Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

It’s Always ‘Too Soon’

December 20, 2012 by  

It’s Always ‘Too Soon’
UPI
On Wednesday, President Barack Obama announced that Vice President Joe Biden will lead a team that will offer "concrete proposals" to curb gun violence.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter when the “right” time to delve into so-called “gun control” has arrived. Once the smoke clears, we all step back into the rhetorical ring for another round of debate about what liberals call “gun violence” and conservatives call either “crime” or the lyrics to a rap album.

Of course, the actual debate takes a moment to get under way. First, the media have to descend on the bereaved and gorge themselves on misery like buzzards feasting on roadkill. In the Newtown, Conn., nightmare, ABC News editorial producer Nadine Shubailat began stalking victims’ families and friends on Twitter, begging for face time, until outraged respondents buried her Twitter feed in an avalanche of spam. Meanwhile, the Democrats had to take a moment to adhere to Rahm Emanuel’s famous adage: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Barack Obama’s creepy little pet, David Axelrod, even tried hyping Obama’s gun-control speech (which was ostensibly supposed to comfort the Nation) to direct people to donate to Obama’s 2012 Presidential campaign. Nothing says “we care” like exploiting dead children to grub for cash for an electoral effort that ended six weeks ago.

Among the citizenry, emotions run high, often obfuscating reason. Some proffer laughable conspiracy theories, my favorite involving both the Aurora theater shooter and the Newtown murderer being stooges for a secret gun-lobby conspiracy trying to create an artificial spike in prices. Others try to resurrect the ridiculous talking point about the 2nd Amendment referring only to flintlock muskets and blunderbusses. They blissfully ignore that abortion is now Constitutionally protected.

And we must not forget magazine capacity. Anti-2nd Amendment zealots suggest that no one needs high-capacity magazines. But Connecticut already bars the sale thereof. In fact, Connecticut is a liberal’s paradise regarding gun laws. Capacity makes no real difference. A determined shooter with even moderate training can cycle through 10- or even 5-round magazines in rapid succession. When the shooter is spurred on by the voices in his head and the victims are 5- and 6-year-olds, he doesn’t even have to be all that proficient. Hell, terrorist Timothy McVeigh was highly proficient with firearms — as an Army veteran, he was probably better with an M4 than Adam Lanza ever hoped to be — and he didn’t need a firearm at all. In China, some hopped-up lunatic went after a couple dozen schoolchildren with a knife about 18 hours before Lanza proceeded with his grisly plan. The Chinese, who have gun control to quail the hearts of even the Brady Campaign, have seen a number of such attacks in just the past few years.

Still others took advantage of the situation to press an assault against the National Rifle Association. Twitter was set ablaze by concerned liberals issuing death threats to not only the group’s members, but their children as well.

Liberals are so opposed to violence that they’re positively homicidal over it.

Gun control is really people control. And people can be controlled a lot more simply than an ill-advised frontal assault on the Bill of Rights. When I first offered my curriculum vitae to Bob Livingston, I remarked that gun control requires nothing more than common sense: You don’t allow criminals, illegal aliens or the guy down the street with a tinfoil hat access to firearms. Imposing draconian measures on the only part of the populace likely to abide by them merely tilts the field in favor of the criminal element. For those who remain unconvinced, take a look at Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. (I suggest you do so from inside a tank.)

So-called “assault rifles,” high-capacity magazines, the NRA and one or two really intricate conspiracy theories might qualify as meaningful debate among liberal audiences who are as receptive to dissent as a Third World dictator, but they aren’t really the topics we ought to be discussing in the wake of Sandy Hook or any significant tragedy. From Newtown to Oklahoma City to China, the problem is on full display; and that problem isn’t guns.

Gun-grabbers claim they want to have a meaningful discussion about societal violence. I’m fine with that. Let me know when they’re ready to start.

–Ben Crystal

Ben Crystal

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

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “It’s Always ‘Too Soon’”

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

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Jeremy Leochner

    I as a supporter of stronger gun control will start Mr. Crystal. I have no desire to grab guns. Though I do want to try to stop crime and violence as much as possible. I would like to start the debate off on the right note. First this is not a liberal versus conservative debate. Nor is it Gun Rights Versus Gun Control. All people regardless of political ideology oppose violence and control. The extremes of either side want to shut down debate and force their views on others. That is the same left or right, liberal or conservative. So the debate is really one of levels of gun control as opposed to fundamental differences regarding ones view of the constitution. No one would support allowing a small child to purchase a gun. So we all agree on some form of gun control. I think we all agree that a line has to be drawn some where. The issue is where is the line. The trick is it is a complex issue covering everything from concealed gun permits to waiting periods to background checks to registration of gun owners to registration of the guns themselves. Add into the mix that different states have different levels of gun control and approach individual factors of gun control differently it makes the issue all the more complex. Perhaps a way to start is to look at the state of Connecticut since that is the state where the tragedy took place. Now the weapon the shooter used was owned by his mother and it was obtained through the proper legal channels. Does that speak to a system that needs to be strengthened or perhaps lessened and made more effective and efficient. Not sure, it could go either way. One of the common arguments proposed by opponents of stronger gun control is that criminals will ignore the law and simply obtain guns illegally. Certainly any law restricting access to guns will have little effect on the black market. Of course on the flip side there is the valid argument that making it harder to obtain guns legally makes it harder for all people including criminals. Is making it harder for criminals to obtain guns worth making it harder for innocent people to obtain guns. Hard to say. Depends on the restriction, type of weapon and circumstance for which the gun is intended. I always believe that once the channels have been gone through a gun is yours, actually I do not have to believe it, its the constitution. But of course we cant have tanks or other heavy military weaponry. So what lines should we draw. I think back ground checks and waiting periods are reasonable. Again it depends on how long a waiting period and how thorough the background check. Its risky to allow someone with a history of mental illness to obtain a gun. Its also risky to give a person a gun who may be in a state of anger. We all have moments in our lives where we just want to blow off steam. Its a tad risky to give someone a gun who is in this sort of state. Not that they might shoot someone mind you. However there is the possibility of doing something stupid that can hurt someone. Every so often around major holidays like Forth of July or New Years eve I hear people shoot off fire works as well as guns in my neighborhood even before and after the holidays. I live in a fairly small town where fire works are banned and where as far as I now its illegal to shoot off your weapon. But some people don’t care and just shoot off. In cases like this they can hurt themselves or others unintentionally. So there are people that it is dangerous to allow a gun. Not because they are insane and intend to cause harm. But because they simply cannot be trusted with a gun. Should all suffer because of a few, of course not. The trick is how to prevent insane and stupid people from obtaining guns. Because despite the best abilities of the best of us arming those who would use guns wrongly often ends badly.

    Often an issue brought up about school shootings is the lack of guns in schools in terms of teachers not having them to defend their students. I am torn on this. On the one hand I want teachers to be able to fight back and protect their students. On the other I worry about the possible scenarios. I once heard someone criticize the practice of advertising schools as Gun Free Zones. The problem with that is if we say schools are not gun free it just encourages students to bring them to school. The trick is how to arm teachers without students knowing. Because if students learn that the rules against bringing guns to school are being relaxed then another issue comes up. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry published a 2008 report that said “it is estimated that approximately one million children bring guns to school each year.” In addition it said that “Many students who carry guns do so because they are afraid or influenced by peer
    pressure.”-http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/policy_statements/children_and_guns

    Children and teens bringing guns to school is a reality. We need to convince children not to bring guns. There is blatant hypocrisy in trying to make children understand that they do not need to carry a gun to feel safe in school when the teachers are carrying guns in order to feel safe in school. And there are other issues with guns in schools. Its simple practicality. How to store the guns in such a way that they are readily accessible so that in the event of a school shooting the teacher can easily and quickly grab it yet still keep it protected and stored such that the students could not find it and perhaps steal it or as I said be inspired to bring guns themselves. The site http://www.corneredcat.com/article/kids-and-guns/safe-storage-around-children/
    offers a detailed look at far some have to go to prevent their children from getting their hands on the gun in the house. In an environment with so many kids such precautions need to be considered. Personally I consider such measures to be counter productive and risky. But of course such shootings are tragic and do happen. However their rareness is still an issue. A report of Teen Violence Statistics in 2000 found that “The U.S. Secret Service did a study on incidents of targeted school shootings, and, as of 2000, found 37 such incidents, beginning in 1974, with the number of incidents increasing each decade. They report that the odds of a high school teen being killed at school in a school shooting for the previous decade were 1 in one million.”-http://www.teenviolencestatistics.com/content/school-shootings.html

    When it does happen it is tragic. However the ability to predict such events is as difficult as predicting the climate over a vast period of time. Its guess work. As such I consider alternatives to arming teachers. I feel that encouraging students not to bring guns to school should be continued. If there is a concern regarding the potential danger of school shootings I would suggest that schools adopt some sort of contingency plan as well as have drills. I would recommend that teachers and student aids if they wish and get permission should be trained in the art of self defense. I would also encourage teachers to keep pepper spray and tasers and stun guns if they wish. Above all I feel a calm and collected plan needs to be made and maintained. Arming teachers in my opinion is not the way to go.

    Gun control is not an end all. It needs to be supplemented with improvements in mental health care, drug law enforcement, parental responsibility for teaching their children the dangers of guns and the pointlessness of letting loose ones anger on others.But it needs to start with an honest debate on gun control. Devolving into calling each other names and accusing each other of hoarding guns and wanting to turn this country into a fascist state just muddles the issues and prevents anything substantial from being done. No matter what your beliefs if you wish to have your voice mean something then we need to keep the debate civil and serious. Otherwise we just end up snipping at each other and the powers that be can just keep doing what they are doing and the status quo is maintained, for better or worse.

    • Vietnam6871

      You miss the most important reason for the 2nd Amendment, it exists so that we can protect ourselves from our own government. Without it you would already have Obama be the tyrannical dictator he strives to be. DC is so preoccupied with themselves, unwilling or incapable of hearing anything going on outside the Beltway, they only care about power, money, and, oh yes, getting reelected no matter what it takes. They, collectively, are destroying this great nation. We are in worse shape than Greece but we can print our own money – which is the only thing keeping us going temporarily. Now, the second most important reason is self defense. To this I say “NO GUN ZONES ARE KILLING ZONES!” On that horrific day in Newtown, well over 77,000,000 legal gun owners in the US kept their guns locked up or in their holster while one deranged individual with Asperger’s disease committed an atrocity. And before the children are even buried, before the town has even started to cope with it’s grief, we have despicable people using the incident to promote what they think is best (for them only). I think they, and you are included, are some of the most horrible humans on this planet. This is not about gun control, it is only about control, without guns the government will be in complete control. With 77,000,000+ legal gun owners, it is prevented from reaching that goal. The more the government tries to grab control and limit freedom, the more guns will be sold. Obama turns out to be the number one gun salesman in the world. That should tell you where the real problem lies. Now go back and hide under your rock and give the folks in Newtown lots of time to grieve without politics getting in the way.

      • Flashy

        Vietnam….what of the hundreds of other gun crimes committed since Newton? Don’t focus on the one sick patient…focus on the overall problem. Too many guns available to the bad guys. Too many guns available for use in anger. Too many guns in our society … period. When there is talk of arming school teachers…it’s time.

        Time to stop the insanity. More guns hasn’t worked in any way shape or form. All it has done is create a sense of paranoia and danger for everyone.

      • John

        You miss the point with Jeremy Vietnam6871. He is a commie rat bastard that you would have been shooting at 45 years ago (or he works for the black ops department of the CIA). Go to http://www.ssristories.com/index.php to see how your government is screwing you and blaming something else (in this case it’s guns).

      • John

        Everything I said about Jeremy applies to “Flashy” as well!

      • eddie47d

        #6871 and John like the rest of the right wing sheeple herd demand we all live in fear. They’ve been preparing for armageddon for decades and are always looking for more insane recruits and will blame everyone but themselves. They are like the husband who buys the million dollar insurance policy hoping that some day his wife will die before him and then all will be good. With the extreme right they just buy more guns to feed their fetish and their over bloated egos. According to them in 2008 the 2012 elections were to be cancelled and troops would be in the streets declaring Martial Law. It didn’t happen so they are moving on to the next step with more future predictions Until They Get It Right. Damn the facts or prior past predictions by golly they will make it happen!! The right rails against cameras everywhere yet they demand more school security. They scream about the looming police state yet demand more cops in the school. They demand more gun everywhere and in every nook and cranny as if the 180 millions we already have aren’t enough.

      • Bob

        Flashy said-”More guns hasn’t worked in any way shape or form. All it has done is create a sense of paranoia and danger for everyone.” As usual you did not even read the article. The places with the strictest gun laws have the most gun violence. Legal guns are used to stop or prevent illegal gun use and crime 2000 + times per day- FBI stats

      • John

        Yeah and I forgot about you eddie47d. What I said about Jeremy goes for you too!

      • eddie47d

        Yes John your simple mind can think past first base!

      • Gordon

        Massacres seem to occur in gun free zones. Does that have any particular meaning?

      • vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “#6871 and John like the rest of the right wing sheeple herd demand we all live in fear.”

        We make no such demand. You can choose to live in fear. Or not. We are concerned that YOU apparently live in (irrational) fear of certain inanimate objects. This makes it difficult to have a rational discussion with you about how to control violence without regard to the tools used.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Vietnam I feel the gun control debate is one the needs to be had. We need to stop or attempt to stop another tragedy like this. I am not trying to control anyone. I just want to have a discussion. If gun control is too strict then we need to have a discussion on gun control in order to lessen it. I know perfectly well what the second amendment was designed for. I never called for the repeal of the second amendment. I am trying to have gun control that keeps in line with the second amendment while still providing protection to average Americans.

      • eddie47d

        Its the proliferation of those tools that has exacerbated the problem Ms Vickie! They are deliberately made to inflict immediate and immense casualties. Try wrapping you mind around at least a little common sense!

      • http://wildblue.net bungal

        Totally right and what is more important is that the Liberal side of this deny why these happen. We are not to mention about right or wrong as our schools teachers have been told that can be going over their freedom of speech rights! Do you remember a young teen actor named Kirk Cameron? He was on a very popular comedy sitcom. He was told he had to wake up next to a teenage girl in bed with him. He refused as what good is that with our teen girls. It is all about what we allow to support and do not. With these shootings we see the Liberals do one thing; they blame an object and not the reasons behind why! We hear an outcry against violence in the media but that is not the real problem! Many too, want to blame an object we had for hundreds of years. It is their wrong directions that placed us here and now they need a scape goat!

        We are told we cannot, if a teacher, mention any right or wrong as that is a violation of free speech? My Dad died in WWII and I served 65-67 and tried to go to Nam! This was late 67. I was overwhelmed because of bad publicity, that even my job head was very angry at me! Why? Some of the guys were dating ladies in college. These ladies were so misinformed as if Marx, himself had guided them! Some of my friends became enemies and I was right!

        We are on a course of destruction no matter what we gave to our Country and has to do with the media and not fully our government. Media elected Obama and now Obama just gave 50 F-16s to the Muslim Brotherhood, which includes training! Obama is trying to pacify extremists and now we see Hillary trying to avoid media in the killing of our Ambassador and others. She did this on purpose because Obama wants to play pacifist and that is totally stupid. Even if Obama does not believe in the Bible, because as we know, he attended a so-called Christian Church, he should see what happens to nations that oppose Israel and I am not Jewish, except by adoption! “I will curse those that curse you and I will bless those that bless you!” One should note World History and see that has big support! Thanks Bro and thanks for serving.

      • TML

        Flashy says, “Too many guns available to the bad guys.”

        And not enough to the good guys.

        Flashy says, “When there is talk of arming school teachers…it’s time.”

        Oh yes, we can’t have them teachers capable of defending the children we parents leave in their care… no can we?
        http://www.kcbd.com/story/20387667/texas-school-district-allows-armed-teachers

      • TML

        Eddie says, “Its the proliferation of those tools that has exacerbated the problem”

        Actually there evidence as a whole does not support that claim, and points to a different causation. As Gordon mentioned, and every one of you ignored, crimes like these happen in “gun-free” zones for a reason. Chicago has very high gun violence despite very strict gun laws, for a reason. Etc. Etc. Etc.

        Eddie says, “They are deliberately made to inflict immediate and immense casualties.”

        Most guns are deliberately made for defensive purposes.  

      • Flashy

        “Flashy said-”More guns hasn’t worked in any way shape or form. All it has done is create a sense of paranoia and danger for everyone.” As usual you did not even read the article.” <— Bob

        Bob, relying on Crystal for accurate information is ensuring one is even less informed than if you watched Fox McNews.

      • eddie47d

        TML there is a difference in self defence and inflicting mass casualties.A single shot or two is plenty and doesn’t leave other people vulnerable.

      • Kate8

        Speaking of being informed… If you libs want to know what you are talking about, watch this video and then decide if you still want to support the people in power, because they are the same ones they’ve always been.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WcAPJ-kn8Vs

        If you dare to learn the truth. BTW, these people had all been disarmed. Bet you had no idea… and don’t think for one minute that they are any different now. They have a history of murdering children.

      • vicki

        Flashy writes:
        “Bob, relying on Crystal for accurate information is ensuring one is even less informed than if you watched Fox McNews.”

        After such a brilliant display of debate prowess, flashy still wonders why he can’t have a “rational” debate on guns?

      • vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Its the proliferation of those tools that has exacerbated the problem Ms Vickie!”

        So you are saying that your fear is not of AN inanimate object but is of MANY inanimate objects?

        Eddie47d: “They are deliberately made to inflict immediate and immense casualties.”

        They are just like any other ballistic device. They are made to throw a rock (made of a single element).

        Eddie47d:” Try wrapping you mind around at least a little common sense!”

        Have you considered taking your own sage advice?

      • Vicki

        I wrote:
        “They are just like any other ballistic device. They are made to throw a rock (made of a single element).”

        Oops. I should have said USUALLY made of a single element. Some throw several rocks at a time (shotgun). Some rocks are made of more than 1 element (Copper jacketed)

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        “Vietnam I feel the gun control debate is one the needs to be had. We need to stop or attempt to stop another tragedy like this.”

        Jeremy Leochner: “I am not trying to control anyone. I just want to have a discussion.”
        Perhaps such a discussion should include your investigating the (many) links to this very same discussion. It has been an active discussion for at least as long as the USA has existed.
        http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092699.htm

        Jeremy Leochner: “If gun control is too strict then we need to have a discussion on gun control in order to lessen it. I know perfectly well what the second amendment was designed for. I never called for the repeal of the second amendment. I am trying to have gun control that keeps in line with the second amendment while still providing protection to average Americans.”"

        Then can you help out with the meaning of “shall NOT be infringed”?
        The Supreme Court has (finally) concluded that “the people” means individually. This is good since the Bill of Rights talks about “the people” a lot but doesn’t mention individuals. If we treated the entire use of “the people” as only collectively there would be a lot of disappointed liberals.

    • Flashy

      Thoughtful post Mr. Leochner. Unfortunately, as mine was treated the other day when i offered up a chance to have both sides join in serious thoughtful debate…you’ll be trashed by the lunatics who desire nothing more than demand they have their “rights” unimpeded, and the sane reasonable people who want a better society have their rights take a back seat.

      You’re correct, no one but the extremists was the absolute. No reasonable discussion has anything in it regarding a ban of gun ownership. The gun lobby and those brainwashed demand that more guns and less law will be the solution. Yeah…right. We have had that for nigh unto ten years and where’s that got us? To the point where we cannot walk in a public shopping mall, go to the movies, send our kids to college or even an elementary school without a gnawing fear some nutcase is going to mow down the “targets”. Good job there folks…and y’all want more guns out there. uh uh that ain’[t gonna happen. On the opposite side, banning the ownership isn’t going to happen either.

      I propose three simple, easy, and non-intrusive to ownership of a firearm steps.

      1. Ban the manufacture and sale of any further assault type weapons. they are intended to be used for one, killing someone. They are offensive weapons, not defensive. They aren’t ‘hunting rifles”, so don’t try and snowball anyone with that lame reasoning. Place a Remington 300 30.06, or a Savage 30.06 and a semi auto assault type rifle on the table and ask any deer hunter worth his salt which one he’d like to have for deer and elk hunting. Ain’t gonna be the assault rifle being chosen.

      As for those in existence? If kept, they are kept disassembled. Anyone stealing them would need to know how to put them together and collect all the parts as they hauled it off. If stolen and they missed a piece, potentially much easier for the police to locate depending upon what piece9s) need to be bought. And…being for the most part lazy and looking for a quick cash turnover of goods….likely the thief wouldn’t bother with finding pieces and carrying them all off. Chances are, they wouldn’t take the time, nor have the knowledge, to easily reconstruct one.

      They can be assembled when target practicing or …ahem… hunting.

      As TML pointed out yesterday, this would be difficult to enforce. I acknowledge that. But have one stolen then used in a crime … and it can be shown that it was stolen in one piece … hope y’all have good homeowner’s liability insurance.

      2. Concealed weapons permits. Anyone wants to pack a gun around in public should be required to have a Concealed Weapons permit (applicable to handguns and open carry or concealed). Mandatory classroom, mandatory situational awareness classes, and live fire instructions. And have to pass with a high grade on a uniform nation-wide testing platform. Has to be a national/federal level. If left to the states, we will have what we have today…where one can have a permit in one state, and walk across state lines to a more restrictive state and have no pro0bloem buying a gun. A recent article in North Carolina discovered that many who have a permit, then subsequently are convicted of a felon or domestic violence, do not have their permits revoked and are able to use that permit to purchase a gun without a further background check.

      This needs to be uniform across the nation. I would also propose a “classification system” as to what a permit holder may have. Face it, my female friend would have no problem with a .22 or a .223 handgun. None at all. But place a .357 or a .45 in her hands and i’d be ducking if she tried to fire it accurately. (that’s one of the reasons for “live fire’ training. There is such a thing as too big of a gun for a lot of people). And..if you qualify for the highest classification, you automatically qualify for the lower classifications (so an expert only has one set of classes to go through, and not one per “classification of handgun”)

      3. Give a type of “title” for each gun, just as a car or a boat etc. Anyone selling a gun has to report the sale. Gun reg number and identity of buyer. Anyone selling over three per year has to be a registered gun seller. Anyone buying a gun from a gun dealer has to have a waiting period of 7 days and a background check run. This is not a registration of your guns, it is a tracking system as to how a criminal got his gun and who is selling to the bad guys. As with doctors and prescription drugs…one bad sale does not make a crook, but multiple prescriptions to one person draws attention.

      Gun sellers have to have a very rigorous licensing procedure. someone sells more than three guns a year? then they are making a side business off the deals. And yes, must be licensed (same as a used car dealer selling more than aone or two cars a year).

      None of the above are intrusive. None of the above “infringe” on ownership, none of the above are denying anyone any right, and none of the above are saying people have to decrease their perceived safety in their home by not having a gun around the place. It’s time, place and manner …same as the First Amendment and any other Right we have.

      Time to stop the insanity

      • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

        Dear Flashy,

        You write: “Ban the manufacture and sale of any further assault type weapons. they are intended to be used for one, killing someone. They are offensive weapons, not defensive.” This is your opinion and not necessarily a learned one. Please define “assault weapon.” Please describe what makes an “assault weapon” more dangerous than another weapon.

        You write: “As for those in existence? If kept, they are kept disassembled. Anyone stealing them would need to know how to put them together and collect all the parts as they hauled it off.” Inconsequential . As I explained to you before, they are simple to assemble. There are instructions on the Internet, including videos.

        You write: “Anyone wants to pack a gun around in public should be required to have a Concealed Weapons permit (applicable to handguns and open carry or concealed).” A wonderful feel-good measure, but of no consequence and simply a money grab by the states. Only those who wish to abide by the law consider obtaining permits. Ask the gang bangers and thieves whether they have or have considered obtaining a permit.

        You write: “And have to pass with a high grade on a uniform nation-wide testing platform. Has to be a national/federal level.” Again. It will have zero effect on the criminal element and simply provides yet another burden on the law-abiding citizen and another money grab.

        You write: “Face it, my female friend would have no problem with a .22 or a .223 handgun.” I think you need to rethink the validity of this statement.

        You write: “Give a type of “title” for each gun, just as a car or a boat etc… This is not a registration of your guns, it is a tracking system as to how a criminal got his gun and who is selling to the bad guys.” It is indeed a registration system.

        You write: “None of the above “infringe” on ownership, none of the above are denying anyone any right, and none of the above are saying people have to decrease their perceived safety in their home by not having a gun around the place.” Yes they do. And a disassembled gun is a pile of pieces and worthless in an emergency situation.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

        P.S. Do you know what weapon was used in the deadliest school massacre in U.S. history?

      • Flashy

        Mr. Livingston:

        While i appreciate your negativity in tearing apart any attempt at ensuring a dangerous weapon is owned and carried by responsible people, in effect saying we cannot rust gun owners to be responsible …. I would characterize your statements as rejection of any attempt to ensure guns are in the hands of reasonable people, to go after the bad guys, and to allow offensive weapons to be easily obtained by anyone…including those who will use them to kill…not one, but many people.

        Therein lies one of the problems. Gun owners want to have their weapons, avoid responsibility, and allow anyone to have and to sell a gun…

        Sad that you think we should be that way in this Nation. So when do gun advocates start taking responsibility for their actions and demanding others be responsible as well ? When every city in this nation is Beirut?

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear Flashy,

          You write: “While i (sic) appreciate your negativity in tearing apart any attempt at ensuring a dangerous weapon is owned and carried by responsible people, in effect saying we cannot rust gun owners to be responsible …. I would characterize your statements as rejection of any attempt to ensure guns are in the hands of reasonable people…” Then you mischaracterize my statements.

          You write: “Gun owners want to have their weapons, avoid responsibility, and allow anyone to have and to sell a gun.” I know of no law-abiding gun owners who “avoid responsibility.” Responsibility is what makes one a “law-abiding.”

          You write: “So when do gun advocates start taking responsibility for their actions and demanding others be responsible as well ?” We do this all the time.

          This response from you, after saying you wanted to have a “discussion,” demonstrates you are completely delusional. It is jaw-dropping argle-bargle and a failed response to my questions to you.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

      • wildruff60

        Hey Flashy, Why don’t you Disassemble your Brain, and Try put it back together again ,Correctly! You Commie PHAG ! I’ll bet you Never fired a weapon, OR, you have an arsenal and want to Disarm EVERYONE Else. That way, when your” Little Tin God” Obama, The KENYAN “Rain Forest Rabbit” proclaims himself” Emperor of the World,For Life,” No One can Forcibly Object!

      • http://personalliberydigest big wyo

        look at the expert trolls lay down the new gun laws

      • eddie47d

        I see Ben once again brings out the maddening shills of insanity such as Wildruff60. Now that was some unbalance reporting Mr 60. Anger management would be good and please stay away from schools!

      • Flashy

        “This response from you, after saying you wanted to have a “discussion,” demonstrates you are completely delusional.” <— Mr. Livingston

        Ahhhh….denigration.

        I proffered up three possible AND reasonable areas to a) keep the bad guys from having an easy 'snatch and grab' at offensive weaponry; b) ensure that anyone legally packing a weapon in public knows what the heck they're doing; c) having a tracking system to "reverse engineer" who is selling weapons to bad guys.

        You replied with "no' to each…offering nothing. Would it be a mistake to assume you take the position we have let the rampant availability of guns go to such extent we have to now arm everyone and turn this nation into a citizenry where everyone has to be armed and dangerous?

        I'd say you offer nothing for discussion. just saying 'no' is not a discussion. It's not even giving thought.

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear Flashy,

          You write: “Ahhhh….denigration.” It was a reasonable response to your ridiculous straw man argument.

          You write: “I proffered up three possible AND reasonable areas to a) keep the bad guys from having an easy ‘snatch and grab’ at offensive weaponry; b) ensure that anyone legally packing a weapon in public knows what the heck they’re doing; c) having a tracking system to “reverse engineer” who is selling weapons to bad guys.” I thought the exercise was to attempt to prevent another Sandy Hook-style massacre. Your “possible and reasonable areas” address nothing and solve nothing.

          You write: “offering nothing.” As I think current gun laws are more than adequate, why should I offer more suggestions for my 2nd Amendment right to be infringed.

          You write: “Would it be a mistake to assume you take the position we have let the rampant availability of guns go to such extent we have to now arm everyone and turn this nation into a citizenry where everyone has to be armed and dangerous?” Another straw man.

          You write: “I’d say you offer nothing for discussion. just saying ‘no’ is not a discussion. It’s not even giving thought.” Onus probandi.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

      • Charlie R

        Hey Flashy:
        Where can you find a .223 handgun?
        And stop calling the AR- an assault weapon. It is not.
        An assault weapon is defined as a full automatic functioning firearm. The AR , which is the civilian version of the M-16, is correctly called a semi automatic. And current gun laws ban “average” civilians from having “Assault Rifles”.
        Apparently, Pro gun control folks intentionally mis-use the term “assault rifle” to further their agenda. Once the door is opened to banning “semi-automatic assault rifles’ the majority all modern all firearms (rifles, shotguns and handguns) will be included.

      • Flashy

        Hey Charlie…i corrected that as soon as Monte pointed out my error. As for “assault rifle’…it’s like the definition Brennan of the SCOTUS said about porn. hard to define, but one ‘knows it when one sees it”.

        Let’s put it this way…under any sane and reasonable definition, the Bushmaster used at Sandy Elem. is an assault rifle. Fair ’nuff?

      • http://personalliberydigest big wyo

        None of these are intrusive in your last paragraph.- Man you didnt even this tripe when you wrote it.

      • http://wildblue.net bungal

        I disagree totally. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect us from our own Government.. get that in your head! What we do is simple! We train for now! Why? We need to look at why these terrible things are happening! It was never a device that has existed for hundreds of years. It is our society and our media! Do you support our teens? Look at one actor did and was fired!

        Kirk Cameron was fired because he refused to wake up with a teen girl in bed! This is fact. He had a great following of our teens. Should he of allowed it and how many more teen girls and others become pregnant? But the Liberal media did what? They support stupidity and did not support his commitment to our teens!

        What is this to do with guns? It is the same if one is not ignorant. The media does not admit wrong for supporting wrong things! They want to tell us that any moral training, which all societies that survey have had, is against freedoms? Stupid, but we all should wonder who is insisting on this? We cannot think they are that stupid but are supporting things because of employment. We note, one famous, just got arrested for D.U.I. My heart is out to him. You need to do what your conscience says and take action. I understand what much of what you are going through! Donaldson, I feel what you feel in this anti-American movement. Do not fear the International MOB, but fear opposing the honor that you see before you. You are not alone!

      • TML

        Flashy, I think the most erroneous part of your argument is that it doesn’t actually address the issues which cause such violence. You, as much of the rest of the country, go straight to the gun issue calling for more strict rules as if you have this unarguable knowledge that the cause of these crimes are guns.

        I think it interesting, even in debating the regulation of guns, that your assessment to resolve the issue, had only to do with three things;

        1) Banning assault weapons (which is a misplaced diagnosis that such a ban would have averted the crime altogether – obviously a simple hand gun is used in far more crime)

        2) Better training for those who carry in public (while at the same time you seem appalled at the thought of allowing teachers to be armed, making the training useless)

        3) Regulation of gun sales (although almost every instance of crime like these are used with legal firearms, and does nothing to prevent the crime. And further over-shoots any real solution saying, “This is not a registration of your guns, it is a tracking system as to how a criminal got his gun and who is selling to the bad guys.” …by the clear intent to prosecute the person who sold the gun rather than, or along with, the person who actually committed the crime. This places blame on the seller who didn’t know anything more than, and probably less than, the government about this person. But again, this shooter didn’t even buy them. So it is no real solution.)

        The first two clearly show a contradiction of position on the issue, and the third is a complete misdirect… except for perhaps a standard background check, which is already in place to determine if the buyer is a convicted felon (which should better be defined as a convicted felon of violent crime, and exclude victimless crimes).

        Medical doctors certifying mental instability is too vague… as Bob pointed out yesterday, many vets coming home are diagnosed in a way that could be construed to deny them their right to have a firearm. However, it is a noticeable fact as many have pointed out, including myself, that virtually every instance of a crime like these involves an assailant who was taking psychiatric drugs, such as anti-depressants. I think considering the warning labels that these drugs can actually cause suicidal thoughts etc, and often yields psychotic reactions if the person stops taking them cold turkey, that it is probably not too much to suggest for debate that anyone taking such drugs, prescribed by a doctor, should be barred from the use and availability of guns during their treatment. This would be a solution directly related to the various aspects of the crime, although I do not think this to be enforceable much like disassembled assault weapons, and could be absolutely abused to deny someone their right on a permanent basis. Ultimately, I think the mere education of these facts for responsible gun owners would be more effective than governmental prohibition or regulation. Or… perhaps the debate should be focused on banning doctors from prescribing these psychiatric drugs to any household which has a firearm. Or banning such prescriptions all together. Food for thought.

      • Dennis48e

        ” Place a Remington 300 30.06, or a Savage 30.06 and a semi auto assault type rifle on the table and ask any deer hunter worth his salt which one he’d like to have for deer and elk hunting. Ain’t gonna be the assault rifle being chosen.”

        The many thousands upon thousands of deer killed with your so called “assualt weapons” would dissagree with that assessment Flashy.

      • Flashy

        TML…I realize that unless one strips all guns everywhere, mass killings as well as gun crime won’t disappear. it won’t. However, to stand aside and say “we’ve had more guns and the laxest of laws for over a decade..and it’s gotten to the point of insanity is the Rule, not the exception.

        10 years ago, no one would have thought having employees armed in every public place was any idea of reason…and the very proposal would have been hooted down as no one could have pictured where we are today.

        you could put a table stacked with various weapons on every street corner, free for the taking..and I would venture that gun crime and intimidation would go up. We have gone where a mass killing was a rarity, to now it’s like a space shuttle launching they’re becoming so common.

        Yes..mental disorders are an issue that needs to be addressed …somehow. Your point is well taken. But that is one step, one facet, of a multi faceted problem.

        We also have to make it more difficult to garner a weapon rather than have it easier. We need to make sure those packing iron on the streets know what they’re doing if they want to pull out a weapon..or if someone happens to see they have a gun. And we need a mechanism in place to back trace who the heck is giving the bad guys weapons.

        None of those are horrors to any responsible gun owner and citizen. When registering a sale of a gun is greeted with screams of “totalitarianism”…i ask…what is so different than what is happening now? Except my proposals include all gun sales…not just the retail gun dealers. And having gun dealers go through a rigorous licensing procedure? That’s wrong when there are more gun dealers than McDonalds restaurants?

        It won’t be an overnight fix. We’ve allowed the gun lobby and gun nuts too much time to arm this nation and create a situation where we sit on the edge of armed Beirut. But we can, and should, make it more difficult for bad guys to obtain guns. That will, over time, ensure the good guys are the ones with guns…

        When it is easier to buy a gun than it is to vote…something is wrong.

        it is time to stop the insanity.

      • TML

        Flashy, I think stripping all guns everywhere would not eliminate the crime, and as many have argued and shown, crime exists regardless of these guns especially if we consider the other factors (such as the psychiatric drug anomaly) of this multifaceted situation. Nevertheless, we could consider the argument, and even its opposition null, since such a right is protected under the 2nd Amendment. I don’t see it ever being a possibility of amending a repeal of the 2nd from the constitution – no one will ever give up their right to defend themselves; that is among the most natural right of any living creature – and as long as it exists, then banning firearms would be more impractical than banning cars.

        With that being the case, and the culture we live in… the free society that we live in… it’s an inescapable fact that laws forbidding the carry of arms in certain places is likened unto setting out a defenseless lamb as bait for slaughter. Even if ten years ago nobody would have even conceived of allowing people to be armed in places such as schools, the predators have found the weakness, and it must be met with the real, and direct, solution that allowing them to defend themselves is the most rational choice. I agree with promoting mandatory training, and even extraordinary training and requirements for teachers or staff. We parents trust these teachers to educate our children. We entrust our children’s safety and very lives to these professionals. Yet we disallow them the means of defending against the worst threats. Insanity chooses these places for that exact reason.

        Guns have been in our society since its inception, and the idea that rising crime with guns is being caused by guns is a red herring to the other societal aspects of human nature and behavior that are the true cause of these crimes. More stringent rules designed to keep guns out of the hands of “bad guys” is like chasing ones tail, has the residual effect of leaving the “good guys” defenseless.

        The only mandatory law that makes sense, and does not infringe the right to bear arms, is that of training for those willing to carry the responsibility, and the burden, in public. You can’t stop ‘evil’ in the world by force of prohibiting the tools used for both the crime and defense. You can’t find a solution in multifaceted strawmen that doesn’t directly address the problem. But you can allow good people to defend themselves.

      • Vicki

        Flashy writes:
        ” We have gone where a mass killing was a rarity, to now it’s like a space shuttle launching they’re becoming so common. ”

        “Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s.”
        http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/17/are-mass-shootings-becoming-more-common

        And another proof by bald assertion by flashy bites the dust.

    • plutorius

      Your theory has been tried many times, by many governments,, by many nations, by many cities and towns, and the results were predictable, crimes went up against law abiding citizens, liberies were permanently stripped away from the citizens by every level of government, every conceiveable form of crime went up, including non violent crimes.

      If you and other’s like you would do your own unbiased research into the staistics and not rely on the anti gun propaganda created by a prejudied media and a government driven by Marxists ideology, perhapsyou and others in the anti gun camp may realize the illogic of your current position.

      Inert objects such as guns, do not possess the ability to create violence or commit heinous crimes, but, you already know that, and yet you and those like you either lack the capacity of logical thought, or choose to deliberately lie about the entire issue of criminal acts of any kind, and especially about crimes where firearms are involved.

      Where is the outrage of people like you, when the President of the United States uses drones to blow up thousands of innocent men, women and children, some of whom, were American’s and allies of the American people. Where was the outrage and demands for gun control when a known Muslim terrorist was allowed to remain as a capatin in the U.S. Army, and subsequently slaughtered dozens of his fellow soldiers at FT. Hood and the media , the President and his entire administration tried to make a case, that it was due to mental illness caused by his being mistreated because he was a muslim. Of course they disregarded the fact that those soldiers who were slaughtered by the muslim terrorist had been disarmed and had no weapons with which they could have defended themselves.

      • Flashy

        “Inert objects such as guns, do not possess the ability to create violence or commit heinous crimes, but, you already know that, and yet you and those like you either lack the capacity of logical thought, or choose to deliberately lie about the entire issue of criminal acts of any kind, and especially about crimes where firearms are involved. ”

        i agree..inert objects such as a gun do not possess the ability to ‘come to life” … which is what i recognized. if you are a safe, trained, and sane person..what of the proposals i wrote about restrict your 2nd Amendment right ? they don’t. And they protect MY RIGHTS without infringing on the 2nd Amendment rights.

        It limits easy access to offensive weapons. It ensures that anyone packin’ in public is trained, safe and sane with the weapons they carry, and allows those who are supplying the bad guys to be found out.

        What’s wrong with that? unless you support the bad guys because they give you a reason to pack a gun around everywhere to prove your manhood ..

      • eddie47d

        Great reply Flashy it is long past due to stop this obsession that guns will solve all the world’s and domestic problems. Obviously they are abused on a daily bases and strong restrictions need to be in place. I don’t agree that a weapon for home protection should have to be completely disassembled for then it is useless to the owner if needed. Now Plutorious has a few illogical thoughts himself and his thoughts are driven by pro gun ideology.Making the claim that the President knew the Ft Hood shooter was a Muslim terrorist is absurd and a bogus lie. The military did know he had psychological issues so lets stick to the facts. There has been plenty of outrage on that issue and many have demand stronger mental health care in America which is still being ignored.If someone is taken in for evaluation the Conservatives drag it up as an invasion of that persons privacy. They refuse to fund mental health care and then they expect different results.

      • Flashy

        Eddie…my thoughts of disassembly was only for those assault type rifles. Yes..they can be quickly reassembled. But time is not the bad guy’s friend. And it is a minor point, but I would think they’d pass up trying to find the parts and then taking the time to put one together. if they did, then they are going to sell it or use it. either way, it’s another step they have to take and i believe many would be passed up in being stolen because of it. they would not be a quick “grab”.

        And…i would proffer that if someone does in fact own one of those rifles, then they have handguns in the place and would be grabbing those for protection rather than grabbing a rifle. Close in a handgun is easier.

        Fact is…gun advocates are not for being held responsible. they want to avoid being responsible 9even as they claim otherwise). Any responsible person would want to attack the ways bad guys get weapons….not ways to enable the bad guys to have more weapons.

      • TML

        Flashy says, “And they protect MY RIGHTS…”

        I still argue that this supposed right is like George Carlin’s expression that “liberals that think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren’t enough bicycle pads”. It amounts to claiming a right to a false sense of security.

        Flashy says, “…without infringing on the 2nd Amendment rights. It limits easy access to offensive weapons.”

        And the biggest one that does infringe on the 2nd Amendment is your call to ban these “offensive” weapons. It is a weapon… period. What determines if it is offensive or defensive is how it’s used. It isn’t inherently “offensive”. And I’ve given you examples of their legitimate use. No one is asking for carry permits for such weapons, and to deny them in the home, or ban them for a false perception of safety, is the very definition of infringement.

        Flashy says, “It ensures that anyone packin’ in public is trained, safe and sane with the weapons they carry,…”

        As I’ve mentioned, I’m in agreement with you about the training issue, however, you seem to contradict your own position when you seem to abhor the idea of training teacher who are willing to arm themselves in school for defensive purposes.

        Flashy says, “…and allows those who are supplying the bad guys to be found out.”

        And this one is a misguided effort. It assumes the seller committed the crime itself. It treats anyone who sells a gun as legally prescribed should be blamed if that buyer goes postal one day.

      • eddie47d

        TML that is why they need more through background checks or even a total ban on certain weapons.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “it is long past due to stop this obsession that guns will solve all the world’s and domestic problems.”

        Who’s obsession is that? The liberals obsessive fear of inanimate objects? Pro self defense people know full well the proper use of the proper tool for the job. Phone call to 911 and bare hands were NOT the proper tool(s) for the job in Sandy Hook.

        eddie47d: “Obviously they are abused on a daily bases and strong restrictions need to be in place.”

        You mean like the laws against murder, armed robbery etc? You are aware that those restrictions already exist?

    • Average Joe

      “Now the weapon the shooter used was owned by his mother and it was obtained through the proper legal channels. Does that speak to a system that needs to be strengthened or perhaps lessened and made more effective and efficient.”

      While you are correctthat the weapons were purchaced legally by his mother, the weapons were NOT obtained by the shooter through proper legal channels. First, he commited murder (a crime), next, he stole his mother’s weapons (a crime), He was under 21,in possesion of firearms (a crime)…and all of these crimes were commited before he arrived at the school. Does the system need changing? Absolutely! the staff needs to be trained in the proper use of firearms and then armed…nuts tend to target locations where there won’t be any resistance. Guns are a deterrent to criminals. Around here, we have a small police office at each of our schools ( a resource officer), he is armed and on premises when school is in session…a viable solution to your quandry.

      “So what lines should we draw. I think back ground checks and waiting periods are reasonable. ”

      Background checks..Ok no problem. I certainly don’t want someone with a violent history or long history of mental issues to posses guns (although it will still happen as this school shooting proves).
      As for waiting periods, huh? What good does a waiting period do? Yes, I know…it will stop “heat of the moment shootings”…BS. Let’s just say that your theory is correct and that having waited 3,5, or even 30 days, the person is over his “murder” phase. He or she now owns a gun and will own it as long as they wish to own it. What’s to say that this person doesn’t “lose it” again at some future date and commits a murder? Waiting periods won’t help in the long run. Run the background check…and if the applicant passes…he spends his money and take possesions of his property. You can’t go by what someone may or may not do in the future..anyone is capable of anything…given the right circumstances. I would prefer to be able to protect myself from just such people.

      “The problem with that is if we say schools are not gun free it just encourages students to bring them to school. ”

      Your assertion is nonsensical.
      You do realize that you must be between 18-21 to legally own a firearm? And that a child under 18 carrying a firearm in public (without proper supervision, ie. Range, hunting etc.) is against the law…right?

      “How to store the guns in such a way that they are readily accessible so that in the event of a school shooting the teacher can easily and quickly grab it yet still keep it protected and stored such that the students could not find it and perhaps steal it or as I said be inspired to bring guns themselves.”

      Simple, A one touch bio-metric safe (technology, ain’t it wonderful?)…only that teacher may access the safe in his or her classroom.

      The key, is to allow the public access to arms so that they can level the playing field. You guys talk about “fairness”…Fairness means being on equal footing. Criminals with guns vs unarmed citizens….doesn’t quite seem like equal footing to me….and since the “criminals” aren’t going to give up thier guns…what is the alternative?
      Better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6….just a thought.

      AJ

      • eddie47d

        I sure wish that James Holmes the Aurora shooter had a longer waiting period and a more through background check . But what the heck why have a little common sense used with this issue.

      • phideaux

        Careful AJ, logic gives eddie, flashy, jeremy, etc a migrane.

      • Average Joe

        Obviously eddie has a problem with reading comprehension, So I’ll try it again ( not that he will get it, of course)…the logic aspect doesn’t even enter the picture…since he can’t even understand what he reads in the first place….

        “As for waiting periods, huh? What good does a waiting period do? Yes, I know…it will stop “heat of the moment shootings”…BS. Let’s just say that your theory is correct and that having waited 3,5, or even 30 days, the person is over his “murder” phase. He or she now owns a gun and will own it as long as they wish to own it. What’s to say that this person doesn’t “lose it” again at some future date and commits a murder?”

        Wadda Maroon……

        AJ

      • eddie47d

        They proved that Holmes had mental problems yet that was months later so yes I did get it!

      • Average Joe

        Nope eddie..as projected…you still didn’t get it…. I suggest that you read slower and repetitively until you do get it tho….
        They didn’t get the info before…because they didn’t look for it until after the tragedy occurred. Just because he was seeing a shrink, does not imply that the Dr. ever made note of his mental state to any authorities. As a matter of fact, there is this thing called “Dr./ Patient Confidentiality” that prevents the Dr. from doing just that.
        So, who is to blame for the events? Was it the the gun registration system? I don’t think so. Was it the Dr. for failing to report his mental state? Possibly, but then…the Dr. was only following the rules set down for him by others…Maybe it’s thier fault? Could it have been psychotropic drugs that he was being medicated with? Good possiblity. Could it have been his own mental state? Dang skippy!
        All of these things failed in the chain of events leading up to the tragedy…but you…you blame an inanimate object for the events that unfolded (smooth move, NOT).
        Blame the government for thier “gun free zones”. Blame the Dr.’s for not sharing info on potentially harmful patients ( isn’t thier oath: “Do no Harm”?) I would think preventing possible violence against other’s would classify as “doing no harm”. Blame the perp…he did it..plain and simple…the gun however…did not do anything without someone else directing it’s actions…period.
        Grow a (working) brain eddie…the one you are using is defective beyond repair. Stop thinking on such myopic terms…look for “The Bigger Picture”…the world is much bigger than you give it credit.

        AJ

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Average Joe.

        1: Right off the bat I want you to know when I said the proper legal channels I was talking about the shooters mother, not the shooter. I apologize if that was unclear.

        2: I can respect your argument about waiting periods. One thing Iwould offer is waiting periods allow a background check to take place. Its hard to do a through check on someone without making them wait at least a little while. Actually I agree with you about having an officer at the school. My high school had that as part of an anti drug and anti violence program.

        3: As for your comment on my assertion. I understand the law. However children and teens still bring guns to school whether it is legal or not. And they are not always crazy kids or delinquents who disregard the rules. They are honest kids who are afraid and think they need guns to protect themselves. Those are the kids we need to keep from taking guns to school.

        4: I understand the need for fairness Joe. I just cannot ignore the fact that to make it easier to obtain guns legally makes it easier for bad people as well as good to obtain them legally. I hardly feel that making it easier for bad guys to get guns can make us any safer. We need to focus more on stopping people from getting guns illegally.

      • http://wildblue.net bungal

        It was obtained through proper legal channels????? Get a life! He got the gun from his Mother’s source, then shot her! I do not think killing your Mother is legal, I think you either did not see it our even want to admit to it! She surely objected to his taking the weapon because of his condition. The problem is obvious, he needed to be in a hospital, and very much, watched on how medications are effecting him.

        I know about medications for mental health as I have a close relative on them. It is interesting that a diet cured her if she stayed on the diet. No drugs were needed, except natural juicing and B vitamin support. She was totally normal on these! She got off her diet because of why? She missed the State supported homes! She stayed with me for a time. But she would say she did and not do! She wanted the attentions that she got from the State and the problem is, from most any State!

        I cannot stay up 24 hours and my sister would leave. She would leave in November in her stocking feet! I caught her the first time but the next someone called for help for her. I was sleeping as wife was 12 hours difference. Again, in her socks. I love my sister but the States only support meds and not the person. I saw diet that totally reverses the bi-polar and even worse conditions and they love it, when on it. She was addicted to the care factor. I love Sharon and love her children… Hello, my Tinker Tootlin! Hi KJ! We all love you Michael.. I will see you in heaven!

      • Average Joe

        “However children and teens still bring guns to school whether it is legal or not.”

        OK, so you freely admit that this is a problem “now”….and that although there are laws against this, it is still happening? (Correct me if I am wrong).
        If it is a problem now… what would change by making the process of obtaining a firearm by ordinary, law abiding citizens more difficult? Good guys will obtain thier firearms legally….Criminals get thier firearms through other means than legally…if a criminal wants a firearm bad enough, he or she will find a way to obtain one (theft, black market etc.)…hint: obeying the law is not what criminals do… they are after all….. criminals…
        Apparently, the laws on the books aren’t working to quell this…punishing good people by restricting thier rights to purchase a firearm, will not alleviate the problem. You cannot fix bad behavior with bad laws… You fix bad behavior with a proper set of morals and ethics when raising children. Over the last 40 years, this nation has become a nation of immorality.
        Guns are not the problem…the morals that we teach our children IS the problem.
        Immorality is the norm…not the exception as it once was. Nothing is sacred..not death, not life, not even a person’s personal beliefs. To fix the problem requires the right set of morals…which can only be fixed …one person at a time. Fix the morals…fix the problem.

        AJ

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Average Joe I am not taking about creating new laws to stop children or teens. What I am taking about is instilling in them the morals as you mentioned. In regards to guns in schools I feel that having guns will prevent the instilling of any such morals in children. By that I mean the morals of not bringing guns into schools.

        As for criminals I agree we need better parenting. However we also need to use our legal system to the best of our ability. We need to do all in our power to prevent criminals from obtaining guns whether legally or illegally. Stopping them from obtaining them illegally is a serious issue and must be addressed in addition to any gun control.

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        “Right off the bat I want you to know when I said the proper legal channels I was talking about the shooters mother, not the shooter. I apologize if that was unclear.”

        What Jeremy said was:
        “Now the weapon the shooter used was owned by his mother and it was obtained through the proper legal channels. Does that speak to a system that needs to be strengthened or perhaps lessened and made more effective and efficient.”

        No need to apologize. Your wording made it clear that you intended your reader to think that the guns used in the crime were obtained legally BY the shooter.

        “…The weapon the shooter used was owned by his mother…” creates the impression of possession by right of family. ” and it was obtained through the proper legal channels.” creates the impression in those who know about laws restricting transfer of firearms between family members, that the mother had followed “legal channels” to grant him possession.

        The 2nd sentence makes your intent clear.

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        “Average Joe I am not taking about creating new laws to stop children or teens. What I am taking about is instilling in them the morals as you mentioned. In regards to guns in schools I feel that having guns will prevent the instilling of any such morals in children. By that I mean the morals of not bringing guns into schools.”

        Followed by instilling the morals of not bringing guns to bars (oh wait)
        Followed by instilling the morals of not bringing guns to church
        Followed by instilling the morals of not bringing guns to parks
        Followed by instilling the morals of not bringing guns to public buildings
        Followed by instilling the morals of not bringing guns to public places
        Followed by instilling the morals of not bringing guns to private property outside the home
        Followed by instilling the morals of advising their patients of the dangers of guns in the home
        Followed by instilling the morals of turning in their parents for having guns in the house.

        Yep the anti gun progression (progressive anyone?) has been going on for centuries and is nearing its final stage were all the children who have been taught that guns are immoral (and thus have a will even though they are inanimate objects) have become adults and hate / fear guns.

    • http://Yahoo Maynard Runkle

      As a liberal I too resent being lumped in with groups such as PETA and the anti-gun lobby. We need our right to bear arms because so-called liberals and so-called conservatives are both racing toward the Police State. Think how much money they’ll save on political campaigning and the bullets by the billions are already being stockpiled. I hear they are hollow-point and will fit in well with the NDAA 2012′s provision for prolonged internment without due process and the “anti-terrorism” military police patrols. The billions appropriated for domestic drones despite our budgetary crisis were also overwhelmingly approved by our conscientious congress and puppet president.

      How many conspiracy nuts like me believe some of the trigger happy assailants may have been brainwashed to provide fodder for the disarmament plans? I remember how many of the “lone nuts” of the sixties just happened to further the military-industrial complex’s agenda. Sirhan Sirhan, for example, did not have as many bullets as were fired and RFK died form a point-blank bullet behind his right ear. Sirhan never got that close and was always in front of the target.

      • Vicki

        Statists co-opted the title liberal a while ago. I was/am a liberal. Classical liberal. The current party that most closely matches my classical liberalism is Libertarian (www.lp.org)

        I didn’t much like being lumped in with statists either so I just point to the Libertarian party to show the clear difference between me (us) and the statists who call themselves liberals.

    • http://personalliberydigest big wyo

      Every one of the 80 million gun owners will get angry and if they have a gun committ murder……….. end of post bagged a troll move on.

      • Vicki

        It’s good to remind people that over 80 MILLION gun owners DID NOT shoot up a school today. They didn’t yesterday. They didn’t anytime in their lives. Compare that number/timeline to the number/time of mass shootings and you realize that your child is FAR MORE likely to be killed by a car (evil animate object :) while going to/from school then by any gun owner (even including the ones who did shoot up a school).

        And with some amusement we can observe what the media is doing now to sell papers is not uncommon.

        http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/jpi/schoolhouse.pdf (Published in 2004)
        “Rather than providing context, the media’s linking of these shootings as “a trend” has tended to exacerbate people’s fears about the safety of their children and youth in schools. The result is that misdirected public policy is being generated to safeguard the schools, even though the real threat may lie elsewhere. To remedy the purported “crisis” of classroom violence, politicians have proposed solutions ranging from posting additional police officers in our schools, to eliminating any minimum age at which children may be tried as adults, to expanding the death penalty to juveniles.”

        Sound familiar?

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

      Gun Control hurts the honest citizen and no one else. Crooks don’t care about ink on paper, doesn’t make them run in fear of owning a gun, when will you grow up and call evil what it is? You notice all the shooting take place in Gun Free Zones, do you have a clue why? Why doesn’t one of these nut jobs go into a place where there are guns? Easy they can’t carry out their evil if there is a chance they could die before they do their damage. True gun control is hitting what you aim at. My weapon has saved me and others many times but, you idiots don’t mention that, it doesn’t go along with your agenda of making the government a dictatorship. Call crooks what they are, evil and blame them. Make it a high crime to use a gun in the conmission of a crime and leave the citizens alone to protect ourselves. The cops show up after the fact when the person is dead. I have been to China and a cop every 50′ and they aren’t there to protect the people. By the way, a man in China stabbed 20 students and 1 adult, if that happens here are you for knige control? How about car control, more die from them then anything else. John Adams said ” A armed man is a citizen, a unarmed man is a slave”. I’m sure he knew more then you and he was and is right.

      • Vicki

        Benjamin Fox writes:
        “Why doesn’t one of these nut jobs go into a place where there are guns?”

        Flashy (or eddie47d. Hard to remember which is which sometimes) would tell you that he (the sandy hook shooter) DID. Of course Flashy neglects to mention that guns are not animate objects and there as to be an AWAKE person to use them.

        Then of course there was the shooting at an army base (Ft Hood). Soldiers and guns. Nope. Thanks to President Clinton (and not removed by any President since) Soldiers on base are not allowed to carry their firearms. http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7930

        Oh and what was the obama administration answer to the Ft Hood shooting?
        “In essence, our military leadership’s plan to keep our soldiers safe was to expand the disarmament policy and create more places that terrorists can attack without fear of resistance by an armed victim.” (See link above)

        How big a CLUE do we need to see the killing fields of “gun-free zones”?

  • Monte

    Jeremy Leochner, you are a liberal, lying loon. You are the enemy of every lover of freedom. Take a trip to Cuba and leave us alone.

    • Flashy

      Monte..take your guns and move to Beirut. See where that gets ya with everyone armed and packin’ … or do you really need a gun to feel like a man and that’s your issue?

      • Mark

        Idiot. Your so knoledgeable about gun control but you don’t even know that a 223 round is not a handgun round. Uninformed and ignorant liberals like yourself are the biggest problems America currently faces. If you don’t agree with our constitutional rights then get the hell out of the country.

      • Flashy

        My error, you’re correct. .25 Auto. (just looked at the box. ). which, embaressingly, proves my point. Should I be allowed to carry in public if i don’t automatically know what ammo is used in the one handgun i have? (my Mother’s, it’s sitting in a case and not able to be used without the clip..which is stored elsewhere)

      • Average Joe

        Flashy,
        First of all, it is a .25 semi-automatic..not auto. As for your question, I certainly have no issues with you carrying your .25, although I do recommend that you go to a range and get proper training on the use, safety and care of your firearm…otherwise you are a danger to yourself as well as others. A gun, like any other tool; needs to be properly used and not just picked up and bandied about non-chalantly…any tool can hurt you if not used properly.

        Pssst…just for future reference, I wouldn’t be caught with a .25 (you couldn’t give it to me)….the most inaccurate gun ever made. Heck, you could stick that thing in a man’s ribs, pull the trigger 6 times and miss with five of the shots….maybe all six….

        AJ

      • Flashy

        AJ…as i said, it’s in a case and was my Mother’s (who never used it. It was inherited from her father). i have no intention nor need to have it operable. As an aside, i do have a .20 gauge shotgun (great for grouse and small critters), and a hunting rifle. neither of which i have used for over 10 years. Both sitting locked away, and there is no ammunition in this place. I have no need to have a gun…neither myself nor anyone i know has ever had any need to have a gun for defense or protection from bad guys.

        However, of late? because of slfish gun owners who insist their right to pack iron and buy weapons should be unimpeded..and thus allow bad guys to also have that capability, it is becoming more and more that MY RIGHTS to walk in public in safety are infringed and being trampled on.

        It’s time to stop the insanity. it’s time for gun owners to start being responsible, and realize that owning a gun means being responsible and demanding a responsible control system to keep the bad guys from unfettered access to weapons, and the 2nd is not a free ride over everyone’s rights …

      • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

        Nanny Flashy, are you a baby? You need the government to supply all your needs, who changes your diapers? You and eddie teddy are nut jobs who never make sense but, I’m sure when you look in the mirror and see your little self, you say, how great I am. LOL

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “Monte..take your guns and move to Beirut. See where that gets ya with everyone armed and packin’”

        Just one of the many (false) proofs by bald assertion that gives flashy his credibility rating of 0 on this board. And yes he has been told that the above statement is false. This leads to a conclusion that he is deliberately telling a falsehood. I.E. a LIE.

        There are other possible conclusions so it is possible that his statement is not deliberate.

        “Rate of Civilian Firearm Possession per 100 Population
        The rate of private gun ownership in Lebanon is 21.02 firearms per 100 people”

        Now if flashy has some credible source that says Beirut has 100 firearms per 100 people then we would have evidence that he did not lie and his credibility could come up above 0.

        Btw the rate of gun ownership in America is MUCH higher. A fact often claimed by liberals for all the deaths, where a gun is used, in the USA.

        Rate of Civilian Firearm Possession per 100 Population
        The rate of private gun ownership in the United States is 88.82 firearms per 100 people

        http://www.gunpolicy.org (for the quoted stats above)

    • Steve E

      You are correct Monte. All you people who want gun control, please leave this country as soon as possible. You will never get our guns. Can you imagine the bloodshed that would entail if the government went after our guns?

      • eddie47d

        Look at the bloodshed BEFORE the government has taken our guns! The problem isn’t the government but the proliferation of guns to just about anyone.

      • Flashy

        Heard any reasonable discussion where someone is saying “grab all the guns” ? Only the gun nut extremists on both ends of the spectrum are saying that is the goal…and they’re going to be marginalized as they have taken themselves out of any debate.

      • Dennis48e

        Dianne Feinstein and Bloomberg come to mind right off and there are many others. Even the Brady bunch have in the past made statements calling for the elimination of private ownership of handguns and other firearms.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Steve no one is trying to take any ones guns. Apart from those calling for the banning of guns, of which I have no part, there is no one calling for guns to be taken away from those who have legally obtained them. Wanting to make it more difficult to obtain a gun legally is not the same as wanting to confiscate weapons from those who have already attained them legally.

      • Dennis48e

        “Steve no one is trying to take any ones guns.”

        Jeremy I repeat:

        Dianne Feinstein and Bloomberg come to mind right off and there are many others. Even the Brady bunch have in the past made statements calling for the elimination of private ownership of handguns and other firearms.

      • eddie47d

        The thing is Dennis the pro gun folks won’t do anything to police those who would do harm and even want even fewer regulations. That means more will have access to those weapons. That also makes more people vulnerable.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Very well Dennis. I will concede those examples. However Steve was talking about “All you people who want gun control”. I was simply pointing out that equating the support of gun control to the support of taking away peoples guns is wrong. To me Steve sounded a little paranoid. I was trying to alleviate his concerns.

      • vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        “Wanting to make it more difficult to obtain a gun legally is not the same as wanting to confiscate weapons from those who have already attained them legally.”

        Your argument is “I’ve got mine but you can’t have one cause you didn’t get in while you had the chance”? Aren’t you one of those who argues for “fairness”?

        At least the others are not being disingenuous. They freely admit they don’t want any of us to have certain guns.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “The thing is Dennis the pro gun folks won’t do anything to police those who would do harm and even want even fewer regulations.”

        Demonstrably false. In fact a deliberate lie. Pro gun folk are STRONGLY in favor of punishing people for criminal behavior such as but not limited to theft (real theft) and murder.

        eddie47d: “That means more will have access to those weapons.”

        Correct. Thus fewer unarmed victims.

        It is the anti-gun folk that want to disarm the intended victim(s) and create a target rich environment for killers to play in. That environment has a name. GUN-FREE Zone.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Look at the bloodshed BEFORE the government has taken our guns! The problem isn’t the government but the proliferation of guns to just about anyone.”

        Yes Eddie, lets look at the bloodshed AFTER government has taken our guns.

        Lets start with history of governments then a quick look at ours
        http://www.mercyseat.net/gun_genocide.html

        And now our government history of disarming the people
        http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1142&context=srhonorsprog
        Not as bloody (yet) the intent is clear. People Control.

    • Jeremy Leochner

      I do love freedom Monte. I never proposed taking away any ones liberty or freedom.

      • vicki

        Just some of the best tools for defending freedom and liberty.

  • Warrior

    And now the “pretender n chief” has appointed the “joker” in charge of a “blue ribbon” committee of our finest “progressives” to find the “solution” to the ownership of guns, I believe we already know the next move. “Well martha. aaa rrrr, ya know, I’m not a rich guy. I’m kinda from a line of “blue collar” type workers. but aaaa, rrrrr, martha don’t mistake me for a poor guy, aaa, rrrr. And ya know martha, aaa, rrrr, I’ve come to the conclusion that aaa, rrr, the president is right about a lot of things and aaa, rrr, the way we see it, guns and people, aaa, rrr, don’t mix. Aaa, rrr, martha, we’re just going to have to “bite the bullet” on this aaa, rrr, “gun thing” and declare them aaa, rrrr, illegal. And furthermore aaa, rrr, martha, we will need to expand the role of the aaa, rrr, tsa.”

    BTW, “bite-me” how is your accounting of the stimulis spending coming along? That’s right, joey, you add all the numbers in the right column and then carry over to the next column and so on. There ya go, you good boy, now call us when you’re done so we can review your homework.

    • momo

      Biden in charge of gun control is like letting a fox in the henhouse! Can that fool even count past ten without taking off his shoes and socks?

      • http://Yahoo Maynard Runkle

        Biden has all you conservatives fooled into thinking he is a liberal. He and Obama stand for the military-industrial complex as much as any of your favorites. Both parties vie to be the “puppets in charge.” Check out the votes on so-called anti-terrorism issues like the “Patriot Act”, domestic drones, military police, Homeland Security, hollow-point bullets, prolonged detention without due process, etc. There is no lack of bi-partisanship on those issues, which are the real threats to freedom, not trumped-up terrorists scapegoated by the neo-cons. All these assault rifle “attacks” appear to be for one purpose. Disarming dissent. Can you reasonably believe our government does not have secret techniques of mind control for such occasions?

      • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

        momo it’s funny, Biden owns a gun and saw a video where he said no one would take his gun and Fienstein has a Concealed Carry Permit, makes one wonder why they are respondible and the citizen isn’t. Crooks don’t care about ink on paper, doesn’t make them run in fear but, lets them know everyone will now be a victim with out a way to defend themselves. You notice their laws always pertain to anyone but themselves? God Bless, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year Friend:

  • http://www.facebook.com/charles.roden.56 Charles Roden

    It appears everyone has the “perfect answer” to the problem yet has no real solution in the real world because they have not been there and have no real experience, at least it appears so.
    I served 27 years in the U.S. Marines and became an expert with numerous weapons, including some heavy weapons, yet a couple of years ago I went to a WalMart and a gun dealer attempting to purchase a 12 guage. I was reljected with no reason given. I suppose some dimwit in the deciion-making process used his brain to protect something and decide I was a threat to someone, or to the nation being as I was a veteran. I am also a retired high school teacher and my most violent crime was a speeding ticket (9 miles over).
    Now, I suppose if I should re-attempt to purchase a weapon, and I mightt, some punk , expecially one carrying a weapon in government, would say I must be trained, but by whom? Some former steet thug who just happened to be appointed to his political position?
    Those people making the laws for the rest of us have no real concer for our well-being, but are concerned for thenslves primarily and if the public benefits so be it. They protect themselves and I am sure they need the protection from they way they demonstrate thier disdain for the public as they enact laws to the total detriment to those they serve.
    In my rambling I want to close by touching on what I think is the real issue regarding gun violence. That is not the real issue. It is violend period. The guns are simply a tool. A case in point. While teaching, I was assigned calles of “Challenged Students” and many of them were encouraged to be challenged by parents and administrators and the teachers were helpless in the situation. One on my students was brought to me because I am 6 feet tall, 210 pounds, retired marine, and (at the time in excellent physical condition) and considered capapable of handling physical situations. The student was larger than I, dressed all in black , inclucing a long duster (in the summerime), black lipstick, eyeliner, eyeshadow, and long black (dyed) greasy haiir, and knee boots. The administrator intoduced me to him and he said “yeow”. I told him where to sit and to remain there until I told him to move, and asked him if he understood. He replied “So what”. His previous teachers reported they were affraid of him..
    Two days later I was admonished as being overly harsh on the punck, but then refused to have him back in my class and he left school (grade 11).
    i had numerous other situations in which I saw, as a teacher, and a Marine officer, problems that screamed to be addressed, but the powers that could address them would not, but passed them off as something I could solve if only i tried. This is just what politicians do…pass the buck and blame someone else

    Now I know, many will poke fun at my writing,but that is fine with me because at my age and physical condition I do not really care.

    • Cynthia

      I think you hit the nail on the head. The problem is the politicians who think it is more important to get relected or keep their job as principal/superintendent than solving the problem.
      Before we start to add new laws to control guns we need to look at the laws inplace and see why they are not doing the job. We need to look are the deaths caused by guns and see how many are by criminals. If that is the problem we don’t need more laws.

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

      Semper Fi Charles, I also served in the Corps but, not as long as yourself. Just 12 years. Like you I was a expert in weapons, I do own guns and haven’t bought one in a while but, if I was turned down I would sue the store. Most don’t realize the history of the 2nd ammendment. The founders came from countries where only the king or governments had weapons and they were the slaves. Also the citizen was a member of the standing army, plain farmers and others. Also if they didn’t own arms, they didn’t eat, so those who think the founders were talking about the national guard they are wrong again. By the way, thank you for your service jarhead from another jarhead. I wish people could see a evil plan on it’s way. My father and brother gave their lives for this country and it’s Constitution and hate to think they died for nothing. Semper Fi, God Bless, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year Friend:

  • DockyWocky

    We have a reasonably long history of Draconian gun control laws and enough massacres to ponder, but no statistics about how the massacre situation just might be brought under control by arming teachers and school guards.
    I say its worth a try, our way, for a period of years to test out the hypothesis that arming teachers and school personnel might result in a vast improvement, over the typical liberal whining to totally disarm schools and the obvious failure of that approach.

    • eddie47d

      Someone yesterday stated that most American schools already have policemen working full time at them. Since all public schools are Liberal as most of you say then how could the Liberals be “disarming the schools”. So much wacky double talk so one of you has to be wrong.

      • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

        eddie teddy 47 ways to be a commie, such a wide brush, very few schools have policemen and the shooting always take place in a gun free zone, do you have the brains to figure out why? Counties that allow no guns have gun crime all the time, thought that wouldn’t happen if the citizens didn’t own guns? I was in the UK not long ago and got robbed and the cop could only say Jews and Yanks were gun nuts, I told him the Jews are surrounded by millions who want to kill all Jews and as a Yank I had to go to his country to get robbed. Those who are evil and brain dead don’t have a clue.

    • Rob

      The former, and possibly soon-to-be, Lone Star Republic has already put this into practice. I believe it was in 2005 or 2007. It is the Guardian program. Each school district has an unstated number of teachers that have been certified and trained at different levels to pack heat in school. They are permitted to carry concealed (a must while on the job)and names are known only to certain members of the school board.

  • hipshotpercusion

    “A well regulated(properly trained)militia(you and I)being necessary to the security(safety)of a free state,(state of freedom)the right of the people(you and I)to keep and bear(own and carry)Arms shall not be infringed.(violated in any way)” For those of you who don’t understand English as it was written and spoken in Colonial times, I have added terms that are more modern.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    The audacity!!! The unmitigated-gaul of these political-ghouls, who are directly responsible for placing thousands of assault-rifles into the hands of criminals, now see themselves fit to preside over drafting new gun-legislation???

    “Fast and Furious allowed weapons from the U.S. to pass into the hands of suspected gun smugglers so the arms could be traced to the higher echelons of Mexican drug cartels. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which ran the operation, has lost track of hundreds of firearms, many of which have been linked to crimes, including the fatal shooting of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2010.

    The first of 20 individuals indicted in 2011 on charges of buying high-powered firearms in Arizona to be used by Mexican drug gangs was sentenced Monday in San Diego federal court to 57 months in prison. Danny Cruz Morones, 24, of Phoenix is the first of the so-called Fast and Furious defendants to be sentenced. He pleaded guilty to acting as a “straw purchaser”of weapons, including AK-47 assault rifles, and to recruiting others to buy the weapons.

    High-powered assault weapons illegally purchased under the ATF’s Fast and Furious program in Phoenix ended up in a home belonging to the purported top Sinaloa cartel enforcer in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, whose organization was terrorizing that city with the worst violence in the Mexican drug wars.

    In all, 100 assault weapons acquired under Fast and Furious were transported 350 miles from Phoenix to El Paso, making that West Texas city a central hub for gun traffickers. Forty of the weapons made it across the border and into the arsenal of Jose Antonio Torres Marrufo, a feared cartel leader in Ciudad Juarez, according to federal court records and trace documents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

    The smugglers’ tactics — quickly moving the weapons far from ATF agents in southern Arizona, where it had been assumed they would circulate — vividly demonstrate that what had been viewed as a local problem was much larger. Six other Fast and Furious guns destined for El Paso were recovered in Columbus, N.M.”

    How will we ever succeed in keeping assault-rifles out of the hands of criminals, when the very same people who demand they be banned, are the very same that make them readily available to the criminal element? Do you honestly think that our crooked and two-faced politicians have our best interest in mind? And to make matters worse, in their desperate attempt to absolve themselves, the “political-ghouls” are now engaging in an all out assault on the “rights” of law-abiding and innocent American gun-owners to own and carry! The problem, is not guns, the problem is that this country is ruled by criminal-politicians who are clearly INSANE!!!

    • http://yahoo bob peters

      how can we rid ourselves of such dignified governmenmt employees??? The brainwashed members of our society out number the informed… Theres only one answer…

      • Steve E

        The answer resides in the 2nd Amendment. Our Forefathers were brilliant.

    • eddie47d

      WTS you explained it well at first then you folded like a cheap suit at the end. I have never agreed with Fast and Furious yet… BINGO it proved that there are illegal gun dealers and gun runners in the USA and that is where you got it right. If those gullible and stupid gun runners didn’t care and have been doing it for years before Fast and Furious then obvious you can’t see the forest through the trees. This operation although deadly proved beyond a reasonable doubt that not all gun dealers are honest and will do anything for the almighty dollar including arming the cartels. Is the government equally as guilty? Yes at least by not following through and losing track of those weapons. Actually the Fast and Furious operation begs for more restrictions on guns, gun dealers and even on the ATF itself.

      • http://personalliberydigest big wyo

        Troll the ATF was cought running guns to Mexican Cartells . Those seller gun stores were told by the ATF to sell those guns when sellers reported thier concerns.

        It is the ATF you know FIREARMS that are supposed to police guns not deal them.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        eddie: WTS you explained it well at first then you folded like a cheap suit at the end. I have never agreed with Fast and Furious yet… BINGO it proved that there are illegal gun dealers and gun runners in the USA…

        Yes, thanks to Eric Holder and the Obama Administration!!!

        eddie: If those gullible and stupid gun runners didn’t care and have been doing it for years before Fast and Furious…

        Yes, and thanks to Fast and Furious, illegal and unregistered gun-runners are now adequately-stocked!!!

        eddie: This operation although deadly proved beyond a reasonable doubt that not all gun dealers are honest and will do anything for the almighty dollar including arming the cartels.

        Yes, Eric Holder and the Obama administration should be considered dishonest, gun-dealers who will do anything for the almighty dollar, including arming the cartels. Yes, i agree!!!

        eddie: Is the government equally as guilty? Yes at least by not following through and losing track of those weapons. Actually the Fast and Furious operation begs for more restrictions on guns, gun dealers and even on the ATF itself.

        I disagree. The only one in need of restraint is the current administration and its nazi ghouls. And by restraint, i mean PRISON!!!

      • eddie47d

        I see WTS completely ignored the fact that those gun dealers were doing it before this operation was put into place. You play duck and cover just like the ATF agents did. No difference in trying to spin your way around it.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        eddie: I see WTS completely ignored the fact that those gun dealers were doing it before this operation was put into place.

        Yes, and now they can do it to a greater degree and make greater profits thanks to the genius of Eric Holder’s “fast and furious”!

      • Dennis48e

        “I see WTS completely ignored the fact that those gun dealers were doing it before this operation was put into place.”

        Proof eddie proof. The only proof of this you have ever offered is your statement that it is so.

      • eddie47d

        That was brought up 3 times by me in the last month and a half and with names, Sorry you missed it.

      • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

        eddie teddy 47 ways to be a commie, illegal guns supplied by who? The government brain dead, Holder and your messiah obozo when the truth comes out. Opps for got you don’t believe in truth, just your brainwashed talking points.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “I see WTS completely ignored the fact that those gun dealers were doing it before this operation was put into place. ”

        Proof by bald assertion and since you stated it as a fact and not an opinion you have plausibly committed the crime of libel.

        Now we have pointed out before that the gun dealers were suspicious of the sales (remember all sales had to go thru the federal background check system which can’t easily find straw purchases) and the dealers, noticing on their own that something was wrong, CALLED the police (ATF). The Police told them to sell the guns anyway.
        http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/

        So the dealers USE the system. The purchasers are cleared BY the governments background check system. The dealers, understanding the REASON for the laws notice possible straw purchases and call the police (ATF). The police tell them to go ahead and sell the guns (This is an example of why you should not trust the government nor its agents). The dealers, being good citizens and wanting to help keep guns out of the “wrong” hands agree to work with the police.

        And then you call the dealers “criminal”??????

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “That was brought up 3 times by me in the last month and a half and with names, Sorry you missed it.”

        If you had any names ( you don’t ) you could provide them (along with supporting links) again without much if any difficulty.

  • http://yahoo bob peters

    when they come for the guns they will need bodybags to help remove their socialist carcasses from the doors of the millions of patriots who will say “Hell No” Do ya think??

    • jon a. usmc [ret]

      bob peters
      there one more thing they will need to bring, more than one tank when come for mine.

      • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

        jon a. usmc (ret), this jarhead will be with you brother and they better be able to shoot well as the Corps taught me well. Semper Fi, God Bless, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year Brother:

      • Vicki

        If you don’t already know about oathkeepers you might want to look into them.
        http://oathkeepers.org

  • TIME

    Dear People,

    Ok , folks what has happened since the November elections,
    How many people have signed on to remove their state from the Criminal union?
    Care to look at the numbers folks? { Keep in mind this all within just about 30 days}

    How many states have outright rejected OMEN care?
    Care to look at the numbers folks?

    What was stated by countless people prior to the FAKE election in November, do any of your recall a “CIVIL WAR” was spoken about if OMEN won?

    On the Topic of Fake Elections Folks, do the math, how can a person get as high as 185% of the vote if as high as it can go is 100%?

    Let alone are you to really believe that in all states that require a photo IQ to vote Omen lost, yet in states where no photo ID is required he won by no less than 102%?
    HELLO people, this was a staged event ~ Keep in mind~ I have no interest in Mitt either.

    Ok lets review a few more factors people, how about the fact that we can never pay back the $17 Trillion Dollars in Debt, > so how can we really afford to add yet $1.7 Trillion more to that number?

    How about the QE 3 & QE 4 factor, and whats the talk QE 5, hello people, its falling apart before your eyes.

    How about the FACT that 73% of all jobs added are related to “GOVERNMENT” JOBS?
    Such as the newly formed OMEN ~ Home Guard TROOPS?

    Ask your self, this question ~ why is it that the Military has been doing URBAN drills all over the nation over the last 4 years?

    Ask yourself why all local Police across the nation have been placed on “HIGH ALERT” as on December 14th 2012?

    People are waking up ~ and the numbers are now growing daily by not just a few hundred, but but the hundreds of thousands..

    That means how many Millions within a single year, think about by the end of 2013 how many will see this mess for what it really is? As this mess will be quite exposed by then.

    Not one single person I have spoken with feels that the election in November was anything but FAKE, { Many have gone so far as to admit it was a
    ” Coup d`etat that took place.}

    People Wake up, this is YOUR LIFE we are talking about, YOUR familys well being.

    This is not a game, its not a joke ~ its as REAL as a cold hard slap in the face.

    This event at the alledged Sandy Hook is rounding out look as if its a Psyops ~ just look at the ~ Mall event in Oregon, and how did that turn out again??????

    Forget 12/21/12 and wake up to whats real and in your face.

    Again – there is not one single person on planet earth thats not within the ” LOOP ” that knows a damm thing about who is sitting at 1600 Penn Ave,

    As I posted last night, we have done over 3 days of digging and can’t find any intel on a Dr H. Wayne Carver, {other than what has been generated over the last week,}
    He has a ZERO IP footprint He dose not exist, as in he is a 100% FAKE ~ as in an actor.
    That means that the whole damm things is suspect of being a 100% total fraud.

    If anyone on this blog are Police detectives I beg you we need your skills please help in
    this, its your country too.
    We are just Artist, Musicians, and Business people so if we can find what we have found, keep in mind ~ we are at best Amiture’s at this investigating stuff.
    I beg you please help us.

    Start digging people….This is YOUR LIFE, PLEASE ~ Wake Up!

    Shalom

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear TIME,

      You write: “we have done over 3 days of digging and can’t find any intel on a Dr H. Wayne Carver, {other than what has been generated over the last week,}
      He has a ZERO IP footprint He dose not exist, as in he is a 100% FAKE ~ as in an actor.
      That means that the whole damm things is suspect of being a 100% total fraud.” While I continue to dig into the Sandy Hook massacre, I do not believe Carver is a fraud, as you state. He has been CME for Conn. since 1989, and joined the ME office in the early 1980s. Here is an article on him from January, 2012. http://articles.courant.com/2012-01-26/news/hc-carver-stepping-down-0127-20120126_1_wood-chipper-helle-crafts-carver

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • TIME

        Dear Mr. Livingston,

        I thank you for your responce, Can, You show “any record” of one Dr. H Wyane Carver getting his medical degree? Also you may wish to look into the Connecticut state employees files.

        I am 100% open to what you can find, again this person has a ZERO IP footprint, that means he has no Email, no Computer, nor dose he go on line, can you with a straight face tell me that a person age 55 ~ as stated he was born in 1957 in a 12/16 /12 report states ,
        No one would believe that he dose not have a computer nor go on line ever.

        As for the Current, OMG ~ I thought you were far more astute than that, Mr. Livingston its also know as the Fish wrapper, amoung many other special colorful names.

        I again bring up what was posted by all mass media there were {NO 9mm casing found,} but 223 casings were found yet no 223 gun was found.
        The alledged 223 rifle that was found was in the trunk of the alledged car that was locked and not opened until well after dark, so please do explain how that works? keeping in mind the alledged shooter was dead quite early that AM, and as the Police were at the school within minutes just how did he get the gun back in the trunk of the car and
        then shoot himself, and with what did he shoot himself with again?
        What the mass media stated was found was a shot gun and a old 30 Cal collector’s rifle, so hows that work with 223 rounds?

        Of what by the way this alledged Dr. H Wayne Carver stated ~ that each child was shot up close many time’s each ~ with a 223 rifle, ~ really? So where the 223 rifle Bob?

        Again this school has a “CLOSED CRICUT syetem” as well a BUZZ IN as in “LOCKED DOORS” ~ again that requires that the person buzzing in needs to be known to whom ever was allowing them in,
        Please do explain how a person in full Military grade Body Armor and in a ski mask, with alledged guns in hand would have been allowed in by anyone who’s sane for any reason?

        All that aside, in many of the picture of the crowd with alledged mothers and fathers & police & fire people why is it that these people are smiling and laughing?
        Again this was alledged to be an event of “PURE HORROR.”
        Please do explain why alledged mothers & fathers and police would be laughing?

        Also as I pointed out last night in my post, what was the alledged mother of the alledged young girl from Tucson AZ doing standing with the alledged Mrs Obama, noted as one of the parents of this alledged Sandy Hook shooting?

        Again we are not pros Dectives, yet using just simple tools we have found so many
        issue’s that clearly display this is not what its being packaged as.

        Look Bob, I have no ill feelings toward you, This is the end game, a Police State can’t be a Police State if the populace is armed with equal meassure, and you know I am right.

        Shalom

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear TIME,

          I am aware of the discrepancies surrounding this story and we are exploring each of them. I have been asking all these same questions myself. My point to you was that Dr. Carver did not just pop up on the grid in the last few days. I have not researched to determine if he holds a medical degree.

          Equally disturbing is how the shooter remained off the grid. That, of course, is very unusual for his generation and his “reported” interests.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

      • TIME

        Dear Mr. Livingston,

        We hired two PI’s who are working so many points at this time its beyond absurd.
        Why did we hire these folks, For one we are BONE tired of waiting on a Leader to step up.

        By the way ~ the intel the PI we sent up to Conn, has found is astounding in just 5 days. Such as the “Closed Circut System & the BUZZ in system” – also “the doors were not damaged at all,” ~ that means that whom ever it was ~ was allowed in.
        We are holding back the lion share of intel at this time.

        Bob, I appreciate your input as well your sight.

        Peace and Love, Merry Christmas to you and your family Shalom

      • Kate8

        TIME – I’ve found quite a bit on this, as well. I know people want to believe that our media tells it like it is, but it’s high time we realize that they are just the propaganda arm of the NWO.

        http://americannationalmilitia.com/

        What has really happeed to these victims of staged events? Some say they’re taken into human trafficking rings…or maybe they are actually killed. The people behind these things love killing. Why was the ER nurse murdered after the Aurora event?

        There are more questions than answers to all of these. It is quite apparent that they are scripted ahead of time (I read long ago that they are), as the news releases are out seconds after the events. We are being played in the cruelest of ways.

        Until we realize that they will do anything to take guns… and their real aim is to murder us all…

        I strongly recommend that you watch the video I posted further up the thread, the REAL history of communism and freemasonry. Names are named. IYou will recognize many of those names in the people we see on TV…same families.)If that doesn’t motivate people to do every possible thing to stop what’s happening, I don’t know what could. We in America are repeating Soviet Russia, and have no idea what that means.

        If for no other reason, do it for your children. Watch the video.

      • TIME

        Dear Kate,

        Saddly this is it, its now TIME for the American people to stand up, or just roll over and play dead, as for sure they will end up dead if they play it.
        Again, all of what we have wittnessed is nothing short of 100% total LIES, The Mass Media are nothing more nor less than WHORES.

        Again it’s a fact that can not be disproved by anyone, Not one single person in the known world can tell you what: Barry OBAMA’S REAL name is, nor can they tell you where he came from, or anything at all about this person at all.
        He is a LIE from start to finish.

        There is “”PURE EVIL”" in the air and its not guns, nor is it the poor, nor the rich that worked their ass’s off to make it.

        No that PURE EVIL is “BARRY OBAMA” everyone knows it.

        The Chinese Government has posted that they want the American people “DISARMED” by 2013. Hello people…….
        The United Nations yet another group of Luciferians whores stating that the American people should be “DISARMED”.

        Why is that again? { A MARXIST Police State can’t surive with armed resistance } now can they, no matter what type of guns they may have.

        The Chinese people only wish they had even a few single shot type guns to fend off the Mobile Death squads that kill Millions of Chinese people per year.
        And yet the UN says not one damm thing about that abuse now do they?
        Nor has Barry OBAMA now has he?

        By the way the Chinese mobile death squads also { kill thousands of Children every year. } But thats seems to be ok with Barry Obama – after all it was their Governments job to get rid of anyone who dare think, speak or move with out permission.

        Barry OBAMA is a repacious pernicious vile MRAXIST who worship’s Lucifer as his God,
        Thus its TIME the American people make a choice, not the FAKE & Fraudulent choice where 135% voted for him, even a 5 year old can see thats worthless cow pies.

        We have witnessed this pernicious Bastard speak of the death of 20 children – while he has penned the death warrent’s of thousands of Children around the world who are being killed by his DRONES, What will you do when its your children killed by his drones?
        Do you really think he will come and talk about how he so sad?

        Barry Sotoro, – Barry Obama, – Harrison J Bounel, or what ever damm name he wants to use, his name is “”PURE EVIL”"

        Peace and Love, Merry Christmas, Shalom

      • TIME

        Dear Kate,

        I may be wrong but I don’t think so; Mr. Parker is > Tony Hawks voice and looks are a 100% match, and oddly Tony’s childs name is Ellie, and she has blonde hair and looks just like that child.
        Thanks I will get my people on this ASAP. This may well be the crack in the wall.

        Peace and Love, Shalom

      • Kate8

        TIME – I have now tried 9 times to post a link for you. It is about how the kids were not killed at all at this staged event, but kidnapped to be used in the solstice sacrifice.

        I don’t know if it’s true, but it makes sense, given the high strangeness involved, and that parents were not allowed to see their kids.

        Go to bin. It is also posted there. I saw it on thetap.blogspot.

        Someone is not allowing me to post this link. Spooky.

      • Kate8
  • Gordon in Texas

    Instead of pushing for gun control, why doesn’t society push for citizens to be responsible for their own personal lives? That includes parents and other caregivers who, when caring for children or someone with mental issues, need to be responsible for their lives also. Anyone who would leave guns and ammo unsecured with a mentally ill adult in the house is not a responsible person. Blaming inanimate objects also seems to be much easier than dealing with the real issue, which is that we, as a country, no longer hold people accountable for their actions.

    As mentioned in a few other posts, the tragedy in Connecticut goes way beyond gun control. It shows us that this society is moving in the wrong direction. Until people take full responsibility for their own lives and, in some cases, the lives of others, we will continue to see disturbing, violent acts by those who have always said, “Not my fault.”

  • richard brooks

    so exactly which law would have stopped this.

    instead of spending all of that money on corporate and farm welfare, the two bush wars, food stamps for immigrants, foreign aid, increasing compensation for our elected officials, the drug war, etc., we should be hiring armed guards to protect our children in schools. in our malls and shopping centers.

    the gop sheep scream for less spending. i guess the children are on their own.

    every american should be allowed to own, carry and USE weapon to defend themselves and their fellow citizens. it would not have stopped this, but it would have lowered the number of victims.

    tell the gop to stop restricting gun ownership. it has been their policy’s and not the democrats that is to blame.

    • Steve E

      Richard, I believe you have one point backwards. The news media is saying that the Democrats are screaming for gun control and the GOP is silent on the issue.

    • eddie47d

      You should listen to what Mary has to say below Steve and start using some common sense. I see extremists on the right and you see extremists on the left so where has that gotten us. I see important reasons on both sides about personal liberties but what is now going on with the enthrallment of semi-automatic weapons is disturbing. It’s like a new drug to the good guys and the bad guys and I see nothing normal about any of it. I don’t like the authors here stating that anything goes in the 2nd Amendment and that no one can stop anyone from owning anything. That simply is not true.

      • Steve E

        No one cares what you think eddie. Everyone knows you are a sub human troll. Sissy by nature.

      • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

        eddie teddy 47 ways to be a commie, ever heard the saying “Don’t take a knife to a gun fight”. Well the second ammendment gives the citizen the right to over throw a out of control and evil government. They have those weapons and therefore we have a right to own the same. Tanks, yes, machine guns? Yes, I have never taken a knife to a gun fight and if I want a fair chance, then I needed to armed as well as my enemy. Have you ever serviced? If so what were you serving for and what was your oath? I would rather die free then live on your marxist plantation.

      • Vicki

        “Well the second ammendment gives the citizen the right to over throw a out of control and evil government.”

        Just a reminder, a piece of paper has no power to give us any right. That piece of paper is a CONTRACT between us and our government agents to PROTECT our God given right(s). The agents are failing us. We need to lay them off and get new people who will abide by that contract.

  • Mary

    It is time to ban assault weapons, ban buying ammunition and guns on the internet and from gun shows. If anyone wants a hunting rifle or hand gun then they should have to go to a legitimate gun store, follow proper identification procedures to purchase those items and only be allowed a certain amount of ammunition per month.
    We have states that have regulated liquor stores and those who want liquor must go to those establishments to buy it. They just do it without complaint. We have restrictions on the sale of certain explosives such as dynamite and people must meet the proper criteria to purchase them. Responsible mature adults will understand why gun control is tighter and be glad to do their part and purchase wthin the laws accordingly. This is not taking away anyone’s rights to have a gun.
    As a society we have to be more responsible and make it more difficult for deranged people to obtain guns. We are sick and tired of seeing our children killed in this kind of violence. Of course, it will not stop all gun crimes but we can certainly try to prevent these mass murders that are plaguing our society today.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Mary,

      You write: “It is time to ban assault weapons,” Please define “assault weapons” and in so doing describe what makes it more dangerous than another weapon.

      You write: “If anyone wants a hunting rifle or hand gun then they should have to go to a legitimate gun store, follow proper identification procedures to purchase those items and only be allowed a certain amount of ammunition per month.” Please define “hunting rifle”. In light of the second amendment, which does not define arms but does guarantee that the right to keep them and bear them “shall not be infringed,” how do you propose to ban certain weapons? What do you hope to accomplish with this ban? Are you aware that many shooters load their own ammunition? How do you propose to restrict ammunition purchases that would then occur on the black market?

      You write: “Of course, it will not stop all gun crimes but we can certainly try to prevent these mass murders that are plaguing our society today.” As the Connecticut school shooter obtained his weapons illegally and broke a number of laws before he ever shot the first child (including possessing a weapon banned under Connecticut law), how will more laws “prevent these mass murders” plaguing our society today? Finally, have you considered the drug factor? http://personalliberty.com/2012/12/18/the-drug-factor/ Please consider this and then explain to me why psychotropic drugs should not be banned.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • http://personalliberydigest big wyo

        Bob I know you need conversation but why do we have to deal with same three professional trolls.

      • Vicki

        It is not to the trolls we speak. It is to all those who come here to learn. We counter the troll propaganda with facts, evidence and self-evident truth. (We hold these truths to be self-evident, …..)

    • momo

      Mary says: “ban buying ammunition and guns on the internet”

      You ever buy a gun off the internet, Mary? You think somebody just punches a credit card number and the gun is delivered to your door the next day? No, unless you have an FFL or a C&R license then the gun gets shipped to someone who has an FFL. They then call the feds to make sure you’re not a criminal, and then they fill out a 4473 form that shows what kind and serial number of the gun, so the feds have a record of it. Its ignorant folks like you that need to do some research before offering your opinion.

    • CZ52

      “It is time to ban assault weapons, ban buying ammunition and guns on the internet and from gun shows. ”

      Mary I am not aware of any guns for sale on the internet that do not have to be shipped to a licensed gun dealer and the instant check system used before the buyer can pick it up. If there are some for sale individual to individual on the internet I have not found them. Very very very few guns are sold at gun shows by individuals because they cannot afford the fees charged for space to display their gun or guns.

      Mr Livingston addressed the “assualt weapon” issue and you have yet to respond to him. He also addressed the ammunition issue and you have not provided a response to him on that either.

  • Patriot-Research

    These people are nothing but Liberal/Communist left wing government educated morons pushing their Communist/Nazi/Islamic agenda and they need to disarmed us to further their plan, plain and simple! Their is so much Data and the proof is there, more armed citizens brings down crime and only dumb dowm left believes different. Bloomberg is a Communist/NAZI, and doing the same thing in New York City, but New Yorkers are too stupid to vote him out of office. Go list to Dr. Michael Williams radio show “The Patriot Report” at http://webtalkradio.net/internet-talk-radio/the-patriot-report/ to get the real story to what is happening to our Nation and please go support the Patriot Report at http://www.thepatriotreport.org – We need to support this show so we can keep getting the truth and stop sending millions to people for stupid things.

  • JON

    10 Terrifying Facts About Guns In The U.S.

    FACT #1: 31.5 Americans are killed with guns every day.

    FACT #2: 46,000 Americans will be killed with guns during President Obama’s second term in office — unles Washington acts.

    FACT #1: 31.5 Americans are killed with guns every day.

    FACT #2:46,000 Americans will be killed with guns during President Obama’s second term in office — unless Washington acts.

    FACT #3: Due to a legal loophole, approximately 40% of all U.S. guns are sold through private sellers who aren’t required to conduct a federal background check.

    FACT #4: In an undercover investigation of online gun sales, 62% of private gun sellers on the Internet agreed to sell a firearm to buyers who said they probably couldn’t pass a background check.

    FACT #5: A national survey of inmates found that nearly 80% of those who used a handgun in a crime acquired it from an unlicensed secondary-market seller.

    FACT #6: The federal penalty for trafficking guns without brandishing or discharging them is the same as the penalty for trafficking livestock.

    FACT #7: There have been 61 mass shootings in the U.S. since 1982. The killer used a legally obtained weapon in 49 of them.

    FACT #8: Among 23 high-income countries, the U.S. accounted for 80% of all firearm deaths.

    FACT #9: The firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is 19.5 times higher than in other high-income countries.

    FACT #10: 82% of gun owners (including 74% of NRA members) support requiring criminal background checks for anyone purchasing a gun

    Sources

    Kenneth D. Kochanek, Jiaquan Xu, Sherry L. Murphy, Arialdi M. Minino, and Hsiang-Ching Kung. “Deaths: Final Data for 2009.” National Vital Statistics Reports. Dec. 19, 2011.

    Christpher S. Koper. “Crime Gun Risk Factors: Buyer, Seller, Firearm, and Transaction Characteristics Associated with Gun Trafficking and Criminal Gun Use.” Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania. 2007.

    “Point, Click, Fire: An Investigation Of Illegal Online Gun Sales.” City of New York. December 2011.

    Caroline Wolf Harlow. “Firearm Use by Offenders.” U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. November 2001.

    Sam Stein. “Gun Owners Surveyed By Frank Luntz Express Broad Support For Gun Control Policies.” The Huffington Post. Jul. 24, 2012.

    U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 924(c)

    U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 2316

    Ezra Klein. “Twelve Facts About Guns and Mass Shootings in the United States.” The Washington Post. Dec. 14, 2012.

    Erin G. Richardson and David Hemenway. “Homicide, Suicide, and Unintentional Firearm Fatality: Comparing the United States With Other High Income Countries, 2003.” The Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care. January 2011.

    • http://midcontent brand inspector

      Yawn, how many people are killed every day with runny away and violent cars with too much horsepower and repeated crashes. How many kids are killed with their family car running over them, and with all the laws against drunk drivers is there? There is still % time DUI drivers that have killed or maimed someone that drive around, remember the whorehound iconic Kennedys.? It isn’t wheather the car has 8 hp or 859 hp, or the gun carries 5-60 rounds, it the operation nut job in control. As for lock down when containment for nut jobs, was closed down, and squirrels were to be main lined in society, that sure was a snafu. All happened under the socialist/marxist dumbocraps. Let everyone carry a firearm if they was and there will not be so many smucks in our prisions A simple way to clear out misfits and congential crimminals that cann’t comprehend stealing is a crime.

    • eddie47d

      Yawn! BI is the “nutjob” . We all know folks die from cars and humans no matter how hard they try make driving errors. Cars are not purchased for killing someone so your analogy is flawed. Guns are bought for the need to” kill someone” whether by a perp or by a homeowner. That homeowner may not ever want to use it on someone but never fool yourself in what it is meant for. There are many restrictions and laws involving cars and there should be either more or less gun laws depending on how you look at it. If we can have stronger national laws then there would be fewer laws within the states or local communities.The NRA shouldn’t be writing our laws either since they endorse easy access for anyone including James Holmes,Klebold&Harris and Mrs Lanza. They endorse the problem and are seldom active in finding solutions. Maybe this Friday they’ll offer up a bunch of excuses instead of workable reforms. I’m a little tired of their past attempts which only emboldened that easy access.

      • momo

        eddie47d says:” Guns are bought for the need to” kill someone” whether by a perp or by a homeowner. ”

        eddie47d is playing psychologist again. I don’t suppose a gun could be bought for say, oh I don’t know, hunting, target practice maybe, collecting historical firearms?

      • eddie47d

        Possibly but generally for killing!

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        eddie: Cars are not purchased for killing someone so your analogy is flawed.

        You appear to be as naive as your friend Mary, eddie. Are you not familiar with the expressions; drive-by-shootings, get-away-cars used in bank robberies, kidnappings? These are some of the extra-carricular-activities criminals engage in while driving the vehicles they purchased precisely for the reasons to kill, rob and kidnap! On the other hand, the majority of law-abiding citizens purchase vehicles strictly for purposes such as; transportation, for use of work, sports/racing, ect…and never for the purpose to kill, rob or kidnap someone. And therein lies the difference as well, when it comes to the purchase of firearms. The reasons why criminals purchase their firearms is already too well known, as are the reasons why law-abiding citizens purchase theirs. And the number one reason why law-abiding citizens purchase firearms, is because they are all too aware of the reasons why criminals purchase firearms!!! Capish???

    • http://personalliberydigest big wyo

      I dont believe you have a single fact as you call it correct. I Guaranttee you 74 % of the NRA members are in favor of background checks . You Quoted the HUFFINGTON POST.no wonder all your facts are not facts.

  • Terry Bateman

    How hard can it be to ban the manufacture, sale,and possession of handguns?
    How hard can it be to confiscate and destroy the handguns of registered owners?
    How hard can it be for people, schools, and other institutions to defend themselves
    with rifles, the only lethal weapon that need remain legal?
    If rifles remain legal, a total ban on handguns is not a violation of the right to bear arms.

    • http://midcontent brand inspector

      Learn how to build your own firearm, a mouse trap and a shell of any type does the jub intended to do, is kind of hard to hunt with. I like to hunt ducks, geese, antelope and deer with AR– 12 assult weapon as the book learned socialist/marxist dems call them. The under water basket weaving traing and other airy fairy program spouted in schools a f-g liberial arts colleges never train our girly boys or dykee girls to do something productive in life, so all they can build is headaches for everyone else.

    • Charlie R

      Terry you ask:
      ‘How hard can it be to confiscate and destroy the handguns of registered owners?”
      Easy, Hitler did exactly that in the 1930′s.

      “Never let a crisis go to waste” … and the timing appears perfect, doesn’t it?

      • Terry Bateman

        Obama is not Hitler. America is not Germany. Inflation is not hyper inflation. Eliminate
        handguns, and many crimes that would be committed with handguns will not happen.
        And rifles can protect those households that want them as well as their confiscated
        handguns would have.

        • Dave

          Yeah and criminals will just find something else to kill with, they do it every day. If they start using sharpened sticks, do we ban trees so they then can;t get the sticks? Crazy!

    • http://personalliberydigest big wyo

      There are 80 million gun owners. How hard will it be to disarm them ??????
      That’s a job for someone…………………… ready to win a cival w@r
      After all that – rifles would be easy to confiscate.
      The 2nd amendment is and was about defense from tyranny.

      • Terry Bateman

        Confiscating handguns only, not rifles, is not disarming. Who needs a handgun
        to hunt or defend themselves at home or in the wilderness when they can use
        rifles?

    • http://personalliberydigest big wyo

      Hey terry are you going to destroy all those Glocks the police have and Barettas the military has and the SS glocks and H&ks

      • Terry Bateman

        Police and military can have whatever guns they want.

        • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

          Dear Terry Bateman,

          So you endorse the police state and totalitarianism?

          Best wishes,
          Bob

  • Kate8

    Um…Have I been banned from posting? I posted a comment and it….DISAPPEARED. Gonzo. Poof.

    If so, fine.

    • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear Kate8,

      You write: “Have I been banned from posting?” No.

      You write: “I posted a comment and it….DISAPPEARED. Gonzo. Poof.” There is no comment from you trapped in the filter. The moderator has not moderated one of your comments. If one has “disappeared,” there is no explanation available.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Kate8

        Bob – Thanks for replying. This has happened several times now, so I had to ask.

        As soon as I hit “post comment”, it simply disappears.

        Strange.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        It also happens to me from time to time, Kate. The majority of the time i have no issues. I wouldn’t worry about it. Cheers!

  • Dave

    He tried to buy a rifle and the existing waiting period stopped him so he stole his mother’s LEGALLY purchased guns. The fact that handguns were the only weapon used has me confused as to why the debate on assault rifles has stepped to the forefront…..Never let a crisis go to waste. The fact that gun control is popping up again is proof that they are going to go after legally purchased guns.

    • Vicki

      They have also changed the story. 223 shell casings were “found” in the building. So as of Monday the 17th there was a .223 semi-auto rifle “found” with the body of the gunman.

      All very convenient.

      • Vicki

        From the original story

        “The gunman drove to the school in his mother’s car, the second official said. Three guns were found — a Glock and a Sig Sauer, both pistols, inside the school, and a .223-caliber rifle in the back of a car.”
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/sandy-hook-elementary-school-shooting_n_2300831.html

        Published before the spin could be started. And even though updated does not seem to put the .223 in the school.

      • Dave

        Yeah, very convenient. How they got the rifle from the car to the school is interesting…Hmmm.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    76 reasons for having a gun will help you decide whether this power tool should be in Your Optimal Toolkit:

    The simple act of having a gun is its own best use. Like a battleship parked off the coast its mere presence changes the dynamic of the situation without having to fire a single shot. By having a gun you become too dangerous to your predators. Criminals interviewed in jail say they don’t want anything to do with an armed civilian. That change in my human predators is exactly what I want to accomplish.

    A right exercised is a right retained.

    It’s the best single tool for protecting your life and the lives of your loved ones. (JFPO)

    You detest American gun laws based on 1938 Nazi weapons laws. (JFPO)

    Armed societies are polite societies. (Switzerland).

    Switzerland is armed to the teeth with virtually no crime (Stephen Holbrook).

    Because of the patience and discipline you acquire while learning about the tool.

    So you can de-bunk Hollywood gun myths for your kids.

    So you’ll know that not using toy guns when playing is an important step in teaching kids to respect and handle the real thing safely and appropriately.

    It removes force from the equation of human interaction.

    Home Invasion Robberies. And your gun tool should be easy to get to (Since it will be in the holster you’re wearing).

    “Robbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other method of self-protection or those who did not resist at all.” according to Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University, Gary Kleck, in Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America.
    We call the police because they have guns, not pens to document what already happened to us.

    Cougars in the backyard – Happens all the time where we live.

    Coyotes on the streets – My wife has seen five, this year. Only a danger if they’re in packs or for small children and dogs, alone.

    Rattlesnakes in the hills – Signs all over the trails around here. Put snake shot in the first two chambers of your trail gun.

    Police Budget Cuts – Sacramento County in CA will reduce the number of squad cars from 39 to 8 due to budget cuts (Channel 3, Sacramento, air date 6/30/2009).

    Early Release of Violent criminals from overstuffed jails – Happens more than you think. Check your local news. There’s no more room left at the Inn.

    Economic Meltdown. Was Argentina more or less safe when their currency collapsed? And don’t forget the other 30 countries whose currency has collapsed in the last 100 years. Happens all the time to those other countries we tend to ignore. It could never happen in the US, right?

    Hurricane Katrina and the next natural disaster.

    Better than a knife past 2 yards.

    The only sure victim-prevention lies with the victim-to-be.

    Police only document crimes after they happen. They might investigate. But, they have no legal responsibility to prevent crime.

    Saying, “Police are not your bodyguard,” is quite an understatement.
    According to the Dalai Lama, “If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” (Seattle Times, May 15, 2001).

    When seconds count, the police arrive in minutes (Or hours).

    How many police does it take to give one speeding ticket to a dangerous soccer mom? Five! No punch line, here. It’s just how many I saw it take, last week. That’s five police not available for a real crime happening somewhere else.

    The L. A. riots – For which the shotgun I had in the back seat on the way home from work was the right tool. We counted 22 plumes of smoke on each side of the freeway on the way home, that day. And the US troops on the streets for the next 3 days must have thought the M-16’s they were carrying were the right tool for the job, too. Now why would myself and those troops think it was useful to have a gun if neither of us actually fired? Because having a gun is its own best use. Guns are in full use even when they’re not being fired.

    NYC Blackouts. I predict more blackouts as more cities and counties go bankrupt and don’t have the money to maintain their electricity grids.

    The official role of police is to investigate, not prevent crime.

    Self-defense is an inherent human right. It is given to you by God, not the government.
    Since Criminals will always have guns, there’s no reasonable expectation of self-defense if law-abiding citizens don’t have them, too.

    Meat on the table – Or do you only eat meat that other people kill for you?
    1
    in 4 chance of being on the receiving end of a violent crime (and that was before the economic meltdown).

    Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Sonia Sotomayor. If you were impressed with Clinton’s torture of the word “IS” wait ’til you see what this bunch will do to the 27 words of the 2nd amendment. By the time they’re done they’ll have us believing the amendment has something to do with toaster ovens. Don’t laugh: I should have made each one of these people their own separate reason.

    If history is any guide we should now expect increased “gun-control” (Victim Disarmament) laws passed under the guise of “protecting us.” With the Government takeover of all banks, GM and Chrysler the US has now crossed over into the dictionary definition of fascism. Possession of firearms by private citizens threatens fascist governments that have always sought coercion and control.

    Gun control laws increase violent crime as only law abiding citizens abide by the law. That makes “Gun Control” into effective “Victim Disarmament.”

    Last line of defense for family while traveling.

    Clean-cut young men like Ted Bundy.

    As a hobby to improve self-discipline and the understanding of physics.

    To bring your physical preparation for resisting non-initiated force in line with your spiritual and intellectual efforts to avoid it.

    The Virginia Tech Massacre – Cho killed 32 people and wounded another 17. Gun-Control (Read Victim Disarmament) has turned our schools into killing zones. Don’t those darn psychos know that guns are not allowed on campus? Actually, people like Cho do know and that’s why they choose school campuses for their shooting rampages.

    School officials called the police when they heard Cho gunning people down at Virginia Tech. They called the police because they had guns that could stop Cho. Were guns the problem or the solution that day? The answer is that Cho was the problem and guns were the solution. If law abiding students were allowed to carry then their guns would have been the solution delivered long before so many innocent students were killed waiting for the police to arrive and “cordon off the area.”

    Camping among dangerous 4-legged creatures.

    Camping among dangerous 2-legged creatures.

    To equalize physical strengths in a confrontation.

    Carrying a gun is a lighter burden than regret.

    The Zodiac Killer. They never caught him. He claims 37 victims and is probably between 60 to 70 years old now, if alive. There’s an active website where you can submit tips.

    If violent crime is not a factor then why do we still need police? (Boston T. Party)
    You’re several more times likely, in your lifetime, to need a handgun to deal with a lethal threat than you are to need fire insurance on your home . . . yet more people carry fire insurance than carry a gun. (Boston T. Party)

    Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 per day. You don’t hear about them because they never happened, silly.

    Violent offenders shy away from houses and people who are likely to be armed.

    Your security is not your neighbors’ responsibility.

    Your security is not legally the police’s responsibility.

    To increase criminal expectations that you may have a gun.

    To bear your share of the responsibility and burden of the proven gun deterrence of crime.

    Because criminals fear entering your House because of my gun. Get your own and spread the non-violence.

    Because there are evil people in the world that can’t be talked or reeducated out of trying to kill you.

    To convert force into persuasion.

    To remove fear from human interaction.

    A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly. (Marko Kloos).

    The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. (Marko Kloos)

    To promote equality.

    Every living creature has the natural right of self-defense.

    There are people in this world to whom you’re not a human being. You are merely an obstacle to obtaining your possessions.

    After you hand over the money, they’ll still kill you for being a witness.

    YouTube videos of people being killed after they give up the money or open the safe.

    As a communication device for someone who’d kill you to get the latest playstation or XBox or iphone.

    Because every citizen in Switzerland has an automatic weapon in their basement and they have almost zero violent crime.

    To appeal to the better nature of a man who doesn’t have one.

    So that you can protect yourself against criminals who use guns as a deadly extension of their inability to deal with people.

    Because there are people out there who would use a gun against you just to avoid the “hassles” of persuasion or the “inconvenience” of fair trade.

    “According to the FBI, states with ‘shall-issue’ right-to-carry laws have a 26 percent lower total violent crime rate, a 20 percent lower homicide rate, a 39 percent lower robbery rate and a 22 percent lower aggravated assault rate than those states that do not allow their citizens to legally carry guns.”

    “The Bureau of Justice’s national average states that I have a 1-in-4 chance of being a victim of violent crime in my lifetime. The risk conferred by living in a major population center . . . . – where index felonies (rape, robbery, homicide, aggravated assault, etc.) number 200 a day – increases my chances of being a predator’s lunch stack to 1-in-9 annually.” Mark F. Twight, “Eat or Be Eaten” S.W.A.T., March 2000 (p. 60)

    Genocide frequently follows government disarmament of private citizens. The JFPO calls this type of government disarmament Death by Gun Control.

    “Liberty or death,” the meaning of which is clear and absolute, is but a trivial phrase if you do not carry a gun (Living with Glocks by Robert H. Boatman).

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/gillespie1.1.1.html

    • Kate8

      Jay – Good post. The thing is, common crime notwithstanding, the greatest threat to us IS the government.

      I watched this movie today, and I’ll never be the same again. It should be required of all Americans. In fact, everyone in the world. If people knew this, they’d string these evil and inhuman SOBs from the highest gallows, and that would be too humane for them.

      The really sad part is that they always seem to have soldiers who will carry out their orders.

      This is the history of communism and those behind it, as told by someone who knows.

      We have no idea of the merciless brutality of these people, who are now in control of our own country and have been throughout our history. We have supported and built communist regimes around the world, and now it is time for us to face what has been wrought on the world in our name. It was always planned this way.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WcAPJ-kn8Vs

      Especially every liberal should see this. If they could watch this and still support those in power, they are truly hopeless.

      And, if you will notice, all of these poor souls had been disarmed. They had no way of defending themselves nor their families. You will also notice that we are repeating this history here. Just overlay those events with the events of today. They are using the very same timeline yet again.

      You have to watch to the end, because that is the good part. It’s time for humanity’s awakening. Time for us to throw off the yoke of slavery, and to destroy every vestige of communism, or any ism, or anything that takes away our freedom.

      Merry Christmas!

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Hey Kate, i started watching the movie. It looks very intriguing. I will give you my review when i finish it. Much thanks!

        Have a Merry Christmas, Kate!

  • David169

    I’m a gun owner and I believe this entire discussion is going the wrong way. The problem of mass shooting in schools and malls started with the introduction of strong psychoactive drugs like prozac. The media and the government have chosen to ignore that every single mass shooter has a histroy with these strong psychoactive drugs. I believe this fact is ignored because these drugs do not advance their asperations for gun control. Prior to their introduction we didn’t have these mass shootings. Since their introduction there have been many shootings, let’s be honest and outlaw the problem, the drugs.

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

      David169: The problem of mass shooting in schools and malls started with the introduction of strong psychoactive drugs like prozac.

      Plus the fact that schools are “gun free zones” which provide psychotic-criminals with a rich target-environment of unarmed and defenceless civilians. Which proves that gun-control legislation really works, and that stricter gun-control legislation would only provide greater opportunities for psychotic-criminals to engage in their obsessive-behaviour; that being, the massacre of innocent and un-armed civilians!

  • Vietnam6871

    I have laboriously gone through all the above, enough to reinforce what I have already known for many years, there are extremists and idiots (some qualify as both) on both sides of the gun control argument. I will go back to my original post from this morning. Guns are meant to protect us from our own government (#1) and for self defense (#2). Before anyone should comment on something as important, they should become educated on the subject and it is very obvious that many have not. I am for extensive background checks, including any medical records that pertain to psychiatry or psychology and anyone utilizing mental health professionals should have to release their records to the background checkers in order to be cleared to purchase. If they are dealing with grief over a lost one, a failed marriage or similar, they should be willing to release the records, at least the doctor’s written reason of what you are being counseled for, if owning a gun is that important to them. If they do not release the records, they don’t get cleared. I am for eliminating acquisition during gun shows without a valid license. To get that license (Concealed Carry), you must go through a minimum of a two day course on gun safety and prove your ability to properly handle and shoot proficiently (a minimum score must be attained). You are also fingerprinted, photographed and an extensive background check is made by the federal government. The possible loop-hole is the mental aspect and that I want beefed up. Yes you can buy a gun without a permit but there is a waiting period from when you purchase and when you pick it up and a background check is done. Gun shows can bypass this legally?/illegally? and that needs to stop now. I could go on but you can see I have many issues with the current system but they are not about gun control they are about people control, better processing of who can and who can not own a firearm, but not the firearms themselves. It took the state about 8 weeks to process my license and it was well worth the wait as I enjoy collecting, target shooting and hunting. Anyone suddenly needing a gun today is suspect. The worst of the shooting mass murderers, Cho, used a bolt action hunting rifle, not a semi-automatic so let’s not try to compartmentalize, any gun can kill as can knives or bare hands that can brutalize for years before the murder occurs. (Why not the same outrage over spousal abuse?) I remain sickened by the gun control fanatics who are using this horrific act of one deranged individual to push their political objective while all of Newtown remains in grief. Shame on all of you.

    • Vicki

      Vietnam6871: “I am for extensive background checks, including any medical records that pertain to psychiatry or psychology and anyone utilizing mental health professionals”

      Can we have that for voting too please? I am told that voting is a right so if it’s good for one right it should be good for all.

      Oh and if you really want to help people who might have some emotional problem like post traumatic stress syndrome, how well do you think your rule will go over with them? Giving up their right to self-defense because YOU or some bureaucrat thinks they are mentally disturbed.

      Vietnam6871: “I am for eliminating acquisition during gun shows without a valid license. To get that license (Concealed Carry), you must go through a minimum of a two day course on gun safety and prove your ability to properly handle and shoot proficiently (a minimum score must be attained). You are also fingerprinted, photographed and an extensive background check is made by the federal government. ”

      Can we PLEASE do that for voting too? Way too many people are allowed to vote that have no clue as to the issues or the people they vote for. And just maybe the fingerprint stain will cut down on multiple voting.

      Vietnam6871: “I could go on but you can see I have many issues with the current system but they are not about gun control they are about people control, better processing of who can and who can not own a firearm, but not the firearms themselves.”

      Thank you for being honest. People control.

      Vietnam6871: ” Anyone suddenly needing a gun today is suspect.”

      I presume you mean someone needing a gun right now as in this day (whichever day)
      So if an ex-boyfriend decides to kill a liberal woman and thoughtfully tortures her by telling her in advance that he is going to kill her sometime in the next 3 days (That was the shortest “waiting period” at the time) are you volunteering to stand guard till she can get the gun she needs?

      Why a liberal woman you ask? Cause they are afraid of guns till they really need them. Then common sense takes over only to find they have to wait several days before picking up their gun.

  • Thinking About

    The gun rights folks needs to educate all of people not to use their guns to shoot innocent people and may not have been a need to place controls on guns. It will be pretty hard to believe 20 little first graders was the government taking over or the principle or five other teachers so the reason to have guns to protect one from the government is a falsehood of gun rights members. Besides this does any one of you think one person would be able to defend against “government takeover”. These are some simple reasons to rethink your reasoning.

    As far as hunters, they do not try to blow the game to bits and consume the game so they are in a total different world and it is not the intention to prevent the use of game hunting guns.

    • Vicki

      Thinking About doesn’t and says:
      “The gun rights folks needs to educate all of people not to use their guns to shoot innocent people and may not have been a need to place controls on guns.”

      We have and we do. That does not mean that all of the people can learn. For those that can’t we have (and those poor teachers NEEDED) guns.

  • Gary Belote

    In his infinite wisdom Obozo has assigned the task force to Joe Biden. Remember this is the man who was in charge of the 890 billion dollar stimulus and cant tell you where half of it was spent. These same yahoos sent over 2500 of the same type rifles as used in the slayings at Sandy Hook to Mexicos drug lords. (more on that later). So far at least 400 citizens of Mexico have been slain including women and children and 2 or more U.S border agents. Are these people to be greived over? Although Obozo and Holder deny knowing anything the paper trail leads to the Justice Dept front door. The Dems stall any real investigation.
    Now more on the destination of these guns to Mexico. The Cartel for which these were intended is the same Cartel which controls the drug traffic in Chicago. There was a dual purpose in letting the guns “walk” to Mexico. Eliminate the opposing Cartel in Mexico and try to make it look like the U.S. was the major surce of weapon imports to Mexico thereby justifying more gun control. Look at the speechs made by Billary and Worthless Holder at the time the gun operation started.
    Last but not least…Australia took all the guns back several years ago. It cost them over
    60 million to buy out the guns and several lives were lost. Now crimes such as personal assualts, home break-ins, rapes are up over 20%. Should the U.S. attempt to take all our guns, which is the Dems ultimate goal, there will be bloodshed like you have not seen before. The cost to buy every semi-automatic weapon would exceed 88 BILLION. Every
    day in America there are over 2000 crimes stopped by gun-toting honest citizens. Be wary of the Fed who claims to be your friend.

  • Richard Walker

    After reading many of these posts I felt I had to at least put in my two cents worth and let some of the left-wing liberal idiots know what I think of any misguided attempts to further restrict or control gun ownership among law abiding citizens. That would include you, Flashy, and you, Eddie. I’m surprised you two don’t hear your villages calling you.

    I feel that the laws we have in place NOW are reasonable and work for the law abiding citizens of this country. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws no matter how stringent.

    Part of the problem is that when a criminal is caught, the “hammer” seldom falls and he is seldom appropriately punished for his crimes upon conviction. Even if sent to prison, he goes there to further his criminal education thanks to the “bleeding heart” liberal idiot folk that seem to think that prison should be fun and cushy, not a place where anyone (right thinking or not) would want to avoid like the plague.

    In the real world, justice should be swift, sure, and painful, and prison should be a mean and harsh place to be avoided at all costs, like Hell.

    Guns, like anything manufactored by humans, are tools. Their purpose is to kill. Killing can be done by many means, but guns are far and beyond the most efficient and economical way to go. Try killing a deer with your knife. Like anything that is inherently dangerous, I favor restrictions on ownership and possession of guns. Ownership should be restricted to adults. Possession should be allowed for all that abide by law (no felons), and exhibit responsibility (no mentally deficient or irresponsible types). Training in the safe use, handling, storage, and laws governing these things should be mandatory.

    If you nevertheless wish to further restrict guns I would refer those liberal idiots who think that further restrictions will prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook to review the results of the “assault weapon ban” back in the 90′s. Zero effect on such crimes. Restrict citizen access to guns as a means of self protection such as the case is in Chicago, New York City, Washington DC, and Detroit (to name a few examples where guns are extremely difficult to legally acquire and possess, much less use), and you make them targets of opportunity for the criminals that will have guns in spite of your laws and bans.

    I have traveled the world as a corporate pilot for 33 years, 22 of them living overseas in Europe and the Middle East. Everywhere I went in my travels guns were either severly restricted or banned. In Europe mostly the criminals had guns, and law abiding citizens were dependant on the Police for protection (when trouble is seconds away, the Police are there within minutes…). In Africa people were killed by their “governments” pretty much daily with no means of resistance. All dictatorships disarm the population as a first measure to prevent resistance. The freedoms enjoyed by liberal idiots like Eddie and Flashy here, where they can speak out against the very things that give them their freedom (such as the Constitution, the capitalist free market we used to have, and guns) do not exist in most places in the world. In many countries I have visited they would be either imprisoned or shot just for speaking out. In the muslim countries, just speaking out against the religion or government will get you killed on the spot. No dissent is allowed.

    Here is a proposition I offer for those liberal idiots that would remove guns from all citizens (except of course the criminals, since they would ignore such a stupid law). If you will go to Watts in LA, downtown Detroit, Downtown DC, or the south side of Chicago and spend the entire night walking about while wearing (in an obvious manner) lots of expensive gold jewelry and carrying a sign that says “I am NOT armed” (where you are actually not armed), and also be alone with no armed bodyguards, then I would agree to support passage of such a law. The catch is that you have to survive with your jewelry intact and still in place :-).

    If you look at all the politicians (mostly liberal Democrats) that want to disarm the average LAW ABIDING citizen with draconian gun control measures that do not and never have worked, you will find that they do not travel without an armed contingent of bodyguards. Do as I say, not as I do. I make them the same proposition.

    As a former Marine Grunt and then Fighter Pilot (’68 – ’74) I am trained and proficient in weapons and the responsible use thereof. I expect anyone that abides by law and wants to possess guns to be equally proficient and responsible. Criminals that use guns in the commission of a crime should either be shot at the scene if they do not surrender, or never expect to see life outside of prison when they do. Ever. That would be the proper hammer falling.

    To those that think I am a Republican; I am not. I am a conservative Independant. Do know that I will defend my right to keep my guns with my life if you are thinking of trying to take them away from me.

    Semper Fi to all Marines. God bless and Merry Christmas to everybody.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. (“General Introduction to Psychoanalysis,” S. Freud) Sigmund Freud

    • Jeremy Leochner

      So we must all suffer from that. Because from what I hear everyone is afraid of weapons in the hands of criminals and bad guys. They are afraid of good people not having them. We all have fear of weapons. No offense to Mr. Freud.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Jeremy: So we must all suffer from that. Because from what I hear everyone is afraid of weapons in the hands of criminals and bad guys.

        You hear wrong. The only people that are afraid of weapons in the hands of criminals and bad guys, are unarmed people who find themselves at the mercy of armed criminals and bad guys. Armed civilians are not afraid of armed criminals and bad guys. The gun is the best single tool for protecting your life and the lives of your loved ones, because, when seconds count, the police are minutes away. Rather strange that a gun would scare so, Jeremy.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        But as you said “The only people that are afraid of weapons in the hands of criminals and bad guys, are unarmed people who find themselves at the mercy of armed criminals and bad guys. Armed civilians are not afraid of armed criminals and bad guys.” If those armed people were not armed I would imagine they would be afraid. Being unarmed does not make one powerless. Self defense martial art training is one way to go. Pepper spray, mac, tasers and stun guns are also options. Even knifes can be carried around for personal protection. Not having a gun does not make one powerless. We cannot live our lives in fear of others. Nor can we live our lives in fear of not having guns with us. Because being afraid of not having a gun with you is not that far from being afraid of a gun in the hands of someone out to hurt you.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Jeremy: Being unarmed does not make one powerless.

        Being unarmed in the presence of a armed psychotic-criminal with an assault rifle i would say puts you at serious disadvantage!

        Jeremy: Self defense martial art training is one way to go. Pepper spray, mac, tasers and stun guns are also options. Even knifes can be carried around for personal protection.

        Sure, if the psychotic-criminal is using the same items with the intent to do me harm, i would call that a level-playing-field. However, i seriously doubt those very same items would be of much use to me against a psychotic-criminal armed with a firearm. Good luck with the pepper-spray and the chop-suey. To each his own i guess…

        Jeremy: Not having a gun does not make one powerless.

        Only when your life and the lives of your loved one’s depend on it! Btw, answer me this, you gutless schmuck; do you think the faculty at Sandy Hook felt powerless, or empowered, not having any means to protect themselves and the lives of those children?

        Jeremy: We cannot live our lives in fear of others.

        By all means, Jeremy, don’t fear the psychos, just ignore them as they walk into schools and other “gun-free-zones” and mow-down children and other unarmed-defencless civilians. Nothing to fear except for fear itself, right?

        Jeremy: Nor can we live our lives in fear of not having guns with us.

        That would depend on the situation, now wouldn’t it, Jeremy. Btw, i wonder if a police officer would agree with your naive statement?

        Jeremy: Because being afraid of not having a gun with you is not that far from being afraid of a gun in the hands of someone out to hurt you.

        You obviously have never stood unarmed in front of an armed and desperate hoody, have you, Jeremy?

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Jay

        1: I agree being unarmed against an armed attacker puts one at a disadvantage. People have a right to arm themselves. I just do not believe a school is a place to be armed with a gun.

        2: Your right. The problem is I don’t think one should live their lives preparing for a psychopath to come at them with a gun. I would be much more concerned about a hoody with a knife.

        3: One- how exactly am I a “gutless schmuck”. I thought I was the one saying you should try and stand up to a guy with a gun armed with nothing but pepper spray, sounds pretty guttsy to me. Second there was no way for any of those teachers to know such a thing was going to happen. And I cannot imagine the teachers being armed would have stopped the gunman from trying. Indeed it probably would have stopped it. However the chances of a school shooting are what. I do not know. Of the schools in the country which one will suffer it. And of all the possible disasters to befall a school which is the least likely. In my opinion a school shooting. At least a school shooting in the form of a lone gunman trying to massacre innocents. One way to stop that is a contingency plan. This can involve having an armed officer on school premises at all times. The purpose of this can be both to deal with potential problems from students bringing guns on to campus but also in the eventuality of a shooting. Also there needs to be drills to prepare for shootings. Things like locking doors and staying away from windows need to be practiced and practiced.

        4: I never said do not fear them. I just meant to say that we need to keep fear in perspective and treat the threat appropriately. Plans involving trained officers on campus for the purpose of preventing violence combined with proper planning for dealing with a shooter situation and finally throw in teachers trained in martial arts as well as armed with pepper spray or mace or stun guns or even tear gas if we feel concerned I believe is sufficient considering the likelihood of a school shooting. Often these shootings are committed by lone individuals. If you can even disorient him for a few seconds it can by precious time to either get children to safety, escape yourself or take the guy down. You make someone very powerful even without giving them a gun.

        5: It would depend on the situation. I am sure a police officer would see my statement as naive. Though I would point out my statement was not directed towards law enforcement officers who are trained to hunt down criminals and have knowledge of both hand to hand combat as well as having a small arsenal with them besides guns. I consider the average person to not need to live in fear of not having a gun. Especially if they have martial arts training and have a knife or stun gun with them.

        6: Indeed I have not. I do not think such an event would change my attitude. Since I have never suggested people should not be allowed to carry weapons as personal protection. I was just suggesting alternatives to carrying weapons. The area where I would like it to be required that you cannot carry a weapon is school.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Jeremy: I agree being unarmed against an armed attacker puts one at a disadvantage. People have a right to arm themselves. I just do not believe a school is a place to be armed with a gun.

        Why not schools? If the faculty at Sandy Hook had been armed, the outcome, i believe, would have been different. Armed criminals do not make it a habit of shooting-up police stations or a biker bars, why?

        Jeremy: Your right. The problem is I don’t think one should live their lives preparing for a psychopath to come at them with a gun. I would be much more concerned about a hoody with a knife.

        Why would you be less concerned if the criminal had a gun? That doesn’t make sense!

        Jeremy: One- how exactly am I a “gutless schmuck”. I thought I was the one saying you should try and stand up to a guy with a gun armed with nothing but pepper spray, sounds pretty guttsy to me. Second there was no way for any of those teachers to know such a thing was going to happen. And I cannot imagine the teachers being armed would have stopped the gunman from trying. Indeed it probably would have stopped it. However the chances of a school shooting are what. I do not know. Of the schools in the country which one will suffer it. And of all the possible disasters to befall a school which is the least likely. In my opinion a school shooting. At least a school shooting in the form of a lone gunman trying to massacre innocents.

        These are ten of the most horrific school shootings in the United States. While all shootings, especially of children, are devastating, these school shootings were especially horrendous.

        1) February 2, 1996; Moses Lake, Washington. A 14-year-old boy names Barry Loukaitis opens fire on his algebra class killing two students and one teacher.

        2) October 1, 1997; Pear, Mississippi. Luke Woodham, a 16-year-old student reported to be part of an outcast group, kills two students and his own mother.

        3) December 1, 1997; West Paducah, Kentucky. 14-year-old Michael Carneal fires on students attending a prayer circle. He kills three students and wounds five.

        4) March 24, 1998; Jonesboro, Arkansas. Children aged 11 and 13 pulled a fire alarm and then shot other middle school students from nearby woods as the students left the school building. They killed four girls and a teacher, and they wounded 10 other students.

        5) May 21, 1998. Springfield, Oregon. Kip Kinkel, a 17-year-old high school student, kills his parents and then turns his gun toward his fellow high school students. Kinkel kills two students and injures 20.

        6) April 20, 1999. Littleton, Colorado. Columbine High School becomes forever famous as 18-year-old Eric Harris and 17-year-old Dylan Klebold kill 12 students and one teacher. They also wound 23 people before killing themselves.

        7) January 15, 2002. New York, New York. An 18-year-old student opens fire at Martin Luther King High School in Manhattan and seriously hurts two students.

        8) March 21, 2005; Red Lake Indian Reservation, Minnesota. A high school student kills nine other students and then himself. Seven people are injured.

        9) August 30, 2006. Hillsborough, North Carolina. A high school student kills his father and then injures two students when he opens fire at his high school. Guns and bombs are found in his car. It is later discovered that the student had e-mailed Columbine High School’s principal telling him that it was time for the world to remember what happened at Columbine.

        10) October 2, 2006. Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania. A man goes into an Amish schoolhouse and shoots the female students inside. He kills five and seriously injures six before killing himself.

        11) Dressed in black fatigues and a military vest, a heavily armed man walked into a Connecticut elementary school Friday and opened fire, shattering the quiet of this southern New England town and leaving the nation reeling at the number of young lives lost. Within minutes, 26 people were dead at Sandy Hook Elementary School — 20 of them children. Among the six adults killed were Dawn Hochsprung, the school’s beloved principal, and school psychologist Mary Sherlach.

        Jeremy: One way to stop that is a contingency plan. This can involve having an armed officer on school premises at all times. The purpose of this can be both to deal with potential problems from students bringing guns on to campus but also in the eventuality of a shooting. Also there needs to be drills to prepare for shootings. Things like locking doors and staying away from windows need to be practiced and practiced.

        So you agree. There should be armed personnel on school properties.

        Jeremy: I never said do not fear them. I just meant to say that we need to keep fear in perspective and treat the threat appropriately. Plans involving trained officers on campus for the purpose of preventing violence combined with proper planning for dealing with a shooter situation and finally throw in teachers trained in martial arts as well as armed with pepper spray or mace or stun guns or even tear gas if we feel concerned I believe is sufficient considering the likelihood of a school shooting. Often these shootings are committed by lone individuals. If you can even disorient him for a few seconds it can by precious time to either get children to safety, escape yourself or take the guy down. You make someone very powerful even without giving them a gun.

        Armed with a gun dispels all doubts as to one’s perception of power. It is also refereed to as; an even-level-playing-field.

        Jeremy: It would depend on the situation. I am sure a police officer would see my statement as naive. Though I would point out my statement was not directed towards law enforcement officers who are trained to hunt down criminals and have knowledge of both hand to hand combat as well as having a small arsenal with them besides guns. I consider the average person to not need to live in fear of not having a gun.

        Why would you consider the average person should be dis-armed(no gun)but allow exception for a police officers. Don’t they both live in the same community? If the police officer living in the community as the average person feels the need to carry, and does, why not the average person?

        Jeremy: Especially if they have martial arts training and have a knife or stun gun with them.

        Again, it would depend on the situation. But since you cannot predict what that situation will be, it seems more then reasonable to be adequately prepared. Which means one should always “carry”!

        Jeremy: Indeed I have not. I do not think such an event would change my attitude.

        Famous last word. Until you you do, you should withhold your review which is based on zero experience!

        Jeremy: Since I have never suggested people should not be allowed to carry weapons as personal protection. I was just suggesting alternatives to carrying weapons.

        Don’t you mean “additions” to carrying a gun? Btw, those alternatives you speak of are considered weapons.

        Jeremy: The area where I would like it to be required that you cannot carry a weapon is
        school.

        Precisely the place where they are needed most!

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        ” Self defense martial art training is one way to go. Pepper spray, mac, tasers and stun guns are also options. Even knifes can be carried around for personal protection.”

        Poor substitues
        http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/05/11/self-defense-tools-guns-vs-tasers-vs-pepper-spray/

        Jeremy Leochner: “Not having a gun does not make one powerless.”

        Tell that to Dawn Hocksprung, Anne Marie Murphy, Lauren Russeau, Mary Sherlach and Victoria Soto. They all used non-gun defense techniques. Oh wait. You can’t. They’re DEAD.

        Jeremy Leochner: “We cannot live our lives in fear of others.”

        We don’t. Nor, unlike many liberals, do we live in fear of inanimate objects.

        Jeremy Leochner: “Nor can we live our lives in fear of not having guns with us.”

        We do not live in fear of not having guns with us. We ARE concerned that we will spend time in jail for exercising our God given right to self-defense with the BEST tool for the job.

        (If none of you recognize the names above but know the name “Adam Lanza” don’t feel overly upset with yourself. The MSM has gone out of its way to post the killers name as often as possible.)

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        “1: ….I just do not believe a school is a place to be armed with a gun.”

        Recent events however show the wisdom of your belief to be suspect.

        Jeremy Leochner: “2: Your right. The problem is I don’t think one should live their lives preparing for a psychopath to come at them with a gun. ”

        We don’t It’s just another thing to add to our array of martial arts.

        Jeremy Leochner: “I would be much more concerned about a hoody with a knife.”

        Before or after you have stopped him ~20 feet away?

        Jeremy Leochner: “3: …..Second there was no way for any of those teachers to know such a thing was going to happen.”

        Teachers don’t know when a fire is going to happen but they still prepare for it. As do firefighters.
        http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2012/12/19/active-shooters-in-schools-the-enemy-is-denial/

        Jeremy Leochner: “And I cannot imagine the teachers being armed would have stopped the gunman from trying. Indeed it probably would have stopped it. However the chances of a school shooting are what. I do not know. Of the schools in the country which one will suffer it. And of all the possible disasters to befall a school which is the least likely. In my opinion a school shooting. At least a school shooting in the form of a lone gunman trying to massacre innocents.”

        With only about 68 school shootings since 1982 you are quite correct. Yet the gun grabbers are out in force to outlaw (scary) guns. Why btw are you so much in favor of more gun laws since by your own admission the problem is “rare”.

        Jeremy Leochner: “Also there needs to be drills to prepare for shootings. Things like locking doors and staying away from windows need to be practiced and practiced.”

        So you do agree with the article in the oathkeepers. Good.

        Jeremy Leochner: “4: ……Plans involving trained officers on campus for the purpose of preventing violence combined with proper planning for dealing with a shooter situation and finally throw in teachers trained in martial arts as well as armed with pepper spray or mace or stun guns or even tear gas if we feel concerned I believe is sufficient considering the likelihood of a school shooting.

        So you continue to deny the teachers the best tool for self, family and community defense. But we are making progress since you are allowing SOME adults to possess guns on school property.

        Jeremy Leochner: “Often these shootings are committed by lone individuals. If you can even disorient him for a few seconds it can by precious time to either get children to safety, escape yourself or take the guy down. You make someone very powerful even without giving them a gun.”

        And you can make someone be even MORE powerful and effective by equipping them with the best tool for self, family and community defense.

        Jeremy Leochner: “6: Indeed I have not. I do not think such an event would change my attitude. Since I have never suggested people should not be allowed to carry weapons as personal protection. I was just suggesting alternatives to carrying weapons. The area where I would like it to be required that you cannot carry a weapon is school.”

        And we see how well that works out.

  • http://www.yahoo.com Mary

    Gun control won’t stop the killimg of people, sick people will find a way to get a firearm, and use it for destruction, it is a good idea to take mental capacity test, before buying any firearm, but that the buyer that passes the exam needs to know how to take care of the firearm(s), by signing a document that he/she is held responsible for what ever happens from then on.

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

      The only problem with your recommendation, Mary, is that criminals will not follow it. Do you honestly think that criminals will submit to a psyche-test, much less, register their weapons. Where do you think they get their weapons from, Wall-Mart? Criminals obtain their weapons from the black-market. Do you think the black-market will demand a criminal to under-go a psyche-evaluation? You appear to be extremely naive, Mary. By that i mean, inexperienced.

    • Vicki

      Mary says:
      “Gun control won’t stop the killimg of people, sick people will find a way to get a firearm, and use it for destruction,”

      True but how do you expect to protect the rest of us? By denying our right to self-defense?

      Mary: ” it is a good idea to take mental capacity test, before buying any firearm, but that the buyer that passes the exam needs to know how to take care of the firearm(s),”

      Can we have that same rule for the “right to privacy”? How about the “right to vote”?

      They are all rights are they not? Should they not all be treated equally?

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    MODERN LEADERS’ THOUGHTS ON GUN CONTROL:

    Mohandas K. Gandhi: “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.” Mohandas K. Gandhi, Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Chapter XXVII, Recruiting Campaign, Page 403, Dover paperback edition, 1983.

    Admiral Yamamoto: “You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” Advising Japan’s military leaders of the futility of an invasion of the mainland United States because of the widespread availability of guns. It has been theorized that this was a major contributing factor in Japan’s decision not to land on North America early in the war when they had vastly superior military strength. This delay gave our industrial infrastructure time to gear up for the conflict and was decisive in our later victory.

    Benito Mussolini: “The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. … They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.” (address to the Italian Senate, 1931)
    Charles Shumer: (US Congress, has sworn an oath to defend the US Constitution) “All we ask for is registration, just like we do for cars.” (Press conference, 1993, exact date being sought)

    Adolf Hitler: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.” Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens.

    Mao Tse Tung: “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” (Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in “Selected Works of Mao Zedong,” 1965)

    Senator Orrin Hatch: “If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying–that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976–establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime.” Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Committee Print I-IX, 1-23 (1982).

    The Dalai Lama: “If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

    Israeli Police Inspector General Shlomo Aharonisky: “There’s no question that weapons in the hands of the public have prevented acts of terror or stopped them.”

    President Theodore Roosevelt: “The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world… The first step – in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come – is to teach men to shoot!” – President Theodore Roosevelt’s last message to Congress.

    Louisiana Governor Mike Foster: “Most people don’t ever want to use a gun to protect themselves — that’s the last thing they want to do — but if you know how and you have a situation with some fruitcake running around, like they’ve got right now, it sure can save you a lot of grief.”

    U.S. Sen. Malcolm Wallop: “The ruling class doesn’t care about public safety. Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake.” – former U.S. Sen. Malcolm Wallop (R-Wy.)

    Paul Hager: “One of the arguments that had been made against gun control was that an armed citizenry was the final bulwark against tyranny. My response had been that untrained, lightly-armed non-soldiers couldn’t prevail against a modern army. I had concluded that the qualitative difference in firepower was such that all of the previous rules of guerilla war no longer applied. Both Vietnam and Afghanistan demonstrated that wasn’t true. Repelling an armed invasion is not something that American citizens are likely to face, but the possibility of a despotic government coming to power is not wholly unthinkable. One of the sequellae of Vietnam was the rise of the Khmer Rouge and slaughter of perhaps a million Cambodian citizens. Those citizens, like the Jews in Germany or the Armenians in Turkey, were unarmed and thus utterly and completely defenseless against police and paramilitary. An armed minority was able to kill and terrorize unarmed victims with total impunity.” – Paul Hagar, “Why I Carry”

    Daniel Schmutter: “The tragic history of civilian disarmament cries a warning against any systematic attempts to render innocent citizens ill-equipped to defend themselves from tyrant terrorists, despots or oppressive majorities,” Daniel Schmutter, lawyer for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

    Jeff Cooper: “Hoplophobia is a mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them.” Jeff Cooper, To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth

    Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe.” (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

    Noah Webster: “The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops” (Noah Webster, 1787)

    William Pitt: “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” (Nov. 18, 1783)

    Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

    Patrick Henry: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”

    Thomas Paine: “…arms…discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. …Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them.”

    http://www.sightm1911.com/Care/Gun_Quotes.htm

  • Zeropoint123

    It’s a typical reaction of these people to start blaming the NRA, I guess maybe its easier and quicker in their minds that total gun control equates to a total finite solution. I think not… There’s always homemade bombs, knifes scissors etc… And oh don’t forget box cutters… The list is endless of things that could be used to kill someone. Why did he do it? Thousands of guesses. Lets look at another possibility…. Video games… There are some unbelievably violent games out there… And I know how kids play video games for hours on end… Can they tell the difference between reality and fiction anymore? Who’s controlling the video games ? No one is !!! Another possibility … Mental illness… There is an enormous amount of children and adults with serious issues … Why? Could be hereditary issues, or chemical imbalances due to a multitude of reasons… Food, environment and God knows what… I think we should spend more time and energy into learning about the human mind or the lack of it .

    • Vicki

      Mental illness is not a new phenomenon. The writers of the 2nd Amendment knew full well that when they said “the people” they meant everyone. They had multiple overlapping solutions to mad men with guns.

  • Kate8

    This is the sixth time I’ve tried to make this post. I tried to include a link.

    I can only conclude that someone is blocking it. So this time I shall omit the link.

    • Vicki

      There are some wierd links that will not get into the blog. try subdividing the link with spaces or dashes or some-such. That is how I have gotten some links into a post.

      Alternatively send the link by email to Bob so he can investigate

  • Kate8

    Aha! I tried again…time 7, to post a link, and it was, again, blocked.

    It would seem that I am being blocked in real time. How strange. Someone finds me worth monitoring.

    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

      Are you posting links along with your comments, Kate? If so, i suspect some websites may be flagged.

  • http://cunnanm@gmail.com cunnanm

    Again I think! The only thing I’ve killed is a Mike’s Hard Lemonade can! I’ve killed more deer with my car than most hunters ever get! I want an AR-15 because I want one! I’ve not been convicted as a criminal! I protect my guns at home. My son won’t even touch them as he knows that he needs my assistance! I’m 46 and never owned a gun until this year! I did join the NRA this year and I am a teacher in my Demo driven Union. I have studied our history and the 2nd amendment! People claim weapons of the era as what they meant, but do you people really expect that they were not expecting guns to stay as muskets? I think they where smarter than that! They were founding fathers! Yes that was long ago, but I think they expected further advancements. Guns have come a long way! They protect us from ourselfes! I would love to protect my school from a crazy, but I’ll just have to wait and take what I’m given!

  • Barry

    eddie47d in response to your statement ” there is a difference in self defence and inflicting mass casualties.A single shot or two is plenty and doesn’t leave other people vulnerable.” IF a single shot or two is plenty then why did most police depts switch years ago from “6 shooter 38 Cal pistols” to 16 shot Glock 9mm or 40 Cal semi autos ? Because they learned that 6 shots against one, let alone two or three coked up thugs even though they are unarmed means that Officer will not be going home to his family ever again.

  • http://www.the-blades-edge.com/catalog/productInfo/cpath/Fantasy%2BKnives--Collectibles%2Band%2Bgifts/pagenumber/1/norec/24/totalrecords/17/spid/T830/sprid/KPL371 [pocket knives for sale], [best pocket knife], [tactical knives for sale], [cold steel knives], Browning, [gerber knife], [spyderco knives]

    Heya i am for the primary time here. I came across this board and I to find It truly useful & it helped me out much. I am hoping to offer one thing again and aid others like you helped me.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.