Type to search

Veronica Rutledge And America’s Gun Cult

Memo Pad National News

Veronica Rutledge And America’s Gun Cult

Share

That Idaho mother shot to death by her two-year-old son in a Walmart store? Judging by Veronica Jean Rutledge’s biography, you can be just about certain that she’d driven to the store wearing a seatbelt, with her little boy buckled carefully into his car seat.

By all accounts, Rutledge, age 29, was that kind of mother: loving, diligent and careful — an entirely admirable young woman. In the aftermath of the tragedy, photos of her shining face are almost unbearable to contemplate.

A high-school valedictorian, Rutledge graduated from the University of Idaho with a degree in chemistry. She was a promising research scientist at Batelle’s Idaho National Laboratory, working on reducing the toxicity of nuclear waste.

It would appear to follow that her child’s home environment was carefully childproofed, with household poisons stored safely away and dangerous objects placed out of reach. Rutledge probably would never have dreamed of letting her son play outside unsupervised, nor left him alone in the bathtub.

And yet she carried a loaded semi-automatic handgun in her purse on a post-Christmas shopping trip and left it unattended in a shopping cart, where the child took it out and somehow pulled the trigger.

Rutledge died instantly there in the electronics aisle.

Very likely her son is too young to understand or remember what happened, although it will shadow his life forever.

In the immediate aftermath, Terry Rutledge, Veronica’s father-in-law, gave an ill-advised interview to a Washington Post reporter expressing anger that anybody would use the tragedy “as an excuse to grandstand on gun rights,” as the article put it.

“They are painting Veronica as irresponsible, and that is not the case,” he said. “… I brought my son up around guns, and he has extensive experience shooting it. And Veronica had had handgun classes; they’re both licensed to carry, and this wasn’t just some purse she had thrown her gun into.”

Oh no, it was a designer item produced by an Illinois firm called Gun Tote’n Mamas with a zipped compartment for carrying a concealed handgun — given to her as a Christmas present from her husband.

Nevertheless, Rutledge made an incomprehensible blunder, and it cost her life. The blunder, as I see it, of carrying a loaded handgun — with a chambered round, no less — as a kind of fashion accessory, a totemic item signifying her cultural identity.

Her close friend Sheri Sandow explained that for all her academic accomplishments, Rutledge was “as comfortable at a campground or a gun range as she was in a classroom.”

OK, fine… but why Walmart? Not because she was fearful, Sandow explained.

“In Idaho, we don’t have to worry about a lot of crime and things like that,” she said. “And to see someone with a gun isn’t bizarre. [Veronica] wasn’t carrying a gun because she felt unsafe. She was carrying a gun because she was raised around guns. This was just a horrible accident.”

Indeed, she needn’t have felt unsafe. The most recent homicide in Blackfoot, Idaho, where the family lived, was six years ago.

The scientist in Veronica Rutledge, had she allowed herself to think about it rationally, would have understood that the pistol in her purse was far more dangerous to her and her child than any external threat. As an NRA adept and a big fan of the Guns.com website, however, she evidently become so habituated to carrying a gun around that she quite forgot she had it.

By itself, there’s nothing inherently objectionable about target shooting, a harmless pastime like bowling or golf. I own a target pistol myself, and take it out sometimes to plink aluminum cans. I also own shotguns, although I no longer hunt.

But when a hobby verges upon obsession, you’re talking about cultlike behavior. Spend a few minutes browsing around Guns.com and maybe you’ll see what I mean. Current features include Kid Rock’s gun collection, and the effects of shooting a giant Gummi Bear with a 12 gauge.

Cool!

In a recent New Yorker article, Adam Gopnik explained the political psychology of guns. The great majority of Americans agree that there should be sensible limitations on the possession and use of tools whose function is killing, “while a small minority feels, with a fanatic passion, that there shouldn’t. In a process familiar to any student of society, the majority of people in favor of gun sanity care about a lot of other things, too, and think about them far more often; the gun crazy think about guns all the time, and vote on the issue with fanatic intensity.”

Hence handguns as costume jewelry, totems signifying one’s membership in the NRA tribe. Terry Rutledge, however, can rest easy. If the 2012 Newtown, CT massacre failed to bring reform, his daughter-in-law’s death won’t change anything significant.

Except possibly the behavior of anybody tempted to pack heat around little children.

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Tags:
Gene Lyons

Gene Lyons is a political columnist and author. Lyons writes a column for the Arkansas Times that is nationally syndicated by United Media. He was previously a general editor at Newsweek as wells an associate editor at Texas Monthly where he won a National Magazine Award in 1980. He contributes to Salon.com and has written for such magazines as Harper's, The New York Times Magazine, The New York Review of Books, Entertainment Weekly, Washington Monthly, The Nation, Esquire, and Slate.

A graduate of Rutgers University with a Ph.D. in English from the University of Virginia, Lyons taught at the Universities of Massachusetts, Arkansas and Texas before becoming a full-time writer in 1976. A native of New Jersey, Lyons has lived in Arkansas with his wife Diane since 1972. The Lyons live on a cattle farm near Houston, Ark., with a half-dozen dogs, several cats, three horses, and a growing herd of Fleckvieh Simmental cows.

Lyons has written several books including The Higher Illiteracy (University of Arkansas, 1988), Widow's Web (Simon & Schuster, 1993), Fools for Scandal (Franklin Square, 1996) as well as The Hunting Of The President: The 10 Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton, which he co-authored with National Memo Editor-in-Chief Joe Conason.

  • 1

You Might also Like

480 Comments

  1. Independent1 January 7, 2015

    Sadly there are still far too many Americans who refuse to believe that owning a gun is more of a liability than it will ever be a means of self-defense. And clearly, given the very low crime area where she lived, that was especially true for Veronica Rutledge. As I’ve quoted numerous times in posts on the NM – having a gun in your possession, either physically on you outside the home, or just somewhere within a home, increases by almost 5 times the probability that the gun owner or someone in close proximity to them, will be shot and quite likely killed by the gun that some think is their ‘guarantee’ of self-protection; while in reality it’s more of a guarantee that someone will die by a firearm.

    But below is an article that should make the danger of owning guns clear to anyone who really takes the time to think and not be biased by the lies of the NRA:

    Children’s group says gun deaths among youth also outnumber soldiers injured in Afghanistan.

    And here’s more from a USA Today article :

    ASBURY PARK, N.J. — Most victims of gun violence in 2010 were not on a battlefield or remote hillside in the Middle East fighting in a war. They were, like 6-year-old Brandon Holt, children and teenagers in America, according to the Children’s Defense Fund.

    Brandon was shot in the head by his friend and neighbor, an unidentified 4-year-old boy, on Monday night. He is now also a statistic of gun violence.

    In 2010, 15,576 children and teenagers were injured by firearms — three times more than the number of U.S. soldiers injured in the war in Afghanistan, according to the defense fund.

    Nationally, guns still kill twice as many children and young people than cancer, five times as many than heart disease and 15 times more than infection, according to the New England Journal of Medicine.

    “We see guns as much of a threat in their life as we used to see bacteria and viruses,” said Dr. Judith S. Palfrey, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the co-author of the New England journal report. “If you look at what’s actually killing children and disabling children, guns is one of the major things.”

    Reply
    1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

      On the side, you and I had a discussion on the Medicaid expansion issue. I’ve got some very bad news for you, it seems the Feds are going to lower their reimbursements by an average of 43% that will affect those States that took the expansion. States that didn’t take the expansion will continue to pay the rate that the State and providers have agreed too. This is going to cause a BIG problem in those States that took the expansion, because doctors will STOP taking Medicaid patients. Buy law, the States that accepted the Federal expansion MUST follow the Federal reimbursement numbers.

      http://www.naturalnews.com/048214_Obamacare_Medicaid_payments_health_care_rationing.html

      1. Paul Bass January 7, 2015

        Gary,
        This is very old news. This is the so called “doctor problem”. It is solved every year (usually for one year only) by the “doc fix”, that is always pushed through at the last minute to the federal budget.
        Beside the fact that this has NOTHING to do with the issue of American gun cultists!

        So off topic and a troll, congrats!

        1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

          The reply was to Independent1, not you. It had nothing to with you and did not require or ask for your opinion, which sucks anyway. That’s why we have so many problems in this country, people can’t mind their own F-ing business.

          1. Paul Bass January 7, 2015

            Sorry Gary,
            But you are the one posting “doc fix” problems on a article about gun cults.
            It would have made more sense for you to post this comment on an article about medicare.
            I could say the same about your opinions (they suck!) but I will read them, and comment on them, if I feel I must. As is both my right and yours.
            You have a great day!

          2. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            I was rude, for that I do extend my apologies. I guess it was the equally rude troll remark that triggered my actions. Opinions vary, that is true and it seems we all have one. I had to respond to Independent1 in this way because he took his ball and went home when his position was crushed by economic reality concerning the subject of Medicaid expansion. Thought I’d toss him a bone and see if he would come out and play (over at the previous area of discussion). He still won’t come out to play, so I stopped on the subject (I have more).
            You have a great day as well!

          3. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            I think he may be looking for a different type of bone.

          4. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            I found what Gary said interesting and your comment helped me lay a bowl ringer.

          5. Independent1 January 7, 2015

            Thanks for responding on that issue. But don’t expect this wackjob to even realize how far afield his mind is. I’m not 100% certain he has one.

        2. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

          If you are going to demean someone try and be original and clever.

      2. Independent1 January 7, 2015

        As I told your Klan buddy Mike – I’m no longer going to waste my time responding to you and your Klan buddies inane posts which are always lies, distortions of the truth or just plain fabrications of reality. And virtually every SANE PERSON posting on the NM knows that WITHOUT ME TELLING THEM!!!!!!!!

        1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

          I don’t blame you. You cannot debate people who have the facts available, instead of kneejerk BS from some Left Wing rag. Ignore all you want, it will save on all the time I would have to spend to correct your constant misinformation. ROFLMAO

        2. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

          Clan buddies? You getting all rattled again? You have been bested so give it a rest.

        3. idamag January 7, 2015

          I stopped reading their posts a long time ago. The put out rhetoric that cannot be proven. They don’t know how to argue and just name call. They have pet names for anyone who does not agree with them.

    2. TZToronto January 7, 2015

      That’s why guns are, truly, an issue of public health. Unfortunately, there is no vaccine for misuse of guns.

      1. kenndeb January 7, 2015

        When you live in this country, you can criticize American laws, but you do NOT.

        1. TZToronto January 7, 2015

          Sorry, but I file my U.S. tax return every year as I assume you do, too. The fact that I actually pay no U.S. tax in no way diminishes my concern for America and the threat posed to it by the gun cult.

          1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            You are far more likely to get shoot by a cop than a law abiding citizen carrying a concealed weapon. By 10000 fold.

          2. Independent1 January 7, 2015

            Wow!! More absolutely unadulterated HOGWASH!!

            Say idiot!! If less than 1% of homicides in a year are justifiable homicides for self defense (only 250-300/yr) out of more than 10,000 which occur each year and most of them in states with more than
            40% gun ownership, even a moron such as yourself has to see that thousands of people packing guns are killed each year either before they can get their gun out, or even find it, or because the majority of those gun-packing idiots are killed by someone they know and didn’t even suspect they were going to be murdered (more than 60% of murders are done by people the murder victim knew!!!).

          3. neeceoooo January 7, 2015

            It would be nice to have a constructive discussion with like minded people on guns and gun control without having to fight with the gun toting fools.

          4. whodatbob January 7, 2015

            There would be no discussion on guns, gun control, or any issue. Like minded people would agree on the issue and have a polite agreeable conversation.

          5. TZToronto January 7, 2015

            It’s the “all-guns-all-the-time” people who are the problem. I watched part of a PBS program about the NRA last night, and it appears that the NRA used to be a rational organization–promoting gun ownership accompanied by gun safety. Now it’s simply an organization that opposes unconditionally any efforts to reduce the level of criminal and irresponsible gun ownership. Rather than taking the guns out of the hands of people who really have no business having any kind of weapon, the NRA promotes unrestricted gun ownership for the purpose of self defense and to keep liberals from taking their guns away. This kind of circular thinking is maddening. (i.e., We need guns to keep Barack Obama from taking our guns away.) He’s had six years to take their guns away, and I have yet to see anything that indicates that he’s trying to do this. NRA fairy tales are resulting in the deaths of innocents at the hands of their family and friends.

          6. Independent1 January 7, 2015

            Isn’t it odd that although the NRA claims that guns are supposed to be a great means of self-protection, that the most gun violence, and therefore, the most people being killed by guns are in the mostly GOP Run states that have some of the highest rates of gun ownership??

            These 10 states lead the nation in gun violence and pretty much homicides – and all of them have gun ownership over 45% – and 9 of the 10 are GOP (NRA Loving) Red States:

            In order: LA, MS, AL, WY, OK, MT, AR, AL, NM, SC

          7. TZToronto January 8, 2015

            Bah! Numbers!! What do they prove? 98% of climate scientists say that much of climate change is man-made. Bah! What do they know? Cost-cutting Republican administrations always end up raising the deficit and increase the debt. Bah! What does that prove? . . . Numbers mean nothing the the true believers.

          8. Independent1 January 8, 2015

            Yeah! kenndeb’s favorite comment is that my statistics are ‘liberal propaganda’. But somehow, its inane rhetoric is fact.

          9. idamag January 7, 2015

            I have a friend who used to belong to the NRA. He taught gun safety. He quit because he thought they were becoming too radical. He is a sensible, responsible gun owner.

          10. Independent1 January 8, 2015

            What we really need to stop is the NRA convincing so many Americans that a gun is a ‘means of self-protection’. Experience has proven that a gun is only a means of self-protection in the hands of someone who has taken the time to become expert at using a gun – like a police officer, or a really dedicated gun lover. While in the hands of someone less expert at using it, a gun is far more of a liability, and often the reason that people are killed in gun-related incidents.

            So as you point out, the NRA’s disingenuous rhetoric is actually resulting in more people being killed by the gun they own (or someone in their household being killed by it), or just because they’re carrying one. That’s why out of 10,000 gun related homicides per year, less than 300 are homicides committed for the purposes of self-protection by someone other than a police officer.

            So if we can’t get Congress to enact stricter gun control – such as mandatory background checks – we really need to get the NRA to stop its rhetoric that is enticing hundreds of thousands of Americans to unknowingly put themselves in more danger of being killed by a gun, by going out and buying one with the misguided notion that it will protect them when they are confronted by someone far more expert at using a gun than they are.

          11. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            According to you every body who owns a gun is a fool. How can you have a constructive discussion? Why would a gun owner want to discuss anything with you ? You have no idea what you are talking about.

          12. idamag January 7, 2015

            You can tell by hicusdicus reply, below, he has a problem with reading comprehension.

          13. idamag January 7, 2015

            Stay with us, TZ, we need you.

      2. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

        There is a vaccine for your disease and it comes out of a tube.

    3. kenndeb January 7, 2015

      More useless propaganda from the copy and paste King.

      1. joe schmo January 7, 2015

        Love your analogy:)

    4. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

      Gosh, and I thought it was abortion and bad parents.

  2. ps0rjl January 7, 2015

    Another senseless gun accident! Nothing will ever change the minds of those who like to go around carrying guns. And the NRA will always be the mouthpiece for the gun manufacturers. Therefore whenever I see someone in a place of business with a weapon and they are not police, I will immediately inform the manager why I am leaving. Before anyone attacks me for my views, as a marine and Vietnam veteran I carried the original assault rifle, the M16.

    Reply
    1. kenndeb January 7, 2015

      Sure you did. So why so fearful now?

      1. ps0rjl January 7, 2015

        I am not fearful. I just think it is idiotic to walk around with a gun strapped to you. This isn’t some version of the wild west which by the way wasn’t that wild.

        1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

          Odd, they carried guns back then too, but it wasn’t wild! Now isn’t that just an interesting little fact you brought up.

          1. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            Stupidity is a terminal disease.

        2. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

          Great, I will be idiotic and you can be unarmed. Did you do any more than just carry it?

          1. ps0rjl January 7, 2015

            Drop dead. Did you ever serve or is Call of Duty you’re military experience?

  3. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

    A tragedy indeed. The gun grabbers love to use stories of accidents and incidents of nutcases going into “gun free zones” and mowing down little kids to every extent possible. Not unusual considering the mindset of those who support gun control. Owning a gun and especially carrying a gun, carry’s with it great responsibility. There is no denying that by any intelligent person.
    Today, the news of a terrorist attack in France is everywhere. until all the details come out, the one thing that everyone will not be told is that those killed were not allowed by law to defend themselves. In a recent attack in Australia, the victims were denied, by law, the right to defend themselves. Brits are getting attacked with knife wielding whackball Muslim’s hellbent on lopping of their head, yet Brit’s are not by law allowed to defend themselves.
    Accident’s are going to happen in every society. The Swiss are required to own guns, strange how we never hear about that and there are very few accidents. In America, we do have a gun culture. People are very passionate about their right to defend themselves. This is absolutely true and undeniable. There are many reasons for this and each individual is different. With over 80 million “legal” gun owners, the number of accidents per capita is quite low to , like, car owners.
    One horrendous event that occurred in the 20th Century was carried out after the government in control convinced the majority of people that the only people that should have guns are the government. So, the government disarmed them, even those minorities who didn’t consent. Over time, one minority was rounded up and sent to death camps where 7-8 million were slaughtered by the very government that said they would be safer without their guns. That horrific event is known as the Holocaust.
    In the 20th Century around 56 million people were murdered by their own governments, after they were disarmed and could not fight back. These facts are indisputable and shameful. What is even more shameful is that people know this, and still want to walk down the same road.
    It is really silly and a waste of time to argue for or against gun control in America. It isn’t the 2 Amendment that will keep gun control from happening, because that can be rescinded with another Amendment (good luck with that). It will be because a vast majority of gun owners will say NO! That pretty much ends the discussion in it’s tracks, because not one person who advocates gun control will lead the way and go try and take them. Suicide is stupid, gun control is suicide, ask the Russians, Chinese, North Korean’s and the Jews. They know first hand what it leads to.
    In short, if you want gun control, that’s fine. Unless your going to have the courage to come take them, your wasting your breath.

    Reply
    1. lucimar2 January 7, 2015

      Hey moron, how about some sane, common sense reform like background checks for all gun sales and limiting clip sizes to maybe 10 or less? How about some sanity?

      1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

        Hi there! I will refrain from calling a name, like dickhead, because it just isn’t very polite. I am quite sane and happen to apply a fair amount of common sense to my thinking. Let me begin with clip sizes. First, the whole proposal comes from people who have ZERO understanding about guns. The size of a clip will not change things one wit, except give the criminals the advantage, which takes me to the background check issue. We have background checks and have had them for many years. Since your such a genius, please explain how you and those like you are going to get the criminals to follow your “common sense reforms”? That is the question you MUST answer before anybody who believes in gun ownership will take you seriously.

        Some education that may help you in your misguided thinking. Universal background checks would require gun registration. Gun registration will NEVER be allowed in this country, why you ask? Read my post about countries that enacted gun control. EVERY one of them STARTED with gun registration. Basically, you can likely forget that idea because the majority of the people will disobey the idiotic law if it ever passed anyway (not to mention that there is no Constitutional authority that allows the Feds to pass such a law)

        Back to clip size. Clip size (smaller) has already been proven to be nothing but Left Wing kneejerk banter with no basis of fact. Studies by educated people on both sides of the argument have already been shown that limiting the number of bullets in a magazine (of any kind) will not affect anything positively. First, criminals don’t follow laws (back to that ever so important question), secondly, when some nut is hellbent of destruction, the weapon he/she choses is not important. What’s important is he/she can be stopped at the earliest possible moment. Basically, gun control has been enacted is a few places, like “gun free zones”. Nothing like inviting a nutcase into a school with a ‘No Gun Zone” sign posted up letting him/her know that he/she will not face one wit of opposition. The only thing that stops bad people are good people with the means to do so.

        Now, how about answering that question on how your and your friends are going to get criminals to follow your not so common sense reforms?

        1. joe schmo January 7, 2015

          Spoken like a true fellow American patriot. We have way too much class to lower ourselves to liberal crassness…..LOL

          Just looked up gun laws around the world… This is just what France did…..and look what happened. I rest my case:)

      2. ps0rjl January 7, 2015

        I couldn’t agree more.

        1. ps0rjl January 7, 2015

          I meant I couldn’t agree more with lucimar2.

      3. kenndeb January 7, 2015

        There are background checks for all gun sales, and the magazine size(not clip) , although many states do limit size, is not really an issue . We have far too many gun control laws already, yet gun control nuts just want more. How about enforcing those we already have? Liberals and the regime want to regulate firearms out of existence, and ultimately confiscate ALL firearms.

        1. Independent1 January 7, 2015

          The lies just roll off your lowlife fingers don’t they???

          BRIDGEPORT, W.Va. (AP) — More gun sales than ever are slipping through the federal background check system — 186,000 last year, a rate of 512 gun sales a day, as states fail to consistently provide thorough, real-time updates on criminal and mental histories to the FBI.

          At no time of year is this problem more urgent. This Friday opens the busiest season for gun purchases, when requests for background checks speed up to nearly two a second, testing the limits of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS.

          The stakes are high: In the U.S., there are already nine guns for every 10 people, and someone is killed with a firearm every 16 minutes. Mass shootings are happening every few weeks.

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/26/black-friday-background-checks_n_6226710.html

          1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            It seems it’s the States that are failing to do their job, bitch at them.

          2. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            In the U.S., there are already nine guns for every 10 people, and someone is killed with a firearm every 16 minutes. Mass shootings are happening every few weeks.
            What a bunch of outright LIES!

          3. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            They believe it cause they read it in the huff post.

          4. kenndeb January 7, 2015

            LOL. More propaganda from the copy an paste King. Huffpo is an ultraliberal site that spouts the regimes propaganda, just like this rag. You might as well be using the Brady, or Bloomberg group as a source, both of which will do whatever it takes to confiscate and ban ALL firearms. It is sad that you REALLY seem to believe all this BS.

          5. whodatbob January 7, 2015

            More gun sales than ever are slipping through the federal background check system — 186,000 last year, a rate of 512 gun sales a day, as states fail to
            consistently provide thorough, real-time updates on criminal and mental
            histories to the FBI.

            More background checks will not fix this problem. Better reporting by the states is the fix.

          6. Independent1 January 7, 2015

            Sorry, I think we need both. There are still too many places a gun can be sold with no background check being required.

          7. whodatbob January 7, 2015

            Name the loop hole that needs to be fixed.

          8. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            I bet you are the one in ten without one. The highest steaks in the US are tenderloin cuts. $30.00 a lbs.

        2. neeceoooo January 7, 2015

          Wrong, check your facts.

          1. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            Okay! what is it they want? I want to hear your story.

          2. kenndeb January 7, 2015

            I know my facts. Where are you getting your erroneous information from? Bloomberg or the regime? Both peddle lies.

      4. joe schmo January 7, 2015

        Hmmmmm, they do this in France and what just happened there?

      5. neeceoooo January 7, 2015

        A limited clip would have easily saved many children at Sandy Hook.

        1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

          That is just silly. It didn’t matter what size or how many magazines the killer had, he had nobody that could stop his assault. He knew that. He had all the time in the world to load and reload. This would qualify as a myth. I’m not posting this to be mean, but to teach.

          1. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            It did not say magazines the uninformed said clips, What exactly does a clip do?

        2. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

          What is a limited clip? It sounds like something one would hear in a barbershop.

          1. idamag January 12, 2015

            Why don’t you grab your gun, Rambo, and shoot and kill your cancer. That is your present threat, isn’t it?

          2. hicusdicus January 12, 2015

            What are you talking about? That was certainly a silly comment.

          3. hicusdicus January 13, 2015

            I don’t own a gun. What are you talking about? Shoot your cancer? I do own a nail gun would that work?

        3. idamag January 7, 2015

          They disarmed the gun nut, who shot Gabby Giffords, when he ran out of ammunition and tried to reload.

      6. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

        Clip sizes? What are clips? you mean like paper clips? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

        1. lucimar2 January 7, 2015

          You know full f#cking well what a clip is. Don’t be more of a moron than you already are!!!

          1. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            OK, what is a clip? Where does a clip go on or in a gun? Please tell me I am all ears.

    2. TZToronto January 7, 2015

      That should be carries, Brits, and too, not carry’s, Brit’s, and to.

      1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

        Great, the literature cops.

        1. joe schmo January 7, 2015

          Does it make sense what he just wrote? His only defense is to correct your grammar. Nothing more to inject? Guess you left him/her speechless:)

          1. kenndeb January 7, 2015

            He also is NOT an American citizen, yet he likes to tell Americans what they should do. Typical.

          2. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            Typical Liberal, they like to tell people how to live too

          3. neeceoooo January 7, 2015

            speaking of telling people how to live, when are you guys going to get off the abortion train!!!!!

          4. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            Whats an abortion train? Abortion is good it gets rid of unwanted humans. I guess your Mama missed the train.

          5. TZToronto January 8, 2015

            Who better to tell people how to live than a liberal?

          6. TZToronto January 8, 2015

            Oh, yes I am!

          7. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            Well, you know that guns kill people, spoons make people fat and keyboards are always misspelling words.LMAO

        2. idamag January 10, 2015

          AQ person’s use of language shows the level of their reading comprehension and hence their ability to learn.

    3. TZToronto January 7, 2015

      Actually, the Swiss are not required to own guns. Men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and keep their personal weapons at home. They’re not allowed to keep government-issued ammo at home but can keep ammunition they purchase personally at home. As a result, gun ownership in Switzerland in quite high–but only about 1/2 that of the U.S. Don’t make it sound like the Swiss must all go out and buy guns. Gun ownership there is a function of conscription into the militia. The important word here is MILITIA. Read the 2nd Amendment.

      1. Independent1 January 7, 2015

        What gun lovers who claim that had some people had guns during a mass murder would somehow have changed things and saved lives, can’t seem to explain why there are only between 250 and 300 justifiable homicides per year for the purpose of self defense (by a none police officer) out of more than 10,000 firearms related homicides each year; homicides which occur BY FAR more often in the states where more than 40% of the population owns guns.

        And they seem to totally gloss over mass killings like when the guy went rampant in the Navy Yard a year or so ago, and out the 4-5 people he killed, 3 of them were packing guns. And even the guy that was killed by the two wackos from the Bundy Ranch a little bit after the Navy Yard killings was a also carrying a gun.

        These gun nuts just refuse to accept that carrying a gun IS NOT A MEANS OF SELF PROTECTION more often than it is, because carrying a gun just greatly increases the probability that whomever is carrying it will be shot, and most likely killed but a factor of almost 5 times.

        1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

          So what is your solution to all of your BS claims?

        2. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

          With your ability to conjure up fiction you should write a novel.

        3. neeceoooo January 7, 2015

          Inde, you are right and arguing with them will get us no where. Reasoning is not something they understand.

      2. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

        I have read it and our Constitution. The Constitution provides for an ARMY that is to be funded for no more than two years. The Militia, by definition, are the people. Maybe you should read a dictionary and get your facts straight. Your same old boring “militia” argument doesn’t hold any water. Too bad, but the Supreme Court has already made that quite clear, twice!

        1. TZToronto January 7, 2015

          What do they know? They think big companies are people!

          1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            Even a blind squirrel finds a nut from time to time. Not sure which subject you are referring, depending on which one, I may be in agreement. They have been far from perfect.

          2. TZToronto January 7, 2015

            It’s the militia thing. Apparently the Swiss actually have militias, and those conscripted into the militias (all males between 20 and 30) keep their guns at home. “A well-regulated militia,” as referenced in the 2nd Amendment, does not seem to encompass a woman with a semi-automatic weapon in her purse.

          3. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            The problem is that they don’t agree with your anti survival rhetoric.

      3. idamag January 7, 2015

        A study showed that Canada has twice as many guns as the U.S. and 1/10 the gun deaths. Our problem is the gun nuts.

  4. Theodora30 January 7, 2015

    You forgot to mention one very important factor in our gun madness – money. The gun industry spends untold millions to influence the fanatics, sway elections and scare Congress. There is no comparable well financed entity on the other side.

    Reply
    1. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

      Say What? The cast for the new Tarzan movie in the white house spend plenty of money on anti gun propaganda.

    2. idamag January 7, 2015

      I’m waiting for the NRA to declare felons are having their second amendment rights tampered with and should be allowed to won guns.

  5. ps0rjl January 7, 2015

    Isn’t it interesting that LA Pierre, the protector of our 2nd Amendment, walks around with a security detail and as young man didn’t feel the need to really defend our country by enlisting in the military. Let’s not forget Ted Nugent, Old Shitty Pants, who sits on the NRA board. What a bunch of losers

    Reply
    1. joe schmo January 7, 2015

      Let’s just rack up your latest rants. Let’s cut down on the military. We don’t need them even though Islam is hell bent on annihilating us. France and Australia are the latest victims (trust me there are loads of Muslims in Europe. You should be glad that some of us are not Middle East friendly) Oh and while you’re at it we no longer need the Cops, so let’s just make them look like gun toting racists so we can be disrespectful and lessen their ability to protect us. As a result, we have the beginning of complete anarchy and chaos. While we’re at it let’s just get rid of the guns eventhough we all know and an inanimate object has no emotions. While we’re at it let’s simply take the guns away from the Liberals who don’t want them anyway. Yes, I do believe we need to take the guns away from Liberals with their lax laws because it is most of them doing the killing.

      As the world gets nuttier, you fools want to eliminate any self defense. Go figure, the biggest bigots of them all want to sacrifice themselves for the good of ‘the people.’ I say go for it. As for people like myself, I choose to protect myself with any means possible. Unless you have been accosted, you have no clue. This was told to me by a family member who is law enforcement. It takes a respectful person to keep their head straight in a gun fight and you sure ‘ain’t’ that.

      Yes, and by the way, LaPierre, well, he needs to protect himself from people like you.

      1. kenndeb January 7, 2015

        The liberals that are so for getting rid of all firearms, would be the first to gladly hide behind someone with a firearm when the thugs are killing people in the streets.

        1. stcroixcarp January 7, 2015

          No, liberals are not for getting rid of all firearms. The guns don’t kill people, but people like you do, so we are proposing gettin rid of gun owners. 🙂

          1. Independent1 January 7, 2015

            If guns don’t kill people, why are so many people injured and killed each year by the gun they’re either carrying and happen to drop, or mistakenly pull the trigger when it’s aimed at one of their body parts?? Or which actually ends up killing them when they’re cleaning it. This happens hundreds of times a year, and even to police officers who are supposedly experts at using an handling a gun.

            Despite the gun nuts’ lies, guns are deadly just by themselves!! They don’t need a human to deliberately aim and point it at someone with the intent to kill – in order to be deadly. This article proves that in that Veronica’s son did not deliberately point the gun at her, but simply grabbed it in a way that caused it to go off and kill her – IT WAS THE GUN THAT KILLED HER, NOT HER SON!!

          2. stcroixcarp January 7, 2015

            I know that, and so do you, but the gun cultists will never admit to the inherent danger of the guns they worship and adore. I just do not want to become the victim of some well trained gun conceal and carrier whose weapon fires by accident in church, a restaurant, shopping center or my own home. I just want the gun cultists to respect my rights to not be in the presence of guns.

          3. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            You are free to stay home. Your pretend rights do not trump my natural rights, get over it.

          4. 2ThinkN_Do2 January 7, 2015

            Without Humans or creatures capable of squeezing the trigger, the gun will not harm anyone. Guns are not deadly, no more so than a knife, fists, or pencil. How is it so difficult to see reality?

          5. stcroixcarp January 7, 2015

            Guns really are more deadly than fists, pencils and knives. Knives, fists and pencils give the victim a chance to defend herself. If you really think that knives, fists and pencils have the same killing power as a gun, next season go deer hunting with your fists, pencil and knife. (I’ll use my car–it’s insured)

          6. 2ThinkN_Do2 January 7, 2015

            Actually they are not. They are equally deadly without the intervention of the living organisms aid.

          7. stcroixcarp January 7, 2015

            You have won the absurdity contest hands down. Now go back to studying so you can pass seventh grade.

          8. 2ThinkN_Do2 January 7, 2015

            Still don’t get it, what a shame . . . Have A Marvelous Day : )

          9. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            What an immature seventh grade comment.

          10. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            fists do more damage than guns and much more often unless of course the victim has a gun.

          11. latebloomingrandma January 7, 2015

            Guns, pencils, and knives have primary uses other than inflicting harm. What’s the purpose of a gun?

          12. 2ThinkN_Do2 January 7, 2015

            My comment was not about purpose, it was about the ability to cause harm without aid. The tool is harmless until a living tool enters the equation. Since you asked though, a firearm can support life in responsible hands, have been for centuries.

          13. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            A gun is the primary tool of self defense. They are designed to inflict harm. That is what you want to do if something is trying to harm you. I am sure you think no one would ever want to harm you because you are such a nice person.

          14. jointerjohn January 7, 2015

            Amazing! That knuckle-dragger just said that a gun is no more deadly than a pencil! You can’t debate someone who says something that stupid.

          15. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            Defense! and hunting

          16. idamag January 7, 2015

            That is easy to see. It is the nuts who carry guns that are dangerous. Their fixation. The town, the pistol packin’ mama came from, had a shooting in the summer. A four-year-old shot the baby.

          17. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            If your in my presence you will do as I say.

          18. stcroixcarp January 7, 2015

            Probably not. I don’t yield to bullies.

          19. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            Yes you will. The liberal in you will wet your pants.

          20. whodatbob January 7, 2015

            Guns do not just accidentally fire, it requires some external action to cause it to fire.

          21. stcroixcarp January 7, 2015

            And your point is?

          22. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            Mean nasty ole gun. I bet it slipped into her purse when she was not looking.

          23. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            Yep, the gun jumped right out of her purse and shot. Amazing.

          24. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            Come and take ’em! Never mind, you do not likely have the courage to do anything beyond making threats you can’t back up. (Yes, I think it was a joke too).

          25. whodatbob January 7, 2015

            I am a liberal and gun owner. Good response to a flip comment!

          26. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            How is that a good response?

          27. whodatbob January 7, 2015

            stcroixcarp replied to kennded’s flipa** comment with a flipa** comment. Both dumb but taken together funny.

          28. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            This whole site is nothing but comic relief.

          29. whodatbob January 7, 2015

            Pretty much.

          30. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            So you been waking up to the same face for 47 years. Now that’s what I call a good life. It can’t get any better. I will do any thing to keep that face looking back at me. If it takes a gun to keep her safe, so be it. We are both to old to play the macho game. All I have left in me is a good trigger pull if that’s what it takes.I have been looking at the same face for 40 years and if anything gets between me and that face the hammer will start dropping. These wet behind the ears people have no idea what is coming their way.

          31. whodatbob January 8, 2015

            We need to thank our lucky stars for a lady willing to stick with us 40 + years.

            Just read an email: Teach your daughters to shoot, a restraining order is only a piece of paper.

            Some of my daughters shoot some refuse to.

        2. ps0rjl January 7, 2015

          If you are referring to the police, then yes I will hide behind them. If you are referring to one of your gun carrying kind, then no thanks. I’ll take my chances without your help.

          1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            Funny that so many of you are protesting the police one minute then want them and criminals to be the only one’s with guns. A Brilliant example of hypocrisy and empty headedness.

          2. neeceoooo January 7, 2015

            Try to stay on topic, please

          3. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            And what is the topic? Do you even know?

          4. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            Sounds good to me. I doubt if you could survive a paper cut.

          5. ps0rjl January 7, 2015

            Hicusdicus, I survived being a Vietnam veteran and a marine. I also have a black belt in Lung Fu Do karate. I’m sure I can survive a paper cut and I don’t need protection from tough guys like you.

          6. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            Wow! good for you. Lung Fo Do, I am trying not to giggle. I am a very old person who is armed and scares easily. You figure out what would happen.

          7. idamag January 7, 2015

            You might need protection from “tough” guys like him.

      2. ps0rjl January 7, 2015

        LaPierre doesn’t need protection from me or people like me. If he is such a brave defender of the 2nd Amendment and this country, why didn’t he ever feel the need to serve in the military. He’s just a whore for the gun manufacturers and can stir up his sheeple for them. Basically he’s just in it for the money.

        1. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

          Your not into anything for the money? Typical hypocrite.

          1. ps0rjl January 7, 2015

            You still didn’t answer question. If LaPierre wants to be such a defender of our Constitution, why did he never join the military? I guess he isn’t that much of a defender.

          2. Dave January 7, 2015

            You don’t have join the military in order to be a defender of the Constitution. If your way of thinking was true, then my Grandfather should have just stayed home and not went to work everyday at Pittsburgh steel mill during WW2 making steel for the war.

      3. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

        You don’t need to take guns away from liberals, they don’t approve of them. In the criminal world liberals are referred to as moving targets.

        1. whodatbob January 7, 2015

          BS! I am a liberal gun owner as are most of my shooting buddies. Its the ultraconservative wingnut fanatics that give gun owners a bad name.

          The ultra liberal nut cases scream and holler about guns but do not get much if any traction.

    2. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

      The 5 or so million members of the NRA are a small percentage of the 80 gun owners in the US. They do not speak for all gun owners and I don’t always agree with them anyway. Not a member, by the way.

      1. whodatbob January 7, 2015

        I am a liberal gun owner as are most of my shooting buddies.
        Its the ultraconservative wingnut fanatics that give gun owners a bad name.

        The ultra liberal nut cases scream and holler about guns but do not get much if any traction.

        1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

          You have a solid point, the radicals make the news while the 99.9% of law abiding gun owners do not. In all honesty, the gun grabbers have plenty of radicals on their side too, which of course the liberal media will promote. It works both ways.

          1. whodatbob January 7, 2015

            Agree!

    3. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

      How about our dear leader who never served in anything except the entitlement programs and had a drunken Kenyan daddy who he saw only once in his life. what a bunch of losers.

  6. latebloomingrandma January 7, 2015

    Now let me think like an NRA cult member: guns don’t kill people, people kill people—, so someone should have gone after the kid?. Where was the good person with a gun to take care of the bad person with the gun, the child?
    Sorry for the snark, as I really feel for this child. Even at age 2, he may remember something of what went on ,and it will be the stuff of nightmares.
    The issue of guns is like abortion–people see it as black or white , all or none. Liberals do not want to take peoples’ guns away or disarm the whole country. There is always a middle ground somewhere if one thinks, reasons and uses common sense. The poster who said that when nothing changed after 26 children were slaughtered in their classrooms, nothing further can top that to bring change. How sad for our country.
    Personally, the day I have to take a gun to go grocery shopping is the day I’ll admit that i no longer live in a free country.

    Reply
    1. ps0rjl January 7, 2015

      You are right. Since when is enhanced background checks at gun shows such an evil thing. And it is not the slippery slope of confiscating everyone’s guns. How about a little sanity and compromise?

      1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

        Background checks are done at gun shows in Pa and Ohio. Not sure where you live, but you may want to check your State laws. The so called “gun show loophole” has been fixed in most States that I’m aware of, through State law. I’m amused that the Left Wing rags still use this crap as a talking point, when it’s simply not true. I’m guessing that you probably don’t go to gun show’s and see for yourself, do you?

        1. latebloomingrandma January 7, 2015

          Can you explain how that background check works? What are they checking, where do they get the info, and how long does it take?

          1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            Sure. When one goes to buy a gun, sellers have a phone number that they call and input the buyers info, usually by swiping the drivers license. The FBI database checks the info to ensure that the buyer is not excluded from possessing guns. A convicted felon, for example, is excluded from legally possessing a gun (although I have an issue with this, as a tax evader should not have a lifetime ban). Currently, States are reporting mental illness issues as well, which I’m not so sure (my agreement in total) of either.

          2. latebloomingrandma January 7, 2015

            What about across state lines? Are the computerized records compatible with each other? Can they “talk” to each other?

          3. whodatbob January 7, 2015

            Does not matter where you buy a gun. The FBI file has all your info and either authorizes or rejects your request. FBI has record of any mental health issues or felony convictions you have in all States.

          4. idamag January 8, 2015

            48 Hours did a study and went to gun shows to see how many guns they could buy without background checks. It was easy. Licensed dealers must do background checks. A private individual who wants to sell his own gun or guns does not. Some private individuals had a table full of guns to sell.

      2. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

        Gun shows are mostly dealers who require a background check. Have you ever been to a gun show?

      3. 2ThinkN_Do2 January 8, 2015

        What is an enhanced background check? Do they provide a meal and entertainment, or do you want to see a psychological exam given by a licensed medical practitioner?

    2. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

      Howdy! I’ll continue to ask the same question until I can get an answer. Since you apply common sense to your thinking, you might be able to help me!
      When it comes to “common sense gun reform” (whatever that may mean), how are those who want these reforms going to get the criminals to follow the law?

      1. stcroixcarp January 7, 2015

        So tell me how gun toting cultists are going to make criminals obey the law?

        1. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

          Criminals try to avoid people who are armed. But not to worry they won’t avoid you.

        2. Independent1 January 7, 2015

          Isn’t it amazing how the NRA has brainwashed people like hicusicus into believing that the gun he’s carrying will actually protect him should he be encountered by a criminal with a gun – when study after study has proven that the gun he’s carrying may well be the reason he ends up dead in that encounter.

        3. whodatbob January 7, 2015

          Good dodge! Try answering the question.

        4. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

          Nobody can make criminals obey the law, that’s why they are called criminals. The difference between the legally armed citizen and the unarmed citizen is that the latter will be a victim of crime and the other will either kill a criminal or makes sure he/she goes to jail. Guess which one you are?

          1. stcroixcarp January 7, 2015

            Some gun nut,hididcus or something, threatened me with some unnamed violence, and now you threaten me with criminal assault. Frankly I will take my chances with the armed criminal over you guys who are trying to protect something or other. Just don’t shot your own penis off in your efforts.

      2. neeceoooo January 7, 2015

        For one thing, if the assault rifles were taken out of the market all together, that might help. Criminals should not be able to get them.

        1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

          I’m glad you replied and will do the same respectfully. First, the term assault rifle has changed so often it’s hard to keep track of what one really is. I’m a vet, my job was to teach weapons safety and marksmanship to members of the USAF. From 1984 to 1995, this was my profession, so I do have quite a lot of knowledge on the subject. Assault rifles, back then, were military weapons that could fire both automatically and semi-automatically (if you do not understand what that means, please tell me, I will be happy to explain).

          Today, if any rifle looks like a military weapon it is termed an assault rifle. However, what we civilians buy cannot shoot automatically. It takes a very special license from the Feds to own an automatic weapon and not many folks own them, Those that do have strict regulations for storage and safety they must follow. They are law abiding citizens and pose no threat to society (their background check is very rigorous).

          Now, I will use an example of today’s assault rifle as an example to explain something very important on the subject. The AR-15 is a .223 caliber rifle that is magazine fed. These magazines vary in size and how much ammo they hold. The smallest I have seen is a ten rounder, the largest is a hundred rounder. It sounds scary and they look scary (I guess). Now, I have a rifle, wooden stock, semi automatic (just like AR-15) magazine fed with a scope for hunting coyote. It doesn’t look scary at all and most people simply see it as a hunting rifle. The fact is, both rifles do the exact same thing. They shoot one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, both use the same magazine and both shoot the same bullets. One is not considered an assault rifle by today’s standards because it isn’t scary looking.

          Assault rifle’s (by today’s definition) are responsible for .02% of violent crimes. Two hundredths of a percent. I’m sure you didn’t know this as most Left Wing media won’t ever tell this little known fact, because it would destroy the fear factor of the scary assault rifle’s. Criminals prefer handguns because it’s hard to conceal a rifle and rifles are much more expensive (even in the black market). The myth of the “assault rifle” is just that, a myth.

          If you have any questions, feel free to ask, I enjoy helping people learn about firearms.

          1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            I know what the AR in AR-15 means, I would bet not more than one or two people on this site know, without having to look it up.

          2. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            If they looked it up they still would not have a clue.

          3. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            Why bother their minds are made up in spite of the facts.

          4. Independent1 January 7, 2015

            Is that wooden stock rifle really the same as an AR-15? Can you hold that wooden stock rifle on your hip and shoot it with one hand while you’re doing something else with the other? Which I think you can do with the AR-15 because as I understood, the AR-15 stock had an anti-recoil feature which is what makes it so popular for use by younger people.

            This is part of the concern for this gun. It’s got nothing to do wit the fact that assault weapons only supposedly are used .02% of the time in murders.
            That statistic didn’t help any of the 26 people Adam Lanza killed with an AR-15 in only about 3 mins time.

            And that’s part of why people like myself are trying to get them off the street. Adam Lanza
            weighed about 120 lbs; he was smaller than my 12 year-old grandson. And it’s not likely that he would have been able to inflict the kind of killing that he did with any other gun available to him other than the AR-15, simply because any other gun would have been much more cumbersome for him to use. That may not have saved all 26 lives, but it may have saved 1/2 of them if his mom had not given him such a light-weight, easy to shoot gun like the AR-15 which is designed for only one
            real purpose TO KILL AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE IN AS SHORT A PERIOD OF TIME AS POSSIBLE.

          5. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            You know absolutely nothing at all about guns or how to shoot them. Your moronic comments just continue to make you look just that much dumber. I respect your right to free speech and you are free to continue with your idiotic banter. Here are the facts. The PEOPLE of the USA have the inalienable right to bare arms, period. It is one of the RIGHTS that the Federal government is charged with protecting. It is also in the Constitutions of many States, which reaffirms the claim that it is the peoples right and has nothing to do with being in a militia. Feel free to continue to make yourself the laughingstock of all gun rights advocates through out this country. You just never know who is seeing all your psychobabble.

          6. Independent1 January 7, 2015

            You are calling Justice Stevens a liar!! Wow!! talk about being a Baffoon!!

            The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment

            By John Paul Stevens April 11, 2014

            John Paul Stevens served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010. This essay is excerpted from his new book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”

            Following the massacre of grammar-school children in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, high-powered weapons have been used to kill innocent victims in more senseless public incidents. Those killings, however, are only a fragment of the total harm caused by the misuse of firearms. Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Many of those deaths involve handguns.

            The adoption of rules that will lessen the number of those incidents should be a matter of primary concern to both federal and state legislators. Legislatures are in a far better position than judges to assess the wisdom of such rules and to evaluate the costs and benefits that rule changes can be expected to produce. It is those legislators, rather than federal judges, who should make the decisions that will determine what kinds of firearms should be available to private citizens, and when and how they may be used. Constitutional provisions that curtail the legislative power to govern in this area unquestionably do more harm than good.

            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, inUnited 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.”

          7. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            As is your MO, it is impossible to call someone a liar without knowing what they said beforehand, which is your idiotic claim. Now that I have read his words, I don’t consider him a liar. as he is entitled to his opinion, as you are. I disagree with his opinion. That doesn’t make him a liar.

          8. Independent1 January 7, 2015

            He’s not expressing an opinion – he’s stating facts!! For more than 200 years Americans including the courts interpreted the 2nd Amendment correctly!! That’s a fact!!! Not an opinion!!! Suddenly because a right-wing biased group of judges 6 years ago paid off by the NRA bastardize the meaning – doesn’t make it so!!!!!!!

          9. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            Right Now, this is the only fact that matters!

            Justice Scalia, in DC v Heller (2008), argued that the right to keep, and bear arms is indeed intended, at least in part, to protect from potential tyranny:

            “…when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny…We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.”
            Now, you can continue being a fudgemonkey or can just admit defeat. You can’t win.

          10. Independent1 January 7, 2015

            And you quote the most ignorant Justice on SCOTUS who doesn’t even have the intelligence to be there!!! Wow!!!!!!

        2. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

          All rifles are assault weapons. What do you think M brown would have done to the police officer if the cop had not been armed?

          1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            Technically, anything used to harm another person can be termed “assault (pick an item). If someone is attacked with a candlestick, then it’s an assault candlestick ( need to have some common sense reform on the candlesticks, they are too scary looking )

          2. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            If you misuse a candle you can get burned. There ought to be a law against them.

          3. TZToronto January 7, 2015

            In the parlor, the kitchen, or the conservatory?

          4. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            Most assuredly the parlor, LOL

        3. Dave January 7, 2015

          When Bill Clinton did it in 1994 it didn’t help. The problem is not the gun, it’s the individual.

      3. latebloomingrandma January 7, 2015

        I don’t think you stop crafting laws or regulations that are needed for safety reason because criminals will not follow them. Why would we have any laws at all if that was the reasoning?
        Gun violence is a public health problem. Maybe it could be approached in that way. I know nothing about the gun culture. How are the records kept between the manufacturer and the company selling them or the person selling them? Does everyone who buys a gun have a background check, without exception, take a class in gun safety, get a certificate, and pay for a license? If you have firearms in your home, does your homeowners’ insurance go up? If you have a mentally ill person in your household, what precautions must you take if you own firearms? Shouldn’t you be held liable if a mentally ill person commits gun violence because they had access to your weapon?

        1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

          How are the records kept between the manufacturer and the company selling them or the person selling them?

          Gun stores maintain records of gun sales for what ever time period the law requires ( I’m not sure because I don’t sell guns). Private sales are just that private, as it should be.

          Does everyone who buys a gun have a background check, without exception, take a class in gun safety, get a certificate, and pay for a license?

          First part of question, no. Private sales of guns are private and there is no law that requires any such requirement. In addition, in order to have ALL gun sales have a background check, including private sales, it would require all guns be registered. Any law that would require gun registration that would be passed would probably cause a second revolution and probably be unconstitutional. We can talk about that after I answer your questions if you would like.

          Most gun owners have learned about gun safety at a young age through family tradition. Gun ownership dies not require a class or license. In many States, to get a conceal carry license, a class is required. Some States are ‘open carry” States where any legal gun owner can carry a firearm openly, although this is usually done during rallies and protests. I have a conceal carry permit and rarely carry openly in populated areas. Most people don’t.

          There is usually a fee for a conceal carry permit, but there is no permit required to open carry where it is allowed by law.

          If you have firearms in your home, does your homeowners’ insurance go up? I do not believe that question is asked and I’m unsure of the exact answer. It is not the case with mine.

          If you have a mentally ill person in your household, what precautions must you take if you own firearms? I’m unsure of any laws that cover this as I would think it’s a State by State issue. I would recommend any number of precautions and would do them myself under those circumstances. Gun safes and gun locks can be used as an example.

          Shouldn’t you be held liable if a mentally ill person commits gun violence because they had access to your weapon?

          In my opinion, depending on the circumstances (like not using safety devices like those I mentioned) then yes. Irresponsibility has a price and being a gun owner has a high level of responsibility included . Failure for any person to keep guns out of the hands of children and the mentally should not be tolerated and should be punishable by law.

          Thank you for asking those excellent questions. There is no subject of debate that should be held without the adequate knowledge to engage in an informed debate.

          1. latebloomingrandma January 7, 2015

            Thank you. Why should guns not be registered? Unless you are up to no good, why would this bother anyone? AS for the unconstitutionality, wouldn’t this be part of the “well regulated” militia, even though gun owners aren’t usually part of a militia. Well regulated must mean SOMEthing.

          2. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            A militia is simply the people.. When needed, they can be called to defend the country, so the thinking was back then. It also says “the peoples right to bare arms shall not be infringed”. They had just finished fighting an oppressive government and it was the people who were armed that made it happen. The British wanted to take the guns from the colonists’ , so started the Revolution.
            Gun registration is the beginning. It will always lead to gun confiscation, which will lead to death. The Holocaust is a recent example.

          3. idamag January 7, 2015

            I register my car and it doesn’t hamper my driving at all. If my car gets stolen and ends up six states away, they know where it was stolen from and who. It is a tool for the police.

        2. Independent1 January 7, 2015

          Grandma, there’s virtually no control over any of the questions you just asked. Although there are some degree of background checks, they vary by state and whomever is selling the gun. The only ones supposedly required to make background checks are federally registered dealers. But that’s not even fully enforced and you or I could bring our stash of guns to a gun show in many states and not be required to not only do a background check, but not necessarily even record who we sold the guns to.

          If you remember recently, authorities were never able to identify where the fellow who killed the two police officers in NYC got the gun he used. It was originally sold by a registered dealer so they tracked to to the person who 1st bought it, but he couldn’t remember how he got rid of it, so there was no way to figure out how the shooter got it.

          And that’s even true I believe with the guns that the Boston Bombers had – I don’t believe the authorities had figured out where they came from – and in an article recently, Boston determined that more than 65% of the guns used in criminal acts within the city, had been purchased outside of Massachusetts. Which means that although a city may have tough gun laws within its city limits, that doesn’t prevent hoods within the city taking a quick ride out of state to pick up a gun where there are very few restrictions (like in Maine or New Hampshire). And for hoods in Chicago, just a 15 minute drive into Indiana which is very lax will also get numerous hoods guns even though Chicago (which often maligned for its high crime rate) has strict gun control laws within the city.

    3. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

      The day you can not carry a means of self defense is the day you no longer live in a free country.

      1. Frank KIng January 7, 2015

        You need help–your paranoia has warped your mind.

        1. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

          I have been the victim of a home invasion. I got DOA from it. I have been attacked by Afro Americans because I am white. I have been the subject of a pack of wild dogs. Do you ever leave your house?

          1. latebloomingrandma January 8, 2015

            You got Dead On Arrival after a home invasion? Well, that explains a lot.

          2. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            It explains that I know a whole lot more about the subject than you do. By the way there was no light at the end of the tunnel. It was the powder flash coming out of a pair of barrels held by two recently paroled felons. Very likely paroled by liberals.

      2. TZToronto January 7, 2015

        Who’s coming after you? If there are people trying to kill you, go to the police.

        1. Dave January 7, 2015

          When seconds count the police are minutes away.

          1. TZToronto January 7, 2015

            Well, I can’t disagree with that. However, my point refers to the state of mind of those who think the world is out to get them. Going to the police to report a serious threat is not something that requires an instant response. Minutes should be sufficient.

          2. Dave January 7, 2015

            I wish that all of the criminals would just tell all of us good people, when they are going to do harm to us, so we can all just run a hide.

          3. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            You are making a joke, Right?

          4. TZToronto January 8, 2015

            I’m talking about paranoia. People who are paranoid tend to believe that someone (everyone?) is out to get them. If they have an idea of a particular individual who is threatening them, then they should report that to the police. However, as you obliquely suggest, such reports would probably not be taken seriously by police. On the other hand, we’ve seen instances in which paranoid people have taken the lives of others simply because they feel (unreasonably and stupidly) threatened. For example, the man who shot a child who knocked on his door on Halloween could not have been “normal.” First, why would you shoot someone who knocks on your door; and why would you shoot someone who knocks on your door on Halloween? People must take some level of responsibility for their actions. Do you want people like this to have guns?

          5. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            I guess I am a paranoid driver. I precise that every car in my vision is being driven by a liberal and they think they own the road.

        2. plc97477 January 7, 2015

          Some people are just very paranoid. It is a horrible mental illness.

          1. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            Liberalism is a mental illness.

        3. kenndeb January 7, 2015

          Again, try living in this country before you start giving advice.

          1. TZToronto January 8, 2015

            I used to, but I got fed up with the gun culture and the business of health care. So I left.

          2. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            Thank god for small favors.

        4. hicusdicus January 9, 2015

          I take it you have not had much dealing with the police. I am sorry I forgot you are Canadian which mean a wantabe American.

          1. TZToronto January 13, 2015

            I’m already an American. I can’t be a wannabe.

          2. hicusdicus January 13, 2015

            Yeah! sure you are.

      3. Independent1 January 7, 2015

        I’ll bring the bring the flowers the first time you try using that worthless gun of yours for self protection and you end up in a wooden box.

        1. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

          I have already used it. What are you talking about? Why is it worthless? It works quite well. What are bring flowers? is that a new flower? I have never heard of it. I will be placed in a cardboard box I am to cheap for wood.

          1. kenndeb January 7, 2015

            Independent is the copy and paste King. He spews worthless propaganda from his masters in the communist party. He has no soul or brain.

          2. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            The only master Independent has is the one he bates with. In between bates he probably steals seats off of girls bicycles.

    4. whodatbob January 7, 2015

      Good post. The day I have to take a gun to the store is the day I will admit America is no longer a free country. Also, the day I the government will not allow me to carry a gun to the store I will admit America is no longer a free country.

      Such a tragedy! We do not know the long term effects this will have on the child. A mother, wife, daughter and brilliant mind was lost because of a careless laps.

    5. 2ThinkN_Do2 January 8, 2015

      No one demands you take a gun anywhere, but that is not what this is about. It’s about a child who was able to gain access to a firearm due to the mother Not having possession as she should have. That’s the whole issue here. It has been blown out of proportion like all gun discussions. In mom had possession, no issue, end of story. Poor choice unfortunately and there are 10’s of thousands of people a day who make poor choices and end up injured or dead. There are way more of them due to tools or actions that Do Not involve firearms.

  7. neeceoooo January 7, 2015

    Did anyone watch the program “Gunned Down” that was presented by Frontline this week, I just don’t understand this mindset that we have in this country where guns are concerned, so many gun fanatics who are only concerned about their “right”. I just shake my head and wonder how far are they going to take this.

    Reply
    1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

      Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws in the US, how is that working out? I’m still waiting for someone to tell me how those who want all these “reforms” are going to get the criminals to follow the law?

      1. TZToronto January 7, 2015

        Criminals will not follow the law. That’s why they’re criminals. It would take some time to eliminate guns in the hands of criminals, but assuming it can’t be done will never get the process started. First, I have to ask if you think criminals should not have guns. If you think they should not have guns (and you imply that criminal ownership of guns is a threat), how would you go about taking them out of the hands of criminals? You’re the expert, as you’ve implied, so you should have some good ideas. How about making it as difficult as possible for criminals to get guns in the first place? Oh, I think we all know that criminals don’t get their guns legally. They steal them (poor storage), or they buy (or rent) or steal them from other criminals. So how about confiscating any guns for which the owner does not possess a registration certificate? You have a gun and can’t prove that it’s been registered, bye-bye gun. (Yes, I know that requires registration, but registration should not be an onerous task and should not be denied arbitrarily. If you’ve registered it, you can keep it.) Nobody’s going to come into your house to search for guns. It will take some time for the illegal guns to disappear, but they will disappear gradually. Yes, I know you’ll reject these suggestions because they smack of gun regulation, but the criminals won’t lose their guns unless something is done to keep them from getting them. (Oh, and gun suicides outnumber gun homicides in the U.S. Don’t try to tell me that criminals forced these unfortunate people to kill themselves.)

        1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

          Your questions are respectable and I’ll answer to the best of my ability. Let me first address gun registration. Those of us who are responsible gun owners and will not be denied our rights are totally against gun registration, period. Now, I know you want to know why, so I will answer. Historically, in the 20th Century alone, 50+ million people were basically murdered by their own governments after guns were outlawed. The process of outlawing guns starts with registration. This was the exact method Hitler used against the Jews, and we all how that turned out. For the record, every country that outlawed guns resulted in citizen oppression and deaths. I can provide the statistics if you would like to see them.

          Let me also say, and respectfully, that if one considers wars, which are started by governments and add the oppression and murders of it’s own citizens, who were denied the right to defend themselves, the number one killer of human beings in the 20th Century is the result of government actions. No disease can compare to these numbers. All the accidents, suicides and murders committed by criminals pale in comparison to the death caused by governments. This is indisputable and easily researched.

          Sorry about the short rant, but it is valuable knowledge. As to criminals and how to stop them, I can only use my current area where my home is. We have a high percentage of population that are armed and we have very little to no violent crime. When reading police reports in the local newspapers, it’s shoplifting, passing bad checks, typical family fights, a few bar fights and dui’s. We do not have the violence like that in the inner cities. There is a correlation between high gun ownership and low crime.

          As a people, Americans will never stop all crime or suicides, no country ever has. Human’s are by nature, self destructive, which is really sad to think about, but easy to see. I know several people who have ended their own lives, none with a gun. All with a rope. I think that is enough on the subject of suicide.

          A responsible person understands the dangers around him and prepares to deal with it. When seconds count, the cops are minutes away. It’s quite rare to have the time to deal with a threat by going to the police. 99.99% of all threats are right now, not a few hours from now, if you get my drift. The police are not out there to protect us, and they have used that as an argument in the Supreme Court and won. So if it’s not the cop’s job to protect you and your family (which they are basically incapable of doing), who’s responsibility is it?

          1. TZToronto January 8, 2015

            Thank you for your response. You seem like a rational person, not a “gun nut.”
            Just a bit of information, though. There are more suicides by guns in the U.S. than there are murders by guns.
            One thing that sets humans apart from other animals is their ability to to refrain from acting on their impulses. So, “Human’s are by nature, self destructive” may be true, but most of us don’t act on our self-destructive impulses–nor do most of us (including those for whom gun ownership is considered a basic, God-given right) act on our hateful impulses to kill our fellows.
            As I noted, however, if we can agree that criminals should not have access to guns, how do we keep them from getting and using them? Saying that gun ownership prevents criminal activity does not solve the problem or keeping guns away from criminals.
            As for gun registration, until recently Canada had a long-gun registry. It was supposed to pay for itself through registration fees but ended up costing $1 billion+ more than fees could cover. So it was impractical in that sense and was cancelled (mainly for partisan reasons). However, I heard of no one who registered a long gun who had that gun confiscated or was forced to give it up simply because they owned it. Police were glad to have the registry (and used it consistently) because they were able to determine quickly whether an address to which they were called had a long gun–and what to expect once they arrived there.
            I suppose that the fear among gun owners that registration could lead to confiscation of their guns must be based on an anti-liberal bias. After all, why would a conservative government want to confiscate people’s guns? Well, Hitler was not exactly a liberal. Which liberal governments can you point to that have gone out and confiscated guns? American Democrats/liberals have had plenty of opportunities (FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Obama), and they haven’t made any moves in that direction. It would appear that American gun owners have more to fear from fascists than from liberals.

          2. Gary Miles January 8, 2015

            Thanks. Before I get on with some answers, let me explain a few things. I’ve always been a 2nd Amendment supporter, but I haven’t always been involved with politics. 10 years ago I couldn’t tell one thing about what the Left Wing was versus the Right Wing. In the short time I have been able to learn about each side, I can’t say I like either side because they both seem to be more anti-freedom than trying to preserve it and protect the people’s rights, all of us. With that said, let me try and answer your questions as best I can:

            How do we keep criminals from getting gun’s? We can’t, despite all the laws. We can’t keep drug addicts from getting drugs either, despite all the laws. IMHO, laws really only apply to law abiding citizens, because criminals don’t seem to follow them , no matter how many are passed. We have ample laws to deal with crime, longer sentences for those who use guns, yet the problem still exists.

            Some logic would say that only cops should have guns. I think we have both seen probably hundreds of videos of police abusing their power and/or killing people wrongfully. That leads me to say, no thank you. The police have already proven before the Supreme Court that it is NOT their job to protect the people. I can search this if you would like.

            Suicides: Have you ever read the report that women are far less likely to use a gun than men? I have also read where places where recent gun bans have occurred (like Australia) di nothing to curtail the suicide rates. People who have made that decision will find a way. My Grandfather used a car in a closed garage, car running. This also takes me to my mindset, that it’s really none of my business if people want to commit suicide. I will try and talk them out of it if I am aware, but, I just don’t feel it is my business. So as far as the gun debate and suicide, the two do not have anything to do with one another (despite guns being used in many cases)

            Registration: It has nothing to do with either Wing of the political spectrum as far as I’m concerned. It is about history. Here is a chart, which is not a complete list. It will show how gun control predated genocide in many countries: http://www.mercyseat.net/gun_genocide.html

            Gun control is mostly impossible without first getting registration. Hitler did it, as an example. What side of the political spectrum people claim Hitler was on as of no matter to me, he was a nutcase murderer. We can chat about that at another time if you would like.

            If I didn’t answer all you questions, or maybe not efficiently enough, let me know, I can add more. But, to repeat, my stance on gun control is not based on politics, it’s based on history and my own family traditions (I’m an avid hunter as well).

          3. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            Liberals are fascists. They just spell it different.

    2. Frank KIng January 7, 2015

      The convoluted second amendment is a dichotomy. It can be read with differing views as to its meaning. Apparently it was written and passed for the purpose of maintaining a militia to protect against foreign invasion and native Americans whose land was taken from them and for hunting game. Another is the view that maintaining weapons of any type and for any purpose is the intent of the amendment and cannot be breached. Common sense would dictate that the original intent has been breached because we maintain a level of defense unmatched anywhere in the world, Native Americans at peace. Hunting has become a sport. Common sense would further dictate that the number of massacres and murders within the US was not the intent of the founding fathers and would abhor what is happening as a result of the NRA, gun manufacturers, and the gun lobby controlling the congress.

      1. neeceoooo January 7, 2015

        I would have to agree

      2. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

        The second amendment is very clear. If you don’t like guns don’t have one that’s your choice. How many times do you have to be told guns, cars and baseball bats don’t kill people.

        1. Frank KIng January 7, 2015

          If you don’t have a car–How do you get to work. or any other venture A baseball bat and a car have a purpose that provide value to users– a gun is a weapon with only one purpose. If the 2nd amendment is clear then you must be in a fog.

          1. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            A gun has one purpose, to stop someone from hurting you. When you need one no other tool will work. I am not in a fog you do not understand because you don’t want to. Do what you want but don’t tell me what to do.

          2. TZToronto January 7, 2015

            For some people the purpose of a gun is to kill other people. Such people should not have guns. Oh, if they really want to, they’ll find another way to kill the people they want to kill, but why should it be so easy?

          3. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            Killing other people is the whole point of having a gun. If someone tries to hurt me I will and have done anything to stop them . The quicker the better. I will not survive being hurt I am to old and infirm.

          4. TZToronto January 8, 2015

            And I suppose you’re constantly being attacked by people wanting to kill you . . . Or maybe you just assume that others are trying to kill you.

          5. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            I also keep a fire extinguisher in my house. I am very paranoid of fire. I also installed a remote control electric driveway gate. I am extremely paranoid of Jehovah’s witnesses.

          6. kenndeb January 7, 2015

            I can walk around my backyard and find enough poisonous plants or fungi that would take out an entire neighborhood. I can improvise devices that would take out a city block. I can find something within my reach almost anywhere that can be used to kill. It does not take a gun to kill, only a person.

          7. TZToronto January 8, 2015

            Might I suggest that you wear shoes the next time you walk in your backyard. Just tryin’ to be helpful.

          8. 14hei January 7, 2015

            hicusdicus are you willing to be responsible for your weapon no matter what harm it may bring to others or you?

          9. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            It depends who the others are.. I am more leery of my table saw than my gun.

      3. Independent1 January 7, 2015

        The interpretation of the 2nd Amendment from the time it was initially adopted until the current ultra partisan Supreme Court bastardized its meaning, was that the Amendment ONLY APPLIED to people actually involved in militia type activties. And considering that NO ONE today fits that definition – the 2nd Amendment does not apply to ANY AMERICANS TODAY!!

        As interpreted for more than 200 years of our history, the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT endow on THE AVERAGE American citizen – ANY ‘RIGHT’ WHATSOEVER!!!!!!

        THERE ARE NO BONA FIDE MILITIAS IN AMERICA TODAY!!

        1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

          BULLSHIT

          1. Independent1 January 7, 2015

            Really? So you’re calling ex Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens a liar??

            And if the 2nd Amendment actually gave you or anyone else, THE RIGHT to carry a gun, how come back in the 1800s a sheriff could force you to check your gun whenever you entered a town or city??

            See this:

            Guns were obviously widespread on the frontier. Out in the untamed wilderness, you needed a gun to be safe from bandits, natives, and wildlife. In the cities and towns of the West, however, the law often prohibited people from toting their guns around. A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, “Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check.”

            A check? That’s right. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you’d check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not.

            In my new book, Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America, there’s a photograph taken in Dodge City in 1879. Everything looks exactly as you’d imagine: wide, dusty road; clapboard and brick buildings; horse ties in front of the saloon. Yet right in the middle of the street is something you’d never expect. There’s ahuge wooden billboard announcing, “The Carrying of Firearms Strictly Prohibited.”

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/did-the-wild-west-have-mo_b_956035.html

          2. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            You have managed to prove yourself to be a complete and moronic buffoon who has zero knowledge of guns, history or the law. Hollywood is a joke, you really shouldn’t get your historical education from them, but since you brought up the old wild West, you might want to understand that all that hogwash happened in places that weren’t even States yet. Your complete incompetence also appears in the fact that after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment became law which means the Bill of Rights now applies to ALL STATES and TERRITORIES. Why don’t you go get a f-ing education!

          3. Independent1 January 7, 2015

            Talk about making a complete A-Hole of one’s self!!!

          4. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            Not only are an economic illiterate, your also a firearms fudgemonkey who really should not get anywhere near a gun. You are the perfect example of the idiots that every drill instructor in every service warned about that would get people killed.

          5. kenndeb January 7, 2015

            Where do you get all this propaganda? The copy and paste King strikes again.

          6. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            I assume you are saying that the territories had more gun control than we have today. I guess Chicago has more gun control than Dodge city in 1873. That certainly has worked out well. Jesus said turn the other cheek I guess he said this so one would have a matching pair of rosy cheeks. Us hillbillies don’t pay much mind to what people in California have to say.

          7. idamag January 7, 2015

            “Well regulated militia.” Is that so hard to understand. And gun nuts with their jaws thrust forward and a chip on their shoulders are going to protect the rest of us?

        2. latebloomingrandma January 7, 2015

          Unless you think of the states’ National
          Guards as a militia. Unfortunately, when I hear “militia”, I’m thinking of paranoid survivalists and neo Nazi groups stockpiling weapons and waiting to instigate anarchy. Not what the FF had in mind.

          1. Independent1 January 7, 2015

            Thanks!! I corrected my statement. I was thinking of militias not controlled by the federal government. See this below (note that National Guard members are actually – members of the militia of the United States…) :

            The National Guard of the United States, part of the reserve components of the United States Armed Forces, is a reserve military force, composed of National Guard military members or units of each state and the territories of Guam, of the Virgin Islands, and of Puerto Rico, as well as of the District of Columbia, for a total of 54 separate organizations. All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 311. National Guard units are under the dual control of the state and the federal government.

          2. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            The PEOPLES RIGHT to BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Why is that so difficult to understand. It’s in simple English. If they meant the militia or army, they would have said the The Militia’s (or Army’s) right to bare arms shall not be infringed. didn’t. It clearly says the people!

          3. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            The National guard is an army, not a militia, although they could be considered both. The problem with people like Independent1 is they can’t grasp the English language.. If the FF didn’t want the people to have the right to bare arms, then they would have written it to read “the Militia’s right to bare arms…..” But they didn’t, they specifically said the people. While all those criminal Indians may have been the reason for a self defense claim, we have our own group of violent criminals that fall in the same category. (I really think the folks back then screwed the Indians, but that’s another subject). When guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns. Many of them will also have badges.

        3. 2ThinkN_Do2 January 8, 2015

          No, the first paragraph you wrote is not true. Neither is the 2nd one.

      4. idamag January 7, 2015

        Yes!

    3. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

      I am not a gun fanatic, I am a survival fanatic. If you think its safe out there in the streets that’s fine with me. I have been attacked and I carry. So you can skip along merrily with your head in a place where the sun does not shine but don’t tell me what to do.

    4. joe schmo January 7, 2015

      Many many people are responsible gun owners. You are an idiot if you don’t know that. Your only seeing your medias side of the story and that, in my opinion, is only one sided.

  8. 2ThinkN_Do2 January 7, 2015

    It is very sad that this tragic event took place, but the Gun is not the issue regardless of what anyone wants to attempt to justify. The simple fact is, the gun was not in the control of the person responsible for it. Sad, but true. If it were, I wouldn’t be writing this.

    Reply
    1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

      Absolutely true! I have never felt that women who carry in their purse versus on their person as being a very good idea. I have said so to many women who conceal carry.

    2. angryspittle January 7, 2015

      The fucking gun is the goddamn issue. If she hadn’t had it she would be alive.

      1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

        She is dead because of her own irresponsibility.

        1. angryspittle January 7, 2015

          Yep, and her irresponsibility was having the fucking thing in her purse to begin with.

          1. joe schmo January 7, 2015

            Gee, and women have nothing to fear nowadays do they?

          2. angryspittle January 7, 2015

            Only from the right wing nut jobs in Idaho.

          3. idamag January 8, 2015

            The gun nut woman’s child could have turned the gun another direction and killed an innocent person.

          4. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            Or with a little luck a liberal.

          5. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            What this thing you have about nut jobs? There are other forms of sexual pleasure. Fucking guns is not one of them.

          6. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            Yes you are correct in the purse statement it should have been on her person. You may need to see a sex therapist and try to get over this thing you have about fucking guns.

      2. kenndeb January 7, 2015

        Take away the guns and the only ones with them will be the criminals.

        1. angryspittle January 7, 2015

          Jesus, that is so warn out. Got anything new?

          1. joe schmo January 7, 2015

            In a word, France….

          2. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            How about the politicians, Whats old and worn out are your statistics and opinions.

      3. idamag January 7, 2015

        No, if she wasn’t a gun nut she wouldn’t have had a purse with a loaded gun (safety off) in front of her baby. I live in Idaho and it is not a state where you have to be armed and dangerous all the time.

        1. 2ThinkN_Do2 January 9, 2015

          Being armed is not dangerous if you are practicing the safety rules of firearm ownership & responsibility properly. Being a nut (as you put it) has nothing to do with guns. It has to do with being responsible, responsibility is a necessity of life, don’t practice it and well, you see what can happen . . . .

          1. idamag January 9, 2015

            I live 26 miles from where she lived. She lived in a small community of 10,000 people. The only violent crime, we see, is usually a jealous spouse or boyfriend (girlfriend). We see a lot of accidental deaths from guns. People around here sometimes don’t even lock their doors or their cars. So, ask yourself, why would anyone carry a loaded gun around? I don’t call everyone who owns a gun a gun nut. It has become a rabid obsession with some people and they are gun nuts.

      4. joe schmo January 7, 2015

        She shouldn’t have been so irresponsible and she should have had the safety on. NO the gun is not the issue. It’s the user and misuser…..

      5. 2ThinkN_Do2 January 8, 2015

        Incorrect; if she had the gun in her possession as she should have, she would be alive. The gun was not in her possession, hence we have a tragedy. And the tragedy is compounded by all those who blame the tool for the death, when the person is the issue. I know, that is pretty deep stuff, probably requires a couple doctorate degrees to digest.

  9. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

    The French police have just learned a terrible lesson: http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/07/unarmed-paris-police-retreated-from-terrorist-gunmen-video/
    Police have an option to carry guns in France. I’m guessing that will change now.

    Reply
    1. angryspittle January 7, 2015

      So that French cop would still be alive? He could have been so precedent that he could have foreseen the coming attack? He wouldn’t have been ambushed out of the blue?

      1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

        He would have at least had the ability to defend himself, which may have saved his life. Gun issue is not the only lesson the French have learned, think about it.

        1. kenndeb January 7, 2015

          You’re asking the impossible. Liberals have no brain, so it is only possible for them to follow, not think.

        2. joe schmo January 7, 2015

          Watch out DeBlastOff is trying to make NY a safe haven….. But….our police won’t stand for it. They are trained to shoot if aimed at…..

          Yah, the police in Paris had NO guns. UK is the same. Kind of dumb if you ask me…. and the Liberals want us to relinquish our guns in this time of turmoil….NEVER!

  10. Vincent Vega January 7, 2015

    We should also keep in mind that Joe Biden’s childish advice on armed self-defense is not to be taken seriously.

    Reply
    1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

      Isn’t that the truth, Biden is a moron.

      1. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

        No, Biden is not a moron. Now you are insulting morons.

  11. angryspittle January 7, 2015

    There are way too many mentally questionable drooling mouth breathing ammosexual gun humpers out there that care only about one issue to be considered anything but flat out nuts. This stupid dolt would be still alive had she not been “packing”. It is really as simple as that. No matter how smart, bright, personable and kind she was.

    Reply
    1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

      It is none of your fucking business too!

      1. angryspittle January 7, 2015

        WTF does that mean?

        1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

          Just what it says. What other people do that have no affect on you and your rights are none of your business, just as they are none of my business.

          1. angryspittle January 7, 2015

            WTF double. What if I was the one that was shot by her stupidity? Would that still be none of my business?

          2. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            You were not in the store and it’s none of your business. Why is that hard to deal with. The problem I see with Liberal’s is they simply find it impossible to mind their own fucking business. As to your above question, that is also none of your business unless you have a direct interest in the matter.

          3. angryspittle January 7, 2015

            So what is the problem with conservatives who want to be in your fucking bedroom? Who want to dictate to women about birth control etc. etc. etc.?Is that conservatives minding their own fucking business?

          4. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            Ask them!

          5. neeceoooo January 7, 2015

            Thank you

          6. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            Did you lose the string again?

          7. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            I find anybody in my bedroom I don’t know, I will shoot to kill. I don’t care what their politics are.

          8. angryspittle January 7, 2015

            Well I guess that might depend upon who that person is you don’t know…… I don’t think I’d shoot a rather hot sexy blonde who was intent upon doing the nasty…… heh, heh……….

          9. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            If they are in my bedroom and I don’t know them, I don’t care if they are blonde on both ends they will become Swiss cheese with no mayonnaise included.

          10. angryspittle January 7, 2015

            Take a fucking breath man. Jesus.

          11. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            The same goes for Jesus. I don’t want no Jew sneaking around my bed with a bag of fish and stale bread. This is comedy central is it not?

          12. idamag January 7, 2015

            Less government unless it has to do with getting their noses in other people’s crotches.

          13. joe schmo January 7, 2015

            We are not set in stone and we tend to be more tolerant than you until now…. You really don’t know us at all…..

          14. angryspittle January 7, 2015

            Conservatives more tolerant than me? Jesus, that is the best fucking laugh I’ve had all day. Conservative is inherently intolerant, fearful of change.

          15. joe schmo January 7, 2015

            How are you tolerant moron? Who are the rioters, looters, terrorists, killers, mass murderers? Certainly not the Conservative…..

          16. highpckts January 8, 2015

            Really? Did you poll them and find out who was or wasn’t a Conservative? Really?

          17. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            I polled them all and it seems they are all related to you.

          18. highpckts January 9, 2015

            Right!! Not one conservative among them!

          19. hicusdicus January 9, 2015

            Yep your right. Every one mentally challenged. But only two needed to wear a helmet.

          20. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            Well you now have change, how do you like it.?

          21. highpckts January 8, 2015

            ROFL!!! Tolerant? Again ROFL!!

          22. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            What does ROFL mean. I got the Really , obnoxious , Fat . Does the L stand for lip?

          23. joe schmo January 7, 2015

            That is a point I have been trying to convey now for months. It just doesn’t seem to click in that dense head of theirs. It is none of their business and making it their business has FORCED us all to comply. When something is forced on a people you no longer begin to have freedom. The less freedom we have, the more suppressed we become. So ‘spit’ what does that elude to? This is exactly what ALL of us who are now bombarding you on this site with confrontation are trying to say. You preach tolerance. Why don’t you start by tolerating instead of FORCING. If the tables were turned you would be retaliating. Believe me….

          24. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            No!

          25. angryspittle January 7, 2015

            I guess that means that whatever a woman chooses to do with an unwanted pregnancy is none of anybody else’s business either then right?

          26. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            Right!!!!!

          27. idamag January 7, 2015

            At least the woman, who terminates and unwanted pregnancy,is not endangering the public.

          28. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            One less mugger.

          29. neeceoooo January 7, 2015

            You need to read what you just said and do it!!

          30. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

            I’m not the one trying to deny people their inalienable rights. My right to self defense, as I see fit does not infringe on your rights whatsoever.

          31. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

            You need to put on antlers and run across my pasture.

          32. idamag January 7, 2015

            Government was one of my favorite subjects and I read a lot of books that I didn’t have to. Now, we are bombarded with a lot ;of phony quotes.

    2. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

      Yes and everybody in the twin towers would still be alive if they had all called in sick and stayed home.. It is really as simple as that. Lets get rid of cars and save 40 plus thousand people a year. I bet even you can figure out what to get rid of if we want to stop riots and looting in the US.

      1. angryspittle January 7, 2015

        Wow, great intellectual retort. Idiot.

        1. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

          Why thank you I really did not think you would understand it. Is a retort what happens if you tort again?

          1. joe schmo January 7, 2015

            Great retort;) LOL

      2. TZToronto January 8, 2015

        Actually it’s only 33,800, but I’m sure you’ll go with your own number.

        1. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

          You never answered what we would need to get rid of to stop rioting and looting. How do you know it is 33800? What difference does it make they are still dead.

          1. TZToronto January 12, 2015

            Enable people to reach their potential. Don’t force them to make do with sub-standard education, and stop thinking that skin color has anything to do with potential.

          2. hicusdicus January 13, 2015

            Don’t blame me that your a non Caucasian. That is something you need to take up with your parents.

  12. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

    Samual Adams

    “and that the said Constitution be never construed to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…”

    James Madison, who drafted the Second Amendment. In Federalist 46, Madison explains the necessity of an armed citizenry:

    “That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm…Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”

    Reply
    1. Gary Miles January 7, 2015

      Sorry gun grabbers, the debate is over and you lose!

      1. Michael Ross January 8, 2015

        Debate isn’t over, whore.

        Gary Miles: “I’m invincible! The black knights always triumph!”

        1. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

          That sure sounds racist to me. Were you at Ferguson?

          1. Michael Ross January 11, 2015

            No, that’s what you desperately want it to sound like, whore.

            And the reason you desperately want it to sound like that is because you’ve once again proven too stupid to come up with an actual coherent argument and too impulsive to let that stop you from pretending otherwise.

            Hence the Monty Python reference. You NRA whores are like the Black Knight, armless and on one leg, unable to do anything but bleed on the American majority’s clothing while you scream your head off that you’re winning.

          2. idamag January 12, 2015

            Don’t forget the “theys” that are after them.

          3. hicusdicus January 12, 2015

            You seem to dwell on the word whore. Did something happen in your childhood with your mother? Don’t hold it against her: All mothers can’t be saints.

          4. Michael Ross January 13, 2015

            I’m calling you a whore because whoring yourself out is exactly what you are doing, whore. You’ve chosen to detach yourself from all semblances of reality because that’s the only way you can continue to suck off your ego.

            Thank you, by the way, for once again putting your single-digit IQ on full display. At least my mother won’t be agonizing in her grave for all eternity over having been responsible for the upbringing that created a brainless, soulless whore like yourself.

          5. hicusdicus January 13, 2015

            That’s really a lame comeback. Did I strike a nerve and bring up more child hood memories. In time all will forgiven and forgotten. Hang in there you will eventually find somebody to fill the void. Perhaps another whore would fill the bill. Can you afford the bill. Maybe a Bill is what you need.

          6. Michael Ross January 15, 2015

            The miserable little whore resorts to a child molestation comment, then has the audacity to judge the comeback he receives. Once again, the G.O.P. demonstrates that it values nothing above hypocrisy.

            Naturally, given that you tea-bagger whores have accused the Democrats of virtually EVERYTHING you yourselves were guilty of doing, leads me to suspect that your obsession with parental abuse is derived from you having a boatload of experience with it yourself.

            Though knowing your kind, I suspect you have less experience suffering through it and more experience dishing it out. Be honest with us: The last time a member of your family went to the doctor, did you make them all rehearse their lines first?

          7. hicusdicus January 15, 2015

            You are going to have to reinvent your comment. I have no family anywhere. Uh! what are you speaking about? You lost me at tea bagger. I don’t even like tea.

          8. hicusdicus January 15, 2015

            You are really a strange confusing person . I have no Idea what you are talking about. Are you by any chance just talking to yourself? That could be why you are so strange and confusing.

          9. Michael Ross January 16, 2015

            No, ladies and gentlemen of the Memo, you are not seeing things: The tea-bagger actually intends to use “I’m too stupid to understand that” as a retort.

      2. Independent1 January 8, 2015

        Debate is over?? Only in your dreams. All we need do is get one of those paid-for right-wing nut jobs out of the Supreme Court and replace him with a sane person and the idiocy perpetrated by these right-wing scumbags will be reversed and America will once again be a nation of laws and not a Corporate dictatorship.

        Thousands more Americans are dying each year because these scumbags chose to bastardize our constitution!!!!!! All in the name of MONEY!!!!!

        1. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

          Did somebody bastardize your birth certificate?

      3. highpckts January 8, 2015

        Oh no it is far from over!!

        1. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

          You are starting to sound like you are in need of an orgasm. Something to keep your mind and hands busy.

          1. highpckts January 9, 2015

            You are a disgusting man so filled with pity for yourself that you can’t utter one nice thing! Too bad. What a wasted life!

          2. hicusdicus January 9, 2015

            No one else will pity me so I have to do it all myself. Would you be interested in helping out? By the way why do you think I am a man? Can you not see my picture with my pet human sitting behind me? He is kind of dumb but he feeds me regular and scratches my ears. You are right he has wasted his moronic life rescuing animals. I think he might even rescue you.

          3. highpckts January 9, 2015

            I applaud you for rescuing animals but nothing else! You are bitter and self pitying and mean on top of it.

          4. hicusdicus January 9, 2015

            At least I am good for something. I wish I was mean, then I would not have to go to the vet this morning and pick up one of my useless stray cats who has cancer on both his ears . For what that is going to cost I could keep myself supplied with pot for the next 3 months. A .22 bullet would be cheaper but I ain’t mean enough for those kind of shenanigans. That old fart who slipped into my bathroom mirror a few years ago agrees with you totally.

          5. Dave January 9, 2015

            With your love for animals. I think that you will like this video.

            http://madworldnews.com/gopro-dog-home-alone/

          6. hicusdicus January 9, 2015

            My love of animals? I feed and house them and all they do is eat and crap and they never say thank you.. They also lie a lot, always telling people that I haven’t fed them. If they eat one more phone book I am going to confiscate their cell phones and make them sleep on the floor.

          7. Dave January 9, 2015

            Are you talking about your dogs, or are you talking about the Occupy Wall Street Protesters ?

          8. hicusdicus January 9, 2015

            Hey! don’t be degrading animals.

        2. Dave January 8, 2015

          In December of 2014 firearm background checks skyrocket, to 2.3 million in one month’s time according to the FBI. That is the highest increase of gun sales in a single month ever. I would be willing to say that the people want their gun’s, and they want the gun control people to go pound sand.

          http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/07/fbi-december-gun-sales-skyrocket-2-3-million-background-checks-conducted/

    2. Michael Ross January 8, 2015

      You left off the part about “for a well-regulated militia.”

      The Founding Fathers never intended for America to become a nation of law by roving biker gangs. They intended for the states to be able to form their own local militias to police themselves.

      The debate is not over, whore, and by trying to declare it so, all you’ve done is signaled the fact that you are losing big time.

      The NRA’s entire steaming pile of bullshit has fallen over on top of them, and now all that’s left is a limbless Black Knight trying to declare a draw.

      1. highpckts January 8, 2015

        They always leave the part of a well regulated militia out!!! Otherwise there is no justification for EVERYONE owning a gun! It’s called specialized thinking and just plain ignoring the important parts of the Constitution to fit your needs!

    3. idamag January 12, 2015

      And, the Constitution was written before movies and t.v. created a lot of Charles Bronson, Dirty Harry, Olivia Benson, and John Wayne wannabes.

  13. Whatmeworry January 7, 2015

    The standard guns are bad nonsense. Why do we see more deaths today from guns then in past eta’s?? Why aren’t libs standing up and saying for a change we went to far in closing the NUT houses and its time to make sure the crazies are once again taken off the street, that our guns background check laws are enforced

    Reply
    1. Daniel Max Ketter January 7, 2015

      studies proven that countries with gun control have less violent crimes against their citizens

      1. hicusdicus January 7, 2015

        Criminal have an aversion to getting hurt. If their victims have a gun then it is no longer any fun for them. They will seek out some anti gun person and have fun with them.

        1. Independent1 January 7, 2015

          Wow!! You really are enamored with that gun aren’t you?? Let’s just hope that you carrying it doesn’t end up some day being the reason you end up getting shot and killed rather than just being robbed and still being alive. Believe it or not, more often than not, someone like you ends up being dead after someone robs them with a gun; while someone without a gun just ends up being robbed but not dead.

          See this from the medical department of the state of Utah.

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

          http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

          1. joe schmo January 7, 2015

            Your logic eludes me. Look what just happened in France. The police that got shot….no guns:) Don’t think I would want our officers disarmed.

            Until you are face to face with someone who wants to kill you and they have a gun you just won’t get it. That’s what my in-law who is a police officer says about non-gun believers.

          2. Independent1 January 7, 2015

            My logic eludes you?? You’re aware right that when the guy went ballistic at the Navy Yard a while back that 3 of the 4-5 people he killed were packing guns, right? And the guy who those two nuts from the Bundy farmed killed in the Lowes was packing a gun, right? Sorry nitwit, but the only thing that would likely of happened if someone at that magazine had a gun was there would just have been one more guy killed who was packing a gun!! When are you NRA lovers going to get it through your heads that GUNS DO NOT NECESSARIY END UP BEING A MEANS OF SELF DEFENSE!!!!!!!!! THEY END UP BEING THE REASONS VICTIMS OF CRIMES ARE KILLED!!!!!

          3. joe schmo January 7, 2015

            Again, I mention France. That is what you want isn’t it, idiot.

          4. Whatmeworry January 7, 2015

            People are happier in France because of strict gun laws

          5. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            Your logic eludes God.

          6. kenndeb January 8, 2015

            You might like to be a sheep, but most of us prefer to be men.

          7. Independent1 January 8, 2015

            Including being dead men!!! Only a moron would choose the option which increases his probability of being dead by a factor of 5.

          8. hicusdicus January 9, 2015

            If there were no sheep how could us hillbillies have any fun? Have ever tried to get romantic with a goat? They have horns and want to butt. There breath is ghastly.

          9. CrankyToo January 9, 2015

            And some of you so-called “men” prefer to be morons.

          10. kenndeb January 9, 2015

            So glad to see a liberal admit they are a moron. It’s a start.

          11. hicusdicus January 9, 2015

            Being a man is Okay until the prostate starts to act up. Getting a finger wave from a male doctor is bad enough but from a female doctor its just plain awful. If she is good looking it can leave scars on the soul.

          12. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            With that gun? Your diatribe is wrong but who really cares. People are at the top of the food chain except they feed on each other. More women are beaten to death than shot. But again who cares its the way things are. I have a special gun which I intend to use on my self when the pain gets to be more than I want to bare. I don’t know where you are in life but you have a lot to learn. There is no after life after death, when you are dead its over. This is something one looks forward to after too many years of putting up with human ignorance and stupidity. I keep hearing from the Christians that they are going to live forever. Now if that is not hilarious I don’t know what is. Can you imagine spending an eternity with born again Christians or watching the Muslims try to figure out what to do with their 72 virgins. The whole human race is comedy central. You anti gun nuts are the main act. The main thing in life is a good nights sleep and a big morning bowl ringer. Everything else is just marking time until you no longer exist .If believe other wise you are in LALA land.

          13. TZToronto January 8, 2015

            Wow! You have a bright view of life! On the other hand, like so many of your ilk you have no respect for the numbers that refute your position. You know what’s right, and that’s it. Congratulations.

          14. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            My life is almost over. Its been a good one. Better than 99 % of the people on this planet. Your right I have no respect for numbers or positions. Most are fabricated by people who want to perpetuate their bias. Your opinions like yourself are meaningless. Blab on nobody cares.

          15. TZToronto January 12, 2015

            You know nothing of science, apparently, or scientists, for that matter.

          16. hicusdicus January 12, 2015

            You are sure of this? This is based on the premise that I don’t agree with you. Your knowledge base is irrefutable because?????

          17. highpckts January 8, 2015

            Geez! I feel sorry for you if that is all there is to your life! Maybe you shouldn’t wait until you in so much pain you can’t stand it. You sound like you are there now!

          18. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            I am pretty close. Do a little research on bone cancer. Then return and make some vicious infantile remark about something you know nothing about.

          19. highpckts January 9, 2015

            Honestly sorry about your cancer but I don’t see why that gives you any right to be such a hateful person! All your remarks fly in the face of reason!

          20. hicusdicus January 9, 2015

            Thank you , now I know why I have never been able to get airborne. I keep trying to fly in the face of reason. Being reasonable causes all kinds of problems.

          21. Independent1 January 9, 2015

            Sorry, more women are beaten to death than shot – where did you ever get that bunch hogwash??? When methods of homicides are broken down, guns are BY FAR the weapon used in the majority of them. Even knives are used less than 7%. fists less than 4%- better come up with some sane logic here!!!

          22. hicusdicus January 9, 2015

            You are without a doubt not worth talking to.

          23. Independent1 January 10, 2015

            You have far too high an opinion of your own expertise about guns. Have you ever taken the time to checkout a publication called GunFail??

            If not, here’s just a sampling of the many gun related shootings that are recorded by GunFail – the supposedly accidental shootings that occur will amaze you (I’m showing you about 10 out of the 57 he listed which are not all the accidental shootings that occurred during the timeframe. And note that there are a number of shootings while cleaning weapons):

            ORLANDO, FL, 3/25/13: Here’s our 20th #GunFAIL while cleaning a loaded firearm this month, and the 75th for the year. John Massallo Acevedo, 23, was standing in the kitchen of his apartment about 8 PM when he attempted to remove the slide to his 9 mm Glock pistol and it fired. The bullet struck his wife, Jean Santiago Zambrana, in the right arm and entered her abdomen. He said they had just returned from the gym when he decided to clean the weapon. Because health is important to him, obviously.

            DEMOREST, GA, 3/26/13: Another Polishing Patriot Freedoms himself in the thigh, cleaning a loaded weapon, costing us another helicopter flight to the hospital.

            MAHOMET, IL, 3/23/13: Dude out target shooting tries to clear a jammed .45, drops it and shoots himself in the leg.

            GASTONIA, NC, 3/22/13: A Gaston County Sheriff’s Office deputy was accidentally shot Friday afternoon during a basic law enforcement training at a Gastonia shooting range. The deputy, who is also enrolled at Gaston College, was cleaning his weapon when another student’s gun discharged and struck him in the hip, authorities said. The student was having trouble with his handgun and had sought an instructor’s help when the shot was accidentally fired.

            MONROE, MI, 3/23/13: Man accidentally fires gun. Another man accidentally had his head in the way.

            MIAMI TOWNSHIP, OH, 3/25/13: A man who was securing his firearm on Monday afternoon, to lock it away in the glove box so he could take a walk through Crains Run Park, shot himself in the leg and ended up in a hospital instead.

            OKLAHOMA CITY, OK, 3/23/13: Authorities expect a woman to be okay after accidentally shooting herself in the hand. Oklahoma woman to be okay! Get it? Hi-yo!

            SWANTON, OH, 3/23/13: Swanton police are investigating an apparent accidental shooting in which a local man was wounded in the leg Saturday evening. According to Swanton police, Mr. Flickinger and his roommate were trying to take apart a semi-automatic handgun at their home in the 100 block of South Main Street when the gun discharged, striking Mr. Flickinger in the leg.

            GRAYS HARBOR CO., WA, 3/23/13: A 39-year-old Tacoma man was sent to the hospital last night after accidentally shooting himself in the foot with his .22 caliber pistol. The Grays Harbor County Sheriff’s Office responded to a report of a gunshot wound at Grays Harbor Community Hospital Saturday evening. The man told deputies he had been out with family target shooting in a pit off a logging road in the Wynooche Valley, and as he walked toward his target to check his shot, he left his finger on the trigger, tripped, and shot himself in the toe.

            FAIRMONT, NC, 3/24/13: Christopher Stanlane, Sr., 34, was wiping his gun down at his home on Gaddy Road in Fairmont, Sunday afternoon, according to Captain Anthony Thompson. His 10-year-old son, Christopher Stanlane, Jr., was watching television in front of him when the gun went off, Thompson says, and a bullet hit the boy in the back of the head. Thompson added that the father dropped his gun and rushed his eight-year-old daughter to another room.

          24. kenndeb January 9, 2015

            You obviously have never faced a life and death situation. All you do is spout about something you know nothing about, and spread the regimes propaganda. Get a life, then let’s talk about your actual life experiences.

          25. Independent1 January 9, 2015

            And I’ve never tried to climb Mt. Everest either but I’ve read enough accounts about people who’ve tried and just how tough it is so I have enough common sense not to try.

            Similarly, although I’ve never owned a handgun, I’ve read tons of studies that have been done researching thousands of actual crimes involving a gun, most of which have concluded that, for every 50-60 people who are robbed or accosted at gun point who are carrying a gun themself and try to use the gun for self defense – only about 10 out of the 50-60 are successful in defending themselves. The other 50 or so end up being shot with a high percentage ending up dead.

            Sorry, but I have enough common sense to realize that those who opt against those 50 to 10 (5 against to 1 for) bad odds of being successful in using a handgun to protect themselves, are doing so based on PURE STUPIDITY!!

          26. kenndeb January 9, 2015

            Your propaganda is just that, propaganda. Try living your life outside whatever bubble you live in. Having a means of self defense gives someone a fighting chance of surviving an attack. The odds are in their favor, not against them, when what you are talking about is that same person having NO defense.

          27. hicusdicus January 13, 2015

            He watched something in a movie and he knows all about it.I wonder if he has laid on a bed in the emergency room and had the doctor tell him that there is not much chance of him living. To many bullet holes and to much blood loss.

        2. Whatmeworry January 7, 2015

          guns kill, people don’t

          1. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            greasy french fries and liter soda pop kill more people than guns and makes them ugly while it is doing it. Guns are so insignificant in the scheme of things its a waste even discussing it. The real killer is religion and Jesus and Mohammad are running a close race. With a little luck a medium asteroid strike will get things squared away.

          2. highpckts January 8, 2015

            Guns are a poor substitute for enlarged egos and self righteous patriotism!

          3. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            Guns work well if one has a enlarged prostate. Do you have an enlarged prostate? If you don’t I will give you mine.

          4. Independent1 January 8, 2015

            More hogwash!! The infant that killed this young lady didn’t point the gun at her, it went off when he picked it up. And hundreds every year get killed or injured by a gun just when they drop it or are cleaning it. Guns in and of themselves ARE KILLERS!!!!!

          5. hicusdicus January 9, 2015

            Not really. Only old or tampered with firearms will give an accidental discharge from dropping. How do you clean a gun with a cartridge in the chamber? There is something fishy about these reports. I have cleaned many guns and there is no way this could happen. I think it is a cover story to cover the fact that someone was dicking around. I would say most accidental fire arm deaths were irresponsible people There is no way to protect society from irresponsible people. I truly hope you never have to face a violent person or persons intent on harming you. I would not wish that on anyone not even a liberal.

          6. highpckts January 8, 2015

            BS!! guns and people kill!! Put a gun in a childs hands and he can kill! Guns need to be regulated. I can’t for the life of me understand that something so lethal and dangerous is allowed to anyone with enough money to own it! This child will be scarred for life because of his Mother’s fetish! I don’t feel sorry for the family but I feel for the child!

          7. idamag January 8, 2015

            He could have killed an innocent bystander.

          8. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            I think that is what happened.

          9. kenndeb January 8, 2015

            As I have stated before,
            I can walk around my backyard and find enough poisonous plants or fungi that would take out an entire neighborhood. I can improvise devices that would take out a city block. I can find something within my reach almost anywhere that can be used to kill. It does not take a gun to kill, only a person.

          10. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            I think I really like your back yard.

          11. kenndeb January 8, 2015

            I could do the same in yours. There are all sorts of plants that are exceptionally deadly most people see as just weeds, not to mention cultivated plants. Deadly nightshade grows everywhere, as doew yew, and honeysuckle. Castor bean plants are often cultivated as an ornamental. Amanitas and galerinas grow in many yards, and both fungi can take out an entire family, as often happens each year when someone mistakenly adds one to their pasta sauce. The list goes on and on, yet the really brain dead want to think that only a gun can be used to kill someone. Everything is a weapon if you know how to use it.

          12. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            The only thing I could get to grow in my back yard was medical marijuana. What a disappointment that was.

          13. Dave January 8, 2015

            I wish that we can just outlaw drinking and driving, the cars are just killing way to many people. Maybe we can just make one more law so people won’t do it, that will fix it.

          14. Michael Ross January 9, 2015

            “If at first you don’t succeed, give up” is never a valid excuse, bagger.

          15. Dave January 9, 2015

            Bagger? I haven’t bagged groceries in twenty years, the last time I did that, I was in high school, working at the local store to help my Mother with the bills. Just for the record I prefer plastic, we don’t need to be cutting down trees just to carry our groceries home from the store that’s a waste a good tree.

            Let me ask you this question, Why are we advised to not judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics?

          16. hicusdicus January 9, 2015

            You just made a 5 star comment. There is no argument against it. You may not approve of me. I burn wood to keep my house warm. I cut down trees with the bore beetle. I am also a wood worker and can get woody over a beautiful grained piece of wood. I want to turn it into something that can be seen and touched.

          17. Dave January 9, 2015

            My Friend thanks, I say burn all of the wood that it will take to keep you and your loved one’s warm during this cold winters artic blast we are in now. Make all of the wood projects that your big heart desires, I will forgive you this time…LOL. Have a good evening.

          18. hicusdicus January 13, 2015

            You forgot to use the whore word.

          19. Michael Ross January 13, 2015

            So you admit that you are one? That was very brave of you. Now the healing process can begin.

          20. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            Guns don’t kill. Bullets kill. Ban bullets.

          21. CrankyToo January 9, 2015

            Just when I thought you couldn’t get any dumber….

          22. hicusdicus January 13, 2015

            Tha’ts what you get for trying to think.

        3. Michael Ross January 8, 2015

          Oh, please. If anything, having a loaded gun on you makes you more tempting.

          Why? Because that’s a built-in excuse. “But officer, he had a gun.”

          Sound familiar? That’s right: It’s the “stand your ground” defense that you bastards so eagerly defended when George Zimmerman used it to excuse himself for stalking and murdering an unarmed teen right outside of his own home.

          This is the atmosphere you gun-porn gluttons have created: One in which you are certainly free to strut around with your AK-47 if you so desire, but where I will get an automatic Get Out Of Jail Free card if I decide to whip out my revolver and show you the minimum number of bullets it really takes to kill someone.

          1. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

            Are you gay? You sound like you really admire my gun. I would not suggest you put it in your mouth it has a tendency to pre ejaculate bullets.

          2. Michael Ross January 9, 2015

            Thank you, whore, for betraying your bigotry, your stupidity, AND your short fuse all in one easy-to-read post.

            The crux of the entire gun “debate” is this: You subhuman scumbags are incapable of rational thought, much less discussion. Instead, the only way you know how to react is to get mad and issue death threats.

            That’s why you America-hating bastards cling to your guns so much: Because you fantasize nonstop about mass-murdering.

          3. hicusdicus January 9, 2015

            Wow! did you come up with this comment all by yourself. I bet your mother helped you during visiting hours.

          4. Michael Ross January 11, 2015

            Thank you, whore, for portraying yourself exactly how I described you: Too stupid to come up with anything but a petty insult, and too short-fused to refrain from telegraphing your stupidity to the entire world.

      2. kenndeb January 8, 2015

        You still believe the propaganda? How droll.

        1. CrankyToo January 9, 2015

          To a Repugnican, propaganda is anything that doesn’t support his/her twisted understanding of the world in which we live. Mr. Ketter is entirely correct – and you’re a dumbass.

          1. Dave January 9, 2015

            If Mr. Ketter is entirely correct, then why did Muslim terrorist just kill twelve people in Paris?
            Paris has some of the strictest gun laws, even some of the police don’t carry a firearm.

          2. CrankyToo January 9, 2015

            The answer to your question should be obvious, but I’ll explain, anyhow.

            Think of gun laws as fences. The tallest fence, electrified and topped with razor wire outriggers will not stop the determined trespasser. It will, however, make it more difficult for him to commit his crime (i.e. offer a deterrence). Moreover, it will provide a line of demarcation, beyond which someone found may be prosecuted.

            Likewise, gun laws will not stop a determined killer. They’re meant to discourage violence – not to prevent it – and to provide the legal basis for prosecuting those who would contravene civil law.

          3. kenndeb January 9, 2015

            We already have laws.

          4. Dave January 9, 2015

            Let’s get rid of the fence and replace it with a gun free school zone sign. Let’s put 10,000 more gun laws on the books…then what will we do when the next school shooting happens. Will we put another 10,000 more laws on the books or will we change the color of the sign from black and white to neon green so people will be able to see it a little bit better?

          5. hicusdicus January 13, 2015

            your analogy really sucks. I do like contravene I am really impressed.

          6. Independent1 January 10, 2015

            Just some examples: Massachusetts has some very strict gun laws, yet there are still a fair amount of crimes committed with a gun. What the Boston police discovered is that more than 65% of the guns used in crimes within Boston, came from Maine and New Hampshire (neighboring states which have very lax gun laws).

            Chicago is similar. Although Chicago has some fairly strict gun laws, Gary, Indiana is probably less than a 20 min ride away where hoods from Chicago can go over an buy all the guns they want with virtually no trouble.

          7. kenndeb January 9, 2015

            To a liberal, lies are all they have to keep them going.

          8. Independent1 January 10, 2015

            Kind of interesting A BLATANT LIAR trying to call someone else a liar!! Hmmmm!!!

        2. Daniel Max Ketter January 9, 2015

          Facts!

          1. kenndeb January 9, 2015

            I haven’t seen a truth come from the Emperor or his minions ever. You may want to check those facts, aka liberal propaganda and lies. Countries with gun control do NOT have less violent crime. In fact, when Australia put their ban into effect, violent crime increased. Try reading something than approved communist propaganda that the liberals are feeding you. I still can’t believe you people believe everything you are told without questioning anything. The term sheeple does seem to fit well.

          2. Independent1 January 10, 2015

            Wow!! Talk about being gullible!! You really eat up all those RWNJ lies don’t you!!!

            Here’s an excerpt from an article on the subject of Austrial violence from the Washington Post (note that YOU and your RWNJs LIE!! The reduction of guns in Australia has cut the homicide rate more than in half) :

            But one of Howard’s other lasting legacies is Australia’s gun control regime, first passed in 1996 in response to a massacre in Tasmania that left 35 dead. The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns. It also instituted a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

            On Wednesday, Howard took to the Melbourne daily the Age to call on the United States, in light of the Aurora, Colo., massacre, to follow in Australia’s footsteps. “There are many American traits which we Australians could well emulate to our great benefit,” he concluded. “But when it comes to guns, we have been right to take a radically different path.”

            So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law’s effectiveness.
            ———————————————-
            And here’s another from Reuters:

            Six weeks after Howard won office in 1996, Martin Bryant, a psychologically disturbed man, used semi-automatic rifles to kill 35 people in Port Arthur, Tasmania.

            Fischer, a Vietnam war veteran, farmer and gun owner, said the politics of gun control inAustralia were brutal.

            “It was a battle royal, and John Howard laid down a template that was worth defending and taking to the public square, taking to the people, and shifting the tectonic plates in the process. And the result … 200 less coffins a year on a conservative estimate,” Fischer told Reuters.

            “It was the right thing to do, but people had to be persuaded of it. And this is why our friends in the United States … should now consider seriously taking it in a big way to the public square.”

            In Australia, gun owners were compensated when they handed in previously legal weapons. Almost 700,000 guns were destroyed, halving the number of homes with a gun. That would be equal to taking 40 million guns out of action in the United States.

            But the reforms angered many constituents of Fischer’s rural-based National Party, who vented their anger two years later at the ballot box. The pro-gun One Nation party won almost one million votes and the government narrowly avoided defeat.

            Australia had 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before the 1996 gun reforms, but has not suffered any mass shootings since.

            Studies found a marked drop in gun-related homicides, down 59 percent, and a dramatic 65 percent drop in the rate of gun-related suicides, in the 10 years after the weapons crackdown.

      3. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

        Studies???? When has a liberal ever studied, they just make stuff up. I have read studies that liberals get their best opinions while evacuating their bowels.

    2. hicusdicus January 8, 2015

      Violence and death are are a part of life. Quit trying to fight it you can’t win.

      1. CrankyToo January 9, 2015

        You’re half right. Death is a fact of life. But in a civilized society, the event need not (and should not) be attended by violence. A person should be able to go to school or to church or the grocery store or the movie theater with every expectation that he/she will make it out alive.

        You see, we’re members of a highly evolved species, with the wherewithal to establish laws to prevent gun violence and, thereby, insulate ourselves and our loved ones from violent death by gunshot.

        Unfortunately, some of us haven’t evolved as successfully as others. Some of us are less civilized than others. There are some among us (a minority, to be sure) who think that guns offer better protection than laws, which is patently absurd. Fewer restrictions on guns means more guns on our streets which means more violent deaths. It ain’t rocket surgery – not even for a gun-toting Republican like myself. Anyone who postulates that we, as a society, are safer with more liberal gun laws is a dumbass, pure and simple.

        1. hicusdicus January 9, 2015

          Where did you ever come up with the misguided notion that we live in a civilized society? Guns never have offered more protection than laws. Guns help to enforce the law. When I was 30 I never even thought about a gun. Now that I am nearly 80 and white I realize that I am a slow moving target. A victim to be. My wife and I live alone in the woods and we are financially well off. A gun may not save us but it does give us an edge or an option. Laws are for people who want to obey them. Guns are for people who who want the laws to be followed. I have a postulation problem but that comes with age and having an Oscar Myer.

          1. CrankyToo January 9, 2015

            I don’t get the Oscar Myer remark; I’m guessing it’s a peculiar reference to your penis. We can argue as to whether or not it’s clever (and I’ll take the NOT side of that argument), but I think we can all agree that it has no bearing on the discussion.

            That inane little tidbit aside, you paint a picture of yourself as a slow-moving, old, white “target”, cowering in the woods behind a pile of money, waiting to become a victim. You are, by your own admission, pathetic.
            I must admit, however, that if ever a person was in need of a gun, it’s you. But you probably don’t need more than one bullet.
            Good luck, old timer – you’re going to need it.

          2. hicusdicus January 9, 2015

            You need to work on your sense of humor. You come off as a rather dower person. Maybe in real life you are Okay but on this site you are definitely a POS.

          3. CrankyToo January 9, 2015

            And you need to work on your vocabulary. Dower is a noun. Occasionally a verb. But never an adjective.
            Did you mean “dour”? As in “Dumbasses like you make me dour.”

            And BTW, in real life, I’m better than Okay. In fact, the older I get, the better I was.

          4. Independent1 January 10, 2015

            Good one. Hicusdicus has a far too high opinion not only of himself but also his knowledge of guns.

          5. hicusdicus January 17, 2015

            What is worse, misspelling a word or calling people derogatory names ? That puts you in the same category as independant 1.

    3. Independent1 January 8, 2015

      You’re perpetuating a misguided notion: It is not the mentally ill who commit the most mass murders – not that some don’t. But studies have shown that blaming the mentally ill is misguided.

      See this from from Newswise.Com:

      Newswise — In the shadow of the two year anniversary of one of the worst mass shootings in American history, at Sandy Hook Elementary School, an extensive new study by two Vanderbilt University researchers challenges common assumptions about gun violence and mental illness that often emerge in the aftermath of mass shootings.

      When a mass shooting occurs there seems to be a familiar narrative that untreated mental illness is the primary cause for the terrifying act. But a new study published in the American Journal of Public Health by Dr. Jonathan Metzl and Kenneth T. MacLeish finds that an isolated focus on mental illness is misguided.

      “Gun discourse after mass shootings often perpetuates the fear that ‘some crazy person is going to come shoot me,’” said Metzl, the study’s lead author. “But if you look at the research, it’s not the ‘crazy’ person you have to fear.”

      MENTALLY ILL NOT VIOLENT
      In the article, “Mental Illness, Mass Shootings and the Politics of American Firearms,” Metzl and MacLeish analyzed data and literature linking guns and mental illness over the past 40 years. They found that despite societal pre-conceived notions, most mentally ill people are not violent.

      “Fewer than 5 percent of the 120,000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness,” they write.

      http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/627344/?sc=rsln

      1. 2ThinkN_Do2 January 8, 2015

        Were all 120,000 people evaluated for mental illness prior to the killings?

        1. CrankyToo January 9, 2015

          Is that supposed to be a “gotcha” question? A team of researchers applies scientific analysis to 40 years worth of data to arrive at a fact-based conclusion and you dismiss their findings with one inane question and the wave of a hand? Typical Repugnican wing-ding….

          1. 2ThinkN_Do2 January 9, 2015

            2001 to 2010 is 40 years, since when? Nice try : )

          2. Independent1 January 9, 2015

            They analyzed date for the past 40 years but only made their comment about 2001-2010:

            From the article:

            In the article, “Mental Illness, Mass Shootings and the Politics of American Firearms,” Metzl and MacLeish analyzed data and literature linking guns and mental illness over the past 40 years. They found that despite societal pre-conceived notions, most mentally ill people are not violent.

          3. CrankyToo January 9, 2015

            Now that’s what I call a “gotcha”! Thanks for handling my light work, Indy1. You know how I hate engaging in battles of wit with unarmed Repugnicans.

          4. Independent1 January 10, 2015

            My pleasure anytime.

          5. 2ThinkN_Do2 January 10, 2015

            They were still talking about the years 2001-2010 for the 120,000 people. I read the article. Facts are still facts; Firearms are not Violent. Firearms Do Not Kill. Access to Firearms Does Not Make People Violent.

          6. Independent1 January 10, 2015

            Unadulterated BS from the word GO!!! Go you’re a complete idiot!!!!!!!

          7. hicusdicus January 17, 2015

            So! You don’t call people names.

          8. Independent1 January 10, 2015

            England does not allow guns. In 2012 England had 59 homicides committed by a hand gun, the U.S. had 8,996. And the total homicides in England were less than 8% of those in America Even if I compensate for the fact that the population of England is 1/5 the U.S., that makes the comparison of 290 where guns are not allowed, to 8,996 where they are.

            And I have tons of statistics WHICH PROVE, that it’s the GOP run states with HIGH GUN OWNERSHIP which lead the nation NOT ONLY IN VIOLENCE, BUT ALSO IN HOMICIDES!!!!!!!!

          9. 2ThinkN_Do2 January 10, 2015

            You really should go read the FBI crime stats 2013. Fact is, crime rates are dropping, have been for decades, a little uptick in the early 90’s but dropping since. Way more people, way more guns and less crime. Oh yeah, gun restrictions have been relaxed across the USA while all this has taken place. Go figure . . . .

          10. hicusdicus January 17, 2015

            Is that a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks

          11. rkief January 14, 2015

            You’re not stupid, of course, but those NRA talking points you’ve just cited certainly are.

          12. 2ThinkN_Do2 January 15, 2015

            They’re not NRA talking points, they are Just Facts.

          13. 2ThinkN_Do2 January 10, 2015

            They wrote: “Fewer than 5 percent of the 120,000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness,”

          14. hicusdicus January 17, 2015

            Don’t you find it strange that a great deal of senseless comments are always backed up by a team of researchers?

    4. rkief January 14, 2015

      Crazies like Mrs. Rutledge?

  14. idamag January 7, 2015

    The good thing was that it was the person who loaded the gun, took the safety off and left it in front of a child, that died, instead of someone else’s child.

    Reply
    1. Joe Steel January 11, 2015

      Cold but true.

      1. idamag January 12, 2015

        I have relatives who live in the same town she was from. I shudder to think one of them could have been killed in their local Walmart.

        1. hicusdicus January 17, 2015

          Why do you have to shudder to think? Is shuddering a genetic defect?

  15. idamag January 8, 2015

    This morning, the paper has an appeal to people to donate for her funeral expenses.

    Reply
  16. LibertyDwells January 9, 2015

    The disarmanuts are certainly getting shrill in their desperate grave-dancing. Utter failure will do that, or so I hear…

    Reply
  17. old_blu January 11, 2015

    She was carrying that gun to protect her and her child, would be my guess.
    How’d that work out for her?

    Reply
    1. neeceoooo January 13, 2015

      Hi there old_blu, for being such a safe state as Idaho, why did she feel she needed the gun for protection.

      1. old_blu January 15, 2015

        Hello neeceooo I’m okay with her carrying her gun with her, but she sure had a lapse in judgment by leaving it where a young kid could get to it and the safety off, and I would assume one in the chamber. She paid the ultimate price for her mistake. I think a competency test for CWP holders should be in order, so they know how to shoot, handle, load, and unload a weapon, as well as storage of that weapon. On a federal level so they are all the same.
        I feel horrible for the family, and I wish them well.
        There are people who own guns, and then there are people who’s guns own them. IMO of course.

        1. idamag January 17, 2015

          Great description!

        2. hicusdicus January 17, 2015

          You could say that for about anything that involves humans.

    2. hicusdicus January 15, 2015

      She got early front row seats for the Jesus concert.

      1. old_blu January 15, 2015

        Yeah she did.
        I hope her kid grows up okay knowing he bought her the tickets.

        1. hicusdicus January 15, 2015

          The child will grow up just fine. The family is most likely to have joined the Brady bunch. Its a tragedy of immense proportions but it was still an accident based on human error not a piece of metal. I once knocked a large knife off my kitchen island and it stabbed my dog. Should I get rid of the knife or try and be more careful? All the dog needed was a few stitches. Here is another one. I tripped over a foot stool in my living room and fell into the door jam and cut my right ear off. I got the ear sewn back on but I kept the door jam. According to liberal thinking I should have ripped out the door jam and replaced it with a wall or a life sized poster of Barrack Obama.

          1. old_blu January 15, 2015

            Generalize much?
            I’m what you would probably consider a Liberal, and I don’t think that way at all. Do you think that Liberals don’t own guns? They do.
            I hope the kid does grow up fine and I think he will, but you or I don’t know that for sure.
            I own several guns and have a CWP and I’m liberal, so that blows your generalizing out the window.
            I think this woman had every right to carry that gun, but just because she had the right to carry doesn’t mean she carried it right. Right?
            When commenters get condescending, mean spirited, and rude I just consider that is them flying their white flag of surrender.
            I accept your white flag.

          2. neeceoooo January 15, 2015

            Wow, that is great old_blu

          3. hicusdicus January 15, 2015

            Have you got me confused with somebody else? Where did condisending and mean spirited come from? I think she had every right to carry it. It was an unfortunate accident. The kid will do fine if the rest of the family leaves it be. My generalizing theory? Most anti gun people are liberals. I don’t recollect any anti gun conservatives I am sure there are some. So you are a pro gun liberal; I apologize. I have no white flag to fly. I have a cwp going on 17 years. I am not a gun nut. I have weapons for self defense. They are tools and when needed no other will do.

          4. dpaano January 29, 2015

            My question is….why would you carry it with a shell in the chamber? Also, was the safety on? Those are questions that I think are important to ask.

          5. old_blu January 29, 2015

            I think those are important questions as well.
            I would assume because a 2 year old fired it that there was a chambered round and the safety was off, or someone had been showing a 2 year old how to shoot a gun, (which is asinine it’s self) personally I think there should be some sort of competency test administered to all CWP recipients, to show they know how to handle, shoot, load, unload, and store a weapon correctly, even if just a written one, but I think it would be better if they had to pass at a shooting range as well.
            My parents taught me at an early age what guns could/would do, and they drilled safety into my head ever time I got around them.

          6. dpaano January 29, 2015

            The article did say that there was a round chambered….it didn’t mention whether the safety was on or off, but I find it hard to believe a 2-year old would know how to take the safety off a gun before shooting it. As for a competency test, I’m almost afraid to say it, but most gun carriers would probably fail it miserably!

          7. old_blu January 29, 2015

            We agree, I also find it hard to believe a 2 year old could get the safety off as well. I find it very hard to believe a 2 year old could pull back the hammer on anything I own and pull the trigger, but I can’t imagine someone leaving an unattended gun loaded, safety off, with the hammer back.
            This was a horrible accident, and I feel bad for the family, but it was completely avoidable, and accidental shootings happen way too often.

          8. idamag January 17, 2015

            I doubt that you know how other people think. Your generalities prove it.

          9. hicusdicus January 17, 2015

            I was not talking about you. I was talking about non retarded humans.

  18. tdm3624 January 14, 2015

    That poor family.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

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

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