. Mike Furlong, Robbie Hawkins, George Hennard, and David Coleman Headley. Bushbot Mueller should be fired.

  • Malaka68

    What a piece of hogwash. So these guys would have been able to be caught as soon as the bomb blew up because of taggant technology? Please get a grip. This isn’t CSI or 24… Specialized chemical analysis takes time and isn’t available on demand. Also, they had ILLEGALLY obtained firearms and ammunition, so what on earth makes you think that they legally obtained black powder??? Wow… The idiocy of the extreme left at its finest.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001413698586 Claire Walsh

    Why can’t we have a class action suit against the NRA and gun mfgrs for refusing the taggants which would identify the bomb explosives? Are they above and beyond the laws which protect consumers from harm caused by a defective or inferior or wbd? Any legal eagles reading these comments?

    • michels ranch

      I’d rather have access to the Benghazi survivors Ms. Walsh. Why blame the NRA when it’s clear the FBI was obviously having a muslim appreciation moment when they investigated Tamerlan . Then there’s the unsolved murder of Tamerlan’s best friend and two others, throats slashed, that happened on September 11, 2011. Sounds like muslim jihadists ordered Tamerlan to kill the only friend he’d known. I don’t really give a damn about the NRA refusing taggants. I do care about our government being sympathetic with radical islam.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1268868437 James Lindsey

      Because it would be stupid. If ID was required, it would just mean they would use something else. It would be a pointless waste of money to implement. Why don.t they ban or mark and track Pressure cookers instead? Afraid of the Home canning lobby ?

  • http://www.facebook.com/alister.macintyre Alister Macintyre

    America makes a lot about governed by the people for the people is there a sentor/congressman who is not a millionare its the rich governing the poor;but the poor dont take it forever

  • DoneBeingNice

    What abouit pressure cookers?…all you libtards should start proposing legislation to control those wicked devices?

  • EdZachary

    Taggants are a logistical nightmare that would result in a huge amount of money spent that would not solve the problem at hand. Literally billions of rounds of ammo are produced annually in dozens, maybe hundreds of factories around the world. I personally have ammo from the USA, Brazil, Russia, Serbia, Italy and somewhere in Southeast Asia. So, first, you would have to get all these factories re-tooled to do this, or cut off the ammo supply (which, of course, is really what the people pushing taggants want).

    Since ammo in the US civilian marketplace is typically sold in boxes of 20 – 50 rounds, to identify individual purchasers, you would have to have a different tag for each box of 20 – 50 rounds, and track each box all the way through the distribution chain from a factory in, say, Korea, through importers, wholesalers, retailers of all kinds to individual purchasers. To even get ammo tagged at the granularity of individual boxes of 20-50 rounds you would have to do major re-tooling of the ammo factories, plus the manufacturing and distribution of the bulk gunpowder. To be sure the process is working, you would have to audit it regularly, which would provide guaranteed employment for more government workers at taxpayer expense. Us computer folks like to think that problems like this are easily solved with computers and bar codes, but in reality it’s a difficult and expensive process, and only as good as the weakest link in the chain. In rural USA during hunting season, ammo is often sold in hardware stores, or even convenience stores, alongside the cheeze puffs and dog biscuits. All it takes is for Elmer in the quickie mart to scan the wrong barcode, or in the absence of a scanner, write the customer’s name down wrong or transpose a tag code, and the whole process goes in the dumper.

    It’s a huge, impractical boondoggle, and the worst part is that it wouldn’t accomplish the stated objective of reliably identifying the perpetrators of crimes. It would, however, spawn a huge black market in ammo that’s fallen off the grid, so to speak.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pete-Peters/1267613683 PeteH

    This is the equivalent of blaming Apple if the bomber’s used iPhone’s.
    Or Samsung, LG, or whatever cell phone they used.
    Blaming the NRA?
    The left has become even more unhinged.

    Utter idiotic article written for the utter idiotic left.

    BTW, anyone that knows anything about gunpowder knows by the color of the smoke gunpowder wasn’t used.
    But what do you expect from people that don’t know a magazine from a bullet, a semi-auto rifle from a machine gun and basically nothing about guns?
    I’m surprised these anti-gun hoplophobe “Assault Politicians” know which end of the gun the bullets come out of.

    I’ve never seen a more willfully ignorant group of people in my life and you wonder why these ridiculous gun-grabbing laws are DOA

    Yes, 90% of the public would be for universal registration if it prevented crime, but it will won’t.

    As Obama would argue; “Would you rather give criminals more power to commit crimes against law-abiding citizens, or would your rather see more kids die from gun violence?”

  • Independent1

    Where in the world did you get all those bogus numbers on gun violence?? And by the way, there are over 300 million guns in America. And in 2012, more than 31,000 people were killed by gun, second only now to those killed in auto accidents. And the total number of gun shootings was over 105,000. The numbers from the Law Center on Gun Violence below are for 2010:

    In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.1 73,505
    Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.

    Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.3 Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.4In the first seven years of the
    U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.

    Homicide Guns were used in 11,078 homicides in the U.S. in 2010, comprising almost 35% of all gun deaths, and over 68% of all homicides.6 On average, 33 gun homicides were committed each day for the years 2005-2010.7 Regions and states with higher rates of gun ownership have significantly higher rates of homicide than states with lower rates of gun ownership.8 Where guns are prevalent, there are
    significantly more homicides, particularly gun homicides.

    Suicide – Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths.10Over 50% of all suicides are committed with a firearm.11 On average, 49 gun suicides were
    committed each day for the years 2005-2010.12 White males, about
    40% of the U.S. population, accounted for over 80% of firearm suicides in 2010.
    A study of California handgun purchasers found that in the first year after the purchase of a handgun, suicide was the leading cause of death among the purchasers. (A lot more than your 3,000 annual suicides – where you did you ever get that number???)

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pete-Peters/1267613683 PeteH
      • Sarvepalli

        There’s a big difference between crime statistics and statistics that treat all death and injury from guns including accidents and suicides that the FBI doesn’t consider. When one considers all statistics and not just those resulting from crimes, the numbers increase exponentially.

        The recent shooting death of his young sister by a Kentucky 5 yr old is a case in point. It would not be considered a crime by the FBI. So far this year more Americans have been killed on American soil by toddlers than by terrorists but you won’t see that in any crime statistic.

    • Sarvepalli

      Independent, the main source of Pete’s statistics, by his own admission, is the Kleck Study which has been repeatedly debunked by reputable sources such as the DOJ, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), and others.

      For instance, Kleck’s claim, which is used above by Pete, that “Guns prevent up to 2.5 Million crimes per year.” is a wildly inflated figure that no one buys. Among other flaws in arriving at that figure, Kleck’s survey also included gun uses against animals and did not distinguish civilian uses from military or police uses. Moreover, Kleck’s Interviewers do not appear to have questioned a random individual at a given telephone number, but rather asked to speak to the male head of the household. Males from the South and West were oversampled. I could go on but that’s what gun fetishists want…to use such bogus studies to distract from the issue at hand.

      Pete’s use of such sources is indicative of the desperation now on view among many in the NRA camp including their last ditch calls at present for insurrection against the government. In essence they are making the case themselves for the repeal of the 2nd. Time is on our side.

  • http://www.facebook.com/KennyRayOxenrider Kenny Ray Oxenrider

    Just because the govt can trace us does not mean we should let them. Every inch you give them ends up being feet that they take.

  • Howdie Fanz

    …..NRA just loves to see Americans die from guns and violence. See, that way, the NRA can continue to SCARE THE HE L OUT OF THE MINDLESS gop drones……

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1268868437 James Lindsey

    This is the stupidest leap of logic I have ever seen. Let’s say they could ID when the powder was sold and to who: The bombers would just kill the police that came after them regardless if it was an MIT cop or the Swat team or any other agent. They would have had a rolling bomb shootout regardless of how they got found.

    Let;s say they bought their powder from a private dude who decided to sell it second hand. What happens to that guy when the swat team busts in on HIM, or if HE is wrongly accused and driven to suicide over all the negative attention?

    Here;s what would happen if they labeled gunpowder: the bombers would just use something else, like any number of explosives that can be made from scratch from kitchen ingredients. The measure would have no effect on stopping any type of crime, thats why people with common sense are against it.’

  • http://www.facebook.com/barry.lessinger Barry Lessinger

    For me , the article is the usual tripe that portrays the people you don’t agree with as having evil motives , a continual attack , that leaves no room for intelligent discussion. It is the liberals that have acquired a ” religious” dogma that leaves no room for discussion or comprimise. I support background checks but little else in the gun control hysteria, none of the proposals will reduce violence, its our mental health system that needs reforming. People are buying guns ( including me , for protection and before the libs try to eliminate the second amendment. I am a non aligned voter because both parties are controlled by extemists on the right and left,

  • l l c comet

    People are afraid to give up their guns to an over armed and insane government. Why does the FDA allow explosives in our food and drugs? Example; Sodium nitrates and nitrites are explosives to cure meats. What are these chemicals doing to our health? They cause cancer and heart problems. Their excuse is cured meats are a lesser evil than spoiled food. If we eat only fresh and uncured foods then the shelf life of many foods is shortened and the stores would have to toss out more that goes unsold due to high prices. Obama wants to mandate health care for employers. Less health care would be needed if we had more fresh whole foods at lower prices available. Keep sodium nitrates and potassium nitrates and ammonia out of our food chains it serves no healthful purpose except to keep food from spoiling and the lesser of two evils they say. Cooking uncured meats is also an option. Take charge of your own health. Take charge of your government and tell them to lay down there guns too pretty please.

  • rick slick

    This is the most trollish article I have read on the interweb. The author is clearly clueless.

  • rick slick

    You have to balance individual liberties and rights against 1984 tracking of everyone. The result of freedom is that crap happens, it is a price we pay, unless we are too cowardly to be free and have everything tracked at all times by a nameless authority who deems what is good for us.

  • mildly observant

    “the NRA fuels the fantasy that in the event the American government turned on the people, bands of armed patriots could defeat the military with its trained soldiers, aircraft, drones, advanced weaponry and communications.”

    Judging by Syria, Libya, Egypt, and a few other countries from the Arab spring, yes, it is possible and not a fantasy that armed patriots defeat the government. What this author fails to remember is that in these situations, the government as well as its soldiers and equipment are divided, with many in the hands of rebels/patriots. Despite this always occuring and happening right now, why do people think it is a fantasy?

  • Sarvepalli

    Pete, your argument that guns have a good safety record is little more than defending the indefensible and as such falls flat in the face of the reality that we read and see on a daily basis. Your desperate attempt to use the silly, timeworn NRA bumper sticker slogan that guns are equivalent to hammers speaks volumes. If true then why not buy a hammer instead of a gun?

    We can debate endlessly the statistics and sources from which they came. You use FBI statistics, which are weighted toward crime, I use the National Center for Health Statistics which compiles the numbers from all gun deaths/injuries including suicide/accidents and not just those resulting from crime. You minimize and discount guns being used for suicide, I maintain that that too is a part of the problem we have with guns.

    However, there is no dispute that the U.S. is unique among all other industrialized nations on two important facts. We have the highest rate of gun deaths and injuries and we have a 2nd Amendment.

    Other nations that allow gun ownership do so without having to have a 2nd Amendment. As a result, they are not hampered in their attempts to prevent mass murder occurring as isolated incidents or over time in the aggregate. Australia is but one example of a nation’s rational approach to gun ownership. And their gun death/accident rates are minimal as compared to ours.

    When the NRA and their ilk, beat the nation over the head with the 2nd everytime any rational regulation of guns is proposed, they do a disservice to both the nation and the laws under which it stands. At present the NRA is having their “bi-partisan” hoopla in Houston with a right wing panel of speakers that are straight out of CPAC. And nearly every speaker is proposing jihad against anyone trying to ban their guns even though no one, including me, has suggested such bans.

    Not only that, they are inching close to treason by suggesting and spreading the false meme that the 2nd was written to allow citizens the right to arm themselves against the government. 47% of Repubs now believe that armed insurrection will be necessary in the future due to this NRA propagnanda. If you want to accuse someone of lunacy, you might consider starting with Wayne LaPierre, NRA Leader For Life, for instigating, inciting, violent insurrection against the government. Unfortunately, the source of the rationalization for this vitriol is the 2nd.

    In short, the 2nd has become a sacred cow that no one, either from the left or right, is bold enough to question. After the Heller decision, the recent Senate vote in which a minority subverted democracy (please don’t come back with the right wing nonsense that we’re not a democracy but a republic, which only proves an ignorance of our system of gov.)…and most especially the Newtown massacre; it is painfully obvious that as long as the antiquated and irrelevant 2nd holds sway, we will not be able to adequately address gun safety.

    For me the debate is over. I’m a gun owner. I’ve owned guns since I was twelve. I used to be a firm supporter of the 2nd even after innocent members of my family were gunned down including my grandfather. But I’ve come to the conclusion that the 2nd is the problem not a solution. I intend to spend the rest of my life advocating its repeal.

    Such movements take time…generations in fact…just as in the ending of slavery, suffrage for women, civil rights for minorities, etc. In time, as the NRA and its enablers become crazier, as we suffer with more inevitable mass murders…more and more citizens will wake up to the fact that as long as the 2nd is a factor, nothing is going to change until it’s repealed. The majority of citizens will eventually come around especially given that the majority do not own guns.

    BTW the hundreds of thousands of gun deaths and injuries is a conservative figure whether you choose to believe it or not.

  • Kenny Ray Oxenrider

    Almost no facts or references backing up most of this hogwash.

  • James1754

    I wonder if the author(i use the term lightly) is aware that the explosive was from fireworks? Which are available to anyone and would have been impossible to track.
    Other than that, a rather bigoted piece.

  • Sampson Greenovich

    First innocent until proven guilty. This article is way too bias, neither of the Tsarnaev brothers have been found guilty of anything and the two Dvokar and Tamerlan were likely just patsies for the FBI.
    Second I agree with FR below, none of the gun control measures would have impacted this case as the brothers were found unarmed and attempting to surrender.

scroll to top