What’s In A Name?

0 Shares
gunsdontkill0408_image

To the best of my recollection, sometime in the 1990s, the corporate media welded “gun” to “violence,” creating a rhetorical Frankenstein’s monster. With the exception of former Attorney General Janet Reno’s occasional combat operations against her fellow citizens, anytime a firearm featured into a crime, “gun violence” was blamed. People actually began falling victim to “gun violence” or “gun crime” or even “assault weapons.” Somehow, the Democrats managed to eliminate the perpetrators of crime, conjuring up images of walking, talking inanimate objects that loaded themselves and then hit the streets like the marching hammers in “Pink Floyd The Wall.”

And the American left sat up, brushed the crumbs off their bellies and began howling for someone to save them from the evil hordes of guns that had ruined their reverie. Not one ever noted the most important trait of phrases such as “gun violence,” “gun crime” and “assault weapons”: They’re idiotic deformations of the language.

To be sure, violence, crime and assault are certainly not idiotic. Anyone who has served in combat, worked in law enforcement, been victimized by a criminal or even observed unsupervised union thugs interacting with senior citizens who oppose Obamacare knows that real violence is really not funny. Nor should it ever be taken lightly. Therefore, when liberals attach “gun” to “violence” in an overt effort to demonize the implement by which violence is visited upon a victim, they’re diminishing not only the actions of the offender, but the suffering of the victim.

I often hear my fellow conservatives respond to liberal, anti-Bill of Rights activists by asking, “What about ‘knife violence?'” or positing some similar rhetorical argument. I say that kind of response is mistaken on two fronts:

  1. By demanding further qualifications (i.e., “knife violence,” “car violence” or “bat violence”), conservatives are ceding ground liberals don’t actually occupy. Once you say “knife violence,” you’ve acknowledged “gun violence” is a legitimate classification. It isn’t. Violence is violence.
  2. By ceding said ground, conservatives are allowing liberals to define the issue as being about inanimate objects rather than people. It may be clichéd, but “guns don’t kill people; people kill people” is indubitably accurate. Indeed, it’s a far more accurate assessment of the nature of crime and violence than mealymouthed platitudes liberals might form to cast blame on the wrong culprit.

From the dawn of recorded history until this very moment, no gun has ever inflicted violence on anyone, harmed anyone or killed anyone. Even in the rare cases of accidental discharge, the gun was merely a means of conveyance, like a car is to transportation. People hurt each other and themselves. Since guns are just hunks of metal and polymer, they can’t form intent, much less cause harm. Left to their own devices, guns are overengineered doorstops, paperweights and/or art.

Recently, The Associated Press announced the elimination of “illegal immigrant” and “islamist” from its stylebook. Evidently, that once-respected organization worries about the feelings of, well, illegal immigrants and islamists. By my own reckoning, both phrases lack a certain lyrical accuracy; I prefer the more legally accurate “illegal alien” and “islamofascist.” But I can’t help but notice that while The AP – and, hence, the corporate media — tries to adjust the lexicon to reflect the delicate sensitivities of criminals, it possesses no such compunction about the legitimate concerns of law-abiding Americans.

Ben Crystal

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

  • vicki

    The OP writes:

    “{From the dawn of recorded history until this very moment, no gun has
    ever inflicted violence on anyone, harmed anyone or killed anyone.”

    “Left to their own devices, guns are over-engineered doorstops, paperweights and/or art.”

    We even have video proof that guns won’t kill or even shoot. They are inanimate just as we have long known.

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

    • R.F.

      People with guns use them to mass murder children in classrooms, folks watching a movie and shopping at a mall. We need to limit the ability of nuts from getting hold of heavy weaponry.

      • Steve E

        You can only limit those that want to be limited. Not those that don’t.

        • momo

          So in other words, the law abiding citizen must pay the price while the criminals do what they want.

          • vicki

            The law abiding have a number. And it dwarfs all the anti-gun statistics. That number (today) is

            ~300 Million. That is how many Americans who have not shot anyone are being forced to give up their most basic rights to satisfy a few politicians.

            Tell the politicians to honor their Oath and

            Stop Punishing the Innocent for the acts of the criminal element.
            Stop it
            Stop it NOW

        • R.F

          Are you kidding? You can find plenty of folks who do not want to be limited by any given law you can point to. And yet those laws DO, indeed, limit them.

      • Cole Johnson

        what a liar you are! you have no intelligence and your education is lacking severely! more people are killed with hands and feet@ more people are killed in foster homes! more drunks kill more people! why lie? the facts are irrefutable! oh yeah, your opinion is based on your emotions! what PMS again?

      • Average Joe

        R.F.,
        “People with guns use them to mass murder children in classrooms, folks watching a movie and shopping at a mall. We need to limit the ability of nuts from getting hold of heavy weaponry.”

        Which is it? Do “People with guns” mass murder children, or is it … “nuts”?

        Quite frankly, I own several firearms and haven’t shot anyone (especially not children)…Maybe you need to concentrate on vilifying the “nuts” and leave the rest of us alone.
        AJ

      • vicki

        Since you can not possibly keep nuts from getting hold of tools that can be mis-used (ant-gun people have tried for years) how about you try something different. END GunFree Zones and let the potential victims take care of the problem. http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html

        Meanwhile it spite of your claim about nuts I did notice that in the last year

        ~300 MILLION Americans did NOT use guns to commit mass murder or even shoot anyone.

        Stop PUNISHING the INNOCENT for the acts of a VERY VERY Few.

        Stop it
        Stop it NOW.

        • R.F.

          True enough that we can not stop every last would be mass murderer but does that mean we should not try? Indeed, does that mean we should just let anyone do whatever the H they want? I hope not.

          • vicki

            Of course we should try. And the way to do it is to ARM the intended victims. We’ve tried disarming the intended victims (Gun Free Zones) and it is an obvious failure. To further disarm the ~300 MILLION Americans who DIDN’T shoot anyone is the very definition of insane.

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

            STOP IT
            STOP IT NOW

          • R.F.

            No one wants to disarm 300 million Americans. Where do you get this nonsense?

          • vicki

            From the news. Same place you could get it if you tried.

          • R.F.

            You need to find news sources that are reality based.

      • Jana

        R.F.
        I would say that is a very stupid comment, but I think it speaks for itself!
        Not all people with guns use them to mass murder children in classrooms or anywhere else! Most people with guns have never, and will never use them on another person in their entire life!

        That statement makes you sound paranoid and very much like a nut case yourself.

        • R.F.

          Society has a multitude of laws and rules and regulations that most people will not break. Yet we still institute those many laws to try and protect ourselves from those who DO break them. There is nothing unusual about a society trying to protect itself from evil doers. And gun laws will, indeed, be strengthened to protect us all (especially little children).

          • Vash the Stampede

            Their are so many laws on the books that we have never heard of. Especially in large cities like Ney York for example. You probably broke a dozen or more of them today. Laws that were passed to protect some company’s bottom line. But they say these laws are for our protection. The last strengthening of gun laws under Clinton helped protect no one.

      • Capt_J@sea

        I think what we need to do is to find out why there are so many nuts in our wonderfully-engineered society (at least, the social scientists say it is) and try to prevent the development of these anti-social tendencies.
        I raised in the late ’40’s and ’50’s, when one could buy a firearm at any hardware or surplus store. Guns were everywhere but no-one was using them to shoot innocent school children or strangers in public places. I guess the U.S. was relatively nut-free then.
        Don’t look at guns – look at what is wrong in our society.
        BTW, have you looked into the stats on how many of these mass shooters were liberals?

        • R.F.

          Actually your observations on American society are well taken. Something certainly is wrong. Although I do support gun controls which I think will help the real malaise runs much deeper. There are a number of countries like Israel and Switzerland where a huge percentage of the population owns guns and yet they do not have the mass killings by fruit cakes that are happening more and more in the U.S. as time goes by.

          Perhaps there is a sort of mass frustration in the land with a feeling that the big mega corporations and the super rich are controlling more and more of the economy leaving everyone else behind. You know that over the last few decades more and more of the national wealth has been concentrated in the hands of just 1% of the population. Large corporations like the oil companies are seeing record profits in the zillions of dollars whilst workers get laid off due to automation and outsourcing. Workers’ wages have been actually going down and yet its hard to get one of the political parties to agree even to a .25 cent minimum wage increase! Top executives take in literally hundreds of millions of dollars in wages and benefits but hollar at the prospect of paying even a dollar more in tax. The sense of inequality slowly causes a meanness and frustration and some people eventually snap, grab a gun, and start blowing away little children.

          More controls on gun ownership is a first step but identifying mental problems is a must but far deeper is the general frustration in society. The Roman empire eventually fell after centuries of dominance due to a number of internal social problems and some of the parallels with contemporary America are quite striking.

          • Cobranut

            RF: You are partially right with your reasons for the increase in violent crime, however, you are severely mistaken that more gun restrictions will help.
            Actually INCREASING the number of legally-armed citizens is the most powerful deterrent to crime available. The crooks go where they face the LEAST resistance. We need to make those places non-existent.

    • Doc Sarvis

      Vicki, I see your point/proof. So you are saying that we should just NOT allow people to have guns – that is the dangerous combination.

      • Cole Johnson

        NO! wow are you unintelligent! you do not see! you just twist it like a liar does! are you a politician? you sure push the manure out for sale like one!

      • vicki

        Since you can not stop bad people from trying to use force to get what they want, your attempt to take away from good people the BEST tools of defense yet invented clearly show that you have no interest in civilization. http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/marko.htm

  • vicki

    The OP writes:
    “Not one ever noted the most important trait of phrases such as “gun
    violence,” “gun crime” and “assault weapons”: They’re idiotic
    deformations of the language.”

    Here is more on the journalistic war on (some) guns

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/dr-michael-brown/the-journalists-guide-to-gun-violence-coverage/

  • Doc Sarvis

    Guns like alchohol, in the hands of people can turn dangerous and hurt innocent people. Guns like alchohol need to be regulated. Would you want to remove all restrictions to drinking and driving?

    • Warrior

      I think you meant to say “people” need to be regulated. Well, at least the ones who don’t get “sucked” out.

    • Jasper2

      How about liberty? Does that have to be regulated too? Why are guns in the hands of government inherently less dangerous than those possessed by law abiding citizens. The problem with your implicit “regulation is good” idea is who is doing the regulating? Eric Holder of Fast and Furious fame? Or some other leftist thug?

      Ultimately, criminals will always have access to the tools of their trade. So the only possible outcome of such “regulations” is to make the guns in the hands of criminals even more dangerous to those law abiding citizens whose rights have been “regulated” out of existence.

      Has a completely disarmed Mexican citizenry made Mexico more safe? Did the lack of a gun make Timothy McVeigh less able to murder 168 innocent people? I think fertilizer was his weapon of choice. Or how about box cutters in the wrong hands. Seems that led to 9/11 and the loss of over 3000 innocent lives.

      Or how about possession of scalpels and forceps–the weapon of choice for the murder of 55 million plus human beings (More than Stalin and Hitler combined could manage) since Roe v Wade became the law of the land?

      • Doc Sarvis

        Lawful citizens will still have their guns and, while criminals may get guns it will be more difficult for them to obtain them, thus reducing the occurrence of violent crime.

        • Meteorlady

          I’ll bet you a ton of money that I can go out into any large urban area and buy an illegal gun – any gun I want – given enough money. You WILL NEVER STOP THAT.

          People of Germany thought it was OK to give up those rights. Think it won’t happen here.

          Why is Homeland Security buying millions of rounds of hollow point bullets and then telling Border Patrol that there is not enough money in their budget to provide practice rounds?

          • Doc Sarvis

            I NEVER said, and I don’t think anyone has said, that tighter gun laws will “stop” crime. If we have tighter control on firearms we will make it more difficult for the criminals.

          • Cole Johnson

            absolute manure! there are too many criminals! you will not slow them down! with semi trucks of full auto ak’s coming to America for the drug cartels! you are a uninformed fool!

          • Joel0903

            There is y our fallacious assumption. It may make it SLIGHTLY more difficult, but the difference will be less than 1% of illegal weapons getting into the hands of criminals, even with the most of draconian gun controls placed on possession and purchasing of firearms. Even if we went the route of other nations and totally scrapped the 2nd Amendment (Which will never happen, but just imagine), the amount of illegal weapons in the hands of criminals will decline by no more than 2% (being very generous). No registration requirements or even outright bans will stop them from buying their firearms illegally. To think otherwise is just laughable. “No, Mr. Black-market dealer, I can’t buy that crate of fully automatic AK-47s because all guns, even hand-guns are now illegal in the USA.” The logic of that is just stupid.

          • vicki

            You Might make it a little more difficult for criminals. You DO make it a LOT more difficult for the

            ~300 Million Americans who didn’t shoot ANYONE.

            STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a very few

            STOP IT
            STOP IT NOW

        • Meteorlady

          Since 1992 violent crime and murder rates in this country is down 54%. Why aren’t some of the politicians or even Obama shouting this out? It’s a good thing right?

          • Joel0903

            Yes, but it goes against the meme they wish to push in order to get their gun-control regulations passed.

          • The Snarf

            Sandra, that is about the time that many states passed right-to-carry and concealed carry laws.In the ones that did,murder rates halved,and assault rates dropped by as much as 250%.
            I don’t know why these so-called progressives are trying so hard to set the nation backwards on this,unless perhaps the right to self-defense is making things difficult for a large part of the Democrat voter base.

        • John

          Yeah. That is why cities like Chicago are so safe. Total gun control. Look at the statistics. .7 deaths per hundred thousand in the “Wild West”. Now with all the registration and “gun control” already in place we are at four deaths per hundred thousand, down from nine, when states began issueing concealed carry permits. What is the real reason for limiting firearm ownership I ask rhetorically? Take away freedom from the American’s so the global bankers, who live elsewhere, can control US.

          • Doc Sarvis

            As I said below; Chicago and D.C. are small porous islands in the law. The gun laws there are ineffective due to the limitless transit of guns into those jurisdictions. By making these islands larger (state) and larger (national) we greatly reduce the porous membrane effect and dilute the concentration of illegal guns in the larger jurisdictions.

            see more

            0 1 You must sign in to down-vote this post.

          • independent thinker

            The international firearms black market is awash in guns of all types, full auto AKs, semi-auto rifles such as the SKS, assorted handguns, even hand grenades and RPGs. These guns sell for a small fraction of what an average quality used revolver sells for in the US. If you pass ever more restrictive laws in the US at some point the criminal will turn to the black market and then will be armed with full auto firearms as well as their other guns. Since the government cannot make more than a small dent in the illegal drug trade what makes you think they can prevent more than a miniscule fraction of the guns from coming in.

          • The Snarf

            Now if they could just do something about the small porous liberal brain.

          • Bill Henry

            Have laws regulated the illegal drug trade. I would assert that that ruins and takes more lives than drunk driving and guns put together

        • momo

          Have you looked at Mexico lately? It’s illegal to own a gun there, but the drug cartels seem to have no problem finding weapons.

        • Jana

          Sure, IF they can get bullets for their guns.

      • Robert Smith

        Oh John, John, John… The FACT is that you are passionate about “babies” and liberty.
        Others are passionate about their freedoms (you claim to “murder” which is wrong outside the context of your religion).
        Why don’t YOU respect the freedom of women to control their own reproductive systems and I’ll encourage them to respect your freedom to pack heat.
        Quite frankly I think it’s selfish and un-American to demand freedom for yourself and restrict it for another.
        Maybe you aren’t from America and just don’t understand.
        Rob

        • Joel0903

          Personally, I have no problem at all with a woman controlling her reproductive system. However, a fetus, medically, is NEVER part of a woman’s reproductive system. It is, in terms of biology, a separate organism living inside the host mother’s body. Since the host creates beneficial hormones in response to the presence of the fetus, the fetus is in a symbiotic relationship to the host, not a parasitic one. In other words, why don’t YOU respect the inherent freedom of both organisms to the most basic right of all that is protected and guaranteed in our highest laws – the right to live.

          I do agree with you that it’s selfish and un-American to demand freedom for yourself and restrict it for another. Therefore, would you agree, by your logic, that you are being selfish and un-American in eliminating the most basic and demanded freedom of all for the symbiote (the child) in the relationship you spoke of?

          Abortion is NOT a right that descends from the US Constitution. It is a right, law at the national level, that the SC created in Roe V. Wade (even though the Constitution explicitly restricts the creation of federal laws to the Congress.

        • The Snarf

          No,Robert,the FACT is that the liberal cries for expanding abortion and infanticide,their push to normalize sex with children that are too young to consent,all the screeching for violence and death upon anyone that dares to have an independent thought outside the liberal agenda,etc.,only show that you liberals are duplicitously against the very human rights you keep screaming about.

      • Rocco

        Yes John, even liberty is regulated. You do not have the liberty to kill someone or steal their car. We put limits on ourselves all the time. You do not have the liberty to ignore the law. Even ones we do not agree with. Do not get me wrong, I believe in the constitution and bill of rights, but I also believe in common sense.

        • Cole Johnson

          really stupid comment! killing is not a form of freedom! wow! go get help!!! you really need a shrink!

        • momo

          “You do not have the liberty to kill someone or steal their car.”
          And yet it still happens. Criminals don’t follow laws.

    • Meteorlady

      You never cease to amaze me. Even if we had more laws about drunk driving they would still do it. You think you are safe because you have laws? Really? Think again. MOST gun crimes are committed with guns that are unregistered. They are sold on the streets and just about anyone can buy them.

      If you want to stop mass murders, you need to look at society in general. We are becoming more and more violent as the population increases. 30 years ago people walked the streets of the cities at night without fear. Their children played outside and were unsupervised without fear. Today we can’t walk the street in some areas of our cities in daylight.

      So what we have is a complete liberal and social breakdown of the family, society, and the government has been the most complicit in all this by handing out freebies and putting people on the government plantation without good schools or jobs to get them out of their poverty.

      The government wants them there. They get votes because these people need more free stuff. There are 20% more people, per capita, in poverty today than when we started the War on Poverty and that’s the way the liberals like it.

      • Doc Sarvis

        Completely safe? – no, but SAFER? an emphatic YES!

        • Cole Johnson

          only in your small mind doc! safer is an illusion! go to hollywood you dreamer!

          • Doc Sarvis

            Cole Johnson, in several responses here,you’ve called me names (like that’s gonna hurt – ha!) and told me I am wrong but offered no contrary information/argument. What’s the deal? NRA got your tongue?

          • Bill Henry

            I will agree with your name calling statement, for I see no useful purpose in it and consider it to be tool of the left when it cannot argue with the obvious. In your post you insinuate that all gun owners owe their allegiance to the NRA. I am a gun owner, and I carry a weapon wherever I am legal to do so according to the laws of the state that I happen to be in. I will ask you if you can walk safely down any street in your municipality. I come from a small town of just over 9,000 people, and when I go home from where I currently reside I can’t even walk those streets without being accosted by gangsters. If I am made a criminal by your laws, I simply will not put them above the safety of my family, myself, my property, and even you if it is allowed where I happen to be, and it is according to the laws of my state, and the state that I was born in. So if you ever have your life threatened or have a fear of physical harm or have a felony being committed on you just yell help and my name and if I am there I will bail you out, and if I can’t answer your call then I hope someone like me, a law abiding natural born citizen will answer, because it is simply a right I have under the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, and of 42 other states where the same rights are guaranteed, and it is totally against my nature to have fear stop me from walking or driving through anywhere I feel like it in this great country of ours. That is what makes it great, not having to fear the criminal element or your government trying to take your rights away from you against their oath. I wish you a safe journey wherever you may wander.

          • Cobranut

            Our Constitutional RIGHTS are GUARANTEED in EVERY STATE.
            Some states THINK they can take them away, but they are WRONG. After we have a change of regime, hopefully soon, congress and the courts will rectify that situation.

        • Jana

          Doc, Safer? Alcohol is regulated so we are safer? That’s why we always hear about so many wrecks where someone was killed and then they say alcohol was a factor? Yeah, regulation really pays off sometimes, but not very often. Most of the time it’s after the fact, just like it would be after the fact when a policeman would get to the scene and the perp is gone but the victim is dead or raped.

          You want everyone to be victims. I REFUSE.

          Not everyone is a mass murderer! Not everyone has shot anybody! Stop trying to take our rights away from us to be able to protect ourselves!!!

    • rendarsmith

      Doc, if the guns can be taken out of the criminal hands, things would be better. That is true. But the key word there is IF. How on earth can we implement that? How can you get the guns away from the criminals? Regulation? Since when do criminals care about that?
      Let’s look closer at drinking and driving. It’s against the law right? Yet people are still caught doing it. They are jailed when they do right? But it is still happening. People are still violating that law. It’s not stopping it. I’m not saying we need to do away with that law, but the law itself is not eliminating the problem. Gun regulation is not going to stop gun crime either. Look at Chicago.

      • Doc Sarvis

        I agree that crime (gun crime or drinking & driving) will always occur. With the right laws though, they will occur at a reduced rate. I am sure that drinking and driving laws have REDUCED the horror of alcohol related car accidents.

        • rendarsmith

          But is gun regulation going to do the same? Again, look at Chicago.

          • Doc Sarvis

            That is a tired argument. Chicago and D.C. are small porous islands in the law. The gun laws there are ineffective due to the limitless transit of guns into those jurisdictions. By making these islands larger (state) and larger (national) we greatly reduce the porous membrane effect and dilute the concentration of illegal guns in the larger jurisdictions.

          • Cole Johnson

            you are a tired argument! you have no facts that you have based your opinion on! only your emotions! are you sure your not a woman?

          • Doc Sarvis

            Another Conservative War on Women comment. You folks just don’t learn.

          • Jana

            That wasn’t a War on women comment. Sometimes even men talk in circles and make tired arguments such as how you have just done. You are talking in circles. Maybe you are or used to be blonde. Some men can be blonde ditzes too. Or, you just choose not to see, which is what I think it is.
            But you are wrong thinking you can speak for women.

            THERE IS NO WAR ON WOMEN EXCEPT FROM LIBERALS!!!

          • ChiefBoring

            Have you finally resorted to cutting and pasting your taliking points? You cant’ logically blame Chicago’s problems on others. Even the police, I have heard, are reluctant to enter some parts of that fair city, becasue of gangs and the violence they perpetrate. Drugs, mental illness left untreated, and psychotropic drugs overprescribed, have far more affect than guns on crime, especially the “bad” guns. More people were killed in the last period posted by the FBI with hammers than rifles. Where do we stop? Ban Hammers? Rocks?

        • Cole Johnson

          its not gun crime liar! it is violence crime stupid! guns are inanimate objects! like your intelligence!

          • ChiefBoring

            Cole, you are letting Doc bait you into rash comments. Don’t fall into his trap. Stop and think before you reply to his misinformation and carefully planned remarks. He appears to be the assigned liberal to this string.

          • Bill Henry

            I agree, and he bitches about name calling?

      • Steve E

        The drunk driving laws are a money making racket for the lawyers. It doesn’t stop drunk driving.

        • Doc Sarvis

          And mass shootings are money making racket for the gun industry and the NRA. It doesn’t stop the killing of children.

          • ChiefBoring

            Oh you poor soul. If you actually believe your last post, I really feel sorry for you. I’m not in the gun industry,an honorable trade, but I am a life Member of the NRA, which has suggested the only thing that might actually have a positive effect on the problem; arming trained people in schools. Have you not noticed that all these shootings have taken place in “gun free zones”? With the exception of Congresswoman Griffith’s, where there was armed response, and the disarming of the perpetrator. Finally, I am a retired Navy Chief Petty Officer, sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I’m also 75 years old, enough to remember the way things used to be.

          • Bill Henry

            Hey Chief from another Chief, RMC retired. 69 year old. We are not too far apart in age, so I can relate to things that used to be. That is no longer respected unfortunately.

          • momo

            “And mass shootings are money making racket for the gun industry and the NRA”
            Especially when you liberals start talking about gun control. Obama has been the best gun salesman in twenty years.

          • Joel0903

            They’re much more of a money making racket, as you put it, for the anti-gun lobby in DC – the lawyers and Democratic shills using them to solicit campaign contributions, in other words, by promising “gun control”. Which will never stop the killing of children, as you put it.

      • Bill Henry

        Yes, if is a small word but it casts a long shadow. We have reams and reams of laws and regulations, and all of them restrain or rights and the more they write, the more they want. Passing laws justifying the law makers existence, like “let’s pass it so we can see what’s in it”, or words to that effect. I wonder how many folks like me will be sentenced to death by Obama care. More that gun deaths if we don’t get rid of it, and it will only get worse unless we get out the vote in 2014.

    • Cole Johnson

      really stupid analogy! alcohol and guns are two different animals! alcohol has good and bad benefits! but it is abused and kills more people than guns!!! driving is not a right! stupid, really stupid comment! try harder! or is the limit of your intelligence?

    • et

      We already have gun laws on the books just like we have laws to punish those who drink and drive. If someone is caught driving intoxicated, they are held accountable. If someone is caught using a fully automatic weapon, say, or a gun in the commission of a crime, they are held accountable. Are you suggesting we abolish alcohol (again) since you seem to be on the side of more regulation? Because on the road that we’re on now, the powers that be are heading in the direction of abolishing all weaponry – one statute at a time until the feds step in and make it federal law.

    • ChiefBoring

      Have you not noticed that we don’t punish the cars of drunk drivers, nor take the cars from those who don’t use cars irresponsibly? Nor do we limit the power of cars arbitrarily. Guns, nor cars, imbibe alcohol; people do. We had ten years of prohibition of guns based on their looks, not their function. There was no affect on the violence people caused during this period. Insanity is doing the same thngs over and over, expecting a different result. Finally, what part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand? Doc, you need a new set of talking points; the ones given you by the dems are trite and worn, besides being untrue.

    • independent thinker

      Guns are over regulated now.

      • Doc Sarvis

        Tell that to the kids at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, the ones that are left.

    • momo

      Typical liberal response, pass a law and we’ll be safe. What liberals forget is criminals don’t follow laws, that’s why they’re criminals.

      • Bill Henry

        It has nothing to do with safety. They are like thieves in the night. If they can’t get in the front door they will try the back door or a window to do their nefarious deeds. The intent is eventual confiscation, nothing less. We are being baited to make the first move, I would venture.

  • http://www.facebook.com/southpawrightie Gary Waytotheright Hoskins

    Liberalism is a mental illness. Sad to say half of America suffers with it. They are insane.

    • Doc Sarvis

      Yes it is horrible to have these things that liberalism has promoted:
      Women vote
      Slavery ends
      Nonexploitation of workers
      Product safty
      Racial equality

      • Meteorlady

        Liberals didn’t do all that Doc. We the People did all that. What a crock….

        • Doc Sarvis

          “We the People” who value the promotion of those progressive ideas.

        • chocopot

          Actually, “liberals,” who now identify themselves with the Democratic Party, should check out the history of the Democratic Party which they are so proud to claim is the party of the ‘working man.’ The Democratic Party was formed in the years prior to the Civil War (around 1844, if I recall), in order to perpetuate slavery. Yes, you read that right. The Democratic Party was formed to help ensure the continuation of slavery since the Republicans – yes, the Republicans – were worrking toward ending slavery. And if you check some more recent history, it was the Democrats that fought against the Civil Rights laws of the 1960’s and it was the Republicans who ensured the passage of those laws. Sometimes you need to know some history instead of listening to all the lies spoon fed to you daily by the mainstream media.

          • Joe Public

            You are correct in the fact that on the face it looks like the Dems did all the good stuff. But in reality when they saw they were loosing ground they changed sides.

          • nickkin

            rino’s were bred by dem’s.

          • Right Brain Thinker

            And chocopot gets EIGHT up arrows for this comment—-the fools are certainly alive and well and NOT thinking today.

            IF they were thinking, and IF they had a better knowledge of history from the mid-60’s onward, he and they would realize that the Democrats of old have become the Republicans of today.

            You need to read history books that don’t have the history of the past 45 years torn out, chocopot. That’s if you want to sound as if you know anything—–maybe you don’t want to?

          • chocopot

            Oh really? The Democrats are still slavemasters, only the slaves don’t seem to realize they are just that.

          • Ron r

            Yes,dems were once behind the power curve on Alavert,civil rights and a host of other issues. You should be proud that republicans and reich wingers like yourself have taken over for dems and now lead the way in denying basic human rights. You can honestly look at idiots like Cruz Boehner,Paul and Graham, and think civil rights. He’ll all are even more extreme than David Duke. Two key words for you. Were, and are. The democracy’s were,and the republicans/reich are.

      • rendarsmith

        You left out a few:

        Feminism (hatred of men)
        Race-baiting (hatred of whites)
        Entitlement mentality
        Laziness (through welfare and affirmative action)
        Socialism
        Abortions (murder)
        Victimization
        Union violence
        Increased government
        higher taxes
        class warfare

        • Steve E

          …and Violations of the Bill of Rights.

        • chocopot

          You left out Affirmative Action, which is unconstitutional anti-white male discrimination.

        • Karolyn

          Feminism has nothing to do with hatred of men. Have you been hiding under a rock?

          • nickkin

            hiding under a rock with a female-I was first one out-she stayed.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        What do women do with the vote they got? Whining hasn’t stopped.

        Slavery still exists as you are still one and you have the inclination to make others a slave.

        People choose their employers and have the choice not to work for these selfsame employers.

        Choice still applies, don’t buy a product if there is doubt that you can’t handle it.

        The races choose to be that race, they didn’t have to inbreed and then didn’t have to put out of your midst or kill off the different colorations.
        You still have a choice not to be an Idiot.

        • Karolyn

          “The races choose to be that race”? What are you talkig about?

    • MexicanSaysLibtardsRPukes
      • Bill Henry

        I have a brother with Downs Syndrome. I share your feelings about the left,but not your choice of expressing it. If you must call them namescould you change the a to a u perhaps. I am sure if my brother were capable of discerning and choosing he would also be a Conservative.
        Being that he isn’t capable of discerning and choosing, I would say that he would also thank you for that.

        • Bill Henry

          Please excuse my typing, but I am trying to stuff my face while typing one handed.

    • Ron r

      The first sign of insanity. Most everyone else is wrong .(in your case over half of Americans ) yet you are the only one right or reich. Poor Gary ,poor thang.

  • Deadeye

    It is amazing that the human tendency is to assign some mystical aura to something that a certain sect doesn’t like. It appears that those who are afraid of “guns” most likely should be hiding in a cave during a thunderstorm, or tossing a virgin into a volcano. That is if they could find one. It makes your head spin.

    • Joel0903

      For clarification, do you mean they’re geographically inept and could not find a volcano? Or do you mean that the likely-hood of finding an actual virgin is remote? Never-mind, the answer is probably BOTH.

      • Bill Henry

        Has anyone seen the coverage of the mass stabbing at the college in Texas on the mainstream media? If there was any.

    • The Snarf

      But it’s not the guns that most of them fear,it’s guns in the hands of freedom-loving people that might object to their totalitarian control.

  • Patriot_Dave

    The extremes on either end of the political spectrum are sick and deluded!!.. We have this fight when all that is discussed is either Far Right or Far Left BS!!…. The issues presented here are about Freedom vs Tyranny. One can be of the Moderate stance leaning a little right or a little left and still stand for Freedom… or one can be an extremist form either the far right or the far left and be nothing more than a Tyrannical oppressor! Polarization of any IDEAL always leads to distortions made by the adherents and the opposition in the attempt to persuade the MODERATES which side to JOIN…. How foolish it is that either extreme end of the spectrum will further debase itself to politicizing it’s own delusions for the sake of winning an argument or to establish an INSANE policy or rule of Law…. Ones frame of reference must ALWAYS be the CONSTITUTION and the Freedoms protected Therein… All else must be discarded as the TRASH that it is….

  • Laidbackrebel

    guns are already over regulated. Just how many laws do you need to cause gangsters, and the mentally retarded, to obey them? Law abiding people do obey the laws. The problem is that the government wants to make unconstitutional laws, and they don’t want us to present armed objections to their illegal laws. does it not seem peculiar, that it is always the fault of just one crazy, that does these evil acts? That whole scenario, is so transparent, that I can’t believe anyone falls for it. If you really spend time doing the research, you will come to the conclusion, that the government is setting up these incidences, and murdering innocent children, to further an agenda., then the OWNED, AND GOVERNMENT OPERATED PROPAGANDA MACHINE,called the” evening news” tells the story, the way they want it told. To call it lying is the grossest understatement. Apparently, the only thing that will help the common man, is for the scenario of Revelation, in the Bible to happen. You New Yorkers need to know that your city, is the Babylon, spoken of in Revelations, and know that the days are short, until the nuclear bomb is dropped on your beloved, decadent city.

  • ChuckS123

    I think total violence of any type is the real issue. If gun deaths go down by 100 but knife deaths go up by 300, it’s obviously bad. Strong gun control will likely mean criminals may use more of other weapons, and people will be less able to defend themselves. Also bad is talking about gun violence in countries with strict gun control – other weapons are likely to be used much more there.

  • boyscout

    Spot on summation Ben. But from personal experience I have seen many pro 2nd amendment “Liberals” as well as many anti types who call themselves Conservative: so back to your well aimed point of language usage. Indeed, it is people (particular people often referred to as nut cases) that are the source of the problem. Where do they come from? Is it a toxic mix of misguided up bringing, generalized stupefaction engineered by our present education system, and miss application of psychotic/anti-psychotic meds promoted both wholesale and retail to an unsuspecting and overly gullible consuming public? I have only observations and lack the answers. At any rate, here’s hoping that the government’s upcoming actions will not be as stupid or as devious as I suspect they will be.

  • JimH

    After today’s attacks in Texas are we all going to have to hear endless talk about “knife violence”?
    Maybe the problem in “gun violence” isn’t the “gun” part.
    The fact that there are people willing to be violent is the problem.
    Some people may need the gun to “protect themselves” from violent people.
    Don’t blame the weapon.

  • obxster

    What is scary is how many hostage situations have ended in the killing of the hostage taker recently. We noticed that every time the news states that over flights have been prohibited to prevent the hostage taker from knowing what is going on around him, it’s always followed by a raid and killing. I am not saying that killing the hostage taker is not warranted. What I am concerned about is that the “Drone” mentality has hit law enforcement. Take the criminal out and avoid the courts and all that entails. It used to be the mentality that rushing the hostage taker placed the hostages in jeopardy. I guess that’s not longer the case.

  • CrackerJack

    Thx for sharing your (ongoing) Crystal vision.

    delicate sensitivities of criminals vs legitimate concerns of law-abiding Americans.

    … another nail in the corporate coffin.

  • Darral

    Gun Control is Treason, Read Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr. Essay Dare Call it Treason, and let us call it what it is TREASON, Abolish this Destructive Treasonous Democratic Party.