Proof that the 2nd Amendment needs to be updated and there needs to be stricter gun control laws. The 2nd Amendment, added in 1791, was originally meant that Americans had the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of having a militia. People have skewed this for hundreds of years to try to justify the sale of dangerous automatic weapons to the masses instead of keeping them solely in the hands of soldiers. A single revolver will do much less damage than a AR or AK type gun. I'm all for people owning guns like a handgun for self-protection in this insane world or hunting rifles, but there need to be better background checks, mental evaluations and long-term training courses administered prior to licensing.

Humanity needs a reboot.

OK, we have "another" lone nut bag out there.

Can someone tell me when we have identified ALL the lone nut bags please? Because, the "one off, lone nut bags" are certainly well armed and are becoming a bi-weekly "rare" occurrences.

The Sikh Temple massacre was with a legally obtained weapon. The Aurora shooting was with a legally obtained weapon. The Tucson shooting was with a legally obtained weapon.

Most murders involving guns are committed with legally obtained weapons. In fact, almost all in-family murders are committed with guns obtained legally for "self defense"

We seem to only need defending ourselves against those who want to as well.

See the problem here?

Adding to the laws won't correct the problem. We have serious problems in the social fabric of this country. Somebody probably observed this individual having problems but did nothing or didn't recognize there was a problem. The Public needs to be aware of what to look for in a disturbed individual and what behaviors are indicative of impending psychological breakdown. Not easy.

@jay,

Good post.

I would add that in the early drafts the Second Amendment, the phrase "for self-protection" was present along with a militia. But this phrase was struck out in later drafts. One can infer, as Scalia cannot seem to, that the Second Amendment was not intended to cover guns used for self-protection.

All the discussion in the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers is about the states having the ability to maintain standing militias to offset a standing federal army and navy. None about personal firearms at all.

Many times I have said that this kind of thing rarely happens in Mass. because we have decent gun laws. There is a background check, sometimes a 3 day hold, etc, etc. In some western states, you just need money to buy a weapon. It's about time they started seriously thinking about stricter gun laws. And before you start ripping into me, I'm a very pro-gun person. I just don't like the NRA for a couple of reasons, the biggest being they wanted to legalize the sale of armor piercing bullets. There's no need for that kind of stuff in civilian hands. There are other reasons but I won't get into it right now. Anyways, we really need to do SOMETHING about the shootings, it's getting to be a weekly thing in this country. I am a firm believer in the right to bear arms, but there needs to be some way to try and keep guns away from the nutjobs.

It's pretty naieve to think that gun control laws will keep asault weapons in only the hands of the military. Were you thinking along the line of how drug laws keep illegal drugs in only the hands of scientists and chemists?

Unicorns and rainbows sound nice, but aren't reality.

Thomas Jefferson warned about the United States having a standing army. Also, shall not be infringed is perfectly clear. The govt isn't supposed to be this big and when they start aresting people for catching rain water off of their own roof, or for feeding your kids soda, well that is when we raise arms against our own govt. We aren't supposed to be the world peace keepers, we are supposed to have a citizen army, where people come together in times of crisis and fight any aggressor foreign or domestic. It is that simple.

I agree that more need to be done to keep guns out of the hands of nuts but I am a second amendment supporter. To everyone that wants to change the Constitution, remember that the first amendment can be changed too. You have to be careful of what you ask for, don't be so quick to step on others right just to change something that you do not agree with.

Jay might tell us how many "hundreds" of years we've been skewing the Constitution, and how many "automotic" weapons are legal to own by the "masses".

@jay82308

"Proof that the 2nd Amendment needs to be updated ..."

Hello Jay. I understand your point, and it is truly worthy of discussion. I think, however, that the issue is simpler than that, and that the 2nd Amendment is probably fine as it is written.

The problem appears to me to be the people appointed to protect the Constitution, and it's amendments, and to uphold the founder's intent. It is more a matter of 'interpretation' of the 2nd Amendment by a Supreme Court which is too focused on political ideology rather than on it's Constitutionally mandated responsibility to interpret that document free of partisan influences.

"What is it, I wonder, about the phrase "....a well regulated Militia" that these highly educated people seem to have difficulty grasping.?

Jeff, I seriously disagree. I think the debate should be more about the values we are teaching at home. This problem of deciding to resolve an issue with violent outbreak begins very early in life - not when he decides to buy a gun.

Outlaw guns? Won't work. Be just like outlawed dope. Dope is available,

guns would be available. But not registered. Our shrinks, sociologists, the

law agencies, anybody needs to listen to why. Not a buncha technical med

rap, but right down here where I'm pissed off. I'm talking, I'm so pissed off

it's close to getting seriously biblical (old testement righteousness).

jay82308

Proof that the 2nd Amendment needs to be updated and there needs to be stricter gun control laws.

The 2nd Amendment has been "updated" (Translation: upheld) by Supreme Court decisions in 2008 (District of Columbia v. Heller) and again in 2010 (Chicago gun control law shot down). If you want the 2nd Amendment "updated" (Translation: gutted or repealed), I suggest you lobby your Congresspersons to support another amendment to the Constitution, similar to the one that repealed prohibition. Good luck with that.

@DJ

I think the debate should be more about the values we are teaching at home

That's another good point. (though I maintain my early argument too). We have a more lax society in which parents no longer feel the responsibility to be constructive parents. They expose their children to violence without teaching them why violence is wrong, nor do parents act responsibly to help their children when they need help. Look at obesity for example, this is partially a parent-side fault.

The solution here is not as simple, since many people believe they have the right to be ignorant and chose not to be responsible.

Smarterthanu11; I suspect you are a republican, so I have to ask you this, As you rail against the size of the standing army or the size of the government, do you also support the republican idea of more defense spending?

solution for guns...? ENFORCE the current laws. Swift tough punishmentfor convictions. But no the liberals want to allow the convicted to have a bazzion appeals, you sure cant trample on the killers civil rights.

once there is a punishment that suits the crime this will stop.

As a rule, I try err on the side of charity for others. I'm sorry. This was avoidable. What about that word, "avoidable" don't these states get? Arm every citizen to the teeth. Kill innocent people but never, but never, admit it was completely "unavoidable."

The Second Amendment, when read in conjunction with Article 7, never provided for an entire nation to be armed indiscriminately. The Constitutional law the NRA ignores clearly states that the Second Amendment provides for Americans to be armed as part of a militia...note how that too is "ignerred" by the "ignernts"?

And, further on in the Constitution in Article 7, it clearly states that a said militia is to be paid for by the US government...That's the sticking point NRA asskissers don't want anyone to focus.

Article 7 of the US Constitution regarding militias: "to provide for calling for the Militia to execute laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions...

Further...To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia and governing such Part of them as maybe employed in the service of the United States , reserving to the State, respectively, the appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

No where in the 2nd Amendment was it ever intended that ANY but a Militia as described and outlined in Article 7 does it make clear that individual US Citizens can be considered their own personal militias.

It is the duty of the US government to put a stop to the deliberate misconstruction of the US Constitution and in particular, the 2nd Amendment and Article 7.

So while those swaggering wang chung cowboys go around playing their roles as Lords of the Universe, how many more innocent people need to be killed or maimed?

Finally some people have commented on how the 2nd amendment has been misinterpreted. Unfortunately, that misinterpretation is now law....but even Scalia admits that the second amendment does not allow people to have any weapon they want. The government is well within its rights to limit what weapons people can get, so lets start limiting the ones that can cause mass damage the easiest.

Rontron, how easy is it to tell if someone will go on a gun rampage or not? The first people I would suspect are the ones who own guns.

smarterthanu11...one of the founding fathers also said that the greatest threat to the government and country are the rich elite which also now includes corporations. Take power away from government...who gets that power? Government should regulate certain things for the general well being and safety of its citizens.

Taking away one persones gun because someone else abused their right to own a gun is like taking away your car because someone used theirs to run over and kill someone. Or how about motorcycles many die on them every year maybe they should be illegal.

But what if the qualifications to obtain a driver's licence was simply to sign your name and pay $15, no test required? You may be unhappy that now your being restricted because some abuse their licences, but perhaps the process to obtain a licence was wrong in the first place?

jay82308 I might agree with you until you said dangerous automatic weapons to the masses. A true automatic weapon is nearly impossible to obtain by the so called masses and are extremely expensive also. As far as large capacity magazines I currently have a pump action rifle that holds 16 rounds. Most revolvers can be reloaded in 2-4 seconds with the correct equipment (speed loaders). I can shove 5 rounds in a 12 gauge shotgun in a little more time.

As far as waiting periods the Colorado shooter bought his guns in advance so a waiting period wouldn't have helped prevent that tragedy. What we do need is more affordable help for mentally ill people. Not more restrictions on law abiding people wanting to buy guns. Also we need to stop posting the pictures of people that do this type of crime. All it does is encourage other sick people to become as famous as these shooters. After the murder creep is caught there should be a total media black out on the psychopaths happenings. Instead we are plastering the photos of these creeps nation wide. This only encourages other sickos to be as infamous as them.

Good points, especially Jeff, Chris, and rfa. Like rfa, I am fiercely pro-gun. That being said, guns come in all flavors and as such, there should be different requirements to own the differing flavors.

Want a single-shot .22 for taking out woodchucks digging holes in your field? There should be some kind of minimum required traceability to record the weapon is in your possession.

Handguns should all require special training and permitting.

Have a hankering for an AR-15? There should be more extensive licensing for that, and background check.

If a hobbyist wants a machine gun, fine. But he better be willing to let the ATF crawl up his backside to find out just why he wants one.

How about if we all take some kind of reasonable, rational view of this instead of falling into classic liberal and conservative postures, unwilling to budge?

Gun-lovers, just because the community is interested in why you want those 57 assault rifles doesn't mean we're taking them away from you. We'd just like to be reassured you're not planning to do something kooky with them. And anti-gun people, just because I want the aforementioned .22 to kill that miserable overgrown hamster eating my garden, doesn't mean I'm a domestic terrorist.

How about it? Can we work together to help make us all a little safer? Or is it just fun to argue ideology without any real intent of finding a reasonable middle ground?

To all of you citing Thomas Jefferson, remember he was a slave owner and in favor of French style revolution and the guillotine.

Ewent, what exactly do you think a militia is? I'll tell you, a militia is made of THE PEOPLE!! (that would be us.) Military and militia are two totally seperate things. Not only that, but it's not the good, legal gun owners that do the majority of these shootings. It's the people who shouldn't have a gun. So, like I said, there needs to be more stricter laws on who can buy a gun, particularly in the western states. Taking guns from lawful owners will do nothing except make it so only UNlawful people own weapons. We all know UNlawful owners don't follow the laws so why punish those that do?

Jeff1414 - "If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, the first thing he would say would be "why are you still using that old piece of parchment?" He wrote the Constitution to reflect the needs of the society as it stood, yet we continue to use the same doccument as if we lived in a society similar to one 250 years ago."

Jeff, You make a very good point, isn't this mentality (to read the constitution as a word of God) similar to religious fanaticism and reading the respective religious texts without rationality. The same folks who are now doing this are the very same folks who probably justify it because they want protection against some religious fanatics flying planes into buildings or blowing up buildings.

Here is another thing you ANTI-gun people need to think about. There is a good possibility that this rash of recent shooters are actually.......... drum roll.....

Anti-gun freaks!!!!!!!!!!!!!.. encouraged, paid, threatened, coerced, or internally driven to MAKE THE CASE for ANTI-GUN laws.

In fact, it would make perfect sense.... similar to the way 911 made it possible for our nation to wage war in the middle east... for BIG OIL!!!!

WAKE UP AMERICA, if you give up your only way to resist a corrupt government and the means to protect your family and property.... YOU ARE QUITE SIMPLY "SCREWED" just like the poor people in Mexico and China.

Read the the totalitarian and communist manifestos from the past. Virtually all of them list 10 to 14 steps that must be taken in order to enslave a nation. This one appears on every list...........................

Abolition of the right to privately own a gun (most importantly, handguns).

NO ONE is happier to see the recent spate of USA shootings more than the likes of China and North Korea!!!!!!! You Better think that over a bit.

There is one BIG reason that Japan did not attack the American homeland after Pearl Harbor. They knew..."there would be an American with a gun behind every blade of grass."

.

rfaber9
Many times I have said that this kind of thing rarely happens in Mass. because we have decent gun laws. There is a background check, sometimes a 3 day hold, etc, etc. In some western states, you just need money to buy a weapon. It's about time they started seriously thinking about stricter gun laws. And before you start ripping into me, I'm a very pro-gun person. I just don't like the NRA for a couple of reasons, the biggest being they wanted to legalize the sale of armor piercing bullets.

Would that sometimes 3 day hold be because of the following? If yes then it has nothing to do with your decent gun laws in Mass it's Federal law and is the same in every state.

The majority of NICS checks are determined within minutes, sometimes seconds, after the background check search is initiated. If the NICS does not match any records in the databases searched, the FFL is advised the firearm transfer may proceed. If the search yields a valid match to prohibiting information, the FFL is advised to deny the transfer of the firearm.

If the search is matched to any potentially prohibiting records, the NICS Section must reach out to judicial and/or law enforcement agencies for the information needed to render a final decision. The Brady Act allows three business days for this purpose. If the information is not obtained within the three-business-day time frame and a final decision of proceed or deny is not made, the FFL has the option to legally transfer the firearm.

The sale of armor piercing ammunition was already legal, what the NRA opposed was language that coud define virtually any conventional round round as "armor piercing" They proposed legislation be made based on bullet construction not some mythical quality and did not oppose the final version of the bill or a 1994 amendment.

For being pro-gun you don't seem to know very much about them.

Fast and Furious at its best, GO OBAMA

Jeff 1414: Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence hence he is known as the Father of the Declaration not the Constitution. James Madison is known as the Father of the Constitution which was to a great extent fashioned after Madison's thoughts, works and notes known as the Virginia Plan.

To the article the Second Amendment doesn't need to be changed one bit. The reason it was put in there was so the American People could have a way to fight against and remove a tyrannical government (this was and is the primary reason of it being in there), help in case of invasion, personal and family protection and for putting food on the table (from help in case of invasion and the rest was secondary). They intended for the people to have the same style of weapons as the military did and for that right not to be infringed upon by anybody for any reason.

Hey crazy people, stop it already. shooting up people is not the answer. Just because you have a gun(s), doesn't mean you need to use them.

Emperor Leto

Smarterthanu11; I suspect you are a republican, so I have to ask you this, As you rail against the size of the standing army or the size of the government, do you also support the republican idea of more defense spending?

This question wasn't meant for me nor am I a Republican but I would like to say, we need less defense spending and more military spending (there's a difference) If we cut defense by 30% or more and put 15% of that into military spending (which is soldier pay, medical, etc) we'd have 15% to put back into the coffers.

It used to annoy me seeing comments that didn't seem to be against the COH being collapsed.

But it's starting to bother me less. All of you people that think gun control is the answer are absolutely delusional. You have no understanding of how the human brain works. And your idea that an inanimate object is in any way at fault, takes blame away from the piece of human garbage that cares so little for human life, and is disgusting, and offensive. I don't blame people for reporting them.

rfaber, just what firearm purchase laws are you referrring to 'in the western states'? There aren't any that I am aware of that allow over-the-counter sales from a licensed dealer to an individual that do not involve a background check, completed paperwork AND the (federal government) required forms to be filled out and records kept by the dealer. SOME states, such as California, impose a waiting period for all handgun sales (ten days, last I know of), but a qualified individual can walk out of the gun shop with a long gun if it's paid for.

I think you are getting your 'knowledge' from the Brady Campaign or some other source of distortion of fact.

I wish there could be no way this could be true, but the cynic in me believes it possible that the wacko nut-jobs carrying out these mass shootings are selected for their vulnerability and 'programmed' by anti-gun activists to 'perform on command', in order to shock the public and scare the sheeple into demanding that EVERYONE have their guns taken away. Everyone, that is, except for criminals and government agents...

Condolences to the officers family. They are suffering a loss right now.

All of this 2nd Amendment and anti-NRA garbage needs to stop. This is not about the Constitution or any organization. This is about a man who made a decision to use a firearm. That's what should be addressed. His individual decision and the ramifications of it.

Bassai, I wouldn't know if these laws are in other states, I live in Mass. I do know that in many states, there is no background checks. And for the 2nd point, I only know about the bullets from what I read in the magazine, so if I got it wrong, thank the NRA's magazine. So either you or they are wrong, and I'm leaning towards believing them over you, just my opinion.

Jeff1414

Most murders involving guns are committed with legally obtained weapons. In fact, almost all in-family murders are committed with guns obtained legally for "self defense"

Most REPORTED murders is what you meant to say, right? Just because the MSM only reports these incidents and not all the murders and crimes committed with ill gotten weapons does not mean squat.

Jeff1414@smarter

Thomas Jefferson warned about the United States having a standing army.

Notwithstanding, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to reflect the needs of a country that did not have a standing army.

Jefferson was in France from 1784 to 1789.

once there is a punishment that suits the crime this will stop.

And what would that punishment be? Capital punishment? Do you seriously believe that would have deterred the two kids that committed mass murder at Columbine High School, and then committed suicide?

There sure seems to be alot of killings (shootings) in those red states. Arizona and Texas. OUT of control.

smarterthan said:

The govt isn't supposed to be this big and when they start aresting people for catching rain water off of their own roof, or for feeding your kids soda, well that is when we raise arms against our own govt.

What State do you live in? That's a state and local government issue, not a federal government issue!

Devildog, from what I've read, there are several states that do not require background checks, or a waiting period. Maybe this has changed in the past few years but I haven't heard that it has so I'm only assuming it remains the same.

T_Bird69 said it best. The only thing is that the US government has far more powerful weapons than any single citizen or any group of citizens. Any number of guns would have no effect on tanks, bombs, or fighter planes. We are essentially pawns in the hands of the government-good or bad. And they know it. Which is why the US citizen is being ignored.

rfaber9Bassai, I wouldn't know if these laws are in other states, I live in Mass. I do know that in many states, there is no background checks. And for the 2nd point, I only know about the bullets from what I read in the magazine, so if I got it wrong, thank the NRA's magazine. So either you or they are wrong, and I'm leaning towards believing them over you, just my opinion.

As near as I can tell Mass does not have it's own waiting period for a purchase. To buy from an FFL dealer the law is the same in all states since it is Federal law and a background check is perofrmed one of two ways fist is through the FBI's NICS system if a state does not have it's own background check system or the second way is through a state background check system such as Colorado's Instacheck run by the CBI. No check means no sale.

And since you lean towards believing the NRA:

In April 1997, the often-mischaracterized issue of "armor piercing ammunition" finally was laid to rest by research conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). The study was done following Clinton-Gore Administration calls for legislation that would have outlawed practically all rifle ammunition used by hunters and a wide variety of handgun ammunition traditionally used for sport and self-defense.
** BATF`s study concluded that: "(E)xisting laws are working, no additional legislation regarding such laws is necessary."
** The "existing laws" were adopted in 1986 and prohibit the manufacture and importation, for private use, of handgun bullets made of special, hard metals and (in a 1994 amendment) specially-jacketed lead bullets. These bullets were invented for use by law enforcement and military personnel. NRA helped draft the 1986 provisions and didn`t object to the 1994 amendment. (;18 U.S.C. 922(a)(7) and (8), and (b)(5), and 921(a)(17)(B) and (C))** Legislation similar to that backed by the Clinton-Gore Administration was first proposed in the 1980s and was opposed by both the Departments of Justice and Treasury, and rejected by Congress.
** Use of the sensational term, "cop killer bullet," is dishonest and misleading. There has never been any bullet invented for the purpose of killing police officers. And, as the BATF reported to Congress in 1997, no law enforcement officer has ever been killed or even injured because an armor piercing bullet penetrated a bullet-resistant vest.** Gun control advocates` groundless claims mislead the public and the resultant publicity endanger police officers. BATF reported to Congress on the need to "avoid any experimentation with police officer lives that could conceivably lead to numerous additional officer fatalities."

http://nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2000/armor-piercing-ammunition-plastic.aspx?s=&st=&ps=

The NRA proposed alternative legislation based upon the actual design and construction of the bullets. The final, approved version of the bill (H.R. 3132 passed in 1986) prohibited the sale of armor piercing ammunition [which may be used in a handgun] other than to law enforcement and the military. Representative Mario Biaggi (D-N.Y.) the original bill's sponsor, stated that the final legislation "... was not some watered down version of what we set out to do. In the end there was no compromise on the part of police safety..."

Gun control advocates and the news media jumped on the NRA's opposition to the original, vague and ineffective proposal. They ignored the NRA's contribution to the final legislation insisting to this day that the NRA wants "Cop Killer" bullets to be available to the public.

Here are the facts:

- "Armor piercing" ammunition is only legally available to law enforcement agencies and to the armed forces.

- Rather than opposing the ban on "armor piercing" ammunition, the NRA was in fact instrumental in crafting the law that Congress ultimately passed.

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

FAR SCARIER THAN THE CRAZY GUNMEN IS THE GROWING SENTIMENT OF THOSE WHO WANT TO OUTLAW GUN OWNERSHIP FOR CIVILIANS BECAUSE OF IT!
That is EXACTLY what foreign despots are hoping for! (See the movie Red Dawn for reference). At present, foreign enemies are wary of invading our country because we hold the world's recorde for citizen gun ownership. Invading us would be suicide for them because the combination of our military and our heavily armed, proud American citizenry would make success for them virtually impossible! That is to say, as long as we are able to keep our second ammendment rights intact! It occurs to me (and MANY others) that the recent rash of crazies with guns may be due to some sort of "Manchurian Candidate" conspiracy of those who wish to disarm all American citizens, thus setting us up for inclusion into their ultimate goal of a centralized, world government. Sounds a bit "out there"? ,,,far fetched? Hmmmm... tell me then... what on earth are the Georgia Guidestones all about? Don't know about the Georgia Guidestones, try Googling it. And really, that is just one reference of a MYRIAD of mysterious clues to the future plans of the elite (try Googling Denver Airport conspiracy for some more what-the-heck is that all about stuff!). The Patriot Act was very quickly signed into law following the 9-11 attacks. Could the Patriot Act have become law without the attacks of 9-11 (or a similar attack)? Very doubtful! But the passion, fear and anger of the moment caused the citizens and politicians to overlook the violations of our constitution. In like fashion, the recent rash of gunmen is causing many to qustion the idea of citizens having the right to own and carry firearms.
...BE AFRAID PEOPLE..BE VERY AFRAID!!

Weapons don't kill people, people are killing people. a failed society created by democrats in the WH is the problem. see, when people voted demorcat after they were promised free good life with afew candies, but at the end is just promises to trick you into voting democrat, you will get nothing, and when democrat voters get nothing or the welfare check is getting late, the product is chaos.

@rfaber9

"Ewent, what exactly do you think a militia is? I'll tell you, a militia is made of THE PEOPLE!! (that would be us.) ...."

Just curious why, if your intention is to make a valid 2nd amendment point, you would focus on your interpretation on the word "Militia", but ignore the two words "well regulated" which precede Militia in the 2nd amendment. Was that just an oversight?

By the way, here are the definitions of "militia" according the Merriam-Webster:

1
a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b: a body of citizens organized for military service

2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

And while I'm at it, here are the Merriam-Webster definitions of "regulated":

1
a: to govern or direct according to rule

b

(1): to bring under the control of law or constituted authority

(2): to make regulations for or concerning

2
: to bring order, method, or uniformity to <regulate one's habits>

3
: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of

Hmm, it would seem that the phrase "a well regulated Militia" might have a different interpretation than the idea you appear to champion.

As for mine, I sure don't see anything in the phrase "a well regulated Militia" which says "THE PEOPLE!!!" should possess whatever type and quantity, and mass lethality of firearms they wish, free of any regulation, oversight or controls from government.

Would you care to further explain your thinking?

The problem is we are all getting weak in our convictions. We see people hurting each other or throwing rocks at animals and people just walk by and don't say anything. Especially the kids and punks out there. There have no respect for elders or the older generation and won't even get up on a bus or subway if a handicapped person is in needs of a seat. This generation we are witnessing is in need of a good swift kick in the bum and taught to respect and do the right thing. We have let them get away with it too long and this is what we got. A bunch of Baby boomers kids that weren't spanked! And told it was ok to punish that dog/cat/bunny /whatever next door because it was bothering you.

I call B.S. Start taking action yourself and when you see somebody doing something that ain't right do something about it instead of just letting it go. You never know you may have just saved the next miss-hap from occuring.

DO WHAT IS RIGHT. People really do know right from wrong, they're just not called on it. Start calling people on it.

nwnative, are you a sick uninformed idiot? Colorado and Wisconson have all had alot of killings lately, not just Texas and Arizona @!$%# get your facts Or all the facts right.

rfaber9, haven't the past few mass shooting been with folks that have purchased guns legally? I don't know if this person has had guns legally but why do I get the feeling that the majority of crimes that have been occurring are with guns purchased legally. No one is trying to take guns away from legal owners, but you need to realize that the majority of crimes like this the guns are purchased legally. They are not stolen. I am sure that the majority of murder/suicides are with legal guns as well.

If this murderer had no guns he could have easily tossed a couple of molotov cocktails at people or driven his car into a crowd of people.

What do you want to do about that possibility, ban gasoline?

Madmen will always find a way to kill.

If all guns are outlawed only the criminals would have guns and no one would be able to defend themselves.

Outlaw guns? Won't work.

So, if it works for the UK, Canada, Sweden, Australia - practically every industrialized nation except for us - why, exactly, won't it work for us?

solution for guns...? ENFORCE the current laws.

In other words, keep doing the same thing and hope for different results.

It seems to me patently selfish that people care more about their gun "rights" than they do about the thousands of lives that could be saved every year if we were to follow the example of even one of the countries I've listed above. When will we ever learn? How many more thousands of lives have to be lost before we finally GET IT?

Moonwolf99

Guns are outlawed in Chicago.

How's that working out for them up there?

Again if you outlaw guns you only disarm the law abiding people.

Smuka, the REPUBLICANS will take our country back to the days of Jefferson don't worry about that !!!!!! then we will all be slaves once again and I'm not Black so think about that one.

OK ... I've heard the car = gun argument too many times.

YOU WIN!!

Let's put the same regulations on guns that we have on cares.

I have to be trained to drive a car, have to show my ability to handle a car, have to have insurance to own a car, have to have a license to drive my car, have to register my car.

SOOOoooo.. I propose we have the sae requirements that you think we should have on guns.

Guns require training, have to demonstrate the ability to shoot them (different for a normal Dl and a CDL like in a vehicle - higher level for a semi automatic weapon than a single shot). you have to have liability insurance, You have to have a license, and you need to register those legal guns.

Do we have a deal??

peacenik

Show me in the constitution where you have a right to own a car.

But more important..... you think the crazy man cares about any of these laws or that they would think "gosh I cant go killing people with a gun because I don't have a gun license."

I have to be trained to drive a car, have to show my ability to handle a car, have to have insurance to own a car, have to have a license to drive my car, have to register my car.

Only if you operate it on a public road.

The day that Americans give up there guns is the day HELL FREEZES 8)

This is what makes America Great if you don't like it you are always free to move to a country that bans all firearms.

MoonWolf wrote: "It seems to me patently selfish that people care more about their gun "rights" than they do about the thousands of lives that could be saved every year if we were to follow the example of even one of the countries I've listed above. When will we ever learn? How many more thousands of lives have to be lost before we finally GET IT?"

And what about the 1-2.5 million people every year who defend themselves with guns? Seems to me the anti-gun crowd are the ones being selfish. According to you, it would be worth it to save a few thousand lives at the expense of violent crime going way up like it did in Great Britain, which may result in more murders too. Great Britain has triple the violent crime rate the US has.

They need to get guns away from the bad guys and mentally unstable people, not the 80 million gun owners who never commit any crimes with their guns.

Peacenik: All those rules and regulations have really cut down on the slaughter that occurs daily on our highways. We accept death on the highways as accidental each day but the truth is "bad drivers still drive" even with all the government interference.

Great Britain has triple the violent crime rate the US has.

Where do you get this stuff? From the nra? According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the UK had 49 gun homicides in 2009. (Statistics I've seen for the U.S. range from 30,000 to 50,000 gun homicides per year.) That is 0.073 gun homicides per 100,000 people vs. 3.0 gun homicides per 100,000 people in the U.S. - meaning that the U.S. has about 40 times the gun homicide rate of the U.K.

According to you, it would be worth it to save a few thousand lives

You say this as if a few thousand lives don't matter - which is frightening to me. Call me crazy but, yes, I do think it is patently selfish of gun owners to think that their "rights" trump the lives of 30,000 to 50,000 people per year.

Their "RIGHTS" Moon are protected by the Bill of Rights and The United States Constitution..

Crime has been steadily going down as the FBI stats show this just google it 8)

Gun ownership is up up up and crime is down down down...

Go and live in the UK if you like a police state or Japan both are police states.

Here we go again with this "collapsed by community" garbage. I'd really like to know who "collapses" many of these comments. Most of the ones that I've pulled up are merely opinions--no cursing, no bad language, no putting anyone down. They are simply opinions.

This is ridiculous. (By the way, I'm sure MY comment--same one as the other day--will be "collapsed by the community." What HAS happened to free speech?????

@ Jean321, I agree with you, but most of the comments I read are "collapsed by community." Collapsing peaks my interest. What I don't understand, is "and the bystander killed as Chris Northcliff, 43, of College Station." Bystander? When he heard the shots, he decided to find the source? "Curiosity, killed the cat." When you hear a shot, you take cover, PERIOD.

There will never be a constructive debate about gun control on these boards simply because the pro-NRA crowd prefers to just collapse the comments of anyone they disagree with. 6 years on these boards so far and it's always been a 100% certainty that they will never stay open for more than a few hours before enough asshats mark them as 'No Value'.

Someone earlier pointed out that almost all of the recent shootings in the news were done by people who legally owed their guns. Kinda puts a hole in the statement that criminals will get their guns regardless of legality. Not only are these shooters not criminals before hand, they also have no need to go buy a street gun when they can take their time and shop the internet for them instead.

Anyways, I'll have Tyler or Sally uncollapse the posts. I refuse to let assclowns silence people.

@BigAl: No, those rights are to a "well-regulated militia", which Robert in Oregon very eloquently pointed out above, not for every Tom, Dick and Harry to own AK-47's for "protection".

Thanks Tyler/Sally. Prompt as always!

mi·li·tia

   /mɪˈlɪʃə/ Show Spelled[mi-lish-uh] Show IPA

noun
1.
a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

2.
a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

3.
all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

Myth: The "militia" clause is to arm the National Guard
Fact: The Dick Act of 1903 designated the National Guard as the "organized militia" and that all other citizens were the "unorganized militia" – thus the National Guard is only part of the militia, and the whole militia is composed of the population at large. Before 1903, the National Guard had no federal definition as part of the militia at all.

As an Ohioan, I have read Article IX of the Ohio Constitution and it states quite clearly that EVERYONE, both male and female, 17-67 are automatically part of the Ohio militia, like it or not. According to the Dick Act the feral federal government CANNOT confiscate anyone's guns... It is our right to defend ourselves, from invaders, both foreign and domestic. This is why in Heller v. DC the SCOTUS acknowledged that it is an INDIVIDUAL Right to bear arms. The Founders knew this very well!

This is the PRIMARY reason for the 2nd Amendment. Also, keep in mind that Benjamin Franklin traveled to France to secure state-of-the-art firearms for both the "standing army" (of sorts) AND the civilian militias. And it was the militias from the several States of the Union who were instrumental in securing our independence and freedom.

And for those purporting to "Think" for Mr. Jefferson, you may want to keep in mind some of what he actually said BEFORE you speak for him...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery." -- Thomas Jefferson

"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe." -- Thomas Jefferson

“Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows us that as a government grows, liberty decreases.” -- Thomas Jefferson

"The great goal is, that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." -- Thomas Jefferson

"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks." -- Thomas Jefferson, (writing to his teenaged nephew)

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." -- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty -- so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator -- and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? 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.” -- Cesare Beccaria, in ‘On Crimes And Punishments’, later quoted by Thomas Jefferson

Crime has been steadily going down as the FBI stats show this just google it 8)

Gun ownership is up up up and crime is down down down

actually, the rate of gun ownership has little effect one way or the other on violent crime. its the culture, not the gun ownership.

MoonWolf99Great Britain has triple the violent crime rate the US has.

Where do you get this stuff? From the nra? According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the UK had 49 gun homicides in 2009. (Statistics I've seen for the U.S. range from 30,000 to 50,000 gun homicides per year.) That is 0.073 gun homicides per 100,000 people vs. 3.0 gun homicides per 100,000 people in the U.S. - meaning that the U.S. has about 40 times the gun homicide rate of the U.K.

Where did you get your stuff from the Brady Bunch? Let's start with the UNODC's definition in their 2011 Global Study on Homicide.

According to the definition adopted in this study, intentional homicide is thus ''unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person".3 For the sake of simplicity, however, the terms ''homicide" and ''murder" are used throughout this study as shorthand for ''intentional homicide"

Following that we can throw out your 30,000 to 50,000 figure which has no relationship to the rest of the figures that you cited. According to that study the 2009 homicide count for the US was 15,241 and that is total homicides not gun homicides. That puts the homicide rate at 5.0 per 100,000. The percentage of homicides by firearm in the US it was 60% or 9,145.

Bassai: If this is related, I hope it helps...

Myth: 30,000 people are killed with guns every year.
Fact: 54% of these deaths are suicides -- National Center for Health Statistics, average rates for years 1981 through 2003.} -- (80% in Canada -- Death Involving Firearms, Kathryn Wilkins, Health Report vol. 16, no 4, Statistics Canada.}). Numerous studies have shown that the presence or absence of a firearm does not change the overall (i.e. gun plus non-gun) suicide rate.

"What luck for rulers that men do not logically think." -- Adolf Hitler

Disarming innocent people does not protect innocent people...

Gun laws would prevent shooting sprees??? Please tell me more about how criminals follow laws...

Logic dictates that if pro-gunners are as violent as anti-gunners say they are, there wouldn't be any anti-gunners left...

'unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person"

So what, exactly, is the difference between all those words and "homicide"? You need to go back and look at that study because it specifically says "homicides committed with a firearm". So, you think they were killed with the barrel of the gun? Give me a break! When republicans have nothing else to fall back on, they choose semantics.

Guns are outlawed in Chicago.

I am speaking of entire countries, and you are bringing up one city? Apples and oranges.

According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, there were 52,447 intentional gun deaths and 23,237 accidental, non-fatal gun injuries in the U.S. in 2000. That's 75,684 shootings in one year vs. the U.K. AND Wales' 49 in one year! Try to think about that just for a minute, without bringing your precious gun(s) into the mix. The bottom line is that guns make it far too easy to shoot someone else OR yourself, whether on purpose or accidentally. The fact that people value a THING above even 1 human life, let alone thousands, is simply beyond my comprehension.

But, hey, why do I bother with logic with the gun nuts? They are so intent on their "rights", so paranoid that they may need to defend themselves against the government or each other someday, that they choose to ignore the thousands of lives that could be saved if reasonable gun restrictions were enacted. Compassion is dead to the far right. Sad state of affairs indeed.

54% of these deaths are suicides

Let's assume for a minute that those statistics are correct. That still leaves us with 13,800 gun homicides per year vs. the UK's 49. If a person can't see the huge disparity between those numbers, then perhaps math is not their strong suit.

Simple those wanting "reasonable gun restrictions" go strictly against what the Founding Fathers wanted. Sorry I can not and will not agree with "restrictions" since as I said earlier the reason the Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment in there was so that the American People always had a way to protect themselves from a tyrannical government and have the availability of the same weapons as the military had. If people really want to live in a country that takes that right away they are free to move. Personally I like the way the Founding Fathers had the vision to do what they did and I wouldn't change it for nothing.

"Hey crazy people, stop it already. shooting up people is not the answer. Just because you have a gun(s), doesn't mean you need to use them."

Good of you to put that out there, Brian. Crazy people everywhere are reconsidering their actions.

god bless texas..

you post that everyday...cant you cut and paste diffrent stuff?? sorry i forget your iq..my bad

is that why you love dick cheney so much...

GOP Crime Factory remember this when visiting Texas we have concealed carry laws. You do not know who is and who isn't. We require you keep your weapon holstered unless occasion requires use and then we request judicious marksmanship. We vote for the people who run the state the way we want it run not the way you want it run. If you love NYC so much take I 40 East and if you love Chicago so much try I 35 North.

GOP

Momma always said stupid is as stupid does.

How ironic it is that you would actually state this!!

Texas is a conservative whore house, where hate speech is considered a value..................

It would appear that the hate speech is coming from you. Can you spell hypocrite?

dirp, At Texas A & M it is named after George Senior, NOT W!

Well Gop to bug me you would have to drive much farther than SA. Drive south until you reach the Rio Grande turn left until you reach the Gulf.That will at least put you in my county.

GOP Crime tool: You being from OK clears a lot up.

That's why Texas doesn't float into the Gulf of Mexico.

Because you SUCK so much it stickes to Oklahoma.

Did I call you a tool? Maybe troll? Nah, mostly tool.

Half a sissy weasel.

GOP~

they like to shoot people who dont agree with them!!

"don't"

Texas is the bastion and heart of HATE and BIGOTRY in this country.

Seeing as how you are exhibiting your own brand of intolerance towards those who think differently then you, I would suggest a look in the mirror while you type your own words of hate.

Im live in Oklahoma

I'm assuming you mean "I live in Oklahoma..."

Take some spelling and grammar lessons....MORON.

Again, take a good hard look in the mirror if you are going to suggest someone is a moron for grammar and spelling.

lonereb~ I seriously doubt GOP is capable of saying anything to anyones face. Hiding behind the computer seems to be the best way for trolls to say whatever they want, however they want, without fear of retribution.

justin~ lol leave us hillbillies out of this, we have nothing to do with GOP's rantin'.

GOP:

"Texas gave us the WORST President"

*Illinois. :)

Actually the worst president came from Connecticut. Bush W was a carpet-bagger. The idiots in Texas dont even know that.

I moved out of Minnesota to Texas because Minnesota was being overrun by liberal lunatics, phags, and morons. Liberals are destroying their own society and they just dig a bigger and bigger hole as time goes on. They are adding jet fuel to their own fire they started. None of their policies will ever work nor will it fix anything. Stupid, stupid stupid. Every liberal should be imprisoned in a padded room with a straight jacket on them. I was once liberal, and I turned 12 years of age and found out what real life was all about.

TXhorseman: thanks for the info.

I just knew I wasn't reading that right.

Ophot,

Well yes we do!!!! But W grew up in Midland, which is where he met his wife. They have lived in Texas most of their lives. So now you can go look into a mirror and call that person names. Actually the worst President ever came from Georgia.

Most of the people doing the shooting and killing around the country are liberal black democrats on the welfare.

Really????

James Holmes?

Wade Michael Page?

Charles Whitman?

Your IQ must equal the teeth in your mouth......

GOP

First you try to blast me and now you are picking on an Aggie.

Never ceases to amaze me the numbers of people who would willing give up any of their rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution. But, giving up your rights is your decision - my decision is to NOT give up any of my guaranteed Constitutional rights. So whose right get trampled on here by someone else's insecurities? My rights - you're trying to take away MY rights ....who do you think you are? What do you think you'll accomplish by doing this (as if you really can), stopping violent deaths at the hands of crazy people or criminals? You might as well pass laws banning hurricanes or tornado's for all the good your laws will do. You will never succeed in controlling the human elements that are bound to do chaotic and violent acts - wise up, will you! How well are other countries doing with their anti-guns agendas? Not very well, just take a look at their statistics, then be realistic with your wanting MORE controlling laws that are useless.

Here's another thought on how silly your anti-gun phobias are:

"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."

What I was trying to finish before my computer blanked out on me is that GOP just because your school is stuck in a sucky football conference is no reason to be hateful to Texas.

WOOOOPPPPPPIIIIIIGGGGGSSSSOOOOOIIIIIIEEEEEE!!!!!

Izzy

Nope they want you to give up your rights while they keep theirs and put us in re-education camps because we will not follow them blindly singing Peace Train

Actually the worst President ever came from Georgia.

Looks like the replacement comes from Illinois!

i remember carter, paul, this azzclown makes him look like genius

Dirp: I don't care what party anyone is, #4.11 is funny as hell!

It reminds me of the pics of old "Boy George" in that classroom on 09/11/01 with him "reading" from that book he's holding, UPSIDE-DOWN!

Like I saw posted elsewhere online:

Some people will blame the guns
Some people will blame Hollywood
Some people will blame video games
Some people will blame his parents
Some people will blame society

I'll just blame him!

R. Scalzo,

You just listed 3 white shooters. Three black shooters in 15 mins on Friday night in Chicago. You are just confusing accuracy on the part of the white people with amount of shooters. If black people had the accuracy of white people with amount of rounds fired there would be a mass killing somewhere in America probably every hour. lol.... Its funny because its true.

This is for all you MORONS screaming for gun control. I will WILLINGLY hand over my weapons the day YOU are ready to give up all other rights, including the free speech you're abusing here. Individual gun owners DO make up the militia. If this country were in danger I don't know one single law abiding gun owner who WOULD NOT stand up and fight for your pansy ass while you COWER In a hole. The second amendment is the means to KEEP all other rights. And yes, having evicted people from our apartment, they will use ANYTHING for a weapon. I've been slashed and swung at with knives, scissors, baseball bats, 2+4s, and broken bottles. So why don't you SHEEP also ban cutlery, the national past time, lumber production, and the bottling industry. I'll make my REAL post below.

SEMPER FI!

Here we go again.....I don't understand why so many of these comments are "collapsed by the community." Most of the ones I've read (that have been collapsed) are "decent" comments--no cussing, no calling anyone names, etc. Often I'll see the same kind of comment and it's not collapsed.

I'm sure this comment will be "collapsed by the community" since I doubt the "community" has an reasonable explanation....................

Bet I'm not the only one who is curious about this.

It's the heat the friggin heat. I can't take it anymore. :-)

TheCitizenconcern Comment collapsed by the community

Stop teaching liberal arts!! The guy was a left wing kook protesting Ryan

Yeah right its all the liberals who want tighter gun control that are the problem? You are either a peacocking troll or the stupidest idiot on the face of the earth. I am a pro 2nd amendment liberal but I do feel that it shouldn't be harder to get a home loan than a gun. That just makes sense which is beyond the comprehension of many of the far right folks these days.

Gun control! Gun control! GUN CONTROL!!

Don't be surprised if you see more of this stuff happening....

that is because our govt is spending resources to go after,
track and legislate against another group they think is much more dangerous to
our country.

Is it rapist? terrorists? illegals? child abusers? drug dealers? theater shooters?

None of the above...it is those who own livestock, whether as pets or for food. Yup, crazy as it sound $150 million of our tax money is being pushed to promote a program (which nobody wants nor needs) that will require animal owners
to register with the govt, microchip and file reports with the govt of where
they go and what they do with that animal.

Think it crazy? England already has all their horses licensed because they are considered food animals. Horse owners must keep meticulous documents on their horses movements and medicines.

(I only wish I could be proved crazy- I would sleep much better!)

Google the following to see how serious this is ---Raw milk raids, Dollarhite rabbits, mad sheep, no nais dot org, Utah registers gardens.

Bart

The only good gun control is having both hands on the pistol grip

Your meds are calling Fester. Prob your dentist too but you just keep huggin your gun pal. Won't make your bad aim go away. Try supporting the grip with your weak hand and you might hit your barn for a change. Knucklehead!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaa Hahahahahahahahaaaa

sure.

...just make it to where felons cant have guns

oh...we already have laws on the books for that

The laws on the books, keck, are clearly not working.

No CdB and keck, the laws do work when enforced. How many gun deaths are in the UK or Japan for example?

There are laws against murder, but people still get murdered in this country. Maybe we should get rid of those laws too.

What good would a mentqal health check do? They could always steal a weapon from someone else. Also some people seem to be sane one day and bonkers the next day.

Sorry for the typo. I didn't proof read or spell check.

mental health check? Over the last 4 years over $2 billion in cuts were taken out of mental health programs so this is highly unlikely since our government treats it in such a flip manner as it is

Maybe an annual mental health check to keep the guns you have?? Something needs to change.

When's the last time a speed limit kept you from speeding? That's what I thought....

You would think the military would have a mental health check. Also, if you want a gun, you're going to put down the answers that will get you a gun.

Look at the people who have done most the shootings at schools, political rallies, malls, movie theaters, etc. These are not criminals. These are idiots that our non-existent gun laws allow to buy guns and kill innocent people. 99% of Americans don't need a gun! Let law enforcement have the guns and deal with the criminals/terrorists. A non-automatic handgun or rifle...you want it go for it. No one needs a 9m automatic handgun or an AK47 type of rifle...sorry!

Just to assuage my curiosity, if I may. For those of you who are arguing "Just enforce the existing laws!", and who are also arguing in other discussion threads "Reduce the size of government!!" and "Get government out of my personal life and decisions!!!" and "Reduce my taxes!!!!", .... here's my quandary:

If your personal life and decisions conflict with "...the existing laws" who, if not government should resolve those conflicts"?

If not the government, and government empowered law enforcement, who is going to "... enforce the existing laws?

If we are not taxed, in an amount adequate to pay for law enforcement, who is going to "...enforce the existing laws"?

Can those of you who are so vocal and persistent (and insistent) about these complaints about government, and taxation and efforts which some consider reasonable controls on the proliferation and ownership of handguns and assault weapons ... please help me with my quandary, and clarify how your complaints can coexist in reality?

Thanks. I'll await your replies.

;-)

When is the last time a gun law kept anyone from shooting someone? I Guess Geoff said it best only idiots own GUNS and shoot them! The rest must just have them for show I guess?

happilydivorced That would be to intrusive. Why is it so unreasonable for a mental heath provider which issues psychotropic drugs to a patient to input data to a national registry?

Quit arguing the Constitution you don't understand it and even the President doesn't have to uphold it.

Is the President a citizen Bubba 1946427?

Robert in Oregon Your quandry stems from hypothetical bliss. When you depart the hypothetical and enter reality. The hypothetical and factually correct become apparent. You are like a voluntary participant arguing over long standing accepted rules because they dont suit you.

Last time I check he was the President Ownedbyfew, likedbynone. You must be a birth-er idiot and yes for your edification I from AZ and we've wasted enough time and money on this stupid question.

You want him out of power impeach him, he gave an illegal order to Homeland Security to not enforce the immigration laws a violation of his Constitutional authority and oath of office, but you can't do that unless you want a race war on your hands.

@Ownedbyfew

"Robert in Oregon Your quandry stems from hypothetical bliss. When you depart the hypothetical and enter reality. The hypothetical and factually correct become apparent. You are like a voluntary participant arguing over long standing accepted rules because they dont suit you."

Well, that was an interesting diversion. Where are you going with that?Throwing out personally directed derisive and condescending comments is an interesting debating style, but it doesn't respond to the questions raised. It just changes the subject (and makes readers of your written words question your maturity). Is that what you were going for?

Questions were raised, but your insults in response to those questions haven't answered them. Rather they may simply have reinforced my point about the "persistent (and insistent)" anti-government, anti-taxes, anti-government voices. Did that hit too close to home?

Care to try again, ... or is that the best you've got.

bubba-1946427 Really? His citizenship requires adherence to the Us Constitution and Bill of Rights. Hence impeachment if not adhered to.With a name like Bubba it seemed the obvious eluded you. It didnt you are just less smart.

Ownedbyfew,

You sure took a lot of words to say nothing. How did that stream of unconsciousness answer the question?

Your assertions are hypothetical in that government solves all problems. The facts say otherwise. I am not creating a diversion.

vwterry Hello, Ready when you are.

The question remains unanswered. There have been no facts supplied to support you contention. Nowhere did Robert claim that government can or should be involved in solving all problems.

It appears you are ready for everything but offering a legitimate answer to a valid question.

@Geoff-1686165 i just want to know why the gunmen usually go to places where they know they have few to no guns u never hear anyone about how a gunmen was shot attempting to fire on random people from another civilian plz answer me that

vwterry There is nothing to answer. Falsehoods are false.

It appears that unless he actually try to answer the questions raised and reiterated by you 'vwterry', that 'Ownedbyfew' has already been "Ownedbytwo" in just this discussion thread alone. Just my two cents, mind you.

And I'm still hoping someone who fits in that philosophical 'fold' which I described will respond to the questions raised, with something other than diversionary hyperbole.

Owned,

Even the founders would find your comments empty.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

vwterry Is it true? Existing laws are enforced? The size of government is directly proportionate to its inefficiencies? American values are based on common law one being government to not control the individual's life? If a individual payed less taxes they would have more resources to promote self benefit hence your benefit?

vwterry Who serves who? The Government benefits from the citizens prosperity not the other way around. You view government as the answer. The Founding Fathers limited Government.You have the liberty to pursue happiness not the government.

Robert in Oregon lets start with agreed truths. Is it true? Existing laws are enforced? The size of government is directly proportionate to its inefficiencies? American values are based on common law one being government to not control the individual's life? If a individual payed less taxes they would have more resources to promote self benefit hence your benefit?

you want to have a Psyche Eval for someone that wants to buy a gun... should we have a Psyche Eval for someone that wants to buy a car ?? and by the way Cars kill more people than the Guns do.... while I might not agree with some of you or what you say I spent a large portion of my life defending your right to say it.... and now I will leave you all with this...

an armed society is a polite society

The Government benefits from the citizens prosperity not the other way around.

actually, it goes both ways. citizens do benefit from a prosperous government and the government benefits from prosperous citizens. You're not going to be able to build infrastructure and a strong military otherwise. but government should also be investing in basic research where the private market would view such investment as too risky or not having any benefit. much seemingly useless research has led to positive developments that later proved to be extremely fruitful, but nobody knows until said research has been done.

Don't argue with Ownedbyfew, he has already proved himself to be ignorant. He states nothing but likes to use big words to do it, proof. He looks at my name and one of my statements and thinks I'm a black man, no less he probably thinks I big and belong in jail slamming people in the a--. We see from his name he believes himself to be a real American Owned By Few what a wise handle he has, not realizing he is Owned by all. His stupidity Rules, I bet he even carries a gun, which makes him feel like a big bad a--. You need that gun, Owned, words don't work for you.

vwterry The Bill of Rights and The US Constitution are synthesized together for a reason.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

bubba-1946427 What? Your notions never crossed my mind. I will not apologize for you feeling i pushed the thoughts with crouching tiger like agility.

Iseeconfusedpeople "The Government benefits from the citizens prosperity not the other way around" This is not in opposition to your statement. It simply states the citizen's prosperity is the government's prosperity source of origin.

bubba-1946427 Since its clear, Let me speak to your inner child. You do you. But dont do me. Lets form a country for you and me. Better?

Robert in Oregon and vwterry. It is you creating a diversion all to justify your hypothetical ego the source of your blindness. The blind cannot lead so don't.

Wow, 'Ownedbyfew', you have set the bar of avoidance pretty high. 9 or 10 posts and hundreds of words of personal philosophy (as well as copy-and-paste whole paragraphs from the Internet without attribution) walking in every direction around the question, but not one word addressed in attempt to answer the question. Let me repeat it so that you can see how simple a question it is:

THE ARGUMENT: "...just enforce the exisitng laws".

THE PRETEXT (to the argument): Government (and by extension -- a priori -- law enforcement), should not interfere in your personal life, or in your personal choices, nor restrict your right to possess whatever quantity, or description, or mass lethality of firearms you wish, and goverment should not raise adequate revenue (taxes) to pay for basic government services such as ... law enforcement.

THE QUESTION: So ....who then will "enforce the existing laws"?

That seems a pretty straightforward question. How do 'the argument' and 'the pretext' coexist in reality? If not government (law enforcement), who will enforce the existing laws? If you plan to just offer more diversionary gobbledygook and pose numerous additional trite questions as rejoinders rather than simply answering the question posed, please don't bother. It becomes tedious reading such blather.

Thanks revjonesy... I just knew it had to be a misprint. Didn't think jr. learned his letters yet.

True, dirp. W has issues reading childrens' books when USA is under attack.

i just want to know why the gunmen usually go to places where they know they have few to no guns

Like Texas?? This happened off campus. what excuses for this bat @!$%# crazy guy will you come up with?

How about we actually hold the perpetrator responsible for his/her actions and hold him/her accountable. Why don't we actually PUNISH the perpetrators instead of trying to discover how "society" has failed them?

Why is the action of an individual the impetus to infringe on the rights of 80 million Americans?

One last thought.... why don't we all wait until the ENTIRE story comes out. Who knows, it might have been a fire fight between pissed off cops!!

We do punish them, but take a look at history. Hinkley's single act brought about the Brady bill. Ralph Nader was able to completely change the auto safety industry based on the Corvair. 9/11 completely changed the way we fly.

Single incidents are all it takes to make bold, kneejerk changes in this country. The clock is ticking on which one is going to change gun rights forever - unless we have the converstation before it happens.

You complain that it isn't a big story, I ask why is this even news at all? Slightly more than twice as many people die in drunk driving accidents EVERY SINGLE DAY as were killed in the Aurora shootings. Yet we didn't have a massive blast of media coverage about how we should run mental health checks on people who buy alcohol at the grocery store, or keep a government alcohol registry to track alcohol consumers. Why? Because in the grand scheme of things, it's better to allow 300 million citizens the freedom to drink alcohol, even with a handful of fatalities from people that abuse that freedom. The same thing applies to bearing arms. I'll repeat it again: more than twice as many people die in drunk-driving accidents every day, as were killed in the Aurora shooting. The outrage against firearms is fanned by those who would seek to control you and your lives by framing the coverage in a way that bends the truth; don't give up to them so easily.

I'd say it's not even news. A day without shootings...now THAT would be news.

Moderate Matt...........well said Sir.

Moderate Matthew you are kind of comapring apples and oranges. You could compare the number of people killed by drunk drivers in Aurora in a single day to those killed in the shooting in Aurora. Or, you could compare those killed by drunk driving in the country in a single day to those killed by guns in the country in a single day. But to compare drunk driving fatalities in the country with the number killed in Aurora isn't really a fair comparison. In my state, DWI is a serious problem. It's more than a handful of fatalities and as a result we have strict DWI laws. Of course, enforcing those laws is the challenge.

Ok Longingforthemiddle apples to apples the number of drunk driving deaths in a day in the USA far out number the deaths buy firearms in the USA considerably.

Ryan: You've hit the nail on the head. It's time the "liberals" and "onservatives" stopped blaming each other and started devising a joint plan. Neither Obama nor Romney is likely to go after our guns, unless something cataclysmic takes place. Unfortunately, the weekly instances of mayhem seem to pointing in the direction of some horrendous event, like what happened in Norway last year, or worse. If the NRA, for example, is really on the side of the private, gun owning citizen, it will take the lead in getting this done, but I'm not holding my breath.

Why is it You have not complained when anyone can buy an assault rifle whose sole objective is to do a lot of killing at one time? If a hunter needs an assault rifle to kill game, he is a coward, not a sport. Where do you fit in?

Longingforthemiddle--

While I don't agree that it's comparing apples to oranges, even if I compare by your rules, the same principle holds:

There were approximately 8000 homicides with a firearm in the USA in 2004 (the most recent year I could find data, though I've also read many times that crime as a whole has fallen since 2004, but I can't find more recent numbers for this specific category. So you can probably assume that 2011 numbers are even lower.) There were 11,711 traffic fatalities where the driver was impaired in 2008 (the most recent year I could find data). Obviously, dividing each by 365, that's an average of about 22 firearm homicides each day and about 32 alcohol-related traffic fatalities each day-- nearly 50% more drunk-driving deaths than gun homicides EVERY SINGLE DAY. This is, of course all the worse, since drunk driving deaths are almost exclusively unintentional, and yet are still the worse killer. So how does the media justify much heavier coverage of shootings, rather than drunk-driving accidents?

Thus, I submit my position as follows: A person cannot legitimately push for increased gun control unless they also push even HARDER for even more stringent alcohol control. Anything else is hypocritical. I personally believe both arms and alcohol should be very lightly regulated, as the freedom of a third of a billion people is worth the cost.

Moderate Matthew, according to the CDC, in 2007 there were 31,224 firearms deaths in the US. Of that number, over 12,600 of them were murders (homicides).

In 2007, according to the NHTSA, there were 12,998 alcohol related traffic deaths in the US. 92% of the drivers involved had no prior arrests for alcohol related motor vehicle operation. Also, over 62% of them died in single vehicle accidents, meaning that they killed themselves or someone that chose to ride with them, not some random person on the street.

Firearms and alcohol seem to murder about an equal number of people each year. The difference is that 2/3 of the victims of alcohol related traffic deaths killed only themselves and their passengers, while involved in an activity that they chose to participate in. The same can't be said for most of the victims of gun violence, whom often have chosen not to own or carry firearms.

Well Ryan if you really want to stop stupid deaths in the US I suggest you find a way to outlaw cell phone use before someone drives right over me. You people who can't put down your phones are 3xs as dangerous as either guns or drunk drivers. I wasn't born to be your hood ornament.

Can anyone show an incident when a person went out and bought a car for the sole purpose of killing someone? Just one?

Until then this false equivalence argument about traffic deaths is pointless.

lonereb: you wanna really have some fun, you hafta see some of some people talking, texting, combing their hair, putting on makeup all while slugging down a beer.

MILee ... not anyone can buy an assault rifle (legally). You need a federal firearms license to own one. If you have never shot one, or any rifle, they are a blast. Target practice or destroying a melon is great stress relief. Why do you think the top selling video games are "first person shooter" ? As many people have already stated, don't punish the honest, good gun owners as a whole; punish the individual who abuses that right. Perhaps we should take cars away from everyone since there are so many are killed each year in accidents.

One last thought.... why don't we all wait until the ENTIRE story comes out. Who knows, it might have been a fire fight between pissed off cops!!

That's the best you can come with? That smacks of desperation.

Guns aren't needed in civilized society. If everybody conceal carried, guns would be going off like popcorn as soon as one gun went off. Then there would be mass casualties. No, collect them and smelt them.

If the sane armed citizens kill Innocent bystanders do they get a trial or do other sane armed citizens get to shoot them for screwing up.

How many of those innocent civilians would be standing between the armed "sane" civilians and the insane shooter? Seems like the chances for casualities double. I am pretty sure the police officers that were injured were armed at the time.

TO: Smilingphoebes-Oh, that argument makes so much sense! Just think, in that dark theatre in Aurora, with tear gas being part of the chaos, if everyone else in there had just had a gun, they could have all fired their weapons, thinking they were shooting at the murderer, and killed each other instead of him doing it. Why DIDN'T anyone of those people there think of that.

There are 80 guns for every 100 people in this country. Can you point out a single incident that was stopped by a private citizen with a conceal/carry? I use my weapons for home defense, I don't keep my finger on the trigger at Wal-Mart waiting to end a human life. I reserve that right only as a last resort.

I'm not okay with firing across a crowded place in chaos for the likelihood I am going to kill someone in the crossfire. That is not something I want to live with the rest of my life. If people have no problem taking another life, that is the problem

There are 6 million in Europe that would think different if they were alive to debate your thought. Not to mention those killed in Russia and everywhere else tyrants took over. In those countries the population also thought it would never happen to them. Civilized does not necessarily mean sane.

Just think this past weekend this guy was joe-normal. And today, he's out shooting at folks. Yeah folks, more guns are the answer!

Or people like you can just lay down and die, never fight back. I hate how cowardly people have become now a days. "Don't get involved because if we just keep our heads down it won't be as bad." And make sure you chastise anyone who does want to get involved, to protect the ones they love. You people are pathetic sheep.

The question was asked why we are having so many mass shootings in a row. The correct answer is that a person with the same frame of mind of the first shooter saw all the media coverage and then thought its my turn. If the media did not glorify the incident then we would not get all the copy cat killers.

What an ironic handle "Honorable1"... what honor is there in name calling?

Sad that you don't have anything to contribute to the conversation besides junior high school pot shots and the now over-used tendency for the right to call anyone a "coward" that doesn't immediately consent to the summary execution of the accused (yes we do still have other rights in this country).

Here, try this one: you support the police department right? What red-blooded, flag-waving patriotic American doesn't support his local constabulary? There are the brave first responders here right? Well, isn't it true that UNIVERSALLY police departments not only warn people away from "getting involved" in these violent confrontations with gun-wielding psycopaths, they even recommend it for avoiding any interaction with a potential accused. Ask one Mr. George Zimmerman of Florida if he regrets not following the dispatcher's request to say in his car...

For those of you who like places where anyone can carry an automatic weapon on the street, I hear the Syrian resistance is looking for some help...

For all of those who wish to deprive others of rights that they themselves refuse to exercise, I'd like to recommend that they go to youtube and search for the video of Suzanna Gratia Hupp speaking to the Senate. Dr Hupp was in the Luby's restaurant when the nut job drove his truck through the front of the building and began shooting up the place. Her father and mother were murdered. I think her perspective on it trumps all of yours, because she can honestly say that she's been there and done that. As for law abiding citizens using their lawfully owned firearms to defend themselves, it ONLY happens roughly 1 MILLION times a year. BTW the police are NOT legally obligated to respond to your 911 calls, nor are they legally obligated to act to stop a crime (they literally watched Dr Hupp's mother being shot in the head and could not do anything to stop it.)

Ryan-

You ask for a single incident? Here's the most recent that made the news, last month. Of course, there's many times where shots aren't even fired, and that doesn't make the news.

http://www.complex.com/city-guide/2012/07/customer-defends-internet-cafe-from-two-thieves



No, collect them and smelt them.

Whys should we smelt them? Do theys have perfume on em? I just smelt mine, and it smelt like fresh gunpowder. My wife used it this mornin to blow her brains out. It's ok, I gots me other sisters. Viva Arkansas!

So we would have one dead perpetrator, because he/she shot 12 bystanders, and 24 claims of standing your ground because 36 other people died from looking like they were a threat for pointing their weapon around.

I'm all for gun ownership, but I strongly oppose conceal/carry. I want to know that when I shop for groceries, I'm not going to accidentally bump my cart against a concealed weapon that then discharges. etc. etc.

And I can imagine the number of innocent victims caught in the crossfire should something like this occur in a grocery store. Same with schools.

If you want safety, then you should probably have the stores hire several highly trained, cross examined, triple background checked armed guards. Same with movie theaters.

BLS Texas has had concealed carry for over ten years and I would say Dallas and Houston together don't have as many shootings as Chicago where there are extreme gun laws. So no guns allowed in Chicago and 10 plus shootings a weekend guns allowed in Texas and less shootings. I think your logic is flawed.

"Collect and smelt them all".

...What are you going to do when my machinist father turns a hunk of raw metal into a gun in our shed?

Do you realize how many people have the means to just MAKE a gun on their own?

Hey guys,

I'm German and we have a generell weapon ban since we got our basic law after world war two.

Here are a few facts:

• Crime in Germany:

  • 3 homicides per 100.000 habitants
  • 9 rapes per 100.000 habitants
  • 68.396 detainees per 82.000.000 habitants

Crime in the USA:

• 6 homicides per 100.000 habitants
• 36 rapes per 100.000 habitants
• 2 million detainess per 311.000.000 habitants

Sure there are also other factors which could affect the numbers,
but I think the circulation of weapons (independent from the kind) makes the biggest difference.

For a European it is kind of weird to watch this discussion. The USA belongs to civilized western world but the weapon laws are the same as in 3rd world states, based on laws which were modern hundreds of years ago.

It's astonishing how much power the NRA has.

(Sorry for bad grammar and spelling mistakes. It's not my native language ;-)

NRA argues: guns dont kill people, people kill people.

Gunlovers argue: you can kill a man with a pencil, but pencils are not forbidden.

Authorities argue: the Joker in Aurora has a killer-suit, so costumes kill, not guns, so costumes are banned.

But they conveniently forget: guns are made for shooting. Pencils are made for writing. A gun is more often used for killing people than a pencil.

But heck. Give them their guns. Darwin will arrange they shoot their children by mistake for holding them for intruders in their own home. Or pre-schoolchildren using loaded not locked guns inhouse on their brothers and sisters.

They realy live the American Dream... err... Nightmare.

@OCnative1 Look up honor, "honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions." Which means if someone is a coward or acting like sheep, an honorable man has the responsibility to say so.

I know you live in your P.C. world where everyone is a winner and noone loses or makes people uncomfortable by telling them how it really is. But, I don't live in that world.

So lets see, lets see if i was unjust by calling the people cowards.

"Coward. A person who shrinks from or avoids danger, pain, or difficulty."

Sounds like the case here. All the people saying gun owners would just make a situation worse. Lets explore further. Lets go back to the Arora shooting. Lets say the guy had another shooter, and they both blocked the exits. Or the one shooter found a way to block the exit. And lets say he stayed in that theater untill he shot every last man, woman and child in it. I garuntee more then 1/2 the people in that situation, knowing there is no escape, knowing death will be inevitable, would wish they had a way to defend themselves and their families.

As an honorable man, i choose to fight instead of lay down and die. If i dont have a gun i would still charge the shooter, and yes i would most likely die before reaching him, thus i would prefer my chances with a gun. And i served many years in the military and am also a black belt in several matial arts. So i know about intense situations and mortality. So dont bother with the "You have no idea what you would do in that situation."

Anyways i hate long posts, especially when pointless in a place where everyone will continue believing what they want to believe. But you called me out on my name, so there it is.

That's how Waco started as well. A warrant was being served, and one of the members of the compound shot the deputy.

Why do the conservatives keep cheering for lunatics that kill police officers?

the ATF set up the dividians.

....and burned the dividians up because the atf botched the raid.

no none is "cheering". ...except the anti-gun nuts

keck...poor lil Davidians...Poor lil David King Control Freak Koresh...So..let me guess...now you think every American must, must, must have 5,000 rounds for an AK-47 in personal arsenals? It figures.

A world of dumbasses to stupid to know that a gun is a weapon..nothing more...and definitely nothing less...Booo hooooodles....Big bad society doesn't let the big wah wah wah babies have their gunnie wunnies...They can't lose it and go out when they pull their NRA tantrums and take out a dozen innocent people.

The last two massacres were by perps with GUN licenses...take that one and sink it where the bullets get stuck.

A sheriff's deputy was NOT serving a warrant. The Sheriff KNEW David Koresh personally and could've simply walked up to the door and would've been allowed right in. That's not what happened. The ATF decided that they were going to do a tactical assault on a compound that they KNEW contained children, and they CLAIMED held fully automatic weapons. They went in guns blazing and the Davidians shot back. Honestly if the goal was to arrest David Koresh, why not just snatch him from the side of the road as he went for his daily run? A stun gun (tasers weren't available at the time) to his back and he's cuffed and in the back of a van in a matter of seconds.

Ewent, please step away from the keyboard until such time as the good doctor installs your new brain, or at least finishes your frontal lobotomy.

Neither Colorado nor Texas have a "gun license" requirement. They have concealed carry licenses, but the people who committed these crimes almost certainly did not have them. The odds of a concealed carry permit holder committing a violent crime is so small as to be infinitesimal.

Why do I believe that those speaking out against private ownership of guns and concealed carry are like the Cleveland City council member who was adamantly anti gun.... at least until he was held up and realized that he AND HIS FAMILY were at the mercy of the criminals and could do nothing to prevent them from injuring or killing the entire family. His position changed in a matter of a few minutes.

ewent.......there's no hope for you. Get off the computer before your mom finds you and leave the posting to the adults.

San Diego we respect our officers more than you do. I will bet the people will honor him without some politician having to set it up. We just don't jump on bandwagons without thinking. You should try living in some of the places I have like the town with no cop 5 miles from the town with one cop 17 miles from the sheriffs office. Call a cop and by the time he gets there all that is left to do is write the report.

ewent is lying about the shooters being "licensed to carry"

...but then...when is ewent NOT lying ?

Lt.: actually, the entire operation was a major screw up, compounded by a cult leader intent on making sure he and his followers would never be taken alive.

But at least we know that no guns ever killed anyone.

guns are mechanical devices that were designed to KILL... they are a tool but its what you do with the tool that matters you can use them to hunt (killing animals) you can use them to shoot targets (killing paper/clay pigeons) or you can use them to kill a person... the choice is up to the individual user.... the guns themselves don't do anything without human input... saying a gun kills people is like saying a spoon makes people fat.... you do this (guns AND spoons) to yourself... and do you know how I define gun control...

Gun Control, The ability to maintain steady trigger pull in a balanced stance that will allow me to continue to put rounds on target, every time all the time....

I am a law abiding firearms owner I have several in my collection from black powder to civilian versions of the M-4, I have NEVER shot anyone I have on occasion gone hunting and I have even spent time at the range... I still have yet to shoot anyone so because some nutjob kills a bunch of people you want to get stricter gun laws and try to stop the law abiding gun owners from owning guns... keep this in mind ewent what in the history of mankind makes you think a criminal is going to obey the law....

An armed society is a polite society (and I live in Louisiana btw)

So Dirt-bag with a gun doesn't bother you? ask the family of the bystander killed.

It happens all the time, you just don't hear about it unless you do a little research.

Guns are used for self defense from 750,000 to 2.5 million times a year, depending on whose numbers you use. Usually without firing a shot.

How many rapes, murders, kidnappings, molestations, etc. are prevented?

Do an Internet search for a study by Gary Kleck, and info from John Lott.

Unless of course you'd rather not know the truth.

The time it does happen will result in people killed in the crossfire. That is when the gun debate ends in this country and ruins the second amendment for all of us.

That incident should be the NRA's biggest fear, but they are hoping for it to happen. It's just a matter of time.....

People use firearms in self defense a lot, and the "crossfire" doesn't happen.

They even come to the aid of police officers in trouble.

But I guess that would spoil your "let's gang up on gun owners" party, sorry.

Guns are used for self defense from 750,000 to 2.5 million times a year, depending on whose numbers you use. Usually without firing a shot.

How many of those are criminals defending themselves against other criminals or people acting lawfully?

@thevoice.

these people are not interested in the truth. They are not going to do the reserch as you suggest. They are going to all just live in their basements thinking if all the guns went away, noone would die anymore, no more rapes, no more murders, no bombings, noone beating grampa to death with a baseball bat, no child molesters. guns are the root of all evil not the people behind them.

Texas, the mother ship for conservatives, has more citizens legally carrying firearms than any other state. Why is the shooter still alive. Didn't one of those brave folks carrying their personal weapon kill him?

@thevoice

My childhood friend was killed by one of your "law abiding citizens" who was "defending" herself against an "intruder" (a guy coming to read the electric meter). The shooter missed and killed my friend. Of course since my friend wasn't white, the police and the shooter didn't care.

@Honorable1 please point to where anyone against guns said bad things will stop happening once guns were banned. You can't because no one ever said that! You're the one not interested in the truth, you're the one who thinks guns make everything OK.

The radical right numbnuts in this country are swooning and salivating over starting a Civil War...these are the DogPatchers praying their personal arsenals will help them accomplish what they couldn't the first time around...Win a Civil War. Then? Out comes that dirtbag Stars and Bars flag these loonies love to fly for intimidation purposes only and those rifles on their Bully Boi pickups..and we all thought poor Lil Abner was just a country bumpkin?

Guns are used for self defense from 750,000 to 2.5 million times a year, depending on whose numbers you use. Usually without firing a shot.

How many rapes, murders, kidnappings, molestations, etc. are prevented?

Also prevents masturbation, as long as you're holding the gun in one hand, and your innocent victim in the other.

T Squared,

He was inside a house or building...

Hey T Squared perhaps you should research the story of the young woman in Oklahoma who killed the drug addict who had broken into her house and was coming at her with a bowie knife. The police dispatcher told her to do what she had to do to protect herself and her child. What do you think that drug addict would've done to her with that knife if she hadn't had her late husband's shotgun (her husband had died less than a week earlier.)

I usually have around 2 to 5 thousand rounds of ammo at my house. I use it all the time at the range and when I teach handgun safety. I am not going to go shoot up a place just because I have 5000 rounds of ammo.

For those of you asking the question why no CHL holders fired a shot during this incident it is because Texas A&M is a Gun-Free Zone.

I truly hope ewent doesn't own a gun, THAT would be scary.

This incident did not happen at Texas A&M. It was near it. They only use that in the headline so more people read the article.

Alverant and my friends grandmother was killed by 2 a$$holes with a hammer. So should we outlaw hand tools now?

t-square, you are another stupid uninformaned idiot. The Shooter is D E A D!!!!!!!!

when all fail blame the media....i'm guesting most of the killings in chicago are gang related and the kids that was killed had a family member in the gangs...i dont think you can compare those killings to this one

So you're saying, then, that gang shootings aren't important or should not count? So did the headline attempting to relate this latest shooting to a respectable university make it more important? What is your point in bringig the gang aspect into the dicsussion?

Oh, and I didn't blame the media at all for the crime itself, just trying to tie it to a university to hype it more. Would you have cared if the headline had been "Shooting in College Station, Texas?" I doubt it.

kcbrit,

More deaths are reported in the UK from Beatings & Stabbings of all kinds then all the Gun deaths we have each year. So sure the Gun deaths are down in the UK, but they found a different way to Murder and Kill people and more then we do with Guns... Go figure... Do you ever hear of the Our Media or other outlet's telling the people those figures? No, and you will not..

Where did you get those shocking figures from the UK?

Kcbrit,
Little trust in our government? I about busted a gut on that one. As an ex-cop you of all people should know that some are dirty and armed. Really, again little trust in government. Laughable.

Oh, hmm, i didnt read the part where they said what type of gun he used... scrolling back up i still cant find it.. where did you read that? Or are you just making it all up in your head? And what if he used a single shot .22 ? What are you going to say then?

Do you even know what a semi-automatic weapon is. Other then old western style revolvers all guns are semi-automatic. It means that every time you pull the trigger a bullet will fire. Now the old revolvers required you to pull back the hammer to fire the gun.

Luke is just the typical loon trying to demonize guns and blame the NRA rather than the idiot who pulled the trigger.

Honorable 1, A single shot 22 rifle has to be reloaded before firing again. That would give anyone in the vicinity a chance to tackle the shooter before he could get the next bullet off. How do I know? Because I had one in 1936. BTW, are single shot 22's sold anymore? I haven't heard of any deaths from them, either.

Lee, you are correct that many hunting rifles are single shoot then you have to load the next round. Many hunters are going to semi-auto even with hunting rifles. They also have many new shot guns that are semi-auto. And yes they still make 22 rifles. I own a 2 year old 1022. The 22 pistol was the preferred killing tool of the hit man back in the day. A 22 can actually do more harm that many bullets. They tend to enter the body and tumble around causing more damage. Many bullets will go through the body.

I think MILee was asking if they still make 'single shot .22 rifles'. The 10/22 is a semi-automatic (the '10' refers to the size of the clip). I know because I have one. My semi-automatic shotgun was made prior to 1965, so semi-auto shotguns aren't a recent development.

A .22 caliber bullet kills more people in the world than any other kind of bullet. And the type of gun most used in firearm deaths in this country is the revolver.

Whenever a shooting is played up by the national media, the anti-gun crowd always starts railing against "assault" weapons, high capacity magazines, armor piercing bullets, etc. Banning that stuff wouldn't drop the murder rate at all.

The media is really playing this up like it was another random mass killing when it wasn't.

I wonder what our forefathers would think about banks foreclosing on properties at the rate they do it now a days, with the government giving them the muscle to do it. Especially with the scandals that have been exposed with the banks foreclosure practices.

You are saying we don't need gun control because McVeigh killed a lot of people without using one. Oh okay, then discussion on gun control over.

Of course, it appears logic is finished too.

Yes, McVeigh was a nut and his method of killing was certainly more numerically successful. So what is your point? Every time some fool shoots innocent people some troll always brings up McVeigh but it is not relevant to the problem here.

Neither are guns relevant. Crazy people will always find a way to do violence i am thinking is the point. Did you people not finish high school? Is that really so hard to grasp?

that's like saying why try to cure cancer because something else is only gonna kill you eventually.

So if guns kill people, should we outlaw silverware 'cause you use it to eat with so that must be the cause of obesity; or maybe we should outlaw cars seeing you can kill someone with one of those too or maybe even knives, baseball bats, trophies, rocks, scissors, rope etc. etc. etc. etc.

All I know is thank goodness for my gun! My mum had cancer attacking her immune system, so I shot all that cancer to hell!!!!!!!!!!

I personally believe we need some type of limit on Airplane usage and a Background Check on All Passengers... It makes me shudder to see a Airplane Fly Over, ever since 9-11... Damn the use of those Big Weapons...

No, McVeigh was just the logical end result of the far right's violent rhetoric towards the government. Same mindset, larger weapon.

Of course, since Timothy McVeigh killed 165 people with the carbomb in 1995, over 204,000 Americans have been murdered with firearms.

The weapon McVeigh used is illegal. Obviously, the law works, as there have been less than 300 bombing deaths in the US in the last 17 years.

3,200 Americans were killed in the attacks of 9/11. Since then, we have spent over a trillion dollars in wars that were to protect Americans. During the same time period, 130,000 Americans have been murdered by firearms.

It's time for the majority of citizens to realize that the Second Amendment is not a suicide pact, and that REASONABLE limits on gun purchases, ownership, and carrying are needed.

stoopid is as stupid does.

stoopid, your comment indeed makes it clear that you befit your handle...

stoopid you kilt your mama?

DevilDog, right on!

tsquared your still stoopid( my spellchecker brokedid)