Wait for it, wait for it here come the crowds saying OMG ANOTHER ONE WHY ARE THEY ALL THE SUDDEN HAPPENING!

News flash, its always happened, the only difference between this and the next incident is it means the ultimate ratings and now you'll hear all about it.

Rest in peace victims, justice for them, put the aggressor behind bars. Let it end there.

Trent, somehow your complacency doesn't make a lot of sense in the face of what's been happening in America over the recent past but I'm sure you've come to peace with yourself about that.

Nothing has changed... Quite honestly nothing. That's a fact.

In fact, the violent crime rate has decreased in this country for 6 straight years. Additionally, the gun murder rate in this country is .000043%. If we eliminate gang and drug-related murders, the number drops to less than .000021%. If you don't think that's a miracle in a country with 4 million square miles and 320 million people, you are in complete denial. There is no murder problem in this country. There is just misconception based on news hours in a day and a population in the hundreds of millions. Statistics do not lie.

In fact, the violent crime rate has decreased in this country for 6 straight years. Additionally, the gun murder rate in this country is .000043%. If we eliminate gang and drug-related murders, the number drops to less than .000021%.

Since the gangs largely exist because of the Drug War's illegalization of drugs (which hands them a black market for them), and drug-related murders are obviously Drug War related, perhaps it's time to take my advice (which I have shouted daily for months now):

End the Drug War instead of attempting gun control.

Ending the Drug War will save 48.84% of all murder victims (according to your math above). Gun control the last time we had it saved no one (the measures were called ineffective, or were placed within the statistical margain of error: less than 2% lives saved at most).

If it's about saving lives then end the Drug War. If it's about a political agenda, by all means let people die and keep pursuing gun control.

Ps.

I think it's actually .0043% and .0021%...I believe, if I'm not mistaken, you forgot to move the decimal points when converting to a percentage. But your point stands; gun murder is a tiny threat to life in America.

My 48.84% still stands regardless.

EDIT: It would save 51.16% of murder victims. Even better...

.000021 / .000043 = 48.84%

100% - 48.84% = 51.16%

Without any comment on gun ownership, I will concur with your position on drug legalization. We allow people to drink themselves to death. Why not allow them to drug themselves to death? I fail to see an important difference. In fact, some drugs are less of a social problem than alcohol. Marijuana and heroin make people happy, not mean and aggressive. I do have some reservations about those drugs that make people dangerous to others, like PCP and meth, but again, we allow alcohol and half of all domestic murders are attributable to alcohol.

Anyone else have an opinion about the drugs that cause aggression and pose some risk to others? I must confess that I am not terribly well informed about the chemically designed drugs, so there may be some that are simply too dangerous to legalize. I don't really know.

Without any comment on gun ownership, I will concur with your position on drug legalization. We allow people to drink themselves to death. Why not allow them to drug themselves to death? I fail to see an important difference. In fact, some drugs are less of a social problem than alcohol.

Correct. All illegal drugs combined kill far less people than alcohol every year, and legalization has never shown to cause a major uptick in usage rates, and has been shown to cause a slight decrease of addiction rates. Child usage and addiction always plummets, and adult usage increases slightly while addiction rates stay basically the same. All in all, the societal addiction rates drop a little, and usage rates go up ever so slightly.

We can save far more lives with little trade-off in the other direction (usage and addiction rates, let alone death rates) by legalizing drugs than we can with gun control measures that have shown to be basically ineffectual (or at least minimally effectual). EVEN IF someone wants both, the priority should be to save the most lives, and that means prioritizing ending the Drug War over calls for gun control.

I do have some reservations about those drugs that make people dangerous to others, like PCP and meth, but again, we allow alcohol and half of all domestic murders are attributable to alcohol.

And I'd point out...almost every violent offender on those drugs at the time of the crime already had a violent record beforehand. The guy who ate that homeless man's face on "bath salts"? He was found not to have any "bath salts" in his system in the autopsy. He had undigested pills in his stomach. No one is calling for illegalizing prescription drugs...but there was a huge drug warrior call for outlawing bath salts. People never seem to look at the facts...millions of people do these "aggro" drugs but don't get aggro...and the one's who do get "aggro" were aggressive people already. The drugs just make people more of who they already are. Those bad people need separated from society, period.

Anyone else have an opinion about the drugs that cause aggression and pose some risk to others? I must confess that I am not terribly well informed about the chemically designed drugs, so there may be some that are simply too dangerous to legalize. I don't really know.

No matter what, handing over the sale of those drugs to sociopathic murderters is worse than selling them legally. The results might be bad when legal, but not worse than what they are now because of gangs and such killing people whether they are involved in the drug trade or not.

Mr. Cross: Can we get the raw number on that instead of some meaningless decimal?

How many Americans were victims of gun homicides in 2012? Oh, I get it. The figure is too shocking to reveal, has to be hidden behind decimals and percents.

No wonder they call you "twisted".

Mr. Cross: Can we get the raw number on that instead of some meaningless decimal?

How many Americans were victims of gun homicides in 2012? Oh, I get it. The figure is too shocking to reveal, has to be hidden behind decimals and percents.

No wonder they call you "twisted".

1. You can deduce the number logically based on the rate (rate = number of murders / total population). If you can't figure that on your own...

2. Why, logically, would the total number be more relevant than the rate (which accounts for population)? Rate can be logically compared to other nations' rates...the raw number cannot because it is not accounting for population differences.

3. Therefore the decimal (actually it was presented as percentage, but he forgot to move the decimal point) is more meaningful. The total number has no context...but it's great for emotional arguments (an appeal to emotion is an informal logical fallacy).

4. That number is only shocking if you aren't very bright and don't account for population. It's quite unshocking when you look at it rationally accounting for population, which is all that's really important. Let me show you why: If 1 person dies in a population of 100, and 2 died in a population of 1,000, which is safer? Clearly the 2nd one. Unfortunately you want to focus on the 1 and 2 only.

5. The murder rate has fallen 49% in the last 20 years, and 20% in the last decade. So what are you freaking out over? One murder is too many, but you act as if it's some historic epidemic. Chill out and think rationally and logically please.

Well....... here we go again. If they printed every single thing that goes on, it would take each one of us 6 weeks to read one days worth of news.

How's the weather over there? It's raining here.

Hope everyone has a good day...

Mornin' CD. The cold snap will end here and it will be a balmy 35 degrees, with a slight breeze of about 25 fmph, personally would rather have it cold and no wind but the weatherman won't listen to me.

@ creek dog; good point, its snowing in new york! @7.34 in the am, i`ll take rain any day!! good day!

why are you shocked? It is getting to a common event. Yesterday it was in StLouis,Mo. Don't guess it will ever end!

Nope, guns don't kill. In fact lets put more guns that don't kill out there to protect us from the other guns that don't kill. Let's put more of those same guns that don't kill in our schools to protect our children from the guns that don't kill.

You may say the rate of gun violence is dropping but let me tell you, it has a very long way to go!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Aside from having everyone carrying guns, I don't care how you do it, just get the violence down to a level on par with other developed countries.

If you people are worried about your gun rights being further restricted, it is in your best interest to concentrate on the problem that is causing everyone to want to affect those rights and privileges. Don't attack the people who are seeking a way to lower gun violence, instead seek a way to lower that violence that is compatible with your enthusiasm for guns. Otherwise, your going to end up losing. I'm just saying. Remember who the enemy is- it isn't the people who are only wanting to save lives.

70 and sunny in Charleston, SC. Beauty of a day for me.

It's been a while since I've read about a lunatic killing people but not himself afterwards. Welp, death penalty for him.

Creek Dog...It's Sunny and 69* @ 8:40 AM, we're expecting a high of about 80*....

Aside from the nice weather :

Lucky for this guy he doesn't work at a Bodega in NYC or anywhere in
Chicago:

"Police: Clerk kills would-be robber"

HOLLYWOOD, Fla. (WSVN) -- A would-be robber is dead after being shot by a
store clerk at a South Florida gas station.

http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/21009594541815/police-clerk-kills-would-be-robber/#ixzz2I6cE0Ofc

Can't find this story anywhere on NBCNews, PMSNBC or Newsvine....

Oh yeah... It's definitly the video games.

That's all college kids do anyway right?

If only the college bookstores gave out a free Glock with semester book purchases things like this wouldn't happen.

@Nungman

"Mr. Cross: Can we get the raw number on that instead of some meaningless decimal?

How many Americans were victims of gun homicides in 2012? Oh, I get it. The figure is too shocking to reveal, has to be hidden behind decimals and percents."

Per the FBI uniform crime report, 8,583 in 2011, 2012 has not been released yet. That is not a big number out of roughly 350m people in the country. 323 of those by rifle, of which "assault weapons" are a subset. Again, not a big number. Your comment says to me that you have no idea what the numbers are and don't care to do the research to have an informed opinion.

There have been 18 homicides in chicago in the first 2 weeks of 2013, 15 of which were from gunshot wounds. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Where are those headlines?

Hal,

The NRA already came up with the plan but you libbies rejected it. Have a retired cop in each elementary school. It doesn't even cost anything.

I live in one of the most liberal areas of the country (Palm Beach County Florida) and we already have armed guards in grade schools. You notice not many schools in Florida have been shot up lately. Case closed.

brenda1964

Nope, guns don't kill. In fact lets put more guns that don't kill out there to protect us from the other guns that don't kill. Let's put more of those same guns that don't kill in our schools to protect our children from the guns that don't kill.

#1.15 - Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:24 AM EST

I wrote this yesterday just for people like you;

Someone shoots and kills another. Guns fault? No. Persons fault.

Someone drinks themselves to death. Alcohol's fault? No. Persons fault.

Someone chokes to death on a steak. Steaks fault? No. Persons fault.

Someone drives crazy, runs over and kills pedestrian. Cars fault? No. Persons fault.

Haggisbingo blames the NRA for all gun related deaths. Guns fault? No. Persons fault.

Too many people blame the NRA for all gun related problems. NRA's fault? No. Persons fault.

Bobby told a person to jump off a bridge "and he did". Bobby's fault? No. Persons fault.

I cut my finger with a knife and required 10 stitches. Knifes fault? No. My fault. ;-)

Wake up man. Can't you guys understand? Jeesh! Always gotta blame someone but never the person at fault. Never....

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. "Uncle Ted"

Eh...Sounds like Washington has an agenda. NBC is just complying.

Creek Dog, you can't hammer logic into people. The trend is to past the blame now a days. For brenda, the guns talks to her.

Creek dog and punisher These people are preprogrammed with socialist Obama logic and misleading facts.. Obama today will violate the Constitution by putting his own personal interpretation to work and signing edicts from his thrown..

toyoland Included in your misleading raw number are self defense/home invasion shootings, Police officers shooting criminals, border patrol officers killed by fast and furious weapons, suicides both civilian and military{many from PTS that goes untreated because the government is more interested in giving guns to the Islamists}, Gang related Black on Black shooting which as described above is over half and of course a small number are accidental.. I would bet that half if the people killed by rifle are killed with bolt or or single action.. I would also venture a guess that many are by police using their issued long weapon.. See how that raw number can be misleading and used as a propaganda tool..

I encourage every Constitution loving American to call, write or email you Senators and Representitives and tell them we do not approve of the blatent violations of the US Constitution by unrepresenting represenitives.. Many websites have web bots that will find them for you and send them to the right place with your zip code..

Bobster-1557895

Hal,

The NRA already came up with the plan but you libbies rejected it. Have a retired cop in each elementary school. It doesn't even cost anything.

I live in one of the most liberal areas of the country (Palm Beach County Florida) and we already have armed guards in grade schools. You notice not many schools in Florida have been shot up lately. Case closed.

First, off I am not sure what makes you think I am a liberal. I may or may not be. My political polarity is not related to this discussion.

Most importantly though, you seem to have completely missed the point of my question, unless it is your belief that all the gun violence in this country occurs in schools.

I was talking about gun violence and what can be done to reduce it to levels that are more in line with a developed nation. I said nothing about schools. I ask what can we do to solve the problem and the only thing I here from the gun enthusiasts is, "I'll tell you what your not going to do!"

I'll say it yet again, try to come up with an approach to lowering gun violence that does not involve arming more people, or having people's legal weapons being confiscated and, voila, we have a real discussion!

brenda1964....if someone comes at you with a gun you will wish you had one also...instead of your 911 cell phone with a 10 minute response.

Hal,

Like the other guy said, half of all murders are subhuman drug dealers killing other subhuman drug dealers. So those don't even count. F_ck em.

Now you are down to 4,000 or so murders by guns I think. We have 350 million people counting the tens of millions of illegals. Not much more you can do. I'm fine with that statistic. Especially since tens of thousands of lives are saved by guns each year. Don't understand? Let me help:

The liberal Florida police said that since so many Floridians are armed and trained in the use of guns, home invasions and violent armed robberies have plummeted. The police attribute this to the high rate of legal gun ownership. Bad guys are afraid of committing these crimes now. So ultra-liberal cops here in FL are saying this, not me. But of course I agree. Much more than 4,000 lives are being saved.

Hal,

I'll say it yet again, try to come up with an approach to lowering gun violence that does not involve arming more people, or having people's legal weapons being confiscated and, voila, we have a real discussion!

#1.27 - Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:23 AM EST

Here's the solution, make drugs illegal. Now what?! That didn't work. That said...

I'll say it yet again, try to come up with an approach to lowering or stopping drug use so that we don't involve arming more criminals & gangs, or having people's legal weapons being confiscated and, voila, we have a real discussion and possible solution!

Hal We can start with Black on Black gang related violence since it is half and is not being addressed.. The disgusting lack of moral and social values provided by a welfare state would be my first choice..

This just in;

OKLAHOMA!

Oklahoma is the only state that Obama did not win even one county in the last election...While everyone is focusing on Arizona ?s new law, look what Oklahoma has been doing!!!!

An update from Oklahoma :

Oklahoma law passed, 37 to 9 an amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the state capitol. The feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said it would be a mistake. Hey this is a conservative state, based on Christian values...! HB 1330

Guess what.......... Oklahoma did it anyway.

Oklahoma recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from unless they want to get a green card and become an American citizen. They all scattered. HB 1804. This was against the advice of the Federal Government, and the ACLU, they said it would be a mistake.

Guess what.......... Oklahoma did it anyway.

Recently we passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegal's to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes. Pelosi said it was unconstitutional SB 1102

Guess what......... Oklahoma did it anyway.

Several weeks ago, we passed a law, declaring Oklahoma as a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives. Joining Texas , Montana and Utah as the only states to do so.
More states are likely to follow: Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Carolina's, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi and Florida. Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again. HJR 1003

The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I'm sure that was a setback for the criminals The Liberals didn't like it -- But....
Guess what........... Oklahoma did it anyway.

Just this month, the state has voted and passed a law that ALL drivers? license exams will be printed in English, and only English, and no other language. They have been called racist for doing this, but the fact is that ALL of the road signs are in English only. If you want to drive in Oklahoma , you must read and write English. Really simple.

Guess what...who cares... Oklahoma is doing it anyway.

We live in Ohio and if you look at any election results you will see the vast majority of counties did not vote for the Socialist in Chief.. But because the majority of the population lives in 3 to 4 urban centers and thus dependent on social freebies we went to the Democrats.. Many other states are the same way so we are thinking of moving away from our home state and finding a new one that is more in line with our social and political beliefs.. I sent this to our Representatives in Washington last night and encourage every one else to do so as well..

Please begin impeachment proceedings against the President.

Circumventing
or violating the Constitution is a serious matter and all those who are in
complicity of that fact are also violating the public trust of representation..
Several things have come out of Washington that do this already.. Things like
the Patriot act that are anything but patriotic need to be reexamined to see if
they comply with the founding fathers clear descriptions and not someone's
agenda laced interpretation.. Our Supreme Court has been far less then supreme
in this area and some members interpreted things that are once again very
clear.. If they or anyone in Washington needs clarity they should read the
letters and papers the authors wrote several hundred years ago as they are right
there in Washington at the Library of Congress.. Exceeding your mandate by
violating the Constitution to allow expanding your mandate is wrong on all
levels.. This includes wasting our grandchildren's future by spending money on
race tracks, golf, and less then friendly foreign
militaries.. We will be
once again voting against any political officer who does not stick to their
Constitutional mandate and informing all other voters in the area..

Feel
free to forward this to all members of the Senate and House whether they
represent me or not..

Your message was sent to the following recipients: Representative David Joyce,
Senator Sherrod Brown, Senator Rob Portman.

RoadRunner,

Lot's of Ohioans moved to Florida before the Clinton, Frank, Dodd-induced housing collapse caused this to stop. We would still be a red state if not for the liberal shenanigans. But now that housing has stabilized due to Gov Rick Scott's initiatives and his job creation plan, we are getting back on track. Next election, we will be part of the great South again.

So c'mon down!

Well, the Community College was named HAZARD!...

Hal,

You may say the rate of gun violence is dropping but let me tell you, it has a very long way to go!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Aside from having everyone carrying guns, I don't care how you do it, just get the violence down to a level on par with other developed countries.

Violent Crime rates per 100,000

1. UK 2,034 per 100,000

2. Austria 1,677 per 100,000

3. South Africa 1,609 per 100,000

4. Sweden 1,123 per 100,000

5. Belgium 1,006 per 100,000

6. Canada 935 per 100,000

7. Finland 738 per 100,000

8. Netherlands 676 per 100,000

9. Luxembourg 565 per 100,000

10. France 504 per 100,000

United States Violent Crime rate is 466 per 100,000 residents.

Dawgfan, what are the rates for gun-related violent crimes in each of those countries? The issue is guns, not violent crimes overall.

"The issue is guns, not violent crimes overall."

LMFAO!!! So go ahead and stick a knife in my heart! LOL! At least you did'nt shoot me!

Liberals. God love em! LOL!

Always nice to obscure the facts where possible. Why is it the unreasonable pro-gun crowd always want to talk about violent crimes overall instead of gun related crimes? And Bobster, while you're LMFAO, care to enlighten us on those gun related crime rates (as in, answer the question that was asked)?

Firearm related death rate

El Salvador
(some pretty nice countries above us, no?)

50.36

Jamaica
47.44

Honduras
46.70

Guatemala
38.52

Swaziland
37.16

Colombia
28.11

Brazil
19.01

Panama
12.92

Mexico
11.14

United States
10.2

jwight,

Of course the US is going to have a higher homicide rate by firearms than countries where firearms are heavily restricted. The trade off is an astrinomical increase in violent crime. Stabbings, armed robbery, rape, and assault are off the charts compared to the US. Not to mention the US has a much higher poverty rate than most of those countries, and murders usually happen in poverty areas of each city.

JW,

Others have already posted a slew of numbers showing how the US ranks down the list in violent crime. They have squashed your arguments easily. But keep on drinking the obama koolaid son.

Pro--

I ask for a figure, you say to figure it out for myself. So go figure.

The FBI isn't so evasive, glad to note. It keeps and publishes precise figures on murders, broken down by age, race and means used. The stats for 2012 haven't been published yet. These would include the "incidents" at Newtown, Conn and Aurora, Colo. But in 2011 there were 12,664 murders committed in the USA of which 8,583 were by firearms (the largest category by far) and 6,220 of those were by handgun--also the largest.

This is down from the figure of 7,398 handgun murders out of 14,916 total murders in 2007, but wait. That's only those unfortunates shot dead. Let's not forget all those folks walking around maimed for life--if they can walk-- people from Larry Flynt to Jim Brady to Gabrielle Giffords. While there were no survivors at Sandy Hook Elementary, at Aurora there were 12 dead, 52 "only" wounded. Applying that ratio, over 25,000 people in addition to those killed suffered gunshot wounds by deliberate assault in 2011.

Guns aren't only a danger to other people or to people they're aimed at. The FBI doesn't keep statistics on suicide but that arm of the "tyrannical" government you clutchers are protecting us from, the Centers for Disease Control, is helpful there. Would you believe 19,966 people offed themselves with firearms in 2011? This is up from 2010's 19,392. Suicides by gun outpace the next two most frequent means, suffocation and poisoning, combined.

Then there's deaths due to "accidental discharge of firearms": 851 in 2011 up from 606 the prior year and more than all the murders in japan--a nation of 120 million. And how many of these "accidents" weren't accidents? If there's a gun in your home, better make sure you and the little lady are on friendly terms or one day there might be an "accident". You won't be able to tell the police any different since you'll be riding downtown with a tag on your toe.

Dog, what I think should happen is that the western half of Oklahoma should be allowed--no, encouraged to secede from the eastern half and from the USA. We'll keep the part with the oil and most of the brains--a pretty good university at Norman. Then the rest of you will be free to ride around with your gun racks full and your wallets empty.

Since you want no part of the USA don't expect food stamps, Social Security or Medicare benefits, highway matching funds or even mail delivery.

PS: In Oklahoma the highway signs are all in English but hard to read for all the bullet holes.

Mike in Delray: That is because it was on the local news.

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/No-Bond-for-Robbery-Suspect-Who-Survived-Hollywood-Gas-Station-Shootout-187142171.html

Hmm, violent crimes seem to drop in areas where there are more guns. I wonder why. Yet libbies just care about gun deaths since they can make rational people out to be the bad guys. Liberals have any of you ever taken one class on statistics? I think if more libbies did, there would be far less of you ignorant bunch.

post all the facts you want, statistics, and news stories. it says .....shall not be infringed, thats what it says and thats hat it means. i would rather have a gun and not need it , than need one and not have it

i do not see any good coming from banning guns from law abiding american citizens.

i will give up my guns when the government and the criminals decide to bury the hatchet and turn their guns in too. not gonna happen. people are pissed obummer is trying to gut the 2A and force his will without a vote. not good. put the police officers in the schools this far better than any new useless gun control laws

Wrong Hazard...

MgLvR,

I think of this as more of a moral hazard, but sorry I couldn't resisr...

Moral hazard is a concept saying that people will take risks if they have an incentive to do so. The idea is that people might ignore the moral implications of their choices. Instead, they will do what benefits them the most

...okay, that may be a stretch!

The USA is a sick country, trying to solve all OUR problems with violence. Just thank the NRA!!!!!!!

We don't try to solve all our problems with violence. Our murder rate and violent crime rate isn't really all that high, honestly. All you guys need to go to the CDC, DOJ, and FBI websites and look up the rates.

BTW, England must have the NRA to thank for their violent crime rate, which is higher than ours. Oh...wait, they banned guns. Oops, I guess it isn't the NRA's fault they have the top violent crime rate in the whole EU and the 4th highest murder rate in the EU.

Only looking at gun murder is ignorant...it isn't the only kind of violent crime or murder. You can have less gun murder and more violent crime and higher murder rates, or you can have higher gun murder rates and lower violent crime and murder rates overall.

That's the choice unless you end the Drug War.

If you end the Drug War you can save almost half the lives lost to murder, gun or otherwise, in this country. Every nation that ended it's Drug War or decrimimalized to some extent saw a drop in violent crime rates and murder rates. When the USA legalized alcohol in 1933 they saw a 40% drop in murder rate in that one year. During Prohibition (13 years), there was a 78% rise in crime (24% the 1st year, 1920-1921).

Think about it, instead of being a partisan parrot.

Since half of the violence and murder is from gangs and is Black on Black I say we start there..

Kenneth Newman

The USA is a sick country, trying to solve all OUR problems with violence. Just thank the NRA!!!!!!!

Ummm........Did you sleep through history class in high school or what. Oh that's right, the Roman's were just a bunch of skirt wearing orgy fest pansies, who conqured their territories with flowers and wine. Might want to check out say any of the former USSR states or Russia itself. I bet they have way more violence which arn't reported.

Our so called Black President has made few if any speeches to the Black community to get their house in order.. He is more worried about buying votes with social programs and free stuff like Obamaphones.. Bill Cosby was ridiculed and called basically an Uncle Tom for speaking out against the social disease that has firmly grasped the people of color in the urban landscape of America.. I hate sounding racial but crime statistics are sadly plane as day.. Since they include Hispanics as White and it is hard to separate the legal citizens from the illegal in these numbers we are being mislead..

At least you were right about sounding racist...

RoadrunnerO,

It's not just in the Black community. If you look at the FBI statistics Whites are responsible for just over 50% of all crimes while blacks are responsible for just under 50%. Yes, blacks only make up 15% of the population, and whites make up 70%, but let's not try to pretend that only blacks commit crimes. It's really a socio economic problem. High poverty centers have a much higher crime rate than areas that are more affluent. I'm white, I'm male, and I carry a gun every day. Not because I'm affraid of one race or another, but I want to be prepared incase anything ever happens to me. I've drawn my firearm once in my life to defend against an attacking teenager with a brick. 17 years old and spending the next 15 years of his life behind bars. He followed me out of an Apple store after I bought an Ipad.

Roadrunner0, the way to stop sounding racist is to quit making racist comments.

Is it okay to laugh about this??? I hope so, because it's seriously so absurd and out of hand, I don't know what else to do.

And what does THAT say about our culture???

Your not part of "our" culture Sarah?? Are you from another planet ? Perhaps if we made it mandatory to spend your life in a foreign prison for murder,Pakistan,Turkey etc.. THEN these dumb asses would think twice before doing stupid stuff like this. But now, kids think prisons are a symbol to show toughness. Newtown ,Aurora are exceptions, they were isolated cases of mental illness. Violence in large cities happens 24/7 this is where we start.

Yeah, I don't think you got what I was saying there. What does it say about our society, that this is so common, we now find it a source of humor??? You can't possibly believe that this is a sign of a healthy society, in regards to violence.

This has always been here Sarah.

Maybe. That doesn't make it healthy, nor does it mean it should always BE here.

Hazard county pretty much sums it up. Probably the most dangerous county in Kentucky.

The violence says that we need more law abiding, armed citizens out there.

Somehow i knew you'd come to that, neither of which I said.

Didn't say you did, however the tone of your posts implies that this shouldn't even be news, because it's so common and has always been around. That ALONE, should be news. That we as a society now find this so common place, we complain about the media covering it. That's at least 1/3 of the problem right there. Our insensitivity to this kind of @!$%#, because we're just so freaking used to it.

this is what happens when you don't address the real problem buy just try to reduce the number of dead bodies to a cultural acceptable level why else would you only try to reduce the clip sizes and not address the people that commit these crimes

No Sarah, what my post implied was that its bull**** that you are all the sudden so caring. The question is why? That's what I wanna know. Cause there are things far worse that you know doubt know but do nothing. So what is it that jogs your attention? I implied that its a ploy for ratings what NBC pulls.

Or Trent, you don't know jack @!$%# about me??? And even if it IS a ploy for ratings, that ALSO implies a callousness in regards to gun deaths. That you consider it a PLOY, shows that you feel it isn't deserving of "real" ratings or attention.

The coverage should BE real, not a ploy. If it isn't real, than that says something about us, doesn't it?

Right. I think I read you quite easily since I don't see a picket sign for safer vehicles and rigorous driver testing and evaluation. It's just easier to post on a forum and chase kony with likes then it is to actually care.

Sure it deserves attention, but not for money. And definitely not in this fashion of fear mongering.

Well, since our vehicles are ALREADY highly regulated, licensed, and we need to pass classes to drive them, as well as ever evolving and stricter penalties for misusing them, I'd say your comparison is disengenous at best.

And, oh yes, cars aren't weapons. Vehicular manslaughter is NOT homicide. You know what, when we have as many wack jobs intentionally running over kids in order to kill them, you MAY have a point.

But I bet your guns make you feel real macho, huh? Especially after taking @!$%# from your boss, at your middle management, boring and futile job. It's so much easier to post like a tough guy on the internet and wave a gun around, than it is to actually face the fact that you're no big deal.

See, I can assume things about you too. Pop psycho-analysis of strangers is fun.

Well i dont own a gun for starters. Secondly, a car is a weapon, its a large and bulky weapon. Drivers who don't respect such a weapon kill. Whether they didn't mean to or not isn't what determines murder. Thus is the same for guns it would do you some good to differentiate between the two.

Driving tests aren't enough, you see people don't take responsibility for the weapons they drive. If they did they wouldn't drink. There's the irony in what you deem good protection. Anything is a weapon. Cars even more so because the second you get behind the wheel of one, you are thereby controlling something that can become one of the biggest weapons on the planet. If a tractor can kill 21 people in China, a car can do even worse with the speeds its capable of.

If a car isn't a weapon, tell that to the millions of wild life killed every year, and if that doesn't bring a tear to your eye then there's the bull**** popper on your care level once again.

No, a car is a means of transportation. And yes, whether they meant to kill someone or not DOES determine homicide, from manslaughter, from vehicular manslaughter. Let's play a game??? For every person I can find INTENTIONALLY killed by a gun, find me one INTENTIONALLY killed by a car.

A crime in which the defendant's unlawful or negligent operation of a motor vehicle results in the death of another person. Also called vehicular homicide. The specific law of each jurisdiction can vary, but vehicular manslaughter is generally easier to prove thanmanslaughter because it requires an even less culpable mens rea.

DEFINITION FROM NOLO'S PLAIN-ENGLISH LAW DICTIONARY

A violation of traffic laws that results in a fatality. Vehicular manslaughter can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the circumstances. Drunk driving resulting in a death is most likely treated as a felony. The death of a passenger, including a loved one or friend, can also be vehicular manslaughter. (See also: manslaughter, reckless driving)

Definition provided by Nolo's Plain-English Law Dictionary.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vehicular_manslaughter

In terms of wild life... Let me know when you go hunting with your car.

Oh wait, so it just happens and its ok its just there to stay? I get where your mentality is. Seriously drop the care act.

A car is a huge responsibility just as a gun is. You can't preach one or the other and not expect the same answer. If you don't treat a car as it is and respect it, learn to drive it and respct the lives you're in charge of then youre no different then someone allowing their kid to play with a gun. If your line is drawn at morality then you need to seriously drop the law talk when it comes to justifying what is and what isn't a weapon.

You can't sugar coat death. That's life. Deal with it and deal with me calling you out.

What is, or what isn't a weapon has NOTHING to do with the law. The law is about intent. The weapon is about what something's designed to do. Of COURSE a car is a huge responsibility, but as I said it's a highly regulated one, and more regulations get heaped on it ALL THE TIME. As they should. Drunk driving laws are constantly getting harsher. Great!

But you're comparing apples to oranges. You're taking a unintentional consequence of a necessary means of transportation, and comparing it to an intentional outcome from a deadly weapon.

Calling me out??? Yes, I have a hard time with that. That's why I post on a public forum. Geesh, get over yourself.

Is it? so you can tell when a person is killed in a shooting incident that the person with the gun intended to shoot? Did the person with the car intend to kill either? No but guess who got a hefty sentence for the murder of their best friend in a street race that went sour? The law cares and doesn't care.

Yet more people die to cars then guns. Ironic isn't it? How is 100's of thousands dead to car accidents apples to oranges? Seriously what is your argument?

I merely popped your care bubble, deal with it.

so you can tell when a person is killed in a shooting incident that the person with the gun intended to shoot?

Okay, we have a little something called a criminal justice system. It has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that a person is guilty, and one of the things they have to prove for HOMICIDE is INTENT or MENS REA. Now, homicide CAN be committed via many different things including both cars and guns, but one of those is the intentional weapon more often than the other. Care to hazard a guess which one?

Now, if that intent ISN'T there, they can STILL be charged with something and STILL go to jail, but the charge will not be HOMICIDE, as it would be considered an UNINTENTIONAL killing.

So, if you want to compare cars as a weapon to guns as a weapon, you have to FIRST match the crimes up. Currently you're comparing the lesser charges for UNINTENTIONAL or ACCIDENTAL deaths via cars, to the INTENTIONAL killings via guns.

Either compare intentional killings, where the murderer used a car to intentional killings where the murderer used a gun, OR UNINTENTIONAL killings where the car was accidentally the purveyor of death to UNINTENTIONAL killings where the gun was accidentally the purveyor of death.

I merely popped your care bubble, deal with it.

Yeah, I'll cry myself to sleep thinking about what internets Trent thinks of me. You're THAT cool.

Look you don't care it's ok I get it, not everyone cares we are only human. You can cross every line you want to justify death in any sugar coated form. But the point is death is death, responsibility is responsibility, and guns don't account for even a fraction like cars do. Even if you multiplied the number of guns and the statistics with them you don't even put a dent in the deaths still caused in traffic accidents. This is just one example, my point is purely if you really cared you'd actually do something about it and not just for cars, hell you'd probably tackle things greater then guns. Since they aren't actually anything to fear like medical malpractice.

It's bothered you enough to keep coming back, carry on with that role.

Cheese and rice. Death is death, but homicide is not accidental and guns aren't cars. Why do we have different degrees of homicide than? Why do we throw the book at someone who intentionally kills, when we give as little as probation to someone who accidentally kills?

People are ALWAYS going to die more often in accidents. BECAUSE THEY'RE ACCIDENTS. All of us are capable of committing an ACCIDENT. They're not intentional, by their very nature alone we are susceptible to committing or falling victim to one.

But you can't compare intent to non-intent. If you could, than why doesn't our justice system treat them the same?

It's bothered you enough to keep coming back, carry on with that role.

Don't threaten me with a good time, and don't mistake caring what you think for engaging in a debate. That'd be as ridiculous as comparing accidents to murder.

To the people

This guy killed his ex and her new boyfriend. Its simply attributed to lack of morals and values

I haven't compared non intent to intent, YOU HAVE. I've merely gone off what you've said for A: defending that you supposedly care so much, and B that guns really are an issue.

-_- You just proved that 500 thousand or more people dying doesn't concern you as much as guns do because you are afraid of that topic. You even more so proved it in your assumption that I have a gun XD Sorry your psycho analysis was poorly done. I don't own a gun.

Next time you want to bring food for thought make sure it isn't personally motivated, and rather logically motivated.

FYI the most dangerous county in Kentucky is by far Jefferson County where Louisville is. I know. I live here. There is a murder reported on the news almost daily. And that is just what is reported. Hazzard aint got nothing on us.

As far as shooting go they have been happening forever, The workplace has become one of the most dangerous places in America.Hell we had one of the first back in 1980 something at Standard Gravure. That shooting was blamed on prozac. However they are now happening in schools, malls, theateres and here in louisville, a nursing home. That was workplace violence though. It needs to stop. Espicially at schools. I really dont see how gun control is going to solve anything. Id like to see them try to round up guns here in Kentucky. Go for it. There is no one item that Americans love more than thier guns. It may have made crime go down in other countries, But here in America... It will only make the price of guns go up. It will accomplish nothing.

Trent, you're a legend. The only thing grander than your logical abilities is your psychic assumptions.

Just one tip, when the article is about ACCIDENTAL deaths, and I'm running on about guns and not cars, THEN you'll have a point. Alas, this article is about INTENTIONAL deaths. So your bringing up cars as a counter point to ANYTHING here, is off point. Or in layman's terms, horse pucky.

I'm really shocked that this is THAT hard for you to grasp. But you're totally right, I should not be commenting on ANYTHING until every last car accident is prevented for the rest of humanity's existence.

Youre too simple minded to understand an example when you see one, I could've used any other comparison the result is the still the same, you're playing an act and your point is void and full of so many holes and no real sympathy. That's all I've been saying this entire time. It would do you some good to keep up with current events outside media bias and rating ploys, you might actually learn a thing or two about how to be aware.

This has little or nothing to do with the actual argument, that's why I'm replying to your comment, you see it has everything to do with just that.

articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-07-07/news/chi-100707boomgarden_briefs_1_gun-crimes-accidental-deaths-study

So, you see, People with guns save more lives than they take... by far.

You don't want to live in a country where only the government has the power of guns... you just think you do.

You are insane if you think that self defense can be done for you by someone else.

So if you do not own a gun you are insane.

What sane person would ever fail to provide for the defense of his one and only life?

The reason that police organisations were not consulted is because cops know that gun rights save lives... more lives are saved by gun owners than are lost to criminals and madmen.

Agreed Bobby

if you think anyone should hold sole power then you might as well go live in a dictatorship. Because not even Republicans or Democrats hold solid control. Nor could they ever its CRAZY. Who keeps the political machine in check? The people they represent. The fire arms are the sure thing if they mess up beyond reason.

There is no murder problem in this country. The rate is a paltry .000043%. If you eliminate drugs and gangs, you have a 1 in 50,000 chance of being murdered in a year. If you live in a city of 50,000, and there was a single murder every year, you'd think local law enforcement was doing a stellar job. Perspective is a terrible thing for your @!$%#ty arguments.

I could've used any other comparison the result is the still the same,

Sure you could have, but unless you were comparing intent with intent, and non-intent with non-intent, you'd still be off point.

your point is void and full of so many holes

How so?

It would do you some good to keep up with current events outside media bias and rating ploys, you might actually learn a thing or two about how to be aware.

I can only aspire to your greatness.

The fire arms are the sure thing if they mess up beyond reason.

And, who are these representatives in our government that you need a gun to protect your liberty from? How are they planning on getting around our systems of checks and balances? Why are they out to destroy the very source of their power (as in the government)? Are they planning on using our military against us? Why would the military be okay with that? If not, why wouldn't we use our military against them? What chance would you have against our military? Have you forgotten that they were popularly elected? Please, explain the details, and than oh yes, explain to me and the FBI how you're arming yourself against the the government, and watch what happens.

The Constitution is what protects you from your government. Your guns don't mean jack all in the face of a predator drone.

Isn't Kentucky the state where one can carry a gun into a bar???? I'm just waiting for the first drunken shootout!!! Just think how many shots will be fired since they can't hit the broad side of a barn!!! And the NRA will be cheering on the sidelines!!!!

I appreciate your compliments, I really do.

Your argument is emotionally guided. Not logically. Or else you wouldn't have preached this society doesn't care crap instead of seeing what I actually meant by my comments. That it is a ploy for ratings and its undeniably so in the wording of every article involving a gun. And never good stories.

Your argument was to say that you actually cared -_- when the truth was you don't, and we're here on a forum ARGUING IT lol. I think that's pretty evident in itself XP

Sarah if you don't know about the NDA of 2012 which makes it legal to detain any citizen of the UNited States without due process or charge for as long as they see fit then you don't understand liberties that are disappearing. DO you know how teh government officially defines "potential" terrorists? Do you know about the patriot Act?

The pen is mightier then the sword... That is why you have to pear a politician. The military is run by the government as it is civilian controlled.

Your argument was to say that you actually cared -_- when the truth was you don't, and we're here on a forum ARGUING IT lol. I think that's pretty evident in itself XP

Ummm, not really. My original argument was that we, myself included are too callous in regards to this, mostly because it's so common place. And that we've reached the point where it's humorous, which CAN NOT be a good thing. Unless you think we SHOULD be to this point??? I mean seriously, it's all laid out right there for you.

Apparently that soared over your head too. Try rereading. The second time might be the charm.

Sarah if you don't know about the NDA of 2012 which makes it legal to detain any citizen of the UNited States without due process or charge for as long as they see fit then you don't understand liberties that are disappearing. DO you know how teh government officially defines "potential" terrorists? Do you know about the patriot Act?

Sure I do. Now can you give me the specifics I asked for? Tell me this, where do you stand a better chance, armed conflict with the greatest military the world has ever seen, or challenging the Patriot Act and NDAA in a court of law???

An amendment of the constitution can be easily taken away... You put too much faith in a piece of paper when it is the people that uphold such a paper. Seriously, leave your la la land and enter reality where you actually have to pay attention. If congress can hold a vote at 1:00am to insure that certain text of a bill can pass without opposition then you have to wonder what else t hey can do. If congress can slide text into the health care bill that has nothing to do with healthcare then you wonder what else they slipped in there.

Why do we need predator drones in civilian use? Don't we have helicopters for that? What is so dangerous that we need people to be constantly monitored?

Wait you mean that normal people couldn't just as easily in control take over a modern military or components of its ability to operate to fight back?

So your solution is to just role over and play dead? I'm not saying fight back now I'm saying maintain your ability to do so should you ever need to. You need to seriously look into the forefathers of this nation and their biggest concerns over the security of this nation. It isn't the exterior enemies its the interior.

So many people challenged these bills, didn't actually stop it, see there's why the weapons part is important.

An amendment of the constitution can be easily taken away..

Well good thing WE elect the people who have the power to do so. And WE can also vote them out of office. Or run for office ourselves. Or petition our government for a redress of grievances. Or go to the media. Or go to the courts...

If congress can hold a vote at 1:00am to insure that certain text of a bill can pass without opposition then you have to wonder what else t hey can do

I don't have to wonder about the fact that all the hand guns in the world aren't going to make much of a difference against a military such as ours. Seriously, get out of your la la land. This isn't 1776, I'm sorry, it isn't. And yes, our system has its issues, but you aren't oppressed, nor could your handgun protect you from oppression when our DOD is as powerful as it is.

Why do we need predator drones in civilian use? Don't we have helicopters for that? What is so dangerous that we need people to be constantly monitored?

Okay, now I'm thinking you have a reading comprehension problem. I brought that up as an example of how useless the second amendment right to bear arms is against a military that has planes that fly themselves.

And you still haven't given me those specifics. Come on, if the threat is THAT great, you should be able to spell it out for me a little better than, "The boogieman is coming to steal my freedom".

Seriously, you wanna talk about fear mongering. THERE'S your fear mongering.

When the government fails to represent the people that trusted in it to do so, they then have the right to install a government that does. That is our right as citizens, because even in the late 1700's they knew that civilized settling of affairs doesn't always work.

Haha yeah we elect em but how easy is it to buy a vote? Do you even see the crap candidates preach that they don't actually do? Yeah the political system is working so good sarah.

You're preaching that to me like our military isn't composed of human beings who would disobey a direct order to save the ones they love. You're preaching it to me like the military isn't vulnerable in ways. When itc omes to the military dealing with its own people its a whole different ball game.

The second amendment always holds sway over any kind of technology. You think Afghanistan lost to the Soviet Union and all its technology? What about us? It's obviously winning if we keep sapping our own liberties to prevent possible terrorists.

It isn't technology that wins wars.

My fear mongering? What are you smoking, I haven't said remove anything, I'm not the one preaching remove any type of weapon lol. I laid out the reasons for why the second amendment stands as a last point for any civilized people. I'm not preaching rebellion in teh streets. I'm preaching caution and awareness.

Oh the specifics of the acts? or the specifics of what the government defines as a terrorist, ironically you use the word government enough and people just hink you're crazy. If you have a beard you are a potential terrorist, if you own a gun you are a potential terrorist. Please look it up for yourself the media did cover this.

Look up the Patriot Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012

Like I said, you go ahead and let the FBI know you're arming yourself against the government. And don't forget that just because you don't agree with EVERY piece of legislation, that doesn't mean your interests aren't represented. You have to share the country, you know.

Nor does any of that, as exciting as it sounds, increase your odds against the remote control bombs and radar and spec ops that can kill you with a paper clip. I'll take my chances in court. And great, didn't I say why wouldn't we use our military against these mysterious, government tyrants??? In which case, your needing a handgun to protect your freedom is STILL moot. Either you use our military, or you lose to them, either way, it ain't YOU and your handgun that's fighting and/or winning.

When you can give me those specifics, I'll admit there's a legitimate threat there.

http://www.infowars.com/homeland-security-report-lists-liberty-lovers-as-terrorists/ Specifics

http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-meta.html Patriot act

http://rt.com/usa/news/appeals-ndaa-detention-public-536/ National Defense Authorization ACt.

By all means do your research.

Why do you assume I'm arming myself against the government? I don't even own a gun LOL I'm actually proposing what you keep telling me works better. Awareness of your rights and the constitution. Which there in contains the second amendment as a last resort sigh you are hopeless.

I've stated multiple times I don't want the gun now, that's not the important part, its the right to be able to get one if I need to at some point. The right.

I don't have to give you any specifics, there's no sense me trying to tell you the truth when you don't even wanna know. La la land mentality right there.

Haha yeah we elect em but how easy is it to buy a vote? Do you even see the crap candidates preach that they don't actually do? Yeah the political system is working so good sarah.

Seriously, gridlock by our ELECTED officials is now tyranny that calls for armed rebellion??? This is worse than debating with a truther. Listen, dude, the political system is NEVER going to be perfect, that doesn't mean it's oppressive. If it bothers you that much why don't you try to fix it??? Through logical means of course. Seriously, again, what do you think would be the easier more logical way to fix it, guns or reform???

I've stated multiple times I don't want the gun now, that's not the important part, its the right to be able to get one if I need to at some point. The right.

The stupid part, is believing that gun is going to protect you from this mysterious, future, government tyranny. You're using these ridiculous arguments and examples, but you aren't addressing that, even if they ARE hypothetical, they're STILL ridiculous.

I never even called for armed rebellion... Sigh yet again and I have reading problems right lady. I keep explaining how important the right to be able to do so is and you keep thinking im saying CALL FOR ACTION NOW BRING EM DOWN! -_- *smacks forehead* please get real.

You think id be alone with the gun? I don't even have one, imagine how many guns even one family does have XD You crack me up you make the government and the people seem so black and white its like Communism all over again.

Especially when the government employs normal people XD imagine trying to disarm the public, what a laughiing stock XD

Why would they be ridiculous? they aren't even hypothetical they are completely real, and by that i mean the acts and teh rights they remove which I have given you the specifics for. Sigh... you really are in a wonderland. THIS IS AMERICA WE ARE FREE AND THAT WILL NEVER CHANGE.

How ridiculous is that?

Instead of denying all that i've shown maybe you should show me some facts for why they aren't real... Prove that to me right now. If you can actually give me hard facts about how accountable our government is i'll follow you more.

Start with the national debt :) address the countless promises politicians don't make to secure a vote from their subjects :)

Address this so called terrorist problem we have that instills more pushes for increased checks on people...

Address lobby groups and their motives. Why do we have lobby groups?

Address why you can trust the government :) Address why Obama is even worth a second term, Address why a republican would be any better XD

Oh I forogt the fair voting part, Address SUPER PACS

And to this I leave you to do your homework, later.

I never even called for armed rebellion.

Except when you said...

its the right to be able to get one if I need to at some point. The right.

Plus a whole lot of other crap along those same lines. Whether you're calling for it NOW or calling for it MAYBE in the FUTURE, it remains illogical. Maybe calling for it somewhere down the line, does not address ALL of the issues I brought up that makes it illogical. You're merely talking around the issue.

I never even called for armed rebellion... Sigh yet again and I have reading problems right lady. I keep explaining how important the right to be able to do so is and you keep thinking im saying CALL FOR ACTION NOW BRING EM DOWN! -

Smacks forehead - It's illogical EITHER WAY.

You think id be alone with the gun?

I think you wouldn't have an air force. Or battleships. Or tanks. Or drones. Or radar. Or sattelite communications. Or smart bombs. Or ICBM's.

Especially when the government employs normal people XD imagine trying to disarm the public, what a laughiing stock XD

Right, so unless that's changing sometime in this future you keep talking about, your fear of needing your gun against them, again sometime in the future, is ILLOGICAL. This would be where you give me those specifics, about how these possible future tyrants are going to infiltrate our government.

Denial denial denial. I gave you plenty specifics, it's not enough a hint that you didn't know about either of those two acts...

Prove to me what I said above. Then we can have an educated discussion.

Why is it illogical to maintain your right to change government should most people not support it? what do you think Rioting is all about? or Protest... completely American things that we do anyway. Sigh stop saying illogical and start showing me why maintaing the right to change is such a bad thing.

NO you haven't proven to me where I said I wanted to start armed rebellion. In fact what you quoted didn't even incite that. It yet again stated the right to maintain OUR OWN RIGHTS. That's all that was said. so please tell me more about how illogical it is to have a say in your own country.

Except every one of those is controlled by some person who can think for themselves. If Egyptian military might can defect and shrink to the calls of the people then the same applies here. Learn your history.

Civilians have weapons, they have communications. We are a nation of the best and brightest don't you know? XP where do you think they pick these people, a military breeding factory? -_- Straight from the population.

Drop the defeatist American military can't lose attitude. If the Soviet Union lost to itself then Imagine where we stand with ourselves.

Trent,

I have an issue with every, single last thing you listed. They're ALL screwed up and wrong and need to be changed. But, NO, they don't send me into quivers of fear. Because this is how society works. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. Roosevelt threw the Japanese in internment camps. McCarthy and the blacklisting. ALL HORRIBLE things. HOWEVER, did they lead to the end of our free society or did we logically expand our rights again? And that re-expansion of rights, didn't come because we waved our handguns at the government. Our ELECTED officials didn't wake up one morning and say, "Oh @!$%#, that's right they've got guns, let's stop black listing people". If that worked they wouldn't have STARTED blacklisting people in the first place.

Unless you can show me how that historical truth is going to change, this remains illogical and PARANOID.

NOw if you'll excuse me I'm gonna go live my life with my head not shoved in a sandbox :) Do some research and prove that I'm not right about what has happened thus far. Prove to me that any democratic nation shouldn't have a right to change. That's all you call illogical.

"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

Its the right to be able to should it ever become that. Never said it was, never said it would be. Just like I never said START A REBELLION.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson

See this is exactly why its so important. Its a last resort of safety.

Sarah, Back then politicians were elected fairly :) They didn't manipulate people to earn more money or power. They didn't air false facts about their opponents on television so maliciously that you actually started to believe it without fact checking. They didn't have lobbyist groups to shove in the faces of anyone who opposed their points.

The president didn't incite false flags to go to war. Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and now the quarrel with Iran.

There is no quiver of fear in anything i said looool, you think I'm acting on emotion when i'm merely acting on logical and responsible defense of the amendments currently in the constitution that haven't negatively affected this country since its birth :) I think you're so deeply scared of anything I have to say that the objective is to say I'm acting on fear -_- when all I promise is awareness and the protection of rights that currently exist :)

In case you forgot, Jefferson lived pre-predator drone. Do some research, and find out about the ONE time we tried armed rebellion against the government, and how well that worked out. Otherwise, study the legislative and judicial history of our country. I promise you, it isn't any scarier today than it was 100 years ago. The government will NEVER be afraid of you and your future, if needed, gun. There is nothing logical about believing that the type of guns and/or weapons you're currently allowed to own, will EVER make a difference.

I'll enjoy my sandbox, you go enjoy your bunker.

I don't need a bunker :) I've got the right to get a gun if i need to.

Right, cause during Communism we gave way to indefinite detention of citizens for any period of time without explanation and the complete elimination of said people to civilian courts but now only dealt with in military courts. I gotcha, and Japan wasn't a military Industrial complex in the 1920's - 1940's. We didn't even give the go to assassinate a United States Citizen back then either.

You're really quite scared of the government loooool. Thought they were your elected representatives? -_- Get the hell out.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson

I think there's more crime today than there was in old Tom's day.

I would be happy to restrict certain weapons. I'm ok with armed citizens, but I'm not OK with all types of firearms.

I sure am glad that folks cannot easily buy a machine gun. That was some good gun control. Hand guns are today's big problem firearm.

Yes, today we have instant news. 100 years ago, not so much. So, we know more about what is happening in our world. And we can act on it. Knowledge is your friend!

The US has a very high murder rate compared with other counties where there's lots of white folks, and fewer guns. You can easily find that information on the WWW.

When death is the result of a firearm discharge, it is about 20 times more likely that a murder has taken place, than a justifiable homicide.

Do guns make you safe (do people with guns live longer)? How do you know that? Should everyone get a gun? If not everyone, who should not have a gun?

I was reading your post earlier where you tried to get a person to tell us when a vehicle was used for a homicide, like a gun.

The simple fact, I do mean simple is the following.

If a person takes a gun and knowing that if they use it people can or will die they commit a crime...Using a weapon irresponsibly is what causes death. If a homeowner uses their weapon to defend their home and family then they are not acting irresponsibly . If we can agree on that we are half way towards my point.

Now that being established,

If a person uses a vehicle irresponsibly, like a person using a gun irresponsibly, and it causes a death they have used the vehicle to commit a crime.

MY point is, we all know if you drink and drive someone could die, correct?

So if a person willingly and knowingly gets behind the wheel of their car and while operating the vehicle Drunk, knowing they could kill someone, and they do, they are as guilty of a murder than a person who uses a gun.

The logic is simple.

You know a person can die from you using your vehicle irresponsibly, thus it is the same as a person using a weapon irresponsibly.

There was also a post that said Violence is rising, or that there is so much violence.

Want to try a real cool experiment...

Do this, turn on your news, the 5 o' clock or 6 o'clock local news, count teh storys of violent crime, fires, break ins etc.

You will see a pattern.

If a fire is in the national headlines, your local news will broadcast story's about a person burning trash, or a small fire at a persons house.

If the national news is focused on a shooting, every shooting will be reported. News and how it is, and what is fed to us has changed. It isn't news anymore. It is knee jerk fascination.

We have a National crisis on our hands, a War, and a corrupt Political and Banking sector. The reporting on those issues are small bites in the news if not at all..But you will hear about an accidental shooting that happened in Maine on your news in Idaho.

If the news were to report on every Domestic Violence case in one day, do you realize that is all we would hear for the whole day, 24 hours of it?

If the news wants to over emphasizes an issue they will dig up story's from around the world to meet their agenda.

I read MSN once in a while.

One day recently, in the About Town section, which is suppose to deal with your local community, the headlines said "5 shot to death at local Night Club",

I'm thinking, which one? Do I know the Club? Then I open the article to read it. A shooting in a Thai Land Night Club has no relevance to my local news, but the article was there..Know why, no new shootings in the States worth reporting, but the gun violence issue MUST stay fresh on our minds, so they push a foreign story on us and hype it up to sound like a local story.

Here is another thing to consider. This one always ticks me off..

It may sound a little callous, but it is the truth.

In teh mid 80's and early 90's all we heard about was Gang Violence and Gang Gun Violence..Remember?

I do.

Then it all of the sudden dissipated from the news. Does that mean the gang murders went down? No. It just means we moved on to our next flavor of the month, day , year.

But god forbid we should hear about violence on innocent people. Say a school full of white middle class children and it is back in the news.

Why wasn't there such an outrage over the Aurora Shooting?

Why wasn't there such an outrage over the Virginia Tech shooting?

It is simple. I hate to say this, but it is the truth.

Wrong Victim Profile.

Redneck shoots their ex over a dispute..NEWS WORTHY.

Black man shoots their ex over a dispute...NOT NEWS WORTHY.

Children are more of a motivator to get things done, especially Middle Class White Children.

Gun Violence by criminals is still a huge issue in the inner city s, and many of the victims are still children, but we will not hear about the 600 or so children caught in gang and drug weapon violence. Again Wrong Victim Profile.

As far as Weapons are concerned, inner city's have some of the strictest weapons regulations, but some of the highest gun violence. How is that possible if laws banning and restricting weapons is the cure?

I live in a very rural area of the country, not everyone lives close to or in a city. The closest thing that resembles a city to me is 45 miles away,a dn the population for the town is under 12,000. If you call the Police to report a break in or a crime being committed, it can take upwards of an hour for authority's to arrive. By that time the criminals are either done or gone.We have seen in recent years an influx of people driving into the rural areas from the larger city's and committing crimes.

Last month they busted a meth lab within 5 miles of my house. The criminals running it were from Detroit MI. Which is over 125 miles from my home. They were armed to the teeth and had a stash of stolen goods from recent break ins. These criminals even had shot a dog at a persons house when they broke it. They will not register their weapons nor be restricted by a federal ban on any weapon. It will not work.

But if these Animals, these predators can have illegal access to such fire power to commit a crime, I should be able to have access to them legally.

The day the Federal Govt. and the local authority's can guarantee me that Criminals will follow the law, and register their weapons, I will agree to the same. The day the criminals stop getting a hold of the weapons everyone labels as assault weapons is the day I will stop..

Fight fire with fire.

Also, if you want to know how bad the anti-weapon lobby is..In N.Y. They just passed a set of laws that defines an assault weapon as any weapon with one military style device o n it. I.E. A folding stock, an adjustable stock, a flash suppressor, a muzzle break a bayonet lug, a pistol grip or thumb hole stock.

So what the state just did is made people who own a REAL HUNTING RIFLE Criminals. Subject to felony counts and time in Prison for owning a normal bolt action Rife.

See when you hunt, you have the weapon barrel floated and glass beaded, then you put on a muzzle break to stop the weapon from rising to much when you fire it, it helps eliminate recoil and helps you handle the weapon better after discharge.

This normal ,, hunting piece of machinery is now outlawed. So when they say they are trying to take the weapons away from people, I can see where there paranoia comes from. It is the truth. When a normal bolt action hunting weapon makes you a felon and means immediate forfeiture of the weapon and a ban on you buying weapons in teh future, then it is them taking away your 2nd amendment rights and banning all weapons, even for target and hunting purposes.

Laws regulating any legal person owning a weapon legally, that is legal to own <Machine-guns and milti fire weapons have always been banned> will not work as long as ther are people who will not legally own a weapon

Trent-3873964

"I don't need a bunker :) I've got the right to get a gun if i need to.

Right, cause during Communism we gave way to indefinite detention of citizens for any period of time without explanation and the complete elimination of said people to civilian courts but now only dealt with in military courts. I gotcha, and Japan wasn't a military Industrial complex in the 1920's - 1940's. We didn't even give the go to assassinate a United States Citizen back then either.

You're really quite scared of the government loooool. Thought they were your elected representatives? -_- Get the hell out."

Trent, this thread was almost painful to read. Unless you are a newbie you should have known better than to tangle with Sarah. She has been mopping the floor with you since your second post.

You should have quit about 12 posts ago, rather than just digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole, jousting with a much superior intellect. You are WAY out of your league. Walk away, lick your wounds, and try to preserve some dignity.

I don't agree with Sarah on every single subject (almost all, but not every), but I am a wise enough man not to debate with her. Read and learn, the woman is "all that", ... and you need to know "you've been served."

Oh, and one unsolicited piece of advice: When you find yourself losing a debate, don't reach for the anger and insults arrows in your quiver. They're not persuasive, and they just make you look desperate.

Cheers!

I can't believe Sarah and I are on the same page on this, but yes we are. Gotta give credit where credit is due. Couldn't have said it better.

Robert in Oregon, I don't think so.

Sarah-3043284

I never even called for armed rebellion.

Except when you said...

its the right to be able to get one if I need to at some point. The right.

Trent saying it is his right to "get one" is not calling for a rebellion. It appears Sarah is putting words in Trent's mouth. They are trying to wear each other out... Sarah isn't necessarily the more intelligent one. From a third party standpoint, the whole thread is pretty meaningless.

Looks like maybe Sarah doesn't like guns, so maybe she thinks that no one should have one. Maybe Sarah's never been stalked, robbed, raped...maybe she has never had to defend herself. Maybe none of her loved ones have ever been a victim, who knows. Well, other people have been stalked, robbed, raped, and it is their right to protect themselves, their families, and their property with guns and ammunition. It isn't necessarily about protecting oneself from the government. And if I ever have to shoot at a perpetrator, my intent would be to kill. I won't be a victim because Sarah doesn't like guns.

Oh...and no, violence of any kind is never laughable. Not even in exasperation. Never.

Game, Set, Match...............Trent.

Sarah is this bleeding-heart liberal who defends drunk drivers since they didn't mean to kill someone! LMFAO!!! Here in Florida, drunk drivers who kill someone are prosecuted for murder.

Trent, there's no use arguing with Sarah, you can prove her wrong and she'll still make an argument out of nothing, she really thinks she has all the answers. I made the wise choice of ignoring her as an author to save my time from reading her irrelevant posts, I suggest you do the same.

David Armstrong-6662768

To the people

This guy killed his ex and her new boyfriend. Its simply attributed to lack of morals and values.

Are you sure about that?!

Police identified the victims as Caitlin Cornett and her uncle, Jackie Cornett.

So, it seems this is not true however, your post is pretty much right on as in, It's simply attributed to lack of morals and values.

Actually, I have been impressed in the past at how intelligent Sarah is whether I agree with her or not. If you do not agree with someone, doesn't mean you don't agree with "everything" they say or believe in.....

You people talk too much... and all about nothing.

Anyone who thinks that self defense can be done for him by someone else is insane.

So, if you don't own a gun, you are insane... suicidal?

In the face of mortal danger, you have seconds, not minutes, your weapon is as important to you as claws and fangs are to a cat.

The difference is the cat does not philosophize or feel pangs of guilt over defending his... one and only... life... the way insane people do.

1991 saw the highest number of murders in this country's history at 24,700. 2011 saw 14,612 and 2012 saw roughly the same. I don't know about you, but a 59% drop in the number of murders is really good. Violent crime is also down. There is just more media coverage on these issues than in years past. The internet also help fan the flames.

Yes, crime started to fall in the 1990s. Why? Guns? Or, was it something else:

http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/

The authors of Freakonomics say that the fall in crime is coicident with the age at which unwanted children would have reached the age to become criminals.

It coincides with the new concealed carry laws.

Any proof of that?

Yup.

www.crimefree.org.za/Role-players/Criminologist/Lott/Lott-Files/Response%20to%20Stephen%20Teret.htm

Because these are malicious and intentional killings???

I mean, why not focus on the people who fall down the stairs and crack their heads open? When we have an epidemic of people INTENTIONALLY killing people, by running them down and hitting them, while driving their cars drunk, than your comparison will make sense.

Gee, Sarah... if you want people to focus on intentional killings, get the media to station cameras & reporters at abortion clinics...

Yeah they should have been there for the Dr. Tiller murder, huh? But that was at a church.....

Abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with the gun problem we have in this country, so don't even go there.

Guns are small potatoes compared to things that go unchecked, yeah cars are a pretty big factor, medical mal practice... you name it. It's sad you pay heed more to guns then actual life itself. There's more of your own interests at play then just good will it seems.

doesn't matter what the leading causes of death are, or if we should focus on measure to control them, guns are just scary, guns must go.

They must go sure. But just like alcohol it gets worse when you do. And making it so the government is uncontested in whatever measures it proposes makes it terribly worse on those afraid.

Giving up liberties for more safety isn't the answer. And if you don't believe me check the NDA of 2012 and the PAtriot Act.

doesn't matter what the leading causes of death are, or if we should focus on measure to control them, guns are just scary, guns must go.

That's irrational fear vs rational risk assessment. Same reason that people choose to drive to Vegas instead of fly even though the drive is more likely to kill them than the flight.

The media does report on traffic deaths caused by alcohol when they are especially horrendous. Do you really think that they report all the murders? There are about 87 gun deaths per day in this country. Do you read about all of them? I think this particular murder was reported because it happened on a college campus and three people were shot, with two dead.

Deaths caused by drunk drivers have been cut almost in half in the last decade. A lot of the credit goes to the lady that started MADD after her daughter was killed by a drunk driver with multiple DUIs. After he went to jail for her daughter's death and served his time, he was released. Within a matter of weeks he was involved in another accident while under the influence. He had no license and he didn't own a car. Some idiot loaned him their car. Not smart. So yes, greater awareness and much more stringent enforcement has made a difference. Please note the fact that there is much more stringent enforcement. We now have periodic alcohol check points where all drivers are pulled over to be checked for alcohol. Tends to put a crimp in the alcohol fueled accidents when they arrest you before you kill someone.

I'd like to see them do something similar with gun enforcement. Weed out some of the yahoos and dingbats that get drunk and go out and shoot at the moon.

I do have concerns about the Patriot Act and the NDA. Maybe when we change SCOTUS, we can have another look see at those two.

Incidentally, I am far less worried about liberals creating a dictatorship than I am about the Tea Party types. Liberals will rant at the right wing, but they really have no desire to force them to embrace liberalism. They understand that freedom is more important than agreement. The Tea Party, on the other hand, seems more than willing to force the rest of us to accept their dicta, regardless of how we feel about it.

A lot of the credit goes to the lady that started MADD after her daughter was killed by a drunk driver with multiple DUIs.

What helped weren't DUI laws...it was the increased penalty for that one way you recklessly drive. If they applied that same penalty to all forms of reckless driving maybe more lives would be saved. We don't need more laws for that, just increased penalties for ONE law; reckless driving.

DUI laws are dumb, honestly. Sleepy drivers kill more people than drunks. Sober teen drivers kill more people than drunks. Where are the sleepy driver checkpoints with awakeness field exams? Where is the call to outlaw teens from getting liscences?

DUI was already against the law before DUI laws...reckless driving has always been illegal.

I don't care if you kill me while texting, eating, doing make-up, changing the tradio, hot-rodding as a teen, yelling at the kids in the backseat, or drinking, etc. It should all have the same penalty because it's reckless driving that led to a death.

I'd also point out that DUI laws have been a convenient excuse to violate serach and seizure protections in the Constitution. They pull anyone over, with no probable cause or suspicion, who drives through a checkpoint (a geographic area). They don't do that for any other reason. If you aren't being reckless you should not be searched, and if you are then you should be relieved of your vehicle immediately (impound and arrested).

DUI is one of the dumbest laws with popular support. It saves no one. The problem wasn't that we needed a new law, the problem was cops used to let people go home who were driving recklessly. The cops needed to be dressed down for being so lenient on drunks...and still need to be dressed down for being to lenient on woman doing make-up who are swerving, people eating while driving who are swerving, texters who are swerving, parents who swerve while yelling at their kids, and tired drives, etc. If you can do any of those things without being reckless I could care less. And BAC (blood acohol content) is an individual thing...not everyone (or almost anyone except an 80lb woman) is drunk at the decimal number they make the legal limit.

(BTW...I don't drink, so I never drink and drive.)

The reason for reckless driving is erroneous. It's the reckless driving that is the harm (and the problem). Address that, and quit going after causes of reckless driving, since most people who do those things aren't being reckless. MADD is an emotional response, and knee-jerk reaction to one type of reckless driving. They've done our search and seizure protections great harm. The same good results could have been attained without those checkpoints. All we neded were tougher penalties for the existing law against reckless driving. And you should keep up with MADD...they are going even further now. I could list for you the tyrannies they wish to impose, but you have the internet same as I do.

Incidentally, I am far less worried about liberals creating a dictatorship than I am about the Tea Party types. Liberals will rant at the right wing, but they really have no desire to force them to embrace liberalism. They understand that freedom is more important than agreement. The Tea Party, on the other hand, seems more than willing to force the rest of us to accept their dicta, regardless of how we feel about it.

Liberals want to impose gun and economic tyrannies, and the neocons want to impose religious based social tyrannies and non-stop war. Between the two you shouldn't wonder how we got this far or which side will bring us to total authoritarianism...it's both sides, just on different issues. I can't stand either side. One side cheerleading for disarming law abiding people (some incrimentally, and some totally) and more extortion (tax) on their neighbors (usually ones they don't know personally), and the other side cheerleading for constant war and policing the world while keeping the Drug War going (among many other social tyrannies).

One worse than the other? Not from where I'm sitting. I want liberty, neither of them do.

Since drunk driving was addressed with stiffer penalty's on drunk driving alcohol related deaths have gone down and yet you think some gun control is a bad thing.

There already is gun-control Grandpa. Automatic weapons are banned. Felons cannot purchase guns legally. Crazy folks cannot purchase guns. Where the h_ll have you been?

Sarah,

IF you call the 14,000 murders last year an epidemic. What did you call the 24,700 murders in 1991? The truth is, is that our country has gotten safer as the ownership of firearms has increased, and since the assault weapons ban expired in 2004. Here's the homicide rate since 1960

Homicides per 100,000

1960-5.1

1961-4.8

1963-4.6

1965-5.1

1967-6.2

1969-7.3

1971-8.6

1973-9.4

1975-9.6

1977-8.8

1979-9.8

1981-9.8

1983-8.3

1985-8.0

1987-8.3

1989-8.7

1991-9.8

1993-9.5

1995-8.5

1997-6.8

1999-5.7

2001-5.6

2003-5.7

2005-5.6

2007-5.7

2009-5.0

2010-4.8

2011-4.7

Violent crime rate is down as well from a high of 758.2 violent crimes per 100,000 to 386.3. I don't know about you, but rates that at or below 1960's levels is doing pretty darn good.

So?

Would you also be so flippant if they took down the "No Loitering", "Drug Free Zone" signs, or no records of pedophiles in or neear a school, truth hurts??

You paranoid pro-gun-goobers are some silly characters. Always got a dumb talking point or defiant mouthings, so as to be more paranoid!

"Paranoid pro-gun-goobers"?

OK... here's a whole bunch of 'em for ya @55wipe.

QUOTES FROM FOUNDING FATHERS REGARDING GUNS:

"And that said Constitution be never construed to authorize
Congress...to prevent the people of the Unites States, who are
peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..." SAM ADAMS, in
the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, Aug. 20, 1789.

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the
people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when
young, how to use them..."  RICHARD HENRY (LIGHT HORSE HARRY)
LEE, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic
(1787-1788)

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us
carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was
adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and
instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text,
or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it
was passed." THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William Johnson, June
12, 1823, found in The Complete Jefferson, p. 322

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right
of the people at large or considered as individuals... It
establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and
which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
ALBERT GALLATIN of the NY Historical Society, October 7, 1789.

"...the people have a right to keep and bear arms."  PATRICK
HENRY AND GEORGE MASON, Elliot, Debates at 185

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."  THOMAS
JEFFERSON, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson
Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before
them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which
must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert
their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people
are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear
their private arms." TENCH COXE in "Remarks on the First Part of
the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym
"A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18,
1789.

"Last Monday a string of amendments were presented to the lower
house; these altogether respect personal liberty..." Sen. WILLIAM
GRAYSON of Virginia in a letter to Patrick Henry.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons.  They are
left in full possession of them."  ZACHARIA JOHNSON, 3 Elliot,
Debates at 646.

"A free people ought...to be armed..."  GEORGE WASHINGTON, speech
of Jan. 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, Jan. 14,
1790.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that
they be properly armed."  ALEXANDER HAMILTON, The Federalist
Papers at 184-8.

"The great object is that every man be armed.  Everyone who is
able might have a gun."  PATRICK HENRY, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

"A strong body makes the mind strong.  As to the species of
exercises, I advise the gun.  While this gives 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 of your walks."
THOMAS JEFFERSON, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed.,
1967)

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while
on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader
and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as
property.  The same balance would be preserved were all the world
destitute of arms, for all would be alike;  but since some will
not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would
ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..."
THOMAS PAINE, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)

"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual
discretion... in private self defense..."  JOHN ADAMS, A Defense
of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788)

"A militia, when properly formed are in fact the people
themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
RICHARD HENRY (LIGHT HORSE HARRY) LEE, Additional Letters from
the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.

"What, sir, is the use of a militia?  It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty."  Rep.
ELBRIDGE GERRY of Massachusetts, I annals of Congress at 750
(August 17, 1789).

"I ask, sir, what is the militia?  It is the whole people, except
for a few public officials."     George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates
at 425-426.

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be
infringed.  A well regulated militia, composed of the people,
trained to arms is the best and most natural defense of a free
country..."  JAMES MADISON, 1 Annals of Congress 434 (June 8,
1789).

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans
possess over the people of almost every other nation...
Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several
kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public
resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the
people with arms."  JAMES MADISON, Federalist Papers, #46.

"Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only
defence, the militia, is put in the hands of Congress?"  PATRICK
HENRY, 3 Elliot Debates at 48.

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are
not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the
spirit of resistance?  Let them take arms... The tree of liberty
must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots
and tyrants."  THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William S. Smith,
1787, in S. Padover (Ed.), Jefferson, On Democracy (1939), p. 20.

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia.  Their swords, and
every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the
birth-right of an American... [T]he unlimited power of the sword
is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments,
but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of
the people."  TENCH COXE,  Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

 "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing
degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own
defense?  Where is the difference between having our arms in our
possession and under our own direction, and having them under the
management of Congress?  If our defense be the real object of
having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted more
propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hand?"  PATRICK
HENRY,  3 Elliot Debates 168-169.

This dum fuc should go enlist, but I would bet he's a sissy and wouldn't go to war!!!!

for the love of god, who would even read through all that?!

2 kenneth

i agree with him and i did enlist and serve my country. how about you?

BobbyGordon - did you actually read all of those?

You realize that many talked of the militia in lieu of a free standing Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines - are you for the end of those?

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Rep.
ELBRIDGE GERRY of Massachusetts, I annals of Congress at 750
(August 17, 1789).

"Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only
defence, the militia, is put in the hands of Congress?" PATRICK
HENRY, 3 Elliot Debates at 48.

A lot of those quotes are talking of the militia of the free people of our country defending our country against other countries...now, I'm not against gun ownership/usage at all, but it seems to me that about every person who brings up the right to have guns does so without any thought of it being to protect our country against foreign invasion, which many of the points you've listed talk to.

Truth,

Exactly. Not many school massacres in Dixie. A killer wouldn't stand a chance here. They prey on sissy, liberal states like CT and OR.

a standing army is an occupying force and there is no standing army in American, the military is forbidden from operating within our borders and the National Guard is used only in cases of extreme emergency and only when authorized by a state governor of the President.

Do you honestly believe that self defense is something that can be done for you by someone else?

That the police even can protect you from mortal danger. most instances of which last mere seconds?

How insane must a person be in order to ignore reality to the extent of rationalizing away his own obligation to defend his one and only life?

If you even half understood what Obama is asking you to give up you would not even consider doing it for a split second.

I can't even believe that people like you exist... it's like something out of a B rated satire.

There are no good gun stories. Ban those guns.

So, mytoosenze, you would like to see the 1st Amendment squelched in order to for you to more fully carry on your love affair with your gun?

takenaka: Your comment makes about as much sense as asking to close down all schools and Universities to keep students from being murdered.

Your "analogy" is what doesn't make sense. People don't die from being at school. They die from getting blasted with guns. Ask any coroner. Ask the Newton coroner.

take, Stop being ignorant. People use guns everyday to defend themselves, you just don't know about it. Here is a website that publishes good gun stories as MSM does not. Keep and Bear Arms.

republic, No, absolutely not, how did you ever come up with that. MSM is very biased or haven't you noticed. Quick and sensationalizing bad shootings but never mentioning good gun stories. Just be equal and balanced is all I ask.

Media doesn't publish feel good stories because people are naturally attracted to blood gore and the grotesque and what do you simply remember more? Your fears or what was good for ya. Just what I thought.

Just an fyi, calling something a shooting just juked you into thinking OMG BAN THOSE GUNS! It didnd't solve the problem.

THanks Nbc, i love your rating scheme.

love affair with a gun? isn't that cute? are you jealous? i'm sure he'll let you sit and spin on the barrel if you ask him really nicely. would you like that? does that turn you on?

Another fine upstanding gun owner until he wasn't.

Just a few days ago there was a story about a woman who defended herself and her children by shooting an intruder five times. That story was repeated in a couple of different locations, most especially on MSN's home page. So yes, they do carry good stories. You just have selective memory.

blue 123: unfortunately the 20 children murdered, the folks murdered in Colorado and the one off shootings are getting a lot of press from the mainstream media not because they care about reporting news or care about the individuals being killed. All this is nothing more to Obama than fuel for his agenda to destroy our Second Amendment rights. I do believe that a lot of the folks who comment on this site and disagree with my pro gun stance are sincere in their beliefs and I can respect that. But the circus in DC is nothing more than the head clown's desire to rid the American public of weapons. I really believe this is he first in a series of many attempts that will be tried to do just that.

right so if they can get the number killed in these incidents down then no one will pay attention

The many 100s-year-old 2nd amendment was for single-shot muskets against the British. The biggest mistake this country made was not removing that amendment as soon as it became obsolete.

The question should be what is wrong with our society that we need to defend ourselves against people with criminal intent.

go for it. organize a movement, get the votes and repeal it. but until then, quit trying to usurp people's rights, now matter how much you disagree with them.

Brit in the pit; pull your head out of your a$%#$%$. When the 2nd Amend. was passed single-shot muskets were leading edge technology. The reason it is still there is we need it to protect ourselfes from the government. They want our guns now, what next our car so we can not travel, our phone so we can not communicate. Laugh if you want but it is true. Look what happened in Europe that was caused by first taking away the weapons of the people. Oh and by the way their freedom was restored by those with weapons........

The 2nd amendment was redefined in 2008, and it is proper to keeping your government yes the people who are supposed to represent you in line with your needs. Otherwise politics becomes a money pit for kick backs and secret agendas. Oh wait it's already there now and barely holds politicians accountable. Now you wanna take away the brute force behind representation and let this run rampant? Please by all means tell me about how you know what freedom means.

Let's be honest here. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, has always been subject to individual interpretations. In Lincoln's day they were trying to understand the meaning of the Second Amendment, and there was never agreement on it. If the original document was so wonderful, why did it allow for the ownership of slaves. Read the Constitution, one of the most divisive portions had to do with the requirement of returning runaway slaves to their original owners, or face federal and state prosecution. Those of you who idolize the Constitution as originally worded should really read it sometime. My interpretation is that gun ownership was intended for purposes of defending the county against foreign interlopers. And that defense was meant to be a militia, not each man for himself. Besides at the time of the writing of the Constitution much of the population needed guns to provide food for their families. Today that reason does not exist.

Muskets were top of the line weapons in their day. The AR15 is the modern day equivalent of that very same weapon. The writings of the Founders was clear. The 2nd Amendment is to prevent tyranny. They, including Washington, wanted every American to be armed with these implements of WAR. It's to keep the douche bags in D.C. honest enough to prevent their own massacre at the hands of the people. Don't like them? Don't buy one. There's plenty of us out here prepared to protect the gunless cowards when push comes to shove. Sleep easy.

jlw, I hate to be an advocate for guns, but the amendment reads, "enemies, foreign and domestic". That's pretty clear to me. You're right, of course, about the founding fathers having no way to anticipate the evolution of weapons. I doubt that they ever, in the wildest nightmares, could have conceived of nuclear warheads. The early settlers did practice germ warfare, however. They deliberately gifted the native Americans with smallpox contaminated blankets.

I think all you can do is endeavor to put their perspective into the concerns and experiences of their time. Theirs was the first democratic form of government in several thousand years. They had no parallels from which to draw conclusions about how it would work. So of course they were extremely sensitive to the possibility of some person deciding to appoint himself absolute ruler and emperor. Whether or not their paranoia was justified is still a matter of some debate.

J. Paris: If the gov't wants to control you more, they will take over your banking ability and your communications (cell phone, internet, etc.). Your gun will have no effect on this except to threaten a lower level gov't employee.

moronic comments, would say OH MY, but its not a surprise...

Are you all three or just one or two out of three? Fess up.

neither, your're just the ignorant a-hole who feels it necessary to post insulting comments about people, so i've chosen to target you. let the fun begin...

There is no murder problem in this country. The rate is a paltry .000043%. If you eliminate drugs and gangs, you have a 1 in 50,000 chance of being murdered in a year. If you live in a city of 50,000, and there was a single murder every year, you'd think local law enforcement was doing a stellar job. Perspective is a terrible thing for your jackoff arguments.

The town I live in Florida has been incorporated since 1940 something. There has never been a single murder. Ever. And most everybody here owns a gun. Hmmm.

One resident who does not own a gun is Ray Lewis since he has a record.

gun violence tends to concentrate in the areas most populated, regardless of gun control laws. vermont is very liberal on gun ownership, and has extremely low gun rates, and low dispersed population. DC, go figure, with its strict laws, is four times the national average per capita. California, New York, and Texas have the most in absolute totals, but also lead the pack in stabbings and beatings. when people are packed in too close to each other, they kill each other. we should outlaw cities...

Thanks for the friend request I was banished from the Kingdom for a while. Thanks to Rusty, MBN and VR also.

Palmetto: You make a great point, unfortunately banning liquor was already tried and it didn’t work. You would think people would learn. Banning guns won’t fix this problem any more than banning liquor did during prohibition did in the 1920s.

Banning liquor would ALSO put a lot of people out of work.

Sarah - anyone who gets behind the wheel of an automobile drunk is intentionally trying to murder someone -

Uh, no they aren't. They may be bat @!$%# stupid, but they don't use drunk driving as a homicidal weapon. That's why vehicular manslaughter is a LESSER charge than actual manslaughter, which is a LESSER charge than homicide.

A crime in which the defendant's unlawful or negligent operation of a motor vehicle results in the death of another person. Also called vehicular homicide. The specific law of each jurisdiction can vary, but vehicular manslaughter is generally easier to prove thanmanslaughter because it requires an even less culpable mens rea.

DEFINITION FROM NOLO’S PLAIN-ENGLISH LAW DICTIONARY

A violation of traffic laws that results in a fatality. Vehicular manslaughter can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the circumstances. Drunk driving resulting in a death is most likely treated as a felony. The death of a passenger, including a loved one or friend, can also be vehicular manslaughter. (See also: manslaughter, reckless driving)

Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vehicular_manslaughter

When was the last time a lunatic got shnockered and drove through a school, in order to kill 20 kids??? Find me as many cases of HOMICIDE, that means WITH MENS REA, where the intentional weapon was "drunk driving", as I can find you cases of HOMICIDE, WITH MENS REA, via a gun.

September 26, 2012—Carmichael, CA—A man who allegedly caused a DUI accident that killed one man, seriously injured a woman and also killed four pets has been charged with homicide in the pending criminal case.

Normally, drunk drivers who are involved in fatal accidents are charged with manslaughter, requiring the state only to prove that the defendant acted negligently or recklessly. But to convict a driver who has been charged with murder for a death in a drunk-driving accident, the prosecution must show that the defendant acted with implied malice – a heavier burden to carry and the reason relatively few drunk drivers are charged with or convicted of murder.

I would agree it is a rarity but it does happen. On a side note these are statement taken from two different articles. I want to make sure that is called out, I am not trying to be deceptive.

Didn't say it NEVER happened. But to compare, as the original poster was, vehicular manslaughter, to homicides via firearms, is asinine, at best.

Without the intent to kill, it's like comparing apples to oranges, and the intent to kill someone via drunk driving is minimal. Not that I'm defending drunk driving, mind you, but it isn't a WEAPON, as a gun is.

I find that someone drunk driving is just as guilty for murder as a person killing with a gun. They, for one, are fully aware of the possibilty they're going to get drunk or aware they are drunk, yet they still decide to irresponsibly get behind the wheel - then bam, someone is dead because of them. That is murder. Also, people are more likely to suffer from being hit then a bullet to the chest or skull. I'm not saying shooting someone is any better though - just that there are more stupid people behind the wheel then there are people with guns.

Good post RAG. End result is still the same.

If we are suggesting that by the mere act of driving drunk, you are an attempted murderer, then are we also to assume if you check a text message, you are also an attempted murderer, since in both cases you are doing something you know could result in someone's death?

and you would make that "intelligent" observation based on????

celnav: I sure hope you are right!!

What youre reading as complacency is disgust over the money media makes for tapping into peoples fears and manipulating it. Just read between the lines.

maybe because it happens 10,000 times a year? every year. nothing new, not shocking. or are we supposed to hold a candle light vigil over it, like we do when some celebrity we don't know personally passes away?

I would say that we've either become insensitive to the prevalenco of violens or so used to it that we all issue a collective ho-hum. Either way is a frightening propostion for the future of our country.