Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, October 21, 2016

The medical community has been no match for the National Rifle Association for decades. By the time Congress leaves town for the holidays, we’ll know if senators have shown an ounce of courage or if the NRA has bagged one more trophy. Either way, we won’t get the high-stakes discussion we need about guns.

At issue is the fate of Dr. Vivek Murthy, nominated over a year ago to be surgeon general but consigned to limbo due to his completely unremarkable view that gun violence is a public health problem. Murthy’s pre-nomination Twitter feed attests to his passion for the tighter gun laws that he, like most doctors, believes would cut down on deaths and injuries. But if Murthy lands the job, don’t expect him to talk about any of that. He told a Senate committee in February that he wouldn’t use the post as a bully pulpit for new gun laws.

So much for the surgeon general’s role as “the nation’s leading spokesman on matters of public health.” And so much for standing up to the NRA.

The group blasted out of the box charging that Murthy supported “radical gun control measures” and would use the office of surgeon general to advance “his pre-existing campaign against gun ownership.” Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist and 2016 presidential prospect, said Murthy would attack the constitutional right to own firearms “under the guise of a public health and safety campaign” and said he would try to block his confirmation.

The 2014 campaign, with its band of skittish red-state Senate Democrats vulnerable to NRA attacks, put Murthy’s future on hold. His pivotal moment — vote? no vote? failed vote? — has finally arrived, and it happens to coincide with the Dec. 14 anniversary of the murder of 26 children and educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The juxtaposition is illuminating.

One rap against Murthy is that, in Paul’s words, he would encourage doctors to “use their position of trust to ask patients, including minors, details about gun ownership in the home.” To which I say, if only. If only the health professionals who examined and treated Adam Lanza had asked him and his mother those questions and managed to get that home arsenal out of reach before he went on his Sandy Hook rampage two years ago.

Paul also said he was concerned that Murthy considers guns “a public health issue on par with heart disease and has diminished the role of mental health in gun violence.” But in a lengthy study of Adam Lanza’s “psychological deterioration” released last month, Connecticut’s Office of the Child Advocate said repeatedly that guns are the critical factor in mass shootings.

“The conclusion that access to guns drives shooting episodes far more than the presence of mental illness is inescapable. Those countries that have tight gun controls in general experience less overall gun violence and have fewer episodes per capita of mass shootings,” the authors wrote. They said mental illness “plays only a small role” in mass murder while guns, “especially assault weapons with high-capacity magazines,” play a “ubiquitous role.” Widespread access to such weapons and ammunition “is an urgent public health concern,” they wrote.

Medical professionals agree. The American Academy of Pediatrics website lists eight priorities in its federal advocacy section, and No. 1 is “Keeping children safe: Gun violence prevention.” Banning assault weapons is the top item on its state advocacy page. The American Medical Association favors an assault weapons ban and closing loopholes that allow gun buyers to avoid background checks.

Gun safety activists marked the second anniversary of Sandy Hook by releasing a study that found at least 95 school shootings in 33 states have occurred since that tragedy. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) called Congress “complicit in these murders if we continue to sit back and do nothing to reverse this trend.”

There was never a more complicit moment than in April 2013, four months after Sandy Hook, when the Senate tried to pass a bipartisan bill to require background checks online and at gun shows. Supporters needed 60 votes to break a filibuster, and only mustered 54.

Under Senate rules for nominations, Murthy needs only 51 votes. If he prevails, he told senators he’ll focus primarily on obesity, “the defining challenge of our time.” In other words, he’d be another Michelle Obama, who chose obesity as a worthy but relatively non-controversial First Lady cause. He wouldn’t be another C. Everett Koop, the Reagan-era surgeon general who crusaded against tobacco and mailed sexually explicit AIDS information to every household in America.

Restraint could get Murthy confirmed. To make real progress against gun violence, he’d need to channel Koop.

Follow Jill Lawrence on Twitter @JillDLawrence. To find out more about Jill Lawrence and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at

Photo: via Flickr

  • Terry Allen

    Just saw this on another site. Seems that NPR has just served up another steaming pile of…news, this time about a Pew Research Poll that ‘concludes’ that 52% of Americans are more concerned about maintaining gun rights than about controlling gun ownership (look for a copy of this finding on the cover of a right-wing wipe near you).

    Oh, wait, yes, here is the link:

    Now how do you suppose the question was put to these Americans?

    I’m glad you asked. But NPR didn’t tell me. Maybe they’ll tell you. Here’s another question they did report on, though. Hope it helps:

    “Do you think that gun ownership in this country does more to… ”

    A: Protect people from
    becoming victims of crime B: Put people’s safety at risk

    % %
    Total 57 38
    Men 63 32
    Women 51 43
    White 62 34
    Black 54 41

    Note the totals for blacks. Do you think maybe a lot of blacks are seriously considering applying for carry permits as the only way to force the police to treat them with any respect?

    • joe schmo

      NPR, you mean that undistinguished think tank owned by George Soros?….Who knew. Next time, maybe find a source more unilateral.

  • Ed Ingraham

    As Jefferson noted in his 1776 Constitution for Virginia: No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.

    • Eleanore Whitaker

      Article III. SEC. 2…you are not a militia. Get over it.

      • ANYONE that could fire a weapon IS militia. The second was designed to protect our country from people like YOU and the Emperor. Learn to comprehend what you read.

        • joe schmo

          Modern law according to Libtards……

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            Nothing modern about “Thou Shalt NOT kill,” pallie.

          • joe schmo

            Nothing wrong with ‘an eye for an eye’ either, hun.

          • EdBurke

            That commandment is more properly translated as “Thou shalt not murder”. God approved of killing in war, to establish and protect the communities of people.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            I agree. But those 11 children in Newtown…what war where had they declared? You unwittingly defined what war is…defense and offense ONLY.

            Men who walk around playing Rambo armed to the teeth only show how little brains they really have. Brains always supercede brawn in the end.

            War is declared when one or more parties have suffered an inhuman offense. A guy from GA smuggling guns into New York City is an offense that needs severe punishment from the core down to the smuggler…meaning that if gun manufacturers are so desperate for profit they are willing to look the other way at where and how their guns are sold, they are complicit in any murders that take place using their manufactured product. That’s how we do this in a civilized country. We don’t allow ricin on store shelves because its deadly. Is a gun less so?

            You own a gun ONLY because you need one to protect your livestock…It’s a proven fact that gun owners are not capable of keeping guns out of the hands of their kids…Nancy Lanza remind you of anything? A better punishment for all eternity would be for Nancy Lanza to have to hear gun fire over and over and over…hell IS repetition.

          • EdBurke

            I was not making any reference to war in Newtown, or any of the other similar shootings over the years. There is no parallel to war here – I was only making an historical and interpretive comment on the commandment. But my point about these killers being mentally ill, and not generally having legally owned guns, is absolutely valid. These people were/are not “gun nuts”. In fact, even here in the relatively well armed South I have never known anyone who could be characterized as a “gun nut”. Do Americans like our 2nd amaendment rights? – yes, and we will not give them up. On top of that, the armed people I have known all my life are among the most responsible and law abiding citizens. I really don’t think there is anything like a “gun nut” in the way you characterize such. There are crazy people who occasionally obtain guns (generally not legally), whose motivations we do not understand well. They obtain those guns in order to engage in their madness, not because they love guns.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            Really? You don’t know anyone in the south who is a gun nut? Hatfields and McCoys remind you of anything? Charles Whitman of Dallas TX remind you of anything? Stop making excuse for men who have such anger management control problems. Nearly all of the serial killings took place in the south or midwest…from those kids who used their Big Daddy’s rifles to shoot their classmates in OK and KS to the VA shooter who killed those students at the university. You have very convenient memory.

            As for mental illness, I don’t know who you think you’re fooling. There’s not a single southern, midwestern or southwestern man who doesn’t glorify the Wild West image to the hilt. So..if you want guns..fine. But, you’d better take a mental health test FIRST and BEFORE you have a gun in your hands. Sorry but you’re the one who brought up the issue of mental illness. Time to stop with the excuses.

          • EdBurke

            It is actually not worth my time or efforts to reply to, a person who seems to have bogeymen in her brain, and doesn’t know much truth or history. Goodbye.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            Translation: Ed knows he’s wrong, lost the argument to a female and will never admit it under pain of potential crucifixion.

          • EdBurke

            Idiots are not worthy of an intelligent reply.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            Only idiots who say “goodbye” and then reply are idiots who want the last word. Enjoy your day Last Word Louie!

        • stcroixcarp

          You are wrong again.

        • Eleanore Whitaker

          Oh well, why didn’t YOU say so? Now we can just tell all of those kids’ parents in Newtown that they were shot by the “militia.:” People like you are in mental institutions for a reason..When you think “anyone that could fire a weapon IS militia” you prove who the real mental case is.

          • JayWye

            there ALWAYS will be “bad people”,who set out to kill or harm others,and they use not only guns,but knives and many other items as weapons.
            In your emotion,you overlook the fact that far more people use guns lawfully,in self-defense,than are used to murder or otherwise shoot people.Guns are the “great Equalizer”,they allow the handicapped,elderly,small,weak,or outnumbered a fair chance of defending themselves against bigger,stronger or more numerous attackers,with the BEST chances of success for them and the least risk to themselves.
            IMO,your emotion had short-circuited your reason.

      • DEFENDER88

        Yes, like you say, there are some deluded Skin Head types out there and others who foolishly brandish guns.
        But fortunately they are the great minority.

        But they are not the ones shooting up schools.
        The mental case teenager down the street on psychotropic drugs are the ones who are doing this. The poor parents of these kids(Like Adam Lanzas mother – ie Sandy Hook) cant get the help they need since you did away with the mental health institutions due to cost. And you try to blame the instrument(an inanimate object – guns) instead of the real root problem of the mentally disturbed shooters ie the Behavior and the drugs that produce it.

        With “our” system of justice – We put Drunk Drivers in jail(Punish bad/dangerous behavior) we dont ban cars(inanimate objects).

        What scares me even more than them(Skin Heads and mental cases) is people like you who dont know the facts here and spew out totally wrong dis-information on this issue.
        Like there are 2 million guns in this country – well you are only off by 2 orders of magnitude, what the hell.

        Sounds a lot like you have never been out of your state of N.J.

        In spite of “your” “theory” of what the 2nd Amendment means.
        The Supreme Court of THIS country judged that the 2nd Amendmend carries over and gives the right to INDIVIDUALS to bear arms.
        That is the Law of this land. So as you say – “GET OVER IT”.

      • joe schmo

        Sorry, that is not what it states. You have misconstrued what was meant by the 2nd Amendment.

        The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of INDIVIDUALS to keep and bear arms.

        So get over it.

        • stcroixcarp

          No it doesn’t: ” A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (This the whole and complete Second Amendment) State and “people” are collective nouns here. No mention is made of an “individual’s ” right to keep and bear Arms, only in reference to protect the free State, to the “people” or citizens have the right to keep and bear Arms.

          • whodatbob

            Do not the rights attributed to the “people” to all people? Yes those rights then are attributed to each person.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            No…to the militia…that is paid for by the US government, disciplined by the US government and armed by the US government Period…End of Article I, Sec. 2 of the Constitution..and…Article I, Sec. 8 was written BEFORE the 2nd Amendment.

          • whodatbob

            Yes, The Bill of Rights and all other Amendments come after the Constitution. What purpose does Amendment add to the arming of the militia? Nothing.

          • IMG

            AHA! So you fully admit that the 2nd Amendment then trumps all previous documentation, laws, rules and guidelines, since it was written AFTER the Constitution to specifically spell out the differences between INDIVIDUAL weapon ownership and the FEDERAL MILITIA (aka, our military, for all you idiots in Rio Linda or other radical left-wing lunatic communist bastions in America or other parts of the world).

            WOW, you just opposed your own ‘argument’. Weak minds like yours often do that, Eleanore. Sorry, but you LOSE once again. Typical of you.

          • EdBurke

            Wrong, and uneducated, again. See my comments above.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            The right of gun nuts to kill innocent kids shall not be infringed…How about being truthful? How about the Founding Fathers put that word “militia” in there for a reason. If they didn’t intend guns to be in the hands of the militia why in Sec. 1 Article 8 does the Constitution clearly state that the US pays for the militia, arms it and then also disciplines it? Get off your high horse cowboy…Stop the lying about your version of the 2nd Amendment.

          • stcroixcarp

            Whoa! I’m on your side! I was just trying to explain to joeshmo the collective noun “people” as opposed to individuals. I do not believe that individuals have unlimited constitutional rights to own guns without regulations,safety rules. and personal responsibility.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            Sorry if I misunderstood. One great thing that’s happening right now? The 11 Newtown families whose kids are dead from a Bushmaster bought by the gunman’s NRA member Mom are suing..yes….suing the gun manufacturers. And rightfully so. The basis of the lawsuit is that the 2 gun manufacturers in question knew that those Bushmasters were too powerful to be in the hands of individuals whose mental sanity is in question.

            This comes down to what most sane Americans with any common decency have been saying…NO man or woman in the US who isn’t law enforcement or military needs the kind of fire power on public streets or buildings used ONLY for war.

            What the hell are these gun jerks thinking? Everyone goes out and buys a Bushmaster and then what? Mow anyone who looks at them the wrong way down?

            It’s about damn time someone took the gun manufacturers to task for selling high powered military weapons to citizens who can’t be trusted to control their anger.

            The point of the lawsuit is correct…the firepower of a Bushmaster is overwhelmingly for the purpose of multiple murders.

          • Stupid hag

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            Do you want a response Dipshit? Or do you just sit there raging and ranting all day long for lack of anything more productive to do with your mentally ill pathetic life?

          • I never want responses from you, mainly because you have nothing but hate and vile comments. You have nothing of any substance, seeing you are too stupid to know or admit you know nothing about what you are commenting. This winter, my wife and I have become snowbirds, spending our time in the deep south where it is warm, and the people are friendly. My days are being spent fishing, and training two beautiful horses that have been neglected because they had turned a bit wild. I have a myriad of skills to contribute, and have no need to brag about them as you do. I guess seeing you have contributed so little in your life, you need to make things up to feel important. Perhaps if you volunteered at a local shelter, you would be less lonely and hateful.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            And yet KennyGirl/DebbyBoy never fails to take the opportunity to respond to my comments no matter which thread it happens to be posted to. Crazy lunatics do that…it’s called “stalking.”

            You and your wife? Snowbirds? Don’t make me laugh. The only snow you two know are the flakes in the institution you are comitted to.

            I was president of my local Lions Club twice. President of a local museum and Historical Society and I know more about volunteering than you ever will slacker turd.

          • You just make stuff up as you go, don’t you? All anyone can expect from you are lies.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            I can’t make up your fantasies. You live in a mentally unbalanced world where it’s “YOUR way or the highway.” a world where negotiations are crucial to progress and common sense is a priority, you fail on all counts. You are exactly what all of your pathetic, neurotic posts indicate.

          • LOL. Just more BS from a crazy catlady

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            Since my taxes are paying for your mental illness, I’d say you are the one in need of a surgically implanted brain. You can’t lick my boots in accomplishments. There you sit on that big butt and post all day long…Nothing better to do? Before you assend was out of bed, I already wrote 4 articles, one which was 3300 words. Get busy and get your lazy butt to work.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            Coming from an OLD geezer, gender confused lunatic like you, that’s a compliment. Thank you. I’m glad to provide lunatics with their daily B-12 pathetic, useless runt.

          • Is it becoming hard to keep your lies and fabrications straight? Lies are like that. When near everything you say is a fabrication, it’s hard to separate the lies from the truth. Then again, seeing everything that you say IS a lie, maybe not. I have always preferred sticking with truth. It is a constant, and although liberals have no concept of what truth is, it is always the TRUTH. In one post you say that I’m not old enough to know what has happened in the past. That is, of course, reserved for you. That while I was still in pampers, you were doing all this really important stuff, which changes daily. Now I’m an old geezer. Try to get a small grip on reality. I know it’s hard when all you spout are lies, but I have faith. Just to help a little. I am a man. I am in my 60s. I live in NY. I am a registered democrat. I am an AMERICAN. You may want to take notes to keep at least some of your lies straight.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            Little turdboy/girl lies and can’t remember her/his own lies? First you lied and said you were a woman. Then, you lied and said you were a man. Which the hell lie can’t YOU remember. There are others on these threads who will testify to your lies and make a liar of a nut job like you.

            Liberals don’t have to lie. But CONs do. If CONS don’t lie, they can’t live off MY tax dollars or steal all our tax dollars to support their white trash Lil Abners and Daisy Maes like you. Hmm…I wonder do they call you Daisy Abner since you’re so confused about your gender. I was a Republican for 33 years. Nothing you or anyone can tell me about the GOP isn’t something I have seen and heard. It’s why Ieft that stupid bully boy party. When I pay my own way in life, I don’t need some GOP bull telling me what I can and can’t do.

          • You really do take stupid pills. It is more than apparent from your rants that amount to nothing.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            The idea that a nut job like you would ever be allowed out on the streets with any kind of weapon is beyond the pale of sanity. Try getting some fresh air…Your brain is nearly gone.

          • I have CCW permits for 38, soon to be 39 states. My guess that you are not stable enough to get one of those yourself. Again, seek help. Your mental illness can be helped.

          • Barakolips

            You are still showing symptoms from being dropped on your head as a child, I personally belive you are beyond help tard.

          • Barakolips

            Looney tards like you make me want to buy an AR-15, I think your pathetic, see you in the streets, dont bring a knife to a gunfight!

          • Barakolips

            Did you say president of the lying club? Dolt tard!

          • Muawiyah

            An AR15 is hardly a weapon of war.

            You can kill more people simply by pouring a gallon of gasoline in a hotel hallway and setting it afire.

          • Bill Wallace

            “The 11 Newtown families whose kids are dead from a Bushmaster bought by the gunman’s NRA member Mom are suing..yes….suing the gun manufacturers. ”

            The Bushmaster did not kill ANYONE, Adam Lanza killed 26 people, not an inanimate object. Adam Lanza’s mother was NOT a member of the NRA. The Newton families will have there frivolous case thrown out of court, and I sincerely hope Bushmaster sues them to recover all their court costs.

          • EdBurke

            You are entirely wrong about the Bushmaster being a very powerful weapon. It is a semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) 0.225 caliber (basically a 22). Most handguns are considerably larger in caliber, weight of round, and firing power. I am tired of Leftists, who generally know very little about much of anything, trying to tell the rest of us how to live, and trying to take away our God-given rights (not gov’t given).

          • EdBurke

            If you were to actually pay attention to the news about the various school shootings (and that of Gabby Giffords), you would know that the shooters were mentally ill, not “gun nuts”, and very seldom, if at all, ever owned the guns they used.

          • Muawiyah

            Everywhere else in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that “the people” are referenced, it is always also meant as the individual, not just the collective body.

            Why would the Second be read differently?

          • Bill Wallace


            DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER


            1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

            (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

            (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

            The Supreme Court disagrees with your “No mention is made of an “individual’s ” right to keep and bear Arms, only in reference to protect the free State, to the “people” or citizens have the right to keep and bear Arms.”

          • JayWye

            SCOTUS has ruled that the Second protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. that the RKBA is not dependent on being in a militia.

            Any competent and honest English teacher can parse the Second for you,help you comprehend it,since you display such misunderstanding of it.

            that “collective” garbage is nonsense.
            the Founders were not collectivists.

        • Eleanore Whitaker

          No…”I” haven’t. Here is what Article I, Sec. 8 of the US Constitution says about the militia that YOU aren’t” …

          “To provide for calling forth the Militia…to execute Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions.

          To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the service of the states.

          Do tell us how you are part of a militia as is understood in Article I, Sec. 8…You can’t because YOU are a little boy who wants to play GI Joe to show off you “strength” by intimidating the rest of us. A militia is a plural word that excludes you as an individual..

          Only Mafiosi Boy Scalia and Thomas, two who are up for impeachment, believe your crappola interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

          You take a handful of words and give yourself airs and rights you don’t have? Think again Joi Boi.

          2 million own guns in the US thanks to NO regulation over gun manufacturing. We wouldn’t allow 2 million Americans to own ricin but we allow idiot men and women addicted to violence, guns and blood to own guns.

          And according to national figures, the number of Americans killed in 2014 by guns is over 33,000..Got an excuse for that? Or do you want to wait till you are next in some gun nut’s firing line?

          • Muawiyah

            It will take us CENTURIES to catch up to Europe’s firearms deaths over the last 239 years ~ no way. Actually, machines of all types are involved in deaths of all types ~ in large numbers (seemingly), but we are the world’s third most populous nation ~ only China and India each have more people than we do.

            But seriously, Article I section 8 was written before the Second Amendment. It was written in the context of a political reality that meant the Constitution couldn’t get enough votes without it. Since the private ownership and use of all firearms, even the largest cannon on the largest ships, was an article of Faith with the Huguenots and their descendants (several hundred thousand American voters ~ a large number in those days), it was necessary to secure their support.

            You were not denied the right to remain disarmed ~ they were gracious about it.

            Now, stay out our business!

          • Bill Wallace

            To repeat to you:

            The Supreme Court of the United States, who’s purpose it to INTERPRET the laws of the United States has ruled….The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

      • whodatbob

        Eleanore, in Article III Section of the US Constitution neither militia nor arms is noted. You are debunking your point by referencing incorrect Article.

        • Eleanore Whitaker

          I stand Corrected…It should have been Article I, Sec. 8 which reads and I quote…”To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States….”

          What the hell does that mean? That Joi Bois strutting asses are militia armed and disciplined by the United States? Get real jerks.

          • whodatbob

            Excellent! Article I Section 8 supports your argument, maybe. I am not disagreeing with you nor agreeing. Our Constitution is ambiguous. As you stated, ” What the hell does this mean?” Beats the hell out of me!

            Every time I read amendment 2 I wonder what did they mean and how does it apply today?

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            The way I read the Second Amendment is that the word “militia” is there for a reason. Does anyone with a sane mind and the kind of super intelligence of the Founding Fathers believe for a single minute that they’d bother to mention the word “militia” in that Amendment if what they really could have said was…”the right to bear arms of any kind in any place at any time shall not be infringed.”

            Only the mentally ill gun freaks who don’t need guns and just want them to prove their MANhood are deliberately misreading that. There are other mentions in the Constitution about the “militia.” Why? Just to put that word into the articles? Or because the word has a very good definition and reason for being there.

          • whodatbob

            For what reason did the Founding Fathers include the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights? Obviously not to insure arming “A well regulated militia”. Article I Sec. 8 covers arming and regulating of the militia. To this day the National Guard, militia, is funded and armed by Federal Government.

            Starting Amendment II with “A well regulated militia”, has no meaning with respect to the right to bear Arms. So, why is Amendment II in the Bill of Rights?

          • Muawiyah

            Good point, and there’s an historical answer, but it is not intended to restrict arms to the militia. Rather, by declaring everybody to be a knight of the realm (with a right to keep and bear arms), it makes clear you are in fealty to your own government to provide service as called upon.

            I know, sounds old fashioned and oh so Medieval, which it is.

            Really Medieval ~ this puts a coda on the European class system and abolishes it!

            After that we had to get rid of slavery, which we did, with militia drawn upon from the several states.

          • Bill Wallace

            “The way I read the Second Amendment is that the word “militia” is there for a reason.”

            It’s too bad you don’t understand the sentence structure used in the English language! You might want to educate yourself on the terms “prefatory clause” and “operative clause.

            As stated by the Supreme Curt of the United States:

            “The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.”

          • Muawiyah

            The “right to keep and bear arms” was incurred by those with a title of nobility in Europe’s class system.

            So, it means you are a knight of the realm!

          • whodatbob

            Oh good! I don’t even like the Brits!

          • Muawiyah

            I think it happened in some ancient society with a class system ~ could be the FIRST civilization for all we know ~ Sumer, then Ch’n, Egypt, Hittite, etc. That’s the differentiation between a nobleman and a serf or peasant ~ that the nobleman may keep and bear arms ~ which also means he can sue you in court! A serf couldn’t do that.

          • Muawiyah

            It means “as may be employed” you then have a law already on the books to organize, arm and disciplining them. “in the Service of the United States”.

            It didn’t mean you aren’t in the militia before that.

            Congress can call you up too!

      • Blackbeard

        Your ignorance is glaring.

        • Eleanore Whitaker

          No…My ignornance comes from the US Constitution written by REAL men…not the BS baggers like you.

          • Blackbeard

            At least you admit you’re ignorant.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            At least you can’t admit your “ignernce” let me guess…a bully boy with a gas guzzler Silverado with the Stars and Bars flying high, head shaven, fists pumping…Do tell? What do you think you bullies are trying to prove? That a mob will kick asses like yours and take names?

            In case you missed it anarchist…the US Constitution is the basis of our government and Article III, Sec. 8 plainly states that a militia is paid for by taxpayers and is disciplined by the federal government.

            Take that gun and shove it so far up until your BMs turn to steel. Try and pass those …

          • Blackbeard

            The Supreme Court has ruled that weather you like it or not even you are part of a militia. So lock and load honey. Got any chew? lol

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            Really? The Supreme Court now legislates too? The Supreme Court also plays executive branch? Who the hell do you hickballs think you are fooling? You’re a bunch of control freak addicts. The only reason you want guns in the first place is to show you have the balls to intimidate people in public. I am not paid by the government to be part of the militia…Sorry jerk bird …read Article III, Sec. 8…I am not disciplined as part of the US militia either…But thank you proving that your bloody reds can’t read or make any sense of anything but pow, pow, pow….and bodies laying on the ground you sick SOB. .

          • Blackbeard

            I think you may want to see a doctor. Sounds like you’re more than a little screwed up in the head. Are you off your meds? lol

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            You want to call every American militia and “I” need a doctor? I realize you can’t admit your mental insanity. After all, you do have to pretend you are Daddy Dearest don’t you? Gotta show that double wide butt right? Just like Daddy taught you.

            Men like you are pukes who can’t pass a bowel movement without whining and bitching. But, the rest of the civilized world is crazy…thanks for showing how mentally ill you really are.

          • ProperModulation

            Wow, nice name calling. Apparently the SCOTOS does not agree with your position. Perhaps you have some nasty comments for them also? I’m sure it help people become much more accepting of your points.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            Thank you. I pride myself on calling them as I see them. The SC vote was all 5 males voting for, the females against. What does that tell you? That a bunch of testicles sitting on their male kingly thrones overruled the female minority. I’m certain if you don’t like what I post, you are free to ignore them. But you won’t. Will you? It’s so much better to insist, insist, insist….thinking, hoping and praying you will command the tides…How about there are other adults in this world fed up with male superiority BS always trying to rule the world. It’s men who start wars over stupid things and men who get our kids who are too chicken livered to fight their own battles. How many more men like Kenny Boy Lay, Blankfein, Madoff and Dimon do you need to prove to you that men today are greedy little SOBS who play “ME First and to Hell with You!” like it’s an entitlement. Enough already. Ignore my posts…That’s your right and privilege. But don’t for a single moment think you will EVER insist I do deadly silent when I know what your kind post is a pack of lies so you can pack on the power.

          • Bill Wallace

            Flagged as well. You need to grow up elaenore and actually converse as an adult, not an errant child.

          • Bill Wallace


      • Thermopylae

        Black’s Law Dictionary defines militia as, “The body of citizens
        in a state” and not the “regular troops of a standing army.” The militia is distinctly different from the National Guard or the
        US military forces.

        • Eleanore Whitaker

          Cute. Try avoiding the US Constitution’s Article III, Sec. 2…You are not the militia…And when you are done promoting mass anarchy by a bunch of chest bloating, fist pumpers with guns attached to the penile implants, I hope you are happy when blood runs like rivers in our streets. That IS after all, what your kind want.

          • Muawiyah

            Europe has that regularly yet they have tight gun controls.

          • IMG

            ELEANORE, try simply reading the post I made above which clearly spells out, word for word in plain English, EXACTLY, PRECISELY what Article II, Section 2 states.

            In summary, in case you lack complete reading comprehension and lack the brain power to understand and form complete sentences into thoughts, it discusses the limitations of judicial powers. Nothing more, nothing less, COMRADE.

      • Muawiyah

        Hmm ~ grew up in a state where all males ages 16 to 60 were militia.

        I think you grew up somewhere else.

      • IMG

        Article III

        Section 2.

        The judicial
        power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this
        Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which
        shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting
        ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of
        admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the
        United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more
        states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between
        citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state
        claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or
        the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

        all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
        and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have
        original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the
        Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and
        fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress
        shall make.

        The trial of all crimes, except in cases of
        impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state
        where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed
        within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the
        Congress may by law have directed.

        Eleanore Whitaker, once again you are spreading nothing more than FUD – Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

        JUST STOP. You are wrong in your assertion of what Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution actually states, and you are completely wrong in your failed left-wing uber liberal communist agenda, comrade.

        You lost all credibility with your complete lack of reading and comprehension of the United States’ founding documents, comrade. GIVE IT UP, nobody believes you.

      • Bill Wallace

        Supreme Court of the United States:

        1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

        Get over it eleanore!

      • JayWye

        well,what DOES the Second say there?
        “A well-regulated militia,being necessary to the security of a free state”.
        Hmm,it does NOT say that militias must be “well-regulated”,it does NOT say arms must be “well-regulated”,it does not restrict arms to militias. it really does not say anything,nor imply anything.
        it says militias “are necessary to a free state”,nothing more.
        IOW,just ONE of many reasons why “the right of the People to keep AND BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
        Now that second part DOES say plenty,it makes specific prohibition -on government- to keep their hands off peoples arms.
        it says that people have a RIGHT to own and to CARRY arms,….naturally,in a lawful manner.

        So,WHY is this so hard for people to comprehend?
        I blame it on a leftist education system that turns out cretins.

        • Eleanore Whitaker

          You are proof positive of men who are such big babies and only want their way all time time. What the hell does “a well regulated militia” mean if not just that? Are you attempting to rewrite the 2nd Amendment so you can have your guns? So you can walk around like Rambo and intimidate? Didn’t your parents EVER teach you that there is a time and a place for everything?

          Article III, Sec. 8 of the US Constitution defines who pays for those “well regulated” militias you now want to do your double speak act on. Sorry..but taxes fund militias in the US according to Article III, Sec. 8 which supercedes your BS attempts at stretching and reaching way past the intent of that 2nd Amendment. Militias aren’t just paid for by taxes, the US government under Article III, Sec. 8 also states that militias are called to arms and disciplined by the government. Get past that one Rambo Wannabee.

          Answer MY question….Why are YOU and your kind so GD grossly insecure you can’t think of your existence unless bullets, Bushmasters and Rambo-ing your way through life is all you know?

          You’re a pathetic example of a man who refuses to EVER make sacrifices of his “WANTS” …because let’s face it…of the 2 million guns in the hands of Americans today, who are they protecting each other from if not themselves being so over-armed to the teeth. You crazy guns nuts are now responsible for 11 little kids deaths because you refuse to get yourselves tested by mental health professionals. Your BS act has gone too far. But, who expect gun addicts to know limits? After all, all that swaggering and showing how powerful you all are is so much more important than preventing kids from having to practice how in classrooms how not to get murdered by one of your asshats.

          • JayWye

            you are proof-positive you can’t read and comprehend. People HAVE to have the guns before they can form any militia. the concept is that people don’t have to ask permission from government to own or carry guns,so that they can resist an government gone bad,as the colonists did back in 1775. The first thing the Brits did was move to seize weapons,power,and ammo,at Concord,to disarm the colonists. Militias aren’t under gov’t control until they are organized and called out. Even the National Guard is under STATE control -unless- Federalized.
            also,there’s the Organized Militia,and the unorganized militia. it’s clear you don’t know the difference or distinction.

            you also better check with an English teacher,so you can figure out that the “well-regulated militia” part of the 2nd doesn’t make ANY restrictions upon the Peoples right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS has already ruled the RKBA is an individual right,not dependent on militia membership or service.

            There is SO much about this you apparently don’t know,it’s clear you’re working from ignorance and emotion,and no reason.
            Calm down and learn something.

            Lesson One; “when seconds count,police are minutes away”. THINK about how long it will take police to get to your home after you call 911.
            or if you’re accosted in a parking lot.

          • Eleanore Whitaker

            You are proof positive some men are big babies who pull tantrums when they don’t get their way. So…when a guy enlists in the military, he has to own a gun? You obviously don’t like Article III, Sec. 8 of the US Constitution…because it clearly states that ONLY the US government can call up the “militia,” discipline it and pay for its arm.

            Now get a life you gun addict loser. You will not turn our country into the Wild West. Our kids want to go to school to learn and get an education…not to practice how to not be murdered by asshat gun addicts who have anger management mental problems. I don’t give a fat rat’s patoot what the hell YOU think you WANT or think YOU are entitled to.

            We will fight to stop the glut of guns in this country because of men like you who can’t see reason..That’s generally the term for insanity…anyone who cannot see reason, common sense or common decency. Sorry Gun Boy…take that gun and shove it where the moon doesn’t shine. This time, you gun addicts don’t get to create more bloodshed in our kids’ schools.

      • JayWye

        Constitutional attorney Stewart Rhodes will explain The Second Amendment for you.

        …”The whole point of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military capacity of the American people – to preserve the ability of the people, who are the militia, to provide for their own security as individuals, as neighborhoods, towns, counties, and states, during any emergency, man-made or natural; to preserve the military capacity of the American people to resist tyranny and violations of their rights by oath breakers within government; and to preserve the military capacity of the people to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, including those oath breaking domestic enemies within government. “

    • Thermopylae

      America’s freedom and liberty was established by anti-big
      government gun owners with “unregistered assault rifles,” the
      individual men of the local militias of the several states.

      The Greek philosopher Aristotle proclaimed 2,300 years ago that
      the prevalence of privately owned weapons was the best indicator
      of whether a nation was free. It is still a true measure of
      freedom today. Free men own guns, slaves do not.

      The United States Code (the laws of Congress) states in 10 USC
      311(a) that, “The Militia of the United States consists of all
      able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…” The US Supreme
      Court ruled in US v. Miller that when called into action the
      militia was to show up “bearing arms supplied by themselves…”
      Black’s Law Dictionary defines militia as, “The body of citizens
      in a state” and not the “regular troops of a standing army.” The
      militia is distinctly different from the National Guard or the
      US military forces.

      Our Founding Fathers warned that the militia must never be
      replaced by a standing army. Today, our nation has the
      world’s most powerful military; 57 government agencies carry
      guns and most have their own SWAT teams; and local police are
      trained in para-military operations.

      As our Founding Fathers warned – the demise of the militia and
      rise of a standing army would spell the end of freedom and

    • EdBurke

      In the 1600’s and 1700’s, all able bodied townsmen from age 16 to 60 were considered to constitute the town’s militia, to be mustered regularly for drills and weapons firing (with their personally owned rifles/flintlocks). This is the proper historical reference by which to understand the wording of the 2nd Amendment. Also, the phrase regarding a “well regulated militia” is seperable from the remainder of the amendment, which can stand alone, and affirms the God-given right to be armed (and bear those arms) to protect ourselves, mainly from gov’t tyranny. Our Founding Fathers were keen students of European (and older) history, and knew that rulers tend to accrue greater and greater powers to themselves, at the expense of the free nature of the citizens. We are witnessing that accrual here, over the last 100 or so years, at least. Most Americans will not give up 2nd amendment rights.

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    What I find so utterly unbelievable is “who” thinks owning an arsenal is important. Do you see Wall Street wizards walking around armed to the teeth? You bet not. An AR15 on a crowded NY City subway would have that armed man mashed to a pulp.

    The lies the NRA continues to tell is that they have the right to bear arms because they fall under the definition of “militia.” NO they don’t. Read the rest of Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution and several other Constitutional citations. They clearly indicate the intent of arming citizens with arms paid for by the government when the government chooses to call them up to protect the country.

    Do the shaven headed lunatic Mad Max boys who love to walk around armed to the teeth shooting up kids in schools fit that description?

    The reality is that gun manufacturing is the last industry to be unregulated. We regulate dangerous toxic chemicals …but …not guns? Why?

    And in the US 2 million guns are in the hands of God Know which nut case who will decide to take revenge for his infancy in Daycare with no McParents to bond to and destroy the very purpose of school: to get an education already paid for by generations of taxpayers.

    The reality is they don’t NEED their guns…they just WANT them like big babies who must have every new toy that goes out on toy store shelves.

    It’s time to stop the lunacy. The gun nuts cannot explain “why” they feel so weak and unprotected without a gun. Where do these lunatics live? In the wild jungles? In Montana or Wyoming where the need for guns protects livestock? You bet not…These are the Mad Max boys who want to prove to the world they can scare others and all they have to do is wave their guns. Classless, immature idiots do that.

    • whodatbob

      No where in Article III is militia or arms noted. Article III deals with Federal courts. Also with types of cases Fed. courts can hear.

    • Jeff Stevens

      NY CIVIL Rights law being violated by “safe-act” and all other gun laws …N.Y. CVR. LAW § 4 : NY Code – Section 4: Right to keep and bear arms –
      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.
      Apparently the word CANNOT is hard to understand for some people?

    • Bill Wallace

      “The reality is they don’t NEED their guns.”

      The United States has a Bill of RIGHTS, not a Bill of Needs. Each and every American has the RIGHT to bear arms, and if you don’t like it, find a country better suited to your own personal fears.

      “And in the US 2 million guns are in the hands of God Know which nut case”

      Kindly post the source of this asinine claim, eleanore.

      As for your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, here is what the Supreme Court has to say:




      1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

      (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

      (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

      Come back sometime eleanor, when you actually have some FACTs to contribute, rather than your own irrational fears of inanimate objects.

    • JayWye

      LOL. there are over 300 millions firearms in the hands of US citizens. Comrade Obama caused the sale of several million guns all on his own. More being sold every DAY. That many guns,even machine guns,legally owned by citizens,yet the murders are nowhere near that number.(and falling every year,DESPITE more guns being sold!)
      your emotions have short-circuited your reason.

  • jointerjohn

    Guns are a health issue alright, mental health.

    • joe schmo

      No, liberal laws and pacifying criminals are a mental health issue.

    • JayWye

      you blame an inanimate object.
      Cars kill FAR more people,and are used in crime almost daily.But nobody talks about banning cars. Not even Corvettes,high speed death machines.
      BOTH items (guns,cars) have legitimate,lawful uses.
      Guns are used in lawful self-defense over 2 million times every year.

  • joe schmo

    This is a no brainer… Gun rights under the 2nd Amendment (remember that it is part of our Constitution) are not likely to end anytime soon…..

  • DAVE in VA

    According to the Pew Research Center, Support for gun rights is at the highest point in two decades. That signals a stunning turnaround in how Americans feel about the issue just two years after the Newton School shooting.

  • DAVE in VA

    According to the FBI, The National Instant Criminal Background check System or NICS, has done 200,226,838 background checks since it’s inception in 1998.

    We don’t have a gun problem in America, What we have is a lack of teaching firearm safety in our High Schools and in our homes. We have a lack of personal responsibility for ones actions. We have to many people who know more about Miley Cyrus and who she is dating, the same people have no clue what is happening in our system of government or even know how it even works.

    • charleo1

      What?!!!! Miley is dating behind Patrick’s back?!!! What have you heard?!!! Sources, sources!! Seriously, you make a few very cogent points here. We do have a lack of firearm safety in this Country, Note the gun instructor that handed a fully automatic assault rifle to a nine year old, and paid for it with his life. I’m all for gun Rights, however, at this time, the issue is being misused as a political tool to drive what are misinformed voters to the polls. By whipping up what are quite frankly, irrational fears of the Gov. or more specifically the Democrats in Gov. wanting to, or having plans to, disarm the entire Country, as a part of some nefarious plot. And, so it is by this, nonsensical preposterousness, the gun lobby has been able to characterize any form of common sense regulation, or any regulation at all, as somehow tantamount to violating the 2nd Amendment. Even as the Amendment itself uses the words, “well regulated.” So, if citizens wish to call themselves militia, in the most 18th century way of thinking, fine. But, The Constitution clearly calls for regulation, and clearly provides the various Gov entities with the authority to do so.
      And just to wrap up my point here. This entire narrative is completely
      new, that the big scary Gov. wants your guns. When Ronald Reagan signed into law The Brady Bill, one of the most comprehensive packages of gun regulations, or gun control, if you prefer, ever enacted. There was nary a peep, from the NRA, the gun lobby, if there was one, or any other faction, as far as that goes. The one loophole, left in bill, of not requiring private owners wishing to sell,
      or trade their guns, to have to register them. Has been turned into a
      billion dollar free for all, at gun shows, and auctions. And the perfect
      vehicle for cartel gunrunners, to smuggle hundreds of thousands of military grade weapons to what has become narco-states, in Mexico, Honduras, and El Salvador. Literally out gunning the Governments in those Countries. And does all this play a role in our own immigration problems? I think we have to admit, there are certain areas where additional regulations can, and should be put in place.

      • DAVE in VA

        Charleo, the fact that you know who Miley is dating/married to, makes me wonder a little bit !!!….just kidding…LOL.

        The firearm instructor who died in that accident with the nine year old, it’s very sad and a tragedy. He had made a BIG mistake with that young lady, from some of the reports that I have seen was that, it was her first time shooting a firearm. The firearm was a 9mm uzi 32 round’s full auto. He should have had her use a 22 long rifle to start with, in order for her to get familiar with a firearm for her first time shooting.

        With all of the hype in the political arena the past six years on gun control, it is very understandable. When you have the attorney General Erick Holder putting pressure on the banks to not lend money to the firearms dealers, so that they can’t restock their inventory, and try to put them out of business. That will cause a lot of people to run and get what ever they can. If you haven’t heard of it, it’s called Operation Choke Point.

        We the Background checks for every firearm sold online. They have to go to a FFL dealer and a background check and the paper work is filled out. All of the paper work is completed as required by law in all of the states, before the firearm can leave the store. With the Gun Show loop hole we are always hearing in the news is a lie. It’s a way to get someone who is misinformed and all worked up for gun regulations. When the gun shows come around and set up at the local venues. They have to for insurance reasons do a lot of things, one is for background check for every firearm sold at the event, and during the event NO firearm is to be loaded during the event, all of the sellers and customers have to unload their firearms. The only ones that are aloud to have a loaded firearm is the police officer that is attending for insurance reasons, they are at all of the events to make sure all of the laws are being followed.
        Now where their is a problem is outside of these shows, you have people selling unwanted firearms out of the trunk of their cars, to anyone with money. No background check required. I for one am not a big fan of this for so many reasons. If someone wants to sell a firearm to someone that they do not know, they should have to go to a local gun dealer and have a background check, and have to pay the store a fee for the service. If I would like to give a firearm to a family member who I know well, in that case I don’t think we should have to do a background check for that since we know each other.
        As for the military grade weapons, that is a very long process with a lot more then a regular background check. That can take years to get the license. Not sure if you know this but a standard AR15 is a semiautomatic one trigger pull one shot fired at a time. vs a full auto one trigger pull many shots fired. The only difference is that the inner workings of the firearm, they may look the same but they are very different.

        • charleo1

          To be honest, I had to look up, “Miley Cyrus,” to spell her name correctly. But, you’re right, that there are vast numbers of young folk that take no interest at all in their Gov. But can tell you the latest scoop on the hottest new singer on American Idol. Or, did you know Maria Carry, and Nick Cannon are split up, and in a nasty custody battle over their two yr. old twins? My daughters, 35, and 33 respectively, most likely know all the details. But ask them who won the last midterms, and their eyes glaze over. “What’s a mid-term, Dad,” They’ll ask. As to the DOJ, “Operation Choke Point.” An initiative that would be expected to cause a lot of uproar, within the industries being looked at. Including pay-day loans, and the porn industry, along with internet sites, like Craig’s List. Where in some States, but not all, sales between individuals are a completely unregulated affair. And some are fine with that, I realize. But, it is my feeling, we need to find ways to make it harder for felons with violent backgrounds, to legally obtain guns. And this can, and should be accomplished, without infringing on the Rights of law the abiding. No, never will any law be 100%. We cannot keep all the drunks off the road,100%. But, we have for example, though tougher laws, and better enforcement, managed to make the roads safer, without imposing onerous, and, or unreasonable requirements on the law abiding. Although I’m sure some would strongly disagree with me on that too. Here is another informative site that lists the various gun regulations by State. For both internet, private, and Federally Licensed Dealers, I thought you may find interesting. It also offers other links to more Conservative articles. Which I always consider, when seeking factual info on subjects that seem to have two or more, usually on the net, many more factions claiming completely contradictory things.

          • DAVE in VA

            Don’t even get me started on American idol, my head is still spinning with Chris Daughtry not winning ten years ago, he should have won, this makes me so… so… MAD!!! .I thought that I was completely over that.
            I am off to work, I will take a look at the link that you provided and get back to you.

          • DAVE in VA

            Thanks for the correction on the back ground check’s information.

      • miprecinct9

        We. are the government. common-sense is something elected representatives lack in spades. I for one will not be subjugated by a misconception as to who is and who isn’t the government. Parody of power is the rule of the day.

        • charleo1

          So we all are our own individual, independent, sovereign governments? What could possibly be wrong with that? I think we need to understand who is in fact, parodying power here.

          • miprecinct9

            You’re being reticules. Absence of government? Your listening to to many libtards. Don’t you know what a republic is? Elected, representatives acting by consent of the will of the people, that means us, But restrained as to what they are allowed to do by law. The means out Constitution. This isn’t a Dictatorship or Oligarchy. Governments area necessary. Evil intentioned men raise to power, division of power, regulates there ability to become to powerful. This should be simple first grade crap when raised in a free republic.

          • charleo1

            I’m sorry. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by we are the gov. And how you’re not going to be subjugated by the misconception going around, that those elected people, making laws, signing treaties, levying taxes, and sending people to jail for not paying them, are doing all these things illegitimately.
            No, they are the gov. We are the people, who collectively consent, or collectively withdraw our consent through the electoral processes. But, I thought with your, “we are the gov. The gov. is not the gov.” statement, your were throwing the whole thing under the bus. A lot of that kind of talk going around, as I’m sure you know. But disagreeing with a whole lot of it as I do. Or seeing some take that kind of stuff way too far, in my opinion. Shouldn’t be misconstrued as a Liberal, or a Conservative thing. But as a patriotic thing, As a, I stand by the Flag, and the Republic for which it stands, kind of thing. Not, a well, I don’t like current gov. or the current President, or whatever. And the system that’s stood from the time of our founding. Well, I’m for tearing all that down. But, let’s keep our wonderful Constitution!

          • miprecinct9

            I am always mindful of the statements of our founders. George Washington was an incredible man. His final address to Congress is one I read occasionally.

          • kjatexas

            You mean like the politicians in DC, who control, corrupt, rule, dominate, and otherwise impose their will ?

          • charleo1

            Yes, I would say our gov. is right up there, one of the worst institutions ever devised to govern mankind. Until one considers all the others. Is what I would say.

          • kjatexas

            Glad we agree on something. Yet, how have we managed to allow our government to metastasize, to the point that a majority of Americans feel that the greatest danger to our freedoms, is from our own government. Since there are tens of millions of government workers, what political party is going to shrink government and put those workers out of a job. I would say that party would be voted out of power the very next election, by the workers they unemployed. How do we put the genie of an ever bigger government, back into the bottle?

          • charleo1

            I won’t get in a back, and forth with you about what a majority of Americans feel about the threat from the Federal Gov. But I do know Americans expect a lot from their government, especially at the Federal level. And would be outraged if the part of the gov. that benefits them were to be eliminated to insure someone else’s idea of freedom. I think millions of Seniors feel their financial freedom, and retirement savings are protected by two of the Federal Gov. largest programs that also employ a lot of Federal Workers. They are social security, and medicare. So, I’ll bet a lot more than these Federal Gov. workers would be unhappy. As I said, we expect a lot from our Gov. We also expect to be secure, both domestically, and internationally, in a very dangerous, complicated World. Security is neither cheap, nor can it be done without a good number of both gov, and private sector employees. Running our military, building for our military, and assessing possible threats to the Country, before they happen. That’s a tall order, so where do we start cutting, and eliminating, in the interests of preserving freedoms At our airports, and sea ports, our borders? How about the shipping lanes for our oil, that must be kept open at all costs? If all businesses always did what they were supposed to, we could eliminate a lot people that monitor the dealings of industry. Chemical, and medical cos. No one would have to test if that pill manufactured in the Philippines was safe. Or, the lettuce wasn’t contaminated, or a zillion other things that we take for granted. Like the investment products sold to millions, that fund our retirements. Someone has to watch the store. And we’re a big Country, with tons of stores. Big gov. Yes. Necessary jobs? Okay, which sector should we cut, and by how much? As SS, Medicare/Medicaid, and National defense, now consume approx. 90% of our annualized Federal budget. States also depend on Federal Gov. subsidies to balance their own budgets. Private companies of all manner depend on Fed. contracts, and subsidies, to provide everything from public schools, roads, public/private investments, to computer systems maintenance, and security, for both State, and local gov. And the various public facilities they oversee, like parks, and water systems. Neither of those in particularly good shape in many parts of the Country. Would those Americans support Fed cuts to their local gov.? If it meant higher property, and school taxes? These are all questions we must address, no? It’s simply not as simple as Americans, “feel,” threatened by big gov. They must also feel threatened enough to cut the parts of that gov. that they depend on. That benefit them.

          • kjatexas

            Exactly. Now that we are all so dependant on government, how do we downsize same. Not going to happen.

          • charleo1

            Well it’s a complicated world my friend. And what entity would, or could do these things, if not the Gov. And if so, who would then be responsible to look out for the public’s interests?

          • kjatexas

            Wasn’t the federal government’s areas of responsibility spelled out in our founding documents, and haven’t they assumed responsibilities in areas that were not delegated to them. And where does that end? Weren’t the states delegated all powers not delegated to the federal government? Haven’t those powers been usurped by the federal government to a large extent? The primary responsibility of the federal government, is too protect the country. Why are we cutting the military back to levels unseen in decades, when we are at war. It worries me greatly.

          • charleo1

            I think the States have relinquished a good bit of their responsibilities/power, for all kinds of reasons. All States are not equal. Some, like MS. are very poor, and Fed dependent. As are a disproportional number of it’s residents. How would a thing like indigent care work in such a case? Where as it stands, for every $1.00 sent to the Fed Gov. MS. receives back $3.71 in Fed. funds. And also, at what point do we decide where the phrase, “Common Good,” included in the Constitution’s outline for the Central Gov. in fact begins, and ends? And what would be the fiscal fallout for MS. in the event, the Fed. were to change the present definition of that directive? As far as the military budget, there are many within the military that believe we can cut the amount we dedicate each budget year. This as last, nearly a trillion dollars, not counting the various supplementals, added throughout the fiscal year, for unforeseen, or additional missions, upgrades, fixes, and so on. An ongoing problem is the horse trading that goes on in Washington, surrounding the various military contracts, and bases, that effects the various States, and jobs around the Country in the districts of particularly powerful politicians. We’re building tanks to meet a Soviet threat that hasn’t existed in 25 years, the military say it doesn’t want, has no place to store them, maintain them, or use them. Yet, they come at the cost of billions of tax dollars, in a tit for tat, legislative trade, imbedded in a must pass bill, that has absolutely nothing to do with defense. Yes, there’s a tank lobby too! And one for every wrench, commode, satellite part, and crock pot, serving the cause of freedom. I wouldn’t worry all that much about cuts to the military. There’s a lot of folk doing that for you already. And probably made sure you heard about their concerns.

      • kjatexas

        Sorry, but you are wrong. The end game for the gun controllers, is to make it so difficult to own or carry a firearm, that Second Amendment rights will cease to exist, for all practical purposes. That is the reality, and if you believe otherwise you are either sympathetic to disarming the law abiding or you are seriously deluded. And here’s an update on 18th century English. “Well regulated” meant well trained.

        • charleo1

          Well, you say you’re very sure I’m wrong, if I don’t see the true end game for the gun controllers, is to disarm the law abiding, and end the 2nd amend. I say, just name one. One restriction, or regulation, or any proposals made, by these “controllers,” aimed at denying the ability of the law abiding to purchase, or own a firearm. Or, that there isn’t another case to be made, another common sense reason, for gun registration, and background checks on all sales, or limiting the number of allowable rounds in a clip, other than disarming hunters, target competitions, self defense, or other gun related activity. And I’ll say to you, there is. And I would say to you, if any of these actions being proposed were directed, or laid the foundation for denying the law abiding their 2nd Amend. Rights, I would not support them. I’m a gun owner, who was glad to pass a background check, and register my weapons, so as to be tracked, if stolen. Complying with either reasonable precaution neither denied my Rights, or restricted them in any way. I am by all measure, a sane, responsible, well educated person. With no sympathy to anyone who would not support the Constitution in it’s entirety.
          And I strongly support the controls currently being

          • kjatexas

            Be glad to provide an example. California passed registration of all military look-a-like semi-automatic rifles, with the promise that they would never be outlawed. After registration was passed, the next move by the California AG, was to ban civilian ownership, with the threat of arrest if they were not turned in to law enforcement or moved out of state.

            New York and Connecticut followed similarly, with registration requirements for the same class of weapons. You can be sure that outlawing them, will be next, when those politicians feel the time is right.

            New York State also made it illegal to have more than seven rounds in any firearms magazine. So where will that end? Since the average number of rounds fired in a defensive use of a firearm is 2.04, what is to keep the politicians from limiting the number of rounds you can carry in your gun to 3, or to disallow civilian ownership of semi-automatic firearms, only allowing revolvers loaded with three rounds? If one had to defend oneself from multiple armed perps, is 3 rounds enough, is 7 rounds enough? When was the last time you read about a home invasion robbery involving only one thug? Why would you put the law abiding at a disadvantage, when the criminal will disregard ANY law, and will illegally obtain whatever he/she wants? The Mexican cartels will be happy to traffic firearms as well as drugs. It should be noted that the majority of residents, in NY, CT, and CA, who owned military style semi-automatic rifles, refused to register them. In fact large segments of law enforcement refused to enforce those laws, because they considered them unconstitutional, and a breach of the oath they took to protect and defend the Constitution.

            Why do you feel the need to have your firearms information registered with the police, in case one of your guns is stolen? Do you not keep a list of make, model, caliber, and serial number of all your firearms, to provide to law enforcement, in case one of them is stolen? That is something a responsible gun owner would do. Why does government need that information up front? The only time government should be concerned about you and your guns, is if you use them illegally.

            You probably don’t own (or approve of) civilian ownership of certain firearms, so feel you and your firearms are safe. Be assured that they will get around to going after yours, when they feel the time is right. The real world example would be England, where one class of firearms after another was demonized and outlawed, until now firearms ownership is extremely difficult and restricted. That is the agenda the US left is following. They are already calling scoped hunting rifles, sniper weapons.

            So, you’re trying to tell me that, with 20,000 gun control laws on the books, that one or a couple more will prevent criminals from obtaining firearms, or will prevent the misuse of firearms by otherwise law abiding citizens? I don’t think so. More laws will affect only the law abiding. And I reiterate, the left’s agenda is to make firearms ownership in the US, so difficult, that for all practical purposes, Second Amendment rights will cease to exist.

          • charleo1

            I would tell you the advancement of State’s Rights to regulate everything from pollution standards, to education, to abortion, to voter registration requirements, is not a Leftist plot. Not on the Leftist agenda. But I will say, the old adage that States are the laboratories of democracy, is an apt one. As they are more accountable to the electorate of their respective State Gov. than would be the case in a Federal Law, like The Brady Bill. Supported in a very bipartisan way. Back before the issue became a litmus test for Conservatism. Instead of a common sense way to limit the number of legal sales to felons, and the mentally deranged. If you live in CA. and don’t agree, then do what CO. did. Recall the politicians that supported these measures. As is often cited, “Who’s knows more about what’s best for the people in my State? The Federal Gov. Or your local elected representatives, and our Governor? As far as personal registration, you would be correct, if all gun owners wrote down their serial numbers. How likely to you believe that is Let’s keep it real here. Okay?

          • IMG

            charleo1 :
            “…like The Brady Bill. Supported in a very bipartisan way.”

            Once again, a complete distortion of the facts and the real truth of the matter. The Brady Bill was ramrodded through congress by an overwhelming majority of congressional democrats.Very few Republicans supported that bill. Here are the facts:
            On November 10, 1993, the bill passed in the House, 238-189.

            House record vote:
            To pass the Brady bill

            November 10, 1993

            Passed, 238-189, view details
            Dem: 184-69 in favor, GOP: 54-119 opposed, Ind: 0-1 in favor
            The Senate followed on November 20, 1993, passing the measure 63-36.

            Senate record vote:
            To pass the Brady bill

            November 20, 1993

            Passed, 63-36, view details
            Dem: 47-8 in favor, GOP: 17-28 opposed, Ind: 0-0



            According to my calculations, that makes a mere 71 Republicans out of the entire Congressional body of 535, which is exactly only 13.27% total. That is hardly a mandate, nor even enough for you to boldly and falsely claim that it was “…supported in a very bipartisan way”.

            In fact, if we are take away anything from these indisputable factual numbers, it is that an overwhelming number, 147 Republicans, were opposed to the Brady bill. This accounts for a total of 218 total Republicans that were in Congress that year, and out of that amount 67.43% were completely and diametrically opposed to the Brady bill.

            Not Bipartisan by any long short there, comrade.
            Keep on fudging your phoney numbers and statistics, and we’ll keep dishing out the real, factual truths that completely shatter your false arguments into a million pieces.

            Facts don’t lie, but YOU do. GOTCHA!

          • charleo1

            Last time I checked those numbers reflected a bipartisan approval, by the standards of both Parties. Cowboy.

      • IMG

        charleo1, how can we even begin to have a conversation when all you leftist liberal communist pieces of trash care to do is spread copious amounts of FUD and easily disproven bold-faced lies at every opportunity?

        Invoking and connecting the name of the best president to occupy the office in the 20th century, Ronald Reagan, when you are falsely claiming that he signed the Brady bill is nothing short of sheer criminal intent, comrade.

        In fact, it was your boy, Billy-Bob Clinton, who signed into law the Brady bill some FIVE YEARS after the honorable Ronald Reagan left office. The Brady bill was signed EXACTLY, PRECISELY on November 30th, 1993. Here’s your proof:

        Furthermore, you libtards simply can’t make a single cognizant grouping of words without lamely attempting to twist not only the precise wording of our country’s founding documents, which include The Bill of Rights / The United States Constitution and The Declaration Of Independence, amongst others, but you continue to epically fail in your attempts to pervert the actual intent of those cornerstone documents as well.

        Give it up, you are not fooling anyone. You are preaching to the choir to those who already support your failed ideology, and you’ll never find one iota of support from those who oppose you. In fact, you are losing more and more ground every day, and even if you somehow subvert / pervert / convert the laws of the land the rights of natural law of man, we will never, ever give in to your tyrannical, un-American, communist failures, comrade.

        • charleo1

          “We,” aren’t having a conversation. I was conversing with Dave. If I want to be verbally abused, and insulted, there are 800 numbers I can call to have
          that done professionally.

      • Bill Wallace

        “Even as the Amendment itself uses the words, “well regulated.” So, if citizens wish to call themselves militia, in the most 18th century way of thinking, fine. But, The Constitution clearly calls for regulation, and clearly provides the various Gov entities with the authority to do so. ”

        Welcome to the 1700’s and what the words “well-regulated” meant when the 2nd amendment was written.

        The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

        1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

        1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

        1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

        1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

        1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

        1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

        The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

        • charleo1

          What did the Constitution say about the Right of prisoners to bear arms? People the gov. had taken
          to trial, locked up, and deemed unworthy of being trusted? The mentally insane? The serial robber, rapist, stalker, wife beater, released on supervision? So, the gov. has no power to take any gun from any person? And, is forbidden the authority to do so by the Second Amend. based on the generic word, “people.” What was the meaning of, “people,” in the 1700 Oxford Dictionary? As, “in the Right of the, “People,” to bear arms, shall not be infringed.” I think we need less parsing, and more common sense. Is what I think.

          • Bill Wallace

            “What did the Constitution say about the Right of prisoners to bear arms?”

            Irrelevant to my post since my post consisted entirely of providing the 1700’s definition of the words “well-regulated”. Try again and try to keep on topic. And doing a bit of your own research might help you out a lot instead of asking others to do it for you.

          • charleo1

            Remind me why I would waste my time talking to a
            to some guy about the meaning of regulated in the 1700s? I’m going to live forever, and have lots of time to be lectured about staying on a topic we just
            discussed? Get a life.

          • Bill Wallace

            You can’t post a comment with ANY relevance to my post, and you get mad about being told so??

            You are totally correct, you need a life and an education!

  • Joseph Biten

    It’s also important to remember that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t trace to the Federalist Papers, but to Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights.

    • Muawiyah

      The Second Amendment traces to the Edict of Nantes where it is clearly linked to the right to freedom of thought and religious freedom ~ roughly the First Amendment.

      The Third, one of the three Huguenot amendments, reflects on the elemental weakness of the Edict of Nantes ~ the right of the French King, to quarter troops in private homes in peacetime. That’s exactly how Louis XIV destroyed Huguenot rights. See Dragonettes Orders ~ a Protestant who would not bow to the Church would find French dragoons quartered in his home to eat his food, use his clothes, stay warm, drink his wine, sexually abuse his women…

      It came to pass that America became blessed by the arrival of hundreds of thousands of Huguenot refugees…… among them many ancestors of the Framers of the Constitution.

      Oh, and me too ~ you betcha! Guns, God and Get off my lawn!@ ~ our inheritance!

  • miprecinct9

    Ok, Guns don’t kill anything until aimed and fired by a user. We need to have that conversation about who is killing who. Day after day we hear about this shooing or that shooting. How often do we hear about how many times these killers have been released from incarceration? Obtained the gun illegally? In a gun free city? There are plenty of questions here. One I have, is how does the unwarranted attacking of lawful citizens by anti-gun propagandists reduce violence of any kind?

  • orlandojon

    You can talk all you want about gun control but facts remain that the cities with the toughest gun laws lead the nation in murders and other violent crime.
    Criminals are emboldened by the fact the law abiding public has been disarmed.

  • Thermopylae

    “Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for
    crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m
    always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a
    lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.”

    Sammy “THE BULL” Gravano
    Interview with Vanity Fair

  • Thermopylae

    “Today, we need a nation of Minuteman, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.

    By calling attention to a “well regulated militia,” the “security” of the nation, and the right of each citizen “to keep and bear arms”, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy….the Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be read to participate in the defense or his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”

    – President John F. Kennedy –
    Speech to the Americans for Democratic Action, 1961 –

  • Thermopylae

    “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

    Tench Cox, Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress
    Pennsylvania Gazette
    Feb 20, 1788

  • Thermopylae

    Joseph Story (Supreme Court Justice): “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic…”

  • Thermopylae

    “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

    – George Washington –

  • Saltporkdoc

    Sorry, the “conversation” has been held … 1776. You lost!
    Circuitous logic and spacious arguments won’t help your cause now or ever.

  • UpChuck.Liberals

    I love talking about guns and cars and most anything that requires a human to be involved in using or making. Now if these folks want to discuss the people that misuse a tool then perhaps they should consider other tools used to create mayhem. Say those used in Abortion which far outweighs any other form of homicide.

    • Hasbro

      Well… apparently a liberals “inferred” constitutional rights trump our clearly stated Constitutional rights. Apparently, liberals are far smarter than we are…..

  • Quinn12

    If the nation can’t decide on whether a crazy person can have a gun, then it can’t decide anything at all. Enough talk.

    • crankyhas returned

      That has already been decided.The anti gunners want to prohibit gun ownership period.They will occasionally admit as much,then deny they said it.The fanatical anti gun crowd has no place in the conversation,they are a hindrance to any progress,and the majority of Americans know it.

      • Quinn12

        As a matter of fact, on the questionnaire to purchase a gun, there is a line that questions a required mental institution stay or treatment. It is a self certification by the purchaser.

        • ITSa341

          SCOTUS has now determined that having been institutionalized can no longer be reason to deny firearms ownership. Only present mental health can be considered now.

          • Quinn12

            There we are.. Guns can not be denied and people can not be denied and someone wants gun control.

          • cargosquid

            If you were adjudicated to be a danger, that does count. The courts ruled that there cannot be a blanket ban merely because of past treatment.

        • cargosquid

          You have to have been adjudicated a danger.

          Treatment does not count.

          • Quinn12

            If a person has been adjudicated a danger, why should he self certify to that. Better records are needed whether liberals want them or not.

          • cargosquid

            If a person has been adjudicated, the NICS has it on record. Self certification doesn’t matter.

          • Quinn12

            Are you really sure about that? It has been found that a number of states have not sent the information to NICS.

          • cargosquid

            Let me rephrase…. It is supposed to be on NICS. Current law has emphasized that the states must send in the data.

          • Quinn12

            I thought that must be the case. Shame people don’t follow the law.

    • Hasbro

      As cranky said; Crazy people are not allowed to own guns. They are not allowed to get concealed carry permits and people knowingly selling guns to crazy people can be charged with crimes. What our nation, what liberals and the media refuse to discuss is what demographic commits the most gun related shootings and murders!
      I wonder if drug cartels and the corrupt gov’t in Mexico would be such a problem if the Mexican people had a Second Amendment? As I recall; The vigilantes had a handle on the cartel issue before the gov’t stepped in and stopped them… No wonder they want to immigrate here.

      • Quinn12

        The libs in the media always see a win by republicans as meaning that the end of the republicans is near.

    • MasterWildfire

      If the crazies are too dangerous to “keep and bear arms”: Are they REALLY safe to allow to walk the streets as a “freeman”?
      I think not!

      • Quinn12

        Look at Adam Lanza of Sandy Hook and Cho of Va.Tech, both protected by familiesb but totally crazy.

        • MasterWildfire

          It doesn’t stop there; The Pima College faculty and the Pima County Sheriff himself knew the “Gun Free” Gabby Giffords meet-n-greet goblin personally. Had the first Fort Hood “Gun Free Zone” goblin been a Christian, his radical rants was well known long before the shooting as well as his behavior and calls for “jihad” even on his business cards.

          I ask again here: Where has the cowardly ideology of “The more helpless you are when attacked with deadly intent, the SAFER you
          actually saved lives? The “Gun Free” Red Lake High School? “Gun Free”
          Columbine? “Gun Free” Sandy Hook? “Gun Free” Virginia Tech? “Gun Free”
          Fort Hood? The “Gun Free” Century movie theater in Aurora? The “Gun
          Free” Gabby Giffords meet-n-greet?

          • Quinn12

            Thanks for the information, I did not know that.

  • Muawiyah

    Europeans, who have the tightest gun control laws on the planet have regular outbreaks where MILLIONS of people are torn apart and/or killed by firearms.

    This has happened repeatedly for centuries and there seems no solution short of occupation by an outside power such as America or Russia.

    Even before firearms had been invented, Europeans in their madness did the same job with arrows, spears, swords and, as always, fire ~ lots and lots of fire!

    So, we have physicians who imagine the guns cause that? I think we need to make sure rising physicians LEARN about European history! That’s the deficiency.

  • kjatexas

    Just where in the Constitution, did the Founding Fathers, give the federal government jurisdiction over firearms? The only place I can find the word arms, is in the Second Amendment, which EXPLICITLY forbids the federal government from infringing on citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.

    • bluesky

      They didn’t. It’s not in there, like 95% of all federal law. It’s another bending of the constitution by the SC. Criminals all.

    • Jdove47

      Your thinking is crystal clear and completely true.

  • crankyhas returned

    Apparently they have not kept up with the facts as well as they have kept up the rhetoric.”Assault weapons” and high capacity mags are not the weapon of choice for criminals.Handguns are used in the vast majority of criminal use of firearms.This fact is ignored by the antigunners,as is the fact that enforcement and prosecution of crimes involving firearms is not high on the list for the DOJ. Letting offenses go unpunished encourages more crime and gives the anti gun crowd an excuse to further restrict law abiding gun owners.Enforce the laws on the books before writing new ones.
    Dr’s kill more people with over prescription and lax oversight of prescribes medication than illegal drugs or die by guns.

    • Jdove47

      Yeah but people love hand guns so liberals go for whatever
      they can get–chip, chip, chip, chip. That’s them.

  • Hasbro

    We have the RIGHT to bear arms… so get over it!
    Criminals and the lack of any real mental heath facilities are the problem. Hollywood glamourizing the thug mentality is the problem. How about Doctors and journalists stop trying to mess with RIGHTS and address the root of the problem.

  • JDsHandsomeSon

    Those opposed to our bill of rights must face reality. Reality can be found on the FBI’s gun background statistics, free, on-line, available 24/7 for all to see. This data shows all gun transactions from Nov 1998 to the end of last month. There anti-constitutionalists will find heart-breaking proof that their desire to strip Americans of their God given rights, and their ability to remain free, is beyond hope. Meaningful gun control is dead, not just merely dead, but really most sincerely dead. America is super saturated with military assault rifles and hi capacity handguns, made so by gun control activists and their socialist allies in congress. With all their yammering for our guns, enemies of the republic have only put more in the hands of free Americans and increased the rolls of the NRA and gun owners generally. Worse for the left, most new shooters are women and children, guaranteeing new generations of freedom fighters. The author of this article, and all who hate freedom, can choke on the bile of their black hearts because the people have spoken and the people want no part of latent North Korean style arrogant dictators put forth by the democrat party.

  • ProjectThor

    Excuse me, National Morons…seems like most people are against you, so why not give up? I can cut you a nice deal on a S&W M&P-15….

  • DeathMerchant

    This is a free society for the most part and there are prices to be paid to live in a free society.

  • CIMR

    I am totally against criminality, you are totally for it, because, and here is the big SHOCKER … criminals don’t care about gun LAWS

    Are you people this stupid? Of course you are.

    • MasterWildfire

      Short answer: YES! They ARE just that stupid.

  • Jdove47

    LOL! YET ANOTHER moron liberal writer and his liberal
    ‘newssite’ thinks they can attack gun rights. Think again
    you un-American jackasses! Guns are for fighting
    tyranny and we will do that if pushed too far. It’s hilarious
    that you think the NRA is the one with the power. 60
    million American gun owners are the real power behind
    our total and continuing defeat of you scumbags!

  • ITSa341

    “When an author quotes statistics and claims that have long been proven to be false said author loses all credibility and will not be a help to a cause but a hindrance.”

    This article proves that point and makes a very good example of it.

  • USMC 64-68

    Jill Lawrence has clearly demonstrated that she is a subversive Marxist. What’s new? They have been assaulting the Constitution by attacking the 2nd amendment (along with the 1st & others) for decades.

    Jill Lawrence is saying nothing new, nothing that Dear Leader hasn’t said in his efforts to fundamentally transform America into a socialist state.

    My word for people like this leftist subversive: Traitor!

  • ckirmser

    Talk all you like.

    Meanwhile, the Second Amendment STILL says, “shall not be infringed.”

  • cleo48

    Apparently Jill thinks that the NRA is the only barrier to shredding the 2nd Amendment. Silly Goose.

  • How about FIRST talking about MENTAL HEALTH and then We’ll CONSIDER talking about guns. THAT is The Deal. Take it OR LEAVE IT.

  • StarTripper

    Wait, why do we need another Michelle Obama? Is Bambi getting a divorce? Does the National Enquirer know about this?

  • Seerightthere!

    So lets talk about guns. The semi auto pistol is good for self defense depending on the number of “Teens” who happen to be attacking you. A carbine is a small rifle using a pistol caliber cartridge, it is excellent at medium distances out to 200 yards. The rifle is also excellent and can reach out to 500 yards or more depending on caliber, optics experience etc… Needless to say the rifle is always more accurate but hard to carry concealed for obvious reasons. In an Urban environment I carry a hi-capacity large caliber handgun as reloading can be time consuming. What you carry depends on what your comfortable with, remember you should never skimp on your safety.

  • Walther11

    I will no longer entertain “talking” about guns with the left. They do want only one thing and that is a total ban o private ownership. They wave proved time and time again that they can;t be trusted on this issue. So there is nothing to talk about Jill. If you want to ban guns get the second amendment repealed if you can, even then I will ignore you.

    • sgthwjack

      The entire Bill of Rights presupposes that those rights enumerated, were pre-existing, not “granted” by the document. My oath is to the Constitution, as written.

      “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;…” (emphasis added)

  • WinstonGalt

    So the absolute geniuses of the clearly unbiased (/sarc) medical groups quoted have claimed that since firearms are present during all mass shootings then firearms should be banned.

    Automobiles are present in all drunk driving deaths, let’s also ban cars. Water is present at all drowning deaths at recreational facilities. Let’s ban water.

    And so on….

    • Ed Gruberman

      I like it, doctors are present at all “medical misadventure” deaths, so lets ban…

  • t172048

    Ok , lets discuss guns. What will my next one be? You may discuss how bad guns are but will not stop one future sale of a gun because they are scary and so nasty. Just remember the second amendment gives teeth to all the others. For without the 2nd government could do whatever they want and if you disagreed they would say “So sue me.”

  • Flechette

    Gun ownership (especially military guns) is a right like Freedom of Speech.


    Now go away.

  • PeteAG

    If gun bans are enacted, the Mexican cartels, the Mafia, the Russian Mafia, and other mobsters will never begin to smuggle firearms into the USA.. Right?

  • Travis458

    Hey Jill, why don’t you tend to your chronic yeast-infection and anal warts and leave the gun talk to patriots. MalignantCunt.

    • jack_death

      Hey Travis458, please don’t be on our side. You are a classless troglodyte.

      • Travis458

        Your side? You mean the side that fellates negros and sticks hamsters up each others a s s e s?
        Go suck off a donkey, f a g g o t.

    • JayWye


      this poster is offensive. please delete.

  • MasterWildfire

    There’s only a few major points that needs to be address, the rest is like a thesus on “The Care and Feeding of Unicorns”.

    1) Can you, as the intended victim of “gun violence”, choose not to be attacked with deadly intent? No? Then “gun violence is” NOT “a public health problem”: Then “gun violence” is a CRIMINAL problem, not a health problem.

    Proof: How much of the “gun violence” is actually ILLEGAL ACTS committed in violation of numerous currently existing laws forbidding it?

    What new gun control law, does the good doctor believe those willing to
    use a gun to commit rape, robbery and murder, would obey? And why
    would they obey the new gun control laws, instead of simply ignoring
    them, as they ignore the current, more serious laws against rape,
    robbery and murder?

    2) “Assault weapons” is a made-up word invented in order to confuse
    the ignorant with an assault rifle.

    We hear stupid people refer to the BLACK semi-auto rifles as “military
    Calling these BLACK semi-auto rifles “military style”, is like putting a
    racing stripe on a Yugo and calling it “racecar style”.

    In fact, these BLACK semi-auto rifles (which ONLY fire semi-auto; one
    shot per trigger pull) functionally have much more in common with
    grandpa’s hunting rifle, than a modern military assault rifle (fires selective fire; multiple shots per trigger pull).

    3) “If only the health professionals who examined and treated Adam Lanza had asked him and his mother those questions and managed to get
    that home arsenal out of reach before he went on his Sandy Hook rampage two years ago.”

    Why wouldn’t it have been a much better idea, for an ARMED faculty
    to have met the Sandy Hook goblin’s deadly attack with DEADLY FORCE?
    It wouldn’t have been very hard to stop the goblins attack, had the victims been armed.

    But here’s a question: Where has the cowardly ideology of “The more
    helpless you are when attacked with deadly intent, the SAFER you
    are!” actually saved lives? The “Gun Free” Red Lake High School? “Gun Free” Columbine? “Gun Free” Sandy Hook? “Gun Free” Virginia Tech? “Gun Free” Fort Hood? The “Gun Free” Century movie theater in Aurora? The “Gun Free” Gabby Giffords meet-n-greet?

    Yes the Gabby Giffords meet-n-greet shooting was indeed “Gun Free”, because while most of the victims COULD have been armed, NO ONE actually at the shooting took personal responsibility for their own safety by being armed.

    And the claim “There was a concealed carry holder at the Gabby Giffords shooting!” is simply a LIE.
    By the time Joe Zamudio arrived at the shooting scene, the goblin had already been disarmed and was no longer a threat.

  • Travis458

    Jill thinks that guns kill, while she’s out using abortion as a form of birth control.
    The hypocrisy and idiocy of the left knows no bonds.

  • njguy53

    No Jill, you’ve missed the point. Your feelings, or anyone’s feelings for that matter, are irrelevant.

    Now try to let this sink in. I am, as a human being, completely and absolutely free to defend myself, my family, my neighbors and friends, with weapons of my choosing. The govt has zero, nada, no say in this. My weapons are just that, mine, not yours, and you can do nothing to take them from me short of sending DHS into my home which will incite violence.

    Your thinking is corrupt. You cannot get bad guys and criminals to turn in their weapons with laws. Why? Because bad guys and criminals don’t obey laws. You’re intent, therefore, is to disarm the public which is treasonous and permits a stalin-esque character to round up and murder 20 million citizens that are to his disliking. This will not happen.

    You’re wasting your time. Instead, why not try creating a law (State law not federal) whereby the commission of a violent crime with a gun will result in the death penalty for the criminal? Oh, I forgot, you fake progressives don’t like the death penalty (except for the unborn).

    Bottom line, if you don’t like it here, move.

  • joe phillips

    The NRA is perfectly willing to talk about firearms from any perspective you care to name. Do you want the Constitutional, historical, philosophical, factual, logical, free market or rational perspective on why gun control will work to stop criminal behavior?

  • Black & White

    But seriously tho….Guns stand up and start shooting by themselves. Needs bans k thx bai.



  • Conservative AND Republican

    There is no reason whatsoever that civilians need automatic weapons (weapons that fire more than one round per pull of the trigger). The idea that a citizen armed with an M-16 is a counterweight to a government armed with M-1 Tanks and F-35s, not to mention trained soldiers, is absurd. An armed citizenry, in combination with our Nation’s armed forces might be a force multiplier, but if the people lose the country at the ballot box, they deserve whatever they get. All that being said the Constitution does guarantee the right to keep and bear arms by citizens of the United States. So the only conversation we need to have is about machine guns, which should be banned, from civilian and police use. Semi-automatic weapons, short or long, are just fine, for civilians and police.

    • Conservative AND Republican

      I’m not opposed to police SWAT teams having limited numbers of automatic weapons, to counter drug gangs, and the like.

      • Travis458

        The only thing you’re opposed to is the facts, maggot.

      • Bill Wallace

        So you think that automatic weapons are a problem in the United States?? How many homicides have been committed with fully-automatic weapons in the United States int he last 5 years??

        • JayWye

          IMO,this guy is a troll,he’s not conservative.
          I have doubts about anyone who has to use “conservative” in their screen name.

      • JayWye

        IMO,police should not own weapons any heavier than what civilians are allowed to possess. Police have guns stolen or “lost” all the time. I’ve read of many such thefts,even including machine guns and suppressed machine guns.
        FEDGOV is missing over 1000 of their guns,including machine guns,and that does not include military or local police losses.

    • Travis458

      So you’re the arbiter of what guns citizens can and can’t have?
      How many murders were committed with legally owned, fully automatic weapons? TWO! And one of those murders was committed by a COP! Going by statistics, COPS are responsible for HALF of the murders with fully automatic weapons.
      Sounds like YOU’RE the problem, pusscake.

      • Conservative AND Republican

        Another hogwash merchant, from the left. And how do you know that there were two murders with automatic weapons? AND why was the killing by the cop a murder? Because you say so? According ti the United States Supreme Court, this conversation is over.

        • Travis458

          Look it up, you pseudo-Conservative marxist dolt.

          • Conservative AND Republican

            I repeat, the issue is legally settled. No “research” is relevant. Other than machine guns, the restrictions you would impose are constitutionally unreasonable. But then who would expect reason from people who think at your level. “pusscake:? Where is you dig that up? Kindergarten?

          • Travis458

            I repeat, you’re a douchebag. You don’t have a
            f u c k I n g clue what you’re talking about.

    • Bill Wallace

      “The idea that a citizen armed with an M-16 is a counterweight to a government armed with M-1 Tanks and F-35s, not to mention trained soldiers, is absurd.”

      That statement is what is absurd. The Government does NT have M-1 tanks nor does the Government have F-35s. The United States Military those, and they are operated by U.S. Military members who each took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, not a tyrannical government nor the President of the United States. In fact the Posse Comitatus Act forbids the Government from deploying the U.S. Military within the United States to enforce laws. You might want to actually read it, and actually talk to anyone who served in the military, mr armchair general. As a retired Army Ranger Captain, I can assure you that the vast majority of the U.S. Military would not only refuse to obey an order to turn their arms on fellow American citizens they would join the citizens in defending the Constitution.

      The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. The purpose of the act (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) is to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the state laws.

      • Conservative AND Republican

        Climb off your high horse, Captain. I agree with you. I doubt very much that the average soldier would obey his oath and take the orders of a commander-in-chief who had gone substantially off the constitutional reservation. That assumes that those who commanded that soldier hadn’t convinced him that the holder of that M-16 wasn’t a “domestic terrorist”. There is nothing unconstitutional about using the military to fight an armed rebellion against an elected government of the United States, ala the Civil War. But my point was that unless it was tens of millions of citizens armed with M-16-like weapons and very large amounts of ammunition, they would be no match for the United States Armed Forces, should they remain loyal to the government. And if you are talking about, abortion, Taxes, spending, immigration, Obamacare, EPA regulations, foreign policy differences, and the like, they would remain loyal. Now if the president refused to leave office at the end of his term or if defeated at the polls, or something on that level of constitutional offense. That where I would doubt the loyalty of the Armed Forces. A few hundred thousand old fat militiamen aren’t going to cut it.

        • Bill Wallace

          So you call facts a “high horse”? Is that because you don’t comprehend facts?

          “they would be no match for the United States Armed Forces, should they remain loyal to the government.”

          The U.S. Military is NOT loyal to the Government, they are loyal to the Constitution of the United States and every member of the Military takes an oath to defend the Constitution. How does one remain loyal to something they weren’t loyal to at all?

        • Travis458

          ‘And a few hundred thousand old fat militiamen aren’t going to cut it’…

        • Deovindice

          The problem with your scenario is that we know that there will be a rift within the Military.In the Army I was a 63E then later a 63T.I am familiar with the M1A1 and M2/M3 Bradley.The M16 coupled with the fact that the Military would be experiencing an internal power struggle(civil war within the ranks)would allow me and some of my fellow Vets to get into the M1s you reference.I have kept in touch with some of the guys still on AD and they think more like myself than you.I had an acute understanding of the oath I was taking and remember wondering how many in my MEPS group were just parroting and had no understanding as to what they were swearing to.On another note our (your’s and mine) Oath did not expire upon ETS!It is for life!If you believe that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land I cannot fathom how you can be ok with trampling parts of it that you don’t like because you feel there is no “need”.That to me is far more scary than some “gang banger” or “Assault Rifle”.

        • cargosquid

          There sure are a lot of retired military and former military in civilian life, including myself. I know of 3 retired special forces members just in my circle of acquaintances. They know entire associations of such. The vast majority tend to lean towards our way of thinking.

          Then there are the numerous former infantry members I know…and who they they know.

          None of them are old, fat, or militia members.

        • JayWye

          it sounds like you have already surrendered.

    • cargosquid

      “There is no reason whatsoever that civilians need automatic weapons”

      Please point out the word “NEED” anywhere in the Bill of Rights.

      • Conservative AND Republican

        I believe the Supreme Court ruled that a state could impose reasonable limits, and that automatic weapons might be one of them. I’m a little confused by that, but that does sound reasonable to me. The Court said states could not ban firearms out right, but could reasonably regulate. Many states still require permits to carry. I’m not believing these open carry claims in the East.

        • cargosquid

          The restrictions on automatic weapons comes from the National Firearms Act of 1934. THAT Act has not been challenged in court, so it stands as constitutional at the moment.

          What open carry claims in the East?
          Here in Virginia, people open carry pistols all of the time. Long gun carry is also legal, but people see little need to do so.

        • JayWye

          the Second Amendment exists so that the People have the ability to form militias if necessary,armed militias. Arms applicable to militia duty would be the most protected under the Second,and of those,the most applicable would be M-16s or AK-47s,etc,machine guns.
          it would be UNREASONABLE to restrict “militia weapons” to less-useful weapons,or “sporting” arms.
          the Second Amendment is NOT about hunting or sporting. READ the Declaration of Independence,it explains why.

    • MasterWildfire

      You state: “There is no reason whatsoever that civilians need automatic weapons
      (weapons that fire more than one round per pull of the trigger). The
      idea that a citizen armed with an M-16 is a counterweight to a
      government armed with M-1 Tanks and F-35s, not to mention trained
      soldiers, is absurd.”

      Both Vietnam and Afghanistan seems to dispute your claim and makes it appear not nearly so absurd; And they were a people that were more easily identified as “not us”.

      As for “There is no reason whatsoever that civilians need automatic weapons”: Did Rosa Parks really NEED to sit down?

      • Conservative AND Republican

        That is just not correct. In Vietnam, depending on who you were fighting the VC or the North Vietnamese Army, you were fighting people equipped with everything from heavy machine guns to tanks and guns. The Taliban and Al Qaida are less well equipped, but are not really extensions of a state’s military, as in Vietnam. Also, the Taliban is not really doing that well, at least right now. They are making big noises in Kabul, but have lost sway in the provinces, due to the Afghan Army and Police. The Afghans even have their own air power (choppers, I think), so things are looking up for them. The anti-military, but pro-democrat media are really torn on this one, so its real hard to get the right news.

        • MasterWildfire

          You state: “In Vietnam, depending on who you were fighting the VC or the North
          Vietnamese Army, you were fighting people equipped with everything from
          heavy machine guns to tanks and guns.”

          And what would be the actual differences between the VC’s efforts then and an equal US “resistance” with outside support? Hmm?

          You state: “The Taliban and Al Qaida are less well equipped, but are not really extensions of a state’s military, as in Vietnam. Also, the Taliban is
          not really doing that well, at least right now. They are making big noises in Kabul, but have lost sway in the provinces, due to the Afghan
          Army and Police.”

          And yet both, the USSR and the US left in defeat.

          Now: Did Rosa Parks NEED to sit down?

    • Luke

      Careful with that word “need”. After all, you don’t “need” more than a single government-approved television station. You don’t “need” more than one government – approved radio station. You don’t “need” more than a single national printed media publication. You don’t “need” the internet, worker unions, public election of government officials or many other things we take for granted in this country. In the most strict sense you don’t “need” more than reasonably clean water to drink, oatmeal, protein powder and a good multi – vitamin as food for the rest of your life but if nothing else, it makes for a damn boring existence.

    • JayWye

      machine guns HAVE been strictly controlled (not “banned”)since 1934,but only ONE legally owned machine gun has been used criminally in all that time.
      OTOH,criminals can get them easily enough,as in the North Hollywood Bank Robbery. They get smuggled in,OFTEN stolen from US military and local police,or conversions to legal semi-auto rifles.

      Arms such as an M-16 or AK-47 allows a militiaman to obtain heavier arms from the enemy. They are also MILITIA weapons,and thus should be the MOST-protected under the Second Amendment.
      Militiamen were expected to muster with arms and ammo similar to and compatible with what the Regular military had in use AT THAT TIME.
      But folks like you would restrict us to muskets and the like.

    • Frank Smith

      So, you want the government, which is “armed with M-1 Tanks and F-35s, not to mention trained soldiers” (as well as nukes, aircraft carriers, special forces, and artillery) to be the only ones that have automatic weapons? Say that out loud to yourself a couple of times. Note the irony.

      Just for the record, police ARE civilians. Just because some people think of them as “non-civilians” does not make it so.

      It’s always funny when someone makes the claim that armed civilians can’t take on the government (not like THAT has ever happened before…rolleyes), and at the same time tries to espouse the opinion that since the military might is so strong, that we shouldn’t allow citizens to be strong enough to take on the government.

      Just for the record, those M-1 Tanks, and F-35s have to fuel up somewhere. They have to be attended somewhere, and the 100,000,000+ armed civilians would wipe out the less than 2.5 million military members (not that it would be necessary, as many would be on “our” side) in the first couple of days. Not to mention that fully 50% of the firearms owners in our country are active, former, or retired military.

      • Conservative AND Republican

        I have read, and I don’t have nay reason to believe it is untrue, that there are about 37 million private gun owners in the US, who own about 100 million guns, That includes guys like me who own a couple of pistols and maybe a shot gun. So I might buy that you have two or three million serious military grade rifle owners who are young enough to be a serious threat to the Army. I think they could give the Army, and the rest of the armed forces, if they would even move against the people, a serious problem. I am a former Army combat veteran, and 68 years old with COPD, spinal stenosis, and heart trouble. The Military is shaking in it boots about guys like me. LOL The men who have seen combat, even in this younger generation make up a very small percentage of the US population. You service dodgers just don’t join up, like we did (66% of Vietnam combat vets were enlistees, despite liberal propaganda). Combat vets want to vote, not fight our sons and grandsons in the US Armed forces, and the young one don’t want to fight their buddies either. We are ALL countrymen! Making war on the duly elected government is TREASON per the CONSTITUTION!
        Weapons that fire one round per pull of the trigger are just fine for civilians, including police patrol officers.

  • Travis458

    Since liberals give negros a platform and sense of entitlement to steal, murder, rape and commit arson, banning liberals and negros will solve most of the crime in the United States.

  • Travis458

    And spoons made Oprah fat…

    • slobotnavich

      No, forks made Oprah fat, plus they can be used to stab people; they should he regulated if not outright banned.

  • slobotnavich

    Deliberately ignored or actively suppressed throughout this whole debate about firearms ownership is that the overwhelming majority of crime, and especially violent crime, in our nation is committed by blacks and the rapidly closing Hispanics. If we back black crime out of US crime stats the US is one of the most crime-free countries in the entire world. Western states, such as Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, where firearms ownership is all but universal, are virtually crime-free. They’re also virtually free of blacks and have few Hispanics and those they do have wisely behave themselves. We really have to expose this nonsense once and for all for what it is. Guns are not and never were the problem. Criminals are the problem.

    • Conservative AND Republican

      Whites are doing the same crap in the big cities. I was a cop for 24 years in a Minnesota City, and I was investigating and arresting mostly white people for the same crimes you are accusing blacks and hispanics of doing. So it isn’t as simple as race or ethnic background (since hispanic is not a race). I think it has more to do with intact families and the self-discipline they impart to kids and young adults. People who are raised right don’t TEND to end up in my cuffs. I don’t think yours is a racist statement, just too simple.

      • slobotnavich

        Well, I agree with you on several levels, though as a cop in a Minnesota city you’re not going to be dealing with nearly as many black criminals as, say, a cop in Watts or Newark. The real problem began with LBJ’s Great Society (and vote-buying) Program of 1965. Prior to that blacks had the same percentage of stay-at-home fathers (90%) as whites. Now most black kids don’t even know who their fathers are. This is a sure formula for the social disaster which has played out throughout our nation during the past half-century. Had we had the same program in force when the waves of Irish and Italian immigrants arrived they’d not have assimilated as well as they did either. Of course, it has enabled devoted liberals to parade their moral and intellectual superiority over we crude and ill-educated peasants, which was their main objective anyway.

        Thanks for your note.

      • JayWye

        look at the numbers versus the size of their share of the population. you’ll find that over 50% of the crime/violence is done by groups less that 20% of the population.
        Subtract the ethnics from US gun violence,and our numbers more closely match the European numbers.(rates)

  • Gary Miles

    What exactly does the Left think will be accomplished with gun control? That’s what needs to be discussed. Maybe the Author can pen an article explaining the thinking behind gun control. I think the idea of “gun free zones” has been a complete failure. Do liberal’s really think criminals will turn in their guns if they are outlawed? Do liberals really think that the cops can protect them from violent criminals? These are some really good questions they need to honestly answer. Until then, there is no need for discussion, because they know the answers and they don’t support their agenda!

    • IMG

      EXCELLENT comment, Gary. I agree with you 100%!

      • Gary Miles

        Thank You. I’d like to wish you and your family a healthy, happy and prosperous New Year! I not concerned about anyone actually legalizing gun control. First, it would take a Constitutional Amendment, which will never happen. Second, what fools are gonna come take them? Liberals constantly fail when it comes to common sense. If “black lives matter” why aren’t they protesting in front of abortion clinics where around 50% of all black pregnancies end? Why do they keep clinging to the global warming fraud when the planet has not warmed in 18 consecutive years, even though CO2 levels have risen by 9%. WTF? Why are we tolerating the “hands up, don’t shoot” lies that are now leading to the deaths of innocent people because they happen to be cops?

        I carry EVERYWHERE! I have a license to do so and in the summer I open carry because PA is an open carry State. I’m a vet and an Oathkeeper! I only come to this site and comment in hopes of educating the ignorant of the lies that they follow. Liberal’s want single payer government controlled healthcare. ME TOO because I want everyone to have the same shitty healthcare that vets get. We have organizations like Wounded Warrior Project and other charity organizations that help vets BECAUSE of the failure of government run healthcare, so yes, I want every damn Liberal in the USA to have the very same thing!

        Sorry for my emotional rant! It is people like you that give me hope for the future of this country. God Bless!

        • Conservative AND Republican

          Pennsylvania is an open carry state? They allow you to openly carry a firearm in a urban sewer like Philadelphia? You’ve got to be kidding! It must be the Wild West there.

          • Gary Miles

            Yes, open carry is completely legal in Philly. Last March. my father and I attended an informational seminar conducted by our State level House of Representative, state level Senator, two local country head prosecutors and two local Sheriffs. The first hour was a power point presentation explaining the Pa laws concerning concealed and open carry as well as the Castle/Stand Your Ground laws. Philly had passed laws that circumvented State CC laws, only to have the State pass a law that disallows local laws to impede with State law. In short, State law trumps local laws and Philly was told to shove their local anti gun laws.

            I laugh when I hear the “Wild West” propaganda that the Left wing anti gunners put out about this subject, because, to be honest, it’s just a fear mongering LIE. Plus, the “Wild West” was far more wild in Hollywood than in real life. During debate in Ohio on the passing of conceal carry several years ago, the gun grabbers used that in all their anti-conceal carry commercials. The law passed, and conceal carry became the law (recently made even easier to get a permit). Then, nothing happened except the crime rates began to drop. The “Wild west” theory was destroyed and is now only used by the gun grabbers because it’s all they got to support their agenda, fear mongering lies.

            Back to Pa, where I currently reside in rural Forest County. A large percentage of residents carry concealed, ladies included. It is often a subject of conversation about the different guns and how comfortable they are to carry and accuracy. Violent crime is non-existent. The old adage “an armed society is a polite society” is quite true, despite the gun grabbers psychobabble.

            The problems in Philly and every other large city has nothing to do with gun laws. Chicago have the most restrictive laws in the country currently, yet the highest murder rate, imagine that. The only thing that gun control laws (like “no gun zone” laws) do, are make victims of law abiding citizens. Law abiding citizens will not magically turn into criminals just because they put a handgun on their belt or in their purse. Their still law abiding citizens. 99.9% of conceal carriers will never have to pull the trigger. The appearance alone is usually enough to chase off an attacker. Well known cases like the Trayvon Martin case was caused by the media (namely NBC) and the race pimps who are continually trying to prove their racist lies.

            I’ve carried guns (in the military, a sidearm was part of daily uniform) since I was 18. I’ve never even pulled one from the holster because of being under attack and hope I never have too. But if the need arises, I won’t be a victim. I do not support violent felons and those who are mentally ill to possess and/or own guns. I certainly do not support “Universal background check” which is nothing more than gun registration and will have zero affect on criminals and their activities. Gun laws don’t affect criminals because they don’t follow laws. Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. Gun control is inhumane and only empowers the criminals (see Chicago again).

          • Conservative AND Republican

            I don’t have a problem with permitted concealed carry, at all. I mostly like the training requirement. But open carry means that the Philly gang members get to openly carry firearms and the cops can’t touch them? Including assault rifles? Then I favor cops patrolling in armored vehicles with heavy machine guns and grenade launchers, and maybe some RPGs. The cops cannot be outgunned. That is just insane, It’s way beyond the Wild West, it’s Baghdad or Kabul. But since it is not happening, I smell an exaggeration here.

          • Gary Miles

            I wouldn’t be too concerned about it, few people even know about gun laws in their State. Ohio is an Open carry State as well and I just learned that a few years back. Remember all other laws are still applicable when it comes to legal gun ownership and possession. The age limit is 21 in Pa for a conceal carry permit and the same for open carry. Open carry is rare, as most are usually uncomfortable with it. It’s a privacy thing for me, as I would prefer concealment. I only open carry in the hottest days of summer and in places where people know me and won’t make an issue about it. After all, I don’t want a rare liberal to be all worried that my pistol is gonna jump out of it’s holster and start shooting people all by itself (ROFLMAO).

            I do believe there is some laws concerning gang affiliation and gun possession, but it was only talked about very briefly as we don’t have any gang issues locally. Gang bangers and criminals don’t advertise, if that helps comfort you.
            You can call the Pa State police to verify all of this if needed!

          • MasterWildfire

            Good answers!

          • MasterWildfire

            You state: “I mostly like the training requirement.”

            I’ve said for years that gun safety and training should be a required subject for all schools.

            It is after all, a basic Human/CIVIL Right guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

            You state: “But open carry means that the Philly gang members get to openly carry firearms and the cops can’t touch them?”

            If they are NOT “Prohibited Possessors” they could; But a very high percentage of gang members ARE “Prohibited Possessors” and their simply possession of a gun is a CRIME and they can be arrested for carrying it.

            You ask: “Including assault rifles?”

            Assault rifles are VERY tightly controlled, and VERY, VERY, VERY RARE, so rare, outside of law enforcement or the military, you’ve probably never actually SEEN an assault rifle in your life.

            And no, the AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle like the liars in media has told you to believe.

            You state: “Then I favor cops patrolling in armored vehicles with heavy machine guns and grenade launchers, and maybe some RPGs.”

            The duty of the police is to enforce the POWER of the Government; The police have no duty to protect individuals.

            Proof: “Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others.” -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989

            “There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state (or Federal) against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the
            state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state (gov’t) to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order”
            (Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 [1982]).

            This means that if you want protection from violent crime, for you and your loved ones; it’s up to *YOU*
            and *YOU ALONE* to provide it.

            But ask yourself this question, in your heart of hearts: Why should a cop risk his life to save something so insignificant (your life or the lives of your loved ones), that even the owner is unwilling to protect it?

            You state: “That is just insane, It’s way beyond the Wild West, it’s Baghdad or Kabul.”

            The “Wild West” was far better than we see in the US today.

            Baghdad and Kabul? How many of those who are killed by the enemy are ARMED?

            Where has there been a good results found where the Government had disarmed the people?

            Where has the ideology of: “The more helpless you are when attacked with deadly intent, the SAFER you are!” actually saved lives?

          • Gary Miles

            Well Done!

          • MasterWildfire

            Thank You!

          • Conservative AND Republican

            You DO want “every man for himself”, and you think that that is what the Bill of Rights is all about. On the contrary, it is a SOCIAL contract, that limits the government, but does not set up a Free Fire Zone. Many of the King’s powers the Framers detested were denied to the federal government and given to the state governments instead (10th Amendment). I think every adult citizen who is not crazy or a criminal has the right to own and conceal carry a firearm. That does not extend to machine guns (and I was a soldier and police officer, smart guy) or other military weapons. The government has NO obligation to suffer the military arming of potential rebels. That just unreal.
            Why don’t we just set up Fee Zones where Islamic terrorist rebels can arm and train, without federal interference? After all, they might be citizens with the 2nd Amendment at their backs.

          • MasterWildfire

            You state: “You DO want “every man for himself”, and you think that that is what the Bill of Rights is all about.”

            Every man *IS* for himself.


            “Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others.” -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989

            “There is no constitutional right to be protected by
            the state (or Federal) against being murdered by criminals or madmen.
            It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state (gov’t) to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order”
            (Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 [1982]).

            This means that if you want protection from violent crime, for you and your loved ones; it’s up to *YOU* and *YOU ALONE* to provide it.

            But it doesn’t stop there:
            Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)

            Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

            Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)

            Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

            Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

            Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

            Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

            Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

            Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

            Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

            Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

            Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

            Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382,
            A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

            Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)Morris v. Musser,
            84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

            But ask yourself this question, in your heart of hearts: Why should a cop risk his life to save
            something so insignificant (your life or the lives of your loved ones), that even the owner is unwilling to protect it?

            You state: “On the contrary, it is a SOCIAL contract, that limits the government, but does not set up a Free Fire Zone.”

            So where has disarming the intended victims, the law-abiding citizens, PREVENTED a “Gun Free Zone” from actually BEING a “Free Fire”? “Gun Free” Sandy Hook? “Gun Free” Red Lake High School? “Gun Free” Fort Hood? “Gun Free” Virginia Tech? “Gun Free” Columbine? The “Gun Free” University of Alabama Huntsville? The “Gun Free” Gabby Giffords meet-n-greet? Yes, while most of the goblin’s victims COULD have been armed, NO ONE at the shooting accepted personal responsibility for their own security by BEING armed.

            You state: “Many of the King’s powers the Framers detested were denied to the federal
            government and given to the state governments instead (10th Amendment).”

            That’s because the Founders knew the threat posed by a powerful centralized Government.

            That’s why the Federal Government was designed to be so weak.

            You state: “I think every adult citizen who is not crazy or a criminal has the right to own and conceal carry a firearm.”

            I’m more of a logical realist.

            I believe anyone that is to much of a menace to Society to be allowed to walk our streets ARMED, whether due to criminal behavior or mental defect, should be locked up, until such time as they are no longer deemed to no longer be a menace.

            You state: “That does not extend to machine guns (and I was a soldier and police officer, smart guy) or other military weapons.”

            So since you claim to have been “a soldier and police officer”: You seriously would oppose people having an assault rifle, but a semi-auto would be FINE with you for the same person to possess?

            For the first 158 years of this Country’s history, common citizens were allowed to own MILITARY GRADE weapons, including CANNONS and anti-aircraft guns. Prior to 1934, an 8-year-old could walk into a hardware store and walk out with a full auto weapon; No paper work, no questions asked.

            But the more Freedom and Liberty that is stripped away, the more restrictive the gun laws became.

            You state: “The government has NO obligation to suffer the military arming of potential rebels. That
            just unreal.”

            US v. Miller disagrees with your opinion. In fact, had Miller and Layton had a full-auto BAR that day, the case would never have seen a Supreme Court trial. (It was also successful because there was no opposing Counsel.)

            You state: “Why don’t we just set up Fee Zones where Islamic terrorist rebels can arm and train, without federal interference? After all, they might be citizens with the 2nd Amendment at their backs.”

            What does the CONSTITUTION say about it?
            So did Rosa parks REALLY NEED to sit down?

          • Conservative AND Republican

            I agree that armed citizens could have lessened these disasters. Even in the Aurora Theater Shooting a few bullets bouncing off the wacko might have woken the young man up to what he was doing, and saved lives, but the anti-gun crowd are too dumb to see that. But no one probably would have had body armor piercing rounds in their pistol or military grade rifles at the theater, even with open carry.

          • MasterWildfire

            You state: “Even in the Aurora Theater Shooting a few bullets bouncing off the wacko might have woken the young man up to what he was doing, and saved lives, but the anti-gun crowd are too dumb to see that.”

            Intended victims’ bullets ENTERING the goblin would definitely have had an effect.

            You state: “But no one probably would have had body armor piercing rounds in their pistol or military grade rifles at the theater, even with open carry.”

            Just a couple major flaws with this.
            1) This was one of the few posted “GUN FREE” theater in the area, even with open carry, the law-abiding wouldn’t have been denied entry.
            2) What was the ballistic rating of the goblin’s GAS MASK? (Handgun rounds would have definitely pierced it.)
            3) The goblin’s fingers and face WERE vulnerable to standard handgun fire, as was the goblin’s guns themselves.
            4) Few people, even with protective gear, will stand firm under fire.

          • Deovindice

            It turns out that Holmes was not wearing body armor.That was misreported by the ignorant Leftist Media.He was wearing a “tactical vest”.Being a Vet you know the difference between a tactical vest and body armor!A tatical vest is an LBE or LCE incorporated into a vest.He did not have body armor as he had chosen the only “gun free”theatre so he knew that there would be no law abiding Citizens to shoot back at him!They had been made fish in a barrel for him.

          • JayWye

            the Aurora shooter was NOT wearing body armor,it was a simple ballistic nylon vest,a carrier for gear and spare mags.



            In this case, Winter interviewed Chad Weinman, CEO of, who admitted the shooter’s vest came from their mail order company.

            Winter used the term “urban assault vest.” Looking that up at displays this result. It’s made of “heavy-duty nylon” and has no Kevlar or other bullet-resistant materials. Granted, if you load it up with magazines you may derive some protection at the expense of your ammunition, but it’s not “body armor.”

            You’re welcome to browse other offerings, like this Blackhawk vest made of “heavy-duty nylon mesh for maximum breathability.” Looks like body armor and could fool people into thinking it is, especially under low light conditions.

          • Deovindice

            Dispelling the myth of ‘The Wild West’

            These are interesting times in the fight to protect and enhance our rights as gun owners. In
            Wisconsin, we stand on the eve of an historic court ruling regarding open carry. In Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma and
            Arkansas, local activists have succeeded in making their voices heard regarding restoring open carry to these otherwise gun-friendly states. With all of this pro-gun activity, it should come as little surprise that the anti-gun forces are out in-force repeating their aged mantra … “This isn’t the wild west.”

            And this rhetoric is not limited to anti-gunners. Recently, I was quoted in a USA Today article about the open carry initiatives around the country and in that article, Texas Senator Jeff Wentworth (R), a supposedly pro-gun legislator denounced open carry saying “I think that’s harkening too far back to the Wild West.”

            With all this talk of “The Wild West”, I thought it might be informative to look at the reality of crime in the “wild west” cattle towns and compare them to the peaceful streets of such eastern, gun-control paradises as DC, New York, Baltimore and

            In his book, Frontier Violence: Another Look, author W. Eugene Hollon, provides us with these astonishing facts:

            In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and
            Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
            Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.

            Zooming forward over a century to 2007, a quick look at Uniform Crime Report statistics shows us the following regarding the aforementioned gun control “paradise” cities of the east:

            DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)

            New York – 494 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)

            Baltimore – 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)

            Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)
            It doesn’t take an advanced degree in statistics to see that a return to “wild west” levels of violent crime would be a huge improvement for the residents of these cities.
            The truth of the matter is that the “wild west” wasn’t wild at all … not compared to a Saturday night in


          • Conservative AND Republican

            It isn’t the Wild West that worries me. Most people are not going to carry a heavy inconvenient and emotion provoking pistol on their belts. It looks stupid! But what about gang bangers? Do they get to carry their guns on their belts too? How many dead black kids are we going to have then? So only good people get to open carry? I doubt it!

          • Deovindice

            I was addressing the often touted “Wild West”reference.I have a CCP and never carry open,however I have no issue with open carry.I really don’t believe in the “Convicted Felon”status either.Either someone is a danger to Society or they are not a danger.In the old days if you were sentenced to ten years you did ten years to the day.When you were released you were square with the House again and recieved ALL of your Rights back.Now we fill our Prison System with non-violent offenders,release violent ones,and hand out “Convicted Felon” sentences for life.Branding a Man for life is wrong to me.If he is that bad either lock him up for ever,until he is rehabilitated,or execute him.If he cannot be trusted to walk through the Mall with a 1911 I don’t want him around my children with a baseball bat,knife,or driving past them is a three K lb vehicle.

          • JayWye

            IMO,released convicted felons should only get their gun rights restored after a successful minimum 5 year probationary period.
            There’s no guarantee that a felon having served their time will immediately be a lawful citizen.
            In fact,courts are releasing many felons before they’ve served their time or made restitution to their victims. California is really bad about that.

          • ITSa341

            in Michigan open carry is legal with no permit. CCW/CCP permits are a shall issue right. We have no problem with gang bangers open carrying and have actually seen a drastic reduction in crimes ( expecially violent crimes ) since the shall issue laws went into effect. Many people carry either way and it has not caused any problems except when an open carry person runs into an improperly trained overzealous police officer with a bully attitude. Most sheriffs, deputys and honest officers are all for open and concealed carry by law abiding citizens. The Detroit chief of police even encourages citizens to arm themselves so they can protect themselves until police arrive.

          • MasterWildfire

            You ask: “Most people are not going to carry a heavy inconvenient and emotion provoking pistol on their belts. It looks stupid! But what about gang bangers?”

            I understand that you probably looked very stupid when you open carried as “a cop”.
            As a claimed “cop” why would you ask such a stupid question about gang bangers?

          • JayWye

            the alleged” Wild West” was a creation of that era’s MEDIA,to sell more papers. most of it was fabrication,as your data shows.

            Good post!

          • slobotnavich

            Hmm, I live in Chester County, PA and have a CCW (have for as long as I can remember) but didn’t know that open carry was legal in our state. Frankly, why anybody would want to carry openly is beyond me – first it alarms people, and second, it could make you a target for anybody wanting to club you over the head just to get your nice shiny new handgun.

          • Gary Miles

            There is no law in Pa that makes open carry illegal, which means it’s de facto legal (with the exception above where a ccl is required to carry a gun in any manner in Philly). Rep Kathy Rapp sponsored a seminar in Warren Pa last Spring. The Warren and Forest County Prosecutors and Sheriffs were also on hand. After a one hour presentation explaining the conceal carry and open carry laws, they spoke on the Castle/Stand your Ground laws. A one hour Q & A followed. Very informative. I do remember Philly being mentioned, but that was only about the CCL requirements apply to the city (it seemed as though Philly had tried to disallow concealed carry at some point, at least that is what was inferred.

          • Frank Smith

            ” club you over the head just to get your nice shiny new handgun.”

            Yeah, that seems to happen in the 39 other open carry states a LOT. rolleyes

          • SCSIwuzzy

            No, open carry IS NOT allowed in Philadelphia. It is the one city in PA that it is illegal. Concealed carry with a valid permit is allowed, but open carry IS NOT.

            18 Pa.C.S. § 6108: Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia
            No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class unless:
            (1) such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or
            (2) such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).

          • Gary Miles

            While I wouldn’t suggest open carry in Philly anyway, the law does sate that non-licensed citizens cannot carry. This allows for the carrying of firearms for those who are licensed (as I am). After a phone call to the State Police in Philly, if one does NOT have a CCL, he cannot carry a gun in any manner, but a citizen with a CCL can carry legally, open or concealed. This actually does makes some sense, as a background check is completed on all license holders.
            In short, open carry IS LEGAL to those who possess a valid license. In a way, we are both correct.

          • slobotnavich

            While within the city limits of Philadelphia I always carry two guns in belt holsters, two more in shoulder holsters, and two more stuffed into my old jump boots, plus a Fairbairn Commando dagger down the middle of my back. One can’t be too careful in the inner cities.

          • Deovindice

            Read the article I pasted below.Some intresting facts ant stats to dispell the myth of “out of control crime” in the so—called “Wild West”.

          • ITSa341

            Actually open carry and concealed carry have been shown to reduce crime and violence. Most criminals have no guts and lose their bravery as soon as they realize their victims may be armed.

        • Conservative AND Republican

          I use the VA and its healthcare all the time. It is quality care. Timing is rough because they spend too much money on bureaucrats and don’t pay doctors and other medical professionals enough to keep them. But they do great anyway. There is no way that private charities come close to the care the VA gives. Congress just needs to stop fooling around and step on some heads.

          • Gary Miles

            The VA is my only form a healthcare. For the most part it has been good. The system is full of unnecessary steps and is undermanned. The addition of the vets from Iraq 2 and Afghanistan has overwhelmed the system. Add that to our Vietnam vets getting up in years and bad in health, the problem just gets worse. I’m sure you already know, but treatment for just about everything is already predetermined, including what meds can and can’t be prescribed. I have been told “we have to stay within the written standards of care” on more than one occasion. One size fits all is an abject failure. It only adds to the already high suicide rate for vets.

            This is what the Left is asking for and I hope they get it. I’m not going to argue about the ACA, because it’s only goal is a stepping stone to single payer. The question “what are the Republicans going to replace it with” is proof that government has their foot in the door and they are planning on staying. So be it. I’ve always been one to think before I make decisions and always consider the”be careful what you ask for” thought process.

            Speaking of that, A long New Years tradition in a small town in North Caroline came under scrutiny from PETA this past holiday. The town had a tradition of lowering a live opossum in a cage for the countdown to the New year. PETA thought that was animal abuse, so the town leaders agreed rather than get into a long expensive court battle. So rather than lower a live opossum in a cage, they lowered a pot full of freshly made opossum stew. This is a true story that happened Wednesday night. Sometimes liberal’s get what they ask for.

          • slobotnavich

            I’m a 60% disabled vet from Vietnam and agree with your comments on VA care. I’ve never had any sort of serious problem with VA care, scheduling, or prescription meds, and I’ve used VA facilities in a good many different locations. They may now be experiencing some difficulty with the influx of Middle-East vets, especially with the sort of IED injuries common to that conflict, but so far my care from my facing VA facility (Coatesville.PA) has been good.

          • Gary Miles

            PA facilities seem to do quite well with vet’s that I stay in contact with. There have been issues with the Oakland (Pittsburgh) Va with hundreds of people who had the same problems as those reported at the Arizona facilities, which has cost lives. The VA is undermanned when it comes to specialists, which are in high demand to Vets. These are issues that are not new (and not really Obama’s fault), they are systemic as would any government run healthcare system (or any system for that matter) would be. This is why I support what the Progressives want. We may as well let everyone have the same systemic problems as the vets. Let’s do it and give them what they want, I’ll be d
            long dead before any one of them figure out that government is not the answer to ANY problems, they are always the cause>

          • slobotnavich

            Well spake, though I’d not advocate turning the health-care system over to the verminous “Progressives.” Funny how that term is universally misused, since the term now means brutal oppression, total thought control, the eradication of all freedoms, and central control of literally everything, as in the old USSR.This is “progress”? I would suggest that heretofore we refer to “progressives” as the Brutal Oppressives (BOs), with appropriate bounties for every pair of BO testicles or ovaries turned in to proper authorities. This would be the humane way of dealing with them
            since, since unlike as in old Marxist “Progressive Dictatorships” they’d be allowed to live but be prevented from passing on their dangerously defective genes. Thus, within a couple of generations the entire world could be immeasurably improved for all time.

          • Gary Miles

            LMAO, They do not know the err of their ways. They want and demand things that they have NO idea what will happen when they get it, but by then it’s too late. PETA forced a town in North Carolina to stop their New Years tradition of dropping a live opossum in a cage for the countdown to the New Year. They dropped a large pot of opossum stew in the cage instead. I’m still laughing about that one.

    • Travis458

      The left is not capable of having a honest discussion on anything. The only solution is to destroy liberalism. No more talk.

      • Gary Miles

        There are many times when I agree with you and a few times talk is respectable. The part that I dislike the most are the LIES. If it takes a lie to pass a law, than it can’t be a good law. Pound them into submission with facts and truth!

        • ELVIS

          If it wasn’t for lies these people would never talk, they wipe their asses on our Constitution. You made the comment who would come and get the guns, supposedly they have other military people from other countries to do it
          I wanted to say thank you for being an oath keeper!

          • Gary Miles

            I don’t know any vets who do not feel the same way. Individual rights, including the right to self defense, is paramount to freedom. Gun control has led to the death’s of 10s of millions of people at the hands of their own government. These facts are indisputable. Progressivism is the anti-freedom movement. Just another name for oppressive Communism.

  • IMG

    Let me phrase this in a manner that even the most stubborn, thick-headed dolt can comprehend:

    I need rifles, shotguns and pistols to defend my home and family from burglars, rapists, murderers, Western Diamondback Rattlesnakes, Copperheads, Black Moccasins, Coral Snakes, Foxes, Wolves, Coyotes, Mountain Lions, Bears (both brown and black) and any other similar or dissimilar types of predators, human or otherwise, that may grace my doorsteps or property.

    And lest you think I am being overly dramatic and prone to exaggeration on those types of predators, suffice it to say that (A) we live in an area of the country that we DO have all of those types of hazards from wildlife, and (B) yes we have personally had multiple encounters with every single one of those creatures I mentioned, and (C) we live near 4 prisons, one of which is for the criminally insane, another for hardened killers / murderers / rapists, one for general population thieves etc. and the 4th is for youth offenders, many of them are also murderers and rapists. We HAVE had escaped convicts in our area over the past 15+ years on multiple occasions, they HAVE been in our neighborhood holed up in homes near ours, and it tends to happen about every 3-4 years that they have an escape from one or another of those institutions.

    Combine those facts with the additional knowledge that our next door neighbor’s home has been burglarized TWICE now in the past 3 years, and just last fall an idiot walked up our driveway, opened the door to our kitchen and walked right in without knocking, ringing the doorbell or announcing himself. I met the perpetrator, who already had 2 steps into our kitchen, at that point, with gun in hand, pointed directly at him. He then dropped his knife and crowbar and tried running away, but he couldn’t get the screen door back open again and was forced to wait for the cops to come and arrest him, some TEN MINUTES later, while I held him, face down on the ground, at gunpoint.

    We eventually found out that he was solely responsible for a string of burglaries, rapes and one homicide in our area. I most likely saved several people from being robbed or murdered because I was able to DEFEND MY FAMILY and HOME, long, long, LONG before the cops would have ever arrive.

    The police are great for taking down incident reports and actually arresting people once they’ve already been apprehended. I’m grateful for their job, and I’ve got NO delusions of grandeur concerning doing their job for them. I’d rather think that I supplement what they do, in regards to my own home and my family’s safety. BTW, my wife and young daughter were both home when that incident occurred. Furthermore, I’m ex-military, well-trained on a huge multitude of weapons, both civilian and military, and am a licensed CWP / CCP owner from two states which entitles me to carry concealed in 39 states.

    You want facts? There you go. That is why we have a 2nd Amendment. To protect our families and homes from ALL predators, both human and otherwise.

    And oh, yeah, one other thing…to protect against the possibility of a foreign national, say maybe, a guy from West Africa who might be an Indonesian citizen, who never dis-avowed his citizenship, from taking over our government in a bloodless coup d’ etat by using massive voter fraud and the complicity of the demoncrap party. A guy who promised to ‘fundamentally transform America’ into a full-on communist dictatorship.

    You know, a complete impossibility such as that scenario.
    Of course, it’ll never happen here in America.

    We’re the land of the FREE and home of the BRAVE.

    • slobotnavich

      I’m the owner of a good many sporting rifles and big-bore six-guns and thus feel secure in my home and person. Making us even more secure, however, is our large and highly aggressive (toward strangers) German Shepherd, who in addition to his powerful jaws, has incredibly keen hearing and night vision. Any average or larger size dog is the ultimate intruder deterrent. Plus, in the event of an actual break-in, the dog could feed on the intruder, helping to defray the costs of nourishing the beast.

  • John Jay

    We’ve been talking about guns for a long time, Jill, esp. after Sandy Hook. You do not seem to understand what is being said.

  • Jim Dean

    Okay, let’s talk about guns. At the top of your post is one of those nasty “assault” rifles. You know-the ones responsible for less than 300 deaths a year. So you want to focus on those? While ignoring the fact that thousands of young men are killing each other in every major city in the country while ignoring virtually every existing gun law? Or do they not matter?

    • Travis458

      Young men? You mean negros…and f u c k ’em, they are a burden and a drain on society…much like our government.

      • cargosquid

        So…the white guys that commit the 48% of the murders are negros?

        Who knew?

        Race does not matter. BOTH races kill innocent people.

        • You may wish to do the math. The black population is around 13-14%. All things being equal, they should be doing a similar proportion of murders. The vast majority of murders are within racial groups. Blacks kill blacks. Whites kill whites. If you actually think black lives matter instead of just using it as a political slogan, it’s this disproportionate murder statistic that is obviously the major factor.

          For the record, I think it’s appalling to dismiss out of hand any human being, much less so many of our fellow citizens. Travis458 was wrong to do so.

          • cargosquid

            Yes… I understand the ratios.

            And I agree with what you just wrote.

            I was pointing out that his comment was incorrect.

        • Travis458

          Spoken like a true fence-straddling, mealy-mouthed socialist maggot.

          • cargosquid


            You are such a bigot. You appear to be a liberal operating under a false flag to make actual conservatives look bad.

  • IMG


    I want to THANK YOU and all fellow Vets for your service and dedication to our Republic, the United States of America. You have sacrificed much for many years and there are millions of true patriotic citizens and former Vets who appreciate everything that you have given.

    And sorry, dummycraps, the good ol’ US of A is NOT a ‘democracy’, we are a true REPUBLIC….hence the term, REPUBLICANS, which means, true patriotic defenders of what our founding fathers devised over 239 years ago.

    ‘democrats’ is simply another code word for COMMUNIST / SOCIALIST, for the past 115+ years, and we NOT tolerate your impudence and flagrant abuse of our Veterans or our true Patriotic Citizens.

    This far, and no further. We are putting an end to your lies, distortions and thinly-veiled attempts to controvert our American government and the true American way of life.

    • slobotnavich

      But enough of the Democrats’ better qualities……..

  • Steve

    I have some sympathy for the doctors and nurses that have to clean up the post shooting human mess, and I understand that the author probably didn’t pick the photo associated with the article, but sympathy and understanding only go so far. The AR 15 shown is a pale shadow of the M 16 family of real assault weapons. But neither of them is deemed sufficiently powerful by the State of Virginia to hunt whitetails. So I’ll go with a 30:06 for deer and elk, and the 5.56 for two legged varmints. And lets have that conversation about guns regularly, right before each election. With a test vote to put politicians on record.

  • IMG

    BTW, did anyone else notice that (A) the forward grip on the AR-15 in the photo is set too far back (probably has never actually been utilized or fired, ever), and that (B) the rifle has a 40-round magazine? I thought that last part was a bit odd, as an AR-15 is typically matched up with 30-round mags.

    Not to say that I don’t own both 30 & 40 rnd. mags….just sayin’….odd pic.

  • cargosquid

    “Banning assault weapons is the top item on its state advocacy page.”

    So, enacting political stunts to ban items that cause much less damage than hands and feet is supposed to improve the nation’s health. They would rather spend political capital doing that, then something productive. Thus is seen their bigotry instead of science.

    “Gun safety activists marked the second anniversary of Sandy Hook by
    releasing a study that found at least 95 school shootings in 33 states
    have occurred”

    Using debunked “statistics” completely undermines the argument.

    And then there is this bit of dishonesty…or at best…complete ignorance:
    “There was never a more complicit moment than in April 2013, four months
    after Sandy Hook, when the Senate tried to pass a bipartisan bill to
    require background checks online and at gun shows. Supporters needed 60
    votes to break a filibuster, and only mustered 54.”

    There was NO filibuster. What was attempted was an amendment process. Senator Reid, at the request of the White House, implemented a 60 vote requirement which prevented the required 9 hours of debate PER EACH AMENDMENT. There were NINE. One of them was the Manchin-Toomey Bill, which contrary to gun control propaganda, was NOT a universal background check bill.

    The ONLY, ACTUAL universal background check amendment was defeated by the gun control side.

    Apparently, control is more important than safety to the gun control side.

    But then….we know that.

    So, if you want to have a “talk” about guns, be aware that there has been an ongoing discussion about gun control for the past 15 years.

    The American people have demonstrated that they want LESS gun control.

  • Chrissums

    My gun rights predate the Constitution, and are beyond the scope of authority of any U.S. Government entity to regulate.


    He lost any hope of people listening to him (except the gun grabbers) when he said guns are a public health issue, it will be a health issue only if they try and take the guns

  • Gary Mathis

    Thank God for the NRA.

  • Guns are a consequence of a baseline point in law, nobody is legally responsible for your security but you. If you run into trouble and the police do not show up, you cannot hold them to account through the courts. You can only elect new officials who will appoint a new chief whose new policies will hopefully stop repeats of your personal tragedy.

    The vast majority of gun uses are defensive, positive, and sparsely documented. The limited number of actual casualties arising from widespread gun ownership all land in the laps of ER doctors. This causes a skewed perspective on the part of medical professionals who have little contact with guns otherwise. Medical professionals who are also members of the firearms culture tend to be more balanced.

    The anti-gun side has a long and shameful history of dealing in bad faith, which is why gun transaction records are not supposed to be kept beyond certain time limits. Whether it is racist whites disarming blacks in the south, proto-fascist regimes using registries for later national confiscation and disarmament, or “common sense” restrictions that show little common sense and more anti-gun animus the anti-gun side has lost the right to an assumption of good faith. What other nationally recognized individual right exists without near automatic state reciprocity?

    • Dimitri Andre

      ‘Whether it is racist whites disarming blacks in the south, proto-fascist
      regimes using registries for later national confiscation and
      disarmament, or “common sense” restrictions that show little common
      sense and more anti-gun animus the anti-gun side has lost the right to
      an assumption of good faith”
      Gun prohibition has always led to more crime, CAUSE CRIMINALLYS OF ALL RACES DONT CARE ABOUT BREAKING THE LAW. And historiocally gun probahabtion was always racist in genaral(not just blacks, jews before ww2 also)

  • cargosquid

    The discussion here is interesting and illustrative.

    On other threads at this site, the liberals dominate. And conservatives wonder why they lose the narrative battle.

    The only place in conservatism that has passionate defenders is the 2nd amendment. And I include the “liberal” defenders in that “conservative” description since the defenders are trying to conserve a liberty.

  • JayWye

    “progressives” have called for “serious discussion about guns” EVERY
    time a mass murder has taken place. There’s been plenty of “serious discussions”.
    But the only “serious discussion” they accept is “give us the gun control we want”.
    That’s why we keep having these massacres and more calls for “serious
    “Progressives” reject practical,workable solutions every time. Instead,they repeatedly demand more futile gun control and retaining “gun-free zones” that have been PROVEN to not work. It’s been said that doing the same thing over and over,expecting different results each time,is one definition of insanity. I do not see any new -Constitutional- gun control as having any practical effect on stopping gun violence or school massacres,without having a much greater negative effect on ordinary decent citizens. I also do not foresee any Amendment negating the Second Amendment.
    also,the CDC has NO business in the gun control debate.this is OUTSIDE of their concern. Gun violence is NOT a “public health” matter,it’s criminology matter. It’s also a huge lie that the NRA has stopped the government from doing research on gun violence. the FBI and other appropriate agencies do research,but it’s a misuse of taxpayer money to have the Center for DISEASE CONTROL,a health agency to use it’s funding for something that is outside of it’s concern.

    Liberal NewSpeak;
    “meaningful discussion of guns” translates to; “what new gun control can we pile on lawful citizens?
    what guns can we ban?
    Who cares about the Constitution and “shall not be infringed”?”

    “In other words, you would sign a blank contract and hope these people will treat you fairly when they fill in the terms later.”

  • JayWye

    here’s something that “progressives” really hate to hear;
    the Second Amendment of the Constitution is NOT ABOUT hunting or sporting.
    it’s about the people retaining the ability to “alter or to abolish” a government gone bad,as written in the Declaration of Independence.
    the Founders had just overthrown their own incumbent government (Britain) by FORCE OF ARMS,and recognized that it might have to be done again in the future,thus the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment protecting the People’s right to keep and bear arms.
    The American Revolution BEGAN when the Brits moved to confiscate arms at Concord.
    the people (in militia) responded with privately owned arms.

    Constitutional attorney Stewart Rhodes will explain The Second Amendment for you.

    …”The whole point of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military capacity of the American people – to preserve the ability of the people, who are the militia, to provide for their own security as individuals, as neighborhoods, towns, counties, and states, during any emergency, man-made or natural; to preserve the military capacity of the American people to resist tyranny and violations of their rights by oath breakers within government; and to preserve the military capacity of the people to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, including those oath breaking domestic enemies within government. “

  • South Bay Members’ Council Nra

    Jill Lawrence seems to misunderstand the issue. Gun owners and the NRA are always willing to talk about guns. It is the anti-gunners that get shy when we talk about GUN CONTROL. Hence why they are so excited about the new Surgeon General. They want to pull a bait and switch by re-branding gun control into “public health issues”.

    So who is unwilling to talk about guns now?

  • JayWye

    more facts that “progressives” don’t like to hear or discuss;
    the Second Amendment of the Constitution is NOT ABOUT hunting or sporting.
    semi-auto,magazine-fed rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are today’s modern MILITIA weapons,and thus should be the most protected of firearms under the Second Amendment.

    Militiamen were expected to appear for muster bearing arms and ammo similar to and compatible with what the Regular military had in use AT THAT TIME.
    Since we “compromised” and restricted ownership of full-auto,true assault rifles,that leaves the semi-auto versions for civilian militia use.

    In US v Miller,SCOTUS asked if a short-barreled shotgun was a weapon that a militia would commonly use,implying that arms protected by the 2nd Amendment were arms a militia would use. AR-15’s,M-16’s and AK-47s would be ordinary militia arms,and “hi-capacity magazines” also would be protected.

  • JayWye

    During the LA riots of 1992,the police REFUSED to enter the riot zone to protect citizens,and Korean shopkeepers used “assault weapons” (Ruger Ranch rifles) to hold off the rioting mob that came to burn them and their families alive in their shops/homes. that’s just ONE good reason,not that we need ANY reason to own them.
    it also is justification for 30 round magazines,you need firepower to hold off a riot mob.
    Not that we need any justification.

  • Travis458

    Hey Jill, blow me…right after you make me a sandwich.

  • Freethinker01

    What fools. The FBI states rifles of ANY type (of which semi-auto rifles are an even smaller amount) were used in 323 murders in 2011. How many of those were children?

    Now, compare that with how many children were killed by drowning. Twice that many CONFIRMED dead kids…about 700 per year under age 14 (CDC statistics).

    And the AAP has “gun violence” and “assault weapons” as their number one concern. Agenda driven fools.

  • Furious

    Another Libtard writing for another liberal rag.

  • Travis458

    Funny how liberal scum always think that ‘people’ are responsible for everything that is wrong with the planet and should be held accountable…except when it comes to criminals.
    After all the talk is complete, liberals will always amount to nothing more than festering swine diarrhea.

    • liberalssuck

      Nah they are just mentally unstable. Why they refuse to talk about mental health issues.

  • Apachecav

    Silly Libtard Idiot the Constitution does not give us any rights, God did. We have the right to bear arms because He said so. You can’t take away what you don’t own, that would be stealing, another thing He said don’t do. Try entering into the adults’ conversations when you grow up. We might let you in.

  • No, The discussion we need to have is the Murder Rate in the black community, When they become honest about the Black Culture of Crime, Then we will see a massive drop in an already dropping murder rate, The biggest drop coming from the White side of the equation, Blacks account for an amazing 47+% of the murders in the nation, While only being 16% and shrinking of that population.

  • banger377

    Before tackling guns, we have to solve the biggest threat to human life.

    All government except for Constitutional Republics, with The Bill of Rights, are Oligarchies. Oligarchies are almost always socialistic in nature. Socialist governments have been the biggest murd erers of men, women, and children, since time began.

    You wouldn’t let a deranged psychopath have a machine gun. Why do we let stupid people, that manage to get hold of a lot of money, use that money to promote socialism (oligarchy)? If the second Amendment is not as secure as we think it is, maybe free speech and free ownership of property isn’t as secure either?

    If the Oligarchy wants to find a way to disarm free people to solidify their position, then we free people should find a way to limit the damage they do to life and limb. How about an ASSET tax on all property of those that use that property (money) to promote or force any form of socialism. The first One Billion dollars would be exempt and it would be indexed. Assets over that amount, that are not used to promote socialism of any kind, would be exempt.

    Bloomberg, Soros, Michael Douglas, Bill Gates, Ted turner, and many others, would be taxed at the rate of 30% per year, for the privilege of trying to screw us.

    Let’s do it for the children.

    • Hasbro

      Well, as long as it’s for the children…….OK!

    • liberalssuck

      That is the rally cry for them, but they do not mind butchering millions of children thu abortion every year. Go figure.

      • ELVIS

        I am pro GUN and pro CHOICE!

        • liberalssuck

          So am I, but fact is you are still killing a baby with abortion. However as a man it is not for me to decide and I will not be the one to answer for it.

    • Chris Leaver


  • DevinDenver

    More people die due to automobiles than guns. In fact, far more people die due to the illegal operating of automobiles (ie, driving under the influence, distracted drivers, illegal aliens, etc.) each year than all gun deaths. So why, are you not asking for a “discussion” on automobiles or illegal aliens?

  • CVN65

    The AAP is like the NEA- full of hard-core libs. The AMA represents a very small portion of American doctors- 15-17%. A large percentage of the membership hails from the academic institutions- the ones that never have to worry about overhead costs, staffing issues, meeting payroll or reimbursement rates. In other words, those not living in the real world. Altogether all we have here is one lib being supported by other libs. Murthy is straight-up unqualified for this post- he is too political and unseasoned. And someone better tell the fools in Ct that guns also play a large part in stopping mass shootings.

  • Dave

    This is a good video on why good people should be armed, and why the second amendment is so important. For a free nation of people by the people and for WE THE PEOPLE.

  • liberalssuck

    What is so funny, the data shows, gun ownership has risen and crime has been dropping. So what really do we have to talk about ?

    • SonofaCV15

      Political agendas and President Sticky Note.

      • liberalssuck

        That is all it is, an agenda.

  • SonofaCV15

    “In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.” (that is for the entire year btw.)

    But maybe we should be talking about space heaters first… if you really want to save lives that is…

    “In 2011, the most recent year examined by the report, there were an estimated 53,600 structure fires nationwide caused by heating equipment. In those, 400 people died, 1,520 were injured and the total property damage was estimated to be $893 million.”

    Keeping in mind that space heaters are only used for about 4 to 6 months each year, if it were a year around problem, that would work out to about 800 deaths and 3040 injuries with 107,200 structure fires.

    Yet I fail to see where we have anyone screaming about banning space heaters. I wonder why that is?

    • anotherday

      Since 1900, 17,000 people have died from toothpicks.
      How many kids have choked to death on a button?
      Our priorities are screwed up.

  • Daniel Petry

    “Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” Sara Brady Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3

  • Daniel Petry

    “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that is good” George Washington

  • LetzThink

    I AM THE NRA!!! Well, myself and millions of my brothers and sisters in the cause of Liberty and defense of our rights – including the natural human right to self-defense. We pay our dues because those monies enable the NRA to speak with OUR VOICE. The hoplophobics like to demonize the NRA as though it’s some nebulous non-human entity. It isn’t! The NRA is a huge cross-section of devoted, patriotic AMERICANS who understand our history and stand to defend our future.

  • Comment_Not_Approved

    You don’t debate rights … you exercise them. And you do whatever is necessary to those who would deny you your rights.

  • James Crockett

    Those who surrender their firearms deserve to die as slaves.

  • anotherday

    Like children are at risk from being shot with an assault-style weapon.

  • DoubIenaughtspy

    Never mind facts, crime statistics and the total lack of evidence “twitter feeds prove” we need to talk about gun control. LOL, I take it “The National Memo” is written by a 3rd grade creative writing class? I’m betting they champion “global warming” as well.

  • ThomasCollins1

    “…a study that found at least 95 school shootings in 33 states…”

    Everytown for Gun Safety contends that there have been 95 school shootings in the past two years. Others disagree.

    Compiled from media reports between Dec. 15, 2012 and Dec. 9, 2014, the 8-page analysis of school shootings conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety, funded by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, contends that in the that time there has been an average of nearly one such event every week. It concludes that, by its definition of what a school shooting is, some 95 have occurred in 33 states during the time in question…However, the methodology of the report is something of a moving target as it categorizes every incident that involved a firearm in or around a school as a “school shooting,” even if it was an accident,
    gang-shooting, suicide, coincidental shooting, or one in which no one
    was injured…

    According to Lott’s own research, using data from the National School Safety Center and others, non-gang, non-suicide firearms deaths on school campuses to include K-12 and universities has been on a steady decline from over 30 per year in 1992 to closer to under 10 per year by 2009.

    Lott also pointed out that the latest Everytown report is built upon a foundation that draws heavily from a June 2014 analysis issued by the group that claimed 74 school shooting had occurred since Newtown.

    That report was debunked by both Politifact, which held that the finding was “Mostly false,” and CNN who found in its analysis the number closer to being correct was 15 shootings in the period rather than 74…“Despite all the criticisms that Bloomberg’s groups have gotten over
    their report on school, they have, with one exception, continued to
    include all the questionable ‘Newtown like’ school shooting cases that
    they had previously,” Lott said.

    The “narrative”.

    • cargosquid

      Even the NY Times pointed out that Everytowns numbers were bogus. When you’ve lost the liberal papers……

  • jtg1983

    I’ve never seen a see-through polymer receiver like the one in the picture. Guns are great, and the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. How can the left not process the simple fact that all of the gun laws in the world won’t stop a person who is intent on going on a shooting spree. Laws only affect persons intending to operate within the law. Mass murderers generally do not fall into that category.
    Had the Sergeant at Arms not had a gun in Canada, that lunatic would’ve killed dozens of MoP’s and countless other innocents.
    Say what you will, but Americans are rather firmly on the side of gun ownership…. especially in light of the harm that can be inflicted by a single criminal with a gun.

  • Bill Birdis

    There is absolutely no need for debate on Gun ownership, it is over and Gun owners won. Now ” Lock and Load ” and if a democrap gets in you way convince it that they are not nice people.

  • robert gould

    The law abiding have never been helped by having their guns controlled and the criminals have never been stopped by gun control. So why don’t we focus on keeping the criminal away from the guns, like in jail, instead of harassing the law abiding because of some people irrational gun -paranoia.

  • Robert Thomas

    I fail to understand how an inanimate object causes anything? Jill Lawrence, you are an idiot. Can the medical community blame obesity on spoons? Obviously they are “ubiquitous” in dining facilities. Guns do make killing people easy, that is obvious. But removing them will NOT remove the urge to kill, destroy, etc. that these mentally unstable people have. Whats next, will you blame automakers for drunk driving? Progressive liberals are such idiots.

  • John Wirts

    Check it out through out the world and the U.S., where there is draconian gun control crime goes up not down. England had a low crime rate, Then they banned private gun ownership, confiscated these guns and destroyed them. The British Bobbies went from Truncheons(night sticks) to sub machine guns, and crime is up 400%, now thy are talking about banning pointed rocks! The Norwegians have universal service. When they join the service they are issued a personal weapon. This may be a revolver, a semi-automatic pistol, a submachine gun, a rifle capable of semi-automatic, or fully automatic fire. When this individual separates from the active service his personal weapon goes home with him. Further the government issues him ammunition, targets and range passes to allow him to practice and requalify with his weapon annually. Their crime rate is very low,what criminal wants to face a trained and qualified homeowner who might be armed with a machine gun? So to simplify or make a new statement Gun Rights For DUMMIES! No legal guns high crime, Restricting guns only for criminals LOW CRIME. The misnamed “Gun Free Zones” are actually “Target Rich Environments!!! Make all anti-gun lobbyists, and government officials have to give up their guns, Concealed carry permits, and ARMED GUARDS. If the country is so safe that the citizens can’t be armed, it is obviously so safe thea these PRIVILEGED classes of citizens also have no need or justification to be armed.