Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Before The Body Goes Cold

December 4, 2012 by  

Before The Body Goes Cold
PHOTOS.COM

While Jovan Belcher’s final act appalls me, that revulsion is nothing compared to how I feel about the ghouls who jumped on the situation in order to push political ideologies. Writing for FOX Sports, Jason Whitlock managed to turn the orphaning of a 3-month-old into a bizarre rant against the 2nd Amendment.

Our current gun culture simply ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead. … What I believe is, if he didn’t possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.

A man takes a 22-year-old woman’s life, orphans their child and then kills himself, and Whitlock “believes” guns are to blame. Granted, Whitlock is well-known for allowing his political ignorance to obstruct his reason; witness his infamously racist attack on NBA star Jeremy Lin. But he’s hardly the only commentator who has seized on tragedy to promote an assault on the Constitution like a vulture seizing on roadkill. I find it fascinating that pseudo-journalists like Whitlock and his allies in hate groups like the Brady Campaign either can’t or won’t learn that a culture that excuses virtually every perversion, every failure and every crime as somehow being the fault of inanimate objects, YouTube videos or “the rich” might produce exactly this sort of outcome.

Whitlock wasn’t the biggest player to “Belcher” his own credibility on the altar of anti-Constitutional hate; he was simply the first to do so. Sunday night, NBC’s Bob Costas committed what should have been career suicide thusly:

You want some actual perspective on this? Well, a bit of it comes from the Kansas City-based writer Jason Whitlock with whom I do not always agree, but who today said it so well that we may as well just quote or paraphrase from the end of his article.

Oh, poor little Bobby; you went from respected sportscaster to left-wing buffoon in less time than it takes an NFL trainer to tape an ankle. I didn’t expect much from Whitlock; I did expect more from you.

The President and at least two of his accomplices, Attorney General Eric Holder and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice,  have participated in paper-thin cover-ups involving murder, weapons trafficking, perjury and outright lying; and we’re told that anyone who notes their crimes is racist for doing so. Professional athletes behave like steroid-addled gladiators who’ve just been furloughed from the Thunderdome, and we’re supposed to ignore their behavior because they sell tickets and jerseys and/or show up for the occasional charity event. Hell, Charlie Sheen, who is the poster boy for Dionysian self-indulgence, has parlayed coke binges and domestic abuse into wink-nod ad campaigns for Fiat.

It’s important to recognize that there is no such thing as gun control. Gun control is merely a convenient rhetorical camouflage for the real goal of so-called “gun control” proponents’ parent philosophy: “people control.” It’s more important to recognize that the people who desire such control over their fellow citizens are poor choices to wield it. Furthermore, it’s important to recognize that there is no such thing as “gun violence.” There is violence — on the football field, in Chicago and in programs run by the Departments of Justice and State. But that’s all “people” violence.

When agitators like Whitlock and Costas turn a tragedy into a podium from which to expound on their own personal political causes, they not only diminish the suffering of the victims and their loved ones, they distract — often deliberately — from the real root causes of violence and pain. And their macabre attempts to spin political thread from human suffering only compound the real pain being suffered by the real victims.

–Ben Crystal

Ben Crystal

is a 1993 graduate of Davidson College and has burned the better part of the last two decades getting over the damage done by modern-day higher education. He now lives in Savannah, Ga., where he has hosted an award-winning radio talk show and been featured as a political analyst for television. Currently a principal at Saltymoss Productions—a media company specializing in concept television and campaign production, speechwriting and media strategy—Ben has written numerous articles on the subjects of municipal authoritarianism, the economic fallacy of sin taxes and analyses of congressional abuses of power.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Before The Body Goes Cold”

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.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • CZ52

    What was it a week ago that a man stabbed his father’s girlfriend to death, shot his father in the head with a bow then stabbed him to death, and took his own life with a knife yet there has been NO outcry against knives or bows.

    • GALT

      Are you sure?

      • ccfonten

        Not yet, but just wait.

      • Kate8

        And don’t forget OJ. Another death by knife crime.

        Wouldn’t matter, anyway. Whenever they need justification, they just stage a mass shooting.

        I think I’d rather be shot than knifed, if I had to pick one.

        Methinks it’s not OUR safety that their worried about. It’s easier to get to THEM with firepower than with knives.

      • Mikey

        Kate, you hit the nail on the head. With guns, we are in a better position to defend, let me repeat: DEFEND ourselves from government over reach.

      • vicki

        Mikey says:
        “With guns, we are in a better position to defend, let me repeat: DEFEND ourselves from government over reach.”

        We are in a better position to defend ourselves from ANY criminal over reach, agents of government or otherwise.

      • GALT

        Well hell, just to make this all “fair” and “balanced”….ban knives, aspirin……all Michael Jacksons doctors……tall buildings and things that can fall or be dropped from them….and Meteors…and people with large magnets…….

        [comment has been edited]

        Simple stuff….say it like you mean IT…and/or like you actually know what it means!

        Anybody confused?

      • GALT

        Well hell, just to make this all “fair” and “balanced”….ban knives, aspirin……all Michael Jacksons doctors……tall buildings and things that can fall or be dropped from them….and Meteors…and people with large magnets…….

        The purpose of having the right to bear arms is to KILL COPS ( the lowest common denominator of tyrant and ( starts with ass, ends with holes ) and everything above them on the “stupid chain”.

        Simple stuff….say it like you mean IT…and/or like you actually know what it means!

        Anybody confused?

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Kate8,”

        MA’AM, WHAT ABOUT THOSE WITH ILLEGAL GUNS WHO ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT? CONSERVATIVES ARE EXTREMELY “OUT-OF-TOUCH” IN REFERENCE TO THE Jovan Belcher Story.

        Bob Costas’ COMMENTS WENT UNNOTICED BY PEOPLE IN URBAN AREAS WHO DEAL WITH CONFLICTS BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES.

      • moonbeam

        I think you’re right there, Kate8. See, if we have money and guns we can take over. And they know this. The rule of the day is keep them poor and unarmed so we can democratically rule over them. Democratic = mob rule.

      • Kate8

        I’m sorry, CHRISTOPHER, but I fail to understand your point.

        What about criminals who don’t care about the 2nd Amendment? What bearing does that have on what I said?

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Kate8,”

        MA’AM, MY POINT IS, THE AVERAGE PERSON WHO WATCHED THAT BALLGAME SIMPLY CONSIDERED Mr. Costas’ COMMENTS TO BE A TIME FOR GAME-CALLERS TO “HOWL.” WHILE Mr. Costas WAS SPEAKING, MANY PEOPLE PROBABLY WENT TO GET ANOTHER BEER.

        “Kate8,” I THINK YOU KNOW I RESPECT YOUR VALUES.

        BUT, SECOND-AMENDMENT RIGHTS, “GUN-GRABS,” AMMUNITION STOCKPILES, ETC., ARE ONLY IMPORTANT TO ELDERLY CAUCASIANS WHO LISTEN TO TALK RADIO AND PARTICIPATE ON CONSERVATIVE WEBSITIES. FOR MOST PEOPLE, THIS IS A SITUATION IN WHICH TWO PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE NEVER FORMED A RELATIONSHIP.

        “Kate8,” MA’AM, MONEY “COMES BETWEEN” MALES AND FEMALES EVERYDAY.

      • Kate8

        CHRISTOPHER – I’m very sad to hear that.

        Our founders knew that they only way we could ever hope to sustain our Bill of Rights is if we had the right to arms. I am not “in love” with guns. In fact, were it not for their necessity as a show of force, I would prefer no one had them.

        However, as long as criminals, and that includes the government, have firepower, we must make sure we have them, too. That is the only thing that has prevented them from succeeding in completely overcoming us thus far, and it is why they are so intent on taking them away now.

        If government and law enforcement go ahead and get rid of ALL GUNS on the face of the Earth, then I say, fine. I do have to say, though, the idea of being run through with a sword, or having ahead or limb lopped off, is even less appealing that being shot.

        For anyone to believe we will be at all safe if the guv confiscates our guns (and they will do it by force in the middle of the night), and they won’t know who has illegal guns…well, it is a grave mistake. Once this happens, any hope of reclaiming our country will be lost.

        I can assure you, there are millions who will see such an act as a declaration of war, and it will not be pretty. We don’t need government to “allow” us to have guns. The 2nd Amendment cannot be repealed or abridged…and it is the only permit we need.

        If the black community does not value the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment, then they don’t value any part of our Law, because these things are not primarily OUR RIGHTS, but more importantly, are restrictions on the government. You are Americans first and foremost.

        Think about that.

      • vicki

        Kate8 writes:
        “If government and law enforcement go ahead and get rid of ALL GUNS on the face of the Earth, then I say, fine. I do have to say, though, the idea of being run through with a sword, or having ahead or limb lopped off, is even less appealing that being shot.”

        I am not a large strong male so sword and shield is right out of there for me. Guns allow me a chance against those who would consider me to be their prey.

      • nickkin

        YAH….HE’S SURE….as a vegan galt…..your road kill consists of raw veggies…don’t boil or steam them….I’m sure there is an organization that would take away pots and pans away so as not to harm the veggies.

    • Xin-Loi

      The bow and knife culture is dangerous. It’s time we banned assault-knives and assault-bows, nobody needs to own these, they’re not used for sporting purposes.

      • Mikey

        …and assault hammers, and assault ropes, and assault fists…

      • JC

        Assault pencils, crayons and Yo-Yo’s too.
        Assault ropes, sticks, letter openers, pointy boots, Prius’s, drinking straws, broken bottles, wrenches, hammers, bricks, fence boards, nails, screwdrivers…
        I mean if we can’t ban these dealy items altogether, we should certainly have a national registry right?

        Bahahahahahahaha……

        MORONS! About 88 million hunters and gun owners killed NO ONE Today.
        One tragic steroid freak losing his mind does not constitute a national emergency.
        Sad though it is….

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Let’s get rid of rocks and treeslimbs as you would never know when they will be used to kill or maime another human being.

        Did you do any thinking before you wrote?

      • vicki

        Let’s stick everyone in their own cocoon so they can’t hurt anyone else nor be hurt. Then we feed their minds with a shared dream experience so they don’t go insane and use their bio electricity to power the cocoons. Oh wait…….

      • moonbeam

        And I think it’s only right that we ban forks, spoons and screwdrivers too. Guns are dangerous only when a human is involved. It can do nothing of itself unless an anal orifice happens by it, decides to pick it up and wrap a finger around the trigger. Now, who is more dangerous? The gun or the anal orifice who just had to touch it?

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Why is everyone becoming a busybody over Belcher? I don’t know or do I care who he was. Belcher didn’t know or care about who we are or even if we existed. He didn’t come to us for life advice as in careful what you pick up and then create a child with it, etc., etc..

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Nadzieja Batki” – YOU ARE ON POINT!

      • ibcamn

        you kinda sound like that dumb ass liberal lady on the news that said it was half time,so nobody heard him go off on guns anyways!its stupid comments like that that really make you relize how stupid the progressive sympothizers really are!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

      The reason for the second amendment was to protect us from a out of control government. The founders knew what it was like to live where only the government had weapons. Band cars, they kill, band drugs, they kill band anything that kills and the government decides who lives and dies? Isn’t that what obozo-care does? Decides who lives and die’s. Wow, I’m going to be 70 years old and I’m suppose to roll over and die to save the government from giving the money I trusted to them to get a retirement? I may be old but, can still shoot with the best of them and if you want my gun, one bullet at a time until I take you with me. If this guy didn’t have a gun in his state of mind he would have found away to kill his girl friend and himself. Able used a club, so band all clubs, stupid is as stupid does, wise words. Hitler did it and see what he did after gun control, ask Hungrey what they used after having no weapons? A sick and give me society wants the government to run their lives, can’t make it on their own and need papa government to supply all their needs and obozo won a election by promises and cheating, what a dumb nation this has become.

      • vicki

        Benjamin Fox says:
        “….band(Ban) anything that kills and the government decides who lives and dies? ”

        If the government is deciding who dies then government is killing and needs to be banned.

      • sean murry

        As a senior myself i have seen this great country sliding into a give me from the goverment these kids today want the goverment to take of them.

    • Lydia White

      Rush Limbaugh had an amazing commentary today and managed to turn this into the insanity that it is. He used the bow and the knife and said that now they should be banned. And the woman who had her husband pushed in front of the subway; well, subways should be banned. And the person who committed a crime because of PCP laced marijuana; well, marijuana should be banned. And, Costas wasn’t supposed to be on mike when he went on his anti gun rant; well, it’s the mike’s fault and microphones should be banned because they cause so much damage! Why, look at Jessie Jackson when he was caught with a hot mike and didn’t know it. BAN THAT MICROPHONE. And we could just take the ludicrous insanity of this twisted misguided gun ban theory and turn it around on them!!! See where this is going? Rush was brilliant with his sarcasm today and had me laughing at how stupid they actually are. I do not use the word “stupid” often but, God help the liberals. There is no other word to use.

      • Jeff

        The difference between something sensible and some Limbaugh Nonsense where anything you can link to something else becomes an argument can be summed up in one word. A word the right clearly has no concept of – JUDGMENT. In case it need be explained to you, toasters can kill people, but it is not their primary purpose. Therefore, banning toasters is probably unreasonable while regulating guns to make them a bit safer probably makes a lot of sense. Now, if it were possible to make toasters safer (maybe an automatic shut-off) and the FTC proposed such a regulation, guess who would be on the air denouncing it. Your hero Fatbaugh is a Big Joke.

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

      What about cars, aids, clubs and poison? Seems a lot of things kill but, the government is worried about guns because we have the right to over throw a government that is immoral, un-Godly and against the people. Do we have that now? Easy, Yes. and they are fearful of losing power. The reason for the 2nd Amendment was because our founders came from countries where they couldn’t fight back since they had no weapons to do so. Hitler disarmed people to make sure he could win at what ever. We in America have the biggest standing army in the world because we are armed. John Adams said a unarmed America are slave, a armed America are citizens. Make up your mind, slaves or free.

  • Warrior

    But Ben, the four dead in benghazi weren’t killed by guns, it was “the video”. Amazing how some situations have their own special narratives. Secretly, I think our gubmint loves guns. They’re useful for population control like in the middle east and mexico! Oh, and the inner city of chicago of course.

  • jim

    Whitlock should rethink his comments, garbage!! cz52 is right on. Costas should save his comments for the sport world not domestic issues.

    • To Tell The Truth

      Costas just blew it pontificating about something he knows nothing about. Sorta like the Democraps pontificating about the evils of capitalism, something they know nothing about.

      • Cindy

        Football is a violent sport. I believe we should STOP all football games immediately. 1. That would stop the violent mentality. 2. Football players would not be so revered that they are allowed to get by with any crime. (let’s extend this rule across the board…NO SPORTS because players sometimes become violent….baseball, basketball, hockey, rugy lacrosse, swimming, bike riding, polo. Tell me a sport that hasn’t experienced violence. Good thing Tony Stewart only had (the choice of) a helmet to throw.) Yes. Stop ALL SPORTS immediately because we don’t know what could happen when an athlete becomes enraged. 3.Stoop-ped commentators would not have a job and therefore would not be allowed to spew inane arguments to support an inane view. I’m so sick of people thinking I care about their ignorant opinions. I don’t.
        Guns don’t kill people. Football kills people.

      • boyscout

        Cindy. Reduce sports to checkers and tiddley winks and eventually some disgruntled looser will gouge the eyes out of his opponent. People are by nature prone to violence; (believe in evolution or no) eg. the reptillian brain still controlls motor function and both upper and lower jaws sprout “eye” teeth. Some sports offer a potentially regulated outlet for said native violence. Why cork the bottle holding such a volitile emotion ?

      • Corsica

        Ban bingo!

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “To Tell The Truth” – IF Bob Costas OWNS A GUN, HE KNOWS “SOMETHING.” EVERYONE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT GUN-RIGHTS. CONSERVATIVES ARE TRYING TO MAKE A POLITICAL ISSUE OUT OF PARANOIA.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Cindy” – IF WE STOP FOOTBALL, THERE WILL BE A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE “POOR-HOUSE.” I THOUGHT CONSERVATIVES WANTED TO STOP PEOPLE FROM “LIVING-OFF” TAXPAYERS.

      • Kate8

        CHRISTOPHER – Are you saying that you are pro-gun confiscation?

        Don’t you realize that that is always the last thing governments do before they clamp down really hard and start commiting genocide?

        Why do you think that the United States is the last country to disarm? Why do you think that thy MUST disarm us before bringing in total world domination?

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Kate8,”

        MA’AM, YOU MISUNDERSTOOD MY COMMENTS. OF COURSE, I WANT THE RIGHTS OF LAWFUL GUN-OWNERS TO BE UPHELD.

        “Kate8,” MA’AM, I KNOW YOUR AGE. [You mentioned it in a thread back in June or July].

        IN REFERENCE TO Personal Liberty Digest, THE COMMENTS MADE BY YOU AND OTHERS HIGHLIGHT THE “GENERATION GAP,” IN REFERENCE TO HOW COUPLES DEAL WITH CONFLICT. THE Belcher Story IS NOT SIMILAR – “AT ALL” – TO THE James Holmes Story. ANY POLITICIAN WHO TRIES TO MAKE A CONNECTION BETWEEN The Belcher Story AND GUN LEGISLATION WILL HAVE DIFFICULTY IN THE NEXT ELECTION-CYCLE.

        MASS MURDERS PROMOTE A “BATTLE-CRY” FOR CHANGES IN GUN LAWS – NOT, DOMESTIC “SQUABBLES.”

      • Kate8

        CHRISTOPHER – Mass shootings are staged by the government so they can move forward with their plans to “keep us safe”.

        Rather than show a need to disarm people, they demonstrate how much more critical it is that we remain armed. If our government is willing to sacrifice its citizens to make a point, and to justify their actions in further restricting our freedom, then we are definitely not safe from them by any stretch of the imagination.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Kate8,”

        I AGREE. YOU AND I HAD A SIMILAR CONVERSATION THREE OR MORE MONTHS AGO ABOUT SILLY GOVERNMENT PURCHASING RIOT GEAR IN PREPARATION OF ATTACK ON CIVILIANS IN ASSEMBLY.

        “Kate8,” MA’AM, I AM MERELY COMMENTING ON MY OBSERVATION THAT THE Belcher Story IS “WHIPPING CONSERVATIVES INTO A FRENZY” FOR NOTHING.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      I listened to what Costas babbled, I am curious why is he an announcer in the first place?

      • Jeff

        Because he’s different from you. People care what he has to say, and they listen to him.

      • JC

        I don’t think so. In fact I think Nadzieja makes much more sense than that Costas fellow.
        I mean, he’s a nice guy and all…but he has no back bone and no sense of what’s morally correct. I think he’s one of those silly liberal types. ;-)

  • James Maxwell

    You can take fully loaded weapon, knief, bow arrows and lay them all on table. Leave
    home for the day and when yo come back they will all be exactly where you left them gathering dust. But they will not jump up an go off t kill someone unless person picks
    them up. It take human interaction to make them function just like an automobile, airplane,
    boat or any other object. We have more people killed by drunks and drub addicts behind
    the wheel of a car ever year then we have killed by guns. The only reason you hear about
    an outcry about gun is criminals are afraid of an armed society and so are corrupt politicians
    they know they cannot subjugate a free and armed society.

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

      Of course, and any anti-gun buffoon should be able to understand your argument; or could they? Conversely, the benefits derived from your list of objects are never mentioned by the Luddites. Strange…

    • eddie47d

      Criminals are not “afraid of an armed society”. Matter of fact that is nothing more than another challenge for them. If a criminal is willing to inflict violence on someone then he may even relish a shootout to prove himself.

      • Wayne

        Not true. Two punks decided to rob a game room with a gun and baseball bat. When a 60+ senior citizen pulled out his own gun and began shooting, the punks were tripping over each other in their haste to get the hell out of there. The robbery was thwarted and one of the punks ended up in the hospital awaiting his arrest.

      • Kate8

        eddie – Do you EVER do any research before you pop off?

        The evidence is clear that when a society is disarmed, the crime rate goes way up.

        But what do I know. I’m just a CT. And facts don’t mean much to you. If it doesn’t fit with your leftist agenda, you simply declare it “unproven” and carry on.

        Reminds me of an old friend and smoking. He’d declare, “They’ve never PROVEN smoking is harmful”, as he puffed away while tethered to an oxygen tank.

      • Flashy

        Kate8..what statistics are you referring to? The evidence is clear that when a society is disarmed, the crime rate goes way up.”

        Your statistics would be the same as the ones cited by the old geezer and his cigarettes…

      • TML

        ‘Criminals’ will almost always take the path of least resistance. The more obstacles placed in their way the more they are deterred. What you’re saying isn’t unheard of, but a rarity for sure, and certainly not the rule for the majority of criminals who would be willing to inflict violence on someone.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Eddie: Criminals are not “afraid of an armed society”.

        What about an armed Police-force? If you answer no, you destroy your assertion, and likewise, if you answer yes.

      • CZ52

        eddie if criminals are not “afraid of an armed society” why do they prefer to break into unoccupied homes?

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        December 4, 2012 at 8:54 am

        Criminals are not “afraid of an armed society”. Matter of fact that is nothing more than another challenge for them. If a criminal is willing to inflict violence on someone then he may even relish a shootout to prove himself.
        _________________________________________________________________
        WTF? What are you on today?
        I’m not sure when I’ve heard a more ridiculous statement.

      • eddie47d

        JC: Its far more rational than your ball point pen diatribe above. LOL!

      • eddie47d

        CZ: Even vagrants or teens looking for kicks break into “unoccupied” homes. Weapons at either end don’t have to be involved in either scenario.

      • eddie47d

        WTS/Jay: What does the police have to do with it. If criminals were so afraid of the police they wouldn’t be committing crimes. Besides some police aren’t always a citizens best friend and can be a danger to the citizen. .

      • eddie47d

        TML: That would then be a solid reason for having the TSA . You know “the path of least resistance”. Why attempt to hijack a plane if you can’t accomplish your mission. You must love all those “obstacles”!

      • eddie47d

        Kate 8; Maybe you should think before you pop off in your hair brain rant!. Its like those who say its no big deal to leave guns on the kitchen table because they are harmless. How come two different children here were killed because they picked up those guns on the kitchen table. One kid was 4 and the other 12. That take us back to personal responsibility and reckless gun owners. I forgot “facts” don’t mean a thing to you.

      • TML

        Eddie47d says, “That would then be a solid reason for having the TSA . You know “the path of least resistance”. Why attempt to hijack a plane if you can’t accomplish your mission. You must love all those “obstacles”!”

        Strawman
        I obviously do not condone obstacles which violate the natural rights of law abiding citizens, and TSA isn’t necessarily effective even we accept your earlier claim; “that is nothing more than another challenge for them. If a criminal is willing to inflict violence on someone then he may even relish a shootout to prove himself [by getting past security, and then it free for all if he does]”.

        Your reference to hijackers of an airplane could be thwarted more effectively by allowing the pilots to arm themselves behind locked bullet proof doors, and perhaps even armed security personnel on every flight, along with typical luggage x-rays and metal detectors. Even the 9/11 hijackers were only able to get box-cutter through with such security measure at the time– not bombs or a gun. TSA is ineffective and unnecessary, especially due to its continued violations of personal liberty (the 4th)

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        December 4, 2012 at 12:27 pm

        JC: Its far more rational than your ball point pen diatribe above. LOL!
        _______________________________________________________________________

        The difference being my obvious sarcasm vs your attempt to be taken seriously LOL
        Good luck with that.

      • vicki

        Kate8 says:
        “eddie – Do you EVER do any research before you pop off?”

        Obviously not and he never provides links to support his proofs by bald assertion.

        For the rest of us, there is the internet.
        “As the NIJ Felon Survey summarizes its data: “Beyond all doubt, criminals clearly worry about confronting an armed victim.”

        http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kates.premises.html

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Eddie: What does the police have to do with it. If criminals were so afraid of the police they wouldn’t be committing crimes.

        Would committing a crime out of sight of police presence count as fear of police?

        Eddie: Besides some police aren’t always a citizens best friend and can be a danger to the citizen. .

        Perhaps another good argument for an armed-citizentry?

      • CZ52

        “Even vagrants or teens looking for kicks break into “unoccupied” homes.”

        Thanks for proving my point eddie. All criminals prefer unoccupied homes over occupied ones because the chances of them being shot are so much lower in an unoccupied one.

  • edwige

    There are too many guns in households! Just plain and simple! No good comes from guns. GET RID OF THEM!!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/john.bradley.3133 John Bradley

      Read the comment above yours, You! Sir! are a fool and a willful ignoramus!

    • Chocopot

      You’re an idiot!

      • eddie47d

        What else would a gun owner say ….and nothing changes . You are a hothead and one of those who shouldn’t have a weapon near your family or society.

      • Chester

        Eddie, if YOU have a problem with guns, then don’t own one. That simple. As long as there are weapons around, including fists, open hands, feet, heads, teeth, and a number of other naturally available things, people will be maimed and killed with them. That boy in KC that killed his girlfriend, then himself, quite possibly would have done so with a knife or a rope if nothing else was available to him. When someone decides to take a life, they are going to do so, even if they have to physically break a neck to do it.

      • eddie47d

        Its easier to fight back with a knife and it would have been hard for the player to commit suicide with a knife. Unless he slit his throat. Guns are the path of least resistance and oh so easy. I’ll leave the rope hanging to the vigilantes.

      • JC

        eddie47d says:
        December 4, 2012 at 12:48 pm
        Its easier to fight back with a knife and it would have been hard for the player to commit suicide with a knife.
        ________________________________________________________

        Well Eduardo, with a little luck, you will get to face down a gun weilding assailant with your knife, and let us all know how it goes for you. Here’s hoping…. :)

    • hipshotpercusion

      To bad the mother didn’t have a gun to defend herself. If she had, her child might still have a mother.

      • Flashy

        Where do you think he picked it up from? Jeesh…..

    • Gary L.

      edwige, It is fairly obvious that you have no gun to get rid of. It is your right NOT to own one. I have the right to own as many as I want to and will defend that right as best I can from morons that think (or not) like you do. One day you may wish you had a gun. Maybe people like me will stand up and protect you. Maybe.

    • Howard

      Guns are a tool. Simple as that. Maybe there are too many hammers in most American households. Lets get rid of the hammers. We can start a movement. Let’s Go! Rah, Rah, Rah. When hammers are outlawed, only outlaws will have hammers.

      • eddie47d

        Same old banter! Hammers and cars have nothing to do with gun violence but some of you make it your focal point. No one buys a hammer to kill someone. Someone may die from a hammer blow but it wasn’t the original intention. The same with a car! No one goes down and plunks thousands of dollars down to buy a car just to kill someone. Someone may die from being hit by a car but that is not the original intention. Guns on the other hand have the sole purpose to inflict harm to others and is bought for the purpose to possibly do harm to someone or maybe an animal. Sure you can use words like protection and self defense but that still doesn’t change there purpose. You don’t buy a gun to drive down the street and you don’t buy a gun to pound in a nail. So get real! You have every right to protect your family or self but you all are in such denial of why you buy a weapon and then use unrelated comparisons.

      • Kate8

        eddie – Same leftist BS.

        Most people don’t have guns with the intent of harming anyone. They are for SELF-DEFENSE against someone who intends to harm YOU. That’s a fact.

        But the original intent had to do with defending against government run amok.

        It is not hypothetical that criminals will keep their guns, especially when we have our government handing them out to them. The definition of “criminal” is that they DON’T OBEY THE LAW. If you are okay with good people being unable to defend against aggressors, then you are truly a sick-o (which is, BTW, the definition of a liberal).

        And also, BTW, most legitimate gun owners have more respect for life than you liberals.

        The bottom line is, self-defense is a natural right. I realize that liberals don’t recognize “natural rights”, but more’s the pity.

        You’d change your tune in a hurry if you or your family became victims of violent crime. If that happened, and you didn’t wish you had a means of defending your wife and kids, then you a lot further gone than we think. Maybe there is no sacrifice too great for the liberal cause. You can always use it to further your agenda.

        “Never let a good crisis go to waste”.

      • eddie47d

        Still playing the arrogant and ignorant Conservative with all the answers aren’t you Kate 8. Go back over the last several months since you seem to zero in on me. I have REPEATEDLY said I support the Second Amendment. I have REPEATEDLY said every person has the right to defend themselves. That makes you a stone cold liar who either doesn’t listen or doesn’t know how to pay attention to what is being said. So I might as well call you a “sicko” (your word) Conservative if you readily want to play that game. You lied about me on Saturday so it must be a fetish with you!

      • Kate8

        Ahhhh, eddie. How’s it feel to have your actual words ignored while repeating the same old mantras?

        You do this to me every day…and attribute things to me that I’ve never said.

        Turn about’s fair play, bro.

        But then, it’s an easy paycheck, huh eddie.

      • JC

        And Eduardo once again proves he is anti-American and anti-Freedom.
        Seriously Eduardo…why don’t you move to a country that has a total gun ban…I hear North Korea is lovely in the spring.

    • boyscout

      Good for you edwige. Keep your self, home, and family safe from weapons! But please be cautious if you come visit my house; there weapons here; I advertise that fact and am considerate enough not to publically point out that you have none. As a further caution, I would advise that you not publically advertise such either. Good luck.

    • http://www.facebook.com/denoferth Dennis Karoleski

      Maybe a better argument would be for ridding ourselves of the whole “Jock” culture who believe bulking up with steroids and bashing people is somehow beneficial to society outside the stadium, rink or cage.

    • Jeff

      “Oh, poor little Bobby; you went from respected sportscaster to left-wing buffoon in less time than it takes an NFL trainer to tape an ankle. I didn’t expect much from Whitlock; I did expect more from you.”

      Isn’t it amazing how on a site like this a non-entity like the author can enter a “debate” with a nationally-known figure? Is Ben saying we don’t have a problem with gun violence? The implication that we’d have the same violence if people had to use fireplace pokers is idiotic. Costas didn’t say a word about the 2nd amendment or about changing the law, but he said the word “gun” and didn’t say how it’s every American’s birthright to always have a gun, so right wing Lilliputians like Ben feel compelled to “crucify” him in their little columns read by dozens of paranoids.

      With the two most recent incidents, one might think a sane society might review its gun policies, but we have an organization that concentrates its resources so it gets its way despite the majority’s wishes. The NRA opposes every reasonable restriction on gun ownership, clip size, and firing capability. They think it’s perfectly OK for people to walk the city streets with military rifles designed for fire fights in Afghanistan. The Second Amendment speaks of a “well-regulated militia” but proponents of so-called gun rights oppose all reasonable regulations and hold gun ownership as the definition of freedom. Tell that to Trayvon Martin or the kid (Jourdan?) who just got shot by that deranged music critic.

      Your gun does not insure your freedom. If the Government wants you, your gun may buy you a few seconds, but you can’t hold off even a couple of police officers, let alone an army. What the presence of a gun does insure is that any dispute, any argument involving flaring tempers, is much more likely to end in tragedy than without the gun. Saying “guns don’t kill people” is like saying bats don’t hit home runs. Try hitting one without one.

      One would think at the very least the NFL might institute a policy preventing its players from possessing firearms. After all, these guys are young, rich, and “entitled” and make their livings from being violent. Add in the likelihood of brain injury plus the pressures of keeping one’s job week to week and you have a recipe for disaster. I’m always amazed when young millionaire athletes or actors have guns or drive under the influence. Have they never heard of limos or security personnel? But then, having a security team isn’t nearly as “macho” as having a big gun, is it?

      • http://Aol.com CommonSense4America

        WOW!!! That’s all I can say because,,,You just can’t fix STUPID.

      • Disgusted

        Jeff, what is ” reasonable ?” When President Kennedy was assassinated, ” reasonable gun control legislation was passed. I actually agreed with it. If a powerful rifle with a scope can be purchased from a catalogue.. and delivered directly to the home address…you have no idea who the person is or what his reason is for the purchase. Unfortunately, gun control advocates didn’t stop there, so other pieces of legislation has been passed, and the discussion still goes on. Remember that, besides self defense and hunting, guns are used for other kinds of sport and recreation.. from target shooting for fun to competitive shooting. That applies to all types of firearms… assault rifles included. Check this out yourself. In every state that has concealed carry laws, the crime rate goes down. The cities that have the highest murder rates and violent crime are the ones with the most gun control ( Chicago and New York .) As one other person said, a gun is a tool. It doesn’t exist for any specific purpose. The purpose is determined by the person holding it.

      • Alan

        That is just about the most obtuse nonsense I’ve ever heard…..lol!

    • Steve E

      Your neighbor should have a sing in his yard that says: “Rob the guy next door. He does not have a gun”.

      • JC

        Here’s your sign: Add appropriate arrow.

        “My neighbor is against guns.
        Out of respect for his beliefs I promise not to use my guns to aid or protect him”

    • Bob

      The Governments own crime experts, the FBI, says thet legitiment gun owners use their guns over 700,000 times per year to stop crimes. Thats 2000 times a day. The vast majority do not have to shoot to stop a criminal, just the presence of a gun causes the criminal to rethink his or her actions.
      Most gun owners never shoot thier gun except on a gun range. Many never shoot their gun at all for the whole time they own it.
      There are more than 80 million gun owners in USA and they are generaly the most law abiding citizens. They care for others safety and are willing to help in times of trouble.
      80 million gun owners did not commit a crime today.!!!!

      • Flashy

        you wouldn’t happen to have a cite to those “FBI statistics’ would you Bob? My guess is…you don’t. just some link to a far right wing wacked gun site..but go ahead, prove me wrong.

      • Kate8

        Very good point, Bob. I have seen those stats, too.

        The liberal press will never make that point, because they are always one-sided toward their agenda. Flash is a paid leftist troll, so I wouldn’t bother posting him a link. He knows how to google. Besides, facts are always ridiculed and descredited by trolls. It’s all in their line of duty.

      • Xin-Loi

        Flashy, try looking up the FBI ‘s “Uniform Crime Statistics”,

      • eddie47d

        ….and Kate 8 the name caller is a paid right wing troll so I reckon that evens things out!

      • Kate8

        Uh, Flush… How can I be a rightwing troll if I’m posting on a conservative website?

        At least I’m here posting my own thoughts. Unlike you, who posts what you are paid to post. You are the quintessential troll.

    • Paul Wells

      People like edwige make me oh so glad I’m fully armed, locked and loaded!

      • jon a. usmc [ret]

        paul wells:
        amen to that. old saying praise god, but pass the ammo first.

    • Mikey

      No, it’s more like this: There are NOT ENOUGH guns in households! Just plain and simple! ONLY good comes from gun RIGHTS. GET MORE OF THEM!!!

    • JC

      edwige says:

      December 4, 2012 at 7:43 am

      There are too many guns in households! Just plain and simple! No good comes from guns. GET RID OF THEM!!!
      _____________________________________________________________________

      How then will we preserve our rights and freedoms?
      Sure as hell the government won’t do it for us…and if you think they will…move to North Korea. They’ll protect you just fine I’m sure.

      • ibcamn

        oh god,youre one of them there sympothizers arnt you?then go tell Obama you support his idea to arm the postal workers cuz they interact with the people more than cops do and they would get there faster and they know where you live!”hello sir, im postal inspector dick,see my badge,im here on police/mail/delivery business,sir turn your music down weve had complaints,dont make me come back-oh,..and heres your mail sir!”hahahahaha..dumest thing i ever heard next to your comments!

      • JC

        WTF are you talking about?
        Sure, arm the postal workers…they’re Americans right?
        So why not?

    • http://Aol.com CommonSense4America

      Edwige,,,,Did you know that you can slit someones neck with a credit card? One that is not even sharpened? We should make credit cards illegal,,,thus saving the temptation to kill someone and to help reduce debt.
      It is the person that kills,,,not the tools. BTW,,,it is illegal to kill someone.
      In the TEN COMMANDMENTS,,,it says “Thou shalt not kill”
      Get the point yet?

      • eddie47d

        No one orders a credit card to have the ability to kill someone. More insanity from those trying to live in a James Bond fantasy movie. Sex can kill too but its generally rare.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “No one orders a credit card to have the ability to kill someone.”

        Of course they do. They order a credit card to have the ability to buy tools in order to have the ability to kill someone.

      • Vicki

        I suppose I should mention that a moral people buy tools like guns cause they are the best tool for self, community, national defense. That’s why moral people provide these tools to their police and military.

        Too bad immoral agents of government have our military running all over the world causing trouble instead of keeping them here at home defending our nation.

      • JC

        DEAD ON Vicki!

    • Vicki

      edwige says:
      “There are too many guns in households! Just plain and simple! No good comes from guns. GET RID OF THEM!!!”

      If no good can come from gun ownership can you please get your military and police to turn in their guns.

  • Ranchman

    “People control.” So true, so sad. Yet millions of sleeping sheeple have absolutely no clue as to what the true agenda is. These are the ones who will wish with all their might that they had a decent firearm and the training to go with it one day. Those of us who are politically awake & aware will be the ones to restore this Republic. We will also be the ones who stand up for all those sheeple. I just wonder if the sheeple will even appreciate it. They just might turn on those who stand up for them, knowing the way they think.

    • Kate8

      Ranchman – You speak the truth. Thank God we have people like you.

      Liberals are incapable of reason. They are Borg. They shoot themselves in the foot (metaphorically, as they have no means to ‘shoot’ with anything but their mouths) to try to make a point. They parrot their programming, overriding common sense.

      Heaven help us that they’ve wrested so much control over this nation.

      • Kate8

        And, BTW, Leftists have done more harm to this country with the stroke of the pen, than guns have done through our entire history.

      • ibcamn

        the liberal mindset is,”we know whats best for everyone and everyone will listen to me and do as we say,..or else!”they ben brainwashed by they’re parents and peers,they got that way because they are week minded and easily manipulated by others and then they pass it on to their kids,kinda like a desease!once in awhile a child does wake up and gets away from the progressive koolaid and does something right!

    • eddie47d

      Isn’t it amazing how every one of you is avoiding the jest of the story and think its a pro gun bedtime lullaby. No concern whatsoever for either victim but that is true about any killing in the news. Just another excuse to buy another gun and write off the loss to a crazy person. If they are all “crazy” then what are you doing to keep crazy people from obtaining guns. Now if that is too hard a question for the Conservatives then maybe you shouldn’t have control of the debate. You damn the government for healthcare and then wonder why there isn’t a valid mental health process to deal with those who need help. The private insurers certainly aren’t doing their part now are they! Apparently Kate 8 hasn’t added up the gun killings during our countries history or she wouldn’t have made such a ridiculous statement.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Isn’t it amazing how every one of you is avoiding the jest of the story and think its a pro gun bedtime lullaby. No concern whatsoever for either victim but that is true about any killing in the news.”

        We have concern for the victim. That is why we fight for everyone’s right to keep and bear arms. Had the woman had easy access to a gun she would have been in a MUCH better position to defend herself. She might not have succeeded but she would have had a better chance.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DO42gUPdwk&list=UL

        • Jeff

          That is insane. How many guns should have been in that house? I suppose Belcher’s mother should have had a gun, too? What about the baby? How is it you can’t see how crazy the whole thing is? When you have a gun in the house, it is far more likely it will be used against someone in the house than it is to be used to defend the home from an intruder.

      • Vicki

        Jeff says:
        “That is insane.”

        Argument to ridicule.

        Jeff: “How many guns should have been in that house?”

        At least 2. That way the wife could defend herself.

        Jeff: “I suppose Belcher’s mother should have had a gun, too?”

        Good idea. That way she could have defended Belcher’s wife.

        Jeff: ” What about the baby?”

        Too young to safely control the gun. Which is why the parents need to.

        Jeff: ” How is it you can’t see how crazy the whole thing is?”

        What whole thing?

        Jeff: ” When you have a gun in the house, it is far more likely it will be used against someone in the house than it is to be used to defend the home from an intruder.”

        That’s cause in most states it is legally better to shoot the intruder AFTER he enters the house thereby biasing the statistics in favor of your claim.

        • Jeff

          “That’s cause in most states it is legally better to shoot the intruder AFTER he enters the house thereby biasing the statistics in favor of your claim.”

          I don’t understand this at all. Whether you shoot the person outside your house or inside, it would count as a time the gun worked in your favor. On the other side of the ledger are all the times guns get stolen in burglaries, when the gun is used in a fit of jealousy or rage against a family member, when the gun accidentally discharges while being cleaned, and when a kid gets hold of the gun and either shoots a friend while playing or takes it to school. I can hear you now: “I told that kid a million times NOT to take that gun and shoot up the school.”

          Also, on the Belcher thing. Do you really think a second gun in the house would have made it less likely she’d have been killed? They weren’t playing a game. He snapped, grabbed a gun, and shot. Twice as many guns in the house would mean twice as many opportunities for such split-second reactions to turn deadly.

      • JC

        eddie47d says:
        December 4, 2012 at 1:16 pm
        Isn’t it amazing how every one of you is avoiding the jest of the story and think its a pro gun bedtime lullaby. No concern whatsoever for either victim but that is true about any killing in the news.
        ___________________________________________________________________

        Eddie, I’m sure Jovann was a perfectly normal perfectly balanced pillar of the community who was probably just mowing his lawn when he went into the house for something cool to drink…and noticed a gun in the drawer…THAT’S when he went crazy. Yup…that’s what guns do, they make saints into murderers in a heart beat. Guns put spells on normal every day people and turn them into crazed killers…but the clincher is those bullets…those clever little bullets whispering…shoot someone…do it now….kill them all…

        Get your meds checked Eduardo.

      • vicki

        Jeff writes:
        “Twice as many guns in the house would mean twice as many opportunities for such split-second reactions to turn deadly.”

        And twice as many opportunities for the victim to defend herself.

        See I can throw around unsubstantiated statistics too :)

  • ccfonten

    This outcry to vilify guns and gun owners is a typical knee-jerk reaction by the wacko lefties and many dem(wit)s. They will never be happy until all guns are removed from private citizens and placed in the hands of the military and law enforcement. Just another method to control us peons.
    If you do a little research into Belcher’s life and life style, you will discover he was not such a great person at all. He was an alcoholic and addict who abused pain pills. He has a past history of violence against a previous girlfriend. He is reported to have been running around on his current girlfriend.
    And when you argue with another person, most people just end the discussion after about an hour and go somewhere else! They don’t argue for hours and then pick up a gun and shoot the woman > 4 times!
    Would all these bleeding heart libs be screaming and wailing if it was a knife he had used to murder the woman??

    • eddie47d

      Apparently you never listen to some of the right wing wackos and what they would really do with a gun if they had the chance. Yes some do act like the American Taliban! Now you can throw your name calling and senseless babble around all you want for there is plenty to throw back atcha!

      • Kate8

        eddie – Oh…You must be referring to those who speak of restoring our Constitution and our Rights. Oh, the horror.

        You are so lame, eddie. Do you ever read what you post?

      • eddie47d

        Do you remember what you post Kate 8 or will you forget like you have in the past and then deny it.

      • Kate8

        I have only denied what is not true, eddie.

        I reference your post above, about having one’s words distorted, ignored or fabricated.

    • Kate8

      The propaganda press always leaves out pertinent facts. They make it seem as if they were all just great people, and the guy saw the gun, and just couldn’t control himself from picking it up and shooting. The gun was evil! Had the gun not been there, he wouldn’t have laid a hand on them!

      Good grief.

    • Mikey

      I think it goes like this: If you kill someone with a gun, you are a criminal, and so is your gun. Both must be locked away or destroyed. But, if you kill with a knife (like OJ Simpson, another deranged athlete), you get to go home, and keep your knife. So, clearly the evil is in the gun, and guns make people evil.

      • Jeff

        What does the OJ case have to do with this issue? The point of the OJ case was not that killing with a knife is OK. Maybe that’s what you got from it. If so, I feel sorry for you. Perhaps the OJ jury felt our country’s history is full of examples of white people killing Blacks with impunity, so they wanted to “even the score.” Perhaps it was the power of celebrity and money. Perhaps they didn’t think the prosecution proved its case. But in no scenario could you say the jury acquitted OJ because he used a knife and not a gun.

        Clearly, you can kill with a knife. You can’t kill as easily or as quickly or as many with a knife. Also, the knife has other purposes. You can also kill with poison. Ever hear of a drive-by knifing or poisoning? It is disingenuous to downgrade the importance of guns in these killings. In most cases, there would be no killing without the gun. The gun just makes the killing too easy and it can even happen accidentally. I haven’t heard of too many accidental stranglings. The fact that someone intent on killing can do so without a gun is not a reason to do nothing about the proliferation of guns on the streets. That argument is an artifact of false logic.

      • Mikey

        Here’s the problem with your argument, you cannot removed the “proliferation of guns from the street”. If you ban ordinary citizens from owning guns, the criminals will still get them (remember, they are criminals, they break the laws). The only way to stop criminals from getting guns, would be to remove all guns of every type from the planet, (and stop the manufacturing of them as well). Since this is not possible, the only way to balance the power is to arm the citizens against the criminals.

      • Flashy

        Mikey…you mean like the 1920′s streets of Chicago and NYC ?

      • Mikey

        Well, I hope it doesn’t come down to that. But if it does, people should be able to protect themselves.

      • Kate8

        Mikey – Did you catch how Jeff immediately jumped to making a racist issue?

        Hey, Jeff. How about black on white crime? Which, BTW, is on the increase, thanks to you idiots and your racist messiah, who has unleashed the racist factions to go on the rampage against white America.

        How about we just work at stopping with the inflammatory racist rhetoric, and work on stopping ALL crimes against humanity?

        Until that is accomplished, those who are at the mercy of your insanity will need to remain armed. And then, even after, remain armed to insure you don’t get any bright ideas about reasserting control.

      • Mikey

        Yeah Kate, I think it’s in the leftist handbook, “If there are no longer any viable logical arguments to support your lies, use racism”.

      • JC

        Flashy says:

        December 4, 2012 at 11:37 am

        Mikey…you mean like the 1920′s streets of Chicago and NYC ?
        ______________________________________________________________________

        Good point! Prohibition leads to all kinds of crime.
        Why, just look what happened when the Obama administration shipped a couple of thousand guns to Mexican drug lords…hundreds of people died.
        I agree Flashy, we need to get rid of this government and prohibition that enriches street gangs.

        Then we might not have to keep our guns quite so handy….but we’re not giving them up. ;-)

      • eddie47d

        No the government shouldn’t be in cahoots with gun dealers in supplying weapons to anybody JC. They did prove their point that there are gun dealers willing to break the law to sell their product ,Yet you have too many gun owners who keep denying that there are any sinister gun traffickers. All parties are guilty but you will hear only one side from those protecting the dealers.

      • eddie47d

        That’s the problem Mikey! NO ONE IS ASKING FOR A TOTAL BAN ON WEAPONS. Yet to say so is the automatic response from gun owners as yourself. IF there ever was a total ban I would lay the blame directly at the feet of gun owners who constantly cry wolf. There ONLY solution is to buy more guns and enact loser laws which in turn places more guns in society and more chances of a unstable person getting ahold of one. Thus the killings will continue and neither side wins.

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        December 4, 2012 at 1:25 pm

        No the government shouldn’t be in cahoots with gun dealers in supplying weapons to anybody JC. They did prove their point that there are gun dealers willing to break the law to sell their product
        _____________________________________________________________________

        That’s absolute [expletive deleted] Eduardo. Those dealers pointed out to BATFE that what they were being FORCED to do was illegal. And then they were pressured to go along by the FEDS. Get the facts straight.

      • eddie47d

        That’s what they say after they got caught. .Your putting the cart before the horse.

      • Kate8

        eddie says: That’s the problem Mikey! NO ONE IS ASKING FOR A TOTAL BAN ON WEAPONS.

        Not just yet. This is how progs do it…incrementally.

        Now we just have restrictions on who can own guns, and which kind of guns. The restrictions get tighter. Then, you will be required to buy insurance to own a gun. It will get increasingly more expensive, until few can afford it.

        More and more shootings will be staged or sensationalized and, sooner or later, everyone will be required to turn in their guns or be removed from society.

        It’s a no-brainer…it’s been done many times before. And it’s being done here.

      • Mikey

        Well put Kate, you took the word right out of my mouth!

        Believe it Eddie, this is precisely how our government does everything, a little at a time, so fewer will notice their liberties being eroded. Then, when the “powers that be” reach their goal, there’s no way to reverse it.

      • Vicki

        Eddie47d says (about Fast and Furious):
        “All parties are guilty but you will hear only one side from those protecting the dealers.”

        So the dealers tell the government that the transactions are illegal. The government says go ahead we are the government and have it under control. And YOU say the dealers are bad people?

        Eddie, do you have any idea how that makes your opinions appear?

      • CZ52

        “Believe it Eddie, this is precisely how our government does everything, a little at a time, so fewer will notice their liberties being eroded. Then, when the “powers that be” reach their goal, there’s no way to reverse it.”

        eddie knows very well how it works. That is why he is always calling for more and more “reasonable” gun control laws. Or perhaps more accurately he has never to my knowledge opposed any proposal that limits gun rights and has never supported any proposal to loosen gun control.

  • DFayette

    Shot his wife nine times…according to a report I heard this morning. Perhaps stabbing her to death would have been less painful…or a drowning…or beat to death with his fist…or strangled? He was going to eliminate her one way or the other as his mind was set to do it–overstressed by the game of football? So lets shut down football games!

    • Michael

      I have been shot and stabbed and being stabbed was much more painful. I am relatively small and not overly strong, but a .45 ACP makes me a match for any gangbanger who wants to try me.

      • Gary L.

        I have heard it said, “God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal”.

      • eddie47d

        Yes there are bullies and criminals in this world and you absolutely have the right to protect yourself. That right is not being denied!

      • Bob

        Galt says that our right to self defence is not being denied.
        The Feds thru gun legislation and bureaucratic rules, KG-BATF and others, are denying their 2nd amendment rights to millions. Returning soldiers, anyone who ever had the slightest quarrel with a family member or neighbor, smoked weed as a young person, and many, many more are denyed gun rights. The numbers are staggering. Galt is deluded.!!

      • Mikey

        Eddie, you recognize peoples right to protect themselves, so why do you support gun control?

      • eddie47d

        What does this have to do with gun control if you still have the right to own a weapon? I support regulations on car ownership too so that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t drive. There are also some folks who shouldn’t be behind the wheel of a car and no different with guns.

      • Mikey

        I agree, some people should not drive, nor own a gun. We have laws against felons owning guns. (Yet, they still get them).

        Our current administration, which you seem to support, wants to take away all guns from EVERYONE, not just the criminals. Blanket gun control like our government wants, must be stopped.

        Do you not agree?

      • eddie47d

        I don’t see any blanket confiscation and have heard all this since 1968.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Yes there are bullies and criminals in this world and you absolutely have the right to protect yourself. That right is not being denied!”

        Just the best tools needed to exercise that right. Or did you think a cell phone would do the job. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYkEe3HEwew&list=UL

    • Ms. PAZ

      Actually, using a gun allowed him to distance himself in his own mind from what he was doing. Using his fists, a knife or any other weapon — any object that could be used as a weapon — would have necessitated he have close, even hands on, contact with his victim.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        No matter, Belcher’s girlfriend would still be just as dead but then he wouldn’t have done away with himself. The lawyers would have dragged this case out for ages and the taxpayers would end up supporting him in jail.

  • richard brooks

    the restriction by democrats of the type of gun one may own, or the republicans restrictions on whom may own a gun, has not changed the way some members of society use guns.

    this is the result of the teachings of a society. the hate, bias and violence that is taught to children and is maintained thru out their life.

    ben has done a rather good job of teaching the same bias and hate with his story.

    • Flashy

      I agree. When there is are movements towards restrictions on voting and even the slightest hint of opening a discussion on guns…something is askew. At the least, if one has to have a voter registration to be allowed to cast a ballot..the same should be for owning a gun. And packing iron outside the home? unless for hunting? Such should be very difficult to obtain a permit for.

      If one is packing outside the home, there is an intent for a violent act. If it’s a bad guy…it’s so much easier to toss their butt in jail. They have no excuses. If it’s a law abiding citizen..and not required for work or immediate safety? They have no need to pack iron on our streets and endanger everyone else…

      • joshgeek

        So the only ones with guns should be criminals. Sounds splendid (for the criminals).

      • eddie47d

        Carrying a weapon doesn’t make you that much safer and sometimes it can make you a bigger target. In King Soopers grocery a man was seen with a gun in his back pocket and babbling to himself . One of the customers didn’t like seeing the gun or his actions so she called the police. The police arrived and confronted the man and a shootout occurred . The man was killed. That is why concealed carry people still scare other folks and can set violence in motion when a gun is in view.

      • Flashy

        And if the police conduct a search of a car pulled over, or frisk? Yes…they go to the hoosegow instead of pulling out an easily obtainable permit. Or have it stored with no clip so it’s “legal”….

        What’s your suggested solution?

      • phideaux

        eddie since the gun was stuck in the back pocket in an obvious manner and easiloy seen it WAS NOT concealed.

      • TML

        Flashy Says, “And packing iron outside the home? unless for hunting? Such should be very difficult to obtain a permit for.
        If one is packing outside the home, there is an intent for a violent act.”

        Negative… carrying a weapon for self-defense cannot be construed as intent to commit a violent act.

        Flashy Says, “If it’s a bad guy…it’s so much easier to toss their butt in jail. They have no excuses. If it’s a law abiding citizen..and not required for work or immediate safety? They have no need to pack iron on our streets and endanger everyone else…”

        This is a rationalization concluding that any “law-abiding” citizen wielding a firearm for self-defense should be considered a “bad guy” based on when and where you personally believe it’s needed or not… thus easier to toss their butt in jail based on the idea that ‘no one’ should have a firearm for self-defense. That’s a nice ideological utopian concept, but not reality.

        “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Cesare Beccaria

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECTIf4yf1Yk

      • TML

        eddie47d says, “Carrying a weapon doesn’t make you that much safer and sometimes it can make you a bigger target.”

        I’ve heard of only one instance in which a man was open-carry and attacked to try and take his weapon. He did not succeed, and heard of no statistics or incidents to support your claim. I will agree however, that carrying a weapon doesn’t necessarily make one much safer… IF they are not trained well to use it. Unless the person taking the responsibility to carry such a weapon is not trained it can indeed get you in more trouble faster than it could ever get you out of.

        eddie47d says, “In King Soopers grocery a man was seen with a gun in his back pocket and babbling to himself . One of the customers didn’t like seeing the gun or his actions so she called the police. The police arrived and confronted the man and a shootout occurred . The man was killed. That is why concealed carry people still scare other folks and can set violence in motion when a gun is in view.”

        If it’s concealed then no one would even know about it so you last sentence doesn’t make much sense. In States that allow concealed carry; brandishing the weapon as the man in your story was doing is a crime. If it was an open-carry state then I would seriously question the actions of the officers, but not much to make any real judgment on that based on your information.

      • Flashy

        TML —> ” carrying a weapon for self-defense cannot be construed as intent to commit a violent act. ”

        OK…so you are carrying it for conversation topic?

      • TML

        Carrying a weapon doesn’t mean the person intends to use it to commit a crime or violent act. I know what you’re getting at but to construe it that way across the board would mean that even police officers carry with intent to commit violence and therefore shouldn’t be allowed.

      • JC

        Flashy says:

        December 4, 2012 at 11:44 am

        TML —> ” carrying a weapon for self-defense cannot be construed as intent to commit a violent act. ”

        OK…so you are carrying it for conversation topic?
        ____________________________________________________________________
        Nope, carrying it to maintain the ability to STOP a violent act…dead in its tracks.
        And go home to my family in one piece.

      • Flashy

        JC..if you aren’t carrying it with an intent to use it in a violent act…why are you carrying it? You admitted..to commit a violent act.

        Let me put it this way…ever read Louis L’Amour westerns? I refer to L’Amour because most people read his books..even though they may not be “well read’. Anyone familiar with l’Amour books knows they are extremely well researched and accurate in depicting the Old West. And anyone would then know what reality was in the Old West. Few towns allowed folks to carry firearms within the town limits.

        think about that…back in the 1880′s, towns restricted carrying firearms. Now why do you suppose they did that?

      • eddie47d

        TML: A few concealed carry folks wear their weapon on their hip and is very obvious. When a person who carries under his coat the weapon is also exposed every time they reach for something. The few I have seen they are quite noticeable if that was your point. .

      • JC

        Flashy says:

        December 4, 2012 at 1:25 pm

        JC..if you aren’t carrying it with an intent to use it in a violent act…why are you carrying it? You admitted..to commit a violent act.
        __________________________________________________________________
        What’s your point dipstick? YES repelling an armed assailant may be a violent act but it’s a MORAL act. Get back under your slimy little rock worm.

      • TML

        Flashy says, “…if you aren’t carrying it with an intent to use it in a violent act…why are you carrying it? You admitted..to commit a violent act.”

        So I take it that your angle is; not even police officers should carry firearms because they are intentionally carrying it to commit a violent act? If not, then what is your point? If so, then I get the sense that you’re merely advocating an unrealistic utopian idea comparable to “Demolition Man”.

        Flashy says, “…back in the 1880′s, towns restricted carrying firearms…”

        Appeal to tradition. Just because it was done in the past doesn’t mean it was right or acceptable then any more than it is now or even that it was effective as a solution to a given problem.
        Even still, you’re kind of comparing apples to oranges since you’re talking about the difference between restrictions to deal with local level problems, and nation-wide restrictions… not to mention, you didn’t get arrested and charged, you merely turned your guns over coming in, and picked them up on the way out.

      • TML

        Eddie47d says, “A few concealed carry folks wear their weapon on their hip and is very obvious. When a person who carries under his coat the weapon is also exposed every time they reach for something. The few I have seen they are quite noticeable if that was your point.”

        If you don’t actually see the gun, then it’s mere speculation of what they might have there; not enough to “scare other folks and set violence in motion”. Reaching up for something and exposing a weapon; that is brandishing, yes.

      • CZ52

        Flashy says, “…back in the 1880′s, towns restricted carrying firearms…”

        Those restrictions were generaly aimed at the trail hands coming in with herds and other strangers not the local citizens. Witness Coffeville Kansas and the attempted Dalton raid on their banks.

      • Alan

        Newsflash!!! Guns are already “overly” regulated! Where does it stop? And can you please explain to me how a law abiding citizen concealed-carrying outside the home puts anyone but a wouldbe attacker at risk. Those arguments have grown so stale over the years that if loaded into a gun they would make for some great armor piercing ammunition!

  • johno

    I was shocked when I saw Costa do this. It seemed he had a funny smirk on his face and I thought at first it was a joke. I turned off the game and refuse to watch anything that Costa is involved in.

    • eddie47d

      Then again maybe it was the right message but wrong venue!

      • Alan

        Nope….wrong message, wrong venue!

  • Jon

    After the school attack last week. I am surprised the politicians are not screaming to ban metal knives in our kitchens.

  • Flashy

    It’s plain and simple..when guns are easily available, everyone will have them. Bad guys and mentally unstable included. Those who will use them first are the bad guys and the mentally unstable.

    Any sane thinking person realizes this.

    in no particular order, guns are used in violence for:

    Robbery
    Lunatic attacks
    Power struggles (turf fights between gangs)
    Domestic violence

    I left out the usual protest of ‘self defense” because self defense is not when a gun is first used…that’s a secondary response and rarely taken.

    The 2nd Amendment is not to allow some testosterone challenged fruitcake to pack iron so he feels like a big man. That’s a given which i think all would agree. The 2nd is for a purpose of safety. Safety not from another…not from bad guys etc on the above list. Safety from government and a military coup. THAT is a plain reading of the Constitution. Any other reading goes outside that and becomes subjective in interpretation. The conflict comes because to allow the Right recognized by the 2nd, society must have access to firearms.

    OK….so the question is…working within the 2nd Amendment, how to reduce the numbers of guns the perpetrators of the above can have access to?

    • hipshotpercusion

      “An armed society is a polite society.” Robert Anson Heinlein

      “God created men, it was Sam Colt who made us equal.” Unknown

      Luke 22:36 Then he said unto them, “But now, he that hath a purse, let take it, and likewise his script: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”
      The handgun is the modern equivalent of a sword!

      • Flashy

        Oh great…now some god comes into the argument. Criminey…

    • phideaux

      “It’s plain and simple..when guns are easily available, everyone will have them. Bad guys and mentally unstable included.”

      And as firearms become more difficult for the law abiding to purchase/own the bad guys and the mentaly unstable will still have no trouble getting them.

    • TML

      Flashy says, “The 2nd is for a purpose of safety. Safety not from another…not from bad guys etc on the above list. Safety from government and a military coup. THAT is a plain reading of the Constitution.”

      It’s nice to see you acknowledge that, although I would argue that is it also for personal safety from “bad guys”.

      Flashy says, “It’s plain and simple..when guns are easily available, everyone will have them. Bad guys and mentally unstable included. Those who will use them first are the bad guys and the mentally unstable… …OK….so the question is…working within the 2nd Amendment, how to reduce the numbers of guns the perpetrators of the above can have access to?”

      That’s a fair question, but we must first define how “bad guys” and “mentally unstable” people would be identified. I think we can all agree that those persons deemed mentally unstable by a certified doctor and felons convicted of violent crime (not all felons) in a court are already ineligible, and thus all that can reasonably be done, is being done. You just said, “The 2nd Amendment is not to allow some testosterone challenged FRUITCAKE to pack iron so he feels like a big man.” (emphasis mine). So here you define mentally unstable (fruitcake) as someone who feels cocky or overly confident (like a big man) with a gun, and don’t think that’s rightful criteria to disallow the right to bare arms.

    • eddie47d

      Not a one answered your question or mine Flashy and they never will. More spin from them! I thought Conservatives had commitment and think life is sacred. Apparently only when it serves their purpose. I just thought I’d point that out since they accuse Liberals of the same thing.

      • Vicki

        I may have missed your specific question but since you bring up the sacred nature of life let us look at the 2 examples that might be inferred.

        Killing a criminal intent on committing violent acts is wrong.
        Killing a totally defenseless child is A-OK cause it isn’t “born” yet.

        Hmmmmm……

        • Jeff

          And how are we to know when a “criminal” intends to do you bodily harm? When an unarmed kid is shot and the shooter claims self defense, that defense should require a bit more evidence than the shooter’s fear. That’s the problem with the Florida statute. It is a bastardization of normal notions of self defense.

      • TML

        eddie47d says, “Not a one answered your question or mine Flashy and they never will.”

        Yo… I directly responded the yours and Flashy’s question. If you or he do not think so… clarify. I’ve no problem with a direct response, as I’m sure you know. Explain it to me.

      • Kate8

        Vicki – Kind of irksome, isn’t it.

        A liberal’s concern for the victims always rings a bit shallow. It’s never about the actual incident with them, but it’s all about how they can use it to further their plans.

        The party of death only cares about life when it’s useful to them.

      • vicki

        Jeff says:
        “And how are we to know when a “criminal” intends to do you bodily harm?”

        We know by his actions. pointing a knife or gun at you and demanding things would qualify. Beating you over the head with a sidewalk would qualify.

        • Jeff

          How about being a young Black male playing the wrong kind of music and too loudly? How about being the wife of an NFL player? Are you aware that statistically a woman living in a house with a gun is 5 times more likely to be murdered than a woman living in a house with no gun? And a domestic dispute is 12 times more likely to result in a homicide if there’s a gun in the house? You keep thinking that gun is going to protect you. Santa’s coming soon, too!

  • hipshotpercusion

    Actually flashy, it was the son of God who made those comments. But, being a heathen, you wouldn’t understand that.

    • Flashy

      Not to turn the conversation to another subject, merely pointing out that not adhering to the dogma of a christian cult does not make one a ‘heathen”. I’d say rigid adherence to any dogma has a closer identification to the word than the way used by you.

      Now…back to the subject at hand. Your solution would be ? (other than the paranormal activity of sticking your head in the sand and praying to some god for “divine” guidance?)

      • hipshotpercusion

        flashy, I believe my creator(whom I choose to call God)gave me a mind to think and hands to hold tools. a gun is just another tool, and can be used for good or evil. My creator wants all his creations to defend themselves, that is why he gave animals teeth and claws and why he gave man those same hands and the ability to think.

      • Flashy

        OK…so you have hands and feet and can run and know when to run, perceive danger, and know enough that when the music begins in the background..time to back out.

        Now…what’s your solution?

      • Kate8

        Hate to tell you this, Flush, but you adhere to liberal dogma, which is just as much “religion” as belief in God.

        Any kind of belief, indoctrination, creed, philosophy, ideology…any belief system, is a kind of religion.

        You have made liberalism your god. Your lawmakers are your gods. You serve them as surely as anyone serves any god. And you have no respect for anyone might see things differently.

        You see, people like me don’t care what you want to believe. Live by your own standards. But your right to do this ends where I begin. You do NOT have the right to ANY means to determine how I live my life, as long as I don’t interfere with yours, either.

        You people can’t stand this. You want to make laws to FORCE everyone to do EVERYTHING your way or face the wrath of government.

      • Flashy

        You do NOT have the right to ANY means to determine how I live my life, as long as I don’t interfere with yours, <— kate8

        Exactly. Now why should you, or some other extremist, demand that i have to change and have my life affected because they have an inferiority complex about masculinity or an unreasonable fear?

        Packin' iron in public affects MY LIFE. How does my agreeing you can own a gun in your home and keeping it there affect yours? Is your life affected if you have to keep it at home?

        Whose Right triumphs? Mine in wanting to be safe … or yours to satisfy an unreasonable fear?

      • eddie47d

        Hipshot still didn’t answer your question Flashy and went off in a separate tangent. Then Kate 8 pipes in and does the same. She accuses Liberals yet has guns as her god and she worships at its shrine! Avoiding the hard answers is their M.O. or do they have a problem with reading comprehension?

      • Kate8

        eddie – You continue to come up with the most asinine remarks. Guns as my god?
        Sheesh. How does asserting one’s Constitutional Rights translate into worship? (BTW, I wouldn’t know one end of a gun from another. But I sure do appreciate others who do.)

        I fail to see how CC affects you, Flush. Don’t attack anyone and you’ll never know. On the other hand, if you are attacked, someone packin’ might be a welcome reality check.

        I have to laugh at being called ‘extemist’. WTH does that make YOU.

        All I want is freedom. You want to have government bullies do your dirty work to take away my freedom. Now, who’s the extremist?

      • Vicki

        Flashy writes:
        “Exactly. Now why should you, or some other extremist, demand that i have to change and have my life affected because they have an inferiority complex about masculinity or an unreasonable fear?”

        Who’s fear is unreasonable? Theirs because the world has nasty people in it? Or yours because you fear law abiding people having guns.

        • Jeff

          They cease being law abiding citizens when they think their guns give them special rights or turn them into John Wayne or Baretta. The music critic in Florida might have been a bit less aggressive if he didn’t know he had a gun in his car. I’ve lived a long time without ever holding a gun. Never felt the need to shoot anyone. If someone’s being an a*hole, I avoid him. Guys like Zimmerman and the music critic are different. They like trouble and are confrontational. That’s exactly the baggage police officers should be trained to get rid of before they’re handed a gun.

      • Vicki

        Jeff says:
        “They cease being law abiding citizens when they think their guns give them special rights or turn them into John Wayne or Baretta.”

        They do not become criminal merely by thinking they have special rights. If that were the case then most liberals and all gun grabbers would be locked up.

        Oh and it is unlikely that an inanimate object is going to turn a law abiding citizen into John Wayne or Baretta (who is that btw?).

      • Frank Kahn

        You would need to provide a definition of “christian cult” for your statement to have any possibility of truth. The term HEATHEN is very specific in that it excludes CHRISTIANS. Most accepted definitions include polytheism, shamanism and animism as heathen or pagan religions. With that definition in mind, it is a lie to call a christian a heathen.

  • George Wermert

    ” To preserve liberty ,it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms”
    Quote ,Richard Henry Lee,1788, member of the first U.S. Senate.

    • Flashy

      Which is, as i stated, the sole purpose of the 2nd. Now reconcile the conflict between safety from the government and safety on the streets from bad guys, lunatics, and angry out of control domestically violent…

      • phideaux

        Flashy to say that is the SOLE purpose of the 2nd amendment is to deny the intelligence of the authors of the bill of rights. They recognized all legal uses of firearms. Defence of self against criminals, target shooting for pleasure or as a contest of skill, defence against an out of control government, and hunting. To claim otherwise just shows your ignorance. The 2nd amendment just gives the PRIMARY reason for recognozing the RIGHT to private ownership of firearms.

        • Jeff

          I do not see how anyone can read the entirety of the 2nd amendment and not conclude it leaves the regulation of firearms to the States. To say it’s a personal right akin to those guaranteed by the 1st amendment and applied against the States through the 14th amendment and Mapp v. Ohio in 1961 represents a sloppy, ahistorical, political reading of the amendment. The fact that a majority of the “justices” currently on the Court approve such a reading is sufficient reason to never elect Republicans who put such folks (Scalitos, Thomases) on the Court.

      • Flashy

        Jeff…I believe it does apply throughout and a state cannot usurp the 2nd by invoking laws affecting it. Mapp v Ohio dicta infers this as well.

        However, the target of what the 2nd was meant to affect is up for debate. I believe it refers only to the People having the means to prevent a government ruling by military means. Period. It is not a situation where the folks who voted on it were thinking “we need to protect against the bad guy criminals”.

        Protecting against bad guys by packing iron in public were not the times, the memories, nor the intense area of debate concerning the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights restricted government power…and such was the intent of writing the 2nd into the Constitution.

        • Jeff

          Yes, but the Bill of Rights limited the feds only, not the states. Even the 1st amendment didn’t apply to the states until 1961 so theoretically a State could have established a State Religion or restricted free speech. Of course, the states have their own constitutions, but the 2nd amendment clearly left the regulation of guns (well-regulated is right there) to the States. Since the amendment specifically “grants” such regulation to the states, I don’t know that the Mapp decision can be read to turn the amendment into a personal right the states can’t touch because of the 14th amendment.

      • CZ52

        “Protecting against bad guys by packing iron in public were not the times, the memories, nor the intense area of debate concerning the Bill of Rights.”

        Please provide some documentation with sources and/or links to support that position.

      • Flashy

        Ummm…how about the year 1791 and the fact we just fought a revolution against a government which was imposing its will by military force?

        How about the fact the Constitution was about Government and limitation of its powers, and not about any single person or group? The provisions of the Bill of Rights protected individual liberties and were added to the Constitution to alleviate popular fears about a strong, centralized federal government.

        How about United States v. Miller (1939). The SCOTUS held that “in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” ?

        Jeesh….

      • Flashy

        “Flashy to say that is the SOLE purpose of the 2nd amendment is to deny the intelligence of the authors of the bill of rights.”

        No…it recognizes them as being human beings without a godlike intelligence. Individual rights in re; guns simply wasn’t a concern at the time. I doubt very much they thought about the issue. Taken in context of the times and the document being amended, it’s plain they wrote the 2nd to alleviate any doubts about preventing a centralized government ruling by force of arms.

      • eddie47d

        Phildeaux is still arguing whether he has the right to self defense when that isn’t even an issue. The Second Amendment guarantees that and this issue is who shouldn’t be able to have ownership of a weapon and the lack of personal responsibility from those who abuse those gun rights.

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “Which is, as i stated, the sole purpose of the 2nd. Now reconcile the conflict between safety from the government and safety on the streets from bad guys, lunatics, and angry out of control domestically violent…”

        I see no conflict. The 2nd is to protect people individually as well as collectively from criminal behavior.

      • phideaux

        Flashy says…” I believe it refers only to the People having the means to prevent a government ruling by military means. Period.”

        eddie says…”Phildeaux is still arguing whether he has the right to self defense when that isn’t even an issue.”

        Why don’t you explain that to Flashy then eddie.

  • Jay

    It is a proven fact (statistically) since Guns have been banned in th UK, violent crimes have skyrocketed, the stupidity of all this is criminalls are not going to obey the laws, most guns they get are illegal anyways. the law abiding Gun owner is the one who will obey the law and criminals will then know that houses are safe to break into.

    • Flashy

      Balderdash. The “statistics’ you are relying upon are due to a change in what crime is reported in what category.

      Here…take this data:

      New York; 1.8% of households have a gun and the crime rate per 100000 is 414.1

      Where a state like Texas has 8.1% of households have a gun and the crime rate per 100000 is 510.6

      Chew on those numbers for awhile.

      Meanwhile…In The United Kingdom there are 0.22 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United States was 3.0, and for Germany 0.2. (wikipedia). From the same wiki article..” In 2012 the Home Office reported that, “in 2010/11, firearms were involved in 11,227 recorded offences in England and Wales, the seventh consecutive annual fall”.[14] Firearms statistics in England and Wales include airguns and imitations guns, which make up a high proportion of these recorded offences (see under “Firearms crime” below).”
      ==============
      Frippin’ gun nuts will grab onto any data and twist it to prove they need their Dirty harry testosterone high …

      fact is fact. More guns = more use of guns =- more violent crime using guns. Get the connection ? The issue is…how to resolve the Right of the citizenry to be armed prebvnting a government takeover or military coup versus the Right to be safe from gun packin’ bad guys and lunatics who use guns to overcome their insecurity issues concerning their masculinity …….

      • Jay

        unfortunatly if you are relying on Wiki for your statistics, i really dont need to say more
        currently “GUN” crime in UK has increased over 89% (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html)
        this coming from just one UK article

        however I was not refering to gun crime as a whole i was refering to violent crimes against those law abiding citizens who are unable to protect themselves from armed (KNIVES, etc) intruders. because criminals know they are walking into unarmed households.
        I do find it interesting that u lower yourself to name calling, shows your anger but understand i am not HOW DID YOU PUT IT “frippen Gun nut who needs a dirty harry testerone high”
        I am a responsible Gun owner who has taken the proper steps to ensure my family is safe from those who wish to harm them. I have taken and passed safty courses to ensure that i am legally capable of carring and resposibly using firearms.
        This is not something i take lightly
        That is all
        J

      • Flashy

        Jay…i read that article. Now do some research and think, not just regurgitate something which ‘proves” your point…jeesh.

        you have a gun in your home? Not my problem (though your family is at a much higher risk). take it outside your home? Now you’re endangering me. Packing outside the home is not anyone’s idea of safe and sane… and should be restricted (note…not completely banned).

        … that is all …

      • Opal the Gem

        “Now do some research and think, not just regurgitate something which ‘proves” your point…jeesh.”

        Take your own advice Flushy.

      • Flashy

        Opal…i do. Constantly. If you disagree with facts or opinion…feel free to intelligently argue against. To date, you have never done so.

      • CZ52

        flushy that is because it is extremely rare for you to post anything intelligent for me to reply to.

      • CZ52

        “flushy that is because it is extremely rare for you to post anything intelligent for me to reply to.”

        Sorry Flashy. While you and I agree on very little that was not my reply. I let Opal borrow my computer and she was careless about whose name she posted under.

      • eddie47d

        Jay forgets the fact that England’s citizens had few guns to begin with and even the police were not armed. They never “defended themselves” with guns before and had a low crime rate. Little has changed except a larger population and more crowded conditions. Guns still aren’t a big issue for them but a lack of commonality that they had in the past or less respect for each other.

      • Kate8

        Really, eddie? Another fabricated statistic? Because I recently heard an interview on the radio with a Brit who was commenting about the horrendous crime rate in the UK, and how they aren’t able to defend themselves. Home break-ins are out of control.

  • billy sample

    Good for both of these men for standing up against the gun nuts of the country! Guns have become your religion, most of you are to cowardly to leave your homes unless you are armed!

    • JC

      Freedom and Liberty are the foundation of the USA…those principles can ONLY be defended by armed Americans. Because sure as hell, left to their own devices, the government will assume all power over us and destroy freedom amd liberty.
      And natural law dictates the right to self defense from any and all assailants.
      Got a problem with that?

  • Chuck

    O.J. didn’t use a gun, yet his victims are just as dead. Would these guys feel better if Belcher had stabbed Kassandra to death and then hanged himself, or would they then be ranting for knife and rope control?

    • hipshotpercusion

      Chuck, it is very difficult to argue with simple minded liberals. After all, look who they elected for their president.

      • Chester

        I think you will find MOST liberals would just as soon have a gun available to them, just as would most conservatives. You are making the same mistake so many others make, using liberal to define anyone who does not think EXACTLY the same way you do. Now go fly that kite for a while before opening your mouth and proving what most of us can see already.

      • Kate8

        Chester – It doesn’t matter how individual liberals think. You guys keep voting for people who are destroying our Rights and our country.

        You really have only one issue: entitlements. Everything else only consists of useful causes to render conservatives powerless.

      • eddie47d

        Kate 8 still has visions of Russia it seems. Was that your homeland? You can worship at any church you want Kate so try it out this Saturday or Sunday. You can buy and own a weapon in every nook and cranny in America. The Right has more talk shows than you can shake a stick at but its never enough for you is it? You want total control no matter how many right wing blogs there are. Conservatives have power they just have to stop insulting people in trying to win the White House.

      • Kate8

        eddie – If you mean by having total control that everyone is assured of “inalienable rights” and personal sovereignty, then yep. I guess that’s so.

        I don’t want your socialized health care, edduh. Yet you FORCE it on me. Christians are being FORCED to act against their convictions all the time, too, under penalty of governmental retribution. Freedom to worship means nothing if you aren’t allowed to put it into practice. (“Congress shall make NO LAW…”)

        I cannot start a business without jumping through unreasonable and endless hoops. I can’t watch a neighbor’s kids without having a permit. We can’t, we can’t we can’t…

        Why not, eddie? What business is it of yours how any of us choose to live our lives?

        You are the party of “can’t and “must”. How about GO AWAY.

  • Robert Lindsey

    All of you anti-gun nuts just don`t get it do you? If you take away 2nd amend. rights from the law abeiding citizens, then ONLY will the criminals have them. You and I will be defenseless against them because the police sure as hell can`t be everywhere at the same time 24/7, especially with all of the budget cutbacks. In this day and age you need a gun to protect yourself. I have a CCP and I carry mine everywhere that it is legal to. I have 27yrs military experience with weapons, so I know what I`m doing. To those of you that do not believe in guns, I hope that you never find yourselves in a life or death situation with a criminal. I also have rifles and shotguns at home. I WII NOT GIVE UP MY GUNS!!!!!. God bless Charleton Heston.

  • hipshotpercusion

    George, Richard Henry Lee was also a signer of the Declaration of Independence as well.

  • Justin

    I see there are a few comments from people who don’t believe in guns, Eddie47 in particular, who has made a comment that” people don’t buy cars and hammers to kill people.” I beg to differ. If i were to kill anyone, it would be with a knife, hammer, axe, shovel, or a bat. A gun makes too much noise and is to easy to trace. A knife is best, quiet, and can be easily concealed up sleeves, in boots, ect, ect. I didn’t buy my guns to kill people Eddie. And if I wanted to kill someone, a gun isn’t my first choice, not even close. Just like you said, how many people would suspect me of killing them as I carry a hammer up to them? as far as home invasions or any other kind of assault, most are carried out with the tools I listed above, for the simple fact that they ARE SILENT! Bad people don’t want noise bringing inquistive eyes looking. Anyone who thinks a gun is the best means of assault is either a total moron, or doesn’t understand the concept of the idea.:/

    • eddie47d

      Was that right wing humor Justin? The news reports are just loaded with stories of people killing someone with a hammer,etc! Sorry to disappoint you but that isn’t so but nice spin! Now go back to your Criminal Mind fantasies!

  • Right Brain Thinker

    Just popped in for a look—-same kind of discussion going on the other “gun” thread, where I posted a brief comment and said farewell.

    FLASH—-you are really going to waste your time here. I’m going out to wash a car.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Dang—that old Creed I learned over 50 years ago just keeps rattling around in my head as I get ready to wash the car. Only one way to shut it down for now—-post it on PLD.

      This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than the enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will. My rifle and I know that what counts in war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, or the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit.

      My rifle is human, even as I am human, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strengths, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other.

      Before God I swear this creed. My rifle and I are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.

      So be it, until victory is America’s and there is no enemy.

      Amen!, and Semper Fi to all. (and an interesting thing—if you substitute “brain” and “think” for “rifle” and “shoot”, it still makes sense. Maybe some of us didn’t hang up our “rifles” way back then, just changed “calibers”?)

  • CAJUNMAN69

    Costas is absolutly right. Without a gun the girlfrend (and Javon) would still be alive because it is against the law to stab, strangle, or beat someone to death, so I guess the gun broke the law.

    • eddie47d

      More jokesters on the right no surprise there.

  • Justin

    And to Flashy. Do you think that the”bad guys, lunatics, and out of control domesticlly violent…” Where do you think almost all felons get guns to do the bad things that made them “felons”? What good are the laws if only the law abiding will follow them? You speak of scewed thinking, well, yours isn’t all that great either.

    • Jeff

      And where do the “bad guys” get their guns from? Whether they’re bought in a store, bought at a gun show, stolen, or bought on the black market, they all started out in the same stream of commerce. More guns = more guns in the hands of the bad guys. Had we enacted real gun control 20 or 30 years ago, there’d be a lot fewer guns on the street today.

      • JC

        If the bad guys are Mexican Drug Lords…they get them from the BATFE

      • eddie47d

        Right on Jeff! The BATFE got the weapons from rouge gun dealers in the Phoenix area who were willing to sell to anyone. Two stupids don’t make a right but it happened.

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        December 4, 2012 at 2:36 pm

        Right on Jeff! The BATFE got the weapons from rouge gun dealers in the Phoenix area who were willing to sell to anyone. Two stupids don’t make a right but it happened.
        ______________________________________________________________________

        From Wikipedia:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#2009.E2.80.932011:_Operation_Fast_and_Furious

        The dealers involved became concerned as months went by and the same individuals they reported to ATF as suspected straw purchasers returned and repeatedly bought identical weapons. As they later told the DOJ OIG, their previous experience was that after they reported a suspected straw to ATF, they did not see the straw again unless subpoenaed to testify against the straw at trial.[24] One cooperating dealer expressed his concerns in a series of emails in April and June 2010 to GS David Voth, who assured the dealer that ATF was monitoring the suspects using a variety of techniques that he could not discuss in detail.[14]

        From CNN

        FORTUNE — Since Fortune published “The Truth about the Fast and Furious Scandal” on June 27, thousands of comments have been posted on Fortune.com either praising or vilifying the article. Among the questions often raised by critics of the article (including Sen. Charles Grassley) concern assertions that the ATF encouraged gun dealers to sell weapons to known traffickers. If the ATF was encouraging such sales, the argument goes, it would be proof that the agency had a policy to allow weapons to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, the core contention in what is known as the Fast and Furious scandal.

        Fact: During Operation Fast and Furious, gun dealers repeatedly emailed Voth, asking whether guns they were selling under orders from ATF, were ending up in the wrong hands. Voth assured them they were not. More than two thousands guns trafficked into Mexico and hundreds of dead victims later, that turned out to be a lie. Gun dealers repeatedly raised concerns about ATF telling them to allow straw purchasers using false ID and loads of cash to buy weapons. In 2010, a gun dealer emailed Voth because a straw purchaser had placed a large order and the dealer wanted to know if he should order more stock. Once again, so he could comply with ATF’s order to sell. Voth told him, go right ahead. Order the guns, sell to the bad guys.

        Either you’re a straight up liar or just plain ignorant Eduardo.

      • eddie47d

        The gun dealers who were convicted could be “the straight up liars” to protect themselves. It could also be that the Agents involved were the straight up liars and covering their own tracks. Most people involved in crimes are seldom truthful at least until they are offered a plea bargain. .

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        ” The BATFE got the weapons from rouge gun dealers in the Phoenix area who were willing to sell to anyone.”

        The BATFE got no guns from any rogue dealers. Rogue dealers don’t call BATFE to report suspicious sales (as required by law).

      • JC

        eddie47d says:
        December 4, 2012 at 3:14 pm
        The gun dealers who were convicted could be “the straight up liars” to protect themselves. It could also be that the Agents involved were the straight up liars and covering their own tracks. Most people involved in crimes are seldom truthful at least until they are offered a plea bargain. .
        ____________________________________________________________________

        That the gun dealers were reporting and objecting to these activities is a matter of record..not a “could be”…nice try. Childish but at least you tried.
        Nope your messiah is in it up to his ears and should be tried for treason.

        ,

  • Steve E

    Men who are against the possession of firearms by the people are just Girly Men and should be treated with disgust and disgrace. Plain and simple.

  • Chester

    Steve E, careful with the language you are throwing around. I have been places where such as you would be considered nothing but a punk and treated worse than any girl, and survived without giving anything away.

    • Steve E

      That’s Ok, I love picking a good fight. And I survived everyone.

      • Flashy

        As i was stating concerning guys with a need to prove their testosterone levels and having deep seated inferiority complexes concerning the masculinity … Steve E..you’ve shown exactly the type i was referring to …

      • Steve E

        No Flashy, it”s just like lying sheeple trolls like you do not deserve any respect. Nor do you get any.

      • eddie47d

        Steve E thinks just like a gang banger who has to have a piece to impress the ladies! LOL!

      • Kate8

        Steve E – I’d rather know a guy who knows what it is to be a man, than know a simpering liberal who has no clue.

        The liberal men I know are completely immasculated. They wouldn’t know how to jump to their own defense, let alone a woman’s. They’d run the other way to save themselves, and leave a girl to fend for herself. I’ve seen it.

        Of course, liberal women want to be like men, so I suppose it’s understandable.

        Liberals like the whole gender neutral thing. That’s why they go from relationship to relationship looking for lasting attraction, but there is none because there is no polarity to hold them together. Attraction is electricity.

        I like men and women to be the way God made ‘em. I say, more power to ya.

      • Steve E

        Yes Kate, I see guys like flashy and eddie all the time in real life, and whey I call them out for scum they are, they just walk away with their heads bowed. These guys just hide behind the internet wall. They have no guts at all. And they stand for nothing.

  • Lawman

    A simple fact that I have been aware of since I was sixteen years old! No person, group or organization can EVER stop the American people from having what they want in terms of items and substances. Wether good or mal intended, people will do what they wish. The bad, immoral and unethical people WILL obtain drugs, weapons and anything else they want one way or another. No person will ever stop us law abiding citizens to do the same if necessary to ensure our safety. When people speak or write about mentally ill or bad people having guns or other “items” to inflict harm on another, please do not forget what I just stated. The people that intend to do harm WILL! My job requires me to carry a firearm and there is no way I would do the work I do without it. Keeping people safe is everyone’s responsibility. Are you doing your part? Flashy and Eddie47, please think about this. I am not badgering you for your beliefs and hope you understand. Yes, running away and hiding can often be your best defense but does that action help your friends, neighbors or innocent strangers? Fear one thing only…”The indifference of good men.”
    If you were being beaten by someone, I know I would help you because I do it EVERY DAY. Would you help me even if it meant you may be injured too?

    • eddie47d

      Thank you for helping others Lawman and yes I would come to your aid if the situation allowed it.

    • Vicki

      Lawman writes:
      “No person will ever stop us law abiding citizens to do the same (obtain weapons) if necessary to ensure our safety. ”

      When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. There will just be a WHOLE LOT more.

      • Jeff

        The more guns in commerce, the more guns in criminal hands as well. Is your life really like a John Wayne movie? Always ready for an attack? I’m glad I don’t live in your town.

      • Vicki

        Jeff says:
        “The more guns in commerce, the more guns in criminal hands as well.”

        Attempt to draw a causal connection from an inferred and non-existent correlation.

        Jeff: “Is your life really like a John Wayne movie? Always ready for an attack?”

        Attempt to argument by ridicule. Got any more debate fallacies to entertain us with?

        Jeff: “I’m glad I don’t live in your town.”

        He probably is glad you don’t either. One less liberal voting away our rights.

      • Richard Babin

        This is for Jeff.

        Jeff with regard to your comment, “more guns in commerce, more guns in criminal hands” –I have a few of my own.

        I believe your statement is not valid but is one of the more commonly used rationalizations of liberals (I’m not saying you’re one). With that reasoning, how would you explain away all the drugs that are so easy obtainable in the USA yet illegal to sell, buy, possess, or consume? Also, have you ever considered that if gun ownership became illegal we would see an explosion of the existing but very small black gun market to possibility a size of the illegal drug market?

        Also, could you define “commerce”? Because to me commerce, in its purest form, is the exchange of goods, commodities, and services for money or credit, including bartering activity. Which means, at least to me, that commerce is not just buying legal things (like guns) but includes anything, even illegal things (like drugs). The IRS certainly looks at it that way!

        I’ll tell you what. Although I believe in private gun ownership 100%; if you and everyone fighting the illegal drug market are able control the selling, buying, holding, and consuming of illegal drugs in this country, I will give up my gun!

        • Jeff

          Well, there’s been another mass shooting with an assault rifle. 60 rounds fired in an Oregon mall. But don’t even think of doing anything about the ready availability of assault weapons. You gun nuts aren’t going to rule the roost forever. Just as Grover Norquist is being told to get lost, so will Wayne LaPierre. People will get sick of a minority dictating gun policy to the point of insanity.

  • Flashy

    Wow..all the rantings..and not one..NOT ONE..suggesting any solution. Amazing … did y’all get a check out ticket to reclaim your brains when you leave today’s thread?

    • Paul Wells

      Flushy, you’d be the LAST, I mean, the absolute LAST person that should through out a charge of acting brainless. Enjoy the apocalypse with your “big brain” and no gun!

      • Flashy

        Paul..just because I am for reasonable and sane gun control laws to regulate the packin’ of iron in a public arena, such does not mean i do not own any firearms. A 12 gauge for goose hunting, a nice single shot 20 gauge with a .22 overhead (nice for grouse and varmints), a 30.06 (with scope), and a cute lil 22 cal. two shot derringer which used to be grandpappy’s and which i keep in a display case in the library room.

        Note that i am not, nor have ever advocated, a ban on firearms. I advocate safe, sane and reasonable restrictions on packin’ iron in public.

      • eddie47d

        Still no solutions from any of them Flashy! They (Paul) must be down at the local gun shop finding their usual answer.

      • Vicki

        Flashy writes:
        “Note that i am not, nor have ever advocated, a ban on firearms. I advocate safe, sane and reasonable restrictions on packin’ iron in public.”

        And what “safe, sane and reasonable (to you)” restrictions would those be. Bullet point list will be fine.

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

      Flashy: NOT ONE..suggesting any solution.

      Why, is there a problem?

      • Flashy

        Why is there a problem? My view? because we are Homo Sapiens. A good joke which brings a hearty laugh is when someone or something gets burned. We have built into our genetic psyche a joy for killing. We are a violent species which kills for the joy of killing.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Flashy: We have built into our genetic psyche a joy for killing. We are a violent species which kills for the joy of killing.

        We? I take no pleasure or joy in killing, Flashy.

        Flashy: We are a violent species which kills for the joy of killing.

        Again, a sweeping-generalization. Which raise the question; should we fear “you”, more than the “gun”?

      • Flashy

        “We? I take no pleasure or joy in killing, Flashy.” <— WTS

        WTS..i'll ask a question. When you laugh. Not chuckle, not smile..but a good hearty laugh. Think about it. Something or someone is getting burned in the joke or scene. Seriously…can you cite any joke or case which brings you a good laugh…and something is not being smacked about?

        it's in your genetic psyche..whether you like to admit it or not.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        I think you’ve just revealed more about yourself than you may have wanted to, Flashy! As well, you need to stop with the sweeping-generalizations and assumptions!

      • eddie47d

        Then WTS/Jay stop the “generalizations” that everyone is out to take your guns away.

      • Kate8

        Flash – I doubt most of us take any joy in killing. Heck, I let the snails roam my flowerbeds and take spiders outside rather than kill them. I have reverence for all life.

        However, if anyone threatened my kids I’d shoot in a heartbeat if I could. I’d do whatever it took. Self defense is not love of killing.

      • Vicki

        Kate8 says:
        ” I let the snails roam my flowerbeds and take spiders outside rather than kill them.”

        Just so you know you are not the only woman who does not fear spiders and would take them outside rather than kill them.

      • Kate8

        Vicki – I have made peace with the critters, and I do not try to hurt them or make them go away. I love watching the squirrels and ‘possums (tried to save several baby ones the cat got), and just leave the snails and bugs alone, too. I only use organic stuff in my yard, so everything thrives, and the plants aren’t hurt at all by the critters.

        I figure they need a place to live and food to eat, so I’m willing to share. They never do damage, either. We all share this world and have a right to exist. It’s amazing how nature will work with you when you honor her. I love everything, and I’m so grateful to have a nice yard.

        Earth has a wonderful ecological system if we allow her to be. I even leave the aphids alone. Shortly the ladybugs and mantises show up and have a hearty feast, and then there’s no more aphids.

        It’ only by our feelings of separateness and our interference that we set up and adversarial relationship with nature, and then it’s a constant battle with her. That is really sad, as we are all a part of one another.

        Glad to hear that you honor life, too.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Eddie: Then WTS/Jay stop the “generalizations” that everyone is out to take your guns away.

        I don’t recall making that statement, Eddie!

    • JC

      Flashy says:

      December 4, 2012 at 10:32 am

      Wow..all the rantings..and not one..NOT ONE..suggesting any solution. Amazing … did y’all get a check out ticket to reclaim your brains when you leave today’s thread?
      ________________________________________________________________________

      A solution to what?

      • Vicki

        Flashys fear of firearms. Or the fear of firearms in other peoples possession which is more likely in flashy’s case.

      • JC

        That’s probably right Vicki. These libby bedwetters are really very afraid of things…like reality. Personally I feel a lot safer in community of armed citizens.

  • Lawman

    Flashy, here is my suggestion! Be ethical in your actions and mindful of your surroundings to keep yourself and fellow man safe. Please do not badger others for their beliefs or suggest people are not using their brains as it is rude and counter productive in this thread. A good debate on this topic is important, but the solutions are difficult to find especially if we lose control of our emotions. This thread may go on and on and hopefully more useful suggestions will be offered. A solution? I do not believe that will be easy to find. If it were, we wouldn’t discuss these matters every day. Anything worthwhile requires perservierence, dedication and work. Have a nice day. I have stated my thoughts on this and will not post another thread. You didn’t answer my question. “Would YOU help me even if it meant you may be injured too?”

    • Flashy

      You didn’t answer my question. “Would YOU help me even if it meant you may be injured too?”

      ?? Of course. Been there, done that. Is there some correlation between supporting reasonable gun control and not covering someone’s back?

      • Vicki

        Hard to cover someones back without the proper tools for the job.

      • JC

        Not if I have to use a stick against a criminal with a gun. You’re on your own with that one.
        Maybe you should consider protecting yourself…if you can find a pair.

  • Flashy

    As i was stating concerning guys with a need to prove their testosterone levels and having deep seated inferiority complexes concerning the masculinity … Steve E..you’ve shown exactly the type i was referring to …

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

      Flashy: As i was stating concerning guys with a need to prove their testosterone levels and having deep seated inferiority complexes concerning the masculinity … Steve E..you’ve shown exactly the type i was referring to …

      I suppose that would include; the secret-service assigned to protect the President, all army-personel, the police-force, detectives, and, including of course, an armed-Citizentry? Perhaps you are right, it appears that as a species we all suffer from an inferiority-complex, a joy for killing, and are intensely preoccupied with maintaing proper testosterone levels. Of course, our desire to protect that which we consider to be of value, is irrelevant…?

      • Steve E

        Like I was saying, evil people like you will never gain respect. I will combat evil with all my being, complex or no complex. You guys will be a sheeple wimp your whole life. There is no fixing your deranged brains.

      • Flashy

        WTS…if you read the thread..you’ll see i never advocated restrictions for work or security…just guys like Steve E who have no need to pack iron in public…. I envision Steve as being one of those braggados you meet who have to prove their manhood and pretending they’re top dog in a situation..when everyone is laughing at them for their lameness…

      • eddie47d

        Steve E heads straight for the name calling. Who is to say you are a honorable good guy and what did Flashy say that makes you think he isn’t one. Someone disagreeing with you doesn’t make a person good or bad unless they say something that is actually evil or wants to harm you. I have heard Conservatives here say they want all Liberals to disappear.from the face of the earth and some are even more direct about it. Is that evil and offensive? Who draws the line?

      • Steve E

        Flashy, I am only superior to subhumans like you. I don’t need to prove that. You proved it to everyone that you are a sub human idiot.

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “if you read the thread..you’ll see i never advocated restrictions for work or security…just guys like Steve E who have no need to pack iron in public.”

        How do you know when the need arises? Criminals seldom call you up and say “hey. I’m going to kill you in a nice public place today. Better be prepared.”

        Of course you could always carry a cop around all day but “iron” is less tiring.

      • Kate8

        Steve E. Obviously, Flush and eddie find testosterone a real threat.

        I’ll be they’re metrosexuals, and are afraid of masculinity.

  • David169

    It’s a shame that this discussion is so polarized. It is no longer a rational discussion it is reduced to namecalling. If someone quotes statistics use a source that doesn’t have profit driving the results like the FBI.
    I believe the litmus test for firearms ownership is responsibility and training. I’m 70 now and I grew up with firearms. My uncle bought me a 22 rifle for my 7th birthday. A neighbor gave me a 1911 A-1 45 auto for my eighth birthday. I had a note from my parents that I carried that allowed me to use the firearms when I was hiking in the mountains. Later when I was 12 I was on the schools smallbore team. On the days we would compete against another school I took the bolt out of my 22 rifle, put it in my lunch box with the ammunition and rode to school on the bus. When I arrived at school I took the rifle to the principles office and put it in the rifle rack where it stayed until we went to the range to compete against another school. I have owned firearms all my life and I have never disrespected the responsibilities of the 2nd amendment. I hunt, I target shoot and I carry. I don’t go berserk because I am part of a generation who understands responsibility and consequences for one’s actions. I don’t need the government to take everyone’s firearms away to protect me. I am 70 and I have learned one thing in those 70 years and that is the government does not have my best interest in mind when they enact new laws. The new laws are always in their best interest to gain more power.

    • Vicki

      Neither you nor 100 million other gun owners (some trained some not) went berserk today. But because a few (about 25?) did, liberals want you to give up your right to self defense with the best tools for the job.

  • Cheerio
  • Kate8

    This is one of the most important and informative broadcasts regarding our nation, our rights, and our options for remedy that you will ever hear.

    The vast majority of those holding public office in the US are doing so ILLEGALLY. They can be removed, as per our Law. This includes BHO (what was the REAL reason he gave up his law license?). This includes MOST JUDGES.

    Our government offices are held by insurgents, who are in violation of our Supreme Law. It’s time we move to remove them. They are treasonous felons.

    I strongly recommend that you listen to this knowledgeable speaker on our Rights vs government. You will be amazed, and forearmed.

    It’s time we reclaim our heritage, people. It’s time we assert our Constitutional Rights before they disappear forever. But we can’t reassert them until we know what they are.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu9b7ezBQl0&feature=player_embedded

    • moonbeam

      Kate8 “This includes BHO (what was the REAL reason he gave up his law license?).”

      His law license was stripped from him (Mooochele was stripped of hers too) because it was found out he LIED on his application. And he continues to LIE his arse off on a daily basis.

      • Kate8

        moonbeam – Yes, I know this. But our Constitution also forbids attorneys from holding public office. I can’t help but think that he was, somehow, covering his bases in any way he could. Surely he knew this fact.

        If you want to know why that is, listen to the broadcast. There is much on there that the vast majority of people don’t know because it’s been covered up.

  • Rusty

    After reading all of these replies, it has occured to me that guns aren’t even the issue here. What has drastically changed over the years is us and our society. It seems people have more of a disdain and disregard for life now. Guns are just in the forefront because some people have used them to perpetrate horrible acts. A gun is a tool. It’s the intent and purpose of the user that makes the difference. It doesn’t matter if it’s a hand gun, a rifle or a shotgun. The only way to stop these horrible acts is to change the people commiting them. How is that possible? I don’t know. All I know is we are very different people from what I remember in my youth. We didn’t lock our doors. The keys were left in the ignition of our cars. I could take my new shotgun to school to show my teachers and friends. Look at us now! What have we become and why?

    • Kate8

      Rusty – Do some research into the communist plot to take over America. It’s all documented and available.

      Back in the ’50s the communist takeover of our government was thwarted. But JFK tried to warn us about how the conspiracy was still alive and determined.

      The commies said they’d use the democrat party to take us over from within, “without firing a shot”. They worked to change our history and our education, our music and morality. Over time, the whittled away at our values, changing us (by targeting our youth) from being highly moral and ethical people to being dumbed-down and out for ouselves only (the “me” generation). They came up with “entitlements”, and sought to ever increase them to create a wholly dependent society who looks to government for everything.

      They opened our doors to the third world, offering a living to anyone who wanted to come. They recruited people from countries with opposing cultures to ours, for the purpose of creating a divided and non-trusting society, to keep us apart so we were no longer a nation who’s strength is in unity but, rather, squabbling groups of people who all play by different rules. And they make it unPC to speak out against “diversity”.

      The corrupted our moral fibre, beginning in the ’60′s with the sexual revolution. We have degraded from there. They created “victim” groups and used them as wedges for their own purposes.

      They used the financial system to enslave us all to the banks, so they now virtually own us.

      How did it happen? We let it happen. We got complacent and weren’t watching. Just look at the liberals trolls who post here, and you can easily see what they created.

    • Richard Babin

      Rusty, you are so right. I too remember those days. They were great days. Even today, I still remember way back when I was a kid that whenever I saw an elderly man or woman frowning, I wondered why they seemed so grumpy. Now I know why. They lived long enough to recognize that not all changes in our country were good changes. And, they recognized that the bad changes did not come from the advancing technology but from the changing attitude and belief systems of the American people. And, it’s even getting worst.

      We are witnessing the House and the Senate divided as never before.

      We are witnessing the President and the democrats and liberals divided against the Republicans.

      We are witnessing blue states divided against red states.

      We are witnessing this administration seeking to divide the nation from God in every possible way.

      We are about to witness tax increases at every level of income causing a divide between the people and their capacity to keep what they earn.

      We are seeing capital gains taxes and dividend and interest income taxes skyrocket, causing a division to not invest in America; possibly even disinvest.

      There is political division in America.

      There is economic division in America.

      There is a division between those that believe in the original values of America and those who want change — marriage is between a man and a woman, you don’t take a life from the womb, man shall not sleep with man nor a woman sleep with another woman, those that love violence will die will by violence, etc., etc., etc.

      There is Spiritual division in America.

      There is a cult of entitlements and uncontrolled borrowing and spending that will ultimately not only divide America, but destroy it !

      This reminds me of Matthew 12:25, “Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, ‘Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.’”

      I believe the days left for us in a country as we have know it has been numbered — “MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN”

    • jon a. usmc [ret]

      rusty
      i grew up in the 50′s in a small town in missouri,
      we locked our doors at nite,we didn’t leave our keys in the car
      and we sure didn’t take our guns to school. because we
      weren’t stupid.

      • Rusty

        Jon, maybe the difference is that I grew up in Texas. Can’t speak for Missouri. We weren’t stupid then and we aren’t now either. I call it innocense and innocense lost. Surprising to hear this kind of crap from a Marine. Semper Fi!

  • Don

    i saw a picture of him. he was a huge man. he could have broke he neck with has bare hands. after that he could have vent to the stadium and jumped of of it and died. blame the gun.

  • Peter 10-nov-1775

    The same clowns who rail for “more gun laws” are the same fools who minimalize the convictions of illegal gun users. They served enough time, they have changed, They found religion. Whatever the excuse, let them out of jail before they serve their term, and when the newly-released con penetrates another gun crime everyone has to get busy and have more laws. We have enough laws, but the law has no teeth when libs are for releasing everyone. And now clinton and carter are coming out against drug laws, saying we are losing the battle. Well, by that way of thinking just make everything legal, because we sure aren’t winning the war against illegal aliens, violent gangs, burglars, drunk drivers, etc.

    • eddie47d

      The Drug War never should have been fought the way it has been for society itself helped pack drug users into prison and gave the police the green light. It didn’t change a thing and matter of fact it only got worse. The government created enemies and the self righteous were complicit in allowing it to happen. Kind of like all our false flag wars in favor of the Elites and Military Industrial Complex.

  • KJQ

    Implementing gun control legislation is like the police chasing a criminal who runs into a very large building. The police, realizing that they have insufficient numbers to surround that building, decide to surround the small apartment building next door.

  • Bimbam

    The Luciferian left like to take adavantage of “not letting a crisis go to waste” as an emotional example to be taken adavantage of, that explains their incoherent ranting.

    What if Jovan used a knife? His bare hands? A bat? The list is endless….

    The Luciferian left could care less if he used any of those “deadly” weapons and we now come to the irony and hypocrisy of the left.

    What the story was really about.

  • Gary Belote

    Eddy47d
    How about I post a sign in my yard that says “I have a 357…loaded…if you enter my property I will shoot you….My neighbor does not have a weapon (arrow pointing to your house). Feel free to rob him. Who would be the safest?

    • Jeff

      Is the gun always in your hand? You must be a riot at the dinner table. Where is the gun when you leave the house? How about when your wife is home alone? Do your kids/grandkids have access to the gun? It’s a lot more complicated than the way you present it. How many criminals obtain guns because burglars steal them? And if an armed intruder blew down your front door with a shotgun, how much good would your gun do you?

      • Vicki

        Jeff writes:
        “And if an armed intruder blew down your front door with a shotgun, how much good would your gun do you?”

        Quite a bit since it is not the size of the round but the placement that counts. Oh and the intruder is probably still to busy observing his handiwork with the door to notice little me and my little pistol.

        • Jeff

          So it’s always in your hand. How do you cut your meat?

      • Kate8

        Vicki – You have such a delightful way of wording things. :) :)

      • JC

        Depends on where in the house I happen to be when he does it…but I’ll use whatever is handy. pistol, shotgun, rifle…whatever. Nothing is in plain site in my home, but my wife and I know where everything is and how to use it…well.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Jeff: So it’s always in your hand. How do you cut your meat?

        With a knife, of course!

      • Vicki

        Jeff says:
        “How do you cut your meat?”

        With a knife of course. What do you use?

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    Well folks, the debate seems to have come to an end, and it looks like a “draw”, (pun intended)! Neither side is willing to compromise? This is good! With respect to this issue(gun-control), argument-um ad nauseam is preferable to a consensus. But worry not, the issue will be offered again for discussion/debate…stay focused, stay fit!

  • Chris

    Yes, leave the second amendment alone………people should be able to own a gun if they want to protect themselves because THAT is the kind of society we are living in today. We can’t win the war on drugs and crime because this society would rather see criminals in prison instead of executed………start frying the scum of the earth instead of making taxpayers support them in prison…… and that includes the nuts too because once you cross over into insanity, you are NOT coming back! One should be able to walk down the street without fear of being robbed or murdered. I am a champion for the underdog and “I” think of the VICTIMS.

  • Scott

    I SOOOOO want to take a case of phosphorus grenadesto that damned twisted pistol sculptor @ the UN! Talk about disrespect! That gaggle of hoods make gang-bangers from compton look like high society!

  • Bill

    Let’s talk about some great guns to own for self defense. Start with a 12 guage pump shotgun with double ought buck, a good AK47 for crowd control, a couple of Glocks and a Smith & Wesson revolver in the 357 caliber.

    What are some other suggestions y our fellow gun lovers

    • Chris

      My fav. is a BAZOOKA!

      • Jeff

        Was it cut off when you were a boy or is it just really, really small? You gun nuts are amazing. Go buy yourself a red Corvette instead so the girls can giggle when you get out with your toupe, pot belly, and cane.

  • http://www.facebook.com/joelscopeland Joel Copeland

    Boy, who are some of these people who write some of these insanely asinine comments? Calling a murderer “John Wayne” or “Baretta”? Gee, an outstanding, beloved actor who lived a wonderful life, made awesome movies,and was never accused of a crime? And a TV show cop character from the 70′s? Gee, why don’t we go after Charles Bronson next? How timely your references are! I’d stick with Wyatt Earp if I were you. Any thoughts on the Titanic? Do icebergs need stricter controls? I really think some of you believe so! I would also suggest legislation against people who use sporks in their attacks, because YA JUST NEVER KNOW, right?

    • Jeff

      I think we’ve pretty much eliminated the iceberg problem.

    • Chris

      John Wayne, Baretta, Charles Bronson, Wyatt Earp……….we REALLY need who they represented in this society!!!! Where are all the vigilantes??????????????????????

      • Jeff

        They’re blogging and playing with their guns . . . just like you.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.