Yes of course folks! BLAME THE NRA!!! HOT DAMN THEY KILLED SOME MORE!!!. Bastards put that damn guy behind the gun HOWEVER it's only for looks the man is innocent, the NRA is the real cause of these peoples deaths, lets get the man behind the gun who pulled the trigger some help and rehabilitation because lord knows it wasn't really him.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Some of you will never see past your cowardly ways. Thats fine if you want to be unarmed, it's your right and choice. But to tell me I should be unarmed is absurd. You read a story of someone else killing someone with a gun and you choose to make every gun owner apart of that crime. You blame every gun owner as being apart of that crime because they/we support the right to bare arms. Anytime someone is stabbed, everyone who owns a knife is part of that crime for the fact we all carry and own knives. Cowards. People never fail to amaze me!.

But, but, the NRA supports laws that limit access to firearms for deranged people and criminals. They support background checks for all firearm sales including personal and gun show sales. Don't they...

Hmm we do not have stand your ground in California so you are wrong Sean and your hate shows by calling a fellow American who lives in Texas (Texass) I mean really wtf how rude can you be.

I marked your rant as inflammatory and /ignore

Your mother or father should have taught you at a young age if you do not have something nice to say don't say it.

Viners should stand up to @!$%# talking like this and put it down for what it is.

Texas Jokes don't bother me haha. You can like my argument or not, free will and your right to do so. I made a valid point. Some people just can't see throught their own idiocy. You know what they say don't you? When you argue with a fool it only proves theres two.

Also I have said it on many a post... When you successfully disarm every bad guy and thug in America, where they have no ability to get ahold of another, then and only then will I step up with my weapons in hand and give them to you. Until that day, my home and loved ones will stay protected from those who wish to do harm to them. I have never nor do I ever wish or hope to use them for anything other then target practice.

Have a good night Sean. Texass out!.

@Sean

What a ridiculous argument, TexassLaw. First, you're implying that everyone who encounters you wants to use force.

Wow... did you read TexasLaw's comment? Let me refresh your memory:

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. ...

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction ...

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

So your first statement, right out of the gate Sean, is clearly false. This is probably why your comment was collapsed.

Your second statement is logically flawed, which stems from your inability to read the comment correctly, as your first statement made abundantly clear. He is not forcing "others to [his] will," as you claim-- he's removing others' ability to use force upon him-- there's a world of difference.

Your third statement is almost sound-- except that stand your ground laws are NOT unconstitutional. The supreme court has declared, several times, that your right to self defense is constitutionally guaranteed. You might also ponder the fact that when the constitution was drafted, that armed duels were also legal, so to suggest that laws that allow oneself to defend themselves from an attacker with a firearm or other weapon is "unconstitutional" is simply absurd.

Your fourth statement reveals your poor reading comprehension once again. Let me refresh your memory of what TexasLaw said:

Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker If both are armed, the field is level.

What this says is that it the gun is "the great equalizer" allowing weaker, targeted victims the ability to defend themselves from aggressors of greater size, strength or numbers. Prior to the advent of firearms, the world was very much a "might makes right" kind of world-- think Knights vs peasants.

Your fifth proposition is absurd. Every law enforcement agency on the planet has firearms for defensive purposes. Go ahead, ask your local PD why the cops carry guns. They'll tell you that it is to defend the lives of their officers and the lives of the citizenry against the criminal element. I mean, the FBI even keeps records on "defensive use of firearms" year to year-- are you really that daft?

Your final tirade was nothing but an elongated personal attack. It's really not worth mentioning, but what the hell...

"NRA ilk" being cowards: a large demographic of NRA members are retired and active duty military that saw combat. I don't think they'd appreciate being called cowards. Ditto the large number of law enforcement agents, both active and retired. Oh, and don't forget the US Olympic Rifle Team.

Carrying a gun to not be afraid makes people weak: this is absurd. A firearm is a tool that can and does save lives. I'll post a link that shows you just how often (hint: it's more often than crimes are committed with firearms).

You being a superhero: lol... only if superheroes have gotten into the habit of whining like children when an opposing view is presented.

People with guns are afraid of you and people like you: not even remotely. This, once again, is your reading comprehension issue-- TexasLaw said people looking to use force against him will have an unpleasant time of it-- he never said he was afraid of griping, whining internet tuff guys, you inferred that somehow... and it's the how that doesn't make sense...

Come and get you: (sigh) you really missed the mark here, Sean. I mean, really. A big ol' swing and a miss. Strike! You're out of here...

Gun Control Statistics: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Of note:

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

So, 8% of crimes are committed with firearms-- that's 436,000 a year, roughly. Yet, between 989,883 - 1,029,615 times per year people use firearms to STOP, DETER or otherwise PREVENT crime, that's more than DOUBLE the amount of violent crime that is actually committed with firearms... so, you want to rethink that whole diatribe about guns having some inability to be used defensively, eh Sean?

@Affinity: FBI crime statistics have shown that violent crime is dropping across the board, with 2009 being the lowest per-capita murder year in 45 years. Your sensationalism is ill-informed. Ironically, gun sales have been steadily increasing during the entire crime drop, which has been occurring since 1994. The one thing that has changed? Media coverage of violent crimes has increased over 500% in the same time frame-- so even though violent crimes are actually less prevalent, more people are aware of them-- this is compounded by social media. But to sit there and blame the NRA and blame guns generally is asinine-- if the guns were the problem, as you apparently contend, then the crime rates should have increased in lock-step with gun sales, when the exact opposite occurred.

You sound like you have a serious chip on your shoulder there Sean. I agree gun owners should be responsible for their actions.. Just as non owners should be as well. With or without a gun people should be responsible for themselves. Too bad that is not always the case.

I don't NEED a gun to walk any neighborhood Mr tough guy but there are also neighborhoods I will avoid even with a gun. That is part of being responsible for myself by not putting myself in a situation I should know to avoid. That doesn't mean trouble won't find it your or my way.

I don't walk through life fearing much but you seem to be afraid that someone might have a gun and them going off. Why do I get the feeling you are one of those who resist wearing a seatbelt? You might be knocked out and be unable to get out of the car?

Zimmerman is an idiot but the law even protects them. If you live in Florida work to fix that poorly written law. Most other states he would not be protected unless his statement holds up that he was attacked from behind and even then it would be a close call in court.

Is that critical enough for you Sean? Or do you want me to jump on the band wagon to take the law into mob rule? Sorry I don't see myself doing that any time soon.

Haha whining? Well if it helps you sleep better acting like a foolish child sir then by all means do so, wouldn't want you too have a restless nights sleep would we?

See my BIGGEST pet peeve with MOST ( not all ) of you anti-gun people is, you blame the crimes on People who have no will to shoot or hurt anybody, you blame it on the weapons ( Can't remember the last time I seen mine jump up off the table ), it's the NRA, it's everyone who supports the carrying or owning of weapons. But the biggest one of all? Not one time do most of you EVER mention the person behind the gun, the one who had to pull the trigger, the one who took it upon themself to hurt another human being... You always fail to place blame where it RIGHTFULLY belongs, instead you go on placing blame on people who had nothing to do with any of it. Or an Inanimate object. That is what is childish. You hate guns and crime so much yet you always manage to forget the real person to blame for each crime.

See Sean heres the thing... You're not this " Internet tough guy ", yet you are trying to make yourself seem like this big tough guy by saying you aren't afraid to walk into any neighborhood. Ok tough guy. You are a real character do you know that?.

I have seen many stories of people being stabbed to death... Why no talk of outlawing knives? I mean I can walk into any wal-mart, dollar store... A Kitchen and get a knife so much faster and quicker than any gun. Yet no argument for banning knives? I guess they aren't considered true weapons. Ohh I know I know... Guns are everywhere, they are easily accessable blah blah blah. If you are against deadly weapons... you can't be biased to one particular item, you have to be for ridding the world of them all. No?.
Who is going to protect an innocent person when someone is breaking into their home? The police? They can't show up just like that, and then it may take even longer if someone doesn't have the chance to call. What advice do you have for those innocent people Sean?. What would you tell them to do?. Sit tight, give them whatever they want, don't argue, submit and hope they have JUST enough of a heart to not kill them?.

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." - Plato

''Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.''

Ban handguns.

If you've got your gun, and you're in a tire store, and a man runs in and shoots you in the back, I know how glad you will be that you could have been the one to run around shooting, but were instead the victim for some reason.

Takenaka - You are a terrible troll just to be honest with you.

Hunter - You make no sense at all.

Ha! @ sean-- this is how your defense sounded:

No, I'm right! ME! You're wrong and a coward! Your independently verified resources? Someone made that up because I'm right and they're wrong; the FBI is nothing but a bunch of illiterate cowboys and I can walk into any neighborhood I want and run my mouth without fear of any reprisal because I'm a big boy!

Now... seriously... calm down, drink your milk and go to bed. The adults are talking.

Witnesses said that the shooter looked alot like President Obama....

Just needs an alignment perhaps? He was leaning to the right but now to the left? That or he has more than one loose lug nut.

Sean we can teach safe practices but cannot instill common sense. Look at all the signs telling us there are dangers and to wear our seat belts and yet people still ignore the signs, drive too fast and die stupid deaths due to ACCIDENTS.

As to police officers children... Is it not the ANTI Gun folks that insist we should leave our safety and protection to the police? Do you really want to leave YOUR safety to those who can't even manage safety for their own family?

wow sean you have it ALL figured out. You do REALIZE that deadly accidents involve MORE than cars? Oh you've hear all the arguments before. So you at least identify as Anti Gun? What do you suggest? Disarm the police as well as the rest of us law abiding types so only the law breakers, and perhaps you, have a gun?

When comparing DEATH RATES it is done on a per 100,000 population basis btw. Just check the CDC. Same as crime. We measure ACCIDENT rates in units of time or distance.

Owning a gun is not a fantasy. It is reality. Dreaming of a gun free world is a fantasy.

Ask anyone who plays chess. The best defense is a better offense. Good luck with your Kevlar.

Now somewhere you took offense to something I stated or are you just that angry with the world? I went back just be sure I did not attack you in ANY direct way. I made statements and asked if it wasn't the anti gun crowd who stated let the police provide security. Did that shoot a hole in that theory somehow or did you find that a personal attack? Trust_Verify, TV, or simply quoting my text works.

Owning a gun is not a fantasy. It is reality.

Most people do not own guns. Fewer people own hand guns. Even fewer than that carry hand guns in public.

The American people have spoken, we do not want to carry hand guns in public.

Sean

RE: the CDC, as I said, if you used your guns 1 million minutes, you'd have a higher death rate than with cars, and they wouldn't be accidental.

Define using a gun. If you mean actual firing you might find a way to validate your statement. Using a gun does not always involve firing a shot. Simply having one on your person, especially a police officer, would be using it.

Gunplay isn't a chess match. Get real.

Life is a chess game is an analogy.

If you fall into that category, and you do, I take offense with you and with what you do,

you take offense without even knowing me. You presume I lack responsibility. I presume you mean gun owners are not scrutinized rather than you are scrutinized by gun owners. I guess that varies by state. All states, under federal law, require a background check to make MOST purchases. Some states even require that on private transfer. A smart gun owner makes sure the transfer is tracked in the event the gun is later used for illegal activities. To get a CCW requires another background check, education in gun laws, including responsibilities, and demonstration of proficiency. If you don't like the laws in your state get them changed.

If you don't vote, another responsibility not just a Right, then you have CHOSEN to not speak or make changes.

As to your dismissive peanut gallery comment. Most anti gun people DO see it as black and white. They aren't open to REASONABLE restrictions they want out right bans disguised as restrictions. Granted the Pro gun people want no restrictions. It is too bad we can't find a NATIONAL middle ground. So now there is an effort to make a national law. Looks like a political move if you ask me but it will add plenty of full to the fire in the debate.

The US Constitution replaced the Federalist Papers, they are now null & void & have been since the Constitution took effect

@Jim -- I think he meant to refer to them (and by extension, the Anti-Federalist Papers) to determine the contemporary reasoning for the provisions that were incorporated into the constitution. They basically explain why the constitution was drafted the way it was with arguments from both sides on nearly every issue. He's right that it is not about Europe. The Federalist Papers would help illuminate what the provisions really were all about.

On that note, with reference to the first poster vis a vis the "well regulated militia" -- the militia is a byproduct of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not a prerequisite. This is not an interpretation-- it is a close dissection of the grammar. People often use the parallel: "A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed." This statement obviously doesn't restrict the reading of books to diploma bearing Americans of voting age. In the same way, the 2nd amendment doesn't restrict gun ownership to militia members only. In both instances, the militia or the well-schooled electorate, are by-products of the right mentioned.

Read more about the grammar here:

The Unabridged Second Amendment

Why? This was a burglary or a payback. It could have been anything, what makes you think it's a racial thing?

I think we should offer a large reward for surrendered handguns and restrict the manufacture and sale of new handguns. The militia can use rifles and shotguns.

we know you are a troll takenaka but how would you feel with us walking around with a rifle or shotgun slung across our shoulders?

takenaka is a moron, and so is any body else that thinks banning hand guns or anything else works, if you didnt notice takenaka drugs are banned you idiot

My guns stay with me and that will NOT change.

Until someone else shoots you with their gun of course.

If they get theirs first then case closed. Good luck on that.

what is your context here NC?