GM taken. Nice to see more words in your sentence that "at least" mean the same thing.

What, do you have a special ring-tone or alert on your computer that let's you know when there's a gun shooting story? Just messin' with ya.. LOL

Even though you get bashed a lot for your posts, I do agree with you but as you did today, it's nice to see you mixing up the words a little.

On another note, I hope the mother and her two children survive. If I had to guess, the story sounds to me like the old man went nuts and tried to kill the whole family whereas, it seams he only succeeded in killing himself so far..... Guess we'll find out with updates.....

Id like to know where people are getting information from saying the majority are for gun control and please dont say polls that liberal media outlets post if so I can counter any of them with non lib polls. What those poll takers dont realize is all the people in rural areas who do not take part in such polls and who are the major gun owners in the US. Sorry but if the Government cant even enforce the 22,000 laws in the books how will they enforce new ones with so many southern and midwest states against them and another thing the Gov will never be able to control private sales. All gun control is going to do is create a huge black market for guns that have filed of serial numbers or even the further advancement of the new printable gun.

GM CD. You are right takenaka, a majority of Americans DO support action to stem gun violence. Like getting tough on people who never heard of the Golden Rule or all the civil laws of our justice system. You can't ban or stop crazy I am afraid.

takenaka is a control freak from another country. It's to be ONLY his way. That's why you never see him in a discussion about ANYTHING. He is NOT willing to listen to the other side.

Those not allowed to have guns will demand the rest of us be dis-armed.

Let us hope they bring enough friends to carry them off our property then.

There is a difference between crazy and anger. There are those that are crazy with a little bit of anger that take out schools and theatres. There are those that are just plain ANGRY that take it out on their loved ones. You can't ban or stop EITHER. However you can educate everyone, including gun owners families and friends, about how to deal with a family member of friend that has anger issues and also happens to own guns. And the bottom line is, you shouldn't ignore the possibility of something bad happening. Especially if anger is common in the person.

That is one method of gun control I truly do suggest all take to heart. Figuring out a way that a family can be protected from the family member with a gun. This is happening more and more, and is sad. Education other than the canned safety instructions.

I give Arizona Tumbleweed, what makes you think that TAKENAKA is from a different country?

G'Morning Stonepipe.......

My take is that takenaka is a woman. Reading her posts in the past steer towards how a woman would post.

I haven't looked at takenaka's page but I remember he/she said he/she is originally from Viet Nam and on another article someone said he is living in Japan.

IAMAWOMAN: The following post is from "Jack from Jax".

"Even though I disagree with Takenaka I took the time to post to/from him. He his in Japan but has some children living in the US. From his point of view, courtesy of NBC, all he sees his reports of guns/deaths etc"

Takenaka

I agree with Creek Dog, much better approach.

GM CD and StovePipe

I believe Takenaka is from Japan and still lives there. However, his/her children are supposedly living in the US either as students or working?

Even though I do not agree with his/her posts regarding no weapons, I believe he/she has the right to their opinions but I always hope the rest of the post includes his/her rationale regarding why/what was posted.

Those not allowed to have guns will demand the rest of us be dis-armed.

Wrong again as usual AZ., I could legally go out and purchase a home arsenal, I have no felonies or restraining orders or mental competency judgements against me.

It really is simple math, more cars equals more car pollution.

Same with guns and gun violence.

WilliamOfRites

So are you publically admitting that you are NOT permitted to have firearms?

So, by extension, if YOU are not permitted firearms, NO-ONE should be permitted firearms.

So William, have you sold your car yet to decrease pollution? What a ridiculous comment; it's comparing apples and oranges. It is not the guns we need to reduce, it is the nuts that use them.

WilliamOfRites

So are you publically admitting that you are NOT permitted to have firearms?

As usual we disagree but your reading comprehension on my last post is truly an insult to our education system.

I clearly list the articles which would preclude me from being legally able to obtain firearms and CLEARLY state none of them apply.

I then make the VERY reasonable premise that even though I can have legal guns I still choose gun control which completely debunks AZ's premise.

Try to keep up.

Takenaka can say whatever he wants - the rest of us do. I do agree that this post of his is better then the standard one liner.

I am a dem. I am in favor of people owning guns if they want. I agree criminals will always find a way to have one. But really, there is a problem with some peoples use of guns. The laws are pretty much all there, they are just not enforced.

gm Creek Dog, stonepipe, jack, XD (the usual suspects)

takenaka

Time for some gun control measures. A majority of Americans support action to stem the tide of gun violence.

I agree with your second sentence, but not your first. I include myself among the Americans who own guns and also support action to stem gun violence. I do not believe that gun control is the answer. I much prefer gun owner control. How about a mandatory 10 years for carrying a gun during the commission of a felony, 20 years for brandishing one, and life without parole for using one? That would go a long way towards solving the problem if it (and the laws already on the books) were enforced across the board.

I believe that any sane, responsible adult has the right to own guns, and I support the Second Amendment. Guns are no more responsible for violence than locomotives are for train wrecks or silverware is for obesity.

.

On behalf of the NRA, our continuing efforts to protect your Second Amendment rights and defeat the administration's socialist agenda have insured that 300 million firearms are now in the hands of American civilians. Compared to that number, we feel that twelve thousand firearm-related murders each year in the United States is a relatively low figure, and one that will become even smaller, relatively, by putting millions of additional guns in the hands of American citizens. Our primary concern is to keep people who work in the gun manufacturing industry employed, and to keep the industry lucrative for its owners and the millions of Americans whose retirement benefits depend on it.

your attempt at this post is full of fail. just tell us how you really feel about firearms, rather than a sad attempt at sarcasm

gm Creek Dog, stonepipe, jack, XD, db, (the usual suspects)

The merry-go-round is still spinning, I see.

Have a great day, you guys.

Along with all of you, my sincere wishes for full recovery for the mother and child, and for our nation, which seems to be staggering off kilter lately.

Good afternoon Mimi-or as I prefer ScreaminEagle! Ma'am I hope someday to meet you, I have to assume you figured where I am from. Jack, and Bill. And Bill from out West I do believe you are the one to come up with "usual suspects" it does crack me up.

Stovepipe? Isn't that what they called a mortar tube? Hey I been called worse!

Was this poll taken by the same people that predicted that Rommel Romney was going to win the presidential election?

I got no idea I didnt vote for Romney and it was a close race so I dont get your point.

Andrews82nd.....

Why do you think 332 to 206 is "close"?

You were deceived into believing it was "close" by Romney's (official and unofficial) team. It is past time (for you) to become disillusioned.

The election in 2000 was "close".

Ian Emdee

Why do you think 332 to 206 is "close"?

Cherry picking. 52% to 48% . I also keep hearing that the majority of Americans voted for Odumbass. No, the majority of VOTERS ,voted for him. About 1/3rd of Americans didn't even vote. Some of the Obama supporters voted as many as six times. But getting back to guns, if you do your polls in the middle of New York, you will get different numbers than if you did the poll say outside of Houston or in Dallas. Using that type of example, you can make any poll look any way you want.

Deerhunterbow1.......you ranted:

Quote.....52% to 48% . I also keep hearing that the majority of Americans voted for Odumbass. No, the majority of VOTERS ,voted for him. About 1/3rd of Americans didn't even vote. Some of the Obama supporters voted as many as six times.......EndQuote

52% to 48% isn't "close" in a POTUS election. "VOTERS" are the only Americans that COUNT (in an election)....Duh.

Whose fault is it if you had an uninspiring candidate? You (Republicans) nominated Romney.

Six times?? Prove it. You are a truly delusional (sore) loser.

....you also said (elsewhere):

Quote......Willy Wonka & his Chocolate City is being framed by the Vanilla Government......EndQuote

.....and, a racist (embarrassment) to boot.

You realize everyone saying Romney would win stopped saying that after Sandy right? After Sandy the polls tilted back towards Comrade Obama. Romney was in the lead before Sandy.

You should join the NRA. Each month "The Rifleman" magazine they send when you join they devote an entire page called "The Armed Citizen" I believe, a whole page devoted to people defending their home, family and neighbors.

Nation,

It's a myth in the imagination of your figment.

Nation under God- not Greed

Guns- oh yea they protect people from home invasions. What a myth.

A bold (and broad) statement. I presume you have some statistics to reinforce your opinion?

That is a rhetorical question. The FBI doesn't keep statistics for home invasions. They are hidden in the numbers for robbery, aggravated assault and burglary. And for good reason.

You can not make your case without an understanding of not only how firearm ownership is a defense against home invasion, but also a deterrent. I find it telling that there are only five states that have specific laws regarding home invasion: Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana and Michigan. Other states (California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, Rhode Island) address it in a roundabout way. Most of these states have strict gun laws.

Nation, I am responding to this because a gun saved my life during a home invasion. As well as the life of my wife at the time. I do know this to be true, because the surviving home invader stated during his trial, their intent was to rob, then kill me, then they planed to have their way with my wife, then kill her as well. Unfortunately, they ran into a .45 cal argument to their plans.

I love that the title is "Cops: Mom, two kids in critical condition after shooting at Miami home", then four paragraphs in "A body of a male was also discovered inside the home"

Nothing more is mentioned about "the body". Just odd.

Nation,

I invite you to invade my home and show me how much of a myth that is.

Nation,

i do believe there was a story not 2 days ago on here where a homeowner protected his family and property from someone breaking in.

about a month ago a women in north Georgia used a firearm for protection from a home invader that broke into her house and chased her and her children through as many as 3 locked doors before she shot him in the face 5 times.

quite feeding into the librel anti-gun myth that firearms aren't used for protection. they most certainly are

Denver,

i'm not quite sure what you mean that there are only 5 states that have specific laws regarding home invasions. more than half of the states has some sort of Stand Your Ground law or No Duty To Retreat law, that in part, deal specifically with home invasions

OLD IN AL

Seriously were U even present at the trial, because ANY public defender that would allow his client to admit to that on the stand is an IDIOT and cannot leagally defend a fly.

I was in a HOME invasion in CALIFORNIA not little old AL, nor do they have a death penelty like AL so I find your story onesided and far fetched. I was robbed but NOT killed I had an infant child I was 25 a MODEL to boot and naked from the waist down except my panties NEITHER guy attempted to rape me or shoot me they just wanted MONEY for drugs. I was smart enough to convince them to leave the house with me so they would NOT hurt my child. Once I was able to get them some cash, they took me to a church I thought they might try to kill me so I took the keys from the car and threw them into the darkness so they would have to run away NOT drive SMARTEST move I could have made and all I lost was a couple $100 bucks and some jewelry small price to pay compaired to a life...

ashley:

If the killer was in court testifying against another killer, he could have told that story. OR. If the killer was making a plea deal, he would have to tell the whole truth. OR. Some killers are just proud of what they do.

Arizona:

If he takes a plea deal court is no longer valid if you read his post it states while at trial. You do NOT go to trial if you take a plea deal. 2nd an attorney is there to defend you if the attorney cannot properly defend you he must recuse himself/herself from the case. With that said that is why I have trouble with his story fact is fact conjecture is bull$!*t.

oops also forgot to tell you ARIZONA he states he killed 1 intruder so the only suspect left cannot say something like that because the other suspect is NOT there to defend himself. The suspect can state what HE and HE alone intended to do but not what someone else intends to do because: "say it with me" it is HEARSAY and not permissable. Too many HOLES in His version of this story....

During the penelty phase the convicted is allowed to make a statement but that is all....

wasneverhere

Denver, i'm not quite sure what you mean that there are only 5 states that have specific laws regarding home invasions. more than half of the states has some sort of Stand Your Ground law or No Duty To Retreat law, that in part, deal specifically with home invasions

You are correct about the number of states that have SYG laws, and many of them make reference to defending property. I limited my examples to those states that specifically mention "home invasion", because that is what the article is about.

ashley: A plea deal MUST be approved by the court. The defendant goes before the judge and aliquot. If he does not tell the whole store, the deal is off.

Learn, before you post bull-chit, and call someone a liar.

And: Please answer: How many persons are in a militia?

Ashley, dear, why do you think you can hold your experience up as a template for home invasion and Old Dog can't? Do you think that all home invaders have the same intention, and since yours were able to resist the temptation of your model-perfect breasts, that means no other home invader intends to rape and kill?

Let me tell you about MY experience with home invasions. As a retired police officer, I have arrested many types of criminals and gotten written confessions from them. One case in particular involved a man that broke into an 88 year old woman's house in the early A.M. She awoke to him rifling through her bedroom closet, and called out to him to leave. He jumped her in her bed, pistol whipped her, and tried to rape her. The old woman fought until she got sick at her stomach, then as he was spreading her legs she moaned that she felt sick, so the guy quit and left the house. A few weeks later after I got the a**hole arrested, he finally admitted what he did and said he thought she meant she was sick in her private parts (he said he thought she had cancer) and that repulsed him enough to abort the attack.

I'm here to tell you from experience, those dumbsh17s confess quite often. They're not geniuses, or they wouldn't be committing those crimes to begin with. Old Dog's scenario is COMPLETELY believable to a person who has actually INVESTIGATED, ARRESTED, AND SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTED these idiots. You, on the other hand, just sound like an opinionated, inflexible lefty who thinks her opinion about guns and self-defense applies to everyone.

And to answer the inevitable anti-cop bigots questioning my tactics, I will say that the written confession was perfectly legal, and held up under the scrutiny of his attorney and the courts. The P.O.S. got 20 years. Good riddance.

BTW, I fully believe that if the old woman had gotten to her gun, she would have saved us the expense of court and incarceration. She was a feisty one and I've always had a deep respect for her willingness to fight an assailant that was about 60 years younger than her.

The attack happened in Minnesota . And the gent in question got 30 years, rather than life without. Minn. doesn't have the death penalty. Seems he and his deceased friend had done a few more home invasions and done just what he said they intended for me and my wife. Just as an FYI, the fellow killed was linked to several rapes and a couple of murders. Had a record of violent crime as long as your arm. And yes I was at the trial. I was asked to testify for the prosecution. Still had the scars on my head where he shot first and splintered the door frame I was behind.

Denver,

Roger that, that's why i said i didn't quite know what you meant. i wasn't trying to be argumentative towards you, just wanted a better explanation.

i looked at the law specific to my state, and while it doesn't specifically say "home invasion" to does say unlawful entry or attack upon habitation. which is the same thing in lawyer-speak, but, you are correct....it doesn't say home invasion. here's what it does say.

O.C.G.A. § 16-3-23
Use of force in defense of habitation

A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;

(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or

(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

Andrews82nd.......

The (particularly local) media does report EVERY such incident. This is absolutely true when the outcome is a death.

BTW--The media also reports all the accidental firearms deaths and crimes of passion by firearms. There are two sides to the firearms debate. Both have their points.

Anti-gun nuts have no valid points Ian. If they did, they would present them.

It's not the idea that they like more dead children, it's the idea that there are more gun sales and more money flowing into their pockets.

For starters all mass murders happen in gun free zones where criminals have nothing to fear.. If celebs, banks, politicians or other so called high priority people can be protected by guns why shouldnt our children. I think its been proven a sign thats says gun free zone doesnt work. With over 300,000,000 million legal firearms and 100,000,000 gun owners no way can you even hope to control or take them all so why not protect our kids with trained personal. Also banning 30 round magazines is crazy and anyone who knows about guns will tell you 3 ten round mags are just as deadly as 1 30 round mag it only takes seconds for a mag change..

All these mass, killers/shooters were on mind altering drugs.

@Enma3

Firearms are but ONE WAY people die everyday in this country. It's only that now, there is a concerted effort by the media to highlight those injuries and deaths.

XDm9mm-well duh! Of course people die in other ways. Are you trying to compare gun deaths with car accidents or something else equally unrelated?

Enma3

That horse you're on is awfully high.

Every day, "EVERY SINGLE DAY" people, along with children, are killed by thousands of other things besides guns.

Are you trying to compare gun deaths with car accidents or something else equally unrelated?

Death is death no matter how you put it. The only thing unrelated is the cause and affect. Your post is a sign of ideology.

@Enma3

XDm9mm-well duh! Of course people die in other ways. Are you trying to compare gun deaths with car accidents or something else equally unrelated?

Can you please explain to me exactly how someone killed by a criminal drunk driver with a car is any less dead than one killed by a criminal with a gun?

Can you please explain to me exactly how the pain of losing a child, sibling, parent, friend is any different whether the cause was a firearm, vehicle, drowning in a pool or falling down stairs?

You're allowing emotions to interfere with a rational debate of the issue.

Oh, and to simply answer your question; Yes, I AM comparing, not trying to compare, "gun deaths" with car accidents.

Then you are comparing apples to orangutans! At least comparing apples to oranges is comparing fruit to fruit! Cars are NOT and never have been designed to kill. Guns are designed to kill.

I've lost a sister to gun violence and I've lost a niece to a car accident. Both were and continue to be incredibly painful. However, the car accident was an accident, the gun death was intentional. BIG difference!

Comparing gun deaths to car accidents is not logical nor rational!

Incidentally, we do have guns in our home - for hunting not killing humans!

Guns are designed to kill.

Incidentally, we do have guns in our home - for hunting not killing humans!

But, as you mention, they're still designed to "kill".

Yes, they are , and your point is what? The difference is that my husband keeps guns for hunting animals, not killing humans, DERP!

Yes, they are , and your point is what? The difference is that my husband keeps guns for hunting animals, not killing humans, DERP!

Yeah because your husband would stand there and watch you be ganged raped repeatedly instead of retrieving his 'hunting' rifle to shoot the intruders, DERP!

Enema,

How does it feel to be able to perform your own colonoscopy with your very own eyes?! Man, that must really hurt... Oh, I forgot to tell you to have a nice day. Say high to the husband for me, will ya?!

Us and Them pretty much took the words right out of my fingers. One shot, one kill...

Enma,

please answer XD's questions.

comparing gun deaths to car accident deaths is still comparing death. one death is no more dead than the other just because the way in which death happened. one death is nor more tragic than the other.

and no, us responsible gun owners don't want to see more dead ANYONE, much less children. get your head out of your emotionaly fueled rear end and educate yourself

Millimeter and wasneverthere,

If you cannot tell the difference between death by gunshot and death by car accident and the effects they have on the families left behind, you are more pitifully ignorant than you have appeared in the past. I thought you both had maxed that category out already...

You are the reasons that more stringent gun regulation is needed and will happen...

Tex,

you pitiful attempt at throwing childish insults only shows your woeful ignorance on these subjects. yet again, this only goes to show that you are incapable of having a serious discussion regarding this subject and are only here to (for lack of a better word) TROLL.

sir, let me reiterate what i was saying earlier, dead is dead. no matter if from a bullet, a knife, or a druken driver. in each case the families of the deceased will be equally as heartbroken as the others. one manner of violent death doesn't trump another.

have a good night

Emma-

Yeah, people die every day. so what.. people are born every day too

No matter how many times you attempt to make sense, you are still falling short there Neverwasanywhere. To the families left behind, there is a difference between the loss of a loved one due to an intentional act of violence and an accidental loss. It is obvious to all that you are the leader of ignorance on these issues. Sorry if I have to point that out to you, AGAIN!

Gee, Tommy, have you ever thought about becoming a professional philosopher? Your grasp of nuance is enlightening...

Tex,

you aren't even being rational. how can you expect to have a rational discussion when all you do is act childishly.

i'm not even going to try and explain it to you again. you can't seem to grasp the concept that dead is dead. death by a druken driver is just as sad and tragic as any other violent death

We are talking about the families left behind here, wasneverconscious. Please try to stay up with the thread...

To the mind of a child or a severely limited adult, everything looks childish, get it?

Having a rational discussion assumes that the one with which you are discussing some issue is capable of rational thought. In your case, that is questionable at best. Unfortunately, being trained as an engineer did not give you the ability to think.

families left behind......see post #7.15

wasneveranywhere,

It appears that you did not get the message during the last Presidential campaign - No matter how many times you say something that is not true, it will remain untrue, and you only help to bolster your image as a fool. LMAO...you are so easy...

Tex,

to see a fool, one need not look any further than your childish post. you aren't here to discuss your opinions. you are here just to flame those that hold different opinions that differ from your ideology. at least just be honest about it. it seems the anonymity that the internet affords you ,allows you to act like a prick to everyone. great job. i hope you aren't this way in real life

If you want to discuss the issue of gun control and the 2nd Amendment, try to stay on topic. You seem to be spending a lot of your energy trying to avoid an obviously un-winnable argument.

Where do the guns come from that are all over the street in the hands of criminals other than NRA supported legal transfers from the gun industry to the retail sales market?

How does the 2nd Amendment support your having ANY weapon you want? The SCOTUS has already outlawed many weapons. What makes assault weapons (Bushmasters, AR-15, and others that are designed to pump up the egos of the owners, increase sales, but are useless except to kill lots of people at one time in public places) and high capacity magazines (over 10) different from a sawed off shotgun PRG's, or hand grenades?

Why are gun fanatics so wound up about the police and army having weapons that are necessary for the performance of their jobs but are illegal for the average self-convinced idiot to own?

Why are the gun fanatics supporting a right wing traitor like LaPierre to do their mouth work when they all know he was a draft dodger?

Why are people who claim that they are interested in protecting the public so opposed to extending the registration requirement for gun purchases to the underground gun show sales as well?

All of these questions have been asked before and you and your ilk continue to avoid a straightforward answer. You call me childish and unwilling to discuss the issues - LOL...

You are only one more lying perpetrator of red herrings and anyone who has not fallen in step behind the NRA fascist line can see you for what you are.

LMAO, your stupidity or ignorance (or both) is showing again...

I treat you just as you deserve, as an ass.

Gun restrictions have never caused a decrease in gun crime, ever. So all this bs the libs want to pass will do exactly what assault weapon bans have done before. Absolutely nothing.

Enma, please try to make sense in at least one of your posts. Also, people are killed both accidently and purposefully by both cars and guns every year. So you still dont have a single valid point.

and just about everyday there are multiple instances of people protecting their lives, families lives, and/or property with a legally owned firearm THAT ISN'T reported in the mainstream news.

And for every story about some yahoo protecting his family there are 5 stories about other yahoos killing theirs using the guns purchased under paranoia promoted by the NRA. Next issue?

tex2c2,

Please stop spreading your liberal ignorance. The lowest estimates of guns used for defensive purposes puts it around tens of thousands a year, and the highest estimate from a professor on criminology was 2.5 million. This is way higher than the murders done by a gun in the us. From 10X to 10X more. Please actually do research and stop blindly following Comrade obama.

My condolences to those injured

As you were either too intentionally obtuse or simply not able to discern my last comment on a similar post I will attach a caveat to make it more clear:

"Aren't you tired of the FREQUENCY which you post that exact same statement"??

When these types of articles are the most often posted, it's difficult to express sympathy for something else.

Can you point me to the article about the death of the young High School girl who died while racing another car? The one where three other kids are hospitalized. One critically?

Can you point me to the article about the death of the young family killed by the drunk driver?

If you have an issue with my expression of sympathy, my response to you, to be crass is... tough $HIT.

Now, that sounds more like the millimeter we all know and hate....

Semper Fi! My husband too is a USMC Vietnam vet and totally for gun control. He was an M-60 machine gunner and has no desire to own or use a weapon like that again.

I also am a Marine from the same war. The difference between us, is I remember the oath I took to up-hold the constitution, ( including the 2nd amendment). That oath didn't expire when I was discharged.

Give it a rest, Arizona, your phony patriotism was exposed many posts ago. You seem only too anxious to demand YOUR interpretation of the 2nd Amendment be the ONLY interpretation. The American people do not agree.

Gun control doesn't mean taking guns away.

tex: And you still won't tell us WHY/HOW, you lost your right to own guns.

I remember the oath I took to up-hold the constitution,

AZ, the myopia you gun nuts suffer from is beyond imagination in as much as the ONLY right you constantly scream about is the right to bear arms.

The preamble, which is just as relevant includes "insure domestic tranquility".

Arizona, who is trying to take away all your rights to own any guns?

Wow... a USMC vet.. Is that supposed to make you an expert or something? Oh.. I was a blue light cab and busted many from all branches, really non discriminatory. See, we ALL have something to hang our hat on.

So, because you opt to not have firearms, anyone that disagrees with YOUR theory is insane? Excuse me? Who or what died and left you in charge?

Do you have fire extinguishers in your vehicle or home? I do. Does that make me insane for being prepared for a fire? No. I've used them in both locations before.

Do you have firearms in your home or do you carry? I do. Does that make me insane for being prepared for the time I might need them? NO.. I'm only prepared for what I hope never happens again. I say again as I did draw my firearm once.

Please don't blame me or any organization if a CRIMINAL brings harm to you or your loved ones. Put the blame squarely where it belongs... on the CRIMINAL(s).

ValidViewpoint

If gun violence ever happens to visit its ugly head on you or your family, remember that it is the NRA and the gun nutz who want it that way

Extremely "Invalid" point. The way "WE" want it is if and when gun violence rears it's ugly head, "WE'LL" be prepared whareas, you won't.

You along with all the other anti-gun/NRA "NUTS" will be like shooting fish in a barrel if a criminal wants it that way. As I mentioned before many times, good luck protecting yourself with a roll of paper towels because that's all you'll have handy if it should happen to you.

It seems that you didn't pay too much attention during your stint with the USMC. You see, they teach you safe gun control and how to recognize a real "true" gun nut etc... and by your posts, you must have been absent those days....

Good morning Arizona.."A true comrade"...

tex: And you still won't tell us WHY/HOW, you lost your right to own guns.

????

Is it because I think that you are an idiot? Just guessin'

LMAO... thats for you, MilliMeter...

See, we ALL have something to hang our hat on.

Please refrain from bragging about your penis and try to keep on the subject...

How can you look at human history,then US history,then our modern society and conclude that proscribing our RIGHT is a valid option?

@tex2c2

Can you possibly explain what your apparent fascination with my anatomy, specifically my penis, is caused by?

Are you that deprived or are you just depraved?

Actually, a fascination with phallic symbols seems to be common among the rabidly anti-firearm crowds posting on these boards. Are all of you members of the same deprived or depraved clubs?

I think the collection of butt plugs, dildoes, and AstroGlide tex2c2 keeps in his dresser drawer under his lace panties should tell you what club he belongs to.

Valid,

first things first....Semper Fi brother

NEXT.... the NRA nor us (as you put it) "gun nutz" want to see violence perpetrated on anyone. its amazingly idiotic for you to even think so. you are letting your emotional attachment to your opinions outweigh a common sense discussion on firearms.

i would think for 1, that a former jarhead would be able to understand the oaths that he took let along be able to have a rational discussion about firearms without throwing insults out at folks that don't fit your ideology. the Corps should have taught you better than that

Mymomdidnotraiseafool,

You seem to be only too familiar with butt plugs, dildoes, and AstroGlide there, learn it while on duty to our country? I find it fascinating that you chose that name out of all the possible claim to fame. Latent fear hanging around between your ears?

Millimeter,

We all know the relationship between gun fanatics and their peckers, don't we? You know, the bigger the gun, the smaller the pecker. Every woman knows what I am referring to. Do you wear peacock feathers to bed, too? It is a known marker of immaturity in the American male NRA and gun fanatic psychological makeup.

Your anatomy is the last thing I am interested in. I suspect I share that with your wife or boyfriend or pet goat...

I was a Vietnam vet too. I wasnt, but I just presented just as much proof as these anti-gun nut jobs.

Or maybe just another tragic end that started with a father buying a gun to protect his family... Who knows?

@tex2c2

A little presumptuous there aren't you? How do you know it wasn't Mom?

9, have you ever encountered the word 'maybe' yet? Look it up, you will be enriched...

Wow.. I must be getting under the skin of t.

I did posit the QUESTION did I not? I did NOT make it a statement did I?

Doesn't take much to get under the very, very thin skin of Texazz. Ever since his putative daddy took away his slingshot, his view has been that if he can't have a weapon, then nobody else can. That was at least six months ago, and he hasn't gotten over it yet, and it is doubtful he ever will. Must be something about childhood emotional trauma.

Millimeter, your usual stupid attempts to divert the attention of those who are interested in a rational discussion about what the 2nd Amendment means and how it affects the safety or our children is infantile at best and disgustingly dishonest at worst.

If you could read the sequence of posts, you might be able to figure out that the pains in your head are self inflicted. LMAO...

To assume that you are getting under my skin with your childish comments is a bit arrogant, but your claim to have served our country in the military is enough to make any REAL patriot uncomfortable.

Agree with you Bill!

That old chestnut that only criminals will have guns is so ridiculous! Since criminals don't obey the gun laws or any laws, perhaps we should just wipe them all out. Apparently, that is what the gun lobby is saying along with the ridiculous analogies that cars kill people too. If all you can argue with is parroting the irrelevant NRA blather, then give it up.

@Bill-2801017

Here's some thoughts about which you rail against. I trust these people are appreciably better educated on the topic than you:

"By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ ‘the security of the nation,’ and The RIGHT OF EACH CITIZEN ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment STILL remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which EVERY CITIZEN MUST BE READY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEFENSE OF HIS COUNTRY. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will ALWAYS be important."

John F. Kennedy

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."

Hubert H. Humphrey Liberal Democratic Senator, 22 October 1959

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification
was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right." -- conclusion from SCOTUS in DC v Heller

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

Thomas Jefferson

Bill

The right is wrong? 40% of gun owners are self described DemoRATS. 43% of gun owners are women. So tell me again how this is a Left/Right subject? They can't even get any Bills pass through the majority led Senate but you want to blame the right? We are all Americans with the same Second Amendment Rights. You need to think again.

You need to think again.

Only after you think for the first time! LOL

tex2c2

Are you a PRICK to everyone?

Yes, he is. Even to the creature that gave birth to him.

Only to ass holes like you...now bend over again.... LMAO....

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER:

In descent, Justice Stevens (with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsberg, and Justice Breyer joined) stated:

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms.

DC vs Heller was a closely split decision with right wing fanatics of the court on one side (in the majority largely due to Bush) and the rational justices on the other. This decision will last only as long as the fanatical right wing nuts Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts remain on the Court.

If you think Scalia should be on the court, please review his comment:

“Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached”

If you think this wing nut is sane enough to be Justice on the Supreme Court, please refrain from votiing next time around....

Justice Breyer's response (which was joined by Justice Ginsberg, Justice Stevens, and Justice Souter) reads in part:

The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by JUSTICE STEVENS—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests.

The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are— whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do.

Is anyone still reading? The highly political right wing extremists in the majority on this issue have created a monster. The right wing NRA and its allies will not stop in their demands to have any weapons they can afford to buy. If they get their way, we could see grenades, land mines, and fully automatic weapons in the hands of domestic terrorists. Can anyone think that the Founding Fathers wanted that?

tex2c2: It's interesting to see that you appear of the opinion that violent crimes will cease to exist with an unarmed populace.

You're obviously f*cking stoned or drunk... or you possess diminished mental faculties. Which one explains you best?

clown,

The NRA led rampage against common sense had a short lived, dark moment for America in DC vs Heller. You can continues to spout the NRA BS about what it all means, you know, help them along with their sales strategy, but you might read the dissenting opinions of the rational Justices. You will see what the history and the meaning of the 2nd Amendment actually is. These opinions are from people who actually have an education in Constitutional law, unlike Thomas, the fool and Scalia, the insane. You continue to claim I am drunk because I can actually bring up reasonable points...HMMM...with supporters like you, no wonder the Retards lost the last two presidential elections. LMAO

tex - the only reason that you claim that they are the only rational judges is because they agree with you. If they didn't agree with you you would consider them fools and insane just as you do anyone else that doesn't agree with you. An education is constitutional law is nothing more than a particular persons interpretation of the meaning of the words written.

Donna,

+1 to you. haha, and here i thought i was one of the only ones who sees it that way. of course Tex is entitled to his opinion, that's one of the things that makes this counrty great. it's just that he uses his "opinion" to attack anyone that doesn't agree with him. when confronted with facts and common sense he lashes back with insults and attempts at demeaning folks.

I am well aware of the fact that there are more fools out there in lock step with NRA fascist talking points that I do not agree with, Donna, you are just another in the pack.

The reason that I call Scalia a fool is because of his public statement regarding the death penalty discussion before the Supreme Court in ruling on the fault of the trial of Paul Campos after 7 of the 8 witnesses recounted their original testimony saying that the police coerced them into false statements:

“Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached”

Do you still support this politically motivated man to rule on issues that affect us all? If you cannot understand the legal implications of his position, at least look at his failure of common sense.

It is true that I oppose Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito because i disagree with their political stance. That is the point, they should be above politics, instead they attended fundraisers for the Republican candidates in defiance of their oath to be impartial.

Neverwasanywhre:

when confronted with facts and common sense he lashes back with insults and attempts at demeaning folks

Please direct me to any 'facts' that you have confronted me with, LOL. I make fun of your ignorance because it is just a rehash of NRA propaganda that has already been shot down repeatedly. One of the problems with the gun fanatic position is that the fools who support these non existent arguments (pumped out by the NRA as sales gimicks) do not know that they are fools.

Have a big laugh about it? The world is laughing about the US already!

The world is laughing while in worse economic standing than the US. I honestly dont care what the French or Italians think of us. Let them contribute to the world, technology, etc.

The right to own a CAR leads to accidents, doesn't it? There's liability in all things we own whether it be for the sake of convenience or simply for enjoyment. We have to stop beating ourselves up because mental illness is becoming so prevalent in our society. It's always been there, only NOW we're beginning to recognize the pattern woven into violence and crime in our communities.

owning and operating a motor vehicle isn't a RIGHT....it's a privelage, but yes you are correct in the fact that there is a liability in most everything we own or do

You are correct Joe. You are allowed to own as many cars as you want, without registering, or insuring them. You can even CARRY them, (on trailer or truck), anywhere in the US. Only when you let them touch a public highway does that change.

I own about 35 vehicles. 7 of them are registered for the road. THIS IS MY RIGHT.

The same should be true for guns.

Arizona, how many of them run? How many have tires on them? You sound like you would fit in just fine here in Arkansas, you would not have to dig holes in the ground to live in, we have plenty of caves...

Because most, if not all, criminals are COWARDS. Children, the elderly, women in general. They can only prey upon those they perceive to be weaker than they are. Hence, the need for more firearms and our willingness to use them until they get the message.

JPR

"I tend to believe the lower the education and salary the more likely a person is to own a gun."

and i tend to not agree with that statement. i work for an engineering firm where 90% of the folks here have some form college education and they (for the most part) also carry or own firearms. i know medical doctors, lawyers, educators, business owners....all with college educations that either carry or own firearms.

ownership of firearms isn't limited to any one socioeconomical or educational level or class.

please go educate yourself

wasneverthere works for an engineering firm where people do not have college degrees but only some form of education from a college? Hope that no one does business with them especially the government. I suggest you educate yourself. I have my share of degrees, thanks.

Joe, please tell us how to determine when and when not to use a firearm to take out those criminals.

We need to be trained by such highly responsible folks like you...

Thanks,

America

wasneverthere,

Your inane posts are starting to make sense now that you have given us a peek into who you really are. I am sorry for all the negative comments to you, but, please do not try to interpret the complexity of human experience and interactions or legal issues based on the 'education' of an engineer.

JPR,

we are a rather larger engineering firm, so invariably their are quite a few people here that don't have a college education or a degree....high school interns, some of our secretaries, mail clerks, field personnel, etc just to name some.

but hey, good deflection

as i said in my last post.

i don't believe that your assumptions that the lower the education and salary then the more likely it is that they will own a fiream is correct. i know many folks that you would consider to have a high level of education and or salary that own firearms

Tex,

and your career path in the IT field gives you more weight to "interpret the complexity of human experience and interactions or legal issues"? please do explain, i would love to hear how you seem to have a better grasp on these things.

It means that I understand logic and its appropriate uses? Just guessin'

It also might mean that I am not limited in understanding an issue to the small and narrow interpretations of an engineer. Engineers do not get an education, they get trained to do a job. I am in support of that process to build a bridge but it is woefully inadequate to understand the bigger issues such as why we need the bridge. Keep up the good work and stay out of the limelight, it only exposes your inadequacy.

no, it means that you understand computers and probably less about human interaction than most. which is evident in how you respond to others on here that have a opinion or view that differs from yours.

it truely is pointless to try and have a rational discussion with you when all you're here to do is to troll.

have a good day sir

You have not convinced anyone here with your NRA talking points that you are not a troll yourself... LMAO...

Im pretty sure he has convinced most everyone except you tex2c2. So please leave your mom's basement sometime and get some air.

you seem so easily satisfied...LMAO...

Great idea, let's start with arresting the leadership of the NRA for supporting terrorists...

Tex,

proof that the NRA supports ANY terrorist?

oh wait....there is none, as they don't.

but, just keep spewing

Does the Oklahoma bombing come to mind? The perps in that DOMESTIC TERRORIST attack were card carrying NRA members loaded to the gills with ammo and guns promoted by the NRA. Now, do you get it?

There are right wing fanatical and violent people all over America ready to come out shooting at anyone who does not agree with them that are being armed as a result of NRA bribery in Washington and state capitols. Do you disagree?

Tex,

so your proof is that because Timothy McVeigh became a member of the NRA in his youth to get a hunting license that the current leadership of the NRA supports terrorism.....brillant deduction my dear Watson!

so by that logic...

because Pope Benedict XVI (aka Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger) was a member of the Hitler Youth then all members of the Catholic faith are Nazis.....burn 'em all

fat people eat with forks.....................forks make you fat

sometimes paper can causes small cuts.......cuts hurt............ let's ban paper

cigarettes are known to cause cancer and cancer can be deadly........... cigarettes have tobacco in them....tobacco is grown by farmers....... some farmers are members of the NFU, National Farmers Union..... the leadership of the NFU should be arrested for attempted murder of millions of people.

_________________________________________________________________________________

do you grasp at straws much there Tex? i've tried to have rational discussions with you, but i can see now, that you are unable to. i've ask you multiple clear and concise questions in an attempt to open up a dialouge with you, but all you can do is retort with childish insults and attempts to belittle because i have an opinion that differs from you. have you not stopped to think that YOU, are in fact, part of the problem with this country.

have a good day sir

have you not stopped to think that YOU, are in fact, part of the problem with this country.

And explain just exactly how this statement helps your claim that you want to participate in a RATIONAL discussion about gun regulation? LMAO...

You asked me to give you an example where NRA propaganda led to terrorism, McVeigh is one such example - next question?

fat people eat with forks.....................forks make you fat

sometimes paper can causes small cuts.......cuts hurt............ let's ban paper

Ludicrous straw arguments that fall on their faces from the first time the NRA tried to foist them into the discussion years ago, I am sorry but I grow weary of talking to someone who cannot keep that issues in focus and is a newbie to the NRA propaganda. Stay out of the streets, keep the woolies pulled up tight.