fbpx

Type to search

America Is Exceptionally Dumb When It Comes To Guns

Memo Pad Politics

America Is Exceptionally Dumb When It Comes To Guns

Share

While Americans typically laud our national “exceptionalism” — a sense that the trajectory of history has bestowed greatness upon the United States — there are a few of our distinctive characteristics that don’t deserve celebration. On the subject of firearms, for example, the United States is exceptionally irrational. No other nation has set guns aside as an object of worship.

We have let a blood-soaked gun lobby dictate our laws and regulations on firearms; we have passed “stand your ground” laws that allow violent and angry men to murder unarmed people; we have given the mentally unstable the ability to buy military-style assault weapons with which they wreak havoc on crowds. Last week, Georgia governor Nathan Deal signed a bill into law that would allow denizens of his state to carry firearms into government buildings, bars and, God help us, churches.

In addition, we have allowed the gun lobby to suppress research into the public health consequences of our firearms-worshipping culture. Indeed, U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) — running in a crowded GOP primary for a U.S. Senate seat — has recently reversed himself, going back on an earlier pledge to support such studies. It hardly gets any loonier than that.

In the 1990s, the National Rifle Association successfully stymied public health researchers who wanted to study the causes and consequences of gun violence. According to ProPublica, a nonprofit news organization, “funding for firearms injury prevention activities dropped from more than $2.7 million in 1995 to around $100,000 in 2012.”

The gun lobby clearly fears that science will discover that guns are dangerous and that, well, more guns are more dangerous. (To quote that famous philosopher Stephen Colbert, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”)

However, after the Sandy Hook atrocity in December 2012, it appeared that the dead bodies of 20 small children — and six adults — might be enough to finally restore some sanity to the national conversation. President Obama issued a presidential memorandum ordering the CDC to “research the causes and prevention of gun violence.” The National Rifle Association didn’t immediately object, since it recognized the fraught politics of that grief-laden moment.

Some of the NRA’s supporters, too, were muted, seemingly willing to consider modest measures to improve public safety. Kingston was among those willing to support more research on gun violence, saying, “Let’s let the data lead rather than our political opinions.”

Tags:
Cynthia Tucker Haynes

Cynthia Tucker Haynes, a veteran newspaper journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner, is a Visiting Professor of Journalism and Charlayne Hunter-Gault Distinguished Writer-in-Residence at the University of Georgia. She is also a highly-regarded commentator on TV and radio news shows.

Haynes was editorial page editor of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper for 17 years, where she led the development of opinion policy. More recently, she was that newspaper’s Washington-based political columnist. She maintains a syndicated column through Universal Press Syndicate, which is published in dozens of newspapers around the country. Besides winning the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 2007, Haynes has also received numerous other awards, including Journalist of the Year from the National Association of Black Journalists.

  • 1

283 Comments

  1. kenndeb April 26, 2014

    Liberal commies at it again, I see. First get the weapons out of the populous hands, then strip away the rest of their rights. This has worked well for Hitler, Stalin, and now the Emperor and his liberal mindless minions want to try it yet again.

    Reply
    1. johninPCFL April 26, 2014

      You should let Deb speak for a change.
      There is NO gun grab going on, except in your delusions.

      Reply
      1. kenndeb April 26, 2014

        Really? Might want to talk to conniticut gun owners that are supposed to register or turn in their rifles. Or maybe NYS gun owners that were required to register or turn in their riflwes. New York City residents were getting letters telling thwem to turn in many of their firearms. NY state police were reported to bwe going through medical records of permit holders to see if anyone had been prescribed any anti depressants. Yeah, you are so right. Nobody wants to disarm Americans. Maybe Di Fi’s statement of “Mr and Mrs America, turn them all in” was just a fluke.

        Reply
        1. WhutHeSaid April 26, 2014

          I know that you are a proven idiot, but let me remind you anyway that it’s not just members of the Goober Only Party who believe in 2nd Amendment rights. The US Constitution doesn’t exist so that goobers like you can run around acting like drunken monkeys.

          Kindly go back inside your trailer and make yourself presentable before you make a public fool of yourself again. And use soap, for the love of God.

          Reply
          1. kenndeb April 26, 2014

            What are you? The 10 year old liberal poster child? Perhaps you should know about something before you try to comment about it. How about we meet up sometime to discuss your attitude? That is if you can get your mothers permission to go out. I doubt you could handle yourself with an old man though.

            Reply
          2. WhutHeSaid April 26, 2014

            You wouldn’t want to meet me in person, trust me on that — I don’t suffer fools gladly, and you are an obvious fool. If you don’t like being the object of scorn, then perhaps it’s time for you to pay attention to your scorn for others. It’s a simple principle, really, but you obviously need a primer.

            Reply
          3. kenndeb April 26, 2014

            No, really, I would love to meet you. My guess is that you are just an anonymous coward that would cower in the corner if faced with any actual situation, even an old man in a walker. Your vileness is very telling. You would prefer to hide behind a computer or someone else. Must be hard being afraid to go out in the big bad world.

            Reply
          4. WhutHeSaid April 26, 2014

            Stop whining, you old fart. Given your nasty and despicable hatred towards other people, it’s a wonder that you even survived this long. If I ever met you in person I’d put you in your place right quick — believe that.

            Reply
          5. kenndeb April 26, 2014

            I don’t think I’m nasty. Nor do I hate, with perhaps the exception of my first wife. Yet I do really have an extreme dislike for you. I really dislike cowards that hide and spout off their mouths. Really, try backing up your claims of being so bad. I ‘m not big or bad. I’m definitely not in my prime anymore. I’ve had several surgeries to repair a shattered ankle, and don’t get around as well as I once did. I am old enough to have great grandchildren. I’m getting to be near blind due to retinas that seem to like to tear and detach. With all my frailties, I’m still more than confident that you most likely would pee your pants. Name a place. I’m willing.

            Reply
          6. WhutHeSaid April 26, 2014

            Unbelievable. You are actually stupid enough to post threats toward other people in public because you don’t like what they have to say yet you claim not to hate in the same breath.

            I’ve dealt with redneck assholes all my life. The big talk is always the same, right up until talk time is over — then it’s really pathetic.

            I’ve really heard enough of your whiny, lying redneck goober bullshit. All you do out here is flap your toothless old gums about the black man in the White House, and the other black man in the DOJ — when you aren’t ranting about immigrants (exactly what you and your family are, by the way). Then you have the nerve to lie and say you are a registered democrat and you voted for Obama. Just how stupid can you goobers possibly get, anyway?

            Take your threats and jam them up your ass. If I took the time to stomp the shit out of every redneck asshole that deserved a good ass-kicking I’d have time for little else. If in the course of normal life I happen to run into you and hear you running your mouth, I’ll deal with you like I have every other big mouth redneck asshole since I was in 2nd grade.

            Get a life, goober.

            Reply
          7. kenndeb April 26, 2014

            Just as I thought. It sounds like you are a bully more than willing to prey on those smaller and weaker than you. And, as with most bullies, you don’t have the courage to face anyone that would stand up to you. As far as being a bigot, you have more than demonstrated that you have no tolerance for anyone different than yourself. So who is the bigot?
            Get a life? I’ve had a very full and interesting life, and would change little if I had a chance to live it again. I wish you well in your very narrow, shallow life. You will need all the help you can get with your attitude.

            Reply
          8. WhutHeSaid April 26, 2014

            I get along fine with most people. I just despise ignorant, bigoted rednecks. Unlike you, I’m smart enough to know that threatening people on the Internet is the mark of a true fool. I realize that people like you just can’t help it.

            So go snort up some of your Medicare Viagra and flex your droopy, sagging old bigot-muscles while looking at yourself in the mirror and daydreaming about the good old days when hate for people different than you was acceptable behavior. Those days are long gone and they are never coming back. Sorry ’bout your luck.

            Reply
          9. kenndeb April 27, 2014

            So, you have so far attacked me as being a redneck, a goober, trailer park trash, unwashed, racist, bigot, and now you are going after my age? I guess you should look up the definition of bigot. Your picture my just be next to the definition.

            Reply
          10. WhutHeSaid April 27, 2014

            The difference between you and me is that despite your despicable personal traits (ranting about black officials because they’re black, hating on immigrants even though you are one, etc.), I don’t propose attacking your right to be who you are and enjoy your American rights. God must have surely had a reason to put redneck bigots here, and far be it from me to question God’s plan.

            You, and the other goobers like you, actively engage in attempts to force your bigoted hate upon other people by attacking their rights, freedom, or even their life. As an added bonus, you stupidly threaten physical violence on those who post things you don’t like on the Internet despite the fact that in reality it is unlikely that you would be able to back up said threats.

            Sadly for you, we really don’t do things like that in America anymore. Those days are gone, and your sordid hate for those who are different will die with you — not a day too soon it seems.

            Reply
          11. idamag April 27, 2014

            I’ve met that type, in person, before. They throw out something hateful and when you ask them why they said that, they tell you they don’t discuss politics.

            Reply
          12. plc97477 April 28, 2014

            I hear a little wishful thinking going on.

            Reply
          13. leadvillexp April 26, 2014

            If you can not have a more civil discourse than this you shouldn’t write. Read what I wrote to kenndeb and read your Constitution and Bill of Rights. I would also suggest the Federalist Papers and Anti Federalist Papers to find out what our forefathers were thinking. They were further advanced than we are in politics. We had just ended a war against King George and they knew what could happen in the future and made plans for it. That is why the Second Amendment is today.

            Reply
          14. WhutHeSaid April 26, 2014

            Listen, you ignoramus — I don’t need to ask your permission to post what I think. This is another of the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. Don’t like it? Go call 1-800-CRY-BABY.

            I support 2nd Amendment rights, you dolt. Apparently you felt the urge to run off at the mouth before you even knew what you were talking about. It’s a famous redneck goober habit.

            Reply
          15. leadvillexp April 26, 2014

            You should stop being so nasty and start listening. You like to call people names but I don’t see you standiing for anything. By the way, I am what they call a RINO because I support many liberal causes. You should read some of the things I told you to. I also support the First Ammendment and it is your right to act like a fool.

            Reply
          16. WhutHeSaid April 26, 2014

            You chose to step into the middle of an exchange between two people who obviously already had an acrimonious dialog going, so if you believe that you are ‘King Of The Internet’ then by all means continue to try telling people what they can post. Good luck with that.

            I don’t care if you support liberal causes or not — butt into other peoples conversations at your own risk. If you believe that you have some ‘special’ knowledge that other people don’t have, then by all means enlighten the world, but preaching to other people about how they should post is akin to pissing in the wind.

            Reply
          17. leadvillexp April 26, 2014

            I certainly would not try to tell people what they can or can not post. These posts are an exchange of ideas and beliefs. An exchange of knowledge. I just thought you could be more civil and yes I agree speaking to you is akin to pissing in the wind so therefore I won’t post any more to you.

            Reply
          18. WhutHeSaid April 26, 2014

            Of course you won’t, because you make yourself look like a fool. You should have thought about that before you butted into other peoples’ exchanges and tried to tell them how they could post. Toodles.

            Reply
          19. idamag April 27, 2014

            Careful. They are going to kick you out of THE PARTY if you try to think for yourself.

            Reply
        2. ThomasBonsell April 26, 2014

          Could you supply links to legitimate news sources to prove what you say is actually happening?

          Not interested in sources such as the National Rifle Association or Fakes News, both of which are notorious liars. Don’t also include other far-right dishonest propaganda merchants.

          Legitimate, unbiased sources only.

          Reply
          1. kenndeb April 26, 2014

            In this day and age it is near impossible to find an unbiased source. Both the left and the right are spewing propaganda . The major networks are under government control, and FOX is always going to stick up for the right only. Do a few Google searches, and you should find a source that you will believe. Try searching for “new Connecticut gun control”, NY SAFE act, “Amherst man has firearms confiscated”, and “NY City’s gun confiscation”. All should get you a plethora of info. The truth is out there. You just need to decide to stop listening to just one side. Neither will be truthful. You will find it by looking at both sides of the coin.

            Reply
          2. ThomasBonsell April 27, 2014

            I know the drill. After a couple of decades in the field I am used to the nonsense thrown about that always claims that if your biases aren’t justified by the news industry the industry must be biased in favor of the other side. That is as old as is the printing press and it isn’t so.

            You are making some outrageous claims, it is up to you to prove they are true.

            Reply
          3. kenndeb April 27, 2014

            You said that you wanted unbiased sources, yet you seem to want sources that you approve of. I think that if you want to find the truth, you should do your own research, as any I quote will not be to your liking. I also think if you read other comments in this thread, you will find a few sources, but again, probably not to your liking. You either want to actually want the truth, and are willing to research yourself, or you would rather just accept the party line and cry foul on any source you do not like. Up to you

            Reply
          4. ThomasBonsell April 27, 2014

            Your response is the typical reaction of a fraudster.

            First you make outrageous claims, but when asked to see the sources of your claim you reuse to provide it, as if everyone is just supposed to take you word or it.

            You follow that up with the ludicrous claim that you can read the mind of a person you have never met. I can recognize bogus claims, they always are followed with a refusal to cite the sources.

            As said, I spent many years in the newspaper field and can recognize a biased or an unbiased source when I see it. You just refuse to let anyone see it.

            You are a fraud.

            Reply
          5. leadvillexp April 26, 2014

            Come to New York State. Read our news papers, the NYS Budget, and how the Bills were passed this year. Much has been done with “Message of Necessity” and Executive Order. Our Governor has tried to silence all opposition. He uses intimidation on Department Heads and the Legislature. New York is trying to confiscate guns and magazines. He is smoke and mirrors and a dictator. I am a RINO and voted for many Democrats and hold their values but this year I will vote Republican. I value our rights, the Constitution and Bill of Rights more than the Democratic agenda, The SafeAct of NY has decided my M1 Carbine is an assault weapon. To make it not so I had to remove the bayonet lug and compensator. Some 10-22 rifles are now also assault weapons. The law is stupid. Don’t be fooled they will take your guns, even antiques and collectors guns if you let them. Just look to Australia. It all started so innocent there and look at it today.

            Reply
          6. ThomasBonsell April 27, 2014

            I left New York years ago to return to God’s Really Excellent And Tolerant (GREAT) Northwest and ain’t going back. Asked for links to some legitimate news sources that would report any gun confiscation without a political agenda. You gave me a political agenda, and no links.

            If you knew anything about the Constitution you claim to adore you would know the Fifth Amendment prevents any private property (guns are private property) to be taken except for public use and then only with “just compensation,” If a gun is taken, the government must pay for it and you could just go down to the nearest gun shop and buy a newer one. Where’s the problem?

            Yes, Australia is a hell of a lot safer now than it was previously. No mass murders by a rampaging maniacs. Is that what you were getting at?

            Reply
        3. leadvillexp April 26, 2014

          You are so right. I am fighting New York’s Safe Act in court. Donate or join “We the People of New York” to help. The Governor made this law by using a “Message of Necessity” to avoid any debate in the Legislature. He uses this often on subjects he thinks might not pass. The Legislators and people have no time to read the bill. This was meant for emergencies only but he uses it to get his agenda. He has silenced the people in charge of departments in the state with threats if they speak to the press without permission. He is truly a dictator in the making. He uses smoke and mirrors to fool the people. He may soon be looking to be President of the US, beware!

          Reply
      2. leadvillexp April 26, 2014

        Come to New York State. They banned high cap magazines. Sell them out of state or turn them in. So called assault weapons like the AR 15 can no longer be sold in New York and any that are grandfathered have to be registered. My M1 carbine is now an assault weapon under the law. Any rifle with a detachable magazine with one military feature is one. I removed the bayonet lug and compensator so I wouldn’t have to register it. Some Ten 22s are now assault weapons and have to be registered. You are the one with delusions. We in NY are starting to live what you don’t believe. Governor Cuomo will be fired come next election if we overcome the apathy.

        Reply
      3. leadvillexp April 26, 2014

        Come to New York State and we will show you the gun grab!

        Reply
        1. johninPCFL April 26, 2014

          Have relatives in Utica, and they own a few dozen guns between them. What grab are YOU talking about? The one that tries to take 100 round murder boxes? Why do you need to kill 100 people at a time?

          Reply
          1. leadvillexp April 26, 2014

            Read the NY SafeAct. My 30 cal M1 carbine is now an assault weapon because it had a bayonet lug. Some Ruger 10-22s are now assault weapons. That is a 22 cal firearm. They need to be registered now and can not be resold in NY. Registration is the precurser to confiscation, just ask any ex gun owner in Austraila. Yes magazines that held more than ten rounds are banned in NY and had to be turned in or sold out of state. The registered firearms may soon follow if we don’t stop them, they know where they are. It only takes one bullet to kill a person. I find the new thinking as it was in the 1960’s with Saturday night specials. Scare the public and take away their rights in the name of safety.

            Reply
          2. johninPCFL April 26, 2014

            Yes, military weapons are the ONLY guns that actually shoot people. The rest of the 20,000,000 brands just will NOT get the job done, right?
            But seriously, they ARE the weapons of choice for mass murderers. Why is it that of all of the brands of weapons to buy to kill people, animals, cans, etc. that it’s so critical to keep these in the public domain? BTW, there’s an exception to SAFE. All you do is register as a collector and list the collection. Then you can have as many murder machines as you like.

            Reply
          3. leadvillexp April 26, 2014

            I’m not sure if you are trying to be funny about military weapons being the weapon of choice. I have lately seen a lot of school stabbings. People will kill people be it bomb, knife or gun. They will find a way. As for the safe act, yes it requires registration so that they can conficate at a later date. I had a class three collectors permit from the Federal Government at one time and it only allowed me to own what the state said was leagle at the time. The SafeAct does not recognise a collector. It does recognize collector firearms. Most of these are never shot. A 10-22 is a squirrl gun but some of them are now assault weapons under the safe act. Maybe our Governor wants to save a few squirrls.

            Reply
          4. johninPCFL April 26, 2014

            Yes the first paragraph was sarcasm.
            Oddly, on the same day as Sandy Hook there was another attack where 26 children were stabbed. No one died. Get it? NO ONE DIED. As opposed to 26 at Sandy Hook. Do you think those parents wish that Adam Lanza only had access to knives instead of rifles with murder boxes attached? Tens of thousands of people killed EVERY YEAR with guns just because they’re easy.
            But the good news is that you can move to Georgia and carry your M1 into the bar. No problem there, right? In Florida, you can start a fight and if you’re losing, get your gun and shoot the guy because you’re “fearing or your life”. It has already happened. It was just demonstrated in Nevada that you can point your loaded rifle at a crowd, have your picture taken as proof, and have zero repercussions.
            A2 seems alive and well.

            Reply
          5. leadvillexp April 26, 2014

            If you think that pointing a gun in any of those states and shooting is ok you are wrong. I don’t know the attack after Sandy Hook you are talking about but thank god they lived, I know of many knife attacks in schools where they did not live. In China that is the way to kill children in schools, People will kill be it knife bomb or gun. There will always be a..h…. that will point guns, shoot at cars and in general try to kill people. Takeing the guns away from me and friends that shoot for fun at target ranges will not take the guns away from the criminals. To prove a point I once asked a US Representive to go to NYC and I would buy a US M16 marked US Property, in other words stolen from the government, to prove the law dosen’t stop criminals. He declined, You can still buy M16s stolen from the US Military in NYC if you know the right person. Laws only pretain to the lawful person, the outlaw will always come out on top because he has no rules and can get his gun.

            Reply
          6. johninPCFL April 26, 2014

            The attack the same day as Sandy Hook was in China, in a school. NO CHILDREN KILLED.
            There have been 185 cases in FL where “stand your ground” was invoked. Those cases involved drug dealers shooting it out, shooting at neighbors, shooting into cars, and at least three cases where a fight was started BY THE SHOOTER and he was not charged. There are four memorable cases that actually were prosecuted. Martin was killed after he accosted his stalker (not guilty), the movie shooter (still in process) who killed a father for texting his child’s babysitter BEFORE THE FILM STARTED, the driver killed for playing loud music (not guilty), and the father killed for arguing about the use of a basketball court (released after conviction.)
            Why is it that we fear the criminals so much? (30,000 gun deaths per year) Are there criminals in Canada? (fewer then 100 gun murders per year) How about England? (fewer than 100 gun deaths per year) Japan? (fewer than 100 gun deaths per year) Have you ever been accosted by a criminal? Paranoia is a diagnosed mental illness…

            Reply
          7. Independent1 April 27, 2014

            Are you aware that if you add up all the homicides committed by every method other than a gun that in total they’re less than 20% of the homicides; and the same is true for suicides. People will kill others and even themselves with a gun, when they wouldn’t have the guts to do either with any other weapon. Guns simply make killing too easy and too final!!

            Reply
          8. Independent1 April 27, 2014

            You realize of course the gun Adam Lanza used to kill 20 kids and 6 adults plus his mother was a 22 caliber right??

            Being a 22 caliber firearm is not the issue – it’s how many bulletes can you fire in rapid succession and without reloading. My guess is the weapons you’re talking about exceed what NY now calls legal – and for good reason!!!

            And why don’t you take a moment and explain to all of us non gun fanatics – why it’s necessary for you to have such a gun. Why is it so important that you can fire one bullet after another and a whole bunch of them without having to reload. In my mind, that’s only something someone who’s intent on a lot of killing would really want to have.

            Reply
          9. leadvillexp April 28, 2014

            You are wrong. The gun he used was a 223 caliber center fire. That is the same caliber as a M16 or the civilan version an AR15. A Ruger 10-22 is a 22 caliber rimfire bullet. It is usually used for small game such as squirrls or rabbits. Some of these small game rifles now fall under the NY Safe act. I have a WW2 M1 Carbine. Under the SafeAct it whould need to be registered because of a bayonet luf and a compensator. I removed those and now it dosen’t have to be registered. It still shoots the same. The Safe Act was an ill conceived law shoved through by the Governor to look good for a Presidential run in the future. He used a thing called “message of Necessity” to bypass public input. That is acting like a dictator.

            Reply
      4. idamag April 27, 2014

        I wouldn’t even answer this person, he has shown to be a little south in his thinking. He is just another hate group member.

        Reply
  2. BiteMeLiberals April 26, 2014

    Guns are freedom, if you don’t like freedom go and live some place where the government can control you.

    Reply
    1. WhutHeSaid April 26, 2014

      Guns are freedom? Please go back inside your trailer and sleep it off.

      Reply
      1. BiteMeLiberals April 27, 2014

        And dial 911 the next time someone tries to kill you.

        Reply
        1. WhutHeSaid April 27, 2014

          Is that a pervasive problem with you? Well, perhaps there is something that you need more than a gun. I don’t oppose gun ownership per se, but somebody who proclaims that ‘guns are freedom’ can’t know much about either.

          Reply
          1. idamag April 27, 2014

            I am far more leery of nut jobs with guns than the possibility of a home invasion.

            Reply
        2. Independent1 April 27, 2014

          Why don’t you explain a couple things to us: 1) how does a gun give someone freedom, and 2) why is it that you see it necessary to post under a screen name that is derogatory toward liberals.

          What is it about liberals that needs to be reviled? Given that I can see the good and bad on both sides, I’m having trouble understanding what it is about Conservatives, that makes them feel so self righteous that they can disparage liberals at every opportunity.

          Especially since for at least the past 30 years, it has been conservatives that have been destroying the American way of life.

          It’s been conservatives that have set America on its current course of dramatic income inequality.

          It’s conservatives that are by far more responsible for America’s 17 trillion in current debt.

          It was conservatives who lied to the people and started an unnecessary war where more than 4,500 American soldiers died.

          It was conservatives who refused to allow the CIA to try and stop a terrorist attack on 9/11 that killed almost 3,000 Americans.

          It was conservatives who allowed the American economy to tank in 2007-2009 that caused 14 million Americans to lose their jobs and then refusing to do anything to fix that so millions have struggled for the past 4 plus years because
          it was conservatives in Congress who have thrown away over 100 million dollars playing stalling games so the American economy could just limp along instead of having recovered much more quickly.

          And it’s conservatives that hare hellbent on destroying Social Security and Medicare so the millions of Americans who depend on those programs would be thrown out on the streets and end up increasing the homeless numbers in America by millions.

          So what is it about LIBERALS that’s so disgusting that you feel the need to revile them, when it’s been conservatives that have worked so hard to destroy YOUR, MINE AND EVERY OTHER AMERICANS FUTURE????

          Reply
          1. idamag April 27, 2014

            That is an example of what I meant about the anger and hate that pervades our society. They don’t even like each other and have a derogatory name for those who actually think before they vote – RINOs.

            Reply
          2. Independent1 April 27, 2014

            Yeah! I know what you mean. My sense is that two people hold the primary responsibility for the downward trend in Republican thinking over the past 20 years: Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh.

            Gingrich with his fallicious “Contract with America” or something like that, extrapolated the negativism in Congress during his tenure there and it simply hasn’t subsided. It’s like he brainwashed a large group of legislators and they just can’t get his twisted ideas out of their minds.

            And then Rush Limbaugh started what’s now the 24/7 hate rhetoric that’s twisted the minds of millions of Americans and unfortunately, I think it’s going to take a long time to undue the damage that these two have done. I think both of them were driven a great deal by the king of the dividers Ronald Reagan.

            A guy who pretended to be someone who would bring people together (and hoodwinked even the world into believing it) but who underhandedly worked to created lasting division.

            Reply
        3. idamag May 2, 2014

          THEY are out to get you. Keep a close watch around you. THEY are everywhere.

          Reply
        4. idamag May 2, 2014

          Oh, maybe I need to apologize. I think I have proof they are out to get you. I was in a diner for lunch with a friend. My friend went to the loo so I tried to hear the two men behind me in a booth. Now, I have a new hearing aid and I can hear the birds, in the tree outside my window, pass gas, but I couldn’t hear what they were saying. They were talking pretty low. I got the feeling they were hatching up something that was not good. Then I heard one of them say, “Bite me.” I think they are out to get you.

          Reply
      2. joe schmo April 27, 2014

        I think there is something referred to as the 2nd Amendment. Let’s get over this issue and move on to something that really makes sense, like building up the middle=class…..

        Reply
        1. WhutHeSaid April 27, 2014

          It’s mostly a common sense issue. I support the right to own a firearm simply because I don’t believe that it makes sense to prohibit it for some and not others unless there is a damn good reason. Either nobody at all (including government employees) gets to own a gun or everyone gets to own one unless there is a very good reason not to allow it.

          Having said that, I also believe that there are good reasons for restrictions when it is shown that they are in the public interest. The key is balance — as with everything else, I guess. I feel we must balance the right of the individual against the public interest (read: safety).

          If I am driving on a highway with the speed limit marked 70, I fully expect that it applies to every other driver as well. I understand that it’s a safety issue even if I personally feel that I can safely drive at, say, 90. It’s a really simple principle that applies to a great many laws.

          Blubbering nut-bags who make ridiculous statements like ‘guns are freedom’ or declare that they have a right to own and carry any weapon that exists are just as stupid as people who insist that they have a right to drive 100 mph over the speed limit. If you can’t be reasonable then it becomes more likely that you will lose the right to drive at any speed. Same for the gun nuts. People only put up with stupidity for so long. Guns aren’t toys, and you don’t need assault weapons or fully automatic weapons for hunting.

          For those who claim that owning assault weapons and automatic weapons is a ‘hobby’ or relieves their stress by shooting up tin cans: Tough shit — find a more reasonable hobby. This world doesn’t exist just to cater to your desires at the expense of everyone else, and safety is a legitimate concern.

          Reply
          1. joe schmo April 27, 2014

            I don’t own a gun but I believe in gun rights. Honestly, there should be no debate.

            I must make a statement, not everyone is law abiding are they, but that does not mean you infringe on an Amendment just because of what is happening. Remember I stated that in the past we had no such problems so why should any gun come under attack. Again I ask, why do we have issues with them now?

            You see, one thing leads to another. We have always had the freedom to have what we have within the laws of the land. Why should that change?

            Reply
          2. WhutHeSaid April 27, 2014

            Yes, there should always be a debate — that’s how we keep our principles current and honest. The US has more gun-related deaths than most of the comparable countries in the world. It’s reasonable to examine why this is true — in fact, we would be pretty stupid not to do so.

            It’s pretty slippery to say that “criminals are committing the crimes”, now isn’t it? Up until the point that you are convicted of a crime you aren’t a criminal. I know of no human ever born that was a criminal at birth — do you?

            Having said the above, I still think that it’s a balancing act. Laws that no longer make sense get modified or repealed. That’s just the way it works, and rightfully so.

            But I do believe in the basic premise of the 2nd Amendment. I don’t think that anyone should be deprived of the ability to defend themselves while others are not unless there is good evidence that the individual is too irresponsible or has a violent history. I do not, however, believe that an individual needs fully automatic weapons or weapons that were designed for war. Nor does anyone really need 30+-shot magazines. A good 12-guage shotgun loaded with buckshot and/or a 9mm or .40 caliber handgun with a normal magazine is more than sufficient for personal and home defense. If you need more than that then you are obviously doing something wrong that invites violence.

            Reply
          3. joe schmo April 27, 2014

            Not really. The laws haven’t changed, people and society have. Maybe then the debate should be about what do we do with the people who commit crimes.

            ‘The US has more gun-related crimes.’ Well, for a fairly large country…..not really:

            ‘The fight for more stringent gun control laws derives in part from the idea that more guns mean more violence. As it turns out, though, in the
            United States and the rest of the developed world, total murder and suicide rates, from all causes, do not increase with rates of gun ownership — or drop under tougher gun laws.’

            ‘The former Soviet Union’s extremely stringent gun controls, successfully
            implemented and enforced by a police state, did not keep the nation,
            and successor states like Russia, from posting murder rates from
            1965-1999 that far outstripped the rest of the developed world [sources:
            Kates and Mauser; Kessler; Pridemore; Pridemore]. The killers in question did not obtain illegal firearms — they simply employed other weapons.’

            ‘On the other hand, Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark, all
            countries with heavy gun ownership, posted low murder rates in the early
            2000s compared to “gun-light” developed nations. In 2002, for example,
            Germany’s murder rate was one-ninth that of Luxembourg, where the law
            prohibits civilian ownership of handguns and gun ownership is rare.’

            Statistics within countries paint a similar picture: Areas of higher gun ownership rates correlate with areas of lower rates of violent
            crime, and areas with strict gun laws correlate with areas high in violent crime [source: Malcolm].Does this mean that guns prevent crime? Not necessarily. After all, the most
            violent areas are also the most likely to pass stringent gun laws. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem: Which came first, the violent crime or the gun laws? There’s no simple answer. It does appear that high gun-ownership density does not imply high rates of violent crime, and
            that stringent gun controls do not reduce murder rates across the board [sources: Kates and Mauser; Liptak; Luo].’

            http://people.howstuffworks.com/strict-gun-laws-less-crime1.htm

            Reply
          4. WhutHeSaid April 27, 2014

            I agree that firearm ownership alone does not always predict the gun homicide rate, yet there is no doubt that the US stands out from the rest of the world in both the level of gun ownership and the level of firearm violence. The US has far and away the highest level of firearm ownership. It also has 80% of the world’s firearm homicides. That bears repeating: 80% of the firearm homicides for the entire world.

            When you talk about countries like Finland, Norway, and Germany you fail to point out that their level of gun ownership AND gun homicide rates are drastically lower. Here are the numbers:

            Gun Ownership – Homicides/100K Population

            USA: 88.8% – 10.2
            Finland: 45.7% – 3.84
            Norway: 31.3% – 1.78
            Germany: 30.3% – 1.1

            Those numbers are pretty striking any way you look at it.

            As I said before, I believe that a citizen should have the right to own a firearm for self-defense or even hunting. But that’s where I part ways with the gun nuts. AK-47s are not good hunting weapons OR good home-defense weapons, and are designed with only one goal in mind: killing the maximum number of people at close to medium range during armed battle. There is no good argument for the average person to own one other than they just ‘want’ to.

            To be sure, smaller firearms can kill people just as easily, however, the likelihood of a mass-murder such as the one at Sandy Hook Elementary is much greater when a person is armed with this type of weapon. It’s a case of need versus risk in my opinion: Nobody ‘needs’ and AK-47 outside of battle, and the risk of injury and death to many people at once is too great.

            Last but not least, there are just as many Democrats or liberals who own firearms as there are anyone else, so when we hear people out here spouting off about liberals taking guns away it’s usually the same people calling Obama a communist or dictator because they simply hate black people. Such people are not reasonable people, and probably shouldn’t be allowed to own guns in the first place. Ronald Reagan supported some form of gun control, and I’d say he had a pretty good reason to do so.

            Reply
          5. joe schmo April 28, 2014

            Problem is not so much the guns as it is the people using them.

            For example, machine guns were restricted to be used by the public in 1934, however; they were allowed if they were registered with special permission through the treasury department or ATF. In 1986 purchase of NEWLY manufactured machine guns were outlawed to the public.

            To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of “reasonable necessity,” and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant “would be consistent with public safety.” The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant’s residence.

            Twenty-five states have no further restrictions on civilian ownership of machine guns (some require registration with the state) than what is required by federal law. Other states have either placed further restrictions or outlawed operable machine guns to civilians entirely. For further details see NRA state firearm law summaries.

            In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the ATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

            For whatever reason, Americans have no reason to want to purchase machine guns even though they are still purchasable.

            Just like the machine gun maybe there is a better way to solve this dilemna. Rather than ban the AK-47 from being purchased, maybe the laws should just make it harder for the individual to obtain such a gun.

            I certainly don’t hear about anyone running around with a machine gun. Maybe this would resolve the issue on both sides.

            Well, it sure sounds like ‘taking away’ to me. There has been no other resolution mentioned by the Left….and, oh, by the way, those same people who call Obama a Communist do not hate him because he is black, we just don’t like his policies.

            Reply
          6. WhutHeSaid April 28, 2014

            Allow me to address your last point first, because it’s the easiest: Those who call Obama ‘communist’, ‘dictator’, ‘obozo’, ‘muslim’, etc. are doing so because he is black and they are bigots. Period. Say whatever you like because everyone knows better. It’s one thing to dislike the man’s policies and quite another to attempt belittle him in every possible way. Those who do so only reflect their own shortcomings.

            We have no machine gun problem because machine guns are tightly regulated. While this is not technically an outright ban, the net effect is similar. The same law also applied to sawed-off shotguns, silencers, bombs, etc. The purpose of this law is clear: to tightly control dangerous weapons so that it would be far more unlikely that they would be used in crimes. If an AK-47 was classified as an NFA firearm it would have about the same effect as an outright ban in this respect.

            The reason that machine guns aren’t common is because the cost, registration requirements, background checks, and law-enforcement permission requirements combined with the fact that there are other weapons readily available makes them sort of superfluous (read: unnecessary). The same lack of need applies to AK-47s and other similar assault-only weapons.

            I wish that people could own any firearm they wanted and be responsible, however, the fact is that many people are not and firearms in the US are extensively used in crimes. Nor are the people using them in crimes ‘criminals’, that is, until they become convicted after the fact.

            It’s not rocket science. If you let everyone drive down the freeway at whatever speed they want you are going to have a big increase in accidents, injuries and death. Even so we don’t ban driving, but rather seek a balance between our needs and public safety. Firearms are designed to kill. Autos are not designed to kill, yet we still recognize that they can and seek to mitigate the danger. Doing this is both reasonable and wise, and does not mean that guns are being ‘taken away’ — that’s a hollow argument.

            Reply
          7. joe schmo April 29, 2014

            Liberals are so brainwashed. No matter how many times I tell you that Conservatives don’t like Obama’s overtly anti-colonial agenda you still come back with this ‘racist’ remark. When I flat out ask you why you think that way, you don’t know how to answer me. Give me some reasons why you think Conservatives are racist? Liberals keep ethnic groups like African Americans and Latinos in chains by feeding them through Government handouts. I have seen this first hand because of my teaching experience. There is not enough confidence in some of these groups to think about having a better life.

            Contrary to what you may think, there is more and more diversity on the Republican side. Sorry if you don’t like it. It is just a fact. Yes there are ignorant Conservatives, but there are also ignorant Liberals, like yourself who get fed information through their over bias media. MSNBC is not the pillar of society.

            As you even admitted, it is people who are the culprit not the guns. If the laws were enforced, which many are not nowadays, there would be fewer problems. Society at large has gotten too decadent and Liberal. As time goes on and as things get worse, the pendulum will begin to swing back the other way. At the moment, if you think America is going down the path of righteousness and freedom you’ve got another thing coming to you. Your Man has done everything to divide us and you just don’t see it.

            Reply
          8. WhutHeSaid April 29, 2014

            I never said that conservatives are racist. What I’m saying, really, is that racists CLAIM to be conservative. In reality there is a big difference. Everyone knows that the racists and bigots live mostly in the Republican Party these days, and to deny it just means that you are a liar.

            What really makes me wonder is why racists must endlessly deny what they are. Honestly — isn’t it just exhausting to be so vile and despicable that even YOU know that you are worthless, such that you must spend a good part of your every day denying what you are? I mean, since even you know that redneck bigots are walking pieces of shit, wouldn’t it be easier to just stop being vile and hateful? Think about it.

            “People are the culprit and not guns”? Well — DUH! That is a meaningless statement, since everyone over the age of three already understands it. So what is your point?

            Listen, what you really have to think about is how the dinosaurs acted when they realized that they were going extinct. Nature likes to evolve, but every population has examples of outdated and backwards specimens. Like Neanderthals, redneck bigots are examples of retarded human evolution. Well, nature has moved on. Redneck bigots are becoming extinct, so those that remain are squealing and blubbering with the realization. It’s sort of a sad spectacle, really, but the rest of the world understands that it’s time for them to go so that humans can continue to evolve.

            Reply
          9. joe schmo April 30, 2014

            What! Racism on our side. You say it constantly over and over again. You are also very ignorant to Conservatives. If you are white, you are a pseudo white male and against your own kind. You are a RACIST. Face it there is plenty of racism stemming from ethnic groups of all kinds including your own side. Farakahn, Black Panthers, LaRaza. What does all this come from. Victimization and race baiting. Victimization is your by=word, and that is how you hold the masses down…You aren’t being vile and hateful? There is no ‘Coexist’ word in anything you say. That is hypocritical. Obama and Holder are the biggest racists ever in the white house. Why should you be any different. You follow your leader like a good sheeple. It’s en’vogue.

            My point is: our ‘uber’ Liberal laws and the decay of society. Oh no, don’t want to step on anyones toes. Can’t do that. It’s racism. Seriously, Hillary strung sex toys and fetishes on a Christmas tree in the White House. A little inappropriate isn’t it, and she will be our next president…. Geez. When we start stringing babies over the coliseum like they did in Rome, it’s over.

            The Tea Party scares your side. Backwards. Wow! I believe your group has the most educated (over educated people also become more dumb) and the least educated people). Forward thinking. Our education has gone down the drain(we spend the most money on education and our students are mediocre when compared to the rest of the world) , Our values, gone. Space program, null and void. Manufacturing, outsourced. Innovation, hanging there by a thread. Technically, we are getting lower because we have to import talent. Environmental issues, are keeping us in a cave unable to move out. Small businesses are taxed to death so they are unable to compete globally. ‘The United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home,’ which it doesn’t because we have so many dummies and getting dumber because of our loser education system.

            A dinosaur the U.S. will become because your side is putting us right into the Dark Ages with all your social and socialist shit….and if you are familiar with Communism you know that it does not allow any sort of growth or progress. So be it. Have your way. You can only have yourselves to blame for this mess:) The low life rednecks are the least of it.

            Reply
          10. WhutHeSaid April 30, 2014

            That has to be one of the most racist posts ever to appear in The National Memo. Listen, Bubba — if you can’t understand what’s wrong with that type of thinking then it just proves that racists are inherently stupid.

            There is no ‘side’ based upon race except for whatever squirms around in your racist little mind. People are basically the same no matter their skin color. Only people with character defects (racists & bigots) don’t understand this. That obviously includes you.

            The human race is stamping out your kind — its just a matter of time. Welcome to your future.

            Reply
          11. joe schmo May 1, 2014

            Oh boy, you just can’t take it being thrown in your face can you. You can’t face the fact that you are prejudice and racist. If I were stupid I would not be contradicting you. It shows I can think.

            Now after everything I said you are saying we are all equal.. Yah right. Your contradictions twist your self. YOU CONSTANTLY BRING UP THE RACE ISSUE. NOT US! Everything is racist. We don’t like Obama, we are racist. Again, No we don’t like his policies. When you fill out paperwork what question do you think they always ask you? Especially the government. What ethnic group are you affiliated with? They ask you this same question when you are answering a survey. When I am asked that ridiculous question over the phone, I answer I am an American, what difference does it make what race I am we are all AMERICANS.

            Let the shit fly. Welcome to YOUR future and it’s going to be a hell of a bumpy ride. I say go for it. I will just be laughing myself all the way to the great beyond. LOL

            Reply
          12. WhutHeSaid May 3, 2014

            Yes, it’s going to be a bumpy ride all right — for YOU. Society no longer tolerates racism. Speak like a racist and you will be treated like the despicable moron that you are. But if you take it a bit father to commit acts based upon racism, then it is very likely that you will end up in prison or even be sent to see Jesus on the spot. Real people don’t tolerate your kind any more, so if you can’t shake your racist stupidity then I suggest that you take steps to prepare for the future that you are obviously earning.

            Reply
          13. idamag May 2, 2014

            We are all the same color, just different shades. It all has to do with the amount of melanin in the skin. God, in his wisdom or nature, whatever, made some skin darker as protective coloring. It even says that in the Bible: Songs of Soleman, “Look not upon me, because I am Black, Oh, Lord, I am Black because the sun has looked upon me.” Anyone whose only accomplishment is to be born Caucasian, had nothing to do with that, is a sorry individual and not much use to this world.

            Reply
          14. idamag May 2, 2014

            He also mentions MSNBC, but didn’t mention fox. Anyone, liberal or Conservative who gets all their news from television is not well informed.

            Reply
          15. plc97477 April 28, 2014

            One of our comedians once said “If you need 100 rounds to bring down a deer you are in the wrong sport.”

            Reply
          16. idamag April 27, 2014

            And you have to license and register your car. Does that limit your freedom to drive?

            Reply
          17. WhutHeSaid April 27, 2014

            Only if you are unreasonable. Unreasonable people believe that they should be able to do whatever they want without regard to anyone else. This is why humans make laws in the first place.

            Reply
          18. idamag April 28, 2014

            There is s certain element that believes that laws are causing them pain. I used to oversee people, on parole and probation, who were sent to my workplace to do service hours. One of my questions, to them, was, “How did you get in trouble?” Some of the answers I got was: “It wasn’t my fault, someone turned me in.” “How did I know the police was going to look in my boot when they searched the house?” and the corker, “Just because society thinks it is wrong to steal, that doesn’t make it wrong.” To these people, laws were not to ensure society could live and work together. Laws were making their lives miserable. That element exists.

            Reply
    2. Independent1 April 26, 2014

      Guns are a sign that the gun-owner just increased by 5 times the probability that either he, or someone in his family will die by a gun, probably the gun that he owns. Anyone who thinks that a gun will provide them with self-protection is nothing more than a sheeple of the NRA’s lies. Of 11,000 plus gun-related homicides each year, less than 3% of them can be classified as justifiable homides for the purpose of self defense; EVEN THOUGH, more than 50% of those killed by a gun are either gun owners or are killed by the gun owned by the home where they were killed. Proving without question, that a gun is more of a liability, than it is a means of self defense.

      Reply
      1. BiteMeLiberals April 26, 2014

        Total BS…. you can’t measure the number of times that gun ownership has saved lives. Because most of the time it is never reported. You have no idea what you are talking about.

        Reply
        1. Independent1 April 26, 2014

          Yes they do!! If a citizen runs into a serious enough incident where a gun confrontation occurs, by far that incident is reported to the police. And the studies done to come up with the statistics reported in the following article take the vast majority of those incidents into account. Yeah, on some rare instances some people are going to be out in the boonies and confront someone with a gun and maybe scare them off and not report it, but the vast a majority of instances where someone may scare someone off from breaking into their home or car are reported to the police; and they become part of studies that produce the following stats: From the University of Utah:

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

          Reply
          1. BiteMeLiberals April 27, 2014

            Rarely is it ever reported to the police. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

            Reply
          2. Independent1 April 27, 2014

            TOTAL HOGWASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            YOU’RE MAKING THINGS UP!!!!!!!!!!!!

            Reply
          3. BiteMeLiberals April 27, 2014

            Not at all. During some serious incidents perhaps… but in most cases just brandishing a firearm is all it takes. Those incidents are rarely reported…. and why should they be. You really should educate yourself a little better.

            Reply
          4. WhutHeSaid April 27, 2014

            Say, why don’t you educate everyone and tell us your source of said information? You claim these incidents weren’t reported, yet somehow YOU know about them. Are you a psychic, perhaps?

            Reply
          5. Independent1 April 27, 2014

            So in otherwords, you’re including every day incidents in your list where people confront each other like cowards rather than like men??

            Instances when people brandish a gun because they’re too coward to face someone like a man so they whip out their gun?? Well, maybe you out to consider situation where people do just that and because they whipped their gun instead of standing up like a man, they ended up dead.

            Like the two motorists who had licenses to carry a gun and got involved in a road rage incidents. Where instead of confronting each other like men they both got out of their cars with guns drawn and ended up killing each other. Had neither of them had a gun, they may have beat each other up and ended up in the hospital, but insead they’re now both dead.

            Or maybe you’re thinking about that incident where the ex police guy in a movie theater ended up by whipping out his gun and killing the guy sitting in front of him simply because he tossed some popcorn on him. That kind of incident couldn’t have been reported either had the guy with the gun actually not pulled the trigger – but are you going to stand there and suggest that flashing his gun was appropriate in that kind of incident – flashing a gun like an absolute coward!!!!

            Are these the kinds of incidents you’re talking about that don’t get reported?? Incidents that happen in every day life where people who live in other countries resolve them maybe by a fight but not with one or both of those involved in the incident ending up dead???

            Well, sorry, but from where I stand in these kinds of incidents YOU have no leg to stand on in suggesting that it was a gun that saved anyone from anything; other than maybe a punch in the nose.

            Reply
          6. idamag May 2, 2014

            He is including unreported incidents that no one knows about.

            Reply
          7. idamag April 27, 2014

            You have shown very little education. I can just about guess how far you went in school. If there are so many that you claim are unreported, how do you know about them. Your conjecture is not fact.

            Reply
          8. WhutHeSaid April 27, 2014

            But of course it was reported to you, eh? That’s very interesting: If it wasn’t reported, then how do you know about it?

            Reply
          9. idamag April 27, 2014

            Hmmm, that is a point, isn’t it? He knows all about these unreported home invasions as he is the one they report to.

            Reply
          10. JJB1310 April 27, 2014

            If it’s never reported then what is your source to back up your claim?

            Reply
          11. idamag April 27, 2014

            You don’t seem to know what you are talking about. Maybe back in them thar hills, it doesn’t get reported, but a gunshot in town would be reported by everyone who heard it. And, if you discharge a gun in town, it is the law to report it.

            Reply
          12. idamag April 27, 2014

            Several times in the past two years, there were reports of kids killing their siblings when they picked up a loaded gun.

            Reply
    3. Independent1 April 26, 2014

      And if you really think guns are “freedom”, explain to me why if you list the states in America with the highest gun ownership, and then list the states with the highest rates of death due to firearms, they are the same list of states.

      If what you say was true, there would be less deaths in states with high gun ownership rates, because the guns would be improving safety while freeing people up. While the entire opposite is true, the states with high gun ownership are actually enslaving people – forcing them to believe that they themself have to carry a gun in order to not be killedl by one – which unfortunately happens far more often to the people who actually act on that fear and go out an buy a gun.

      The norheast U.S. states have by far the lowest rates of gun ownership and similarly have the lowest rates of homicides committed by firearms; again proving your statement categorically wrong!!

      Reply
      1. leadvillexp April 26, 2014

        First let’s divide the shooting deaths into criminals killing people and people or police officers defending themselves and killing criminals. Second let’s look a population of the states. Higher population means higher shootings. Statistics can be modified to say anything a person wants just by wording them right.

        Reply
        1. Independent1 April 26, 2014

          I know!! I know!! All these crazy people and their numbers!!

          And just like gun death statistics, global warming is just another figment of the imagination conjured up by all those records over the past 100 years which have shown without question that the earth is warming at a rate never seen before in the past 5 billion years.

          What a waste of time for those scientists keeping all those records!! Right!!

          Reply
          1. leadvillexp April 26, 2014

            Never said records. I said statistics. The subject changed with global warming. I believe in global warming. We may be wrong about it but science seems to back it up. Statistics can be skewed. This is why the NRA can make it look so good in their favor and you can make it look right in yours. It works both ways. It is how you read them.

            Reply
        2. Independent1 April 27, 2014

          Higher population means higher shootings??? Sorry, but’s the opposite. Would you consider Alaska, Wyoming and Montana high population?? Alaska leads the nation in the number of homicides/100,000 population and Montana and Wyoming are close behind. Given that the next 6-7 states with the most homicides/100,000 are red states, none of them are high population states.

          Reply
      2. BiteMeLiberals April 26, 2014

        Total BS…. better look at the FBI stats on that.

        Reply
        1. Independent1 April 27, 2014

          WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO WISE UP AND REALIZE THAT THE FBI DOES NOT MAINTAIN ALL STATISTICS ON GUN VIOLENCE??? ONLY GUN VIOLENCE THAT MEETS CERTAIN CRITERIA THAT THE FBI TRACKS!!!!!!!!!

          Reply
          1. BiteMeLiberals April 27, 2014

            No kidding…. now take the caps lock off.

            Reply
        2. idamag April 27, 2014

          The FBI stats on brandishing guns at an intruder and then not reporting it?

          Reply
        3. idamag May 2, 2014

          You reinforce the need for a study on violent behavior in our country. THEY are out to get you.

          Reply
      3. idamag April 27, 2014

        True figures fro the Pew Report: Canada has twice as many guns per household as the U.S. and 1/10th the gun deaths.

        Reply
    4. stcroixcarp April 26, 2014

      Guns are a sex substitute for the little willy crowd.

      Reply
      1. BiteMeLiberals April 27, 2014

        That would be a sports car…. you might need one.

        Reply
      2. Independent1 April 27, 2014

        Not only are they sex sympols for the “little willy crowd” they’re also what turns the cowards into “make believe” men.

        Most adamant gun lovers, love guns because playing with one and carrying one makes them feel so “manly”. They pretend it’s because “it makes them feel safe”. But safe from what?? Dangers that they conjour up in their own minds to justify their love of guns to others.

        The fact that they are so adamant about supporting the owning of guns, only goes to prove just how big of cowards they really are; it’s only when they feel the false security that they create in their own minds by owning a gun, that they can “feel man enough” to really function in their distorted ideas of what life is all about.

        Reply
        1. idamag April 28, 2014

          Most of the people, who advocate carrying any type of gun anywhere are belligerent, chest pounding types.

          Reply
      3. Billie April 28, 2014

        Oh, I like that one, stcroix.

        Reply
    5. Daniel Jones April 27, 2014

      Guns are not freedom, they’re just guns.
      Your handle is offensive and your logic is totally missing, so I am flagging this as inappropriate.
      Have A Nice Day.

      Reply
    6. latebloomingrandma April 28, 2014

      Or you could go to Somalia. There’s not much government at all and everyone has big assed guns.

      Reply
  3. achap39 April 26, 2014

    Kingston’s competition:

    -Paul Broun, who called evolution a “lie from the pit of hell.”

    -Karen Handel, who, as head of Komen, cut all funding to Planned Parenthood because of their ‘left wing agenda.’

    -Phil Gingrey, who complained that he was ‘only making $127K’ as a US Rep.

    Man, I’m glad I don’t live in GA anymore.

    Reply
    1. Independent1 April 26, 2014

      And now people in Georgia can even legally carry their gun to church. Now why would any true Chistian want to do that?? Probably because the vast majority of those going to church these days are CINOs: Christians in Name Only.

      Reply
      1. stcroixcarp April 26, 2014

        Next time I am in Georgia on a Sunday, I’m staying in bed!

        Reply
      2. leadvillexp April 26, 2014

        I seem to remember a few years ago where a man walked into a Sunday service, shot the preacher and a few of the people attending. He was finally pinned down and stopped by people in the church. I guess Christians are supposed to turn the other cheek and get shot.

        Reply
        1. Independent1 April 26, 2014

          Sadly, if someone in the church actually was armed and tried to stop the shooting, experience has shown that there probably would have been one more dead person – the person who tried to stop the shooter.
          In the Navy Yard rampage a few months back, three of the people killed were people who were carrying weapons that tried to stop the shooter: he killed them before they could kill him.
          You’re just one more brainwashed sheeple of the NRA who believes that a gun is really worth something for self-protection – when experience upon experience proves that is naught the case. The only things a gun is good for in the hands of the average citizen is for hunting animals – something that can’t shoot back!!!!

          Reply
      3. joe schmo April 27, 2014

        What does that tell you. We don’t feel very safe anymore….

        Reply
        1. Independent1 April 27, 2014

          I sure can’t disagree with that. But is anyone really surprised that people in America don’t feel that safe anymore??

          With the NRA and ALEC going around 24/7 corrupting every law on the books that provided some form of protection for people?

          With the NRA fighting every effort that’s been made to try to provide some sanity to America’s gun laws?
          With the resulting availability of guns sold to crooks and mentally unstable people because there are no background checks resulting in numerous mass murders?

          With right-wing wackos like Rush Linbaugh, Gleen Back, Hannity and others spewing hate rhetoric via our airwaves 24/7?

          With even a president and vice president being so corrupt as to even get our country involved in an illegal and unwarranted war which ended up with thousands of Amerian soldiers dead, and our country’s Congressional people letting them get away with that without any punishment whatsoever??

          With Congress also letting absolute crooks that headed our government deliberately allow their rich buddies in any business associated with supporting a war to defraud us taxpayers of trillions of dollars by passing out no-bid conracts like they were popcorn??

          With a little thought I probably could come out with a lot more absolute corruptiong that has taken place in America over especially the past 15 years or so, but I think you’ve gotten the picture.
          And would any sane person not feel endangered by the way crazy people on the right are coming out almost every day with some cockeyed conspiracy theory with absolutely no basis except for their distorted and mentally warped mind??

          While once again suffering few if any consequences for what are often close to or actually treasonous comments and even actions????

          Reply
          1. joe schmo April 27, 2014

            Wellll, the NRA has only been around since 1871. Geez, why should we get rid of a public institution. Oh that’s right, you all want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment.

            “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
            – Thomas Jefferson

            “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.”
            – George Mason

            “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.”
            – James Madison

            Treasoness, Corrupt President, Corrupt Congress? Sounds like what’s in office today. Face it, neither side is looking out for our best interest……

            Reply
          2. Independent1 April 27, 2014

            The NRA was a pretty benign gun club until it became an extremist organization about 15 years ago. Since then it’s been very extreme in its views to the point that numerous ex members of the club have even posted on the NM and Yahoo News about their disappointment in the direction the NRA has taken.

            And, Jefferson and Mason were true paranoid extremists at the Constitutional Convention that Madison made fun of at the end of his Federalist 46 papers for the “fantasies of their imaginations in believing the Federal Government posed a threat to the states. See below:

            And, Sorry but you’re going to have to give me a credible link on that supposed comment made by Madison, given what he said in the Federalist Papers – I don’t believe for a minute he made that comment.

            Madison clearly wrote the 2nd Amendment intending that it apply ONLY to American citizens involved in a militia!!! Suggesting that he said something about everyone depending on guns for their protection is total nonsense!!!

            The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal
            government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that
            dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people.

            On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the
            individual States, as they are indispensably ecessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the
            most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.

            Ascribed to the CHEMERICAL FEARS OF THE AUTHORS OF THEM!!!
            FANTASIES OF THEIR IMAGINATIONS!!!

            Reply
          3. idamag April 27, 2014

            I have a friend who taught gun safety in the NRA. He quit when they became rabid.

            Reply
          4. Sand_Cat April 28, 2014

            Your last paragraph is precisely why most rational people start to feel uncomfortable when listening to gun advocates. Almost none of those other countries you mention (or Madison does, to be precise) have dictatorships, and based on what’s going on in this country, it seems that our government has far more reason to distrust armed citizens than they do, and it seems to me that we’re far closer to dictatorship than any of them are as well, and not because of mythical gun bans and confiscations supposedly being plotted by “the [non-existent] liberals.”

            Reply
        2. Sand_Cat April 28, 2014

          Obviously, people like you never will.

          Reply
        3. idamag May 2, 2014

          THEY are coming to get you.

          Reply
  4. ps0rjl April 26, 2014

    How about a little sanity here folks? No one is trying to take your guns from you. How about letting the CDC find the links/causes of our current gun violence? It’s just a study folks. Why be afraid of a study? Personally I do favor a ban on “military assault weapons, stricter background checks, and banning large ammo clips. Now before anyone blasts me for being a bleeding heart liberal, I am a marine and a Vietnam veteran. Also I carried the original M16 that had the selector lever for automatic fire. I was trained in using the 30 and 50 caliber machine gun along with the LAW. I personally see no need for the average citizen to carry either a concealed weapon or one in open carry. And by the way I have a daughter that is a deputy sheriff. So as you can see I am not some bleeding-heart liberal.

    Reply
    1. DEFENDER88 April 26, 2014

      I dont have a problem with the right agency or body studying the issues. But from my own research which includes some large Harvard Law studies
      Guns are a symptom, not the root problem.
      Most of the real/root problems with guns are becoming fairly clear:
      – Gangs and drug trade account for 95% of gun violence
      – Violent Behavior is the major driving force for gun violence – not guns per se.
      – Drivers for violent behavior in this country vary from Poverty to Gangs and Drug Dealing to Psychotropic Drugs now being passed out like candy. Including young white men and now our veteran soldiers.
      – Suicides – Suicide Rates do not change when guns are not available, there are Harvard Law studies available on that. People will find another way.
      – Violence – The rate of violence does not change when guns are not available, there are Harvard Law studies on that. People will find another way

      Reply
      1. Independent1 April 27, 2014

        “The rate of violence does not change when guns are not available, there are Harvard Law studies on that. People will find another way.”

        Yup, you’re right on this one, but what does change is the number of people who are dead from the violence. The U.S. longevity has fallen quite a bit over the past couple decades, and one reason is that the U.S. has a rate of over 6 people dead per every 100 violent occurrences. Whereas, no other similar country on the planet has a rate over 1.2 dead per 100 violent occurrences – and that country is Finland. In fact, most European countries have rates that are below .5 dead per 100 violent occurrences.

        And the incidents of violence in the U.S. are no greater on average than they are in virtually every other similar country. The major difference is that when gang violence in the U.S. produces fairly large numbers of dead people, similar gang violence in other counties simply produces a lot of gang members going to the hospital – but still alive.

        Reply
        1. joe schmo April 27, 2014

          I think there are other factors involved…..

          Reply
          1. JPHALL April 28, 2014

            So why not study the factors?

            Reply
        2. idamag May 2, 2014

          And some killers don’t like up and close. They wouldn’t attack a crowd or a school with a knife.

          Reply
      2. idamag April 27, 2014

        Yes, gun violence is a symptom. However, seeing what is happening I would not say that gun violence is caused by drugs, gangs, etc. Your 95% figure might have flown in the past. We have an upswing in violent rhetoric. We no longer have people who merely have differences of opinion. If you express a different opinion, it becomes something angry. Entire groups have to have derisive names attached to them. So why have we become that way?

        Reply
        1. DEFENDER88 April 28, 2014

          Good question.
          ps The figures I use are FBI, ATF, Harvard Law, and other reputable sources(non-political), not suppositions.
          Although I do use averages and roundoffs.
          I dont want to have to look up the exact data again every time.
          So my figures are close but not exact. ie “Talking figures”
          I try to avoid name calling as much as possible.

          Part of it I think is that attacking guns is easy – solving the underlying problems – Poverty, Gang and Drug and Psychotropic Drug/Mental Health, Welfare, etc broken systems is not.

          Why is it that when I submit just factual type information like Gangs and the Drug Trade which is mostly driven by poverty – account for 95%(correction here – the acutal Natl average is closer to 93% I think)(still very significant) of gun violence/murder I am called an ignorant racist?

          And when I say that (So Called) Assault Rifles account for less than 1% of crime and murder and we should not spend a huge effort on trying to ban them since they are not the root problem in the 1st place – I am called a baby killer. And I just dont care about children.
          Assault rifles are a sub-group of Rifles and Rifles overall account for less than 4% of crime/murder.
          Many more children(by far) are killed with pistols and shotguns than Rifles(Columbine, VT, etc etc). And even far less(around 1% or less) with “So Called” Assault Rifles(which actually have the same features as common hunting and sporting semi-auto rifles). But when it does happen it makes for a bad scene but good(albiet traumatizing) “Copy”.

          When I say *ALL* the school killings have been done by young white men(16-26yo) on or coming off psychotropic drugs(Again – just the facts.) I am called delusional and the Assault Rifle is blamed as *The Problem!*
          So you tell me, why?

          I think it has to do with a misinformed, but compassionate and very pasionate anti-gun agenda fueled by heartbreaking/heartfelt news of dead children ?
          While I understand it, the gun is not the root underlying problem that needs solved. But is easy to attack.

          Plus the mis-information that is out there.
          exa – Gun violence and murder rates quoted by many often include suicides and gang killings.
          AND a frustrated “honest gun community” that hates the killing as much as anyone but come under attack with every shooting. So they just lash out(reflex) in defense. Their big fear is they will be left defenseless in an increasingly dangerous world. Confiscations have already begun in NY and Conn. and are being watched closely. And *many*(including me) feel like the US is headed for a period of serious social turmoil of some kind and thus feel the need for a gun for self defense. Not to mention the home invasion problems

          Reply
          1. idamag April 28, 2014

            I would agree that attacking an inanimate object, such as a gun is not the answer. That would be like trying to outlaw cars because a bunch of irresponsible people have killed other people. However, the person whose automobile use causes havoc all the time, should be restricted from driving. I am familiar with guns. I grew up with them. When I could hold a 22 to my shoulder, my father made sure we all learned to shoot it responsibly. I have a gun collector in my family who has over 100 guns. A couple of those are assault type rifles. He is intelligent and sane, so I don’t worry about him, either. When there are neighborhoods where there is a lot of gang activity, we can avoid those. I want to point out a couple of things that happened during the Gabby Giffords shooting in Tuscon: First, the shooter was disarmed when he ran out of bullets. Second, I watched it unfold just minutes after it happened. A T.V. reporter was asking questions of the by- standers. A man told her that he was in Walgreens when he heard the shots. He took the safety off his gun and ran outside. He saw a man holding a gun and took aim. Someone knocked his arm down and said, “That is not the shooter.” He nearly shot the hero who took the gun away from the shooter. The gun violence is a symptom of a sick society. So, yes, it would be good to do a study.

            Reply
          2. Sand_Cat April 28, 2014

            Perhaps the greatest “underlying cause” – conveniently omitted by you – is paranoid schizophrenia and delusions of grandeur, which seem to run rampant among “responsible, law-abiding gun owners.”

            Reply
          3. Independent1 May 2, 2014

            The following statistics from FBI’s data on homicides blows complete holes in the load of crap that you and your buddies like to spew. Like 95% of homicides by firearm are gang related killings which is about as absurd as it gets. Given that over 65% of murders are committed by a fire arm, and more than 53% of people murdered are killed by a friend, neighbor, spouse or someone else they know and 25% of the remaining 47% are killed by a family member – your figures are so absurd they border on absolute total nonsense. Clearly many more than 5-10% of murders were committed by non gang members and criminals: only 44% of murder victims didn’t have some kind of family, friend, neighbor or other relationship to their killer. And it’s not likely even that all of those 44% were committed by gangs or other known criminals. It’s likely a fair percentage of those were just killers from unsolved cases or where the police couldn’t establish a relationship where the victim knew the killer.

            Here’s the latest 2012 compiled states from the FBI’s website.

            Of the homicides for which the FBI received weapons data, most (67.5 percent) involved the use of firearms. Handguns comprised 68.5 percent of the firearms used in murders and nonnegligent manslaughters in 2010. (Based onExpanded Homicide Data Table 8.)

            In 2010, in incidents of murder for which the relationships of murder victims and offenders were known, 53.0 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.); 24.8 percent of victims were slain by family members. The relationship of murder victims and offenders was unknown in 44.0 percent of murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents in 2010. (Based onExpanded Homicide Data Table 10.)

            And note too, that there were only 278 justifiable homicides committed in the act of a robbery or some other assault despite the fact that there were over 1 million gun related assaults committed. PROVING CATEGORICALLY THAT THE NRA’S CLAIM THAT GUNS ARE A GOOD FOR SELF DEFENSE IS ALSO A BLATANT LIE!!!!!

            Law enforcement reported 665 justifiable homicides in 2010. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 387 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 278 people during the commission of a crime. (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 14 and 15.)

            When are you and your clueless gun loving buddies going to give up on the lying?????????

            Reply
    2. BiteMeLiberals April 26, 2014

      Actually… you are.

      Reply
      1. JJB1310 April 27, 2014

        Actually…your reply would be an example, in that study, of the type of paranoia that leads to irrational acts of gun violence.

        Reply
        1. joe schmo April 27, 2014

          Another psychological study:( What a waste of taxpayer money. One elimination leads to another. You were trained. Big difference to what we have nowadays. I feel everyone using a firearm should be trained and I agree should go through a background check. We all know that all this is due to Liberal laws, criminals getting away with murder, dysfunctional families and the decadence of modern society. The 40’s and 50’s maintained a time when society was safer and I believe that there were far more weapons in the homes. My family came from a place in Europe where crimes were severely punished. As a result, as a woman or a child, you could walk the streets at night with no fear.

          Let me then ask you five questions:
          1) Why didn’t we have as much gun violence in the past?
          2) What makes you think that when we get rid of guns that criminals will not have them?
          3) What about the 2nd Amendment?
          4) What do you purpose we do with people committing these crimes?
          5) How safe will you feel?

          Liberals are always quick to eliminate or add laws but they never think the whole thing through once they pass the law (Obamacare for example) Also, they certainly don’t think about the consequences after implementing new policies that they feel everyone should abide by. Paranoia has nothing to do with it…..sorry.

          Reply
          1. JJB1310 April 27, 2014

            Let me ask you some questions. Are you African American and were you living in the south 50 years ago, when Jim Crow laws ruled? If not for “liberals”, white people in the south would still be hanging “Negroes” from trees and imprisoning them without due process.

            Your list of questions is moronic.

            Reply
          2. WhutHeSaid April 27, 2014

            If not for liberal people, the United States wouldn’t even exist. It was, and is, an ongoing experiment in a liberal style of government.

            Reply
          3. BenAround April 28, 2014

            Just not the style that current “self-appointed” liberals profess–which is trending back toward tyranny. The experiment was to see if people could responsibly balance the blessings of liberty in a Republican form of government. The revolutionaries were not the wussified liberals of today. They were anti-tax, anti-government, property owners, who carried pistols and rifles and earned their own way in life. They had a vision of individual self-reliance and self-determination. Today’s dissolute liberals who greedily seek political power for personal aggrandizement or cower under the hand of the almighty state for protection and sustenance aren’t worthy to shine the buckles on their shoes. If this is a liberal experiment with the founders as the starting culture, the petrie dish has become corrupted by a virulent invasive strain of strangling power-hungry demagogues supported by a soft pervasive undergrowth of class dependency and needs to be thrown out. And that is an indictment of many members of both parties.

            Reply
          4. WhutHeSaid April 28, 2014

            Boring night in the old trailer park, goober?

            Allow me to clue you in on a bit of news (at least to you goobers): The United States was formed as a ‘Republic’ — not ‘Republican’. It was formed by LIBERALS.

            Liberals own guns, property, oppose unreasonable taxes AND pay more into the federal treasury that the REPUBLICAN goobers who hungrily slurp it all up. So much for redneck goober self-reliance.

            Also, if you haven’t had your redneck goober ass kicked by a liberal yet this month, well — you just don’t get out enough. Yeehaw!

            Reply
          5. idamag May 2, 2014

            I don’t believe in political parties. You just reinforced my belief that they divide. I wonder who stands to gain behind this rage of divide (and conquer) is it you? I find some conservatives seem pretty liberal when it comes to farm subsidies, corporation subsidies, oil subsidies; but pretty conservative on something that benefits the many, like health care and affordable education.

            Reply
          6. joe schmo April 27, 2014

            Get over it. That is the problem with you people. Racism was supposed to have died a long long time ago. African Americans have more opportunities now than they ever had.

            I only know about what was written in the history books about slavery and so do you. My family has nothing to do with slavery except for the kind that was infringed on the white race throughout the development of Western Civilization. They came over here in the 50’s. We all have slaves in our families past.

            Don’t forget, it was the Conservatives who wanted to get rid of slavery. The Liberals were the ‘enslavers’ and still are.

            Reply
          7. disqus_ivSI3ByGmh April 27, 2014

            As long as guys like you are around, racism will live on.

            Reply
          8. joe schmo April 27, 2014

            Jesus Christ, as long as people like you are around things will continue to worsen. You just give me some reasons why you believe I am a racist and why Conservatives are racists. Honestly, I see more and more diversity on the Republican side. Gee, I wonder why?

            No, you are the true racists in this country. Not us.

            Reply
          9. idamag April 27, 2014

            “You people”

            Reply
          10. joe schmo April 27, 2014

            Did I say ‘you people.’ No I did not. Read it again. See, this is what I mean. I just ask a simple question that you are evading.

            Tell me just where I am a racist?

            Reply
          11. WhutHeSaid April 27, 2014

            More and more diversity than what? A KKK rally?

            Reply
          12. joe schmo April 28, 2014

            What an idiotic remark! No, because there is a real possibility that many minorities will find your side confining and jump ship. If it really comes to one side or the other, we will be more than happy to have them.

            Juan Williams wife said of the NPR:

            Delise Williams, the wife of Fox News contributor Juan Williams, tells Newsmax that “so-called liberals” at NPR treated her — a light-skinned African-American — as if she didn’t exist.

            “The NPR people were hypocrites because they are supposed to be the liberals who are accepting of all kinds of people and inclusive, and they were the most exclusive group in my experience of going to events related to work that I have ever seen,” says Delise, a former social worker who is the daughter of a doctor.

            Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/juanwilliams-delise-npr-fox/2011/07/20/id/404258#ixzz30B13LWQM
            Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

            So there you have it:)

            Reply
          13. WhutHeSaid April 28, 2014

            I seriously doubt that minorities will be jumping into the SS GOP (a/k/a Titanic II) anytime soon. It’s clear that society is heading more towards tolerance every single day, and if you can’t understand the reasons that Obama won the last 2 elections then you’d better learn to swim.

            The vile and despicable Tea Bigots have all but ruined any vestige of dignity that the Republican Party may have had — which I admit isn’t really that much in recent years, Minority voter suppression is probably the best chance they have in 2016, which is exactly why they are engaged in it. But it just won’t work — the numbers are all against it and getting worse for the GOP every day.

            Reply
          14. joe schmo April 29, 2014

            Tolerance? Not on your side, buddy…. I think the Tea Party scares the bejesus out of you all and, guess what, some of the leaders are minorities:)

            As far as winning in 2016, most likely you will win. At least some of the bigoted ideaology on your side will end and we can move on because this has been the most ridiculous side of history that anyone can be on. Your side is so focused on racism and climate control that everything else is going to hell in an hand basket.

            Freedom? Well that’s something that started to end with Clinton. So that part will be questionable. Good luck… The French are becoming more wise to the fact and the pendulum is beginning to swing the other way……. Not sure if I will live long enough to see that day but it would be nice…

            Reply
          15. WhutHeSaid April 29, 2014

            The Tea Party doesn’t scare anyone. If it weren’t for those bigoted wackos putting forth candidates like Christine ‘not a witch’ McDonnell and Sharon ‘2nd Amendment remedies’ Angle, the Senate might be controlled by Republicans today.

            American society is progressive and always has been. Rednecks raise a big stink sometimes and have to be whupped once in awhile, but nobody really believes that America should become a big trailer park. It’s just not gonna happen, so get used to it.

            Reply
          16. joe schmo May 1, 2014

            They must otherwise you would just be ignoring them. What about those progressives? You see there is extremism on both sides. Watch out for the senate this year. I hope we finally get rid of Reidtard and Peloser.

            OK, city dude who controls the vote. You know nothin’ about us dern country folk catchin gators in the swamp en all. You’ve only seen us on the TV but don’t know a hoot about what we are all about. We spit and shoot and drink beer. We drive our pick-ups up in them thar hills and shoot wild hog and deer for a livin so we’s can put grub on the table fur the kin folk and all. Ya’all come and visit sometime. We’d love to have yer. We can shoot the breeze you idiot because you really don’t know us at all. You think we are all a bunch of redneck morons. Nothing is furthest from the truth. One thing is for sure. We sure have a hell of a lot more common sense than you do. One thing I gotta warn you about though. Don’t dare come in the hollar at night. We don’t scare easily. You probably do.

            The real issue is that of power. You think you can overpower us. We don’t think the same way. We are tired of you tarnishing the Constitution. When a dog gets cornered they attack or fight back…..and that is what you and your president have done to us. There is always a consequence for your actions. What comes round goes round….and that’s why we do the things we do. We don’t want to be told by YOU how and what we have to do. This is not a dictatorship like your President would like to think it is. If the shoe was on the other foot you would be doing the EXACT same thing….

            By the way, not a redneck…….

            Reply
          17. WhutHeSaid May 2, 2014

            Are you kidding me? Tea Bigots are vile and despicable, true, but revulsion is not the same thing a fear. I’ve dealt with people like that all my life, and they would be the first to tell you that what happened to them was not the product of fear.

            I know all about rednecks because I grew up with and lived around them all my life. I don’t have an issue with ordinary rednecks — just the redneck bigots or racists. When they spewed that intolerant bullshit around me, more likely than not they went back home with a shiner or two. The big talk usually stops once somebody loosens their tooth — that seems to be what they understand best.

            There’s no problem with the US Constitution other than the fact that you don’t understand it. It’s still alive and well, but when racists and bigots try to use it to justify their vile and despicable hate it just leads to their frustration because that’s not what it stands for and not how it works — never has.

            For people who believe in hate and despicable acts against other people just because they are different, being told what to do is EXACTLY what the doctor ordered. What’s more, if telling them what to do (or not to do) doesn’t work then they will be FORCED to behave. Racism will not be tolerated, and nobody is going to ask your opinion on the subject. Your best bet is just to behave yourself — it’ll go easier for you that way.

            Reply
          18. idamag May 2, 2014

            One advantage city folks have is that they are exposed to diversity in ideas, in ethnicity and in race. They learn there is more than one way of thinking. I admire the farming industry, don’t get me wrong. I don’t admire the limited scope of their experience with other people. It the t-party said we need to cut taxes by removing all farm subsidies, then how would the farmers vote?

            Reply
          19. joe schmo April 29, 2014

            Hmmmm…you never know:) Once they find out that they no longer want to suck on the teats of the Government, it will be adios…. That is how you keep them suppressed by keeping them ignorant…Shame…..

            “Governments don’t want a population capable of
            critical thinking. They want obedient people just smart enough to run the machines and just dumb enough to passively accept their situation.” –George
            Carlin

            So true!

            Reply
          20. WhutHeSaid April 29, 2014

            Yes, in fact we do know. We know that its redneck goobers who actually slurp up the government benefits. Of course, nobody ever mistook them for being smart, but if it wasn’t for liberals they might not be able to afford their trailers, pickup trucks, and beer.

            No matter how much you goobers lie about it, everyone knows about the bigot problem in the GOP, and the Tea Bigots are one of the most despised groups in history. They even hate themselves, and in that case they actually have good reason.

            Reply
          21. joe schmo April 30, 2014

            Racist! Now look who’s calling the kettle black. Hypocrite….

            Well, there are a bunch of misbegotten minorities who your side loves to keep suppressed on welfare and drugs. So unfortunate because in this day and age they have all the opportunities they could ask for. But how can they get out of the ghetto when you just want to keep them there. You need the votes. Oh, and about the illegals who your side wants to legalize before the election. Same story only some of them are going to get wise to your mischief because even though they take the jobs away from lower shelf Americans, they are hard workers and once they work themselves up, they will no longer be so ignorant. Then who knows they may no longer vote for your side:)

            Oh by the way, if we take the entire Congress including the House and Senate, Obummer will be a lame duck. We hope they start impeachment proceedings. I’m sure that will be impossible, that is, to expel the Lord and Master. He still has a pen and he still will try to do everything through executive order. Your side is so on the up and up. Then in 2016 Killary will get in. Who knows what kind of Communist path she will set us on. Democracy will be no more and Putin who tends to be more national, will be sitting high and mighty because China and the Middle East will stand with him. Europe has no choice but to follow because they are too dependent on Russian/Middle Eastern oil and we will be puppets to China. A mere pittence of the great nation we once were chained to a now defunct so called democracy that no longer reigns free. So you see, freedom is no longer free.

            As far as not getting along. I think your remark is a bit strong because listening to Conservatives in the media and around me, that’s simply not quite the case. I think you really wish it was that bad so that you can separate us even more.

            Reply
          22. WhutHeSaid April 30, 2014

            Honestly — you goobers would be hilarious if it weren’t for the heartbreaking things you do to farm animals.

            I’m not running for any office so I don’t care about votes. As for enslavement, what would you silly rednecks do without the federal aid that you slurp up from the blue states? I just don’t believe in letting unwashed redneck bigots run amok – that’s all. And who could blame me for that?

            The vile and despicable Tea Bigots are finished ever since everyone with a brain realized that they were just KKK members who are too afraid to just go ahead and admit it. Hillary probably WILL get elected, and its because of the retarded antics of the Tea Bigots. So congratulations on a job well done.

            Reply
          23. joe schmo May 1, 2014

            Farm animals? You don’t even have a clue do you. Most are very well taken care of. Of course you wouldn’t know that you’re a city idiot. City people don’t even know that oranges grow on trees. Go ahead get rid of all the farmers and ranchers. Just where do you think your food will come from? I guess we can recycle shit. Maybe you can find a new and fanciful way to do that. Make it sterile that is. That way we can recycle what we ingest over and over and over again. May kill some people along the way but according to your belief in the theory of evolution some of us will adapt and some will simply die off. I think it is called, ‘the survival of the fittest.’ Soilent green, anyone? ….or better yet we rednecks knowing the land and all can survive off recognizable edible plants. We also know how to hunt and fish. Sorry, you may starve to death because you do not know how to do any of these things. God forbid no computer or cell phone. Well you can’t eat them. I think I can remember how it was without either.

            If Hillary gets in….we better watch out. Those babies strung over the coliseum will be next. We are then officially done! Bye, Bye USA:) Hello USSA……

            Reply
          24. WhutHeSaid May 2, 2014

            Hillary probably WILL win, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Elizabeth Warren was on the ticket too. If she wins it will be because the vile, despicable and sordid Tea Bigots couldn’t behave themselves (as usual).

            I don’t live in the city and never have — that’s just another thing that you are clueless about. No big surprise there — bigots aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed, in fact, they are always pretty stupid. If they were smart then they wouldn’t be bigots.

            Reply
          25. joe schmo May 2, 2014

            LOL, think I have lived and had more life experience than you have. I have lived in the big city, suburbs and the Country. I have traveled extensively, I am bilingual, I know about the arts, I am very interested in politics and I have a very good education.

            Surprise of surprises you live in the country. Then you tell me how a farm/ranch is run and the mistreatment of farm animals. …Or are you just a city dude who ‘went to the country’ and a person who really does not have a clue about country ways and I don’t mean the redneck kind.

            I’m thrilled that Hillary will get in because things are going to just escalate and take off where they left off. By that, I mean, they will get worse. I will be surprised if they don’t. Oh, remember, ‘every child needs a village.’ Sounds like the Communist agenda revisited.

            If I would be so stupid as you inject, then I wouldn’t be standing up for myself consistently would I. Ignorance is bliss, remember….. What comes round goes round. You are getting back exactly what you have been giving out…..

            “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”~Gerald Ford

            “Governments don’t want a population capable of
            critical thinking. They want obedient people just smart enough to run themachines and just dumb enough to passively accept their situation.” –George Carlin

            “We the people are the rightful masters of both
            Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”(SOMETHING YOU ALL ARE PREYING TO DO AT THE MOMENT.)

            ~Abraham Lincoln

            Reply
          26. WhutHeSaid May 2, 2014

            You just aren’t very smart, I’m afraid. I didn’t say I lived in the country — I said I don’t live in the city. So you’ve been to 27 trailer parks — OK, I get it. You fancy yourself the epitome of culture.

            Well, I never said that redneck bigots were irredeemable. With some scrubbing and grooming (with soap, of course) I’ll bet that you could almost pass for a real person, so take heart. Why, I won’t even begrudge you your special relationship with farm animals, that is, as long as the animals don’t mind.

            Hillary will probably win because the alternative offered by the GOP and TP party is vile and despicable hate. There’s no future in that, in case you didn’t know it. Say, can you tell us more about how you admire Allen West? Everyone enjoys a good laugh.

            Reply
          27. joe schmo May 2, 2014

            I’m a hell of a lot smarter than you. That’s for sure. There’s no future in your candidates. They will only bring us further into the hole. By the time they are done with us, thanks to you, there will be no semblence of ‘Merica’ left. Only primitive morons like yourself.

            She will only be a shell of her old patriotic self with a few meaningless icons, like the Statue of Liberty standing around with impunity. Oh and that flag you hate so much will be hung upside down and burned. So decadent have we become not unlike the Roman Empire we shall soon see her end. What’s waiting up the road. I sure hope you get to see the changes. I will be laughing all the way to tim buck two when they occur. Yah, that good ole USA will see the likes of the USSA and I am almost damn sure you have no idea what that is all about. Most Americans have no clue. LOL Just who do you think will have the last laugh and I sure as hell know it won’t be you.

            Reply
          28. WhutHeSaid May 2, 2014

            Yes, most Americans have no clue about America — just you, isn’t that so? Oh yes, America is going to hell in a hand-basket because you don’t feel free to be vile and despicable towards other people.

            I’m curious about something: Have you ever looked in the mirror and asked yourself just when it was that you became a slack-jawed goober? Did you gradually start telling ridiculous whoppers in public, or did they just come gushing out one day? I may be mistaken about this, but I don’t believe that anyone is born a redneck bigot. How does that process work?

            You aren’t smarter than me, I’m afraid, and you prove it every time you tell another one of your ridiculous tall-tales. I’d suggest that you consider asking your school for a refund. Just print out a few of your posts and show it to the business office and I’m pretty sure that they will agree that you didn’t get your money’s worth.

            Of course, there’s always the possibility (a good one) that you didn’t pay for your own education, and like the rest of the lying redneck goobers in this country you probably snorted up federal aid from liberals all your life. You forgot to address that point: So-called ‘conservatives’ (mainly redneck goobers) are far and away the biggest drain on the rest of the country. They are the same people who snort up the tax dollars of ‘liberals’ all the while that they’re lying about personal responsibility and freeloading off the government. Did you think we didn’t notice?

            Reply
          29. joe schmo May 4, 2014

            Sorry, not primitive and from the looks of it, I have had a lot more life experience. I can tell at best you are most likely a blue collar union man who most likely gets overpaid for the type of work you do. If my assumption is right, that is one reason you are so Liberal.

            Hmmmm…. Do you know anything about what is going on in Europe now and in the past? With what I have read of your posts. I rather doubt it. Why is it that liberals are constantly saying Conservatives are lying when I consistently have brought up facts stating otherwise. Unlike you, I don’t think Liberals are stupid but I do believe that Conservatives have more common sense.

            ‘1) Liberals sources of information are ever present. Conservatives are regularly exposed to the liberal viewpoint whether they want to be or not. That’s not necessarily so for liberals. Imagine
            the average day for liberals. They get up and read their local newspaper. It has a liberal viewpoint. They take their kids to school, where the teachers are liberal. Then they go to work, listen to NPR
            which has a liberal viewpoint on the way home, and then turn on the nightly news which also skews leftward. From there, they turn on TV and
            watch shows created by liberals that lean to the left, if they have any political viewpoint at all. Unless liberals actively seek out conservative viewpoints, which is unlikely, the only conservative
            arguments they’re probably going to hear are going to be through the heavily distorted, poorly translated, deeply skeptical lens of other
            liberals. ‘

            2) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it’s designed to help children read, makes
            liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn’t work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they’re “protecting
            the environment” even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it’s not what a program does in the real world; it’s about
            whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it. ‘

            3) Liberals are big believers in moral relativism. This spins them round and round because if the only thing that’s wrong is saying that there’s an absolute moral code, then you lose your ability to tell cause from effect, good from bad, and right from wrong. Taking being non-judgmental to the level that liberals do leaves them paralyzed,
            pondering “why they hate us” because they feel incapable of saying, “That’s wrong,” and doing something about it. If you’re against firm
            standards and condemning immoral behavior, then your moral compass won’t work and you’ll also be for immorality, as well as societal and cultural decay by default. ‘

            4) Liberals tend to view people as parts of groups, not individuals. One of the prejudices of liberalism is that they see everyone as part of a group, not as an individual. This can lead to rather bizarre
            disparities when say, a man from a group that they consider to be powerless, impoverished victims becomes the leader of the free world —
            and he’s challenged by a group of lower middle class white people who’ve banded together because individually they’re powerless. If you listen to the liberal rhetoric, you might think Barack Obama was a black Republican being surrounded by a KKK lynching party 100 years ago — as
            opposed to the single most powerful man in America abusing the authority of his office to attack ordinary Tea Partiers who have the audacity to speak the truth to power for the good of their country. ‘

            5) Liberals take a dim view of personal responsibility. Who’s at fault if a criminal commits a crime? The criminal or society? If someone
            creates a business and becomes a millionaire, is that the result of hard work and talent or luck? If you’re dirt poor, starving, and haven’t worked in 5 years, is that a personal failing or a failure of the
            state? Conservatives would tend to say the former in each case, while liberals would tend to say the latter. But when you disconnect what an
            individual does from the results that happen in his life, it’s very difficult to understand cause and effect in people’s lives. ‘

            6) Liberals give themselves far too much credit just for being liberal. To many liberals, all one needs to do to be wise, intelligent, compassionate, open minded, and sensitive is to BE LIBERAL. In other
            words, many of the good things about a person spring not from his actions, but from the ideology he holds. This has an obvious appeal. You
            can be a diehard misogynist, but plausibly call yourself a feminist, hate blacks, but accuse others of racism, have a subpar IQ and be an intellectual, give nothing to charity and be compassionate, etc., etc., and all you have to do is call yourself a liberal. It’s a shortcut to virtue much like the corrupt old idea of religious indulgences. Why live
            a life of virtue when you could live a sinful life and buy your way into heaven? If you’re a liberal, why actually live a life of virtue when you can merely call yourself a liberal and get credit for being
            virtuous, even when you’ve done nothing to earn it? ‘

            So true…….LOL

            Reply
          30. WhutHeSaid May 4, 2014

            I must say that I’m rather proud of you for making the effort to fashion more plausible lies. Having said that, of course, they are still lies.

            America was formed by liberals. The individual rights and responsibilities protected by the US Constitution are both liberal ideas.

            Once again — probably for the 4th or 5th time now — you have avoided the issue of redneck goobers slurping up the majority of government assistance. This is a well-known fact, although there has always been an incredible amount of lying about it from true conservatives and most of all redneck bigots.

            Once again, redneck bigots are not conservative. Being a bigot or racist is a character defect or worse — not an ideology. The fact that you would confuse and/or intermix the two says something about both your intelligence and your education. Claiming that liberals tend to view people as belonging to groups rather than being individuals is, of course, a lie and also completely the opposite of the truth. Just as redneck bigots like you so commonly group people by skin color, liberals usually resist doing so and insist that an individual’s worth is mostly defined by their own actions — not race.

            Despite your flawed guess at my career, I am a professional who attended graduate school and have a very successful career. I probably pay far more in taxes than you, although I’m certain that you whine about taxes more than me.

            Last but not least, both true conservatives and redneck bigots are well-known for being moral hypocrites. They concern themselves with passing judgement on everyone else while they routinely commit the vilest, most despicable, and often illegal acts. They are always trying to force their views upon others even when it has nothing to do with them, because they don’t really believe in freedom at all. When mothers tell their children not to become bad people it is usually a conservative they have in mind. Of course, everyone knows that bigots and racists are the absolute scum of the earth, and that they make their home in the Republican Party. Why is this so, you might ask? Because Democrats generally won’t tolerate them.

            Reply
          31. joe schmo May 4, 2014

            Instead of feeding me more of your ridiculous connotations and going on and on about stupid innuendos, why don’t you tell me how I am a redneck and why you think I am wrong. You probably won’t because most Liberals don’t state facts, they just blow smoke out of their pie hole because most of the junk they come up with comes from their biased media and TV knowledge base which is often full of lies.

            Here the answer to the question you keep harassing me about.
            Fat chance on welfare:
            States receiving the most federal funding per tax dollar paid: 1. New Mexico(is so close to being Liberal): $2.63 2. West Virginia: $2.57 3. Mississippi: $2.47 4. District of Colombia: $2.41 5. Hawaii: also Michigan, Chicago and New York.

            The districts that get the most welfare are as BLUE as the sky.

            Red states have the most Minorities
            Minorities make up the bulk of welfare recipients
            Minorities overwhelmingly vote Democrat .

            Nobody is against welfare. We are against making welfare a way of life. We are against making people dependent on government as it’s no way to live.

            The people with their hands out go where the money is.

            ‘America was formed by Liberals That is your first mistake. Maybe you should go back and do some research and show me where it states in the constitution that all the founding fathers were Liberals. As far as I know there was no such thing until 1944. The Conservative party started during Lincolns era:) which is some time before Liberals were even heard of. Former Liberals would be rolling over in their graves if they knew how far left (Communist) you have become.

            Of course Einstein….of course:)

            1) The Founding Fathers were generally religious, gun-toting small government fanatics who were so far to the Right that they’d make Ann Coulter look like Jimmy Carter.
            2) Conservatives are much more compassionate than liberals and all you have to do to prove it is look at all the studies showing that conservatives give more of their money to charity than liberals do.
            3) When the Founding Fathers were actually around, there were official state religions and the Bible was used as a textbook in schools. The so-called “wall of separation between church and state” has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with liberal hostility to Christianity.
            4) Not only are conservatives more patriotic than liberals, but most American liberals “love” America in about the same way that a wife-beater loves his wife.
            5) Out of every 100 cries of “Racism” you hear these days, 99 are motivated by nothing other than politics.
            6) There’s absolutely nothing that the government does smarter, better, or more efficiently than the private market with roughly equivalent resources.
            7) The biggest problem with education in this country is liberals. They fight vouchers, oppose merit pay, refuse to get rid of terrible teachers, and bend over backwards to keep poor kids trapped in failing schools.
            8) Fascism, socialism, and communism are all left-wing movements that have considerably more in common with modern liberalism than modern conservatism.
            9) The Democratic Party was behind slavery, the KKK, and Jim Crow laws. It was also the party of Margaret Sanger, George Wallace, and Bull Connor. It has ALWAYS been a racist party. Even today, white liberals support Affirmative Action and racial set-asides because they still believe black Americans are too inferior to go up against whites on an even playing field.
            10) A man with good morals who falls short and becomes a hypocrite is still a far better man than a liberal who can never be called a hypocrite because he has no morals at all.
            11) Greed isn’t someone wanting to keep more of what he earns; it’s people demanding a greater share of money that someone else earns.
            12) Most of the time in American politics, the liberal “victim” is really a bad guy who is absolutely delighted by the opportunity to pretend to be “offended.”

            Reply
          32. WhutHeSaid May 4, 2014

            There is just no end to your willingness to lie, is there? Why didn’t you show the actual list of tax-slurping states or at least the top 10? Because it defeats your argument — that’s why. Here are the top 10 states by percentage of their budget funded by the federal government AND amount of federal taxes slurped up per $1 paid:

            1. Mississippi: 45.8% / $3.07
            2. New Mexico: 37.9% / $2.83
            3. Alabama: 37% / $3.28
            4. Louisiana: 44.3% / $3.35
            5. Maine: 36.6% / $1.79
            6. Montana: 38.5% / $1.55
            7. Tennessee: 41.3% / $1.64
            8. West Virginia: 35.5% / $2.22
            9. South Dakota: 41.5% / $1.16
            10. Arizona: 39.4% / $1.62.

            Yeehaw! These are almost all redneck goober states. And as for your ridiculous lying about Michigan, Chicago and New York — Chicago isn’t a state. In 2012, New York only received $.75 in federal aid for every $1.00 paid in taxes. Michigan received $1.02, so it was just barely in the red — not like the many goober states.

            So once again you are just lying. Why is that? Because unless you lie you’d have to admit that is is you and people like you who are the biggest freeloaders.

            Time for you to read the real news: The communist scare was over more than half a century ago. Nobody believes in communism in this day and age except for a couple of diehard countries like North Korea and China, and even they don’t really practice pure communism anymore. Accusations of communism are just used by whiners who can’t understand why their ideas are getting beat at election time (because they are vile and stupid, of course).

            Conservatives aren’t any more patriotic than liberals, and despicable Tea Bigots are actually anti-American. The old adage the “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel” is absolutely true. Lacking any credibility or scruples, all manner of bigots, racists, and criminals wrap themselves up in the flag believing that it will camouflage their despicable nature. It doesn’t.

            Fascism is a right-wing ideology, and racist and bigots like those in the Tea Bigot Party are as close to fascism as anyone else. The Democratic Party was never racist and nether was the Republican Party. What happened is that all of the bigots and racists eventually fled to the GOP and, later, the Tea Party. Everyone knows where the racists are today — the GOP and especially the Tea Party.

            Look: I understand that it’s painful to be vile and despicable. It must be frustrating to know that your kind is dying out and everyone wishes you would die out quicker. It can’t be fun to have mothers point you out to their children as examples of human failure. The truth is, however, that it’s your own choice. Stop being vile and despicable and you will no longer be considered the dregs of the human race. I know that for you it’s near impossible, but it CAN be done if you really want it.

            Reply
          33. joe schmo May 5, 2014

            You know….you and I can go back and forth on this thing forever. You proving me wrong and visa versa. It really won’t change a thing. Neither one will give in. You won’t be able to bully me because that is all Liberals know how to do. If you don’t agree with them then you are stupid. In reality that really doesn’t state a thing.

            Just found a recent map of states that have more people on welfare than working. As of Oct. 2013:

            California – gee go figure, and how many illegals does the state have. It is also one of the most expensive and taxed states next to NY.
            New York – gee I wonder why?
            NM- figures. Again a multitude of illegals
            Illinois
            Hawaii-Another overpriced piece if crap.
            Northern States mentioned – Again many minorities in the northern states close to the Great Lakes.

            http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/10/11-states-that-have-more-people-on.html

            1) There are more red states than blue. Unfortunately, the blue states that matter have higher electoral numbers.
            2) Many of the poor want to be in the states like CA, NY, HI because they believe they too can make their fortune. They have some of the highest taxes in the Country. Not sure why anyone with any sense would like to live in any of them.
            3) The only goober states are MS, AL and SC. So get off your mantra.
            4) Many of the goober states that you mention have tons of Minority/Ethnics. Mexicans in California as of 2014 will equal Caucasian’s. Northern states have a multitude of African Americans. So you’re on me about 3 measly southern states.

            LOL, communism is not dead. It’s because of idiots like you that you have no clue as to what it’s all about. But that’s OK. I will be laughing my ass off when it finally comes home to roost. My Dad wouldn’t say that we were becoming more and more Communist if he didn’t notice the signs. So, am I supposed to listen to you who knows nothing about communism or my Dad who lived under it.

            Why don’t you tell me how you are patriotic? That is if you even like the term.

            ‘Facism is a right-wing ideology.’ Boy are you dense with regards to regimes. Go back and look at the meaning for each one…that is Fascism, Liberalism, Communism and Capitalism. Three of them are Socialist and one is not. Unfortunately, you have been totally brainwashed by your left media.

            Just keep saying that our kind is dying….Problem right now is that the ‘majority’ is being led by a bunch of ‘minority’ bullies. How long do you think that a dog can be cornered and not attack…. Can’t wait until 2016 election:)

            You have led me to believe you have no credible recourse. The little vocabulary that you use consistently is Tea Party (which I am not but whom I support), bigot (which I am not, I believe I have demonstrated that in earlier posts), Fascist (LOL I am not even close to being anything remotely socialist, I think you need to look that one up), liar (not sure how I am lying, I’m just retorting what you comment on. That’s not lying just stating a different opinion) and stupid (which I know I most certainly am not. Just because I don’t agree with you I’m stupid….Nope, just think differently)

            Your terminology just degrades you. Not me. We’ll just leave it at that.

            Reply
          34. idamag May 2, 2014

            definitely.

            Reply
          35. BenAround April 28, 2014

            I love Juan Williams–God bless his liberal soul! He is, at the very least, an honest liberal–which cost him his job at NPR. NPR kicked him off of their government sponsored plantation for daring to have an opinion that they didn’t dictate to him. It is what happens in liberal conclaves to any African American who steps out of line and goes off script.

            Reply
          36. joe schmo May 2, 2014

            You mean all 156 of them….LOL

            Reply
          37. idamag May 2, 2014

            You have not said one good thing about the President. You did not say, I don’t agree with him on this issue and discuss the issue.

            Reply
          38. joe schmo May 2, 2014

            As long as guys like you are around, suppression of the niave and ignorant will continue. They are bound by your laws, and the man at the helm is taking us right straight back to the time before Civil Rights began. I think MLK would be rolling over if he saw how things had changed in the last 6 years….

            Reply
          39. idamag April 27, 2014

            “You people” says it all. You are a racist and therefore the scum of the earth.

            Reply
          40. joe schmo April 27, 2014

            Says nothing. How am I racist? You see this is what Conservatives say all the time about Liberals. You try to evade questions, play the victim and pray on emotional content.

            Reply
          41. joe schmo April 27, 2014

            I said nothing in my comment that evokes racism. You sound like chicken little….the sky is falling, the sky is falling, see, seee……. By slaves in the family I mean. We have family that have been slaves. Duhhh!

            Reply
          42. plc97477 April 28, 2014

            There you go maligning the scum again.

            Reply
          43. BenAround April 28, 2014

            Who said, “you and your kind” is a racial category? Joe was talking about liberals and you immediately think he meant African Americans and called him a racist. Now we know that you can’t separate your racial identity from your politics and have a rational discussion about policies. I would love Obama if he agreed with my policy views. He is a socialist and a class warfare general, however, so I don’t think he is qualified to represent me. In your view that makes me a racist. However, it makes you a bigger one because, by taking that position, you are demonstrating your bigotry against any African American who agrees with my policy positions. The eminent Dr. Ben Carson, for example, who is one of my heroes. Not only because he is about three times as smart as any liberal but because he really understands why America is so special.

            Reply
          44. joe schmo April 29, 2014

            Thank you, Ben for breathing some light into a subject that fends no merit whatsoever. They just don’t get it:)

            Reply
          45. idamag May 2, 2014

            You don’t breathe light. You shed light or shine light. You breathe oxygen.

            Reply
          46. joe schmo May 2, 2014

            BREATHING LIGHT – lyrics

            The final chapter
            Has already been written
            The story has been told
            In another dimension
            Beyond the reach of time
            There is no more
            No more to behold

            See the artificial light now
            It’s flickering, fading away
            Eternity is right now (c’mon)
            It’s fusing with today
            We anticipate
            Or suffocate

            See the darkness that conceals you
            Evaporating, exposing the soul
            And as the light reveals you (c’mon)
            Let it in, let it take control

            As death corrupts
            Beauty is revealed
            As the whole world
            Falls apart
            As death corrupts
            Beauty is revealed
            As the whole world
            Falls apart

            We are breathing light
            (We are breathing light)
            It sets our hearts aglow
            (Sets our hearts aglow)
            We are breathing light
            (We are breathing light)
            Eternal is the overflow
            Breathe

            We are breathing light
            (We are breathing light)
            It sets our hearts aglow
            (Sets our hearts aglow)
            We are breathing light
            (We are breathing light)
            Eternal is the overflow

            The final chapter
            Has already been written
            The story has been told
            In another dimension
            Beyond the reach of time
            There is no more
            No more to behold

            The final chapter
            Has already been written
            The story has been told

            LOL….so true…who knew:)

            Reply
          47. WhutHeSaid April 29, 2014

            Not only is he qualified to represent you — he’s your leader. It’s a done deal. There ‘s nothing you can do about it but whine and cry — nobody is giving you any choice.

            Reply
          48. JJB1310 April 28, 2014

            I grew up in a segregated town in the South. You made a statement that deserved to be challenged, and then followed it up with an even more idiotic one, if that’s possible. First, you claimed that, “The 40’s and 50’s maintained a time when society was safer and I believe that there were far more weapons in the homes.” Then, in response to my question about a huge omission (the Jim Crow era during that time), you said, “I only know about what was written in the history books about slavery and so do you.”

            Think before you write, next time.

            Reply
          49. joe schmo April 28, 2014

            As usual you misinterpreted my meaning. I’m sure that you didn’t live in the South during the time of slavery which was during the Civil War and I am almost sure you are not over 125 years old. As for the Jim Crow laws. I cannot relate. I was born in the 50’s. The end of segregation. The 60’s brought in Martin Luther King and civil rights. By the time I graduated from high school, African Americans had the same rights as everyone else. I never felt that they were being deprived of anything.

            You are being waaaayyyyy too sensitive. You and your kind always jump the gun. Typical Liberl, arrogant, ‘uber’ emotional, and narrow-minded. I never use the term stupid for anyone because it refers to not knowing. If you and I were not more aware we wouldn’t be conversing right now.

            Reply
          50. JPHALL April 28, 2014

            The Radical Republicans of Lincoln’s time were the “Liberals” of that time. And segregation as a legal policy did not end in the 1950’s. Your misrepresentations of American history and blind hatred of the term Liberal proves you do not know what you are talking about.

            Reply
          51. joe schmo April 29, 2014

            Baloney, why do you always twist and twist and twist. Your knowledge of the American system has been so misinterpreted and misconstrued you no longer know your history. You only say things to fit your own agenda. Sad very sad, indeed. I knew this from childhood on. Now it seems if the shoe fits…… Jesus Christ!

            ‘Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States of America serving from 1861 to 1865. He led his country through its greatest crisis, the American Civil War, abolished slavery and built a Republican Party coalition that dominated the Third Party System. Lincoln switched to being a Republican Party member after having lost as a candidate for the Whig Party. With a profound sense of American history, unswerving commitment to Republicanism, and an almost Shakespearean
            command of the language, Lincoln articulated a vision of a new birth of
            freedom for the American nation. The destruction of the Confederacy, and of the slave power that menaced conservative American values, affirmed Lincoln’s vision in the Gettysburg Address (1863) and guaranteed that “government of the people by the people for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

            Reply
          52. JPHALL April 30, 2014

            Just because you claim something does not make it true. Lincoln did not merely menace “Conservative American values”, he destroyed it. He led the nation out of regional ism and state rights into a true Federal system that was neither contemporary Republican. nor Democratic. Stop twisting history to fit your ideology.

            Reply
          53. WhutHeSaid April 28, 2014

            Bullshit. I remember the rampant racism that existed when I was growing up and I still see it today, albeit thankfully far less. For you to deny it just destroys your credibility. Do you call sending criminals to jail ‘being sensitive’? That’s the same as racism, really — it’s vile, despicable, and it will not be tolerated. Stamping it out along with those who practice it is serious business that will not stop until the job is finished. Engage in it at your own risk.

            Reply
          54. joe schmo April 29, 2014

            Well, you were probably born before me and lived in the South. I didn’t. I saw huge changes and for the better and things just kept getting better and, at the moment, we have an African American in office so you should be happy about that. Never in the history of this Country have so many ethnic groups had more opportunities and what do you do, you still bitch. Only now every time a Conservative representative says anything against Obama’s policy, he cries ‘racism.’ Give me a break! I honestly think it is the Left’s agenda to keep the Conservative wing down. This is your sides ruse to fend the foe powerless:) …and that ain’t no bullshit.

            Reply
          55. WhutHeSaid April 29, 2014

            I am happy that there is an African American in the Oval Office, primarily because it makes you redneck bigots squeal. It’s easier to see who has the white hoods hanging in their closets since Obama’s election, because they just could contain themselves no longer once a black man was elected. So they formed the Tea Party, a knee-jerk reaction of vile, despicable and racist morons to the election of America’s first black president. That group tries mightily to lie about what it stands for, but everyone in the world now despises them because they just can’t hide their true nature.

            Tea Bigots are like a big, steaming turd tossed onto the kitchen table during dinner. No matter how much people try to deny that there is a turd on the table — everybody instinctively loses their appetite because they already know the truth when they see it.

            Reply
          56. joe schmo May 1, 2014

            OMG, are you really serious. Now who’s dated. White hoods? No longer exists except in your mind. I guess we have moved into the future more than you all have.

            You are a moron. I voted for Obama the first time he ran. Ewww…..shock of shocks. Does that make me a racist. Hell no! I think we all hoped that he would make some good changes. Not! His anti-colonial/Communist policies ruined him for people like me. Screw you, this is 2014 not the 1800’s. You are the people who are creating the racial issues and you are hurting the very people you are trying to help. You have been fed bullshit by your media because I hear this from every single Liberal I know. Whether you like it or not, the Conservatives are getting more diverse. We love Dr Ben Carson, Allen West and Herman Cain (who’s presidential run your side ruined by the way) Love David Webb….and Michelle Malkin, and Dinesh D’Souza. So, go fly a kite.

            By the way, if you knew Conservatives, you would know that I am not a TPer. Actually, come to think of it, your response to me has been rather primitive. I guess you are the city version of a redneck. City people believe food is not grown in the fields. They think that the grocery store makes what we eat. LOL

            Reply
          57. WhutHeSaid May 2, 2014

            Honest to God, how many times do you intend to tell that lie before you finally give up? You didn’t vote for Obama, and anyone who reads your posts knows better. Nobody goes from voting for somebody to putting them down in every way that they possibly can at every opportunity.

            If every redneck bigot who CLAIMED that they voted for Obama really did, he would have gotten about 99% of the vote. Honestly, I don’t know why you believe that claiming to vote for Obama will lend any credibility to your rants. It doesn’t.

            Allen West? Who in their right mind would vote for a nut case like that? Nobody — that’s who. Bigots think that because Allen West is black that it means something, but no sane person of any skin color would vote for such a moron. You see? Sane black people aren’t going to vote for a nut like that just because he’s black — that’s what bigots can’t understand because, well, they are bigots and believe that the fact that he’s black means something, But all it means is that he’s a nut-bag who happens to have black skin.

            Why is it that you bigots can’t just admit what you are? Are you too ashamed? If so, why don’t you just stop being a bigot instead of lying about it — you aren’t fooling anyone, you know.

            Reply
          58. joe schmo May 2, 2014

            You are an absolute moron. Were you standing in the voting booth behind me when I voted. I would not even say I voted for someone if I did not. He was the hope we all wanted to see. Frankly, we were sick of Bush and his agenda. The mess and the wars. Nowadays, I look back, and I think Bush was not even close to being as radical as Obama. A divider not a uniter. He could have done so much. Most transparent presidency. What a lie!

            Redneck bigot? Not every Conservative is a redneck. I know both the city and country lifestyles. I come from a very refined and educated family of legal immigrants. Grew up listening to Beethoven, Bach and Russian folk music. Know the difference between the Renaissance works of DeVinci and Michaelangelo to the Modern works of DeStihl artist Piet Mondrian and Contemporary work of Keith Haring and Andy Warhol. So go stuff yourself. My parents were heavily into watching Opera and Operettas. My mother studied dance in Europe. You see you are the bigot because you are judging someone you have no clue about.

            Your are also a bigot and racists and you degredade yourself by imploring your distaste for African American Conservatives who I believe to have more common sense than you will ever have.
            You can’t stand the fact that in reality many Conservatives are excepting of all races just like you. Where your side keeps ethnic groups suppressed ours elevates them up and encourages their growth.

            Your radical hate groups are growing:

            NAACP
            SPLC*
            LaRaza
            The New Black Panthers
            ACLU
            Occupy Wallstreet
            Greenpeace
            GLAAD
            American Atheists
            SEIU

            ‘There have been declines in some hate groups, including native extremist groups like the Militiamen, which focused on illegal immigration. Chapters of the Ku Klux Klan fell to 152, from 221. ‘

            Lying? These groups exist and you put down every one we admire. In case you haven’t noticed you are not celebrating diversity, you are being a typical arrogant bigoted Liberal. How do you like having the shoe on the other foot. Tell me what you want the fault lies on both sides.

            Reply
          59. WhutHeSaid May 2, 2014

            Sorry, you have to come up with better lies than that. People who vote for a person do not go from supporting a candidate to disparaging every single thing about them and making up tall tales and wacky conspiracies. It just doesn’t happen. People may become disappointed, but nobody goes completely to the opposite extreme — it would be admitting foolishness, and people prefer not to do that.

            Like I said — I don’t claim that conservatives are all redneck bigots. What I said is that redneck bigots LIE about being conservative (they aren’t) as an excuse for their vile character defect. Bigotry is not an ideology.

            Opera and dance? So what? That doesn’t prevent somebody from being a sordid bigot OR a redneck. Redneck bigots really can’t help themselves, and I’m guessing that you’ve gotten quite a few icy looks for blowing beer farts in the opera house, yes?

            So you love Allen West do you? A rabid nut-bag who got drummed out of the military for violent acts against his own unit. You really feel that you’ve found yourself a token black person, eh? I’ll bet that next you’ll tell me how many black friends you have.

            If you must tell whoppers in public, please at least use some imagination and make them semi-plausible.

            Reply
          60. joe schmo May 2, 2014

            Bullshit. It is a person’s perogative to change their mind and their political affiliation. I have a friend who was married 25 years and had two sons. She ran for mayor under the Republican ticket. When I met her she had ditched her husband found a female partner and become a staunch Liberal.

            OMG, you are a bigot. That is a for sure. I definitely am not. In fact, I am a bit of a snob when it comes to primitive people. You tend to be falling into that category. I don’t drink! I’m into organic eating and fitness. Quite the contradiction of what a Conservative should be. Shock of shock there are more of us out there. Intelligent, educated, refined. What a sick crass comment. Typical of you. I see less of this kind of pratter on Conservative sites. If I compare the two parties the Conservatives have more scruples.

            Very nasty and prejudice of you to say that about any ethnic group. You’ve just called yourself a bigot…..and, how did you know, I do have black friends. One of my best friends is African American.

            Of course, you don’t know what a lie is. Your leader lies all the time and you believe his untruths, yet when a Republican throws the truth in your face your excuse is its a lie…..LOL Wow, you people are really out there.

            Reply
          61. idamag May 2, 2014

            Of course he is lying. Proof of racism since we got a Black president: White supremist groups doubled. Other proof: Instead of discussing issues, they attack the man and his family. I can find plenty of food grown in Mexico, Chili, China, and Peru. Here is the real facts. Farmers are business people. They are not God. They are not benevolently passing out fishes and loaves. They have a product and they need consumers.

            Reply
          62. idamag May 2, 2014

            And do they ever!

            Reply
          63. idamag May 2, 2014

            yes. I didn’t live in the south. I live in the Northwest. I remember Time Magazine put a Black person on the cover of their magazine (I think it was a boxer) and angry letters flooded their offices and 32% of subscriptions were cancelled. Life Magazine went down into the south and did several spreads on their “genteel” way of living. One two page picture showed the southern belles, in their dirndle skirts, laughing prettily, at a lynching. To me, southern belles don’t resemble Skarlett O’Hara. And there was Emmett Till – a fourteen-year-old Chicago lad, who was beaten to death by four men. He was unrecognizable when his coffin reached Chicago. You see, being from Chicago, he didn’t know he couldn’t look a white woman in the eye in Mississippi. The Federal government told Mississippi they had to bring those four men to trial. They had the bloody 2X4s and the baseball bat, found in one of the perp’s sheds. Their were fingerprints on the boards and the bat. The evidence was there and the jury acquitted them. Then there was Martin Luther King. There was Medgar Evers.

            Reply
          64. Sand_Cat May 2, 2014

            Yeah, sure African Americans had the same rights as everyone else when you graduated high school. Did you travel back in time from the distant future, or are you just full of it? Typical of dishonest “conservatives”: fought like hell against Civil Rights, hated Martin Luther King, still fight like hell against civil rights when you think no one’s looking, but try to claim discrimination is “all in the past” and a la Ronald Reagan – guilty of all the above – even try to take part of the credit for the improvements that have been made in spite of your die-hard opposition.
            Not to mention whining about the “race card” and “name-calling” when someone sees through the lies and hypocrisy and calls you what you are.
            And what does this have to do with GUNS? I think that was the topic here.

            Reply
          65. joe schmo May 2, 2014

            Do I need to point out your hate groups you hypocrite.

            ACLU
            LaRaza
            The New Black Panthers
            NAACP
            SPLC
            SEIU
            The Department of Homeland Security

            and you think you are totally innocent…

            Were you in high school with me? How would you know? Why don’t you give me some examples how Conservativs are fighting Civil rights and then also give me some examples of our prejudice of late? Oh that’s right you are still harping on the KKK. You twist and turn reports to make the Conservatives look like shit. I think there are maybe 156 members or 2000 total nationwide. The groups listed above have far far more members.

            No yours is a ruse to stay in power. You are terrified of loosing it. In reality your Man is not very powerful globally. And, obviously, you all don’t really wear power well. LIberal’s have never been very strong organizationally. One of these days you will loose. I would love to see that day but things haven’t gotten bad enough yet. ‘Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.’

            Not sure how the topic got off guns. Someone else must have posted a comment and the conversation trailed to other issues…..

            Reply
          66. Sand_Cat May 3, 2014

            The “hate groups” you list say it all: you hate black people, the Constitution, etc. I’ll agree with you on the Homeland Security thing. Other than that, you simply broadcast your racism and the general dishonesty of your whole position. Nice projection, though.
            I don’t care to “debate” with bigoted morons.

            Reply
          67. idamag April 28, 2014

            Or, that person should study the cross-burnings, the lynchings, the voter suppression, beatings, and the burnings. When a 14-year-old boy was beaten beyond recognition because he didn’t drop his eyes in the presence of a white woman, the perps were acquitted in the Mississippi court and Life Magazine did a spread on it. They showed two of the killers passing the plate in the Baptist Church.

            Reply
          68. BenAround April 28, 2014

            How far back do you want to go? The slave plantation? And the voter suppression was to prevent blacks from voting Republican, if you really want to go there. Being a Baptist in the South didn’t keep you from participating in voter suppression for the Democratic party. And, the Blue Dog Democrats carried that tradition forward long after the Kennedy era. The main thing that Blue Dog Democrats had in common with Republicans of the North was economic conservatism. And most Christians, both North and South, share a traditional Christian moral code. Which sets them at odds with the social libertarians with regard to abortion and same sex marriage, for examples. Dependency is bondage–whether it is addiction to a substance or a government handout. And the new Democratic party is just the old party with a velvet glove. It will add dependents and their overseers in return for undiscounted votes. Which is why anyone who encourages libertarian or conservative independent thinking among the African American community is attacked viciously by the left.

            Reply
          69. idamag May 2, 2014

            Yes, it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the south. Then when a Democrat president signed the Civil Rights Act into being, the south has never voted Democrat since. I understand anti-abortion people, but don’t understand how they can only care about a fetus and not a child as evidenced by some of their actions toward poor children. As for same-sex marriage, it doesn’t matter to me because I don’t have my nose in other peoples’ crotches. Your religion is against it and some religions are not, so once again, you are trying to force your religion on others. I am sure you would squawk if others were trying to legislate forcing their religion on you. Do unto others….

            Reply
          70. plc97477 April 28, 2014

            Unfortunately thinking takes some brains and schmuck is devoid of intelligence.

            Reply
          71. JJB1310 April 28, 2014

            The “progressives”, as Republicans used to call themselves, weer far different than the converted southern Dixiecrats and Tea Party anarchists that now call themselves Republicans. Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln and Eisenhower would shake their heads in disgust at what has happened to the party. Conservative now means vain, stupid, and self centered.

            Reply
          72. joe schmo April 28, 2014

            As I said before, Liberals are arrogant, ‘uber’ sensitive and narrow-minded. George Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan certainly would be rolling over to see how far Left we have become. Wasn’t their intention…. Theirs was a party of low taxes and freedom. What we have right now borders on Marxist Socialism…..

            Reply
          73. JPHALL April 28, 2014

            You obviously never read about Shay’s Rebellion and the other attempts in that period to avoid paying Federal taxes that Washington and the Federalist’s put down.

            Reply
          74. JJB1310 April 28, 2014

            Gotta hand it to you. Stupid people always think people smarter than them are arrogant. And Marxism? That’s what right wing theocrats throw out when they can’t comprehend that free thinkers might actually agree with some of Marx’s observations without slavishly following his every word. Regardless, there’s far more evidence of the EXACT OPPOSITE. Look up the word “plutocracy” and learn something useful. We could be on the same side if you weren’t so hopelessly brain washed and conditioned to believe the lies.

            Reply
          75. BenAround April 29, 2014

            And atheistic socialists always throw out “right wing theocrats” at anyone who believes in God–deluding themselves that a belief in God implies a belief in a theocracy. If that were true, all but a couple of the founders of this country would have been right-wing theocrats by your definition because they were predominantly Christians. Marx’s theories were out of date even prior to his death. All of his human labor based formulas were completely destroyed by industrialization, cheap energy (fossil fuels), and automation. Which is why modern socialists hate all of those things. They yearn for the past when Marx’s formulas were actually applicable. The other element that Marx completely ignored was the power of self-interest that drives capitalism to such great achievements. If you want to see a real plutocrat you have only to look to George Soros who made his billions by driving a nation’s currency into the ground and now dictates energy policy to Obama. The power behind socialist thrones are plutocratic currency manipulators.

            Reply
          76. idamag April 28, 2014

            Even Reagan would be ashamed of what the party has become.

            Reply
          77. BenAround April 28, 2014

            And you voted for Reagan? I did, both times. I think I am more qualified to speak for what he would be ashamed of than someone who didn’t even vote for him. I can tell you he would be far more ashamed of Obama than of any of the likely Republican party candidates. And that isn’t even saying much good about the Republican candidates. We have African American conservatives who would be a lot better candidates than most of the likely Republican field for 2016. However, liberals have poisoned the well for African American candidates–whether conservative or not–by allowing Obama to pander to the far left instead of using the bully pulpit and leading Congress to find common ground. The oil pipeline is a great example. The majority in both parties would support that. The environmental study says it is OK. Unions are crying for it. But George Soros won’t fund Obama’s presidential library if he moves ahead on it. So, he has tabled it. On the other hand, he partners with the radicals Bloomberg and Cuomo to attack second amendment rights. Yup, the same Bloomberg who banned the “Big Gulp!” And you think conservatives are fascists?

            Reply
          78. BenAround April 28, 2014

            That is a nice fairy tale to tell your kids to justify your profligacy with wealth, values, and rights to property, self-defense, and a political voice. Eisenhower was a constitutional conservative. Even Kennedy was far more conservative than the so-called progressives of today. Conservative has always meant preservation of individual rights (you call it self-centered until yours get taken away), respect for the brilliance of the founders (you call them stupid and out of date), and the belief that you should earn what you eat and wear (you call that vanity). These are the values of the people who built this country. Liberals have the values of the grasshopper–who just eats the crop of today. Conservatives have the values of the ants–who store for the winter. And, producing nothing of real value, liberals make up for their lack of ingenuity and productivity by looking down their noses at the rest of us.

            Reply
          79. JJB1310 April 28, 2014

            No fairy tale! Eisenhower warned the nation about the very thing that Republicans embrace and promote with orgiastic zeal: the military industrial complex. Teddy Roosevelt stood for the working man, and would have been appalled by the unchallenged movement toward oligarchy, and the GOP’s hand in encouraging it with orgiastic zeal. Last, but certainly not least, the GOP has rolled out the welcome mat for Christian fascists and racist lunatics. I’ve lived in the South all of my life. I know, without a doubt, that Nixon’s Southern strategy has paid off with a vengeance, starting with his co-conspirator, Roger Ailes, and his poisonous Fox News network.

            Reply
          80. BenAround April 29, 2014

            The military industrial complex that Eisenhower was concerned about was exactly about the concentration of federal power and dollars to the benefit of large defense contractors. It had nothing to do with private citizens and their second amendment rights. We could have a different debate about the inefficiencies of big government–from national defense, to prison systems, to social programs.

            Reply
          81. JJB1310 April 28, 2014

            Your use of liberal as a pejorative term proves that you’ve been brainwashed and incapable of comprehending the fact that the USA was born of revolution: a liberation from the kind of theocratic rule that “conservatives” pine for.

            Reply
          82. BenAround April 29, 2014

            There is a vast difference between liberal and libertarian. Neo-liberals (or progressives) are characterized by an increased abdication of personal responsibility in favor of government caretaking and control. They typically are against any defined standard of personal morality or decency but, in matters of political correctness around race and the euphemism of women’s health (abortion) or alternative lifestyles, are easily whipped up into a lynch mob mentality to the extent of doing harm to the offender. Their thought police consist of the liberal media and class-based organizations. This is not brainwashing, it is observation. Conservatives don’t “pine for” theocratic rule. They simply resent the jack-booted thugs of a liberal oppressive central government marching through their communities and stamping out all trace of religion from the public square. They have tolerated atheists in the public square for centuries. The intolerance for Christianity in the public square effectively establishes secularism as the state religion. And you know that is true. Liberation was not the intent of the founders when they wrote the “free exercise” clause. They did not intend “free exercise” to mean only in the privacy of one’s own closet. They came from a system where the Anglican Church was a branch of government. That is all they were trying to eliminate. Not all religion. Not basic morality. Just the establishment and enforcement of a state religion. So, you are the one who has been brainwashed into thinking that conservatives pine for a greater role of religion in government. They do resent the federal government coming into their communities with the giant eraser and wiping out their culture and traditions from public view. Conservatives and, especially, libertarians are supportive of all cultures and religions being allowed free expression in sharing the public square. If you want to see an oppressive theocracy, you will have to go to Obama’s bosom friends in the Middle East. You will not find it in the U.S. And, especially not among conservatives. Liberal political correctness, however, is as close to an established state-enforced religion as was the Anglican Church in England at the time of the founding.

            Reply
          83. WhutHeSaid April 29, 2014

            Unbelievable. You claim that you are a conservative and that conservatives believe in freedom of religion — only to go on to attack the Muslim religion. Did you eat lead paint chips as a child? If not, how did you become such an imbecile?

            Reply
          84. idamag May 2, 2014

            to him, freedom of religion means the right to force his religion on everyone else.

            Reply
          85. idamag May 2, 2014

            Look, you are an ideologue who does not come on these boards to exchange ideas. Your anger doesn’t reflect the Christian Church I grew up in. I don’t believe any religion has a right to force their religion on someone else. Religion should be private and personal, not political. No one has ever said you couldn’t pray where you want to. They said you can’t force others to pray with you. If it embarrassed you to stand up and pray alone, in public, then do as Jesus told us to do: Pray not to be seen of men, but in your closet and he even gave you the prayer. We, who believe religion should be private, are often subjected to long winded prayers and are nothing more than a sermon forced on an audience who doesn’t wish to listen to it.

            Reply
          86. Sand_Cat April 28, 2014

            It’s you who needs to “get over it.” You sound like you could use a healthy dose of anti-psychotic medication.

            Reply
          87. BenAround April 28, 2014

            Don’t even start with the idea that liberals were responsible for the advancement of civil rights. From the civil war on, it was Republicans that have put forward all the equality legislation for African Americans. Self-determination has always been a core conservative value–regardless of color. However, after the Democrats had voted down numerous Republican sponsored civil rights bills, just because the Kennedy presidency finally saw the light and caved in to the pressure from activists, they got credit for it. But it required a lot of deep introspective rethinking on the part of Robert Kennedy to get that ball rolling. And Southern Democrats–who started the Klan–were still not on board. Now, of course, the liberals are busy creating a new dependency class of perpetually self-interested government supported voters while fighting every right of economic and safety self-reliance, from self-defense to self-employment. Conservatives are about self-reliance and merit. It was not Republicans who were hanging minorities from trees. And, I wouldn’t be supporting the right of everyone (regardless of race) to defend themselves if I thought that would lead to lynchings. More likely it would give someone the capability to resist a lynching. Then you just have to fix the liberal court system such that, whether you are black or white, if you shoot someone who is trespassing on your property (i.e.; to lynch you), there is a real presumption of justification.

            Reply
          88. JJB1310 April 28, 2014

            Nice bit of self righteous BS that was completely irrelevant to any point I was making.

            Reply
          89. JPHALL April 30, 2014

            You are another twister of history, The Republican party stopped being the party of progress when they sold out to big business in the 1920’s. After the Great Depression, it was Republicans and Southern Democrats that fought against progress. Finally, in the 1960’s, the Southern Democrats gave up their charade and declared themselves Republicans.

            Reply
          90. joe schmo May 4, 2014

            Isn’t it always you people who are stating we need to see beyond color and look forward into the future. Well we have. Do you see anyone of any race getting hanged? I believe that there is prejudice on both sides and you damn well know it.

            This comment makes it sound like the only crimes that were committed were to the African Americans and now that they have a voice they kill more as to get back at white folk. Obviously, there is more crime than ever. That is the way your comment sounds. No, it is because of our Liberal laws that we have more crime. I believe crimes are not punished severely enough. For example, if a person is known to have killed more than one person (first degree murder) (and they can figure this out now because of DNA) that person should be eliminated. Not spend years and years in prison on the taxpayer’s arm. If crimes were more severely punished then I believe people would be scared to death to keep committing them and crime would go down. In the recent case of Clayton Lockett, you Liberals had more sympathy for the botched execution than you did for the victim, Stephanie Neiman, who Clayton and his friends tortured to death by digging a hole and burying her alive. I have no sympathy for this man and the men who killed this girl. None. Killers have no rights. That was taken away from them when they killed another human being…..and here’s a brain fall for you. There is no such thing as rehabilitation, it does not work for 90% of the people released..

            Some of the things that happen nowadays with guns would never never have been thought about even in the 70’s when I grew up. No kid in their right mind would have thought about taking a gun into a school and shooting people. The thought never crossed anyone’s mind. That’s because the family unit was somehow still intact. Violent video games, illegals drugs (now even being promoted) , people getting away with murder, less and less obedience, break down of the famiiy and more decadence (Hillary hanging sex toys and fetishes on a Christmas tree, seriously!) is causing this Country to become much like the end of the Roman Empire. I believe it will implode on itself. What will follow is another Dark Age.

            You won’t answer my questions because you don’t know how to. Your emotions are getting in the way.

            Reply
          91. Sand_Cat April 28, 2014

            Why should an irrational lunatic be able to expect answers from anyone? You planning on threatening us with your penis-extender if we don’t?

            Reply
          92. RobertCHastings May 3, 2014

            You have hit several points right on the nose. However, you will be extremely hard-pressed to find any support for your assertion regarding “Liberal Laws”. The VAST majority of laws regarding gun ownership in the US are direct from the pens of ALEC lobbyists, who gave them directly to CONSERVATIVE state and federal legislators. This is the main reason what gun laws we DO have are so ineffective – they are written to be that way.

            Reply
      2. Sand_Cat April 28, 2014

        Ass

        Reply
    3. BenAround April 28, 2014

      Thank you for your Vietnam service. A couple of things. They are magazines–not clips. And, having carried an M16 (a true assault weapon), you must be aware that it is no longer an assault weapon when the selector is absent. So, the deliberate mislabeling of a weapon that has no selector for fully automatic or burst mode is definitely a bleeding-heart liberal symptom. Finally, anyone who believes that only law enforcement and military (i.e.; government employees) should be allowed to carry a personal defense weapon might be categorized as either a bleeding-heart liberal (not willing to be responsible for any degree of self-defense) or a closet fascist (police state supporter).

      Reply
      1. Sand_Cat April 28, 2014

        I seem to recall that a 20-round magazine on an M16 could be emptied pretty nearly as rapidly on semi-automatic as on full automatic, and possibly with less loss of control from recoil, which means it remains an assault rifle for practical purposes. I’ve never been particularly comfortable with gun control except when listening to advocates of gun “liberty.” Your repeated use of the derogatory term “bleeding heart liberal” makes you sound like just another one of them trying to control his insanity and sound reasonable. The only reason most rational people likely feel the need for the type of “personal defense weapon” you obviously mean is the increasingly strong feeling they need one to protect themselves from people like you.

        Reply
        1. Independent1 May 2, 2014

          Sandy, you sure got this guy pegged. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was an NRA employee. He spews their lies like a “pro” (pro idiot that is).

          Reply
  5. itsfun April 26, 2014

    Just amazing how America got to be a great nation with such stupid people in it. Why do you need a gun to protect yourself from someone breaking into your house. You can always jump out of an window and run for you life. or stay in your house – get killed – and let the police get there the next day to start looking for the criminal. Why would anyone want to protect their selves from thief’s, murderers, rapist, etc.? Better yet, you can draw a red line for them to cross over.

    Reply
    1. Independent1 April 26, 2014

      Maybe you should do a little research before you go on a rant. Fact is, that homeowners who confront a crook with gun, rarely actually stop the crook, what happens is that more often than not they end up dead; 4.4 times more often than someone who confronts a crook without a gun. And since of around 11,000 homicides per year, less than 330 of them are justifiable homicides for the purpose of self protection, they also rarely actually kill the person who broke into their home. A gun is far more a liability to the owner, than it well ever be a means of self-defense, or even a means of protection for their property: most crooks are better at using guns than the average homeowner.

      See this from the educational department of the state of Utah:

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

      Reply
      1. itsfun April 26, 2014

        If you want to let a criminal have a free shot at you, its ok with me. They will meet a person with a loaded 45/410 in my house. I do know how to use it and I will.

        Reply
        1. kenndeb April 26, 2014

          Judge or Governor? I thought the Governor was to pricy. Both are fine weapons though. Many people have no concept of self reliance. They would prefer everything handed to them. When did our youth stop learning to grow and harvest their own food? I realize we have become “civilized” but learning to depend on others for your existence is a recipe for disaster.

          Reply
          1. itsfun April 26, 2014

            A Taurus Judge. It got the handle judge from being carried by trial judges under their robes to protect their selves.
            You are right, many people want everything handed to them.

            Reply
          2. kenndeb April 26, 2014

            I love mine. Good choice.

            Reply
          3. BenAround April 28, 2014

            I thought about the Judge. However, I decided on the XDs for my EDC and the NAA WMR for the BUG and when I am jogging.

            Reply
          4. BenAround April 28, 2014

            And I thought it was a word play on “judge, jury, and executioner.” I learn something every day.

            Reply
      2. leadvillexp April 26, 2014

        You are great with numbers and statistics, but have you ever been a victim of crime? You don’t believe in defending yourself and expect others to not defend themselves. We have had home invasions in our area. Would you rather sit there and let the criminal do what he wants or attempt to defend yourself and family? These people rape , steal and kill at will. That is home invasion. I for one won’t lay down and be killed. At least I will give a fight.

        Reply
      3. BenAround April 28, 2014

        Even if we believe your cherry-picked statistics, it only proves that the criminal doesn’t have to shoot you to rape you or hurt you in some other way if you don’t defend yourself with a gun. It also proves that, if you have a gun, the only way for the criminal to win is by shooting you. The most recent CDC and FBI reports give a more balanced view than your interpretation of these outdated–most likely biased–studies.

        Reply
    2. stcroixcarp April 26, 2014

      Burglars rarely break into homes when people are present. How many times have you or anyone you actually know had a home break in? Wouldn’t you be safer if you got a security system and a couple of barky dogs?

      Reply
      1. kenndeb April 26, 2014

        Have “we” heard of home invasion?

        Reply
      2. itsfun April 26, 2014

        nope

        Reply
      3. leadvillexp April 26, 2014

        Guess you haven’t heard of the new thing. Home Invasion. So far it has happened 3 times in a small town near me. In the last one the couple was told to strip naked and then robbed of cell phones and electronics..

        Reply
        1. kenndeb April 26, 2014

          we had one near me last year, also a very small community. They killed both husband and wife, after torturing them, then set the house on fire to try to coverup.

          Reply
          1. leadvillexp April 26, 2014

            And there is still people out there that deny this or are willing to turn the other cheek. Go figure.

            Reply
          2. Independent1 April 27, 2014

            Here’s a copy of the comment I posted for your posting buddy:

            Where’s you’re proof that had the homeowners owned a gun that it would have made one bit of difference?? The study I posted earlier for itsfun says it wouldn’t have. In fact, the only difference might of been that there would have been one less person to torture because he or she would have been killed trying to use the gun to protect the house.

            Reply
          3. BenAround April 28, 2014

            Read the CDC study that Obama commissioned them to do. There is no proof in any anecdote. However, the study found that people who defend themselves with guns are much less likely to suffer injury than people who use other forms of self-defense. People successfully use a firearm to defend themselves more than 500,000 times per year. So, you can always find one example of where it didn’t work. But, the chances are that it will. And, when defending yourself with a gun, as in playing the lottery, your chances of losing are 100% if you don’t play.

            Reply
          4. Independent1 April 28, 2014

            Another NRA koolaid drinker I see. Your last comment is absolutely NOT TRUE!! It’s people who try to protect themselves or their possessions with a gun that end up being killed 4.46 times more often than people who don’t have a gun in their possession. So if we’re talking about lives, which is what I’m talking about, packing a gun increases the probability almost 5 times that you’re going to end up dead in a self-protection or breakin situation.

            See this from the education department of the state of Utah (the only red state where longevity is projected to 80):

            Note especially the last sentence from the study:

            It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

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

            Reply
          5. leadvillexp April 28, 2014

            I personally know a man who was confronted by an armed man who shot one person (wounded) and was shooting at him. He retrieved a pistol he had and shot the man as he was following him inside. Unfortunately for my friend the pistol he had was not registered and he did not have a permit so the law will take it’s course but he is still alive and the shooter is dead.

            Reply
          6. Independent1 April 27, 2014

            Where’s you’re proof that had the homeowners owned a gun that it would have made one bit of difference?? The study I posted earlier for itsfun says it wouldn’t have. In fact, the only difference might of been that there would have been one less person to torture because he or she would have been killed trying to use the gun to protect the house.

            Reply
      4. BenAround April 28, 2014

        Not at all true. My house was broken into in the early morning hours while we were all sleeping. A very expensive bicycle was stolen. My dog was also asleep in the house but did not wake us up. True that the perpertrator was just a thief. However, he was never caught and you can’t know the reactions of a thief if I had caught him in the act. In that situation, I would much rather have been protected by more than my pajamas. Security systems are not foolproof and they offer no physical protection. Shortly after we moved into our house, a boy in his late teens was brutally murdered and dumped in the bushes at the end of our driveway. It was reported to be a lesson taught by a drug dealer. The drug trade goes on along a publicly maintained trail that I use for running, biking, and walking. I carry concealed now when I use the trail. I also ensure that I have a weapon handy when a strung-out stranger knocks on the door saying that he is being pursued by someone who has threatened to kill him. This happened just a few months ago. So, it is not proof of paranoia when you prepare for things that actually happen.

        Reply
    3. leadvillexp April 26, 2014

      You know that the police will protect you. They are just outside your front door. No need to protect yourself. Besides you don’t want to shoot some poor robber or rapest. That could haunt you for the rest of your life. A good Christian turns the other cheek and gets raped and has a child!

      Reply
      1. WhutHeSaid April 27, 2014

        Nutty goobers like you probably shouldn’t be allowed in the same county as a firearm — or sheep for that matter.

        Reply
        1. BenAround April 28, 2014

          And people who make ignorant and insulting remarks like that shouldn’t be allowed freedom of speech. But, hey look! This is America. The land where the sheep are free to express their views.

          Reply
          1. WhutHeSaid April 28, 2014

            Yes, yes — and the sheep have spoken. When is the last time you saw any sheep within a country mile of any redneck goober trailer park? Relax — if we allowed sheep to arm themselves then it would be time for you to worry.

            Reply
  6. Allan Richardson April 26, 2014

    America was once “exceptional” in the positive sense of promoting freedom (however imperfectly), and looking for ways to expand its blessings to more of us. We have gone to “exceptional” in the sense of “special education” as a euphemism for being exceptionally stupid. Not that individual Americans are stupid, but cultural influences can turn smart individuals into stupid groups.

    Reply
  7. leadvillexp April 26, 2014

    I go along with Kingston. I am known as a RINO and voted for President Obama. I believe in many things the Democratic Party tries to do, but not gun control. I have suggested many good ideas but all I hear is ban, ban, ban. How about no bans, no registration etc. Having said that I will suggest licensing all gun owners and users. This could be done as HAZMAT is on CDL’s with a background check every five years and put on a persons ID or drivers license. It would also make all states on a level field as to laws. This is not in conflict with the Second Amendment as there is no registration. For those of you that think that the government won’t take your guns away, come to New York State. Gov. Cuomo banned large clips, no more AR 15s can be sold and any that are grandfathered have to be registered every five years. Already the confiscation has started on people that did not register or tried to sell legally owned guns. You are supposed to turn in or sell out of state large magazines. AR 15s are used in many National Match shoots so that civilians can compete against military shooters. Needless to say I will vote Republican this year and throw out the banners. I am sorry I have to give up on the other things that the Democrats are doing right but the Constitution and Bill of Rights come first.

    Reply
    1. RobertCHastings April 26, 2014

      You know better than that. Even if “ban” is a primary goal, it is not a ban of ALL guns, only those that either with large capacity clips or minor mechanical changes can become legitimate WMDs.

      Reply
      1. leadvillexp April 26, 2014

        Yes it is. My M1 carbine has been around since WW2 and is a semi auto firearm. It is now banned in NY if it has a bayonet lug or a compensator. It needs to be registered as an assault weapon as do some 10-22s. I had to remove those parts so that I would not have to register it. Not one of those parts changed the way it fires. Australians will tell you that it starts with one firearm and works its way up. In Australia , now all firearms are banned but the killing goes on. Only the criminals and police have guns.

        Reply
        1. kenndeb April 26, 2014

          Funny how gun control only controls those that will follow the laws.

          Reply
          1. leadvillexp April 26, 2014

            So true.

            Reply
        2. RobertCHastings April 27, 2014

          The legislative (as well as that buy popular organizations) is NOT to ban ALL guns, as that would be soundly defeated on Constitutional grounds. What is hoped to be accomplished is the establishment of a mechanism to identify those who through mental defect or criminal record would be deemed unable and unfit to possess a firearm. This is a huge leap from what the gun industry is trying to convince the public is in the works. Unfortunately, emotion and extremism are currently controlling the discussion, rather than reason.

          Reply
          1. BenAround April 28, 2014

            I agree, mostly. However, I think that the emotionalism and extremism is mostly the side of those who are using high profile news events to increase government infringement on the traditional exercise of second amendment rights. I also think you have ommitted the irrational attacks on magazine capacities and certain commonly owned styles of auto-loading rifles.

            Reply
        3. idamag May 2, 2014

          Have you tried registering it as a collectors’ item. Also, ex-post-facto prevents anyone from taking it from you unless you are using it against someone.

          Reply
          1. leadvillexp May 2, 2014

            Yes you can do that. I had a class 3 Federal Firearms License and it was registered under that with the Federal Goverment. What I am talking about is state registration. The state changes the laws a lot. Old high cap magazines before, I believe 1968, were grandfathered in NY. The state changed the law and now they are banned. The NY Safe Act makes it illegal to sell any rifle that has one military part such as a bayonet lug or thumbhole stock etc. that is semi automatic and takes a clip. This includes squirrl type rifles. If you own it now you can register it and keep it or give it to your next of kin, but it can not be sold in NY. It can only be sold out of state, sold to a dealer to sell out of state or turned in to the police to be destroyed. The Governor made this law at midnight with a “Message of Necessity” and it was passed by the legislature without even being read. We have filed suit against the Governor and it looks good that it may be overturned. If the election turns out right he won’t be Governor much longer.

            Reply
      2. BenAround April 28, 2014

        Wait! Bush sent troops into Iraq and they found lots of automatic weapons and even chemical weapons and bombs. But you claimed he didn’t find any WMDs because they weren’t nukes. Now, an illegally modified auto-loader (already a felony to possess) is a WMD? How disingenuous is that!

        Reply
        1. RobertCHastings April 29, 2014

          The Bush administration Request for Use of Force in 2003 enumerated the WMDs they “knew” were in Iraq, and the IAEA inspectors and our own inspectors found none of them, either prior to invasion, or post-invasion. Our “intelligence” identified over 600 sites inside Iraq that were supposedly the locations of large caches of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and the means of manufacturing these weapons. Upon invasion, NONE of these suspected sites were secured by the invading Americans (kind of stupid if they would establish the justification for your invasion). Interesting, very, that you would take the domestic discussion over gun control and morph it into the Bush invasion to seize WMD.

          Reply
          1. idamag May 2, 2014

            Is it possible, the Iraqis invented this chemical they could spray on the WMDs and they would just poof? It has been a long time since anyone was dense enough to tell the WMD lie after the inspections and data proved otherwise.

            Reply
        2. idamag May 2, 2014

          They didn’t find any. Bush, himself, admitted they didn’t find any, I don’t care what Hannity said. They had an army so maybe they had automatic weapons. Hussein gave up his border defense to keep the cheney from attacking them. I saw it happen on television. He also said the UN inspectors could come in, but cheney couldn’t let that happen. BTW, if you had followed more closely, the chemical weapons turned out to be chlorine.

          Reply
    2. Marmalade April 27, 2014

      I’m a liberal, although not a Democrat, who is for gun rights as I’m also for gun regulation and gun responsibility. I’ve met few Americans, anywhere along the political spectrum, who are for total gun bans. That is a straw man.

      The type of policy those on the left want is simply better gun control. For example, guns can be bought at gun shows without any background checks. The government knows that particular gun sellers are selling guns on the black market by way of gun shows, but the laws don’t allow them to stop this activity.

      It is disingenuous and not particularly intelligent to claim that, “gun control only controls those that will follow the laws.” Gun sellers will follow the laws, if the government is given the power to enforce the laws. The reason is simple. Most business owners will follow the laws in order to stay in business. Most business owners ultimately care about making a profit.

      Reply
      1. idamag April 27, 2014

        I read some of the proposals. Number one was stricter background checks. Number two was outlawing multiple clips of a certain size. If a licensed dealer takes guns, to sell, to a gun show, he is supposed to do background checks. A private individual does not, no matter how many guns that individual sells.. The Adam Lanza’s right to carry supersedes 20 children’s’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My right to feel safe in theaters, malls , schools, and offices are superseded by the nuts’ rights to carry.

        Reply
        1. BenAround April 28, 2014

          Adam Lanza didn’t have a “right to carry.” He gave that up as soon as he shot his mother–a felony–which would lead a reasonable person to believe that he didn’t have her permission to use her firearms to go down to the school and kill the kids. That didn’t stop him from “carrying” illegally and shooting the school children. Adam was using guns purchased by his mother–who, presumably, was perfectly sane and free of a criminal past and would have passed both a mental and a criminal background check. I am trying hard to keep my part of this discussion on a rational level but it is extremely difficult to converse rationally with people who keep bringing up the mass murders to justify firearm controls that would not have stopped any of them from happening. None of the “nuts” in the news would have been deterred by the proposed controls. Nobody who commits murder is deterred by the fact that the weapon (or magazine size) he uses might be illegal. And, few, if any of these nuts would have failed a background check. Even if they would have, it is not hard to get access to the firearms of relatives or friends. And magazines can be taped together to effectively double their size. It only takes about a second or two to flip them over or pull out a spare and insert it. So, most of these controls are proposed out of ignorance for the purpose of creating an illusion of safety for the equally ignorant. Having said that, I am not against background checks. I am against size limitations and registration. In exchange for eliminating gun free zones for licensed carry permit holders, I would also favor raising the standards for maintaining control of your arsenal and having a minimum standard of physical security in place for stored firearms–more than a gun rack on the wall or a locked glass display case, for example.

          Reply
  8. karen April 27, 2014

    This discussion does what every one I have read on the internet does, it eventually devolves into name calling and insults. Is it totally impossible for us to have a reasoned and sane discussion even though we may disagree? Present your argument, listen to the other side, try to find common ground. Yes some people have been overly influenced by the shouters in their corner– but if you listen to yourself, so have you– instead of calling names — look for some area of common ground. Find out what the other side really wants and what it is they are afraid of. The argument for one side is that “I have a right to own a gun” and the other side wants to “regulate” that right by placing some restrictions on what you can own and who can own it.

    In the 1920’s or 30’s can’t remember which the US Government, backed by the NRA, placed restrictions on the sale and ownership of fully automatic, machine gun type weapons– weapons often used by criminals– they did not place an outright ban– you can still own one but you have to pay a large fee for a special license and are restricted to where it can be used. Sensible for those who feel the need to have this kind of weapon.

    Today the NRA has changed and seems to want to arm its members with all kinds of weapons and with the fear the Government is going to come after you– prepare for armed insurrection, another Revolution, and you wind up with the Cliven Bundy situation where US citizens who claim they don’t recognize the government yet carry the flag of that government and threaten to place women at the head of their battle lines in hopes that Federal Law Enforcement Officials (who were doing their job of enforcing the laws) would shoot them and thus make them look like the villains– fortunately cooler heads prevailed (and I can assure I am glad I’m not the wife or daughter of one of those men who was happy to sacrifice me for their “cause”). The BLM was there to enforce a law Mr. Bundy felt for some reason he had a right to disregard. Whether he is right or wrong is not the point, what happened is– that armed men arrived to hopefully start a shooting war with the US government– is this really what we want? Please think long and hard about this because the last time we had a Civil War we killed more Americans than have been killed in all the other wars we fought.

    Reply
    1. BenAround April 28, 2014

      I agree with a number of your historical facts as well as your call for a rational discussion. I don’t agree with your analysis of motives. You fall into the trap of assuming that your motives are pure and the people you don’t agree with are somehow all corrupt. However, you also failed to note the horribly bad judgment on the part of the BLM of sending armed men into the Clive Bundy dispute. Were they hoping to start a shooting war? I’m not defending Bundy or his case against the Federal government. He is probably in the wrong. However, when the federal government sends armed men into a civil property usage dispute, that is exactly the kind of overreach that supports the concept that the government is only an instrument of violence and needs to be held in check. There was a lot of due process to be accomplished by the government prior to sending in the guns. Since we are taking a historical perspective, the right to bear arms was second only to freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights for a valid reason. It wasn’t 7th or 10th and it wasn’t about hunting or other sports. It only takes a few years of coddling for people to be lulled into a false sense of security–forgetting that it was nothing other than strong central governments with sole possession of the guns that have killed more than a hundred million people in the last century alone. Which is why those of us who still consider ourselves patriots swear allegiance to the Republic and not just to the federal government. So, if you feel that collective bargaining should only be available to people whose causes you support, then that is a pretty hypocritical stance, wouldn’t you think? The other fact that I think you may be overlooking is that the NRA only exists for the same reason that labor unions exists. It is merely a collective bargaining tool for people who care about preventing the trampling of their second amendment rights. I support several such organizations in the hopes that they can slow down the encroachment on rights. I think there are reasonable compromises that could be made to ensure that arms are born responsibly. However, in a country where the party that is generally in favor of curtailing second amendment rights can’t even agree that we need to establish identification to ensure that voters are all citizens, it is hard to imagine that they would agree to any reasonable compromise on gun control that would be acceptable to both sides. For example, since concealed carry permit holders are background checked by law enforcement and can’t have prior criminal history, would you agree to a national reciprocity agreement and the elimination of gun free zones for concealed carry permit holders in exchange for some commonly applied standards like mental health checks and background checks for transfers–both private and public? This would expand the geography for permit holders but put some of the desired controls on transfers–maybe even making the transferer liable for any ensuing crimes if they transfer a weapon to a documented criminal or crazy. I’m thinking that neither side would sign up for this. But it is a compromise that might improve safety and expand the second amendment rights for responsible citizens.

      Reply
  9. Gary Graves April 28, 2014

    It is all about money, control, the rich and powerfull

    Reply
  10. bcarreiro April 28, 2014

    america is not dumb……………..congress is!!!

    Reply
  11. Mortalc01l April 28, 2014

    I’m originally from the U.K. and I can tell you that there is more violence in the U.K. but FAR less DEATH from that violence.

    Access to guns, gives the USA 4 X the murder rate of the next Western country. Last year, 4 people died from gun murder the U.K. where there were 9,000+ murders from guns in the USA…. that’s not even accounting for the incredible number of suicides by gun in the USA; hell, there’s a good exchange of people who fly in from other countries, just to commit suicide in the USA at gun ranges; look it up.

    Guns are the most available and efficient means of killing people available. Availability of guns, means snap judgements can lead to instant death via gun. Can you kill someone with a hammer, or a knife? of course, but both of those methods mean you have to get up close and personal to actually kill someone and they are far less efficient than a bullet…. also, you can run away from a maniac with a knife or hammer; not so easy with a gun.

    I own a Mossberg shotgun for the protection of my family id necessary, but I also see the need to make sure that guns are kept out of the hands of the insane, the sick and the unstable.

    Reply
    1. DouglasSnyde July 31, 2015

      One: Gun crime and homicides increased in the UK after than handgun ban in 1997. Go look it up.

      Two: Suicide is a human right and whatever I do with my own body does not concern you. Don’t you ever forcibly dictate what I am allowed to do with it.

      Three: I googled “international tourists comitting suicide in the us at gun ranges” and I got only two deaths.

      Two deaths is not an epidemic or even a cause for concern. Where is this sp-called “epidemic” you speak of? Citations?

      Please go back to the UK and take your authoritarian ways with you.

      Reply
      1. Mortalc01l July 31, 2015

        One: Your figures are bullshit and an outright lie; go look them up, I know I did on the London Metropolitan Police website. Stop lying, it makes your position look worse.

        Two; stopping people from making a regrettable decision is a GOOD thing. Of course you have the right to kill yourself… Please go ahead and show us all how it’s done if you feel so strongly about it.

        Three: Your Google skills seem to be as bad as your grammar and spelling.

        Four: Our ways are FAR less authoritarian the yours in the USA; we have an actual HISTORY .. you know that we have Universities that are three hundred years older than the “discovery” of the USA? Hell, we have PUBS that are older – Please Google “The sheep’s heid Inn” which was established in the year 1360.

        I notice you didn’t refute any of my other statements, because you CAN’T… So, why don’t you eff-off and try to think like a rational human being, instead of a phallic-symbol worshipping numbskull.

        Reply
        1. DouglasSnyde August 1, 2015

          Here you numbskull:

          http://www.qando.net/wp-content/uploads/homicides_committed_firearms_england_wales-450×353.jpg

          http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

          Two: I have the freedom to make choices, including ones I might regret. I have the freedom to make wrong choices. So deal with it and don’t dictate what I can do with my own body. Don’t you ever infringe on my liberties.

          Three: I see you still haven’t provided a link. Nice try.

          Four: Once again you fail to address my point and go off on a tangent about something completely unrelated. Go back to your coddled nanny-state, and stop trying to infringe on liberties here.

          Reply
      2. Mortalc01l July 31, 2015

        P.S. Here are the ACTUAL figures you outright bogus, liar:

        2000/1847
        (of which 72 were caused by a gun / firearm)76414.42001/2854
        (of which 96 were caused by a gun / firearm)79315.22002/31041
        (of which 80 were caused by a gun / firearm)94217.92003/4852
        (of which 68 were caused by a gun / firearm)77214.62004/5834
        (of which 76 were caused by a gun / firearm)78014.72005/6764
        (of which 49 were caused by a gun / firearm)70813.32006/7749
        (of which 56 were caused by a gun / firearm)71213.32007/8772
        (of which 53 were caused by a gun / firearm)73413.62008/9668
        (of which 39 were caused by a gun / firearm)64011.82009/10626
        (of which 39 were caused by a gun / firearm)60811.120010/11648
        (of which 58 were caused by a gun / firearm)63611.520115772011/12
        553
        (of which 39 were caused by a gun / firearm)9.8

        Reply
  12. tdm3624 April 29, 2014

    America doesn’t have a love affair with guns, it has a love affair for the activities guns allow us to engage in.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.