Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Time To Ban Hands, Feet And The FDA

August 1, 2012 by  

Time To Ban Hands, Feet And The FDA
In 2010 alone, 742 people were killed by hands, fists and feet.

The hue and cry from the gun grabbers and the elite power brokers to ban so-called “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines in the wake of the Batman movie shooting is a straw man designed to make Americans accept by increment the nullification of the 2nd Amendment.

According to the very liberal categorizing of mass shootings by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, since 2010, a total of 35 people have been killed in nine separate shootings in which an “assault weapon” was involved (but was not necessarily the murder weapon). Of those, only two — the Batman shooting and the same-week shooting into a bar in Tuscaloosa, Ala. — have been acts carried out to kill seemingly random people. All the rest involved either gang violence or shooters targeting people they knew (typically family members) where having a high-capacity magazine was inconsequential.

Yet in 2010 alone, 742 people were killed by hands, fists and feet; and 540 people were killed with blunt objects like clubs and hammers. And 82,724 died as a result of reactions to drugs approved by the FDA. Only .1 percent of all homicides involve five or more victims.

The gun grabbers and power brokers claim to want to ban “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines to make America’s streets safer. If they were really interested in saving lives, they would ban hands and feet and the Food and Drug Administration.

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American and author of The Bob Livingston Letter™, founded in 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Time To Ban Hands, Feet And The FDA”

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

  • Harold Olsen

    If the left wants to ban dangerous weapons then let’s ban motor vehicles. They kill more people each year than assault weapons or even handguns. However, those hypocritical scumbags on the left wouldn’t even consider that and would probably say that killing people with vehicles isn’t the same as killing with guns. What it amounts to is the left wanting to take our constitutional rights away from us. They are too stupid to realized that they, too, are losing their rights because if you take one right away it escalates until all rights are taken away from you. (Maybe that’s really what they want since they won’t have to make decisions on their own or take responsibility for what they do and can blame someone else.) When Bush was in office, the left accused him of taking away our freedoms, yet when they were pinned down they couldn’t name a single freedom they had lost. Since taking office, Obama has tried to control all aspects of our lives, even telling us what we can eat or drink. The major freedom Obama is trying to take away from us is our freedom of speech.

    • Zed

      Automobiles are the exact analogy I was thinking of as well. The same day 12 people were killed in a theater in Colorado, 12 people were killed in a single vehicle accident in Texas. Where was the outcry for “speed control” laws?

      • Kate8

        Actually, the #1 killer is death by doctor.

        • RichE

          I thought it’d be old age.

    • Eugene Sevene


      • Frank W Brown

        Common Sense is the only thing that will save this nation!
        If only there was MORE of it!

    • eddie47d

      The automobile( auto deaths) offers little logic in trying to compare to assault weapons yet it gets brought up every time. No one deliberately buys an automobile to kill someone and is nothing more than a mode of transportation. There are numerous reasons people die in auto accidents and almost always human error not deliberation. A person buys a weapon for the sole purpose of being able to kill someone whether that is his intention or not. (protection,hunting,fear of government are just reasons for ownership of a gun). The owner of that gun buys it knowing he may have to kill someone. The owner of a car never thinks that someone could die because of buying an automobile. Zed’s comment about speed control brought up another good point in the fact we have numerous traffic laws to keep people safe on the roads and when those laws are broken terrible consequences can occur. The same can now be said about gun ownership and the consequences of abuse. No one wants the vehicle next to you going 80 mph in a 40 mph zone because of the dangers yet you won’t demand laws in governing the buying and usage of a weapon. Unfortunately your example of that car accident was not correct. Those 12 died because of a blown tire (too many people in the vehicle) and not speed.

      • Patriot-Research

        Listen TROLL, here are the REAL facts: 99% of all people killed by guns are not by assult Weapons, 99% of all people kill by guns are killed by Gangs, other Criminals and the Police, and there is a ton of Data that proves that areas that have a lot Guns (CCW) crime goes down and goes down by a large margin. The guns are not the problem! The problem is the Liberal/Communist, Government Black Opts killing Americans under cover Creating Fale Flag Events) and blaming the Good Gun Owners, and People like you that attempt to make sense but just spout crap with know real Data or facts…!!! Liberal/Communist never do their research and if they do any at all (rare), they twist the facts or out right lie to make things, they think, move in the LEFT Direction…!!! The LEFT SPOUTS NOTHING BUT LIES, AND I HAVE THE FACTS ON THAT ALSO…!!!

      • Brad

        Eddie you are confused. so a guy goes into a sporting good store buys a gun, a baseball bat, and a knife for a weekend outing, did he buy all these items with the intent to kill someone, although each one will do the task just fine? if he did and was not able to buy the gun will he still commit the crime with these pother alternative weapons of choice? we can go off on your liberal questions about the house that Jack built or the chicken or the egg with all these idioatic confussion driven tactics just to keep the sheeple’s minds off the economy while you idiots play your shell game in order to get your King re-eleceted. Be careful you may just get what you wish for and I believe once that happenes many of you will wish it hadn’t because you sill do not see what this monster is actually capable of.

      • eddie47d

        Your “research” is rather flawed and you are only “twisting” the usual political crap to enhance your inflamed thought process. Come back when you can be more rational.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “The owner of a car never thinks that someone could die because of buying an automobile.”

        Oh how wrong you are. I drive a full size pickup for just that reason. When some texting fool in his minture “green” car pulls out in front of me I intend to survive so I do think about that fool dying because of his ignorance.

        Just go on and admit it eddie you are anti-gun and want to see the private ownership of firearms eliminated. You have never opposed any post that calls for restricting the right of law abiding citizens to purchase/own firearms and you in fact ALWAYS support them. You also, by the tone of your posts on the subject, want to eliminate all gun dealers. And yes I know you will deny that and say only the ones breaking the law but by the tone of your posts you think all of them break the law and should be shut down.

      • Isaac Davis

        It is nice to know that one human out of billions can tell all the rest of us why we buy an inanimate object. I guess we don’t need The Lord anymore, as we have “ed-duh” to worship for his benevolence and all-knowing power to understand and nannify us all.

      • Paul Erwin

        GUNS ARE OUR FREEDOM WHETHER YOU THINK SO OR NOT AND PEOPLE BUY GUNS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES,THEIR FAMILY AND THE THINGS THEY’VE WORKED SO HARD TO PROVIDE TO MAKE THINGS EASIER IN TRAVELING THRU LIFE,you take our guns away and we are defenseless against thieves,killers,rapists,pediphiles,gangs,drug dealers,kidnappers,all third world countries and most of all OUR OWN GOVERNMENT AND SOCIALISM,our freedom is gone,our rights,our privacy,our respect,our pride,our wealth,our dignity,our children will NEVER SEE FREEDOM THE WAY WE DID and we let it happen.Disarmed your home will be invaded,everything of value taken the rest destoyed,your children abducted used for slave labor,your wives and daughters forced in to prostitution,the male put into re-education camps to be re-programed to socialist ways or die

      • Vicki

        Eddie47d the mind reader writes:
        “A person buys a weapon for the sole purpose of being able to kill someone whether that is his intention or not. (protection,hunting,fear of government are just reasons for ownership of a gun).”

        This rationalization is just painful. But it does help to understand the thinking of Eddie47d and other liberals.

        What is a weapon. Lets look.
        “1.any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.
        2.anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly weapon of satire.
        3.Zoology . any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws, horns, teeth, or stings. ”

        So let us apply Eddie47d’s logic to cars.

        A car is an instrument or device used in attack or defense in combat, fighting, war. For example a car is used to take soldiers to the front lines or refugees away from the front lines.

        A car is a thing and therefor part of the class of “anything” used against an opponent….
        For example the person who drives his car at a policeman while trying to run (drive) away.

        Teeth. Teeth are purchasable from most any dentist but according to eddie they are only for killing people and not for important things like preparing nourishment for consumption.

        And btw I AM the weapon. All those other things are merely tools I bought for various purposes.

      • Vicki

        oops. forgot the link to the definition of weapon.

      • TIME

        Dear Eddie,

        I bought a beautiful art item of what I have no intention of ever killing anyone.
        But – if I had to protect my family or for that matter – YOU, I would do so in a NY heart beat!
        I am quite sure it would pain me deeply for ever. But I would rather keep my loved ones safe, than to have no option to do such.

        I also don’t feel that 99.9999% of the folks who buy a gun have a Malicious intent in their minds. The FBI numbers prove me right.

        I also recall you made a statment some time back as to you’re being a gun owner too, yet I don’t think for one moment that you have any intent of just shooting someone, hell I don’t even feel you would shoot me.

        So – Please stop and think before you make such blanket statments.
        I know you have a heart and a soul so to do many others who just may not see things like you, but that fails to make them wild eyed killers.

        Peace and Love

      • Cal

        You are incorrect.
        Strict gun laws are about as effective as strict drug laws…It pains me to say this, but the NRA seems to be right: The cities and states that have the toughest gun laws have the most murder and mayhem. Mike Royko, Chicago Tribune

        According to the National Crime Survey administered by the Bureau of the Census and the National Institute of Justice, it was found that only 12 percent of those who use a gun to resist assault are injured, as are 17 percent of those who use a gun to resist robbery. These percentages are 27 and 25 percent, respectively, if they passively comply with the felon’s demands. Three times as many were injured if they used other means of resistance. G. Kleck, “Policy Lessons from Recent Gun Control Research”

        Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws (concealed carry laws), states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%… While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that’s precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes. – “More Guns, Less Violent Crime”, Professor John R. Lott, Jr.,The Wall Street Journal

        If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of criminal acts reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying … establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime. – Senator Orrin Hatch, in a 1982 Senate Report

        Gun control advocates used to claim that more guns meant more crime. Research demonstrated, though, that more guns meant less crime. As the criminology argument faded, gun control advocates began arguing guns were a public health problem. – Steven Milloy (, “Gun Control Science Misfires”, Friday, Apr 13, 2001

        Brady has done little or nothing to stop felons from either getting guns or reducing crime. Figures from the BATF show that fewer than 7 percent of the guns used in a crime are bought over the counter from legitimate firearms dealers. The other 93 percent are stolen or bought on the black market, and Brady does not affect such sales. – H. Sterling Burnett, “Brady Bill Will Soon Be Dead-Do Not Resuscitate!”

        There already are 20,000 federal gun laws and regulations on the books. If those laws haven’t made America safe by now, why should we think 20,001 laws will suffice? Harry Brown, Libertarian

        Plus another little advertised fact about gun laws. The first gun law was created so that freed slaves could not defend themselves from the Democratic K K K. The National Rifle Association at that time assisted the freed slaves and let them be members, plus was there to stop the K K K in what they thought was going to be “shooting (unarmed) fish in a barrel” – the freed slaves. That stopped the night time assaults on the freed slaves homes – being armed and assisted.

      • MontieR

        On a very thin note you are correct when buying any of my weapons witch I mainly use for target practice I would not hesitate to defend my family or home with GASP a gun
        using deadly force IF necessary. In no way did I buy ANY of my weapons for the sole purpose of killing another human being.The problem here is it seems you do not believe in the constitution. Do you also believe that the police are there to protect you. Our founders set out God given rights all humans have at birth. And severely limited government power over the citizens. It is a direct threat to ALL Americans the way our government incrementally claims they grant us permission to use our God given rights one of witch is the right to bear arms. ANY form of gun control weather mandates executive orders or local ordinances violate the second amendment. The FACTS are that gun control does NOT work. Look to Chicago, New York, Detroit ALL have some of the strictest gun control in the country AND the highest gun murder rates. Everywhere in the country where private weapons (mostly gasp handguns) are legal the weapon murder rates have dropped, some drastically along with most other forms of violent crime.

      • eddie47d

        You proved nothing BUSTER about car ownership so please tell me someone you know or any one that you have read about who deliberately bought a car to kill someone. Your as uninformed as Brad who implies someone will deliberately buy a baseball bat to kill someone. Someone may be killed by each item but I doubt if that was the original intent. StrikeTwo! As far as your other assumptions go I do not shy away about saying I support assault weapon controls and controls on ammunition. You can think other wise so knock yourself out. I also believe in the Second Amendment so does that make me a radical gun owner like you seem to be …far from it.

      • eddie47d

        Vickie has really drank the kool aid this time. None of your comparisons made any sense and are way off the wall. A car is bought to transport soldiers into combat…that is really a stretch. Keep posting and get all your lunacy out in the open.

      • boyscout

        Response to Brad: Sir, some things are just as plain as day. Clearly, it was the egg came first !

      • eddie47d

        Hey Cal let’s abolish traffic laws since there are folks who abuse them anyway! Laws are put into place to stop the ignorant from doing whatever they want. Gun laws may not stop a killing but it would make that ignorant person think twice before misusing. Law abiding citizens need boundaries and they are law abiding because of those laws. If a criminal abuses those laws then he pays the price. If there are no laws he could go free because there wouldn’t be any laws to back up his prosecution.

      • Kate8

        TIME – I have been sensing a change in your for awhile now. You have always seemed like a wonderful, perceptive and sensitive person, but I sense that spirit has been growing and deepening in you of late, and it’s come across in your writing.

        It’s a beautiful thing.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        ” The owner of a car never thinks that someone could die because of buying an automobile.”

        So you now deny you made this statement which I replied to huh eddie.

      • Rebecca

        Just because a person own a gun does not make him or her a criminal. Many law abiding people who own guns do not walk around with the attitude of “Gee! I hope I can shoot someone today!”. They have guns because they are hunters or they like the sport of target practice like pinking tin cans or they have them to proctect themselves or their love ones from those who want to harm them. F.Y.I. REAL criminals don’t register their guns because they can steal them or get them on the Black Market or as in the case of “Fast and Furious” have the Federal Government via the A.T.F. give them to them.

        Gun control does not disarm the criminal. It disarms the innocent so that they cannot defend themselves, and it makes them volunable to despots who know that they are not armed, because their guns have been conscripted by the government, to being halled away never to be heard from again or rounded up and shot because they’ve been label “enemies” of the State. Case in point: The Communists Regimes and Nazi Germany. And if you think it won’t happen here, than why is the government stock piling weapons when they’re not claiming to getting ready for another major foreign confrontation? Why do they refuse to call those who call themselves Jihadist and who have said bluntly that they want to destroy us terrorist but they don’t flinch at calling Christians or those who believe in the 2nd Amendment or those who are Pro-life, etc. as being terrorist? If the government disarms the law abiding citizens then what reason would they need for all the weapons if it is not to defend the country from attack? Could it be that they want to do to those Americans that they have an amonousity with what Hitler did to the Jews? Someone should ask the Obama administration, “Whatever happened to Never Again.”

  • David

    Need to ban Doctors also…look it up – Google “doctors vs guns” (without quotes, duh)

  • Greg T Beaty

    I say ban beer and alcoholic drinks they kill and harm more people by far everyday than any gun. Maybe we should just ban stupid people they harm and kill people everyday too.

    • momo

      If we banned stupid people, who would be left?

      • Brad

        Momo you mean there would be no one left on the left and that would make a right. ;^)

      • DaveH

        Who would be left to vote for Progressive Leaders?

    • Mike Horn

      How about politions ? Duh, sorry, you already said stupid people, didn’t you.

    • eddie47d

      There again false comparisons are brought up. There will always be alcohol,guns and drugs because people have demanded it. Few take drugs to kill someone else or pick up a beer to kill someone and most gun owners will never kill someone. Yet someone dies every day from the misuse of of these items. There are bad bartenders who over serve patrons,there are drug dealers who knowingly sell a death warrant to the user and there are gun dealers who know their product could get someone killed. None of these items should be illegal yet all should be severely regulated for the safety of those around them. That takes us back to speed zones where you want regulations in an attempt to keep someone from speeding in a school zone,etc. Bans and prohibition seldom works but laws and regulations can set the boundaries in what is accepted and what is not.

      • Alex Frazier

        eddie, the problem with your logic is that it goes to extremes. It is your assumption that everyone who buys a gun intends or expects to kill someone. It is your assumption that the only use for a gun is to kill.

        I would beg to differ. The mere racking of a firearm can often be enough to deter a burglar. In fact, they say that the racking of a shotgun is by far one of the most intimidating sounds in the world.

        Brandishing a firearm can have the same effect. A criminal will often flee when faced with an armed victim. In which case, crime is prevented, and in some cases lives are saved.

        Firearms can and are also used to detain criminals until the police arrive.

        You look at the firearm argument from the sole extreme that everyone who has one intends to kill with it, that it has only the purpose of killing, and that there are no positive statistics related to gun ownership. But guns in the hands of would-be victims have saved more lives than guns in the hands of criminals have taken. That’s a statistical fact. Criminals have been taken off the street because of guns in the hands of citizens. Rapes have been prevented. Robberies have been prevented. Murders have been prevented. And most of these instances did not result in anyone being shot or killed. The firearm, in a positive way, ensured the enforcement of law and the deliverance of justice.

        Now, following a different path of the same argument, please note that there are many laws related to shooting a criminal. If, for example, an intruder came into my home at 3:00 AM, I have no choice but to shoot him dead if I shoot him at all. Thanks to liberal lawmaking, the criminal, if merely wounded, can sue me, and according to the judge teaching the CWP class, the criminal would win.

        So I think it’s worth noting that the law has necessitated lethal shooting.

        Concerning the automobile argument … one simple question: Do you, or do you not, know that automobile accidents cause thousands of deaths every year? If the answer is yes, then you know that you can be a potential risk to other motorists every time you get behind the wheel. Only safe, defensive driving can minimize that risk.

        In which case, if we can agree that a firearm is a tool, that it doesn’t have to be lethal, and that it serves a positive purpose in the hands of a law-abiding citizen; and if we can agree that a gun owner can minimize the risk of needless injury to themselves or others by practicing safe and responsible gun ownership; and if we can agree that every gun owner is aware that guns can be used to kill, then we will agree by default that guns and cars are no different.

        The sole difference between them is the intended use of the tool. One is for self defense, crime prevention, criminal detention, and if necessary, to kill. The other is for lawful transportation, but is also used in the transportation of illegal drugs, money, and other contraband. It is used to transport dead bodies after murders have been committed. It is sometimes used as the instrument of murder. It is a dangerous tool in the hands of a wreckless drunk.

        So let’s not confuse the issue with nonsense. Cars and guns are no better or worse than each other. But cars kill more people. And unlike a gun that doesn’t go off by itself, a car can blow a tire and kill twelve people through mechanical failure.

      • eddie47d

        I’m not arguing against the right to own a gun only what the purpose of a gun is. It’s ONLY purpose in why it is manufactured,bought and sold is to kill someone or something. Period! You don’t buy a mix master to kill someone or even a car but the gun is made for the soul purpose to do harm to someone else. Most guns are never used to harm someone but that still doesn’t change the fact that the only reason to buy one is to have the potential to do so. It’s great that someone can scare an intruder without firing a shot but that does not change the real reason it was bought and it’s potential.

        • Greg T Beaty

          The purpose of owning a gun is to protect yourself and others from the criminal element harming you or your family. If guns were to be outlawed then only the outlaws would have guns. If you can not see that then perhaps a IQ test in in order. Plus going to the range and shooting a gun is a fun sport.

      • TheTruthHurts

        Wrong, bartenders don’t “over-serve”… I think you meant, the patron over-drank. What happened to personal responsibility?
        In addition, the “car vs gun” argument is contentious, driving is a privilege & owning a gun is a right. Has this come to peoples attention?
        Another point made by MSM is the “number of gun related deaths in America compared to other civilized countries”. Yet again, they speak of civilian on civilian casualties, if we were to contend “all deaths due to guns” I believe it would be governments, not the “people” who should/would be stripped of their 2nd Amendment (deaths from revolutionary war & onward).
        An excellent piece everyone should read for the 2nd amendment debate is by David Barton- “the 2nd amendment” or something to that effect.

      • Maurice Jackson (@mrmo57)

        Eddie47 your vocabulary and usage of langue would appear to show you as a educated person. What gets me is the stupid things you spout. You must be a college puke who slept through to many classes. Book wise street foolish.

      • Paul Erwin

        And who’s going to set these boundaries and regulations,the politicians,obama and his administration,the democratic party,more regulations and laws ONLY EFFECT THE LAW ABIDDING CITIZENS,the criminals make up their own rules and regulations,that puts the honest and law abidding people in grave danger

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “I’m not arguing against the right to own a gun only what the purpose of a gun is. It’s ONLY purpose in why it is manufactured,bought and sold is to kill someone or something. ”

        So now your logic is everything not just people. I will tell the rocks and stones that they have a new defender.

      • eddie47d

        Think Vickie! There are other living things out there besides humans that get whacked. I wasn’t planning to bring that up but it’s hard to get those on the right to grasp anythings except their own rights.

      • eddie47d

        Greg,Greg,Greg! Go back and really read what I said. The weapon of self defense is not being banned so why the assumption that it is. defend yourself as all should do. Like almost all nations assault weapons are carefully regulated but not in America. Although America is not the only gun running nation in the world we are usually the head honcho. Most of our wars anymore don’t spread freedom and most of our gun sales don’t assure democracy either. Get over this enthrallment with guns because it is being abused in this country too. If you want to take responsibility for a nation awash in weapons then take responsibility for the damages they do.

      • eddie47d

        Maurice, I only took 3 college courses and while in the service, then I had family obligations. You have something against someone who worked all his life,paid his taxes honestly and raised a family. You believe a person has to attend college in order to have an opinion?

      • eddie47d

        There you go Paul thinking we should only get rid of the laws and everything would be hunky dory. Wrong! People die in traffic accident but I don’t think you would like to do away with traffic laws. Speed away brother and someone will catch up to you somewhere in life hopefully before you do harm to them. .

      • DaveH

        Eddie would regulate walking. Imagine all the lives that would be saved:
        Maybe he would even regulate old age.

      • DaveH

        Imagine a lifelong Union guy, many of whom commit intentional violence on others in an effort to extort higher salaries, lecturing us about gun safety:!

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “I’m not arguing against the right to own a gun only what the purpose of a gun is. It’s ONLY purpose in why it is manufactured,bought and sold is to kill someone or something.”

        Yes you are eddie. If you were not arguing against gun ownership you would not lie and say guns are bought for no other reason than to kill someone or something.

  • Patriot Higgins

    It is sooo obvious but does not get mentioned anywhere. If just one person were packing than the shooter would have been stopped on round two.

    • Patrick H Felber

      I have to totally agree with you on that FACT.

    • eddie47d

      There is no known fact in that statement whatsoever. I could say it could have made matters worse and be just as right but that still doesn’t make it a known fact.

      • Vicki

        I’m sure the 12 dead would like a vote on that but they weren’t buried in Chicago. :)

      • eddie47d

        Yes I’m sure they would like to have a chat with the lawmakers that made it so easy for their assassin to acquire those weapons.

  • roger gunderson

    The second amendment is not going away and neither are our guns.

    • Vicki

      The 2nd amendment can go away or not. It’s just words on paper. The RIGHT that it contractually obligates government to protect, came from your Creator and does not depend on 2nd amendment for it’s existence.

  • Polski

    The FDA, well, the “sickness industry”, has killed and maimed more people in the last 100 years than Hitler, Stalin, and the Catholic Church, and all the wars, and all the other dictators have in the whole history of mankind.

    • William Luedtke

      Hey you forgot to mention Islam which has killed more people than all the ones you listed. And they are still doing it today And they started in about 700 A.D. Way before all the others.

      • Eugene Sevene

        yes and they are doing it right here in the United States because the stupid people in this country, which the majority,are allowing it.

      • Brad

        William and that was way before the invention of the gun by a Chinese man.

      • DaveH

        Do you have any references to back that up, William?

      • Samdromeda

        Islam came out of Catholicism. Muhammad married a Carmalite Nun named Fatimah. He was 19 and she was 40 years of age and quite wealthy.

    • eddie47d

      What is Polski going to do about the “sickness industry” and possibly big pharma. Those are private companies selling you their medicines so how would you correct the situation?

      • TheTruthHurts

        Yet again, patients rely on their physicians to make informed decisions with them. Med school is 6+ years, do you think a patient (school teacher, postal worker, grave digger) could possibly study their condition in-depth prior to the 5 minutes they are being evaluated by a physician? No, and most of these patients do not care either way (I am a doctor of physical therapy & many of my patients could care less what they have, how to treat it or what meds their on). So is the ‘big pharma’ to blame? Not entirely apparently…

      • DaveH

        Easy Eddie. Get Big Government out of it. Let people make their own choices of how to manage their health. You know Eddie — Choice — that thing that Progressives give pregnant mothers but nobody else.

    • eddie47d

      William and Eugene have declared something that is not true. That Muslims have killed more people than the butchers of Europe. Some of you are creepy in spewing misinformation to enhance your hate. Now if you politely bring your numbers I’ll bring mine.

      • Wildmann

        Hey Ed-die 47d– I hate MOSLEMS, ’cause They Hate Me, and, all others- even other Moslems. !!—I Have Guns, because when thisAmerican Demo-Donkey Welfare State CROAKS, [soon, with all the Debt] The Recipients will be Kicking down all the Un-Armed “Baby Kitty-Kats [also known as Pu--y's] doors, Taking their Money Gold, FOOD-Everything they can carry off, and most probably their Lives. I– [Don't]– feel sorry for you Liberal Weenies, ’cause you as the “Soft Targets”. will be the first ones HIT! This was/is your choice. YOU Don’t Know What you’re Dealing With. As a retired Corrections Officer, I Know What Kind of Murderous Thugs, the Liberal Controlled Welfare System has Produced. Have FUN!!

      • Vicki

        We have been bringing our numbers. With cites. Its your turn now.


      • eddie47d

        Wildman,William and Eugene didn’t answer a thing and went off the predictable deep end.Now apparently Vickie says nothing and claims she did. Are you related to crazyman Wildman?

      • Vicki

        Why am I not surprised that eddie47d had no cites to bring to the table. :)

  • arlo

    The FDA is in bed with this so called leader of the free world, FREE, did I say that? We won’t be if this idiot and his crybabies get reelected. I am so pissed I want to slap every politician out there…

  • Mike

    Hey, while they’re at it, how about cars, swimming pools, ladders, all industrial equipment, and airplanes. I think way more people die every year due to car wrecks, drowning, falls, workplace accidents, and plane crashes than are killed by gun violence in a decade

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      Now, now! We don’t want “Big Brother” to protect us from everything! Don’t give them any more ideas! Pretty soon we won’t be allowed to use knives and forks! Spoons only! Or better yet, finger food!

    • eddie47d

      People die from many things even natural causes. Most deaths are accidental and not deliberately caused. Gun deaths are always preventable and almost always deliberate. The bank robber shouldn’t have robbed the bank which lead to the killing of a cop and the home invader shouldn’t have broken into that house where he was shot. He knew beyond a reasonable doubt that a deliberate death could occur. Guns can be used for good or bad but one thing for sure they are bought to kill someone. The homeowner knows it and so does the perp. That is an oxymoron to say guns don’t kill for the simple reason that is the only reason they are made.

      • 45caliber

        Trying to use a little misdirection, huh?

        No, guns are not bought to kill “someone”. They are far more frequently bought for other purposes such as target shooting and hunting.

      • eddie47d

        Yes and that person who goes target shooting(good for him) is doing so to hone his skills in case he has to kill someone. The hunter practices so he can be good at killing his prey. Which brings us back to what I originally said.

      • Maurice Jackson (@mrmo57)

        Eddie so what if guns are made to cause harm, if it’s a criminal they should know the risk of their actions! There are far fewer gun accidents than car accidents. Baseball bats and other blunt items kill more people than guns. So get off your soap box. Go back to your I Love Obummers Butt board.

      • 45caliber

        Wrong again, eddie. A person who target practices MIGHT be doing it to better his ability to defend himself but most likely is doing it for fun – or for competition. A hunter does practice to increase his skill – no real hunter wants his game to suffer. But it is very seldom that either is doing it solely to increase his ability to kill someone. Did you learn to drive so you could hit someone with your car? No. It is evident that you are taking the liberal view of gun owners without knowing what you are talking about.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d the mindreader says:
        “Yes and that person who goes target shooting(good for him) is doing so to hone his skills in case he has to kill someone. ”

        All I have to do is find one example to disprove that assertion. I won’t have to look hard. Many readers here have purchased guns and they know in their heart why. In my case (yep I said it would be easy to find an example) I bought a gun for the sole purpose of deterring someone from stealing my food. I found that there were much more fun things to do with it (target shooting) later.

        The story behind the purchase.

        back when Y2K was the latest buzzword we decided to get a few things together just in case. Living in earthquake country it seems logical anyway. I was talking with a friend about it and he said to me that he didn’t need all that stuff.

        All he needed was a gun. Then he could take whatever he needed.

        We thought about that and quickly determined that we would need a gun to defend ourselves.

        That is what put the cracks in my liberal brainwashed, liberal college educated programming. I have been working to free myself from that programming ever since.

      • Alex Frazier

        For argument’s sake, let’s say that guns are manufactured with the sole purpose of killing animals or persons. When we consider that unprovoked murder is as old as Cain and Abel, what’s the problem with a weapon designed to kill killers and other violent criminals?

        Is the gun really what you take issue with, or are you sympathetic to the criminals in our society? Do you want to see people murdered? Is that why you prefer that law-abiding people be deprived of a firearm? Do you want to see vulnerable women raped, with no means of defending themselves?

        As long as governments have guns, criminals will always have a way of getting them. Take them away, and they become a commodity. Where a demand exists, a supply will follow. This is the natural course of economics, black market or mainstream. Unless you eliminate ALL guns, small and large, worldwide, they will always be in the hands of criminals and tyrants.

        It is a blessing to have the right to defend ourselves, and to be armed against a government going rogue.

      • eddie47d

        Do you all live on denial or were you born that way? Good for you if you defend yourself against a criminal so stop this continual denial that I have suggested otherwise and stop using the illogical excuse that cars kill so you should be able to kill with a gun. Not a one of you have proven that a gun is not bought to kill. You keep using far flung excuses and dance around the issue.

      • DaveH

        Maybe, Eddie, you could explain to us why the rate of violent crimes has gone down while at the same time concealed carry laws have been relaxed?
        More Guns Less Crime.

        Speaking of crime, Eddie, every time there is a person killed, who could have saved themselves if not for the fact that gun-grabbers, like you, have made it difficult or impossible to own a gun and protect themselves, you are committing a natural crime against that person. You have put yourself squarely in the position of being an accessory to murder — every bit as much as if you held a person’s arms while others beat him to death.

      • Vicki

        Alex Frazier says:
        “Unless you eliminate ALL guns, small and large, worldwide, they will always be in the hands of criminals and tyrants.”

        And even if they did make all guns disappear for everyone the problem of self defense remains. But now we don’t have the great equalizer.

      • 45caliber


        You are wrong. Guns were made to kill, yes. But where I grew up hunting was important since the income was so low. You NEEDED to hunt to get meat for the table. I started to learn to shoot when I was five – and no one told me I needed to know so I could shoot someone. It was all about shooting a rabbit or a deer for food. I know many hunters today shoot for trophies and give away the meat – and as far as I’m concerned, these people aren’t true hunters. My kids were all taught that if they shot something they had to clean and eat it. My son has refused to shoot a snake for my wife since he was afraid I’m make him eat it later. None of the houses were locked up – most didn’t even have simple locks on the doors. We were gone one entire summer when I was a teen – and no one stole a thing even though we found several notes on the kitchen table that basically said, “Found you were gone. Come by when you get back.” Guns used for defense of person or house or for crime is a city thing, not a country one. And far more guns are owned by country people than city ones. To a city person, you need only two guns – one for defense and one for hunting. To a country person, you need several – one for each type of game you hunt. And to a country person, it is fun to go plinking.

        It is obvious that you are a city boy – and have no real idea of what a true gun owner believes and understands. Your guesses are an insult – and you intend it to be one. Further, your insistence that giving up guns will solve all crime is foolish and immature. It will never happen since man is basically greedy and there are simply too many weapons available. Even if you could get all guns confiscated, it is still too easy to make them. It will never happen. But you liberals never consider real life, do you? Just your fantasies of what real life should be but can never be.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “stop using the illogical excuse that cars kill so you should be able to kill with a gun. ”

        Of course we are ABLE to kill with a car. We are ABLE to kill with a knife, we are ABLE to kill with a bat, we are ABLE to kill with a gun. What was your point again?

        “Not a one of you have proven that a gun is not bought to kill.”

        We have. You just choose to ignore the proof. But it is not really you to whom we offered the proof. We offered the proof to those who might be detracted by your illogical posts.

  • Michael Lewis

    Cain slew Able with the jawbone of an ass. Our liberal politicians have picked up the jawbone and are talking thru it. We should ban the use of jawbones!

    The point is people kill people.

    Our founding fathers recognized that “natures God” granted us the right to defend ourselves. It was not the grant of a privilege by government; but the recognition of a right granted by God and made part of the Bill of Rights, the peoples contract that agreed to surrender some powers togovernment. The right to defend oneself is an unalienable right. You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken.

    • shermangerherd

      Wrong Bible! It was Samson, although Cain and Able did fit in there.

    • Mike Horn

      The US Declaration of Independence states that God Himself bestowed our rights and liberties upon us. The entire American political experiment is based on that unique premise. No other bulwark exists to safeguard the natural rights of human beings except Divine sanction. Remove God, and you also remove all claims to liberty, rights, meaning and purpose.

      • 45caliber

        I agree. It may be one reason the libs are so down on Christianity and God.

      • Alex Frazier

        Couldn’t have said it better myself. The rights are God-given. Deny the existence of God, and you deny the validity of the rights given by that God.

      • DaveH

        Whether our rights are God-given rights or they are Natural rights, we still have them.

      • DaveH

        I appreciate most of the teachings of Christianity, but you get on my nerves when you denigrate non-believers.
        What say you to this?

      • Alex Frazier

        Dave, if you were speaking to me, I was addressing the principle, not your particular belief. Whether given by God or ours by nature, if, in principle, you disparage the notion of divine right, in its religious or secular form, then you leave the privilege derived from that divine right open to scrutiny and attack.

        All men have a penis. Nature gave it to us. It is therefore morally reprehensible to take it from us. But if it can be in any way argued that it was an appendage given after the fact that we never had a reasonable right to in the first place, then an argument for the confiscation of all penises suddenly has weight. After all, there was that one rapist. Best that we just get them all off the streets.

  • CW

    Now we must not confuse the liberals with facts and statistics. We should join them and run in circles, scream and shout.
    I am continually amazed at the way gun grabbers can not grasp the fact that criminals DO NOT CARE WHAT THE LAW SAYS!!! That is what makes them criminals.
    Heaven protect us if these idiots get re-elected!!!

  • Pingback: Time To Ban Hands, Feet And The FDA : Personal Liberty Alerts « igatherum

  • sabulaman

    How about, lets ban all career politicians that disagree with our views. Just like what happened in Texas yesterday. Way to go Texas.

    • TML

      Huh? What are you talking about?

      • Oneguess

        Cruz won the Republican primary for the Senate. Go Texas!

      • TML

        Oh… I have no real opinion yet of Cruz. I like his views on the 2nd Amendment, but he has no ‘political’ record. Gotta watch what he does now.

      • DaveH
    • Nadzieja Batki

      Are you sure that Texas won anything good out of Cruz?

      • 45caliber


        No, we don’t know. But he was far better than his opponent, Dewherst. And it is worth a try since Cruz has never been a politician but Dewherst has made a carreer of it.

      • Bob Livingston

        Dear Nadzieja Batki,

        You write: “Are you sure that Texas won anything good out of Cruz?” No. The Tea Party has been sold another bill of goods.

        “The son of a Cuban immigrant, Cruz, 41, is far from the Washington outsider his upstart candidacy might convey — a point the Dewhurst campaign tried to amplify as outside polls showed Cruz making gains.
        “The state’s former solicitor general, Cruz is a graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law School. He became the first Latino to clerk for a chief justice of the Supreme Court before working for the Federal Trade Commission, the Justice Department and the 2000 GOP presidential ticket of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.” (LA Times)

        However, his opponent was a CIA spook who worked to ensure the fascist TSA remained in control of Texas airports.

        Both are evil, big-government toadies for the elites.

        Best wishes,

      • boyscout

        Mr. Livingston, thanks for that bit of info. I did not know that, and becoming informed is what keeps me coming back.

    • eddie47d

      Wow! Banning someone who disagrees with you. Is that a typical Conservative value. If so then maybe you are the problem this nation faces.

      • 45caliber


        It can’t be just a conservative action. The libs try it all the time, just as you push here.

      • eddie47d

        Your reply would only be relevant if Sabulaman wasn’t a Conservative posting here. Now he could prove me different and I had misinterpreted his political leaning.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Asking a question is not akin to banning anyone? Are you so insecure about being asked a question? Do you feel that questions are a threat to you?

      • phideaux

        “Are you so insecure about being asked a question? ”

        eddie is obviously one of the most insecure people who post here.

      • Vicki

        they banned Hillery the same way. OOps she’s one of them. Nice Eddie47d

      • eddie47d

        What was your question Phideaux or are you only playing games. Sabulaman is the one you want to address.

      • DaveH

        Duh Eddie, when it comes to Politicians, who assume the right to run our lives, yes we should ban them.

  • Wayne De Cicco

    Does anyone know what a 100 round mag. weights ???? 22 , 223 , 308 , 45 , 30.06 etc…

    • Mike Horn

      Enough to keep the firearm steady. Now that’s what I call “Gun Control”.

      • Air Cav

        Mike, I thought gun control was first bullet placement!

      • Maurice Jackson (@mrmo57)

        Ya but there is nothing bad about having back ups

    • 45caliber

      I may be wrong but I think it is over ten pounds. It is also bulky and doesn’t feed bullets every well so jams are frequent. It is hard to make a spring that is strong enough to continue to feed bullets into a gun when it is stretched out and not push too hard when compressed. I’ll stick with the 20 round magazines.

  • TML

    The calls for assault weapons ban and high-capacity magazines in the face of an incident in which neither were even used, is clear evidence of an ignorant desire to ban weapons without reason, by capitalizing on a tragedy.

    They talk about registration and tracking to catch those like him that bought 6000 rounds of ammunition on the internet when nowhere near 6000 rounds were even used.

    They talk about limiting magazine capacity, or banning assault weapons, when the primary weapon was a shotgun.

    The 2nd Amendment will never be nullified… not in the face of such poor arguments from opposition which work only on fears, rather than reason.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      They KNOW that they could never get away with taking our guns away in one fell swoop. So they’ll nibble away at our rights until there aren’t any left. This is jut the beginning!

      • TML

        Nancy says, “So they’ll nibble away at our rights until there aren’t any left. This is jut the beginning!”

        They are trying, but its certainly not the beginning. It’s been on-going for quite some time.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        We have had freedoms nibbled away as soon as this country was started but it is now that we are feeling the pain.

    • eddie47d

      There are plenty of reasons TML you have made the choice to ignore them. Besides no one is messing with the Second Amendment except to take on the extreme ignorance you have shown in your comment. Not every American wants the free for all that your side keeps pushing down our throats either.

      • TML

        eddie says, “There are plenty of reasons TML you have made the choice to ignore them.”

        Over the past several days I’ve addressed many of those ‘reasons’… often directly to you. Now, I’m addressing the small Strawman arguments in the topic of the article from Bob Livingston, in relation to the recent tragedy. So, I’m certainly not ignoring ‘them’.

        eddie says, “Besides no one is messing with the Second Amendment except…”

        Except… there are those trying to ‘mess’ with the Second Amendment. Have you not heard the ‘reasons’ behind their ideas to restrict certain firearms and ammunition?

        eddie says, “Not every American wants the free for all that your side keeps pushing down our throats either.”

        Free for all? You either falsely assume that those on ‘my side’ would agree to letting citizens with associated criminal records, or mental disorders, having ‘free’ access to guns of any kind… or your rhetoric is, as I said, fear based, by attempting to draw an unrealistic vision of mob violence from law-abiding citizens, to justify pushing further restrictions. In carry conceal states, a large portion of people already walk the streets armed, and there is no “free for all”.

        What I shove down your throat is principle.

        The ‘assault’ rifle and large-capacity magazines would be the best defense for ones self, their family, and their property against mob violence. Anyone who remembers the L.A. riots witnessed this as fact. And they certainly can’t be carried concealed.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d writes:
        “Not every American wants the free for all that your side keeps pushing down our throats either.”

        Nor should we. Alas for eddie and liberals the free for all that they have predicted for many many years has failed to appear. Even as gun ownership soars and more and more states change their concealed carry policies, crimes with guns go down in areas that allow gun ownership while it remains the same or sets new record highs in areas where gun ownership is nearly impossible (for the law abiding).

        In spite of being told this many times with cites, eddie continues to claim that it would be a free for all.

        So why does eddie continue to push this agenda? Oh and says he is for ownership and the 2nd amendment. Hypocrisy, meet today’s contender for your new name.

      • eddie47d

        The free for all is in the schools and theaters. Guns provided by our lax laws and false encouragement from gun groups that nothing can or should be done. Another problem you seem to duck.

      • 45caliber


        The “free for all” that occurs in our schools and theaters (among other places) is due to the LIBERAL actions of banning guns there. The criminals who do the shooting there KNOW they safe and have the freedom to shoot anyone they see without opposition. Take the blame you richly deserve instead of trying to shove it onto others. But then, liberals have never taken blame for what they do, have they? It they can’t blame someone else, they blame “society” for their actions.

      • Vicki

        Eddie47d demonstrates the liberal trick of changing the subject by writing:
        “The free for all is in the schools and theaters.”

        The free for all being discussed is the one liberals like eddie47d CLAIM would happen if gun control laws were relaxed to allow more law abiding citizens to carry guns without fear of persecution.

        Eddie deftly failed to turn the same exact phrase around to claim that a single person shooting up a school or theater full of disarmed people is a “free for all”.

        Those gun free zones are not a free for all. They are a liberal created, victim rich environment.

  • Air Cav

    You need to remember that the bleeding heart libs don’t like something, nobody should have it. The big reason the politicians want to ban guns is so that they can make slaves out of us. The wolves will not give up their guns, only the sheep.

    • eddie47d

      Wrong! But is that like the Conservatives banning all abortions because they don’t like it even when there are legal and mitigating circumstances?

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Trying and not succeeding as a distraction comment.

        • Brad

          it is not that all conservitives are against abortion, but all are against taxpayer’s monies being used to perform abortions.

      • independant thinker

        Based on the circle of people I know most concervatives, even those technicaly opposed to all abortions, see the reasonablness of allowing abortions in the case of rape or to preserve the health of the mother. So eddie I say you lie.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Wrong! But is that like the Conservatives banning all abortions because they don’t like it even when there are legal and mitigating circumstances?”

        Some conservatives who are against abortion are against it because it is MURDER.

        The mitigating circumstance could be claimed to be when does the soul enter the body. Since we don’t know I advise erring on the conservative :) side and not doing abortions.

        Liberals will say RAPE.
        Case one. Prevention. Let women carry the “great equalizer”.

        Case two.
        The rapist will be sentenced on average to ~10 years in prison.
        The victim will suffer 9 mo. Shorter than many assaults with clubs and knives where the victim may take years to recover.

        But tell me why the most innocent of the victims (the unborn baby who is a person if the mother is murdered while she is pregnant) receives the DEATH PENALTY.

      • eddie47d

        That is an irrational question Vickie and not your first. Naturally if someone is murdered and is pregnant the baby will die. Only someone who is brain dead would suggest otherwise.

      • DaveH

        The problem is, Eddie, that you are confusing Defense with Offense. You know — Offense — like when Union guys commit unprovoked violence against others. Defense — like when those others can defend themselves with guns against the Union guys unprovoked violence.

      • eddie47d

        I’m sorry Dave I didn’t realize you were beat up by a union guy one time in your life. You sure hold a grudge for a long time!

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “That is an irrational question Vickie and not your first.

        What is irrational about the question?
        “But tell me why the most innocent of the victims receives the DEATH PENALTY?”

        I removed the aside about the mothers murder because it seems to have been confusing to you.

  • enough

    Ban liberals, socialists and communists. They have killed over 100 million people trying to enslave the world with their vision.

    They are much more dangerous and have killed more people than anything else in existence.

    • Oneguess

      Take a look at Islam…

      • eddie47d

        Oneguess: Please explain! We know the evils of some Muslim societies and we also know the millions of deaths caused by Christians so produce valid numbers to prove your point.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        Oneguess, just make up some crap like eddie does.

      • TML

        Eddie is talking about the Crusades and Spanish Inquisitions which earn Christians the same status. Not to mention the modern day Crusades supported by them against the entire Middle East.

      • 45caliber

        Yes, he is. But he sort of forgot the Muslim Crusade into Italy and the one into Spain that started the Inquisition, didn’t he? And that doesn’t even count the battles between themselves. And both were a LONG time ago! Sorry, while I know the Muslims carry grudges for centuries, I don’t.

      • Vicki

        TML says:
        “Eddie is talking about the Crusades and Spanish Inquisitions which earn Christians the same status. ”

        Acts by those claiming to be Christians have been used for centuries to blame Christianity. Jesus specifically warned us to watch and see what they do not what the say for just this reason.

      • TML

        45caliber says “But he sort of forgot the Muslim Crusade into Italy”

        I’m sure we can recognize history for what it is on both sides.

        45caliber says “ and the one into Spain that started the Inquisition”

        Actually you’re about 700 years off between the conquest of Spain, and the Inquisitions.

        45caliber says “And that doesn’t even count the battles between themselves.”

        As there were between Protestant and Catholic

        45caliber says “And both were a LONG time ago!”

        Except the same mentality that causes Christians today to support complete war and invasion of all Mid Eastern country’s… predominantly Muslim, which have resulted in many thousands of deaths over the last couple of decades. It’s a continued struggle between Muslim and Christian that has been going on for more than a millennium.

        45caliber says “ Sorry, while I know the Muslims carry grudges for centuries, I don’t.”

        Like you… not all Muslims carry such grudges

      • TML

        Vicki says “Acts by those claiming to be Christians have been used for centuries to blame Christianity. Jesus specifically warned us to watch and see what they do not what the say for just this reason.”

        To say that they were not Christian is to say the Pope wasn’t Christian as he ordered the Crusades and the laws from which the Inquisitions were judged. Nonetheless… it was in the name of Christianity these things were done.

      • Vicki

        TML writes:
        “To say that they were not Christian is to say the Pope wasn’t Christian as he ordered the Crusades and the laws from which the Inquisitions were judged.”

        Claiming to be Christian but acting barbarian does not make him Christian.

        Matthew 7:16 – Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
        Matthew 7:20 – Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

      • Alex Frazier

        Hang on TML. This is the first time I’ve really seen the Crusades argument come up on this forum. But let me take a moment and point out that of the first nine Crusades, every one of them was either directly provoked by Muslims, or was an attempt to reclaim lands or cities taken by the Muslims.

        People have this crazy idea that the Crusades were a Christian hate squad that traveled to Jerusalem and other middle eastern countries for the sole purpose of exterminating Muslims over a difference in faith. That is not true.

        Beginning with the first Crusade, the Turks had cut Jerusalem off and had advanced their position into Byzantine owned lands. They were destroying Christian holy sites and denying Christian pilgrims access to Jerusalem.

        Go do some homework.

      • eddie47d

        We know Nancy is a trouble maker and speaks untruths about other but unfortunately the question never got answered. Oneguess and “enough” never did respond. Now thank you TML for a great attempt to correct their misinformation.

      • 45caliber


        I fully agree! These anti-Christians can come up with all sorts of things to blast Christianity but they are appologizers for the Muslims. The biggest problem with Bosnia today is that half the population is Muslim because of the Muslim Crusade into Italy.


        You should check the Inquisition a little closer. They were trying to exterminate every Muslim in their country. I’m not defending them since one of the big reasons they attacked people was money, but they targetted those who had Muslim blood – at least initially.

      • TML


        First of all, I’ve done plenty of homework on the Crusades, thank you very much.

        Secondly, if you think all of them were somehow provoked only by Muslims, you better go back and do some more of your own studying.

        Thirdly, no one said they were some hate squad with the sole purpose of exterminating Muslims. They merely created the same atrocities that the Muslims did in their campaigns.

        And lastly… look into why the Turks and Byzantine empire warred with each other. You are more interested in choosing sides and saying “they started it”. What I am saying is that one is no better than the other in religious conflicts that have zealously killed untold numbers of innocent people on both sides. Try to stick to the argument rather than your own twisted bias of history.

      • TML


        I know my history people. You’re claim was that Muslims conquering Spain, led to the Spanish Inquisitions. With all due respect, this is utter bias ignorance my friend. Seriously, “because they targeted Muslims, the Muslims started the Inquisition? I know you have to be smarter than that… release your bias, friend.

        The inquisitions started as the last Muslim forces were defeated! And as the Inquisitions progressed there more Jews persecuted and burned as heretics than any other religious group in Spain… Jews that had thrived during the 700 years Spain was ruled by Muslims.
        It’s not about being a Muslim apologist.. it’s about showing your hypocrisy to think the religion is any worse than yours. It’s shows how you throw the first stone with one hand and sin with the other.

    • 45caliber

      You are correct. I wince every time I hear some liberal intellect insist that something should be tried for the good of the children. It usually results in many being killed. But it’s “for the children!”

  • patrickhf

    People that want guns outlawed live in glass houses. They seem to believe that they will be protected if something bad happens. They don’t have a clue what happens in the real world. If criminals were more afraid that someone might have a gun, there would be less crime. It’s also true that we have IDIOTS in this world that shouldn’t be allowed to own guns, but you “CAN’T STOP STUPID”. Taking away our right’s to KEEP and BEAR ARMS will NOT STOP people from using guns to commit crimes. These people that live in glass houses need to look at ALL of the other countries that have taken the peoples rights to own guns and see that they have more gun crime problems than we do.

    • 45caliber

      The politicians who want guns banned are armed themselves. If asked, they will assure you that if guns are banned, they will not be giving up their own. They need them for self defense. You don’t.

      • Greg T Beaty

        Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia wrote this:

        I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.

        It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

        The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent,Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!). In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)

        While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

        There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in “successfully ridding Australian society of guns.”

        You won’t see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information.

        The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

        Take note Americans, before it’s too late!

  • Ron

    Ban Swimming Pools
    About 650 people drown in swimming pools each year in California alone. Half under the age of five… That is a tradegy.

    • eddie47d

      That is why most people are required to have a 6 foot fences around their pools to prevent strangers (kids) from going near their pools. You can’t stop most accidental deaths and can only make attempts to prevent them. I’m more concerned about anyone who deliberately allows someone to die with something they shouldn’t have been allowed to have in the first place.

      • Brad

        Eddie I can turn all liberals into a lethal weapon, once i get hold of you and throw you all of a building it could kill someone down below. Damn If only….

      • DaveH

        Then you should be concerned about yourself, Eddie. Every time a person dies because a Liberal kept them from having a gun to defend themselves, you Liberals have taken part in their murder. Ban Liberals.

      • 45caliber


        I fully agree!!! But they will never take that responsibility. After all, they don’t even take responsibility for taking drugs, drunk driving, etc. that they do. And if they hit and kill someone, they simply drive away from it rather than stop to help. It isn’t THEIR responsibilty! It is society’s fault!

      • eddie47d

        You are whacked Caliber! I hope you never went to college to learn being that ignorant! I’d ask for your money back!

      • eddie47d

        No Dave like in drug deaths I’ll lay the blame on the seller of the product And the person using the item.

  • Lee

    Good slaves no gun’s, The people that are allowing these bills to be past have committed
    treason, They took an oath to defend the Constitution of the U.S. not the U.N. It is time to rebuild America quit funding the U.N. And take back our country from these people that could not manage a convince store let along the U.S. UNICEF also is a front for the Gun Grabbers. Start voting get these people out of office. If they even talk about funding the U.N. vote them out. The man behind the curtain has spoken.

    • eddie47d

      Maybe UNICEF has had to work in too many countries where weapons have been used to kill the people they are trying to help. Maybe they look at those gun runners as the enemies of humanity and the violence that occurs because of those peddling those devices of death. Sure a few guns here and a few guns there can make things better but generally they (guns and people) only wreck more havoc.

      • waltinseattle

        yep, what is reasonable in a third world cesspool backwater with armed thugs running the streets raping and pilaging, what any sane person would do, what the USMarines would do…is not a one size fits all solution which is to be casually implsed on this republic. We do not run amok with machettes killing the “other”, we do not leave corpses in the streets. We do not impress 10 year old orphans into the service…as some places do. And the ^%$#%^U.N. sets in airconditioned sessions debating if or not it has risen to the actionable level- “geniopcide.” kill thousands, but if they are ethnically all related watch out. they make me sick! “Gen. George Patton to the parade ground, paging Gen Patton”

      • DaveH

        So Eddie, then you’re in favor of banning weapons from military personnel and police?

      • eddie47d

        Not necessarily but a possibility. I certainly don’t want them having more power than they already have.

    • TML

      Lee says, “The people that are allowing these bills to be past have committed
      treason, They took an oath to defend the Constitution of the U.S….”

      In defending the Constitution, you might want to look at what constitutes treason in Article 3 Section 3.

  • Dave

    The problem with living is you risk getting killed. Now we could all put ourselves in a padded cell and die of bordom but that would not be much fun. I for one will take my chances and do not want the thugs in DC who want total power over us to eliminate their only real threat to their total take over and put us all in their cell of servitude and slavery! Go buy a gun while you can or be ready to be chipped!

    • 45caliber

      The one true thing about life is you won’t live forever. Death is inevitable. Accept that and you’ll live a better life. And if someone wants to kill you, just accept that … and plan to take him with you.

  • DavidL

    No Constitutional Amendment is absolute! Try gaining First Amendment protection after yelling fire in a theater where there is none. I repeat, no Constitutional Amendment is absolute, and if our society finds a compelling state interest to narrow and to restrict that Constitutional right, it can do so. Ask any member, any member current or retired, if that is not correct. It is. In a recent interview on Fox with Chris Wallace, for example, Justice Scalia confirmed that gun control regulations are constitutional and will have to be determined in future cases.He’s correct, so lets stop the loony analogies to feet and to hands unless, as I do, you want to cut out the tongues of the neo-cons who lied us into the war in Irag and ended up killing and wounding thousands of American kids and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.

    As a combat veteran, gun owner, and 2nd Amendment supporter, I have no problem banning 100 round magazines. I have no problem banning civilians from owning machine guns. And as long as the ak47 or AR 15 is semi-automatic, I don’t care what you want to use to hunt or to have safe shooting fun. I have no problem doing a much more thorough background check before being permitted to sell any weapon to a civilian. Despite the NRA propaganda to the contrary, there is a gun show loop hole with respect to the non-professional “casual” gun seller, and it is perfectly rational for our society to close it.

    Restricting the capacity of magazines, ensuring that all civilian weapons are semi-automatic and not fully automatic capable, and being more focused about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those with mental problems is a far cry from the hysterical “sky is falling” arguments be promoted by the gun lobby to protect their bottom line. In many states, concealed carry permit holders are prohibited from bringing their weapon into stores, businesses, and other locals. The sky isn’t falling.

    • DavidL

      I meant to say, ” ask any current or retired member of the Supreme Court.”.

    • CZ52

      ” I have no problem banning civilians from owning machine guns.”

      And just why would you want to ban civilians from owning machine guns?
      I am aware of exactly ONE instance since the gun act of 1938(?) that a legally owned machine gun was used in the commission of a crime. That instance was a law officer (deputy I think) using a department owned machine gun to commit the crime.

      • Samdromeda

        If you put a ban on owning machine guns you will deprive the government of the revenue from license fees which are substantial.

    • Greg T Beaty

      @DavidL You give one inch then they will take a mile. We have to stand our ground. No more laws. Use the laws we already have on the books. I say no to any gun grab…

    • Frank W Brown

      Unfortunately, the gov. thugs and military DO HAVE fully automatic weapons!!

    • Vicki

      DavidL says:
      “Try gaining First Amendment protection after yelling fire in a theater where there is none.”

      Not protected because it is PRIVATE property and you LIED. The property owner is not Congress.

      DavidL: “I repeat, no Constitutional Amendment is absolute, and if our society finds a compelling state interest to narrow and to restrict that Constitutional right, it can do so.”

      And the method was prepared by the founders years ago. Amendment.

      DavidL: “Justice Scalia confirmed that gun control regulations are constitutional and will have to be determined in future cases.He’s correct,”

      I’m sure that the founders intended for the supreme court to write law by virtue of having congress throw mud at the wall to see what sticks. Nice plan. Not.

      DavidL: “As a combat veteran, gun owner, and 2nd Amendment supporter, I have no problem banning 100 round magazines. I have no problem banning civilians from owning machine guns. And as long as the ak47 or AR 15 is semi-automatic, I don’t care what you want to use to hunt or to have safe shooting fun.”

      Thus by your statement you can not possibly be a 2nd Amendment supporter. You can not reconcile prohibiting the tools useful to a militia with one of the stated reasons for the 2nd amendment.

      • waltinseattle

        So, Viki, what about that “well regulated” phrase. Most owners are not in a true militia. Most states no longer have them to be a part of. They all got eaten by the Federal national guard. Ask Gov Romney ? Michigan so long ago? who tried to not send his to cen am for summer camp.. Threat letter from the Comander in Chief personally.

        but, “well regulated” seems to mean something about who we do not allow. Persons to immoral to go across the oceans and kill women and children as Arlo quipped. Peiople to dangerous to give a loaded gun to, or an unloaded gun and ammo. And then…since there is not a true militia to qualify this decision…who how and on what authority?

        I am personally involved so many ways on this issue. I am asking you to respond with grerat forethought on how a reasonable solution to this question can be supported by we who won’t give up our arms…waltinseattle…gmail…if you would? much appreciated you have no idea……..

      • Vicki

        waltinseattle says:
        “So, Viki, what about that “well regulated” phrase.”

        Has no direct bearing on the right to keep and bear arms by the people INDIVIDUALLY. The Supreme Court even got around to deciding that recently )District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) )

        However lets take a quick look at the meaning:
        The term “regulated” means “disciplined” or “trained”.[114] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “[t]he adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.

        waltinseattle: “Most owners are not in a true militia. Most states no longer have them to be a part of. They all got eaten by the Federal national guard.”

        10 USC section 311.
        (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
        (b) The classes of the militia are—
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

        As you see it is not a state choice. You meet the qualifications. You ARE the militia.

        waltinseattle: “Peiople to dangerous to give a loaded gun to, or an unloaded gun and ammo.”

        Yet you let them have cars, knives, bats, gasoline….. If they are really a danger to society you are supposed to put them in jail where they can hurt fewer people. Oh and watch them closely so they don’t hurt each other.

        waltinseattle: I am personally involved so many ways on this issue. I am asking you to respond with grerat forethought on how a reasonable solution to this question can be supported by we who won’t give up our arms”

        Just read thru the several articles on this site under conservative politics. Weed out the ad-hominem attacks and you will find quite a bit of useful info.

        You may want to restate your question as well if I didn’t answer it above.

      • waltinseattle

        There used to be state organizations and federal organizations, not just fed. The state was org and disorg. It seems you see the regulation only for the organized militia. This leaves a great disorganized and unregulated militia with free rein, whereas the states have laws and the laws restrict ownership posession and concealed carry. Would you call all these laws unconstitutional?

        Wa St is a “shall issue” state for concealed carry permits. The laws are that anyone legal to own shall be granted. The laws prohibiting ownership are for 1. felony convictions 2. domestic convictions (sometimes just a restraining order is sufficient) and 3 court ordered to mentasl treatment exceeding 90 days. We are noticing a great gap between the laws and the blood in the streets. This is personal since my son was a perp whose vic refused to testify, and the judge did not use other evidence and proceed. Some judges have done that…gone forth without cooperation of vic. Now 6 are dead because the law permitted it to be possible. Where is the regulation where is the well regulated and where is the . Should we proceed to the Swiss model? All are Required to keep arms? and exempt the consientious objector and whom else? What of states that require a psych exam to buy, as does Cal? do you condiser this a legal right of each state?

        No, you did not satisfy my questions but you have given me condsiderations to ponder. thanks for the reply


    • DaveH

      So DavidL says — “As a combat veteran, gun owner, and 2nd Amendment supporter, I have no problem banning 100 round magazines”.
      Are you proposing that our Government’s standing armies be so limited also, since the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to give the people the right to defend themselves against a tyrannical Government?

  • 45caliber

    Well, it is obvious that guns killed far fewer people than the FDA did. Perhaps the point of this article is true. We need to ban the FDA. Then we need to consider cars. After all, more people are killed in car accidents than by guns.

    • eddie47d

      Your violin sting is broken Caliber in those false comparisons.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        But they are not false comparisons. Any and all things can cause death.
        We are not running a debate class.

      • Opal the Gem

        eddie if 45′s violen strings are broken yours are made of raw rat guts and used fishing line.

      • Vicki

        In eddie47d’s opinion they are broken but we all know how much eddies opinions are worth.

      • eddie47d

        Oh yes you can’t acknowledge the carnage from the use of guns but bring up the old car trick . Yup that will smooth things over. Duck and cover ! Duck and cover!!!

    • JON

      Your car analogy cannot compare with that of a gun. People buy cars for transportation. People buy guns for protection or killing.

      • 45caliber

        Sure it can compare. Both can be used to kill – and are. Both can be involved in accidents – and are. Both are used by people for their intended purpose. People are killed by both of them. But those killed by cars vastly outnumber those killed by guns.

      • Vicki

        I bought a car for protection. I hate getting rained on when I travel. It could be used to murder people but I won’t be using it that way.

      • eddie47d

        Ain’t buying it Caliber! Prove to me that someone buys a car to kill someone instead of more worthless car excuses and traffic accidents.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Ain’t buying it Caliber! Prove to me that someone buys a car to kill someone instead of more worthless car excuses and traffic accidents.”

        Why should he? He never said that someone buys a car to kill someone.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Robert Joyce

    My fellow Americans…Be advised the the feds know that a drone flying over our nation ya!
    like the ones King OBAMA-RAMA-DAMA- MO-HARM-FED wants to fly over our country. They know a burst from a machine gun spells big trouble for there plans to lock down America. We must stop all the name calling .If you do not love liberty and freedom go knock on the door of another country and see if you get the royal treatment . Woman please do not buy what the left is selling you about health care. It is a path for them to enslave all of us and they play on your sweet well intended concerns ,but the end is global enslavement .You will never be free to say Gods name Jesus ever again. So if you
    do not take the time to look into these things they will take and continue to brainwash our children….Bob

    • 45caliber


      To be honest, a drone is over-kill. Over 60% of all spy satellites are pointed at the US – by our own government. They can read a newspaper on the ground and identify the location of anyone in a house – and tell what they are doing. They take a picture of every place in the US every four seconds. Why worry about a drone sailing overhead?

  • GW

    ATTABOY,BOB!!! Once again you hit the nail on the head with FACTS FACTS FACTS and boy it sure looks like some people just DON’T LIKE FACTS!!!
    Emotional hyperbolae as an argument on this subject while ignoring factual evidence betrays an agenda- an agenda to leave the American People helpless in the face of social engineering/genocide/death camps-you have to ask yourself just who wants that-

    • Nadzieja Batki

      You have described groups of people who think and the other groups who just feel.

    • 45caliber


      The definition of a conservative is someone who makes decisions based on learned experience (history).

      The definition of a liberal is someone who makes decisions based on a fantasy of the future (utopia).

      Which one is more in touch with real life?

    • TIME

      Dear GW,

      Thanks for the really good post, it gives people something to think about.

      Peace and Love

  • richard holmes

    We need to ban obammy and his sociallist liberal backers

  • RichE

    Guns, Testosterone, and Aggression
    “Researchers from Knox College find that male college students who held a gun rather than a child’s toy for 15 minutes had elevated levels of testosterone and added three times as much hot sauce to a glass of water that another test subject subsequently had to drink.”
    Richard Morin – Perfect 10s and the Odds of a Pink Nursery –

    ” ‘The finger pulls the trigger,’ says Leonard Berkowitz, an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Wisconsin. ‘But the trigger may also pull the finger. It’s not just that having a gun is a convenient way of settling an argument. The weapon itself is a stimulant to violence.’

    “Berkowitz has studied the ‘weapons effect’ for more than 40 years. ‘There’s no dispute,’ he says. ‘Even the sight of guns, which people think of as objects that can hurt others, can induce aggressive ideas. A weapon can function as a conditioned stimulus, eliciting both the thoughts and motor responses associated with its use.’ ”

    • Isaac Davis

      Get a life, get a clue, and get out of my Republic.

      • RichE

        This would be the republic created by liberals?

    • Nadzieja Batki

      So by that questionable reasoning all that hold a flower in their hand will feel all warm and squishy and all warm fuzzies.
      Who paid for the study to get these results?

      • RichE

        When arguing with a sign post…

      • waltinseattle

        taxpayers usually pick up tabs for academic research…the trail might be twisted, it might pass through some foundation…but often we the people

    • Buster the Anatolian

      If there were ANY validity to that study the crime rate would be going up as the number of firearms owners goes up. The crime rate is NOT going up it is going down so the study is invalidated by real life.

      • 45caliber

        But, Buster! Real life doesn’t fit their fantasies! So the facts MUST be twisted to fit that! After all, the fantasy is the real goal of life, isn’t it?

      • RichE

        Go argue with Time Magazine not me. BTW: males are designed to be aggressive and there are many trigger studies.

        Re: Crime rate. I think you’d have to differentiate between normal crime and crazy crime. Is the crazy rate increasing?

      • Nadzieja Batki

        RichE, you brought up the Time article, so if you used it as a commenting source and nothing else, you indicate that you agree with that article.

        • RichE

          attack your own beliefs not mine.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        RichE, why would Buster attack his own beliefs and not yours?
        Did questioning your post get you all flustered?

        • RichE

          “It’s more profitable to find fault with yourself than others” I believe that’s Kahlil Gibran

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “Go argue with Time Magazine not me.”

        So RichE you are saying you did not post the article by your own free will but rather Time Magazine forced you to post it.

        “BTW: males are designed to be aggressive and there are many trigger studies.”

        Whether males, females, neither or both are designed to be agressive has no bearing on the article you refrenced.

      • DaveH

        RichE says — “Is the crazy rate increasing?”.
        Judging by the number of Progressives frequenting our site, I would have to say “YES”.

    • 45caliber

      I’d definately say that Leonard Berkowitz is a lib. They always are trying to fit the facts to their theory rather than the theory to the facts.

    • 45caliber


      Time Magazine lost any credibility it had as a “news” source many years (decades) ago. I can’t remember when it wasn’t twisted to a strong liberal stance.

      According to this reasoning, a spoon is the reason that everyone is overweight. After all, when you pick up a spoon, don’t you think of nice things to eat such as ice cream?

      Liberals have insisted for decades that “society” is the cause of most problems in the world. It is only an excuse to prevent accepting their own personal blame for things going wrong in their lives.

      • RichE

        There are studies, the smaller the spoon the less you eat, but you can’t use the answer to question ‘A’ for question ‘B’.

        If a study showed a gun in the hand of a male increased his aggressions and a spoon didn’t my hypothesis would be it’s the utilitarian purpose of the instrument and the situation. If a male was at bat he’d hit the ball not the umpire. If the umpire pulled a gun he’d hit the umpire not the ball. That would be my guess, but it would be a guess without research.

        The issue is; does a gun in the hands of a male increase his aggression and does a doll in the hands of a conservative turn him into a homosexual? My guess would be yes.

      • CZ52

        “The issue is; does a gun in the hands of a male increase his aggression…”

        Proven not true above by Buster.

      • DaveH

        The problem is, Rich, that the actual results don’t match your experimental outcomes.
        The rate of violent crimes has been declining since 1991, while at the same time the number of states allowing concealed carry has been increasing. Notwithstanding Testosterone.
        Damn those petty real life results. We need to outlaw those guns before people can have real life experience.

    • Vicki

      RichE writes
      “Even the sight of guns, which people think of as objects that can hurt others, can induce aggressive ideas”

      What a COOL idea. We can outlaw the seeing of guns. As Diane Feinstein would say “Mr. and Mrs. Hollywood, turn ‘em all in.”

      • waltinseattle

        we had this place with open to all access computers, just like a library has. We had the same street sorts…good folks and jerks…some of us wanted a no pornography sign posted so others felt safe , felt their kids were safe ..walking by these front door sstations. We wanted the sign but the liberal said “everytimne I hear the word prnography, I see images and it is (pornographic?) and so I don;’t want a sign to get me thinking…we will not have…we did not get the sign…….idiocy is amazing…so is immaturity! esp in males!

  • Greg T Beaty

    Did you know that a large group of baboons is called a “congress”? Perhaps this is the problem we are having today with the gun grabber in congress and the senate they spent to much time with the baboons.

  • waltinseattle

    lets remember Doctors and how many die annualy because of their errors. Enough that there is a term coined exactly for it. And who calls for banning MDs? ……. waiting….waiting….

    • Nadzieja Batki

      You will have whiskers to the ground.

  • Hector

    I think that the constitution clearly gives us the right to bear arms and to militia. Hands and feet along with guns need to be left alone or there will be civil war in this nation. Over 90 % of the population will fight back for the right to bear arms.

    • Vicki

      Why do you believe they would fight back? They didn’t when the NFA was passed. They didn’t when the GCA was passed. They didn’t when many states passed laws forbidding gun ownership. They didn’t when the government took guns away from people in New Orleans during Katrina hurricane.

      Slow boiling works on humans as well as frogs it would seem.

  • Minstrel69

    My right to self defense is absolute, not because you say so or the Constitution says so or society says so or because of one cleverly worded argument or another. Fact: Humans apply force to each other to achieve their ends and they (particularly Government Humans and other criminals) tend to do so by pointing guns at their intended victims. I say they will not be applying their force to ME and I have the arms and the training I need to back that up.
    If that means that I have to die at the hands of those willing to use force instead of reason and fair dealing to subdue me for whatever reason, I am still resolved and I say: so be it–I will die in defense of that principle knowing that I lived, fought and died owning the moral high ground. How will YOUR eulogy read?
    So go ahead, write your laws, enact your bans and rant and rave on these sites ad nauseum but come for me and mine with violence, fraud and/or theft in mind and come prepared to die bloody. I am prepared to die for the basic principle that my defense is my responsibility and is a right as inherent to my person as drawing breath-if you are prepared to die to prove me wrong, bring it because I am sick and goddamned tired of trying to explain it to you.

    • Frank W Brown

      Hear!! Hear!!

  • TIME

    Dear Mr. Livingston,

    I guess I will outlawed soon as I really do have a Black Belt.
    I also Enjoyed the posting thanks.

    Peace and Love

    • Nadzieja Batki

      As long as you don’t have to register your hands and feet and the rest of your body as weapons.
      Time, the expression “if looks could kill” may also have bad connotation as certain faces show more expression than others. Will we have walk around botox faced not to show emotion?


    “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    What part of that do you not understand?

  • gunner689AI

    Let’s ban cars because of drunk drivers and airplanes because of 9/11.

    PC is BS.

  • boyscout

    It is my personal belief that firearms and the human mouth have this in common; that the should be shot off only when the objective is clearly defined and the potential repercussions are clearly understood. Also, it is best to learn how to be effective in each endeavor.
    Best wishes

  • Jay

    Can a abortion be classified as a violent crime, and could the scalpel/scissors and various other instruments used in the procedure, qualify as assault weapons?

    You be the judge:

  • Bimbam

    Whenever we have gun massacres they should be an outcry to BAN LIBERALS from postions of authority.

    There seems to be a connection to recent gun shootings to what the kids are taught in school. The elimination of God from the curriculum. The dumbing down Americanism to. the teaching of tolerance of gays, Mooslims, 3rd world values to the instituting of multi-culturalism to our society.

    This is not making kids think straight or morally for themselves. They are often mentally confused, depressed and desititute when they need strong and firm guidance.

    We must not let liberals punish law-abiding citizens for when a criminal decides to breaks the law. This is all that gun control laws do and liberals RELISH in the thought that they can even do this! It drives them NUTTY!

    Just look at all the liberals coming out from out of the woodwork, the swamp and wherever else zombies can be found. It’s worse than a Hollowood movie.

    BUT, we must not let them. Instead there should be a resounding noise to BAN LIBERALS FROM ALL POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY. Let them know this anytime their zombie minds awaken from their deep sleep.

    Let’s give them no rest on this!

    • eddie47d

      James Holmes was one of your law abiding citizens. So will you kindly exit earth in your gibberish mobile.

      • Bimbam

        Oh, I see, booby-trapping your home to kill police and anyone living there and then going to shoot everyone watching a movie is a law-abiding. I see…..

        Pure gibberish…. I say, just pure gibberish.

  • http://peresonallibertydigest.. gottaplenty

    Every time these fermented liberals , same old rhetoric same ole, same ole, that insist we give up our guns , sound like the same ones that defended Trevon Martin .. They more than likely are scared sh–less that they will get thier sorry butts shot off by a legale gun owner sometime in thier life , because they have some bad habits of being someplace where they know they have no right to be.. Keep on gunning!!!!

    • Samdromeda

      Guns are not security if you keep on gunning. The swarm will come and lay siege to your home and neighborhood. I have seen it too many times.

    • 45caliber


      I don’t think it is a bad habit of being in a place they have no right to be. I think it is because they have all these plans for the rest of us that they KNOW we won’t like. And they know if we have guns or any other way to defend ourselves that we will object.

      It’s like the One Worlders who insist that our population level is far too high. They want to thin out the people on Earth – and don’t want the rest of us to object.

  • got my licence

    Had there been someone with a concealed handgun licence present the outcome would have been much different.

  • Justin57

    A Helpless populous
    The megamurdering states of the 20th century have been: the U.S.S.R. (1917-1987), 61,911,000; Communist China (1949-1987), 35,236,000; Nazi Germany (1933-1945), 20,946,000; and Nationalist (or Kuomintang) China (1928-1949), 10,076,000. These are followed by the “lesser” megamurdering states: Japan (1936-1945), 5,964,000; Cambodia (1975-1979), 2,035,000; Turkey (1909-1918), 1,883,000; Vietnam (1945-1987), 1,678,000; North Korea (1948-1987), 1,663,000; Poland (1945-1948), 1,585,000; Pakistan (1958-1987), 1,503,000; Mexico (1900-1920), 1,417,000; Yugoslavia (1944-1987), 1,072,000; Czarist Russia (1900-1917), 1,066,000.

    While the Soviet Union and Communist China have been the super mass-murdering states of the century, they have not been the most lethally dangerous, relative to the populations over which they have ruled. During the 70-year period of Soviet history analyzed by Professor Rummel, the state killed the equivalent of 29.64 percent of the U.S.S.R.’s population, while the Communist Chinese (because of the vastness of China’s population) only killed, during the 38 years in his study, the equivalent of 4.49 percent of the people of China. The Nazis killed about 6.46 percent of the peoples under their control in Europe between 1933-1945. On the other hand, during the short four years of its rule in Cambodia, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge government killed about 31.25 percent of the entire Cambodian population.

  • Brazen

    Bob Livingston, here is my sincerest hope that you come into contact with a gun-toting stranger bent on taking a life. Then and only then will you be happy with your stance about gun control. By then, it will be too late. Your life will be meaningless, even more so in death.

    • waltinseattle

      Hey, here is a test. My son just killed you wife and three children. Defend his right to walk the streets with 2 1911 on his belt and a bad demon in his head.

      • Bob Livingston

        Dear waltinseattle,

        You write: “Defend his right to walk the streets with 2 1911 on his belt and a bad demon in his head.” Your premise is nonsensical. Convicted felons loose their right to carry legally. That so many are still armed once again proves that gun laws are inefficacious.

        Best wishes,

        • waltinseattle

          @ bob. not nonsense…history…and he never spent a night in jail. had a cc license. don’ t talk with nothing known of which to talk. i will presume my sons right to carry trumps your families right to live…you seem to imply it…correct me if i am wrong. remember that for me it has not been a mental masturbation…it has been and continues to be a razor’s edge…

          • Bob Livingston

            Dear waltinseattle,

            You write: ” i will presume my sons right to carry trumps your families right to live…” This is a straw man. Your premise is nonsensical.

            Best wishes,

          • waltinseattle

            NO BOB. I will repeat- historical…but if you prefer masturbatory and non- confrontation, I will remember it. Your life now is trashable, I would not pull my gun to protect you or yours, because I would be tromping on opther rights. I’ll hope you the laws hasty help, but not n=mine. You refuse to tak=lk a real case? ^&%$# ya your styrw can burn around you.

    • Bob Livingston

      Dear Brazen,

      As I will also be a “gun-toting stranger” at least it will be a fair fight. Unlike the one in the movie theater where all the patrons were unarmed.

      Best wishes,

  • Pingback: Articles for Saturday » Scott Lazarowitz's Blog

  • Pingback: My Homepage

  • Veteran

    Every member of my family is a Black Belt, has his/her own firearms (handgun, shotgun, rifle), knives and other protective ‘devices’ – as do many, many of our friends. I guess that makes us all ‘ban-able’.

    Bloomberg and others (Rosie et al) don’t fall into that category – they just hire others to do the work for them so they can tell us what we should do. What would they do without someone else doing the work?

  • Pingback: this site


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.