How about just telling people not to shoot people? That oughta work great!

How about we fix the problems that cause a lot of gun violence? Let's quit treating the symptom and start treating the underlying cause.

I just posted this on another site regarding background checks:

According to Chuck Shepard at weirdnews@earthlink.net:

The New York Times reported in January that of the nearly 80,000 DENIED applicants, only 44 were prosecuted for lying, and federal officials said the practice, well known amoung applicants with shaky backgrounds, is known as "lie and try".

So our current background check laws aren't being enforced. So why do we need to even discusss this any furhter? I'll support more stringent checks only if they get their prosecution rate up to at least 75%.

I do not have any problem with background checks. I am a conservative American and a life member of he NRA. I have always supported all laws on the books regarding guns but I will fight any more laws because they are useless when they are not enforced.

What gun laws do we enforce universally? What one person considers fair gun laws, another might consider a gross violation of a persons rights or wantonly dangerous to children. So who's to say what the standards are? People in Chicago and New York have grossly differing opinions of a person in Texas or Utah. We have states with the right to self-govern for the specific reason of allowing competitive government. Anti-trust laws are there to keep corporate entities from maintaining a monopoly, and states provide this on a government scale. If anything, I feel we've become TOO federal. I support New York and Illinois' right to ban/restrict firearms, tentatively at least, so long as they don't forbid me in a different state.

As far as 5K a bullet, that would just drive it underground and into black market trade. And that's also the fastest way to get those responsible gun owners to absolutely oppose it. I feel that "resolution" is short-sighted and wrong.

Now all you criminals remember to fill out those background checks.

BTW State are suppose to be Sovereign but the Feds want to control everything that is why they are frustrated they can't and they fail at what they do. I say vote every last one of them out and start fresh.

This is a Constitutional issue ... not just a issue of legislation .....

the American people don't trust our congress to pass just laws ... every time they pass laws to supposedly help protect citizens ... they end up being regressive and removing more of the constitutional protections provided by the Bill Of Rights ... this deceitful behavior by our politicians is no longer acceptable ... we will give up no more of our constitutional rights ..without a fight ...

If you want to change our rights to bear arms do it legally ... by a Constitutional amendment ... and see if you can get it passed ....

It's time that other laws restraining rights of citizens and the interpretation of the tenth amendment be revisited ... Citizens had Inalienable Rights that were not enumerated but recognized by the constitutional documents that have been eroded and denied by current legislation and court decree that need to be revisited & reinstated ....

It time that Americans regain rights removed, and fight to keep ones like "the right to bear arms" ss legitimate rights ... unasailable by our deceitful legislators ....

To Jonathon F, Chris Rock in attempting to be funny has truly shown himself to be an idiot. Making the price of a bullet 5K only allows the elitist rich and organized crime to purchase and use ammo while keeping the usual pride of the libs, the 99% fearful for their lives and beholden to the man. The second amend. is the ultimate civil rights declaration, for as the saying goes, "God made man and firearms ownership made him equal".

@MJMcMahon

You still need a C&R FFL license to order Curio and Relic firearms from dealers. If you have a C&R license you have already been through a back ground check by the FBI.

Buy a Shotgun Joe Biden Lying AR-15

Lanza reportedly failed a background check and still managed to steal the weapons he used. So how exactly will these background checks help?

Certainly as I type this criminals are filling out their forms for their background checks. (yea right?)

All of this is a bunch of smoke and mirrors anyway. Any new law that does not deal with swift and final judgement on the perpetrator will have no effect what so ever.

A Gun is nothing more than a tool. It is an a piece of steel machined and blued fixed with a wood or synthetic stock. Lying on a table it can do no more than just lie there. Someone must pick it up, load it, and squeeze the trigger to operate it. But lying on the table it is no more harmful than a baseball bat. The operator is the culprit not the gun.

The bleeding heart liberals created these gun free zones. But in doing so have created the safe haven for the criminal intent on doing harm to prevail with ease. Now these lawmakers want to write another law that will have no chance of doing anything to avert the Sandy Hook tragedy from happening again in the future.

The only thing any new law will accomplish is punish the law abiding gun owner.

Taking the emotion out of the debate have you realized that even if the gun control laws that Obama wants passed were in place a month BEFORE Sandy Hook it would not have made a difference? And would not make a difference for years if not decades?

So why the rush for this debate? Emotions. That is the only benefit of this discussion. It will do NOTHING to help give more security. It will do NOTHING to "save lives" any time in the next 10 to 20 years.

Unless you are talking about banning guns and confiscating guns..................... And I continue to be told THAT is not a goal - or is it? That would be the ONLY way a "gun control" law could help and there are plenty who support that notion.

And THAT is the fear. We continue to be told this is only for "assault weapons" (which nobody can define what the heck that is) and high capacity magazines (which makes half the guns I personally own illegal) so how do we compromise there? There isn't.

There is no compromise. Because the ONLY way for gun control to actually produce the desired results is to ban all of them and confiscate. THAT isn't going to happen. There WILL be a 2nd Civil War if that is tried.

Because gun control is like trying to solve the problem of drunk driving by reducing the number of cars that are available to law abiding citizens. THAT is not a solution.

The solution is to enforce the laws we have. EVERY event we had in the last several years involved someone breaking the law. Enforce the laws FIRST and then when that is done we can talk about further steps.

odd how the "assault rifle" never left Lanzo's trunk... no assault rifle was found in the school... yet

Unbelieveable, even Edward Flynn, the Milwaukee police chief, doesn't get it.

He stated he doesn't do paperwork but goes after criminals"We don't chase paper, senator, we chase armed criminals," Flynn snapped back.

So, Mr. Flynn, you are saying that you DO NOT AGREE WITH THE PROGRESSIVES when they want GUN CONTROL via background checks ?

GOOD. Now Mr. Flynn, how about going on your Milwaukee streets to take down the folks who obtain guns ILLEGALLY ? You can start with "gang bangers", "felons", and "drug cartels" and continue to disagree with the Progressives on their "background check paperwork" for GUN CONTROL.

Guess you need to do more about crime in YOUR city. The Milwaukee crime statistics are outrageous, but not nearly as bad as Cheeeecago:

• http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/wisconsin/milwaukee.html

SDN,

All of your smug remarks and spin will not change the facts, All of these shooters or thier family were registered Democrats.

In addition, the NRA does a lot of good, running gun training and gun safety programs.

The magazines they publish include news articles about people who were saved by armed citizens, and hnuter safety suggestions and gun safety reminders.

SDN: I don't condone violence but gun ownership to gun owners is a special bond. Gun owners feel strongly in the right to defend ourselves and our families.

But IF a government (not saying it is happening - I said "IF") were to ban and desire to confiscate all the guns in the country this would be far from a "one-sided flash mob" event as you describe. If that were to happen every gun owner would know what potentially happens next. It is not conjecture - it is history.

And I would rather die fighting than to die standing naked on top of a ditch looking at the bodies below waiting for a shot to the back of the head. History. It happens.

So if our government were to go to that extreme there would be a Civil War. Of course a government would never do anything so stupid - so they start out small. Just ban certain KINDS of guns and the gun can't hold more than 10 bullets. Then it becomes 8. Then it becomes 6. Then it becomes 2. Then it becomes the Barney Fife rule where you can have a gun but the bullet must be separate from the gun and in your shirt pocket. Gun bans start out small. They have to because it has to be done slowly where many don't recognize it is happening.

Do you have any idea how many gun owners there are estimated in the U.S.? I will help you: between 60 million and 80 million.

Do you know how many guns are estimated to be in the U.S.? I will help you: about 300 million.

Certainly not a "one-sided flash mob". Take the population of the entire state of Florida - now multiply by three. THAT is how many gun owners there are.

Again, I don't condone violence but let me give you an analogy: If you have ever seen a Possum they look so cute and don't look like they could really hurt you - but just corner one and threaten them. You don't know the word "nasty" until you understand a cornered Possum.

That is what us gun owners will be. We intend no harm. We don't hurt anybody. We are standing next to you in a Walmart with a .357 in our pockets and nobody knows. You don't realize it but you are safer because I am next to you. And I will protect you regardless of your color, race, or political opinion. We are caring. We are patriotic.

But we can be mean nasty people if you put us in danger. Just like the cornered Possum you have no idea what the word "nasty" means until you try to take away our right to defend ourselves. You would never consider trying to corner 60 million Possums - you would never make it out alive. Corner 60 million gun owners and the results are the same.

The weapon used in Newton is not the exact weapon used by the U.S. Military. These politicians don't know the difference between Automatic and Semi-automatic weapons, they don't know the different types of revolvers and pistols. Before they start talking about restricting legal and law-abiding U.S. Citizens Constitutional Rights, they should know what they are talking about. The should enforce the laws already on the books before they start making new laws. They should start restricting access to NAY weapons by the Mentally Ill, the protection of U.S. Citizens out weights the disclosure of Mentally Ill individuals. All of the recent death by firearms are carried out by the Mentally Ill, Gangs and criminals. Mr. Flynn, Police Chief from Milwaukee, should be going after those individuals and not law abiding citizens. Mr. Flynn shows up AFTER the person is dead or dying, and he catches very very few criminals. Citizens have the Constitutional Right to protect themselves at all times. Law Enforcement shows up AFTER the damage is done. The people that use guns don't worry about background checks nor do they think about the number of rounds in the magazine. O'Bama and the Democrats should focus on the Criminals, Gangs and Drug Cartels and the Mentally Ill and leave the law-abiding citizen alone. If you want me to pay fees for a background check to legally buy a weapon then Welfare Recipents should have to pay a fee to get their Food Stamps & Monthly Checks. They should also be forced to registed their status as deadbeats. Those illegals in this country should have to register as illegals to get ANY U.S. tax payer assistance. That means no education, medical benefits, driver licenses, etc. until they register as illegals. Illegals should have no more rights than Legal Law-abiding U.S. Citizens. The only right an illegal has is to rounded up like catgtle and sent back to their country.

IAN EMDEE...Without our second ammendment we would have NOTHING to defend any of the others. What other rights of ours are you willing to compromise or infringe upon. I can promise you had assault rifles been availible to the Jewish people back in WWII they would not have been slaughteed by the MILLIONS. We are not forever free from tyrannical governments. Did you call for the ban of diesel fuel and fertilizer after Timothy Mcvey killed hundreds with a bomb. Did you call for the ban on box cutters and airplanes after the terrorists killed THOUSANDS with them?Banning things will NEVER keep a lunatic from carrying out an act of insanity. So stop wishing away our rights. Go back to grammer school and relearn why we have these rights in the first place.

A nut-job, with a Mom that KNEW he was a nut-job, and had access to weapons......

Yeah, hold 80,000,000 law-abiding gun owners responsible for the crime......

I feel your pain Sir, but I am NOT willing to sacrifice "rights" for "feelings"

I think it's a bit premature to call for an "assault weapon" ban "because that's what Adam Lanza used". I would remind people that the evidence related to Sandy Hook has been sealed...we don't know what he used yet. It took them three days before they could get everyone on the same page, thanks to the Attorney General Eric Holder flying out to have a sit down with first responders.

Ian Emdee

Anyone who contends that the availability of assault weapons together with high capacity magazines does not contribute to horrific massacres (i.e. Newtown) is being patently dishonest.

I must agree assault weapons are a bad thing BUT not semi automatic weapons, there is a difference do you know what it is?? My guess is no by your posting, maybe one should learn about that of which he speaks.

Ian all that military style crap is just cosmetic additions to a weapon that make it easier to put on a scope (we don't have to tap holes in a barrel) and it makes it more comfortable to hold for more than two hours at a time. As for standard capacity mags with a 3D printer I can make 10 in an hour and whatt makes you think a law against having or making them is going to stop a crazed gunman or gang member? Also assault weapons are fully automatic and have an 8 to 9 month waiting period before your paper work goes through and you can only own weapons made and registered before 1983 or 86 I can't remember right now. Please from now on refer to an AR 15 as a modern sporting rifle, because that is what it is. It is not an assault rifle.

Tony_Baloney Comment collapsed by the community

The real problem is the disparity in laws from one state to the next.

This is NOT a problem. It is our chosen system of government. We are a constitutional REPUBLIC. The federal government should NOT be passing any gun laws, it is the right of the people in every state to decide how they want to live.

JohnBrowning

I think it's a bit premature to call for an "assault weapon" ban "because that's what Adam Lanza used". I would remind people that the evidence related to Sandy Hook has been sealed...we don't know what he used yet.

he used a sigsauer and a glock...both pistols..... the bushmaster "assault rifle" was found secured in the trunk of his car....

the reason evidence has been sealed? because then the gov wouldnt have a foot to stand on for an argument for a ban on rifles and magazines.

Ian Emdee

Anyone who contends that the availability of assault weapons together with high capacity magazines does not contribute to horrific massacres (i.e. Newtown) is being patently dishonest.

As is anyone suggesting that a, so-called, "ban" on these things will prevent them.

How many children could he have killed if limited to the two handguns and 10 round clips? That is if he is even the shooter and the men caught running into the woods dressed in camo and black have nothing to do with it. There is only video from a helicopter showing the cops running into the woods, they catch one and the other can be seen running (he was latter captured at a firestation) away from them as they chase after the first one. There is even the police radio log that has them chasing and capturing them. Some of the people out front of the school saw the one man in camo be placed in the front of police car. Guess he must have had the proper paperwork ready with him. The police are not even allowed by law to speak about it or they might lose their jobs.

What were two men in camo doing at a school that just had a mass shooting? What logical reason is there for two men to be in the woods behind a school? Why were they dressed in camo? If they were "normal" people then the police could say or talk about it, but since they cannot guess what that means. Either special forces OR foreign special forces with diplomatic immunity of some kind. I doubt our special forces would have anything to do with the murder of that many of our children, but a foreign government would not have any problems doing it. Look at how many children we kill each year in foreign countries each and every year.

Far more people have been killed over much less money. Obama gets what he wants (gun control) and they get money. The ends justify the means in Obama's eyes is all and he let it happen. If only people did not have duel citizenships with many countries and could easily get passports for others like "Prisoner X" did.

BTW why did they not get the fake father that had to "get" into character? The one that was laughing with the other parents and had to make himself "look" sad. Guess he did not realize that the cameras were on/live.

the federal government should not try to pass a knee jerk "one size fits all" assault weapon ban. People live very different lives from NYC to south Texas border ranchers. Geography matters... Texas will not enforce any such law as an assault weapon ban and if your a fed it would be advisable to not even try or waste your time and tax payers dollars. I would imagine most states would follow suit. Supremacy clause or not that is just the fact of the matter. Take the Federal Pot ban for an example.

Mountainlady there are plenty of pistols that use a .223 or 5.56 round. You Cannot tell what kind of weapon fired a round just by the caliber. In order to tell what weapon fired a gun you must have an almost perfect round to match the marks the barrel made on it to a test fired round.

What we need is a designer VIRUS, spread through the entire Earth's atmosphere that incapacitates anyone who threatens another human being. It would work by reacting to the degree of anger a person experiences. Symptoms of the virus would be:

Overt anger: a feeling of slight nausea.

Aggressive anger: dizziness.

Overt feelings of violence: a need to sleep.

An action to partake in physical violence: a rapid decent into unconsciousness.

Step forward medical science and develop a 'designer' VIRUS that will save us from each other...(no antidotes!!)

Lee Burkins Author of "Soldier's Heart: An Inquiry of War"

burkai they tried that in the movie Serenity and that is how the Reavers were made.

Average wealth of the Senate: $2.6 million

Average wealth of the House: $750K

The one percent is disarming the 99%

"Those weapons were used in a battlefield in Vietnam. They were used in the Persian Gulf, they were used in Afghanistan, in Iraq. The sole purpose is to put a lot of lead on a battlefield quickly," Heslin said of guns like the one Adam Lanza used in the Newtown elementary school massacre."

Another complete pervarication. The truth is the weapons used by the military have the ability to select three round bursts or fully automatic. None of the "assult rifles" offered to the public have those options. They only fire at a rate of one shell per trigger pull. Many times a person who does not know about the rifles can cause a jam by trying to fire to many rounds.

The problem is the persistent slide in morality, ethics, and personal accountability at all levels of American society. Just look at the current level of lies associated with our national debt as an indicator of low information voters in relationship to high information voters. The current crop of politicians hope you are a low information voter who is unwilling to research they bogus claims.

First I want to give you this. Google REX-87 and see what plans our goverment has in store for us. They are goverment Is Planning on sending in armored vehicals with armed pesonel to confiscate your guns, if you don't turn them in . California , basicall the new gun ban will make anyone a felon on each law if they don't comply with them. Basically leaving us with no semi auto handguns, no hollow points, Single round shotguns no semi auto rifles and a 72 hour grace period to turn in your banned guns , or an arrest warrant will be issued and they will come and take all your guns and put you in jail. Most likelly there will be 3 strikes and thats Federal prison. Ammo you must regeter with local police , which the Dealer will have to send to and a 500 round limit. Rifle ammo is Illegal to own in a majority of all the cities in the south bay area. I have already made my will and oppointed trustee to my capital. I would rather go out fighting than live anymore in a police run state or corrupted Goverment run country. Adam Lanza never used an assult rifle. They found it in his car. He used a Sig and a Glock with a 30 round mag. They said there was 1 spent rifle casing they found. If he used a rifle there would be casings everywhere. They lied. ABC news told me they could not report anyhting on the investigation unless the info came with the permission of law enforcement. Doo you smell Consperancy?

Johnathan,

That's fine. Make ammo $5k a piece. I make my own ammo anyway. I bought spent brass from a military auction. Eight 55 gallon barrells full of brass. I have enough brass to make roughly 500-600,000 rounds of ammo. Currently have 40,000 loaded. I'll sell it at half price and then go buy my own island.

Ashley how dare you blame me for the actions of a mentally unstable person. I take great offense to this just because I don't believe the rights of the many need to be sacrificed for the safety of a few does not mean that I would allow it to happen.

I don't like your statement but I will defend to the death your right to say it and the tool of that defense is my AR-15.

By the way an assault weapon is fully automatic there is already a ban in place for that just so you know you are being redundant.

Zeus11114......you said:

Quote......Ian all that military style crap is just cosmetic additions to a weapon that make it easier to put on a scope (we don't have to tap holes in a barrel) and it makes it more comfortable to hold for more than two hours at a time.......EndQuote

Not so. Such military style weapons are designed to accept large capacity magazine and other facilitators of mass murder.

and.....

Quote...... As for standard capacity mags with a 3D printer I can make 10 in an hour and whatt makes you think a law against having or making them is going to stop a crazed gunman or gang member?......EndQuote

Apparently, you are unfamiliar with 3D printers. That is, unless you refer to a machine capable of using metal feedstocks and costing in the six figures. 3D printers using plastic feedstocks could only (VERY slowly) produce certain parts of a magazine. Furthermore, a person can fabricate such items without such a printer (i.e. silencers). Do you contend that just because an illegal device can be (even easily) made, that is sufficient to make it legal? Well, start up your assembly line for fertilizer bombs, hand grenades, and nerve gases. We'll keep the laws against such and hope to put you into jail.

and.....

Quote...... Also assault weapons are fully automatic......EndQuote

The M4 carbine has ONLY semi-automatic and 3 round burst modes. Do you (foolishly) contend IT is not an assault rifle? Furthermore, full auto mode is only useful for (offensive) fire suppression and (defensive) overwhelming fire power. Semi-automatic mode is far more useful in a conventional firefight (or a massacre). BTW---Take note rocky-2318920......Not everyone who argues for stricter military style weapons laws is ignorant of such weapons. Nor are we all non-owners of various firearms. Some of us even used them during our military service.

and......

Quote.....Please from now on refer to an AR 15 as a modern sporting rifle, because that is what it is. It is not an assault rifle......EndQuote

The AR 15 (among others) is constructed such that it can accept large capacity magazines. Many (perhaps most) conventional semi-automatic hunting (aka "sporting") rifles cannot accept such magazines.

Ashley,

Really? Sitting in my office in Georgia I made some idiot go shoot people? Get a brain of your own, and stop repeating the political talking points. We have freedoms for a reason. It's because our founders took up arms and freed this nation from British Oppression. The number of Gun owners is one of many reasons our country hasn't been invaded in modern times. Just look at all the Arab Spring countries to see the true reason why we have a right to bear arms. Just as we have a right to assemble, a right to free speech, and freedom of the press.

Ashley: No, sorry. Those who COMMITTED the crime are responsible for the murders in Aurora and Connecticut.

Your analogy is severely flawed. That is like trying to make Ford and Toyota responsible for drunk driving deaths. That is like a pharmacy responsible for methamphetamines in the street.

If you want to live in a country where human rights don't exist and where innocent people are found responsible for crimes for convenience you are welcome to go.

But I live in the United States where people are innocent until proven guilty and want to keep it that way.

In the United States we do not take away someone's rights because they MIGHT use it in a crime. No, we punish the criminal not those who might perform a criminal act in the future.

Zeus,

There are bans in certain states, but it is legal to own full auto. I have two of them. They are both legal and incredible works of art.

Dawgfan: When you buy this island can I join you:)

And I hope this island is big so we can fit another 5,000 plus NRA carrying members on the island too!!

Defending ourselves as a group would be much easier!!

Not to get distracted but I have actually been trying to find a way to build a "Conservatives" society. With a large number of individual investors (about 5000) we buy about 7000 acre tract. Subdivide into one acre lots each in which we build our own homes and of the remaining 2000 acres we set aside 500 acres to keep as hunting land, a small portion for farming, etc.

In other words build our own community with its own school, develop a bartering system, have our own grocery store/hardware store/gun store/etc. and if the SHTF we have our own large group to work together as one group. Completely self-sufficient.

I have tried numerous ways to organize but would have to be set up like a company and sell "stock" with that many people and that creates SIGNIFICANT problems!! It would have to go through the SEC and that becomes very tricky and difficult. I already have the basics calculated just couldn't get to the "next step".

But just imagine if we had 5000 people each invest $10,000. That's $50 million. About $10 million to buy a large tract of land (about 7000 acres). So much more to build infrastructure (roads, electric, water source, etc.), and then investment in the small "business" district but believe it could all be done for much less than the investment of $50 million. I just can't get a structure organized where I could take it to the next level to actually find 4,999 other conservatives:(

Ian these weapons are designed to accept magazines, large 100 round capacity mags were an after thought that no one uses due to the jamming issues inherent with the way double drum mags feed. A 30 round mag is standard capacity for any of these rifles and anything less is a low cap mag.

I am quite familier with 3D printers as i have built my own extrusion printer and the only metal part you need in a magazine is the spring my example is a P-Mag by Magpul these magazines are completely plastic. As for suppressors those should be as easy to get as a normal gun because all it really does is lower the decibel rating by about 20. What it doesn't do is make the gun silent like in the movies. And finally the comment about explosives and nerve gas, that is just plain stupid. Things like that can bring down buildings and kill cities the size of New York with the push of a button.

The M4 - I'm sorry I forgot about that one it does fall into the assault weapon category because it fires more than one round with each pull of the trigger.

I want to know what modern semi-automatic rifles can't take a mag over 5 rounds. Please post an example because every semi-auto rifle Ihave ever seen has had a tactical conversion for it somewhere and a mag the holds more than 5 rounds to go with it. Rifles with built in mags don't count because that is not a detachable box mags like what we are talking about.

Dawgfan sorry about that. I know that but due to the 1986 limit the prices are so high i consider them banned. My WWII collection will have to go without the ppsh, thompson, and MG42.

IAN Emdee not all people are ignorant of the guns they discuss but you are obviously not one of those people based on your "expert" comments.

The AR-15 is designed to accept a magazine, whether it is a 5 round or 50 rounder it really can't tell the difference.

First learn your topic and you will discover that the most popular AR magazines are actually all plastic. except the spring. Catch up on 3D printer technology too and then revisit your statement as the printers are dropping in price from $500 - $3000 for the everyday users, of course the $500 won't be cranking out 10 mags an hour. Other than the spring which is readily available via non-firearms sources magazine cad plans are readily available via the internet. It is cost prohibitive but very doable and depending the compound very tough in nature.

You actually got something correct about the M4 and your full auto statement can be refuted but it will be scenario based. If you served thanks for you service from a fellow vet.

You missed the boat again on the capacity plan for "hunting" rifles, as I have a few BAR's with 10 round 30-06 and .308 magazines. Ruger Mini 14's are kind of hybrids, Remington 742's have plenty of magazine choices available. You also went back to the incorrect statement about AR-15's being made to accept high capacity magazines, which we already covered.

‘I can still feel that hug:’ Senate hearing on guns turns emotional

BS that does not belong here. These are cheap theatrics with no value.

If the inept obama manages to get a ban he will create millions of criminals with the swoop of his auto-signer, and will also destroy the democratic voting base. When republicans take over in 2016 they will have a lot of restoring to do, and in doing so will ensure republican victories for many years to come.

mountainlady

First to JohnBrowning, please try to keep up. The coroner who had to deal with those poor little bodies reported conclusively that all the bullets he removed came from an AR-15. No if, ands or buts. No conspiracy, no cover-up.... just 26 innocent dead people due to an AR-15 easily available to a nutcase. And Steve446003, you are exactly the type of gun owner that scares the rest of us.... selfish, self-righteous and without a heart or soul. Actually that perfectly describes a sociopath... look it up. The facts are that the US is a country that shrugs off violence and values gun rights more than innocent chldren. After all it wasn't your kid, right? Why should you care?

Apparently you're the one who needs to "catch up", Mountain Lady. First of all, an AR-15 is not the only firearm, nor the only rifle, that uses .223 ammunition. Secondly, the only way to determine which gun fired the bullets that killed those children is to perform ballistics tests. These tests match the bullet casings in the bodies to those known to have been fired from a specific weapon (ie: a bullet fired in a laboratory only). Ballistics test take longer than an hour (I know, I know, how do those guys on CSI do it so fast?) and those tests were not completed at the time the coroner made his statement. It's obvious he was either told what to say directly or indirectly, or like many other irresponsible and un/miseducated citizens (like these Democrat House members, and people like you), he was speaking out of his butt because he doesn't know what he's talking about. Bullets tend to fragment on impact, especially those fired from a rifle (any rifle, not just an AR-15 -- the barrel length adds to the speed of the bullet), and most big city coroners and law enforcement officers can't tell the difference between a .223 or a .45 once it's pulled from a body. This, along with trying to find exactly who's weapon fired the lethal round(s), is why ballistic tests are performed. You want to believe that a small-town coroner would recognize exactly what kind of bullet he pulled from a child's body when he was emotional and upset when unemotional coroners in big cities with more firearm deaths can't do that? Puh-lease!! Do you believe everything you hear on TV, or just what fits your belief system? Furthermore, aside from early media reports that the two pistols Lanza had were found in the school and that the AR-15 and another rifle were found in his vehicle's trunk, there has been no confirmation of the weapons used because records have been sealed. At this time, there is no public record that states that the AR-15 was even used in the shooting. Please, check your facts and sources before you embarrass yourself again by telling other people to "catch up" with the facts.

Lastly, trying to paint anyone who doesn't want our government to violate the 2nd Amendment as uncaring of children is an irrelevant appeal to pity or emotion. It's a fallacious form of argument that's not really valid (Google "logical fallacies").

Kaybeetoys A database of gun owners is the first step to confiscation. That is why we fight so strongly against it. If the government knows who has guns and they decides to infringe on rights the first people they will go after is gun owners because they are the ones who can fight back.

343 people killed by a rifle in 2011. That includes all rifles (huting rifles, AR-15s, etc.). BTW, that's .0001% of the US population. Why are we talking about "assault" weapon bans?

FIRST off, the so called assault rifle that you can buy at the sporting goods store is NOTHING like what is used in the military arsenal. So the whole claim that these are the same guns as used in a theatre of war is an absolute lie!

SECOND off, look up the report given to Matt lauer of the Today Show by the NBC chief Justice Correspondent Pete Williams. It was aired only once and then was scrubbed and sterilized because it didn't fit the agenda, but there are copies all over the net due to the diligence of many who watch for these types of reports, and record for the posterity of all of us. In this report NBC "Chief Justice Correspondent" Pete Williams states (with film footage) that there were NO, (I repeat NO, NO, NO) rifles of any kind used in the Sandy Hook shooting. They did however find 4 hand guns in the possesion of the shooter. (Again I must repeat 4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4 hand guns) There was 1 long gun found in the trunk of his car, and that was shown to be a shotgun (on film). The claim that he used a assault stylized semi automatic weapon is a LIE. (I must repeat, LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE,)

Ther is only one reason for thes lies. One and ONLY one.

This administration and their lap dog propaganda mongering left wing media is perpetuating a great lie and misinformation campaign for one reason and one reason only. That is to convince the American people that we need to give up our guns and let the government provide us with all of lifes answers. All of you must realize that the government doesn't want us to give up These so called assault weapons for our safety, because they account for less than 1% of all gun tragedies. They do however provide the average American Citizen with the means by which to defend their freedoms against a heavily modernized military enforcement of tyranical government desires. THAT is the ONLY reasonable explanation of these lies perpetuated by our elected representatives. If you think I am mistaken, then you are the fool and need bow out of the issue altogether.

Yeah ok, I get it that we all want to have some assurance of safety; But how can you even begin to delude yourself that to give up our 2nd amendment rights will in any way make any of us safer? The gang bangers run rampant through our cities, yet they do nothing to stop them. Why???? BECAUSE, it isn't about stopping criminals. IT IS however about stopping law abiding patriotic citizens from preventing the illegal subvertion of the constitution and the usurpation of our freedoms and our country.

My question at this point is this. Why do any of you think that the government is so intent on taking away assault rifles from law abiding citizens, yet refuse to address the absolutely horrid gang violence in this country? Hell, Chicago has litterally the strongest gun laws in the country, yet they have right at 1.5 gun deaths per DAY! WTF People are you all retarded!!!? Yes,,, as totally non PC as that sounds, I mean RETARDED! This is our government embarking on a campaign to take this country down and make it more amenable to the New World Order of the U.N.

My DIRECT ancestors fought next to George Washington for these freedoms that we all enjoy. Now it may have taken some longer than others to do so, but we are all there in the end. I refuse to sit idly by and watch this illegal government take these freedoms for anyones' un-American agenda, without at least exercising my right to speak out against it.

When someone can prove to me that this is a better direction to take then I will shut my mouth. Until then just stay the hell off of my rights.

Thank you very much.

kaybeetoys

Democrats want to require private gun sellers to keep records of who they've sold guns to so they can be traced if they're used in a crime. Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, who's been negotiating, is opposed to that requirement because he says it could lead to a database of all gun owners.

Why would a database of all gun owners be a problem?

Please tell us why a law -abiding citizen would be opposed to such a database? We have records for vehicles, so why not guns?

Uh, because it's absolutely none of the government's business whether I own a firearm or not, or what type of firearm, and the serial number, etc., etc.? (Yes, I'm a completely law abiding citizen. No, I'm not a Republican or an NRA member. I also happen to be one of "those" women who dare to own firearms for my own protection and enjoyment.) The Constitution guarantees my right to bear arms, it doesn't guarantee my right to drive a car. Owning and possessing a firearm is a Constitutionally protected right imbued to humans by right of existence, driving is a privilege extended by the government. See the difference? Also, if outspoken loudmouths in the government were trying to ban Ford Explorers because they caused 2.9% of traffic fatalities (this is the amount of fatalities attributed to "assault" weapons -- which are actually just semi-automatic rifles -- 323 deaths of ~11,000), and were threatening to come take them, as Feinstein, Cuomo and others have (Google it if you don't believe me), then would you want to be on a government list of Ford Explorer owners? Probably not. There are already federal laws prohibiting the development of a nationwide gun registry list. Why do you think that is?

It seems that you find no problem with a nationwide registry (and that's fine -- you're entitled to your opinion). Do you also believe that the government should stick it's nose into citizen's bedrooms and uteruses? If not, why do you believe that it's okay for them to stick their nose in my bedside table or my gun safe?

I can gaurantee you that the average gun owner has 30 round mags for defense against a stronger enemy. It is not defend the home against a home invasion robbery, nor to stop a mugging. it isn't for the sport of target/skeet shooting, nor is it for the sport of hunting. it is purely due to the average citizens right to maintain weapons which provide some assurance of parity with that which the government can bring to bear during times of tyranical oppression. As is our gauranteed rights as outlined by the second amendment.

Don't like it? Too damned bad. Go suck eggs and hide in the corner like the scared little chicken that you are. I for one am not afraid to die, because the reality of life is that death follows it no matter what any of us tries to do to stop it. i intend to live free until then.

So stay off my rights!

You have no right to take my rights to satisfy your agenda.

cont:

You can 'guarantee'? So much for credibility.

The only true fact I know about Sandy Hook is what I saw with my own eyes. The Bushmaster AR15 was taken out of his trunk after the shooting, I watched that happen. The first press release stated it was not used and found in the back of his car. Seven hours later that video is so blurred you can barely make out what it is and the press changed their statement. There has been an agenda by the U.N. to disarm the American people since 1961.

Kaybeetoys according to the NIJ banning semiautomatic sporting rifles would have no affect on crime in any mesurable way.

Also how dare you call me part of the problem by trying to inforce the second amendment. If you want to fix this issue with violence and crime go to the source, poverty and the way kids are raised. Keep your mits off my guns and off my rights.

The Constitution guarantees my right to bear arms, it doesn't guarantee my right to drive a car.

Why are you wasting your time and ours with an argument as asinine as that?

And how does the legal system function if you refuse--as a "LAW ABIDING" citizen-- to be honest about your ownership of a weapon? How can you expect the laws on the books to be enforced if you refuse to cooperate? How can you expect a criminal to be sentenced for using a weapon in the commission of a crime if there is no record of the ownership of the gun?

I'd advise all of you gun nuts to put your weapons somewhere really safe (the same place where you keep your heads).

I refuse to sit idly by and watch this illegal government take these freedoms for anyones' un-American agenda, without at least exercising my right to speak out against it.

When someone can prove to me that this is a better direction to take then I will shut my mouth. Until then just stay the hell off of my rights.

If you (erroneously) believe our government is "illegal", then you are free to go anywhere else in the world that will take you. Good luck with that.

If your ancestors truly fought for freedom from the British crown, then you should honor their courage and sacrifice by upholding and supporting the government they created. Or, as I said, you are free to leave.

Quit whining about your rights and start behaving like a responsible, respectable adult. It's time to make your ancestors proud. Imagine how they would feel if they could see the gun carnage and know they were being held to account for it for what they said and did three hundred years ago?

Also how dare you call me part of the problem by trying to inforce the second amendment. If you want to fix this issue with violence and crime go to the source, poverty and the way kids are raised. Keep your mits off my guns and off my rights.

The second amendment refers to a "well regulated militia". How are you trying to enforce it?

So you think poverty and the way kids are raised is the cause of all the gun slaughter? What are you doing about that?

Like I said, if you're not part of the solution, you, Zeus, are part of the problem.

Own it like a man.

kaybeetoys "We will return our land to peace and sanity, inch by hard-fought inch"

Crime stats show that gun violence has been going down. Our land had more peace and sanity in it before our government stepped in and started regulating it and giving out welfare checks. So based on your post we need to discard all gun laws and stop handing out welfare checks, so our land will return to peace and sanity.

Kaybeetoys you show your self to be an unamerican piece of Sh!t calling the Constitution asinine. You dont need a record of ownership to prosicute someone for using a gun in a murder or robbery they have been doing it for hundreds of years so far. MMR made a good point and if the government knows who has every gun then when it comes time to oppress the population they know who to go after first.

Kaybeetoys

Your name fits. What do you value?

Kaybeetoys rimes with little boys.

Heshe is just a another stupid ass Obama blogger.

my guess piggy/redhead/kaybeetoys

Kaybee I volunteer at the local Boys and Girls club and with the Boy Scouts to try and be role model to kids. I am also part of my state mililtia.

baybeetoys - like it or not it is a right to own a gun under the constitution. You simply cannot pick and choose the ones you like and don't like. Many states have already made their decision about their thoughts of the federal governments potential infringement on personal rights.

Sadly even in this article you saw the attitude of the Milwaukee police chief, he is too busy to chasing criminals to chase paper, even though by the laws already on the books these people may have knowingly committed a crime.

Imagine if it was true that Adam Lanza attempted to purchase guns twice as is being reported and law enforcement had intervened? The tragedy may have been averted.

Instead of calling names and arguing with emotion why not focus on something meaningful. I would not have a problem with funding additional police to follow up on the gun violations and actually do something to them. I have broken nor break any gun laws, I love my children just as much as someone who does not like guns. My 13 year old cheerleader, straight A daughter loves to go to the range with me and it is great memories for both of use. She loves to shoot my AR15 and wants one of her own so we don't have to share.

kaybee-you are a knucklehead. "why would a database be a problem?" read your history books again,remember hitler?

"Those weapons were used in a battlefield in Vietnam. They were used in the Persian Gulf, they were used in Afghanistan, in Iraq. The sole purpose is to put a lot of lead on a battlefield quickly," Heslin said of guns like the one Adam Lanza used in the Newtown elementary school massacre.

I don't believe that any U.S. soldier has ever used an AR15 in combat. Having served nearly 10 years in the infantry, I have never seen a soldier take an AR15 on deployment. I did not know a single soldier who would want to bring an AR15 to combat. It does not fire in burst nor automatic. The anti-gun crowd needs to get their "facts" correct.

kaybeetoys

The Constitution guarantees my right to bear arms, it doesn't guarantee my right to drive a car.

Why are you wasting your time and ours with an argument as asinine as that?

And how does the legal system function if you refuse--as a "LAW ABIDING" citizen-- to be honest about your ownership of a weapon? How can you expect the laws on the books to be enforced if you refuse to cooperate? How can you expect a criminal to be sentenced for using a weapon in the commission of a crime if there is no record of the ownership of the gun?

I'd advise all of you gun nuts to put your weapons somewhere really safe (the same place where you keep your heads).

An asinine argument? You obviously have either never read the Constitution, or you have and you don't care what it says as long as it doesn't support your fascist notions (or both).

How can I expect the laws on the books to be enforced if I don't cooperate? What laws would those be? I never advocated "not cooperating", I simply answered the question you asked (obviously though, you weren't actually asking a question, you were just looking for a reason to call someone a "gun nut", as if name-calling and irrational thinking really advances your ridiculous arguments). Laws on the books aren't enforced and it has nothing to do with the fact that there's no central gun registry. How can I expect a criminal to be sentenced for using a weapon in the commission of a crime if there is no record of the ownership of the gun? The ownership of the gun in your example doesn't matter in the least. If a criminal is being sentenced for using a weapon in the commission of a crime, then the weapon must have been in the hands of that criminal at the time the crime was committed and there must be proof of that (the cops found it on him, the witnesses saw it, his/her fingerprints are on the gun, his/her hands have GSR on them, etc.). Whether that gun was registered or not makes no difference. Geez, it's like talking to a kindergartener here... SMH How does my telling the government that I own a gun (in your ridiculous argument "being honest about my ownership of a weapon") help stop crime? If I tell them I own a gun, homie down the street is gonna give up his gangbanging and his pistol and the felon next door who is going to kill his wife is going to stop? Hello? Earth to kaybee? This is reality calling.... Are you there? No? Figures.

I notice that you took one sentence out of my entire post to go on your irrational and irrelevant rant (your points have nothing to do with what I said, but as long as you said your piece...), yet you completely ignored my question to you. You're obviously one of those who think that the government should stay out of people's personal lives unless they're collecting money for social programs, or the military-industrial complex, and/or taking a firearm inventory of law-abiding citizens. Typical (and stupid). Because you seem to not understand, I'll say it again: it's none of the government's business who own guns and a national registry is prohibited by federal law. How is knowing who owns firearms going to stop gun violence? Short of confiscation, there is no way that a list will do anything to prevent crime.

I refuse to have discussions with people like you. You'd rather call names, use ad hominem arguments, nonsensically rant, and keep changing the topic rather than have a civil conversation with someone who may have different opinions than you. I bet you're popular...

Kaybeetoys A database of gun owners is the first step to confiscation.

So I presume they have already confiscated your car? Because we have had a database of car owners for at least half a century. Certainly, longer than my lifetime.

You are very sadly mistaken if you think that you guns can protect you against the US government if it decides to become evil. They have weapons that will vaporize your gun along with you. No one has any interest in "confiscating" your guns that are legitimately used for sport and only support.

You are welcome to keep your guns. We just don't want you to have guns like those that are used against our kids.

kaybeetoys

If your ancestors truly fought for freedom from the British crown, then you should honor their courage and sacrifice by upholding and supporting the government they created. Or, as I said, you are free to leave.

LMAO!! Upholding and supporting the government they created is UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION, INCLUDING THE SECOND AMENDMENT. Keep talking in circles, though. The rest of us can at least get a good laugh out of it.

Zeus11114

Kaybeetoys you show your self to be an unamerican piece of Sh!t calling the Constitution asinine.

First, "Einstein", I was obviously referring to the fact that cars did not exist when the U.S. constitution was written. Second, you have been flagged for violating the Newsvine code of honor.

I could call you vile names too, but that is unnecessary. Your comments speak for you.

Imagine if it was true that Adam Lanza attempted to purchase guns twice as is being reported and law enforcement had intervened? The tragedy may have been averted.

Imagine if Republicans hadn't slashed the bugets for law enforcement officers all over the country? Then maybe they would have the manpower to apprehend gun applicants who falsified their documentation.

How do you know Adam Lanza lied on his applications? And do you honestly believe gun dealers would turn away a sale and report the applicant to the police?

The Constitution guarantees my right to bear arms, it doesn't guarantee my right to drive a car.

If the Constitution guarantees your right to keep and bear arms, then why has the Supreme Court allowed ownership of nuclear weapons to be illegal? Or for that matter, abridge the right of people to keep cars, because as so many of your friends keep reminding us, cars are also weapons.

The simple fact is, the government and the Supreme Court has already accepted and imposed limits of the 2nd Amendment in order to provide better public safety. That is why unsafe drivers can lose their right to drive and why random people are not allowed to own nuclear weapons.

Weapons that are capable of killing a lot of people in a short period of time are the problem here. That is why, for public safety, we need to regulate those weapons. Remember the rest of the 2nd Amendment? "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Pedestrian-in-SF

Gun owners feel strongly in the right to defend ourselves and our families.

You can defend yourself and your family without a weapon made to cut someone in half on a battlefield.

Once again, here's someone who just takes at face value what some idiot on TV says. The guns they're talking about banning are nothing like those used on a battlefield. This has been pointed out in several other posts and can be quickly verified by a 5 minute google search. EDUCATE YOURSELF!!

An AR-15 is just like any other semi-automatic rifle: it fires ONE bullet PER trigger pull. The .223 ammunition used in an AR-15 is also less powerful than many handguns, including some revolvers. Just because a rifle is black and "looks scary" doesn't make it military grade.

I think we can all agree that criminals break the law when it suits them. According to all of you pro-gun nuts, we should just not have any laws because bad people will always break them. There is nothing we can do about it except arm the general public and let everyone just shoot it out.

I refuse to have discussions with people like you.

Fine. Don't come here to discuss gun slaughter then. Run along and play with your toys.

KayBee,

Don't be an ass.

If your ancestors truly fought for freedom from the British crown, then you should honor their courage and sacrifice by upholding and supporting the government they created. Or, as I said, you are free to leave

One of my ancestors, Silas Blodgett, served in the American Revolution from the first battle at Lexington to the last battle at Yorktown. He did not fight to create a government to which everyone should automatically bow. It's stupid sheeple thinking like yours that gets our country in trouble. I will not now, nor will I ever, just blindly accept the path that the elected representatives choose to lead us down. We have the right and the duty to disagree with leadership and to demand course corrections when they begin to deviate from the path of Constitutional Law.

kaybee-you are a knucklehead. "why would a database be a problem?" read your history books again,remember hitler?

It's interesting that someone would mention Hitler in a gun debate.

From http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/assorted/gunhitler.html :-

The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense and self- reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen should behave. The notion of banning firearms ownership was utterly alien to National Socialism. In the German universities, where National Socialism gained its earliest footholds and which later became its strongest bastions, dueling was an accepted practice. Although the liberal-Jewish governments in Germany after the First World War attempted to ban dueling, it persisted illegally until it was again legalized by the National Socialists. Fencing, target shooting, and other martial arts were immensely popular in Germany, and the National Socialists encouraged young Germans to become proficient in these activities, believing that they were important for the development of a man's character.

Kind of interesting that a fairly anti-Semitic web site, such as this one appears to be would be so pro-gun as well, don't you think?

Kaybee you are right and I am sorry. The comment was made after frayed nerves got to be from people using stupid arguments like "if sporting rifles aren't banned than why don't we just allow everyone to own nukes" and ignoring the people that use inteligence. Once again I apologize for being a complete douche with that comment.

Kaybee - You are really showing your ignorance about the subject matter so try to keep up.

How have Republicans slashed police budgets? You do realize local and state police are not federal employees right? I have never seen anything that one side or the other slashed police budgets. I see the financial woes have caused public service offerings (teachers, fire, police, etc.) to be reduced but that is a bi-partisan issue.

I mentioned about the "reports" that Adam Lanza attempted to buy guns twice previously and was denied. However since everything about the event is currently/conveniently sealed then all of the statements about Sandy Hook on both sides are pure conjecture. If you check on the boxes and answer all the questions and it passes then you are good to go. If they fell then you either knowingly or unknowingly lied on your form and that should be investigated or there was a computer error that needs to be corrected.

The background checks are sent in via the store or dealer and they receive an authorization number that is audited but the ATF. Are the criminals out there on both sides, of course and they need to be prosecuted and no reasonable person should object.

Byron Raum

The Constitution guarantees my right to bear arms, it doesn't guarantee my right to drive a car.

If the Constitution guarantees your right to keep and bear arms, then why has the Supreme Court allowed ownership of nuclear weapons to be illegal? Or for that matter, abridge the right of people to keep cars, because as so many of your friends keep reminding us, cars are also weapons.

The simple fact is, the government and the Supreme Court has already accepted and imposed limits of the 2nd Amendment to provide for public safety. That is why unsafe drivers can lose their right to drive and why random people are not allowed to own nuclear weapons.

Weapons that are capable of killing a lot of people in a short period of time are the problem here. That is why, for public safety, we need to regulate those weapons. Remember the rest of the 2nd Amendment? "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

SMH. Almost to the point of whiplash. You need to actually read US v Heller before you start spouting off about something you obviously know nothing about. It addresses your red herring argument about nuclear weapons. Remember the rest of the 2nd Amendment: "shall not be infringed"??? (And no matter what you think, the Constitution says nothing about driving, or taking away people's driver's licenses, etc.).

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Here's a place for you to start for the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. You probably won't like the main site, but you can find the exact same information from other sources as well. The next place for you to go is to read The Federalist Papers, where our founding fathers specifically speak about their intentions behind the entire Constitution, not just the 2nd Amendment. Courts (including the SCOTUS) have routinely referred to these papers when faced with cases having to do with Constitutional law, including landmark gun control cases. Enjoy!

He did not fight to create a government to which everyone should automatically bow. It's stupid sheeple thinking like yours that gets our country in trouble.

And how exactly do you think having a gun will protect you from any of this? Kind of funny that you would accuse other people of being non-thinking...what was the word "sheeple", and not yourself realize that there is no weapon you can lay your hands on that will allow you to face the might of the US Government if it comes from you.

It's people like kaybee who are the ones who actually work to protect you from your government while you play with your silly little guns. But interestingly enough, it is the ACLU who are despised and political correctness scorned by people like you - the same people who work to make sure that ALL Americans are protected. People who speak out against real government over-reach, against illegal wiretapping and government surveillance.

And somehow the liberals are the sheeple. Right.

kaybeetoys

I refuse to have discussions with people like you.

Fine. Don't come here to discuss gun slaughter then. Run along and play with your toys.

Infantile. Truly. And you still can't even address my questions or comments with sense...

SallyAnn-4595694

Hard to bypass all comments in front of mine, but since you post the original comment, I would ask you:

Can you call the families of those children murdered "do gooders, bleeding hearts" ?? Sorry, but that's exactly what you're doing.

Now, what exactly would be your solution for enforcing the "laws on the book", and what exactly ARE the laws you're referring to? (A clear description would be most helpful to everyone Online.

poor Sally doesn't realize that the NRA wrote laws they had their political lackeys pass that gutted the ATF's ability to enforce the laws.

Also, most gun owners I know are for a national gun database. Who cares if the government knows what kind of guns you have? If they come after you, they are going to have bigger, more powerful guns than you have anyways...plus they won't come after you if you don't break any laws. Lets stop pandering to the nutcases...

I will not now, nor will I ever, just blindly accept the path that the elected representatives choose to lead us down.

I'm hardly following along with our elected representatives! What have they done all these years about the out-of-control gun violence? They're a huge part of the problem. For years they've been owned by the NRA.

We citizens who believe in ending gun carnage are not followers. On the contrary, we are the leaders.

My ancestors came to America a hundred years before the Revolution. But even those whose ancestors came much later are equal in citizenship, so don't try to play that game.

Byron Raum - Your posts are incoherent and ramble. What point are you trying to make?

J. Heron - obviously you don't know many gun owners and your NRA comments shows your total ignorance of the discussions.

SMH. Almost to the point of whiplash. You need to actually read US v Heller before you start spouting off about something you obviously know nothing about. It addresses your red herring argument about nuclear weapons. Remember the rest of the 2nd Amendment: "shall not be infringed"??? (And no matter what you think, the Constitution says nothing about driving, or taking away people's driver's licenses, etc.).

Your site has a bunch of crap; specifically, to quote:

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

The reason you are spouting BS is because nuclear weapons can now be built that can be carried around on your shoulder and in suitcases. So by the dictionary definition you are using, some nuclear weapons are arms - they are weapons that can be carried. There is no "obviously" about it.

But if you want to dispute that...how about Stinger missiles? They are specifically designed to take out aircraft, and are specifically designed to be operated from a soldier's shoulder - that's how the Afghanis defeated the Russians. A shoulder-carried weapon that can take out an airplane. That is certainly "arms" by your dictionary's definition. And so, they are also outlawed.

But yes, if anything doesn't fit in your nice little world view, it must be a red herring, right? And anyone who doesn't agree with you is really stupid...what was the word you used "sheeple?" Wow, you are so smart, I am sure we are all so very impressed.

Infantile. Truly. And you still can't even address my questions or comments with sense...

As you said, you refuse to have discussions with people like me.
People who disagree with you, that is.

I refuse to waste my time here with someone who's using the argument that cars aren't mentioned in the constitution.

Byron Raum,

You and kaybeetoys are the epitome of sheeple. You both clearly know nothing about the second amendment, or stopped after reading the first part. Then again, you can only be a liberal if you believe in half truths.

Kaybeetoys, you bring up the word "slaughter" again and again.

What slaughter? Rifles (including bolt, semi auto, and "assault weapons) make up a fraction of gun violence, as has been stated in this thread multiple times.

Preying on the emotions of people to get what you want shows that you have no honor.

Byron Raum - Your posts are incoherent and ramble. What point are you trying to make?

In your case, I seem to have made the point that you are incapable of 12th grade reading comprehension. Totally unintentionally, though, I assure you.

How do you people make a correlation between firearms and nuclear weapons? Can you not discuss a subject without moving it to such outlandish areas? That is a ploy for the small minded.

To all you anti-gun freaks. Before you respond about guns, know what you are talking about first.

And how about, instead of banning guns. Why don't we ban the criminals.

Why we should ban assault weapons

1. criminals have the same weapons that private citizens have
2. private citizens do not have access to machine guns
3. therefore, very few criminals have machine guns
4. if private citizens do not have assault weapons, criminals also will not have assault weapons

Here are the people who "need" assault weapons

1. mass murderers, so they can kill lots of people before they commit suicide
2. drug traffickers, so they can participate in drug wars and fight law enforcement
3. gang bangers, so they can participate in gang wars and fight law enforcement
4. survivalists such as the Montana Freemen and Idaho compound dwellers, so they can fight the government
5. 2nd Amendment radicals so they can defend themselves against the government

Byron Raum

SMH. Almost to the point of whiplash. You need to actually read US v Heller before you start spouting off about something you obviously know nothing about. It addresses your red herring argument about nuclear weapons. Remember the rest of the 2nd Amendment: "shall not be infringed"??? (And no matter what you think, the Constitution says nothing about driving, or taking away people's driver's licenses, etc.).

Your site has a bunch of crap; specifically, to quote:

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

The reason you are spouting BS is because nuclear weapons can now be built that can be carried around on your shoulder and in suitcases. So by the dictionary definition you are using, some nuclear weapons are arms - they are weapons that can be carried. There is no "obviously" about it.

But if you want to dispute that...how about Stinger missiles? They are specifically designed to take out aircraft, and are specifically designed to be operated from a soldier's shoulder - that's how the Afghanis defeated the Russians. A shoulder-carried weapon that can take out an airplane. That is certainly "arms" by your dictionary's definition. And so, they are also outlawed.

But yes, if anything doesn't fit in your nice little world view, it must be a red herring, right? And anyone who doesn't agree with you is really stupid...what was the word you used "sheeple?" Wow, you are so smart, I am sure we are all so very impressed.

I'll just have to continue shaking my head. The information on that site can be found on dozens of others. You just don't get it, and you won't ever get it, because you don't educate yourself. (And I never used the term "sheeple". You obviously can't keep your conversations straight.)

You and kaybeetoys are the epitome of sheeple. You both clearly know nothing about the second amendment, or stopped after reading the first part.

Yes, it is clear that I have actually only read the 2nd Amendment. I obviously haven't read all the idiocies you people write in order to justify a completely illogical point of view.

Then again, you can only be a liberal if you believe in half truths.

I am sorry, but insulting people does not advance your argument. Rather, it just goes to show you as a liberal-hater. You are welcome to be a illiberal and as Regressive as you like, though. It's a free country.

My comprehension is fine but your posts is and inability to make a coherent argument and stay on track make having a discussion impossible. Since high school must have just let out and you joined late I will use a metaphor. Having a meaningful discussion with you is like trying to pick up a turd from the clean end.

Zeus11114

Kaybee you are right and I am sorry.

Apology accepted, Zeus. :)

As Rodney King so famously said, "Why can't we all just get along?"

No one is coming to take your guns!!! Please get that straight, folks. It's an insane idea to even try to disarm every American household. We are not advocating that. Anyone who tells you the government will take away your guns has an ulterior motive, and I think we can all guess what it is:

They want to sell you more guns and ammo.

Hey, folks, it's your money. Spend it as you wish. But please dial down the violent rhetoric. And remember that the people who have lost loved ones to gun violence might be reading your comments here. Try to act like you care, even if you don't.

Thank you, Byron Raum, for injecting some much-needed sanity here.

don97524 - what are you bringing to this discussion? Please go educate yourself about the subject matter and come back to us.

Byron,

and not yourself realize that there is no weapon you can lay your hands on that will allow you to face the might of the US Government if it comes from you.

Is that so? Tell that to the Vietnamese. Cowards like you surrender before the battle begins for fear of what the Government "might" do to you. There were cowards like you among the colonists as well who feared the might of the British crown. I do not fear anything that the U.S. Government would deploy against it's people. They can't use nukes and they can't use NBC weapons. If the U.S. Government waged war on it's citizens it would be conventional warfare. There are forty times more well trained former military in the civilian world than on active duty. I guarantee that many military units would turn on the Government if the Government tried to kill it's citizens for not surrendering their Constitutional rights. Officers and enlisted soldiers have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution for the United States of America. They have a sworn duty to reject unlawful orders. An order to kill citizens for not surrendering their Constitutional rights is an unlawful order. I do not fear the U.S. military.

I am more concerned about local government. It is from local government that I need to protect myself. Take a moment and read about the Battle of Athens, TN in 1946. An AR15 would put me on equal footing with local government and their jack booted paramilitary police thugs. A limited capacity shotgun or a revolver would put me at a distinct disadvantage.

I'll just have to continue shaking my head. The information on that site can be found on dozens of others. You just don't get it, and you won't ever get it, because you don't educate yourself.

I don't think you understand the way "education" works. You are not a fount of wisdom. If you give me a link, I am going to read the link and analyze it for what it's worth. If it says something "obviously" which is so completely false, I am going to think the author is wrong.

You idea of education is that people come around to your point of view. The simple fact is that there are plenty of carry-able arms that are banned today. I understand that you don't like this fact, but it is the simple truth. Trying to act superior isn't going to change it.

kaybeetoys

Infantile. Truly. And you still can't even address my questions or comments with sense...

As you said, you refuse to have discussions with people like me.
People who disagree with you, that is.

I refuse to waste my time here with someone who's using the argument that cars aren't mentioned in the constitution.

No, I refuse to have discussions with people who choose to piece-meal everything that is posted against their position, who can't even read (I never "based" my argument on the fact that "cars aren't mentioned in the Constitution. I said there is a Constitutionally protected right to bear arms -- the 2nd Amendment -- but there is no Constitutionally protected right to drive a car -- unless of course, you have a "special" Constitution that contains an amendment referring to the "right" to drive. YOU made the car analogy when you asked why we shouldn't register guns in the same fashion cars are registered. But please, prove me wrong and show us all where the Constitution guarantees your "right" to drive a car. That should keep you busy FOREVER.), and who want to call everyone opposed to their nonsensical and emotional arguments a "gun nut". I have no problem having civil conversations with people who actually have a brain and use it, whether we share the same opinion or not. That leaves you out, obviously, as proven by your string of posts.

You seem to have only read about the militia part Byron since that was the part you quoted in the need for something to be well regulated. Please address the second part of the amendment.

Kaybee,

Maybe if libs stopped using the deaths of children to push their ignorant agenda, supporters of the Bill of Rights would not have to call you guys out on your ignorance. Gun bans have never been affective, nor have they ever lowered gun crime. There are many uses for AR-15's and the Korean shop owners during the LA riots may inform you of this. Stop using the death of children to push your gun agenda because assault rifles are scary. You, Obama, Biden, and every other liberal show your true colors when you do such despicable things.

My comprehension is fine but your posts is and inability to make a coherent argument and stay on track make having a discussion impossible.

Huh? Your comprehension is fine but my posts is? What? Existentially, yes, my post is.

If you are a really stupid person, though, just have the honesty to admit it, and I am sure I can find the patience to explain it to you in smaller words. After all, I am doing it for all your other little friends here.

mass murderers, so they can kill lots of people before they commit suicide

So why do cops need these if they are for mass murderers to kill lots of people?

Do cops need to kill lots of people?

if private citizens do not have assault weapons, criminals also will not have assault weapons

I am a private citizen, I don't have drugs, does that mean criminals don't have drugs?

No one is coming to take your guns!!!

Cuomo and Feinstein tell a different tale.

Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. - Andrew Cuomo, on Albany’s WGDJ-AM

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here. - Dianne Feinstein on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes

Nun

don97524 - what are you bringing to this discussion?

A rational point of view. How am I wrong?

In that land called the United States of America, 92 percent of those polled want to see universal background checks on all gun sales, including at gun shows and private sales. 62 percent want to see laws banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Meanwhile, inside the GOP bubble, the gun lobby continues to rule.

Is that so? Tell that to the Vietnamese.

They weren't facing down nukes. We could not use nukes beause of Russia.

Cowards like you surrender before the battle begins for fear of what the Government "might" do to you. There were cowards like you among the colonists as well who feared the might of the British crown. I do not fear anything that the U.S. Government would deploy against it's people.

This is another variant on 'argument from insult." You are proving nothing other than that, yes, you can be insulting. I believe you.

They can't use nukes and they can't use NBC weapons. If the U.S. Government waged war on it's citizens it would be conventional warfare.

OK. So if the US Government waged war on its citizens, do you seriously think your silly little guns would work that well against supersonic aricraft, tanks, or armored carriers? That is what "conventional" warfare is today. Or do you suppose if the US Government waged war on its citizens, it is going to be coming after us with muskets and cannons, as was conventional warfare when the Constitution was written?

Don - if you can't see it or understand it , no one can explain it.

Byron - you'r just trying to rile up people and make yourself appear intelligent. You try to make some points but get lost in the rambling

In that land called the United States of America, 92 percent of those polled want to see universal background checks on all gun sales, including at gun shows and private sales. 62 percent want to see laws banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Meanwhile, inside the GOP bubble, the gun lobby continues to rule.

Meanwhile, in the land called the real world, people don't use a Gallup poll that is answered by about 300-400 people to account for "the majority of Americans."

I also find it hilarious that you need to take shots at a political party to try to pin blame.

OK. So if the US Government waged war on its citizens, do you seriously think your silly little guns would work that well against supersonic aricraft, tanks, or armored carriers? That is what "conventional" warfare is today. Or do you suppose if the US Government waged war on its citizens, it is going to be coming after us with muskets and cannons, as was conventional warfare when the Constitution was written?

Tell me more about how the Taliban is expected to take over Afghanistan when we pull out despite the offensive using tech you just listed.

They use trucks, rifles, and IEDs against tech that is a millenia ahead of them and we still can't beat them.

Case closed.

Byron Raum

I'll just have to continue shaking my head. The information on that site can be found on dozens of others. You just don't get it, and you won't ever get it, because you don't educate yourself.

I don't think you understand the way "education" works. You are not a fount of wisdom. If you give me a link, I am going to read the link and analyze it for what it's worth. If it says something "obviously" which is so completely false, I am going to think the author is wrong.

You idea of education is that people come around to your point of view. The simple fact is that there are plenty of carry-able arms that are banned today. I understand that you don't like this fact, but it is the simple truth. Trying to act superior isn't going to change it.

Try a simple Google search, Byron. As I said, the information available on that site is available in DOZENS of places. It's FACT. It's also impossible for you to have read The Federalist Papers (or even a wikipedia synopsis of it) in the five minutes you took to respond to my post, so please, don't pretend like you're educated on that front, because YOU AREN'T. Period. I know it's hard for people like you to accept that you're not right -- those who project their need for everyone to agree with them onto others, as you've tried to do with me -- but try. YOU'RE WRONG BYRON. Period. It's not a matter of opinion. It's fact. I gave you places to go see that fact for yourself, but you're too busy preaching to actually READ A BOOK.

You and people like kaybeetoys are truly infuriating. You just want to lecture. You refuse any and all information given to you and rant based upon conjecture, condescention, misinformation, and emotion. Have fun with each other. Your dreams of a gun-free American just aren't going to come true, but don't let rational common sense tell you that. Just wait, and you'll see.

You seem to have only read about the militia part Byron since that was the part you quoted in the need for something to be well regulated. Please address the second part of the amendment.

The second part of the Amendment has already been limited by the Supreme Court. They limited it when they outlawed nuclear arms. They limited it when they outlawed shoulder-fired Stinger missiles that can take out any aircraft from 10 miles away. That is not a red herring.

These limits are put on the 2nd Amendment for our protection. We do not want random people to be taking down passenger planes. We do not want people to have the ability to blow us small cities.

You people forget that there is such a thing as personal responsibility, that privileges are not absolute. Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. We have to accept limitation on our freedom and behavior so that we can live together, without fear of leaving our children at school, without fear of going into a movie theatre, into a mall.

Stop using the death of children to push your gun agenda because assault rifles are scary. You, Obama, Biden, and every other liberal show your true colors when you do such despicable things.

You call it despicable to try to protect our children?

It's people like you who scare me, not your guns.

In California we already have 10 day back ground checks of all sales and limited to 10 round mags I can live with that.

You and people like kaybeetoys are truly infuriating. You just want to lecture. You refuse any and all information given to you and rant based upon conjecture, condescention, misinformation, and emotion. Have fun with each other. Your dreams of a gun-free American just aren't going to come true, but don't let rational common sense tell you that. Just wait, and you'll see.

You have written dozens of lines lecturing, and you haven't bothered ONCE to address the point I raised.

Well kaybeetoys how many kids do you have?

Byron - you'r just trying to rile up people and make yourself appear intelligent. You try to make some points but get lost in the rambling

I see. Thank you for explaining this to me. I now realize that I am a really stupid person. Please excuse me, I have to go check myself into the retard remedial school. Bye bye.

KayBee

I'm hardly following along with our elected representatives! What have they done all these years about the out-of-control gun violence? They're a huge part of the problem. For years they've been owned by the NRA

You stated the we should "honor their courage and sacrifice by upholding and supporting the government they created". That certainly looks like blindly following. Don't think; don't object; just support.

Handguns have been banned in NYC for over 100 years. How's that ban been working out? Criminals still have handguns there. It makes national news when NYC has a murder free Monday. How bad does a place have to be to make national news when nobody is shot and killed? Handguns are banned in Chicago. How's that ban working out? Criminals still use handguns there. There are the equivalent of 15 Sandy Hooks taking place in Chicago annually with handguns. They have the highest handgun murder rate in the nation. Less than 1% of all firearm deaths are from the type of weapons you would see banned. If you truly wanted to see an end to firearm deaths then you would want to see a ban on all handguns. But, as has been proven in major metro areas, handgun bans do not remove handguns from the hands of criminals and does not stop murder by handguns.

Some gun company's like rock river arms and Olympic stop selling all firearms to New York and more 2 come.

Handguns have been banned in NYC for over 100 years. How's that ban been working out? Criminals still have handguns ther

This answer your question? From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, firearms are tightly controlled by law, and while shooting organisations provide some opposition to existing legislation,^{[citation needed]} there is little wider political debate and public opinion favours stronger control.^[1] The British Shooting Sports Council now believes that the law needs to be consolidated but it does not call for a review.^[2]

The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world. There were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010, compared to the 3.0 in the United States (over 40 times higher) and 0.21 in Germany (3 times higher).^[3]

And Hitler said it was for the kids 2.

If they really want to help the kids a good start would be to stop racking the us debt.

So it's OK to let them die in massacres, but it's not OK to borrow some money so that we can keep an economy going and leave them with a prosperous country?

Was that your point?

WyattEarp

The problem seems to be that criminals ignore the laws.

How is passing more laws going to change that?

How about instead of passing new laws we change the game.

First offense carrying a concealed firearm without a permit...Felony, 3 years in federal prison w/ no possibility of parole?

Possession of a firearm with previous felony...10 years federal prison w/no possibility of parole.

Possession of a firearm in the commission of a crime...20 years federal prison w/no possibility of parole.

rgsdca1965

Well kaybeetoys how many kids do you have?

I don't disclose personal family information to strangers on the internet. Suffice it to say I have children.

Why do you ask?

So if the US Government waged war on its citizens, do you seriously think your silly little guns would work that well against supersonic aricraft, tanks, or armored carriers? That is what "conventional" warfare is today. Or do you suppose if the US Government waged war on its citizens, it is going to be coming after us with muskets and cannons, as was conventional warfare when the Constitution was written?

As I stated before, I served nearly 10 years in the infantry. I know the capabilities of our ground equipment. I also know their vulnerabilities. I am not afraid of Bradley Fighting Vehicles or Abrams tanks. They are easily disabled. The great thing about cowards like you is that I could use you for camouflage as I went about the business of defending the Constitution. I wouldn't be wearing a uniform. How would an Apache helicopter pick me out of a crowd? Insurgents and guerilla fighters are very effective and nearly impossible to stop.

You call it despicable to try to protect our children?

It's people like you who scare me, not your guns.

You have to understand what is at stake to know why people are against it.

If our freedoms are taken away, our best defense against a tyrannical government, it's possible either an invading force, or our own corrupt countrymen could burn every last child of some specific background to suit their tastes.

Nobody knows if the current administration is tyrannical, but can we take the chance?

Would you rather have a little temporary safety for yourself if it meant a possible lifetime of misery for others?

People like to pretend that our armies are invincible, that we can't be touched or beat. If Russia decided they wanted to colonize America and slaughter all of the natives and establish Russian as the official language, do you think they couldn't do it?

With this weaponry, we aren't able to stop it, but we are able to stop the body count from rising higher than it would if we were unarmed.

Although their cause is noble, people against nuclear arms are fools. If the west would disarm their nuclear armaments during the Cold War, what would the east do? Surely bully us to do things as they wanted and threaten to burn us in nuclear fire if we didn't.

It is the same with people who try to disarm or restrict the population. I respect you not wanting to have these weapons on the streets, but if they get off the streets, does evil stop?

There's a reason the age we live in is called the age of deterrence.

As cold as it sounds, I will let 20 children die if it is our nation's freedom is at stake.

The needs of the few do not outweigh the needs of the many.

The best metaphor I can put out is that it is as if we are sitting here protecting you from unknowing evil, ever vigilant, and you protest our actions behind us because you do not understand. You scream, throw objects, and grab at our arms, not knowing what you do.

rgsdca1965

And Hitler said it was for the kids 2.

Where did the Hitler comment come from. Gun control under Hitler (1938 German Weapons Act) was less restrictive than the law (1928 German Weapons Act) before Hitler came to power.

If they really want to help the kids a good start would be to stop racking the us debt.

Oh...I see, not a serious comment...you're a troll.

As I stated before, I served nearly 10 years in the infantry. I know the capabilities of our ground equipment. I also know their vulnerabilities. I am not afraid of Bradley Fighting Vehicles or Abrams tanks. They are easily disabled.

This is hilarious. So you are telling us that we are wasting 100's of billions of dollars paying for weapons that can be easily disabled. You should write a book about it and expose all those US Generals and higher-upper folk who are wasting our money. Since you are obviously such an expert.

The great thing about cowards like you is that I could use you for camouflage as I went about the business of defending the Constitution. I wouldn't be wearing a uniform. How would an Apache helicopter pick me out of a crowd? Insurgents and guerilla fighters are very effective and nearly impossible to stop.

So now you add "argument from authority" to "argument from insult." Unfortunately, for you, none of them carry water. The simple fact is that you really cannot predict what a theoretical war between a US citizenry and the US Government will look like. All you are doing is putting forward vague hypotheticals along with chest-thumping to show us what an alpha male you are.

While I am sure you feel very clever and powerful, your image is only subjective.

The fact remains that the US government is capable of putting forth weaponry that no civilian armament is capable of matching. Our security does not lie in force. It lies in electing honest leaders and watching them carefully. That is, in fact, what liberals do. Feel free to pound your chest and tell us how cowardly we are, while we are protecting your liberty and trying to force greater transparency from both Bush AND Obama.

Byron,

Don't try bringing up foreign gun control policy to support your views. I can bring up a huge list of countries that have strict gun control and higher rates of death by firearms than the U.S. Even before gun bans in the U.K. they still had far lower rates of gun deaths than the U.S. and there are many reasons for it. The fact that they have far fewer large urban areas is a major factor. By the way, gun crime has nearly doubled in the U.K. since they instituted their ban.

Nobody knows if the current administration is tyrannical, but can we take the chance?

We are already taking the chance. This argument might even have worked in 1920. It does not work today.

You stated the we should "honor their courage and sacrifice by upholding and supporting the government they created". That certainly looks like blindly following. Don't think; don't object; just support.

You are making assumptions that are not supported by anything I have EVER posted.

I have lived in seven countries, thereby experiencing firsthand several different forms of government. I dare anyone who comments here to match that.

My appreciation of our country and our government is not based on jingoism or on some ideal of perfection. In many ways this country fails miserably. But I still support our system and am not about to fall for some lame anti-government conspiracy fantasy.

Anarchy is us, if we let it be. You can blame anyone you want to blame, but the buck stops with each of us.

Don't try bringing up foreign gun control policy to support your views. I can bring up a huge list of countries that have strict gun control and higher rates of death by firearms than the U.S.

Please do so. You will find they will all, invariably, be 3rd world countries with a per capita income much lower than the US, or they will be Arab countries with weak governments.

Even before gun bans in the U.K. they still had far lower rates of gun deaths than the U.S. and there are many reasons for it. The fact that they have far fewer large urban areas is a major factor. By the way, gun crime has nearly doubled in the U.K. since they instituted their ban.

Could you provide some numbers to back this up?

Ron B-2757074

As I stated before, I served nearly 10 years in the infantry. I know the capabilities of our ground equipment. I also know their vulnerabilities. I am not afraid of Bradley Fighting Vehicles or Abrams tanks. They are easily disabled. The great thing about cowards like you is that I could use you for camouflage as I went about the business of defending the Constitution. I wouldn't be wearing a uniform. How would an Apache helicopter pick me out of a crowd? Insurgents and guerilla fighters are very effective and nearly impossible to stop.

First of all Ron, thank you for your service. That being said, I'm glad I never shared an LP/OP with you. Twenty years (9 as a medic) and I'll tell you what; a Bradley will f**k you and your buddies up...and you know it. Forget the M242...if that hits you you'll need 2 coffins (if it doesn't detonate). And if M240 Gordy doesn't get you likely as not the "boys in the back" will. You remember them right? ten years?

I'm curious....and I hope all the gun loving "patriots" here have a thoughtful, common-sense answer for how to answer this question....how do you all propose we prevent anymore mass shootings from happening? In our schools, in movie theaters, in restaurants, in shopping malls. Are you all proposing that you be given the right to act as a law enforcement officer and use your legally-registered weapon to try to stop an assailant from shooting others in public places, places that have crowds of people? Here's the dilemma, folks. The Constitution grants the right to bear arms for American citizens in case of personal attack or assault on a person's private property, so constitutionally, you have the right to defend yourself from deadly assault....NOT to be law enforcement officers and defend OTHERS from attacks on THEIR person! Unless the gun is being pointed at you, you're not being assaulted!

Splitting hairs? You betcha! What if your untrained a$$ fired off a shot in a dark theater, albeit for a just cause, and you missed the assailant, but hit my daughter in the head, killing her instantly. Should we enforce the laws and lock your butt up for about 20 years for felony manslaughter?

Or, is the right thing to do to hire armed police officers at every place of business, every classroom? And we turn into, quite literally, a police state? Or, do we treat the SUPPOSED cause of the OBVIOUS mental issues that these mass shooters have by banning books, banning movies (well, not the early Disney films), banning those evil video games, oh, and don't forget banning the news, 99% of the cable shows, banning anything that can supposedly warp the weak-minded of us (since we don't know who these people are, then ALL of us must suffer).

Hmmm....sounds to me like they want the right to bear arms, but want to deny the rest of us the right to entertain ourselves (in our own homes) in any way other than watching "The Waltons" or reading the Bible! Is that the answer??

We are already taking the chance. This argument might even have worked in 1920. It does not work today.

Do tell. How does it not work? Deception is simple if you control the right factions.

how do you all propose we prevent anymore mass shootings from happening?

If it were up to me, deterrence. Give everyone 18 and over a gun, mandatory training starts at age 16 to prepare you.

The Constitution grants the right to bear arms for American citizens in case of personal attack or assault on a person's private property,

Actually, no. The Constitution exists to limit the power of government. It grants no rights.

It is our duty to take these rights we are said to be allowed and is the duty of citizens to enforce it. And no, that doesn't mean police officers, detectives, and whatnot. As Ben Franklin said:

"A Republic, ma'am, if you can keep it."

while we are protecting your liberty and trying to force greater transparency from both Bush AND Obama

You are trying to protect me by stripping me of my Constitutional rights? Oh, well in that case, THANK YOU! (insert sarcastic grin)

The fact remains that the US government is capable of putting forth weaponry that no civilian armament is capable of matching.

You are completely and utterly wrong. The strength of the U.S. military lies in it's soldiers and it's leadership. Both would be vastly outnumbered (even if there were no defections). Our military, even if used in full force against civilians with no defections, would be outnumbered 100 to 1. Military action against U.S. civilians would be doomed to failure. Even with Obama using his litmus test to try and ensure that military leadership would order actions on U.S. citizens, there would be a large percentage of military members who would refuse those orders.

You are trying to protect me by stripping me of my Constitutional rights? Oh, well in that case, THANK YOU! (insert sarcastic grin)

Me? Stripping you of your Constitutional rights? You really need to get that paranoia under control.

Military action against U.S. civilians would be doomed to failure. Even with Obama using his litmus test to try and ensure that military leadership would order actions on U.S. citizens, there would be a large percentage of military members who would refuse those orders.

Then why do we need any weapons at all for defense against our government?

As cold as it sounds, I will let 20 children die if it is our nation's freedom is at stake.

That depends on your definition of freedom then. You think we are free, but are we free when we cannot live in peace in our own neighborhoods, schools, malls, theaters?

Our nation's freedom may be at stake, but not in the way you envision. Home-grown gun terrorism is eating into the fabric of our society, fueled by your kind of paranoia and fear.

The best metaphor I can put out is that it is as if we are sitting here protecting you from unknowing evil, ever vigilant, and you protest our actions behind us because you do not understand. You scream, throw objects, and grab at our arms, not knowing what you do.

And I say to you that your guns will not keep you safe or free. Freedom exists not because we kill each other for it but because we agree instead to live side by side in peace.

Devil's Advocate,

Do you know anything about the laws we have?

....NOT to be law enforcement officers and defend OTHERS from attacks on THEIR person! Unless the gun is being pointed at you, you're not being assaulted!

Wrong. In most States, where carrying is legal, a person does have the legal right to use deadly force if another person is being attacked, raped, kidnapped, etc.

Splitting hairs? You betcha! What if your untrained a$$ fired off a shot in a dark theater, albeit for a just cause, and you missed the assailant, but hit my daughter in the head, killing her instantly. Should we enforce the laws and lock your butt up for about 20 years for felony manslaughter?

That is already the case. Civilians are liable, both in criminal and civil court, for every round they fire, unlike cops who have qualified immunity and are not responsible for any of the rounds they fire if the shooting was justified.

Or, is the right thing to do to hire armed police officers at every place of business, every classroom? And we turn into, quite literally, a police state?

Absolutely, have armed personnel in schools. When was the last time you heard about a crazy shooter blasting up a police station? They don't shoot up police stations because they would be shot before they could commit much carnage. An armed society is a polite society.

Absolutely, have armed personnel in schools.

Like they had in Columbine?

Wrong. In most States, where carrying is legal, a person does have the legal right to use deadly force if another person is being attacked, raped, kidnapped, etc.

Lovely idea. If someone fires a few shots in a shopping mall, let's have 20 people pull out guns and then each and every single one of them try to figure out who the bad guy is.

If you are carrying a gun, are you willing to trust your life to their judgment? All 20? Or do you just plan to shoot them if they make a mistake?

Then why do we need any weapons at all for defense against our government?

Fight fire with fire. Metaphorically speaking, there is no water for this debate.

If the Taliban met us on the fields of Kandahar and challenged us to fisticuffs at high noon, we'd shoot them. Instead they shoot at us and harass us all day and even with advanced tech, we still can't beat them.

Weapons are an assurance that the body count stays drastically lower.

That depends on your definition of freedom then. You think we are free, but are we free when we cannot live in peace in our own neighborhoods, schools, malls, theaters?

Our nation's freedom may be at stake, but not in the way you envision. Home-grown gun terrorism is eating into the fabric of our society, fueled by your kind of paranoia and fear.

Not paranoid, just vigilant, and paying attention. Nothing to fear but fear itself as the saying goes.

And to be honest, freedom doesn't ultimately exist, like safety, it's an illusion that we try to make real.

And I say to you that your guns will not keep you safe or free. Freedom exists not because we kill each other for it but because we agree instead to live side by side in peace.

Unfortunately, the world does not know peace and would rather see freedom destroyed. The old men that wish to stay in power will manipulate anyone to meet their ends.

As I said, freedom ultimately is non existent, as is peace and safety.

If you can get everyone to agree to peace and it happens, I will melt down all of my guns into a trophy for you.

Then why do we need any weapons at all for defense against our government?

As I stated before, it's local government that I have the most to fear from. The Battle of Athens, TN in 1946. Educate yourself. Hundreds of citizens took up arms and laid seige to the Sheriff's office with rifles and dynamite to end corruption and political usurpation.

Lovely idea. If someone fires a few shots in a shopping mall, let's have 20 people pull out guns and then try to figure out who the bad guy is.

The way I see it, they'd all be bad guys. They'd end up shooting more people, not less.

Those concealed carry guys never seem to be around to save the day when there's a shooting...have you noticed that?

When Gabby Giffords was shot, an ELDERLY WOMAN knocked the clip out of the shooter's hand, preventing him from reloading. That's my idea of a good guy.

Absolutely, have armed personnel in schools.

Like they had in Columbine?

The coward cop on duty never went in to the building. Neither did any of the other cowards who had shown up later. They waited outside while Klebold and Harris continued killing their classmates.

Lovely idea. If someone fires a few shots in a shopping mall, let's have 20 people pull out guns and then try to figure out who the bad guy is.

That's a much better idea than just letting the murderer carry on unopposed. The mall shooting in Clackamas, Oregon was stopped because an armed citizen drew down on the shooter who then took his own life.

Do you realize that things are a bit different today from 1946? That if a Sheriff went bad, the Federal government could be easily contacted? All it takes is one cellphone. In 1946, it could take you many many days to communicate with people and/or officials on the other side of the country. Today, it takes about a 100 milliseconds, and a supersonic plane can make it across the country in 2 hours.

You guys seriously need to stop living in the past....Things today are both much easier and much more dangerous.

Those concealed carry guys never seem to be around to save the day when there's a shooting...have you noticed that?

See my last post.

As I said, freedom ultimately is non existent, as is peace and safety.

If you can get everyone to agree to peace and it happens, I will melt down all of my guns into a trophy for you.

It's all relative. There is no such thing as perfect peace, freedom or safety. I'd rather be dead than live in constant fear of being shot by a citizenry armed to the teeth... and paranoid as all hell.

Buy hey... we do pretty well in the U.S. of A. We're not at war with each other. Let's keep it that way, shall we?

Do you realize that things are a bit different today from 1946? That if a Sheriff went bad, the Federal government could be easily contacted?

Wrong, again. The Justice Department refused to do anything after being contacted several times to investigate voting fraud. You think it couldn't happen again? Are you really that naive or were you dropped on your head as a baby?

You guys seriously need to stop living in the past

Really?

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

That's a much better idea than just letting the murderer carry on unopposed. The mall shooting in Clackamas, Oregon was stopped because an armed citizen drew down on the shooter who then took his own life.

You forgot to address the larger point:

Lovely idea. If someone fires a few shots in a shopping mall, let's have 20 people pull out guns and then each and every single one of them try to figure out who the bad guy is.

If you are carrying a gun, are you willing to trust your life to their judgment? All 20? Or do you just plan to shoot them if they make a mistake?

So you are quite happy to trust your life to the judgment of EVERY single person in a shopping mall? Mine, for example? Or any other liberal's?

Reading these responses by Byron and Kaybeetoys reminds me why I would never be a Liberal. There is no common sense and logic at all. They try to to prey on emotions to advance their agenda and it is disgusting.

First off Byron, no one is leaving our children to massacres. We are trying to protect them from evil people. I find it funny how you make borrowing money seem so small. Borrowing money is not helping the economy and is leaving our kids with increasing debt, but hey, if your clueless leaders says it so, then I guess he is never wrong, right? The Democrats are bankrupting this country, and if they continue then those firearms you so despise will be so crucial for your survival.

And Kaybee, you are so full off b.s it almost gives me a headache. Funny that you don't disclose personal information about your family for the same reasons that those who you demand disclose theirs refuse too. Furthermore, I ask this of all you gun banning Liberal extremist nuts. Who do you honestly believe will be the ones to confiscate the guns? It is the military's job to defend the Constitution not those who want to change it.

hey Keebeetoys

F. q.

Hey Zues don't say sorry to that piece of garbage . she throws her insults out to others . she just a piece of SH!t . she knows it we all know it . her parents even hate her . I read that on here somewhere i believe ! as for her beliefs she can have em all she wants . i do however believe her beliefs are crap . after reading this blog here . most here want no real change in the current gun laws . so she a small group . and as far as any mis speeled words and bad grammer . I go to public school . so hey your tax dollars at work . democraps are dirty people

I am sick & tired of this Clown Administration trotting out these victims so as to create an emotional response to the sickness that is American Society its not the GUN it's the Sick individuals that Liberalism has created that are the problem!

Wrong, again. The Justice Department refused to do anything after being contacted several times to investigate voting fraud. You think it couldn't happen again?

So you expect us to be fine with you going outside and waving a gun at a voting place if you think fraud is being committed there?

Are you really that naive or were you dropped on your head as a baby?

Right.

its not the GUN it's the Sick individuals that Liberalism has created that are the problem!

You are quite right. Guns are never the problem in gun violence. It's always Obama's fault. If it wasn't for Obama, the Rapture would have already occurred and we would all be living in heaven.

So you are quite happy to trust your life to the judgment of EVERY single person in a shopping mall? Mine, for example? Or any other liberal's?

Absolutely. I would trust a civilian over a cop because, as I stated previously, a civilian knows that he/she is liable for every round they fire, unlike a cop.

So you expect us to be fine with you going outside and waving a gun at a voting place if you think fraud is being committed there?

I take it you would have been fine with the status quo had you been in Athens, TN in 1946? Do you condemn the actions of those honorable men for taking back control of their local government?

Like they had in Columbine?

This is another dumb argument made all the time.

It isn't about deterents working 100% of the time...it's about them working more than in their absence. Sure, 1 school shooting took place where they had like 2 armed guards (wow, 2, woopty doo). How many occured where they had none? All the rest of the them, that's how many. The point is: What is the percentage risk in a school with armed people present and as compared with a school with no armed people present.

The answer is IMMENSELY OBVIOUS: the mass shootings occur almost always in no-gun zones, including no-gun schools. Almost none of them occur where guns are allowed.

Sure, Columbine was the rare exception. Sure, I'm sure somewhere a criminal has walked into a police station with the intention of doing a mass shooting on police. But the point is IT IS RARE, and less likely than places where guns are allowed.

Excluding school shootings, only one mass shooting has occured where guns were allowedi n the last 50 years (the Giffords shooting). All the rest (dozens and dozens) occured in no-gun zones.

In mathematics it's a field called Game Theory. Game Theory discusses ecploitable vs unexploitable strategies...and unexploitable strategies create "deterent factors". This is what "mutually assured destruction" comes from. Guns can be mathematically proven to be deterents to violent crime and murder, and can also have that math backed up with real world empirical data. It's not arguable for the rational and logical.

BTW...here re 5 facts you should familiarize yourself with:

1. Violent crime – including violent crime using guns – has dropped massively over the past 20 years.

The violent crime rate - which includes murder, rape, and beatings - is half of what it was in the early 1990s. And the violent crime rate involving the use of weapons has also declined at a similar pace.

2. Mass shootings have not increased in recent years.

Despite terrifying events like Sandy Hook or last summer’s theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, mass shootings are not becoming more frequent. “There is no pattern, there is no increase,” says criminologist James Allen Fox of Northeastern University, who studies the issue. Other data shows that mass killings peaked in 1929.

3. Schools are getting safer.

Across the board, schools are less dangerous than they used be.Over the past 20 years, the rate of theft per 1,000 students dropped from 101 to 18. For violent crime, the victimization rate per 1,000 students dropped from 53 to 14.

4. There Are More Guns in Circulation Than Ever Before.

Over the past 20 years, virtually every state in the country has liberalized gunownership rules and many states have expanded concealed carry laws that allow more people to carry weapons in more places. There around 300 million guns in the United States and at least one gun in about 45 percent of all households. Yet the rate of gun-related crime continues to drop.

5. “Assault Weapons Bans” Are Generally Ineffective.

While many people are calling for reinstating the federal ban on assault weapons – an arbitrary category of guns thathas no clear definition – research shows it would have no effect on crime and violence. “Should it be renewed,” concludes a definitive study, “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/01/10/reasons-5-facts-on-guns-and-gun-violence

If you go to the link and read the article, you'll see links embedded within the article. When clicking on them, some of them debunk oft-quoted studies that claim opposing points. Those links point out methodological, if not outright intellectual dishonesty, in these oft-quoted studies by the anti-gun crowd.

First off Byron, no one is leaving our children to massacres. We are trying to protect them from evil people.

Then perhaps you can show some sensitivity when other people's kids are killed, hmm?

I find it funny how you make borrowing money seem so small. Borrowing money is not helping the economy and is leaving our kids with increasing debt, but hey, if your clueless leaders says it so,

Funny that you should bring that up. It wasn't actually "our cliueless leaders" that told us this. It was yours. Specifically, it was Vice President Cheney who said "Deficits don't matter." Source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney

then I guess he is never wrong, right? The Democrats are bankrupting this country,

It also so happens that almost invariably Democratic Administrations, the deficit goes down, and under Republican Administrations, the deficit goes up. For example, by the end of Obama's 2nd term, the deficit is projected to be almost half of what President Bush left us with.

and if they continue then those firearms you so despise will be so crucial for your survival.

But hey...don't let the facts get in the way of a nice prejudice, eh?

It's all relative. There is no such thing as perfect peace, freedom or safety. I'd rather be dead than live in constant fear of being shot by a citizenry armed to the teeth... and paranoid as all hell.

Buy hey... we do pretty well in the U.S. of A. We're not at war with each other. Let's keep it that way, shall we?

I'd rather see a citizenry armed to the teeth, mostly because my dealings with the government have been very displeasing.

And I hope the current situation doesn't escalate, the important thing is keeping the idiotic left and right in check, which unfortunately, is impossible.

Remember, politics blame Bush today, used to be Clinton. I have a feeling in 4 years we'll blame Obama for everything bad.

Hey Zues don't say sorry to that piece of garbage . she throws her insults out to others . she just a piece of SH!t . she knows it we all know it . her parents even hate her . I read that on here somewhere i believe ! as for her beliefs she can have em all she wants . i do however believe her beliefs are crap . after reading this blog here . most here want no real change in the current gun laws . so she a small group . and as far as any mis speeled words and bad grammer . I go to public school . so hey your tax dollars at work . democraps are dirty people

Who pissed in your cornflakes?

It isn't about deterents working 100% of the time...it's about them working more than in their absence. Sure, 1 school shooting took place where they had like 2 armed guards (wow, 2, woopty doo). How many occured where they had none? All the rest of the them, that's how many. The point is: What is the percentage risk in a school with armed people present and as compared with a school with no armed people present.

Kind of funny...apparently, deterrents are supposed to work wonderfully with guns. But apparently, passing laws is useless, hey, they are criminals so the law is going to deter them, eh?

That is exactly why reasonable gun laws will also work. They cannot prevent any single occurrence, but with reasonable laws and reasonable enforcement, we can reduce the incident of these horrific accidents.

I take it you would have been fine with the status quo had you been in Athens, TN in 1946? Do you condemn the actions of those honorable men for taking back control of their local government?

No and no.

You didn't answer my question. Do you seriously expect us to be OK with the idea of you waving a gun outside a polling place if you happen to think there's fraud there?

Can you give us an example of a need to use a gun against a local government, inside the US, that you expect us to support? An example that is later than almost 2/3rds of century?

They cannot prevent any single occurrence, but with reasonable laws and reasonable enforcement, we can reduce the incident of these horrific accidents.

That is the problem. Who decides what is reasonable? A Democrat piece of garbage governor like Cuomo who has just outlawed nearly every semi-automatic handgun by implementing a 10 round magazine capacity because no magazines with that low of a capacity exist for most semi-auto handguns? The only "reasonable" law I agree with which is being touted is a universal background check. Absolutely all gun sales should have a background check, as long as it is not cost prohibitive for private sellers.

Do you seriously expect us to be OK with the idea of you waving a gun outside a polling place if you happen to think there's fraud there?

Don't be a jackass just because you lost a point to an example of the reason why we have the 2nd amendment.

"Waving a gun around" anywhere is already against the law as it should be. Don't be stupid.

Lets say that they do manage to ban semi-auto military style rifles. What is that going to do when millions of those rifles have already been sold. It's not like any law made is going to prevent someone from killing others with those guns. The sad thing is many people don't realise that pistols are used more by criminals.

Absolutely. I would trust a civilian over a cop because, as I stated previously, a civilian knows that he/she is liable for every round they fire, unlike a cop.

Including the guy who fired the shots in the first place? That was also a civilian.

So the scenario is that someone goes into a shopping mall, kills someone and melds into the crowd. 20 people, including you, draw their guns. You just said that you trust EVERYONE there. Including, it would seem, the civilian who is now a murderer. Or no?

You don't know who that is. You can't keep an eye on everyone and if someone shoots behind you, all you see is 19 people with drawn guns and a few dead bodies. How are you going to know what to do?

And not just you, everyone else there, too, who happens to be armed.

All the good conservatives here are missing the point that Ms. Fatstein and all our demlib buddies are making, as it's NOT that the new laws would be any more effective than the laws already not being enforced, but that it would make Bozobama and all the idiot libs FEEL so much better!

That is the problem. Who decides what is reasonable? A Democrat piece of garbage governor like Cuomo who has just outlawed nearly every semi-automatic handgun by implementing a 10 round magazine capacity because no magazines with that low of a capacity exist for most semi-auto handguns?

In our democracy, Cuomo is defined as reasonable. He is the guy the people elected to pass such laws. That is how democracy works. We vote. If you don't like him, move to New York and vote against him.

All the good conservatives here are missing the point that Ms. Fatstein and all our demlib buddies are making, as it's NOT that the new laws would be any more effective than the laws already not being enforced, but that it would make Bozobama and all the idiot libs FEEL so much better!

We would certainly feel much better if the number of murders in the US dropped. So you are admitting that these laws will work as intended.

Can you give us an example of a need to use a gun against a local government, inside the US, that you expect us to support? An example that is later than almost 2/3rds of century?

Apparently a recent example that millions of Americans alive today are old enough to remember happening is not recent enough for you.

How about if Sheriff Arpaio decided to conduct armed warantless searches for illegal aliens by going door to door in Maracopa county? That would be a very good reason to take up arms against local government.

We would certainly feel much better if the number of murders in the US dropped. So you are admitting that these laws will work as intended.

He stated no such thing and they would not work just as they did not work during the last assault weapons ban.

Where is the discussion to reverse the lax mental health care laws the liberals forced down our throats? Every one of the sensationalized shootings being highlighted had a mentally unstable person behind the trigger. Something that doesn't play well for the liberal agenda but it is a much bigger issue that assault weapons...

Don't be a jackass just because you lost a point to an example of the reason why we have the 2nd amendment.

"Waving a gun around" anywhere is already against the law as it should be.

That is what was just said. That guns should be used in polling places that anyone who owns a gun suspect of voting fraud.

Are you now saying that you don't agree? Can you give us another example of why anyone would need a gun against a local government today? One later than 1945?

Don't be stupid.

Follow your own advice, please.

Obozo the Clown is only interested in destroying the 2nd. Amendment to the Constitution of the United Sates.

Once the citizens are disarmed and Obozo's drones are in the air we will be true slaves ALL HAIL BIG BROTHER!

That is what you just said. That you were planning to use guns outside polling places that you suspected of voting fraud. You cited that as an example of why you need a gun

You are being a jackass. I stated no such thing. I provided an example of why we have the 2nd amendment. Do you have anything serious to contribute or are you just going to continue to put words in other people's mouths?

He stated no such thing and they would not work just as they did not work during the last assault weapons ban.

No, he didn't state it directly. It requires some thinking to understand, though, that that is the implication of what he said. That is why you missed it.

N Laurino, #1.11- What was trotted out today was an absolute showing of wrongfully overpowered vulnerability and resultant WRONGFUL DEATH and IRREPARBLE HARM. They qualify to make laws on.

I've not yet heard any clearly laid out and cohesive arguments of 1) why it was acceptable that the assault weapon ban was allowed to expire 2) how Society has been enhanced and more protected from them by the expiring of the ban 3) what "legitimate" purpose they serve that would be undone by a ban now 4) why universal background checks should not be 5) why every Gun Owner shouldn't be registered

AND, this Article's title states that a tricky path is ahead for Assault Weapons Ban and then does not even devote one single line to substaniate and educate this reading Public about what they mean by that! Lay it out- WHAT IS THE TRICKY PATH? WHAT DOES IT CONSIST OF? Point A to B to C to Z??? WHAT???

You are being a jackass. I stated no such thing. I provided an example of why we have the 2nd amendment. Do you have anything serious to contribute or are you just going to continue to put words in other people's mouths?

If you don't want stupid things attributed to you, then don't say them. But again...please provide an example, today, of why we would need a gun against a local government. I look forward to your explanation.

I would also like to know your explanation of how it would be possible, today, for an armed citizenry to depose an local government, without having to face down the Federal government.

We have, of course, already established that armed citizenry is incapable of facing down the might of the US government.

Including the guy who fired the shots in the first place? That was also a civilian.

So the scenario is that someone goes into a shopping mall, kills someone and melds into the crowd. 20 people, including you, draw their guns. You just said that you trust EVERYONE there. Including, it would seem, the civilian who is now a murderer. Or no?

You don't know who that is. You can't keep an eye on everyone and if someone shoots behind you, all you see is 19 people with drawn guns and a few dead bodies. How are you going to know what to do?

I would trust a civilian to be more prudent than a cop. A cop would fire at anyone holding a gun. A civilian knows that he would have to identify the correct target with 100% accuracy before shooting him.

The civilian who drew his gun on the Clackamas mall shooter did a fine job of identifying his target. His target shot himself first.

Byron Raum

"Can you give us another example of why anyone would need a gun against a local government today? One later than 1945?"

HEY EVERYBODY, BYRON RAUM CAN TELL THE FUTURE!!!

Hey Ron B

There is going to be a massive Rally in Albany NY tomorrow in support of the 2nd. Amendment they expect up Tq 10.000

Cuomo the dictator is done for already have the counties have passed resolutions denouncing his draconian gun law and even the police say they will not enforce it!

How about if Sheriff Arpaio decided to conduct armed warantless searches for illegal aliens by going door to door in Maracopa county? That would be a very good reason to take up arms against local government.

He would be taken to court. If he lost, he would legally be required to desist. If he chose not to, the Federal government could be called in, in case of armed resistance from him.

The citizenry does not need to get involved, except taking him to court.

Byron

is a snivelling little pantywaist who just likes to cut and paste his crap

"Can you give us another example of why anyone would need a gun against a local government today? One later than 1945?"

HEY EVERYBODY, BYRON RAUM CAN TELL THE FUTURE!!!

Yes...asking for an hypothetical situation is "telling the future." Right.

Kind of funny...apparently, deterrents are supposed to work wonderfully with guns. But apparently, passing laws is useless, hey, they are criminals so the law is going to deter them, eh?

That is exactly why reasonable gun laws will also work. They cannot prevent any single occurrence, but with reasonable laws and reasonable enforcement, we can reduce the incident of these horrific accidents

They do work wonderfully.

In places and demographics where gun ownership rates are higher violent crime rates, murder rates, and suicide rates are lower. For example, whites have more guns per capita than non-whites...rural people have more guns per capita than urban people....the richer you are the more guns you have per capita vs poorer people...in every case the lower violent crime rates and murder rates occur among the group with more guns.

Also, this study found some interesting and similar facts about European gun laws, gun ownership rates, and murder rates and suicide rates:

A study done by the Harvard Jounal of Law and Public Policy reports some interesting statistics.

The study, which appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

We have lower violent crime rates than many European nations, and we had higher murder rates than they did when we had MORE gun control than they did in comparison (look at the history of international gun control; there were points where NYC had more gun control than England, and yet had still higher murder rates). It's not so easy to tie our higher murder rates to guns...in fact, it's not correlated at all. As we'v proliferated more "assault" rifles, guns in general, permits to carry guns, and high capacity magazines our murder rates and violent crime rates have plummeted simultaneously. What IS correlated to our, and other nations', violent crime rates and murder rates (whether by gun or other means) is the Drug War.

For just an example of the effect of the Drug War we look to 1933...the year the Prohibition of alcohol ended. The murder rate fell in one year 40% that year. Meanwhile in 1920-21, the year they outlawed alcohol, crime rates went up 24%, and over the 13 years of Prohibition they skyrocketed 78%. Up to 51% of all murdersi n the USA are tied ditrectly to the illegalization of drugs. Meanwhile, only 1.7% of murders are tied to rifles (less than what are tied to clubs, bats, and pipes - bludgeons), and "assault" rifles are a small subset of that category of rifles total.

Do you want ot save lives? Or is this political BS? You can save up 51% of lives of the murdered by ending the Drug War, you MIGHT save a fraction of the 1.7% if you ban certain types of rifles...and likely won't save any.

There is ZERO evidence abd gun bans or gun control has saved lives in the USA. All the studies show no change in the trtajtetctory of altready declining violent crime rates and mturtdetrt rtates. They are useless emotional kneejerk intuitive measures.

I think you need to study game theory mathematics so you can understand it better.

Byron

is a snivelling little pantywaist who just likes to cut and paste his crap

I am sooo hurt...Oh me oh my...I have been insulted by Witchking. Whatever shall I do now. O woe is me. Alas! Alack!

Gee the libby's are using another crisis to push their agenda.. Gee if I lost my child to a drunk driver I would want to ban alcohol too but that doesn't mean it should be banned. Then there would be prohibition all over again and we have been there. It just doesn't work and neither did or does bans. Ban criminals... maybe that would work. It just amazes me the simple mindedness of these liberals.

We have, of course, already established that armed citizenry is incapable of facing down the might of the US government.

"We" have established no such thing. Your lack of backbone has acknowledged this for YOU!

If you don't want stupid things attributed to you, then don't say them

I didn't say anything stupid, dillhole. I provided a historical reference of armed civilians using weapons and dynamite to regain control from a corrupt local government.

I would also like to know your explanation of how it would be possible, today, for an armed citizenry to depose an local government, without having to face down the Federal government.

How would it be any different today than it was in 1946? Answer, no different. If there were people who were being abused by a usurpatious local government, and the Federal government refused to intervene, then the citizens could regain control in the same fashion, (if gun grabbing Feinstein doesn't get her way that is). Athens was no long drawn out seige. It was over in a matter of a few hours. Hundreds of citizens vs. a dozen deputies and a sheriff. They fired on the station, blew the doors, the corrupt officers inside surrendered and the stolen ballot boxes were recovered.

SallyAnn-4595694 "New gun laws? HOW ABOUT enforcing the existing laws that are on the books? That would go a long way to solve the problems of people shooting up places and people."

The same could be said for 'Comprehensive Immigration Reform', which was passed with virtually the same provisions in 1986 as those currently being proposed.

What's the point of passing new laws when the existing laws would work just as well IF THEY WERE ENFORCED.

"Yes...asking for an hypothetical situation is "telling the future." Right."

You did ask for beyond 1945, which has or hasn't happened yet.

One second into the future is now no longer the future, but by only a mere one second.

There is ZERO evidence abd gun bans or gun control has saved lives in the USA. All the studies show no change in the trtajtetctory of altready declining violent crime rates and mturtdetrt rtates. They are useless emotional kneejerk intuitive measures.

Kind of funny...

From http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sunday-review/more-guns-more-killing.html?_r=0 :-

Scientific studies have consistently found that places with more guns have more violent deaths, both homicides and suicides. Women and children are more likely to die if there’s a gun in the house. The more guns in an area, the higher the local suicide rates. “Generally, if you live in a civilized society, more guns mean more death,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. “There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.”

So your emphasis "ZERO evidence" is way off. There's plenty of evidence that gun reduction works; sure you can argue that there might be countervailing evidence, but there's no way to argue ZERO evidence.

In general, scientists and especially statisticians do not use such absolute words, so you can be pretty sure that anyone who is so absolute is very questionable.

I think you need to study game theory mathematics so you can understand it better.

I think you need to study statistics to understand that the variations that these professors are mentioning are probably just overcome by noise.

What is so complicated about this? People die every day are we going to out law death? The 2nd amendment was written very specific. It was well thought out. It is no different now than it was then except there are more mentally challenged people running around. Some of them even trying to take our Constitution away. Do not mess with the bill of rights. If you were all true Americans there would not be any gun restrictions and violent people would be dead or locked up until they were. Anyone who goes out and kills another human has no respect for anything or the laws of nature so they should be dealt with as such. No Mercy for the wicked!

Over 1/2 a million people bought AR15 rifles last year alone and you going to try to ban and take their guns away I think not it will be a revolutionary war. Just think if 1/2 million have AR 15 and you gun ban nuts have no rifles and expect the government to protect you if there was a revolutionary war your sadly mistaken..

He would be taken to court. If he lost, he would legally be required to desist. If he chose not to, the Federal government could be called in, in case of armed resistance from him.

That's how it SHOULD happen. That's what the citizens in Athens tried to do. The federal government refused to intervene. In the mean time the citizens must have the means, because they already have the right, to defend themselves from the type of behavior that I described. Your pacifist attitude shows your true color. Yellow?

"We" have established no such thing. Your lack of backbone has acknowledged this for YOU!

So you are still going to try to argue that your silly little guns can take on the might of the US Government?

I didn't say anything stupid, dillhole. I provided a historical reference of armed civilians using weapons and dynamite to regain control from a corrupt local government.

Actually, no, you were talking about waving guns outside polling places if you didn't like the way voters were voting. People like you always allege voting fraud when you don't like the way things go.

Also, by the way, could you please explain what you mean by "dillhole" in greater detail? I am sure the moderators of this forum would like to know. Thank you.

How would it be any different today than it was in 1946? Answer, no different. If there were people who were being abused by a usurpatious local government, and the Federal government refused to intervene, then the citizens could regain control in the same fashion, (if gun grabbing Feinstein doesn't get her way that is).

And you can bet that if the Federal government refused to intervene against the local government, then the Federal government WILL intervene against the citizenry trying to take on the local government. Your attempt at somehow trying to say you won't have to face the Federal government just doesn't wash. If you are going to attempt violence in the US, you WILL have to face the Federal government.

That's how it SHOULD happen. That's what the citizens in Athens tried to do. The federal government refused to intervene. In the mean time the citizens must have the means, because they already have the right, to defend themselves from the type of behavior that I described.

And we are way beyond 1945, today. Today, the Federal government is not going to sit by and let a legally appointed or elected Sheriff be taken out by citizenry. Are you seriously trying to argue otherwise?

Your pacifist attitude shows your true color. Yellow?

No. Smart.

As I stated before, it's local government that I have the most to fear from. The Battle of Athens, TN in 1946. Educate yourself. Hundreds of citizens took up arms and laid seige to the Sheriff's office with rifles and dynamite to end corruption and political usurpation

That was what I stated earlier, Byron. Tell me, dillhole, where did I state that I was going to be waving a gun around a polling station if I believed that there was voter fraud? I provided an example of local government abuse and the citizens taking up arms against it.

Kind of funny...

From http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sunday-review/more-guns-more-killing.html?_r=0 :-

Scientific studies have consistently found that places with more guns have more violent deaths, both homicides and suicides. Women and children are more likely to die if there’s a gun in the house. The more guns in an area, the higher the local suicide rates. “Generally, if you live in a civilized society, more guns mean more death,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. “There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.”

This exact study was debunked in the Reason article I linked you to. There is no correlation between gun ownership rates and violent crime rates. They used flawed methodology (they cherry-picked stats) to get these stats. For example, they used 'homocide' instead of murder, because "homocide" means murder, legal self defensive homhocide, suidies, accidental deaths, and death by cop.

Once again, whites, rural peoples, and richer pople have more guns per capita and have the lowest rates of violent crime and murder.

More guns do NOT mean more death...it's total nonsense. Look up the raw data for yourself and do the simple division problems necessary to arrive at rates. Murder/Total Populace = Murder Rate. Violent Crimes/Total Populace = Violent Crime Rate. Total Populace = group being looked at (white vs non-white, rural vs urban, richer vs poorer, etc.). When doing State by State comparisons, county by county comparisons, and transnational comparisons look at ALL States, counties, and nations within a certain search criteria, not just one from each side of the argument...if you only pick out certain singular States, counties, or nations it's called cherry-picking. If there is an established trend it should materialize without only looking at "OECD nations" for example, because that means "only rich nations", and logically proves poverty causes higher rates, not guns per se.

I think you need to study statistics to understand that the variations that these professors are mentioning are probably just overcome by noise.

I have, and I've also studied logic. I use critical thinking, reason, and logic to look for methodological mistakes in studies. Anti-gun studies are full of them, generally. The use words like "homocide" instead of "murder" to avoid that their stats don't add up, "OECD nations" without admitting that means they are controlling the study to avoid poverty as a factor, and "more guns equal more violence" claims that don't meet with the reality of the raw data when their methodological tricks are removed.

Byron Raum

"So you are still going to try to argue that your silly little guns can take on the might of the US Government?"

Depending on the situation, there's many in the U.S. military that would fight against the government.

BTW, if they are mere "silly little guns," why are you afraid of them? The mighty government should have your back, right?

Before we continue, could you please explain what you mean when you refer to me as a "dillhole"? This is the 2nd time you have done it now.

BTW, if they are mere "silly little guns," why are you afraid of them?

Inherent in your question is the answer. Think harder.

Today, the Federal government is not going to sit by and let a legally appointed or elected Sheriff be taken out by citizenry.

The Federal government would not have time to respond if the citizens took up arms against a corrupt local government. It would take at least a day for Federal mobilization. Just like in Athens, it would be over in hours. Would the Federal government investigate and take action in the hypothetical situation I previously described with Sheriff Arpaio? Most likely. What about in the future? You have no idea what it holds. You don't know what form our government may take. You would happily see us stripped of the means to resist opression under this pretense that laws banning certain scary looking rifles and 30 round magazines will make us safer.

This exact study was debunked in the Reason article I linked you to.

Actually, if you bothered to read the article, it would state "several studies."

Once again, whites, rural peoples, and richer pople have more guns per capita and have the lowest rates of violent crime and murder.

But conveniently leaves out gun accidents.

More guns do NOT mean more death...it's total nonsense.

Right...It just so happens that we have the most per capita guns in the industrialized world, and in other comparable countries, there's actually far less gun death. But it's just total nonsense, right?

And of course, there's the famous 22-times figure from :-

http://www.bradycampaign.org/studies/view/102/#sthash.PpqqPqrp.dpuf

Overall, guns kept in the home were 22 times more likely to be used in unintentional shootings, murder or assault, and suicide attempts than in an act of self-defense. - See more at:

Inherent means- Essence, mechanism, or property that may not be evident from what is visible but underlies it and has to be inferred.

By inferred, that would be derived by reasoning. So you're telling him he won't be able to take on the government, yet that it's possible he could.

Actually, no, you were talking about waving guns outside polling places if you didn't like the way voters were voting. People like you always allege voting fraud when you don't like the way things go.

You are a retarded liar. I promise you that if you can point out in which post I supposedly stated this, I will defer to every one of your arguments and label you my king of gun control and follow you unto my dying day as my hero.

You would happily see us stripped of the means to resist opression under this pretense that laws banning certain scary looking rifles and 30 round magazines will make us safer.

So in order to preserve your possible dystopian future, we should live in our dystopian present with regular mass shootings and 10,000 gun deaths per year? Hundreds of thousands of Americans should die due to gun violence just so that you can live ready for a future that might very well never happen, in some most likely remote place?

Seriously, you should be ashamed of yourself. But I guess people like you never had any conscience to begin with.

some people feel the need not to own a gun and that's ok that's your right.

as for me I am at vary high risk of getting robbed or even killed and I fell the need to own a gun it gives me a fighting chance to make it out of the situation alive and I am ok with a ten round clip I carry three that's all I need.

and I don't carry 24/7 just some of the days I work.

These laws they are trying 2 pass is going put my life at risk and many of my friends in the same line of business.

10,000 gun deaths per year?

You need to subtract the accidents and criminals who were killed.

So in order to preserve your possible dystopian future, we should live in our dystopian present with regular mass shootings and 10,000 gun deaths per year?

Less than 100 of those deaths each year are due to the types of weapons that would fall under the ban. Why aren't you screaming for banning all handguns since they are responsible for the vast majority of firearm deaths?

You are a retarded liar. I promise you that if you can point out in which post I supposedly stated this, I will defer to every one of your arguments and label you my king of gun control and follow you unto my dying day as my hero.

You wrote:

Wrong, again. The Justice Department refused to do anything after being contacted several times to investigate voting fraud. You think it couldn't happen again? Are you really that naive or were you dropped on your head as a baby?

You are incapable of holding a discussion without hurling abuse at a person if you disagree with them.

Beyond that, you have already suggested armed insurrection if you decide that a sheriff or local government was corrupt, and spoke in glowing terms about people who have done so.

How exactly are we supposed to infer your suggestion of how you would use your guns outside a place where you decided there was polling fraud?

Wrong, again. The Justice Department refused to do anything after being contacted several times to investigate voting fraud. You think it couldn't happen again? Are you really that naive or were you dropped on your head as a baby?

Your must be a liar, retarded AND blind! Where does it state that I will be:

waving guns outside polling places if you didn't like the way voters were voting.

You never even looked up anything about the battle of Athens, am I right? I provided a historical reference and you put words in my mouth about how I would be waving guns around polling places if I didn't like the way people were voting.

You are incapable of holding a discussion without hurling abuse at a person if you disagree with them

I am not hurling insults. I am stating facts. You are a retarded liar. Retarded: slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress. Liar: a person who tells lies.

How exactly are we supposed to infer your suggestion of how you would use your guns outside a place where you decided there was polling fraud?

I didn't expect you to "infer" (by which you mean make up lies) about how I would use guns at polling stations. Since you are too lazy to look up anything about the Battle of Athens I will paste it here. I'm sure you will just ignore it or make up more lies about what I mean to do by providing this information.

Citizens of McMinn County had long been concerned about political corruption and possible election fraud.^[5] The U.S. Department of Justice had investigated allegations of electoral fraud in 1940, 1942, and 1944, but had not taken action.^[5][6] In 1936 the system descended upon McMinn County in the person of one Paul Cantrell, the Democratic candidate for sheriff. Cantrell, who came from a family of money and influence in nearby Etowah, tied his campaign closely to the popularity of the Roosevelt administration and rode FDR’s coattails to victory over his Republican opponent. Paul Cantrell was elected sheriff in the 1936, 1938, and 1940 elections, and was elected to the state senate in 1942 and 1944, while his former deputy, Pat Mansfield, was elected sheriff.^[5][6] A state law enacted in 1941 had reduced local political opposition by reducing the number of voting precincts from 23 to 12 and reducing the number of justices of the peace from fourteen to seven (including four "Cantrell men").^[5] The sheriff and his deputies worked under a fee system whereby they received money for every person they booked, incarcerated, and released; the more arrests, the more money they made.^[5] Buses passing through the county were often pulled over and the passengers were randomly ticketed for drunkenness, whether guilty or not.^[5]

In the August 1946 election, Paul Cantrell was once again a candidate for sheriff, while Pat Mansfield sought the state senate seat.^[5] After World War II ended, some 3,000 military veterans (constituting about 10 percent of the county population) had returned to McMinn County. Some of the returning veterans resolved to challenge Cantrell's political control by fielding their own nonpartisan candidates and working for a fraud-free election.^[5] They called themselves the GI Non-Partisan League.^[7] Veteran Bill White described the veterans' motivation:

There were several beer joints and honky-tonks around Athens; we were pretty wild; we started having trouble with the law enforcement at that time because they started making a habit of picking up GIs and fining them heavily for most anything—they were kind of making a racket out of it. After long hard years of service—most of us were hard-core veterans of World War II—we were used to drinking our liquor and our beer without being molested. When these things happened, the GIs got madder—the more GIs they arrested, the more they beat up, the madder we got ...^[5]

Combat veteran Knox Henry stood as candidate for sheriff in opposition to Cantrell.^[5] In advertisements and speeches, the GI candidates promised an honest ballot count and reform of county government. At a rally, a GI speaker said,

The principles that we fought for in this past war do not exist in McMinn County. We fought for democracy because we believe in democracy but not the form we live under in this county.^[8]

Battle

Polls for the county election opened August 1, 1946. About 200 armed deputies turned out to patrol the precincts—the normal complement of 15 deputies significantly augmented by reinforcements from other counties. A number of conflicts arose before the polls closed, the most serious of which was when a black man, Tom Gillespie, was assaulted by officers after casting his vote. Deputy C.M. Wise shot and wounded him in the back while he was trying escape from the officers. C.M. Wise was later sentenced to 1-3 years in prision, being the only person to face charges from the events of August 1-2, 1946.^[7]

As the polls closed, deputies seized ballot boxes and took them to the jail. Opposition veterans responded by arming themselves and marching there. Some of them had raided the National Guard Armory, obtaining arms and ammunition.^[9] Estimates of the number of veterans besieging the jail vary from several hundred^[9] to as high as 2,000.^[7]

When the men reached the jail, it was barricaded and manned by 55 deputies. The veterans demanded the ballot boxes but were refused. They then opened fire on the jail, initiating a battle that lasted several hours by some accounts,^[7][9] considerably less by others.^[10] In the end, the door of the jail was dynamited and breached. The barricaded deputies—some with injuries—surrendered, and the ballot boxes were recovered.

During the fight at the jail, rioting had broken out in Athens, mainly targeting police cars.^[7][9] This continued even after the ballot boxes were recovered, but subsided by morning.^[10]

Aftermath

The recovered ballots certified the election of the five GI Non-Partisan League candidates.^[10] Among the reforms instituted was a change in the method of payment and a $5,000 salary cap for officials. In the initial momentum of victory, gambling houses in collusion with the Cantrell regime were raided and their operations demolished. Deputies of the prior administration resigned and were replaced.^[10]

The new government encountered challenges including at least eleven resignations of county administrators.^{[citation needed]} On January 4, 1947, four of the five leaders of the GI Non-Partisan League declared in an open letter: "We abolished one machine only to replace it with another and more powerful one in the making."^[11] The League failed to establish itself permanently and traditional political parties soon returned to power.^[7]

Actually, if you bothered to read the article, it would state "several studies."

And several studies have been debunked, just as Hemenway's. I can guarantee everyone of these 'several studies" are among the debunked.

If guns don't deter crime, then why are police patrols scheduled and located via game theory on how the presence of an armed person will deter crime in those areas? Police patrols use the assumption an armed person will deter crime in a certain area. Or do you assume it's the fancy little unifrom that does it for sociopathic criminals (2-5% of the populace are sociopaths)?

ANd someone's studies are wrong when two studies clash in conclusions. Why is it no one ever looks into the methodology of their studies when this happens? They will endlessly quote studies in opposition, with no regard to methodology. I like to know exactly why two opposing studies arrive at different conclusions using the same data sets...and the reason is ALWAYS one or more of the studies has flawed methodology (or is outright lying). Critical thinking, logic, and reason means you cannot just seek out evidence that supports your preconceived conclusions...it means you MUST seek out evidence and then arrive at a conclusion once you have CRITICALLY reviewed the evidence.

Most of the things the anti-gun people quote are debunked studies with flawed methodology or outright lies. They do this in court as well as in these vines:

Some years back, there was a professor whose advocacy of gun control led him to produce a "study" that became so discredited that he resigned from his university. This column predicted at the time that this discredited study would continue to be cited by gun control advocates. But I had no idea that this would happen the very next week in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

http://thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/13960-gun-control-zealots-invincible-ignorance

The professor in question refused to release his data and methodology for years, and when it was released he was disgraced. But that doesn't stop people years later from quoting his nonsense...even in courtrooms.

David Hemenway is a similar case. He's from Harvard School of Public Health. Harvard Law, where actual criminologists reside, disagreed (the study I quoted from the Harvard Law and Public Policy Journal). He's an economist, not a criminologist. Although economists can have good demographic studies, many more notable and well-respected scholars and economists totally criticize his work on the subject.

The Freeman published a negative review by Timothy J. Wheeler, stating that the book "embodies the institutional prejudices of a cohort of academics notable for their abiding predisposition for state control over individuals". Wheeler wrote that "a mounting body of criminology research" contradicted the book's arguments. He also argued that the author has "blinding bias" that "colors his science, his reading of history, and ultimately his credibility as a scientist."^[1]

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/private-guns-public-health#axzz2M9rJiFZz

Hemenway is faithful to the public-health creed of guns as pathogens, and his description of this model reveals much about the psychology of public-health activists. Foremost is a nonjudgmental view of human behavior. In the public-health world there are no criminals and no victims.

One section (Self-Defense Gun Use) reprises a 1997 tussle between Hemenway and Kleck in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology over how to determine the frequency of defensive gun uses. This episode, which Hemenway now revisits with apparent gusto, was made possible by the inherent difficulties in studying complex phenomena such as gun ownership and use. Both sides marshal seemingly credible arguments, and one would need graduate-level competency in statistics and econometric modeling to sort out their conflicting claims. Unfortunately, the necessary imprecision of the social scientists' methods invite the influence of bias. And it is Hemenway's manifest bias that most characterizes his book.

A disturbing feature is his sprinkling of bigotry between bits of science. In the first chapter he pays brief tribute to typical gun owners being over 40 and in the higher income groups—not exactly a crime-prone demographic. But then quickly come withering deconstructions of the American frontier cowboy ("a hired hand with a borrowed horse, a mean streak, and syphilis"), owners of semiautomatic guns ("more likely than other gun owners to report that they binge drink"), and combat veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder ("likely to kill animals in fits of rage").

He goes on to totally misrepresent Locke's assertion of the ethical right to self defense using a ahistorical analysis of Locke's words by selectively quoting him and playing something of mind-reader into Locke's supposed extrapolated intentions. Meanwhile you can read Locke unedited yourself, and he clearly believed in an individual right to self defense, to which he favored an individual natural negative unalienable right to arms (not just guns) ownership. Whether or not you agree with Locke, it's clear Hemenway either didn't read Locke in totality, or completely tried to buffalo his audience into believing Locke would have agreed with gun control.

Not surprisingly the AMA, Brady Campaign, and HuffPo gave his "study" a lovefest review...lol. It was more of an anti-gun editorial than a study.

Eleanor Roosevelt on the 2nd Amendment and the Battle of Athens, TN

McMinn A Warning — By Eleanor Roosevelt

New York, Monday — After any war, the use of force throughout the world is almost taken for granted. Men involved in the war have been trained to use force, and they have discovered that, when you want something, you can take it. The return to peacetime methods governed by law and persuasion is usually difficult.

We in the U.S.A., who have long boasted that, in our political life, freedom in the use of the secret ballot made it possible for us to register the will of the people without the use of force, have had a rude awakening as we read of conditions in McMinn County, Tennessee, which brought about the use of force in the recent primary. If a political machine does not allow the people free expression, then freedom-loving people lose their faith in the machinery under which their government functions.

In this particular case, a group of young veterans organized to oust the local machine and elect their own slate in the primary. We may deplore the use of force but we must also recognize the lesson which this incident points for us all. When the majority of the people know what they want, they will obtain it.

Any local, state or national government, or any political machine, in order to live, must give the people assurance that they can express their will freely and that their votes will be counted. The most powerful machine cannot exist without the support of the people. Political bosses and political machinery can be good, but the minute they cease to express the will of the people, their days are numbered.

This is a lesson which wise political leaders learn young, and you can be pretty sure that, when a boss stays in power, he gives the majority of the people what they think they want. If he is bad and indulges in practices which are dishonest, or if he acts for his own interests alone, the people are unwilling to condone these practices.

When the people decide that conditions in their town, county, state or country must change, they will change them. If the leadership has been wise, they will be able to do it peacefully through a secret ballot which is honestly counted, but if the leader has become inflated and too sure of his own importance, he may bring about the kind of action which was taken in Tennessee.

If we want to continue to be a mature people who, at home and abroad, settle our difficulties peacefully and not through the use of force, then we will take to heart this lesson and we will jealously guard our rights. What goes on before an election, the threats or persuasion by political leaders, may be bad but it cannot prevent the people from really registering their will if they wish to.

The decisive action which has just occurred in our midst is a warning, and one which we cannot afford to overlook.

Come and Take It

molon labe Modern Greek pronunciation means
"Come and take". It is a classical expression of defiance reportedly poken by King Leonidas I in response to the Persian army's demand that the partans surrender their weapons at the Battle of Thermopylae.

Byron buddy I think you are outsmarting yourself here on many levels. One point you made was referring do we think the public would outgun the might of the us government... you inferred that point anyway, I am not going to waste my fingers pasting your statement in here. Did the world think any of the middle east countries would overthrow their tyrant governments? I think 10's of millions of people up in arms against a government would overthrow any government especially one that is STILL run and owned by the people. Those people in the military would side with their families not the president.... sorry to blow your theory. Gun bans do not work just as prohibition did not work. Have a clue here please.... do criminals actually go through a thought process of "oh @!$%# I better not use a gun it is illegal"? This isn't even smart enough to become an argument yet John Kerry's own words ring true, the American people have a right to be stupid... Wonder if he was thinking of himself first.

The publics right to protect themselves with weapons is their right and always will be as long as this country is free... the minute that right is taken away it would be time to worry about your government not being yours any longer, you just pissed away your freedom and ability to affect any future change in your government as they have just become the supreme owner of your rights.

But conveniently leaves out gun accidents.

Gun accidents kill less kids than swimming pools. Why would less than 1,000 accidental deaths by gun be a major factor here? Are you for banning certain swimming pools too?

Accidental gun deaths is such a low risk to anyone it's laughable you even brought this up.

Right...It just so happens that we have the most per capita guns in the industrialized world, and in other comparable countries, there's actually far less gun death. But it's just total nonsense, right?

First of all, you just did what I criticized. You said 'industrialized" which are OECD nations...the richest 24 nations. So you just controlled poverty in the analysis. Why not just say poverty causes gun murder? Secondly, if gun ownership rates cause murder to be more prevelant as a RATE (accounting for population), then you don't need to control for poverty...just look at all nations by gun ownership rates and see if they are the highest murder rates. Let me tell you, as I've done this, the bottom gun ownership rate nations have WAY higher murder rates. Cherry-picking us out as a end-all be-all example is nonsense. Prove your hypothesis, don't just fix the stats to fit the argument.

Also, you'll notice nation with or without high gun ownership rates will have high murder and violent crime rates when they have intense drug wars. That IS correlated to murder and violent crime rates...gun ownership rates are negatively correlated (they are higher where murder, violent crime rates, and suicide rates are LOWER). Again, don't cherry-pick out examples as anecdotal evidence...look at the trend of all nations to prove your assumption that guns are the causal factor.

You're not arguing with me...you're arguing against the facts. I'm sorry there is no correlation which means there is no causation. It's not my fault. Stop chery-picking, and stop controlling for other variables that could be causal (or not) while ignoring that ruins the logical point of your analysis. ANd don't look at just gun deaths....look at all murder and violent crime rates. Otherwise you ignore the fact that where guns are banned or heavily controlled people tend to just switch to other tools to commt those crimes.

And quoting a Brady Campaign studty that has been methodologically criticized by motre sources than I can count isn't helping your side here either. Try looking into these studies ab it, will ya? The myth that households with guns have higher rates of suicide ATTEMPTS is nonsense....success may be higher, but that is the function of the tool. You act as if people shooting themselves in the head or that jump off bridges are just crying for attention. The myth that having a gun in your home LEGALLY means you'rem orel ikely to be shot unintetionally is nonsense....the Brady stats you quoted include criminals with guns who aren't likely to lock their guns up from their kids or likely to practice any kind of ethical or intelligent restraint with their weapons!

Come on, think for yourself and question authority for Pete's sake.

Even if we count suicides, accidents, and legal self defenses, a gun is almost exactly as likely to kill you as an American as is the flu.

A rational person worries about the chance something will harm them, not the irrational HOW it harms them.

If we only look at gun murder, the flu is almost 3 times morel ikely to kill you as an American.

SO are you rational or not? Are you as afraid of a person with a fever and cough as you are a man with a gun on his hip?

Most people are irrational when it comes to risk vs reward analysis. Probability theory is so important in life yet so few understand it. People in my own family KNOW flying is safer than driving, and yet they wil take long road trips out of an irrational fear of flying.

I'd have no more fear of being put in a room with 10 other people that had guns than I would being put into a room with 10 other people with the flu.

In fact, I'd rather die of a gunshot than the flu. Since my odds are about even, I can ratitontatllyt tftetart hem equally...and I can rationally start to look at the HOW I'm going to die when making a maginal utility valuation. Looking at the HOW when the threat isn't even is irrational though.

Who cares if you die falling out of the sky in a lane if it's less likely to happen than dying in a car crash if you drive? Who cares if you die being MURDERED by a gun when it's like 3 times less likely to occur than dying of the flu? These tiny risks to life are no reason to treat every gun owner like they are presumed to be criminals (or to act criminally) because you have an irrational fear that the media helps blow completely out of proprotion.

This nation in the last 20 years has proliferated guns, "assault" rifles, permits to carry, and high capacity magazines to historic levels. Meanwhile, the violent crime rate, including gun crime rates, antd the murder rate has fallen 49% over that same 20 years. Logically, no correlation means no causation. Don't be mad we ptoint this fact out to you over and over while you livei n fear, paranoia, and denial.

Don, comment 1.111, I hope you are being sarcastic. If not, you have completely gone off the reservation.

Then perhaps you can show some sensitivity when other people's kids are killed, hmm?

You have no idea what emotions I have shown towards the parents, but that is typical of you Liberals. All speculation.

Funny that you should bring that up. It wasn't actually "our cliueless leaders" that told us this. It was yours. Specifically, it was Vice President Cheney who said "Deficits don't matter." Source:

Yes of course how could we forget. Everything is Bush's fault. Maybe you have forgotten who warned us of Washington's un-controlled spending. Or maybe you should ask why he has taken what the past administration has done and doubled down on it.

It also so happens that almost invariably Democratic Administrations, the deficit goes down, and under Republican Administrations, the deficit goes up. For example, by the end of Obama's 2nd term, the deficit is projected to be almost half of what President Bush left us with.

Yes that is what happens when you have Republicans take over the House and Senate. Weather forecasters also projected that there were going to be record major hurricanes that will hit the Gulf coast the last three years. How did that go?

But hey...don't let the facts get in the way of a nice prejudice, eh?

Lol, facts right. Post some then we can have a real conversation. Until then, all you have is bias.

And I hope the current situation doesn't escalate, the important thing is keeping the idiotic left and right in check, which unfortunately, is impossible.

After reading the comments of cliff-1955574 and Witchking among others, I'm inclined to agree with you, OldGreyWolf. The hateful, self-centered attitude that places gun rights above the first right we all have: the right to live, is truly despicable.

America is what we make it, folks. You are, individually, what you make of yourselves. You have a violent, ugly attitude? Then that is who you are...and no matter where you go, you can never escape yourself. You will bring trouble upon yourselves.

Try the mirror if you want to know what is wrong with America.

It doesn't have to be this way. It's up to you.

Try the mirror if you want to know what is wrong with America

Take your own advice. Wishing to take away the rights of law abiding citizens because of a very few isolated incidents makes you either a sinister character or a willing dupe for a sinister agenda.

Boy it was hard finding the bottom of this page, many put to much serious thought into this..Blaming Liberals, the NRA,a Republican problem..Think about this it took Lanza a little longer than if he were to use a bomb..I blame his Mother out of control and his Father never around..

The Social Security Death Index which lists all the dead people usually issues the SS# of a person days after the death.

This is a public record that can be accessed by anyone for many purposes.

The names of the victims of the Newtown shooting don't have their number next to the name.

Nor does Nancy Lanza

Adam Lanza is not listed as a defunct individual.

And now the State of Connecticut wants to change the law denying citizens the right to public records by not allowing people to request death certificates.

Why all this difference and this elite treatment when all other victims have their number released just like any other person here in the US?

Hey Byron,

I suggest that you take a class on reading comprehension.

All the good conservatives here are missing the point that Ms. Fatstein and all our demlib buddies are making, as it's NOT that the new laws would be any more effective than the laws already not being enforced, but that it would make Bozobama and all the idiot libs FEEL so much better!

From that post you replied:

We would certainly feel much better if the number of murders in the US dropped. So you are admitting that these laws will work as intended.

The poster specifically stated, "as it's NOT that the new laws would be any more effective than the laws already not being enforced". He did not in any way, shape or form state that new laws would work as intended. If you were intelligent then you would comprehend that what he was stating was that any new laws would be no more effective than the laws we already have which are not being enforced.

You are still a retarded liar. For future reference, if you take a reading comprehension class, infer does not equate to making up whatever lies support your position.

NO to communism,

It's ironic that CT would wish to withhold that public information but is entirely in favor of releasing the names and addresses of every handgun owner in the State.

NO to communism

The Social Security Death Index which lists all the dead people usually issues the SS# of a person days after the death.

I don't know where you got that information, but it couldn't be more incorrect. Social Security numbers are never published that way. Con artists could and do use the SS numbers of the deceased in their scams.

Take your own advice. Wishing to take away the rights of law abiding citizens because of a very few isolated incidents makes you either a sinister character or a willing dupe for a sinister agenda.

Who is wishing to taking away your rights, RonB? Universal background checks hurt only the gun makers and gun sellers. Unless you're in that group, your rights and your safety would be further enhanced by such legislation.

Since a majority of the American public wants universal background checks (and the citizens of Kentucky favor a state-wide gun registration) your paranoia rings hollow.

This guy is disgusting, he knows that no AR type rifle was used in the shootings. This is why there is such a divide over guns in this Country, the Left will lie and confuse to TRY and get their way. It won't happen anymore though because people have dug in their heels and are prepared to fight over this issue.

Ron B-2757074

Absolutely, have armed personnel in schools. When was the last time you heard about a crazy shooter blasting up a police station? They don't shoot up police stations because they would be shot before they could commit much carnage. An armed society is a polite society.

Hell yes Ron...think of the great carnage we could institute by placing TSA dropouts and former Burger King employees in school halls with M-4s or M-240s ....damn man, you know they'd go for low government bid.

KayBee

Who is wishing to taking away your rights, RonB?

Feinstein and Cuomo, for starters. With Cuomo's ban, he has effectively issued a de facto ban on most semi-auto handguns because most semi-auto handguns don't have magazines small enough to meet Cuomo's 10 round maximum magazine size. His ban on magazines make most semi-auto handguns nothing more than expensive paperweights. He also pushed the law that limits a 10 round magazine to hold only 7 rounds. Feinstein wants to start with banning sales of scary looking weapons which would likely be followed with a confiscation scenario after the required registration of those weapons. Confiscation couldn't happen? It happened in California.

Ol Doc

Hell yes Ron...think of the great carnage we could institute by placing TSA dropouts and former Burger King employees in school halls with M-4s or M-240s ....damn man, you know they'd go for low government bid.

We have armed personnel protecting airports, Federal buildings, hospitals, private companies, homes, et al. Why are you so against having armed personnel protect our children? I think your motives are suspect. Do you perhaps want to see more shootings in schools? (that was sarcasm) Please, what is your rationale? Do armed security shoot up airports, Federal buildings, etc.? What exactly are you afraid of?

The compulsive ante'ers that grapple beside the NRA are the same one's who will eventually take my guns away..

they're freaks !!!!

As Mexico continues to pour non-uniformed soldiers (illegal aliens) into the United States with the intention to destroy the American way of life for all Americans of every race, the need for a well trained counterforce is becoming clearer.

Americans on the streets of America will be the fighting force that drives Mexico out of the United States.