The One Question I Want All Gun Nuts to Answer

I don’t care what side of the debate you’re on, it’s indisputable that the United States is saturated in gun violence. In 2013 alone we saw 11,008 gun related homicides.  When it comes to other developed countries around the world, we don’t just lead every single one of them in gun violence — it’s not even close.



But all I ever hear from gun nuts is the worn out cliché, “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Or the one that really doesn’t make any sense, “More guns make us safer.”

Think about this logic for a moment. For decades our gun laws were so lax (and still are) that we allowed millions of guns to pour into our streets, right into the hands of criminals.

Now the argument from guns rights activists is that we need more guns to protect us from the guns they helped allow flood into our society, finding their way into the hands of criminals.

The flaws in this “logic” couldn’t be more obvious. Keep pushing for less regulations on guns, causing more and more guns to flood into our society, which undoubtedly results in criminals having easier access to obtaining guns.

And, of course, what’s the answer to deal with the threat of criminals who’ve gotten these guns?  More guns.  

It’s a perpetual cycle.

Right now there’s roughly 300 million guns in the United States. Considering our population is only around 323 million, that’s nearly one gun for every man, woman and child in this country.

So, my question to gun nuts is simple: How many guns is enough to keep us safe?

To answer that question one must ignore the simple math that tells us that the more guns we allow to flow into our neighborhoods, the more gun violence we see.

Yet these gun fanatics constantly claim we need “more guns” to make us safe.  Well, what’s the magic number then?  Because we’re damn near at a 1:1 ratio for American citizens and guns, and that sure as hell doesn’t seem to be decreasing gun violence.

400 million?  500 million?  A billion?

How many guns will it take to decrease gun violence in the United States?

Wait, I know what some of these gun nuts think.  They’re preparing for an overthrow of the government.  Here’s a rule I propose: If you’re someone who honestly believes that you can stage an armed rebellion to overthrow the United States government, you’re too mentally unstable to own guns.


After all, isn’t it gun rights advocates who often talk about mental health being the leading factor to gun violence?  Well, any fool that thinks a bunch of people wearing camouflage pants they bought at Walmart and owning a few rifles are going to wage war against the most powerful military that’s ever existed in all of humankind, is out of their damn mind.

But ignoring the lunatics who think we own guns to overthrow our government, I still want to know an answer to my question, how many guns will it take before we see a decrease in gun violence?

That’s all I’m asking.

Because that’s generally what many gun nuts claim will “make us safer,” right?

Of course, that’s complete nonsense.

The most recent massacre in Las Vegas happened in the very pro-gun state of Nevada where open carry is legal. Where were the “good guys with guns” to prevent/deter this madman from killing more than 50 people and wounding over 500 others?

Another example that debunks pro-gun propaganda occurred just a few weeks ago when members of Congress were fired upon in Virginia, another very pro-gun state. Not only is it legal to openly carry guns there — without a permit, I should add — but armed Capitol Police officers were on location protecting the lawmakers. Yet that didn’t deter a crazy person from opening fire on their softball practice, nearly killing Rep. Steve Scalise.

Though I know better than to try to use common sense or reason when dealing with gun fanatics — neither ever register with people who are in denial about how wrong they are about something.

These are people who seem to think we need to go back to the days of the wild west when everyone had a gun holstered to their hip. Apparently they think gun violence was low back in those days.

Except, if you read look back through history, one of the first things many law enforcement officials did to clean up some of these towns (because of out of control gun violence) was ban the carrying of firearms within town limits.

However, now these gun fanatics want a return to something that even in the 1800’s they knew was a problem.

It makes absolutely no sense.

Though this all brings me back to my question, with around 300 million guns in this country (probably more), and gun violence that continues to lead every developed nation on Earth — how many guns will it take before “good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns?”

Because what reality actually tells us is that more guns actually lead to more violence and death — not less.

Feel free to follow me on Twitter or Facebook to let me know what you think.

*A small amount of information was added to this article on 10/2/2017 to reflect events that occurred after it was originally published.




Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • mike46

    The answer is: it depends on what country decides to come to our shores and screw with us. How many was the right number when we fought the revolutionary war?

    • Andy

      So your fear is another country coming to our shore and attacking us and that is YOUR justification for all the guns?

      In your mind, what country would that be and do you expect the common citizen to repel that threat ?

      • mike46

        Gosh. Are you living in a cave? You don’t see what is going on in the world? Have you never studied the history of wars?

      • G Wagner

        Do you think you’re going to stand up to planes, tanks, gunships, and missles with your puny freaking gun? Are you going to shoot down a drone with your musket? Get a clue!

      • Joe Hayes

        Mike – Great Britain didn’t get invaded in WW1 or WW2 because of a tiny slice of water that one can see across in some places. We have the Atlantic and the Pacific. I suppose that Mexico or Canada could try to invade us, but that just sounds TERRIBLY unlikely. Russia invading Alaska Alaska is the most achievable logistically, but it still doesn’t seem likely, and that seems like a war that would be fought with bombers and tanks and maybe even nukes. I wouldn’t want to go running up to a Hind and try to take it down with my 20 gauge.
        Precisely what scenario do you envision that has the US being invaded in the next 50 years? 100?

      • john doe

        Red Dawn was just a movie, Mike. We won’t be fending off an invasion with Bubba and Cletus and their AR-15’s. If you are expecting to fight off an invasion with your gun you are truly mentally ill and should NOT be allowed to own a gun

      • mike46

        What is Red Dawn? I suppose that you will be able to defend yourself with a peace sign?

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Mikey, stop digging! Your hole is so deep you may never climb out!

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        digging? hes climbing ” out of this world”!!!

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        john! give him a gun!
        ( when they are temulent they shoot themselves)

      • Cathryn Sykes

        Really, Mike. And what would our now immense military be doing while the Open Carry dopes were taking on the bad guys? Sitting around sighing “Our heroes!” I DON’ THINK SO! After the Revolutionary war, we were a tiny, broke, exhausted country, unable to afford a large standing army, surrounded by potential invaders on all sides…the British in Canada, the French in the Louisiana Territory, the Spanish in Mexico. We’d almost lost the Revolutionary War in the first months, when the state militias–despite the fond imaginings of Mel Gibson!–proved to be badly disciplined, ill-equipped, and often more interested in fighting each other than the British. The Second was designed to give us bigger, better equipped militias to use if we were attacked again. Well-regulated militias. Not a bunch of Steven Seagal wannabes.

      • mike46

        And you actually think we aren’t broke and can afford a large standing Army now? Why do you think we have a draw down and a RIF every time a conflict ends?

      • john doe

        Mike, Mike, Mike…..

        Part of the REASON we are so broke is BECAUSE of the billions and billions and billions we spent and continue to spend on our large standing army. You’re not too bright, are you Mike?

      • Guest

        Mikey, we have the largest standing army in the world! didn’t you know that. America is not broke. We’ve
        gone through three major, useless wars since VJ day and we’re not as comfortable as we were in the fifties. We have debts but we aren’t broke. If we were broke how could the Republicans in Washington afford to give billions of dollars in tax breaks to the already wealthy 1%?

      • 1EdMeadows83

        1EdMeadows83
        mike46
        Mikey, we have the largest standing army in the world! Didn’t you know that? America is not broke. We’ve
        gone through four major, useless wars since VJ day and we’re not as comfortable as we were in the fifties. We have debts but we aren’t broke. If we were broke how could the Republicans in Washington afford to give billions of dollars in tax breaks to the already wealthy 1%?

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        how can they afford NOT to? repubs gotta feel needed and get re-elected also!
        =======================================
        Vietnam was useless? ( look at all the great music!!)

    • Drew

      we have the best-supplied and most well-trained military in the world….we won’t need citizens to fight in the completely unlikely case that another country decides that they wanted to invade.

      • mike46

        Really? Is that why we had to call up every reserve we had just to fight in Iraq? You and Andy are delusional. Study the wars of the past. Were not France and Spain and Italy and Russia well armed during WWII. Did they all not have to depend on their citizens to form resistance groups to defeat Germany?

      • salmon

        we didnt have to call up any reserves… we chose to call them up for war

      • mike46

        Man I want some of what you’ve been smoking. We had to call them up because we didn’t have enough troops on active duty to do the job.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Well, I hate to admit it Mike but you’re right about that. We should have had a draft but President Cheney and his puppet, George Bush didn’t want to offend the wealthy by drafting their children so they depended on the kids of the lower middle class and the poor to fight their war for oil.

      • Naome Lixes

        Let us not confuse Military exploits as stimulus spending with social policy. The invasion of Iraq was an example of what James Galbraith the younger calls the
        “Predator State”.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Mikey, you just dug yourself down another 3 feet. France and Spain were not adequately armed to face Nazi Germany. Russia was not particularly well armed but they had a great preponderance of troops. They suffered more casualties than the other allies combined.
        France thought they were invulnerable with the Maginot Line but Germany flew right over that “formidable” fortification. And no, they did not depend on their citizens of resistance. Read your history Mikey.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        hey mike: Italy was allied with Nazis; Russia non aggression until Germany invaded. spain was in effect neutral; because of ITS civil war Spanish fought on BOTH sides…. spain did give Germany economic help
        Germany lost because they didn’t defeat Britain b4 attacking Russia; and hitler didn’t listen to his generals early.
        …….and that early winter!!!

      • Jojo West

        We don’t have the best-supplied and most well-trained military in the world. The UK does, but you know, let’s keep being all “America F*ck Yeah” about everything.

      • salmon

        the good news is that the UK would be on our side for this hypothetical invasion… and your statement is also literally wrong in every way possible. sooooo… “America F*ck Yeah?”

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Jojo, you need to research your responses before making a fool of yourself. I just googled this, “Who has the best equipped standing military in the world?” and all the answers have the USA by a LARGE majority. This is typical of the responses.

        1. United States

        2. Russia

        3. China

        4. India

        5. United Kingdom

        6. France

        7. Germany

        8. Japan

        9. Brazil

        10. Pakistan

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        go get ‘M ed baybeeeeeee!!!

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        cupcake,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that statement is insane

      • Daddycool67

        Let me make sure i understand here:

        Jojo and mike are saying that we need to continue to have a completely irresponsible gun policy in this country, and continue to endanger our children (and ourselves) … because
        1) Our military is inadequate.
        2) Germany invaded England and France 70 years ago.

        OK! Got it!
        Thanks for clarifying the reasons for America’s idiotic gun fetish!

      • 1EdMeadows83

        That’s about it, Daddycool.

      • Jojo West

        Wow I didn’t know I said all that. In fact, I didn’t because my arguments for owning guns have nothing to do with any of the above. Also…It’s not a fetish, you may not quite understand the concept of fetishes but that’s a lesson for another day. I’ve got some gun shooting, and poor fashion choices to make for the weekend 🙂

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        as long as we look good naked there ARE no poor fashion choices

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        and,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        ” A.N.D.”——————————
        obamas coming for our guns
        =====================================
        NRA and FOX “news” zealots ‘think’ that their rifles will stop out military.
        whats the english word for ” blitzkrieg”?? 🙂

    • Jo Clark

      Yowza. How IS 1776 in your neck of the woods? Could your thinking be any more antiquated? You’ve just validated this entire article.

      • mike46

        Critical thinking is obviously not one of your strong suits. “Those that refuse to learn from the past are bound to repeat it.”

      • john doe

        Exactly. Columbine. Sandy Hook. Etc, etc. etc.

        As long as we continue to allow you and your fellow gun fetishists to murder us and our children we will never learn

      • 1EdMeadows83

        You probably don’t know who coined that phrase, do you Mike?

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        would that include republican ‘economic’ policies? ( see: tax cuts /wealthy ‘job creators’/ deficit spending/ ETC)?????

      • mike46

        What deficit spending or debt. Someone just told me that the country wasn’t broke.
        But no I’m not impressed with either party’s economic policies. Flat tax on EVERYONE including businesses and welfare recipients. A budget that includes payments to the principal of our debt to work at paying it off. Absolutely NO deficit spending.
        And most of all no more wars that aren’t wars. However, the GOP is not the only party that operates on deficit spending.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        tax religious organizations,,,,,,,,make weed legal,,make cocaine legal,,,,make prostitution legal,,,, make gambling legal,,,,,,,,,,,, charge 2 cents on all stock/option/futures/commodity ETC trades,,,, charge a nickel ( each way) on all internet purchases….regulate all of what I listed; keep the MONEY here in America. and get rid of michelle malkin

    • strayaway

      Answer: Whatever number satisfies the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The answer is zero for many people. For other people, the answer may be more than one. I know a couple who lived in a “safe neighborhood” and never considered having a gun. When their 80 year old neighbor lady was raped and murdered, they got a gun. Their decision had nothing to do with a hypothetical Chinese invasion through Mexico or fears of an encroaching police state. They just decided that they could not completely rely on their very good suburban police department. The answer was one gun for that couple.

      • john doe

        …and now that your friends own a gun all rapes and murders have stopped, right?

        Gun nuts live in a fantasy world.

      • strayaway

        No, but rapes and murdered residents are less likely to happen in that one household after purchasing a gun plus there was the bonus of feeling more secure without taking sedatives.

        If you don’t want a gun that’s fine. If you are capable of being sanguine about murder in the house next door, that’s fine too. The answer to the question would be zero in your case. However, this murder was not a fantasy. If there was a fantasy it was that a good police department would or could prevent such occurrences.

        I know a lady who had to yell out her apartment window to chase off teens who were breaking into her car. They walked off slowly. She became worried about her security though and decided to buy a gun in case she had a home invasion. The guy at the gun shop, after talking to her a bit, told her that he didn’t think she could ever pull a trigger and talked her into buying a couple of containers of bear spray instead. So again, in her situation, the answer was zero. She was just insecure. She hadn’t let in police with a key to witness a dead lady. She didn’t have the personal motivation to be willing to defend herself with a gun. In her case, temporarily disabling a potential intruder with bear spray was doable though.

        Maybe, therein lies a compromise solution. Anti-gun people like yourself and even people like the guy at the gun shop, could encourage and distribute bear spray as a substitute self defense substitute for guns.

      • BackSeatJesus

        Far more personal weapons are used to accidentally kill a family member than to kill an intruder.

      • AbbeyRoadkill

        Yep, the stats say your family is far, far safer not having a gun in your house at all.

      • strayaway

        That’s true and of concern. According to an article, “List of preventable causes of death” as found on Wikipedia, There were 19,776 firearm suicides , compared with 11,101 firearm homicides, 43,000 traffic collision deaths, 55,000 deaths by toxins, 85,000 alcohol related deaths, 112,000 deaths attributed to obesity, 435,000 deaths related to tobacco, and at least 210,000 preventable medical errors in hospitals.

        From other sources and recollection, about 1/2 of suicides and 1/3 of homicides are not gun related. The good news is that although the number of guns has about doubled since 1993, the firearm homicide rate has fallen in half from one 6.6/100,000 in 1993 to 3.2/100,000 in 2011.

      • Naome Lixes

        Don’t quote statistics to people who play the Lottery.

        It upsets them, and they’re armed.

      • Charles Vincent

        Not according to the CDC.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        ” he didn’t think she could ever pull a trigger” That may be true but I think if I was to invade a home and an old lady leveled a firearm at me, I would reconsider my action. There is nothing wrong with owning a gun for protection but it should not be left laying around for some kid to pick it up and kill himself.

      • Naome Lixes

        With an estimated 250 million guns (mostly handguns)
        concentrated in less than 1/3 of the homes in America this has become a problem that falls clearly along
        class lines. Few educated people think this kind of risk is sensible, prudent or useful.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        I couldn’t agree more.

    • pushkin

      Probably the stupidest remark I’ve seen in a long time. No country will have the time to “come to our shores” you poor fool! A nuclear warhead will be whizzing our way, and what good would your poor little weapon be then??

      • mike46

        Damn! I forgot all about them. I guess that must have been a couple of small nukes that hit the WTC and maybe a suitcase nuke in Boston.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Yeah, a well armed militia could have shot those planes down. If they had known they were coming. You went down another 3 feet Mikey.

    • AbbeyRoadkill

      More proof that gun freaks are Rambo wannabees.

    • 1EdMeadows83

      Mike, I hesitate to remind you, this is 2014 not 1776. The army is armed a little better now than it was then. I don’t think I’d want to face an attack by our army or any army, armed with the puny weapons available to you, me or any other civilian.

      • mike46

        But wait, this article is about how everyone is armed with assault rifles and killing everything that walks and talks. And then we have to guy that swears that anyone that can strip one of these things can turn it into an automatic weapon.
        And that is my point about the far left being as bat shit crazy about doing away with anyone owning a gun as the far right is about wanting everyone to own at least one.
        You don’t have to buy one if you don’t want to, but why are you so hell bent on stopping me from buying one?

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        buy them !!! but why do U have 2 show them off as jewelry?????
        they are F*CKING dangerous

      • mike46

        Now that I can understand and accept. It is a reasonable approach. They do sometimes act like little boys trying to prove who has the biggest one.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        mike; I gotta ask: when ( ???) has OBAMA ‘come for anyones guns”??
        ?????????? he seems to be running out of time to do “that”!

      • mike46

        Did I ever say he was coming after anyone’s guns? What I said was that the far left is just as batshit crazy about trying to pass laws to stop folks from owning guns as the far right is in trying to make it possible for everyone to own one. Neither is right.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        gun registration/ backround checks are NOT keeping all americans from owning guns. Just the imbeciles

    • Naome Lixes

      Thank you for providing me first real belly laugh of the day.

      I mean, sure – if Lichtenstein invades you’ve got a chance.
      Syria would kick your ass.

      The US armed forces, if called on to put down an insurrection
      (for which there is NO Constitutional protection FYI)
      would quietly restrict media access, cordon off the area
      and liquidate the Beer Belly Brigade.

      We wouldn’t even need a mop.

      Face it, you’re not protecting US. You’re threatening your neighbors.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        superb!!
        ( those silly regressives DO read from the same playbook; don’t they??)

  • The gun was romanticized on television and in the movies when most of these nuts were growing up. They grew up on Bonanza, John Wayne and the like. This is the vision they have in their minds when they think of their guns. In this world, the good guy with the gun always gets the bad guy with the gun. But the reality is that the good guys with the guns are shooting themselves in the penis or killing their loved ones and the bad guys with the guns are shooting up our schools and streets. Nobody is safe in this environment.

    • Cathryn Sykes

      Don’t blame John Wayne or the Lone Ranger or Bonanza. In those scenarios, the bad guy was the one waving the gun around and the hero was usually either the local lawman or working with the local lawman. Blame the Rambo movies. The Steven Seagal movies. The Chuck Norris movies. Where a single “hero” with a gun mows down all the bad guys–which often includes the local police, the regular Army or a sheriff or two, always, of course, presented as corrupt and cowardly–then walks off into the sunset.

      • Point well taken. However, the romanticizing of the wild west has been going on since the start of Hollywood. These yahoos envision themselves as John Wayne or Lil’ Joe Cartright but they are acting like Rambo.

      • Mary Lilred Gaworecki

        I would bet a lot of the gun toting crazies hardly ever watched bonanza or the Lone Ranger. That generation are grandparents now…..I don’t see many grandparents toting guns to the mall.

      • SFCPat

        I am a grandmother and anytime I leave my home I am carrying a gun. To the mall, shopping, matters not. If there are no metal detectors, I have my gun in a concealed pocket in my purse. I was in the Army for 22 years and am trained. I have a gun in most rooms of my home. I raised 3 daughters with those guns in the house, all 3 were taught to shoot and knew they were not toys. Now I have 7 grandchildren being reared with those same guns plus any their parents or they themselves own. We have never killed anyone, have never threatened anyone – I and my family want only to live our lives the way the Constitution allows. That document gives me my rights to own guns and my family’s service in the military since the Civil War, gives you the right to disagree. How many guns are enough? Depends on how much money is enough, how many pairs of shoe’s are enough, how many cars does your family have to own, why do you need a 2500 square foot house? That is a question only the individual being questioned can answer. For me the answer is: As many as I want!

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        excellent!!!
        now– can U TRY to tell the regressives who cry all the time when EXACTLY Obama has ‘ come for their guns”?

      • Mary Lilred Gaworecki

        I am not talking about conceal carry. I’m talking about the crazy gun owners that carry AK47’s strapped to their backs and parade around malls, “cause they have a right in ‘Merca to do it.” I also have guns, but I don’t consider a responsible gun owner that conceal carries a crazy gun nut. The guy in the pic above, he’s a crazy gun nut. You, I’m guessing, not so much….

    • Naome Lixes

      The problem is the media blackout over battlefield carnage.

      If there was a genuine portrayal of slow death from a sucking chest wound, death spasms and agonized howling – it may give people pause. The depiction of shooting deaths is that they’re immediate.

      License to carry a handgun should involve a tour of trauma units.

  • Cathryn Sykes

    I have my own theory. Have you noticed that almost all of these Open Carry types are–how shall I say this?–less than attractive? Scrawny or pudgy, pipe stem legs or hollow-chested, thin hair, stringy hair, no hair, wispy beards, and all the fashion sense of….well, the guy in the picture on your post. But-IMHO-they all think that having a AK-something slung over their shoulder makes them into Rambo. Or Steven Seagal. Or Chuck Norris. Hey, idiots! It doesn’t work that way. You still look like a doofus….with a gun.

    • Jojo West

      Your theory is flawed. My husband and I are neither scrawny or pudgy. We’re not “uneducated rednecks from swamp lands” and we’d be caught dead before we were caught wearing anything remotely close to what the guy in the image above is wearing. You are referring to what the media wants you to think typical “gun nuts” or as I’d like to call them, legal gun owners, look like. In your honest opinion, thinking that ALL of us think that having an AK slung over our shoulders makes us into Rambo or Seagal is stupid.

      We don’t own guns because we want to look like FICTIONAL characters! We don’t own guns because we think we stand a chance against a corrupt government. Thinking that would make us just as stupid as the moron that thinks he’s Rambo. We own guns…because we like them. We enjoy going to the range on a Saturday to practice, my husband enjoys hunting. I also, as a female, personally like knowing that I’m well trained in the use of my weapon and I can effectively defend myself and my family in a home invasion. I can defend myself against an attacker as I’m coming home from working late. If you don’t like guns…simple, don’t own one.

      Taking the right to own a gun from law abiding citizens isn’t going to make gun crimes disappear. News flash, criminals breaks laws! They will still have guns and will still commit crimes.

      • BD

        Just owning guns and going to the range doesn’t make you a gun nut…. waking around town with an assault rifle on your shoulder to prove a point does, showing up to help a dead beat rancher dodge paying his fair share for using public land and calling yourself a “militia” does, opposing all gun control as a matter of course does i.e. the NRA opposing a law that prohibits convicted stalkers and domestic abusers from owning guns. If one the descriptions above fits you then you’re moron and there’s nothing further to discuss.

        If not then you need to realize that there are reasonable gun control advocates just like there are reasonable and responsible gun owners and stop arguing with every person who utters the phrase gun control because that just gets you lumped in with the morons!

        I own guns too and enjoy going to the range. I don’t support gun bans but I do support 100% registration of all firearms sales (including private party sales) and background checks. I DO NOT support universal open or concealed carry. Your right to bear arms ends at your front door. Imagine how many times you found yourself calling every other driver on the road a moron…. now imagine every one of those morons carrying concealed weapons.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        I see nothing wrong with that.

      • Jim Bean

        “Waking around town with an assault rifle on your shoulder to prove a point” does not make you a gun nut. It just makes you a nut.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        how about a NUT with a GUN?

      • Stephen Barlow

        What ‘point’ does it prove beyond the carrier being a nutjob?

        it’s like script writers for TV using shit and ass as ‘message’ to the censors. it REALLY doesn’t improve the quality of their work nor the appeal of their programming. As with stalking the streets armed with unloaded weapons pretending you are some cutting edge revolutionary, all you are managing to accomplish is annoying decent people.

        How just night band together like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and change your ‘right’s” via lobbying.
        MADD and the Mothers Against Gun Violence should have lunch and discuss strategy and tactics.

      • Jim Bean

        Possibly. However MADD focuses on the behavior while MAGV is obsessed with the tool so there is quite a divide in their respective rationales.

      • Shartiblartfat

        Not true. BOTH groups want their and other’s children to get old. The commonality is guns and drunk drivers kill too many children.

      • Stephen Barlow

        BINGO! But STONED DRIVER’s have never killed a soul.

      • Terry Ball

        Dec 2012. The Vancouver Police Department arrested a man on the charge of driving under the influence of marijuana in connection with a
        deadly crash in Vancouver.

        Police believe this is the first deadly crash involving
        marijuana since it became legal in Washington

        Investigators said the driver hit and killed a pedestrian around 5:50 p.m. on East Mill Plain Boulevard and Andresen Road.

        Police say the victim, a male in his 50’s, was believed to
        be walking back from Safeway and stepped out into the middle of traffic.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Once? hehehe!!! Sorry to have it happen. This crash also involved used tires, a specific location and a specific make of car.

        HOW can you PROVE that marijuana WAS THE CAUSE of this fatality?

        BEYOND a REASONABLE DOUBT?

        While historic, it amounts to little more than “shoes linked to driver in fatal crash!!” News at YAWN O’clock.

      • ShibumiMC

        Vancouver is not in Washington. Time to buy a map pal

      • 1NedSprockethead1

        I don’t think anybody in these comments has mentioned Washington except for you. Please try to keep up.

      • ShibumiMC

        Pay attention to Betty Cuninco Martinez. She can read.

      • 1NedSprockethead1

        So we commented at the same time and I couldn’t see hers. Please try to do better. You are sounding a bit like a fool. Okay, a lot like a fool.

      • Betty Cunico Martinez

        Get a map of Washington and look carefully because there IS A VANCOUVER WASHINGTON

      • ShibumiMC

        Yanks. They think they are the only country on the planet.

      • Justin Bradburn

        No, we just know we are the greatest country on the planet.

      • scott will

        yeah but we don,t build anything anymore, phones, cars ,tvs clothes and alot of guns .if we are invaded, we are done.

      • scott will

        yeah but we don,t build anything anymore, phones, cars ,tvs clothes and alot of guns .if we are invaded, we are done.

      • jonathan

        Hahahahahah we are literally not #1 on any list except the disgraceful one. We are literally not even remotely close to the “greatest” country in anyway whatsoever if there even is such a thing as a greatest country. What a vague as shit statement.

      • 1NedSprockethead1

        So it’s not the car that kills children? See the incongruity of your statement?

      • BHLaurie

        Drunken idiots kill people, and when they do usually they are jailed and their license is taken away. Idiots with guns who kill people should have their guns taken away too. You need to take a test and register your car if you drive. That’s to keep idiots from driving. The gun idiots need some rules too. Teaching gun safety, background checks; If you are a domestic abuser or a stalker, an idiot who threatens people with a gun every time they get mad, or a person who left a loaded gun laying around for a child to find, YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A GUN. If you are not an idiot, why would those rules bother you?

      • Stephen Barlow

        The BEHAVIOR of a fully armed. locked and loaded PARADE though Target (did they pick it because the Name made them laugh like baboons?) of is what disturbed them the MOST. MADD is trying to get people’s right to drink REVOKED in some states.

        Gun nuts who keep to themselves and protect their property WITHOUT funning down unarmed kids in a vehicle moving AWAY from the shooter, just because the Music is annoying the THEM ONLY… is the kind of BEHAVIOR that MAGV are most concerned about.

        SO a little honesty on your part would really be appreciated.

      • Jim Bean

        Why do y’all always pick an extraordinarily rare example like that instead of complaining about the dozens of blacks who kill other blacks every single day? You afraid to engage in an comprehensive adult conversation about the issue, perhaps?

      • Brian

        You’re correct, but guns are not a tool. They are a weapon. There’s a big difference.

      • Jim Bean

        Is a knife a tool or a weapon?

      • Brian

        What kind of knife? Switchblade? Sure thats meant for killing. Pocket knife? No, that’s not meant for killing, it’s a tool like garden trowel is.
        Knives generally are made with certain purposes in mind, and some, though few, are for killing.
        All guns only have one purpose, however. All guns, since their invention in 11th century China, exist strictly for killing. No, toys like airsoft don’t count. Target rifles, before you mention them, are weapons as well, just used for sport like a javelin or a throwing hammer. Still meant for killing.
        Not that I’m against it, by any means. But a gun cannot be a tool, is my point. Even the US Navy made that distinction clear. We had to memorize it in basic that a gun is not for warnings and is not a tool to make work easier. A gun is for killing and only to be drawn when that is the intention. Please don’t hammer nails with one to disprove me, mate, I think we both know that wouldn’t end well.

      • Jim Bean

        We’re deep into semantics but its fun. The pioneer, badly in need of food, grabbed his ‘weapon’ and went in search of deer. The Amish – who all have guns and wouldn’t use them to kill someone else even if it meant losing their own life- also come to mind. They might slaughter a chicken with an ax and a cow with a gun. But your saying that only the ax can also be called a ‘tool’. Hmmm.

      • Brian

        Killing is killing whether its a man, deer, or cow. I made no specifications for a reason. An axe is for chopping wood unless it’s a Daneaxe or something. A gun is for killing. The first guns were for men specifically but never evolved beyond killing something.

      • Jim Bean

        You’ve convinced me. From now on, every time I see a can of wasp killer, I’ll think “weapon.’

      • Brian

        In the absolute most basic sense, yes, a can of Raid is a weapon.
        Jim Bean, surely you understand my point. If you call a gun a tool, you begin losing the respect you have for it as a deadly weapon meant mostly for killing other people. These are not mundane items. A gun is the power to efficiently, quickly, and easily kill from a distance, and that is their one and only purpose.
        If you take it lightly, in a way similar to what the men carrying loaded rifles are doing in businesses, a tragic accident could happen. Guns are not meant to be waved around like picket signs in a vague protest of some yet-to-exist law. It’s one step away from being a maniacal jiihadist discharging guns into the air while burning US and EU flags.
        I’m not opposed to ownership or carrying of weapons, although I think it should be toned down a bit. I think the way we see guns now is incredibly disturbing and becoming a bit savage.

      • Jim Bean

        I understand your point but don’t agree with it. First of all, these nuts are just seeking attention. Stop rewarding them with it. Nothing turns them on more than causing hyperventilation among their detractors That’s was their motivation for doing it. Second, I think the number of people who are confused about what a gun actually is for is equal to the number people confused about what an automobile is actually for . And I think the people who believe they can change someone’s perception of something by simply applying a different term to it are underestimating everyone else and only fooling themselves.

      • Brian

        Yeah, I realize they’re just seeking attention, but ignoring them won’t make them go away, it never does, and if there are so many people waving guns around like toys someone will eventually get hurt or killed, even if it’s an accident.
        And yeah, it’s about their lack of understanding. Lack of understanding needs to be fixed through education. I don’t see it as applying a different term, I see it as putting things into perspective.
        This is how I know there’s few war veterans or police officers among them. They lack that perspective. I don’t think I’m underestimating them when I think of them as being incredibly childish but still toting deadly weapons in public around children. Hence my comparison to jihaadists.

      • Jim Bean

        If concern for children is your concern, your efforts would be better invested in fighting affirmative action and the politicians who deliberately instill bitterness in people for their own political gain.

      • Brian

        Off subject and irrelevant.

      • Jim Bean

        You’re correct. I’ll fix it. If you’re concerned about unnecessary gun related deaths and injuries, your efforts would be better invested in fighting affirmative action and the politicians who deliberately instill bitterness in people for their own political gain.

      • Susan Grove

        Jim Beam – you need to read more carefully what Brian is explaining. He has the best explanation of guns vs tools I’ve ever read. I’ve learned a lot from his posts.

      • Jim Bean

        He has to proven to have grave concerns about a group who, from a pragmatic perspective, are of no concern. He’s hoplophobic.

      • 7Lil7Boo7

        not an actual phobia, just political rhetoric

      • Francois Bergeron

        so let me get this straight. Because you’re out of arguments, you’re now equating wasp killer with guns. Typical nonsense that makes discussing this an absolute impossibility.

      • Jim Bean

        You need to go back and follow the discussion in its entirety.

      • Susan Grove

        Thank you Brian – you’ve said what I have been unable to articulate ever since these discussions on gun violence started appearing.

      • Justin Bradburn

        Both

      • 1NedSprockethead1

        Actually, that is incorrect. Guns are tools. You are attributing qualities to a tool, in effect anthropomorphizing them. The ONLY weapon in our arsenal is the human mind.

      • Francois Bergeron

        how in any normal universe can guns be considered a tool???

      • 1NedSprockethead1

        In a ‘normal universe’ people wouldn’t twist themselves into knots redefining words. Tool: ‘ a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task’. Pretty simple, isn’t it?

        Whether you want to call it a ‘bad tool’ or a ‘good tool’ is up to you, but a gun is still just a tool.

      • Justin Bradburn

        Defintion – handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task. The task is to kill very efficiently with minimal effort, which can be both a good and bad thing. It is obvious that most uses of firearms is a good thing. There are however a great deal of bad uses of firearms, which is the very reason I carry the tool that is a firearm all the time and everywhere.

      • iArgue

        Guns are “tools”… Belonging to the subset of “weapon”. You wouldn’t hammer a nail with your gun. Your gun won’t drive you home from the bar. You can’t cut your hair with it. It’s sole, engineered purpose is to be a weapon.

      • 1NedSprockethead1

        You are splitting hairs. Hammers may were invented as a ‘tool engineered to kill.’ Just to enlighten you a bit: the mind is the only weapon, everything else is a tool.

      • iArgue

        Well, you’re certainly a tool. But a gun is a weapon.

      • 1NedSprockethead1

        What a logical response. About what I’d expect from a leftist with no argument. Stunned for life.

      • iArgue

        Who said I was politically left? You’re the one spouting New Age philosophical word salads like “The mind is the only weapon.” Stupid hippie.

      • 1NedSprockethead1

        God, you’re a dumbass. That is a direct quote from one of the top combatives trainers on the plant. You are definitely a leftard.

      • iArgue

        I don’t care if Jesus Christ himself said it. It’s an empty platitude. Even plants have weapons, and they don’t have minds. You should know that, as a stupid plant-hugging New Age hippie who spouts empty platitudes.

      • Justin Bradburn

        Weapons are a type of tool just like a screw driver is a type of tool. Sounds like you are a tool too.

      • Brian

        An idiotic statement from a paranoid, Freudian nightmare. A weapon is not a tool, it is a weapon. Weapons exist for the sole purpose of killing others, whereas a tool makes life better and easier.
        If you are mixing the two up, you have obviously never used a gun for anything other than target practice and penile compensation.

      • Justin Bradburn

        What am I paranoid of? I have guns to keep from being paranoid. A knife is a cutting tool and cutting weapon. Tools can make life better or worse, it isn’t dependent on the outcome. If I had to kill someone with a gun to stay alive, that made my life better. Guns are a killing tool, TOOL!!! Just because you have an emotional hinderance with word association DOES NOT!!! mean that facts change. All you have is insult because you can’t have civil and logical discussion. You are also a liar because you make false statements contrary to facts. Quite pathetic, but to be expected with those aligned with the democrat party, socialism and stupidity.

      • Steve Ebenroth

        Nobody gave a shit about the “deadbeat rancher” and were not supporting his cause. the problem ONLY arose when BLM agents started acting like jackbooted, brownshirt, SS, nazi gestapo stormtroopers beating old ladies, tazing peaceful protesters, point guns at them and confiscating his cattle with helicopters and killing them. Fuck that shit, the government does not have that kind of authority. It was a beautiful thing to see the feds get afraid of being exposed as thugs and retreat on national TV.

        I have legally carried weapons for most of my life and have never brandished it, never shot at someone for cutting me off in traffic, none of the stupid fears that you progtards whine about.

        As far as what you believe and what you think is reasonable, you’re entitled to your opinion but it isn’t worth shit. The constitution is the law of the country and your feeble minded president and his minions tried to disarm us and they failed, as they will fail big time this November. Progressives are nothing but modern day nazis, You should live your life however you want, and not worry about what tools i possess.

      • Naome Lixes

        Dude, you’re checking off all the basic disquals for ownership, under any definition of “well-regulated”.

        Anyone that tosses of a Nazi reference as support for his position, isn’t rational.

        “Fuck that shit, the government does not have that kind of authority. It was a beautiful thing to see the feds get afraid of being exposed as thugs and retreat on national TV.”

        You mean, they didn’t start shooting innocent people being used as human shields by “Patriots”?

        That sounds remarkably like restraint considering the snipers on the bridge above the assembled idiots.

        You cranks think you’re protecting the rest of us from some conspiracy, but your the ones threatening.

        Go Galt, already.

      • Charles Vincent

        “”well-regulated””
        You don’t know what that means in the context of the constitution or the second amendment.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        are we gonna dissect well regulated again; Charles???

      • Charles Vincent

        Why do that to yourself T. It will just turn out bad for you.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Explain it if you can find something to cut & paste…

        In detail would show you actual knowledge of the Constitution.

      • Charles Vincent

        Already have don’t be lazy.

      • Steve Ebenroth

        Do you think you’ll be spared?

      • Charles Vincent

        Spared from what?

      • Justin Bradburn

        The context is the militia. Militias like the military have divisions and units. They also have set of standards, ranks, discipline, etc. that is what well regulation is. The 2nd amendment is not making a requirement, it is stating a fact about how the militia should operate. It is separate from the right to guns that is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. This is basic grammar you know. Commas and periods have a strange way of guiding what the reader to what the writer is portraying. The Federal Government is not the only entity that can regulate. There is such a ring as self regulation. The Air Force is self regulating.

      • Charles Vincent

        Just a stab in the dark here but I’m guessing you only read this one comment of mine… Perhaps you should take time and read all of them I’ve made concerning the second amendment and natural rights in general.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        You mean, “Who is John Galt”? 😉

      • Shartiblartfat

        From the Randbook, “going Galt” is a reference to Galt’s Gulch, the magical place where thinkers, and doers and makers could live in peace and harmony without the Blahs and other societal moochers and spongers to fear.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        “Who is John Galt” is the expression used throughout Ayn Rand’s, “Atlas Shrugged”.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I thought it was the handle of a Radical RED?

      • Justin Bradburn

        Love it

      • Stephen Barlow

        He was mixing up his paranoid delusions. The cops DID Pepper spray and taze OWS protesters, and it was VERY wrong. ANd it was a totalitarian response from local Right Wing political machines.

        There was nothing FEDERAL about it, and his selling TeaBagger rhetorick like butter on it makes him less credible a contributor.

        Funny thing about conspiracies. they almost never really have solid links between the players. Guys like him are insipid pawns used by the few to justify prejudice and injustice.

        There are less than 100,000 people within 100 miles of My little town. While most of them believe FOX propaganda about “coming to take your guns”, I read an article in a blog type paper that ade me laugh.

        30 retired military guys from the Western Slope of Colorado are organizing a summer long protest in Washington DC. The main guy said, “We are not allowing weapons or firearms, This is a peaceful protest. We want the government to see that millions of people want their freedom back. (When was WHAT freedom taken from these Military pension teat suckers?)”

        “But if the Feds open fire on the crowd, it will be the beginning of a civil war for sure.” This hut job is exactly the kind of guy who would fire on his own supporters to foment a riot to make a point against a possibility that would ONLY happen in the mind of a FOX News Manufacturer.

      • Jim Bean

        Go research the stats with regard to gun violence. Then come back and tell me which specific group you should be most fearful of.

      • upbeatred1

        Wrong, Steve. There are PLENTY of us who gave a shit about the deadbeat rancher – those of us who do not support the welfare cattle business using public lands for grazing their herds for private profit – making up numbers about wild horses and generally using the taxpayers money for their own advantage. I am not a fan of BLM, either. But, the government should have that kind of authority over MY (and your) land being used by deadbeats.

      • Mary Lilred Gaworecki

        and when did the president try to disarm us?? I must have missed that…. Reality check for ya here. The ONLY law Obama has passed regarding guns is the one that now ALLOWS us to conceal carry in national parks. Not the work of one who wishes to confiscate guns…… You sound like one of the nut jobs when you claim Obama is taking our guns. He’s done no such thing and hasn’t made a single move to do so…..

      • Stephen Barlow

        Why would anyone need a SECRET AMBUSH WEAPON in the woods? Bears gonna mug ’em for their Snicker’s bar?

      • Mary Lilred Gaworecki

        The law was changed when Meredith Emerson was hiking the Appalachian Trail and was kidnapped. She was held for three days before being beheaded. The guy that did it, Gary Michael Hilton, was also responsible for killing a teacher in Florida on the Florida Trail, and an elderly couple in N.Carolina who were also hiking a trail. The family and friends and the entire hiking community pushed for it and a bill was written up to be able to carry in national forests and Obama signed it. Yes, there are crazy people everywhere…

      • Stephen Barlow

        Since we do not know the nature of the attack (from behind, while asleep, etc) we can not really even guess about the usefulness of a handgun in her situation. More people get killed with their own guns than wound or kill and actual attacker.

      • Mary Lilred Gaworecki

        We do know the exact nature of the attack because he told all in order to avoid the death penalty. She had a dog, he had a dog. They talked about dogs, weather and the trail as they made their way back to the parking lot. That is where he grabbed her and threw her in the back of the van. She fought as hard as she could and freed herself once but couldn’t get far enough fast enough. Had she been carrying when she broke free, she still might be here now. The police agree she did everything right to stay alive, along with giving him the wrong pin # for her ATM card. That is the only reason she stayed alive for three days. Had she had a conceal carry on her, she might just be here today.

      • Stephen Barlow

        If that’s the case, it might have been luckier for her if she were armed. But being armed and primed to kill at the least slight or perceived danger or affront is how kids in cars with loud music get murdered.

      • Justin Bradburn

        That’s a lie

      • Justin Bradburn

        I went hiking on the AT about 12 years befor the gun restriction was lifted, I carried a gun anyway. Not as if anyone could have done a darn thing about it.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        I see from reading your other posts that you are, to be sure a gun nut and probably need to be confined. I also see you are a Classical Greek scholar. Do you know what Pericles would have done with a fanatic such as you?

      • Charles Vincent

        I see you haven’t read the constitution nor have you read the bill of rights and you don’t understand either if you have read them.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        and ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,if ed meadows HASS INDEED read them,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        I bet fat ass chuckie wont recant his bloviage

      • Charles Vincent

        Reading doesn’t mean understanding T.

      • Stephen Barlow

        But your lack of understanding means you don’t read well do you?

        Could that be because you cut & paste Breitbart, Boortz and Fox because you can’t think for yourself?

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Err, Charlie, the bill of rights is part of the constitution, the first ten amendments. Maybe you’re thinking about a Bill of Lading or something like that.

      • Charles Vincent

        i know what it is and i know they are the same document but you still probably dont understand them

      • 1EdMeadows83

        “i know what it is and i know they are the same document” Well, I see I have added to your elucidation! You had to look up the constitution to see if I was correct. You hate to admit that I was but you are a bit smarter now.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Then you are WRONG!! Again!!! They were written by separate people at separate times, for separate purposes. The Constitution defines the organization of the Government, it’s rights and responsibilities and it’s function.

        The Bill of Rights explains when and how the Government may or may not perform certain specific acts and the limits of those actions. It also explains that what is not specifically spelled out is up to the individual States, and ultimately down to the individual.

        It ALSO grants the STATE (the FED) the right to change your rights.

      • Stephen Barlow

        That are no. they are Amendments TO the Constitution. hey are separate entities, with a commonality.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

      • Stephen Barlow

        NO! They are NOT ‘part’ of the Constitution. They are an after thought, a correction to, the original Constitution. they were written separately, by different authors, for specific purposes unique to each one.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Charlie, apparently everyone is a complete dumb ass except you, You think I haven’t read the constitution, you think Naome doesn’t know the meaning of “well regulated”. Why do you bother with such ignoramuses as we when you could be on a Fox News approved website?

      • Charles Vincent

        Ad hominem is beneath you. And its about getting the correct information to people so they can make an actual informed decision.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Well! I’m delighted that you actually think something is beneath me. Judging from the tone of your pathetic posts, I assume you thought NOTHING was beneath me or any other reasonable person on this site. Bravo!

      • Stephen Barlow

        Thought you reserved the right to make decisions for everybody

      • Charles Vincent

        1 section 8 of the US constitution;To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

        discipline:

        1.training to act in accordance with rules;
        drill: military discipline.
        2.activity, exercise, or a regimen that
        develops or improves a skill; training: A daily stint at the typewriter is
        excellent discipline for a writer.
        3.punishment inflicted by way of correction
        and training.
        4.the rigor or training effect of
        experience, adversity, etc.: the harsh discipline of poverty.
        5.behavior in accord with rules of conduct;
        behavior and order maintained by training and control: good discipline in an
        army.

        The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word “regulate,” which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English
        Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

        1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
        2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
        3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
        4) To put in good order.
        [obsolete sense]
        b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

        1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We
        hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

        We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton’s words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

        The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A
        tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public
        inconvenience and loss.

        — The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

        Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of ‘disciplining’ which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Yeah? So?

      • Charles Vincent

        So both you and the other poster are basing your arguments on non facts and rhetoric, and then using a logical fallacy argument. in this instance it its;
        Mind projection fallacy – when one considers the way one sees the world as the way the world really is.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Fact: Guns kill people when held by criminals or by the mentally
        unstable or by innocent children.

        Fact: More people in the United States are killed by guns
        than in any other developed nation.

        Fact: There are 270 million to 310 million guns in the
        United States. Enough to arm every man,
        woman and child.

        Fact: People who think guns are the answer to most
        problems are either criminal or stupid.

      • Charles Vincent

        Point one is wrong people kill people and when that happens it’s the person sitting in the defendants chair not the tool they used to kill.

        Point two is a false equivalency for a couple reasons one being that our population is larger than other developed nations and with a larger population there are inevitably more bad apples mucking it up for the rest of the citizenry.

        Point number 4 is disputed by the CDC and BLS statistics on defensive use of a firearm.(they estimate that between 300k and 1 million people used guns to defend themselves each year.

        Point three supports guns helping to reduce crime and all violent crime has been declining for roughly the last 20 years dispite growing numbers of gun ownership.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Point one: Your response is one that is worn thin by repeated use by LaPierre and other mongrels of the NRA. I’m sure you know better. Or am I giving you too much credit?

        Point two: Here again, you know better. These are the nations that lead the USA in gun deaths. Do you believe they are further advanced than we are?
        Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, South Africa, Swaziland, Uruguay, Venezuela.

        Point three: Yeah, I’ve heard the mantra, “The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a yada, yada,yada”. Repetition does not make it a true statement.

        You haven’t disproved a thing. You’ve only added your voice to the choir of the mentally disturbed and the NRA.

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re free to believe that but the statistics and empirical evidence back what I posited. And your consistent use of Ad hominem tells me you have no facts to refute what I have stated.

        ” Do you believe they are further advanced than we are?Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, South Africa, Swaziland, Uruguay, Venezuela.”

        Two things here
        1) you said developed countries
        2) Only one country on that list is In the OEDC(developed countries) that country is mexico.
        Your Straw man fails

      • Guest

        “Only one country on that list is In the OEDC(developed countries) that country is mexico.” Exactly my point, dummy! The only nations with the possible exception of Mexico, that lead the United States in gun deaths are POORLY DEVELOPED nations. You can’t quite grasp that fact, can you Charlie?

        My 2nd Fact: “More people in the United States are killed by guns than in any other developed nation.” Is that so hard for you to understand? The United Staqtes leads other DEVELOPED

      • Charles Vincent

        its a straw-man and had nothing to do with my point which was about population being a reason you’re assessment was wrong.

      • Stephen Barlow

        you’re a straw man

      • Shartiblartfat

        Your mom’s a straw man.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        “Only one country on that list is In the OEDC(developed countries) that country is mexico.” Exactly my point, dummy! The only nations with the possible exception of Mexico, that lead the United States in gun deaths are POORLY DEVELOPED nations. You can’t quite grasp that fact, can you Charlie?

        My 2nd Fact: “More people in the United States are killed by guns than in any other developed nation.” Is that so hard for you to understand? The United States leads other DEVELOPED nations in gun deaths. DEVELOPED NATIONS, Charlie. 11 poorly developed nations are the ones which LEADS THE USA

      • 1EdMeadows83

        “Only one country on that list is In the OEDC(developed countries) that country is mexico.” Exactly my point, dummy! The only nations with the possible exception of Mexico, that lead the United States in gun deaths are POORLY DEVELOPED nations. You can’t quite grasp that fact, can you Charlie?

        My 2nd Fact: “More people in the United States are killed by guns than in any other developed nation.” Is that so hard for you to understand? The United States leads other DEVELOPED nations in gun deaths. DEVELOPED NATIONS, Charlie. 11 poorly developed nations are the ones which LEAD the USA in gun deaths. I’ll try to phrase it in a way you can understand.

        The United States is included among the developed nations, Of all the developed nations The United States has the highest percentage of gun deaths. Period. Can you grasp that? OK. There are eleven poorly developed nations, plus Mexico that lead even the United States in gun deaths. Period. I named those states in my last post which obviously you did not understand. Can you grasp that? Good, maybe we’re getting somewhere. If not, I’m sure you’ll let me know and I will either explain the facts further or write you off as being beyond normal comprehension. Is that “Ad Hominem” also?

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re creating a straw-man argument. I wasn’t talking about under developed countries I was talking about population of the us versus other developed countries.
        “11 poorly developed nations are the ones which LEAD the USA in gun deaths.”
        Therefore this is irrelevant to the discussion since were are discussing developed countries.

        “The United States has the highest percentage of gun deaths.”

        This statement of yours is a false equivalency. because most of the developed nations have a far smaller population than the US which supports what I was saying about larger populations have more violence.

        In Switzerland the private citizens own fully automatic weapons and they have low crime rates. You’re also completely ignoring other factors that impact violence because you desperately want guns to be the problem because its easier to scapegoat an inanimate object than it its to address the real and far more complex problems that cause violence.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Charlie, I know you’re not as stupid as you’re trying to make yourself seem. You KNOW the United States has a higher percentage of gun deaths than any other
        developed nation. YOU KNOW THAT!

        “The United States has more guns and gun deaths than any other developed country in the world, researchers found.

        A study by two New York City cardiologists found that the U.S. has 88 guns per 100 people and 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people — more than any of the other 27 developed countries they studied.

        Japan, on the other hand, had only .6 guns per 100 people and .06 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, making it the country with both the fewest guns per capita and the fewest gun-related deaths.ed country.”

        I’m giving you credit for being smarter than you purport yourself to be. Please give me a little credit that I might not be as stupid as you want me to be.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Yes he IS that stupid. He believes his own MINDFALLACYPROJECTION

      • Steeler4Life

        Ok, not here to argue Gun BS, but I have just one question. WTF are 2 heart doctors doing research studies about guns? Just curious!!!

      • Stephen Barlow

        So let’s get this straight, you don’t want to include the nations that out gun the US, and ONLY want to include the Western Civilized nations (all of which have severe, functional gun control). OK WHERE is the ‘straw man’? You should recognize him, he looks just like you…

        Statistics are per capita, so the actual size of a population is irrelevant. 88 guns per hundred people and 2.6 guns per hundred people…. Doesn’t matter if one group has 300 million and the other on 33 million.

        But gun death rates are lower where there is no civil war, no drug cartels and very limited gun possession laws. THERE’s your universal facts.

      • Stephen Barlow

        What statistics? YOu fail to prove anything you say with actual FACTS and or DATA to verify your allegations.

        Actually, he makes his point in that these 2nd and 3ed world countries ARE NOT as civilized and advanced as America and they are the only ones that OUT GUN US.

        A straw man is a stand in for a person who doesn’t have the courage to speak for himself. he is actually speaking more for himself than you are. All you are is lame excuses and made up “MIND PROJECTION FALLACY” LOL @ your phallic obsession

      • Justin Bradburn

        The point made by Wayne LaPierre is right.

      • Stephen Barlow

        YOu are wrong on point two. America has lees than 5% of the world population, but has almost HALF of the gun deaths not attributed to warfare.

      • Charles Vincent

        I didnt say world population I said population in comparison to the individual countries on the list i.e. the US population compared to say Germany
        The population of the US is ~313 million
        The population of Germany is ~82 million
        that’s between 1/4 and 1/3 the size of the US population the point was making dealt with the fact that with more population more things like violence happens, and therefore Edmeadows is creating a false equivalency.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Charlie, Charlie, Charlie! Maybe I’ve been giving you too much credit for being smart.

        Perhaps you’re just incorrigible. It doesn’t get any more clear than this:

        Deaths
        by firearms per 100,000

        United States 10.3 per 100,000 (2011)

        Germany 1.24 per 100,000 (2010)

        You can do the math to translate this into millions, if not, let me know and I’ll do it for you.
        This is getting ridiculous. I shan’t waste any more time or words trying to show you the obvious.

      • Charles Vincent

        way to side step what i was saying true to form you cant refute so you either resort to name calling or you act like a child and take your ball and go home.
        And you conventionality ignore how statistically insignificant deaths from firearms are. Then you equate all gun owners to being the cause of all the deaths and you’re calling me stupid. then you compare 2 different years.
        secondly your 10.6 includes suicide, unintentional and undetermined deaths by firearms, holy hell you can’t even use statistics correctly.

      • Stephen Barlow

        PER CAPITA statistics take all that into account. Just like 12 is a dozen, even in Metric countries.

        There are so many factors that reduce violence in Germany, from the nature of the German culture to the fact that the Polizei have carried OUZZIES for 60 years, have minimal liability for stray victims during a hot pursuit and ZERO liability to ANY fleeing criminal. They have a standing “shoot to kill” order for any fleeing suspect.

        In America, burglars who are shot coming in a homeowners window have successfully sued for lost earnings because their wounds prohibited them from robbing more houses to make a living!

        The Police get sued daily for doing their jobs and millions are stolen from the taxpayers by the guilty criminals who game the system. I know 234 in the House of Represetnatives who do that for a 6 figure tax payer paid income. PLUS a lifetime, 7 figure benefits package.

        Apples an asteroids Chuck! Which AGAIN, explains the use of uniform, “per capita” data.

      • Charles Vincent

        “In America, burglars who are shot coming in a homeowners window have successfully sued for lost earnings because their wounds prohibited them from robbing more houses to make a living!”

        when and where and did you bother to see if the judgement was overturned?

        “There are so many factors that reduce violence in Germany, from the nature of the German culture to the fact that the Polizei have carried OUZZIES for 60 years, have minimal liability for stray victims during a hot pursuit and ZERO liability to ANY fleeing criminal. They have a standing “shoot to kill” order for any fleeing suspect.”
        This statement reaffirms my original post that its a false equivalency. and apparently your having the same brain problem that ed was since you don’t seem to under stand statistics and probability. or how a larger population will have more crime because there are more miscreants. nor have you taken into account the homogeneous nature of other countries compared to the US.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Point three is at best a partially scientific guess.

        1million people brandished a firearm to thwart a crime?

        Bureau of Labor Statistics??? REALLY? LMAO!!!

      • Charles Vincent

        “I’m sorry, what was that deeply psychological sounding syndrome you invented that no credible source ever heard of go:

        “Mind projection fallacy” YEAH! THAT joke.”

        https://www DOT google DOT com/search?q=MInd+projection+fallacy&oq=MInd+projection+fallacy&aqs=chrome..69i57j0 DOT 13139j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

        “the growing @ of guns doesn’t mean MORE PEOPLE have become gun nuts. It is more likely that the SAME GUN NUTS are buying more guns!! With the NRA campaigns about “Obama is coming for your guns! Arm UP man!!”, you can see how these fools will take food from their kids mouths to feed their Death Tools addictions and paranoid delusion.”

        ^^^^This is circular logic and wishful thinking.^^^^

        ““Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

        The report, which notes that “ violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past five years,” also pointed out that “some firearm violence results in death, but most does not.” In fact, the CDC report said, most incidents involving the discharge of firearms do not result in a fatality.”

      • Stephen Barlow

        Guns kill people who get guns pointed at them! Period No GUNS, NO gun deaths. NO SHIT! It’s that simple.
        Sane people kill just as easily and irrationally as those you mentioned.

      • Shartiblartfat

        Those gun numbers are only estimates, and probably low, at that. The gun population is a nebulous cloud, including registered, unregistered, stolen, improperly disposed of, illegally traded, illegally imported or smuggled, etc.

      • Stephen Barlow

        What is with you and you fallic addiction!!!

      • Stephen Barlow

        Do you have any documantation to confirm your diagnosis of… LMAO

        “Mind projection fallacy – when one considers the way one sees the world as the way the world really is.”

        Is your delusion so overpowering to you that you have to INVENT a term for ‘delusion’?

      • Stephen Barlow

        Sorry you so grossly misquoted the Constitution. You intentionally intended to mislead people by maliciously neglecting the three most important parts:

        1) “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

        2) “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

        To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

        To provide and maintain a Navy;

        To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

        To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

        3) “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

        The President you hate, IS an “officer thereof”
        the National Guard IS each state’s WELL REGULATED MILITIA. if you are NOT a member, you have no right to bear arms. The Second Amendment DOES NOT apply to you.

        Below I cite the exact and complete text you misused.

        “Section. 8. Article One

        The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

        To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

        To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

        To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

        To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

        To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

        To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

        To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

        To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

        To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

        To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

        To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

        To provide and maintain a Navy;

        To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

        To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

        To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

        To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And

        To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

      • Justin Bradburn

        The national guard is not the militia. It was created in 1903 in the Militia Acts of 1903. By definition the National Guard cannot be the militia because they are proffesional military. The militia is not that, it is citizens organized as a non professional fighting force.

      • answer please

        So, it sounds to me like your saying that in order to own a gun you should be properly trained and at the readiness to be called upon by the federal, state or local government for service, without the ability to deny them of your services. Would that be correct?

      • Charles Vincent

        As part of the militia yes i.e military maneuvers or tactics training which is what well regulated means in the context of the 2nd amendment. schools used to teach firearms safety but no longer do because of the GFSZA signed by Bill Clinton, concealed carry permits have training courses as do the requirements of hunters safety to hunt. The BSA also has firearms safety. The fact is I think training firearms safety should be one way we mitigate firearms accidents.

      • Stephen Barlow

        This guy is a BOT. His sole purpose is to distract you. He will never give you an honest answer because he never has one. his whole Modus Operandi is Pee Wee herman “I know you are so what am I?” Gibberish.

        Don’t waste your time, unless it amuses you to belittle him publicly and strip the phony ’emperor’ of his ‘new clothes’.

      • Justin Bradburn

        Do you know the context of “well regulated”, that is the question. You act as if the federal government has a monopoly on regulating. You act as if watching Fox News is a bad thing.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Explain how you gleaned this claim from any part of this thread?

      • Justin Bradburn

        Why would you advocate confining innocent people that have most likely never commited a crime of any kind? Why would you advocate physically going on the offensive with people that are willing and fully ready to kill you to defend their lives all while you remain unarmed. Take a baseball bat to a shotgun fight, you end up dead.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        hey lardass( part2)
        when O when did Obama come for ur guns? U white trash loser,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        NOTE: he hasn’t. he wont. he doesn’t care
        ========================================
        he just MIGHT be tired of dead cops and kids and civilians

      • Steve Ebenroth

        Speaking of lard asses, who’s the fat mongoloid bitch in your profile pic. Fuck you progtard shit talking web ninja. Did you forget about your god and savior pimp daddy O parading the parents of the dead sandy hook kids like puppets to promote his failed gun ban bill? The best part of you ran down your mother’s ass and made a stain on the pool table, boy.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        again; O erstwhile seer of nothing: that’s the repub ‘s MOM im abuuuusing with MY USERNAME( make the connection yet Einstein???) ” too easy flat mom”???
        wow– I am quite appreciative of re-igniting 5th grade ‘lingo’:
        ” best part of U ran down ur moms ass………….ETC”
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        brilliant; absoluuuutely F*CKING brilliant!
        and– noteworthy event: u did NOT answer my easy2answer question
        #########################################
        im no baddass,,no ninja; but at 6’3 215 im pretty much a guy most don’t wanna mess with; either on a BBall court or weight room. I do NOT need guns.
        look up the word ‘ alopecia”

      • Steve Ebenroth

        Fucking sissy posts a shirtless pic of himself and gives me his physical stats. Look man, I do not swing that way. Go be sexually confused with someone else. Damn, talk about political positions and you get the Indian from the village people acting like some gay bully with gay sounding veiled threats? eeeeeeew, go away. go impress someone who gives a shit about your vocabulary toilet paper and queer innuendo. Look up the phrase ” Molan Labe”

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        sissy? that’s what overweight bald stupid crybabies bemoan: ” sexually confused”/ keep crying………… confused? me? TOTOTOTALLY! im soooooooooooooo confused as 2 which mint big breasted woman to ” drill baby drill”!!
        ======================================
        love how U pseudo white trash Christians are! jealousy runs rampant in your inbred fat ass faily? im older tha U by a LOT yet look at your DOUBLE ( triple??) CHIN!!!
        I am impressed that U actually can spell innuendo!

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        hey crybaby,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, why didn’t your balding overweight loser self get back after I blistered U with the explanation???
        I did like the 4th grade part about the “ran down/ stained pool table” !! very compelling and shows your quite sensitive!1

      • Jerry Jacuzio

        Wow. Steve. Are you really that horrid that you would use the term mongoloid as insult – and to some woman you don’t even know? I mean just another citizen? I read other folks here who don’t fall to that level. You sure don’t look as nasty you come off. I mean, you are one of our countrymen, are you not? Why not save that hate for our real enemies. Even then using retard-based name calling and mongoloid as insults is pretty low.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Stevie, please explain to us ignorant folks, just what is a “progtard”? I looked it up and can’t find a definition in any of the accepted dictionaries. Maybe you’re so intellectually advanced that you can use words not known to us poor humans.

      • Steve Ebenroth

        Progtard: noun. The descriptive label of any progressive human that is brainwashed by the mainstream liberal media, causing blinding mental disability. Common uses include – “The world is getting hotter, wait, cooler, wait, windier, whatever, it’s George Bush’s fault! Whaaaa!” , or “not one more” , or “forward” . “Why is that man shitting on the street? He’s a progtard, Nancy Pelosi gave him that right”

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Well Stevie, that’s hilarious! I’ll bet you were the smartest 18 year old in your fifth grade!

      • Stephen Barlow

        But, if the nutjobs who DO ‘indulge’ in road rage and child slaying didn’t have candy store access to MURDER TOYS, then you wouldn’t be mad at being lumped into the same bag of trash with them, would you?

      • Stephen Barlow

        Sad that most of your claims NEVER EVER happened. You sure area gullible turd.

      • Paranormal Skeptic

        Wow! Jack boots huh?

        I mean, whouda thunk that an enforcement agency would try to enforce the law?

      • Alex Klimek

        I am not nor ever have been a nazi…for one,my Dad gave part of his leg fighting them…number 2,I was in the US Army in Vietnam…I would never have thought that some day the people of this country would again walk around in public with loaded weapons,like when this country was still young….further more it is not the constitution that gives you the right to keep and bear arms, It is the Bill of Rights. Some how we went backwards in this country and the rest of the free world went ahead and left us behind…I hope we can change that back before one of my family dies because of your rights!

      • Jerry Jacuzio

        I’m with you Alex. So many people give servicemen and women a bunch lip-service – forgetting we signed up to protect all citizens. I didn’t serve so one countrymen could horribly insult another and treat them as the enemy. I don’t want thank you lip-service – I need for my countrymen to act in manner that doesn’t make my service seem senseless. Steve. You should be ashamed.

      • Susan Grove

        Good for you Steve Ebenroth – aren’t you a smarty pants!! Just what this world needs is more jerks like you in our gene pool. Too bad the American Sniper didn’t have you in his sights. Oh wait – he couldn’t have ’cause you’re the kind that never served our country.

      • Steve Ebenroth

        I forgot I even made this post last year. The country gave you jackasses the finger in november, GFY. BAAA HAHAHA!

      • Steve Ebenroth

        Lol! You jackasses got shellacked in November like I said was going to happen. GFY.

      • Jerry Jacuzio

        Susan – there is surely truth that such a person could not have served in military.

      • Steven Diedesch

        That doesn’t make you a gun-nut, that makes you a lunatic. I’m a gun nut and CLiven Bundy is a fossil who doesn’t realize the south lost the war.

      • scott will

        registration leads to confiscation

      • scott will

        registration leads to confiscation

      • Daddycool67

        If you take an assault rifle to the mall …. you ARE a “gun nut” AND you most likely worship at least one fictional character.

        If not … then I don’t think she was talking about YOU.

        But, since you have a persecution complex … you probably think everything is about YOU.

        Also … I’m gonna guess that you and your husband aren’t as attractive or as educated as you like to think.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Well, I don’t think your last remark was necessary.

      • matt

        I think it was relevant and it’s probably true.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        agreed,,,,,,,,,,,,, daddy “cool” gives liberals –if he is one; not some creep posing just to inflame– a bad name

      • Stephen Barlow

        weee

      • Guest

        There’s one problem with people like you Jojo is that all too often you leave your weapons laying around where kids can reach them and the exterminate themselves of another child. Oh I know, you and your husband would NEVER be so careless but there are too many others like you who are not so cautious. I have nothing against responsible gun owners although I can’t understand the almost religious worshiping of those instruments of death that some owners display. I have a friend who brags that he owns 75 guns including a Kalashnikov AK-47. I just can’t wrap my head around such a need. I own a collection of little black children figurines that my late wife loved but I can’t kill anyone with them.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        There’s one problem with people like you Jojo is that all too often you leave your weapons laying around where kids can reach them and they exterminate themselves or another child. Oh I know, you and your husband would NEVER be so careless but there are too many others like you who are not so cautious. I have nothing against responsible gun owners although I can’t understand the almost religious worshiping of those instruments of death that some owners display. I have a friend who brags that he owns 75 guns including a Kalashnikov AK-47. I just can’t wrap my head around such a need. I own a collection of little black children figurines that my late wife loved but I can’t kill anyone with them.

      • modera8

        I’m totally fine with intelligent, literate, law-abiding citizens owning weapons. You, not so much.

      • Jim Bean

        Excellent reply. How ironic that those (like the author) attempting to portray themselves as uber-virtuous resort to using an illustration that he knows is not representative of the people he seeks to malign.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        similar to the white trash crybaby regressive religious trash who portray Obama as a mionkey or liberals as commies/ Nazis/ etc?
        ya mean like that ????
        funny: jimbo the alcoholic NEVER bitches when the RIGHTWING does it,,,,,,,
        ergo– jimbo is nugatory!

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        then we need you and people such as U to reproduce mightily and get rid of the squalid white trash who are so noisy about GUN RIGHTS/OBAMAS COMING 4 YOUR GUNS!

      • Jojo West

        We must remember that those people are not the majority, they’re simply the vocal majority. These are the people that news outlets seek as evidence to support their own agendas. There will always be people on both sides of the gun argument just as there are people on both sides of the arguments on marriage, marijuana, etc. Just like there will always be people that cannot state their opinions without resorting to pointless attempts to offend people. Something people never discuss when it comes to guns is mental health and how difficult it is to get quality mental health care in the US. If proper mental health care was more easily accessible there would be a huge decline in not just gun crimes but violent crimes in general.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        and a huge decline in perhaps breeding more mentally unhealthy humans??? I love what U wrote– and Im in step with ya. sadly its all about money

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        addendum: im unsure why U are being attacked by others upon this thread. what U wrote was excellent and right down the middle. Those who are castigating U may be simply jealous

      • Cemetery Girl

        They are the vocal aspect of gun owners, which is unfortunate, but the representatives of gun ownership helped create them. The NRA has had idiots for mouthpieces since Heston. While passionate, he was well spoken. They have a short lived flirtation with Nugent, and he’s continues to be outspoken. Until the NRA spoke out about the open carry fanatics, the NRA has done a poor job of representing responsible gun owners.

      • MLR

        I agree with you on almost everything you said except for one. Nobody is trying to take the right to own a gun from anyone except criminals that shouldn’t have them. If you are a law-abiding gun owner (so am I) then you should be very supportive of universal background checks. Most employers require background checks for a job so I don’t know what the problem is for requiring them for a purchase of a gun.

      • Paayy

        I noticed you still didn’t answer the question. How many guns does it take to make you feel safe? And the argument that criminals don’t follow the laws when it comes to guns is flawed. Why have speed limits? Or laws regarding anything?

      • jack

        it only takes one gun to make my family and i safe ….you call 911 and pray they get there befor the guy kills your family…i call 911 to come get the dead man out of my house

      • Brian

        Learn to fight. Buy a tazer. Buy mace. Buy pepper spray. Buy an alarm. There’s a lot of alternatives to owning a gun during a break-in. You just fantasize about being a big damn hero. Or maybe you have some bloodlust.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        im a liberal centrist; yet if anyone breaks in2 my home I would want to shoot them dead rather than any thing else u wrote
        …………….. and Im no hero

      • Steve Ebenroth

        What business is it of yours how many guns I own? Why have a second amendment? Or a Constitution at all? Go eat a tofu burger and mind your business.

      • Naome Lixes

        What business?

        There’s more than 250 million guns legally owned in
        America. Where do you think criminals get theirs?

        What happens in your double-wide is your business.
        When you show up at the bowling alley with a Glock
        out on display, it’s everybody’s business.

        2A religionist got him feewings hoit?
        Cry me a river.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        love it!

      • 1EdMeadows83

        Ohhh, I see that beyond being a scholar of ancient Greece, you’re also a constitutional lawyer. You and President Obama DO have much in common!

      • Steve Ebenroth

        I, unlike Obama, have actually read the Constitution. Who’s the drag queen in your profile pic?

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        hey fat ass,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        sumpin’ tells me u don’t have a clue as2 how 2 get any woman
        ======================================
        and no cheating: U don’t get to get them drunk ( even though they are white trash alcoholics)

      • Steve Ebenroth

        Hey carrot top. I doubt that you have any interest in picking up ANY woman anyway, little bitch…

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        just for you!! im placing MY photo up; will follow it with andy/all girlfriends –including the one I live with now in pompano beach FL 125 yds from that splendid atlantic ocean
        this is me; “carrot top” hardly. the photo prior seen is a regressive white trash imbecile– kinda like you– who I abuse by using HIS name and his moms photo.
        my hair??? totally thelyphthoric!

      • 1EdMeadows83

        She, as you probably know, is not a drag queen, She is my late wife and the mother of my two children. She is more valuable to the country, dead than you are, alive.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        its nobodys business 2 how many U own,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, just as its nobody’s businessas 2 how many slim big chested women I F*CK,,,how many cars I own,,,,, how many fat bald regressives I insult! funny U mention tofu: im willing to wager BIG money ur beer gut is as hard as tofu.
        keep crying dumbass,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, keep suckling the tete of FOX “news” and the loser white trash regressives U clowns are-
        disgusting losers

      • Steve Ebenroth

        You must have manhood issues to have to F*CK lots of slim big chested women and feel the need to post it on the internet (latent homosexual). I promise that nothing that any msnbc zombie says will ever bother me.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        awww,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, little fat bald guy bent? ( latent homosexual issues)
        hey crabcake: I like allowing my great friends ( in this case YOU) to seethe knowing that anatomically superb women DO exist; and U aint getting any
        ( but,,,,,,,,,,,,, ya’ gotttz dem’ guns)
        shall we all look like glenn beck/sean Hannity/ eric bolling and rush Limbaugh? ( see” steatopygous)

      • Cemetery Girl

        I think you might have misunderstood. My husband was in the military, he builds rifles for fun, and has his CCL. He gets irked by the doofuses that feel the need to go into every public place possible with a rifle or two slung over shoulders. There is a difference between gun owner and gun nut. There is a difference between enthusiast and nut. Enjoying shooting at a range or in the woods, or having a gun for personal protection, doesn’t include making others nervous. Having a gun safe in my home doesn’t make me nervous. My husband using his CCL to carry a handgun doesn’t make me nervous. Knowing that many other people do the same doesn’t make me nervous. A doofus that needs to openly carry a rifle to get a McDouble and sit at a table where everyone can see him to eat it. That isn’t being protective, that’s a sad attempt to prove manliness.

      • Skeebo

        JoJo, you are right on! I do not own a gun because it makes me “macho” , nor does my wife! We own them because society has dictated we must protect ourselves! When was the last time you heard of a legal gun owner committing a heinous crime with a gun? Massacre? Robbing a bank? Drive by shooting? Yep! You haven’t! If the Les and the courts would do their job like they are supposed to, and the greedy lawyers would stop “protecting” the criminals, we would not have the gun problem that exist, which by the way, is created by criminals with guns!

      • Sal Paradise .

        The question is really why do law abiding gun owners resist simple sane regulations to make everyone safer?? Other people, Americans with rights and votes, are at risk and their families are at risk because “law abiding gun owners” vehemently oppose realistic regulations. Regulations that will in no way interfere with your hobby. And by the same token , a pump shotgun or a semi auto with a 5 shot magazine should be enough to defend a home until the police arrive. If you think you are going to be engaged in a running gun battle, where you need multiple high capacity clips, in your own home then you are as nutty as the guy in the picture.

      • mia Bella

        I agree..As long as it’s easy to get guns crimes will still be committed all it takes is one gun in the wrong hands…

      • David Gray

        I don’t think Cathryn was speaking about ‘responsible’ gun owners like you Jojo West, the people she referenced are not what anyone with a functional brain would call ‘responsible.’ However, come to Las Vegas and we will take the short drive out to the Cliven Bundy ranch where you’ll quickly see that the ‘media’ didn’t create anything, virtually EVERY ONE of the ‘militia’ that have congregated there from day one fit Cathryn’s descriptions to a ‘T’. And should you attempt to engage them in conversation, you’ll quickly discover that they are not what anyone would call ‘bright,’ though they’ll babble for days about ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ and ‘tyrannical’ government… seeing themselves as the only thing keeping the ‘uppity’ government in check. The ‘revolutionaries’ who murdered two Las Vegas Metro officers were part of the Bundy Bunch, as was the shooter of a BLM agent in California. Those people are ALL precisely what Cathryn described, and it begs the question… ‘Why would the media portray these people as ANYTHING other than what they are?’ I can tell you from first hand experience, Cathryn and the media have it right. Nobody is suggesting that you forfeit your guns, that’s never been the issue, but the ‘responsible’ gun owners, like you Jojo West, and your husband, and supposedly the NRA, seem all to willing to allow people like the Bundy Bunch to define the image of gun owners, then want to blame it all on the media. When you sleep with dogs, you are bound to get fleas.

      • Stephen Barlow

        I am hoping you don’t live in a metal shed in your loving parent’s back yard.

      • Stephen Barlow

        NO one is taking your alleged right to own a killing tool. But like cars, registration makes insurance and tax sense.

        I think EVERY GUN owned should have mandatory life & health insurance on it. And mandatory jail time (like with drug possession) for not reporting the loss of a lethal weapon within 48 hours to the police. Owning an illegal gun should have a 01 year, no parole minimum sentence, because a gun is more dangerous than a joint or a rock of meth or crack.

        Guns don’t kill people, people who worship guns kill people.

      • gil reyes

        your reply is flawed.. the post clearly said the”Open carry Groups”.I am a gun owner but don’t see the need to flaunt it in public.

      • Alex Klimek

        News flash to you…if you can pass a mental health exam (which it seems like you can) then I have no problem with you owning a weapon…it’s the other thousands of idiot gun nuts I am worried about…the ones that walk around with a weapon,who aren’t well trained…who aren’t mentally stable…who could end up getting my kids or grandkids killed in a situation that they have no business using that weapon they are so proud of…even if they shoot first,it’s a lot different shooting at another human,than at a target…

      • Lukeskywalkr

        If criminals are acquiring guns legally, then the laws must become more strict. If criminals are acquiring guns from other legal gun owners, then the gun owners must held accountable. If criminals are stealing guns from law abiding citizens, then those gun owners need to secure their weapons better.

        Fact of the matter is: criminals cannot get something from those who don’t have it. In other words, people who don’t own guns are not at fault. You can understand, then, why those without guns want tighter laws.

        IT IS THE GUN ADVOCATES WHO ARE SUPPLYING CRIMINALS WITH GUNS. Can’t you get that through your greasy heads?

      • ShibumiMC

        In a razor blade factory, the one thing you don’t do is walk barefoot. You live in a country that is in the process of self destructing. And you are p[art of that process.

      • Francois Bergeron

        You don’t get it. You people never do. It’s not about the responsible gun owners. We all know there are those. It’s about the irresponsible gun owners: the gun nuts. They have to be stopped. They’re kids, children who see guns as toys. Senseless morons.

      • Katie Kenny McMullin

        I totally appreciate your response to Cathryn’s comments, though I also found hers to be in line with my way of thinking. I understand that there are many responsible gun owners who don’t resemble the uneducated rednecks we see so often in the media. But believe me when I say that as one of the most anti gun citizen I know, I still believe that people have a right to own guns. No one wants to take guns from responsible owners who lock up their guns, separate them from ammunition, keep them out of reach of their children and have no history of mental health issues. We advocate for sensible gun laws and restrictions. A person who owns a gun should not need to brandish it or wear it on their hip amidst ordinary citizens. It’s a reasonable measure to take, given the abundance of weapons which have fallen into the wrong hands.

      • Dion Draper

        you cant make the judgment of what other people see you as. you cant be inside looking in.

      • Howard Sands

        Nobody ever ever ever said they were going to take away your guns. Just like nobody ever ever ever took your car license away just because we try to keep drunk drivers off the road.
        If you’re a responsible gun owner, you have nothing to worry about.
        But what makes you look as bad as the paranoid gun nuts is the comment that your guns will be taken away.

      • Benjamin Edge

        “I …personally like knowing that I’m well trained in the use of my weapon
        and I can effectively defend myself and my family in a home invasion.”

        This right here shows you are delusional.

    • DavidD

      The genius in the photograph at the start of the article is an archentypal model of the idiot you described.Not content to live a normal good life they are legends in their own minds.Arrested development in action they never grow up and are a burden to anyone that has any prolonged contact with them.
      Too lazy to work , working in marginal jobs or engaging in petty criminal activity they spend their off time in electronic fantasy land bolsterred by Randian nonsense and frequent meth -amphetimine usage.When they are not doing that they scheme and plot on how to get over on the rest of us.
      Every white working class neighborhood has them.Some go to prison,some grow out of it but many continue on unchanged many times brought to bad ends by people just like themselves.
      Is this a role model we seriously want to emulate and base public policy on?

    • Steve Ebenroth

      WTF business is is of yours to know how many of ANYthing I choose to own be it toothbrushes, rubber bands, or arms that are protected under the constitution ? Here’s what you progtards should do- mind your own fucking business, live your lives however you want. I don’t care if you eat meat or are a vegan, that’s your business. I don’t care if you are a atheist, or a homosexual, or slaughter chickens in your basement. Not.My.Business. If you want to know what we have so many guns for, come and try to take them…

      • Naome Lixes

        How many people kill two dozen in a movie theater with a
        toothbrush?

        What bullshit.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        hey lardass
        ………………….. when exactly has anyone on democrat side come for any of your loser arsenal??
        why don’t U and the ” tough guys” who THINK they can keep our govt–and MILITARY– away from u IF they need to come after U try to do something to BRING ON OUR MILITARY MIGHT??? Ur pussy guns? bang bang they all are dead?
        pleeeeeeeeeez start a revolt,,,,PLEASE!!!

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        also————– U read the constitution yet OBAMA has NOT???
        U white trash fat ass balding scum! he is a constitutional lawyer; taught it at a college u cannot enter as U are too stoooooopid!
        *****************************************************************
        praise jeeeeeeesus,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,a nobody fisherman jewish carpenter!!!

    • 1NedSprockethead1

      Not that you’re exactly a hot babe yourself.

    • Scott Hughes

      airhead

    • Scott Hughes

      airhead

      • Jerry Jacuzio

        Traitor flag. How proud you must be? And don’t get mad at me, I actually think the south should have been allowed to secede from the union. I wish you would all do it now, since you don’t want to belong. That’s what waving that flag means. You want out of America and the 21st century.

    • Joe Matthies

      This folks, is called ad hominem…

    • Kev Landry

      Yes, moron. The way you look determines your need for a gun. You libs are hilarious! So when a bunch of shooters barge into a venue you are attending, just cower in the corner and wait to die….. stupid.

    • FoCoBiking

      And you look like an old, unattractive slob.

  • Asher Frost

    The funniest gun nuts are those that think somehow they are going to take on the government single-handed. It’s one hell of a fantasy land the RWNJs are in these days, where they all get to be Rambo

    • neddycat

      I laugh at those guys and ask them, “you DO know that you live in the country that spends more on defense than the next 13 richest countries combined? I always wonder if they’d actually be surprised when the tanks & drones are sent in.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        mega totally!!

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      totototally!!!

  • joe dudas

    We do have open carry in most third world countries …. Are we heading in that direction? Don’t think so …I hope not … I’m not for open carry. But we have so much spin in our news reporting … to come across the photo in this article must of been like …. now lets write the article …

    • 1EdMeadows83

      Joe, we are heading that way pell mell. Or Pall Mall, I forget which. I don’t smoke so it doesn’t matter.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        chesterfields 🙂

    • Mary Lilred Gaworecki

      We had open carry up until the 1960’s. The Black Panthers open carried and would help black people that were being arrested learn their rights and protections under the law. Look it up. There are photos all over the place of black people open carrying and walking the streets. The law was changed because of the fear of black people having guns. Who backed the creation of open carry gun control laws back then? The NRA!! Oh and for the rest of the story, those that aren’t aware of it. Shortly after the Civil War ended, the KKK was declared America’s first ‘terrorist organization.” The NRA was formed the very same year…….coincidence? Probably not….

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        there U go again,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
        …………………………… annoying regressives with facts

      • joe dudas

        Have no idea where you got that from …. Tried looking it up …. no luck ….. Didn’t know we had a terrorist organization in the 1860’s.

      • Mary Lilred Gaworecki

        I got it from a textbook called Tennesse through Time, the Later Years. Published by Gibbs Smith, 2008. Chapter 3. Ya learn something new every day…

      • joe dudas

        Who would of guessed a 5th grade text book.

      • Mary Lilred Gaworecki

        Are you smarter than a fifth grader?

      • joe dudas

        LOL !!!! guess not !!!

  • Leonard Moore

    Simple put “it’s better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it”!!

    • Devin Kedward

      Until your gun discharges and kills your kid, and you never experience a robbing ever. Oopsie!

      • Leonard Moore

        That’s why gun locks were made right. But u make a good point. That’s where proper precautions come into play. Responsibility and safety is key.

      • Daddycool67

        Mandatory skill testing,licensing and insurance wouldn’t hurt either. Responsibility and safety are key to owning a motor vehicle too. So I suppose that’s why we require all of the above (and more) for people who want to drive.

        But if you mention anything like this to a “gun nut”, they’ll tell you about how guns DON”T kill people.
        They might even tell you a story about how they left their gun outside all night unsupervised … and it miraculously didn’t run off and start killing people on it’s own. That’s the intelligence level of the people on the right who are controlling the narrative on this subject! Personally … I’m not sure that anybody THAT dumb is either safe or responsible enough to own a gun..

        Or they might just start screeching about the 2nd amendment (which they don’t understand at all).
        To a “gun nut” just TALKING about making them take responsibility (licensing and or insurance) …. is exactly the same as talking about coming into their homes and confiscating all of their firearms. And they’re certain that at any moment … Obama himself is going to bust down their door and pry their gun from their cold dead hands.

        Bottom line.
        Those of us who are sane are basically forbidden to even TALK about the key aspects of gun ownership that you mentioned above.

      • 1EdMeadows83

        The nuts are right, guns don’t kill people. Babies with guns kill themselves of other babies.

      • Not me!

        Nobody believes Obama himself will come through the door.. he’s too big of a pussy – might chip a nail.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        Pussy– translation: brilliant and well 2 do man who is most powerful man on planet
        =========================================
        sounds like U need ur pampers changed frequently

      • DAV

        I have a question about the gun for home protection concept – if you have a trigger lock on a gun locked in a gun safe, with bullets in a separate safe locked up how long does it take to get the gun, get the bullets, unlock the trigger lock, load the gun and fire to “save the family from invaders?” Seems like it is more than enough time for the “invaders” to have shot you first. If you don’t have the gun in a safe, unloaded, with a trigger lock and the bullets in a separate, locked case how is the gun “safe”?

      • Steve Ebenroth

        Yeah that’s stupid. I open my safe when i’m home and keep a loaded .45 on my night stand when in bed. The last sound that an intruder will hear is the safety clicking off.

      • Jerry Jacuzio

        A loaded .45 on your night stand? Where the hell do you live? – in Somalia? Wow. That’s paranoid. I feel for you. I lived in this nation for 63 years and never lived in fear like that. Good luck in night time fire-fights. Do you go bed wearing night-vision goggles..or do you put em on at the last minute? I’m a spineless liberal and could use your help. (course I got enough spine to not have to sleep with a loaded gun by my head 😉

      • Jerry Jacuzio

        Of course, the proper weapon for that kind house invasion is simply a shotgun. Nice spread – no need to be exact – just aim. Even heavy sleeper can do it. Of course in a semi-dream state you could kill a loved one coming home. O well. Right?

    • Jerry Jacuzio

      That may only apply to condoms I think.

  • Stephen J. Pulley

    I am constantly amazed by how quickly even those who sound reasonable, literate and semi-intelligent but oppose fixing our gun-insanity, always devolve every argument immediately to “they want to take away my guns”. I have never heard anyone who wants to fix the mess we have actually suggest eliminating all guns. But if even the “responsible” gun owners remain so fixated, rigid and unreasonable, they are going to begin convincing a lot of people that perhaps that is the only option. Until you manage to finally shoot yourself in the foot (pun intended), all most people want is for all of you “responsible” gun owners to have to carry insurance and have your gun registered, so that when your responsibly-owned gun is used irresponsibly, as so often happens, there is at least some recourse to partially offset the damage done. Unfortunately, all we here is your complaints that we want to take away your gun. If you were responsible, then you would support reasonable initiatives of registration and insurance to separate you from the irresponsible masses. Frankly, I don’t see any reason why such dangerous objects should be kept in private homes – protection? that really is a laugh, since the rate of use for suicide, murder and accidental shooting/death is astronomically higher than any protection ever achieved, but very few are even arguing against that (as a gun-owning military member, when I lived on base, we were not allowed to keep our privately owned guns at home; we had to register them with the base and store them at the shooting range, to check out when we wanted to use them – if it is good enough for actual members of an actually well regulated militia, it really should be good enough for everyone else). You want a gun for home safety? by all means, do so, but lets see some sign that you actually are responsible gun owners, and start supporting initiatives that prove it.

    • jack

      there not trying to take our guns then why are they saying all vets are mentally unstable stress related so they can not own a gun….

      • Stephen J. Pulley

        no one is saying all vets are mentally unstable, that is merely a part of your delusional fantasy. I recommend you seek help.

  • Bine646

    How many homicides were in cities such as Chicago? Chicago has been dubbed Chiraq by its citizens with gang members using handguns instead of assault rifles to prove a point to the politicians.
    Chicago also has some of the strictest gun laws in America

    • Curtis Scarbrough

      They probably have some of the strictest gun laws in America because people keep shooting each other.

      • Bine646

        Actually started in the 70s, they are the murder capital today- guess who is Mayor? Exactlyyyyy

  • Matthew Linsner

    No guns don’t lead to violence, stupid people do. Why do you always blame the gun when it’s a human that has to pull the trigger? You don’t blame cars for accidents or knives for stabbings. Our country wouldn’t have to be so desperate to resort to violence if the people who own guns would stop being so careless with their storage of them and the government would stop taking away everything we work so hard for. Do I own a gun, no. But I want to so I can teach my kids how to hunt. Not to shoot up schools and kill people who break into homes. There is nothing wrong with owning firearms, just how they are handled.

    • pushkin

      Okay! So you just want to teach your children how to kill innocent animals, then? What a great Dad you are! Teaching anyone to kill anything is irresponsible because it gives someone the permission to do away with a life.

      • Curtis Scarbrough

        Don’t be down on hunting. When done safely it’s a perfectly legitimate reason to own a firearm, and if done safely there’s nothing wrong with teaching your kids to hunt. But lock them up when you get home (the guns, not the kids. Either way will keep the kids from shooting each other though), and don’t strut around Wal Mart with an AR15 strapped to your back. I personally consider myself a firearm enthusiast, but you don’t see me in McDonald’s with a Mosin slung over my shoulder, and that’s only partially due to the facts that carrying a Mosin is like carrying a small child, and McDonald’s food is terrible.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        how about killing fire ants or ticks???
        >?????????????????????????<

    • MLR

      We’re not blaming guns, we’re blaming stupid, irresponsible morons with guns so if you’re a responsible gun-owner why are you taking it so personal? What’s wrong with background checks? Most employers require one even for the most menial jobs. So I don’t get what the problem is to require one to prevent idiots from getting a gun.

  • KAggie97

    It’s not about the other countries. It’s about me protecting my family. If the fact that I am one of 30 million responsible gun owners who don’t achieve an erection every time I shoot my weapon (go ahead an snicker, it’s okay) bothers you simply because I own guns I apologize not one bit. That’s YOUR problem. YOUR discomfort at my choice in protection is not my concern. There are plenty of things others do more detrimental to public safety (drinking and driving, to start with) that you SHOULD be more concerned about but, alas, it’s evidently not sexy enough to garner your outrage. Pity. Yesterday, 30 million legal gun owners and I did not kill anyone or harm anyone for nefarious purposes. (No, YOU define it; you will argue until my matrix fits yours anyway.) Don’t like that? Tough. Not my concern.

    • Curtis Scarbrough

      Yes, Drunk drivers do kill people. That’s why we pass laws to lessen that number as much as we can. That’s partially why you have to be 21 to drink, and why you have to go through a process of education and registration to drive. Guns however, any crazy a-hole over 18 can just waltz into a gun store and pick up a semi automatic rifle and go home with it that very day.

  • 2Smart2bGOP

    Actually, my question is for the guy in the picture; dude, does your girlfriend know that you’re wearing her shorts?

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      I bet his ” girlfriend ” is 300 lbs and draws food stamps and unemployment
      PRAISE JEEEEESUS

      • Naome Lixes

        That’s “Jeebuz”.

        You can’t pronounce fricatives with a dip.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        amen brother!!!

      • SFCPat

        And just how is it that you are willing to bet on the terms of your statement? And what is wrong with saying Praise Jeeeeesus? Obama says ” Praise Allah” regularly…

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        im willing to wager a small amount as NORMALLY and generally white trash religious rifle toting “men” are stuck with steatopygous hogs as ‘soulmates’
        ======================================
        as for your non provable Obama refrain:
        it must really give U anal pleasure knowing that a BLACK brilliant and well spoken and charismatic man is your boss. Enjoy the atrophying of the regressive scumbag tea party
        praise jesus? a dead fisherman / carpenter who we know NOTHING about except 2 yrs of his life?
        **************************************************
        you and all white trash religious scum are indeed lemmings of the infinite degree

      • Jerry Jacuzio

        C’mon STCPAT – I’m a Christian and so is the President – don’t be like the folks that make generalizations about you. For whatever you can say, we got Bin Laden under the man’s watch. Praise Allah, Praise Jesus – whatever – I mean that’s what I served for.. all countrymen. Regardless of religious beliefs. Right?

  • Jim Bean

    In answer to Cliffs question: Even though it is well documented that the violent crime has declined steadily as the number of guns in the hands of citizens has increased steadily, there is no number of guns that can ever make us completely safe. The most we can hope for is that current trends continue.

  • John1966

    We don’t need more guns, or more people to start carrying guns. We need more nuts like you to stop believing your nonsense that the problem is guns. The problem is immorality. The more you advocate your liberal moral decay, the more people devolve into immoral, and yes, criminal behavior. You could equip an entire city of Christians with an over-abundance of guns, and the homicide rate would be lower than your precious European examples. The problem isn’t the guns, it’s the immorality in the hearts of those murderers who have adopted YOUR liberal code of ethics as the misguided principles for their lives. That explains the difference in the “gun violence” rates in Chicago and Dallas. And what a coincidence, the gun laws in Chicago are practically the strictest in the country, and oh, what a coincidence, the number of guns in Dallas is much higher than Chicago.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      an entire city of Christians with guns???
      would that be white or black Christians; and are they tea party christians or democrat Christians???
      LIBERAL CODE OF ETHICS
      ==================================
      shall we look at the white trash regressive scumbag CODE? hating blacks? hating gays? subordinating women? screwing the elderly and the poor and kids???
      JESUS would be shot today by todays white trash religious ( voodoo) scum

    • MLR

      I never heard more garbage in my life. Define what you mean by “liberal code of ethics?” The problem with people like you as that you all tend to be a bunch of hypocrites. You wag your finger accusingly at other people but you don’t see your own sins in the mirror. Indeed, even the bible says “why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye but you don’t notice the log in your own eye?” Yeah, so if you’re worried about moral decay start with your own backyard and clean it up before you pass judgment on others. There’s plenty of stories out there of sever immorality among conservatives. You all aren’t fooling anyone except maybe yourselves.

    • Curtis Scarbrough

      That’s right! More guns for Christians. Because we never hear about Christian terrorists.
      Except Timothy McVeigh.
      And the KKK
      And Wade Michael Page
      And Jim David Adkisson (I lived about an hour from the unitarian church he shot up during a children’s play because he hated abortion)
      And John C Salvi (And all the other individuals who have attacked planned parenthood facilities)
      Really, there are too many to list, but if anyone has more examples, feel free to add them to the list.
      I know what you’re likely thinking “These people claimed to be Christian, but they weren’t true Christians, because Christianity is a peaceful religion”
      I’m not going to go into all the wars waged on behalf of Christianity, but but do you know what other religion teaches peace and non violence? Islam.

  • Toggi3

    I don’t advocate gun ownership because it promises safety. We won’t be safe just to give people more guns any more than we will be safe to take them all away. I advocate (responsible) gun ownership because police are minutes away when seconds matter most. People deserve a *chance* to be on equal footing with their aggressors. To ask the question you ask doesn’t make sense to me because the argument was never that safety would be somehow magically granted at the end of a barrel.

    What you have to come to terms with is there are other kinds of violence than gun violence, and there are more kinds of murder than gun murder. For how densely populated we are, we aren’t doing all that bad in terms of violence compared to other countries. Don’t get me wrong, there are definitely ways we can be better and I’ll address a couple.

    A lot of our gun violence is committed in the urban sprawls that are wrecked with inequality and extreme poverty, and where it is not in the urban sprawls it is usually committed by the insane, whom we have failed a societal obligation to. We need to bring back state funded mental institutions.

    Perhaps not bring institutions back to the level and power that they were, but seriously, why do we not prosecute the insane and apply the laws that are already on the books to prevent them from obtaining guns (retail)? Also, what is going wrong in our urban city centers that fosters such hostile environments?

    People need worthwhile jobs and a purpose in life to be motivated to live ethically. The mentally ill deserve better care, and the people deserve that we take care of the mentally ill.

  • Mike Lavender

    These arguments make my hair smolder. Yep, I own guns. Several, in fact enough to frighten some people who are easily scared of inanimate objects.

    I don’t hunt, haven’t in many years. I prefer to go to a shooting range and punch holes in paper with ammunition I’ve reloaded myself. Would I open carry? (The Home Depot targeted by OpenCarry Bozo was ~ 3 miles from my house) Nope. Why? Because I can. I own WWII rifles (assault weapons in their day), mainly for the historical interest I have in them. I enjoy it.

    I also study the history of the Golden Age and Greenwich Village. Why? Because I enjoy it. Other folks collect Barbie dolls or tea cups. That’s their preference and OK with me.

    What’s not OK is having someone denigrate me, my situation, my home, my safety habits, my politics, sight unseen, because they read the word ‘gun’. The level of vitriol is reminiscent of the napalm throwing that occurs on right wing sites when they read the word “Liberal”. I suggest before people make accusations of how “unsafe I am” or what an idiot I am to have a firearm within several Zip Codes of my house that they meet or correspond with me first. The anonymity of the Internet has scraped away all the veneer of civility we once had. The doubters can dial up The Liberal Gun Club web site, because yes, Virginia, there really are Liberals who like guns. Many of the posters there are much more radical than the sentiments expressed here, and they also like the recoil of a 44 Mag at the range. Go figger.
    Liberal and ‘gun owner’ are in no way are mutually exclusive. Truth be told, I read the same comments on gun boards (albeit less well spelled) when they discover my politics. Just replace ‘LibTard’ with ‘gun nut’. They’re pretty much identical.

    The NRA? I’m not a member. Haven’t been since they were hijacked by their political arm, the ILA. They were a pro-safety, pro-education group for many years until Wayne and Ted lead them into darkness and managed to get their fecal stained paws on the organization’s rudder. When Ted and his ilk cease to breath oxygen then I’ll reconsider membership but I’ll not have my dough supporting their agenda.

    BTW I DO own an evil black rifle. An AR 15. Why? Because it’s the one the US Army taught me to clean and take care of many years ago. Blindfolded.

    • Naome Lixes

      What is an AR 15 for, outside of a battlefield?

      The 2nd amendment protects this anachronism, and sets the stage
      for theft of a deadly weapon, followed by it’s use in mayhem.

      Confiscation, NOW.

      • SFCPat

        Since you are so sure there is no use for an AR 15 outside of the battlefield, please take a photo of the sign you have in your front yard or window, that states “This is a gun free home and I Support Gun Confiscation Now”! Please post that as well as your address and let us know who shows up first; the guy with the AR 15 or an individual who does you harm.

      • Not me!

        In all my years in the military, I’ve never seen an AR15 on a battlefield…. not 1.

      • Charles Vincent

        The second amendment protects the natural right of self defense, deadly weapons are a facilitator and extension of that natural right.

    • SKY GENTRY

      Well said, Mike Lavender… This, Allen Clifton – Needs to open his eyes and shut his mouth… He’s delusional. It just this sort of crap; resorting to biased and illogical statistics that DO NOT take into account ALL the variables involved; personal insults or childish school yard tactics and arguing, that makes those of us with any real intelligence so very tired of having this debate.

    • Jerry Jacuzio

      Well said, Mike – I would like to see gun laws on the books enforced and those I stated earlier, added – but I get you. And I can understand collectors of firearms and many have sentimental value (I’m thinking of the woman’s double-barrel bird shotgun my Dad had). It was light and sweet for hunting. Honestly, it does disturb me when I see folks open carry an AR15. And guys who have never volunteered to serve but like to play commando. I hate that. Other than that – it’s legal to own. I’m not a weapons guy – -and open carry makes me a little nervous. I also think it is a ridiculous question to ask how many guns. As many you want. I’m a liberal and that’s my opinion. Some of us are not black and white people – but see the grays (not easy balance to be reasonable). I totally agree with you about civility. If we don’t have that for each other – man we got shit. No one is going take away folks’ guns. I truly believe that – sure maybe more restrictions might be voted in – but the 2nd amendment will stand.

  • more guns make us safer the argument goes,,, yeh thats why the US is the safest country in the world,,, sarcasm intended. People may well bitch they have the right to bear arms,, but I think the publics right not to be shot trumps that every single time.

    • Naome Lixes

      SInce the Declaration of Independence was written first, and ranks them in descending order (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness)
      the lesser two conditions are subject to maintaining the first.

      If you’re collecting guns for fun, or think you will because you can –
      but don’t need it to protect your own life from direct threat;
      why is gun ownership more important than the lives of your
      neighbors? Doesn’t seem like a logical choice, really – does it?

    • SFCPat

      When was the last time you were shot? Or shot at? Or mugged? Or car jacked? Have you ever had a home invasion or a family member raped? Have you ever had any of your rights as an American citizen taken from you? And which of the military branches did you serve in, to help protect your rights of free speech? If your answer to these questions is mostly “no” “never” or “not at all” then I believe that you should post a sign in your yard or window stating what your views are so none of us individuals who ” bitch ” about our rights won`t bother to assist you in any time of need.

      • who and when I served, when I was or was not shot at, or mugged last is none of your business,, as for rights removed yes that has also happened to me too also. So kindly get off you so high and mighty soap box. Incidentally if you think serving in any military branch has protected freedom of speech you are most certainly thicker that you sound- but then you probably served in something to learn that too,, or is it natural? It is also clear than in any time of need you would look after yourself first- dont worry I wont be calling on you.

      • SFCPat

        You must really be a bitter man! No, I don’t ‘bitch’ about immigrants but I do complain about illegals who come here and suck off government programs and who do commit rape and murder without caring who they hurt. I do ‘bitch’ about someone like you telling me what I can/can’t do, can/can’t own, can/can’t live. I would also venture to say, from the tone of your comments, that you have never served or lived in a country where the citizens can only dream about the type of ‘Free Speech” you belittle. I can and will care for my family in the event I have to. I can and will help my neighbors who might need it. However, you are safe – there is nothing in your home including your self that I would risk my life for or the lives of my family. And by the way, calling me ‘thick’ isn’t quite the insult that I’m sure you wanted it to be. “Small” people such as yourself, bothers no one – good luck in your Fairy Tale World!

      • me bitter? hell no,, but I have no tolerance for people who “serve” and then fly the “I am a hero flag” for the remainder of their lives thinking the country owes them. Get over it woman, you choose to go into service the same as anyone else. You have no idea what I have or have not done so dont even go there. The illegals you are bitching [- yes you do bitch] about are your ancestors,, ever consider that?? unless you are a Native American that is but I doubt that from your comments. Woman take a reality pill, why on earth would you think you are special enough for me or anyone else for that matter to ask you for help. Dear God and to think people like you have children. And as you brought up insults maybe you would like to revisit your original reply to me. Who ever you are,, what ever you have done does not make the use of a gun ok, though I am guessing your passion about such a thing would indicate the person in the photo above is probably a child of yours Billy-Bob or what ever his name is. As for my world,, I couldn’t be happier but thank you for asking. I would be more concerned to have a few months without garbage collection that people like you who are thankfully becoming less. Now you scurry away and save all your money for your guns- go away now,, shoo shoo.

      • no, no bitterness here,, but I get really tired when someone “serves” and then milks it for all its worth for the remainder of their life while flying the “I am a hero flag” and the “no one would survive without me” attitude- try living a few months with a Dr or garbage collection they serve just the same as anyone else and like the Military they too “choose” to go into service- are you no better or worse. You know, you “do bitch” in your comments but I understand your unwillingness to accept that,, in the same way as you would be unwilling to accept that your ancestors were migrants to this country- unless you are Native American which I doubt. However double standards is to be expected I suppose. As you have not walked a mile in my shoes do not even attempt to assume my experience either with the services or the lack of freedom of speech. Why oh why would you think you are so special that people would be clambering to you for help if it were needed? I think a reality pill is needed there. Your passion for guns makes me wonder if the image above maybe one of yours? maybe Billy-Bob or someone. Now I have things far more important to do than trying to install common sense into people like you, so scurry away now and save all your pennies to buy your little guns and be happy knowing you have big strong methods of destruction right at your fingertips. As a “small man” I dont have the desire nor will to talk to you further,, as the old saying goes you cant make a silk purse from a sows ear.

      • Jerry Jacuzio

        I really don’t SFCPat is milking anything. To me serving is a big deal. I don’t think she is saying she is a hero either. I want stricter gun laws – but I have no problem with anybody having as many guns as they like. Some people like archery – some like guns – and some feel they need the protection. Personally, I own no weapons and maybe I’ll pay for it someday. I guess with respect to that – pray I’ll luck out. I wouldn’t let anger make you put generalizations on SFCPAT just because she want firearms. Veterans are the last people I worry about shooting the world up.

  • MLR

    Well Allen, the two good guys with guns in Las Vegas didn’t stop the two bad guys with a gun so that statement is not true. I suspect the gun nuts are not gonna be happy until people that normally side with them turn against them as well. The biggest lie the far right loves to push is that all liberals are against the 2nd amendment and all conservatives are for it. That couldn’t be farthest from the truth. And I’m sick of hearing the tired old “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Well exactly, that’s why we need universal background checks. The background checks are for idiots who shouldn’t own guns. Those idiots with guns are a much bigger threat to our gun rights than all the liberals put together.

  • rossbro

    Too many guns, too many idiots.

  • Phil @SaintBruin

    I don’t know the answer, Al. How about just outlawing all guns? Because surely the bad guys will lay down theirs. How about just ordering death sentences for anyone caught with an illegal gun?

  • BudLee

    Sorry but that is a total strawman argument. My guns make me safe. Your guns make you safe. The total number has nothing to do with it. But at least you did not try to confuse the numbers by including suicides in your argument. For that I say thanks for being intellectually honest. However here is were the anti gun argument falls short. One there are countries that have a lower murder rate with a larger firearm ownership rate. Switzerland being the example most used. So how come the more guns don’t make them less safe? After all that is your argument is it not? More guns make us less safe. Whenever you take a complex problem like murder and boil it down to a single cause you are doing us all a disservice. Let’s look at this issue holistically. The vast majority of murders happen in highly populated areas. Those murders happen for several reasons. Poverty, hopelessness, poor education, and what I think is the number one reason drug laws. In my home state the first year after Prohibition ended the murder rate dropped by 70%. It did not raise again until after Nixon’s war on drugs started. Anyone can look those numbers up and verify what I am saying. Please do the actual research. If you look at the rate per 100,000 in rural areas that are not gang controlled the murder rate is below what many of the countries you mention are. Those other countries don’t have as many large metropolitan areas as the US does. That is why are numbers are inflated. But lets say you ban all guns. That will work right? Just like banning marijuana has kept it out of the hands of children and criminals. Right? All you will do is create a new way for the drug cartels to make money. Please look at the numbers and the facts and use critical thinking and logic. Don’t be like the climate deniers. I know guns scare some people and I know some people hate them but research the facts with the numbers. Don’t let people mix up suicides with murder. Guns don’t cause suicides either as China has no private ownership of firearms yet they have a higher suicide rate than we do.

    • Curtis Scarbrough

      The often quoted statistic that Switzerland has the most guns per capita is entirely false. Guess which country does have the most… You got it, the good ole’ USA.

  • John Orcutt

    It is not, nor has it ever been, the charge or duty of the Federal government to legislate in such a way as to protect the civilian population from each other. To suggest anything else is an absurd, myopic and categorically uninformed reading of U.S. history. We have never suffered a period of such rampant self-annihilation as we do now. It was never the Federal government’s job nor the intended meaning of the 1st Amendment to guarantee the public’s health and safety from each other; but rather, from government itself. This debate is clouded in a very fundamental dispute over cultural values that confuses the whole thing. The Left doesn’t trust the Right, therefore gun control supporters don’t trust gun rights supporters, and vice versa. Ultimately, however, the outrage over the statistics is sadly misplaced. We ought to be looking inward, instead of obsessing over an external cause. We should be outraged that 8,600 people a year take the life of a fellow citizen rather than the fact that 8,600 a year “are murdered” – as if the source of the murder is some mysterious, unidentifiable cloud. It’s not. It’s a person! We didn’t have this problem 80 years ago, even though we had far more ease of access to firearms. The calculus is infinitely more complex than either camp is willing to admit. Everybody wants revolution, nobody wants to stop and think.

    You have very few facts in this repetitive diatribe of yours, which is mostly name-calling and ultra-left pandering, but I will readily debunk them, such that they are:

    “Gun crime has gone up as gun ownership has gone up”

    False. The 2012 FBI Uniform Crime Report indicates homicides involving firearms have dropped for 3 consecutive years. Also, in 2011 the state of California recorded fewer homicides of any kind (including those committed with firearms) since 1967. I’m sure I don’t need to prove there are more firearms in circulation than in 1967 – yes, even in California. California, while celebrating some of the nation’s strongest gun laws, still has a very large population of legally (and otherwise) owned guns.

    “They did not allow the carrying of firearms in city limits in the old west”

    You googled “How did Wyatt Earl reduce crime?” Didn’t you? I can’t even handle this one. Open Carry has been legally recognized for decades, and in Arizona since the days of the Territory. You can’t even begin to pretend like you can draw a consistent historical correlation between right to carry and crime statistics. Because so many gangland drug dealers in Phoenix, L.A., Chicago and Miami stop to consider municipal statute before they strap on their pistol to go ‘collect a debt’.

    What a mindless piece of drivel.

  • ” A Gun Nut “

    how do you think this country came to be ? a bunch of “fools ” who risked everything to go against the most powerful military in the world ( at that time ) because they wanted something never tried before a government that served the people

  • chris

    This is typical uneducated liberalism at work; posing a question for which you have already answered to your liking.
    How many guns will it take? As many as I can stockpile to protect my constitutional rights. Our govt and current commander-In-disbelief sure isnt protecting us. Learn proper gun safety and arm yourself, or get exploited by those who have slipped Into the USA under ted kennedys very irresponsible immigration legislation

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      hey imbecile,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,when exactly is Obama ‘ coming for our guns”??

  • Violent crime has been on a steady decline for more than 20 years. The problem with the “guns prevent crime” fantasizing is that crime has declined in all parts of the country, both those with strict firearms regulation, and those without. NYC has now declined to a rate not matched since 1963.

    Further, if you look at the violent crime statistics (freely available from the FBI), the most dangerous places in the country are all in the South, in the states with the most lax firearms regulation. TN, for example, has issued the highest number of concealed carry permits in the nation, and yet its cities are hothouses for violent crime. TX, FL and SC are at the top of the list of bad places to live, if you fear getting assaulted or killed.

    The facts of life cannot be reconciled with the fantasies of the worshippers of weapons. To borrow from an old song, “You’re living in your own private Idaho, underground like a wild potato.” The other day, the story was of an OK gun range owner who fired a howitzer on his range, “safely,” so he said; and the shell tore through a family’s house two miles away. He denied all responsibility, declaring it to be a “freak accident.”

    The claim of “more guns == more safety” having been trounced by the facts, what about the 2nd amendment, and “protection from tyranny”? How about this, gun worshippers: Name one instance in which you, someone you know, or someone you read about in the newspaper, used a firearm in the defense of liberty against the tyrannical American government. One instance in which you faced down the cops, or any kind of Federal agent (DEA, FBI, &c) with a weapon and refused to let them unjustly deprive you of liberty.

    Umm, yeah. Well, “Joe the Plumber” said, “My constitutional rights trump your kids’ right to life” to the parents of the students killed in the Santa Barbara rampage. That pretty much sums up the ethos of the worshippers of weapons. But, selfish indifference to the lives of others does not have to be the law of the land. Putting the selfish out to pasture does require that those who have a higher ethical standard quit dicking around politically and make their power felt.

    • Naome Lixes

      I’m a lot less worried about Howitzers than handguns.

      Portability leads to distributed lethality. Too many, too easy to purchase, to easy to conceal leads to obvious carnage.

      It’s a National Disgrace.

  • Aaron

    It isn’t about how *many* guns. It’s about how we are allowed to use them. People should be allowed to carry firearms concealed in more places, including schools if they receive training and practice regularly. If we are not allowed to use guns for self defense, then of course it doesn’t matter how many guns we have.

  • David

    If the above theory was true, then why has the war on drugs failed? Just because you outlaw something, or make it harder to get doesn’t mean you will see less of said item on the streets. More gun control laws will not help, because they can’t even manage to enforce the ones we already have on the books. It’s just so stupid to try to micro-manage everything like the libtards want to do, as in “let’s make this stupid law to protect “everyone”, even if it hurts some perfectly legal law abiding US citizens”. Just because something is against the law, doesn’t mean that will stop the problem. If that was the case, we would have no need for jails, prisons, or insane asylums for the criminally insane. Libtards need to figure things out, and realize that you can’t make a law, or two, and protect everyone 100% of the time. If you take guns away, or try to limit their use/availability, then you will see more people getting stabbed, or beaten with objects. Hammers kill more people in the USA yearly, than guns do. I suppose you’ll want to outlaw hammers, or make buying one very difficult now?????????????

  • hatchetryda88

    I’m not a “gun nut” I like my rifles and I want a pistol Yea I support background checks No problem and it’s not realy what you think they release convicts into the general population and then let them perform heinous acts then say it was a attack by a gun owner they don’t tell you the real facts just so they can put their point across to get all guns away from every one so if u say how many guns make you feel safe its one, between me and my attacker. And point is they use the media to capture the chaos and death and use it to play on emotions of the people who don’t own guns and I never see any gun owners on the news getting asked ?s about thirty views. I don’t need a gun to defend my home you have enough balks to break into my house your getting an ass kicking and a knife at your throat told the cops get here simple as that!!!

  • Michael Bean

    If you feel the best way to express your belief that you have the right to own a gun is to carry it into a Denny’s…then you are an idiot and a crime waiting to happen.

  • King Soloman

    How many people died by getting killed with a hammer or a car, I’ll tell you 3x the amount it was by guns! Now we must outlaw self defense weapons because of a half truths that Rachel meadow is spinning. She is the nut not me! And Rachael if you have a real rebuttal I can slam your story and I will give a home run to my Second Amendment fans every time! My responses won’t be half truths, which everyone know it means your telling a lie! Miss Spinster lol your no match for anyone that comes from the Bronx intellectually speaking!

    P.S. I won’t need a whole news crew in my ear or prompter to tell you what to say because you won’t be quick enough or smart enough to respond to my questions. Rachel Maddow your a communist you might as well admit it

    • Brian

      Hammers and cars are not made for the sole purpose of killing people. Guns are.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      im willing to wager big money that Maddow is ( A) having a MUCH higher IQ than U do,,,,(B) NOT a communist (C) makes a ton more money than U do,,,,(D) does NOT need a ‘teleprompter’ to eviscerate you in any/all expostulatory conversations.
      letting us know U come from the BRONX and fathom yourself as intellectual is quite lachrymose ( tears of laughter ; not sorrow)
      ==================================================
      U misspelled two words in your (ur) infantile white trash regressive rant; and did thy BRONX oligophreniality remind U that R Maddow cannot reply to U ( you) here as (a) shes NOT the author of this article (b) she didn’t even weigh in TO THIS ARTICLE (c) the author OF THIS ARTICLE didnt even mention her????
      im moving to the Bronx ( from pompano beach FL) so I can be around such luminary intellectuals such as thee.

      • Steve Ebenroth

        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ needs an old fashion ass whippin by a 6’1″ redneck madman. Gauron-damn-tee. Spell check that one bitch

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        hey tall tough guy………..
        im 6’3 215. bring your best tobacco chewing ass kicking my way
        =======================================
        in the mean time im so sorry U r soooooo stoooopid as2 see my lexiphanic rhetoric is beyond the scope of THY white trash comprehension
        ====================================
        bring ur redneck ass to ne 38 st (FT.L- FL) la fitness where I nightly play basketball and lift REAL weights.
        my girlfriend works the front desk: she will let U in ” gauron-damn- teed”

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        ^^^^ above ” guest” another crybaby white trash regressive overweight sh*tbag religious trash who posts and RUNS

  • John Seiler

    “how many guns will it take before we see a decrease in gun violence?” Well, let’s see: gun ownership is at it’s highest level since 1993. Oh, and murder by firearm is down nearly 50% since 1993. Gosh, it sounds like, “at least as many guns as we have now.” And perhaps even more, if you believe that the number of firearms is causation for murder with a firearm. And btw, if you’d really like to make progress in the debate (and as a human being), stop with the pejoratives. I may be a “gun nut” by your definition; but at least I can see that the people who disagree with me are just honest, decent people who have a different opinion on how we all get to the same place. Well, most of them.

    • Brian

      Proof from an impartial source?
      Here’s what I know and can prove. University of Sydney School in Public Health has proven America has the most lax gun control in the developed world. It has the absolute highest rate of gun violence in the develped world, and also has the 15th highest rate of gun crime in the entire world, though the 14 third world countries that beat it cannot give reliable numbers.
      The countries that have the strictest and most sweeping gun legislation, including countries that were formerly armed to the teeth (such as Australia, the UK, Eastern EU nations, Scandinavian countries), have the absolute lowest rates of gun violence in the world.
      Just the facts, mate.

  • Lee

    Ok, first of all the guy in the pict was obviously taken on purpose to promote an agenda. Anyway, in the article it was mentioned that gun laws are so lax. Please tell me exactly how they are so lax. You need an ID, a background check that involves the state police, some states have a waiting period, state and federal paperwork has to be filled out (depending on the class type: more paperwork is filed, fingerprints, state police PERMISSION, BATFE permission, and $200 tax stamp, 6+ month wait). Please tell me how gun laws are so freaking lax? What is lax is the mental health issues here in the US. We treat everything with drugs now. Look at Sandy Hook, Aurora, AZ congresswoman shooting, etc. They were all committed by people who were mentally “F’d” up and didn’t take their meds, causing the catastrophic shootings. People die here in the US from drunk drivers and I don’t see alcohol being banned again. Drugs have a crap ton of laws that restrict their use as well, but people still abuse them, dealers still sell it illegally, and people still OD and die from it. Guns are in the Constitution to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government. We all have the right (not privilege) to protect ourselves from harm, but gun control supports want to take away law abiding citizens rights to protection at the same time allow the government to keep their guns, allowing them to oppress the citizens whenever they want. You see it today that our govt agencies that have nothing to do with defense, have become more militarized, which scare me. Violent crime is getting worse, but that’s not law abiding citizens fault, that’s the criminals fault.

    • Brian

      Said laws are not often enforced or followed well enough, and rarely take into account the mental health of the purchaser or that of the family of the purchaser. The US still makes it easier than any other developed country to get a gun. And for it, the US has the highest rate of gun violence in the entire world.
      The issues of mental health should be addressed as well, yet I do not see you or anyone else offering up any solutions on the problem. I don’t think you quite understand what “the issue with mental health” is.
      The difference between guns and alcohol, cars, drugs, etc. is that those are not made for the sole purpose of killing people. Guns, from their very invention in 11th century China, had one purpose and one purpose only, and that was to end the life of whomever the muzzle is pointed at. That is the difference between a weapon and a tool/substance/vehicle.
      Where in the constitution does it say “guns are there to protect citizens from the tyrannical government”? It doesn’t. Read the language of the second amendment, nowhere does it even imply that is what it is for. And one must remember that this was written 220+ years ago by a bunch of very stoned men who could not agree on anything. The actual writer, Jefferson, wanted it revised every 19 years. If you want to use your guns to take on a “tyrannical government”, good luck with that. Let me know how your $80 Mosin Nagant M44 does against a drone.
      Yes, we all have the right to protect ourselves from harm. We do not have the right to endanger others. There are other means of protecting one’s self besides a firearm. If guns were the best option for that, then we would not have so many dead police.
      Gun control does not take away any rights. You can even keep your guns. Just don’t let me see them or wave them around in my face, and don’t let your autistic child with an obsession over serial killers anywhere near your guns. Or better yet, don’t be allowed to buy them if you are the parent of such a child.
      The government does not, and will not oppress anyone. If it wanted to do so, it will happen. It does not matter how many guns you own. You will die horribly if you resist. You cannot stand up against trained soldiers with military weapons and bullet-proof vests and drones, APCs, tanks, or attack helicopters. That is why the government has three branches and checks and balances. So such things cannot happen. So you can relax. No one will oppress you.
      How have government agencies become more militarized? Any changes are merely to keep up with the times. Criminal syndicates are becoming more militarized. And they’re getting their guns from America. Almost all guns used by drug cartels are traced back to American dealerships, and that was even before Fast and Furious happened.
      Violent crime is actually at a low, while gun violence is at a high. This is because it is too easy for criminals to get guns. They do not get them from black market dealers either. That’s expensive.
      Finally, I don’t want your guns. No one wants your guns. We just want to make it impossible for people who cannot use them responsibly, or pose a risk to public safety to get guns.

  • Robert Anthony Parobechek

    In answer to your question. Every law abiding citizen makes us safe when they own a gun. Enjoying the news lately about Islamic militias executing people in the name of jihad? Why do you think that would never work here? It is because the citizens are armed! Maybe instead of focusing on the one or 2 accidental deaths here and there (in a country with over 300 million heads?) Maybe you should do some research on why the 2nd Amendment keeps us safe to begin with. Maybe you should read about the first thing men like Hitler, Stalin, or Ferdinand Marcos take away before they can fully seize power. Don’t judge me as a conservative either, I vote extremely liberal, but liberals are flat out wrong and making the country unsafe by touting gun control as a good idea….. safe for the criminals maybe and safe for a foreign entity that would love to invade us and “cleanse us of heathen infidels in the name of Allah”. Normally, it is the Republicans that are obstructionist on everything constructive. How dare the liberals criticize them when they are just flat out wrong about gun control and too cowardly to admit it!!! Makes me want to vote Independent!!!!!!

  • Lee

    Switzerland requires that males over a certain age are to have a gun and know how to use them, and the crime rate is low. So looking at that, I think that everyone’s case that less guns equal less crime is BS.

    • Brian

      They’re all part of Switzerlands military, that’s why. And Switzerland has the highest rate of gun crime and gun violence in Europe. Even more than non-EU Eastern European nations.

      • Lee

        Our problem in the US is that we have a society issue. We reward incompetence and provide protection to the stupid. Maybe gun crime is more, but look at the UK. They ban or heavily restrict gun ownership, but violent crime as a whole goes up. They also pass laws that protect the stupid. I also think that those who are anti-gun need to govt to control their daily life therefore putting them in a position as a slave to the govt. People want to get rid of guns here and ban private ownership, but yet forget that leaves a vacuum for the govt to fill.

  • Charles Vincent

    “How many guns is enough to keep us safe?”

    Simple, as many as an individual sees fit.

    • Brian

      And if the individual happens to be a deadly lunatic?

      • Charles Vincent

        As soon as he kills someone he has broken several laws and is open to prosecution.
        Ask yourself this how many times have you thought I am going to kill that person, but didn’t act on the urge? Be honest.

      • Brian

        What about that dead man’s right to be safe from such lunatics? Do you value a lunatic’s right to own a weapon over a person’s right to live safely and without fear of being gunned down? Why does he have to die? Because you believe the proven mentally unstable lunatic should be allowed to buy a weapon?
        Never. I don’t think about killing others. That’s a bit twisted, wouldn’t you agree? Or… Do you have such fantasies?
        The 5th is irrelevant. No legal or judicial action would be taken by the government against a lunatic, they would simply be barred from buying a weapon.
        It’s terribly irresponsible to allow those whom are a danger to themselves or others to purchase a weapon.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        trust me,,,,,,chuckie will spin his reply adroitly

      • Charles Vincent

        “What about that dead man’s right to be safe from such lunatics?”

        This is the hidden price of being free.

        “Why does he have to die?”

        Hate to break this to you but no one and I mean no one gets out of life alive.

        “Because you believe the proven mentally unstable lunatic should be allowed to buy a weapon?”

        This is a logical fallacy.

        “I don’t think about killing others.”

        This is disingenuous at best.

        “The 5th is irrelevant.”

        Wrong re read the 5th in particular this part;

        “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

        You can not do “No legal or judicial action would be taken by the government against a lunatic, they would simply be barred from buying a weapon.”

        as it violates the due process portion of the 5th amendment.

        “Do you value a lunatic’s right to own a weapon over a person’s right to live safely and without fear of being gunned down?”
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This is^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        plurium interrogationum

      • Brian

        And there you have it folks. Not one point actually addressed, all arguments dismissed using latin and law not understood by the person citing them, and a total disregard for human life in favour of a personal interpretation of “freedom”.
        Whoops ad hominem in response to more masturbation from Charles.

      • Charles Vincent

        I understand them Unfortunately I don’t think you do and furthermore I think cognitive dissonance is getting the better of you. But what ever make you feel better.

      • Brian

        No, you don’t. You use it whenever you’ve got nothing left to say.
        Let me put it this way. The right for the mentally ill to own firearms, regardless of what they plan on doing with them, is not worth the lives of two dozen first graders. The right for those who will harm others to own weapons is not worth the right of all for public safety and freedom to live life free of fear from assault. Anarchy in which anyone and everyone can own a weapon is not freedom.
        You’re all about individual rights until your individual rights may deny others their basic right to life, and then all of a sudden guns matter more.
        Yep. Ad hominem.

      • Charles Vincent

        “No, you don’t. You use it whenever you’ve got nothing left to say.”

        Actually I use it when people use logical fallacy arguments to refute the facts I posit in support of my argument.

        “The right for those who will harm others to own weapons is not worth the right of all for public safety and freedom to live life free of fear from assault.”

        When you assault someone you break the law, and there are consequences. You have Zero right to infringe on another persons rights because you think they might do something to hurt someone in the future.

        Anarchy is by definition complete freedom to do as one pleases as there are no government controls or laws binding people.

        “You’re all about individual rights until your individual rights may deny others their basic right to life, and then all of a sudden guns matter more.”

        Do you even read what you write? just because you’re afraid of weapons doesn’t mean you get to infringe on someone elses right to own one anytime before they actually break the law.

        Sigmund Freud illustrates the problem you seem to have in this quote;

        “fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity”

        “The right for the mentally ill to own firearms, regardless of what they plan on doing with them, is not worth the lives of two dozen first graders.”

        Wrong you do not get to infringe on anyone’s rights without due process of law as per the constitution, and even then you only have recourse to punish the guilty party.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        again- O recalcitrant chuckie: when ( please be specific) is OBAMA “coming for our guns”???
        when?? U crybabies bemoan this; yet never have THAT answer–
        that’s because even with your superb ‘spinning’ u know that NO ONE is ‘coming 4 ur guns’
        ========================================

      • Charles Vincent

        Obama is pushing EO’s on gun control and Feinstein did try to ban a whole class of guns(which Obama supported) which is unconstitutional see DC v Heller, Cruikshank v US, and Miller v US. Although it failed they still had intent to take guns from law abiding citizens.

      • Jerry Jacuzio

        Jeez Charles I was right up there with you until you started quoting Freud 😉 I think, as with the sea, one should have a healthy fear of such things. The truth is that anyone who wants to get a gun illegally can get one. Same with drugs. With all the laws in the world, anyone of us could score drugs if we wanted. ( some of the crazies on here probably have their meth labs in their bunkers). I want stricter laws on guns – it might only help a little but it’s far from taking anybody’s gun away.

      • Charles Vincent

        “I want stricter laws on guns – it might only help a little but it’s far from taking anybody’s gun away.”
        This demonstrates to me that you do not understand the root cause(s) of violence, But instead blame an inanimate object for what people do.

      • Jerry Jacuzio

        No Charles. I understand the root cause of violence all too well. I don’t come from a whte-picket fence background. So stop talking about a killing tool like it is just like any other object. It is not. That perspective will only make people think you are simpleton. More regulations will help. I have read what reasonable people are asking for. If you cannot compromise and see reason, that is your problem. Be uncompromising – see if it produces the results you seem to be so sure of. When people reason and compromise, progress is made. Liability insurance, required training, background checks, full registration even upon transfer of a handgun – those things need to be in place. A handgun is not a bat, or a knife. A handgun is a killing tool. Period. Don’t make it sound like you are talking about a stone. That will convince no one but you – and the people who do want to ban handguns totally that they need to set you straight. Since I don’t own a handgun, as far I am concerned – they can strip you down to a stone knife and it wouldn’t affect me. 63 years all over this country. I never needed a handgun. And most of the folks I’ve met in life do not either. As a citizen, I am only asking for reasonable restrictions that no law abiding citizen should object to and reasonable handgun owners in this thread seem to have no problem with. Quote Freud all you want. That won’t get you shit but demonstrate you are condescending and simplistic. Have at it. Have you considered your brain might be an inanimate object as well?

      • Jerry Jacuzio

        I know the root cause of violence very well. I did not come from a white-fence background. Stop talking about a killing tool like is a stone. You will only demonstrate to me and others that you are simplistic as well condescending. What I want and many law-abiding handgun owners on this thread is liability insurance, required training course, registration under any transfer of weapon. Hey you’ve read what others are asking. There’s no need to repeat. Use Freud, throw your Latin like you are the only educated individual world. Don’t give an inch. For my part, 63 years in this country and I have never needed a handgun and don’t know many who do – so be uncompromising – I could care less if they strip you down to a stone knife. But Charles, have you thought that maybe your brain is an inanimate object?

      • Charles Vincent

        Well then why is it that the CDC has stated that gun laws have no effect on lowering violent crime rates? And WHy is it that the politicians who push gun control state that we know this wont stop it yet they push for it anyway?

        “What I want and many law-abiding handgun owners on this thread is liability insurance,”

        This demonstrates that you fundamentally don’t understand how insurance work. Insurance is by design for accidents from unforeseen situations. Crime and violent crime are not accidents they are done on purpose.

        “registration under any transfer of weapon.”

        This is illegal under federal law and has been since the mid 1980’s, due to the passage of the fire arms owners protection act.

        Further more you seem to see rights as a collective thing, this is fundamentally flawed logic. All rights are individual rights one look at the 5th amendment to the constitution shows this, specifically “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;…”

      • Jerry Jacuzio

        “”But Charles, have you thought that maybe your brain is an inanimate object as well?”

        “This is a specious claim. Inanimate objects cannot use logic and reason nor can they know the difference between right and wrong”

        I love it. It’s like talking to Data on Star Trek. I think you have it all covered. I will now leave you to the others on the opposite side who think they know it all as well. Enjoy your stone knife 😉 Mea culpa.

      • Charles Vincent

        Jerry it isn’t about people knowing it all its about the personal freedom for individuals to make choices that govern their own lives. In my case I make it a point to know the facts and when I don’t, I do the leg work and research the particular topic. The people on your “side” would be better served by using logic to solve problems rather than emotion. The fact is guns do not cause crime anymore than knives or blunt objects do. People cause crime and violence and when you see that fact it will be much easier to solve the problem or in the case of violence mitigate it. Because in the case of violent behavior mitigating it is the best we can hope to achieve.

      • Jerry Jacuzio

        Fair enough.
        “Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth” – Marcus Aurelius

        May logic triumph.
        I still hold that it is much easier to kill many people with a semi-automatic handgun than it is with a stone or a knife and this is why I believe handguns need to be regulated and tracked more they are now. You can’t spray a room with projectiles using a knife. It’s harder – you have to get close and personal. You are very intelligent and I don’t say that sarcastically, I look forward to your perspective on how better to mitigate handgun violence as I am sure all the emotional people who had kids in Sandy Hook will too.

      • Charles Vincent

        Jerry I want to give you some perspective concerning how dangerous knives can be vs handguns.

        Arson, Stabbing Rampage in Seoul South Korea : 10/20/2008. 6 people dead, 5 from stabbing. 7 others wounded, 4 seriously. An angry man felt people “looked down on him.”

        Anti-policestabbing spree in Shanghai, China: 7/2008. 6 Police Officers stabbed to death, 4 wounded. 28 year old man angry at police attacked a police station with a knife.

        Akihabara Massacre, Chiyoda City, Tokyo, Japan: 6/8/2008. 7 people killed (3 struck by car, 4 by stabbing), many more injured. Man slammed into a crowd with his car, then jumped out and began stabbing people to death.

        18 year old slashes 4 to death in Sitka, Alaska, US: 3/25/2008. 4 people killed. 18 year old (old enough to purchase a rifle over the counter) kills 4 people, related to him, with a 5 inch knife.

        Stabbing Spree kills 2, Tsuchiura, Japan: 3/23/2008. 2 killed, 7 wounded. Man “just wanted to kill anyone.”

        Stabbing spree wounds 41, 6 seriously in Berlin Train Station: 5/26/2006. 41 wounded, 6 seriously. Thankfully no one died in this attack, but not for lack of trying on the part of the drunk 16 year old.

        4 killed in stabbing spree in London, UK: 9/2004. 4 killed, 2 wounded. Mentally ill man attacks mostly older people.

        Osaka School Massacre, Osaka Japan: 6/8/2001. 8 children dead, 13 other children and 2 teachers wounded. Committed by 37 year old former janitor armed with a kitchen knife.

        Here are some facts on knives v guns.

        http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_boyd_ooda_loop.html

        http://moderncombatandsurvival.com/featured/tactical-firearms-training-vs-a-knife/

        http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm

        http://www.cji.edu/site/assets/files/1921/actionversusreaction.pdf

        http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/pages/continuum.aspx

        Moreover on the CDC website concerning violence prevention they never mention firearms or knives or any other implement that is used to commit a violent act, they talk about people and conditions that create violence i.e. poverty etcetera.

        http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/globalviolence/index.html

        You see things like prohibition and the war on drugs create violence and crime; furthermore poverty is probably the largest contributor to violent behavior.

        Is it a sad day when people die because some Idiot flips out and kills a bunch of innocent people, Of course it is no one is say it isn’t.

        WRT “I look forward to your perspective on how better to mitigate handgun violence…”
        The majority of hand gun violence is committed by gangs and or a result of gang related activity, the FBI violent crime statistics show this. And if you look at where gangs are prevalent I would wager that you would find that there are large concentrations of impoverished people. In short if you want to pout a dent in crime let the free market come up with solutions and have the government end its nonsensical war on drugs.

      • Jerry Jacuzio

        My Brother who was a state trooper used to say that a man with a knife within 10ft of you is more dangerous than a man with a handgun at that range. So there we are.
        The facts will prevail then. So no worries. Sorry Vincent – I know it would be nice if I believed in Adam’s invisible hand and letting the free market do it’s magic. But truly, that is a debate in itself.. I am now convinced of your perspective and consider myself educated. This should be how countrymen come to a common place.
        (I have been looking at Wealth of Nations on my bookshelf as of late. Maybe I will give it a read again, though experience tells me the working guy gets the short of the stick in the supposed free market. Especially in a global world. Maybe I will put any points I have regarding that to you when the time comes. And I do apologize for ribbing about the biblical archaeology. Let me slide without comment on that one.)
        I will certainly read those links you sent. Thanks. I never turn down information.

        I am old and my view is of temporal importance anyways; of little consequence in the big picture. I do hope I can spend my remaining days without having to look at too many folks bearing arms in public.
        Wish me well, Jer.

      • Charles Vincent

        Glad I could be of help. I also suggest two treatises on government by John Locke, the law by Frederic Bastiat, On liberty by John Stuart Mill and perhaps Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. And if that doesn’t take up too much of your time I would look into Lord William Blackstone’s commentary’s.

        Hope your day goes well Jerry.

        Charles

      • Jerry Jacuzio

        Wow. Thank you very much! Wish you lived nearby.

      • Charles Vincent

        P.S. I cheated, I purchased the selections I mentioned on audiobook so I could listen to them while I work or when ever I had to be doing something other than lounging on the couch. Also i am part of a closed group on Facebook where discussions like this take place called Beyond the Obvious if that interests you check it out.

      • Jerry Jacuzio

        Excellent – my eyes get so tired. Let me look for those for those in audio. On my way now to Beyond the Obvious. Sounds really good. I’m starving for fresh input. Really appreciate it.

      • Jerry Jacuzio

        O and thank you for your civility and not using the term ‘Libtard’ 😉 It does not go unnoticed.

      • Jerry Jacuzio

        And thank you for not using quotes from Ayn Rand. 😉 I am only human.

      • Jerry Jacuzio

        I don’t see my former responses here to your comment. Not sure why – but I may have to follow your posts. I actually learn very little by not having as many intelligent people with contrasting views around me.

      • Jerry Jacuzio

        Thanks I requested membership at B.T.O – I only want to learn – I give you my word I won’t misbehave

      • Charles Vincent

        Duly noted.

  • Orialis Colon Jr

    Hey boss ill answer that for you ” at least minimum one in the hands of everyone that legally can own one” crime rate will shoot downwards no pun intended

  • Matthew Reece

    “Wait, I know what some of these gun nuts think. They’re preparing for an overthrow of the government. Here’s a rule I propose: If you’re someone who honestly believes that you can stage an armed rebellion to overthrow the United States government, you’re too mentally unstable to own guns.”
    I recommend reading “Violently Overthrow the Government” by Christopher Cantwell. He demonstrates that overthrowing a government by force is actually easier than overthrowing a government by voting, nonviolent resistance, education, or peaceful parenting. Of course, his theory is for ending the state forever rather than replacing it with a new one, so it will be of limited use to the wingnuts discussed in the above article.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      u write some good stuff occasionally matt baybee!

  • Mr. Benton

    here is the facts not one person was killed by a gun people used a gun to kill no one in the world was killed by a gun you dumb son of a bitches its people doing the killing . when someone wants to take your gun for your safety shoot that son of a bitch because he is up to no good … one gun is for safety the rest is a show of force .. why do we send so many guns to other countries WE HAVE THE BOMB i’m a vet i took part in war games that were nothing more than a show of force …….

  • Keister

    Sooo gun laws will work, but not a single one of our drug laws including prohibition have worked and have cost billions upon billions to enforce. History repeats itself, ban it, outlaw it and people will still find a way to get it. BTW check out the stabbing, beating and bombing rates in countries without guns. Most of them got us beat hands down. Random violence from idiots will continue. Laws will not stop it, outlaw or supress gun ownership folks will buy swords, outlaw that they will buy baseball bats etc etc. Educate and inform people not try to scare them into submission, giving up rights and becoming helpless sheep in the process.

  • Phil

    Allen, I have the answer to your question…
    The actual answer to your loaded question is that there is no actual number of guns that will make us safer or more at risk… I am hoping you already knew that.
    Let’s take the “evil, death-generating GUN” out of the equation for a second. Now, let us use whatever else in it’s place, anything that could possibly harm you or I. I am going to use the automobile in this example, but please, for the folks at home, use whatever you care too…
    In 2011, there were 9,865 drunk driving related deaths in this country. In 2012, there were 10,322 drinking and driving related fatalities . (MADD/ national stats/ all states) First off, how come Allen isn’t outraged at these numbers? This is a lot of death and carnage here! And why isn’t anyone else yelling and screaming about all these damn, dangerous cars? I mean, a car is a very heavy object. In the wrong hands, it could be used to kill numerous people at once and it could also explode, causing even more death and misery. The numbers are right in front of you, and this is just from two years time. When someone kills another person from driving drunk do we blame the car? Do we blame the alcohol companies? The answer to this is a flat out NO. It was the individual’s bad choice and lack of common sense that caused this. This is why in drinking and driving related incidences, someone goes to jail, especially when there is a death involved. Hmmmm, makes sense does it not? How can ANYONE look at ANY inanimate object and blame it for anything? This is a very low-intellect form of reasoning. This all stems from people failing to be responsible citizens, parents, friends, family members, and all around human beings. Signs of this are everywhere, from our own government, all the way to the family unit… no one is to blame, it’s some “thing” else that’s the problem, some mysterious form of voodoo perhaps, or maybe a conspiracy. Everything else is political driven nonsense, no matter what side you are on.

  • Brian

    It used to be every country in Europe packed some serious heat. Then strict, sweeping gun control legislation came into effect for the sake of public safety. Now there’s virtually no gun violence anywhere in Europe except Switzerland, where owning a gun is a legal requirement due to military service. Switzerland has the highest rate of gun violence in Europe by a wide margin. However, every Swiss man and woman has military training and the firearms owned are carefully tracked and regulated by the government. This makes gun crime in Switzerland considerably less than that of the US.
    Check wiki on gun violence by nation for sources. It’s all there.
    More guns = more gun violence. Less guns = less gun violence. Don’t quote the 2nd amendment at me, I don’t care about something written 220 years ago by a bunch of people who disagreed on everything they wrote. I don’t care about overthrowing governments, you’re a lunatic if you want it and a moron if you think it’s possible. I’m simply stating hard facts.
    And yes, criminals break laws. Your average criminal’s gun is usually bought from a store either under or over the table, however, considering how much smuggled weapons cost in comparison.
    So start tracking down guns, and criminals will not have guns.

    • Justin Bradburn

      Don’t try to take our guns, you will get shot. I don’t care about some communist nut who was born however long ago.

      • Brian

        I doubt you’d even fire a shot before you’re put down by authorities for not cooperating. That being said, if we’re having this conversation you are not mentally fit or stable to carry a firearm.

      • Justin Bradburn

        The authorities and I are of the same ilk. Ah there goes another lie, you can’t know the future and you have nothing to prove your statement. That and you literally know nothing about firearms and myself. As ascertained from you previous lie about guns not being tools, which they very much are. I can tell you this about yourself, you don’t have the capability to learn. Ignorance is the bases of knowledge, which can be remedied with facts. Stupidity is the commitment to ignorance, for which there is no remedy.

  • LadyBligh

    Wow. A lot of people showing their Facebook balls on here, lol.

    I’m a gun owner, but not a “gun nut”. I hate the NRA. I think the Open Carry Texas crowd is a bunch of limp-dicked jackasses who have to carry large rifles to feel like real men. Both groups promote irresponsible gun ownership and the coddling of criminals by allowing them to have access to firearms. I’d even be fine with a ban on the sale of tactical rifles.

    However, this article doesn’t acknowledge the fact that for women (and especially gay women like myself), the world is a very dangerous place. We live in a homophobic world where my wife has received death threats simply for being in love with me. We live in a world where rape culture is very real, and you have red-pill assholes that think that the role of straight women is to be brood mares for the state, and us lesbians would magically turn straight if one of them “fucked the gay out of us”.

    It’s for this reason that I carry concealed. For women that say that they don’t need to, that’s fine. You have the right to choose not to carry. But for my family, the threat of rape and murder is very real.

    • Brian

      Self-defence classes, mace, pepper spray, taser. There’s no reliable numbers on whether or not a gun is any more effective at preventing such things.

      • LadyBligh

        I do those, too.

        Well, not the taser.

  • DK

    Criminals don’t care about gun laws, or regulations. That is the problem, it’s not the amount of guns, but simply that a criminal who wants a gun, will get a gun regardless of the restrictions. I personally would rather have my legally obtained and carried pistol to defend myself and my family against a criminal hell bent on causing us harm, than to have my cell phone calling 911 while being filled with holes. Call me a gun nut if you want, but you’re wrong. I’m a responsible and sensible citizen. I’ve gone through the training classes, obtained my firearm with a background check through a licensed dealer, and carry it the right way, without scaring people at Target and Chipolte (those idiots give the rest of us a bad name). Chances are, if you saw me on the street or in a store, you’d never know I had a pistol on me. That’s the way it should be, out of sight, out of mind, but always at the ready in case i need it for defense.

    • Brian

      “Criminals don’t care about gun laws, or regulations.”
      Which is why law enforcement exists.

      ” That is the problem, it’s not the amount of guns, but simply that a criminal who wants a gun, will get a gun regardless of the restrictions.”
      Not true. The firearms bans in Australia and European nations worked magnificently. Even in Italy with its heavy mafia presence.

      “I personally would rather have my legally obtained and carried pistol to defend myself and my family against a criminal hell bent on causing us harm, than to have my cell phone calling 911 while being filled with holes.”

      So a gun is your only means of self-defense? Can you not get a taser, mace, pepper spray, or learn to fight?

      “Call me a gun nut if you want, but you’re wrong. I’m a responsible and sensible citizen. I’ve gone through the training classes, obtained my firearm with a background check through a licensed dealer, and carry it the right way, without scaring people at Target and Chipolte (those idiots give the rest of us a bad name).”
      Good for you.

      ” Chances are, if you saw me on the street or in a store, you’d never know I had a pistol on me. That’s the way it should be, out of sight, out of mind, but always at the ready in case i need it for defense.”

      Pulling a gun only exaserbates a bad situation.

  • Brian

    Its not so much the guns as it is how society has evolved. Children now days do not have the respect for there elders or the rules by which we live. Yes, there are way to many guns out there. So many are in the hands of gangbangers who are making there money with drugs. There are too many children whom have not been raised with the respect for elders and the law. I own guns and would never carry in public. Not because I don’t want to, because at this time there really is no need. Yes at some times a person carrying a weapon may save the day, but that is far and few between. If some one walks/breaks into my house, they may not walk out. But the police can take care of the streets! That’s what we pay for as citizens in part of this country.

    • Sly Cotto

      Agreed.
      I have a .22 rifle, and my wife and I each have a pistol for target shooting/home defense.

      I don’t carry in public, but Zeus help the moron who tries to break in to my home.

  • David L. Kern

    I own 2 guns. A bolt action rifle for hunting, & a handgun for defense. So my answer is 2 are enough. At least for now. And no, I don’t carry any unless it’s to the range or when I’m hunting.

  • Ralph J. Sheeks

    Well if making things illegal keeps criminals from getting/doing them why don’t we make it illegal to kill someone in the first place. or make drugs illegal. or make it illegal to rape someone or abuse a child. Simple answer is that the criminals don’t care about laws in the first place.

  • Matthew Reece

    “But these gun nuts constantly claim we need “more guns” to make us safe. Well, what’s the magic number then? Because we’re damn near at a 1:1 ratio for American citizens and guns, and that sure as hell doesn’t seem to be decreasing gun violence.”
    The problem is that not everyone who wants or needs one is in possession of one. There are people who are forcibly disarmed by gun control laws, as well as people who are too poor to get guns because of government interference in the economy. So perhaps “we” do not need more guns, but certain disadvantaged people do, and the state is in their way.

    • taserian

      Wanting or needing a gun is a poor metric to evaluate if someone is responsible enough to own a gun.

      • Matthew Reece

        True, but a red herring to my argument.

      • taserian

        Sorry, but for it to be a red herring to your argument, you actually have to have an argument. Gun control laws aren’t unilaterally imposed, but voted upon by representatives that were in turn voted in. Claiming that poverty’s only cause is government interference in the economy is a fatuous argument.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        matt seems a wee bit off at times.

      • Matthew Reece

        All governments unilaterally impose laws, regardless of the details of how that imposition takes place. Claiming that this sort of violation of the non-aggresssion principle is acceptable because it involves quasi-democratic elections is an ad populum fallacy.

        I do not claim that poverty’s only cause is government interference. It is, however, an axiom that involuntary poverty’s only cause is coercive interference, such as the activities of governments and other criminal organizations.

      • taserian

        First of all, you’re inconsistent. You first argued that people were poor because of government interference. Now you allow criminal organizations to be another possible “cause” of involuntary poverty. So you’ve failed to support the argument that Government is the only cause of poverty.

        Second, your model is fatuous. Involuntary poverty can be caused by a number of causes outside of one’s will; getting hit by a natural disaster, or a prolonged disease.

        Remember that no model is perfect, some models are useful, but in the end, they are models that abstract away some aspect of reality, like thermodynamics or the laws of nature.

        And this being your third strike in argument baseball, YERR OUT!

      • Matthew Reece

        First of all, you’re creating straw men. I first argued that there exist people who are poor because of government interference. I did not say that every poor person is poor for this reason, as I later elaborated.

        Natural causes of poverty can be overcome with enough hard work and/or private charity. This is not usually the case with unnatural causes of poverty, such as governments.

        No model is perfect, but the methodology of classical logic is perfect.

      • taserian

        No, you claimed that some people were not able to own a gun *because* they were too poor *because* of government interference. Don’t change your argument after the flaw was discovered, then claim that I’m creating a straw man.

        And now I see you hedging your bets with “not usually”. Looks like you finally saw that the world isn’t all black or white.

        Logic argumentation is a wonderful tool which has served humanity very well, but it’s too dependent on linguistic construction. Language works with categories and dichotomies that idealize the material world. Therefore, by definition, logic cannot be immune to some pitfalls. Take a look at Godel’s Proof of Incompleteness, which in a sentence boils down to “Some things are true, but cannot be proven true.”

      • taserian

        And I almost forgot; your axiom was “involuntary poverty’s only cause is coercive interference”. When I posited another cause, you now change the argument to . . . what, the possibility of recovery from poverty? When was that contained in your axiom?

      • Matthew Reece

        I claimed that that some people were not able to own a gun because they were too poor because of government interference. You claimed that I claimed that all people who are too poor to own a gun are in that situation because of government interference. Thus you created a straw man.

        I am aware of Godel’s incompleteness theorems, but unless there is a way to map philosophy to the natural numbers, they are not of concern.

      • taserian

        So because it affects only some people, we should abolish the state, removing any constraints to their ability to escape poverty, but allowing any criminal organization to impose its own style of poverty constraints? And what about those who need a gun, as per your argument, but are unable to get one because of poverty not caused by the state?

        And you misused the word “axiom” before. You said “It is, however, an axiom that involuntary poverty’s only cause is coercive interference [. . .] “. An axiom is supposed to be self-evidently true, yet I not only provided a counter-example to it, but you weren’t able to maintain the integrity of the axiom, adding some other claptrap about “overcoming poverty”, which was never part of it.

        It very well may be an axiom of your model, but I’ve already pointed out where your model fails against reality.

      • Matthew Reece

        You are assuming without proof that other coercive institutions will take the place of the state.

        Those who need weapons but are impoverished by non-state coercions may acquire them through private charity or through joining a mutual defense organization. These people are a very small minority, and it should not be difficult to help them defend themselves.

        That involuntary poverty’s only cause is coercive interference is self-evidently true. If there is no coercion present, then everyone has the freedom and resources available to work their way out of poverty. Those who choose not to do so at that point are voluntarily poor.

      • taserian

        History provides ample empirical evidence of coercive institutions that not only take the place of the state, but actually become “the state”; I admit isn’t proof, but it’s more realistic than believing that no such takeover will take place.

        And will these private charities evaluate the applicant’s need for firearms and inability to acquire one on their own through payment? If yes, they become a coercive institution; if not, they add to the problem of irresponsible proliferation of firearms.

        And lets look at the Bundy ranch “mutual defense organization”, which devolved into discord and accusations of treason among the very members. Yes, it’s only one counter-case, but in turn I’ll challenge you to provide an example of a case where it has succeeded and remains so to this day without a coercive governing state.

        How can you assume that, absent coercion, everyone has the freedom and resources available to work their way out of poverty? There’s an implicit assumption that resources would be freely available to anyone; are you implying a socialist society?

      • Matthew Reece

        The root problem of your argumentation is that you are putting empiricism above rationalism. A priori theory trumps experience and logic overrules observation, not vice versa. That being said, I do believe that other coercive institutions will try to take the place of the state if there is a violent overthrow of government rather than a technological evolution past government, which is why there will need to be private defense organizations to stop them.

        It is not coercive to refuse to provide someone with a good or service. A refused customer may respond by doing business with a competitor or starting one’s own business.

        I assume that ample resources would be freely available to anyone because almost all of the forces that currently prevent this would be eliminated.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      when are quality americans DISARMED ( see: ‘guns taken’) by any legislation? please substantiate with FACTS. dates/locations/events

      • Matthew Reece

        You are committing a category error by looking for empirical evidence in an a priori context.

      • taserian

        And you’re committing a hasty generalization.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        keep spinning away from any answer to an easy question

  • Matthew Reece

    “Because what reality actually tells us is that more guns actually lead to more violence – not less.”
    So what if it does? We should not seek to curb all violence, but rather to curb aggressive violence. An increase in defensive violence would be a good thing, because it would mean that more murderers, rapists, kidnappers, robbers, etc. are being shot in self-defense. This would have a chilling effect on crimes against people and property, leading to less demand for government police, courts, and prisons. This frees up resources to be used for every other purpose and makes a more virtuous civilization.

    • taserian

      Virtue isn’t only found in non-aggressive-violence civilizations. And thievery isn’t only perpetrated using the threat of violence. Your argument in favor of guns leaves a lot to be desired.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      matt; do U REALLY “think” that private enterprise wants LESS prisons and less litigation?????

      • Matthew Reece

        I know that they do. Rent-seeking corporatists, on the other hand, do not, and that is what we are dealing with.

  • Stephen Barlow

    You will never get an honest answer from dishonest people.

  • Shazamo

    oh my. I have read through quite the discussion… or more mindless verbose masturbation (not the sexual act for those unfamiliar with this usage). I just want to say enough. OK? Seriously guys. You can’t fix or stop crazy. They will always be there. If you think guns really do help people… Solution: Issue one to every citizen at age 18 or whatever. IMO I think that is a horrible idea. But we mustn’t just shun ideas because they are crazy and outlandish. We need to be able to sit down and talk facts. (not intended as a slam to anyone btw)
    Also enough with dissecting and constructing new meanings… NO ONE CARES!!! Like seriously. Yes, cognitive abilities to infer and interpret are great skills. I am a double Phd so if you want to talk… Let’s go. But seriously the constitution is not written in an alien language guarded by mythical creators who only reveal its secrets to a few deemed worthy. It takes a simple act of sitting down and reading through it. Maybe a few hours devoted to thinking about the true inner meanings and historical context for phrases that have been lost in time. I understand it. I also know we do live in a Democracy where if people want to be stupid and kill themselves, they can. (Well not really, but I meant that for rhetoric because you have to consciously pull the trigger… unless it happens to be an actual tragic misfire or whatever).

    Im sure someone will love to try and refute what I’m saying… even though I haven’t really given a stance. I’ve stated my opinion, but that which is in my mind is not always correct. I understand this, and try to keep an open mind over the debate. Crazy people are just making it really hard for me to sit idle and let them acquire guns. I know if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them… But right now, my aunt, who was in an insane rehab center aka “the funny farm” could walk in and get a gun because she has a clean record. I just think this all or nothing approach is ridiculous. The argument that because we can’t get rid of all guns, we should just not even try to do anything. Ill take just stopping one person, because that one person won’t be able to kill someone (as easily anyway). I also am against taking guns away from everyone. I think if you pass the regulations (which if you are reading and posting on forums such as this one, odds are you would pass) it would only screen those mentally unstable, and make it really hard for ex-convicts who used guns in violence previously. But yeah I agree the government shouldn’t take everyones guns away (which they aren’t… saying they are by regulations is technically true because guns were taken from some people… but those people should never of had guns in the first place) I think all guns should be registered… And I also think (my idea here) to put fingerprint scanners and gps trackers in guns whereby firing the weapon sends a location, timestamp, and person who shot. Yeah, that does invade your privacy if you want to look at it that way… but if you are not doing anything wrong (which is basically your point for why gov should not regulate you… so if you say otherwise you are contradicting yourself)

    I don’t know… there is no one size fits all plan… but school shootings, and other acts of violence need to be stopped… If you are against regulating guns, you need to start giving us some ideas on how we can stop this… ok?

  • slaws

    Perhaps the discussion could be carried out more intelligently if we weren’t referring to one another as nuts?

  • Shartiblartfat

    Some of my friends own firearms, including shotguns, rifles, and pistols. Not one of the people in my circles own any of the fetishist designed-only-to-kill-people weapons as are advertised in the NRA magazines.

    I don’t read the NRA magazines at the Public Libraryto jerk off to the ads, but I enjoy parsing out the sheer lunacy of the monthly essays by Wayne LaPierre and his henchpersons

    When I was a wee sprat, I went down to the local NRA shooting range at the old Oshkosh Armory in Merritt and Jefferson to blast away with a bolt-action .22 rifle. As we placed ten hits in the black on targets further and further away, we earned marksman badges. One of my junior high shop teachers, Arno Kluge, taught the classes. He and his assistants brooked NO foolishness.

    I qualified with both the .38 revolver and the M-16 while in the Air Force. Normally I would only have shot the M-16, but because of my AFSC, 43151E, I also got to shoot the pistol.

  • Steve Ebenroth

    Since you used the term “gun nuts” in your title, it’s fair to say that any answer will be insufficient for you. That being said, here is what I believe to be “enough”. A shotgun for dove hunting, another for Turkey hunting, another for deer hunting, another or home defense. A center fire rifle for deer hunting, another for hog hunting, another for bear hunting, and another for self defense. A pistol for target shooting, another for concealed carry, another for home defense, and several others that I’m interested in. Also, I need a black powder rifle for primitive weapons season for deer. I also need a small pocket carry gun, a purse carry gun for the Mrs, and she needs a shotgun, deer rifle and a semi auto of her own for self-defense, plus whatever other guns I want (ammo too) – hugs!

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      and,,,,,,,,,,,,,,O stevie wondersquid: jes’ MAYBE a true marksman could simply need one or two for his macho HUNTING exploits??
      ( dove hunting????)
      and———- where EXACTLY do “assault style” weapons play into the need?
      I guess those inbreds who are stuck living in squalid land-locked areas MUST kill ( see: hunt) animals as their ONLY “hobby”
      I suspect a real hunter would be well versed in hunting with a bad ass crossbow—- I did archery in college; LOVE the freedom: — and the SILENCE!!

      • Steve Ebenroth

        I’d love to show you how well versed in hunting I really am, but there’s no season for pompous douchebags – yet…

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        im strongly willing to wager that ur bald fat ass is completely inept with bow.
        ……….don’t forget to PRAISE the dead / dried out JEEEESUS

      • Steve Ebenroth

        i own several and have made many deer kills. i have a compound PSE as well as a re-curve. did you use sights or not in College? Longbow or compound? The newer compound bows from Hoyt are lasers, sending carbon arrows out at 320+ fps. Bow hunting is lots different than playing with youth bows on a college campus though. Why do you keep calling me bald? I got a mane like Elvis if i let it grow out. What a douche nozzle…

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        cmon elvis—
        LONGBOWS! compounds ( diamond/ bear/ cabela) are f*cking rifles with no noise: they can penetrate a tank. no true sport
        Ive hunted in NE Georgia with bows; turned me off to it.
        NOTE: elvis was balding ( peaks) at his death; don’t get too cocky

      • Steve Ebenroth

        You’re a complete douchebag, down to the hairstyle and all. You better make sure you’re not playing “basketball” when the need arises, cause we ain’t playing. I’m rooting for the home team. I’m glad that you’ve heard the word and reject it.

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        ” the word”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we know about 6.5% of CHRISTS life; yet U small dicked small minded lemmings tell us all HE ID GOD!!!!! not ” son of god ” ( which makes sense….) F*CKING GOD !!!!
        Im willing to wager U don’t have any athletic skills,,,,,, unless eating fried food and drinking beer is “Olympic” to white trash religious losers such as thee. ” the word”….. I LIKE THAT!!!
        hey sh*tbag: CHRIST never said hate gays/ hate minorities/ hate womens rights/ never commented upon abortion,,,,,,, CHRIST also is NOT the cutesy surfer / rock star looking guy portrayed in those tax free houses of VOODOO U clowns go 2 on sunday to show off the shine on your boots: Christ was a brown skinned jewish fella who preached love and helping the poor and children and the elderly and sick. QUITE unlike the white trash LOW IQ scum that is reading my mockery of him now. Im digging your overt fat ass and phlegmatic looking ” physique”,,,,,,,, ruch Limbaugh/glenn beck anyone?

      • Steve Ebenroth

        How many rednecks do you know without a Bow? I got this from start to finish big Jim.

      • Steve Ebenroth

        That’d be” A center fire rifle for deer hunting, another for hog hunting, another for bear hunting, and another for self defense”. An AR will protect the shit out of a family, you research that shit…

      • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

        and….O steatopygous steve baybeeee,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, who EXACTLY is attacking??
        I live in a civilized ( kinda) part of America: pompano beach 150 yards from the glorious atlantic ocean. Sharks? Barracudas? homeless urchins? I need no exotic rifle to protect me: Im big and strong and fast; and usually anyone wanting something finds a better target to play with.
        ========================================
        hunt a hog? go to a strip club: that’s where they are

  • shyne112

    I may have a solution to help reduce the violence in America period. now this wont stop those who want to die anyway but it may deter those who want to try to get away with a crime. May capital punishment public and un civilized like some of these other countries with low crime rates then most of these criminals would think twice. I also believe if you murder someone you should get the death penalty automatically so we as tax payers don’t have to pay for your retarded ass.

  • Common sense

    Chicago, Fourth of July, 2014. Toughest gun laws in the country, most homicides in one day. Any questions?

  • Karen Hayes

    I live in Boston and I don’t know one single person who owns a gun! Gunfire is not permitted in our town. … and crime here is really low… infact we never hear of any and I rarely lock my doors…..

  • Max power

    If restrictive gun control actually made a difference in gun violence, Mexico and Canada would have similar results. Israel and Switzerland have almost universal gun ownership, and have not devolved into ‘the wild west’. Believing that just a few more laws will make us all safe; is delusional. Gun violence in the United States seems to be centered in crowded urban areas. It appears to be significantly more related to local culture and community values. Additional laws, and law enforcement, are NOT the solution

    • Jerry Jacuzio

      Sandy Hook was not a crowded urban center. I hear what people are asking for as far insurance, background, registration – if it saves one person, one child – why not? Good folks can still get all the guns they want. Laws and law enforcement are not the solution? You got one better? And please don’t give some crazy solution like we all should get stinger missiles.

  • Shane Gibson

    answer: once every single legal citizen has at least one gun and is willing to use it.
    its comical at best to hear liberals say that gun enthusiasts helped flood the streets with guns when in reality its their own liberal party did that. i.e. holder and obama

  • Mike Vos

    “How many guns is enough to keep us safe?”

    All of them.

    Now let me ask you a question, how many unenforced gun laws is enough?

  • Mike Lavender

    I read this blog almost daily. (with a preface) I am described as a ‘liberal’, whatever that means, by all sides of the spectrum.I am a gun owner. I own multiple guns. This statement tends to link the the most far Left radicals and the rabid far Right who agree that a “A ‘Liberal’ cannot be a gun owner”. I assure you I like guns, I do not anthropomorphize them, I don’t carry them at Wal-Mart but I do go to a range and shoot them. I reload ammunition for them, I tinker and adjust them. Mine have never shot me, another person, “a child” or whatever others say will happen if you are even in the same room with a gun. Why? Because I like guns. And for your question
    How many guns are enough?
    Here’s my answer: As many as I’d like to have.

  • Wonko The Sane

    I’d love to see large groups of blacks and arabs walking around exercising THEIR right to open carry. Then we’d see how quickly the Republifascists would change their tune.

  • OldGypsy

    Even in the Old West in many town you have to leave your weapons at the Sheriff’s office because they were banned in town.

  • Terry Ball

    “How many guns is enough to keep us safe?”

    Just one! The rest we collect because we can. Because we are
    free, a citizens of the United States of America nd because the Bill of Rights guarantees us the right to own firearms. It doesn’t say we have the right to keep and bear ONE arm, it says we have the right to keep and bear ARMS.

    Why would you care how many we have? Look at us as
    collectors. You must have a collection of something, maybe comic books, crayons, cool aid cups, roach clips, or bongs. So, I’ll ask you:

    “How many bongs do you need to get high?”

    • Hans Anderson

      Yes. Firearms are well known as an ‘investment’ opportunity, racking up for that retirement.

  • Steven Diedesch

    I’m a gun collector (what you’d definitely call a “gun nut”) and I find this highly accusatory and just wrong at many points.

    I don’t believe more guns *or* less guns will ever solve our problem. What I believe is that there need to be nationally mandated storage laws and that adults need to be held accountable for crimes or accidents committed by their children with guns that they provided access to, becuase “They’ve already lost enough” isn’t enough to deter some other fart from leaving a loaded Sigma out for 7-year-old Johnny to show to his friends.

  • Rachel Anne

    I support gun rights, really I do, but if I saw someone openly carrying a gun (that is currently illegal where I live, though concealed carry is legal) I would be so scared. How am I supposed to know if they’re a “good guy” or a “bad guy”? How am I supposed to know if they’ve been taught proper gun safety? Honestly, I’m afraid of anyone with a gun — even police. Guns go off accidentally all the time, and in those times they can easily hurt or even kill someone.

  • inteligentleman

    It might be a mistake to rhetorically engage a person who attacks with ad hominem in a campaign to dismantle defenses. It can be a mistake to respond to a degreed political scientist who argues against straw man premises rather than responds to actual opponents articulating their own arguments.

    Nonetheless, I will note that it is incorrect to claim that Second Amendment advocates are “preparing for an overthrow of the government.”

    To the contrary, advocates of civilian based defense consider their preparedness “necessary to the security of a free State” as stated in the Second Amendment.

    Readers who point out that illegal violence peaks in urban areas where residents have been disarmed correctly cite evidence of why civilian based defense is necessary to the security of a free State.

  • surfjac

    The answer I love the most is…if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. So who is talking about outlawing guns? Not me, you? Anyone out there? Here’s a thought though WHY DON’T WE TRY TO KEEP THEM OUT OF THE HANDS OF MENTALLY UNFIT INDIVIDUALS AND PEOPLE WITH A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND THROUGH BACKGROUND CHECKS? Does that outlaw a gun? NO, but it might keep one from being used by a crazy person in a theater.
    Of course there are people in this country that think the 2nd amendment is all about people gunning down people and not much else. (FYI: the 2nd is all about the continuation of slave posses for the southern states that relied on slaves for their economy. Yeah, for real; you use YOUR VOTE to remove a tyrannical government as the founders intended.)

  • BHLaurie

    Don’t let the crazy people and the criminals buy guns. More background checks! No guns for domestic abusers and stalkers. No guns for those who are too stupid to keep them away from children. No guns for those who threaten groups of people online. But here, we say give them more guns, that will help.

  • Jazzenjohn

    There can be no direct reply to the question because Allen wants an answer to how many guns there “needs” to be in the entire U.S. While The “good guy with gun vs bad guy with gun” is speaking on a local, individual incident basis.

  • 1NedSprockethead1

    Want to prevent gun deaths? Keep guns out of the hands of Democrats.

  • Terri

    Lots of pointless debate that we’ve all seen before. But no one on the pro-guns-no-regulations side has answered Clifton’s question.

    • Justin Bradburn

      Its a question that cannot be answered.

  • gaige

    However many guns are required to win a war against the treasonous, “progressive” elements within American society and government. There is your answer.

    You are no longer our countrymen.

  • DRD
  • fedup

    here’s the proper answer, and the only answer..gun violence will NEVER be ended..ever..so, how many guns you ask? As many guns as we want, and its not up to you, liberals, progressives, democrats, women, congress, the supreme court or anyone else, unless GOD himself shows back up and declares enough is enough…..now GFY with your stupid questions

  • Valethar

    The fact that you can’t make a reasoned argument without a liberal sprinkling of childish insults and name calling invalidates any point you may have had.

  • scott will

    the US is one of the safest places to live per ca pita. Also we happen to allow private property ownership and we are free.

  • scott will

    the US is one of the safest places to live per ca pita. Also we happen to allow private property ownership and we are free.

  • Jessica Evans

    The problem is that us legal law abiding citizens do not want our rights infringed because criminals get them illegally. Take our guns away and we can’t fight back. They take our guns away, they control us. Wake up.

  • TheGreatKhanOfPatagonia

    These comments are hilarious, these bible bashing gun nuts are so painfully ignorant, more guns = more crime, It’s. THAT. Simple.

  • James Kelly

    How many weapons will it take me to keep me safe? I only need one. I’m not protecting myself from animals. I’m protecting myself from man. And I want the most effective tool. I want the tool that our tax dollars have designed and tested to be the absolute best weapon for the job of killing our fellow men. The tool that our country hands to its sons and daughters who wear a uniform. That just so happens to be an evil assault weapon with a 30 round magazine. The intent of the second amendment was to give power to the people. Each individual citzen has the right to keep and bear “arms”. To have exactly the same ability that the government possesses. So the people have the ability to Protect this country against enemies of the constitution whether they be internal or foreign. When you allow people to have automobiles they have the ability to kill themselves or others. Sometimes this ability is exercised intentionally and sometimes unintentionally. I think we all recognize that trying to abolish or limit the car because it has the ability to kill is foolish. We do our best in the same way that we do with firearms. through sensible legislation. Legislation such as being required to pass a competency test to get a concealed carry permit.