Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Gun Control Has Always Been A Part Of American History

January 25, 2013 by  

Gun Control Has Always Been A Part Of American History
PHOTOS.COM

Let’s allow momentarily for some advocacy of the devil in the gun debate and admit that, for better or for worse, gun control is deeply rooted in the history of the United States.

In our modern, sound bite society, the politicization of any given issue leads to a national discussion that includes neither historical reference nor reasonable debate. Evidence enough is the discourse that has emerged in the wake of the terrible tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School. And given our human limitations, coupled with a political system in which leaders benefit, both financially and in reputation, by screaming at the top of their lungs either for or against something, there’s no reasonable expectation of any well-thought-out or balanced ideas surfacing.

The debate thus far has been a fallaciously toned one, which ignores a trove of interesting historical footnotes that could no doubt lead the populace to a Constitutionally and socially responsible consensus on the right to bear arms. So far, Americans have instead been prodded into one of the following collective conclusions:

  • Children at Sandy Hook died at the barrel of a gun. A child dying is tragic; therefore guns are bad.
  • Mass killings sometimes involve assault rifles; therefore, banning assault rifles would stop mass killings.
  • Per the Constitution, gun control is un-American; therefore, there should be absolutely no gun control.
  • Gun control has preceded tyranny at some points in history; therefore, any advocate of gun control is an enemy of freedom.

To take on the first point, it is helpful to reference the President’s gun-control address that followed his signing of 23 executive actions related to guns earlier this month. At one point, President Barack Obama called for more gun-related research as he stood in front of a group of schoolchildren placed as an agenda-driving prop and uttered these words: “We do not benefit from ignorance.”

That is, perhaps, one of the most useful things the current President has ever said. So let’s not allow ourselves to be ignorant of the fact that even though what occurred at Sandy Hook was a heart-wrenching and senseless loss of life at the peak of innocence, children have been spared harm on numerous occasions when would-be assailants were stopped by firearms.

Next, if we are to believe that banning classes of firearms based on aesthetics will in any way make Americans safer from the prospect becoming the victim of a mass murderer, we must then accept that there will never be another Charles Whitman, Timothy McVeigh, highway sniper or Monroe Phillips in our midst.

Moving on the Constitutional issue of gun control, most conservatives — and the National Rifle Association, for now — will argue that the 2nd Amendment expressly prohibits infringement on the right to bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But, as many religious people also do with the Bible, conservatives and liberals are guilty of failing to take the words as a whole. Conservatives often put all the emphasis of the Amendment on the latter phrasing, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The same holds true for liberals reading the Amendment, salivating over, “A well regulated…”

Conservatives would do better to further the cause of protecting the 2nd Amendment from draconian anti-gun legislation by refuting the assertions of the NRA and anyone historically dishonest enough to believe that the Founders’ vision of firearm responsibility lent itself to a libertarian free-for-all. The Militia Act of 1792 — which by some examinations lends credence to the President’s healthcare mandate — required the purchase of firearms by able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45 and the inspection of said firearms, and it led to door-to-door questioning about firearm ownership to create records of compliance.

From the Act:

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

The best possible gun legislation would solve two poignant modern American disagreements: How big does our military need to be, and who is allowed to own guns in America? British essayist Christopher Hitchens put it well in his 1994 essay “The Myth of Gun Control”:

In exchange for abolition of the military-industrial complex, who would not consider reporting for the occasional weekend – as in many democratic European nations – and acquiring the rudiments of weapons training, to be accompanied by a reading of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Utopian, you say. No more than the half-baked pacifism that, when preached by gun-controllers, has as its corollary a duopoly of force in the hands of the state and the criminal. Certainly no more utopian than the pathetic “guns for vouchers” swap meets that are now making police precincts a laughingstock as they concentrate on the disarmament of the law-abiding (and the opportunist).

While Congress mandated that any able-bodied man should be prepared to purchase a firearm and join a militia, there were certain segments of the population that were categorically denied the right to bear arms during this period. That group included slaves and free blacks as well as law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the new Nation.

While the idea of banning guns on a racial basis or in retaliation for failing to pledge allegiance to the State is unsavory, today’s gun laws also contain restrictions that are not so Constitutionally unfavorable. Gun bans on the basis of mental competency, criminality or routine chemically altered states of perception all seem reasonable to even the staunchest defenders of the right to bear arms.

A favorite accusation of gun grabbers, Piers Morgan in particular, is that 2nd Amendment advocates simply want to live in an “utter Wild West hell.” But Morgan fails to realize that the John Wayne and Clint Eastwood depiction of America’s frontier towns was not historically accurate. In fact, local gun laws that mandated that travelers turn over their six-shooters to the town lawman before entering populated town areas were popular at the time.

The Federal government didn’t get in to the business of banning classes of weapons until the 1930s when, emboldened by the government’s foolish prohibition of alcohol, gangsters like Al Capone became a force to be reckoned with when they took to the streets with fully automatic rifles that were a byproduct of World War I. Interestingly enough, the NRA fully backed legislation at the time to take automatic rifles off the streets.

Adam Winkler, author of  Gun Fight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, recounts how NRA Director Karl Frederick appeared before Congress at the time and was asked whether the 2nd Amendment barred legislation that would restrict access to the weapons; he replied that he had “not given it any study from that point of view.”

His response reflects what the organization’s original intention had been. The NRA was started in 1871 by Union Civil War veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate. Dismayed at the bad shooting skills of the men with whom they had served, they wanted to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis.” The organization spent the early part of its existence focused on shooting safety, hunter education and law enforcement and military training.

Perhaps the most accurate of the above-mentioned arguments against heavy regulation of guns is that the lack of firearms for self-defense often leads to tyrannical infringement. This is noted both in the Founders’ remarks about the importance of the 2nd Amendment and in the Nation’s historical record. Ironically, Obama, the Nation’s first black President and the man who so affirmatively stated only days ago that we do not benefit from ignorance, is ignorant of the gun views of the civil rights leaders whom he claims to so admire.

Throughout the Nation’s history, the gun-control laws that have been the harshest are those that were levied against blacks, who, as any compassionate, serious and well-informed student of history would be remiss to deny, have endured tyrannical force at many times since the Nation’s founding.

In the years leading up to the Civil War, States all over the Nation grew increasingly fearful of the prospect of a black uprising that they felt could be carried out by slaves or freed blacks. Nat Turner’s Rebellion in 1831 kicked off a number of gun-control laws aimed at blacks in America’s States.

Virginia responded to the rebellion by prohibiting free blacks the right “to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead…” Later, in 1834, the Tennessee Constitution was changed from “That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence” to “That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.” The antebellum South was rife with racist calls for gun control.

These abuses did not stop following the Civil War with the onset of black freedom and, in fact, continued through the Jim Crow-era South right up until the civil rights era.

Martin Luther King Jr., upon whose Bible Obama swore to uphold the Constitution on Monday, reportedly kept an arsenal of firearms in his home to ease his mind about the near-constant death threats he received. The peace-promoting civil rights leader even applied for an Alabama concealed carry permit, but was denied due to racism on the part of the police that had the authority to issue the permit. The Alabama permit law under which he was denied had been an NRA-backed initiative.

King knew that if his life was in danger, he could not count on the police for protection. His willingness to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights was also shared by other notable civil rights activists. Among them, Malcom X, who famously posed on the cover of Life magazine with an M1-Carbine.

The Black Panther Party took Malcolm X’s firearm brandishing and made it a part of their persona. At a time when police harassment of blacks was epidemic throughout the Nation, members learned about gun safety when they weren’t studying Marxism.

The YouTube videos of people open carrying through neighborhoods today to assert their 2nd Amendment Rights are reminiscent of similar armed displays by the Black Panthers in the late 1960s. Panther leaders Huey Newton and Bobby Seale said that because government was “either unable or unwilling to protect the lives and property” of blacks, they ought to defend themselves “by any means necessary.”

The Panthers took to patrolling urban neighborhoods while brandishing firearms to essentially “police the police,” who were infamous for abusing black Americans at the time.

Throughout all of this, the NRA has been on both sides of the gun debate and even supported a measure signed into law by then-Governor Ronald Reagan that set California on track to having some of the Nation’s strictest gun control laws. The 1967 Mulford Act effectively neutralized the Panther Police Patrols by prohibiting the carry of loaded guns in public.

At the NRA national convention in 1977, the group was overtaken by 2nd Amendment purists who shaped the organization more into the lobbying machine that it has become today. Oddly enough, the views the organization’s leaders now espouse are more Black Panther when it comes to gun control than target practice.

Gun control has always been a part of American history. And there is plenty of fairly obvious evidence for both sides of the debate to examine what has worked, what hasn’t and which gun control laws led to tyrannical force being used over segments of the population. If the emotional toll of dead children and the lucrativeness of NRA loudmouthing could be removed from the equation, the Founders’ true intentions could be fulfilled.

With hundreds of millions of guns in American homes, a gun-free future is not going to happen; if it is forced, a bloody and unwarranted fight is likely in the cards. But by taking a look at the gun laws we already have and understanding where they could improve, the debate can come to an end.

Instead of hacking for more membership money by saying what if feels will drive the most fear, the NRA should focus more than ever on its original mission of training Americans to be responsible and well-versed firearms owners.

In every State, before taking control of another potentially deadly machine a competency test is required. The process of driver licensing ensures that vehicle operators are physically and mentally capable of operating a motorized vehicle. Different classes of vehicles require different classes of licenses. Perhaps this is a good universal firearm requirement, both well-regulated and relatively un-infringed.

It’s unfortunate that options like these must be considered, but gone are the days when many young people are raised hunting and seeing the effects firsthand of what a firearm is capable of. Instead, watching the sometimes slow and painful death of an animal downed by a shot that was not placed just so has given way to young minds racking up mass computer-generated casualties onscreen, complete with bloody, cartoonish splatters and bodies that disappear rather than become cold and rot. The demographic of the most recent round of mass shooters makes this evident.

We don’t need new, misguided gun laws that harken back to the days of racial gun bans; we need an emphasis on responsibility and gun respect. And more than ever, we need leaders within the gun movement whose motives are pure.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Gun Control Has Always Been A Part Of American History”

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

  • http://yahoo Glen

    We also need a bigger commitment to Mental Health. Most of these mass killings have been by someone who has mental issues.

    • Vicki

      ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

      STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT.

      STOP IT
      STOP IT NOW

      • Right Brain Thinker

        THERE ARE ~30,000 GUN DEATHS A YEAR IN THE U.S. .
        NEARLY 2/3 OF THEM ARE SUICIDES

        THERE ARE ~11,000 GUN HOMICIDES EACH YEAR IN THE U.S.

        THERE ARE ~600 ACCIDENTAL GUN DEATHS A YEAR IN THE U.S.
        MANY IF NOT MOST OF THEM ARE CHILDREN

        THERE ARE ~200,000 GUN-RELATED INJURIES A YEAR IN THE U.S.

        STOP TRYING TO DENY THERE’S A PROBLEM
        STOP TRYING TO DENY THAT GUNS ARE A FACTOR
        STOP TRYING TO SAY COMMON SENSE REGULATION MEANS GUN CONFISCATION

        STOP TRYING TO DISTRACT US WITH ~300 AMERICANS
        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear Right Brain Thinker,

          Please provide evidence to support your claims of 30,000 gun deaths, 11,000 gun homicides, 600 accidental shootings and 200,000 gun injuries per year.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

      • Randy G

        Vicki, your comment are OK But ‘Right Brain Thinker’ has his brain on the wrong end of the spinal cord. How about cars? They kill lots of people, should we get rid of them? No they pick on the drivers there. Why the double standard? Wouldn’t the world be better with less crazy people in it.

      • Truthbug

        RBT desperately needs to gain a better understanding of freedom and liberty. Giving up freedom for the illusion of security is a fatal mistake.

      • FreedomFighter

        This is not about Gun Control, its about control of the American people, this has happened many, many times in history, usually as a dictator or other totalitarian govrnmental system is implemented. The government fears and rightly so, the people dont want to be treated like a collective of ants, enslaved with mandatory healthcare that opens the door to absolute physical control measures, silenced, disarmed, fed psychotropic compounds in the water that pacify, and with them as queens, and kings of a false utopia, very mch a Dystopia. Mankind can come up with a better way to develope a society bound for the stars.

        Here is an old story that is new. We are all American Indians now and invaders from the seas have come to take your home and put you on a …

        Indian Reservation (Cherokee People)
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ6RjP7MlXk

        Change the words Cherokee to American and Japan to China…think about it, we are all American indians now, differance now is we can win.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • Gordon
      • Gordon

        Founding fathers often stated that MILITIA is the average citizen with his weapon willing to fight tyanny. So the liberals are correct, in the truest sense of the word.

      • eddie47d

        Vickie continues to scream out STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT. WELL THEN STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT SCHOOL CHILDREN. Stop the reckless behavior of some gun dealers. Stop the recklessness of some gun owners . Stop the NRA from ignoring the problems they now exacerbate. The NRA was once a respected organization by all Americans and now it is no more than a shill mouthpiece for extremist right wingers who ignore the consequences of gun violence. Stop the NRA from treating these mass killings as just another day at the park. The NRA use to be a champion of gun control and gun ownership and supported sensible laws so neither side felt threatened. Now its nothing but a political agenda for them in maintaining a good standing with the extremists. That way they can keep the faithful hooked on their propaganda and the money can pour in. The bottom line is support the Second Amendment and support reasonable gun control. Anything less is a copout.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Dear Bob,

        You say, “Please provide evidence to support your claims of 30,000 gun deaths, 11,000 gun homicides, 600 accidental shootings and 200,000 gun injuries per year”.

        I’m not “claiming” anything, Bob. I’m merely stating one set of stats that I came across, and they agree well with others I have seen—i believe most of these came from the Utah Doctors Study. There are literally mounds of stats out there, many from the FBI, and they look at the PROBLEM of gun deaths from many angles. These stats have been used by numbers of PLD posters in attempts to prove many things. Why are you bothering to question me anyway when you haven’t questioned many of the others who have posted such stats?

        I say they’re as TRUE as any you will find. I ask YOU to provide evidence that they’re NOT. How many gun deaths DO we have? How many are homicides? How many are suicides? How many are accidents? How many involve kids? HOW MANY RESULT FROM SELF-DEFENSE? Tell us. Let’s compare numbers and see what the “evidence” shows.

        While you’re here , Bob, perhaps you could answer a question for me? W.A.R. just wrote a piece for you on taxes and O’Bama and communists—kind of way out stuff that didn’t hang together too well I was googling around and I happened to notice that this article on PLD seemed to be to be an expansion of an article W.A.R. published on the NewsMax website on 7/1/2011—many of the sentences in the PLD piece were lifted word for word from the NewsMax article. My question(s) Does W.A.R. “own” the rights to that 71/2011 article or does NewsMax? Can Wayne just “recycle” it like that? Do you and PLD now “own” the rights to Wayne’s “reuse” of that article? I’m not trying to stir anything up, but I would like to understand the “property rights” and “copyright” implications here, if you would be so kind as to explain them,

        Best wishes
        RBT

        PS to Vicki,

        THERE ARE ~30,000 GUN DEATHS A YEAR IN THE U.S. .

        STOP TRYING TO DENY THERE’S A PROBLEM
        STOP TRYING TO DENY THAT GUNS ARE A FACTOR
        STOP TRYING TO SAY COMMON SENSE REGULATION MEANS GUN CONFISCATION

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear Right Brain Thinker,

          Again, please provide evidence to support your claims. I’m required to on a daily basis. I have provided accurate statistics from the FBI that are quite different. Please provide your evidence.

          You write: “My question(s) Does W.A.R. “own” the rights to that 71/2011 article or does NewsMax? Can Wayne just “recycle” it like that? Do you and PLD now “own” the rights to Wayne’s “reuse” of that article? I’m not trying to stir anything up, but I would like to understand the “property rights” and “copyright” implications here, if you would be so kind as to explain them…” I have no interest in discussing our arrangement with Mr. Root as it is a private arrangement.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

      • KenPoland

        Dear Bob Livingston
        You ask RBT to provide proof of his numbers. Can Vickie produce stats for her numbers? How many people in the U.S. today? She says there are 300,000,000 people who haven’t shot anyone. That leaves more people to have shot someone than RBT has listed as having been shot.

        Don’t selectively ask for verification of facts and figures of one and not the other.

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear KenPoland,

          You write: “You ask RBT to provide proof of his numbers.” Correct. And he cannot.

          You write: “Can Vickie produce stats for her numbers?” I don’t know. Feel free to ask her.

          You write: “How many people in the U.S. today?” Approximately 316 million

          You write: “That leaves more people to have shot someone than RBT has listed as having been shot.” Logical fallacy.

          You write: “Don’t selectively ask for verification of facts and figures of one and not the other.” Excuse me? When someone is “selectively” spamming my site with figures I believe phony I will ask for evidence.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Dear Bob,

        You say, “Again, please provide evidence to support your claims. I’m required to on a daily basis. I have provided accurate statistics from the FBI that are quite different. Please provide your evidence”.

        And I will again say to you—-show us the numbers you have for the things I commented on. Show us how they differ from mine.

        You say you’re “required” to provide evidence? LOL By whom? Looks to me as if you say what you want to say and devil take the hindmost. I have agreed with some things you have said and even complimented you more than once on your articles (or parts thereof). Some of the things you have said, however, have fallen into the category of “horsepucky”, and when I have pointed that out to you, you have often “tap danced” around the issue. (Will you do that again?, i.e., quote my words back to me and again evade answering? Will you ask me to provide evidence of “tap-dancing”?)

        Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I am not interested in any “private arrangement” you may have with Mr. Root. I am interested in the societal ideas of such things as “intellectual ownership”, “property rights”, “copyrights”, “permission to use”, and “attribution”. I have looked at many “statements” on websites that discuss these things (PLD has one). Being in a business where you surely are familiar with these things, I was hoping you could explain it to me. Is it different in the world of websites than it is in academia?

        Best wishes
        RBT

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear Right Brain Thinker,

          You write: “And I will again say to you—-show us the numbers you have for the things I commented on. Show us how they differ from mine.” Obviously you cannot provide evidence of your claims.

          You write: “And I will again say to you—-show us the numbers you have for the things I commented on.” Links are contained in the articles.

          You write: ” Will you ask me to provide evidence of “tap-dancing”?” Yes, as you have yet to do so.

          You write: “Being in a business where you surely are familiar with these things, I was hoping you could explain it to me.” I will not discuss our arrangement.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

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

        RBT: And I will again say to you—-show us the numbers you have for the things I commented on. Show us how they differ from mine.

        Another words, RBT has no sources. He just pulls numbers out of his azz…

      • eddie47d

        RBT is fairly close in numbers for the gun policy center says that gun deaths in 2011 were 32,163 of which 15,953 were homicides and 11,832 were suicides. Gun injuries were 78,622. Not much different in the CDC report.

      • Vicki

        KenPoland says:
        “Dear Bob Livingston
        You ask RBT to provide proof of his numbers. Can Vickie produce stats for her numbers?”

        Yes I can. You can too. Look up US Population (est) 2012.

        - KenPoland: “How many people in the U.S. today?”

        ~ (pay close attention to that symbol as you will see it again soon) 315 million.

        - KenPoland: “She says there are 300,000,000 people who haven’t shot anyone.”

        I most certainly did NOT say 300,000,000. (I am not quibbling over 000,000 vs million)

        - KenPoland: “That leaves more people to have shot someone than RBT has listed as having been shot.”

        Since I didn’t say 300 MILLION your point is irrelevantly argumentative.

        - KenPoland: “Don’t selectively ask for verification of facts and figures of one and not the other.”

        It is Bob’s site and he can if he wants to. You can stay or go at HIS pleasure.

        Now for the record what I have said is

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the actions of a few.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

        (Note to Bob, as long as the numbers RBT gives are within 10x the real numbers it will not have any noticeable effect on my assertion that 99.9% of the population didn’t shoot anyone and that as you know (being one of the ~300 million) we are way past tired of being punished for the acts of a (very very) few.)

      • Vicki

        Right Brain Thinker demonstrates why the left brain is actually useful by saying:
        “THERE ARE ~30,000 GUN DEATHS A YEAR IN THE U.S. .
        NEARLY 2/3 OF THEM ARE SUICIDES”

        That would be nearly 0.01% of the population.
        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT.

        - RBT: “THERE ARE ~11,000 GUN HOMICIDES EACH YEAR IN THE U.S.”

        Assuming one murderer per murder (it is actually less)
        That would be nearly 0.004% of the population.
        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT.

        - RBT: “THERE ARE ~600 ACCIDENTAL GUN DEATHS A YEAR IN THE U.S.
        MANY IF NOT MOST OF THEM ARE CHILDREN”

        That would be about 0.0002% of the population.
        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT.

        - RBT: “THERE ARE ~200,000 GUN-RELATED INJURIES A YEAR IN THE U.S.

        Now we’re talking some SERIOUS numbers. That would be about
        well…. about 0.07% of the population. Ok maybe not a big percentage after all
        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT.

        - RBT: “STOP TRYING TO DENY THERE’S A PROBLEM”

        We are not denying that there is a problem. The problem is the anti gun crowd. They keep insisting on punishing the innocent for the acts of (as you can see from the percentages about) a VERY VERY few.

        - RBT: “STOP TRYING TO DENY THAT GUNS ARE A FACTOR”

        Guns are inanimate objects not a factor.

        - RBT: “STOP TRYING TO SAY COMMON SENSE REGULATION MEANS GUN CONFISCATION”

        Explain that to NY Governor Cuomo

        - RBT: “STOP TRYING TO DISTRACT US WITH ~300 AMERICANS”

        300? That is the number of Spartans led by King Leonidas who is famously quoted as saying “molon labe” meaning roughly “come and take”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molon_labe

        We said ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DIDN’T SHOOT ANYONE

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

        - RBT: “STOP IT
        - RBT: “STOP IT NOW

        Please do.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Vickie continues to scream out STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT. WELL THEN STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT SCHOOL CHILDREN.”

        Describe how innocent school children are being punished (beyond the obvious of having to survive being brainwashed in public schools)

        - eddie47d: “Stop the reckless behavior of some gun dealers. Stop the recklessness of some gun owners.”

        Describe what behavior you consider reckless.

        - eddie47d: “Stop the NRA from ignoring the problems they now exacerbate.”

        Describe the problems you think they ignore and explain how they can exacerbate something they are ignoring.

        - eddie47d: “The NRA was once a respected organization by all Americans and now it is no more than a shill mouthpiece for extremist right wingers who ignore the consequences of gun violence.”

        Argument to ridicule.

        - eddie47d: “Stop the NRA from treating these mass killings as just another day at the park.”

        Unfounded and probably libelous argument to ridicule.

        - eddie47d: “The NRA use to be a champion of gun control and gun ownership and supported sensible laws so neither side felt threatened.”

        What, and be precise, do feelings have to do with gun control?

        - eddie47d: “Now its nothing but a political agenda for them in maintaining a good standing with the extremists.”

        Argument to ridicule.

        - eddie47d: “That way they can keep the faithful hooked on their propaganda and the money can pour in.”

        Argument to ridicule

        - eddie47d: “The bottom line is support the Second Amendment and support reasonable gun control. Anything less is a copout.”

        Agreed. (See. Eddie and I can agree on some things. :) )
        And to get reasonable gun control lessons I recommend http://www.frontsight.com/

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Hey Ken and eddie,

        I don’t know where Flash has been hiding but we could use his help here. He is an expert on “essences” and I smell something rotten in Denmark.

        Did you notice that Vicki has (feebly) attacked all three of us in comments at 5:59 A.M, 6:05 A.M., and 6:17 A.M.? My reading rate, reading comprehension level, horsepucky detecting rate, and typing all operate at high levels—99th percentile (except for typing—my old fingers don’t move as fast as they did), but what Vicki has done IS IMPRESSIVE.

        I don’t think I could duplicate it except on my very best day—-sit down and read what we said, analyze it, come up with arguments, type it, proofread it—–all in maybe 25 minutes? Could it be that someone else is writing Vicki’s stuff for her? That she just comes in to work and finds it on her desk with a “send these” sticker? Or are there several people posting simultaneously under the handle “Vicki”? So many questions—-so little time (except for Vicki—-she apparently moves at “warp speed”)

        And don’t get knotted knickers over “feebly”, Vicki. I couldn’t think of a more polite word to describe your meaningless little games with meaningless numbers.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Finally getting back to talking to Bob Livingston—-I start at the bottom when i look at a thread, and I had to deal with a lot of mindless horsepucky on the way back up to here, as well as do “real life” things as well. Sorry, Bob—-I know you have been eagerly awaiting my return.

        I said, “Some of the things you have said, however, have fallen into the category of “horsepucky”, and when I have pointed that out to you, you have often “tap danced” around the issue. (Will you do that again?, i.e., quote my words back to me and again evade answering? Will you ask me to provide evidence of “tap-dancing”?)”

        Your response? “Yes, as you have yet to do so”. It is not really necessary to give much evidence of your “tap dancing” here, as it is “self-evident”—-that lawyerly term again..

        You said to Ken, “You write: “You ask RBT to provide proof of his numbers.” Correct. And he cannot”, and later say to me, “Obviously you cannot provide evidence of your claims”.
        You also said to Ken, “Excuse me? When someone is “selectively” spamming my site with figures I believe phony I will ask for evidence”.

        Well excuse ME, Bob, but I have suggested to YOU that the more honest and direct way of dealing with this would be for you to do as I suggested when I said, “And I will again say to you—-show us the numbers you have for the things I commented on. Show us how they differ from mine”. You obviously cannot. And your accusation of “selectively spamming” is far more in need of verification than anything I said in reply to Vicki—-what exactly do you mean by that? Can you provide evidence of that claim?

        Perhaps the biggest display of “tap dancing” comes when I press you by saying “Being in a business where you surely are familiar with these things, I was hoping you could explain it to me.” I got back from you, “I will not discuss our arrangement.”, a reprise of the earlier “I have no interest in discussing our arrangement”.

        I never asked you to discuss your “arrangement” with WAR, but you choose to use that to avoid answering my question. I understand, Bob. You are certainly not always the most gracious host, but I certainly don’t want to be accused of being an ungrateful guest, so I will not pursue the issue.

        Best wishes,
        RBT

      • Jana

        Right brain non-,
        You said,” I don’t know where Flash has been hiding but we could use his help here. He is an expert on “essences” and I smell something rotten in Denmark.”
        That is way too funny. You are smelling yourself!
        Now you think you need help because you can’t come up with logical answers. That’s what happens when you are wrong.
        It is also that Vicki is smart. She doesn’t need a ghost writer like you would. Good grief. She knows her subject and you are out of your depth.
        Par for a paid Socialist mind.

      • Vicki

        Right Brain Thinker says:
        January 26, 2013 at 10:57 am

        Hey Ken and eddie,

        I don’t know where Flash has been hiding but we could use his help here.”

        Please do get him on. I have a question for him. Or perhaps you could answer for him.
        The question:
        “Flashy. Please list JUST ONE right that clashes with the 2nd Amendment.”

        - RBT: “My reading rate, reading comprehension level, horsepucky detecting rate, and typing all operate at high levels—99th percentile (except for typing—my old fingers don’t move as fast as they did), but what Vicki has done IS IMPRESSIVE.”

        Thanks.

        - RBT: “So many questions—-so little time (except for Vicki—-she apparently moves at “warp speed”) ”

        I did warn you that you might have trouble keeping up.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        If Vicki thinks that I am going to get Flash on here for her, she is out of her mind. I want you all to myself, VickI. Let Jana or Kate8 seek him out for themselves and keep him occupied so that Vicki and I can continue our “relationship”..

        And Vicki responds to me spilling the beans on her when I said ” What Vicki has done IS IMPRESSIVE.” with just a simple “Thanks”. Even though that is only one word, it speaks volumes, and brings to mind Vicki’s “sentence lessons”—That ONE WORD is all at once obfuscatory, deflectative, evasivatory, and imperious (particularly the second and third of those).

        And yes, Vicki DID warn me I’d have trouble keeping up—-I am an old guy and Vicki is a “fast mover”. Perhaps everyone may have noticed that she is slowing down also? We are not seeing as much ~300 AMERICANS lately. Hmmmmmm

        And I’m glad I am able to entertain Jana, who reminds me of what “middle school boys jokes” means with, “That is way too funny. You are smelling yourself!” Yes, Jana, smells are high on the humor list for 12-year-olds. I’m sorry we don’t have a sound capability here, or I would have Jana rolling on the floor with some of those cool noises you can make with a cupped hand in an armpit.

        Speaking of middle school culture, it is also touching that Jana shows such support for the leader of her clique with “It is also that Vicki is smart”. LOL

      • Fred

        This is actually for RBT…I could not find the “reply” link on his post..: this is a direct quote from statistics compiled by the FBI: In 2011 – the latest year for which detailed statistics are available – there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms.
        Or, you can go to http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-…..with information garnered from the homicide table for the US in 2011 ..taking the total number of homicides and doing the calculation for 67.7% being caused by firearms, you come up with a whopping total of 9,419 in 2011.

        This is a direct quote from http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
        1.15 MILLION abortions performed in the US in 2009.
        Government Sanctioned Murder of unborn children. They want us to believe them when they say they are acting on the behalf of the safety of children and families with their new gun ban legislation.. What a load of hogwash!!!
        No need to reply, the facts speak for themselves, and my sources are provided.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Fred provides some numbers that point in the same direction as mine and some links to data that I have looked at more than once. Thanks, Fred, As I said, we can wave lots of numbers around but the fact remains that we have a significant number of gun DEATHS every year. Did you really read what I said and think about it? What do you think you’re arguing about with me?

        And you want to to talk about abortion? That’s a totally different topic that I have some strong feelings about, but this thread is about guns.

    • Bill

      Let’s just do it like the gun grabbers do. Any drug linked to any shooting should be banned. The mental health industry is just a great way to push dangerous, mind altering drugs

      • eddie47d

        Drugs are another part of the problem and some of those drugs never should have been put into the market either. Is Big Pharma responsible for helping or damaging the human mind ? Like the proliferation of guns I would say a little of both.

    • Dean

      Right Brian thinker….

      If this is your platform for gun control, then why dont we take cars away from everyone to prevent deaths. Car accidents cause more deaths than guns. As people say its not the person its the gun, so then that kine of resoning would be to say its not the driver its the car. Obviously that is obsued. Its because everyone has a car and not everyone has a gun. So its easy for people to yell gun control when there not effected.
      .

      • Right Brain Thinker

        If you’re still looking at this thread, Dean, let me say that your argument is not as absurd as suggesting that “we should ban water because people drown in it”, as Jana or someone of her ilk said. Almost, though.

    • Jana

      Poor non thinking Right Brain,
      You must really be getting senile.
      You are the one who asked where Flash was and I quote you:

      Right Brain Thinker says:
      January 26, 2013 at 10:57 am

      Hey Ken and eddie,

      I don’t know where Flash has been hiding but we could use his help here. He is an expert on “essences” and I smell something rotten in Denmark.

      Then you say :
      If Vicki thinks that I am going to get Flash on here for her, she is out of her mind. I want you all to myself, VickI. Let Jana or Kate8 seek him out for themselves and keep him occupied so that Vicki and I can continue our “relationship”.
      wow, you are some piece of work. You don’t even remember what you wrote from one minute to the next. Maybe its time for you to retire from posting- permanently! One can only hope.

  • MexicansaysLibtardsRPukes
  • Harold Olsen

    The left claims that gun control is for the purpose of protecting children. That is a load of crap! If protecting children were really what they want to do, then why are they so willing to murder unborn children? They, in truth, do not give a damn about children. What it really is about is curbing our freedoms. Despots like Obama always start with two things in their effort to take control. They limit free speech and disarm the people,

    • eddie47d

      So Harold is the one who yelled fire in a crowded theater! I always suspected something like that. Abortion has nothing to do with “children” but with fetuses so try and use the right termanology. So yes Liberals do care about CHILDREN. I guess we should ask why do so many Conservatives endorse the act of rape as normal. Now New Mexico’s Republican governor has a bill on her desk that will prosecute the woman who is raped. (sounds like what India and a few other countries do). Last year she signed a bill that says a rapist can ask for custody of any child that he produced. Also that the woman has to go to him for child support.(the state won’t stop him from refusing that support though) dejavu! This new bill says the rapist can receive full custody if the woman seeks an abortion and that the woman can be jailed for 3 years for that attempt.

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

        eddie teddy 47 ways to be a commie, you and your sidekick rightbrainstinker have made me sick with your lie’s and non fact that I have to take a moment to puke, robots from the commie dream world is what both of you are along with trashy flasy dashy, jeromy oh my have to protect my fellow nazi’s. Get a real brain, get some common sense, learn some real history and come out of your nazi dream world and be human who can live with truth and not turn it into a lie.

  • Vicki

    Every gun control law that infringes on the rights of the ~300 MILLION Americans who DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE is prima facie unconstitutional.

    Sam Rolly writes in the OP
    “Conservatives often put all the emphasis of the Amendment on the latter phrasing, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The same holds true for liberals reading the Amendment, salivating over, “A well regulated…””

    The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is quite clear.
    http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

    The Conservatives are not guilty of failing to take the words as a whole. The English grammar is quite common and clear.

    “A well regulated….” Is one but not only reason for
    “The right of THE PEOPLE to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms
    shall NOT be infringed.”

    ~300 MILLION Americans DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

    STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few.

    STOP IT
    STOP IT NOW

    • Right Brain Thinker

      THERE ARE ~30,000 GUN DEATHS A YEAR IN THE U.S. .
      NEARLY 2/3 OF THEM ARE SUICIDES

      THERE ARE ~11,000 GUN HOMICIDES EACH YEAR IN THE U.S.

      THERE ARE ~600 ACCIDENTAL GUN DEATHS A YEAR IN THE U.S.
      MANY IF NOT MOST OF THEM ARE CHILDREN

      THERE ARE ~200,000 GUN-RELATED INJURIES A YEAR IN THE U.S.

      STOP TRYING TO DENY THERE’S A PROBLEM
      STOP TRYING TO DENY THAT GUNS ARE A FACTOR
      STOP TRYING TO SAY COMMON SENSE REGULATION MEANS GUN CONFISCATION

      STOP TRYING TO DISTRACT US WITH ~300 AMERICANS
      STOP IT
      STOP IT NOW

      • http://exodus-consulting.com Thomas

        “STOP TRYING TO SAY COMMON SENSE REGULATION MEANS GUN CONFISCATION”

        Read the text of the Feinstein bill and explain to us (without the caps lock key) how that bill is “common sense regulation”.

        We already have 22,000 gun laws in this country, none of which prevented Sandy Hook. One more will be a drop in the ocean in this regard, serving no purpose other than rendering 10′s of millions of gun-owning Americans “criminals” at the stroke of Obama’s pen. Many will not give them up. This will not end well.

        Liberals don’t hate guns. They just hate privately-owned guns. They LOVE guns in the hands of a coercive police state, so they can force their will on those who disagree with them. We would ask the opinions of those 56 million victims of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, et al, who died at the hands of their own governments in the 20th century, but we can’t because they were all murdered. But first they were disarmed.

        Dianne Feinstein wants to take your guns because she and her ilk want to do OTHER things to you that they couldn’t do if you kept your guns. It’s. Really. That. Simple.

      • http://www.sonsoflibertymontana.com Rich

        Prove your stats.

      • menehuni509

        The problem with your thinking, Brain, is that you don’t consider the fact that any laws passed to control guns will only be followed by those who abide by the law. Criminals don’t follow the law, that’s why they’re called “criminals”. You would deny law-abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves from those who don’t follow the law, thus raising the death toll of those who are killed by guns. Personally, I want to have the ability to defend myself, my children, and my grandchildren from those who seek to harm us. That being said, there’s nothing wrong with RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. Those who own guns should know how to use them properly and keep them in proper working order. Children should not have access to guns until they know how to use them properly.

        On the other hand, there have been some incidents in the not-too-distant past, where children have used guns to defend themselves (and others in the house) from intruders who were bent on harming them. While that is a grave responsibility to rest on those young shoulders, I applaud both the children and the parents of those children. The children did what they needed to do to protect themselves. The parents of those children were instrumental in teaching the children how and when to use those guns properly. Those parents knew that the children they left in charge were responsible enough to know when to use those guns. That comes from knowing their children well enough to know if they were ready for the responsibility. Not all children are, just as not all adults are.

      • David

        according to the F.B.I.’s statistics, law abiding citizens use firearms over 2,000,000 times per year (that are reported to police). There are in excess of 280,000,000 firearms owned by U.S. citizens. So, you would have us think it logical that because fewer than 0.01% of all firearms in the U.S. are involved in homicides, suicides and negligent discharges that “something needs to be done about them”?

        Poppy cock and nonsense. There are many more deaths each year caused by doctors prescribing the wrong drugs and traffic crashes, yet you do not seem to want to “do something” about them. I can’t help but wonder why? The negligent discharges have been drastically reduced in the last 20 years due to an increase in training.

        While they may be reported as “accidental” there are in reality not any accidents that happen where human beings are involved, only negligence. The same is true for traffic crashes (we stopped calling them “accidents” unless a tree falls on a vehicle, etc. as no human action was involved).

        Homicide, war and death have always been part of the human condition and even if it were possible (which it isn’t) to destroy every single firearm on the face of the planet, it would not stop homicide, war or death due to them. The facts speak for themselves, guns are used for good far more than evil in this country.

      • Bill

        Right brain thinker is becoming like a child in the school yard. He should seek some mental health. But stay away from all of those mental drugs that cause people to shoot each other

      • Truthbug

        Many grievous atrocities have been done under the label of “common sense regulation”. Beware of the motives of those who use these words in combination with large doses of manufactured emotionalism.

      • Hedgehog

        Right Brain Thinker; your nom de guerre proudly proclaims that you think only with the right half of your brain. If this is true, then the left half of your brain is not engaged in these discussions at all. What is the problem? Does the left half of your brain have no opinion? Is the left half of your brain being forced into silence by the right half? Is the left half of your brain (whisper it) retarded? In any event it would be more honest of you to call yourself Lame Brain Thinker. Perhaps you consider yourself so superior to everyone else that you only need to use half your brain when dealing with other people. Enlighten us O(bama) elitist one. We await you pontifications with bated breath

      • ibcamn

        remember mr. Thinker,most of those stats overlap each other,using one with another and then another with a differant one,it’s been done a gozillion times,they(liberals)use it all the time!it’s kinda like those cops using the Colorado theater shooting as excuse to but them selves some AR-15′s in Iowa now!OK!doesn’t make sense most the time!(i mean a lie)

      • eddie47d

        Feinstein may be right. Why are those 22,000 gun laws not working? Because they are in a multitude of jurisdictions from city to city and county to county and state to state. That makes them unenforceable because of the inconsistencies and numerous loopholes among those wide spread districts. Interstate trafficking is quite common and hard to track.

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

        THERE ARE ~30,000 GUN DEATHS A YEAR IN THE U.S.

        783,936 people in the United States die every year from conventional medicine mistakes.

        NEARLY 2/3 OF THEM ARE SUICIDES

        Motor vehicle crashes in the United States result in more than 40,000 deaths per year. Nearly 1/3 are by motor vehicle exhaust suicide.

        THERE ARE ~11,000 GUN HOMICIDES EACH YEAR IN THE U.S.

        About 106,000 die from prescription drugs each year in America, according to Death by Medicine. That also is a conservative number. Some experts estimate it should be more like 200,000 because of underreported cases of adverse drug reactions.

        THERE ARE ~600 ACCIDENTAL GUN DEATHS A YEAR IN THE U.S.
        MANY IF NOT MOST OF THEM ARE CHILDREN

        800,000 abortions a year are performed in America. All of them are children.

        THERE ARE ~200,000 GUN-RELATED INJURIES A YEAR IN THE U.S.

        Each year 435,000 Americans die from smoking tobacco.
        Each year 111,909 Americans die as a result ofBeing overweight and obesity.
        Each year 85,000 Americans die from alcohol-consumption.
        Each year 75,000 Americans die from Infectious diseases.
        Each year 43,000 Americans die in traffic collisions.
        Each year 20,000 Americans die from sexually transmitted infections.
        Each year 17,000 Americans die from drug abuse.

        STOP TRYING TO IGNORE THE BIGGER PROBLEMS, RBT.
        STOP TRYING TO CONVINCE US THAT GUNS ARE OUR BIGGEST PROBLEM. THEY ARE NOT! GUNS ARE THE LEAST OF OUR PROBLEMS, RBT. INSIGNIFICANT, FACT!
        STOP TRYING TO DENY THAT WE ALREADY HAVE, COMMON SENSE REGULATION, RBT.

        STOP TRYING TO DISTRACT US WITH A NON-ISSUE(GUN-VIOLECE)RBT.
        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW, RBT!!!

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Rich says, “Prove your stats”

        I say to Rich—-”Show us stats that are different from these and that disprove mine”.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        STOP TRYING TO BRING UP OTHER UNRELATED PROBLEMS, JAY.
        STOP TRYING TO CONVINCE US THAT GUN DEATHS ARE NOT A PROBLEM.
        THEY ARE!

        GUNS ARE, BY DEFINITION, A FACTOR IN GUN DEATHS
        STOP TRYING TO DENY THAT

        STOP TRYING TO DISTRACT US WITH OTHER ISSUES.
        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW, JAY!!!

      • Jana

        Sounds like Right Brain Thinker has just become a parrot. He has been asked to show his sources but refuses because he is ashamed of them. I would be ashamed of them too.( I found them.)
        All of the statistics that I have found (even the ones Right Brain used) have been criminals preying on their victims. If these victims had been trained concealed carriers, they would not have become victims.
        I personally do not intend to ever become a victim of some idiot who is too lazy to go out and work for a living, but wants to rob and murder and do mayhem for sport.

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

        Jana, RBT is not interested in providing accurate-facts, much less, sources.. RBT is all about spreading propaganda. Don’t hold your breath waiting on the “school-administrator” to provide sources, much less provide a concise breakdown of his bogus-numbers/statistics. And most of all, RBT hopes and prays that you do not inquire! You see, that’s how the education system works…just feed the little-mushrooms pure bs, and punish any who dare ask critical-questions. RBT, has 30 years of experience in discouraging critical-thinking…maybe if he sticks around long enough, we can help him break the habit. Who knows…

      • eddie47d

        Jana of coarse ignores Vickie playing Polly Parrot at least 100 times over the past week. Such hypocricy!

      • eddie47d

        So WTS thinks gun deaths are a non-issue. Either that make you a moron or at least a half wit. If you want to be concerned about deaths in other categories then join a group to erase those problems.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Hedgehog is ignorant of the brain physiology and political psychology that underly my “handle”, and makes what he thinks are “clever” jabs. Some very interesting info about thinking is out there under the title of “Foxes and Hedgehogs” Google Dylan Evans and “Which one are you?” for a very interesting article. Hedgehog is aptly named, as he will see if he reads the article. That will be a good place for him to educate himself so that he can stop looking ignorant with posts like this one.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        JAY is being a nasty, slimy, and delusional little worm here. Too bad it’s bedtime or I would impale him on the hook of logic and use his foolishness as bait for the truth. Blather on, JAY, Jana will surely believe every last word—not because any of it is true but because she WANTS to. Our old buddy confirmation bias lives in Jana’s head, just as you often PRETEND it lives in yours. LOL (And who knows?—-The Shadow Knows)

        “Jana, RBT is not interested in providing accurate-facts, much less, sources.. RBT is all about spreading propaganda. Don’t hold your breath waiting on the “school-administrator” to provide sources, much less provide a concise breakdown of his bogus-numbers/statistics. And most of all, RBT hopes and prays that you do not inquire! You see, that’s how the education system works…just feed the little-mushrooms pure bs, and punish any who dare ask critical-questions. RBT, has 30 years of experience in discouraging critical-thinking…maybe if he sticks around long enough, we can help him break the habit. Who knows”

      • Jana

        eddie,
        If you will go back you will see that Right Brain truly is parroting Vicki. I do think you are smart enough to look it up for yourself, and remember what you looked up.

      • Jana

        Right Brain,
        Is it true that you were a teacher?

      • Vicki

        Don’t worry overmuch about the exact accuracy of RBT’s statistics. He could be off by a factor of 10 and still not touch the fact that

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

        ~30,000 deaths figure that RBT offered is ~0.01 percent of the population.

        Or in other terms, RBT and the anti gun crowd want to punish ~99.9% of the population for the acts of a very few. That is why we say that

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Isn’t that sweet? Jana is staying up late and ignoring her “beauty rest” just so she can flirt with me (but mostly with irrationality). I’m flattered.

        Jana asks, “Is it true that you were a teacher?” Yes Jana—for several years before I got into school administration. And a good one, I’m proud to say—-I got one “Teacher of the Year” award—nice dinner, a certificate, and my picture in the paper (the dinner was the best part). Actually I still am a “teacher”—that old “Once a teacher, always a teacher” thing IS true, and visiting PLD certainly does make me want to “teach” folks like you.

        Vicki arrives at “Shills-n-Trolls-r-Us” bright and early and shows us that she is still reeling from her beating and grasping at straws to keep from falling down. She thinks that “fine-tuning” her ~300 AMERICANS “numbers” will somehow make them more meaningful.

        STOP TRYING TO DENY THERE’S A PROBLEM
        STOP TRYING TO DENY THAT GUNS ARE A FACTOR
        STOP TRYING TO SAY COMMON SENSE REGULATION MEANS GUN CONFISCATION

        STOP TRYING TO DISTRACT US WITH ~300 AMERICANS
        (and any little “adjustments” you make with your meaningless numbers)
        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

      • Jana

        Right brain non,
        Thank you for verifying that you were a teacher.
        As you stated, “Jana asks, “Is it true that you were a teacher?” Yes Jana—for several years before I got into school administration. And a good one, I’m proud to say—-I got one “Teacher of the Year” award—nice dinner, a certificate, and my picture in the paper (the dinner was the best part). Actually I still am a “teacher”—that old “Once a teacher, always a teacher” thing IS true, and visiting PLD certainly does make me want to “teach” folks like you.”____________

        You sure are full of yourself. No wonder our Public School System is in trouble with Socialist teachers like YOU. Your PRETEND Teacher of the Year Award just confirms your idiocy and your self esteemed superiority, when in actuality, you are quite mediocre!

        That Teacher of the Year Award means just as much as Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize that he supposedly won for becoming the first black President of the United States.
        NOT A BIG DEAL!

      • Vicki

        Right Brain Thinker doesn’t and says:
        “Vicki arrives at “Shills-n-Trolls-r-Us” bright and early and shows us that she is still reeling from her beating and grasping at straws to keep from falling down.”

        Project much?

        - RBT: ” She thinks that “fine-tuning” her ~300 AMERICANS “numbers” will somehow make them more meaningful. ”

        Not more meaningful.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Jana, are you trying to compete with Vicki for my attention? Are you jealous of her and want me for your own? The two of you are going to have to send me pictures to settle this. And if you don’t look exactly like Sarah Palin, you will have no chance with me. (To say nothing of the fact that I’m not attracted to women who are dumber than a brick, which fact you have dsmonstrated with this comment.)

        No wonder our Public School System is in trouble with Socialist teachers like YOU. Your PRETEND Teacher of the Year Award just confirms your idiocy and your self esteemed superiority, when in actuality, you are quite mediocre!

        That Teacher of the Year Award means just as much as Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize that he supposedly won for becoming the first black President of the United States.

      • Don

        Right Brain Tinkerbell says he’s not attracted to women who are dumber than a brick. Frankly, I’d be surprised if you were attracted to women at all.

      • Jana

        Don,
        I was actually thinking the same thing.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        OOOOOH! Looky! Don and Jana are ganging up on me! And casting aspersions on my manhood! (Perfectly understandable,since they can’t beat me in a argument).

        Don and Jana—-a match made in heaven! Their kids will be so dumb that they will need to be taught how to drool.

      • Don

        Exclusive – What The Hell Just Happened? ‘Tyranny By Executive Order’ / By Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly, J.D.

        http://redflagnews.com/headlines/tyranny-by-executive-order-by-constitutional-attorney-michael-connelly-jd

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Why has this Connelly clip been posted three times now, Don? Why don’t you instead spend the time responding to my comment about the “red lines” attached to the UN Arms Treaty?

        As I said, Don and Jana—-a match made in heaven! Their kids will be so dumb that they will need to be taught how to drool.

      • Don

        Only Rebellion Can Save America
        By: Colonel Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D

        http://www.newyorkdailysun.com/only-rebellion-can-save-america/1490

    • MexicansaysLibtardsRPukes

      Keep up the good work Vicki! Brain stinker is having a meltdown!

      • Vicki

        :)

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Hey, Mex

        I know you’re a little slow on the uptake on some things, so let me warn you that Vicki’s little smile is NOT a “happy” smile but rather a forlorn and wistful one. She is saying to herself “I wish that were true, Mex” and “Why did I mess with the bull?” and “How am I going to avoid the horns?”

        Maybe you can help her out, though—-encourage her to sing a different tune—one that has more notes and is not so off-key?

      • Vicki

        RBT should probably not try and become a mentalist.

      • Jana

        Vicki,
        But you do have to admit, RB is mental!

      • Vicki

        RBT does make rather “liberal” use of ad hominem and argument to ridicule.

  • GALT
  • GALT
  • robert

    if the government is so worried about guns, then i say its because they know people are getting tired of there socialist views. that the government should not and cannot be trusted. i have had family in every war this country has ever had and believe strongly in the constitution. any one who tries to take away or change the constitution or its meaning, is a traitor to the people.

    • KenPoland

      Then you don’t believe any of the 27 amendments to the constitution should have been allowed, even the 1st ten. Or is it that you think only those enforcements or laxities concerning constitutional laws that you presently agree with are valid and you can ignore any others? You don’t bother to study all the nuances in the enforcements or changes that have occured in the regulations enacted to support the constitution. Every article and amendment in and to the constitution affects another article or amendment. Those regulations have changed from Administration to Administration and from changes in popular cultures of given periods. Transportation and communication technologies, as well as scientific discoveries have changed the environment that we live in. Rules and regulations that were pertinate to the times in 1790 may not be that relevant today. Today, we are faced with situations that were beyond anyone’s imagination when the constitution was drafted and ratified.

      I think the author of this article has presented a good and sensible account of where we are and maybe some thinkgs we need to consider when trying to find solutions to the social problems of our times. And guns are certainly a factor in the social atmosphere of today.

      • Truthbug

        Basic truths don’t change. Our recognition of them needs to improve and those early amendments are evidence we have done so. If we fail to fully understand those truths, at least let us favor freedom over tyranny.

      • eddie47d

        Great combination and rational thinking Sam Rolley and only if we could have more of that. Thanks for speaking up Ken Pollard and this talk of being a traitor (robert) because most citizens don’t want to see anyone walking around with an AR-15 at the local mall is beyond pale.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Thanks for speaking up Ken Pollard and this talk of being a traitor (robert) because most citizens don’t want to see anyone walking around with an AR-15 at the local mall is beyond pale.”

        Are you familiar with the concept “Tyranny of the Majority”?

    • ibcamn

      Yes Rob,Obama is scared to death of us(with guns)he can’t round up dissatants to his tyranny if we have guns,can’t fill up his camps(fema centers),it will take longer(never)than he has!when people push back it makes his new world order harder to achieve!why do you think other socialistic(mao-che-stalin-lenan-hitler) leaders had to kill millions of their own people,they pushed back and found it easier to just kill them,that’s why Obama has his law that he can take you away and keep you indefinatly with no reason!that’s to do the same thing as those others![they had similar laws they made up to fit their agenda] just….like…..Obama…………..

    • ibcamn

      REMEMBER,it’s the people Obama and his henchmen are worried about,and what the people will do with our firearms,as the constitution says we are ALLOWED to do,FIGHT THE GOVERNMENT with our firearms!are we not?

  • Warrior

    Stop with the “militia” nonsense and answer this basic question. Do all human beings (save for the unborn) have the “right” to protect “themselves”? Absofrigginlutely! It is “natural law”!

    • Vicki

      Why do you specifically not include the unborn in the group?

      • Proteus1946

        It really has nothing to do with ‘Rights’; it is physically impossible.
        1. There is no handgun manufactured that a 4 or 5 month fetus can hold and operate. I wouldn’t suggest shoving any rifle up your uterus so your fetus can ‘defend him/herself’.

        2. There isn’t enough room in the womb to even move a pistol into a shooting position.

        3. If your fetus could overcome those obstacles, then he/she would have to shoot through both the uterine wall and mom’s abdominal wall to hit the threat, probably killing not only mom, but him/herself as well.

        4. Its really dark in the womb, and the fetus cannot see out to identify a threat or gain a target.

        Congratulations, you win the prize for asking the ‘dumbest question of the day’.

      • Vicki

        Proteus1946 says:
        “It really has nothing to do with ‘Rights’; it is physically impossible.
        1. There is no handgun manufactured that a 4 or 5 month fetus can hold and operate. I wouldn’t suggest shoving any rifle up your uterus so your fetus can ‘defend him/herself’. ”

        Warrior didn’t mention tools in his comment.

  • Rainey Grimes

    I think we need to start over. Get rid of president and every member of congress and the judicial branch, and abolish all political parties. Then start from scratch because the system we’re in cannot be fixed.

    • menehuni509

      Hear, hear!

    • Steve

      But first , you would have to get rid of the people who put these goons in office.
      They will just keep electing them.

      • Truthbug

        It certainly is a real problem. When everyone assumes themselves to be the source of wisdom instead of seeking the true source they can go far astray from supporting those who would promote desirable conditions.

      • eddie47d

        There is your Hitler theory at work IBCAMN as Steve has noted! “WE MUST GET RID OF THEM”.

    • KenPoland

      And you have a system in mind to replace it with? You must have the wisdom of Solomon. But, maybe you should also recognise that Solomon’s wisdom let him get himself entangled in relationships and partnerships that cost him and his people tremendous anguish and suffering. You’ll have to be wiser than Solomon to guarantee improvement over what we have. We can possibly improve things a bit at a time, but be careful about throwing everything over and starting from scratch.

      We live in a real world and finite human beings are the source of our leadership pool. We will never attain perfection in our individual lives or the life of our nation. Collectively though we can strive to improve.

    • Chester

      Mr; Grimes, are you volunteering to be the dictator who tells the rest of us what is good for us and what isn’t? With what you are proposing, most assuredly that is where we will wind up. It may not be ONE man, but you can bet the farm it will be a very small group of men who take the leadership, until someone decides they don’t like the way things are going and kills off the leaders, or tries to. Don’t think so, just take a good hard look at Egypt, Iraq, and several other countries in northern Africa and Asia to see what happens when you toss the government you don’t like totally out the door.

    • Proteus1946

      This method was tried at least twice: 1. 1789 France and 2. 1917 Russia. Probably others I can’t think of right off the top of my head.

      How did your suggestion work out for the French and Russians?

      Same question applies to another on this thread who wants to get rid of the folks that put the government in power – Is his name Robespierre?

  • http://www.facebook.com/henry.baker.71 Henry Baker

    This garbage is nothing more than an anti-NRA rant disguised as a pro-gun piece. If there were no NRA, there’d be NO Second Amendment today.

    Bob Livingston is a liar, a fool and a stealth shill for the gun haters, whose real goals were never any different in the past than they are today — the repeal of the Second Amendment, the total elimination of private firearms ownership in America and the complete confiscation of EVERY gun owned and/or possessed by American citizens.

    This entire website is nothing more than a communist front.

    • rvncibeib1sgret

      Henry, Henry,……Hank! Take a deep breath, think about what you just posted and try to read the article again. Is it possible that you have misread the article? Sam Rolley is the author here and GOA (Gun Owners of America) are more vocal on the second amendment than the NRA. NRA is primarily a sport and skeet organization. GOA is a
      lot more into the second amendment. NRA role has nothing to do with the second amendment except to hunt and plink! Expand your research on it rather than getting overly emotional..

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Henry,

      Shhh! We are trying to keep that a secret.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Right Brain Thinker

        I don’t know, Bob. Henry may be on to something with “This entire website is nothing more than a communist front”. A lot of the folks posting on PLD sure seem as if they want to destroy the country. And as much or more than the commies ever wanted to when there were still some around—-it seems like we are in more danger today from the far right than we ever were from the far left (in spite of what Joe McCarthy said). Just look at Henry for proof of that.

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

        I see Henry is wearing his tin-foil hat. Henry, it’s believed that if you wrap your head with tin-foil, the FBI can’t read your thoughts. Also, tin-foil hats can protect you from Alien-abduction…

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Hey, don’t knock tin-foil hats—I wore one down to the Mall when Colbert and Stewart had their “Restore Sanity” rally. Had teabags dangling from the rim and signs on the hat that said “They can’t make me think”. And the FBI left me alone and no aliens abducted me, so it works. Got my picture taken by a bunch of folks, too—-I guess they wanted to make their own.

      • Vicki

        Best not be knocking tinfoil hats. That crowd might just be on to something.
        http://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/letters-future-military-technologies/4.html#top

    • Bill

      Off your meds again, Henry

    • Robert Marshner

      Henry thats wrong we have HR11654 The Dick Act it forbids gun control I posted part of the act below but please go and look it up and read it

  • John Adams

    Thank you. Sam Rolley, for posting the first and only “fair and balanced” article that I’ve seen on this site. Unfortunately, “there are none so blind as those who WILL not see …”, and so we will always have the “Vicki and the Brain” show, where shouting your viewpoint becomes the dominant form of discourse, rather than seeking to take the most important facts from each viewpoint and mold a policy (from which constitutionally-consistent laws can be developed) that respects the rights of gun owners and would-be gun owners while doing their best to protect all of us from the wackos (drug-influenced or otherwise) and criminals, none of whom have any right to keep or bear weapons of any type – let alone guns!

    And thank you, GALT, for the deeply academic reference points you have provided. If more people would take the time to digest these difficult pieces we could dispense with the shouting, the hyperbole, and the partisan mantras that pass for argument in today’s world.

    • Vicki

      John Adams writes:
      “and so we will always have the “Vicki and the Brain” show, where shouting your viewpoint becomes the dominant form of discourse,”

      Here let me state the facts without the “shouting” for you.

      ~300 million Americans did not shoot anyone.
      (Provable fact. Get us population from google. Subtract us population who has shot someone from the FBI. Do math.)

      Stop punishing the innocent for the acts of a (very) few.

      Now the reason for the all caps is not to “shout” but to emphasize the point that we are WAY PAST TIRED of being PUNISHED for the acts of less than 0.01% of us.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      John, I’m sorry that you have chosen to see equivalency between Vicki’s comments and mine in what you refer to as the “Vicki and the Brain Show”. Perhaps one who attempts to sit up on a high horse of “intellectualism” does not read the SHOUTS because they are “beneath him”?

      My shouts came only because there was a need to counter Vicki’s blatant propagandizing, and the continuation of the “show” is due to Vicki’s stubbornness in pursuing her agenda. I too appreciate GALT’s contributions, but the vast majority of the people visiting PLD have little ability to understand what he says, and more importantly, most don’t want to even try. They are motivated reasoners that suffer from extreme cognitive dissonance-confirmation bias.

      I would appreciate it if you would look a bit more closely at what I say. I do not sit still when attacked, and that produces much “smoke” sometimes, but you might just find that we believe the same things if you deigned to look more closely at my comments.

      If you haven’t noticed, this site is a raging inferno of “shouting, hyperbole, and partisan mantras that pass for argument”. Also misinformation, ignorance, and mindlessness. Some of us are not afraid to wade in and try to deal with that.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        And Vicki demonstrates her stubbornness by once again giving us some ~300 horsepucky.. Despite John Adam’s plea, she continues her mindlessness. Will John see that Vicki is using him? She is very good at that.

  • Dr Richard Wright Hogeland

    This is a letter I wrote to Harvard on the same subject-

    Dear Harvard Magazine,

    :Guns

    A first step in reducing the violent use of guns –

    is to rid yourself of the notion – that such behavior is not carried in the genes –

    A human Beings disposition is carried in the genes

    Go to any hospital – go to the nursery – observe the new born babies – you will observe – - some babies disposition is placid – some defiant and aggressive – etc- now the environment kicks in – but without – aggressive genes – probably no type of environment will cause the human being to commit intended violent acts – most of us learn through our environment to control our aggressive nature – the family – the church – morality and ethics – friends – schools – the street – sports – the work place

    Second factor – is to call a spade a spade – be honest about the cause of killing or being killed – what weapons are used – according to the FBI the most favorite weapon is a baseball bat – knives – stumping – strangling – automobiles – accidence, especially in the home- etc-

    Third be honest about who actually does the killing – isolate the actual individuals and their background – by race – by color – by financial circumstances – by education -

    Are the killings at random

    or between family members – i.e. wife and husband – girlfriends and boyfriends

    Are we honest about mental health problems – in my day we usually knew who was and who was not mentally OK -

    Now to do this – all this is under the concepts of inequality – prejudices – being labeled with biases – being unfair -etc – mental illness is hushed up –

    Leadership – what kind of sitting President – sworn into office just hours ago to uphold the Constitution – can be so arrogant to kick dirt in the face of so many good citizen . divide the country – over one of the pillors of granite in our firmament the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights – and further to add fuel to the fire say he will attempt to do it indirectly by excutive order or through a gun treaty with the UN?

    The thing I know is that “guns” don’t kill! People kill – As for the owners of 350,000,000 guns I would put my money on it – that 99.99999% are caring and responsible individuals – and the % of irresponsible individuals is a negligible % indeed -

    The same thing occurs going through custom – 99.99999 % of the individuals going through customs are the good guys – wearing “white hats” easily determined/ easily discovered ! -

    but for the same reasons re guns – everyone is painted with the same brush- as potential terrorists – lets us be prejudicial – instead of labeling all of the people potential wrong doers

    We should learn to live with the fact – the USA is a gun culture – the guns are protected – first of all – by natural law and rights – since guns were invented — incorporated into the Bill of Rights – Supreme Court stated in the Heller Case – no new right was created – it can not be gotten around or abolished even by amendment let alone by executive orders – or by treaties with the UN -

    All guns are kept for self defense – defense of the state and nation – entertainment – however, one of the prime reason – is to maintain our freedom from a despotic government – so if the National government would stop interfering in the individuals freedom and liberty – perhaps -it just might cause the individual to relax more about keeping and bearing arms

    As to the type of weapons – under natural law and natural rights and the 2nd amendment – the only limitation on the types of weapons – can only be a type that is not used for self defense – for hunting and entertainment and for military use – and if the anti-gun lobby continues too push for gun controls – of certain types of weapons – the Supreme Court – will be forced to hold -( they have set the precedent for doing so )- when the Court allowed sawed-off shot guns to be restricted – where it said – the sawed-off shot gun was not the type of weapon used in hunting or the military! Ergo – as long as the gun can be used for hunting – self defense and the military – it will be allowed-

    A further consideration – as bad as the twin towers disaster and the useless killing of innocent children – let us for heaven sake stop being cry babies – we yell like banshees in the night!

    I don’t hear the same hue and cry when our sons and daughters are killed in useless wars – where is the anti-war lobby – I don’t hear any cry whatsoever – when innocent woman and children are killed by our military personnel and our drones in far off venues where we are intruders in their internal Affairs!

    Some violence is unfortunate and we should, of course, attempt to mitigate it – but not by giving up our Freedom and Liberty

    During the communist heydays – Some of the English – proclaimed “They would rather be Red than Dead!” We now proclaim “We would rather be safe than Free!” We must be self reliant and take care of ourselves -

    In any free society we will have to experience some horror – but Freedom and Liberty should never be traded for any reason! As Ben Franklin said, ” If you trade Freedom for Security – you deserve neither Freedom or Security!”

    An effective defence of liberty must …of necessity be inflexible – dogmatic and doctrinaire and must not make concessions to consierations of expediency. The quest for freedom can be successful only if it is considered a GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF POLITICAL MORALITY – the application of which in the concrete case does not need a justification. Liberty is not just one value among others -a maxim of morality on a par with all other maxims, BUT IS THE SOURCE OF – AND A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR -ALL NDIVIDUAL VALUES!

    Liberty is a State/Nations highest good!

    “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom -it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves!”

    Restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms – is but “a red herring” our Freedom and Liberty is the real and essential issue!

    To be a Free people you must have courage (One of the 9 Virtues)- Freedom does not come easily- or cheaply – Freedom comes at a big price –

    In your deliberations now and in the future you should suggest that Harvard University should teach less subjects and concentrate on the basics – (Quality over Quantity i.e. the 9 Virtues and the 7 deadly sins – they cover a large area of all human endeavor and actions – they should be taught in the home – by just reading the Fables – but the Virtues are not taught – so the University must be the instructor – American History should be taught in depth i.e. a reading of the debates of the Anti-federalists (Federalists) and the Federalists(the Nationalist -) and the latter’s great concern for power, empire building – glory – wealth and fortune over Freedom and Liberty

    By all means teach Morals and Ethics

    To put it bluntly we do not have just a problem of Guns – that is a “nothing problem” compared to the greater problem – we are destroying the magnificent opportunity we had to be great nation in everyway – by destroying the common denominator Freedom and Liberty – the hightest moral maxim – - without it the individual can not have a fulfilling existence -(the Declaration of Independence can not be obtained )- without it happiness – financial success – diversity , innovation – the Rule of Lw can not be sustained –

    I predict with out immediate drastic change in our behavior – the USA as we now know it will implode – and break up in numerous parts

    We are at the cross roads – our choices are either a very limited central government or no government – or a breakup into areas with areas that are free and areas that are not free. The beauty of the latter is once one area is Free and that Freedom is secured – the other area must become Free – in order to survive!

    History has proved time after time – where Freedom and Liberty exist – nothing is impossible – and in the final analysis Freed and Liberty and truth will prevail -

    Dr Richard Wright Hogeland

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Doctor (JD) Hogeland—–did Harvard magazine publish this letter?

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

        I doubt it. Keep in mind, Harvard has a reputation to protect…

  • mark

    It is especially telling that in the settlement of the West when cowboys, pioneers, and settlers required firearms to protect themselves from armed Indians, outlaws, gunfiighters, plus rattlesnakes, mountain lions, and Grizzly bears that so many Western towns demanded and enforced the handing in of all guns before one could enter their towns. Those who refused were often jailed and in some cases shot by legendary peace officers throughout the region. So much for that uninfringed Constitutional right. Of course, Rolley is absolutely correct, the most outspoken white adocates of gun rights always insisted at the same time in barring gun ownership to black citizens in numerous Southern, border, and Western states and codified these proscriptions in state and local law.

    But this backs up the long-held historical truth in that in America, Constitution rights only really apply to majority white citizens – just ask interred Japanese-Americans during World War II, the blacks denied the franchise and access to equal education and public facilities during 90 yrs of Jim Crow, or the Native Americans whose signed and documented treaties were violated again and again by greedy white settlers, timber and mining companies. The hypocrisy in America has always been overwhelming.

    • LESNC

      All like of the things like Jim Crow laws and internment of Japanese were done by Democrats.

      • mark

        Correction: Jim Crow laws were overwhelmingly supported by Conservative Democrats from the South. The Democratic Party has a ferocious Conservative wing in those days just as the Republican Party had a strong Liberal wing. The ideology of these advocates was far more important than their party label. Southern Conservative Democrats were rabid advocates of small governmnet, opposed all taxpayer-funded social programs, and all race-mixing. Southern Conservative Democrats also believed fiercely in the 2nd Amendment, anti-communism, capital punishment, evangelical Christianity, and a strong U.S. miitary. These folks all began leaving the party thanks to LBJ’s passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. They joined the increasingly Conservative Republican Party in huge numbers in the 1970s nad 1980s.

        On the issue of Japanese-American internement while FDR, a Liberal Democrat, proposed and enacted it, this policy had broad support from virtually all Republicans and especially Conservatives from both parties particularly Southern Conservative Democrats. Only a couple of Liberals from both parties opposed it. But in the polling at the time, the support for internment among the American people regardless of party or ideology, was in the mid-90% range. This was an enormously popular, and of course racist, policy that had collossal support from virtually all Americans across the poltical and ideological spectrum – including many African-Americans!

      • rvncibeib1sgret

        I suppose those so-called dixiecrats were instrumental in engaging in thermo-nuclear war on japan?

    • CZ52

      ” that so many Western towns demanded and enforced the handing in of all guns before one could enter their towns.”

      From what i have read that law only applied to strangers entering the town. The townspeople and local ranchers/farmers etc were allowed to have their firearms.

      When the Dalton gang tried to rob the banks of Coffeeville Kansas the local townspeople shot them to pieces with their privately owned firearms that they had in their posession. There was one survivor, Emmitt Dalton, and he had multiple wounds. When the James-Younger gang raided Northfield Minn. They were shot to pieces by the local townspeople using their privately owned firearms which they had in their posession.

  • Bert Cundle Sr.

    Self Defense is a CIVIL RIGHT! ( FOR “EVERYONE” THAT IS “CIVIL”! ) I personly… feel that If I had a Gun… I’d be in big trouble SOON! ( I must believe that a Gun isn’t for me!.)
    But I Respect the RIGHTS of others! The Rightfull use of a Gun … is a Good thing! So… One Lead ball in a Musket or a 20 round 50 Cal. Have their place! in Right Time! Right Reason should never be denied!

  • anonymous

    the second amendment, in order to resist tyranny requires the right for every citizen to use ALL the terrible implements of the soldier.that is why there is “shall not be infringed” included in it.Every weapon available to the government are the right of the citizen.
    any suggestion of anything other than that is by someone who has something to gain by oppressing someone else or a complete idiot.

    • mark

      So, anonymous, this includes nuclear weapons, B-52 Bombers, M-1 tanks, napalm,Bradley Fighting Vehicles, chemical and biological weapons, any weapon that the U.S military has in its arsenal? Wow. And you call anyone who disagres with this – an idiot or someone who has something to gain by oppressing someone else. Double Wow.

      • Adolf Schmidt

        Yep! That’s right all of them!

      • Bruce L Redd

        Mark, you’re catching on quick. All those ARMS, get it ARMS, can be used against you. So yes you have the right to keep and bear all arms. Really scary! Begin a citizen of the United States of America is a and requires tremendous responsibility. If you back down from that responsibility you are setting yourself up to be a slave. Do you want to be a slave? Do you want your children to be slaves? If not fight for your right to keep and bear arms. if you want to be a secure slave, then proudly proclaim that fact.

      • eddie47d

        Not really Adolph and I wouldn’t want you or anyone else to have access to biological weapons. I don’t even want our government to have them or even nukes for that matter. It is hard to tell another nation they can’t have nukes when we have an over abundance of them.

      • rvncibeib1sgret

        Whatever is necessary. You don’t pull out too much. Just enough to get the job done.

    • eddie47d

      Anonymous; Some farmers have stacks of ammonia nitrate in their barns but I doubt if everyone should have any at all. The same with guns and yes they can be controlled as a necessary benefit for a free society. Few people want to see anyone carrying a loaded AR-15 on the street for that is infringing on the rights of others to feel safe also. To feel safe you really don’t need any weapon at all but for those who do feel the need then get a CCW permit.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Few people want to see anyone carrying a loaded AR-15 on the street for that is infringing on the rights of others to feel safe also. To feel safe you really don’t need any weapon at all….”

        Eddie stumbles over a significant truth. He claims that his right to “Feel” safe doesn’t need any weapon at all and he is correct. It is a feeling so it is totally under eddie’s control. No law can ever be passed that can FORCE eddie to feel safe if he doesn’t want to.

        Now the problem with his first sentence is that he claims that his right to feel safe is infringed on by someone else near by carrying a loaded AR-15. Eddie is the ONLY one who can choose to feel safe or not so his right to feel safe CAN NOT be infringed by anyone other then eddie himself. NO ONE ELSE can possibly make eddie feel safe if he chooses not to feel safe.

        Thus you see eddie is in full control and there is no way someone else can infringe on his natural right to feel safe. Or not.

        This also means that any law intended to make eddie feel safe will ALWAYS fail because (as I already pointed out) you can not create a law that can force eddie to feel.

    • mark

      Bruce, tremendous responsibility, you mean just going out to buy a gun? Tens of thousands do that everydaly, including criminals. Also, according to your logic, you yourself already are a slave. Your government holds nuclear weapons but you don’t . They’ve outgunned you, so you are no longer free. Whoever has the most deadly force is a free man, whoever has less, is a slave. So you’re a slave, Bruce. Obama has you overwhelmingly outgunned.

      • Vicki

        Mark begins to see the light. He has been enslaved for much longer than he might have realized.

  • Joe Murphy

    The only problem I see with requiring a gun training class in order to own or carry guns is that anti-gun politicians can use it to “ban” guns. All they have to do is to make the registration or fees for the class so high that the average person can not afford to comply. That is what Washington DC did – read “Emily got her gun” http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/feb/8/miller-emily-got-her-gun/

    • Vicki

      How can that be? Liberals tell us all the time that they are all about protecting the poor.

  • Mr Diesel

    Andrew Kehoe didn’t use a gun either and he murdered the most children en mass at a school ever. (US)

  • Don

    Read the book “Dial 911 and Die” written by atty. Richard W. Stevens. The courts have repeatedly upheld that the police and the government are not required to protect you from criminals. The police do not even have to respond to your 911 call. You cannot recover damages from the police or the government for not responding to your 911 plea for help. Think about this: The same government that wants to take away your gun rights, is under no duty to protect you from criminals, and the courts have upheld that you are ultimately responsible for your own safety and protection. The police are reactive. You have been brainwashed into thinking that 911 is your savior from criminals. Do you want to bet your life on an overstretched and understaffed police department that arrives on the scene of a crime-in-progress less than 5% of the time?

  • http://www.facebook.com/mark.burchett.33 Mark Burchett

    Here are a couple USSC rulings that state, essentially, that civilian use of military style weaponry is PROTECTED and use of deadly force against a person, even “enforcement agents” that is trying to deprive you of your rights, is allowed.

    “(a post from Gem State Armory LLC)
    TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THE ANTI-GUNNERS DON’T WANT YOU TO SEE

    Carl F. Worden

    January 15, 2013

    There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.

    The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn’t, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.

    The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn’t trying to kill you.

    Both of these cases are standing law to this day.

    The Miller decision clearly includes AR-15/AK-47 type weapons as having a military application. The Bad Elk decision means that if the government tries to confiscate your AR-15/AK-47, or arrest you for having one, you can kill the offenders on the spot, even if they are not trying to kill you.

    I didn’t make these decisions; the United States Supreme Court did.

    Carl F. Worden”

    Thank you.
    Mark D. Burchett, Sr.
    American Patriot and Constitutionalist

    • Vicki

      The liberal lawyers will tell you that the AR-15 doesn’t count as a military weapon because it is semi-auto and not select-fire or full auto.

      Remember the miller decision was 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.”
      http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blusvmiller.htm

  • ibcamn

    I’m sure i can say the same things we all are right now BUT!,did any one think like a liberal lately?I think i see the BACK DOOR on this(ha ha funny)Obama knows we wont under any circumstances give him our guns,or if the ban passes go into or local law enforcement and pay the fine(tax)reg. to keep them and all that and wont tell him of our guns that we bought without the ID# bull crap!he knows we will not do that in anyway shape or form,SO,is what i think is he’s going to do is like a virus in a computer,back door!lets say you and your wife are out drinking and argue and the cops show up,next thing there in your house and their hauling out your illegal weapons and charging you with life in prison(which his friends own)on gun running or gun charges!now he has your gun legally and has you!now you wifey poo goes on food stamps,welfare because she used up all your money on court and lawyers and now Obama has her too!just what he wants!that’s what he wanted all along-those three things(you-her-guns-well of course your money)[footnote];Obama wanted to pass a law so police were able to take your guns away if you got a speeding ticket!THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF WHY OBAMA WANTS GUN CONTROL!…and as always people,read your history!

  • KenPoland

    It is amazing what we read from contributors supporting both sides of the gun issues. But, is there really two sides to the issue? There are legitimate differences of opinions and methods to solve our social problems that guns are a part of. And certainly, guns are not the only social problems we have, but they are definitely in the mix of our problems.

    The extremists on either side are detrimental in finding any real answers or solutions. Calling Representative Feinstein a ‘communist’ is an attempt to alienate anyone from thinking she has any patriotic interest in the equation. Yes, I think she has gone overboard and is unrealistic in her proposals, but communism has nothing to do with my evaluation. President Obama is as American as anyone else and he certainly isn’t an embodyment of Hitler.

    The comments and cliches about guns or people killing and baseball bats killing more people than guns is a silly effort to find obfuscation. How many accounts of baseball bat killings can you recall, at the moment? How effective are you at dropping a rabbit or your adversary with a flick of your finger without a gun in your hand? What do you have a better chance of outrunning the reach of, a knife or a bullet?

    Read the entire constitution and see what the 2nd amendment does or doesn’t do. Go back and see what regulations were passed to enforce the intended meaning of the 2nd amendment. Are they applicable or workable today? Have there been conflicting regulations and statutes in our history of government? Did we change any of them?

    Why can’t we have an intelligent and productive debate that will address these problems?

    • Bruce L Redd

      OK Ken time to put up or shut up. I expect you to write a contextual interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I’m particularly interested in the meaning of the words militia, arms and infringed. this should take well less than an hour. I’ll be waiting

      • eddie47d

        All the proliferation of weapons in America and all the gun deaths by these weapons is infringing on my right to live and pursue my happiness. Most of these Arms don’t make me safer and they don’t make our nation any saner. They just give the criminal element more choices in which to choose from. As far as militias goes they haven’t been needed since the founding of our nation. They had an explicit purpose back then for they served as the standing army which is not the case anymore. Mr Pollard can also express himself if he chooses to.

      • KenPoland

        Well Bruce, would it make any difference if I gave you a concise definition of my opinions or if I would site document after document and case history upon case history? Would you bother to try understanding any of it? When did you last read the entire constitution and any relevant recording of discussions in the ‘constitutional convention’ that finally presented the finished product? Can you say you have studied any of the day to day regulations that were written to guide the authorities and administrators in society? Are you one of those who proclaims that we are a Christian nation and that our constitution and laws are based solely upon the Bible? Maybe you should do a little research and you might find that a great portion of our constitution and laws have been taken from Roman rules, English laws, common laws of society, etc. The fact is in all the recorded debates and discussions the Bible was very rarely brought into the discussion and is not referenced to at all in the finished constitution or any of the amendments.

        I’m not a constitutional professor nor am I a history major. But, I have read extensively the historical documents that discuss what motivated the revolutionists to rebel against their rulers and how they, together, organized their fellow comrads to overthrow their rulers. They attempted to band together a loosly knit group of colonies with no central authority. But, in just a few short years, they met in constitutional convention and decided to scrap the original form of government and came up with what we have now. That constitution has been amended 27 times. An indication that society is not eternally bound to the parameters of the ‘federalist’ style of our first government nor even the vastly improved new government of the 1790s.

        Perhaps you can give me a precise definition of ‘militia’. Now define that in a way that indicates we have a ‘well regulated militia’ with the vast assortment of arms in the possession of a bunch of civilians. Are you willing to pass muster and inspection to qualify as the 17 to 45 year olds did in the 1790s? Are you ready to drop what you are doing and follow the orders of somone just like yourself? Would you feel safe with your ‘well regulated militia’ against a trained regiment of professional killers? Would you like to jump right in and join your militia armed with the requirement of weapon and amunition spelled out in the first standards for the ‘voluntary’ militia of 1790?

        How do you propose to determine which ‘militia’ group is in charge and what the goal is?

        We cannot in this venue of comments answer all the questions and put together a realistic solution that will satisfy everyone. But, we can and should be able to carry on a civilized discussion that doesn’t degrade any one’s mental accumen or resort to name calling.

      • Don

        eddie 47d says that all the proliferation of guns in America and all the gun deaths by these weapons are infringing on my right to live and pursue my happiness; and most of these arms don’t make me safer. It is hard to recall a more idiotic statement. If arms don’t make you safer, it is probably because you either are prohibited from owning a firearm as a result of a criminal past, or mental issues, or you stupidly believe that being a victim is somehow morally superior to defending yourself. At any rate, you are clearly a useful idiot for the left, willing to say whatever it takes to rid yourself of your own freedoms and liberties.

      • Jana

        Don,
        BRAVO!!

      • Vicki

        Bruce L Redd.

        This dissertation may answer some of your questions. Though it focuses on the relationship of militia to the right of the people, it does begin to cover the meaning of some of the words.
        http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “All the proliferation of weapons in America and all the gun deaths by these weapons is infringing on my right to live and pursue my happiness.”

        How?

        - eddie47d: “Most of these Arms don’t make me safer and they don’t make our nation any saner.”

        Proof by bald assertion and deliberaly vague (which arms?)

        - eddie47d: “They just give the criminal element more choices in which to choose from.”

        So you DO advocate disarming the standing army?
        http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/12/16/fbi-says-gang-infiltrators-stealing-military-weapons-for-sale-on-u-s-streets/

        - eddie47d: “As far as militias goes they haven’t been needed since the founding of our nation.”

        Since a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state and since we have not been free for many many years (maybe since the 1860s or 1913 or (choose a date) you may well be right.

        - eddie47d: “They had an explicit purpose back then for they served as the standing army which is not the case anymore.”

        They served IN PLACE OF, since the founders had good reason to distrust the Kings “Redcoats”.

        The founders were VERY clear on this. NO STANDING ARMY. It was so important to them that they spent an entire amendment to protecting the (obvious) right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms so that the PEOPLE could form up into a militia.

        In fact that is what the 2nd Amendment says.

    • Bill Streb

      I’m sorry Ken. Obama is Not just as American as anyone else. He wasn’t born in the US, and his World Wide apology tours demonstrate clearly that he feels the USA is the problem, not the answer. There has never been a president who so obviously despised our country. And if you took the time to read some history, you would recognize that BHO is walking the USA down exactly the same path that Hitler did during his rise to power.

      • eddie47d

        There is no proof of what you say Bill Streb and nothing more than Republican talking points.

      • mark

        What utter and complete nonsense. If lying were eligible for it, Bill, you would receive an Academy Award in that category. Next you’ll be tellling us that the Pope is Jewish.

      • KenPoland

        I’m sorry Bill, the ‘birthers’ lost that argument a while back. Some folks just haven’t bothered to check the records. As for Pres. Obama following the leadership style of Hitler; well maybe you didn’t know that Hitler favored putting guns into every blonde headed ‘real German’s hands. Does his discription of ‘blonde headed real Germans’ kind of sound like ‘real red blooded patriotic Americans’? It seems to me I’ve heard that all human blood is red when it meets the open air and the American population is made up from every nationality, gender, creed, and religious affiliation you can name. The laws passed immediatly following WW1 outlawed guns in the general German public’s hands. Only the Jew were not allowed gun ownership under Hitler’s rule. Few religious leaders of any faith were highly respected in his inner circle. and that includes Arabs, Muslims, Fundamental Christians, Catholics, or any others you can tdentify. Pres. Obama doesn’t have to be your favorite man, but he is the exact opposite of Hitler, the man you think he mimics.

        Fox’s ‘fair and balanced news’ just can’t seem to ever give the rest of the story. Do you ever analyse for yourself other news cast stories? Are the right wing talk show hosts any more reliable with their entertaining monologue than any other ‘entertainers’?

        Have you ever participated in a ‘progressive’ or ‘liberal leaning’ discussion group. You don’t have to agree with them, but maybe you could find out for yourself whether everthing they say is ‘garbage’, ‘communistic’, ‘fascist’, etc. You might even discover that some of us like potatos and gravy, beef steak, caviar, etc. just like the conservative right wingers. Some of us pay as high or even higher taxes than you do. And yes, some of us complain about taxes and regulations. Some of us even own guns and hunt and fish. Some of us are workaholics and some of us are lazy. And believe it or not, some of us even think the gun tot’n folks are entitled to government protection. Most of us have no intention or desire to take every gun you own away from you. Registration is not confiscation. The ‘jack booted thugs’ you fear can walk in and search your homes whether you have registered guns or not.

        Differences of economic and social standards are ligitamate issues that need to be discussed in sane and reasonable fashion. Either side discrediting mental capacities and loyalties of the other side does nothing to unite this country. Proliferation of guns into society will not lesson the violence in society. Criminals will have no more guns with gun control than they do now. And yes, there will always be guns in the hands of the public, just like there will always be drunks on the road, regardless of laws. Most drinkers drink rewsponsibly and most gun owners are responsible. Does that mean we should negate all drunk driving laws or do away with all regulations concerning guns and their use?

    • mark

      Not on this site, Ken. Don’t even think about it. These people all live in the Republic of Deep Fear, Hatred, and Paranoia. It is their religion, their only reason for living. They get up every morning brimming with hatred and fear. And they go to sleep the same way. They teach this philosophy to their children who they sincerely hope will grow up to be terrified haters like themselves. On the bright side, they are mostly a cult with little power or influence in our society.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Excellent commentary by Ken.

      Ken asks, “Why can’t we have an intelligent and productive debate that will address these problems?” That’s a question I have been experimenting with today on PLD. I made some “SHOUT” comments about gun deaths in emulation of Vicki’s mindless and bludgeoning propaganda. If one reads the many responses to my comments, the answer to Ken’s question will become clear.

      The commenting on PLD is heavily weighted towards “motivated reasoners”—-those who want to believe something so badly that they don’t even try to read and understand what is said on the site. They will blindly lash out at anything or anyone that they perceive as going against their closely held “truths”. They tend to be extreme and unreasonable and the walking definition of “there’s just no talking to some people”.

      That doesn’t mean that all PLD readers are that way—-looking at the stats, there appear to be many more “viewers” that just visit the site without commenting, just as in the real world, there are many gun owners that do NOT agree with the extreme comments you see here. They, unfortunately, get drowned out by the screamers.

      Bruce and Bill are among those who miss the point because of their right-leaning motivated reasoning (and Bill verges on hopeless), and eddie (who I often agree with), has even gone a bit off the left edge here as well (sorry, eddie).

      There is some fault on the left to be sure, but I see the major impediment to “intelligent and productive debate” to be the mindless adherence to ideology by those on the right. As I said, “there’s just no talking to some people”, because they refuse to listen to anything but the voices in their own minds.

      • phideaux

        ” I made some “SHOUT” comments about gun deaths in emulation of Vicki’s mindless and bludgeoning propaganda. If one reads the many responses to my comments, the answer to Ken’s question will become clear.”

        You “SHOUTED” a bunch of unsupported numbers and have yet to provide any type of support for your numbers. Vicki, on the first day she used her numbers, provided her source for her claims.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Sorry, PHI—-You’ve got it backwards
        My numbers are better supported than Vicki’s—go look them up.
        Vicki, from the first day she used her numbers, has provided no source.
        Her ~300 is just a sloppy generalization that sounds good, nothing more.

      • Vicki

        Right Brain Thinker says:
        “Sorry, PHI—-You’ve got it backwards
        My numbers are better supported than Vicki’s—go look them up.
        Vicki, from the first day she used her numbers, has provided no source.
        Her ~300 is just a sloppy generalization that sounds good, nothing more.”

        You are now openly lying.

        From the very first day I posted I told you and others where the number came from and how YOU to could verify the number.

        Your claim of sloppy generalization is argumentative and irrelevant.

        You may come up with your own numbers where you take the exact US Population for that instant in time, then subtract ALL of the people who have shot someone (provide your source) and then do the (rather simple for people with both halves of their brain) math and you will come out with the same numbers I did.

        ~99.9% of the population DIDN’T SHOOT ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a VERY few.
        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

        ~300 million is quite close enough to the actual number which will be between 300 million and The number given here http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html
        (absent holocaust or E.L.E.)

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Sorry, Vicki—-I hate to make you scream and writhe so much by tossing the holy water of truth on your vampiric little brain, but you are just grasping at straws here by saying,

        “You are now openly lying”

        I AM OPENLY SPEAKING TRUTH Sorry you don’t like it—-maybe if you paid more attention to speaking truth in your postings, you’d be more comfortable with it.

        I will REPEAT some truth. “Vicki’s ~300 is just a sloppy generalization that sounds good, nothing more”. And again, since repeated bludgeoning seems to be the way to get things across here—–”Vicki’s ~300 is just a sloppy generalization that sounds good, nothing more”.

        STOP TRYING TO DENY THERE’S A PROBLEM
        STOP TRYING TO DENY THAT GUNS ARE A FACTOR
        STOP TRYING TO SAY COMMON SENSE REGULATION MEANS GUN CONFISCATION

        STOP TRYING TO DISTRACT US WITH ~300 AMERICANS
        (and idiotic arguments about where that number came from)
        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

        PS I detect some “hostility” in your comment, Vicki—-no “flirting” here (except with the truth). Does this mean it’s “over” between us? Can you give me Jana’s phone number? Does she look like Sarah Palin?

      • Jana

        Right non brain,
        You wouldn’t know the truth if it came up and slapped you on your Socialist face.

      • phideaux

        “My numbers are better supported than Vicki’s—go look them up.”

        You have yet to provide a source for your numbers. Since you have been asked repeatedly to do so and have not the logical conclusion is you do not have a source and therefore are using numbers you pulled out of thin air or perhaps you got them from the south end of the north bound bull whose droppings you keep posting here.

      • Vicki

        Right Brain Thinker demonstrates the error of using just the right brain by writing on January 25, 2013 at 10:23 pm:
        “Vicki, from the first day she used her numbers, has provided no source.”

        RBT’s statement above is the lie.

        January 26, 2013 at 10:12 am he writes:
        - RBT: “STOP TRYING TO DISTRACT US WITH ~300 AMERICANS
        (and idiotic arguments about where that number came from)”

        This is why statistics (in spite of the observed fact that RBT throws statistics around a lot) seem to have no effect on RBThinking and anti gun people in general. They try to use argument to ridicule to tell you that a well recognized number that comes with an easy to find cite (just google US Population) is an idiotic argument.

        What is amusing is that RBT gets distracted by the number because it is so big. Proof in his own words above. He keeps referring to the 300 warriors of Sparta instead of the ~300 MILLION Americans.

        RBT then goes on with his attempts to personalize and ridicule with sexual innuendo further demonstrating that liberals are hypocrites. (I know. Like we didn’t already know that)

        And all the while

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS STILL HAVE NOT SHOT ANYONE

        ~99.9% of the population is INNOCENT
        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts (~0.01% based on RBT figures) of a few.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

      • Right Brain Thinker

        phideaux repeats the mindless argument—-”You have yet to provide a source for your numbers”, and talks to us about “logical conclusions”. It’s too bad that Fido and the others who spout that nonsense didn’t really have enough “logic” ability to understand what I was trying to say, and instead fall back on the old “show us your sources” argument. What they’re all saying is “I don’t like the SOUND of what I THINK you’re saying and therefore I will blindly attack what I have misinterpreted”.

        My “numbers” ARE real, and are just one set among many that may not agree exactly with each other but DO all point in the same direction—-there ARE gun deaths in America—-some suicides, some homicides, some accidents. What Fido wants to do is the equivalent of arguing about the EXACT time the sun comes up each day because he doesn’t want to accept the fact that it DOES come up every day.

        And Vicki?

        Vicki is still grasping at straws as she tries to hold together the ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~300 AMERICANS “argument” despite the fact that it is now old, tired, overused, and boring to all.

        STOP TRYING TO DISTRACT US WITH ~300 X 2 X 500 X 1000 AMERICANS
        (and idiotic arguments about where that number came from, and “sources”, and all the gibberish you state in deflectative, imperious, evasivatory, and obfuscatory sentences)

        Vicki is so frantic to grasp at straws that she talks about “They try to tell you that a well recognized number that comes with an easy to find cite (just google US Population) is an idiotic argument”. In her haste, Vicki forgets that i WAS THE ONE WHO FIRST CITED A SOURCE FOR THE NUMBER—-I got it from the Census Bureau’s Population Clock. Vicki is so proud of her ~3 X 600 X 2 X 500 X 4 X 250 divided by 5 AMERICANS and so eager to keep it going that she forgot that FACT. She also ignores the fact that it is her “idiotic arguments” against talking about GUN DEATHS that I have been attacking all along, NOT the ~300 number or the basic truth of her original implication.

        More evidence of grasping at straws is Vicki making a big deal out of the 300, and even talking about Spartans—-perhaps she is not as dumb as she appears and knew I would appreciate the Spartan reference—-Marines do love Spartans. Naaaaah, she’s not that smart.

        I have to laugh when Vicki talks about “personalizing” attacks—-isn’t this PLD we’re posting on? Which could just as easily stand for Personalized Loudmouthed Defamation”. LOL She then plays the “sex” card, although much more intelligently than Jana, who preferred the bludgeon of “sexual harassment”. “Sexual innuendo” says Vicki, and cleverly sashays over to “further demonstrating that liberals are hypocrites. (I know. Like we didn’t already know that)”. Minor score, but it will go over big with the ignorant.

        Vicki just keeps grasping at straws as she tries to revive the dead horse of ~300.
        And all the while…….

        15 X 2 X 5 x 100 X 2 GUN DEATHS OCCUR EVERY YEAR IN AMERICA
        STOP IGNORING AND DENYING THAT
        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

  • joerosey

    Boy, this article got a lot of comments…most people just miss the REAL cause of the reason for needing gun control…

    government (our government or any government) consists today of a ruling class, nobility, for lack of a better word. I know, it was never supposed to be that way in this country, but face the facts…it is. These nobels don’t give a rats ass about the people they rule, they only care about how much land (ruling power and authority) has been given to them.

    As a side…if you remember Bravehart, the old guy with leporsy said “it is the ability to compromise, that makes one noble”.

    In order to retain power, they must passify the pee-ons…give them food, give them healthcare, give them money.

    When their advisors tell them the money in the treasury is gone and things cannot continue as they are, what do they do ???

    They give everybody that is important to them a BIG raise. (wall street bailouts to the bankers, …also over the past few years, everyone in the administration and important Washington officials got BIG raises)…they did this to purchase their loyalty.

    Once their loyalty is assured, they must hold hack from the pee-ons, those things the pee-ons now consider a “right”…

    the pee-ons get angry with the nobels

    the nobels, under the guise of “necessity” (it’s for your own good…it is for the children…it’s your duty as a good American) start to remove or regulare or register any way the pee-ons could choose to rebel and kick the crap out of the nobels…if not guns, then magazines…if not magazines, then ammo…if not ammo, then primers.

    William Pitt once said “Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the arguement of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.”

    Face the facts…the nobels don’t care about about us. They just don’t want us to get pissed off and shoot them.

    End of arguement !!!

    • mark

      No, poltical arguments never end.

  • Truthbug

    Rolley, Livingston, Hogeland, and others give us valuable discussion to help our thinking. I think I like Bert Cundle’s attitude. I personally want to be more supportive of freedom than regulation, because it is so much more costly to move from tyranny to liberty than the other direction.

  • David169

    This whole discussion is an exercise by the gun grabbers to make Americans believe they have a right to pass legislation infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution gave the Federal Government certain enumerated limited powers. The “Bill of Rights” is a part of our Constitution that specifically enumerates matters which the Federal government is prohibited from entertaining or passing any legislation that effects these rights which are our birthright and define our freedom. Any legislation presented to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms is treason. I suggest the Heller and McDonald decisions are mandatory reading for all Americans.

  • william wise

    think about this, if all guns in the usa were grabbed only criminals would
    have guns. next, any country that hates us can take over us and not
    a shot would be fired so be prepared for whats coming

    • mark

      No, william. Newsflash: we have something called the U.S. Military that prevents other countries from taking us over. Unbelievable.

      • rvncibeib1sgret

        Hate to bust your bubble yung’un! The US Military is spread out too thin still fighting decades old wars that need to be ended now! These troops are tired and worn out.
        Besides, the US military will never be used against the government. Just ain’t going to happen! If another country decided to invade us, our doctrinal retaliation would still be a nuclear exchange..

      • william wise

        ok, just remember i told you so, you might want to investigate
        jesse vetura’s programs on trutv or even on his website

      • KenPoland

        Oh my goodness, Mark, you can’t trust the military, they are under the control of that fearful government system we’ve been living under for more than a couple centuries. We are better off to trust that well armed neighbor to protect us. But, just make sure you have a more powerful weapon and more ammunition than he has. He just might want to take your property and the government can’t defend your property rights against his fire power.

    • KenPoland

      Profound wisdom and observation. William says only criminals would have guns if ALL guns were confiscated. Apparently they won’t have all been confiscated!

      Criminals are not born criminals. They choose criminal activity as they gain the courage to defy laws. Do you suppose some who chose to defy laws had a little boost in their courage because they had a gun in their hand?

      If registration of guns is required by administrative regulations to facilitate enforcement of laws already on the books and you refuse to register your gun, you are a criminal. I break the speed limit for automobiles now and then. That makes me a criminal by definition. I don’t want to be a criminal, so lets drop all speed limit restrictions. Does that make you feel safer?

  • Wiley

    Great article right until the end where you blame video games as a factor! I think it is ironic when people espouse that the person kills not the guns, but in the next sentence blames video games for the person!

  • Robert Marshner

    You forgot this part
    DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable

    The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities. The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia , the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
    The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

    The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union ; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

    Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States .” The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

    During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada . The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

    The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA , and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

    Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: “The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States .” In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, “that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.”

    “This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.”

    The Honorable William Gordon

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

    HOW THE BRITISH GUN CONTROL PROGRAM PRECIPITATED THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1967702

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

    The American Revolution against British Gun Control

    Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.” A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate.

    The Royal Governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, had forbidden town meetings from taking place more than once a year. When he dispatched the Redcoats to break up an illegal town meeting in Salem, 3000 armed Americans appeared in response, and the British retreated. Gage’s aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the area aged 16 years or older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder.

    Military rule would be difficult to impose on an armed populace. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston. There were thousands of armed men in Boston alone, and more in the surrounding area. One response to the problem was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder.

    Modern “smokeless” gunpowder is stable under most conditions. The “black powder” of the 18th Century was far more volatile. Accordingly, large quantities of black powder were often stored in a town’s “powder house,” typically a reinforced brick building. The powder house would hold merchants’ reserves, large quantities stored by individuals, as well as powder for use by the local militia. Although colonial laws generally required militiamen (and sometimes all householders, too) to have their own firearm and a minimum quantity of powder, not everyone could afford it. Consequently, the government sometimes supplied “public arms” and powder to individual militiamen. Policies varied on whether militiamen who had been given public arms would keep them at home. Public arms would often be stored in a special armory, which might also be the powder house.

    Before dawn on September 1, 1774, 260 of Gage’s Redcoats sailed up the Mystic River and seized hundreds of barrels of powder from the Charlestown powder house.

    The “Powder Alarm,” as it became known, was a serious provocation. By the end of the day, 20,000 militiamen had mobilized and started marching towards Boston. In Connecticut and Western Massachusetts, rumors quickly spread that the Powder Alarm had actually involved fighting in the streets of Boston. More accurate reports reached the militia companies before that militia reached Boston, and so the war did not begin in September. The message, though, was unmistakable: If the British used violence to seize arms or powder, the Americans would treat that violent seizure as an act of war, and would fight. And that is exactly what happened several months later, on April 19, 1775.

    Five days after the Powder Alarm, on September 6, the militia of the towns of Worcester County assembled on the Worcester Common. Backed by the formidable array, the Worcester Convention took over the reins of government, and ordered the resignations of all militia officers, who had received their commissions from the Royal Governor. The
    officers promptly resigned and then received new commissions from the Worcester Convention.

    more: http://floppingaces.net/most_wanted/the-american-revolution-against-british-gun-control/

  • http://yahoo Don

    the whole thing is kinda like way back when repeater rifles came out and before that was only single shot carbines. noone raised hell. you would have been able to kill a lot more people with the winchester.they did’nt have all the royalty in congress like today, nowadays our rulers decide what we can do and what we can have. why don’t everyone get out and vote the riff raff out of all government. we’d be a lot better off.

    • Jana

      Don,
      They don’t vote the riff out of office because the riff raff voted him into office. Now it seems the riff raff with their hands out are the ones keeping him in office.

  • TML

    “….training Americans to be responsible and well-versed firearms owners… …In every State… …is a good universal firearm requirement, both well-regulated and relatively un-infringed.”

    Exactly

  • ASIM ALI

    WHY PUNISH THE HONEST CITIZEN? LET’S MAKE THE PUNISHMENT FOR THE CRIMINALS SEVERE!!

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Because it is easier to punish the innocent and they don’t put up a fight to defend themselves. How do you think the Dems/Progs/Leftists/ human predators are so successful in savaging the population of their freedoms and Liberty. I am only talking about what happens in America because we are the most unique country in the world and the whole of history.

    • mark

      Who’s punishing you? On what date is the government sending you to jail? And on what charge?

      • Vicki

        Punishment comes in many forms. Denying you the ability to exercise your rights certainly is punishment. Note that there was no crime. You did not get due process. The government just up and said you can not do that or we will punish you even more severely.

        http://law.yourdictionary.com/chilling-effect

        To make it even more un-fair you are being punished for something bad that someone ELSE did.

        Even children know that is un-fair

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.l.dempsey David L Dempsey

    This Country needs to reinstate the Draft so that every American Citizen ( unless they are physically or mentally unable) has to Serve for 2 years in a Branch of our Military so that they can learn to use Firearms and not be afraid of them. Serving will help them to appreciate our Country more, and they will learn to get along with people of other Races because Military Discipline will teach them to have better self-control and to have more respect for other people.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear David L Dempsey,

      You write: “This Country needs to reinstate the Draft so that every American Citizen ( unless they are physically or mentally unable) has to Serve for 2 years in a Branch of our Military …” So you support slavery?

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Proteus1946

        In a word, Bob: YES! The only difference between us is that you call it ‘Slavery’, and I call it a “well regulated militia”. BTW the ‘draft’ would be by States (i.e. California National Guard, as an example), with the option of joining the Reserves (the US Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force or Coast Guard).

        The 2nd Amendment not only guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but, at the same time, imposes a duty of citizenship to support the country by serving some time in ‘the militia’.

        Yes, I did serve (at age 19), did you?

      • Proteus1946

        Since you didn’t deign to answer my last question, allow me to continue.

        The Militia Act of 1792 -

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, (making this a duly enacted FEDERAL LAW) That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. . . That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt,(etc) . . . and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service,

        The above was cut directly from the article that started this conversion. Apparently, the 1792 Congress felt (white and male) CITIZENS of the United States owed some service, usually called ‘DUTY’, to the State or National (government). This isn’t SLAVERY, even though no mention of pay is included in the act, and, in fact, the militiaman has to provide his own arms and accouterments at his own expense. I’ll assume a citizen was supposed to serve in the militia for the entire 18 to 45 years (a 27 year enlistment) since no mention of limit of service is mentioned. Serving in the National Guard or Reserves for a couple of years right after high school (automatic or ‘draft’ whatever) should still be regarded as not only an honor, but a duty as well. It should NEVER be construed as slavery.

        You sound to me like one of the ‘Sunshine Patriots’ that Thomas Paine wrote so eloquently about – all bluster and no ba11s.

  • luther chinn

    See executive order 10899 ! Obama can’t wait to implement this!

    Gun control is all about increments. A little at a time,and they think we wont notice!
    Ted Kennedy’s car has killed more people than my gun ,and this hold true for millions of other law abiding,legal gun owners!!!

    There are only two good things about liberals…

    1) They are always their own worst enemy,and sink their own ship

    2) They all die eventually

    SEMPER FI MOLON LABE

    • mark

      All Conservatives, Libertarians, socialists, communists, moderates, and vegetarians die eventually too, luther. What a brilliant analysis. You should think about writing books or teaching at a university.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Executive Order 10899 was signed by Eisenhower in 1960, and modified in 1978 by a later executive order. It was all related to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. What possible connection is there to O’Bama?

      • luther chinn

        please excuse my error. In my haste to post intended to include EO 10990 ,enhanced by Obama with EO 13617.

      • Proteus1946

        RTB,
        Luther got his info from an email from Bob Livingston entitled “[Official] Kiss your guns good-bye.. (plus more bad news)”. I got a copy too this morning.

        Here are the pertinent parts of the email:
        “The truth is that executive orders associated with FEMA would
        suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for any American
        in “special conditions” and the signs of these “conditions” are
        already here.

        In case you don’t know, EXECUTIVE ORDER 10899 allows
        the government to take over all food resources and farms
        (among many others) when the thing hits the fan.

        Not having a gun would make their task very easy in a coming
        crisis… and YES it is happening, as you’ll see in the video below:

        >> 21,321 People Have Been Blown Away By This Video. Have you? < No fight back => FEMA control =>
        => Easy access to your food=> Total Control.

        The link, which I followed out of curiosity, goes to an ad for ‘Aquaponics’, or how to grow your own food when the big crunch hits. Not really a bad idea that, but the ‘come-on’ is rather deceptive since EXECUTIVE ORDER 10899 is about regulations concerning CIA dissemination of Atomic Energy Commission information. Yes, I looked it up. There is absolutely NOTHING said in this Executive Order about gun-grabbing Obamacons coming after your guns, or anything about FEMA. In fact, E.O. 10899 was signed by Dwight David Eisenhower (a good Republican President) in 1959, and FEMA only started in 1979 (by Democratic President Jimmy Carter)!

        By the ‘come-on’ in Bob’s email, I understand that just about any knee-jerk reactionary would understand it to read “FEMA is going to confiscate your guns. Obama signed E.O. 10899 giving them permission.” Simply typical Fear Mongering on Bob’s part.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Proteus1946,

        Thanks for the connection to Bob Livingston. I looked at links about Executive Orders in general and found, as you did, that EO 10899 is about regulations concerning CIA dissemination of Atomic Energy Commission information. I saw, as you did, that there is absolutely NOTHING said in this Executive Order about gun-grabbing Obamacons coming after your guns, or anything about FEMA. That’s why I asked “What possible connection is there to O’Bama?” I knew the answer—–NONE.

        You say, “Simply typical Fear Mongering on Bob’s part”. On somebody’s part—-Luther may be getting his “information” from some wing-nut sites because EO 13617 has to do with Russian nuclear materials and EO10990 was one of JFK’s and dealt with reestablishing the Federal Safety Council. Again, NO O’Bama connection.

        There has been a huge amount of lying about O’Bama’s executive orders and Luther has apparently chosen to believe some of it. It is easy to find out about executive orders going all the way back to G Washington—-some would rather believe and repeat lies.

      • Jana

        Right Brain,
        Why don’t you start your own web site?

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Janaaaaaaaaa, baby!—-are you flirting with me? Will Vicki be upset?

        You ask, “Why don’t you start your own web site?”
        It’s a lot of work, Jana, and there are already a lot of good ones that speak truth out there already—-I visit them to be educated and entertained, and occasionally throw my two cents in with a comment.

        Bob Livingston has graciously (and for profit) provided us with PLD, and I spend some spare time here when I’m not living real life. That’s enough for me, especially since I am also following Jesus’s many admonitions to help the poor and do good works. In this case, I am trying to help those who are “poor of mind”—-there are many on PLD, and you’re one of them.).

      • Jana

        Actually I was hoping to get rid of your ugly socialist attitude from off of this site. Flirt? Flirt with an idiot? HA. As I said before you are way too full of yourself grandpa. Besides, you are using that as an intimidation tactic with both Vicki and me. It won’t work.
        That is called sexual harassment.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Oh look, Jana finally plays the “sexual harrassment” card on me—-what took her so long?. Of course, being the dumb little hypocrite that she is, she thinks nothing of calling me an “idiot” and “grandpa” and “ugly” here, to say nothing of all those other things she has called me countless times in the past.

        Sorry that you have no sense of humor, Jana, and don’t enjoy playing with words and ideas (of which you have few)—in the future, i will only joke with you about how clueless and mindless you are..

        Speaking of Vicki, please tell her how clever she is to have found my HUGE error with the ~300 thing. And she mentions SPARTANS—-old Marines are especially fond of Spartans for a number of reasons—-read Pillars of Fire for a great read about Leonidas and the 300 and Spartan life in general. Great book and great people! They understood Semper Fidelis.

        PS Thank you so much for sending me off to look at Steve Quayle. I loved his Zombie thread, and was pleased to see that he relied on The Federal Zombie Research Agency for information. The FZRA site is one that all “seekers of truth” should visit.

      • Vicki

        Right Brain Thinker writes:
        “Speaking of Vicki, please tell her how clever she is to have found my HUGE error with the ~300 thing.”

        You’re welcome. I did try gently to warn you but you had already used it many places.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Still grasping at straws, Vicki?
        300?, 300 MILLION?, 300 X ~the square root of zero?
        Pointless number games by one who has overused an argument.

    • Jana

      And this NON gentleman non thinking Right Brain
      Wants us to actually think he was some kind of a great teacher? What did you teach kindergarten? You learned well from your students.

      You also need to learn to read. I never sent you to any site. It was a site that was suggested by someone else and I thanked them and said I had it bookmarked.

      You responded with a snarky remark of and I quote,” I don’t know if anyone has noticed, but this whole string of commentary from TIME (at 7:41 on 1/25) through Jana (at 12:21 on 1/26) has got to be somebody’s idea of a joke.

      They are putting us on with talk about Steve Quayle being anything other than a grade A wing nut. I don’t want to put down anyone’s “religion”, but this whole string of comments is beyond that word (unless the “religion” is built on ingesting certain mushrooms or their chemical equivalents).______________________

      To which I responded: But you ARE trying to put someone else’s religion down. Why are you lying about it?

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Jana implies that I am a “NON gentleman”. Because I do TRY to be “gentlemanly”, I will let that slide (and also because it’s inconsequential)

        Jana says, “Wants us to actually think he was some kind of a great teacher?”, followed by some gratuitous insults. Jana, you can think whatever you want to think. I will trust the judgment of other PLD-ers to decide which one of us is believable.

        Jana also said, “You also need to learn to read. I never sent you to any site. It was a site that was suggested by someone else and I thanked them and said I had it bookmarked”.

        It is perhaps beyond Jana’s capabilities to understand that I would immediately go look at a site that she thanked someone for mentioning, especially when taken in the context of the totality of her remarks and those of the others in the string of comments. Yes, Jana, what you said did in fact “send” me to the website.

        Jana said, “You responded with a snarky remark of and I quote,” I don’t know if anyone has noticed, but this whole string of commentary from TIME (at 7:41 on 1/25) through Jana (at 12:21 on 1/26) has got to be somebody’s idea of a joke”

        I plead minimally guilty only because I like to see someone use one of my favorite words and will encourage Jana—-she should use it where it best fits, however, and that’s not here. My comment was more of a “Lord love a duck” at what was said, and not a full-blown “snark”. Quayle is a charlatan and a wingnut, and anyone who seeks “spiritual guidance” from him is deluded. No lie there, just self-evident truth (to those who are not deluded)

        (And Jana, you really need to learn why quotation marks are put around single words. And do you know that the followers of certain “religions” DO rely on certain mushrooms as they seek “enlightenment”?)

  • ibcamn

    so if senetors are the ones passing laws and regulations,shouldn’t they be of sound mind and body?and should they themselves be free of any background nasties or jailtime themselves?and anything said senetor has passed will be upheld,unless he/she is under investigation or fined or fines,back gound checks show evedance of wrongdoing(no matter how far back[they do it to us]they go)avd if caught with this evidence,all laws passed by this senetor should be naul n void!!as now with senetor Mendeze and his hoochie momma he’s been with(in the DR)what about that?how can a man who blatenly breaks the law then lies about it be able to say anything in government,let alone pass any laws??!!!evey law or regulation this a$$hole has ever had anything to do with should be throwen out!

    • mark

      You gun guys would definitely have a lot more power if you could just learn to read and write. How about working on that as your next project?

  • Don

    Communists Cheer On Obamas Gun Grab

    http://www.infowars.com/communists-cheer-on-obamas-gun-grab/

    Nothing more need be said.

    • mark

      No, a lot more needs to be said. Communists also believe that children should go to school and that working people should report to work everyday. So that does mean all people who send their children to school and who go to work everyday are communists?

      • Don

        Mark, read the article numb nuts.

    • mark

      Don, I did. But I mean please, the U.S. Communist Party?. They are a completely powerless, irrelevant, insignificant group. All right, they may have a little more influence today than the Libertarians do, but that is about it.

      • Don

        Mark, you apparently still missed the whole point of this article. The fact that the Communist Party U.S.A., communist countries, and communist tyrants and dictators support Obama and the Democrats gun grab should be a huge red flag to you. If it isn’t, you will continue to be a useful idiot to these people, spouting nonsense over and over again, supporting the taking away of your own freedoms and liberties. By the way, are you aware that Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party U.S.A. member, propagandist, and Soviet Union supporter, was Obamas childhood mentor? That’s hardly irrelevant and insignificant. That’s who molded Obama into who he is today. If you don’t really know what communism is, you better start learning. Under socialism and communism, the rich get poorer, but the poor also get poorer. You will not be an exception.

      • eddie47d

        Infowars is political hype and propaganda Don. Besides there are only a few more than 300 members in the CPUSA so to say that is a great enfluence doesn’t say much about your intellect or is it fear driven?

      • phideaux

        “Besides there are only a few more than 300 members in the CPUSA ”

        Provide verifiable proof of your claim eddie. Also, is that number the registered membership or the true membership ( those who identify with and support the CPUSA but are not registered members)?

      • Don

        Eddy47d, What exactly is “enfluence” Mr. Intellect? Really, you shouldn’t be poking your head out of your parents basement. This is an adult forum. Your incoherent juvenile rambling and inability to grasp the subject matter clearly disqualifies you.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      “Nothing more need be said”

      Except that Infowars is NOT a site that someone goes to for truth. If you want to be brainwashed, go there and believe it. If you want to see right wing propagandists in action, go there and just listen. If you want truth, go elsewhere, because WAY MORE that the nothing that is said on Infowars is what you’ll need to find

  • jopa

    So many times it is brought up that cars kill more people than guns, why not get rid of cars.We have restrictions on cars on our streets and highways in place already.Cars modified for race tracks are banned on streets due to horsepower and the danger they pose to normal traffic.All cars must be registered and pass various guidelines in every state.Any vehicle considered a danger to the public is taken off the street.There are rules and regulations for driving techniques and speed under differant conditions.As with guns nobody wants to take them all away just restrict the ones that stand out as being not very useful and more dangerous than a normal firearm used for hunting, self defense or just target shooting.

    • mark

      Because cars aren’t designed solely to kill humans and animals like guns are. Cars are designed and used overwhelmingly to transport people and cargo over distance. Occasionally they are involved in deaths in the vast majority of cases through accidents. When we send our troops into battle to kill our enemies, we don’t give them cars. We give them all guns.

      • rvncibeib1sgret

        This is my weapon….and this is my gun
        One is for fighting and this one is for fun!
        The military is issued Tanks, transports, APCs, trucks, SUVs, Cars and various watercraft and aircraft to transport them to battle. They are not issued guns either!
        They are equipped with machine guns, automatic rifles, rocket launchers,missile launchers, mortars, Artillery, Tank weapons, Most are crew served and some individual
        but they are all military hardened weapons. Guns are for the civilians and the law enforcement with some upgrades copied from the military.

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

        mark: Because cars aren’t designed solely to kill humans and animals like guns are.

        Yet cars, kill every day. In fact, 43,000 Americans die in traffic collisions. Btw, guns can also be used for target practise. Correct me if i’m wrong, guns are also used in the “winter-olympics”. So you see, everything can be used for evil or good. It all depends if the person in charge of the inanimate-object is evil or good…rather basic, and not exactly rocket-science, don’t you think? Speaking of which, isn’t America the only one who has ever used the “Bomb” and killed half a million people in one fell-swoop? And who was President at the time; oh, that’s right, Harry S Truman, a Democrat of all things.

        President Harry Truman authorised and ordered the dropping of the two atomic bombs. He was following up the plans made under the Roosevelt administration. He didn’t actually drop it himself, I doubt that he could have even picked it up.

        Wow, peace-loving Democrats with bombs…and now Democrats rally behind gun-confiscation…no, no contradiction there. AMAZING hypocrisy, don’t you thinks so, mark?

      • eddie47d

        Is this silly time for you again WTS/Jay? Ban the damn bomb then ban the assault type weapons. Who cares who wants to kill massive amount of people TAKE THEIR TOYS AWAY! Is that clearer for you!

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Hey, Top

        Don’t know why you’re going off big-time on the definition of “guns” here but your “This is my rifle…..” reminded me of a fond memory from over 50 years ago. We were lined up in ranks on the grinder in the hot sun with the DI’s getting in everybody’s faces—the usual screaming from 3 inches away, spit flying, eyeballs-bugged-out routine.

        One DI is really working over the guy in front of me—he gives him the usual routine about “guns” and finally screams “I’ll bet you don’t even have one!—-And if you do, I bet it’s not very big!—-How big’s your ‘gun’, you %$#*&”? And %$#*& screams loudly “SIR, Hard or soft, SIR?”

        DI lasts about 2 seconds before he busts out laughing—-so hard he even bent over at the waist. He was so cracked up, he couldn’t even manage much screaming at us because all of us were laughing too—he just put us all to doing pushups while he walked over to the other DI’s who were wondering what was going and told them the story. Cracked them all up too, and they were actually in a good mood for a while and left us alone (maybe 5 minutes?).

        PS I never did understand why Ermey did that “This is my rifle…” scene in Full Metal Jacket. No DI I ever met would have done that.

  • AJ

    Let’s face it, all this political BS about protecting the children and making America safe by the federal government envoking more gun control laws is just exactly what Joey Bidens favorite word is Bull Sh_t! This is a United Nations (The Evil Empire) Agenda being played out by it’s political puppets here in the US. The real reason that the government wants our guns is that the United Nations (Evil Empire) is afraid that if American Citizens are armed that their Storm Troupers (UN Forces on US soil) will get popped by them when they try and bring in their NWO and they’re Facist tactics of enforcement. The American public is tired of political antics, cheap props of using children as bait to gin up emotional attachment for issues that quite honestly never solve any of the problems, they just fulfill political agendas. And we’re sick of the lies spewing from the White house over the past years from both parties.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      Exactly!

  • luther chinn

    The U N commences its “show” of so called “arms treaty” in March of this year.

    Obama will have the big push on for this as well. If the treaty is signed it could circumvent the Constitution. He would truly have a free “reign”

    • Don

      Luther Chinn, you are correct. The U.N. Small Arms Treaty is smoke and mirrors, with the real purpose of disarming U.S. citizens. Under a U.N. treaty, the two hundred plus anti-gun NGO’s(Non Government Organizations) hope to make an end run around the U.S. Constitution, with a treaty that will result in Americans being disarmed by a treaty which may or may not need senate approval. Some courts have upheld that the mere signing of a treaty by the president makes the treaty valid, regardless of whether or not the U.S. Senate approves it. Mexico, a country where private ownership of firearms is prohibited, and which has an incredible number of citizens killed each year from illegal guns in the hands of the drug cartels, is pushing hard for this treaty. Our previous U.N. Ambassador Bolten under George Bush, protected us from the United Nations of Dictators and Tyrants, but now the U.S. government is run by tyrants, so we’re in trouble folks. The only NGO on our side at the U.N. is the NRA. You really need to support the NRA, especially now.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Luther and Don are members of the circular firing squad. They sit in the circle and endlessly repeat the the same mindless horsepucky rained down on them by those who would use them and turn them against their own best interests. Then they smile and nod and pat each other on the back and DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN.

        Have you read the treaty? You should. It’s not very long and you can access it on the State Department website. It is a treaty that is designed to curb weapons traffickers and it specifically states that it will NOT supercede the laws of the sovereign nations that make up the UN. Have you read any commentary on the treaty that comes from outside the circular firi8ng squad? You should—-there’s some out there that is “balanced”.

        The treaty hasn’t even been written in final form yet—discussions will begin in March and the O’Bama administration has laid out a whole bunch of “red lines” that cannot be crossed by our representatives at these talks. The O’Bama administration has specifically stated that the second Amendment is INVIOLATE.

        Anyone who believes the horsepucky is a fool, and anyone who keeps screaming that the treaty is in any way a gun grab after seeing the truth is a liar.

      • Don

        Right Brain Thinker – At the 2001 Small Arms Conference, one of the buzzwords of gun-prohibition advocates was the need for “transparency” in small arms. This was shorthand for saying that there should be no privacy regarding gun ownership, and government authorities should have a list of every gun owner and every gun in the country. Registration has been used over the years to facilitate gun confiscation in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Jamaica, Nazi-occupied Europe, Soviet-occupied Europe, the Philippines, Bermuda, and many other places. Registration is a critical step to total gun prohibition. U.N. disarmament staff have explicitly stated the advantage of registration as a preparatory step toward confiscation. A. U.N. press release touted mandatory gun registration for every (nongovernment) firearm anywhere in the world, but said that a U.N.-controlled registry was “premature” – not that a U.N. registry was a bad idea, just premature, in light of current political realities.

        At the 2010 U.N. conference on the Programme of Action, Canadian professor Gary Mauser explained that the ambitious plan for universal, hyper-detailed gun registration was simply not feasible. “Few countries in the world are capable of instituting complex regulatory schemes, such as owner licensing and firearms registration. Canada and South Africa both have strikingly failed to set up a workable national system.”

        For speaking truth to power, Professor Mauser was disrespectfully jeered during his speech by the delegates, and by the antigun lobbies who were present. There are over 200 of these anti-gun NGO’s(Nongovernmental Organizations) involved in talks over the U.N. Small Arms Treaty. Anti-gun billionaire Mayor Bloomberg funds many of the NGO’s, as does anti-gun billionaire George Soros. What do you think those two have in mind?

        Like you said, the treaty has not been written in final form yet, and the last time the U.N. Small Arms Treaty came up, Obama still had to run for re-election. Re-election is no longer an issue.

        Wake up Brainless. Try thinking out-of-the-box for once.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Short and sweet, Don. You are just repeating the same paranoid horsepucky. Go look at Snopes UN Arms Trade Treaty and link from there to the State Department site where the “red lines” about the treaty are listed in detail. You can’t just believe something because you WANT to believe it—-it needs to be true before it deserves belief.

        Don’t waste time talking to me until you have looked at those two sites and can admit they directly contradict what you have said.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        PS Mauser is spoken of with disrespect by pro-gun folks as well. He apparently has little to say and embarrasses them as well. And stop talking about paranoid interpretations of what went on in 2001 and try to focus on right now, if you can.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        PPS Sorry, but I rushed my reply. What Mauser said at the conference may be to some extent correct in the small picture, but it is totally irrelevant as a major concern—-it is just one of those “talking points” that the pro-gun shills bring up to distract. The UN Arms Treaty CONTAINS NO PROVISIONS for universal gun registration, and O’Bama has specifically said that it will not be signed by us if it does in its final form. Just more paranoia. Go read the the truth that I pointed you towards.

      • Don

        Right Brain Thinker(Tinker) – Face it RBT, I chewed you up and spit you out with my response. You were stuttering like hell trying to make a come back, but you just couldn’t pull it off…..too funny.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Don beats his chest and struts around saying “I chewed you up and spit you out with my response”, and says “too funny”. What’s NOT funny but actually quite sad is the total mindlessness, self-delusion, and ignorance Don displays by saying that.

        Short and sweet AGAIN, Don. Go to the two sites I mentioned, read what’s there, and get yourself educated. Anyone who has read our exchange knows that the only person “chewed up and spit out ” here is YOU, and the shame of it is you did it to yourself. You are too self -deluded to realize that.

      • Don

        Right Brain Thinker (Tinkerbell), sometimes you’re pretty amusing for an old Arts & Crafts teacher. I laugh everytime I see your rants that we must all go to whatever site you say so that we will know the real truth about whatever it is that your ranting about at the time. One moment you want everyone to run to the long ago discredited left-leaning Snopes, the next moment you want everyone to go to the State Department site. The State Department you say…..the U.S. government…..well now that’s where we’ll get the real truth alright. I am sure that the State Department would never, ever lie to us about anything like say, oh, I don’t know, how about Benghazi, or a silly movie? How absurd that anyone would ever think Hillery would lie, or her old man, the former president, would lie to us about having sexual relations with that woman. And the new Secretary of State to be, John-the-male-gold-digger Heinz…..there’s a fellow we can all count on for the truth. How about Eric Holder…..now there’s another a reputable guy we can all fall on our swords for.

        You have said in a past posting of yours that we should all go to whatever site that you were dictating at the moment for the real truth, instead of listening to what is in our own minds. Really? Who you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?

        Let me make something perfectly clear so that you won’t be confused in the future. I am not the least bit interested in going to any site that you suggest. You see, I have no doubt that I know more about the subject matter regarding Guns and Obama, Guns and Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton’s Organization of American States(OAS) treaty, Guns and Arms Trade Treaty, Guns and the Programme of Action, Guns and Hillery, Guns and Eric Holder, Guns and Rahm, Guns and Bloomberg, Guns and Cuomo, Guns and New York State, Guns and Personal Safety, Guns and the 2nd. Amendment, Guns and the Democrats, Guns and the Left, Guns and Feinstein, AR-15′s, semi-automatic sporting rifles, the Police(I use to be one), Guns and Security(I use to be the Department Head for Security for a State Authority, the Courts, SCOPE, the NRA, hunting, target shooting, Guns and the U.N., and case law, than you could ever hope to know.

        The only thing I don’t know, is why the hell you keep wasting our time?

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Short and sweet yet AGAIN, Don. Beating your chest, strutting around like a fool, and making moronic insults is NOT argument. Spouting the same canned talking points is NOT “presenting evidence” of anything but the fact that you are a parrot and have no mind of your own (at least not one that is adequate to the task you set for yourself).

        That is evident to all when you say that I “dictate” to people. If you had a brain, you’d realize that dictating is YOUR game—-that spouting lies as if they were truth and demanding (dictating) that they be believed is disrespectful to the intelligence of all of us. Do you think everyone on the site is as self-deluded as you are?—–that “listening only to what is in our own minds” is really a good way to seek truth? And you are “not the least bit interested in going to any site that I suggest”. Really open-minded there, Don. You sound as deluded as Frank Kahn, who told us all that he wouldn’t read a book I suggested because “he could tell it was biased just FROM ITS TITLE”

        You spout a whole line of “credentials” and assert your “expertise” in many areas. It sounds to me like more of your self-delusion at work, Don.—-you certainly haven’t shown much “expertise” beyond parroting what you’ve gotten from wing nut websites. I worked with a lot of policeman during my time in the schools, and that experience leads me to believe that you weren’t one, or if you were, you didn’t last long on “the job”. Tell us about your “police work”, Don—-how long, what duties, what rank? And you were “Department Head for Security for a State Authority”—-I say more BS—-unless you want to give us enough detail so that we can decide whether you’re making that up. You don’t need to name the state, but how about telling us what the function of the Authority was, what your duties were, what was the “mission” of the “department ” you headed, what problems you faced, how long you were a “head”, how you got the job. If you have read my posts, you know I have said a lot about what goes on in the schools and how “arts and crafts” school administrators do things—-share with us as I have done.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Since Don seems determined to “listen to the voices in his own mind” and ignore any truth that I might point him towards, I have copied for us what was said on one website—and it’s NOT the State Department website that Don seems to think is nothing but lies. This clip is from last July, things have moved on since then—-there is “truth” out there for any who not so self-deluded that they will deny it, as Don does. I have mentioned the “red lines” before—-can anyone point out to us how what O’Bama said shows that he wants to take our guns? Don?

        The clip in its entirety—–short and sweet:

        “The United States will not allow the United Nations to impose any restrictions on Americans’ gun rights, the Obama administration declared Friday, as the first week of negotiations on an international arms trade treaty came to a close.

        “The Arms Trade Treaty will not in any way handicap the legitimate right of self-defense,” Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller said in a tweet.

        “The tweet links to a list of “redlines” the administration has established for the treaty, which aims to “establish common international standards for the import, export, and transfer of conventional arms to help prevent the acquisition of arms by terrorists, criminals, and those who violate human rights or are subject to UN arms embargoes.” The United Nations is scheduled to spend all month trying to devise a treaty that all its members can agree to.

        “Some 130 lawmakers sent President Obama a letter last week expressing opposition to the pending treaty if it impinges on gun rights and U.S. sovereignty in any way. The administration’s “redlines,” as published on the State Department web site, aim to assuage those concerns:

        Key U.S. redlines

        • The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.

        • There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.

        • There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.

        • The U.S. will oppose provisions inconsistent with existing U.S. law or that would unduly interfere with our ability to import, export, or transfer arms in support of our national security and foreign policy interests.

        • The international arms trade is a legitimate commercial activity, and otherwise lawful commercial trade in arms must not be unduly hindered.

        • There will be no requirement for reporting on or marking and tracing of ammunition or explosives.

        • There will be no lowering of current international standards.

        • Existing nonproliferation and export control regimes must not be undermined.

        • The ATT negotiations must have consensus decision making to allow us to protect U.S. equities.

        • There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.

        Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/un-treaties/236501-obama-administration-spells-out-red-lines-for-un-arms-trade-treaty#ixzz2JCUbKRpj

    • Don

      Exclusive – What The Hell Just Happened? ‘Tyranny By Executive Order’ / By Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly, J.D.

      http://redflagnews.com/headlines/tyranny-by-executive-order-by-constitutional-attorney-michael-connelly-jd

      • Right Brain Thinker

        And this is supposed to be significant? Anyone who has kept one eye open knows who Michael Connelly is and what axes he has been grinding for quite a while. You are free to believe any wing nutty and paranoid rantings that you choose, Don. Far be it from me to try to pry your closed mind open.

        However, you MIGHT want to go back and note the lawyerly “disclaimer” Connelly threw in there when he said about O’Bama’s Executive Orders—-”Most of these have no chance of passing”. Which raises the question of why Connelly even wrote the piece—-maybe he’s like Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh and just likes to hear himself talk?

      • Don

        Only Rebellion Can Save America
        By: Colonel Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D

        http://www.newyorkdailysun.com/only-rebellion-can-save-america/1490

  • Vern Verling

    A few important points that are inside the numbers listed above. I checked them on Wikipedia for what thats worth and they are in the ball park. First, the vast majority of murders involving guns are committed in the inner city, mainly by blacks and latinos against other blacks and latinos by males aged 15-24. It would be reasonable to infer but need to confirm that the vast majority if not all of these murders are related to gang wars over drug sales.
    Machine guns were outlawed because of alcohol prohibition but the violence only stopped when alcohol prohibition ended. Food for thought, if drug prohibition ended, the current inner city murder rate would likely plunge, along with the incarceration rate for minoritys who are branded for life by gang involvement and criminal records and so perpetuate the ghettos we have.
    Second, the vast majority of mass killings are murder suicides so it is unlikely any law will change them. The best answer is better security in public venues such as schools, simple security cameras, back doors in classrooms to facilitate escape, doors that lock from the inside and panic buttons could help a lot. Also if you want a gun free zone, make in mandatory that a police officer is posted to that area all the time to make sure the shooter isn’t the only one armed.
    Third, just as the courts have ruled the answer to free speech we don’t like is more free speech, the answer to crazy people with guns is lawfully armed and well trained citizens who can defend themselves. This will reduce the incentive to “go out in a blaze of glory” by mass shooters.
    Taking away the firearms of law abiding citizens , especially based on aesthetics is ridiculous and will lead to ever stricter gun laws as each successive restriction fails to stop murderers.

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

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – There was a buzz at the White House on Thursday when President Barack Obama announced the nomination of two top financial regulatory officials.

    A large fly interrupted the president as he presented his picks to head the Securities and Exchange Commission and a watchdog for financial consumer products.

    Under bright television lights, the fly darted around the president’s head as he spoke in the White House’s ornate State Dining Room, alighting briefly on the middle of his forehead.

    “We need cops on the beat to enforce the law,” the president said, speaking about SEC nominee Mary Jo White and Richard Cordray, who he renominated to continue as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    Obama broke off to swat at the intruder, which flew away.
    “This guy is bothering me here,” Obama said, glaring at his staff.

    The insect was luckier than a fly that harassed Obama in 2009 while taping a television interview.

    “Get out of here,” he said, before smacking and killing the fly. “I got the sucker,” he said at the time. An animal rights group protested.

    View photo here:
    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/photos/fly-lands-head-u-president-barack-obama-white-photo-223959853.html

    • Right Brain Thinker

      And the point is? Are you going to say it was a gun-loving right wing fly and that’s why he “slaughtered” it? Looked like a centrist or even slightly left fly, seeing where it landed.

  • Rod

    All on both sides of the argument especially the pro gun side should google the Dick Act of 1902 and since it has not been repealed all gun laws passed since then are unconstitutional.

  • Jimbo

    The First Amendment freedom of speech is not dependent on the existence of newspapers, radio, television, or bull horns. We don’t need to wait for the “state” or federal government to say, “now it’s your turn to speak”. Likewise, the freedom to assemble is not dependent on the existence of sidewalks, parking lots, or stadiums. Freedom of religion is not dependent on the existance of pointy topped buildings with crosses, mosques, or synagogues. So why do people believe that the right to bear arms is dependent on the existence of militias? The Founding Fathers knew the people needed guns. But from their perspective, the most important reason to guarantee the right, was so the people could form their own militias to fend off foreign governments, indian raids, and as a deterrent to government tyranny. The gun banners fail to realize the colonists fought their OWN government to secure their freedoms.

    For that matter, why do some believe the Second Amendment is about states” rights, rather than an individual’s rights? I can’t find any mention of “state in the rest of amendments 1 -14.

    • KenPoland

      ” their OWN government” was not their own government. They had no voting privileges, thus no representation. Read your history! That was one of the points of contention that united the colonists in rebellion. Your vote counts and the majority rules under regulations that protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The majority is also protected from the tyranny of the minority, whether that minority be wealthy or poor. Why are you so fearful of our government?

  • RobbieGee

    I think most of us realize that this is a case of the Feinstein’s and Cuomo’s of America using a tragedy to further their personal agendas. You can bet they have body guards with guns, like most other elites, so the hypocrisy is beyond incredible. They truly believe their lives are more valuable than those of the average person. This is standard issue elitism. There is no merit in their arguments that controlling guns will control gun crime, especially mass murders. We all know this is a fallacious argument yet there are those who are still duped by it simply because they don’t know guns and are afraid of them. I would bet that if someone who is afraid of guns takes a 3 hour class on firearm safety, proper handing and usage of a firearm, they would change their tune. But their fear, like so many unfounded fears and the emotional content of the media, prevent them from being logical. Of course, this is coming from a firearms instructor so maybe I am fooling myself into thinking I can alleviate the fear as I have done before. Of course, those in my classes are there because they want to be even if they do have a little fear to start with.

  • adrianvance

    The first “gun control” laws were directed against Negros so the KKK guys could beat and hang them with abandon. Never let that happen to us white folks.

    Come see us at The Two Minute Conservative, http://tinyurl.com/7jgh7wv and when you speak ladies will swoon and liberal gentlemen will weep.

    • Jana

      adrianvance,
      This is not only a farce, you must be a plant.

  • Pataricia Canon

    Hi Bob – Great material, as always. I just wanted to comment that I have seen little mentioned anywhere in relation to the gun debate about the extraordinary violence of the US government, their new policies of torture, their role in destabilizing many countries politically, their history of invading countries (many, many) and slaughtering innocent civilians on behalf of corporate interests, the ongoing drone bombing of innocent civilians (including many children)… On and on and on goes the lengthy list of US government violence around the globe – most often entirely unrelated (sometimes barely related) to national defense, but rather to what they now call “national interests” (meaning generally multi-national corporate and elite interests). The mere idea of such a violent government – one with such a profound disregard for human life – taking an interest in protecting or securing the safety of common people by restricting guns is simply laughable.

    The gun control zealots look at the world through a haze of science fiction. They don’t even seem to know what world they are actually living in. Actually, given human history, the idea of expecting government to act on behalf of public interest – to protect public interests – is itself laughable and yet this doesn’t stop them from expecting exactly that.

    If the US government wanted a world that was free of violence this world would be much more free of violence -as much of the violence in the world today is generated (often carefully orchestrated) by this very institution. It is absurd that a large swath of the public actually looks to Washington – probably the most violent government in the world today – to solve the problem of violence on our streets. (I think the problem on our streets mirrors – and is probably even related indirectly – to the violence of our government.)

    Let these misguided gun control advocates first call for an end to the terrible violence of their government before they go about asking that same violent establishment to end our right to defend ourselves. Really, the absurdity of it all is just too much.

    • Pataricia Canon

      ust one more thing to say on this. It is my observation that the very people who are calling for strong gun control are the same people who, in the modern era, are lending their support to our violence foreign policies. It is not even that they are ignorant of them, but my experience with liberals (and I used to be one for many years) is that they actually know we are routinely slaughtering innocent people in other countries, but they simply do not care about it at all. I have yet to discuss these issues with a liberal who does care. I know some do, but few, I think. On the other hand, from what I read I see that the same people who are standing in support of our 2nd amentment also tend to oppose the tragic policies of the feds in other countries (all the illegal wars on behalf of the elite). I think modern American liberals need to get their morality straight before they pontificate on such serious issues.

  • http://Grimes Charles

    This article is good but it doesn’t go far enough. The founding fathers knew from history that tyrants who wanted to enslave their citizens had to take their arms away from them first. So in keeping with the other checks and balances, they put one into the Constitution for us (the people). This check is a check against big government (tyrants) and it is spelled out in the Second Ammendment. They(our founding fathers) were deathly afraid of standing armies because they saw how many times the army turned on the people and established a dictatorship (just look at South America and how often it happened there just in our life time). To me it is obvious that if our economy fails, there will be food riots and general mahem so that the President will establish martial law. When that happens there will be no more constitution and “the law of the land” will be what ever the senior military officer says it is. Remember that the President is the Commander-in-Chief so what he says, goes. Will he restore the Constitution after calm is restored? I do not know. But from all the indicators that I have seen so far, the answer is in doubt. All members of the military take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. How many of the military will live up to their oath? If they are political and do not believe in God they may follow their wallets or political presure and not stand up and resist. If they do resist, they will need the Militia (armed citizens just like at Lexington) to assist. If we are not armed what will we do throw rocks! Keep the Second Amendment in tact! Keep our weapons, we may need them!

    • Proteus1946

      You say, “To me it is obvious that if our economy fails, there will be food riots and general mahem so that the President will establish martial law.”

      In this ‘end of the world’ scenario, what would you expect the president (any president, not just Obama) to do? Would you prefer the pres. just take a vacation to Bimini, or would you rather he try to restore order?

      At least you gave some justification of ‘why’ Obama would sic the military on the citizenry. Many on this blog simply ‘ass-u-me’ that Obama is going to become some kind of military dictator as soon as he can disarm the public. NONSENSE! Never happened, and never will happen. On top of that, this scenario CAN’T happen because we don’t have an Army of robots – we have an all volunteer, citizen Army, and they WON’T ‘just follow orders’. Maybe an ex-SEAL team (example only) might get together to rob a bank or some such thing, but asking the entire Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard to just ‘rise up’ and start murdering civilians willy-nilly is complete Horse Crap!

      Taking one step back, would you prefer the president at least try to get ahead of a complete economic crash, or do you prefer Herbert Hoover’s agenda of just letting the ‘free market’ work its will? Who was right? Herbert Hoover or FDR?

      Did the New Deal ‘solve’ the problem of the Great Depression? No, it took WWII, with 6 million under arms, and industry (and full employment) cranking out the wheels of war to get us completely out of the Great Depression. In the interim, MILLIONS were helped with programs like the WPA, the CCC, the Tennessee Valley Authority (37 dams), and many, many other government programs – ALL paid for with TAXES, DEFICIT SPENDING and WAR BONDS. To keep us from falling into another depression, Truman gave us the Marshall Plan – not only to re-build Europe, but for industry to keep producing stuff to keep the civilians employed. You should also count the GI Bill (low interest housing loans, government-paid higher education, low interest business loans, and lots more). Again, all paid for with TAXES and DEFICIT SPENDING. I might remind you that taxes under Dwight Eisenhower (a good Republican President) were as high as 91% – the highest in our history. It was these high taxes that paid for the New Deal, WWII, the Marshall Plan and the GI Bill.

  • Rod

    To Eddie and rbt read the following and google the dick at of 1902 and then go crawl back under your rock. The framers of our constitution were clear about their intentions for the population as a whole to be armed (see following quotes):1.) “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” Thomas Jefferson to James Madison2.) “The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” Alexander Hamilton The Federalist Papers at 184-83.) “The great object is that every man be armed.” and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.” Patrick Henry – American Patriot4.) “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”Richard Henry Lee – American Statesman, 17885.) “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”George Washington – First President of the United States 6.) “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …” Samuel Adams7.) “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 17888.) The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson The information I provided are facts and quotes that can be researched.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Hey, Rod—stop hitting yourself in the head with the rock of mindlessness and get off my case—-you obviously don’t even understand what I’m talking about most of the time—-take reading comprehension lessons. I’m standing tall on top of the rock of rationality, with my eyes and mind wide open to the FACTS.

      The “information” you provided are not “facts” and quotes that are “researched”, because you didn’t “research” them. You can’t call copying them word for word off some pro-gun website “research”—-it’s just more mindless parroting..

      As for “The framers of our constitution were clear about their intentions for the population as a whole to be armed”—-do some research for me and help me understand the POPULATION AS A WHOLE part. They really intended that? And clearly? LOL

      I have read the quotes you “researched” and many more and HAVE looked at them from all directions. Would it surprise you to know that some appear to never have been said? Like the one you attribute to Washington?

      I assume you made a Freudian slip with “google the dick at of 1902″ and meant to say Dick Act? I have looked at a whole bunch of laws and court decisions that make it pretty clear that our gun rights are NOT in danger, not then, not now, and not in the near future. Anybody with a brain has known that all along and all this screaming you fools do is like cheering for your team when it’s ahead 48-10 with two minutes left—-just group think and wanting to belong.

      • Don

        Exclusive – What The Hell Just Happened? ‘Tyranny By Executive Order’ / By Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly, J.D.

        http://redflagnews.com/headlines/tyranny-by-executive-order-by-constitutional-attorney-michael-connelly-jd

      • Right Brain Thinker

        And this is supposed to be significant? Anyone who has kept one eye open knows who Michael Connelly is and what axes he has been grinding for quite a while. You are free to believe any wing nutty and paranoid rantings that you choose, Don. Far be it from me to try to pry your closed mind open.

        However, you MIGHT want to go back and note the lawyerly “disclaimer” Connelly threw in there when he said about O’Bama’s Executive Orders—-”Most of these have no chance of passing”. Which raises the question of why Connelly even wrote the piece—-maybe he’s like Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh and just likes to hear himself talk?

      • Don

        Only Rebellion Can Save America
        By: Colonel Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D

        http://www.newyorkdailysun.com/only-rebellion-can-save-america/1490

  • http://personalliberty.com Ruble Jones

    You suggest licensing firearm owners in the same manner as drivers; the flaw in that is–driving a motor vehicle is a privilege granted by the state, and taxed to fund,in part, the infrastructure necessary to move about the state. The right to defend oneself from criminals or tyrants comes from your Creator, and cannot be put down or relegated to someone or some other group(police, state, etc.) by you. To allow a bureaucrat/politician to decide how much/what type of personal protection I need is to allow myself to become a state-owned/controlled slave.

  • BulSprig

    What we desperately need are political leaders, as well as Gun leaders to have the sense to address all the pertinent issues pertaining to Mental Health issues ie. Psychotrophic Drug use in the treatment of Psychosis. This steps on the toes of the Psychiatric,and Psychological fields. It is not unusual for patients with Psychosis being treated with Paychotrophic drugs to commit murder, or mass murder.

  • cerebus23

    anytime anyone tells you you have to make laws for all based on the act of a madman then you know it is utter b.s. especailly when they couch it as protecting people from doing it, since last time i or anyone checked crazy people and criminals in general did not care about local or federal gun laws.

    100,000 people die each year of prescription drugs, more people are violently assaulted with baseball bats than guns. knives are also fairly popular, dig through the fbi statistics and they list guns as the 4th or so item on the list of things involved in violent crime.

    and if we are talking pure deaths well any number of things trumps gun deaths each year, including prescription drugs as mentioned earlier, obesity heart disease, diabeties, etc all aggravated by americans being grossly overweight.

    we already have laws preventing the mentally insane from getting firearms, the “assault weapons” ban is an utter and complete joke that matters nothing either way, how about we enforce the laws we got and recognize the fact that the .000000001 percent of the population that is murderously insane is not going to obey the laws reguardless and disarming everyone in a nation that is chalked to the gills full of guns, with massive open boarders to the north and the south and two massive coastlines east and west, and plenty of guns in s america from all our drug wars, with distribution lines already set up from our ongoing “war on drugs.”

    how exactly are we going to keep guns out of the hands of people? have we been at all successful keeping drugs out of the hands of people?

    the more you disarm the general public the more power you put in the hands of the gangs, the police, the drug cartels, the mob, everyone would be sheep for any wolf that chose to ignore the law.

    you think we have violent gun crimes now? just wait till the only people armed are the people that do not give a spit about the laws or human lives. just wait till the only way to stop a murderous psycho is waiting for the police to do it while the body count rises and you cower under your desk or hide in a closet hoping they get there in time.

    in the meantime anyone with any common sense recognizes the fact that prohibition does not work in this nation, that goverining on the needs of the minority over the majority is idiotic at best.

  • Not so Much

    “The process of driver licensing ensures that vehicle operators are physically and mentally capable of operating a motorized vehicle. ”

    What drivers license did you take? I’ve been driving for 25+ years and have never had any drivers test that evaluated my mental condition.

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.