Shared publicly  - 
 
This week’s KAL’s cartoon http://econ.st/WuKdWl 
1106
252
Leticia Macias's profile photocatherine hislop's profile photoChristian Sánchez's profile photoTomas Colquhoun's profile photo
358 comments
 
Like everything else produced in the private economy, no one produces more guns than the public demands.  President Obama has been the best gun salesman in history.
 
The murder of 20 children is a tragedy and an embarrassment, but weapons " Made in the USA" do much more harm around the world than they do in the US.
 
+Arman Wiggins I think you mean Obama's the best antagonist for the NRA's marketing narrative. 
 
As a child I dreamed of going to the USA, now that dream is a memory, never been there, love the UK
 
lol,if only it waz in a acurate way of living without their evil spirit bt it's their...........
 
I live in the UK. I've been to the US 3 times. There are some parts that are really amazing.
 
+Amy Taylor  You got to VISIT there. We have to LIVE there. Completely different :1
Aaron McLin
+
89
90
89
 
As I read this thread, it's less than a dozen comments long, and already you're starting to see stereotypes, bitterness and anger. This strikes me as the sort of thing that drives much more violence around the world than guns. The United States is one of the safest nations on Earth in which to live. (It's easy to forget that there is a basic difference between "the Industrialized West" and "the whole of the planet.") 27 adults and children in Connecticut is a tragedy that must be prevented at all costs. 500,000 plus people in Rwanda is a statistic that's chalked up to more benighted savages bickering amongst themselves.

The underlying idea of this cartoon, that the United States needs to clamp down on the exportation of violence, is flawed. There's plenty of violence in the world, even in places that have never seen an American-made firearm, knife or slingshot. We should stop being resigned to it, and start looking for ways that really deal with it. Guns are an enabler - anyone who says differently is suspect. But in the hands of someone who means me no harm, a gun is far less dangerous than a more mundane item wielded by someone with murder on their minds. Let's not become so caught up in scary headlines that we rush to treat the symptom and then allow ourselves to think that we've abolished the disease.

The thought process that allows us to see ourselves as more upstanding, more deserving, more fit than others is the same one that gives rise to mass murders that should completely eclipse the current spate of shootings. And it is what drives the creation and use of weapons - not the other way around.
 
+Aaron McLin That is wisdom which is lost on an "American Idol" culture. Well said.

"27 adults and children in Connecticut is a tragedy that must be prevented at all costs. 500,000 plus people in Rwanda is a statistic that's chalked up to more benighted savages bickering amongst themselves."
 
Sean 0' Nonuts: your avatar is no doubt an accurate reproduction of your actual appearance - a Celtic cretin living in his mommy's basement.
Perhaps a bit o capitalism might save the emerald isles from their current third world status..
 
+Aaron McLin I find it interesting that you assumed the point of the cartoon was, "that the United States needs to clamp down on the exportation of violence." I don't get that at all. What I get is a straight-up comparison between the trickle of guns sold in the U.S. vs. the number that we export. It does make one question the morality of our position as the world's gun broker, but I don't think there was a "needs to" in the cartoon; only what you bring to it.
Nea Fay
+
3
4
3
 
as long as profit stays before humanity, humanity is convicted to die
 
y is Obama trying to control millions of weapons across the country???!!!! the shooting were tragic,,,, I agreeee but that means he needs money, force and the people's consent!!!! he only has money right now.....
 
How about we stop Obama from sending guns to Mexico that in turn kill our border patrol officers. Or maybe have him stop with the drone attacks.
 
Every one is talking about the killings of 20 children in US.. my heart bleeds for those 20 children but no one has even raised a point about the children being killed by American drones in northern part of Pakistan... i think all will agree children are equal whether they live in US Europe  Africa , Pakistan or any other place...
 
Obama is a tyrant hypocrite! End the 2nd amendment attacks! The USA will avert these tyrants in office either peacefully or by force. Attacking freedom will not be tolerated any longer. For anyone commenting that is not a citizen mind your own! 
 
I suppose the economist is all for the UN arms treaty.  Figures.  How about we prosecute the idiots that came up with Fast and Furious (and other such idiotic programs)
 
Obama is not a tyrant. He was elected by the people in an open and free election. Obama has limitations on his powers by law and practice. I am a citizen but not an idiot.
 
Shut the hell up and stop blaming the president. You have no justification for trying to blame him, when everyone knows you couldnt even spell politics. Grow the fuck up.
 
I was starting to think we had a few to many jobs around here. lets get rid of whats left.
 
Could not of said it better. Oh, and let's not forget the drones. Our government, or certain parts of it are hypocrites, to the extreme. 
 
America Should keep all this gun in its ass and try to produce sum Job opportunity
 
America Should keep all this gun in its ass and try to produce sum Job opportunity
 
+Ryan Ormrod come visit anyway...still a pretty safe nation. Incidentally, random shootings, although sensationalized for political leverage by both left and right, are not common at all, or even ever, to about 99% of non-felonious or crack involved citizens. Just a thought.
 
+Aaron McLin your intelligent response on a post about american gun violence was spot on. Circled with vigor. Will look forward to reading your ideas, insights and wisdom.
 
A country with many guns on hands of people r dangerous bcz of many people do not use exactly of those but they have.
 
Far more people die from tobacco  products every year that all other causes combined. Isn't that a more important thing to ban or make safer? Yet the government subsidizes the tobacco industry and reaps huge profits. The government doesn't care about people, they care about looking like they care, so they can get re-elected and line their own pockets.
 
If the U.S. leading export to the rest of the planet, especially to developing countries, were teachers instead of weapons, we'd be living in a very different world. 

But obviously, no one ever got rich by promoting education. 
 
+Bruce McMicking I have never heard of anyone walking into a building and killing massive amounts of people by throwing cigarettes at them.  Perhaps that's why tighter gun control is needed.
Luca C
 
better ending the second amendment than ending innocent lives
 
The right to bare arms in the USA has no meaning anymore.. We only cover all the mishaps of crazy shooting and media only covers that topic. Media doesn't show the good use of guns for protection. All that they are showing is discriminating the guns as if there were like pitbulls or such. There are two sides of every story but you will only see the darker side of things
 
Now that guns has his attention maybe  we can get him to tighten up
on his spending 
 
I don't advocate ending the 2nd Amendment but I agree we don't need fully automatic assault weapons unless you are in a well regulated militia. 
 
It will not be wrong to say that American weapons are a threat to human species on this planet. The recent wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine are a testimony to this. US assassination drones continue to violate air spaces of more and more countries. The terrorists in guise of whom the wars were initiated and continued, are multiplying day by day. Millions of innocent civilians have lost their lives or homes in these so called anti-terrorism wars. Forgive me, my dear American fellows but these are bitter facts. I also feel sorry for the innocent Americans being killed by the guns.
 
What's next, the removal of the First Amendment?  Why not take all rights away.  You anti-gun guys love to give away your rights and MINE!
 
+Bruce McMicking About forty years ago the government issued statements on the hazards of smoking and started to warn about the dangers of smoking. At that time 40-50 % of population smoked. Today the number is closer to 20%.

The tobacco giants diversified and went international. It isn't always necessary to ban something to make progress.
 
+Muhammad Imran really?  In every "celebratory" event you see nothing but middle eastern people firing guns up in the air.  Most of them are AK-47s.  You want to challenge the United States and our gun policies  You can exit with your comments to the door on the left please. 
 
All of your comments are opinion and not hard facts. I just love it when civilians get panties in a bunch about what ever happen or not happens to weapons. Find a real issue to fight about like world hunger or poverty. 
 
The senseless shootings are a tragedy. However, why do we Americans value our right to bear arms? Simple, to allow law abiding citizens to protect themselves from enemies both foreign and domestic. Domestic includes our own government if it ever came to that. At the time of the revolution the British government was confiscating arms. An unarmed populace is easier to control. This is why we have the right protected by our constitution.

Right or wrong that is why we have the right.
 
It's common knowledge that our love affair with guns has cost the US tens of thousands more lives due to gun violence than countries with with stricter gun laws or lower domestic gun ownership.

When politics and policies fail and yelling and whining fail, just look at the statistics.
 
All the critics about the debt are right about it's threat to uor country's future. The PROBLEM is that they have forgottong wher it came from: Pres. George BUSH II. He ran up Trillions in DEBT after inheriting from Pres. Clinton a SURPULS BUDGET. And you want Pres. Obama to fix it. IT MAY NOT BE FIXABLE _ BUSH DID IT TO US. AND OUR KIDS SAND GRANDKIDS
 
+Jeremy Martin I got this huge arsenal of guns and just the other day one said to me ' hey lets go kill some folks' ....not....... gun control is hitting your target... there are laws to stop rape, do they work? Nope, for me and you they do cause we are sentient, caring folk but for the rapist they mean nothing, there are laws to stop speeding, do they work? nope for me and you they do because we are sentient, caring folk that realize a kid in this subdivision could run out any second and at 60 we would never be able to stop in time. But for the handful of stupid, late people that think their lives are that important, nope laws are an inconvenience.... ad infinitum... there are gun laws in place to stop this, they are not enforced... crazy, inconvenienced, stupid folk will always find a way to be crazy, inconvenienced and stupid.... no law can prevent that...
 
HI John,

I consider it a team effort of foolishness. Both on the part of both elected parties. A majority of Congress allowed it (Dems and GOP). Only a matter of time till the train hits now.
 
You actually said that?  Laws against rape don't work?
 
Mental health is more the issue than the weapons. Take the weapons away and the criminals will be the only ones armed.
 
+Jim Nichols
 Maybe the point of laws isn't necessarily to tell someone they can't do something, but more to tell authorities and others to stop and punish them for it.
 
+Jim Nichols would you need an M16 to stop a rapist?  I think a 9MM Glock would do the same thing right?  Maybe a 12 gauge shotgun if you really wanted to make some noise.  Point is you dont need fully automatic assault weapons to ensure the 2nd Amendment is upheld.

I see your point but I don't agree someone needs a fully automatic assault weapon unless they are in a well regulated militia.
 
Jeremy,

This is true. The quote is still applicable though. Whether through a militia or through individual right as verivied by the supreme court.
 
Its seems to me that the majority of the people commenting here have islamic or possibly muslim names. it's just sad that when the people that are offended are not of this country and to get angry by ones opinion through humor,or ormaybe americans are just tired of standing by and watching thier country being dragged through the mud,meanwhile yes gun control is important but it is very unlikely that it will ever be controlled take certain measures to insure our childrens safety.These terrible tragedies take place in highly populated areas that generate enough revenue to prevent situations like these,it will be impossible to stop but we can make it difficult for these scums of the earth to acsess entry to schools government buildings ect..................





 
John you are right Bush Jr. In an interview he told us what he would do with the surplus "spend it". You can look it up. Also stop wanting to take the guns out of good peoples hands. Research people and learn the real truth before its to late.
 
+Aaron Comeaux Agreed. Protect your family by supporting the 2nd Amendment otherwise you risk losing more rights and freedoms.
 
+AJ Anderson that's exactly what should have been done except Obama invoked executive privilege to give Holder a free pass on fast and furious for obvious reasons.
 
+Jeremy Martin would you be surprised to know that the VAST majority of crimes involving firearms involve handguns? Now they are admitting that Sandy Hook was all handguns. They did find an AR-15 but it was locked in the shooters trunk. Most killings with AR-15 weapons are gang on gang. The Clackamas OR shootings were probably far less deadly because the high capacity magazine on the AR type rifle jammed.

So with all this in mind if you wanted to put a dent in the murder rate by restricting the sales of firearms and firearm accessories why on earth wouldn't you start with handguns. (Which BTW I don't support restricting these either). You'd have to just be stupid to look at the situation objectively and think banning high capacity magazines and scopes is the way to go.

Here's the data: http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/
 
none of the sugestions the pres.made would have prevented what a deranged sicko will do w/stolen guns ,i dont own a gun nore am i intrested in having one , i know that 99.9 percent of gun owner r law abiding citizens.who wouldnt cause anyone harm w/there guns 
Nalla J
 
Fucking hypocrites...
 
It isn't like everyone runs around with guns in fact i don't know anybody who owns any kind of fire arm
 
i agree with shane carroll but what David Jenson said was kinda funny.
 
+Malcolm Mee. I don't know anybody who has entirely too many wired cat .GIFs posted on their profile. Just sayin'
 
+Jeremy Martin One of the reasons I replied to you is the cohesiveness of your thoughts and the way that you write tells me that you are intelligent and thoughtful. I agree with you actually in the M-16 aspect of our verbal dance, except one forgets the reason for the inclusion of the 2nd amendment into the constitution... Our founding fathers were not politicians as we know them yet. They hated tyranny, they had their fill from Britain. If you read history and find quotes from the like of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson you find them telling people that to be free from tyranny one must lubricate the gears of freedom with the blood of tyrants. I do believe that was the quote.... they advocated the use of force to make a democratic government behave in a democratic way... Unfortunately if one espouses that mentality in this age one goes to prison forever...  when in actuality the very folk that set our government up dearly wanted us the people to have a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed so we could maintain our freedom 
Peace my friend... I know where you come from...   
Paul G
 
you dont need gun control seriously bcuz if you do that then people will be killing people with other objects knifes,cars,spoons, etc.... and shit like that so guns arent the problem its the lunatics behind them that is the problem and if you do tighten gun control only bad guys will have guns and the people that "could" defend them selves wont be able to.
 
The 2nd Amendment was written to help those in the slave states maintain their ability to capture escaped slaves with armed militias. There is no indication that the framers had any reference to individuals keeping military style weapons for self-protection. Do some research and you'll see.
 
The constitution is how it is there's nothing wrong with it
we just need to regulate the use of guns
 
This reminded me of definition of NATO one of our famous writers in Croatia came up with (not sure if I have translated it correctly):

NATO - "Organisation for american military waste disposal."
By Ante Tomić
 
+Umar Hassan Maybe you should do some research Hadji. George Washington (one of our Founding Fathers) said "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
 
+Jeremy Martin Does the 2nd Amendment actually mean that the right of any particular State e.g New York etc to form "a well regulated militia" "shall not be infringed"? If you look at where the comma's are put into the Amendment the part relating to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" appears to be included so that the sole purpose of keeping arms is to form a militia to protect the State(s). Over the years this has been twisted to suit the prevailing thoughts at various time since it was written into the constitution. Yes, I understand that the Supreme Court has made various ruling regarding the 2nd Amendment. Just I thought from the UK.
 
+Robert Rivera Some folks have a hard time distinguishing reality from their own angry idealism. Example: +Marysville Zen
And let's not forget that most of the word ignore is in the word ignorant.
 
How many guns will be protecting politicians at the inauguration?
 
Guns don't kill it's people who kill with guns why punish everyone they should go more in depth on back ground checks before they sale a gun
 
What I see a lot of are people that think they have to take a hard right or hard left on the gun issue. Both are wrong. The world is not black and white. The gun issue at it's core from the constitution is definitely black and white. The grey area is how it's applied.
I take the side of the constitution but I also take the side of common sense. Banning large capacity magazines seems to be the most sane compromise we have come up with. So let's just go with that.
Banning the guns themselves isn't going to do any good and it's going to undermine the constitution and will never last. Just like the Clinton ban. It will go away again.
And don't look at the Clinton ban as an example of how banning 'works' because it doesn't. People weren't going on these shootings during the Clinton admin because it was a DIFFERENT TIME.  Except for Columbine but a lot of good the ban did anyway right?
It's a different time now. Passing old prohibitionist laws doesn't reverse time.
 It's just ham fisted stupidity.
 
That may be but we should still have the right to bare arms and not have that taken away
 
каждому короткоствол и упразднить государство
Translate
 
Why do you guys need these guns at all? OK, I'm OK about pistols. But why assault rifles? Why don't you buy tanks or helicopters?
 
...ummm... so there has never been at any point at any time a congressional leader(s) indicating that these ideas for stricter gun control laws are to have ALL firearms taken away?  IF that were the case in where ALL firearms (or arms all together, considering that 'the right to bear arms' pertains to more than just firearms) THEN there should be a big public out cry.  Talk about people being uptight.
 
+Aliaksandr Zhaunerchyk The 'assault rifle' label is bogus. Americans cannot buy fully auto guns anyway.
Anybody that believes that semi auto are 'assault rifles' is being naive or used for political reasons.

BTW, there are already 300 million guns in American hands, so banning guns is not going to do a fucking thing anyway.
 
Why the cartoon didn't shows any weapons on Mexican territories?
They 're getting it a lot worse than us, just imagine convoys of 30+ trucks and suvs full of drug addicted thugs without mercy killing civilians, police officers or anybody that cross in ther way, all financed by American drug users; and armed by the American gun market, protected by the NRA.
58000 dead
20000+ missing.
Shame on you.
 
Took me awhile, but I get this XD

Ahh, if only Americans would smarten up and demanded from politicians what they say they want.  ("I hate it how politicians are so narrow-minded and only looking for more votes.  Now I'm off to vote for a guy who is narrow-minded and only does stuff to get more votes.")
 
+Jeremy Martin That's kind of what tobacco companies do, but I take your point.
Have you heard of anyone killing lots of people with a bomb made of fertilizer? Maybe the problem is not the means.
 
 The SCOTUS ruled that police have no constitutional duty to protect you. So why would you count on them to come and protect you when you need it?
 
+David Gillooly
Yet tobacco is still the biggest killer. Now we export more. Taking the world's population as a whole is this an improvement?
 
+Bruce McMicking I agree with you lots of people do die from smoking, but smoking is a self inflicted slow death, pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is totally different. I support the second amendment and I'm a ccw holder, I do not believe my freedoms are being infringed upon. 
 
I don't understand this, largely because I don't understand which direction the guns are going.
 
One of the things that needs to be done is the closing of the personal sales loophole (sometimes called the gunshow loophole). Currently, only federally licensed gun sellers are required to perform background checks. Personal sellers are not. It is estimated that 40% of gun sales are personal. Personal sales of guns need to be handled just like personal sales of vehicles: through an agency that will record the transaction. This agency would perform a background check.
 
It's not illegal to be in a group, and that includes gangs. Even if we required them to register like militias they'd still keep their illegal activity on the downlow and in spite of the law.
The constitution protects the right to freedom of association and assembly. So the police cannot just go round up gang members unless they have legit charges waiting for all of them.
That's why we can't just shut down gangs.
And to be honest, I agree with that. Because the constitution protects ALL of us, not just the existence of gangs.
And the constitution is what requires our police to actually do work.
And you'll notice that nobody talks about the law enforcement failures in our country. These uneducated hodunks that they hire as cops are part of the problem. And then they make these guys chase down drugs all day instead of going after real criminals too. The drug war is a major factor in this issue. If we end the drug war part of the problem is solved.
But that's going to require more people in our country getting their brainwashed heads out of their asses.
 
Mike Mentges I am against gun control despite being English. I will stop commenting on your domestic politics when your president stops interfering in ours. The comments your government made concerning the Eu were offencive and unhelpful. The eu is an evil tyranny run by sinister nasty anti-democratic people hell bent on enslaving my nation.
 
+Aviel Menter don't worry about what direction the guns are going in... be more concerned with what direction their pointing in. 
 
+James Fields Yes, yes, very clever, but they're not pointed in any particular direction in this comic, and it still doesn't help me understand what to make of it.
 
I hope he's turning those nobs to close them.
 
Everyone in Switzerland has a gun to protect their country.Never hear of any problems... Something to learn?
Luke S.
+
1
2
1
 
Taking guns out of the hands of the public will not stop the problems. Criminals dont buy guns legally anyway. It will just give the criminals the advantage.
 
For me it's safer to live on Mars than in the U.S.
even with the thin atmosphere (danger to UV rays)
CO2 air (totally unbreathable) & constant extreme cold
temperatures (burrr!) Mars is safe,Guess why? No Guns &
the wack jobs possessing them.
Anyone with me? When do we leave?
 
Nothing is safe. Never was. Delusional if you think otherwise.
 
+James Fields
I agree with you 100%. I just think that you can't keep lunatics from getting guns because any market will be supplied and it would be really nifty if the people being shot at could shoot back. I am in Canada and we don't have CCW. Or at least it's on the books but they never issue it.
 
I bet a few here would be surprised that a LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE such as myself is against gun control other than banning large capacity magazines. See, that's called developing your own opinion.
 
Ending loopholes won't stop all the shooting that's obvious, background checks and mental health screenings may force these people to buy crappy guns of the street instead of fine tune well oiled firearms at gun shows. Not to stereotype anyone for their illness, but imagine the mentality of a lot of people who are incarcerated for violent crimes, or a mental health hospital going out and freely buying firearms unchecked. We as a society may as well just put them into vending machines.
 
+Eric Weber Developing your own opinion is easy. Justifying it isn't. Can you justify it?

+Derrick Thorn Switzerland has fewer guns per person and substantially stricter gun laws than the US.
 
+Cam T
Most people who are passionate about anything could be diagnosed as "mentally ill".
 
+Aviel Menter I already did, read my previous posts.

BTW, fuck Switzerland either way. That's there, this is here. We already 300 million weapons in American hands so how is more gun control going to reverse that? Delusional.
 
Switzerland has manditory gun ownership and military service. What's your point?
 
i'm talking about bipolar disorder and other mental disorders that can cause a person that can lose there mind and forget what is real and what is not and cause bodly harm without meaning it 
 
the more gun control there is the more crime there is.
 
Huh? Obama is not trying to ban arms completely, and so the precious 2nd Amendment is unaffected. He wants them limited to ones that can kill discriminately rather than indiscriminately. What am I missing? BTW, can I buy a bazooka there? If not, why not?
 
+Eric Weber I'm a Democrat also and a second amendment supporter but limiting large capacity magazines isn't more important then attempting to stop crazy people and felons from circumventing the background check I went through with every gun purchase I made. Because a dangerous person can still do major damage with a 10 round mag. 
 
They dont need them, they like to shoot old toilets in the woods with them. Nobody hunts with an AK-47. They use the 2nd amendment to justify a passtime. "right to bear arms" doesnt even specify guns, and guns as the interpretation is outdated. They would be an obsolete tool in a rebellion anyway.
 
+Stephanie Spreier Neither of those things are symptoms of bipolar disorder.

+Robert Rivera Not at all costs. The constitution exists because it in theory provides a framework that helps us. If it turns out it doesn't, then it needs to be changed.

+Eric Weber Your justifications are poor. They're speculative. Do you have data indicating what forms of gun control would be effective, or are you simply going to speculate about what seems logical to you?
 
+James Fields Just so you know, I'm a liberal progressive, not a democrat. There is a difference. THey may have been liberal and progressive at some point, but not anymore. THey are nothing but a moderate party bought and paid for by corporate America.
They may not be as deep in corporate pockets as the teapublicans,  but they are far from having me attached to their corruption. lol
But yeah, stopping crazy people is important. I couldn't agree more. But it's not a gun issue, that's why I didn't bring it up here. But now that you have, did you know that half of all people shot and killed by the police are mentally ill? Do you know that half of all of the homeless in America are mentally ill as well? It's a medical and social issue that definately needs to be addresssed.
But when it comes to guns, YES I do think that banning only high capacity magazines is the answer. Because it doesn't apply to the 2nd amendment so it can be permanent if we want it to.
Any weapons ban would no doubt be temporary because their legality would constantly be debated.
;) Cheers
 
no shit I would breather have some one with  a sane mind then someone that could snap at any time that they would let own a gun. so there for I am done with this shit..... I just put my two cents in with some of the issues they don't do a good enough back ground checks on some people that they sell guns too. 
 
+Eric Weber Ammo regulations are as applicable to the second amendment as gun regulations, unless you're thinking of some very odd definition of "arms".

You're right in that mental illness is a huge problem, but that doesn't itself tell us what the efficacy of the gun control policies you accept and reject is.
 
+Stephanie Spreier
If they are legally insane or incompetent than yes they should be blacklisted. But see, we ALREADY have those laws in place. THe problem is that they are not being used because the mentally ill are not being screened and properly treated to begin with. And to be honest, the only thing that will fix that in the long run is UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE!!!! But you know what, I don't want to have that debate with right wingers right now.
 
Those ears! He owns them! america is now officially is honey boo boo and those b*tches "housewives of the white house" no longer "the Alamo" or PEARL HARBOR! YES TOTO! They won
 
Right. It's not the guns fault. Its the people who use them
 
This is what I call a "Pandora's box" problem. Once the evils are released into the world how do you round them up? Only the people who are not going to use their guns to hurt others are going to turn them in. And any time someone mentions a ban sales go through the roof. Do you think those will be turned in or registered, when a knee jerk ban is imposed?

What makes more sense to my mind is let people own what they want and actually punish them for misuse not everyone else because they might have the potential for misuse.

And fer fuck sakes let people defend themselves! The cops tend to show up with the forensics team.
 

Handguns vs Assault Rifles

Guns make people who want to kill or threaten to kill more successful. But that's what assault rifles are for, killing. The second amendment isn't about hunting or sport. It is about the ability of the citizenry to protect itself from oppressors, whether it's a foreign invader or our own government (how horrible would that be?). Assault rifles are the only realistic means to do this.

When it comes to murders in this country handguns are the deadliest of weapons, being involved in 2-3 times more murders than assault rifles. Statistically assault rifles are used about as much as knives to commit murder, that is to say murders committed by knives are about as equal in number to murders by assault rifles. Handguns are concealable and can be easily carried, unlike an assault rifle. So, though assault rifles are more deadly, the handgun is easier to use and easier to wield, and in practice is the most used murder weapon.

Yet, people look at the big, scary assault rifle and want to ban that, when in actuality the handgun is the culprit. If I was to play the game of Oppressive Government, I would allow the people to ban assault rifles in order to take the real tool of resistance, while allowing them to keep the lesser means of resistance, the handgun, even though statistics show that hand guns are a greater menace than assault rifles.

Here's a link to a Wikipedia chart showing the weapons of murder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg
 
what ever... I don't care on health care because can't afford most of it so it's what if 
 
Nice to see that the left has become just as radical and unrealistic as the right. Obama's stance on guns is tame because he's trying to keep the country (which is already heavily divided on so many things) from ripping apart rather than driving an even bigger wedge by obeying the radical left's unrealistic solution towards stopping gun violence. He's smart enough to know there's no benefit for him to further piss off a large group of people in the country for a policy that won't actually solve the problem.
 
+Paul Holt The 'assault rifle' term has been abused for political reasons. Fact is, Americans CANNOT buy fully automatic rifles. THat's what a REAL assault rifle is.
They would like you to think that a semi auto rifle is an 'assault rifle' but it's not. That's just political BULLSHIT.
In fact, the NRA HELPED develop this bullshit term which is ironic. But then again, the NRA are the biggest bunch of dumb fucks in politics so I guess it's really not surprising.
 
I'm done with this i give my peice and then get smacked down what ever 
 
When you take the guns the crimes will increase cause criminals will know you can't defend yourself cause I guarantee you they will not turn their guns in our register them either think about it if we knew the bad guys with guns know they would have already been took but we don't so this fantasy of these non gun owners will just hurt the public not help if Obama really is concerned then quit ordering drone strikes that kill innocent kids in the mid east that's he responsible for over two hundred kids being killed already usually they get about ten kids fit every one bad guy 
 
+Eric Weber I do know the difference between a Democrat and a liberal progressive I made a mistake in my post, are you saying Universal background checks that includes a database for mental health checks unconstitutional? And it may be a reason why police feel the need to use deadly force on these people, that only reinforces my position on Universal background checks.




 
+James Fields I didn't say anything about background checks at all. And no I don't think they are unconstitutional. Either you read somebody elses post or misread mine.

I did mention universal healthcare so we can get our mentally ill treated though.
 
Of course we go blaming the objects and not leave it at the person being at fault for things like this. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Drunk driving is responsible for countless more deaths in America. If this theory of limiting the sale of the object goes through, then why not stop selling alcohol? Better yet, why not stop selling cars? No cars, no drunk driving! I hope the heavy sarcasm here is understood. 
 
Can you see the guns dropped around our country? that's the primary tragedy (usa freedom gift).
sorry for bad english :D
 
dude I don't know sometime's I wander why I even try to say anything nothing makes scince anymore all have a good day
 
+William Cardinal [Drunk driving is responsible for countless more deaths in America.]  Mothers Against Drunk Driving has done a LOT to reduce the number of deaths and I think we need a similar group for gun safety.
 
We need to unpoliticize as much as possible on the issue and respect the constitution at the same time. That's a huge challenge at this time in American history.
 
+Eric Weber that was a question about the background checks. Sorry if my statement wasn't clear, I'm using a rather small cell phone 
 
+Eric Weber From Merriam Webster:

 assault rifle: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use
 
Guns dont kill people. People kill people. There is... a tap there too at which, some adjustings can be done.
The 'tap' is about education, so we don't mix memes about. 
 
That should be the stupid people behind the gun don't blame the it's the people that kill not the gun.Big Brother taken to much people it is no longer free country people need to wake.
 
Simple Fact...US intentional death rate by firearm.....10.5 per 100,000 of population. UK....0.25.....that's 40 times less. and that's why I have no desire to visit the US...... EVER.
 
+Paul Holt 
I don't give a shit what the dictionary says. If they don't burst fire or aren't fully auto they're not assault rifles.
Webster publishes what they think is politically correct. And they're wrong all the time.
They also think a heathen is somebody who doesn't believe in god. But that's not what we all know it to mean. ;)
 
Give majority of people certain guns to protect them from a minority of people who have any option of guns? 
 
+Eric Weber It sounds like we disagree as to what the definition of an assault rifle is. So basically the difference is only a few ounces of parts? This isn't a argument about semantics is it? What's your point?
 
 
ok everyone hold up and get back to life liberty and perusate of happiness
 
Would you be so pro-guns if it was your child who was killed???
 
everyone calm down damn.... Things happen not everything can be helped and no matter what can happen we all half to pull together and live one day at a time we can not stop people from pulling a trigger or stabbing someone. It's everyday life we just got to take one day at a time and bring our selfs together
 
Trolls come in many flavors with unquenchable thirst for attention... No matter where you stand on this issue, spare us all and stop feeding the trolls.
 
Government should spend more time and energy in things that matter... Like stoping the abortions that kill thousands of babies EACH week in USA alone!!! And we call ourselves proud Americans!? What a joke! Shame and nothing else!!!
 
+Jeremy Martin would you please explain to me what the definition of an assault rifle is. And also fully automatic weapons aren't sold in the us. Just saying
 
You can't Blame Evie civilian United States Who owns a gun
For shootings. Because of a few Jackasses Go around it does go shoot People. 
 
Class 3 weapons (automatics) are completely legal in the United States.
 
america really needs to work on peace else every nation has weapons
 
Force at distance? Gotta get gun. Crossbows are silent, though. Ok, one of those too... Remember, our freedom in our little town with its little pink houses is absolutely depends on bring able to blow up some dudes anywhere else that I'll never meet and I'll never know a word of their language. But honestly they might fly here and try to blow up a building in a big city I can't afford to visit let alone live in. 
 
yup just give everyone else weapons and take away ours sounds like a plan!
 
There classified as a rifle, that can hold 30 round magazines, and can easily kill at 500 yds.  Its purpose is that of attack and kill, since it was invented during WWII.  It seem like it's the weapon of choice for dooms day preppers, and the assault rifle users throughout the world, laugh at us, when we say we use it for [TARGET PRACTICE].  The shooters at Columbine, Auora, and Newtown, will agree to that.
 
It's amazing how a mob of people make the innocent, good men and women look like they are criminals and/or crazy and selfish people. That somehow it's their fault that people kill people no matter what tool is envolved. Somehow this mob thinks that bad people will obey human rights. That this will be some type of utopia if we turn a blind eye of something that we really have to deal with everyday.
That is irresponsible thinking.

The more you give up, the more they take. That's how they have been taught, that doesn't matter what they do (with mistakes made or just life's unfairness), that someone will give it to them or else they can take it from someone else because somehow that is humane. 

Once you learn that force and control doesn't work and that responsibility for one's self will show how and where we need to apply our TIME (not money, not more regulations), OUR TIME for others to  in courage them to decide decisions that are responsible decisions.

Not through force but voluntary.
 
While all the debates and rage goes on for gun control, There's a huge money hole that this country needs to address, called "Foreign Aid."
  Hundreds of billions are silently being handed out to places like, Egypt, Africa, Irak, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia and more.
  While both sides of the divide argue about cutting money for this and that, the money continues to hemorage from the country.
  While we'll never get the opposing sides to agree on anything, I'm sure we can all agree, that handing money out to other countries, like candy at Halloween, while we borrow it, then have to pay it back with interest, needs to stop! 
 
In life their are really good people and real bad ones you need too weed out the bad ones and keep then at arms reach at all time, its sad that their are people write next door that you feel are your good friend and neighbors but you will never no till something happens?But hopefully nothing ever did happen to you and your family's or my family every one needs a gun to watch out for the day something threatens your family and you need to take care of business , hopefully it will never come to that. My kids at the age of five all had a gun and could shoot 9 out of 10 in the center of a 2 liter bottle at 50 yards and at a hundred hit it some where on the bottle. They all know how to clean and dress a dear and love to hunt. But they all hate death too because everything has a price.and we have a need. So be a good person to every one till that one day your havt too.
 
To all you people who want to ban guns because of these shootings remember that these shootings happened in places where guns are already illegal. Criminals don't follow laws
 
It wasn't illegal for guns in any town where school shootings took place.  It was illegal to bring them on the school grounds, and I'd agree with you on that primes.
 
Its amazing how many people think banning guns will make anything safer. 
 
+Ryan Ormrod Wow, I didn't realize there were so many "hillbillies" in Los Angels, New York City, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Washington DC, and Chicago.  The areas of the US with the most prohibitive guns laws on the books, and also the cities in the US with the highest homicide rates.
 
hahahahahaha that is so rude but it is true and this is coming from an americian
 
+Joe Mays Everything is hypothetical until facts actually support either side of the argument... and even then, you have to consider any bias of the people crunching the numbers.  The one thing that can definitely prevent anything from changing, however, is sitting on our hands doing nothing at all.
 
Someone please explain to me the term "gun enthusiast". There are no "bomb enthusiasts" or "virus enthusiasts", your just kids that like making loud BANGs and making stuff break. I get that, but other than "I want it I want it" why REALLY should we let folks have guns? forget gun violence studies, the only rational for having guns I ever hear is '2nd amendment says I can' (it doesnt, and amendments can be amended), and 'to defend from OTHER guns', which clearly you need 100 assault rifles to do.
 
Seems pretty self explanatory bud.  Someone who like guns.  Just like a fishing enthusiast, of kite flying enthusiast, or knitting enthusiast.
Some people build model airplanes and fly them in clubs.  Some but guns and shoot them in clubs.
What is there not to understand about an "enthusiast?"
 
I like big GUNS and I cannot lie!
 
fishing enthusiasts like pitting themselves in competition against each other and against the fish they go after. They throw them back or eat them usually. Kite and knitting enthusiasts enjoy creating and using beautiful things. Gun "enthusiasts"  enjoy what? stockpiling weapons? counting how many various ways they can destroy a person? Historic guns, I can understand. Guns as art and or feats of engineering, sure, but whats the point of having super awesome stockpiles of guns?
 
I dont own a gun. Im thinking of buying one though cause if someone breaks into my house, even if they dont have a gun themselves, I dont want to chance my family's safety, I want to guarantee that I overpower and end the asshole. That said, I dont like guns, its an effective stopping tool against someone who threatens my family, much like a knife or whatever else if I didnt have one. and its going to be one, and a pistol, not 8 assault rifles with hollow point rounds. I truely dont understand why anyone would LIKE guns, or WANT to shoot them. They are unnecessarily destructive and I resent feeling like I need to go to that extreme to defend myself against the people around me.
 
I think you can safely define a gun enthusiast as someone who enjoys the hobby of firing guns... target practice, hunting... whatever.
 
Stop being a pansy!
  You try to stereotype gun owners like they'er all crazy gun totting mad men!
  Enthusiasts also compete against each other in target shooting and such.  Some dress up in civil war uniforms and re-enact battles. Some own alot of different firearms, some only own 1 or 2.
  Of ALL the school shootings, none of them were typical gun owners.  Most of the shooters were young people, who managed to get a hold of their parents guns, or in the case of VA Tech, the guy, who was also a student, went out and bought the gun he used in the shooting.
So grow a pair will ya!
 
let me re-phrase, I understand the semantic meaning of the term "gun enthusiast" and have a working knowledge of english. I dont understand how anyone can BE a gun enthusiast, or how that can be in any way claimed as a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. You have the "right to bear arms", which does NOT mean stockpile craptons of guns, it means to pickup weapons of some potential effectiveness in defense against your government. Once upon a time, the only weapon with the potential to be effective WAS a gun, now days a gun wont be effective at all. You know what would be? technology. So, want to be an enthusiast? read a book and buy a computer. Learn to hack and stand up for yourself instead of sitting in the forest and blowing up frogs with an AK-47.
 
why do you think owning a gun = owning a pair? I didnt have to buy my balls, I got em on my own thanks lol.
 
So now your saying you want to become a gun toting Mad man too!  Kinda hypocritical don't you think?
 
and ok, so some kid goes into a school and shoots up kids. HE isnt a gun owner, he got it from his parents. And so what if no laws on gun control could have prevented it, thats not the argument. The question is, why SHOULD you be allowed to stockpile guns? is there even one good reason? All I hear is gimme gimme gimme, i like to make stuff boom.
 
What you call "stockpiling," others call "collecting."
Does a fisher have just on hook, or one lure?  Or does he have a box full of stuff?  And he's always adding to it too, if he's an avid fisherman, isn't he?
Does a mechanic have just a hammer?  Or a box full of tools?  And each tool does something specific, doesn't it.
Guns are like that.  One gun, won't do it all.  Some are for hunting big game, some for targets, a shotgun for clay pidgins, or rabbit hunting.  A pistol is best to use in the home, for protection, because it's small and can be handled easily. But pistols are fun for target shooting and speed shooting too.
 
The Constitution only speaks of keeping and bearing arms.  But it was written in a time, when almost every home had at least 1 gun in it, and it got used for killing game for food, and home protection.  If you didn't know how to use a firearm, what good would it do to have it?
Like any tool, you need a working knowledge of it.  Otherwise your as subject to do yourself harm as anything else.
And from another perspective, Shooters always out shooting, is a huge business.  Even local and state governments get something from it, selling hunting licences and permits.
Tarik B
 
I am pacifist and I live in the city so no guns for me.
 
Well, that's cool, I don't own a gun.  I use too, but I haven't had one in many years.  I never had a problem when I did own them.  You have a right to own firearms, but you have the same right to not own them.
 
+Eric Weber

The assault weapons ban of 1994 put in place a 10 round capacity limit on all firearms purchases. This did nothing to prevent the Columbine shooting. Additionally, the multiple post office attacks (AKA going postal) were typically carried out using weapons containing fewer that ten rounds. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence found the AWB (including the ten round limits) ineffective in preventing gun violence.

While I respect your opinion, it seems as if you are blindly agreeing that reduced capacity is the way to go.

I don't mind the government getting involved in these matters. It's their responsibility, but it's also their responsibility to make sure they aren't just wasting our/their time. 
 
Well, The ban, or the 10 round limit, was never intended to stop violence.  People will be violent, even if they had nothing but a muzzle loader.
But if someone has to stop at ten, to reload a fresh clip, it could be a window of opportunity to stop them.
But it's the magazines with up to 100 rounds, that allows so much damage so fast!
 
guns aren't fishing hooks though!! or spanners either ffs
 
No, they aren't hooks...  But that's not the point I was making then.
And as far as I know, even the military assault weapons, sold to the public, do not, no could they have the "full auto," fire.
They were made to be semi-auto only.  But they do still fire the same NATO rounds as the military weapons do.
 
 "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the american peoples liberty, teeth, and keystone under Independence. From the hour the pilgrims landed, to present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace,security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of guns every where restrains evil influence; they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." George Washington. Enough Said  
 
+James Lanning , a shooter will just bring an extra gun. It doesn't take much skill or practice to quickly change out mags anyway. The current proposals have the intention of preventing violence. My pint is that they are waisting time and proposing laws that will not serve the intended purpose. Therefore, we as a society should put out feet down. This is a universal principal. We don't want baseless laws.

Love your profile pic by the way. Wish the second amendment allowed me to purchase one of those :-) 
 
Sorry for the typos. Not paying enough attention to Swype predictions. 
 
People have committed violence, since the time he picked up a stick or rock and hit his neighbor on the head with it!
 
We have strict gun laws in Australia and it hasn't stopped gun crime infact gun crime here is worse then ever so go figure.
 
hey...learn archery...works too
 
"George Washington. Enough Said" , yup, George Washington, commenting on the VAST experience he has with modern America..... Not everything a dead guy said is applicable hundreds of years later. So, disregarding the cliches, claims of what would or would not have prevented violence, the question STILL hasnt been answered, is there ONE reasonable reason why civilians should still be given the right to own guns other than they like to hear things go BANG? IMO its an outdated and narrow minded interpretation of "arms". Ill tell you, if a revolution DID happen, youd do a LOT better to be good with a laptop than a gun.
 
Guns dont kill people people kill people. Lets outlaw cars they kill way more people than GUNS 
 
Universal background checks won't end violence. Nor will it deprive gun owners of their 2nd Amendment rights. But it will surely keep guns out of the hands of those who can't handle them responsibly.
Jean B.
+
1
2
1
 
Missing the point of losing our liberties +Chris Caldwell You will lose the laptop, too If the #2A goes, so will the #1A .
 
... and still nothing but dumb cliches. I submit that whether or not gun control would curb, or even limit, violence, there is not a single reason TO permit gun ownership by civilians, and as such, even if it saved ONE life (because yeah, a school shooter would kill less people with a knife), even ONE, it trumps your joy at hearing things go BANG.
 
American should have tighten up during Bush Administration! 
 
Every gun thread on google+ results in the same shit, 460 morons, a few who actually know what they are talking about and 20 or so who don't even know why the sky is blue. This country is FUCKED...
Btw, all you foreigners should GTFO, if we wanted your opinion we'd ask for it
 
+Emma Alberts
We dont need to discuss what might happen, we have real world examples to look at. England, for instance, doesnt allow average citizens to own guns, and yes, some (not NEARLY as many as here) criminals do have guns, but then they do have a version of swat etc that use guns just in case. All in all, though, you dont have a million 12 yo, cracked out gang bangers with a trunk full of semi auto guns and it has worked out WAY better. Even if its not a total fix, Id sure like to replace the gun with a knife in at least one of the school shooters. My point was that the 'it will fix things if we ban guns' discussion is played out, but what real reason is there to NOT ban guns? so far no a single blip. TBH I dont think you have to have a perfect reason to ban them if you have NO reason not to.
 
What you rather buy a weapon made in USA or some chinese crap that gonna blew up your face when triggered. ..

I Will spend my dosh with that guy on the the mince machine. ...
 
@Ryan Ormrod wow talk about prejudice against hillbillies. Do you the best way to take down a country? Take away their guns. That's what Obama is doing. Simple as that. And he's doing it in the name of whatever anti-American cult he and his friends are involved in. And you're just handing yours to him with the safety on. Its people like you who are going to be blamed if China or Russia attacks(don't get me wrong, i love China nd Russia, they're just the most probable countries to attack us) and we cant fight back because we have no guns. Or die if some person who still has a gun illegally starts rock n' rolling. Don't get me wrong, the Connecticut shooting was horrid, but that should just be an incentive to drop the hammer on crime and criminals, not on the people who can use a gun sensibly, and carry one to defend themselves, or their loved ones when something like the Connecticut shooting(Hopefully never) occurs. There's no sense in taking away a countries guns. Period.
 
true dat ppl wanna make gun warehouses and in tha past month 20 kids were killed in newtown
 
Common sense I guess not so common in politics. Politician first stop and think "which method will secure my re-election"
 
It's time install a 'TANK' outside our home so that no one even mess with us ;-). 
Everything can be fixed, but you can't fix stupid no matter how hard you try. Stupid will beat you with experience.
 
Their gun violence went down but the violence due to other instruments increased

 
Arm with the right mind is blessing...with the disturbed mind is a problem..
 
+James Cudd Now you are being rather silly in your comparisons, apart from cigarettes.
 
+Chris Anthony You are being a tad offensive by asking other nationalities to GTFO. If you want yank only views go on a yank only site. This story is in the 'whats hot' section which is international.
Also there have been gun crime comparisons with Australia and the UK frequently on here so I think everyone has the right to join in with this debate.
 
+Emma Alberts Hate to point of the obvious but everyone is law abiding till they break the law or go around shooting innocent children.
 
Oh the irony... We forget how adept we are at killing other people in comparison to each other.
 
+Timothy Holt
this crazy fringe crap is why republicans have such a hard time being taken seriously. Obama is not part of a cult, and IF (big big if lol) Russia decides to attack America, some guy in Kentucky with 40 rifles isnt going to be the turning point in the war. Do us all a favor, if you have some kind of crackpot bizzaro theory, just keep it to yourself and your tin foil hats
 
The country is not ruined since most of us will never give up our Defensive weapons.  I have no assault weapons just defensive weapons. Get the description correct stupid politicians
 
+Ryan Ormrod Everyone who has a gun will keep their guns. Anyone who Illegally got a gun will still have it. So it really solves nothing except for making everyone buy off the black market, raising the crime rate. 
 
I'm a godless gun owning liberal.
I'm every conservatives worst nightmare.
 hahahaha
 
Remember, as soon as you give up your guns, the government will see it on their big computer screen and come and roll a tank over your house, "just because they can", and you can't fight back because your freedoms were taken away when your guns were taken.

At the same time, "the terrorists" will just flood in and destroy the planet. Without guns, airport scanning machines will stop working and let foreigners in who will steal all the jobs.

Honestly people, have a little more faith in the government, the police and everyone else who works to protect you so you don't have to shoot anyone.
 
+David Gray don't forget the importance of having a militia prepared, ya know, just in case...in case...ummmmmm
 
hate is pointed at the idiots that come into a decent discussion and crap it up with 'but if you ban guns on civilians, what will the army do?' and other such stupidity. Look, fact is, banning guns wont solve violence, but it MIGHT limit the casualties. On the flip side, nobody has yet been able to point out ONE reason civilians need guns anymore. The interpretation of 'right to bare arms' = guns is outdated by at least 50 years. Now its just an excuse for crazy people to stockpile arsenals, criminals to arm themselves against eachother and non criminals, and hillbillies to shoot at squirrels with cannons.  2nd amendment wasnt for any of that, it was meant to ensure that we have the right and means to rise up against the government if we need to, and in modern times you wouldnt be able to do that with a gun anyway. Read a book, buy a computer, stop shooting squirrels and make yourself useful.
 
I need guns because other people have them. Pretty simple logic. Whether you and I like it or not, doesn't matter. It is what it is.

A lot of people sit in the suburbs with little knowledge of why a gun would ever be necessary with a false sense of security. Meanwhile people in rural and urban areas know the reasons well.
 
+Jadon Knight gun homicides went down over 50% and we haven't had a port Arthur style massacre in 15 years. I reckon it's working. For preventing gun deaths that is

+Eric Weber you don't need a gun, you want one. And buy a good security system for your home. Nobody gets through tough steel mesh!
 
False sense of security either way. But I'll take my chances with a gun anyway. Thanks but I'll make my own decisions in spite of prohibitionist idealists such as yourself.
BTW, I'm a liberal progressive so let me nip your assumptions right off the bat before you get a chance to make them.
 
America seems to be a country driven by fear rather than idealism for a lot of people. Illogical over valued irrational fear at that. No one will invade America, the government won't turn communist and make you work on communes and the sky won't fall down if you decide to be sensible and control guns tightly. I really don't think freedom is possible in the middle of all this paranoia. Apart from the lives saved, more people will be released from fear and your country will gain a lot in reputation. Yes you need a rifle if you're a farmer in the backwoods. Ok it is fine to have shooting as a hobby if the gun is kept in a locked cupboard, I can understand needing protection if you live in a tough neighbourhood, but is the best protection actually a gun ?. Surely the tough neighbours will benefit most when the guns are controlled. 
 
300 million guns already in American citizen hands. That's all the reality I need to justify my gun ownership.
 
+Sean Montague
First, America doesnt make policy based on whats going to up our reputation. Frankly, we dont care what you think nearly as much as you care what we do. That said, I think the 'i need a gun cause others have a gun' argument is pretty lame. Get rid of both guns and were done. People bitch and moan that criminals will still have just as many guns, but non criminals wont. Frankly, were not talking about removing guns from law enforcement, just civilians. And we dont have to resort to irrational 'what if' theories, because there are actual countries who have actually done this, and it works great. Case in point, England.
 
+Eric Weber
thats the dumbest rationalization ive heard. Theres guns, so we must get more. Oh, theres more guns, so we must have even more. There are Americans who own bombs. Do you own a bomb? You should hurry and get one I think. Oh wait, didnt we do this with someone already? Are we now going to have a Cold Civil War?
 
+Eric Weber
BTW, your kind of proving my point anyway. Its the government's job to recognize escalating standoffs like you find yourself in and defuse them.
 
+Matthew Kelly
1. nobody has said that guns are the source of all violence, but they escalate it and increase the destruction. Also, the point here has been that there is no valid reason to keep them legal for civilians, your poorly crafted statistical comparisons of violence reduction are moot because thats not the topic. 2. The Arab Spring did not owe its success (which, is sort of a mixed bag anyway) to guns. There was some civilian gun violence, but to claim it would not have taken place is just retarded. The best you could say is that the revolution would need to find less violent ways to accomplish some of its goals, which Im not sure is a negative, and Im not convinced it would be less effective. Not to mention, its a pretty large stretch to justify civilian guns in America just in case we decide to have the type of revolution that happened in the Arabic world. A. we dont need it B. that type of revolution wouldnt even work here. Thats a third world country, and if you think your gun would be more than a fart in the wind to the US government your deluded.
 
+Chris Caldwell You need to learn the difference between angry idealism and reality. And you need to understand that a lot of people died just to create the constitution. And you need to understand the philosophies behind it. You seem to be anti-2nd amendment. That means you picked the extreme left because you thought you needed to pick a side.
Your opinion is wrong, and your reason for having it is wrong.
 
I hate to burst some bubbles, but any actual gun control under Obama is going to be minimal anyway. There's not going to be a gun round up.
At MOST they'll ban so called 'assault rifles' and large capacity magazines.
 
+Eric Weber I'm actually not anti-2nd amendment, Im against the interpretation that you should have the right to stockpile guns. It was written in a different time, in which guns actually were useful for its actual underlying goal, and in which a shootout on the corner was not considered that big of a deal. Im actually not far left, but thanks for guessing, and while I am looking to get a gun, I would happily give it up should we decide to ban them. The root of the issue really is you, and I mean that in the most pointed way possible. People exactly like you do exactly what you just did. Jump in, assume and slander someone who disagrees, and drop in opinions like 'your wrong and your reasoning is wrong' with absolutely no intelligent reasoning whatsoever, no facts, no example, no details. I know, lets just solve this with a gun. Hows that sound. That way we dont have to bother with messy "facts".

Im curious, you say I should understand that a lot of people died to create the constitution. Do you think they died so you can have your 42nd rifle? Do you think ONE of them though, "my kids will miss me, but damnit, I want Eric to have the right to shoot whatever the hell he thinks would make a cool splat noise"? Oh, and if that was REALLY the issue they died for, why wasn't it in the original?

I urge you to take your own advice and learn the actual intent behind 'right to bare arms', its NOT the right to collect shiny guns cause you like them. Its the right to take action against a government gone wrong, and the right to arm yourself as would be necessary to do so. Please, enlighten us, when in modern American history, with all the gun packing crazy anti-government folks out there, has having a gun made ANY difference against the government? Its an obsolete interpretation which you and others have exploited cause making things go BANG brings a feeling of power into your otherwise impotent lives.
 
The problem is that having a gun makes you FEEL like you have power. Like you could actually make a difference in the world around you if you needed to. The problem is, it doesnt give you that power, its just easier than getting off your butt and learning how to ACTUALLY make a difference. gun - crutch, and it comes at the expense of the security of everyone else.
 
Im actually very PRO 2nd amendment. I and many others just believe its more accurately applied to technology, and its transparency, anonymity, and availability. The age in which guns were viable in the private sector as anything other than a toy or criminal tool are long gone.
 
+Chris Caldwell. I m not suggesting you make policy just to please everyone. I m suggesting you should look at and listen to what happens in the rest of the world, and when you need help in a crisis you ll be able to take the rest of the world with you. The reality is you do care about how your country is perceived because you have exporters, and allies. 
 
+Chris Caldwell
Guns are used everyday to save people and deter crime. Because you are to short sighted, naive, or in denial of the fact doesn't mean it isn't happening. A crime deterred from ever happening is never reported on. And even when a gun is used to thwart a crime... Leftist agenda ensures it be downplayed, or just not mentioned at all.

We all don't live in the fantasy world that you do. Many of us see the world for what it is. Unstable.

You are but one natural disaster away from being separated from the technology and the government you depend on for your safety.

I hope you never see the day that all you have to defend the child you hold in your arms from lawlessness is a dead smart phone and a stick.

Ask those who lived through Katrina if they see guns as nothing more than criminal tools or toys.

After that, research Rwanda.

Today's world is the same as it's always been. Run by humans, who while are capable of doing great good, are also inclined to do great evil.

I'll keep my right to protect myself and my family and I will accept it as my responsibility. The Constitution insures that the government will not restrict me in that endeavor.

That means I will decide what I may or may not need to accomplish this in any given situation... Not the government or anyone else.


 
+Chad Hernandez some of the weapons available in US are not defence weapons, but massive destruction weapons. Start by allowing only handgun, and forbidding machine gun, and you'll start having safeness. The race to the biggest gun is not a reliable safety model.
 
+Chad Hernandez. I like your sense of responsibility, but with the absolute best intention in the world it simply is not possible to take personnel responsibility for everything. Sometimes society needs to take collective responsibility for public health and security in particular. After katrina I can understand better where you are coming from, we get the impression here not enough was done by the government at the time. Is this fair to say ????
 
+Sean Montague
Not enough was done by the government? Sure. That's my point. The government is run by people. Individuals like you and I. It's not an infallible, all powerful entity. It's subject to all the same limitations and flaws that we all are.

And when things like Katrina happen it's just as susceptible as the rest of us. With all the technology and weaponry at the government's disposal, with all its good intentions, there was a period after Katrina when it simply was not able to get to the people, let alone protect them.

It doesn't make sense to allow that same government to dictate what we can have personally to protect ourselves in any given scenario.

Again... The framers of the Constitution saw this and supplied us with the 2nd amendment to protect the citizens from exactly that. Whether it be tyranny, lawlessness, or anything else we may need to protect ourselves from... 
 
+Chad Hernandez. Fair points well made. I know it's none of my business directly but I am grateful to the American governments previously for helping to take the gun out of Irish politics, and I know you guys like freedom of speech. We currently have problems with drug related violence, but we don't have much trouble with the profile of people who shoot up schools, or cinemas because of a grudge or mental health issue. Mostly the drug pushing criminals shoot each other, but not always. Most of our cops are unarmed, but can call for back up with an armed unit. Gun related murders are very very rare outside the context of criminal gangs. I still think its safer to have very few guns, in an emergency I am not convinced the average person could use them effectively. But I understand your difficulty in that there are lots or guns around and if you are the guy who doesn't have one its dangerous. I hope you don't have to face another katrina. 
 
+Sean Montague
so your suggesting that our policy on civilian gun control should be made under duress of losing export activities, or as a favor to another country in exchange for the promise of assistance in the next international incident? This issue has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the world, and I have to believe, (or at least I seriously hope), that not one person involved in it will consider anything you have suggested.
 
+Chad Hernandez "Guns are used everyday to save people and deter crime." - the question is, if there were no guns, would there be no way to deter that crime? Just as violence would exist with or without guns, so would crime deterance, life saving, and general good works. In countries without civilian gun access you dont see rampant crime. In addition, as guns become more plentiful, black market guns become easier and cheaper to come by. Guns become more disposable, and as such harder to trace, which makes crime harder to solve. If the US stopped producing guns for civilians, and got rid of what it could, then criminals wouldnt be able to buy a black market gun on the cheap and toss it in the river after using it. Eventually black market guns become a rarity. This isnt theory, just look at most of the rest of the world.

"Many of us see the world for what it is. Unstable." - which is an excellent reason NOT to introduce large amounts of high powered weapons into the public.
 
"I hope you never see the day that all you have to defend the child you hold in your arms from lawlessness is a dead smart phone and a stick." - I hope you never see the day when you hold a child in your arms, have no access to technology or your government, and are surrounded by hungry people with guns.

"Ask those who lived through Katrina if they see guns as nothing more than criminal tools or toys." - ok. ANYONE HERE LIVE THROUGH KATRINA? If so, please tell us, would it have been better if the government had air dropped a couple crates of guns in for you? Pretty sure that instead of hearing "George W. hates the black man" we would have heard "George W. is trying to get the black man to slaughter each other". There would have been civil rights advocates ripping this country apart over such a blatant 'gas on the fire' move, and you know what? They'd be right.

"After that, research Rwanda." why? are we a third world country now? Do you think our situations are ANYTHING like each other? So we are  fractured state, one armed one not, with an insubstantial government military unable to keep the peace and to corrupt to do so if it could? OK, lets pretend this is relevant. Do you honestly believe that arming every man woman and child in Rwanda with a semi-auto and a case of bullets would solve their issue? This is why, if you wanted to arm the populace of ANY OTHER country it would be seen as an act of war, NOT a peace keeping effort.

"who while are capable of doing great good, are also inclined to do great evil" so lets limit the degree of evil the average American can do.

"I'll keep my right to protect myself and my family and I will accept it as my responsibility." - nobody is telling you not to

"The Constitution insures that the government will not restrict me in that endeavor." - untrue, it says that it wont disarm you to the extent that you cannot defend yourself. The question is, is the word 'arms' still accurately interpreted to mean guns, and if civilian owned guns were illegal would that disarm you to the point where you cannot defend yourself.

"That means I will decide what I may or may not need to accomplish this in any given situation... Not the government or anyone else." - actually no. Nowhere does it say in the constitution 'We the people believe that the average person is really smart and should be left alone to decide all of these matters on their own, cause we trust em." The constitution does NOT give you a blank check to decide how it should apply to you.
 
+Chad Hernandez
"Again... The framers of the Constitution saw this and supplied us with the 2nd amendment to protect the citizens from exactly that. Whether it be tyranny, lawlessness, or anything else we may need to protect ourselves from... "

It was public access to riffles that let us with the Revolutionary War. The framers of the constitution wanted to make sure that, should this country again get into a situation where we have a standing army and need to scrub this government and start over, we could. In there time, that meant people needed to be allowed to own guns. In our time, people owning guns does not make us more able to revolt against the government, look at all the crazy militia groups in the south or failed cults who have tried this. They are a blip in history, and it was completely ineffective.

If you want to ensure that we can maintain the threat of revolution against our government, the more effective tool is with access to information, transparency of government, and free knowledge of technology. the millions of guns scattered across the US just arent prepairing you for any war but a civil or zombie one.
 
+Twain Comner
Yup, I hear you. Thing is, this is not the first time you "country boys" disagreed with the government and decided they should just but out. Last time around we fought a war to see if you could just leave (notice, civil war, NOT about slavery) and the end result: no you cant. So, if you really would prefer the "might makes right" approach, very well, cause you lost that one to. BTW, believe anything you want, it certainly doesnt make it true.
 
+Chris Caldwell 

“In our time, people owning guns does not make us more able to revolt against the government, look at all the crazy militia groups in the south or failed cults who have tried this. They are a blip in history, and it was completely ineffective.”

Two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to refute what you say. Have we actually “won” those? You mentioned the Civil war as if the Confederacy wasn't simply a militia group to begin with. They put up a pretty good fight, right?

“If you want to ensure that we can maintain the threat of revolution against our government, the more effective tool is with access to information, transparency of government, and free knowledge of technology. “

Straight up! And I would hope that our judges, lawmakers and organizations like the EFF will aid us in keeping the Internet free and open, but when you look at the things our government and corporate America would like to do to the free exchange of information right under the nose of our democracy - with nary a reaction from our citizenry - do you feel that all of our leaders have our best interests at heart?

Here's quote from an article about just this: “The Pentagon’s intelligence branch, the National Security Agency (NSA), partnered with AT&T, Verizon and CenturyLink to snoop on the Internet traffic of 15 defense firms that agreed to participate...”

Here's the article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/15/exposing-uncle-sams-internet-snooping/

For those of you whose eyes haven't glazed over yet, bear with me, I'm really going to be making a point here pretty soon.


“The millions of guns scattered across the US just arent prepairing you for any war but a civil or zombie one.”

You nailed it on the head. What else would a “war” between the government and it's citizens be, but a Civil War. Civil War II, to be exact.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be contrary here. I do not want a civil war, nor do I feel that one is necessary in our current time. In fact it is my personal belief that war is one of the most deplorable acts humans can engage in, and we should avoid it whenever possible. But I think that given the whole breadth of human history, perhaps the past 60 or so years following WWII has been wonderfully kind to many of us American and European citizens. It seems that political situations can go south pretty quickly and that it could here too.

Though, I am not a gun nut, I feel that the second amendment, along with the free floe of information, is a type of buffer against plutocracies, oligarchies and other various tyrannies which history has shown has reared its ugly head time after time throughout recorded history, and to think that we are too special to have this happen in the good old USA, just hasn't been paying attention.
 
+Paul Holt
"Two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to refute what you say. Have we actually “won” those?" - depends on how you define "won", overwhelmed? sure. But I dont think its a very good comparison tbh. If you think a groundswell of rednecks with assault rifles is going to really accomplish a revolution, I think your mistaken. On the other hand, 100k hackers? sure.

"You mentioned the Civil war as if the Confederacy wasn't simply a militia group to begin with. They put up a pretty good fight, right?" - The confederacy was quite a bit more than a backwoods militia group, rather the southern stats banding together to form up a new country. That said, even if we ban civillian owned guns, that sort of thing is still available should it be needed. With state militias, police forces, etc being non-federal and also not included in a ban on citizen owned guns, I think the right people are armed appropriately for the spirit behind the 2nd amendment. Really what I th8ink your looking for is the firepower to defend against a federal government gone tyrant, while diplomacy and a technological / social / media / economic war does the real work. Having a gun in the hands of every man woman and child doesnt add much if any more security, and provides the potential for a TON more destruction while we are "prepaired" for a war that, lets face it, in all likelyhood wont ever happen. There's been a pretty big shift in society in the last 200 years anyway, where a nation of gunslingers is not necessarily what we want anymore, and while violence will exist with or without guns, the added deathtoll attributed to arming both sides to the teeth is a hefty price to pay for what I think amounts to a bunch of rednecks and gangbangers piggybacking their own agendas on a noble, but obsolete, sentiment JUST IN CASE we one day have a civil war or foreign troops land on US soil (which hasnt EVER happened btw).
 
+Chris Caldwell
And nowhere in my post did I make mention of a "blank check".

There is no shortage of regulations pertaining to guns.

Any further regulations and or bans, begin to infringe on our second ammendment rights.

The specific circumstances of the founders are relevant to the Constitution. But it was put into place not just for the time in which it was written. To believe otherwise would be a huge underestimation of the men who wrote it. They expected the nation they were founding to last.

We have the right to bear arms. The reason being to protect against anyone who would infringe on our natural rights. Including, but not limited to government.

It doesn't say we have that right until such time as the government deems it no longer necessary. 
 
+Paul Holt
BTW, with regards to snooping internet traffic, one should always assume that what you do is public, however if you look there is information freely available regarding proxies, encrypted tunnels, etc etc so that if you 'arm yourself' with the knowledge, you CAN protect your anonymity and digital rights while learning how to stand up for yourself and other in the digital age, even against the big bad scary NSA. People get very concerned with government snooping, Im more concerned with various corporations combining their databases on you to be able to extrapolate information about you so private no court in the country would uphold the government's right to know it. cough facebook + testco

Government snooping doesnt break the 2nd amendment, its more akin to them arming themselves, which is fine and good within boundaries, the key isnt to prevent the government from it, the key is to make yourself able to do the same.
 
+Chris Caldwell
Thank you for your thoughtful response. But I must respectfully disagree with the idea that we as a nation will absolutely never, ever see profound internal or external conflict. It has happened before. We have had a civil war, just over a hundred years ago. To say that human nature has changed or that our system of government has “evolved” so much that we have politically precluded the idea that we will absolutely never need weapons seems a bit short sighted. Though, I think the chances of needing to use firearms in the near future is unlikely, things change rapidly. And unfortunately we sometimes must compromise our safety for our freedoms. A small example of that is our freedom of mobility. One's chances of being killed in a vehicle collision are far greater than being killed by a firearm, yet many of us choose to take that risk daily. Perhaps firearm ownership should require a real license, like the automobile, with stricter penalties for misuse. Or perhaps we could think about outlawing handguns, the true culprit in the majority of homicides.

One point we can agree on, is the importance of the free and open exchange of information. Current computer, hacker and Internet culture is currently taking a lead when it comes to protecting our liberties, and I admit that these people are currently playing a greater role for the American citizenry in securing our freedoms than that of the firearm. As long as that system is up and running, these people are some of our champions.

However, the power of the Internet is easy to quash with one easy blackout of  our national power-grid. Nature does it every few years. People in power can do it with the flip of a switch. It's impossible to remotely turn off a fire arm.

I'm neither a redneck, nor a gang-banger. I drive a tiny, fuel efficient car, am socially liberal and lean somewhat left in my political disposition. I am a level headed and thoughtful person. And I still support the Second Amendment.
 
+Chris Caldwell Great points regarding staying anonymous on the internet. I'm not too worried about that either. And I too am more worried about corporations.
 
+Paul Holt
even in the event of a second civil war or revolution, I find it unlikely that arming every man woman and child in the nation will have a huge impact, or at least one we would want. We have state militia as well as federal, in addition to local police, swat, etc who nobody is proposing to disarm. The only event I can see as an argument for the neccessity of gun ownership by civilians is when the civilians themselves turn against government at all levels (as opposed to states trying to break away). This is more akin to the movements of the 60s than the civil war or revolution, and I think we can agree that history would paint a VERY different picture if every feminist, hippy and civil rights activist picked up and used a gun as their means of protest. History has shown that we have sufficiently effective means to start a civilian vs government battle. More recently I would point out the success of the clean energy movement by use of capitalism, demonstrations, education and media. I hesitate to include as an example the gay marriage movement, as it is less 'the people vs government' and more 'a small group of people vs the majority', if anything the government was used as a tool to circumvent the will of the people until public opinion could be changed, but nevertheless I do think it points to successful non-violent change of fundamental structures in the US.

Consider the recent demonstrations of the failure of seperationist militia, the repeated success of non-violent reform, the scarry notion of those non-violent protests as gun-laden, and the extremely small likelyhood of the necessity of a civilian vs government revolution. Now please weigh that against the price we pay for it every day in the magnified cost of violence due to the increased destructive power of civilians, and the increased difficulty to solve gun related crimes due to the commonality and disposability of guns. IMO if that is the ONLY reason to keep guns in the hands of civilians, I dont think its worth the cost. While owning a gun would make me feel safer inside my house, outlawing civilian guns would make me feel safer inside, and outside of it.

In response to an earlier comment, I lived many years in spanish harlem, and then in queens. so no, I dont come from some rosy palace in the sky with no threat of violence.
 
I have offended people on other posts by suggesting America s difficulty finding independence and freedom was relatively easy. But, after you get offended look at the reality in comparison to the history anywhere else in Europe. Look at the harrowing history of invasion in Poland for example. Russian history in the twentieth century is the history of slaughter. The Irish had a slightly more difficult time leaving Britain's empire than the USA. On the civil war issue, yes this was the world s first industrialised war, and realistically armed militias don't stand any chance against modern mechanised armies. My point is that historical reason s for gun ownership are not really valid. The world today compared to the 1770 s is unrecognisable, human nature hasn't changed, but people in stable western democracies don't need to arm themselves against their government. We do need to keep an eye on them, to make sure they aren't nibbling the cheese but an armed revolt isnt realistic at all
 
The argument that citizens don't need to protect ourselves from the tyranny of government is based largely on an arrogant belief system.

Arrogant in that one can believe to know every possible scenario in which we as individuals may need to protect ourselves, the source of every threat we may need to protect ourselves from, and exactly what we would or would not need to protect ourselves with.

The reality is that nobody knows what the future holds. And this is a violent world in which we live. These are irrefutable facts.

There are huge factions not only in this country, but world wide that are bent on the destruction of anyone outside themselves.

911.

It can happen again.

Chances are that it will happen again in one form or another.

The second ammendment affords us as individuals the right to defend ourselves. Period. It doesn't specify from what.

Disarmed people are extremely vulnerable, not only in situations where their own government would move against them...however unlikely that may be, but in any situation that would separate them from the protection of the government. Whether it be a situation created by nature, or by man.

This has been true all through history, it is today, and it will be on into the future... as long as human nature is what it is. And there is no evidence that it will ever change.

You want to do something to prevent gun violence, and violence in general?

Focus on social morality. The deterioration of which is the core from which all violence stems.

And mental health. Arguably a factor in every one of the mass shootings in American history.

Not just making sure that those mentally ill individuals don't have access to guns, but that they are identified as early as possible and that they receive the best possible treatment for as long as they need.

To simply move to ban this weapon or that one based on the false notion that there isn't a legitimate need for that weapon for personal defense is not only arrogant, but it's an exercise in futility. And it is an exercise that completely misses addressing the actual issue in any substantive way. 
 
+Chad Hernandez  well said. Britain banned handguns and think that because there were less shootings the ban was effective. But now stabbing has reach record numbers so they are working on a ban for pointed kitchen knifes. The 9/11 terrorists used box knives should we ban those? No! It is a tool. Anything can be miss-used(including guns) if someone wants to kill someone they will find a way to try. The worst domestic terror attack was from a fertilizer bomb will we ban fertilizer?
 
+Chad Hernandez
I disagree completely, and largely due to the lack of any specific evidence to a gun's actual usefulness in modern America. Yes, I will grant you, 911, or Perl Harbor, could, and likely will at some point, happen again. So, tell me, how many guns in the hands of civilians would it have taken to prevent 911 or Perl Harbor? Unless you're suggesting that if everyone on each of the planes had a gun they could have forced them down? Like a shootout at 30k would be a great idea? oh, but wait, once armed with the facts, they DID force down a plane, WITHOUT GUNS. Point is really a silly one to make in favor of guns since A. they had nothing to do with 911 and B. they could not have prevented 911. C. they had nothing to do nor contribute to the aftermath of 911.

"The second amendment affords us as individuals the right to defend ourselves. Period. It doesn't specify from what." True, but whats at question is the interpretation that this affords you the right to stockpile guns, or the wisdom of arming civilians at all. Defend away, you haven't needed 30 guns to do so in the last 100 years.

"Disarmed people are extremely vulnerable, not only in situations where their own government would move against them." Please elaborate? As we've been discussing, we have a long history of 1. government vs government (civil, revolution) which required guns, but as the state level militia etc wouldnt be effected by a ban, neither would this example 2. civilian vs government (ie the 60s) again, in modern references not only was non-violence effective, in review violent options would NOT have been effective and would have HUGE casualties. So, what other situations are you talking about? I will grant you, if you need to kill a bear, you want a gun. But for 99% of the country a fight for food would NOT be against the food.

"You want to do something to prevent gun violence, and violence in general?" Not particularly. Removing violence from our nature is, at the least, a HUGE and improbable undertaking. What Id like to see is a disarmament, which limits the destruction caused by each incident of violence. If the US decided tomorrow to ration out 10 pounds of C4 to each person in the US, you think wed be safer? or all dead? OK, so the threat would go up, well then we need MORE protection, so lets ration out nuclear weapons to everyone. Safer now? or dead. See a pattern? Were not talking about curing violence, just removing its teeth.

"And mental health. Arguably a factor in every one of the mass shootings in American history." except thats subjective and expensive and an ongoing battle as new crazy people are born every day. Im also not convinced (as theres no facts backing this argument) that crazy people are the source of all violence. Perhaps the headliners, but violence is in our nature. Lets not forget human history here, and that compared to it we live in a fluffy, peaceful, sheltered world. We watch baseball, not Christians being fed to wild animals.

"based on the false notion that there isn't a legitimate need for that weapon for personal defense is not only arrogant, but it's an exercise in futility" evidence to either claim? The 2nd amendment is not there for doomsday, aliens, etc etc. It is there to provide that we have reasonable protection (theres a reason they didnt say "guns") against ordinary and real threats by or to our government. Those threats are no longer ordinary or real, but more akin to cults stockpiling for post-rapture apocalypse. Its an unreasonable and unintended application and it comes at the cost of magnifying the cost of violence, so in this way it is actually having the reverse effect as intended. One could make the case that by enforcing the 2nd amendment with this interpretation the US government is party to gun violence, and therefore assaulting my security and safety. As such I should "arm" myself against it, by lobbying against the 2nd amendment. An odd interpretation, but IMO closer to its spirit.
 
+Josiah, Levi Smith
1. nobody is saying baning guns will cure us of violence, but Id rather a crazy knife fight break out on my street than a crazy gun fight. It limits the damage done by violence. Nobody ever got killed by knife fight cross fire.
2. You may not like Brittan's ban on pointy kitchen knives, but its completely irrelevant here.
3. your missing the point regarding 911. Guns were not in use, yet we successfully downed one of the airplanes armed with....information. Adding guns to the mix would have, at no point in that whole incident, improved the situation.
4. arguing that because we cannot ban every item which can ever be used in any way violently we should just not bother at all is ridiculous. You want a ban on biological, nuclear, and explosive weapons dont you? And that is reasonable even though box cutters are not banned right?
5. yes, but we are talking about scope here. Just because there will be violence in human nature, does not mean we should give up and magnify its impact. And no, we dont ban fertilizer just as we dont ban gun powder, but we DO regulate the crap out of it and band fertilizer bombs, just as we should regulate the crap out of gun powder and band guns. Pretty good comparison, thanks.
 
+Chris Caldwell
Your use of extreme wording is telling.

The source of all violence is crazy people?

You reposted my entire post. Did you read it first? Where did I make that assertion?

How many guns would it have taken to stop 911?

One on each plane in the hands of a trained individual would most likely have been sufficient against box cutters. But we'll never know for sure will we? It wasn't there as an option.

And what led the perpetrators of that atrocity to believe that they could take over an airplane full of people with nothing more than box cutters anyway? The knowledge that nobody on board would be armed. That's what. It's highly unlikely that they would even have attempted such a thing had they expected there to be even one armed, trained individual ready to take action against them.

But you missed the point completely. Which was...

A. That there are many in the world who's main goal is to kill anyone they feel needs it. And not just tyrannical governments.

And B. The Constitution gives us the right to defend ourselves from such threats (not just tyrannical government) via the 2nd amendment.

And C. An attack of the magnitude of the one on 911 could render we as citizens separated from the protection of our government.

A legitimate reason in of itself to have the means to protect ourselves... From whatever the aftermath of such an event might bring.

And to say that addressing the mental health issue is not feasible due to cost or difficulty is a ridiculous argument.

So ban guns?

That's akin to losing an earring in the bathroom but looking for it in the kitchen because the lighting is better.

Stable, law abiding citizens with guns has nothing to do with the problem.

Therefore restrictions on stable, law abiding citizens can't logically be the solution. 
 
+Chad Hernandez. Believing western democracies are stable and resilient enough not to fall isn't arrogant to be honest. I think the centre of civilisation will hold. I do take your point that if everyone is armed it's difficult to be the unarmed guy. As for armed militias to protect against the state, I can easily think of several pro state militias which seem to write the rule book on savagery and cruelty in the right circumstances. Of course people have a right to defence, but collectively agreeing to more or less totally give up personal guns does work, and is working well in most of the western world. 
 
+Chris Caldwell
And you'd rather see a knife fight break out than a gun fight?

How about triple the number of knife fights breaking out?

How about triple the number of rapes occurring?

Or triple the number of wife beatings?

The violent crime rate per 1000 citizens in the UK is triple that of the US. They're number one in the world in that category. Australia is a close second.

No thanks.

These facts render your assertion that disarmament limits the destruction caused by human nature invalid.

They also serve as the evidence you requested concerning exercises in futility.

Need more. Look to Chicago and it's homicide rates, despite it's being a "gun free zone".

And your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is extremely flawed.

The Declaration decrees that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, of which are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The 2nd amendment allows for the means to protect those rights from whomever would infringe upon them. To assert that the founders meant that only to include the government while not allowing us to defend those rights against anyone or anything else is ridiculous and either an insult to the intelligence of the framers or a complete misunderstanding of their goal. 
 
Depends on what your definition of working well is +Sean Montague


Again I point to places like Chicago. Or globally, the UK and Australia.

Triple the violent crime rate doesn't equate to gun bans "working well" in my opinion.

And to restate my point...

The arrogance lies in presuming to know for sure that certain circumstances will never occur as well as exactly what we as citizens will or won't need in any given situation to protect ourselves.

Your statement is accurate though. We agree. It's hard being the unarmed guy when everyone else is armed. I would take it a step further and say that in many situations it could be detrimental.

The reality is that man has been fashioning weapons since the dawn of humanity.

This being fact, disarmament is a futile endeavor. There will always be weapons and those who would put them to evil use. And so those with the least efficient means of protecting themselves will always be at a disadvantage. 
 
+Chad Hernandez
Your lack of reading skills is telling. I didnt say "The source of all violence is crazy people", I opposed that statement with "Im also not convinced (as theres no facts backing this argument) that crazy people are the source of all violence. Perhaps the headliners, but violence is in our nature"
 
+Chris Caldwell Your opposition is based on false premises Chris. I challenged you to show where I made that assertion. A challenge that was ignored.

What I stated was that arguably all of the mass shootings in American history were perpetrated by mentally ill individuals.

You can look at those perpetrators and what we now know about them if you want evidence... 
 
+Chad Hernandez
while I congratulate you on being the first person to offer any morsel of fact whatsoever in support of civilian owned guns (Brittan's violent crime rate per capita being triple ours) you should consider that over 65% of the violent crimes reported in the UK were in categories NOT considered violent crimes in the US. Further, with the murder rate so much higher here, I really cant say that I'm convinced arming people has REDUCED crime. The discrepancy becomes well within the margin to where it couple be contributed to political, social, or any number of other factors, yet the remaining 3x drop in murder is not. Further, even if you could draw a direct and clean correlation between banning civilian guns and a raise in violent crimes but drop in murder, I propose that it is worth trading non-fatal violent crimes for fatal ones. Frankly yes, I would gladly take in increase, even double, in the number of non fatal knife fights to a 60% reduction in murder. If for no other reason than no innocent person has ever died from a stray knife in a drive by knifing.

Further, detouring violent crimes by maintaining an atmosphere of fear is not ideal. While that may have been necessary  long ago when violent crimes and murder were relatively common place, I just dont think it is a worthwhile bargain today. I would guess the number of times a gangbanger decided NOT to plaster a neighborhood with bullets because some non-gang-member may have a gun is somewhere around 0.

"The Declaration decrees that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, of which are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." As you say, this is the declaration, and the 2nd amendment did NOT amend it. Regardless, are you including gun ownership as a 'happyness' you wish to pursue? The right to life does not guarantee unlimited armament, nor does the right to bare arms. While unspecific, it is not open ended.

"The 2nd amendment allows for the means to protect those rights from whomever would infringe upon them." - actually, it only specifies protecting yourself from your government, and protecting your government from others. it is NOT the right to bare arms against your fellow citizens. While we do uphold your right to defend yourself, that is not any more of a blank check than your right to arm yourself against your government.

"...insult to the intelligence of the framers or a complete misunderstanding of their goal." - its actually accurate, please read this clearly:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Please point out the phrase which alludes to the joys of a society rendered crime free by the pervasive fear of hidden extreme firepower hidden behind every door.

What you are looking for is validation of vigilantism, which is expressly condemned throughout our legal system.
 
+Chris Caldwell
That's very big of you. To be willing to accept a 300 percent increase in crimes like rape as a trade off for less fatal crime. I know you used the example of knifings, and we both know why. But violent crime is violent crime. And rape is a violent crime in any country.

The Declaration decrees our right to life.

The second ammendment gives us the means to protect that right.

It's really much simpler than what you're trying to make it.

You're attempting to muddle the issues...

Like the definitions of vigilantism and self defense for another example.

The question is why you feel the need to employ such tactics. 
 
in my opinion every man woman and child over 14 should be armed
 
+Chad Hernandez. Google homicides rates per country. The UK and Australia really aren't that bad, unfortunately the USA is by some distance the country in the "western" world with the highest homicide rate. +Chris Caldwell. Reputation is actually important I think. I come from a country with a remarkable ability to damage it's reputation and its very embarrassing. Some lunatic county counsellor s actually suggested relaxing drink driving laws because old rural dwellers were depressed and isolated. The fact that the same people who made the suggestion were pub owners makes it even more farcical. That s as crazy as the guns don't kill people, people do mentality. The bbc got hold of the story and their sides are sore laughing. I love crazy, I m ashamed to admit but don't let crazy and guns mix, or Guinness and windy roads. Some people are cracked, that why the law has to be fairly strict. 
 
+Sean Montague
Again, you need to look at the bigger picture. The two countries that have done the most to disarm their citizens are numbers one and two in the world when it comes to overall violent crime.

Just like Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, yet it's violent crime rate is off the charts. And homicide specifically in their case.

And if you want to cross reference gun ownership with homicide rates you have to look again at the big picture.


The rate of private gun ownership per 100 people in the United States is currently 88.82....

In the United Kingdom it's 6.72
In Canada 23.8
In Switzerland 45.7
In Mexico is 15.02

The annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population...

United States 4.96
United Kingdom 1.2
Canada 1.8
Switzerland 0.70
Mexico 21.5

The annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population...

United States 2.98
United Kingdom 0.03
Canada 0.50
Switzerland 0.52
Mexico 10.0

If homicide rates (and more specifically, firearm homicide rates) correlated with firearm ownership rates, then Mexico’s firearm homicide rate should only be about twice that of the UK’s, not 10 times higher. And it should be far lower than the United States.

And Switzerland’s firearm homicide rate should be significantly higher than it is, with their high rates of firearm ownership. And their overall homicide rate certainly shouldn’t be lower than the UK’s.

When you get into comparison from country to country the numbers are all over the board.

What does this show? That gun ownership in of itself isn't the problem.

There are morality issues and mental health issues as well as social and economic issues all at play here.

To single out responsible, stable, law abiding citizens to place bans and other restrictions on in order to fix the problems that the government claims these measures will fix is a nonsensical approach.

On top of that the facts show over and over again that this approach does not work. 
 
+Chad Hernandez
"The Declaration decrees our right to life." -but doesnt specify a life swimming in ammo, nor does it say you have the right to bare arms AGAINST A CITIZEN.

"The second amendment gives us the means to protect that right." -in so far as you have the right to acquire and take up arms reasonably necessary to defend your country, yes. That last part is the one in question here, or totally disregarded as your case may be.

"You're attempting to muddle the issues..." -by quoting the 2nd amendment to you, your muddled?

"Like the definitions of vigilantism and self defense for another example." - OK, here's your chance. You are supporting a society where crime is detoured by a constant and pervasive fear that lurking behind any door could be massive and unreasonable firepower, owned by people who feel they have absolute right to use it under whichever various interpretation they wish to believe, and with unknown mental and emotional faculties. Please, tell me, what term would you use for this?

"such tactics" are more commonly referred to as facts and quotes.

I see in this last post you decided to actually find a few, which is a step in the right direction. Now we need to work on how you read into them.

"When you get into comparison from country to country the numbers are all over the board." Of course, as there are TONS more at play here than simply how many guns exist. You cant simply compare all countries based solely on homicide rate vs gun ownership and expect a 1:1 result. Mexico, for instance, is a very poor country, and would simply have a hard time arming all of its civilians, which would account for a lower ownership rate. On the flip side, the high gun-related homicide rates could easily be attributed to, oh I dont know, the very well armed drug cartels, notoriously corrupt law enforcement, etc which arent present in the UK. If your going to compare countries and hope to draw any reasonable conclusions youll have to use countries more similar than that.

"What does this show? That gun ownership in of itself isn't the problem." - it shows that good discussions can be made pointless by trolls either ignoring facts or putting together meaningless comparisons and drawing outlandish conclusions.

on one more note, Id really like to understand how the logic works that says we are safer if everyone has a gun so we should not disarm, but it stops there, were not safer if everyone has an assault rifle, or a bomb, or .....  Why is the gun necessary, but the limit?
 
+Chris Caldwell
Quoting the 2nd amendment?

I don't know what Constitution you're reading. In the version we live under concerning the people it simply states...

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The end.

Nothing about "AGAINST A CITIZEN"

Nothing about "in so far as you have the right to acquire and take up arms reasonably necessary to defend your country"

The founders kept it quite simple.

Guns as a deterrent?

Yup. Works for me.

Your extreme language aside.

As previously stated. There is no shortage of regulations pertaining to gun ownership. Your extreme scenario is an invalid distortion presented in attempts to strengthen an otherwise weak position.

We do agree on the complexity of the issue of violence.

We differ in that you support a nonsensical solution.

You have yet to explain how bans and restrictions directed at those stable, law abiding citizens addresses the problem of lawless and or mentally ill individuals committing violent crime.

Mexico is yet another perfect example of how things turn out when the criminal element is heavily armed while the law abiding citizens on the other hand are unarmed.

Again. No thanks.

Trolls?

Name calling. Another typical tactic of those who share your ideology when they are confronted with fact.

Bombs are indiscriminate.

You seriously can't distinguish between that and the precision instrument a finely tuned 223 is in the trained hand? Or a 308? That's why they are the chosen tools of many who are in the business of professional defense.



 
+Chad Hernandez. A good argument and I will grant you banning guns in isolation will not solve the problem. I can understand where you are coming from better after discussing this with you. None the less you will have to figure out systems to prevent the profile of person who shoots up schools or cinemas from having such easy access to heavy weapons. How to do this ?? 
 
+Sean Montague
That's a complex question with no easy answer Sean.

I think one thing that is preventing us from finding real solutions though is agendas.

The prevalent factions in American are so wrapped up in their own ideological agendas that it's preventing honest discussion about the real issues from even taking place.

Take for example part of the question as you posed it. I assume you were referring, at least in part, to the latest tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary school when you specified schools being shot up by heavy weapons.

The shooter in that case used two hand guns.

Obviously I'm not suggesting that you are intentionally misrepresenting the facts. You seem like a level headed individual who is honestly seeking answers.

My point is that your perception is that heavy weaponry was used, and that perception comes from the way one faction has covered this tragedy.

They've managed to make this all about banning "assault weapons" (the AR 15 is the one mentioned specifically the most) when that type of weapon wasn't even used in that particular case.

Motivation?

Agenda.

I've said it before. This seems to be more of a mental health issue than anything else. The shooter at Sandy Hook was known by almost everyone who had any contact with him to be mentally unstable.... As was the case in Aurora, and Virginia Tech and Columbine.

In all of these cases the perpetrators weren't simply evil individuals with malicious intentions, like Timothy McVeigh or the extremists that launched the attacks on 911.

They were all unstable individuals that displayed at least some, if not all the warning signs, but nobody payed attention or did anything about it.

Why?

The identification was at least partially there. Why wasn't there any follow up on that? Why were they not more effectively treated, or treated at all? How did they fall through the mental health care cracks?

Where's the debate concerning these questions?

Nowhere.

What's the big debate that has come of all this?

Ban guns.

Where's the discussion about how we can identify these troubled individuals earlier and get them the help they need before they go out and steal a gun, or any other weapon... or a car or a hammer for that matter... and use it to harm others... Or themselves.

We have talk about arming or not arming our teachers.

Where's the talk about the possibility of more training for our teachers in the identification of kids who may have mental health problems? And once they're identified, how about we focus on more efficient ways of getting them treatment and the monitoring of progress... or lack thereof?

We just had a huge, heated nation wide debate about health care. Mental health was barely mentioned at all.

What was?

Forcing religious institutions and the tax payer to fund abortions and contraception...

Another ideological agenda based debate.

That's what was (and still is) on the forefront of that discussion.

I think in order to address any problem, the source first needs to be pinpointed.

If we can't have an honest dialog with that being the sincere motivation, rather than the pushing of agenda, then we're going to be doomed to failure where addressing the real issues is concerned.




 
First of all, the MENTAL HEALTH part of this won't work.  Dealing with the mind, is as tough as it gets.  We pretty well have our thumb print, on anyother part of the body, except the human mind, whose research goes back to ancient Eygpt.  And it's far from easy for anyone  in Mental Health to single out anyone and state that they cannot own firearms.  How, on earth, can you possibly enforce that.  For that to be enforced would open, one very big, 'PANDORA'S BOX', and next to be looked at might be anyone, who not only may have a criminal record, but anyone who has a background of violence.  All of this would be the beginning of the end for owning any firearms, and our freedom of speech.   I come from a Law Enforcement background, and assault type weapons should be in the hands of Law Enforcement and the Military, and don't give me that stuff about, [TARGET PRACTICE]....however.....if any person(s) wanted to shoot up a school, place of worship, business, etc., and couldn't obtain assault weapons, they would use any [EFFECTIVE] fire power availble and that includes any devices.  Don't forget that the Aurora CO shooter, used tear gas.
 
+john melchiorre
If you pinpointed the problem, and if the problem was in large part due to mentally ill individuals not being cared for sufficiently and so they ended up time after time committing violent crime, it would be ridiculous to just throw our hands up in the air and say that that issue is just to tough to tackle.... So let's just do something that has produced no evidence of ever working.

And I don't recall proposing that anyone be singled out for anything other than proper treatment.

We have enough regulation as far as gun ownership goes already. That's been my position all along.

Target practice? I do it for fun. Sure. But more importantly I do it so that if the time ever comes, I'll be proficient in the use of my weapon.

We agree that if someone wants to harm others, they'll figure out how to most effectively do it.

As I pointed out, on 911 box cutters were effective enough to take over aircrafts full of people.

It shouldn't have been that easy.

But that's what happens when the criminal element has the more effective weaponry.

Which is why I'll be keeping my AR.


 
Chad, my comment on Mental Health was only one part of this problem. NO! I am not throwing up my hands, far from it.  You mentioned,"....not being cared for sufficiently....".  There are numerous professionals in this field who would totally agree with you, but are still trying to find out answers to some age old questions, e.g., "Why are these killers whether mass and/or serial, for the most part are white males.  Chad, I was at ground zero on 911.  Those box cutters were 'EFFICIENT', that one time, because it happened on a plane, at 30,000 feet, where there isn't a place to run and hide from two of the most age old weapons used and known by man:  fear and panic. However on that same day, we should never forget what happened aboard  UNITED FLIGHT 93, where the terrorists used a bomb, which was found out to be a wad of clay, with two wires attached to it and a battery.  On that day those brave, self-sacrificing passengers, took the terrorists weapons of fear and panic, and turned it against them.  One of the passengers was on the plane phone, talking to his wife, explaining what was happening, and what the passengers plan of action would be.  The last thing she heard her husband say to the other passengers was, ''LET'S ROLL''.  The best self sacrificing bravery I've ever seen in the Military and in Law Enforcement, is where they gave their last full measure of devotion was given, by putting themselves in harms way, to save others, and were NOT using any weapons in doing so.  When it comes to THAT MOMENT OF TRUTH, to lay it all down to save lives, what will you and all those others do at THAT ONE MOMENT
  A truely brave person will put him/herself LAST.  But  for the most part, most of us will put ourselves first, while hiding behind our weapons, and retreating.    The bravery and self-sacrifice that was seen at ground zero, can only be told as 'UNEXPALINABLE'.   My message to you and others would be, to keep yourselves FIRST, save the LAST bullet for you. 
 
My PTSD won't let me forget....BUT...I'm making it my life long duty to make sure, that generations to come, won't forget either.   Chad remarked that the flight where box cutters were used, shouldn't have been that easy to control by those terrorists.  Remember that, the next time you go through an airport's TSA screening area.  Everytime I do, I thank them for making the skies safer for my grandchildren, and for you guys.  I just read a comment that said,"GUN CONTROL = HITTING THE TARGET''.  Those targets you practice on, have this nasty habit of turning you into a target, and fire back.  It's the fire back part, that most of you can't possibly comprehend.  Let the survivors  and families of those who didn't, in Columbine, Aurora and Connecticut, know that GUN CONTROL WAS AT WORK THERE.
 
They indeed were tragic but NOT isolated. GUN CONTROL NOW.
 
I've been reading some of the 398 comments, that came with this cartoon.  Guys, stay focused and concentrate on EXACTLY what's going on - - -['HERE' ---- 'HERE']  not Pakistan or Jerusalem or Africa or Syria, because people, especially children are being killed there with the same assault rifles, that kill here.  The reason why the U.S. is getting so much attention because ofd these killings here, is not becacuse of the weapons used, but because the U.S. tries to come off as this ['SAFE PLACE'] to live and work, and for the most part it is,....BUT....that is slowly becoming a fairy tale.  You can count on 3 things that will not occur in this world, PEACE and CURES FOR CANCER AND RACISM/BIGOTRY.  This world has never had total peace, and never will.  Cancer and Racism are part of our human fabric, and can never be cured.  So if you're looking outside of our country/outside of us, for 'THE CURES TO OUR ILLS', then I'd advise you to hop onto the next commercial space shuttle, and, ''Head for the 3rd star on the right, and straight on 'til morning''.
 
+Emma Alberts Whilst it is not very nice to call people who horde guns for the sake of defending themselves, it may be a tad crazy to believe that said guns will ever be able to hold the federal government at bay seeing as how the it is stronger than the individual, or even groups of individuals. In other words, if they wanted to make you subjects to their "tyranny", they could. In any case, it's not like owning guns somehow represses some urge to tyrannize people.

Secondly, all amendments can be added to as well as nullified, although it would have to happen over a long period of time, and more or less everyone in the country would have to agree on how the amendment should be added to or nullified. In other words, amendments are not absolute, nor have they ever been (think of the historical fact that "every man's right to vote" only applied to rich white men). Clinging to an amendment for sake of clinging to it is redundant and illogical.

Thirdly, every democracy builds on the idea that laws constitute what's right and wrong, which is in fundamental contrast to the idea that 'might makes right'. Therefore, if we think of the authority that guns constitute as type of ultimate 'might' (since guns kill people), arguing that your right depends on your might indicates a deep distrust in democracy. 

To summarize: 1) the armed forces of the federal state will always be stronger than that of civilians, 2) amendments can be changed, and have been changed throughout history, 3) the power that guns bring with them is not a democratic force.

Ps. if you have in any way been personally offended or otherwise taken offense from this response, I would like to apologize, seeing as how my intent was not to argue against your person but rather your arguments. Ds. 

Peace.
 
Olle, we Americans talk a good game, but we don't read the play book.  We talk about our Constitutional Rights, but have not read those Ammendments, ever, in their entirety as to fully understand their content, and how it effects our existence as Americans.  We've become so fat, lazy, compromising and consumeristic, that we make the Ancient Roman way of life, look like a glorified yard sale.  Back in the days of Colonial British rule, we were forbidden to bare arms, because we were told that whatever the situation, the British Army could handle it.....HOWEVER......when the colonial settlers ventured further out, it became difficult for the British Army, to be everywhere.  Our Colonists were subject to hostile actions by the Indians, robbers, and the like.  The Colonists formed ARMED MILITIAS to protect themselves.  It was a defensive action, but even under these conditions, the British said, 'DISARM'.  Well.....this became one of the main factors that put us on the road to The Colonial War, and during the settlement expansion that followed, those armed Militias became Law Officers, to enforce Laws set down by the States and Federal government.    We are slowly reverting back to those days of the armed militias.  We fool ourselves by saying that this too is a defensive action against that TYRANNICAL DAY of us against our own government.  What we totally enable ourselves to, is that when that kind of day happens, we will be shooting at each other, and then the government will step in, and totally disarm us, for the sake of peace.  There are two quotes that fit in here.  One is from Wm. Shakespeare, ''WHAT FOOLS WE MORTALS BE''.  The next is from the comic strip Doonesbury, ''WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND THEY IS US.''    JOSAI WILLIAMS and others like you, let's keep the two word facebook answers out of this, and show us the expanse of your intellects.
 
+john melchiorre , I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on the point you made with those quotes. Claiming to be intellectually superior is not in itself not the mark of intellectually superiority. 

+Emma Alberts , that is good, although it doesn't change anything, other than the assertion that John made (that people don't read). 
 
+Brian Glassman Look at the statistic, There are more deaths due to Drunk driving, baseball bats, and hammers than guns but there isn't any rush to ban them. 
 
There's no doubt that you have, Emma, and I sincerely thank you for that.  Look guys, our Constitution is a very old document, and there are some parts of it that need to be changed, like the part that states that the President, must be born in the U.S.  There are many who have held, and still hold elective office, that were not born in the U.S.  The problem, Emma, is that over the centuries, we have made these changes, to suit our ['CAUSES'], and that is why were in this mess over Ammendments like Freedom of Speech - Baring Arms - Seperation of Church & State, and the catalyst for this mess, is our elective officials who saw a way to make these changes, by championing these causes.  That's why, now more than ever, we all must read this document and fully understand its content, which includes some very old entries, that need to be changed.    Olle, I was born and raised in the State of Pennsylvania, in the Italian section of the City of Philadelphia, where intellectual superiority meant how you were going to strike out the next batter.   I am deeply saddened and concerned by our citizenry who rarely stand firm with boldness and courage to test, question and challenge, or else the first three words of our Constitution would read, 'We The Government' instead of ''WE THE PEOPLE''.   We are so very fearful of being confrontational, on any level, as to be concerned about hurting someone's feelings or falling into disfavor and non-acceptance.  What a bunch of namby-pamby, spoiled brat, self-centered, whining, complacent children we've become, so much so that we all to soon forget that no matter how old our Constitution may be, it has always been forged with the blood of those, as Pres. Lincoln once said, "WHO GAVE THEIR LAST FULL MEASURE OF DEVOTION", and still are, whether it be on the streets of Philadelphia or the streets of Koble.  If we check our history books, we will see that we Americans, once upon a time, 'HAD' the back bone, balls, guts and determination to work within the frame work of our Constitution, as it was written.  Now that frame work is being eaten away by our own ignorance and complacency. 
 
Brian, get your head out of the ground.  I am not advocating the ban of firearms, but it's the firearm deaths that get publicized.  It's not drunk drivers that use their cars to commit robberies and rapes.  Our citizens are not being taken down by high velocity baseball bats, and hammers are not being stock piled.   A car, baseball bat, and a hammer, are used up close.   Most hand guns can kill from at least 25 yds. and RIFLE type firearms can kill at 500 yds.  I am "DEADLY" serious about this.  I believe that there will be as much new legislation that will come out of the Newtown shootings, as did with Columbine and Aurora.  The pro-gun lobby has deep pockets, but not to worry, Brian.  Their lobby will not have any effect on the sales of assault cars, semi-automatic baseball bats, and the magazine fed hammers.
 
Pragmatism. Ideas, old documents written in the 1770 s, history and notions are all very nice, but not as important as real live people especially children. I am not really entirely convinced on the personal security argument although that's the pro gun argument which makes most sense. The lets fight the government argument is quite cracked, the slight problem of them having the most powerful army the world has ever seen can't be overlooked. I think ultimately you ll have to do what the rest of the world does and tighten up the gun laws. 
 
The Constitution is an old document, yes.

But the principles under which it was written are timeless.

The founders knew that we all have the natural right to defend ourselves.

That hasn't changed.

And because the tyranny of government may have been fresh on their minds at the time that the Constitution was written means very little.

We have the right to defend ourselves. Period.

And the need will always be there.

It was stated and is true that the government figured out that it couldn't be there for everyone all the time. And so it decreed that the right of the citizens to bear arms, shall not be infringed upon.

Again... Nothing has changed.

The government still can't be everywhere for everyone.

If they could Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened. Nor 911, or any of the thousands of rapes and muggings and assaults that happen every day.

When the government can guarantee everyone's safety all the time then they can legitimately say there is no longer a need for us to be able to protect ourselves.

Until then they have no right to inhibit our ability to do so. .. 
 
I am listening. We got a Garda (Irish police) shot dead this weekend, it must be over a decade since that last happened. I do have to admit we have got too soft here on crime. This was in an isolated area in an armed robbery, the majority of our cops don't carry guns routinely. I also have to admit the bad guys all have guns. Best wishes Chad. 
 
OH REALLY!  [RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS]  In my Law Enforcement experience, I can say this.  Step back from the deaths by Assault Rifles, and "LOOK" at the entire picture, and you would see that there are many more deaths by firearms, being committed by [RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS] e.g., fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, everyday, and the most tragic of all is when we hear that those who were gunned down, were done in the name of God.  All done by hard working, God fearing, tax paying [RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS].  You young men and women, have absolutely no idea, that it doesn't have to be someone with an assault rifle with  30 round magazines, blasting away at.........to be tragic.   Sometimes all it would take, is a six shot revolver in the hand of someone, who wants to end the suffering of and/or the punishment for those who encroached on his/her ironclad beliefs.   Whether the weapon holds 6 or 60 rounds, it's always that one bullet.   ALL OF YOU WHO OWN FIREARMS, KNOW THIS;  Those who want to protect the internal security of their homes and families, won't need to be stock piling firearms.  BUT.....for those who think that at any minute, they will be at war with their own gov't for what ever reason, and who stock pile firearms, REMEMBER THIS, that unless you've been in Military Fire Fights, all that "PRACTICE' you had on the 'FIREARMS RANGES', and all that role playing that you did, wearing fatigues, running through water, trees, bushes, vacant houses, camping out in the rough, DON'T MEAN A FLYING BALL OF CRAP, until you realize two things:  (1)  Someone is using their stock piled weapons to kill you, with 30 rounds at a time from their 30 round magazines, cutting people around you to shreds. (2) Someone tracking you down, unmercifully, like a deer, to end your life.   Those 'SOMEONES' will NOT be from our own Military, but will be [RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS] who had their iron clad beliefs encroached on.   That's when the Military will be there, to clean up, and take away all our weapons.   I always liked that quote from the comic strip, 'Doonesbury', ''WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY, AND THEY IS US''.
 
+Richard Learn. Sensible comment. You guys have guns at home really tough prisons and the death penalty in quite a few states. In Europe the approach is different, but the reality is its safer here. The hard facts seem to support strict gun control. You would be experienced enough to use a gun sensibly in a crisis I very very much doubt the average person would. I can't really understand the massive reluctance to take a collective decision it's alright to have rules in societies. You're right about the militia arguments though they re far fetched. 
 
You've seen this through your experience in the Military, during your tours of duty.  I've seen it through my years in Law Enforcement, meaning that everything I said, 'I SAW'.  Your were trained as a professional, with all the support mechanisms in place.  I talking about an element, that has the fire power, and get their experience as OJT.  Richard, I'm not trying to say that my dog is bigger and badder than yours.  I'm a 4 yr. NAVY VETERAN, who served aboard the carrier, USS GUADALCANAL LPH-7.  Our ops pretty well kept a lid on the Cuban Missle Crisis, with Vietnam warming up, and we teamed up with NATO Forces, from time to time.  I base the actions I stated, from the only true reliable source; THE BIBLE.  If you won't look at it as a Holy Book, then look at it from a Military view point.  Their will be a time of great unrest, where countries and nations, will rise up against each other, and where family members, NO MATTER WHO, will rise up and betray family members, which means that we responsible citizens, will be waring against each other, and all this will not be centered on terrorists and/or criminal activities, and please.....don't lump these Bible readings in with Nostradomis, dooms day advocates, and these so called '
 
......false faith based' predictions of these GLOOM and DOOM 'SNAKE OIL SALESMEN', who uses GOD'S name as if HE was a bar room buddy, a business contact, a personal friend.  Above all else Richard, I say to you, ''WELCOME HOME, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, AND I THANK GOD FOR BLESSING US WITH THE ONLY TRUE PATRIOTS, OUR 'V-E-T-S'. 
 
A KINDER GENTLER DRONE - When someone who is born, lived, worked and were educated here, then leaves the country, to pursue a quest of killing all Americans, and to enslave the U.S., then I say that these guys need to be ['DRONED'].  And for you weak stomached 'HUMANITARIANS' out there, with selective short memories, how about the many AMERICAN LIVES that are not only being saved in our Military, but for those of us who are global commuters.  I onced asked a VET why he did 4 tours of duty in Iraq/Afganistan, he said," it's like a cancer there", and like a malignant grow, it should be surgically removed.  Hmmm!   Never heard of a tumor being debated out of someone's body.  I was at ground zero on 911, and I saw the end result of debates, dialouge and discussion (D3), and that's what's being called for, in putting out a D3 to these godzillas.  In the classic movie, 'Easy Rider', Dennis Hopper's character spoke a line in reference to the world conditions of over 40 yrs.ago, ''....THE WHOLE WORLD HAS TURNED CHICKEN''. 
 
Sylvie.  When Narcissus looked into the pool, he should have concentrated more on the reflection of his intellect.  It might have saved him from his ill fated flight.  When you look into that same pool, Sylvie, what is it that's reflected.  What Narcissus saw or what he didn't see.  Be careful Sylvie that what you see doesn't cause you to crash and burn.  Get back to watching Sesame Street.
 
Who is this and what Is ponos actually don't tell me and how do you know me

Sent from my iPad
 
Yes can't we all get along.war frigtens kids. And yess it scares me to I'm 13. Its like why war?? And then one day a kiid is like " my daddy is in the war. Is he gonna die. What if america loses.we all die" and I'm like omg see look. What war got kids thinking.. so please like my comment and share it to stoop war and get along.let us live as if we were ALL brothers and sisters. Thanks a lot to the people who took the TIME to readthis :)
Add a comment...