Welcome To The Wild Midwest

0 Shares
skd284404sdc

It’s been a while since I’ve written much about the plague of so-called “gun violence” raging through our beloved homeland like a nasty strain of drug-resistant gonorrhea through an Occupy squatters’ camp. I must admit, the daily deluge of disgrace flowing forth from the White House has distracted me from the Democrats’ war on the Bill of Rights and simultaneously provided cover for those liberals who exploit tragedy to further their attempts to violate the inviolable.

If only President Barack Obama and his accomplices’ unprecedented mendacity and unparalleled corruption had the same effect on the anti-Bill of Rights vermin. Last week, while Obama’s minions were lying through their teeth about the extent of the National Security Agency violations of our privacy, Obama’s former campaign machine — now operating under the name “Organizing for Action” (OFA) — set the taste bar to an all-time low by celebrating the six-month anniversary of the Newtown, Conn., massacre. The ersatz evite it sent out included the line: “And in those six months, thousands more people have been killed by guns.”

Much like the hackneyed phrase “gun violence,” the suggestion that people have been “killed by guns” goes beyond the usual intellectual dishonesty that marks leftist dogma. Lest you think I’m being unfair, I checked the gun safe this morning. Everything was exactly as I left it the last time. If there are wild herds of guns wandering the streets and assaulting our fellow citizens, they must be extraordinarily stealthy. I wonder how the Democrats know which guns are at fault.

The OFA agitprop is part of a larger effort to reanimate the corpse of so-called “gun control.” Following their humiliating defeat in the Democrat-controlled Senate, the anti-Bill of Rights crowd is back for more. Much like the push to pass the bureaucratic monstrosity Obamacare over the objections of the majority of Americans, when it comes to expanding State control over the people, once is never enough for the Democrats.

Just what is it they’re planning to deliver? OFA and their ilk say so-called “gun control” will cure everything from drug-fueled gang wars to jaywalking. But Newtown already had the laws that the anti-Bill of Rights types want to impose on the rest of us. And Newtown is a libertarian paradise compared to Obama’s old stomping grounds of Chicago.

In a city that has labored under the bootheel of Democratic machine politics for more than a century, the 2nd Amendment is little more than a memory. In fact, the Supreme Court had to wade into the Windy City cesspool with the landmark 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision just to remind the municipal tyrants that the Constitution doesn’t disembark in Des Plaines, Ill. Despite that Supreme admonishment, Chicago remains one of the most “unfriendly to liberty” cities east of San Francisco. By OFA logic, that should translate to a peaceful burg that is the envy of all others. Crime should be a pale shadow of the monster that used to stalk the Magnificent Mile.

So how to explain the war zone that Chicago has become? As if the city’s murder rate wasn’t already steeper than the Himalayas, this past weekend brought new horror to the shores of Lake Michigan. By the latest count, seven Chicagoans met their ends via so-called “gun violence” over the weekend. Nearly three dozen were injured. If I were inclined to substitute anecdotal evidence for solid facts (looking at you, Al Gore), I might conclude so-called “gun control” causes so-called “gun violence.” At the exact moment OFA reloaded for another offensive on liberty, the poster city for so-called “gun control” turned into the O.K. Corral… again.

As usual, the anti-Bill of Rights crowd’s lack of taste, sense and grammar is exceeded only by their remarkably poor timing. While their attempt to exploit Newtown for their own nefarious purposes failed in part because Americans were repulsed by their macabre politicization of tragedy, it also failed because their ultimate goal involved subjecting Americans to the same laws that had just publicly failed to prevent Newtown. Essentially, the Democrats said, “That didn’t work; let’s try it everywhere!” I just read another story about the free-fire zone formerly known as Chicago. Let’s not.

–Ben Crystal

Ben Crystal

is a 1993 graduate of Davidson College and has burned the better part of the last two decades getting over the damage done by modern-day higher education. He now lives in Savannah, Ga., where he has hosted an award-winning radio talk show and been featured as a political analyst for television. Currently a principal at Saltymoss Productions—a media company specializing in concept television and campaign production, speechwriting and media strategy—Ben has written numerous articles on the subjects of municipal authoritarianism, the economic fallacy of sin taxes and analyses of congressional abuses of power.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • independent thinker

    Excellent assessment of the situation Ben.

  • Sarah Conner

    Funny thing,the only news outlet reporting on the violence is…cheecago’s very own news station,not the msm…

  • Vigilant

    I’m in favor of gun confiscation…take every weapon away from DHS and IRS agents.

  • Darral

    It is not about Gun Control , it is about a defenseless people who are controlled by the Government, The Democratic party don’t like it when they must answer to the American people for their actions, they don’t want to answer to the American people, they want to rule over and control the American people, They are not Democrats of the old school these are tyrants Dictators. Consider the difference,
    President John Kennedy a Old school Democrat said, It is the Responsibility of every citizen to be Armed and prepared to defend this Country And a lot of people who still believe in the Democratic Party are being fooled every day, by the Misconceptions, misrepresentations, Deception of this Destructive Treasonous Democratic party.

    • independent thinker

      I think this post I coppied from a face book post says it fairly well.

      “Gun control is about guns but not in the way the gun grabbers want us to believe. Guin control is about guns to the extent their removal from private hands gives the elite more and more control over us.”

  • Gnowark

    Yes, but if that were true, then other big cities with anti 2A laws (NYC, DC, Boston, …) would have higher gun violence than cities with pro-2A laws, and liberal-logic says that’s not true because there aren’t any big cities with pro-2A laws.

  • Warrior

    Welcome to the Chicago “plantation” run by the “progressive demonrats”. No family, no education, no job, no hope. There are only so many “patronage positions” required to maintain “control”. And this is “exactly” the model exhibited in D.C. by this “regime”. This is the way they where taught and they were damn good learners too. The “connected” get “passes”, all others? Well, you just have to learn to play by our rules.

  • dan

    We can stop the violence in Chicago….by getting rid of Chicago

    • k92509

      And Detriot — New York — Commiefornia!

  • jim b

    Ben Franklin remembered:

    “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”.

    This quotation, slightly altered, is inscribed on a plaque in the stairwell of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

    But since the majority of the country missed this lesson, and many lessons like it, during their 12 year sentence, ostensibly because the government had it removed from the indoctrination within their progressive education system. And now government tyranny is winning over liberty and freedom. History is doomed to repeat itself, Rome will fall yet again, only quicker this time. Our children’s children will be working for government wages, government housing, clothing, food, and medication, just ask a Russian how well that worked out for them.

    And so my second favorite quote of Ben:

    “A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins”.

    • Alex

      Ben Franklin, like Tommy Jefferson, spoke eloquently about the Rights of Man. Just a bunch of imbecilic blathering, though, when you get down to it—both of these evil men owned other human beings…

      • Joseph Hammond

        Many people today are “owned”. They are refered to as wage-slaves. If they lose their jobs they lose their lifestyle and would prefer to remain under the heal of the East Coast elite….or whoever pays them a wage for their time on earth.

        • Alex

          Wage slaves are, of course, the product of Capitalism, plain and simple.

          The wisest comment ever made about Capitalism is “There’s a sucker born every minute….”

          Name ONE place on God’s green Earth where Capitalism has EVER worked—-one cannot do it, and will only burn up brain cells should she or he try….

          • WTS/JAY

            Alex: Wage slaves are, of course, the product of Capitalism, plain and simple.

            Wrong! Wage-slaves are the product of greed.

            Alex: The wisest comment ever made about Capitalism is “There’s a sucker born every minute….”

            Actually, we haven’t practised Capitalism for the last hundred years. But as to your comment. The wisest comment ever made about our socialist-education system is “There’s a sucker born every minute…”

            Alex: Name ONE place on God’s green Earth where Capitalism has EVER worked—-one cannot do it, and will only burn up brain cells should she or he try….

            Name one period in human history where greed was absent…

          • vicki

            Side note there is no such thing as wage slaves. People working for wages do so by their own choice.

          • Nadzieja Batki

            Funny thing, but Communist and Socialist and Fascist and Marxist and Islamist countries also have wage slaves, so how is that the product of Capitalism?

            Emotions don’t allow your brain to think.

          • WTS/JAY

            It’s his socialist-indoctrination that doesn’t allow him to think.

          • vicki

            Alex writes:

            Wage slaves are, of course, the product of Capitalism, plain and simple.

            There is no such thing as wage slaves. People that work for wages do it by their own choice.

            The wisest comment ever made about Capitalism is “There’s a sucker born every minute….”

            This comment is about the Circus not Capitalism

            Name ONE place on God’s green Earth where Capitalism has EVER worked—-one cannot do it, and will only burn up brain cells should she or he try….

            Early Roman empire

            USA, United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Taiwan, Switzerland
            http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

            And there is much opinion over which times but you asked for ever not when.

      • speedle

        [comment has been edited] why don’t you take your inane “blathering” to another site. Even the liberals here have more respect than that for Founding Fathers. A lot of things happened 300 years ago that wouldn’t be acceptable today. Get over it and learn how to think without brainless prejudice.

      • TNS

        While Jefferson owned slaves he regretted it and opposed it his whole life. One of the reasons he did not just free all of his slave is because he was in debt and while in debt he could not simply give away his property. http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery 10 sec on google a lil critical thinking can go a long way

      • Frank Kahn

        You are making a judgement call against men who lived over 200 years ago, in a nation that condoned owning slaves. To own a slave then was not evil, it was wrong, but it was accepted. Back then there was even a very narrow definition of the word men. Not every male of the human race was classified as a man in their writing. It was referring to land owners. Slaves did not own land so they were not included in the phrase “all men are created equal”. By European standards, Indians did not own land, so they were left out also. The fact that their definition of men was limited, does not diminish the idea that ALL MEN (which now includes Indians and women) are created equal. Nor does it diminish the God (natural) given rights of all men. If we use the modern usage of men (all humans), then their words are not imbecilic blathering.

  • Jeremy Leochner

    Gun control is like any law. It cannot cure all the evils. But if our standard for laws was whether or not they completely stop crime we would have no laws. As for the issue of “gun violence”. It is a real issue. People don’t walk into crowds of people or into banks and start wielding knives. They use guns. Guns are powerful tools. The ability to obtain them can make all the difference for a person with criminal intent or psychosis. There always seems to be a lack of recognition of the good gun control can do. People speak constantly of the difficulties honest and decent people have to go through to obtain a gun thanks to gun control. Going through a back ground check, perhaps a waiting period or safety training. Yet many never seem to acknowledge that those same barriers also stand against people who are not so honest and decent. I live in a fairly nice neighborhood with a low crime rate. But when I leave my house I still lock it. Just as people have said that criminals will just ignore gun control people have said well Jeremy what good will locking your doors do. Since when do criminals stop when they find a locked door. Well that is true. But the fact remains that it is a barrier. It slows them down. It buys time for me or someone to discover them. And at any rate its better than just leaving my doors open and saying come on in and take what you want. Barriers create inconvenience for those who are not threatening. But they are there because they create the same thing for those who are threatening.. Now Mr. Crystal made a big deal about anecdotal evidence. I will try to use something more concrete. A 2013 article by CBS News listed the top 20 states with the highest number of gun deaths per 100,000 people. The state or rather district with the highest number of deaths was to me surprising: Washington D.C. A city with strict gun laws. This is an example of how extreme gun control produces a negative result rather than a positive one. The state with the second highest number of gun deaths was Louisiana. The Brady Campaign against Gun Violence scores each states gun control
    laws and awards them a score of up to 100 points. The number of points
    being based on the strictness of control with more controls earning
    higher points and less control earning less points. Louisiana in 2011 scored just 2 points out of a possible 100. It essentially is what Mr Crystal would call a ” libertarian paradise” so far as guns are concerned. The state with the third most gun deaths was Mississippi. Mississippi scored 4 points. The state that has the forth most gun deaths was Alaska. Alaska scored 0 points. Alaska was recorded as having one of the weakest gun control policies in the country. The state that came in fifth was Alabama. Alabama scored 14 points. Again this is out of a possible 100. The state that came in sixth for most gun deaths was Nevada which scored 5 points. Seventh was a four way tie between Arizona, Arkansas, New Mexico and Tennessee. Arizona scored 0 points, Arkansas scored 4, New Mexico scored 4 and Tennessee scored 8. Eighth place for most gun deaths was West Virginia. West Virginia scored 4 points.-

    http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-204_162-10010004-21.html

    http://www.bradycampaign.me/sites/default/files/2011_Brady_Campaign_State_Scorecard_Rankings.pdf

    To me this evidence suggests that gun control extremes produce more violence. Whether it is to much or too little gun control. The reason I bring this up is when people start making arguments against the generic term gun control they typically start advocating extremes in the direction of too little gun control.

    I will end as I began. Gun control will not fix everything. But there is nothing that will fix everything. Gun control laws are a way to combat crime and to provide for a safer society. In the same way any laws are intended to provide for a safer society. People constantly disobey traffic laws but we still have them. People disobey every law but we still have them. The problem with gun violence in our country is people think they need to use guns to solve their problems. We need to improve the mental health system of our country. We also need to improve our educational system. We need to teach people from a young age that crimes and guns are not the right way.

    • vicki

      More guns means LESS crime so laws requiring gun ownership would be the ones you want.

      http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2013/more-guns-less-crime-2013.aspx

      Not only that but since Sandy Hook

      ~300 MILLION Americans didn’t shoot ANYONE. Not even by accident.

      Stop punishing the innocent for the acts of a VERY few

      Stop it

      Stop it NOW

      Oh as a side note the Constitution is STILL the supreme law of the land and it clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Vicki we have done this before. Gun bans do not work. On that we agree. Though I would point out that Australia has strict gun control and there have been no mass shootings since those measures were implemented.: http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html

        Vicki “laws requiring gun ownership would be the ones you want”. What about my right to keep and bear arms. That includes the right to not keep and bear arms if I choose. This seems like an extreme Vicki. Instead of regulating access to guns we should just turn our country into gunistan. Vicki as far as I am concerned everyone being armed sounds little better than a police state. That I refuse to support.

        Vicki a background check is not a punishment. Requiring gun safety training is not a punishment. Even a limit on the magazine size to just ten rounds is not a punishment. Rules do not equal punishment. I have to take tests and obtain a license in order to drive. I have never hurt or killed anyone with my car not even by accident. Yet I am expected to obey the rules of the road and renew my license and registration. I am not being punished. The same goes for bureaucracy in obtaining a gun. The second amendment protects the peoples rights to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. It acknowledges and allows for regulations. As I have so often said just as there are things like slander laws and libel laws which restrict the right to free speech so there are reasonable restrictions when it comes to firearms. The law says people can keep and bear arms. It does not say they can get then anywhere, anytime and under any conditions. The second amendment says I cannot prevent someone from keeping or bearing arms. It does not say I can’t delay them from getting their hands on arms. In the past you have often used the quote
        ” a right delayed is a right denied”. There are a few problems with this quote as applies to guns. If you do not personally own, keep or bear an arm that does not mean you lose the right to keep and bear it. I do not own any firearms yet I have not lost my right to keep and bear one should I choose to go out and buy it. Also as I said the delaying of a person from obtaining more weapons does not prevent them from using the weapons they still have.

        Vicki I believe in the Constitution as much as you do. And yes the Constitution is still the law of the land. Right now the only threats to the Constitution I see are not the proposals Obama has made regarding gun control. Its things like the Patriot Act and the NDAA Act. Its people who want us to profile Muslims and prevent them from building mosques. The threats I see are against the first amendment. Not the second. The first amendment is our first line of defense against tyranny and our first weapon. I want to safeguard that before I worry about our last line of defense.

        • vicki

          Jeremy Leochner writes:

          Even a limit on the magazine size to just ten rounds is not a punishment.

          Tell that to this family. Too bad they can’t hear you. They’re DEAD.

          • Jeremy Leochner

            A couple of problems Vicki. First of all your link is a PSA. Its not real. Second what kind of robber is stupid enough to break into a house with people in it. Third once the other guy hears shots fired why is he stupid enough to continue the break in. For all he knows the family has assault rifles. Forth the husband wasted bullets on a guy who was already hit and down. Fifth lets assume all this is real and actually happened. I still think it is not realistic to base our decisions on the worst possible scenario.

            An article by life tips on home security says

            ” Of the residential burglaries reported in 2006, a staggering 63.1 percent occurred during the daytime. These numbers debunk a common misconception that homes get broken into mostly at night.
            During the day, while you are at work and your kids are at school, your home is most vulnerable.” -http://homesecurity.lifetips.com/faq/139392/0/do-burglaries-happen-more-in-the-day-or-night/index.html

            The far more likely possibility is a break in when no one is home. And as to break ins involving guns. A 2010 article by stateoftheusa.org stated that ” What researchers found was that violence was used on average in seven
            percent (266,560) of the 3.7 million burglaries each year. Of those
            266,560 violent burglaries, offenders had a firearm just 12 percent of
            the time, and victims knew their attackers beforehand 65 percent of the
            time.” -http://www.stateoftheusa.org/content/new-approach-to-burglary.php

            So with respect Vicki it appears that your scenario has only a 12% chance of taking place. In addition the same article affirms the fact that even at night time break ins happen more often when the people are not at home. I have no desire to leave people unable to defend themselves. However I do not consider one or even two hand guns with a ten shot capacity to be equal to unable to defend.

          • vicki

            Jeremy writes:

            So with respect Vicki it appears that your scenario has only a 12% chance of taking place.

            Only half of all mass shootings involved shooters using hi cap magazines.

            http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings

            And yet you are claiming that for a 0.00001% chance of taking place that you want

            ~300 MILLION Americans who didn’t shoot ANYONE at all have to give up their right to keep and bear some arms? (magazines with more than 7 or 10 rounds)

            STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of (31 now) a few

            STOP IT

            STOP IT NOW

          • Jeremy Leochner

            I would point out Vicki your source states that “We examined the data from Mother Jones’ continuing investigation into mass shootings
            and found that high-capacity magazines have been used in at least 31 of
            the 62 cases we analyzed. A half-dozen of these crimes occurred in the
            last two years alone.”. The key words there are at least 31. That means at least half of all mass shootings use high capacity rifles. In addition the article also says that ” Law enforcement officials, meanwhile, tend to agree that no law-abiding citizen needs high-capacity magazines for self-defense.” So I would point out that high capacity magazines are used more than you suggest and that law enforcement says no law abiding citizen needs them.

          • vicki

            I don’t understand why you think that hi cap magazines are used more than I suggest? I even provided the link and even used 31 when doing the math (31/~300,000,000*100 = 0.00001%)

            Remember:

            ~300 MILLION Americans didn’t shoot ANYONE AT ALL let alone using a hi capacity magazine.

            Stop punishing the innocent for the acts of the VERY VERY VERY (did I mention very) few.

            Stop it

            Stop it NOW.

          • Don 2

            I give you credit Vicki. You keep up the good fight against the anti-gunners and the just plain logic deprived bananas out there. Good job!

          • Don 2

            I give you credit Vicki. You keep up the good fight against the anti-gunners and the just plain logic deprived bananas out there. Good job!

          • Jeremy Leochner

            I will agree she does put up a good fight Don. Though I would point out I am not anti gun.

          • vicki

            Jeremy claims to not be anti-gun but supports all the infringements talked about on PLD

          • Jeremy Leochner

            First I would need to know what “infringements” your talking about. But I am guessing I do not.

          • vicki

            Jeremy writes

            First I would need to know what “infringements” your talking about.

            Just read your own posts in this thread for a start on what infringements I am talking about.

          • Jeremy Leochner

            I have supported magazine limits. Those do not infringe on any ones rights to keep and bear arms. I have not supported gun bans. Nor have I supported banning all magazines. I have simply supported limiting magazines which is not the same as limiting ones right to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia.

          • vicki

            Jeremy writes

            I have supported magazine limits. Those do not infringe on any ones rights to keep and bear arms.

            Since a magazine is an integral part of a firearm and magazine size is a property of magazines any restriction on the size of a magazine is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

          • Frank Kahn

            Vicki, Jeremy will never understand the actual meaning of infringe. He argues that limiting is not infringing. Anyone that can read a definition, and has basic comprehension knows that limiting is a form of infringement. He also has that liberal tendency to claim that regulate militia somehow means regulated arms.

          • vicki

            I’m well aware of this. I just want his thinking showcased so readers have knowledge of the anti-gun thinking when they have to counter the anti-gun arguments.

            One of the most important things I have learned in discussing gun-control with both pro and anti gun people is the disengenuiousnesss (Is that really a word?) of the anti gun agenda.

            When ever we talk about the 2nd it clearly says that government is not allowed in any way to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. The anti gun people immediately talk about MIS-USE of guns and not simple possession.

            Even when they try and claim that our exercising our right to keep and carry arms is violating some right of theirs, they give an example of mis-use of, not possession of firearms.

          • Jeremy Leochner

            Well Vicki you said that “Only half of all mass shootings involved shooters using hi cap magazines.”. Where as the article stated that “at least 31 of
            the 62 cases we analyzed”. Basically you said it was only half. But the article says at least half. To me the article implied it happens more than just half. I will concede the math. I will agree that high capacity magazines are not used that much. However I will stick to the argument made in the article you posted that says that law enforcement believes that “no law-abiding citizen needs high-capacity magazines for self-defense.”

            As to the point you often bring up Vicki about punishing people for the acts of a few. Just because few people do it does not mean we should allow everyone to have the means to do it. Millions of Americans don’t drive cars without a license. But we still impose penalties on those who do and we require everyone else to carry them while driving. Millions of Americans don’t get drunk and drive. But we still impose penalties not just on the drunk drivers but also on those who allow drunks to leave their party or bar without a designated driver. A friend of mine loves to throw parties. Whenever I go I end up being the designated driver if someone has to go home. Does it feel like a punishment for me. Sometimes. But the answer is not to make it so that I am not required to take them home. Its not to make it legal for them to leave the house without a designated driver.

            Vicki not allowing people to carry high capacity magazines is not punishing anyone. People can stll carry handguns and rifles and shotguns and have capacities of up to ten rounds in the world I envision. Honestly Vicki when you equate things like magazine limits to “punishing” innocent Americans it comes across to me less like someone making a righteous argument and more like someone upset that they cannot get everything they want. I am sorry if that sounds rude but that is the honest truth. We live in a democratic society Vicki. Sometimes things are passed that you may have a strong argument against. You may have strong feelings about something and you certainly have a right to stand up to them and oppose them. And to seek to change them. I am not saying just accept things. But magazine limits seems a odd thing to call out for “punishing” people. If it were gun bans I would agree with you. Or if they required a waiting period of years or even months I would agree with you. But limits on magazine sizes is not that big a burden. Fine yes in a shootout having a magazine of a higher capacity would be beneficial. But I see little logic in basing decisions on the worst possible and least likely scenario.

          • me

            who would want a high capacity magizine? i cant afford to blow away $20to $40 abox of shells. I enjoy one precise shot hitting what i am shooting at. A couple of years ago I was deer hunting and hear another hunter shoot off eight shots in a row real fast. the way he was firing the deer would probly have been gone after two. i guess some people who blow away shells with a extended magizine hhave more money than brains. This is a free country and if waste is your thing, more power to you.

          • Katrael

            The second amendment says nothing about magazine size so I should be able to have any size magazine I wish. Criminals won’t respect any law about magazine size so what do you have to fear from a law abiding citizen who has a fifty round magazine? They won’t use it on you. It’s either that you live in fear like deer in water does or you have a wish to control others. In your case I think it’s both.

          • Jeremy Leochner

            Katrael the fact that the second amendment says nothing of magazine sizes means that they can be regulated. As to your comment criminals. Yes criminals won’t respect laws governing magazine sizes. However I am pretty sure criminals don’t respect laws in general. That’s why they are called criminals. A law abiding person does not need a 50 round magazine. A weapon like that is powerful. It is dangerous unless it is in the hands of someone trained to use it. And it should only be had in situations that call for that much fire power. But since few if any citizens will ever face the need to use 50 rounds of ammunition there is no need for people to have them. As for me its neither. I do not live in fear. Mainly because I trust enough to not carry a weapon for protection. Also I know I don’t have to worry about someone walking around brandishing a gun in front of me. And as for my “wish to control others”. My desire is no more than to maintain laws such as background checks and to allow a maximum of ten round magazines. People can still have as many hand guns and rifles and shotguns as current laws allow. They can still obtain concealed carry permits as allowed by current law. They can still carry weapons as applies to the laws of their state and city. The only real measure I have proposed Katrael is to limit magazine sizes to just ten. I hardly think that qualifies as wanting to control others. At least no more than any law controls anyone. After all if you support a law which I do not could I not also say you are controlling me.

          • vicki

            Jeremy writes

            Katrael the fact that the second amendment says nothing of magazine sizes means that they can be regulated.

            The fact that the 2nd Amendment says arms and magazines are an integral part of a subset of arms and the size of a magazine is an integral property of a magazine the 2nd amendment most certainly does say that the government is forbidden to infringe upon the keeping and bearing of magazines of any size.

          • Jeremy Leochner

            The second amendment states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
            State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
            infringed.” It says “well regulated” before it says anything else. The second amendment does not say anything goes. It does not say regulations cannot be made of arms accessories or additions or subsets. When the founders wrote the second amendment there was no such thing as magazines. I see no reason Vicki why any person in their right mind would feel the need to carry a weapon with a magazine size of more than ten. If you require a gun with a magazine size greater than ten in order to feel safe I think there is either a serious problem with the law enforcement in your area or there is a serious problem with your sense of safety. If you believe you need such heavy weaponry to protect your family why not get a guard dog and good locks. Or maybe an advanced security system with self locking and closing doors. Heck there are even alarm systems with offensive capabilities. I consider things like that to be better than turning your home into an armed fortress. And as for the argument that the second amendment is a defense against tyranny I agree. However as I have said in the past the second amendment as applies to the individual right to keep and bear arms is a last line of defense against tyranny. If tyranny is ever to arise they will first have to get rid of our first line of defense- the first amendment. They will then have to get rid of our courts and our legislative bodies. They will then need to get rid of the armed forces and the national guard. There is a long way to go before the individual right to keep and bear arms is necessary to fight against tyranny. As far as I am concerned Vicki the only time a sane person would need to have a magazine size of greater than ten would be if they are facing an invasion of four or more people. If such a thing is happening and I am sure it is somewhere then we need to focus on improving law enforcement so that our citizens don’t have to protect themselves. That’s why police are sworn to protect and serve. We need to make sure they do that. Vicki all I have said is people can only keep magazines of ten or less. I never said how many magazines or how many guns they can keep. I am trying to be reasonable. Because honestly I think 7 is a better limit. But I am trying to compromise. It seems Vicki that if I propose something you disagree with you claim I am punishing innocent people or I am infringing on the second amendment. I have no desire to do either and honestly I do not believe I am doing either.. All I have proposed is limiting magazine sizes. Why is that so threatening.

          • vicki

            Jeremy writes:

            The second amendment states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
            It says “well regulated” before it says anything else. The second amendment does not say anything goes. It does not say regulations cannot be made of arms accessories or additions or subsets.>

            You are correct. The 2nd amendment does not say that anything goes. It says that the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP (possess) and BEAR (carry) arms (which obviously includes any and all subsets of arms) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

            It is a regulation on GOVERNMENT forbidding it from infringing on our GOD given right to keep and bear arms.

            Vicki why any person in their right mind would feel the need to carry a weapon with a magazine size of more than ten.

            Argument to ridicule. Game set match.

          • Katrael

            It is not up to you to decide what a person needs or doesn’t need Jeremy, that’s a control issue. You, along with anyone who want’s to control people live in fear and that’s not healthy. You need help for your fear. A fifty round magazine isn’t any more dangerous in the hands of a law abiding citizen than a single shot weapon is so you have no other reason for wishing for these limits other than an unhealthy desire to control other people’s choices.

            “A weapon like that is powerful. It is dangerous unless it is in the
            hands of someone trained to use it. And it should only be had in
            situations that call for that much fire power. But since few if any
            citizens will ever face the need to use 50 rounds of ammunition there is
            no need for people to have them.”

            How do you know when any given individual will need to have a fifty round clip? Now you perport to be a god and know all? I think not. There may be a time when all law abiding citizens will need a fifty round magazine for their firearms. It also seems that you have no experience with fire arms? I had a hundred round clip for my rifle at one time and I had no problem controlling it. It was fun to shoot.

            Yes, firearms are dangerous, duh. So are cars and there are many more related deaths to them than firearms and I don’t see you calling for a restriction on the size and speed of automobiles. You probably even own one yourself that might one day kill another car full of people.
            As for what the constitution doesn’t speak directly about: Since it doesn’t talk about Jeremy Leochner then we ought to have a law that exiles you and people like you who want to inordinately control others out this country. You should be given a one way ticket to any other country of your choice. Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it?

            Sure you could say I’m trying to control you if I support a law that you don’t agree with and it would be true then it’d be my turn to be exiled.

            “Also I know I don’t have to worry about someone walking around
            brandishing a gun in front of me. And as for my “wish to control
            others”.”

            Oh really now, then why the desire to limit the size of magazine?

          • Jeremy Leochner

            Katrael It is not up to me to decide what people need. But I have to support what I support based on my own understanding. I do not want to control peoples lives. And I do not live in fear. The only thing I fear are people who think they need a gun with a fifty round magazine to be safe. The only thing I fear is what I see as paranoia.

            I never claimed to be a god and I do not know everything. I would like someone to honestly tell what are the chances of any individual needing to use a fifty round magazine. I honestly do not see the chances as being that great. You say “There may be a time when all law abiding citizens will need a fifty round magazine for their firearms”. When exactly will that be. I admit I have little experience with firearms. But that does not mean I do not know how powerful a weapon with 50 rounds of ammunition can be.

            Cars are not designed to kill. As a matter of fact I would support tougher laws governing license and car design. Perhaps getting rid of cup holders. People have to pass though far more stringent rules to obtain a car than they do to buy a gun.

            So let me get this straight. You do not like what I say and feel it violates your rights. So your going to take the moral high ground by not merely violating my rights but kicking me out of the country. So me wanting a limit on the size of magazines means I deserve to be exiled from the country. With respect you seem worse than you accuse me of being.

            I am not trying to control you any more than any law controls anyone. With respect Katrael I am supporting a law that still grants you ten rounds of ammunition. Hardly seems cruel.

            I desire to limit magazine sizes because of several things. The first being articles like this- http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home which suggest that guns in the home increase the danger for the people inside. In addition there are articles like this- http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings which point out that “Law enforcement officials, meanwhile, tend to agree that no law-abiding citizen needs high-capacity magazines for self-defense.”. So it is not just my opinion. It is also the opinion of many law enforcement officials. You do not need a gun with a high magazine capacity to defend yourself.

          • Katrael

            “Katrael It is not up to me to decide what people need. But I have to
            support what I support based on my own understanding. I do not want to
            control peoples lives. And I do not live in fear. The only thing I fear
            are people who think they need a gun with a fifty round magazine to be
            safe. The only thing I fear is what I see as paranoia.”

            Jeremy, you are a lesson in double talk: first you say you don’t live in fear then you say that you do live in fear. Also you claim that you don’t want to control people then you say you do through the law.

            When will law abiding citizens need fifty round magazines? I’m not a god either but history shows that eventually the governments that decide that they need to control their citizens actions down to making all major decisions for them eventually turn to persecuting those who won’t be controlled that way. A few examples would be the Germans, Russians, Chinese, Cambodians and many other governments through history. I will not do your work for you on this.

            Also, you rightly say that cars aren’t designed to kill, however that doesn’t change the fact that they are instruments of death and sometimes they are intended to be just that. I consider you to be a hypocrite for not speaking out on this. Anybody of legal age may purchase an automobile without a background check….or at least it used to be that way. I haven’t bought a new car in quite a while so things may have changed.
            You’d make a good politician with you double talk.

            It’s not up to law enforcement people to decide what is good for the people. That’s an individual’s right even if you or I don’t agree with it.

            As far as your links? I care not about anybody else’s opinion on this matter. People have the right to be unsafe in their homes and to expose their family to all kinds of dangers if that’s what they want to do. I don’t agree with being that way and the best defense against a burglar is a shotgun as the pellets from such pose little threat to a loved one on the other side of a sheetrock wall, but my opinion doesn’t change a person’s rights. It’s also my opinion that you need to mature and stop being a brat that wants to control people.

          • Jeremy Leochner

            Katrael I do not live in fear. When I see the debate over gun control being no pun intended controlled by people who appear paranoid than I become concerned. I would prefer to have debates be governed by moderates instead of extremists. As for my views on “controlling” people. I consider it mature and reasonable to accept the laws governing my life. I feel that laws are like people, some are good and some are bad and we need to judge them accordingly. However I feel it is unreasonable to suggest that I want to control people simply because I would vote for a law to regulate how many bullets can be fired without reloading. I would vote for such a thing if it came up. We live in a Republic. I have a right to vote for what I believe is right. I don’t consider it controlling people to have laws enacted in democratic elections.

            Katrael I know a decent amount about the countries which you mentioned. A slight problem with your theory is it was not the government which was the bad guy. In Germany it wasn’t the governments fault. It was Hitlers. Hitler took control of the government and used it to his own ends. He used fear and the peoples misguided faith in him to turn what was a Republican government into a dictatorship. In all the countries you mentioned it was not until deranged tyrants were already in power that they started to control people. It wasn’t until it was already too late that the people needed guns to protect themselves. If there should ever come a day when what happened in Germany in 1933 or Russia in 1917 happens here than I will be on your side. If martial law is declared or an armed uprising takes control of the government I will be all for the things you propose. But until that day I believe you are wrong.

            I am not using double speak. I agree we should set higher standards for who can get a license. And like I said we should consider laws about not having cup holders in our vehicles like they do in places like Germany where speed limits are much higher than they are here. And maybe tougher traffic laws would help. As well as tougher penalties for things like drunk driving.

            Law enforcements sworn duty is to protect and serve the people. They need to be given the best tools to do that job. You say its the individuals right to decide what is “good for the people”. Well what if I as an individual decide that whats good for the people is supporting law enforcement over arming more people. Where does that leave me. If in my heart of hearts I believe that strengthening law enforcement is a better approach than just more guns what am I supposed to do.

            With all due respect Katrael you call me a brat who needs to mature at the same time as you completely dismiss my evidence saying you don’t care. Then you start doing exactly what you accuse me of doing, deciding what is best for people and acting like you know whats best. And with all due respect Katrael I never threatened to have you exiled just because I didn’t like what you said. If you would like to question my maturity please make sure your own is beyond reproach.

            And my opinion does not change anyone’s rights. You still have the right to keep and bear arms. You just have to reload a little more often. The ability to reload as often as you want and the ability to keep and bear arms are not the same thing.

          • Katrael

            I’m going to make it simple and it may save you from reading the rest of my opinion: guns aren’t the problem, people are. Read the rest if you wish. People have murdered from the beginning of time and the worst offenders are the governments of this world and not the individual gun owners. Your inordinate fear over someone having more firepower than you do should extend to the government you love.

            OK Jeremy, you can’t have it both ways. I took a quote from your own words that said this: “And I do not live in fear. The only thing I fear”. Perhaps you’re not alive so you aren’t living in fear? These are your own words. You said that you fear something and apparently you fear this issue enough to carry on about it. If you agree that law abiding citizens aren’t a threat to you then what difference should it make to you what they own or don’t own? Here’s what I think: you fear yourself mostly and what you would do with all of that responsibility and that maybe possibly you want to limit magazine sizes so that when you go on your murderous rampage that you’ll not be able to murder but only a few people. Isn’t that correct Jeremy? That you fear the monster within you and you filter information about others through your fear? Then again I could be entirely incorrect.
            Control, you’re in favor of a law that would control what somebody owns and it appears that you would vote in favor of it therefore you want to control people. You can’t have it both ways Jeremy.

            Your fear shows a lack of maturity.

            You’re good at double talk Jeremy. Hitler, Stalin and any other dictator you can think of comprises a part of a government that “governs” people. That means that those governments were the “bad guy” in spite of your contention otherwise. Those good meaning people didn’t care that their governments were killing untold millions of their fellow citizens. At the very least those good intentioned so called moral people didn’t care if they were persecuting a large segment of their own citizenry. Your lack of understanding on these issues is amazing. Of course you’ll change your warm fuzzy feelings about our government if or when it starts to persecute you and your kink one day.

            If you did some real serious study on government you;d find that there is a natural progression to these things. From anarchy to a republic, from a republic to a democracy, from a democracy to an oligarchy and from an oligarchy to a dictatorship. We are no longer nor have we been for a long time a republic. We now claim to be a mob ruled country. A country where one day there is one law then the next day the mob decides to change the law. That’s what a democracy is: mob rule. This country is headed toward a dictatorship. This isn’t paranoia, it’s
            reality and it eventually happens in nearly all countries. People such
            as yourself wish to control people. .

            Excuse me Jeremy, but what in the hell does a law enforcement agency have to fear from law abiding citizens who owns weapons with high capacity magazines since they wouldn’t break any laws with them? Those law enforcement agencies must have a desire to infringe on people’s lives so they don’t want them to be able to protect themselves from evil law enforcement agencies. I don’t believe this but I do have personal experience with law enforcement agencies that don’t mind violating my rights.

            I don’t care about your evidence because it doesn’t show where law abiding citizens do anything wrong with their fifty round magazines. You are a brat because it seems that you want to control the minutia of people’s lives. Guns are a very small part of the problem unless you’re talking about our governments then it becomes a very big problem.

            Jeremy, I don’t want anymore laws. We could scrap about three million laws and still not be short of laws. What it really boils down to is this: there is a higher law, one that is far above that of any man made law. That set of laws is more than adequate to give people the guidelines that people need to live by. I recognize that it is your right to do anything you wish or that your heart desires and I mean anything you could dream of but I also recognize that you have the right to suffer the consequences of your actions. So let’s look at two of the basic laws: don’t murder or steal. These two are a good enough place to start. We don’t need gun control laws with a law that says not to murder or steal and if you do then your life is forfeit or you make restitution to the victim for the theft.. That’s enough. What else is needed?.
            I know that I need to mature more but I don’t live in fear of somebody’s immoral behavior and I’m certainly don’t fear law abiding citizens.. I just want to be armed so that if somebody comes to my house to do me or mine harm that I can blow them away and be done with them.
            I tire of this issue Jeremy, vote as you wish and I’ll do exactly as I wish.

          • Jeremy Leochner

            Katrael

            1: I know that people have murdered each other since the beginning of time. That does not make it okay. And yes governments have waged terrible wars. That does not mean I should accept warfare between citizens. There will always be someone more heavily armed than me. And no matter how well I arm myself the government will always be more heavily armed than me. Because they are supposed to fight against foreign invasion. I choose to engage in a personal arsenal free for all between myself and my fellow citizens. And since it seems as though my fellow citizens are engaging in an arms free for all I would do something now rather than later. A populace that is heavily armed can be just as dangerous as a disarmed one. Anarchy is no better than tyranny.

            2: Katrael I don’t spend my every waking moment worrying about people armed with high capacity magazines. And I don’t dedicate my days to worrying about them. Hence why I say “I do not live in fear”. But when the issue of gun control comes up or when a mass shooting occurs as has been happening quite often recently I take notice. I feel strongly on the subject. I believe that there are steps that can be taken to deal with the problem. Steps that can be discussed and compromised on to try to come up with the best solution. But when I see the people controlling the debate. From the NRA to members of the Senate. When I hear these people talk about how close we are to tyranny and how we can never legislate away the evil our society suffers and therefore should not even try I become worried. I become worried that the debate has been hijacked by extremists who are unwilling to even discuss a potential compromise. I start hearing either “we need to ban guns” or “we need to require everyone to have a gun”. Those seem to be the only two arguments I hear everyone in power making. I don’t agree with either of those proposals. And then on sites like this or on facebook I see my own countrymen making similar proposals and accusing each other of being fascistic and all other kinds of names instead of discussing. It seems like on all levels the debate is not a debate anymore. Its just a series of accusations and counter accusations. When I see that I become afraid. So I respond by trying to suggest what to me seems like reasonable regulations on guns so as to calm my own concerns about gun violence while still recognizing peoples understandable concerns about safety for themselves and their families. I have no desire to control people Katrael. I just want to support what I believe will help make our society safer. I am willing to discuss it. Maybe magazine limits are not the answer. Or maybe they are just part of a bigger answer. Maybe there is a law or something you would suggest. Maybe that would work. All I want is to combat the issue of gun violence in this country. I am sick of all these mass shootings and everyone rushing to blame Hollywood or video games for it.

            3: Katrael I understand fully what people like Hitler and Stalin did. But I also recognize that what they were doing was obvious to everyone. People act as those dictators come into power through subtle and incremental steps. Hitler became dictator through a bill that in no uncertain terms proclaimed him dictator. Stalin had already destroyed any semblance of a democratic government by the time he was in power. I would never ignore or condone the kind of persecution that the Nazis or Soviets committed Katrael. You have my word. But you need to understand that that persecution did not happen until the democratic government was already gone. People are so afraid that the government is going to “take away their guns and control every aspect of their lives”. They are so worried that they do not seem to realize that in order for such horrible things to happen the Republic has to be destroyed first. The government is not going to start persecuting people until it no longer has the courts or the constitution or the armed forces to stand in its way.

            4: Katrael my belief in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are the cornerstones of my political philosophy. If ever a law was purposed which did harm to those documents or to the Republic I would oppose them. I opposed the Patriot Act when it was first published. I opposed the NDAA Act. I have opposed the Drone Program and Guantanamo Bay. I am just as devoted to the Republic as you. And yes I believe we still have a Republic. We just have a government full of corrupt people. As long as we have faith in the Republic dictatorship cannot arise. Its only when we start believing that the Republic is gone that the Republic starts to die.

            5: No one knows who is “law abiding” with certainty. A person can be law abiding and than commit a crime of passion. A person can seem law abiding but really be a convicted or perhaps non convicted killer. With respect Katrael I do not think the polices desire for a populace that doesn’t have high capacity magazines can be summed up as “a desire to infringe on people’s lives so they don’t want them to be
            able to protect themselves from evil law enforcement agencies”. What if the agencies are not evil and are just trying to help. Where does your opinion of the police leave them.

            6: With all due respect Katrael how does wanting people to only have gun magazines up to ten rounds equate to ” want to control the minutia of people’s lives”. I never said anything about how many guns they may keep or how many magazines for that matter. All I said was magazines no more than ten. I am a brat because I want one thing that still leaves people with a great deal of fire power. My evidence suggests that they do not need 50 round magazines. So why is everyone so worked up about it. I am labelled a brat for suggesting that people not have what it appears they do not need. Why is this such a big deal?

            7: We need to do better to enforce existing laws. On that I think we can agree. I agree with you as to those basic laws being important. I do not think they alone will suffice for a decent society. And as we all know people disobey laws. But we still keep them.

            8: I do not live in fear of others immoral behavior. I would just prefer to do something about it prior to their coming “to my house to do me or mine harm”. I would rather stop them before that. Or at least do more than just be prepared. I would also like to try and prevent.

          • Katrael

            Deu 30:19 “I have called the heavens and the earth as witnesses today against you: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Therefore you shall choose life, so that you live, both you and your seed,
            Deu 30:20 to love יהוה your Elohim, to obey His voice, and to cling to Him – for He is your life and the length of your days – to dwell in the land which יהוה swore to your fathers, to Aḇraham, to Yitsḥaq, and to Yaʽaqoḇ, to give them.”

            We don’t need to debate any further about these issues. It appears that you consider your government to be your savior. You place trust in a group of people who want to obtain power anyway that they are able to. I believe in what was recorded thousands of years ago…that our creator has shown us a way to live. If we follow his ways we will have abundant life for us and our children.

            Today I’m acting as a mawlawk and passing on this message to you: find that way that brings life with it. Be well an prosper in proper living.
            Katrael

          • Jeremy Leochner

            I do not consider the government to be my savior. I just don’t consider it the devil. I think if government is properly and effectively lead it
            can do great good. I want to give it the tools to do so.

            I do not believe in god. But I believe in living an honorable and just life. Al-salam alaykum

            Jeremy

          • Katrael

            Hey Jeremy I hope you are well and
            prospering? I don’t believe in God either and I don’t blame you for
            not believing in him either. Although I do believe in the creator I
            just don’t believe in god. There is a difference.

          • Jeremy Leochner

            Hey Katrael

            I am doing well. Thank you. Sorry if I assumed you believed in god. I am just so used to people referring to god when they say the creator. My mistake. I hope you are doing well also.

        • vicki

          Jeremy Leochner writes:

          Rules do not equal punishment.

          Rules do equal infringement.

          • Jeremy Leochner

            “Rules do equal infringement”. No offense but that is an unreasonable statement Vicki. Are you saying there should be no rules. Just because you cannot do whatever you want does not mean you are not free to do what you want.

          • vicki

            Read carefully the 2nd Amendment. Take special note in the words “shall” “not” “be” “infringed”. Then look at to what they apply

            The RIGHT of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms.

            That rule is quite clear. The GOVERNMENT may not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms in any way.

            There is NO possible way that my keeping and carrying a firearm can violate ANYONE’S rights unless it is their property and they have asked me not to. (And I don’t or don’t go on their property)

          • Jeremy Leochner

            The second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not say the right to purchase arms or obtain arms shall not be infringed. You have the right to keep and bear what you have. Like you said you do not have the right to bear arms on others property if they do not wish it. The second amendment does not say anything goes when it comes to firearms. It allows you to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia to serve as a defense against tyranny and foreign invasion.

          • vicki

            Jeremy writes:

            The second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be
            infringed. It does not say the right to purchase arms or obtain arms
            shall not be infringed.

            Since one has to obtain arms to possess arms the 2nd most certainly DOES.

            The second amendment does not say anything goes when it comes to firearms.

            Correct. It says your right to keep and carry arms shall NOT be infringed by government rules or laws that would infringe on keeping and carrying of arms.

            It allows you to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia to serve as a defense against tyranny and foreign invasion.

            Since the 2nd PROTECTS our God given right to keep and bear arms for ANY reason it most certainly protects our right to keep and bear arms so that we can serve as part of a well equipped militia to serve as a defense against tyranny and foreign invasion.

          • Jeremy Leochner

            “Since one has to obtain arms to possess arms the 2nd most certainly DOES.”- Restrictions on how when and where to obtain arms do not prevent you from getting them. Background checks and waiting periods do not prevent you from getting arms. As long as it is possible to get arms your rights are not being infringed.

            The second amendment does not protect your right to keep and bear arms for “ANY reason”. You cannot use arms to intimidate your fellow citizens or to infringe on the rights of others. Like you said you cannot bring weapons onto the property of others if they do not want you too.

          • vicki

            Jeremy writes:

            You cannot use arms to intimidate your fellow citizens

            Of course you can use arms to intimidate rapists, muggers, tyrants etc. That is rather the point.

            or to infringe on the rights of others

            Keeping and bearing arms CAN NOT infringe on the rights of others with the single listed exception of the (private) owner of the property you are keeping and bearing on.

          • Jeremy Leochner

            Yes Vicki. But unless you know they are “rapists, muggers, tyrants etc” you cannot use them to intimidate. Vicki your statement that “Keeping and bearing arms CAN NOT infringe on the rights of others with
            the single listed exception of the (private) owner of the property you
            are keeping and bearing on.” is contradictory. When you put CAN NOT in bold like that you are making a declarative statement. You cannot then follow it up with an exception. Either it can not infringe on others rights or it can.

          • vicki

            Sure I can. I just did. Your right to keep and bear arms violates NO ONE ELSES rights. If you happen to be on private property the owner can ask you to leave for any reason at all including no reason. Your possession of a firearm may be one of those reasons.

          • Jeremy Leochner

            Vicki if you do not know someone is a threat to you, you cannot simply threaten them with a deadly weapon. You cannot ask someone to leave for no reason. At least not with a gun you cannot. Vicki if you are willing to threaten someone without knowing they are a threat to you how do I know you are not capable of shooting someone just because you think they are a threat to you. If you can threaten people you can certainly hurt them.

          • vicki

            Jeremy writes

            Vicki if you do not know someone is a threat to you, you cannot simply threaten them with a deadly weapon.

            Nowhere did I ever say that you can. What was your point?

            You cannot ask someone to leave for
            no reason.

            Sure you can. It is one of your rights as the property owner. You were talking about the property owner and not changing the subject? correct?

            At least not with a gun you cannot.

            Sure you can under the right cirmstances. (I leave the list as an exercise for the readers)

            Vicki if you are willing to threaten someone without knowing they are a threat to you how do I
            know you are not capable of shooting someone just because you think they are a threat to you. If you can threaten people you can certainly hurt them.

            Your entire statement makes no sense and does not follow in the least from my simple statements so I must presume you are being argumentative.

          • Jeremy Leochner

            Vicki I said that “unless you know they are “rapists, muggers, tyrants etc” you cannot use them to intimidate”. You responded by saying “Sure I can. I just did”. I interpreted that as you saying its okay to intimidate people even if you don’t know they are a threat to you. As to my second statement you cannot intimidate someone with a gun for no reason.

            Finally. My last statement was based on my interpretation of yours regarding intimidating people. It seemed to me you were willing to threaten someone with a gun whether or not you knew they were a danger. As such I felt concerned that you were also willing to shoot someone. I assure you I was not simply being argumentative. I was simply responding to your statements as I understood them. I apologize for my error in interpretation.

          • vicki

            Jeremy writes

            Vicki I said that “unless you
            know they are “rapists, muggers, tyrants etc” you cannot use them to intimidate”. You responded by saying “Sure I can. I just did”.

            Oops. My bad. I should have properly cut and pasted what part of your comment I was responding to. You had said:

            ————————–

            ” When you put CAN NOT in bold like that you are making a declarative statement. You cannot then follow it up with an exception.”

            —————————

            I interpreted that as you saying its okay to intimidate people even if you don’t know they are a threat to you.

            (snip)

            Finally. My last statement was based on my interpretation of yours regarding intimidating people.

            I apologize for my error in interpretation.

            Apology accepted. :) And I apologize for not properly indicating what I was responding to.

          • Jeremy Leochner

            Its okay. Its the nature of discussions online.

        • me

          They have gun contol checks right now and can’t enforce them. i read there was over a hundred thousand attempts by felons and ex felons to buy guns and they only proscecuted 400 of them. New gun laws would only hurt innocent, law abiding gun owners.

          • Jeremy Leochner

            What would help would be the repeal of the Tiahrt amendment and The Patriot Act. That would allow President Obama to appoint a director to the ATF and allow the agency to expand and hire more agents. It would also allow the agents to require gun store owners to conduct inventory inspections and report lost inventory. And most importantly it would get rid of the rule which requires the FBI to destroy NICS background check records after just 24 hours. Maintaining those records would help immeasurably.

          • vicki

            No big surprise that you want to have gun owner registration. Registration not only of owners but also of those who would dare to try and exercise their rights that you don’t like

          • Jeremy Leochner

            Vicki there are several reasons I think a Gun Registry would help. The first is that according to an ABC News Article “More than half of the firearms traced in crimes come from just 1 percent of the nation’s licensed gun stores,”-.http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129253&page=1#.UcYwsNif3_Y

            So the guns that are being used by criminals are actually being bought at gun stores. The person buying is undergoing a background check. A gun registry would allow these kinds of transactions to be traced so that the gun can be connected to a specific person. As I pointed out the Tiahrt Amendment requires that background check records be destroyed within 24 hours. That means 24 hours after a gun is purchased there is no longer a paper trail to follow.

            The second reason is an article by PBS.ORG which stated that “one of the most common ways
            criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when
            someone who may not legally acquire
            a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf.”-http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

            Vicki you have often spoken to me about not punishing innocent people. That there is a need to focus on enforcing existing gun laws and as you have pointed out to me arresting criminals. The evidence suggests that most of the time when a person uses a gun to commit a crime somewhere along the way the gun was purchased in a legal fashion. Whether by a friend or an accomplice. Either way the gun has a history. A registry would allow the police to know that history if the gun is picked up at a crime scene. It would help law enforcement to combat the trade of illegal guns. It would go a long way to preventing criminals from getting guns which is what me and my fellow “anti gunners” are so worried about. We will be much happier and we won’t be such a bother to you guys.

            For my final reason I will take a page from Wayne LaPierre’s book. Ahem “Gun registries don’t violate peoples rights, people violate peoples rights”. The only way a gun registry would violate or threaten anyone is if a tyrant got into power. The Germans had a gun registry in 1933. It did not become a danger until Hitler came to power and misused it. But in the right hands a gun registry can do great good. Any sort of police or government power can be misused if it fell into the wrong hands. But in the right hands it can be very beneficial. If we do not monitor our government and prevent tyranny from rising gun registries could lead us down the wrong path. But since any sort of tyrant in our country is purely hypothetical I have to focus on the path we are already on. The evidence suggests a registry would help us. And as long as we husband our Republic and be watchful of any signs of tyranny rising I see no reason why a registry would do any harm. Like any sort of distasteful medicine we have to watch the dosage. But if taken correctly it can help us greatly.

        • Rodosbc

          Two things stand out in your well written comments. Your comment about Australia not having any mass shootings? True, but the home invasion rate went up by about 400% in the year after the confiscation of weapons. Lawmakers were astonished at the rise in crime rate. One even commented, “I can’t understand this. We took away all the guns!” And you are wrong about knives being used in crimes. England, is touted by every anti gun wonk on the planet as the “Safest” country in the world. A recent public slaughter and beheading of an off duty soldier put the lie to that. As well as the fact that law makers in England are even considering restricting the type of knives that may be owned there. This is due to the growing violent crimes being committed with knives. Rumor has it that some people in England might just want their guns back. Bottom line? It’s the people, NOT the tool!

          • Jeremy Leochner

            There are some slight issues with your statement Rodosbc that “the home invasion rate went up by about 400% in the year after the confiscation of weapons.” The primary one is that neither the 1997 buy back nor any of the laws enacted since have outright banned guns. If someone commits a home invasion there is no guarantee that the home will not have a gun. Another problem is that according to an article by snopes.com ” the average Australian citizen didn’t own firearms even before the buyback”-http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

            It cannot simply be because people no longer have access to guns that the crime rates went up since few people had them to begin with. A final problem is according to factcheck.org ” Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since
            the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of
            Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia
            did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since
            declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year
            for which official figures are available.” The evidence suggests that violent crime has been decreasing in the years since the buy back.-http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

            As for England I think theirs is an extreme to be avoided. But I would point out that knives are a weaker weapon no matter who is using it. The soldier you mentioned died a terrible death. Perhaps laws regulating guns should be enacted in England. And perhaps they can ease on restrictions of guns.

            However I disagree with you about it being “the people, NOT the tool!” Rod. If it was as simple as that than the laws in Australia would not have stopped mass shootings. I am going to be brutally honest. I believe a deranged psychopath with a gun is a much bigger threat than one with a knife. I believe crimes involving knives can be dealt with more easily than ones involving guns.

  • vicki

    The OP writes:

    “Much like the hackneyed phrase “gun violence,” the suggestion that
    people have been “killed by guns” goes beyond the usual intellectual
    dishonesty that marks leftist dogma. Lest you think I’m being unfair, I
    checked the gun safe this morning. Everything was exactly as I left it
    the last time.”

    There was an actual experiment run with video published here on PLD recently. Every single gun failed the test by not even shooting anyone let alone killing them.

    http://personalliberty.com/2013/01/23/do-guns-kill-people-pistol-shotgun-assault-rifle-put-to-the-test/

    • Deerinwater

      I know of no one making the sweeping claim that gun laws are a “Cure-All” to gun violence.

      It is gun owners and gun users that are responsible for violence. So it is only natural that any laws would apply and effect this select group of people.

      This attempt to separate the gun from the gun owner/user has some merit now it’s for you to use this argument (or another) to separate the violence from the gun owner/ user.

      I don’t believe that you can Vicky.

      • vicki

        Deerinwater writes:

        It is gun owners and gun users that are responsible for violence. So it is only natural that any laws would apply and effect this select group of people.

        Have you heard of “prior restraint”?

        Have you noticed that there is LOTS of violence that is not caused by nor the responsibility of gun owners and gun users?
        http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl15.xls

        We have lots of laws that properly apply and effect the special case of people who MIS USE tools of ANY TYPE. Example laws against murder, robbery, assault etc.

        Gun control (possession) laws have no effect on the tool users who actually cause violence as they routinely ignore the laws against murder, robbery, assault already so gun possession laws have little to no effect on them

        Gun control (possession) laws apply only to the innocent and violate their GOD give and Constitutionally protected right to KEEP (possess) and BEAR (carry) arms (tools including knives & guns)

        ~300 Million Americans DIDN’T shoot ANYONE. Even by accident.
        (They didn’t murder, rob nor assault anyone either)

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

        Stop it

        Stop it NOW

        • Deerinwater

          Very cleaver Vicky ! You never disappoint me. ~ My post was in response to you posting one day ago ~ that went impart ; “”Much like the hackneyed phrase “gun violence,” the suggestion that people have been “killed by guns” goes beyond the usual intellectual dishonesty that marks leftist dogma.”

          So my post was directed to the gun violence that you brought forth and not violent weather.

          So I feel obliged to repeat my quandary. How can we separate violence commissioned by people with a gun in their hand from gun owners/users?

          For months now,. ~ you, have made a very good argument in this attempted to separate gun violence from gun owners. I’ve been impressed with it , I must say. ~ You have hammered and hammered the same argument over and over again and again. ~

          “~300 Million Americans DIDN’T shoot ANYONE. Even by accident.(They didn’t murder, rob nor assault anyone either)”

          But over 30,000 did! That is 82 people a day. and 300 million people don’t have guns to shoot anyone. The US has an estimated 283 million guns in civilian hands in 2009. ~ but that does not equate to 283 million gun owners. The number would come closer to half or 140 some million or even less. So we have cut your 300 million people argument down to maybe 120 million.

          Not that it really matters ~ but it puts your 300 million defense in a somewhat a less blinding light.

          Myself , I am pro-gun ~ for the lack of a better term. ~ They have a purpose and a place. ~ much like some of my other tools , they have the ability to render rapid results. And just like all my other tools, they are my responsibility and no one else’s . I can’t expect or depend on anyone to help me.

          ~ The problem with owning firearms is that I must keep and care for them to insure they are serviceable. I must secure them from thief and unauthorized use.

          I have been engaged in professions that required me to carry firearms on my person ~Not only a primary piece, but a backup and a “throw-down” plus have select ones hidden about for quick access. Aboard ship or in car travel it’s not so bad but walking about it’s a drag. ~~ It’s a big job and carries a lot of responsibility. The liability is a HUGE problem that must be addressed daily and too many gun owners are just not up to it.

          Vicky, ~ that is a lot of iron to carry around and be responsible for. ~ You find yourself having to dress for what you carry. It’s not comfortable and there are some activities you want to shy away from. It’s not a Homer Simpson lifestyle.

          ~ Some people are capable of accepting this burden and quite frankly ,some are not.

          I think that we are attempting to weed out , those that are not , in much the same way society attempts to weed out bad pet owners. ~

          Let’s face it, ~ some people should never be allowed to have a dog.

          All that said, ~ We Know That Laws will never stop a criminal ~ but I do not believe that all gun violence starts out with criminal intent.but escalates to it.

          • vicki

            Deerinwater writes

            So I feel obliged to repeat my quandary. How can we separate violence commissioned by people with a gun in their hand from gun owners/users?

            By their actions. Just as you would separate violence commissioned by people with a hammer in their hand from hammer owners/users.

            But over 30,000 did! That is 82 people a day.

            300 million people don’t have guns to shoot anyone.

            (snip)

            So we have cut your 300 million people argument
            down to maybe 120 million.

            No we don’t cut it down. ALL ~300 Million Americans have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Not just the ones that choose to.

            Not that it really matters ~ but it puts your 300 million defense in a somewhat a less blinding light.

            The light hasn’t changed at all. See above.

            The problem with owning firearms is that I must keep and care for them to insure they are serviceable. I must secure them from thief and unauthorized use.

            Just as you do for a hammer. And your point?

            I have been engaged in professions that required me to carry firearms on my person ~Not only a primary piece, but a backup and a “throw-down”

            Do tell us more about a “throw-down”

            Vicky, ~ that is a lot of iron to carry around and be responsible for.

            Try carrying around a cop.

          • Deerinwater

            Very Good ~ Correct Vicky, ~ We can judge both gun owner and non-owners By their Actions, both past and present.

            So any laws that are enacted to address gun violence should be tools to better enable us to determine gun owners “actions” or would you decline your own notion?

          • vicki

            Nice try. See “Prior restraint”. Or do you happen to work for the NSA.

      • elda

        If someone wants to kill someone else and they can’t get a gun they will find a way. A gun is just a tool like a knife, car, bat, bomb, poison, biological weapon, the list goes on and on. It is people that decide to kill that is the problem, not the tool.

    • Jeff

      I’m sure that will be great solace to you when someone close to you is killed by a person firing a gun, particularly someone who couldn’t pass a background check but went to a gun show and bought one.

      • vicki

        It will have the same effect on me if someone close to me is killed by a speeding car. I will blame the person and not the tool.

        I might consider blaming government for not keeping a criminal in jail but that is on a case by case basis.

  • gowner

    oooooooh! LIGHTBULB…
    How bout this legislation… how about crafting a bill that says we the gun-owners of the usa pay 1/10th of the tax that non-gun owners pay to support the police department. If them folks want police to ‘protect’ them… let THEM pay for it and reduce the burden of the people who will take care of themselves…
    I bet I could save at least enough to buy another pizza per month… a real one from a fancy Italian place….
    That’s right… I like pizza and guns. Got a problem with that??

  • securityman

    i’ll side with Vicki and come right out and tell you that you are an obummer stooge jeff. gun control includes knowing what guns are made for and teaching responsabilty to your kids. but “gun control” will control a lot of crime. a high gun area is safer to be in than the places that are really strict. that is a proven statement, that you probably don’t understand anyway….,…..

    • vicki

      They understand. They don’t care cause they think reality doesn’t apply to them or they are paid to propagandize here.