Shared publicly  - 
 
A 15-year-old majorette received a fatal shot to the back in South side Chicago only a week after performing at Inaugural events in DC. Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation and has had 40 shootings in the first 30 days of 2013. 
28
9
Ed Hulett's profile photoChenetha Seymour's profile photoS. Kelley's profile photoMegan Reyes's profile photo
157 comments
 
Because you can't have regional gun laws. It must be on the federal level across the country. It's because it's so easy to get guns in states like Wyoming, that kids in Chicago are dieing. It's why children in Mexico are being slaughtered, because of easy to get American guns. The harder you fight to make it easy for everyone to get guns, the more kids are going to die.
 
I can't tell if +Michael Washington is threatening us with "The harder you fight to make it easy for everyone to get guns, the more kids are going to die." or he just doesn't fact check
 
Chicago is a goddamn city you idiots. Cities are 100% open to enter and leave. You know what that logically means? City laws prohibiting things next to ineffective. The same can be said for city laws too. NATIONAL laws do a better job, provided to do your goddamn job right. I am sick of people referencing Chicago when they cite gun laws, because they must be forgetting the fact cities are not nations. They don't have the power, resources, and stuff that entire nations do. 
 
Chicago politicians blame lack of gun laws in other states, yet those states don't have crime like Chicago.
 
 "It's because it's so easy to get guns in states like Wyoming, that kids in Chicago are dieing."

I'm sorry but +Michael Washington that is the most ridiculous argument that I've ever heard.  Chicago has pretty much the strictest gun laws in the country as well as the highest murder rate.  The people who commit these crimes do not follow the law.  These murderers didn't go to Wyoming and buy a gun, they stole it.  
 
Mexico has a national ban on guns.  How is their gun crimes doing?  You idiots who want to ban guns from lawful Americans will only create more victims and subjects who can't protect themselves.

Simple thinking from low information democrat voters.
 
+Brandon Polcawich according to ATF stats, only about 10% of guns are stolen for crimes, most are bought from illegal brokers who get them shipped in from other states. Check the ATF website they have all the statistics there.
 
So again, gun laws aren't working.  LOL
 
Mexico is a 3rd world nation that doesn't even have the proper resources to enforce its drug laws, so that isn't a good citing. Try giving us a developed nation and not developing nations, because the same thing that applies to cities, also applies to developing and 3rd world countries.
 
+Spencer Scott Mexican's are dieing because of your gun laws. Because you can go buy all the guns you want, you can ship them wherever you want. It's because American's will give guns to anyone other nations suffer.
 
Ah right, like the U.S. enforcing it's own drug laws?  Yes, tell us how difficult it is to get drugs since they are illegal?
 
I was born in Cook County, south side of Chicago, it's a hard city, always has been, I carried a knife since I was 12. Fortunately for me my mom remarried and we moved to San Francisco. I've never been back.
 
Right, you mean Obama and Holder who gave guns to Mexican drug lords.  
 
You can grow drugs pretty much anywhere. There are no firearms trees.
 
+Michael Washington I'm not going to make the same arguments everyone else has, but to strip it down to this:

1. Do criminals obey the law? No, because if they did, the wouldn't be criminals.
2. If you prohibit something that people once had the right to own or obtain, what happens? Criminals somehow get the item and make it available to other who want it, for a price. You have heard of Prohibition, right?

Go ahead and "ban" guns. You're making the assumption that criminals won't be able to get them or that they will surrender the ones they already have. If you believe this, you live in a world of fairies, pink puffy clouds and unicorns.
 
Democrats will never be happy until every American can be a victim to criminal which will never obey the law any ways.  Even then they won't be happy because they are miserable people.
 
Prohibition didn't work because you can make alcohol in your basement. Can you manufacture firearms in your basement?
 
Yes, you can manufacture firearms and ammunition in your basement if you have the right equipment.  
 
+Michael Washington No, Mexicans are not dying because of our gun laws. Gun manufacturers cannot "ship them wherever they want", so that comment is specious at best. Law-abiding Americans don't just "give guns to anyone," so, again, a specious and completely empty argument.

Mexicans are dying with guns because criminals in Mexico are obtaining them illegally and using them. They don't smuggle drugs into the US legally, no more than they smuggle guns into Mexico legally.
 
Hey, Guns laws don't work because people will still get guns so lets get rid of those laws. Drug laws don't work because people will still get those drugs. SO by that basic idiot logic, lets get rid of Child Porn laws because people will still get CP, with or without the laws. Conservatives have no reasonable argument in hell. I have no idea why I waste my time trying to educate the ignorant masses.
 
We've given plenty of reasonable arguments.  The problem with you lib moonbats is you worry more about guns in the hands of lawful Americans, than you do addressing the fact that criminals are the problem.
 
Libs first response to everything is "ban it" even though it's a silly, emotional reaction.
 
It's because you "lawful" americans won't accept that limits need to be placed on how many guns an individual can own. It's because you "lawful americans" can go buy as much ammo and as many firearms as you want that these criminals are even able to get your weapons. How is it so hard for you to understand this connection?
 
Weren't you the one who posted how only 10% of guns are stolen or something, but now you're blaming us.  
 
10% are stolen, the other 90% are obtained legally by "lawful americans" and then sold to criminals. Where the hell do you think criminals get their weapons?
 
Pure BS.  You might like being a victim and subject to the government, but we won't, and you will NEVER take our guns away.  Never, got it?
 
Even the idiots in the Obama administration say they can't enforce current laws, so tacking on more is useless.  Be a victim, it's what liberalism is all about.
 
+Akemi Mokoto Your argument is so stupid, it barely rates a response, but I'm going to try.

 No one with a brain is saying we should get rid of all gun laws. Most law-abiding gun owners, don't mind certain aspects of the law, such as quick background checks. We don't have an issue with some government making sure that guns don't get into the hands of bad or crazy people. Our local states and communities have been doing that for years.

What we do resent is the government, any government, telling us that we don't have the right to own a weapon if we are a law-abiding citizen. I don't know where you're from, but the right to arm oneself is clearly elucidated in our Constitution and it's been upheld by our courts over and again. And yes, it's none of the government's business what kind of gun a law-abiding citizen owns.

You, however, chose to compare the legal ownership of a firearm to activities already declared illegal, such as drug smuggling or trading in child porn. Therefore, the only ignorant person in this discussion is you.
 
+Michael Washington weird because 70% of firearm related violent crime is committed by a felon.  Since felons can't legally have a firearm, wouldn't it be logical that at least 70% of all violent crimes committed with a firearm were illegal to begin with?  Kinda moots your "10%" stats, doesn't it?
 
Ok where do yout think criminals are getting their firearms from? Please +Spencer Scott what does YOUR source tell you. Where are these firearms coming from? They are produced in an American factory, and then what happens to them?

And no one is trying to take your guns away, but one should have to pass a back ground check, and then limits placed on the number of firearms one can purchase right? Also limits on ammo purchases should be put into place. What logical reason is there for you to make bulk purchases of ammo and fire arms?
 
The amount of idiocy in this thread is mind boggling. Even a cursory understanding of Prohibition would prevent someone from saying something as stupid as it didn't work "because you can make it in your basement". 
 
If you purchase a firearm, you do get your background checked.  

And no, we don't need a limit on what I buy or collect.  None.

"What logical reason is there for you to make bulk purchases of ammo and fire arms?"

Well first of all, who are you to demand that?  Going to the range you can easy burn through a 1000 rounds, and buying in bulk as with most things is cheaper.  
 
+Michael Washington Most of them are obtained illegally through theft, then passed from person to person. The factory where they are manufactured has nothing to do with this.
 
+Joe Dougherty cite your source. Please show me where you are getting your information because the ATF says different. Also who are they stealing all these weapons from?
 
It really doesn't matter.  You want me to be defenseless while criminals can have the run of the land.
 
+Curtis Natalie let's pretend you have an education, show your work. Illegally isn't an answer. If they obtained them illegal where was the legal source? Some where down the line the gun had to go from factory to some where and then to the criminal.
 
+Spencer Scott your'e arguing with the voices in your head. Please participate in the conversation we're actually having.
 
Shut down the factories, and people will produce them underground, and obtain them from other countries.  A whole new black market will rise.
 
I'm still trying to figure out how what I do legally in my own home is anybody else's business?  Regulate how many firearms or how much ammunition someone purchases?  So, on that note, can we regulate how many bottles of liquor or how many cartons of cigarettes people are allowed to purchase, too?  Can't have but one can of beer at a time...makes perfect sense. 
 
+Michael Washington No, I don't have to show you anything, pal. You're the one making all these claims, so you show me your source. And who are they stealing weapons from? Home robberies, robberies of businesses (gun shops, pawn shops). Seriously?

And based on the history of the ATF in this country, I don't put a lot of weight into their statistics.
 
If you're able to buy thousands of rounds, do you not think that criminals will also have access to thousands of rounds? And you don't need a background check to buy weapons all over the United States.
 
Sorry moonbat, but reality is you aren't shutting down manufacturing, and you aren't going to limit peoples gun.  Maybe try looking for a real solution instead of feel good measures.
 
So according to you, people don't need a background check but legal gun owners who get them are the problem.  Goodness the stupid is amazing.
 
ok, so as long as you don't limit guns, and don't limit ammuntion you're keeping criminals armed, and supplied. It's really simple. No amount of other legislation is going to stop that. As long as you have easy access so will criminals.
 
No I'm saying you need back ground checks, and purchase limits. Also mandatory storage so criminals can't just break in and steal your weapons cache.
 
+Michael Washington before you get all flustered and start with the insults, my info on the 70% comes from the FBI (ya know, where they investigate crimes instead of committing them like the ATF)
 
You need a background check to buy a weapon.  Stop saying you need to get one, you already have to.

Mandatory storage, lol.  Who's going to enforce that?
 
Michael Washington- sorry but it is 1 of over 20,000 (count that again twenty thousand) federal gun laws that anyone purchasing a gun anywhere in the US from any retailer, store, dealer, etc. must have an FBI background check.
 
Guns don't kill people...

Unhappiness and stress kill people.
 
How To Debate Like A Communist:  
1) Tell them that they are wrong
2) Insult them and repeat step 1
3) Insult them again and give up (they're too stupid to understand   anyway)
4) Run away pretending you don't have time to have a discussion.
 
+Michael Washington You're going to quote PBS to me? Like they don't have an agenda?

Let's take one quote from your reference and parse it a bit:

This rapid `time to crime' of a gun purchased from an FFL is a strong indicator that the initial seller or purchaser may have been engaged in unlawful activity.

The author (and his source, who happens to be one ATF agent), the assumption is made that, because the "time-to-crime" period is under two years, there must be something illegal going on. A "strong indicator" that someone "may have been engaged" in illegal activity. Nothing in this comment states explicitly that the assumptions being made have any element in truth. In fact, it sounds to me like a theory searching for a supporting statistic.

Let's make one assumption: suppose the purchaser of the weapon was not a criminal or passed a background check (a system that, unfortunately, needs a lot of improvement). What crime did the seller commit? And if the seller did sell the gun illegally, wouldn't that make the the dealer a criminal as well?

I'm willing to grant that the stolen gun stats may not be that high. But the way people obtain these guns has to involve criminal activity on someone's part, which doesn't mean you take gun ownership rights away from the rest of us.

And guess what? All the gun laws in the world probably wouldn't have prevented this poor girl's death.
 
Why can't the Government of Chicago clean it's state from gangs and guns? If we can panic about epidemic on deseases , why can't Chicago panic and eradicate the gun violence on their streets? If we can declare ar o other countries, surely we can declare War on on these senseless violence!
 
And how many deaths in that time from auto accidents?  Why can't Chicago eradicate moving vehicles?!
 
Frisking is racist according to the left.
 
+Colin Wallis So do we sacrifice the 2nd Amendment for the 4th, or the 4th for the 2nd? In other words, is saving a life more important than search and seizure without probable cause?
 
+Spencer Scott No, I only asked because he was discussing the Hefner story just before you posted your comment. ;-)
 
+Leif Goranson No. They're all important. Leave them all alone. And leave our rights to own a gun and the right to privacy alone. Period. That's not the point of this thread.
 
Let's not forget that the first thing dictators do its restrict access to firearms. Hitler, Lenin to name just a couple.
 
Now we'll call it "Bang-Bang Chicago".

What a desperate failure. Liberals are so very cruel!
 
Guns are for idiots and criminals,time to grow up America.
 
...and lawful people, protecting us. Some of which are policemen.
 
+Joe Dougherty I don't disagree, actually. I see this poor girl shot with (presumably) an illegal firearm in Chicago, I see New York's (formerly lawful) "Stop and Frisk" policy working wonders for the illegal gun problem, and I wonder if a similar policy in Chicago could've saved her life... While I was acknowledging that it does present a 4th Amendment challenge, I also know that as a legal gun owner, I want the illegal guns off the street (and legal guns back ON the street).
 
+Don Goodwin Maybe you're right, but if we take guns away from good, law abiding citizens, only idiots and criminals will have guns. Then my babies are at risk like this poor girl who got shot by a criminal.
 
+Leif Goranson In a perfect world, maybe this would work, but I'm going to make the "slippery slope" argument. Stop and frisk on the street for guns...based on what? What a guy's jacket looks like? How a person acts? You still need that pesky old "probable cause."

And if you eliminate that requirement, what's stopping a cop from just frisking you for anything? Or from stopping the police from beating down your door without a warrant, because they "believe" you have something illegal? Or stopping you in your car...you get the point.

That's the ironic beauty of our Constitution: for the protection of the rights of all who obey the law, we sometimes have to "look the other way" on those who might be violating the law.

Look, I'm a realist on this: I know experienced cops can tell who the bad guys are, based on "profiling" (gasp!) or experience with a perp, or the reputation of the neighborhood or who someone is hanging with. But that still doesn't give any governmental body the right to suspend someone's rights.
 
God, I hate it when someone from another country tells us that we have to "grow up".

+Don Goodwin How about we disarm your police force? Think that will "wake up" you and your fellow Canadians?
 
Democrats are stuck on stupid: you don't raise more money merely by raising taxes again, and you don't stop gun crimes by taking away guns from lawful citizens.

Liberals. Are. Cruel.
 
+Brian Fahrlander I agree on principle that higher tax rates don't increase tax revenue, and that gun laws should focus on the illegal gun problem - not the legal gun owners. However, I don't think that we move the needle of conservatism or advance our fair arguments when we assume the worst about our political opponents, and then disparage them on a public forum.
 
(in response to +Curtis Natalie )
ok I just want to point this out since I was sent this information by the Seattle FBI office: 
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-7

I know that the gun owners love to point out other statistics about vehicle deaths and such, but those are all accidental. When someone decides to murder someone (intent) almost 70% across the nation of all murders are done with a firearm. Now the FBI does not keep statistics on the source of those firearms, that is in fact the ATFs job, and i'm about to email them for this information. 

(fyi: here is the link to all of the FBI's stats on crime in the United States http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis )
 
Interesting, as they broke it down by region, however they failed to remove the justifiable homicides I bet. So the NE area has ~33 % by other means than a gun. Just face it, legal gun owners never "want" to use their gun, unless provoked by criminals. Better prepared than ending up becoming one of those statistics.
 
Yes well when gun owners use their own weapon to murder, they are then classified as "criminals" and then people shout about how they no longer count because they are "criminals". 
 
+Michael Washington  Self-defense is not "murder." No law-abiding gun owner wants to shoot anyone. However, if my home or family are threatened, I will defend them, and if I have to shoot, I will. But I won't be happy about it...violence and killing are morally repugnant to me...but that doesn't mean I won't if I absolutely have to.

Drive-by shootings or gang shootings like the one that killed this little girl: murder. Criminal.

Killing someone in the commission of a crime (robbery, holdup, rape, car jacking): murder. Criminal.

Killing for money: murder. Criminal.

Killing out of passion or jealousy: murder. Criminal. Although some would challenge that.

Killing in self-defense: not murder, and not criminal.

You apparently don't understand the difference.
 
+Joe Dougherty just stop. You're not even making sense any more. Just stick to repeating the same old tired lines, or start replying based on what's actually said, maybe even throw in your own researched statistics. 
 
+Steve Simpson
A vertical mill and an engine lathe, and a whole lot of know how. Guns aren't hard to make, but they are hard to make right.
 
I'm a part of the gun culture, I hunt, I shoot, I believe in the right to keep and bear arms. I also believe gun control is not about guns, its about controlling people.
 
Then you are naive +Dwayne Mattson. Although to a degree you're right. The only time I see you guys start crying about "freedoms" is when they threaten your guns. The government has regulated virtually every other aspect of your life, but guns seems to be the line everyone defends. 

Won't defend peoples freedom to marry. Won't defend peoples freedom to put whatever they want in their body. Won't defend pretty much all other freedoms that should be a basic right to humanity... guns is the one that people seem to be willing to go to war for. 

That's messed up logic. Guns are the least powerful tool you have as a human being, AND NO ONE IS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS. That's the messed up part. 
 
Actually you have me pegged in the wrong hole, that's profiling and that's wrong. I'm also a libertarian. Marry who you want to, put whatever you want into your body, because obviously the drug laws have only done one thing, fill prisons. I'm also the first one to speak up about someone's freedom of speech, even if its something I don't like.
 
I used to be what one could call conservative,but I have seen the error of my ways. I now think that behavior can not be legislated, nor should it be. When bad behavior hurts others, that is when action should be taken.
Ron N
 
+Akemi Mokoto . I was under the impression your cities "godfather" could do any damn thing he wants. 
 
Who would this "godfather" be? I don't want to read all the way back up the stream to find out.
 
What I would love to see happen is they take all the gun control laws they have now, take a serious look at them, find the ones that seem to be working and enforce those, toss out the ones that aren't working, and go from there. The background check we have now isn't enforced LIKE IT SHOULD BE, so why do we have to have more laws? Use the ones you have.
 
+Leif Goranson
  Simple answer to your question.  Don't sacrifice either Amendment. Unlawful search and seizure is designed to protect the liberties of the individual.  The 2nd amendment is design to protect the individual's freedom from tyranny, either by government or criminals.  The question you ask of whether a life is more important than unlawful search and seizure shows your ignorance in understanding the constitution and the basis of our liberties in the United States.

  Also, the simple fact that you asked that specific question tells me you know what is best for any one person's life and how to run it.  Before I responded, you did not know I existed, yet you want to dictate what is best for me.  That shows extreme arrogance. 

  On a more broad scale, liberals and conservatives both believe they know whats best for everyone.  Liberals by getting involved and attempting to run their lives.  Conservatives by staying out of their lives, by the individual deciding what is best for him/her.  This of course is a generic statement which doesn't envelop all liberals or conservatives.
 
Safety versus freedom, I'll take freedom every time.
 
+Colin Wallis First, I don't think an argument is served well through the denigration of those on either side of this argument.  Your personal attack on my intelligence was divisive, ineffectual, and hurts our shared desire to protect our freedoms. Second, my original question that you responded to above was esoteric at best and hypothetical at worst. The point was not answer the question, "is protecting your right to bear arms more important than saving your freedom from unlawful search and seizure?". The point, rather, is to acknowledge the severe complexity of standing on principle. The point is to see the question itself in the context of life and death... that one (potentially unlawful) search and seizure (stop and frisk) may well have saved this girl's life... that taking an illegal gun from a criminal and protecting our legal gun rights may not be mutually exclusive. I have no desire to dictate what is best for you, Colin. And no one will dictate to this dead girl what's best for her, because we all know what that is: to be alive.

+Dwayne Mattson I agree with you on principle: "Give me liberty or give me death" - I get it. But we cannot ignore the implication of this principle. We cannot pretend that the principles we adhere to will stand without protection. We can have compassion without compromising our principles - and compassion should compel solutions. This girl is dead. The coldness of saying that freedom is more important than the life of this girl, hurts that freedom more than anything else.
 
Interesting how the article says " "As usual, the bad guy aims, but he never hits the other bad guy . . . He hits the one that hurts the most to lose," said Chicago Police Officer Damon Stewart, 36, Hadiya 's godfather. "I changed her diapers, I played with her growing up. My heart is broken."
I understand his grief but he being a police officer one would think he would value the life of the intended victim as much as any other.
 
+Leif Goranson
If you ask a ridiculous question, especially a question of that nature, without further explanation, people will respond by answering the question.  Perception is everything.  Simply put, if you ask a hypothetical question, explain it, don't leave it open.
 
When Hitler was in power he took guns  from common citizens. Look what happened. Jews/Christians died because they weren't able to protect themselves from a tyrant. Don't take guns away from people who need them. When you take guns from the good people, the bad guys will have guns (black market). We won't be able to protect ourselves. 
 
+Katie Lewis except that HItler didn't take guns away, in fact him and the third reich encouraged all non-jew citizens to arm themselves for the defence of germany. His comments about disarming a nation before conquering were in reference to the countries he was at war with, not his own.
 
+Michael Washington needs to Google a little harder.  Hitler DID disarm the Jews (just before loading them onto trains and shipping them to camps).
 
+Michael Washington hummm, all non-Jew's ??? Gee that makes it OK then?
....." "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.". So it seems that what Herr Hitler was referring to was not just non-Jews but all "subject races". 
 The modern advent of gun control is not so much driven by the desire to subjugate some other race, but there are exceptions, but is designed to subjugate the will of the people for the benefit of the party elitist. This was the MO for the USSR, and is still practiced in Communists nations like China and North Korea. In fact, I am not convinced that Russia is as reformed as it claims.
 It is ironic how much Nazism and Communism are alike. They both draw on the people to support the hierarchy but only allow those who are of value to the continuance of the hierarchy to benefit from the work of the people while regarding the general population as nothing more than workers. 
 
You people that think your guns will save you from the government are completely delusional.
 
+Michael Washington My gun will not save me from anything but the way I will use it will at least make it difficult for anyone to impart harm on me, my family, friends, and neighbors.
 
Yeah, like we've never had any success with fighting the government before. 
 
Criminals are armed, how well has that worked out for them? Waco, Ruby Ridge? Oh sure worked out totally awesome for them as well. The civil war? Yeah... didn't work out for them either. When were you referring to?
 
+Michael Washington Your references for your argument are stretched so thin that string theory is required to comprehend your logic, and even that would prove insufficient as the parameters of your argument are unbounded.
 
Or cut to the chase and look at the last time the government was thrown out. 
 
The last time the government was thrown out, was against the british. The American Government has crushed every instance of someone trying to act independantly since then.
 
So, the last time the people were successful at throwing out a tyrant was when we were armed with the same weapons as the military and haven't been successful since.  Kinda seems like there may be some validity to citizens wanting to keep what  weapons we have left.
 
And to +Michael Washington 's comment yesterday at 3:33: yes, vehicles kill more people than firearms, and yes firearms are designed to kill but my question is this:  Why aren't we focusing on all these defective vehicles?  Why focus on the product that is doing what it was designed to do?  I would think that if roof shingles were spontaneously bursting into flames, burning buildings down around it's occupants, it might be a bigger concern than knives stabbing people, right? 
 
Accidental deaths are not the same as murder. And driving is incredibly regulated with constant awareness campaigns.
 
So, we need to look the other way on all the deaths that were "accidents"?  And it's not like firearms aren't already "incredibly regulated"?  There are HUNDREDS of gun laws.  Why do we need more?  Is there a certain number that criminals will start obeying them?  "Welp, that's gun law 499.  One more and I'll have to start listening."  

Listen, I appreciate your point of view and think that you truly want to make the world better.  But more rules don't mean a thing if we do enforce them.
 
Chicago's embrace of criminals is what causes their problem. They should ban the criminals, not just the guns. 
 
Enforce the laws that are on the books before we start writing new ones shall we? The current criminal background check is severely under enforced. Joe Biden had the audacity to say we don't have time to enforce the current laws. So we need to write new ones we won't have time to enforce? Makes absolutely no sense there.
 
you are so right Dwayne. our politicians are not very bright but for some reason it seems they just keep getting more stupid all the time.But we only have the ones that keep voting these idiots into office to blame.
 
Someone is always yelling" There oughta be a law." Well there are laws, use the ones you have. If they aren't working as they are, rewrite them, maybe with some teeth.
 
+Akemi Mokoto Ok.  Try Britain, or Australia.  Both countries are supposedly progressive, modern, correct?  Both have banned their citizens from owning firearms.  Both have had violent crime skyrocket since those bans went into effect.  Both are penalizing citizens for defending themselves with firearms as a mode of last resort after being attacked and robbed multiple times.  Here in the US, where gun ownership has risen over the last 15 years, violent crime has dropped everywhere but in locations like Chicago were gun ownership is not allowed except by criminals. Dwayne Mattson is correct.  We have laws regarding acquisition of firearms by criminals, which are not enforced, not followed up on, and not punished sufficiently to make an impact.  
 
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissident, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945 a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control: 56 million

Don't let America be next on the list.  
 
Sure, it's a great list. However the average american does not have access to the weapons to defend themselves from the current state of law enforcement. Ask the families that stood their ground at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Why aren't you advocating making explosives legal for every man/woman and child? Why are not picketing washington to arm  yourselves in the same manner as the United States Military? Shouldn't civilians have access to the same weapons as the Military? 

I mean those of you that are former military can't possibly think you'd stand a chance in your home vs the federal government do you? You know that no rebelious uprising in the united states has worked since the United States become a country.

The United States already has more guns per capita than the rest of the world, yet can't defend itself against it's government. 

Where are the calls for greater access to more weaponry? 
 
+Curtis Natalie Thanks. I didn't see that. I was typing too fast. There is a huge difference between billion and million.
 
Dykes had been scheduled to appear in court Wednesday to answer charges he shot at his neighbors in a dispute last month over a speed bump. Neighbor Claudia Davis said he yelled and fired shots at her, her son and her baby grandson over damage Dykes claimed their pickup truck did to a makeshift speed bump in the dirt road. No one was hurt.

Do you believe that there is enough information in that paragraph that authorities should have been able to walk onto the man's property and take his weapons until the court case was heard? 

Do those of you in Alabama know if this law exists? Would you be willing to give up your firearms if someone accused you and you had your day in court?
 
Did anyone else notice that +Michael Washington posted " the average american does not have access to the weapons to defend themselves" and "The United States already has more guns per capita than the rest of the world" in the same comment but still believes we need more gun laws?  What am I missing?
 
+Curtis Natalie He is correct in that people should be able to defend themselves. No where do I say that's not the case. My points have always been access to weapons, and the Law's power to disarm people that should not have them. 

That had the man not been armed, he would not have been able to kill the bus driver, and kid nap the little boy. He was a man with a history of problems, but the law could not take his fire arms away without due course. 

Now I haven't had time to go and actually find the law in Alabama outside of what the NRA posts on their information site (and no one here has provided anything but anecdotal evidence to the contrary) so perhaps there is a law that exists that would have had the man disarmed. 

My other point is to directly argue the absurdity of invoking the joke that is the 2nd Amendment. It is an absolute joke now. The intent was to keep a fully functioning civilian militia  Yet it has been allowed to devolve into a "defense of my home" which is 100% inadequate to actually maintain a militia. 

Sure american's can defend themselves against each other, but not the government. And anyone that believes they can, well they are just willfully ignorant. 
 
+Michael Washington it isn't the gun that kills people. That man could have killed the bus driver, without a gun. Saying that guns kill people is like saying that forks make people fat.  That man could have killed the bus driver with knives, rope, you name it. Does that mean we should make it harder for people to get those items. Bad guys will always do bad no matter what they use. You have to understand that there is evil in the world. And taking guns away isn't going to solve or make anything better. Because those evil people will find a way to hurt those who are good. And taking guns away will make those good people defenseless. And they will get hurt. 
 
+Katie Lewis then why should anyone have to pass a background check at all? Let the criminals all have weapons as well.
 
+Michael Washington  You didn't even answer any of her question. Hahaa. History tells us that there will always be people going against the laws. It's just human nature. Why don't you respond to that. 
 
+Michael Washington I am fine with there being background checks. I'm just against taking guns away from American citizens. There many ways to get guns without having a background check. Have you not heard of the black market? That means that the bad guys will have the unregistered guns, and the good people will have nothing. Taking guns away won't stop them
 
No one in this entire thread is saying to take away guns from everyone. That man should not have had one, is it unreasonable to assume that once a man is deemed a threat the local police should have the power to remove the mans weapons even if he hasn't been found guilty in a court of law? 
 
By the police +Isaiah Vlad did you even read the link? Someone should have taken away the mans guns awhile ago. 
 
+Michael Washington I'm sorry then, I must have read you wrong. I just had a fight with someone about taking guns away, so I think it is stuck in my head. I am truly sorry that I read your posts wrong. 
 
Here's the thing: in most communities, the authorities do have the power to remove weapons from someone they deem a threat. +Michael Washington is now trying to backpettle because he has no reasonable argument. The government has stopped every instance of uprising? Really? Google Blair Mountain and try to stick to you argument. The bottom line is that you've been going with the herd too long and all you can do is repeat the cliche retorts you've heard on TV. Its not your fault; you've been conditioned to think that way your whole life. 
 
+Curtis Natalie was that supposed to prove your point? You just game me anther example of a fully armed group of individuals, losing to the american government. What was the point of you bringing up the Battle of Blair Mountain? 
 
To show that you don't know what you're talking about. The battle was between union workers and company thugs. It was the largest nonmilitary battle to have ever taken place on US soil. The national guard was deployed to only disperse the men which could only happen after the battle due to size of the ARMED CIVILIANS. 
 
Yeah... so you need to re-read that it was between law enforcement... that was re-enforced by civilians... and the Union. And the Union lost miserably. The Sheriff (law enforcement) won. 
 
13000 miners vs 3000 co. men
Less than 150 casualties for the entire battle.
How did either side lose "miserably"?

And those civilians were the union miners.

Its like you're not even trying stay factual. I guess that explains... well, every post you've added to this thread.



 
Are we talking about The Battle of Athens, Tennessee now? Seems like the armed citizenry worked out pretty well there.
 
Who argued that?  I'll go back and re-read all of the posts but I'm pretty sure that's common knowledge. 
Add a comment...