Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

One In Four Americans Say Stricter Gun Laws Can Prevent Mass Shootings

January 26, 2011 by  

One in four Americans say stricter gun laws can prevent mass shootingsA new Gallup poll reveals that nearly one quarter of Americans believe that stricter gun laws could prevent mass shootings in the United States.

The survey, which was conducted after the Jan. 8 shooting in Tucson, Ariz., asked people to name the most important steps that could be taken in order to thwart similar tragedies in the future. Tougher gun control laws received 24 percent of the vote, while better mental health screening and support followed with 15 percent. A total of 8 percent said that there should be more extensive background checks for individuals who purchase firearms.

These results somewhat contradict a Jan. 11 USA Today/Gallup poll in which about 70 percent of respondents said that stricter gun laws would not have prevented the tragedy. Furthermore, a 2007 poll following the Virginia Tech shooting also revealed that a majority of Americans said that tougher firearm regulations would not have prevented the massacre.

A recent bipartisan poll shows that about 81 percent of gun owners support a requirement that all gun buyers pass a background check. The survey, which was conducted jointly by Democratic firm Momentum Analysis and Republican-backed American Viewpoint, also reveals that 90 percent of gun owners said that there should be an improvement in government databases that are designed to prevent potentially dangerous persons from buying weapons. 

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “One In Four Americans Say Stricter Gun Laws Can Prevent Mass Shootings”

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

  • http://none Mike

    All the background checks in the world arent going to make us one bit safer. All they do is keep the honest man honest. And the crimanels will go to the black market for theirs. Want to do something for real change require all americans to get basic training in hand gun safty. And then give them all a gun. That would make people bent on crime think twice before they did something. If they thought they might just loose their life if they tried. Mike L.

    • jd

      Another thought is the criminal cannot collect unemployment for injuries on the job. Well maybe in Calif. they can.

      • Vigilant

        This is the second time recently that the Personal Liberty News Desk (PLND) has skewed polling results with both the headline and content of the article.

        On January 25th, PLND posted the article “America’s Trust in FOX News Dwindles,” but when you go to the polling organization’s website, you see the following: “Our newest survey looking at perceptions of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, and NBC News finds Fox as the only one that more people say they trust than distrust. 49% say they trust it to 37% who do not.”

        And now we have “One In Four Americans Say Stricter Gun Laws Can Prevent Mass Shootings,” in which is stated “these results somewhat contradict a Jan. 11 USA Today/Gallup poll in which about 70 percent of respondents said that stricter gun laws would not have prevented the tragedy.”

        Huh? In what way is that contradictory?

        I’m afraid the PLND staffers either (1) have been infiltrated by liberal propagandists in disguise, or (2) are purposely trying to draw comments to this site from conservatives by making slanted statements/headlines that are pro-liberal.

        What’s up, PLND?

    • castaway

      Good idea and then let us wear them in open, for all to see.

    • BERT


      • kate8

        BERT – “Majority rules” was never a good idea, and was never the intent of our founders. The Constitution provides for equal protection for all.

        What we have now is tyranny of the minority.

        The agenda of government is to ban guns, just as they’ve been doing around the world. Americans have the right to own guns. So they will continue to draw from the pool of “crazed lone-gunmen” and ramp up the reporting of shootings until Americans are worn down and will submit out of fear and desperation.

        If we understand the game, we’ll be less likely to drink the punch.

        • AnhydrousBob

          Kate8, I agree with your sentiment.

          But I think a better way to phrase what you said “Americans have the right to own guns” is: Humans have the right to defend themselves, Americans recognize that inalienable right extends to gun ownership.

          We need to emphasize, as I know you know (from reading your previous posts), that these rights don’t come from the constitution (as statists would like to frame the issue – then they can devalue the constitution and therefore those granted rights) but from the the fact that we are human.

      • STEVE S

        All this poll proves is 1 in 4 Americans are morons!!!!

        • Dogma-Free ‘The Trinity’

          Oh, I’m sure the percentage is much higher in reality…

          Oh, wait…no…it looks like the percentage of morons is 21. It *used* to be 25%, but it is steadily dropping like…well, animal droppings.

          Here, I’ll dumb it down for some of you:

          ” 21%. That’s the percent of people in the Post/ABC survey who identified themselves as Republicans, down from 25 percent in a late March poll and at the lowest ebb in this poll since the fall of 1983(!).

          In that same poll, 35 percent self-identified as Democrats and 38 percent called them Independents.”

          Independents on the rise!!

          I tell ya, if you really want to fix America, then independent is the way to vote.

          Forget the tea-bagging neanderthal idiots.

          And the Democrats are more ‘conservative’ these days, than the party that calls themselves Republicans (they used to call themselves the GOP, which must stand for God Owful Politics).

        • Lastmanstanding

          One in four Americans is a lib/prog. What is so surprising?

  • s c

    One in four Americans need brain transplants. Freedom isn’t free, and we’ll never be safe by playing games with the 2nd Amendment. THINK!

    • James

      SC, The Second Amendment is a bar against federal legislation that would infringe on the right to bear arms. If there is to be stricter gun possession rules, it must come from state legislatures.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        there are supremes that figure the shal not be abridged extends to the states as well!!

        • James

          Joe H., Cite me one Supreme Court decision that has so-held.

      • Vicki

        I notice that the 1st says CONGRESS shall make no law…… Yet we force states to honor the limitations of the first amendment.

        I notice that the 2nd has no such limitation on it. The 2nd says the right of THE PEOPLE… Pretty clear that means it is a limit on ALL government at ANY level.

        • James

          Vicki,The First Amendment is not the rights it mentions. Rights are fundamental, every American has them. The amendment’s “Congress shall make no law respecting…prohibiting…or abridging” the five rights mentioned therein, means simply what it says. State constitutions contain similar provisions. Rights are protected by state laws, they didn’t want the federal government to have any power over rights, thus the Bill of Rights.

  • dr john

    that proves that 25% of Americans are idiots–of course the 25% includes all dimocraps and the complete obamamama socialist marxist white house

  • dr john

    what a disgrace the embarrassment in chief was again at the state of the union show–

    • BERT


      • BERT


        • eddie47d

          I guess that leaves you out.LOL, One good insult deserves another,right?

          • Brad

            fortunetly he wasn’t talking about you edwardo!!!

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Yup, you are an insult!!!!!

          • eddie47d

            Can’t stand a little humor Joe? You’re always so touchy.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            I calls em’ as I sees em’!!!

          • eddie47d

            Clean your glasses!

  • Mark M

    Interesting how this article focuses on what is a minority opinion. The thing that resonates with me about the Tucson tragedy is that no one was prepared to stop it, even in a state which allows concealed carry and seems to be pro 2nd Amendment. I plan to be more proactive and exercise my right to bear arms at all times…..inconvenient to be sure, but important none the less.

    • jd

      I believe that the man that first tackled the suspect was a permit holder and decided not to draw and fire because there were to many people around and he, due to training noticed the slide was locked back because the gun was out of ammo. But remember that only someone who is familuar with guns would have noticed this.
      God bless the Republic

      • BERT


        • independant thinker

          Most crooks are not really that familier with firearms. About all they know is point the barrel away from themselves and pull the trigger. That is not to say I disagree with your statement about training the general population.

        • Granny Mae

          I am not for banning guns because that only takes guns away from the honest citizen and any one that wants a gun will get one even if he has to make it. If they are intent on killing someone they will use anything they can find. A gun, a bat, a metal pipe, a knife, anything. You cannot stop a depraved mind from doing what it is intent on doing.

      • independant thinker

        I think you are mistaken. I believe the lone known firearm carrier was some distance from the shooter he ran towards him prepared to draw and shoot but saw others had already engaged with the shooter so he joined in and helped restrain him without drawing. At least that is the way I understood it.

        • http://?? Joe H.

          you are correct. The guy was in the Walgreens accross the street.

    • James

      Mark M, The Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 26, reads: “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.” The Second Amendment’s restriction applies exclusively to the federal government.

      • Vicki

        James says:
        “The Second Amendment’s restriction applies exclusively to the federal government.”

        I believe you are in error. wp-dyn content article 2010 06 28 AR2010062802134.html

        Replace spaces with /

      • Vicki

        Another link showing that James is in error.

        • James

          Vicki, I couldn’t find the above article. The New York Times article stated: “But the Heller case addressed only federal laws, it left open the question of whether the Second Amendment rights protect gun owners from overreaching by state and local governments.”
          Since that D.C. v. Heller decision (2008), the McDonald v. Chicago High court decision has held that a state city ordinance, which infringed on the right to bear arms, violates the “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment. That does no mean, however, that that ordinance also violated the Second Amendment. The Chicago ordinance violated McDonald’s right to bear arms, not the Second Amendment. You, and many others, are confusing the right with the amendment.

  • Keenan

    Funny that in almost all cases of mass murderings there were no conceal carry holders to stop them. Just imagine if there were just two CCW holders fully trained and armed when the serial shooter started their terror. Problem solved within a few seconds.

    • BERT


      • RandyH

        You can bet Sheriff Sputnic would have. And if not that, we are so afraid of getting sued by survivors that most people freeze and do nothing.

        • Richr

          This should not be about 2nd amend. rights or what kind of legislation we need to change to stop potential mass murderers. When it happens, take them right from a court, and a jury of the victims peers, and execute them in the courtyard immediately. No more problem.

  • jd

    Guns do not kill people. People kill people. I am one that is sick and tired of the liberals screaming more gun control. You all should remember that this is not about guns it is about control. Look at history governments prefer unarmed citizens because they are easier to control. Criminals will still have guns.Duhh,criminals do not obey the law. I know that is a hard concept for some to grasp but it is sadly true. Go figure. Also check out the crime stats in countries that have very strict gun laws.
    If you are so hell bent on controlling deaths then let’s outlaw doctors they kill more people each year then guns. So do cars and food. Just to name a few.
    I am a Cnostitutional conservative, I am mad and I vote.

    • Robin from Arcadia, IN

      jd… I agree with you post. Guns do not go off by themselves, selecting whom they want to assault. Stricter gun laws will only stymie those who are not law breakers. Those who are law breakers will find a way to purchase and own guns if they want to. Our rights are in jeopardy and those who think stricter laws will make the killers go away are living in a fantasy world.

    • castaway

      I’am also a constitutional conservative that votes, but it no longer makes a difference. THe constitution tells us to remove a government like we now have, and I think the time is now to do just that. I’m also so tired of politically correct, I could vomit.

      • Vigilant

        Correction: you’re talking about the Declaration of Independence w/ regard to replacing oppressive governments, not the Constitution.

  • Norm

    How about the police? Oh yes MIA I believe.
    The county sheriff is a dolt blaming everyone else for his incompetence of NOT having a officer there.
    A US Congress Representative and not even one cop in the area!!!

    • Robin from Arcadia, IN

      Norm… That does seem strange that a Congress woman would be holding a meeting in a public place, and the police were not there. You have made a very good point!

      • http://?? Joe H.

        That’s the way the progressives do things. If you screw up find a handy conservative to blame!!! There’s no such thing as personal responsibility in a progressive world!!

    • jd

      As a retired deputy sheriff I can tell you that the probability of law enforcement being on scene at the time of a crime are very slim. Law emforcement has alot of area to cover and very seldom come up on a crime in progress.
      As for the Sheriff in AZ. I agree he is an embarassment to law enforcement.

      • ajb

        maybe you should lay down your donut.

        • JC

          That was not only idiotic but completely uncalled for.

          It;s a fact and everyone knows it that when seconds count the Police are usually minutes away. That’s not the fault of Policemen, it’s just a fact.
          Imagine, if there were a cop for every block and every 200 ft. of shopping mall….

          That’s called a Police State on Steroids.
          Thanks but no thanks.
          I’ll stick to armed self defense and do what I can to help the Police.

      • http://personallibertydigest gunner689

        Yeah especially the donut shop.

      • http://personallibertydigest gunner689

        cops are good at drawing the chalk lines. When seconds count the cops are only minutes away, that’s if your attacker lets you call 911.

        • http://?? Joe H.

          Let’s not forget there are quite a few cops killed in the line of duty each year!!! The good ones try and try damn hard, burt you can’t be everywhere at all times, it just isn’t possible!! I will also add that I think the good ones far out number the bad!

    • James

      Norm, I just read a few days ago that Congress is considering a law that would require police escorts for U.S. Congressmen when appearing in such public places.

  • Raggs

    Ridiculous… Criminals do not care what type of law there is or how much gun control…

  • Kris

    The only thing gun control does is keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens! The dirtbags will always get guns and they won’t buy them from a gun dealer or get any kind of back ground checks! Does anyone think these gangs buy their guns legallY? Don’t be stupid and fall into their gun take away plan!

  • TC

    25% what about the 75%, the 75% is the majority, duh, hello, its time for the media to says things as they are, not as they want it to be!!!

    • eddie47d

      It’s amazing how so many on this site say that polls are unreliable and dishonest. Always favoring one side or the other….but when a poll favors your opinion they are a godsend and you vigorously defend them. Most Americans do defend the 2nd Amendment and look at it as being sacred. So those who say your rights are being taken away because someone mentions gun control or clearer laws are being a wee bit arrogant. With 280 million guns in the hands of private citizens you are definitely over reacting..again. You can say “Why don’t they defend the thousands of laws on the books instead of finding new ones”. How many times have we heard that? Well, because they are scattered over 50 States and one jurisdiction can’t keep up with all the laws in another jurisdiction. Then the NRA comes along and helps to abolish sensible laws but leaving the ones that serve no purpose. There are alot of Americans who believe in those sensible laws so why not work with law makers to correct those discrepancies instead of being antagonists?

      • Brad


        The problem isn’t with legal guns, it’s the illegal ones the criminals have, that’s what you don’t get. If the government enforced current law and went after the illegal guns and criminals what would happen to the crime rate? It would go down to zero end of story.

        • Dogma-Free ‘The Trinity’

          Actually, Brad…I believe the police DO go after illegal guns. And when they find them, they are confiscated.

          However, with SO MANY GUNS floating around in America, how would they know which are legal guns, and which are illegal guns, without just stopping everyone on the street, and asking to see proof of ownership.

          In which case, would that be considered a ‘police state’, and an infringement on individual rights?

          Also, to point out the painfully obvious…the GUN USED TO SLAY the people in Tucson, was a *legally purchased* firearm.

          So obviously even the people who purchase guns legally can’t be implicitly trusted to use them responsibly, just because they aren’t ‘illegal’ firearms.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            and confiscating the guns or over regulating them would be just as much a poice state!!!

          • http://?? Joe H.

            make that police state!

          • eddie47d

            Dogma; I guess the right can stop and search Hispanics whether they are illegal or not so that opens the door for search of guns in cars or even the home. Would that be fair play?

      • independant thinker

        You can say “Why don’t they defend the thousands of laws on the books instead of finding new ones”

        And we will keep saying that until we see enforcement of said laws. Federal laws apply nationwide it is not subject to various jurisdictions. As far as state laws, if you enforce your own laws you do not have to worry about other jurisdictions laws.

      • JimH

        Eddie, Please give me an example of a sensible gun law the NRA helped to abolish.

        • eddie47d

          Overturning the weapons ban in 2004. Trying to do away with background checks and allowing straw purchases. You know ,those sacred cows.

          • independant thinker

            Lies lies lies. The NRA did NOT try to do away with background checks they were one of the major sponsers of the instant background check and also encouraged the passage of the enhancements to the mental illiness reporting.

          • eddie47d

            Was that before or after?

          • http://personallibertydigest gunner689

            before or after what?

          • independant thinker

            Yeah, before or after what?

  • Michael J.

    Okay, say stricter gun control laws could prevent Mass. shootings… what about the rest of the country?

    But seriously though, it’s no coincidence that the 24% who favor stricter gun control legislation, also reflects the number of citizen who identify themselves as Liberals.

    • Raggs

      Yup :)

  • http://Yahoo Leonard W. Giddens Jr.

    It is easy to figure out whom the one in four are. They are the same ones that think we should flood our country with any and all that want to come. They have said there is plenty of room for everybody. The space is not the problem. The resources are not there. That doesn’t matter to people that wear their hearts on their sleeves. Leave those people unchecked and we will ceased to exist. Our Government has too many of them.

    • http://personallibertydigest gunner689

      Liberals should put ” Gun Free Zone ” signs in front of their homes. You have to feel sorry for their families, especially their children.

  • mom1954


    • BERT


    • BERT


    • Brad

      People kill people and people use pencils to write and tend to misspell words.

      In today’s society there are individuals who are of the mind set that we can’t defend ourselves, we must leave it up to the police. So why is it that more Americans are killed automobile accidents then killed by guns? Lets ponder the question?

    • JC

      If guns kill people, why aren’t there more of them in prison?

  • castaway

    I do not believe we have much choice in the matter. THey will find a way to ram some kind of gun control down our throats. Illegally of course. DOes the second ammendment mean anything anymore??? How about our constitution???? Americans, we need to rise up and take the republic back and have a new government waiting to be installed. Do not be afraid, only be afraid of the socialist movement and what is is going to do to you.

    • 45caliber

      Why don’t you be the one to start it? Or are you waiting for someone else to try so you can arrest them? If you do start it, I’ll try to say a nice prayer for you.

  • Richard

    It strikes me that the mass media are mostly for amending or repealing the second amendment.

    Now, answer me the question, “If I can take away your guns, then how long will it be before I come for your pens, cameras, telephones, microphones, etc.?”

    • Bitter Libertarian

      The second amendment, the Right to self defence, is the only portion of the Constitution that gives teeth to the existance of the rest of it. Without the peoples right to defend themselves by whatever degree necessary, against anyone or anything they are lost and subject to tyranny.

      • 45caliber

        And the media, who are basically against the 2nd Amendment, can’t seem to understand that if we do lose the 2nd, the 1st is the next to go.

    • JC

      “Now, answer me the question, “If I can take away your guns, then how long will it be before I come for your pens, cameras, telephones, microphones, etc.?”

      …your house, your wife, your children, your dog, your life….

  • Aix Sponsa

    Almost every public/mass/random/nut-case shooting is in a gun free zone. Many personal murders are in a gun free zone, and many are with knives and clubs. mmmmmmmmm? Logically, can we say that the “seemingly defenseless” are the victims?

    • 45caliber

      Australia is basically gun-free now. A couple of years ago five men broke into the apartment of one man and began beating him with bats and pipe. He got his hands on a katana his grandfather had picked up on WWII. He killed one and cut a second. The rest ran away. He ended up in the hospital for over a month.

      And the police? They were trying to determine what they could charge him with for using the sword to keep from being killed. They weren’t concerned about his attackers at all.

      • JC

        Australia’s crime rate is up over 350% since they banned handguns and registered rifles….and the politicians are “baffled” as to why…

        What a bunch of morons all politicians really are.


    Then common sense and first grade arithmetic would tell me that 75% are against it. There are over twenty thousand or more gun control laws on the books today and they are rarely enforced. You absolutely cannot stop someone willing to give their life for you’s from killing you and there are many many more ways than firearms. How about a nice dull knife Al CIA Duh style?

  • Aix Sponsa

    Remember the Luby’s Cafeteria massacre in Killeen TX back in 1991 where 22 were murdered? Sr. Susanna Gratia-Hupp later tesitfied to Congress. I was there 45 minutes before it happened. Yes I was prepared. Unfortunate timing.

    • 45caliber

      Incidently, she normally carried a gun. She had left her gun in her car because Luby’s had a “no gun” site. Her parents were both shot and killed. Later the same Luby’s tried to ban guns again – and lost every customer until they recinded that ban.

    • independant thinker

      Here is a link to information about Luby’s Cafeteria. It is Wikipedia but is pretty accurate and agrees with other sites I checked.'s_massacre

  • James

    The Bill of Rights is restrictions the people placed upon the Federal Government, it is not the source of our rights. Rights are unalienable, Americans are born with them.

    I would remind all, again:

    U.S. Constitution, Amendment II:

    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.

    Alabama Constitution Article I, Section 28:

    That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

    Alaska Constitution Article I, Section 19:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.

    Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 26:

    The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

    Arkansas Constitution Article II, Section 5:

    The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense.

    Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 13:

    The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

    Connecticut Constitution Article I, Section 15:

    Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

    Delaware Constitution Article I, Section 20:

    A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

    Florida Constitution Article I, Section 8(a):

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

    Georgia Constitution Article I, Section 1, Paragraph VIII:

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.

    Hawaii Constitution Article I, Section 17:

    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.

    Idaho Constitution Article I, Section 11:

    The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.

    Illinois Constitution Article I, Section 22:

    Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Indiana Constitution Article I, Section 32:

    The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the state.

    Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights 4:

    The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security, but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

    Kentucky Constitution Section1:

    All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: … Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

    Louisiana Constitution Article I, Section 11:

    The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

    Maine Constitution Article I, Section 16:

    Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

    Massachusetts Constitution Part The First, Article XVII:

    The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

    Michigan Constitution Article I, Section 6:

    Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

    Mississippi Constitution Article III, Section 12:

    The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.

    Missouri Constitution Article I, Section 23:

    That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned, but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

    Montana Constitution Article II, Section 12:

    The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

    Nebraska Constitution Article I, Section 1:

    All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

    Nevada Constitution Article I, Section 11,[1.]”

    Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.

    New Hampshire Constitution Part First, Article 2-a:

    All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

    New Mexico Constitution Article II, Section 6:

    No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

    North Carolina Constitution Article I, Section 30:

    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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

    North Dakota Constitution Article I, Section 1:

    All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.

    Ohio Constitution Article I, Section 4:

    The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

    Oklahoma Constitution Article II, Section 26:

    The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never e prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.

    Oregon Constitution Article I, Section 27:

    The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.

    Pennsylvania Constitution Article I, Section 21:

    The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

    Rhode Island Constitution Article I, Section 22:

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    South Carolina Constitution Article I, Section 20:

    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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the state shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law.

    South Dakota Constitution Article VI, Section 24:

    The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.

    Tennessee Constitution Article I, Section 26:

    That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

    Texas Constitution Article I, Section 23:

    Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

    Utah Constitution Article I, Section 6:

    The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.

    Vermont Constitution Chapter I, Article 16:

    That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State – and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

    Virginia Constitution Article I, Section 13:

    That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

    Washington Constitution Article I, Section 24:

    The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

    West Virginia Constitution Article III, Section 22:

    A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.

    Wisconsin Constitution Article I, Section 25:

    The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

    Wyoming Constitution Article I, Section 24:

    The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.

    • eddie47d

      It’s good to bring that up so what is the problem? If we have all these rights then why all this talk that you don’t have these rights? I have never heard of anyone saying they want to abolish the 2nd Amendment yet you all say someone out there does. There is a big difference in sensible laws and confiscation or banning. No one wants someone to drive 60mph in a school zone so we have laws for that. If someone gets caught abusing that law then they are fined or jailed. I don’t live in fear of cars or guns but I certainly want both owners to know the rules(laws)in governing these objects. No one can stop the abusers of these objects but after an accident or shooting our judicial system can easily determine who is at fault and punish accordingly. So law abiding citizens are not affected except for the trauma if they are the one involved.

      • Brad


        The question should be, why isn’t the government enforcing current law?

      • 45caliber


        You may not have heard anyone say they wanted to abolish the 2nd Amendment – but I have several times. Shummer has said it at least once and so has Feinstein (both carry). In fact, the reporter asked Feinstein if she was going to give up her own gun if she got the 2nd Amendment repealed. She said, “No, of course. There are people out there who don’t like me. I can’t give up my gun!”

  • SodBuster

    Guns don’t kill people, bullets do. Maybe they should outlaw ‘illegal’
    guns. Tha’d be easy would’nt it? Then we good people could all protect ourselves and the bad guys would be defenseless.

    Laws are no good without enforcement. Our Government seems to pass laws as though the density and intensity of them alone is enforcement enough ~ laws so ‘awsome’ everyone obeys them.

    Unfortunately I believe enforcement is on it’s ugly way. Hunker down friends – this could be a long one.

    • 45caliber

      I agree with you. Sad, isn’t it?

      One girl locally was insistant that if they passed a law banning guns that all criminals would obey it. When asked why, she just stated, “Well, they would this time!”

      • http://?? Joe H.

        I’m sure the bloods and the crips would lay down their guns and hold hands singing cum bayah!!!!

      • http://personallibertydigest gunner689

        liberal logic

  • OneDamnAngryAmerican

    Why wasn’t BO there to help this fellow dem-wit gain reelection? Why is it that when illegals are in possession of firearms, the prez blames the Constitution on these people’s abilities to posess firearms? The fact of the matter is, the 2nd amendment has no bearing on these people possessing firearms. Anybody remember the Gun Control Act of 1968? You know, the law that was passed AFTER the assassination of JFK? Louhner plans to file an insanity plea. Insane poeple, under the GCA and NOT under the 2nd Amendment cannot legally posess firearms. Illegal aliens cannot legally posess firearms under the GCA of 1968, yet, the 2nd Amendement is always put to blame when they do so. The GCA therefore, could require all LE people to legally demand proof of citizenship of any individual in possession of a firearm, NO QUESTIONS UNASKED! The 2nd Amendment says that the USA, or, the Federal Government, is required by law to protect the states who joined the Union from invasion, and to prosecute those who aid and abet those who do not protect these states. The Constitution also says that no city, county or state government can boycot another, like the State of Wasington and others, are doing to Arizona, and like the City of Los Angeles is doing, by a first generation hispanic, who probably got his citizenship through the amnestry program, and our Commander-in-Chief, is suing the State of Arizona and its elected law enforcement offiials from doing just that, by not protecting the Constitution, as HE and others swore to protect. Even the POTUS’s wife, not knowing anything about a little girl’s parent’s backgrounds, told her, when informed by the little girl, that her parents who were fleeing felons who did not have papers, that “we’ll just have to fix that!” What kind of krap is that? The USA accepts more LEGAL immigrants into our country, then any other counry on the planet every year, COMBINED! Why in the world are we catering to “fleeing felons” who are in this country without the permision of their own, they have no psasport; and why are we allowing them to stay, when they have not been invited or “welcomed” to do so? They have no visas No student visas, no toruist visas, and no work visas Why can’t a white, black or Asian woman stand on a street corner looking for work, without being hassled by the cops, yet, a group of hispaniscs are given leaflets, written in their owb language explaining how they can do so safely, when they have no solicitor’s permit, no business licensee, no contractor’s license, no social security cared, no legal ID, and all are diseased to begin with? The O-Team not only is allowing people with HIV to enter the country, they have also spent over 66 million to bring Hamma’s freedom fighters to this country, so they can phuck with us, instead of Isreal, who, by the way, is the only Democratic country in the region! In Deerfield, Michigan, moose-lamb cabbies will not pick up elderly, disabled people from supermarkets, because these Americans might have pork products in their grocery bags! When mexi-skins come to your home to work, they take photos of your children and posessions, so their buddies can come back later to rob you and sodomize your children. Look up your state, county, city, Most-Wanted posters, on-line. 99% are all illegals from messy-ko, who make up 93% if all illegals in this country. Mexican drug cartels are now in over 300 American cities, selling drugs and running prostitution in your cities! Go check it out on the FBI web-sites! They get free housing, Section, 8, worth over $1,200 per month, and free food, Food Stamps worth $1,800 per month, while all Americans are being forced to give up days at work, if they even have a job, and while we are starving and out of work! Why in the world do we even have laws in this country, when the feds refuse to enforce them? Three National Parks have been closed because illegals now live in them. Check out “” and “” to discver nwhat they are doing to this country. Want to send a message to DC, because changing our elected officials in the HOR just isn’t getting the effect we want? I say each state succeed from the USA, go back to forming their own Republic, which by the way, is in each state’s Constitution, should the feds re-nig on their promise to protect American citizens. This would wipe out the taxpayers from being robbed by the feds, and would allow each state to issue their own passports and immigration laws, and, the FEDS COULD DO NOTHING TO ENFORECE THESE LAWS! What a change we would have in this country then, huh? No new citizen of any Republic, like the republic of Arizona, would have any obligation to Re-Pay the O-Team’s drunken whore’s credit cards, and we could live a life free of illegal aliens, crime, and the cost of all goods and commodities would drop in price by at least 33%, which is the exact amount of the number of illegals living in the USA. Take away the demnand, and all prices would drop. Then, China would be unable to collect their debt from seperate Republics who are not a part of the USA; the USA would be obligated to pay all SS benefits to memeber’s of those republics who paid into the “funds;” and the States could go back to charging big rigs “by-the-mile” to drive through the state; toll booths could be installed at all border crossings (for non-residents; and, no person could enter the state who does not have at least a passport and travel permit. How’s that grab your arse!?

    • David Leonard

      agreed 100%

    • eddie47d

      Obama’s fault?? Oh,Of coarse. What else!!You must have drank the whole kool aid factory and been nipping all night long to come up with yor racists rants. You may be an angry American yet you want passports and travel permits between States. Sieg Heil my friend! You want toll booths at all border crossings between States? That’s a heck of lot of crossings and whose tax money will pay for this scheme? A 33% drop in commodity prices? I doubt that and those prices could go up not down or at least remain the same. You say the 2nd Amendment is always blamed when an illegal has a gun. I would say you are wrong again. If you had stuck to the facts you may have had some bearing in your comments but they were mostly scatter shot.

      • Brad

        Edwardo, breaking out the race card are we, if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen. OneDamnAngryAmerican is correct, the only thing you are trying to do to him is stifle his free speach. You played the race card, now you diliver the goods, what was racist about his comments. Was it because it doesn’t fit into your ideology, you my friend are the racist bigot.

        • eddie47d

          No racists here so apparently you don’t know how to read or are covering for him because you are made of the same thread. I think the latter.

          • independant thinker

            “Obama’s fault?? Oh,Of coarse. What else!!You must have drank the whole kool aid factory and been nipping all night long to come up with yor racists rants.”

            Directly from your post eddie. Notice the reference to racists rants.

          • eddie47d

            That’s what the guy was implying in his comment and slurs.

    • Ellen

      SUPERB!!! I’ve been wondering why at least one state hasn’t seceded yet. Get these parasites the hell off our backs!!

  • Gurd

    Only 1 in 4 are stupid enough to think banning guns would eliminate mass shootings? Then how to you account for who is in the white house now? There are more fools than 1 in 4 out here or this impostor would not be president.

  • Mark D.

    All the Gallup poll shows is that the education system in this country cranks out (at least) 1 in 4 idiots who were never taught how to think for themselves.

    • David Leonard

      its known as the dumbing down of America.

      • 45caliber


    • 45caliber

      It isn’t just the school system.

      The No.1 effort of any parents SHOULD BE to insure their children are ready to leave home and make a living without serious problems. That is not really done any more. Instead, children of all levels of society are basically ignored by parents because “we’ll let the school teach them.”

  • mom1954


  • http://charter howe

    It should be apparent after decades of struggling with the issue of the 2nd amendment rights and gun control addicts is that the medication the doctor is prescribing is killing the patient. There are far too many people in our society that have mental health issues and in some cases are drug addicted animals that need medical help. The question is, how do you deliver mental health care to someone who doesn’t think they have a problem or feels that their rights are being abused by being targeted as a mentally unstable person and even worse their is very little budget in any city or town to provide a decent level of mental health care. Care does not always work but it is a major intervention that could be the best tool for dramatically reducing these nuerotic blowouts by deranged people. If guns were outlawed it would be prohibition all over again where the criminal can always obtain a weapon of any kind depending on cash on hand. The end result in this misguided idea that less guns are better means that law abiding citizens are denied the right to protect themselves from mortal danger. It amazes me to think that gun control nuts always jump to more gun regulation instead of railing for better mental health programs. I spent 29 years in the military, but I was reared in a ghetto prior to my enlistment and I can say with certainty that friends of mine who used hard drugs, especially meth went through an eventual personality conversion that changed a Dr. Jekyll into a Mr. Hyde. In my opinion, many people who use hard drugs eventually damage their body and in particular the Brain and when someone goes ballistic all you hear is the nutjob had a gun and we need to take away guns to stop these atrocities. The reference to drug use by the perp isn’t something that is scrutinized with great care during these maniacal killings and what is far worse is the denial of better border security to stem the flow of drugs, better enforcement by the police and Feds, much tougher laws on drug dealers up to and including the death penalty or at least incarceration for life upon a 2nd conviction and take money away from the useless United Nations and several third world enemies and use that money for rehab programs to help people get out of the hellish drug addiction hole. Defund ACORN and some of these other radical crooks who are gaming the system to maintain a political bureacracy that allows little money to get to the people who are needy. Why don’t we use all that wasted money for legitimate organizations who may be faith based or state run to establish workable rehab programs. In a free Republic there is always some risk, but If we want to get serious about significantly reducing sensless killings we have to understand that you don’t cut off the leg to fix a toe on a patient. Do your share to ignore the idiots who keep kicking the can down the road by spouting the wrong way to fix a glaring problem.

    • eddie47d

      You are correct on several points yet mental illness was brought to the fore front by the late Sargent Shriver and his wife Both liberals who fought long and hard for better care and that was 60 years ago. Look at all those conservatives who rail against government healthcare and have for decades. Mental health would have been addresses if there was some comprehensive care program. Yet there isn’t after all these years and yes the can keeps being kicked down the road. Most people with mental illness either won’t admit it or their income is too low to be able to afford care. So who really isn’t fixing this glaring problem?

      • RCGuy45

        So when are you going to commit yourself? You have proven you are a mentally disturbed individual through your own hand on this blog.

        • eddie47d

          Nice solution RC Guy. Any more brilliant ideas to enhance you mind?

      • Ibshockednomore

        The federal government in not entitled to be involved in mental health or any kind of health care outside of its military. The constitution appears to give health care concerns to the states. All questions of who should be doing what should go to the constitution, not to the ever ambitious law makers. It is a sad commentary on our society that the mentally ill are not cared for better. States are out of money and cutting back every where, except for areas supported by vociferous lobby groups. Passing more laws will not make all things better. Mental health is literally where the rubber hits the road…either you care and do something caring for someone, or, it will not get better for the mentally ill.

      • 45caliber


        Mental health used to be addressed before government intervention. Anyone with mental problems were treated and if that didn’t work, they were sent to mental hospitals until they recovered. If they didn’t recover they stayed there.

        And don’t say the hospitals were inhumane. When they banned them, one near where I lived at the time had a revolt among the people there. They didn’t want to leave their nice home or allow others to come in and disturb them.

        Many homeless people now would once have been in those hospitals. And they would have been placed there by their families so they would have care and protection. Perhaps a few people would have been placed there who didn’t need to be there by family but there was also a way to weed those out again.

        Now … no such hospitals. We have to have them in the daily contact with the rest of us regardless of the danger.

    • 45caliber

      You deliver care the way our forefathers did. If you committed a crime – regardless of how mentally ill you were – you were punished for it. And ANY violent crime ended with you being either shot or hanged so there were few repeat offenders. They didn’t need to worry about putting someone with a mental problem or a drug problem in a hospital for treatment or whether they were safe to release again. It is simply far safer for the person with a violent problem to be removed permanently from society.

      And they also didn’t believe in shoving their problem off on someone else. They took care of it themselves so someone else wouldn’t have the problem.

  • 2WarAbnVet

    It would appear that the over Twenty-three thousand firearms laws we already have on the books just aren’t enough for some people.

    • 45caliber

      They look at it this way: “Yes, they don’t obey these laws. But if we make a new one, they will. And we can’t enforce these laws because it wouldn’t be fair to those we locked away.”

      all the way.

  • Bitter Libertarian

    Gallup is corrupt, why does Bob even bother posting their Corrupt media nonsence. I guess i know the answer but it seems pointless…the more you acknowledge garbage is worth repeating..the longer it lives on.

  • mickey

    if this is true it just shows how simple minded american people are.they are just a bunch of sheeple after all look who they voted for our fearless communist president.

  • http://Juno Ken

    If our courts would deal with the people who commit crimes using guns like it should by putting them to death as the current death statutes demand. These crimes and others like murder, rape, that are also covered under these Statutes when the punishment for these crimes are carried out then our crime rate would go down immediately. I mean enforce the laws that are already on the books and add one other; “that of baring Lawyers from getting rich by tying up the court system for 20 years in appeal after appeal. This action would stop their money flow into their firms coffers and their pockets. The gun control advocates should take an unbiased look and know that its our corrupt Judicial System that is the major problem. Enforce the death sentence swiftly and publicity as God demands for those who commit certain crimes. People kill people using different weapons like automobiles, knives, and other things not just guns. “America’s Judicial System is filled with corrupt Judges, who are also Lawyers, so with this group in charge why do we expect things to get better?” Until the people who use these weapons against other people are themselves removed from the living then we are not just naive we are stupid people.

  • Bitter Libertarian

    The Second Amendment, the Right to self defence, is the only portion of the Constitution that gives teeth to the existance of the rest of the Constitution. The people, stripped of the right to defend themselves by whatever degree necessary, against anyone or anything are lost and subject to tyranny.

    • Nancy

      The Second Amendment was not added the Constitution for personal defense, hunting, or target shooting. It is there to allow us to protect ourselves and our country against the tyranny of an out of control federal government.

      “…shall not be infringed.” is quite clear. However our federal government and individual states continue to add laws that infringe.

      “Gun control” is not about controlling guns. It is about controlling the citizens of this country.

      A lot of people know this. That is one reason why there has been such a dramatic increase in gun and ammo sales.

      • Bitter Libertarian

        I agree, but you are missing the fact that the citizen soldier DOES defend HIMSELF & his FAMILY from an opressive Govt or Force when assembled into a Malitia. It matters not if that Unit is Uniformed or not. Therefore if any opressive force (Criminals, Govt or Foreign Military) comes against me or my property I have a right to be part of a group considered in Opposition of that force, therefore self defence.

        • Bitter Libertarian

          If me and 20 neighbors forms a unit together against a Tyranical Criminal gang of Theives, drug dealers, rapists..We are a well regulated militia, necessary to our security, our right to keep and bear arms, for self defence, cannot be infringed…

          • 45caliber

            The Banditos ( a motorcycle gang) used to travel across the South frequently. They pulled into a farmer’s pasture one night in a county here in Texas to camp. He came down and told them they were welcome to camp but please pick up any trash before they left. One told him that they would do what they wanted and he couldn’t stop them.

            He nodded and left. An hour later he came back with about twenty more farmers – all with shotguns. The Banditos left. And they avoided even crossing that county from then on.

  • sylviam

    I am one of those who has a permit to carry. I was armed for 30 yrs. before I got the permit and I DID NOT EVER SHOOT ANYONE. Am I perfect NO, am I saying that all should have a permit NOT ON MY LIFE, but until someone has a SANE way to stop someone else from KILLING as many as they want to, then just keep their trap shut and STOP puttig a “one size fits all” guilt trip on the law abiding citizen.
    I agree that some are “nuts” an should NEVER have a weapon of any kind. Now how do we recognize the “NUTS” from the sane person? That takes a DOCTOR to decide. Then there is the “RATICAL” that wants to KILL any that does not believe the same as he does. How do we recognize them? We cannot, until something really awful happens, then we get to pointing fingers and name calling. Fixed anything YET, NO but I think it makes some feel better.
    There is always going to be some one who will break laws no matter what so LOAD UP, KEEP THE WEAPON HANDY, and pray that you do not have to use it. GOD BLESS AMERICA

  • Bitter Libertarian

    Stricter driving Laws will prevent drunk driving.

    Every driver must add for 500.00/year Drunkard Insurance to their Policy

    Every person that moves by whatever means more then 100′ a year must participate in Drunkard Insurance.

    All motor vehicles must be fitted with a Breathilizer, GPS tracking, and Breathalizer pass/fail transmitter to notify local police.

    Stricter Obese Laws will reduce Fatness….sure …

  • chuckb

    sylviam, i believe most people realize what you say and i believe you are 100% right.

  • Chas

    Further regulations of/on guns owned by legal and law abiding citizens will do little to nothing for stopping an illegal act as just happened in Arizona. My heart goes out to the victoms, all. We can sit on the side lines and conjure up many reasons why this happened and what will stop future occurances like Arizona’s. But the answer is not in regulating down the rights of the law abiding citizens by taking away their Constitutional Rights. If we are a Nation of Laws governed and enforced by our States and Politicians in Washington, then why are the Laws to protect our American borders from terrorists, illegals, drug runners etc., not enforced by our Federal Government? Why does our President, who takes an oath of office to defend and protect the American people, choose to sue Arizona for attempting to do what the Government should do, but will not? If any of you who disagree with the Arizona Govenor who inacted the Law to enforce illegal immigration. Read the 9 pages! From beginning to end, it mirrors the Federal Laws already in place. There is NO discrimination, profiling or hate towards national origin in any part of this Law. The Arizona Law actually PROHIBITS law enforcement from this, with penalties to law enforcement for their unjust and illegal actions. Why do you think some law enforcment officials did not want to enforce the Arizona Law? They were affraid Lawyers would put them in jail for wrong doing. So, better to ignore the law than to enforce it and maybe be jailed themselves. It ony enforces the rights of the State, it’s citizens and law enforcement (Police) to engage and enforce the Laws that are already exist in the Government Laws. My point in all this is: further laws to correct a problem still come down to enforcement. Our Government and our President are wrong to not enforce the laws they already have and try to castigate Arizona or any other state for enforcement to protect Americans. Who then are the criminals? The law abiding citizen(s) who are protected by their Constitutional Rights, or the States and Government (and politicians) who do not enforce the laws already in place? For anyone to say that radio and TV talk show hosts are responsible for the shooting in Arizona, they who do are ludicrous and gullible. Sick and lawless minds will always endeavor to commit these acts. Let the laws already in place be enforced to commit those breaking them be decided in our courts. Let the punishments be severe. Let all who would create these acts see what will happen to them for their intolerance of laws by their actions. There is never an easy answer to ‘why’ these acts occur. There is also no additional regulations or laws that will stop them. He who will give, shall give. He who will take, shall take. Therefore, my suggestion is to let the givers of law(s) give the takers of crime their punishment aloud by Law. Do not punish the givers. No new gun laws would effectively stop this kind of senseless crime, by ‘takers’. The State’s and Government’s who try to enact senseless (gun) laws upon the ‘givers’ then become the ‘takers’ of the rights of the free and law abiding American citizens. Last time I checked, guns can not read laws. Only men and women can who wish to and abide or not in our laws. Be tolerant and sensible where and when ‘civility’ applies. God Bless America and my American brothers and sisters. God protect our troups, always.

  • 45caliber

    If you want to stop most violent crime and most attempts at mass shootings, simply require all adults to carry all the time. There may be a few people (like Loughner) who would still attempt such an act but then, I believe he wanted to be killed anyway. But if they KNOW that the moment they pull a gun to shoot someone that several other people will do the same thing only at them, most won’t try.

    Israel is considered violent due to the constant attacks by the terrorists around them. But they also have a law that in any group of people of 8 or more, there has to be at least one armed person for each 8 people. Even when school classes go on field trips, this is a requirement. And they are considered one of the safer countries to visit as a result. Some years ago several terrorists thought they would simply shoot up a market. Instead, they were wounded themselves. They complained to the police that it wasn’t “fair” that so many other people had guns “too”.

  • R L Jarvis Sr

    Why is it so hard to find a way to curb gun violence in this country. It’s not rocket science people, reinstatute the DEATH PENALTY to its fullest extent of the laws. Tell the ACLU and other liberal organisations to but out and get a grip. If you kill someone, with malice and premedation, then you will forefit you life. It was not more than sixty (60) years ago that rape was punisable by death, also when you violently killed or mamed someone with premedition and or malice you forefited your life. That is not cruel or unusual punishment, we need to get back to that premise. Maybe just maybe we the people will get tired of this nonsence and take it into our own hands. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of this Great Country guaranties the right of the citizens of this country the right to bear arms. What most people in this country today do not stop to think about is “when you step on the other guys toes, or otherwise violate the other guys rights that is where your rights STOP!!!

    • 45caliber

      Well said. Unfortunately, most liberals are so sure they are more right than you, they believe they have the right to deprive you of your rights so they can have more. And they can’t understand why you would object to that.

      I also think we should use the death penalty more often. And I’d like to include child molestation to that. Despite what some people think, the death penalty is a deterent to crime. If nothing else it insures that person who was executed won’t get another chance to do it again.

      Some years ago Ann Richards was governor. She didn’t like the death penalty and released a lot of prisoners. One, over the next 9 months before they caught him again, raped, tortured, and killed over fifty women. I still think Ann should have been charged with accessory since he was on death row before she turned him loose – for exactly the same thing. That would have been fifty more women who would have never died that way if she had left him there.

  • http://personallibertydigest gunner689

    If guns kill people then spoons made Rosie O’Donnel fat.

    • 45caliber

      Actually, I think it was a fork that did it.

      • http://personallibertydigest gunner689

        or both, one in each paw.


      GREAT POINT!! OR, is it the fault of makeup that Pelosi is oogly?

  • JimH

    When ever a shooting tragity like this happens, people say something needs to be done. A politition steps in and makes a useless law, knowing full well that it is useless. They want to do something, but they don’t really know what to do. They figure that it won’t work, but at least we tried.(not a good reason) Then a group of gullible people think, “AW they care”.( the 25%)

    • independant thinker

      “They figure that it won’t work, but at least we tried.(not a good reason) Then a group of gullible people think, “AW they care”.( the 25%)”

      All they see is the second sentence cause the sheep will think they are actualy doing something useful.

  • Lee Abel

    Hey this means the numbers are coming around because I saw pol last year that said we needed stricter gun laws and it said something like 33 percent !

  • Melody

    I don’t own a gun, but I don’t want all of us be denied the right to bear arms because of a chosen few go crazy and causes Congress to go commando on violating our rights. We must remember…. crazy people will always exist, criminals will always find a way to break the law, and no amount of laws will change that. Someone crazy enough to shoot someone, will find other ways to do harm. I lived in the SW for over 25 years…. and there were just as many people killed by knife, as there were gun shot wounds. And anybody with some knowledge of chemicals can make a bomb… so the idea of gun control is stupid.

  • http://com i41

    gunnerand & .45, it was actually sporks, she just like strange things and with her big pie hole it takes a prettty agressive tool!

    • http://personallibertydigest gunner689

      maybe a # 9 coal shovel.

  • Melody

    If anything should be done is more mental health professionals and institutions to help parents and society deal with these people with mental problems before they commit a crime. A lot of times, family and friends see a problem with a loved one, but have no where to turn and no authority to get the individual some help.

  • http://com i41

    Thanks to the feel good smucks, who think people, if they just talk and play patty cake, the government has the best answer for anything like a problem and behavior. Congress is a prime organization of lawyers who are thugs, crooks and how know how to write and over ride any law in their favor! There is few to non, honest lawyers, legalized criminals with a degree, Omnumnutts and big Mammee, 2 slubs who forfietted their permits to practice criminal fraud using law. Has anyone ever met a Soros Socialist Puke who doesn’t beleive in some confiscatory form of gun control?

  • http://com i41

    Melody, our mental institutions are filled with book trained
    idoit “doctors” who try to foist the promblem right back out the door as soon as they are place in a care unit. Most of the “doctors are nut jobs themselves and wouldn’t know a con job with their tests and talks. Law enforcement has to transport these troubled people, but it is hard for family members to force them to get them care. Most thanks to “laws” to protect mentally disturbed people, say the mentally patient must understand the reason they are incarated. It is as hard to get the patient to understand their problem as a Soros Socialist to understand why government control over anything is a certifiablef–k up.

    • http://personallibertydigest gunner689

      Soros needs to meet Mr. Nozler; it will blow his mind.

  • Wendy

    Anyone who really wants to know the end result of a nation wide gun ban need only read the entire story of King Henry the VIII. Watch the Tudors if you are not of the long winded literary variety. This man was an evil tyrant who disarmed his subjects (aka the rest of us),convinced them that to keep the nation safe, secure and…wait for it…EQUAL, they were to turn over any material wealth to support the goals of the Monarchy. If this is not sounding familiar, we may be in trouble. Soros is most definately the king, with Obama as his closest royal confidant.

    Think about it. If we are unable to fight them off, then nothing stands in the way of their take over. Unfortunately, the vast majority of liberal, progressives, what evers, have no idea they will end up part of the peasant class and not the very selective and elite ruling class. Quite frankly, I don’t even see Obama lasting in the upper set once the Soros group takes over.

  • Vicki

    I notice the conspicuous absence of the question “how many feel that a well trained and armed populace can prevent mass shootings”

    Is that cause they were afraid to ask or that they did and the answer did not fit their agenda?

  • One armed bandito

    I plan to rob one of my neighbors, Now the house on my right has a sign in the front yard that says, Protected by Smith & Wesson.
    The house on my left has a bumper sticker on each of their cars, of which one is always parked outside, that is a picture of a hand gun with a red circle around it and a red line diagonally through it. Gee, I wonder which one I will rob.

  • JimH

    Wait until no one is home at either home and do both. Unless one of the houses has a rotweiler.

  • Bob

    1 in 4, so that basically means 25% of our fellow Americans are utterly clueless. I was expecting the percentage to be higher based on 2008 election results.(doesn’t get more clueless than that!!)

  • Paul R

    I think it is silly that any politician would have a speech without an armed bodyguard. Protection is required or the results are bad, Kennedy, is a great example of this. Driving down the road in a convertible was a bad idea. The reason our founding forefathers gave the citizens the right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS was to protect us from kings and tyrants,highway bandits,and our life,freedom and the pursuit of happiness. I am happy to know that 75% of Americans believe in the right to keep and bear arms!!!

  • jopa

    One armed Bandito;Since you have to rob people for a living apparently your not too smart.Be careful on the way over you may trip and shoot yourself.Hmmm that’s not a bad idea why don’t you run over there make the odds of tripping a little higher.

    • JeffH

      jopa, you’re clearly a case of “stupid is as stupid” does…are you by any chance eddie’s wife or lover? I only ask because you make thinks up too.


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.