Jason, maybe you should study history.

Gun control has been the first step in EVERY government takeover in history.

This country would not be here if there was gun control back in 1776 and WWII would have been much different if Japan would have invaded this country, which they would have, but opted not to since there "would have been a gun behind every blade of grass"

geesh....

Here is a great article from Paul Harvey.

"Are you considering backing gun control laws???"

Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the
rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't
matter?

CONSIDER THIS...
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control.
- From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million
dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
- From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938.
- From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies,
homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935.
- From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
- From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970.
- From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
- From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because
of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last
century.

Since we should learn from the mistakes of history,
the next time someone talks in favor of gun control,
find out which group of citizens they wish to have
exterminated.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in
Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal
firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the
government more than $500 million dollars.
- The results Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2%,
Assaults are up 8 %, and Armed robberies are up 44%.
In that country's state of Victoria, homicides with
firearms are up 300%.

Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady
decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians
are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no
improvement in "safety" has been observed after such
monumental effort and expense was successfully
expended in "ridding society of guns."

It's time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of
honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.
Take action before it's too late, write or call your
delegation.

Gun control isn't about YOU, it's about a freedom that has defined this great nation.

Not all right wingers are NUTS and some of us have a permit to carry a firearm. I do.

That doesn't mean I am crazy about shooting someone, but I would if there was a threat from a crazy person out to harm someone. Maybe that someone I would have saved by being a right wing nutcase with a gun is you.

The UK outlawed guns a decade ago. Now they are registering 'long Knives'...

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European Union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz1CIs5xxIY.

We will not comment of the NYC POLICE who have been caught UNDER Reporting crime...

Crime stats - http://gothamist.com/2010/02/02/cops_comes_forward_says_crime_stati.php

Womens rights - http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/nypd_fakes_statistics_downgrades_rape_charges

School crime - http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/school_crime_reporting.html

Here is a Gun Control Law that WORKS. Google - 'Gun Town USA'

KENNENSAW, GA has a unique law that dictates, "The head of every household must own a firearm and enough ammunition to use deadly force if threatened."
Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-world/2010/10/16/gun-town-usa-in-kennesaw-georgia-it-is-compulsory-everyone-must-own-a-firearm-115875-22638851/#ixzz1CIu2BqRb

Not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender sense the law was enacted, over 27+years ago....

Read more: 25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41196#ixzz1CIv1xzNX

Patrick - Your argument almost has validity except for the part where none of the countries you cite were democracies and the "gun control" was also in tandem with mostly totalitarian states where most other rights were also taken away. You also end with needed guns not to stop the government but some "crazy person". Which is it? Are you afraid of the crazy people or your government because I would remind you that I have never heard of a liberal government rounding up people or committing genocide. I have recently heard people in our country trying to restrict religious freedoms and speak with a tremendous amount of hate. On second thought you are right. Maybe liberals should start carrying to protect our way of life.

Stu B--you actually want an edict to require people to carry weapons. You are blaming Liberals for not owning guns. If there ever was a serious uprising in this country, the die has already been cast. Grenades, fully auto, bazookas--what ya got? a 9MM with a 38 back up---good luck with that--I'm cool with no guns. I hear they allow the old style lawlessness in Somalia and they are looking for a few good pirates.

Before you break into the Constitutional quotes--I've actually read the document. I'm old and I served. Have you ever served your country? I served in the military, but that service is not as important as the service that a teacher provides--or a firefighter. Skew that document any way you want--merely interpretation. You guys are constantly trying to say that it implies even more. Would private ownership of your very own warhead make you happy?

Ha Ha Ha. I said "communist." Gotcha!

Stu B,

Thailand last year KILLED over 90+people that were demonstrating , against the Abhisit Government, and the year prior, the Military had Orders to 'Shoot to KILL' during other demonstrations.

In Thailand it is almost imposible to have a gun permit, cash works... If it is 32cal or smaller you can go to Jail for 5+years, larger or a military style weapon will put you in jail for LIFE.

When I'm in the USA I have a CCW and I use it.

Stu B: The United States started out as a democracy, after over 200 years we still like to call ourselves a democracy, but in reality, I'm not so sure what we are anymore.

We still have the window dressings, but the fabric of our Constitution is being shred every day.

Sand, As a former Army Medic, Trauma Nurse and a L.E.O. I need to remind you that Ameriacan Soldiers will not all blindly follow orders to go after our own Citizens. And there is a clause in the Constitution if we needed to change if it got out of hand. Our Forefathers new the importance of that.

You sound like a left wing Liberal sociopath spewing the Obama Doctrine. When your Family is under attack from a left wing extremist with a Gun and you have to stand there and watch them die you will have to live with that the rest of your life because you were unable to defend your family. If it were up to the left wing idiots you would give the government a blank check to run your family and your life. If you are afraid to defend your family they need a stronger person to lead them and not run and hide

Stew B -

In both Germany and the USSR the democratically liberal governments were overtaken by totalitarian dictators; because the people didn't have guns to stop them.

Turkey,China, and Cambodia were democraticly elected governments when the exterminations took place.

Thank you for re-enforcing the NRA's argument.

Damn, Medic---those guys were old crazy slave owners. What slave owning SOB's would craft a document of governance with any level or morals. Washington, Jefferson---give me a break. To me---it's a classic--a 57 Chevy, if you will. I would like a "new and improved model".

I have to laugh at the people saying gun control foreshadows some evil government takeover. Please. Do you really see that happening in America? This is a silly, paranoid delusion. Really, have you guys thought this through? How would it go? The government ordering the American military to "take over" American cities? But they're all American citizens, the soldiers, are they going to go along with it? And to what ends, what would be the point? The more you think about it, the more your realize how stupid this gun nut dreamed up idea is. It's taking situations out of context and trying to apply what happened in some entirely different time in some entirely different situation and applying it to America today.

Just more nonsense. Like the idea that the only way to for people to protect themselves from crime and others with guns is - MORE GUNS! The more weapons, the more extremely lethal weapons everybody has, the safer we'll be? Sounds bass-ackwards. It's like saying you'll prevent dog bites by having everyone buy a vicious pit pull. The gun nuts refuse to look at "THE MAP" or the statistics supporting it, showing that overall the more republican leaning the state is, and the more lax the gun laws, the more violent crime there is committed with guns. How the hell does everyone going out and buying their own gun solve this? Also, the more impoverished and uneducated people are, the more likely they are to be a victim of gun violence - something the NRA members living in trailer parks in hicksville USA should take note of.

Gun control isn't about grabbing guns from responsible owners, it's not about outlawing ALL GUNS. It's about making guns harder to get in the first place, so that people who should never own guns have a difficult time getting a hold of one. So that the the Straw-Purchasers are more likely to be detected, stopped, punished. So that criminals and people with mental health and anger issues don't get guns.

Gun control is about making America safer, about helping law enforcement more easily and safely be able to do their jobs. If the NRA and it's members can't see that or understand it... maybe they do and they just don't like that approach, want to do it THEIR WAY. Their arrogance and self-righteousness is disturbing, and insulting to all the tens of thousands of victims of gun violence - many of which are committed by legally owned guns. Their proposed solution is more guns. It's like trying to put out fires with gasoline.

I don't want to live in a country where every single person is going around at all times packing heat, armed to the teeth. That doesn't sound like a happy, safe country - it sounds like a war zone. I don't trust the average person enough, we can barely get along driving without all kinds of road rage incidents - lets give em guns and see what they do when they get out control! Or not. Too many people who can 'legally' get extremely dangerous weapons, who really really shouldn't be able to, and who will make our communities more dangerous.

What next for the NRA? Grenades? Rocket Launchers? Land Mines? Grenades don't kill people, people kill people! Lets all amass an arsenal! Have to fight off the impending unspecified American government takeover! ROFL.

A dis-armed public, is an easily controlled public, and unknowingly welcomes fascism and tyranny. If someone intends to kill you, the lack of a gun won't stop them, and your lack of a gun won't stop them either. If you surrender your guns, arm yourself with a white flag, I'm sure they'll honor that, and be quite frightened. I suppose the Arizona shooter should be acquitted, and instead, the weapon should stand trial. Drugs are illegal, yet hundreds of thousands still get them. Prohibition, was there still people with alcohol? Let's just ask the Government to supply us all with mobile protective bubbles.

Are you afraid of the crazy people or your government

Kind of redundant, don't you think?

Its going to be a revolution for sure. Who knows who will end up on top. But I do know that if guns are illegal then only the criminals will have them. Just like drugs that are illegal....only the crimanals have them. So I now have 27 fire arms, 3 are unregistered. I have that many because its my hobby. I target shoot, reload my own ammo. I have fun with it. I dont own guns to shoot a home invader. Its not beyond me, but thats not why I own them.....PS I dont play video games. I play the real thing.

"A well-regulated militia isn't a bunch of people that have clips that hold 38 bullets for their Glock handgun in their home.”

Umm, yes it is Mr. Bloomberg.

Soldiers will shoot you on command.

When seconds count the police are minutes away.

I don't own a gun. I don't think they should be restricted, period.

Stu and Debi,

I am just curious where the two of you got the notion that the United states of America....was a democracy?The Last time I checked, it was founded as a Republic with a Democratic form of electing our officials and to my knowlege it still is (although it may be hard to recognize it as being such... with all of the Fascism going on in DC).

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Robert A. Heinlein

Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
Robert A. Heinlein

i dont see where the effort to remove the 2nd amendment in the constitution would prevent crime. i also know it would be hard to imagine our gov going on a "thinning the herd spree", as i like to call it, but looking at some things in question, i have to wonder. it was amended we have X=amount of detention facilities constructed every year in the US. this Amendment has been around for quite a while. Giving this the fact that FEMA has the right to take over, and so on and so forth, all amended in the constitution, i feel it is a good thing to have the people armed. i dont think its the actual criminal some in the gov worry about, i think its the people who want to ensure, they can keep their family safe, from any type of threat, forgien or domestic. Just because this is the US and people in office say they are for us and our well being, does not mean it is so, history has been in the making for this to be fact, rather assumption. however.... youtube "detention facilities""casket liners","FEMA", and any other possible little key words you might think of relating to mass execution, detention, and so on, then come back and see if you want to abolish the 2nd amendment, because even tho i have not owned a gun in a long time, i has a strong feeling in my lifetime, i will wish i did.

Michael -

"Gun control isn't about grabbing guns from responsible owners, it's not about outlawing ALL GUNS. It's about making guns harder to get in the first place, so that people who should never own guns have a difficult time getting a hold of one."

These "Thugs" that should never own guns, will get them, no matter what is done....Do you want to be the only one, without one?

I honestly do not think the USA, is in any danger of being taken over by their Government....anytime soon anyway! Remember, these are the people that can drop a 2000lb "Smart Bomb" down your chimney with the push of a button at 30,000 feet or 5,000 miles away. Your 9mm or 38 sp, what ever your choice, is not going to stop them.....It's the number of citizens "owning" guns that will! The Gov. may get me in the long run, but I'll surely take 6-8 of them with me. This is what keeps them at Bay!

I own several guns, use them for Hunting mostly, but would not hesitate putting a round through anyone, threatening me or my family.

"You sound like a left wing Liberal sociopath spewing the Obama Doctrine."

Did you miss this one Sally?

Selective enforcement is a very slippery slope.

It is sad that you used your administrative powers to collapse and "warn" one of the more insightful comments on this message board while leaving others with blatant hate speech open.

Michael-366427

I have to laugh at the people saying gun control foreshadows some evil government takeover. Please. Do you really see that happening in America? This is a silly, paranoid delusion. Really, have you guys thought this through? How would it go? The government ordering the American military to "take over" American cities?

well lets see....1 way could be like this...

since the construction of Denver International Airport in 1994, there's been shall we say something strange going on. The site it's self is 29 miles out in the middle of nowhere. Now that is a fact, but why so far from any metropolis? if you were to look at this site, you would see, there is still construction going on to this day in the outlying areas. more fiber optics in this site alone than in any major city in the US, and maybe even the world. you can also see, large mass quantities of earth in rock, not from mother nature, but from digging, and if you seen the amount of remnants from the excavations, and know even a little about landscaping, there is a lot more than just from building a major airport. The outlying area, has or had, what would be prefab tunnel placements, while last year this digging was still underway. not convinced, or see where i am going with this? for that you need to take a tour of the airport, and look at a few things. 1 would be the paintings therein. 2nd the inscription on dedication from the Free Masons (we all know who they are right?)the inscription bearing March,19,1994.New World Airport Commision Contributors. So the names are listed, right below the symbol of the Freemasons. 3rd, the other types of artwork on display. If some have had the privi to be in the right area, you would have seen there is an under ground tunnel that does in fact take people to somewhere, but where? Thing i as well as some might be thinking on this, "New World Airport Commision? WTH is that? lol.

This all has me thinking just a bit, as well it should some of you if it hasnt already. The government i think has no real intrest in taking firearms from everyday, law abiding people, cause it is possible there might not be a worry over it in the next year or so. The government has been building underground structures, detention facilities, and working communities for years, not to mention like so many empty wal-mart stores that as well sit vacant, most in the middle of nowhere, doing nothing, empty. why would not just a major corp such as wal-mart build where there are no people, only to leave the land vacant? the government of course we are used to seeing such wasted spending. The recent lawsuit in VA near the historcid battle of the civil war wal mart caved in said ok np. we're out. But the location? even a civil war park where tourists venture would not make enough revenue in the lightly populated area to maintain a decent profit considering its size.

My thoughts, even the 2112 conspiracy nuts might even take a monet to consider, with just from NASA we saw a event never before seen, a dual solar flare from the sun simontanously take place. The huge hole in the magnetic field that protects the earth from solar flares. NASA already has said this event was possible, more than possible actually, given our shield from solar flares has a bid azz hole in it, not to mention, it's possible at any given time there could be a solar flare that has enough energy to do more than wipe out our nations power grid, but also wipe one face of the earth clean.

Politicians dont care anymore about guns, and making new gun laws than i care about seeing a bird on a power line. its something people want to cry about, so they appease you is all. They know there is now way in he77 they can disarm America without mass bloodshed, and they dont care. They let people come into clinics that are built in the ghettos so they dont have to worry about thinning the heard from scum, and filthy diseased animals as the creato of Planned Parenthood said in i think those exsact words. Let them kill themselves.... and they do. Brother kills brother, less than race has anything to do with it than you think, its all for drugs, and the almighty dollar. That folks will be a limited item soon enough. Why do you think our good ol's in the whitehouse just ran off a bunch? they dont care, going to be useing a diffrent currency soon enough. cry about guns all you want.... at least the ones like myself who know how ti hunt wont be starving to death if we can help it. this is why i live in the middle of nowhere... plenty of rabbit, deer, turkey, and so on.

i mean you can say hu-bub, or pffft all you want.... might want to do some sreious research tho before blabbing i am wrong. just saying it doesnt mean anything.

Solar activity destroying our electrical Grid is a real possibility and has been planned for by our Govt. At our expense, without including plans to help Avg Joe Citizen. It's NOT conspiracy theory. NASA knows.

All of you 2nd amendment proponents are right. The native Americans should have been armed and made the the calvalry's blood to flow in rivers and killed Andrew Jackson before being made to make the death march that was called the Trail of Tears. The Japanese Americans should have used arms rather than allowed themselves to be imprisoned during World War 2. Every slave who massacred their master and his family is a shining example of How It Is Done. Blacks should have forgone non-violence in pursuit of their civil rights and used arms to combat Jim Crow.

You all are so right. Everyone should be armed to prevent such atrocities from ever happening again.

And probably would have if the aforementioned had not been fragmented minorities that allowed the govt to pick them off, one petty difference at a time.

Megalodon - it's the Tommyknockers, there's an alien spacecraft buried out there! Stephen King was right. And now we're all going to get probed.

" And now we're all going to get probed."

Oooh! Promises, promises.

I have to disagree--the words below are incredible and true. Over 8M people living in NY and one of the lowest crime rates of any major city. I respect President Obama and Mayor B. The NRA has a president that makes $1M/yr and a Fox article even urged people to stop wasting $35/yr to join. Gun ownership in this country exceeds any other country and we are LESS free because of it.

“The truth of the matter is they don't pay any attention,” said Bloomberg. “The Constitution says you have a right to bear arms, the Constitution talks about a well-regulated militia. A well-regulated militia isn't a bunch of people that have clips that hold 38 bullets for their Glock handgun in their home.”

And of course we all know that anything Bloomberg says is gospel truth. And now he thinks he's qualified to interpret the Constitution. He twists the laws to suit his ego (term limits, anyone?). @!$%#.

StoneCold--he's smarter than you or me and rich as hell by his own making. Me--I don't want to be lead by some undereducated dolt. His points vs the points makes are valid. Low gun ownership in NY = lower crime in NY. I keep running that number in my head--8,000,000 people living in relative peace. Then I look at the other cities with looser gun laws--crime ridden. Sometimes things are just that simple.

Sand, maybe you should pay attention that a Glock even with a 30 round magazine only holds 30+1 in the chamber. I will let you do the math ok?

Combat--what a bragging fool you are. I would love to play poker with you.

The UK outlawed guns a decade ago. Now they are registering 'long Knives'...

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European Union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz1CIs5xxIY.

We will not comment of the NYC POLICE who have been caught UNDER Reporting crime... But here are a few references...

Crime stats - http://gothamist.com/2010/02/02/cops_comes_forward_says_crime_stati.php

Womens rights - http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/nypd_fakes_statistics_downgrades_rape_charges

School crime - http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/school_crime_reporting.html

Here is a Gun Control Law that WORKS. Google - 'Gun Town USA'

KENNENSAW, GA has a unique law that dictates, "The head of every household must own a firearm and enough ammunition to use deadly force if threatened."
Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-world/2010/10/16/gun-town-usa-in-kennesaw-georgia-it-is-compulsory-everyone-must-own-a-firearm-115875-22638851/#ixzz1CIu2BqRb

Not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender sense the law was enacted, over 27+years ago....

Read more: 25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41196#ixzz1CIv1xzNX

AC--you are throwing out tabloid magazine links for the most.

I'm from middle Georgia, (not proud to admit that). We all laughed when Kennesaw passed the folksy law. Truth is--there was never any crime in Kennesaw.

sandtrich,

You can disk the References, but that does not CHANGE the FACTS.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

Read more: 25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41196#ixzz1CJCZejm6 & http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Kennesaw&state=GA

Name ONE City or Country that has outlawed Guns and had their crime rates FALL. And that have had ZERO Murders during severial later years.... With References of course..

AC---to use a southern saying--you're a hot headed guy that shouldn't own a water pistol. By the by--what did you mean, "disk the references", seriously?

bloomburg is a mayor with a big mouth that he needs to shut up. He cant even get facts right.

I did my 26+serving the US Constitution and own several firearms, with a CCW.

Referring to a reference as a tabloid magazine is not Disrespecting the FACTS???

Normal reply for a Lib that has nothing but EMOTION to support their arguments...

There are three types of people:

Perpetrators, Victims, and the Rescuers. Which are YOU???

Sand, as a L.E.O. and a Trauma Nurse I can say that strict enforcement of laws helps the best. Taking away the rights of lawful citizens is not the answer. I lived 23 yrs just north of Chicago, I was so glad to get out of there. The paramedics were wearing ballistic vests in the early 80s. Only the criminals were packing.

Yeah AC, one aberration proves your point for every local in the US and the world. Of course. One little hicksville Georgia town means that more gun ownership makes safer communities somehow... no. A nowhere'sville boondocks can have peaks and valleys in various crimes for various reasons at various times. Trying to say that the main cause or the only cause is increased gun ownership is ignorant and single-minded, trying to boost your misguided position.

ac robertson: "Name ONE City or Country that has outlawed Guns and had their crime rates FALL. And that have had ZERO Murders during severial later years.... With References of course.."

Washington, D.C., following the 1975 gun ban, had their murder rate drop from the mid/upper-200's, every year, to under 200, a 50 to 75-murder-per-year improvement, and it lasted until the "crack wars" in the late 80's, a period of approximately 13 years. I realize you "cleverly" phrased your challenge by specifying "with NO murders", but this real-world example will have to suffice. Reference link follows:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

I'm definitely a "liberal", BTW.

aquatone,

I'm not sure what Washington DC you live in...

Few who lived in Washington during the 1970s can forget the upswing in crime that started right after the ban was originally passed. In the five years before the 1977 ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 murders per 100,000. In the five years after the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. One fact is particularly hard to ignore: D.C.’s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but only once fell below what it was in 1976 before the ban. That aberration happened years later, in 1985. see http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/21/guns-decrease-murder-rates/

At the peak of the violent crime wave in the early 1990s, Washington, D.C., was known as the "murder capital" of the United States. The number of homicides peaked in 1991, with 482 murders. As the population of the city was just over 600,000 at that time, this meant that the District's homicide rate was 80.6 per 100,000 inhabitants. By contrast, when New York City, with 7.3 million people at the time, hit its highest homicide count and rate with 2,245 murders in 1990, this meant a murder rate of "only" 30.66 per 100,000.>>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.

Michael-366427,

BTY - Kennesaw is part of the Atlanta metropolitan area.. Not exactly a nowhere'sville boondocks town... The city of Kennesaw was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation's "10 best towns for families". see Family Circle, August 2007

AC--you are out there with Kennesaw--are you a realtor or the president of the Kennesaw, Ga Better Business Bureau? Just grab my home town, Macon, GA. Go to bestplacet.net or the census and check the crime rate. Gun laws are the same, for the most, in Georgia. The semantics of taking a bedroom community of Atlanta is very far from a compelling argument. Check, Decatur, Stone Mountain, Clarkson--same gun laws, exact opposite results. It's not a productive argument on your part.

Sandtrich...Sorry, but your premise is incorrect. Who obeys the law? Criminals, or law abiding citizens? If you take guns out of the hands of the law abiding citizens, will the criminals rush to turn theirs in? In states that have relaxed their concealed carry laws, such as Virginia and Florida, gun related crimes have plummeted. Why? The criminals do not know who may be armed and able to defend themselves. It may be a trite phrase, but it is true: If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

I met Bloomberg a few times, at ribbon cutting ceremonies for low income housing we built. His advance team shows up 3 hours before the event to secure the area. Roof-top NYPD snipers, close roads, plainclothes cops go into the crowd. Then 6 brand new, highly polished policecars, 3 in front and 3 behind his limo pull up. When Bloomberg exits the vehicle (he is about 4'10" tall) he is immediately surrounded by his bodyguard detail. Suits, sunglasses, earpieces, talking into their Dick Tracy wristwatches and heavily armed I'm sure.

Why is it that these sanctimonious jerks find it OK to protect themselves yet the public gets to be at the mercy of the criminal. Prior to being Mayor, he's had bodyguards all his adult life. Billionaires like Mike don't need to carry a gun for self-defence. They hire teams of armed men to carry for them.

Hey Mike, go out at midnight and walk 6 blocks to the the 24-hour Walgreens to get some Anbesol or something for one of your kids with a toothache....just you and your wallet and see how safe your NYC feels.

Anti-gun nut Rosie O'Donnel makes sure her kids are escorted to and from school by armed nannies....yet your kids have to depend on "Stranger-Danger" training to run away.....The libs are always, do as I say, not as I do.

sandtrich are you claiming that Decatur, Stone Mountain, and Clarkson have mandatory gun ownership laws like Kennesaw? If not then what "exact same law" are you speaking of? Because it was easy enough to check and find that none of those places have mandatory gun ownership laws. Of course when the facts do not support your argument you just make up your own facts. Typical progressive.

sandtrich,

I supplied the crime stat references for Kennesaw. Do you want me to cut and paste, so you will not have to click on the REFERENCE???

Sorry....

He is either the biggest liar on the planet or just so completely naive he's a fool. I didn't realize NYC was so safe either. Maybe for him and his army of ARMED bodyguards. I can't believe the people of NY keep electing him. He needs to take his money and ride of into the sunset.

One factual point I would like to make about the Second Amendment issue. We know exactly what the Founding Fathers (and their opponents) were thinking when they were framing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Because there was no radio or TV, they exhaustively discussed each individual issue in newspaper articles and op-ed pieces, letters, pamphlets, and broadsides as well as in numerous public meetings. The written forms from both sides were long ago gathered into two documents --- "The Federalist Papers" and "The Anti-Federalist Papers" --- that are readily available to anyone for free.

The whole issue of standing armies worried everyone a great deal. America had developed a concept of citizen armies in which each person supplied his own rifle. Handguns and shotguns were not considered "real" weapons because of their lack of accuracy and lack of range. The Federalists wanted a large standing army commanded by the President. The anti-Federalists wanted no Federal army, but instead a bunch of state-controlled militias. But the recent war with Britain had convinced them that a standing Federal army was a necessary thing.

But in the negotiations on the wording of the Second Amendment, the anti-Federalists wanted to add wording that in addition to standing militias, they wanted the right to bear arms to include for "hunting and self-defense." The Federalists obviously considered this opinion, but discarded it in favor of "well-organized militias" only. You can go read the discussion for yourselves.

Much of the reasoning advocating for individual ownership of arms revolves around a bizarre cowboy myth. Here are some facts about cowboys: a) Less than 15% were white --- most were Spanish or Negro. 2) Cowboys almost never owned arms that used metal cased bullets. It was simply too expensive and they were often not even paid in cash. 3) Cowboys preferred shotguns until the turn of the century. 4) The readily availability of Civil War surplus weapons was limited to badly obsolete weapons. 5) The Indians were much better armed than the Cowboys or the Settlers because modern arms and ammunition were an important trade good because they were relatively compact. (It's why they outgunned Custer.) Contemporary accounts of cowboys differs greatly from TV and the movies.

What has changed recently? Past Supreme Courts have always considered "The Federalist Papers" and "The Anti-Federalist Papers" as a kind of background documentation that told them of the Founding Fathers' thought process when deciding Constitutional questions. Kind of a What-Would-The-Founding-Fathers-Do approach. Past Courts looked at the issue and simply declined to hear any challenges --- they considered it a very straight-forward issue that did not require a ruling. But this current SCOTUS has five right-wing members who consider those documents to be "outside of the margins of the Constitution" and, in their arrogance, have no interest in what the Founding Fathers thought.

By ruling that the Second Amendment extends to hunting and self-defense, the SCOTUS has virtually guaranteed that over time the Second Amendment will be hamstrung by a myriad of overlapping and increasingly restrictive modifications via laws. Instead of leaving it as it was, they had to try to make right-wing law and have set it up to be nibbled to death by ducks. This SCOTUS will eventually be decried as the one that killed the Second Amendment.

Lest you think that I am somehow anti-gun: I am 67 and a Vietnam vet (67-68, bronze star with "V", purple heart). I had to carry a weapon 24/7 for around 7 years in the service. I still own the .22 that my dad gave me on my 13th birthday. I own a trophy handgun (from a defecting Russian pilot), two hunting rifles, a shotgun, and several BB guns. I would not hesitate to use a weapon to defend myself or my family. I probably would not use one to defend property. I have lived in two countries --- Britain and Japan --- where ownership of weapons was very tightly restricted and did not sense that anyone felt deprived as a result. Quite the contrary, they seemed to feel safer. In both countries people reacted very badly to me carrying a weapon (it did me out of a lot of home-cooked meals and deterred a lot of dates.)

dmac--the point is; the mandatory law in Kennesaw is not followed, it's "unconstitutional" and it was the city's way to get on the map. The gun laws in Georgia have always been a joke as is Florida's. If ownership actually works--explain Tampa/St Pete, FL, Macon, GA, Orlando, Ft Meyers, FL, Bradenton/Sarasota, Miami, Birmingham, Atlanta, etc--check those violent crime statistics and then get back to me. There is also studies out there that associate gun ownership with lower levels of intelligence. Now--here's your "collapsable moment." I do not agree with you whatsoever. I can just imagine that you pro-gun people will try and squash any dissenting view, yet again.

Studies associating gun ownership with lower levels of intelligence? That's about the biggest load of horsesh*t I've ever read, and I'm sure it had to have been done by liberals or the Brady bunch. Truth be known, it's probably just the opposite.

Look, if you don't want to own one, don't. But I do, and I amresponsible, and I mean to defend myself and my family. Just because you don't, don't try to disarm the legal owners in this country. The bad guys will have theirs, law or not. How is that so hard for you to understand, sandwich?

sandtrich (#2.25)...I can only speak of South Florida....And it would be worse without conceal/carry here. Miami is a large city geographically.....and except for the high dollar/highly protected South Beach/Biscayne Bay, the city is overrun with Cubans, Haitians,Mexicans, Guatemalans, Jamaicans and is lost to the crime and chaos there. They travel up and down I-95 and the Florida Turnpike to the Senior Citizen retirement areas to "steal a living" It's not so much about drugs down here, although there is quite a bit, it's always about money. They come from gang cultures in their homelands and bring that here when they sneak in....It's all most of them know how to do.

We read almost daily, blurbs in the local papers of people thwarting crime because they are armed and protected themselves....It's winter, we even get criminals from colder states that come here to work their trade in our warmer temps.....but we will not just lay down and surrender....Legal gun ownership has risen dramatically in the last 2 years and continues to rise....so if you don't like it sandtrich...please vacation somewhere else.

@ Chris- The proof of what the Framers of The Constitution that you claim does not exist is called "The Federalist Papers". Before you hop on your mis- informed constitution pulpit and spew your idiocy again, I suggest you research the book.

I can explain the high rate of crime in the areas you point out. You won't like the answer but facts are facts. And the fact is those places have populations with a high ratio of blacks and hispanics. Any research of crime statistics will prove me right.

Try high ratios of poverty and under-employment. Like out in the sticks where white trash love their guns and the main cottage industry is meth production and open field marijauna cultivation. By your logic, black enclaves in Martha's Vineyard should be scenes of rampant gang violence.

There is no room for race in this debate. Period. Stop it. Even the mention of race when debating an ammendment eliminates any point you try to make. So says the 14th ammendment.

Don Quixokie

Try high ratios of poverty and under-employment. Like out in the sticks where white trash love their guns and the main cottage industry is meth production and open field marijauna cultivation.

white trash out in the sticks? well i'd like to call you a idiot and slap upside the the head but it would be against the CoH to do so, so i wont. but will say you sound like a lealous racist, who whats a handout, or something. not sure where you came up with your idea that country folk are like as you said, but i thinks its time to get a life, and kick it to the great outdoors before you spew your lame comments of judgement. i tell you this as well. the "white trash from the sticks", are a lot more friendly than people from the large city. i see a lot more people helping eachother in times of need here "out in the sticks", that i have in any city. do some personal research once before you blab next time please?

white trash out in the sticks? well i'd like to call you a idiot and slap upside the the head but it would be against the CoH to do so, so i wont. but will say you sound like a lealous racist, who whats a handout, or something. not sure where you came up with your idea that country folk are like as you said, but i thinks its time to get a life, and kick it to the great outdoors before you spew your lame comments of judgement.

What's all of that in English?

no i wrote it in moron-eese so you'd understand it better, but oh well, guess too dence to get that or?

Yeah, let's ban guns so that only the criminals have them. Wonderful idea. {sarcasm}

Who jumps to "ban guns"? "No large capacity clips" is hardly a gun ban. No insame persons or felons should have guns - in ALL states. Got a valid argument? Let's hear it and stop name-calling.

Yes, I believe there are laws already in place for criminals not to have guns. Why should law abiding citizens be punished? Besides the founders wanted us to be able to defend ourselves against tyranny, which is what government represents. If you think government will keep you safe, so be it. I prefer to defend myself and not wait for the government to come rescue me. At least I would have a chance to survive should I be in a bad situation.

Absolutely no support in the U.S. Constitution for Jason's statements.

Its always nice if you can make it all up to support your argument. Doesn't make it true.

Suggest Jason, and those who think like him, go to the library or the internet and educate themselves.

Where does it say anything about hunting in the 2nd Amendment?

No todd, it showes how utterly ignorant you are. To put absolute faith in any government is ignorant. ANY govenrment is capable of stomping out the freedoms of its citizens. However that same government will have one seriously hard time of it when facing well armed citizens.

I served for 12 years, I am a conservative, I own several firearms, including a couple of assult rifles, but I am not a "nut job". I believe that owning firearms is not only a right but should not be regulated to lawabiding citzens either. Criminals will be the ones running scared if they had to worry about their intended victims being armed and willing to shoot them.

"So based on Bloomberg's logic,"

Please try not to use the words "Bloomberg" and "logic" in the same sentence.

Todd - you have your opinions on this subject. I respect them, although I don't agree with them. But why do you feel it's necessary to call people names just because they don't agree with you.

You seem to need a reading and comprehension lesson or two.

The Founding Fathers put the Second amendment where it is, Second, because they couldn't figure-out which was more important, Free Speech or Americans Right to Protect and Defend themselves from possible oppressors, Foreign and Domestic. Domestic, Our Own Government!

Your might have an argument if you had the foggiest idea of how to read and comprehend. I have to ask, did you go to school to learn your method of deductive reasoning or did you figure that out all on your own? I understand that your method is the new and accepted method. Just make $hit up!

Rather than pulling some self-interpretation of what the Founding Fathers "meant to say," you Could, READ WHAT THEY WROTE DOWN AS THEIR REASONING, and draw a conclusion form that; it would however be a very different conclusion.

Let me help you with this.

You, and I, and every American, have a right and a duty to defend ourselves, our families, our property and our country from ANY and ALL oppressors, Foreign and Domestic.

English lesson here. "Shall not be infringed," stands alone at the end of the Second Amendment. It is the statement that makes it clear to the GOVERNMENT THAT THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO MESS WITH THIS AMENDMENT.

Please stop with the self-interpretation. It makes you, and what passes for the American educational system, look bad.

Yes, Michael, the applying the situation with England in the 1700's the makes total sense with our situation today. Well it might except for all the gang bangersand drug dealers and rapists and drug dealing vermin coming across the border from Mexico, and the dope users looking for homes to rob to buy more dope. Yes if it weren't for all those pesky minor details, we could just turn in our guns and live happily ever after. NOT! Before you try to use history to justify your point, maybe you ought to actually study history. Patrick's post would be a good place to start.

Hank---you are actually telling people how to lives their lives. I think it's your side that breaks civility more oft than not. My father served in WWII, I served, and my son is a lifer in the Navy--O4. Getting that rat sh** out of the way--did you want a cuddly "thank you for your service"? What is expressed on here is all about freedom--a freedom much bigger than a gun. Speech.

What are you talking about Todd? What "government from which we were revolting" do you mean? The British? Uh, that war was over for 4 years when the Constitution was adapted. The second amendment was added four years after that. The tyranical government that the framers had in mind, is ours. An example would be if our government caused the deaths of thousands of Americans, in an attempt to disarm law abiding citizens, under the guise of stopping gun violence.

If you think the government could just go out and pick up all the guns, you are the stupid one. They tried that in Waco, didn't they? 80 dead, including 4 ATF agents, in an attempt to disarm a small band of religous nuts. What's the body count going to be when they try to disarm the L.A. gangs, or the guys on the compounds in Idaho and Alaska and Georgia and wherever else they're waiting for them.

If the government ever does come for the guns, it will not only prove the founders were right, it will also prove the guys on the compounds were right. The only reason for a government to disarm law abiding citizens, is to make it easier to force them to comply to the next step. See post 1.3 above to see what the next step might be.

Todd, what is your plan if 3 meth-heads kick in your front door, looking for money to keep the party going? 911? Reason with them? Call them stupid? I know, it will never happen to you. It happens somewhere every day and the victims all think "it will never happen to me". My plan is get the door fixed and replace the blood soaked carpet in the entryway. I know you might think my Glock's 30 shot mag is a bit much for home protection, but my motto is "to many bullets, is better than not enough bullets".

Yea, moron, because the "killers" are really going to go to 1 police plaza and turn their illegal firearms in to bloomberg. Like him, you also need to get a clue. Crime in NYC may be lower, but it isn't because of LEGAL guns being taken off the streets, as NYC has some of the most oppressive hand gun restrictions anywhere, as you need to be a police officer for the most part, or rich, or a politician, to have a pistol permit there. You need a permit for a shot gun. The rest of us upstate have permits, and they are usually restricted to target shooting or hunting, for no reason, other than handing out a permit, god given right, 2nd amendment, with restrictions. This state is a joke. So, the only reason crime might be down in NYC, is because it is a POLICE STATE down there. I'd like to know how many police are in a square mile at all times, because everytime I'm there, you can't look anywhere without seeing a cop. No offense, but it is impractical to hire so many police that they are every where all the time. People like me, who respect gun laws, and carry legal firearms understand the responsibility to my own freedom and safety, and do not expect it the police to rescue me... usually by the time they arrive, you're dead already.

Okay, I'm long-winded and type to slow. Some of you have already said what I was trying to say. As for Todd calling us stupid, well , that's pretty common with smug, elitist , liberals. They just naturally assume that anyone that doesn't share their opinons is stupid.

Randy, Bloomberg may have a false sense of how safe the city is. A six man security team, made up of armed NYPD detectives, can do that to you.

So, uh, Randy---how bad is it not having to worry walking down the streets of New York compared to 1966, or 71. Any way you slice it, murders are 20% of what they were back then. It's a cleaner safer city.

I think a lot of you missed the 60's and 70's. Detroit, NYC, Atlanta were always the top 3. A table lamp could buy a gun in Georgia.

You guys were punks and control freaks for collapsing Todd's comments. You want freedoms? Let what people say stand. It wasn't violent, nor was it rhetoric. You have no idea what freedoms are about if you are so chicken s**t that you block the view of another.

You have just witnessed a standard ploy that happens here daily. People lacking the intelligence to form a coherent thought and argue their case, simply collapse a comment and move on. It's childish and pathetic but it seems thats the only way they can "win".Try posting anything critical of Palin or anything pro-Obama, and watch them collapse it minutes later.

Michael Joe--Oppressors? A white of European decent has consistently been the single most oppressive human being since the country was founded. Genocide on Natives and ownership of those of another race--bred in captivity by these same founding fathers. Since everyone has some "trigger" and could easily fit some diagnosis for a 'disorder' per a DSM IV--why in the hell should I believe that you or the other gun toters are not a threat to civilized society?

My wife is a PhD research psychologist, a tenured full professor in a Tier 1 university. While gun violence is not her field, psychologists are just like everyone else, they discuss the issues of the day.

A couple of years ago "The Monitor On Psychology" had a whole issue on the subject of gun violence. I found several of the studies very interesting and kept the issue. One study looked at the information available (there is very little) from concealed carry permits. The one interesting thing they found was that people with concealed-carry permits are almost 4 inches shorter than average, but are more than 40 pounds heavier than their height would indicate. But the major study looked at people who had shot and killed other people. What they found was substantial support for the premise that "guns kill people." They determined that guns kill "cleanly" and at a distance. Guns are associated heavily with cartoons and video games with a sense that people will pop back to life after being shot. And that people who see nothing wrong will killing someone with a gun are startled and abhorred by the notion of killing someone with a knife, a bat, or their bare hands. Interesting stuff.

@ Chris-537131

Quote:

[The one interesting thing they found was that people with concealed-carry permits are almost 4 inches shorter than average, but are more than 40 pounds heavier than their height would indicate.]

You do know that:

God created men equal, Col. Colt made them equal.

In Bloomberg's case he's a foot less than average, but with all his bodyguards being armed, he doesn't have to get a CC permit. Although being wealthy, he would qualify for one in NYC.

Sally, I agree that there are a number of posts that do indeed deserve to be collapsed. However there are quite a number of them that end up collapsed simply for presenting a non-aggressive but unpopular point of view. I don't know what the criteria is, as in how many Flags it takes before something is collapsed but it can't take very many. In my opinion and as I stated a few posts up, it's giving an undue advantage to those who want to silence someone for their point of view. There is no appeal process to undo a collapse.

If I might suggest, why not add an option to collapsed posts that allows people a flag that basically says "un-collapse this comment"? While I agree that sandtrich got a bit hostile in his comments, the gist of what he said was entirely accurate. Over the last 2 years I've been posting, I can't count the number of times I've seen intelligent and very well thought out comments, many with 100+ votes, be relegated to semi-invisibility.

@nresq- You sir, need to go to the library and read "The Federalist Papers". Your "No way of knowing what they(the Framers) meant." argument is a lie perpetrated by the left to undermine the legitimacy of the foundation of law in this country. Repeating said lie only lessens my estimation of your education and intelligence.

Check your mirror before you call someone an idiot. YOU don't need large capacity clips to hunt or defend your home. When you don't have a sound argument, attack the person.

He's talking about normal citizens, not the military. He has to bring it up because people like you can't understand the difference. Sorry, but I live in NYC, and I'm glad everyone doesn't have military grade weapons- idiot.

A most ignorant comment. You disrespect our military service men and women by comparing them to John down the street that loves his guns for guns sake. Get real.

Our military is what was meant by "a well regulated militia".

OUR military? So you now think the framers of the constituiton were talking about OUR military? Well, I would have to say if you feel the need to be armed against OUR military, it may be time for you to leave OUR country.

No. That's not what I meant. Back then the militia WAS what our military is now. The armed defenders of our country.

Normal sized weapons like what, cannon? Because that's what the colonialists had - their own cannon (plural). That's pretty "military grade weapons." The initial British solution was to break up the carriages so they wouldn't be transportable (they were, after all, in a hurry to leave Lexington - something about armed civilians). And as to what lit the revolution off, the one whose sacrifices you now enjoy, it wasn't gun confiscation - it was powder (ammunition) confiscation. The citizens of that time were armed with the best (or better) military weapons of the time and took every technological advance as an opportunity to improve them.

"Normal citizens" like what you and Bloomberg pretend to represent were called Tories and after the revolution were strongly encouraged to return to England. They were allowed to do so by the boatload.

BTW, I'll bet you wear a "well regulated" watch, don't you? For homework, learn what happened to the poorly regulated (trained / practiced / equipped) militia tasked with defending Washington DC in 1812. How did that turn out?

A Japanese Admiral said after WWII, "We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand." With Bloomberg and those of your ilk, they would have had no such concern.

With all due respect sir, the militia was the "part time" adjunct of the Continental Army that fought against the British army. So, in a sense, they could be compared to a National Guard unit today. My point, my friend, surrounds people that see the protection of gun rights to defend against our military in any form, unit, etc. If you feel the need to defend yourself against our military, why would you live here?

Heartlight you need to return to school and study your history. General George Washington was a credit to this nation not only for his bravery in battle and military genius, we had dozens of experienced generals who could do similar, he was known as a strong diplomat and was able to lead the regular army of enlisted men known as the continental army AND keep the peace and hold the militias together with his army. The militias were citizen volunteers, not for the army. They volunteered and voted their own leaders and offered their services to the army in the war. Many would become disgruntled or upset with the military and leave or go fight on their own instead of a cohesive unit and there was nothing the army could do about it, they were NOT ARMY. They are citizen militia. two very different entities.

AggregatVier, World War 2 was over 60 years ago. Live in the now. No one is going to launch a land invasion in the United States, ever. I don't know if you've heard of these things, but they're called "cruise missiles". Using the Japanese contemplating, and eventually decided it was a really stupid idea to attack the United States on land during World War 2 to justify your right to have guns in the 21st century is a ridiculous argument.

Jaybeeeeee, your sense of security is highly over done. There are any of a dozen very powerful nations that would love to occupy america. And we are unarmed whats to stop them. Granted we have a very well equiped miltary, but a couple of well placed unexpected nukes would fix that. So then what? The UN? Or NATO? please. They stay out. It would be to expensive for them to help. Most other nation don't care for us anyway. They think we are arrogant mindless bafoons. And those like you support that every day.

AggregatVier

Well put!

todd how can you say the reason for the 2nd amendment is obsolete? i find it the height of complacency, considering the state sponsored violence world wide over the past century, that suspicion of government is something whose time has passed. while a responsibly armed society is also a polite society, and statistics do show it reduces crime, there is in fact a more important reason, that we must always be on guard against those who would deprive us of freedom - the natural inclination of state is to consolidate power and grow larger. there will always be those who wish to sieze this power. call me melodramatic, but first refer to nazi germany and the soviet union before doing so.

Hank, I feel like your sense of insecurity is highly over done, but its ok because i like your style. Our very well equipped military is extremely powerful and should not be understated. There is no conventional military in the world that can compete with the firepower and technology that we possess (I'm not trying to kiss anyones butts, its science, look up the capabilities of our naval fleets, the m1 abrahams tank, the f-15 eagle for proof)

The only reason the people we've been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan could be considered even remotely successful at fighting our military is because they have fought us with conventions of guerilla war such as IEDs, and snipers. You can't guerilla war invade another country.

If a country decided that they wanted to drop an unexpected nuke on our military to "disable" what you consider our sole protective element, aside from our citizen owned guns, we have a whole lot bigger problems on our hands than a ranch full of weapons will fix.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure we're the only country in the world that has ever actually used a nuke on anyone else, and I'm pretty sure we'd do it again if someone dropped one on us.

Jaybeeee. That's what President Bush thought, we could whip Iraq and insurgents with cruise missles and bombs. He was wrong.

Actionman - paragraph two.

MountainView53 …

I am surprised that you did not use the following information to highlight your response to Michael Joel Held instead of belittling him as being inferior to your superior historical knowledge. Your knowledge of 18^th century crime in England will, apparently, have to be further augmented at the expense of my time. Therefore, I submit just these two small items that are well known to students regarding the issue of crime in 18^th century England. Keep in mind this question: Do you see so much difference between then and now? It will be my guess that you will not. In which case, “What is your point?”

“The cream of criminal society are the pickpockets, who are to be found everywhere - even in the best company - often clean and well-dressed, so that they may be mistaken for people of some standing. In fact, they may actually be so, for there are men who have fallen into want by reason of extravagance and are reduced to this way of living. After them in order of rank come the highwaymen, who ride on horseback, and often, in their desire to relieve the victim of his purse put him in terror with an unloaded pistol...Then comes the third, the lowest and vilest class of criminal, the footpads. Tragic examples may be read almost daily in English newspapers of poor people met on the road who have been brutally murdered for a few shillings..."
- C. P. Moritz, 1782 (10)

Dark, circuitous alleys coupled with tall, shadowy buildings and the ever-present shroud of fog made London a criminal's paradise. Outrageous murders, robberies and assaults of all kinds were commonplace. There was no organized law enforcement to speak of - the idea of a uniformed policeman patrolling the streets in order to prevent crime was considered too French (the originator of this scheme) and an affront to the Englishman's liberty. In fact, it was common practice for victims of a crime to pursue the perpetrator, often capturing and delivering the offender to authorities all by themselves. - Richard B. Schwartz's Daily Life in Johnson's London

Being the decent and well-educated fellow your are, I think that the gentleman deserves an apology.

AggregatVier--I can't seem to find the comment by "the Japanese Admiral". Illuminate me by providing a link from any credible source. Do you just make it up on the fly? When those that are pro-gun collapse the comments of another because you do not agree with it, you are denying freedoms that you claim to defend. Freedom of speech is the freedom that allows you to say what you say and is the purest freedom that any person can have.

Absolutely right. I can't understand why people are so afraid to hear opposing viewpoints. It's always good to know what the other side is thinking. "Collapsed by the community" is bull@!$%#.

Wow. I've never seen such revisionist, inaccurate historical refference in one thread in my entire life.

militia is volunteer and regulated/funded by the state. NOT Federaly. Nat Guard is a Federal military branch.

As for your "historical quotations- I don't have enough time

Bloomberg, the anti-gun posters here or both??????

he's also one of the most successful, as far as helping his constituents. 9 out of 10 mayors would have let nyc go to hell after 9-11, but somehow Bloomberg kept a lid on it. Argue that all you want, feel free to lose

I Concur! I living on the AZ/Mexico Border.

If the US government is so dangerous...MOVE. Leave our country. And, take your guns with you.

todd, I have a gun that was handed down through the family from the Civil War, a double barreled shot gun, that was brought over from Germany when my family moved here in the 1840`s, and a Winchester, that was owned by my uncle, who died in WW2. All three still work. One was used in war, two were used for hunting. They have been, and always will be a part of something I am proud of. So, does that mean I should also move? By the way, when you say our country, just who is the "our" you are talking about?

doyourhomework,America!

he's also one of the most successful, as far as helping his constituents. 9 out of 10 mayors would have let nyc go to hell after 9-11, but somehow Bloomberg kept a lid on it. Argue that all you want, feel free to lose

Perhaps you should do your homework, doyourhomework. Unless I am mistaken, Rudy Giulianni was mayor of New York after 9-11.

Right. I'm not a big Giuliani fan, but I'm glad he was the mayor on that day. The reason he didn't run for another term (which he could have easily won) was because he respected the term limits law - a law that Bloomberg conveniently ignored when it suited him.

doyourhomework obviously didn't do his homework. Or maybe it was public school revisionist history homework.

I agree 100%. This Bloomberg type power grabber is the specific example why our forefathers wanted the public to be armed. Isn't it amazing that this punk has the balls to steal his way into even more wealth, he fixes his own election so he can appoint himself to a longer term of office. Yes, this is exactly the type of human waste the "FRAMERS" wanted to protect us from.

What a pompous a$$, he thinks he cleaned up new york with his law making, while it was the rank and file NYPD who carried the heavy water and did the dirty work cleaning up the city. What an insult to the NYPD.

Yes real he most likely has armed NYC police around him on the subway and everywhere else because there are always lunatics with guns out there as we all know, and he is a serious target. In NYC or any large city to have unregulated guns would be nuts. Too many hot heads and crowded streets. Having a gun does not make you responsible, it makes you dangerous. Do you really think that every gun owner is well qualified to shoot in a tactical situation? Bullets would be flying everywhere. And by the way most criminals get their guns from people who have "legally" purchased. Just ask the Mexico drug cartels where they are getting theirs. Yeah I know, the innocent should not have to pay for a few bad apples.

Yes, he is the typical liberal, just like the Hollywood types who blather on about gun control while they have their own guns along with armed body guards. Do as I say, not as I do.

Stu-B, I would like to ask the Mexican drug cartels where they are buying the fully automatic weapons, grenades, grenade launchers and rocket propelled grenades I keep seeing the pictures of, I keep going to U.S. gun stores and gun shows and can't seem to find any of them. I have tried in Texas, Arizona and California, three of the four border states with no luck. I have even tried Missouri, Kansas, Florida and Virginia, still no luck. Any ideas where I can get them?

The cartels have the ways and means to move large quantities of illegal drugs around the world, and do so on a daily basis, why would they bother with sending people to the U.S. to buy semi-automatic weapons when they can get fully auto weapons from the black market at a much lower price? Doesn't make sense, does it?

Maybe, just maybe, the weapons we keep seeing in biased articles were actually provided to the Mexican government by the United States government and were then stolen by corrupt military personnel or police. Oops, I forgot, nobody has ever accused the Mexican police or military of being corrupt.

The bogus information passed on by the current administration, including the President, Secretary of State and BATFE about the number of American sourced weapons recovered in Mexico was completely discredited by unbiased sources.

There are currently allegations from active BATFE personnel that the agency has even illegally carried guns into Mexico just so they could "prove" guns were coming from the U.S. www.cleanupatf.org

Mexico's Constitution effectively bans all firearms from its citizens, how has that worked out for them? Would you rather live in Dallas or Ciudad Juarez?

When you jump to conclusions you usually skip the facts.

Mexican drug cartel's are getting their guns from Victor Bout. He in turn uses his personal fleet of aircraft to ship their drugs all over the world.

I don't really think the founders meant for us to overthrow the government they were designing and setting up. Somehow I believe they were thinking more along the lines of defending against external threats.

So you think you are going to have a shoot out with...ummmm...let's see...China or Russia? With that stupid logic, hope you are good shot against a balistic missile. What a buffoon.

China and Russia were not an issue when the founders were around. Neither were weapons of mass destruction. I don't think the founders even conceived of either.

My point exactly.

Its a general point of security. The founders had lived through periods where the government of the day disarmed its citizens. They meant what they said...the citizen has a right to arm themselves. Any arms of whatever day.

If its 1800 its muzzle loaders, if its 1900 its lever action rifles, if its 2000 its semi autos, if its 2300 it might be ray guns but whatever the technology of the time the basic citizen will have the right to arm themselves or we have no freedoms at all.

Heartlight3,

No, I don't really think the founders meant for us to overthrow the government they were designing and setting up. But is the government of today the same as the one they designed and set up in 1789? Foreign and domestic. As our federal government has expanded its scope for over 200 years, how far along the road to tyrannical has it become?

read Federalist Paper #28. point 9 is what The framers intended

Well, in the first place, there were no standing armies in the colonies. Washington's army was down to a virtual nothing in a matter of months after the revolution--it was years before the idea of a permanent, professional standing army took root.

Just assuming that what some of the gun rights people say is true, we really are arguing the wrong thing. No army in the world carries a Glock as its main weapon. If these intrepid and brave men above want to defend me from my government, and not just kill people at Safeway, they are gonna need a bigger arsenal. Anti-tank weapons, for sure. Full on machine guns. SAM's and grenade launchers. Lots and lots of body armor.

But the fact is, they are a bunch of fat guys wearing imitation army camouflage and pretending to be the first line of defense from our "tyrannical" government. They wouldn't know tyranny if it bit them on the butt. They are talking sedition, and doing it with impunity, because this government is not tyrannical.

And before one of you makes the comment, I am a former infantryman. I have actually used machine guns in combat. Been wounded by them, too. You are a bunch of hysterical poseurs. (Look it up.)

Buff Roams... I agree with what you said here about the types of weapons that would be needed to some extent. I've often said that the purchase of the types of weapons that are available to the general public, only give a "sense" of security where government oppression is concerned. I haven't yet seen anyone in the general public that has been able to purchase a fully armed Apache chopper.

But in another sense, IED's and small arms can wreak havoc on even the best outfitted armies. Just look to the east if you don't believe that.

And before you go calling someone a "fat guy wearing imitation camouflage" I have seen the elephant...... 5th SF 18/Delta Marble Mt. 71-72. Look THAT up bubba.

If we really needed a revolution, of course we could do a lot of damage with almost anything. These guys run through the woods in paramilitary fashion, preparing for the coming "gummint takeover". They are silly. Just silly. They don't enter anybody's equation. If it came down to those bozos being my last line of defense for freedom, not sure I wouldn't rather go with socialism. They creep me out. They look silly when they make speeches. Sorry, but it is just a fact. They were on Fox again tonite. Fat old men in fake military gear.

FWitsW is not a buffoon. Made good points and spoke well.

Buffaloes Roam....... I'll concede the point you are making about some of the want-to-be soldier types. Some of them are pretty sad, that's a fact. I sold a Colt AR-15 I had years ago to a sheriffs deputy when I left my law enforcement job. I was sadly disappointed to see this gun in a picture of the deputy in a newspaper wearing face camo, while going through a KKK training camp. It pissed me off that my name was registered to that rifle and here he was mixed in a group like that.

You never know what is in the mind of other people. But my point is, you don't punish the whole for the crimes of the few. In other words, if you had a finger that had an infection and became gangrene, would you cut off the entire arm? Or just remove the finger?

Not all people carrying personal protection pieces are crazy,"fat, old men in fake military gear". I carry one because it is my right to do so and it may one day save my or someone elses life. I don't want to use it, but I will.

And our forefathers did expect us to fight the government They founded if it became corrupt. Do you think they were so shortsighted not to think in the terms of 100 to 200 years into the future? Any group of men who are capable of building this GREAT nation surely were intelligent enough to do so.

My family also hunts. We put organic, humanely raised venison on the table throughout the year. My children have taken safety courses and respect the rights and safety of all creatures. We thank the animal and God for allowing us to nourish ourselves. Do you think of the cow you ate when you eat a cheeseburger?

Also, I would hope most of you are intelligent enough to see that the people who hurt others, whether by gun, knife, blunt object or whatever else, will do it with any weapon they can.

I don't expect to use my guns to fight a foreign invader. I use them for sport and personal protection. It is my right. It will always be my right. If you don't like guns, don't buy one. I don't like alcohol (or drunk drivers) but you'll never see me trying to get the government to outlaw that DEADLY product. Alcohol consumption leads to more deaths per year than personal gun use. If you need a cause, fight the drunk drivers and abusers. Leave my safety alone.

I don't think we can control guns. It is a settled matter. The Supreme Court said so, and to me that is an end to it, no matter my personal feelings. I am unclear why it keeps coming up. There is a small minority that thinks it can be done...but there is a small minority that thinks the US is going back to the Native Americans. We don't need to keep re-hashing it. No official is ever coming to take away hunting rifles. I damn sure wouldn't think that an ex Marine and law enforcement officer having a gun is a threat to anyone, unless there is some kind of horrendous accident. But the chances of any of us needing to use them to stop a local, state or federal invasion of our home? Well, I guess you have them if you really need them. Unlikely that.

mmfine71

Great post. Between drugs, alcohol and abortion the death toll is staggering. But the anti gun crowd will fight to the end to keep those available.

Honestly, it isn't the guys posting above that worry me all that much. I would drink a beer with either of them, and while my hunting skills ain't good--I would tag along and cook breakfast. They aren't a threat. They are sportsmen and citizens. The guys that have the paranoia are a threat, and how do we separate them? I just don't know. I do know we aren't going to collect guns from owners. Would even be popular with a rabid liberal like me.

The part of the BIG LIE that you are buying is that politicos like Bloombrg, Pelosi, Obama, Reid, and many others ultimate goal IS confiscation of personal arms. Many of them have publicly stated as much. They are tied together by money, lobyists, and getting the votes of people foolish enough to swallow their "I know what's best for you" agenda.

just got a new shotgun. Training starts for the whole family tonight. Still love you anti gun liberals and you still have the rights you have due to Firearms.

Mayor Bloomberg spoke but with little knowledge of what he was speaking about. A well regulated militia was put in front of the right to bear arms because it was a custom at the time to put a reason in front of laws and regulations. Not the only reason, but one of the reasons. The right to bear arms was common law before the second amendment was ever written establishing that right. Further, without the right of the citizens to bear arms, you can't have a militia, well regulated or not. Also, militias are formed using ordinary citizens who are called upon to serve in times of crisis. In order to do so they have to have firearms available.

Steve,

The entire Bill of Rights, the first 8 amendments to the Constitution, are limits on what government can do to individuals. They're not "only for the government." Each amendment forbids government from doing something to individuals. Perhaps you would do well to actually read them before espousing a view on what they're "for."

Oh me, I have a Master's Degree in Law from Stanford Law School with an emphasis on constitutional law. And you, Steve, what qualifies you to make pronouncements about the Constitution? Intuition or just plain arrogance?

Michael L. Marowitz,

If someone supports VIOLATING the US Constitution and E.O. 12333 and many other International Laws, concerning ASSASSINATIONS and depriving a person of Life and Liberty.

Should they be held ACCOUNTABLE???

Ummm, no? Always tough when someone (Robertson) puts a truly mystical rant right after an intelligent and incisive comment (Marowitz). AC, have you a point hidden in there that you want to share with the rest of us, or do you just like putting lots of capital letters in screed filled with poor grammar?

I'm trying to receive a LEGAL Interpretation from a professed 'Legal Expert'.

If you know anything about E.O. 12333 and sanctioned ASSASSINATIONS you understand my point..

You want to be my Office Poge??? I'll pay mnimum wage, but only if you can meet the requirements of Clinton's humidor.

Hey Todd I signed on the dotted line to defend the Constitution. What is your malfuntion?

I think the malfunction comes when people think of owning personal guns to defend themselves against their country, the United States of America. I certainly would not stay here if I feared my country. That is a malfunction of logic in my opinion.

todd you might want to read the constitution. Our Forefathers put the possibility of the Citizens having to break up and change our Government in writing. So again what is YOUR malfunction. By the way, Former Military, Current Trauma Nurse and a L.E.O.

Hey todd, why do you only use the statement "to defend themselves against their country"? What makes you think, that everyone who owns a gun, owns it just for that reason? I own three, but that doesn`t mean I want to go to war with the government. I have used them for hunting, and I wouldn`t think twice in using one to defend myself from someone who breaks into my house, who may be armed. What makes you believe, if you make all guns illegal, that the criminals would stop using them? And by the way, who are you to tell anyone who owns a gun to leave this country? The day we see the deed to this country in your hands, or you become God, maybe we will, until then, get off of every ones back? Why don`t you come down off that soapbox, and get real?

Ouch!

Good post. Jeff doesn't care, however.

We'd be much better of with more funding for mental health than more gun controls. The first one helps with the cause of violence. The second one just forces a mentally ill person to find another weapon.

Define assault weapon?

Clips are generally capable of holding six or eight rounds. You speak of magazines which are different. i.e., you knoe little of firearms.

Licensing is required in most left coast communities, Chicago and New York. Has this solved the problems with FELONS?

you can go to any "farm auction" and buy any gun and nobody is checking the paperwork.

Mark, How about a psych exam and I.Q. test before allowing a person to be able to vote? I think that can be more destructive than my weapon.

shooting is also a sport. in every sport, you can choose different equipment. if you have never participated in a shooting sport, you know vevy little about it. therefore i suggest all of you people who have never emptied a 30 round magazine into a pumpkin at 200 yards do so before you tell me i have no reason to have a 30 round magazine.

Jeff, since you believe that we should have to get a license to exercise a RIGHT that stated clearly in the Constitution, do you support the government forcing people to have a license to exercise their other rights like free speech, practicing religion, ect.?

Mark,

First of all, there is lots of documentation to prove that armed citizens prevent crimes. Don't compare our "demographics" to other countries...there is no other country like this one.

Oh, and by the way, what Blumberg said about 38 round clips. There is no such thing and the Arizona shooter was stopped when he was changing magazines after 19 shots.

You show the typical ignorance of guns as do all others that don't like them. Assault weapons are illegal to own, although you can get a few things if you can afford the permit to have them. All the ones you are calling assault rifles operate exactly like many of the hunting rifles. They are not automatic. You can't buy those. Semi-automatic means 1 shot fired with 1 pull of the trigger. Antigun people lump them all together with fully automatics. Wrong. There arn't 10 round clips in hunting rifles. Depending on the state, generally you can only put 3 in legally.

Handguns, of the proper caliber, are used for hunting. With very little research or picking up a hunting or outdoor magazine off the rack you would know this.

So the assault weapon ban you talk about is a joke. Some of them looked like assualt weapons but are not. An assault weapon is capable of firing fully auto. None of these are. So they are semi-auto which puts many hunting rifles on the list.

Magazine capacity- I guess if my wife had a semi-auto for home defense, it would be nice if, in case of attack inside the house, she had 33 rounds just at the pull of the trigger. Hitting your target under high stress with a 4 inch barrel isn't so easy.

Licensing is just another way of allowing your local government the ease of knocking down your door and taking your gun just because they don't like guns...you know, like they did in New Orleans after Katrina.

I agree, it behooves any of us who buy a gun that haven't been around them to take a gun safety course or at least be trained by someone knowledgable. There are alot of concientious gun owners out there that would be more than happy to accomodate. We are not all fat, camo-wearing gun nuts that sit around all day reading mercenary magazines and talk about shooting people. We're no different than anyone else. We just think differently about guns than you. That's ok. You probly drive a different car than I do and that's ok too.

So let's not make statements and call them facts without knowing the facts. It might keep the one word comments from others to a minimum..y'know the namecalling stuff.

Well said, Buppa. I do, however, feel the need to question what states limit hunting rifle capacity to 3 rounds. Most, if not all, states limit shotgun capacity to 3 rounds (1 chambered and 2 in the magazine), but even my great grandfather's Winchester lever-action saddle-gun holds 6 rounds in the magazine + 1 chambered. Most semi-auto, bolt, and pump-action rifles come with 4 or 5-round quick-change magazines.

The term "assault rifle" was coined by the anti-gunners to encompass any weapon that looks "high-tech" or any short, highly maneuverable carbine. For example.... The SKS came with a 10-round magazine, but you can get 5, 20, 30-round mags for them. They are semi-automatic, and are the ballistic equivalent of a .30-30 (same as most of the Marlin and Winchester saddle-guns). It got labeled as an "assault rifle", because it resembled the AK-47 and uses the same ammo.

What people fail to take into account, when citing statistics is how many times a gun gets used, but no shots are fired. They, only, want to cite actual shootings. I have had to unholster my weapon on a few occasions to defend myself or someone else. Each time, looking down the barrel of my .357 was enough to alter the perp's course of action. According to these folks, the fact that I did not have to pull the trigger means I didn't USE my weapon. I differ. I USED it as the very persuasive tool it is.

There was a question rasied about the definition of an assault rifle - here it is:

The law created a definition of assault weapon: Certain models (all of which apply to only semi-automatic weapons), such as the Colt AR-15, TEC-9, all Kalashnikovs (including the AK-47), Uzi, and others were banned by name; other weapons were banned for having certain features:

Semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and two or more of:

• folding or telescoping stock
• conspicuous pistol grip
• bayonet mount
• flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• grenade launcher

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of:

• magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
• threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
• barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
• unloaded weight of 50 oz or more
• a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

(all but the last pistol feature are found in the pre-ban TEC-9, the probable inspiration for that section of the law)

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Assault_weapons_ban_%28USA%29

and these can be easily and illegally converted to fully auto (rather crude - but can be done).

As to the 2nd Amendment

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And I support this - especially the "well regulated milita, being to to the security of a free state"

but the NRA has gotten this so screwed up, so their corporate buddies can sell more guns and ammo.

NEWSFLASH - It's going to snow in the northeast - you need to go out and buy more ammo"

NEWSFLASH - "It didn't snow in the Northeast - you need to go out and buy more ammo"

NEWSFLASH - "Your football made it to the Super Bowl- you need to go buy more ammo"

NEWSFLASH - "Your football team didn't make it to the Super Bowl - you need to go buy more ammo"

Oh what the Hell - just go buy more ammo - because there's a box left on the shelf and your neighbor might buy it.

Mark 1108891:

You are horribly uninformed, or like Bloomberg, don’t allow facts to get in the way of an agenda. Every point in your proclamation is completely inapposite to fact and logic.

You claim "The murder rate here is astronomical" compared to Europe & all the world. Truth is Western Europe, most of whose countries have much tougher gun laws than US, has experienced many of the worst multiple-victim public shootings. As in US, all shootings in which more than 3 people have been killed have occurred in places where civilians may not legally bring guns.

EUROPE has been home to nearly all of the worst K–12 school shootings in recent history. The very worst in a high school in Erfurt, Germany (2002) 18 killed. 2^nd -worst Dunblane, Scotland (1996) 16 kindergartners & teacher killed. 3^rd Winnenden Germany 15 dead. 4^th -worst was in US Columbine (1999) leaving 13 dead. 5^th Emsdetten, Germany 11 murdered. Germany, w/ some of Europe’s most restrictive gun-control laws was home to 3 of the 5 worst attacks.

The phenomenon is not limited to schools and multiple-victim public shootings are as common in Europe as here. A partial list since 2001: Finland, France, Austria, Italy, Spain Germany .. and Cumbria England where last June 2, 2010 British taxi driver killed 12. As mentioned, all occurred in GUN-FREE ZONES PLACES WHERE GUNS ARE OUTLAWED: www.nationalreview.com/articles/229929/gun-control-and-mass-murders/john-r-lott-jr?page=1

You suggest a look at accidents: The US per capita rate & annual number of firearm accident deaths have decreased steadily for decades, to all-time lows shown by the most recent data available from Natl Ctr for Health Statistics. Firearm accident death rate decreased 94% since 1904; annual number of such accidents has decreased 80% since 1930, WHILE US POPULATION MORE THAN DOUBLED & NUMBER OF FIREARMS HAS QUINTUPLED. Firearms are involved in 0.5% of accidental deaths nationally, compared to motor vehicles (37%), poisoning (22%), falls (17%), suffocation (5%), drowning (2.9%), fires (2.5%), medical mistakes (1.7%), environmental factors (1.3%), and pedal cycles (0.7%).

You say "don’t try to claim these problems would still occur with a knife or other weapon .. they're much harder to .. kill with" WRONG AGAIN. The Soviet Union’s success in keeping its people disarmed did not prevent it from having far and away the highest murder rate in the developed world. In 1960s & early 1970s, the GUN LESS USSR’s murder rates exceeded those of gun ridden America. Russian murder increased so drastically that between 1998-2004 (latest figure available for Russia), Russian murder rates were nearly 4x’s higher. See: Kates & Mauser study and conclusion debunking as FALSE the gun control mantra that "More guns equal more death":

Your declaration that SCOTUS ignored precedent which connects 2A rights to a well-armed militia is TOTALLY FALSE. Heller is based on exhaustive historical review concluding "Nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed to 'the people' refer to anything other than an individual right. The term ['the people'] unambiguously refers to all members of the political community." The majority rejected the notion that 2A protects only a privilege to possess arms when serving in a militia, and ALL NINE JUSTICES REJECTED idea that the it protects only a state power (so-called "collective right") to maintain a militia.

The court cited previous decision recognizing the right to arms is individually-held "As we said in US v. Cruikshank (1876), '[t]his IS NOT A RIGHT GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION. NEITHER IS IT IN ANY MANNER DEPENDENT UPON THAT INSTRUMENT FOR ITS EXISTENCE. The 2A declares that it shall not be infringed.'" The court also relied upon U.S. v. Miller (1939), to recognize the right to arms is individually-held and not dependent upon militia service. All very much based upon the 2A’s history and text, statements and writings of the author, James Madison, and other statesmen of the founding period, and the writings of respected 19^th century legal authorities.

You urge the ban of assault weapons, and clips with "high levels of ammo". You must have missed state bans of CA, NJ, CT, MA, NY, HI, MD, and the ten year Federal 1991 Clinton Gun Ban on assault weapons and magazines more than 10 rounds. You missed it because it DID NOT WORK. Congress mandated a study of the ban that determined "the banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders" before the ban, and the ban’s 10-round limit on new magazines wasn’t a factor in multiple-victim or multiple-wound crimes." Moreover, violent crime, which began decreasing three years before the ban, continued decreasing as the number of firearms, including "assault weapons" and other semi-automatics, increased.

Between 1991-2006, US total violent crime and murder rates decreased 42% . Meanwhile, privately-owned firearms rose by more than 75 million, about one-third of them semi-automatics, with 15 percent of semi-automatics being "assault weapons." The number of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds rose by 50 million during the years of the ban alone, according to the ban’s House sponsor.

You claim "no problem with a reasonable use of guns". Our founding fathers reaffirmed and constitutionally protected Americans’ inalienable God given rights, to insure that we are not dependent upon the permission or mindset of those ignorant of facts and faulty of logic.

Your sole inadvertent correctness that it took citizens to stop the shooter, should allow you insight sufficient to see that the true tragedy is that more armed citizens were not around to shoot him before having to wait till his magazine ran out while he continued his mayhem.

Murder rates in other countries are much lower. Most of our murders are with guns. I am not sure where they got the murder rates for the former Soviet Union, but for any western country it is a fact that our murder rates are much higher. Any argument to the contrary is either willful mischaracterization or sophistry.

That doesn't mean, in and of itself, that we need gun control. The murder rate may be the price we pay to be a free society. But trying to kid ourselves that we have a low rate of murder is just not rational.

Buffaloes Roam:

FALSE! Untrue that United States murder rates are MUCH HIGHER. Any bare assertion to the contrary is irrationally in derogation of statistical records.

Kates & Mauser’s comprehensive examination is well annotated with references to their source of all data. A cursory review of their report also exposes in the introduction, the myth behind such widespread assertion: "There is a compound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. THOUGH THESE ASSERTIONS HAVE BEEN ENDLESSLY REPEATED, STATEMENT (B) IS, IN FACT, FALSE and statement (a) is substantially so."

No need however, to rely solely upon their conclusion. Independent research reveals the same. The United States with around 5 MURDERS PER 100,000 PEOPLE, is nowhere close to El Savador with 71, Honduras 67, Jamaica 59; Guatemala 52; Venezuela 49; Lesotho 36.7; Colombia 35; South Africa 34; Belize 33.4; Anguilla 27.6 Bahamas 22.4; Brazil 22; Dominican Republic 21.5; and countless other Western countries as typically defined: "In the contemporary political and cultural context, the Western World generally refers to the nations of the Americas, Europe, Australia, New Zealand Israel and South Africa". Not to mention the rest of the world which, you excluded from consideration.

No kidding! Even the hallowed gun controlled soil of the United Kingdom, whose government reportedly has exaggerated statistics, the rate runs in excess of 2. And, after years of confiscations and firearm registration, London's Sunday Times reported on Oct. 13, 2002, that: "Britain's murder rate has risen to its highest level since records began 100 years ago, undermining claims by ministers that they have got violent crime under control".

Kates, also a noted civil rights lawyer, best put the international comparison myth in perspective, writing, "In any society, truly violent people are only a small minority. We know that law-abiding citizens do not commit violent crimes. We know that criminals will neither obey gun bans nor refrain from turning other deadly instruments to their nefarious purposes. . . . In sum, PEACEFUL SOCIETIES DO NOT NEED GENERAL GUN BANS AND VIOLENT SOCIETIES DO NOT BENEFIT FROM THEM.

Gusto, I appreciate your literate and considered response. More gun advocates such as yourself would do the NRA a world of good. I did indeed pull up the PDF of the Kates & Mauser report, and I read most of it. Likewise, I pulled up the UN report that I believe some of their numbers were based on, and (with a few exceptions) that report agrees with their conclusions.

I am your basic raging liberal. I do own guns, but to be honest I lost my appetite for using them after a stint as a combat infantryman in Vietnam. If you closely read my response, I referred to "Western"--and by that I meant Canada and England and France and, I suppose, most of Europe. I absolutely must concede that I am surprised by the correctness of your argument. That being said, I don't find much comfort in being better than El Salvador. The simple mathematical fact (and feel free to check it out) is that we lost more people to murders in the years of Vietnam than we did to combat. By a pretty wide margin. I don't, as I pointed out in my original response, espouse much gun control. That is simply a practical judgement. I would like to see a society that had jobs for everyone who wanted to work--but as a practical matter, that won't happen either. Likewise, we simply are not going to get substantive gun control. Not now, not ever. There is no appetite for it. The Supreme Court has said that the interpretation of the Second Amendment is largely correct as the NRA has seen it. That is a legal end to the matter. I might not like it, but we are a nation of laws.

@Jeff-

it's pretty simple, sir. Carrying concealed, your only goal is to protect yourself and your family. If that means taking cover and not discharging your firearm, that is the wisest, best defense. most shooters also know that this hollywood immage of jumping into a spray of bullets to save the day is hogwash. If you are forced to act in defense of another in a Crazy Killer scenario, it is prefferable to put the perp down without him ever seeing you. Most of your commentary reflects alot of hollywood and very little defensive mindset. That mindset includes way more than carrying a gun. It's mostly threat avoidance or weighing your risks. You probably do many of the same things, just without the ability to shoot back.

Buffaloes Roam:

And I, yours. A civilized political debate is edifying for all; something my War II father, a combat infantryman in Normandy, the Ardennes, and other inhospitable campaigns, relished, particularly where it involved the bill of rights for which he fought and had pledged continuing officer’s oath to support and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The media’s overwhelming power to influence public opinion, even subliminally, is shameful where agenda driven propaganda not grounded in fact is used to feed the deepening schism and polarization of the masses. As in the case of the NRA, and gun control.

Many intelligent, well intentioned Americans would find surprise in the faces of the NRA. Current NRA President John Schmeits former mayor in MN, with an MBA in Bank Management is also currently President, Director & CEO of International Bank in NM & has served on the NM governor’s business advisory committee. John Sigler, President before him, is a retired Dover DE Police Captain, who now works as a lawyer in MD & DE.

Before them Sandra Froman, raised in the SF Bay Area, earned a BA in economics with distinction from Stanford University in 1971 and a Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School in 1974. A practicing attorney since that time and also law school professor, serving on the boards of the U of A law school, as well as George Mason University School of Law. She had no experience or interest in guns until accosted late one night and police took a long time to respond, at which point she decided to never allow herself to be helpless victim again.

NRA rank and file also includes all walks of life, from retired military and police, to lawyers, doctors, and a cross section representative of all the 70-80 million gun owners in the US. Avid shooting sports, law abiding Americans sharing 2^nd Amendment interests. These numbers, the truth behind no appetite for gun control, are not the Neanderthalian whackos the media portrays along with the other misconception that the NRA lobby has somehow subverted the constitution or political process. The Supreme Court’s decision in Heller is based upon exhaustive review of 2A history and text, statements and writings of the author James Madison and other statesmen of the founding period, and the writings of respected 19^th century legal authorities, not NRA lobbying.

In fact, Sandra Froman in continuing her efforts on behalf of the NRA as a civil rights organization, that emphasizes the importance of the right of self-defense for women and minorities, is a strong advocate for the appointment of judges and Supreme Court justices that are faithful to the original meaning of the constitutional text and confine themselves to the judicial role of interpreting and applying the law faithfully, not using the courts to promote personal policy preferences or advance political agendas. A nation of laws, indeed.

Thank you for your service to our nation which was, and is appreciated.



New York doesn't want you. Really.

Not surprisingly we don't want NY either. Still think a wall around it is a great idea but a moat will do. No visas for New Yorkers.

New York doesn't want you.....

What an intelligent statement! Sort of like "so's your mama!" I worked in New York in the fifties...GREAT place to visit...but...you know the rest!

todd...everyone of your statements is inflammatory (and quite ignorant). Especially insinuating that only gun-control advocates are proud Americans. I would cherish to see your outspoken sentiment in the face of a returning Veteran who has diligently protected these same freedoms that allow you to express your opinion (especially since the majority are in direct conflict with your views regarding guns).

I, unlike you and many others, respect our service men and women and our country and our government. I see no logic in needing to defend against my country. You completely miss the point which is simply this: if you are so terrified of our government, this world is huge...leave. It is very unpatriotic to speak about our country this way.

Hey todd, Why dont you move to Utopia Europe, I fought for this FREE COUNTRY. Go find your place that you can make up all the rules you want. But LEAVE MY FREE COUNTRY ALONE.

With all due respect to you Combat, I was not addressing you. My comments are directed toward people that feel the need to own guns to defend themselves against our military and our government. This is my country. I do not agree with every policy of the government and I do not expect anyone to. But, I do stand with my country and my government and find it troubling and puzzling that people who find the need to defend themselves against our government actually stay and live here. Like I said, the world is big place. Maybe I can make it more simple.

If you had an adult child living with you, and all that child talked about was how they hated your parental governance, your rules, your structure; and, then on top of that they started arming themselves in some form or fashion to protect themselves from you, I think you may think it is best they leave.

I bet the Jews in Germany in the 20's weren't terrified of their government at the time either but I bet they wish they had the right to bear arms by the mid 30's to protect themselves from their government. But by Todd's logic, it would have been unpatriotic of the German Jews to speak out against their country in the 30's. Maybe we don't have a corrupt government right now, but that doesn't mean we won't in the future, and because of that, we need to be sure that we have a means in which to defend ourselves when the time comes.

Like I said, my friend, if you feel like that, why stay in the first place. Also, do you honestly think that if the US military becomes "corrupt" and turns against its citizens, your Glock or even an assault rifle is going to be a defense? Sorry, there is no logic there. Just as if the Jews could have prevented their horrors with personal firearms against the German army. Paranoia is just not conducive to democracy.

Todd, I have to say that I think you are an angry closed minded person. I tried to read your posts with an open mind and give you the benefit of the doubt, but you are just not capable of having a conversation in an intelligent manner.

This isn't something you can say "like it or leave" and have people want to respect your opinion.

I love my country. It is the greatest nation ever established. But no citizen has to agree with its government to keep his/her right to live here.

You act as if the US government isn't capable of corruption, oppression, or needing a swift kick in it's collective hind-end. The German people felt like you when Hitler was in place.

I for one will love and respect my country. But I'll do it with open eyes, not like a blind sheep.

"Why stay?" Because this is my home and I have every right to be here, just like you do. If our government becomes corrupt and the next Hitler comes into power it'll be a lot easier for them to control the citizens if the previous administrations succeeded in disarming the country. Research Germany history and you'll see the horrors that Hitler's government did to the people of Germany, not just the Jews living in Germany. The SS killed many political activists that Hitler didn't agree with. Free speech in Germany was dead, freedom of religion in Germany was dead, freedom of the press in Germany was dead. The people didn't have a means in which to defend themselves when the SS came knocking on their doors and a lot of people found themselves dead because of their views.

I'll tell you something, someone with an AR-15 assault rifle has a better chance of stopping a couple of soldiers trying to bust down his door than someone with a bat or knife. Ask any Jew who survived the holocaust if they feel owning a Glock or an assault rifle would have made them feel safer and possibly stopped them from being ripped from their homes and thrown into a concentration camp and I guarantee you that 100% of them would say yes.

How about this Todd? Leave. Why don't you and those people complaining about all the guns here leave and go somewhere guns aren't allowed and take your whining with you.

Toad,

My family has served in every war since the French and Indian War, we live in every state and most territories, and we are comprised of most all of the races in America. We also defend our 2nd Amendment rights.

As stated before, Germany 12m, USSR 20m, China 28m, Turkey 1.5m, and Cambodia 300k were all democratically elected governments before wipping out millions of defenseless citizens.

I live in NYC and any New Yorker will tell you that our NYPD and city & state gvmt have big problems with corrupt segments. Our constitution - including the gun rights - are the only way to keep people like Bloomburg from becoming dictators. Because, hey, they know best.

Todd, No one is suggesting that we try to over come our government at this time by armed force. But should the time ever come, it isn't always who is the best armed. Tactics play a very important role in any armed skirmish.

Opinionated Arse from the Loft.......... Good post.

LOL @ Opinonated........ TOAD??....LMAO

It is difficult for a non-American to reconcile the notion that America is 'the greatest country ever founded' with a its people's relentless paranoia that its goverment is out to get them. Outside your border, there are actually people not worried about government operatives outside their door at 2am, that are also comfortable with the freedoms afforded them, and aren't even carrying a gun! I know what are referred to as 'conservative' Americans are in stunned, mocking disbelief that this could be true, but it is! Don't worry though, noone will ever invade the U.S., they'll simply buy the good parts of it when the civil war finishes up.

You used "your" for "you're" , I would normally let spelling errors slide....but you are debating with adults! Act as one! Worse, your logic is faulty.

Excuusssse meee!

I guess your argument is for more training on aiming, not gun control, right?

Most gun dealerships and states have classes to learn safety and marksmanship. I know because my husband, my three teenagers and I have all taken them.

That does not mean we'll open fire in a public place. Or that it is our responsibilty to stop a shooter. That is a huge responsibility and personal choice.

David, yes United Kingdom is Parliamentary Democracy, but that has nothing to do with law. You have video cameras on every corner but crime rate is as high as any major city in USA. British statistics are skieved against reporting gun crimes. If crime is not solved it does not make it into statistics.

The right to life is protected by the right to bear arms. To have liberty means that one gives up some security. Liberty always carries some risk of somebody using their liberty unwisely. If you want security, go to North Korea. They will give you all the security you want and nobody can have guns.

your master and king

The right to life is protected by the right to bear arms.

Unless you get caught in the crossfire, of course.

If you want security, go to North Korea.

Ah yes, if you disagree with the Writ of the Holy Gun, you belong in a totalitarian regime! Wonderful way you have of promoting liberty!

Yeah...bloomberg is the solution.... Vote him in again!

Big, Then move to Europe. I live and put my life on the line for this FREE COUNTRY called the United States of America. If you want to be like Europe, go there.

BBD, So your argument is that my having 10 guns will make the crackhead down the street more lethal?? Does your ability to write opinions make porn more available? Wow.

My weapons are in a safe. You spew your words across the face of the world.

Because I feel strongly about a topic you call me crazy?

You say most criminals aren't intelligent?

You talk about France being safe as if gun control will make us safe, yet the French are allowed to own weapons.

Your arguments do not hold water.

Bite me Aussie............. or is that "bugger off"?

You worry about your country and we'll worry about OURS. And by the way.... you can have Rupert Murdock back.......... he sucks too.

I can understand why you think the way you do though, what can one expect coming from someone standing on their head down-under?

Aussie than go back to Australia. I am not here to tell you how to be in your country. Show the same respect.

AussieGlenn,

How are those 'Home Invasion' rates working out for you in Australia???

Prior to 1998 no jurisdiction in Australia has a specific offence labelled home invasion. This was prior to banning guns and knives in Australia...

Between Apr 1998 and Mar 1999 there were over 10 articles in the Advertiser & Sunday Mail regarding 'home Invasions'. The rates have ONLY INCREASED...

see http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/19/america-dont-repeat-australias-gun-control-mistake/

Stay in your country where you are a servant of the government. In the USA, the people rule and as long as the government fears the people, we will have liberty. Take the guns from the people, the government will not fear the people. There is no government that fears the people when they are armed with just rocks and bottles.

Say what?

Jason, go take your hate some where else. Most resonsible gun owners do not hate. But sure as Sh!t you Liberals do.

Combat: Amen!

Wow. All I had to do was be pro gun and I find out I am a right wing nut teabagged sociopath. Thanks for the free diagnosis Dr. Jason. How do you feel about somebody that would rather drive a Chevy than a Toyota?

By the way, Congresswoman Giffords in Arizona is a gun owner and proud of it. If I remember correctly, she has a Glock....probly a Glock19 which is what her attacker used. She must be a rightwing teabagged sociopath that should leave the country too...oh, wait a minute, she's a democrat...she can stay, right Jason?

Where is the hate for gun owners? I was replying to someone calling someone else a communist. My quote is mocking the misconstruing and over use of the word communism, as well as its application to anyone one finds disagreeable.

Reading comprehension guys. I am not against debating anyone on the merits of the 2nd Amendment. I am open to whatever anyone has to say, and I respect the fact that you are fervent about this issue, even if I disagree with you on the merits. My post above is in regards to tea party and right wing people, that call anything they disagree with communist. Someone wrote something above my post, calling someone a communist several times for no good reason.

The major problem as I see it Jason is that you state that you are willing to debate the issues but then you turn around and start with the abusive rhetoric. You accuse those on the other side of the fence of being close-minded and calling names. It also damages your credibility.

Buppa...... I know where you are coming from. I'm a pro-gun Democrat. I am NOT what is referred to as a "lib". My mother was a Democrat and my father was a Republican. They stayed married long enough to see their 50th anniversary, before my father passed away.

Ironic as it may seem, my father, the hard nosed Republican, was also a guard for F.D.R. being from a long line of military and/or law enforcement men and women. Some Democrats, some Republicans. My daughter is a Republican. She has served as an officer in the 101st and did 2 tours. 1 in Kosovo, and 1 in Iraq. She is serving in law enforcement in Arizona now.

All of this name calling is what causes the division in our country. I believe if you consider yourself to be "this American" or "that American", then in truth you are really a "divided American".

People like Jason only add fuel to a fire of burning dung.

tony........... that's bologna! "Handguns that do not kill (And it's w-a-t-e-r-f-o-w-l not wildfowl.) wildfowl but humans!"

I'll have you know that I have killed a Canadian Goose with a .45 Colt Auto pistol. Of course it only has a 7 round magazine capacity. I have also killed fish using a bow, so lets outlaw bows next. They've killed people throughout the centuries.

Hand guns are a lethal extension of a human hand. One cannot separate the handgun from the human or vice-versa. Therefore the notion that handguns kill, is based on the fact that killing is FACILITATED by a handgun. Is this really so hard to comprehend?

Not hard to comprehend at all. The point is that there are a lot of drug dealers, people that commit armed robberies, murders, etc. There are tons of people that would shoot you dead in a minute if you got in their way. They all have those extensions called human hands.

I am not loaning my guns to the bad guys. Why do anti-gun people always use that argument? And if someone tries to break in to steal them, they better watch out for all five of us because we're all liscensed and train to make sure they stay in our home, not in the hands of some criminal!

So yeah, todd, that means people should just stand there and let themselves be shot? So, when did the words "don`t shoot me" ever stop a criminal H bent on getting your money one way or another?