We are certainly on the “same page” Patriot.
The suggestion you make is an excellent one and should be implemented as well. But, in the precious few minutes it would take for the team to arrive, much damage would have already occured. Thus, arm and train teachers to act in those crucial few minues and limit the carnage.
I think both programs could work in tandem and should be implemented. We could leard a lot from the Israelis in this regard. They have armed teachers and the response teams to deal with these types of things.
If more people would get their heads “out of the sand” and stop believing the anti-gun rhetoric, we would be well on our way to a workable solution to these problems.

My actual thought would be that the armed first responders would be employees on site who are trained by local law enforcement. There is no way for anyone off campus to respond in time to prevent these murders, only by protection from within.

eddie47d says:
“Maybe you “guys” should pull your head out of the sand and stop peddling your incessant pro gun diatribe.”

Ad hominem and argument to ridicule. Debate fail.

Hardly because you said so Vickie!

eddie47d says:
“Hardly because you said so Vickie!”

Not because I said so. Be cause YOU said so. Look up the definitions.

Radicals in Israel were targeting schools, as they were “gun free zones”, until the early 70′s. They armed the teachers and have not had an incident since. Now there is a program proven to work in one of the most violent areas of the world. A precedent America needs to adopt.
And, yes, I believe enough teachers WOULD be willing to “carry”. A simple poll would answer that question and willing volunteers would be trained at Front Sight free of charge.

Fast eddie, how you doin? My wife is a teacher, early childhood development, 4 & 5 year old’s. She is still sick about what happened and cant keep her mind off of it, she loves her kids, loves to watch them get excited and learn, when she came home last night looked at me and said that they (teacher’s and kids) are really sitting ducks even with door’s locked. Gun free zones are nothing more than shooting galleries. She is all for arming some in the school system, she says at least it will give them a fighting chance, not just being sitting DUCKS. Lets listen to what the people in the shooting gallery have to say, after all it’s their a$$e$ and our kids. Merry CHRISTmas bud.

up the hill
airborne

What was it that brought out of the Great Depression?
A: The Second World War.

Why do assume Timothy McVeigh is guilty when the very people who want your guns are the ones who killed him? The man was a low IQ useful idiot just like Lee Oswald, who happened to get involved with the black ops part of your government and they used him like they used Lee.

The assignment of guilt and debate of conspiracy theories isn’t my intent, merely the point that anyone intent on killing another human being will find a means. Whether they use a gun, a bomb, a car, a plane, or tie a large rock to the person and throw them in a river, those intent on taking a life or lives will find a means. As Archie Bunker once said, “Would you feel any better if he threw him out a window?” A larger more controlling government restricting the rights of it’s citizens is not the answer.

You said a mouthful there John but it wasn’t in your favor. Both Timothy and Lee had guns so you are saying that gun owners are “low IQ useful idiots”. That was classic!

Since Patriot1776 thinks there are several means to knock someone off then everything in life is a free for all. That no one can do anything to stop the carnage because of their “rights”. Since guns are readily available to anyone how are your rights compromised? They aren’t but you keep telling yourself they are so who is delusional. A semi-automatic is not going to make you safer and has actually made the US far more dangerous. So I’m not buying the stubbornness of those who think their rights are being taken away.

eddie47d says:
“Since guns are readily available to anyone how are your rights compromised? They aren’t but you keep telling yourself they are so who is delusional. ”

Proof by bald assertion and demonstrably false.
NFA 1934, GCA 1968, Brady waiting period. And that’s just the recent and well known ones.

So speak again to us about delusions.

eddie47d: “A semi-automatic is not going to make you safer and has actually made the US far more dangerous.”

Proof by bald assertion and demonstrably false.
History of crime vs history of semi-automatic.

eddie47d: “So I’m not buying the stubbornness of those who think their rights are being taken away.”

Erroneous opinion noted. Though many of us think you are paid to write those talking points.

Waiting periods do not take away anyone’s rights. Period! To say that does mean you would never agree to a means test for the mentally incompetent.

eddie47d says:
“Waiting periods do not take away anyone’s rights. Period!”

A right delayed is a right denied. Hmmmm…. I wonder who said that?

“To say that does mean you would never agree to a means test for the mentally incompetent”

I am not overly fond of the mentally incompetent being allowed to vote either.

eddie47, another mindless cretin who holds his fellow Americans in disdain because he thinks the government should have all the guns. Why don’t you take disloyal pun A$$ to North Korea where you can starve to death with the other unarmed Peasants.How about it, creep?

Maybe he should have chosen his attempt to kill someone armed with assault rifles, handguns, and knew how to shoot eh? That would have stopped him for sure. Oh wait …that’s how he got his weapons…

Dear Flashy,

You write: “Maybe he should have chosen his attempt to kill someone armed with assault rifles, handguns, and knew how to shoot eh? That would have stopped him for sure. Oh wait …that’s how he got his weapons…” You are being disingenuous here, and you know it. If reports are accurate, his mother was shot while she slept. If that’s the case, she certainly wasn’t “armed with assault rifles, handguns” and I doubt she had done much training in “how to shoot” in her sleep.

Best wishes,
Bob

Yes Patrick…. easy access to weapons in all these mass shootings so start taking a little responsibility and do something about it from “your side”.

So your stand is that more government controls on the ownership of guns would have helped? You are supporting your argument for more laws to prevent this kind of attack on the arguement that this guy murdered his mother and stole her guns, both of which, I believe are illegal acts.

Patruiot…if she didn’t have that assault rifle and hundreds of rounds and large capacity clips for him to steal…ya really think he would have killed 20 babies and 6 innocent adults?

Do you really think that if she hadn’t had those weapons he wouldn’t have been able to get some somewhere else?

Not necessarily for the easy access made it quick and easy for him to go through with his plan. His mother was careless and so is society in allowing these weapons into the hands of anybody.

eddie47d says:
“Not necessarily for the easy access made it quick and easy for him to go through with his plan. His mother was careless and so is society in allowing these weapons into the hands of anybody”

Proof by bald assertion and demonstrably false (society allowing….)
NFA, GCA, Brady bill…… And that is just the well known ones.

Flashy says:
“Maybe he should have chosen his attempt to kill someone armed with assault rifles, handguns, and knew how to shoot eh? That would have stopped him for sure. Oh wait …that’s how he got his weapons…”

Thus proving our case that
1.- you can’t stop criminals from getting guns.
2.- you need more than 1 person around you to be armed so that you have the opportunity to protect yourself, family, community.

Also ignores the unproven state of the mother when he killed her. Was she actually armed or was her safety “locked up” or dis-assembled as required by so many gun-grabbers.

Speaking of “bald assertions” Adams weapon may have “been disassembled’. Oh please if that was true how did he get out of the house so fast to commit his crime? “Gun Grabbers” had nothing to do with this case or was that another “bald assertion”.

It seems an attitude like yours has been in place in the past. My meaning Stalin’s Russia est.40 million murdered by government, Mao’s China est. 60 million murdered by government, Hitler’s Germany est. 11 million murdered. All these have one thing in common no arms were in the publics hands because of the poor children and how unsafe it would be. Don”t you think you have enough blood on your hands, just like all the rest of the gun control idiots.

How many RIGHTS are you willing to surrender for safety? If this is the mentality then you DON’T deserve safety or liberty.

eddie47d says:
“People at home can be caught off guard all the time with or without a gun in the home.”

Yes they can. What was your point again?

Now there’s a gun grabber for you.

More nonsense from the flushed one. {yawn} Boring.

Flashy, if thats the way you feel about your fellow Americans, why don’t you go live in a workers paradise like Cuba, China, or North Korea. I’m sure they will let you starve with the rest of the unarmed peasants.

Flashy says:
“And the demands that we arm every frippin’ citizen, every place, every school etc? That’s not based in fear and prejudice?”

Argument to ridicule (frippin)(every…).
Possible Ad Hominem (frippin citizen)
Nope. Based on common sense. You also falsely state the position. We do not demand that every citizen be armed. We demand that the government stop telling us that we can’t.

Flashy: “Criminey…ya want guns on every street corner and in everyone’s hands/ move to frippin’ Beirut.”

Argument to ridicule (Criminey)(frippin)(guns standing on a street corner)
Argument by false comparison. (Beirut)

As it happens Flashy should move to Beirut. Far fewer guns in “everyone’s” hands.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/lebanon
Beirut has lots of slaves and a few government agents (with guns) on street corners though.

Flashy: “it is time to stop the insanity.”

Really? Can we do away with “Gun-Free” zones now? Have they failed us enough to understand yet?

No, Flashy, we cannot stop the insanity, it is protected under the 1st amendment to the constitution.

Even though we feel a need to stop the insanity, we will protect your right to freedom of speech with our right to bear arms.

Maybe the Swiss have less crazy People then we have here, Must be because the weapons are in their hands, and they have access.

Far too many western nations are becoming a boiling pot of anger.
One reason for that; The people of Norway in particular have about had it with massive uncontrolled Muslim immigration that has driven crime and rape right through the roof.
While the Norway shooter committed an unbelievably horrific act, it was easy to see coming if you’ve been paying attention to Norway at all. It will happen again somewhere in Europe…they’re tired of being told to shut up while their nation’s are being stolen from them.

JC. It is a small coincidence, but I happened to live in Norway for 4 months and at that time, there was no one that wanted the [expletive deleted] jobs and janitors, so they allowed a pile of Moroccans to immigrate, so that they would have some one to take all of the crappy jobs.
Being a rather pure breed at that time, this was a real problem for the Norwegians to get used to having another race with all of their customs and habits. It took a while, but they finally acclimatized to having other cultures in their country. But like everywhere there are stead fast purists that cannot get used to this and this anger foments and grows and becomes a problem. And yes, this Breivic is very much like the Right wing patriots as you call yourselves. the anger grows inside you until some day you flip out and grab your guns and go and kick some butts. Sad.

Nick, I happen to be a believer in the Constitution of the United States of America.
That does not qualify me as right wing. It qualifies me as an American. Something you obviously and correctly have no concept of.
However, not to be too hard on you I understand why you see patriots as right wing…after all, when some is oriented as far left as you seem to be….Fidel Castro would be to your right, wouldn’t he?

Hey JC. My good comrade Fidel. is a great patriot. haha. The one thing that the right wingers as yourself, love to do is to categorize other Americans in simplistic buzz words, that do not think like you do. As much as the constitution is a great document, it is 225 years old and the technology has changed a little bit. Ok the 2nd amendment, says that you have the right to bear arms. At that time it was front load, single shot muskets. There would be no problem is that is what you all wanted to bear. But since the technology has changed a lot. It makes sense that that amendment could use a little updating to modern times. As much as the constitution is a good basic blueprint for the federaltion, it could use some tweaking to bring it up to the modern times. warm regards and Merry Christmas.

In the U.S. criminals DO turn in guns. At “no questions asked” buybacks. What a great way to get rid of the evidence.

How many of those were “Gun Free Zones”?
It’s time to recognize that criminals and mentally deranged people don’t care about gun free zones.
Stop the pharmaceutical stranglehold on the health care system, get the kids of psychiatric mediciations. The US has seven-fold more children on psychiatric medications than any other country, not surprisingly in almost all cases of mass school shootings in the last 18 years the person committing the crime has been a) seeing a psychiatrist and b) been on psychiatric medications since they were young, probably because someone diagnosed them with some BS medical condition because at 5 years old they wanted to play in class and not pay attention.

Doby,

Not that many and you are right… too many med being prescribed without an inkling of what they can do because everyone’s physiology is different. I believe drugs are part of the issue. Its also our desensitization of violent acts. There are many factors that go into the problem and gun laws alone will not solve them.

BTW, Dave; The guy in Oregon offed himself AFTER being held at GUN POINT by a licensed citizen, not because his gun jammed.

By recently I meant in the last 40 years, since the making of ever violent movies, violent video games and the doctor’s prescribing mind bending drugs like they were just aspirin.
People who wish to kill others do not have to have a gun, they can find many other ways to kill.
Homemade Bombs come to mind as just one of the ways and there are many others.
As I said the real problem is in the mind of the Killer, not the gun in their hand.

There isn’t much common sense on anything anymore. Big Pharma pushes drugs people don’t need because that is where the money is. Quite often the doctor gets a piece of the take if they prescribe the companies favorite drug. Too many folks become sick from taking so many drugs but Big Pharma doesn’t care. Their marketing strategy is working! Not much different with gun dealers and gun shows. Their advertising anymore is relentless with billboards shouting out at you and ads in the paper. We are a nation obsessed with having the latest weapon finery to make things all better. One more pill won’t hurt and one more gun is good for the soul. Responsible? Absolutely Not!

Dave, in Oregon further carnage was stopped by a concealed weapon citizen. Did you hear that on the news???

Deborah…that is ot correct. Some guy who wanted to be on the news and grab his five minutes of airfame said he had a concealed weapon, he pulled it out and the gunman seeing that, off’d himself. the guy said he didn’t fire at the shooter because he was afraid of hitting someone if he missed.

think that through…instead of shooting the guy, he ran and left him to continue to shoot.

The shooter off’d himself when his assault gun jammed and the cops were coming into the building.

No one, absolutely no one, can verify the guy’s story. …

Though no doubt it will now be entered into gun wacko’s Hall of Fame.

Dave67. It is not BS! The supreme court in 1981 decided in a case brought in DC, that the police are under no obligation to protect anyone. For more information read Dial 911 And Die by Aron Zellman.

Always remember. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty no safety, and will eventually loose both.” Benjamin Franklin

No one is giving up their Liberties yet semi-automatics continue to wreck havoc on other peoples Liberties!

eddie47d says:
“No one is giving up their Liberties yet semi-automatics continue to wreck havoc on other peoples Liberties!”

Already have given up their liberties. Long list. Start here. http://libertylost.org/
Semi-automatics are inanimate objects and can not do anything.

From duby: “The US has seven-fold more children on psychiatric medications than any other country, not surprisingly in almost all cases of mass school shootings in the last 18 years the person committing the crime has been a) seeing a psychiatrist and b) been on psychiatric medications since they were young, probably because someone diagnosed them with some BS medical condition because at 5 years old they wanted to play in class and not pay attention.”

Thank you Tom Cruise, you sound like a good little robot from Scientology.

Rob

I believe that a question was put to one of your friends that visits and spouts nonsense here (Flashy), as to the weapon used in the most deadly massacre at a school. You have correctly identified the town Bath MI, but you have attributed the killing to guns? Since the thread here is gun control and gun violence, the inclusion of murder by dynamite is not valid.

Also your guilt by association saying that WE HAVE A HISTORY OF KILLING, is misleading. It suggests that the WE are the people of this nation, when actually the WE is the HUMAN RACE.

Some extremely horrific mass killings never seem to be mentioned in all these gun vs person debates. I am somewhat older than many here so I can remember quite clearly the Jones town massacre. I have also heard about many other CULT massacres that occurred without the use of firearms, they generally used poison. Explosives are also quite often used to kill massive amounts of innocent people, be it suicide bombers or blowing up aircraft in-flight. There was a fairly recent incident of the use of biological agents in killing people in a Japanese train. There is also the possibility of using radioactive material in a dirty bomb to kill thousands. Even knives and machetes have been use for mass murder. And it is possible to commit mass murder with an AUTOMOBILE.

The one, and only, factor that links all these mass killings is the mentality of the killers, not the use of assault weapons with high capacity clips.

That’s not true Vickie. The simple fact they were made for mass casualties makes them an assault weapon ready and willing to do harm. That makes them dangerous. Heck Land Mines just sit their with no one around but still kills or maims.

Frank Kahn. But it is guns they want to ban so they have to focus on mass shootings instead of mass killings. If they were serious about mass killings they would want to ban box cutters. Wait. Airplanes. No. Tall buildings. That’s what killed the really large number of people in the fall of 2001.

congrats dobyblue, It’s gratifying to see someone is focusing on the actual problem. Most, if not all, of these mass killers had been taking anti-depresant or other psyc meds. These meds have been well documented to have potential side effects of violence and suicide yet no one seems interested in banning them and cutting into big pharmas multi billion dollar profits. This is where to focus the fight ! It’s the meds that are the real problem here so take the fight where it belongs.

It is a sequential activity starting first with the thought, so you are right hipshotpercusion.

Where is the personal responsibility of the soda drink companies who push those 16 oz sodas on folks. They are out to make money and have zero accountability to consumers. Once the consumer is hooked on larger drinks the fix is in because the consumer will ALWAYS look for the best deal at the moment. Companies have sold us a bill of goods for decades and their marketing strategies are working. Some people will see an add in the paper for the biggest sale ever and run down and buy things they don’t even need. We are hooked and like magic we fall for it every time not even stopping to think there will be the same big sale the next week and the next.

Well said tigrebleau.

What high school was that? this i have to check and see….I don’t believe it.

What fantasy world do you live in flashman? The local school district has its own police force and a cop at every school.

Thanks momo, I was about to say the same thing. Flashy must not get around outside otherwise he would see usually white school police cars, and gee whiz Flashy they even have the school police logo on each side of the car so even you couldn’t miss them if you were looking.

I’ll ask again..what school district has a policy which armed police are assigned in the schools ?

Sure some schools have police officers yet some can’t afford them. We have a couple of schools that I know of that have police cars parked near the front door. The thing is the kids kid about it because no one uses it and no cop is inside. Nothing but a decoy so neither is right or wrong on cops in school. .

I’m sorry Flashy, back off on this one. You are totally off base.

Police in schools are common-place.

“Police agencies have long provided services to schools.† It has only been in the past two decades, however, that assigning police officers to schools on a full-time basis has become a widespread practice.1, †† An estimated one-third of all sheriffs’ offices and almost half of all municipal police departments assign nearly 17,000 sworn officers to serve in schools.2 Moreover, nearly half of all public schools have assigned police officers.”

http://www.popcenter.org/Responses/school_police/print/

Rob

Folks were killed for a variety of reasons back then too but maybe it has something to do with our continual gun culture so thanks for pointing that out. There was the Mountain Meadow Massacre when citizens took the law into their own hands. (oh those brave citizens?). There were countless number of Indian tribes slaughtered too and the gun helped accomplish that too. Guns don’t always equal bravery by any stretch of the immagination. Now its just as terrible but for different reasons.

I think that was implied with the question. When you look at the number of shootings at schools in the history of the USA, in shootings where there were at least two deaths, 35 shootings out of 46 occurred AFTER the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994.

How many happened after 1994? … that’s lame. Why has so many happened in recent history. In the 1800′s most school children carried guns to school – no mass murders happened. What’s different now? – No Bible or common morailty taught in schools; in the 1800′s abortion and homsexuality were unspeakable abominations. There were no pregnant cheerleaders jumping around in front of their peers. Let’s make guns illegal – that worked pretty well with alcohol in the 1920′s; it’s really working well with drugs now. Another difference is there were not as many touchy-feely, simple-minded village idiots like yourself.

Before 1994 there weren’t so many feeble minded gun crazies who ran around carrying semi-automatic weapons either Tom. The idiots on the pro-gun side allowed those semi-automatic weapons to be sold in every part of our country and to anyone who wanted one. To them they weren’t any different than buying a dozen Krispy Cream Donuts and now our nation has to live with their insanity and the phony needs for such weapons. You got what you wished for now sit back and enjoy the killings.

Eddie, are you saying that before 1994 semi-automatic weapons weren’t allowed to be sold, or are you saying that crazy people didn’t exist until after 1994?

Tom – “In the 1800s most kids carried guns to school”???? Where did you get that from? Families were fortunate to have one gun, and dad had that one!

This is actually a reply to karolyn.

In the 1970′s I used to take my double barreled 12 ga to high school, lock it in my school locker and go hunting with it after school. In one instance I even brought it to school as a prop in a play, OKLAHOMA! No one called the law, no murders or crimes were committed and the principal knew about it.

Guns don’t jump off of shelves and kill people… or other guns.

Reply to Eddie:

Actually, Eddie, the facts are that gun violence committed by criminals has decreased steadily over at least the past seven years and mostly in areas that have the most lax gun laws. Notice how you never hear of someone shooting up a gun store or gun show? The “Crazies” are the ones who ignore facts. Your logic is framed by a warped and ill-informed imagination stoked by the MSM fires of manipulation. In other words, you’re an ignorant patsy… spoken in the most sincere respect I can muster.

What hasn’t decreased is the number of law-abiding people who have protected themselves, their property and families by shooting or threatening to shoot intruders, robbers, burglars, muggers, etc.

Gun-free zones are nothing more than invitations to shooting galleries for crazies and murderous thugs.

The last time I looked today you still have absolute rights to protect your family from muggings,home invasions, your properties and such so you are blowing the same old diatribe from the right. If you continue to endorse overkill then that is what the “criminals” will also want to do. I don’t want to arm the criminals anymore than I would want guns on every street corner or at least for anyone to have the ability to commit a mass killing.

From BLH557: “Maybe we can get ‘em before they’re born… oops, already happening.”

Check out: Donohue-Levitt hypothesis

It in some ways supports your “claim.”

You can find details at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

The other theory is that criminals are getting older and are in jail, dead, etc.

I think it’s both to some degree, except that it isn’t “babies” being killed. Some women who figured out that it wasn’t time for them to be mothers yet and took responsibility for their actions and had an abortion.

Rob

Eddie, I sure would like to meet you in person, Just to see if you are Real

Very well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tiger says: “Holder’s guns are still showing up at crime scenes where innocent Mexicans are being killed. ”

Really? Where can I find ANY information about that?

Rob

eddie47d, you’re obviously overworked from signing all those petitions. Do you think Mexican cartel members actually go into a gun store and buy a gun? They pay someone a couple hundred bucks to puchase the weapons for them. Then they find some other person who needs money to smuggle the weapon across the border. Gun delaers didn’t transfer any weapons into Mexico, but the ATF let a bunch of them walk acrioss the border.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/12/18/cbs-news-fast-and-furious-gun-found-at-site-where-mexican-beauty-queen-killed/

The ATF promoted and paid gun dealers to sale these guns to the cartel in order to try and trace them into Mexico, the gun dealers were cooperating with the Feds !!!

Not all gun dealers (just over 100 within 50 miles from the border) were “cooperating” with the Feds. Why do you think the Feds went down there in the first place. It was to stop the rouge dealers. Admittedly fast and furious was a dubious and outright stupid plan but that doesn’t exonerate those dealer either. By the way MOMO I never said the cartels went into the stores and purchase them on their own. There are plenty of traffickers willing to do their dirty work on both sides of the border.

eddie, how predictable of you to keep trying to spread your lie about gun dealers in the SW.
The gun dealers were the ones who tried to report and STOP Obama’s fast and furious scam. Unfortunately they were reporting it to the very people who were coordinating this murderous and irresponsible government sponsored scheme…and were then cooreced into playing along.
You really are a lying SOS my communist little friend.

Either that came from some deranged person or it was just another rumor. Like pedophilia would ever even be CONSIDERED legitimate. Another extremist tactic to incite and instill paranoia.

Flashy says:” Unbelievable what the extremists will conjure up”

Gee, flashman is into self description.

Flashy, just how is it that “gun owners have shown themselves irresponsible”? How many of the shooters in any of the mass murders have been legal gun owners? What percentage of legal gun owners are responsible for any mass murder or for that matter any premeditated murder? The fact is the shooter in Connecticut didn’t own the guns used, but stole them. The problem with gun control laws is that criminals do not obey laws. Your statement that all gun owners are irresponsible is more of your generalized liberal garbage.

Flashy again and a few others here: Where do you get the idea there are no fema camps, death panels,gun runners or whatever. Of course there are.If you read a lot of different articles from different ideologies you can see in special wording like in obamacare for instance.Health and”End of life consultayion “after age 70. My husband is 75 and probably outworks you any day of the week.He is still very productive, just as farmers work 24/7 and into 80s and 90s. but they would all be left to die under obamacare, so we should trust him to care about children when he is an advocate for abortion and worse partial birth abortion?If yoyu have guns keep ‘em close. If I was young I would buy one.

“Where do you get the idea there are no fema camps, death panels,gun runners or whatever.” <— Carlee

Ummmm…because there aren't any and it's made up to take money from your pocket to donate to "the cause" ?

as to your comment concerning 'death panels'. a) it states consultation. A voluntary access to people who want counseling as the door they will walk through approaches. B) They have such consultation in Oregon…and they are very busy as terminally ill and those in the upper ages seek out the counseling and learn and are able to calmly think through the final stage of Life. c) you are a victim of a con game to instill fear in you so you will bend to their warped reasoning and give them your money

Flashy, you are so full of crap! Gun owners not responsible? For your information, as per the FBI and the DOJ violent crime with firearms has actually declined. Also, over 2.5 million times a year, a firearm is used to stop a crime, or protect someone from harm. Most times they are not even fired. And, for your edification, Police officers kill more innocent people then trained civilians that carry guns. If you need more information about it , read ‘The Second Amendment Primer’ by Attorney Les Adams.

Flashy: Its “funny” they never want to talk about all the lies that Carlee44 brought up. Some of them are brainwashed beyond repair on those subjects.

Flashy, you say so many things that are untrue or so wildly slanted that it is hard to stay on your plane of thought. Yesterday I tried to respond to your really long post on gun control, but unfortunately my browser stopped responding half way through it.

This time I will keep my response short. You say that gun owners have proven themselves to not be responsible. Responsible for what? For killing innocent people? For not wanting to give up their constitutional right to bear arms? Or, is it that, they refuse to agree with your insane ideas about gun ownership?

Was Adams mother responsible No and “heck” no!

Jeremy Leochner writes:
“The whole point of making “children go into Gun-Free-Fire zones” is to keep children away from guns. To teach children not to use guns to solve things.”

Worked really well for the 20.

If I were a (surviving) youngster I would learn from that event that today’s adults are incompetent fools and I better pay attention to the founding fathers of the USA. I would get and learn how to use (and hide from crazy adults) a firearm.

With all due respect Vicki. I do not believe that children not trusting their parents and grabbing and hiding weapons from them is a good sign. And I do not think that encouraging people to bring guns to school is going to prevent another school shooting. My guess is its more likely to bring one on.

Kinetic1,
We fought a war to defeat the British, now you advocate being more like them?
Your weak analogy is a Pathetic1, look to areas like Chicago or Detroit where strengent gun laws are enacted, yet gun violence is the highest. Then ask yourself why MSM reporting of such issues never seem to reach the fever pitch as is the case in Newtown, Aurora etc?

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Violent crime has declined steadily in the US since 1999, especially since the expiration of the assault weapons ban in 2004. Every venue that has permitted concealed carry has seen crime rates decline, sometimes dramatically (Florida especially). A school administrator with a quick-access drawer safe for a handgun, and the training to use it would be able to confront an armed intruder within seconds. When confronted, the kind of loonies who do mass shootings almost always flee (or kill themselves).

I think that would be terrible mistake to arm the teachers and have guns in the classroom, lets have a trained Police Officer or Security Guard in every school as a deterrent and real security for our children, the old days of hiding under the desk and locking the doors, waiting for help will not save anyone or save any lives !!!

What is scary is, you probably really believe what you are spouting! Death rate in America are far lower than any country that has banned weapons, England, Australia, China to name a few…
An armed society is a polite society. Stop drinking the kool-aid!

Kinetic1, in 10th grade many years ago my German teachers purse fell open. Out onto the table top spilled a loaded .45 automatic. What a great country!

Livingston, let’s create more police. Why not? Emotions are running out of control so don’t do any thinking Crime is less in schools than it was in the late 50s and 60s and 70s. Why not so much attention to what occurred in the inner city schools then and even now. Bloomberg is a predatory opportunist.

eddie 47 d
Tim Mcveigh did not use a gun to kill all those people In oklahoma city, in fact it was possession of a handgun that caused his arrest and ultimate conviction.

Anybody with a basic knowledge of chemistry can Go to the Home Depot or Lowes and by enough materials to make an IED.
You can kill more people with ammonia and chlorine tablets than you ever could with a firearm.Once again, basic chemistry.

In that horrible attack on the Murrah building , he was carrying a Glock 45 pistol with a high capacity magazine, the feds called me on a gun trace and I fingered him just in time, before they were going to release him , the guns laws we have in affect work !!!

eddie47, if you want to solve the problem ban the CIA,FBI and other governmental agencies programming these people. Take away their toys, neuroleptic, and psychotropic drugs and these killings will go away!

Steven L : I never said McVeigh used a gun to bring down the Murrah building only that he had one and probably in case someone tried to stop him doing his deed. John: I’m just as concerned about the GOA and the NRA with their false propaganda and conspiracy theories. They are equally nauseating with their biovating diatribes.

You haven’t been paying attention, police don’t need an invitation anymore to come into your home anytime they want. You are no longer innocent until proven guilty, if you post on Fb, if you blog about anything remotely anti-prezbo, etc. you are guilty of something and can be detained indefinitely.

“the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”.

Jeremy, where have you been for the last forty years? The police are not your friends and the government is not here to help. Your “friends” on the police department are killing innocent people every day! Your argument about having “nothing to hide” is nauseating. It is the same argument by leftist idoelogues repeated over and over again. “Well why are you worried if you have nothing to hide”? In this country, our constitution says You are innocent until proven guilty! You are implying the Vickie is guilty of some crime because she wants to be free.

hey,as for why the DEA may be at you’re house and if you have nothing to hide BS,try sitting at home with you’re boy’s and all of a sudden you have six big basturds in black crashing through you’re door screaming yelling telling you and the kids to hit the floor.all the crap and scare the [expletive deleted] outta the kids telling you you’re a peice of [expletive deleted] for endangering my kids,blah blah….im in cuff’s the kids in a squad car with some police woman telling me their going to child services and i will never have them back!!im telling the cops they got the wrong guy,for an hour…then a guy in a suit waltz’s in whispers in the dea agents ear then walk’s out the door.they start uncuff me and said their sorry about the mix up,they got the wrong house!!back then you couldn’t sue for this type of BS…they had all my weapons and it took a loooonnngg time to get them back and my kids now talk about it as funny,but then with tears it was not…dont tell me DEA does anything wrong!!it happens ALL the time.

Jeremy asks: “As to the DEA. One: Why are they at your house if you have nothing to hid.”

Google “DEA invades wrong house.”

Here is one: “Ninth Circuit to DEA: Putting a Gun to an 11-Year-Old’s Head Is Not OK

Mike Riggs | June 18, 2012″

It’s from: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1902145/pg1

Rob

First John I am only 23. Second I never said the government and police were friends. I just question the idea of assuming they are monsters oppressing people. Some officers and government officials genuinely desire to do their job and try to not interfere in peoples lives unnecessarily. I know some. As for the nauseating argument as you say I am sorry that is the way you feel. We need to reform the police. We need to prevent abuses. I am just trying to stay objective here. The police are not automatically the bad guy. They can be wrong. They can be misguided. But what can I say if the officer believes they are doing their job to catch bad guys. We should not give absolute trust to police. But we should not disregard them either. And I never implied or suggested Vicki was guilty of any thing. If it came across that way it was not my intention.

Robert

As to your first example mistaken going after someone does not automatically warrant any label of bad guy. Don’t get me wrong its a wrong move in all sense of the word. However I can imagine that the DEA agents believed that person was guilty of something. I am not saying what they did was right. However what can you do if you have evidence a person is guilty of a serious crime.

As for the second. I agree whole heartedly that that was a dick move. No excuse for it. I will say shame on the DEA for that.

John and Vickie both have the right to own a gun ( not resisting home invaders bull) so this continual insistence that you don’t proves you are the ones spreading untruths and fears.

Jeremy Leochner says “You can and should fight back to protect your house and your life. As I have said before keep a gun at home and learn self defense to fight off a mugger. As to the DEA. One: Why are they at your house if you have nothing to hid. 2:If you are innocent you have a court system and a press to fight with, you do not have to pull the trigger on ignorant or arrogant law enforcement officials.”

You seems to acknowledge that the DEA are fallible, but you prescribe a very dangerous scenario. If no-knock raids, and knock & announce [and break in] raids were forbidden then your point may be valid. However, as long as such raids are practiced, it does nothing but place the residents of the home and the DEA themselves in grave danger. The most common instance is shooting the resident because it looked as though he/she was ‘going for a gun’, and may do exactly that if they thought those breaking in the door were ‘muggers’. The possibility of having the wrong house, threatens the lives of innocent people who may otherwise be trying to defense their home. And the reasoning for this is usually to avoid allowing the alleged suspect to get rid of alleged evidence, which does not justify the danger imposed by such raids. In this practice, the DEA are the bad guys. They violate the 4th Amendment right for a presumed greater good.

TML I do recognize that the DEA can make mistakes and immoral decisions. I do not think its right for them to charge into a house that is filled with innocent people. And I think its the height of stupidity for a law enforcement officer to shoot someone who is not threatening them.

I guess I just try and see the other side of the argument. Like you mentioned when you talked about preventing suspects from destroying evidence. Does the danger validate the storming of innocent peoples homes no. But is it a real danger yes. So what to do I do not know. I just don’t like to assume things about people-whether good or bad. I try not to see the police as automatically good guys which they are not. But I also try not to see them as automatically bad guys which they are also not. My point is no one is automatically good or bad even if they are wearing a badge or government uniform.

Jeremy Leochner says:
“Vicki no one has tried to convince people to meekly accept the authority of a home invader with a gun or not resist a mugger.”

The beauty of the internet is that it takes only seconds to invalidate a proof by bald assertion. Since you used the dreaded “no one” I need only find ONE example to invalidate your point.

“If you are caught in a mugging despite your precautions, the safest thing to do is to comply with the mugger’s requests. ”
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-should-i-do-in-a-mugging.htm

Good thing too cause I am only allowed one link per post. (Unless I wait for moderation which is sometimes a bit slow)

Jeremy Leochner says:
“As I have said before keep a gun at home and learn self defense to fight off a mugger.”

I have learned martial arts. Proper firearm handling is one of those arts I studied. Being a bit smaller than the average mugger the use of a firearm is quite a bit more efficient than hand to hand combat.

Jeremy Leochner says:
“As to the DEA. One: Why are they at your house if you have nothing to hid.”

Cause they are run by bureaucrats. Bureaucrats are not known for their clerical accuracy.
http://www.cato.org/raidmap

The words “if you have nothing to hid” have been over used by oppressors for centuries. Have you ever heard of the fourth amendment to the constitution?

It pisses me off the people of this country forget why this country is so different from the rest of the world. When the morons took over this nation; (starting in 1860); the rights our fore fathers fought so hard for in 1776, would be surrendered by the whinny spoiled brats those brave men left this nation in the hands of. It’s sad for the men who have shed blood for those RIGHTS to be sso dishonored in our day and age. I can see why Obama would be God’s judgment on the United States of Amercia.

John W Howard

Got me Vicki. I was asking for it by using the phrase no one. You are right there are those. However I hardly consider one or a few websites to measure up to the level of “significant part of the psychological warfare is the intent to make most of the populace
meekly accept the authority of any one with a gun. Anyone.”. Who exactly for the sake of argument is waging this psychological warfare. And this time could you provide someone or some website that many people have heard off. Basically can you find someone actively trying to convince people to meekly accept authority from anyone with a gun who holds some clout and has real influence.

The politicians creed..”On my honor to do my best to help myself, and screw the rest.”

Politics…what does that mean? Poli meaning the many. Tics, blood sucking parasites. any questions?

Vicki:
The way our government operates today, you can’t really trust them and rule out their taking over our country. How many “rights” have they already taken without your even noticing until you start thinking about it? They will do that by first disarming the population. We have around10 billion hunters in this country most of which will NOT give up their guns wuthout a fight. How many others own guns just for hobby purposes?You cannot rule out the number of crooks and others who may have guns. Can we rule out the politicians who are trying to take ours but have guns themselves?

I haven’t listened too it yet. I will try too. I am not Obama so I do not think I am a liar. If Obama supports a ban I will disagree. If he disagrees with me on gun control it is what is. But I still have my beliefs.

Nadzieja can’t comprehend that those on the right are always in the pulpit preaching whether they are right or not. I’ll never expect her to point that out because she is a member of that “clergy”.

CZ….the no compromise wall you’re talking about is about to be breached. And you’re taking yourself out of having any say in the final outcome. Gun control is coming. it’s about time. It is time to stop the insanity that has weakened this nation and been a festering boil on its body. The calls from the gun wacko’s is for guns in schools, guns in malls, guns in movie theatres. ARE YOU ALL NUTS ??????

We have a Right to walk in safety. Your frippin’ “Right” for you and the deranged to walk around packin’ armor intrudes upon that. Scalia himself stated the 2nd may be “burdened’ in time, place, and manner. And types of guns may be limited and /or banned.

The title to this article is “Calls For Gun Control Not About The Children”

That is correct. it’s about sanity.

Dear Flashy,

Two days ago I posed a question to you. It was as follows:
“Given the fact that it is one’s inalienable right to own guns, and given that the Founders agreed that the Constitution should specifically ensure that that right could not be taken away by government, and given the fact that there are about 310 million non-military guns in the U.S., and given the fact that, according to Gallup, nearly half of all U.S. households own at least one gun, and given the fact that at least half of all those polled believed upholding the right to own guns was important, and given the fact that Connecticut has the fifth most stringent gun laws in the U.S. (according to the Brady Center), and given the fact that the most recent school shooter broke no fewer than six laws before he began shooting school children (including laws against being under 21 in possession of a handgun and in possession of a gun specifically banned under Conn. law), how do propose to realistically “get the guns off the streets and allow people to be safe?”

You have yet to answer it. I read the long missive you wrote in response, and the gist of it was:
1) Make it more difficult for the bad guys to get a gun. (No explanation of how this will be done.)
2) Keep them in the home for defense, but disassembled. (No explanation of how they’ll be available for self-defense in a disassembled condition.)
3) Require “national” concealed weapons permits. (Concealed carry permits already required in most states.)
4) Require mandatory classroom instruction, live fire and situational awareness training. (Already required in some states.)
You may or may not be aware that all gun crimes are committed by people who are breaking already established laws. To wit: Using a gun to commit a robbery breaks at least two laws. (The law against robbery and using a firearm to commit a felony.) Using a gun to kill someone breaks at least two laws (The law against murder and using a firearm to commit a felony.) I could go on. Lawbreakers, by definition, disobey laws. Gangbangers in Chicago mostly obtain their guns on the black market or by theft. In doing so, they are breaking several Illinois laws. (Illinois’ laws prohibiting gun possession remain in place.) Instructing them to obtain a permit and undergo training is a fool’s errand. Requiring registration and background checks before they can purchase is silly and inconsequential. As I pointed out, Adam Lanza (if he was indeed the shooter), broke several laws before he ever shot the first child. It is as yet unclear if he received any formal training in handling the weapons. We know his mother at least practiced using them. There is no evidence that requiring him to undergo mandatory classroom instruction, live and situational awareness training would have prevented his murderous (likely prescription drug-fueled) rampage. In some cases, guns used in the commission of recent mass murders were legally obtained.

So, I will ask the question again, phrasing it slightly different. What law(s), short of an outright ban and confiscation of weapons (which you say you don’t support), do you propose be enacted that the criminal element will obey that will in turn make everyone safer or prevent any future attacks? Before you answer that one; answer this one: What weapon was used in the deadliest school attack in U.S. history?

Best wishes,
Bob

@Flashy. Sorry, you have no idea what you are talking about. Check the stats. Violent crime rates across the USA are down. Mass murder (3 or more) rates are down. Rates for rape, robbery, and assault are down. The leading area for the decrease in these crime rates is in the South where all us hicks “…cling to God and our guns…” The crime rates for these crimes are up in the northeast where the gun laws are strictest. Source: FBI crime stats readily viewable on the internet.

I was looking at a list on Nationmaster.com that listed the top 37 countries for violent crime rates. The US was not even on the list. But, Finland, Sweden, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, France and Italy were.

Don’t be fooled by looking at the number of crimes. Look at the rate because that is your likelihood of being a victim.

Its all about transforming the US into the grand New Mexico . It will be fantastic when all available money goes into government salaries and spending . No more social programs to speak of . No more second amendment or other troublesome rights . But we will still have our shining beacon of liberty the Vote and we can all cower in fear of both the crazed criminals and government forces . The future is something to look forward to , God Bless a gun free America .

Mark….FYI. The Americas rank just below Africa. I also looked up the UNODC list of homicide rates and violent crime. We rank below African countries and half the S American countries. Nice rep to have as a modern nation eh?

UNODC murder rates most recent year
Region Rate Count
Africa 17.0 169,105
Americas 15.4 144,648
Asia 3.1 127,120
Europe 3.5 24,025
Oceania 2.9 1,180
World 6.9 466,078

It’s time to stop the insanity. Less control on guns and allowing mass distribution is insane.

We have a Right to be safe when we go out to movies, malls, schools, etc. The 2nd can be “burdened’ as the Rights clash.

You want to be in a gun ruled society? Go to Beirut.

It is time to stop the insanity. And when gun nuts refuse to join in the debate, and demand unfettered guns everywhere…they have removed themselves from the debate, and from being part of the solution

Dear Flash,

Are you really that deluded? I, as well many people I know have not only owned guns for years – but have not shot nor killed anyone with noted guns, thus we are not all nuts and killers.

Your mind set ~ based on your post is of of a person who is total lacking self esteem, with no base from what to form any type of valid opinions on.
You’re driven by propaganda saddly not unlike most people with limited IQ value, not to even mention lacking worldly experience to base or form any type of valid opinion from.

No FREE MAN is ever TRULY FREE ~ if they don’t have equal ability’s to fend off Rapacious Rulers.
Thats one of the major reason why slavery existed on mass in the past, Ignorance of this fact is nothing more nor less than a death sentance.

There is ample information from just the late 20th century alone on the topic rapacious behavior from governments who imposed ~ gun controls or denial of ownership existed by way of governments / corporations who RULE over the people.

But ~ that is only if one really cares to explore the truths ~ rather that lend a mindless opinion with a net value of ZERO.

Peace and Love Shalom

Time, you hit the nail on the head!

Time: I am a 2nd Amendment supporter. Still am. but yesterday’s debate, and today’s as well…has convinced me. Without doubt. It is time to stop the insanity and start regulating what can be sold in this country and place conditions on carrying a firearm in public.

You guys want to play with guns..and decry being unable to “protect yourself” without placing me in danger? Fine…then have at it with handguns and hunting rifles. Then you’ll still have what the bad guys have. The right to bear arms will not be infringed…just what arms you’ll be able to place people in danger with. And our Right to walk the streets and go in public places in safety will be enhanced and dangers lessened.

I had thought, really thought, that responsible gun owners would relish having a say in keeping maniacs from easy access to killing weaponry. As of yesterday’s posts and today’s…i no longer hold that thought. just the opposite.

We’ll do it without you and you’ll live with what is decided.

Time to stop the insanity.

Flashy says, “The calls from the gun wacko’s is for guns in schools, guns in malls, guns in movie theatres. ARE YOU ALL NUTS ??????”

Do you deny that one of those six adult could have saved the lives of innocent children if one of them would have been armed?

Do you deny that there have already been guns in schools, in malls, and in movie theaters despite laws restricting them there?

Flashy says, “We have a Right to walk in safety. Your frippin’ “Right” for you and the deranged to walk around packin’ armor intrudes upon that.”

Again, my right to carry a defensive weapon doesn’t intrude upon your right to ‘walk in safety’. The government isn’t meant to be your nanny, Flashy. We can’t cover ever sharp corner with cushion pads so that you can have your right to feel safer as you walk.

Flashy says, “Scalia himself stated the 2nd may be “burdened’ in time, place, and manner. And types of guns may be limited and /or banned.”

Fortunately, his word is not the law of the land. If there is anything to say about gun regulation, it is on the local levels, not national.

Flashy says, “It is time to stop the insanity and start regulating what can be sold in this country and place conditions on carrying a firearm in public… …Fine…then have at it with handguns and hunting rifles. Then you’ll still have what the bad guys have. The right to bear arms will not be infringed…just what arms you’ll be able to place people in danger with. And our Right to walk the streets and go in public places in safety will be enhanced and dangers lessened. “

Yesterday you claimed to understand the most important reason behind the 2nd Amendment, and immediately afterward called for a ban on the so-called assault rifles. Would you care to address this apparent contradiction in terms?

Flashy says, “I had thought, really thought, that responsible gun owners would relish having a say in keeping maniacs from easy access to killing weaponry. As of yesterday’s posts and today’s…i no longer hold that thought. just the opposite.”

We have been answering. You just aren’t listening.
Keeping maniacs from easy access to firearms comes with the personal responsibility of owning one, not from government totalitarianism, police and nanny state regulations which are ineffective and do not even address the true issues to the problem.

“Do you deny that one of those six adult could have saved the lives of innocent children if one of them would have been armed? [ well..perhaps he should have tried as his first victim someone who had guns in the home, pistols and assault rifle, and that person knew how to use them. that would have solved everything eh? oh wait...that was how he armed himself. Your solution is have every school now have guns in them and teachers trained to use them? Seriously? And when someone walks in with a simple pistol...or a different weapon, walks into the Principals office...he now has a nice, modern, loaded weapon to grab and turn on everyone. Yeah...really good idea. Nut cases...sanity is not in your mindset.

Do you deny that there have already been guns in schools, in malls, and in movie theaters despite laws restricting them there? [ And if, before they entered these areas, they weren't able to obtain multiple round fast firing weapons? Do you deny if they couldn't have obtained these weapons the shootings would not have occurred?]

Flashy says, “We have a Right to walk in safety. Your frippin’ “Right” for you and the deranged to walk around packin’ armor intrudes upon that.”

Again, my right to carry a defensive weapon doesn’t intrude upon your right to ‘walk in safety’. The government isn’t meant to be your nanny, Flashy. We can’t cover ever sharp corner with cushion pads so that you can have your right to feel safer as you walk. [ Your "right" to pack a weapon in public is endangering me. Absolutely. Road rage is already a "take your life in your hands' incident as guns are not unusual to be used either as intimidation or in force. you are correct, the government cannot be my nanny...so why are you demanding it be yours allowing you to endanger me? ]

Flashy says, “Scalia himself stated the 2nd may be “burdened’ in time, place, and manner. And types of guns may be limited and /or banned.”

Fortunately, his word is not the law of the land. If there is anything to say about gun regulation, it is on the local levels, not national.” [BS. Any effort to control time, place, manner and what can be sold and under what conditions is a federal matter. Otherwise one state will be the conduit feeding it's neighboring, more saner, states. ]

Flashy says: ” Fine…then have at it with handguns and hunting rifles. Then you’ll still have what the bad guys have.”

News flash, flashman, the bad guys have more than handguns and hunting rifles!

“Yesterday you claimed to understand the most important reason behind the 2nd Amendment, and immediately afterward called for a ban on the so-called assault rifles. Would you care to address this apparent contradiction in terms? ” <— TML

Absolutely. up through yesterday, i had thought there may be some reason within the gun "brotherhood' that regulating weapons of mass murder was possible. That the realization having more firearms, and deadlier firearms available to everyone everywhere has led to mass killings in a mall, a college campus, a movie theatre, a religious center, an elementary school. To the point where they are now killing babies.

Even the simplest concepts..such as requiring anyone wanting a concealed weapons permit take classroom instruction, situational awareness classes, and live fire practice to show proficiency … and requiring any assault weapon to be broken down to singular parts until assembled for target practice (don't even try to snow me with they are used for hunting…) … even those were greeted by screaming about being an infringement.

I am now convinced that the strident gun owner is incapable of thinking through the ramifications of having an armed society. Y'all have convinced me that you have no interest in joining in any debate how to keep the bad guys away from weapons of mass murder and steps to ensure the general public may walk in public in safety.

Keep the existing assault rifle. Demand it be disassembled except when used for target practice. Ban any further manufacture or sale of them. Ban the manufacture and sale of all but the most basic of handguns. Minimal clip magazines.

When they get to be more scarce, and thus more valuable…then they'll be taken care of and less available to bad guys…who either can not afford them then or cannot easily obtain one.

As for the reason for the 2nd. It still exists. I regret not being able to trust the gun owners to protect it. but yesterday and today has convinced me…don't count on gun owners to protect the 2nd …

To all who want to control guns:

WHAT LAW WOULD HAVE STOPPED ANY OF THE CURRENT TRAGEDIES?

Many laws were violated during the commission of these horrible acts. So, the ones we have don’t work. Is there anything you can think of that would have stopped it?

If “assault weapons” are banned the kid had a shotgun in the car.

If all guns are banned I invite you to promote that sentiment until such a law is passed by putting a sign in front of your house, “NO GUNS HERE.”

BTW, I don’t know anyone who owns a bazooka or nuclear device so I suspect they don’t need to be regulated in reference to street use. ALL of the explosions in movies from such “weapons” are special effects. I know how they do them and I find watching the assorted varieties of what goes on in the entertaining. I in no way equate it with reality than I do WWF wrestling. Such things aren’t anymore “inspirational” for normal people than TV religion is.

We need mental health care to even approach the problems with school shootings. And the right would rather screech about cars than admit that we as a society are broken when it comes to caring about others.

Rob

Flashy, instead of flapping your lips about nonsense, how about actually researching the places that respect people’s Second Amendment RIGHTS? An armed society is, indeed, a polite society. You take away people’s ability to defend themselves and those who never had any respect for any law will step right in and take everything they want. It doesn’t matter how many bogus laws are written–those who can ALWAYS get any guns as they always have will do so. Respecting people’s rights to defend themselves merely levels the playing field. You are full of it.

Gun control insures criminals a safe workplace.

Banning guns cannot possibly make us safer unless everyone (criminals…but also law enforcement, the military, and all agents of government) give theirs up, too.

This isn’t going to happen, because the real aim of government is to make us all sitting ducks. They are all armed, and they think there are too many of us.

If they try to pass this gun ban, they are effectively declaring all out war on us. The only way they will get all of the guns is to start killing us with overwhelming force, and they know this. I do believe that they are willing to go to these lengths to get what they want.

They’ve spent over a century creating a nation of lawless, immoral, greedy and wholly corrupt people. They’ve taken our culture and destroyed it, making us nothing but a patchwork of cultures so divergent that we cannot stand together. They’ve divided us into social groups, victim groups, ideological groups…and we are all fools for allowing it.

They’ve gone to every possible length to make sure that we are angry, stupid and divided. And when everyone learns what they’ve been doing to our children, destroying them to their own ends…, well, then we’ll all know how much they care. Just look at recent events. They are willing to gun our babies down in order to accomplish their fiendish plots.

Oh yeah. It’s all “for the children”.

It’s right before you, people. You just don’t have the guts to look at it.

The worst part is, we have many of our own people who support them in doing this, not seeing what lies on the other side of disarming our last hope for standing. Recent history (the past century) gives stark testimony to how and why this is done, and what happens once accomplished. Yet, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

The culture of death is, by its very nature, suicidal.

Flashy says, “well..perhaps he should have tried as his first victim someone who had guns in the home, pistols and assault rifle, and that person knew how to use them. that would have solved everything eh? oh wait…that was how he armed himself.”

That someone was his own mother, and very unlikely she would have shot her own son. What he did however, was choose a place in which he knew everyone was unarmed.

Flashy says, “Your solution is have every school now have guns in them and teachers trained to use them? Seriously?”

If the teacher or staff so choose, yes… seriously.

Flashy says, “And when someone walks in with a simple pistol…or a different weapon, walks into the Principals office…he now has a nice, modern, loaded weapon to grab and turn on everyone.”

You’re assuming the principle or staff doesn’t use it to stop him first or that he would even know there is a gun there, or that he would even choose that place knowing there are people who could resist.
Sanity is not in your mindset, Flashy… it’s fear.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. Prohibition doesn’t work.

Flashy says, “And if, before they entered these areas, they weren’t able to obtain multiple round fast firing weapons? Do you deny if they couldn’t have obtained these weapons the shootings would not have occurred?”

Yes; it could be a single shot pistol [reload time is one second], or crossbow, even just a knife [man in Beijing stabbed 28 children in a school], and the crime may still have occurred. The only reasonable option to deter these kinds of crimes is to allow those honest law-abiding citizens the means to defend themselves. The government can’t do it for you. Ask any police officer, he will tell you.

Flashy says, “Your “right” to pack a weapon in public is endangering me. Absolutely. Road rage is already a “take your life in your hands’ incident as guns are not unusual to be used either as intimidation or in force. you are correct, the government cannot be my nanny…so why are you demanding it be yours allowing you to endanger me? “

No, my right to defend myself is not endangering you, Flashy. I’m not demanding that it be my nanny, I’m demanding it leave my natural right to defend myself alone. “Why are you demanding it be yours allowing you to endanger me?” – doesn’t even make sense. Speaking of road rage, I suppose you then believe that cars should be banned if someone runs you off the road? After all, Flashy, the car is what endangers you and takes away your right to drive safely. Honestly, I thought you were more intelligent than that.

Flashy says, “BS. Any effort to control time, place, manner and what can be sold and under what conditions is a federal matter. Otherwise one state will be the conduit feeding its neighboring, more saner, states.”

The 2nd Amendment is specifically to refrain the federal government from infringing upon those natural rights. There is no time, place, or circumstance that can apply equally across the vast expanse of this nation. Regulation is a State matter which depends upon the localized solution to a localized problem. However, it seems to me that you are ambiguously in agreement that criminals do not follow laws, else you would spout how illegal it would be to carry a type of firearm into another state which has regulated against it.

Flashy says, “Even the simplest concepts..such as requiring anyone wanting a concealed weapons permit take classroom instruction, situational awareness classes, and live fire practice to show proficiency … and requiring any assault weapon to be broken down to singular parts until assembled for target practice (don’t even try to snow me with they are used for hunting…) … even those were greeted by screaming about being an infringement.”

Actually, I agree with you about requiring classroom instruction, and other training, as part of carrying a firearm in public. And while many of those things are already in place, I do think they could be better. As far as requiring an assault weapon to be disassembled, it seems this would be impossible to regulate – How would such a law be enforced? Mandatory home inspection warrants? Nay, impossible. Additionally, it doesn’t take long to assemble a weapon, and the only deterrent would be if someone broke into your home and didn’t know how to put it together. Just seems like an ineffective, unenforceable regulation.

Flashy says, “Keep the existing assault rifle. Demand it be disassembled except when used for target practice. Ban any further manufacture or sale of them. Ban the manufacture and sale of all but the most basic of handguns. Minimal clip magazines.”

Even if we accept the idea of laws that require an “assault” weapon to be disassembled unless intended for use at a shooting range [which I believe is completely ineffective and unenforceable] I disagree with banning the manufacture of the weapons. These weapons have their uses not only against what you agree to be the most important reason to retain them, but also they are the best defense against mobs as we saw during the L.A. riots.

Honestly, most crimes are already committed with the most basic and cheap hand guns, and it doesn’t matter if the clip only held 1 bullet, a reload takes only one second which is not enough time for anyone to do anything about it. You can have one bullet, or a hundred bullets… it doesn’t matter.

Flashy says, “I regret not being able to trust the gun owners to protect it. but yesterday and today has convinced me…”

Just because someone doesn’t agree with you, doesn’t mean they are insane or unwilling to debate the issues. It just means they disagree. As you try to change one person’s view, they are trying to change yours.

Dear People,

A few update’s on the current event from 12/14/12 as per { wittnes who are locals who have children in the noted school.}

As I noted on 12/18/12 { all schools have live video feed,} and cameras all over the schools halls and class rooms ~ for serveillance as this school also had “very young children” attending class’s they have whats known as the “LOCKED DOOR POLICY”

What that means in un fetterd terms is; That the entrance and exits are all LOCKED when children are within.

Now with that in mind when a person comes to the door they have to ring to enter but the protool~ is as follows ~ the person is displayed on a “”closed circut monitor in the office”" ~ the unit used at this school is the “top of the line” as the vast amount of children attending this school are “New York Executives from Wall Street and High level Bankers etc..”
You who think we need more gun controls must remember ~ as these are the folks you love to hate, or as you call them the 1% ers.
Of what I agree with you that they are nasty people.

Be all that it may, > the FACTS are, that anyone not known or dressed in an odd way would not have been allowed in, let alone holding guns in their hands or wearing a ski mask.
As I noted on 12/18/12 this young man was wearing a “Military Grade Bullet proof vest,” for anyone who has no idea just how odd these look on a person – You should look them up on line, there are quite odd looking to say the least, let alone a person wearing a SKI MASK, and carring guns.

Now, I ask any “sane” person on this blog sight, { not the Corporate shills } like many here are who are pushing agendas of stripping the last two vestiges of FREEDOM we have left away, { Would you have let a person in based on just these Provable facts.}

Again as I said this reaks of a PSYOP. Again, not unlike the Bat Man dude.

I am getting a list of all the known events like such and what “PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS” were involved with noted shootings, It is my opinion that we should outlaw such Drugs, NOT guns.
We should also explore the laws set in place by the criminal political class that compel children to be on said drugs.
As well we should be looking into the “PHARMACEUTICAL” companys that push these said drugs on our Children ~ of what is a CRIME in and of its self.

This fine mess again brought to you by the CRIMINALS from the City State of the District of Columbia.

PEACE and LOVE , Merry Christmas Shalom

Flashy, you idiot, your murder rate figure is for the AMERICAS, not the United States.

The murder rate in the US is only 4.2 per 100,000 population. Mexico is 16.9; Venezuela is 45.1, Honduras is 91.6. Nowhere in Central America does the murder rate go under 13.6.

Flashy, if you are basing your gun control justification on these numbers, you’re way, way off base.

Bob Livingston says, “Instructing them to obtain a permit and undergo training is a fool’s errand. Requiring registration and background checks before they can purchase is silly and inconsequential. … …. It is as yet unclear if he received any formal training in handling the weapons. … … There is no evidence that requiring him to undergo mandatory classroom instruction, live and situational awareness training would have prevented his murderous (likely prescription drug-fueled) rampage.”

I was under the impression Flashy was promoting mandatory classroom instruction, live and situational awareness training, etc. to those who wish to carry a firearm in public for self-defense… to which I agree with… rather than implying that the boy should have training in order to prevent the incident.

I think that if someone is going to take the responsibility to carry in public that a training course would be essential. These things are already in place, such as in Texas the requirement is a 12 hour training course, but I think this could, and should, be much better and more in depth. Without good training, carrying a firearm in public can get you into more trouble than it could ever get you out of.

These kind of requirements do not in any way infringe upon the right to bare arms, but rather, encourages it through proper training.

Dear TML,

You write: “I was under the impression Flashy was promoting mandatory classroom instruction, live and situational awareness training, etc. to those who wish to carry a firearm in public for self-defense… to which I agree with… rather than implying that the boy should have training in order to prevent the incident.” My question to Flashy was specific, as outlined above. This was part of his answer. Requiring instruction and training will have no effect on those who make a choice to do harm upon innocents. It might serve to prevent accidents and would serve to help firearm proficiency.

You write: “These kind of requirements do not in any way infringe upon the right to bare (sic) arms, but rather, encourages it through proper training.” I disagree.

Best wishes,
Bob

Only those calling for banning guns are violating the second amendment. I am a liberal and do not support gun bans. You need not repeat the amendment around me nor do you automatically have too around liberals.

Flashy says a lot and it would take a book to counter all of his errors of logic
Here is that book. http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660:

Now to some details to show that flashy does not have a clue (unlikely) or is deliberately lying for political purpose.

Flashy: “Gun control is coming. it’s about time. It is time to stop the insanity that has weakened this nation and been a festering boil on its body.”

Gun control meaning laws infringing on the RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms have been with us since at least 1934 (actually much earlier but 1934 is a good reference). Therefor your claim that it is coming is false. We have pointed this out to you more than once, with proofs. That you continue to ignore it proves to us that you are willfully ignorant or a paid agent.

Flashy: “The calls from the gun wacko’s is for guns in schools, guns in malls, guns in movie theatres. ARE YOU ALL NUTS ??????”

Amusing ad hominem attack telling us more about flashy’s writing skill then us. The “gun wackos” are the ones who claim that we would be safer waiting for the police to respond in minutes to a teacher’s call for help which needs response in seconds. The most recent shooting on Friday a case in point.

Flashy: “We have a Right to walk in safety. Your frippin’ “Right” for you and the deranged to walk around packin’ armor intrudes upon that.”

Arguement to ridicule (frippin)
Arguement “guilt by association” (you and the deranged)

Our right to walk around packing armor (and/or guns) does not interfere in the least with your right to walk in safety. In fact it IMPROVES your safety. The deranged in your straw man are much less likely to attack you when they know that people around you can actually DEFEND you effectively. And IF they do we CAN defend you effectively. Unlike the poor adults in that school on Friday. This has been pointed out to you with proofs (see book at top of this post). That you refuse to listen indicates willful ignorance. Or that you are paid to post here.

Flashy: “Scalia himself stated the 2nd may be “burdened’ in time, place, and manner. And types of guns may be limited and /or banned.”

By private property owners. NOT by government and NOT in public places.

@ Flashy, to belabor the obvious to everyone here but you, Sieg Heil.

You and Hitler and Mussolini all have the same solution.

Let me explain something about “Flashy”. You see, Flashy is a coward. He thinks that his life is worth more than a policeman. He thinks his life is worth more than a soldier. He is too cowardly to think that he can defend himself from attack, but he has no problem believing in his sad mind that it is ok to get a police man to protect him even though the Supreme Court of clowns has stated that the police are not their to protect you. Flashy won’t take the responsibility for defending himself because he believes his life is so much more valuable than someone who is paid to enforce laws. And the sad state of affairs is that many people have this convoluted idea about defense. Flashy, if I’m ever near you when you are attacked, if I know it is you, I will stand back and watch your demise by the criminal who does so. And say, how sad, Flashy wasn’t brave enough to carry a firearm to defend himself so now he gets to go in a box.

Mark in the dark: Where did Flashy say he wouldn’t defend himself? You assume too much and are the coward for making things up. You have a warped sense of bravery at least from your comment.

BOB, If i remember right the Time was around 1927-1928 A Bomb was used. 50 something was killed, and a lot wounded.

Bob says,”You write: “These kind of requirements do not in any way infringe upon the right to bare (sic) arms, but rather, encourages it through proper training.” I disagree.”

How so… ? Don’t keep it to yourself.
I fail to see how firearm training, as a requirement to carry a gun in public, is an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment. It’s not a pass/fail system in which you could be denied the right based on failing the class. It’s not a privilege like driving a car that it could be denied by subjective failure in some obscure grading system. In Texas, anyone who is not convicted of a violent crime, or certified as mentally ill by a licensed doctor, can get a permit after taking the training course to which there is no failing grade in which the permit is rejected. It only ensures that you are familiar with the State and federal laws concerning the carry of a weapon, and that you have at least shot it before. I see no infringment on your right to carry under these circumstances.

Dear TML,

You write:”I fail to see how firearm training, as a requirement to carry a gun in public, is an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment.” Training in the use of weapons is good. More training is better. But any “requirement” to bear a weapon is an infringement. Even the act of requiring a concealed carry permit is an infringement. Such a law does nothing to deter the criminal use of weapons. A check would reveal that most criminals do not bother with the niceties of obtaining their guns through legal methods or registering themselves with local or state law enforcement. A previous conviction on as much as a small drug charge would render them ineligible from receiving permission from the state to carry a weapon in their defense. Therefore, requiring the purchase of a concealed carry permit is nothing more than another money grab by the state and a way of collecting dossiers on legal gun owners to be used at some future time. http://mises.org/daily/6321/Tyranny-and-the-Monopoly-of-Arms

Best wishes,
Bob

Since when has Obama cared about the constitution, which he swore to protect. He has personally said he wants a new constitution. Of course, he is using this terrible tragedy to push his agenda, to have law abiding citizens unable to defend themselves. It is only these citizens who wont have guns. Criminals always have the ability to obtain guns. Also, Chicago and New York have the strictest gun laws and they have the highest crime. People need to recognize Obama and liberals are playing on our emotions. To me that is the cruelest of hoax, but that is not beyond Obama and his cronies to do such a thing. How sad that this man, who is not even a United States citizen was re-elected. Why is this issue of his ineligibility not being addressed by congress. When theres an elephant in the room, it cannot be ignored without considerable damage,which is being done right out in open like he is daring someone to go against him. He has his avowed, self=professed communists,socialists czars, which is in itself unconstitutional. Because of no one in congress coming against all his agenda to destroy this nation, we as citizens (not illegal aliens) who love this country will see it slowly being made into a communist, socialist nation right before our eyes, as our freedoms are being eroded without apology. What is it going to take before its all gone. We are no longer allowed to say GOD BLESS AMERICA as they are also doing everything in their power to destroy our godly heritage too. That pretty much takes care of everything. In spite of their decisions, I will always say MERRY CHRISTMAS and pray for GOD BLESS AMERICA.

Bob Livingston says, “Training in the use of weapons is good. More training is better. But any “requirement” to bear a weapon is an infringement. Even the act of requiring a concealed carry permit is an infringement. Such a law does nothing to deter the criminal use of weapons. A
bother to obtain their guns through legal methods, and for that reason I do not believe a permit to serve as a deterrent to criminals in that regard, as much as it is a service to those who carry. I’ve met people who carry check would reveal that most criminals do not bother with the niceties of obtaining their guns through legal methods or registering themselves with local or state law enforcement. A previous conviction on as much as a small drug charge would render them ineligible from receiving permission from the state to carry a weapon in their defense. Therefore, requiring the purchase of a concealed carry permit is nothing more than another money grab by the state and a way of collecting dossiers on legal gun owners to be used at some future time.http://mises.org/daily/6321/Tyranny-and-the-Monopoly-of-Arms”

This may prove to be an interesting exchange….

I do not agree with any current state laws or requirements that would deny them the right to carry in public because of any victimless crime. That is an infringement. I have to ask however, do you think that a person who does have a record of true violent crime, or anyone who has a record of true metal illness, should be allowed to carry a firearm lawfully in public? I am in agreement that anyone has the unfettered right to own a firearm in their own home. But there must be some reasonable position in regard to carrying outside the home, particularly in urban areas. While we use variations of the analogous argument between cars and guns, we should also remember that people are licensed to drive. Even in the ‘old west’ there were towns, cities, etc. that required turning their guns in as they came into town, and you pick them up on the way out, in order to deal with localized problems. Should there be no concern whatsoever regarding public safety? I am in agreement that most criminals do not in public and have never even fired their weapon before and not the first clue of the legalities which could land them in jail, be a threat to others, or even to themselves. The cost of a permit is nothing… I spend more to go to the shooting range… and the training and information provided is equal to the cost of the permit. It doesn’t infringe the right because virtually no one is denied these permits. And frankly, it makes a huge difference in the manner in which a cop reacts to you when you present the permit at, for example, a traffic stop. I speak from real experience when I say that a permit does not infringe upon your right to carry a firearm in public in any unreasonable way. I’ve been stopped in a rural hometown without a permit and the police, knowing me, make no issue. I’ve been stopped in urban areas with my permit and the police, not knowing me, make no issue.

This idea of “dossiers” is nothing… they do not collect information about the firearms you have in your home, nor even about what you might carry. You don’t even have to own a gun to get a permit. I find it as a misguided, slightly paranoid, fear to be documented in any way by the government. After all, those founders which gave use this government willingly printed their names, under pain of death, on the Declaration of Independence. And while I will not give up information foolishly, I proudly give my name on anything I stand for.

I honestly invite anyone to pick the argument apart. I’m interested.

Blessings – NYC’s crime rate is way down from what it used to be years ago.

Crap, disregard the last… I gotta learn to proof read, lol (how bout an edit button, yo? What happened to that new format? heh)

Bob Livingston says, “Training in the use of weapons is good. More training is better. But any “requirement” to bear a weapon is an infringement. Even the act of requiring a concealed carry permit is an infringement. Such a law does nothing to deter the criminal use of weapons. A
bother to obtain their guns through legal methods, and for that reason I do not believe a permit to serve as a deterrent to criminals in that regard, as much as it is a service to those who carry. I’ve met people who carry check would reveal that most criminals do not bother with the niceties of obtaining their guns through legal methods or registering themselves with local or state law enforcement. A previous conviction on as much as a small drug charge would render them ineligible from receiving permission from the state to carry a weapon in their defense. Therefore, requiring the purchase of a concealed carry permit is nothing more than another money grab by the state and a way of collecting dossiers on legal gun owners to be used at some future time.http://mises.org/daily/6321/Tyranny-and-the-Monopoly-of-Arms”

This may prove to be an interesting exchange….

I do not agree with any current state laws or requirements that would deny them the right to carry in public because of any victimless crime. That is an infringement. I have to ask however, do you think that a person who does have a record of true violent crime, or anyone who has a record of true metal illness, should be allowed to carry a firearm lawfully in public? I am in agreement that anyone has the unfettered right to own a firearm in their own home. But there must be some reasonable position in regard to carrying outside the home, particularly in urban areas. While we use variations of the analogous argument between cars and guns, we should also remember that people are licensed to drive. Even in the ‘old west’ there were towns, cities, etc. that required turning their guns in as they came into town, and you pick them up on the way out, in order to deal with localized problems. Should there be no concern whatsoever regarding public safety? *I am in agreement that most criminals do not bother with the niceties of obtaining their guns through legal methods or registering themselves with local or state law enforcement, but I believe permit to be more of a service than a deterrent for criminals. I have met people whom* have never even fired their weapon before and not the first clue of the legalities which could land them in jail, be a threat to others, or even to themselves. The cost of a permit is nothing… I spend more to go to the shooting range… and the training and information provided is equal to the cost of the permit. It doesn’t infringe the right because virtually no one is denied these permits. And frankly, it makes a huge difference in the manner in which a cop reacts to you when you present the permit at, for example, a traffic stop. I speak from real experience when I say that a permit does not infringe upon your right to carry a firearm in public in any unreasonable way. I’ve been stopped in a rural hometown without a permit and the police, knowing me, make no issue. I’ve been stopped in urban areas with my permit and the police, not knowing me, make no issue.

This idea of “dossiers” is nothing… they do not collect information about the firearms you have in your home, nor even about what you might carry. You don’t even have to own a gun to get a permit. I find it as a misguided, slightly paranoid, fear to be documented in any way by the government. After all, those founders which gave use this government willingly printed their names, under pain of death, on the Declaration of Independence. And while I will not give up information foolishly, I proudly give my name on anything I stand for.

Dear TML,

You write: “I have to ask however, do you think that a person who does have a record of true violent crime, or anyone who has a record of true metal illness, should be allowed to carry a firearm lawfully in public?” Under current law, felons are not allowed to lawfully possess a weapon. I believe the law is overbroad because, as you say, people who have committed victimless crimes fall under that umbrella. Those convicted of violent crimes should lose their right to legally possess a weapon. Regarding the mentally ill, there is a sticky wicket. Some of our returning soldiers are being diagnosed with mental illness for reasons that seem fabricated. “Mental illness” needs a more narrow definition when it relates to gun possession.

You write: “But there must be some reasonable position in regard to carrying outside the home, particularly in urban areas.” Why must there be? Because it makes you feel good? Or is there some logic to your position?

You write: “While we use variations of the analogous argument between cars and guns, we should also remember that people are licensed to drive.” Driving laws and the right to bear arms are not analogous. As driving is not mentioned in the Constitution, its regulation falls to the States.

You write: “Should there be no concern whatsoever regarding public safety?” There are already both state and federal laws designed to prevent (punish) those who harm others. If a criminal chooses to disobey those, additional laws regarding carrying or concealing weapons will not deter him. I’m not sure what else you mean.

You write: “The cost of a permit is nothing…” In some states the cost of obtaining a permit is quite high.

You write: “It doesn’t infringe the right because virtually no one is denied these permits.” This is not true in many states, which are quite restrictive.

You write: ” they do not collect information about the firearms you have in your home, nor even about what you might carry.” This is not true.

You write: “I find it as a misguided, slightly paranoid, fear to be documented in any way by the government.” I find it ignorant and foolhardy to not fear government documentation.

Best wishes,
Bob

TML says:
“I fail to see how firearm training, as a requirement to carry a gun in public, is an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment. ”

How do you feel about training voters before you allow them to vote? How do you feel about training writers in proper debate style before you allow them to publish?

Some will say that a firearm can do more damage than a pen or a vote. History shows us that the pen and the vote can and have caused far more extensive real damage then firearms alone ever could.

We need pen and vote control. It’s time to stop the insanity.

I believe that you left out part of the 2nd amendment. Perhaps you should go back and read it a few times.

Flashy says:
December 19, 2012 at 8:54 am
Time: I am a 2nd Amendment supporter.
_______________________________________________________
You’re liar and a mouthpiece, nothing more.

Bob Livingston says, “Under current law, felons are not allowed to lawfully possess a weapon. I believe the law is overbroad because, as you say, people who have committed victimless crimes fall under that umbrella. Those convicted of violent crimes should lose their right to legally possess a weapon. Regarding the mentally ill, there is a sticky wicket. Some of our returning soldiers are being diagnosed with mental illness for reasons that seem fabricated. “Mental illness” needs a more narrow definition when it relates to gun possession.”

Agreed

Bob Livingston says, “Why must there be? Because it makes you feel good? Or is there some logic to your position?”

As I mentioned, there are people whom have never even fired their weapon before and not the first clue of the legalities which could land them in jail, be a threat to others, or even to themselves. In the interest of public safety, both to others and to the people who arm themselves, logic dictates that mandatory training is necessary.

Bob Livingston says, “Driving laws and the right to bear arms are not analogous. As driving is not mentioned in the Constitution, its regulation falls to the States.”

It was said in contrast to arguments which relate banning cars as impractical as banning weapons.

Bob Livingston says, “There are already both state and federal laws designed to prevent (punish) those who harm others. If a criminal chooses to disobey those, additional laws regarding carrying or concealing weapons will not deter him. I’m not sure what else you mean.”

What else I mean is that the honest law-abiding citizen not privy to those laws and trained to carry their arms responsibly in public could inadvertently become the criminal.

Bob Livingston says, “In some states the cost of obtaining a permit is quite high.”

I can’t really speak for other states.

Bob Livingston says, “This is not true in many states, which are quite restrictive.”

Again, I can only speak for my own state, and I am aware that many states do have restriction on permit which I would agree becomes an infringement. With those exception considered, I do not think the act of issuing a permit itself is an infringement.

Bob Livingston says, “This is not true.”

It is true for Texas… they have no information about the type of gun I carry, nor did they ask what kind of guns I have in my home, and you do not have to own a gun to get a permit.

Bob Livingston says, “I find it ignorant and foolhardy to not fear government documentation.”

That depends on the documentation. You have a drivers license; do you fear this documentation? Besides, I’m pretty sure the founders who signed the Declaration were pretty fearful to a reasonable extent when they did so. By all measures, they were commiting treason.

Flashy, you do realize that the list you provided is by Continent, not country, right? “Americas” (plural form) means ALL countries in North & South America!

The worst attack on a school was done by dynamite. The point is if someone wished to do harm as we daily read from around the world it is not usually hand guns or rifles. It is bombs. I am all for citizens rights to have guns long and short in their homes. But there are weapons being made that are simply designed for mass killing and I do think they should stay in the hands of the military. In the hands of criminals it is very bad. Other wise I think the issue that needs to be discussed is mental illness and addressing the need for public education and help in a rational realistic way…..not the feel good and cover up the unpleasentness of it that the left had done.

Flashy, you talk alfull big for a little liberal turd sitting behind you keyboard. This entire gun ban nonsense in a load of crap and you know it. The people with blood on their hands are the liberal left. All of your gun ban and “gun free zone” nonsense is a total load of BS. The only thing people like you accomplish is to put people at risk because the nutjobs you love know well the in one of those “gun free zones” they will find targets who can not fight back. I will not be giving up my ability to defend myself, my gamily, and my community any time soon.

Jim. This lefty learns quickly. One has to cuss and call people names to show your toughness and how good of a gun toting fanatic you are. This leftie learns quickly. I can stoop to your level in the outhouse. I am so happy that you will be able to defend your “gamily” just don’t blow away the UPS delivery man, like the granny did last year, when her knocked on her door with a package. He might actually be bringing you another gun or some ammo. You are all so pathetic. I have one recomendation for all of you all.. “Phychiatrist. and long therapy.”

Nick says: “Jim. This lefty learns quickly.”

Okay, Nick, show us something you have LEARNED. I keep hearing the same inane monologue from you in every post. Does not sound like you are learning anything here.

Well I will tell you a little bit what I have learned, I am watching the football game so I do not want to spend a long time with you guys.
1) YOU usally chat with an air of superiority to your cause and beliefs.
2) you like to demean any left thinking opponent by calling them some type of names, like an old school boy bully. It must come from holding a gun gives you an arogant air.
3) You speak as if the world revolves around being a Patriot and being retro to the age that wealthy white men, ran the world and as long as you have a gun, you can be one of the boys. Even though that rich white guy is screwing you, so that you will never get as wealthy as they are.
4) You all try and turn a ban on assault weapons to an all out ban on all guns. That is always one of your whiney points to cry about. You cannot accept that there can be only a ban on just assault weapons. You lie about banning these weapons in Australia and england, did you reduce violent crime. In fact it went down 57% in Australia.
5) You seem to live in a parrallel universe, where things that are not true are accepted as gospel to you. And you all except it without question. this is called living under the bubble. You all believe your own lies and do not have to fact check anything. As long as you believe it, it is true.
6) There seems to be this parnoia that the government is trying to take control and take away your freedom. No one has ever said what freedom has been taken away. You claim that the government has an evil plot to control the citizens. God sake. enough of the conspiracy theories. Now that the GOP are out of power, that is not true. It may have been, during the Bush years. Bit not in a democratic government. They are more open and down to earth.
7) there is this constant moaning about if your are liberal, then you are a communist. You guys don’t have any clue, what communism is. My mom grew up under the rule of Stalin. They had to bury rotten potatoes to make soup, because Stalin wanted all of the food to trade with western countries for machinery. What you call communism as the current democratic party these days.would score about 15 out of 100 on a communist scale.. It is another of your favourite buzz words.
8) Lieing and the truth, do not seem to be important to all of those living under the bubble. All that matters is that you believe it. This was rampant thorugh out Mitts campaign and most of the right wing pundits. These are like Hannity, Dick Morris, Carl Rove, etc.Your leaders know that generally you are all so dense that they can say anything and you will suck it up without any hesitation. Yet you have the odasity to claim that it is the Left that are the liers. What delusion? this is life under the bubble.
9) Your favourite line is that the left are takers and just want gifts from the government. the fact is that the majority of the Right, GOP sates pay less into the system and it is the democratic states that pay more into the government for hand outs. so basicall the GOP are the moochers with their hands out for the government dole and then they will complain that the Dems are the ones that want the gifts. what a joke. They you belly ache that you want to succced from the union. Go ahead.
10) I want to watch dallas get womped on the NFL game today so this should give you a small idea of what I have learned listening to you belly ache.
Frank. You are so sarcastic as if you are God’s goft to a thinking Right Wing. Again , you might believe it, but the rest of the people on this blog with a brain, know better.

Wrong again, on every point you made in this last post. I have never made any of the claims you attributed to me.

Old white men is a racist slur coming from you.

I dont think the democrats are communists, nor do I THINK that Russia / USSR were communists.

I have never said that banning assault weapons means losing all our guns, just that it is unconstitutional.

The Democrats lied at least as much as the Republicans did in the election campaign.

I never said that the left are takers and right are givers.

Most of the initial name calling comes from people like flashy, eddie47 and you.

You have no idea what my financial status is, I just might be one of those RICH WHITE MEN.

Most gun owners are not arrogant because they have guns, just confident that they can defend themselves when needed.

I dont give a rats back side what effect banning assault weapons had on crime in Australia. It is not pertinent to the issue of our rights in this country.

Failure to check the facts on things seems to be prevalent on both sides of the isle.

You are living under a bubble, by your definition. I dont take what is said by either side at face value. A lie is a lie, no matter if it is Romney or Obama telling it.

Your assertion about the rural (right wing) states taking more government money is false. If you factor in all the subsidies given to large corporations (in the blue states) you will see a major difference in the TAKING. And, obviously, it is large metropolitan areas (more people) that pay more into taxes, that is a no brainer. But, they dont pay in a larger per capita amount than we do.

And finally, you twist another fact that is obvious to anyone with a brain. The Dallas Cowboys did not get womped (sic) in the game against New Orleans, it was a squeaker that was won in over time.

OOPS, that was not finally, you mentioned people on this blog with a brain knowing better than me? Well, Nick, I can show you a whole series of posters that cut your ideas to ribbons when you were responding to me.

Dear Frank. I think that you mistook my prose. I did not mean any of it to be directed at you. It was just generalizations of the whole right leaning populace on this blog. It was just that I replied to your lat comment. My apologies for the misunderstanding.
Yes the Dallas game was a squeaker. They are not going to be a factor this season.
But I wish you and everyone a Merry Christmas. I will continue my defense of my philosophies after Christmas. Someone has to stand up for sanity and rational policies. haha Merry Christmas to all. Nick Czudy

did i read that right?! YOU DON’T THINK THAT RUSSIA/USSR IS A COMMUNIST COUNTRY?!!!!! DO YOU THINK CHINA IS A COMMUNIST COUNTRY? THIS IS IN BIG BLOCK LETTERS BECAUSE I’M SURE THIS IS WHAT YOU USE IN SCHOOL.

I got very confused by your posts, you reply to me with what looks like a reply to him and reply to him and obviously addressing me.

I dont think your attempt at a scholastic slur was necessary, I am almost 60 years old and we had real teachers in real schools giving us a good education. I only use all caps when I am emphasizing a point.

Now as to your question about Russia, USSR and China being communists. NO, neither one (I consider Russia and the USSR to be the same ideologically) were true communism. Russia was a socialistic dictatorship for the most part. Even when it was ruled by the Communist party it was totalitarian in nature. It basically went by the teachings of Marx which was socialism. They considered Socialism to be an intermediary step towards Communism but all factual indications show that they never progressed past the Socialism phase. They took control of all manufacturing and agricultural aspects as well as all the science and health care. It was stated like it was communism but in reality it was the ruling class that got everything and the workers were basically slaves to the state. As you tried to state in your later post CCCP translated to USSR is Union (not united) of Soviet Socialist Republics. The name says what they were, SOCIALISTS, not COMMUNISTS. The state owned everything, which is contrary to true Communism where everything is shared (owned) by everyone. Also in a true Communistic community, you would have representative leaders not self appointed rulers.

Frank, I’m sorry for the confusion, i was actually responding to the other post. Thanks for setting the record strait on the ussr.
Either socialism, or communism, is not in the interests of the people. Sadly it seems alot of American citizens are ready and willing to embrace either one.

Intrest of the public??? Socialism… News Papers / T.V & Radio,/ Telephone
Communism: LOCAL ATHORITY (All EQUAL)

ACTUALLY THE USSR STANDS FOR – UNITED SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC. SOCIALIST being the defining word.

SOCIALIST being the defining word.==========
Communism & Socialism… Can Blend!

wel said Frank. have a beer on me.

“(don’t even try to snow me with they are used for hunting”

How about you ask the thousands upon thousands of deer and other game killed by your “assualt weapons” (which incidentaly a term made up by your fellow gun banners) how effective they are as a hunting rifle.

Buster, just what the hell are you talking about? can you talk to the animals? are you a vegan?, or are you from some other planet?

gator are you deliberately and willfully ignorant or just lacking in even the tinest bit of comprehension. The point is these so called “assualt weapons” that flashy claims are not used for hunting are used to kill thousands of game animals especially deer each year.

I think you missed my point, maybe i worded it improperly. I AM A HUNTER, I hunt deer and hog (mostly hogs, they are tastier), and i hunt them with ‘high capacity rifles’, single shot rifles, as well as single shot shotguns and riot guns, black powder firearms, pistols, also hogs sometimes fall to the spear or knife, not something for everyone, hogs are an ‘adversarial’ animal and very dangerous.I also trap them and am in the process of building a ‘corral trap’ on my place.

I eat what i hunt, i am not a ‘trophy hunter’. I have no trophy heads on my walls. As a matter of fact, we had two wild hogs at my wedding, my buddies kill, not mine. I also bowfish, which i haven’t done in some time, smoked carp, and smoked alligator gar are quite tasty. I won’t tell you where my favorite bowfishin river is, i will say its a LONG way from Texas.
EVERYONE in my family is well-versed in firearm safety, and they start at an early age. We do not fear ‘crazy people’, or home invaders, or burglars, rioters, or DRUG CARTELS, or rabid skunks, or snakes. What we do fear is an all too powerful government, that every day is hell-bent on taking away every freedom we are endowed with from birth. Those freedom’s being LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS.
The ‘murderous drug cartels’ that this administration has been pedaling guns to stay on their side of the river, in one of the most firearm restricted countries in the world. Why do they stay there, just across the river? Maybe because as General Yamamoto said, We cannot invade the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, because ther would be a RIFLE BEHIND EVERY BLADE OF GRASS.

I find it extremely hard to beleive that the people of this country can look south across the border, where Mexican citizens are not allowed to possess firearms, and knowing the drug cartels MURDER those same unarmed citizens by the dozens every day, I am dumbfounded that the AMERICAN citizens think gun control works!
Look inside our own country, DRUGS are ILLEGAL, and we have had a DRUG WAR for years, but I can go to almost any street corner and buy any drug i could want! Not that i want too but its possible.

2ND AMENDMENT.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a FREE State, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Simple and to the point, is it not? My grandaughters understand it. Whats wrong with the others?

Anyone who would stand against this 2nd Amendment, that basically protects the other Amendments, is either STUPID, or an ENEMY of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.

Does that explain where i stand?

p.s. those same people in the WH and the CAPITOL, don’t seem to mind that there are 2,000 UNBORN BABIES KILLED IN THIS COUNTRY EVERY DAY!AND THEY HAVE MADE THAT LEGAL!

FLASHY, you are correct, it is about sanity. However the INSANITY is coming from those who call for more gun control, gun confiscation as if that “solves the problem” The problem in fact IS insanity. Try this factoid. Virtually EVERY SCHOOL SHOOTER had been drugged up by the American Psychiatric Association practitioners…with PSYCHOTROPIC drugs. Look at the range of side effects…Out of control rages, suicidal depressions and the list goes on and on. I just spent Christmas weekend chasing after a sister in law who had been on psychotropics since her early teens THE CHAOS and RAGE were unmanageable and no one, not the police, or the detox centers or doctors who couldn’t be reached or hospitals did a darn thing but give her more drugs and turn her loose. Hundreds of miles and dollars later we finally managed to get her somewhat calmed down. Now imagine what the mother of the Sandy Hook Elementrary shooter was going through and all her calls for help. The problem is not about guns but about OUT OF CONTROL MEDICAL establishments and practitioners and those who slobber after their “legal drugs” like dogs in a Pavlov experiment as if that is the solution. IT SIMPLY ISN’T

Jim, flashy works for the un and her sucklings pelosi/obama/holder/clinton/muslim brotherhood/china and all the rest of the anti-USA organizations out there. they have one common goal, the destruction of the USA and everything for which it stands.

I agree totally with you. The children seems to be the topic, however I do believe that the government is ready and willing to press a little harder on the gun owners of America.
May God Bless the USA and dont forget to pray for the Peace of Isreal.

You are so right about lighter cars. My company furnised defensive driving lessons by Police. One said he would not drive anything but a half ton truck because of what he has seen in his line of work.

FLASHY. I do not know how to fix the gun problem. I do have common sense though and from that I can swear that more gun control wont do it. There are too many variables.First we need a govt. that observes laws state and federal.Pepper spray against a high powered rifle? I think not.It doesnt shoot far enough. Tasers and stun guns you have to be very fast and closer than I ever want to be.Maybe armed teachers are not the answer but taking our guns away which leaves only criminals with guns is not right either.A task force headed by crazy joe isnt much consolation either.

Patrick, I too was in the firearms and ammunition business many years ago, and I agree. Replying to Flashy…With all due respect, 200 million people(many of them children)were liquidated by their own governments in the 20th century after they were disarmed by those same governments. That is an historical fact and can’t be changed by liberal spin. I think I, and over 100 thousand of my fellow Americans will keep our guns , and you sir, can keep the change.

Hipshot – Flashy deserves no “due respect”. He is a troll, a paid shill. He is here every day spewing his commy talking points. We’ve had these debates for years now, and none of the trolls ever answer to reason. They just come back with the same mantras, over and over and over and over and over and over….

Kate8 says about Flashy:
” He is a troll, a paid shill. He is here every day spewing his commy talking points. We’ve had these debates for years now, and none of the trolls ever answer to reason. They just come back with the same mantras, over and over and over and over and over and over….”

Which is why we must counter their mantra over and over again. They are getting paid, we are volunteer but do it we must for the pen IS mightier than the sword etc and we must use it.

We are not fighting a deadly war in this country, why do we need an assault rifle it is only for the army to have. If we have and owned one, we are only fighting HATE with it,or we are crazy.

Walt – Or, perhaps, to defend ourselves against law enforcement and/or military run amok?

Patrick: You kind of proved that multi-magazine weapons (30 clip) do alot of harm.Then go on to say that it didn’t make any difference because they switched to a lower clip number. Exactly! Now we are getting somewhere as in they are all dangerous to the public no matter how large the magazine is.

Vicki and Kate: “” He is a troll, a paid shill. ”

A straight claim like that should have proof.

Or are you simply trying to be nasty because you don’t like what he, or I for that matter, say? Seems like you use “troll” right up there with commie and all the other slurs.

BTW, do you begrudge what Mr. Livingston makes from this forum?

Rob

Robert – You have all been outed in many places of late. People have come forward, admitting to the onslaught of those paid to come to blogsites like this one to disrupt and refute, refute, refute. People like you are chosen for their relative ignorance and disinterest in politics in general, and are fed what to believe and what to say.

You are taught techniques for drawing people into debates, ridiculing, name-calling, and being generally annoying. You try to discredit those with opposing viewpoints by making fun of sources or using names like “conspiracy theorist” and so forth.

You are paid, also, to collect list of those who know too much, or who oppose the current creeps in power, so they can be investigated and identified.

These “armies” of trolls are unleased on conservative leaning sites by government agencies, like branches of the CIA or FBI. You are tools of the enemies of our Republic.

You are all of one mind (some of you, literally). You think in lockstep. You use the same talking points to drive sane people nuts. You never respond to reason.

Anyone can do a search and come up with articles about this. I’m not making it up. I’ve read them, but I won’t do anyone’s search for them. It’s just not that hard to do.

Hip Shot Percussion and Time. I read the 2nd amendment yesterday and it is two sentences long. No where do I see that it says that the people have the right for all types of weapons. does it apply to: Automatic weapons, bazookas, bombs, nukes etc. IT was written when the available weapon was a single shot musket. It was also written when the average Joe had to come together to defend against England, as an invader. So let the free and independent gun mongers have a single shot musket. Obviously, it was written for the situation at that time. It had no idea of the advances since then in weapon technology. So why all the crying when our present day US citizen wants to place some limits on what is allowed in the second amendment. I think that if these types of weapons are controlled and limited, it will become effective after a time as attrition takes them out of the criminal circulation. They are so easy to buy now, that it is too easy for criminals to get them. Once all of the limits have been in place for a long time, the availability will decrease. Nothing will change over night. Many of you are touting statistics of crime going up or down. I found out yesterday that there were actually laws enacted that prevented studies on guns and crimes to be disclosed to the public. what kind of wacko law was that. It was meant to actually oppress the statistics. So I do not believe that having more guns decreased deaths. I have seen world wide statistics, and outside of war zones like Syria, the USA has more deaths from guns than most of the rest of the world put together. So I cannot bye that having more guns will lower crime.

Hip Shot, you mentioned that 200,000 million people were killed by “Democide” this is killing by governments. The article was by Mr. Rummel and it said that there were about 262 million deaths in the 20th century. these were mostly committed by Stalin (43million) in the Congo and Mao in China with a huge famine. The difference here is that they were dictators or abusive regimes and not democratically voted governments that are made up of your neighbors and relatives, with elected officials that have to stand to re-election every few years. The USA is an elected democracy of a government for the people and by the people. They are not rapacious rulers. Where in the second amendment does it say that you need to have assault weapons to use against our own government? Government encompassing all local, state, and federal agencies and police forces? Obama and Bush were not dictators they were elected by us. We do not need, and our laws do not tolerate, expressing your views on our country by keeping guns for the purpose of showing your disagreements with the laws of the land or your county. So this sentiment, that you need to have these assault weapons to fight ourselves in our duly elected government does not have a rational reason. The police that you think are oppressing you, might be your neighbor or relative. And let say that you want to be a branch Dividian situation like in Waco, TX, defending your freedom. Do you think that if it came to a war between you and the USA military, police, FBI, CIA, civil guard and other agencies, that you have any chance can make any difference in the inevitable outcome? You will lose!!! Big time! You will go to jail or die! That you got to amass a number of heavy weapons under the 2nd amendment, . it will not make any difference against the USA,. The USA has 10 times the military and arms than the next 10 armed countries in this world. That whole concept of allowing citizens to keep firearms against the government is ridiculous. So what you are saying is that anyone can have the right to a gun, for purposes that they would need to go against the government. I would think that the usual activities might be defense, protection, recreation, hunting, and (add something that I might have forgotten here). The second amendment should not and does not allow for the ownership of military and weapons of mass destruction. So what is the problem if owning a handgun, shotgun, or rifle. Does it have to be an assault rifle? This would give you the right to “Bear arms”. What they have been talking about today on the political news shows seems reasonable and does not take away the right for you to own one or more guns.
1) Lets restrict semi-automatic assault weapons, whose purpose is only to kill a lot of people or defend against a similar weapon.
2) Lets close the gun show loop hole that lets anyone buy weapons without ID or a background check. This applies over the internet.
3) Make a background check, manditory for anyone that wants to buy or own a gun.
4) limit magazines to 10 bullets or less.
5) Criminals and people with mental problems should be denied a license and therefor cannot buy a gun.
6) give a two week waiting period so that the background check can be made before delivering the gun to the buyer.
7) make illegal and close the ability for straw buyers to buy guns for other people to get around the background check.
8) require a training coarse so that new gun owners can learn gun safety, using, storing/locking guns, applicable laws and gun etiquette.
This will not prevent any of the 99% of responsible gun owners to have their multiple guns, handguns, shotguns and rifles. You can use them as you like and nothing is lost.

To respond intelligently I must first point out the extreme ignorance of your main assertion.

When the 2nd amendment was written there were only single shot muzzle loader weapons. By this fact you erroneously assert that it was only applicable to that type of weapon. If that was their specific intent, would it not have been more logical for them to say it? A citizens right to bear a musket shall not be infringed? Had they worded it that way, would they have been ignorant and myopic? Or, were they brilliantly farsighted in the wording, which allows for unknown and unforeseeable advancements in weapons technology? The choice of words is very important today, in that, it gives us the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, with the intent of using them if the GOVERNMENT becomes too OPPRESSIVE. Now, it would be extremely silly to think that we could defend ourselves from an oppressive government using any type of single shot weapon. It is not much better to think that we could be successful with semi-automatic weapons. So the idea of owning and possessing true ASSAULT WEAPONS capable of AUTOMATIC fire is not so far fetched, when viewing in the frame of reference of protection from the GOVERNMENT.

The assumption that all of the US MILITARY would automatically side with the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is wrong.

Now to a point by point response to your list of conditions.

1) Lets restrict semi-automatic assault weapons, whose purpose is only to kill a lot of people or defend against a similar weapon.
THE IDEA OF DEFENDING AGAINST A GOVERNMENT RESPONSE THAT WOULD INDEED USE SUCH WEAPONS SAYS THAT BANNING THEM IS WRONG. IF NOT BANNING THEM, JUST RESTRICTING THEM, WHO WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THEM?

2) Lets close the gun show loop hole that lets anyone buy weapons without ID or a background check. This applies over the internet.
PURCHASING A GUN (WITH AT HOME DELIVERY) OVER THE INTERNET IS ALREADY ILLEGAL.

3) Make a background check, manditory for anyone that wants to buy or own a gun.
SINCE IT IS ALREADY A LAW FOR PURCHASING A HAND GUN I AM ASSUMING YOU MEAN TO INCLUDE RIFLES. AS TO STRICT REQUIREMENTS, I HAD TO SIGN A STATEMENT SWEARING I WAS NOT CONVICTED OR ACCUSED OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TO PURCHASE BB’S IN ARIZONA.

4) limit magazines to 10 bullets or less.
THE REASONING BEING? I OWN A 22 CALIBER TUBE FEED RIFLE THAT WILL HOLD 20 22LR CARTRIDGES, IS THAT GOING TO BE ILLEGAL?

5) Criminals and people with mental problems should be denied a license and therefor cannot buy a gun.
YOU HAVE FAILED TO PREVIOUSLY DEFINE AND EXPLAIN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR WHATEVER LICENSE YOU ARE REFERRING TO. IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL FOR FELONS OR PEOPLE WITH DOCUMENTED MENTAL ILLNESS (INCLUDING ATTEMPTED SUICIDE) TO OWN GUNS.

6) give a two week waiting period so that the background check can be made before delivering the gun to the buyer.
WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE 2 FULL WEEKS FOR A BACKGROUND CHECK? ARE YOU REFERRING TO A CRIMINAL CHECK? ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE TYPE OF BACKGROUND CHECK I WENT THROUGH FOR MY TS SECURITY CLEARANCE?

7) make illegal and close the ability for straw buyers to buy guns for other people to get around the background check.
NOW THIS ONE IS POORLY WORDED, IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE AND LEAVES OUT A VERY IMPORTANT POSSIBILITY. WHAT YOU ARE REALLY PROPOSING IS TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOR ME TO SELL YOU A GUN AS A PRIVATE OWNER OF THE FIREARM. THIS IS ALSO A PROBLEM WITH ITEM 6 SINCE THERE IS NO LAW THAT REQUIRES ME TO PERFORM A BACKGROUND CHECK BEFORE SELLING MY GUNS. EVEN IF I WAS REQUIRED TO DO THE CHECK TO SELL IT, I COULD STILL LOAN IT OUT WITHOUT THE CHECK. MAYBE YOU WANT TO FORCE ME TO DO THAT ALSO. SO ACTUALLY THIS ONE IS THE MOST RESTRICTIVE GUN CONTROL ITEM ON YOUR LIST WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ACTUALLY BANNING ASSAULT WEAPONS.

8) require a training coarse so that new gun owners can learn gun safety, using, storing/locking guns, applicable laws and gun etiquette.
WOW, THIS ONE IS VERY COMPLEX, WITH MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS. I BELIEVE THAT EVERYONE SHOULD TAKE A GUN SAFETY COURSE, I DID WHEN I WAS 12 SO THAT I WOULD BE LEGALLY PERMITTED TO CARRY A GUN. THAT LAW ONLY APPLIED TO UNDER-AGED PEOPLE AND I THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA FOR EVERYONE TO TAKE IT. ALTHOUGH HOW, WHEN, AND WHERE TO USE A GUN SHOULD BE COMMON SENSE, I WILL ADMIT THAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR SOME PEOPLE. STORING AND LOCKING GUNS, NOT SO MUCH A PROBLEM IF YOU DO THE FIRST STEPS CONCERNING SAFETY AND USE OF GUNS. MY HOUSEHOLD GROWING UP HAD MANY GUNS WHICH WERE NOT LOCKED UP AND THE AMMUNITION WAS EASILY ACCESSIBLE. WE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM BECAUSE WE ALL UNDERSTOOD THE SAFETY AND USE OF FIREARMS. GUN ETIQUETTE IS JUST A FANCY WAY FOR YOU TO ADD SOMETHING, SAFETY AND USE COVERS ETIQUETTE. NOW FOR THE QUESTIONS, WHO WILL APPROVE THE CURRICULUM FOR THE CLASSES? WHO WILL TEACH THE CLASSES? WHO WILL PAY FOR THE CLASSES? AT WHAT AGE SHOULD THEY BE TAUGHT? HOW DO YOU DETERMINE A PERSON IS A NEW GUN OWNER, OR DID YOU MEAN BUYING A NEW GUN?

To: Bob Livingston, Katie8, Vickie and Rob Smith…………………………………………………..
The three of you keep ridiculing Flash. I think that his opinion is very sane and reasonable. You seem to think that there is a conspiracy of government departments sending “Trolls and Shills” to sabotage these right leaning blogs. Then by expressing their left leaning opinions they are here to drive “sane people” (who? You guys?) nuts. Haha ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
I suppose that I am also one of these shills and trolls. I like to come here because it is entertaining to me to listen to the right wing rhetoric and view points. I like to know what makes you tick. I am trying to understand your extreme philosophies. Last of all and most importantly, I am here to try and shed some light into your opinions by fair discussions and debates to help you see the light. I think that your thought is on the wrong track and I will try and convince you of the right road to follow. You may be too indoctrinated to have any of this sink in, but I will try and I will enjoy hearing your response. I will not get nasty to any of you and I look forward to a brisk discussion. If you are truly conservative and not extreme, then you should not be making insane accusations that other people on this site are subversives trolls. I am independent. I hate unions and I think that the GOP are puppets of the 1% wealthy and they do everything possible to keep them in power. I believe firmly that to get the economy climbing, we need to keep more money in the hands of the middle class. They will spend all of it and keep the money circulating. But I like the way the left reasons things out and are open to ideas, where the right seem to be entrenched in their ideas almost like religion. The dogma is deeply rooted. I find often flawed. But I want to try and understand you. Bob Livingston and the rest of the writers on this blog are here to foment hatred and mis-truths about the left and our government, because that is how they make their money. They have been proven totally out to lunch in all of their predictions on the elections. So be it. This is their blog, If I did not like it, I can leave anytime. They know they are lying. They do it on purpose to get your dander up, then they have a loyal follower. It is truly entertaining. warmest regards to all and a very Merry Christmas.

Dear Nick Czudy,

You write: “The three of you keep ridiculing Flash.” I do not ridicule Flashy. He has been posting for most of our four years. I have evidence leading me to believe he is a paid shill.

You write: “I think that his opinion is very sane and reasonable.” That is certainly your prerogative.

You write: “You seem to think that there is a conspiracy of government departments sending “Trolls and Shills” to sabotage these right leaning blogs…” It has been shown to be true. I have tracked a number of commenters to leftist organizations and law offices.

You write: “I suppose that I am also one of these shills and trolls.” You could answer that better than anyone.

You write: “I like to know what makes you tick. I am trying to understand your extreme philosophies.” My philosophy is only “extreme” if you believe the Constitution to be extreme. Perhaps these links will help you with this.
http://personalliberty.com/2012/07/16/answers/
http://personalliberty.com/2012/03/05/code-words/
http://personalliberty.com/2008/09/22/altruism-leads-to-orwells-animal-farm/
http://personalliberty.com/2008/09/22/strong-delusion/
You are welcome to ask me direct questions at any time. I try to respond to all inquiries directed at me. But the best way to understand me is read with an open mind what I write.

You write: “I am here to try and shed some light into your opinions by fair discussions and debates to help you see the light. I think that your thought is on the wrong track and I will try and convince you of the right road to follow.” I would welcome this discussion.

You write: “You may be too indoctrinated to have any of this sink in, but I will try and I will enjoy hearing your response.” Indoctrinated is not a word I would use to describe myself. If you read the links above, I believe you will see that as well.

You write: “If you are truly conservative and not extreme, then you should not be making insane accusations that other people on this site are subversives (sic) trolls.” See my response above.

You write: “I think that the GOP are puppets of the 1% wealthy and they do everything possible to keep them in power.” Both parties are puppets of the elites. If you cannot see this, then you are the one who is “indoctrinated.” The 1 percent, as I have written many times, encompasses both parties and bureaucrats in government.

You write: “I believe firmly that to get the economy climbing, we need to keep more money in the hands of the middle class.” Yes. And stealing from them through confiscatory taxes so that the money can be redistributed and the hidden tax of inflation does not do this. It benefits the elites. The only way to “keep more money in the hands of the middle class” is to slash government spending and government programs and lower tax rates so that the producers can allocate their money where it will do the most good for the economy. We cannot spend our way to prosperity.

You write: “Bob Livingston and the rest of the writers on this blog are here to foment hatred and mis-truths about the left and our government, because that is how they make their money.” You are already violating your pledge of “fair discussions and debates” with this ad hominem. And furthermore, it is patently untrue. I could not maintain credibility and readers if wrote things that were not true.

You write: “But I like the way the left reasons things out and are open to ideas, where the right seem to be entrenched in their ideas almost like religion.” Further evidence you are suffering from indoctrination. You need to divest yourself of the false left/right paradigm. The two parties are two sides of the same coin. All the “discussion” about left and right are designed to distract you from the theft of your wealth and liberties that is ongoing.

You write: “They have been proven totally out to lunch in all of their predictions on the elections.” Who is this “they” you speak of. I have not made any predictions regarding the election.

You write: “They know they are lying. They do it on purpose to get your dander up, then they have a loyal follower.” Again you violate your pledge. And who is this “they?”

Best wishes,
Bob

Kate8 says: “You have all been outed in many places of late.”

Still no proof.

I am directly calling you a liar when you accuse me of being paid for my efforts here. I’ve explained the “why” of what I’m doing several times, I believe at least once to you directly.

Now, how’s ’bout you getting back to discussing gun laws instead of attacking people who you know nothing about.

Rob

Nick Czudy says:
“I read the 2nd amendment yesterday and it is two sentences long. No where do I see that it says that the people have the right for all types of weapons.”

I don’t see the word weapon in the amendment at all. It does mention arms which is of the meaning every terrible implement of the soldier.

Nick Czudy: “IT was written when the available weapon was a single shot musket.

Not exactly. There were a range of implements available in the late 1790s

Crossbow
———————————————————————
“A weapon of mass destruction: AD 1139-1346

Pope Innocent II and the second Lateran council take a firm stand, in 1139, against a weapon which they consider morally unacceptable in its devastating capacity to kill. It is the crossbow, invented in China in the 3rd century BC and first recorded in use in Europe in a battle at Hjörungsvag in Norway in AD 986″
———————————————————————

Hmmmm…. Sounds like today’s description of an “assault weapon”
-
-

Catapult and ballista (so we get tanks, howetzers and other cannon)

Greek fire (so we get flame throwers)

The longbow

Swiss pikes and halberds

Artillery
Hand guns
Flintlock
Cartridges
Bayonet
_____________________________________________________________________
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?groupid=312&HistoryID=aa89&gtrack=pthc#908

So many implements beyond the simple musket. In fact there is even the Puckle Gun – 1718

“In 1718, James Puckle of London, England, demonstrated his new invention, the “Puckle Gun,” a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock gun fitted with a multishot revolving cylinder. This weapon fired nine shots per minute at a time when the standard soldier’s musket could be loaded and fired but three times per minute.”

Nick Czudy says:

December 19, 2012 at 7:06 pm

Hip Shot Percussion and Time. I read the 2nd amendment yesterday and it is two sentences long. No where do I see that it says that the people have the right for all types of weapons. does it apply to: Automatic weapons, bazookas, bombs, nukes etc. IT was written when the available weapon was a single shot musket. It was also written when the average Joe had to come together to defend against England, as an invader.
________________________________________________________________________

Here again we have someone who completely misses the intention of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is in place to protect us from tyranny, foreign invasion and provide us with the means to defend and feed ourselves should it become necessary.
How do you suppose we would protect ourselves from Tryrants Foreign and Domestic or Criminals using black powder muskets?

Another example of liberals unable to understand principle, morality or use genuine logic in any sane way.

JC. You have been smoking too much gun powder lately. Or do you live in Colorado and are smoking those funny cigarettes? The second amendment is being interpreted in many ways, just like the bible. Everyone reads it and comes up with their own interpretation. It is two sentences long. There is not much there.

So if you need to feed your self and you live in New York, everyone will be going around with their guns and be shooting all of the cats and dogs to survive. Maybe the squirrels and bunnies. to protect against tyranny? You are going to go shoot up your government. I have news for you. You will get your ass kicked.
This is so much bull. When it was written, all of the American population needed a gun to mobilize against England. You have an army to do that for you to-day. It was written when a gun was a single, front loading musket. Yes that is ok for everyone to have one of those. It is so far out of touch with today’s reality. It needs to be rewritten.

Gee Nick, you think the Second Amendment is up for interpretation, do you?
It isn’t. The intent is clear. Only “Liberals” need to try and interpret (twist) it’s meaning.

I do not. I understand it very well.

As for “shooting up the government”…again here you go with your wild “liberal” imagination.
No one is going to pick a war with the government….but if you think American troops will stand with a tyrant against the American people, the I think you’re in for a surprise.
And Americans…meaning patriots and of course discounting the liberal/socialist as parasites…will stand for themselves when and where it becomes necessary.
And they will be able to do so…because of the Second Amendment.

I can’t speak for you’re version of Canadians, but the ones I know are one hell of a lot smarter than you are.

hey J.C. is it John. So you think that you are smarter than me. Typical of the superiority of a patriot. What exactly is a patriot. It is a backwards thinking hick that thinks that Americans need a gun to counteract a tyrant and a government that they do not agree with. If you truly believe in the constitution as you say you are, then you will agree and abide by the notion that our different levels of government have been all installed by the due process, written into the constitution, then there is no need to hoard guns to oppose them. Now if you wanted to oppose Stephan Harper, and take him out in moment of fury and insurrection, I would support you. But the notion that Americans, especially ones that claim that they are patriots, need guns to oppose the various forms of government is a total lunacy. And you think that you are smarter than me. haha. It moves you down a notch where I had placed you earlier. Liberals cannot be pigeon holes as the right love to place them. They use their heads in what every situation comes up and do not rely on ancient dogma and rhetoric the way the right wing gun mongers do. You all are so predictable. It is a joke. The left are all over the map as they use their heads in any situation. Look at Congress last night. The martyr GOP tea partiers would rather put 98% of Americans in financial duress than to do something sensible that they were elected to do. Why are you right wingers so damn adamant to follow the party doctrine in stead of using your heads for the common good. Sounds like a fundamental terrorist mentality. Do you guys think that if you stick to your antiquated philosophies, you will die and go to heaven with 70 virgin cowgirls and an arsenal of weapons and live happily ever after? This is not what a “Patriot” would do for his country. This type of behavior is more what would be classified as a traitor instead of Patriot. So keep on arming your friends and everyone that come in contact with you. Me, I am happy not to have one with me or carry one every day. I am a photographer so I will carry a camera with me everyday. You can carry your gun. But if you invite me for target practice or a hunting trip, I would take the opportunity to try something at least once. But I do not need to have a gun on me at all times. It is too bad that you live in such fear in your life.
regards. Nick Czudy

I am trying to get this straight, are you a citizen of my country or not? You speak like you are from England, some Brit that wants us to be subservient to the gods of power. Besides your arguments being based on ignorance and lies, you have the nerve to pigeon hole the right wing as some backward ignorant group of moronic hicks?

God is a good and merciful ruler of the universe, belief in him is neither ancient nor outdated. The right to bear arms is guaranteed for the express purpose of defending our freedom from an oppressive government. Your opinion on the prudence of this does not matter one iota. Nor, will we use our GOD given right to protect your worthless existence when the crapola hits the fan.

I dont personally carry a gun with me everywhere I go, but I reserve the right to do so if I so choose. Guns save lives, guns prevent crime, guns are good and only paranoid idiots are afraid of them. I never had to shoot a domestic intruder before, but when they heard the distinct sound of a 45 automatic being charged they left real fast. Sleeping with that loaded pistol tucked under my mattress saved me the loss of property and possibly my life. I just wish they had had the decency to close the door when they left.

sorry Pat, but if you were a firearms dealer as you say; please use the proper terminology. For instance if the gov. wants to confiscate my clips, they can hav’em, but they cannot take my magazines.
Speaking of magazines, a 30-round magazine is actually, a little cumbersome from carry standpoint; more difficult to shoot from a prone position, more likely to get tangled in clothes, on vines, etc., generally less handy. This can be a BIG downside.

“GUN CONTROL” is not about Guns. It IS all about Control.

Control of your life by someone else, who in large part thinks that you are not capable of being responsible for your own welfare and the actions you take. In this case, Safety and security for yourself and possibly your loved ones. Verses how it might apply to THEIR safety if you remain armed, should they do something to you that you would need to defend yourself.

As for the CCW arguments:

To Vicki. Thank you for the link to “More Guns, Less Crime”. http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660: I bought it and am reading it. Even the boring statistics parts in the front. Good book, informative with reference materials listed.

As for the reference to the UN report on violent (shooting) death world wide. As so many others have mentioned. “Americas” is a lump of the Americas Continent not just of The United States of America. Something along the lines of taking informative data “out of context” I think would be fair to say.

To Bob Livingston. You can dress a Pig up in a Tutu, but you can’t teach them to dance Swan Lake. You are not now, not ever, NEVER get someone with a closed mind to admit that they just “might be, could be, possibly” (pick as many as you like) be wrong. I once read on a church marquise “The first sign of someone with a closed mind is, AN OPEN MOUTH.” Flashy sounds a lot like my dad, God rest his soul, emotional arguments not based upon research or fact.

There used to be a series on TV a few years ago about a family of Dinosaurs that were set in a modern human environment. Actually quite entertaining, anyway, in one of the episodes there was a shortage of Pistachio Nuts. The central family’s oldest son joined the army to fight in the war to get the Nuts. A protest marcher was carrying a sign that said.

We
Are
Right

It make me think of history. Have you ever even heard of a WAR being fought because the participants thought that they:

We’re
All
wRong

Bloomberg, Shumer, Emanual, Finestein, Nadler….why does it seem that mostly folks with Jewish names are advocating for gun control? It seems to me that their history of persecution in Europe and in other countries, would make them staunch supporters of the 2nd Amendment. After all, had Jews in Germany, along with all Germans, not been disarmed by Hitler, the scenes of sheep-like docile civilians being herded in trains like cattle might have been quite different.

If all the Jews in Europe had access to legal guns in the early 1940′s, the Germans might have seen many more fierce and brave uprisings, like occurred in the Warsaw ghettoes.

Their activism against guns might suggest that their collective agenda is political, with the intent of disarming American citizens, so as to turn them into sheep-like docile civilians, which could be easily herded into……

Some of the Jewish people still have the common sense that God gave us. You can see more about their point of view on guns here. http://www.jpfo.org

I am sure that these politicians all have paid body guards, bullet proof cars, gated communities that they live in. Hey, it’s like the hunger games! That’s what is coming. They are hypocrites and I hope someone sticks a knitting needle in Bloomburgs skull. And then the next mayor can ban knitting needles. F&^king morons.

Walt, there are enough self loathing Jews in the US who deny their people and their God and their heritage. Liberalism/Leftism is a religion to these people and it trumps everything that is why they sound as stupid as any Dem/Prog/Leftist on this site.

Nadzieja: I’ll admit I’m a Progressive if you admit you are deranged and full of it!

those of you without weapons are the ones those of us with weapons will be defending when the time comes, ironic isn’t it! silly fools!

From Time: “Peace rather than overt and covert hate of each other.”

Gets my vote.

How do we get peace when muslums want to covert or kill everyone except members of their religion?

How do we get peace when christians want to control women’s reproductive organs and personal issues like assisted suicide?

How do we get to peace when the top 2% are sucking more and more from the other 98%?

How do we get peace with so many folks dying from not having health care?

How do we get peace with christians like Fred Phelps telling us that his brutal god hates fags?

How do we get peace when it is said by some that some countries should be denied existence?

How do we get peace when adults are told they can’t have their recreational drug of choice?

How do we get peace when some merchants are told they aren’t allowed to be open on Sundays?

Rob

TIME – OMG. RS comes back with the SAME TALKING POINGS, which have been discussed to the point of lunacy. Proves my poing, again. Trolls have no interest in discussion, but only repeating the same lies over and over, hoping someone will believe them. Not a snowball’s chance in h…

Anyway, TIME, lawyers have taken over our system, and have rigged it to benefit themselves in every way. It’s not just a joke that lawyers are sharks. They really are. They know how to twist the laws beyond all recognition. They have no interest in justice, but only theft and plunder and control…

It is unlawful for lawyers to hold office, for this very reason: that they are agents of foreign powers (British Accredited Registry). They need to all be removed from office, and held for treason and high crimes.

Anyway, what you say about Blumberg is true. It’s true of most politicians. They’ve rigged it so that their own ranks hold most positions in all levels of government, and they call the shots. For the time being. They only hold power over us because we attribute power to them.

Interesting times ahead.

BTW, the elite control us with their use of symbols and numbers. These are all things of the 3rd dimensional plane. It’s okay to understand them, but we must not give them so much power. This is the realm from which we are passing…

Dear Mr. Smith,

Saddly what most can’t fathom is that PEACE is a state of mind, drugs can’t get you there nor can anyone else, its all within YOU, Thus ~ only YOU can allow this beautiful gift to flow like water off the mountain,

Morals are a state of natural Laws that allow “FREE MEN” to live an unfetterd life with out the Criminal class / RULERS to dictate by way of pernicious laws that impinge and destroy all that is good and pure.

Gods laws are quite simple to follow, “No Man shall Commit Muder” that means even the basic cells that are formed by way of Conception. { Murder is Murder} its that simple, even a caveman can understand that.

Saddly the 2% that you speak of is a fake number, the TRUTH ~ is that less than .005% of the world population dictate pernicious laws to the mass’s.
Whats even more so sad is that the mass’s allow such behavior of what ends TIME after TIME in repacious behavior by the noted Rulers.
Perhaps a better class of leaders needs to be acquired by the human condition, rather then buying a pre packaged product of evil but looks Pious on the outside.

Humans must learn to allow for social constructs that are varied from their own platforms, as we all believe in some form of { “HIGHER POWER” } A creator or a Sorce, as I have noted countless times over the years we have the mark of our Creator within our DNA, its found within the Fused block – Its quite clear as its spells out YAH that means GOD,

Display acts of kindness daily extend your heart to others, give and expect nothing in return, these are easy for anyone to follow, and the results are beautiful.
Learn what its really like to be in anothers shoes, walk amoung your fellow humans, hey the least expensive gift anyone can give and is valued by all ~ { is a big smile,}
Try it some TIME. the results are beautiful.

As a friend wrote many years ago:

“IMAGINE” all the people living in the world today ~ you may say I am a dreamer but I am not the only one, I hope some day you will join us and the world will live as ONE.
John Lennon, John was asking the Christ for a union of LOVE. Saddly very few get it.

The Christ wants all of us; TO Be Kind to all we encounter. Treat each other as we would like to be treated.

PEACE and LOVE, Merry Christmas Shalom

Robert Smith writes:
“How do we get peace when christians want to control women’s reproductive organs…?”

What we want is for MEN and women to control their own reproductive organs and stop killing the children. For the men who can’t we have a solution for the women who would be their victims. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DO42gUPdwk

There Vickie goes again in thinking that someone out there doesn’t want a woman to defend herself including Sarah Brady. Is that really true? I’m all for castrating rapists (after the trial) . If a woman shoots an attacker so what but the laws aren’t always in her favor. As I brought up yesterday thousands of women are in jail for defending themselves against boyfriends and husbands and if they use a gun it can mean serious prison time. Who out there demands that a woman has to be obedient to her husband? I know you have the answer to that. Husbands take that literally but their wives seldom come out on the winning end.

Time says: “Saddly what most can’t fathom is that PEACE is a state of mind, drugs can’t get you there nor can anyone else, its all within YOU, Thus ~ only YOU can allow this beautiful gift to flow like water off the mountain,”

And I went to a street hot dog vendor in Philly one day during the King Tut exhibit. I asked him to make me one with everything and handed him a $5. I waited for a moment and asked him about my change. He said, “Change must come from within.”

Rob

eddie47d says:
“There Vickie goes again in thinking that someone out there doesn’t want a woman to defend herself including Sarah Brady. Is that really true?”

Demonstrably yes. The video linked provides additional evidence.

Eddie47d: “I’m all for castrating rapists (after the trial).”

That would be cleanup not defense. Defense has to happen at the time of the rape attempt.

Eddie47d: “If a woman shoots an attacker so what but the laws aren’t always in her favor.”

That is the problem with creeping gun control. Still better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Eddie47d: ” As I brought up yesterday thousands of women are in jail for defending themselves against boyfriends and husbands and if they use a gun it can mean serious prison time.”

So address the broken court system instead.

Eddie47d: “Who out there demands that a woman has to be obedient to her husband? I know you have the answer to that.”

Then why did you ask? Oh a rhetorical (and useless) question.

Q: Why is that all the people like Bloomberg that want to take away all the guns, if they had their way, have armed body guards for their own protection? Are these guys really that important? I think not, let them roam the streets like the rest of us without any guns or guards. Do you think then that they would still advocate gun control, I think not! These people have only 1 agenda and that is taking away all our liberties and some among us would, sadly would give up without a fight!

John and Patriot – Well said. “Let them roam the streets like the rest of us…”

Indeed. Perhaps they soon will be doing just that.

The only difference between the elite and us is that they are inherently evil, and they have a lot of money with which to buy power.

How many of us, if we search inside, can say that we would not be seduced into a life of untold wealth and power if offered the opportunity? How many street people have sold their souls for the same in music, movies and media? Because our world, our reality, is really the reflection of our collective consciousness. Who are we to blame for it?

They have all sold their souls to someone more powerful than they, and they are puppets, as they must be, to serve their masters and keep their ill-gotten gains. They steal from us because they can…it’s so easy…the system is set up to make it easy. We are nothing but farm animals to them, to be plundered and exploited in any way they choose. Just as we tend to exploit other life forms we deem to be less worthy.

But they are prisoners in their own worlds, terrified of US that we would know who and what they really are: little men with no souls. So they now are plotting to remove any remnant of power we have left (or so they think).

What they are hoping is that we don’t realize that we have power beyond firearms. We have the power of spirit, should we care to use it. Perhaps the only way we will discover it is if it is all we have left to us.

I recall a sign in my mom’s (alternative) doctor’s office: FAITH IS ONLY FAITH WHEN IT’S ALL YOU’RE HOLDING ON TO.

That’s not necessarily true because one of Bloombergs job is to protect the citizens of New York City as it is with any city Mayor. Gun crimes were rampant for decades in that city and he cleaned up the murder rate. He does it for the safety of Conservatives and Liberals alike. Does he overreach in stopping people I would agree with that but not in keeping his city safe. There are some cities in America you don’t want to be caught dead in so which do you prefer? Now if he can stop the gun runners from red states(Carolina’s) from polluting his city with guns then maybe he’s doing something right.

Then what about new York. New York city has some of the harshest and strongest gun control in the country. Yet their crime rate has gone down, heck they recently celebrated a day with no murders.

Besides Valor, legal gun owners and our watered down laws make it too easy for criminals to get their guns. Why do so many home robbers find weapons lying around? Irresponsible gun owners. Why do people who do bad things have easy access to semi-automatic weapons. Weak laws and irresponsible gun owners.

Proof of the case that guns do NOT cause crime.

Wait Vicki. Bloomberg pretty much banned guns and their crime rate has gone down. How is that evidence that guns don’t cause crime.

Jeremy, post some evidence to that affect.

Please JC do some homework and stop expecting others to do it for you.

Jeremy Leochner says:
“Wait Vicki. Bloomberg pretty much banned guns and their crime rate has gone down. How is that evidence that guns don’t cause crime.”

Show your evidence that Bloomberg banned guns.

You know I apologize. I have always heard that Bloomberg was such an anti gun zealot. I assumed and I apologize. What I now know is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence ranks New York State as having the fourth strongest gun control laws in the country.-http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/NY/

eddie47d says:

December 19, 2012 at 4:47 pm

Please JC do some homework and stop expecting others to do it for you.
____________________________________________________________________

Bite me commie boy. You liberal retards post lies as if they were thruth every 5 minutes.
Prove it or STFU.

J.C. “Bite me Commie boy” Now now JC are we getting a little blog rage. Many of you like to reply to a valid opinion with derogatory names. That is typical. Also most of what comes out of the mouths of Right wing fanatics is usually 80% wrong The problem is that you believe the vitriol that comes out of the mouths or keyboards of the right wing leaders. It is usually never researched, it is taken from the mouth of another GOP pundit and never verified. The one lie that has perpetrated under the GOP bubble is the lie that crime went up when assault weapons were banned. This is a blatant lie. One example is the massacre in Dunblaine Scotland. When the UK imposed a ban of many types of weapons, the death rate and crime went down. Not up as is being perpetrated by right wing NRA gun fanatics. Please stop lying on this blog. It is not just right wing GOP and us leftie commies will point it out. so what is the derogatory term for right wing, gun toting, lying plutocrats? I really do not know. Anyone? How about we stop the name calling and just debate this issue with facts. and opinions?

Nick Czudy says:
December 20, 2012 at 4:23 pm
J.C. “Bite me Commie boy” Now now JC are we getting a little blog rage. Many of you like to reply to a valid opinion with derogatory names.
_____________________________________________________________________

Nope, no rage at all. Just business as usual calling a spade a spade.
I despise all communists equally and without emotion…it’s sort of the same thing as detesting rats. You don’t have to be angry to do it.

44 asks: “What else is the U.N. treaty for?”

To stop the flow of guns to criminal groups who are trying to take over countries. It will hurt gun sales so the gun companies and the NRA are all excited and fanning the flames here in America.

NO WAY will the U.N. treaty impact America’s second amendment.

Fact is that you can’t show me anything in print because the treaty hasn’t been finalized yet.

Rob

Robert Smith says:
“44 asks: “What else is the U.N. treaty for?”

To stop the flow of guns to criminal groups who are trying to take over countries.”

Since the criminal groups are the governments of other countries why do you think they will bother to abide by a treaty. Kinda like expecting criminals to abide by laws.

“NO WAY will the U.N. treaty impact America’s second amendment.”

Just another in a LONG string of lies by RS. The UN treaty calls for the registration of ALL privately owned firearms. It calls for the elimination of private ownership of whole classes of weapons. It calls for government confiscation of firearms.

Right on Nadzieja! I can not believe Flashy believes in any part of the constitution. He is as disingenuous as possible. Agent provocateur?

I think Flashy is either Axelrod or work for him, the propagandist!

Flashy has admitted in the past that he is paid to come on this site.

“Politicians often hold our children “hostage” to ram their agenda down our throats. ”

Do you mean like those who don’t want their kids vaccinated?

Rob

Robert smith, you are quite right. We cant raise our own children.The politicians do that for us with their laws. That is the reason our kids do not respect us in this age

Robert Smith says:
““Politicians often hold our children “hostage” to ram their agenda down our throats. ”

Do you mean like those who don’t want their kids vaccinated?”

Whom are they holding hostage Rob?

Remember “Unsafe at any speed?” You are sounding like Ralph Nader.

Fact is that with contemporary design, including air-bags, cars are much safer now than ever before.

Look at the numbers. Show me some that will prove your point. They simply aren’t out there.

Rob

Exactly Ed. Which is why I do not support a ban. However just as there are restrictions on obtaining and using cars so there must be for guns. One must go through a process to obtain a license to drive a car. One must also jump through hoops to obtain insurance. And there are numerous laws governing how one may drive a car. Sadly some are neglected and ignored at the hazard of both the user and the people around them. Regulation and laws, not bans are what is needed.

Jeremy: They always assume that because people die in cars that its okay that people die with guns. What a crock! They are always so cold and callous about it too!

eddie47d says:

December 19, 2012 at 12:49 pm

Jeremy: They always assume that because people die in cars that its okay that people die with guns. What a crock! They are always so cold and callous about it too!
____________________________________________________________________

So you’re suggesting we should give the criminals a great big warm hug instead of treating them like the vermin they are? Is that it? Moron.

You’ve got it right, JeffH.

I would add, is it just me, or is anyone else questioning why our own government is arming criminals and thugs while plotting to take away guns from those of us who would defend ourselves and our neighbors?

Why are we overlooking this very inconvenient fact?

Kate8, “we” aren’t overlooking those facts…the gun confiscators are!

“We’ve created a ‘gun-free zone,’ a killing zone, for the sickest criminals on the face of the Earth,” says R. Lee Wrights, vice chairman of the Libertarian Party, in the aftermath of the Newtown, Conn., killings. “And we’ve made the children of this country the victims.”

Gun-free zones have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. “Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a ‘helpless-victim zone,’” says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff.

“Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage,” says Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police.

Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.

In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.

The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.

Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.

Almost all of the public-policy discussion about Newtown has focused on a debate over the need for more gun control. In reality, gun control in a country that already has 200 million privately owned firearms is likely to do little to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. We would be better off debating two taboo subjects — the laws that make it difficult to control people with mental illness and the growing body of evidence that “gun-free” zones, which ban the carrying of firearms by law-abiding individuals, don’t work.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

JeffH – You have got to see this newsclip video.

http://beforeitsnews.com/media/2012/12/sandy-hook-father-of-dead-daughter-caught-faking-robbie-parker-2450660.html

Something is definitely wrong here. Thing are not as they seem. We are being played.
BIG TIME.

Kate8, I’m not ready to go there just yet. People grieve in different ways. Here’s another clip of Robbie Parker…I doubt that we’re being played by this guy.
http://www.blogher.com/robert-parker-dad-sandy-hook-victim-emily-parker-compassion

Kate – Ever since I first saw that father I have been suspect of his motives. He was too quick to want to speak. However, he could just be comebody who just wants the limelight, a self-centered egotists, possibly even another sociopath. I don’t see how he could just be some kind of plant. This is a small town, and I’m sure people know him.

JeffH – In no way am I criticizing anyone’s grieving…if that is what’s going on.

I wanted you to see it because in the beginning, if you will notice, the guy comes out laughing and smirking until he sees the camera on him, and he gets into character.

This is just too weird. No parent grieves a lost child by laughing and smirking. Doesn’t happen. And his face shows no signs of grieving. (I’m sure you’ve seen what people look like who have recent losses of loved ones.)

I know people think I’m a nut. But I’m aware that most everything is illusion, deceit. There is so much about all of these incidents that doesn’t add up, and I will not allow my emotions and sentiment to blind me from the truth. Remember, “It is not what is true that matters, but only what people believe is true. It’s all perception”.

These evil creeps will stop at nothing to get what they want. NOTHING. Are they monsters enough to actually murder children, or is this another sleight of hand?

We cannot see through the smokescreens unless we are willing to put aside our knee-jerk reactions. Emotional reaction is what the SOBs are after. We need laser vision.

If it turns out that it is as they said, I’ll mourn with the rest of the nation. But if it is another psyop, I refuse to be jerked around again.

Karolyn – Perhaps someone might want to find out if he lives in that town, and if people know him. We have no way of knowing that at all.

This is not the first news reporter who has reported that there is something wrong here. There were discrepancies in the names and details of those involved, among lots of other things.

I just hate being played like the rest of the sheep. We are just tooooo easy to fool.

Here are some of the reports on the incident, pointing out some of the oddities.

http://vaticproject.blogspot.com/

It still bothers me about why the ER nurse in Aurora was murdered right after the incident. What did she see that they couldn’t allow to get out?

Kate8, no doubt that we must be suspect of everything these days because we’ve learned that not everything is as it appears. I also don’t believe you were accusing that guy of anything…you were just being vigilant.

Kate – All that blog does for me is to make me think that a lot of people were confused and said a lot of different things at the time of the shootings. How about the volunteers brought in to help with the funerals? Were the caskets open? Were the kids on TV actors? What of the people who know them? It is impossible to believe that this is an Israeli plot or a made-for-Americans movie. That is just so far over the top that it makes it imposssible to believe. Too too much information, leading me to believe it is just what they say it is. I think too many people are looking for too much out of it. Every word in every report is so over-analyzed it’s ridiculous. Of course, I do think we should have more info by now.

Very good questions, Karolyn. Why is it that there are no answers to them?

There is a police officer in a nearby town who is watching the situation closely. He uses a pseudonym in order to remain independent of the “force”, who may not appreciate his independent investigation. He has many questions, and also is saying that things are just not adding up no matter how they try to spin it. “Facts” have been altered to make them fit.

He is going to give another report as soon as he learns something more. He is well aware that there are traitors in law enforcement.

The problem with GunFree zones is that they are not being done right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8

Gloria. Lets be accurate. Obama did not sell the weapons to Mexico. It was started in the previous George W administration and Obama came into power with it already in full swing. The Arizona laws, protected the straw buyers and prevented the ATF from following and arresting these middle men. After a year of trying to persecute Holder, the full report showed that Daryl Issa was just interested in scoring GOP brownie points, to do anything to implicate Eric Holder. It did not happen, because he was not behind it. It was squashed quickly when brought to his attention.
Video games would infringe on the 1st amendment. It is a little stronger and more relevant than the 2nd. You are passing the buck.
Obama seems to be the only one that is interested in the children and the economy. The do nothing congress only seem to be in the pocket of the NRA and sell more guns, and lets screw all Americans and raise everyone’s taxes so the wealthy can keep getting richer. The GOP congress is such a dismal mess of idiots. You should be able to defend your self with a few rifles, shotguns, hand guns. You will be able to live without assault weapons and large capacity mags.

One more round with the non-patriotic Nick.

I am not a constitutional scholar, I dont pretend to understand every little nuance of the document(s). I do know that your statement “Video games would infringe on the 1st amendment. It is a little stronger and more relevant than the 2nd.” is extremely wrong and biased.

Every item in the Bill of Rights (1st ten amendments to the constitution) carries the exact same weight (authority) as every other item.

“Relevant” would be a matter of opinion, which although you have a right to your opinion, carries no weight and has no authority.

I was questioned by a detective once, I exercised my 5th amendment right to not answer any questions. I was arrested for failure to comply with his questioning and spent 30 days in jail. This detective apparently had the same opinion of the 5th amendment that you have about the 2nd. However, the ex-detective will remember for the rest of his life, how relevant the 5th amendment is.

When the reason for the 2nd amendment happens, you will be forced to accept the relevance of it for the rest of your life.

I would also suggest you recheck your facts about the fast and furious operation.

The 2nd Amendment protects the other Amendments, therefore protecting us from a tyranical government, that was the intention of the founding fathers. Our public education system has failed to profess this fact for some time; i wonder why? Could it be they don’t want you to know? We are BORN with these ‘unalienable rights’. They are not granted to us by the government.

Gator. The 2nd amendment is a little ambiguous. I think that if they banned assault weapons and large mags, that it would not infringe at all to your right to have many other guns. After all they would all be better than a musket. Also there is about half of you that insist that having these guns is to allow you to stand up to a tyrannical government. This troubles me. Our government is a democratically elected government with a lot of checks and balances and a legal system to deal with a tyrannical government. It is not needed to have the population bear arms to deal with that. You fight a tyrannical government by who you vote into power. Another thing that bothers me is that does this attitude mean that if the right wing people on this site, are disappointed that Obama won and it in power, that you have the right to oppose him and his government by force, using your arms? Many of you have all sorts of opinions of how had this is for you. Does that mean that you will feel that this is a tyrannical government and therefore you will be justified to oppose it by force? This is a democracy. Democracies do not need the populace to be armed to oppress it.

Actually, this is not a democracy, and if it was, there would be an even greater need for weapons to fight the tyranny of the government not less.

Frank, i think this is meant for cudzy. Actually the militia that was formed to fight the tyranny of britain were, farmers, bakers, butchers, blacksmiths, and other ‘working men’. Do you think those men would bring a knife to a gunfight? Hell no! I bet if they’d had access to ‘repeating arms’ such as Winchester 94, or an AR-15 for that matter, they’d left their muskets home with their wives. They weren’t fools! They brought the BEST, MOST CAPABLE WEAPON’S THEY HAD ACCESS TOO!

grow a brain allready!