Anti-gun Liberals Don’t Understand, Lifelong Gun Owners Are Safe Gun Owners

0 Shares

A Pennsylvania-based family business is under assault from the left following a tragedy that never should have been allowed to happen.

A 5-year-old Kentucky boy was playing with a rifle he had been given last year in his home as his mother cleaned the kitchen. When she stepped outside to dump grease from a frying pan, the firearm the boy was playing with went off, fatally striking his 2-year-old sister in the chest.

According to a report from The Associated Press, the small rifle — which is manufactured by Keystone Sporting Arms, LLC specifically for smaller-statured and beginner marksmen — was kept in the corner of the family’s rural mobile home. They were allegedly unaware that the rifle was still loaded.

An investigation is underway about the events that led up to the rifle being left lying around, loaded within the reach of two small children — and duly so. Unfortunately, the national media reaction to the tragic event hasn’t covered the investigation, which could reveal the possibility of negligence or mistake or stupidity that might have contributed to the sad result. Instead, pundits have rushed to indict Keystone as a company that profits from child murder, because it produces small, single shot .22 caliber rifles.

This author is a literal lifelong gun owner and, incidentally, I was given a .22 caliber Chipmunk rifle — a product similar to the .22 Crickett rifle central to tragic Kentucky happenings — by my grandfather in the days after my birth. Chipmunk Rifles has since been bought by Bill (father) and Steve (son) McNeal, the founders of Keystone Sporting Arms, and the guns are sold alongside a growing line of small-stature .22s.

mainimage

I remember long, fun-filled afternoons shooting that rifle with my dad and younger brother (who was later also the proud owner of a Chipmunk) from a young age, always adhering to strict safety rules. My brother and I learned to respect the rifle for what it is, a deadly machine capable of taking life but also a tool that could be used to protect life, sustain life if need be or add a little joy to life on a Saturday afternoon shooting old cans and bottles for sport or hunting squirrels.

We learned the process of properly loading, handling, firing and checking the rifle, which sports a manually cocking single-shot bolt action. And when Dad felt comfortable that my brother and I had reached the age where we understood what an extreme responsibility that firearm was (around the age of 8 or so), he would leave us to practice all afternoon on the small range fashioned near the house. It was not unusual for my brother and me to plink through a 500 round box of .22 cartridges on a nice weekend afternoon, one carefully aimed shot after the next.

There was never an accident, never a bolt closed when someone was down range or when we headed back to the house to clean the rifles. And even with those bolts open, the Chipmunks were never pointed in the direction of anything that wasn’t intended to be shot.

I carry that same respect today for every firearm that I come into contact with.

In the wake of the story of the tragedy that recently occurred in Kentucky, mainstream media has had a great deal to say about Keystone Firearms and the products they sell.

MSNBC pundit Lawrence O’Donnell lashed out at the McNeals during a segment on “Last Word” late last week, claiming that the Keystone Sporting Arms owners were bad people for marketing and selling firearms that are perfectly suited for children getting into shooting.

“The McNeals hit their marketing target when a family living in a mobile home on Lawson’s Bottom Road in Cumberland County, Kentucky, bought a Crickett for their five-year-old boy,” O’Donnell said.

The bloviating talk show host went on to describe pictures of children with small rifles on the Keystone website, saying, “because the toddler obviously isn’t strong enough to lift it up. That picture is legal child pornography.”

“Because we think fastball pitching is too dangerous for 5-year-olds,” he said. “If you are concerned with child safety, you don’t give children guns, you don’t give 5-year-olds the keys to the car.”

He concluded, “You live in a country where Bill and Steve McNeal legally sell guns for 5-year-olds. Tonight, you live in a country where they make and sell guns for little kids. Because they can.”

O’Donnell’s bit was joined by a flurry of editorial- and opinion-page condemnation of the youth firearms by print and online media throughout the Nation.

As the left vehemently exploits the tragedy, Keystone Firearms has opted to remain silent until a proper investigation of the Kentucky tragedy is complete. Even so, the hateful comments by the likes of O’Donnell and his ilk has caused the company to be inundated with hate-filled emails and phone calls, some even including death threats against employees.

In an interview with Personal Liberty Digest, Keystone representative Attorney John Renzulli said: “We’re not going to comment on this tragic event at this time. That family is going through a really tough time; and out of respect for them, we have no comment regarding the incident until the investigation has been completed.”

Asked about allegations that the company was marketing a dangerous product directly to children, Renzulli pointed out the obvious: “The whole idea of saying something like that is to excite the anti-gun base. It’s a ridiculous thing to suggest that these rifles are being marketed directly to children. Can a child walk into a gun store anywhere in the Nation and buy a firearm?”

The only one who should really be called out for doing something dangerous, it seems, are the likes of O’Donnell and his army of anti-gun exaggerators; they’ve taken a tragic event, exaggerated and encouraged violent threats by toying with the emotions of their — obviously ill-informed — fans.

The left is unwilling to admit that a combination of gun education, responsibility and respect is the only real answer to lessening firearm accidents; and the people at Keystone Firearms are doing their part to foster new generations of gun owners who are more likely to grow up with those traits.

Purchase a Keystone Rifle for a budding marksman here.

Personal Liberty

Sam Rolley

Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After covering community news and politics, Rolley took a position at Personal Liberty Media Group where could better hone his focus on his true passions: national politics and liberty issues. In his daily columns and reports, Rolley works to help readers understand which lies are perpetuated by the mainstream media and to stay on top of issues ignored by more conventional media outlets.

Join the Discussion

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.

  • hippybiker

    The so called people in the media are nothing more than bottom feeding Vultures and Jackals and are not fit to breathe the same air as regular folks.

  • auhunter

    The child didn’t buy the rifle, his parents did. As tragic as this accident was, had they been responsible gun owners this incident would not have taken place. Needless to say, they rue the day. My heart goes out to them. And of course the media is jumping all over this, “never let a tragic incident go to waste”.

    • Jeff

      If men were angels, we wouldn’t need laws. If everyone were as perfect a gun owner as you, we wouldn’t need background checks or limits on firing power, clip size, etc. But we live here in the U.S. where we have many, many, many irresponsible gun owners. A bit of regulation might be in order.

      • James Crooke

        Jeff, you are totally wrong. We have very few irresponsible legal gun owners. I dont mind a back ground check to buy/purchase a firearm. However, once that has been done and I have been cleared to do so, then I want that information to disappear. If it doesnt then they have a national gun registry and in the event they go to an outright ban they’ll just knock on my door as they did in Australia in the middle of the night for their confiscation. We have this privilege/right for protection from all forms of tyrannical government. As soon as you take that away some nut job will get into office and become a dictator. Hitler became the German leader with less than 50% of the popular vote. You have almost the same now except the people that voted did elect Obama but not everyone voted.

        • Jeff

          Which president was it that got a majority when everyone voted?

          • OpenEye

            Look guy, If you want to be regulated then by all means write Obama and tell him everything you have and everything about you. Just leave the rest of us out of it. We have a right to privacy. and we WILL get the 4th 5th 6th and 1st back as well. The truth of liberalism is being exposed to more and more people every day and its only a matter of time. In other words, this as liberal as its ever going to get and the progressives/ socialists in office are counting the days.

      • JeffH

        Bah, bah, bahhhhhhhh – “A bit of regulation might be in order.”?

        April 08, 2013 – PoliceOne’s 2013 Gun Policy & Law Enforcement Survey Results: Executive Summary
        http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf
        PoliceOne.com released the findings from last month’s Gun Policy & Law Enforcement survey, which drew more than 15,000 completed responses from verified law enforcement professionals. Covering a broad range of topics related to the gun control debate in our country, the survey found that the overall attitude of law enforcement is strongly anti-gun legislation and pro-gun rights, with the belief that an armed citizenry is effective in stopping crime.

        Question 5. What effect do you think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of some semi-automatic firearms, termed by some as “assault weapons,” would have on reducing violent crime?
        None – 71%
        Significant – 1.6%

        Question 7. Do you think that a federal law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals would reduce violent crime?
        No – 79.7%
        Yes – 11.5%

        Question 8. Do you think increasing the severity of punishments for gun trafficking, particularly by
        unlicensed dealers or “straw purchasers” who buy arms for persons ineligible to own them, would reduce instances of gun crime?
        Yes – 58.8%
        No – 28.7%

        Question 9. Should citizens be required to complete a safety training class before being allowed to
        buy a gun?
        Yes – 42.3%
        No – 43.3%

        Question 11. Do you support the concept of a national database tracking all legal gun sales?
        Yes – 23%
        No – 70%

        Question 13. Do you believe that use of a firearm while perpetrating a crime should result in stiff, mandatory sentences with no plea bargains?
        Yes – 91.4%
        No – 5.4%

        Question 14. What is your opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions?
        Very Favorable/Favorable – 71.0%
        Very Unfavorable/Unfavorable – 16.8%

        Question 19. Do you support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable?
        Yes, without question and without further restrictions – 91.3%
        No, only law enforcement officers
        should carry firearms – 4.1%

        • Jeff

          So, the guy who’s so afraid of Big Government is now citing the police on what our policies should be? Who do you think your gun is protecting you from? Obama? If he wanted you dispatched, your gun would help you about as much as a voodoo doll. The wolves? I think Sarah got the last one from her helicopter. How about those kids who walk on your lawn? When you get too old to whine at them, you just start shooting? In Florida it would probably be self defense, at least if the kids were darker than Dennis the Menace!

          • JeffH

            The police don’t represent “big government”…DUH!

            Do try to comprehend what was posted.(another liberal pitfall) “Policy”? Hardly! DUH…again!

            Jeff, you’re little infantile spiel makes about as much sense as a sack of hammers or an emotionally scarred liberal…either or, take your pick!

            If you’re trying to be funny I suggest you apply for Ben’s job but that would require just a wee bit of knowledge, a little “real” sense of humor and a few facts…all of which you’re devoid of.

          • Jeff

            I’d let you shoot me before I’d lower myself to writing the trash Ben does. And you with your 30-round clip could probably even hit me once. I notice you didn’t refute any of what I said. How is your stupid gun going to protect you from Big Bad Obama coming to take your toaster?

          • JeffH

            Childish & unhinged Jeff, it’s called a magazine, not a clip. It’s not neccessary to refute your infantile rants of ignorance & stupidity.
            http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q536/Hattles1/goodguncontrol_zps1c2aeaa3.jpg

            Molôn Labé!

            The pressure cooker did it!

            ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT ASSAULT ANYONE USING ANY FIREARM.

            ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT anyone AT ALL. Not even by accident.

            Join the NRA, GOA, SAF and the rest of us in telling them to STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

            STOP IT

            STOP IT NOW

          • OpenEye

            Thats why George Washington said the people should have “what ever it takes” to ensure there freedom for oppressive government. If we can be dispatched so easy, then we need more firepower according to the founders.

          • Jeff

            Wow, barbecues must be lots of fun in your neighborhood. Let us know the whereabouts so we can avoid the area.

      • auhunter

        Sure, cry to Big Brother, open the door, and let him regulate and someday you’ll have to ask permission to leave the house. How’s the regulation of health care under Obamacare working out for you? Living in California, own ANY gun, law enforcement is going to be coming to your door, telling you, you are a risk and confiscate every gun you own. How’s that for regulation? We already have more asinine regulations on the books than we know what to do with, many the average citizen doesn’t even know about, and won’t until they are cited. Hell, Obama and his minions are trying to figure out way to circumvent the 2nd Amendment and they have already made incursions into the 1st, 4th, and 5th. Are you a Christian, watch what you say or your going to go to jail as a subversive.

  • Breeze13

    These people latch onto anything that can be used for anti-gun propaganda.

    • Robbie

      Boy it sure is nasty of the media to report on the fact that a 5 year old was allowed to have and play with a real gun. Look, the mother stepped out of the house for a moment and that’s when it happened. And not only that but the media went even further and reported on the fact that that 5 year old blew his little sister away using that same gun. Now why do they have to report stuff like that? They even reported on two other recent incidents where youngsters got hold of guns and blew people away. A deputy sheriff in Kentucky let his 5 year old son pick up his service revolver and shoot a woman who was standing near by and in Georgia another 5 year old took a gun from the family home, went next door, and blew away a 2 year old who lived there. There’s no call to bring attention to these incidents. The Second Amendment is for everyone. Go read it. There ain’t nothin’ in it that says a 5 year old can’t have a gun. You becha’!

      • Breeze13

        Just as you are latching on to this terrible accident. Do you also rail against every child that drowns in a pool, dies in an auto, is locked in a closet and not fed? Go away, you have no compassion, just anti-gun views.

        • Robbie

          Actually your example of a child drowning in a pool is a good one. Every pool should have a fence around it so that youngsters can not wander in and fall in and drown. Where I live there are strict laws about pool fencing and, in my opinion, any adult who does not fence in a pool and has a child drown as a result should do serious jail time. That law makes wonderful sense but you probably feel that government has no business passing a law about a protective fence around a pool. Pathetic. Likewise there should be a law that says that 5 year olds should simply NEVER be allowed to have a gun. Also there are plenty of laws regulating the construction and operation of cars and plenty of rules of the road. Are you against those as well? What is the matter with you?

          • Jeff

            Don’t you know the 2nd Amendment doesn’t prohibit a 5 year old from having any weapon he can carry? And the ground rule here is not only the Constitution, but all American law, begins and ends with the 2nd Amendment.

          • Robbie

            Yes, I know that. Are you, therefore, suggesting that 5 year olds SHOULD be allowed to own and carry weapons? Good grief! I can tell you why the Founders did not mention any restriction on 5 year olds carrying guns. The Founders never imagined that anyone in the future would be so stupid as to allow such a thing. But, lo and behold, we now have people in the U.S. & A. that really are that stupid!

          • Jeff

            The founders assumed a lot of things and knew that a rule of reason would be involved in the interpretation of anything they wrote. They certainly never intended the 2nd Amendment to permit the JeffHs of the world to have more fire power than an Army had in the 1790s.

          • OpenEye

            The founders had no reason to put an age limit, they figured the parents would do that. And you are not trying to make any point just spewing [expletive deleted]. Move to Canada.

          • Jeff

            Are you trying to limit my 1st Amendment rights? [comment has been edited]

          • OpenEye

            A Damn pool is not a Constitutional right . Your 2nd Amendment is. Unalienable means that even if 100% wanted to ban guns, The US Bill of rights prohibits it. The founders meant for you to do your duty and be vigilant against tyranny. These parents are to blame here plain as simple its not even a gun issue, he could of killed her with a go cart or whatever, Its the parents duty to protect the children and they didn’t do their job. I say take the other away to live with a more responsible relative. But trying to say the gun company is to blame is crazy, the did their job to inform the parents of the safe handling of the rifle and the parents failed.

      • lraivala

        But, yet they fail to report the thousands of times that firearms were the reason that someone is alive and well to do. So keep your biased dumb ass to yourself. When they start reporting the truth, which would clearly show that because of someone being irresponsible does not make all irresponsible. I grew up around firearms in an un-locked gun cabinet, my children grew up in a house with a firearm sitting on a top shelf in my closet (loaded nd ready to go), I am in my late 50’s and my children are in there early 30’s. My Oldest son has a firearm and my daughter (youngest) has a firearm. So responsibility begins with the parents not some Ass_Clown politician or some left-winged freak who thinks the utopia world is just around the corner if they can just pass one more law.

        • Robbie

          Except for the foul language I actually have no argument with your statement. And no one is trying to take away guns from responsible folks such as yourself. We are trying, however, to keep guns out of the hands of those who are criminal or incompetent or mentally ill. That’s what background checks are all about. You are none of those so you’d have no worries.

          • lraivala

            Then enforce the laws already on the books….. Check out the FBI’s stats on this, over 14,000 people who should not have applied for various reason (which makes it a crime) only 44 have ever been prosecuted, and only 4 were convicted. Now does this sound like we need more gun laws or would you agree with me that we need to enforce the laws we already have.

        • Jeff

          I note you brought up no incidents where you needed to use your gun to save the family. Statistics clearly show that a gun in your house is far more likely to be the cause of a tragedy in your life than it is to save you from a bad guy. Of course there are incidents where a gun saves someone; there are just a lot more where the gun is used against its owner (e.g. by a burglar, in domestic violence, in a suicide that otherwise would have failed, or when a kid is “playing” with the gun).

          • Bradley

            your wrong Jeff, there are far more instances of guns protecting the home rather than being used against someone living in the home, the MSM just WON’T report it.

          • Jeff

            Do you have statistics to back up that claim or are you taking dictation from Wayne LaPierre?

          • OpenEye

            A gun is used in self defense over 4 million times a year. and more kids drown in 5 gallon buckets every year than get killed with firearms. And I’m sure Wayne LaPierre probably has the same numbers, doesn’t mean they arn’t the truth.

          • Jeff

            I’d like to see your statistics on kids drowning in 5 gallon buckets because there are lots of kids being gunned down on our cities’ streets every day. Those guns all came from the same stream of commerce as your guns. Gang members and drug dealers do not have their own Acme store where they purchase the tools of evil.

          • lraivala

            Now you make it sound like you got your statistics from a anti-gun group, If not put up the source of your statistics. But your statement about Gunned Down in the Streets tells me your source as being biased, the people being gunned down in our streets are gunned down by criminals who are not suppose to have the guns in the first place. And proof is that none of these criminal elements will be getting in line to have the background checks done no matter what you put in the bill. So your statistic is skewed to an anti-gun mind set. You claim that it is the household tragedies, than you state being gun down in our streets. So which is it? If it is the streets than you are totally ignorant to the fact that 95 percent of these senseless crimes are caused by people that should not have them NOW. example: It is a felony in ANY state to be a member of a street gang, but yet most of these individuals have and carry firearms and cause 90 percent of the kids being slain in the streets.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.cleek Kevin Cleek

            Even if this is true, there are far far far more incidents of a gun in the home having absolutely no impact at all. Yet, you can’t measure the number of times a potential burglar left a home alone because he suspected it had a gun in it. Duke University did a study where they interviewed convicted criminals, and the overwhelming majority of them chose victims, or had their choice of victims influenced by whether or not they suspected the victim had a gun.

          • Jeff

            Criminals will pick the weak rather than the strong, but a burglar will always pick a house that is vacant. If Grandma is walking around with her Social Security check and some goon wants to hit her over the head for it, do you really think a gun in her purse will help?

            Besides, I thought you guys wanted guns to fight the Government. First, it was about “sportsmen” who needed high powered rifles and semi-automatics to go after the new breed of bigger, faster deer. Then, it was self-defense against muggers and home invaders. Then, in response to the argument you don’t need a military weapon for such protection, you guys came up with your right to fight the Government and its weapons. It’s definitely a moving target if you’ll excuse the pun.

          • lraivala

            Well then why do we need to arm the police departments then, as if we use your hair brained logic. saying that do you really think if criminal jumps out of the bushes blazing fire that police officer will never get his gun out of the holster. You see how ignorant you can be…. As to your second incoherent statement, I will try and simplify this as much as possible for your low brow intelligence to keep up with us.. It is about a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, you know like the first, third, forth, fifth, sixth, seventh, etc….

            Now do you follow so far… But, now to answer your question in a little more clarity, first I use my firearms to defend my family, second I use my firearm for the sport of hunting and sport shooting, third I will use my firearm for the defense of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights no matter who is in office. I do not defend a politician and if you had ever taken the Oath you will see it makes no mention of protecting any office holder but clearly state you will defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
            So now I have laid it out to your limited brain in a way that will hopefully make a little more sense to you as to what WE want and are willing to defend just as I was willing to defend it whie serving in the military.

          • Jeff

            His suspicions have nothing to do with whether there’s actually a gun there. If you keep guns locked up, they’re less dangerous but less useful in case of “need.” If they’re easily accessible for when the Feds come for you (tomorrow night?), they’re also easily accessible to kids, burglars, and angry spouses arguing over lipstick on the collar.

          • lraivala

            So is that hammer, baseball bat or knife? So your point would be what? You truly need to remove that tin hat more often as it is begging to rust and soak into your single cell grey matter you have up there.

          • rocketride

            Sounds like you’re harking back to the old (and long discredited) Kellerman studies. To get his figures, Ol’ Doc. Kellerman* had to do some serious cooking of the dataset.

            Probably the two most egregious of these falsifications were:
            1) he hugely inflated the number of “children” killed by gunfire– by adding in gang-bangers up to age 26 (a much higher number than the total number of actual children shot dead under any circumstances); and
            2) he hugely deflated the number of legitimate cases of self defense– by counting only those cases in which the “perp” actually got killed (about 6% of self-defense incidents that made it into the FBI’s statistics, IIRC).

            So, thugs old enough to have children of their own who will shortly be shaving shoved onto one pan, and all the thugs (of whatever age) who only got scared off or merely injured by their intended victims removed from the other. Yep, that there weighin’ was right honest, warn’t it?

            * He worked (if you can call it that) at the Center for Disease Control at the time. It was his bogus “science” that was the main impetus for Congress to specifically exclude “gun violence” from the CDC’s mandate.

          • lraivala

            Exactly my point, I never needed to use it as everyone knows I have one {bingo}, as for the other statement regarding the statistics showing is far more likely to be the cause of a tragic incident. well, your facts does not state the the tragic incident is a result of the firearm, but rather that accidents happen and there was a gun there. Now have these people do a study and see which is more deadly to the household a) Alcohol or b) firearms? No matter what laws you pass it will not stop accidents from happening, check out the stats on how many deaths occur from falling of ladders in the households. But yet we do not pass stupid laws to restrict people from having ladders. You know I look at it this way if you do something and it ends tragically it is your fault not the ladders, or the firearms or even the hot coffee you bought at McDonald’s… IT IS YOUR FAULT.

      • JeffH

        There are age limits for gun ownership under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

        Minors defined as under the age of eighteen are ineligible for long gun ownership and those under the age of twenty-one are ineligible for handgun ownership, with the exception of Vermont, eligible at age sixteen.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.cleek Kevin Cleek

        The hypocrisy of the media is not that they report incidents like these. These are necessary news stories that should be reported as a warning for everyone to not only properly store their firearms, but also to educate their children on proper handling. No, the hypocrisy of the news media is that they do not report incidents of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun. One study showed that over a 10 year period, there were over 4000 felons killed by the police – many of these stories you will have heard about. But did you also realize there were over 2500 felons killed by private citizens? Think about it. In a ten year period, 62% of felons were killed by police during the act, and 38% were killed by private citizens – but no one ever hears about any of these justified killings. They are not newsworthy by the national media. Perhaps if the news media did their jobs of reporting fair and unbiased, then public opinion would be based on informed data as opposed to biased data. You can bet if an accident with a gun happens, it will be national news. If something good happens as a result of a gun, it is not newsworthy. The left likes to poke fun at the “good guy with a gun” analogy, but the truth is that they deter a lot more crime than they get credit for doing. But now we have all of these well meaning people who get their talking points from a biased source expressing their uninformed opinions and trying to affect government policy.

        • Robbie

          Your points are reasonable and well expressed. Having said that is there anything wrong with wanting proper background checks on potential gum buyer to make sure they ar not felons or mentally ill?

          • independent thinker

            We have proper background checks.

          • Robbie

            Apparently not. There are a number of loopholes.

          • lraivala

            They are not called loop holes they are called ignoring the laws and not enforcing it.

    • Jeff

      They’re called facts and real events – unlike the Rambo fantasies you guys cling to in support of your “right” to virtually unlimited killing power.

      • DaveH234

        Like the laws about fences around pools to protect youngsters, it doesn’t really exist for the homeowners kids but the neighborhood kids, too. Temptation is strong in kids especially when they know they are not allowed to do something The idea of having responsibility regarding gun safety sure holds a lot of blame for the “adult” or “parent” Sad they have to have a tragedy happen to open their eyes and ours. Stop acting like it’s “all Liberals fault”. It isn’t everyone has a share in this and being sensible is not being allowed when gun lobby money is pushing a whole other agenda. Not the public interest. That is the job of our politicians and lawmaking bodies.

        • JeffH

          DaveH234 says “It isn’t everyone has a share in this and being sensible is not being allowed when gun lobby money is pushing a whole other agenda. Not the public interest. That is the job of our politicians and lawmaking bodies.”

          What a croc of bull!

          The lies continue – President Obama notes that “Right now, 90 percent of Americans — 90 percent — support background checks that will keep criminals and people who have been found to be a danger to themselves or others from buying a gun. More than 80 percent of Republicans agree. More than 80 percent of gun owners agree.” He concludes, “There’s absolutely no reason why we can’t get this done.”

          According to a recent Fox News poll, only 26 percent of registered voters support stricter gun control laws.

          Pew Research and the Washington Post released a poll showing that more Americans have more negative than positive feelings about the Senate’s inability to pass gun-control measures. The survey showed that 47 percent were either “angry” or “disappointed” while 39 percent were “ very happy” or “relieved.”

          The problem is with the polls. Where polls are involved, “Public opinion” is barely real; most of the time, on most issues, change the wording of the question and you’ll get entirely different answers. At best, “public opinion” as such is passive. And in politics, passive doesn’t get results.

          Anyone is better off talking to others in their community rather than following national opinion polls.

          There is rarely anything sensible coming from our politicians and lawmaking bodies.

          You can point fingers and blame the pro “gun lobby” all day long for pushing a pro-freedom, pro-2nd Amendment agenda…and having some success because without them the 2nd Amendment would become useless and the anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment lobby money would prevail opening the door for every criminal to perpetuate crimes against every citizen at the least and to fully open the gates to tyranny at the worst.

          The bottom line is that law abiding gun owners and law abiding pro freedom, pro liberty citizens are calling and writing their representatives and using various “Action” networks to contact their representative voicing their views on the issue of gun control. For a change, the representatives have to listen to their constituents or face the consequences.

          •”To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms…” – Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Member of the First U.S. Senate.

          •”The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” – Senator Hubert H. Humprey (D-Minnesota)

          •”If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, and the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 – establishes the repeated, complete, and inevitable failure of gun laws to control crime.” — Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) quoted from “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Report of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1982, p. vii.”

          • Jeff

            The gun laws have worked quite well in Australia. As for this idea on the far right where you and your ilk reside that the 2nd Amendment is what keeps us from having a dictatorial government, why don’t Australia and Western Europe have such dictatorial leaders?

          • JeffH

            Jeff, I see you’re so upset with that pesky little retort that it caused you to change the subject again?

            Focus Jeff! Don’t lose your focus!

            If you like Australia’s gun laws why don’t you pick up and move there…you’ll feel safer won’t you?

            Dictatorial leaders? Again, however do you come up with this stuff.

            FYI, The USA is a sovereign Constitutional Republic and the people will never allow us to become a part of anything like the UN controlled EU, which has full control of 27 member countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, UK

          • independent thinker

            Do you have statistics to back up that claim or are you quoteing from the “Brady bunch”?

          • Jeff

            I must have missed that episode, but you clearly didn’t. Marcia won’t sit with you at lunch no matter how big your gun is.

          • OpenEye

            Yea dummy like the roving Rape-gangs they have now going to rural housing and raping every female there regardless of age, Yea that’s a big win for gun control just like Britain’s crime went from break ins when nobody was home to gangs kicking in the door and the 1st of the month and just beating the check away from grandma, another good gun control state, well we don’t want anything to do with it.You are welcome to move however.

          • Jeff

            Love it or leave it? Don’t like Obama? You’re quite welcome to leave – assuming you can find a country that will take an overbearing, obnoxious right winger married to his gun. Some countries actually have standards.

          • lraivala

            And your ass-clown leader is trying very hard to take the standards away from us, NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. But, I can also replay your own words for you as well “If you don’t like us overbearing obnoxious right wingers who are married to there guns, I am sure there are a lot of countries out there that already fit your belief system and it is working to a tee for them, Britain, Australia, China, Russia, Vietnam and Cuba… If you need help packing I am available anytime. In other words go live in one of your already socialist commie countries.

          • lraivala

            Wow, I take it you have not really read the incident of crimes being committed over there, if you call an increase in assaults, burglaries (with occupants home) and just about every other crime on the rise as being a success.. All I can say is go move there and then you will have your utopia you desire. Same goes for Britain (you do know it is known as the Chicago of the European Nations). Why don’t you talk about Sweden where over 50 percent of the population own a firearm and they have the lowest crime rate of any industrial nation in the world. Oh I know that would not fit your skewed anti gun rants now would it.

        • lraivala

          And you think there is no Anti-Gun Lobby money floating around Washington… WOW, one can only hope you do not own a firearm with the ignorant statements you post.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.cleek Kevin Cleek

        We’re not clinging to anything. While I wouldn’t go so far as to say the NRA isn’t capable of handpicking data so that it would purport to support their position, the left’s choice of data is almost always biased. Yes, there are approximately 30,000 deaths a year as a result of firearms. Of that 30,000, around 20,000 are suicides. You won’t hear too many stories of a good guy with a gun stopping a suicide, and there is reasonable data to support that fewer suicides would result with fewer guns. But it is a pretty big liberal imposition to tell someone they can’t protect themselves for fear they may hurt themselves. Of the 10-12000 deaths a year that are the cause of one person pointing a gun at another person, nearly half are a result of the dopers and gang bangers protecting their turf, and none of the proposed gun control laws will have any effect on this number. Over a 10 year period, the number of gun deaths as a result of an accident in the home was less than 1000 – but I’ll bet you money your liberal media will have considered the majority of them a national newsworthy event. The overwhelming majority of guns in the United States are never used in a crime, never used to deter one, and are never involved in an accident – but to hear the liberals talk about it, every single gun in this country not in the hands of a policeman is a death waiting to happen.

        • Jeff

          How many of those suicides would have been prevented but for the presence of a gun? The main reason men are more “successful” at committing suicide is they tend to use guns more often than women. Guns are far more lethal than other means, and many (most?) who unsuccessfully attempt suicide do not repeat the attempt.

          • Kuurus

            Who died and gave you the right to stop suicide? If a womans “choice” to end a baby is a private decision how can suicide not be?

          • Jeff

            Excuse me? Why do we have suicide prevention hotlines if we, as a society, have not made the determination that it is a social good to dissuade people from committing suicide? Some of us live in the real 21st Century – not in some dystopian society where everyone is just out for what he can get all the time. The point is that depression can be a powerful, if temporary, thing, and the fact that some % of our obscene gun homicide rate consists of suicides does not make the rate any less obscene.

          • Kuurus

            No, you are still taking a right you don’t have, and ignoring the rights of the suicide.

          • lraivala

            Nor does it make it greater… If someone wants to go and be with there maker, let them. Now why don’t you waste your energy on the real killers of life “Abortion Clinics” and then I will be 100 percent behind you. The way I see it this child has done nothing wrong and is torn apart piece by piece from the womb all because someone decided they were going to commit suicide on the child without his consent to have it done.

          • lraivala

            the same amount of death that are prevented by people jumping of the golden gate bridge, or into the Grand Canyon each and every year. NONE.

          • lraivala

            Who are you to tell a person that he or she should not be able to commit suicide? Apparently it is a women’s health issue to be able ot have an abortion so why is this not a men’s/women’s health issue to abort themselves? Furthermore you are ignorant of the fact on the repeat suicide stat you laid out, because maybe my ex-wife’s family did not get the memo on that one. As 2 members committed suicide, one of them took 3 tries, while the other was successful after only 2.

  • Marv Bohnert

    Liberals go after GUNS with such bloodlthirstyness as a misdirection to
    COVER UP the INFANT SLAUGHTER-HOUSES they support called abortion
    clinics! Liberals ALWAYS hide their own satanic actions by blaming
    others of the very thing they are doing : in this case, BUTCHERING
    BABIES!

    • lraivala

      The only difference is when you compare (FBI Average – Including suicides) 14,000 death due to firearms annually, 350,000 abortion performed annually. But, yet firearm deaths are a tragedy that has to stop (gun grabbers are nothing more than idiots spewing pure b.s.).

    • Jeff

      Do you think the girls who get abortions are all the daughters of liberals? My suspicion is you are way off in that assumption. Abortion has always been with us. Even early in the 20th Century, way before Roe v. Wade and the politicization of abortion, there were lots of abortions. If the girl was poor, the quality of the medical care was likely to be as well. That is the main reason the practice was made legal. For you to infer that liberals, because they support a girl/woman’s right to control her own reproduction, actually favor the aborting of babies, is simply stupid.

      If you really want to bring down the numbers of abortions, increase sex education in the schools, be sure kids really know about condoms and other forms of birth control, and make those methods readily available.

  • BobinCA

    If this idea holds water then look out world the morons are winning. I guess then we need to go after car makers when a drunk driver kills a child in a car wreck too. Cars don’t kill people, people do. Guns don’t kill people, people do. Pregnancy doesn’t kill babies, sick, ignorant people do, they just use a different weapon to reach their goal. If anyone is at fault here it would be the parents, and they will die a thousand times a day for their mistake. But the difference between them and the baby killers is this was an accident, they didn’t get to tell someone to take their child’s life and careless after it’s over. Maybe it’s time to blame the baby killing on the makers of the scissors and the abortion equipment too. Should we wait and see how far this goes first before we turn the table?

    • lraivala

      Well said, was thinking exactly the same thing. when they go after a person who is picked of for DUI or after tragic accident related to the use of alcohol they never blame the car, they always blame the driver who they say made a choice and got behind the wheel and drove. And I agree with your statement regarding the abortion mills this country has going on and there to innocent children are slaughtered by evil people daily and not a peep out of these sick bastards as they try and justify it as a woman choice and health issue. I would like to hear one health issue that is more than a pile of dog dung in justifying the mass murder of children.

      • Jeff

        In order to blame the car maker, the industry standard would need to evolve to where a driver would have to blow a clean BAC before the car would start. So far, cars are only so equipped for repeat offenders. But a more realistic analogy might be suing the bar where the driver got drunk. Depending on the specific facts, that is not infrequently done.

        • Motov

          Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
          Why do we have to blame inanimate objects?
          Or blame other people for our own decisions?
          This is what the heart of this is all about!
          It seems to me it is always the other guys fault,
          It is ok to kill an unborn child because you don’t want it.
          But it is not ok to kill someone who enters your house uninvited, with intent to harm you.
          So it is ok to take money from the taxpayers to pay
          for your irresponsible “mistake” and to make it sound less “evil” you call it “Pro Choice”, and call us racists.

          Then you tell us we cannot have guns because some whacko will go on a killing spree, and kill children.

          Even for the sake of an argument, some whacko cannot get a gun, (By some magical force causing all guns to vanish) with just a little bit of imagination, or do as most people do,.. go online and learn how to make weapons that cause fire, or blow up, or poison from common items that can do the job as effectively as guns.

          Which takes me back to the point, PEOPLE kill people.
          And liberals have been placing the responsibility on anything, but the person who decided to murder someone(s) This is why your logic is flawed.

          • Jeff

            Personal responsibility applies to everyone, not just the guy you decide you don’t like. If a bar is held responsible for giving more drinks to a drunk and then watching him get behind the wheel, that does not absolve the drunk driver of responsibility. It’s not “either or.” The drunk driver is clearly responsible and liable. The bar owner may well be responsible and liable for the actions or inactions of his employees.

  • Motov

    Let’s blame those evil guns. they are alive you know. They magically jump into people’s hands then force people to go around shooting other people.
    Never mind statistics that say you are more likely to die in a car, or from other causes vs death by a gun. (Which BTW includes police shootings) Do we stop making cars because cars kill more people than guns? No! we try to teach people safety while driving cars, Do we stop making phones that have texting abilities because people text while driving?, I think it is equally silly to ban guns because some people do not take the time to learn safety with ownership of the gun.
    Teaching a 5 year old not to play with matches is just as important as teaching him not to play with real guns, but no one wants to ban matches, even though matches can cause more death, if not more property damage than a gun can.

    • Flashy

      Ok…let’s have it we register people to give them proper clearance and background checks…like a certification. If people are the problem, and not guns…we should therefore look at certifying people using rigorous standards to ensure they aren’t a problem when possessing a dangerous weapon (a weapon which is not the problem according to you)

      • Bill

        No, Flashy,
        Let’s not

        • Flashy

          Bill…if guns are’t the problem as seems to be the mantra from the extremists…then people are the problem, the folks using the dangerous weapons and selling them irresponsibly.

          So…that would leave certifying people since guns are not the problem.

          • lraivala

            And if your simpleton mind would do some looking into the situation you would have clearly seen there are over 14,000 laws on the books right now. (FBI Stat) 15,000 fraudulent filings for a firearm where registered in 2011 of those 15,000 fraud filings 44 were prosecuted, of the 44 prosecuted 5 were convicted. Now does this sound like we need another law on the books, or would one concur that we need stricter enforcement of the existing laws? People like you never do your homework and think you know all the answers. Furthermore, no matter how many laws they put on the books it will never prevent these tragedies from happening as every single one of the last 10 individuals would have passed the background checks or it would not have matter as they did not use a firearm they purchased. So tell us again how it is your little mind thinks on this issue. Seriously, Tell us how any of the legislation would have prevented anyone one of these tragedies? They wouldn’t have.

          • Frank Kahn

            How wrong you are. AGAIN.

            You dont assume everyone is at risk of being a criminal. You don’t assume someone is guilty, unless they can prove they are innocent. You don’t have the right to make up ridiculous standards (requirements) that must be met to own guns. You are backwards, if you do something wrong with a gun then you need to be labeled as a risk not before.

          • Deerinwater

            so we wait for someone to get killed and then be reactive to the event ~ ignoring proactive measures completely?

          • JeffH

            Falsy, the problem has always been the criminals, not the law abiding citizens.

            Why is it that the gun control discussion is always about restricting, regulating and punishing innocent law abiding citizens when the real issue, violent criminals and the mentally incompetent, continues to be ignored and left out of the discussion?
            .
            It’s not about gun control…it’s all about people control.

            Universal registration is not and never will be universal…criminals will not comply now just as they never complied before…DUH!

            The pressure cooker did it!

            ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT ASSAULT ANYONE USING ANY FIREARM.

            ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT anyone AT ALL. Not even by accident.

            Join the NRA, GOA, SAF and the rest of us in telling them to STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

            STOP IT

            STOP IT NOW

          • Deerinwater

            Jeff H says, “, the problem has always been the criminals, not the law abiding citizens.”

            So in the killing of this young child ~ who it the criminal Jeff? ~ The 4 year old child or the parents ~ or the seller or the manufacturer?

            Myself ~ I see criminal negligence on the part of the parents. ~ In this case they are still alive to be charges could be filed.

          • JeffH

            Well DUH! “~ or the seller or the manufacturer? “Really?

            The parents are the obvious responsible party in this situation…not because they bought the kid a rifle…for neglecting to store it unloaded and in a safe and secure place not accessible to the children.

            Criminal negligence was my take also as I explained to 666 in another post.

      • rendarsmith

        Because that really worked at Virginia Tech, didn’t it? Great strategy….

      • Motov

        The problem I have with the Federal Government having a data base on its people is they can use it for purposes other than what was intended. Like Social Security when it was first introduced. It was voluntary, the SS # was only to be used for SS and nothing else. They set it up as its own trust fund.
        Today,.. The trust fund was moved to the general fund (it got spent on non SS expenses) Politicians have raided SS time and time again.
        Government is far more dangerous to the population than guns.
        They set up programs that look good, but as time passes Government tinkers with these programs and turning them into a bureaucratic nightmare.
        It is up to the people to do for themselves other than allowing the Government to do it for them.

        • Jeff

          Great idea. Let’s go back to Medieval times but with modern weapons. What could possibly go wrong? No government. Just the rules made by the richest guy with the most guns. You see, there will always be someone making the rules. If it’s not all of us, it will be whoever steals the power. If you weaken the Government, that leaves big business entirely in charge. If that’s what you want, say so. Don’t hide behind mealy-mouthed phrases like “Government is dangerous.” The question is what kind of government? Apparently, you don’t much cotton to our democratic republic. Perhaps you’re looking for something a bit less democratic? I believe people who thought like you tried that in Europe in 20s and 30s. I hear the trains ran on time, but the people came to regret their foolishness.

          • OpenEye

            You Idiot, The very Nazi’s you are trying make right wing, were in fact left wing, and were the Socialist party, something your ilk have been trying to achieve every since. Dumb Azz Adolf Hitlers gun control act forced a gun registry which was immediately used to confiscate the guns of the “undesirables” Which to him meant THE JEWS! Then as soon as he had their guns, The GOVERNMENT KILLED THEM ,MILLIONS OF THEM . And we are supposed to let out government register ours through a “background scheme”?? You have proven our point. You would do well to study more on that before you make it out to be our side, you may be fighting for the wrong people.

          • Motov

            I’m not “hiding” behind phrases, Nor am I advocating
            “Medieval times” as you put it. I am saying we have a supreme law in this land known as the Constitution. Today we have criminals pretending to be politicians. Doesn’t matter what party they are, and they are puppets of a much more sinister group of people known as the Federal Reserve. Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln warned us about these people.

            So yes GOVERNMENT is very dangerous to us.

            Election time is nothing but fraud, because of these sinister people choose our leaders, then parade them out for us to choose from. Doesn’t matter who we elect, because they have been bought and paid for to do their bidding, not ours. We the people are supposed to be their bosses, not them!

            These people make the Sicilian Mafia look like amateurs,

            They own the press. Which is why Obozo gets the red carpet treatment, They own our government so they make the rules, and now they want our guns so we cannot oppose them. It is sad you fail to see this.

            How can you trust a government who lies about everything they do? How can you believe Obozocare will save us money? Adding bureaucrats to anything can only raise the cost, and reduce the quality.

            Why do you think Obozo is opting out, and the rest of

            congress has decided to opt out? Could it be because they know something many of us suspect?

            People have been fed up with government for years, and now government has grown too big and cannot sustain itself. Big business are deceiving themselves thinking this can go on forever. They are blinded by their greed.
            It is only a matter of when the BIG CRASH will happen.
            It has happened in history, over and over again.
            I also believe we have passed the point where doing radical changes, like firing all the unconstitutional parts of the government to save this nation.

      • lraivala

        Flashy, then lets register and background check all people who want to own a car (the DMV employees are all unqualified to make the background check), or lets register and background check anyone who wants to own matches, or how about we register and background check and one who wants to buy a bat, hammer or any other blunt instrument, how about we register and background check all knife purchases. I hope you know the latter 2 items, EACH kill more people than the firearms you are so afraid of. So there now we will live in the utopia world you want, we just need to register and background check every U.S. citizen who wants to live his life in a normal fashion.

        • Bob666

          Yo Iraivala,

          “then lets register and background check all people who want to own a car” What a great idea, wait, that is already a standard along with a drivers license and Insurance.
          You just might be on to something here!

          • Deerinwater

            I think you are right Flash! ~ validating and documenting accountability and testing for proficiency is not a new idea. ~

            And this ideas of doing the same with voters will no doubt be met with stiff opposition while it to has merit. `

            There was once a time, one had to be a land owner and pay taxes to vote. ~ The premise was such a person had a “vested interest” beyond being of age and mere happenstance of birth.

            yet today, so many “lease” ~ however indirectly they too pay taxes. ~

            I’m of the opinion there are many people that should not vote, ~ while such a topic, no doubt very unpopular. Yet given time, I would think people might see the wisdom and warm up to the idea.

          • Bob666

            Yo Darwin,

            You and I have lot in common as we have both run a business and deal with the challenge of human nature. I remember a business mentor telling me a few years ago that running a business is easy-it’s the people that are the challenge, no truer words were ever spoken to me.

            Free will is not every man or woman’s best friend and there are many people who make very bad personal choices in life and few ever learn form their mistakes.

            We see many on this site as the victims of free will and the GOP once figured out how to manipulate them quite effectively. I don’t have all of the answers, but I believe that I am pretty good at Recognizing the problem and that is the first step.

          • lraivala

            Yeah and how is that working out for all of you? 45k highway deaths a year. Good job folks… But I did notice you had nothing to say about registering matches, baseball bats, knives (of all kinds), Wow, this should be a liberals dream come true, more government and more regulations. And if you would have comprehended what I wrote on that first statement, background checks was the KEY WORD of the day. You think an unqualified person should be allowed to license a person with a 2500 pound bullet? So tell me again how the DMV and Insurance companies background check you? They rate you based on your ability and past record.

          • Bob666

            Actually I was just reinforcing what a good idea the DMV comment was. The DMV makes you take a drivers test -written and over the road. If you buy a car-most states required to have a minimum level of insurance and your license and car tags can be suspended if you drop that insurance.
            Wonder how that would work out for gun Ownership?
            Most gun accidents happen with legally obtained fire arms.
            I know that you will take issue with this post as there seems to be a lack of tolerance with people who have differing opinions.

      • frank kahn

        and, lets register people who vote so they can be evaluated for rational thinking ability before they are allowed to vote. Stupid people should not be allowed to vote, so that eliminates your vote. There are rigorous standards that must be met to be allowed to vote, you don’t pass the test because you are liberal. And, if you think that is ridiculous try looking at the fact that liberals tend to make the same ignorant assertions about conservatives and owning guns.

        • Jeff

          Frank:

          Surely even you can recognize the idiocy of your analogy. I believe intelligent people would call it reductio ad absurdum. My voting for a candidate you disapprove cannot much damage you. He or she will need millions more votes to get elected. The same can hardly be said about your precious, adorable gun. All by itself, in the wrong hands, it can kill lots of people, even disenfranchise millions of people through assassination. But to you it’s just a little word game.

      • rocketride

        Just what part of “. . . the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” eludes your comprehension?

    • Jeff

      Everyone drives a car every day virtually. Everyone does not (a) need a gun or (b) play with a gun every day. If you want to give up driving, it means limiting yourself to a few blocks around your house or perhaps a few miles for bike travel. Of course, bikes are even more dangerous than cars. And you’ll likely have to give up your job. I don’t feel like I miss anything by not having a gun. I miss the intelligent banter in the gun shops as the big-bellied sportsmen tell of their exploits in the Big War with the deer and I miss hearing all the loonies at the gun shows, but not much else.

      You can make a car safer without impacting its principal use. You really can’t say the same of a gun. When used as designed, it is deadly. The fact you had a Cherry Coke with your dad while carrying your gun does not change that basic fact.

      The point is anything can be misused and be dangerous. You can poke out someone’s eye with a fork or a pen, but that is not the purpose of those instruments. The gun cannot be used for anything but shooting and killing. I suppose you could use one as a hammer, but that might increase the accidental shootings. The gun is designed to kill people. When used as intended, it is very effective at killing people. Cars are designed for transportation. They very effectively move people from place to place when used as intended. When people are careless with cars, they can be deadly. The comparison is simply absurd.

      • Motov

        Not everyone carries matches or Bic lighters, they are designed to start fires. Fires can be useful or very destructive, Yet no one seems to out to ban lighters and matches. Fires are very effective at killing people, plants and animals. Compared to guns, fire doesn’t need to be reloaded, nor aimed, to kill. The military married fire and gun created one of the most deadly weapons, which with a little imagination, can easily be duplicated using a toy or weed sprayer plus alcohol or gasoline.

        My point is taking guns away will never solve people killing people. (As Boston proved) So the comparison is not absurd. Guns if used correctly actually save lives, by stopping people who are killing other people. Or stopping tyrannical people from killing people.

  • Flashy

    No one is saying take guns. no one is saying people who store and practice with deadly weapons should not. What is being said is that those people who are not safe or who have a background which is criminal in nature..should not. What is being said is that if a bad guy uses a gun, there should be a way to find out who is supplying bad guys with guns.

    But then, the rabid extremists will use any excuse to avoid responsibility and deny anything they do is at fault for anything.

    • rendarsmith

      “But then, the rabid extremists will use any excuse to avoid responsibility and deny anything they do is at fault for anything.”
      Kind of like how Obama always blames Bush and Congress, isn’t it?

      • Flashy

        Not even close “kind of”….only a fool or a complete idiot would try and draw that connecting line.

      • Motov

        Makes perfect sense to me, Whatever happened to personal responsibilities for your actions?
        If you make poor choices in your life, and then you find yourself living in poverty, cannot get a job and strung out on drugs,… Blaming the drugs will not solve your problem.
        The most successful way to turn your life around is a 12 step program. It teaches you what to change in your life, how to change it and become successful. Without paying a fortune on so called experts that are filled with head knowledge.
        Instead you are with a group of people (who have been there, done that, know all the con games,) that can really help you.
        But you must be willing to accept your responsibilities to make it work.

    • lraivala

      What pure b.s. in your statement. If you had checked there are already over 15,000 laws on the books right now covering everything you can imagine and having another one on the books is simply feel good legislation (at a best case), but guess is that it is more to the full out ban on firearms. All one has to do is look to the other countries that said the exact same thing (Canada, Britain, Austrailia) these are the latest all within the last 20 years. All they were doing is trying see where the guns came from in a crime and guess what next thing they knew they were being confiscated. Now check out the crime rate in those same countries as opposed to when they had the legal right to own and have a firearm. Minimum doubled in the rate, especially gun crimes. So I guess the criminals will not follow them there so why do you think they will follow it here.. THEY WON’T…

      • Flashy

        I can walk out of my place, drive to the nearest gun show or someone on the street..and buy a gun in less than 30 minutes from the time I closed the front door. no ID, no trace who sold it to me…nada.

        that is a good thing? Seriously?

        • independent thinker

          “that is a good thing? Seriously?”

          YES

        • JeffH

          Once again Falsy is telling another lie.
          The nearest gun show and make an illegal buy?

          Be specific Falsy rather that make up some false scenario that you read or heard about in the news.

          All gun dealer at all gun shows are required by law to run a National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS on the buyer before releasing any gun to a buyer.

          If you were able to do either one that would make you a criminal. It’s no wonder you have no credibility.

    • frank kahn

      Yes, Flashy, we know you will never admit fault or take responsibility for your actions. You also will never be capable of understanding just how ignorant your post is.

      NOBODY has killed someone by playing with my guns. As far as I know, nobody has used a gun, that I sold to them, to kill anyone. Nobody has stolen any of my guns. None of the kids I grew up with, and went rabbit hunting with shot anyone accidentally or on purpose. I store my guns where they are convenient to access, nightstand, closet or end table. People who are liberal, and anti-gun, would call me irresponsible for failing to secure my guns in safes or with some kind of trigger lock. It is not necessary. If a child, who I am not familiar with, enters an area where I have a gun, I either monitor (supervise) their actions, or I remove the access to the weapon. So, yes, I refuse to take responsibility for any accidental or intentional misuse of guns by others. This does not make me a RABID EXTREMIST. It simply means that there is no connection between my actions and violence committed using guns.

      If I decide to sell 10 of my guns, and 5 of them are used to commit crimes, am I responsible for the crimes? Should I be punished because I sold guns to criminals? Did I know they were going to be used to commit crimes? Can you prove that I knew the intent of the buyers? Can you even show that I knew the buyers were criminals when I sold the weapons?

      How many of the mass murder’s, who used guns, were identifiable as having criminal backgrounds? What kind of crimes are directly linked to future abuse of guns? What, early development, social conduct would indicate the possibility of the presence of a state of mind that would deteriorate into sociopathic / anti-social behavior?

      So, who benefits from having a national gun registry that can track the sales and transfer of all guns? If it actually worked correctly, how many straw man purchases will it identify? How many people make a habit of acting as a straw man to buy guns for criminals? If we leave out the probability that it would not identify that many occurrences, we still have the question of “how many lives would it save?”. Two problems here. First, you don’t get to investigate where the gun was bought until after the crime is committed. Second, if it was a straw man purchase, it might have been a one time decision. So, in the end, nobody is saved by the law, but many people are inconvenienced and harassed. You might think that it is okay to inconvenience everyone just for the sake of pretending it will save lives, but the rest of the world (intelligent people) does not need your limiting bull.

      • Flashy

        Frank….as you describe yourself…you are not one who is in danger of losing ownership etc. But you are also a safe driver 9I assume)…does that mean everyone is? that everyone should be able to drive a vehicle? Of course not.

        ” Did I know they were going to be used to commit crimes? Can you prove that I knew the intent of the buyers? Can you even show that I knew the buyers were criminals when I sold the weapons?”

        No. And that is what those who sell to bad guys rely upon as well. They sell to anyone, and there is no danger of being nailed to the wall. That is what the bad guys rely upon when buying a gun…they can..very easily,,,and there are people who don’t are who is handing them the money.

        You may well be responsible..so why would you support letting others be irresponsible and / or criminal and perhaps cause you to lose your privileges as the issue heightens and worsens?

      • Jeff

        Frank:

        We know of your impeccable credentials and your near-saintliness. You would never do anything wrong under any circumstances. But laws are written for the less perfect among us. For example, you may run a business and object to a law mandating that you not discriminate in hiring based on race or gender because you would NEVER so discriminate. Guess what? The law isn’t written just for you in your (somewhat immodest) perfection. It’s also written for the guy who would discriminate if there’s no penalty.

        Likewise with guns. Certainly it’s better to be responsible than to be irresponsible, but what is wrong with stating what constitutes responsibility? And how many will confess to being irresponsible?

    • JeffH

      A classic Falsy misnomer; “No one is saying take guns.”

      You’re a liar Falsy and you know you’ve got no credibility here.

      There is no doubt that is exactly what Bloomberg, Feinstein, Biden, Obama, Schumer and the rest of the ignorant “emotionally charged” anti-gun nuts want. They are all out-n-out liars when they say “no one is saying take guns”…that’s exactly what they mean!

      Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), on CBS’ “60 Minutes”– “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.”

      Feinstein on guns: ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in’
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTB_aXTCUs

  • rendarsmith

    Sounds more like negligent parenting to me. Why wasn’t the mom supervising the kids? Better yet, why did she allow the kid to play with the gun?

    • JeffH

      You’re absolutely right. The parent’s were negligent and obviously ignorant about guns and gun safety…which is inexcusable. This isn’t a gun problem and their ignorance cost them the life of their child…shame on them.
      No matter the circumstances, every gun should always be treated and handled like it is loaded…even when it is not. It’s not rocket science.

      • Jeff

        My suspicion is few rocket scientists keep guns in the house.

        • independent thinker

          Ever watch Rocket City Rednecks? They show your assumption is quite likely WRONG.

          • Jeff

            I’m sure there are some, but my suspicion is few at MIT are packing heat.

      • Bob666

        So Jeffery,
        Maybe we agree on something. What do you thing the penalty for the negligence of that parent should be? personally, it is the example set that defines the message.

        • JeffH

          This is my take on what I believe to be the correct charge against the parent(s) in Kentucky.

          Negligent homicide – a criminal charge brought against those who allow other people to die due to criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is defined as “a gross deviation from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person that is manifest in a failure to protect others from a risk (as of death) deriving from one’s conduct and that renders one criminally liable.”

          • Bob666

            Well Holy Crap on a Cracker,
            We agree on this. I have no problem with responsible gun ownership, but there are people in our society who lack the emotional maturity to own guns. Here is a good example here in Florida, gun on dresser in bedroom and adults were not home, but the kids were.

            http://www.firstcoastnews.com/topstories/article/308686/483/13-year-old-girl-shot-and-killed

            Oh yes, not a bad neighborhood. The sad thing is; the family lost a child and now they have to deal with the legal consequences-a double whammy. This one is close to home a my grand daughter went to school with that young lady and I am sure the 10 year old that shot her will never be the same as well.

    • independent thinker

      From what I have read she did not “allow” the kid to play with the gun however she was certainly negligent in having the gun where the kid could access it and even more negligent in having a loaded gun where the kid could access it.

  • FreedomFighter

    To give up your guns is to submit to slavery of a totalitarian state of control. They the 5th column now in control with the help of the useful idiots is intent on removing Americans last and best hope of resisting a tyrannical regime — all dicktators and communist regimes have disarmed the population to reduce resistance our current leadership is following the plan.
    Laus DeoSemper FI

    • Jeff

      FF:

      I know you think “Rambo” was your life story, but it was fiction. Entirely made up. You can’t take on the government with your AR-15, not even with 100 rounds. What you can do with it is kill lots of innocent people. I’m not saying you would. I’m speaking only of capability. If your freedoms are being threatened by the Government, there’s nothing your gun is going to do for you. Nothing but make whatever situation you’re in a whole lot worse!

      • $12942228

        Okay Mr. 20+ anti-gun posts on just this thread-then explain how the Vietcong,the Taliban,Al-Queda,the Syrian rebels,and the afghan Mujahadeen all fought off what were some of the greatest military powers on the planet with A-k-47’s and M-16/M-4’s?

        • Jeff

          Is that really the company you want to keep? And the Viet Cong, etc. were fighting in their own countries against what they perceived as invading forces. If you really think your efforts to keep an AR-15 in the hands of every lunatic in the country are analogous to The Taliban fighting the forces of reason and modernity, who am I to argue? But I do think the American People should be aware just who you think you are.

  • Jeff

    So, Lawrence O’Donnell is “hateful” because he questions the wisdom of the age-old Kentucky practice of giving rifles to 5-year-olds? I hear tell your grandpappy started drinking whiskey and smoking cigarettes at 5, too. Does that mean allowing such things is good parenting? So, Lawrence O’Donnell is hateful and the Minnesota Limbaugh-wannabe isn’t? Just because he said he’d like to tell the parents who have lost kids to “go to h*ll” because any idiot can easily get a gun in this country and they’d like to put a bit of a damper on that ease? The only real proposals are for background checks and to limit magazine size so the next Adam Lanza has to actually reload a couple of times to shoot up the whole school. I know you wouldn’t want to inconvenience him, now, would you? Now, that would be hateful!

    • Bradley

      A better way to handle the “Terrorist and Crazies” that would go to a school and kill innocent children is to arm the teachers as Israel did. Terrorists don’t attack schools in Israel anymore because the teachers are armed.

  • Michael Shreve

    Selling guns FOR children is NOT selling guns TO children. Guns are SOLD to parents who accept the RESPONSIBILITY for their proper use. TEACHING children how to PROPERLY handle firearms is a public GOOD.

    • Bob666

      Yo Michael,

      I am a responsible gun owner and agree with your statement to a point. The problem is; there are people out there who masquerade as rational-responsible adults who have the emotional maturity of a cumquat. That is where guns get their worst wrap.

  • ONTIME

    Libs are a whacked out group of lazy clowns and haven’t go the were-with-all to take responsibility or stop relying on those wonderful entitlements that can be reduced or removed in a heartbeat by the government that supplies it, they see government as the end all for their survival and picture utopia in their wet dreams….

  • James Crooke

    I was a 6 yo and found a pistol in the closet. I told my mom about it and she asked where was the gun. I told her, next question did you touch it? “No Ma’am, her response good boy. End of conversation. My mother was British which had been anti gun for a while but she had no problem with the gun only that I had obeyed her instructions about touching things that did not belong to me.

  • Jeremy Leochner

    As a liberal my disagreement and condemnation is not with a company that is selling firearms. My disagreement is with the family for making such unsafe decisions. Any gun that is kept in a home with children is a gamble. Any such weapon should be kept locked away where a child cannot get to it. I can understand a tradition of fathers teaching their sons how to shoot. Nothing wrong with that as long as the father is vigilant and does not let the child hurt themselves or others.

    I will also point out that in spite of loud mouths like O’Donnell this issue is not a left versus right one. People on all sides of the political spectrum understand the importance of safety. Personally I believe that some form of gun safety training should be required in order to purchase a gun. Sadly all to often such training is not required and people are able to purchase a weapon without fully understanding the potential consequences.

    • OpenEye

      I can bet this family never taught that boy gun safety like NRA’s Eddie Eagle program. The gun in the house was not stored safely from children who were never taught. As soon as my kids could understand I taught them safety because they may go to someone else s house who doesn’t store as safe as I do. Also when you demonize an item and a kid sees that, it makes him curious about it. Many boys will “play” with a gun because they never got to hold one before. If you take all the mystery out of it and offer to take him out and shoot (after teaching safety) and offer to take him back whenever he wants to go,it takes all the mystery away. He wont be curios anymore, and It would be real close to the zero deaths that everyone wants.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I just don’t know about exposing kids to guns so early. I was never exposed to guns in the home. That did not make me curious to use them. I think its okay to let the child know there is a gun in the home and to teach them safety. As long as they are not told where it is or how to get to it.

      • Jeff

        Does that apply to cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs, too? How about gambling? Let the kid lose a year’s allowance playing cards. I’m sure the NRA has some good gun safety courses, and didn’t the NRA start as a gun safety organization? But the NRA would oppose any requirement that someone successfully complete such a class before purchasing a gun because it might hurt sales a bit. The NRA is the political arm of the Gun Manufacturers of America. It’s no longer a membership-driven organization. Wayne LaPierre’s salary is dependent on keeping gun sales through the roof. Any dip and he might have to sell his yacht. His popularity is somewhere south of Newt Gingrich!

  • Alex

    Sorry, but Keystone Sporting Arms deserves all the heat it is getting. Marketing weapons to five year-olds is asinine.

    In effort to profit from this pint-sized murder, Keystone is busy developing its new “Honey Boo-boo Blaster”, which will allow infants to protect themselves against their Chipmunk rifle-packing toddler siblings.

    Keystone is also stepping-up production of its new “In-Utero Uzi” which will allow impatient future members of our “Well-Regulated Militia” to blast their way out of mommy.

    • Bob666

      Now that was funny, and unfortunately-probably true.

  • independent thinker

    I counted 20 posts by Jeff the gist of which is “guns are bad and should be so restricted as to effectively ban them”.

  • me

    the parents of the five year old should be tossed in jail for a long time. i never got my son a bb gun till he was almost 12. i never shot guns with him because he never got into it till he was older. how stupid can people get giveing a kid that young a rifle which might kill anyone. at leat wait till they have a little more maturity. pure stupid.

  • $12942228

    Care to post the “thousands of examples of gun owners who killed anyone with an unloaded gun” ?
    The actual number is ZERO.
    The number of accidental deaths due to UNSAFE firearms handling MAY be hundreds of thousands-over DECADES.

  • Motov

    Same can be said of matches or cars, but no-one wants to ban either one.