Type to search

Freedom To Live In Fear

Memo Pad

Freedom To Live In Fear

Wayne LaPierre's letter to NRA

“Everybody got a pistol. This must really please the NRA” — from “Gun” by Gil Scott-Heron

So maybe the NRA is about to get its wish.

Here we are, a little over three weeks after the massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, CT, a little over two weeks after the National Rifle Association said there should henceforth be armed guards at every school, and at least one school system, Marlboro Township in New Jersey, is taking its advice. Under a 90-day pilot program in partnership with local police, students who returned to school last week found their campuses patrolled by armed officers.

But here’s the thing. If this is truly a good idea — “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” said NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre in a news conference — then why stop there? After all, it is not just our schools that are being shot up. So let us follow this advice to its logical end.


Four firefighters in upstate New York were shot, two of them killed, on Christmas Eve when they responded to a call and were ambushed by a man with a semiautomatic rifle. So we should have armed guards on all our fire trucks.

Two customers were killed two days before Christmas when armed men opened fire with semiautomatic handguns inside a grocery store in Delray Beach, FL. So we should have armed guards at all our grocery stores.

Two people were killed and one injured on Dec. 11 by a gunman who started shooting at a shopping mall near Portland, OR. So we should have armed guards at all our shopping malls.

Two people were killed and two others injured Nov. 6 when an employee started shooting inside a chicken-processing plant in Fresno, CA. So we should have armed guards at all our chicken-processing plants.

One man was killed and five others wounded in a shooting at a New Year’s Eve party in a private residence in Lakewood, CA. So we should have armed guards at all our private residences.

Leonard Pitts Jr.

Leonard Pitts Jr. is a nationally syndicated commentator, journalist, and novelist. Pitts' column for the Miami Herald deals with the intersection between race, politics, and culture, and has won him multiple awards including a Pulitzer Prize in 2004.

The highly regarded novel, Freeman (2009), is his most recent book.

  • 1


  1. Daniel Jones January 7, 2013

    “God Save Us, Everyone; we’re a broken people living under loaded guns, and it can’t be outmatched, it can’t be outgunned, it can’t be outfought, it can’t be outrun, Noo!”–Linkin Park.

    We have to start restricting the guns.

    This proliferation can’t be outmatched with more guns.

    This proliferation can’t be outgunned with more guns.

    This proliferation can’t be outfought with more guns.

    And the proliferation can’t be outrun with more guns, either.

    1. charles January 7, 2013

      what we need to do restore some of the funding that was slashed from the mental hospitals all those people had mental promblems states you got so many people with adhd depression and ect from adults to the kids everybody is dam near on meds for high blood pressure to depression hell it tells you it may cause suicidal thoughts and everything else some people need help beside meds may need to be in a institution for awhile”

      1. latebloomingrandma January 7, 2013

        your run-on writing style flight of ideas indicates you may be one of those who need to be in an institution for a while

        1. annienoel January 7, 2013

          that was uncalled for.

          1. latebloomingrandma January 7, 2013

            You’re right . I apologize to Charles.

    2. Troy Surratt January 7, 2013

      If you believe that Daniel, you are very shallow.

  2. Lynda January 7, 2013

    ‘Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.’ Those are the words of Isaac Asimov and goods at that. Another one his quotes that has relevance to the subject ‘no sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be.’

  3. R. SHURN January 7, 2013

    And here I was thinking that I was ONLY one who’s thought of that Gil Scott-Heron song in reference to this recent tragedy and the NRA.

    1. Daniel Jones January 7, 2013

      The NRA, maybe, but the song was recorded and released well before the recent tragedt. It is, rather, the *overall* farce that this song speaks to, in my mind at least.

  4. nobsartist January 7, 2013

    Now whitey’s on the moon……

    Its funny. In detroit recently during road rage, one licensed gun driver pulled his gun on another licensed gun driver. One shot the other in the face. The one shot in the face rammed into a cvs store and for what ever reason cannot be interviewed..

    Neither have been charged……

  5. gary miles January 7, 2013

    WOW, the article mentions how “criminals” have used guns in the committing crimes. So, what you folks want to do is outlaw guns. Who do you think will turn in their guns, the criminals that were mentioned in this article? The criminals and gangbangers don’t care about laws. Only fools think gun control is a good thing. Most of you need to read up on your history.

    1. KDJ54 January 7, 2013

      Yes, I have read my history. In Australia in 1996, a mass shooting resulted in strict laws against assault weapons, since then no more mass shootings in Australia. Also, in Scotland near the same time there was a mass shooting in a school. Strict gun control laws were passed and once again no more mass murder in the United Kingdom. For those who believe that it was the gunslinging Wyat Earp and Doc Holliday who tamed the wild west cow towns of Dodge City and Abilene, you would be wrong. Killings stopped in those towns when laws were put into place that required all firearms to surrendered before the cowboys could enter town to entertain themselves. So, who are the real fools, we, who live in nation that has 9 gun related deaths per 100,000 or the United Kingdom that has .44 gun related deaths per 100,000. I believe that we are the fools and we continue to believe the Orwellian propaganda of the NRA which is so effective that even that master liar, Goebbels would be proud.

      1. ObozoMustGo January 7, 2013

        KD… you have bought the myth that has been sold you about Australia. Here are the objective facts and analysis on the Australian gun ban and the US “assault” rifle ban. Also, click the image below to enlarge. It goes with the article. Hat tip James Agresti at JustFactsDaily site.

        Should the U.S. adopt Australia’s strict gun laws?

        By James D. Agresti
        December 20, 2012

        In the aftermath of the Dark Knight shooting in Aurora, Colorado, media outlets were awash with misleading claims about violence and firearms. Since the tragic school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, some of the same false assertions are being repeated, but another has emerged as a common talking point: this is the claim that Australia’s 1996 gun laws and government-funded gun buyback prove such policies are effective in stemming violence. Versions of this narrative have recently been circulated by ABC News, the New York Times, CNN, Slate, the Huffington Post, and countless other smaller outlets.

        ABC News, for an example, published an article entitled, “Will Lessons From Down Under Stem the Undertaker Here?” In this piece, correspondent Nick Schifrin reports that strict Australia gun laws passed in 1996 have proved “extremely effective. In the last 16 years, the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia has fallen by more than 50 percent. The national rate of gun homicide is one-thirtieth that of the United States.”

        Statistics like these do more to mislead than inform. First, a simple comparison of current firearm homicide rates between countries cannot possibly establish the impact of their gun control laws. This is because there are numerous other factors endemic to each country that impact homicide rates, such as their law enforcement and criminal justice systems, the portion of children raised in single-parent households, poverty rates, and many other relevant variables. Schifrin’s argument is analogous to an argument made by the NRA that right-to-carry states have a 28% lower murder rate than the rest of the country. Such statistics tell us little. To provide any legitimate indication of the effects of gun laws, before-and-after comparisons are almost always necessary.

        Schifrin does provide a before-and-after comparison of the “risk of dying by gunshot in Australia” over the past 16 years, but this is deceptive because it accounts for lives taken with guns while failing to account for lives saved with guns. As shown in several studies summarized in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, in the vast majority of cases where someone uses a gun for self-defense, a bullet is never even fired because the would-be assailant retreats when he discovers that his target is armed. Schifrin’s “risk of dying by gunshot” statistic fails to account for such scenarios.

        The “risk of dying by gunshot” statistic also fails to account for weapons substitution, which occurs when murderers use whatever weapons are readily available to them. Would someone judge a gun control law to be a success if every averted gun murder were replaced by another type of murder? Of course not, but the press commonly cites statistics that fail to account for such outcomes. For these reasons, to assess the full effects of gun laws on homicides, one must look at all homicides, not just those committed with firearms.

        The homicide data does not fit the storyline commonly advanced by the media. Quite to the contrary, the data shows that U.S. homicide rates have dropped more rapidly since the federal ban on assault weapons expired than homicide rates dropped in Australia after its strict gun laws were implemented. To be precise, seven full calendar years have transpired since the federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines elapsed in 2004, and over this entire period, the U.S. murder rate has averaged 3.9% lower than it was when the ban expired. Correspondingly, in the seven years that followed the implementation of Australia’s gun laws in 1997, the Australian murder rate averaged 0.4% lower than it was when the laws took effect.

        If association equals causation—as the ABC article suggests—the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban was 10 times more effective in reducing homicides than the enactment of Australia’s tight gun laws and gun buyback. Of course, cause and effect cannot be proved because many other factors affect murder rates, and it is practically impossible to accurately isolate all of these effects. Nevertheless, the above graph allows us to observe trends and constrains the impact of many variables because the data is drawn from large population sets with limited demographic changes from year to year.

        The other media outlets cited above draw similarly flawed conclusions based upon data from Australia. The New York Times editorial board also points to “a decline in murders involving firearms” that occurred after “the British government banned all private ownership of automatic weapons and virtually all handguns” in 1996. What the editors fail to mention is that homicide rates, which were relatively low to begin with, actually increased in the wake of this ban. Again, this does not prove cause and effect, but it does prove that the Times storyline is not founded in objective reality.

        Other fallacies about violence and guns that are being propagated by media outlets include claims that “assault rifles” are legal in the U.S. and that guns are ineffective for self-defense. These and other falsehoods were addressed after the Dark Knight shooting in an article from Just Facts.

        In the words of a major gun control analysis published by the National Academies of Science, “Drawing causal inferences is always complicated and, in the behavioral and social sciences, fraught with uncertainty.” This means that simplistic and misleading claims on all sides of the gun control debate have the potential to stoke public opinion for policies that lead to more deaths than would occur in the absence of these polices.

        Have a nice day!

        As Founding Father Tench Coxe said, while attempting to allay the fears of critics of the proposed Constitution: “The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

      2. daves January 7, 2013

        The problem with that is that our constitution guarantees us the right to own guns. The supreme court has ruled that gun bans are unconstitutional.

        1. thebunt January 7, 2013

          In other words the problem IS the Constitution. Change it!

        2. KDJ54 January 8, 2013

          Your analysis is in accurate. The recent decision by the United States Supreme Court does not guarantee an unlimited right to have any and all firearms that one desires. The decision does not address the question of whether restrictions can be imposed upon gunowners. Also, you must understand that the decision was a 5 to 4 decision, which means its precedential value has weak underpinnings, and it could come back for further review through a different case and it could be reversed.

    2. nancy January 7, 2013

      I am sure you will change your mind if one member of your immediate family happens to be victime of gun violence. What business guns store have to sell authomatic guns to individual?. People need hand guns to protect themself not authomatic wapons.

      1. roguerunners January 7, 2013

        Law abiding people with handguns vs. criminals with assault weapons?
        Get real!

      2. Jerry Beck January 7, 2013

        Stores can not sell automatic weapons to anyone without a special permit from the federal government. Bad guys have been using semi-automatic weapons,both long guns and hand guns.

  6. Baron Cormac January 7, 2013

    Anyone out there who thinks a gun ban would work, just look at how successful Prohibition and the War on Drugs has been.
    The only country I can think of where a ban on private ownership of firearms every resulted in a drop in firearms assisted felonies was Germany between 1933 and 1945, and we really don’t want to go there, despite the best efforts of Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzalez.

    1. Don B January 7, 2013

      Then why do other civilized countries (Western Europe) have far less murders and gun violence overall? I don’t mind a sportsman having rifle. I don’t mind folks having handguns for self protection, but I really can’t find the reasoning why someone needs to own assault rifles or any other military-grade weapons? I’m afraid you wouldn’t want me for a neighbor. Quite frankly if I found out my next door negihbor had an extensive collection of assault weapons I would be inclined to notify my local police authority as well at the ATF.

      1. roguerunners January 7, 2013

        Sorry, but the assault weapons are already here. Just how would you go about getting them back?
        We need to take a serious look at our Nation’s Mental Health needs. People of sound mind do not commit mass murders.
        Lets be rational…

        1. thebunt January 7, 2013

          How to get the guns back? Offer to buy them at a reasonable price. This offer is valid for a couple of months. Then the offer changes. Anyone who reports someone having a gun is given the ‘reasonable price’ when the gun is taken, not the owner. Monetary greed can do the job.

          1. roguerunners January 7, 2013

            And the money to buy them is coming from…

          2. Vernon Sukumu January 7, 2013

            The same place we will get the money for the all that mental health screening.

          3. roguerunners January 7, 2013

            Just trying to be realistic here. Still believe the money would be better spent on Mental Health. IF we even had it to spend. And I’m going to take a wild guess here but I think it would cost far less to fund Mental Health than it would to buy all the guns in the Nation. And do you really think the criminals are going to give up their guns?

          4. Yappy2 January 8, 2013

            And the money to hire all these armed guards is coming from where?

          5. roguerunners January 13, 2013

            My point exactly.

    2. awakenaustin January 7, 2013

      Your statement re: Germany and the rest of the world and gun ownership bans is literally a lie.This is the old canard spread by gun advocates that the ban on gun ownership had something to do with the rise of Hitler. Anyone who believe that must still believe in the tooth fairy and believe that the Easter Bunny really hops around on Easter delivering candy eggs and chocolate bunnies. The evidence to support this propositon exists no where but in the fantasy world of “we will say anything no matter how outrageously inane to justify the possession of firearms without limitation.” There is not a single historian of any reputation and consequence who maintains the existence of any relationship between the ban on private ownership of firearms and the rise of Hitler. I have tried to deal with this stupidity before in this forum but apparently you missed that day. First, private ownership of guns was not banned in Germany from 1933 to 1945.
      They had a gun control law in 1928 whch permitted gun onwnership and required permits to carry. In 1938 they passed a new law the major impact of which was to outlaw gun owning by Jews. Hitler was solidly in power by this time. Secondly, German Jews were only ~1% of the German population. There was no significant push back against Hitler and the Nazis regarding any of their measures against Jews by the rest of the German public. When you are outnumbered 99 to 1 with the entire Army, the Police and the rest of society’s institutions arrayed against you, a few firearms in your home are not going to make a difference. Thirdly, I believe the assertions that there was a drop in firearm assisted felonies in Germany during the time in question is suspect and the idea that it has happened no where else imp0ossible to substaniate and therefore more than likely wrong.

      1. nobsartist January 7, 2013

        It does appear that republiCONs have studied hitlers germany and they intend to follow the same path.

        Just look at how they conducted the last election.

        “Lie big, lie often” Mein Kampf

  7. Jim Lou January 7, 2013

    Aurora Colorado just had another shooting at townhouse complex. I guess that means armed guards at the building. Who is going to pay for that expense?

    1. empiremed January 7, 2013

      First Hitler’s Nazis took control of the economy with government run socialism
      aided by a complisit media. Then they took the German peoples’s guns. Now that’s

      1. awakenaustin January 7, 2013

        No, what is scary is that folks just keep repeating ad nauseam that Nazi’s and gun control nonsense.

      2. stcroixcarp January 7, 2013

        Hitler was a great propagandist. He found a convenient scapegoat in the Jews, exploited an economic depression, appealed to people’s fears and organized himself a bunch of violent gun toting storm troopers who terrorized people in their homes. Hitler was a homegrown patriotic terrorist. He was much more like the NRA in his tactics than wimpy gun control liberals.

      3. Yappy2 January 8, 2013

        If you are really afraid that the USA is going to overthrow your rights then who do you think will win the battle, a bunch of nitwits with military assault weapons or the USA military with military assualt weapons?

  8. Tom_D44 January 7, 2013

    On December 17th a man went into a San Antonio restaurant and supposedly started firing a gun at the people – initial reports were that he was trying to kill his girlfriend but that was not the case according to snopes. In any event the people fled the restaurant and ran to a theater next door where the man pursued the innocent people firing his gun. An off duty police officer with a gun (that would be a “Good guy” with a gun) shot the man before anyone got hurt. Lord only knows what this guys real agenda was but when you pursue people from one venue to another shooting a gun you have to think this guy was up to no good. Did anyone hear about this incident in all of the talk about gun control lately? Not a word in the national media.

    Just last friday a man, now identified as Paul Slater, rang the door bell of a home in Georgia. The mother was home with her 2 9-year old twins and chose not to answer the door for the stranger – I suppose because she was a “racist”. The man went to his car, got out a crowbar and proceeded to break into the home. The mom grabbed her children, her phone and her gun and retreated into the house. The man searched the home and found the family in a door to the attic where he was shot by the mom 5 times. The man lived and fled but was eventually caught. Turns out he had been arrested 6 times since 2008 – nice guy. Lord only knows what this guy was looking for because if he wanted to steal the TV then he really didn’t need to pursue the family – but he chose to pursue the people inside instead. We should all look forward to the day a guy like that breaks into our own home with a crowbar – right? Has anyone heard about this story on the national media? Anywhere?

    Snopes, a left leaning source of truth, corroborated the San Antonio story but dismissed it as not newsworthy on the national level because only one person was shot, the bad guy I presume, and the incident was not an “especially horrific crime” – Their words not mine. I suppose you only get the attention of the national media when it either fits their agenda or is “especially horrific”.

    1. ObozoMustGo January 7, 2013

      Tom… what the heck is wrong with you? All that common sense is NOT welcome by the leftist freaks floating around in this septic tank called “The Memo”. You should know that, now. 🙂

      Have a nice day!

      “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Ben Franklin

      1. Tom_D44 January 7, 2013

        Obozo – nice to see you back. Haven’t seen you in a while.

        1. ObozoMustGo January 8, 2013

          Hey Tom… I’ve been around though not much for the past 4 days. Been fighting the flu but on the mend now.

          Have a great day!

          “Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end, and no sense of responsibility at the other.” – Ronald Reagan

    2. Yappy2 January 8, 2013

      First story, a madman with probably a military style assualt weapon and a trained police that was fortunatly in the right place at the right time. Second story, most people don’t think it is wrong to own a gun to protect yourself from criminals, but it was obviously not a military style automatic, because she would have riddled him to bits instead of just wounding him. The sorry thing about this story is that this guy could buy a military style gun at any gun show and could have confronted this family with an assualt weapon instead of a crowbar. How many would have been dead then?

  9. nobsartist January 7, 2013

    “You cannot solve problems using the same logic that created them”

    A. Einstein

  10. m8lsem January 7, 2013

    There should be a law requiring that someone who wishes to own a gun must first pass a psychological review, and then demonstrate competence at cleaning, firing, aiming the gun. A background check must show that person free of any prior criminal record. The commission of a crime should result in the revocation of the right to possess a firearm.
    While a prosecutor I of course ran into case after case of domestic violence. I managed to reduce recidivism in this regard to an amazing degree (over 90% of the offenders did not re-offend) by requiring that they plead guilty and agree to the maximum fine and imprisonment, then we deferred sentencing, and referred the offender to a counseling office that employed the Duluth method. The head counselor was a Viet Nam vet who had been a logger until injured in the woods, when he then got an MSW; his masculinity was unassailable. The process involved group sessions with some participants being mostly recovered. The usual BS of the new participant was quickly so called out by the rest of the group and again every time it recurred. The only thing the counseling office could share with us is whether the defendant was being cooperative. At 6 months we would review the case in Court with a report from the counselor that the defendant should or should not be required to continue in counseling.
    Something of the sort could be tried for people who have trouble with the terms of the gun permitting system.

  11. Ed January 7, 2013

    The GOP has used “Fear and Loathing” as the coin of the realm for the last 33 years. From “welfare queens” to “Abortion” to “immigration” , these wedge issues have divided us and are on the way to destroying the country

  12. quasm January 7, 2013

    Mr. Pitts;

    You are correct. Armed guards are not the answer to violent crime-breakers. Armed, responsible citizens can do much to prevent violence in all its forms.

    Dik Thurston
    Colorado Springs

  13. Robin O'Brien January 7, 2013

    Send each and everyone of those that are hot-headed, road-raging, instantly-impatient and constantly in all-about-me land to ‘Anger Management Classes’ and then the NRA may have a valid point.
    I work for a major airline and I have seen many confrontations at the gate and on board that had there been a gun/assault rifle handy for that person I wouldn’t be alive today.
    It’s time to stop this insanity!

  14. Jesse Fell January 7, 2013

    Is it any surprise that the NRA is less a grass roots organization than a typical astroturf one — receiving, in this case, generous subsidies from gun manufacturers? Is it any less surprising that the gun manufacturers are promoting the sale of violent video games, which, they have found, create the taste by which their products are best appreciated?

  15. Jerry Beck January 7, 2013

    Cant put guards in all those places,lets fund a few more police officers and I must point out,in a lot of places,fire and police are one and the same.

  16. jon January 7, 2013

    So get rid of all the guns and your still left with some really crazy people who want to hurt you..

  17. ObozoMustGo January 7, 2013

    This article is complete nonsense, Lenny, and you know it. You set up a false narrative by presuming the NRA suggested that every place that experiences a crime needs an armed guard. That’s quite the stretch there, Lenny, but typical useful idiot tactics. The only thing the NRA supports is the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms. If that means you choose to own guns or if you choose not to, that is your right and your choice. Schools can either pay for an armed guard or go the old fashioned way by allowing teachers and administrators to exercise their rights to keep and bear arms. It’s pretty simple. And your article, Lenny, is nothing more than the typical leftist stretch of the truth in an attempt to advance a leftist political agenda.

    Have a nice day!

    “There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.” — Charles de Montesquieu

  18. 1436 January 7, 2013

    In my suburban environment with a good local police force, on balance I feel safer without a gun than with one. At my previous location a few blocks from here, a few years ago, in the period of about a year there were, as I remember about 4 deaths with guns. 2 suicides and the rest accidents or whatever. One was a guy who as a rembember was, shall I say not certifiably weird. He did not like his daughters boyfreind. I have never met the girl or the boy but neightbors gave good reports on both. At the dinner table one night he got mad, chased her down the hallway and blew his own brains all over the walls. Another case, in that time frame, young husband ‘cleaning’ his gun. It fired hitting his wife, she survived and so did their unborn daughter who will forever have diffculty walking.
    In that time frame there was not one case of somebody chasing away a criminal. Not one.
    It is said than criminals will always get guns. The fix for that is to havereal penalties for being in possession of illegal weapons. Like long prison sentences becasue those types are a menace to society. I am sure the police might have suspicions as to who they are and the police should have legal authority to search and arrest . I am also appalled that there are so many stores selling ammuniton . Ammunition stores should be adjacent to the police station and a police permit should be needed to by it. and in no quantities more than say 20 rounds. But I would allow larger quantities to be sold at rifle ranges to be consumed on the premises

  19. Mort Alcoil January 7, 2013

    Murders by guns in the USA in 2011 8,583 … Murder by guns in the UK in 2011… 14, in Switzerland… 37. That’s MURDERS folks, not the total number of deaths by gun (by suicide for example).

    Guns ARE the problem, pure and simple, unless the USA is just full of homicidal, mentally unbalanced people and the rest of the Western World isn’t.

    Having a gun easily within reach during an argument leads to people using that gun. In the UK, you get in a bar fight, it’s settled with fists, or at worst a knife (which you can run away from, or defend yourself from), in the USA, it’s settled with lethal, deadly and terminal force by using a gun. End of story.

    If a gun is right there within easy reach, people WILL reach for it and WILL use it. If there is NO gun near, they resort to fists, or other less lethal objects. Can you kill someone with your fists? Of course, but not as easily or effectively as you can with a gun. Same goes for a knife, a Car, a hammer, or a spoon.

    P.S. The USA has the highest murder rate in the Western World with 4.8 murders per 100,000 population. UK = 1.2, Australia = 1.0, Denmark = 0.9

    Quite simply, the USA leads in murder rate by a magnitude of 4 X most of the civilized World, yet has 700 X the number of gun murders… Simple math; guns are used to murder people at an astounding rate.

  20. leadvillexp January 7, 2013

    For those that think they can stop gun violence by taking away the guns of good people, you are looking through rose colored glasses. The Second Admendment was written to protect you from a rogue government, not protection or hunting. Muzzle loaders were state of the art military weapons in 1791. King George passed the Coercive Act in 1775 in response to the Boston Tea Party and then tried to disarm the colonists. The Second Admendment was written to see that never happened again. Yes arm trained teachers, like Sky Marshals. Pass meaningful legislation. Licenses like CDL drivers Hazmat. It could be added to a drivers license, renewable every five years with background check for all firearms. This would close gunshow loopholes as everyone who sold a weapon would have to see the permit. It also would not hurt the Second Admendment as the government would not be registering weapons only checking the legal status of people and it would only check if you wanted to own or use a firearm. When you give up rights you arn’t safer. Just look at Germany. Adolf and the NAZIs were freely elected in the beginning. They disarmed the people to make them safer. Rest my case.

  21. gargray January 7, 2013

    You trade violence for violence, kill with a gun and die with the gun, most people freeze if you stick a gun in their face, their mind tells them to run, but they have tunnel vision all they can see is the gun If they had a gun in their britches they wouldn’t be able to get it out.You can carry a gun but you have to train your mind and practice every month. Until then you will be the first to get shot.

  22. Tom_D44 January 7, 2013

    Polupation of US – 330,000,000
    Population of UK – 61,000,000
    Population of Switzerland – 7,900,000

    I am sure there are a lot of comparisons you could make about these 3 countries but the most striking is the sheer size difference. Now what would be interesting is to see some statistics like:
    1. How many of those murders were done with illegal weapons or by criminals who shouldn’t have been able to get their hands on a gun?
    2. How many of these murders are related to drugs, gangs, prostitution, and other crime on the streets?
    3. Where are the bulk of these murders committed – urban areas or suburbs?
    4. And finally, how many of these murders are done by criminals against other criminals.

    I would bet there is a lot more to the story than your statistics show without this context.

    1. Mort Alcoil January 7, 2013

      All your arguments are totally fallacious and without merit. The population of the UK is 60 million; go ahead and multiply that 14 gun murders by 5 to equate the populations and you still get 70 gun murders by UK population to the USA’s 8,500+

      Go ahead and try to weasel your way out of all relevant facts proving that the USA has more murders by gun than any of the top 23 most civilized nations on this planet.

      8,500+ Murders. There’s no excuse, no fudging the numbers, no blaming it on video games, or cultural differences. It’s guns. More appropriately ACCESS to guns, lack of oversight, lack of training, lack of proper regulation; Switzerland has plenty of guns, BUT they are REGULATED and the people that own them have to store them in a specific place and all Men in Switzerland have military training.

      The USA is rife with uneducated, untrained gun owners that can and DO, as proven by recent tragedies snap.. when they snap, they start killing innocent people. These scumbags were not criminals, not drug dealers, not gang members, not the Mafia or any other type of criminal; they were previously law abiding, legal gun owners who just so happened to have access to guns and they used them to slaughter innocent people.

      If they had not had guns available they would have had to use some other less lethal, less deadly method. A knife makes you get real close to your victim and you can be readily disarmed by someone with a baseball bat, a chair, a hammer; you can run away from a maniac with a knife, not so much from a gun.

      Face it, the majority of gun owners are decent people, but why do they need 30 round mags, 100 round mags? They don’t. It’s a sickness, a fetish, for people that are scared of a Black President, scared of people with turbans, scared of anyone that’s not like them… Pathetic.

  23. wbrukie January 7, 2013

    little pitts and his fellow racist journalist deWAYNE wickham constantly bring black into nearly every issue they opine on: environment? black issue; daylight savings time? black issue. Yes, sarcastic, but nearly the truth and you get my point…unless you are black and/or liberal and just refuse to see the obvious.

    anyhoo, on this issue, gun ownership and reform, between them I have seen 3 published opinion pieces and in none of them did they bring into the argument the great contribution to gun violence in this country brought by black Americans.

    keep guns out of the hands of inner city blacks and gun violence will shrink dramatically.

    these phony journalists run away when the irresponsibility of many blacks becomes the issue and they do not opine on the need of this culture to pull up its pants and act like human beings – stay in school and learn while your there – make sure your children are in school – become a father to your child – stop having kids at 16 – learn how to define and spell ‘respect’ before you use it to defend your violence against another – and stop thinking welfare is like hitting the lottery.

  24. 13observer January 7, 2013

    The only thing you have to fear is “COMMUNISM”! WTF, are you kidding? You would have to collect all the guns to truely curb gun violence in America and………………. I don’t think you will get that done. The “troubling concern” is that they first come for the “assault weapons”…..and then criminals are left to use “handguns” and you then want to ban them…..and then criminals use sawed-off sporting shotguns and then you want to ban them…..and then we still end up with criminals killing people by other means like; bombs, cars, poison, knives etc. but you never get rid of the criminals. There are all these great ideas about how to control, register, limit, collect, ban and do “background checks” on “law abidding documented citizens” and such………… what about the “ILLEGAL ALIEN” population running around w/o “background checks” registration, collection (round up), limit, control???????????????? When the FUCK are we going to something about their fucking asses?????????????? We need to enforce the FUCKING IMMIGRATION LAWS before we go off on compromising the RIGHTS of LEGAL CITIZENS!!! Where is the fucking OUTRAGE???????

  25. steven c January 7, 2013

    If you people are so worried about how many guns are on the street then the next time they consider cutting law enforcemnts budget say no. Until then shut up and be thankful there are people out there with guns that can help protect you and your loved ones in the absence of more police.

  26. Troy Surratt January 7, 2013

    If we have conceal and carry everyone is a guard!(DUH)

  27. disqus_yhucltVrnm January 8, 2013

    These assault weapons should be classified as weapons of mass destruction. When you can take out over 60 people in a movie theater, you have a weapon of mass destruction.

  28. GandLRocks January 8, 2013

    The NRA is not the same organization it was at it’s inception. It has become the tool of the conservative propaganda arm, and since the press conference, has lost a great deal of credibility regarding usable solutions.
    A tighter regulation of firearms is not repealing the 2nd Amendment; it is a means to make sure that the mentally or morally unbalanced are prevented from gaining fire power.
    The prime demographic against regulation are mostly older, white and paranoid as hell. How many paramilitary organizations do we have in this country that claim to be lawful militias, when in fact they are usually associated with hate organizations like the KKK? Or the survivalist loons that believe in the ultimate collapse of society; don’t you think there is a trace element of instability with someone that believes in an event that has been predicted for over a century, but has never come, or is likely to occur?
    Where it gets even more confusing are the Evangelical Christians that are pro-gun. Christian faith precludes the need for weapons of any kind. At least that’s what my Bible says.
    Look at pre-WWII America and the level of gun ownership compared with today. Our greatest generation did not feel the need to be armed to the teeth here at home.
    We will always have the right to own a firearm. It’s guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. But there is no justifiable reason to own military assault weapons with a bottomless clip for self protection, hunting or sport. 6 rounds should be plenty.
    There are private citizens that own fully automatic weapons, and militaria, and no one is trying to take those from them either. But they do have to go through considerable red tape and security and background checks before they are given a permit. And it’s expensive too! Those that collect, and obtain the special permissions have a pretty heavy investment, and aren’t likely to start blowing away kindergartners.
    To assume that most Americans are responsible, moral, and emotionally stable is the mistake we have made in regards to allowing gun ownership to all comers. Better background checks, and mental certification should be required in all cases. Had there been a provision to verify the security of the environment the guns purchased were to be in, and denied as a result, Newtown needn’t have happened.

  29. bchrista January 9, 2013

    People I am of Spanish-American very hot blooded with a very short tolorance threashold, I can get angry very quickly so I know that if I owned a gun I wouldn’t hesitate to use it I owned a gun before and used it to protect my life, I had to go to court and prove self-defense I could have killed the two guys that were intending to hurt me and my companion and rob us, I didn’t carry a gun on me I kept it in the trunk of my car I gave them plenty of warning before I retrieved the weapon from the trunk , I aimed for a shot between his eyes but I couldn’t take a life so I shot him in the thigh his buddy jumped back in their car and drove off when the police got there they interviewed everyone that was there and one of them told me on the side that I should have killed him one less mugger to worry about, What I didn’t know was that the place we went to was experiencing a lot of muggings and several people were sent to the hospital pretty beat up what it all boils down to is I’m careful where I go and I no longer own gun I don’t want to be put in the same situation again guns don’t solve the problem they just create a bigger one.

  30. ARIESATLARGE January 9, 2013


  31. Sierra111 January 9, 2013

    I have a right to live my life without a gun, and I also have a right not to be shot by someone who is a gun fanatic! Control those who have guns so the rest of us can live peacefully.

  32. Princeton67atCoxdotnet January 11, 2013

    Pitts’ dystopia will become a reality for America if Obama’s game-plan holds sway. Restricting guns will only result in guns being restricted to lawbreakers, while law abiding citizens will be perpetual hostages in-waiting.

  33. clyde January 11, 2013

    The entire republican party is a bunch of Obama hat’n liars and their supporters aer a bunch of “Ignorant” Obama hate’n regurgitators of lies who would have to be an “Ignorant Fool” to believe in them, as the article has pointed out what they are saying is foolish; straight up, FOOLISH!


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.

Next Up