What? The Gun-Free Sign Didn’t Work?

do not use

North Carolina Central University is a gun-free zone. There are signs posted around the campus stating it as such.

On Tuesday, Durham, N.C., police were looking for a man who burglarized a home and later committed an armed robbery. They found a suspect who exchanged gunfire with officers and then ran onto the NCCU campus, right past a sign announcing the area was gun-free.

Curiously, the suspect didn’t put down his weapons in response to the sign. Instead, he ran into a wooded area, where he was cornered and then killed in a shootout with police.

Campus officials are considering charging the sign with dereliction of duty and other forms of malfeasance. They are also considering bigger signs and other measures.

Meanwhile, the campus was on lockdown during the ordeal, with students left cowering in their dorm rooms, unarmed and unable to defend themselves. According to the student handbook, “The possession of firearms (including BB guns), ammunition, bows and arrows, knives, razors and other dangerous weapons is not permitted in the residence halls or throughout the campus.”

No word on whether the armed police officers will be charged for violating school policy.

Hat Tip: Huffington Post

Personal Liberty

Bob Livingston

founder of Personal Liberty Digest™, is an ultra-conservative American author and editor of The Bob Livingston Letter™, in circulation since 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.

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.

<53 align="center">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.

352 thoughts on “What? The Gun-Free Sign Didn’t Work?

  1. Gee! How could this happen? The left said that even criminals would obey gun free zones. That’s one of their arguments for taking guns away from everyone else. This just shows how stupid and foolish the left is. I laugh when I see all the signs around Seattle declaring various areas of the city as drug free zones. Most are in areas where the most drug dealings occur. In fact, in the “drug free zones,” the drug problem got even worse AFTER the signs went up.

    1. As someone on the left I will say this Harold. I don’t believe criminals will obey gun free zones. That idea has nothing to do with left or right ideology.

        1. Exactly.
          Flashman (Jeremy) and his handlers want us disarmed for easier takeover of our lives.
          Imagine, Folks, with the contempt for our ownership of our money they already display, how they will treat us when they have Absolute Power?

        2. I disagree Vicki. Yes a rule and its enforcement does require a “controlling” of peoples actions. But no more than any law. With rules control is a means to an end. Not an end in itself. Laws against murder do technically control people by not allowing them to commit murder. But the intent is not to control people. Its to prevent murder.

          1. You are welcome to disagree but since the rest of your statement is obviously in error I doubt if many folk will agree with your position.

            For instance you claim that laws against murder control people by not allowing them to commit murder yet gun grabbers (of which you have proven with past posts on this site) tell us that ~30,000 murders are committed every year. (I am ignorling the fact that the FBI Crime stats show a dramatically lower murder rate in recent years). This clearly demonstrates the error of your position.

          2. Vicki no policy or law will wipe out all crime. There is nothing we can do that will stop all murders from happening. But making murder illegal is one way to fight back. And it stands to reason that when there are legal consequences for committing murder there will be fewer murders. I do not want to ban all guns. Nor do I want to take away peoples ability to carry guns. Yes as a peace loving idealist I wish we could all live in a world where people don’t try and kill or rob each other. And yes I wish we could all live in cities like mine where we can trust our neighbors and our police force and where the need to carry guns is not very high. But even I know that is just a dream. So what can I do regarding this issue which I feel strongly about. What I can do is try and take some of the ideas and policies which I believe have made my city a safe place to live and try and adapt them to other places. If a city has a high crime rate perhaps taking steps to improve their police force or their educational system. If someone feels the need to protect themselves and their family with a gun okay that is their right. But it is my firm belief that the Constitution does not grant carte blanche when it comes to guns or speech. It remains my belief Vicki that allowing guns into schools in order to prepare for a mass shooting is like taking a large dose of medication even when your not sick. It might help you when you do get sick. But it could also cause some serious problems.

      1. it has Everything to do with the left, That’s the goal of the left to leave US citizens at the mercy of the Federal Gov. Take away our guns is Exactly how they want to do it.. WAKE UP..

      2. Then why put up lying signs and have the city lie to its people. Are you able to get your brain around this simple concept.

      3. “I don’t believe criminals will obey gun free zones.”

        You’re absolutely right. Nor will they obey restrictive or confiscatory gun laws. Now guess who’s going to be left without the capability to defend themselves?

        1. Gun free zones are not intended for criminals. They are intended for the children and teens who think it will be cool to bring a gun to school to show off. Or those teens and kids who think they need to bring guns to school to protect themselves. A criminal coming to a school to engage in homicidal or suicidal slaughter is a rarity compared to those who foolishly bring a gun to school for the sake of protection or clout. And restrictive and confiscatory gun laws make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns since it forces them to either choose to follow the law and create a paper trail in order to obtain a gun. Or it forces them to go on the black market and illegally obtain a gun in which case they better hope they never get pulled over or questioned for some simple law breaking and their gun is discovered in which case to paraphrase Ricky Ricardo they’ll have some explaining to do.

          1. “Gun free zones are not intended for criminals. They are intended for the children and teens who think it will be cool to bring a gun to school to show off.”

            Then why, pray tell, are military bases gun free zones?

  2. The purpose of gun free zones and signs is not to create a dream world where everyone gives up their guns out of a sense of civic duty. Its an attempt to create a living and working environment where people don’t have to worry about a gun accidentally going off or some jerk pulling his gun out to make a statement. And its an attempt to help campus security and local law enforcement to spy those who might cause trouble by not allowing anyone who has a gun to come near the school. When a rule is disobeyed it doesn’t mean we ditch the rule. We work harder to enforce it. And no one ever said gun free zones are an end in itself. As for what the schools can do now. For one if they have not already done so they can allow students and faculty to carry non lethal forms of self defense on campus. Also a self defense program specifically focused on disarming an attacker should be added to their physical education department if they do not already have one. Also they should do more to beef up security and get students to take part in drills and awareness events so they understand the potential dangers of campus life and how best to deal with them. The fault in this story, blame, bad guy. Whatever you want to call it. The thing to attack in this story is not the schools attempt to create a gun free zone. Its the criminal who violated that zone. And its whatever local or state law or official who allowed him to get a gun since its quite obvious he could not be trusted with it.

      1. Vicki if we are going to mock gun free zones what is the counter argument. Are you saying we should only have laws that criminals will obey. Okay in a store the owner should have a gun. But why should everyone else be allowed to carry a gun in the store. Okay a person can be attacked on the street. That doesn’t mean everyone needs to have a gun. There are no perfect solutions to any problem. Yes if someone attacks me and I had a gun, providing I know how to keep control of my fear and wield the gun effectively, I would be very well protected. However it is my belief that disarming an attacker is also a viable option. The way to respond to gun violence is not more guns. Turning our streets into a battle ground between good guys and bad guys is not the answer. And no I don’t want to disarm the good guys and leave them helpless before the bad guys. I want to make it as difficult as possible for bad guys to get weapons while giving good guys tools to protect themselves until they can obtain weapons. I want to find alternatives to guns. And as to schools I want there to be a place where children can go and not have to be around guns. I don’t want us to base our school policies around the worst possible scenario. To me having teachers and faculty armed with weapons or getting rid of the gun free zone signs is like having children run drills in case of a nuclear attack by having them duck under their desks. To me the greater threat is some idiot bringing a weapon to school either to show off or threaten someone they don’t like and a shot going off. That is the more likely possibility. And teaching children to settle their problems without guns and not allowing guns on school campuses is in my view the best way to deal with that more likely threat. Allowing guns in school however will only make it worse.

        1. “But why should everyone else be allowed to carry a gun in the store. ”

          you have answered your own question. Why shouldn’t everyone else be allowed to exercise their God given, Constitutionally protected RIGHTS without having to deal with police harassment?

          1. You do have me there Vicki. I was thinking it seemed odd to carry a gun but leave outside the store since the owner does not want it inside. Okay on this one I agree with you.

    1. The criminal was just let out of jail on Sunday before the incident. I work in Durham every day and the whole area is really quite dangerous. There are shootings going on all the time. The powers that be are so busy trying to take guns away from innocent people they have forgotten to go after the real problem which is the criminal. Durham has a very large population of African Americans (80%), it is their town, they grew up there and hardly ever move away. The police, local government and the people who want to do bad things all know each other. They become to soft on the criminal blaming other forces for the problem instead of attacking the real problems. I have met some really nice people in Durham and they want the real problem solved as much as any of us but they are a small group. I think we would all be a lot safer if we were allowed to have protection, non lethal protection is no defense against a gun. The state and local officials didn’t allow this person to get a gun, criminals can always get guns it’s the innocent, law abiding citizen that is being attacked here.

    2. Er ah, you mean post a sign, and bring a knife to the gunfight, or the sign protects you, Oh, I get it hand to hand with a guy with a gun. No way! Criminals already have guns, apparantly you don’t, you fight him man to man, only good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns! Remember that in your gym class brainiac!

      1. No. I mean do everything we can to prevent the bad guy from getting a gun in the first place. Develop ways to disarm a bad guy that don’t threaten innocent people when there isn’t a bad guy that needs to be fought. A good guy who does not have a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. You don’t need a gun to be able to defend yourself. I am a decently strong man with experience fighting both with knives and unarmed combat. I am no pushover 1baronrichsnot1.

        1. You might think you’re not be a pushover but I guarantee you if you are facing a bad guy with a gun and you don’t have one you’ll need to change your drawers that is if you survive) when it’s over.

          I stand 6’3″ weigh 221 and in great shape and anyone pointing a gun at me would make me stop cold (that is is I were unarmed) at that point I (and so would anyone else) would be a push over.

          Seeing as a bullet travels at about 900MPH and the best I could do is15 well you do the math. Pepper spray would merely make them angry and start shooting.

          You live in a dream world or have seen too many Hollywierd productions if you think the “average” unarmed man can disarm an armed thug It just doesn’t happen.

          Libertas inaestimabilis res est

        2. I have told you in the past how to effectively stop a bad guy from getting a gun that does not infringe on the rights of the

          ~300 Million Americans who have not shot anyone. EVER.

          But by your continued statements it is clear that you choose to be willfully ignorant of this VERY effective solution.

          For the newer readers who may have missed the solution it is to keep bad guys in jail. Very hard to get guns in jail and when they do, any bad behavior tends to be contained in the jail.

          1. I can understand the need for tougher sentences for certain crimes Vicki. On that we agree. But we can’t keep every criminal in jail forever. What happens when they get out.

    3. So the purpose of the signs is to project the lies that people tell themselves.
      Jeremy Loachner, your lies don’t get any better. You keep polishing them and polishing them and they just remain lies.

      1. What lies Nadzieja. That there can be some sort of peace in this world. I went to a school which was and still is a gun free zone. We were never attacked by an armed lunatic. That was not a lie. Is it a lie that people can protect themselves without guns. I have friends who are Marine and Army veterans. And with or without a gun I have no desire to try and take them on in a fight. I have friends and family who are experts in unarmed self defense. I pity anyone who tries to fight them. With respect Nadzieja I do not believe it is a truth that the only way to deal with gun violence is to have more people with guns. To me the idea that more guns automatically equals less violence is no less a lie than the idea that making it illegal to carry a gun in a school automatically makes it safe.

    4. I would not bet on a 110 pound ‘well trained’ female with pepper spray or a whistle (or a 110 pound ‘well trained’ male for that matter) going up against a 250 pound criminal. A 110 pound female ‘well trained’ … and carrying a pistol has a better than even chance against the 250 pound criminal. As a matter of fact, the possibility that she MIGHT be carrying would deter a lot of criminals.

      1. Dave how exactly can I post as myself to you. I have been posting as myself to everyone else. But you continue to believe I am a different person.

          1. 1: Just because Livingston says something does not make it true. Especially when he offers the accusation that I share an IP Address without actually providing said IP Address. Please give me some actual evidence.

            2: Yeah I was an idiot that time. Although I will point out you have called me Flashman so many times its hard to tell if your addressing it to me. After all your first comment on this page was addressed to someone named flashman. But since it was directed at my comment I answered. With respect Dave your the one posting accusations with no evidence to back them up beyond the accusations of others. If anyone is kidding anyone I think its you.

          2. Duh, let me think. Do I take the word of a known lying multi-personality Shill Troll, or do I take the word of Bob Livingston who I know tells it like it is.

          3. You say “known lying multi-personality Shill Troll” with no evidence to back it up. I can respect you trust a former member of the house of representatives more than me. But to me it seems illogical to take something with no evidence no matter who is saying it. You have often told me to back up what I say with evidence Dave. I am asking you and Mr. Livingston to back what you say with evidence. Mr. Livingston says I am a troll who comes onto this site with several names. Where is the proof?

          4. Since your comment is addressed to mine I will assume you are talking to me. Dave you know nothing about me except a little of my politics.

    5. Promoting students to believe that they can successfully use self-defense to disarm a guy with a gun is a really good way to get them shot dead.

      Where on earth do people come up with these stupid action plans like grabbing a pair of rounded school scissors to defend yourself?

      You say, “Don’t allow anyone who has a gun to come near a school.” Are you for real?

      Try to pepper spray or use some other form of non-lethal self-defense on a lunatic with a gun, and for sure he’ll start pulling the trigger.

      It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.

      The only male equalizer for a woman is a gun.

      1. With respect Don promoting students to take matters into their own hands and attack a gunman is a really good way to get them shot dead period. My advice for students and faculty in a school being attacked by a gunman is to avoid them and try to escape as best as possible. Let the police by the heroes who risk their lives for others. If your left with no choice protect yourself by whatever means necessary. And yes if my only choice is between dying and defending myself with a pair of rounded school scissors you can bet your bottom dollar I am choosing the scissors. Though if you have any other choice I would go for something a little more lethal if you can find it.

        Yes I am for real. As far as I know gun free zones are enforced by not allowing “anyone who has a gun to come near a school.” Does it always work. Heck no. But that does not mean the whole principal is wrong.

        Spraying pepper spray in someones face can temporarily slow them down. It can distract them. It can give you time to disarm them or escape or start beating the heck out of them if that’s what your adrenaline tells you to do.

        A person without a gun can take a gun from the person attacking them. A person without a gun can score a lucky hit. A person without a gun can stop a person without a gun.

        A woman is perfectly capable of defending herself even without a gun same as a man.

        1. “With respect Don promoting students to take matters into their own hands and attack a gunman is a really good way to get them shot dead period. My advice for students and faculty in a school being attacked by a gunman is to avoid them and try to escape as best as possible.”

          With no respect due I strongly suggest that you do NOT follow Jeremy’s advice since doing so in multiple mass shootings has not only failed to save them but has allowed the attacker to go after their friends too resulting in MANY more casualties then cases where people DID use guns to stop mass shootings.


          1. I would counter Vicki with the Taft Union High School and Columbine High School shootings. Both of those schools at armed guards at the time of the shootings. That did not stop the massacres. And in regards to my advice. If you are at a school during a mass shooting and you do not have a gun what are you supposed to do. And if you have a gun but have never shot at someone before what are you supposed to do.

          2. Jeremy Leochner writes:
            “And if you have a gun but have never shot at someone before what are you supposed to do.”

            Life lessons can be rough. Better practice REALLY fast.

            (The rest of the illogical strawmen ignored)

          3. Vicki you did not answer my question. And how exactly is someone supposed to practice for shooting a person. And the rest of my argument was not a straw man .

    6. ***The purpose of gun free zones …Its an attempt to create a living and working environment where people
      don’t have to worry about a gun accidentally going off or some jerk
      pulling his gun out to make a statement. And its an attempt to help
      campus security and local law enforcement to spy those who might cause
      trouble by not allowing anyone who has a gun to come near the school. ***

      Ah! But the result is a pool of prospective victims, as illustrated all too well by the mass killings and outright thuggery in “gun free zones”`.

      When every responsible citizen has the option of arming themselves, the level of societal civility rises and violence declines measurably.

      “When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.”
      Maj. L. Caudill USM C (Ret) “

      1. Just because a person is not armed Daniel that does not make them a ” prospective victim”. And I would point out I went to a school that was a gun free zone and we were never attacked by anyone. And there are plenty of schools that can say the same thing.

        Because of the second amendment everyone in our country of sound mind and background has the option of arming themselves. That has not stopped the mass shootings or reduced the levels of violence in our country. In 2011 the state with the most gun related deaths was Louisiana- http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/11/20-deadliest-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html. Louisiana has one of the most relaxed gun control policies in all the nation. In that state more guns did not equal less violence.

        Most people will leave you alone even if you don’t have a gun. And if your concealed carrying it they won’t even know if you have a gun anyway. You don’t need to have a gun in order to be unafraid. And what happens if you think someone is acting in force against you when they are not. What happens when someone who has no desire to kill or fight anyone turns into George Zimmerman.

        1. You are playing the odds game which is no matter to me or anyone else. The fact that you have strayed off course is. You making a point of self defense is moot because OUR Second Amendment does not address (as liberals like to believe) personal safety or hunting. It calls for A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (This means adult males of age to be available for the common defense of the state state being the community) “that in order to be regulated arm the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

          There is nothing said regarding personal protection or hunting. Those 27 words say it all no further interpretation necessary!

          Argue if you will what a militia is but in this context it means males of age. You liberals are always trying to interpret it to match your agenda.

          Libertas inaestimabilis res est

        2. The first time I walked into my HS with my shotgun, the vice principal and I spent a good ten minutes discussing the merits of various shotguns and bird loads. That was 1965. The shotgun remained in my wall locker until classes were over and then we went hunting quail. I don’t recall of a mass shooting on a school campus until “gun free zones” became the rage.
          If you are unarmed anywhere, you are a prospective victim. Ask the survivors of the recent islamist terrorism in Kenya what they feel about arming themselves…
          Louisiana is also home to New Orleans. A liberal run drug and crime cesspool if there ever was one.
          What happens if someone is aggressive when they are not intending to be? Are you that stupid?

          You bring up George Zimmerman. What would have been the result of the attack by martin if Zimmerman had not been armed? Before you revert to the standard liberal sneer, Zimmerman was not hunting or stalking martin. Had he been doing so, the gun would have been in his hand and visible. martin may well have avoided confrontation if he had seen the gun.
          Darwin smiled.

          1. With respect Daniel I am pretty sure more things have changed since 1965 than just gun free zones. And I am guessing that gun free zones developed out of the issue of people bringing guns to school when they did not need to and endangering people as a result.

            I am a peace loving laid back guy. But when I lose my temper I have been known to be quite aggressive. And I know several people who are fairly laid back people who would never hurt a fly. But get them angry enough and they will fight. A person who has no intention of hurting anyone can still hurt someone unintentionally. And I have seen plenty of drunks who become aggressive unintentionally. And when you consider that there are several states and cities which allow people with concealed gun permits to go into bars its easy to imagine the dangers of people becoming drunk and using their guns in ways they did not intend to.

            Daniel it isn’t a liberal sneer. George Zimmerman was following Martin after the police told him to stay put. However you want to describe it he precipitated the fight. He made a stupid move and someone died as a result. And so far as the evidence shows there was a confrontation. So either he wasn’t showing his gun or Martin saw it and didn’t care. The moral of the story is let the police do their job and don’t take matters into your own hands.

          2. Yes, things have changed since 1965. There has been a degradation in society that directly stems from lbj’s “great society” welfare fiasco. The strategist who dreamed up that particular attack on the American family had to be aware of the ultimate result.

            An interesting study with parallels drawn:

            If you are easily angered, perhaps you should see to some kind of behavior modification. Maturity is the capability to manage one’s emotional responses. I realize the potential consequences of firing a gun, therefore I am constantly aware of my surroundings and the actions of others.

            When you cite the Zimmerman case, you do so out of ignorance. Should Mr. Zimmerman have ignored his responsibilities as a member of neighborhood watch and just kept driving? Sounds a lot like the “asking for it” excuse for sex assault. If martin had seen the handgun and still attacked, does that not indicate impaired mental process? Attacking a person for the simple act of “being followed” is not rational. The history we have of martin indicates a violent predator in the making. His biggest (and last) mistake was in attacking an armed citizen.

          3. Daniel I do not consider Lbj’s great society to be an attack on the American family.

            As to your article. It is interesting. And I do agree we as a society need to do more to care for and raise our struggling youth than simply throwing them away.

            As to the theory that our societies problems stem from a lack of a fathers presence I would counter with articles like these:



            In addition I would point my parents divorced when I was fairly young. Though my dad is still a big part of my life the predominate influence in my life has been my mom. I am at this time a community college graduate with several degrees and have been accepted to a Cal State University. I feel that not having a father around has not been bad for me.

            I misspoke somewhat on the subject of my anger. I do not anger easily. Far from it. I am one who seeks to internalize my issues and express them later in a more appropriate time and manner. Its a trait in the men in my family to control their emotions for the sake of dealing with the problem at end. When I spoke of losing my temper and becoming quite aggressive I was referring to something like a person insulting or threatening someone I loved. I was referring to any sort of circumstance that could make even a mature and reasonable person quite angry and aggressive. And as an over protective older brother I can tell you I have been at the ready to be quite aggressive in the protection of my little sister. However as an over protective older brother I can tell you I have at times been to aggressive in the defense of my sister. My purpose in this line of argument was to point out that even mature, reasonable and careful people can make mistakes. They can misinterpret something either as a threat when in fact it is not or a bigger threat than it actually is.

            No one including me is suggesting Mr. Zimmerman should have just kept driving. What I am suggesting is he do what the police told him to do. Whatever responsibility he had as a neighborhood watch his responsibility ends with the polices orders. If he had stayed put it is entirely possible that Mr. Martin would have been arrested and no deaths would have resulted. I would ask Daniel how would you respond if you felt someone was following you. Whether you were doing something illegal or not does not matter. How would you respond if someone was following you. And if that person had a gun and you felt they were threatening you how would you respond. It is a mistake to attack someone who is armed. But if you think that that armed person is trying to hurt or kill you what exactly is the other option?

      2. I’m with you Major I feel it is better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. One does not necessarily need to show it to have others know you are armed. Ones demeanor and confidence speaks volumes.

        Capt. K von Faustheim USMC (Res)

        Libertas inaestimabilis res est

        1. Major Caudill’s words are an empowerment.
          As to the difference in demeanor when armed, I can testify to that. The more experienced bad guys seem to have a radar that detects an armed individual and they seek weaker prey.

          1. ABSOLUTELY when one is armed there is an aura of confidence around them be it body language or other emanation the criminal element is finely tuned to recognize peril. Those who don’t pick up on these subtleties often wind up in the morgue,

            The Marine Corps instilled confidence in myself and since I am always armed I don’t feel different at home or away. Confidence comes from being responsible. Being timid and timorous is a result of complacency and indolence. We all know which camp espouses these traits.

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

          2. ***Those who don’t pick up on these subtleties often wind up in the morgue,***

            And Darwin smiles…

    7. When all else fails, and you are looking down the barrel of a gun, with some crazy Obama supporter screaming that he is going to kill everyone. All you pantywaist who are afraid of guns can just stand there, and wet your pants, who knows maybe the shooter will take pity on you.

      1. I don’t carry a gun John. But I am no pantywaist. And the only people I have seen threatening others are those who claim to hate Obama.

          1. I have seen no evidence of that. I have heard plenty of conspiracy theories about various mass shooters. But none pertaining to them being an Obama supporter. Mass shooters are insane or sociopathic. Politics plays no role in it.

          2. Just because you have a chronic case of cranial rectitus does not mean these aren’t facts. Maybe you do know and like the typical liberal refuse to acknowledge facts.

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

        1. I have yet to hear any threat veiled or otherwise against ODUMBO. More delusional thinking of a pantywaist liberal. As for your BS regarding gun free zones they are in place because it is a people control and not a safety issue If the government was all that interested in our safety there would be no fines affixed to any infraction the idea is how much revenue we can extract or how much control we have. nothing else. Just liberal BS

          Libertas inaestimabilis res est

  3. Are you really that simple-minded, Mr Livingston?

    The small islands of sanity called “gun-free zones” are subject to the backwards Red States and their very liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment. This allows any area of this vast country to be overrun by fearful gun addicts.

        1. Nope, try making the laws the same from state to state and county to county. Lots of places you can legally carry UNLESS you are going into a library, or a school, or a few other choice places. Even some theaters now ban guns, due to the Colorado shootings. What good does it do to ban them when the people who are going to go off and shoot up the place are going to ignore all posted bans anyway?

          1. But liberals say “but there was a sign!! and that’s is far as it will go. Again liberals = reactive non proactive. Throw more fuel on the fire and hope it burns itself out.

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

          2. “try making the laws the same from state to state and county to county.”

            Our founding fathers DID that. The 2nd Amendment is a binding limitation on ALL government at any level. Unfortunately we have failed to enforce this limit on government.

        1. I guess when you can’t post an affective counter to my position you resort, as so many do on this site, to calling names. Thanks for endorsing my position (and Alex’s as well.).

          1. Most people recognize pure stupidity when they see it, and figure why waste their time on incorrigible behavior.

          2. You just spout off without thinking and leave yourself open to be called Stupid. I will just call you Stupid while others may have more colorful ways of saying the same.

          3. Everyone else has yet you continue to focus on those who haven’t. Ever wonder why? We know and you remain clueless!!!

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

      1. Precisley. This is just another illustration that gun laws need to be more uniformly applied across the country.

        Very well put. Most laws state that guns can be carried legally in most places. Those laws should be more uniformly applied across the country. The world would be safer if more people thought like us Doc.

        1. What you are saying is that we have idiots for lawmakers and enforcers and guess what they are of your own Dem/Prog/Leftist ideology.

      2. Criminals don’t obey laws, Doc. That’s why they’re called Criminals.
        The whack jobs would have a field day if you Liberal Progressives were allowed to make everybody defenseless.
        But then everybody would be at the mercy of your own brand of theft, wouldn’t they, Doc?

          1. No, Doc, it is you who overlooks the facts:
            The evolution of the Number of States allowing Concealed Carry:
            Violent Crime Rates in the US:
            Notice, Folks, how the violent crime rate rose all during the heyday of Gun Control (1962-1990), and how it has declined steadily in the face of relaxed gun-controls and concealed carry laws (1990 to present).
            Those with more energy can read this:

          2. From Doc’s article:
            “Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare”.

            US Doctors? No bias there?
            Notice how they intermix the terms “firearm-related deaths” with “death rate”. They are not the same. How can one expect unbiased treatment from such people?
            Every country has its own culture and heritage. Some are very violent, others are very non-violent. To compare any other country to the unique culture and heredity of the United States is pure folly. It would be like comparing the death rate among unarmed monks to the death rate among armed convicts.

          3. Doctors wishing to conduct research into gunshot injury have been thwarted over and over again by the NRA. In the unfortunate circumstance that any of you should have to rush your child to the emergency room with a bullet wound, you can thank Wayne Lapierre if the doctor comes out of the operating room and tells you that your child died because the bullet was lodged in an area they had no idea how to treat because they were not allowed to RESEARCH it….

            Shame, shame on all of you gun-addicted pussycats…

          4. Prove it or STFU since you cant just STFU

            The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) seminal study
            of preventable medical errors estimated as many as 98,000 people die every year at a cost of $29 billion. If the Centers for Disease Control were to include preventable medical errors as a category, these conclusions would make it the sixth leading cause of death in America.

            Further research has confirmed the extent of
            medical errors. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that there were 181,000 severe injuries attributable to medical negligence in 2003. The Institute for Health care Improvement estimates there are 15 million incidents of medical harm each year.
            HealthGrades, the nation’s leading health care rating organization, found that Medicare patients who experienced a patient-safety incident had a one-in-five
            chance of dying as a result.

            In the decade since the IOM first shined a light on the dismal state of patient safety in American hospitals, many proposals for improvement have been discussed and implemented. But recent research indicates that there is still much that needs to be done.
            Researchers at the (liberal) Harvard School of Medicine have found that even today, about 8 percent of patients in hospitals are injured during the course of their care and that many of those injuries are life-threatening, or even fatal. The Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that one in seven Medicare patients are injured during hospital stays and that adverse events during the course of care contribute to the deaths of 180,000 patients every year

            According to the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention in a 2009 report it was discovered that 11,493 people died in the United States as a result of
            being shot with a firearm.

            There’s almost nine times the number of people
            dying in this country from medical malpractice and the answer we have to that is to put big, ineffective, inefficient government behind more legislation,
            more control and more funding, but when it comes to guns, well, we can’t have people with scary looking weapons in their possession. We have to create more
            laws to control them by. In the meantime the liberals never tell anyone that the laws will stop the lawbreakers from obtaining those firearms that they ban. Nor will they tell people that laws do not stop the bullets that comes from the firearms that lawbreakers obtain. People just think that a law is signed and it
            magically stops bad guys, but it doesn’t quite work that way.

            So with these simple statistics, perhaps we should begin petitioning the White House to shut down the AMA since they seem to be responsible for far more deaths than anyone with a gun has been.

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

          5. I certainly hope you have fully recovered .My youngest daughter is a physician (orthopedic surgeon for the Veterans Administration) She is well aware of infections and malpractice issues in the public hospital arena that is why she chose to practice at the VA.

            Not that there isn’t any accidental death or mistakes at the VA as the VA does not operate as a profit motivated facility they is more concerned with their patients health than other hospitals that are in it for the money. The VA is more vigilant using triple redundancy in each case.

            The physicians at the VA actually care about their patients unlike others who only want notoriety or a bank account.

            I know this because I am a combat veteran and support several VA facilities I have found that those who are there because they actually care.

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

          6. We have the University Medical Center and Covenent Hospital and their several clinics for both. Covenent is a joining of Methodist and St Mary’s hospitals. Guess which one gives you the best, smiling care and GOOD food?

          7. The Guardian is a far left-wing propaganda rag, much like the Huffington Post. They also push fabricated nonsense like global warming, which has no credibility whatever in view of all the scandals regarding falsified temperature data, as well as all the lies they have been caught telling. Data stretching back more than 20 years, as well as study after study, has repeatedly validated John Lott’s statement, “More guns equals less crime.”

          8. Facts to a liberal are those that are pulled out
            of thin air and or provided by lame stream media to swathe their ineptness on all things rational. Liberal one dimensional idiot-ology dictates they make things up as they go so they can blame others for their failures or force their agenda.

            So whenever they have trouble defending and/or nothing to substantiate their positions they simply fall back on the FBAB (Federal Board for Assigning Blame)
            or citing lame stream media’s partial/fabricated truths and prevarications; then all their liberal inadequacies are soon considered ancient history becoming non issues and then quickly forgotten

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

          9. Just like those troupes of vicious little monkeys I had opportunity to study 69-71 in VN. Raucous screaming. bared fangs, and flinging feces when they felt they had sufficient numbers to intimidate.

          10. Murder rate in the US, where there are 94 guns per 100 people — 4.7 per 100,000.
            Murder rate in North Korea, where there are less than 1 guns per 100 people — 15.2 per 100,000.

          11. Again, murder is not tied directly to fire arms.
            Wow, you are all over the map trying in vain to make a point (Switz., AZ, N. Korea). Perhaps you should try another planet because it aint workin’ here.

          12. Doc says — “Perhaps you should try another planet because it aint workin’ here”.
            Apparently, Doc, you haven’t seen the number of thumbs down you’re getting.
            Doc, you make no sense — as usual. You’re desperately trying to salvage your nonsense and in the process you are just digging your hole deeper.
            What are you, a teenager?

          13. On THIS site, the number of names I’m called and the number of thumbs down are verification that I have TRUTH on my side. Thank you very much.
            I am afraid that many on this site can’t handle the TRUTH.

          14. You said, Doc, and I quote — “Perhaps you should try another planet because it aint workin’ here”.
            And I proved you wrong, as usual.
            You haven’t even got the slightest idea what “Truth” is. You certainly don’t speak it.

          15. Boy are you delusional, just like all you liberals deluded into thinking because you have the masses that makes you correct. It’s far easier to be lazy, stupid, and depend on someone else than to be responsible and fend for yourselves.

            Human nature tends to be lethargic and the masses surely are. The industrious few have paid your way for decades and this is the truth. Soon your free rides will end and you will be kissing the feet of those who you have disdain they will be the ones that have what you wanted to take and not earn. Guess what your answer will be when you are begging for alms then?

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

          16. Ah those lethargic masses..what say we give them a little laxative.Maybe then they will come out of the places that they have stuffed themselves into.

          17. Giving the lethargic masses a laxative does little to purge the system of backed up feces. The nation needs an enema to purge them out so it can obtain a more healthy diet of responsibility, common sense, and morality.

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

          18. Preteen: the age bracket that Television ads are focused on. It is a known fact the average adult TV viewer had a fourth grade comprehension level. I find this accurate because our liberal one dimensional indoctrination camps masquerading as public schools continually produce the functionally illiterate who are dependent on government and lame stream media.

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

          19. Yes and I say again firearms have PREVENTED more murders than anyone will ever know for lame stream media is averse to reporting anything positive concerning firearms. Dur to your one dimensional idiot-ology you liberal dunces cannot fathom the possibility of this so you focus on the negative aspects. Too bad you can’t focus on the negative aspects of your financial agenda or ODUMBOCARE

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

          20. Im glad I had my weapons when that hobo was trying to get my dog close enough to stangle with a wire. My pickup was in the shop, my hubby gone and son at school so he probably didnt think anyone home. When I opened to door and asked him what he wanted he slowly sidled away and could tell he was weighing his options. When I came back to the door with my shotgun (he was standing at the end of the drive watchin the house) he took off. The Post Texas sheriffs deputy told me “good job”

          21. I say GOOD JOB as well. Nothing changes an attitude faster than looking down the bore of a gun. If you are on the business end of a .22 that can give the appearance of a howitzer.

            It’s far better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have one.

            I suppose all in your household know how to safely use firearms

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

          22. I learned to shoot a shotgun at age nine, and my husband trained me with other weapons at age 18. He spent his youth hunting on their 3 section ranch. My son got his first deer at age 8 and our daughter at age 10. I will say most of the things I have shot seem to be rattlesnakes or an occassoinal skunk, with my shotgun. I never replaced my stolen guns when I was robbed in 2001 because I moved to a city apartment, sold my farm after death of my husband. Am considering getting a shotgun or pistol for any 2 legged varments that would know I was alone.

          23. Because “here” is where you are probably living and there probably isn’t anything working there!

          24. In the good old USA we do the smart thing, to have more guns per person, we do the sensible thing and just buy more guns. Now the poor Koreans, well, since the probability that benighted country is going to allow more guns per person is about the same likelihood that progressives are going to come to their senses, the only answer would be to ship off most of their population to adjust for the unfavorable purchase policies.

          25. Nearly every mass shooting incident in the last twenty years, and multiple other instances of suicide and isolated shootings all share one thing in common, and its not the weapons used.

            The overwhelming evidence points to the signal largest common factor in all of these incidents is the fact that all of the perpetrators were either actively taking powerful psychotropic drugs or had been at some point in the immediate past before they committed their crimes.

            ***list of mass shooters and the stark link to psychotropic drugs.

            This is just a sample, there are many more on this list.

            Eric Harris age 17 (first on Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold aged 18 (Columbine school shooting in Littleton, Colorado), killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others, before killing themselves. Klebold’s medical records have never been made available to the public.

            Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather’s girlfriend and many fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.

            Cory Baadsgaard, age 16, Wahluke (Washington state) High School, was on Paxil (which caused him to have hallucinations) when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage. He has no memory of the event.

            Chris Fetters, age 13, killed his favorite aunt while taking Prozac.

            Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.

            Mathew Miller, age 13, hung himself in his bedroom closet after taking Zoloft for 6 days.

            Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.

            Luke Woodham, age 16 (Prozac) killed his mother and then killed two students, wounding six others.

            A boy in Pocatello, ID (Zoloft) in 1998 had a Zoloft-induced seizure that caused an armed stand off at his school.

            Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/every-mass-shooting-in-the-last-20-years-shares-psychotropic-drugs/#ixzz2g79zHTZ8

          26. They are ALL male. Perhaps we should only allow females to have firearms. I guarantee you that would solve most of what we are debating here.

          27. You aren’t debating, Doc. You are just spouting unfounded personal opinion that you prefer to believe.

          28. No he’s grasping at straws anything to further his agenda. Apparently Doc cares little for how pathetic he looks.

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

          29. Leave it to a liberal to cite a left wing lame stream media source from England no less to provide facts about US policies and tendencies. What A JOKE.

            Facts to a liberal are those that are pulled out
            of thin air and or provided by lame stream media to swathe their ineptness on all things rational. Liberal one dimensional idiot-ology dictates they make things up as they go so they can blame others for their failures or force their agenda.

            So whenever they have trouble defending and/or nothing to substantiate their positions they simply fall back on the FBAB (Federal Board for Assigning Blame)
            or citing lame stream media’s partial/fabricated truths and prevarications; then all their liberal inadequacies are soon considered ancient history becoming
            non issues and then quickly forgotten

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

          30. No..overlooking the facts or blatantly ignoring them is the responsibility of you libs. Wouldn’t want to rattle the cage of your union steward for stealing your job now would we?

        1. A Harvard Study titled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” looks at figures for “intentional deaths” throughout continental Europe and juxtaposes them with the U.S. to show that more gun control does not necessarily lead to lower death rates or violent crime.

          Because the findings so clearly demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that “the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths” is wrong.

          1. Why do you liberals cling to polls and studies conducted by LIBERAL sources instead of citing any non biased independent source? The answer is if you did you’d have nothing to back your inane claims. Just like Al Gore claiming to have invented the internet and knowing all about “global warming” which for lack of support you liberals have renamed to “climate chance”.

            Stupidity is never in short supply in the liberal camp, for whenever your theories are disproved you merely do a name change and continue on as though nothing happened. Same thing different name and you’re good to go. Noe that’s progressive!

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

          1. It is very much a matter of whether you can protect yourself or not. The rate of Deaths by Firearms is the misleading statistic. That’s why gun-grabbing Liberal Progressives use it.
            I don’t care if I’m stabbed to death or shot to death, I just don’t want to die. And the statistics show that my chances of being killed are much less in a well-armed society.
            I realize, Doc, that you Liberal Progressives have little in the way of morality and are probably projecting, but I have faith in my fellow man (I’m projecting too), and I believe that the good people vastly overwhelm the bad people in our population. So I’d rather have everybody armed so as to have people who can come to my aid if I’m being attacked.

          2. I see, arm EVERYBODY. You will give any nutcase whatever weapon they desire so they can waltz into another shooting arena like an elementary school or some other place where the people who are armed will not use the weapon or don’t know how to use a weapon – giving the nutcase free will to kill the kids. You must have loved Sandy Hook just like the NRA did.

          3. Aaron Alexis—the mentally deranged man with a history of violence and criminal behavior–is a wonderful example of our well-regulated militia.

            Why so-called law-abiding citizens have that wicked Manchurian Candidate reaction to the idea of registering weapons, requiring a thorough background check and waiting period, and a ban on high-capacity magazines and guns meant ONLY to kill large numbers of people in quick order is a mystery. The Floundering Fathers, while needing guns in order to steal Indian land through ethnic cleansing and to keep their slaves in order, never would have imagined citizens possessing the guns available today. Had they foreseen our daily carnage they would have erased the Fecund Amendment and filled-in the blank spot with more reasons why women should not vote.

          4. If you are a Gun-Grabbing Liberal Progressive who advocates disarming victims and being an Accessory to Murder.

          5. Alex says — “the mentally deranged man with a history of violence and criminal behavior–is a wonderful example of our well-regulated militia”.
            Completely unfounded Liberal Progressive tripe.
            I could say — “the mentally deranged man with a history of violence and criminal behavior–is a wonderful example of our typical Liberal Progressives” — if I wanted to be a horse’s ass like Alex. But I’m not, so I won’t.
            Alex says — “Why so-called law-abiding citizens have that wicked Manchurian Candidate reaction to the idea of registering weapons, requiring a thorough background check and waiting period, and a ban on high-capacity magazines and guns meant ONLY to kill large numbers of people in quick order is a mystery”.
            The only mystery here is that no matter how much evidence we post to the contrary, Alex and the other Liberal Progressive Gun-Grabbers just keep on stating their emotionally-charged unfounded, feel-good nonsense.
            Do “background checks” and “waiting periods” do any good?
            Would banning high-capacity magazines solve the problem? Sure, just like the Liberal Progressives have solved our economic problems:

          6. I would like to present one of my reasons for having high capacity magazines is very practical. You see as I get older the hassle of having to constantly reload those low capacity magazines is just too much! A drum magazine is even better, but with the price of ammo…wow!

          7. Perception is reality. The media is the message. Gun control propagandists know this.

            Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/09/we-break-down-the-recently-leaked-gun-control-playbook/#ixzz2g7E1t4EH

            Anti-Gunners’ Playbook Emphasizes Use Of Emotion Over Logic
            Stung by years of the public’s rejection of their gun control and anti-freedom agenda, the gun control movement has resorted to paid consultants to develop a new playbook they hope with will be able to shift the debate in their favor.

            While the guide is evidence that the gun prohibition movement is not ready to give up, its determined emphasis on emotion on demonstrable facts seems to acknowledge that it cannot win on the merits.

          8. I hear Aaron Alexis was some sort of kin to Alex in La La Land. Funny you should chime in with the Manchurian Candidate theory.
            For quite some time now I have wondered why all these mass shootings in “safe gun free zones” are is so close a time frame and coincide with ODUMBO’s push for gun control.

            I know I am not the only one alarmed with these similarities all except for Major Malik Hasan a Jihadists all were at one time treated for for mental illness and on medications. Of the three two were young and living with one parent and had access to violent video games. I used to work with for the government and know what they’re capable of so Given these people were mentally unstable and ODUMBO is pushing for Gun Control AND it is not inconceivable that that ODUMBO’s government used a little chemical and psychological inducement to perpetrate these acts in a “Safe Gun Free Zone” in such a timely manner.

            These instances have occurred much too close together not to take notice or ask questions. Given all the other SHENANIGANS of ODUMBO’s administration I wouldn’t put this past them that they are culpible in this as well.

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

          9. Finally! Someone besides me wondering what else was going on with these shootings, that they are always used to generate calls from obama or pelosi to take our guns away. Is there someone settings these shootings up?

          10. Being a geek of sorts (mechanical, electrical, and structural/civil engineer) I am rather objective as opposed to being subjective and have an open mind, so I question everything. I am quite adept at assessing situations and am most often right, all these occurrences seem to be more than coincidental in nature.
            In combat I have used my intuition (I believe it’s my Guardian Angel speaking) to stay alive and several steps ahead of peril. The same feelings have caused me to question recent events and come to this conclusion. I am sure I am not alone in having these thoughts as others have as well. The problem is we have far too many who have been brainwashed and believe what the government and media tells them.

            They will find the truth when it’s too late!

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

          11. Just as a mother, I will accept something happening twice as coinidence, but more I will question. At work, at the children’s home, it rarely was coincidence.

          12. And the government today steals land through “eminent domain.” If you have a point please come to it! BTW it is most apparent to the intellectually astute that Mr. Alexis was very far from being regulated!

          13. “Aaron Alexis—the mentally deranged man with a history of violence and
            criminal behavior–is a wonderful example of our well-regulated militia.”

            Actually AA is a wonderful example of why we NEED our military to be armed and dangerous instead of being law abiding citizens in a gun-free zone.

          14. Every time that you make a comment, it is more and more apparent that you do not, and never did, have a clue what the Second Amendment is really about. Your consistent inability to grasp the big picture is on a par with a monkey unable to move to the next level.

          15. Doc gives us the usual unfounded, hysterical, exaggerated conjecture that we have come to expect from Liberal Progressives.

            Murder rate in Switzerland — less than 1 per 100,000.
            Gun Ownership in Switzerland — 46 per 100 people, second only to the US.
            “Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world”.

            Don’t judge other people by your own lack of integrity, Doc.

          16. Great wiki… link there. The first sentence states that those statistics are UNIQUE in Europe. Were you trying to make my point for me?

          17. How did that make your point, Doc? You mean the point on your head?
            Arizona has had Unrestricted Conceal Carry since 2010, yet the murder rate has declined in every year since. That puts the lie to your claims, Doc.

          18. Since statehood, Arizona has never had a high murder rate. When the rate is low a decline is statistically insignificant.

          19. Here you go; by my calcs, “violent” crime in AZ for the last 3 years stays at 0.4% of the population. As I said before, that does not focus on gun violence alone and acknowledge that AZ has a relatively low crime rate.

          20. Wow, you can divide. I’m impressed. But so what?
            Your claim, Doc, is that more guns lead to more violence. Yet, the rate of violence has declined in Arizona since allowing people to carry concealed weapons without a permit. Do you get that, Doc? DECLINED. Not Increased.
            Of course, if all guns would be eliminated and there were no guns outstanding, there would be no gun-murders. Duh. But there would still be murders, and my guess is that there would be more than ever before. Witness North Korea. So what then? Knife controls? Bat controls? Chain Saw controls? You Liberal Progressives are beyond ignorant. The only real way to eliminate murders would be to get back to teachings of morality — Like the Ten Commandments. Then you Liberal Progressives would no longer be a problem, because “Thou shalt not Steal” is one of those Commandments.

          21. Dave H ~ I know you were projecting a what if scenario regarding the elimination of firearms. We all know that in reality guns (much to the chagrin of liberals) will never be eliminated as will drug use

            And the likelihood that liberals would ever dream of adopting any moral posture would be as remote as the two scenarios mentioned above.

            The liberal mantra is do as I say not as I do. For they are the perveyors of knowledge and anything moral and we have the right to tell you how you should live.

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

          22. I suppose Arizona’s “relatively low crime rate has nothing to do with people being able to DEFEND themselves does it? You keep digging that hole deeper and deeper don’t you?

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

          23. Not as insignificant as you or your inane blathering. The only time you care for statistics is when they further YOUR agenda Any other time they are irrelevant.

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

          24. Never provide facts to a liberal as they will treat them like a disease and try and eradicate them by any means possible including but not limited to their standard one line responses.

            Facts to a liberal are those that are pulled out
            of thin air and or provided by lame stream media to swathe their ineptness on all things rational. Liberal one dimensional idiot-ology dictates they make things up as they go so they can blame others for their failures or force their agenda.

            So whenever they have trouble defending and/or nothing to substantiate their positions they simply fall back on the FBAB (Federal Board for Assigning Blame)
            or citing lame stream media’s partial/fabricated truths and prevarications; then all their liberal inadequacies are soon considered ancient history becoming
            non issues and then quickly forgotten

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

          25. Per your observation “then all their liberal inadequacies are soon considered ancient history becoming non issues and then quickly forgotten” As one salient Progressive once infamously stated “At this point in time what does it matter?”

          26. She will find out it does matter when she attempts to run in 2016 If any opposition doesn’t use this ammunition then I wouldn’t want them in the White House either.

            We need another Ronald Reagan. Reagen despite his dementia did more in office for the American People than all the rest who followed.

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

          27. That it WAS unique is exemplary evidence that the gun toting Swiss don’t have the problems that the rest of disarmed Europe has! Can you follow simple logic?

          28. Ah yes, nothing like an emotionally charged & typically guided by anti-gun takling points response chocked full of conjecture huh Doc?

          29. Why not Doc? According to you the only one who would act is the “nut case”. Since the “nut case” is going to get a gun anyway it makes sense (at least it makes sense to a reasonably sane person) to have everyone else armed as well as a deterrent.

            The trouble with you liberals is that you are reactionary instead of proactive. You create areas for disaster to occur then wait for it to strike rather than actually preventing disaster in the first place.

            Your logic is flawed when you believe throwing more laws at the problem is not the “fix-all” you wish it to be. It’s more like applying gasoline to extinguish a house fire. Only the criminal element will never abide by your inane statutes.

            What is needed is a deterrent a strong deterrent not a slap on the wrist and a trip to the mental institution. It’s time to re institute the death penalty to clear space for more criminals that way they don’t serve a minimum sentence then let out to once more prey on society.

            When a person has cancer they don’t take aspirin to cure the malignancy they want the malignancy cut out. Criminals are society’s malignancy and you liberals only want us to have the aspirin!

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

          30. As has been stated before on the concept of never let a good crisis go to waste. Create “gun-free” zones, knowing in advance that the likelihood of a crisis, as has been happening with such regularity lately most probably will occur. Now, with your cleverly devised and implemented crisis machine in full swing, the onus of tragedy will again be thrust upon all persons possessing firearms and not the ones who have acted with irresponsible or criminal behavior. Enact yet more futile legislation entailing restriction/confiscation of firearms. Proceed to step one and repeat. Stupid–stupid–stupid!!

          31. We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to
            remain stupid. Benjamin Franklin
            DUMBOCRITES put in an abundance of overtime to remain stupid

            Libertas inaestimabilis res est

          32. Doc, Carry permits are not issued in Tennessee (or any other state that I know about) without extensive training and fingerprinting and background checks. Therefore, not everyone could be armed. The U.S. Army and Marine Corps taught me how to responsibly handling weapons. Not all arms bearers are nutcases. In fact no one legally armed would be a nutcase. I think one who is not willing to defend himself and his loved ones is the nutcase.

          33. He is not saying to arm everybody. There are proven statistics that areas that allow guns has FAR lower crime rates. I say ‘allow’, because, the criminal or the nut case, doesn’t know who has one and who doesn’t. So, at least the criminal is less likely to try anything, cause he knows he’s coming up against someone who ‘might’ be armed. VS, gun free zones, the criminal KNOWS that no one there can defend themselves against him, nor shoot at him , or back at him, cause no one there has a gun.
            It is kind of along the same lines as, a thief is more bold in an empty house (cause there’s no one there to harm HIM), then he is when going into a house when the residents are home. IF you get my line of thought there.
            Now, for the OBVIOUS, COMMON SENSE thought on th gun grabbers thinking. They want (AND the UN wants) a national list of who has what gun. This would of course include all the info you have to give when doing the normal backround check. They tend to think that’s the answer, to what I don’t know. But of course, the same criminals and nuts are out there, and will do another massacre, (since we don’t know why, we can’t prevent any future ones), and THEN, the gun grabbers (and the UN) will say, Nope, we tried it your way, now we’re gonna try it our way, which is to take ALL guns. They have a national list, so (like England did), they go door to door and house to house (like they are now doing in CA) and take all your guns.
            NOW! The law abiding citizen, who got his gun legally, who went thru the backround check etc, is all they know about. The criminals, who got their guns illegall, will STILL have THEIR guns. So now what? They KNOW they have free rein, cause the entire country is now a gun free zone. But we don’t have anyway to defend ourselves, because the gun grabbers took OUR guns.
            I think I have explained this in easy to understand terms. If YOU still can’t get it, please let me know, cause I was just wondering today, WHY can’t gun grabbers see the truth? Is it ALL stupidity, or are all of them in with Obummer? Obummer wants all of our guns because he truly doesn’t want us to be able to defend ourselves against his army (the black panthers). See, I don’t think that is the same thinking of someone like NYC’s former Mayor Bloomberg is, I think he must just be stupid.

          34. Doc. Your statement above is why we have trouble taking your opinion seriously.

            You say that if you armed everyone that someone would waltz into a place where people are armed and start shooting and you then claim with out any proof that no one in that group (except the shooter) would actually use the weapon.

            Then you try and create a comparison with a place where ONLY the shooter would have a gun (the rest of the people being among the ~300 Million Americans who have never shot anyone. EVER. Yet have been disarmed by their own government because they actually obeyed the law that the shooter ignored.

          35. Sarvis, what exactly is gun violence? Do guns actually have a mind of their own? Do guns get up and go after people? If someone intentionally runs over people, is that called automobile violence? If someone stabs someone else, do we call that knife violence? What if someone suffocates someone else with a pillow? Is that pillow violence, or is that suffocation violence? What about drowning someone? Is that drowning violence, swimming pool violence, or bathtub violence? If someone kills someone with a baseball bat, is that called baseball bat violence? What if you poison someone, is that poison violence? Slashing someone with a razor…..do you call that razor violence? Just curious.

        1. Speaking of California…we’re over-run with a bundle of new anti-gun legislation passed by our ignorant anti-gun legislators.

          Just one of my dozens of letters sent to Gov. Brown on the latest attempt to redefine and ban all semi-auto long guns(including shotguns) that have detachable magazines.

          The Honorable Governor Jerry Brown,

          I stand with my fellow law abiding citizens and California gun owners and echo the plea of Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims in respectfully urging you to veto SB 374.

          As Sheriff Mims has stated and I, as a longtime law abiding gun owner and lifetime citizen of California, fully agree that this so-called assault weapons re-definition and overly zealous assault weapons ban will only turn the good law abiding citizens into criminals by banning a large number of firearms with detachable magazines that have no connection whatsoever to gun crime. This bill wrongly targets good law abiding gun owning hunting and shooting citizens that have commited no crime.

          I respectfully ask that you veto SB 374.

          1. Even more important is our ability to resist tyranny. Which, of course, is the very reason the Leaders wish to disarm us.

          2. Sorry but the “honorable” Governor Brown is too busy signing legislation allowing males and females to figure out just what they actually “feel” that they are!

      3. Gun-Free Zones: Mass Shootings Waiting to Happen

        If the heinous attacks at Fort Hood, the Aurora theater, Sandy Hook Elementary, and the DC Navy Yard have taught us anything, it is that gun-free zones are mass shootings waiting to happen.

        In truth, the common link between these four attacks was not the firearm used but the fact that the victims were compulsorily disarmed and therefore unable to defend themselves.

        Via such gun-free zones, military commanders, lawmakers, and independent school districts create an environment that invites “CRIMINALS” to ply their wicked trade.

          1. Yeah..just like they are violating the rights now of people of people who DO want to own a gun. You can’t have it both ways. Wrong is wrong either way. Uniformity will never work—we are all different. But think of it this way..IF you as someone who DIDN’T want to own a gun was forced to own one against your will, what would you think then? I was just using a little hyperbole.

      4. This will probably shock Doc and some others here but I actually agree with him.

        We need to uniformly apply the supreme law of this land and eliminate all gun-free zones.

    1. You have the right to live in a cage of your own making. You do not have the right to force me into that same cage.

      This is only the introduction to the article. I suggest you read it.
      ***”The Second Amendment, unusually for constitutional provisions,
      contains a statement of purpose as well as a guarantee of a right to
      bear arms.” 1
      This unusual attribute, some argue, is reason for courts to interpret
      the Second Amendment quite differently than they interpret other
      constitutional provisions — perhaps to the point of reading it as
      having virtually no effect on government action. 2

      My modest discovery 3
      is that the Second Amendment is actually not unusual at all: Many
      contemporaneous state constitutional provisions are structured
      similarly. Rhode Island’s 1842 constitution, its first, provides

      The liberty of the press being essential to the security
      of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any
      subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . . 4
      Compare this to the Second Amendment’s

      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. 5
      The 1784 New Hampshire Constitution says

      In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity
      where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty
      and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried
      in any other county than that in which it is committed . . . . 6
      The 1780 Massachusetts Constitution — followed closely by the 1784 New
      Hampshire Constitution and the 1786 Vermont Constitution — says

      The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either
      house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people,
      that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution,
      action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever. 7
      I list dozens more such provisions in the Appendix.

      These provisions, I believe, shed some light on the interpretation of the Second Amendment:

      They show that the Second Amendment should be seen as fairly commonplace, rather than strikingly odd.

      They rebut the claim that a right expires when courts conclude that the
      justification given for the right is no longer valid or is no longer
      served by the right.

      They show that operative clauses are often both broader and
      narrower than their justification clauses, thus casting doubt on the
      argument that the right exists only when (in the courts’ judgment) it
      furthers the goals identified in the justification clause. 8

      They point to how the two clauses might be read together, without disregarding either.

      The provisions also suggest two things about
      interpretation more generally. First, they remind us that the U.S.
      Constitution is just one of the at least fifty-one American
      constitutions in force today, and one of the dozens of constitutions
      that existed during the Framing era. The legal academy’s understandable focus on federal matters can blind us to some important details.

      Second, these provisions help show the value of
      testing interpretive proposals against a politically mixed range of
      texts. On a topic as incendiary as gun control, it’s obviously
      tempting for people to reach an interpretation based largely on their
      policy desires. If we want to be honest interpreters, a broad set of
      test cases for our interpretive method is a good tool for checking our
      political biases.***

    2. Don’t worry Alex the cops only have one thing to do, and that is to keep you safe all the time no matter where you are. Over 500 killed in Chicago this year so far, but the cops are sure keeping everyone safe. I carry a gun because cops are to damn heavy, but you go ahead and have a nice safe life locked away in the basement of your mothers house.

    3. Dear Alex,

      You write: “Are you really that simple-minded, Mr Livingston?” Argument to ridicule. You’ve lost already.

      You write: “The small islands of sanity called “gun-free zones” are subject to the backwards Red States and their very liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment.” I would respond, but I have no idea what this means. Please post in English.

      You write: “This allows any area of this vast country to be overrun by fearful gun addicts.” I am yet to see a fearful gun addict. Do you have a photo of one?

      Best wishes,

      1. I believe Alex in La La Land meant addict. Alex in La La Land’s addiction is stupidity Alex in La LA Land is also addicted to using pejoratives citing lame stream media and hopelessly addicted to government handouts.

        Libertas inaestimabilis res est

  4. What! someone dared to run by a sign posted by the NEA protecting everyone absolutely from violence? Brandishing a Gun! The utter disdain of this fool, he could have been attacked by men with no balls, or guns! He is lucky he didn’t stop. He might have been raped or kissed!

    1. Maybe he no speak a English? So, a new law will probably be proposed by the libs that all new signs must be more diverse and user-friendly, no less than 12′ x 12′, illuminated at night, and be in English, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, etc., etc.

  5. Signs really really work, eh? Maybe he didn’t see that sign, how about we pass more laws to put more and larger signs up! Since that sign didn’t work, how about we pass a law that all students must wear gun free zone written on their shirts, then anyone is sure to see that this area is a gun free zone. If that doesn’t work lets pass more laws!

    1. Good idea. I’m not sure that “Gun Free Zone” will necessarily fit nicely on a tee shirt. Why not just use a bulls eye?

    2. Signs Laws petitions whatever only work on the law abiding (and me). ZT would never allow a tee shirt with the word GUN on it in liberal indoctrination camps masquerading as public schools. ZT was initiated because liberals don’t know how to reason so they eliminated all need for cognitive thinking and initiated a ZT policy where no thought is needed.

      Libertas inaestimabilis res est

    3. Off topic, but yesterday I asked my middle school grandson if anyone had objected to his t-shirt with the 3 crosses and no one ever has. Would be different in another state.

  6. I am licensed to carry so I took my gun to a movie theater the other night. We don’t have gun bans where I live. I wouldn’t care if we did because I am not putting myself at risk of some nut job walking into a public place and start shooting. I want to at least have a chance.

    1. I figure the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to be effective. Nobody will know I’m carrying unless somebody starts shooting, in which case I’m pretty sure that there will be some who would appreciate the presence of my weapon.

      1. If anyone asks about the suspicious “bulge” in you midriff area you can always say it is a cell phone..after all you CAN “reach out and touch someone” with it like the commercial used to advertise!

        1. I usually carry under my left arm or in the small of my back I don’t care if there is a bulge for I am permitted to carry. I don’t care if I am in a mall, school, theater or any other building that declares itself “gun free” I don’t say anything and no one notices so in effect I didn’t break the law. I am soon to be a criminal if the DUMBOCRITES have their way.

          Libertas inaestimabilis res est

      1. You have to understand the liberal infected mind. She is responsible and enlightened, therefore she is entitled while the hoi polloi are noisy sheep that must be carefully managed and subdued lest they go feral.

  7. GUN FREE?.i thought those signs said GUM FREE zone–oh oh,ive been carrying my gun everywhere so i don’t get robbed,killed,raped or have some nut try to kill me(police included on all of fore mentioned items)!

    1. I’ve been doing the same for may years ever since I was robbed while at a business meeting at a restaurant. Carried in many banks schools and other public buildings and no one knew. Liberal one dimensional idiot-ology puts everyone in peril everyone but themselves All those favoring gun control have armed body guards all around them.

      Now why is that, could it be they keep stepping on other peoples toes and want dictatorial power over us? You be the judge.

      Libertas inaestimabilis res est

      1. Several years ago, we drove from east Tennessee to Kansas. I have a carry permit, but do not carry concealed. I never had a question when we got gas or “eats”. It may have helped that I was not dressed like a thug. I could have been “mistaken” for a plain-clothes cop transporting a lady somewhere. I WAS noticed in most places we stopped but never “watched” except by a couple guys driving an old van.

      2. The convenience store I get gas at has the no guns sign but I noticed a guy in front of me at the coffee had his gun on his hip under his jacket and felt better. Probably law enforcement.

      3. I think many of those favoring gun ‘control’ just don’t want to soil their hands (or their delicate minds) in the event of an armed attack by a criminal element or mentally ill whackjob… If they DON’T have to do the shooting back somehow that makes them justified in their deranged beliefs…. In other words it’s ok to ‘own’ a hired gun, just not the gun itself…. In the world I live in that’s about as hypocritical as one can get!!!! I guess they simply did not learn that personal responsibility is a core requirement of Freedom….

        1. Many of those who favor gun control are basically lazy. Consider the typical liberal wants others to work and pay taxes so they can “share the wealth” the government steals from the working individual. The basic tenet of liberal one dimensional idiot-ology dictates they shed any semblance of common sense responsibility and morality and adopt illogical thinking and amorality and above all allegiance to the party be ir Nazi Communist or DEMONCRITIC all th same to my way of thinking.

          Libertas inaestimabilis res est

  8. The “gun free zone” sign is right up there with liberals ideas of what to do if someone is trying to rape you. Ineffective, idiotic and inconsistent with how they treat themselves.

  9. Yes rape free zones would be nice, how about murder free zones, or thinking free zones, just make the signs big and scary enough so the would be evil doers heed them.

    1. We already have thinking free zones they are both the House of Representatives and the Senate, public schools and the courts. I should include any democratically run state as well.

      Libertas inaestimabilis res est

  10. Notice Folks, that the Liberal Progressive Gun-Grabbers have only emotionally-charged conjecture to offer. They have no legitimate facts to bring to the table. And by disarming future victims, they have put themselves in the position of being Accessories to the Murders of those people. But I doubt they care. How many of them are just Administration Propagandists whose main purpose is to disarm the rest of us so they can do as they please with our wallets/purses and our personal choices?

          1. Really Jeff? Checked out this administration and many members of our Congress, Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi, you know “that bunch?” I think they are “firearm phobic!

          2. Timothy, your comment was directed at Vicki and that’s why I took your “firearm phobic” as being directed at Vicki and not those you mentioned above.

            You said above that you were a “top commenter” here but have only made approx 85 comments so it’s easy enough for some of us who’ve been here for a few years to be unfamiliar with you and your political bent…not anymore.

          3. “I think they are “firearm phobic!”

            OR more precisely afraid of firearms being in the “wrong” hands (by their definition of whos hands might be wrong).

          4. Probably in the interest of “national security.” That seems to be a very large umbrella these days. But I don’t believe that there is any government “spin” that is adequate; the statements of Mr. Carney are a prime example. And I most certainly agree that there have been well documented incidents where the government has used means that were questionable at best and criminal at worst to inflict its will on innocent people.

          5. “Probably in the interest of “national security.” That seems to be a very large umbrella these days.”

            And when you think about it that is exactly the point of the 2nd amendment. That we ALL are armed and dangerous. So we need to expand the umbrella back to its true size.

          6. To address your initial statement,I am listed as a top commenter, so I am most certainly not new here. Now that we have that out of the way, I was referring to the income taxes that we as federal ,state and local “citizens” are required to pay. They are taken out of my paycheck involuntarily. There is very little I can do to avoid this. They take, but I cannot take back. A thug who pulls a gun on me has the very extreme likelihood of being a casualty,i.e,I can fight back on his terms by fighting fire with fire. You said “And to collect those taxes they still send their thugs out with guns.” My assertion was that, in essence I can cannot re-tax the government. That there are many government thugs, I most heartily agree. That there are many government thugs with guns I can also readily concur. My problem is when thugs + guns gets applied to ordinary citizens like me and you, as if to merely own a firearm for the shooting sports, personal defense, as a collector, etc. as if “owning” a gun thereby “makes” you a thug! There are far too many people who have paranoia over firearms and want them totally excluded from society in general because they don’t feel comfortable about “anybody” having a gun. My reply to you Vicki was questing whether to date, any government agency acting in an official capacity had come armed to you door to collect those taxes? The terminology thugs with “guns.” tended to make one conclude you had a problem with guns. That was was my point, which, by the way you missed quite badly!

          7. Timothy Sullivan writes:

            To address your initial statement,I am listed as a top commenter, so I am most certainly not new here.

            Hmmm 85 vs 2377 vs 1389 vs 4153 vs 1158 vs…..
            (Not really a fair reference since those are comments in the entire discus system and not just at PLD)

            Now that we have that out of the way, I
            was referring to the income taxes that we as federal ,state and local “citizens” are required to pay.

            And if they don’t pay, how long before government “thugs” come. With guns? And this is just the “voluntary” income tax. There are other taxes that the government will come for you with guns should you fail to pay. Daniel F Melton mentioned one. Property taxes is another.

            There are far too many people who have paranoia over firearms and want them totally excluded from society in general because they don’t feel comfortable about “anybody” having a gun.

            Agreed. However that you included me in their number along with the number of posts you have made, does tend to indicate that you are new here.

            My reply to you Vicki was questing whether to date, any government agency acting in an official capacity had come armed to you door to collect those taxes?

            That they have not (yet) come to your door (or mine) is an Irrelevant strawman. They have come to some doors and will come to others (Just wait till obamaTax resistance starts)

            The terminology thugs with “guns.” tended to make one conclude you had a problem with guns.

            It would not make you conclude that I had a problem with guns had you actually been here for a while hence my suggestion that you might want to read more.

          8. To be honest I do not know at what point in quantity of comments the Disqus editors promote you to top commenter. One day, there it was next to my name. As Vicki has abundantly and correctly indicated, 85 vs 2377 vs 1389, etc. lends credence to my relative brevity on the scene. Give me a chance guys, maybe one day I may advance to your stellar levels. And may I request that if I have inadvertently offended any “true believers” out there in cyberspace, mea maxima culpa! I have been on long enough to recognize the character traits of some individuals (many of which seem to be continually maligned) but not long enough, as has been alluded to by Vicki and I concur. Most of us are in the same camp, it just takes time to recognize your true colors. Have a great day and keep the faith!

          9. Thank you Timothy. I can see by your other comments that you are one who will be welcomed here as you will see. We WILL disagree from time to time but hopefully we will still learn and grow and spread freedom and liberty thru this current technological “soap box”.

          10. And thank you for the very kind reply Vicki. I know that even in our families we will at times tend to disagree. For example I am the only one in my family who despises broccoli, however we have yet to disenfranchise one another!. I get very engrossed in intelligent discussions on a variety of concerns both national and otherwise, and I view with interest even those whose comments may indicate a distinctly disparate outlook from mine. I agree wholeheartedly that this medium is, as you say, a “technological soapbox” where the viewpoints of all citizens should be aired, as long they are expressed in a civil way. Vulgarity and crudity need to be left at the door and respect for the other person be preeminent! Here is looking forward to many future enlightening discussions and observations!

          11. There are a few well documented incidents. Both Ruby Ridge and Waco were actions begun over alleged $200 tax violations.

          12. Correct and part of the point I was making to Timothy. Though I was thinking at the time primarily about property taxes and income taxes. Soon we will see the behavior with obamaTaxes as well.

      1. The fed gov uses the irs and if you think that the various agencies haven’t been arming up, there are at least 70 federal agencies that one would think have no business being armed on the job. These range from the epa to Library of Congress and Federal Reserve Board. One might ask why…

          1. Because there are situations which put agents in potential danger. I was surprised about two years ago to learn that certain agents for schools actually are issued shotguns. Apparently there are times when those agents (a tiny percentage of educational employees) could find themselves in danger. I can’t comment much more on this. But if you care to give me some examples I can hunt around and find some information.

          2. Agents for schools issued shotguns? How do the anti gun no tolerance crowd explain that dichotomy?

            Here’s a few government agencies that should have no need for armed agents. Look the remainder up for yourself.
            Library of Congress
            Federal Reserve
            U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

            Bureau of Land Management,
            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
            U.S. Postal Service
            U.S. Park Service.
            National Institute of Health
            Veterans Health Administration
            Department of Agriculture

          3. The assertion that wildlife agents should not serve and execute warrants with firearms is faulty. Most reasonable people know that “game wardens” and wildlife agents routinely encounter armed subjects whether they are involved in legal or illegal taking of fish, game, and wildlife. The high court recognized that many species of game and fish are highly migratory, and those who harvest them are not necessarily local residents.

            There, I knocked one out.

            As fact-finding and investigative agents, Postal Inspectors are sworn federal law enforcement officers who carry firearms, make arrests and serve federal search warrants and subpoenas.

            There I knocked out another.

          4. John, incredible.. You are the knockout king… Esp those postal inspectors, that has to be one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. BUT – – I thought PO’s were gun free zones.. I’m so confused..

          5. Did you read what I wrote?

            They aren’t serving warrants at the postal office, in case you needed that clarified.

          6. Now how are those postal employees going to go “postal” if they are unarmed? Oh my! Also as an aside check the signs outside any VA facility..they specifically forbid weapons (guns,knives,etc.) from being brought in.

          7. Now how are those postal employees going to go “postal” if they are unarmed? Oh my! Also as an aside check the signs outside any VA facility..they specifically forbid weapons (guns,knives,etc.) from being brought in.

          8. Keep swinging. Care to justify the agriculture department’s need for armed agents? How about BLM or NOAA? The federal reserve isn’t even a goverment agency, yet they have armed agents. Who threatens bean counters?

          9. Since none of these agencies have legitimate authorization under the Constitution, what rationale do they have for armed agents?
            You have yet to prove me wrong.

          10. Actually, I have proven you wrong. You just changed arguments from “what do they need guns for” to “these agencies shouldn’t exist”.

            Pretty typical of you, I’d say.

          11. All the same reason. Warrants/subpoenas. Any reason why I need to inform you of this and you can’t look it up yourself?

            “Who threatens bean counters?”

            People like you.

          12. Legitimate warrants and subpoenas are served by officers of the court and the local Sheriff’s department.

          13. The Department of Agriculture probably uses those guns to arm Joe Biden’s famous “cattle guards!”

  11. Gun free zones are not islands of sanity, they are target rich environments known also as “criminal enablement zones”. Entering these zones, may I suggest you wear a “Kick me, rob me” sign on your back, while holding your hands in the air.

  12. Well. I guess that explains why college students all have beards and mustaches (men) and braid their underarms (women) — possession of razors being prohibited. Also, I would expect that the police would be subject to arrest, trial and punishment (jail time) for entering the gun free zone while possessing their weapons. I agree that the sign should be prosecuted for dereliction of duty and other malfeasance/misfeasance and should be imprisoned upon conviction along with the police who failed to leave their weapons at the place that they entered the gun-free zone. The police should also be prosecuted for murder in that they used prohibited weapons to kill the suspect, thus implying intent to kill and conspiracy to perform murder.

      1. Well, if razors and knives are forbidden on campus, then how can they shave. Also, how do they cut their food during their fine dining times? Cafeterias and restaurants must supply chopsticks, I guess, since knives and other dangerous things (forks, for example) are not available because they are not allowed according to the handbook.
        And we wonder why we are graduating incompetent idiots?

        1. Your problem is that you don’t seem to be aware of the function of guns. Cutlery and razor blades – while potentially dangerous – do have functions other than killing. Guns are manufactured to KILL. Don’t you know that? And not only are they made to KILL but some weapons can kill dozens and dozens of people within mere moments. It would take a long time for some nut to kill a lot of people with a fork.

          1. Of course I know that guns are made to kill, just like some knives are made to kill. Guns also perform other functions also. Guns are used for competitive shooting, without killing. Guns are used for hunting as a sport which provides food for people, just like fishing and fishing nets. Do you not know this?
            Guns are also used for protection when necessary. This is the reason our Founding Fathers penned the Second Amendment.
            First, I would ask you, if you want to ban guns because they kill and are capable of doing so efficiently, and apparently you believe that this is never acceptable (this is a premise that you don’t state, but which you imply), then I would presume that one of the first things that you advocate is the disarming of all police in the country, as they are responsible for the majority of the gun deaths in the US, including the 107 year old man in his own bedroom and the 8 year old girl lying on the couch of her home when they entered and started shooting while at the wrong address. In fact, in this current story, there was exactly one death caused by guns — the police killed the suspect — it was the armed police who caused this death by gun, and apparently they should have not been armed, because guns caused this death?
            If your premises are correct, then our armed forces should be prevented from carrying guns. Let’s start with our current armed forces in the middle east and let’s disarm hem. So when a suicide bomber decides to do his job, they can tackle him and restrain him. And while you are at it, explain how well this would have worked to our WWII veterans who were at D-DAY and afterward, as well as in the Pacific. And explain how well that worked to the people who died in Nairobi and Sandy Hook, where no guns were allowed; please tell me how many lives were saved because nobody had guns in these two events — that is, except for the bad guys who, by definition, do not obey the laws.

            Finally, if you are defending razors and knives, then why is this campus defined as being a razor-free and knife-free zone, but not a hammer-free zone or a baseball-bat free zone or even a motor vehicle-free zone, since motor vehicles cause many, many more deaths each year than guns cause?

          2. Don’t buy into his incorrect argument. Guns are manufactured to throw a rock along a ballistic path. The rock is often made of 1 or 2 elements but it is still a rock.

          3. Don’t be silly. Of course police have to be armed (although in Britain most cops are NOT armed) and it would be a pretty silly thing if soldiers did not have weapons. I’m not sure why I am answering such a silly posting as yours. Anyway police do make mistakes and police forces have some rotten apples but that’s not an argument in favor of disbanding the police all together. Society protects itself from bad guys by hiring fellow citizens and patriots to enforce laws. Your problem is that you have some kind of phobia about authority symbols and generally you don’t trust your fellow citizens unless they’re walking around with a high powered rifle. I note that shooting has finally happened in a CHURCH in the great state of Louisiana. A congregant blew away the pastor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come on now; the sermon couldn’t possibly have been that bad. Anyhow we now see the culture of guns spreading to every nook and cranny of the country.Chaos and pandemonium caused by acceptance of gun play as the way to solve problems. Way to go America! What’s next? Maybe blowing away a surgical team in a hospital operating room. Hey, the right to bear arms. You gotta’ love it. Golly gosh gee, ya betcha’.

          4. I’m not being silly, I am replying in kind to those who want to ban all guns and repeal the Second Amendment, which was put there for a purpose and that purpose was NOT to preserve deer hunting.

            Anyway, you are so wrong and so ridiculous that to reply reasonably to you would simply take too long.
            One question I would ask is the following — How many children’s lives were saved at Sandy Hook because none of the teachers or support staff were armed? Remember, criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. It would be ridiculous to believe that anyone who wants to commit armed robbery or murder by gun would first go to a licensed gun dealer, get a background check, go to a commercial practice range and if a pistol is involved to get a pistol permit with all that entails, and only after doing all that, go on a shooting spree. No, it is much easier to go downtown and buy one from a guy’s trunk or to steal it, as was done in Sandy Hook and neither of these will be stopped with more laws — we already have laws about stealing for example,
            What I would have preferred to see at Sandy Hook was that as soon as he started shooting his way into the school, that a maintenance person, a guard, a teacher or whoever would have run to the location, legal pistol drawn, and to have stopped the invader before he had shot any or more than a few of his targets. THEN, lives would have been saved, It was BECAUSE they followed your rules and waited for the police to arrive and handle the problem that those children died.

          5. The police chief at Sandy Hook noted that had the police officers who got there first arrived while the guy was still shooting that his officers most likely would have become victims too seeing as he had a more powerful weapon than the cops. That was the POLICE CHIEF. So you can arm everyone with really big guns and place them at every school door in the country. The loonies will just move to a softer target. The really big guns simply have to be not as available to any Tom, Dick, or Harry. Anyway now that there are shootings in church we have lots of fun and games to come.

          6. By the time the police arrived, a great deal of the killing had already been accomplished, Whether or not he had a bigger gun than the police had is irrelevant. A shot to the head with a .22 caliber short round will kill you just as dead just as fast as a .45 or a .44 magnum round.
            I do not believe that my life as a law abiding citizen needs to be unnecessarily confined and restricted because some criminal decides that he will ignore all those laws that I obey. I also believe that a basic right of any and every human being is the right to defend themselves against being murdered or seriously injured by a criminal.
            So now we have shootings in churches (like in the middle East). So what is your solution? Perhaps all churches should be closed until further notice? Perhaps everyone entering a church must leave all their clothing, purses, etc. on the curb before entering church property? Perhaps anyone entering a church should do so in full belief that they will likely be killed there, and so make all necessary funeral arrangements before going? Perhaps we should make all churches gun-free zones — like that will work if a criminal decides to ignore it?
            Basically, making an area a gun-free zone simply does not work to protect people from gun violence, but indeed identifies the area as a safe haven for someone intent on murdering people, since the criminal knows that everyone but he will be unarmed and that, for a while at least he is free to kill anyone without worrying about his own safety or being stopped. Just like here in New York State — do you honestly believe that an armed robber will go through the trouble of getting a concealed carry pistol permit, buy his pistol from a legitimate gun dealer and have a background check performed, and THEN remove all but at most seven bullets from the magazine? These are all things that I, as a law abiding citizen, did at great cost to me. But if you believe that any criminal will do any of these things, I want some of what you are smoking. So, in fact, all these laws are wholly useless and irrelevant in stopping an armed robber, they only impose duties and restrictions on law abiding citizens who are NOT armed robbers.
            Perhaps we need more laws forbidding criminals and law breakers from entering churches and shooting people. And when it happens that someone goes into a church and beats someone to death with a baseball bat, then we will need background checks for purchasing baseball bats and a law forbidding people from using baseball bats in a church to beat someone to death. Then when someone goes into a church with a knife …
            So propose a solution that WILL work, always.

          7. The laws in some states do work. I live in one, and I’m not too worried about a thug with a gun. Unless he’s a much better shot than I am. And that I doubt………..

          8. I presume that the laws in Vermont allow you to possess and use, if necessary, a firearm, to defend yourself and/or others. That is good and I fully support that, unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who would view you as being a danger and a threat because of that.

            As you can see from the above discussion, Robbie stated “Society protects itself from bad guys by hiring fellow citizens and patriots to enforce laws. Your problem is that you have some kind of phobia about authority symbols and generally you don’t trust your fellow citizens unless they’re walking around with a high powered rifle.”

            So, Robbie is condemning you and me because we apparently are ” walking around with a high powered rifle.” wherever we go, rather than using those we have hired to enforce the laws to protect us from the bad guys.

            Robbie still does not understand that his way resulted in Sandy Hook happening, and, in fact, those children didn’t stand a chance because the people at Sandy Hook did just as he is advocating, ie they had hired fellow citizens to enforce the laws, but they failed to protect the victims at Sandy Hook. Nor is it realistic to expect the police to be everywhere that the bad guys are just before and during the actions that the bad guys perform thus being able to protect everyone that needs protection, If it were possible and realistic to expect that, then obviously Sandy Hook and all the other similar instances would never have happened, nor would any crime ever go uncaught and unpunished.
            Unfortunately, making an area into a gun-free zone does not work, just as if all the banks were to post signs stating that they are theft free zones and embezzlement free zones, or a sign at the border of every state on the side of each road proclaiming the entire state to be a speeding free zone would work.

          9. I have a hard time carrying around a high-powered rifle. Did you ever try to conceal carry one of these? It’s just brutal! Oh well, I will just have to settle for my .45 auto.

          10. Walt although the Colt .45 1991 model pistol is sometimes referred to as “auto” it is a semi-automatic handgun.

          11. What I find so sad from many of the comments I read on this site is that there seems to be so many Americans who really fear being attacked/robbed/shot to death as they go about their daily pursuits. It must become very depressing to live in fear all the time.

          12. Read the newspapers.
            Perhaps things would be different if folks like you weren’t so determined to strip me of my Constitutional rights for your convenience even when the arguments used to support your contentions are totally unsupportable factually or logically.
            I do not live in fear all the time.
            I’m just tired of idiots and morons trying to restrict my rights under law just because they have no real appreciation for their opinions and how wrong and unsupportable they are, yet they want to apply them to me. If you want to go about unarmed and await the arrival of the authorities if you are ever attacked or raped, that is your prerogative to do so. And I support you in that decision, as it applies to you.
            I don’t. And I do not want your decision to be forced upon me.
            That’s all.

          13. Obviously. They are given to us by our Creator and not a piece of parchment. Do you happen to know when the government plans on letting us exercise those rights without fear of (ironically) being shot by a government agent?

          14. You can exercise your rights any old time you want. (And, by the way, there’s no god. It’s a myth. A man made fantasy and fiction).

          15. For you I recommend Pascal’s wager. I notice also that you brought up God. I said Creator. You do have a creator do you not?

          16. ” there seems to be so many Americans who really fear being attacked/robbed/shot to death as they go about their daily pursuits”

            This is exactly why we are concerned about the anti-gun people. As you say, they appear to live in constant fear of being attacked/robbed/shot to death as they go about their daily pursuits.

          17. The reason that so many Americans really fear being attacked/robbed/shot to death as they go about their daily pursuits is because there ARE so many Americans being attacked/robbed/shot to death as they go about their daily pursuits!

          18. Well, you’re right. It’s that good old wild west, true grit, historic mentality that seems very hard to eradicate.

          19. The next time someone attacks you or yours, why not just hit him over the head with your law book! I’ll keep my good old wild west,true grit historic mentality thank you very much.

          20. there were no guns in the cave, or jungle.
            I now realize you are one stupid individual, and you are not worth my time.
            Just another intolerant, insane Progressive troll.
            But, stay with it, we need your ILK to continuously remind rational folks how insane you sissies are.
            Thank you for your support.

          21. Actually not all that many shot to death, only @30,000 a year. Which of course if you are part of that number becomes very important to you. What is that number once you subtract all the gang-bangers and dope deals gone bad? How many are being attacked/robbed/shot (rather to death or not, still hurts like hell) who are CCW?

          22. I wonder what part of the the world you live in because you say ‘Americans’ as if you don’t live here….so where do you live?

          23. it is a shame.
            But, it’s reality.
            All you have to do is get off the blogging bs and actually read and listen. 100’s if not 1000’s of times a day, someone gets violently attacked and killed, right here in America.
            Obviously, it’s a reality that you, by living in your mom’s carriage house basement, has yet to experience.
            But, my friend, the odds are you will. Not IF, but when.
            I feel sorry for you, I really do. You won’t survive it.
            “Bu…bu.. it will never happen to meeeee”.


          24. That is one more benefit of home schooling aside from keeping your children or grandchildren from govern “mental” indoctrination, home schools are NOT gun-free zones unless, of course, you choose yours to be that way. A sign outside our “hall of education” has the silhouette of a man perforated with numerous bullet holes. The subscript reads “Nothing inside is worth dying for.” That might make a person think twice about barging in with murderous intent as he runs a very high chance of being shot by the teachers! (Or in some cases, the students as well.)

          25. Wait now! Muslims seem to be accepted because of their “culture”. So come on why not be fair and accept our gun “culture.” Oh, before anyone gets his hackles up I am most definitely “not” equating our gun culture with that of the Muslims, for to do so would require we “gun culturites” to require you non “gun culturites” to either own a firearm (converting) or die! But of course, the vast majority of gun owning and using Americans citizens being of a moral bent, we would not do that.

          26. I know what you’re getting at. Now I would not say that all Muslims are in to violence but certainly some are. You should be happy for those few – you could all get together at a coral out west and have an old fashioned gun fight. Knock yourselves out so to speak. Who say different “cultures” can’t have fun together?

          27. Actually you do. Your comments about guns and by implications gun owners smack of intolerance. So I guess our cultures will never have fun together. BTW your views of firearms are decidedly one dimensional. As I have commented before, not all guns are used for killing, just as a variety of common household items normally employed in mundane use can be used for devastating effect on our fellow human beings. Your point seems to be that the “beauty of the gun” is that it can be used in a more efficient manner,i.e. more kills per unit of time. If one wanted to be more efficient, than why not use explosives as per Timothy McVeigh. Why then you could be absent from the scene of devastation and not put yourself to hazard. Again, you have to comprehend what the mentality of the one using any implement of destruction is. We do not take cars away from people just because some other people subscribe to road rage. But then again, tyrants do not fear our cars, but they do fear our guns…and you know what…they always will!

          28. Guns are manufactured to throw a rock along a ballistic path. The rock is often made of 1 or 2 elements but it is still a rock.

            As to your fork strawman, do not be so sure of how efficient a tool it can be.

          29. Yes, if the victims are lined up and standing still. If they are on the run in different directions stabbing time gets lengthened. The beauty of a gun is that the shooter can remain in place and quickly fire in various directions and pick off the targets without having to chase each one of them. I’m beginning to wonder if you know much about guns (or forks for that matter) and how great they are.

          30. Quibbles that you did not bother to include in your original scenario.
            Answer this: How many would be killed or injured if the majority of potential victims were armed and returning fire?
            Mass murder does not happen when the potential victims are armed.

          31. Recently in New York City a fellow was on the sidewalk in front of the doors to the Empire State Building shooting people. Two policemen where near by and started firing at him. Something like a dozen innocent bystanders were actually hit by POLICE bullets and the police are the folks TRAINED in the use of gunfire. That’s the kind of problem that gets created when folks are all walking around with guns.

          32. I’ve seen statistics that cops are eleven times more likely to hit bystanders than CCW shooters. Shooting at a range of ten feet, the cops in your story did a “magazine dump”. The really incredible fact is that they did not shoot each other.


            Cops hit the range about twice a year, if they can find the ammunition. Hell, even the bad guys practice more than cops.

            Additionally, there has never been a shooting by a CCW breaking into the WRONG home during a no knock raid.

          33. My favorite statistic on violence where tool=firearm still remains

            ~300 MILLION Americans have not killed anyone. EVER (with any tool actually).

            So if we use the erroneous ~30,000 per year oft used by the anti-gun people we see that approx 0.01% of the population mis-uses their Constitutionally PROTECTED right to keep and bear arms. The anti-gun solution is to punish the ~99.99% that are innocent.

            That tells you all you need to know about the error of their position.

          34. All you need to know about “gun control” is that the municipalities with the strictest gun laws have the highest rates of gun violence.

          35. If that were all we really needed to know then we would have defeated gun-control MANY years ago. I came up with the above to counter more effectively ANY argument or counter argument the anti-gun crowd could think of.

            To date they have all failed.

            In its original form it includes (incredibly easy to verify) statistics and a dash of emotion to help chip away at the
            “progressive” brainwashing we have all had to suffer.

            Here is it’s form intended to be sent to any anti-gun politician, leader, person. The pro-gun people know it to be true in their heart. We even used it in pro gun arguments but it was always dismissed. All I really did was add a verifiable statistic to “law abiding”.


            ~300 MILLION Americans did not shoot ANYONE in the last year.

            STOP PUNISHING the INNOCENT for the acts of a very few.

            Stop it.

            Stop it NOW.


            You can even do the same for a state.

            Even the municipalities that you mention show that MILLIONS of innocents are being punished for the acts of a VERY few.

            Just get the population for the municipality and the FBI statistics for it and you will see that millions of Americans are being punished for the acts of a VERY VERY few.

          36. Liberals are adept at “waving the bloody shirt”, even when they’re the ones who cause the spilling of said blood.

            Logical arguments don’t work when you’re faced with a crowd of screaming monkeys drowning out your attempts at refuting their propaganda. This is a deliberate tactic on their part. If you can identify their leaders, attack them directly.

          37. Actually I believe him about that. There has been news stories after news stories about police firing hundreds of rounds and only hitting the perp 20 or 30 times. There was one incident in CA where something on the order of 20 police officers riddled a suspect’s vehicle with over 150 rounds and only hid the criminal 29 times. The Chief of Police promised an investigation into what was labeled as an “over use of force”! My thought was that he had at least 20 officers that needed a lot more training at the gun range.

          38. i’m not questioning the police being poor shots and firing many rounds but rather I question his claim that a dozen bystanders were hit.

          39. Those grade one kids would not have been very good shots and they might have been really scared after their teacher was blown away right in front of them.

          40. And if their principal and their instructor had been armed, it is quite likely that those children would not have been killed by that madman. To go back further, why is it so difficult to institutionalize the violent mentally ill?

          41. Background checks to weed out nut cases would be a good start. NRA seems to be able to block that every time a mass murderer blows a bunch of patriots away. p

          42. The aclu has made it near impossible to get the crazies off the streets. The vaunted background checks (already in place) that are supposed to keep guns out of their hands have gaping holes to slip through. Most of the recent mass murderers either “slip through those holes”,, buy stolen guns, or murder a relative to get ’em.

          43. Robbie, I fill out a form and undergo an F.B.I. background check every time I purchase a firearm….any firearm. These measures are already the law. It is senseless…a waste of tax-payer money…and a waste of time, to re-introduce the same laws over and over and over again. But, I guess people of your ilk will never understand this, so I’m betting that this response is a waste of MY time.

          44. @Robbie: It seems to me that YOU are the one who is pre-occupied with killing. A gun is merely a tool….whereas the person using the tool has the ability to DECIDE how that tool will be used…I’m quite sure you are not familiar with the ‘human element’ when it comes to killing. You make it sound as if the gun has a soul of it’s own….that is not only untrue, but ridiculous.

          45. And all this time I was using mine for sporting clays, paper targets, cans, some varmints like coyotes, raccoons, possums,etc. The 4 legged variety you understand not the 2 legged. You can take arguments like this to the absurd.i.e, a hammer is generally used to drive nails. It COULD also be used to crack walnuts, as an impromptu paperweight, or to KILL. Given a choice I would rather be shot with a gun than bludgeoned to death with a hammer. But wisdom is known by her children. The object is only as hazardous as the one in whose hands it is found.

          46. So true…. and yet so untrue. The beauty of the gun remains the fact that it is so fast – efficient really. A hammer takes time when killing, say, 25 kindergarden children and while your hammering one to death a bunch of the others are running for the door or windows. But with a gun you can stand in the doorway and blow away all 25 little all at once in just a few seconds. It always surprises me that folks who seem to know so much about guns seem not to have figured this out yet.

          47. I thought guns were designed only to hurl small chunks of metal at incredible speeds.
            I guess where PEOPLE choose to hurl these objects at, should be the issue.
            And for the sake of argument, I can easily create “weapons” that can kill “dozens and dozens of people within mere moments.”
            And do it for quite a bit less hassle and cost of purchasing a gun.

          48. All you need to do is buy one of those sprayers with a one or two gallon reservoire, (make sure you get one with a metal wand and not plastic) fill it with a flammable liquid like alcohol, gasoline, and presto you have a flame thrower,.. Or you can make molotov cocktails, which is also effective. Mixing bleach and ammonia creates chlorine gas,… using common objects and a little imagination, I’m sure one can come up with effective weapons.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>