# Don’t Buy Piers Morgan’s Lies (And Those Of The Other Gun Grabbers)

January 11, 2013 by

UPI FILE
Piers Morgan's gun-murder statistics are wrong.

Surprise, surprise. The gun grabbers are lying.

On his regular nightly show on CNN, Piers Morgan loves to cite the figure that there were only 35 “gun mudahs” in Great Britain in 2011. He’s wrong. He loves to say there were more than 11,000 “gun mudahs” in the United States in 2011. Wrong again.

Because of the incessant parroting of these figures by Morgan and all the other gun grabbing propagandists in the mainstream media, these figures have become accepted as gospel.

Here’s the truth, thanks to Ben Swann of Cincinnati’s Fox19.

But remember that protection from criminals is not the reason the 2nd Amendment was included in a Bill of Rights that outlines the rights all people are born with. Nor is hunting. The Founding Fathers sought to ensure there was no mistaking that Americans would always have the ability to defend themselves from a tyrannical government and that no laws could be passed that “infringed” upon that right.

is an ultra-conservative American who has been writing a newsletter since 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

### Join the Discussion:View Comments to “Don’t Buy Piers Morgan’s Lies (And Those Of The Other Gun Grabbers)”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

• jopa

So many say the government is infringing on their right with guns, however there has to be some rules and regulations in place so the gun owners do not infringe upon the rights of their fellow Americans.Just think of all the rights that were taken away from the twenty kindergarten children when they were slaughtered and turned into hamburger.The very beginning of their life snuffed out in seconds because of the access to assault rifles by a disturbed individual, and there are a lot on the right coming out of the woodwork lately.Sure we have our rights but we also need regulation just as in the freedom of speech, one cannot go and yell fire in a crowded theatre, drive through your neighborhood at night with a loudspeaker blaring their message or be in a public square yelling obscenities.Nobody wants to take your guns for hunting, security or just plain common sense use.Assault rifles on playgrounds at theatres in high schools used to rob banks(North Hollywood) is becoming too common of a practice and solutions are called for.

• Bill

Jopa,
NBC news posted a clip where they said Adam Lanza’s AR-15 was left in his car and he only used handguns.

So, youir argument is invalid.

• eddie47d

So Bill is saying Handguns are the real problem or at least admitting the damage that can occur!

• Bill

Eddie,
Your remarks are getting juvenile. Is that all you got

• Bill

Great comment, Eddie,
I think we have a solution. Now that we know assault weapons did not cause the death of the school kids, we will just allow us to keep our assualt weapons with 30 round mags and we will limit our handgun mags to ten rounds.

Great solution you have there, Eddie. I think this is something we can work with.

I personally like AK’s

• eddie47d

No surprise there Bill!

• vietnamvet1971

Please do not go down this Road of Self Righteouness for those 20 Killed Innocent children and just like your Boy president and the rest of the Evil Liberal (Hypocrites) out here shouting from the roof tops how Awful it was etc… Where was the Fake tears from Oblammer for the Innocent Aborted Unborn Millions of Babies that have been Killed in the name of Women’s Rights (Good Word for Killing) where was the Voice for them? SILENCE/ right they are/ were Trash to be Thrown in the Garbage. Yep just like the rest of your Ilk.

• eddie47d

Two separate issues again and there is a difference in killing 20 in a kindergarten class and a woman choosing to have an abortion.

• Motov

Oh so a doctor who performs more than 20 abortions can still continue killing babies?
The shootings was a very bad thing, But the guy won’t kill again, unlike the doctor.

• Skptk

jopa, the federal Gun Free School Zones Act says nobody can have a gun within 1000 feet of a school. If crazy Adam Lanza didn’t pay attention to that law, what makes you think he (or any other crazed individual) would pay attention to any new regulations. Gun owners don’t interfere with the rights of others – that’s what criminals and crazy people do. It sounds like your solution is to take all guns away from responsible citizens so they don’t “fall into” the wrong hands, which would clearly violate the rights of the responsible citizens; what is unclear is how that would stop crazy people on SSRIs (one of the listed side effects is homicidal ideation – that’s right, the drugs prescribed for psychotics make them think about killing other people). No gun owner violated the rights of those twenty kids and six adults. But if one of those dead adults had been carrying a semi-automatic pistol under his sportcoat, there would have been a lot fewer dead kids whose rights had been violated.

• eddie47d

Adam’s mother made huge mistakes but that would be too embarrassing to other gun owners.

• Vicki

jopa says:
“So many say the government is infringing on their right with guns, however there has to be some rules and regulations in place so the gun owners do not infringe upon the rights of their fellow Americans.”

Those rules and regulations have been in place for hundreds if not thousands of years. Don’t need any more.

Thou shalt not murder
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not….

- jopa: “Just think of all the rights that were taken away from the twenty kindergarten children when they were slaughtered and turned into hamburger.”

And the rules and regulations ALREADY in place would put the shooter in jail for life except he inconveniently killed himself.

Now there is ONE rule or regulation that was in place that DID infringe on the rights of the twenty kindergarten children when they were slaughtered and turned into hamburger.

GUN -FREE Zone(s).

Remove them. They, prima facie, DO NOT WORK and deprived those kids of their rights.

• http://Yahoo Eddie A.

Mr. Morgan clean up your own backyard before you start on ours. So go home stop all the gun problems in the UK.Then you can come to the U.S.A. and maybe we will listen to you to help us with our gun problem.In the mean time you are a guest in OUR COUNTRY so when want your opinion we will ask for it.Other wise shut the hell up.

• http://personalliberty Pete Miedema

I find it ironic that when a crime is in progress and the police are called, they usually arrive AFTER the criminals have left. The woman who shot the intruder in the head would have suffered much if she didn’t have a weapon to protect herself and her children. She deserves a medal. Another thiing; if our Presedent and Congress have to have round the clock protection for their children, am I not entitled to protect my children in a similar manner? My chldrens lives are on as much worth as any others. Police cannot save you. ONLY YOU can!!!!!!!!!!
Pete

• Bill

Good point, Pete

• Bill

Hi Pete,
Robert made a statement at the start of the column asking how we protect the children. The woman with a 38 is a good example of how we protect the children.

She protected her children and the results were that her children were un harmed. That worked. The only thing she could have done better was to have a bigger gun. With maybe a larger mag

• Bon, From the Land of Babble

Anyone here remember the story a few days ago about the woman who who was hiding in a closet with her children from an intruder– this was in her own home — and unloaded a .38 in his face?

Nowhere does the msm or the likes of Morgan mention guns used for defensive purposes:

The National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms found approximately 1.5 million
defensive gun uses per year.

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

(many examples here)

As for Piers Morgan, his defenders and any other anti-Second Amendment advocates here:

“The number of violent crimes in England per person compared to America is significantly higher. England is a far more violent place than America, despite having a total gun ban.

Figures from the EU Commission and the UN show that the number of violent crimes per 100,000 residents in England is around 2,000 compared to just 466 in America.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

“For all Piers Morgan’s claims about the proliferation of guns leading to an increase in violence, it’s four times safer to live in America than England and according to the latest FBI statistics, America’s violent crime rate continues to fall.”

http://static.prisonplanet.com/p/images/january2013/070113graph1.JPG

“Despite virtually all handguns being outlawed in 1996 following the Dunblane school massacre in Scotland, with law-abiding people rushing to turn in their firearms, over the next decade gun crime in the UK more than doubled.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1450338/Firearms-offences-more-than-double-since-Dunblane.html

“Gun control has never reduced violent crime in Britain, nor has it reduced gun crime. Over the past decade, gun crime in England and Wales soared by 600 per cent in some areas.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gun-crime-up-600-in-parts-427282

“England’s gun murder rate did not drop after all handguns were banned in 1996.
While England’s violent crime rate continues to accelerate, America’s violent crime rate drops as more and more law-abiding people own firearms.”

http://johnrlott.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/so-did-piers-morgan-and-christiane.html

Bon

• Bill

Hi Bon,
And after she shot the intruder with all of the bullits from her revolver, he drove away.

This is a case for why we should have large magizines.

• Bon, From the Land of Babble

Also for the coming food riots and flash mobs.

Can you imagine what is going to happen when the EBT cards stop working??

Remember the Koreans during the LA riots?

The street gangs targeted the neighboring Koreatown, approximately 2 miles north of South Los Angeles.

The police, which had retreated from South Central the day before, began urging the Korean American shop owners in Koreatown to evacuate Koreatown because they had no intention of protecting it.

Estrada, a member of the Christopher Commission, chose to drive through Koreatown in a patrol car made available to the commission members. “The police car was driving through Koreatown 60 miles per hour without stopping for traffic lights. [The police] were afraid.’

http://www.culturalweekly.com/korean-american-identity-la-riots.html

Who here doesn’t think it could happen again? Or it won’t happen in their town.

Remember this: When seconds count, the police are minutes away…

As for that women in the closet with the .38 — she needs to move up to a larger caliber — how unfortunate that she didn’t kill the bastard. If he’d tried that in my house, he would have been meet with a .357 in his face.

After all, I too have precious children to protect, a boy and girl — precious animals too. If I don’t protect them who will?

Bon

• Bill

Hi Bon<
My best friend is Korean and our most favorite past time is the shooting range.

You are right, the women who shot the intruder should have had a 357. It would have saved us a lot of un necessary court costs.

Smith & Wesson makes a 357 that is so smooth, it does not feel different from a 38. I do like my 40 caliber glock, though.

You live in LA and we know how fast things can turn. God help us if we lost the right to defend ourselves. Kind of makes you want to break the law and have un registered guns. But we would not do that, we are law abiding citizens.

It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six

• ibcamn

Obama-Biden comedy team don’t realize what their going to be doing,there are people out there right now sitting around a table trying to see which way is best to get assault rifles(semi-auto)and pistols(semi-auto)and all that ammo into this country and how much they are going to charge for each and in volume!!these two idiots are starting a new breed of gun runners to the U.S.,and they are going to make outlaws out of U.S. citizens,and millionaires out of outlaws,(kinda like the Kennedy’s and prohabition)because we arn’t giving them(weapons)up and we will buy more because we love our guns and our country!these two clowns are after firearms and mostly the 2nd amendment,and don’t care about the companies and jobs that will be lost!

• KJQ

It’s not about truth, facts, or logic – it’s about ideology. The leftists don’t want us to have firearms because that is our last line of defense against their imposed tyrannies.

• Bill

So true, KJQ
What is funny is to watch the liberal posters on this site make up stuff to warrant their real motivation. They are scamming us and we need to see through it

• Chocopot

Well put.

For those who keep claiming that the Second Amendment is about a militia controlled by the States, I suggest you actually read the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Please take note that Amendments 1 and 3-9 guarantee specific or implied individual rights, and Amendment 10 prevents overreach of the federal government on the rights of the individual states. Now why would anyone try to claim that the Second Amendment, alone of the first nine, is not an individual right, even if the wording is a little archaic and confusing?

• kkflash

Yes, let’s do a little productive study of the 2nd, shall we? Anyone care to get the discussion started by offering an opinion on what was meant by the word “infringed”?

• Bill

KKFlash,
Good comments. K. don’t take me too seriously, I like to make fun of the liberal posters on this site. They are so predictable, and it is fun to see them resort to school kid antics when they have no comebacks.

I am a big proponet of alcohol and , god forbid, I do not want to see any more regulation. I like my wine too much.

What I really like is drinking and shooting. But, there I go again, interjecting satire

• Vicki

kkflash says:
“Yes, let’s do a little productive study of the 2nd, shall we? Anyone care to get the discussion started by offering an opinion on what was meant by the word “infringed”?

———————————————————————————————–
in·fringe
verb \in-ˈfrinj\
in·fringedin·fring·ing
Definition of INFRINGE
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
2 obsolete : defeat, frustrate

intransitive verb : encroach —used with on or upon

— in·fring·er noun

Examples of INFRINGE

They claim that his use of the name infringes their copyright.
Her rights must not be infringed.

Origin of INFRINGE
Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break — more at break
First Known Use: 1513
——————————————————————————————————-
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringed

• Bon, From the Land of Babble

The Second Amendment refers to “the right of the people” –it assumes the right is already there and establishes protections for it.

Because government does not grant rights, it cannot take them away no matter WHAT opinion makers like morgan screech out to the public. Sophists like morgan believe we should ask the government for “permission” as to what we can and cannot do.

Those who scorn liberty do not deserve it. Those who attack the Second Amendment do not deserve the protections it affords. Morgan is announcing he would rather have you as a subject ruled over by tyrants. Anyone who wishes to deprive others of the protections of the Bil of Rights must give up his own rights first.

Moran needs to relocate to North Korean and become a subject of Kim Jong-un to know what he’s lost and what we ALL should give up.

I am reminded of what Charlton Heston said after the LA riots in 1992:

“During the Los Angeles riots in 1992, a good many of these folk suffered a change of heart. As smoke from burning buildings smudged the skyline and the TV news showed looters smashing windows, laughing as they carted off boom boxes and booze, I got a few phone calls from firmly anti-gun friends in clear conflict. ‘Umm, Chuck, you have quite a few . . . ah, guns, don’t you?’

‘Indeed.’

‘Could you lend me one for a day or so? I tried to buy one, but they have this waiting period . . .’

‘Yeah, I know. I remember you voted for that. Do you know how to use a shotgun?’

‘No, I thought maybe you could teach me. This is getting a little scary.’

‘I noticed.

It does that sometimes. I could teach you, but not in an hour. You might shoot yourself instead of the bad guys. The Marines are coming up from Pendleton; that’ll end it. When it does, go buy yourself a good shotgun and take some lessons.’

My friend writer-director John Milius got more calls than I did. His answer was more forthright:

‘Sorry. They’re all being used.’”

Our Rights do NOT come from the likes of Rosie 0′Donnell, Diane Feinstein, Hugo Schwyzer, Katie J.M. Baker, or Michael Moore and they do not have the authority to take those right from American citizens.

Bon

• Bill

Hi Bon, I like your handle.
The LA riots are a glimpse of what will happen if our anti business, race baiting current government continues to get their way. When the economy is in the toilet, more people turn to crime. And the honest citizens need their guns to protect themselves against the thugs. That is why we need large mags.

I remember those riots and how the Korean community protected themselves when there was no police to protect them. Just look at Greece. Our current overburdened public sector, and the polititians that they pay, is taking us on a path very similar to greece.

Remember, when the sh-t hits the fan, hang out with the Koreans. They are armed to the teeth and not afraid to defend themselves. We should all learn a lesson from them

• Bon, From the Land of Babble

Bill:

Thanks. I live in Southern California, hence the handle. English is often the LAST language I hear around here.

We are also a NON CCW state– even though “leaders” like Feinstein were able to get one. These pols have armed protection at all time yet believe WE peons who are so far beneath them should be at the mercy of gangs who ARE armed with automatic weapon.

What hypocrites.

Bon

• DavidL

Fact correction:

The 1972 Republican Platform supported gun control. It opposed it in its platform in 1976.

• TIME

Dear People,

as noted by Galt, you have to have the “pieces of the puzzel” in order to form the damm puzzel.

So here are things you can prove to yourself that this NON event was 100% staged and it was started in { November 2010 } when looking for: ” Event ACTORS” and who was looking for these ACTORS, the DHS, so that equals YOU paid for this BULL SH^( with your tax dollars, as in you know that > $16 Trillion dollar debt we have. Google the following: Twisted minds of evil , This produced in June 2012 > this fun packed feed includes all event actors of all shooting events up to that point and the ones you saw unfold over the summer and who can forget that lovable > Adam Lanza. ** Sandy Hook busted wide open. This one should rock your socks off, again this is the TIP of this damm ice burg. Wake the hell up people…. Just go to the sight: { before its news.com, } pull the archives and look for all sandy hook related feeds, as well google > { Steve Quale’s } sight for a ton of intel, and we have gathered even more than what these two sight have. Its all been faked all of it. Look into: Jennifer Sezton Greenburg. People, you need to get your big boy pants on really quick now. Will you stand or will you be one more victim of “Democide” BTW ~~ The total Killed by Democide from 1900 – 2011 is just 299,000,000, Thats Million as in > 299 Million people killed by their Governments for not being PC with the State. HELLO PEOPLE will you wake the hell up…….. Barry is pure EVIL so to was GWB, Clinton as well all of them from Johnson on. Its not a D v R thing, what the hell will it take to break the bloody spell with you people? Peace and Love, Shalom • eddie47d You want us to trust you or even believe you when you encourage the ”actor” theory. We’ve woken up to that conspiracy nonsense a long time ago yet there are a few who still peddle it. • Vicki Eddie47d. We KNOW that sandy hook didn’t happen. It was a GUN FREE ZONE. Can’t shoot someone without a gun. • DaveH Eddie, To say you’re dumber than dirt would be an insult to dirt. Virtually every major war we’ve been in, including the civil war, has been entered by deceiving the citizens with False Flag events. It’s all documented beyond reasonable doubt. If FDR could let 2400 servicemen die at Pearl Harbor to allow him to convince a recalcitrant citizenry to get into WWII, why in the world would you think a few dozen kids would stop them? Especially given the fact that they push so hard to stop anti-abortionists from getting their way. Was Sandy Hook a False Flag? Only the Perp (or Perps) know at present. But a person has to be naive indeed to think the Leaders wouldn’t be capable of doing such a heinous thing. • Vicki • http://www.facebook.com/barbjeanpatton Barb Patton It borders on pathetic when people do not have the strength, courage and b@lls to simply switch off the TV and not listen to this English idiot and fool. Whether he stays or goes is not the criteria. What is a bigger problem is how on God’s green earth we are going to be able to get rid of the muslim out of the white house and all his muslim brotherhood buddies??. Morgan is a blithering idiot and I for one do not listen to him at all. Correction – I have never listened to him. • kkflash I can’t stand to watch him either, but the fact that he’s still on the air is testament to the fact that there are far too many fools in this country for our own good, (as if we need more proof after re-electing Obama.) • DavidL If the Founding Fathers intended the 2nd Amendment to mean an individual’s right to gun ownership, then the reference, at its very beginning, to a well regulated militia would be both meaningless and unnecessary. United States vs. Miller (1939) clearly established this interpretation for many decades. In the past the NRA , as well as the Republican Party platform up until 1972, supported gun control. Responsible gun control was part of the Republican mantra about being tough on crime. All that changed in its 1976 platform and the advent of Reagan, the conservative right, and a change in leadership of the NRA. Yes to responsible regulation which includes universal background checks and the registration of all guns sold and re-sold. No to banning. • Skptk DavidL says: “If the Founding Fathers intended the 2nd Amendment to mean an individual’s right to gun ownership, then the reference, at its very beginning, to a well regulated militia would be both meaningless and unnecessary. ” David, your statement implies that you think the 2nd refers to the States’s right to keep and bear arms, which is exactly what the ACLU tried to argue (I think in Heller). But if that were so, then not only the initial phrase, but the whole 2nd would be meaningless and unnecessary, since any government not proscribed from reserving the power of arms to itself, will do so. “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the State to arm whom it chuses, and to disarm everybody else, shall not be infringed.” Hmm, no, it just doesn’t have the same ring to it. • kkflash Oh, that’s good! Succint & pointed with a touch of sarcastic humor for good measure. Thanks for the post, Skptk. • Vicki A lesson in English grammar for those whom English may not be their first language. (That would include politicians cause they obviously don’t understand plain English) http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html • DaveH I can’t believe you Liberal Progressives are still bringing up that same tired argument, DavidL. What part of “The people shall have the right to bear arms” do you not understand? And since when has Government ever needed Constitutional protection to arm its military? At any rate, those who still fall for that nonsense need only read this: http://gunowners.org/op0848.htm • http://yahoo bob peters To even question our rights to bear arms under the 2ND,is anti american..All of you chicken crap liberals can go find your utopia somewhere else because this country isn’t the right place for you and your kind. you with your communist logic will create a revolution sooner or later and God help you if you can’t reap what you sow! So stay unarmed and keep running off at the mouth.. • IlyanT Why do so many right wing Republican NRA supporting Americans make such fools of themselves denouncing Lefties when one of the greatest Lefties of them all, Lenin came out so strongly in support of the NRA when he said: “There must be no standing Army or armed Police over the People. There must only be the People, universally armed. The mistake the Founding Fathers made was to make a Right, they did it better in Switzerland and made it a DUTY. A man not armed and able to use it, looses his vote there. • bill To Viki; Thanks for the links to quotes from the founding fathers. I have forwarded them to many of my friends who will do likewise. A wealth of knowledge there, especially since they don’t teach this stuff in school anymore. • Tom On the difference in death count, why does everyone seem to forget that UK population is only approximately 20% of US population? • nobodysfool For anyone who still questions why not gun control, study German history in the 1930s and 1940s. Hitler disarmed the sheeple, herded them into box cars and used them for target practice or starved them to death, or sent them to the “showers”. Your future awaits….. • Doc Sarvis Ah, the old Hitler reference again. Hitler wanted to remove guns from the populations in territories he conquered, not in Germany. “And the truth is that no gun law was passed in Germany in 1935. There was no need for one, since a gun registration program was already in effect in Germany; it was enacted in 1928, five years before Hitler’s ascendancy. But that law did not “outlaw” guns, it just restricted their possession to individuals who were considered law-abiding citizens, and who had a reason to own one. And there’s no reason to consider that law particularly significant, either; the NAZIs didn’t seize control of their own country with gunpowder. They used a much more potent weapon: propaganda.” Much like the NRA does. The quote above is from: http://propagandaprofessor.net/2011/09/26/the-myth-of-hitlers-gun-ban/ • eddie47d Were still waiting for Wayne La Pierre to give a coherent answer instead of playing duck and cover. Seems like he is paralyzed with fear from the truth and won’t face it head on! Yes Wayne it goes far beyond mental health! • http://N/A George Estepp Go to the JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP and read some items there, By the way The JPFO was started by A holocost survivoer who lived it.ASK A polish Jew who survived the deathcamps if they were allowed guns. It doesnt matter if they had restrictions in Germany or not but they did impose them on people they wanted to destroy. In germany hitler burnt down THE REICHSTAGG and blamed it on foriighners to trick the people into giving in. A false flag operation- Who knows maybe this was too. And your gun deaths dont show how many was suicides, suicide by cop, or police shootings. • Corkey Regardless of who did what, when, a disarmed population are sitting ducks. Pol Pot, Stalin and Mao come to mind also. They took it to the next level, whether they started the process is irrelevant • Doc Sarvis Corkey, nobody is trying to disarm our population. The discussion is where do we draw the line and most Americans want more restrictions on firearms in our country. • steveo Gee Doc I’m impressed that you have such faith in the obozo administration to only grab certain types of guns but leave the rest…. • eddie47d George: There were 38,364 suicides in US in 2010 and 13,000 plus were with guns. Cop shootings were just over 400 for that year that resulted in death. • Skptk Doc, your reply to Corkey (below) is manifestly untrue, if you think about it. Many people here in the US want to disarm the population, though few of them will come right out and say it; also, I’m surprised you didn’t recognize that your statement about Hitler wanting to remove guns from the populations in the territories he conquered works to prove the point you’re trying to disprove. • Bill Doc, You mean like the current proaganda the is being pushed by the liberal media and people like you? • http://personalliberty.com RobertLeo Doc , your points are well taken and your arguments valid . The issue lies beneath though . Being that you seem like a man ( or woman ) who thinks and makes valid points without name calling , I will make my point , which I feel is the true summation on why I , as well as many other gun owners , feel the way they do , on any type of gun bans ( not regulation , because there is a massive amount of gun regulation on the books right now ) If , we the gun owners were to agree that a ban on assault rifles was ok , especially in light of the recent killings in Newton , and legislation was passed , then these cronies in Washington would be unstoppable . The next killing , lets say with a semi auto shotgun , and then they would ban them . then the next killing with a 22. rifle , and then they would ban them , then the next , with a swiss army knife , and then they would be banned . God forbid there was children involved , and it wouldnt even require legislation , the king would just WILL it to be . I know that people that are on the left , or anti gun , will say that is fear propaganda that the NRA generates . I ask you sir , who seems to be fairly balanced , do you think that is that far off , given this administrations track record . Better yet , given how loud some of these do good hollywood intellectuals scream and have benefit concerts ? How the do good politicos , the Piers Morgans , the people that would love to see a complete and total ban on any firearm in this country , do you truly think that being afraid of a total ban , is just some whacko right wing conspiracy . On the tragic day that those children were murdered by a mentally unstable criminal , who stole those gun from someone , and took 22-26 lives , 3500 children were also murdered in this country , by abortion , but no one talks about that . • Doc Sarvis RobertLeo, your slippery slope timeline is laughable. There have been thousands of events of murders (not counting multiple murders/event) before we even begin to have a semi-serious debate about possibly doing something about the problem. NRA funding of pro-gun candidates guarentees that IF anything gets done in any seated congress will be very watered down. There has never been a groundswell movement to take all guns from Americans. • http://personalliberty.com RobertLeo Your slippery slope timeline is laughable – Doc Sarvis I digress Doc , your just as stupid as Eddie • kkflash DS, and I suppose that Jews were considered “law-abiding citizens” and allowed to own registered guns like everyone else? Don’t make me laugh. • kkflash The US National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health reports “that foodborne diseases cause approximately 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the United States each year.” For God’s sake, why isn’t Congress debating a ban on food? • momo RobertLeo says: January 11, 2013 at 9:34 am Your slippery slope timeline is laughable – Doc Sarvis I digress Doc , your just as stupid as Eddie RobertLeo, your stature has risen. • eddie47d MOMO; Why don’t you make an attempt to prove something instead of making oddball comments! I could say you are a midget with your head up an elephants rear if name calling is what gets you excited? Just asking! • eddie47d Would that be another of your thrill kills MOMO? • ibcamn God,thank you fool,someone finally said the “H” word in a comment related to Obama,maybe people will actually take a look into it…..”History”!!..why?what did you think i meant? • joszsrepublicanpage Ship his lying butt back to England,,,,, • eddie47d Josz: You can admit you are a Republican with a straight face? I’ll give you a challange because I say Morgan didn’t lie so I want to see how honest Republicans really are. The information is easy to find Gun deaths and (homicides) in England vs Gun deaths and (homicides) in the USA. • http://yahoo bob peters Eddie,why dont you go to england and vacate your useless self from this great country. • Bill Eddie, This is not a republican and democrat issue. Why are you continuing to waste our time. Is this one of your diversion tactics • kkflash If it’s so easy, post a link to your source. I’ll bet it’s not more reliable than the FBI stats that were used in the Fox 19 reporter’s video. • JUKEBOX Eddie, have you kept count of how many lies the duplicitous hypocrites like Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have told in the past four years? They would probably be bigger in volume than the IRS code. • momo eddie47d, you’re getting flustered. Time to change your diaper, tis full of crap just like you. • eddie47d Bill : Since Josz uses Republican in his name then he set himself up and makes Republicans an issue . • eddie47d MOMO; Since you are apparently scared to look up the information yourself i would say you are the one “full of crap” ! • momo Don’t need to eddie, aka a$$wipe, since 1992 violent crime is down almost 50 percent, ditto the murder rate. Can you grasp that like you do Obama’s johnson? • Rob Does anyone have the stats on how many total murders were committed in England gun or otherwise? What we don’t need is more regulation of anything but government. • Doc Sarvis We DO NOT have a well regulated militia which is what the 2nd Amendment calls for. We need better regulations. • Skptk Update, Doc: the 2nd Amendment does NOT “call for” a well-regulated militia. What the 2nd does is to prohibit the government from infringing on the right of the People. • http://yahoo bob peters [personal attack deleted] • ibcamn more regulations??what kinda crack you smokin!?!…wow,you don’t have a clue of what more regulations do to the country and its people! • cj In every State Constitution I have read and that is about 40. They all have a provision for a Milita. It gives the state to put you into service to defend or assist the defense of the State and the Country. The degree it is used and orginized depends upon the needs of the State you reside in. in most States the Call up would require men 18 to 45 to serve. Not dislike the draft • Bill Good idea, Rob The more regulation we need is for the out of control government. Over regulation is one of the main reasons that the economy is in the toilet • JUKEBOX More regulations = LESS FREEDOM FOR ALL! • Gregg Tell the Afgans that a ragtag bunch of folks with AKs can’t take on tanks and jets. ;0) • Vicki Or casually mention to the Vietnamese how they could not possibly have held out against the might of the strongest military on the planet in the years of that war. And don’t forget to tell that rag tag bunch of colonists that they had no chance against the might of the Redcoats. The strongest military on the planet in the years of the American Revolution. • Too Tall I say yank his visa, if he thinks Britain is so much better, he should be there and stay there. • burt Piers MoreGun-s lies…crime in UK went UP, just different tools were used. He brags he can go to Wal-Mart and buy “assault weapon and thousands of ammo” .HE CANNOT. That’s another premise that is a lie. Try it, MoreGun-s. YOU CANNOT. • eddie47d So you’re thrilled that our homicide rate is down from about 15,594 3 years ago to a more “acceptable” rate of 11,015 last year. You ought to be asking yourself why do we still have so many in comparison to other industrial nations. Yet Britain’s has gone up from 39 to possibly 59 or less.Not a big jump and I’m sure its a concern for those being whacked but lets compare apples to oranges. • plasmarules Actually in 2011 there were 11,493 firearm homicides BUT there were also 16,799 Non-firearm homicides. There were 195,000 deaths from medical errors. • plasmarules And yes, why wouldn’t anyone be thrilled that in every single one of the last 10 years the violent crime rate has dropped? • Warrior When “plugs” finishes his report and gives it to the “usurper” I wonder if it will mention the fact that the NRA still won’t contribute to “progressives” election campaigns! Ya see, comrade, contributions will always buy friendship and support. • JC eddie47d says: January 11, 2013 at 7:34 am So you’re thrilled that our homicide rate is down from about 15,594 3 years ago to a more “acceptable” rate of 11,015 last year. You ought to be asking yourself why do we still have so many in comparison to other industrial nations. Yet Britain’s has gone up from 39 to possibly 59 or less.Not a big jump and I’m sure its a concern for those being whacked but lets compare apples to oranges. ______________________________________________________________________ And yet somehow Britain still has the highest rate of violent crime in the EU. No thanks eduardo…we’ll be maintianing our rights here in the Free and Sovereign United States. • JUKEBOX Plasmarules, doctors bury their mistakes. • Dennis48e “So you’re thrilled that our homicide rate is down from about 15,594 3 years ago to a more “acceptable” rate of 11,015 last year. ” You are dam straight I am thrilled and I will be thrilled if it drops another 4,500 in the next three years. You should be thrilled as well however that would conflict with your desire to disarm the American public wouldn’t it. • eddie47d Dennis: That was sarcasm to Burt, but you wouldn’t understand! I’d be thrilled if it disappeared altogether but you wouldn’t understand that either! • Dennis48e eddie if that was sarcasm it was the poorest attempt I have seen yet. What I understand about you is you have NEVER seen a more restrictive gun control proposal mentioned here that you did not support and have NEVER seen a proposal to relax any portion of the gun control laws that you did support. • Doc Sarvis The 2nd Amendment calls for a well regulated militia. We don’t have that. We need more regulation to come into compliance with the 2nd Amendment. • Skptk The Second Amendment does not “call for” a militia. The Supreme Court has recognized that the “militia” is comprised of all able-bodied citizens. The 2nd Amend. does not even “call for” regulating the militia. Rather, it recognizes the importance of “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”. How to regulate is left to the individual States (!0th Amendment). What the Second Amendment DOES do is recognize the pre-existing right of the People to keep and bear arms, i.e. military-stylae assault weapons, among others, and prohibit the government from infringing on that right. “…shall not be infringed” to me means “don’t even nibble around the edges” . • Doc Sarvis We already “nibble around the edges” with various rule (eg. I can’t have an atomic bomb!). Where we draw the line is what is being discussed now and most Americans say we need more regulation of firearms. • jwhite What the founding fathers thought a “militia” was comprised of all able-bodied MALE citizens between 16 and 55. The Supreme Court has recognized that the “militia” is not the NG. This is from a ruling from when Texas was trying to keep from sending the Texas NG overseas. And as to gun registration programs all you have to do is look south to Mexico and see that the violent gun crime is much higher there.Their program does take away almost all guns. Most forget that one of the highest body count crime came from a nut job with some gas and matches, a number of years ago in NY. • JC Doc Sarvis says: January 11, 2013 at 7:55 am We already “nibble around the edges” with various rule (eg. I can’t have an atomic bomb!). Where we draw the line is what is being discussed now and most Americans say we need more regulation of firearms. _______________________________________________________________________ Your assertion is absurd. One can not Keep and Bear (carry) an Atomic bomb. And no one in their right mind would want to. We’re simply demanding our rights to “Keep and Bear” be honored….we’re demanding….not asking. • ranger09 The Militia is your local national Guard As the Govt sees it, Supposed to be controlled by ea State.But the Federal Govt controls the National Guard. BUT the Americans ARE the Militia when banded together as the Consitution says. Simple for simple people to understand. Not so simple for the Politicians we have. People as long as we keep our Rights WE can remain a free People, If we allow these Rights to be taken away WE are no longer a Free People. • Vicki The milita is very clearly defined in 10 USC § 311 (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/I/13/311 • Bill Doc Sarvis Blah, Blah, Blah, more regulation. You are either a public sector worker or you are being paid by the same people who are paying Flashy. That is the liberals answer to creating jobs: Create a crisis and demand more regulation, which requires hiring more non productive government workers which puts an additional burden on the taxpayers. We are on to you Doc • Doc Sarvis I am not a public sector worker and I do not get paid to post here – though my posts are worth a lot. All I am doing is pointing out the regulation that our Founding Fathers wrote into the document. • Bill Doc, No you are not just trying to point out something that our founding fathers said. What you are doing is trying to push an agenda and using any argument you can contrive. Why aren’t you going after alcohol, which it’s abuse causes 187,000 deaths a year. It is a much more severe problem than guns. • Doc Sarvis Bill, why do you assume I do not fight against the abuse of alcohol? • kkflash I disagree with Doc S that we need more gun regulation, and I disagree with you that we should consider more alcohol regulation. All alcohol-related deaths are self-inflicted, and while tragic, are none of the government’s damn business. We don’t need more regulation of ANYTHING in this country. No exceptions. No kidding. We have enough rules, laws and regulations to keep the Congress busy for the next 5 terms if they did nothing but repeal unneeded laws and regulations. Government is the problem, not the solution. • Doc Sarvis kkflash, I did not say anything about regulating alchohol. I said I fight the abusive use of the substance. • kkflash Doc, if you’ll follow the thread properly, you’ll see I was replying to Bill, and did not suggest that you support more alcohol regulation. I do know however, from your many posts here, that you are a supporter of big government and its over-reaching regulation of everything, so if the shoe fits… • eddie47d I see Bill is going after all the alcoholics again. Are there good drunks and bad drunks or are they equally obnoxious. Here we go again if you want to talk about alcohol deaths then feel free but that isn’t the issue today. Maybe you could have a chat with Americas beer and wine distributors and then get back! • Bill KKFlash I was just being sarcastic. Comparing the futility of gun control to the regulation of alcohol. My point was if the liberals were going to spend so much energy trying to regulate a small amount of deaths, they should spend their energies trying to regulate something that causes a large amount of deaths But my real feelings are they should worry about their failed economic policies which is the cause for increased crime and alcohol use • ibcamn Doc,the downfall of man(sometimes a country and even a race) starts with compliance.go and look at the history of the world.you will see what i mean…. • Dennis48e You might be right Doc. Well regulated in the vernacular of the late 1700s meant well prepared. The militia, if called to service, were expected to show up with their personally owned firearm in good working condition, a certain amount of ammunition (I think it was 100 rounds of shot and powder), some quantity of food, and a blanket. They were also expected to be able to shoot their firearm with some accuracy. That is what well regulated meant it did NOT mean well regulated in the sense of being controlled by ever more restrictive laws. • kkflash Thanks for that useful info. I think it’s also important to note that in the vernacular of the 21st century “regulate” means “to control something, especially by making it work in a particular way. This Cambridge Dictionary definition is appropriate as it relates to the military in the US, as control has been wrested from the hands of the people and the states, and placed in the centralized government. That usurpation of the power of the states was done by the aptly nicknamed Dick Act of 1903, as discussed below. The founders argued against a standing centralized army, and tried to protect us from the formation and use of such by a centralized Federal government, all to no avail. • Doc Sarvis Back then they shot one bullet per 30 seconds (more if your were really good, short range, and less accurate generally. VERY different today. Our arms today, even the handguns are unbelieveable killing machines compared to the one shot/load weapons of the Founding Fathers. • Bill Doc And we need high powered weapons today to counteract the thugs created by your failed economic policies • DaveH Why aren’t you Liberal Progressives calling for the disarmament of the military back to muskets, Doc? Double Standard? • Bruce the civilian militia needs to be armed with not only machine guns capable of automatic fire it also needs RPG’s armed vehicles, tank destroying missiles, tanks, planes, drones and everything else our military has. The militia should be given ALL (that reads all) used military equipment being DE-commissioned, well before we sell such stuffs to other countries, oooow even nukes and other missiles. Then we as a country would be more than twice as strong, as every law abiding citizen would be a soldier in the militia, and there would be no criminal central gov controlling said military. The militia would have to have its own “mind” and be sworn to defend the constitution. Should others who were “sworn to uphold the constitution” fail to do their sworn duty to country and constitution, the militia can “correct” that problem of a rogue public “servant” trying to become the “master” quickly and efficiently. With the power to jail any and all politicians who assault the constitution in jail, peace will finally rule the land. And it will again be the land of the free and the home of the BRAVE. Gotta be brave to stand up to the criminal gov we have. Our Gov will kill many of us for sure on their path to enslave us. The time is now for action to balance the out of balance gov we have. In the past millions and millions have died to correct such problems. Should their patriotic blood be shed in vain?. • Nick Czudy Hey Bruce, keep drinking the kool aid. You are almost right off the edge. It is obvious that you are another of the fatalists that thinks that our government is out to take us over and turn us into communists and take all our guns and women. They are out to turn us into a communist dictatorship. I just wonder what your upbringing was to instill these ideas into your mind. You cannot keep listening to Rush and Hannity. That is not good facts. You need to parse the information that you receive. Even Mr. Livingston rants on this site, are meant to inflame the base as that is how they profit. It is called trolling. This information is designed to inflame you and make your angry. wake up. It is all [expletive deleted]. It is not true. It will never happen. • Bruce what a honor, you are worried about my kool-aid intake, how touching. Are you worried about my weight?. The gov’s approval rating is a really big joke, they represent us? lol I am not sure who your friends Rush and Hannity are, but I do not listen to them, who ever they are. I assure you I receive no profit from posting, do you? If we the people were armed like the founders wanted we would have military equipment in every town and we would not be at war across any pond. We would worry about who crosses our borders and we would remove those that are not allowed BY LAW to be here. The Swiss are armed in every house hold, how is their crime rate? when was the last time they were invaded? WHY? because they are armed to a citizen. We need more cooperation between law abiding people and the local police forces, the police can not do it all by themselves it would take too many and we can not afford that many cops. We can afford more civilian’s to watch out for each other. quote I just wonder what your upbringing was end quote I was raised by wolves. quote turn us into communists and take all our guns end quote are you saying we have not moved towards communism or socialism AT ALL?? It is quite clear they want to dis-arm us. And as long as they want to do that to US they should be resisted, at every turn. Taking the guns from LAW ABIDING citizens before you disarm the gang bangers will cause a blood bath like never before seen. • Nick Czudy Hi Bruce. thanks for your reply. A favorite reply that I always hear about needing to have guns to protect us from our government. Now I get mad when I get a fine or a ticket, but I realize that is it part of a civilization to have laws. I may not agree with all of them, but that is what a civilized society does. You have no idea of what Communism is. My mother grew up in Ukraine with Stalin. He took all of the food and starved 40 millions people to try and use the food to buy technology for his master plan of industrializing. The citizens that were starved could not fight against the army with soldiers with horses and swords. If a villager was caught hiding food from Stalin, the whole town was massacred as a deterrent. What you see as communism is what civilized countries do, and that is to provide services to the poor and needy without the promise of profit. This is the farthest thing from communism. This is a civilized democracy. You can say that it has some socialist traits, but it is not even socialism. Our governments do not have some master plan to turn everyone into socialist puppets and to take all of your guns. NO we have not turned towards Communism and if we have become a little more socialist, it is a necessary step to keep some of the abuse that has been perpetrated by Wall street and the wealthy that have exploited the middle class. Just look at the graphs that show how much the average person has lost in actual income with the huge gains in wealth of the wealthy. When unregulated the Oligarchs will take all that they can get, they exploit when they are able. So a little bend towards balancing this mis-balance can be called socialism. It is not as bad as you are describing. They want to take your assault weapons and not your revolvers, rifles and shot guns. it is time that we all have a sane discussion about this issue. We do not need to arm against our government. If it was a GOP man in the white house then you are pacified, but if there is a Black Democrat president then you need to arm against their tyrannical rule. That is not a need for weapons or arms. OK recreation, target practice, home defense and hunting. You will have plenty of guns to accomplish these things. The US government will never ever stoop to the depths of what happens with Russian and Stalin. It took the rest of the world and their armies 5 years to defeat Hitler. Citizens with guns, would have not been able to stand up against this tyrant. The world is progressing, slowly but surely. There is no need for paranoia or fear mongering. The problem of arming everyone to be policemen, is that each person has different values and would use his opinion as to what deserves armed confrontation. Navy Jr. would feel that he should be able to shoot our president, because he feels that he has violated some of his personal values. The professional police and militia, are trained to be neutral and follow a common set of rules. It would be chaos to have everyone with guns enforcing their own view on the world. With our good defense system and military, there has not been an attack on our country that needs Joe citizen to arm and help fight off an invasion. There is no one in this world that can invade the USA. Notice that all of the wars since the Civil war have been in other parts of the world. With the US Military being as large as the next 10 largest armies in the world, it is not a likely event that we will be invaded on our borders that all citizens need to remain armed and ready to ward off invaders. Unless aliens invade. But having 300 million weapons at the ready for this likely hood is likely a waste of time and money. The terrorist war is another matter and it is designed for mass casualties. Citizens with guns would not have helped with 911. The current politicians have said that they want to limit some guns that are designed for mass killing. This does not mean that they will take all of your guns. That is the usual comeback. they will take all of our weapons. They will thwart the 2nd amendment. give it a break. Lets talk intelligently on this issue. So if you are willing to resist and kill other law biding citizens that want this then the so called Patriots will be breaking the law and they are not following the Constitution. There are about 5 to 10 million zealots that talk like this against the wills of the 330 million US citizens, then they will no longer be law biding citizens. • Brian Yoder So Nick, what exactly do you think it would look like like if we were losing our liberties and being turned into a totalitarian state? Do you think that the first step would be for goose-stepping hoards would be marching through the streets with flags and drums? No, it would happen a little bit at a time with all kinds of propaganda, corruption, and distraction. In other words, it would be happening just the way we see it happening today. A little bit at a time we are losing our rights to speak, write, and participate in politics effectively and some people (like you apparently) won’t take any notice of it until you are bound and gagged in a gulag apparently. I don’t know how old you are, but the changes between now and when I was a kid in the 1960′s are like night and day and I think it’s going to get a lot worse if things keep going as they are. I don’t need talk radio hosts to tell me this, I can see it with my own eyes. Why can’t you? • oh oh Amen. • JUKEBOX We don’t need any more laws, we just need for the incompetent Eric Holder to enforce the laws we already have. Oh, I forgot, he would have to prosecute himself and Obama for Fast and Furious. • BR549 Doc wrote: “The 2nd Amendment calls for a well regulated militia. We don’t have that. We need more regulation to come into compliance with the 2nd Amendment.” Au contraire! The Dick Act (Militia Act of 1903) took the power of the states’ individual militias and placed it with the federal government. Under the guise of preventing the individual militias from being used by non-compliant governors as private armies, the federal government told us how much easier it would be to coordinate the various militias in time of need. All that would sound great except that we weren’t supposed to have a standing army on US soil and this was how the then globalist controlled legislature tricked the public into doing just that. The same thing happened when Carter was selling us on the Continuity of Goverment boondoggle, which morphed into FEMA and DHS, and look where we are now with drones over our own towns and UN troops being unsuccessfully hidden throughout the US under the guise of “training exercises”. Instead of the UN sending their people out to do the dirtywork, our long list of globalist presidents gets the US to spend ITS money cleaning up pockets to globalist resistance and keeps our fighting age men and women occupied overseas so that they can’t return home WTSHTF. 17th Amendment; same thing happened with the loyalties of the states’ US senators. And, interestingly, this was all taking place at the culmination of power of the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Warburgs, etc. Next was the adoption of the Federal Reserve …….. and here we are, and you still think this is about GUNS? • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox Wrong Dr. everyone was a member. And the second ammendment was written by men who came from countries where only the government had weapons and they couldn’t fight back. It’s almost the same today, if your a christian your a second or third class citizen because the atheist get what they want at our expense. Kicked God out of the schools along with the Ten Commandments one being thou shalt not murder, and guess what, satan was waiting in the wings and still is for the government to hurt the citizens and making them victim’s of all the crooks who don’t worry about ink on paper. John Adams said ” A armed person is a citizen, a unarmed person is a slave”. I won’t join the marxist plantation. • Richids Coulter Swann is fact checking 2011 numbers, Morgan said “last year” and this was filmed on Jan 7th, 2013, or thereabouts so last year would have been 2012. Anyone have the figures for 2012? • Jim S 2012 figures are not out yet. 2011 figures are the latest published. • Vicki • http://twitter.com/Moose853 Dwain Boehl (@Moose853) Morgan needs to be strapped to a missile with a limited range of 50 Miles and launched toward his beloved Britian. I say toward because with a limited range of 50 miles it would drop off somewhere in the atlantic, hopefully in shark infested waters. • eddie47d If you can’t handle facts Dwain maybe you should either be deported or slink back into your basement. There were 11,000 plus murders in USA last year. • steveo UK leads with more VIOLENT crime. I rather have a citizenry able to defend itself from violent crime than ban all weapons because more people are killed with a gun…thats what freedom is all about…. its risky….but I would rather be free than under the thumb of a tyrannical goberment • Pete Please do the research…FBI stats show more than 75% of all violent crime is DRUG related…we all know how well the ban on cocaine,crack, and herion has workedout ,these drugs have kiled more of our children then guns ever did…….I guess you are also unaware that law bidding citizens use firearms 2.5 million times a year to protect themselves and their families from violent crimes…take away the right ,and how many more murders do you think there would be?………Remeber a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!….if you think you would be safer in the U.K. I suggest you apply for citizenship. • http://personalliberty.com RobertLeo So Eddie , get past your name calling and keyboard tough guy routine , and please tell us ” what do you suggest ” ? • http://N/A George Estepp first off no one realy expects that Limey Keftist to be deported. Thats more like what A socialist or communist country would do. We arent there yet. Also if you look at history you will find in most cases once gun confiscation starts it keeps being expanded to include more weapons. what good does it do to argue. Dictater OBAMA is going to shove this down our throats no matter what- Even some speaches he made before any of the shootings took place indicats how he feels. Remember the statement about people clinging to their guns and bibles in A belitling derogatory tone.. Its what it is now but stop peein on my leg and telling me its raining . Ok . Just remember in countries where socialism took over their supporters were actualy refered to as usefull idiots. Once the socialists took power they knew thos usefull idiots had betrayed their own people and could not be trusted. They put them on the list of useless eaters to be disposed of. What makes yopu anti gun pro Obama people think this wont happen to you? I can guarantee, It Will. • Bill Eddie, According to the FBI and Center for Disease Control, there were 11,493 firearm homicides last year. There was also 16,799 non firearm homicides last year. So there were more homicides by non firearms than by firearms. So, on their list of the top killers in the US, forearm homicides were at the bottom. There were 187,000 deaths last year from alcohol abuse. So, why aren’t you on a campaign to stop alcohol abuse by taking away our alcohol? Oh yeah, I forgot. That has been tried before and it did not work • JC eddie47d says: January 11, 2013 at 7:25 am If you can’t handle facts Dwain maybe you should either be deported or slink back into your basement. There were 11,000 plus murders in USA last year. ________________________________________________________________________ Actually eduardo, they weren’t all “murders”. You’re all encompassing number of 11,000 has been broken down to include people killed by law enforcement, suicides and law abiding citizens killing assailants. I don’t have the breakdown immediately handy but you can bet your goose stepping A$$ I’ll have it posted by the end of the day. • Motov Eddy must be a gun toting criminal for him to want our ability to defend ourselves taken away. That’s my conclusion. • kkflash eddie47d, you are the last person who should be railing about the accuracy of facts, as you’ve never posted an accurate one in all your posts here. As the article’s linked video points out (with citations), there were 8593 gun homicides in the US in 2011, according to FBI crime stats (Do not even try to tell us you have a better source.) 400 of those were determined to be justifiable homicides by police, and 260 justifiable homicides by other citizens, while Great Britain had 59 gun homicides the same year. The facts therefore show that at least 11 times more US citizens (660) were SAVED from violent crime by the protection of guns than were killed by guns in Britain. (The ratio is likely higher because the 59 gun homicides in Britain in all likelihood also included some that were justifiable homicide by police or others.) Guns don’t kill – people do, athe presence of a gun can protect all by itself, even without being wielded by a person. • JeffH Crime Statistics > Assault victims (most recent) by country showing latest available data. Rank Countries Amount # 1 Saint Kitts and Nevis: 3% Crime in Saint Kitts and Nevis # 2 United Kingdom: 2.8% Crime in United Kingdom = 3 New Zealand: 2.4% Crime in New Zealand = 3 Australia: 2.4% Crime in Australia # 5 Canada: 2.3% Crime in Canada # 6 Finland: 2.1% Crime in Finland = 7 France: 1.4% Crime in France = 7 Denmark: 1.4% Crime in Denmark = 9 Sweden: 1.2% Crime in Sweden **9 United States: 1.2% __________________________________ Crime Statistics > Robbery victims (most recent) by country Showing latest available data. Rank Countries Amount # 1 Poland: 1.8% Crime in Poland # 2 Italy: 1.3% Crime in Italy = 3 Australia: 1.2% Crime in Australia = 3 United Kingdom: 1.2% Crime in United Kingdom = 5 France: 1.1% Crime in France = 5 Portugal: 1.1% Crime in Portugal = 5 Slovenia: 1.1% Crime in Slovenia # 8 Belgium: 1% Crime in Belgium = 9 Sweden: 0.9% Crime in Sweden = 9 Canada: 0.9% @16 United States: 0.6% _________________________________ Crime Statistics > Total crime victims (most recent) by country Showing latest available data. Rank Countries Amount # 1 Australia: 30.1% Crime in Australia # 2 New Zealand: 29.4% Crime in New Zealand # 3 United Kingdom: 26.4% Crime in United Kingdom # 4 Netherlands: 25.2% Crime in Netherlands # 5 Sweden: 24.7% Crime in Sweden # 6 Italy: 24.6% Crime in Italy # 7 Canada: 23.8% Crime in Canada # 8 Saint Kitts and Nevis: 23.2% Crime in Saint Kitts and Nevis # 9 Malta: 23.1% Crime in Malta # 10 Denmark: 23% # 15 United States: 21.1% Total Crimes: # 1 United States: 11,877,218 Population: 311,705,000 2011 – ranks 15th in total crime victims behind the UK # 2 United Kingdom: 6,523,706 Population: 62,435,709 2011 – ranks 3rd in total crime victims ahead of the US • eddie47d JC: We sure as heck know you don’t look anything up because there were 34,593 gun deaths in America,over 11,000 were suicides and 400 by cop killings and other reasons. Now you can take foot out of mouth again! • eddie47d MOTOV: The big problem here its hard to get past all the lying trolls and you once again take the cake. I HAVE NEVER SAID YOU DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF!. Can you understand cap locks or do I have to shout it out again? • eddie47d KKFLASH: There are numerous statistics on the WEB and not all are broken down the same. Some include suicides and some don’t. Some include all murders and some are strictly gun deaths.Your numbers could be 100% correct as well as mine. • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox Didn’t take eddie teddy 47 ways to be a commie to come up with another of his lie’s but, then I expect that when I see his name, what basement do you live in commie trash. • Bill There you go again, Eddie Just making stuff up tp perpetute a scam • eddie47d Benjamin and Bill ! Still fact less but they both want a pat on the back. Ain’t gonna happen until you put your big boy pants on! How do your wives put up with your continual scowls? Bitter and hateful to the end! • Dennis48e eddie you said above your numbers came from the CDC an agency specializing in disease NOT crime. My numbers as well as KKflash’s numbers come from the FBI which specialize in crime. As a result our numbers are much more accurate than yours. • Vicki Here is a useful link to the FBI crime database so people can look up the numbers themselves. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-offense-data • JC Dwain Boehl (@Moose853) says: January 11, 2013 at 7:11 am Morgan needs to be strapped to a missile with a limited range of 50 Miles and launched toward his beloved Britian. I say toward because with a limited range of 50 miles it would drop off somewhere in the atlantic, hopefully in shark infested waters. __________________________________________________________________________ WAY too expensive…let’s just use a catapult. • Jeremy Leochner Interesting article and video. Mr. Morgan did fudge the facts. One thing I want to ask is why is it that England has so many fewer firearms deaths than America. After all the rates were 59 versus 7,923. Though Mr. Morgan underestimated Englands rate and exaggerated Americas the rates were still worlds apart from each other. One thing I found interesting was at the point from 1:57 where the reporter says its not surprising that the gun homicide rate is lower in a country that bans guns. What matters is lowering gun related deaths when it comes to gun control. I have to disagree with Mr. Livingston on the issue of the second amendment. I believe that when the founders wrote the second amendment one of the first things they thought of was protection from a tyrannical government just as Mr. Livingston says. However where we diverge is I believe the founders intended for a well regulated militia to be the peoples defense against tyranny. I believe the founders did not intend for the average American citizen to rely on whatever weapons they could collect to serve as their defense. If there should come a day where America is ruled by a tyrant I do not think the founders would have put much stock in one or two individuals in a particular neighborhood who happen to keep a small arsenal in their home to be able to put up much of a fight against an army of tanks and fighter jets and rocket launchers. I would imagine the founders wanted there to be some other forms of defense against tyranny that could be called upon prior to such a point. I believe the founders intended the individuals right to bear arms to be more focused on personal protection and on hunting which is what many Americans had to do to survive. One of the major complaints against Britain had been the laws against settlement and hunting of the western mountain regions. I am not trying to limit the importance of the right to bear arms or to suggest a person shouldn’t be watchful. What I am saying is I believe the founders intended militias to be the last refugee of the Republic rather than a single individual armed with the odd assortment of handguns or rifles they bought here and there. • Vicki Jeremy Leochner writes: “If there should come a day where America is ruled by a tyrant I do not think the founders would have put much stock in one or two individuals in a particular neighborhood who happen to keep a small arsenal in their home to be able to put up much of a fight against an army of tanks and fighter jets and rocket launchers.” Which is why they intended that ALL Americans be able to keep and bear the same arms as an army might. - Jeremy Leochner: ” I would imagine the founders wanted there to be some other forms of defense against tyranny that could be called upon prior to such a point.” Four boxes were given unto us to preserve freedom Soap box (Compromised via PC speech and recent specific interference with the press) Ballot box (Compromised via voter fraud) Jury box (Compromised via NDAA 2012) Ammo box. (Compromised via NFA 1934, GCA 1968, ….) Each is to be used in the order given to thwart a repressive or despotic government. - Jeremy Leochner: “I believe the founders intended the individuals right to bear arms to be more focused on personal protection and on hunting which is what many Americans had to do to survive.” You don’t have to believe. You can know. You can ask them. They are dead but their quotes and intent live on in their writings. http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html As you can see they have anticipated and answered all the questions you raised above. • ibcamn yes Vicki,just like the Hollywood shootout that happened a few years ago,the police were being taken out by two men,until a nearby gun store gave the police weapons to protect themselves.and the police,mayor and the public(even the news)had nothing but praise for the man and his gun store for loaning and having weapons of equal firepower to save the officers!but i don’t hear anything about that for compairrison to all the whoo ha going on!people who forget the past will be doomed to repeat it! • Jeremy Leochner With respect Vicki I am pretty sure that if all Americans had the same arms as an army might chaos and anarchy would ensue. As for those boxes you mentioned I am in total agreement. And I like the order you put them in. Couldn’t agree more. And thank you for providing those quotes of the founders. • kkflash Vicki, excellent post… love hearing the founders’ words. Jeremy, speculating on whether anarchy would result from every American possessing nuclear missiles, tanks, etc. is moot and useless, but since you started the game…How much more likely is anarchy if no one, neither individuals nor government were armed at all? • Jeremy Leochner KK Flash. My speculation was based on Vickis suggestion that all Americans should have the same arms as an army. If that is in fact what Vicki wants I was simply pointing out what I think will result. As for your speculation I never said I wanted people unarmed. Nor did I say I want the government in the form of the armed forces to be unarmed. I would wish there to be a world without weapons. And I would wish there to be a world where no bad guys are armed. But I know such things are dreams. What I can do in reality is try to do something to counter act the violence I see in my world. I can try to take concrete steps to reduce the problems I see. And I can start by suggesting and supporting what I think are good plans to reduce gun violence. • DaveH Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — “With respect Vicki I am pretty sure that if all Americans had the same arms as an army might chaos and anarchy would ensue”. No, you don’t respect, Vicki, Jeremy. If you did, you wouldn’t answer her well thought out comments with such a ridiculous statement. For those who don’t know, Jeremy is just an alter-ego of the Liberal Progressive Shill Flashman. Start here to see: http://personalliberty.com/2011/05/16/what-now/#comment-341969 • DaveH And here I lay out more evidence: http://personalliberty.com/2012/12/28/should-we-arm-our-teachers/#comment-797175 Imagine that. A person who assumes multiple personalities. What kind of sickness or extreme shill behavior is that? • DaveH Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — “My speculation was based on Vickis suggestion that all Americans should have the same arms as an army”. If you have a problem with that, Jeremy, then why don’t you suggest disarming the Military so they have no more dangerous weapons than we do? • Jeremy Leochner Dave are you saying it is ridiculous to suppose that if everyone in America had an arsenal similar to the army that anarchy would ensue. It is ridiculous to believe that if all Americans, including those members of the KKK and the Neo Nazi, had the same arms as the army that serious problems would arise. I meant no disrespect to Vicki Dave. But do you really think it a perfectly safe and reasonable suggestion that “ALL Americans be able to keep and bear the same arms as an army might.” as Vicki said. • Vicki DaveH writes to ?? (Might be Flashy, might be JL. only those 2 (and handlers if any) know for sure: “If you have a problem with that, Jeremy, then why don’t you suggest disarming the Military so they have no more dangerous weapons than we do?” Besides since gun-grabbers always say they want to keep guns from being available to bad guys they will HAVE to disarm the military. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/12/16/fbi-says-gang-infiltrators-stealing-military-weapons-for-sale-on-u-s-streets/ • Vicki Jeremy Leochner says: “Dave are you saying it is ridiculous to suppose that if everyone in America had an arsenal similar to the army that anarchy would ensue.” Yes he is saying that. And for proof all you have to do is look at America prior to prohibition. I may foolishly presume that you know anything of history. NFA 1934. Prior to that unconstitutional law the army and civilians had the same (not similar THE SAME) tools. You might note that your KKK came into existence way before that. If you know anything of history you will remember that the 14th amendment was in part to counter individual states of the post war on northern aggression in their attempts to disarm the people who had been slaves. http://www.old-yankee.com/rkba/racial_laws.html • Jeremy Leochner Dave 1: Your evidence as you say is just another post of you saying the exact same thing. You saying it many times does not make it true. 2: The military is designed to serve and protect the country. The men and women in the military are trained both in how to use guns but also how to use unarmed tactics. At the same time they are taught the importance of team work and the value of comrades. Their individuality is put aside for the good of the unit and the mission. I place far more trust in the military having the kind of arsenal that they do than I place in John and Jane Q. citizen having such an arsenal. • Jeremy Leochner Vicki I do know about history but I admit I did not know about that law. In regards to the KKK the KKK came into being long before things like rocket launchers, flame throwers, grenade launchers, surface to air missiles, mini guns, tanks and fighter jets. They also came into being long before AK 47s and M-16s and Uzis and all other manner of military style weapons. My comments were in response to your absolutist statement that “ALL Americans be able to keep and bear the same arms as an army might.” That statement contained no qualifying factors. No mention of criminals behind bars, no mention of those with felonies on their record, no mention of hate groups like the KKK or terrorist groups like the Covenant the sword and the arm of the lord. All of these groups of people fall under the term “ALL Americans”. I do not think it unreasonable to suggest that if groups like the ones I mentioned got their hands on weapons the same as or even similar too the ones the army has that chaos and anarchy would ensue. If a bad guy with a few semi automatic hand guns or converted fully automatic rifles can cause the kind of damage seen at places like Newtown or the North Hollywood Shootout I think it reasonable to fear bad guys getting their hands on Mini Guns or Rocket Launchers. • Vicki Jeremy Leochner says: “My comments were in response to your absolutist statement that “ALL Americans be able to keep and bear the same arms as an army might.” That statement contained no qualifying factors.” Why should it? Jeremy Leochner: “No mention of criminals behind bars” No reason to. They are BEHIND BARS I.E. Jail. Jeremy Leochner: “no mention of those with felonies on their record” No reason to. If they are a danger then they should be above. (in jail). If not then why do you think you have the right to deny them the same protections as any other free citizen. Jeremy Leochner: “no mention of hate groups like the KKK” No reason to. They have the same first amendment rights we have to allow you. Jeremy Leochner: “or terrorist groups like the Covenant the sword and the arm of the lord.” No reason to. They have little ability to terrorize a people who are as heavily armed as they are. Jeremy Leochner: “All of these groups of people fall under the term “ALL Americans”.” Good of you to notice. (I am ignoring the lack of evidence that there is any group with the listed names and any evidence that they are terrorists.) Jeremy Leochner: “I do not think it unreasonable to suggest that if groups like the ones I mentioned got their hands on weapons the same as or even similar too the ones the army has that chaos and anarchy would ensue.” Since they (if they exist) ALREADY HAVE their hands on weapons the same as (not similar, the SAME) I do not think it unreasonable to suggest that if the people (the rest of us) are similarly armed then they will have little power to terrorize us. Evidence to support my assertion that some mysterious “they” might actually have military weapons. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/12/16/fbi-says-gang-infiltrators-stealing-military-weapons-for-sale-on-u-s-streets/ • Jeremy Leochner Vicki here is some info regarding the CSA.: http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=403 Vicki neither you or I can have tanks or rocket launchers or fighter jets. If you or I or the KKK or the Neo Nazi got their hands on any of those things trouble would ensue. • Vicki Jeremy Leochner says: “Vicki here is some info regarding the CSA.” Thanks. Covenant the sword not found in your link. CSA not found in your link. Arm of the lord not found in your link. Who or what is the CSA? Jeremy Leochner: “Vicki neither you or I can have tanks or rocket launchers or fighter jets. If you or I (got our) hands on any of those things trouble would ensue.” I have no idea what you are talking about. I can own a tank or a fighter jet. Even a rocket launcher. Here are some now. Complete with rockets. http://www.estesrockets.com/ YOU might cause trouble, but there is no evidence to suggest that my having any of those items would cause me to “ensue trouble.” Now English is an interesting language. You want us to believe that you would cause trouble if you got your hands on those items and you want us to believe that I would cause trouble because you only know yourself (Psychiatrists call this “projection”). However your statement could well be considered true (…trouble would ensue…) as was found out by David Koresh even though he didn’t cause the trouble and may not actually have had any “special” firearms. • Jeremy Leochner My mistake Vicki. Shot myself in the foot there. Here is a real article about the CSAL: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/adl/paranoia-as-patriotism/covenant.html And just so I don’t make the same mistake twice here’s another one: http://www.start.umd.edu/start/data_collections/tops/terrorist_organization_profile.asp?id=3226 I did not know that Vicki. I assure you I know you mean no harm. And I promise I mean no harm. I would be too afraid of accidentally setting a rocket off to go out and get one. I never meant to “project” anything. My concern is groups like the CSAL and the KKK gaining control of such weapons. If they already have as the case appears to be than I want to try a different approach than simply arming everyone else. • JC Jeremy Leochner says: January 11, 2013 at 2:22 pm Dave 1: Your evidence as you say is just another post of you saying the exact same thing. You saying it many times does not make it true. 2: The military is designed to serve and protect the country. The men and women in the military are trained both in how to use guns but also how to use unarmed tactics. At the same time they are taught the importance of team work and the value of comrades. Their individuality is put aside for the good of the unit and the mission. I place far more trust in the military having the kind of arsenal that they do than I place in John and Jane Q. citizen having such an arsenal. ___________________________________________________________________ Interesting. You use the term “comrades” to describe US military personnel…I’d use the term “team” with an esprit de corps…but then I’m not a communist. You say you trust the military more than the average American…guess what! The military is made up of average Americans with American values. I place my trust in people with American values…that leaves you and all the other liberal communists out of the picture. But since there seems to be enough of you (how did that happen?) to be a threat to our liberties (domestic enemies) …I think I’ll pick up a new CZ 858 Semi-Auto in 7.62mm. One never knows when you lunatics are going to be an actual problem and I like many, will be ready to defend myself from the lower IQ mob of liberal thieves, or any other threat to our nation. Like the Second Amendment intended. • DaveH Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — “Your evidence as you say is just another post of you saying the exact same thing. You saying it many times does not make it true”. That’s a laugh coming from a guy who, comment for comment, repeats himself far more than any other poster on the site. And rarely (if ever) posts any references to back up his conjecture. And it’s especially funny coming from a guy who assumes multiple personalities on the board. You are one sick puppy, Flashman (aka Jeremy). • DaveH Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — “The military is designed to serve and protect the country”. No Flashman (aka Jeremy), they are designed to protect the Leaders and their Crony Capitalists, which is why Jefferson knew that a standing army was not safe for the average citizens. That’s not to say that the military grunts don’t think they’re protecting the country. Most likely they do think that, because they are brainwashed like most of the rest of the citizens. However, people can read this book and start the deprogramming: http://library.mises.org/books/John%20V%20Denson/A%20Century%20of%20War%20Lincoln,%20Wilson%20and%20Roosevelt.pdf • Dennis48e “Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — “The military is designed to serve and protect the country”. No Flashman (aka Jeremy), they are designed to protect the Leaders and their Crony Capitalists, ” I would say you are both right. The military is designed to protect the country but has been missused to protect the leaders and their crony capitalists. • Jeremy Leochner Dave you said “That’s a laugh coming from a guy who, comment for comment, repeats himself far more than any other poster on the site. And rarely (if ever) posts any references to back up his conjecture.” Isn’t that what you do every time you say I am not who I say I am. Repeat and rarely if ever post any references to back up your conjecture apart from other posts where you accuse me of being dishonest. I do need to use more evidence. But at least I do not use myself as a reference. • DaveH I asked Jeremy (aka Flashman) a very simple question — “If you have a problem with that, Jeremy, then why don’t you suggest disarming the Military so they have no more dangerous weapons than we do?”. And being the shill that he is, he chooses to dance around the question with this reply — “Dave are you saying it is ridiculous to suppose that if everyone in America had an arsenal similar to the army that anarchy would ensue”. What I asked you Flashman (aka Jeremy) was very simple and you haven’t answered it. If you think disarming people is the answer to stopping the violence, then why don’t you extend that same logic to the military? Don’t give me your usual nonsense that they are more trustworthy than the people. After all they have killed millions overseas without so much as a hint of a trial. You either have Principles, Jeremy (aka Flashman), or you don’t. You just can’t bend Principles to suit your current desires. Of course, who would expect a multi-personality shill to have any Principles? • DaveH And Jeremy (aka Flashman), Quit your whining. You’ve been exposed, and I will re-link that exposure as often as I think necessary to let good people know that you aren’t just an ordinary reader. People need to know the extent of your dishonesty. You could have come clean long ago, Flashman (aka Jeremy) but you chose instead to keep denying your complicity. Even to the point of calling Bob Livingston a Liar because he caught you red-handed. You are low-life Jeremy (aka Flashman), but then what should one expect of a Liberal Progressive who thinks nothing of helping himself to other peoples’ property? • Jeremy Leochner Okay Dave I will answer your question 1: I never supported disarming the people. 2: I oppose the wars our country has gotten into. I believe that disarming the military is unrealistic. One of those pie in the sky ideals that simply will not work. I prefer to focus on the problems we have here at home. I feel it is not contradictory to suggest that those trained to handle weapons and who understand that there is a time and place for them are better suited to be carrying a weapon than any average person on the street. I do not want to disarm people. I just don’t think we should be lax in how we decide who gets to buy a weapon. 3: I have no desire to whine. And the reason I did not “come clean” is because I was not guilty of anything. I do not care what you think of me Dave. Your belief about me does not change reality. You can continue to say what you wish. And I will continue to point out that you are incorrect about me. • DaveH Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — “I believe that disarming the military is unrealistic. One of those pie in the sky ideals that simply will not work”. Pie in the sky? That’s your defense? Not nearly as rigorous as my proof of your shilldom, Jeremy. Yet you still deny it. And I didn’t say — “disarming the military”. I said — “disarming the Military so they have no more dangerous weapons than we do”. You can’t even get that straight, yet you expect people to pay attention to your statements? Your claim, of deciding “who gets to buy a weapon”, is much more “pie in the sky” than the contention that Government should be bound by the same rules and morals that the rest of us are bound by. But then, you wouldn’t get paid, would you, if you didn’t support your Handlers, Flashman (aka Jeremy)? • Jeremy Leochner Perhaps Dave. But at least I am not using myself as a reference. As for the idea of disarming the military so that they will have the same weaponry we the people have I still disagree. The military faces war. They face hostile forces armed with all many of weapons. They are in situations where they require advanced weaponry. To deprive them of that would leave them vulnerable. The people of our country have the right to keep and bear arms and I agree with that. Actually I don’t have to agree, its the constitution. The people of our country are not going to face situations like the ones the military faces. They do not need military style weapons. However excluding military style weapons like machine guns and fully automatic assault rifles there are still a wide variety of guns people can choose from and which are more than capable of providing sufficient protection for their home or person. Government should be held to the same rules as us. The problem is the government is not a person. Its a collection of people. Its how government uses the power it is allowed that is most important. And I wish I was getting paid for coming on here Dave. Sadly I am not. • Bruce quote The people of our country are not going to face situations like the ones the military faces. They do not need military style weapons. end quote We HOPE we do not face such a need. However If we DO, I would sure want to be able to use said military style weapons. I think we as a people need to be very very ready to use such weapons to defend the motherland, and i think those weapons should be spread out all across the nation so to insure quick access, by US citizens, if a foreign force lands on our shores. I thinks we need every citizen to be trained at age 18 to use the tools of war, a High School class?. And in doing so we will be a stronger nation better prepared to defend ourselves from the attacks from within that ARE coming. Communism (Stalin) said it WILL destroy us from within. Most of their agenda has come to pass (say 9 out of 10 cornerstones), removing our guns is one of the final steps, before invasion. Turning us into a nation of idiots and fools was one of the steps already accomplished, infighting between groups another step. Help we are surrounded by FOOLS!. • Steve Thomas To anyone wishing for “a world with no guns”. Even without known criminals, you still have bullies and “crimes of passion”. Just the possibility of my having a CCW, improves my safety. But even if you don’t want to believe that, let’s talk about rape. Those stats are easy to find. Guns (don’t JUST) save lives! • FreedomFighter “For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or “talking to them”, it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.” Americans, Never Give Up Your Guns http://www.infowars.com/americans-never-give-up-your-guns/ Educate yourself, protectd your rights as an American. Laus Deo Semper Fi • http://N/A George Estepp I do not agree with him, Unfortunatly the die appears to be cast and der kommisar , dictater OBAMA the first will use the force of our own government against us. It explains the mass ammo buys, extra training for national guard on house to house searches, and many forign troops here to train with American troops.As for law enforcement, they have families to feed and bills to pay. Do you realy think enough of them will stand by their oaths to protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemys forign and domestic. Most will be good little robots and do what ever KING OBAMA says. • Warrior I second that! There is no such thing as “compromising with progressives”. They must go. • Jeremy Leochner The problem freedom fighter is maniacs do not start out that way. Talking to them is a way to prevent them from becoming a problem. And not for nothing but there are situations where people are threatening suicide and have been talked out of it. I am not saying talking is the only way. What I am saying is a bullet in the head is not the only way either. I understand that government can pretend to protect the people to further its own ends. But that does not change the problem of gun related deaths we have in this country. Its a problem and whether in the form of mass school shootings or bank robberies like the one in north Hollywood or terrorist groups like the order or the covenant the sword and the arm of the lord unfettered and unregulated access to guns can result in terrible tragedies which affect many people and in fact society itself. And the answer to these tragedies is not as simple as ban guns on one side and just give more people guns on the other. • DaveH The reality of Gun Control: http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm • Vicki Jeremy Leochner says: “And the answer to these tragedies is not as simple as ban guns on one side and just give more people guns on the other.” Actually it is as simple as on the side of more people with guns. IF this was not the solution then police would not need guns. The military would not need guns. EVERY tragedy you suggest was stopped by men with guns. Sometimes police sometimes armed citizens. SOMETIMES talking to the criminal would get them to surrender but every time they only bothered to talk BECAUSE men with guns were there. http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/ • Jeremy Leochner Couple problems with your examples Dave. 1: The Ottoman Empire denied basic rights to Armenians long before gun control was implemented. Also the genocide did not take place until they were able to use World War 1 as a cover and as a way to call the Armenians subversives. 2: The Bolsheviks came to power with an armed revolution in 1917 not 1929. And they had already started establishing work camps or gulags within that same year and started rounding people up: http://gulaghistory.org/nps/onlineexhibit/stalin/. So the killings and oppression happened before gun control was implemented. 3: Germany is my favorite. The Nazi came to power through the democratic process by convincing people that they needed strong armed men in power. They did not implement full gun control until 1938 and that included Germanys Jews. In the time between January 1933 and November 1938 a few things happened that I think are of note. Among them are the Reichstag Burning, the declaration of martial law, the passing of the enabling act granting Adolf Hitler absolute power, the banning of political parties, the formation of the first concentration camps including Dachau in 1933-http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005263 and http://www.kz-gedenkstaette-dachau.de/index-e.html, The Night of the long knives, the death of president Hindenburg, the oath taking of all members of the armed forces to Adolf Hitler, the combining of the offices of Chancellor and President into the single title of Furher and the Nuremberg Race Laws of 1935 which stripped Germanys Jewish citizens of that citizenship. And to truly put things into perspective I remember the famous Martin Niemöller poem. I am sure you are aware of it. Well you may remember the ending line: “Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.” Well it turns out that Niemöller was arrested in 1937:http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/414633/Martin-Niemoller He was arrested a full year before Nazi Germany implemented full gun control. So that point where there was no one left to speak for Mr. Niemöller happened before gun control was implemented. Not having gun control did not help Mr. Niemöller nor did it stop the rise of Adolf Hitler or the beginning of the holocaust. 4: I love how the nationalists came to power in 1927 and yet waited until 1935 to implement further gun control measures. Evidently no one was killed between 1927 and 1935. 5: The Chinese communists took absolute control in 1949 yet for some reason waited until 1951 to implement gun control. And then again for some reason pass further controls in 1957. This surprises me since the Peoples Republic of China was established in 1949 and yet it took them several years to implement gun control. 6: The major act of gun control prior to the genocide beginning in 1960 was in 1947. I wonder what took so long. And again if the genocide began in 1960 why was there a need a to implement further gun control. And if the genocide was already happening by the time the new laws were implemented what difference did they make. 7: Uganda. Got me on this one. 1970 and genocide begins in 1971. 8: So an ordinance was passed in 1938 and the genocide did not start till 1975. Again what took so long. 9: The gun control is implemented in 1979 and the genocide does not start till 1994. Yet again what took so long. • Jeremy Leochner Vicki you used the word SOMETIMES a few times. That’s because there are a lot of sometimes. It is not a simple issue. Having guns does not guarantee a peaceful outcome. Columbine had armed security guards. That did not stop the tragedy. People who are suicidal do not care if the police or any one is armed. If they are suicidal they will either talk and give up or kill themselves. Heck they may even try and provoke those who are armed to shoot just so they do not have to actually pull the trigger themselves. Its not a simple matter of more guns less crime. If it were the high rates of gun ownership in America would automatically mean we would have the lowest number gun related deaths. Though Mr. Morgans statistics are a tad off they still show that that is not the case. • Vicki Jeremy Leochner says: “Vicki you used the word SOMETIMES a few times. That’s because there are a lot of sometimes. It is not a simple issue. ” It’s very simple. More guns = less crime. (See More Guns, Less Crime [Paperback] by John R. Lott Jr. Jeremy. Did you know that over 50 MILLION people did not murder someone with a firearm today? Now for our amusement how many people did? Lets look http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20 For 2011 total murder where firearm was used. 8583 Number of days in a year 364 (2011 not leap year) 8583/364 = 23.5 say 24 murders per day. 24/50,000,000 = 0.00000048 or %0.000048 of the gun owning population. You’re right I used sometimes. I should have said INFINITESIMAL. Almost never, or some phrase to indicate vanishingly small. - - - (Note: I stuck with murders cause that is what gun-grabbers tend to focus on. I also ignored the fact that the shooter might have killed more then 1 person thus the number would be less than 24 per day.) • Jeremy Leochner Vicki if its as simple as more guns=less crime why don’t we have the lowest crime rates across the board. Since as the video Mr. Livingston put in his article says “The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world” And yet our gun homicide rate is still higher than England. If more guns equals less crime why is our gun homicide rate higher than Englands when England has so few guns and we have so many. • JC Get the big picture Jeremy, (your focus is comparable to that of a gnat.) The UK has a much higher per capita rate of violent crime. Why? because there are no law abiding gun owners there to keep general crime in check. What you don’t understand is that crime would be much worse…like the UK if it were not for the fact that Americans can and do defend themselves. • Jeremy Leochner It did not take me too long Dave. As for it being irrelevant. The article you posted tried to blame gun control for the 20th centuries worst acts of genocide. I was trying to point out that that argument is wrong. Mainly by pointing out that in most cases the genocide and tyranny was already happening long before gun control was implemented. • DaveH Your arguments are fallacious, Jeremy (aka Flashman). I pity the readers who try to figure out what your Principles are, because you bounce all over the place, contradicting yourself time after time. But I guess that’s what shilling is all about, right Flashman (aka Jeremy)? • Jeremy Leochner Okay Dave. You say I bounce around all the time and I am all over the place, contradicting myself time after time. Give me an example. • Steve Thomas Well said. Remember, 75% of Americans believe in the 2nd amendment. Extrapolating, that would mean that half of the idiots that voted for BHO, are not even stupid enough to support him on control. Further, most people don’t “speek up”. So when it comes to gun control advocates, we are truly dealing with the bottom of the barrel. • Jeremy Leochner I don’t know about your statistics Steve. All I know is I believe in the second amendment and I voted for Obama. • Vicki Jeremy Leochner says: “I don’t know about your statistics Steve. All I know is I believe in the second amendment and I voted for Obama.” IF you really believed in the 2nd amendment you would not be constantly arguing to violate it. • Vicki Jeremy Leochner says: “Vicki if its as simple as more guns=less crime why don’t we have the lowest crime rates across the board.” Across what board? Where there are more guns (in the hands of law abiding citzens) there is less crime. http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660 • Jeremy Leochner Than Vicki why do we have far more gun related deaths than England and at the same time far more guns. And what I mean by “across the board” is if it is as simple as more guns equals less crime than that means that in general we should have far lower crime rates than a country with fewer guns. • fred buschbaum This reply is not just for Freedom Fighter. Jeremy, Dave, Vicky, and all the regulars here. Here are a couple of thoughts to ponder….. Our citizen soldiers left their plows to fight tyranny to “defend their rights as englishmen”, against a trained professional army and with a bit of help and training beat our oppressors forming this nation. later on in our history, we fought in several wars where we supplied men more than 6 million under arms in wwii and weapons, food, and material to our allies thereby helping to win and maintain our freedom. To paraphrase one of our famous enemies, “Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto” who planned the Pearl Harbor attack, He said that he could run amuck for 1 year, but that if the u.s. didn’t sue for peace by then, that Japan could not win a protracted war. He also said, “a great mistake would be to invade the U.S. because there would be a gun behind every blade of grass”. As to our military, one of the first things Obama proposed was to change the military oath from supporting and defending the constitution, to direct allegiance to himself, and our military told him to go pound salt. the next thing he proposed was a civil armed force equal to 2 divisions of equal power loyal to the president.that did’nt fly either. So, if you look closely, you’ll see that he has caused the arming and training of many federal departments that would normally have no need to be armed except to protect their paychecks. So, do you really think that our military, made up of plain ordinary citizens would fire on other plain ordinary citizens? It might be better to trash all the name calling, (which detracts our attention from the real basic problem), and just think about whether you as individuals would stand up when called to defend your rights as Americans and bleed if neccessary as your forefathers have done in every generation. FYI, we will destroy you from within wasn’t Stalins statement, that was Kruscheve in the late ’60′s. So, back to my coffee. Semper Fi • Jerry I don’t believe our forefathers could have had any idea idea about what weaonry is available to our militRY TODAY. They could only invision what was available at that time.That was muskets and that was all the military had along with cannons and anyone could man a cannon. It was just a large musket • ibcamn Jerry,we have the same thing today,it’s just been improved!and yes they knew about all kinds of weapons that the future was going to bring,read some of the bio’s on our founding fathers and you will read they knew of Japans technowlagy and of all things DeVinci and so many other country’s weapons and war tactics!they wern’t as dumb as most progressives want us to believes(powdered wigged white guy’s),they were edamaceted an smart’nuff to sea inta thee futha uv guns an stuff! • CZ52 Jerry, they were quite intelligent and aware of the development that had gone into improving firearms from the very crude first attempts to the best available at the time of the Revolution and writting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The best firearms available were not muskets but rather the Kentucky Long Rifle and other similar rifles. They would have also been aware of the attempts going on at that time to improve firearms such as breach loaders, repeating firearms etc. While they might or might not have envisioned the exact nature of firearms today they certainly would have expected continual development and improvements in firearms. • Adolf Schmidt The Constitution was clear and our forefathers right on track! The right to bare arms so if tyranny presented itself, even in our own government, we as citizens would be able to stand our ground! How would a citizen be able to accomplish this without similar weapons! There are more deaths each year due to poor drivers than gun violence! Maybe we should outlaw cars and make everyone take public transportation! • Bill Jeremy, What a bunch of BS • Jeremy Leochner What BS Bill? • DaveH It’s what you spew, Jeremy (aka Flashman). • Bill Jeremy, Everything you say is BS. It is just political rhetoric to support the socialist agenda • Jeremy Leochner Name something I have said that is nothing more than rhetoric. And please tell me how it supports socialism. • ibcamn Jeremy,just look to large consintration of gangs in big cities(LA,Chicago,Milwaukee,etc..)and also Texas with the border problem with drug dealers!every day,murderers and gun runners jump the fence and add to this rate! • http://personalliberty.com Texas There are probably 4or5 million, or maybe even more armed citizens(not subjects as U.K.) in the USA. I wonder if we even have a million man armed forces? Also, probably 50% of the armed forces will be joining the citizens. Don´t think they will be defending such a government as we have at present time. • Jeremy Leochner Then why is it people treat even basic gun control like gun registries and concealed carry permits as though the government is coming for our guns and genocide is going to ensue. • momo 4 million people belong to the NRA, they’re 85 million gun owners in the U.S. • kkflash Jeremy, I don’t think Texas is around right now so let me try to answer. Have you not noticed that the usurpation of our God-given rights by the various levels of government occurs in tiny incremental steps? They do this so that most don’t notice, and so the mild resistence can be overcome, little by little. The 2nd amendment says “shall not be infringed”. I read that as “shall not be reduced or regulated in any way” and that includes registration and restrictions on purchases. If we allow the government baby steps, before you know it, they’re running at Olympic speed to take away our rights. • Jeremy Leochner This is the problem KK Flash. During Obamas term the only major gun laws have expanded and improved the rights of gun owners. And as for the government taking incremental steps. The problem I have with that theory is the history of tyrants. I look at the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany which are often used as examples of where we are headed. In both cases the tyranny did not come to pass through small and incremental steps. In the case of the soviets they took over in an armed revolution. In the case of Nazi Germany the Nazi party did indeed come to power through the electoral process. However within a few months of their being in power martial law was declared, political parties were outlawed and Hitler was granted absolute power by official decree. And by the way that official decree was made and voted on prior to political parties being banned. So the problem is there comes a point where in order to actually wield any real power the government has to come out in the open with their tyranny. There comes a point where the freedoms of speech and assembly and press and expression are outlawed. There comes a point where the bureaucracy is destroyed. Right now the system prevents efficiency and prevents any sort of tyrannical control. And the same system of laws that politicians exploit are also open to the people to exploit. The people still have the soap box and the ballot box and the jury box. The only way for government to have power is to take these things away from us. And considering how frantic people are about losing their right to keep and bear arms I doubt anyone will be willing to give up the ability to vote or the right to speak or assemble or petition for a redress of grievances any time soon. • DaveH You’re contradicting yourself, Jeremy (aka Flashman). But what else would we expect from a multiple-personality shill? First Jeremy says — “I look at the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany which are often used as examples of where we are headed. In both cases the tyranny did not come to pass through small and incremental steps”. Then later Jeremy says — “So the problem is there comes a point where in order to actually wield any real power the government has to come out in the open with their tyranny”……blah, blah, blah. and he goes on to claim that we haven’t experienced the same incremental steps that he denied in his first statement. • vicki Jeremy Leochner says: “Then why is it people treat even basic gun control like gun registries and concealed carry permits as though the government is coming for our guns and genocide is going to ensue.” Probably because those people know very well that gun registries and requiring permission from the King to exercise their rights are NOT basic gun control. These are end-game gun-control. For basic gun control (I.E. violations of “…shall not be infringed.” you can start with 1837. Georgia passes a law banning handguns. The law is ruled unconstitutional and thrown out. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092699.htm for the rest of the timeline. For actual gun control training go to frontsight dot com • Jeremy Leochner Dave I am not contradicting myself. I was saying in response to KK Flashes comment that I believe that “tyranny did not come to pass through small and incremental steps”. I then explained how the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany came into being not through small and incremental steps but rather through obvious and forceful action. It was from this that I concluded that “there comes a point where in order to actually wield any real power the government has to come out in the open with their tyranny”. The contradiction you say I have is actually the contradiction I was pointing out. KK Flash warned of the rise of tyranny through small and incremental steps. I was pointing out that actual tyrannies like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany contradict that warning. • Jeremy Leochner Vicki you said “Probably because those people know very well that gun registries and requiring permission from the King to exercise their rights are NOT basic gun control. These are end-game gun-control.” Gun registries are how law enforcement can trace guns and determine who owns the weapon used in a murder. If its so bad for someone to get the governments permission to exercise their rights I have to ask do you think its wrong that “Each person intending to engage in business as a firearms dealer, importer or manufacturer or an ammunition importer or manufacturer must obtain the required Federal firearms license prior to commencing business” according to the ATF. • Vicki Jeremy Leochner asks: “If its so bad for someone to get the governments permission to exercise their rights….” Ladies and gentlemen I rest my case. • Jeremy Leochner Vicki why is it that people are selective in their outrage of government violating our rights. People decry that they have to go through bureaucracy in order to buy guns. Yet I hear hardly a peep about the bureaucracy involved in obtaining a license to sell guns. For crying out loud according to the ATF “Each person intending to engage in business as a firearms dealer, importer or manufacturer or an ammunition importer or manufacturer must obtain the required Federal firearms license prior to commencing business”. They might as well have said in order to sell weapons you have to get permission from the government. Yet rarely have I seen people decry that big government. People talk constantly about how the second amendment is unconditional and absolute. That the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ever. Yet I never hear anyone object to the idea of criminals in jail or people in mental institutions or people on parole not being allowed to keep and bear arms. They decry the police state our country is turning into yet people in the NRA including Wayne Lapierre support armed guards in our schools. They decry that schools are being turned into indoctrination centers where the students, a captive audience, are forced to watch government propaganda. Then they turn around and want the teachers supposedly pushing that propaganda to be armed. That is what I was speaking against. I do not want government interfering in peoples rights. I would just appreciate if those who say they do not want government interfering in our lives to be more consistent in their outrage. • Jeremy Leochner I don’t assume the worst of the readers Dave. I just want to try and format my arguments more effectively. • Brian Yoder It is FAR more than 4-5 million people. There is nearly one firearm for each person in the country. True, some of them are antiques or not well maintained, many are in the hands of people unwilling or unable to use them too, and still more are in the hands of people on the other side (probably dozens and dozens of them) so that still leaves far more than 4-5 million armed citizens interested in defending their rights. Let’s just hope it doesn’t come to that. It would be a terrible thing if the government tried to go that way and start a civil war. • DaveH For those people who refuse to be misinformed and led around by the nose by Liberal Progressive shills: http://gunowners.org/a01082013.htm “In the 22 years before enactment of ‘gun free school zones,’ there were two mass school shootings,” Stockman said. “In the 22 years since enactment of ‘gun free schools,’ there have been 10 mass school shootings”. No telling how many of those latter 10 have been staged by sick gun-grabbers. • DaveH Pardon me while I get my boots on. Now the Liberal Progressive shill Jeremy (aka Flashman), from the same group of people who think your money is their money for the taking, is pretending to be concerned about a Police State: “They decry the police state our country is turning into yet people in the NRA including Wayne Lapierre support armed guards in our schools”. If you believe that a guy, who supports Forcing you to buy Health Care Insurance which you neither need nor want, is concerned about a “police state”, then I can’t help you. • Jeremy Leochner Dave I do not support Obama Care. And if you ever drive on a road or bridge built with tax payer dollars than you are also guilty of being “people who think your money is their money for the taking”. Dave I can assure you I would never submit to a police state. • DaveH Jeremy says — “And if you ever drive on a road or bridge built with tax payer dollars than you are also guilty of being “people who think your money is their money for the taking”. That’s some pretty convoluted logic there, Jeremy (aka Flashman). If I don’t vote for other peoples’ money to be taken, how does it become my guilt? Because I drive on roads that I was forced to pay for? You make no sense, Flashman (aka Jeremy), but then I don’t expect sense from Liberal Progressives. • Jeremy Leochner Because Dave you are driving on a road that not only you but others paid for. You are benefiting from money that was taken from other people. Yet you seem to have no problem with it. Tell me something do you support giving welfare or social security or medicare or medicaid to anyone. Do you believe in using tax dollars to pay for anything. Because if you do than you are just as guilty as I am of supporting the government taking money from one person and giving it to another in the form of a service or a product like a road or bridge. You have said I contradict myself. It seems pretty contradictory to me to decry the government taking and spending the peoples tax dollars while at the same time taking advantage of the government taking and spending the peoples tax dollars. • Vicki Jeremy Leochner says: “It seems pretty contradictory to me to decry the government taking and spending the peoples tax dollars while at the same time taking advantage of the government taking and spending the peoples tax dollars.” The problem with your rationalization is the damage has already been done. The money has already been stolen and spent. What we try to do is get people to STOP using government to take other peoples money for their pet projects. Many years ago I realized a good solution to the problem is to have those people who vote FOR a tax (say on a bridge) be the ones who PAY the tax. I have not solved the problem of keeping the ballot secret yet. • Vicki Jeremy Leochner says: “Vicki why is it that people are selective in their outrage of government violating our rights. People decry that they have to go through bureaucracy in order to buy guns. Yet I hear hardly a peep about the bureaucracy involved in obtaining a license to sell guns.” That is because you are new to this discussion. People have been objecting to the license to sell guns since the 1930′s. Typically though you have to go to their websites as most of us have other jobs. • Vicki Jeremy Leochner says: ” if you ever drive on a road or bridge built with tax payer dollars than you are also guilty of being “people who think your money is their money for the taking”. That is VERY convoluted. WE ARE Taxpayers. We were FORCED to give up OUR MONEY to pay for that road. And now you want to blame us for using it? What REALLY makes me annoyed is carpool lanes. I PAID for that lane and yet I am not allowed to use it. So not only did they take my money they then built a road with it and told me to STAY OUT. • Vicki Jeremy Leochner says: “Because Dave you are driving on a road that not only you but others paid for. You are benefiting from money that was taken from other people.” No he is benefiting from money that was taken from HIM. And not at market rate. Yet you seem to think he is wrong to object to this theft. • Jeremy Leochner Vicki my argument boils down to these three statements you made: 1: “That is VERY convoluted. WE ARE Taxpayers. We were FORCED to give up OUR MONEY to pay for that road. And now you want to blame us for using it?” 2: “No he is benefiting from money that was taken from HIM. And not at market rate. Yet you seem to think he is wrong to object to this theft.” 3: “The money has already been stolen and spent. What we try to do is get people to STOP using government to take other peoples money for their pet projects.” What it boils down to is the selective outrage and the hypocrisy. People complain and decry that the government is taking their money at the same time as they are benefiting from it. It sounds like they are saying “How dare the government take our money to pay for this road we are using”. The problems people seem to have are: 1: The fact that they have to pay for it whether they like it or not. 2: The fact that it is sometimes used for things that either they disagree with or they do not benefit from. As for the first reason. I respect that people do not like being forced to do things. But that’s no excuse for not doing them when they need to be done. Our countries has bills to pay. It has to pay for the services that are provided to all of us the people. I hate that I have to be called to jury duty same as the next person. But having juries is still important. Just because you may not want to do it does not mean you can simply opt out. As for the second it goes back to the selective outrage I mentioned. There are many on this site and who appear on the national media who say in no uncertain terms that taxes are no different than a thug coming to your house and stealing your money at gun point. In addition these same people often use terms like thief or socialist or big government liberal to describe those who disagree with them. But one thing I notice is that there is always at least one thing that these people are okay with having tax dollars pay for. And there is always some way in which they themselves benefit from tax dollars. However they continue to call taxes thievery and socialism while never admitting or mentioning that either they or something they support benefit from it. This has lead me to develop the theory that it is only theft or it is only socialism when its something that they don’t want. The problem is socialism and theft are not selectively applicable. Either it is or it is not. And the people who stir up outrage against “Big Government” and “The Thievery of the tax system” never add the disclaimer about things they disagree with or which do not benefit them. They simply stir up hatred against the generic government and act like anyone who disagrees with them is a big government shill or socialist. Well personally I have no problem with people speaking out against taxes being spent on things they disagree with or which do not directly benefit them. Heck I would even be okay with people calling the spending of tax dollars on things they disagree with theft. But where I get angry is when people use selective hyperbolic language and generalizing. Because I consider it the definition of hypocrisy to decry a system which you yourself benefit from and which you actually support selectively. • Brian Yoder Since I am one of those people who both objects to being robbed and also will take back part of what is stolen from me if I can, I should respond to your accusations that I am a hypocrite. If you ask me whether I actually like those few programs that pay me back a little of what is stolen from me, I say no. PLEASE go ahead and stop providing me with those “benefits”, but as long as I am being stolen from I am not going to let the government clobber me again by leaving me out of the give-aways. The hypocrites are the ones who say something along the lines of “I don’t want to pay for all of this stuff but don’t your dare cut off my bit of the pork.”. Those are indeed hypocrites, but that’s not their only alternative. Let’s consider the guys on the other side though. The ones who say “Yes, tax that guy over there (say, “that rich guy” for example) and give the money to me.” are the worst of all don’t you think? Then there’s a little better category that says some version of “Tax away my own money and use that money to pay my subsidies.” but how many such people are there like that? Why would they expect to get good value for their money by sending it through Washington? These folks are fools and small in number. Most are somehow expecting to get something for nothing. • Nick Czudy Jeremy Well spoken I agree. Things that the government pays for that these complainers expect and do not think that their taxes are paying for are the same politicians that are in Washington and their states capitals. the army, the banking system, the power and energy infrastructure, NOAA and the storm monitoring agencies (They do get toronadoes, don’t they?) Immigration and border security, Harbours and waterways for boating as well as imports (they do love their cheap goods from Wallmart?), clearing snow from the roads, helping with natural dissasters and on and on. You get the idea. There may be things that we do not see come back directly to us, but indirectly there are lots of benefits that come back daily. • Jeremy Leochner Alright Brian I understand. I just don’t consider taxes to be stealing since we all derive benefit. Because those things that benefit you and I include roads and bridges as mentioned, public buildings like libraries and museums, police and fire departments, the United States Armed forces which helps protect the country from threats from abroad, a social safety net should you or I ever slip into the lower economic class or should be beset by some unexpected event that requires assistance from the government such as disability to help us get through, among other things. There are a lot of ways people can benefit from tax money. But I will also say to the idea that taxes are stealing, tell that to those on social security medicare and medicaid who also paid in for the services they receive. Tell that to the millions that are given the basic needs of life by government not because they want it but because they need and deserve it. And as for your argument about those on the other side ” The ones who say “Yes, tax that guy over there (say, “that rich guy” for example) and give the money to me.” are the worst of all don’t you think?”. No one is just arbitrarily deciding who should pay more. The marginal tax rate on the top 2% of wage earners is at the lowest it has been in 50 years. While at the same time according to an article in the Huffington post in 2010 the top 10% of wage earners in this country controlled 74.5% of the wealth in this country. While the bottom 50% controlled less than 3.6%.-http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/households-wealth-american-1-percent_n_1687015.html And the idea for what to do with the money obtained through an increase in taxes is not “give the money to me”. Its to dedicate more money to paying off the deficit and debt and to focus more on the social safety net and less on pork barrel projects and special interests. • Vicki Jeremy Leochner says: “Alright Brian I understand. I just don’t consider taxes to be stealing since we all derive benefit.” We all derive benefit from the thief who steals someone’s TV. He now has a tv and (for a while) our tv is safe from him. Does that mean we should condone the actions of the thief? - Jeremy Leochner: “And as for your argument about those on the other side ” The ones who say “Yes, tax that guy over there (say, “that rich guy” for example) and give the money to me.” are the worst of all don’t you think?”. No one is just arbitrarily deciding who should pay more. ” They do demand that “the rich” pay more (no number given) then the government arbitrarily chooses a number (those making more than$250,000, or 400,000 or 1,000,000)

- Jeremy Leochner: “And the idea for what to do with the money obtained through an increase in taxes is not “give the money to me”. Its to dedicate more money to paying off the deficit and debt and to focus more on the social safety net and less on pork barrel projects and special interests.”

Social Safety net (welfare, etc) is the “give the money to me”. Also as pointed out the pork barrel stuff is the Crony version of “give the money to me”

• Jeremy Leochner

Vicki

“We all derive benefit from the thief who steals someone’s TV. He now has a tv and (for a while) our tv is safe from him. Does that mean we should condone the actions of the thief?”

By benefiting from him you are condoning it. By supporting anything the thief gives too you are condoning him.

“They do demand that “the rich” pay more (no number given) then the government arbitrarily chooses a number (those making more than \$250,000, or 400,000 or 1,000,000)”

I am not one of they. I believe the top 2% of wage earners as defined under the bush tax cuts.

“Social Safety net (welfare, etc) is the “give the money to me”. Also as pointed out the pork barrel stuff is the Crony version of “give the money to me”

The problem is those on welfare and etc need and deserve that money. And they also pay into it.

• speedle

Jeremy, you are misusing the facts and data. Britain and the U.S. are different cultures. Check the historical data on gun control in the UK and you will find that gun violence in the UK has INCREASED since it first enacted gun control laws. That is the only valid conclusion that can be drawn from the gun control comparison.

There is no reason to think (based on everything we know) that the same result would not occur in the U.S. (increased gun violence with gun control). The comparison of violence between the two countries is completely irrelevant.

• Dennis48e

You speak truth speedle. If you go back 200-250 years to the time there was little or no gun control in the UK the gun crime rates for UK vs US were similar to what they are now.

• Jeremy Leochner

Speedle Gun control is an ambiguous term. Merriam websters defines Gun Control as ” regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns”. The key word is regulation. Without regulation there is no gun control. Without gun control there is no regulation. Some form of gun control is necessary. Just as there are ways to legislate to prevent things like drunk driving so there are ways to legislate to reduce gun violence.

• Chuck S

The dictionary definition of gun control is inadequate. People have their own definitions, which probably vary a lot. The term “more gun control” is pretty meaningful, but different people have different ideas about how much more.

There is also the suspicion that people, especially prominent people, may actually want a lot more than they say they do. And that legislation they introduce will actually do a lot more than they say it will.

• Vicki

Jeremy Leochner says:
“Gun control is an ambiguous term. Merriam websters defines Gun Control as ” regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns”. The key word is regulation.

First Known Use of GUN CONTROL
1964. Note also that it is listed as a noun but is actually 2 words.

Jeremy Leochner says: “Without regulation there is no gun control. Without gun control there is no regulation.”

truism. No actual debate value.

Jeremy Leochner says: “Some form of gun control is necessary.”

Why yes some form of gun control is. Get your training at http://www.frontsight.com

Jeremy Leochner says: “Just as there are ways to legislate to prevent things like drunk driving so there are ways to legislate to reduce gun violence.”

And those ways have been in place for hundreds or thousands of years.

Laws against murder
Laws against mayhem
Laws against robbery
Laws against …..

You will notice that smart people made laws against criminal actions REGUARDLESS of the tool used.

Oh and just like your “drunk driving laws” criminals IGNORE THEM.

• Bill

Jeremy,
True gun control is being able to hit what you aim at

• Bill

Vicki
You are on the right track. Front sites is a good place to learn how to shoot in a real situation, moreso than just on the range.

Keep up the good work, Vickie. We won’t be reading about you as a victim

• Jeremy Leochner

I agree Chuck. Which is why it is not enough to simply say Gun Control violates the second amendment.

• Jeremy Leochner

Sorry for my truism Vicki. I was making a logical error there. As for your statement about some form of gun control being necessary. We both agree on that. Because I believe that some form of gun control is necessary I believe that Speedles prediction “increased gun violence with gun control” is hyperbolic.

• speedle

Jeremy, I am afraid you are running a bit low on rationalization by resorting to splitting hairs on word meanings. Everyone here (including you) understands what “gun control” means in the context of the Chicago gangster Obama and his political sycophants.

It is not so much about “regulating” the sale and use of guns as it is “controlling” those who have them. “They” want to know who you are and where you live…..(just in case)….they ever need to come for you or your weapons. So please let’s not water the discussion down with silly semantics, or act as if the political motivation here is concern over the safety of the public.

Instead let’s talk about whether we need to be “controlled” and patronized by government (with all the perceived goodies that go with it), or whether we choose to be a free society. Trying to prove a point with sound bite statistics is a complete waste of time.

• Jeremy Leochner

The problem Speedle is you say that that is what gun control means. You equate gun control with government control. I equate gun control with a broad term that includes any form of regulation involving guns. You believe “It is not so much about “regulating” the sale and use of guns as it is “controlling” those who have them.” I am a supporter of stronger gun control and an Obama supporter. However I do not want to control people and I do not think that Obama or his administration do either. You say I am splitting heirs about meanings. I wouldn’t be splitting heirs if I did not think your use of the words represent your views on the issue.

• Vicki

Jeremy Leochner says:
“The problem Speedle is you say that that is what gun control means. You equate gun control with government control. I equate gun control with a broad term that includes any form of regulation involving guns.”

Since regulations ONLY come from government your claim of a broad term is irrelevant and probably disingenuous. Particularly since YOU gave the definition from Websters in this very sub-thread (January 11, 2013 at 12:07 pm.)

Jeremy Leochner: ” You (speedle) believe “It is not so much about “regulating” the sale and use of guns as it is “controlling” those who have them.”

Yet you continue to advocate controlling who can buy them and who can carry them and who can use them. Seems like speedle has your position down just fine.

Jeremy Leochner: ”I am a supporter of stronger gun control and an Obama supporter. However I do not want to control people and I do not think that Obama or his administration do either.”

Which is why Obamacare FORCES people to buy a product.
Jeremy do you even have the faintest idea how statements like yours above make you look?

Jeremy Leochner: ”You say I am splitting heirs about meanings.”

I’d say not so much about splitting hairs (I have no intention of cutting up your progeny.) as observing how much we can teach you. Should you decide to learn.

Jeremy Leochner: ”I wouldn’t be splitting heirs if I did not think your use of the words represent your views on the issue.”

Look. Another truism.

• Jeremy Leochner

Vicki I was not trying to be disingenuous. I’ll try to avoid another truism. I apologize for repeating but the definition of gun control from merriam websters is: “regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns”. I believe that based on this definition if someone supports any regulation of guns than they support gun control in some form. Speedle made a very absolutist statement generalizing gun control itself as bad and painting it as government control. If Speedle supports any regulations on guns then by his own comments he supports government control is what I was trying to say.

Vicki I will ask you if you believe that convicted criminals should be allowed to buy and own guns. Should people in mental institutions be allowed to buy and own guns and should parolees be allowed. Because if you don’t believe that should than both of us support the idea of “controlling” who can buy and carry and use guns.

As for Obama care though I support the idea of trying to make sure everyone gets affordable health care I do not support the plan used in Obama Care that simply requires everyone to purchase it from health insurance companies.

Sorry about the truism Vicki. The reason I made the statement was I felt Speedle was attributing my statements to nothing more than my splitting hairs. I was trying to point that I felt justified in making my statements and that they did not fall under the rubric of splitting hairs.

• DaveH

Jeremy,
Should people be allowed to steal using a gun?

• DaveH

Jeremy (aka Flashman),
Should people in groups be allowed to steal?

• Jeremy Leochner

Dave the answers are No and No and No and No. I am sorry Dave but if I believe in something strongly I continue to believe it. Sorry if I sound repetitive.

• DaveH

But if that group of people (with or without guns) is 60 million in size, your rules for some reason change. Why is that, Jeremy?
Why is it wrong for small groups of people to take other peoples’ property, but somehow it becomes right because there are 60 million of you taking other peoples’ property?

• DaveH

Jeremy (aka Flashman) will either dance around the issue or ignore answering my question.
For those whose Principles don’t just change to suit their current selfish interests:
http://mises.org/daily/4125

• Jeremy Leochner

Dave I will try to not dance around the issue or your question. I need to be clear first. Who are the 60 million you are talking about?

• DaveH

The people who vote knowingly to take other peoples’ money, Jeremy (aka Flashman).
What next? Are you going to ask me for an exact figure? And you claim you aren’t dancing around?

• Jeremy Leochner

Dave I can’t address a generalized and ambiguous figure. You just said 60 million people “who vote knowingly to take other peoples money”. I have never heard of that figure Dave. Are you talking about people who identify themselves with a particular party or platform. Are you talking about the people who voted for Obama. Are you talking about some sort of economic or political group. Give me some sources and specifics. With all due respect Dave you accuse me of dancing around the issue and giving you a direct response. And yet you expect me to respond to an figure with no citation. Yes Dave I need an exact figure. I also need to know where you get the figure from.

• Vicki

DaveH says:
“The people who vote knowingly to take other peoples’ money, Jeremy (aka Flashman).
What next? Are you going to ask me for an exact figure?”

Amusingly he did ask you for an exact figure.

Jeremy Leochner says:
“Yes Dave I need an exact figure. I also need to know where you get the figure from.”

Why do you need an exact figure? DaveH is asking you if you think it is ok for people to use the power of government (through voting) to steal money or property when you have already said that it is not ok for individuals or groups to steal money or property.

Why should the size of the group matter?

• Jeremy Leochner

Vicki the problem is Dave is asking me if I think its “ok for people to use the power of government (through voting) to steal money or property”. The problem is I do not think anyone is doing that, other than lobbyists. If there are I would love to discuss them. But I need to know who it is we are talking about first. I am not going to say whether or not I disagree with a group I have never heard of. I have never heard of people who say “I think its ok to use the power of government to steal money and property from others”. I have never heard of the “steal money and property from some to give to others act”. I need some specifics I can discuss. I do not support stealing money or property from people. If this 60 million Dave mentions support that than I disagree with them. But a figure with no citation or support or explanation seems suspicious to me. Especially when Dave has said I believe in stealing other peoples money through government when in fact I do not.

• Vicki

Jeremy Leochner says:
“Vicki the problem is Dave is asking me if I think its “ok for people to use the power of government (through voting) to steal money or property”. The problem is I do not think anyone is doing that, other than lobbyists. If there are I would love to discuss them. But I need to know who it is we are talking about first.”

Thus you are guilty as charged by DaveH, of dancing around the VERY simple question.

- Jeremy Leochner: “I am not going to say whether or not I disagree with a group I have never heard of.”

Thus you HAVE answered the question put to you by DaveH. You have told us that you DO think that it is ok to use the power of government (through voting) to steal money or property

- Jeremy Leochner: “I need some specifics I can discuss.”

You were given the specifics. I even removed the distraction for you.

– Jeremy Leochner: “I do not support stealing money or property from people.”

If that were a true statement than you could have answered DaveH’s question no matter what specifics he did or did not include. The fact that you think there is a group that can steal is inherent in your statement that you needed to know which group.

– Jeremy Leochner: “If this 60 million Dave mentions support that than I disagree with them. But a figure with no citation or support or explanation seems suspicious to me.”

I removed it (the figure) for you and you continued to dance around.

- Jeremy Leochner: “Especially when Dave has said I believe in stealing other peoples money through government when in fact I do not.”

IF you REALLY did not believe in stealing then you would not need to know what specific group was doing it to answer DaveH’s question.

• Jeremy Leochner

Vicki never in my entire life have I heard anyone say that they support using the government to steal from people to give to others. Never in my entire life have I seen any act of legislation that says steal from some to give to others. You have talked to me about my use of truisms. I consider it a truism to say I do not support stealing from some to give to others. That’s like saying I do not believe in murdering people. I did not dance around the question. I was trying to understand it. As to one of your earlier posts my issue was not with the size of the group Dave mentioned. It was whether the group existed at all.

• JUKEBOX

I wonder what the per capita homicide rate is in England compared to the U.S., forgetting the gun factor.

• Jim S

Many people seem to get confused by the opening sentence of the 2nd Amendment
concerning “militia”. Here is the best explanation of the Amendment I have ever

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

• Jeremy Leochner

Here is the problem with the rigid and unconditional interpretation of the second amendment. Criminals who are locked up are not allowed to keep and bear arms, people with criminal records are not allowed, those on parole are not allowed, children are not allowed, those in mental institutions are not allowed, terrorists who are on the no fly list are not allowed. So there are situations and rightly so where indeed the right of the people to keep and bear arms can and is infringed. And in the same way that there are laws against slander and libel in regards to the first amendment so there are laws against abuses and negligence in regards to the second amendment. And as for militia the second amendment states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”. It does not say the right of the people to keep and bear arms being necessary to the security of a free state, it says a well regulated militia. I respect that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is important for having a militia. But if we are going to take a strict linguistic approach to the second amendment than I think it is clear that a militia was intended to be the peoples defense against tyranny, not their personal right to keep and bear arms.

• kkflash

Jeremy, you are so wrong in your interpretation of the 2nd! You’re completely forgetting that the vernacular of the 1700′s was different than today. You’re ignoring the fact that there was no standing army and the people WERE the militia. Read some of the posts here by Dennis48e and Skptk for a more thorough understanding of the 2nd.

• Jeremy Leochner

Yes KK Flash there were militias. However the founders were rising up against a monarchy whose army was beholden to him and not the people. Our country established a standing army in the form of the continental army which was the nucleus of the future armed forces. The reason I say what I say about the second amendment is that I believe that an organized militia, not a bunch of armed self declared freedom fighters is what is needed to fight tyranny. I say this in response to the numerous people I have heard and seen suggesting that some how placing any restrictions at all on how, where or when people may purchase a gun will lead to tyranny. The arguments from people like Wayne lapierre or Alex Jones make it seem as though any gun control or any gun regulation will prevent the people from defending themselves from tyranny. I am simply pointing out that I do not believe that requiring someone to go through a background check in order to purchase what may be the only gun they will ever buy is akin to denying that individual their right to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

• kkflash

P.S. to my post above. The link provided by Jim S is to an excellent and well-documented article about the meaning of the 2nd. The article contradicts, in part, the opinion of Dennis48e, that “well-regulated” meant “well prepared” in the 1700′s. It also supports, with expert testimony, the assertion that the present participle phrase “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”, in no way conditions the right of the people to keep and bear arms upon the existence of or need for the militia.

• eddie47d

KKFLASH keeps contradicting himself. You are absolutely correct in saying that our Founding Fathers didn’t have a standing army behind them. Thus the necessity of the militias. Today we do have a standing army thus no need for the militias. The 2nd was written for those militias to come to the defense of the nation and authorized them to have arms to do so. With todays standing army and States National Guards that is no longer necessary.

• Vicki

Jeremy Leochner says:
January 11, 2013 at 12:19 pm

Here is the problem with the rigid and unconditional interpretation of the second amendment.”
(snip)
“So there are situations and rightly so where indeed the right of the people to keep and bear arms can and is infringed.”

The right of the people to walk freely can and is infringed. You may have heard of the place. It is commonly called JAIL. And the method is in the very same constitution. Are you sure you want us to drop the rigid and unconditional interpretation of the 5th amendment?

• Vicki

Jeremy Leochner says:
“I am simply pointing out that I do not believe that requiring someone to go through a background check in order to purchase what may be the only gun they will ever buy is akin to denying that individual their right to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.”

How say you about a background check in order to vote?

• Vicki

Jeremy Leochner says:
“I respect that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is important for having a militia.”

Yet you continue to argue that they can not keep and bear arms.

Jeremy Leochner: “But if we are going to take a strict linguistic approach to the second amendment than I think it is clear that a militia was intended to be the peoples defense against tyranny, not their personal right to keep and bear arms.”

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

Now you can KNOW and not merely think.

• Jeremy Leochner

Vicki I am naturally inclined to try and find a middle position. I do not want to disregard our constitution and its amendments. Where I am concerned is an absolutist and unconditional interpretation of them. I believe that such an interpretation makes hypocrisy and contradiction inevitable. I will use the examples I gave. If in fact we follow the second amendment to the letter and agree that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed than we have no choice but to recognize the constitutional right to keep and bear arms of all the people. Incarcerated criminals, those in mental institutions, felons and those on parole. All of these people fall under the term “the people”. If we are truly to say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed in any way than we have no choice but to recognize the right to keep and bear arms of the individuals I mentioned. Because if we do not than we as a society are agreeing that in some situations and under some circumstances indeed the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be infringed. If we are going to take a rigid stance on the second amendment I see only trouble arising.

• Jeremy Leochner

Vicki I have never said that the people should not have the right to keep and bear arms. What I am trying to say is regulations of how, where and when to buy guns does not equal the loss of our second amendment rights.

• JeffH

eddie, you don’t have the slightest clue when you say stuff like “Today we do have a standing army thus no need for the militias. The 2nd was written for those militias to come to the defense of the nation and authorized them to have arms to do so. With todays standing army and States National Guards that is no longer necessary.”

This is what the Framers intentions were with the 2nd Amendment.

Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment

The Second 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.

The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a “collective right.” The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people’s right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

Try to educate yourself before you speak about something you have no insight or knowledge of.

• Dennis48e

It has been said before and I will say it again. Until it is altered or over riden by a new amendment the 2nd amendment stands as written and intended by the authors of it. It does not matter if we now have a huge standing army, no army at all, or something in between.

• Vicki

Jeremy Leochner says:
“Vicki I have never said that the people should not have the right to keep and bear arms.”

You have simply tried to say that we have the right to keep and bear arms that YOU want to “let” us have.

Jeremy Leochner: “What I am trying to say is regulations of how, where and when to buy guns does not equal the loss of our second amendment rights.”

Since we have the right to keep and bear arms and to do so means that we have the right to make or purchase them. Regulations of how, where, and WHEN to purchase them does indeed equal the loss of our 2nd Amendment rights. As MLK is infamous for saying “A right delayed is a right denied.

Also you failed to account for all the regulations of how, where, and when we can bear arms.

You failed to account for all the regulations of how, where, and when we can keep (posses) arms.

You failed to account for the simple meaning of ….SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED…

Makes me wonder if you are a native English speaker or are President Clinton masquerading as Jeremy. (Depends on what the definition of “is” is)

• Vicki

Jeremy Leochner says:
“Vicki I am naturally inclined to try and find a middle position. I do not want to disregard our constitution and its amendments.”

Then don’t

Jeremy Leochner: “Where I am concerned is an absolutist and unconditional interpretation of them.”

So were the founders. That is why they kept them simple and to the point. And just in case the founders missed a detail they added the ability to make amendments.

Jeremy Leochner: “I believe that such an interpretation makes hypocrisy and contradiction inevitable.”

I know that conditional interpretation of them WILL make hypocrisy and contradiction inevitable. As written there were not contradictions. Contradictions appeared when people began to make absolute into relative.

Jeremy Leochner: “I will use the examples I gave. If in fact we follow the second amendment to the letter and agree that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed than we have no choice but to recognize the constitutional right to keep and bear arms of all the people. Incarcerated criminals, those in mental institutions, felons and those on parole. All of these people fall under the term “the people”.”

I will try again to point out the serious flaw in your logic. Amendment 5. Explicitly describes the method by which ALL your cases are dealt with. As soon as you notice this and notice that we have lots of laws to punish misuse of ANY right and QUIT TRYING TO PUNISH THE INNOCENT, the sooner we can have a meaningful discussion of a problem that was solved over 200 years ago.

Jeremy Leochner: “If we are truly to say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed in any way than we have no choice but to recognize the right to keep and bear arms of the individuals I mentioned.”

If you would really stick to the individuals you claim then you would not be constantly advocating laws that infringe on keeping and bearing arms by law abiding citizens. But since you don’t, we know that you are lying when you claim to be looking for a “middle position”.

• eddie47d

Aren’t you glad you have a right to your opinion Jeff H .I just don’t agree with you!

• Jeremy Leochner

This is a response to the first post Vicki.

Its not about my letting anyone have anything. I just have my views on such issues. Sadly my views involve the lives of others so I need to be careful in my decisions. If there is legislation that I feel reflects my views I will vote for it. If you see the same legislation and disagree you can vote against it. If it passes than I’ll be happy. If not so be it. I will incorporate what you have said the next time I look at gun control legislation. As for regulations I believe that things I mentioned in the first post I made on this article are ones that do not infringe on a persons rights to keep and bear arms. I do not support bans and I a suppose concealed gun permits are an infringement on the right to bear arms. I assure you I am a native English speaker and I am not President Clinton. I will say when he made that statement he did put his foot in his mouth, which was quite a feat since at the time his head was up his ass.

• Jeremy Leochner

This is to your second post Vicki

On your first comment I certainly won’t.

On your second. I believe the founders did make it simple. However I feel that people like Mr. Lapierre and Mr. Jones and some others who have taken it upon themselves to speak on behalf of gun owners are not making a simple and to the point argument.

On your third and forth comments. My issue is not a matter involving the fifth amendment. The fact of the matter is that criminals behind bars are not allowed to keep and bear arms while in prison. So there are some exceptions to the second amendment.

On your fifth and sixth comments. I apologize if it sounded like I was lumping all those people together Vicki. The purpose of my statements was to counter act what I feel are hyperbolic and vitriolic statements from those like Mr. Lapierre and Mr. Jones. The statements that these men have made make it out as though any regulation at all is akin to hatred for the second amendment and that any exception to the second amendment is little better than treason. Some of the comments made in particular by Mr. Jones make me wonder what would happen if he was told that gun shops charge money to buy guns or that gun shops close or that in order to sell guns you have to get a license from the government. I would not be surprised if Mr. Jones considered those minor inconveniences to be no different than tearing the second amendment out of the constitution. I do not see all or even the majority of gun owners as being like Mr. Jones or Mr. Lapierre. However I feel concerned when I see them on the major news networks essentially running the debate and becoming the public face of it. When I hear their comments and ideas echoed by people on other networks or even on this site I get worried. I am not as in the middle as I wish I could be. I suppose we all have certain things we feel strongly about. I believe the second amendment recognizes our right to keep and bear arms. I believe that once you have a gun there is nothing the government can do unless you violate another persons rights. And I believe that the second amendment does not guarantee that any person can obtain a gun anywhere they want, anytime they want and through whatever means they want. Once people have a gun they can keep it. They can keep it for protection or to hunt or to form a militia or whatever floats their boat as long as they do not violate the rights and safety of others. I believe the second amendment is clear on keeping and bearing arms but I feel the obtaining of those arms is left open to interpretation. The only area where I might be considered extreme is schools. I flat out refuse to have teachers be armed in schools. Or students or faculty. I am sorry if you think less of me for this Vicki but this is one area where I feel strongly. But to end on a good note you have helped me understand the issue a little more and I will try my best to incorporate what you have said into my viewpoint.

• Vicki

Jeremy Leochner says:
“This is a response to the first post Vicki.

Its not about my letting anyone have anything. I just have my views on such issues. Sadly my views involve the lives of others so I need to be careful in my decisions. If there is legislation that I feel reflects my views I will vote for it. If you see the same legislation and disagree you can vote against it.”

Ah but that is the beauty of a Constitutionally LIMITED Republic. Even if we both want to infringe on the rights of people to keep and bear arms we are NOT allowed to. In our particular system we (you and I) don’t vote anyway. The system where you and I vote is called a democracy and if not also limited you and I could vote to take away not only Fred’s right to own firearms, we could take away his business or even family. This is the danger of democracy. It only takes getting the majority to vote a specific way. You may even have heard the term “Tyranny of the Majority”, though I have come to really like Mel Gibson’s line from “The Patriot”

“Would you tell me please, Mr. Howard, why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?”

Note also that our founders, being VERY aware of the dangers of democracy, based our system not on the votes of the masses, but on the rights of the individual.
———————————————————————–
“Governments, they said, are instituted ONLY to secure these rights.

But suppose that wasn’t the case. Suppose freedom of speech or the right to worship, for example, hinged on majority rule. Would speech then be “free” or worship a “right”? No, we’d have approved speech and authorized worship – gifts of the ballot box, revocable at some future election.

Sadly, even many otherwise intelligent people seem not to grasp this concept fully. They’ve gotten it into their noggins that so long as there’s a solid turnout at the voting booth, then all’s well with the country. Regardless of what’s being voted on, or what particular rights-trampling plan this or that politician champions, if enough of us will just show up on election day and pull a lever, then freedom’s secure. ”
———————————————————————-
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2004/05/majority-rule-the-tyrants-next-door/

- Jeremy Leochner: “As for regulations I believe that things I mentioned in the first post I made on this article are ones that do not infringe on a persons rights to keep and bear arms.”

I looked at what I think is your first post. (January 11, 2013 at 2:54 am) I found no list of regulations. The list of things you mentioned I already addressed in my post to you at (January 11, 2013 at 4:13 am)

- Jeremy Leochner: “I do not support bans and I a suppose concealed gun permits are an infringement on the right to bear arms.”

Agreed. (See we CAN agree. )

- Jeremy Leochner: “I assure you I am a native English speaker and I am not President Clinton.”

Ok.

• Jeremy Leochner

You know what Vicki I agree with you on all those things you said. Indeed we can agree.

• Skptk

Your idea that since criminals behind bars not being allowed to keep and bear arms is an acceptable “exception” to the Second Amendment, therefore honest people who are not behind bars should not complain about expanded exceptions that restrict their rights is a non sequitur, and tantamount to asserting that honest citizens should be treated like criminals. Hmm – echoes of Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder, and the rest of the “Occupy the White House” crowd.

• Vicki

Jeremy Leochner says:
“This is to your second post Vicki

On your third and forth comments. My issue is not a matter involving the fifth amendment. The fact of the matter is that criminals behind bars are not allowed to keep and bear arms while in prison. So there are some exceptions to the second amendment.”

That is NOT an exception. READ the 5th Amendment. “….nor be deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY, without due process of law.”

To use the claim that criminals behind bars are not allowed to keep and bear arms as your reason of why you will TAKE away the right of people that are NOT criminals (without even bothering with due process) show clearly the serious flaw in your position.

- Jeremy Leochner: “The statements that these men have made make it out as though any regulation at all is akin to hatred for the second amendment and that any exception to the second amendment is little better than treason.”

They are correct. The 2nd is quite easy to understand if you actually know the definitions of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Let us use your logic. Criminals behind bars are not allowed to speak freely nor vote nor move freely about nor choose with whom they will associate. By your logic we should pass a law baning paper, pens, soapboxes etc from the MILLIONS of people that have never been convicted of a crime just because there are some “exceptions” to the first amendment.

- Jeremy Leochner: “Some of the comments made in particular by Mr. Jones make me wonder what would happen if he was told that gun shops charge money to buy guns or that gun shops close”

Those actions are not of the government.

- Jeremy Leochner: “or that in order to sell guns you have to get a license from the government.”

I.E. Permission of the king to sell their private property. That is a direct infringement.

- Jeremy Leochner: “I would not be surprised if Mr. Jones considered those minor inconveniences to be no different than tearing the second amendment out of the constitution.”

I would not either. A right delayed is a right denied.

• Vicki

- Jeremy Leochner: “I am not as in the middle as I wish I could be.”

There is no middle here. There is the law. The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That’s the law. It is a specific prohibition on GOVERNMENT.

I suppose we all have certain things we feel strongly about. I believe the second amendment recognizes our right to keep and bear arms.”

Yet you have no problem infringing on that right in dozens of ways.

- Jeremy Leochner: “I believe that once you have a gun there is nothing the government can do unless you violate another persons rights.”

Yet you are quite happy with making it difficult for me to get the gun. A right delayed is a right denied.

- Jeremy Leochner: “And I believe that the second amendment does not guarantee that any person can obtain a gun anywhere they want, anytime they want and through whatever means they want.”

The 2nd PROTECTS my right to peaceably seek the legitimate owner of a gun and to enter into a transaction to trade some value for the gun. The 2nd protects my right to own it. The 2nd protects my RIGHT to carry it around.

- Jeremy Leochner: “Once people have a gun they can keep it. They can keep it for protection or to hunt or to form a militia or whatever floats their boat as long as they do not violate the rights and safety of others.”

Good. Now if we can just get past your desire to make it as difficult as possible for me to get the gun.

- Jeremy Leochner: “I believe the second amendment is clear on keeping and bearing arms but I feel the obtaining of those arms is left open to interpretation.”

Lets say that obtaining a ballot to vote is made really really difficult. You can still vote once you get a hold of a ballot. Would that not be an infringement on the theoretical right to vote?

• Vicki

- Jeremy Leochner: “The only area where I might be considered extreme is schools. I flat out refuse to have teachers be armed in schools. Or students or faculty. ”

If you are the owner of the school, go for it. If it is not your school then you have no say in the matter beyond not going there and not sending your kids there.

- Jeremy Leochner: “I am sorry if you think less of me for this Vicki but this is one area where I feel strongly.”

Feel as strongly as you want but quit forcing your feelings on others. We have seen more than enough bloodshed in “GUN-FREE” Zones because the criminals ignore the gun-free part. Meanwhile the law abiding are waiting minutes for the police when seconds count.

- Jeremy Leochner: “But to end on a good note you have helped me understand the issue a little more and I will try my best to incorporate what you have said into my viewpoint.”

Thank you. I started this adventure myself a few years ago with opinions much like the ones you have expressed here. May your path be as enlightened as possible.

• Jeremy Leochner

Hey Vicki. This one is to your first response.

Vicki you said “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY, without due process of law.”
So you can be deprived of them with due process. That is an exception to the rule that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. According to the fifth amendment with due process it can be infringed.

That is not my reason for believing what I believe. The reason I am focusing on this argument is against those like Mr. Jones who pride themselves on believing strictly in the second amendment being without exception. They seem to ignore that according to the constitution so long as due process as given the government is allowed to infringe on the right to bear arms. If under those circumstances it is considered okay why is it everyone becomes so enraged when things like more thorough background checks or longer waiting periods is suggested.

As for you logic. I do not support banning people from having guns. In regards to your example “By your logic we should pass a law banning paper, pens, soapboxes etc from the MILLIONS of people that have never been convicted of a crime just because there are some “exceptions” to the first amendment.” This goes back to my argument against the extreme rhetoric I see in the national debate. I constantly hear talk about the increasing political correctness of our culture and how we are not able to speak freely. Yet no one seems so upset about the exceptions made to the first amendment in regards to convicted criminals. My problem is I see rage and fury running the debates on the national news networks. Yet the rage and fury seems somewhat selective at times.

I understand those actions are not the government. Mr. Jones anger makes it hard for me to tell if he knows that.

Vicki you say “A right delayed is a right denied.” Vicki are you saying you do not support any gun control. Because I do not see how we can in any way regulate guns unless we in some ways delay people from getting them.

• Jeremy Leochner

Vicki

I agree it is a prohibition on the government. But I think we disagree on where the line is drawn.

I do not wish to infringe on anyones rights. And I do not think that back ground checks and waiting periods infringe on ones right to keep and bear arms.

I do not want to make it difficult for you Vicki.

Your right about what the second does. I believe that the second amendment allows for regulation of the transaction you mentioned.

As to your example I think that that would be an infringement. I have this view as you know of the first amendment as our first line of defense. So I am more touchy on the idea of creating delays for voting. I see guns differently because I do not see them as necessary at this time to prevent a tyrannical government. So I believe that in allowing for some regulation of guns I am not placing anyone in danger so far as rights v government is concerned.

I can’t believe I waited this long to ask. What do you think we should do Vicki? I have said a lot. What ideas do you have for our system of gun control?

• DaveH

Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — “So you can be deprived of them with due process. That is an exception to the rule that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. According to the fifth amendment with due process it can be infringed”.
It’s pretty obvious by now that Flashman (aka Jeremy) is purposely equivocating. Even the Jeremy personality of Flashman can’t be that ignorant.
The Fifth Amendment:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation”.
You’re a liar, Jeremy (aka Flashman). And one sick puppy to boot.

• Jeremy Leochner

How am I a liar Dave. The fifth amendment states that life, liberty and property cannot be deprived without due process. Forgive me if I seem to equivocate. However I am pretty sure that if it says life liberty and property cannot be taken away without due process that means it can be taken away with due process. There is a way in which life liberty and property can be taken. Therefore there are situations in which the right to keep and bear arms can be infringed. I am not equivocating. If ones right to keep and bear arms can be taken away through due process than that means that the right to keep and bear arms can be infringed under certain circumstances. And if due process is given I doubt anyone will raise a cry against it. So my point is this. Our constitution provides a situation in which the second amendment right to keep and bear arms can indeed be infringed on. And since everyone already agrees that this infringement is okay since it prevents convicted criminals from having guns while in prison perhaps we should stop making these generalizing and hyperbolic statements about how Gun Control is bad. Instead we should all recognize that our common enemy is bad guys with guns. No one wants bad guys to have guns. No one wants government to be all powerful. People simply have different standards they wish were implemented. Some want more and some want less. Its not gun control supporters versus gun rights supporters. Its not big government liberals against freedom fighting conservatives and libertarians. Its a complex battle between many different people with many different views on many different issues involved in the larger debate over gun control and gun violence.

• Bruce

Our common enemy is EVIL, not the gun, not the match, not free speak, not gov,, not organized religion, , the common enemy is EVIL.
Lets keep that straight.
The next enemy is ANYONE who allows evil to live inside of them. Lets keep this in focus, it is evil among us that needs to be eliminated, like weeds in a field of grain, we could blame eating ice cream (or anything else) on all of our problems, and we could ban ice cream, but evil will still be there. We need to remove evil from our lives. That should be our main focus. Then locking up those that allow evil to live within themselves, would be the next job to accomplish, to keep the rest of us safe from the evil within them, that they think they have a right to grow and foster. It is evil we battle, if we win the reward is great indeed. I don’t want to think about losing that fight. But it would be best if we tried to win with all our power until we die.

• Vicki

Jeremy Leochner says:
“Vicki you said “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY, without due process of law.”
So you can be deprived of them with due process. That is an exception to the rule that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. According to the fifth amendment with due process it can be infringed.” ”

Just as your liberty and even life can be surrendered when you are tried and convicted of a CRIME. There is also a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Depriving innocent people (law abiding citizens) of their right to keep and bear arms when they have NOT EVEN COMMITTED a crime let alone a serious one would be cruel and unusual punishment

- Jeremy Leochner: “That is not my reason for believing what I believe. The reason I am focusing on this argument is against those like Mr. Jones who pride themselves on believing strictly in the second amendment being without exception. They seem to ignore that according to the constitution so long as due process as given the government is allowed to infringe on the right to bear arms. If under those circumstances it is considered okay why is it everyone becomes so enraged when things like more thorough background checks or longer waiting periods is suggested.”

This is why many claim you are being disingenuous. We are talking about regulations infringing on the right of obviously innocent people thus also violating the prohibition against “prior restraint” in the Constitution. Should you want to do a background check on a CONVICTED criminal you would not likely hear much complaint. But convicted criminals are IN JAIL so who cares if they want to buy a gun. They can’t. (Ignoring black market in prisons).

As to longer waiting periods for CONVICTED criminals that is another truism. OF COURSE they have a waiting period. It is typically called a sentence. could be 30 days in the county jail or maybe 30 years in a federal prison or even life in prison.

- Jeremy Leochner: “As for you logic. I do not support banning people from having guns.”

That you personally approve of. I.E. Not scary looking.

- Jeremy Leochner: “I constantly hear talk about the increasing political correctness of our culture and how we are not able to speak freely. Yet no one seems so upset about the exceptions made to the first amendment in regards to convicted criminals.”

Why should you. They have been found guilty by due process (See US Constitution) and sentenced to spend time in jail. That only affects their freedom to peaceably assemble and only barely. All the rest of the 1st remain rights they can exercise. Their LIBERTY is severely restricted for the duration of their stay.

- Jeremy Leochner: “My problem is I see rage and fury running the debates on the national news networks. Yet the rage and fury seems somewhat selective at times.”

It only seems selective because you are new to the debate.

Remember the fury is directed at all those “gun control” laws which treat honest law abiding citizens as criminals unless and until they can convince some bureaucrat somewhere that they are honest law abiding citizens (background check) and then they are sentenced (in some states) to up to 30 days “probation” before they can exercise their rights. (A right delayed is a right denied)

And now we hear that our government is planning on coming in to our cells (homes) and taking away more of our meager possessions (scary looking guns). That would make even a convicted criminal angry.

• Vicki

Jeremy Leochner says:
“Vicki you say “A right delayed is a right denied.” Vicki are you saying you do not support any gun control.”

I strongly support gun control (two words) Go here http://www.frontsight.com for really good courses in gun control. Highly recommended.

- Jeremy Leochner: Because I do not see how we can in any way regulate guns unless we in some ways delay people from getting them.”

I think you are beginning to understand the point. If you have to wait for permission of the government to exercise your right to do something then it is being treated as a privilege. Just the same way that many rights of prison inmates are treated as privileges while they are in prison. (The meaning of “good behavior”)

Thus you can see why those of us who have not even committed a crime (let alone been convicted) get really testy when people start treating us like prison inmates.

• Vicki

Jeremy Leochner says:
“I agree it is a prohibition on the government. But I think we disagree on where the line is drawn.”

No surprize there. I draw the line where the founders did. You appear to draw the line where King George did.

- Jeremy Leochner: “I do not wish to infringe on anyones rights. And I do not think that back ground checks and waiting periods infringe on ones right to keep and bear arms.”

You are welcome to your opinion. You are not welcome to make your opinion a law that affects me. Let’s take a quick look at waiting periods. In the first scenario Jeff already has a gun. Since waiting periods are to cool off a person what real logic is there in making Jeff wait to get the 2nd one? Note that one of the old arguments was to do a background check. That has already been shortened to mostly instant.

In this next scenario Sue has never owned nor purchased a gun though she has had the proper training in their use since she was 8 years old. (old school before it was illegal for someone under (some arbitrary age) to touch a gun)

Sue and her now ex boyfriend continue to have exchanges over the phone. He finally says he is coming for her and if he can’t have her no one can. He will be there in 2 days.

She goes right out and tries to buy a gun. The background check is supposed to be instant but can take up to 3 DAYS. Even worse for her the shop owner tells her that in California (where she lives) the waiting period is TEN DAYS. How do you think her conversation with her ex might go if she called him on the first day.

“Dear. Do you suppose you could delay your trip for a few days? I need some time to get my affairs in order. Say 10-11 days? Would that be ok with you?”

Just what do you think his answer might be? Just how has the law NOT infringed on her rights? Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, Freedom to associate, enumerated right to keep and carry the BEST tool for self defense.

(The scenario above is what completely shattered any belief I used to have in the Brady-bill and in gun control in general).

• Vicki

Jeremy Leochner says:
“Your right about what the second does. I believe that the second amendment allows for regulation of the transaction you mentioned.”

So I point out what the 2nd does (3 steps. I can go get one (the transaction), I can possess it (keep) and I can carry (bear) it. You agree then you turn right around and say that you believe that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means that you can interfere with (infringe) step 1 (get a firearm). How does that logic work again?

- Jeremy Leochner: “As to your example I think that that would be an infringement. I have this view as you know of the first amendment as our first line of defense. So I am more touchy on the idea of creating delays for voting.”

Voting is not in nor about the first amendment so I don’t see the connection. I will say that I agree that the first is the first line of defense (pen mightier then sword. Boxes,4 Soap box, Ballot box, Jury box, Ammo box.) But I would also point out that the 2nd is 2nd cause even the founders knew that the pen has it’s limitations and when it fails the results are messy even with the 2nd and catastrophic without.

- Jeremy Leochner: “I see guns differently because I do not see them as necessary at this time to prevent a tyrannical government.”

And when you do see it will be (way) to late because you will not have them and your neighbors will not have them and your community will not have them. If you are curious how this scenario plays out, and since you are a history buff, ask these people how it went down. http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/anonneveragain.htm

• Nick Czudy

Vicki. I read the link that you supplied. It was interesting and made sense at that time. What I do not see is at the current state our our republic with elected officials and a intensive system of laws and checks that we need to amass arms in case Obama becomes a Hitler or a Stalin. That will never happen here in the USA. That is the crux of our system. It is hysteria to use that as an excuse to bear arms, solely to fight against our current system. I thought that most of the right and the second amendment advocates, believed in the constitution? If you do, then the system put in place does not allow for a Hitler or a Stalin type of dictatorship. I know that many of the people that quote Stalin and Mao, claiming over 200 million deaths in one decade, are forgetting one point. It was from starvation that most of those deaths occurred. It was not something that people with guns would have been able to fight against. Those leaders took all of the food to be able to trade it for foreign machinery and technology. It also took place as information about these atrocities was able to be suppressed. Today in our internet age and with the USA at the forefront of this movement, information like this could not ever be suppressed. Also the free media that are complained about all of the time on this site, is another guarantee, that things like this can never happen again. Now if there is a right that is worth fighting for, it is a free internet that does not get censored or controlled. there is a freedom worth fighting for. regards Nick

• Vicki

- Jeremy Leochner: “So I believe that in allowing for some regulation of guns I am not placing anyone in danger so far as rights v government is concerned.”

I do too. They should be kept clean and oiled. Their functions should be periodically tested at a gun range etc.

- Jeremy Leochner: “I can’t believe I waited this long to ask. What do you think we should do Vicki? I have said a lot. What ideas do you have for our system of gun control?”

Step one. Learn to properly control a gun (www.frontsight.com for instance)

Step two. Regulating inanimate objects is illogical. Regulating the misuse of tools is ALREADY DONE. Been so for more than 200 years. See laws against murder, armed robbery etc.

Step 2 is done so the only thing left to consider is step one and it is logical and wise but not required.

Interesting observation that gun-control didn’t really get going till after we stopped requiring every able bodied male to spend time in the army. That probably taught many of them that a gun is just a tool.

• Jeremy Leochner

Vicki this is to your first response.

I want to focus on your statement “This is why many claim you are being disingenuous. We are talking about regulations infringing on the right of obviously innocent people thus also violating the prohibition against “prior restraint” in the Constitution. Should you want to do a background check on a CONVICTED criminal you would not likely hear much complaint. But convicted criminals are IN JAIL so who cares if they want to buy a gun. They can’t. (Ignoring black market in prisons).” because I feel its speaks to what I want what I think others think I want.

Firstly. The problem is anyone with minimal acting ability could pass themselves off as “obviously innocent”. I do not wish to hurt or inconvenience innocent people. But at the same time I do not wish to have guns given to criminals in gun stores.

Second as to your specific statement “But convicted criminals are IN JAIL so who cares if they want to buy a gun.” With all due respect Vicki I am pretty sure a criminal who in jail having a gun is bad. Kinda makes it difficult to keep them in jail. And again my point is not to treat people like criminals. My point is we are all willing to infringe on the right to bear arms selectively. So why do we get so worked up over things that do not actually infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

• Jeremy Leochner

Vicki this is to your second response.

Any form of gun control would delay people from obtaining a gun. Any sort of back ground check or any sort of age limit or even something as routine as the price of a gun could delay a person from having a gun. Not having the weapon does not mean your right is being delayed.

• Jeremy Leochner

Vicki this is to your third response.

First I do not draw the line where King George did. I do not say people cannot keep and bear arms. I do not say people cannot form militias. I do not say people cannot keep a fairly large number of weapons in their home. For crying out loud I do not even support there being a king in the first place.

Second perhaps waiting periods are not necessary. However I am still on the fence.

Third ” Freedom to associate, enumerated right to keep and carry the BEST tool for self defense.” is not one of the inalienable rights in the declaration of independence nor is it mentioned in the second amendment.

• Vicki

Nick Czudy says:
“I read the link that you supplied. It was interesting and made sense at that time. What I do not see is at the current state our our republic with elected officials and a intensive system of laws and checks that we need to amass arms in case Obama becomes a Hitler or a Stalin. That will never happen here in the USA.”

Observe obama’s executive orders. Observe NDAA 2012 and the power it gives any President. Observe the Patriot act. Read this article (in todays PLD) http://personalliberty.com/2013/01/14/an-open-letter-to-the-elected-class-regarding-gun-control/
Read some history of the Republic of Weimar in the early 20th century.

- Nick Czudy: “That is the crux of our system. It is hysteria to use that as an excuse to bear arms, solely to fight against our current system. I thought that most of the right and the second amendment advocates, believed in the constitution? If you do, then the system put in place does not allow for a Hitler or a Stalin type of dictatorship.”

To work, the system requires 2 things. A moral people and the power to defend against the outliers. We are not armed to defend against a Hitler or Stalin. We are armed to defend against TOTALITARIAN government. Hitler and Stalin are merely examples.

- Nick Czudy: “I know that many of the people that quote Stalin and Mao, claiming over 200 million deaths in one decade, are forgetting one point. It was from starvation that most of those deaths occurred.”

And they starved from lack of the means of repelling the TOTALITARIAN government that took control (with GUNS) of the means of producing enough food for the subjects.

- Nick Czudy: “It was not something that people with guns would have been able to fight against. Those leaders took all of the food to be able to trade it for foreign machinery and technology.”

You even admit that the leaders took the food. Since the people did not have guns to resist the taking, they starved.

- Nick Czudy: “It also took place as information about these atrocities was able to be suppressed. Today in our internet age and with the USA at the forefront of this movement, information like this could not ever be suppressed.”

Do you ever wonder why obamas administration is looking for the power to kill the internet? Do you consider why many nations (China, Iran,…. for instance) have harsh controls on what Google can provide the people of their country?

- Nick Czudy: “Also the free media that are complained about all of the time on this site, is another guarantee, that things like this can never happen again.”

Would that be the media that is demonized with the name “conspiracy theory site(s)”?

- Nick Czudy: “Now if there is a right that is worth fighting for, it is a free internet that does not get censored or controlled. there is a freedom worth fighting for.”

Without guns how did you plan on fighting for that freedom?

The pen is mightier then the sword but it is not of infinite might. When it fails, if you don’t have a sword you will become a slave.

Some fools think that they are to be the masters. Stalin had a name for them. Useful idiots.

• Vicki

Jeremy Leochner writes:
“Firstly. The problem is anyone with minimal acting ability could pass themselves off as “obviously innocent”. I do not wish to hurt or inconvenience innocent people. But at the same time I do not wish to have guns given to criminals in gun stores.”

Are you familiar with the concept “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law”? The ability to act is irrelevant. Now how do you plan to give guns to criminals in gun stores when the criminals are IN JAIL?

- Jeremy Leochner: “Second as to your specific statement “But convicted criminals are IN JAIL so who cares if they want to buy a gun.” With all due respect Vicki I am pretty sure a criminal who in jail having a gun is bad. Kinda makes it difficult to keep them in jail.”

How would they have (or even buy) a gun. They are IN JAIL. Jeremy, with all the respect that is due you, why do you even come up with such a stupid argument.

- Jeremy Leochner: “And again my point is not to treat people like criminals.”

Then don’t

- Jeremy Leochner: “My point is we are all willing to infringe on the right to bear arms selectively.”

We infringe on ALL rights selectively. To make sure that it is for the guilty that we infringe on their rights we have a process. It’s in the Constitution. I have directed you to it MULTIPLE TIMES. Are you familiar with the term “willful ignorance”?

- Jeremy Leochner: “So why do we get so worked up over things that do not actually infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.”

We don’t get worked up over things that do not actually infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

• Vicki

Jeremy Leochner writes:
“Any form of gun control would delay people from obtaining a gun. Any sort of back ground check or any sort of age limit or even something as routine as the price of a gun could delay a person from having a gun.”

Good good. Making progress. Little detail on your point about price. The price is set by the owner and not by government so it can not be an infringement. The 2nd forbids GOVERNMENT from infringing on the right…. Now should the government put a TAX on guns (say for instance like the NFA) THEN you have the GOVERNMENT infringing on the right…..

Just to refresh your memory, the Constitution is a set of LIMITATIONS ON GOVERNMENT.

- Jeremy Leochner: “Not having the weapon does not mean your right is being delayed.”

Truism. I thought you said you were going to avoid them.

• Vicki

Jeremy Leochner says:
“First I do not draw the line where King George did. I do not say people cannot keep and bear arms. I do not say people cannot form militias. I do not say people cannot keep a fairly large number of weapons in their home. For crying out loud I do not even support there being a king in the first place.”

Are you then playing “devils advocate”?

- Jeremy Leochner: “Second perhaps waiting periods are not necessary. However I am still on the fence.”

Only until your ex comes for you. That is quite the wake-up call should you survive.

- Jeremy Leochner: “Third ” Freedom to associate, enumerated right to keep and carry the BEST tool for self defense.” is not one of the inalienable rights in the declaration of independence nor is it mentioned in the second amendment.

Freedom of association is in the VERY FIRST AMENDMENT. Here is some legal stuff on it.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/12.html

The enumerated right to keep and carry the BEST tool for self defense IS THE 2nd AMENDMENT.

• Jeremy Leochner

Vicki this is to your forth response.

First the second amendment recognizes peoples right to keep and bear arms. Their right is to have a weapon or to keep a weapon. They are allowed to bear that weapon with them. Once they have the weapon they may keep and bear it. However the constitution says nothing about obtaining that weapon. The right is right to keep, not right to obtain without delay. If I am selling a gun and someone wishes to buy it for less than I am selling and I am unwilling to budge than I am not denying that person their right to keep and bear arms. A back ground check does delay a person from obtaining a gun. But once they have it a back ground in no way infringes on their right to keep that weapon. Even a waiting period does not infringe on a persons right to keep and bear arms. Once they have the gun a waiting period is of no consequence. Delaying a person from having a weapon is not the same as denying them the right to keep and bear arms.

Second the first amendment and voting are the basis for the statement “government of the people, by the people and for the people”. It is in keeping with the declarations words “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. It is through voting that people exert their voice. It is through elections that people may speak and hold influence. It is through free speech and press and expression and voting that governments are held accountable. Without the power of free speech voting would be rendered meaningless. I do not deny that the founders understood that the pen had limitations and that when such limitations become manifest the sword is necessary to protect the people from tyranny. I guess for me as long as the pen is still working and is therefore still the primary weapon I worry more about regulations regarding it than I do regulations regarding guns.

Third I have read much about history from the Soviet union and Nazi Germany and Franco and Saddam Hussein. One thing that is common through out is that the oppressive gun control which deprived the people of their right to bear arms did not happen until after they achieved power. Until after the electoral or democratic or republican system had been eroded away. It was not until Hitler was dictator and had absolute power that he began taking away peoples guns.

I do not support depriving people of their right to protect themselves from tyranny. I am still for militias and I acknowledge that the right to keep and bear arms allows for effective weapons. However I still feel reasonable limitations regarding how much and what types of weaponry people can have at any one time are still in keeping with the second amendment and are necessary to combat gun violence. Because while we must always be watchful for the possible future we still need to focus on the real present.

• Jeremy Leochner

Vicki

“Are you familiar with the concept “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law”? The ability to act is irrelevant. Now how do you plan to give guns to criminals in gun stores when the criminals are IN JAIL?”-

Not all criminals are in jail. The reason we do not allow drunks to drive is not because every drunk has caused a death by driving. Its because a drunk behind the wheel poses a serious danger.

“How would they have (or even buy) a gun. They are IN JAIL. Jeremy, with all the respect that is due you, why do you even come up with such a stupid argument.”

My argument is that we do not allow people in jail to buy guns. Regardless of their crime or even whether or not they are innocent. My point is that we are willing to infringe on the right to bear arms. So we do we treat it as so absolute.

“Then don’t”

Nothing I have proposed treats people like criminals.

“We infringe on ALL rights selectively. To make sure that it is for the guilty that we infringe on their rights we have a process. It’s in the Constitution. I have directed you to it MULTIPLE TIMES. Are you familiar with the term “willful ignorance”?”

I am not willfully ignorant Vicki. My point is if we infringe on all rights selectively why do we become so clear and firm in our commitment to protecting the rights of all others regardless of circumstances. I take you back to my analogy of a drunk driver. We do not allow any drunk or even anyone whose blood alcohol level is too high too driver. Not because that individual has killed someone but because they might. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. But that does not mean with trust everyone without condition.

“We don’t get worked up over things that do not actually infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.”

Then why does everyone get worked up about what I say.

• Jeremy Leochner

Vicki

“Good good. Making progress. Little detail on your point about price. The price is set by the owner and not by government so it can not be an infringement. The 2nd forbids GOVERNMENT from infringing on the right…. Now should the government put a TAX on guns (say for instance like the NFA) THEN you have the GOVERNMENT infringing on the right…..
Just to refresh your memory, the Constitution is a set of LIMITATIONS ON GOVERNMENT.”

My statement was that delaying a person from obtaining a gun like through a tax is not an infringement of their right to keep and bear arms. Perhaps some cannot pay the tax. Okay maybe a tax is a bad idea.

“Truism. I thought you said you were going to avoid them.”

I made that statement because sometimes Vicki your statements make me think you don’t realize that.

• grannymae1

Jeremy,
You wear rose colored glasses ! Your statements That could never happen in the United States Is way off base ! So is your statement that people in prison can’t own arms. They do and always will and they keep them right with them in prison! They also do drugs and deal in drugs from outside and inside the prison ! Boy you sure don’t know anything about the USA or prison ! You can get most of that info. just by watching movies !

• ranger09

Just another Fool. What do you think the Afgans did againest Russia, One thing for sure you sure do not know about history.
History has the answer to most problems.Granted the People have always been out gunned, Its the Right and the Will that can prevail. In most cases.
The worst part of American history was the war between the States, All kinds of issues were presented as to why this took place, Americans Againest Americans. One of the best reasons for the War was the Powers to Be Wanted to control the Resources of the South.The ONLY Military at the Time Was Federal. Most of the People in the North depended on Govt and City Business. Most of the people in the South depended on themselves And the Land. and refused to allow the Powers to Be to Control their resources.All the rest of the reasons was Propaganda. But it shows if you control the Military you can start a war even againest your own people. The South knew that the North controlled Manufacturing, But they were able to form their Armed people into a untrained Military againest a Trained Military with better equipment and Arms. The North thought that they would defeat the South in short order, But the people in the south showed that the will of the southern people was Strong and they fought with very little for 4 years. Most leaders of the South Knew that they were facing possible defeat, But they fought for their Rights and and their Land. As we all know they Lost and they lost everything.BUT the Major question is WHY so many Americans allowed this to happen.
Now it is possible for this to happen again, And we are allowing the Powers to Be to seperate this Country Again. Will the American people see this and stop it, I for one think that the people and the Military will fight ea other again, And for what
But the Powers to be Know from History that an unarmed people are very easy to defeat..

• Jeremy Leochner

With respect Ranger.

1: Our country today is much different than the soviet union.

2: The Civil War was fought over slavery. There were other economic issues and political issues. But the right to keep slaves was what the south seceded over and its what they refused to give up over.

• eddie47d

That’s part of the problem Ranger. When the Taliban battled Russia they had weapons and we supplied them with even more. When the Russians were defeated the Taliban kept their weapons and turned them against their own people and established extreme and draconian Conservative laws of governance. Even today the Afghans have a very weak government but a very powerful gun lobby amongst its citizens. The government is corrupt but the Taliban is merciless. Few Americans want big brother government watching us but they also don’t want Americas gun lobby running the show either. You can all say government tyranny can happen ( you do all the time) but it could also be said that citizen militias could inevitably take over and dictate what is allowed and who gets repremanded (killed).

• Bill

Again, Jeremy, you are wrong
The civil war was not fought over slavery, it was fought over taxation. In fact. Lincoln wrote a letter to Horace Greely where he stated he could care less about slavery.

You are just quoting revisionist history.

• Jeremy Leochner

Bill the declaration of causes of secession for Georgia states that “The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of
complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.” -http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

The one for Mississippi states “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which
constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.”-http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

And South Carolina which states that “increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.” and that “The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.”-http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

And it was Alexander Stephens the Vice President of The Confederacy who said in 1861 “But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.”-http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76

None of what I just posted is revisionist history. Its the leaders of secession and the confederacy proclaiming it themselves.

• Vicki

Jeremy Leochner says:
“2: The Civil War was fought over slavery. There were other economic issues and political issues. But the right to keep slaves was what the south seceded over and its what they refused to give up over.”

The economic and political issues WERE the cause. Slavery was simply part of the economic issue. Amusingly enough it was government politicians and not the people who were concerned.
__________________________________________
“The curious thing is that although slavery was the moral issue of the nineteenth century that divided the political leaders of the land, the average American had very little interest in slaves or slavery. Most Southerners were small farmers that could not afford slaves. Most Northerners were small farmers or tradesmen that had never even seen a slave.

But political leaders on both sides were very interested in slaves and slavery. The South’s economic system was based upon cotton–and slavery.”

“Although the majority of Southerners had little interest in slaves, slavery was a primary interest of Southern politicians–and consequently the underlying cause of the South’s desire to seek independence and state rights.”
___________________________________________
http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/causes.htm

Note that it was only a moral issue because of religion.
“Had there been no slavery, there would have been no war. Had there been no moral condemnation of slavery, there would have been no war.” (This was made by Sydney E. Ahlstrome, in his monumental study of religion in America A Religious History of the American People, Yale University Press,1972, on p. 649″

• Jeremy Leochner

I agree with you somewhat about the people Vicki. But the fact remains that the outcry in streets of the cities through out the south just after the 1861 election was that Lincoln the black republican or Abraham Lincoln Africanus had come to power and was going to free the slaves and make them the equal of the white man. That made the peoples blood boil and caused them to burn effigies of Abraham Lincoln and tear down the union flag and put up their state flags and than the confederate flag.

As you yourself said ” Although the majority of Southerners had little interest in slaves, slavery was a primary interest of Southern politicians–and consequently the underlying cause of the South’s desire to seek independence and state rights.” It was the souths desire to seek independence and maintain the states right to keep slaves that lead to secession and the war and once the war started it made it impossible to find a peaceful solution that did not include the preservation of slavery. When the souths back was against the wall and people started suggesting they arm African Americans there was an immediate and forceful back lash. Patrick Cleburne one of the heros of the confederacy proposed in early 1864 that the south start arming African Americans. He was punished for this by never being promoted to high rank. The south was willing to hobble its war efforts in order to preserve slavery. Slavery was more important than even winning the war. They preferred to have it taken from them than to simply give it up.

• Vicki

eddie47d attempts to demonize Conservatives by equating totalitarian government with conservatives when he writes:
“When the Russians were defeated the Taliban kept their weapons and turned them against their own people and established extreme and draconian Conservative laws of governance.”

The Taliban turned their weapons against their own DISARMED people and established a very common oligarchy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

- eddie47d: “Even today the Afghans have a very weak government but a very powerful gun lobby amongst its citizens.”

Proof by bald assertion.

- eddie47d: “…. it could also be said that citizen militias could inevitably take over and dictate what is allowed and who gets repremanded (killed).”

Obviously false. With ALL people armed and dangerous no citizen militias could inevitably take over and dictate. That is the WHOLE POINT of the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. That NO group can take over and dictate.

When you take away arms from the law abiding, the criminal gangs CAN AND DO take over. Some of them become “the government” (your Talaban example).

I have friends that live in London and in other places in the UK and they say crime is terrible with or without guns. I had to go there on vacation to be robbed, wow, haven’t been in the U.S. Jeremy:

• Jeremy Leochner

Sorry that happened Benjamin. Maybe Englands laws are at an extreme we should not go too. But maybe we can incorporate some of their ideas into our system.

• DaveH

So much nonsense in Jeremy’s (aka Flashman) comments.
Such as this — “I believe the founders intended for a well regulated militia to be the peoples defense against tyranny. I believe the founders did not intend for the average American citizen to rely on whatever weapons they could collect to serve as their defense. If there should come a day where America is ruled by a tyrant I do not think the founders would have put much stock in one or two individuals in a particular neighborhood who happen to keep a small arsenal in their home to be able to put up much of a fight against an army of tanks and fighter jets and rocket launchers”.

Tell that to the vastly outgunned Taliban who have been giving our military hell for 12 years now.
If the our Leaders and their families are willing to live in caves for 10 or more years, then you may have a point, Jeremy (aka Flashman).
And when it comes to what the Founders believed, you have no clue, Flashman (aka Jeremy). They personally lived their own lifetimes under the thumbs of tyrannical oligarchs who always at least attempted to disarm the Indians and Slaves before they did their dirty work. Those who would like to know better what led up to the American Revolution can find the whole story here:
http://library.mises.org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/Conceived%20in%20Liberty_Vol_2.pdf

Certainly don’t get your advice from a biased Multi-Personality shill who has every reason to mislead you.

• DaveH

The Second Amendment Un-spun:
http://gunowners.org/op0848.htm

• Jeremy Leochner

I respect the point Dave. I still put more faith in organized resistance to a tyrannical government than I do in a single individual armed with a few hand guns.

I know what the founders faced Dave. United States History is my passion. I believe that our Republic today is slightly different to the situation the founders faced. One where they lived in colonies three thousand miles from the empire that ruled them. Where they had no representatives in the ruling legislative body. And where the rule of law was weakened by the personal whims of the monarch. I believe our system where in every leader of government from the President to the Senators to the Representative is an elected representative who can be voted out or impeached. And where there is a constitution to protect the people from the government. And where the culture, history and tradition is completely against tyranny or monarchism of any kind.

• DaveH

Flashman (aka Jeremy), I tire of your disingenuous comments. You’re just a shill, who is here to disrupt the board with nonsensical comments.
But thank you for posting so that the readers can see what they’ll be up against when you and your Liberal Progressive cohorts take over their lives.

• DaveH

First Jeremy (aka Flashman) says — “United States History is my passion”.
Then he says — “One where they lived in colonies three thousand miles from the empire that ruled them. Where they had no representatives in the ruling legislative body”.

If you were truly a History buff, you would know better. Those readers who take the time to read the book will know your ignorance.

• Jeremy Leochner

Dave my statements are not disingenuous. I believe what I say. I would not say it otherwise. I have no desire to disrupt any debate or discussion.

As for my comment on the founders I have read numerous books about American History and the Revolution. What exactly was I wrong on.

• DaveH

Those who read “Conceived in Liberty” will know, Jeremy (aka Flashman).
It’s interesting that you and your alter-ego have been commenting so much lately. And that coming after your Flashshill personality stated that he might be moving on soon. Did your handlers tell you to get more productive or find other work?
How do you live with yourself, Flashman, or whoever you really are? Do you drink a lot? Or do some other type of mind-altering drug? That would explain the mess you made last weekend when you slipped up and both repeated 3 separate unusual words and sentences on the same board. You know what the probability of that occurring with two distinct people would be? Pretty damn small. Almost infinitesimal. Couple that with the fact that Bob caught you guys commenting from the same IP address, and bingo — You’re busted big time, Jeremy (aka Flashman).
I think your twisted behavior will come back to haunt you in your old age, Flashshill. I suspect you will be one miserable senior (if your handlers let you live that long).
And yeah, I know you will deny it. What a surprise.

• Jeremy Leochner

What can I say Dave. I am not very busy lately. I like to answer people when they comment to me. I figure we are having a discussion. I shouldn’t make them wait too long. As for my identity and my supposedly being a shill I don’t know what to tell you Dave. I wish someone would tell me what is the IP address that I am supposedly typing from. Because I assure you the only way someone else could have the same IP address is if they have hacked my computer. Look Dave if it is going to distract or disrupt the discussions going on on this page I want to get this matter settled. What could I possibly do or say or give to you or anyone that could prove that I am who I say I am. I think the debate of whether I am who I say I am is distracting from the discussion and becoming annoying for you as well as me and for all other parties involved. How exactly could we settle this issue.

• Bill

DaveH and Vicki
Don’t waste your time with Jeremy, he is just baiting you. There is no compromise with him

• Jeremy Leochner

I am not baiting anyone Bill. I am trying to have a real conversation instead of talking about whether or not I am coming onto this site under false names. And if you read my discussions with Vicki you will see I am capable of compromise.

• Vicki

Jeremy Leochner says:
“I still put more faith in organized resistance to a tyrannical government than I do in a single individual armed with a few hand guns.”

And so did the founders. That is why the 2nd Amendment reads “….the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

The PEOPLE. Not the President. Not The Congress. Not the lone wolf crying in the wilderness. THE PEOPLE. ALL of them.

It is much more efficient to organize a resistance to a tyrannical government if you don’t have to wait 10 days for your firearms to clear your local the FFL.

- Jeremy Leochner: “I believe that our Republic today is slightly different to the situation the founders faced.”

Really? How has tyranny changed? 100% government = 100% government.

- Jeremy Leochner: “One where they lived in colonies three thousand miles from the empire that ruled them. Where they had no representatives in the ruling legislative body.”

Sure they did. It was the American colonies that had no representatives. There was also the matter of crony capitalism (British East India Co.) and a bunch of interesting interactions between the English Parliament and those who voted for them.

————————————————————————————
However, the voting franchise for the House of Commons was small; some historians estimate that it was as little as 3% of the adult male population. This meant that elections could sometimes be controlled by local grandees because in some boroughs the voters were in some way dependent on local nobles or alternatively they could be bought off with bribes or kickbacks.
————————————————————————————
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_England

I think we call it “Bringing home the bacon” when done by our Congress.

- Jeremy Leochner: “I believe our system where in every leader of government from the President to the Senators to the Representative is an elected representative who can be voted out or impeached. And where there is a constitution to protect the people from the government.

And yet you do not seem to believe in the protections in that Constitution. Why is that?

• Jeremy Leochner

Vicki

First Not all of THE PEOPLE are trust worthy with guns. Until the day comes when guns are necessary to fight the government I will continue to be weary of all of THE PEOPLE having guns.

Second The warning signs of a coming dictator will be obvious and undeniable regardless of political ideology. People will be able to stock pile weapons and arms then. I have no intention of people waiting until after tyranny has come to obtain any weapons at all. I would just rather the warning signs of tyranny appear that we start preparing. Right now it feels like we have a nation wide case of tyrannical hypochondria.

Third Tyranny has not changed. However our situation is not 100% government. Ours is an elected chief executive, not a king who inherits a throne from his father. Ours is a two chambered congress representing both the people and the states. The founders and the colonies had no such representation in government. We have free speech and press and assembly which thanks to the intolerable acts the founders did not.

Forth The founders were from the American Colonies. As the colonies had no representatives so they had none. It would not be all that different if there was no congress, no senate and no house of representatives.

Fifth I believe in the protections of the constitution. I just believe in applying them as needed. Since we do not need guns to protect ourselves from government I do not feel the need to have them in our hands ready to fire at all times.

• oh oh

First: If one of The People commits a crime, prosecute and punish him.

Second: Dictatorial government is already happening and those who see it aren’t going to wait through a series of incremental infringements until it’s too late to effectively resist.

Third: Tyranny is as tyranny does. It doesn’t matter if it reveals itself in the form of an outright dictator or masquerades behind the vestiges of a dying republic. See “Second,” above.

Fourth: The founders tried and finally had enough after a long train of abuses. We’re going through the same thing now. Based on your comments, you wouldn’t likely recognize a rigged game if it smacked you, and certainly not before it would be too late.

Fifth: No, you don’t believe in the protections of the Constitution because you don’t understand, and you advocate the infringement of our rights under, the 2nd Amendment.

• Dennis48e

Piers Morgan needs to deport himself post haste like he has threatened to do. In fact he should have deported himself long ago.

• Harper

a pole was taken in the UK,,,they DON”T want him back,,,thought that was pretty funny

• Anastasia Beaverhouser

we don’t want him either, maybe afghanistan would love him!

• Robert Smith

For gun control:

Can anyone suggest a path we can take that will reduce the risk for our children and everyone else?

No lengthy diatribes, just the bullet points.

Thanks,

Rob

• Bill

Robert,
Yes, to protect the children, we need to focus on alcohol abuse which kills far more children than guns. Maybe you could enact more regulation for alcohol control. Maybe you can ban some kinds of alcohol because they are more potent than others.

Maybe you could ban alcohol altogether. Oh, I forgot. That was tried and it did not work.

You are so shallow Robert. That “It is for the children” has been used by polititians for decades to get more money and put it in their pork projects.

Quit wasteing our time with such worthless mind dribble. We need to protect our seniors. The seniors need more guns and gun training to protect themselves from all of the thugs created by the failed liberal economic policies

• sheep dog on patrol

Response to Robert Smith. Like Bill said, it isn’t about the children when it comes to the government’s stance on gun control and gun control is not about about guns…… it’s about total control of you and me and our live. People like Piers Morgan need to shut their mouths. He’s not an American but a Brit and a very rude and arrogant one at that. Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but I wouldn’t put it past the government to have orchestrated the Sandy Hook shooting and the Aurora, Colorado shootings just like they orchestrated the over 2,000 semi-automatic weapons that they put into the hands of the infamous Cinaloa drug cartel under the direction of Atty. General Eric Holder in their Operation Fast and Furious. Another botched government operation which seems to have been swept under the rug. When it comes to incidious agendas, the government has no mercy and that is a fact that you CAN believe. If anyone ever thinks that the government can or will protect them, then they need to take a serious look at the American Incian. They were put on reservation. You and I will be put in FEMA camps. You’d better check that out Everything this government has done to further restrict and infringe on our second amendment rights parallels what Hitler did just befor he murdered 25 million Jews. In EVERY country where guns have fdbeen confiscated, a systematic genicide soon followed. The ABILITY of Americans to defend themselves and their country against and defeat a tyrannical government must never be removed. Remember this. Our Constitution tells us that any law which might be enacted by any governing body, whether Federal or State, which goes against or infringes on any part of our Constitution, is a bad law and one that we DO NOT have to obey. Our law makers need to know that we know and understand this fact and they need to know that we will ignor any such bad laws.

Now, we must also see clearly that if Barack Obama intends to use executive order instead of going through the proper use of Congress to impose any kind of gun control restrictions upon us, that we will clearly see his intent to be a Dictator. As long as I’m alive, I will never live under the rule of any dictator. How about you?

• Steve E

Robert, no one give s damn about the children anymore. Look at all the dept we have racked up for them. Do you think we would do that if we cared about children?

• TIME

Dear Mr. Smith,

I will explain this is very simple terms so that even a person with an 80 IQ can understand.

#1, Stop drugging Children with “PSYCHOTROPIC” Drugs. let the children play as in climb trees etc. get out the extra energy out in a natural way.

#2, Parents have to spend more “”quality”" TIME with their children, teaching them MORALS, as well respect for all others. As in stop the narcissitic behavior patterns.

#3, Parents need to stop giving in to their childrens disires to have games that “prmote hate and Violence” such as most all of these computer avatar games do.
Give them a chess set, and books of value such as the Greek Classic’s not mindless comic books that also permote hate and Violence.

#4, Parents need to “TEACH” their Children respect for what a GUN can do, as well teach them how to use a gun, Thus NO FEAR, nor disrespect for GUNS.

#5, It takes two Parents to grow a child ~~ { not a Village / the State.}

Thats a healthy starting point, but only if you can comprehend it.

Peace and Love Shalom

• http://gravatar.com/cbgard Carlucci
• http://Robert Allnoend

It’s not about the kid’s, the Government would much rather give our kid’s over to the Homosexual agenda and the crazies from the Muslims who love having sex with young kids. Have you seen “The Dancing Boys of Afgahnistan” it’s like that every where over there ..Gun’s are for your protection, If you haven’t notice our Gov’t want a lawless society like whats going on in the Middle East, so they can bring control over your life and freedoms.

• eddie47d

TIME: great points of lights. Bill: the usual rabble rousing nonsense! Alcohol was banned instead of being regulated like it is now. Regulations do work and responsible folks “know when to hold them and when to fold them”.Since few weapons would be banned if that even comes to pass then the rest would be possibly regulated. Then those adults who are responsible have nothing to worry about. Responsible adults keep alcohol away from children and responsible adults teach kids not to mess with guns unless with a trained user.

• DaveH

Robert says — “Can anyone suggest a path we can take that will reduce the risk for our children and everyone else?”.
Listen to Robert, the guy who quite regularly has reminded readers that abortion is none of their business. Yet he expects us to believe that, once those babies have escaped the surgeon’s scalpel, he suddenly becomes concerned about their lives.

• DaveH

Make no mistake, Folks. Piers, Robert, Eddie, and the rest of the Liberal Progressive Gun Grabbers could care less about the children. If they did, they would at least entertain the idea that they might be safer if more people were allowed to defend themselves, which the statistics prove out:
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357931280&sr=8-1&keywords=more+guns+less+crime

The truth is that the Liberal Progressives want your guns so they can take even more of your money than they already do, and you won’t be able to do a thing about it. Imagine, with the theft they already perform, just how crazy they can get if you’re defenseless?

• eddie47d

I notice you have been gone Dave H but you didn’t become any smarter. Still peddling false accusations I see.

• Robert Smith

Let me take a moment to AGAIN point out that I’m pro-choice on firearms.

Any hint otherwise is a lie, and I’m really beginning to think that lies from the right are their normal operating procedure.

Is there any gun control that can protect Americans?

There, is that simple enough? No kids, no limitations.

Is there any gun control that can protect Americans?

Rob

• DaveH

Actions speak louder than words, Robert.

You say you are pro-choice on guns, yet I have never seen a comment of yours that challenged a gun-grabber. But you have argued often with pro-gun advocates.

You say — “I asked a simple question. Is there any gun control that can protect Americans?”.
But you didn’t say that. In your previous comment, you said — “Can anyone suggest a path we can take that will reduce the risk for our children and everyone else?”.

I say you are a liar, Robert, and you can’t even keep your lies straight when they are right in front of your face.

• Robert Smith

So much ad hominem from DaveH, yet nothing on the issue.

Simple question.

Oh well… Guess DaveH can’t cope with it.

Oh, the answer is simple: NO

I can’t imagine any laws that relate to guns that would reduce the carnage out there. I’m opposed to them.

Registering guns won’t stop bad guys from getting them.

The size of a clip won’t many any difference.

The appearance of a gun makes no difference.

So, the next question becomes: Are there any new laws that would make any difference in mass shootings?

Rob

• Steve Thomas

to Rob: YES there is a solution. Israel trained and armed the teachers decades ago. The palestinians stopped attacking the schools and found EASIER targets.
In mass shootings or would be mass shootings, the numbers are easy to analyse. If the police resond to stop the killing, the average death toll is 18.6. If a citizen, with a concealed/carry permit, stops the killing-the average is only 2.2 deaths. The shooting in the Oregon mall is a perfect example…2 dead plus the shooter shot himself. How much simpler or better could it get!!!

• http://PersonalLibertyDigest Wyatt48

@ @Robert Smith,
No. There are no magic laws to control gun crime. Sorry but that is how it is. Criminals are criminals and don’t care about us or anyone else. I sure wish there was a way to make lawless, mentally impaired people care about the rest of us. There is not, At least at this point.

• R. Fine

True enough but if we take Afghanistan heavy military weaponry off the shelves the mental cases will not be able to get their hands on them as easily.

• http://aol jonas

I’m thinking Piers Morgan would love Venezuela, or Cuba

• granny mae

• HunkieDori

Maybe VeneZooela will take him. This is right up his alley. Check out what Hugo has done:

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/01/16/gun-violence-epidemic-in-latin-america-despite-strict-rules-in-some-countries/

• eddie47d

Why should he be deported when his information on gun deaths are fairly accurate. In 2008 and 2009 gun deaths in England were 39 each. In 2012 there were 51 gun deaths and one other source says 59. Gun deaths in USA are 31,513 with 11,015 of those being homicides. I dare anyone of you to look up the facts and prove any differently.

• Corkey

But he neglected to cite overall violent crime statistics which are exponentially higher in UK despite it being a smaller country and higher than even South Africa’s rate. My problem The MSM is that they continually lie by omission and Morgan is another of their intellectually dishonest stooges that pose as reporters

• steveo

UK leads with more VIOLENT crime. I rather have a citizenry able to defend itself from violent crime than ban all weapons because more people are killed with a gun.

• Richids Coulter

UK’s violent crime rate is more than DOUBLE that of the US.
Gun crime went up 100% in the 10 years following the handgun ban.

• eddie47d

Considering that Alex Jones comes across as a rude buffoon in that interview maybe he is the one who should be critiqued. The issue was gun deaths not violent crimes so if both issues were presented in that interview then your point would be relevant.

• Bill

Eddie,
And there were 195,000 deaths last year by medical errors. And your point is…

Why are you wasting your time on such small potatoes when medical errors is a major problem.

NBC news put out a clip saying that Adam Lanza left his AR-15 in his car and only used handguns. So, you going after “Assualt Guns” is another misguided use of your time.

So, are you being paid by the same people that are handling Flashy

• ibcamn

Eddie,does that part of the UK have 11 to 14 million gang banger’s running around killing people at all?just wondering,because some people seem to mix some facts with no facts behind them,and just tell it their way of telling some %’s!..kinda like this new school shooting(Kern county),havn’t heard sheet outta the comedy team Hussan -Joe!!…shotgun,come on guy’s,or is that gonna hurt their attack on the second ammdt.?

• http://yahoo bob peters

maybe because he is messing with our constitution…You might think about going there with him.

• JC

eddie47d says:

January 11, 2013 at 7:57 am

Considering that Alex Jones comes across as a rude buffoon in that interview maybe he is the one who should be critiqued. The issue was gun deaths not violent crimes so if both issues were presented in that interview then your point would be relevant.
______________________________________________________________________

Jones was certainly excited and I would have like to see him represent a little better…BUT He still made one hell of a lot more sense that Morgan and his misdirection of data.
And yes eduardo…the issue is “crime” not just gun deaths. How do we keep ourselves safe from becoming a society of defensless victims…like the UK is the real question.

Hey I know! Let’s live by the founding principles of the American Republic of sovereign individuals instead of a nation of toothless sheep under a Monarchy.
Now “there’s” a novel idea…

• speedle

Ed, you are not using the statistics regarding the UK’s gun history in proper perspective. (But what’s new about that among libs?) Check the records historically on gun violence in the UK. Even though theirs is less than ours, theirs has steadily increased since their first gun laws were enacted. This means that instead of comparing gun violence between two countries (with different cultural issues) to determine the result of gun laws, you should only compare the histories of each country separately. There are a lot of reasons for the disparity in gun violence between the U.S. and other countries, but gun laws are not a valid part of the disparity.

I did look it up, and The United States does rank several points higher on homicides per capita compared to England and Wales, but the figures for overall violent crime and murder are a lot closer than you think. It seems that when the guns were removed from these countries, they found different ways to continue killing people. The genie has been let out of the bottle. Laws do need to be in place, but the criminal element does not follow the law. Most laws the government is trying to impose would have little effect on these criminals, only on the the people that obey the law. Look at Mexico. In Mexico, the average person is not allowed to own a gun. The drug cartels don’t care about the gun laws, they are going to keep their guns. And yes, 90% of these guns are coming from the United States, thanks in part to our own government” ATF”! Any person with a high school diploma could do more damage without a gun if they put their mind to it. Just yesterday in Waco, Texas, a man was arrested for biting his mothers face, chewing a dog to death on his front porch, and almost biting through the finger of a police officer! He had been smoking this synthetic marijuana. This stuff is against the law, but it seems to get around the criminal world pretty easily. The same with guns, the criminal will find a way of getting them anyway and the person that could have saved a family member or someone else will be at their mercy!

• TIME

Perhaps a better way to view this is by the numbers, that is as follows, the United Kingdom, 68 Million people, America, 300 Million people now go and refigure.

Peace and Love, Shalom.

• http://Yahoo Marilyn

Dear Eddie, the fact of the matter is, the UK and Australia’s crime rate exploded after the guns were taken. During the riots in London, people were buying baseball bats, hammers, etc., in order to protect themselves. Investigate the videos put out by London a year ago and Australia who stated to Americans, “don’t let them take your guns away”. Why? Because their crime rates exploded. They also don’t mention the gang problem in the US. Gangs are on the rise. How do you propose people protect themselves and their loved ones from them? If you don’t want to own a gun…fine, but don’t advocate that all Americans give up their guns. How do we defend ourselves against tyranny? As far as Alex is concerned…he is very passionate and no doubt concerned about more of our liberties being taken away from us. He is a truther and people need to hear the truth. He’s not fighting for just he and his family, but for all Americans. Do more research on your own and you will see what is happening in the US.

• Motov

What is the population of England? What’s the population of the USA?
If you are going to throw out numbers you must do it properly.
USA has over 300 million.
I doubt England has a population that big,
Half truths is misleading, proving once again eddie is just a troll.

This is in regard to Time”s statement concerning the number of people in England compared to the number in The United States. In my blog I stated ” Per capita” which mean per number of people. I guess you missed that part!

• Dennis48e

I did look it up and could find no FBI statistics for 2012 however I did find 2011 and they showed total homicides for 2011 at 12664 with firearms being used in 8583 cases so I say you lie unless you can provide a link to your source.

• JUKEBOX

I wonder how the Cain and Abel scenario would have come out, if they both had guns.

• Steve E

Morgan is just a spokesman for King George III.

Eddie 47d….HERE YOU GO! His information is not accurate.

• kkflash

Thanks to Carol for doing eddie’s work for him, and proving him once again to be a lying buffoon.

• JeffH

eddie, the resident gun hater and pro gun grabbing village idiot(pro-communism?)says “Considering that Alex Jones comes across as a rude buffoon”…look in the mirror you anti-gun dummy, that’s the way you come off every day.

The days of being “PC” are long overwith.

Again, eddie only see’s what he wants to see. Alex Jones stood up for America and said to Morgan what needed to be said you commie loving dolt. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that as does that redcoated moron Morgan is as obvious as day and night.

Piers Morgan is an unmportant smug and a rude A-hole himself. Did you happen to see the interview he had with the GOA’s Larry Pratt or did you just ignore Piers Morgan’s ignorance and rudeness?

Piers Morgan vs. Larry Pratt on Guns: Piers Morgan and Larry Prat really go at it, especially in the second half. Morgan ends up name calling Pratt, after Pratt blows apart Morgan’s thinking. At various points after Pratt nails him Morgan calls Pratt ‘dangerous,’ ‘stupid,’ and ‘idiot’.(typical emotional progressive/liberal response by Morgan)
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/piers-morgan-vs-larry-pratt-on-guns.html

• eddie47d

Bill! Bill! Bill! Can you FOCUS on the issue at hand. Medical deaths are immaterial to the facts about gun deaths. Just like car deaths are immaterial to gun death statistics and is totally separate. Maybe the writers here can bring up the AMA and those medical deaths . Then you can bring all that “knowledge” to the table. Thanks!

• eddie47d

Marilyn! Marilyn! Marilyn! Where have I said you don’t have a right to protect yourself . No PLACE AT ALL. NOT TODAY NOT THREE YEARS AGO and NOT TOMORROW!

• JeffH

Without question, Alex Jones was animated, excited and fully engaged in a battle of words over the fundamental rights of the American people. Right on cue, this was immediately branded “paranoid” and “dangerous” as soon as Alex was prematurely kicked off the show by Morgan and CNN producers. Although Alex was promised three live segments with Piers Morgan, CNN predictably lied and pulled Alex off the set while one of the producers was “in tears” talking about what a disaster the show had become (yeah, a disaster from the point of view of the criminal, corrupt media).

Once Alex was pulled off the show, (Low Life)Piers Morgan and his next guest then proceeded to viciously demonize Alex only after he could no longer respond. They wanted viewers to think Alex was a crazy person for daring to express the very same outrage many of us already feel about the illegal, unconstitutional gun-grabbing schemes of Senator Feinstein and the liar-in-chief Obama.

Outspoken pro-liberty radio host Alex Jones angrily blasted CNN talking head Piers Morgan on national television yesterday evening, expressing the total outrage that millions of Americans share over issues like unconstitutional gun control. Morgan, a British subject, has called for Americans to be completely disarmed as if they were colonial slaves to the British Empire. Morgan is just one of many foreigners who are actively attempting to subvert Americas freedoms and destroy the Bill of Rights. That’s why over 100,000 Americans have so far signed a White House petition to deport Morgan.

The UK answered the petition to deport Morgan with a “HELL NO” we don’t want him back.

Freedom-lovers are way past the time to be polite
In my view, we should all be as outraged as Alex Jones. If America’s founding fathers were alive today, they would be similarly outraged and vocal.

Betrayers of human freedom like Piers Morgan want us all to have a polite, “proper debate” as he calls it — all while he’s disarming you, your family and your neighbors while monopolizing guns and ammunition in the hands of a government that has already proven itself to be outrageously tyrannical and oppressive in countless ways. (Start with the NDAA and keep exploring more, if you’re interested.)

That’s the trap: the demand of civility in a time when our nation is being utterly destroyed by what can only be called acts of treason by politicians and bureaucrats who are attempting to disarm and dominate the American people.

http://www.naturalnews.com/038587_Alex_Jones_Piers_Morgan_interview.html#ixzz2Hgz1AKmQ

• eddie47d

MOTOV; You big creepy jerk. What was the question about ? That Piers Morgan lied. My figures proved that he didn’t and they were easy to look up. Instead of making false accusations it would be better for you to know your own facts. Now if you want to talk about populations and percentages then feel free until then you are the “troll”.

• eddie47d

Great information Carol but it still doesn’t dispute my figures and the video emphasizes that violence is greater in England which I never disputed.. I stated the figures of gun deaths in each country and those figures are close if not accurate.

• eddie47d

KKFLASH:It doesn’t dispute what I said although it enhances further information. Something you should try! Doesn’t make me a liar at all. Sorry you got busted and your panties got wet LOL!

• eddie47d

Dennis 48:CDC Home page homicide rate was 11,493 in 2011, or Wall Street article about Murder in America. 2010 was 14,043 which included all homicides and all gun deaths. Interesting too that figure was the same for the decade 2000-2010 (13-15 thousand deaths per year). Even more interesting is that murder rates are 1/2 of what they were before that. They were between 28,000-35,000 per year. There are dozens of statistical pages on homicide rates.

• eddie47d

Jeff; So Jones is rude and badly behaving himself and you call me a dolt (and a few other names). No surprise there. I don’t even like Morgan but that is immaterial when it comes to lying about him. That doesn’t say much about the mirror you are looking into! Will you Mr NRA spokesperson tell your fans that they are the one who badgered Congress to cut off funding to CDC who was researching gun violence and gun safety in America in 1996.. We all know the NRA is a political powerhouse but to cut off 96% of those funds rather proves the NRA isn’t interested in finding out the facts.

• DaveH

Give it up with the “gun death” equivocation, Eddie. The readers here know that it doesn’t matter how they’re killed, they just don’t want to be killed. The “Gun Murder” rate is just a typical Liberal Progressive smokescreen to confuse ignorant people.
The rate of violent crime in 2009 in Great Britain was 2,034 per 100,000 citizens.
The rate of violent crime 2009 in the US was 432 per 100,000 citizens.

• Chuck S

Gun deaths and gun murders are incomplete numbers. The real bottom line is deaths and murders from all causes. A country with gun control is likely to have more murders with other weapons. The day of Sandy Hook, somebody in China killed about the same number of children with a knife.

In the link in the article, the reality check says that violent crime in the UK is 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 – highest in the EU. US has 466 violent crimes/100,000. Also, in the US, in 2011, there were 12,664 homicides 8,583 by guns. 400 were justifiable by law enforcement, 260 justifiable by private citizens leaving 7,923 actual murders. Also that the US is #28 in gun homicide rates, 2.97 /100,000 people. The US has by far the highest gun ownership, so the 27 countries with higher rates have fewer guns per person.

I looked at FBI statistics and found that violent crime decreased from 758/100,000 in 1992 to 429/100,000 in 2009 (different year than paragraph above).

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html

The UK Home office statistics show there were 615 homicides in the UK in 2009/2010, apparently 307 per year? That number also decreased in the last several years,.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/research-statistics/crime/crime-statistics/police-recorded-crime/

John Lott, author of several books, including “More Guns, Less Crime”, said that the UK always had a much lower murder rate than the US, even before they had any gun control. Lott also said that he was on the faculty of the U of Chicago the same time Obama was and that Obama told him that private citizens shouldn’t be allowed to own guns.

• JeffH

The hypocritical dummy says “Jeff; So Jones is rude and badly behaving himself and you call me a dolt (and a few other names). No surprise there. I don’t even like Morgan but that is immaterial when it comes to lying about him.”

No one can rival you and your hypocrisy when it comes to initiating name calling.

Yep, because you are a dolt you ignorant hypocrit! Your record speaks for itself. You don’t even like Morgan but you jump at the opportunity to defend the indefensible trash talking Morgan because you felt Jones was lying? You ignoramous, you’re the ultimate & oft proven compulsive liar so why would anyone expect you to know what a lie even is when you deny your own lies right here on this website in the face of proof posted with links that prove otherwise.

Do you really think the posters here are so stupid that they can’t see you for what you are eddie, a mindless progressive/liberal shill who is truly dumber than a “sack of hammers”!

• eddie47d

Chuck: Those kids in China were all injured with a knife and none died!

• eddie47d

Why would continue to believe you Jeff H when I didn’t lie about anything. In that video clip Jones was rude and Piers wasn’t. Its about Piers figures and are they accurate not about whether you like Alex Jones. Jones is usually in control of himself and he certainly wasn’t this time. Old Jeff has to dig for trouble every chance he gets!

• Bill

Eddie, Eddie, Eddie , Your handlers have trained you well. We can get your same comments from the liberal media. Which we all know are not true.

We know you are just quoting rhetoric that you have been paid to say. We all need to ignore you so we can be productive

• Dennis48e

I will believe my numbers before I believe yours eddie because mine come from the “FBI Uniform Crime Report” while yours come from the Centers for disease Control. I do believe the FBI being a police agence has a better handle on crime than the CDC a medical organization.

• JC
• eddie47d

Yes Jeff H you do lie about lying and you continue to do so!

• JC

eddie47d says:
January 11, 2013 at 6:45 pm
Yes Jeff H you do lie about lying and you continue to do so!
___________________________________________________________________

More liberal “projecting”. Kamrade eduardo is always accusing people of lying.
Since that’s the way liberals are…they think everyone is the same way.
If liberals lie…everyone must lie.
If liberals shoot themselves with their own guns…everyone must shoot themselves with their own guns.

Just a bunch of nasty little children really.

• DaveH
• DaveH
• Robert Smith

Circus Boy!

Corkey says: “Morgan is another of their intellectually dishonest stooges that pose as reporters”

We knew that about him when he worked for the extremist Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox news.

Rob

• Steve Thomas

Even if you stats are correct, they cover a VERY diverse group. In fact so diverse that those stats are totally meaning less. Since the discussion is about gun cuntrol, the statistics would only be meaningful if they separated CCW areas from gun controled areas. This would give you figures like you are 4 times more likey to die by a gun in Chicago than a soldier is in a current war zone. And the reason the soldiers are safer…THEY HAVE GUNS!!

• John Lilleburnes Ghost

A violent crime is recorded in the UK twice if 2 17-22 years old punch each other. It doesnt happen in the USA because you are not free to drink until you 21 There is also the risk that right-wing inadequate might run home and get his glock 55 bullet babybutcher and kill everyone in the bar. Sure it cuts down “violent crime’ but what a load of [expletive deleted]. Please answer the fundemental question what goes on in your heads when you want to buy something that solely exists too kill lots of people a close range? What are you really scared of? Does it make you empowered?

• Chester

Jukebox, Abel would be just as dead, as Cain didn’t take him on in a man to man, but did a nice job of sneak attack. Someone comes up behind you to kill you, matters not whether they are carrying a gun or a big rock. If you don’t know it is coming, you can NOT defend against it.

• grannymae1

eddie47d, Since England has no guns how many other deaths were there and by what method were they killed ! Supposedly the gun control is suppose to stop the killings but it doesn’t it simply stops the killing by gun. They will find other methods, knives, sissors, axes, machete’s, you name it.Confiscating all the guns does not stop the killing, nor will it stop rebelion! If notheing else man will simply throw stones ! I believe that was the first murder weapon ! My we have traveled a long way baby !

• robbiefine@hotmail.com

Getting rid of guns does not stop killing. Well how do you like that? People can still kill you with a baseball bat or a box cutter. Gee wiz. Thanks for the news flash! But we know that. The point is – for the really slow learners or willfully blind – is the speed of the killing. You see with a baseball bat you really have to work at murdering, say, 20 six year olds. It takes time. And while you’re bashing away at one toddler the others can run away. But if you have Afghanistan heavy and rapid weaponry you can blast the heads off of those 20 or 30 or 40 youngsters in under a minute without even stepping too far into the room. Please try to understand this distinction. It’s funny that gun lovers don’t seem to understand how lethal these high powered military grade weapons are. Or do you just pretent not to know?

• GALT

In order to successfully solve a puzzle or problem, it is usually an intelligent idea
to use the pieces available……..

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

” To conquer, first DIVIDE!!!!!” ( and then HANG, separately. )

• ranger09

Lets see in WW2 UK was in bad trouble, Now if i remember the people were only allowed a few Shotguns and a few rifles, And only allowed a few shells and bullets. NOW i Wonder where they would be if THE AMERICANS had not come to their Aid. And one thing we Know for sure is America will never be defeated from without, We can only be defeated from WITHIN. .A quote from NK 1967. Oh i still think WE the Americans help protect the UK.

• GALT

???????????????? You lost??????????????

• Steve Thomas

What are you quoting?
And, the UK was poorly armed and we did save their butts! And France’s, and Norway’s and…

• John Lilleburnes Ghost

The US did not come to the UK aid. Unlike the USA the UK declared on Germany. Germany declared war on the USA. Secondly by the time the US turned up Germany had given up on invading the UK and invaded the USSR. The USSR would have destroiyed Germany regardless of the UK and USA. The Americans certainly saved western EU from the USSR but thats it. Gun ownership had nothing to do it with. You twats will cling to anything wont you

• Bill

Robert,
So who is paying you Robert. Are you a public sector worker trying to protect your non productive benefits that are a burden to the taxpayers or are you paid by the same poeple that pay Flashy.

You keep quoting such mundane stuff that is similar to the main stream medias propaganda
It’s for the chldren
Level playing field
Pay their fair share
Tax the rich

You are so predictable that I could write your posts for you

• JUKEBOX

“It’s for the children” is synonymous with “We’re from the government and we’re here to help you”.

• http://Yahoo Marilyn

Sheepdog…please don’t forget there is a video out there with Holder stating they will brainwash the people in regards to gun ownership. And don’t forget those who state, “never let a crisis go to waste”, using that crisis to push your agenda against the people. History also points, for those who have bothered to research it, who the biggest killer of its own people are. Research that.

Amen Dennis48e, I had to go to London to get robbed, not here in the U.S.

• Bill

So Great, Eddie,
Let’s focus on the criminals and not try to ty the hands of the honest citizens when they need to protect themselves

• eddie47d

• Bob

Boycott CNN it’s all lying propaganda and deport Morgan he’s a piece of poo.

• Nick Czudy

Rock,
Alex Jones should be the one to deport himself. What a whack job. Piers Morgan did a decent attempt to try and interview him. The British statistics of 35 murders is fairly accurate. Britain is a violent, nation and Jones made the statistic of 1000′s of violent crimes. That may be, but imagine if these violent crimes had guns, there would be way more murders. More guns does not mean less murders. Restricting the types of guns is not an attempt to take away all guns.

• nickkin

Hey Nick, why don’t you and your lyme buddy piece morgan go to britland and just stay there together. You’ll love it, and he will love you for being his escort.

• grannymae1

As for Piers Morgan,
Everyone knows he is an idiot ! He needs to discover that the door swings both ways. Go home to your wonderful ole England ! I think good ole USofA has bailed her out a good many times and it was freedom from her that we declared our independance and made sure we all had guns, to protect us from her tyrany !

What is this joker, a Brit, coming to America and telling us what to do? We do not give a hoot what you say Morgan because you have no idea what it means to be a true American. And if you do not know what a true American is, let me know and I will tell you.

• Nick Czudy

Ronald, what is a “Real American” I wonder if you really know?

• Walter & Renee Agard

You are right time, good teachings comes from the home. and we have to teach our children history about our forefathers without hate. No one of us are responsible for what our forefathers did. we are just descendants of them. why don,t we try to live together,and make ourselves a better person? If you look at how we act, it looks so stupid and ignorant.

• jd

Could it be that Piers Morgan is nothing more than a poltroon and mouthpiece for the New World Order/globalists/communists-fascist banking thieves? He sure has me convinced he is.

• robbiefine@hotmail.com

The answer to your loaded question is simply “No.” He is merely just so sad and sickened by the multitude of senseless and needless gun murders. Think of those little children you goof. And think of their teachers who also died by THE GUN. Think – if you at all can – of the lifelong pain their family and friends will now have to endure because of people like you who think its neat to be able to own and use military grade heavy weaponry. A shame on you.

• Nick Czudy

Robbie. Well spoken. I agree with you completely. It is nice to find a person with a sane comment on this site.

• http://personalliberty.com JCW43

I agree 100% plus. Piers Morgan is a blight on this country and needs to go back where he came from. Sanctimonious ignorance and arrogance don’t even begin to describe the workings of his pea-sized brain. My own personal ancestors booted his kind out of our country with the Revolutionary War, and if things are so great in England, he needs to book the next flight from New York to London and get the hell out of here.

• nickkin

This limey idiot got kicked out of the UK and as usual , all retards from othe countries end up in the American melting pot. This garbled marble mouth should try his TV luck on the new Al Jezzera network !