Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

No Time To Disarm America

December 18, 2012 by  

No Time To Disarm America

In the wake of the terrible tragedy that occurred last week at a Connecticut elementary school, the opinions have begun following in from both sides of the gun control debate. The debate is sure to become increasingly fallacious and nasty in coming months as people on both sides make ridiculous claims to support their case.

President Barack Obama spoke over the weekend at a memorial service for the 26 victims of Adam Lanza’s horrifying shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School. His speech, some people (gun-control advocates, no doubt) gushed, was akin to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.

Here is part of the President’s speech:

We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law—no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.

But that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely, we can do better than this. If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora, and Oak Creek, and Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that—then surely we have an obligation to try.

In the coming weeks, I will use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens—from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators—in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this. Because what choice do we have? We can’t accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?

The President is prepared to “use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens” to prevent further tragedies like what occurred in Connecticut. Because, he asserted, Americans must protect the children.

The President’s words are strong, and combined with his past positions there is little doubt that his plan involves launching anything less than a full on assault on Americans’ right to own semi-automatic weapons.

In a USA Today column last week, Glenn Reynolds channeled famed author and renowned gun activist William S. Burroughs in describing what the government’s most likely course of action will be:

“After a shooting spree,” author William Burroughs once said, “they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.” Burroughs continued: “I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.”

Many Americans disagree with Burroughs’ opinion and are pushing for police and military personnel to be society’s sole armed protectors. And in gun-free zones, such as schools and many State and Federal properties, they are.

Those places have also become magnets for crazed gunmen. The cowardly mind-set of a man willing to kill at random — despite the anti-hero persona mainstream media seek to affix to these individuals — doesn’t lend itself well to ballsy attacks on rooms filled with armed men. Instead, they seek out the weakest or most unassuming targets imaginable: moviegoers in a darkened theater, attendees at a political rally, mall shoppers or schoolchildren.

And no matter what utopia the American left believes we inhabit, laws banning (and the all-out confiscation of) even every firearm manufactured will not stop the killing. Those capable of murder believe themselves to be far superior to any laws of man.

Perhaps a better option would involve a lessening of gun laws and an American realization that it is not up to the police, but to the citizen to ensure his own safety.

Speculation is reckless, but it is very tempting to fantasize about how Friday morning may have turned out differently if the school had been full of armed and trained teachers with easy access to firearms.

“Guns in schools, the horror,” liberal Americans might say. They may even venture to believe that frustrated armed teachers could be dangerous to students, though that seems very unlikely given the stories of teacher heroism coming from Connecticut where those educators likely wished they had tools at their disposal to better protect themselves and their students.

In 2008, the isolated Harrold Independent School District in Texas made an addition to its $100,000 state-of-the-art security system because administrators feared an armed intruder could do much damage in the 20 minutes it could take police to arrive. Feeling students and staff would be safer if on-site, trained staff members were equipped to handle a crisis at a moment’s notice, they decided to allow teachers to train and carry firearms to school.

In the years since, no gun has been brandished and no student hurt by an armed teacher. In fact, reports indicate that the students really didn’t have much at all to say about the policy. But the school district’s superintendent David Thweatt made a good point in 2009, a year after the policy went into place.

“We’re the first responders. We have to be,” Thweatt said. “We don’t have 5 minutes. We don’t have 10 minutes. We would have had 20 minutes of hell” if attackers had targeted the school.

Despite the President’s opinions, it is no time for gun rights activists to back off on the fight to keep and bear all legal firearms. We are all our own first responders and the protectors of those in our care who cannot defend themselves.

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 “No Time To Disarm America”

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

  • Vicki

    In the same week as the school shooting there was a well publicized mall shooting. Also being used to justify more laws attacking the 100million+ law abiding people who did NOT go into a mall or school and shoot it up. That week or any other.

    What the MSM mysteriously forgets to mention is that one law abiding citizen DID go into the mall that day. And stopped the carnage dead in it tracks.

    How can we have a rational discussion about self defense with a media that doesn’t tell the whole story?


      Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
      1 Corinthians 13:4-8

      • Thomas the Doubter

        I would add,

        Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.
        Proverbs 22:6

        The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother.
        Proverbs 29:15

        Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.
        Proverbs 13:24

        Maybe its time to license PARENTING! … rather than teach everyone in the art of commando, defence! Maybe its time to quite politicizing every event; attempting to turn
        every tragedy into a media circus and an opportunity to make a lousy buck!

        (no disrespect to those millions of parents who actually do raise their children and care
        for and teach them how to love and be loved, and absolutely no disrespect, to those who have lost a dear one to somebody else’s misguided sense of un-fairness )

      • Nadzieja Batki

        So when you copy Corinthians for all to read, you yourself better know what each statement means and how it is applied to life. Love is not emotion that flares up in a moment and then goes down in a moment like mushy and warm fuzzy feelings.

      • boyscout

        Oh yeah, and don’t forget to raise ‘em up on Ridlin.

      • Matrix


        “Maybe its time to license PARENTING!”

        Very good point!

        If Adams mother spent more time at home, and less in the bar, this tragedy may have never happened.

        We live in times where the majority of children are raised by a single parent, and the crime rate, disrespect toward adults, continued family dysfunction, and mental instability are at an all time high!

        Our government’s goal of destroying the family and making it the rule over parenting has been a success.

        Thanks to rewarding single mothers with a monthly paycheck for spewing out offspring, 70% of black, 50% of Spanish and 35% of white children are now born out of wedlock!

        This statistic is vulgar and disgusting and must end now!

        These girls and women have no use for the children, and only for the cash.

        Stop the paycheck and the sick, demented immoral behavior will end with it.

        Obama is trying to make the gun out to be the problem, yet when planes killed 3000 lives on 9/11, we didn’t try to create plane control, and cry on national TV about the evils of planes.

        It’s not the plane or gun; it’s the evil human behind it, just like it’s our evil government behind destroying the American family.

        I don’t believe we need a law against fire arms, but against wasteful government spending and the heinous crimes created by them!

        I agree that you should need a license to be a parent, and make it a crime to have children out of wedlock, lock up these immature liberal idiot mothers that want to be “friends” with their children instead of parents and make marriage the respected institution it once was.

        • Joann Flanagan

          A lot of people would agree with you,Matrix,like Illse Koch,Nero,Herod,Adolph Hitler,Margaret Sangers,Adolph Eichman..yeah a lot of people but that doesn’t make you right.Joann Flanagan

    • Flashy

      Vicki…. I assure you. this story is one hundred percent balderdash. I live in Portland. I shop at that Mall. I know someone who was at that Mall when the shooting went down ( a sportswriter friend for the local rag was just entering the Mall when it went down). This story is pure hokum.

      Even it it wasn’t hokum (and it is) as the story goes…he didn’t pull it out. because he didn’t want to shoot anyone by accident. So he allowed the shooter to continue shooting. That make sense to you?

      The shooter snuffed himself because the police were in the building hunting him down and his assault rifle was jammed.


      • Cliffystones

        “…he didn’t pull it out. because he didn’t want to shoot anyone by accident.”

        He sounds like a RESPONSIBLY armed citizen to me. You contradict your own anti-gun argument with this statement. At least the armed citizen had the opportunity to respond RESPONSIBLY, but never saw an opening to do so without harming innocents. My Glock 19 with Crimson Trace laser sights would have given me that opening!

        I’m sick and tired of obtuse, scaredy-cat wimps who want to disarm every law-abiding citizen every time some nut case goes postal.

      • alpha-lemming

        Portland huh…… it’s all crystal clear now.

      • Larry

        First of all neither the coward in Portland nor in CT had an “assault rifle”, which is by definition a selective fire (capable of fully automatic fire, many rounds with one pull of the trigger), sub caliber firearm. The guns used were AR-15′s which are semi-automatic (one round fired per pull of the trigger) which resemble the military’s M16 or M4. They use the same principles of fire as various and sundry other rifles manufactured in the past 100 years.

        The ‘people’ who intentionally go forth with ANY weapon with the intent of killing or injuring innocent people are mentally deranged and/or unstable. Their families either knew or should have known had they paid any attention to what their deranged/unstable family member was doing or saying, but they did nothing. Oh how shameful to admit that little Johnny isn’t right in the head. Or he’s sent off to some quack who stuffs him full of supposedly anti-psychotic drugs.

        Our brave politicians have to be seen to be doing something, and the easiest thing to do is ban some class of firearms that are seen to be especially bad for some reason. If Lanza had killed the same people by running them down with a motor vehicle would there be a call for banning whatever vehicle it was. No way. There are so many ways to commit mass murder that I can’t even imagine most of them. and banning one type of guns or all guns won’t stop mass murders. In fact more mass murders have occurred in places where guns have been banned, and the government fully enjoys its monopoly of armed power.

      • MontieR

        He has obviously fond out he was NOT ready to carry in public if you do NOT have the training and confidence to shoot in public why carry.

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “Vicki…. I assure you. this story is one hundred percent balderdash.”

        Flashy is correct but is talking about the wrong story.
        The shooting in Connecticut could not possibly have happened because ALL K-12 schools are GUN-FREE zones by law. Thus no gun could possibly be there and without a gun no shooting could have occurred.

      • Michael J.

        Vicki said:
        “Thus no gun could possibly be there and without a gun no shooting could have occurred.”

        Gullible, foolish Liberal perfect worlders will agree with that, but I know you are being facetious.
        It’s a bit like saying that speeding has been eliminated since the invention of “Speed Bumps”.

      • http://blog George1959

        Flashy, you must be a plant for the Brady group as you are always spouting you dribble on every story about guns. You are not open minded or just trying to get the story out.You only spread falsehoods as if they were fact. DUDE GET A LIFE AND STATE OFF THE COMPUTER WHEN ADULTS ARE TALKING ……..ISN’T YOU X BOX CALLING. LIBS!!!!

      • nickkin

        Which makes the point Flashy….a trained concealed weapon carrier would know when to hold and look @ all aspects of the situation, most likely much better than the poeps in charge @ Bengazi. When you have more guns than none, the shooter would recognize that he or she is out-gunned…..but it could be some sickie holding a bomb or grenade…if you or your family were in a mall situation , any cpl person would be better than none…of course, with your literary ammo you would lessen the odds from 50/50 to 10/90.

        • Jeff

          You’re living in a fantasy world. An armed police officer might be able to stop a shooter armed with military weaponry; an untrained civilian would be more likely to increase the carnage by hitting the wrong person. At the Gabby Giffords shooting in Tucson, a guy with a concealed weapon was coming out of a store and nearly shot the guy holding the gun. The problem was the guy holding the gun had taken it from the shooter – only after he stopped to reload. If only he had had to reload a lot sooner, there’d be a lot more people left alive there.



          • BR549

            Jeff wrote: “…. At the Gabby Giffords shooting in Tucson, a guy [Zamudio] with a concealed weapon was coming out of a store and nearly shot the guy holding the gun.”

            From MSNBC: “And that’s who I at first thought was the shooter,” Zamudio recalled. “I told him to ‘Drop it, drop it!’” On the YouTube segment you provided (, he said he almost shot the man who had taken the gun from Loughner, but it was unclear, since Zamudio also indicated that he had only reached for his still holstered pistol to undo the safety.

            Jeff, I think, rather than start reaching for any and all tidbits to make your weak case, you might actually try reading/listening to the articles you reference. The Zamudio interview on YouTube was a textbook case for HAVING a gun.

          • Jeff

            Not at all. It was originally presented that way, but Zamudio himself is glad he didn’t take the opportunity to shoot the guy with the gun. The shooter was disarmed when he stopped to reload and by guys who didn’t need a gun. Only a deluded gun nut could read that story the way you claim to. Untrained civilians with guns have never stopped a mass shooting with a gun. A police officer – maybe.

          • BR549

            Jeff wrote: “….. but Zamudio himself is glad he didn’t take the opportunity to shoot the guy with the gun.”

            Duh! …. but that was the whole point. The gun (as I understood it) never came out of the holster. He was poised with his hand on the butt of his gun, having flicked the safety off, and according to an interview, “…….. one reason why Zamudio didn’t pull out his own weapon was that he didn’t want to be confused as a second gunman”.

            So, it goes without saying that he was just glad things hadn’t escalated, where you are reading it that he was locked, loaded, and was already drawn and ready to waste anyone in his sights, which is about typical for what we’d expect from a knee-jerk liberal using half the facts to support his own argument.

          • Jeff

            Fortunately, Zamudio made a good decision not to fire. More guns on the scene would not have made a difference. The shooter was stopped when he ran out of ammo and stopped to reload. No gun was involved in taking the gun from him. How does that story indicate Zamudio’s gun had anything to do with apprehending the shooter. What he clearly said is he was initially mistaken about who the shooter was. If you think that supports the case for more guns, you’re likely on the same page as LaPierre.

          • BR549

            Jeff wrote: “How does that story indicate Zamudio’s gun had anything to do with apprehending the shooter?”

            What kind of stupid question is that? That kind of logic would be an embarrassment to any self respecting liberal or bible thumper. I could follow by asking, if it didn’t have anything to do with apprehending the shooter, why did the panty-wetting libtard media feel the need to try to get as much mileage from it as they could?

            Zamudio stated that he was glad he wasn’t put in the situation where he had to use the gun, but what he DID do was show exactly the correct levels of restraint that we would expect from any law enforcement officer in attempting assess the situation in such little time. He also exercised excellent judgement in NOT drawing his weapon AT ALL, so that others would NOT confuse him with being a second gunman.

            Here again, where Zamudio was merely expressing a sigh of relief, …… YOU PEOPLE have to twist it around that the rest of the crowd was lucky to be alive because Zamudio might have had a possible lapse in moral judgement and become so confused that he would have shot everyone left in the parking lot that Loughner missed. He was just a guy coming out of the drug store, who helped restrain Loughner and who HAPPENED to be carrying a gun, which he is glad he didn’t even have to draw. What part about the word histrionic don’t you understand?

            Secondly, if any of us here were being mugged in a parking lot, we’d have a far better chance of survival with Zamudio rather than you biting your lip, peeing in your pants, and wondering in which direction to run.

          • Jeff

            That’s not the way the story was initially reported. But the reality remains that civilians with guns do not stop mass shootings. You can call me all the names in your vocabulary, and that fact will remain.

          • BR549

            Jeff wrote: “That’s not the way the story was initially reported. But the reality remains that civilians with guns do not stop mass shootings. You can call me all the names in your vocabulary, and that fact will remain.”

            Maybe you needed to search for one of those “initially” stories that happened to be left leaning from the start, but when you check out the other versions, the story actually IS what I had mentioned. Now, in the interest of objectivity, since none of us were there, if you do happen to find information to the contrary, I’d be open to it, but at this point it seems to clearly state that Zamudio never had his gun drawn on ANYONE since he had only just run out of the drug store, had flipped his safety off, and had approached the scene with his hand on the butt of his gun while it was IN HIS HOLSTER and he was “ready” to draw. This was reinforced by his own statement that he didn’t want to be thought of as a second gunman had he approached with drawn gun.

            At some point, if more of these shootings occur, the odds will have it that someone will be forced to use their weapon and I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. It might even be that a shooter is about ready to waste a unfortunate police officer who is already down and another Zamudio steps in and takes him out beforehand. As the siht gets closer to hitting the fan, there will be more cases like that and that old adage applies, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away”, and unfortunately, that counts for them as victims too. When you get some family man on the force who is down, he’s going to hope like hell someone in the crowd out there knows how to use a gun instead of running away from the scene and leaving the officer to die.

            What the media SHOULD have done is used Zamudio’s case as a textbook for civilian response and emphasized all the things he DID do right, not make him out to be part of the problem before he had done anything but show up. But that’s how the leftist media works; everyone is considered to be a whimpering sheep, incapable of responsible thought, yet their followers just eat this crap right up.

          • Jeff

            That COULD happen. And a New York cop could be in L.A. to visit his ex-wife when European terrorists take over a building, too. I’m not holding my breath.

          • Jeff

            Zamudio said he almost shot the wrong man on Fox. I think you’re getting nuttier by the day.

          • BR549

            Jeff wrote: “Zamudio said he almost shot the wrong man on Fox. I think you’re getting nuttier by the day.”

            Interesting. I just watched the Fox TV interview that took place while Zamudia was in a sports stadium at 6:00am, and he never said that. He demonstrated that his left hand had reached for his right side holstered weapon and that he turned the safety off. He never once indicated that the gun ever left his holster or that he had drawn a bead on anyone and, indeed, his actions that day supported this.

            I also looked at the interview by Geraldo and it’s the same thing. Zamudio COULD have or MIGHT have mistakenly shot the citizen who had disabled Loughner …….. but he didn’t, just like you might have killed someone on the way to work this morning in your Volvo with the Obama stickers on the back, while you were busy on your cell phone, but hopefully for the poor bastard whom you could have killed, you exercised enough discipline to do otherwise. SAME THING.

            You automatically assume that because he makes a simple statement that he was lucky because he didn’t have to be forced to actually use his gun, that his statement must have implied that he would have used it irresponsibly. What a moron.

          • Jeff

            Zamudio is not the issue. The point is that at the scene of a shooting things happen too quickly and too fluidly for almost anyone to make a good decision. An experienced police officer or soldier might be able to remain sufficiently calm in that situation to make a good choice. A civilian? Forget about it.

          • BR549

            Jeff wrote: “An experienced police officer or soldier might be able to remain sufficiently calm in that situation to make a good choice. A civilian? Forget about it.”

            Jeez, get a grip. Cops pee in their pants like other people. They wear shades nowadays as part of their “Command Presence” training in order to further intimidate people and at least present some persona of authority; that’s ever since they became “law enforcement” officers instead “peace” officers. Now, they’re sent out with the idea that everyone is milling about just waiting to do something wrong, instead of helping to remind people of their civic duties and responsibilities.

            Don’t believe everything you hear, Jeffy, from personal experience, I can tell you, a lot of soldiers can come unglued pretty easily in the field when things aren’t exactly going in their favor, like when all that technology just isn’t there; some guys do, and some guys like Zamudio, don’t.

            The problem is that most people, many soldiers and LEOs included, have only skirted having to deal with their own mortality, so they never REALLY know if they have what it it takes to do what Badger and Zamudio did. When scuba diving, you could always tell the blowhards, they’d be the ones who always forgot something (turning their air on, forgetting their fins, or not being able to stay on task below 150). They’d be the ones to blow through two tanks of air while everyone used only one tank. No matter how many times they try it, it would always be the same; they needed to prove something to themselves and yet they were in the wrong place; a danger to themselves and others. So, just because someone claims to BE a professional, doesn’t mean they necessarily ACT professional. When you get to see yourself in action, and most people don’t, then you’ll know what it takes to do a Zamudio.

            You do a great job of critiquing from the bleachers, Jeffy. Keep it up. Just pray you never wind up in Tucson.

          • Jeff

            Everything you just said is an argument for not having more guns at the scene of a shooting. You’re agreeing with my point, only more so, saying that even trained professionals freak out when under fire. If someone who’s been trained and may have experienced actual combat can freak out, what’s the likelihood that Joe Blow will react properly? Almost none. Again, I’m not criticizing the people involved; I’m criticizing the idea that having more guns on the scene will prevent bloodshed.

          • Jeff

            What you’re saying is even nuttier than what Wayne LaPierre said. You’re trying to twist what I’m saying or someone else is saying to imply that Zamudio was going to shoot everyone? How much have you had to drink? Here’s the actual story:

            “I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready,” he explained on Fox and Friends. “I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this.” Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. “And that’s who I at first thought was the shooter,” Zamudio recalled. “I told him to ‘Drop it, drop it!’ ”
            But the man with the gun wasn’t the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. “Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess,” the interviewer pointed out.
            Zamudio agreed:
            I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky.
            When Zamudio was asked what kind of weapons training he’d had, he answered: “My father raised me around guns … so I’m really comfortable with them. But I’ve never been in the military or had any professional training. I just reacted.”
            The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio “grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall” before realizing he wasn’t the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn’t pull out his own weapon was that “he didn’t want to be confused as a second gunman.”

            Interpret it as you will.

          • BR549

            Hey, Jeff, what part of ….. “poised to draw and fire” ….. don’t you understand? You actually have to DRAW the weapon from the holster, first, before firing the weapon; that is, of course unless you want to shoot yourself in the foot. But in typical liberal fashion, you’d have shot yourself in the foot and then found someone else to blame for the injury. The liberal media, on which you’ve become so reliant, would then have plastered all over the front page photos of your missing toe, crying, “Oh, the humanity,” and the need for more gun control.

            But then, I think that’s your problem, you don’t trust YOURSELF with a firearm so it would only seem right that NO ONE else should have one either.

          • Jeff

            The point is NOT that he did anything wrong. The point is that untrained people carrying firearms at the scene of a mass shooting are at least as likely to make the situation worse as they are to stop the shooter if they use their guns. Now, you can disagree with that statement, but don’t turn it into some indictment of Zamudio. Everyone agrees he acted valiantly.

          • BR549

            Jeff wrote: “The point is that untrained people carrying firearms at the scene of a mass shooting are at least as likely to make the situation worse as they are to stop the shooter if they use their guns. Now, you can disagree with that statement, but don’t turn it into some indictment of Zamudio. Everyone agrees he acted valiantly.”

            Christ, after listening to you expound on this for days, I thought would have sent in your gun confiscation team and put Zamudio behind bars for even ADMITTING he MIGHT have mistakenly shot someone.

            Now you’re suddenly agreeing with everyone that he acted valiantly. Truth sucks doesn’t it?

          • Jeff

            Zamudio was NEVER the issue. He’s just an example of why an untrained “good guy with a gun” at the scene of a shooting is so highly unlikely to be a benefit because of his gun. These cases all end the same way. The shooter shoots until his gun jams or runs out of ammo and stops to reload. When he stops, you don’t usually need a gun to stop him. I don’t see what’s controversial about any of this. I’m saying 2+2=4. You’re saying it could equal 5 if another one is present. I’m saying the extra one (e.g. John McClain) is seldom in evidence.

          • BR549

            You keep bringing Bruce Willis’ character into this. For crying out loud, this isn’t the freakin’ movies. I think it was Jim who had you pegged correctly, you’re just here to hear yourself talk.

            I’ll go one better, I don’t think you’re as convinced of your own argument as you claim to be. I think you’re having a hard time rationalizing what you, yourself, would do in that situation, and you have to bounce it off everyone else here, to try to convince yourself if what you currently believe is true. It isn’t.

            When you start trusting yourself, you might actually start trusting other people.

            I’m done here. Catch you on another thread. I’m signing off.

          • Joe America

            Jeff, It was luck that those guys were able to subdue Gabby’s shooter. You really are simple minded. It’s becoming clearer all the time that you’re clueless about guns and self defense. [comment has been edited]

          • Jim Chambers

            I think, what’s going on with Jeff, is that he has one stupendous ego and we keep feeding it here.
            I don’t think he’s really so stupid to believe what he spouts, nobody could be. Even those with single digit IQ’s would see the logic of the arguments espoused here against any kind of gun control. Additionally, he lives in a country where we have a constitution with a second amendment put in place to help protect the citizens against their own government and people like those he professes to be. He’s aware of that.
            I think, though,that as long as we all keep reacting to his inanity it keeps feeding that ego and he will never stop his posts. He’s got a jones and we are being suckered into feeding it by his weak arguments and feigned stupidity.
            Maybe I’m wrong and he really isn’t able to comprehend anything past what the media tells him but I think it’s becoming apparent that we are doing nothing more that tripping his ego trigger. In spite of the low esteem we all hold him, when we react to him and his arguments we make him, in his mind, an important person.

          • Jeff

            If you think having more guns in a dark movie theatre is a solution to anything, please let me know what theatre you prefer so I can go elsewhere.

          • BR549

            Jeff wrote: “At the Gabby Giffords shooting in Tucson, a guy with a concealed weapon was coming out of a store and nearly shot the guy holding the gun.”

            Jeff, you really should read/listen to the materials you reference. When reviewing the entire YouTube clip from the Ed Show, it’s apparent this guy Zamudio had exhibited discipline, restraint, and even referred to Ed as “Sir”. The kid hadn’t even been in the military. If he HAD been in the military, the libtards would have no doubt jumped on him as being an exception to the average US NON-military gun owner.

            As for Zamudio potentially killing Loughner, or even the guy who had wrestled the gun from Loughner’s hand, cops do that every day of the week, Zamudio didn’t. Zamudio’s weapon apparently never left his holster; he only flipped the safety off …. just in case.

            Next time, try to have sense enough to introduce a reference that actually supports your case. Jeez.

    • Alex Frazier

      That’s exactly it, Vicki. The media is on the government’s side. This tragedy happened in Connecticut, and from day one the media was throwing in words and phrases like “assault weapon” and “high capacity magazine,” neither of which had any bearing on this unpleasantness whatsoever.

      The current liberal agenda on guns is to pass the high capacity magazine ban, and to renew the expired assault weapons ban. They have also been pushing to stop private sales, and to “close the gun show loophole.”

      In the case of this Connecticut shooting, which had nothing to do with an assault rifle, a high capacity magazine, with guns that were purchased legally, not through an illegal private sale or at a gun show … it has become the stage for pushing through all three pieces of legislation, even though they have nothing to do with anything.

      Don’t expect help from the media on this. They are on the side of liberal politics. They won’t show the good side of guns, just like they shut down the story of the shooting in New York as soon as it was discovered that the police were responsible for the eleven bystanders who were shot.

      • Flashy

        Alex…I guess it would have been a good thing had he picked his first victim as a gun owner and then he would have been stopped. Right?

        Read my long post below…i look forward to your response.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Flashy, anything you say is hot air passing from you, one end or the other.

      • Jim in NY

        Can you start to name the “good side of guns”.

        • Joe America

          Citizen ownership of guns is the only thing that has maintained America as a free nation. It’s only been that threat to totalitarianism that has made those who would enslave us, give pause. Why do you think the UN has the bronze figure of a revolver with the gun tied in a knot in front of the UN building? The purpose of the UN is not peace, but totalitarian control of one government over the entire earth. The UN is, and has been, one of the most corrupt organizations on the face of the earth. No one good thing has come out of it. People in the world fear it, because they know what it truly represents. The behavior of UN representatives around the world has been irreprehensable and shameful. Yet these scum want to tell us what to do. They want to undo the USA. Why? Because the handlers of the UN know if they get America out of the way, the rest of the world will fall under their control, like dominos. People all over the world claim to hate us, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our guns, yet they endevor to get here anyway they can, legally, or illegally. They come because it’s the last chance of freedom and hope for the average person. Once the UN takes over, it’s going to be one big totalitarian world government. Populations will be reduced to “managable numbers.” There will be no middle class; just lords and ladies, and their vassels, surfs and slaves. It’s going to be the good old days all over, again, Jim. The days before this nation was created. I bet you can hardly wait. Yes, you keep pushing for us to give up them guns. Good job! I’m sure there someone in the NWO that will be pleased to have you to empty their piss pot.

      • Alex Frazier

        Flashy, while there is never any guarantee of anything, if his first victim had been armed, that victim would have stood a better chance of survival than an unarmed five-year-old. There’s a yin for every yang. Say something negative about guns, and there is a positive to counteract it. That’s because guns are nothing more than mechanical devices. They don’t function with sentient motion. They have to be wielded. Someone has to load it, point it, and pull the trigger with intent to kill for it to be a deadly weapon. But the same can be said of a knife, an axe, a chainsaw, a baseball bat, a sharp stick, a rock, or even a flight of stairs. None of these things kill people, but people have killed people with these things.

        It’s past time that we stop blaming the tool for the work of the lunatic. The gun may make it easier for the criminal to do harm, but make no mistake, it’s the criminal doing the harm.

      • Alex Frazier

        Jim in NY:

        Guns are used by people to protect themselves. If you take the time to look up the statistics at the FBI, you will find that more lives are saved every year through the carrying of firearms than are taken in homicides in general. And that’s just as per the statistics of reported incidents. It does not factor in the unreported instances where someone pulled a gun and the perpetrator fled.

        Guns are the great equalizer. When a 250 lb. man attacks a 110 lb. woman to rape and kill her, she doesn’t stand a chance. She can pull a knife, but it won’t do her any good. She can swing a stick, but he’ll take it. Give her a gun and the mental fortitude to use it without hesitating, and she’s as strong as her attacker. Guns make grandmothers equal to athletes.

        Guns are necessary for the preservation of freedom. Governments across the globe and across the centuries have disarmed their citizens. But it is governments that are responsible for the greatest atrocities in the history of mankind, which are typically committed against their own people. The force of arms gives the people the ability to fight back against tyranny.

        People who are against guns don’t understand the world we live in. It is violent. It is greedy. It is full of privileged people who think they have the right to oppress the innocent. It is a world of genocide, tyranny, war, and corruption. It is a world of crime, and of murderers. It is a world of rapists, thieves, thugs, and every other sort of criminal element.

        And every person living in this world has the right to protect themselves, their property, their family, and their freedom. Every person living in this world has the right to throw off an oppressive government when it goes too far. We have a right to not be murdered, by others citizens as well as by our government. We have a right to not be the victim of genocide at the hands of a lunatic tyrant. We have the right to tell an elected government that they can’t oppress us. We have the right not to be raped or bullied.

        To this, the typical liberal would ignorantly answer that the world isn’t like that anymore. We are more civilized. But I say … Hitler and Nazi Germany, Maoist China, Burma, Libya, Syria, Russia. There were six million Jews murdered by Nazi Germany alone … after the Jews were completely disarmed, of course. And the other countries mentioned are not far off of that.

        But hey! … let’s use this tragedy, committed by one person, who constitutes 1/1000th of 1/10th of 1% of our 310,000,000 population, and punish every law abiding citizen in the country. That’s like impeaching the entire Congress because of Nixon, and never letting anyone run for office again.

      • boyscout

        Alex, The media is in it for as much attention they can get for they’re own commercial ends. If they can train everyones focus on the symptom’s of an incident and avoid the root causes as long as possible to prolong the story, they can fill more air, present more sponsers, and make more money, consequences be damned. So what if there other sick punks out there on ill prescribed medications who might otherwise off themselves in a closet but now find an opportuniity for glory as an antihero.

      • Vicki

        Jim in NY says:
        “Can you start to name the “good side of guns”.”

        We can start. But first let me ask you a question. What do police have guns for if there is no good side to them?

        Now on to an answer of your question.

        Guns remain the BEST tool for self defense yet invented.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      The media is driven by unbridled emotions they love to write up and report the gruesome, the titillating, the sensational, the macabre, the freaky. But to get these strories they have to lie, distort, be treacherous. The good, the rightous, the common garden variety news is a yawn to them.

      • Jim Chambers

        Don’t kid yourself, they have an agenda. I think you know what that is.

      • Carlucci

        Okay, hold on to your hats, everybody. A friend of mine just sent me this link:

      • NativeBlood

        Hey Carlucci, It is gone!…got censored or just expired news?

      • ranger09

        SO VERY RIGHT. But they also report what the Govt agents tell them, No longer does Truth And Justice mean anything to the news outs, its all for the Money.I remember a case once where a news and radio team was talking to two citizens and several Policemen, asked what type of weapon was used and the citizens said semi-auto,when the police reported the type of weapon they quoted Automatic, To a lot of people they thought that IT was an Illegal weapon, They sometimes cant seperate the differance But they can give the wrong impression to the general Public. But the govt being they control the Media they can give all the wrong information and the stupied people Believe it all and question None.At a govt shoot out in Texas, there was a report of a Grenade found on the ground, The police reported that it was from what they called the bad Guys,A few people saw the grenade and said it looked like a new type Govt issued item, Like all the other supposed evidence it was carted off and disposed of.One of the most distroyed crime areas i have ever heard of, Not one pc of wood was left, The only time i have ever seen the Govt Clean so good is when they do not want any other Investigation to take place.

    • Jeff


      Is there anything you won’t believe if it’s printed in a right wing publication? When has someone with a gun made a difference at the site of a mass shooting?

      “Despite the President’s opinions, it is no time for gun rights activists to back off on the fight to keep and bear all legal firearms.”

      Doesn’t this beg the question? Obviously, people have a right to bear “legal firearms.” The question is what weapons should be legal. Isn’t that why we have legislatures and the Congress? If we outlaw military-style weapons and large-capacity magazines, then those will not be “legal firearms.”

      • Vicki

        Jeff says:

        Is there anything you won’t believe if it’s printed in a right wing publication?”

        I would like to believe you but since you printed it in a right wing (according to some) publication I presume that you are telling me to NOT believe you.

        Jeff: “When has someone with a gun made a difference at the site of a mass shooting?”
        Pretty much every one. Usually after many minutes the police show up with guns.

        The OP wrote: “Despite the President’s opinions, it is no time for gun rights activists to back off on the fight to keep and bear all legal firearms.”

        Jeff: “Doesn’t this beg the question? Obviously, people have a right to bear “legal firearms.” The question is what weapons should be legal.”

        That question was answered over 200 years ago. The founders knew that legislatures and Congress needed to be restrained from making just any old law. So they created a most amazing document. In it there is even a specific description of the kind of guns that must ALWAYS be legal. That description is in the first part of the 2nd amendment. The part that gun-prohibitionists often try and use to claim that the right of THE PEOPLE is only for some people.

      • Teddy

        Switzerland has been a free and independent country for over 400 years, and has maintained its freedom from potential agresser Nations that surrounded it with a well armed Citizenry. Switzerland has no standing Army, but every Swiss Citizen is called for two years of active duty, and then after which, returns back to civilian life. This is the same concept that our country was founded on, that each and every citizen would make up the Militia of the individual States where they lived. The Founding Fathers did not want a Standing Army, and many wrote that the Army should be disbanneded after 180 days of a call-up. The Founders did provide for the Navy, which was to guard our shores and protect Merchant Ships and their crews. You can recall the Barbary Pirates incidents, which President Jefferson had to deal with. The Militia is codified in the United States Code.

        In Switzerland’s case, the average Swiss home has three fully automatic rifles, which are provided by the Government, along with the ammunition, in order for all of the country’s Citizens to practice their Marksmanship at the Rifle Ranges. This is a long tradition where every Swiss citizen once needed to possess a sword, pike, and archery bow and arrows. They were the weapons of the day.

        Now with such a vast amount of weapons carried openly, and in every Swiss home, one would think that Swizterland is another Detroit, or Compton, or New Orleans with a crime rate that is stagering, and mass shootings almost every day. But it is not. This country has the lowest crime rate in Europe, quite the contrast from Britain which had completely banned all guns, yet suffers from the worst violent crime rates in Europe, either with illegal guns obtained by Criminals, or with knives, bats, and other blunt objects. No matter how a murderer does his attrocious act, the victim is just as dead.

      • eddie47d

        Every weapon in Switzerland is government controlled and not everyone is allowed to have them. Only those on active duty (18-30 yr old men for the most part). Ammo is tightly regulated and yes maybe we should try that approch in the USA. That is their army and for now we have a 2 million man army but we get ourselves into lots of false flag wars. Thus trying the Swiss “way” might actually keep us out of war and having guns in the hands of the wrong people. Brilliant!

      • Donald

        In Texas Jeff, after 2 shootings at restaruants, left more than 10 dead at each, Texas recinded their gun controll laws and the next time somebody tried something like that, he was shot by 2 different patrons eating. This happened in the 90′s!

        • Jeff

          Was it really a mass shooting or just a hold up? I have no doubt that having a gun (doesn’t need to be a military weapon) in a liquor store or diner can stop a hold-up man concentrating on the cash register. I don’t believe there’s any evidence to support the theory that more guns in a school or movie theatre will stop someone with virtually unlimited ammunition, body armor, and a willingness to kill lots of people.

      • Vicki

        So Jeff, in your world view since the intended victims would have little chance of stopping a murder you want them to have NO chance. Such compassion. For the murderer.

        • gman

          I agree Vicki. I suppose Jeff would rather we disarm the police also.
          I guess Jeff has no knowledge that in every mass shooting the shooting stopped when the guns arrived. Movie theater shooting stopped when police arrived with guns. Newtown shooter took his own life when armed squads arrived. Ft Hood shooter was stopped when armed people arrived. Theater in Texas shooter was killed by armed security cop. Again shooter stopped. Get real Jeff, and get your head out of your denial of facts.

      • Dennis48e

        “Every weapon in Switzerland is government controlled and not everyone is allowed to have them. Only those on active duty (18-30 yr old men for the most part). Ammo is tightly regulated and yes maybe we should try that approch in the USA.”

        All lies made up in eddie’s over active imagination. Eddie has NO proof, sources, or links to back up his spurious claims he just spouts his anti-gun agenda at every opportunity.

        • BR549

          Eddie wrote: “Every weapon in Switzerland is government controlled and not everyone is allowed to have them. Only those on active duty (18-30 yr old men for the most part). Ammo is tightly regulated and yes maybe we should try that approch in the USA.”

          Switzerland has 2.5% of the US population. With 1.2 – 3 million guns and their 8 million people, their per capita gun ownership is around 15-37%, while that of the US population, by contrast, is estimated at 100% or slightly under one for every person in the US.

          Two things bother me. One, that many of the statistics do not always factor out suicides from within homicides and that the suicide rate is nearly DOUBLE the homicide rate and has been for a long time. Think about that for a while.

          Still, the anti-gun crazies start foaming at the mouth at the sight of a gun because most of them have been taught by the media to salivate on command at the sight of one and they can’t admit that they would have EVER be used in a Pavlovian set of social experiments; NOooo!

          Second, the Schengen Treaty within which Switzerland has now become engaged has the clear markings of the European Union and globalism written all over it. Had the Swiss made some attempt to reduce the numbers because it felt the need to defend itself had lessened, I would have applauded them, but that is not the case. What they are setting themselves up for is the exact same thing that the globalists are trying to do here, to make so that only the tyrrants have the weapons (all the high tech stuff) and the citizens have NO WAY to resist.

          The average voter has a hard time jumping from Dancing with the Stars to understanding the mindset of pre-WWII eugenicist thinking and how any of that could possibly effect the events of today. They can’t wrap their paramecium brain around it so, instead, they hide under a rock and pretend history never happened.

          It would be great if we just plain didn’t need to feel that we had to protect ourselves, especially from members of our own species, but mankind hasn’t evolved there yet. The difference between the gun grabbing libtards and the gun enthusiasts, I would guess, is that the gun grabbers believe we have miraculously reached that state of evolution in the human spirit were everyone can trust everyone else or worse, that the government has reached such a state of efficiency and response that it can protect us. The gun enthusiasts, on the other hand, believe we still have a long row in front of us before we can all hold hands singing Kumbaya.

    • Benjamin Fox

      John Adams said “A armed man is a citizen, a unarmed man is a slave”. I rather be dead then a slave, freedom isn’t free. Many have given their lives for those freedoms and we can’t just give them up, once taken won’t come back.

      • Joe America

        Right on, Ben.

      • eddie47d

        A handgun can protect your freedom in protecting your home and loved ones just like Franklin said. Mass killing machines serve no purpose except to endanger others.

        • Joe America

          Eddie, What do you consider a “mass killing machine” vs a “non-mass killing machine”. Please inform us of the difference. I’d also like to know what your expertise in weapons is.

      • Vicki

        Eddie47d writes:
        “Mass killing machines serve no purpose except to endanger others.”

        Which is exactly what you want when the ATF shows up at your door claiming you sold a shotgun with a barrel that was supposedly 1/4th inch too short to be “legal”.

        The 2nd Amendment is to protect YOUR RIGHT to defend yourself, your loved ones, your family AND your community from aggressors. Even when the aggressor wears a uniform.

      • JC

        “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”
        – Connecticut Constitution
        Source: Article First, Section 15.

  • Dirty Daug

    The liberals are going full blast to use this tradegty to out law guns. What they had best do is look amongst themselves to see if they have any crazies that would also do this.

    • Doc Sarvis

      Actually, Democrats and Americans as a whole support the ban on assult weapons / semi-automatic weapons while leaving other rifles and hand guns alone. Makes sense.

      • F89

        I realy dout that because people are buying more semi automatic “assult rifles” than most other kinds of guns. A manufacter that I have close ties with called spikes tactical is bake order for 12 months. So if every bodie hates them so much why cant stores keep them on the shelves. In Idaho you can’t hardly see a pickup that dose not have a AK47/AR15 in the back windo. If you see one that dose not have it in the back window their is a good chance its behind the seat.

        • Joe America

          F89, You don’t write like anyone who would have contact with someone of authority who manufactures guns. I think you’re a person who would like to get rid of the 2nd ammendment and, therefore, guns. Alright, tell us why. Give us a little background on yourself, as well as your logic on gun control. Enlighten us.

      • Alex Frazier

        Americans in general are not behind such bans. If they were, you would need no more than a 2/3rds vote in both houses to amend the Constitution and take that right away once and for all.

        And it doesn’t make sense. Assault rifles haven’t been used in any of these crimes. The government has alterior motives for banning assault rifles. No rational person proposes to ban one thing when something else is to blame.

        But all of that is irrelevant. The gun used is just a tool. People need to grow a brain and recognize that murder was invented before gun power. Murder is as old as Cain and Abel. Stop blaming the inanimate lump of metal for the actions of a lunatic.

        No guns should be banned. The second amendment is greater than just these petty squables. It’s purpose is to preserve freedom against tyranny. And tyranny is approaching our doorstep. You can tell, because they are trying to take our guns. There’s only one reason the government ever disarms the people. To keep them under control.

      • Vicki

        Doc Sarvis says:
        “Actually, Democrats and Americans as a whole support the ban on assult weapons / semi-automatic weapons while leaving other rifles and hand guns alone.”

        Your statement is unlikely to be true since most handguns are semi-automatic.

      • Vicki

        Alex Frazier says:
        “Americans in general are not behind such bans. If they were, you would need no more than a 2/3rds vote in both houses to amend the Constitution and take that right away once and for all.”

        The right would be unaffected since rights come from God and not a piece of paper. The contract with government to PROTECT that God given right would no longer be explicit in the contract but since the current government is ignoring much of the contract anyway we should not be surprised that they are ignoring the 2nd Amendment too.

        Well actually “still” as they 2nd Amendment has been ignored for MANY years.

      • Alan

        Americans as a “whole”? REALLY Doc??? Funny, but I don’t know anyone who supports a ban on socalled “assault” weapons.

      • eddie47d

        I do so now you know two!

      • jdn

        I’ve got some real common sense for all you people who are afraid of guns . Just move to Illinois , New York or DC and live in your gun free bliss and leave the rest of us alone .

        • Jeff

          If only there were a Republican repellent that would actually keep you guys in Alabama where you belong. But every day, buses bring the yokels with their primitive gun worship from their outhouses into the big cities. I hear girls in Alabama actually believe there’s a positive relationship between the size of your gun and . . . . .

          • Joe America

            Jeff, you keep hammering folks about gun rights, but where’s the logic? It’s clear to me that you’ve never been assaulted, a family member’s not been raped. You’ve apparently lived a pretty sheltered life, like most liberals. The gym isn’t going to be much of an equalizer when criminals have guns, or knives, or simply out number you. You’ll never understand the 2nd ammendment, because your mind is already made up. If the [expletive deleted] ever hits the fan for you, I pitty you, because you’ll become another statistic, another victim, and that’s something I don’t want to see happen to you, or anyone else. I do predict that there will come a day when your attitude toward guns will turn 180 and you’ll remember every posting you ever made on the subject, and you’ll say to yourself “what was I thinking.”

        • Joe America

          Actually, the only folks in those states with m16′s are the police, National Guard, and the gangs, who outnumber the cops 100 to 1. The criminials are better armed in those states, than the police or NG.

      • Jim Chambers

        First, I fail to see any evidence of your claim that the majority of Americans support a ban on what you refer to as assault weapons.
        Additionally, your claim that “Makes sense” is irrational when based on faulty data and your own subjective assumptions.
        Now that ‘makes sense’.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      The Dems/Progs/Leftists created the scenario that happened one brick at a time, this incident is the cullmination of years of Leftist ideology.The teachers, the principal should have been armed. Don’t the Leftists believe that there is evil in the world, matter of fact they are the ones creating most of it. Self defense is each persons responsibility, we may hire police and military but these are secondary and a lazy man’s out so they don’t have to take responsibility for themselves.

      • Jim in NY

        I guess all of the first graders should be armed as well. What happens if an armed teacher goes postal one day? Should all postal workers be armed?

        • Joe America

          Jim, I do believe in better security at our schools. I see nothing wrong with school systems hiring retired cops or ex-military for school security. As well, better security, such as balistic glass being installed in doors and door side windows. Actually, this school’s leadership has to be commended, because it could have been much worse. The adults minimized the tragedy and they have to be commended for that good work. All that being said, taking guns away from citizens isn’t the key to resolving this issue. All your going to do is invite a police state. If you want to live in a police state, there are plenty of them out there, with the strongest gun laws in the world. Mexico’s gun laws are ten times more stringent that ours, yet it hasn’t reduced crime, especially crimes committed with guns. We are already restricted against ownership of fully automatic weapons. Anything beyond that will invite a totalitarian police state. And, that’s exactly what’s going to happen. You won’t have to cry about guns for very long, because soon, very soon, you’re going to get your wish. Remember the old saying, “watch what you wish for, because you might get it?” Well, you’re going to get it. It’s going to happen.

      • Joe America

        Great Post!

      • Vicki

        Jim in NY says:
        “I guess all of the first graders should be armed as well. What happens if an armed teacher goes postal one day?”

        The armed students neutralize the threat posed by the killer. Want to try for a hard straw man?

      • eddie47d

        Wow! A 6 year old packing heat now that would be a picture worth a thousand words. The thing is Joe as tight fisted the Conservative think they are who would pay for all that security? Certainly not the taxpayer?

      • ranger09

        If i could foretell the events that are going to happen, You would be calling me God
        FLASHY, My goodness you say you are from Portland, Dang now i can under stand you a little better, depends if you were born and raised there. oh what does OLCC mean.

  • Daveh234

    I don’t see any attempt to disarm anyone.
    Registration and permitting.
    Getting Automatic type weapons off the streets.
    Some sensible regulation is all.
    But people are going to claim they are taking our right to bare arms away.

    • http://CNN john lowe


      Before you post, you might want to get your facts straight-

      1. Registration and permitting is already the law of the land.

      2. Automatic guns have never been used in this type of incident, and are regulated in the most stringent manner through special registration far and above what it takes to acquire a “semi-automatic” gun that was used in this particular incident. There is a huge difference between the two and you should make yourself aware of this fact.

      3. To bare arms is not the correct word, Dave, use a dictionary to check your facts. The correct word is “to bear” arms.

      4, It is ignorant people like you who knee-jerk to issues like this and have little regard for the facts, just sayin’


      • Daveh234

        I have four guns and never had a form handed to me. I live in Florida. Am considering getting Conceal permit though.
        Sorry if”automatic” was the wrong nomenclature. I’m no gun nut!
        The use of the “Bare” was satirical…like you bared your ass when you thought I must be an idiot.
        Why are you on such an attack mode?

      • Flashy

        Dave…they are in attack mode because the facts are facts…and the PC way of not controlling guns is out the window as of Newton. They are going to be on the defensive from now on until we establish control over the lunacy they have given us. They’ll use every reason, every excuse no matter how far fetched and how many ways it can be proven wrong.

      • momo

        Maybe they’re in attack mode because of dumb a$$ comments like this:

      • JC

        I’m not a fan of full auto weapons from a practical sense…being an avid target shooter and hunter, I see full auto as a waste of ammunition. However…I believe in the 2nd Amendment and its original intent. To preserve the ability of We The People to suppress and break up tyranny in government. So whatever is available at the gun store is fair game and any American who chooses to buy and store a full auto rifle against the day We The People need them, so be it. “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, especially not by a bunch of progressive air heads who are obnviously incapable of critical, conclusive thinking.

      • eddie47d

        So whatever a store is willing to sell ? Now I see the problem and would favor gun control even more. Ban even the semi-automatics!!

      • JC

        eddie you idiot! As usual your rhetoric makes so sense at all. :)

      • Dennis48e

        eddie is just showing his true colors. Despite his occasional claims to the contrary he is very anti gun. eddie has never to my knowledge opposed any proposed law restricting gun rights and has never supported any law relaxing restrictions on gun rights.

    • czman75

      There are no “automatic weapons” on the street, except what law enforcement have available. The people that legally own “select-fire weapons” would not risk losing the small fortune they spent and loss of freedom by using them illegally. People that keep spouting off about automatic weapons are just ignorant and probably a little stupid. do some homework first. Check the statistics concerning what type of weapons are used to commit crimes, you might be surprised to find out that doctors kill more people per year than guns, yet no one is screaming to ban them!

      • eddie47d

        Doctors and hospitals are sued for malpractice and Conservatives don’t think they should be sued for doing wrong. Yet a gun dealer can sell anything to anyone and destroy records within a few day and are immune from lawsuits. Hmmm!

      • ranger09

        FLASHY, Its people like you that our Guns Protect, And any Freedom you feel like you have and deserve, Its the nut cases we have always had in this country that is the Problem,Also the lazy crooks that steal instead of working, And they are becoming more and more of them all the time and they sure do not care about gun laws, Also i bet you are the type of person that call the Police every time a kid walks by your house with a toy gun.

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        December 18, 2012 at 3:57 pm

        Doctors and hospitals are sued for malpractice and Conservatives don’t think they should be sued for doing wrong. Yet a gun dealer can sell anything to anyone and destroy records within a few day and are immune from lawsuits. Hmmm!

        Well Kamrade, as usual your logic is totally inane….
        Apparently you’re incapable of distinguishing the difference between a person making a legal choice to buy a legal product and one of putting your total trust in a trained medical professional. If the salesman of a gun is incompetent he loses his job. If a Doctor is incompetent…he hides behind lawyers and the word “practice”.

        So by your logic Dr. Josef Mengele would be protected and we should be able to sue GM for crashing our own cars.

        Total wingnut…as usual…

      • Dennis48e

        “Yet a gun dealer can sell anything to anyone and destroy records within a few day and are immune from lawsuits. Hmmm!”

        More lies from eddie the champion of the anti-gun crowd. He better be careful or his nose will be so long he cannot even get into his house.

        • BR549

          Dennis wrote: “More lies from eddie the champion of the anti-gun crowd. He better be careful or his nose will be so long he cannot even get into his house.”

          Worse yet, his own people will mistake that nose for a firearm and drop his ass on his own front lawn.

          • Jeff

            No, that would be done by a gun nut (or a police officer if he’s Black). I finally saw an intelligent headline in the Post, labeling Wayne LaPierre as a Gun Nut. I hope his speech will be his last as an influence peddler, but I suspect it won’t be. I keep waiting for some gun genius to declare we don’t have a shooting problem but a ducking problem. Kids today just don’t know how to duck. It makes as much sense as putting an armed guard in every school. Shopping malls too? Churches? Anything rather than eliminate or curtail in any way the availability of military-style weapons with high capacity magazines, I guess.

          • BR549

            Jeff wrote: “I finally saw an intelligent headline in the Post, labeling Wayne LaPierre as a Gun Nut. I hope his speech will be his last as an influence peddler, but I suspect it won’t be.”

            Well, it appears that many within the gun community share your concern and do not necessarily agree with Mr. LaPierre’s solution. I am one of those. I will still posit, however, that the REAL problem lies in individuals becoming disconnected and disenfranchised within their own society, yet we never hear one word from our legislators or the president about exposing the corruptive influences within the agricultural and pharmaceutical industries.

            This says nothing of course that gun control is the secondary target; the real target here is the Constitution, but the left is still so mesmerized by their messiah that they forget that one of the main reasons they voted for him was to get out of Afghanistan. Well, here we are, four years later, and we’ve merely pulled some military slight of hand, while replacing it with a paramilitary infrastructure in the same region.

            The right had fallen for the same trick 8 years earlier under Bush, but the left can’t come to grips with the fact that they were led down the same primrose path, just following a different piper. The pathology here is that, while globalist forces were busy tearing down our belief structure, the population has been desperately seeking someone, anyone, with whom it can put its allegiance under. But since all the viable candidates have been run off the road, so to speak, on the way to the elections, all we are left with is one globalist stooge after another.

            You can bet your house that once the guns are gone, the Constitution will soon fall afterward, that is if anyone actually has a house left to call their own.

          • Jeff

            Stop with the Obamaphobia already. Saint Reagan did more to advance the cause of gun control than Obama has. The idea that Obama wants to dismantle the Constitution is nothing more than a right wing fantasy.

          • Joe America

            Jeff, Have you read “Dreams from my Father”? Just curious, as everything that’s not in favor of Obama has been labeled, by you, as a right wing/conservative conspiracy. You don’t know the history of our President, in fact, most people don’t. Why? Because he has and continues to receive a free pass from the press. Any other polititian would have been thoroughly vetted, and torn apart, but not Obama, because he’s 50% Afro-American; and, also because people in truly high places realize the value of him as a face man. Now, Morgan Freeman’s upset, because he’s not chocholate enough. But, there’s more to be concerned about, than his chocholateness, or vanillaness, which is the communist and socialist mentoring he’s received throughout his life. The fact that his grandparents (the white ones) and his childhood mentor, Frank Davis (black writer, poet, encouraged to mentor him by his white grandparents), were all card carrying communist, and proud of it. Obama is a product, that has been sold to the American people, with great zeal. Although, he’s more than able to sell himself. He’s a great speaker and when you listen to him, you want to like the guy. In the end, he’s only playing the cards he’s been dealt and quite well, I might add. I don’t blame Obama for anything, personally. However, you must know that no one, and I mean no one reaches the office of President of the USA, without some big help and he’s got big help and I don’t mean the American people. His talent has not escaped those in the New World Order driven organizations, like the UN, the Council on Foreign Relations, or the Trilateral Commission, or all of the central banking families of the world, who are the real power behind many, many thrones/world leaders, especially our office of the President. Presently, like most people, you’re myopic, politically, unable to see the bigger picture of who’s really running the world. You are a product of zombie media brainwashing. And, I don’t hold that against you. But, now that you’re being made aware, you should pull back that curtain and see who’s pulling the levers. Beware, though, because sometimes, ignorance is truly bliss. You may not be able to take the truth. Most people can’t, because it’s simply too frightening and too depressing.

          • spaman

            Just what is it with Obarmy worshippers …. are they so blinded by his inert brilliance that they only understand a tiny part of what he is doing, and none of that is any good.
            Sadly, the logic that supports this most socialist president is totally flawed, which brings into question the logic that says guns are evil and the shootings have no actual cause.

            The anti-gun, anti-church, anti-truth agenda of the socialists in our midst is now beyond doubt, and oh boy, do they know how to whip up the hysteria in their brain damaged followers(psych drug users?). The agenda may only move an inch at a time, but its moving constantly, and the warped discussion over school shootings is just the tip of the iceberge when it comes to making people powerless to look after themselves.

            While this discussion is missing the target completely, being all about guns, it does show how easily people are side-tracked and where the future of America lies when so few can understand what’s really going on.

          • Jeff

            You just keep believing that. The whole world is nuts. You’re the only sane one.

          • Jeff

            Have someone read this to you and maybe you’ll understand why you feel like no one “understands” you.


          • spaman

            Thanks Jeff – totally irrelevant and not even interesting….but spot on for an obarmy style response – IE:- no answer, no substance and designed to move away from the main subject by introducing half-truths and slurs.

          • Jim Chambers

            You might want to add, ‘to avoid any type of personal responsibility’. That is what Jeff and the other liberals are all about, shedding blame for the plight of this society that has become more hedonistic. These liberals get what they want, crazies walking the street, then they blame guns when these crazies start killing people.
            It’s just liberals evading the blame for the results of getting what they wanted.

          • Jeff

            Is it only the U.S. where “hedonism” is on the rise? Because it is only here that we have these extraordinary levels of gun violence. You can blame me if it floats your boat, but more guns means more gun deaths. It’s that simple. Keep the military weapons on the street because you dream of fighting off the Army and we’ll continue to see children butchered with them. It may not be what you intend, but it is certainly the end result of the policies you prefer.

            We can only hope the NRA is the last casualty of the Connecticut Massacre, but for gun nuts there is no tragedy that will diminish their love of bigger and more deadly guns. Do you finally feel like a man when you hold a really big gun? Why not just buy a red Porsche?

            In Australia, they had a tragic shooting some years ago. They banned these crazy guns (no grandfather clause), and their shootings have dropped way off. I’m sure you’ll come up with some statistics about increased shoplifting or some nonsense, but the shootings have stopped.

          • BR549

            Jeff wrote: “You can blame me if it floats your boat, but more guns means more gun deaths.”

            That’s like saying that more cars equal more vehicular deaths and blaming the cars. The REAL issue in that case would have been to address why people might still be needing, in their own minds anyway, to speed everywhere and not showing courtesy on the highway. Another issue might have been the over-centralization of our cities to the point where people become estranged from their own society. The average liberal wouldn’t understand the problem past that point because they’re too concerned with getting their kids to the soccer game in their new Volvo XC70 before racing back to Starbucks for their third half-caf soy latte that day.

            Volvo actually had this ad about 6 or 8 years back that portrayed you people perfectly. It showed this yuppie dad racing a Volvo Wagon to drop one one kid off at a soccer match and then racing again to drop the other kid off to a swim meet. Then, instead of actually BEING THERE for at least ONE of his kids and telling the other that he would stay there for them at the next game, he continually races back and forth between the two events to give the ILLUSION that he was there for each one of them. In actuality, had either of the kids asked him if he saw some particular play or lap, he’d have to lie about it, which doesn’t seem to bother these people. He gave the ILLUSION of being the consummate dad, but wasn’t really there for either one.

            I used that Volvo ad because it interestingly reflected VOLVO’S image of that genre at the time. Volvo thought they could get more sales by actually reinforcing the existing stereotype. Mercedes had an ad not too far off that one, but both were soon removed.

            They see this gun issue solely at face value, but anyone with an intellect is looking beyond the knee-jerk responses of the liberals, and knee-jerk is about as accurate as one can get in describing it.

          • Jeff

            Where do you live that you believe such things are literal? When my son played soccer, I don’t recall anyone leaving. Also, the Flintstones and The Jeff Foxworthy Show – they’re not real either. And the other thing that’s not real is your obsession with taking on the Government because you’ve got some stupid gun.

          • BR549

            Jeff wrote: “And the other thing that’s not real is your obsession with taking on the Government because you’ve got some stupid gun. ….”

            First off, each one of my guns resents your calling them stupid.

            And secondly, my reference to the Volvo ad was to address what was, apparently to the advertising community, a very real stereotype, but when it comes out that you might be associating and identifying with these people, then you get your panties in a knot.

            As Joe and Jim, here, have been pointing out, trying to have a conversation with you is like trying to nail Jello to a moving buckboard.

            Excuse me, I have to go back and finish listening to some well educated black American who has been railing against his fellows because they had voted for Obama because he was black and with absolutely ZERO comprehension of the issues at hand. I like this guy already.

          • Jeff

            It’s Republican Affirmative Action. There are 27 Black Republicans in the country and every one of them gets on TV, some just as window dressing at the Convention.

          • Joe America

            Hey, Killer! In Africa, gun violence, as well as violence of all kinds, is greater than any place on the face of the earth. You take guns away from American citizens, and they will be vunerable and unable to defend themselves. You don’t see American’s running around with limbs hacked off. Millions of women gang raped, just because someone has a gun pointed to their head. Yes, Killer, take a look at Africa, Mexico and any other nation where citizens don’t have guns to protect themselves. What happens, only the armed and the strong survive. I used to feel sorry for you, Killer, now, you simply disgust me, because I have a stong inkling that you are a UN/NWO shill. And, being such, you are an enemy of every man, woman and child on the face of this earth, who desires to be free.

          • BR549

            Joe America responded to Jeff: “…… I have a stong inkling that you are a UN/NWO shill. And, being such, you are an enemy of every man, woman and child on the face of this earth, who desires to be free.”

            What was pointed out about the globalists’ intentions was that in order to facilitate their end, their New World Order, they intend to employ various tactics to intentionally destroy any social binding that takes place through religion, ethnic identification, or nationalism. It is why the US Constitution sticks in their craw so much and why it has to be taken down; because they don’t want any other countries to view it as a structural model.

            But don’t tell Jeffy that. He’s still opening his presents this morning wondering all bright eyed at the half eaten cookie on the kitchen table.

          • Jim Chambers

            You continue to make my point. More guns does not mean more gun deaths, more crazies means more gun deaths. But because you and those like you demand that they belong on the street to assault defenseless children and it make you feel good about yourself it will happen. You hedonists along with the ACLU, while not being able to convince the rest of this society that your ideas have merit, have no problem convincing inane judges that you need to feel good by letting these mental bombs walk the streets.
            I hope you feel good about yourself. It’s just too bad 20 kids had to die to facilitate your feelings about yourself. You poor pathetic fool, you have that mental disease called liberalism.

          • Joe America

            Directly on the mark, Jim.

          • BR549

            Jim wrote: “It’s just liberals evading the blame for the results of getting what they wanted.”

            In all fairness to Jeff, he’s of the mind that it’s an all or nothing situation and that all us are right wing crazies and incapable of connecting his dots. Instead, he should be looking at the ACTUAL right wing crazies, who thought Bush was doing a good job and who are STILL, today, believing that the liberals are all commies. They’re not.

            The problem is in the extremes on BOTH sides not willing to concede that their favorite party ideologies might have fallen victim to self-serving forces that allowed men without a social conscience to hijack their party, and they will steadfastly stick to their stories, no matter how much logic and data you throw at them.

            You have to at least commend these people for their convictions, but without also connecting the “historical” dots, and understanding what is happening to the Constitution, they’re just pissing uphill into the wind. From a constitutional standpoint, we ALL stand the chance of losing out to the globalists and this whole party thing that the globalist elite keeps fanning the flames for every four years, just keeps us quarreling amongst ourselves.

            “Don’t pay any attention to that man behind the curtain.”

          • Jeff

            My personal choice might be to outlaw all guns, but NO ONE is advocating such a position. Any reasonable regulation of guns will necessarily include a ban on military-style weapons and large-capacity clips. But if you see yourself in a potential civil war against the Government, then you will think you need military weapons, an air force, and drones. Why not nukes? I mean, once you’ve taken one crazy position, the rest follow logically.

            The first question is what is envisioned in the 2nd amendment. The second question is whether that vision is viable in a society so diametrically opposite to that of the founding fathers. In 1789, most people were still farmers or lived rurally. A gun in those days could fire one shot, then had to be reloaded. The amount of damage that could be done by a lunatic with a gun was limited. The guns weren’t even that accurate.

            Can you imagine Jefferson or Madison approving the kind of mass slaughter we are currently witnessing on our streets with cheap handguns and in our schools, shopping malls, movie theatres, and churches with these military weapons? Times change and so do the meanings of words like “reasonable,” “cruel and unusual,” and “well-regulated.” You guys currently have the Scalito Court in your pockets, but it won’t always be this way. Eventually, there will be some sensible people on that Court who can both read and think.

          • Joe America

            Jeff, You want to ban guns, by a little drip drab at a time. “Military style” guns? The very term tells me what a fool and idiot you are. You’re talking about how it looks, not how it functions. All guns kill, that’s a fact and that’s what they’re supposed to do. One looks straight and benign to the novice and the other looks like it could take out an army, but both have the same mechanism of action. An AR15 fires a .223 or 5.56 round (there the same size round, but 5.56 is more powerful), and so does the Ruger Ranch rifle. One looks military, while the other looks, well, like a ranch rifle. However, both function exactly the same, being semi-automatic. As far as the numbers of round in each clip, you can have many, many 10 or 20 round clips and kill as many people.
            Your problem, Killer, is that you are advocating against the people, not for the people, which tells me you’re a one world government plant, sent here to shovel the NWO line, which is to take all guns from the people. That way, they’re plyable, vunerable, and unable to defend themselve against tryanny. Just admit it, that’s what you want and that’s what you’re supporting. You, who are no friend to the people, are, in fact, the enemy of the people.

          • Jeff

            I don’t claim to be a gun expert like you and Gordon Liddy. If you want to tell us all you know about guns, go right ahead. But any gun that can hit 70 people in less than a minute is far more military-like than any civilian needs for anything.

          • RL Pfeifer

            you need to quit going to the movies.

          • Jeff

            The movies are where the gun nuts get their ideas. Everybody with a gun thinks he’s suddenly Arnold Schwarzenegger or Bruce Willis. Sorry, you’re still the same schnook, but now you’re holding a gun.

          • Joe America

            Jeff, aka Killer, It’s all about the second amendment, which is all about personal defense against tyranny. You’re tyranny’s representative, it’s lackey. Why are you supporting oppression of the people? Why are you so desperate to put yourself, and all Americans behind the eight ball? Do you trust our leadership, without reservation? That’s allot of trust. What would you do if a tyrannical government were to take over? Just curious. Frankly, I’d just roll over.

          • BR549

            Jeff wrote: “The first question is what is envisioned in the 2nd amendment. The second question is whether that vision is viable in a society so diametrically opposite to that of the founding fathers.

            and, “Can you imagine Jefferson or Madison approving the kind of mass slaughter we are currently witnessing on our streets with cheap handguns and in our schools, shopping malls, movie theatres, and churches with these military weapons? Times change and so do the meanings of words like “reasonable,” “cruel and unusual,” and “well-regulated.”


            As far as what is envisioned in the 2nd Amendment, constitutional scholars have little trouble interpreting its meaning, since any in depth investigation would include additional interpretive works like the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798,-9. The problem is that politically motivated revisionist judges conveniently look the other way and attempt to redefine what the founding fathers had meant the 2nd Amendment and indeed ALL the other amendments to mean.

            So, you say that times have changed or that the meaning of the wording has changed to no longer reflect what the forefathers had intended. I would vehemently argue otherwise, and when you factor in the additional writings, it becomes blatantly clear that the founding fathers had a far greater understanding of the workings of mens’ minds than the average person does today. Too many people think that since all that happened over 200 years ago, that these guys were rube farmers who’d fallen off the back of the turnip truck. Far from it; these fathers were extremely well educated and several fluent in several languages. Many had studied philosophy; not the cookie-cutter academic variety, mind you, but these guys were following in the footsteps of John Locke.

            Even John Locke, who has been credited with founding modern day liberalism and for progressively reforming capitalism, would be appalled at what has been taken place in this country. He never espoused caving in to oligarchic demands for world domination and enslavement of the people; heck, he was trying to expand the minds of men to realize and become something greater and that is in total contrast to the direction we are headed in.

            As far as Jefferson approving the mass slaughter on our streets, we need to remember his quote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” He certainly wasn’t condoned the mass murders we are seeing today. He would see those as a departure from the well-regulated citizens’ militia, and if we couldn’t behave ourselves enough to control our population, perhaps we had not reached that level of civil maturity that the forefathers believed we were capable of. If Jefferson were alive today, and more importantly ….. even be allowed to speak via the media, we wouldn’t be having these occurrences in the first place because the population would have been taught US history, taught the Constitution, and taught WHY God was mentioned in so many aspects of our government, and it wasn’t to mix church and state. It was to force the King of England to acknowledge that WE derived our rights from a power higher than any human king and that no human could take them away.

            You can argue about the meanings changing all you want, but one thing is clear, and the forefathers knew about this very well, the egos of men hadn’t changed throughout history and as long as men wanted top be free and knew why they should be free, nothing could keep them in chains. Of course, if they had been intentionally denied that education, as has so poignantly pointed out by Charlotte Iserbyt, and the glue of ethnicity, nationality, and religion is slowly stripped out from underneath them, then they will all beg to be ruled over. There isn’t anything about the wording back then that has changed its meaning today, except for people who haven’t read what the forefathers had read.

            Alexis de Toqueville had stated,
            “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

            “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

            And lastly, de Toqueville also stated, “Nothing is more wonderful than the art of being free, but nothing is harder to learn how to use than freedom.”

            Please enlighten us how ANYONE in this modern day and age has even come close to surpassing the wisdom of our forefathers or even the visiting de Toqueville. We’re waiting.

          • Jim Chambers


            We all know what your preferences are. You have that mental disease that allows you and those like you to think that you can get off the hook by blaming the gun after you and the ACLU have let loonies free to shoot up schools and kill kids.

            Even back in Jefferson’s and Madison’s time they recognized who were the crazies and locked them up. At that time there was no treatment but they still had a few steps on the likes of you. They knew what you don’t seem to know, that crazy people kill people and a tool is only a tool. Without controlling the crazy the tool doesn’t matter, people will die.

            You seem to be fixated on the number of dead in one place all at the same time. The fact that over a year’s time in Chicago alone more than 400 were killed with means other than what you call an assault weapon, I guess, is OK as long as an assault weapon wasn’t used and as long as no more than one or two were killed at any given time and location.

            You are arguing to be let off the hook. You know you are because If you were really serious about guns and this issue you would be using what little talent you possess to go after gangs, crazies and criminals who use weapons illegally. You would be arguing for more a better laws to confine the criminals and mentally ill to institutions where they could not harm your children and my grand children. If we didn’t have the criminals and crazies on the loose none of us would have a need for guns, now would we? But not you, you want to dither this matter til hell freezes over instead of tackling the real problem. You remind me of a cat in the litter box after making a deposit.

            Those men you mentioned, at least, were able to think and come to a logical conclusion without resorting to trying to shed the blame for their conduct. No, I don’t think they would have approved of the mass killing of kids but I am sure they would had the mental ability to lay the blame where it belongs. Right in the lap of people like you.

            I’ll tell you what they would be appalled at though, they would be flummoxed at the fact that we have some many intellectually lazy and backward fools like you who are weak minded enough to fall for the liberal line of ‘blame the gun’ so you won’t be blamed for what is happening in today’s society.

            You’ve proven here over and over that you are one deep thinker. You are a bulldog. Once you have your little mind made up no amount of common sense or logic will change it. I guess if I were in your shoes I would try to place the blame elsewhere, too.

            You have my pity, Jeff. Hopefully, because you don’t seem to be able to even harm yourself let alone others, they won’t come for you carrying the jacket with the long arms.

          • Jeff

            Your “common sense” begins and ends with the fallacious proposition that more guns on the street make us safer. Since we have more guns than virtually any other country per capita and we have the most gun violence, I seriously question your premise. And, as we know, if you start with a faulty premise, the best logic in the world will yield faulty results.

          • BR549

            Jeff wrote in response to Jim Chambers: “Your “common sense” begins and ends with the fallacious proposition that more guns on the street make us safer.”

            No, Jeff, it’s actually more CONSCIOUS CITIZENS on the street that makes us safer, and as long as the current government strategy remains of intentionally dumbing down the population to set the stage for globalist takeover, as has been in place now for 100 years, people will become increasingly more disenfranchised and disconnected from WHATEVER society they are living in, not just here.

            Owning a gun is more about believing in the right to owning it more than owning it, and I think Jim and the majority of gun owners would agree with me on that one. This isn’t suggesting that every gun toting redneck or serial thug is deserving of the term ‘conscious’, only that the vast majority of gun owners acknowledge the tremendous responsibility there is with gun ownership and they can see how our politicians have become corrupted with greed and are all too willing to sell our heritage out for a few globalist crumbs on their plate now, today, while sabotaging our childrens’ future.

            More guns on the street only means more guns on the street and it’s also a reflection of how poorly and ineffectively our governing bodies have been addressing the problems of our society during its growth. It might be considered to be a miners’ canary for what ISN’T working, but then, you’d probably feel more comfortable shooting the canary if it could get you some mileage.

          • Jeff

            That’s all fine, and it’s your 1st Amendment right to believe anything you want. But the empirical evidence still suggests a strong causal link between having more guns on the street and having more gun violence. You can say anything you want, but that fact remains.

          • BR549

            Jeff wrote: “But the empirical evidence still suggests a strong causal link between having more guns on the street and having more gun violence.”

            And people used to also think that the empirical evidence of the time showed them that the Earth was flat. What a Rube! There are rocks all over the surface of the planet, but that doesn’t mean that we have to clean them up so people don’t stone each other to death.

            Some people, it seems, actually NEED to live in a nanny state and they can’t imagine surviving without it; you are one of them. Man, in your mind, I guess, must be inherently evil. That explains a lot.

          • RL Pfeifer

            Firearms are used 1.5 million to 2.5 million times a year to stop crime. (depends on who you believe the FBI or John Lott)

          • Jeff

            Actually, I think shooting the messenger is more your style on the right. Witness your reaction to Al Gore who is merely a messenger. He’s not a scientist, but to you kooks on the right, global warming must be a hoax because he was the one who brought the research into public view. When I read “critiques” of the global warming hypothesis based upon Al Gore’s personal electric bill, I smile at the sheer irrelevance of such arguments. So, if anyone’s going to shoot the canary, it will be a God-fearing Conservative with enough ammo to blow him away “reeeal gooood.”

          • Jim Chambers

            Before you start touting Algore you need to look into his business holdings and what he has been doing to make a substantial living. He has convinced you and fools like you that you need to buy carbon credits, which he is more than happy to sell you at a profit, in order to save the environment.
            What a sap.

          • Jeff

            What I’m saying is Al Gore’s personal merit or foibles have nothing to do with the merits of the climate change theory. If the leading physicists say it’s happening and Gore was the messenger, it really doesn’t matter if he’s a good guy or a bad guy. The science is what matters.

          • BR549

            Jeff wrote: “What I’m saying is Al Gore’s personal merit or foibles have nothing to do with the merits of the climate change theory. If the leading physicists say it’s happening and Gore was the messenger, it really doesn’t matter if he’s a good guy or a bad guy. The science is what matters.”

            Well, yes and no. We’re now understanding that many of those scientists, (including those that WEREN’T corrupted and following the dictated global party line), were in agreement that some form of global warming was taking place. The question was and always has been, was mankind causing it.

            Now, if the average pencil-necked geek scientist hasn’t yet heard of the globalist objective or how its group already has a machiavellian track record, he would be inclined to agree that we were having a rise that MUST be caused by mankind. But this issue with the pretense of increasing the atmospheric albedo, while secretly militarizing the atmosphere, how are these slide rule fetishists supposed to come up with an accurate determination with only half the data? At the time Gore was doing his “Inconvenient Truth” thing, no one had connected these dots. Now they have.

            The bottom line is that the globalists are “using” a guilt ridden population to exercise their personal agenda, and some people are swallowing it, hook, line, and sinker.

          • Jim Chambers

            Surrrre, Jeffy, surrrre. The rest of can trust you, algore and the type of studies done by these scientists who posit a theory and then set about proving it using the fallacious studies they have used so far.
            Surrrrre, Jeffy. But hold onto your wallet.
            What a sap.

          • BR549

            Jeff wrote: “Actually, I think shooting the messenger is more your style on the right. Witness your reaction to Al Gore who is merely a messenger. He’s not a scientist, but to you kooks on the right, global warming must be a hoax because he was the one who brought the research into public view. When I read “critiques” of the global warming hypothesis based upon Al Gore’s personal electric bill, I smile at the sheer irrelevance of such arguments.”

            See Jeff, this is the part where if you could, I would invite you to pull your head out of your butt. I do not affiliate will either party. I resent, as many others do, of being forced to conform to the necessary pigeon-holing of simple-minded idiots simply because their minds aren’t large enough to grasp a larger body of independent thought.

            I had once admired Al Gore, back when he came out with his “Inconvenient Truth”. I was behind him 100%. That was BEFORE I learned about the politics behind him and the REAL reason behind the movie. Now, as most people are coming to understand, yes, we really do have a global warming problem, but not for the reasons given. Globalist elites have been aware of this problem long enough and have postured themselves to further distance themselves from the masses through the imposition of Carbon Taxes. That was why the IPCC meetings failed to convince the third world countries that they too owed money in carbon taxes, even though they had contributed next to nothing to the problem. For the elites who were pushing GW, it wasn’t about the climate, it was all about the taxes from the start. When you dive into this and realize the succession of paperwork behind their motives, all of a sudden, the plot changes.

            It’s like watching the Matrix. To the simple minded, the plot seems to be about futuristic, post-apocalyptic, survival of humans against the machines, and it has plenty of guns, noise, and violence to keep their pea-brains busy, but to anyone with an intellect, it’s about the coming of a messiah. Same thing with global warming, except if you want to find out the truth, just as with the gun issue, you have to dig a little deeper, into the politics.

            But back to global warming, on top of that, since the government has now come out and admitted that it really was doing its Chemtrail program all along, SUPPOSEDLY to increase the albedo of the atmosphere and reflect sunlight back out into space, NOW we learn that the layers of nano-particulate barium and aluminum compounds had been part of a militarization project called HAARP, the science of which was first envisioned by Tesla. These Chemtrails have also been reflecting infrared radiation back toward Earth during the nighttime radiational cooling cycle, which has greatly increased global warming, but as long as they could get a gullible population believing that it alone was responsible and get the carbon tax structure in place, it would be too late to stop it. The chemtrail issue really came to light during Clinton, but it was probably initiated During Bush41. The point is that NOW we are finding causal links between the HAARP project in the increase in atmospheric temperature, which would definitely raise the CO2 level.

            As for Gore’s personal electric bill and your smiling at the “sheer irrelevance of such arguments”, …….. you have to be kidding.

          • Jim Chambers

            Do you think that sidetracking is by happenstance?
            Liberals will do what it takes to shed the blame for their failings, and they are legion.

          • spaman

            Jim – No, its deliberate …they do it all the time to avoid being shown responsible for the chaos they cause/support…

            How do we recognize an obarmarite/liberal/socialist?
            They use spin & lies to conceal the truth.

            How do we know they’re lying?
            Their lips move.

          • Jim Chambers

            If you want the sad truth most of them are unaware of their complicity in the situation. All they know it what they do makes them feel better about themselves. As you can tell by the posts by the liberals here they are unable to follow simple logic to it’s end point and therefore they are incapable of recognizing what they have done.
            I think Michael Savage had it right. Liberalism IS a mental disease.

          • spaman

            That’s the best explanation possible ….

            What I’d like to know though is when people with this disease are going to be stopped from holding office, or procreating?

            At the very least, admitting to be a liberal-socialist should be a legal offence.

          • Joann Flanagan

            Oh you mean like “1984″ and “Brave New World” which proved all too prophetic,Jeff?
            Joann Flanagan

          • Joe America

            Jeff, Do you really think you’re going to take guns from criminals? Mexico has the most strict gun laws in the world. Hell, they took one of our Marines, who took an antique shotgun into Mexico, and put him in prison. However, their gun laws aren’t working very well, as they are suffering killings, daily, that mirror Sandy Hook. That’s daily! Killer. So, who’s the moron now? Gun confiscation and gun restriction doesn’t work. Those who want guns, particularly criminals, will always have them. Fools, like you Killer, want the law of the Jungle to prevail over the masses. You want them hobbled down on their hands and knees, the weak, beholding by the overbarring and the strong, a place wear the law of the jungle prevails, that’s what pieces of crap like you want, and support. You want a woman to be raped by someone stronger than her, without the leverage of the gun, that might save her, getting in the way. That’s what you are really all about, Killer. You want the strong, to vanquish the weak. You want the strong to beat up and steal from the elderly, and, possibly kill them. That’s what you want. Well, Killer, you’re going to get it, because it will happen. It will happen because of morons, such as yourself. In all likelyhood, you work for George Soros, another NWO piece of dung. Now, you’ll have John Kerry, a Skull and Bones member, who is more beholding to his secret society, than he is to the people of Massachusetts, and now, he’ll be secretary of state, and will be more beholding to his secret society, than the American people. You’re going to get your wish, Killer. Be patient, because the NWO is just around the corner, coming soon to a neighborhood near you.

    • Gene

      Dave, fully automatic weapons were banned from the general public years ago. It is the very mis-informed people like you who scvream the loudest, yet know nothing about the subject. Do a little studying before posting. And if I want to do so, I will “bare” my arms all day long…just as long as I am wearing sunscreen.

      • Daveh234

        Jeez, Gene, I said I didn’t use the right term. Give up trying to be over the top.
        There are numerous arguments and they must be all wrong from what I gather here.

      • JC

        I wasn’t aware of that. Thanks

    • Jim Chambers

      So, you want even more regulations on gun ownership. That, however, isn’t the problem. You, sir, are the problem. Your knee jerk reaction to this tragedy and seemingly inability to recognize that the person pulling the trigger was responsible for this.
      It gets down to this. Are we going to control the tools by which deeds are done? If so, using your logic, we need to control airplanes after what happened on 9-11, automobiles considering what happens on the road each and every day and baseball bats which have been used to bludgeon people to death. I could add to this list ad infinitum.
      Let me offer an alternative to this simple mindedness. Let’s try to control the crazy’s among us that were turned out onto the streets by Kunstler type lawyers, short sighted judges and bleeding heart liberals who think with their heart like you seem to do. Isn’t it a bit better to put someone like the guy that did this deed in an institution so that he cannot hurt others or himself? Wouldn’t that have been a bit more humane? This guy might even have been curable, who knows?
      Oh, that’s not cool? He had his rights? Well, so did those kids. They had a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This nut took that away. Don’t you think it would have been better if this nut would have been institutionalized and these poor innocent children had a chance to fulfill their constitutional right? One crazy institutionalized or 26 people dead? What say you?

      • Flashy

        Jim…read my long post below. I’ll look forward to your response.

      • Jim Chambers

        The above reply was to Dave234.

      • Daveh234

        Mom was a survivalist stockpiling guns for the coming armageddon. His symptons might not have been critical enough to do anything. It’s hard to tell the difference when the whole plan was to overpower themselves for their belief of pending doom. It was them that caused the doom.

      • eddie47d

        Our weak gun control laws are also responsible for these tragedies Joe. The time is up for the pro gun folks to stop pretending that these tragedies aren’t happening and look for excuses to keep them going. The right to bear arms is not a licence to kill and you aren’t doing a thing to stop these senseless killings.

      • Jeff

        Yes, the problem is not enough people in prison. Except most of the mass shooters have no criminal record. But talking tough about liberal judges always sounds good to right wing know-nothings.

    • Robert

      Dave, We are in attack mode because the government will use this incident to do the very same thing that Hitler did, Reguire registration and latter send storm troopers to seaze weopons. Then begin ethnic cleasing. Their moto; never let a good opportunity go to waste. Our school has one armed deputy full time and I beleive the principal and some teachers should have been armed in the school where the tradjedy happened.

      • Joe America

        Robert, Right ON!

    • Alex Frazier

      Dave, I agree. Some sensible regulation isn’t out of the question. I don’t think a citizen should have an F-16 (because of some of the secrecy involved in the design) or a nuclear warhead (which I believe no one in the world should have, regardless of their station or title).

      But as for the rest, the citizens have the right to anything the government has. We, in essence, have the right to arm ourselves in such a manner as to be able to make war on our own government if the need should ever arise.

      Just imagine the freedom of speech … but nouns are now banned.
      No troops in your home … but your living room is now called “the front yard” by those in charge.
      You have the right to privacy … but you can’t go into your house, car, bathroom, or anywhere else where you might enjoy it.

      Get the gist? It’s not a freedom if you hamper it. To have the right to keep and bear arms … but with the restriction that the arms you want to keep are illegal, and to bear them is equally illegal … completely undermines the freedom at its core.

      • rural dweller

        No one is addressing the real problem. It doesn’t matter who or why attacks are done.
        There will always be these kind of people in the world. You can take away guns, but there are knives, bow and arrows etc. Anything can be a weapon.

        We must operate in the offense…not the defense. The lawmakers & yes, citizens, are
        the culprits in the Ct. school massacre happening. They should have used past
        experience ( columbine etc. ) to fix the problem….but no, they put their children in a gun free (weapon free) environment and “hope” for the best. Schools should be armed both with guns and barriers to keep the crazies at bay. Look to Israel for the answer.

        If we cannot protect our young, then how can we expect to survive as a nation.

        • Joe America

          Finally, someone with common sense.

      • Joe America

        Alex, Now, damn it, I wanted an F16. I probably shouldn’t have one, because I can’t even fly a glider. Well, I guess you’re right. An F16 shouldn’t be under my control. However, it would be fun.

      • JC

        Right on Alex.

      • eddie47d

        Israel is being attacked from the outside we are being assaulted from the inside. Big difference! Go back to your bunker!

      • JC

        eddie you idiot…an attack is an attack, what is the difference?
        Oh never mind…I forgot, you’re insane and incapable of rational thinking…

    • Nadzieja Batki

      By reading your post it appears that you have no common sense and as the expression is “you can’t see past your nose” why means you are very naive.


    people kill people not GUNS.SAD SAD WHAT HAPPEN.

    • Jim in NY

      People with guns kill people.

      • Joe America


        Just curious, how do you feel about video games that teach kids to dehumanize, then kill people?

      • Teddy

        People with guns have stopped murderers in their tracks, too. The young mother with her newborn child in a trailer in Arkansas was the victim of a break-in, where the three men attempted to kill her and her child. She dialed 911 and asked the Emergency Operator if she could use her shotgun in defense of herself and her baby, because these three derranged animals were trying to break down her bedroom door. The Operator told her that the Deputies were on their way, and to shoot if she needed to. Well, she needed to, and killed two of the three Criminals that attempted to kill her. The third piece of dirt ran away, and was picked up some time later.

        Recently, a Stalker broke into Country Music Star, Taylor Swift’s home, to do only what he could imagine in his twisted mind. The man had a weapon on him. It was a knife. Why do you think that he was carrying the knife? Well, his reason for having it is very different from millions of people who have draws full of French and Utility knives in their Kitchen, without any of these objects committing criminal acts by themselves. Will we now hear of a national ban on knives?

        The MS13 Gang routinely uses the machette as the weapon of choice for brutal murders which are carried out on rival Gangs, those who are believed disloyal to their Gang or family, as well as all those innocent victims who just happen to be unlucky enough to cross their paths. Are we suffering from high machette violence, or are we suffering from an overload of Criminal behavior?

        Think about all the people run down by those speeding, and Drag Racing, those who involve others in accidents because of Road Rage, and DWI. I have to add talking and texting on Cell Phones here, too. No matter how many laws have been passed recently, I can’t go anywhere in my car without seeing some idiot on his or her phone, or looking down and pressing buttons on the damned thing. Yet, these people cause accidents, and hit pedestrians at a very high rate, but I have yet to hear any screaming about banning cell phones.

        As for DWI, we have already tried Prohibition, which was a bad joke, because all that did was let Organized Crime groups like the Mafia, and others, gain extraordinary power by supplying what people wanted, while paying off many Judges, Police Officers, and Lawmakers, many of which were frequent vistiors to Speak Easies, which were also controlled by the Mob.

        I recall another tragedy some time ago at a Night Club called, “Happy Land” in New York City. A man who was causing problems in the Club was asked to leave and escorted out on New Year’s Eve, only to come back some time later with a can of gasoline and a match, which he used, and burned the Club down, killing over 100 people. You live in New York, Jim. You should recall that. Does owning and carrying a gas can make you a potential muderer and arsonist? How about all those Storm Victims from Hurricane Sandy, and the following Nor’easter, when they had to carry gas cans to the nearest Gas Stations to buy a few gallons for their cars and generators? Were they instant suspects because they had a gas can in their possession?

        How about Berhardt Goetz? He was the repeated victim of Muggings and beatings in his New York City Neighborhood, so often, that one beating was almost fatal. Bernie Goetz pleaded with the New York City Police for a concealed carry permit, which was repeatedly denied. He then obtained a firearm through other means, to protect his life. He was again put in jeopardy of his life, while on the Subway, when four men, carrying sharpened screwdrives, after a long day of breaking into Arcade Games for the quarters, asked Goetz in a very intimidating tone of voice, while surounding him, for $5.00. What these Thugs did not expect was for frail and skinny Bernhardt Goetz to pull out a .38 caliber revolver and start shooting. What happened right after that was the elated joy by all Subway and Bus Riders in the City that someone did something to protect themselves. Goetz was a hero to most people, all while crime on the streets and Subways dropped over 90%. What Criminal would dare try and rob someone while carrying a knife, when his victim could potentially pull out a gun?

        I would like people to further examine the use of various anti-depressant drugs which have been linked to suicide and other extreme behaviors. Oddly enough, many Pharmaceutical drug Commercials run the check list of possible side effects of the use of their drugs, which include a dry cough and nose bleed, all the way down to suicide, heart attacks, stoke, and death. Now those are some powerful side effects, which it seems that the cure is worse than the disease. Once again, no one in the Media or in our Elected Offices ever wants to investigate the prescribed uses of these drugs, most often by derranged shooters in Columbine.

      • Vicki

        Jim in NY says:
        “People with guns kill people.”

        People with knives kill people.
        People with bats kill people.
        People with rocks kill people.
        People with hammers kill people.
        People with chainsaws kill people.
        People with swords kill people.

        Do we see a common element here yet?

      • Alan

        Correction….people with any weapon kill people!

      • eddie47d

        It was mentioned on Saturday that there was a similar incident in China on the same day. A classroom was attacked by a man with a knife. The difference is that none of the 22 students had any life threatening injuries . In Newton 27 people died by semi-automatic weapons. Now if you can’t see the difference in the killing power and the ease of killing between those weapons then you all have very serious problems. I get tired of the old knife excuse is equally as dangerous or a rock or whatever. Some of you will never get it as is proven all the time.

      • Harold Olsen

        So do people with knives, automobiles, baseball bats, fists and just about any other object they can get their hands on.

  • rt

    How can we have a rational discussion about self defense with a media that doesn’t tell the whole story?
    This is half the problem with the US now, the media is one sided liberal and in many cases, just dumb. Other half of the problem is the American population, half of which is dumb.

    • Daveh234

      Which half are you part of?
      I have my opinion….

    • Flashy
      • Alex Frazier

        The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

      • Flashy

        5-4 against a complete ban in the home and the opinion was highly qualified. There is plenty of legal opinion out there suggesting the decision will be a weak one with little weight in any future “look” at the 2nd. Scalia tried, I’ll give him that, but the dissent was strong.

        Doesn’t abridge the history of the 2nd and how it was used in arguments throughout history.

      • Vicki

        The founding fathers disagree with both him and the person who wrote the article that Flashy posted (Thanks flashy. You used a link)

        Here is some of the evidence that the founders considered the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms was essential for defense (at all levels)

        There will likely be duplicate quotes

      • Teddy

        Why don’t you think about the Colonists, and then the Pioneers crossing the Great Plains in Wagon Trains, that used their weapons, Flintlocks, and later, rifles, to protect their families from Indian attacks, and from Bandits? Pioneer women were often the ones that protected their children from such attacks, and were vey knowledgable in the use of those weapons.Self Defense is a GOD given natural right. If it is up to the Police to protect all of us, why didn’t they stop this horrific outrage from happening in the first place? Because they cannot be everywhere they are needed at once. They were five or 10 minutes away, when seconds counted, and one armed Teacher or Principal could have made all the difference in the world.

      • eddie47d

        Alex apparently think the Constitution can be amended to the whims of the Supreme Court. Hmmm! He might be right!

        • Joann Flanagan

          The Supreme Court unquestioningly agrogates too much power to itself.Their function is to interpet the Law not make it but they mandates laws anyway.
          Joann Flanagan

      • eddie47d

        The problem Teddy is the fire power of a semi-automatic weapon. Whether handgun types or rifle. Its quaint to bring up pioneers yet most Indians still had bows and arrows and generally were at a disadvantage. Our troops back then had cannons and Gatling guns also. Semi-automatic weapons do nothing more than to give one side more power over another. Those kids in Newtown were on the losing side of that stick and our love for violence and ease of killing.

    • Jim in NY

      I think more than 1/2 the population is dumb.Just read some of the comments here.

      • OneGuess

        So true, as we have all read YOUR comments.

        • http://yahoo Charles

          You are so right one guess look who got elected in Nov.

      • Teddy


        Why don’t you watch a few videos on You Tube? One is called, “2A Today for the USA”. and the other is, “Overview of America”.

        As for anti-depressant drugs, they have been discussed on such sites as .

      • JC

        While Jim in (ultra liberal) NY has offered unqualified criticisms…he has yet to explain how we would be safer from criminals and tyrants by being disarmed. Until he has something intelligent to say he’s just another air head liberal troll.
        Perhaps he didn’t notice that the victims at Newtown were disarmed.
        Or that the police there were unable to protect them…
        yet he would put us all in the same position.

        And that is supposed to be intelligent?

    • gman

      We need to get people to realize that; being free is worth dying for, that we are patriots who want freedom for all, that we are productive members of society who want our country to flourish.[/QUOTE]

      I think this thought will do nothing for our cause and belief. The reason I believe that is because people as a whole believe the children that just died are gone because of our freedoms and beliefs. That is why people as a whole think we might as well have pulled the trigger ourselves. People associate us with the nut job shooter because they think the freedoms we support are what put the gun in the hands of the shooter. This is why people think we need gun control. This is why people agree we don’t need high capacity magazines.
      Of course I know this is not true but THIS is what the many believe. THIS is why many think we are nut jobs. They do not know how many lives are saved by guns, they only know what they have just seen. Nobody can accept children dieing as the heartfelt pain is to much to ignore. No matter what you say, you cannot talk away that pain by talking about your gun rights.
      The only way to counter this is to show facts about the lives saved by gun owners. Our rights did not save these kids but our rights have saved many lives and that is the base we need to fight this on.
      I hate to say it but big steps will be taken for the end run on this one.

      • Jim Chambers

        You forgot to place the blame squarely where it belongs, on the liberal’s shoulders. We used to put people who were dangerous to themselves and others into institutions but now we don’t. Who was responsible for opening the doors so that crazy people could freeze to death on the streets, defecate on your doorstep and kill innocent children? You guessed it, liberal lawyers looking to make a buck, inane, stupid judges who can’t think past the end of their noses and bleeding heart liberals who saw a cause they could feel bad about. Now the rest of us have to suffer.
        Talk to a nurse or PO some time about how hard it is to get some nutcase off the street. In most cases they have to hurt someone before they can be detained and medicated.
        No, it’s not the gun owners fault that these innocent children are dead. The liberals asked for this and it has come to fruition over and over again.
        But now, in order to avoid blame for their crimes against these poor children, they want to cast around for someone or something to blame and the most convenient spot for them to lay that blame, not on themselves for what they did to facilitate this crime. but is on an inanimate object in the hands of someone they had a hand in freeing upon society.
        For them it has to be the gun. After all their motives were pure and humanitarian. They could not be wrong. They are never responsible.
        When they forced us out of the Viet Nam war and several million people were butchered as a result they avoided the blame. Their motives were pure, they were good people. Yeah, and Pol Pot murdered about a third of the population of Cambodia because of them. He was facilitated by these ‘good’ liberals.
        All this crap just ticks me off. These gutless liberals need to be held responsible for their crimes against the society in which they live and for the victims upon which they preyed. I still hear lawmakers and other talking heads, when they discuss crazy people, conversing in terms of how we should treat these people without interfering with their ‘right’ to walk among us. Hogwash, institutionalize them and treat them for their own good and the good of society.

    • ranger09

      Home made bombs worry me the most 1927 also at a school. makes 27 look small,.
      Every Person in this country that have any kind of freedom can thank the Citizens that have always owned firearms, And citizens with firearms will always keep this country free, Well thats my hope anyway. I also understand that sheep cannot carry firearms, They can only follow the Bell.
      Flashy, To me you seem to be a person that knows how to follow the Bell.




      You want a police state?

      • JC

        Good call Gilly’s…
        Thing is though, individuals should have the choice to be armed or not.
        Gun free zones apparently don’t know they’re “gun free”, leaving anyone there
        at the mercy of psychotics.

  • sesame

    The NRA needs to step up and offer some constructive solutions as to the best ways to protect children in our schools from deranged killers, other than by arming teachers. Such ideas need not give up any Second Amendment Rights. They could deal solely with school security systems and measures, better methods for training teachers and school psychologists to identify potentially dangerous students and getting them help, or institutionalization, if that is necessary.

    • czman75

      Reread the article and this time pay attention. The author mentioned a school district in Texas that trained and armed teachers. No child or other persons have ever been shot or injured by those teachers. In fact, the kids are not concerned that the teachers are armed.

    • Vicki

      sesame says:
      “The NRA needs to step up and offer some constructive solutions as to the best ways to protect children in our schools from deranged killers, other than by arming teachers.”

      So why did we not have all these mass shootings in the MANY MANY years before 1968 and the enactment of the GCA? Guns were possessed by lots of people and often carried in lots of public places. Yet mass shootings were even more rare than in recent years

      • eddie47d

        What the heck are you talking about Vickie? The only time I ever saw a weapon was when my dad went hunting and then it was put away. My uncle on the farm had a rifle for shooting varmints and occasionally you could see someone with a rifle rack in the back of their vehicle. Common back then ? Not at all! You NEVER saw someone carrying a weapon on the streets. Automatic or even semi-automatics were hardly a thought !

        • Jim Chambers

          You are correct. Back then people didn’t need to carry guns to protect themselves but in the intervening years liberals such as you have so eroded the rights of the victims and expanded the rights of the criminals that now, if you don’t carry, you are risking putting yourself at the mercy of some clown that is out on bail for, say, armed robbery or murder and awaiting trial.
          Guys like you just don’t get it. You ARE the problem. If not for people like you we could still walk the streets without fear. Our children could still go out and play without parents wondering if they were being talked into trying drugs or being sexually assaulted. But guys like you argue for the right of the criminals to be out among us and have gotten your way for the last 40+ years.
          If you talk to someone who is at least 60 years old you will find that kids used to run around the neighborhoods unmolested and without worry by parents. People used to be able to walk down their street without worrying about being robbed, raped or assaulted. Ask them what is the difference between then and now and they will tell you that people like you have made it possible for criminals to pursue their avocation with little worry.
          You celebrate the fast talking lawyer, the inane judge and the bleeding heart liberals who are responsible for this state of affairs. And finally, instead of shouldering the blame, like all good liberals, you want to blame the tool for the crime.

  • Joe America

    I’ve often wondered how many of the nuts that go on killing sprees do so because of video games that train them to kill. These are the most popular games out there, but the media isn’t shy about promoting them, because of profit. You can’t take young minds and bombard them with games that teach them to dehumanize their victims and kill them, and not expect killing sprees. Yet, our youth, and many adults, play these killing games millions of times a day. Kids and young adults can’t get enough of these games, and programmers and game producers can’t make them fast enough. Yet, liberals and gun control groups remain silent on this serious problem. Perhaps the reason for this is that they are invested in the companies that make these games. What’s worse, the gun, or the training program that teaches our youth that killing is not only acceptable, but fun? Did you know that the best drone pilots in the military cut their teeth on video games? The games are realistic, and are becoming more so with each new generation. So, the more real the game is, the more immersed in the killing experience you become. Soon, it becomes more difficult to separate the digital world from reality. For someone who is autistic, there may be little difference between the two worlds.


      What your suggesting is partial nonscence. People were killing themselves well before these video games became popular. Holding a video game console is a great deal less difficult than handling a gun…and anyone using a gun will know that it is real….everyone knows what fantasy the Roadrunner Cartoons….

    • Jeff

      Then why do we not see similar gun violence in other countries with violent video games?

  • Doc Sarvis

    Check out this timeline;

    I am sure that the perps in all of these incidents were in favor of easy access to firearms.

    • Flashy

      Doc … a high end shopping mall. A movie theatre. A plaza where a politician is meeting constituents. A college campus. An elementary school. A religious temple. Government buildings. Military bases. A coffee cafe. A restaurant. the list goes on. Not one aspect of our lives is safe.

      All with assault weapons. All legally obtained.

      Enough is enough.

      Anyone who did not tear up as those small caskets are buried..a boy wearing his little league uniform, a girl with a flowery dress, and on and on for 26 funerals…if one doesn’t tear up and get angry at the senseless slaughter because gun freaks want to have a society which is ruled by a gun, there is something seriously wrong with that person.

      • Jim Chambers

        Just like Dave234 you fail to recognize the problem. You want to blame the tool when the person using the tool is the problem. Therefore you, too, are the problem.

      • Doc Sarvis

        Jim Chambers,
        You fail to realize that providing disturbed people, or even “normal” people who get p. o.’d at the wrong time the “tool” that is made for mass killing – as opposed to self defense – is the problem.

        • Joe America

          Ever heard of “Road Rage”? It happens, allot. Ever heard of “Texting While Driving?” It’s now responsible for killing more people than drunk drivers. What kind of doctor are you?

      • Hedgehog

        As you know, I am a Canadian. I hate to be the one to point it out to you, but your society and ours for that matter are ruled by guns! We talk a lot about the rule of law, but that law is backed up by guns in the hands of the police. As long as citizens can obtain firearms we do not have a police state.Take away that right and you automatically have a police state, in which only the police and lawbreakers can have guns. I would like to see open carry of handguns made legal in Canada, but that is a personal quirk. I believe it would significantly deter crime. I believe that the majority of citizens in both our countries are in favor of the right to own and legally use guns. What the current argument is about is the misuse of firearms, not the right to keep and bear arms! It’s time to start cracking down on those who misuse firearms. In your country a good first example would be Eric Holder.

        • Joe America

          Hedgehog, You are right on.

      • Joe America

        Flashy, Everyone teared up at the loss of 20 children and 6 adults. The question, which will never be answered because she’s now dead, is why his mother, knowing he was unbalanced, mentally, bought and gave him access to guns. The word from family and friends was that she was trying to build a relationship with him, by shooting, together. Mentally ill people cannot have access to guns, or knives, or anything else. That being said, she should have locked them up in a safe. Anyone with guns, who doesn’t own a safe is not being responsible. There are even gun safes with quick access controls, so, there is no reason not to have one. If you can’t afford to lock up your guns, especially from the mentally ill, you shouldn’t own a gun.

        Flashy, only an idiot over-simplifies anything. Americans are not going to give up their gun rights, because a mentally ill person, who should have never had access to guns, went out and killed people. This is the kind of knee jerk reaction of the simple minded, which plays right into the hands of the UN and those that desire a one world government. If you want a police state, Flashy, then support gun control, because that’s what you’re going to get. The only thing that stands between freedom and a tryant, is citizen gun ownership. If it were not for the second ammendment, you would already be under the control of a dictator, and his/her minions. But, take comfort, Flashy, it’s going to happen. Why? Because the average person out there is disasterously unaware of how freedom is obtained and how it’s held. I weep for this nation, and the world, for once this nation is turned into a totalitarian state and freedom is gone, it will also go for the entire world.

        Fools, such as yourself, don’t realize that before the creation of this nation, a nation of people with guns, all the average person, throughout history, had to look forward to was carrying his lords piss pot. You had lord and ladies, and then you had vassels and surfs. Well, Flashy, there are allot of “aristocrats” and old monied people in the world, who want to go back to the old days. The days when they had total control over the people below them. This crappy situation is what has brought generations of immigrants to our shores. This great nation, with it’s Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights, messed up the “natural order of things.” They’re going to correct that, Flashy. So, when your rights and freedoms have all disappeared, and you’re old, and watching one of your “betters” molesting your grandchild, or taking their organs, because they want to live longer, just sit there, shut your mouth and watch it happen. Then, at that very moment, you’ll say to yourself, “what have I done.”

      • F89

        a high end shopping mall. A movie theatre. A plaza where a politician is meeting constituents. A college campus. An elementary school. A religious temple. Government buildings. Military bases. A coffee cafe. A restaurant. the list goes on. Not one aspect of our lives is safe.

        Flasy in one of your posts you mechioned what appeard to be a long list of locashions whear mass shooting took place I think I know wich ones. First let me state one thing almost all of theis have in comon they took place in gun free zones. Now I will break it down so you can under sand the facts very simply.

        Kileen Texs massicar Untill V-Teck it was the lagest killing spree in U.S history. Weapon of choice semi auto matic hand gun. Deaths around 20. restront at the time Gun free zon

        Next colombin High school weapons obatined leagaly wepon of choice shot guns (ilgaly purchased). Deaths around 14. school no brainer gun free zone.

        V-teck wepon’s of choice semi automatic hand gun. Guns leagly obtained your gun laws did wonders for this one. Fatalitys 32 gun free zone. collage campus gun free zone.

        Mall this month shooting wepon of choice STOLEN AR-15 anite theft laws did wonders on this one. How ever shooter obously did not know what he was doing with a wepon prone to jamming and how to keep it frome jaming. This one was stoped by a man with gun thus the reason the fatality list was so low.

        Military base one one in my memory. That took place at fort hood this one was a particly sad one for me becaus I had been stationed their one year befor this insodent happend. Shooters wepon of choice semi automatic hand gun. Shooter possibly was a brain washed muslum turned terorist. Deaths around 14. This took place in a gun free zone.

        Man shoots up restront freequented by Nashional gard troops. He was armed with An AK-47 semi automatic replica reloaded several times and only killed 4 people. Because of army rules the solidergs were unarmed. I would like to point out that most of the time with the excepton of the most recent insadent when ever assult rilfes are used by nut jobs casluty rates go down even though they shoot off alot of bullits because nut jobs don’t aim when they use theis kinds of guns. When they use hand guns they seem to aim much more.

        The last collage shooting the shooter used a bow an item that curent has almost zeo regulashion be hind it. this was a gun free zone.

        The shooting in the colaradow mall the shooter had obtained his wepons leagly. He did not know once agin the proper way thank goodness of how to keep an AR from jaming. His AR-15 jamed and he swiched first to a shot gun then to a hand gun. Deaths around 14 wounded around 25. Gun free zone!!!!!!!!!

        So in conclushion gun free zones are just another word for truky shoot for nut jobs. My salooshion when ever posible don’t go into gun free zones. I don’t shop where guns are baned I don’t go to moveis were guns are baned and I don’t travle to states where I can’t cary concelled. I also have lobbied my congrshional reps to push for me to be able to carry my gun to and frome work. I am in the army so unfochantly I work in a gun free zone when not deployed. I feel safer on a fob in Afganistan than I do in the states because every bodie carrys a gun. If some one dose go nuts they might take out one or two people before they get shot.

        • Joe America

          [comment has been edited] We get it, you don’t like guns. Boo fricken hoo. The day Americans give up their guns, will be the end of their freedoms. It will usher in George Orwell’s “1984″ in such a powerful way that Americans, and the world, will be taken back, in awe. The day this happens, and it will, the last flicker of freedom will be gone from this earth. The cause will be complacancy, ignorance and sloth. Americans have lost their appreciation for freedom. Humans never appreciate what they have, until it’s gone. So it will be when our Constitution and Bill of Rights have been taken away from us. Police states are no fun, but, you’ll find that out, F89, and rather soon, even if you’re not an American.

      • Flashy

        F89..why was it so easy for these guys to obtain the semi auto assault rifles and pistols? If they didn’t have them, you honestly think these mass shootings would have occurred?

        why do you feel the need to carry a gun? Could it be that perhaps everyone has one and you don’t feel safe they have them?

      • Jim Chambers

        People get PO’d behind the wheel and mow bicyclists and pedestrians down but I don’t hear you calling for a ban on automobiles. People get PO’d and use knives and bats on others but I don’t hear you calling for a ban on either of those. Considering that I am unable to treat your argument with any real respect.
        Why can’t you people who think with their heart understand that it’s the nutso using the tool that is the problem?
        I know, you people hate to assign blame or even look for a cause. You respect the rights of the perp over the rights of the victim. Using your logic the public doesn’t have the right to buy or use tools that you abhor to defend themselves or even just plink away at targets. I am also aware that you think you know what is best for me as well as for society at large. If only we didn’t have these weapons life would be ideal. Isn’t that it? Wouldn’t that solve all the problems? Waco wouldn’t have happened (no, wait, that was a good massacre, wasn’t it? Got rid of a bunch of bible thumpers who were busy minding their own business.)
        But sometimes you have to pull your head out and look around. If the perp hadn’t used a gun he would have found another weapon to accomplish the deed. It’s possible the body count would have been higher or lower depending on his choice but he still would have inflicted the highest amount of damage that he could. Maybe he would have blown the place up like Timothy McVeigh. You can still buy what it takes to do that, you know, but I don’t hear you calling for a ban on fertilizer.
        Sorry, but I just find your argument for banning a tool while leaving crazies to walk the streets and kill innocent children using any means at hand a little weak. Sober up.

      • Flashy

        “Just like Dave234 you fail to recognize the problem. You want to blame the tool when the person using the tool is the problem. Therefore you, too, are the problem.” <— jim Chambers

        i take it then jim..if you were on a job site, and someone was instructed 'go use that tool", knowing that if used incorrectly either the user or someone near by was going to be serious in danger…you'd have no problem sending an untrained, and somewhat unstable person to operate that tool…even if you were likely to get hurt or killed if not used correctly.

        Or would you feel safer and better if the only ones allowed to use that tool was trained, stable, and had their act together?

        If that's your only reasoning….you're definitely one who should not be allowed anywhere near that tool …

      • Alex Frazier

        Flashy, point 1: they weren’t all committed with assault weapons. In fact, most of them weren’t committed with assault weapons at all. Point 2: Virtually every place you mentioned prohibits the carrying of firearms by citizens. Point 3: None of the laws, prohibitions, or other alleged preventive measures did anything to stop the crimes.

        Because criminals don’t obey the law. Only law abiding citizens do that. And when those who obey the law and give up their guns are confronted by a lawless criminal who didn’t give up his gun … I’m sure you can imagine the result.

      • Doc Sarvis

        Jim Chambers,

        Assult rifles with large capacity magazines are made to kill lots of people. Cars, knives, pistols, bats, a screwdriver, a stapler, etc. are NOT.

        Nobody is trying to prohibit Americans from having defensive weapons, it is the use of offensive weapons that has increased the horror in our country. This is exactly why we are not allowed to each own atomic bombs.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Doc Sarvis is/was a med tech in the military probably the Navy or a prison . Marines call the Navy med techs Docs.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Why is it that you are afraid that free men carry guns? We of this nation are citizens not subject at the whims of a tyrant or is it that what you want this nation to be at the whims of O?

      • Flashy

        Alex —> Flashy, point 1: they weren’t all committed with assault weapons. In fact, most of them weren’t committed with assault weapons at all. [ You can't be serious. OK...I called up a chart. Of the last 14, 11 involved semi auto assault weapons, the other three semi auto handguns. guess which ones had the highest number of inured and fatalities? yep ... semi auto assault weapons. Now how do you suppose these guys obtained them?]

        Point 2: Virtually every place you mentioned prohibits the carrying of firearms by citizens. [yep. And before the proliferation of guns as insisted by the gun freaks, guess where it was safe to go? So..what you are saying is, because the number of guns increased, and hun laws decreased...previously safe places are no longer safe.]

        Point 3: None of the laws, prohibitions, or other alleged preventive measures did anything to stop the crimes. [If that is your argument, we need stronger laws then eh?]

      • eddie47d

        No Jim Chambers you are the problem. Having a semi-automatic weapon will not make you safer not yesterday and not tomorrow. They are nothing but a poor excuse for cowardice!

        • Jim Chambers

          Before you call me a coward you might want to peruse the posts that I have put up. In one of them I outlined what my job was and what I did with part of my life. If, after reading that, you still want to refer to me as a coward you probably would benefit from an new dictionary.
          Sure easy for little minds to throw inappropriate words around.Those weapons do nothing without nuts pulling the triggers.
          You just don’t get it do you? As long as you can blame that gun that lets you off the hook. You, like all liberals, will never shoulder the blame for the devastation you cause.

          • Joe America

            Eddie, Instead of hystrionics, how about telling us who you are, as a person. For example, what do you do for a living? Are you an American? We’re just curious, because, from your post, you sound like you’re sitting in Obama’s Whitehouse, with a communist whispering into your ear.

      • Alex Frazier


        1) Please list the fourteen incidents to which you refer.

        2) Do you consider “semi-automatic” to be the same thing as “assault weapon”?

        3) Do you believe that more guns in existence creates criminals where they did not formerly exist?

        4) What laws would you suggest to prevent these shootings when laws against murder, which are punishable by death in many states, are not presently doing the trick?

      • JC

        Doc Sarvis says:
        December 18, 2012 at 8:09 am
        Jim Chambers,
        You fail to realize that providing disturbed people, or even “normal” people who get p. o.’d at the wrong time the “tool” that is made for mass killing – as opposed to self defense – is the problem.

        So your solution is to put law abiding citizens at the mercy of these criminals?
        Yeah right! Good thinking there “Doc”.

      • ranger09

        FLASHY, Its sure easy to tell you have never been taught the fine art of killing people, Thats something our military teaches.I am not proud of this teaching, But i can understand it. And if you did you would know there are more destructive ways to kill people than firearms.

      • JeffH

        Sadly, the Connecticut shooting is just another Gun-Free Zone “success story”.

        Once again, the nation has witnessed another high-profile shooting in a “Gun-Free Zone”.

        Earlier in the week, a masked gunman killed two people at the Clackamas mall in Oregon, before killing himself. According to local residents, the Clackamas Town Center has a “no guns” policy, even for those who are authorized to carry guns legally.

        Earlier this year in Colorado, James Holmes specifically bypassed closer theaters — where guns were allowed — to target the particular theater in Aurora where guns are prohibited.

        Like Holmes, several shooters in recent years have targeted gun free zones where their potential victims were disarmed by law: Columbine High School (1999), Virginia Tech (2007), and even Fort Hood (2009).

        However, several potential massacres have been cut short — some by average citizens, others by off-duty officers:

        * Armed citizens prevented several potential tragedies from occurring in 2012. Samuel Williams came to the rescue of several patrons utilizing an internet café in Ocala, Florida. And in Garden Grove, California, a 65-year old woman sent five burglars fleeing from a jewelry store. In both cases, security cameras captured the heroic efforts of armed citizens who sent the bad guys fleeing — even tripping over themselves, as they stormed out the doors.

        * Five years ago this month, Matthew Murray entered a large Colorado Springs church, armed with several weapons and a thousand rounds of ammunition. But a woman with a concealed carry permit critically wounded him, thus saving the lives of hundreds of people.

        * And at a Salt Lake City mall in 2007, an off-duty police officer brought a shooting rampage to an abrupt halt. “I was in a situation that I was carrying my gun,” the hero, Ken Hammond, told reporters.

        In all the above cases, where citizens were able to stop evil, the good guys were carrying guns. There was no time to run to their cars. There was no time to run home.

        The lesson is clear: good guys with guns save lives. And while bad guys may be evil, they are not stupid. They don’t typically target gun stores or police stations to perpetrate their crimes. No, they consciously select areas where their victims are disarmed by law.
        - GOA

    • Vicki

      Doc Sarvis says:
      “I am sure that the perps in all of these incidents were in favor of easy access to firearms.”

      What you really need to ask yourself is why were there so few incidents in the past and why the incident rate is CURRENTLY falling from its peak. And you have to ask why the times with VERY easy access to firearms are during a time where the incidents were way LOWER then now with much more restrictive access.

      • eddie47d

        You’re right Doc! Whether Columbine,Aurora or Newtown easy access to semi-automatic weapons were a must in order to accomplish their “task”.

        • Jim Chambers

          And I guess it was the easy access to fertilizer and fuel oil that DROVE Timothy McVeigh to do what he did, too. I get so tired of saying it. Take away the nut and you can have all the weapons available and no one will get hurt.
          You guys need to start shouldering the blame for what you have wrought. Guys like you are the ones who have allowed crazies to walk among us. You need to man up and take the blame for these deaths and stop blaming a tool. We all know that your blaming of the weapon is just a mechanism of getting you off the hook for these deaths.

          • BR549

            Jim wrote: “And I guess it was the easy access to fertilizer and fuel oil that DROVE Timothy McVeigh to do what he did, too.”

            Jim and everyone, if you haven’t had a chance to view the DVD, “A Noble Lie”, I would suggest doing so if you want to gain additional perspective on the OKC bombing. 17 years of research and it indicates that the Murrah Bldg was trashed to conceal the case files from the Waco-Brtanch Davidian slaughter, just as Bldg #7 was leveled to destroy the SEC’s investigation against ENRON.

            As one of the USAF contracted demolition experts wrote in his report, “…. it is impossible to ascribe the damage that occurred on April 19, 1995 to a single truck bomb containing 4,800 lbs. of ANFO . . . It must be concluded that the damage at the Murrah Building is not the result of the truck bomb itself, but rather due to other factors such as locally placed charges within the building itself . . . ”

            It gets worse, but I’ll let the libtards get over their laughing fits about the tin-foil hats.

          • Jeff

            I’m responsible for Timothy McVeigh? Excuse me, but I think he would have fit in quite nicely on these blogs. His opinions would not have differed from yours or any of the other right wingers here.

          • Joe America

            Jeff, I don’t believe on person involved in this debate, regardless of the side they’re on, wants to blow anything or anybody up. Suggesting such a thing tells me just how low and disgusting a human being you are. It tells me how desperate you are to promote gun rights. You know? I’ll bet you are a fan of the “Fast and Furious” program, promoted and run by our fearless leaders, which caused the deaths of many people, including our own agents. You’re so desperate to put down guns, you’d go for such a program, because, like your handlers, the end always justifies the means. You’ll make a great shill in the new (old) world order. Punk.

          • Jeff

            “Jeff, I don’t believe on person involved in this debate, regardless of the side they’re on, wants to blow anything or anybody up. Suggesting such a thing tells me just how low and disgusting a human being you are. It tells me how desperate you are to promote gun rights.”

            I could be wrong but I don’t believe you are so dense as to believe I was saying any such thing. Before McVeigh was a mass murderer, he was just another right wing kook reading right wing books like The Turner Diaries and probably listening to someone like Michael Savage on the radio calling everyone to the left of Curtis LeMay a Communist. He would have fit in quite nicely with the lunatic fringe so well represented here with all the paranoia about the Government, the black helicopters, and the black President.

          • Jim Chambers

            Had it not been for liberals like you allowing crazies like McVeigh walk the streets with the rest of us he would have been institutionalized and that building would still be standing and those people alive. You are to blame.
            But like all good liberals you are trying to squirm out of it. You try to shed your responsibility for these killings by blaming an inanimate object. “Boo Hoo, if only we didn’t have assault weapons this would not have happened” Bull, as long as you and your people protect and come to the aid of these crazies and demand that they walk the streets with the rest of us you are to blame and it’s going to keep happening.
            You and those like you are responsible for these deaths. You and those like you cry for people in jail but not for the victim. You and those like you kill unborn babies but demonstrate for the life of murders going to the chair. You and those like you are despicable because you cause harm to innocent children and the people they come home to by those actions I’ve mentioned.

          • Jeff

            McVeigh was an ex-military guy who turned into a right wing crazy. He was not mentally ill any more than you are with your insane political ideas. He was just like you, only younger and intent on acting on what he believed. He was a nut, a right wing paranoid nut but I don’t think he ever presented to any authorities as mentally ill.

            BTW: It was Saint Reagan who closed the mental hospitals in California.

          • Jim Chambers

            In the second sentence you say he wasn’t nuts but in the 4th you say he was. Which is it, Jeff?
            Never mind, you don’t make a hell of a lot of sense anyway. I’m done interacting with you unless you can come up with something cogent, compelling or even coherent.

          • Jeff

            Maybe you’re stupider than I thought. I was making a clear distinction between “nuts” as in having nutty political ideas and actually having a diagnosable mental illness. If you think black helicopters are going to land by your house to grab your guns, you are politically nuts. You may also be mentally ill but not necessarily.

      • JC

        And gun free zones eddie…don’t forget those.
        It’s always nice for a psychopath to know where can kill people freely right?


    What you should do in America is disarm everyone of those 62 million out of your 311 Million population who suffer some form mental illness during their lives and when they crack or get upset or depressed they reach for a gun to settle the score to take revenge for any ridicule they may have suffered which might set them off at any tick of the clock. Now how you might do this …I have no idea and thats why I cant see a stop to the internal massacres which happen in your country every few weeks. Its not the guns that kill, but the easy availability and accessability in drawers or other hiding places which makes it easy to get and use by people who might go mad or jealous temporarily, that the killing spree will start. Pretty simple.

    The other option is for people to learn to be more diplomatic when you sack workers, or girlfriends break up with their boyfriends, or wives divorcing and cleaning out their husbands etc, but unfortunately…the human race has a big problem with EGO which mean they want show how strong or dominant they should display themselves in front of ridicule others and thats what will lead to crackpots to reach for their guns to get revenge, and on the spur of the moment many people will and do kill many of the people they have been in contact with. Every school child should have to take classes in DIPLOMACY.

    Food for thought I would say..

    • Vicki

      You might notice that those claimed 62 million “mentally ill” did NOT anytime in their lifetime go out and commit mass murder.

    • eddie47d

      Well Gilly we have close to that many mentally ill gun owners who are recruiting many more for their team. Fear and panic eat them up and they solve every problem by buying another weapon to make their illness go away..

      • JC

        Actually where fear and panic come in to play is by way of you anti-gun bed wetters who think that the rest of us are as incompetent and stupid as you lefties. You project your own inadequacies on to us…because that’s the only way you can see it.

        • BR549

          JC wrote in response to eddie47d: “Actually where fear and panic come in to play is by way of you anti-gun bed wetters who think that the rest of us are as incompetent and stupid as you lefties. You project your own inadequacies on to us…because that’s the only way you can see it.”

          JC: 1
          Libtards: 0

          • Joe America

            BR549, What we’re dealing with, concerning the liberal-socialists, is a burning desire to tear down this nation and rebuild it in the immage of other communist-socialist nations. These people believe they are “cool” and “progressive.” Many are enemies of the American people, and are very aware of what they are doing. Many are simply being duped into betraying their nation. Either way, they are contributing to the downfall of our country and, therefore, playing directly into the hands of the new (old) world order. They don’t understand the world that exists when one person, or a small committee, takes absolute control of the people. They’ve never experienced tryanny or oppression.

            Now, our nation has been bamboozled into the “War on Terror”, and that has been used as an excuse to take away our Liberties, or Freedoms. Here’s an interesting quote from James Madison, one of our founding fathers:

            “If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”

            Sadly, due to blind sloth and self imposed ignorance, Americans are falling right into a track that is leading us to tryanny and oppression. We’re ignorant of our own history, and we’re particularly ignorant of the fact that, before this nation was created, tryanny and oppression was the order of the day. We’re all going to get a refresher on the true meanings of tryanny and oppression, personal and up close, very, very soon.

          • BR549

            Joe America wrote: “Sadly, due to blind sloth and self imposed ignorance, Americans are falling right into a track that is leading us to tryanny and oppression. ”

            I’m with you brother.

            This morning I was trying to come up with an analogy to explain why so many people fail to understand the situation we are in with respect to feeling the need to aggress upon one another. The left keeps blaming the gun owners for these killings, while the gun owners just want their guns.

            Well, it occurred to me that this situation very much resembled a chicken farm. Bear with me for a moment. Under normal, NATURAL conditions, chickens would have enough foraging room to get their nutritional needs met if out in the wild. If they are forced to stay in the same place for too long, the soil around a stationary coop quickly becomes saturated with feces, and bacteria and parasites take over the soil profile, making it unhealthy. When these chickens are then forced to stay in these cramped conditions, nature has them deal with that stress by having them disperse their population by pecking at each other, pushing them outward to find more healthy surroundings. To a chicken, their beak is their gun.

            Well, now look at the case were commercial chicken farmers intentionally cram thousands of chickens shoulder to shoulder and the stress level soars. The chickens are not smart enough to understand what the REAL cause of the stress is, which is the FARMER; all they can see is too many chickens and they take out their aggression in the only way they know how …… against their fellow chickens. They haven’t developed the intellect enough to fathom that some force above them would intentionally create such an unnatural condition. Thus, when the chickens begin to peck at each other and create infectious wounds, the FARMER (that mysterious force) removes the only weapon the chicken has by cutting or grinding off the beak and, (this is important), rather than recognize the true source of stress, he continues to put the chickens back into the same conditions.

            What the gun control people fail to realize is that we are ALL being manipulated just like the chickens; chickens who just want the peace and serenity of a nice quiet grassy pasture, but who can’t yet comprehend the intentions of the farmer. Had those chickens developed the capacity to organize a more informed response, they would have realized that the reasons for their stress were NOT their fellow chickens, but that IDIOT in the grimy blue jeans with his cap turned backwards. Were that to happen, you’d see the farmer come in some morning and 20,000 chickens would descend upon the poor bastard, each waiting their turn to scratch and peck his eyes out.

            That aggression is purely the responsibility of the farmer himself; there is no one else to blame, and yet this is EXACTLY the same scenario we have with respect to the US population today. The gun owners are the chickens which still have their beaks, but seem to have developed sense enough to run faster or hide from the farmer when the debeaking sessions begin. The less intelligent chickens just allow themselves to be cornered and get their faces mashed into a grinding wheel or a red hot cutting blade, and when all is said and done, they STILL haven’t figured out the problem. But cram those chickens back into their pens and watch them continue to exhibit the SAME aggressive behavior against each other.

            The farmers, in this case, are the globalist banking families and manipulating politicians, who cleverly stay off the radar, while us chickens duke out our frustrations among ourselves and they are counting on enough of the population remaining STUPID ENOUGH to not see where the real problem lies. When these shooting events occur, you can bet that the politicians and globalists will be quick offer a solution that includes the equivalent of debeaking the voters and never once let the media have any meaningful discussion about the true causes of the disenfranchisement and disconnection that these breakaway shooters all seem to possess.

            Again, pardon my lack of brevity.

  • Flashy

    What we have is a direct clash of interests and Rights. The Right to bear arms as enunciated in the 2nd. And the Right to safety, the Right to walk the streets, a mall, a movie theatre, a college campus elementary school..without fear of being shot . The latter I believe would be found in the Preamble of the Constitution, the 9th and the 14th.

    Now, we can argue about the statistics all day if we so choose. People can cite that crime has gone up in Australia since they enacted strict gun control. I can counter with statistics showing violent crime has gone down, especially gun related crime. People can show the assault weapons ban did no good. I can argue it did with historical data disturbed by Columbine stats…and the trend was going downhill (from the bad to the good). And ad nauseum.

    Fact. There will be gun control introduced. The People will accept darn near anything, but babies being killed they won’t. There is quite literally no where that is safe from guns. You name the public forum, and there was a mass killing in that forum. High end shopping mall, movie theatre etc etc. Now…babies.

    In my observation, the past mass killings, people were appalled. People were sad. People grieved with the victims families. This one in Newton? Think and observe…this one? Anger. A lot of anger. This one will not pass unacted upon. People are saying “Enough already”

    Gun control. It is Constitutional. The Rights I listed above are real. We had an assault weapons ban and even the NRA didn’t challenge it. Justice Scalia, the Conservative justice, one whom I agree with very little, has stated the 2nd can be burdened by time, place and manner. The question is, how burdened can the 2nd be before being without meaning?

    Fact is, we have a divide between an urban mindset about gun control and a more rural mindset. I would say the rural mindset about guns and gun control is based upon a simple reasoning. Growing up in a rural area/town, one has guns in everyday life. Used often, hunted, handled, respected. From knee high to a grasshopper onwards, a rural exposure teaches a gun is a weapon and can be used safely and enjoyment…or deadly to kill. Heck, growing up, we used to take our hunting rifles to school after a morning of hunting, toss ‘em in the lockers and head out right after school.

    Urban…there’s more of a “cowboy’ attitude. Guns are used for violence. Either initiating it or using it as a defense. One hardly ever uses a gun, and if one does..usually it’s shooting or threatening to shoot someone. And anyone growing up in the country has tales of the “city hunters”.

    The two sides cannot understand one another. The extremists make fun and diss the other side. What needs to be done is not understand one another, but to give views and expertise in solving the problem.

    Debating gun control we can toss out the two extremes. The absolute ban or registration of all guns, including handguns. And the absolute demand to pack iron everywhere and anywhere. Neither extreme will be convinced of any other viewpoint. And…both sides will be, and should be marginalized. Neither can exist without intruding upon basic Rights.

    Fact is fact. In the past four years, as the assault weapons ban has been erased and more assault weapons come back into our ranks, as gun laws have become darn near non-existent, we have had mass killing in every avenue of public life. Violent crime, after going down for a decade, is back on the rise. Is it coincidental and unrelated to the rise in handguns and assault rifles? I do not believe any reasonable person would say it was unrelated. The debate then stands on whether accepting a rise in violent crime, in continued horrific shootings, is worth the price of allowing unhindered gun ownership. If the pictures of those little caskets, of boys dressed in Little League uniforms, girls in flowery dresses..being laid to rest did not bring tears and a resolve, then you must…not should…must question yourself. Newton was the 9/11 of this decade.

    Enough is enough.

    A shopping mall, a politicians home meet and greet, a movie theatre, a college campus, an elementary school. Yes, all were with “legal” weapons. But should they have been? All were by lunatics…but how did they garner the guns? Why did they have clips holding 30, 50, 100 rounds?

    No one is arguing a reasonable, sane, honest to gawd growing up with guns gun owner is the problem. No one but extremists, and by their extremism are taking themselves out of this debate. The lunatics have shown we aren’t safe with guns on every corner. The crime statistics showing gangs armed with the attest weaponry are not your friend in this fight. Nor is the lone robber packing a cheap Saturday Night Special. . Whether the reasonable, sane (probably rural) gun supporter decides to use their expertise and knowledge in stopping these guys is the question. Arming every citizen is not the answer.

    Arming every citizen assures that the bad guys have these weapons. Arming every citizen is not the answer. Of all the mass shootings…all of them, how many were stopped or impeded by a gun owner drawing down on the shooter? None. Not one.
    Whether legit gun owners enter the debate and give their expertise in keeping guns from the bad guys is up to the gun owners. Remember…the goal is not to give power to rule to the government negating the true purpose of the 2nd. It’s getting easy access to the guns away from the bad guys

    The other aspect is the real purpose of the 2nd. To defend against a military government or an all powerful dictating government unresponsive to the People.
    My belief is we should ban assault weapons. Reintroduce the assault weapons ban and give it teeth. No more sales. If between private owners, papered and papered and papered. Register them. And if they are kept, unless being used for practice… if stored, completely taken apart. I have yet to see any hunter anywhere use an assault weapon for hunting. Anyone I did see have an assault weapon for hunting, I’d laugh my as* at. Ridiculous to even think of that scenario (if they were useful for hunting, you’d think they’d be highlighted in hunting magazines at the least. They aren’t).

    Those in existence? Having them registered, taking time to be sold, and completely broken down takes the weapon from anyone using it as an “impulse’ weapon. Mass shootings would decrease just because the shooters may not have a clue to assembling one correctly. And any owner should have that knowledge.
    No clips more than 10 rounds.

    Nation wide. If we leave it to the states, we have what is now the fad on the east coast. Buy in Virginia, drive to NYC, make a bundle. It gives another profitable venture to criminal elements.

    Concealed weapons permits? Allow them…but make it only after exhaustive background checks, including mental health checks. Have mandatory classes, including live fire excercises. And only if needed for work or uncommon security concerns.

    Open carry? With a permit only. Someone wants to pack a gun around? Do it openly…and be prepared to be questioned by the police every step of the way.

    Rifles, hand guns? Not a problem if kept in the home or used for hunting. A man’s home is his castle. Away from home? Uh uh … no need to pack one. The odds are very minimal one will be confronted by an armed robber, and even if confronted…face it..they have the drop on you. You ain’t getting’ your gun out. Any robber using a gun on me? Here..take my wallet. In five minutes after he leaves, a few strokes on my phone and the cards are useless. The money is minimal. And face it, robbers ain’t the smartest folks walking around and he’ll soon end up in jail.

    Someone decides to be Dirty Harry? Common sense says when lead starts flying, it doesn’t always go where aimed. A shoot out promises nothing but something bad is going to occur.

    The time has come. The extremists on either side need to be shoved..not moved, shoved aside and sanity brought back to our Nation.

    • Jim Chambers

      You babble, sir. Taking away semi auto rifles will not solve the problem.
      During the 70′s I was a PO and was called to the scene of an armed robbery at a neighborhood tavern. I walked in to discover that the perps had forced everyone to lie on the floor then they shot each one in the head with, guess what, a six shot .22 cal. revolver. If a nut is going to kill he or she will kill.
      Isn’t it better to control the crazy than to control the tool? Next time some nut uses his SUV to mow down people on the sidewalk or cross walk think about your argument regarding this use of tools. Using your logic we should ban planes after 9-11, motor vehicles that kill multitudes each year and how about banning steak knives? I’ve witnessed the results of several people dying from those?
      No, sir. Let’s ban the liberals who, like you, are unable to see the root of the problem and jump on the knee jerk band wagon. They, after all, are the one’s who have allowed the crazy people out onto the streets to freeze to death, panhandle and kill innocent children.

      • Flashy

        Since 2002, there have been 14 occasions in this nation where someone has walked into a crowd and opened fire. In all 14, semi auto assault type weapons were used. Not pistols, not hunting rifles.

        Currently, it’s easier to get a gun than a joint. in a nation where pot is darn near legal and no big deal…it’s easier to get a gun. Why is a gun used in a crime? BECAUSE THEY ARE SO DARN EASY TO GET … AND CHEAP!

        What of MY RIGHT to be able to walk the streets safe without fear of someone pulling out a gun and waving it around? We have road rage incidents today where guns are freely waved about…we have angry people who will pull a gun out to “make their case’.

        What of MY RIGHTS ????

        • Joe America

          Flashy, You admit pot is illegal, but people are still getting it. If you make guns “illegal” people will still get them. They’re called “criminals”. They will always have guns.

      • Robert Smith

        Jim says: “They, after all, are the one’s who have allowed the crazy people out onto the streets to freeze to death, panhandle and kill innocent children.”

        It wasn’t “liberals.” “…The Ugly: the closing of mental health hospitals in California and across the United States. Is it any wonder that California seems to have all of the crazy homeless people? State mental hospitals were taken away by Governor Reagan in the seventies, and federal mental health programs were later taken away by President Reagan in the eighties.

        When Ronald Reagan was governor of California he systematically began closing down mental hospitals, later as president he would cut aid for federally-funded community mental health programs. It is not a coincidence that the homeless populations in the state of California grew in the seventies and eighties. The people were put out on the street when mental hospitals started to close all over the state.”

        That’s from:


        • Joe America

          Robert, You’re right about America dumping their mentally ill out into the streets and it is why we have so many people in prison. We’ve let our mentally ill folks down, because of the costs involved with maintaining them in institutions. Nobody wants to pay for the care of the insane. We turn these folks loose on the public, then wonder why bad things happen. The only mentally ill that can afford care are the very, very rich.

      • eddie47d

        You are right Flashy gun deaths are down 59% since Australia enacted their gun ban. Don’t let the Conservatives fool you or attack you with silly claims.

      • eddie47d

        Joe America just wants to make it easier for criminals to have access to guns so in reality that makes him a criminal!

      • JC

        Back that up eddie. (you idiot mouthpiece)
        EVERY kind of crime in Australia is WAY up.


        April 13, 2009

        It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

        Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
        •In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
        •Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
        •Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

        Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
        •Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
        •During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
        •Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
        •Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
        •At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
        •Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

        While this doesn’t prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

        Source: Howard Nemerov, “Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban,” D.C. Examiner, April 8, 2009.

        • Joe America

          Excellent Truth Telling!

      • Jim Chambers

        You got your information from the Daily Nugget? You couldn’t have quoted a worse source.
        What they didn’t tell you is the reason he started to close them down was that the liberal lawyers (read:ACLU) and judges ruled that inmates at these institutions were free to roam and leave if they wanted to. These institutions were just about empty by the time he closed them down. There are only 5 institutions left in the state of California due to lack of patients not because Reagan decided to kick them out. They were carrying staff that had nothing to do due to that lack of patients. The same thing happened when he became president. He closed down institutions without patients. He also withdrew funding for the community health systems act by, who else, Teddy Kennedy because the states were responsible for the health and welfare of their citizens, not the fed govt.
        You probably know all this but chose this site because they blamed Reagan, now didn’t you? Of course you knew that the ACLU, an organization chock full of liberals, is responsible for those crazies walking the streets, sleeping in doorways and killing our kids, now didn’t you? You tried to blame Reagan to shift the blame onto his shoulders so that you liberals could go on doing your devious deeds and shed the blame, didn’t you? You know you and those liberals like you are the ones who are really responsible for all these deaths, don’t you? You are just like every liberal, just trying to squirm out from under the responsibility for what you have done, aren’t you?
        I know you. Not only devious but lying to shed the blame that rightfully lies on your doorstep.


      Now how you going to achieve that Flashy when you have in your Republican Party and the MRMA people like Congressman John Boehner who would rather trash and collapse your stock markets than give in to have a few people potentially paying higher taxes. Mind you those top 1% can avoid/minimise paying those tax increases anyway I’m sure, yet the EGO of these guys wont see reason to chage laws which were in when muscuts were hard to reload as fast as the automatic machine guns blast out several hundred rounds per minute. Modern politicians relying on ancient laws…England has lots of them in their Statutes….going back hundreds of years… Why do you people need policeman when you have every citizen being his own policeman….and still thousands of innocent babies and teenagers die…not involved in drug dealing wars or bank holdups where you might expect killings?

      No there is no hope in hell of any viable solution in the USA when your worst criminals and other terrorists wont be using guns in the future, they will be using mini atom bombs i predict to out shoot the best armed police or your best armed citizens or even your best army drones. Your police have been a failure no doubt and i dont think you really need them…save yourself the money…sack them all, sack your politicians who dont have the guts to go up against the NRMA because of the money to work out a solution to disarm the insne from getting their hands on these lethal weapons so easily. .

      Who could rely on your judicial system when Judges have to appease their supporters to get elected as a judge…its crazy. In Australia …they are appointed for life and cant get th sack unless they become insane, so they are more likely to be impartial in their adherence to the laws of the land and to use their brains to sensibly work out what is reasonable.

      As much as I support America in many areas and my family links going back more than 100 years in LA & Boston…i find your government system to be pretty crazy and getting worse by the day.

      • Flashy

        Gilly….I am aware of what you say. it’s a huge problem … huge. under the current malaise in our system, nothing meaningful can get done. However, we have had this in other times of our history, and it will break down and sooner or later. We currently have extremists controlling one major political party, the GOP. when people come back to their senses, that’s when we ‘ll once again move forward. you can almost feel that breaking point arriving….

      • Jim Chambers

        Imagine that, someone from Australia throwing around the word ‘crazy’.

      • JC

        And Mr. Chambers demonstrates that he is not only an idiot…but a bigot.
        Gee, got any more advice for us? Because we should all be more like you…
        Stupid, shallow…did I mention stupid?

      • JC

        Apologies Jim, that was a little harsh.
        Still there’s no call to insult our Australian allies.

      • Jim Chambers

        It doesn’t bother you that someone from another country seems to think that they can blithely lecture people who live in the most free country in the world (although that is getting more and more debatable with each term of congress) about how to live? If they are our allies let him act like one and mind his own business in his own country. Aussies don’t have a lock on what is right or wrong and, as long as they aren’t voting here,don’t have the right to tell us how to handle our situation.
        If he had something constructive to say that would be fine but the first thing he did was to tear down the speaker of the house. That’s not the way an ally acts.

      • JC

        Jim I think everyone has a right to an opinion and I think as American’s we’re among the most tolerant people in the world. Someone from another country can only view America from a perspective taught to them their entire lives within a culture different than our own.
        We ourselves are entirely guilty of passing judgement on others and even installing military force on foreign soil without just cause.
        No, it’s the disease within that bother’s me. The Flashy’s, Doc’s and eddies of the nation that would subvert our Constitution and our nations morals in pursuit of some fuzzy ideology that none of them can validate, yet somehow their ridiculous proposals are actually up for discussion.
        Gilly is generally on target, but his take on gun ownership needs improvement as do the Australia’s gun laws in general. It surprises me that a nation of very plucky people with a proud history of independence would allow themselves to be disarmed. Like Sheep.
        We can only hope to lead the way and restore our birthright to its full potential.

        Best, JC

    • Bob Livingston

      Dear Flashy,

      Time will not permit me to join this ongoing discussion today. But since we touched on it yesterday (and you avoided it), I give you this…

      You write: “Fact. There will be gun control introduced.” True. Sen. Feinstein has made this clear. I will fight it with every fiber of my being.

      You write: “Gun control. It is Constitutional.” Define: Shall not be infringed.

      You write: “The two sides cannot understand one another.” Agreed.

      You write: “Of all the mass shootings…all of them, how many were stopped or impeded by a gun owner drawing down on the shooter? None. Not one.” Untrue.

      You write: “Having them registered, taking time to be sold, and completely broken down takes the weapon from anyone using it as an “impulse’ weapon.” Connecticut has stringent gun laws (5th toughest in country, according to Brady Center) and the Bushmaster was illegal to own. Criminals do not register their weapons? I own an AR15 and rarely practice, but I can assemble it in less than five minutes. One who has practiced (military, etc.) can do so in less than a minute.

      You write: “Away from home? Uh uh … no need to pack one.” The Founding Fathers disagreed, as do I. Police cannot protect you. They can only take your report or clean up the mess.

      I posed a question to you yesterday. Here it is again:

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

      Best wishes,

      • Flashy

        Mr. Livingston…first…the links as to mass killers being stopped by someone carrying a concealed weapon. The Clackamas shooter was not stopped by the guy carrying the pistol. Even with his own words “i didn’t shoot because i could have missed’…in other words, believing him…he ran and left the shooter. Had the gun not jammed, he would have been able to continue to shoot. By the police accounts, he snuffed himself when the police came into the building hunting him down and his semi auto assault gun was useless and jammed. The church goer was an off duty cop. trained, and everyone knows, a cop is never off duty.

        Now…as to your question

        “Given the fact that it is one’s inalienable right to own guns [agreed within boundaries as recognized by even justice Scalia, and there is no mention one can pack around a gun in public. But in the home? I agree]

        and given that the Founders agreed that the Constitution should specifically ensure that that right could not be taken away by government [agree...same as free speech etc],

        and given the fact that there are about 310 million non-military guns in the U.S., and given the fact that, according to Gallup, nearly half of all U.S. households own at least one gun [ OK...]

        , and given the fact that at least half of all those polled believed upholding the right to own guns was important [OK]

        , and given the fact that Connecticut has the fifth most stringent gun laws in the U.S. (according to the Brady Center), [OK]

        and given the fact that the most recent school shooter broke no fewer than six laws before he began shooting school children (including laws against being under 21 in possession of a handgun and in possession of a gun specifically banned under Conn. law) [OK]

        , how do propose to realistically “get the guns off the streets and allow people to be safe?””

        First, no one with any reasonable mindset is suggesting taking away guns. And no one with reasonable mindset is saying guns will be taken and outlawed. We have the 2nd that guarantees that. The SCOTUS stated that. Reading the recent opinion on the 2nd, the SCOTUS was unwilling to limit the 2nd to a militia, and loosely termed it as allowing a self defense mechanism in the home. I believe that opinion to be a good one…allowing the 2nd to be in place, yet also allowing control over firearms endangering the public.

        When anyone starts talking guns, it immediately becomes a confrontation of the two extremes with nothing in moderation willing to be discussed. The pro-everything goes side are talking about mental issues and spotting them early. heck, i’ve heard members of Congress propose “ht lines” to turn people in suspected of mental issues. Great….to keep guns out in public, easy to get, etc…we’re encouraged to be a nation of spies on neighbors and informers. …

        We have to somehow mend this urban/rural divide as to guns. Tht mans gun owners have to come to the table and give their expertise and knowledge. they have to realize that without some of that give and advice, the result will be their extremism will be shoved aside and their views ignored. being against everything means they’ll be ignored.

        Guns are easy to btain. No doubt. I would venture you could be dropped into any city in the US…not knowing a soul..and find it easier to get a gun than a joint. (not buying one legit..though now Washington and Colorado would allow both).

        it is far too easy to get a gun. Anyone, and it’s shown at least 14 tmes the past 10 years…anyone including lunatics and wacko’s…can get a gun.

        make it more difficult for the bad guys to get a gun. i believe for the most part bad guys who use guns in the commission of a crime are lazy. yes, we have 300 million guns in this nation. Keep them in the home. Assault rifles (or knock off look alikes)…tear ‘em down to parts unless target practicing. Yes, you can put one together in five minutes. … you’re not the problem. how many of the mass killers could have? And how many who steal them would have taken care and time and gotten all the parts?

        Concealed weapons permits. absolutely. if you’re packing outside the home, a national permit system. not state by state. If we had state by state, then if Oregon or Connecticut has strict concealed weapons permits…California or Virginia may not. Have a national permit system, and make it mandatory classroom instruction, live fire, and situational awareness training. Would you disagree all are necessary for the safe use of a gun in anything but target practice?

        It will take years…no doubt. But there is nothing i proposed that any “good guy” would not be able to own their gun. And it would be far more difficult for a “bad guy’ to have one. And yes, if a bad guy does use a gun to commit a crime, then if there is someone with a gun nearby, i’d like to know the training they had at least makes it some what safer than an untrained person who is likely to panic (I’ve seen too many ‘city hunters’ have buck fever to feel safe with an untrained gun user)

        And if one is out and confronted by an armed robber? C’mon…they have the drop on you. you really think they’re going to give you the time to take yours out?

      • Vicki

        Flashy writes:
        “And if one is out and confronted by an armed robber? C’mon…they have the drop on you. you really think they’re going to give you the time to take yours out?”

        Why yes. They will.

      • eddie47d

        That’s a very weak assumption Vickie!

      • JC

        Here ya go Flashy:

        John Mutter was asleep in his bed around 2:15 a.m. when he was awakened by a man with a shotgun pointed at his head. Mutter, a paraplegic living alone, kept his own gun nearby for protection. He quickly grabbed his gun and fired multiple times killing the intruder. Police investigating the incident believed the man had entered the home looking for medication, money or anything of value. (The Columbus Dispatch, Johnstown, OH, 7/22/12)

        Gerald Mirto, 67, heard noises coming from his backyard and went to investigate. When he noticed the screen door had been broken, Mirto spotted the culprit standing just outside. The 25-year-old suspect was not wearing any clothing and was asked to leave repeatedly. There was a struggle in which Mirto was bitten in the arm and punched in the head. Mirto was able to escape and retreat to the second floor of his home where he retrieved a handgun. He then found the intruder attempting to steal his television. The intruder reportedly instigated a second physical altercation. That is when Mirto shot the man in the chest. Police apprehended the intruder a short time later. (Milford Patch, Milford, CT, 7/23/12)

        Martha Lewis was at home with her two daughters when she heard a loud noise. It was 3 a.m., so Lewis immediately called police and grabbed her gun. She went to her daughters’ room and told them each to get something with which to defend themselves. They were at the top of the stairs when a man, who had kicked in the door and entered the home, spotted them. When the man started up the stairs toward them, Lewis warned the intruder that she would shoot him. When he ignored her warnings, Lewis fired causing him to stumble outside where police found him. The 25-year-old male was hospitalized in stable condition. After the incident, Lewis said, “There’s so much talk about banning guns and gun control, but they’re for protection. There’s no way that I could have fought him off.” (The Blaze, Dora, AL, 8/17/12)

        September 1985: Dino Starn awoke to find a man climbing through the bedroom window of his New Jersey home. “He picked the wrong window,” said Starn, who, for the second time in two years, used a handgun for protection. He shot once at the intruder, who was apparently hit in the arm and ran. Starn had previously used the gun to capture two burglars in his home. (The Press, Atlantic City, N.J.)

        And a couple of hundred more right here:

        • Jeff

          It wouldn’t appear any of those instances required the use of an AK-47, AR-15, M-16 or a 30 or 100 bullet magazine, would it?

      • JC

        What’s the difference Jeff? A gun is a gun…
        It takes an evil human being to turn it into a weapon.
        And there are many kinds of weapons.

    • TML

      Flashy says, “What we have is a direct clash of interests and Rights. The Right to bear arms as enunciated in the 2nd. And the Right to safety, the Right to walk the streets, a mall, a movie theatre, a college campus elementary school..without fear of being shot . The latter I believe would be found in the Preamble of the Constitution, the 9th and the 14th.”

      Your initial premise is incorrect. There are dangers that can end one’s life every time you walk out the front door, whether it is car accidents or even some thug with a knife trying to rob a store. Some people, under their right enunciated in the 2nd Amendment, chose to protect themselves from those dangers imposed by human predators, and removing their right to do so does not make you any safer. Laws that restrict carrying of arms on the street, only disarms those honest law-abiding citizens from defending themselves if necessary, because, as I’m sure you well know… criminals are criminals specifically because they don’t follow those laws. Thus, only criminals will be on the street with guns, and due to false sense of security by those using their emotions instead of their heads, to initiate laws that restrict the carrying of arms, you would then effectively have disarmed those who were no threat to you in the first place.

      Flashy says, “You name the public forum, and there was a mass killing in that forum. High end shopping mall, movie theatre etc etc. Now…babies. “

      What about a gun range? There is a very distinct reason why such an incident has never happened at such a forum. Those predators choose places like schools etc, because it is very likely no one will be able to fight back – that they are all unarmed.

      Flashy says, “Gun control. It is Constitutional. The Rights I listed above are real. We had an assault weapons ban and even the NRA didn’t challenge it. Justice Scalia, the Conservative justice, one whom I agree with very little, has stated the 2nd can be burdened by time, place and manner. The question is, how burdened can the 2nd be before being without meaning?”

      The problem is that the guns are not the true reason for the crime.

      Flashy says, “Urban…there’s more of a “cowboy’ attitude. Guns are used for violence. Either initiating it or using it as a defense. One hardly ever uses a gun, and if one does..usually it’s shooting or threatening to shoot someone. And anyone growing up in the country has tales of the “city hunters”.”

      I’ve grown up in both rural and urban areas and yes, there are more predators in the cities, but that only supports the strong notion to have them for defense against those predators. You have this idea that those who carry them for defense have some “cowboy” attitude and in my experience, it is exactly the opposite.

      Flashy says, “Debating gun control we can toss out the two extremes. The absolute ban or registration of all guns, including handguns. And the absolute demand to pack iron everywhere and anywhere. Neither extreme will be convinced of any other viewpoint. And…both sides will be, and should be marginalized. Neither can exist without intruding upon basic Rights.”

      This is out of the mere assumption that the guns are the cause of the crime. It’s like treating the symptom rather than curing the problem. In point of fact, psychiatric drugs, media sensationalism, and leaving citizens disarmed has more to do with encouraging these type of shootings than the mere availability of a gun. In this particular incident, the guns belonged to the mother, not the boy, so no amount of regulation and restrictions would have prevented it.

      Flashy says, “Fact is fact. In the past four years, as the assault weapons ban has been erased and more assault weapons come back into our ranks, as gun laws have become darn near non-existent, we have had mass killing in every avenue of public life. Violent crime, after going down for a decade, is back on the rise. Is it coincidental and unrelated to the rise in handguns and assault rifles? I do not believe any reasonable person would say it was unrelated.”

      Actually as I just pointed out; even if we accept your premise for sake of argument – a correlation may not indicate causation (post hoc ergo propter hoc). In fact, Chicago is often used to show, in a State with very strict gun laws, that such gun laws has not reduced violent crime with guns, and instead has one of the nation’s highest crime rates for gun violence. This indicates a different causation, and different solution than what might seem to some as contrary to common sense.

      Flashy says, “The debate then stands on whether accepting a rise in violent crime, in continued horrific shootings, is worth the price of allowing unhindered gun ownership. If the pictures of those little caskets, of boys dressed in Little League uniforms, girls in flowery dresses..being laid to rest did not bring tears and a resolve, then you must…not should…must question yourself. Newton was the 9/11 of this decade.

      Enough is enough.”

      It is obvious that you are appealing only to emotions, and using subjective reasoning, rather than being able to offer any real solutions by a reasoned mind.

      Flashy says, “Arming every citizen assures that the bad guys have these weapons. Arming every citizen is not the answer. Of all the mass shootings…all of them, how many were stopped or impeded by a gun owner drawing down on the shooter? None. Not one.”

      Coincidently, because gun laws restricted law-abiding citizens from carrying them there. Had one of those six adults been armed, it sure as hell would have changed the odds. You are putting the cart before the horse.

      Flashy says, “Whether legit gun owners enter the debate and give their expertise in keeping guns from the bad guys is up to the gun owners. Remember…the goal is not to give power to rule to the government negating the true purpose of the 2nd. It’s getting easy access to the guns away from the bad guys”

      The problem is who are the bad guys? Promoting a totalitarian government to find and prevent anyone that might go postal one day is the proverbial ‘pissing in the wind’ on an issue impossible to achieve without utter invasion of the lives of all citizens. Many of these predators have no criminal record, and background checks are explicitly to determine if someone has been convicted of violent crime or certified as mentally deficient by a licensed doctor.

      Flashy says, “The other aspect is the real purpose of the 2nd. To defend against a military government or an all powerful dictating government unresponsive to the People.
      My belief is we should ban assault weapons.”

      Amazing that someone would acknowledge the most important reason to retain the right to bare arms, while at the same time calling for a ban to remove those weapons which would be most effective for the task. These are defensive weapons… much like how the man on his roof top during the L.A. riots defended his property and his life from an entire mob with one of those so-called assault weapons. Fact is, the usage of less exotic firearms in crime dwarfs the usage of such so-called “assault” weapons.

      • Vicki

        TML writes to flashy:
        “What about a gun range? There is a very distinct reason why such an incident has never happened at such a forum. Those predators choose places like schools etc, because it is very likely no one will be able to fight back – that they are all unarmed. ”

        What about a military base. All those trained soldiers and all those assault weapons did noting to stop the Islamic murderer.

        Oh wait. Clinton disarmed all military personnel while they are on base. And President Bush didn’t bother to fix that. Come to think about it obama didn’t either. The shooting happened in 2009 and to this day obama has not fixed the problem.

        At least I could not find evidence that he had. If someone knows please post a link for us.

        President Bush could possibly be forgiven for not noticing. But obama can not since the killing at Ft Hood happened on his watch.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        You cannot forgive Bush for disarming the military on the bases as you cannot forgive Clinton or O. They know exactly what they were/are doing.

    • Alex Frazier

      Flashy, for starters, there are only two ways this scenario can play out. 1) We ban all guns and only the criminals have them, or 2) we don’t ban all guns and criminals and citizens both have them. The question is, which society do you want to live in? The one where you can protect yourself, or the one where you are at the mercy of the criminal?

      But to answer your post:

      1) The fact that gun-related crime went down in Australia, while crime in general has gone up, only proves to demonstrate that the lack of arms has emboldened criminals. No one has guns, and now the criminals have nothing to fear.

      The assault weapons ban demonstrated conclusively that assault weapons had no bearing whatsoever on crime. The perpetrators at Columbine didn’t use assault rifles. They used a Hi-Point model 995 carbine rifle, which is a ten-shot capacity, 9mm semi-automatic rifle, a TEC-DC9 9mm semi-automatic handgun (comes stock with a 10-round magazine), a sawed-off pump-action Savage-Springfield 67H shotgun (5 round capacity), and a Double-barrel Savage 311-D sawed-off shotgun (2 round capacity). Columbine has no bearing on assault weapon statistics.

      2) I agree, there will be gun control introduced. Liberals in power never let a good tragedy go to waste. However, recognize that the places where these things continue to happen are in places where people are not able to legally arm themselves. It’s rare that there is ever a mass shooting at a gun range or a gun store. No one goes in a shoots up a police station. They go where there’s no resistance. There are presently laws against carrying firearms in schools, government buildings, at government functions, and anywhere that prohibits concealed weapons, such as many movie theatres.

      3) Gun control is not Constitutional. It is a right that “shall not be infringed.” That, in layman’s terms, means that Congress shouldn’t even be discussing gun control. The Supreme Court should be making judgments over gun control. The whole subject should be off the table as a point of interest. If they want to change the gun laws, they need to rally a 2/3rds majority in the House and Senate and amend the Constitution. The reason they don’t do so is that 2/3rds of Americans are not behind the idea of punishing 300,000,000 people for the actions of one lunatic.

      The only burden the second amendment is suffering is the burden of excessive infringement.

      4) I agree with your assessment on the divide between the urban and metropolitan mindsets. We do view guns differently, and no doubt due to our environments. However, despite our own personal feelings about guns, from the perspective of wisdom, knowing the violent world we live in, and the propensity of governments to murder their own people over time, the right to maintain the arms that will preserve freedom should never be toyed with. As Franklin had said, if we give up liberty for safety, we deserve neither liberty nor safety.

      5) I also agree that the extremes are problematic in some very specific instances. I can agree, for example, that there’s no reason for people to carry a gun into divorce court. Nor do I think it’s wise to have a gun in a bar if you’re drinking. I’m sure there are other instances that can be brought to light as well.

      However, it seems that the agenda is to pass laws that never stop the crime. They just make it harder for people to be, as someone had put it, a first responder. I myself know a gunshot when I hear one. Had I been at Virginia Tech, armed, things might not have gone as they did. Perhaps he’d have taken me by surprise. Maybe my gun would have done no good. But maybe I’d have been in the next class, drawn, chambered, and ready after hearing gunshots and screams. He might not have made it to a third room. He might not have hurt so many in the second.

      So what are the appropriate places to ban firearms? What places does it do more harm than good?

      6) I’ll say again that violent crimes are not on the rise over the last four years because the assault weapons ban has expired. Assault weapons weren’t even used in these crimes. While the news media takes every opportunity to mention them, they weren’t used. In this recent incident in Connecticut, for example, it was reported that he “had access to an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine.” Very clever seed planting if you ask me. The guy didn’t use the rifle. He didn’t shoot anyone with the rifle. You might as well have reported that he, “had the ability to buy one at the sporting goods store down the street.” Who gives a damn if he had “access” to an assault rifle if he didn’t use it? What is the relevance in even reporting it?

      The relevance is to push the assault weapons ban agenda. Expect to hear about assault weapons if someone so much as fires off a .22 revolver. Never let a good tragedy go to waste.

      7) The pictures of little caskets and boys dressed in little league uniforms, girls in flowery dresses, being laid to rest, is precisely the problem here. People are letting their emotions dictate their decisions. You will not stop the lunatics by banning guns. England banned guns. The bad guys still have them. American government wants to ban guns as well, but every ban excludes law enforcement … and one guess why. Because the criminals will still have guns and the government knows it.

      A better question might be to ask why police are exempted from the high capacity magazine ban being pushed by McCarthy, when the police are usually the ones who don’t seem to know when to stop shooting. They served a no-knock warrant on an old lady in Georgia. She lived in a bad neighborhood. When her door burst open, she fired a round. The cops shot back and were so wild with their shooting, they even shot each other. In New York, a man drew a gun. The cops opened fire and hit eleven bystanders. Also in New York, a man and his two friends were getting ready for his wedding. It was his wedding day. They were unarmed. The police gunned them down with more than fiftey rounds.

      The list goes on and on. The cops are more dangerous with guns than the citizens are.

      8) A shopping mall (with a no concealed weapons sign on the door), a politician’s home (where one cannot enter with a concealed weapon without permission from the property owner), a movie theatre (with a no concealed weapons sign on the door), a college campus (where it is not lawful to carry a firearm), and an elementary school (where it is also not lawful to carry a firearm). Legal weapons, carried in an illegal fashion to a place where it is not legal to carry them, to be used in an illegal purpose. All, as you say, were lunatics. But none, as you say, had magazines with 30, 50, or 100 rounds. Of all the weapons used in these many tragic incidents, not one firearm with a working capacity of more than 15+1 rounds was used, and not one legitimate assault weapon was used. The word “semi-automatic” is not synonymous with “assault.” While an assault rifle might be semi or fully automatic (fully automatic by a proper definition), a semi-automatic weapon is not an assault weapon.
      A revolver, for example, by definition, is a semi-automatic weapon. Pulling the trigger advances the next round and allows you to fire up to five, six, or sometimes more rounds consecutively without having to reload the weapon. Yet, it’s not an assault weapon.

      9) I agree that it would be nice if we could read minds and know who the bad guys were before selling them anything, but that’s just not possible. Until someone has committed a crime, they are innocent the same as the rest of us. So there’s no way to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys without banning guns in general. And that’s not a good solution.

      10) The real purpose of the second amendment, if you read the works of the founding fathers, is to keep the government in line, to protect your country, your home, your property, your family, and your person. Wherever it is that you think the second amendment itself has failed to articulate these things, the lack is made up by the ninth amendment. Just because something is not specifically listed in the Bill of Rights, it should not be construed as being omitted or disparaged. If, as per the tenth amendment, authority has not been delegated to the Federal Government on a certain matter, and has been prohibited to the states in the same matter (as tampering with gun possession has by the second and fourteenth amendments, which prevents the states from making or enforcing any law that abridges the privileges of the citizens of the United States), then the authority belongs to the people. We have the right to any reasonable thing, and the right to protect one’s self, family, and property is most certainly a reasonable thing. The ninth and tenth amendments protect that if the second doesn’t.

      So on this point, which I’ve seen you make many times, please find a different argument. This one doesn’t hold water.

      11) Assault rifles are perfectly suited for hunting. A 5.56 or Remington .223 is adequate for small game, like bird hunting. And a .270 or .308 is just fine for larger game like deer. In fact, your common rounds for hunting are .270, .308, .30-30, .30-’06, .303. With the right grain, all are suitable for hunting light game, including deer, and the .308 comes in an assault style rifle. I have an LMT, and I’ve hunted with it before without any issue.

      12) Gun registration serves a singular purpose. Gun confiscation.

      13) Concealed permits already require background checks. In fact, gun purchases require a background check. You also have to take a class, learn the relevant gun laws, and fire at a range to ensure that you can handle the weapon.

      The problem with your overall suggest here is, who decides whether it’s needed or not? Uncommon security concerns? Why don’t you ask Sharon Tate about whether or not her security concerns were uncommon. One day the world was fine. She was in love. She had a wonderful husband. She had a baby on the way. Then out of nowhere a group of Manson psycopaths barge into her home and stab her to death, along with her friends.

      You can’t decide who’s going to need to protect themselves and who’s not. Trouble comes when trouble comes. And on this subject specifically, I find the liberal point of view offensive. Everyone has the right to be safe, always, even if a liberal thinks that they don’t really need a gun right now.

      14) I don’t think the police have the right to question everyone with a gun every step of the way. They might make the occassional id check, just like they do with drivers, but even then, there has to be a reason for them to pull you over.

      15) Most trouble that has come my way has been away from my home. I’ve never had my home invaded. But I have been approached by thugs in public places. We’ve also had plenty of instances here in South Carolina where robberies, muggings, and other crimes were outright prevented by citizens carrying firearms. Your speculation on what would happen doesn’t line up with the facts of what has happened right here in my own city.

      16) It’s funny that you would use the Dirty Harry example, because it’s the cops that usually let the bullets fly, and that rarely seem to hit what they aim at. And bad things do occur when the cops shoot. While a regular citizen is often hesitant to pull the trigger, the police don’t seem to know when to stop.

      • Vicki

        “In this recent incident in Connecticut, for example, it was reported that he “had access to an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine.” Very clever seed planting if you ask me.”

        It was very clever and has had the intended effect. All the (liberal) talk radio hosts went on and on how he used the semi-auto “assault” rifle to kill those kids and their teachers etc.

      • JC

        Exactly right Vicki…
        I’ve never heard the liberal media describe a gun as anything but “high powered”.
        It was High powered” shotgun a “High powered” handgun…what a bunch of idiots.

    • momo

      Flashy says: ” Violent crime, after going down for a decade, is back on the rise”

      FBI stats tend to disagree with that assertion.

      “Remember…the goal is not to give power to rule to the government negating the true purpose of the 2nd”

      Giving power to the government is exactly what you’re going to do, whether intentional or not.

      “My belief is we should ban assault weapons.”

      That horse left the barn a long time ago.

      ” And if they are kept, unless being used for practice… if stored, completely taken apart.”

      And how do you plan to enforce that? Have the gun police check the owner’s home everynight?

      “No clips more than 10 rounds. ”

      There are over 24 million of these in existence already.

      “The time has come. The extremists on either side need to be shoved..not moved, shoved aside and sanity brought back to our Nation.”

      Don’t be surprised if they shove back, HARD!

      • Vicki

        Sane people understand that guns MUST be in the hands of the people that we may defend ourselves, family, and community with the best tools for the job.

    • Vicki

      Flashy says:
      “What we have is a direct clash of interests and Rights. The Right to bear arms as enunciated in the 2nd. And the Right to safety, the Right to walk the streets, a mall, a movie theatre, a college campus elementary school..without fear of being shot .”

      You DO have the right to not be afraid. However it is YOU and YOU alone who chooses to fear. Or not. We can pass no law that can force you to NOT fear.

      Now the rest of your claim is clearly based on safety. You and we are safer when many/most of us are armed.

      Thus there is no direct nor indirect clash of interests and Rights.

    • JeffH

      December 16th, 2012
      Oath Keepers to Provide Teachers With Free Firearms and Self-Defense Training

      Oath Keepers, a national association of over 20,000 military, police, and first responders, is offering free instruction in the use of firearms and other methods of self defense to all teachers and school staff in the United States. This initiative is in response to the recent tragic mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The volunteer instructors will be drawn from the member rolls of Oath Keepers in each state. Those instructors will be paired up with any teachers and school staff in the same state who contact Oath Keepers and request instruction.

      The organization pledges to keep their identity confidential, but will also offer group lessons or to come to the school to teach the staff on-site. Topics will include defensive use of firearms, use of blunt objects and improvised objects for self-defense, use of knives, use of pepper spray, empty-hand defensive tactics, and methods of disarming an attacker who is armed with guns or knives, as well as crime awareness and crisis minset training. the first responders within the organization are being asked to volunteer to teach emergency first aid for serious trauma, including gunshot and knife wounds.

      Oath Keepers Founder, Stewart Rhodes, issued a statement:

      Children deserve to be defended. And the teachers and staff who are responsible for children during the school day deserve to know how to defend them – effectively, decisively, and at the very outset of an attack. And they deserve a fighting chance to defend themselves as well. It is not enough to tell them to sit tight and wait for the police to arrive. All too often, by the time the police get there, it is too late.

  • Bryan harris

    When are the anti-gun lobby going to get it…this isnt about guns – Would they ban cars near schools next…its wrong thinking. The right thinking is to ask why this massacre occurred only after the individual was placed on pshch drugs – The right answer is to ban psych drugs.

    • Daveh234

      Bryan is a genius I think?
      He figured it out. Let’s not treat mental problems at all. Screw ‘em.

      • spaman

        No Dave – You have the crown – If anybody cannot see the cause and effect here then they’re on too much med’s. Worse still, if anybody really believes by stuffing people full of psych drugs is going to help anybody, then they are beyond help! Of course we have to treat people with mental problems, but not with the filthy stuff that messes with their head so much they go absolutely crazy – Jesus, how many example of this do you need to see?

    • Flashy

      When are you going to “get it”…it is all about guns. Get it? Saying it isn’t is denying reality….

      • spaman

        Well, just saying that proves nothing – you haven’t even backed up the logic with anything substantial…. sorry, with anything…. You ever done a root cause analysis (sorry, silly question, clearly you haven’t) – they do these things to get to the actual reason why things like this happen …. If this guy hadn’t had a gun, he’d have done something else – guns are neither the motivation nor the reason why this happened, he just happened to use a gun. He was full of psych drugs that screwed him up so badly, that’s why he did this.

      • Hedgehog

        Flashy, I say again; It’s not about guns, it’s about the misuse of guns. How can you people expect the citizens at large to have respect for their fellow citizens and the law and eschew the misuse of guns, when the top cop in your country, Eric Holder, has no such restraint?

      • Flashy

        Spaman…do you honestly think if he didn’t have an assault type weapon he’d have done this school shooting/ Do you honestly think of the 14 mass killings the past ten years…all with assault type rifle…all would have occurred? half? even one?

        yes..they are mentally deranged. So why give them the weapons they used to kill?

        • spaman

          Flashy – I can see why you think guns are the problem… but they aren’t – it takes another element to add up to a massacre……. Let’s say little Johnny has had a bad day at school, and doesn’t go in when he should the next day…ok, he’s hacked off, but after a while he plays some PC games and shortly feels better. he goes into school, chats with a few mates, and his bad mood goes away …………………..

          On the other hand, little Larry also has a bad day at school, and doesn’t go in the next morning, instead he lays in bed with thoughts a festering, takes some more of his psycho drugs he got for his droopey eye, and lo and behold his festering bad mood becomes manic and he starts hitting the wall with his head until he suddenly realises he has a score or 2 to settle at school. He recalls everyone he had even a slight disagreement with and now sees them as a mortal enemy. He takes a gun his father had locked away, goes to school and gets his 15 minutes of fame, shooting down everyone on his mental list plus anybody else he notices….

          Perhaps Guns feature so predominantly in this discussion due to the fact they are both a protection and a weapon – but the truth is you need a warped mind to add to the gun to make it a weapon mass slaughter.

        • Joe America

          Flashy, Crazy people will kill people with any method at hand. That’s what crazy people do. In China, crazy people are going into elementary schools and stabbing teachers and children. I don’t think China’s going to ban knives anytime soon, do you?

      • TML

        Flashy says, “Saying it isn’t is denying reality…. do you honestly think if he didn’t have an assault type weapon he’d have done this school shooting/ Do you honestly think of the 14 mass killings the past ten years…all with assault type rifle…all would have occurred? half? even one?”

        As I mentioned; psychiatric drugs, media sensationalism, and leaving citizens disarmed has more to do with encouraging these type of shootings than the mere availability of a gun.

        You are literally espousing the idea that the crime would have never happened if they were somehow denied a certain type of firearm, and this is absolutely false. The gun availability did not cause the crime. I honestly think if he didn’t have an assault type weapon he would have found a different weapon.

    • Doc Sarvis

      I bet the AMA has more $ than the NRA.

      • momo

        Gee, did you figure that out all by yourself?

    • F89

      My mother is mentaly unstable when she is not on sycopathic medicashions. She like many others has a cemical imbaance in her bodie that when treated she is perfictly normal. My family has lots and lots of guns and ammo and never has any one been shot because we keep them under lock and key and the key away from mom. Mom dose not even like guns her wepon of choice is an ax. She can do a lot of damage with an ax she has never tryed to hurt any one she simply makes holes in walls. As long as she is on her meds she is fine so like I said people that have mental problems some times do need meds they also need some one to make sure they take their meds.

      • Joe America

        F89, You didn’t fall far from the tree.

      • ranger09

        F89, You are so right about some People needing these meds, And yes they need someone to supervise these meds.
        Also there are some people on here that forgot to take their meds, Joe and a few others.

  • Phillipe Violette

    Does that include Baker Acting anyone that does not meet some people’s opinion of sane?

  • kenwa d’arc

    you are all nutzoids! if the people did not have guns then they could not kill others with them. if the cops did not have guns then they could not kill suspects with them. if the military did not have guns then they could not kill foreigners with them.

    i realize that guns are helping make some nuance goodnesses. but as soon as this age of armageddon is complete none of you are going to have guns.

    • Jim Chambers

      Whew, another genius heard from.

    • Joe America

      Hey, Kenwa, you’re not even an American. You don’t have a dog in the fight, [comment has been edited]

    • Nadzieja Batki

      You are willing to comment on this site and tell the readers how stupid you are?

    • Vicki

      kenwa d’arc demonstrates why it is better to be quiet and only thought the fool by writing:
      “you are all nutzoids!”

      Ad hominem attack.

      kenwa d’arc: “if the people did not have guns then they could not kill others with them. if the cops did not have guns then they could not kill suspects with them. if the military did not have guns then they could not kill foreigners with them.”

      Thank you Captain Obvious. Kinda like saying if there were no cars than they could not kill others “with them”. The key phrase being “…with them”.

      kenwa d’arc: “i realize that guns are helping make some nuance goodnesses. but as soon as this age of armageddon is complete none of you are going to have guns.”

      Could you hurry it up already? I would love to live in a world truly at peace where we don’
      t need nor desire guns.

      Until then I think I will carry the equalizer. A policeman is just too heavy.

  • Marilyn

    Mr. President maybe we need to look to ourselves and our morals to stop this insanity.
    Many innocent babies are killed by abortion every day. Just because you can’t see them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Many of those aborted babies are still alive when they are aborted, and they are tossed in the garbage. How can young people coming along now have any respect for human life when they see this happening. These little innocents are killed by knives and vacuum cleaners. This does not make them any less dead. One political party even had abortion as a part of their platform. They call it “A woman’s right to choose.” I call it a woman’s right to choose to murder their baby. More people are murdered by abortions every day than are murdered by guns. Stop the hypocrisy.

    • Flashy

      Marilyn…you are citing a religious more as a defense of guns. Doesn’t wash. Gun control is not a religious issue.

      • Gary L

        So murder is now only a “religious” issue??? I think she makes a good point. As terrible as it is, the murder of 27 individuals is not nearly as despicable as the million plus abortions per year in the US alone.

      • Jim Chambers

        So now we understand that some murder is OK with Flashy while other murder is despicable. Is that it, Flashy? If you can ban guns can I ban vacuums and forceps?

      • Joe America

        Flashy? Here’s a great idea. Feeling free? I want you to go down and walk, late at night, or early in the morning, through the worst part of your town. See what happens to you. You’ll be robbed or raped, at gun point, or knife point, but the results will be the same. Did you know that the Israelis and Swiss are heavily armed. Did you know that every Swiss citizen is given a gun, by their government, and they have to go out and train once a years, with that government issued super rifle? And, you can be a 90 year old man, with a grand in your pocket and walk anywhere around Switzerland, at anytime of the day or night, and not one sole will touch you. Well, “Flashy”, if you’re living in the USA, where we’ve enabled criminal behavior and can’t get it under control, you need a gun just to walk down the street. You’d better check out the crime statistics. Clearly, where concelled carry is the state law, crime is down. Why? Well, Flashy, criminials don’t want their victims shooting them. Just the idea in the criminals mind “Gee, I don’t know, it’s a woman, and I’m stronger than she is, but she might have a gun, and kill me. I wouldn’t like that.”

        Flashy, how do you feel about all these games our kids and yound adults are playing, that promote violence and killing. I bet you don’t see one problem with that, because “Hey, it’s fake, it’s not real.” Well, Flashy, those games are teaching young vunerable minds that “killing is not only OK, but it’s fun.”

        Flashy, the problem is bigger than “guns.” Oh! By the way, criminials are criminials, because they don’t respect or follow any laws. They will never give up their guns, ever. When they see postings from people, such as yourself, they laugh, and rejoice. Why? Because your trying to make their lives easier. They are the first people that will go down and support gun control, because, in their minds, they are the professionals, with guns. The average citizen is just an amature, who might get lucky and shoot them while they’re committing a crime. And their union wouldn’t like that, at all.

      • Flashy

        I do not see choice as “murder”. it’s a religious issue … and my beliefs do not define first and possible second trimester abortion as murder. Hard to state the killing of 20 kids and 6 adults in an elementary school as not murder.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        But Flashy you mock people who believe in God and live by his rules.

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “I do not see choice as “murder”. it’s a religious issue … and my beliefs do not define first and possible second trimester abortion as murder. Hard to state the killing of 20 kids and 6 adults in an elementary school as not murder.”

        That is because you have chosen to DENY the choice of the child. How are you really any different from the shooter in Connecticut? He DENIED those people’s choice to live too.

    • ranger09

      This i will address to all the Women in the World, If you keep your legs crossed, Then you will not be faced with this Problem, Also you would not have others telling you what you should decide. Also all these do gooders should face the real problem with our young generation of girls 12-15 years of age, Or is this to much to ask. Now you know why some Arab Countries do not want their Women and Children to become like ours.


    The Second Amendment Rights came in when slow reloadable Muscats were only available…whereas now we have machine guns…. Perhaps old laws perhaps need to be updated too.

    • Joe America

      Gilly, As an Austrailian, you don’t have a dog in this fight. You Aussies already allowed your guns to be taken, and now, you’re screwed. Americans are not allowed to own machine guns, which are fully automatic weapons. As for the crap about “assault rifles”, it’s a joke. A rifle is a rifle, no matter what dress it’s wearing. One only looks more threatening to a gun control supporter, because of ignorance. We have choices between semi-auto and manual extraction of rounds, period.

      How about getting rid of those video games that teach kids and yound adults that it’s OK to dehumanize and kill people. Now, wouldn’t that be a good idea? These games are very, very realistic and the people using them become immersed in the action, especially the killing. If you think that doesn’t have an affect on a human being, your simply not thinking. Video games train people to kill. Those with unbalanced minds are especially affect by these games, yet you don’t hear anyone saying anything about it. That’s because the same people wanting to take your guns are heavily invested in these game companies.

      I love Australia and Australians, but I hate your gun laws. When you take guns from the average citizen, you’re telling them “you need to leave the guns to the professionals.” Of course, those professionals are those who work for the government, or, those in criminal enterprise. Only an idiot would support or believe such an assumption.

    • Jim Chambers

      Perhaps you should pay more attention what’s going on in Australia and leave us to our problems.
      You have a government that tells you what they want you do to while we have a government that is supposed to (but doesn’t always or we wouldn’t have Obama care) listen to what the public wants.

    • Vicki

      “The Second Amendment Rights came in when slow reloadable Muscats were only available…whereas now we have machine guns…. Perhaps old laws perhaps need to be updated too.”

      Since we still have slow reloadable muskets the old law certainly applies. Oh and our founders use the word “arms” to be EVERY type of tool (every terrible implement of the soldier) cause they were a LOT smarter than people appear today and they knew there would be improvements with new names. Hence they did not use the word “musket”. That and they included cannon and sword in the concept.

    • JC

      December 18, 2012 at 7:56 am
      The Second Amendment Rights came in when slow reloadable Muscats were only available…whereas now we have machine guns…. Perhaps old laws perhaps need to be updated too.

      Gilly, you’ve missed the point on this one.
      the Constitution didn’t sanction the type of arms…it enshrined a principle.
      “The right to keep and bear arms” was enshrined to keep tyrants and enemies foreign and domestic at bey. Do you really think that can be done with Muskets now?
      There’s nothing to update…the principle…a “founding” principle stands today for the same reasons it did then. And We The People will not let it be infringed any further.

    • ranger09

      Well just to keep updated on modern weapons the Govt should Give as a Christmas gift to all Americans a fully Auto MG of their choice with plenty of ammo. beats sending them to third world Countries and giving them toThe criminals. I even met a few Assies in VN They were ok, But you dont seem to be the same caliber.

  • Gary

    I truly wonder if it is the treatment that is the problem. In many cases it seems that the culprits were taking psych drugs. Some of the side affect are violence and suicidal thoughts. It seems that many are clamoring for more treatment that may be the problem.

    • spaman

      We can see that Gary, but this discussion seems to be about guns, no matter that the logic says to look elsewhere….

  • Glen

    For a historian’s perspective, consider that the first thing the British did when the Americans started to rebel was to attempt to sieze Massachusetts Militia powder stored at Concord – google battle of Lexington and Concord. Any nation that surrenders its arms leaves itself vulnerable to any government that might eventually wish to abolish liberties. Liberty itself is not something that is given but something that is a divine right and moe to the point, something that must be taken, kept, and fought for. I personally oppose the term “freedom” since it implies that it is free. It is not. We should note that it is not guns that kill people but it is people and the evil one influencing them. The root cause is the loss of adherence to God’s principles that has left us at this point. Instead of going after guns, we should be going after the liberals that have increasingly taken God out of the public sphere and their primary mouthpiece, the ACLU. Instead of demanding gun control, why don’t we demand the abolition of the ACLU and restoration of historical traditions including prayer in school as a first step?

    • Joe America

      Glen, Wonderful and insightful post.

    • JC

      Amen that, Glen.


    A message from a responsible, gun-owner: Gun control doesn’t work but it feels good!

    Gun control. I’m against it. We don’t need it. Guns are inanimate. Emotionless. Immobile. They have no ability, means or desire to commit crime or violence. One of the fundamental principals of a free society is you are not punished for the acts of others. You are not deprived of your rights and freedom because of the criminal activity of others. (Aside from aiding and abetting criminal acts) Instead of trying to control the guns that are properly employed by the vast majority of the millions of decent and law abiding gun owning citizens, why don’t we control the people who abuse the rights of gun ownership? I rather detest employing the platitudinous old cliché, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, but it’s true.

    I have owned guns for most of my life. Continuously since the time my father gave me a Harrington-Richardson .22 Caliber Long Rifle Single Shot rifle (with peep-sight) for my 12th birthday. I have owned a number of other rifles, shotguns and handguns since then. I currently own four handguns, a Ruger Security Six .357 Magnum Revolver, two Beretta Model 96 .40 Caliber Auto Loading Pistols, one black matte finish, and one special edition stainless steel “United We Stand” and a personal weapon, a Smith & Wesson Model 360SC AirLite .357 Magnum Revolver.

    No, I don’t have a concealed weapons permit. I don’t need one. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America clearly states. . . “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”.

    What part of “. . . . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” don’t our politicians understand?

    Listen carefully. The Second Amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms, it PROTECTS OUR RIGHT to keep and bear arms. It’s important you understand the difference.

    My guns have never killed anyone. My guns have never robbed a bank or a convenience store. In fact, my guns have never even pointed themselves at another human being.

    Now, I readily admit to selective indignation regarding the abuse of our constitutional rights. For example, I fully support the laws banning felons the right to own or bear arms. Those laws may be, and probably are, unconstitutional, nevertheless, I support them.

    All of the new proposed legislation for licenses, ammunition sales, trigger locks, waiting periods and what else is nothing more than smokescreen and is designed to make our inept lawmakers “Feel Good”. The government with their “Feel Good” legislation will not have any more success in keeping guns away from the criminals than they did with alcohol during prohibition, or drugs during the drug war.

    I really don’t believe that I am personally superior to, or better than, any of the other millions and millions of gun owning, law abiding citizens living in this country. With the exception, of course, of the very small percentage of our citizens who use firearms (and other lethal weapons) to advance their chosen illicit careers. I am better than them. I deserve to live my life in peace and harmony, free from any threat to my life, limb or property. They don’t.

    Instead of “Feel Good” laws, why do our politicians refuse to pass “Real Laws”, with “Real Penalties”? I would encourage and support all laws that punish the “Arms Abusers” and not the “Arms Owners”. For example, instead of a foolish approach such as five day waiting periods, child safety gunlocks, permits and licensing, let’s have real laws that provide for LIFE IMPRISONMENT to anyone who uses any weapon in the commission of any crime. Let’s have laws that provide for the DEATH PENALTY to anyone who discharges a weapon in the commission of any crime, regardless of the results of that discharge. The DEATH PENALTY should apply to anyone who merely points a weapon at a law enforcement officer. It’s time we stop pampering, coddling and playing with the criminals and protect the citizens and law abiding gun owners of this nation.

    Proof that our politicians are not seriously interested in preventing crime or gun deaths
    can be found in dozens of areas but here are three that are obvious and simple to understand.

    Full article:

    • ranger09

      NO one could have said this better, And yes our Justice system stinks, To much protection for the criminal. We have a very UNswift justice system. 5-27 years to put a guilty person to death. And we can blame this on Lawyers,Goody dos and the Politicians.

  • Kenneth

    Removing so called “assault weapons” to prevent crime is akin to removing the main (but not only) “weapon” an AIDS patient has to spread the disease! I don’t hear anyone in congress calling for that.

    Remember, the 2nd amendment is about government control, not gun control.

  • http://personallibertydigest hans klass

    this has to be the first time i agree with flashy, i grew up in a rural area and was taught about shooting and hunting and guns. no big deal, dad had a couple of rifles and a shotgun. we knew how to shoot them because we were taught, we had respect for them because we were told that you cant’ take a bullet back once you pull the trigger, there is no “reset” button. we too brought our hunting rifles into school and put them in our lockers during hunting season.

    but really, do you need a ak or bushmaster? neither are worth a damn as a hunting rifle, and if you use it for matches there is no need for a 30 round clip. if you need that many rounds to shoot a deer mabey you should play golf. the old timers i hunted with would give you crap if you brought more than 2 bullets on a hunt.

    how about we actually enforce our gun laws, like you said flashy, the urban dweller has a totaly different view, its all about throwin lead if someone “disses” you. i have a carry permit in NY one of the toughest states to be allowed a handgun, but the state has enough sense to not allow me to carry in New York city. fine, thats what new yorks finest is for.

    my opinion, is that the goverment should put more effort in curing the disease and less on the symptoms. since the 80′s funding has just about disappeared for mental health, so the sanitariums
    are closed, the people that need them are on the street, often with no place to go. kids that are down right scary, are given meds and we have to hope they take them and that they work. the biggest mental health facilities are the prisons. so if thats the case, lets let the potsmokers out and put the at risk people in for observation at least. seems a better use of our limited resources, but this is just one mans opinion. my prayers to the parents of the children lost in this last tradgedy

    • F89

      Lets see don’t need an Ak or an AR for hunting mabe or mabe not personal prefrance. Not good for hunting that is compleatly Bull. I have lots of guns; bolt actions, muzle loaders, singl shots. My uncle used to tell me that my SKS was not a powerfull enough gun for dear but i proved him rong. When I get ready to go huting my first pick is my AK because most of the time when you hunt in thik brush you need some thing that can shoot fast because it make take 2 or three rounds before you get them. I have frends that hunt dear with .223 AR-15′s they are very efftive as well. If you are going to hunt pigs or dear for that matter because their is a GA haveing 30 round mag should be maditroy. I have talked to several people that eded up on the wrong end of a famiy of wild pigs and the only reason they are still hear is becase they had 30 rounds of 7.62X39 in an SKS or AK.

      • NativeBlood

        2nd amendment was not for the protection of hunters or competitive shooters. It was for the purposes of resisting tyranny. (foreign or domestic)

        • Joe America


      • Joe America

        F89, First and Foremost, 2nd ammendment rights had nothing to do with hunting, but rather, fending off a government bent on repressing human rights and natural law. That’s what the second ammendment is all about. Not hunting. [comment has been edited]

      • ranger09

        You Know in most cases all people on here have good Points, But the Issue is that Most all decent Honest americans have no problems with firearms of any type Millions of them and in most cases there are no problems, Its always the few that create problems for the many.
        History is Very Important to most real Americans, We have seen that people unarmed become easy targets for the armed, Countries have fallen in hours because the people were not allowed firearms, Our basic freedom today is based on our people being armed, Our fore fathers knew this, and made sure that that right was written down so it could never be taken away, Every decent Leader in the world knows that we cannot be defeated from without only from within.In America Every House is a Fort, Every street is a battle ground, I can beat your military, but i cannot beat your People. 1967 NK.

    • NativeBlood

      Hans says:(in part) my opinion, is that the goverment should put more effort in curing the disease and less on the symptoms. since the 80′s funding has just about disappeared for mental health, so the sanitariums
      are closed, the people that need them are on the street, often with no place to go. kids that are down right scary, are given meds and we have to hope they take them and that they work.
      ______________________________________________________________________Hans, now you are getting to the root of the problem. Access to any gun by a sick person is ill advised but if we are going to go all the way, we will have to stop the pharmaceutical companies form releasing drugs like “Chantix” (No. 1 drug causing needless deaths right now) without research by independent labs not owned by the same company. These drugs are deadly in more ways than one

      • http://personallibertydigest hans klass

        thanks for the feed back, you are absolutly right about chantix, i tried it to quit smoking, wow, hallucinations, couldn’t sleep. and the doctors and tv are pushing this stuff? the side effects are as bad as the disease. but i think a gun cabinet with a lock should be madatory with gun ownership.

  • John Acord

    All of the gun violence of the last two decades can be linked directly to the drugging of Americans with Ritalin, anti-depressants, and other psychotropic “medicines.” Guns don’;t kill people, drugs do!

    • Joe America

      John, you’re right on. Also, don’t forget the fact that, everyday, Americans are drinking sodium fluoride in the water. It’s a by-product of aluminum production and it’s also the main ingredient in Prozac. It was used by the Germans to dumb down and control the Jews in the concentration camps, as it is, also, being used on Americans.

    • NativeBlood

      Now you are talking..Someone is awake here! Thanks John!

    • dan

      drugs, fantasy killing computer games and the Hollywood movies of violence. How about before we ban guns, we start banning neuroleptic drugs, harsh computer games and violence in the movies.

    • JC

      Good observations all…

  • What’s/new/is/old

    Let’s be honest with ourselves first and foremost. The tragedy at Sandy Hook was done by our government. This is not the first time they’ve killed children and had a new law waiting to be passed by a sympathetic house and senate. Our media is controlled by the state, lets be clear on this also. The previous false flags have been botched, so a new one had to be manufactured. It all starts with the MSM talking about guns, and then a shooting occurs in the most unforeseen location they can think of, without any account of an eyewitness to shed truth on actual events. Where’s the nurse that was a first responder at the Aurora shootings that was being told by victims that there were two shooters? She was found dead in Iowa days later, and now mother and son involved in this fiasco are both dead. That woman didn’t buy those guns no more than the time when I bought my first patriot missile! Depopulation is real, and in order for them to initialize it, Pol Pot needs your guns!!!!

    • Joe America

      You know, if I wanted to promote gun control, I’d go out and recruit the mentally ill, brainwash them and then turn them loose on a helpless public. Then, once the damage has been done, I’d cry “Oh my God! Guns are killing people and we’ve got to get that under control.” Of course, I’d whip the media up real good, and in the end, I’d win. Why? Because the average person isn’t aware of what’s going on in the world. They’re more concerned with Charlie Sheen, Lindsay Lohen, the latest movie, sports, the latest gadget and who’s poking who in Hollyweird. Maybe those NWO folks are right. Maybe we do need to thin out the population.

      • Vicki

        You might also encourage sellers to sell guns to people that you KNOW will be taking them across into another country so you can “find” them later and point out how the US is arming the “bad guys” of that country. You might even give the operation a cute name.

  • NativeBlood

    Gun Control is being pressed hard. Not for the reasons of public safety but for the ease of control the government wants to have over us. The corporate owned government is behind all of this in order to protect the pharmacy companies who have produced medications to placate so-called problem children. If you research closely, you will find that the mainstream media has been silenced about the real causes of the majority of these mass murderers. A closer study will reveal that most of these young murderers were medicated with multiple formulations and turned them into monsters. For most of you who feel that guns are at fault; then machetes, icepicks, knives, vehicles would also be placed on the forbidden list as well many others.

    Here is a starting point for research on the real cause of the murders.

    Open your mind and study this if you are so inclined. I think a new level of awareness will come into view. I like this site because it is left/right neutral and great reading. Michael
    Rivero lives in Hawaii and has been at this for quite some time.

    • Joe America

      You are soooo right.

  • Tom Cook

    Sam the leftists–the deplorable hag Feinstein and the diminutive Bloomberg revel in the slaughter of tiny innocents as what more, Dunblane style, could allow them to push their agenda to disarm lawabiding citizens so they do not have to fear us. Their assertions may be fallacious, but more specifically they are calculated. As you have shown in your column the only thing to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun a la Wayne LaPierre.

  • Carol Keljo

    You can research this: in 2010 211 children died in traffic accidents. Of those 131 were in the car with a drunk driver. (NTSA via MADD). Where is the logic in banning guns? Should we not ban cars?

    • dan

      …not to mention how many don’t ever make it out of the womb,sigh

  • http://yahoo Charles

    Batten the hatches, the same congress that gave amerika 16 trillion in debt,13 million illegals,27,000 gun laws,healt care bill that was not read before being passed,so-called neo cons are starting to show their true colors(yellow) buy it now. Remember the three Gs and F, GOD, gold, guns,and food. GOD bless America, however I feel it is too late!

  • Terry

    alex Frazier is 100 % correct in his assesment of what is happening to our once great Country . God help America !

  • Dave67

    Nobody is asking for Americans to turn in their guns…

    What is needed is a change in this country’s attitude towards guns and violence in general. We say a movie with sex in it is rated X and obscene. Movies with excessive violence in them are almost treated as family movies. Which is worse?

    We need a better mental health system in this country

    We also need to regulate ALL gun and ammo sales and make the sale of arms at least as difficult as getting a car. We should have 48 hour waiting periods, ban the sale of cop killer bullets and guns with large magazines.

    We need to deal with reality, not the NAZI NRA’s version of it. You are more likely to be killed with your own gun in this country than from a home invasion and that is due to our attitudes on guns as being a “toy”. That attitude needs changing… Canada has more guns per capita than we do as does Switzerland but they have nowhere near the violence. Why? They don’t glorify killing and those who do the killing like we do.

    Guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people and it large numbers.

    Wake up America.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Your idiotic comment is more dangerous than anyone who owns guns.

      • Dave67

        More in-depth analysis for you… Well done (golf clap)

    • Jim Chambers

      Taken a bite of the liberal apple have we?
      As long as you want to blame the tool for something that the fool using it responsible for I don’t think we really have anything to talk about.
      I don’t care if there are no guns around, if you don’t do something about crazy people you are not safe. Just like any good liberal you think by taking away the tool that will solve the problem. I contend that if you take away the tool the crazy will find another tool to do the job he sets out to do. Does Timothy McVeigh come to mind?
      Sorry but your reaction is knee jerk, to say the least.

      • Dave67

        No Jim,

        You only read what you wish to read. The main problem in this country’s attitude towards guns and violence. We glorify it. Everyone knows who Dylan Kleibold but do we know any of the victim’s names of the Columbine shooting? Problem….

        Everyone loves the realistic 1st person shooter games with blood flying everywhere… Problem….

        Primetime TV has people shooting each other with guns all the time… Thanks ENTERTAINMENT!!! Problem….

        The Infotainment channels that try and say they give us the news… They all have a “if it bleeds it leeds” mentality.

        We go to war now and watch it all unfold from our comfy chairs on CNN and Fox… No skin in the game for most… problem….

        We need a change of attitude, stronger fed laws and better mental health services to minimize the chances of something like this from happening. Nothing is foolproof but that doesn’t mean we should nont try.

    • TML

      Dave67 says “Canada has more guns per capita than we do as does Switzerland but they have nowhere near the violence.”

      No other country has more guns per capita than the United States. As matter of fact however, Switzerland ranks about 4th behind the U.S. on guns per capita and does have less gun related homicides (68 in 2007). If we contrast that with Chicago, in a State with very strict gun laws, and which has a higher rate of gun violence than states with open carry and fairly relaxed regulation… it would be logical to conclude that more stringent regulation is ineffective, and that availability of guns isn’t the cause of the problem. I agree with the ideas that psychiatric drugs may be a big contribution since it is found in virtually every incident that the assailant was taking some kind of legal pharmaceutics. And while I do agree with your first initial statements (Larry Flint argued that extensively back in the day) I instead tend to think it isn’t so much Hollywood violence… at least at first… I think the media sensationalism that plasters the names of monsters across the news to the point no one even knows the name of the victims, is more of the initial cause, which then does indeed often lead to a movie about the bastard sometime later. This kind of media sensationalism leads a deranged person to choose creating such a horrendous act in order to be remembered as a monster, rather than the poor pathetic nobody he/she really was.

      In the wake of tragedies like this, an emotional response against guns, or thinking you can regulate the problem away, is nothing but a distraction to the real problems, and real solutions… and in fact may make the problem that much worse, because, there is a very distinct reason why these things happen at schools… and that reason is; everyone there is sure to be unarmed and defenseless against such an attack. It is the same reason why things like this never happen at a gun range.

    • Alex Frazier

      Dave, “cop killer” bullets are illegal already. You can’t buy armor piercing bullets, except in some instances when the Federal government chooses to ignore its own law and sell the surplus to civilians.

      And high capacity magazines aren’t a problem either. In the rare situation where bystanders are close enough to bring down the perpetrator while he is reloading, the more limited magazine would matter. But in the other nine thousand percent of incidents, there is ample time to change magazines. If you ban larger capacity mags, they’ll just carry extras.

      Try and use some common sense.

    • ranger09

      Dave you are one stupid Guy, The problem in this country is our standards, Our Justice System that Protects the Criminals more then it protects its citizens, Thats why the crime rate keeps getting out of control,Politicians that are out of control, all our young people see today is that being being dishonest beats working for a living, Being a minor, commit a crime AND go home. And folks we only have ourselves to Blame.

  • Joel P

    Can anyone name a time a high magazine assault weapon was used to save a homeowner’s life? AS many times as it has been used for mass killing? Just wondering. And what do the deer think about all this?

    • Joe America

      Joel, Again, the second ammendment was put into place, by the founding fathers, to provide citizens protection against an opressive totalitarian government. So, forget hunting, forget all the arguments about home protection, because it’s all about citizens hanging onto their God given right to remain free. That’s what it’s all about, Joel. However, because there are so many fools, such as yourself, we are becoming a police state, our guns will be taken, so don’t worry, it will happen. And, when some government official walks up and smacks the crap out of you, forcing you into slave labor, separating you from your wife and children, marching you all into the gas chamber, then throwing you into the ovens, you’ll know you’ve been successful. You’ll have well instituted gun control. Congratulations.

      • Jeff

        Explain to us what you’re going to do with your gun when the FBI, IRS, younameit comes to your door. The government has drones and tanks. You think you can stand up to the Government because you have a big phallus in your hands? You can’t, but you sure can mow down a bunch of unarmed civilians. You’re quite a man despite all evidence to the contrary.

        • Joe America

          First of all, let me be clear that I am against violence and it’s should be used as the very last resort, under any circumstances. That being said, should some tyrant take over this nation and turn on the people, it would be nice to, at least, have the option of fighting back. I believe if you interviewed survivors of the German concentration camps, they would have rather fought, than go through what they did. You are absolutely right in your assessment, concerning the enormity of task it would be to take on our oppressors. Quite possibly, it would be an impossible undertaking, which would lead us all to the undertaker. On the other hand, the Afghan people seemed to do quite a job on the Russians, and a great deal of the fighting was accomplished with flintlocks. I pray that day never comes and that we can continue solving our issues in forums, like this and in the voting booth. In the end, though, they are going to take our weapons and the NWO will prevail. It’s only a matter of time. Why? Because, unlike the bumbling boobs we’ve become, they are sharp and on a well planned mission. They plan decades and even centuries in advance, while the average person can only think of entertainment, Lindsay Lohen and Charlie Sheen.

          • BR549

            Joe America wrote: “In the end, though, they are going to take our weapons and the NWO will prevail. It’s only a matter of time. Why? Because, unlike the bumbling boobs we’ve become, they are sharp and on a well planned mission. They plan decades and even centuries in advance, while the average person can only think of entertainment, Lindsay Lohen and Charlie Sheen.”

            I was agreeing with your post up until the very last part. The NWO may have an agenda that has been hundreds of years in the making, but where are they? While there may blacks and Chinese and Arabs at Bilderberg, these people should understand that the core of Bilderberg has no tolerance for outsiders. The core is bluebloods and those misanthropes somehow believe themselves to be gods that are deserving of ruling over the ignorant masses.

            The only thing that the masses have been ignorant of has been that there really is a sociopathic group of parasites that have existed for centuries. But no matter how long these self appointed elites have been at this, what they are attempting to do is foil the evolution of the human spirit and the higher realization of God. They see THEMSELVES as God and no one else should dare approach their level of achievement. For that, they will have a lot of explaining to do ….. and I’m not even a religious person.

          • Joe America

            BR549, Howdy. In answer to your question, I would suggest reading Jim Marrs “Rule by Secrecy.” As well, his book, “The Forth Reich” clearly lays out how we come to the point where we are, today, and who put us on that path.

          • BR549

            Joe America wrote: “I would suggest reading Jim Marrs “Rule by Secrecy.” As well, his book, “The Forth Reich” clearly lays out how we come to the point where we are, today, and who put us on that path.”

            Haven’t read his material but I’ve run across similar stuff from others. Of course it’s secret; that’s why the Graham’s from the Washington Post were commended by Bilderberg for being able to keep the globalism plan under wraps for as long as they did. And the libtards still think we are making this siht up.

            We are only slaves if there are enough stupid people among us willing to believe we are not.

      • Vicki

        Jeff says:
        “Explain to us what you’re going to do with your gun when the FBI, IRS, younameit comes to your door. The government has drones and tanks. ”

        You have just provided the (obvious) reason why THE PEOPLE must have drones and tanks too. Thanks.

    • BR549

      Vicki wrote: “You have just provided the (obvious) reason why THE PEOPLE must have drones and tanks too. Thanks.”

      Touche’, …….. I’ll bet the libtards will be squirming in their beds tonight over that one.

    • TML

      “Can anyone name a time a high magazine assault weapon was used to save a homeowner’s life?”

      L.A. Riots 1992

  • Joshua S

    I guess some of you love your guns more than you love children. The name calling and hatred spewed here makes me fearful that a lot of you have guns. Hope you can control that hatred when you are armed.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Emotion driven is a description of you. You are a male shouldn’t your reasoning be of a male?

      • Dave67

        And you bring nothing to the discussion yet again. NAD. I doubt you even live in this country.

    • Joe America

      Joshua, Did you know that your name was Jesus’ Hebrew name? Just thought I’d throw that into the mix. Joshua, we all love our children. That’s why, when I couldn’t afford a gun safe, I got rid of all my guns. When the kids got older and I could afford a gun safe, I bought them all back and some. Joshua, gun ownership has allot to do with loving our children. The fact that we do love our children is why we hang onto our guns. Why? Well, because we don’t want our nation falling into the hands of a dictator, or some other totalitarian organization. Sadly, Joshua, this is what’s happening to our nation. This is why so many special interests want to take our guns. Until the USA was created, life for the average person all over the world, sucked. You were treated like crap, by people in your home nation that believed they were your “betters.” Now, those same people, the people that American immigrants have been running from, forever, now want to turn back the hands of time. They want to go back to a time that was happier for them, when you had to lick their boots. Times that existed for the Irish, Welch and Scottish, when an English lord, or his son would come to your wedding, and he had first dibbs to screw your wife, because that’s just the way they rolled. You see, young idiots, who have never known tyranny, never been without freedom, haven’t got enough sense to fear the loss of it. If you give up your right to bare arms, you invite tyranny. This nation is the last hold out for freedom, for the average man/woman. Once this nation goes, so does freedom, not only for the USA, but the entire world. Sadly, very sadly, Joshua, it’s going to happen. Why? Because we’ve become a nation of fools.

      • What’s/new/is/old

        They don’t understand their own actual reality Joe, maybe if you spoke their native language of sheepish you could get through to them. When U.N. soldiers kick down one of their doors and commence to going after wives and daughters with guns and cocks in hand while making docile daddy watch helplessly, maybe having equal fire power wouldn’t have been such a bad idea….

        • Joe America


    • Vicki

      Joshua S says:
      “I guess some of you love your guns more than you love children”.

      Your guess would be in error. We love our children therefor we KEEP our guns.
      We teach our children well which includes proper respect for guns and how/when to handle them.
      Here is just one example:

      Remember, If it saves just ONE life…. as the gun grabbers are known to say. Of course they don’t mention who’s life THEY planned on saving.

    • JC

      Joshua S says:

      December 18, 2012 at 10:23 am

      I guess some of you love your guns more than you love children. The name calling and hatred spewed here makes me fearful that a lot of you have guns. Hope you can control that hatred when you are armed.
      Wow Joshua…I guess if you walked in a group of men gang raping your 12 year old, you’d make them a sandwich. After all they might be hungry when they’re finished right?

      I take a different approach…I’d shoot.

      Because I do love my children and will protect them.

      • Jeff
        • Joe America

          Sarah Brady suffered a terrible blow when her husband was shot in the head by John Hinkley. That pushed her over the edge, allowing her to be used as a tool to take down the second ammendment. Everyday, she has to look at her husband’s disability, and she’s bitter. So, I don’t blame her. However, I do suspect that someone of importance was behind John Hinkley and his attempt on Reagan. Someone who always pushed the NWO:

          • BR549

            Joe America wrote: “Sarah Brady suffered a terrible blow when her husband was shot in the head by John Hinkley.”

            Yes, but contrast her knee jerk response to that of Dr. Suzanna Hupp after BOTH her parents were gunned down:

  • Jim Chambers

    OH, emotional, aren’t we!

  • rollie benson

    While the event in CT is sad and unfortunate, it is terribly over reported and politicized. On that same day far more than 20 kids and 6 adults were killed in other events across America. Are their loses any more trivial or unimportant ? What if a train had struck a bus full of kids and killed 20. Would we be talking about banning the bus or the train ? This is akin to someone ( or 10 ) losing their home to a tornado and no one really cares. When a tornado stikes an area and destroyes 100 homes all of a sudden those peoples’ loss is THAT much worse ?? This entire thing is a media event and is WAY out of proportion to reality, but it sure sells—and gets people fired up !!

  • BR549

    “Many Americans disagree with Burroughs’ opinion and are pushing for police and military personnel to be society’s sole armed protectors.”

    Using the term ‘many’ needs to be clarified, since we already can establish that far too many of the public feel unsafe in their own homes and on their own streets; the problem is that they don’t know where to pin the blame for it. The BLAME lies in the loss of connection (spiritual connection, when it comes right down to it) by individuals within their own society and this becomes a real crucial issue with a population this large, and gets more so as individuals are asked to perform increasingly specialized tasks within that society. We have far less ‘Jacks of all trades’ in our culture today than 100 or 200 years ago and the feeling of our current miscreants must certainly be one of abandonment.

    “And no matter what utopia the American left believes we inhabit, laws banning (and the all-out confiscation of) even every firearm manufactured will not stop the killing. Those capable of murder believe themselves to be far superior to any laws of man.”

    Indeed, that is the whole point. Without that ‘connection’ to some higher sense of purpose, these individuals take on and dictate their OWN sense of purpose. Our founding fathers made a point of this when they stated that these rights were inalienable and given to us by our our creator. In other words, those rights were above being given to us by other men, whose egos would too easily use that power for their own, rather than humanities, best interest.

    Here again, the utopian libtards will be popping out of the woodwork. They are all for banning the guns, banning creches at Christmas, and banning the word God from anything to do with the government, no matter how non-denominational it was meant to be, and all the glue that keeps ethnic entities continuing to nurture their folds until such time that we can all collectively evolve (or spiritually mature) beyond where we are at present. They lack the discipline and, like immature children, want everything NOW, whether we (or even THEY) are ready for it.

    When the liberals are ready to have those in power actually shut down all munitions and armament plants, destroy all stores of NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) weapons, and those self-professed leaders understand WHY we need to do so, THEN, PERHAPS we might have a chance at that Utopian world. Until then, the gun grabbing libtards are only deluding themselves into thinking they will have peace.

  • JWSurovik

    GUN’s don’t kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!!!! Never forget that!!!Banning gun’s would mean that only CRIMINAL’s would have gun’s because CHILDREN, THEY CAN GET THEM ANYWAY!!! Also remember, while this horrible act was TRULY AN ABOMINATION, Thousands of CHILDREN DIE DAILY around the world-let’s try to keep it in prospective. The Obamites would love nothing better that to have an excuse to enact a bunch of useless ordnances & legislations to further restrict legal gun owners. God Bless you all & a Very Merry CHRISTmas. JW:)

    • Dave67

      Too bad so many Christians forget the CHRIST in Christian.

  • Steve E

    For all you Obama supporters that said that Obama would not try to take our guns: Well time shows now that you were wrong.

    • Dave67

      OH, I see… The shooter was an Obama plant and had those 20 kids killed so he can come for your guns…

      I see….

      Conservatism… the other mental disease.

      • What’s/new/is/old

        Yes troll, the story changed every five minutes. There was indeed two shooters. The light will always shine against evil…

        • Joe America

          Let’s not blame this on Obama, he’s got enough to deal with concerning “Fast and Furious.” Let’s just say there’s a shadow government, the one that’s really in control. If you believe that people haven’t been brainwashed into doing bad things, you’re naive. Even Presidents aren’t safe from these people. If it served their purposes, children would be a welcomed sacrifice. They would consider it breaking a few eggs in order to achieve, what they believe, would be a greater good. In other words, with the NWO, the end always justifies the means. You’re talking sociopathic behavior and thinking.

          • Jeff

            One word: INSANITY.

          • Joe America

            Well, Jeff, you’re entitled to your opinion, I’ll give you that. However, for your own sake, and that of your family, you might want to pull back the curtain and see who the Wizard really is. You might want to know how American’s were all enthrawled with Hitler and how, for awhile, there was a joint eugenics programs and cooperation with the elite of the USA. You might want to know that many, many of the rich elite of our nation loved Hitler, and how they tried a military coup, during FDR’s administration, which was revealed by a Marine General they tried to recruit, and it was put down. I can tell you really don’t know allot about our nation’s history. All you know is what you’ve been fed. And, I can’t hold that against you. My advice to you is to always look deeper into any situation. When your government says “Trust Me” you’d better check your wallet, very quickly. When Bill Clinton was running for his first term, he had to go and stand outside the mansion of one of the men, who really run this nation. On television, he was videotaped, standing outside like a little boy, begging for this man’s approval to even run for office. Presidents are just face men. The golden rule of life, is, “he that has the gold, rules.” It’s these people, the old money of the East coast and the European aristocracy, that are really running the world, right now. However, they have to run it from the back seat and they don’t like that. They have all the money in the world, but that’s not enough. They want absolute, obvious, in your face power. And, they’re going to get it. Get ready to bend over, Jeff.

      • FreedomFighter

        Senator Feinstein, evidently in an effort to avoid accusations that this new bill is a knee jerk response to the shootings, assures us that she has been working on this bill for a year.

        Contemplate that for a moment. This “new” bill has been poised to launch for months, waiting only for the (hopefully) inevitable next horrific incident, an appropriate tragedy, to whip this “solution” out while stampeding a frightened, sad and disoriented populace into accepting yet another “DO SOMETHING!” law that constrains honest people while addressing the actual problem not at all. The senseless slaughter of 20 little ones is the perfect political platform for shoving fascist policies down our throats. The media will trot out every profile of every child and teacher who died, to engender guilt, horror and remorse and bully Americans into letting go of their guns. Newsflash, asshats… we aren’t that gullible and stupid. We certainly aren’t that weak.

        Over the next several days and weeks we will see lawmaker vultures who have been perched, waiting only for enough carnage that they can stand in the blood of those children, calling for universal disarmament. These politicians don’t care about dead children except as they provide a stage to consolidate their power and control. Dead children are the “broken eggs” necessary for the making of their political omelet. Hey, too bad about those kids, but we’ve got an agenda to fuel, it runs on emotion, and we’ve got to harvest that emotion while it’s fresh.

        They will carefully avoid any mention of the broad new classes of victims created by revoking people’s right of self defense and the inevitable murders that will follow. They will scoff at the thought that a disarmed populace is easier to subdue under a tyranny. And you should just accept as totally normal that a legislator will craft a law to disarm the nation a year in advance just to hold in reserve hopefully anticipating some new horror to provide the emotional flame to burn away those pesky Constitutional protections.

        In reality, evil individuals will always find a way to kill. If not guns, then bombs, poison or some other concocted deadly weapon. When you outlaw guns, you strip the populace of defense. The bad guys don’t suffer at all, because they don’t follow the law. Despots dance with glee as their absolute control of their subjects is cemented in bloody stone.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

        • Jeff

          If you have a gun in the house, it is far more likely to result in tragedy than in any successful self defense. It’s just a fact. You can accept it or deny it, but you can’t change it.

          • Joe America

            Well, Jeff, here’s the Pepsi Challenge. Provide those facts for us, without the bluster.

      • Joe America

        Dave, that’s not what’s being said. Rom Manuel stated “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.” In other words, people are vunerable and this is the best time to attack the second ammendment. Besides that, he and Clinton have been working feverishly on the UN Small Arms treaty. This treaty is simply a back door to take guns away from every citizen on the face of the earth, except government and criminals. They want the average citizen of the world completely vunerable to brut force. That way, there is no resistance, period.

      • Dave67

        And I see FF you left out that its assault weapons the bill is targeting…

        You conservatives need to understand a few things.

        In this country, we vote our leaders in.
        In this country, serving in the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines is VOLUNTARY!!!!
        In this country, Civilians control the military

        And just one other thing for people like FF that have a problem with critical thinking.

        Lets say in conservative fantasyland, voting is suspended, martial law is installed, military service is mandatory and the military controls our gov.

        Do you think a full auto assault rifle an effective weapon against chemical weapons? nukes? The USS Ronald Reagan, the M1A Abrams Battletank, Hellfire Missiles… The military has these and many other heavy weaponry… FF, how do you think you would fair?

        Common sense people…. not fear.

        • Joe America

          Dave, the NWO loves people like you. Just keep doing and saying what you have been and I’m sure you’ll have a nice place in the NWO. I can see it, now. You’ll be one of the turncoats that will walk around with a cattle prod, shocking your fellow Americans, so you can get a bowl of soup from your oppressors. People like you put the Vichy, in France’s Vichy Regime, during WWII. You’ll make a great little Nazi or Comrade, whatever the NWO wants.

      • FreedomFighter

        “FF, how do you think you would fair?”

        All would fair far better armed with a M4 or other weapon of choice, than say sticks and rocks and harsh language.

        Common sense thinking, really, you think you would do fair better with nothing but rocks and sticks and harsh language? If so, good luck you will certainly need it.

        add this: if they used the USS Ronald Reagan to take little old me out, well lets just say “what a waste of firepower”

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • Dave67

        The point just went by…You missed it again FF.

      • Steve E

        Just always keep in mind that people who want gun control are super evil people and are of the sub human level. They deserve no respect.

      • Vicki

        Dave67 misses his own point by saying:
        “Do you think a full auto assault rifle an effective weapon against chemical weapons? nukes? The USS Ronald Reagan, the M1A Abrams Battletank, Hellfire Missiles… The military has these and many other heavy weaponry… FF, how do you think you would fair?

        Common sense people…. not fear.”

        Common sense indeed dictates that we need effective defense against such attacks. We need the same equipment the military has to defend against such attacks. Maybe obama was right but I don’t think he was planning on arming and equipping the entire populace.

      • JC

        Jeff says:

        December 18, 2012 at 12:33 pm

        If you have a gun in the house, it is far more likely to result in tragedy than in any successful self defense. It’s just a fact. You can accept it or deny it, but you can’t change it.

        Not if you happen to know that the bullets come out the end with the little round hole.
        I know…it’s a little too complicated for the average liberal…but hey, we try. :)

        • Jeff

          As I said, you can deny the facts or make stupid jokes, but you won’t change the facts.

        • BR549

          JC wrote (in response to Jeff): “Not if you happen to know that the bullets come out the end with the little round hole.
          I know…it’s a little too complicated for the average liberal…but hey, we try. :)

          JC: 2
          Libtards: 0

          Hey, I’m just keeping score. We all have to do our part. :o)

    • Dave67

      Joe America,

      The Second Amendment says:

      “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.”

      So it says right there… “Well regulated”

      I agree… Guns needs heavy regulation.

      I think in the 1700′s America was a different place with muskets and cannon as weaponry… They could not envision the country we have today or the weaponry we have today. I am all for responsible gun ownership, hunting but the attitude of too many is lax on gun and using violence to get even or get your way.

      The reality is in this country is your death from a firearm does not come from a home invasion, it comes from a heat of the moment, mental breakdown event. I worked for the FBI two decades ago and I saw the statistics. The NRA loves to to keep the sheep scared.

      We need a different attitude towards guns, violence and better mental health apparatus to help law enforcement be more proactive in prevention of these kinds of violent acts. Our preoccupation with guns and violence has nothing to do with a lack of “god” in our lives but an accepted means to gain fame and conflict resolution.

      • Joe America

        Sieg Heil, mine Furher!

      • Dave67

        Typical response from the fearful sheep.

      • MontieR

        The second amendment is 2 get it two statements NOT one. The militia referenced by the second amendment is the first of TWO militias stated in the constitution the first was to be regulated LOCALLY by the county or state (and was illegally co opted as the national guard) NOT the federal government unless they were called to duty to protect the republic. The second militia was EVERY citizen that could carry a rifle. The bill of rights confirms GOD given rights of ALL men it does NOT allow government to dictate what rights it wants to allow. The second amendment IS everyone’s RIGHT to own AND carry a firearm WITHOUT governMENTAL interference. You can believe the lies perpetrated by cowards that refuse freedom for government protection, the same government that can’t run ANY business without failing miserably. Or you can choose to be a FREE American citizen.

      • Steve E

        Dave67, You are a sub human troll. Plain and simple. And you just proved that.

      • Dave67

        Steve E,

        Don’t make me pull out my Glock…

        • Joe America

          Tyranny never changes, Jeff, it always seek more power and authority, for itself, not for the people. Times change, but the desire for power over other humans does not. Tyranny is human nature, at it’s very worst. The USA is the only break in the cycle of tyranny in throught recorded history and that has happened because of citizen gun ownership. Fools will doom that brief moment in history. Someday, it will be reminised like Alantis of old. Perhaps if the spark stays alive in the memories of mankind, it will ignite, once again.

      • Vicki

        Dave67 says:
        “The Second Amendment says:

        “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.”

        So it says right there… “Well regulated” ”

        It says a bit more than well regulated. Lets look at what the sentance means from a grammatical point of view.

        So the operational part is
        “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

        There is no requirement for them to be well regulated by your definition nor for them to be in some group called “militia”

        Now for amusement lets pretend that you have to be in a “militia” to own guns without infringement. Who might these people be? USC Title 10 Section 311 gives the legal definition. Kinda looks like most of the male population that you want to NOT have guns are in fact the very people the 2nd (by your mistaken interpretation) are the ones “protected”.

        • Jeff

          But the term “well-regulated” is part of the amendment. When Jesus wrote the Constitution, who do you think He meant to regulate the militia and/or the guns? I believe that would be the State. I don’t see similar language in any other provision of the Bill of Rights.

      • Donald

        Dave, a well regulated militia, is for the protection of our country! The right to bear arms is for the protection from our Government! Jeff are you that STUPID, insisting Jesus wrote the bill of rights. If you 2 LIBTURDS want gun controll and higher taxes as well as bigger Government, pick some other country and move there. Otherwise follow the Constitution of America and SHUT UP!

      • Vicki

        Jeff says:
        “But the term “well-regulated” is part of the amendment.”

        You have been schooled in the proper use of the term and its proper use in the amendment. To continue to deny your learning is called willful ignorance.

        • Joe America

          Dear Jeff, there are two parts to this, the second, of which, is that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I’m curious, Jeff, why are you so anxious to disarm the American people? Who are you and who do you work for? Obviously, you have an ax to grind. Either you’re trying to impress some liberal group of friends, or you’re an enemy of the people. Which is it, Jeff? Because it’s not out of concern. I’d almost bet you’re a gun control plant.

        • Jeff

          Why do you assume your interpretation is correct – because this is a right wing blog? What other amendment contains the words “well-regulated”? In what dictionary does that term mean “unregulated”? Other than Conservapedia, I mean. I think it is painfully clear that the 2nd Amendment specifically leaves the regulation of guns to the states.

          • BR549

            Jeff wrote: “What other amendment contains the words “well-regulated”?”

            First of all, one can gain considerable insight into the meaning of the Second Amendment after reading excerpts from the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798,-9.

            It has been the all too convenient “interpretation” by Supreme Court judges that writings beyond the Constitution itself are irrelevant because they form no basis for the codification of law. Well, when you view the Papers and Resolutions (above), it becomes all too apparent that the founding fathers felt the supporting documents left no doubt how the Declaration and Constitution were to be viewed …… and it isn’t what the Supreme Court has been doing for decades. The SCOTUS, unfortunately, has become yet one more political tool, inhabited by yet more cheap prostitutes, instead of the savior of the common man.

            But to your point about “well-regulated”; back then, it referred to being disciplined so as not to be ranked with bands of vigilantes. It meant following the laws of the respective several states instead of country justice. Back then, the militia consisted of you and I, but after the Militia Act of 1903, what seemed to be more uniform control of the various militias, wound up being further usurpation by the federal government of one of their last threats by the states themselves.

            Look where we are today. Ads on the radio depict our own kids gleefully volunteering to be citizen soldiers helping during times of disaster, yet the reality is that the current administration, just like the last one, needs more fodder for Afghanistan. Bait and switch is what we know that as. And where the governors once controlled their militias, they are now just a branch of the Army, that standing army that we weren’t supposed to have inside our borders and being controlled by the federal government.

            That said, the 2nd Amendment means that in order to have a militia in the first place, one that is comprised of the citizens themselves, one must first acknowledge their right to defend themselves from threats from abroad or by the government itself (i.e. foreign or domestic). This is over and above any “army” that may or may not be needed.

      • Jim Chambers

        Worked for the FBI, huh? Well, that sure makes you trustworthy. I used to be a PO who dealt with agents from time to time and found them to be the most untrustworthy liars on the job. Never found one to be a thief but that seems to be the only thing they wouldn’t do to prosecute a case.

      • Dave67

        Jim Chambers,

        You don’t know me and do not pretend to label me because I worked for the FBI or that you knew someone who knew someone.

        I have experience in collecting data from sheriff’s depts across this country and I have seen the stats. Have you? No…


        Once again, another conservative who thinks I believe guns should be taken away. Where have I said that? Why is your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as it pertains to “well regulated” correct? What do you have on that besides the flimsy grammatical link you gave?

        • Jim Chambers

          I’m wondering, did you do the head waggle with your first finger in the air when you said “You don’t know me”?
          You are right, I don’t know you and I don’t want to. I do my best to hang around people able to think a bit more clearly than you and pencil pushers like you, if your posts are representative of your thought processes, seem to be able to do.
          Unlike you I have actual experience going up against guns in the hands of people who wished me no good. I was a PO for quite a number of years in a river town on the Mississippi.
          I walked in on the aftermath of a robbery where they made everyone lay on the floor and shot each one in the head with a pot metal .22 pistol reloading at least once. I’ve gone against guys with shotguns and hunting rifles. I’ve investigated crimes where the wife ran over a husband who beat the hell out of her on a regular basis. I’ve been shot at, had knives pulled on me and had to dispatch a guy high on drugs that had my partner in a corner stabbing him with a knife.
          I investigated when a woman who’s husband left her had to resort to living in a crap hole in the bad part of town where a drunk neighbor broke down her front door was shot by her as he was ascending the stairs toward her and her daughter. Because I had to take her gun as evidence and because her front door was kicked in I left her with my .357 S&W. I had to return within an hour because another neighbor and friend of the first guy, thinking that she was unarmed, came through her front door and was also shot dead.
          I could give you quite a few more instances but I am not sure you are able to understand what is being expressed to you. I’ll try anyway.
          In every case the gun or the knife didn’t do a thing by itself. Someone had to pull the trigger or wield the knife. That assault rifle with the 30 round clip is not capable of shooting all those people by itself. If you are not willing to do anything about the crazy who has the artillery in his hand this type of thing will continue.
          Approach a police officer and ask him what it takes to get someone like that off the street. You will find that, because of liberals like you, they can only be taken off the street if they harm someone. Once they are in custody and remanded to a mental health facility they can refuse to take their drugs. It takes between 48 hrs and 4 weeks for a judge to order on this case and in most cases the defense attorney will ask, “has the prisoner hurt anyone since being taken into custody?” Of course the answer will be no because he is so closely supervised that at any sign of aggression he is isolated to avoid injury. Consequently the judge lets the guy go and the next thing we have to handle is the assault or death caused by this guy. I’ve run into this over and over but you and those like you want to blame the assault rifle when in actuality all this is your fault and the fault of those like you who freed these crazies.
          So what you think you know from your statistics I know from actual experience. I think my experience trumps your statistics.

          • Joann Flanagan

            Mr Chambers,
            I know you mean well but I highly recommend you read Insanity Inside Out by Kenneth Donaldson. It tells the story of a sane man unjustly railroaded to a madhouse and released by a Supreme Court decision.
            Putting more power into the hands of those who already have too much be they the skrinkocracy or the guncontrol lobby will not safegauard our Civil Rights!
            Joann Flanagan

          • Jim Chambers

            I recommend that you start thinking with your head instead of your heart. Are the deaths of these children justified then by your argument? I maintain that if this nut had been institutionalized he would not have killed these kids.
            If one person was railroaded into a mental institution but later released there are legal remedies. What are the remedies for these dead children and the parents of these poor defenseless kids?
            Balls in your court.
            (You will have to explain ‘skinkocracy’ to me. I couldn’t find it or ‘skinkocrat’ in my dictionary.)

          • Joe America

            Adam Lanza had Aspergers disease, a serious form of autism. His mother should have never allowed him to have access to firearms, of anykind. However, she took him to the range and gave him access to guns. “In the days before the massacre, the mother of Adam Lanza was pushing her loner son to leave the Newtown home that provided his refuge from reality, a family friend told the Daily News Wednesday.”

            “He sat in his room playing video games for hours and hours,” the friend said. “She thought the best thing was for him to get out of the house and into the world. To interact with people a little bit.”

            “But the 20-year-old rejected the idea and stopped speaking to his mother, the friend said. Nancy Lanza and her youngest son hadn’t talked for three days before he fatally shot her Friday morning and then murdered 20 children and six staffers at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

            Nancy Lanza had brought her son to a psychiatrist as he became increasingly anti-social —spending endless hours in his room by himself.”

            “He was like a ghost,” the friend said.”

            “When the mother pressed the issue of moving away, “he didn’t want to leave,” according to the pal. “He didn’t understand why she wanted him to go out into the world. She told me she couldn’t reach him — and she was worried.”

            “A recent attempt to take Adam on a southern vacation ended with his refusal to accompany his mom, who was also suggesting that he needed to get a job or perhaps start college.”

            “She felt that he was slipping into himself, and that it was time for him to move forward,” the friend said. “He was pushing back against this idea.”

            Adam’s mother had made it pretty clear that he needed to move forward, but if you look at his disease, moving forward wasn’t much of an option. He truly needed to be institutionalized. So, this is why this all happened. We used to be more proactive about helping people with mental illnesses, but, since MBA’s and CPA’s have taken over medicine, nothing gets addressed if there’s no profit in it. It used to be that you’d go to a hospital and it was all about “Hope, Faith and Charity.” Now, particularly for the mentally ill, all of that is gone. We, as a society, and Adam’s mother and family, allowed him to fall through the cracks and 26 wonderful and innocent human beings died as a result. This is what we need to be focusing on, as a nation. But, instead, gun grabbers just want to take all of our guns. If you look at how guns were confisgated in the UK, it began with little things, and continued on, until all guns were taken away. Now, UK citizens don’t have any guns, but the government and criminals do. So it shall happen, here, and tryanny will come.


          • Jim Chambers

            If you find my comments elsewhere in this online conversation I spell out who, exactly, is to blame for this. Liberals, led by the lawyers of the ACLU, opened the institution’s doors and enabled the crazies to prey upon those defenseless children.
            Liberals have a long history of killing those who cannot defend themselves and those who are the most innocent. That is what makes them as evil as they are.
            They defend the killing of unborn babies for the convenience of the mother, they advocate killing children with genetic abnormalities and they would love to pass laws getting rid of old and infirm adults. All the most innocent and defenseless.
            What galls me is their feigned outrage when these things come to pass. As we all know, though, is the outrage is for political purposes only. After all, how can someone who advocates killing babies in the womb be outraged when children are murdered in this manner? Doesn’t make sense, does it?

          • Jeff

            The reason abortion became an issue in the 60s and early 70s is because young women who got pregnant were desperate to end their pregnancies. In the process, they sought back-alley abortions from butchers, often resulting in death or serious injury (sterilization).. These women were often from conservative families and they knew how their fathers (many like you guys) would react to a single, pregnant daughter. Not quite as bad as a Taliban Dad, but close in their eyes. Roe v. Wade was decided in an effort to save these girls’ lives. The abortions were already being performed.

            I know you Morons love to blame liberals for all the world’s evils, but usually you are just plain WRONG. Some of these girls were raped, some were impregnated by their own fathers (A good man, really, except when he drank, which was virtually every night.), and some both. Some were pillars of the Southern community where, as we know, there’s a whole lot of difference between Saturday night and Sunday morning!

          • Joe America

            Jeff, you keep banging on Southerners. What’s you’re point, here? You want to fight the civil war all over, again? You’re beginning to remind me of the gays and minorities who openly stated their hate of white men during the DNC. You seem full of hate, bias, and prejudice, just like them. You’re just a Dale Carnegy kind of guy.

          • Joann Flanagan

            Jeff,why take it out on the Kid just because you’re mad at the Kids’ father?
            Would you like it if someone punched you in the nose because your Dad did something to tick them off?
            Joann Flanagan

          • Joann Flanagan

            Mr. Chambers,
            What “legal remedys” would you recommend for sane people who have been chemically or surgically lobotomised by the Shrinkocracy after being railroaded to madhouses?
            What about victims of brainwashing?
            How would you “refund” the years stolen from them?
            Life consists of time.
            Stealing someones’ life from them a little at a time in a snakepit can be every bit as cruel and unjust as taking it away all at once.
            Your arguement makes about as much sense as saying we “have to” enslave “the Lesser breeds without law” to “prevent” them from committing cannibalism!
            By the way speaking of primitive-how do you know the witchdoctors’ prophesys about who is going to commit murder are a hundred percent accurate?
            How does an accused person clear themselves of a charge regarding a crime that has yet to committed and may never be?
            Reminds me of the jjoke about the guy who kept snapping his fingers.
            Someone asked him why. He said it was to keep dinasaurs away.
            When his questioner pointed out there were no dinasaurs there he replied proudly “Works! Doesn’t it!”
            Joann Flanagan

          • Jim Chambers

            Are you committed now or are you out on the street again??

          • Joann Flanagan

            Mr. Chambers,
            That doesn’t answer my question.
            You are evading the issue .
            Don’t you have a rational answer?
            Is that why you offer an insult instead?
            Joann Flanagan

          • Jim Chambers

            I explained it to you in a prior post but you either didn’t read it or ignored the answer.
            In short, what I said is, there are legal remedies to those who are sane but held in institutions illegally or unjustly, proven by your contention that the person in the case you cited was released due to court action.
            I will have to do a little research on the subject of lobotomy but I am not aware of those surgical procedures being performed on people any more. As for chemical treatments, I don’t think that happens too much any more either but on the criminally insane (like the guy who killed these poor kids and the kind of people you are advocating allowing freedom to) I don’t think that that treatment should be out of bounds either.
            You are going to have to give me instances of cases where people were institutionally brainwashed in order for me to believe that that is a problem any more than is lobotomizing.
            I’ll just ignore witchdoctor comment as a feeble attempt at sarcasm.
            My question back at you and that you seemed to ignore was: Do you think that the crazies walking the streets offsetting the injustice of a few (if any) sane people held are worth the lives of these children? If you fall on the side of letting all the crazies go so that one or a few sane persons are not held is indeed worth the lives of these children, (and this is the argument you are making) then I certainly wouldn’t want you to have children.
            As for me, I think it is rational to hold crazy people in institutions where they can get treatment and be deterred from harming themselves and others. I don’t think that adults and some ‘children’ who are insane and who are incapable of exercising their responsibilities (read: leaving their fellow man unmolested) should be allowed to walk among us.
            Does that answer your question?

      • JC

        Dave67 says:

        December 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm

        Typical response from the fearful sheep.

        Actually Joe nailed you to a tee…
        You’re advocating exactly the tool Hitler used to confiscate guns. “Regulation”.
        You’re obviously just too stupid to put it together.

  • AWKingsley

    All but one of the mass shootings was in a Gun Free Zone. Shooters look for soft targets and prefer to be unopposed. We can engage in a do-it-yourself program by arming teachers, or we can spend ourselves silly on Security Guards, and still not do an adequate job. Buses have to be guarded. Every entrance to a school must be guarded.
    Israel has 4.7 murders per 100,000, and the U.S. has 5.9 murders per 100,000.
    The Israelis are very cost-conscious, and arming teachers with assault rifles slung over their shoulders was an easy decision because every person in Israel must do military service. The Israeli people did not even want to pay for the defense systems they have. Because not every person in the U.S. serves in the military, arming teachers seems like an outrageous solution, but in order to adequately protect people, keep our freedoms and prevent outrageous costs to tax payers, it is the most sensible solution. People in the U.S. must start taking personal responsibility. Why would Americans be stupid enough to pay for Security Guards for schools when Israelis do not? Are Israelis actually smarter than Americans? The truth is: Americans do not really want to admit we have a problem, and they will pay any amount of money to try cover up our problem, while the Israelis are totally realistic. Any time we leave anything up to the government, we get an inferior job for an enormous amount of money spent. We can keep building our Police State, or citizens can take responsibility. Which is it going to be?

  • joann Flanagan

    The matricide cum massmurderer Adam Lanza is the outlaw in the saying “Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns!”
    He didn’t have a permit but he got hold of a gun anyway.
    So what’s Big Brother “supposed “to do?
    Run a background check on gun permit applicants?
    Already done in this case!
    Run a background check on all members of a gunpermit applicants household?
    Require anyone who visits a household with a gunowner as a member to have a special permit and background check to enter a building with gun in it?
    Require anyone who moves into a house or apartment next door to a gunowner to get a special license to do so?
    Don’t be surprised if that’s next!
    Then again we COULD simply hold murderers responsible for their own actions instead of violating other peoples’ rights because of them but we know that’s not going to happen!
    It would make too much sense!
    Joann Flanagan

    • merbeau

      I would agree, In actuality the current laws worked. Apparently the shooter tried to purchase a rifle one week prior to the shooting and was denied the sale. When I was young people with disabilities were placed in institutions to help with their problems. Nowadays these people are mainstreamed without any concern for average citizens. Also these video games that many teens play have all sorts of shoot them up scenarios and each time the game is overm one gets to shoot the same people all over again. Movies the same way. These need to be curtailed. I can remember as a teenager the school allowed us to go hunting on the first day of deer season and we had to be back by noon. All firearms had to be stored in the school’s front office. Also I took my son shooting when he was 11 years old and it was a great way to bond.. I did, however, on return home store the firearms in a safe so that either he nor any of his friends could have access to them.

      • BR549

        Indeed, when I was in my early teens, I remember seeing people boarding the plane (Lockheed Constellation) with shoulder holstered pistols. This was on different flights, mind you, and at different times. They didn’t look like law enforcement types, just regular citizens. I would like to think they weren’t loaded but then, the service ceiling of the Constellation back then was what the minimum altitudes are today, so a bullet piercing a hull probably wouldn’t have amounted to a whole lot, but I’m speculating.

        My point was that no one gave a crap back then, because guns were considered as little better than tools, not objects of terrorism to support political agendae.

  • Doc Sarvis

    If guns were as regulated as cars you would need at title and tag at each point of sale and specific to each state, the owner would be required to have training and insurance (for each firearm) and take a written test to “operate” it.

    • Joe America

      Doc, I agree that people should be certified as having been trained to use a weapon, before purchasing on. However, I wouldn’t license weapons. This undoes the intent of the 2nd Ammendment, which was to give people the right to defend against a totalitarian government.

      • Doc Sarvis

        How about the liability insurance issue?

      • Steve E

        And don’t forget liability insurance for your butter knife too.

      • eddie47d

        The only totalitarian policies I fear is the Conservatives shoving their guns down my throat. I feel less safe with their policies which gives too much power to mass shooters. Are they related?

        • Joe America

          Eddie, If you are that fearful of this nation, you need to move to China. They’d love you. We don’t need you.

    • momo

      Doc Sarvis says:
      December 18, 2012 at 1:05 pm
      If guns were as regulated as cars you would need at title and tag at each point of sale and specific to each state, the owner would be required to have training and insurance (for each firearm) and take a written test to “operate” it.

      And yet people still drive cars with no tags, no license and no insurance. Do you think having all these requirements are going to stop criminals from getting their hands on a gun? Why do you think they’re criminals, because they follow the law?

      • Doc Sarvis

        One very important reason we have laws is to prosecute criminals.

        • Joe America

          “Doctor of What?” our prisons are overflowing, so much so, we’re turning criminals back out into the streets as quickly as they’re going in. We have problems with criminals, because of liberal-socialists whiners who have enabled criminality in this nation. Shoot a black person and the world falls over. Shoot, kill, rape, mutilate and burn a white couple, and the media could care less, particularly if it’s done by a “minority.” Criminals don’t respect the law, now, and they’ll be worse if you disarm honest citizens. Here’s a little unpleasant information for you “Doctor of What?”:

          Take guns away from citizens and watch the statistics rise, dramatically.

      • eddie47d

        Cars are bought for transportation and guns are bought for killing at some time. There should be stricter laws on guns and who gets to use them.

    • Jim Chambers

      Suppose that would have kept these kids alive? I doubt it, too.
      The reason for the licensing is for the development of revenue. Dollars, son, dollars. Not for keeping people incapable of operating a motor vehicle from behind the wheel. If you don’t believe that go to Florida. Wise up.
      Let’s start putting the blame where is should lie, with the perp.

      • Jeff

        You can blame him until Hell freezes over if it will make you feel better about yourself. But it won’t change the fact we have military style weapons readily available for any nutjob to get hold of. Maybe you and Dick Cheney require an Air Force strike to hunt deer; a real hunter would use a bow and arrow.

      • Jim Chambers

        Whoa, look at the cajones on little Jeffrey here. Big words for such a small brain.
        Let me spell it out for you. I know you want to blame the gun but someone had to pull the trigger, right? With me on this? If no one pulls the trigger it could be used as a hammer, right? Still with me? OK then, because this nut job pulled the trigger he was responsible. Let me repeat that so that you can understand. He pulled the trigger therefore he is the one that is responsible! Had he had a knife instead of the gun he would have killed kids. With me yet? Had he had a nail gun he would have killed these kids! Had he had a shovel he could have killed! He wanted to kill. He, therefore, is responsible. Got it? Not the tool, him.
        Now, re-read this as many times as you need to to get it clear. It will probably take a few times given your proven lack of cognition but just keep at it, it’ll come.

  • What’s/new/is/old

    “The American people don’t believe anything until they see it on television.”

    Richard M. Nixon U.S. president

  • Montana man

    I find it very interesting that none of the comments focus on the
    underlying cause. Why is no one asking about the impacts of violence
    on tv and video games; why has the American family been broke and why
    has this nation turned its back on God?
    If people have evil in there hearts, they will figure out a method to
    kill – whether it be bombs, knives or whatever other methods they may
    Yes, it is a tragedy that children were killed and families broken but
    until our values change in America, there will undoubtedly be more
    random violence. You can not legislate values and morals.

    • Jeff

      Perhaps it’s because other countries have violent movies, music, and video games, but only the U.S. has these unbelievable rates of gun deaths. You think teenage boys in England, Canada, France, and Germany don’t play violent video games? They have nutcases in China, too. Just before the Connecticut shooting, there was a similar incident in China – except the assailant used a knife to attack 20+ kids. The difference? All the kids survived.

      • BR549

        Jeff wrote: “China – except the assailant used a knife to attack 20+ kids. The difference? All the kids survived.”

        So the guy used a letter opener instead of a katana or a machete; does that mean kitchen knives are next?

        The liberals always choose the easy targets to blame, stationary as opposed to moving ones, as it were; perhaps it’s because, with them, it’s all about blame and projection (unresolved aspects within their own lives), and they’d rather complain about things than actually address realistic solutions, because if something were actually fixed, God forbid, they’d have less to complain about.

        • Jeff

          You’re going to propose sensible solutions? Since when? Your schtick is to say it’s all an illusion projected by the Rockefellers and the Bilderbergs. What is your solution to the preponderance of military weapons on the streets, available to any nut job to commit mass murder/suicide?

          • BR549

            “Your schtick is to say it’s all an illusion projected by the Rockefellers and the Bilderbergs. What is your solution to the preponderance of military weapons on the streets, available to any nut job to commit mass murder/suicide?”

            I’m including this composite of far too well known quotes:

            These aren’t just the laughable fabrications of conspiracy theorists who have nothing better to do at night; rather, they are an historical compilation of the intentions of those members of self perceived royalty and elitism that have come to believing that they are gods deserving of ruling over the rest of mankind. This isn’t my verbiage, it’s theirs, so if you have issue with it, take it up with the authors over the last century or so.

            It’s hard to expect people to follow all of anyone contributor’s posts, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Personally, had reincarnated to a time when guns had grown obsolete because no one needed them anymore, NOTHING would make me happier; not because I fear firearms, since I own many myself, but because those leaders within our own government would be trusting the system enough to be truthful and honest, and truly have a high moral and ethical fabric. The problem is that they don’t, and they don’t because, somewhere along the line, they (too many of them anyway) had felt that the oath of service they had taken was secondary to their own professional and financial interests.

            It is for THAT reason that our founding fathers and the majority of colonial states had demanded that the 2nd Amendment be included. It was because the corruptive influence of the British banks and the Crown was still haunting us during our formative years. THAT was why they were so insistent. They KNEW that well meaning individuals could cave in to the demands of European royalty and drive this grand experiment back into the Stone Age. Save for the technology, have we avoided that?

            I started with this some 30 years ago, while researching the German navy. That led to German politics, and damn it all if those same family names kept cropping up; the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, Carnegies, Ford, and Prescott Bush, of course. Unless you want to include these factors into any discussion, we have nothing to talk about. It becomes the basis for WWII, Waco Texas, 9/11, and the mission creep it took to get us to the Patriot Act, NDAA and the drones we now have illegally patrolling our skies so that we can all feel so much safer.

      • eddie47d

        They have no solutions except to purchase more weapons. That is always the extent to their thinking after every mass shooting. They live in the world of the wild west and they will do exactly the same the next time one happens.

      • eddie47d

        BR549; doesn’t even understand the dangers of a knife vs a semi-automatic weapon and he thinks he can make a rational comment. 22 alive in China and 27 dead in Newtown . Now do you comprehend?

      • Vicki

        Jeff says:
        “You’re going to propose sensible solutions?”

        I will. Return to us the un-infringed ability to own and carry (open or concealed) the best tool yet invented for self and community defense. It is sensible because it is proven by history to be effective. Witness the history of mass shootings in just the United States and note when/where. Most / All in “Gun Free zones”. Most after the draconian gun control laws of the 20th Century (Notably starting 1968). Most after the Big Pharma push for drugs to control behavior that was prior considered “growing up”.

        In this article is a graphic of the rise and decline of mass shootings. Note the years.

        • Jeff

          Then why do statistics overwhelmingly show a gun in the home is way, way more likely to lead to tragedy than to successful self-defense? And why, when people at these mass shootings are armed (e.g. Gabby Giffords) are they never able to act quickly enough to make a difference. In virtually every case, the nutso fires until he runs out of ammo. When he stops to reload, he can be taken down without need of a gun.

          I heard Louis Ghomert talk about how he wished the principal had an M-16 rifle. That man is a moron. Where is the gun going to be? If it’s locked away, it takes time to retrieve it. By then, it’s too late. And having more amateurs running around with military weapons? What could possibly go wrong?

          I wish somebody like Louis were at one of these shootings. Maybe he’d quit talking like he’s running for Buffoon of the Year.

          • Joe America

            All bloviation and no substance or fact. We get it, you’re a gun grabber. Say no more, you’ve got a home in the NWO.

          • BR549

            Gabrielle Giffords, along with Judge John Roll and Texas Rep. John Conyer, were in the process of compiling a report to expose the US governments involvement with undermining the Mexican government. Then, Jared Loughner appeared on the scene and Conyer later turned mute.

            Roll was no fan of the Obama Administration’s abuses to the Constitution.

            I know, just another coincidence ….. like everything else.

      • Joe America

        Jeff, you just named several new nations you can move to. You go boy! No, I really mean it, GO!

      • Vicki

        Jeff says:
        “Then why do statistics overwhelmingly show a gun in the home is way, way more likely to lead to tragedy than to successful self-defense?”

        NO such statistic exists. Proof in your failure to cite the report.

        Jeff: “And why, when people at these mass shootings are armed (e.g. Gabby Giffords) are they never able to act quickly enough to make a difference. ”

        Cause the mass shootings were an armed citizen makes a difference don’t become mass shootings.

        • Jeff

          I’m not going to spend a great deal of time looking for these, but there’s plenty out there.

          • BR549

            Jeff wrote: “I’m not going to spend a great deal of time looking for these, but there’s plenty out there.

            Well, had you reviewed the reference articles, what you would have found was slanted commentary right from the start. A couple of them started out seemingly objective, but showed their true spots as leftist rags against domestic violence. And one from 11 April 2009 contradicted your point by stating, “The previously reported association between household firearm ownership and heightened risk of suicide is not explained by a higher risk of psychopathology among gun-owning families.”

            The article was suggesting that keeping a gun at home produced more home deaths, some being from suicide. What it DIDN’T touch on was how people who had guns on their person outside of the home had been able to avoid becoming victims themselves. It didn’t address whether people who lived near the Golden Gate or Brooklyn Bridges or whatever might have preferred the bridges to a bullet. Just more of the same leftist Kleenex fodder.

            These articles don’t address the feeling of abandonment that disillusioned, disenfranchised, and disconnected members of our culture feel when their government has become their worst enemy, second only to the next disillusioned disconnected slob who has a gun on them. We don’t hear about those articles because any research funding would dry up for that group in five minutes.

            If we ever wish to hear the real truth of all of this, it will be when the government itself matures enough to ask some hard questions about its failures. Until that happens, and no one is holding their breath, these parasitic maggots in $4,000 suits will only point fingers to anywhere but themselves, as to what is the cause of our problems. Yes, they are human, but they also took that oath, that same troublesome oath that people out here in the trenches looked toward to help select those politicians who said they possessed the professional acumen to get the job done.

          • Jeff

            In any study there are lots of “what ifs.” You can’t control for every possible variable. Somehow I don’t think you’d raise all these questions if some study suggested tax cuts reduce deficits. If you already know the answer, there’s not much point in asking the question.

    • Jim Chambers

      Geez, a guy with sense. How did you get on this site?
      Your point is valid. If advertising works, and there are loads of companies using it quite successfully, then subjecting kids to violence as the solution to problems should have an effect much the same as advertising.

      • Jeff

        Your point might be valid except the same movies and video games are watched by teenage boys in other countries without the resulting gun violence.

        • Joe America

          Jeff, With all due respect, you don’t have those numbers. You’ve assumed that violence is down. Go to any country in Asia, and you’ll have your ass kicked and your wallet stolen, right away. They might let you live.

  • Don

    To Jim in NY. Yes, I can start to name the good side of guns. How about the fact that 2.5 million crimes are stopped each year in America because law-abiding citizens were armed. When you need a cop in seconds Jim, one will be there in minutes. The only male equalizer for a woman is a gun. Better to have a gun Jim, and not need one, than to need a gun, and not have one. And lastly Jim, any gun is better than throwing rocks!

    • eddie47d

      At least Don is admitting men like to subjugate woman and they have to defend themselves. The problem with that if a woman shoots back she is generally put in prison even if the husband beat her. That is the law of Conservatism so ask all those woman in prison and who makes the laws that keep them in there.

  • Average Joe

    13 rules of gunfighting that everyone should know:

    1) Guns have only two enemies, rust and politicians.

    2) It’s always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

    3) Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you.

    4) Never let someone or something that threatens you get inside arm’s length.

    5) Never say,”I’ve got a gun.” The first sound they hear should be the safety clicking off.

    6) The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes; the response time of a .357 magnum is 1400 feet per second.

    7) The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always win- cheat if necessary.

    8) Make your attacker advance through a wall of bullets…you may get killed with your own gun, be he will have to beat you to death with it, because it will be empty.

    9) If you are in a gunfight; If you are not shooting, you should be loading. If you are not loading, you should be moving. If you aren’t shooting, moving or loading; you’re probably dead.

    10) In a life and death situation, do something…it may be wrong…but do…something!

    11) If you carry a gun, people call you paranoid…Nonsense! If you have a gun, what do you have to be paranoid about?

    12) You can say ‘stop’ ‘alto’ or any other word, but a largebore muzzle pointed at someone’s head is pretty much a universal language.

    13) You cannot save the world, but you may be able to save yourself and your family.

    My weapon is a tool, an extention of my will.
    It exists to solve and prevent problems of an unfortunate nature in which no other tool is suitable.
    It is always better to have a tool and not need it…than to need a tool and not have it.

    “Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading”
    Thomas Jefferson

    • JC

      Absolutely right!

  • Michael J.

    Like frogs treading water in a simmering pot, kibitzing about symptoms while ignoring the disease. Political Correctness is solely responsible for the events in Conneticut. First you take away the rights of parents to discipline there children, then you send discipline deficient offspring to school. Soon you receive a phone call from a teacher, principal or guidance councelor about your unruly disruptive child. The suggestion is made that your child needs the help of a physician, behavioral therapist or psyciatrist. Your child is then diagnosed with adhd, hyper activity or a myriad of other scenarios that evolve from a lack of discipline training. Then at six or seven years old, he or she is prescribed drugs to take the place of the spankings that have worked for families for millenium. Add to this violent video games and Hollywood shoot-em-ups and you have created an Adam Lanza.

    • BR549

      That was a great “nutshell” account of what is happening here.

  • tombo0055

    To Flashy,Dave 67- If we banned all liberals the streets would be a much safer place!

    • BR549

      Get this, one dictionary defined the political version of the word as being ….. “favoring maximum individual liberty”.

      When the hell did THAT meaning get so contorted such that the libtards are now willing to all so easily give up their own rights …. and then they expect everyone else to do the same? It’s like a double-whammy hypocrisy.

      • Dave67

        Batsh*t crazy conservatives always have something meaningless to say. Apparently you to geniuses think society as is, is fine and dandy.

        I want something which you morons lack understanding…. responsibility, sanity and laws to minimize the possibility of something like this from happening.

        There is something unique to the United States that Canada or Switzerland lack that causes more gun deaths here than there. You idiots are part of the problem, not the solution, that much is clear.

        • Joe America

          Dave, there is something we have that Canada and Swizterland don’t have, roving gangs willing to kill anything in their paths, entitled minorities that think it’s reparations to rob, rape and kill white people. Yes, we have many things those two nations don’t have. We have sodium flouride in our water, they don’t. We have more diverse populations than they have. They have control over their borders, we don’t.

        • BR549

          Dave wrote: “I want something which you morons lack understanding…. responsibility, sanity and laws to minimize the possibility of something like this from happening.”

          The problem is, DAVE, that you will never find your Xanadu here as long as you keep burying your head in the sand and ignoring the issues. Call us morons if it helps you sleep at night, but should things in this country degrade to a level that repeated levels of disgustingly treasonous legislation has already proven itself to have already been passed, YOU will be one of the zombies wandering through the neighborhood looking for a handout and then waiting for FEMA to place you in a camp already built near you.

          …. and, “There is something unique to the United States that Canada or Switzerland lack that causes more gun deaths here than there. You idiots are part of the problem, not the solution, that much is clear.”

          Switzerland, in case you haven’t noticed, goes much further in requiring households to be armed. This goes so far back that even JEFFERSON had commented on the preparedness of the Swiss in his writings, but the one thing the Swiss have so far managed to avoid was the sheer level of corruption and the hegemonic pursuit of other countries’ resources in attempting acquire more empire in defiance of any country’s sovereignty.

      • Dave67

        BR549, you make call me libtard if it makes you sleep better at night. You take my words and twist to fit your agenda and what you think I believe as a liberal. Sensible guns laws are only part of the problem as I have said before. We have a societal issue with violence and using it as the means to either get famous or get even. You can’t institute laws to fix it alone. Everyone in society must make the choice themselves to change the fact that more people die in this country due to gun violence than any other country per capita.

        It is you and other conservatives like you that have your head stuck in thew sand.

        • Jeff

          I’m waiting for him to call me a Rockefeller and for the name to stick. Still waiting.

        • BR549

          Dave67 wrote: “We have a societal issue with violence and using it as the means to either get famous or get even. You can’t institute laws to fix it alone. ”

          Bingo! [bells, whistles, and other loud assorted noises to suggest that the contestant has won, appropriately inserted here]

          You said it yourself and yet the liberal politicians keep trying to clamp down on everything possible EXCEPT addressing the root causes of the problem such as people feeling disenfranchised and disconnected from, and abandoned by, their increasingly hyper-specializing government. The government isn’t the bad guy here, Dave, it’s the bozos who had taken the oath to do the right thing in managing our culture, yet do little else than pad their own nest ……… and when they continue to use AIPAC and other monies to sandbag deserving competitors, just so they can stay in office, that truly beneficial side of a progressive and liberal system comes to a screeching halt.

          Yes, we do have a problem; on that we are agreed, but every time one of my “conservative” associates tries to engage the libtards in a conversation about a tyrannical takeover, not the tin-foil variety that the libtards find so easy to dismiss, mind you, but the REAL one that has been going on under the libtards’ noses for the better part of 100 years now, they either have to change the subject or accuse us of wearing a tin-foil hat. That way, they don’t have to actually address any part of a very real problem and yet can appear to have won a volley in the discussion …….. in their minds anyway.

          And the worst part of this is that while the libtards are wringing their hankies over the latest innocent victim(s) du jour, those deeply entrenched so-called liberal politicians have NO plans to do anything about advising their constituents about what is really causing the problems. You aren’t likely to hear Chuckie Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein, or even Boehner and his entrenched gaggle of thieves discuss anything about the history of our debt and how the international banking families like the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Warburgs, and Rothschilds have been systematically attacking our entire system.

          Charlotte Iserbyt, Reagan’s first term Senior Policy Advisor on Educational Research and Development, attempted to bring the issues of intentional downgrading of our educational system out in the open ……. she was canned. Her book, “the Deliberate Dumbing Down of America” details the countless pieces of legislation that have forced our educational down to what it has become today, a system to train workers for a collective society instead of producing free thinkers. If the same cast of nefarious characters hadn’t kept popping up, she might have ignored it, but it was all there, plain as day.

          Some people refuse to acknowledge that such a scheme is in play, or that they could have been so politically asleep that they had continued to vote, thinking that the “system” was still working as our forefathers had intended. It isn’t. It isn’t because the system was bad; it’s that loss of connection and the feeling of disenfranchisement by our own politicians and legislators, themselves, THAT is the problem.

          Until such time that this whole issue comes to light; that the globalists are identified for their true intentions (which have nothing to do with the betterment of mankind or saving the planet) and people are able to take part in the “grand experiment” again, the absolute WORST thing anyone could do is gun control. On the surface it all sounds warm and fuzzy, but it’s more akin to patients using Fosamax. For a short time, it gives the illusion of preventing bone loss, but on the long term, it makes the bones extremely brittle and more susceptible to damage ……… all because the MDs prescribing it never bothered to look at the larger picture about hypochlorhydria and poor nutrient assimilation.

          You seem very passionate about this issue and I commend you for that, but I’m telling you, you’re pissing into the wind. Forget the Gun Lobby’s contrary data for the moment; this issue is far larger than gun control, and THAT is what most of us on this side of the fence see when we use the term libtard to describe people who have little understanding of what they are supporting. No one wants to see innocents suffer, NO ONE; but if the gun control people get their way (and they won’t), there will be a lot more suffering involved that comes from the top, down, not vice versa.

          Sorry for my lack of brevity.

      • Jim Chambers

        Given that over 2.5 million times per year guns stop criminal activity in this country it is clear that the gun isn’t the problem, criminals are the problem. I don’t know how many times that must be said before guys like you understand.
        Liberals are the ones who fight like mad to get criminals released early or not put in jail at all because it makes them feel better about themselves. Therefore, it’s not the gun, it is not really even the criminal (or in this case the nut who was facilitated by liberals who made it extremely hard to confine someone who has violent tendencies) it’s the liberal who empowers these criminals by leniency.
        It is the liberal in society that is the problem. Don’t you see the relevance? You, sir, are the problem. If not for you and those like you our society would not have opened the doors to the institutions and freed people like this mad killer and these children would still be alive.
        I know it will make you feel better and you think that you are doing a good thing by restricting the rights of the average citizen but in the end your suggested action of banning a certain type weapon will come to naught. If the guy is going to kill he will manage to kill.

        • BR549

          Jim Chambers wrote: “You, sir, are the problem. If not for you and those like you our society would not have opened the doors to the institutions and freed people like this mad killer and these children would still be alive. etc, etc”

          Uh Jimbo, I know the response format here makes it sometimes difficult to know which posts we are actually responding to, but if you recheck my posts, you’ll find out that this last post you fired to me was misdirected. We don’t need any more “friendly fire” attacks, we have enough having to deal with the “uneducated” left AND right. So, I won’t take this personally.

        • Jeff

          Yes, it is true that if someone is determined to kill he will do so. But most handgun deaths are due to the gun being there. Tempers flare during an argument and somewhat gets shot. If they had a minute to reflect, most times the shooting wouldn’t happen. Why is it you gun people can’t see that the gun makes killing so much easier that it also makes it much more likely to happen. If a man gets mad at his wife, he could plot to poison her, but he’ll most likely change his mind in a few minutes. Once the trigger gets pulled, it’s too late to change your mind.

          • Jim Chambers

            If your point had any validity there would be one hell of a lot more deaths due to handguns than there is today. Sorry, Scooter, that argument doesn’t hold water.
            In those rare cases when shootings like the ones you describe happen there is usually more to it than someone just grabbing a gun in the heat of the moment and tagging the other person.
            I’m not sure you know what a root cause analysis is but maybe you should look it up, learn how to do it then try it out on this situation. You will find that, leading backward from the crime, does not go through the gun but through the mental state of the perp on to the lack of resources with which to treat the perp and the lack of ability of the authorities to deal with this personality to rulings by courts allowing people like this to walk among us and finally arriving at the liberal attitudes of those championing the rights of crazy people over those of sane victims.
            You, Scooter, are at that juncture. You and those like you are at the root of the problem. You are a liberal therefore you are THE problem.

          • Jeff

            “You, Scooter, are at that juncture. You and those like you are at the root of the problem. You are a liberal therefore you are THE problem.”

            Scooter was one of your guys, worked for your hero, Uncle Dick. Never met a pre-emptive war he couldn’t wait for somebody else to fight.

            You say I’m the problem BECAUSE I’m a liberal and you want to claim you’re the sane one? Good luck with that argument. I’ve never fired a gun in my life, and I’m the cause of mass shootings. Tell it to your court-appointed psychiatrist.

      • Jim Chambers

        I wasn’t answering you. Sorry, My comments were directed at poor Jeffery and his buddy here, Dave the dunce. They are the ones who see any wisdom in taking the rights away from all people so that, hopefully, hopefully, it will stop maybe one, at least one person from doing something dastardly. That seems to be justification for abrogating the bill of rights into the bill of suggestions.

        • Jeff

          So, you believe the 2nd amendment guarantees your personal right to any weapon? An M-16, AR-15, whatever? Fully automatic, semi-automatic, 100-round clip? And don’t tell me how automatic weapons are illegal. Everyone already knows that, but if you’re making an argument that the 2nd amendment is unlimited, how do you make such fine distinctions? One question: what is the meaning of the words “well-regulated” in the 2nd amendment? Doesn’t it make more sense that the amendment was ceding to the states all power to regulate guns?

          • Joe America

            Jeff, You’re right on this one, there shouldn’t be any difference. I want my full auto, please.

          • Jeff

            Why not a rocket launcher? That’ll show those kids who won’t get off your lawn! Perhaps a tactical nuclear strike on the schoolyard? None of that is specifically banned by the 2nd amendment either.

          • Jim Chambers

            Good thinking Jeff. About what I would expect from someone who would advocate killing babies in the womb.

          • Jeff

            I don’t advocate any such thing. I have an adopted son who would likely have been aborted had we not adopted him. But I don’t think my moral feelings should bind a girl’s decision about her body. As for you, I don’t know if you’ve encountered DaveH in any of these blogs, but I’ve referred to him as Creepy Bastard because of his penchant for personally insulting those he disagrees with. You may be even creepier, CB2.

          • Joann Flanagan

            That’s sounds a bit like adopting a Jewish refugee while advocating the Ilsa Koches’ “right” to make other Jewish Children into lampshades.
            You sound like a nice guy but a bit inconcistent don’t you think?
            Joann Flanagan

          • Joe America

            Margaret Sanger Preaches Eugenics to an eager KKK:

            Margaret Sanger was funded by the the wealthy elite, who decided that the “poor”, really the “eaters of the world” should not reproduce. Please pass this onto Jeff, who loves this “lady.”

          • Jeff

            Joe Creepy:

            Were your parents siblings or just first cousins?

          • Joe America

            Yes, Killer, it’s pretty scary when someone holds that mirror up to your face, and you have to look at it. It is “creepy” Jeff. It’s creepy that you have people, who think they’re the “betters” of the world, encouraging “free love”, without responsibiltiy and more abortions. It’s really eugenics, being exercised under the guise of “compassion” for the poor. Jeff, did you ever wonder why the ancient Egyptians decided to kill all those Hebrew babies? The Hebrews were out numbering them, because Egyptians were into having lots of sex, but didn’t want the babies who came with it. They were ancient masters of birth control. As a result, the Hebrews began to over take them in population. Out of fear, they threw the Hebrews in bondage and began killing thei first born sons. Well, that didn’t turn out so well for them, in the long run. The point, Killer, is that numbers are important. It’s why Hispanics are scaring the crap out of Whites in America, because Latinos don’t practice any birth control. They’ll take over the USA in several generations, without firing a shot, simply by out populating whites, and blacks. Jeff, or should I say “Killer” old boy, you’re helping them accomplish their task. Gotta keep those white and black babies from popping out. Good Job, Killer.

          • Joann Flanagan

            What were you?
            Cloned or something!
            Why are you so hostile to the custom of some people being parents,others being children and a lot having parents and children?
            It’s a fine old tradition.
            Joann Flanagan

          • Jeff

            Do you have any idea what you’re talking about? I’m sure you’ve known women who had abortions in their younger days. Have you ever spoken to them about what that decision was like? No one does such a thing for no reason. Some were raped; others are incest victims; some have a medical condition; others have a parent who will beat the crap out of them if they find out or exile them from the house. Try to understand something about human motivation before you pontificate about everyone following your perfect example.

          • Joann Flanagan

            No doubt Ms Koch would say the same to anyone who criticised her “Personal choice”
            in selecting raw material for her lampshade factoy.
            Anyone can rationalise anything.
            Joann Flanagan

    • eddie47d

      If we banned all Conservatives maybe 20 kids would be alive today TOMBOOO55. Your obsession with weapons of multiple deaths is killing me!

      • Jim Chambers

        Not as long as we have liberals crying about criminals being behind bars. You can ban all the conservatives you want and you will be in even more danger because there will be no one around to protect your sorry butt from the criminal you cry for.

  • Alex

    William S Burroughs—Amazing writer. “Junky”, “Queer”, “Naked Lunch”, etc.
    Shot his wife in the head.

  • Vicki

    I found this interesting tidbit in the comments section of a large east coast newspaper. It says a lot about the individual.

    ” I wish you could all just close your eyes and imagine how these guns kill and how we are all powerless against them— even the Police and S.W.A.T team. ”

    Now I wonder what kind of evil guns the S.W.A.T. team had with them.

  • Chester

    Just LOVE the way Flashy and Doc, and a few others, INSIST that a semi automatic AR-15 is an assault weapon, when by definition, an assault weapon has a full automatic rating, usually with a selective rate of fire. There is a LOT of difference between firing one round every time you pull the trigger and emptying the magazine with that one trigger pull. Strictly according to the definition, a six shot double action revolver is a semi automatic weapon, albeit limited to only six shots. A SAW is a good example of full automatic, as it will keep firing as long as you keep feeding the belts in, or until it overheats and locks up.

    • Jeff

      If a gun is capable of firing 60+ rounds per minute, I don’t care if you call it automatic or semi-automatic; it’s too powerful to have any use other than “assaulting” large numbers of people and killing them.

      • NativeBlood

        Cal .50 HB M2 Flex = 450 – 550 RPM
        M-60 7.62 NATO = 550 RPM
        m-16 rifle max rate of fire =750 RPM
        All are terrifying on the assault but Oh what great defensive weapons to have!

        • Jeff

          If you need all that for defense, either quit flashing your money around or get thee to the gym.

      • NativeBlood

        Good point Jeff, I’ll keep the change and stick with my old .22 mag squirrel gun:-)

      • Vicki

        Jeff says:
        “If you need all that for defense, either quit flashing your money around or get thee to the gym.”

        Now there is an interesting scenario. Jeff, after gym having to face 20-30 people intent on doing evil to him. Just to be fair we will give Jeff a 6 shot revolver. Don’t want to make it too easy. If Jeff prefers he can leave the gun at home.

        • Jeff

          If such things are regularly happening to you, Ms. Vicki, perhaps you should move. I’ve lived a long time and have never felt the need for a gun. But then, if someone is playing loud music I don’t like, I don’t feel the need to shoot him, either.

          • Joe America

            Jeff, You’re pudding and candy for the NWO. MMMM, MMMM, are they going to love you. You’re a hero to all criminals, too. Lucky boy.

      • BR549

        Jeff wrote: “If a gun is capable of firing 60+ rounds per minute, I don’t care if you call it automatic or semi-automatic; it’s too powerful to have any use other than “assaulting” large numbers of people and killing them.”

        Ignorance is truly dangerous; in your case, it appears to be a life’s mission. The Ruger 10/22, arguably THE most popular small caliber 22LR, has been one of the most proven ranch and hunting tools to date, yet its semiautomatic nature, according to you, qualifies it as an assault rifles. If memory serves me correctly, the 10-22 can deliver 3 rounds per second. I bought mine when, at the age of 17, I walked into a gun store in 1967 and I have never had to replace one part in, well, 45 years.

        Even the SKS, a Russian design with Yugoslavian, Romanian, Albanian, Chinese and Egyptian variants, is still a semi-auto. It has been a popular boar hunting rifle throughout the US, although the libtards will no doubt condemn that one because it uses the same round as an AK47. Technologically, it is WWII era stuff.

        Just because people like yourself are fearful of the Easter Bunny doesn’t mean that the rest of us aren’t capable of using chain saws while working in the back yard or pitching a javelin at a high school track meet without having to wave our hands in the air uncontrollably, fearing for our own mortality. If you people have issues like that, DEAL WITH THEM, for Christ’s sake, but spare us the details of your inadequacy.

      • Vicki

        Jeff writes:
        “I’ve lived a long time and have never felt the need for a gun. But then, if someone is playing loud music I don’t like, I don’t feel the need to shoot him, either.”

        Did you have a point to make?

    • eddie47d

      Okay Chester lets make it clear to you they are all killing machines and not defensive weapons. So you can kill 20 people in seconds with an automatic and you can kill 20 people in seconds with a semi-automatic. Oh yes LOTS of difference. The Newtown shooter did his damage within 2 1/2 minutes. He moved on to do more damage but the police arrived and he shot himself. So who cares if he had an automatic or a semi-automatic dead is dead!

  • Don

    As I read the postings from the anti-gun liberals, it reminds me of what someone far brighter than I once said, “A liberal is a conservative who hasn’t been raped or mugged yet!”

    • http://midcontent brand inspector

      Dob, Liberials are dopes who want rules and regulations on everyone, but these socialist living abortions that went wrong, never complain whe high horse powered cars kill kids and adults. Next time an elected marxist/socialist demorats want another law, better put the limits on power on the killer cars. The 20 year old nut job was learning to drive, bet none of these eleit dumborats would have said a peep if he had kiled 1-50 people, it just was a killer car gone wrong. It goes back to the government phsyco degreed idoits theorized all the mental nut jobs could be main lined in schools and society. Time to controll, confine or neutor these mental odd balls. When a couple of mental squirrels in their late teens or early 20′s beat their parents and were in and out nut huts for years, finally got neutored and were finally calmed down. Women in the same mental state usually get confined in a mental ward. When freaks are given meds they usually will quit taking them, and back into society they go.We can thank all the BS regulations coming from the likes of abusers of average people,(Turd Kennedy and Shlub Dudd) and all with other airy fairy socialist/communist freaks in Comgre who, pushed for BS of this nature.. Jesse Jackson is another dumbocrap idoit that spun a nut, and had plenty of high dollar medical care, the mental midgets in both the congtrss a in the WH, embrace complete government control over every one and control over citizens like they have in Russia, Nazi Germany, and all dictator run countries, which the socialist/marxists want to take power from the citizens and only socialist have free rein. The assualt guns spouted from lipsof beltway idoits like Bill O’Reilly and any socialist.communist dumbocraps, there is either fully automatic guns which fire until clip is emptied by squeezing trigger with out letting up. Or the standrad gun owned by citizens where finger is squeezed once for every round. More book tained liberal lipped morons, including the jug eared one.

    • Joe America


  • What’s/new/is/old

    Why is it that when a citizen has the exact same rifle as the killer cops and other federal agencies, in appearance only, because theirs are full auto, its referred to as an assault weapon? Talk about spin. If they have them, then so shall we.

  • Donald

    The only gun Controll allowed in the USA is the 2nd Admendment! and if you don’t like it, feel free to move to a gun controll country. Make Doctors and Public Officials RESPONSIBLE for the mentally ill that are doing these horrific crimes. Chicago IL. has 1 of the toughest gun controll laws and up until recently had more shooting deaths than are proud troops in Afganistan. look at stats and the gun controll states have higher violent crime rates than non gun controll states. When was the last time you heard of a shooting spree in Israel, you can’t because Israel doesn’t have gun controll, that’s why Muslims do bomb attacks. OJ didn’t use a gun, nor did Tim McVeigh. There are 2 ways to enslave the people of a country. 1 is by force and Americans won’t allow it, @ is by DEBT and IGNORANT LIBERALS are trying that with great affect lately and I’m afraid if we allow any FED gun laws enacted, we will become the ENSLAVED of the 21st century!

  • LindyMaeUSA

    Joe America:

    “Citizen ownership of guns is the only thing that has maintained America as a free nation. It’s only been that threat to totalitarianism that has made those who would enslave us, give pause.”

    I read your entire piece several times Joe. You said it so much better than I EVER could! You put the relevant, common sense facts together, one significant point at a time! GOD BLESS YOU for “saying it like it actually is!”

    And I thank God for the other patriotic Americans frequenting this site who UNDERSTAND that this last shooting was the most vile, the MOST PITILESS False Flag yet to come out of the rotten bowels of the Washington Wolf Pack who’s purpose is to incite the ignorant (i.e. uninformed) and often times, UNBELIEVING “Sheeple” into terror and rage against American Patriots with guns WHO KNOW WHY all of this is happening and WHO our REAL ENEMIES ARE mercilessly perpetrating these horrors!”

    Thanks to all Patriots who refuse to be subjugated despite the unspeakable assassinations being leveled against adults and now children in our Country by a government which has openly, brazenly DECLARED WAR against ALL AMERICA!!!

    As you know, we can’t let our guard down at any time! It’s not only this government who’s “pushing us to disarm.” There is another government involved in the same tyrannical pressure toward American gun owners in their newspapers. Regrettably, the citizens of THAT country gave up THEIR guns a long time ago!!

    *It’s unclear if Hitler spoke these exact words, but he did express the sentiment:

    “To conquer a nation, first DISARM its citizens.”

    • Joe America

      Thanks, Lindy

  • FWO21

    Before people decide if they want guns confiscated, they should stufy the history of gun confiscation. Read this: -

    • Joe America

      FWO21, you’re right on.

  • Bimbam

    Wherever you find human misery and suffering you’ll find a liberal at the helm.

    These Demoncrap liberals are very wicked people, either knowingly or unknowingly. Let me explain.

    As a writer said they declare “gun-free zones” inviting massacres, then they teach our children (according to Dennis Prager) self-esteem and moral relativism instead of plain right and wrong. So when things do not go right for these kids high on self-esteem and mind-bending psychotropic drugs and lacking any moral discipline they pick up guns (that Republicans and Conservatives value for self-defense) and start shooting the defenseless.

    Then people like oBama, and Diane Frank Enstein blame the Republican’s weapons for the shooting. It’s all a diabolical operation.

  • moonbeam

    The US needs to take a look at how Israel has managed to stop these mass slaughters:

    I also thought about the possible consequences of arming teachers. That’s a hard one I go back and forth about. Can’t help but consider that one teacher who goes off and kills all the children. There will always be one who will do it.

    In talking with friends about gun ownership, their general feeling is “Nobody needs an assault rifle or AK47.” For me, I don’t see why not. The people who shouldn’t have them do. What are you gonna do if faced with something like that? Wave a little pistol in his face and tell him to put his down AK47?

    I firmly believe that if someone other than the gunmen in the Aurora, Sandy Hook and other shootings was also armed, lives could have been saved. Blow that sucker to kingdom come before he gets his third shot off. Need time to process and react of course.

    You only see it happening in places where the gunman knows there’s no opposition. Malls, churches, schools and the workplace where no one has a gun makes you ripe for slaughter by some crazy ass with a gun he should not have.

  • Joe America

    People who hate the laws of the USA should move to another nation that more adequately meets their views and philosophies. No one is forcing you to stay here. That being said, we’re not going to change for you. Liberal-socialists need to move to a liberal-socialist nation, such as Greece. Anyone can see that the liberal-socialist agenda has worked out well for them. Fear guns? Then move to a totalitarian state. There’s plenty of them. No guns there, but, no rights, either.

    • Jeff

      Just in case your wife hasn’t reminded you yet today, you’re a very stupid man. People with opinions different from yours are not moving to another country because you disapprove of them. It didn’t happen in the 60s and it won’t happen now. BTW: the crime rate is down, not up – except in these mass shootings committed by you gun nuts.

      • Joe America

        Jeff, We could call each other names all day, and it doesn’t erase the 2nd ammendment. You have a disease, Jeff, and it’s called the liberal-socialist agenda. You don’t even have a survival IQ, nor do you have a sense of self preservation. Why? Because, like all liberals, you’ve been coddled in the craddle of this great nation, which has given you a life most people around the world can only dream of. The sad thing is, Jeff, you have no appreciation for the nation that has given you and your family a good life. Jeff, the poor in this nation live a life that would be considered wealthly in most 3rd world nations, particulaly those on the African continent. This is a great nation, Jeff, but fools like you will take it down, doing something no outside enemy could every accomplish by force. You, sir, are a cancer, a disease and an enemy of the country that has nourished you, provided you are even an American, as countless phonies love to come to this site and pretend they’re Americans and actually have a vested interest in us. Your whining and crying makes me want to puke. Should you ever have the opportunity, or rather, the sad misfortune, of having to fight for your life, you’re going to be ill prepared, not only for yourself, but for those you say you love. And, what would happen, should you have to defend yourself and loved ones? Your stupidity will make all of you victims. What’s really disturbing, about you, Jeff, is that someone like you has no idea of the suffering, hardwork, and bloodshed, that created a nation where you can mouth off, say ridiculous things and get away with it. You hate the very institution that has given the oppressed, freedom. You, and all your socialist, liberal, communist buddies, want to destroy this nation, from the inside, providing Liberty a grusome death by a thousand cuts. Jeff, only a stupid man tears up his own house, and that’s exactly what liberals and socialist are doing. Do you know why the Communist party stopped running presidential candidates in the USA? Because the other parties, particularly the Democratic party, pick up and began carrying their agenda. Part of that communist agenda, Jeff, is to disarm American citizens, so that they are vunerable, and unable to resist a tyrannical government, a world wide government, with the UN and the NWO at the helm. But, as I’ve stated, many times, take heart, comrade, because you guys are winning. Your dream is about to come true. So, relax and take a chill pill, as the many planks of communism are coming to fruition. Good job!

        • Jeff

          I was wrong about you. You’re a dangerously stupid man who never learns from mistakes. So you don’t like the fact that the Government is more involved in the economy than in the 18th Century. Well, then move to your own island. Because in the civilized world, things change. We do not have the same economy we did in the 1800s and if we want our industries to be competitive in the world economy, sometimes the government needs to partner or venture with business. If you think that’s the same thing as Communism, I feel sorry for you. I know you like to play with your toy phallus and imagine yourself fighting off those evil G-Men (revenooers?) when they come to shut up the last critic of the all-powerful Government, but it’s about as real as a Superman comic.

          Guns are a danger to those who live with them, and military weapons in the hands of civilians are an abomination. You and Gordon Liddy can go on worshipping guns, but the facts don’t change. You’re not going to overthrow the government or protect anyone’s freedom with your stupid gun, but somebody’s kid just might get shot with it. I’m sure he’ll understand it was in defense of his freedoms.

          • Joe America

            Jeff, This new civilized world you’re talking about is a one world government, which is going to be totalitarian. You really need to study the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Builderberg Group, the Bohemian Club, the Skull and Bones Society and all the other little groups involved in this grand endevor. You’ve blinded yourself, so much to what’s going on around you, that you, like a race horse, have blinders on. You can only see directly what’s in front of you. For that, I worry about you. I may banter with and insult you, as we debate this issue, Jeff, but it doesn’t mean that I don’t care about you, as a human being. I worry about you, and your family and friends, because we are all interconnected, all of us only separated by no more than six degrees of contact, and this is even more so since the introduction of the Internet. You hate guns, that’s fine, but you’d better look into the bigger picture, here, which is frightening. You have to study history, how tyrants come to power, and what they did to their citizens in order to get there. This grand experiment, called the United States of America, is the best thing that ever happened for the average human being. It’s been the average guy/gals only opportunity to rise to a higher level, being free to realize their asperations. This is slipping away, quickly. And the loss of guns is only the beginning.

      • What’s/new/is/old

        Jeff said, ” Well move to your own island”:

        Are you aware that all this crap started on an island? Jekyll Island, The 1910 Duck Hunt. Read about it!

        • Joe America


      • BR549

        Jeff wrote (in response to Joe America): “BTW: the crime rate is down, not up – except in these mass shootings committed by you gun nuts.”

        Thank you for admitting that the crime rate is down. I would also remind you that the sheer number of people who now own firearms is increasing on a daily basis, with Black Friday AGAIN breaking an all time record. So, if all these “gun owners” (I know that’s a scary word for you people and you have a hard time with the word “SCARY”) are “sneaking around” waiting to pounce on unsuspecting and unconscious liberals, where EXACTLY are the increased fatality numbers coming from to justify gun control?

        They’re primarily coming from places like Chicago and other locales where control laws run in defiance of their own state constitutions. So, YES, the crime rate is down …… thanks largely to the fact that so many gun control laws have been defeated around the country and the population is becoming better armed.

        So many of these latest events have “fingerprints” associated with them that point to the involvement of other forces; like the innocent, drugged up patsy that was led onto a plane bound for Detriot, the Underwear Bomber was recently discovered to have been working with the CIA and Saudi Intelligence. I would venture to say that all this recent shooting stuff has been staged, but rather than defiantly assert that claim, I’m remaining open on the issue.

        We just can’t trust our news anymore, from any side of any issue, from the right or the left, as long as political careers and foreign policy are at stake.

      • Joe America

        Jeff, One last thought for you is that no one supporting the second ammendment in this argument is in love with guns. Hell, I don’t even like guns. Why? Because of the fact that I know there is a tremendous responsibility when you have one. It’s a necessary evil. However, Jeff, it’s a duty to own one, responsibly. I don’t believe you’d ever understand this, because you’ve been brainwashed and blinded by the liberal-socialist agenda. Guns are a duty, and responsibility, [comment has been edited] You’re a pacifist, and that’s your right to be one.

        • BR549

          Someone has just put this on a T-shirt. I’m not even a religious person, but the message is all too relevant.

          “Dear God
          Why do you allow so much
          violence in our schools?”
          a concerned student

          “Dear Concerned Student,

          • Jeff

            What about the violence He allowed in the Unitarian Church? Maybe that’s the wrong (read: not right wing) God?


          • BR549

            Jeff wrote: “What about the violence He allowed in the Unitarian Church?”

            That goes back to what I said in an earlier post; about the system allowing people to become disenfranchise, disconnected, and abandoned within their own country, while at the same time expecting them to produce, produce, and produce some more and allowing the workers to falsely believe that everything was doing just fine.

  • Don

    Well said Joe America. A liberal is a conservative who hasn’t been raped or mugged yet.

  • Olga

    Disarm America, Obamanair wants to destroy America his actions speak louder than his words, liar, cheater, crook, fraud, jonky. what an unbalanced Charecter!

    • Joe America

      Rom Emanuel States: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

      This morning, Barack Obama held a press conference confirming our greatest fears…

      He’s launching an all out campaign to pass comprehensive gun control:

      1. A so-called “Assault Weapons” Ban,

      2. A “High-Capacity” Magazine Ban, and

      3. A ban on ALL Private Firearms Sales without government permission.

      And he wants the legislation on his desk as early as January.

      Folks, this is only the beginning. For those of you supporting gun control, you must be wetting your pants with joy. For those who support the Constitution and Bill of Rights, get ready to lose them. The gun supporters will lose their rights, too, but are too stupid to realize it, at this point. Now comes the beginning of tyranny for this nation. Thanks to the “sheeple.”

      • Jeff

        You know who else favored the assault weapons ban in 1994 and without whose support it could not have passed the House? Ronald Reagan. You right wingers would be calling Reagan a socialist if he ran today. But then you probably would say that of anyone who didn’t agree with every one of your ludicrous positions.

        • BR549

          Jeff wrote: “Ronald Reagan. You right wingers would be calling Reagan a socialist if he ran today.”

          Not so. Reagan even stated under testimony back during the “inquisition” trying to root out communists that he would hope that none of the ferreting that the FBI was doing would undermine our democratic principles. That is, after all, the whole point; no matter who is speaking or running for office; no matter what their religion is or the color of their skin, if they embrace the Constitution, no one has a problem because we would all be after the same end ……. supposedly, anyway. The problem is when people (politicians, particularly) go off the reservation and start reinventing the wheel. In that regard, we are talking about every president since Reagan, not to mention closet traitors like the recently departed Inouye who was busy hiding the whole FEMA/REX84/COG thing from the American public.

          Reagan may not have been a Goldwater, but he wasn’t a socialist by any stretch.

        • Joe America

          Jeff, you’ve never fired a gun, never served in the military, but it’s apparent that you love the free speech that has been purchased with guns and the blood shed by fellow Americans. You have right to say anything you want, and that’s OK. But, the truth is, you know that. You may never admit it, but, deep down inside, you know it’s true. If this great nation were only populated with folks having your mentality, this nation would have never existed. We’d all be carrying the royal piss pots.

        • Joe America

          Even before the death toll in last Friday’s school massacre in Newtown, Conn., was determined, politicians, pundits, and professors of varied disciplines were all over the news, pushing their proposals for change. Some talked about the role of guns, others about mental-health services, and still more about the need for better security in schools and other public places. Whatever their agenda and the passion behind it, those advocates made certain explicit or implied assumptions about patterns in mass murder and the profile of the assailants. Unfortunately, those assumptions do not always align with the facts.

          Myth: Mass shootings are on the rise.
          Reality: Over the past three decades, there has been an average of 20 mass shootings a year in the United States, each with at least four victims killed by gunfire. Occasionally, and mostly by sheer coincidence, several episodes have been clustered closely in time. Over all, however, there has not been an upward trajectory. To the contrary, the real growth has been in the style and pervasiveness of news-media coverage, thanks in large part to technological advances in reporting.

          Myth: Mass murderers snap and kill indiscriminately.
          Reality: Mass murderers typically plan their assaults for days, weeks, or months. They are deliberate in preparing their missions and determined to follow through, no matter what impediments are placed in their path.

          Myth: Enhanced background checks will keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of these madmen.
          Reality: Most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization. They would not be disqualified from purchasing their weapons legally. Certainly, people cannot be denied their Second Amendment rights just because they look strange or act in an odd manner. Besides, mass killers could always find an alternative way of securing the needed weaponry, even if they had to steal from family members or friends.

          Myth: Restoring the federal ban on assault weapons will prevent these horrible crimes.
          Reality: The overwhelming majority of mass murderers use firearms that would not be restricted by an assault-weapons ban. In fact, semiautomatic handguns are far more prevalent in mass shootings. Of course, limiting the size of ammunition clips would at least force a gunman to pause to reload or switch weapons.

          Myth: Greater attention and response to the telltale warning signs will allow us to identify would-be mass killers before they act.
          Reality: While there are some common features in the profile of a mass murderer (depression, resentment, social isolation, tendency to blame others for their misfortunes, fascination with violence, and interest in weaponry), those characteristics are all fairly prevalent in the general population. Any attempt to predict would produce many false positives. Actually, the telltale warning signs come into clear focus only after the deadly deed.

          Myth: Widening the availability of mental-health services and reducing the stigma associated with mental illness will allow unstable individuals to get the treatment they need.
          Reality: With their tendency to externalize blame and see themselves as victims of mistreatment, mass murderers perceive the problem to be in others, not themselves. They would generally resist attempts to encourage them to seek help. And, besides, our constant references to mass murderers as “wackos” or “sickos” don’t do much to destigmatize the mentally ill.

          Myth: Increasing security in schools and other places will deter mass murder.
          Reality: Most security measures will serve only as a minor inconvenience for those who are dead set on mass murder. If anything, excessive security and a fortress-like environment serve as a constant reminder of danger and vulnerability.

          Myth: Students need to be prepared for the worst by participating in lockdown drills.
          Reality: Lockdown drills can be very traumatizing, especially for young children. Also, it is questionable whether they would recall those lessons amid the hysteria associated with an actual shooting. The faculty and staff need to be adequately trained, and the kids just advised to listen to instructions. Schools should take the same low-key approach to the unlikely event of a shooting as the airlines do to the unlikely event of a crash. Passengers aren’t drilled in evacuation procedures but can assume the crew is sufficiently trained.

          Myth: Expanding “right to carry” provisions will deter mass killers or at least stop them in their tracks and reduce the body counts.
          Reality: Mass killers are often described by surviving witnesses as being relaxed and calm during their rampages, owing to their level of planning. In contrast, the rest of us are taken by surprise and respond frantically. A sudden and wild shootout involving the assailant and citizens armed with concealed weapons would potentially catch countless innocent victims in the crossfire.

          Myth: We just need to enforce existing gun laws as well as increase the threat of the death penalty.
          Reality: Mass killers typically expect to die, usually by their own hand or else by first responders. Nothing in the way of prosecution or punishment would divert them from their missions. They are ready to leave their miserable existence, but want some payback first.

          In the immediate aftermath of the Newtown school shootings, there seems to be great momentum to establish policies and procedures designed to make us all safer. Sensible gun laws, affordable mental-health care, and reasonable security measures are all worthwhile, and would enhance the well being of millions of Americans. They may do much to impact the level of violent crime that plagues our nation daily. We shouldn’t, however, expect such efforts to take a big bite out of crime in its most extreme form. Of course, a nibble or two from the prevalence of mass murder would be reason enough. And efforts to promote real change in our social policies would be a fitting legacy to the tragedy in Newtown.

          Note: An version of this blog post appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

          Author’s note: You can follow me on twitter at @jamesalanfox or Facebook at Professor James Alan Fox for notifications of new blog postings. Also, you can find me on the Web at or contact me by e-mail at

          • BR549

            Joe at al,
            This whole situation can be compared to the human body where we have a large body of cellular “citizens” being governed by a higher level DNA rule book. Over the course of evolution, these citizens have suspended their DNA driven directorate to merely consume their surrounding and self-replicate, but with that level of freedom, they lost their right to do it totally on their own.

            Under that evolutionary DNA “agreement”, these cellular citizens instead agree to take on roles that give the entire population a vastly expanded survival set. That “agreement” assumes that the host body (or government) will take care of all the survival needs of those “citizens” if those citizens then agree to perform their newly assigned tasks. For example, a parietal cell concentrates hydrochloric acid to assist in digestion, other cells form the intestine and assimilate food, still others become one of the trillion alveolar cells tasked with respiration, but ALL of these cells have the same DNA. The difference is that the they are instructed to do different tasks through enzymatic and hormonal communications.

            The point is that, with respect to these cells, for giving up their right to be TOTALLY free, they have every realistic expectation for the host body to stick to its agreement and provide adequate nutrition, hydration, and waste removal; actually providing an alternative environment for those cells to live within. Again, this “agreement” means that the host body is paying enough attention to its ascribed duties, not unlike what the federal government has been expected to do through the marriage of the several states in the Constitution.

            The problem has been that the federal government has abandoned its duties to those individuals and somehow believes itself capable of survival in spite of the contributions of the multitude of individuals that were still believing in the original agreement. It is the ultimate in narcissism.

            Whether we view this from a TCM or yogic perspective, the outcome is the same; peoples of long ago had a far greater appreciation of the connectedness of all things, even if they hadn’t yet discovered the connectedness of the trillions of cells that made them up individually. Those cells can’t be FORCED into compliance; the host body must prove itself worthy of the allegiance of all its “volunteers”.

            And here we are, some cells still aware of the original contract, while others have forgotten all about it and make no demands of their host body (our government) to stick to what it said it would do. So, no matter how powerful Obama, Bush, Pelosi and the rest of those narcissistic cells think they have somehow become, no one is going anywhere unless we all go together.

        • Joe America

          Jeff aka Killer, Time to go to school:

          Chicago, Chicago, what a wonderful town!
          Body count: In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago ; 221 killed in Iraq , and Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws in the entire United States . Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago !
          Chicago politicians of late:
          President of the United States of America : Barack Hussein Obama (Democrat)
          Senator: Dick Durbin (Democrat)
          House Representative: Jesse Jackson Jr. (Democrat)
          Governor: Pat Quinn (Democrat)
          House leader: Mike Madigan (Democrat)
          Atty. Gen.: Lisa Madigan (Democrat) [daughter of Mike]
          Mayor: Rahm Emanuel (Democrat)
          Past Mayors: The notorious Richard Daleys (Democrats); father and son who both served as Chicago mayors for a combined period of 43 years. They were considered to have run the most corrupt political machine in the nation’s history.
          Deputy Chief of Staff for Mayor Richard Daley: Valerie Jarrett (Democrat); born in Shiraz, Iran, is presently serving as Senior Advisor toPresident Obama.
          Past Illinois Governor from Chicago : Rod Blagojevich (Democrat) [presently in prison for extortion and racketeering]
          Past Illinois Governor from Chicago : Daniel Walker (Democrat) [sentenced to four years imprisonment for bank fraud, three years for perjury, and probation for false financial statements]
          Past Illinois Governor from Chicago : Otto Kerner (Democrat) [convicted on 17 counts of mail fraud, conspiracy, perjury, and related charges]
          Past U.S. Congressman from Chicago: Mel Reynolds (Democrat) [convicted and was imprisoned on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography… also was convicted and imprisoned for 15 counts of bank fraud and lying to SEC investigators. Bill Clinton commuted the sentence for bank fraud and released Reynolds early]
          Past U.S. Congressman from Chicago : Dan Rostenkowski (Democrat) [convicted and imprisoned for corruption and mail fraud]
          The leadership in Illinois ; House and Senate: all Democrats
          The Chicago school system is rated as one of the worst in the country, but the teachers are the highest paid with a very strong union. (Arne Duncan served as Chicago Public Schools Chief Executive Officer from June 2001 to Dec. 2008, when Barack Obama appointed him to the post of U.S. Secretary of Education… a post that he still holds).
          State pension fund $78 Billion in debt, worst in country.
          Cook County ( Chicago ) sales tax 10.25% highest in country.
          There is more; much more, but I think that you get the picture!
          And they can’t blame Republicans; there aren’t any!

          This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois ; this is his background.

          And he is going to fix Washington politics for us?

          Killer, you and your liberal/socialist/communist buddies really know how to pickem.

  • reelman1946

    Some side notes:

    1…The Mother told people 7 years ago she afraid he would do something horrible
    2…The Mother told people 5 years ago she dare not leave him alone
    3…The Mother took him out of school
    4…The Mother had an income of $289,000 a year from divorce (lived in a 1.6 mil house)…so could have afforded an off duty cop to watch him…at least days…
    5…The Mother bought the guns and registered them in her name (apparently not locked up securely)
    6…The Mother took the strange medicated “autistic” son who felt no pain to the shooting range! (figure that one)

    Now if we are going to have what I call “Columbine Parenting”
    (where rich libs ignore their teens and miss all the bad signs the whole community knows for month after month)…how can guns be the issue?
    …1921 a 55 year old man who was mad about losing an election killed 38 school kids with dynamite…worst school murders ever.

    Does anyone think a “genius nut” (they always go to “GUN-FREE ZONES”) is going to be stopped with that kind of parenting?
    That kind of school help? That kind of local medical help?

    …We lost 3,000 Americans because of box cutter weapons and planes!!! Think think.
    Instead of having 3 loaded pistols in 3 secret school locations (1 in prin. office) that would give the kids a chance while waiting 20-25 minutes for local police they stay in denial of evil…even after Columbine (another GUN-FREE ZONE)…

    …A couple weeks back in an Oregon mall…a nut started firing…then a private citizen pulled his concealed carry pistol, pointed it at the nut shooter…
    the but saw this and put the gun to his head…bang…no shooter, good gun stops bad nut with gun.

    …In Mississippi an asst. principal ran to his truck, grabbed his pistol and stopped what could have been another mass school shooting.
    …Chicago and Detroit have a murder a day or more with their strict gun control laws…

    (with the new Socialized Medicine…add gun bans, etc and we are where they want us…powerless at their mercy) (theconservativecrawfish)

    • Jeff

      You want to call this mother a liberal? Based on what? Because she didn’t live in Alabama? I know of no liberal who fetishizes guns the way she did.

      BTW: The idea that armed civilians will stop these heavily armed mass shooters? Total bunk. If anything, an armed civilian is likely to shoot the wrong person. Even a trained police officer can shoot the wrong person.

      • Joe America

        This family, especially the mother and deffinately the son, had problems. Enough said.

  • Nick

    The FBI murder statistics do not differentiate between types of rifles. There are about 100 million rifles in the United States. In 2009, the last year in which numbers have been reported, there were 13,636 murders. Guns were used to murder 9,146 people. Hands and feet were used to murder 801 people. Blunt objects were used to murder 611 people. Rifles were used to murder 348 people, and that is all rifles, of which assault rifles are only a small fraction. Assault rifles are used so infrequently in homicides that many police departments almost never see them; in 2009, there were nine states that did not have a single murder committed with any rifle.

  • RL Pfeifer

    seems like Mexico has just given the US a good reason to own firearms. A group of marines should go to mexico and release one of there own.

  • figmo

    Most, if not all, of these mass murderers were taking prescribed anti-depresant or other psychiatric drugs. These drugs have known side effects that produce violence and suicide. Maybe we should remove these dangerous drugs instead of the guns. But then we wouldn’t want to cut into the multi-billion dollar profits of big pharma would we? Certainly people on these dangerous meds should have to turn in all firearms for safekeeping and their names should be on a do not sell to list for gun dealers to see. We are attacking the wrong end of the problem by demanding the confiscation of firearms from the lawabiding citizens.

  • Thinking About

    We have speed limits and other rules of the road, why do we have speed limits and rules of th road? Liability is required in every state, why can’t we have rules in the firearm world?It is a terrible argument to say there are rapid fire weapons to prevent the “GOVERNMENT” from taking over anyone. If this sounds reasonable to anyone then one must not know about the US military so it is a non issue. In fact the drones are very accurate. I might add in the incident in Sandy Hook school, who in the school was the “government” taking over Lanza? Why was he able to kill so many in such a short time, he possessed rapid fire weapons. Did he purchase the guns himself, no they was provided by his mother. The guns was purchased “legally” and this did not stop the weapons from being available to someone who did not need access. How many more households in the US has similar situations? I don’t know the answer to this question and doubt if anyone else has the answer either. Has the NRA been able to prevent this tragedy, no they did not and gun lovers all over has not stopped this tragedy so now would be the time for sensible heads to place restrictions on everyone for these terrible events.

    • BR549

      Thinking About wrote: “Why was he able to kill so many in such a short time, he possessed rapid fire weapons?”

      THAT is an excellent question, …… since the medical examiner said that all of the gunshot wounds he had encountered, up to the time of his interview anyway, were inflicted by rifles and not typical of handgun wounds, yet during the interview someone had stated that Lanza’s AR-15 was found in the trunk of his car.

      Anyone following this?

  • Jim Chambers

    Thinking (are you sure?),
    Yes, we have speed limits and if you go over them and get caught you get fined. If you murder someone with a gun and get caught you go to jail. The shooter can also be sued by the relatives left behind after he did his dastardly deed. Those, my short sighted friend, are the rules you fail to see (thinking? I think not).
    It doesn’t sound like you understand the issue about gun ownership. The reason that people in this country own so many guns is for protection FROM their government. Your comments make you out to be a person that doesn’t really understand how precarious your hold on your freedoms are in the hands of the president we now have.
    I know, you probably voted for the guy and if this country morphs into what he wants to transform it into you will only have yourself to blame. And I know the drones are accurate because your president has used them numerous times to make his hit list smaller. He has even decided that he can, because he is president, kill American citizens without arrest and trial. But I digress.
    Let me try to make this as clear as possible: A mad man who should have been institutionalized killed twenty innocent kids plus 6 adults. The mad man was on the streets because the bleeding heart liberals, such as you, the ACLU and asinine judges found that he had the right to be on the streets as opposed to earlier in our history when we put them in institutions where they could not harm themselves or others. Because he had these manufactured rights he was able to acquire the TOOLS he needed, from someone who had every right to possess them, to do what he imagined in his head.
    I know, you want to blame the tool. That is what liberals do, cast blame on an inanimate object instead of looking in the mirror and examining why this person was able to walk among us and do his dastardly deed. I feel comfortable in stating that “you didn’t once stop and consider the fact that if this guy had not been on the street these kids would still be alive”. I also feel confident stating, “You probably didn’t once stop and consider if your position as a liberal had anything to do with this guy”.
    Liberals in this country and elsewhere go blithely along doing their best to change society into their view of nirvana at the cost of lives, these 20 kids, all those aborted before they have a chance to live as well as all those lives lost by liberals penchant for desiring the freedom convicted criminals, and never give a thought to the destruction and mayhem they leave behind.
    You are not to blame. You just aren’t smart enough to think your actions all the way through. You are a hedonist and that is the way hedonists are. This post is full of them. They will posit logical sounding posts to back up their positions but when thought through the fallacies can be picked out. Your problem is that you incapable of rational thought and you refuse to see.
    I don’t mean to belittle you but blaming an inanimate object for what was done by a PERSON isn’t rational. If he hadn’t had that tool he would have found another to do as much damage as he possibly could have done. Arguing over the number of deaths and the tool is, therefore, ludicrous, pointless and in the end futile.

    • Jeff

      If you think Obama is a danger to your freedoms, you are nuts.

      If you think your stupid gun collection will protect you in the event the Government should target you, you are doubly nuts.

      • Joe America

        sieg Heil, Killer.

      • Joann Flanagan

        Well I’m really those locals at Bunker Hill their “stupid gun collections”!
        Of course not everyone is. A lot of people root for King George.
        Joann Flanagan

    • Thinking About

      You have said many things but you have not shown your intelligence in preventing the mass shootings now have you so don’t go off on me until you are able to get gun owners who purchase rapid fire weapons to keep them under control. We purchase liability insurance for our automobiles and the same needs to be purchased for the weapons we possess. We all need to be rational. You do not belittle me, your opinions are small in the hearts of families which have lost loved ones, your gun is not that important to me.

      • Jim Chambers

        I believe you. My gun probably isn’t all that important to you. A lot of Jews said the same thing before they were loaded into box cars.
        But that’s fine. Just go on enjoying your freedom as long as it lasts.

      • Joe America

        Gun owners have a responsibility to keep guns locked up from children and the mentally ill. If you can’t afford to lock up your gun, you shouldn’t have one. Quick access safes, which are very, very small, are fairly cheap, especially when you consider the risk of someone getting hold of it, that should not.

    • Jim Chambers

      But you and those like you will go on believing what you do. You have a vested interest in keeping things this way. If you were held responsible for the ruin and lost lives, even within your conscience, you would probably either go mad or become more responsible and have to make hard choices. Neither of those appeal to you or the other liberals posting here.
      You WANT those things that liberalism offer you. Being responsible for your conduct, promiscuous sex, drugs and all the other liberal penchants, is something that you will avoid at all costs. So far in this country you have been given those things. You have abortion on demand to get rid of the consequences of promiscuity, you are getting free access to drugs in some states and, like Teddy Kennedy at Chappaquiddick, you go on with life enjoying your hedonism.
      These poor kids and their teachers are little more than inconveniences that you have to look at and do your best to find a strawman to, in your mind, help you avoid any personal responsibility in this matter.
      The easiest way to deal with this problem, not solve it, mind you, is to ban the tool. Won’t help though. If a crazy on the street wants to kill he or she will kill. You should hope that you are not in the way when the fruits of your liberalism is expressed.

      • Thinking About

        I am glad to know think it is time for everyone to start taking responsibility of their actions and it is time for gun owners, dealers and manufactors to take responsibility for the illegal uses of their weapons. This has nothing to do with be liberal or not, it should be a responsible gun owners responsibility to have gun safety at all times. If a dealer or gun owner allows crazy to get possession of their weapon. If you are a gun owner do you have the ability to control when you use the weapon or is it just because you are angry and want to control those around you? You still apparently want to bring up abortion, where is the NRA and gun owners on early abortion of a young life in a school?

        • Jeff

          Right wingers will do anything to protect a fetus. Once he’s born he’s on his own.

          • Joe America

            Jeff, Margaret Sanger was a Nazi supporter and the mother of Klan Parenthood (Because Lenching is for Amatures). Yes, Margaret, that special progressive eugenics supporter, loves black people so much, she wanted to kill them before they got out of the womb. She and her elite, rich American supporters weren’t too fond of those poor white babies, either. Jeff, you really know how to pick your heros. You’d be interested to know that Joseph Mengala was “inspired” by her. I guess you are, too. Isn’t that right, “Killer.” That’s what I’m going to call you, from now on, “Killer.”

            Why, here’s old Margaret, getting the Hitler salute from KKK guy’s wearing sheets. Jeff, I’ll be you’re so proud. She must be like a mother to you. Isn’t that right “Killer.”:

          • Joann Flanagan

            Is that supposed to be in any measure less rational than being hellbent on destroying an innocent child like many prodeathers are?
            What did any innocent unborn child ever do to you,Jeff?
            Is Jeff your real name or is it Herod?
            Joann Flanagan

          • Jeff

            Why do you not understand the difference between wanting to kill something and not believing the State should have a role in a woman’s private decision? I have made decisions that have prevented abortions from occurring, and if a woman asked my advice, I would always try to find an alternative. But the decision is not mine to make. I think education is the key and if religious groups want to stop abortions, they should arm pregnant women with alternatives instead of shooting abortion doctors. No liberal is in favor of more abortions any more than you are in favor of killing doctors. But abortions were occurring before Roe – they were illegal and performed by butchers, often resulting in serious injury or death to the girl. Is that what you want to return to?

            Some people live in a different world from you or me. If a young girl has no money and no family support and she’s afraid of what her parents will do if they find out she’s pregnant, she is desperate and will do things she might otherwise find morally repugnant. It’s easy to say she shouldn’t have gotten pregnant, but facts are facts. There are rapes; there is incest; there are cases where both occur. If we have a social welfare system that recognizes this and allows for alternatives to abortion (like making sure the girl has a place to live and food) maybe the numbers would go down. The punitive, conservative approach never works.

          • Joann Flanagan

            No question,Jeff, that legalised mass murder can be highly efficient.
            The Nazis were models of efficiency. So were the Roman Emperors who persecuted Christians. Those massmuderers who run the abortuarys are following in their footsteps.
            So abortion “works.. So does throwing Christians to the lions and making lampshades out of Jew.
            Does that make it right?
            Joann Flanagan

          • Jeff

            I don’t know what you’re talking about. If you really want to make a difference, don’t just blog about the evils of abortion. Raise money and set up a foundation for girls who have no place to go to have the baby and have it adopted by a good family. You get more flies with honey . . . .

          • Joann Flanagan

            Jeff,quite a number of such places exist already thanks to people like Father Baker.
            Joann Flanagan

          • Jeff

            I’m sure they do exist, but maybe they need to be known to the young girls who could use the service and maybe some of them should not be affiliated with a Church. All I’m saying is directing your efforts there might be more productive than blogging about the evils of abortion. I don’t know if you know this, but abortion rates (and maternal death during delivery) were very high early in the 20th Century, many decades before Roe. At that time, affluent women seemed to have access to birth control while poor immigrant women did not.


          • Joann Flanagan

            No doubt,Jeff, “poor immigrant women” and also poor Americanborn women also had less “access” to Murder,inc and other hired assassans of already born people who fell out of favor with them than more affluent,better connected women!
            At the risk of sounding “heartless’,”insensitive”-whatever the fashionable prodeath epiphet is this season for Prolifers happens to be-(whatever happened to “hysterical”?)-I confess that that I’ve “insensitively”,”hysterically”-whatever-used up all my tears of blood weeping over the innocent victims of sucessful assassinations in or out of the womb to squeeze out any more for frustrated Medea-want-to-bes who were denied access to means of massecreeing innocents.
            Joann Flanagan

          • Jeff

            You don’t have to cry for anyone. But it’s a fact that way before Roe there were lots of abortions. The key to reducing the number of abortions is not punitive; it is education, alternatives, and access to health care. Or you can just be angry all the time and vote for idiots like Mourdock.

          • Joann Flanagan

            Interesting concept,Jeff.
            In your opinion would education and access to healthcare plus unspecified alternatives also reduced the number of Nazi atrocitys more effectively than the punitive measures taken by the Nurhemburg Tribunal and later by the Israili Government?
            Joann Flanagan

          • Jeff

            If you think that’s a valid comparison, I’m speechless.

          • Jeff

            Read the article. It’s really more about contraception than abortion, but they’re 2 sides of the same coin.

          • Joann Flanagan

            So abortion and contraception are two sides of the same coin,Jeff?
            As the lust of the flesh and the lust for blood are two horns on the same goat,Jeff?
            Joann Flanagan

          • Jeff

            More contraception means fewer abortions. The rest is your own insanity.

          • Joann Flanagan

            So more contraception means fewer abortions does it,Jeff?
            By the same logic does more beastiality and more sodomy also “means fewer abortions”!
            Does more footfetishism and more voyeurism,ect also “mean fewer abortions”?
            Joann Flanagan

          • Jeff

            Undoubtedly they do, but those people are doing those things anyway. Are you somehow equating contraception (even within marriage) with bestiality? I figured your husband wasn’t too handsome, but I had no idea. I feel for you.

          • Joann Flanagan

            Well since people are “doing these things anyway”-commiting sexual perversians -there really doesn’t seem to be any need to encourage that sort of thing even if one approves of these foul abominations is there?
            Joann Flanagan

        • Jim Chambers

          Thinking About,
          Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. I’m awed by your profundities.
          Gun dealers have no more means at their disposal to prevent crazies from accessing their tools than the other liberals on this site have of keeping you from making a fool of yourself.

      • Thinking About

        Jeff, you are very right, abortion in the form of mass murder by rapid fire weapons.

  • JON

    One failed attempt at a shoe bomb and we all take off our shoes at the airport.
    Thirty-one school shootings since Columbine and no change in our regulation of guns.

    Guns need not be taken away from sane and responsible citizens. Thorough background checks, a license and training on the proper use of a firearm should be mandatory. Every means for people to acquire a firearm illegally [private sales, online, etc] needs to also be put into place.

    Keep the 2nd Amendment as is. And at the same time, insert logic and common sense when it comes to gun ownership of people who should never possess one.

    Merry Christmas to all! May everyone have an awesome 2013 and beyond!

  • RL Pfeifer

    Where to you progressives get your facts? all total BS. If you want a country like mexico, where all guns are out lawed MOVE THERE> or shut up

  • ROY


  • http://google mr.james croskey

    hunter dont need auto. gun. that shot.s that meany shell.s, a 306 well do..


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
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.