Type to search

‘Thoughts And Prayers Are Not Enough’ — Obama, Yet Again, Calls For Gun-Control Laws

National News Top News

‘Thoughts And Prayers Are Not Enough’ — Obama, Yet Again, Calls For Gun-Control Laws


In what he acknowledged has become a familiar event, the president once again spoke to the nation after a mass shooting.

President Obama was blunt and unequivocal in his response to the shooting Thursday at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon that left 10 dead, “Our thoughts and prayers are not enough.”

“It’s not enough,” he continued. “It does not capture the heartache and grief and anger that we should feel, and it does nothing to prevent this carnage from being inflicted somewhere else in America — next week or a couple of months from now.”

He was explicit: In order to stem this “continuing cause of death for innocent people,” America needed to pass new laws.

The president said that this had become a dispiritingly routine event: The reporting is routine; his remarks, standing at the podium, were routine; the national conversation in the aftermath was routine; and the response from the guns-rights lobby, loudly balking at even the most modest regulations, was routine.

“We have become numb,” he said.

“It’s fair to say that anybody who does this has a sickness in their minds,” Obama said, addressing the specter of mental illness, another typical motif of our national post-shooting conversation. “But we are not the only country on Earth that has people with mental illnesses or want to do harm to other people. We are the only advanced country on Earth that sees these kinds of mass shootings every few months.”

He asked that the media report on the numbers of Americans killed by terrorism as compared to the number killed by gun violence. He observed that the nation could spend over $1 trillion, and devote entire agencies, to the fight against terrorism, but the most common-sense gun-control legislation couldn’t even make it through a filibuster.

Anticipating critics who would accuse him of politicizing the tragedy, Obama fired back: “This is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic.” 

When people die in mining accidents, he said, we make mines safer. When people die in car accidents, we enact seatbelt laws. When roads are unsafe, we fix them. “The notion that gun violence is somehow different, that our freedom, that our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country… It doesn’t make sense.”

States with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths, he noted. Claims by anti-gun-control opponents are “not borne out by the evidence.”

He enjoined voters who felt that gun control could and should be enacted to elect representatives who shared those beliefs and were prepared to act on them.

He reached out to law-abiding gun owners, whom he claimed polls showed supported background checks and closing the so-called gun show loophole, and asked them “to think about whether your views are being properly represented by the organization that suggests it’s speaking for you,” a reference to the NRA.

He invoked the names of cities, towns, and schools marked by massacres, which have become bywords for gun violence: Columbine, Blacksburg, Aurora, Newtown, Tucson, Charleston.

And now Roseburg.

Screengrab via White House/YouTube

Sam Reisman

Sam Reisman is the former managing editor at The National Memo, where he still writes the weekly "This Week In Crazy" column. His writing has appeared in Flavorpill, The Huffington Post, Columbia Daily Spectator, and Bwog. He was the publisher of the 2010 edition of Inside New York, an annual guidebook to the city for students and young professionals.

Since 2011, he has co-curated and hosted Peculiar Streams, a showcase for NYC-based writers, musicians, comedians, and filmmakers. He is a staff writer at Mediaite, and blogs at SamReisman.com.

  • 1


  1. Dominick Vila October 2, 2015

    The frustration expressed by President Obama yesterday evening at the failure of Congress, and our society at large, to do something to curb the incidence of gun violence in the USA, and the massacres that by now are becoming routine, should reflect the sentiments and opinion of every responsible American. There is simply no justification or logical explanation for the indifference we see, other than the fact that many of our elected officials are beholden to the special interests that profit from the sale of arms, and the fact that some among us are so consumed by fear or hatred that they can’t help themselves and must have a weapon to cope with their fears.
    Prayers, flowers, and teddy bears after these massacres take place will not prevent another one from happening. Action is needed, and it is needed now. It is true that in a country where there are more lethal weapons than people legislation alone is not going to stop the slaughter, but if it helps reduce it, it is a step in the right direction until a real debate at a national level takes place, and effective measures, including making relevant information available to law enforcement agencies, are taken to address this issue.

    1. Karen Bille-Golden October 2, 2015

      Time for another discussion about mental health so we can avoid our collective responsibility in failing to do something about our country’s gun problem. Meanwhile, more blood flows into the wallets of those who are profiting. It’s the portrait of America. My, aren’t we proud of ourselves and our freedoms.

      1. FireBaron October 2, 2015

        Actually, it’s a combined problem. There are laws on the books that require doctors to report patients with severe psychoses to the Federal Government for inclusion on the list of restricted buyers. Many mental health professionals refuse to do so due to doctor-patient confidentiality. Also, there is no “reporting” requirement for self-referrals, only for court-ordered or other doctor recommended referrals.

        1. Karen Bille-Golden October 2, 2015

          All well and good, however let’s talk about a few restrictions on the types of guns being sold to the so called mentally healthy.

          1. DEFENDER88 October 2, 2015

            What is it you want to restrict?

      2. FireBaron October 2, 2015

        The other problem is as long as the NRA controls the “firearms safety course” industry, they will likely never recommend an attendee NOT be allowed to purchase.

        1. Grannysmovin October 2, 2015

          ZI agree the NRA is the problem

        2. Grannysmovin October 2, 2015

          I believe the following shows the chain of responsibility.

        3. paulyz October 2, 2015

          The NRA completely supports gun safety & responsibilty.

          1. Independent1 October 2, 2015

            What a total pack of lies that is!! The NRA doesn’t care if another 100,000 people died next week, as long as they were making money for gun manufacturers and the club!!!

            Who do you think your kidding?????????

          2. paulyz October 3, 2015

            Just more of your biased ass-umptions.

      3. FT66 October 2, 2015

        The problem is not Mental Health, the problem is access to killer weapons – guns. A nation can have half of its citizens that are mentally sick, and you can’t find mass murder if they don’t acquire guns. They will throw stones use sticks to beat people or slap them on their faces BUT no one will die. Whether we accept or ignore it, the problem is: GUNS, GUNS, GUNS.

        1. DEFENDER88 October 2, 2015

          Your logic does not hold.

          By your logic – the problem is “GUNS”. As you have said.

          If that were true, there should be mass murders at the thousands of gun clubs across this country.

          By your logic, that should make total sense.

          But – I cant think of any mass murders that have happened at any gun clubs.

          And at shooting matches where thousands of rounds are fired and includes shooters and spectators and lots of guns held by lots of people.
          Cant recall any mass murders here either.
          Or even one killing.

          In – Point of Fact:
          These mass murders are taking place, mostly, in “Gun Free Zones”.
          By young white men 16-26yo on psychotropic drugs.

          In short :
          By nut cases(who the mental health system has failed) and on undefended/unprotected people who are not allowed to defend themselves.

          There are things that could and need to be done but just blaming guns is way too simple and short sighted.

          BTW – You CAN find mass murder without guns – Has happened in Africa frequently – they just use Macheties.
          Look up the Hootos and Tootsies massacres in Africa.
          And more.

          1. Independent1 October 2, 2015

            Yes it does hold. It’s holding in England that bans guns. Virtually all the deaths that occur in the U.S. beyond very similar violence numbers with the U.K. are the result of the excessive number of guns in the U.S.

            See this excerpt from what I posted for Godzilla above:

            Do you know how many people died in all forms of violence in the U.K. last year?? Less than 800, and that died by a gun shot in those numbers, less than 70. Since England has about 1/5 the U.S. population, living in a land area about the size of Mississippi, that means people live in generally much closer confines and that like in cities, you would expect higher death rates from there. Yet if I multiple that 800 people dying by violence in the U.K. by 5, I would get a comparable number of deaths of about 4,000 in the U.K – compared to 14-16,000 in the U.S.. And a comparison of 350 homicides by gun in the U.K. to 10-12,000 in the U.S.

            Note that if I take the U.S. gun related deaths of about 10-12,000, from the 14,000 to 16,000 total U.S. homicides, I get about 4,000 violence related deaths in the U.S. caused by other than guns- which interestingly, means that overall, the U.S. and U.K. are almost exactly alike aside from the fact that the U.K. bans guns, and therefore does not experience the 10-12,000 violence deaths WHICH ARE CLEARLY CAUSED BECAUSE AMERICA HAS SO MANY GUNS!!!!!!!!!

          2. DEFENDER88 October 2, 2015

            There is are major differences between England and the US that accounts for the difference in your figures.

            I am not going to take the time to describe them since you have never listened to or considered anything I have ever said on this issue. And I am tired of your name calling too.

          3. Charles van Rotterdam October 2, 2015

            You just lost the argument sunshine

          4. DEFENDER88 October 2, 2015

            Does not change the fact that his info/data is seriously misleading and cannot be “transposed” in the way he is doing.

          5. paulyz October 2, 2015

            He’s an admitted Communist, what do you expect? Well Independent 1, what is exactly your solution, have the Government round up everyone & take their guns away? Obama already wants to take guns away from law-abiding Citizens with another unlawful Executive Order. We do have restrictions on some behavior, like felons, but Socialists want to create more reasons to confiscate guns, but of course, this will NOT stop what happened in Oregon, so you must ask the question, why then?

          6. Independent1 October 3, 2015

            No one is suggesting anywhere near what you mindless ones keep posting. The vast majority of those pressing for gun controls are asking to put restrictions on guns that can kill 10 people in a minute – like was used at UCC – no automatic weapons; no big clips. Gun nuts need to stop being so lazy and get used to using guns that don’t fire 30 rounds in no time. The ability to blow away an entire target should not be a requirement – true gun nuts should be able to get a thrill out of being accurate and using a gun sensibly.

            And there should be background checks and records kept of people who own guns, just like with owning a car. A gun is a deadly weapon, and owning one should require some form of liability insurance so if a person’s gun accidentally kills someone or accidentally blows off a hand or whatever, the victim should be able to sue for damages just like people who get in auto accidents. The fact that liability insurance has not been required long ago for gun ownership is pure insanity!!!

          7. paulyz October 3, 2015

            There are background checks for most gun purchases as well as certain weapons banned, but they didn’t stop killings did they? Why should the Federal Government have a list of every Citizen & every gun? Most criminals get their guns in the black market, & when a law-abiding Citizen purchases a gun, it IS registered.

            What will happen will be a 10 round limit in place, when a killer has a 7 round magazine or a 6 shot revolver. Then the Lefties will push for 5 round magazines, etc. See how utterly foolish your reasoning is? Again, what is a solution that would actually work? This anti-Christian crazy, (which you fail to mention), had some weapons that were legal, & even if gun had an under 10 round mag. a killer can carry multiple magazines. This crazy had long rifles & a shotgun. So again, it isn’t GUNS, it’s crazy people using guns, knives, or bombs to kill.

          8. Independent1 October 3, 2015

            I’m still puzzled why it is that an obvious NRA troll would waste his time on the NM. There really are no where near the bloggers here as on sites like Yahoo News, and some others, so why bother burdening us with your false diatribes?? You have to know that virtually no NM blogger is going to believe your convoluted rhetoric except for just the other right-wing trolls who frequent this blog. I’m still puzzled – don’t we have enough to deal with with lunkheads like Paulyz and itsfun and David and so many others????

          9. DEFENDER88 October 3, 2015

            Unlike the past, You have been reasonably civil on this particular thread but you are still making assumptions and interpolations within and extrapolations across data sets without considering there are other factors involved that skew the data when you try to transpose it here. You don’t seem to have had much formal training/study in statistical analysis nor the scientific method. Like assuming since X was done in England which resulted in Y in England, that the same would be true in the US. There are many other factors involved. The English tried that about 250 yr ago and it did not work here. Something about a Revolution. This country is not like England. Even just within this country there are huge differences in the crime rate between the Large cities and the rest of the country. Which can seriously skew the data.

            And other more minor differences between North and South, East and West.

            Nor have you considered the overall violent crime data, levels of violence and rates in England vs the US.

            Differences between a small study in Utah which cannot be transposed directly to the rest of the country. I am somewhat comforted to see that you have limited the name calling here and finally taken out the suicides from your US gun violence rates. Although CNN is still including these in their gun violence rates when reporting on the Oregon killings. Not to mention the fact that the overall crime rate in the US has been declining in the last several years while the number of guns available has steadily increased. There are forces at work that you are not considering nor accounting for.

          10. Independent1 October 3, 2015

            I’ll agree to some of what you say. But you can’t in all good conscience really believe that those differences you noted can be attributed to 10,000 more deaths per year caused by guns. Sorry, there’s no way I’m buying that!!!

          11. DEFENDER88 October 3, 2015

            For one thing, you have to consider that some 80-90% of gun crime is done in the larger cities and associated with the drug trade.
            This is the very real (day to day) American tragedy that is being ignored in all these discussions.
            And accounts for a large part of your 10,000.
            And associated with Black on Black mostly drug crime and the problems Police and the Black community are having.
            Then there are the Mexican Cartels and the White Red Necks that count/add in also.
            Providing opportunities for young Black men to make a living outside the drug trade is as big a problem and associated with the gun problem.
            I think it could be done (in time) but I see no easy, quick solutions to these issues.
            And very much different from England.

          12. Independent1 October 3, 2015

            And I’m in no way suggesting, given the two nations cultural differences, that legislating background checks and the ban on certain guns, would cause the U.S. homicide rate to plummet to something like England’s!! But come on!! 10,000 more deaths!! Really!!

          13. David October 3, 2015

            Maybe because we are trying to bring a glimmer of sanity to your thinking.

          14. Independent1 October 3, 2015

            And by the way, name calling? Where did you see any name calling in my above post to you??

          15. paulyz October 3, 2015

            As for the murder rate in England, the number of gun deaths have RISEN dramatically AFTER they had a gun ban! Dummy

      4. Dominick Vila October 2, 2015

        After decades of gun control debates, and countless massacres, what we need is action, not more discussion. If we don’t know what needs to be done by now, we might as well throw our arms up and let it rip!

        1. Karen Bille-Golden October 2, 2015

          And make sure bullet proof vests are affordable for all.

        2. CPAinNewYork October 2, 2015

          Let it rip. You’ll never impose sanity on those redneck Republicans. The gun industry pours too much money into their campaigns.

          1. yabbed October 2, 2015

            Bernie Sanders, the “progressive” and the Socialist, votes consistently against strengthening gun control laws. He voted against stronger background checks, voted against the Brady Bill, voted against extended waiting periods, but he voted for preventing gun manufacturers from being sued. His excuse following Columbine was that “hammers kill people, too.”

      5. David October 3, 2015

        Right!! We should be glad to be serfs!

    2. CPAinNewYork October 2, 2015

      The key word in your rant is “responsible.” Effective anti-gun legislation is impossible because too many legislators are getting big bucks from the gun industry.

      With the advent of drugs the problem has gotten worse and will further deteriorate as the percentage of blacks and other minorities in our population increases.

      1. yabbed October 2, 2015

        These mass shooters are generally white. You seem to be letting your racism get the best of your arguments, pale as they are.

        1. DEFENDER88 October 2, 2015

          Yeah, what he said did “sound” racist. But he was probably talking about the real problem of Black on Black gun crime.

          Which I think the root problems/causes of this are poverty, lack of good schools, jobs etc

          ie They move to the drug trade due to lack of other opportunities to make a living. And the drug trade results in much of the day to day gun violence in the US.

          My solution here – legalize all drugs except the psychotropics that move young men to kill.

          Then help train young poor kids to write computer code to make a good future living.

        2. paulyz October 2, 2015

          There are also many school killings by minorities as well, but not reported as much as well as the fact that minorites make up a lesser number of people. But even so, since you bring up race in this, minorities do in fact very disproportionally commit murder.

          1. Independent1 October 2, 2015

            Another total pack of lies – come on!! Produce the evidence!!! There are no substantiated school killings by minorities!!

            Put up or shut up!! Stop posting lies!!!!!!!!!

          2. paulyz October 3, 2015

            Are you kidding me? The killer in Oregon was a minority! What a loony.

            There have been under-reported school killings by minorities. There were at keast 8 killings by persons of Asian race, several Black murders such as Tyrone Mitchell in L.A., several Latinos, women, and even Native American murderers.

            Once AGAIN your biases & uninformed info from Socialist organizations, lead you to wrong information, propaganda, & meaningless solutions.

          3. Independent1 October 2, 2015

            And take a look at this which totally dispells the gun lovers lie that guns present will stop a mass killing!!! There were plenty of students on the UCC campus with guns and not one of them made on effort to try and stop anything.

            ‘Good Guy With A Gun’ Was On UCC Campus At Time Of Massacre

            But not only was UCC not a gun free zone by law, there were also people who brought guns onto campus at the time of the massacre.

            John Parker Jr., a veteran and student at UCC, spoke with MSNBC and revealed that he was in a campus building with a concealed handgun when the shooting started. He suggested other students with him at the time were also carrying concealed handguns.

            The issue of whether UCC was a “gun free zone” has become a source of controversy. Gun advocates argue that “gun free zones” encourage gun violence by creating a space where people are unable to defend themselves.

            This is not supported by the facts. According to a study of 62 mass shootings over 30 years conducted by Mother Jones, “not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.” Many of those mass shootings took place in areas were guns where
            permitted, but not a single one was stopped by armed civilians.

            Parker’s interview revealed the practical difficulties of armed
            civilians trying to stop a mass shooting. By the time he became aware of the shooting, a SWAT team had already responded. He was concerned that police would view him as a “bad guy” and target him, so he quickly retreated into the classroom.


          4. paulyz October 3, 2015

            I heard the concealed carry person you are referring to was hundreds of yards away. While concealed carry is allowed on campus, they are not allowed in the buildings, must must be kept locked away if entering building. Had a person had a firearm in that classroom, most likeky the killer could have been either stopped, or murdered less people. Again, All schools need to train & arm responsible school personal, use metal detectors, & require all teachers to carry pepoer spray.

            All excuses & blame from you, but no solutions, only failed gun control.

          5. Independent1 October 3, 2015

            And more of your false rhetoric – the rules on that campus did not prevent students from carrying them into the classrooms. More of your lies (REMEMBER, WHEN THE FELLOW INTERVIEWED HEARD THE POLICE COMING – HE RETREATED INTO A CLASSROOM WITH HIS GUN).

            And are you even aware, that during the Navy Yard shootings a year or two back, that of the 12 people killed, 3 of them killed were actually carrying guns?? And do you remember that fellow killed by the couple who supported the Bundy standoff in a Lowes I believe was also carrying a gun, as were the two police officers they had killed before they shot that fellow.

            Sorry but your diatribe is just more MAKE BELIEVE!!!

          6. paulyz October 3, 2015

            Must I again prove what a dummy you are? By the time Parker realized what was taking place, swat teams were already there. He was far away from the killings.

  2. Godzilla October 2, 2015

    Where was Obama after the violence the last two weekends in Chicago? He was silent because he knows that the stringent gun control laws in Liberal enclaves like Chicago are complete failures. Why? Because criminals don’t obey the law. The sick coward yesterday walked into a Liberal killing field, aka, No Gun Zone, where he knew that law abiding citizens would follow the law and allow themselves to become victims of kneejerk laws that only help the killers to kill more. Other failures of our legal system, all based on kneejerk ignorance and the NEED to pass a new law because some nutcase killed people, such as background checks and the previously mentioned Liberal killing fields, just to name a few.
    Obama brings up other nations, then fails to mention that those nations have a considerably higher violent crime rate than the US, by a longshot. Obama ONLY goal is 100% absolute gun confiscation. That will NEVER happen, so I would suggest finding a new avenue to try and deal with these mentally ill nutcases. One way, eliminate Liberal killing fields and allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves. These coward nutcases would likely think twice and NOT go on rampages knowing they will not achieve their twisted goals. It’s already been proven that criminals DON’T buy their guns from gun shows or gun stores. The whole gun show loophole is another Left Wing fairy tale.
    What LAWS would work to stop mass killings like this? NONE! There are already numerous laws that are broken each time this stuff happens. ANSWER! Remove laws that prevent law abiding citizens from defending themselves, end the Liberal killing fields and tell the nutcases that they WILL NOT achieve their goals because they will be shot first and since the NSA is spying on all of us anyway, have them look for things posted on social media that could clue in the authorities. But in the end, the only thing that will stop a bad person hell bent on killing is a good person with the tools to stop them. Level the playing field and the nutcases will not do near as much damage.
    Now, you folks can go ahead and start with the name calling. Do not challenge me with statistics because they are on my side and I can prove it. If the best you can do is type the typical Liberal talking points or post a link to a Left Wing rag like MediaMatters, save yourself some energy and don’t waste your time. Look at it like this, abortion still kills more people than guns. Both would require an Amendment to change. Whining about lack of common sense gun laws gets you nowhere, except showing your ignorance which I’m sure some of you will do so willingly upon reading this. May God Bless you all and have a glorious day.

    1. Karen Bille-Golden October 2, 2015

      No need to respond or for name calling. This is too serious a problem for resorting to name calling. Your post speaks for itself. Thank you for your opinion.

    2. Dominick Vila October 2, 2015

      Would you mind providing us with a list that shows other developed nations, such as Australia, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, the UK, Canada, and Japan, among others, have a higher incidence of violent crime than the U.S. does? President Obama was not comparing the USA to Venezuela, Guatemala, or Syria; he highlighted the benefits of effective gun control laws in other developed nations.
      Your post highlights why constructive dialogue on this issue is futile.

    3. johninPCFL October 2, 2015

      Why? Because criminals can go to Indiana on any Saturday and buy all they want with no background checks.

    4. Carolyn1520 October 2, 2015

      “Obama ONLY goal is 100% absolute gun confiscation.”

      Right there is the problem.

      That is an absolute lie.

    5. Independent1 October 2, 2015

      Other nations have higher violence than the U.S.?? Produce some facts that support that idiot statement which include industrialized nations on the planet similar to the U.S. – to support that blatant lie!!

      Do you know how many people died in all forms of violence in the U.K. last year?? Less than 800, and that died by a gun shot in those numbers, less than 70. Since England has about 1/5 the U.S. population, living in a land area about the size of Mississippi, that means people live in generally much closer confines and that like in cities, you would expect higher death rates from there. Yet if I multiple that 800 people dying by violence in the U.K. by 5, I would get a comparable number of deaths of about 4,000 in the U.K – compared to 14-16,000 in the U.S.. And a comparison of 350 homicides by gun in the U.K. to 10-12,000 in the U.S.

      Note that if I take the U.S. gun related deaths of about 10-12,000, from the 14,000 to 16,000 total U.S. homicides, I get about 4,000 violence related deaths in the U.S. caused by other than guns- which interestingly, means that overall, the U.S. and U.K. are almost exactly alike aside from the fact that the U.K. bans guns, and therefore does not experience the 10-12,000 violence deaths WHICH ARE CLEARLY CAUSED BECAUSE AMERICA HAS SO MANY GUNS!!!!!!!!!

      And what many people are I think forgetting, is that it’s not just gun related homicides, there are also gun-related suicides. Suicides which occur ONLY BECAUSE GUNS MAKING KILLING ONESELF SO FINAL AND EASY!! If guns wee restricted in the U.S. the 19,000 or so gun-related suicides each year would also plummet.

      And that’s not even all of it, are nitwits like you aware that there are about 200,000 shootings EVERY YEAR aside from homicides and suicides that send Americans to a hospital?? 200,000 people get shot every year accidentally or on purpose who do not die – that’s over 500 every single day!!!!!!!!!! At an average cost per admission of $14,000!!!!!!!!!

      If you don’t believe all that you need to spend a few minutes reading the ‘Gun Tutorial’ from the Red State of Utah. Here’s a brief excerpt:

      In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms,
      distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide
      11,015; Accident 600. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten
      causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in
      the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to
      1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms
      injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among
      youth (CDC, 2001) (Sherry et al, 2012).

      The rates of firearms deaths in the U.S. vary significantly by race
      and sex. The U.S. national average was 10.2 deaths per 100,000
      population in 2009. The highest rate was 28.4/100,000 for
      African-American males, more than quadruple the rate of 6.3/100,000 for
      white males. (CDC, 2009)

      The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable–over 200,000 per
      year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and
      trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring
      admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime
      cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with
      $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994) The cost of the
      improper use of firearms in Canada was estimated at $6.6 billion per
      year. (Chapdelaine and Maurice, 1996)

      1. paulyz October 4, 2015

        A 15 year old Muslim in “gun-free” Australia just killed a cop with a banned gun. How could this happen?

    6. yabbed October 2, 2015

      Take your racism and get lost.

      1. David October 3, 2015

        Like your brain?

  3. FT66 October 2, 2015

    This kind of killing of every now and then is out of control. Something concrete must be done. It is not a request, it is the MUST. Elected leaders (those in Congress) look as if they got the job to sit, relax, pretend to be blind and enjoy their monthly salary pay only. People are told to take precautions when a very freightened hurricane is coming, or a killer disease like Ebola is around, but no precautions or rather tough laws are even mentioned who must obtain the gun and who mustn’t and how. Why there is no discipline in handling this killer tool? This high level of killing has reached a point which is quite detrimental and urgent actions must be taken ASAP (As Soon As Possible) without any delay. Voters must demand that they act. Contrary to that, come 2016 both Chambers of the House must be swept thoroughly.

    1. bcarreiro October 2, 2015

      A greed.

    2. Willy Healer October 5, 2015

      I am a voter and I don’t demand it. Speak for yourself. You argument has no validity in the worlds third largest population. Most of the anti gun rhetoric has been fabricated by anti gun groups.

      1. Independent1 October 5, 2015

        You are totally delusional pathological liar!!! That’s what you are!!!!

      2. Max_ October 5, 2015

        These people are easily duped moronic idiots who can’t see that the powers that be just want to disarm the most powerful group of people on Earth, the American public is formidable as long as we are armed, we are the last group of moral people on Earth that can actually successfully stand against our government or any-other invading force and these Liberal fools exercise such Care Bear immature flawed logic that they just can’t see that, they let their fear and emotion rule them, to both their detriment and ours… Fools all.. It’s sad really..

  4. Alvin Harrison October 2, 2015


    9 people shot and killed in Oregon by a “crazed” gunman.. We have heard it all before. Gunman opens fire and kills a group of people and blah…blah…blah. Think I am insensitive? I am not. It just seems that this type of mass shooting has happened so much we are no longer shocked, people are numb to it.

    We will have the obligatory arguments by the various factions and pundits on TV. One side will argue we have too many guns and should enact gun control…the other side will argue we need more guns to protect ourselves….and on it goes. But something has to change….we either need to control guns better….or you better get strapped.

    One of the main reasons we see this happening more and more frequently is the abysmal state of our mental health system here in the good old USA. As tax dollars become stretched, we have defunded those social programs that would detect and administer to those with serious mental health issues. As life in the USA gets tougher, and more people lose it…we can expect this problem to increase.

    I am of the opinion that we need tighter gun control. Only because, although more guns might protect us when the unstable open fire…there are too many unstable people in our population. Unless we want gunfights occurring between the populace, control seems the only answer unless we start identifying and taking care of our mentally ill. However to counter the more guns theory….name me one instance where a gun toting civilian has stopped a mass shooter….it is the police who stop the carnage not our fellow citizens that are packing.

    I don’t know America…we need an answer quick. To let the purveyors of firearms make the decision for us by buying our congressmen and senators seems silly. For us to do nothing in the mental health or gun control areas even sillier. But….maybe after 10 or 12 more mass shootings we will be so used to it that we won’t give them a second thought. I read that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. Welcome to the crazy house.

    1. paulyz October 2, 2015

      The Police, by the time they respond, the killer has done their killing. Schools need several personal trained & armed, metal detectors like all airports, & all teachers required to carry pepper spray. This could stop the crazies before they could begin, or at least stop them quicker.

  5. Daniel G October 2, 2015

    I’ve managed to be on this planet some 62 years now. Watched the gun control debate start with President Kennedy’s assasination on through the 60’s with his brothers death, Martin Luther King and on down the sordid line.
    Nothing of substance has happened with gun control because the NRA controls their congressmen…ITS THE GUN LOBBY STUPID! Until that changes…and it isn’t going to happen with the tea party or the republicans in control and the few Dems that are beholding to the NRA…well, I think the genie is out of the bottle and we’re in for more and more of this for the foreseeable future…
    I vote in every election, I vote for qualified people who want gun control…but the rhetoric and the hysteria that is whipped up by the gun lobby makes our efforts moot. Until THAT changes NOTHING will change.

    1. paulyz October 2, 2015

      The problem is allowing mentally unstable people to freely roam with their sick minds. They need to be treated, and most have clearly shown clues on their websites or actions well before they surcumb to their mental ilkness. Tell us Daniel how more gun control (for law-abiding Americans), would had stopped this, & many other tragedies. It is really disgusting to instantly hear Obama & progressives, right after a crime, to push more gun control, especially when many killings happened in gun free zones, cities like Chicago with strict gun laws, & others. Why not complain on how Obama & Liberal Socialist policies encourage acts of violence, how Obama releases thousands of criminal Illegal Aliens into our neighborhoods, or the praise of Islam while criticizing Christianity? Obama also needs to focus on the inner-city violence that gun control would do nothing to solve.

      1. johninPCFL October 2, 2015

        Chicago is your chew toy? Chicago is not a “gun free zone” so long as Indiana has open-air, no checks at all, buy all you want, Saturday gun shows.

        1. paulyz October 2, 2015

          So tell us john, Daniel, & yabbed, just what is YOUR solution? You make nice excuses, pass some gun restrictions, create gun-free zones, but to no avail. One big problem is that Liberals are never satisfied, because your ultimate goal is to remove all guns & disregard our 2nd. Amendment. And if you disregard one, you can disregard all. So it really is fruitless to have intelligent discussions.

          Where is the discussion about black on black crime, treating mental illness, not letting them roam freely if they show certain tendencies, but then you will scream we are violating their rights. Where is the outrage over releasing thousands of criminal Illegals that rape & murder Americans, that would be PREVENTABLE.

          Also tell us why the Federal Gov. has stockpiled unreasonable amounts of guns & ammo? So what is your solution, restrict the Rights of Law-abiding Citizens that will NOT stop crazies, will NOT stop violence, but will restrict the Rights of Law-abiding Americans the means to protect themselves FROM these crazies.

          Add to this the fact that “progressive”, Socialist policies have contributed to a society that doesn’t respect traditional values & allows Millions of people from 3rd. World Countries that do not easily assimilate, & Millions of Illegals that don’t respect our Laws. Then of course there is the increasing embrace of radical Islam culture.

          Why isn’t anyone mentioning that this killer mythodically killed or shot the victims based on whether they were Christians or not? Obama & Liberals instead instantly push for more failed gun legislation. The Boston marathon terrorists were also here as refugees, who is actually checking them out? No one.

          1. Independent1 October 2, 2015

            Why don’t you tell us Pauly, how do you wash the blood off your hands every night before you go to bed – or do you just bring all that blood with you and get it on the sheets??

            You know, the blood from the 10,000 plus homicide victims each year because you support the NRA and the lies it spews about ‘guns will protect you, when nothing could be further from the truth.

            And you know, at least maybe 50% or more of the 19,000 plus homicide victims that kill themselves each year because guns are by far the most positive and easy for one to kill themselves. (And of course with the vast majority of Americans not really t hat gun savy, there’s always a gun laying around about 50% of America’s homes for those contemplating suicide to use.

            And lets not forget the 200,000 or so Americans, about 500 each day, who are in one way or another the victims of un shootings that require visiting a hospital. Many of them who are maimed and crippled for life just because there was a gun handy for them to misuse, or they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

            And let’s not forget the tens of thousands that die every year in Republican led states simply because the political party you support thinks funneling money to the already wealth is important enough to either cut benefits from people who need them to stay alive; or they just don’t feel like using the money to extend say food stamps or Medicaid to people and therefore they die prematurely.

            Yeah!! How do you do it?? How do you wash off that much blood. Wow!! you must have a secret I don’t because I sure wouldn’t be able to sleep at night if i knew I was in any way responsible with that many people dying just because of the crooked, heartless politicians I chose to tell lies for!!!

          2. paulyz October 3, 2015

            Typical Liberal defending the actual people that murder others, but blaming guns instead. So all of us Americans owning weapons are guilty while the murderers are victims? You still didn’t offer YOUR solution to all the violence, except to push more gun control that does nothing to stop the violence.

            Make sure you wash all the blood off your hands from all the deaths & rapes at the hands of your beloved ILLEGALS.

          3. Independent1 October 3, 2015

            Just more RWNJ fear mongering. Fact is that not only don’t guns protect people, they are nothing more than VIOLENCE INSTIGATORS!! And they’re one of the BIG REASONS that America has fallen to number 50 in the world in people’s life span – longevity.

            And why? Because when violence occurs in other portions of the world, unlike America, people end up getting hurt BUT NOT DEAD. While because so many people carry guns or have access to them in America, when violence occurs, MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, someone or many people END UP DEAD.

            And as despite the lies of the NRA, more guns DO NOT DETER VIOLENCE OR RAPES OR ANYTHING ELSE. In fact, guns are often used to force women into sex they don’t want!! They’re just one more weapon a man can use.

            Your premises and fear mongering ARE BASED ON LIES – AND YOU KNOW IT!!!!!!!!



          4. paulyz October 3, 2015

            America haters can leave anytime they choose, to some of these great Countries. America is declining culturely though precisely because of Liberal po,icies & excessive 3rd. World immigration. If you want to bring up race, there are many studies that show the very high serious crime rate of certain minorities. Countries like Japan do not have that problem.

          5. Independent1 October 3, 2015

            It seems clear that you love living in a country that is devolving into a 3rd world nation, not because of ‘liberal’ policies like you falsely claim, but because of conservative policies that are trying to take America back to the 19th century; clearly working to undo all the progress that America has made keeping it aligned with the rest of the world.

            Only a totally clueless person like yourself cannot look around and see that the GOP by its refusing to fund anything but shoveling money into the pockets of fossil fuel companies and the already wealthy, has allowed America’s infrastructure to erode to where it will require trillions of dollars to even just repair. But aside from that, nation after nation around the globe has left America back in the mid 20th century with our antiquated transportation system; highways that are crumbling, seaports that are crumbling, federal buildings that are crumbling, airports that are insufficient for our country’s growing travel needs, partly because THE GOP has prevented from keeping pace with numerous other nations on high-speed commuter rail. IT’S AN ABSOLUTE TRAVESTY WHAT THE GOP IS INFLICTING ON AMERICA!!!


            See this on that from the ‘Firearms Tutorial’ of the red state of Utah!!!

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


          6. David October 3, 2015

            Let’s do like the British are proposing — Ban long sharp knives! “Save a life, turn in your knife!”. You are a pathetic weasel.

          7. Willy Healer October 5, 2015

            He is a hack for the anti gun group. Nothing he says is valid.

          8. Independent1 October 5, 2015

            My guess is you’re posting right out of the NRA’s home office!! Aren’t you????

          9. Willy Healer October 13, 2015

            No I am not. The NRA would not let in their offices they said I was to right winged for them. Now I am looking for a left wing so I can fly in through a window.

          10. paulyz October 4, 2015

            At least you admit the U.S. is devolving into a 3rd. World nation. How can this be when you claim our economy is smokin’ hot under Obama? (Latest news is that the economy STILL sucks after 7 years, with jobs added not even enough to replace population growth.) But these 3rd. World people entering our Country from ILLEGAL Trespassing & excessive Legal Immigration & visa overstays mostly FROM 3rd. World Countries most definately is the reason.

          11. Willy Healer October 5, 2015

            This person is paid liar. He is a hack for the anti gun crowd and says only what he is told. He has his cheat sheet of answers and copies and pastes what best works for an answer. This person is a propaganda criminal.

          12. Independent1 October 5, 2015

            Wow!! They say RWNJs and especially right-wing gun nuts won’t believe reality and boy were they right!!!!

            Even though you most likely won’t believe them, here are just a few of the negative stats I’ve compiled on GOP governance (some of these stats are from 2010 years through 2013; and yes these are cut and pasted from study files):

            -12 of the 15 states that get back the most federal aid for the tax dollars they send to Washington are GOP-RUN STATES; And all 10 that get more than $1.75 back for each $1 they send to Washington in tax revenues are red states. Of the 17
            states that get back less tax dollars in federal aid than they send to Washington in tax revenues, ONLY 3 OF THEM ARE GOP RUN STATES. All 10 of the states that get the least federal aid for the taxes they pay (less than .75/$1)
            are BLUE STATES. All this implies that it’s 14 Democrat-run states that are supporting the nation, because the 3
            GOP-governed states get back between 96-99 cents/$1 of taxes so they’re not doing very much to support America.

            8 of the 10 most corrupt states in 2013 are GOP-Run states (and all have recent GOP governance): Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Alaska, South Dakota, Kentucky and Florida.

            9 of the 10 most miserable cities in America are in Red States:
            Huntington/Ashland, WVA, Charleston, WVA, Redding, CA, Spartansburg, SC, Hickory–Lenoir-Morganton, NC, Beaumont/Port Arthur, TX. Columbus, GA/AL, Shreveport/Bossier City, LA, Mobile, AL, Evansville, In/KY.

            All 10 of America’s poorest cities are in Red States: Brownsville-Harlingen, Texas, Dalton, Ga., McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas, Gadsden, Ala., Lake Havasu City-Kingman, Ariz., Albany, Ga., Monroe, La., Cumberland.W.Va., Fort Smith, Ark.-Okla, Pine Bluff, Ark;

            While 9 of the 10 richest cities are in Blue States: San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, Calif., Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, D.C.-Va.-Md., Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, Conn., San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, Calif., Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, Mass.-N.H. , Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura,
            Calif., Anchorage, Alaska, Honolulu, Hawaii, Manchester-Nashua, N.H., Napa, Calif.

            All 10 of America’s most miserable states, those with the least
            “well-being factor” for their residents are GOP-Run states with the worst being West Virginia and then: Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, Ohio, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, Oklahoma and last but not least – Louisiana.

            – More than 80% of food stamp recipients live in GOP-RUN STATES. Six of the top 10 food stamp-using states are GOP-RUN states and beyond that the greatest foodstamp using states are the sparsely populated red states. And of the 456 counties in America that use more than 90% of all food stamps, 421 of those counties (92%) voted for Mitt Romney in the 2012 election.

            – the GOP-RUN STATE most Republicans probably look to as
            a shining light for the GOP, Texas, which is the second largest economy in America behind California, compares very poorly to other states in America. Texas ranks in the bottom 5 in more than 90% of 23 subjective measures when compared to other American states! Even though the GOP has had 20 plus years to turn it into something other than a job creation machine, Texas continues to shortchange its residents living standards and exposes them to many hazards; including living in the most polluted environment in America.

            -Finally, all 15 of the states with the lowest life expectancy in the U.S. are GOP-RUN STATES?? Such that there is a large
            disparity in longevity between Red States and Blue States: on average, residents of blue states live 2 years longer than residents of red states. To the extreme, the Blue State residents of 9 states with longevity projected to
            80 and older, live as much as 5-6 years longer than the residents of the 4shortest-lived GOP-RUN STATES of MS,WV,AL & LA. Follow this: starting with longevity projections for red states of 75 in: Miss., W. Va., Ala. & LA.; to 76 in: Arkansas, Kentucky & Tennessee to 77 in: S. Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio & N. Carolina; while no Blue State has a longevity projection of less than 78, and many Blue states have longevity projected to 80 and over:
            N.J., N.H., Vermont, N.Y., Mass., Calif., CT, Minn. & Hawaii; Only one red state has longevity projected to 80 Utah (80.2), while 2 Blue States have longevity projections of over 81 –Minn. & Hawaii)

          13. Willy Healer October 5, 2015

            Where do you come up with these numbers? You don’t care how many people a day die from any cause. You are a hack with an agenda for some activist group. You are a criminal liar who hides anonymously behind a keyboard and spews whatever you are told to spew.

          14. Independent1 October 5, 2015

            Really? Well I have tons of stats by state that show that red states are the states of premature death. Here’s an excerpt from one below like the gov website of the red state of Utah where the above numbers came from and then there’s a chart showing the thousands projected to die because Republicans refused to expand Medicaid. GOP governance is all about living in misery and dying early for millions of Americans:

            From the med library of Utah:

            Gunshot wounds impact severely on the criminal justice as well as health care systems. Some basic statistics are important in understanding the magnitude and severity of the social and economic burden to the U.S. The subject remains contentious. (Glantz and Annas, 2009)

            In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms,
            distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (Sherry et al, 2012).

            The rates of firearms deaths in the U.S. vary significantly by race and sex. The U.S. national average was 10.2 deaths per 100,000 population in 2009. The highest rate was 28.4/100,000 for African-American males, more than quadruple the rate of 6.3/100,000 for white males. (CDC, 2009)

            The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable–over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with
            $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994) The cost of the improper use of firearms in Canada was estimated at $6.6 billion per year. (Chapdelaine and Maurice, 1996)


          15. Willy Healer October 5, 2015

            The only people who come up with these doctored reports are the anti gun groups of which you are part of. How many lives has a gun saved? You don’t know and you don’t care its not what you are getting paid to do.

          16. Independent1 October 5, 2015

            How many lives has a gun saved – very few. Of 162,500 gun-related homicides between 2000 and 2011, only 1327 where justifiable homicides for the reason of self defense by other than a police officer. Less than 2% of the time can someone carrying a gun actually get to that gun and protect himself before being killed.

            Those medical studies summarized by the medical dept of Utah were all doctored?? Wow are you ever a delusional gun nut!! Wake up what’s been doctored are the lies that the NRA has been spewing. Study after study have shown that carrying a gun exposes you to a 5 times greater probability of being shot and killed than if you weren’t carrying a gun at all!!

            Keep on with your delusion…you may rue that day when you end up being one of the 11,000 who were shot and killed even while carrying a gun. In the Navy Yard shootings where 12 died a couple years ago, 3 of those killed had concealed weapons. You may want to stop living in LA LA LAND before you wind up dead just because you have access to a gun.

          17. Willy Healer October 5, 2015

            You are coping and pasting again and of course fabricating.

          18. Independent1 October 5, 2015

            You wish – everything I’m posting is from reputable studies that I have researched. I’m fabricating nothing!!!

          19. Willy Healer October 5, 2015

            Yes you are. Reputable stories concocted by the anti gun people.

          20. Independent1 October 5, 2015

            Well, in England where guns are banned, there were less than 800 total homicide deaths with 65 dying from gunshots last year while there were over 14,000 of them in the U.S.. Now since England only has 1/5 our population, you’d have to multiply the 800 by 5 to get a comparable number for England of 4,000 to compare to our 14,000 plus. And you’d have to multiply the 65 gun deaths by 5 to get 325 gun deaths compared to America’s 10,000 plus.

            Interesting isn’t it that when you take guns out of the equation which just lead to violence, that homicides plummet!!!

            The difference in England and most other foreign countries is that when people get violent some may up in the hospital being banged up, while in the U.S. someone pulls out a gun and many end up dead.

          21. Willy Healer October 5, 2015

            Copy and paste propaganda. Banged up??????????? Fists and feet kill more civilians than guns. You no nothing about England except what the anti gun propagandists have to you to say. You are a paid fabricator.

          22. Independent1 October 5, 2015

            Totall BS!!!! Go to the FBI files clueless – only 1,800 to 2,000 of the homicides out of 14,000 plus were committed by other than a gun!!!!!!

          23. Independent1 October 5, 2015

            And by the way, you name the cause of death, and red states will be leading in people dying from that cause, be it infant mortality “13 of the 15 with the highest infant mortality are red states” and that goes ditto for women dying during childbirth or virtually any disease. And why is that because 20 of the 24 states with the highest percentage of their citizens living in poverty and getting denied welfare and food stamps and medical care are living in red states.

            And if you doubt my comment about people living in misery – do a web search on States with most people living in Misery; and also most states with the the worst quality of life, and you’ll find that survey group 24/7 wall street has identified the top10 red states that suit both of those categories; most miserable places to live and worst qualities of life are red states!!

            And it doesn’t stop there, 8 of the 10 most violent states to live in are GOP run, while all 10 states with the highest rates of gun-related homicide are GOP run states. And even with respect to auto accidents, there are 27 states where auto accidents occur more than the 10.3 national average, and a few where the rate of auto fatalities/100,000 population are greater than 20 – all of those are red states and of the 27, 24 of them are GOP run states. Meaning that in 90% of GOP run states people die at a higher rate from auto accidents than they do in Blue States.

            And I could go on and on quoting you statistics from reputable survey groups, the CDC, the FBI and more which prove positive that GOP run states are very dangerous places to live and where you stand a big chance of dying very prematurely. People in red states live 2-6 year shorter lives than people in Blue states.

          24. Willy Healer October 5, 2015

            My state looks more green than red or blue. You are fabricating again. The FBI has over 2 million reports of a gun stopping a criminal act.

          25. Independent1 October 5, 2015

            PURE BS!!!!!!!!! PROVE IT!!!!!!!!

          26. Willy Healer October 5, 2015

            I don’t need to I don’t have an agenda.

      2. Daniel G October 2, 2015

        YOU ARE THE PROBLEM PAULY AND THE BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS MAN! The NRA and the gun lobby are purveyours of death and we are sick of it.
        Law abiding people don’t do this, criminals and nuts do this and you allow it to happen. How many guns and how much ammo does Ruger and Winchester and Glock need to make? Why doesn’t this happen in countries where guns are controlled? Canada comes to mind, England comes to mind…hell most of the rest of the civilized world comes to mind.BUT IT HAPPENS HERE because you and yours allow it.
        Regulate the militia! Just like the 2nd amendment says.

        1. paulyz October 2, 2015

          The Supreme Court, that had majority Liberals on it, already rulled on the 2nd. Amendment Right of the People to keep & bear arms. In order to form a Militia, the People need to have Arms, get it? The 1st. act of most dictorial regimes is to remove the Citizenry tge means to defend themselves. The 2nd. Amendment isn’t about hunting. There are regulations on gun purchasing, but you will never stop a criminal or crazy from obtaining a weapon.

          1. Independent1 October 2, 2015

            More of your pack of lies!! Until the right-wing biased bunch of paid-for nitwit judges ruled in 2008 that the 2nd Amendment applied to the average citizen, for over 210 years, every supreme court, including those headed by right-wingers, confirmed that the 2nd amendment ONLY APPLIED TO PEOPLE IN AMERICA INVOLVED IN MAINTAINING A MILITIA.

            And since Militas no longer apply because each state now has a guard that is controlled by the state’s governor THE 2ND AMENDMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY AMERICAN – EXCEPT IN THE MINDS OF 5 TOTALLY CORRUPT RIGHT-WING NITWIT JUDGES WHO BASTARDIZED THE MEANING OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!!!!!

          2. Kurt CPI October 3, 2015

            That is, and has been, a liberal re-framing of the Bill of Rights. I don’t take a “hard right” stand on most issues, but the second amendment is clearly an enumerated entry in the 10 amendments that lay out specific rights of ALL the PEOPLE. The second amendment empowers the PEOPLE to form militias and insures that the militias formed by the people have the teeth necessary to maintain the “security of a free state”. The founders got as close as they could to carving in stone the intention that the people reign supreme, not the government. And that includes taking up arms and organizing “militias” if necessary to maintain their constitutional rights and freedoms. Much of the language of the Constitution (and the declaration) alludes to this, the core precept of American democracy. To suggest that 9 of the 10 amendments apply to the people, but this one alone only applies to state-controlled military is just nonsense. ALL of the rights listed in the first ten amendments apply to the people. In fact, the Constitution makes it clear that the federal government is granted the power to control ONLY those items that are explicitly listed.

          3. DEFENDER88 October 3, 2015

            They(the founders) were also forward thinking enough to Not say you have the right to bear “Muskets”.

          4. Independent1 October 3, 2015

            Sorry, but like all ‘gun lovers’ you’re wrong. And no one said that Madison when he wrote it, intended for it to apply to a “state-controlled military”. He wrote to apply to the people living at the time who were needed to provide an ‘on-call army’ or militia, because of continuing dangers posed to the states frome outside nations still trying to overtake the country like the British and the French; and even the many native indians that were still a danger. I the Federalist Papers, Madison clearly put down Jefferson and others that were raising concerns about a national government usurping the powers of the states as nothing more than as Madison put it ‘chimerical fears’ or fantasies of their own imagination – just like the idiotic fears you RWNJ gun nuts love to try and raise about everything these days.

            When Madison wrote the 2nd, there was federal standing army, there were no state support armies, there were few even sheriffs or other law enforcement people in the states, and therefore the people AT THAT TIME needed the right to bear arms to protect the just form nation from foreign attacks and even indians and bandits that were roaming. But judges across the nation, thousands of them, weren’t wrong for over 200 years that the 2nd Amendment APPLIED ONLY TO MILITIAS, and suddenly 200 years later 5 corrupt right-wing judges were right and THAT EVEN YOU’RE RIGHT!! BECAUSE YOU’RE NOT RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!

            See this written by ex supreme court judge John Paul Stevens:

            From the Washington Post

            The first 10 amendments to the Constitution placed limits on the powers of the new federal government. Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of the Second Amendment, which provides that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

            For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

            When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.


          5. Kurt CPI October 3, 2015

            First of all, your assumptions on my stance on guns are baseless. I’m not arguing for universal gun toting by anyone who can hold one. I’m not a “gun lover”, nor do I own a gun. And I’m certainly not a Republican. My argument was solely about the second amendment. In your attempt to discredit me and provide a contadictory argument, you have inadvertently succeeded in making my point. So let me quote YOU: “[Madison] wrote it to apply to the people living at the time who were needed to provide an ‘on-call army’ or militia…”. That’s exactly what I said. The rest of your argument attempts to show that the second amendment is no longer needed, which may or may not be true – that’s another topic. But the meaning of the second amendment hasn’t changed. People did and do have the right to form militias. And to that end, have the right to “keep and bear arms”. The first (forming a militia) is predicated on the second (keep and bear arms). As long as the right to form militias is constitutionally guaranteed, so is the right to bear arms. You have succeeded in arguing against the continued necessity for the second amendment, but have actually argued in favor of the point I was making. Don’t worry, it doesn’t make a Republican out of you any more than it does me 🙂

          6. paulyz October 4, 2015

            That was an intelligent reply. Even though the Founders were worried about a standing Army on American soil, they learned it was necessary, just as the Rights of the People to keep & bear arms is necessary today, because the Foubders realized how easily a Central Government can take away our Liberty. The 2nd. Amendment wasn’t just about foreign enemies or invaders, it was also about defending against an oppressive Central Governnent trying to take away our Liberty.

          7. Kurt CPI October 4, 2015

            I agree. I didn’t go into rebutting Independent1’s position that, since the second amendment was brought to the table by James Madison, that Madison’s disagreement with Jefferson as to the reasoning behind it limits it’s scope to whatever Madison had in mind. A huge faction of the Continental Congress and the various constitutional committees were firmly committed to the concept that the people had the right to dissolve and reform the government if it became oppressive. If Madison and Adams thought this was nonsense, so be it. But certainly Jefferson, and to a great extent Washington (along with southern conservatives on the whole), did not. Not only was this the entire premise used to justify the Declaration of Independence, but the Constitution has several references that can only be construed as having this general meaning. I believe that Independent1 is also incorrect in his asertion that, even if the US Constitution grants certain rights, that it doesn’t prevent the states from creating laws or state contsitutional clauses that overturn that. The US constitution spells out explicit items that fall under federal jurisdiction. It says that anything NOT specifically listed falls to the states. But the Bill of Rights is, in every conceivable way, the law of the land and any state mandate to the contrary would be unconstitutional.

          8. paulyz October 3, 2015

            Please reread, if you have ever even read, the 2nd. Amendment. It says …….”the Right of the PEOPLE to keep & bear arms shall NOT be infringed.” How much clearer can it be? As I said, a Militia is formed FROM the Citizenry, (the PEOPLE). Nowhere does the 2nd. Amendment say, just “certain” people having the right to keep & bear arms. Of course to a Communist as you, you choose not to follow our Constitution, if it interfers with your Leftist ideology. Dummy.

          9. Independent1 October 3, 2015

            Why are you conveniently ignoring the 1st part of that sentence you posted?? Could it be because it starts out talking about the need to ‘maintain a well regulated militia’?? Huh???

            Why do you RWNJs always want to take words OUT OF CONTEXT??? Madison CLEARLY started out that sentence you posted JUST THE LAST PART OF!! TALKING ABOUT MILITIAS AND THE NEED TO MAINTAIN THEM!!!!!!!

          10. paulyz October 3, 2015

            Why are you ignoring the main part, the Right of the PEOPLE to keep & bear arms? To form a well regulated militia, the PEOPLE need to (keep & bear arms). They aren’t talking about the regulation of the PEOPLE to have or restrict arms.

          11. Independent1 October 3, 2015



            Madison had NO INTENTION to be giving people THE RIGHT to own a gun, just so they could use it FOR ANY PURPOSE THEY CHOSE!!

            In fact, the 2008 decision by the corrupt SCOTUS even states that!!! That Americans DO NOT have the right to own a gun FOR ANY PURPOSE THEY CHOOSE!! And therefore reasonable ownership guidelines CAN BE IMPOSED!!!!

          12. Willy Healer October 5, 2015

            Why do you talk to him he is a paid hack?

          13. Independent1 October 3, 2015

            And note that the 2nd talks about ‘WELL REGULATED MILITIAS’ which means as John Paul Stevens pointed out, NO RESTRICTIONS ON ANY GOVERNMENT WITH RESPECT TO


            Sure, people should have the right to carry a gun JUST LIKE they have a right to OWN A CAR. Guns SHOULD BE REGULATED JUST LIKE CARS IN EVERY ASPECT!!!

            People buying them should have to take a test to prove they know how to use one, they should be registered just like a car so if they’re used to kill someone they can be traced; the owner should be required to maintain at least liability insurance and maybe personal insurance to cover the medical should he shoot himself and on and on!!!!!

          14. paulyz October 3, 2015

            Let’t stay in current times. The Wild West was Territories, not States.

          15. DEFENDER88 October 3, 2015

            FYI – I have all the above “you” would require to own a gun and “much more” training, etc.

            So I am actually with you on this part of the problem.

            While I still believe the 2A applies to individuals, I think there should be qualifiers like a driver license – even more actually.
            I think you should have to show that you have the training to handle, shoot and store a gun safely “before” you are allowed to buy one. Like a driving license. And in this state(TN) you do need all that to get a permit. Including finger prints, etc.

            BUT if we do that, than that license should be legal in ALL the states and cities – like your drivers license is.

            This is the kind of compromise I am arguing for btwn the Pro and Anti gun factions.

            As it stands now I cant even drive thru NY, NJ, Chicago, etal. Even though I am fully certified, insured, trained, etc.

            Also – All handguns are already “registered” with a fired bullet(done by the Mfgr) on file with FBI and require a Background Check to purchase.

            Some 95% of gun crime is done with handguns.

            Long guns often do not require a background check, but Long Guns account for only about 4% of gun crime and Assault Rifles(as a sub-set of long guns) less than 1%. This is why a big push to ban Assault Rifles, mag capacities etc is a study in diminishing returns – ie it will have little effect on the gun crime rate.

          16. Willy Healer October 5, 2015

            There is no such thing as the gun crime rate. Guns don’t commit crimes. The people who posses them do. People who commit crimes usually need someone with a gun to stop them.

          17. DEFENDER88 October 5, 2015

            Yeah, I know. And agree.
            None of my guns have ever gotten up, walked out the door and shot anyone.
            Its just a convenient moniker understood to mean:
            Crimes committed with a gun.
            And if just one person with a gun had been there he could have been stopped.
            My other concern is how these people include suicide numbers in their data on crimes with a gun.
            I don’t see suicide as a crime. We should all freely have that choice if necessary.

          18. David October 3, 2015

            A driver’s license is not a constitutionally guaranteed right.

          19. David October 3, 2015

            Tell the idiot that “militia” meant able bodied citizens.

          20. paulyz October 4, 2015

            Yes, the Militia IS able bodied Citizens that “keep & bear arms”. He is a Dummy, & admitted Communist that actually believes GOD sent His Holy Spirit to Earth to spread Communusm! ! Impossible to have any intelligent discussions with these wackos.

          21. David October 3, 2015

            You are a lying fool!!! Look it up brilliant libtard, “militia” meant every able bodied citizen. Before you pop off again and let everyone know how intelligent you aren’t, research what Adams and the founding Fathers meant when they drafted the 2nd Amendment.

      3. yabbed October 2, 2015

        Give up the racism and the Chicago nonsense. The city of Chicago’s gun control efforts are neutralized by the surrounding communities which are lined with gun shops. It doesn’t take 30 minutes to get to a gun shop from Chicago. NYC has proved that the guns used in crimes in that city come from the south. The interstate highway runs in a straight line from the city to the gun stores along the highway. We need national gun control. We need some common decency in this country and a sense of the common good that sustains great nations. And we need fewer racists and fools.

        1. paulyz October 2, 2015

          “Racism”? I had stated NOTHING racist. But of course, the Race Card ALWAYS rears it’s ugly head with Liberals that have no basis for their arguments other that it makes them feel good or superior, never understanding the reality or repercussions of their actions.

          More prevarication.

          1. Independent1 October 2, 2015

            If it’s “liberal socialist policies’ that encourage acts of violence, EXPLAIN PLEASE

            All 10 of the states the survey group 24/7 Wallstreet rated as the most dangerous and violent ARE RUN BY THE GOP!!!!




            Come on!! You lying piece of worthlessness. Explain all of this!!!

        2. Bullseye October 6, 2015

          I really don’t think that asking a bunch of politicians to do something is going to reduce racists and fools. I’m thinking that no one should be allowed to have children unless they take some classes and pass a parent test, get a license for each kid, and buy liability insurance.

      4. Bullseye October 6, 2015

        How and who decides who is mentally ill and who decides what is to be done with these folks? How about a new tax, the Nut Tax, to build “homes” for the crazies? Human nature is pretty much like rounding up marbles on a slippery slope. Gun free zones are invitations for violence. If I plan to go on a rampage, I definitely would not pick the local shooting tournament or a police station. But schools and businesses that advertise no guns? Here I come.Thanks for saving me the work of having to hunt down a undefended place.

    2. Bullseye October 6, 2015

      Quit blaming the gun lobby. The gun lobby isn’t doing the killing. It’s your parishioners and ordinary (up until the time of killing) people in your neighborhood. Sounds like you and your ilk haven’t been doing enough.

  6. Raymond Lavine October 2, 2015

    The conversation is never going to change until we think about what are the topics.

    Here is a summary of the conversation we should be having:

    a. Gun laws we do have.What is working, what is not. What laws need additional funding to accomplish whatever the law is designed to do.

    b. Stop talking about hiring former military. They would need additional training and
    it is a security guard position which means minimum wage.

    In addition, they have already been in harms way. Let those who have never served
    train and be security guards as another job or volunteer but you must have
    training and it must be funded and they must be certified and insured in case
    they are killed or wounded on the job.

    c. We have taxes on alcohol and cigarettes and other items we purchase. We are mandated to own insurance for our vehicles and be licensed.

    Let’s raise the taxes on those who buy guns, bullets, and peripheral items which
    goes towards the gun laws and training.

    d. When you purchase a gun, you are required to be certified by taking a class or
    classes that you are educated with how to use a gun. You cannot operate a vehicle
    without training or be an equipment operator without certification.

    e. Owning a gun: you are required to own gun insurance so if your gun is used
    for a crime the money will compensate the victims and reimburse local, state,
    and federal services.

    f. If none of these ideas are welcome, insist that the NRA and other gun orginizations
    volunteer with their own resources; training, people to volunteer to be security
    guards, and pay for the guns, bullets, and holsters to protect schools, businesses,
    and public places.

    1. Karen Bille-Golden October 2, 2015

      I might add that gun licenses shoulhave an expiration date same as drivers license. People’s ability to own either can change and need to be rescreened

      1. yabbed October 2, 2015

        And guns should be required to have liability insurance coverage. Proof of insurance is required before a car dealer will let you drive the new car off the lot and the same should be for gun purchases. Insurance agents will vet a policy seeker better than a bureaucrat.

        1. Independent1 October 2, 2015

          Absolutely!! The fact that that requirement wasn’t enacted decades ago is in my mind evidence of pure insanity by America’s politicians. How could any sane politician allow someone to walk around with something as dangerous as a gun without requiring liability insurance at a minimum???

          1. Bullseye October 6, 2015

            We keep asking politicians to do something. Right–their job is to maintain the status quo and get re-elected. Why don’t you, Mr. Righteous spearhead a grass roots movement to get the insurance companies to take on a new high risk, high liability product.

        2. Bullseye October 6, 2015

          And buyers cancel and/or not renew their insurance as soon as they can. Yet they still drive. You may note that you are required to have uninsured and/or under-insured insurance coverage on your car as a consequence. You own a wood burning heat source, you pay extra on your home owners insurance. Unfortunately, there is no way to guarantee that Johnny Mass-killer pays his gun insurance premiums before going on a killing spree.

      2. paulyz October 2, 2015

        Gun ownership is a Constitutional Right (for Law-abiding Citizens), not a privlege like driving an automobile. Do you really believe these crazies would have been stopped by rescreening them ? Will the inner-city violence seize because licences are restricted or rescreened? Just think about that for a few minutes. Just like taking DL’s away from drunken drivers, they still drink & drive.

  7. Otto Greif October 2, 2015

    Since blacks commit a disproportionate amount of gun crime we should start by making it illegal for blacks to own guns.

    1. paulyz October 2, 2015

      I know you are being facetious, but many of those blacks are NOT supposed to have guns, again showing how blaming guns, not the cause, is politicizing the issue, not solving the problem. Liberals won’t admit the breakdown of society from decades of growing Liberal policies, yet they double-down for more! They haven’t any answer, just knee-jerk reactions & political correctness.

      1. Independent1 October 3, 2015

        And by whose authority are ‘many of those blacks are not supposed to have guns” be?? Yours?? Since when were special laws made relating to blacks – restricting them from owning guns?? (You do realize that every ‘mass murder’ has been committed by someone white – right??)

        1. paulyz October 3, 2015

          Another knee-jerk reaction from the “communist” dummy. The blacks I am referring too are those with felonies, criminal records, or violence. Violent gang members of any race aren’t responsible to carry guns, but OF COURSE they have them, showing again your gun control for law-abiding Citizens will do NOTHING to stop the users of these guns for violence. Get it?

          1. Independent1 October 3, 2015

            Oh! So it’s okay for the hundreds of thousands of whites who are felons and have criminal records and are involved in violence to carry guns?? Why are you picking on blacks?? Racist much are we???

          2. paulyz October 3, 2015

            Another false ass-umption. Conservatives don’t want any violent felon to have a weapon, unlike you that allow & support Obama’s release of thousands of criminal ILLEGALS, that have murdered Americans. Once again you play the race card, not truth.

          3. Independent1 October 3, 2015

            You’ve devolved into the ridiculous!! Obama has never done any such thing!! Goodbye!! End of discussion!!!

          4. paulyz October 3, 2015

            Good, I am off fishing. You want me to redidtribute my catch?

            p.s. EVERYBODY KNOWS Obama released thousands of criminal Illegals except you. You will never know any truth by reading the daily kos, mother jones or listening to Rachael Maddow.

          5. Independent1 October 3, 2015

            More of your ridiculous nonsense!!

            And one last post in response to your nonsense about homicides skyrocketing in the U.K after guns were banned – skyrocketing all the way up to an average of 38 gun-related homicides a year during the 15 years after they were banned in 1996. That’s an average of less than 200/year in the U.K compared to an average of over 10,000 during that period in the U.S.!! Some skyrocketing!!!

            See this from Wikipedia where it claims that the U.S. has one of the lowest homicide rates, not only by gun, but overall in the world!!! (And even after they banned guns!!!!)

            From wikipedia:

            n the United Kingdom, access by the general public to firearms is tightly controlled by law, although this is less restrictive in Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world.[1]
            There were 0.05 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm
            per 100,000 inhabitants in the five years to 2011 (15 to 38 people per
            annum). Gun homicides accounted for 2.4% of all homicides in the year

            Members of the public may own sporting rifles and shotguns, subject
            to licensing, but handguns were effectively banned after the Dunblane school massacre in 1996. Dunblane was the UK’s first and only school shooting. There has been one spree killing since Dunblane, in June 2010.

            Police in the United Kingdom (other than Northern Ireland) are not routinely armed.[6][7][8]
            Fatal shootings of police are extremely rare; there were three in
            England and Wales in the eleven-year period from 2000/01 to 2010/11.[9] Armed response units are available to deal with incidents, and around 7,000 police officers have received firearms training.[8][1

          6. paulyz October 4, 2015

            NEWSFLASH Dummy, gun-free Australia just had a 15 year old Muslim kill a cop with a gun. So much for your gun control. Meanwhile law-abiding Citizens lose the means to defend themselves from these crazies.

            Ok, now let’s hear your excuses!

          7. Independent1 October 4, 2015

            Oh! So somehow the fact that some kid sneaked a gun into Australia and uses it to kill a cop, proves something?? When more than 325 people are killed in America by guns every single day and when far more than 1 cop is killed in America every month??

            In your juvenile mind that proves something??? What?? No one has ever claimed that legislating some gun control was going to prevent all shootings – but only totally insane people would continue to refuse to do anything to try and reduce them!!!

          8. Bullseye October 6, 2015

            2/3 of the gun deaths in the USA are suicides. Why is there no outcry and teeth gnashing over the cause of the suicides?

          9. Bullseye October 6, 2015

            blah blah blah about England. Back to the USA, dude. Can you not actually post an original thought? The cut and paste tactic is polluting the atmosphere.

    2. DOC October 3, 2015

      You wish

    3. Bullseye October 6, 2015

      I think we should ban idiots that think skin color is a qualification for gun ownership. The news graddingmass shootings are down by non-blacks.

  8. Otto Greif October 2, 2015

    Does the Democrat party want to repeal the 2nd Amendment or not? He’s too cowardly to say.

    1. DOC October 3, 2015

      You can repeal all you want, American have always had gun and they always will. I got mine and Otto Iam black

  9. Bullseye October 6, 2015

    Voters need to pull up their collective big girl/boy/other pants and
    start taking care of issues themselves. How about parents interacting
    with their kids more? All those after school events, sports out the
    gazzo , unsupervised activities leave kids clueless of what a
    responsible citizen is supposed to be. The fact is, that a group of ill
    informed, unskilled, poorly trained person, which covers just about all
    kids, will most likely sink rather than rise to the occasion. Can you
    imagine an 18 year old as your county budget director or state
    legislator? How many kids ever have those sit-down chats with mommy and
    daddy about sex, violence, manners, social responsibility? How about
    doing chores, staying home and helping out on the home front? We raise
    kids these days, orchestrating their every waking minute but never
    actually talk to them. The little soon-to-be-monsters are too busy being
    busy to even think about thinking. There is a reason that
    children/young people are not allowed to drive, vote, join the
    military,etc. until a certain age: They aren’t fully developed enough to
    handle the responsibility either physically or mentally. Yet when they
    reach the age of adulthood we act surprised at their supposedly
    unaccountable bizarre behavior.


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.