Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

The Lies That Gun Grabbers Tell

March 5, 2013 by  

The Lies That Gun Grabbers Tell
PHOTOS.COM

When a group or organization seeks to establish any social policy, it helps tremendously if that group remains honest in their endeavor. If its members are forced to lie, tell half-truths or use manipulative tactics in order to fool the masses into accepting its initiative, then the initiative at its very core is not worth consideration. Propaganda is not simply political rhetoric or editorial fervor; it is the art of deceiving people into adopting the ideology you want them to espouse. It is not about convincing people of the truth; it is about convincing people that fallacy is truth.

Nothing embodies this disturbing reality of cultural dialogue more than the ill-conceived movement toward gun control in America.

It isn’t that gun control proponents are impossible to talk to in a rational manner; most gun control activists have an almost fanatical cult-like inability to listen to reason. It isn’t that they are so desperate to paint themselves as “intellectually superior” to 2nd Amendment advocates; intellectual idiocy is a plague upon many ideological groups. What really strikes me as astonishing is the vast and embarrassing lengths to which gun grabbers in particular will go to in order to deny facts and obfuscate history.

I have seen jaw-dropping acts of journalistic debauchery and blatant disregard for reality since the gun debate exploded in the wake of Sandy Hook. I have seen past precedents rewritten in order to falsely diminish gun rights arguments. I have seen dishonest and volatile tactics used to misdirect discussion and attack the character, rather than the position, of those who defend the 2nd Amendment. I have seen gun grabbers use unbelievable acts of deception that border on clinically sociopathic in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

A perfect example has been the assertion by gun control proponents that despotic regimes do not disarm their populations before committing genocide. This primarily stems from the rationalization that the Third Reich did not exactly introduce gun control measures, rather it used measures that were already in existence. Gun grabbers are willing to cherry pick historical references in defense of Adolf Hitler in order to get their way. Sadly, they seem to forget that Hitler’s gun control policies of 1938 disarmed the Jewish people as his “Final Solution” was being implemented. Apparently, gun grabbers do not count the Jews as German citizens victimized by disarmament.

The Nazis did deregulate some firearms as gun grabbers argue, but what they don’t mention is that this deregulation was designed to benefit only those citizens who proved to be loyal to the Nazi Party. Hitler was happy to arm those who swore fealty to the Reich.

In one of the latest instances of gun grabber duplicity and disinformation, I came across an opinion piece by Henry Blodget, the CEO and editor-in-chief of Business Insider and a regular on Yahoo’s “Daily Ticker,” entitled “Finally A Gun Is Used To Stop A Crime Instead Of Killing Innocent People.”

Blodget is primarily an economic analyst, as I am, and is not exactly an unintelligent louse. He is well aware of the proper methods of research and how to present a debate point with tangible evidence. He should know better than to publish a piece with so many inconsistencies and broken pretenses. However, it presents an important opportunity to examine the cognitive dissonance of media gun grabbers and their attempts to influence the populace.

Blodget is asserting that private firearms ownership is not a practical means of self-defense, that instances of self-defense are rare and that this view diminishes the “need” for 2nd Amendment protections. He goes on to proclaim:

In practice, unfortunately, the guns that good guys own to protect themselves from bad guys too often end up killing the good guys’ kids or wives or the good guys themselves (either via suicide, accident, or, in some cases, because they’re grabbed by the bad guys and used against the good guys). Or, as in the case of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, the guns kill people who the good guys think are bad guys but who aren’t actually bad guys.

Blodget never actually qualifies any of the notions contained in this statement. He never provides any statistics on wives and children of good guys being shot. Also, I was not aware that the Trayvon Martin case had already been decided and that Trayvon was found not to be the aggressor. Does Blodget have a crystal ball? Blodget starts off his anti-gun tirade very badly with several unqualified statements that he never answers for. This is highly common among gun grabbers; they feel so righteous in their cause that they spout baseless conclusions in the presumption that their audience will never question their logic.

Blodget then focuses on a single event as an example of the “rarity” of successful gun defense. This instance involved the death of a teen who held a gun on a reserve police officer who was basketball coach. The coach pulled his own personal weapon and fired in defense. Blodget uses some strategic omissions in his description of the event. For instance, he fails to mention that the coach was 70 years old, and that perhaps owning a gun was indeed his only practical means of protecting himself and his players against two young thugs, one of whom obtained a firearm illegally (as most criminals do. According to the FBI, only 8 percent of guns used in a crime are purchased legally at a gun store).

Blodget also uses the smiling image of one of the attackers at the top of his article, as if we should feel sorry for him. Perhaps I’m just coldhearted, but the death of a violent offender at the hands of his intended victim does not bring a tear to my eye.

Blodget then makes these three points:

First, and most importantly, the gun used for protection in this case would be perfectly legal under the proposed new gun-control laws. The proposed laws ban military-grade assault weapons and massive ammo clips, not handguns. And assuming the coach did not have a criminal record, he would still be a legal gun owner.

The bottom line is that no mainstream politician in the current gun control debate is talking about banning the kind of gun used in this incident.

To which proposed gun law is Blodget referring? Many gun grabbers are suggesting that the New York SAFE Act model be applied nationwide. The SAFE Act makes any weapon that can hold magazines of more than seven rounds illegal. Some lawmakers, like Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), have openly suggested a total ban of all firearms that includes confiscation. So, depending on which laws are passed, the coach may not have survived the attack unless, like the criminal, he obtained a weapon illegally.

Second, the coach was a trained police officer. He knew very well how to carry, handle, and use his handgun. And the fact that he used it effectively under the extreme shock and pressure of being robbed at gunpoint shows how well trained he was.

The coach was a reserve police officer, but this is irrelevant to the incident. Aspiring police officers qualify in the firearms segment of their training using a mere 50 to 60 rounds during scenarios that are taught in even the most rudimentary civilian courses, which often use hundreds of rounds during qualifications. Police officers do not get magical training. In fact, many officers are forced to attend civilian-run training facilities in order to get more time and more complex experience. Civilian combat weapons enthusiasts are often far better prepared for a violent situation than the average law enforcement official.

The reason Blodget fixates on the police status of the victim is because, like most gun grabbers, he is a statist. In his mind, a designated state official is given credence by the government and is, therefore, somehow a superhero with amazing gun-wielding powers that us poor civilian mortals could never hope to master. This naïve sentiment is displayed by many a gun grabber who has never actually owned or fired a gun in his life.

Third, this incident could easily have turned out differently–as many similar incidents do. If the coach had been a bit slower or clumsier in pulling his own gun, the attackers could have shot and killed all three of the victims before they had a chance to defend themselves. (In the wild west, when everyone carried guns, it wasn’t always the bad guys that got shot.)

Yes, and a comet could fall from the sky and roast the Earth. Hypothetically, anything could go wrong at any moment, yet, thousands of Americans defend themselves each year with a firearm without killing innocent bystanders or being too slow or clumsy on the draw. Why should gun owners abandon their rights just because some people cannot control their personal fears?

Finally, how much better are an unarmed victim’s chances of survival? Is Blodget really trying to insinuate being armed does not increase a victim’s ability to defend himself unless he happens to be a cop on a government salary? If faced with a gun- or knife-wielding attacker who threatened him or his family, would Blodget turn down the use of a firearm if available? Would he try to shoot the perpetrator, or would he fall to his knees and beg for mercy?

The only tangible evidence that Blodget uses to buttress his opinion that self-defense is not a viable argument for gun ownership is a single FBI statistic on justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide is a gray area of law, and the number of instances recorded by the FBI in no way reflects the actual frequency in which guns are used in self-defense.

By using this one statistic, Blodget knowingly disregards the fact that many gun defense situations do not end in the death of the attacker. He also disregards the number of criminals who run at the sight of an armed target, as well as the number of crimes that are prevented completely because the criminal is not certain whether his targets are armed.

Most police departments do not keep accurate records of attempted crimes which were thwarted by armed citizens. The only sources of such statistics are surveys held by various organizations and institutions. Blodget quickly dismisses the widely disseminated survey by criminology professor Gary Kleck, which shows that there are far more instances of guns used to thwart crime than guns used to perpetrate crime. Blodget claims that the study is “old and highly flawed.” The study was held in 1994 (hardly ages ago).

Vehement gun control advocate and criminologist Marvin Wolfgang made this comment on Kleck’s study:

What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.

He went on to say that a conflicting National Crime Victimization Survey did not contradict the Kleck study:

I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well. … The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the universe are common criticisms of all survey research, including theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism methodologically.

Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year. This is a conservative estimate compared to Kleck’s 2.5 million, but it is still a far larger number than the amount of annual homicides by gun. The argument that gun murders outweigh gun defense is a defective one. Blodget knows it, which is why he carefully dances his way around so many viable pieces of evidence. He is not interested in the facts, only promoting his own twisted worldview.

Violent crimes (assault, burglary, rape, etc.) have skyrocketed in countries like the U.K. and Australia where stringent gun control has been enacted, simply because criminals know that because of government controls the odds of running into an armed victim are slim. Gun grabbers like Blodget do not care about this, though. They are not actually interested in saving lives. What they are interested in is imposing their ideologies on the rest of us.

The most enticing motive for them is not their hatred of guns per say, but their hatred of gun culture. Being worshippers of the establishment, they do not like our defiance of socialization, collectivism and the corrupt state in general. They do not like our methodologies of decentralization and independence. They do not like that we have the ability to destroy their skewed arguments with ease. And they do not like that we have the physical capability of denying their pursuit of power. Gun control is not a war on guns; it is a war on traditionally conservative Americans, our heritage, our beliefs and our principles. It is a war the gun grabbers will lose.

–Brandon Smith

Brandon Smith

is the founder of the Alternative Market Project, an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for barter and mutual aid. Join Alt-Market.com today and learn what it means to step away from the unstable mainstream system and build something better. You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “The Lies That Gun Grabbers Tell”

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

  • CZ52

    Very well stated Mr Smith.

    • gunner689AI

      ignore any unConstitutional Laws thes communists try to pass. If they try to grap your guns let them grab the barrel first and then pull the trigger. It’s time for another revolution in this country and to thin the herd on the liberals. Look at Colorado. Herds of Calif. libs moved into the State to avoid crime and high taxes. They wormed their way into local politics and have over the past 20 yrs. became a majority in power. Unfortunately they brought their Calif. ways with them. Thin the herd.

  • Vicki

    Brandon Smith writes:
    ” What really strikes me as astonishing is the vast and embarrassing lengths to which gun grabbers in particular will go to in order to deny facts and obfuscate history.”

    One of the most obvious examples is how the gun grabbers reacted to this fact that I posted a few weeks ago

    ~300 MILLION Americans didn’t shoot anyone. ( last week, last year, … )

    It is a trivial thing to prove the above statistic.

    Not one of the gun grabber statistics you brought up can stand against the simple fact that

    ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

    STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few.

    STOP IT
    STOP IT NOW.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      I’m not a “gun grabber” by any means, Vicki, but I DID “react” to youR mindless and repeated bludgeoning of everyone on PLD with the evasivatory, obfuscatory, and distractory “~300 MILLION AMERICANS” horsepucky.

      It’s a trivial use of a meaningless statistic. Try as you might, you can never obliterate the fact that “X” number of Americans————

      ARE KILLED-WOUNDED-MAINED-TRAUMATIZED-INJURED-CRIPPLED-MADE ORPHANS-WIDOWED EACH AND EVERY DAY

      ————in this country, and guns are involved!.

      STOP EVADING THE ISSUE
      STOP BLUDGEONING US WITH MINDLESS PROPAGANDA

      STOP IT
      STOP IT NOW

      • Dennis

        Planned Parenthood reported a record number of abortions in 2012 as America’s largest abortion provider performed a record 333,964 abortions by year’s end which pushed Planned Parenthood’s three year total to 995,687 abortions according to its annual report.

        It is estimated that since Roe-Wade became the law of the land in the early 1970s, over 55 million abortions have been performed in the United States.

        Although President Barack Obama signed an executive order in 2010 promising not to fund abortions with federal tax dollars, Planned Parenthood reported a record $542 million dollars in taxpayer funding.

        STOP IT

        STOP IT NOW.

      • Karolyn

        No Federal money is budgeted for abortion. It’s time you people look at all the good Planned Parenthood does. If it were not for PP, many women would not be able to get routine exams and birth control counseling.

      • Dennis

        Planned Parenthood reported a record $542 million dollars in taxpayer funding.

        PP Supports Murder, an from the sounds of it so do you.

      • Dennis

        To Karolyn,

        America is becoming desensitized to the horror of abortion. With all of the violence on TV, movies and video games, they are numb to pain inflicted on a child in the womb when they have their limbs ripped from their tiny bodies. Popping the amniotic sac and emptying out its contents to them is no difference than popping a balloon and emptying out its contents.

        Surely our time of judgment as a nation is coming, and perhaps it’s already here. God gives nations rulers that they deserve and since America has murdered nearly 60 million unborn children, Obama could be just what He wants us to have as part of His judgment. And I’m sure that judgment includes the fall and collapse of America as we knew it, all because we turned away from God and embraced a hedonistic religion that thrives on the blood sacrifices of unborn children.

        Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/03/kill-that-baby-abortion-game/#ixzz2MgCoo0iC

      • Karolyn

        Dennis – Better that the spirits of these unborn humans be set free than to be born into poverty, crime and abuse. I believe in reincarnation. There is nothing wrong with death; it’s just another journey.

      • angelwannabe

        Karolyn, If PP only did routine exams I could go with it, but abortions NO, and tell me why again one needs birth control counseling?__One would think its fairly simple if your old enough to have sex, there is plenty of birth control on the market to protect yourself, the cheapest being condoms__One just has to purchase them and use them.

      • anon

        Karolyn
        I call horse puckey on youif the federal government would stipulate that it be for only PREVENTATIVE medicine, mammagrams and yearly papsmears then maybe I could see them being funded BUT they kill far more Humans than Guns do!!!!!
        I would think you would want the Government to stay OUT of your vagina! !!!!

      • Vicki

        Karolyn says:
        “Dennis – Better that the spirits of these unborn humans be set free than to be born into poverty, crime and abuse. I believe in reincarnation. There is nothing wrong with death; it’s just another journey.”

        So you are advocating the murder of the poor now? A lot of governments helped their poor in the last century the way you are suggesting. How elite of you.

        On the plus side Karolyn did acknoledge that unborn children are living beings.

      • john u

        you state facts i have some 1% deaths are by ar15s their are more deaths are

        commit by handed guns and even more murders are commit by clubs and knifes and

        fists more people die in the bath tubs and accidents in the home here is another

        fact the government knows that plastics when heated by the sun or any other method

        of heating give off a know carcinogen that gives people cancer that kills

        thousands… they knew this since 1950s people started lawsuits the government

        step in because plastics is in every facet of are lives already and this was their

        opinion….. the government finds that there is risk in all we do in life we find

        that the benefit of plastic out weighs the risk… you cannot remove all risk from

        life….. they said this with many chemical in are food to increase shelf life

        …..so the government expects collateral damage they expect people will die…..

        where is your outrage why dont you tell the children in saint Jude hospital that

        the president thinks that drinking a coke in plastic bottle and tuba wear is more

        important than their life i feel the same as the government there is risk in all

        we do i find the benefit of having a ar 15 out weighs the risk ( 1% )of not having

        one there will be collateral damage that i am very very sorry for ..the benefit

        there will be lives saved…….. but in life their are many risks you cannot

        remove them all you may walk across a street get hit by a bus you cannot remove

        all risk life with every products in the world 1% is minimal

    • Vicki

      Right Brain Thinker doesn’t and says:
      “I’m not a “gun grabber” by any means, Vicki, but I DID “react” to youR mindless and repeated bludgeoning of everyone on PLD with the evasivatory, obfuscatory, and distractory “~300 MILLION AMERICANS” horsepucky.”

      Why thank you RBT for so clearly demonstrating Brian Smith’s point. Well done.

      - RBT: “It’s a trivial use of a meaningless statistic. Try as you might, you can never obliterate the fact that “X” number of Americans————
      (snip)
      ————in this country, and guns are involved!.”

      To quote from a tv show from long ago
      “Would it make you feel any better if they were pushed out of windows?”
      The very fact that you focus so intently on one of the tools/methods inwhich people are killed-wounded… further demonstrates Brians point. Or that you have a rather specific agenda.

      It is interesting to note that you didn’t include in your list the ~2.5 MILLION (look, a real number) times a year peope defend themselves from (usually 2 legged) preditors….and GUNS are involved.

      It is also interesting to note that you consider X to be a useful statistical number while declaring that an actual number (~300 Million Americans”) to be meaningless.

      - RBT: “STOP EVADING THE ISSUE”

      What issue is that RBT?

      The issue that ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T Shoot ANYONE?

      The issue that we must STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a VERY few?

      - RBT: “STOP IT
      - RBT: “STOP IT NOW

      Thanks for completing the statement RBT :)

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Vicki continues to evade, divert, and obfuscate with her beloved and shopworn “~300 MILLION” horsepucky. So easy to just keep repeating it, so mindless.

        And now she brings up pushing people out of windows! LOL Where is Steph suggesting that we ban water because people drown in it? And cars!—-don’t forget that we need to ban them too because…… And baseball bats!—-yes, and——all those “other” things we bring up rather than face the simple fact that GUNS are a contributing factor in much “hurt” and are a special category of things that we need to talk about honestly.

        My SPECIFIC agenda is to point out that VIcki is a propagandist (probably paid by the NRA) who abuses everyone’s intelligence and good will with her bludgeoning use of “~300″ rather than dealing with GUNS in an honest manner.

        She shoots herself in the foot when she says “It is also interesting to note that you consider X to be a useful statistical number while declaring that an actual number (~300 Million Americans”) to be meaningless”. Perhaps I was too subtle for someone who mostly reads and parrots from the NRA Shill Handbook, but that’s my EXACT point—-X or ~300 or 27-1/3, it’s all meaningless unless one looks at the numbers of people who are provably HARMED, not the PFTA #’s who “didn’t” or “weren’t” whatever.

        At least she quoted this correctly, and it bears repeating:

        STOP EVADING THE ISSUE, VICKI”

        STOP IT, VICKI

        STOP IT NOW

      • angelwannabe

        RBT___Rules for Radicals____Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.Rules for Radicals

        “Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”

        Your not the best student of Alinsky doctrine I’ve seen, problem is most of us on here know your methods___but I’ll give ya about a c-
        Have a nice day! :)

      • Vicki

        Right Brain Thinker doesn’t and says:
        “Perhaps I was too subtle for someone who mostly reads and parrots from the NRA Shill Handbook, but that’s my EXACT point—-X or ~300 or 27-1/3, it’s all meaningless unless one looks at the numbers of people who are provably HARMED, not the PFTA #’s who “didn’t” or “weren’t” whatever.”

        Since you FAILED to actually provide those numbers we are left with X. How about you provide those numbers and lets see how well your position holds up shall we?

        - RBT: “At least she quoted this correctly, and it bears repeating:

        STOP EVADING THE ISSUE, VICKI”

        STOP IT, VICKI

        STOP IT NOW”

        Why thank you RBT. Imitation is said to be the best form of flattery.

      • Vicki

        angelwannabe says (to RBT):
        “Your not the best student of Alinsky doctrine I’ve seen, problem is most of us on here know your methods___but I’ll give ya about a c-
        Have a nice day! :)

        I also notice he consistently fails to answer questions like what issue he things I am evading :). Eddie47d is good at that too.

        Hmmmmm….. You don’t suppose??

      • angelwannabe

        Vicki__”you said you don’t suppose?”___Could be, but only Bob Livingston or an admin would know for sure…… :)

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Vicki continues to evade, divert, and obfuscate with her beloved and shopworn “~300 MILLION” mantra. So easy to just keep repeating it, so mindless, so futile.

        She continues to evade addressing the simple fact that GUNS are a contributing factor in much “hurt” and are a special category of things that we need to talk about honestly.

        VIcki is a propagandist (probably paid by the NRA) who abuses everyone’s intelligence and good will with her bludgeoning use of “~300″ rather than dealing with GUNS in an honest manner.

        And now UKNOWHO nails Vicki’s twinkly little toes to the floor with some more FACTS to examine—-how does she respond? With more evasion, obfuscation, and diversion of course, crowned with the ever stupid and meaningless ” ~300″ horsepucky.

        STOP EVADING THE ISSUE, VICKI”

        STOP IT, VICKI

        STOP IT NOW

        And the junior varsity checks in to “support” Vicki. JeffyH says nothing of significance, but DOES muddy the waters a small bit—-that’s all he’s good for. Angel chips in with the obligatory Alinsky reference, thinking that’s a “point” she has scored. Angel may not even know that William F. Buckley and many other conservatives of his time thought Alinsky was a genius and used his tactics to build the pile of Repugnant horsepucky in the 70′s and 80′s that has come down to haunt us today. But what does Angel know?—-she’s just a parrot reading from a script.

        And the eddie47d reference? So cute—-so transparent—–so weak.

        And has anyone noticed that Vicki consistently fails to address the issue that so many of us have clearly stated for her so many times in so many ways? Oh, I’m sorry—-I forgot:

        ~300 AMERICANS (BLAH BLAH BLAH GAG UPCHUCK)

        STOP EVADING THE ISSUE BY SAYING i’M THE ONE WHO IS EVADING THE ISSUE, VICKI

        STOP IT

        STOP IT NOW

      • angelwannabe

        Oh RBT, [comment has been edited]

        Rules for Radicals___Rule 8_: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

        good job toodles!!!! lol

      • eddie47d

        Angel and Vicki are the tag team “toodies” today. LOL!

      • Right Brain Thinker

        When confronted with the thought that REPUBLICANS and CONSERVATIVES thought the world of Alinsky’s teachings and used them extensively in their rise from obscurity, angelwannabe’s little brain locks up, causing her to say a [comment has been edited].

        Let me lock up her brain once more by telling her that much more recently Dick Armey of FreedomWorks and Tea Party fame ALSO used Alinsky methods and praised them highly. Armey even PUT IT IN WRITING in his booka about his Rea Party “adventures”. But angel probably doesn’t read real books (beyond her Shills Handbook).

        It’s sad that her only comeback other than [comment has been edited] is another paste job from Rules for Radicals. I hope she’s not one of the higher paid shills—-if so, someone is wasting $$$.

      • Karolyn

        Vicki and Angel – Seriously? Two totally different writing styles and and points being made, as well as content. If you can’t tell the difference, that’s a lack of discernment.

      • Vicki

        Right Brain Thinker doesn’t and says:
        “Vicki continues to evade, divert, and obfuscate with her beloved and shopworn “~300 MILLION” mantra. So easy to just keep repeating it, so mindless, so futile.”

        Evade what? Its kinda hard to evade ~300 MILLION INNOCENT AMERICANS. They are all over. I even provided a subset for you know who. Here let me do it again.
        ——————————————————–
        AZ Population (2011) 6,482,505
        Murders 405 (that is all murders not just were tool = gun)
        http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/azcrime.htm

        That means that

        ~ 6 MILLION Americans who live in Arizona DIDN’T MURDER ANYONE

        STOP punishing the INNOCENT for the acts of a few
        —————————————————–

        - RBT: “She continues to evade addressing the simple fact that GUNS are a contributing factor in much “hurt” and are a special category of things that we need to talk about honestly.”

        Contributing factor? They are inanimate objects, not contributing factors.

        - RBT: “VIcki is a propagandist (probably paid by the NRA)” who abuses everyone’s intelligence and good will with her bludgeoning use of “~300″ rather than dealing with GUNS in an honest manner.”

        What could possibly be more honest than saying this self evident and easy to verify truth:

        ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT ANYONE recently nor last year nor…

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few.

        Stop it
        Stop it NOW.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Say Goodnight, Vicki

        Laugh In is over for tonight. (Unless you want to do more Goldy Hawn for us)

      • Vicki

        Right Brain Thinker says:
        “Say Goodnight, Vicki

        Laugh In is over for tonight. (Unless you want to do more Goldy Hawn for us)”

        Goodnight Vicki.

        Good night RBT. Be sure to tell all your friends that

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DIDN’T SHOOT ANYONE

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of the very few

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

        Many of them will appreciate hearing that they are not an irrelevant statistic.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Right Brain Thinker says:
        March 5, 2013 at 2:47 pm

        Vicki continues to evade, divert, and obfuscate with her beloved and shopworn “~300 MILLION” mantra. So easy to just keep repeating it, so mindless, so futile.

        VIcki is a propagandist (probably paid by the NRA) who abuses everyone’s intelligence and good will with her bludgeoning use of “~300″ rather than dealing with GUNS in an honest manner.

        STOP EVADING THE ISSUE, VICKI

        STOP IT, VICKI

        STOP IT NOW

        Everyone has noticed that Vicki consistently fails to address the issue that so many of us have clearly stated for her so many times in so many ways? Oh, I’m sorry—-I forgot. She DOES “address” it!——-by evading it!: She continues to evade addressing the simple fact that GUNS are a contributing factor in much “hurt” and are a special category of things that we need to talk about honestly.

        ~300 AMERICANS (BLAH BLAH BLAH GAG UPCHUCK GAG UPCHUCK)

        STOP EVADING THE ISSUE BY SAYING i’M THE ONE WHO IS EVADING THE ISSUE, VICKI

        STOP IT

        STOP IT NOW

  • http://personalliberty Alondra

    Do you want to know WHAT companies are fighting back against restrictive laws?

    Go here and see the list: http://www.thepoliceloophole.com/

    What is this list?
    This is a list of a 116 companies that are AGAINST gun control and have taken the step to publicly announce that THEY WILL NOT SELL ITEMS TO STATES, COUNTIES, CITIES, AND MUNICIPALITIES THAT RESTRICT THEIR CITIZENS RIGHTS TO OWN THEM; therefore closing the “police loophole” themselves.

    Add your company to the list.

    Please PASS IT ON to all your e-mail contacts. Thanks.

  • Harold Olsen

    No matter what the issue, the left is incapable of telling the truth. It is necessary for them to lie in order to get what they want. It’s why I’ve always said that truth is incompatible with liberalism. Unfortunately, there are too many gullible people around who will believe just about anything they are told, no matter how much proof to the contrary they are shown.

    • Brandon Smith

      This was an excellent article! Kudos to Smith. The Blodget article is a joke with little to no logic. Just random opinions with no facts to back them. It really is typical of the anti-gun people to ignore the statistics they don’t like and misrepresent the ones they do like. They lie about the stats because they have no leg to stand on.

      • Brandon Smith

        By the way, we share the same birth name, Brandon! Thanks again for the article!

      • Brandon M Smith

        Thanks, Brandon. I appreciate the kind words. There are a lot of us Smiths out there. I remember when I started writing for the movement using my real name. Some people claimed that my name was “obviously fake”, because who REALLY has the name “Smith”? It still makes me laugh to this day.

      • eddie47d

        Everyone knows there are many thousands of Smiths in this country. The phone books are filled with them so why would anyone deny that?

      • JeffH

        eddie, why are you so hatefull?

      • eddie47d

        Jeff H Why are you always in denial about everything that is said by those who don’t agree. Now that is real hate or don’t you know any Smith’s?

      • Brandon M Smith

        @Eddie

        Exactly. Why would anyone deny that? Yet, they have. Which is why I found it funny…

      • JeffH

        eddie, I’ll repeat it one more time…why are you so hatefull?

    • JeffH

      Raging Against Self Defense: A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality
      “You don’t need to have a gun; the police will protect you.”

      “If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games.”

      “I’m a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn’t own guns.”

      “I’d rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me.”

      How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect? How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought? One approach to help you deal with anti-gun people is to understand their psychological processes. Once you understand why these people behave so irrationally, you can communicate more effectively with them.

      Anti–gun groups love victims!

      Read the whole article here:
      http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

      • 45caliber

        “I’d rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me.”

        And if the person who says that was attacked they would be more than happy to have that redneck jump in on their side.

      • angelwannabe

        JeffH, ““You don’t need to have a gun; the police will protect you.”__I have heard this idiotic mentality used so much lately by the left, its ridiculous__If your comin’ in my house uninvited, breaking a window or knocking down my door __Then I’M THE FIRST RESPONDER, I’ll call 911 AFTER I’m secured__screw that!!!

      • eddie47d

        All you are proving Angel is that you are all paranoid loonies in fear of worst case scenarios instead of rational thought! You just admitted how much you live in fear of everything! There will be no armed thugs at your door tonight or tomorrow night. Be prepared all you want but it won’t happen. You come across as trigger happy and dangerous but I doubt if you’d notice or care.

      • JeffH

        eddie says to angel “All you are proving Angel is that you are all paranoid loonies in fear of worst case scenarios instead of rational thought! You just admitted how much you live in fear of everything! There will be no armed thugs at your door tonight or tomorrow night. Be prepared all you want but it won’t happen. You come across as trigger happy and dangerous but I doubt if you’d notice or care.”

        To think eddie’s got the nerve to say something like that, believe it…and then call someone else a loon?

        eddie, you’re most certainly not a psychic…no doubt, a pcycho would be more appropriate.

      • angelwannabe

        Your right eddie47d I could care less what you or anyone else thinks of me for that matter. If you think being trigger happy, and wanting to keep an inalienable right such as the second amendment for self preservation are one in the same, you need to seriously do some individual study, and learn how to do some critical thinking, instead of parroting your elite bosses talking points.

        You and your Ilk are something else eddie, really, you are. You and the other Liberal ladies on here and main stream media. Your all well organized sheep who have each others baaaaaa-cks, and wouldn’t how to be an individual, if your life depended on it__Your bred and fed a steady diet of collectivism, communism and brainwashed to believe its ‘all for the good of the people’. Hitlers bunch were the Brown shirts, you wear street clothes and blend in, but as soon as you open your mouth, your cover is blown. Whats sad is the brown shirts in Germany probably didn’t have a choice to join Hitler, you do have a choice and choose the commies anyway__just sad.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “All you are proving Angel is that you are all paranoid loonies in fear of worst case scenarios instead of rational thought!”

        Coming from someone who appears to be afraid of inanimate objects that is rather funny

  • Karolyn

    On the opposite side of the coin, public meetings are being held in SC about allowing everybody to carry a concealed weapon without a permit and without safety training. I think that’s going too far in the opposite direction.

    • Brandon M Smith

      Arizona, Vermont, and Alaska all have conceal and carry without a permit, and it doesn’t seem to be encouraging a massive crimewave in those states. Criminals are going to get weapons and carry them concealed whether it is legal or not. Why should law abiding citizens be restricted?

      • jopa

        Brandon Smith:I made a trip to Alaska several years ago and anything that comes on the tube about Alaska I like to watch.From what I see just about everyone in Alaska owns a gun if not dozens of guns and it does seem as though they have a very high rate of homicide with these guns.I remember two shows where one guy wipes out almost entire villages, others are drunk on their ass shooting anything and everything in sight and they also have the highest rates of suicide by gun in the fifty states.Alaska is a very bad example for the pro gun argument and I think you would be safer living amongst the grizzlies than you would your fellow man up there.But then again we have had Timothy Grizzly Turd Treadwell trying that and it didn’t work out so well for him.

      • Karolyn

        Yeah, Jopa. I watched a couple of episodes of Alaska State Troopers, and they have a really hard time with all the backwoods natives with guns. Also, Alaska is #1 in the country in rape. The crime rate is very high. Guns+darkness+lots of booze = High Crime.

      • cawmun cents

        The thing that kills me is that these folks who speak of the far northern Alaska like its a cold bad place,dont have to go any further north than Chicago,or Detroit,to find a much more critical level of violence,yet people just like them are running those places.
        Kind of ironoc isnt it?
        Cheers!
        -CC.

      • Karolyn

        Have you seen any of the reports, CC, about the crime rate in Chicago going down since they instituted gun buy-backs?

      • Uknowho

        AZ, has a higher gun murder rate than MA

        Just sayin….

      • phideaux

        “Yeah, Jopa. I watched a couple of episodes of Alaska State Troopers, and they have a really hard time with all the backwoods natives with guns.”

        If you had actualy paid attention to the programs you would have heard them mention that the long hours without sunlight affects many of the people adversely. You would have also seen that most of their interactions with , as you put it, “all the backwoods natives with guns” were quite peaceable and resolved with very few problems.

      • cawmun cents

        Karolyn,
        Trust that I dont take ten day spikes as true statistics,nor do I support the legislation that kills far more children than lunatics with “assault weapons”.
        The truth is that when you have a perceived control of an area of politics,people’s lives matter little to those controlling those political areas.
        They can feign philanthropy to me as much as I can watch on the television,or read on the newspaper,but I know their true intent,which centers around the word control.
        That is not subject to debate as it is an intregal part of their reasoning behind any suggestion they make.To control is to have sway over.I personally choose not to give them control of my rights.If you do,then that is your failure to be a free individual,not pertaining to me at all.I choose not to believe the statistics they trowel out so they can appear to be getting something done,when I know people who live there who tell me different.
        But what do I know?
        Apparently very little……
        Cheers!
        -CC.

      • Vicki

        Uknowho says:
        “AZ, has a higher gun murder rate than MA

        Just sayin….”

        AZ Population (2011) 6,482,505
        Murders 405 (that is all murders not just were tool = gun)
        http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/azcrime.htm

        That means that

        ~ 6 MILLION Americans who live in Arizona DIDN’T MURDER ANYONE

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few (~0.007%)

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

        Just sayin….

      • Uknowho

        Vicki,

        You twisting what I said to serve your own agenda does not change the fact that just because you have a armed society makes you a polite society. MA has a higher population, stricter gun laws and low and behold, a lower incidence of gun violence. Obviously there is more to it than just gun laws, there is also the matter of economics and education which MA is also vastly superior to AZ because that is what that state values. AZ wants to be the call center capital of the nation and they have succeeded.

        The stats prove that and no matter who much you flail about it, your side’s contention falls flat on its face.

        The issue is still our society and how we view guns and violence… It has nmothing to do with a “gun grab”. That is your side’s propaganda.

      • JeffH

        Speaking of propaganda and agendas…YouKnow(very little) says “It has nothing to do with a “gun grab”.”

        Really? I Mean really? And pigs can fly too!

    • STEVE E.

      The only difference between open carry and concealed carry is nothing other than under concealed carry, you can have it under your jacket. No danger there.

      “A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” — Sigmund Freud

    • gitfiddle

      I live in SC and I think it’s wonderful. We are also shooting for nullification of obamcare.

      • Karolyn

        Ain’t gonna happen git. And If our legislators do not take take the federal money, it will go to other states. It is OUR tax money that will go to other states. Stupid republicans. My county is democrat. Vincent Sheheen is our state senator, and I will work hard to help him be our next governor. I would assume you stand behind the corruption in the 6th most corrupt state in the union, since it’s the repubs.

      • 45caliber

        Karolyn:

        So you are willing to sell out any freedoms you may have if you think you can get something for “nothing”?

      • Buster the Anatolian

        Karolyn what are the states going to do when the federal money spigot is turned off? How are they going to pay for the increased coverage?

      • Karolyn

        Maybe the greedy corrupt politicians will donate their pay.

    • Concerned American 559

      I have a proposal for you gun control fanatics:
      If you really want “gun control” let’s try this…Issue everyone in the country that wants one a government issued gun and ammunition. Then license that gun to that person. The same way we are licensed to operate a motor vehicle by the government. Then if you are caught with an unlicensed gun, you go to jail. Why hasn’t this been proposed if you really want “gun control” Why? It’s because you liberal fanatics don’t want to control guns, you want to take them away from everyone else! C’mon now, let’s be honest! If you want to do that at least have the guts to say what you mean! It’s the elimination of privately owned guns, not gun control!!!

  • FreedomFighter

    “TO CONQUER A NATION FIRST DISARM ITS CITIZENS” —ADOLF HITLER

    The end game is in motion the players of the grand global chess game are setting the pieces to see whom wins control of the world. You wonder why DHS or Department of Human Sacrifice buys 2 billion bullets, why all the machine guns, why all the light armored tanks, why all the guard dogs, why are they activating FEMA camps, why are they buying up all the civilian ammo supplies, why!? There is no outside enemy, no invasion force threatening the United States, no current sign of open rebellion in the streets just Americans going about daily business as usual.

    Only one reason can be deduced from current actions:

    It is preparation for the Collapse of the monetary system and then Socialist/Communist/fascist cabal takeover of the United States by force of arms.
    The cabal is already trying to remove term limits for Obama. The house has not defunded Obama Care, the TSA, DHS, yet have defunded our military, firefighters, police and released thousands of Latino gang members (was a chaos deal struck to help bring about Martial Law with drug lords?)

    VETS and other true Americans need to join DHS, TSA, and other control arms of the government, so that when the SHTF we have loyal Americans driving the tanks, carrying the machine guns and wearing the armor and having authority.

    They will put you thru loyalty tests:

    Will you shoot Americans?

    Answer honestly, you will shoot traitors that try to kill or disarm other Americans – it’s honestly the truth.

    Are you loyal to Obama?

    Yes until he becomes a dictator trying position himself as a tyrant.
    It is critical for freedom loving Americans to become major parts of these organizations, it just may save the country from darkness and chaos and eventual takeover by the forces of the socialist/communist/fascist cabal now in control of our government.

    Laus Deo
    Semper FI

    • FreedomFighter

      Will you shoot Americans?

      Answer honestly, you will shoot traitors that try to kill or disarm other Americans – it’s honestly the truth.

      Correction: just say yes and leave the other part out. (just in case you didnt get the full meaning)

      Laus Deo
      Semper FI

    • Dennis

      In the Holocaust, 12 million people were wiped out, half of them Jews, including my grandparents’ families. Hitler obliterated an entire culture throughout that part of Europe using the strong anti-Semitism that was already present . Yet as horrifying as that was, Stalin managed to wipe out even more Russians – his own people. But how? He used propaganda, scare tactics, and force. He told people that they needed to expropriate wealth from those who owned anything of value, because sharing was the right way to live – he vilified the rich “for the sake of those in need”. He told people they had to give up their arms, because the right approach was to let the government protect you – that’s who you should trust. People who had traditionally been well armed suddenly became powerless to protect themselves. Stalin pushed collectivism, with lots of central control. And the more things got screwed up, the more the government tightened control, blaming everyone else – invented scapegoats – for any problems they created. They surrounded and starved out people – on purpose. Many, many millions died – people who never imagined such a thing could happen.

      And that’s why there are many who are now concerned by what’s happening right now in the U.S. Most Americans have no understanding of history – and so they may be doomed to fall victim to things they never could have imagined. Scary to think about – but I wish more people would.

      • Dennis

        Leon Trotsky, Russion Communist, Plan of action for us 1934.

        SPEND ! SPEND ! SPEND !
        Uuder the guise or recovery – Bust the Government – Blame the capitalists for the failure – Junk the Constitution and declare a Dictatorship.

        It worked in Russia

      • 45caliber

        Dennis:

        “It worked in Russia.”

        That’s exactly why they are trying so hard here.

    • morton Peet

      This is for Karolyn, I would walk accross the state of Alaska before I would walk four blocks on the South Side of Chicago. No lie and no exageration. I don’t know where you get your info from but I spent over a year in Alaska and the Glitzing to make it sell tv commercials is crap. Oh, by the way, you’ll be interested that my grandkids are hoping to open a “Koolaide” stand this summer. You can tank up. I’ll post the address for you.

    • jopa

      Freedom Fighter; Your quote on Hitler about disarming people has been proven bogus time and time again. If you don’t use real facts and historical quotes you will lose what little credibility you have left in America.That’s why I posted earlier that quote by Clyde Kadittlehopper, Klems smarter brother, just because you put it down over and over in print just doesn’t make it true.

      • Vicki

        jopa says:
        “Freedom Fighter; Your quote on Hitler about disarming people has been proven bogus time and time again.”

        The quote is quite accurate. The only thing bogus is possibly the source.

        The NAZIs didn’t start gun control in Germany. They USED gun control to enslave and exterminate millions.
        http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

        If you read thru the rather detailed account you will see that the NAZI’s did not disarm every citizen either. Just the ones they wanted to eliminate.

  • Jeff

    Perhaps one would be illuminated by the actual text of the 1939 Law on Weapons in Nazi Germany. The statute is littered with references to “Members in good standing of the Nation Socialist Party” being exempted from the law. The law was written explicitly to disarm the Jews and, by banning “weapons of cutting”, to eliminate the role of Kosher butcher, thus starving the orthodox Jewish population.

    It is also telling that Thomas Dodd used the text of the 1939 Law on Weapons to draft the 1968 Gun Control Act.

    Gun control is people control and has absolutely nothing to do with enhancing the safety of the public. It has a great deal to do with subjugating the population.

    • Robert Smith

      For the first half of the missive substitute “anti-abortion” for “gun control.”

      Spooky.

      Rob

      • Bill

        Very intelligent comments, Robert

      • cawmun cents

        What is scary is that there are many folks who call themselves “moderate progressives” who think just like you.
        Truly astounding is the depths of their ignorance and arrogance.
        -CC.

      • STEVE E.

        Robert would run scared if you made a gun shaped object out of a Pop Tart.

    • JeffH

      Jeff, gun control is people control…well said. :)

  • scared

    All is true about the taking away of our second amendment rights. What bothers me as well is what schools are doing to 5 And 6 year Expelling and instiling in young minds anything and everything about a g… or even something they are saying resembles one with great imagination. This is sick but can put a fear in parents minds as well as children. This has to be stopped

    • angelwannabe

      Scared, fear=control in the liberal mindset, to my way of looking at some of these articles on suspending kids as young as six, even for making a paper gun, or a bubble blower is 1) its either all made up BS/propaganda to instill fear, or they’re really pulling this off to see whether or not the people will stand for it__They’re pushing buttons trying to get, patriots to snap__Bam__ Martial Law….

  • STEVE E.

    “A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” — Sigmund Freud

    • jopa

      “Living in fear and being a chicken sh– all your life thinking you need a gun is a sign of sexual impotency and makes you a candidate to be a eunuch”.- Clyde Kadittlehopper

      • Bill

        Jopa,
        Typical juvenile remark from a socialist gun grabber

      • Randy G

        Wasn’t that a RED SKELTON character from the 1950′s?

      • STEVE E.

        Liberal retards always talk in “Baby talk”.

      • eddie47d

        Like your comment at 7:47am?

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Randy G says: “Wasn’t that a RED SKELTON character from the 1950′s?”

        Yep, except I recall his first name as being Klem, not Clyde.

      • Vicki

        Jopa. We do not choose to carry guns because we live in fear. We choose to carry because we choose to be civilized.

        http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/marko.htm

      • eddie47d

        Now that’s an oxymoron statement Vicki! You may think that yet it is only partially true.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Now that’s an oxymoron statement Vicki!”

        ————————————————————————
        Definition of OXYMORON
        : a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness); broadly : something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements
        ______________________________________________

        Now go read the article.
        http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/marko.htm

  • Gary

    There are reports that more children die in the United States every day from parental abuse than from guns. Would it not be more productive to ban parents?

    • eddie47d

      Then there are some who think parents have a right to discipline there children anyway they want even if it leads to borderline abuse. Like with killings and injuries with guns we unfortunately have to wait until the child is battered or dead before the laws can be enforced. That takes us back to parents rights and gun owners rights which so many here endorse. With some of you there is no compromising until after the fact and then nothing is done anyway to stop it from happening again.

      • cawmun cents

        May the protectors of our liberties,though branded as extremist by those without accuity,be awarded posterity as a result.May those who do the branding,be equally endowed.
        Cheers!
        -CC.

    • Concerned American 559

      If those parents are as idiotic as you, then yes they should be banned from being parents!
      The point of all these discussions is our right to bear arms to defend ourselves and our families. That is written in plain and clear english in our constitution. The right to become a parent is not in the constitution. (Maybe it should be) But let’s stay on subject!

  • eddie47d

    Its also amazing how far the fanatical right will go in making false claims about gun safety measures. That somehow there is a “defense of Hitler” in accomplishing their goal. When you tell bold lies like that one Brandon M. your credibility hits the skids right off the bat. You’re not selling facts but but a whole stack of propaganda yourself. Self defense is a natural right but too many of you live in the fantasy world of overkill and irrational thinking.Apparently he doesn’t read his communities newspaper to see who is killed and how. As was stated for a couple of weeks now killings by family and known acquaintances are in the majority within the home. Few incidences are these hyped up home invasion scenarios but that make for better headlines to scare the already fearful gun owner. Some of you are the ones who can’t rationalize in the wide world of truths and constantly imagine gangs of goons standing on your front porch.

    • jrd3123

      I understand if someone makes the personal decision not to defend
      themselves. I don’t agree with it, but a reasonable, intelligent
      person can decide not to carry a weapon. Some people know they
      wouldn’t be able to control their fear, or can’t handle a firearm,
      aren’t prepared for the responsibility, or could never shoot another
      human being. That doesn’t make them bad people, and the majority of
      our population is probably made up of people who feel that way. Their
      attitude might be summed up as, “I’m not the right person to carry a
      weapon, so I’m glad other people have them.” My comments aren’t
      directed toward people who make that honest, rational assessment of
      themselves.

      My comments are, however, directed at committed victims who deem
      themselves morally and intellectually superior to those who would
      fight back. It’s not enough for them to make a personal decision not
      to act; for some reason, they have to try to stop others from doing
      what they themselves won’t.

      We’re not talking about intervening in a robbery, or jumping in when a
      crip shoots a blood over dope-dealing turf. In most of these cases, the
      best thing to do is be a good witness. We’re talking about the closest
      thing to black and white, no question, pure evil we’re likely to see
      in America: a coward brutally gunning down as many innocent, helpless
      people as possible. If that doesn’t demand an immediate, lethal
      citizen response, nothing does.

      When pacifists advocate passive resistance to violence while smugly
      assuming armed citizens are stupid and violent, they accomplish two
      things. First, the pacifists don’t have to accept the true cowardice
      inherent in their decision. After all, how can any honorable man or
      woman refuse to act when innocent people, especially children, are
      being murdered in their presence? And second, these pacifists actually
      enable violent criminals who specifically seek a mass of unarmed,
      unresisting victims.

      I would like to offer a deal to those who refuse to carry a weapon,
      yet insult and deride those who do. I won’t hold your decision, which
      has no bearing on how I should live, against you. I won’t speak badly
      of you. If I happen to be near you and the unthinkable happens, I will
      risk my life to defend you. If I’m mortally wounded and have time to
      recognize my impending death, I won’t feel anger over dying to defend
      someone who wouldn’t defend himself.

      Your part of the deal? Shut up. Stop speaking out against those who
      would face mortal danger to defend themselves, their families and you.
      Stop telling good, intelligent people not to fight back against evil.
      Stop trying to convince people that if police can’t protect them, they
      therefore shouldn’t protect themselves. If you have zero experience in
      the subject, stop spreading your tactical wisdom, gained through years
      of sitting in classrooms and discussing with likeminded friends how
      stupid gun owners are, about what a gunfight is really like. Stop
      citing Mother Jones “studies” and 20/20 “videotaped experiments” that
      were specifically engineered to convince people not to defend
      themselves. Stop telling me that cowardly mass shooters with no skill
      or training are unstoppable monsters who no citizen should even
      attempt to fight, but brave law-abiding citizens with training and
      good sense are powerless. Stop telling me it’s better to let a
      childish coward keep shooting at me than to shoot back. Stop
      projecting your passive timidity onto others. Stop hiding your
      cowardice behind a veil of smug superiority. People see through it.

      When faced with the horrible evil of Newtown, Columbine, or Virginia
      Tech, we all face a decision. Are we the passive victims of Flight 77,
      who sat quietly in helpless acceptance of their impending murders? Or
      are we the men and women of action who took responsibility for their
      own lives and those of the intended innocent victims below, banded
      together and charged the cockpit of Flight 93?

      You victims made your decision in advance. Just like the Flight 77
      passengers, you know the end result of that decision will be tragedy.
      But I respect your rights, and accept what you’ve chosen not to do.

      I, along with many veterans, police officers and armed citizens, have
      rejected your culture of cowardice. At the very least, you should
      respect our decision. And if the worst case happens, all you should do
      is duck out of the line of fire, shut your mouth, and let the rest of
      us follow the path that we, not you, have chosen.

      Written by a retired police officer…name unknown.

      I am a Veteran and I agree with the sentiment expressed in this observation.

    • 45caliber

      eddie:

      Gun safety measures are gun control? That’s a new one on me. The only Safety involved is if you take away someone ELSE’s gun so you will be safe when you attempt to force that person to do something he doesn’t wish to do. So … exactly what is it that you want to do to the rest of us?

      • eddie47d

        Maybe you could stop being saps for the GOA . Not every gun safety issue is set in concrete just like those NRA/GOA sponsored bills shouldn’t be set in concrete. I see the arrogance on each side but some of you will never admit the hypocrisies of gun groups.

      • 45caliber

        eddie:

        I see …. So our stuff should NEVER be set in concrete … but your stuff should be. Uh huh.

        Incidently, you still didn’t answer my question.

      • eddie47d

        I don’t plan on doing anything to the rest of you so what kind of cornball question is that?

      • 45caliber

        eddie:

        You may not have an agenda but evidently someone does. So why do you support them? Every politician/general who has done the things being done now have gone on to confiscate the guns and then murder sometimes millions of people. What makes you believe that our country doesn’t have people who would like to do the same thing in the name of some ideal? Hitler simply wanted to pruge the world of everyone who wasn’t Arian and didn’t consider it murder or any other crime to do it.. Others want similar things. If they didn’t get support from people like you then they couldn’t do the murders they would like to do.

  • gitfiddle

    This Nation has survived all attackers for nearly 400 years without guncontrol. Why is gun control now suddenly nessecary and for the protection of whom? The law of the US constitution has served us well for all this time, Why change it now to serve only the minority calling for it and maybe making the most noise about it. The surender of your right to arm yourself will leave you vulnerable to any criminal to rape and pillage your property. THE POLICE ARE NOT COMING! It will also leave you defensless against any Govt, agency sent to remove your rights and liberties.The people elected to serve sadley are not always good people and do not want to serve bui dominate,

    • Karolyn

      I know you live in SC, but did you seriously not know that gun control has existed in this country for a long time? Are you that far removed from the rest of the country?

      • Flashy

        In 1813, Kentucky enacted the first carrying concealed weapon statute in the United States.

        In 1837, Georgia completely banned the sale of pistols, with the exception of larger pistols known and used as “horsemen’s pistols” and other weapons.

        Indiana, Alabama and Arkansas all had concealed carry laws in the early to mid 1800′s

        The The Dred Scott case hinged on the Supreme Court stating in its opinion that to give slaves freedom meant they would be going around armed (horrors!). A complete ban on gun ownership of an entire race.

        The “cow towns” of the old west, such as Wichita and Dodge City, had their own versions of gun control; the “dead-line.” Cross that line carrying a gun and you could wind up dead.

        In 1911 New York City passed the Sullivan Act

        The 1920′s and 1930′s the majority of the states imposed “A Uniform Act to Regulate the Sale and Possession of Firearms,” which prohibited unlicensed carrying and possession.

        The National Firearms Act was imposed in 1934; required a $200 tax on each fully automatic firearm or silencer. Over the years, the tax was also applied to short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and a few other classes of weapons. {and $200 in 1934 was a hunk of change !}

        The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 began the firearm dealer licensing system

        The Gun Control Act of 1968, prohibits mail order firearm sales, sales between residents of different states, recordkeeping on ammunition that can be used in a handgun, and prohibition of importation of firearms not considered “sporting” by the Treasury Department (BATF).

        In the 1980s, the federal ammo record-keeping requirement was rescinded, and sales of long guns by a dealer in one state to a purchaser from another state were decriminalized. The manufacturing of armor-piercing ammo capable of being used in a handgun was outlawed. Firearms capable of being sneaked through airport security systems were also prohibited.

        1989 saw President Bush directing the BATF to restrict the importation of various semi-auto-only service rifles under the “sporting” test. Ex-President Clinton further restricted those firearms by the same method in 1994 and 1998. He prohibited the importation of firearms from communist China in 1993.

        1994: the Brady Act and federal “assault weapons” law took effect. Brady began the background check requirement on retail handgun sales nationwide, even though one-third of the states already had a similar law.

        In 1998 it imposed the national Instant Check on all retail firearm sales. The “assault weapons” law prohibited manufacturing semi-auto, detachable magazine rifles with various things attached and prohibited the manufacture of magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

        The 1990s saw the categories of people prohibited from possessing firearms expanded. The Gun Free School Zones Act was passed. It was struck down by the Supreme Court, then re-passed with modified language. The minimum age for possessing a handgun was set at 18.

        Each state has its own set of laws; California (1989), New Jersey (1990), Maryland, Hawaii and a few other states have passed laws on “assault weapons” or “assault pistols”. South Carolina, Minnesota, Illinois and Maryland prohibit handguns made of pot metals. (Source: NRA-ILA)

        (Overall source : Historical Gun Control in the Old West)

  • Flashy

    Mr. Smith … interesting you highlight “gun grabbers” in your article, claim there are numerous articles and claims to grab all, and yet…concentrate the entirety of the remaining to one book and one author.

    Lest we be taking extreme liberty with journalistic integrity, perhaps it would be a better argument to use non extremists in your next article critiquing a writing. Ya think?

    Take extremists on both sides of the gun issue. I’d proffer you will find but few wacked out wild notions which anyone having a smidgeon of common sense and intelligence would say are based in logic and rational reasoning. Fact being, some would state that state of affairs being a perfect description of your article !

    Instead of joining in and offering sound principles of debate in the current national discussion, you have succeeded in marginalizing yourself and placed in the ‘crazy’ category. Feel good to not have a seat at the Main table?

    There are four issues which appear to be moving to the center of debate.
    1. Mental health checks. This is the current darling of the gun crazed group. Avoid responsibility in owning a dangerous weapon, have the mental health more controlled and monitored. Yeah…good idea ,snort.. let’s have subjective listings on a national basis. heck, with the majority of TPers on this site…they’d all be on that list. In stating they support freedom and liberty, the gun fanatics are pushing for national lists of unstable people…avoiding what that means. Criminey….anyone pushing for this belongs in the asylum…

    2. Background checks on anyone who is purchasing a weapon. This has universal agreement family members are exempted. I’m still perplexed why the gun nuts are against this. It seems reasonable to expect a rational responsible person would not want to sell to a bad guy or a mental case. There are those who are paranoid and say this is the first step to grabbing guns….i’d say those who believe that should be the frst to be on that menal list being banned from owning a gun ….

    3. Recording sales of dangerous weapons. Again, the gun nuts say this is a step to grabbing guns. I’d say it’s a method to be able to trace back who is selling guns to the bad guys and who should be held liable for negligently allowing a bad guy to have a gun. it will stop the transportation of guns from lax gun states to those having stricter laws on sales of guns.

    4. Ban or restrict the sale of “assault rifle” knockoffs. Cry and whine as they may, the gun crowd cannot avoid the fact of human nature. It’s ‘cool”, and thus attractive, and gives the false image (and false psychological feeling) of being John Wayne/Dirty Harry/invincible and powerful. They are darn near useless as a good hunting rifle, not good for immediate self defense, and are made for but one thing…killing other people in an quick and efficient manner. “But I need it in case i have to fight the government!” is an oft heard excuse. I say ..see above reference to John Wayne/Dirty Harry etc. C’mon…give me a break. If the government wants to declare martial law and send in the troops…there ain’t much that could be done about it in immediate response. I’d proffer if the government was indeed planning such a thing, they’d WANT the gun fanatics to have these puppies..and to come out right away so they could be dispensed and disappeared right off the bat..smoke ‘em out using their own idiotic notions of being able to take on the military and SWAT teams.

    We have an ongoing debate on gun control. There are different views depending upon ideology and rural/urban. There are some real issues needing to be resolved. Keeping guns from being bought then transported to high crime urban areas, keeping guns from the bad guys while maintaining ownership rights to rational reasonable people, having a measure of responsibility, maintaining the Rights of people to walk the streets not wondering if the person next to them is packing and dangerous, weapons from kids etc etc

    Mr. Smith..you did nothing to forward or give quality comment to the issues at hand. All you did was ensure your voice, your opinion, is marginalized. perhaps for the better in the overall national discussion being held….

    • Melvin2344

      How about MENTAL HEALTH CHECKS on liberals that want to use any of their Constitutional Rights – like RUNNING THEIR MOUTHS ! The phrase ” …. shall not be infringed … ” was meant to ASSURE that Colonists could carry the VERY SAME GUNS ANYWHERE that the British Officers and Red Coat Soldiers also carried : not some DUMBDED-DOWN stick with length limit so the GOVERNMENT ENFORCERS would not be the ones getting killed for their AGGRESSION !
      The ONLY reason for these onerous “laws” are to subjugate American Citizens so the NEW ROYALTY in Government can spit on our Graves – they do NOT care one drop of spit about our SAFETY – only in using that STUPID argument to turn us back into SLAVES ! ///MRB

      • Flashy

        Melvin….congratulations! you jut tagged yourself as one of those extremists which should be marginalized in deciding what path this nation will follow in sane reasonable gun control …

      • cawmun cents

        Melvin2344,

        I salute and toast you sir,and those who think themselves sane who do not share your Constitutional fervor.May the giver of rights keep and cherish you both.
        Cheers!
        -CC.

      • 45caliber

        Flashy:

        There is no such thing as “sane reasonable gun control”. And you know it. Gun control is about one thing; taking guns away from anyone who might object to what you personally want.

      • eddie47d

        I personally want to drive 100 miles per hour to get back home sooner but its not very wise,safe or practical under any circumstance.

      • Flashy

        45..absolutely. you are correct. i do not believe felons or ex-cons should be able to own a firearm, i don’t believe anyone with a drug dealing past should own one, i don’t believe a mental case should own one or anyone convicted of a violent crime misdemeanor or felony.

        As far as packing in public? i believe that should be restricted. i grew up on a farm around rifles and pistols. fairly good shooting one. I have my first shotgun in a case (a cute single shot 20 gauge/22 overhead and my mother’s pearl handled derringer (also in a case). OK..no ammo on hand, in a case.

        Now…saying that, i don’t believe i should be entitled to pack around in public. In al seriousness. i do not know how to break a gun down for cleaning and disabling, and i do not have any training in situational awareness. I truly honestly think i would be more of a danger than any hint of positive contribution in safety in the streets. And i have yet to have any situation where i needed a gun…

        So, if one were to pack in public, in my opinion, they should be trained for that particular firearm, they should have “real’ classes in live shooting and situational awareness, and have a clean record. Classes meaning real classes…where people can flunk.

        Any problem with having those restrictions?

      • 45caliber

        Flashy:

        You may restrict yourself any way you wish. My trouble is when you attempt to restrict me or others based on your own wishes and experiences. I HAVE been around criminals and needed a gun at the time. (The cops caught him too.) What gives you or anyone else the right to restrict me or any other law abiding person to have or carry a gun? Criminals I do agree with. They shouldn’t be allowed one and should be punished if caught with one … but surprise! there is already that law in several forms and fashions on the books – both state and federal. So are laws that punish criminals who use a gun in commission of a crime. But for some reason in most areas those laws are ignored while they use the acts as a reason to get rid of mine.

    • Charles Reffitt

      If only every victim in history had been armed, there would have been hundreds of thousands less premature graves dug.

    • walt jenisch

      you are clueless about so called assult wepons…the 223 simiauto is a great hunting firearmand easy to handle…and maintain….I bet you don’t own one or have evean handeled one ..have you ?

    • momo

      Flashy says: “They are darn near useless as a good hunting rifle, not good for immediate self defense, and are made for but one thing…killing other people in an quick and efficient manner. “But I need it in case i have to fight the government!” is an oft heard excuse. I say ..see above reference to John Wayne/Dirty Harry etc. C’mon…give me a break. If the government wants to declare martial law and send in the troops…there ain’t much that could be done about it in immediate response. I’d proffer if the government was indeed planning such a thing, they’d WANT the gun fanatics to have these puppies..and to come out right away so they could be dispensed and disappeared right off the bat..smoke ‘em out using their own idiotic notions of being able to take on the military and SWAT teams.”

      How can an assault rifle kill people in a “quick and efficient manner” and not be good for self defense? That’s what I like about you flashman, your absence of logic. As for the government sending in troops that would want the “gun fanatics to have these puppies..and to come out right away so they could be dispensed and disappeared right off the bat” Really..??? That didn’t happen in Vietnam, the Taliban seem to alive and well in Afghanistan. Face it, the U.S. military doesn’t cope with guerrilla warfare too well.

      • eddie47d

        Private citizens are even worse and with even less discipline! Too many of you act like you are the commanders in leading the revolution and could care less about collateral damages.

      • 45caliber

        momo:

        Flashy’s comment that these “assault” weapons are efficent only at killing people is wrong. The REAL assault weapons that the military uses (and which we cannot get) are designed solely to WOUND – not kill. And they do a good job of that. But the civilian versions, which are NOT assault rifles, are good primarily for target shooting and for coyotes and wild pigs. If you shoot a dozen of them and they run off to die later, no one really cares and it thins them out. They are not very good hunting rifles for deer, for instance, since the bullets are small and aren’t really meant to kill easily and fast. The guns simply look similar to the real assault rifles. An extendable stock doesn’t make it an assault rifle; it simply makes it easier to fit the gun to your shoulder for more comfort and better aiming. Neither does large magazines (which are excellent for a herd of wild pigs when they run after the first shot) or a muzzle brake which reduces the kick of the gun. These are cosmetic changes that doesn’t change the way the gun fires or works at all.

    • Brandon M Smith

      @Flashy

      I used Blodget’s opinion piece as prime example of media disinformation and omission of data. Bloodget’s style of gun-grabbing propaganda can be heard from most other gun grabbers, however.

      And, if all my article does is “marginalize” the gun rights movement, then why are you so desperate to counter it?

      • Flashy

        “I used Blodget’s opinion piece as prime example of media disinformation and omission of data. Bloodget’s style of gun-grabbing propaganda can be heard from most other gun grabbers, however.

        And, if all my article does is “marginalize” the gun rights movement, then why are you so desperate to counter it?” <— Brandon Smith

        OK…you made me laugh. Are you that far out of touch Mr. Smith that you read only the far right extremist articles? I believe one may say i am well-read. heck, i read everything i can. i've been known to stand in a supermarket line reading labels. I have never read anything like Blodget's viewpoint. I take that back…the places i read about those articles are on sites like PLD which advertise them heavily touting them as the "main anti gun viewpoint".

        It's laughable the extremes the gun wacked crowd are going to to create fear, anger and play on ignorance.

        Ever hear of a "heat shield" Mr. Smith? It was used by the tobacco industry when it fought anti smoking campaigns. it's now in use by the gun industry. First…have a front organization so the companies involved aren't called to testify in Congress and not seen as the primary movers opposing any restrictions. Think NRA. Second, create a large number of 'citizen groups", fund them, and put them out there saying they are just a bunch of 'concerned citizens' .. make up a front showing popular support despite what the polls state. Disseminate every bit of negative there is by the anti crowd. Hire authors to write extreme articles, hype the dangers to 'civil liberities', have the 'ctiizen groups' denigrate and somehow find enough money to inundate the ariwaves with commercials and neg pieces. (how many true 'citizen groups" have a few hundred thousand sitting around?).

        Buy off certain members of Congress to come out with scare stories and talks about how it's "a difficult issue but "rights" are paramount." Minimize the risks and the past horrors. Make them appear to be 'isolated" and hype the true 'isolations' to appear to be the norm (Newtown versus a little old lady fighting off a gang of bad guys)

        Every step of the way, you can see the gun industry's heat shield being put into place. you, if unwittingly or not, just became part of that "heat Shield"..

        Not one person i know of has read any calls for completely banning guns. Any 'quotes' used by the gun nuts are taken out of context. It's blind ignorance or deliberate use of fear and hate. And as the extremists are becoming more and more marginalized in political discourse, they're becoming more and more rabid and desperate. Simple fact, not opinion.

        Reasonableness? Don't make me laugh. heck, the NRA is calling for mental health lists. And y'all are grabbing onto that like it was a hot fudge sundae and y'all are 10 year old kids ! yeah..let's create a national list based upon subjective mental health listings. that;;s a great idea Yet…the crazies are saying that is preferable over being held responsible for having a dangerous weapon.

        look..when the GOP stalwarts, the carrier of the flag, start calling the extremists “crazies”, you can see the marginalization I wrote about the past three months kicking into high gear. Y’all have had your 15 minutes…and been outed as the lunatic fringe it is. Like ti or not, it’s reality and you know it.

        As far as “then why are you so desperate to counter it” .. if you are serious in that question…you have issues which only a licensed professional can help you with.

  • alpha-lemming

    A pen in the hand of Chairman ObaMa(o) is more dangerous than guns in the hands of 200 million law abiding citizens.

    If we go to the default, lowest common denominator argument of the grabbers…. if there’s just one instance of abuse… does that mean we need to outlaw pens now????

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      In the hands of thinking God fearing bound by our Constitution and the constitutional republic we love they do. During the revolution, they wrote “Letters of correspondence” and riders would take them from town to town enlightening the people as to what was happening. The riders were prime targets for the slimey red coats. Sounds like what’s going on today with the Bradley Mannings and Julian Assange’s today doesn’t it.

  • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

    Propaganda: The spreading of ideas or information twisted to further ones cause or damage an opposing cause. 9/11 turned into a war against Iraq. A humanity cause turned into a war against Ghdaffi in Libya klling thousands of people. The duly elected leader in Syria is the self appointed tyrant. The actions of a deranged satanic killer has turned into a war against America’s gun owners. Shock or terrorize people and when they are looking for answers, stear them in the direction you wanted them to go in the first place. They have a goal. All that they need is a situation to further it. Get people to react to situations, not act in a learned manner. It was said: The only thing new is the history you haven’t read yet. As situations occur, we know the same things have happened before so a thinking can act from experience not run around in circles lashing out as the propagandist directs him to. Americans are being taught to react and accept what the government says they should do instead of reasoning the situation in a thought out manner. We’re being taught there is a gulf of wisdom between us and the people in government. Set ours aside and listen to theirs. They are the gods in our lives, not the one and only God. The only power that Satan has over people is the power of persuasion. He persuades. We react. Kind of sounds like what’s going on in every facet of Americans lives today doesn’t it? We have Shoved God and our Constitution aside and listen to the people having control over our life, liberty and properties.

  • http://Gungrabbers Jack C Smith

    Where did you get your information from? ( The White House ).
    Your article looks like it came from Obama!

  • angelwannabe

    I’m not sure what part of “Shall not be infringed” the YOU Libs don’t understand?__ANY gun grab, ANY GUN CONTROLS are an infringement __period and the end!_
    The bought and paid for Main Stream news media, the complicit paid shills, and hand picked voices, who dot the TV line up calling for more gun control, are armed, ready and willing to launch they’re latest slurs, attacks and anti constitutional propaganda,_ all claiming “they’re the ones who are standing up for the constitution” and the good of the people. YEAH RIGHT!!__Ya know what, the only good liberal is where there are none!_ ya’ll make me sick in the azz!

    Hitler, Stalin, Mao and countless others all gun grabbed, their citizens paid the price with they’re lives, all in the name of “for the good of the people” THE WORD IS CONTROL!___I love the people who say “Oh but it would never happen here”_Really Look around!!!_Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it__DON’T BOTHER REPLYING LIBS, I’m not debating my opinion__Punch the time clock and Your name calling and attacks starts in____ 5-4-3-2- NOW! :p

    • nc

      Angelwannabe, You say “those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.”
      When , in history, has the US Government EVER confiscated every citizen’s guns?
      When, in history, have you EVER met a SINGLE citizen who could prove that the US government came to his door and confiscated legally owned weapons as part of a nation wide confiscation policy????
      I know for a fact that this site has people who predicted with certainty that Obama would stop the 2012 elections! There is some ‘history’ you can ponder>
      Same with the predictions here that before the 2012 elections Obama would declare himself a dictator! There is some MORE “history” for you to ponder.
      This site has A HISTORY of weird people making weird predictions and dumb statements and you, SIR, are THE TEAM CAPTAIN!!

      • angelwannabe

        Nc, I made no mention of the US ever confiscating guns, I thought my post was clear, I posted that Hitler, Stalin and Mao all confiscated guns and their people died as a result__Are the above not historical figures?___and just because it happened in another part of the world in a different time period, doesn’t mean it won’t happen here.

      • eddie47d

        You have the power of suggestion Angelwannabe. Those on the right and especially the extreme right constantly suggest it will happen here. Are they hoping it will happen as much as it is push for? The extreme right has become instigators of action against the government wishfully hoping they will strike back to prove themselves right. The left attempted that in the 60′s and now those on the right are doing the same. Yes you are planting the seeds of revolution and wanting others to join.

      • angelwannabe

        eddie67d, YOU SAID “You have the power of suggestion Angelwannabe. Those on the right and especially the extreme right constantly suggest it will happen here. Are they hoping it will happen as much as it is push for? The extreme right has become instigators of action against the government wishfully hoping they will strike back to prove themselves right. The left attempted that in the 60′s and now those on the right are doing the same. Yes you are planting the seeds of revolution and wanting others to join.

        I applaud your lack of foresight, just as I said to Karolyn above a bit ago__ the left seizes EVERY moment to push gun control after a tragedy such as Sandy Hook, then when the right retaliates, you paint us as the instigators, BUT ITS NOT WORKING _-Its ok eddie we get it, you think what you want___as for the lefts attempts in the 60′s__they’re still doing it, one of the biggest perpetrators was/is Bill Ayers and he now, is involved in our Children’s and Grand children’s public education, so if the left didn’t succeed in the 60′s, they now are taking the message to the kids to socialize and indoctrinate, the next generation!__as for suggesting gun confiscation won’t happen here?__Really eddie?__ANY KIND OF INFRINGEMENT, SUCH AS GUN CONTROLS AND REGULATION ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, FLAT OUT__Makes more sense to me to let the left know ahead of time, that they’re not getting our arms without a fight, rather than trying to water a dead horse__Think about it..

      • Charles Reffitt

        nc you have a real problem following a written statement. Not once was it implied that the U.S. has ever implemented gun confiscation. It was clearly stated that in history governments that have implemented gun control or confiscation are the governments run by Hitler, Mao, Stalin and countless others. Of course you may idolize Stalin or Hitler but i won’t honor mass murderers or defend them. I will convict them though.
        nc you have shown a level of unintelligence that is amazing to read. You know what was written but are blind to the truth. I can only hope that you do not have children that have been taught to yield to government pressure instead of being taught what “inalienable rights” are. Have you not been taught that it is our duty to “cast off” any government that is oppressive and ignores a person’s personal freedom? If we cannot control “our government” by votes or influence, it is our constitutional duty to cast that government away and fix the problem with a government that will obey the constitution.
        The juncture that we are at right now is a very serious one for our country. We see our rights taken away from us and people like you are bllinded by the government propaganda. We pay income taxes that are illegal to impose upon us. The government creates armies, navies and air forces that were never originally intended to be allowed by our constitution. Only an armed militia is constitutionally allowed. Our government isAmendment not allowed to create private armed spinoffs from itself like the I.R.S., C.I.A. and F.B.I.. Our constitution is very clear on gun ownership also in the 2nd Amendment. I think you really need to sit down and read, study and try to understand the U.S. Constitution before you go into your insane rants.

      • angelwannabe

        Charles, Well put!__, we get no where with the lefties on here, a lot are paid shills to push they’re commie agenda, who are content to live in their utopic mindset and still believe the moon is made of green cheese__as long as they get free phones, paychecks for blog hopping their cyber commie propaganda and obama cash keeps them fed, they’ll continue to try and change the minds of a few who sit on fence, not knowing where the country’s headed__they’ll wake up when the useful idiots are no longer useful, such as Hitler did with his brownshirts. take care

      • http://www.facebook.com/joelscopeland Joel Copeland

        Haven’t you heard of a place called Wounded Knee, NC? The movie Hildago accurately portrays the gun-grabbing that US soldiers effected upon the Sioux. Resistance was met with the massacre of every non-gun wielding man, woman, and child.

    • JeffH

      angel, remember, it’s always about the children.

      When it comes to how we look at our children we live in two different United States of America. Let’s take a closer look at each one of these “worlds” and see how they compare.

      In world “A” the parents of these children not only see it as their responsibility to shelter their children, often and to a greater extent, it is the responsibility of the government to remove or restrict any activity that could, when taken to the extreme, be potentially harmful to the child. As a convenient byproduct, children in this world become props and stage dressing for politicians wishing to pass questionable legislation. If a bill or proposal is out of line with the U.S. Constitution, it is said to be for the “safety of the children”.

      This naked and contemptible ploy has at its core an attempt to neutralize any legitimate opposition. To the politician, children aren’t people, but notional characters and convenient excuses for unconstitutional behavior.

      Many of these grown children become the basement dwelling adult kids still living with their parents. Also, having discovered that the ‘mean-spirited’ and ‘uncaring’ corporate world has absolutely no concern for their self-esteem or feelings of entitlement, they look to an omnipotent government to make all things right in their world.

      Option “B” – In the other United State of America, we perceive our children, not as fragile beings, but Adults in Training. The parents in this world do their very best to protect their children from the worldly hazards of fire, poison, drowning, and sharp objects. Rather than remove the stove from their house because the children might burn themselves, these parents teach the children that stoves and fire are hot and are not to be played with, ditto for sharp objects, power tools and electrical outlets.

      Adults in Training, need not be coddled and sheltered, but educated and taught the consequences of personal choice. Poor decisions have consequences, while good decisions come with rewards. Genuine self-esteem cannot be given to a child, the child must earn it. Once earned it cannot be arbitrarily taken away.

      The bottom line is that we can choose to shelter our children from all risks both real and imagined. We can ensure that they are mentally fragile and allow them to be used as props for opportunist politicians. Conversely, we can acknowledge that the world is indeed a dangerous and risky place. With that acknowledgment we can deliberately prepare our Adults in Training, not to hide from these risks, but be prepared to face whatever life has in store for them
      http://www.ammoland.com/2013/02/kids-and-guns-the-real-story/#ixzz2Mgg4yhaV

      • angelwannabe

        Jeffh, well said, as far as the children go, you’ll notice the commies will never use children in an ad campaign in they’re push for “Pro-choice”_-There would be either life, a child or an empty seat at the table.

      • Zenphamy

        Very well said JeffH.

    • Vicki

      nc says:
      “Angelwannabe, You say “those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.”
      When , in history, has the US Government EVER confiscated every citizen’s guns?”

      Depends on your definition of “every citizen”. Even the current plans of the elite are not to confiscate all guns. They fully intend to keep theirs and I am reasonably certain that most think they are citizens.

      Even in all the examples angelwannabe gave you the elite citizens kept THEIR guns.

      • eddie47d

        Yes the despicable ELITES are citizens so why say they aren’t. Even some of you act like Elites in all your gun swaggering loftiness!

      • angelwannabe

        Hear Hear!!_ Vicki

      • eddie47d

        The tag team duo is agreeing with each other and how is that a surprise?

      • JeffH

        eddie, what’s wrong about agreeing with something factual, true and honest as presented by Vicki over something untrue, emotionally driven and dishonest presented by you?

        NOTHING!

      • nc

        Vicki, what is wrong with considering ways to attempt to reduce senseless killing and maiming of large numbers of citizens ,ESPECIALLY CHILDREN,in single incidents with GUNS! Would you like to see that? Do you know of a way to do that without discussing the elephant in the room, GUNS? The right to bear arms has already been infringed without harm to the nation or the private citizens! THE LIMITED POSSESSION OF GRENADES, WHICH ARE ARMS!

        Why do you people need to make up things to fear? Someone says” Hey, this or that might just happen somewhere someday” and you people get your panties in a wad and go dig a hole in the desert and drag your kids inside!

      • Vicki

        nc writes:
        “Why do you people need to make up things to fear?”

        Why do you? At least our “fear” is of people and not inanimate objects.

      • Vicki

        nc says:
        “Vicki, what is wrong with considering ways to attempt to reduce senseless killing and maiming of large numbers of citizens ,ESPECIALLY CHILDREN,in single incidents with GUNS!”

        Nothing. That is why we demand that the government eliminate the GUN-FREE Zones that get large numbers of citizens killed.

  • OCalorie

    If you research the people who has used guns in all these mass shootings you will find that they and/or their parents are democrats and not one is a registered NRA member. Is being a democrat making people crazy? Maybe the democrats need to clean their own house before trying to clean someone else.

    Background checks is just another way of registering guns. History is repeating itself again. Research about the Brown shirts under Hitler and that Mao in China confiscated everyone guns. When a people can’t defend themselves the tyrants gain control.

  • richard brooks

    the gun grabbers have imposed numerous restrictions over the decades. the interesting, and amusing, part of all of that? it has been the very same people who now complain about future restrictions who support all of the current restrictions.
    if you can still legally own a gun, why would you expect support to continue to legally own a gun from those who can not.
    there no restrictions in the 2nd amendment.
    for those who want to impose changes, you must change the amendment.
    all gun laws are unconstitutional.
    not just the ones that currently affect you or may affect you in the future.

    • Al

      How true, I have always wondered why someone had to purchase a license to exercise a right, (i.e. to carry concealed or in some states just to purchase a fire arm) Although I do not own any fire arms I have in the past given money to the NRA to help keep the 2nd and all the other amendments of the contitution intact. Most of the people that I know that own Firearms have taken safety courses and they responsible with their firearms, when they are not being used they are locked up. I have heard some people say that my gun is no good to me if I can not get to it. This is true, but if you are not carrying it on your person or if you are not in same room or vehicle with it, then it should be locked up, The mother of the Sandy Hook shooter knew that her son had problems and made the mistake of leaving her firearms where he had access to them. If these weapons had been locked up, this tragedy would not have taken place. Another tragedy that comes to mind is the one that took place in Webster New York in december of 2012 Where a man had set his house on fire and called the fire department , when they arrived he opened fire on them killing several and wounding others, this man, William Spengler had murdered his own Granmother back in 1981 by beating her to death with a hammer. He was convicted and sentenced, and did seventeen years in prison. If he had been executed as he should have been this tragedy would also not have happened. Our federal and state governments seem to want to release murderers and voilent criminals instead of executing the murderers and keeping the violent career criminals locked up. Of course this is more of the cause of the problems we are experiencing, than the guns themselves, but it would seem that this helps them with their agenda which is to sooner or later take the guns away completely. There is also the mental health issue, right now the NRA is pushing this and to some extent it is a problem, but it may cause another problem. Will the Government say that all persons that want to own firearms will have to submit to psychological testing, and if so who will get to give you the OK? I wonder just how many people will pass that test. Keep in mind the psychologist can be sued if you or someone else he OKs even has an accident, scary aint it. There was a meeting after Sandy Hook on Gun violence prevention, there was a Korean man that is now a United States Citizen who spoke on this issue. I have a link to that video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZo4hbGJiVI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

      • Vicki

        Al writes:
        “Will the Government say that all persons that want to own firearms will have to submit to psychological testing, and if so who will get to give you the OK?”

        I wonder how the liberals would like it if the government were to require a psychological test before being allowed to vote. Or to speak. Or write.

        The pen is said to be mightier than the sword and we’ve seen the damage done by voting.

      • eddie47d

        Conservatives have demanded competency tests for voting and are still hard at it. They only want the privileged to vote and of course only they are the privileged.

      • JeffH

        The progressive mind is seriously flawed…conservative want a competency test for voters?

        My bad…all along I thought the issue was about voter “eligibility”. Wouldn’t an ineligable voter also be considered an incompitenet voter? Just askin’.

  • richard brooks

    progressive precedent.

    most of the ones currently screaming about gun control, and liberals, are guilty of allowing progressive precedents to be used.

    you are your own worst enemy. you will be the reason and the justification for further restrictions.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      H L Mencken wrote, that “men are the only animals that devote themselves, day in and day out, to making one another unhappy. It is an art like any other. Its virtuosi are called altruists”.
      Menken also called them uplifters and busybodies and a few other choice names as well. One thing they have in common is in never leaving things alone to work themselves out they forever have to do “something”.

      • Karolyn

        Really? And we should care what Mencken said because….? What’s wrong with being altruistic? That is certainly preferable to being a pessimist. Like attracts like.

  • Dennis

    I don’t remember who wrote this, but i thought i would share it with you.

    There is a sickening aroma in the air that is beginning to permeate the very soul of independent, freedom embracing Americans. It began to originate long before the shooting at Aurora, Colorado, or recently in Newtown, Connecticut. Its rancid fragrance seeps into the fabric of the U.S. Constitution and is emitted by the control terrorists who manipulate the facts and perceptions of Americans who watch the news. These purveyors of stricter gun control measures seek to erode your defenses so that in your weakened state you will accept their sweet smelling tyranny.
    The nation that was represented as a symbolic shining city on a hill that President Ronald Reagan spoke about over 30 years ago, is now becoming a broken mud hole of shattered dreams. America’s morning that has dawned over the nation is now bearing witness to the shredding of constitutional protections which have safe guarded families since the infancy of the republic. Obama has given the order to Vice President Biden: full steam ahead to obliterate gun rights to your town. You and your family are the targets and what will you do?
    The reaction by gun owners and even prospective gun owners to Obama’s desperate zeal is to hurry up and buy up all the potential guns and now-legal weapons that might be taken by edict or by force by the government. That may be a solution, but it is only a temporary one.
    Once the federal government has quenched its thirst on stripping away gun rights, it will not hesitate to take the next step to criminalize actual possession of banned weapons!
    Then what will you do? What is the response to a government that embraces tyrannical rule over the constitutional guarantees and protections contained within the U.S. Constitution? What are you, the father, the mother, the son or the daughter prepared to do when, the government official, acting on direct orders from a new commission set up by President Obama to confiscate your guns, knocks at your door?
    Where are the defenders of the U.S. Constitution who are elected in Congress? Are you absolutely certain they will not give in, and knuckle under Obama’s determination which is aided by the mainstream media talking heads? Remember these are the same talking heads that avoided Obama’s dismissive behavior in not enforcing congressional legislation. This is the same mainstream media that buried the White House Benghazi murder cover up as if it never happened. Think about your choices when seeking to rely upon the fourth estate which is has been rendered a useless patsy for the Obama administration.
    Now, do you really believe that once your guns are banned, and the weapons that were grandfathered, will not be taken in the second round of gun control legislation?
    The War for Independence initially began with a flurry of gunshots which rang out in Boston on March 5, 1770, and there Americans drew the line in the sand against British imperialism and tyranny. The first to die, Crispus Attucks, a Blackman, and the 20 others with him had sticks and clubs, and the British soldiers had guns. Obviously sticks and clubs were not match, then nor are they now.
    John Hancock, one of the nation’s founding father spoke of that legendary heroic moment, by urging, “for a well-regulated militia of the whole people who would fight “for their liberty, and for themselves, and for their God.”
    Unfortunately, for the tragic victims of Newtown, Connecticut, the government in Washington, has decided to disarm its citizens by using the very laws that Hancock and other founding fathers fought so desperately for. Instead, Obama, Biden and gun control mayors like New York City’s Michael Bloomberg, continuously assault the U.S. Constitutional Second Amendment rights. They work to manipulate this tragedy to lead a sustained assault on freedom of defense against tyranny.
    The goal of the gun control activists is clear. They use their partnership with the mainstream media to paint a portrait of tragedy across the television screens of America’s living rooms and blame guns as the cause. They seek to nurture, cajole, neutralize or tempt Americans with the notion that guns created the havoc, and misery and tragedy that befell the victims.
    The victimizers who pulled the trigger and who designed the loathsome events are never held to account for any responsibility in perpetrating the heinous deeds. The incredulousness of this rationale defines logic. Taken to a logical conclusion, you would have to think the gun trigger actually forced the assassins to pick up the weapon and pull the trigger.
    America, if you fall victim to this criminalization of your own legal rights, then the forces of Obama and his socialist tyranny have already won half of the battle.
    These next few weeks, should not just be a wait-and-see-what-will-happen-in-Washington-D.C. interval. This has to be a time where you, the defender of your house, your home, your castle, embrace the belief that true representation begins in your home, not in Washington, D.C.
    Each American must first determine for yourself, that you are ready to speak to your neighbor, your family member, your co-worker, or your friend, and ask, “What are you prepared to do, to hold your congressman or woman responsible?”
    The congress cannot pass a law unless both houses pass the legislation to begin stripping your rights and the President signs it. If Obama tries to use an executive order to do it, then demand it be overridden and demonstrate until it is overridden!
    The Second War of Independence is not when you begin to see the Obama gun control brigade at your door, it begins when you decide to do nothing, and just let it happen.

    • richard brooks

      reagan supported numerous restrictions on gun ownership. the brady bill brought even more restrictions. we had already begun to lose our rights. reagan simply continued that progression.

    • eddie47d

      I love when Dennis uses Ronald Reagan as their standby for Conservative action when he was in favor of many gun control measures as was the NRA. The Conservatives are now the ones who have lost their way and have gone to the extremes and citizens are punching back at that bad and callous behavior.

      • Vicki

        Eddie47d is correct. We are demanding an end to gun-free zones and an end to being punished for the acts of a few.

        ~300 MILLION Americans didn’t shoot anyone.

        STOP Punishing the INNOCENT for the acts of a few.

        Stop it
        Stop it NOW

      • eddie47d

        Stop punishing the dead innocent with your insistent loose laws. Your worse than a drug addict in pushing your agenda! One more fix and one more gun will always make one feel much better> Bull pucky! Stop it now !

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Stop punishing the dead innocent with your insistent loose laws.”

        They can’t be punished. They’re DEAD.

        - eddie47d: “Your worse than a drug addict in pushing your agenda!”

        ad hominem and makes no sense. Drug addicts are users not pushers.

        Though the astute reader will notice how zealous liberal gun-grabbers are at pushing their anti gun agenda.

  • richard brooks

    if you support age restrictions or criminal convictions as a infringement to the 2nd. then don’t complain when they add your age or convictions for speeding to the list of approved infringements.

  • rendarsmith

    I still think this whole gun-grabbing fiasco is the government instigating some kind of riot or unrest. This will give them an excuse to implement martial law or something to that effect. It’s all so suspicious….

    • eddie47d

      These articles are always full of holes and are suspicious of themselves.

      • roger

        [personal attack has been removed]

      • Vicki

        What articles would those be eddie47d?

      • eddie47d

        None are so blind as those who can’t see and Vicki is clearly blind!

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “None are so blind as those who can’t see and Vicki is clearly blind!”

        Will not see. The quote is will not see.

        http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/none+so+blind+as+those+who+will+not+see.html
        I wonder who the audience will say most closely matches the definition :)

      • Buster the Anatolian

        I see that as usual when asked something eddie has no answer other than to dis the person asking the question. He can provide no source, link, or other proof for his mindless spurious accusations.

      • eddie47d

        Because I give those answers on a daily basis and Vicki knows it. Sometimes a frivolous reply is all that is needed to counteract her frivolous replies.

  • Karolyn

    Off topic, but I just wanted to ask if any of the people who think the massacre at Newtown was staged had seen the interviews with the parents who lost their kids and if they still think they’re all actors.

    • angelwannabe

      Karolyn, YOU SAID “Off topic, but I just wanted to ask if any of the people who think the massacre at Newtown was staged had seen the interviews with the parents who lost their kids and if they still think they’re all actors.”

      While it is tragically sad if indeed it was a true massacre, facts remain, the left still uses tragedy to push gun controls, Obama started that afternoon after the tragedy. Then when the right retaliates in opposition, we’re blamed as the bad guys….

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Staged incident or not, the Leftsists will use the crisis for their own agenda, so why are you even asking the question to which you know the answer, Karolyn?

      • eddie47d

        You really need to pull your head out of that posterior socket Nadzieja. The right wingers have used everyone of these mass killings to dilute gun laws and increase gun ownership. They know any killing anywhere increases gun sales so you need to take some responsibility for your own agenda. There would be no one in denial that Newtown happened but Conservatives spread that callous rumor for their own agenda. Some of you are the best reason FOR gun control and the insanity and excuses you proclaim after each of these incidences.

      • phideaux

        How is that working in Colorado eddie? You know the state where the house has passed a law banning the most popular shotgun used for hunting various kinds of birds. Just how does that translate into the pro gun crowd using the incidents to further their cause?

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “You really need to pull your head out of that posterior socket Nadzieja.”

        Ad hominem

        - eddie47d: “The right wingers”

        Argument to ridicule

        - eddie47d: “have used everyone of these mass killings to dilute gun laws and increase gun ownership.”

        Those with a sense of time and thus able to distinguish the concept of cause and effect will have noticed that the chain of events is Tragic shooting, Anti-gun crowd goes wild, Pro-gun crowd defends.

        Thus you can see that the pro gun people are reacting to the anti-gun attempts to DECREASE gun ownership. The time it took the anti-gun crowd to start demanding new “tougher” gun laws compared for example the NRA responding even to the specific incident is quite dramatic.

        - eddie47d: “They know any killing anywhere increases gun sales…”

        Proof by bald assertion

        - eddie47d: “Some of you are the best reason FOR gun control and the insanity and excuses you proclaim after each of these incidences.”

        ad hominem.

      • eddie47d

        I didn’t expect you to be 100% wrong in constant denials Vicki but I should have know better!. The NRA has been in the shadows and has done nothing but stir up their supporters. Mental health was smoke and mirrors for them and many are now dropping that like a hot potato. You are far from innocent Vickie so cut out the act!

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “I didn’t expect you to be 100% wrong in constant denials Vicki but I should have know better!.”

        Ad hominem.

        - eddie47d: “The NRA has been in the shadows and has done nothing but stir up their supporters.”

        The NRA isn’t in any shadow. They stand tall and firm in their choice to provide exelent firearms training. Frontsight.com is better but NRA training can be found all over the US.

        - eddie47d: “Mental health was smoke and mirrors for them and many are now dropping that like a hot potato.”

        Proof by bald assertion

        - edie47d: “You are far from innocent Vickie so cut out the act!”

        Ad Hominem.

      • eddie47d

        Yes some of you are still a solid reason FOR control measures. Keep Posting!

    • chocopot

      Actually, Karolyn, did you see the interview/press conference with the Chief Medical Examiner? He was practically giggling through the entire thing. He acted as if he had been given scripted lines and told to go with it, regardless of questions that may be asked. And speaking of questions, he was asked by one reporter how many boys and how many girls had been killed. Before I tell you what he responded, keep in mind that he had just examined all of the bodies and may have performed autopsies on some, if not all, of them. His response to the question: “I don’t know.” Really? He just finished examining all those bodies and he had no idea how many were male and how many were female? How could that be? There are also reports from both police officers and witnesses in the school that there were two shooters; when the “official” version of the incident was issued, there was only one, and those who saw the second one were told that if they contradicted the “official” version, they would be thrown in jail and left there. And that includes the police officers. Also, police officers and witnesses in the school stated very clearly that the perpetrator was using two handguns to do the shooting; there was no long gun taken into the school. In fact, the long gun was left in the trunk of the car and found there after the incident. Once again, the witnesses, police officers included, were told not to contradict the “official” version of the incident that the long gun was used to do the killing. They were warned they would be thrown in jail if they said a word contradicting the “official” version. After all that, are you going to suggest that, at the very least, there isn’t a massive cover-up going on here?

      • CZ52

        I did not see the ME interview/press conferance but did notice the police said for most of two days that only two handguns had been used. It was only after the ME said all the wounds were from a 223 rifle that the police suddenly changed their story to say that the rifle was the weapon used. Anyone supporting the suden change in weapons used supports the notion that the police on the scene of the shooting were so ignorant they could not tell the difference in empty 223 casings and empty (9mm?) pistol casings laying around the scene of the shooting.

      • Vicki

        Medical examiner full press conference
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE0OT5od9DA

      • Karolyn

        I really do not wish to debate an issue that I have not personally researched mysef. All I’m saying as the people who lost their children cannot be actors, as some have intimated. I saw them this morning on TV and they are devastated, as is the whole town. The degree to which certain factions will go to refute their opposite knows no boundaries; and that may very well go for both “sides.” Just sick of people salivating any time something happens that they can use for their agenda.

      • Vicki

        Karolyn says:
        “I really do not wish to debate an issue that I have not personally researched mysef.”

        Then why did you bring it up?

        - Karolyn: “All I’m saying as the people who lost their children cannot be actors”

        Makes the assumption that children were lost.

        - Karolyn: “I saw them this morning on TV and they are devastated, as is the whole town.”

        Or good actors. The rest of the town could have been lied to as could we..

        - Karolyn: “Just sick of people salivating any time something happens that they can use for their agenda.”

        So you are sick of both the MSM and the current government. Well so are we and that has been our point for a while.

    • Old Henry

      I do not recall the word “staged” being used, however, it may have been. Staged would mean that their were really no dead kids / teachers and that does not seem to be the case.

      I do recall seeing that it was set up. Given the way liberals, aka communists, work to acheive their agenda they would have no problem sacrificing those kids and teachers.

      There are some very evil forces running our government in the cover of darkness like the cockroaches they are.

      And since we are off-topic, I just read that Hugo Chavez went to Hell today. They will be electing a new president. I wonder if Hugo’s biggest fan – Little Barry – will go down and run for the job since he does not want to govern up here… They may have some kick-ass galf courses down there.

  • Mike Stroup

    I am a strong supporter of gun control because without disciplined sight alignment, sight picture and trigger squeeze, it is not possible to consistently put rounds on target. When most people use the words gun control they really mean people control. These are often the same people who talk about gun violence as if it were a bad thing. Without gun violence, there would be no United States of America. By the way, if every responsible adult citizen aboard those aircraft on 9/11 had been armed, it is very likely those buildings would still be standing and thousands of people would still be alive. It again makes one wonder if most people really are that stupid. The frequently correct answer is yes, of course, obviously.

    • chocopot

      Right on, bro. Speak truth to all the lies.

    • Vicki

      You are quite right. Their arguments make it clear that they have the definitions of the word gun and the word people reversed. :)

    • Vicki

      Mike Stroup writes:
      “By the way, if every responsible adult citizen aboard those aircraft on 9/11 had been armed, it is very likely those buildings would still be standing and thousands of people would still be alive.”

      There is a great cartoon about that.
      http://bussorah.3owl.com/busoct04_files/landfree.jpg

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

    “A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”
    –Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1952)

    Did Dr Freud actually say this?

    Apparently he did in the 10th Lecture of ” A General Introduction to
    Psychoanalysis” (1916-17)

    In these other passages Freud associates retarded sexual and
    emotional development not with gun ownership, but with fear and loathing of
    weapons. ~Don B. Kates, Jr., Guns, Murders, and the Constitution — A Realistic
    Assessment of Gun Control (Don Kates is a San Francisco criminologist and
    civil liberties lawyer).

    And it fits with the “phallic symbols” of dream interpretation…..

    All elongated objects, sticks, tree-trunks, umbrellas (on account of the
    opening, which might be likened to an erection), all sharp and elongated
    weapons, knives, daggers, and pikes, represent the male member.

    ~Sigmund Freud , The Interpretation of Dreams (1900)
    Chapter 6. Representation in Dreams by Symbols: Some Further Typical Dreams

    So , according to Freud, a fear of guns equates with a fear of the erect
    penis….? And gun-lovers…..?

    • Old Henry

      No wonder I’ve always wanted several long-barrel 12 gauge shot guns…

      Seriously WTS/JAY, I think the “fear” of guns is do to lack of exposure to guns. If you are exposed to them, use them, you may still not want one, but you will most likely not be terrified of them.

      • JeffH

        OH, I agree. I was raised around shotguns and took to them like a duck to water. I still shoot skeet on saturdays and shoot in a 6 week trap league with 374 other gun toters of all ages…never a second thought. When I see a gun, I try to figure out what it is, not whether it poses any threat to me.

        You have nothing to fear but fear itself!

      • angelwannabe

        I agree Old Henry, I was raised around life long hunters and those who were in WWII. I shot a 30.06 at nine, knocked me flat on my azz and I got up and did it again__if ya know how to handle guns there is nothing to fear.

  • John Adams

    For the purpose of analysis, here is Blodget’s common sense assertion, once again:

    “…unfortunately, the guns that good guys own to protect themselves from bad guys too often end up killing the good guys’ kids or wives or the good guys themselves (either via suicide, accident, or, in some cases, because they’re grabbed by the bad guys and used against the good guys)…”

    This assertion, in and of itself, should not be construed as a lie or a mistruth, since the key phrase in this piece, “too often”, is not a statistical statement.

    Rather, it implies that even ONE such death – whether by accident, by “regrettable convenience” (in a moment of passion), being overpowered by thugs, or at the hands of a Sandy Hook psycho (drug-induced or otherwise) – is, in fact, “too often”.

    On the basis of pure sentiment, all of us can agree; any untimely death (regardless of circumstances) is one death too many. However, the implication that even ONE such gun-related death should be sufficient cause to ban firearms is sheer nonsense. It is borne of the notion that all such incidents could be prevented if there were no guns available anywhere. In a world of sheer logic – one without crime and passion – this would be true, of course. But this is not the world we live in.

    Conversely, to simply sell guns to everyone and anyone who wants one goes too far. Gun ownership should indeed be a right of all citizens, but only insofar as those citizens can meet the correlative responsibilities and requirements of gun ownership.

    What restrictions, then, should there be? I would respectfully submit that any weapon that requires no particular strength or skill in order to be used (i.e. most guns) should be restricted to those who have A) no official record of violent behavior, B) no official record of mental instability, C) no standing prescription for anti-depressants, and, arguably, D) a certification of elementary, or “entry-level” training in the proper use, legal obligations (e.g. safe storage), care and maintenance of such weapons that they intend to buy and own. Of these, A, B, and C are the basic foundation of an authentic background check, which should be performed prior to sale, and with the degree of diligence that can be afforded through access to databases that contain references to these characteristics of person and past behavior.

    It might even be argued that no weapon should be sold without the necessary additional purchase of a safe lock-up storage unit, appropriate to the size and shape of the weapon, thereby limiting the possibility that unsafe storage would be the cause (as in Sandy Hook) of some restricted person (including those with access to weapons that they do NOT OWN) taking possession of same.

    The gun grabbers, unfortunately, don’t wish to take any middle ground on this issue, and to their detriment, this means that such measures as I have described become more and more unlikely to be taken seriously, as they continue to argue for totally unreasonable measures, such as a total ban on “assault rifle” lookalikes that are nothing more than single shot long guns, or a ban on hand guns in general. Such demands are counterproductive and overly sentimental, and have no place in a sane and sober debate on gun rights.

    Finally, I wish to thank Mr. Smith for his clear, persuasive writing, and his attention to detail – without hyperbole – in addressing an issue that has no permanent solution, but which nonetheless demands our attention and our vigilance at all times – not just when tragedy occurs or political opportunity arises.

    • chocopot

      Regardless of the truth or untruth of all the arguments for an ever-increasing amount of gun control, what part of “shall not be infringed” do these people not understand? The Constitution is the Constitution, whether they like it or not. And as I often ask these people who hate guns with such a passion and feel that no one but the military and the police should own one, “Just what will taking away my guns do to stop a criminal from committing a criminal act with his guns? How does taking away my rights in any way do anything to stop a criminal from committing a criminal act? I never get an answer…

      • eddie47d

        You receive answers all the time Chocopot for I have personally given you an answer weeks ago. You choose to be in denial at every opportunity.

      • chocopot

        Eddie -

        [personal attack has been removed] If you want to respond to what I stated, then respond.

      • John Adams

        I’m not sure who you’ve been speaking to, of course, but if they’ve had family or close friends killed or injured in gun-related incidents, it’s much more likely they’ll be in favor of stricter controls. This is a completely understandable emotional response to a personal tragedy, but it is not sufficient reason for restricting the sale or purchase of guns in general – to all citizens. There should be no “ever-increasing” aspect to this issue. A fairly and properly-considered set of requirements for gun ownership should be all that is necessary.

        As to what benefit there could be from taking away your guns (or anyone else’s), the simple answer is, no benefit at all. If you are open to the idea that such mass confiscation could be a prelude to some type of political or ideological shift, perpetrated by those who wish to limit resistance, you might perceive some benefit to such an entity. I refuse to go so far at this time, but on the other hand, I cannot help but question what is going on with DHS ordnance acquisitions and state-owned helicopters strafing public property with dummy ammo. I don’t like it, and I am waiting for any explanation that adds up.

      • JeffH

        eddie, emotionally driven questions and childish name calling are not answers…and ~90% of the time that is all you bring to the table.

        One can make a strong arguement for the comparisons between Hitler’s propaganda machine and O’Man’s propaganda machine…only fear and pure ignorance are those that buy into the daily doses of propaganda fed to the masses.

        Examples? The NRA, assault weapons, sequestration, do it for the children, the sky is falling, the military payroll will be delayed, federal jobs will be cut and furloughs will begin and the children will lose health benefits and starve.

      • Old Henry

        A gun is simply a tool like a hammer. And… I have seen FBI stats that show more people are killed with hammers than guns. (and these are not constitutionally protected)

        So, it is apparent that we need immediate hammer control. No large capacity hammers. No hammer should be larger than 2 oz and 3 inches in length. We must do it for the chilen.

        More people are killed, some murdered, by vehicles every year than 2 to 3 yeares of gun killings.

        We should therefore have immediate vehicle control to limit their use. (and these are not constitutionally protected)

        We have people continually committing mass idiocy in voting booths endangering entire populations. We must institute voter control on the 13th, 14th and 19th amendments for starters.

      • Vicki

        John Adams says:
        ” A fairly and properly-considered set of requirements for gun ownership should be all that is necessary. ”

        Can we do that for speech too? The pen is mightier than the sword and all that.
        How about for voting? Far more damage is done by voting then by shooting.

        What part of “…shall NOT be infringed.” is confusing to people?

      • Vicki

        Old Henry says:
        “A gun is simply a tool like a hammer. And… I have seen FBI stats that show more people are killed with hammers than guns. (and these are not constitutionally protected)”

        Ummmm… 2nd amendment doesn’t specify firearms. It says arms. Clearly meaning any tool. The founders further elaborated that they meant the tools that a soldier would use. I am certain that they use hammers.

        - Old Henry: “We should therefore have immediate vehicle control to limit their use. (and these are not constitutionally protected)”

        Ummm.. Personal property? 9th amendment? I don’t remember anywhere in the Constitiution that we delegated the power to government (especally the federal government) the power to ban our possession of anything (yes that means drugs too).

        - Old Henry: “We have people continually committing mass idiocy in voting booths endangering entire populations. We must institute voter control on the 13th, 14th and 19th amendments for starters.”

        Considering the damage done by uneducated voters I heartilly agree. :)

      • eddie47d

        I did respond Chocopot and on several occassions yet you are still as cold and ignorant as ever.

      • Mike in MI

        Choco, and Others (excluding the “eddies” as incorrigible) -
        I haven’t been posting for a while because I’ve been trying to get a handle on issues related to Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Phenomena,
        Based on what I’ve been able to find out so far we are in an almost insoluble mess because of the state of science and what has come about since the scientific revolution for the last 300 years. Isaac Newton’s discoveries started it. But he’s not responsible for where things have gone since then.
        Science has been proceeding on the basis of flawed fundaments for a long time. You can only understand what I’m getting at if you get into this stuff and understand that what we see around us (the upheaval, confusion and collapse) is the result of long term cultural policy decisions in government, education, sciences, biology, chemistry, physics, business and military – to name a FEW – which are based on scientific error, cumulative error. Make a decision, base it on error and you can bet it won’t work out well
        Unless and until the old is deposed and the foundations are reset straighter we are most likely going to have to ride this “Bronco’bama donkey” ’til it caves in. It ain’t gonna be pretty, fun or edifying in the least unless the whole system is deposed and reset. Suffice it to say what governments and policy setters believe and act on is based on 19th Century science and the magnificently terrible philosophy that surfaced in the world based on early scientific revolution tenets. .
        A guy named Max Plank discovered something which is a fundamental principle of the universe, described it and established Plank’s Constant. Incorporating this principle into scientific predictions makes them work out correct to one part in a hundred of million. Incredible accuracy compared to our common concepts of scientific ledgerdemain.
        This, along with other developments in Quantum physics and Math shows where classical physics and science in general have blown it and totally screwed us in the unmentionable.

        A good primer is “The Hidden Face of God” by Gerald L. Schroeder, Simon and Schuster.
        ISBN-13: 978-0-7432-0325-8
        ISBN-10: 0-7432-0325-9

        The next step is “Mindful Universe” by Henry P. Stapp, “Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer”, copyright – Springer Verlag Heidelbrg 2007, 2011.
        ISBN : 978-3-642-18075-0 e-ISBN : 978-3-18076-7

      • JeffH

        Mike in MI, I’m not really a science guy but if I read you correctly, I agree.

        I don’t believe our Constitutional Republic is recoverable until the entire political system is torn completely down, including the majority of laws that were instituted to favor and protect the elite crony politicians, the Federal Reserve banking cabal and the crony capitalists…cronyism in government. We need to get back to the basics of the Constitution.

    • Frank Kahn

      You had a somewhat reasonable set of ideas right up to this

      ” and, arguably, D) a certification of elementary, or “entry-level” training in the proper use, legal obligations (e.g. safe storage), care and maintenance of such weapons that they intend to buy and own. Of these, A, B, and C are the basic foundation of an authentic background check, which should be performed prior to sale, and with the degree of diligence that can be afforded through access to databases that contain references to these characteristics of person and past behavior.

      It might even be argued that no weapon should be sold without the necessary additional purchase of a safe lock-up storage unit, appropriate to the size and shape of the weapon, thereby limiting the possibility that unsafe storage would be the cause (as in Sandy Hook) of some restricted person (including those with access to weapons that they do NOT OWN) taking possession of same.

      The gun grabbers, unfortunately, don’t wish to take any middle ground on this issue,”

      You see, the last statement is about you, you slide off the middle and start slipping left of reasonable with your nonsense about locking up weapons of defense. You really sound so calm and reasonable, but then it gets vicious and nasty towards us gun owners. And, I might add, expensive. If you want to store your weapons in a safe, that is your right, if you want me to follow your decision by force, that is not. My weapon is stored SAFELY at my side, it is calm and obedient to my wishes and refuses to kill anyone that respects my rights. It does, however, tend to get edgy and start barking at people who try to take if from me by any means. I suspect that it also might get upset at someone trying to put it in isolation, once again making it growl and bark. Teaching gun safety, and responsible use of weapons is a good idea. Claiming that safety includes restrictive storage of weapons is unacceptable. If someone steals one of my guns and uses it to commit a crime, they should be punished severely. I should not. If I catch someone stealing my gun, that person suddenly becomes armed and dangerous and is subject to immediate termination.

      It is never the law abiding citizen that causes gun violence. It is the criminals. Out here in the small western towns we have gun racks in the back window of our trucks. We put our guns in them and drive around town. We park our truck at the super market and go inside to shop, when we come out the guns are still sitting in our gun racks. Now, I understand that this would not work in a big city, with all your worthless criminal elements, but this is SAFE STORAGE out here. Oh, and most of those guns are loaded, ready to defend their owners and other law abiding citizens of the town. We also enjoy open carry of loaded arms in most cases. If I have my holstered, and loaded, .45 automatic with me, I can wear it into the store to do my shopping, no questions asked. Nobody seems to get all frightened and paranoid about having armed citizens walking around out here.

      The reason for fear and paranoia is in the drug and criminal (gang) infested cities. You want to feel safe and free from fear? Get rid of the criminals, if the criminals are not there, the guns are safe and a good form of protection.

      • John Adams

        Thank you, Frank for your critique. It is fair, and it is indeed a reminder of how easy it is to offend those who feel that their rights are being threatened. In my own defense, however, I should say that the suggestion I made about safe storage is not “about me”; it is about what can happen when weapons that are owned by you (or anyone) end up in the hands of others, whether through criminal acts of theft or by convenience, say, like the Sandy Hook psycho who grabbed his mom’s equipment. Mother and son lived in the same house, they shared the same refrigerator, but perhaps it’s not for the best that she “shared” her guns with him, if you get my drift.

        I will remind you, too, that I did say that these are “arguable” ideas that might well be considered in this debate. You have argued against mandatory safe storage, both for its infringement and its cost – both quite valid – and you have cited the fact that you keep your sidearm literally at your side, presumably most of the time. From my point of view, that IS safe storage. Period.

        Moreover, you have argued that geographic differences (to say nothing of cultural differences) should not be ignored when considering the issue of safe storage. I completely agree with you, and this is why the storage issue needs to be discussed vigorously at the local level – so that such differences are recognized and properly considered. Perhaps you will agree that parking a shotgun-equipped pickup truck on a side street in upper Manhattan overnight, for example, might be a foolish thing to do, and local laws in that jurisdiction should be observed by all inhabitants and visitors – for that very reason.

        Safe storage isn’t a big issue, either, for those who live alone, in privacy, even in a big city. It’s what happens when a gun owner, like my brother for example, owns 10 or 20 different long guns and several pistols, lives with a wife and a teenage son, who has a variety of friends who may or may not be immune from adolescent pressures to do silly, careless things, like drink and drive, or maybe borrow some of “dad’s equipment” for an “undocumented outing”. My brother can’t carry all of that armament around with him, so he stores his arsenal behind a locked, steel-clad, fire-proof door in his basement – a door that he purchased and installed at his own expense, because he felt a responsibility to make access to these weapons slightly more difficult than a cardboard sign that says “Keep Out”.

        Now, I will not personally argue in favor of making safe storage equipment a mandatory component of existing gun control laws in any city, county or state, but if others did so – in a fair and reasonable way – I would not feel threatened, either. I believe in freedom, and I also believe in responsibility. They should go hand in hand, but when they don’t, we need laws like the Second Amendment to protect our freedoms, and locally-developed statutes to make sure that our freedom is not merely anarchy in disguise.

    • http://n/a daleh

      John Adams—Why should I have to buy a locked strorage locker or box , or a trigger lock,in order to purchase any firearm?? It is not the business of the State or national Govt to inspect my premises —a locked or empty firearm is of no help in any situation.

      The 2nd Amemdmanet says “shall not be infinged” . you should know what that means—any law that has been passed or will be passed that places conditions on firearm ownership is unconstutional—-but it seems the politicians ( both parties) and ther gun grabbers forget what the 2nd Amendment actually says—-if a person desires to own a firearm it is in his/her best interests to have training/instructrion on that firearm, however the 2nd Amendment does not require that–so all the condtions you stated for firearm ownership are unconstitutional—

      By the way I got my instruction on firearms( other than what I had learned as a boy ) by some of the best Marksmanship Instructors in the World—at Parris Island in 1951—and used that instruction in Korea—and became one of those Marksmenship Instructors later on after Korea—(Rifle and Pistol)

      • John Adams

        daleh, it is clear to me that you are someone with an exceptional level of experience with firearms, and far better training than most people, including myself. As I have said previously, such experienced persons as you require little or no guidance on the issue of safe storage or proper handling of such weapons.

        As for the constitutionality of my propositions, I will try to offer two distinctly different points that relate to this matter.

        The first of these might be called the “Legal Acid Test”, and I believe there are many in this discussion area that would be most willing, if not enthusiastic, to apply this test to much of what has passed for “law” under the current federal administration.

        I suggest that there is one standard to which all laws must adhere, perhaps expressed best and most simply by St. Augustine hundreds of years ago, to wit: “An Unjust Law is No Law at All”.

        Now, let us recall the full text of the Second Amendment:

        “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

        Now I don’t wish to get sidetracked into a “militia-centric” discussion of the purpose or intent of this Amendment, and to describe the Second Amendment as “unjust” is certainly not my intention in any case.

        But in a line of parallel thinking, I would suggest that “An Incomplete Law Is An Insufficient Law”, and, whereas the Second Amendment proscribes that all citizens have a right to keep and bear “arms” (and not even necessarily firearms, although that is its usual connotation), the practical realities of daily life, both then and now, should indicate to all thoughtful persons that this Amendment does not go far enough; the devil IS in the details, and in fact, not all “citizens” DO have this right, unless we choose to develop and implement a restricted definition of the word, “citizen”.

        Small children, violent criminals, and people that suffer from dementia are all clear examples of persons who ARE NOT allowed to keep or bear arms, under any circumstances. Period.

        As such, others that have come before me have deemed that the Second Amendment is in fact incomplete in that it does not address the obvious exceptions that the real world throws at us, and which require additional consideration, and, perhaps, one or more correlative legal statutes that specify the common exceptions (such as violent criminals) indicate that these additional laws, laws which clarify – not modify – the meaning of the Second Amendment are warranted and indeed necessary.

        Now, it may be desirable for some to characterize such amending statutes as “un-Constitutional”, and in the strictest terms this may in fact be true, since they are not intended to be included in, or to substantively modify the laws or amendments of the Constitution itself.

        But does this mean that they are “anti-Constitutional”? Do they attempt to strike down, or render ineffectual, any part of the Constitution? The answer, clearly, is “No!”; they are attempts to bring additional detail and clearer definition to the rough sketch provided by the Founders, who had many other broad matters to address – and laws to formulate – as they sought to define a new Nation in its entirety.

        So, in seeking to characterize such statutes that proscribe which citizens do NOT have the rights defined by the Second Amendment, or any proposed law that further addresses the rights described therein, perhaps the words “pro-Constitutional” (meaning “in favor of” the Constitution) or as a minimum “post-Constitutional” (meaning after the Constitution and its Amendments were signed into law) are better descriptions than “un-Constitutional”, which says only that they are NOT part of the Constitution – a description that properly fits any law that seeks to further define or clarify ANY Constitutional Amendment made after 1791 A.D.

        This brings me back to my original suggestion – the notion that safe storage should be considered as a key element in legal gun ownership, not as a measure to prevent citizens from keeping, having, or carrying their firearms about – as they deem desirable – but as a clear reminder that such weapons, in the hands of other persons than their owners (without their permission), present a threat to public safety, and must be discouraged at every turn. Further, that the likelihood that unauthorized persons may gain access to the weapons of others is significantly increased when those weapons are not safely stored. This includes children, most specifically, but also those who may not have had any training whatsoever, and most lethally, those with an axe to grind (or a crime in mind) who do not themselves have possession of such weapons.

        In usual paradoxical form, it is less likely that those with military or law enforcement experience would either object to the notion of safe storage (when not in use) or refuse to engage in this practice themselves – probably because they are familiar with storage requirement in police stations and on military bases, and are also painfully aware of the damage that can be done in the blink of an eye by someone whose motives are not kind or intelligent.

        Finally, I wish to thank you, daleh (is it Dale H ?) for finally forcing me to think this matter through as carefully as I can and express it in words as clearly as I can, for my own benefit if not for yours and the other readers in this forum. If all citizens were as well-trained and thoughtful as yourself, there would be no need for such laws in the first place.

  • Donald Burdick

    You Know every one like to complain .The problem is no one is willing to stand up and speak out. If we all got to gather and made our vote and voice heard then let get this S,O,B out of Office. I side this before have him and his side kicks out let have him Impeach

    • angelwannabe

      DONALD, __ if our votes really counted, things would get better__Instead it only gets worse,__Think about it!__ its a dog and pony show and we’re led to believe our votes count, when the winners are already chosen.

    • Old Henry

      Donald:

      I read an article yesterday, Monday, about a rally in the N.Y. state capital on 2/28/13 against the illegal gun laws recently pasted by their fascist legislature and signed by Herr Cummo. The rally drew 10,000 people from around the state. It was diverse with all affiliations represented.

      So, maybe the trend / tide is beginning to turn.

      So,

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      That’s where the godless socialist and his ilk have us. They are united as one and we have many hopefulls out to save America. Right thinkers, regardless of their political party affiliations must unite behind one statement of principles, one Constitution and one political party, and I’m not saying the Republicans unless the republicans can unite behind the WHOLE Constitution.

    • ranger09

      Got to get rid of Congress first, These are the people that are the real problem. But what Americans are left in this Country are nothing but Sheep just following the Bell

  • ibcamn

    Okay,we the people know that we have the right to defend ourselves against tyranny and to own a gun to do so.with the big Obama machine,he doesn’t like that!he wants to ban e certain “style”of gun,he wants a national registry.we all know this ban will lead to other things and that the registry will lead to total confiscation!he knows we know!like it was said,they need to perswade the masses and make sheep out of us and he knows,like other tyrannical leaders knew,you need to unarm the apposing forces before you can take control of them!the sheeple that follow will then in turn be rewarded and in some cases armed to protect the very gun grabbers that would be in charge.then as we’ve been seeing,Obama can impliment his plans!his utopia,whatever that may be.we know Obama and his henchmen have already told us they want to rip up and throw away the constitution and right their own whatever!Obama has already tried to put into play variouse flag renditions,UN treaties and regulations that make no sense and restrictive laws(EPA,IRS,etc..)on the internet and landowners,on big companies of oil and coal.some have even killed jobs!why?! Ideaology,his beliefs,not ours!and a gun control law passed, would make him drop an oyster in his pants!

    Obama knows a red blooded American is smart well armed and ready for the fight!He will use whatever means available to him…sound familiar?!He knows to impliment his social policy he must and formost get our guns!!at any means possible!..all we have to do is find the means he always has availible to him and keep removing it and then find the next and the next.we need to keep our resolve on this and just be smarter than the progresseve march,we need to be a constant irratent to the Obama machine!

    • Old Henry

      All gun laws are an infringement on keeping and bearing arms and are therefore illegal laws. They should be ignored.

      We the People have the constitutional right to be as well armed as any government agency.

      Most of you are probably already aware of this, but here is a link to an article / video on the latest from the fascist DHS.

      http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/03/obama-dhs-purchases-2700-light
      -armored-tanks-to-go-with-their-1-6-billion-bullet-stockpile/

      • Zenphamy

        Old Henry: Did you notice the team commander called the team members ‘Operators’ instead of officers or deputies. Interesting mind set, don’t you think.

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      There’s no question that immorality is running rampant in America. But here’s the problem. While immorality is in the private sector, it’s far worse in the government sector. Should the private surrender their ability to defend itself to an immoral government sector? I think not. The government sector is hell bent on capturing the private sector and put them in servitude to it. The second Amendment was written to address that problem. Personally, I don’t care about what went in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. I’m more interested in America in the here and now. Ths government has an agenda and the people having guns a hinderance to that agenda. Sure immoral people should be denied the right to have guns but the lesser of the two evils is immoral people having guns and the government not having the opportunity to put all the people in subjection to it’s goals.

      • Vicki

        The Christian American writes:
        “Sure immoral people should be denied the right to have guns…”

        Why do you want to disarm people who’s morals don’t match yours? If they are not forcing their morality on you or others then why do you wish to deny them THEIR God given right to defend themselves?

      • Mike in MI

        To The “Christian” American -
        The greatest evil is religious people who read The BOOK for what they want it to say – - – not for what it says.
        Religion has always been the main focus in the Devil’s arsenal to move evil in as many hearts and cultures as he can worm his way into. Your last statement in that post is evidence of that effort.
        It was the “religious” people who rejected, condemned and saw to it that Jesus Christ got the treatment he got that Passover.
        Congratulations, you just sold him and God down the river……….again…….. Mr. Religion-personified.

  • Donald Burdick

    You are right our vote as a individual may not count .But i do believe if we all got to gather and stand up they will have no chose but to Impeach them all.Then they may thank twice be for they put there foot up there ass and drag there face across the floor again .Our government was made fore the people by the people not for the government by the government.

  • TIME

    Dear People,

    I tell you its now TIME to get ready for the coming storm thats about to unfold. as we enter the year of “Lucifer’s unleashing: ~ 20-13″ ~ How strange this was written about long ago; now its clear to those with eyes not clouded with low level vibrations.

    Lucifers ~ “Siduals” low vibrational levels of Hate, Lust, Envy and Greed are all around and have been for years, anyone who can understand what these “Siduals” really mean will not allow them in. ~ Saddly the blind will follow these “Siduals” without hesitation as the box they so lust is why they live within the blind of Babylon.

    The Christ too has placed out his signs of Love, Peace & Brotherhood of all Human kind.
    The good news is that The Christ’s ARMY is growing daily as people understand “higher vibrational levels ” are True beauty to aspire to.

    Yet ~ we need not stand with our hands empty,

    Allow the CHRIST to fill your SOUL so you can withstand this coming tempest ~ Thus in doing so ~ defend your SOUL from being lost forever to Lucifer low level vibritaions.

    “Freedom is not FREE ~ nor without loss.”

    Peace and Love, Shalom,

    • Mike in MI

      TIME -
      Cant say how much I love you, man. Having never met you nor seen you, to my knowledge. You are a monolith of greatness among men – to me at least.
      When I consider what you were thinking, writing and agonizing through about a year ago….and read you now….and hear your heart….and know your hope….and have read your environs/ explanations of your outreaches towards others….!!!?!.
      I don’t know to say it…right … big enough……YOU’RE HUGE.
      Evidence to me of what God can do with the heart of a man who simply wants to do right

      …eousness.

      BLESS you, brother. (Not words I use often, like this.)
      I’m believing that when the Lord Jesus comes to gather his own we get to sit near one another at That Supper….and a few others who come here, too.

  • Uknowho

    Is this a lie from the USA today? Just curious.

    This story is part of Gunfight in America

    Firearms debate: Meet the gunmakers

    In gun debate, it’s urban vs. rural

    Deal on gun background checks hinges on tracking sales

    Gunshot wounds drive up government health care costs

    Kelly Kennedy, USA TODAY7:56p.m. EST March 4, 2013

    As advocates and politicians debate gun control issues, economists say gun injuries and deaths have cost billions in court proceedings, insurance costs and hospitalizations.

    Medicaid and Medicare end up paying $1.4 billion a year for gunshot wounds
    Higher costs stem from lost taxes caused by lost time at work
    Gunshot wounds also drive up insurance premiums

    WASHINGTON — Gunshot wounds and deaths cost Americans at least $12 billion a year in court proceedings, insurance costs and hospitalizations paid for by government health programs, according to a recent study.

    “I think people probably don’t understand that as well as they ought to,” said Ted Miller, author of a study that found that gunfire deaths and injuries incur a direct societal cost of $32 per gun.

    MORE: Despite studies, researchers hold off on gun control

    About 20 years ago, Miller calculated the costs to society of shooting injuries and deaths with funding from the National Institute of Justice. He decided to run the numbers again this year after the shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

    “I was surprised,” Miller said. “Back in 1994, the costs of drunk driving were substantially higher, but it has reversed.”

    Miller found that total costs per injury had at least doubled or come close for medical care, psychiatric care, court cases, insurance and emergency transport. For example, in 1992, medical care for a fatal shooting averaged $14,500. In 2010, that number reached $28,700.

    He found that medical care in 2010 cost $3.2 billion for 105,177 deaths and injuries. In 1992, medical care cost $3 billion for 171,800 deaths and injuries, including 31,674 BB gun shootings, which were not included in the 2010 numbers.

    According to government statistics analyzed by Miller for the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, costs to the government in 2010 broke down this way:

    •$5.4 billion in tax revenue lost because of lost work
    •$4.7 billion in court costs
    •$1.4 billion in Medicare and Medicaid costs for firearm injuries and deaths
    •$180 million in mental health care costs for gunshot victims
    •$224 million in insurance claims processing
    •$133 million for responding to shooting injuries

    Miller also found that Medicaid covers 28% of hospital admissions for firearm injuries, 37% of hospital days and 42% of medical costs. But in another study, he found that even if people weren’t on Medicaid when they were injured, about 8% ultimately enroll in Medicaid after their injuries. “So about half of the medical costs borne by Medicaid may be the best estimate,” he said.

    A 2012 study by the Vanderbilt Medical Center in Nashville found that 79% of gunshot victims in greater Nashville were enrolled in Medicaid. That compared with 45% of Medicaid enrollment for all other emergency room patients. African-American patients were three times more likely to be gunshot victims than were white patients, the study showed.

    Manish Sethi, a trauma surgeon at Vanderbilt University and a researcher for the study, said his team decided to look at the numbers after seeing “a bunch of African-American kids with gunshot wounds” coming through the emergency room. “We have to do something.”

    64

    • Vicki

      Uknowho (AKA Dave67) writes:
      “Medicaid and Medicare end up paying $1.4 billion a year for gunshot wounds
      Higher costs stem from lost taxes caused by lost time at work
      Gunshot wounds also drive up insurance premiums”

      And the liberal anti gun plan is to punish the ~300 million Americans who didn’t shoot anyone for the acts of the (very) few that did?. How about you bill the people who actually DID the shootings.

      ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DIDN’T SHOOT ANYONE

      STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of the very few

      STOP IT
      STOP IT NOW

      • Uknowho

        Vicki,

        Do you agree that gun violence costs this country a great deal on money each year?

        When do we address the causes of the violence? Suggestions?

      • JeffH

        The dumb question asked is “When do we address the causes of the violence? Suggestions?”

        The progressives( developmental psychologists) have studied the causes of violence and the government has taken their que from these progressives…the results aren’t positive at all.

        What Causes Violence?
        - Aletha Solter, Ph.D.

        There are two basic conditions that produce violent tendencies in human beings. One condition is that the person has been hurt. A child who is spanked, hit, beaten, or threatened with violence will have a tendency to become violent himself. Sexual abuse and emotional neglect are also hurts that can lead to violent tendencies. The accumulation of minor hurts (stress) can lead to violent behavior as well. The anxieties, disappointments, and frustrations of childhood can build up and cause a child to hit or bite.

        The second basic condition is less well understood. The person has not been allowed to release the emotions resulting from the hurts. He has unresolved and unexpressed feelings about what he has experienced. Only then will he have a tendency to be violent towards others. Being the victim of violence and other distressing experiences breeds violence in the child only when the emotions are blocked and repressed. When this situation occurs, violence toward self or others is almost an inevitable outcome. Violence is a distorted expression of the person’s rage or terror in an environment where it is not safe to reveal or release strong feelings.

        Added to these two basic conditions is the fact that violence is tolerated and glorified in most industrialized countries, and is culturally linked to appropriate male behavior. Children are exposed to violent male sports, and to television programs, films, and electronic games with mostly violent male protagonists. Little boys are given toy soldiers, guns, and other war paraphernalia with which to play. Story books and school text books often glorify war, a predominantly masculine activity, and describe great male conquerors as heroes. Many parents are pleased when their sons fight back in self-defense with playground bullies, and adults worry about boys who refuse to fight. Combined with the fact that boys are expected to be tough and not cry, it is not surprising that men commit more violent crimes than women. If we were to purposely design a culture with the goal of producing violent people, we would create it exactly like the culture in which most modern boys grow up.

        Sounds familiar?

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT ASSAULT ANYONE USING ANY FIREARM.

        ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT anyone AT ALL. Not even by accident.

        Join us in telling them to STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

        STOP IT

        STOP IT NOW

        To prevent violence, we must, first, stop perpetrating violence on children. This means no spanking or hitting. We also need to protect children from violent scenes on television or videos. We must change the messages about violence that we give to boys, and expect the same standards of nonviolent behavior from boys that we expect from girls.

        Furthermore, both boys and girls must be allowed to cry and rage. Otherwise, they harbor unresolved anger, resentments, frustrations, and fears that they may act out as violence toward others or themselves. Crying can be very effective in dissipating aggressive energy. Much of the emotional pain of childhood is an inevitable part of growing and learning. Children get hurt and experience stress even with the most caring parents and teachers. It is therefore vitally important to allow the natural healing mechanisms of crying and raging.

        To conclude, children who act violently are always suffering from painful emotions. There are effective and non-punitive ways to stop violent behavior while helping the children release the underlying feelings. It is important to know that children need the most love and attention when they act the least deserving of it.

        Wow, sound familiar?
        ~

      • cawmun cents

        Vicki,

        Dont bother telling these psychoalnalytical clap-traps any intelligible wisdom,as it falls on deaf ears.
        I know,having tried for decades to promote wisdom,that you can lead a person to knowledge but you cant make them think.
        Some people imagine that to deny all is the only path to wisdom,however they fall short of true vision because they see things from a warped perspective.
        They purposefully indulge in dreams to escape the true form of reality so they do not have to become reponsible for their own faults.
        They can blame psychoanalytics for their deceptions and derisions,and need go no further with finding fact in any mateers of mind or character.
        For them flaws become not inherent in mankind,but rather some form of chemical deficiency.
        How deep is their depression,to not see that,spiritually they lack the common binding which makes mankind whole.
        A relationship with God,through Jesus Christ.
        Normally I cannot use Him as an example because they choose to wear blinders no matter how much this can be apparent to them.But here I feel obligated to state that because they choose to see science as their only from of truth and communication,they deprive themselves of another form of healing as a result.
        -CC.

      • Karolyn

        Jay – Very good analysis. Basically, violence is society’s fault; and it will never get better unless people wake up and start realizing what is really important. It starts at the cradle.

      • Karolyn

        CC – One can be spiritual while not having a relationship with God thru Jesus. Just think of all the profoundly spiritual people who have lived and not been Christian.

      • Uknowho

        JeffH,

        I know you are a really smart man. But can you tell me what part of dealing with the origin of the uniquely American issue of reaching for the gun at the first sign of disagreement?

        Other countries have the same media, same video games we do yet a fraction of the violence.

        But to understand and deal with those issues is “dumb” according to your brilliant mind.

        Thanks!

      • Karolyn

        My response was to Jeff, not Jay. I’m used to Jay being the one to post the long resposes.

      • JeffH

        Unknow-ledable…I didn’t expect you to “get it”. Now go back and re-read “Rules for Radicals” ’cause Homey ain’t playin’ your game.

      • Vicki

        Uknowho says:
        “JeffH,

        I know you are a really smart man. But can you tell me what part of dealing with the origin of the uniquely American issue of reaching for the gun at the first sign of disagreement?”

        Poor sentence construction. Please restate.

        - Uknowho: “Other countries have the same media, same video games we do yet a fraction of the violence.”

        So was it violence or “GUN” violence you wanted to discuss?

        - Uknowho: “But to understand and deal with those issues is “dumb” according to your brilliant mind.”

        Dealing with some issues by punishing the innocent is not on my list of smart things to do. YMMV

        Meanwhile

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DIDN’T reach for a gun at ANY sign of disagreement.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

      • Vicki

        Interesting. Some of my comments are being moderated even without any links in them. Bob Livingston. Have I been bad? :)

      • Vicki

        Uknowho says:
        “When do we address the causes of the violence? Suggestions?”

        Why yes I do have a suggestion.
        http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/marko.htm

        As a plus this solution covers ALL causes of violence.

      • Vicki

        Karolyn says:
        “Jay – Very good analysis. Basically, violence is society’s fault; and it will never get better unless people wake up and start realizing what is really important. It starts at the cradle.”

        Fortunately we don;t have to wait till all people wake up. The solution in this article can be applied right now. Even while there are those who don’t understand what is really important.

        http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/marko.htm

      • Mike in MI

        Here’s the cure for the problem:
        Anybody caught in a populous area with a gun on his person for which he can’t produce proof of the means of legal transaction whereby the weapon was obtained, or

        for which he has no record of a concealed carry permit for it,

        or hunting license (in a non-hunting environment when no hunting season pertains, or non-shooting club/range area, or where no nearby gun repair shop nor retail sport weapons sales outlet or dealer exists, or for which he/she has no other reason deemed legitimate by a jury for carrying such a weapon in a populous area),

        and, especially, if that person is a felon (or a non-compliant parolee) or has a history of repeat offender convictions for physically violent, physically abusive/disorderly, drug use/abuse/sales and/or known gang associate with related behaviors,

        That person shall be, upon conviction of this arrest, subject to the death penalty with one appeal (within two years, incarcerated at hard labor until that time expires) without availability of parole, release or leniency.

      • Mike in MI

        Vicki – 6:45 pm note
        It’s simply a heart problem that only one man can fix … by personal confrontation and metamorphosis from a worm to a flutterby without becoming a flitter-brain.
        Like TIME (above …before and now), those who want to be RIGHT turn to The Truth and the Lord Jesus, that outcast from that awful place of ….(Yuck)… Nazareth.
        Bless your heart, Lady.

      • Mike in MI

        Vicki – Sorry, actually it’s “Time” below….not far down, in my post .

      • Mike in MI

        c c – 3:14 pm
        You’re exactly right.
        You know, it’s really interesting to me in reading how Jesus conducted himself regarding different individuals and groups (doubly interesting that God’s revelation in the Gospels on what to write down, for us to know, usually identified WHO Jesus’ remarks were directed AT or to).
        Believers he spoke “to” gently, lovingly, patiently, with in-depth insight they could understand.
        Religious people (liberals and progressives in today’s parlance) got very short shrift – as though it was a waste of his time – unless they pressed him.Then he answered them with satire, name-calling (“whited sepulchers”, “vipers”, “scorpions”, etc), negative comparisons to funny stuff they understood back then with perfect clarity. It was always right on point and derogated their assumed authority status as being “learned”. They had zero humility, like the libs and blighted trolls who come here.
        So, they despised, defied and destroyed him – for three days and nights.

        ……but,THEN ! ! ! YEEEHAHA, RIDE ‘EM…FOREVAH…foreva-ha.

      • Uknowho

        Vicki,

        So let me understand your link because this is your solution… Everyone should be armed and that will ensure 1) a level playing field and 2) help ensure that you are left alone.

        Do you have any stats that show that you get left alone?

        I assume you have a gun. Are you ready and able to use it? How many gun fights have you been in?

        I am just assuming here because I am playing the odds… The odds are that you have not recieved training in 1) how to properly handle a gun and 2) how to react to the shock of being confronted with the unlikely event of being attacked and you reacting with your gun.

        So if you are like most people, your gun is the quickest way to your own grave not matter how much bravado you and your side likes boast.

        But again, I am not for taking guns away except those that are meant to kill large numbers of people. Nothing wrong with hunting, collecting and using gun as your pacifier to help you scare off the boogeymen in your life that are highly unlikely to come for you. I want to deal with the root cause of why this country has more gun violence than the other industrialized countries of the world. I want to help law enforcement to its job and I want better mental health systems in this country that work with law enforcement to help keep weapons out of those who are mentally unstable.

        Thats it… I know you think its evil but in the same world, its rational thinking

        Oh and Vicki, All my posts are moderated because my political leanings are not the correct one as laid down by the conservative Czar Bob Livingston. Just be glad that most of your posts and that of your conservative friends are posted immediately even though many of your friends post ad hominem attacks and other vile things… But if you are religious or a conservative/libertarian… its ok. to Bob.

      • Vicki

        Uknowho says:
        “Vicki,

        So let me understand your link because this is your solution… Everyone should be armed and that will ensure 1) a level playing field and 2) help ensure that you are left alone.

        Do you have any stats that show that you get left alone?”

        A whole book full
        http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

        - Uknowho: “So if you are like most people, your gun is the quickest way to your own grave not matter how much bravado you and your side likes boast.”

        Ad hominem. Oh and every year ~2.5 million of us “most people” don’t end up in a grave while using a gun to defend ourselves. Go figure. http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html

        - Uknowho: “But again, I am not for taking guns away except those that are meant to kill large numbers of people.”

        Already done. NFA 1934. Scary looking copies don’t enable a killer anymore (or less) than any other SEMI-auto pistol or rifle.

        - Uknowho: “Nothing wrong with hunting, collecting and using gun as your pacifier to help you scare off the boogeymen in your life….”

        Ad hominem

        - Uknowho: “I want to deal with the root cause of why this country has more gun violence than the other industrialized countries of the world.”

        Why do you focus on gun violence and not violence?

        “I want to help law enforcement to its job and I want better mental health systems in this country that work with law enforcement to help keep weapons out of those who are mentally unstable.”

        The problem is large groups of defenseless people, not a VERY few mentally unstable enough to kill.

        - Uknowho: “Thats it… I know you think its evil but in the same world, its rational thinking”

        I think your “stated” desire is good. I think your plan to punish innocent Americans is evil.

    • ranger09

      Well one thing is for sure, If we sent all the Blacks back to Africa And all the Mexicans back to Mexico Then we could save one hell of a lot of money, We can keep most all the Asians they at lest know how work and get an education for them and their kids, They like white Americans only have kids that they can support on their wages and not from welfare.

    • Dave67

      Here we have a microcasm of this site…

      We have the religious that tries to tell us its because we do not have a relationship with Jesus Christ is why there is the violence we have have in our society even though historical evidence does not even come close to validating that theory.

      Then we have the “bumpersticker” crowd who instead of dealing with what I posted (gun grab is where?) they merely regurgitate the talking point they always cite instead of having a constructive onversaion.

      Then we have the conservative “big brain”, “I’m superior to you” that instead of dealing with what I posted goes even further to give us why violence exists in humanity and not the gun violence that is unique to the United States as opposed to countries like Canada and Switzerland because the person thinks because they buy inro mises.org theory and has a lifetime membership to the Heritage Foundation, it makes them a genius.

      But please… continue with the program that the right wing manipulators laid out for you. Obama is busy arming the gov to fight you when the civil war starts.

    • Zenphamy

      Bulls??t. An egregious example of facts found and even made-up to fit a nonsense assumption and a perfect example of propaganda.

  • Bob W.

    Let us Hope “It is a war they will lose”.

  • roger

    it isnt racist or slander, when it is blatant truth, get off your censorship liberal soapbox .gangbanger thugs black or mex ,got no rights and should be executed on site when apprehended in the act. if i come around a corner and find a couple of
    n—– attacking some one, with obvoius intent of rape, robbery or just murder for fun, they are both dead in the next 3 seconds i recall a recent incident in chicago or ny 11 black teens boys and girl pounding and kicking a 45 year old german tourist to death over $45 and a misconstrued remark not one of the little bastards did a single day in jail even thought they were all under 18 and in violation of juvenile curfew they just got sent home to their welfare collection drug abusing worthless mommas that probably didnt even know who was her kids actual father if our corrupt govt and hitleristic emperor want to reduce violant crime get these bastards off our streets stop spending tax money on foreign aid to our enemies and clean up our own backyards and leave honest hard working legal gun owners alone

  • dcjdavis

    A little bit of related humor I received in an email this morning:

    Today I swung my front door wide open and placed my Stevens 320 right in the doorway. I gave it 6 shells, and noticing that it had no legs, even placed it in my…wheelchair to help it get around. I then left it alone and went about my business.

    While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the neighbor boy across the street mowed the yard, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign right in front of our house.

    After about an hour, I checked on the gun. It was still sitting there in the wheelchair, right where I had left it. It hadn’t rolled itself outside. It certainly hadn’t killed anyone, even with the numerous opportunities it had been presented to do so. In fact, it hadn’t even loaded itself.

    Well you can imagine my surprise, with all the media hype about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people. Either the media is wrong, and it’s the misuse of guns by PEOPLE that kills people, or I’m in possession of the laziest gun in the world.
    >
    >Alright!!.  Well I’m off to check on my spoons. I hear they’re making people fat.

  • Old Henry
  • c

    Jordan Perry some of the thing said in the link given are half truths leaving out some important info. You can go any where you want to pull the info you wat people to see. The best thing is to research for your selves and dont trust information thrown together by some one else pushing and agenda or set of ideals.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jordanhperry Jordan Perry

      I completely agree! Do your own research! However, the author complains about non-referenced “facts” and then throws around his own. Seemed a bit hypocritical to me, which was my only point. I’m a firm believer in 2nd

  • Mike

    ,the right of the people to be armed shall not be infringed.

    • eddie47d

      A bigger problem is the unhinged not the infringed which have an ample supply a weapons to chose from. Thanks for arming them.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “A bigger problem is the unhinged not the infringed which have an ample supply a weapons to chose from. Thanks for arming them.”

        The unhinged are only a problem when the rest of us are disarmed. That is why liberals want to take all our guns.

  • Donald Burdick

    UNkowing !! you mite be right .BUT WITH OUT HAVING PEOPLE BE ABLE TO DEFEND THEM SELF THERE WILL BE A BIGGER COST FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID FROM GUN SHOT WORN FROM PEOPLE LIKE YOU.WHO THANK THEY KNOW IT ALL……

  • Donald Burdick

    MY LAST STATEMENT WAS A OVER TYPE . GOT TO FAR A HEAD OF MY SELF SORRY ABOUT THAT

  • Jeremy Leochner

    With all due respect Mr. Smith.

    You state “Hitler’s gun control policies of 1938 disarmed the Jewish people as his “Final Solution” was being implemented.”. Problem is Hitler came to power in 1933 not 1938. And his rise to power was not the result of Germans having no weapons. Many Germans had weapons when Hitler became dictator. He didn’t come for their guns until after he had already attained absolute power. The Weimar Republic was already gone by the time Hitler took peoples guns. The Fire Decree establishing Martial Law and the Enabling Act which granted Hitler absolute power were passed in 1933. Hitler was given the oath of allegiance by the armed forces in 1934. And the first concentration camps were established in 1933. Lack of guns was not what lead to Hitler and the Holocaust. It was lack of faith in a Republic to protect the German people from economic depression and political in fighting. It was the belief that a strong leader from on high must be granted the power to do as he pleases to protect the people from undesirables. By the time Hitler focused on taking guns he already had the apparatus of dictatorship established. And by then the people had no legal protection or recourse.

    The idea of gun control is not hatred of guns or the second amendment. It is the belief that not everyone can be trusted with a gun. And that a gun makes committing crimes far easier than committing a crime without one. People have a right to protect themselves. However they do not have the right to endanger others. If a person having a gun endangers the rights and safety of others than they must not be allowed to have a gun. How do we prevent such a person from having a gun without denying a gun to others. I don’t know. All I do know is I would rather have back ground checks and waiting periods inconveniencing law abiding gun owners than I would relaxing gun laws to such a point where a person can obtain a gun and use it to commit a crime with no way to tie that person to the gun. I have no desire for tyranny. I have no desire for a Gestapo to rule the streets and keep everyone in fear. But I do want good law enforcement to provide service to the people. I would prefer people not have to carry guns to protect themselves like its the wild west.

    • Brandon M Smith

      @Jeremy

      Yet another gun grabber tries to rewrite history. Did the Nazi’s disarm Jewish Germans before sending them to the concentration camps, or not? The answer is YES. Therefore, Hitler used disarmament in order to aid his program of genocide.

      I never said that the Hitler used disarmament to gain a position of power. All the elites need to do is lie to gain that. However, eventually, when they decide to get rid of their political enemies, they DO indeed disarm the public. This is historical fact. Get over it, and stop trying to twist reality to be exploited for your pet world view.

      Also, if gun control is just about people’s safety, then why do gun grabbers like yourself feel the need to lie about historical precedence and omit certain truths? If you were sincere about your motives, you wouldn’t be driven to lie so much to promote them. Gun grabbers lie because they have deeper more primal motives, like emotional bias, fear, hatred, and malice. You lie because you want to “win”, not because you want to do what’s right.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Mr. Smith

        1: You yourself said that ” Hitler’s gun control policies of 1938 disarmed the Jewish people”. You said that Hitler disarmed the jewsish people in 1938. The first concentration camps were established in 1933: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005263

        So according to you Hitler disarmed the Jews after sending them to concentration camps. The fact is Hitlers forces simply arrested people. They didn’t bother disarming them first. They just stormed in in the middle of the night and sometimes in broad day light and just arrested people.

        2: I was not trying to twist anything. I know you did not say that. My purpose in mentioning it was to point out that by the time Hitler disarmed the people it was already to late. The Republic was already gone. People don’t seem to realize that they do not lose their guns until their others freedoms are eroded away. It is not until they lose the right to speak or assemble or express or vote or petition or seek a fair trial. It is not until they have nothing but their guns left that the people then lose their guns. If we focus our attention on Hitler taking peoples guns in 1938 we forget to notice all the terrible things he did between 1933 and 1937.

        3: I am not lying about history tp win a political argument. If I was as disingenuous as you claim I would not be trying to have a discussion with you. I would not stick to my arguments in spite of some telling me I am wrong. And I would not be trying to point out the fallacies I percieve in your argument while still admitting I somewhat agree with you. Taking a different position than you does not mean I am being deceitful Mr. Smith.

    • Vicki

      Jeremy Leochner says:
      “With all due respect Mr. Smith.

      You state “Hitler’s gun control policies of 1938 disarmed the Jewish people as his “Final Solution” was being implemented.”. Problem is Hitler came to power in 1933 not 1938. And his rise to power was not the result of Germans having no weapons. Many Germans had weapons when Hitler became dictator.”

      Mr Smith did not say that Hitlers first act in coming to power was to implement his “final solution. Time is one of the details that is important. Mr. Smiths assertion is quite accurate.

      Here are the details including time sequence.
      http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

      - Jeremy Leochner: “The idea of gun control is not hatred of guns or the second amendment. It is the belief that not everyone can be trusted with a gun.”

      That is to say a fear of others based on what tools they have handy.

      - Jeremy Leochner: “And that a gun makes committing crimes far easier than committing a crime without one.”

      A gun also makes committing self defense FAR easier then self defense without one.
      Just ask the DHS who bought a bunch of additional “personal defense weapons”.
      At least they have a clue.

      - Jeremy Leochner: “People have a right to protect themselves.”

      But only in the way YOU think should be allowed. How tyranical of you.

      - Jeremy Leochner: “However they do not have the right to endanger others.”

      Rapists hate disappointment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9dk-nuvZNg

      - Jeremy Leochner: “If a person having a gun endangers the rights and safety of others than they must not be allowed to have a gun.”

      How, and be precise, does a person having a gun do that?

      - Jeremy Leochner: “How do we prevent such a person from having a gun without denying a gun to others. I don’t know.”

      You have failed to qualify “such a person”

      - Jeremy Leochner: “All I do know is I would rather have back ground checks and waiting periods inconveniencing law abiding gun owners than I would relaxing gun laws to such a point where a person can obtain a gun and use it to commit a crime with no way to tie that person to the gun.”

      Since forensics has known for more years then you and I have been alive, how to tie a person to a crime scene I think you can stop worrying about that. In fact forensic scientists have been tying people to crime scenes for MANY years before gun registration, waiting periods and such.

      So you can stop asking for the punishment of the ~300 MILLION Americans who DIDN’T shoot anyone

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Vicki

        1: I never made any comment to the effect that Mr. Smith said the first thing Hitler did was implement the final solution. Mr. Smith seemed to suggest that the disarming of the Jews which according to him happened in 1938 was a significant moment in the history of the holocaust. The problem I had was that Hitler had established the concentration camps and had begun working people to death and abusing them to death long before Mr. Smith claims the disarming took place. The fact that total disarming did not happen until 1938 was of little help to the people thrown into the camps in the years prior.

        2: “That is to say a fear of others based on what tools they have handy.”. Indeed. I have some what greater fear of a criminal or insane person carrying a gun than I do such a person carrying a piece of paper shaped like a gun. The more powerful weapon makes the criminal or insane person all the more threatening.

        3: Yes a gun makes it far easier to defend ones self. I never said people can’t have guns. But the importance of innocents having guns to defend themselves has to be weighed against the possibility of giving someone a gun who intends to use to commit crimes. I want people who are law abiding to be able to get guns. But how do we allow innocents to easily obtain guns without also making it easy for the not so innocent to obtain guns. That is my dilemma.

        4: People do not have the right to violate others rights. When a person who wishes to protect themselves with a gun misuses said gun and hurts an innocent person they are violating that persons rights. I never said people do not have a right to defend themselves. Nor did I ever say that people do not have the right to defend themselves with guns. But a persons right to protect themselves does not carry over in the right to kill innocent people. Vicki I do not consider myself to be tyrannical in believing that a persons right to protect themselves does not give them the right to keep numerous guns on a property where children are or to shoot the second one perceives any danger or to threaten those who wish to establish more or better gun control legislation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG3YnkQL5q4

        Forgive me if I do not think that the man in this video should be carrying weapons.

        5: I never said women cannot carry guns. Just know that there are other ways to disappoint a rapist. A swift kick to the groin or some good pepper spray is also capable.

        6: A person who knows how to handle a gun and has every intention of using that gun solely for personal or familial protection does not automatically endanger any ones rights. However a person who does not know how to properly handle a weapon but is still allowed to purchase one is a danger to the rights and safety of everyone around them. And I worry about allowing such people to obtain guns when I see articles like these:

        http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/27/texas-lawmakers-bill-cuts-concealed-gun-training-hours-and-proficiency-requirements/

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/05/colbert-mocks-texas-gun-training-bill-free-shotguns_n_2810894.html

        7: The problem is qualification. Relaxing back ground checks and reducing waiting periods makes it more difficult to determine whether someone can be trusted with a weapon. As for qualifications I would include things like criminal record, mental health history and whether or not they have training in handling a gun.

        8: Vicki if a crime is committed with a gun and there is no way to tie a suspect to the gun do you think there is a great chance the suspect will be found guilty. Tying a person to a crime scene is one thing. Tying them to the weapon used to commit the crime is something else entirely. The same sort of registrations and universal back ground checks which are so often decried as violations of the second amendment are some of the most useful tools in forensic science. It is through such records that they can tie a person to a weapon.

        9: Just because 300 million Americans did not shoot anyone does not mean we allow all Americans to have a gun. That does not mean no Americans can have guns. I am trying to find a balance in the middle.

        • Frank Kahn

          You always use such a calm and polite mannerism that is is easy to refute your claims with simple facts.

          Your statements are :

          “Vicki

          1: I never made any comment to the effect that Mr. Smith said the first thing Hitler did was implement the final solution. Mr. Smith seemed to suggest that the disarming of the Jews which according to him happened in 1938 was a significant moment in the history of the holocaust. The problem I had was that Hitler had established the concentration camps and had begun working people to death and abusing them to death long before Mr. Smith claims the disarming took place. The fact that total disarming did not happen until 1938 was of little help to the people thrown into the camps in the years prior.”

          I don’t have extensive knowledge about the sequence of events in pre-world war 2 Germany. I dont know the specific tactics used to round up the Jews.

          “2: “That is to say a fear of others based on what tools they have handy.”. Indeed. I have some what greater fear of a criminal or insane person carrying a gun than I do such a person carrying a piece of paper shaped like a gun. The more powerful weapon makes the criminal or insane person all the more threatening.”

          Sometimes the comparison of something makes it an attempt to ridicule. I doubt any criminal is going to assault you with a paper gun. However, having fear of a violent criminal does not come only if they are armed with a gun. A vicious and violent criminal with any weapon (gun, knife, baseball bat, sword) is someone to fear. A gun (a person holding a gun) is nothing to fear, unless that person acts in some way that is dangerous or threatening.

          “3: Yes a gun makes it far easier to defend ones self. I never said people can’t have guns. But the importance of innocents having guns to defend themselves has to be weighed against the possibility of giving someone a gun who intends to use to commit crimes. I want people who are law abiding to be able to get guns. But how do we allow innocents to easily obtain guns without also making it easy for the not so innocent to obtain guns. That is my dilemma.”

          And, that is the dilemma of all the anti-gun people in the world. The fact of the matter is, you cannot allow yourself to be ruled by fear or paranoia. Since there is no 100% sure way of identifying people who will snap and kill someone; there is no way to ensure that violence with a gun can never happen. That statement is a hard fact, and that means there will always be a possibility of gun violence unless there are no guns.

          “4: People do not have the right to violate others rights. When a person who wishes to protect themselves with a gun misuses said gun and hurts an innocent person they are violating that persons rights. I never said people do not have a right to defend themselves. Nor did I ever say that people do not have the right to defend themselves with guns. But a persons right to protect themselves does not carry over in the right to kill innocent people. Vicki I do not consider myself to be tyrannical in believing that a persons right to protect themselves does not give them the right to keep numerous guns on a property where children are or to shoot the second one perceives any danger or to threaten those who wish to establish more or better gun control legislation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG3YnkQL5q4

          The first part of this was an argument of absurdity. Nobody, in their right mind, thinks the right to bear arms gives them the right to murder. Tyrannical might be a bit harsh in describing your opinion. Logical and reasonable would also be inappropriate. If a person is qualified, psychologically, and has proper training in gun safety, what reason would you have to limit their ability to own as many guns as they want? What does the presence of children have to do with it? Give an example of a perceived threat. If you fail to react quickly (hesitate) in a truly life threatening situation, you are dead. Threatening to defend our God given rights and protect our nation from tyranny is a legal obligation. In the oath taken by government officials and members of the military states “defend the country from all enemies FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC”. The domestic part is referencing people who are citizens and / or leaders of this country.

          “Forgive me if I do not think that the man in this video should be carrying weapons.”

          Forgive me when I tell you that your opinion does not matter. Until and unless he acts unlawfully with his guns, he has the right to bear arms.

          “5: I never said women cannot carry guns. Just know that there are other ways to disappoint a rapist. A swift kick to the groin or some good pepper spray is also capable.”

          Lets see if we can pretend we are women, just for a moment. We are about 5’4″, 110 lbs. We are walking down the street at night and encounter a man 6’2″ 220 lbs. Defensive options:
          1. Pepper spray: we recognize a possible threat and prepare to use pepper spray. He lunges and we spray his face. He gets really pissed off and beats us to death.

          2. Groin kick: again we recognize a threat and when he lunges we kick at his groin. Oops we missed, he is really pissed off, rapes us then beats us to death.

          3. .45 semi-automatic pistol: we recognize the threat, grab our pistol. He lunges, we shove pistol under his chin and say “breath and I blow your effin head off”. A. he slowly backs away, B. he breaths his last breath.

          As a woman, which option do you prefer?

          “6: A person who knows how to handle a gun and has every intention of using that gun solely for personal or familial protection does not automatically endanger any ones rights. However a person who does not know how to properly handle a weapon but is still allowed to purchase one is a danger to the rights and safety of everyone around them. And I worry about allowing such people to obtain guns when I see articles like these:”

          The sited articles are strictly dealing with concealed carry. The need for safety and proficiency training is assumed and not always correct. I received my training where it belongs, from my family. My father taught all of us kids about how to handle firearms. I got my proficiency training enhanced by the military. I agree that there is a need to educate people about the local laws concerning authorized (legal) use of deadly force. This, however, is for the safety (legal) of the gun owner, not the public.

          “7: The problem is qualification. Relaxing back ground checks and reducing waiting periods makes it more difficult to determine whether someone can be trusted with a weapon. As for qualifications I would include things like criminal record, mental health history and whether or not they have training in handling a gun.”

          There are issues with all three of these qualifications. What type of criminal record should disqualify you for ownership? If you were convicted of possession of pot, does that make you a dangerous gun owner? If you slapped your spouse, during an argument (domestic violence) does that make you a dangerous gun owner? What mental health issues are disqualifying, and how will they be objectively measured? How does training in handling a gun either qualify you or disqualify you as a potential murderer? Training by whom, is a lifetime of hunting (safely) and discussing safety issues with friends a form of training?

          “8: Vicki if a crime is committed with a gun and there is no way to tie a suspect to the gun do you think there is a great chance the suspect will be found guilty. Tying a person to a crime scene is one thing. Tying them to the weapon used to commit the crime is something else entirely. The same sort of registrations and universal back ground checks which are so often decried as violations of the second amendment are some of the most useful tools in forensic science. It is through such records that they can tie a person to a weapon.”

          Since they do aim to control ownership of arms, they are an infringement, and if they are an infringement they are in violation of the 2nd amendment. Some facts are cloudy in the registration idea. If you want complete gun tracking you would need to register every gun in the world. Otherwise, I might get my gun from a Mexican drug cartel for my killing spree. That aside, you would be advocating a massive project to identify and register every gun in this country. This would require massive expenditures in both time and money. It would also, either rely on the honesty of every person that has a gun, or require a massive amount of searches of every possible place where a gun might be (unreasonable search). Since we are talking about criminals in the first place, they would not voluntarily register their guns. Secondly, if they did, and the gun was used in a crime they would probably say it was stolen. So registration might work in a small number of cases, but it would not be a major contributor.

          “9: Just because 300 million Americans did not shoot anyone does not mean we allow all Americans to have a gun. That does not mean no Americans can have guns. I am trying to find a balance in the middle.”

          This last statement is a matter of three concepts, RIGHTS, AUTHORITY and POWER. RIGHTS can not be bought, sold, given or taken away. AUTHORITY is what is given to someone or something to control something. POWER is the ability to over rule both RIGHTS and AUTHORITY. I listed them in the order of their inherent powers. A RIGHT is the most powerful of the three. The Bill of Rights has stated that our RIGHTS are written in stone, the government has no AUTHORITY to modify or eliminate them. The RIGHT to BEAR ARMS gives THE PEOPLE the POWER to enforce the governments lack of AUTHORITY to modify our RIGHTS. If you read the second amendment you will see that it says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”. It says “THE PEOPLE”, and that means everyone.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Frank

        1: The reason I use “such a calm and polite mannerism” is I wish to be civil and mature.

        2: If you don’t have specific knowledge Frank these sites may help:

        http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

        http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005263

        http://www.historyonthenet.com/Nazi_Germany/reichstag_fire.htm

        3: I used the reference to a paper gun in comparison with a real gun to answer Vickis use of the phrase ” fear of others based on what tools they have handy”. She seemed to suggest that fear of one based on the tools they have was wrong. I was trying to point out that people tend to fear someone with an actual gun more than they would a paper gun. Perhaps it was ridicule. I was ridiculing the idea that it is wrong to fear someone based on the tool they have. I consider it perfectly reasonable and logical to have fear be based on the tool a person wields.

        4: Frank I am trying to live in a world without violence. I am simply trying to respond to the problem of gun violence in a legislative way. I want to provide a different answer than ” more guns”. There will always be gun violence. But that does not mean we make it easier for people to get guns. In the same way that there will always be drunk driving does not mean we make it easier to drive a car even if your intoxicated.

        5: Frank the example I used was the man in the video. Mr. Yeager certainly gave the impression that he believed the right to keep and bear arms granted him the right to murder people.

        6: In response to your question about limiting people qualified to own and operate a gun I offer children. Children can access a gun that is not stored properly. And even if the person knows how to handle a gun they can still make mistakes. Guns are about needs not wants. The second amendment is about what you need not what you want. The first amendment does not allow me to advocate violence nor does it allow me to yell FIRE in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Like wise the second amendment is focused on a well regulated militia not a personal arsenal free for all.

        7: You have the right and responsibility to defend your rights. But you cannot kill the innocent. Mr. Yeager and Mr. Alex Jones in their rants about protecting their gun rights made no disclaimers for determining what exactly is an actual threat to your rights and which is what you simply perceive as a threat. People thought Obama was going to take away all guns in his first term. And people started buying so many guns that gun stores had to start denying people. The fear of not being able to buy guns lead to the inability to buy guns. The fear of losing our second amendment rights lead to people being unable to exercise their second amendment rights. And as we all know Obama did not take away any ones guns. The threat was perceived not real. My concern is if someone goes from buying guns to avoid such a “threat” and turns to shooting to stop such a “threat”. Such as when Mr. Yeager threatened to start killing people if any new acts of gun control were introduced. Or when Alex Jones declared that 1776 will commence again if they come after their guns.

        8: Forgive me Frank but my opinion does matter. And in my opinion I think anyone who sees the video of Mr. Yeager and thinks he should be allowed to buy guns is being grossly irresponsible.

        9: A combination of Pepper Spray and a kick to the groin can be effective. Perhaps self defense training as opposed to just a kick would be a better choice. As for guns yes they can work. However if we are going to go with hypotheticals we can also throw in these scenarios.

        1: Can’t get to gun in time. Bad guy grabs it and now has gun on you.

        2: Gun jams and is left useless.

        3: You miss

        Instead of relying on a gun we could try a combination of defense tools. Perhaps a taser instead of pepper spray.

        10: I prefer training from experts in the laws governing use of guns. I admit that familial expertise is a good starting point. But in and of itself it is not enough in my opinion.

        11: As for laws concerned with authorized (legal) use of deadly force I believe the safety of the public is just as important. Because if the gun owner incorrectly uses deadly force by which I mean misses his target or fires on a target that is not in fact a threat they are endangering the public.

        12: I would say that so far as criminal records go possession of pot is not a disqualifier. I would say that domestic violence or any kind of violence is a disqualifier.

        13: As for mental health the best I can figure is a history of such illnesses as Bipolar Disorder or Paranoid Schizophrenia. Perhaps admission to a psychiatric hospital could be a red flag. Or perhaps a list of current psychiatric medications should be included. I am not sure. All I know is there needs to be an effort made to determine the mental state of those attempting to buy a gun.

        14: Training in handling a gun is a precaution against accidental or unintended deaths caused by misuse of a gun. There is evidence to suggest a gun in the home increases the chances of death or injury :http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100204/Guns-in-homes-can-increase-risk-of-death-and-firearm-related-violence.aspx.

        As for training I would prefer some form of certificate or legal document as opposed to your word that you and your friend talk about safety all the time and have a history of safe hunting. Its like when you go to the DMV. They don’t just give you a license because you say you can drive or that your parents or friends let you drive and it turned out fine. They give you tests and determine if your qualified to safely operate a motor vehicle.

        15: There are difficulties involved in registration. Perhaps a non retroactive policy would be more efficient. Simple requiring registration for all future purchases. According to ATF agent Jay Wachtel “one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf.”-http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html. So one of the principal ways in which criminals obtain guns illegally still involves the process of buying a gun through the legal process. Registration would discourage such straw buys because if the gun is later used in a crime it can be traced back to the legal registered owner of the gun. That creates trail that leads to the culprit. Nothing I am proposing is about ending all gun violence forever. But things like registration will do more to curb gun violence than simply having more people have more guns.

        16: The instant a person commits a crime their right to keep and bear arms is “modified”. And by that I mean they are no longer allowed to purchase or carry guns while they are in custody. So rights are not absolute. As I said the first amendment does not allow me to say what so ever I wish. Like wise the second amendment does not allow all Americans to buy and carry weapons. If it did then we would have no problem with mentally ill people or people with violent crimes on their records to carry guns. Problem is if we made no provision or effort to prevent such people from having guns crime rates would shoot through the roof. Frank if you support any sort of regulation on fire arms then technically you and I are in the same boat when it comes to the second amendment.

    • john u

      the wild west was not that wild ….it was quit boring according to the history channel magazines exaggerated it and paper novel and newspapers did to … that statement is not true… for a guy with so many facts… you gun haters use it all the time just like some of the fact you stated an illusion to deceive…. like there was chaos at that time when every one carry a gun…. just not true…. as stated on the history channel life was boring ….there was not a gun fight everyday…. that is a fantasy

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I don’t base my understanding of the old west on the History Channel. And I am no gun hater. Hating drunk driving does not mean I hate alcohol. Hating the violence perpetrated with guns does not mean I hate guns.

        • Frank Kahn

          Guns don’t perpetrate violence, people perpetrate violence, sometimes with guns.

      • Flashy

        John u … you are correct. the Wild West, sans the Indian Wars..was not as ‘exciting’ shoot ‘em up place it’s made to be. then again, most towns on the frntier had strict anti gun ordinances. one could not pack iron in Dodge, Abilene,, Denver, etc etc … amazing thing, the reputation of a wild violent shooting town disappeared.

        When civilization came…gun laws introduced and things calmed down considerably. that’s not to say guns should be outlawed, or gin bans made geographically universal…but it does say…you start arming everyone, and guns will be used. Where there are guns, there is gun violence.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        ” then again, most towns on the frntier had strict anti gun ordinances.”

        For the most part those ordinances applied to “outsiders” such as the cowboys driving the trail herds then coming into town. They rarely applied to the residents of the towns and if they did it was rarely enforced.

        Two examples of the townspeople using PRIVATELY owned firearms to defend their town against outlaws. 1. Coffeville, Kansas: The town shot the Dalton gang to pieces using their privately owned firearms. Only one gang member survived and he had multiple injuries. 2. Northfield Minnesota: The town shot up the James Younger gang. While the damage to the gang was not as great as to the Dalton gang it was enough to send them running.

      • ? Chocopot

        Jeremy -

        The UK has a much lower gun death rate than we do, but since the genral public in the UK was disarmed, they have a much, much higher violent crime rate. Look it up if you do not believe me.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Don’t worry I agree with you Chocopot. England is at an extreme. I just believe there is a better balance to be had between allowing guns and restricting guns.

    • Tom

      Typical simpleton ‘logic’ from the left-wingnuts. We already have a multitude of laws on the books that are supposed to prevent criminals and those with ill-will from obtaining guns. They’re not enforced and they don’t work. Your solution is to have more laws? More citizens with guns prevent more crimes – not the other way around. Our founders realized that there may be a time in the future where a tyrannical politician tries to take over the government. The 2nd amendment is designed to prevent such an occurrence from hapening. You run around afraid of those scary looking guns but fail to realize what causes crime … only criminals cause crime.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        We do need better enforcement of the laws Tom. Obama tried to do that by appointing a director of the ATF. For this he was called a dictator. As for how many laws we could use more not less. And if more guns means less crime why is it that England which bans guns has far fewer gun deaths than here in America. It isn’t “left wing” to believe that more guns can create more problems if people who can’t be trusted with guns get their hands on them.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        ” And if more guns means less crime why is it that England which bans guns has far fewer gun deaths than here in America.”

        Because the Uk has ALWAYS had a lower rate of gun deaths than the US even when guns were basicly unregulated in the UK.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Why did they have fewer gun deaths? They have the same violent video games and movies as we do. They also have a diverse population and a large one at that. They have issues of poverty and crime. Whats the difference between them and us?

    • jim

      You seem to understand German history better than you understand American history! What the Second Amendment is all about is having the ability to defend…not just myself, or my family or even my friends and relatives…the Second Amendment is about having a last line of defense against the Enemy from without…and the Enemy from within!

      By reading the reasons why independence was declared from the King of England, we find numerous reasons for having not just arms, but arms comparable to what the Military have, in the hands of the people of the Country!!! IT IS THE PEOPLE THAT ARE THE LAST AND FINAL LINE OF DEFENSE!!!

      That is what is meant by the Second Amendment….plain and simple!!!

      Anyone who does not understand this is either stupid, ignorant or lying to themselves and disregarding history along with intended truth!

      So, pick up the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States…with the Bill of Rights…and do a thorough study of them until you find out the truth!

      …because you seem to be stuck on stupid!!!!

      WAKE THE PUCK UP AMERICA…,BEFORE IT IS TO LATE…IT MAY ALREADY BE ! ! !

      • Jeremy Leochner

        American History is my passion Jim. I know quite a bit about it. The key statement you made is that the second amendment is the “last line of defense”. We the people have freedom of speech and the press and assembly and expression. So often NRA members and people on this site talk about guns not as being the last line of defense but as being the only line of defense. There have even been people who have said that without guns a person is a subject and a slave. They completely ignore the power of the spoken and written word. Gandhi and Martin Luther King did not need guns to change the world. Rosa Parks and the Little Rock Nine did not need guns. The Tiananmen Square Protestors had no guns and they stood up against tanks. My problem is not with guns or the second amendment. Its with this idea that the second amendment is more important than the first. There is a reason Freedom of Speech, Press, Assembly and Expression are the First Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms is the Second.

    • George Washington

      First thing, there was never a wild west, where people simply wnet around and shot everybody else, that is a fool’s idea, and NOT one of fact!
      Hitler did rise to power in 1933, and started to enlist the assistance of family members to spy on each other, so the Gestapo could round up all the ‘bad’ Germans. Hitler burned the Reichstag as a revolt to current government, and was jailed for it, during this time, he wrote Meine Kampf.
      Hitler loved a people that could not shoot at him, he was paranoid of this fact since he rose to power. As for any background checks, show me ONE that prevented a determined person from acting against the law? Murder has never been legal, but it happens daily.
      I guess a background check would work here as well…really?
      How about WE do background checks on politicains BEFORE they are allowed to be elected, so WE KNOW who they are?
      Fact is, THS government NEVER had the authority nor the power to conduct ANY background checks on its people, govvernment was NEVER granted that power…NEVER!
      This is a singular act of USURPATION that is a direct violation of the Consitution!
      READ YOUR CONSTITUTION and show me ONE WORD within it that defines federal power to conduct background checks, or to deny he people the RIGHT to own/posess ANY gun! NO wording in ANY document states any government has the right or authority nor power to deny a person in THIS nation, the RIGHT to own or carry a gun. THERE ARE NO PERMISSIONS FOR GOVERNMENT! Government does NOT have the power to act AGAINST the Constitution. Government NEVER had this power ceeded to it by ANY amendment or law, this action of government is nothing more than UNCONSTITUTIONAL USURPATION tha IGNORES the IIMITATIONS PLACED ONLY ON GOVERNMENT!
      WE THE PEOPLE do NOT have limitations on OUR rights! NO court, NO judge and certainly NO GOVERNMENT has this power!
      Government DOES have ENUMERATED AUTHORITY, and this NEVER included ANY section of the Constitution or the BILL OF RIGHTS!
      I wish people would actually READ both documents BEFORE making STUPID comments about the ACTUAL powers government CAN LEGALLY ENFORCE!
      The SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT ONE OF THOSE POWERS!
      NOTHING within the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION falls under the scope of federal powers!
      NOT ONE RIGHT WE RETAIN CAN BE LEGALLY ENFORCED AGAINST US!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        George Washington

        1: There was a wild west. See Tombstone Arizona.

        2: Hitler was not arrested for burning the Reichstag in 1933. He was arrested for leading an armed revolt in 1923.

        3: Back ground checks prevent those with mental illness or criminal records from obtaining guns. Read this article:

        http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/31/police-chief-johnsons-testimony-40-bypass-background-checks-is-false/

        4: Laws against murder are not about stopping it. People have good and bad in them. Just because there is injustice does not mean there is no justice. Just because laws against murder don’t stop all murders does not mean we legalize murder.

        5: We do need to have back ground checks on politicians.

        6: Back ground checks are not a violation of the constitution. That is like saying it is unconstitutional to make drunk driving illegal.

        7: A persons rights do not extend to the right to violate the rights of others. The government is given the sworn responsibility to secure the peoples rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men”.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “There was a wild west. See Tombstone Arizona.”

        One example does NOT make the west wild. It only means there were moments of wildness in that town.

      • Jeremy Leochner
    • jim

      You commented to Tom says–March 9, 2013 at 8:59 am with this:

      “We do need better enforcement of the laws Tom. Obama tried to do that by appointing a director of the ATF. For this he was called a dictator. As for how many laws we could use more not less. And if more guns means less crime why is it that England which bans guns has far fewer gun deaths than here in America. It isn’t “left wing” to believe that more guns can create more problems if people who can’t be trusted with guns get their hands on them.”

      We don’t need “better enforcement of the laws”, we need ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS! You seem to think there was not a Director of the ATF before Obama came along?!? The appointment of a director should not make any difference at all…if the agencies are enforcing the laws already on the books!

      And people are calling Obama a Dictator for making laws by Executive Orders! Congress makes Law…NOT THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT!!!

      Statistics are not always what they seem when truths are twisted to reflect something that is not true. Can God make a rock so heavy he can not lift it? It is like asking you if you quit beating your wife yet! Say “Yes!”, and it reflects the truth that you have been beating your wife!!! Say “No”, and if reflects the truth that you still are beating your wife!!! Either answer of yes or no reflects that you are or were beating your wife…when the truth is neither is true!

      And if less guns means less crime why…………………why is Illinois rated #6 in gun regulation as good, good, good….BUT the State with the highest “Fire-Arms Murders” as % of all murders being 83%, equal only to Louisiana!!! Washington, D.C. has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and after they were passed violence skyrocketed!!!

      Considering the laws already on the books, it may not be “left wing” to believe that more guns can create more problems…but…IT IS IGNORANT to believe one can’t trust people with guns when the Government already did a background check and now does trust them!

      You are living in a make-believe world where logic has left any realm of your conscious life!!!

      WAKE THE PUCK UP AMERICA…BEFORE IT IS TO LATE…IT MAY ALREADY BE ! ! !

    • truckjunkie

      And I’d like for there to be no war,no pollution,free food,and NOBODY has to work. But that’s not how the world operates,and as long as there are people,there will be criminals. Criminals don’t follow rules and laws worth a damn,so they illegally get guns,high cap mags and all the rest to commit crimes with. That’s known as “gaining an advantage” Therefore I’ll keep MY AK’s,hi cap mags,and all the ammunition I can get.
      All this Gun Control tripe is a red herring anyway. The true reason for it is to make us think it’s about public safety,or the alleged president’s supposed perception of it. Truth is,he can’t finish making the US a Socialist Empire until he Disarms it. He needs to do this so he can hand the US over to the New World Order,which will be run by the UN. There’s a possibility that China or Saudi will get this Country,but I’m expecting the UN to bring the US into their fold. Soon there will likely be another faked “crisis”,it’ll become necessary to declare Martial Law and he’ll have Holder begin gun confiscation–for the people’s own safety,of course. I hope I’ll be wrong,but I bet I’m not. There IS one more possibility–we COULD take our Country BACK,and restore Constitutional values and Government,but it won’t be easy but we can do it if we can get these idiot LIBERALS out of all positions of power.

  • Liberal Nightmare

    Hitler DIDN’T start the camps until 1939, after he disarmed the Jews and marched into Poland. Stalin, Mao and so on have been committing genocide for a long time. They ALL do the same thing, spout off like you and enact laws on guns, that way the people can’t fight back. Anybody who believes in gun controll and NOT the 2nd Amendment, still has the opportunity to FREELY move to their gun controll paradise of choice. The 2nd Amendment was put in place to STOP TRANNICAL Governments ( Foreign or Domestic ) from enslaving the people. The other way to Enslave the people is by Debt ! Liberals are the ones saying we don’t have a spending problem and are racking up HUGE Debt, that’s why you want gun controll, so “We The People” can’t fight back when the RIOTS start. good luck, I’ll keep some powder dry till then?

    • Jeremy Leochner

      I have to disagree with you Liberal Nightmare. The concentration camps were first established in 1933: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005263

      I have never met anyone who supports gun control and opposes the second amendment. Personally I believe in both gun control and the second amendment. And it is possible to believe in both.

      It is not about leaving people helpless. Its about not handing guns to criminals or people with severe mental illness.

      I am a liberal and I want us to reduce our spending. We have a huge debt and deficit in this country that we need to get under control. So with respect your statement ” Liberals are the ones saying we don’t have a spending problem and are racking up HUGE Debt” is wrong. Because there is at least one liberal who is not saying that.

  • hipshotpercusion

    If Mr. Zimmerman and the aggressor Trayvon Martin had been in Chicago, IL. Mr. Zimmerman would be dead from a fractured skull, and Trayvon would have gotten away and been protected by his Black enablers. Here in Florida, we can protect ourselves. Thank God, and good riddinace to bad rubbish! Deal with it!

  • Grandpa Frog

    It has been a while since I’ve read eddie47d, and I see he hasn’t changed his stripes.

    Suggestion, fastededdie, there is a very nice article in the New York Time on civility in writing these comments. Read it and Heed it.

  • john u

    If congress ever enacts a law mandating the registration and/or a production ban of detachable magazine semiautomatic rifles then you are hereby invited to the town square of your local community. There, burn barrels will be set up and we will publicly burn Form 4473s, FFL Bound Books, state and local registration records, and the sales receipts for every firearm in the United States. On that same day, FFL holders and public officials holding electronic firearms records will simultaneously erase those records, permanently and irretrievably.

    Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/all-federal-gun-laws-are-unconstitutional/#ixzz2Md5tA69M

  • Charles

    I saw that article on the Web. I also read all of the comments posted after the article. Every comment refuted the lazy, dishonest attempts in the article to vilify guns and gun ownership. In fact, every point made here by Brandon Smith was made repeatedly in the comments section following Blodget’s article. I was happy to see such support for gun rights.

  • FreedomFighter

    Tennessee State Militia/Guard Has Stopped DHS armored Vehicles from Kentucky – Russians with DHS Eagle uniforms

    http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/03/tennessee-state-militiaguard-has-stopped-dhs-armored-vehicles-from-kentucky-russians-with-dhs-eagle-uniforms-2583388.html

    (scroll to bottom of artical to see video footage)

    Ever wonder were those 50,000 Russian Speshnats DHS hired went to?

    You wonder why DHS or Department of Human Sacrifice buys 2 billion bullets, why all the machine guns, why all the light armored tanks, why all the guard dogs, why are they activating FEMA camps, why are they buying up all the civilian ammo supplies, why!? There is no outside enemy, no invasion force threatening the United States, no current sign of open rebellion in the streets just Americans going about daily business as usual.

    It is preparation for the Collapse of the monetary system and then Socialist/Communist/fascist cabal takeover of the United States by force of arms.

    Now we have evidence of Russian troops transporting and possible manning the DHS tanks — NOT AMERICANS — RUSSIANS

    VETS and other true Americans need to join DHS, TSA, and other control arms of the government, so that when the SHTF we have loyal Americans driving the tanks, carrying the machine guns and wearing the armor and having authority.

    Laus Deo
    Semper FI

    • jim

      Well said!!!

      WAKE THE PUCK UP AMERICA…BEFORE IT IS TO LATE…IT MAY ALREADY BE ! ! !

      • Frank Kahn

        I have noticed, in all the pictures and videos about these armored vehicles, that the American flag is wrong. Well it is wrong if you follow proper etiquette. The stars are always displayed in the upper left corner, not the upper right, to display it in the upper right is called upside down and is a distress signal. In the military we were taught that an upside down flag meant that there is some danger from hostile forces.

        You might try to say that it is that way so it looks correct in your mirror, but, how would you see a flag, that is displayed on the side of a vehicle in your rear view mirror?

        So why is the flag on these armored vehicles flying upside down (backwards)?

  • @ladynra1

    As the wife of a retired LEO and firearms instructor, I can confidently say the most police are much WORSE shots than the average gun owner. They also live their lives w/ heightened adrenalin levels, which leaves them much more likely to react quickly, tho’ more aggressively, than the average citizen. While, this helps them do their jobs, the avg. gun owner will take a LOT more time making sure they are in danger before pulling the trigger. Gun owners know that our level of liability is HIGHER than the cop’s.

  • Steve

    Well done. In all the fuss about the 2nd Amendment, the right to defend oneself is fundational to this country. If bad guys have guns with multiple rounds, citizens must also have access to such weapons. I believe Samuel Adams called the tight to self-defense the 2nd law of nature. How much Americans have forgotten!

  • http://www.premiercleanandrestore.com Ethan David Ellingson

    The most common cause of homicide deaths in the U.S. is blunt force trauma. Guns don’t kill people, blunt force does, one might say. An extremely small percentage of homicides are committed with high capacity weapons.

    An armed society is a polite society. Criminals prefer unarmed victims.

    If the relative availability of guns and ammunition cause crime, then the relative availability of gasoline and matches cause arson.

  • Anthony Tampone

    There has been much attention to the horrific crimes of mass shootings in the past year. As terrible as these were, they do not compare to the actual shootings taking place,mostly in our cities, each year. The city of Chicago has had more than 30 gun homicides in the first 2 months of this year. There is no legal way to carry a gun in the city of Chicago. The many laws prevent it, and yet more than 30 people are dead. The POINT is LAWS AGAINST GUNS DO NOT PREVENT MURDER. Getting guns away from Criminals is the answer, not disarming the citizenry who are trying to defend themselves. Politicians try to placate the masse by saying they are doing something to prevent future occurences when there are so many unenforced laws already on the books that would more than suffice.
    I’ll stop now, I’m starting to rant!

  • Pingback: The differences between libertarians and conservative on guns | Off the Drip

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.