Type to search

Gun Nuts’ Fantasies Vs. Real-World Tragedies

Memo Pad

Gun Nuts’ Fantasies Vs. Real-World Tragedies


You remember that serious conversation we were going to have about guns? Here’s how serious it has turned out to be.

Recently, President Obama described himself in an interview with The New Republic as an avid skeet shooter. Conservatives scoffed at the claim, whereupon the White House promptly whipped out photographic proof.

It was a meaningless exchange, except insofar as it suggests the White House implicitly accepts the dubious formulation, held by some gun advocates, that if one has no personal experience with guns, one cannot speak about guns. By extension of that logic, Rick Santorum can never say another word about abortion. But of course, he will. Because the logic is illogical.

Not that that was the most unserious moment in this supposedly serious conversation. No, that came last week when Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that we must avoid new gun restrictions because guns are a citizen’s protection in the event the federal government decides to enslave us.

It gets better. Meaning that it gets worse. Gayle Trotter, senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum, a right-wing think tank, testified that a woman ought to have access to a “scary-looking gun” to protect herself and her children in the event her home is invaded by “five violent attackers.”

Trotter and LaPierre’s scenarios have one thing in common: their absolute farfetchedness. Tyranny is not imminent. And Trotter has apparently had too many viewings of Jodie Foster in Panic Room.

Unfortunately, the lunacy of such fears is lost on the most rabid gun advocates, for whom the Second Amendment is absolute. Mind you, the First Amendment is bounded by restrictions, the Fourth has been eviscerated by the courts, but somehow, the Second is supposed to be this inviolate thing that must not be restricted in the least, even though “the right to keep and bear arms” was guaranteed in an era of muskets.

If we cannot restrict civilian ownership of military-grade weapons — the most controversial of the gun control policies advocated by the White House — can we restrict civilian ownership of Stinger missiles? Or tanks?

Surely a “scary Predator drone” would rout Trotter’s imaginary bad guys even faster than a “scary gun.” Not to give her any ideas. No, the point is, there is something wrong with a debate that requires us to treat the fantastical as if it were likely. But the only thing that is “likely” here is continued tragedy.

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. nobsartist February 6, 2013

    Thankyou for bringing this up but when the President announces that he can have Americans killed without due process, well, now you know why we need to be heavily armed and now you know why Obama wants new gun laws.

    1. Elisabeth Gordon February 6, 2013

      …he’s after Al Queda ya stupid ass….

      1. nobsartist February 6, 2013

        And soon he will be watching you. But protecting you.

        And you call me the stupid ass.

    2. Roz February 6, 2013

      You forgot to mention those Americans are living out of the country are cohorts of the of terrorists.

    3. lana ward February 6, 2013

      On the site, “WND”,-Why is the Government stockpiling guns and ammo”,- there is a video of Obama saying he wants to create a Civilian National Security Force as big and as strong and as well funded as the Defense Department!! There’s an article too.

  2. itsfun February 6, 2013

    We have a President that has declared war on our Constitution. What he doesn’t like he just ignores and the Congress lets him get away with it. Maybe Congress lets him get away with it, is because they also ignore the Constitution by not passing a budget. Strange isn’t it how most of the mass shootings happen in no gun zones. Maybe killers know they don’t need to worry about getting hurt.

    1. TZToronto February 6, 2013

      Were you complaining like this when the Patriot Act was foisted on the American people? Or were you too afraid of the terrorist threat to complain? Let’s see . . . How many Americans have been killed by terrorists in the last 11.5 years? How many Americans have been killed by non-terrorist Americans and their beloved guns in the past 11.5 years?

      My objection to President Obama regarding the Constitution is that he hasn’t insisted that the Patriot Act (son-of-Patriot Act?) be repealed. But he wasn’t the one who put it there.

    2. Vernon Sukumu February 6, 2013

      We have a president that has declared war on our constitution? STOP LYING SO EARLY IN THE MORNING. We can put regulation on the first amendment, but oh god not on the (RAPID FIRING MUSKET) inspired second amendment. Ex navy seal Chris Kyle (the sniper who killed 150 Iraq’s after helping invade that country looking for WEAPONS) was murdered at a shooting range, was that a gun free zone? In New Mexico last week a 15 yrs old kill his mother, his 9&2 yrs old sisters, then waited for his pastor father, to come home and killed him, with A R 15 that the god fearing preacher, had in the house to protect the family hummm, another gun free zone I guess. Remember it was HIS GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO BEAR ARM, only in America because this is the only country, god bless with a second amendment.

      1. Inthenameofliberty February 7, 2013

        He has studied Constitutional law. So when Mr O does not follow the Constitution then he knows EXACTLY what he is doing.
        I don’t think that he’s declaring war on the Constitution.

        I think that he’s giving it the finger.

        He knows what he’s doing. I don’t doubt it for one second.

        And, yes, he’s strayed from that document just like many of the Presidents before him. The problem for him as I see it is that he managed to inspire a lot of people like myself to believe in him in 2008.

        And now we are pissed that he lied.

    3. Jim Myers February 6, 2013

      Replying to itsfun –

      You seem to take pleasure in putting President Obama down for ignoring the Constitution.

      I wonder. Did you feel the same way towards George the Second and Dick, his trusty sidekick, while they repeatedly violated the Constitution, (up to and including Treason for “Outing” Valerie Plame)?

      But they were Republicans. So they could do no wrong.

      1. Inthenameofliberty February 7, 2013

        I was too busy raising a family to pay attention. More the fool me.

        I actually want to THANK Mr Obama. I was so inspired by him in 2008 that I started to follow politics a bit. Then I became disenchanted by him so I started doing my own research.
        Eye opener.
        Republicans and Democrats truly are not that much different. Amazing, how each side will spin their stories so they can achieve their agendas.

        Time for it to stop. And for all of us to wise up and fix ourselves from the bottom up. Because it will NEVER work coming from the top down.

        Compassion, respect……nope. The human animal will NEVER achieve these things.

        What a shame.

        Both parties lie, Mr Myers. The Democrats lie JUST AS MUCH as the Republicans who lie JUST AS MUCH as the Democrats….and round and round we go. Left with the illusion that one side or the other is just so much better and so much more noble.

        Yes. A shame.

  3. Al Hubbard February 6, 2013

    Gun nuts live in a James Bond world where a bad guy lives under every bed. The real truth is guns owned by the public kill innocent people far more often than bad guys. Just read a story this morning where a 3 year was killed playing with her parents PINK hand gun. Stupid irresponsible gun owners.

    1. Bob Brindell February 6, 2013

      You are right! Stupid irresponsible gun owners, effort should be to get the guns out of their hands. A ban on certain guns or magazines does not remove guns from criminals, meatally ill people, nor your words stupid irresponsible gun owners. Do the hard work, not the politically correct ineffective fix.

    2. phillipjackson February 6, 2013

      Agree, the gun nuts have watched too many John Wayne and Dirty Harry movies where the hero always hits his target. There is a scene in “The Shootist” where John Wayne and Ron Howard go out to shoot. John Wayne’s character fires 5 shots, then Ron Howard’s character fires 5 shots. Ron Howard looks at the target and says ‘my spread is almost as good as yours’. John Wayne’s response is, ‘that tree wasn’t shooting back’. That is what all of these concealed carry, gun nuts forget. If 4 or 5 of them had had guns in the Colorado theater and started firing, the death toll would have been higher and most of them would have we their pants when the shooter fired back at them.

      1. DEFENDER88 February 7, 2013

        I am throwing the BS Flag on this one.
        So conceal carry people are cowards and will pee pants?
        And the death toll would have been higher?

        The Facts dont agree with your rhetoric.

        You conceal carry haters love to spread lies and ignorance like you know what you are talking about – when you dont.

        You have not really studied this problem(the causes, why now when not before, etc) and potential real solutions that might actually help.

        Usually these drug crazed cowards kill themself when just challenged.
        That is what happend in the Mall in Oregon when a conceal carry guy drew down on the active shooter.

        And the conceal carry guy at the Giffords shooting “held his fire” since the shooting was over when he got up there and the wrong guy was holding the gun. Better judgement than what you have shown here.

        Violent crime in this country has gone way down since the introduction of Gun Carry Permitting. Except, of course, Chicago(Murder Central) where guns are outlawed.

        This is serious stuff and we should be trying to find solutions that will actually work. Not wallowing in the feel-good gun hater mud, blaming good people who might be able to help with the problem.

        If you are really interested in helping with the problem than act like it.
        Discuss the actual causes and some real solutions that may actually work.

        Or are you just interested in making yourself feel good and get “liked” by many in here?

        If you are really interested in limiting or stopping the mass murders, provide armed security(of some kind) in these “so called” Gun Free Killing Zones.

        Keeping young men on designer(anti-depressent) drugs contained and away from the public would also lessen or stop it.

        Do some research, Why is this happening now and not in past years in the US? Hint – it is not the guns, nor the permitted “carriers”.
        Consider many of the “mass” killings have been done by young white men on designer anti-depressants -Prozac(Virginia Tech), Effexer(Columbine), Zoloft, Ritalin, Livox, etc.
        Why is that? and why now and not before(ie 15 yr ago)?

        1. Inthenameofliberty February 7, 2013

          Keep trying – maybe some of them will listen to you. It’s like an uphill climb around here.

          1. DEFENDER88 February 8, 2013

            You too.
            A lot of arrogant, self-righteous, sanctimonious, elitists in here who apparently dont live in the real world down here in Dog Patch USA. Guess they live in gated communities with security. Have no need or concern for “Self Defense”(or think so anyway) and worse – criticize we who at times face real threats and take responsibility to provide for our own defense. Of course that, to them, is paranoia. And as Permitted gun carriers “WE” are portrayed as the problem and a threat to them. Then they go after guns when that is not really the problem/s. What an ignorant waste of their intelligence. Strangly though when I address the real causes and solutions I dont here much from them. They only want to get rid of guns and not really solve the problems with “workable” solutions. That does not fit their real aggenda of dis-arming all of us.

          2. Inthenameofliberty February 10, 2013

            Too true.

  4. lambypie February 6, 2013

    Elizabeth I couldn’t have said it better.

  5. montanabill February 6, 2013

    Military grade weapons are restricted, unless you considering such things as a 1853 Navy Colt to be in the ‘military grade’ class. Either Mr. Pitts doesn’t know the first thing about guns or he is deliberately trying to be misleading. He then goes into the typical ‘missiles..tanks…etc. obfuscation. Well, Mr. Pitts, when the Second Amendment was written, cannons were in existence. But nowhere in the Amendment are cannons prohibited to civilians. You make the obvious conclusion.

    Farfetched is the idea that more gun restriction laws will make a single person safer than the existing gun laws. Although there is a potential law that could. Mandatory federal prison time for anyone using a gun to commit a crime. Sure, you might have to lock up half of Chicago or LA, but it would stop a good portion of the violence. Then implement better controls over the mentally ill regarding gun access.

    1. KDJ54 February 6, 2013

      Of course locking everyone up in federal prisons for firearm crimes is a great solution, but only if the NRA and Congress will act to give the ATF andother federal agencies the agents and money to carry out that mission. Up to this point today they have obstructed every attempt to enforce our nation’s gun laws. Congress has refused to appoint a director for the ATF for about 6 years, and the ATF has about the same number of agents that it had at its inception. The NRA doesn’t want to enforce any gun laws, and we as a nation pay the price.

      1. Bob Brindell February 6, 2013

        KDJ54, You hit the nail on the head! Get Congress of thier collective buts to authorize funding to enforce existing laws. Quit wasting time, effort and money trying to pass more laws that will not be enfoced.

      2. montanabill February 6, 2013

        Hookam! The NRA does want the gun laws enforced and say it every change they get. Whenever local law enforcement catches someone for a criminal action involving a gun, it should become a federal charge. ATF doesn’t get involved in local crime.

        1. gahoof February 6, 2013

          Their actions speak louder than their words. The NRA even pushed for a ban on research into the causes of gun violence.

          It would have been instructive to get some information on that question.

          1. montanabill February 6, 2013

            Are you trying to tell me that you don’t know the causes of gun violence already?

    2. lana ward February 6, 2013

      There is a site, “WND”- why is the Government stockpiling guns, ammo” There is a video of Obama saying he wants to create a Civilian National Security Force as big and as strong and as well funded as the Defense Department!! There is an article too. WND has information the MSM won’t tell us

      1. Inthenameofliberty February 7, 2013

        But many posting on this site don’t want to hear about that. Nope – they have nothing to say to you. There heads are up their asses.

        1. lana ward February 8, 2013

          Their charming princess Omuslim can do no wrong

    3. daniel bostdorf February 6, 2013

      Baloney….see my comment above. You have no perspective.

      1. montanabill February 6, 2013

        In that case, get out of your Ferrari. It affrights me.

        A ‘military weapon’ is not definable. Almost all of our weapons, as I tried to point out, were once military weapons. Which is more dangerous? An empty 18″ barrel semi-auto with an 8″ bayonet, or a 3′ Knights of Columbus sword?

        Have you ever seen Jerry Miculek or Bob Munden shoot revolvers? I suppose since the revolvers they use are ‘semi-automatic’, you could classify them as ‘military weapons. Even with a single action mechanism, they can shoot faster than most of the ‘affrighting AR style’ weapons. And reload in a fraction of second too!

        There is simply too much cross over between the ‘affrighting semi-automatics’ and other types of guns. Is a head axe really that much more dangerous than a fire axe?

        Let’s quit trying to split hairs on what are legitimate arms and concentrate on laws that will actually do some good, like broader background checks and defined jail time for using a gun in the commission of a crime.

    4. lana ward February 6, 2013

      Pat Dollard, is a great site too!!

    5. latebloomingrandma February 6, 2013

      Well, sure locking everyone up that commits a crime with a gun makes sense—-insofar as the crime is already committed. How does locking -the-barn-door-after-the-horse-escapes-strategy been workin’ for us so far? And no criminal or mentally ill person wears a scarlet letter. So, without 100% bacground checks, how do we know who should be prohibited from buying a gun?

      1. montanabill February 6, 2013

        Sure and certain punishment has always proven to be a big deterrent. It is one of the great failings of our criminal justice system that it virtually never occurs. I have no problem with background checks, but I will never expect any system to be foolproof.

  6. daniel bostdorf February 6, 2013

    In 2012 there were 66 americans killed in mass shootings.
    NONE were killed by terror plots.

    Over 50,000 people were killed by drunk drivers.
    Who are the real terrorists?

    The second amendment does not guarantee the right of any citizen to own guns considered weapons of mass destruction like military assault rifles and gun clips with a hundred rounds of ammo…..these weapons ONLY belong in the hands of military and law enforcement.

    1. Inthenameofliberty February 10, 2013

      I would like to see a breakdown of how many of those deaths were gang related violence vs people like you and me who went crazy and started pulling the trigger.

      Take away the inner city gang violence and drug violence then what do we have left? I would love for this country to take away guns from gangs and drug pushers.

      Good luck. How will that ever happen?

      When I read statistics about previously convicted criminals that comment crimes with guns – well, that’s where it is at. In the Journal of Trauma, an article stated:
      “In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996.” That’s one year – wonder what it is now? And the quote, unquote, ‘normal’ people that commit these crimes…..well…..most are on psychotropic drugs. Yet what is being discussed about that?

      So, if previously convicted criminals are committing murders with guns when they get out – why aren’t people blaming the system for no rehabilitating these men? (most of them are men, not women. I hope we can agree on that). But, no, we aren’t doing that. The prison system takes in billions of dollars per year of taxpayer money (look it up, it’s all over the net) yet nobody is holding them accountable for helping criminals turn into worse criminals.

      But we worry about one specific type of gun. I am frustrated that no one wants to talk about the WHY of the situation. They are only worrying about the end result, as if that could possibly fix all of the problems. If enough people (that are impassioned about controlling semi-automatic weapons) would band together and discuss the reasons why our prisons are overflowing, this world would be a MUCH better place to live.

  7. dslocum February 6, 2013

    If Wayne LaPierre has his way, the 2nd Amendment will continue to violate the rights of the majority of Americans. We are all potentially subject to mass slaughter with an assault weapon. The 2nd Amendment was never intended to infringe on OUR rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
    The flawed logic and paranoia perpetuated by LaPierre and some of his followers has no place in front of Congress. The NRA consists of a tiny portion of the population, only 1.4%. The remaining 98.6% of us, mostly gun owners who do NOT agree with the NRA, deserve to be safe from assault weapons.

    1. latebloomingrandma February 6, 2013

      I agree. I know I would be pretty nervous if I knew my next door neighbor was building an arsenal of weapons. In my town we have a bar on every block. Drunks and weapons don’t go together too well.

      1. Jim Myers February 6, 2013

        Replying to latebloomingrandma –

        The irony being that in many States, it is legal to “Conceal Carry” in bars. But not in Political Convention settings, or Legislative and Government offices.

        After all, the COWARDS in office don’t want to take a chance that one of the “Second Amendment” gun nuts might actually show up at their office.

      2. dslocum February 6, 2013

        You are so right! I, too, am a late blooming grandma. At age 71, I’m still in the process of learning to speak my mind and stand up for myself. This gun issue is huge for me. We own guns, but are terrified of many of the folks who have them. We definitely need to renegotiate the rules.

    2. phillipjackson February 6, 2013

      There needs to be a survey taken. Which one are you more afraid of:
      a. well-trained police force
      b. Army troops
      c. rednecks with assault rifles

      I know my answer would be C

    3. Inthenameofliberty February 7, 2013

      The Second Amendment is violating your rights?
      Go somewhere else.
      You are in America and if you don’t like it allow me to be the asshole here and tell you to leave.

      I am in a foul mood and you are an absolute fool.

      When people such as yourselves are ready to move onto the REAL problem of mental health and adults destroying their children, then we can talk.

      In the meantime most of you don’t seem to care that a significant part of the ongoing gun ban debate is NOT being addressed.

      To the point – who or what created the mental state of the person that committed the crime?

      When you are ready to fix THAT – then we’ll talk.

      Really, this is just a travesty that you worry about semi-automatics, yet say nothing about the prescription drugs being given to people [that don’t really treat for what they are supposed to be treating for] and the side effects of those drugs that create these horrific situations.

      You stand by and don’t address the pain of children being beaten and mentally abused by parents who had NO RIGHT to procreate and bear children in the first place because those parents were not stable enough to properly raise a child.

      Start going after the drug companies with the same fervor that you are going after the guns and MAYBE we might actually DO SOMETHING POSITIVE for this country.

      Discover ways to fix the family unit – and have children raised in a loving and safe environment by people who CARE about them.

      Do that – and watch the gun problem decline. Fix the people.

      Open your eyes to the real problem before the bullet buying government that is supposed to be taking care of us turns those goddamn bullets on you.

      1. dslocum February 8, 2013

        Absolutely, I care about the mentally ill. I’ve been complaining about their lack of treatment since Reagan dumped the patients from mental institutions into the streets with no possibility of treatment. That was in the early 80’s. Either they added to the homeless problem or their families struggled to care from them. That marked the beginning of the mass slaughters of innocent people with assault weapons, along with the NRA’s outrageous positions on gun ownership which led to the mass exodous of their membership. I never said mental illness wasn’t part of the problem. Your paranoia about the government sounds like NRA brainwashing!

        We have permits to carry and own several guns. We would not dream of owning an assault weapon! There’s absolutely no sane reason for private citizens to own such a weapon. We are among the 60 million gun owners, 20% of the population, who do not want anything to do with the NRA because of their extremism.

        The NRA members consist of 1.4% of the population. Where the hell do they get off trying to dominate the country with their rabid ideas about gun ownership. Congress is in their pockets because of monies from gun manufacturers and dealers. Therefore they have disproportionate influence regarding guns. Not only is it unfair to the 98.6% who DO NOT support the NRA, but it puts us all in grave danger.

        YOU MOVE ! You and the NRA are in the MINORITY !!!!!!!!

        And when you want to rebut a comment, stick to the subject. The issue is gun control, not drugs, not child abuse, and not family harmony. You don’t have a valid argument against gun control so you try to change the subject.

        The NRA’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment absolutely VIOLATES the safety of the 98.6% who do not support the extreme views of the organization!

        1. DEFENDER88 February 8, 2013

          A good portion of the issue certainly IS Drugs.

          YOU stick to the subject.

          Most of the mass murders in schools and other places are being done by young white men in their early 20’s on the new designer anti-depressant drugs.
          And that started, what 10, 15 yr ago?

          Back in ’61-’65 this was pretty much unheard of.
          If you got out of line you got your ass busted. You did not get drugged unless you went to an institution where they could control you.
          Of course now that is child abuse.
          Think I could argue putting them on drugs is also an abuse and apparently a danger to society.

          Most of the mass killers now days are on some drug when they start the killing – Prozac(Virginia Tech), Effexer(Columbine), Zoloft, Ritalin, Livox, etc.
          Problem is they are not now in institutions, they are now out there among us, at home with their parents under no “real” control.
          Often they kill their parents then head to the nearest school, church or mall (ie soft target) to kill as many as they can.

          Even “you” said Reagan emptied the institutions.
          And now we are paying for it.

          This is not an argument for putting kids in institutions but just recognizing the new problem ie Kids(Young White Men) on Drugs killing people.

          Not to mention creating those ignorant, stupid ass, Gun Free Zone (New Killing Fields) they go to, without providing for security.

          Further – you have no right to tell me what kind of weapon I need for my defense. It is none of your F cking business what I have. You have no idea what kind of threats I have to face. The police cannot “protect” me nor you – Do you live with a cop? Do you live in one of those gated and protected places?

          And for the threats “I” have to face, I need an assault rifle. That is what my threats have and they will not be giving them up even with a ban. All a “ban” does is make instant criminals out of millions of us who try to obey the law.

          I have a permit also, even insured, and very highly trained.
          Sometimes train with SWAT teams.

          And plan to fight people like you with every dollar and breath I have.

          You have no right to dis-arm me and get me killed, you ignorant people.

          I donated to and fought for Obama both times – now I am changing sides.

          You people want to knee jerk and ban guns and dont seem to give a dam about finding out what is really going on and why, ie what will actually limit or stop the killing.

          Arrogant, sanctimonious, paranoid, Anti-Gun Nuts.
          Just because YOU dont see the need for an assault rifle does not mean “I” dont have a need for one.

          I have been shot at 4 times by red-neck gangs with them and like you people like to say “Enough is Enough”.

          I dont plan to be one of your Gun Free Zone, unarmed, helpless, shot in a barrel victims.

          1. dslocum February 9, 2013

            Actually, if you research the mass killers’ conditions, you will find that most of them went OFF their medications shortly before committing the slaughters.

            Don’t know why you keep referring to me as “you people”, but you sure have a lot of anger. Perhaps you should consider anger management. Again, you sound like you’ve been brainwashed by NRA bullshit.

            If you’ve been shot 4 times by redneck gangs, maybe you are living in the wrong place – or behaving in the wrong manner……..

          2. DEFENDER88 February 9, 2013

            I am angry and need anger management – ah yes, of course – the standard response from gun grabbers.

            Since you cannot present good argument for the justification for banning assault weapons(ie what the actual results are expected to be) you try to deflect the discussion and attack my character ie kill the messenger.

            Stick to presenting good argument/debate for your proposals if you have any that will work.

            We tried an assault weapons ban before and it was shown to have virtually no effect on deaths or crime.

            I will quote Einstein here – Insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

            I advanced 2 real and workable solutions to that I expect will actually work to greatly limit if not stop the killing in Gun Free Zones.

            1 – Provide “Adequate-Armed” security in Gun Free Zones

            2 – Get the drug problem with young men who are doing much of the killing under control

            I have yet to see you propose any solution that is reasonable and has a good chance to help solve the problem of the killings.

            You(ie “You People”-the Gun Ban people) Knee Jerking a reaction to Ban Guns seems like you are just trying to make yourselves feel good about having done “something” whether or not it will help stop the killing. It is like you gun ban people loose sight of what really needs to be done(the objective) – ie LIMIT OR STOP THE KILLING. We have already proved in the past that Banning Assault Rifles will not do that.

            If you want to debate my 1 & 2 above that is fine – but dont come at me with anger management BS.

            I do get aggrivated with people who want knee jerk solutions that have proven not to work. And indeed might only work to make things even worse. I know it would make things worse for me and possibly get me killed. This is too serious an issue to not work toward real solutions that will work.

            As for me being shot at because I was doing something wrong:

            1st Time I was in a kayak floating a river in a Gun Free State Park, shot at from a high ridge a ways off.

            2nd Time sitting around a camp fire, at night, in campground in same State Park.

            3rd and 4th time similar but different and Fed Park then.

            As for living in the wrong place – no I cannot afford gated security, a McMansion or paid security. I have to depend on myself for my security and defense.
            And my attacks were in State and Fed Gun Free Zones not where I lived. But I have land up there in the mountains and not going to give it up to rednecks who think they are bad because they have assault rifles. Equal or more force is the only thing they understand. So I need one when I go up there. Right or Wrong, Up there, if they know everyone has a gun, it is peaceful . Always been that way. Also a lot of us think the US is potentially heading toward a period of serious social unrest with potential roving, thieving gangs(ie multiple attackers) like in Katrina but a much larger scale. All this not to mention the already existing street gangs who already have their assault rifles which they will still get and have no matter what ban.

          3. dslocum February 10, 2013

            If Reagan hadn’t dumped the patients from mental institutions into the streets in the early 80’s, most of the mass killers would have been locked up where someone monitored their medication. I think you are implying that street drugs are the cause of mass slaughters when evidence shows that most of those killers quit taking their required medication for mental disorders. We need the ability to put many mentally ill people into institutions. That would solve part of the problem.

            The other part is a ban on assault weapons. The gun industry is promoting them for individuals and Wayne LaPierre is the main salesman. The NRA lost many members due to LaPierre’s extremism. He’s succeeded in creating a great deal of paranoia and incendiary attitudes among some of the members.

            Fact is, NRA membership makes up only 1.4% of our population (according to NRA’s membership numbers). That means 98.6% of the population DOES NOT support the NRA. What about our rights. We shouldn’t have to live with such danger because of a tiny minority. In fact, many NRA members reportedly are opposed to assault weapons.

          4. Inthenameofliberty February 10, 2013

            Yes, sir. Agreed.

        2. Inthenameofliberty February 9, 2013

          I am in the minority? Really? No. I am not.
          Most of the people I know are too busy to be worried about people asking for gun control, because they don’t think it will ever happen.
          They don’t own guns. They don’t worry about semi-automatics. There are far bigger problems in this country then this.
          And I AM sticking to the subject. I am offering the point of view that you are closing the barn door after the horse has already gotten out.
          Yet, all you worry about is assault rifles? 98.6% my ass. There are far more people, than you think, that believe you are being over-reactionary. That you are completelyignorant because you are not looking at the bigger picture.
          98.6% my ass.

          Sure – from what poll? I haven’t been asked to be a part of any poll. You can bet your ass I am more worried about what creates the problem than the end result.
          Because until we fix the SOURCE of this problem, we are but putting a band aid on it by restricting any type of gun.

          Because that won’t stop the feet, the hands, the baseball bats, the cars, the knives, the hammers and all those WONDERFUL THINGS that you DON’T WORRY about.

          But you don’t want to hear about that – do you?

          1. dslocum February 9, 2013

            The source of my information regarding percentages was the NRA website. According to their figures, their members number 1.4% of the 300,000,000 Americans. That leaves 98.6% who do not support the NRA. If you can do basic math, you should be able to figure it out for yourself. And like it or not, you most certainly ARE in the minority.

            As for you telling me what others think of me, as well as deciding what I do or do not worry about, you are totally out of line. You cannot speak for others and you know very little about me. I can tell YOU, however, that my NRA friends do not agree with you at all regarding assault weapons. They are opposed to them for anyone except military.

            You have a big dirty mouth and appear to be seething with anger. It’s a sad day for America when someone with your proclivities has access to guns!

          2. Inthenameofliberty February 10, 2013

            Hope you have a nice day!

          3. Inthenameofliberty February 10, 2013

            I have a big mouth – I sure do. I have been accused of that. Can’t help it. It’s a failing.
            But I will try to tone it down.
            I don’t want to be like some of those regular posters on this site that write in all caps and throw F bombs through the whole post, screaming at conservatives.

            I’ll make an effort to do better. Since I seemed to have offended you.

            Yes, I am angry and annoyed. Angry that we could become like pre-WWII Germany, when people were so desperate for a leader that they gave up their rights and then the unspeakable happened.

            History repeats itself again and again. Yet, we never learn. We humans don’t seem to be too bright.

  8. ExPAVIC February 6, 2013

    Only Then

    We, meaning the public, will get meaningful discussion over gun control when NRA President and moron in chief Wayne La Pierre extricates his head from his anus.

    Be aware that a recent, joint survey by the DOD and Justice Department found that the general public possesses more small arms firepower than the total for all our armed forces. And, they found that there are 80 privately owned guns for every 100 persons.

    Now are you scared enough?

  9. Jim Myers February 6, 2013

    “I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It’s when you know you’re licked before you begin, but you begin anyway and see it through no matter what.”
    – Atticus Finch, from Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird –

  10. I Zheet M'Drawz February 6, 2013

    You folks are not ready to consider a real solution to this problem of crazies & criminals get firearms.

    Let me know when someone is ready to start a serious discussion.

    Mind you, doing the same thing over-and-over, passing Law, is NOT going to change anything if all the Law does is restrict or make it more difficult to get high capacity magazines etc.

    Remember, it’s going to take a radical new approach to ‘fixing’ this problem.

    And you aren’t ready for it.

    1. leadvillexp February 6, 2013

      You are correct. I am a LIfe NRA member and voted for our President twice. We need middle of the road legislators. I am against banning any type of firearm or magazine. How about licensing all firearms owners and users with a five year background check? Could be put on the drivers license. Nothing will work though until private citizens grow a backbone and start working with the police. I recently heard in one big city you could find a gun behind any bush. As long as people see nothing when a crime is committed it will remain the same. Think if everyone turned in those guns behind the bushs.

      1. daniel bostdorf February 6, 2013

        same ole same old lines from NRA…as I stated:

        “The second amendment does not guarantee the right of any citizen to own guns (or any weapon) considered weapons of mass destruction like military assault rifles and gun clips with a hundred rounds of ammo…..these weapons ONLY belong in the hands of military and law enforcement.”

        Until you ban these weapons of mass destruction, mandatory background checks, firearms handling mandatory courses, complete mental health workup, and 60 day cooling off period to purchase…then you aren’t serious.

        1. leadvillexp February 6, 2013

          I disagree with you. The Second Amendment was written to protect you from the government. After the Boston Tea Party in 1774 King george got the Coercive Act passed in 1775. This allowed him to attempt to disarm those nasty colonists. When the Amendment was written in 1791 it was to make sure this never happened again. If you go back before the Civil War you will find people that owned cannons. To many people forget that governments and police can take away their rights very easy. Look up “And This is Revolution” by Dan Greenfield.

          1. HistoRet February 6, 2013

            Mostly baloney. History is a matter of facts. Are all your facts straight?

          2. leadvillexp February 6, 2013

            I like baloney. My facts aren’t. Look up the dates and facts. I am always learning and do check the facts. I have been wrong a few times and a few good editors have pointed it out but they told me where to look to correct it and they were right. Lets start with facts and logic and no emotion.

          3. daniel bostdorf February 7, 2013

            I respect your view. But—it flies in face of what is happeing in 2013:

            “The second amendment does not guarantee the right of any citizen to own guns (or any weapon) considered weapons of mass destruction like military assault rifles and gun clips with a hundred rounds of ammo…..these weapons ONLY belong in the hands of military and law enforcement.”

        2. Inthenameofliberty February 7, 2013

          Fix the people sir. Forget about the weapons and fix the people.
          THAT is where we are sorely lacking.

          Anyone investigating overseas – those peaceful countries with gun laws and very little crime – what is the family life like? How are the children raised? How are they treated?

          Did you ever once consider that the gun control laws were not the reason for the peace?

          How about….did they had figure out how to raise a kinder and gentler generation?

          Ever wonder?????? Daniel???????

    2. Inthenameofliberty February 7, 2013

      You are absolutely correct! IMO.

      Time to fix the humans.

  11. elw February 6, 2013

    The LaPierre’s radical ‘gun rights’ owners actually believe that they need guns to protect themselves from the government. They believe so hard and deep that they cannot help talking about it no matter what the question is. They think that the US Government is going to become a dictatorship and do bad things to everyone. They blame the “gun hating libs” for the current discussion, as if there is no real reason for people’s concern about the increasing numbers of multiple deaths from semi-automatic guns stocked by large magazines. In other words they are people who are delusional and living in a universe fed by movies and other unrealistic ideas. They are not just gun lovers, hunters, or people who have an honest need for personal protection; they are dangerous people who need help and should be viewed that way along with their opinions.

    1. option31 February 6, 2013

      Have you heard of Wounded Knee? It’s not like the US Govt has not done tried genocide previously. A little education would go a long way. Or how about the Tuskegee syphilis experiment? NO government is as pure as the driven snow.
      I know I know – can’t let the facts get in the way of an agenda.

    2. Inthenameofliberty February 7, 2013

      Then tell me why our Department of Homeland Defense just bought a few billion more rounds of ammunition that we are too poor to pay for as a country? Ammo that can only be used within our borders? Unless you think the US is going to invade Mexico or Canada…what the hell does the government need with that many bullets?

      Oops – sorry – didn’t you know that?

      Give me a break. There’s unfortunately now too many reasons out there for people to be getting nervous about what is happening. Blame your lovely government.

      But don’t take my word for it – go google it. Tell me how you spin it to be positive. I’d love to hear you make a happy story.

      1. elw February 8, 2013

        Tell me why the Department of Homeland Defense should not have ammunition? Their job is to protect the Homeland. Do you think their agents should be unarmed? Are you saying that you should have all the guns and ammunition you want, but our trained and professional military organizations should not? What about other military organizations; should we take their bullets away as well? You do not make any sense.

        1. Inthenameofliberty February 9, 2013

          I do agree that they should have ammunition.
          But have you been paying attention to the statistics of how much they are stockpiling?
          Go google it. Compare the numbers to the numbers of rounds used in other wars.

          It is scary.

          I don’t own a gun. You know what they say about making assumptions – don’t you?

          1. elw February 9, 2013

            Keep in mind they are a Federal level program, that most likely has an extentive training program. I didn’t mean to assume you owned a gun. Sorry. But don’t assume that buying a lot of bullet mean much of anything. Government spending doesn’t always make sense.

          2. Inthenameofliberty February 9, 2013

            This is true – government spending is very puzzling.
            We are trillions in debt – I am not exactly sure what is to be gained from buying that many bullets.
            So far, there are no concrete explanations.
            Probably why there are people freaking out right now, waiting for the government to come after them.

          3. elw February 10, 2013

            The Government stock piles many things, including: food, water, gasoline and other thing that might be needed during war, a emergency, natural disaster and any other situations that limit access to what is needed to keep the Country going and people fed. They use planning models that predict what would be needed during various emergency and stock according to that. It might seem like a lot of bullets to you, but the bullets are just a small part of a bigger picture. The supplies are stored in numerous locations throughout the Country. An example, of how they would be used is in the aftermath of hurricanes, fires and large earthquakes or when local National guard is needed to contain dangerous rioting, like what happened in Los Angeles in the 1990s.

            Those people who are freaking out need help; they are over reacting with very little information. Our Government has been stock piling for centuries, and so far, it has never been used to go after law abiding citizens. You sound like a very nice person; I am sadden to see you worry so much about something that quite frankly is not a sign of anything.

          4. Inthenameofliberty February 11, 2013

            Thank you. I hope you are correct, then.

  12. Ed February 6, 2013

    Hery, if you are truly afraid of a home invasion, just buy a few Claymore mines and trip wires. No need for a gun.

    1. leadvillexp February 6, 2013

      That’s not so funny. I live in a small upstate New York town and they found one, brand new, still in the box tossed into a goodwill type collection box in a box of toys. So much for all the stupid bans. The military came and took it away.

      1. HistoRet February 6, 2013

        Yeah, those bans don’t keep things from happening! That’s why I am organizing a campaign to repeal all laws against murder and rape. People still do it, so what good are laws?

        1. leadvillexp February 6, 2013

          Another stupid comment. Rape and murder are not objects they are actions. Lets ban cars, drunk drivers use them. Sounds stupid doesn’t it. How about we hang a few murders. Anyone who saw what an old time hanging was would have second thoughts about committing a crime. Pretty nasty business. Laws are only good if people obey them.

          1. HistoRet February 6, 2013

            Oh ~ By the way ~ Back in the day when there were over 200 hanging offenses in British law, including picking pockets, the biggest days pickpockets had were the days of public hangings! Big crowds made big opportunities. The only way you can say for sure that capital punishment was EVER an effective deterent is because those who were executed didn’t personally commit more crimes afterwards. Unless you believe in vampires or other ‘undead’ of movie fame. Do you?

          2. leadvillexp February 6, 2013

            You are correct that capital punishment has never been proven to be a deterant. That is not to say it hasn’t been. The point I was trying to make was when you sanitize behind closed walls it would never work. Nobody sees the horror. Maybe another thought would be a small room, bread and water and no human conversation. Again not a deterant but we never have to deal with them again and we didn’t kill them.

  13. leadvillexp February 6, 2013

    The reason why it all sounds so stupid is because there is no middle of the road. The Second Amendment was written to protect you from the government. Muskets were state of the art at that time, the same way M16s are today. I am a Republican and a Life member of the NRA. I voted for President Obama twice. I don’t agree with banning any firearms or high capacity magazines. It won’t help. I do think we should license all firearms owners and users and have a five year background check. It could be added to the drivers license. It would not be against the Second Amendment because there would be no gun registration. I guess I don’t always march lockstep with the NRA either. As for Gayle Trotters need for an ugly gun, I don’t know. I live in a small town and there have been many home invasions in the recent past. With regard to a rogue government, it is already headed that way. Just look at all the times New York governors have used “Message of Necessity” to pass legislation without going through the legislative process. That is how dictators get started. Our government may be a good government now but that may not always be so.

    1. daniel bostdorf February 6, 2013

      Sorry–banning them will…see my comment below:

      “”The second amendment does not guarantee the right of any citizen to own guns (or any weapon) considered weapons of mass destruction like military assault rifles and gun clips with a hundred rounds of ammo…..these weapons ONLY belong in the hands of military and law enforcement.”

      Until you ban these weapons of mass destruction, mandatory background checks, firearms handling mandatory courses, complete mental health workup, and 60 day cooling off period to purchase…then you aren’t serious.”

      1. option31 February 6, 2013

        Agree, if the Nazi’s would have went door to door before they started murdering Jews maybe they would not have had such a heck of a time with the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto. Much easier if you take all guns away, like the US Govt did at Wounded Knee with the Indians120+ years ago. Yep they were guaranteed safety IF they turned their guns in, they did so and were massacred. See you just eliminate all kinds of uncooperatable people once they have no way to resit tyranny.

        1. daniel bostdorf February 7, 2013

          Your comment has absolutely NOTHING to do with the REALTIY of 2013….there is no comparison….

          1. Inthenameofliberty February 7, 2013

            YOU are a FOOL.

    2. Jeremy Gordon April 14, 2013

      “The Second Amendment was written to protect you from the government”

      Wrong. It was actually written so the people could defend the Government.

      1. leadvillexp April 16, 2013

        You are only partially correct. Yes, the Second Amendment was to help defend the government. It has a history going back to before the English Bill of Rights in 1688. The right to be armed also includes external aggression, internal strife, personal assault and persecution. This includes religious or governmental. The militia is only part of the equation. The individual himself has a right to be armed with a military grade weapon of his own and as such could be called to aid the militia in time of need. Just because there is not a militia, it doesn’t remove those other rights. A good place to read about this history is “The Heritage of Our Right to Bear Arms”.

  14. Pamby50 February 6, 2013

    Well here in Tennessee gun nuts can take their guns into bars. Only they can’t drink. What a joke. The person who wrote that bill was arrested for DUI with a gun on his front seat. What goes around comes around.

    Today I saw a clip from an HBO special with Chris Rock. He said we don’t have a gun problem, we have a bullet problem. If we charge $5,000 a bullet there would be less killings. He may have been onto something.

  15. HistoRet February 6, 2013

    The Boston Tea Party occurred 16 December 1773. Keep learning and be more careful. I’m 77, and I study and learn something new almost every day. The devil is in the details, or so I hear.

    1. leadvillexp February 6, 2013

      You are correct. It seems some sources said 1774 and I used them. It was incorrect. The Tea Act was passed in 1773. Again I was wrong, the Coercive Act was passed in 1774. Whow sometimes you feel like a fool. Thanks for the correction.

      1. HistoRet February 7, 2013

        Which “Coercive Act?” There were at least four different ones, and each had a different name and purpose. Just stop pretending to know more than you do. It must get embarrassing!

        1. leadvillexp February 13, 2013

          I think along the line we lost the point. It was in effect that I believed we had a right to defend ourselves against a evil government. While this may not be right now it could happen.

  16. HistoRet February 6, 2013

    Your logic is impressive. NOT! Regulating gun ownership will not produce perfect results. Ergo, we should not regulate them. Prohibitting rape does not perfectly prevent rape. Ergo we should not prohibit rape. Same with murder, burglary and every other crime. The first thing the people who don’t want immigration reform require is that we SECURE THE BORDER. People like Lamar Smith (look him up) won’t agree the border is secure until we have built absolutely leak-proof walls. You know ~ like the Great Wall of China, Hadrian’s Wall, the Berlin Wall or the firewall on your computer. Whoops! Those weren’t perfect either. Well ~ we can’t do anything then. Drat!

    1. leadvillexp February 6, 2013

      I believe in regulating the people who own and use weapons not he weapons they choose to use. As you say there is no perfect solution. How about licensing all firearms owners and give them a background check every five years. Put it on the drivers license like they do for Hazmat on CDLs. Nothing is perfect but do not take away non criminals rights because of criminals that won’t obey the law anyway.

  17. mikeopks February 6, 2013

    You should have to have a national fire arms ID/ license listing all of your registered guns.
    This license should have to be presented to purchase ammo. The ID would show what caliber ammo you can purchase. this would make it difficult for people with illegal firams to purchase ammo and cut gun crimes by 10% to 15 % or more. it would increase gun theft. But hey you guys say that they keep you safe.

    1. leadvillexp February 6, 2013

      Good idea except for registering guns. Nothing wrong with a license sounds good. Having to show it to buy ammo, good. Registering weapons bad. To be licensed allows you to buy ammo and says you can have a weapon. When you register a weapon that says you have it and allows the government to confiscate it at their whim. Criminals will always get weapons, look how many are stolen from the government.

    2. option31 February 6, 2013

      We should also have a national internet access id and a national public pulse id.

  18. option31 February 6, 2013

    I have a question for all you people that want guns registered, ammo etc… What other constitutional right should we have to register for before we can exersize it? How about a license to have internet access, or to talk to somebody – you know that free speech thing is a big problem – it can lead to revolution.
    I’m serious! do you people actually believe you can trash one part of the law – the Constitution and not lose the rest? We now have “legal” Drone attacks against American citizens, and a select few get to decide who gets murdered – that is a 4th Amendment issue, and for you living in fantasy land thinking it will not happen on US soil – Santa fits his fat rear down those 4″ chimneys. We have people being arrested and beaten just for videos taping police, that is a 1st and 4th Amendment issue.
    WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Inthenameofliberty February 7, 2013

      They won’t listen. But PLEASE keep trying. Somebody needs to make them open their eyes and focus on the bigger picture.

  19. Hillbilly February 7, 2013

    Since so many think they need their guns because the black helicopters are going to come and try to take them away, let’s handle the gun thing this way. For every gun that a person owns they have to have a insurance policy that will pay medical expenses, living expenses or funeral expenses for innocent person shot and living expenses for his or her children until 18 if that gun is used to shot a innocent bystander even if the owner of the gun was not shooting the gun, even in the hands of a criminal. Or tax each gun and the ammo for it at a higher rate than they are now and put the extra money in a trust fund to help the innocent people that will get wounded or killed when a legal gun owner start shooting at a bad guy with their medical expenses and living expenses or cost of a funeral and the living expenses of the family members left behind. I don’t care how good of a shot you think you are there will be innocent people wounded or killed in a shoot out between a”good guy” and a “bad guy” especially when there are more than two people shooting.
    There are people that should not own guns and have a permit to carry a gun that don’t have mental problems they have anger problems and are known to use weapons when they get angery what keeps them from getting a gun. A full mental check up for gun owners need to be done more than every 5 years, should be at a mininum every two years, a person can go mental in heartbeat.

    1. Inthenameofliberty February 7, 2013

      Some interesting suggestions.

  20. elw February 7, 2013

    No, government is not as pure as driven snow. However, they are many examples, in this Country, that show the best way to make it better is though mass, peaceful pressure and your vote. Many people have worked long and hard to correct the course of government without the use of guns to do so. You choose to ignore them in order to prove you need to have guns. But people without guns have done much more for justice and freedom than anyone holding a gun. I will name a few of those movements; the Underground Railroad and the greater movement to end slavery, the women’s suffrage movement, Dr King’s civil rights movement, and the fight for social insurance programs like Social Security and Medicare and many more. Ask yourself, how guns would have protected you from Tuskegee syphilis experiment? Do you even know what put an end to it? Not guns, it was public outrage. Your examples hurt your point more than it has helped it.

  21. bchrista February 7, 2013

    Hey option31 I admit that you are right about police behavor not being up to par, “to serve and to protect” ,however” how many of those that have gotten an ass whipping by police do you know have retaliated against the cops that beat them, so your argument holds no water, guns didn’t stop the beatings so that’s a moot point. People here are complaining about legal citizen posessing assualt weapons that one of their family flips a cork and goes on a rampage and wipes out a half a dozen people most of them children and then people like you jump up and down protecting their right to own more assualt weapons, someone needs a mental evaluation if they didn’t get the message the first time, I mean I don’t need someone to hit me over the head with a baseball bat for me to know that it’s going to hurt if it don’t kill me. History has proven that in a gun battle it never fails some innocent person will eventually get killed or maimed bullets have an uncanny way of hitting an unintended victom And people keep using the same old tired excuse they need guns to protect their homes and family, well people stop the bullshit 99.9% of people that have guns at home will not use that gun if faced with a thief or rapist in their home because more times than not they are caught off guard and cnnot get to their guns in time or they have a safety lock on their guns and don’t have time to unlock them, also unless you are used to firing your weapon regularly it’s not that easy to shoot someone just flat out and that second of hesitation is the different between life and death hell it happens to cops on the street, and these are people that are trained in the use of weapons, so let’s face it people own weapons as a means of conversation andthat is their down fall because thieves and rapiest have a way of finding out who posesses the weapons and that keeps them supplied, because they know where to go to get one. And they just wait you out because they have nothing but time on their side.

    1. Inthenameofliberty February 7, 2013

      Yes – you don’t like me. I will only say that if someone broke into your house and was holding a knife – yeah – you WOULD pull the trigger.

      Not that easy to pull the trigger? ……..yeah. It would be.

  22. judgeglenda February 7, 2013

    get rid of the nra congressmen who are influenced to keep rifles which kill numerous people especially ooconnell representing kentucky. crazy people keep on electing him like the tea party who elected the other nut from ky.

  23. bchrista February 7, 2013

    People wake up the Second Amendment is a law that has existed past it’s time the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment has been replaced by theNational Guard, the weapons mentioned were muskets, single shot and the basic reason for keeping a weapon back then was in case of an invasion by a foreign power the people could defend themselves today, we have the Armed Forces to protect us and that bullshit about protecting yourselves against an envasive government, I know men of normal intellegence don’t buy that bullshit, you wouldn’t stand a chance, to start with the majority of the American public believe in turning the other cheek and the other half would be wiped out in nothing flat, people wake up you can’t win because of the big guns and armmament owned by our government if civil war broke out here you won’t get shot by muskets your assualt weapons can’t hold a candle against their weapons and they are trained in warfare, I mean it’s foolish to even discuss what would happen, and what family would risk the lives of their children to get in an exchange of gun fire with a thief or rapiest so that argument is moot, and if someone breaks into your home and finds weapons he’ll take them if possible a defanged rattler can’t hurt you, and that’s why there should be a law for punishing home owners that lose thir weapons to thieves. I would be willing to say that the government today knows or has an idea where the majority of the guns owned by home owners are and who owns them and if they wanted to take them away who’s going to stop them,you! so stop using that tired old argument it won’t hold water,

    1. tdm3624 February 7, 2013

      When the First Amendment was written there were no inkpens, paper, or Microsoft Word. The right we have to express ourselves is not frozen in time; limited to the tools Americans had back in the late 1700s. Same with any of the Amendments, including the Second.

      1. HistoRet February 7, 2013

        No paper? No ink pens? Man, you are uninformed! There were ink pens centuries before pen staffs and steel points. They were called feathers ~ or quills.

        1. tdm3624 February 8, 2013

          My apologies for not being clearer. I was referring to modern ink pens, meaning those manufactured within the past 100 years.

  24. tdm3624 February 7, 2013

    I still don’t understand why all the focus on gun deaths and injuries. There really aren’t that many compared to obesity related illnesses and traffic injuries. Why is the public not more concerned about heart disease, diabetes, and cancer? If someone has a thought please let me know, I would like to learn.

    1. Inthenameofliberty February 7, 2013

      Because they don’t care to see it.

  25. bchrista February 7, 2013

    I disagree the Second Amendment was written to protect you from any government that tried to invade the United States because we had not established an Armed Forces yet, all we had was a rag tag group asembled by George Washington to fight the British and after the British were repeled came the Second Amendment to make sure that We the People were able to unite at a moments notice should we be threatened again by a foreign power and be ready to repel them, who ever they maybe, not to protect ourselves against our own government the only way that rule would apply is if either party keeps enacting laws that keep abridging our rights, and right now the only party trying to do that is the Republican party, if they keep passing their gerry mandering laws to assure themselves of being reelected no matter who the people vote for, and anyone can argue anything they want to argue the proof is in the pudding the only party caught trying to rig the elections are the Republicans so they can put their Austerity Program ineffect and that Program has been proven time and again to fail yet they won’t let go because it has a bunch of loop holes for them and their buddies the large coroporations, Big Oil, the Kock Brothers and other Instutions to steal us blind without any restrictions and all you Republican followers will gain Zero, Nada, except to lose a little more freedoms, but what the heck they have been leading you people by the ring they placed in your nose years ago, and their con has you believing anything they want you to believe you know that’s the same thing Hitler pulled in Germany back in 1039 and before the people were inslaved and they had no rights after that because they were told when to eat, what to eat, when to sleep, when to shit, they weren’t allowed to think for themselves, so start practicing because if the Republicans are successful at rigging the elections it come to pass.

    1. leadvillexp February 13, 2013

      Stupid comments. The Second amendment was written to protect you from your own government. I am a Republican and you say that is the only party trying to take away our rights. If that is so than you need to keep your firearms to protect yourself from us. I voted for President Obama, crossed lines, WOW. Bad government has no party. Take away my rights and I will fight you no matter what party. It is to easy for governments to control their people. We are supposed to control our government.

  26. ralphkr February 8, 2013

    I remember many decades ago when NRA was against banning a weapon (I don’t recall the exact weapon after over 50 years) and the main reason was it was the first step in banning all weapons. Guess what? They were right. Over a period of time other countries such as Australia almost all weapons are banned including semi-automatic weapons of all types and even pump action weapons such as used in bird hunting. Countries such as Switzerland and Israel where military grade weapons are ubiquitous have=very low violent death rates (once you factor out terrorist attacks).

    More to the point is why are Americans so much more violence prone than the people in the countries from whence they came? Americans excel in violence employing firearms, sharp instruments, and blunt objects.

    1. Inthenameofliberty February 10, 2013

      Great talking points. But no one saw this to respond to you. Or they did not care to. I just reread that statistic of the high rate of gun ownership in Switzerland to the low rate of homicides by guns. They sure are doing something right over there.
      We should study what they’re doing, and do it here.
      Seems to me that in the US, the most shocking deaths happen in middle class areas. The MOST deaths happen in low-income, urbanized areas. But, I am not seeing a whole lot of outrage about that.

    2. leadvillexp February 13, 2013

      To answer your question we are a country of people that don’t program well. We are independent thinkers. This can be good or bad. It is not the weapons, it is how we think. Look at Tim McVeigh and the Murrah bombing. Our government was born of revolution and we are to this day independent thinkers. The rest of the world is just as violent, just not as open about it.

  27. dslocum February 10, 2013

    Thank you. There are a couple of key reasons why I don’t think we could ever become like Germany in the 30’s. The main reason is mass communication. We know something about everything soon after it occurs MOST of the time. Germany and the rest of the world was in the dark ages compared to our means of communication today.

    Secondly, the Germans were suffering mightily from the economic repurcussions of the 1st WWar. They were desperate for financial relief. Hitler promised that relief and he was charismatic, thus the people were swayed. By the time they realized what was really going on, their neighbors were disappearring, etc. and no one dared to speak out.

    Regarding people being easily swayed by false information, most people do not time to “fact check” or they don’t know how. That is a huge problem today. Also, many people lack critical thinking skills. Therefore, many people believe what they hear on TV, read in the paper, or see on emails without checking the information for accuracy. That leads to widespread misinformation getting a foothold in our society.

  28. HistoRet February 14, 2013

    And MY point is that conclusions based on incorrect or incomplete information are thereby rendered invalid and must be challenged before people are seduced into agreement with incorrect conclusions. Facts come first, then logical reasoning, then CONCLUSIONS. When conclusions are reached by any other means, they are invalid, unproven, doubtful at best ~ and probably wrong.

  29. tizwicky2009 February 20, 2013

    This article is about as intellectually dishonest as anything that I’ve read recently.


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.