Type to search

5 Dangerous Guns Sold Online In America

Memo Pad National News Politics

5 Dangerous Guns Sold Online In America

Guns, Second Amendment Rights, Laws, Shootings, Online Shopping, Weapons Ban

CORRECTION: A previous version of this story published on Dec. 14, 2012 contained factual errors regarding the sale of guns via the Internet. The National Memo regrets the errors and apologizes to readers.

While the nation is processing yet another deadly mass shooting, this time involving children at an elementary school in Connecticut (at least 20 students were killed out of 27 total dead, including the shooter), the question will be whether this will be the wakeup call the United States needs to have a serious conversation about gun control and the gun culture fueled by the National Rifle Association.

Will we demand our political leaders take action to get at the root of the problem — America’s lax gun control laws? Or will we let the NRA and its followers continue to dominate the discussion by dismissing guns as the problem or even arguing that every private citizen should own a gun? Should the children have been packing?

Shopping malls. Houses of worship. Schools. Cinemas. A mass shooting every other week. Will we become numb to what should be shocking? Is this the price our society has to pay for the Second Amendment?

Last week it was an Oregon shopping mall shooting. This week it is a Connecticut elementary school in the line of fire. Where will the next mass shooting take place as a consequence of American gun violence? Organizations like Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence are fighting the good fight against the NRA and for stricter gun control measures.

While federally licensed firearms (FLF) dealers are required to conduct background checks on all buyers via the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), unlicensed private gun dealers are not required to conduct background checks in 33 states if the sale is conducted within the state — and 40 percent of guns are sold through private sellers.

There are federal rules against private sellers repeatedly engaging in selling guns for a profit, which is why many call this loophole the “casual sales exception.” There are also federal rules against unlicensed dealers selling guns to someone they suspect couldn’t pass a background check, although this is often ignored, as an investigation by the City of New York into private online gun sales found that 62 percent of private gun sellers agreed to sell a firearm to a buyer who said they couldn’t pass a background check. The in-state transactions generally occur either via mail or face-to-face in a parking lot after arranging to meet via email or phone.

The NYC Fix Gun Checks Report recommends a federal law requiring background checks on all gun sales, including private sales, making sure the ATF enforces existing gun laws, and encouraging websites to take self-policing steps to stop illegal gun sales.

Here are five of the most dangerous firearms advertised online:

Photo: gunsnews2012 via Flickr



  1. Baron Cormac December 14, 2012

    I am waiting for the NRA to come out with some idiotic statement like “The Teachers should have been allowed to carry guns,” rather than offer condolences to the victims’ families.

    1. Daniel Jones December 15, 2012

      Other commenters have already done it.

      1. MrStoneheep December 15, 2012

        AND, those “other commenters” are correct. Come off the high horse and have a reasonable discussion w/o the venom. Take a serious look at the one thing ALL
        the shooting sites have in common – – they are ALL “Gun Free Zones”. While this
        in itself may not totally eliminate the shootings as the ‘crazies’ already have in mind their own demise and want to take a few with them, it WOULD at least cut down the number of lost souls. If they so choose, allow the teachers to carry after a reasonable training course, of course. Put full time security into the schools, especially the grade schools.
        The anti gun folks need finally realize the unarmed public are victims and defenseless, while the legally concealed carry carriers are prepared and CAN and
        will cut that number lost down – and that’s better than no chance at all.

        1. Hillbilly December 15, 2012

          What’s to keep a student with a grudge against a teacher from attacking the teacher that is packing a gun from behind and taking that gun, killing the teacher and a few others before running out of ammo? The people that think guns can settle any problem don’t stop and think about the things that can happen when guns are every where. That is the same thing about having a gun in the home to protect against the bad ones, what is going to keep your robbers from taking the gun away from you and then killing you and your whole family, which wouldn’t have happened if hadn’t been a gun in the house or what is there to keep a child from knowing where the gun and bullets are and where the key to the gun safe, if you have one, is and being a kid from getting that gun and accidently shooting themselves or one of their friends? Also do all of you gun lovers think that because you are carrying a gun you would be able to save anyone’s life, that you would be brave enough to face a person with a AK 47 or other type of weapon and kill them, it is not that easy to shoot a person even when your or family’s lives are at stake.

          1. MrStoneheep December 15, 2012

            Everything you say here is total conjecture – on your part, not mine, but since you asked what’s to keep some B&E artist from taking my gun from me and killing me and my family? Two rounds from a Ruger .44 Magnum, one through his shoulder and one through his knee. He’ll have trouble crawling through any more windows at 0400 hours after he gets done doing his 15 years, nor will he be carrying any guns in his right right hand. By the way, thanks for asking. Any more questions?
            Where you are most wrong is thinking it’s not that easy to shoot someone threatening your family. Believe me, it’s VERY easy when it’s your kids and wife or them.

          2. ralphkr December 16, 2012

            Personally, I far prefer a shotgun for home defense as the sound of a round being pumped into the chamber is enough to change any half way sensible person’s mind and if it doesn’t then they should be removed from the gene pool. When I was a LEO others would make fun of my carrying a .45 hogleg (.44 Magnums did not exist then) instead of a standard .38. I would point out that if I was only interested in killing I would carry a .22 but I was more interested in intimidating people into surrendering than in racking up kills.

          3. MrStoneheep December 15, 2012

            Everything you say here is total conjecture – on your part, not mine, but since you asked what’s to keep some B&E artist from taking my gun from me and killing me and my family? Two rounds from a Ruger .44 Magnum, one through his shoulder and one through his knee. He’ll have trouble crawling through any more windows at 0400 hours after he gets done doing his 15 years, nor will he be carrying any guns in his right right hand. By the way, thanks for asking. Any more questions?
            Where you are most wrong is thinking it’s not that easy to shoot someone threatening your family. Believe me, it’s VERY easy when it’s your kids and wife or them.

          4. ralphkr December 16, 2012

            You are correct that it would be possible to disarm a teacher and use her gun to kill people but that same reasoning proves that we shall never be safe from being killed by someone having a gun illegally until we disarm LEOs. The sterling young gentlemen (gangbangers) have discovered that the cheapest and safest way to get weapons is to stake out a gym where the LEOs work out and pop the trunk of a car. If said LEO happens to be SWAT then they obtain some truly great weapons at no cost. As an ex-sniper I have had no problem shooting someone threatening me. As a deputy I once fired 2 rifle rounds and removed two from the gene pool who were foolish enough not to surrender but advanced upon me firing fully automatic weapons.

    2. Sand_Cat December 16, 2012

      Why not the kids? Maybe we can get down to blaming the real villain: those kids should have been carrying.

  2. dtgraham December 14, 2012

    You know, I’m finally starting to come around on the conservative Republican gun philosophy. As the NRA correctly pointed out, if those 5 year olds had been packing heat, none of this would have happened. Oh sure, he may have gotten a few of them, but staring down a classroom full of gun totin’ Big Bird lovers? Problem solved my friend.

    So parents, forget the water pistol for your pre-schooler this Christmas. Go full Glock.

    1. Marilyn Flynn December 15, 2012

      You must be out of your mind. I hope by all that’s sacred you don’t have guns.

      1. dtgraham December 15, 2012

        Occasionally a little dark humour is needed to shine a light on absurdities Marilyn.

        1. MrStoneheep December 15, 2012

          There is nothing “absurd” about the ability to defend oneself or for the protection of our little ones with armed security. What is absolutely absurd is to think there is anything humorous about what happened, dark or any other color you choose. By your spelling, are you British?

          1. dtgraham December 15, 2012

            Canadian. Good observation. The spell checker works differently on some words here due to British English spelling being used throughout the commonwealth.

    2. Alan Yungclas December 15, 2012

      I had been wondering what to get my great-grandson for Christmas, now I know, thanks for the idea! He’ll also be prepared for the coming North Korean invasion too. 🙂

    3. MrStoneheep December 15, 2012

      “Conservative Republican gun philosophy”????? It’s just not possible to have an intelligent converstaion with anyone choosing to ignore facts because their mind is already made up.
      Call me many things, but PLEASE do NOT call me Conservative or Republican. I happen to be a card carrying Democrat and if I lean in any direction, it would be slightly left of center. I do, however, happen to believe in the Constitution and most especially, the Bill of Rights known as the first 10 Amendments. For those that feel the SCOTUS got it wrong, learn the Constitution PRIOR to making outlandish idiotic remarks just because it fits your personal agenda. To you personally Mr dtgraham, that’s a stupid analogy and you know it, and very poor taste the day after yesterday’s events. Were any of the teachers armed and knowingly so (let’s not forget his mother taught there) by the shooter, and/or had there been armed security, there would not have been the number slaughtered, in fact, if any at all. Gun Free Zone tells ALL the crazies the same thing, it’s a Gun Free Zone. Why is that so hard to understand?

      1. dtgraham December 15, 2012

        I touched a nerve here. Forgive me. I used that phrase because it is your Democratic Party that pays lip service to reasonable gun controls from time to time, like assault weapon restrictions. The GOP refuse any and all such measures. Sometimes I think they’d be OK with people possessing RPG’s and bazookas.

        I’m curious though. As a Second Amendment loving Democrat, what are your feelings towards some type of gun control such as the assault weapons ban or restriction of guns in certain places?

        1. MrStoneheep December 15, 2012

          Interesting question, and it’s good to see a Canadian’s viewpoint as well. Have a LARGE number of friends up there.
          Assault type weapons: I have no personal use for, but please explain to me how we are going to differentiate. My 1100 Remington and my Ithaca Mag5 are semi-automatics and my weapons of choice when I go to Winnepeg and Churchill every year for goose hunting. The point is, how do we say which semi-autos are legal and which aren’t? The big problem down here is the great job that those that know the difference between a semi and a fully automatic weapon did in brain washing those that didn’t know the difference. I’m speaking of the anti-gun crowd, and do remember, these are of BOTH parties. The Dems have been just as pro-gun as have the Repubs, though the anti-gunners neglect to point this out. It doesn’t fit the agenda of the extreme leftists. Admittedly, the far left anti-gunners are from the Democratic party.
          First, I guess I’d ask you to describe to me EXACTLY what is an “assault weapon” and please don’t bore with a ‘name’ as in AK47 or M16 (Colt AR15). What makes an assault weapon an assault weapon? Is it the appearance, is it the mechanism, is it the number of rounds of capacity, what exactly? You see, an AK47, or an AR15 CAN be fully automatic, or they can be semi-automatic, which means they are automatic in their loading the next round – – ONLY. Fully automatic means it will continue to fire as long as you have the trigger depressed or runs out of ammunition. An AK47 or an AR15 CAN be purchased as a semi-automatic, and no, there is zero truth to the rumor of the leftists one can make a full auto out of a semi auto by simply filing the sear. That’s BS. You would merely render the weapon totally useless. See, when you take away a weapon by calling it something that it isn’t, you also illegalize those you didn’t intend to illegalize, as George HW Bush did when he was President. That’s right, a Republican signed into law the last gun ban of any type this country has had. It was quickly overturned when folks, including George, found out he had just outlawed his favorite weapon – his 1100 Remington he used for quail hunting. What was part of that bill, however, that was NOT reversed was the large capacity magazines, but the ‘sun set’ on that a few years ago. I think it was a 10 year ban, but proved not effective so was not prolonged. Interestingly, the RPG and the bozooka WOULD be legal under your depiction. They are single shots, and in the case of the RPG, even the mechanism is a one timer.
          To summate, fully automatic firearms have been illegal to own or possess in the USA since 1932. Yes, one can, but only after application and a bond and a fee of $300.00 per year per each owned AND it must be notified to BATFE of any and all movement over such and such distance, which I don’t know what that distance is. I don’t have need or desire of any. My gonads are also big enough, so I don’t need that either. Semis can be owned, but other than in a sotgun, I don’t see the need, especially since there’s never been a truly accurate semi-automatic. The fully auto AK’s and M16’s(AR15 to generel public) are the weapon of choice of the criminals, as in the drug boys and gang bangers. What is really interesting is where they originated from; practically ALL from the military and local police but we don’t hear this reported. Another thing you won’t hear on the news, but is true. Party affiliation of the NRA: 57%, 39%, 4%. Which would you guess to be which? The 39% is the Republicans, and the 4% sure is NOT the Democrats. (I’m a State Board member of the NRA) Back to your question: I don’t personally have the answer as to how to fix it, but continuing to use the term “assault weapon” isn’t going to make it happen any sooner. The illegalization legislation needs give a complete descriptive of the mechanism, just as the present law against the fully automatic law does, so there’s your answer, huh? The law already exists. It just needs enforcement.
          My point was and is, “Gun Free Zones”. Does this not send a signal to the crazies and the criminals? Somewhat like saying “pick me, I’m easy”. Look no farther than your own Canada, What has happened to your crime rate since your gun bans, especially the violent crime rate, and at what cost? Attempts at gun controls only restrict the law abiding – a fact that can never be expalined away, no matter how hard and long we rail it.
          At least you seem to have somewhat of an open mind. Get the book “More Guns – Less Crime”. Very good and statistically accurate.


          1. dtgraham December 15, 2012

            As far as the violent crime rate in Canada, firearm homicide rates are 8.1 times lower in Canada than the U.S. after factoring in the population difference. Handgun homicide rates are 15.3 times lower in Canada partly due to restrictions on handguns. Firearm possession is 20 times lower in Canada, again, after factoring in the population difference. Call me crazy but it kind of looks to me like the gun registry and other restrictions have done their job. The world gun violence statistics don’t seem to bear you out. Other nations consistently have a tiny fraction of the gun violence and gun death that America does and that has to be explained from your standpoint.

            Australia had a mass shooting incident in the mid 90’s. They took immediate action. They banned some types of guns and increased stricter licensing and registration requirements in 1996. Another law in 2002 tightened restrictions a bit more, restricting caliber, barrel length, and capacity for sport shooting handguns. There has been a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law changes, resulting in gun violence numbers declining to the lowest number on record by 2007. It’s been a success.

            Incidentally Stoneheep, like the gun store owner said to Arnold Schwarzenegger in the original Terminator……”you know your weapons buddy.”

          2. MrStoneheep December 15, 2012

            That wasn’t the question. Re-read and answer the question. Simply, what has your crime rate done since your gun ban legislation? Compare to the US, not relavent. You’re up over 300 %, Australia up over 450 % since their’s. Their constituents aren’t pleased with their outcome nor are most of your’s in Canada.
            I know it’s an old over used saw, but it does happen to be true and you folks are learning this: outlaw guns and only outlaws will have the guns. Why is it so difficult to understand this very basic of dictums: they are called criminals because they pay no attention to the laws. Pass all the legislation you want and all you do is make it easier for the criminal, plain and simple.

          3. thebunt December 16, 2012

            There is a slight prolem with your post. What you write is simply not true. Australia’s crime rate has NOT increased. You must have read that in the NRA Newsletter, which is no more reliable that the ridiculous magazines at the supermarket checkout.

          4. dtgraham December 16, 2012

            Canada’s overall crime rate has been steadily dropping since 1992. There was a further 6% drop in 2011 and the overall crime rate is now the lowest it has been since 1972. That’s from the CBC and RCMP websites.

            Australia’s Ministry of Justice and Office of Home Affairs reports that crime rates have continued to fall across most major categories. Some of their stats are:
            — break ins have dropped by half since 1996.
            — car theft dropped by 61% over the last decade.
            — 27% drop in homicides.
            — victims of robbery in 2010 were the lowest on record at 14,582 victims
            — their homicide rate is 1.2 per 100,000 people.

            I would ask where in the heck you got those percentages from but I think I now know. In trying to access official statistics from police and government agencies on the internet, you have to wade through mountains of websites set up by gun advocates making outlandish claims and ridiculous statements. Common sense should tell anyone that their numbers and stats can’t possibly be right. Gun groups have gone to a hell of a lot of effort to fill the internet with their crap. Any search involving any of the key words surrounding guns will bring you to their websites first, and there’s no end to them.

    4. Jim Myers December 15, 2012

      Replying to dtgraham –

      I realize this was in jest.

      However, to me, I think this is just plain sick. To joke about such a tragic event is just uncalled for.

      I cannot even begin to imagine the severe pain the parents and siblings of the victims are feeling at this time.

      1. dtgraham December 15, 2012

        My apologies.

  3. contented1 December 14, 2012

    Cool. Thanks for the heads-up.

  4. contented1 December 14, 2012

    OK, now I’ve gone over the firearms. There is no distinction between the Glock 23 and any number of other semi-automatic handguns available today. There is no real distinction between the Bushmaster M4 and any number of hunting rifles available today. The Bushmaster line of rifles are semi-automatics as are so many hunting rifles available today.

    I think you may be barking up the wrong tree here, with the guns you’ve selected for your list as well as calling for gun control. I believe that the Second Amendment gives people teh right to keep and bear arms without restriction. I also believe that a constitutional amendment would be required to limit the right to keep and bear firearms. And I also believe that the day will come when we ratify such an amendment. A couple more events like Newtown may be enough, though I don’t look forward to those days.

    1. Pindo December 15, 2012

      BS–the second amendment allows for a-or-the National Guard–not for nut cases to rationalize carrying automatic weapons….

      1. HenryBeige December 15, 2012

        No, your comment is BS. In the Heller case, the Supreme Court clarified that the Second Amendment allows individuals to keep firearms for personal protection. As for automatic weapons, the law already places tight restrictions on their ownership. A semiautomatic AK47 is functionally no different than a hunting rifle.

        1. The right leaning supreme court got it wrong and if you read from the judges that dissagread it made more sense. Read the second amendment. Militia does not mean anyone with training it means National Guard

          1. onedonewong December 15, 2012

            Guess you never took a reading course in grade school

          2. tim102 January 16, 2013

            “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole People. To disarm The People is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
            George Mason
            Co-author of the Second Amendment
            during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

            “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact The People themselves …”
            Richard Henry Lee
            writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

        2. Ibsyboy December 15, 2012

          I attended a target shooting event held on private land. Not an organized event, just a guy with a lot of land an a lot of gun enthusiasts for friends.

          I was able to fire a fully automatic Uzi and a Glock with an extended clip. There was a guy there with a 50 caliber sniper rifle, man was that sucker loud. I asked where he got it. He bought it at a gun show for $2,500.00 cash. No paper work. Paid for it and waked out of the gun show.

          Now I would have to argue the “tight restrictions” comment. I was also told how easy it was to change a semi to full automatic.

          An Uzi and a converted AK-47, which there were quite a few of at the target shoot, are not hunting rifles. The amount of automatic fire was prominent at the shoot I attended.

          I am not a gun owner, or hunter, and the UZI was the first weapon I ever fired. Amazingly accurate and easy to control. The Glock was like a bucking bronco. I can see the fun in firing military weapons. But in the wrong hands they are deadly weapons. And the wrong hands apparently have the same rights as everyone else.

          1. onedonewong December 15, 2012

            I visited a hospital this week and they had saved multiple lives that day thanks to their dedication skills and oath. And yet those same skills were also used to murder 3 babies.. No question that a medical degree and training in the wrong hands can do great harm

          2. Ibsyboy December 15, 2012

            Guns and abortions are currently legal (not everywhere).

            The GOP and the Far Right choose to see one as a privilege (guns) and the other as a crime (abortion).

            So at this point you have one of your ideals protected. And anyone at anytime can take their rage out on innocent people. A manic with a gun is the sole arbiter of the ILLEGAL choice of action.

            Whereas the doctor , the mother and her conscience make that LEGAL choice.

          3. MrStoneheep December 15, 2012

            Well, ibsyboy, I’m a Democrat and I’m slightly left of center, not a far left idealogue, and I view gun ownership as a Constitutional RIGHT, not a privilage, and I view abortion as that, aborting a living fetus, but agree with a woman’s congressionally mandated lawful RIGHT to have an abortion if she so chooses. One is in the Bill of Rights, one is not.
            Correct observation of the gun carrying maniac, but would he be so sure of himself if we weren’t giving him Gun Free Zones? Look at it, all of these mass shootings are taking place in Gun Free Zones
            Why do we not hear of this commonality?

          4. Ibsyboy December 15, 2012

            The interpretation of the 2nd amendment allows ownership of guns. It does not establish a right. We do not have a right to drive a car, we are allowed to drive a car. We are required by law to have a license to operate the vehicle. Why not guns?

            A fair argument has been had by the public and in the courts on gun ownership. I don’t think it is unreasonable to debate the usage and licensing of.

            As far as being in the Declaration or the Constitution. Women’s suffrage was not in there at one time. Nor was protection of one’s civil rights. Prohibition was in and out of the Constitution.

            The ability to have an abortion is an off shoot of a Constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court in its ruling on the right to privacy in Roe v Wade.

            You really think this guy and others like him, intent on murder, are going to care about breaking another law.

          5. Scott Passmore December 15, 2012

            “the RIGHT to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

            I agree that this should not prevent common-sense regulation, but I disagree that this is not a right, as do the Supremes in Heller.

          6. Ibsyboy December 15, 2012

            All I can say is; the parents of those dead children are in total disagreement with all gun defenders. The fact that hand guns are so available. I could go out tomorrow and come home with one. I live in a large city and guns are everywhere. I watch football with some friends they all carry guns, and they said if I want one they can hook me up. Cheap. The talk around my friends is the fantasy of how they would react if they had to use it. At times it sounds like they dream of it, and can’t wait for the day.

            I saw a picture recently of Dodge City. They did not allow guns in town. They had a small shack where everyone had to turn in their guns before coming in to Dodge. Gun deaths drop dramatically. I can’t imagine some cowpoke citing the 2nd amendment. Where ever you were in the old west, that law prevailed.

          7. onedonewong December 15, 2012

            Strange that you manage to leave out the rights of the unborn what about their tights?? Using your logic what went on in Connecticut would be OK

          8. Ibsyboy December 16, 2012

            And you have the omnipotence to determined the Rights of a zygote, a blastocyst and an embryo. There is no unborn child. A child is a fully formed human you hold in your arms, nurse and love. Stop with this nonsense.

            This scam you certainists are pulling with this person-hood crap. You can’t properly defend your cause, so you invent these clever little ploys.

            Here is the ground zero of your problems. You use Religion in your argument. That is an assumption that your belief matches everyone else. It is certainty of opinion with zero evidence to support it. Other than an artificial moral code you pretend to believe out of convenience to make your argument.

            You support capital punishment, starving the poor, denying healthcare to Americans,
            War for War’s sake, wealth for wealth’s sake, Racism, Misogyny, Homophobia and Xenophobia. No equality in education for the masses. And this constant drum beat of holding the high moral ground. Your hypocrites. A great man, Roger Williams said; “When you mix Religion with Politics, you get Politics. That is the crux of your inability to get anything done that serves all Americans. Other than the chosen few, including yourself, you have selected.

          9. browninghipower December 16, 2012

            Wow! Great response to an idiot who will never ever comprehend what you wrote. I’m proud of you, sir. Thank you.

          10. Ibsyboy December 16, 2012

            What can be said about people who support their opinions with a mythological belief.

            What has me riled up is what happened in Connecticut. How are they able to convince non believers of the existence of this invisible Deity they praise. When this all powerful being stood by and allowed 20 innocent children go to their death. A completely unnecessary waste of way too young lives. I will scream if I get one of their classic, God works in mysterious ways, it’s a test, yeah some test, 20 little children. Or it’s some sort of lesson no one needed.

            This is shameful that the Faithful do not accept some blame for this sad event. It is their God, all of the kids and teachers were praying to right before they died.

            And the answer form above. Not interested. Please try again later. When it’s too late.

          11. onedonewong December 16, 2012

            I forgot when its developing no one knows what will happen it could be a monkey or a plant even. I find those esoteric arguments foolish on the face…if your right then why does every state have a law calling it a murder if the mother is killed prior to delivery???

            Scam NO its called an 8th grade education and an ability to read, its not nuclear physics we’re discussing its the constitution. An artificial moral code that is the basis for civilization. Your desire would return us to the era before laws, and no right or wrong. Its guys like you that have never done anything for this country that think that if you don’t like the law or a basic moral code then just ignore it. Need Money for some liberal agenda then the taxpayers need to pony up. Heaven forbid that you fund it yourself

            As a lib your agenda is redistribute the fruits of people labor and give it to those who refuse to work, to play by the rules, who lie cheat and steal. As research has shown Libs are the stingiest group when its comes to giving of their OWN $$$. They love to spend everyone elses. As your previous comment about how hurricane damage affected you. Its a wonderful country as long as your Number 1 and society has to pay the freight. I’m comfortable that is not my view

          12. Ibsyboy December 17, 2012

            and as a Right Wing hack your agenda is to create a plutocracy to overthrow the democracy we have had for so many years. Give the power over to the Profit takers, whose first concern is money, not the well being of the society. Also, suffer on to the unfortunate more suffering by accusing them of being the sole problem with the inability of your kind to eliminate anything that interrupts your plans for a Utopian world of self sufficiency and every man for himself. Greed, good. Wealth for Wealth’s sake, good. Assassinating those in need, Bad. Unless they can pass a stringent social test to prove their need. Being poor is a personal flaw. Being old is a personal flaw. Being at the bottom of the economic mountain is a personal flaw.

            Your selfish, self serving, egoistical people. You satisfy yourself with contempt and negativity. Always at the ready to deny others to advance an ideology built on hate, disgust and self loathing.

            Always contesting everything that unnerves your pearly white state of mind.
            Guns, suppression of the underclass, denying the vote to win elections, what ever action necessary to achieve this imaginary all white, all Christian, Profit Taking Disney land on the hill. Back when things were less complicated. Denying yourself the truth that things were never less complicated. What you mean is when you were young and care free and the recipient of parental welfare. Unless you grew up in a Christian Conservative Calvinist household, and you were taught that you have to forget about parental help and accept whatever is given to you as all you are worth. Before personal disappointment set in, and responsibility to others, pressured you.

          13. onedonewong December 17, 2012

            Give the power to the folks that work to make this country what it is, your philosophy is to give the power to those who live off the producers. That communist/socialist philosophy has never worked. It just means more people riding in the wagon not pushing.
            Being poor in most cases is a personal flaw I’m glad we agree on something.

            Your idea of an economy is a zero sum game where the only way to reduce the poor is to TAKE from those who have. This country provides endless opportunity to those who want it. Unfortunately the libs of this country would prefer that everyone be dependent on the govt for their needs

            The only suppression of the vote that happened in the last election were military voters who never received their absentee ballots thanks to barak. And those who are citizens of the country is the other class that was suppressed.

            When I was young and care free I started working at AGE 12. While most of my democratic friends didn’t have to since they got monthly welfare checks so they got allowances.

          14. Ibsyboy December 18, 2012

            I worked at 12 as well I sold produce form the back of the truck, I ran errands for the elderly and shined shoes. And I did not grow up to resent people who desired to earn a livable wage for the time they put in all week. A chance to move from the not so great neighborhood I lived in, a chance to go somewhere that had better schools and less crime. A chance to enter the middle class, and the unions helped make that happen. The country thrived, the Middle Class exploded, more kids got to go to college and move up in the world. The suburbs grew, better schools were built and hired better teachers, it cost a little more money for the better teachers. And the streets were cleaner, the trash was picked up twice a week rather than maybe once a week where I grew up. The super markets had fresher food, the pot holes got fixed faster, the snow was plowed, our neighborhood never saw a plow ever. The neighbors had to dig each other out. We were a neighbor inhabited by the working poor. Welfare food, before food stamps the Government gave you food, like blocks of orange cheese. These were proud hard working people, kind and considerate people. People looking for a way out. The union jobs paid way better than the factories in out neighborhood, but you had to have a reliable car to get there, public transportation was the greatest back then.

            There were roadblocks to getting out of the neighborhoods. Education, literacy, yes we had people who could not read and write. I guess we could have ridiculed them and blamed then for coming from a hard background where the kids had to go to work at 16. So finishing school was out of the question.

            When I here the GOP talk about the unfortunate like they have some self inflicted disease. I think back to those decent people who busted their nuts for chump change. But stll could not get ahead, they were in debt to everyone, the utilities companies, the coal company, the super market, the clothing store, you name it they were in debt for it. I knew there were people out side who didn’t like our kind. I was adventurous, I roamed around the big city, met different people, some did not respond well when I told them where I lived. But in time I learned about people like that. MOsltly White, mostly republicans, mostly rude. I realized that was not who I wanted to grow up to be. JFK come through our Neighborhood when he was running for the Presidency. I was lucky enough to have met him and get his autograph. I followed his motorcade. It stopped, he got out of his car, and gave a speech. I had never heard anyone speak like that before. He impressed me. I was told he was a millionaire, but he was amazingly aware of how we lived. He talked about better wages, and stuff that the grownups talked about. He was not condescending like the people I met in my travels who looked down on me becasue of my background. He inspired me to become a Democrat a liberal at 16 and to become more interested in school. I wanted to be able to speak like that and know about what he knew. I became a Union supporter because I saw the improvement in peoples lives who worked a Union job. People loved the Unions. They all dreamed of having a Union job.

            It did not appear as though the world was coming to an end. if anything, better cars started popping up, people were moving to the suburbs. We moved to the suburbs. It was a dramatic change, I did not realize people lived like that all the time. The rise of the working class into the Middle Class made America the envy of the world. The working class were no longer the working poor. What made a difference then, there were no Negroes to blame for what problems remained. The white slobs still got the brunt of it for that. So when I hear GOPers talk about the underclass like they know them, and speak of them with disdain, I get a bit annoyed, I still have friends back in the old neighborhood. When fair wages were paid it wasn’t looked at that the employer was getting rob, he may have thought so, for years he got away paying low wages for long hours. Barely enough for a man to raise his family.

            If your idea of a new America where the Corporations can set the wages, and hours and days with no benefits. And see anything other than that as stealing from the owners. I’ve seen what that does to people. And it’s not a good idea for the richest country in the world to take out the desire for wealth on the people who do the hard work. You will at some point have to deal with the underclass you so resent. And they are not going to be happy when they can’t feed their kids.

            You are ideological selfish and contemptuous. You are constantly on the hunt for any support for your negative, sourpuss view of life. No one can have any more than they deserve. And you want to be the one who decides what deserves means.

          15. onedonewong December 19, 2012

            You sound as if you resent anyone who did better and made more than you since your solution is redistribution of “their wealth”.

            Your right produce was better, trash got picked up from the back yard, streets were swept. What changed?? Unions drove the cost for govt wages so high they stopped offering these services they used to and the other big bugaboo was WELFARE. Rather than people looking for work any work to make ends meet the Democrats decided that is would be better for them to stay home and do nothing. result ever increasing costs on the producers and generation after generation of bums and crooks. As crime continues to rise, more students fail and the jails explode. After 50 years of the great society and Trillions of dollars the level of poor hasn’t changed, the number of homeless has increased and fewer people graduating HS.,

            Yes we have millions today who can’t read nor write who have a HS certificate
            I’ve been a union member, forced because of a closed shop, I paid my dues and I have no use for them then or now. When I worked at the steel mill even though they were paid well they came to work hopped up on drugs. when i worked at an assembly plant the guys would take their lunch out in the parking lot and come back drunk. the biggest boost to the quality of the product was a breathalyzer to send the drunks home. Once unions came in the pride of the out put was gone. Rather than pride to be working for a company they felt that their “union” was paying them not the company.

            Your idea for this country is socialism where its each to their ability and to their needs. Where hard work is frowned upon where an education is laughed at. Your not looking for a level playing field you want equality of outcomes. Looks at any failed society and they followed your example

          16. Ibsyboy December 20, 2012

            As usual you are so wrong about everything. The Unions killing everything, is FOX and Right Wing propaganda. Initiated by big business to be able to lower there labor costs. And they have succeeded, every one on the Right is prepared to tell anyone who will listen about how the Unions singlehandedly put businesses out of business, and destroyed the ability of the multitude of Billionaires in America from squeezing out the last nickle in profits. My favorite is this: ‘Yes they were good at one time, but we don’t need them anymore.’ Look man, they would pay nothing if they could. And they did when they brought boat loads of slaves to America to do the arduous work in the fields for absolutely free, and the slaves could not follow that contemporary pithy Right Wing gem of advice, “If you don’t like the job quit!” Slavery was driven by greed.
            Pure and simple. That is the extent of how far people will go for an extra buck.

            The sheer fact that you as an American can defend “Profit Takers” when your fellow Americans are out of work, people who have lost good paying jobs. Went to college to learn a skill to enable them a shot at the American Dream, a good paying job, a family, a house for the family, vacation time, holidays with the family. And you come down on the side of people who fired him to cut costs, even though they were earning profits, but they needed to get their stock value up. I am not talking about small businesses, I am talking abut the companies that drive the economy, Companies that are experiencing record profits as we struggle to get out from the 2nd depression in our country’s history. The stock market is booming. Those large profits do not go back in to the company anymore, they go into hedge funds. That’s what I call “Profit Taking.”

            I have no envy of wealth, I have a desire for it, and I don’t begrudge any one who has succeeded. I am retired, I made a lot of money in the music business. I have a beautiful suburban home with a 2 car garage. I have been with my wife for 46 years. There is a VW Passat wagon in one garage and a BMW Z4 Roadster (my baby) in the other. We just sold out summer home at the seashore. Luckily right before Sandy hit. I am going to miss that house, I rehabbed it myself. I have multimillionaire friends, some very famous artists, and managers and record company executives, I am proud of them. By the way they are all happy to pay more in taxes. They are thrilled to have made as much as they have in their careers, and don’t think a hundred thousand dollars or more, it going to break them. That’s how Americans are suppose to behave. We are all in this together, all 300 plus million of us. Down to the last homeless person sleeping in a box. Your contempt for people who care about the common man reflects upon something more in you than the accusation against me re: Begrudging the successful. I have been successful. I am now retired. I am vacationing in California in January, I will be staying with one of the most successful artist managers in the business. He represents two of the worlds biggest icons in music. then I will be going to Istanbul in February, to visit one of my other multimillionaire friends who made his money working for BMW North America. He spent his own money to make should the Americans in Turkey got their absentee ballots in on time. And, one more thing. I had dinner last night with one of the biggest restauranteurs in America. He has been a guest judge on may of the cooking shows on Cable. He owns 25 restaurants, on the east coast and in Europe. These three guys are dear friends of mine, we grew up together, we are all from the same kind of neighborhood I described in my last comment. Hard core Working class neighborhoods. And none of them have forgotten the people who busted their humps to feed their families. The four of us are children of Union people, who becasue of the Unions were able to move to places where the educational opportunities were better, and their sons got go to college and get along in life. I can’t begin to thank my parents enough.

            No redistribution of wealth, an other propaganda word. Just a return to the situation where the people who do the heavy lifting get paid a fair wage and some opportunity to join what is becoming a vanishing Middle Class. Why is big business so anti American, anti Middle Class, that they would care more about “Profit Taking” not profit making, and let the Middle Class in America, the envy of the World, shrink in size.

            There is more going on here my fiend that you choose for some reason to ignore. The citizens of this country are more important than any schmuck on Wall Street. The citizens: the ones who collect our trash, clean our streets, protect our neighborhoods, put out the fires, rush people to the hospital, teach in our schools.
            Now they have been relegated to being called selfish and envious because they want a fair wage. They are now the enemy within. Citizens you think should sacrifice for the Corporations to keep the stock price up. But do not get to benefit in the success of the companies they helped to be successful. It’s that simple that is what it is all about. Nothing sinister. You suggest we all suck it up, be happy Walmart is willing to pay just above poverty line wages. Why would Walmart increase their pay scale if they did not have to. While the Waltons live like Emperors, which they have all the right in the world to do. But resenting the citizens who want to be paid a fair wage, not a barely get by wage. The Waltons spend millions for Lobbyists to get the laws they want from people who the citizens sent to congress. And the Waltons pay millions to propagate this anti Union hysteria. They do not want to spend money to further the futures of the rest of America. Their wage scale is shameful.

      2. Larry Brown December 15, 2012

        Pindo – your posture is demonstrably false and that was confirmed by the Supreme Court twice in the last decade with Heller vs DC and McDonald vs Chicago. Try reading something once in a while and you will know that the law of the land is that it is a sacred right for private citizens, NOT the National Guard to own firearms for self defense.

        1. Ibsyboy December 15, 2012

          “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.”

          Question. Why is there a coma after the word, State? The gun enthusiasts want the two parts of the sentence to be separate facts. A coma is used when there is a relationship between the two or how ever many things are in a sentence.

          It can easily be interpreted, thanks to the coma, as the citizens must be able to have a right to guns in order to form a militia.

          1. onedonewong December 15, 2012

            The constitution also says that the federal govt should not ESTABLISH as religion. How did that translate in to separation its not even close

          2. Ibsyboy December 15, 2012

            The 2nd amendment didn’t mention, UZIs, AK 47s, extended clips for semi auto hand guns. Those weapons are protected by the reading of the constitution by gun advocates and activist judges.

          3. onedonewong December 15, 2012

            are they Arm’s??? then they are covered. Once again proving that the constitution was written precisely and compactly so that everyman could understand it

          4. Ibsyboy December 16, 2012

            Unfortunately you make an inaccurate assumption that everyone agrees with you.
            Everyone does not understand it the way you do. There is a beautiful aspect of subtlety to it. The Constitution was written by very intelligent men with a great understanding of the English language and punctuation. That coma is there for a reason. It is not separating independent clauses as you so eagerly want to believe. If that were the case, these highly educated men would have used a semicolon. And why is it, that they did not? The final construction of the sentence was the 5th or 6th version. They were attempting not to have a restriction on gun ownership it they were to suggest a need (“necessary” was their choice of words) for Militias. British Law stood as the law of the Colonies and guns were banned by the British Laws. The new Government was careful not to continue that law if there was to be a necessity for a Militia, other wise there would be no guns available. Due to the British law and the out break of war, the people who owned guns were by law, honored to donate their weapons to the Militias. It a lot more complicated than you choose to perceive it.

            If these mass killings continue and the American opinion shifts, the courts will shift with them. Judges are swayed by public opinion. The gun rights thing has been a political hot potato for Judges up until now. And that is going to change. Public outcry will be at first by Municipal laws, which the police want, then state laws. Judges do not like to being on the wrong side of a political issue.

            It’s much more subtle than you can grasp. There is the great example of Herman Melville’s “Moby Dick.” Many people make the assumption it is about a Great White Whale, when in fact it is way more than that.

            If I may add one other comment: If you are one of those people who thinks the Government should not be the only ones with guns. That is paranoid romanticism.
            Syria and Libya are countries where freedom and rights were actually suppressed. It energized the people of those countries to rise up, with the support of the might of the world’s military to overthrow the oppressive Government. The anti Government fervor in the USA is based on Paranoid Conspiracy theories, plus the Militias in the hills of Montana are no match for the US Military.

          5. onedonewong December 16, 2012

            I don’t expect that everyone agrees with me, there are many that have limited educations. However if you have finished the 8th grade than reading and understanding the constitution is very easy. “Subtlety” of it?? Sorry it wasn’t written or intended that way. The founders view the Federal Govt to be small and limited its function hence the 10th amendment that specifies if the power isn’t outlined in the constitution then power rests with the States.
            Gun ownership is settled law its codified in the constitution unlike the majority of liberal positions for society that made of hole cloth.
            Regarding Melville people are free to interpret the story as they see fit. It has no bearing on life its a story.
            Paranoid romanticism??? No its called the US constitution an as Patrick Henry said that the tree of liberty needs to have its roots water with blood from time to time. The disdain for this countries govt is based on the heavy foot of socialism that started in 2009. Given time and over reach we could be going down a path to another revolution. As to the US military they swore an oath to the county. But just like the president who has failed to abide by its oath many in the military would switch allegiance to insure the constitution is adhered to

          6. Ibsyboy December 17, 2012

            The supreme court are not a bunch of 8th graders. Over the years they have been challenged with interpreting the meaning of aspects of the Constitution. It is a challenging document. To read is so literally is to miss the genius of the document.
            The same flawed thinking goes into the reading of the Bible in literal terms. You don’t suggest we stone recalcitrant children. Or stone rape victims who live in the city and don’t scream loud enough. We have interpreted the Bible over the centuries and stopped literately interpreting it. We have been challenged by it’s complexity. Many of the black and white words have been passed over for what appears to be the obviousness by 8th graders. Which would be if it says stone, they we must stone.

            Gun ownership is not codified in the constitution. “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.” Codified: Arrange (laws or rules) into a systematic code. There is no systematic code here. It’s one sentence, half of which is separated from the other half by a coma, not the word AND. a coma implies the two parts are interconnected. A semi colon would have made the 2 parts independent clauses. Gun people like to ignore the relationship between the 2 parts and incorrectly see them as two independent clauses, which by the absence of a semicolon, does not read that way. Simple punctuation. Any smart 8th grader would know the codified rules of punctuation. And the rules of punctuation are most definitely codified. Period: end of sentence. coma: a pause. A semi colon: separating two independent clauses. Shorthand for AND. According to the codified laws of punctuation, the sentence is one interconnected statement. These were not poorly educated men or eight graders. These were classically trained men. They spoke Latin and Greek pretty fluently. They knew how to grammatically speak and write. They knew punctuation. Comas were moved around quite a bit in the sentence of the 2nd amendment that is at the center of this controversy. The movement was to create clarity. Gun ownership was a sticky subject back then. Using your way of reading, we should have the right to stone people.
            Why have we decided that is not acceptable?

            I never quite understood this obsession with guns. Is it a manly thing? Is it a stunted growth hobby? Cowboys and Indians? Hunting doesn’t need a semiautomatic 16 round clip in a Glock> I don;t get it. Self defense? That one is a mystery. Maybe if those kids had guns, things would have been different. If maybe is acceptable then, maybe if God had been paying attention he could have prevented the incident. But apparently he was busy and didn’t hear the cries and prayers of the frightened children. That’s the real blunder here, that’s where the fault lies, with God.

          7. onedonewong December 20, 2012

            The constitution is a challenging document and to read it literally is to miss the genius of the document….Are you serious?? We have some of the most brilliant men in the history of this country and their words on paper don’t mean what they say?? That would be news to the framers , they must have intended that there would be a secrete handshake and a hidden crypt with their intent.
            Based on your logic then words in the bible that say thou shall not steal, not murder are open for interpretation. And that the constitution and the first 10 amendments have no standing.
            The English Bill of rights of 1689 viewed gun ownership as a natural right akin to to naturally and legal right to life was the basis for our 2nd amendment. It codified an EXISTING right not a new Right. The framers thought the right to bear arms was the paramount right by which the other rights could be protected. The original amendment defined militia composed by the body of people was Purposely removed. After reading the history of the amendment there is NO cogent argument to interpret the 2nd amendment as you are.
            The comma that you want to argue about is there a place holder as clarifying the thought. As a matter of fact the amendment that was ratified has a comma after well regulated militia.
            You don’t understand the obsession with guns..Well lets say I don’t understand the obsession with Lamborghini’s or Aston Martins. Or a home larger than 2500Sq Ft or having more than 3 kids or the need to heat a house. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t therefore give you the right to take that away from some one that wants to own a firearm. You seem to give short shrift to the other part of the constitution life liberty and Pursuit of happiness.
            No the fault lies with the Mother who knew her kid was a mental basket case and felt that teaching him how to use guns would teach him responsibility.
            Any new gun law that would limit ownership would also have to include a piece that says anyone who has any mental health issues, taking drugs for it or seeing a doctor must be prevented from owning or purchasing a gun. The doctors involved would be required to enter that info into the federal gun data base. I’m sure the liberal left will moan about stigmatizing the mentally ill, guess what I don’t care if their feeling are hurt

          8. Ibsyboy December 20, 2012

            You and your infantile type who have to have guns to play with for no clearly defined reason other than wanting to have something that makes you feel like a grown up.

            You choose to frame the amendment to defend a position, I have no position on Guns, only on the misinterpretation of the constitution by the arms industry and the NRA. This has nothing to do with rights of gun ownership. It’s a multibillion dollar business that is frightened of losing money. They contribute to the NRA to be their mouth piece. Brilliant solution, arm the principals of the schools. Yeah, guy comes bursting in firing a semiautomatic weapon and the principal can’t get the gun out of the holster, bam dead! Gun man comes in and the principal is on the other side of the building. Bam, dead students and teachers. More is not the solution. I don’t have one.

            I suggest the gun companies and the NRA be compelled to pay for the funeral costs.

            If this is the price we have to pay, the death of innocent people, then so be it. I don’t want to deny anyone from having a gun, I want them to stop running to the constitution as a means of justifying some suppressed sexual need that guns bring.

            There will be more deaths to come, this is part of our society. Mass murders will prevail, guns will remain legal for anyone who wants one. I met a guy who bought a 50 Caliber Sniper rifle at a gun show. I was a Target shoot, love them. Private land in the mountains of PA. Acres and acres. Full Auto AK 47s, UZIs, this 50 Cal Sniper rifle, gernade launchers, full auto shotguns. There were enough military grade weapons to arm a small squad of soldiers and some left over. I personally like the UZI, smooth easy to handle incredibly accurate. Someone could walk into a Mall with one of these a wipe out a hundred people in a blink. The GLOCK is a hard gun to handle, fired one of those with an extended clip. It kicks like crazy, but with the extended clip you can get off a lot of rounds, so you don’t have to worry about accuracy.

            In the 1960’s a SciFi writer, John Brunner, wrote a book; “Stand On Zanzibar.” A futuristic novel about the 2000s. He predicted tattooing, dyed hair, cosmetic surgery, Gay Liberation, and Muckers. Not an organization or gang. It’s his name for random people committing random acts of violence. Like walking in to a super market and shooting as many people as the Mucker can.

            Well we have Muckers, and they are here to stay, people are just going to have to live with it. News stations will have to just start reporting body counts rather than doing week long reporting on each incident. I am willing to bet there will be a Christmas shooting and a New Years Eve shooting. Ending the year with a blood bath and starting the New Year with a blood bath. These psychopaths are trying to one up one another. This guy took it to little children, next will be a church , then hospital wards.

            I don’t care about the availability of guns, as long as the guns rights folks are happy, then I am happy. The dead and their family will have to help pay the price for freedom. Screw ’em if they can’t sacrifice for the freedom America promised the gun owners via the 2nd Amendment. A few deaths should never interfere with the US Constitution. Start the body count.

          9. onedonewong December 21, 2012

            You got slapped down and made to look a fool so its back with the ad hominems.

            As I outlined for you the only misinterpretation is yours, the right to bear arms is enshrined in the constitution is was placed there based on British law. Only a sophomoric simpleton could not interpret it the way the SC did.

            Will there be more mass murders you bet. As long as Dem’s are incharge of the FBI, ATF and DEA. The worst massacre ever was the fruit of Janet Reno’s and Bill Clinton’s actions. As long as Planned Parenthood is allowed to stay in business with taxpayers $$ you can e sure 1 million babies a year will perish.

            You point about John Brunner?? He wrote FICTION its not real just like racism isn’t real

            If news stations were honest I would love for them to report the numbers offed every day at the mills. Of course failed to notice that when W was president there was a daily dead and wounded count. Then when Barak took over it ended. And to find out how many casualties happened on his watch you had to do an algorithm to figure it out it was so well hidden.

            When you finally smell the coffee and say the same thing about abortions then I’m willing to listen. As far as I’m concerned federal officials shouldn’t be allowed to carry a weapon. Only the cops and the citizens

          10. Ibsyboy December 22, 2012

            Look if having guns is so important to well God Bless You. Then 20 dead children are on your head. The NRA had a brilliant idea today. Their CEO, after blaming Hollywood, video Games, Gay people, Comedians, Prostitutes, Car manufactures, candy companies, Hostess Twinkes. He suggested armed policemen in every school. What about Aurora, CO. He left out movie theaters, Virginia tech, colleges. The guy is as big a putz as you are.

            Columbine had two armed guards on campus, Virginia tech has armed campus police.
            Banks don’t even have armed guards anymore. If removing semi auto weapons, and large capacity clips impinges on gun ownership, then so be it, let the killing continue. Merry Christmas Mr. Scrooge.

            Look at your self. You stick up for the Wealthy who have screwed the economy and the citizens, and now its guns, 20 dead children just the price of freedom in ypur book.

            This is not the end. There will be more mass killings. Like I told you, Christmas day.

            As Mr. GUNS from the NRA was giving his insulting take on 20 dead children. A gunman killed 3 people in Pennsylvania. One victim a church lady hanging Christmas decorations, I guess my prediction came a little early.

            Somewhere along your journey through life up to now, you must have fallen an hit your head. I have yet to meet anyone on the wrong side of so many issues.

            Anti American Workers, Pro Guns for everyone, Pro Big Money, Pro Corporate ownership of America, Anti Healthcare for the citizens of the richest country n the world. A healthy population makes for a healthy country overall.

            That hit on the head must have knocked you out and you woke up in some land of anger and negativity. So much contempt for things you have decided to dislike. Even if it serves America well.

            Looks like your guys walked out on their responsibility to the country because they didn’t get their way. It’s cliff diving for the GOP and the Teahadists.

            Come January the mandate the GOP has generously given Obama will commence.
            1st up, tax cuts for 98% of Americans, automatic increase in taxes for the 2%. Back to Clinton era taxes. Unemployment payments extended for 2 Million Americans. And a date will be suggested to debate the entitlements. He has no obligation to offer any cuts come January 1st.

            Sorry Ducky your world view is getting narrower and narrower every day. You got the GOP where you want them, but the can not Govern from that position of sadness.

          11. onedonewong December 22, 2012

            Its libs like you that placed guns in the hands of crazies in the first place and emptied mental asylums. Amazing that you folks take perverted actions and then when tragedy takes place its some one elses fault.

            The problem with outlawing semi automatic and large clips is its a cycle that never ends when it comes to libs getting their way. I remeber in the 90’s when Barney Frank was upset about no gays in the military. His speech on the House floor was “we not asking for the military or society to allow gay marriage”” Oh yes he was.

            Another 90,000 babies will be killed this month so Merry Xmas and Happy New Year you sicko

            Look at you you stick up for unions that have caused business to go over seas, govt regulation that has caused 500,000 jobs to overseas in the past 2 years and the 47% who pay no taxes yet eat at the trough and want even more.

            Your typical lib in this country. Don’t contribute to the economy pay little to nothing in taxes and think that every degenerate value is something that normal society needs to embrace. Let me know of just 1 of your so called values that has served this country well??

            Hmmm who left DC and is vacationing in Hawaii and who has refused to even take a vote on the budget?? Guess they don’t have newspapers where you live.

            Taxes back to Clinton era and spending back to clinton era..I’m alllll for that are you and your libs ready for that?? Unemployment benefits extended??/ Looks like your the one who fell on his head, that’s not part of the CR till the end of March.
            Unless barak begins to offer a balanced package Boehner and his republicans should just stay home until the messiah starts to lead. remember the republicans wanted to bring baraks offer to a vote in the senate and Reid refused wonder why??

          12. Ibsyboy December 23, 2012

            Speaking of emptying asylums, when were you released. I have never read so much delusional, disconnected, defensive rambling. Always with the quick, blame the other guy riposte.

            It is sad you have only the provided defense for your position. You are on the wrong side of history. This is the 21 st Century not the 1800’s or the Gray Flannel Suit 1950s. The earth has gone around the sun many times since your world view was buried in a time capsule at birth. Women are able to earn their own way through life,
            Negroes have the right to vote, miscegenation is acceptable in most of the USA. Gays are allowed in the Military, there is the internet, you can travel form the east coast to the west coast in under 6 hours, The Berlin wall fell, The Soviet Union fell apart, India and Pakistan have the atomic bomb, there is a thing call the European Union, a economically unified Europe. The GOP has become irrelevant, A Negro was elected President. Yes it is a brand new world with new challenges which can not be met with 19th century idealism. Its the time for new and fresh ideas, ideas capable of unifying the citizens of America in a common cause to advance America as the true leader of the World. A country of content citizens, living in safety and comfort. Good jobs to grow their life style, freedom to vote, a right to have your voice heard by the Employer, a Right to a good education, a right to Heath Care, a chance of advancement for every citizen, a Government that is more valuable than just running a military, or a World police force. A government that works for the people, to fight injustice, inequality, disease, job safety, right to vote, right to organize, a right to express progressive views, a right to marry the one you love.

          13. onedonewong December 23, 2012

            I had to go back and re read the posts…was it me that was calling for gun control?? Me thinks it was you..so who was blaming the other guy???
            A right to a right to a right to…sounds like Fidel and Hitler. Both of who are the Messiah’s folk heroes. How do you plan to pay for these rights??? with 47% not paying any taxes and the % will grow to over 50% by 1 March 2013. You sound like a kid in a candy store..guess what life isn’t like that but hey your a liberal and $$, finances, debt mean nothing to you far better to dump the problem on the unborn, which your lord and saviour is doing right now

          14. Ibsyboy December 24, 2012

            I’m not calling for gun control. I don’t care if people can buy tanks and rocket launchers.

            But I am tired of the thousands of people who get killed by guns. A great many are innocent people and law officers. I have 3 nephews who are on a major city police force. I get sick when I hear the news that a cop got shot. U shudder at the announcement of the name of the officer. It a dangerous job, and getting killed comes with the job. But, as my nephews point out to me the cops are out gunned.

            I would just like to see a mass murderer go into a gun show and kill one person. With all the guns in the room, a killer will still get a least one or two victims. And he will get killed, they all do anyway, either by their on hand or the police. Yet there will be dead people at the gun show, with all of those guns around.

            The NRA should be ashamed of itself. It would have been a lot better if they just issued a letter of condolence. But they really made asses of themselves.

          15. onedonewong December 24, 2012

            Libs should be ashamed of them selves they created this nightmare by eliminating the nut houses and mainstreaming those with learning difficulties. Thy have dumbed down society

          16. Ibsyboy December 25, 2012

            That’s right every mental institution and psychiatric ward in America are empty.
            Not one mental health institution of Prison with a psych ward. Everyone of these killers were patients from a mental institutions.

            The only inmates on the loose in America are the Teahadist Party, the Right Wing of the GOP, and lonely White Males of America.

          17. onedonewong December 25, 2012

            Glad we agree that the loony bins need to be reopened. Everyone of those killers were mental cases that should be off the streets however libs don’t believe those killers were bad its wasn’t their fault it was society that was the problem. Those dam guns just can’t be trusted.
            The loons in this country are ever growing starting with the WH and those who think that confiscating the rich wealth will some how end the debt. Why if 47% not paying federal taxes is good lets run it up to 98% and let that 2% pay it all

          18. Ibsyboy December 26, 2012

            I am still amazed with how quickly you guys on the right are able to come up with someone or something to blame without any inclusion of the availability of weapons.

            Indeed they may be mental cases, but how do you suggest we find them before they do harm. I assume you watch the interviews with neighbors of the perpetrator, ‘He was such a quiet guy,’ ‘he was always polite, and helped around the neighborhood if he could do so,’ ‘he never showed any signs of being capable of this.’ ‘I am totally shocked.’

            For the ones who do show signs of some mental problem, do we round up ever manic depressive in America, in that case we can start with the GOP. Most of these nuts, hold in contempt much of what the Right Wing is pissed off about.

            There is no confiscating, why do you insist on saying such idiotic unfounded, paranoid BS, over and over. The Wealth you so fondly defend was gathered by taking it from you. It’s just another form of confiscation. Great tax deals, loopholes, subsidies. The law more friendly to them than you. You transgress, you have no access to a great lawyer. You get a court appointed lawyer, unless you or your family are willing to put up the equity in their home to hired an above average lawyer for you.

            The social teetor totter is not ever going to go up and down as long as you are okay with the other side allowed to put external weight on their end of the teeter totter. That’s about as simplistic as I can make the Inequity of wealth in America. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT RICH PEOPLE. There is an extraordinary difference between rich and wealthy. To some people in the world every American is rich, but those same people recognize the difference when it comes to rich and wealthy. Yet people like yourself still don’t get it. The rich don’t get invited to the Wealthy parties. They do not have enough money to qualify. Now think of how the Wealthy think about you. THEY DON’T!!!!!

          19. onedonewong December 27, 2012

            How do we find them?? Gee that’s toughie the gun in NY that murdered those firemen killed his mother with a hammer and only served 19 years. The guy in CT was so dangerous that hos mother told other not to ever turn their back on him.
            So you solution is to take the guns out of the hands of 100 MILLION law abiding citizens rather than go after the nut jobs. Lets see Chicago has a high number of shooting deaths with the most stringent laws on gun ownership, so using your logic the next step would be to lock up all the law abiding citizens rather than go after the guilty. Hows that constitution working for you today?? it seems to change its meaning every time you dislike something.
            there is no confiscation of wealth?? really you seem to think that wealth is a zero sum game pretty typical for a lib who believes that only the govt creates wealth and only the govt know how to spend $$ correctly.
            How can 1 lawyer be better than another?? You believe in the govt requiring equality of out comes. So therefore everyone who graduates is equal. Just like every country according to your messiah is equal to the US..
            I’m not looking for the social teeter totter to go up and down it needs to be at equilibrium, its the libs who think they need to place their foot on what ever side they decide needs help so that hard work creativity and risk taking doesn’t matter. Its the communist mentality, each to their ability each to their need….it doesn’t work

          20. Ibsyboy December 27, 2012

            You are so typically Right Wing, all fault finding and blame placing, 20/20 hindsight opinions, and absolutely no plans for America, other than being negative, blame placing, anti intellectual, anti culture, anti common sense, anti just about any thing and everything that bumps in to your ideologically overly sensitive world view. And that is something I have yet to calculate as of now. All slogans, Liberal blaming, no ideas, just a constant offending defense of all of that is wrong with what the GOP stands for.

            You and the GOP are on the wrong side of life as it progresses along with out you.
            Your inertia is the worst aspect of your ideology to the advancement of America as an example to the rest of the World.

            The richest country on earth, and they are arguing over heath care for their citizens, and contempt for their poor. We look like social midgets to the rest of the World, no wonder some folks hate us, it’s not all jealousy, it’s the hypocrisy. We go around the world telling people how to run their countries, then they look at what divides us, ideological bull shit about health care, immigration, women’s rights, gay rights, financial inequality. From the supposed leader of the free world we are weak at taking care of our own business. And we a silly in our backwardness and dwarfed social obligations. Thanks to the Grand Old Party and their puppet master the Teahadist/ Fascist Party.

            Your on the wrong side of life.

          21. onedonewong December 30, 2012

            Right and wrong and morality doesn’t change just because you and your ilk doesn’t like something. You and baraks plan for this country are no different than his socialist idol. His agenda is no different than Germany’s in the 30’s and 40’s playing 1 group against another to tear down what 400 years took to build.
            Life progresses that’s true, some of it is positative and some isn’t unfortunately libs embrace the negative rather than the positative agenda. Just look at baraks economic policy its never worked where ever its been tried. Its unfortunate that he never had rigorous education and went thru school as a quota. the richest country on earth that has amassed $10 trillion in debt in the 6 years that dem’s controlled congress and the WH. Our debt to GDP ratio is worse than any other civilized country other than Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Italy. Thanks to a socialist agenda
            Dwarfed social obligations?? You mean from the socialist perspective and yours that you want to SPEND OTHER people’s $$ never your own. Every study done in the past 50 years says the same thing when it comes to charitable giving libs/progressive are the STINGEST of any group…why is that??

          22. Ibsyboy December 30, 2012

            And your solution is let them starve. 2000 years aga, a man walked the earth, he commanded all good men to care for the poor and unfortunate. His name is Jesus. The man your party is so in love with invoking for political purposes, but short on following his commands. The poor have been with us since the dawn of man, and will be with us until the earth meets its end. You can’t just ignore them and think they will suddenly see the light and stop being poor. You have to stop seeing it as a self inflicted situation. That’s just another one of the GOP’s skirting the issue devices.

            They are poor because they want to be. They are too lazy to work. You ignore the millions of working poor. Many work for Walmart. They get up every day and go to work, but they can not get by on what they earn, so we as a people have supplemented their lives with food stamps and medicaid, a righteous and Christian thing to do.

            And to you that’s a bad thing. We can afford this. If you keep reducing the revenue needed to run a nation of 300 plus Million people, it will certainly look like we can not afford to help. It is an insidious, pernicious and evil concept you on the Right preach from the comfort of God blessing you by not being born into poverty. No empathy, but a boat load of sympathy for people with more money than God.

            You really need to get down on your knees and implore God to set you on the right path. Don’t bet on it happening. He ignored 20 little kids praying their hearts out for his help. He must be a Republican.

          23. Ibsyboy December 30, 2012

            You still prefer to be on the wrong side of every issue. You view point is personal, you hate the poor, the unfortunate, the working man, women, sick people.

            You are only concerned with people who have no concern for you, and people who could not care less about the financial security of this Country. Wealthy people have no allegiance to anything other than wealth. They have no respect of any nation state or flag. Including the stars and stripes.

            They shipped American jobs overseas to earn a little more wealth, they buy and shut down profitable businesses for a little more wealth.

            Did they stop and think about the adverse affect it would have on the people of America, or America itself. HELL NO!!!

            And these are the people who you think need protection, and your unyielding support.

            They would walk over their mother to make a dime, and they have proven that by the manner in which they Take their Profits. And means possible, no concern for who may have to pay for their success. The USA, which makes it easy to gather wealth, by low taxes, subsidies, exemptions, freedom to move their money and businesses off shore. Now where is the comparable help working people get to protect their money?

            It does not exist. Average guy does not pay his taxes, jail and confiscation of property.
            One of your guys, the wealthy, a small fine, and a slap on the wrist. The fine will find it’s way into the exemption line on their tax return.

            You keep saying it’s other peoples money, when the IRS collects money, it is everybody’s money. Stop with this continued line of silliness, that people with money are constantly suffering. Ad the rest of America can go f**k themselves.

            You a cold hearted ideologue who can not control his ideology enough to care about anyone but the wealthy, as though they are the poor unfortunates of America. They have raped the economy, and you instantly forgave them only becasue the are the GOP’s pals. And for no other reason. Care to explain why the wealthy should get special treatment?

            Your party is great at making getting wealthy easy and staying poor very easy.

            You are on the wrong side of life. Anti American, anti Christian, anti American worker, anti wage earners, anti health care. Your so screwed up, you are anti what ever your lame Party tells you to be against. You have no depth of intellectual curiosity. Your bland in your thinking and small minded as well.

            You defend a defenseless point of view. It’s dead minded thinking. Joyless, sad and mean spirited. I don’t know how you do it. Waking up every day mad at something you don’t truly understand, because you refuse to make an effort at the role of an adult in a complex society based on Democracy and fair play.

          24. dtgraham December 30, 2012

            Hear hear!

          25. Ibsyboy December 23, 2012

            “It’s becoming increasingly unlikely that a low-income student, no matter how intrinsically bright, moves up the socioeconomic ladder. What we’re talking about is a threat to the American dream.”

          26. onedonewong December 23, 2012

            I agree thanks to quotas that are rewarding those who aren’t competitive and receive “scholarships” not because of ability but because of color. The US military is a the best way for those lacking $$ for college to get it

          27. Ibsyboy December 24, 2012

            You and I are not personally responsible for the sins of our fathers, but a good citizen should try to make things right.

          28. onedonewong December 25, 2012

            Yea silly constitution …as libs we are free to over ride it when ever we don’t like it

          29. Ibsyboy December 26, 2012

            here’s the core problem here/ You abide by an ideology that suffers from bad decision making. You guys are always on the wrong side of social progress. History has proven this, by looking at the economic roller coaster we have been on. When there is Wealth equality in America, as there was after World War II. The bulk of American’s economic situations were rising faster than the top tier of money makers. There were plenty of people with lots of money. Unemployment was low during those times in our history.

            The minute the top tier’s economic situation grows at a faster pace than the bulk of American’s, we have what we have today. High unemployment and a concentration of the Nations wealth in the hands of a few.

            Which leads to the only trickle down we experience for this type of economic situation. Less opportunity for the underclass, the disruption of the Middle and Working classes. An entire shift away form citizen participation in Government ot an Oligarchic state we are presently in, where the Kochs and Sheldon Adleson can buy whatever they won’t from the GOP.

            The citizens spoke out on Nov. 6th. They wish for an America not run by the fortunate few who control the bulk of the wealth of America. Wealth affords the Wealthy , influence, and power over the laws of this country. Those tax cuts, loopholes, deductions and subsidies were not the original ideas of the GOP. The GOP were paid to think that way.

            That historically is the ideology you have burdened your self with all these years. Disdain for the poor, mistrust of women, contempt for the highly educated, hatred for people of color and revulsion re: Homosexuality.

          30. onedonewong December 27, 2012

            Realllly??? History has shown that every time the liberal left gets a hold of the purse strings rampart waste happens and the taxpayers dollars are wasted.
            Social spending in this country has been sky rocketing and what has been the result?? The % of the population that are considered poor is unchanged, school graduation rates are worse. there are no trade schools offering skills to those who disdain college. we are spending more on illegals than we spent on our own citizens during Kennedy’s presidency.
            What has caused all the problems for this country is this on going adoration of Keynesian economics that says the govt needs to spend $$ and the heck if its borrowed. Of course the borrowing never stops.
            What we have today is a socialist govt where those who don’t want to work or produce are able to take from those who do. Rather than requiring them to work, whether sweeping streets or emptying beds pans, the liberal left thinks that requiring work is too demeaning and beneath them.
            The citizens who voted wanted more of the same more benefits, more $$$ and confiscation from those who produce. This isn’t the 1st time this has happened in the world but is the 1st time its happened here. Look at where its worked USSR, China, Venezuela, South Africa, Cuba, to name a few

          31. Ibsyboy December 28, 2012

            And your solution is let them starve. 2000 years aga, a man walked the earth, he commanded all good men to care for the poor and unfortunate. His name is Jesus. The man your party is so in love with invoking for political purposes, but short on following his commands. The poor have been with us since the dawn of man, and will be with us until the earth meets its end. You can’t just ignore them and think they will suddenly see the light and stop being poor. You have to stop seeing it as a self inflicted situation. That’s just another one of the GOP’s skirting the issue devices.

            They are poor because they want to be. They are too lazy to work. You ignore the millions of working poor. Many work for Walmart. They get up every day and go to work, but they can not get by on what they earn, so we as a people have supplemented their lives with food stamps and medicaid, a righteous and Christian thing to do.

            And to you that’s a bad thing. We can afford this. If you keep reducing the revenue needed to run a nation of 300 plus Million people, it will certainly look like we can not afford to help. It is an insidious, pernicious and evil concept you on the Right preach from the comfort of God blessing you by not being born into poverty. No empathy, but a boat load of sympathy for people with more money than God.

            You really need to get down on your knees and implore God to set you on the right path. Don’t bet on it happening. He ignored 20 little kids praying their hearts out for his help. He must be a Republican.

          32. Ibsyboy December 24, 2012

            I told you these mass murderers were competitive, one does a college, the next does a movie theater, the next does an elementary school and here we have my Christmas prediction, another sicko shooting, killing fire fighters. What’s next Church attendees, maybe tomorrow, then we can have the night club massacre on New Years Eve.

            The Pandora’s box of gun deaths has been opened and no way to shut it in sight.
            These sickos are in a race to see who can outdo the other.

            This guy starts a fire, then ambushes the fire fighters.

            I still believe something is going to happen on Christmas Day and New Years Eve.

          33. onedonewong December 24, 2012

            Tim to swing open the doors to the insane asylums that’s the only fix

          34. Ibsyboy December 25, 2012

            We have already loosed the Teahadist Party on America, should we cut the chains on the entire Right Wing, Militants in Montana, White supremacists, skin heads all fired up by the presence of a Negro in the White House. Overwhelmed with paranoid delusions and conspiracies. Thoughts that the Negroes, the Browns, the Yellows and Women are taking over America, leaving the macho men on their own to cook, clean, do laundry, buy groceries, take out the trash, in other words do for themselves.

            They are anti intellectual, anti civility, anti polite, the best beer is an open one.

            The knuckleheads of America, a big part of the GOP base. Football, Guns, Beer and meth. Plus a hair trigger temper. The mentality that infests the mass killers in America, the strength a gun gives them, the courage of their convictions guns give them, the confidence of their actions, guns give them.

            It’s a male obsession with power and revenge. Self Loathing at its utmost.

            The Right Wing is infected with this psychotic machismo. They are intellectually impotent, so they boast their egos with anger, contempt, racism,, misogyny, homophobia, and xenophobia. A reliable group of supporters for the Right Wing’s call to arms so to speak. GOP voters, Rush fans, Beck fans. Right Wing warriors. The keepers of the flame, of that elusive dream of a return to yesteryear, when man was the king of his castle, when being white was a pass through every door, when being male assured your opinion of being considered. When intelligence was trumped by cleverness and smarts.

            Times have changed. Intellect has currency, civility has value, care and concern for the unfortunate is admirable. A tough terrain for the left over male population stunted by hatred, lousy jobs, dead end lives, hopeless view points, obsessed with blame. It can not be their fault they are where they are. No one brought them to America in boats, no one denied them suffrage, no one denied them opportunity in the work place. Negroes and Women have fought up hill all of these years and have achieved some leverage, and the White male in American does not like it, at all.
            This last part was manifested in Rush’s Slut comment about a college student he did not know, her mistake, talking up in public about something Rush did not agree with in the least. So the Macho man digs low and does the injured male bit, calls her a slut.

            What else can I say. American Males have an insufferable inferiority complex in their own country. Boo – F**cking – Hoo.

          35. onedonewong December 25, 2012

            Once again you throw out the attacks that its others that are the cause of this countries problems rather than looking in the mirror.
            The football, guns and beer boys are the foundation of this country. as opposed to the coke snorting brie eating white wine loose loafer crowd who think hard work and competation is a disease to be put down rather than emulated. Yep no competation, everyone gets a trophy, no dodge ball because you could hurt some one. No 1st place finishers because its hurts others ego’s. No grades in school we are all achievers. Equalize all outcomes regardless of effort.
            Yep its the Saul alinsky model for America where lie cheating and stealing is the new normative. Where some one with no ability or experience thinks he is the new dictator of this country after having 23 million unemployed not adding a singe job in 4 years but some how managing to add $10 Trillion to the national debt

          36. Ibsyboy December 26, 2012

            I think I hear a little jealousy of the sophisticated, well educated, urbane people in America.

            The beer boys, are the foundation of the Klan, and White Supremacists Groups. Once again you got your history back wards. This country was built on the brilliant minds of those sophisticated, well mannered, highly educated men we refer to as the Founding Fathers. Those men who imported Wine from France and custom made furniture from Germany and read the books about the Enlightenment. Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Isaac Newton. Far from being Conservative thinkers. Jefferson had portraits of these men hanging on the walls at Monticello. The Enlightenment was the seed from which the American form of Democracy was grown. Jefferson was a Liberal. He advocated Government funding for scientific inquiry.

            The Enlightenment was, at its center, a celebration of ideas – ideas about what the human mind was capable of, and what could be achieved through deliberate action and scientific methodology. Deism, which is a rejection of organized, doctrinal religion in favor of a more personal and spiritual kind of faith was favored by many of the Founding Fathers. Famous Jefferson letter stated his sadness in not being able to keep God and Religion out of the Government.

            Egalitarianism was the buzzword of the century, and it meant the promise of fair treatment for all people, regardless of background.

            An I am sure they were familiar with Brie and white wine, probably a nice Chablis or White Burgundy.

            Where do you get no completion, Wall Street, Ivy League Universities, Medical Schools, Business Schools, College Sport Programs. where do all of those competitive people come from? I’ll tell you, not Beer Boy families. Nope, from Middle Class families who know the value of education and a modicum of sophistication and taste beyond a six pack of Bud. It was good for the Founding Fathers, it should continue to be good for America. A well educated, sophisticated society. With some decorum, and civility.

          37. onedonewong December 26, 2012

            Sophisticated, well educated, urbane people really care too name one? Care to name 1 such person in this country??? I see them all the time the wanna bees who dress in $1500 suits and $50 monogrammed shirts and then wear shoes that aren’t shined.
            This country was was built on rugged individualism, that laughed at your idea of the elite of this country. At no time did Jefferson or Madison think of this country as a democracy they knew that left to lazy liberals that society would not survive if everyone could vote themselves money from those that were the producers, that’s why they formed a Republic.
            Jefferson was a deist and believed that blacks were incapable of fending for themselves he viewed them as children which was part of that enlightened period.
            Egalitarianism was the buss word but social welfare paid for by taxpayers was not part of that agenda. Jefferson believe that churches should handle charity not the federal govt. He was opposed to any handouts for those who would not work, that thinking also applied to the slaves he owned since he sold over 200 during his life time.
            Are you that obtuse to think that competation comes from the brie eaters?? Their the ones who believe they are part of the entitlement class, no different than the welfare class who also believe they are entitled. Go to any B school, MD school or sports teams they will be drinking beer. Its really a shame that you hold these people in such low esteem. You see we don’t have an aristocracy in this country even though the Kennedys and their ilk think they are. We have as many new millionaires created in this country as those who go belly up, that’s the marvel of this society

          38. Ibsyboy December 22, 2012

            Your side of the world are Racists, Misogynists, Homophobic and xenophobic.

            Your left with a bunch of beer swilling meth snorting white guys in unhappy marriages, who hate all the thins listed above.

            Body counts stopped and so did the unnecessary adventure in IRAQ.

            When abortions be come illegal, I will. When Murder becomes legal, then maybe I might agree with you on guns.

            How about the National Guard, they are government employees, paid with tax dollars.
            Air Force, Navy, Marines, Army….Federal Government employees, paid by the Federal Government. No weapons for them either? They’re the big paranoid fear the White guys in Montana are training for.

            This protect us against the Government Right Wing Paranoia is nuts. The military would get rid of those meth heads in Militias in a heart beat, and if you think citizens are a match for the military, maybe they should bring it on, and we can finally free America from the Paranoid disease spread by the delusional Right Wing .

            And we can finally address racism, homophobia, women hating, immigrant hating.
            And hard working Americans hating. And fulfill Jesus’ command, take care of the Poor.

          39. onedonewong December 22, 2012

            And your side hates this country the flag and our troops as well as religion. Its my side that made this country great and has ensure we have ever lost a war. I’ll say with my side any day compared to yours.
            Your left with homosexual marriages since no women would ever marry a lib, coke snorting dope dealing welfare queens. Riding in the wagon while the white guys are pushing the wagon up hill.
            Body counts stopped ONLY after barak took over even though casualties went up every year thanks to his rules of engagement that placed more value on mooolsim lives than our troops
            DOD should be the ONLY federal entity that’s allowed to have weapons period.
            Could the military get rid of the those opposed to the barak socialist govt you bet…the issue that barak and his socialists fear is would they??? Barak doesn’t have a “republican guard” like saddam or gaddafi so he has O assurance that they would take up arms against their fellow americans
            The only racism that is enforced is quotas that barak benefited from and is defending in court. Homophobia?? what they do behind closed doors is their business, but they cross the line when they want to teach it in the schools. Women hating oh pleeeease you sound like the NOW wags who hate men. And yes we hate ILLEGAL immigrants as anyone who respects the law should

          40. Ibsyboy December 23, 2012

            Then please explain how your side decided to reverse their reverence for America. Their decision to drift Far Right with the election of a Negro, has destroyed the Party you speak of in the opening of your comment. That Party is long gone, no longer with us.

            FOX , Rush and Beck, are not news formats, they are especially structured as agitation machines. I listen to Rush, it’s nothing but negative, rabble rousing, name calling rhetoric, it’s sole intention is to made the anger of the listener go through the roof, same with Beck. FOX is not quite extreme, but they do their fair share of anger stirring.

            Explain what the following has to do with Policy re: the POTUS:

            He’s a Muslim, a Racist, a socialist, not an American, a Kenyan, anti America, his mother was a welfare queen, his wife buys nice clothes, his children have nice clothes, he’s a Negro, he was a community organizer, he’s from Chicago, he is bisexual, his father was Malcolm X, he smoked pot, he did not deserve to go to Harvard or Columbia, his color got him into College, he is an elitist, he plays basketball, he cares about the poor because the are Negroes.

            These are all personal attacks. Attempts at Character assassination. What do any of them have to do with Policy. If he offers a plan, stick with the criticism of the idea.

            What is the necessity of a constant Right Wing feeding frenzy concerning his person.

            Now that he has been reelected. It continues. One personal assault after another. What is trying to be achieved? Discredit the man’s character, and then what is suppose to happen? Nov. 6th proved it was all a waste of time, the voters chose him over your perfectly constructed White man, with no personality , no new ideas.

            Your party WAS part of the success of this nation, but somewhere along the line the frustration with the Left grabbing all of the popular ideas, sent you on a rampage of get evenness. Negative, pessimistic, contemptuousness, anything the Liberals liked your side decided to hate. That’s not a political philosophy, that spitefulness, ideology.

            Your party has lost it’s way . The Party of Lincoln is now the Party of No to anything the Liberals like. You have no fresh ideas other than to work hard to tear down the New Deal and the Great Society. Not one solid piece of policy beyond anti Abortion, anti Poor, anti Workers, anti Women, anti Immigrant, anti Education, anti Intellectual, anti Health Care, anti Environment, anti America, anti Middle Class, Pro Big Business, Pro Wealth for wealth’s sake.

            Not one positive notion. You have painted yourselves in to a tight corner. You’re done. Irrelevant. Of no value The Grand Old Party has had its Grand castrated by the decision to drift Far Right.

            You have been pushing the same tired old Right Wing ideas. Supply Side Economics.

            What it should be called is Wealth Side Beneficiary Economics. There has never, and will never be any trickle down. It’s proven it self to be wrong and ineffectual, yet your side continues to sell it as a fresh solution to a problem instigated by the very philosophy your side pushes with so much lackluster determination.

            Newt is now working on reforming the Right. He suggested they are on the wrong side of the Immigration, and the Gay issues. Curious how he left out the Poverty/Poor issue.

            IMHO, it has to do primary with Negroes, and he know he can never sell the GOP and the Right on anything that benefits those shiftless, lazy ass Negroes.

            Remember Newt is the man who called Obama the ‘Food Stamp President.’
            Free stuff for Negroes.

          41. onedonewong December 23, 2012

            As Margret Thatcher said your brand of socialism works great until you run out of some one elses $$ to spend. We’re at that tipping point right now. The country has only 2 alternatives one to return to our roots where everyone is pushing the wagon the other is total socialism. The Dem party is hell bent on making this country socialist a philosophy of govt that has never worked where its been tried.
            The democratic party is now comprised of the 47% who pay no taxes, and live off the fruits of others labor. Which means an end to this great attempt of a republic and we sink to the fathoms of the lazy dependent cesspool.
            The New deal and the Great society sure have been a great change to this country. the new deal caused the depression to last 10 years longer than it did in any other country. The Great society after spending $10’s of Trillions has not changed the level of poverty in this country by .00001%
            The Dem’s have sponsored 1 agenda and 1 agenda only trickle up govt regulation that has done 1 thing sent millions of jobs over seas.
            I am glad that we agree on the work ethic of the colored its the same race that never independently discovered the wheel. Its a group of people who’s best days was when they came over on boats and were taught skills.And yes there are now 45 MILLION on food stamps Newt had it right. As for gays they are less than 2% of the population and pose to threat to either party

          42. Ibsyboy December 24, 2012

            You only run out of money when you cutoff your income. Taxation has a purpose and to low taxes when you can not afford it is nuts. It is a pernicious ploy referred to as “Starve the beast” The GOP has not been successful at legislating the New Deal and Great Society out of existence, they devised a surreptitious and pernicious plan to decrease the revenue of the Federal Government to the point that the New Deal and Great Society programs would have to be cut, and it would make it easier to sell their cutting of the programs to an unsuspecting public. But, no cuts to the Military, one of the biggest money wasters we have, underfund the IRS making it that much more difficult to get tax evaders, there are innumerable things to be cut that could save a lot of money.
            Corporate Welfare for one, defense budget is one, Eliminate Public Education is one, Cut Subsidies to Hospitals, tax religious organizations is a huge one (never understood that one), raise taxes on the people who benefited from the Depression paid for by the tax payers. Eliminate the National Guard, we have a standing army, if not eliminate one of the branches of the military, their redundant, the army has tanks, the marines have tanks, the navy has airplanes, the air force has planes. It’s redundant.
            We can eliminate one of the branches of Congress, or pay them what the Right thinks teachers should be paid. They work a hell of a lot less than teachers, plus they get health insurance, pensions, a staff, offices, and other perks. They’re robbing us blind.

            $75,000 a year should be more than enough, plus all the perks. That’s more than the average teacher salary. It’s a job congressmen run for, they want the job, they pay to get the job, it’s service to their country. They make way more than the troops, and the troops risk their lives. All the politicians risk is not getting reelected. And the job opportunities are more lucrative for ex-congressmen than they are for veterans.

          43. onedonewong December 24, 2012

            the reason for Taxes was to provide for the national defense…period. Libs think that the words promote the general welfare means tax dollars sorry it doesn’t.
            Republicans helped to eliminate 2 spending night mares that did absolutely nothing. Poverty wasn’t lowered, education wasn’t improved. heath wasn’t better..in short after spending TRILLIONs all the taxpayers were left with was a tshirt while the likes of FDR and LBJ became millionaires off these programs.
            DOD is the ONLY federal activity spelled out on the constitution that is to be supported with taxpayer funds. But then again the constitution means nothing to you and barak.
            I’m with you when it comes to eliminating parts of the federal govt. Here’s a conservative list
            > Education
            >2/3 of State
            >2/3 of justice
            >1/2 of Home;land Security
            There are others but this would be a good 1st start.
            The average federal worker makes $130,00 a year that’s $100B in premium wages that should be eliminated tomorrow

          44. Ibsyboy December 25, 2012

            All of state, why concern ourselves with where we stand within the actions of the world. Isolate ourselves.

            All of Justice, let each neighborhood, each township, each municipality, each state provide their own justice.

            Completely disband homeland security. Let the terrorists come, we will be well armed to deal with them.

            FBI, CIA, useless waste of money. We’re all decent people what would we do wrong that we need overseers of our local and state police and national Guard and Independent Militias. Plus a well armed citizenry. Bring back public hangings.

            As far as foreign intelligence, do not allow any travel to the USA from other countries, set up business zones, where corporations can meet with the world market safely away from the USA.

            Go back to something the Founding Fathers approved. Only land owning men can vote. Raise the voting age to 30, that’s about when most men are pretty established with a job and a career.

            Eliminate all government jobs, local, municipal, state, federal. Privatize the entire work force. Privatize the Military, Privatize the inter state highway system, make them all toll roads.

            Privatize education, de-fund any support for higher learning, make it a strictly pay as you go system. Intelligence and grades do not matter, if you can afford to get in you get in. If you let the working class in, your end up with Liberals.

            You do realize the states will become the new federal government. 50 small versions. They will need money to operate their states, because after they sell off and privatize their responsibilities there will be some things that will still need administering and money to do it. Or they could expand Right to Work into a Privatized form of Government. Corporations would operate the states business, taxes will be replaced by monthly fees, like utility bills: Police protection, Fire Department, trash collecting, street repairs, Pre-school, high school, all bills sent to the citizen. What ever you don’t care for don’t buy the service. You will be armed so you can protect your own home, and if you can afford it, install a sprinkler system in your home. I think there’s a book here. Oops, John Brunner already wrote it back in the 1960s “Stand on Zansibar” and Kurt Vonnegut covered it in “Player Piano.” A total Corporate run world, all needs were services paid for by each citizen based on usage, like a utility. Brunner had spaces the homeless could rent on the sidewalks, but they could not be there after 9AM or before 7PM. They had to keep moving in the hours in between.

            There were only debit cards, no cash. You accumulated points at work and the points were transferred directly to the central banks owned by the Corporations. You could borrow points at a very high rate. Lack of payment instant jail., and confiscation of all property. Which did not go towards your debt. It was a fine for not paying your loan.

            That’s the future your cold calculated, lack of emotion and compassion brings you.
            Everything in order, no blemishes, no problems, everyone absolutely accountable, except the Wealthy, as usual. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Asamov’s Stranger in a Strange land. These are not new ideas you have, they have been tried before and failed. That’s why Democracy shines brightest. The National Socialist Party failed at it.
            Mussolini failed at it. The book 1984 showed the weakness of it. You can not have what you want with out a central enforcement arm. And that is fascism. In the form of a Corporate State, a Social Darwinian State, the wealthy and the powerful know best, Ayn Rands dream for America, unfettered Capitalism, the workers and the underclass were only good for labor, not thinking and planing That should be left to the Wealthy and the successful.

          45. dtgraham December 25, 2012

            Your responses to onedonewrong are classic and cut too brutally close to home insofar as present day political realities.

            You’re never going to get any truth from us. We’ll tell you anything you want to hear; we lie like hell. We’ll tell you any shit you want to hear. We deal in illusions. None of it is true, but you people from the south and mid west sit there……we’re all you know. You believe the illusions we’re spinning. You now believe that we’re reality, and you and your fellow American’s lives are unreal. You think whatever we tell you.

            I’ve altered the great Paddy Chayefsky’s script from the movie Network only very slightly. Peter Finch’s warning from 36 years ago seems to reach into present day Republican politics too disturbingly.

          46. Ibsyboy December 26, 2012

            I have as much trouble with the parishioners as I do with the preachers (Shamans).
            They have been living among us for at least 200,000 years.

          47. onedonewong December 25, 2012

            I agree we don’t need State ‘we’re all equal” per barak

            I agree Justice doesn’t enforce the constitution or the laws of the land so what good are they

            We don’t need HLS because barak is going to make citizens of everyone who comes across the border. Besides sending illegals back to Mexico is discriminatory

            CIA every democratic president has decimated them so what’s another 9/11 as long as we don’t profile or single out countries for added scrutiny that’s the lib way isn’t it??

            I agree only those who pay taxes should be allowed to vote, allowing some one with no skin in the game the ability to take even more from this countries producers is insanity

            We can have govt jobs JUST as long as they only pay minimum wage, having Feds making $130,000 a year is ridiculous.

            Higher education is that way today grades and intelligence doesn’t matter its all about quotas in admission. the best and brightest need not apply.

            Mini federal govts?? Hello its called the 10th amendment that’s one of our largest problems as a country the federal govt has become too big and is infringing on the States. Its too bad that guys like Lincoln didn’t live long enough to be tried as a war criminal.
            As for your new style economy how is that any different than where barak is taking the country. You know longer own your property, wages, cars, Homes etc you’ll be provided an allowance if your employed. If your on welfare what ever you want or think you need it will be provided no questions asked as well as 4 weeks of paid vacation to any where in the world.

            Sorry that’s the future of this country under barak’s brand of social communism, the govt knows best. It’s done such a great job every time they have been involved in the private sector. From banking to HC, from car production to energy development. Barak is a card carrying socialist and is modeling this country after his idol Germany in the 1930’s and 40’s. Your idea of an ideal economy is unelected bureaucrats making the decisions for the private sector

          48. Ibsyboy December 26, 2012

            Germany was a fascist state more to the liking their cousins the American Right wing. NAZIs were far right, they incarcerated communists and socialists. The NAZIs ascribed to the Iron Fist approach favored by the Teahadist Party and the Far Right within the GOP. You have your examples backwards. Germany wasted money and 100s of thousands of lives, fighting on the Eastern Front, in an attempt to eradicate the Communists and Socialists. The NAZIs were your people. Right Wing fanatics.
            And most of the leadership were Catholics. Catholic Churches celebrated Hitler’s birth day every year.

            So let me get this straight, States rule their own destinies with out the overseer, the Federal Government. Alabama decides slavery is okay, no voting rights for people of color, non christian faith, and women. And that’s just fine with you.

            Texas decides to raise it’s own army, and looks overseas for arms subsidies, China, Russian, Maybe Iran.

            Mississippi decides Homosexuality is punishable by death. Minimum wage should be $3.00 an hour. People of color and immigrants can not drive cars. Marijuana possession is punishable by death. Drunk driving, domestic violence and keeping your kids out of school with no home schooling are misdemeanors.

            Montana approves of mining with no regards for polluting rivers or the air. Also, dumping toxic waste where ever the Corporation chooses. Nuclear power plants next to schools, high tension wires running over schools.

            Indiana decides to re-institute child labor. Approves of 12 hour work days, no weekends off, no vacations until you have worked for the company for at least 3 years.
            That gets you a week without pay. After 5 years 2 weeks without pay. That’s the max.

            Nevada shuts it’s borders to interstate use of Nevada’s highways with out paying a usage fee at the borders, trucks and private vehicles.

            Arizona decides to put tariffs on anything not produced in Arizona.

            Tennessee decides to go back to the Gold Standard. Mint their own coins and have gold backed script. United States currency will be outlawed in Tennessee.

            South Carolina decides to charge air lines air space fees for flying over South Carolina.

            This is not stuff I have made up, this is the kind of shit people with your view point think is necessary to achieve freedom from the Federal Government.

            I for one would love to see it happen. California is going to see a big influx of immigrants for the other 47 contiguous states. As will Hawaii, Washington State, Oregon, New Jersey, New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago, Miami, Boston, The Florida Keys and Canada.

          49. onedonewong December 26, 2012

            y My how we like to rewrite history if it reflects negatively on ones political point of view. Hitler’s party was SOCIALIST and barak fully embraces Hitlers tactics. Just look at GM and Chrysler or the numerous failed taxpayer business investments.I’ve never seen a Catholic church celebrate Hitler’s birthday, but I do see Mooslims which baraks is a part of, celebrate child molestation every year
            what don’t you understand about the 10th amendment, you seem to think your an expert on the 2nd and where a comma is placed ignoring history but some how you can’t read the 10th?? Strange…And yes using today’s standard Lincoln should be brought up on trial for war crimes no different than Milosevic or Ida Amin.
            Lets see CA decides to have sanctuary cities so that no illegal can be arrested, CA decides that marijuana smoking or growing isn’t illegal, MI, WI and 4 other states decide that they won’t send absentee ballots to our troops on time so they can vote. DC registers thousands of dogs cats and the dead to vote in VA. This is the shit your side implements and you want to throw stones at others??? PLEEEEASE
            Do I foresee a large influx of illegals yes I do its the only way the dem’s can keep their seats in congress

          50. Ibsyboy December 27, 2012

            Tell me again, you are not this dumb. The word, NAZI , stands for the National Socialist Party (Nationalsozialismus). The Socialist in their name is not the socialism you think of, they were a right wing, nationalist party, socialism and communism were hated by them, that is why they arrested all known Socialist and Communists and imprisoned them. They were threaten by Russia and the popularity of Communism and Socialism in the post World War One depression in Europe. Why do you think they put so much emphasis on killing Jews (the Intellectuals who favored a more Liberal Government) and defeating Russia?

            Here try this on for size:
            National Socialism was the ideology of the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany. It is a variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism. Nazism used elements of the far-right racist Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture which fought against the communists in post-World War I Germany. It was designed to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism. Major elements of Nazism have been described as far-right, such as allowing domination of society by people deemed racially superior, while purging society of people declared inferior which were said to be a threat to national survival. ( A lot like the GOP’s feelings toward America’s Poor )

            Were you out sick when German history; post World War One was being discussed?

            The US depression was world wide, and Germany was neutered after they signed The Treaty of Versailles. Their economy went in to the dumpster. They were thrust into a disastrous economic collapse.

            Here is an analogy, The Nazi’s experienced success with their right wing ideology during the economic downturn in Germany. The GOP and the Right Wing in the USA have succeeded to a sad degree during the depression of 2008. The GOP and the Right wing have used this economic valley as a means of demonizing the poor, women, Unions, immigrants, people of color and homosexuals. Do you see a parallel here.
            The Right is adept at exploiting an economic down turn for their own ideological gains and advancement. 2010 elections and the influx of the Teahadist Party in to American politics. The brown shirts of the GOP. And as the Nazis pulled down the Wiemar Republic, the Teahadists are tearing down the GOP, and the ability of the Government to get anything done. The Teahadist are fascists. They hate anything or anyone that disagrees with them, they have no leadership or plan for America, except to eliminate any opposition to their narrow minded small view of America’s future. They are a dangerous group of people. They would bring back the horse if they could, and teach that the earth is flat.

          51. Ibsyboy December 15, 2012

            I just finish a biography of Thomas Jefferson; I reference a part of it here:

            Separation of Church and State is an offshoot of the phrase, “wall of separation between church and state”, written in letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 by Thomas Jefferson. The original text reads: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

            Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and the 3rd President of the USA. And a contributor to the Constitution’s construction. He and others wanted to eliminate any reference to Religion and God, but in order to get the Constitution signed there were many compromises made.

            He saw the separation in the constitution stated in his interpretation of the ‘make no law’ phrase. And having been there and involved with the writing of the Constitution, I value his statement of fact.

          52. onedonewong December 15, 2012

            Its amazing that all the biographers are able to pull a great karnak 200 years aftr his death. The words in the constitution are very clear there is no reason to devolve into should a could of would have. The words are the govt shall make no law “establishing” a religion.

          53. Ibsyboy December 16, 2012

            It’s also amazing that women’s suffrage wasn’t in the constitution, and the Civil Rights Act, and the constant interpretations of the constitution over the years by the Supreme court. Ruling in favor of one view over another. Corporations are people was a brilliant stand out. So your need for being right, puts you on your own created firm ground regarding separation of church and state being non-constitutional.

            Well, let’s take a little tip overseas to that golden example of Theocratic influence on Government; Iran. There is no separation of Church and State there. And that provides evidence of what happens when you give religion and its leadership a foot up into Government. We here in America, have decided for the betterment and the avoidance of a Church of England situation on our shores, opted for the separation of Church and State. Christianity is not exempt from the megalomania exhibited by the Mullahs.

            Also, how would we decide on which religion should be involved with our Government.
            Is it to be Christianity? Then what form of that Religion should it be? Evangelical, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Baptist, Methodists. Do we vote on it or is it going to be left to the Congress to decide.

            I like how blithely you cast aside one of the Founding Fathers opinions and insights because it runs on another track than yours. So, like the Teahadist Party. the Founding Fathers was their mantra. A mantra founded in total ignorance of what the Founding Fathers really did. They were happy with their ignorant view, until the Founding Father’s view clashed with theirs. So arbitrary and contradictory is ignorance.

            By the way your Karnak remark verges on out right silliness. Thomas Jefferson’s words came from a letter in his own hand, therefore they are the words of a person who was present during all of the “Founding Fathers” most important moments. It is rude of you to suggest that the Words of Thomas Jefferson in his own hand are part of some magic trick. Tsk Tsk. What a cynical view of the Great man’s words and views.
            The same intellect that brought us the Declaration of Independence. Those words are fine, but any that run counter to yours are an result of Presto!

          54. onedonewong December 16, 2012

            Gee do you think that the 19th amendment to the constitution had anything to do with swaying the SC thinking process?? The problem with the court over the past 50-60 years is its been used by the liberal left wingnuts to advance their agenda by side stepping the constitution. There is no way that quotas and set asides were even envisioned by the framers of the constitution and for the SC to say that they are a short term fix is a slap in Jefferson’s face.

            Corporations as people made sense because the Left wing nut were trying to suppress speech. Rather than having free and open elections their agenda was to eliminate the opposition and allow unions goons to run rough shod over any other voices.

            Sorry your analogy about Iran is a pure Fail. In Iran Islam is the state established religion just as our founders warned. Funny that you have such a problem with words and and our constitution. No our founders were against a state sponsored religion hence the term”establishment clause”. The word separation isn’t even used regarding religion.

            Had Jefferson wanted his thought embolden in the constitution he would have included it. He didn’t because he knew that it would never have past muster in the 13 colonies. The Declaration of Independence was in turned signed by all 13 colonies.

            Your world view and the fouders is what is offensive. Unlike barak the founders reached “consensus” in their actions and didn’t believe in a dictator or a supreme leader. I realize for the left its a radical concept but its worked for over 200 years

          55. Ibsyboy December 17, 2012

            Corporations are people. That makes sense becasue of some ideological semantics to support a game playing mentality of the Right. That’s right, Corporations who wield an enormous amount of influence over the Congress via the Right to hire Lobbyists to tempt Congressmen to pass or reject a law favorable or unfavorable to the Corporations. Where is there a freedom of speech issue there? The public does not get that much access to the Congress. And the public definitely are people. Where in the constitution does it specifically say: Corporations are people? It took the SCOTUS to analyze and come up with an ideologically based opinion which is laughable at best.

            The free speech contention is ludicrous. A corporation is a n entity, created on paper with the laws of incorporation being followed to allow a business to benefit from the financial advantages of the corporate laws. People are generally the result of sexual intercourse, pregnancy and real birth. If there was any f**king going on here, it was the public having it put to them by the Activists Judges on the SCOTUS. Corporations are people. You’re kidding right? That ruling was the biggest stretch of credulity in the history of the Court. A legal document allowing a specific type of business structure is deemed a person. Wow. That is a short lived blunder. Talk about a major mistake in jurisprudence. Protecting the freedom of speech of a inanimate object. The papers of incorporation. Brilliant. Maybe I can get my car proclaimed a person. So it can have the freedom to go fast when it wants to.

            You alone on an island with this nonsense. Imagine telling Thomas Jefferson his farming business was a person. And was deemed to be accorded the rights of a human being. He didn’t afford those rights to his slaves. I am sure if he was persuaded by the right amount of money he could have been coerced into that silly notion. Granting person-hood to a piece of land. Pure political nonsense. If you accept a corporation is a person, why not make them identify themselves like humans do. Why the secrecy???

          56. MrStoneheep December 15, 2012

            Very good, ibsyboy, and with that being said, who exactly is it our Founding Fathers are giving the citizens the right to form a militia against?

          57. Hillbilly December 15, 2012

            Indians. invaders from other Countries and the outlaws of the time. If you want to say that the 2nd amendment gives everyone the right to bear arms then those arms should be the same as they carried when the amendment was passed not the arms that people carry today, There should be not automatics, AK 47 and so on carried by civilians today just one shot muskets, one shot pistols and knives, since that is the type of weapons the Founding Fathers were talking about not the many shots guns that in use today.

          58. MrStoneheep December 15, 2012

            Mr Hillbilly, it’s difficult to have an intelligent conversation with the partially informed, so please do us both a favor and learn the basic differences between a fully automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon. For the record, an AK47 can be either, but not both and no, the semi cannot be converted to a fully automatic. And with your premise, should we not be using sailing vessels and riding horses, too? That may not be fair. Is what is though is to inform you fully automatic weapons are illegal to most of the American public and have been since the 30’s. That’s the 1930’s. Yes, you can get a permit for one at a huge price and after much scrutiny from the BATFE, but few will due to the heavy annual expense. The criminal? He cares less about such requirements, why he’s called a criminal. This whole confusion by the uninformed regarding semi vs. fully auto was nicley accomplished by the far left, mainly the Brady group.
            All that is moot in the instance of the poor kids in Connecticutt, however, as those were NOT fully automatic weapons and were supposedly legally purchased, though I really do question this supposed fact. It appears to me to be a possible “Straw Purchase”. My main question is why was this person allowed anywhere near a firearm as the family KNEW he had mental stability problems. The guns should have been in a safe. Is that proof of the whole incident would not have happened? Of course not. My contention is that there should have been a security system in place more stringent than a window that can broken out. There IS bullett proof glass you know, and “gun free zones” are a misnomer as soon as a criminal decides they are not a “gun free zone”. We saw that Friday morning. We saw that in Oregon. We saw that in Aurora. We saw that at Columbine. We saw that at Jonesboro. We saw that in Wisconsin. All were and still are “Gun Free Zones”. Oh REALLY ????

      3. Ibsyboy December 15, 2012

        “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.”

        There is a lack of clarity. For me the coma after State, implies the second part of the sentence is relevant to the first. As is, in most cases where comas are used. Otherwise, the Founding Fathers would have put a period after the word State. They were highly intelligent men, well schooled in the language written and oral. But, they did not use a period, so the argument is why?

        1. Scott Passmore December 15, 2012

          Because in the first part, they’re telling you why the second part is important. But it does not change the plain meaning of the second part. As in the following sentence.:

          “Inasmuch as I completely disagree with Ibsyboy’s opinion but defend to the death his ability to express it, the right of the people to free expression shall not be infringed.”

          1. Ibsyboy December 15, 2012

            Nice try. I think that is a place for a semi colon. You may have two independent clauses there.

            You could say the 2nd amendment phrase may contain two independent clauses. But the Writers chose a coma, and I think it may have been that they did not see the sentence as containing two independent clauses. That the entire sentence was based around the beginning section of the sentence.

          2. Ibsyboy December 15, 2012

            The first part they are telling you why the second part is germane.

          3. Ibsyboy December 15, 2012

            The first part they are telling you why the second part is germane, to the first part.

      4. 1OldGunny1 January 4, 2013

        Failed Civics class did you gollum? Nobody is running around carrying automatic weapons. That isn’t the issue here. You have an opinion but yet you are woefully uneducated what you are attempting to debate or whine about. Educate yourself and then come back. Thanks for playing!

    2. Rev. Dr. Tom December 15, 2012

      While it is true that the Glock pistol is similar to many others, assault rifles and semi-auto hunting rifles are very different. I am an avid hunter and target shooter, loading my own ammunition and I own a number of guns. My semi-auto Browning BAR holds five rounds–that’s it, five rounds. In any hunting situation that is more than enough. In all my years of hunting, I have only shot three consecutive times onee–in over twenty-five years of hunting. No hunter would ever need 20, 30, or 100 rounds as the magazines of assault rifles allow. Such applications are for battlefields and war, and have no reason being in the hands of civilians. Sadly, the NRA and the gun industry are only concerned about profits and their right to have whatever gun they choose.
      Back in the 70’s when we were having trouble with plane hijacking and metal detectors were installed in airports, the gun industry started development of synthetic and composite stocks in a seeming effort to thwart detection of weapons via metal detectors. When laws were passed to curb assault rifles sales, they adapted the guns to fit the new definitions and kept selling virtually the same guns. It is time for the gun industry to discover a moral compass, and to put people ahead of profits. A healthy dose of common sense would also be a great help.
      It is also time for online gun sales to be prohibitted. When someone buys online it is easier to fake their identity. Limits such as these are not a threat to those of us who hunt and shoot for sport, and its time for the NRA to get that message.

      1. rpg1408 December 15, 2012

        Thank you for your insightful letter. Although I prefer that no one should own a gun, much less a semi-automatic , it is encouraging to hear a hunter willing to discuss gun ownership thoughtfully instead of parroting the arguments of the NRA. When will members of our Government ( including President Obama, who I strongly support, have the political and moral courage to say, ” Enough is Enough ” ?Banning the sales of such weapons and prosecuting the purchasers and sellers would go a long way toward preventing further tragedies such as those of Aurora, Newton and Columbine .

        1. USMCBLACKOPS December 16, 2012

          THANK YOU FOR YOUR IGNORANT LETTER YOU NAZI TWITT. why don’t You pack You shit and head out to another country that has a dictator or a socialist government or England or Austrailia. where the common people have ABSOLUTELY NO MEANS OF SELF DEFENSE. Ya know they say Ignorance is Bliss, and bekieve me You must be in LaLa land. “WHEN YOU DECLARE A SITE “aGUN FREE ZONE” any Criminal or Nut Job has an open invatation to do as He or She pleases,with a Knife ,a Gun,a baseball bat or anyother weapon for the simple reason most untrained individuals are scarred to death when approached even with a loud voice in their proximity. “THE GUN IS NOT THE ISSUE ,AND ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE NOT SEMI-AUTOMATIC,” they are fully automatic and Highly regulated, GET SOME TEACHERS WITH BACKBONES AND TRAIN THEM WITH A FIREARM AND I ASSURE YOU THE WORD WILL GET OUT AND THE NONSENSE WILL STOP !!!! and above all take down the “INVITATIONS to CRIMINALLS—“GUN FREE ZONE”

          1. Max Overton December 16, 2012

            I’m really glad I live in Australia where I don’t NEED to carry a gun. I’ve lived 60 years in non-USA countries and never seen a hand gun nor ever met anyone who has suffered at the hands of a gun-toting criminal. I don’t deny gun-related crimes happen in Australia but they are rare.

          2. Troy Surratt December 18, 2012

            We got a few here in the States you can take over there with ya and you can all tell each other what to do!

          3. Al Quick December 23, 2012

            I’m really glad you there too.

          4. Tel J. Stern December 25, 2012

            Rare? Every category of gun related crime (asault, armed robbery, murder, home invasions, etc) has increased 50-100% since ban in Australia. Look into it, Max.

          5. Ibsyboy December 25, 2012

            there are people in the USA who want to get rid of the NIH and the CDC. If a deadly virus hits America, let the Private Drug Companies solve the problem. There are folks here that think death by guns, disease and starvation are the price of a free society.

          6. 1OldGunny1 January 4, 2013

            I will never die by starvation son if I do not give up my guns.

          7. Ibsyboy January 6, 2013

            You intend to steal your food? You know go hunting at the local super market. Take no prisoners, only the food. Brilliant idea. I have a feeling your not the only one who is thinking like that. Mini Marts are rob at gun point on a daily basis, they won’t care about one more, you joining in.

          8. Billy January 1, 2013

            Just wait until China takes over Australia to make sure their investments are protected (mines) and you will find out how it is to be helpless. That is the reason the US has never been invaded is because of its armed citizens, once you disarm this country who will stop another country from invading? NOONE, because we do not have enough military now to cover every border or coastline. That is the reason the Japanese never invaded the US, its because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. Take those away and that is just the beginning of every right we have to be taken away at any time. It starts with Tyranny and Dictatorship and works its way from there. Im not calling anyone any names to prove a point. The discussion can be had without it. DId you know that the Clinton administration took away the launch codes for our nuclear warheads from the commanding personnel during his time? So at any time, if anyone decides to launch a nuclear attack against the US, noone can retaliate back until the codes are given out by the current administration. Do you really think that would happen? Probably not, we would suffer massive death and suffering and would be set up for an invasion. Just food for thought.

          9. Joe Cottereuax January 3, 2013

            According to Australian 2011 crime statistics, one in every three Australians is a victim of crime. In 2011, a weapon was used against the victim in 75% (138) of attempted murders, 71% (172) of murders, and 44% (5,958) of robberies. A knife was the most common weapon type used against the victim in the following offences: murder (33%), attempted murder (33%), and robbery (22%).

            Murder rate per 100,000

            Honduras 91.6
            El Salvador 69.2
            Côte d’Ivoire 56.9
            United States 4.2 <<< IS NOT #1 WHY? BECAUSE WE HAVE GUNS TO PROTECT OURSELVES!!!

          10. Mark Tipton January 26, 2013

            But they are going to fix that in the UK … they are working to ban knives … some of them really are!? Knives? How about cricket bats? Baseball bats? Vehicles? Screwdrivers? People are still human and are still going to find a way when they set their minds to something. Personally, when both the American Communist Party and the Chinese Government wish to work with our administration to accomplish anything it scares me, but when they are supporting the administration and rooting them on to take our weapons, one must wonder exactly why!

          11. Alexis Rivera February 11, 2013

            I live in Puerto Rico and gun law is incredibly strict to legally own and carry them yet crimes where guns are involved are at an all time high. My point is that legislation to control guns does not pose a solution just a small measure of a broader strategy and its effactiveness hinges on the ability to curb illegally obtained weapons and the trading of them.

          12. X January 3, 2013

            They are rare in Canada too…we have LOTS of handguns, rifles, and “so called” “assult rifles”.

            Gun crimes are a PEOPLE problem, not a gun problem.

          13. dtgraham January 3, 2013

            But you still can’t get handguns with barrels less than 470 millimeters or weapons that “center fire in a semi automatic fashion”. They’re all banned. Plus, there is the Possession and Acquisition license (PAL), whose RCMP course you have to pass first. It does make a difference, in addition to the difference in the overall gun culture attitude. Smuggled, banned, weapons will always appear in Canada from the U.S. You can’t catch them all.

          14. 1OldGunny1 January 4, 2013

            If not the US then it would be Mexico. We don’t have to worry about guns being imported from Mexico into the United States because we have Obama’s Eric Holder giving them away for free down there directly to the cartels…

          15. dtgraham January 4, 2013

            That’s another one of those scandals coming from the political right that I’ve never been able to get a handle on once I read up on it. It was apparently a sting operation, more or less, set up by Bush and continued by the incoming Obama Whitehouse. The lax gun laws of a state like Arizona made it impossible to detain and confiscate the weapons of the cartel buyers who were arrested right after the purchase. The question should be…why didn’t the Bush or Obama administrations have a better understanding of these State gun laws before starting or continuing this program?

            It seemed to be well intentioned at least and it’s hard to see it as a huge scandal, but that’s just me and I suppose Brian Terry’s parents would disagree.

          16. Mark Tipton January 26, 2013

            Actually, yes, the program was implemented by Bush. However, at that time, the guns were marked with trackers and the program was ended since the cartels were catching the trackers and removing them. The program was then re-instigated under the current regime.

          17. 1OldGunny1 January 4, 2013

            You are a wise Canadian sir. There needs to be may more like you…

          18. shipsternsbluff January 11, 2013

            im born and raised in calgary….i don’t know one person who owns a handgun, let alone carries one…i don’t live in fear ever….unlike our neighbors to the south….its the culture of the usa that is the problem…people still think they are fighting the british and the government is going to take their guns….i own a 300. magnum s/s weatherby hunting rifle…which i haven’t shot in over 10 years…got tired of freezing my butt off hunting…change the culture, and you will change/save lives

          19. Olden January 4, 2013


            You Aussies still stealing brown babies to raise them as White? You are a disgrace.

          20. 1OldGunny1 January 4, 2013

            It’s awful about what all of those sickles, knifes, swords and machetes are doing to your poor Indian convenience store workers down there. Personally I would prefer to live in the United States where I can defend myself against such attacks with my gun.

          21. insyt21st January 4, 2013

            Mx. You need to do your homework pal. Since the ban in Kangaroo land was implemented, gun related crimes are up 33%, murders up 19% and you al have something so devastating now that your government doesnt even know how to classify it. HOME INVASIONS!!!! You just dont get it or you just refuse to believe it… The criminals are laughing all the way to the bank in Aussieland cause they are the only ones with guns and they can prey at will against defenseless citizens that your DUMBASS govt cant figure out how to help. Even the police depts down there are livid at the ban cause now they are overflooded with murder and crime investigations never before seen. STUDY DUDE!!!!!!!!

          22. dtgraham January 5, 2013

            This is what I was talking about when I replied to another poster regarding this subject not long ago. I was referencing Australia. You have to wade through an incredible amount of bullshit websites set up by gun nut groups, containing a hell of a lot of made up, pretend facts, numbers and stats, to get to official police and government statistics regarding crime figures. You are completely wrong my friend. Completely wrong on every single number and fact that you gave. You can’t have a legitimate discussion on guns, or anything else related to politics, anymore. There are two competing sets of realities with their own facts……two alternate universes.

            You think you’re right because you “did your homework”. You checked out the Gun Owners of America, WND, and the myriad of other far right wackaloon sites. In actual fact, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You just think you do.

          23. Mason McElroy January 9, 2013

            Right, just like gun violence is rare in the US.
            Did you know that according to FBI statistics gun crimes and gun murders have been steadily decreasing in the US for the past 20 years?

            The media likes to hype things up and make it seem like people are killing each other right and left, but that simply isn’t true. Gun crimes and Gun murders have decreased by 50% in the last 20 years in the US.

            Also, this article is incredibly misleading.
            You cannot legally purchase firearms online unless you have a Federal Firearms License, which requires significant background checks, including an IN PERSON interview with an ATF agent.

            The average citizen cannot just purchase a gun online.

          24. Mark Tipton January 26, 2013

            Some seventy plus percent of that gun crime is also gang on gang violence or violence otherwise perpetrated by violent street gangs in the inner cities. Almost ten percent of it were justified homicide by either law enforcement or private citizens. Take that out of the equation, easily enough done by staying out of the inner cities, and crime rates drop substantially further. I would recommend that anyone who supports these ludicrous laws do a comparison between Chicago, Illinois and Kennesaw, Georgia. Kennesaw by the way, is practically a suburb of Atlanta so we are not exactly talking about smalltown USA here.

          25. ZhongZhang January 9, 2013

            Hi, Max

            Perhaps you could explain that in 2002 the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged that there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime.

            In 2006 assaults rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. Sexual assault increased 29.9 percent.

            Australian women are raped over three times more often than American women.

            You have a wonderful country, Max, and I hope to visit it one day. But don’t be deluded into thinking that if only you could get rid of the guns everything would be better.

            We have three times more people die in vehicular accidents every year than die from firearms here in the States.

          26. Whett Phartz January 10, 2013

            I’m glad you live in Australia too!

            Maybe I’ll move there. I’d much rather be stabbed to death than shot.

            What does Australia’s Constitution say about firearms? Oh wait… You don’t have one of those.

          27. Carpenter January 10, 2013

            Australia? LOL Nice example.

            In Australia gun ownership was banned completely by the socialists in 1997. Half a billion dollars were spent on disarming the populace. In the following years armed robberies went up 69%, gun murders went up 19%. Home invasions went up 21%. The gangs could start this crime wave because Australians were defenseless. (So how did the government respond? They banned … swords.)

            Australia banned guns – violence went up.

            Gun ownership increased in the U.S. in the same time period – violence, including gun violence, has gone way down. Only the rare mass shootings have increased – almost always carried out by people on heavy, reality-altering medication. But Obama won’t go after Big Pharma.

            Half of all murders in the U.S. are committed by Blacks, 12 percent of the population. Blacks raping Whites make up 90 percent of interracial rapes. (The other 10 percent: Blacks raping Asians, Blacks raping Latinos, Latinos raping Whites…many years the number of White-on-Black rapes are exactly zero.) Why doesn’t Obama say anything about THAT cause of crime? Because he is a socialist. Socialists always lie. Either by commission or by omission, leaving out vital information. Like Max Overton here.

          28. Grunt087 January 13, 2013

            Why don’t you tell people that the crime rate had increased in Australia since your government Confiscated (ie stole the legally owned rifles from the people)? Armed robbery went up too. Crime in the USA has gone down since more and more states have allowed the Concealed Carry by Licensed gun owners.

          29. Al Metcalf January 14, 2013

            LOL Right Your crime rate has been up constantly since you passed your stupid gun laws. And besides, I don’t give a crap about yours or any other country. We have to deal with the facts in our country and the facts are, where more guns are, crime goes down. Why, because we have allowed the gang bangers free run in the cities and they pick the people that are unarmed.

          30. Mark Fan January 14, 2013

            Me too. I haven’t seen a gun or heard of a gun incident in over 10 years here in Taiwan.

          31. Chris Bracco January 15, 2013

            Perhaps, but the numbers say that they are not any more rare than before Australia instituted their gun-ban. Hence, it did nothing in reducing firearm violence.

          32. Stephen Billings January 23, 2013

            Glad you are in Australia too! Stay out of the U.S. we do not need anymore pansies we have enough already. It is not the guns it is these crazy people that use them. We have a mental health and morals problem not a gun problem!

          33. Ross Bagley January 23, 2013

            Be glad you’re a man when you’re in Australia. The rape and assault rates are significantly higher there than in the US. Those rates also went up pretty dramatically after the Australian gun ban. I guess when you disarm women, the rapists step up their game.

            And why the obsession with gun-related crimes? Is a rape worse when the rapist has a gun or is it just as horrible when the rapist only has a knife or a huge weight and speed advantage on his victim?

            Is it really a good trade off if we reduce gun crime but also massively increase overall violent crime? The examples of the UK and Australia are not heartening on this front.

          34. Cynicles January 25, 2013

            How is the psuedo-tyranny working out these days in Austrialia?

          35. Mark Tipton January 26, 2013

            Australia still has some of the highest violent crime rates in the world however. It is oddly enough perhaps, followed closely by the UK.

          36. joseph elfert February 4, 2013

            So I suppose that if a knife weilding intruder had your child or wife at knife point you would want to negotiate your way out of it versus having a superior weapon????

            Also, the 2nd ammendamant was written by the founders as a means to keep the government honest. In those days the civilains had the SAME weaponds as the military. Today that is no where near the case. It has nothing to do with Hutning or Target practice. It is a right for a population to defend themselves from a tyrannical government and take matters on their own hands if necessary.

          37. libsbite February 10, 2013

            Bullshit gun crime is very much on the rise on Australia.

          38. fred February 16, 2013

            I’m really glad you live in Australia too. Keep your weak minded ideas “down under” and keep your 2 cents out of our business.

          39. Bill December 16, 2012

            So these armed teachers that you want. Where would they carry their guns (handguns I’m assuming), in shoulder holsters, waist holsters or somewhere else? As for training would they just shoot at targets or what? If you are really a blackops then you would realize there is a huge differnece between a firing range and an actual fire fight.

            You aslo need to learn how to spell and write coherently. Just because someone differs with you doesn’t mean they have to leave this country. I’m in my 60’s saw action in Vietnam and couldn’t disagree with more. England and Australia (not Austrailia) are hardly Socialist countries. They both have elected Executive and Legislative branches elected by the people. Get your facts straight before you write something.

          40. browninghipower December 16, 2012

            Jeeeezus, Lighten up Tex. No one is calling for confiscation. I happen to have a CCW and carry a Glock 23 and have for years. I’ve trained at Gun Site taking several courses. What’s your rage problem? I’ve always been taught by the best instructors 2 things: the best gun fight is the one you avoid; and always always surround yourself in a cone of peace and awareness. Shit, if I were as enraged as you are, I’d be a fucking danger to anyone around me. Cool it, pardner. I don’t think I’d want you near me in a gun fight.

          41. Robert Martin January 8, 2013

            Wow! That sounds a whole lot like what we heard a few months ago! “Obama isn’t after your guns,” “Obama hasn’t made any gun laws, and isn’t likely to,” etc. Kinda funny, 90 days after his reelection, he’s on the ban bandwagon.

            This “No one is calling for ______” line doesn’t hold any water with us.

          42. browninghipower January 8, 2013

            I received your reply, Mr. Martin. I don’t know if you were the gentlemen I originally wrote this post to:

            “Jeeeezus, Lighten up Tex. No one is calling for confiscation. I happen to have a CCW and carry a Glock 23 and have for years. I’ve trained at Gun Site taking several courses. What’s your rage problem? I’ve always been taught by the best instructors 2 things: the best gun fight is the one you avoid; and always always surround yourself in a cone of peace and awareness. Shit, if I were as enraged as you are, I’d be a fucking danger to anyone around me. Cool it, pardner. I don’t think I’d want you near me in a gun fight.”

            I hope not. Here is my feeling about ‘bans’. I don’t like them. I think an outright ban on ‘assault’ guns is wrong-headed. It won’t work or accomplish anything. First of all, until such a ban was signed into law, everyavailable assault gun would be sold and believe me such a law would contain a ‘grandfather’ clause making all presently owned weapons legal. There would be no confiscation. So the law would be essentially meaningless.

            I do favor a national database of gun registration and ownership. No exceptions; no loopholes. This is a common-sense law. It can be made safe from prying eyes. The NRA and lawmakers can do that. NRA opposition to this is bullshit and the NRA should put its weight behind such a law.

            Magazine capacity is another red herring. During the 1994 ban, I was able to legally purchase hi-cap mags at gun shows and in gun shops. They, too, were grandfathered in under that law.

            I’m the kind of person who preaches responsibility and common sense. I was taught to always have a cone of peace around me when I was carrying. It’s common sense not to take a gun into a bar. It’s common sense to avoid a fight when and wherever possible. Stand your ground is utter bullshit. Too many people read too many Jack Reacher, Mitch Rapp and Tom Clancy novels. There are real world consequences whenever you draw and fire your weapon. TheNRA doesn’t see to get that.

            So, Mr. Martin, I agree. Don’t ban a gun…keep themn out of the hands of rageaholics, bars, stupid people, children; register all of them; and stop thinking there are no consequences for using them. Ask any long-term cop just how many times he/she has had to not only draw…but actually fire his/her weapon. You might be surprised at the answer.

            Happy New year…..

          43. wildclover December 16, 2012

            It took a hell of a lot of backbone for those teachers and the principal in Newtown. The Principal and school psychologist charged him, teachers hid their students and got them away from sight- I’m a parent, and I don’t think anyone, even you, wants the teachers packing with a loaded pistol right within reach at all times, at least not with K-4. So which takes more guts? Going for your gun locked in the bottom desk drawer, or spending those seconds herding your kids into supply closets and keeping them calm? As a parent, I want those seconds spent hiding my kid than for fumbling with locks or safeties while the kids are not being cared for.

          44. leadvillexp December 17, 2012

            If that Principal had been armed those students might be alive today. Hiding won’t do. Arming teachers should be voluntary and they should have the same firearms training as the Police. Hand guns are small enough to be hid on the body. The Police and Guards do this all the time.

          45. melci December 27, 2012

            I can’t believe you think this is a solution. Can you just imagine the increased numbers of fatalities due to students finding teacher’s guns in their drawers or grabbing them from their holsters?

            And wow – disgruntled teachers and people with mental illness or relationship breakdowns having even easier access to lethal weapons?

            Man, talk about a militarised state of fear.

            So glad I live in Australia with miniscule gun violence in comparison.

          46. majordad75 December 17, 2012

            When the Israeli’s had a problem with terrorists targeting their schools and children, they armed their people inside the schools and we seldom (I can’t remember the last time) hear of school attacks in Israel. As a retired Marine and former school teacher, I can assure you that a trained person could both care for the kids and reliablily use a weapon to defend them. Only untrained people ‘fumble with locks and safetys.” Teachers are trained today to care for their kids in fire drills and lockdown andcould be trained for defense in the school as well. All it takes to the will to do so and for people to get over their parnoia about firearms.

          47. Robert Martin January 8, 2013

            So when a killer shows up, should we stop him, or entertain him with a rousing game of hide and seek? “Found you, you lose.”

          48. afairhope December 18, 2012

            That statement about gun free zones is put up for students and visitors,it wasn’t put there to invite people with guns who want to harm people. I would not want to be in an environment where six year olds are armed. Many gun owners appear to be very fearful people. As near as I can tell, an assault weapon doesn’t have to be automatic. I see no need for the average hunter or anyone else to have a clip that holds thirty or more rounds. I don’t necessarily believe that guns are the only issue, but they allow for a lot of death and carnage in a short time. I see a lot of anger in your post, perhaps that is part of the problem, there are a lot of people running around that want to waste someone.

          49. RdSky December 22, 2012

            Some people are pointlessly mad, it seems. I also agree that the gun free signs/zones are not what attract these monsters. What attracts them is a mass of people in a confined space. Unfortunately, masses of people in confined spaces seem to correspond strongly with gun free zones. I’m all for not allowing people to walk in with a rifle over their shoulder, etc – but lawful concealed carry should not be restricted from these places, even for teachers. It’s been around long enough now to confidently safe that it would not add any appreciable danger, and it may just be what saves a lot of lives the next time evil comes knocking.

            However, that shouldn’t be the answer – only an aid. Strengthening background checks to include immediate family at the same address, perhaps not denying for others living with you if you have proper storage, and holding people accountable for that, will go a long way towards a real solution. On top of that, a logistical solution to allowing background checks on private sales will allow such a change to have as full of an effect as possible. Lastly, improving access to mental health services (yes, this will have to be paid for somehow, but there’s no way around it regardless of firearms laws) especially for those deemed possibly dangerous.

            All of these options, especially taken together, will go a long way towards helping. The previous assault weapons ban was mostly useless and pointlessly burdened lawful buyers over trivial features such as grips and flash hiders (seriously…flash hiders…we can do better than THAT surely…). If we look for REAL common ground solutions as opposed to these biased articles calling for “common sense” to be only what corresponds to their belief and not that of the nation as a whole, if we accept that the rights of our fellow Americans are worth more than hastily written legislation in an emotional state, then we can find a solution that works for everyone. As an added bonus, it will actually pass.

          50. Mj Hill December 19, 2012

            Young man, first of all you are not, nor will you ever be in the USMC. Black Ops? That’s coming right out of a gamer’s head. That misguided tirade you just wrote has landed you right on someones watch list, and rightly so. You need to back off, take a deep breath and get your head out of the violent, non real, games you play. Gun’s are not a game, they are ALL MADE to kill something. What, is up to the individual that carries it. Gun’s have no place in the hands of angry, ignorant people. Perhaps you should go to a church, where they sincerely try to help those,as yourself, deal with their anger. SCPO USN.

          51. John Green December 24, 2012

            The police don’t agree with you. They call all guns with a magazine an assault weapon. Somehow, they have more credibility than a lunatic gun lover.

          52. Lee L January 31, 2013

            You mean the same police officers who beat poor, well dressed black kids who are coming home from college?

          53. Ibsyboy December 25, 2012

            I think the Government should provide every citizen over the age of 13 with a weapon, we could reduce our police forces,and state police, allow unlimited speeds on the highways, no need for state police. Privatize the interstates, allow the owners to charge tolls.

            Privatize every government service, local, state and Federal, treat the services as we do utilities, you get billed each month by usage of desire to have police and fire protection. Eliminate taxes altogether. No Public Schools, no state or community colleges, everything is pay as you go.

            Regarding poverty, let them die. It’s they only way to rid our country of needy useless people. Everything we need we pay for. No Taxes, no services, we pay for everything. No Welfare, no Medicare, no Social Security. Let families take care of their parents like the old days. Heath care is paid for by need and usage of medical services. No health insurance, Hospitals compete for business, will lower the costs. Pay as you go.
            If you can’t pay tough luck. We’re not meant to live forever anyway. Cremation only. The land is too precious to be waste on burying dead rotting bodies.

          54. George January 8, 2013

            I hope whatever gun control laws are passed include provisions that will keep YOU from ever owning a gun! You’re just plain nuts!

          55. GMR1 December 27, 2012

            What an idiot your screen name tells it all!

          56. USMCBLACKOPS December 27, 2012


          57. CarlosC January 2, 2013

            Do you realize how many teachers you need to teach? MORON!

          58. Stevo January 5, 2013


          59. Ronald M Cox January 5, 2013

            usmcblackops spoken like a true coward…i bet you sleep underneath the bed with the lights on , clinging to your big gun in one hand and your little in the other…hahaha scared little boy are you!!!!!

          60. Hassan Nød January 7, 2013

            be glad you dont live here in Denmark we have the strictest gun laws in EU (we are not even allowed to own a knife with a blade over 2 inches)
            but we still have gang related shootings almost every week
            So i call bullshit on gun laws
            and you can forget all about self defense, not only do we not have the means to fight off a criminal but we don’t have the right, self defense is illegal here in denmark, i am a hunter so i own a 308 cal ruger rifle (which is limited to only hold 2 rounds do to danish law) but if someone broke into my house in the middle of the night and pulled a knife i would go to jail if i shoot him

          61. Rodney January 9, 2013

            its people like your dumb ass that we need too take guns away from.

          62. shipsternsbluff January 11, 2013

            the gun is not the issue…if you feel you need to protect yourself with a weapon like a ar15….maybe its time you move…you obviously live in fear….and probably need professional help if you need to own a weapon like that…and/or are over compensating for something else…you are the reason the rest of the world thinks america is a sh*thole that feeds off fear and paranoia….

          63. Mark Fan January 14, 2013

            USMCBLACKOPS, I personally believe people that act and talk like you are the most dangerous. Giving people like you guns is down right scary.
            One day we will probably see your name in the headlines for having dumped your anger on a lot of innocent victims because you are dead set on forcing the rest of America to accept your position.
            You feel that we should accept your opinion like pathetic sheep?
            Forget it!!!!
            You don’t have the RIGHT to own any and all types of guns. Moreover, your response frightening and leads me to believe you not psychologically stable or fit to own any guns. Period!!!!
            If you want the privilege to own a gun, you should have a phsycholigal test and you should insure your guns for any and all what ifs. What if it is stolen? What if it is used in a crime? What if someone is shot with your gun? commits murder with your gun? commits suicide with your gun? accidentally shoots someone with your gun?
            YOU should have to pay for any and all damages as a result of your gun(s)!!!

          64. Aaron Raider January 16, 2013

            I call BS. USMC black ops????????? Really dude??????? Get back to your playstation son. Phony little twat.

          65. John Ahearn January 26, 2013

            You must have an extremely small penis…………

          66. Agustin Ross January 29, 2013

            People like you scare me. And probably the main reason why i would NEVER move to the US to live. I don’t know what kind of a world you live in where you feel so threatened that you need to own any type of weapon. I have also lived in many European countries as well as Asia and I have never felt the need to own a gun for any reason. While Hunting is a sport and i suppose people should retain the right to enjoy their hobbies, i really don’t think any type of rifle or pistol requires an automatic function or a magazine/cartridge that can hold more than 5 rounds. Furthermore large calibers and military calibers such as 5.56 or 7.62 should remain for military use only. I think people like you with your attitude will slowly fade away into a foot note in human history the day the US government wakes up and does the right thing….

          67. cuddles79 February 11, 2013

            YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE! You have no knowledge of any society outside your own little patch. I am an Australian (learn to spell please) and we have one of the lowest murder rates in the world (no guns) compared to you lot. We do not live in fear here. You, on the other hand are in the highest bracket in the world for killing (with guns). If you are too thick to see the blindingly obvious, you deserve eveything that’s comming your way. I have no sympathy for you. You are a fool!
            John Nettleton, Queensland.

        2. whitmsd December 16, 2012

          then only the ones with ill intent would own them ,the black market would sore,if they want them they will find a way,and the rest of us would be defenseless.

        3. Troy Surratt December 18, 2012

          What a MORON!!!

        4. Tel J. Stern December 25, 2012

          I don’t know who needs what for hunting. But that is not relevant because the Constitution gives no protection for the right to hunt.

          But the Constitution does povide protection for the right to keep and bear arms.

          As for the general truthfulness of this comment:

          “…the gun industry started development of synthetic and composite stocks in a seeming effort to thwart detection of weapons via metal detectors.” That may be the way it seemed to the media, or at least 60 Minutes, however, the assertion was debunked almost as soon as it was asserted.

          By “stock” I assume the “Reverend” “hunter” means frame, because stocks on pistols are usually (and always have been) made of wood, rubber, plastic, or some other non-metallic material. Glock I believe was the first pistol to use a frame constructed of non-metallic materials (it has no stock) and remainder of parts made of steel. This excited the media at the time. But it was quickly proven the Glock pistol could not pass through either metal detector or X-ray. Idea that hijackers of airliners was the intended customer base of the company when they developed the weapon (for the Austrian Army) was then utterly ridiculous. Continued assertion today is a just a lie.

          There may be some good arguments for gun control in the US. But you wont find then here. Why Glock 23? Why not Glock 19? Who knows. Impressions of the impressionable members of the public remain long after truth has been established.

        5. 1OldGunny1 January 4, 2013

          Gun-control only controls the law-abiding and respectful citizens. It fails miserably on criminals and the mentally ill. For the mere fact that criminals do not traditionally obey laws.

          There are over 22,500+ gun-control laws on the books now on the federal, state, county, city & local municipality levels in this country. And they all have one thing in common – they don’t work.

          Prohibition didn’t work either. How is that war on drugs going? How about prostitution? The supply will always rise to meet the demand son.
          Did you miss Economics 101 in school?

          Go ahead. Destroy a viable industry that pays taxes, employs people and where there is a recorded documentation and history of firearms transfers and give the drug cartels and other mafias something else lucrative in dealing in with the bIack market.

        6. MLChevy January 5, 2013

          If someone told you that they would prefer that no one should ever eat meat or ever drive a car you would call them crazy. Yes I am exaggerating for effect but why should no one ever own a gun is it because some people get murdered with them because if that is your reason only a third of firearm related deaths are murders the rest are suicides… and more than three times as many people are killed in vehicle related deaths per year. And people who buy high capacity magazines generally do it for fun just like people that drive a Ferrari or a Ducati. I am comparing cars and guns because they are the exact same thing they are tools that people can use to kill or maim others just like knives just like hammers and when used properly they don’t hurt people.

          1. rpg1408 January 5, 2013

            A hammer, when used improperly, can injure or kill one person. A semi-automatic
            is much more deadly ( and how many really use them for “fun ” ?)

        7. Bernie Holland January 9, 2013

          Keep telling yourself rpg1408 and pretty soon you’ll start believing that garbage. I have taken more stolen/illegal/ fully automatic guns off the dope runners and other assorted bad guns out there in my 30+ year career and quite frankly I am tired.
          Congress should seriously think about outlawing drugs (Cocaine, MJ. hash, herion, etc) and fully automatic weapons (you know, like the kind they sent to the Mexican Cartel that has already murdered two fine upstanding law officers). It has never been successful here or anywhere else in the world. Remember, if you are in trouble, call a cop, they just might get there in time for the clean-up.

          1. rpg1408 January 9, 2013

            But wouldn’t it help if the sale and possession of all automatic and semi-automatic guns were made illegal? Also possession of such a weapon in commission of a crime could lead to very long prison terms.

        8. Whett Phartz January 10, 2013

          Yes, thank him for his “insightful” letter. I mean, it’s full of falsehoods, personal bias, and ignorance, but let’s not let that get in the way of this “insightful” discussion.

          Let’s just disarm those who will willingly disarm: The law abiding citizens. I’m sure that the criminals will go along with that. No? Let’s just tell them that guns are bad. Let’s make them illegal. I’m sure that gangstas will disarm. Murder is illegal too. Maybe they didn’t get that memo. If they had, they surely wouldn’t murder anyone.

          Who wants a disarmed population? Those who would take advantage of it, like criminals and politicians maybe? Authoritarians? Tyrants?

          All these gun-free zones and heavily regulated states sure have helped curb gun violence, haven’t they? They’re like modern day utopias. Let’s apply that failed model to everything and everywhere.

          Let’s just make “wishful thinking” by the illogical, emotion-driven citizenry into laws. That way, they can feel good about themselves, even if they are ineffective. They can get together and pat each other on the back for their high-minded idealism.

        9. Al Metcalf January 14, 2013

          No, it will not do diddly squat because Clinton tried it and we had the biggest shooting ever.

        10. Chris Bracco January 15, 2013

          Tell you what. You get people who ignore the laws (y’know, “criminals”) to unlaterally and universally give up firearms and THEN we’ll talk about restricting gun ownership to hunters. Oh, wait, there’s that pesky reasoning behind the whole 2nd amendment thing, that “defense against tryanny” thing.
          I tire of hearing do-gooders who have no concept of what the rest of call “reality” pontificate on how I should live my life.

        11. Cynicles January 25, 2013

          Guns (per the Constitution) are assured to the people to prevent or remove any tyranous governemnt

          -No mention of hunting nor self defense is found.
          You rational is what is known as a Straw Man arguement – it addresses an issue that is not the issue at hand (being discussed) – stay on topic or stay quiet.

        12. Charles Williams February 4, 2013

          You are so ignorant i dont know where to begin to shake you loose from it. Banning means and accomplishes nothing. Do you understand? NOTHING. If you want to make headway on tragedies, enforce the laws already on the books and bring instant death to criminals who abuse the right of ownership. Hurt someone with a gun? Gas chamber. Caught not securing your guns at home? Electric chair. Steal a gun and use it to rob a 7-11? Be thrown out of an airplane. Exterminate criminals and leave all rights and others alone; in fact enhance their rights. Think about it, ive owned gun for 50 years and never hurt a fly, so what is your problem with my ownership except to promote Obamas communist agenda to disarm the public to force people to be reliant on government for their personal safety? In truth, im a honorable and prideful owner who would use a gun in self-defense, and defend you too, if needed. My advice to you is to buy a gun and learn how to use it. Defense? YES. Anger and aggression? NEVER.

        13. fred February 16, 2013

          Your reply is ignorant from “no one should own a gun” to “strongly supporting President Obama”. You can’t fix stupid – John Wayne

          1. rpg1408 February 18, 2013

            What can I say? Your reasoned argument is overwhelming !

        14. the7thson September 16, 2013

          Sadly, the real world works differently. Banning sales of “such weapons” will do absolutely NOTHING to prevent tragedies like Aurora, Newtown, and Columbine.

      2. Don B December 15, 2012

        I agree with you. Gurns for hunting and target practice and self protection are one thing, but why the need to own firearms that are “military grade”? The NRA should step up and start a dsicussion about limiting the types of fire-arms that the general public can buy etc. I hear gun advocates trot out the “fear of losing the Second Amendment–Well then, think about it. Does a sportsman need a military grade rifle to go hunting, or are Bambi and Thumper carrying grenade launchers?

        1. wayne M December 15, 2012

          well there has been a lot of talk about guns and i agree that military grade weapons should be banned from the public use and ourchase guns for self protection and hunting is one thing but it doesn,t take an assault rifle for that .also i might add that people with mental issues should be banned from purchaseing any weapon and should be listed as such in the crime data base and back ground checksthey have the same potential as sex offenders and can strike anywhere at any time if they are not monatered and kept in check .all of the last few mass shootings were by mentally ill people who shouldn,t have the right to posses a weapon .wake up america see where the problem really is .assault weapons and nuts that that buy them?

          1. Lee Stewart-Taylor December 15, 2012

            People with mental illness and criminals are banned from owning weapons.. but that doesn’t stop them from getting guns from people who don’t mind breaking the law. Instead of banning the weapons, which are neutal until they get into the hands of people, how about increasing penalties for illegal gun sales.

        2. MrStoneheep December 15, 2012

          I’m curious as to what is “military grade” in your opinion? Is this a relative to “assault weapon”, which I’ve also never seen a good description of. What exactly do these terms mean? Are they describing the actions’ functionality, the capacity, the appearance, what? If you mean fully automatic as in hold the trigger back and it will fire until empty, those laws
          are already in place and have been since 1932. A Thompson was a fully automatic and is of WWII fame. That’s “military grade”. Likewise with an M16, also fully automatic, and a military version of the AK47. The AK47 we see in the hands of sportsmen and the AR15 are semi-autos, meaning they automatically load the next round, but do NOT autmatically FIRE the next round. One must relaese and again pull the trigger for it to again fire,
          hence the term SEMI-automatic. An 1100 Remington and Ithaca Auto5
          (shotguns) do the same thing, auto feed the next round but do not fire the next round. The anti-gun left has been very good at deceptively confusing these issues. Before we can have good discourse as to how to fix the problems, we need have a total understanding of what we are all talking about and then speak of the same thing. Interestingly, the fully automatic weapons that are ALREADY illegal to but a few and are the preferred of the gangbangers and the drug smugglers get into the hands of these folks not from the averaqge American citizen, but arrive there through our military and though our police, and come in illegally through smuggling.
          Then there’s the occasional Fast and Furious, but who cares,huh?

          1. Tony Vittal December 15, 2012

            Here is a simple way to analyze the issue: look at it from the perspective of the framers of the Constitution in 1789. The nation was structured as a federation of states. There was no national army. As a result, the nation relied on the state militias for its defense. Those militias were staffed by persons who bought and brought their own weapons, uniforms, and other equipment. Thus, the Second Amendment posited that “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.” I know that the Supreme Court recently glossed over the predicate to “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” but submit that the logic is faulty. With a national military (including national guard units – the modern equivalent of state militias) armed and equipped by the Government, the predicate no longer exists.

            Even assuming that the predicate is an unnecessary condition precedent to the “right,” what were “Arms” in the minds of the framers? They were single-shot muzzle-loaded ball muskets and pistols of limited accuracy, and edged weapons such as swords and bayonets. They were not highly accurate automatic or semi-automatic firearms with magazines holding up to 30 rounds of ammunition, much less sniper rifles capable of delivering a kill shot from miles away.

            Had Mr. Lanza appeared at the elementary school in Newtown, CT, with a muzzle-loader, he doubtless would have been overwhelmed by faculty and staff as he attempted to reload after his first shot, and at least 25 of the 26 lives he took today would have been spared.

            As a civilized nation, we no longer can tolerate the senseless killing of innocent civilians by crazed gunmen defended by the NRA and its sycophants. The time has come for us to stand up together, as a nation, and say, “Enough!” We can start by

            — requiring mental health clearance and licensure (by the state or federal government) in the safe and proper use of firearms as a condition precedent to the right to purchase any firearm.

            — requiring the prior licensure (by the state or federal government) of any firearm to a specific owner, who shall be the only person authorized to possess and use it, and making possession of an unlicensed firearm a mandatory felony.

            — making it a crime to transfer possession of a firearm without prior licensure of the transferee (by the state or federal government), and impose civil and criminal liability on the transferor equal to that of the transferee if the handgun is used in the commission of any crime.

            I realize that standing up to the gun lobby and the gangs in our country requires immense courage, but we have to retake control of our collective safety and destiny.

          2. Cairndance December 15, 2012

            Since the 2nd ammendment requires a “well regulated Militia” then I think that all of the “Second Ammendment Gun Owners” need to be required to sign up for the National Guard! Only then will they be actually following the Second Ammendment!

          3. dtgraham December 15, 2012

            You’re making too much sense.

          4. leadvillexp December 16, 2012

            While some of what you said makes sense, the part about the Second Amendment is wrong. At the time the government was England and the took away the Americans arms to control the people. The framers of the Constitution saw that could happen with a new government also. Therefore the people should have arms equal to the government to check this. Times change and so do weapons. You are right about training and licensing. This could be done by the States while controled by the Federal Government. Attached to your drivers license and renewed every five years like Hazmat is. But no registration as this allows the government to confinscate if they want to remove all firearms, much like King George.

          5. Albert Buchheit January 14, 2013

            Analyze this Tony. No laws passed will deter the criminal or the insane. So in your scenario the teachers would be loading their flintlocks while the mass murderer would be killing them with his “unauthorized” weapon. I think the biggest problem we have is that the people who want to change the laws about gun ownership know nothing about guns. Having a ban on high capacity clips will do nothing to decrease the damage that can be done by a criminal with a gun. You can change a clip in less than a second.

          6. tim102 January 16, 2013

            With a national military (including national guard units – the modern equivalent of state militias) armed and equipped by the Government, the predicate no longer exists.

            It is the by the Government (ONLY) thats the problem, An armed populace is the only thing that keeps politicians ( Government from just running Amuck)

            There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century — from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad — have disarmed their people, and only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.

          7. James Gray December 15, 2012

            MrStoneheep, Is this a discussion you would be willing to have? Would you be willing to ban “military grade” weapons recognizing that at this instant in time we do not have a good definition. Would you be willing to have the dialogue to attempt define “military grade”? You do make some good points. We do need to get to the place that we do not talk past each other. I do take exception to rpg1408 who says “no one should own a gun”.

          8. George December 15, 2012

            MrStoneheep, I can tell that you are a gun lover and is very knowledgeable about weapons. Nevertheless, High capacity magazine weapons need to be illegal.

          9. MrStoneheep December 15, 2012

            George, THERE, I will NOT argue with you. I had no problem with that for the ten years we didn’t have high cap mags. You see, all my rifles are bolt action rifles of the hunting variety. Yes, some will call them sniper rifles but only because the military adopted the outdoorsman’s guns for their purpose and we need ask why. Because they are the best for long range accuracy, plain and simple. I have several shotguns, all but two being either pump guns or over and under, mostly OU’s. Then the 1100 Remington that holds 5 w/o the plug and 3 with, and the swame for the Ithaca Mag5. I don’t have many handguns, but what I do have are all cylinder guns (revolvers) of either 5 or 6 shots only. High capacity magazines I’ve no use for, and there really wasn’t a lot of quibling even from the NRA on that issue, but it was a “sunset” law passed during the first Bush’s Presidency and the sun set on it a couple years ago, mainly because it was decided it really had no affect on the crime levels of the gangbangers and the drug folks. Didn’t surprise most of us ‘gunnuts’ but it did Congress and they just let the sun set on it, kinda’ like what’s going to happen in a few days with this ‘cliff ‘ thing if our leader doesn’t get over his ego problem. (before you start, I’m a Democrat and I voted for him)

          10. Ed December 15, 2012

            While it is true that snipers during the Viet Nam era were using stock hunting riifles, that was because the military had never planned on having snipers. Early on USMC armorers began custom making sniper rifles for my beloved corps. The army was a little slower.Now of course we use the 50 caliber, prohibited by the Geneva Convention against human target. But hey, the government always cherry picks what laws they will obey. And it cannot be denied that in todays battlefield environment the 50 cal is a VERY NEEDED WEAPON>

          11. oregon69 December 15, 2012

            When Black kids are killed ever day in cities around the U.S. and you say that is ok but when white kids are killed by another white person now is so bad to have guns.Please ,Why don’t you have the same rage when black kid’s are killed. Killing people is wrong no matter what color,and I hope when you ask that guns be taken also from street kids who are killing each other, daily because much different reasons. Mabey jobs and access to free mental health care would be a start. No you ass holes I did not say one has a right to kill because they do not have a job:But a unstable person that can not get free mental health help that a different story.FREE MENTal HEALTH CARE would be a good start

          12. browninghipower December 16, 2012

            Maybe, but how about limited=capacity magazines?

          13. Sand_Cat December 15, 2012

            See my answer to Contented1

          14. MrStoneheep December 15, 2012

            Sorry, I’m not going to search anything. If you have something nto say, say it. We’re adukts here.

          15. EdwardS December 16, 2012

            Those with fame will still want their bodyguards to carry.
            Take ALL guns away except for police. See who wants exception and you will hear but I am an elected official or a VIP. I need different rules.
            You can’t stop people with an intent to kill. Look at the four who got sprayed with gas.
            The Gov makes laws that the honest guy follows. By definition the bad guys don’t.

      3. RobertCHastings December 15, 2012

        The gun that was used to assassinate President Kennedy was purchased through mailorder, virtually the same back in the sixties as today’s online. Apparently, that same weapon is still available to anyone who cares to log in. How long will it take for Mr. LaPierre et al to get their heads out of their nether regions and realize that reasonable gun control advocates have no hidden agenda to deprive the vast majority of gun toters of their weapons or of their right to use such. In ALL of the incidents enumerated in the above article the perpetrators were individuals with some sort of identifiable (and treatable) mental illness. The perpetrator at the Clackamas mall had legally obtained weapons, as did Jared Loughner, as did Mr. Lanza in Newtown, CT, as did the man who shot President Reagan, etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Shootings at malls, schools, public places, etc. that reach the level of atrocious acts are generally committed by people with mental health issues, people who do not need to have any access to firearms. By depriving these individuals access to firearms, regulation will in no way affect those of us who wish to own weapons. Mr. Lanza’s mother was, supposedly, a collector, and frequently took her family target shooting. Until the jury comes in on his mental state, I find it extremely difficult to understand how she could have seen no harm in allowing this young man access to her weapons. There is absolutely no good reason for any publicly owned firearm to be able to be fitted with a high-capacity magazine

      4. robertl December 15, 2012

        I totally agree, I use to hunt in the late 60s and early 70s we could not have a weapon that allowed more than 3 rounds in it and 1 in the chamber. I think we should go back to similar laws, the hand guns should not clip over 6 rounds,if you are target practicing you can readliy change a clip.If you are
        assaulting a group of people at least they have chance when you are changing clips, and assault rifles where is the sport in feeding deer and assaulting them with a gun like this. There is no reqason for them to be on the streets ,these guns should be ban and NRA should be a sport about it if they reallly are sportsman. How can we allow this kind of massacre go on.
        Robert in Fl.

      5. william December 15, 2012

        Your words make perfect sense, and people really need to hear them so that, hopefully, we can all work towards a real life solution to this epidemic affecting our nation. I have long felt that a great deal of the gun lobby rhetoric is fueled by the gun industry in its desire for ever increasing profits.

        To my mind the issue has never been about taking guns away from anyone. It would be a foolhardy exercise doomed to failure from the start. Public safety checkmates your right to own battlefield capacity weapons.

      6. James Weiske December 15, 2012

        moral compass ? over profits. What the hell are you thinking?

      7. Clyde Johnston December 16, 2012

        I don’t hunt, but I do compete in competitions. In three gun competition, you need more than five rounds to complete the course. If someone thinks that taking away guns from law abiding citizens will solve anything, they are wrong. What is to keep someone from strapping a home-made bomb to themselves and hurting even more people. That is also like saying that we need to ban all cars from the roads, so that an idiotic drunk driver will not be able to kill innocent people. Why don’t we find out what causes an individual to do something that a normal person would not.

      8. AlphaPlus December 17, 2012

        The main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for citizens, we the people, to protect ourselves from the tyranny of an oppressive government, as the colonists chose to do in the American Revolution. The rationale in deciding whether a gun should or should not be legal should not be connected back to what is useful or necessary in a hunting situation. Hunting and recreational shooting are not the reasons the forfathers saw fit to instill the right to bear arms in our Constitution. While a need to defend ourselves from our own government may be inconceivable to Americans today, a look at history and even current events around the world will provide countless examples of governments abusing their authority and murdering their own citizens. If you think abuse of power will never happen to that extent in America, 1) take a look at history and observe how tyrannical governemnts can take power gradually (the rise of the Nazis in Germany and their atrocities seem surreal even today), 2) you don’t pay attention to the abuses of power by politicians who will do whatever we let them get away with (I would never have thought I would see politicians getting away with blatant voter suppression for example) and 3) consider that the reason our government would never go that far today is precisely because we have the right to bear arms in our Constitution, and our people will fight back when our families are threatened. We will not go quietly in railcars like cattle to the slaughter. While I abhor the idea of assault weapons in the hands of criminals and crazies and am appalled and saddened by the recent mass shootings, I am also mindful of the potential for atrocities committed by governments on their own citizens, especially those who are defenseless or whose means of defense pale in comparison to what soldiers have in their arsenals. There are a lot of sick people in the world: some of them decide to shoot up a school, some of them take power through government where they can do even more damage to our world. Al Assad in Syria, Milosevic in Serbia… Our politicians in America may do many immoral things but they will never be able to get away with mass murdering our own citizens. Don’t ever forget how forunate we are to live in this great country and the 2nd Amendment is a big part of that. God bless America.

      9. Mike Hanson December 17, 2012

        “Back in the 70’s when we were having trouble with plane hijacking and metal detectors were installed in airports, the gun industry started development of synthetic and composite stocks in a seeming effort to thwart detection of weapons via metal detectors.”

        Sorry Moby, but thats a crock of $hit. Synthetics reduce the weight of the stock, but the other half of the gun is still metal. In addition to that, gun manufacturers HAVE ALWAYS mixed metal shavings into the composite mixtures used for stocks and pistol lowers so they show up just as clearly on x-ray scanners and metal detectors as their all metal counterparts.

      10. Megiddo January 1, 2013

        Hey Rev. Tom… pay attention. Number 4 BUCK has 27, .22 cal. pellets in each round. 27 x 5 = 135 .22 caliber rounds flying in a spread out fashion. All can be accomplished in 3 seconds or less. Those trained in combat reloading can add several hundred pellets per minute. It’s not about hunting and plinking…It’s about Government tyranny. Assault weapons have been banned since the 30’s, they require a select fire switch. Before you Liberal ‘bungholes’ give up my rights…learn and know what you are talking about. (00 Buck, comes in a 9 pellets of .30 cal per round.) Less injured in a crowded area but more deadly) signed – Former NRA Police Firearms Instructor.

      11. 1OldGunny1 January 4, 2013

        Obviously you have never been feral hog hunting son. Nor do you live around Laredo near the border where banditos, coyotes (human kind) and drug cartel members roam. And besides, the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting at all.

        No modern military in their right mind would equip their soldiers with these so-called “assault rifles” that are basically semi-automatic rifles that merely look like the military versions. They are not. Nor are they really “assault rifles” because they are not capable of select-fire operation.

        Nobody is faking their identify buying online. Please show me where one can buy online and bypass federal regulations and have firearms delivered directly to them without a FFL license. One doesn’t prove their identity online. They prove it when they attempt to pick up their firearm(s) purchase at a federally licensed dealer. Then the appropriate Tobacco & Firearms paperwork is filled out and the NICS background check from the FBI is run. No different then buying one from a big-box retailer like Gander Mountain or Bass Pro Shops.

        Stop spreading ignorance and/or lies & misinformation. Educate yourself.

      12. Hassan Nød January 7, 2013

        in switzerland 1 out of every 2 citizens has guns, but they still have the lowest crime rate in the world
        and here in Denmark we have the strictest gun laws in EU (we are not even allowed to own a knife with a blade over 2 inches)
        but we still have gang related shootings almost every week
        So i call bullshit on gun laws

      13. payleryder45 January 8, 2013

        Quit fibbing. There is no such thing as “online gun sales” in which it is easier to “fake their identity.” If you buy a gun online, it gets shipped to an FFL (a dealer) to conduct the necessary transfer and checks as required by state law.

      14. ZhongZhang January 9, 2013

        Sorry, Reverend. I respectfully disagree. When you disarm the people, you victimize them. Hitler and Stalin agree. It starts with registration, then confiscation. I know so many Americans believe that if we could just get rid of the guns all crime would stop. Reverend, our violent crime rate has dropped 50% in the last twenty years, as have our homicides. 50%. Britain, for all of their anti-gun policies, has a violent crime rate 3.5 times HIGHER than ours.

        Last year, only 3.5% of violent crimes were committed with a rifle. These are from FBI stats easily obtainable from their site. You would do better to focus on our society of poverty, poor education, lack of parenting, and the meds that nearly all of these mass shooters have been on.

        And online gun sales are NOT easier to fake. The weapon MUST be shipped to an FFL who will verify identify and run the background check.

      15. Whett Phartz January 10, 2013

        Um. Seriously? Synthetic and composite stocks to foil metal detectors? Did you forget about the barrel and internal components being made of… imagine… METAL? How about using those synthetics to REDUCE WEIGHT. LOL! Not that! It’s all about sneaking onto aircraft. LOL!

        Idiotic hunting arguments by moronic Fudds. The Founders didn’t fight a bloody insurrection and then proclaim the right to bear arms so that you could hunt deer. They did it so that people like you couldn’t oppress people like me, at least, not without a fight.

        Online gun sales make it easier to hide one’s identity? Are you serious? HINT: All firearms sales have to go through an FFL, who has to perform a background check. Get it? Do I need to repeat myself? All firearms sales online need to be delivered to an FFL holder, who then requires the buyer to fill out a form, and a background check is done through the FBI’s database.

        Selfish, ignorant, falsehood-spreading Fudds think that they’re hanging others out to dry, until nobody is left to defend their “right to hunt”.

        They’ll come for you too, “Reverend Doctor”.

      16. Brian_R_Allen January 13, 2013

        …. semi-auto Browning BAR holds five rounds–that’s it, five rounds. In any hunting situation that is more than enough ….

        Hate to break this to you but nowhere in the united States’ Constitution is “hunting” mentioned and — with regard that document and our beloved republic’s Rule of Law that flows from it — nor does your opinion nor mine matter a damn as to how many rounds is enough in this that and/nor the other magazine.

        The Constitution’s Second Amendment Absolutely Forbids the government We The People own operate and control disarming us for its purpose of grabbing total power over us.

        + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +


        “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole People. To disarm The People is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
        George Mason
        Co-author of the Second Amendment
        during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

        “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact The People themselves …”
        Richard Henry Lee
        writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

        “The People are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them.”
        Zachariah Johnson
        Elliot’s Debates, vol. 3 “The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.”

        “… The People are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”
        Philadelphia Federal Gazette
        June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
        Article on the Bill of Rights

        “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent The People Of The united States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
        Samuel Adams
        quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”


        “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American People’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
        George Washington
        First President of the United States

        “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
        Thomas Paine

        “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
        Richard Henry Lee
        American Statesman, 1788

        “The great object is that every man be armed.” and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
        Patrick Henry
        American Patriot

        “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
        Patrick Henry
        American Patriot

        “Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”
        Thomas Jefferson
        Third President of the United States

        “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … ”
        Thomas Jefferson
        letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

        “The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
        Alexander Hamilton
        The Federalist Papers at 184-8

      17. Al Metcalf January 14, 2013

        blah blah blah blah, THE SECOND AMENDMENT DOES NOT LIST DUCK HUNTING YOU FRIGGIN MORON! It is about keeping the hitler obamas and the czars like Pelosi out of our lives anymore than they already are and they KNOW that and that’s why they want to take away these guns you idiot.

      18. steve0321 January 15, 2013

        You’re an idiot. There is functionally NO DIFFERENCE between an AR-15 and your Browning BAR. Both are gas operated semi-automatic rifles. The difference is in the magazine, not the firearm. If a high capacity magazine were available for your BAR then there wouldn’t even be a mag difference! An AR-15 is NOT a military grade weapon. Give a AR to a soldier in Afghanistan and he will be very angry AND out-gunned by the enemy.
        Synthetic stocks, etc were NOT created to thwart metal detectors! Where do you get this garbage from? Synthetics were created to cut down on the weight of the firearm.
        Also, the 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting, target shooting, or personal defense. Try reading what the Founding Fathers had to say about the issue!

      19. Randy Patterson January 15, 2013

        Rev.Dr.Tom, have you read our Constitution? The Second Amendment doesn’t mention hunting or sport or crime control, and for a very good reason too.

        We are bidden to bear arms as a deterrent against governmental tyranny, pure and simple. That is why our Right and Duty to bear arms is codified into Law and specifically placed beyond the reach of Congress or the Judiciary or the Executive Branches; only through a Constitutional Amendment may government infringe on our Rights and Duty to bear arms.
        And if you read the supporting documentations, such as the various Militia Acts, you can follow clearly delineated reasoning dating from about 1760 up through today, expressing the need for We the People to be armed in similar fashion to what arms federal agents might bear.

        That is precisely why the term ‘arms’ is used in the Second Amendment, instead of ‘musket’ or ‘hunting weapon’…so as to cause We the People to be able to procure and maintain firearms similar to any arms which may be used against us.

        So you nor the entire weight of the government may NOT infringe on our modern arms; that is, we must have, do have and SHALL have self-loading center-fire rifles. Nor may you cripple said arms by attempting to limit magazines or any other accessories/accoutrements needed to mount a successful/reliable deterrent.

        ONLY through a Constitutional Amendment sir – all else is that very tyranny we guard against.
        Molon Labe!

        We have crime problems, not ‘gun control’ problems. We have crime problems caused by a broken society and government and broken homes and lack of morality, but we do not have a gun control problem.
        We DO have agendas seeking to disarm We the People, and it will not come to pass without fierce resistance. Millions of us have taken oaths to defend the Constitution and unlike the government we WILL Honor our oaths.
        Again, Molon Labe!

      20. tim102 January 16, 2013

        The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. And yet, the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.
        When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a break on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.
        As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government, and as our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior — like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy — immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.
        Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties; they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.
        The essence of humanity is freedom. Government — whether voted in peacefully or thrust upon us by force — is essentially the negation of freedom. Throughout the history of the world, people have achieved freedom when those in power have begrudgingly given it up. From the assassination of Julius Caesar to King John’s forced signing of the Magna Carta, from the English Civil War to the triumph of the allies at the end of World War II, from the fall of Communism to the Arab Spring, governments have permitted so-called nobles and everyday folk to exercise more personal freedom as a result of their demands for it and their fighting for it. This constitutes power permitting liberty.
        The American experience was the opposite. Here, each human being is sovereign, as the colonists were after the Revolution. Here, the delegation to the government of some sovereignty — the personal dominion over self — by each American permitted the government to have limited power in order to safeguard the liberties we retained. Stated differently, Americans gave up some limited personal freedom to the new government so it could have the authority and resources to protect the freedoms we retained. Individuals are sovereign in America, not the government. This constitutes liberty permitting power.
        But we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else’s natural rights. Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn’t. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government’s whims.
        To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the Founders incorporated Jefferson’s thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment. As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver.
        There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century — from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad — have disarmed their people, and only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.
        The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.
        We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties; they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.
        The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, thus, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis did, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.
        Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.
        Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?

      21. Chuck Burgess January 16, 2013

        Don’t get it, do you Tom? You are right. Those weapons are for war. What in hell do you think the American are facing right now? A garden party? Patriotic Americans will soon have no choice but to take up arms. The Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting. It is about ensuring that no government can become a dictatorship in America. Wise up, pal, and fix your own damn moral compass.

      22. sean_sandeen January 22, 2013


        1) Magazines are independent of the weapon. Some “assault weapon” owners might only have a 10-round mag. At the same time there are non-assault weapon rifles that do use magazines, including ones that hold 30+ rounds. So that assertion is false.

        2) There are applications other than battlefields. Like target shooting. Or home defense against multiple intruders. Or people like me that are soldiers but want to buy our own magazines because the government-issued ones are garbage.

        3) Sorry, but composite stocks are there to lighten the weapon, not bypass metal detectors. That is an extremely ignorant claim. First of all, a wood stock will also not register on a metal detector. Second, even the earlier metal detectors were able to detect pistols while current ones are much more sensitive. So once again your claim is false.

        4) Yes of course they made slight modifications to bypass the assault weapons ban. It was a stupid ban to begin with. It targeted cosmetic features instead of caliber or function. If you passed a law banning black guns, would you honestly be surprised to see them start appearing in blue?

        5) It is not the company’s responsibility for what people do. Furthermore, “assault weapons” are used in a tiny fraction of crime. Less than any other type of firearm, less than clubs/hammers, less than knives, less than bare hands.

      23. Ross Bagley January 23, 2013

        First, the second amendment to the US Constitution has exactly nothing to do with hunting. So your opinion of what hunters need has exactly nothing to do with the right protected by the Constitution.

        It’s a good job that you’ve never needed more than three rounds. I have also had two hunting situations where I needed a second shot, but in both cases, I used my sidearm for the finishing shot instead of my rifle.

        I was in another situation while hunting where I didn’t see a pack of feral hogs until almost too late. I was able to get to a tree and climb it in time. But I was extremely happy that my sidearm was a powerful handgun and that I had plenty of ammo with me. If the tree hadn’t been near enough, I might have needed to defend myself against twenty five pissed off hogs and a single shot rifle probably wouldn’t have done the trick.

      24. Cynicles January 25, 2013

        The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or self defense.

        The sole purpose of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution is for the public to be capable of and to remain armed to prevent and if necessary, remove a tyranous government.

        Read the 2nd amend. before you speak about guns to avoid coming accross as an ignoramous – pleasant or otherwise.

        Gun Control is solely about people control.

        No mention of the the terrible psyco-type drugs these teens (the shooters) have been on nor the outragous dosages they were taking.

        For people to say they are concerned and then speak of the guns being the problem…moronic and ignorant.

        Are cars to blame for drunk driving deaths?

        Should we remove all cars or look at the real (ie: the root cause) of the problem -> alcohalism. Most grade school kids could come to a resaonable conclusion on that issue.

        The cars nor the guns are responsible for these killings.

        All reason & logic have been abandoned by so many people…

      25. Charles Williams February 4, 2013

        Something is wrong with your reply. You start with some good points and then you reveal your ignorance and con on many levels, so i wont count your reply as genuine. Example, on the issue of online gun sales, if you are really a shooter youd know nobody can fake an identity and buy a gun online anywhere in USA. Old guns can be sold via BATF C&R Licenses or licensed dealers and newer guns can only be shipped to a licensed dealer who then sells it to you. In either case you would have to prove your age and qualifications for ownership. Your post tries to make other ignorant people believe a 9-year old can buy a gun with a few mouse clicks. Stop telling people lies and if you didnt outright lie, get an education about sales before you post. Your con job didnt work. Better luck next time!

      26. 0802USMC February 5, 2013

        Granted, Dr…hunters do not need 100 rds for a hunt, but the 2d Amemdment has nothing to do with hunting; you need to do your research so you don’t show your ignorance. Obviously, you’ve never purchased a gun online as the buyer still has to receive the gun from a dealer with a federal firearms license who conducts the usual background check, etc.

      27. libsbite February 10, 2013

        You do understand the Communist NBC has made up those so called facts. A mini gun for GOD SAKEs you should see a lie when you hear it. If its to good to be true its a lie. Those AR guns have only been responsible for a fraction of the gun murders Less than 1%. Also as a reverand how many people have you caused to kill themselves. Religion is under assault for a good reason Pastors that are liars. Like that lie you said about the stocks going synthetic! They were trying to get the weight down and keep the strength, its the same we did for aircraft. maybe we should ban all airliners because of acts like 9-11. As a former soldier I know idiots like you are the cause of all problems. liars make good politicians and pastors. One line sales have never gone directly to a buyer. Only a fool like you would say that, well also NBC. They still have to be done in person. Suicide is your job Rev so tell me why 2 to 3 times as many people kill themselves as compared to gun violence? Moral decay and liar in office and in church would be my guess

      28. fred February 16, 2013


      29. the7thson August 18, 2013

        Nice try, poser. A real hunter or target shooter wouldn’t believe the crap you’re spewing here. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Why somebody needs a standard-capacity (20 or 30 round) magazine is none of your goddamn business. A real hunter or target shooter would also know that there is NO SUCH THING as an assault rifle. A real hunter or target shooter would also know that ANY online gun sale MUST go through a dealer with a FFL (who WOULD require a valid ID before turning over a weapon to a buyer. Like I said…nice try, poser.

      30. the7thson September 16, 2013

        The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting, so don’t bring in that red herring. As for the 2nd Amendlment, what part of “shall NOT be infringed” is not clear to you? This is the ONLY right in the Bill of Rights on which the framers of the Constitution felt that there should be NO restrictions of ANY kind. BTW, I’ll save you a trip to the dictionary…”infringe” means “limit”.

    3. stcroixcarp December 15, 2012

      Believe what you like, but owning and using these weapons of mass destruction is evil. The NRA is evil and so are the gun manufacturers and sellers and gun owners. These weapons are designed to do one thing–kill.

      1. Larry Brown December 15, 2012

        Yes, to kill BAD GUYS. The kind who break into your home and rape and murder your wife and daughter. I will kill them. You can watch them rape YOUR wife and daughter. Given your simplified acumen, I would not be surprised if you jerk off while you watch.

        1. Hillbilly December 15, 2012

          Who was the bad guy in the children and adults that were murdered ? You say that is the reason to have your guns so who was the bad guy in the group of 20 children and 6 adults killed by the gunman?

          1. Alandro Berry December 15, 2012

            Hillbilly: You just made a common sense statement. Refreshing!

    4. Ibsyboy December 15, 2012

      I think the conversation should include the reason to have a gun. Hunting, okay. A “sport” in decline. Gun manufacturers and gun shops deal more in hand guns than hunting rifles. I visited the Pocono Mountains last summer, to visit relatives. My relatives neighbor offered to take up to a large tract of land to do some target shooting.

      There were other enthusiasts there when we arrived. I had never fired a real weapon. Carnival shooting gallery was my entire experience with guns.

      My first real weapon was an Uzi. Wow, what an experience. Amazing accuracy. Next was a Block. I can see how hard it would be to be accurate with this gun, it jerked violently when fired.

      One enthusiast had a 50 caliber sniper rifle. He fired it once and in no time state troopers arrived. The gun was hidden until they left. Apparently 50 caliber weapons are on some list. My question was, why do people need Uzis and 50 caliber sniper rifles and extended clips for their hand guns?

      That is a discussion we should be having. The 2nd amendment is vague and open to translation. “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.”

      With out the first part of the sentence it can be applicable to the contemporary argument. There was an issue of colonial America that begins the sentence: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” followed by a coma.
      The coma usually implies the the first part of the sentence is associated with the second. So an equally fair reading would be. The Colonies needed people to have guns as a means of having a militia. Thomas Jefferson, etal., were very cautious and specific men. I would think they would have been much clearer by including hunting and personal defense. At that time the British were an on going threat well after the war of independence. There were Royalists of influence in the government. And an encroachment by the British was an ongoing concern. Therefore a need for Militias and gun possession. But this argument has been made, so enough on my part.

      Also, people were expected under law to make their weapons available to the colonial Army. There were not enough weapons in Colonial America at that time. What weapons there were, were for hunting and killing Native Americans.

    5. James B December 15, 2012

      The Second amendment does not allow people to keep and bear arms WITHOUT RESTRICTION. You should read the applicable US Supreme Court cases and educate yourself.

    6. gargray December 15, 2012

      Have you served in the Army Marines or Navy? I am a ardent hunter to but I served in the army in Korea and the weapons we have today are so sophisticated like Obama said we don’t have as many sowards and spears. A M-1 would sniper rifle would shoot about a mile the new sniper rifle will shoot five miles, just think I could shoot my neighbor five miles from his place. I don’t want my neighbor to own a rifle like that.

    7. Sand_Cat December 15, 2012

      I agree that the second amendment allows individuals to be armed “without restriction.”
      So, where do I buy my 50-megaton thermonuclear warhead, and should I get an ICBM or settle for an IRBM to launch it?

    8. ivory69690 December 16, 2012

      may the next nut case get a gun from on line and put a shot in between your eyes . but of course may thy tell you before the last thing you hear (BANG). is i have the right to bar arms . or maybe hit a few of your love ones first then get to you .

    9. Green Forward December 16, 2012

      The gun nuts really came out for this story. Can’t believe this comment got 16 likes. Why don’t you take your militaristic interpretation of the 2nd amendment and take it to a war zone like Afghanistan. We want a peaceful society here in the United States, not battleground USA. And we don’t need another amendment, we need common sense gun safety regulations like every other industry and every other civilized nation on planet Earth. Get a grip.

    10. Ibsyboy December 26, 2012

      But generally with a hunting rifle the sighted target is game, not human beings. Bullets travel a trajectory in the general direction the barrel is pointed, whether it be game or other humans. The results are the same, death.

      Now there is a sensitivity to the value of hunting, what ever it might be. It stopped being a sport when you were able to kill at great distances and hunting for food is now not the only manner in which to attain food.

      It’s no longer a sport, the only defense the animal has is not being seen. But there are devices and scents to lure the animal out into the open to kill it.

      Now hunting for humans, that’s even less of a sport, they do not know you are coming, they are not prepared to fend you off, and the rapidity of modern weapons gives the edge to the shooter, with body armor, extended clips and semi automatic conversion, to full auto, kits.

      The British are no longer coming. Our more capable enemies are as well armed as the USA. For the macho men in Militias high in the mountains of America and the White Supremacists. Neither is any match for the US Military.

      These guys will surrender in a heart beat, they are all wind, beer, meth and BS. The second people start dying around them they will quit.

      This Freedom BS preached by the Right Wing is founded in the Right Wing not getting it’s own paranoid way, therefore they proclaim an impingement of their freedom. Then there is their paranoid delusions of grandeur. Taking on the US Military in a battle royale for control of the USA. Can you imagine those dolts trying to command a complex society they have chosen to ignore and hold in contempt.

      The Syrians know what the lack of freedom really is, and they have been paying with their lives for many tears. Not some silly gun law fear.

    11. Ibsyboy December 27, 2012

      Thomas Jefferson. He had his clothes made in Paris, his furniture custom made in Germany, was well educated, well read, and had high hopes the future of America would follow his elite view of America as a well educated, sophisticated, well versed in various philosophies, but also the value of the little man in our society. . He imported cases of French Champagne, Cheeses from England and France, he knew about nice things. But conservatives see that as a bad thing, due to the fact they know nothing about nice things.

      If you are looking for some one here in the USA, you would have only to look in the Liberal world. Where the emphasis is on the humanities as well as Business Degrees, and Medical Degrees. A well rounded education, an understanding of other cultures, an acceptance of color, gender and sexual preference.

      Funny how you now disparage people who work hard for their money to buy things reflective of their success. Nice clothes, good wines, fine dining, urbanity, world travel.
      Now their success is demeaned, becasue it is not YOUR kind of success.

      Look around, we are still driving an archaic form of locomotion, the internal combustion engine. This is the 21srt century and we are still igniting explosive fuel to create acceleration. I read popular science as a kid, they predicted electric cars. The GOP’s hard core support of the Oil giants has stunted the progress in automotive advancement. We are still burning coal (a 19th Century idea) to create electricity, again another industry favored by the GOP, and again stunted technological advancement in electricity production.

      Your side are anti progressive in philosophy and science and the advancement of our society. Your concern with the Wealth structure and the idealized view that money and wealth are all that matter, has left the USA looking at the rest of the world zoom by us in technology. The Chinese are way ahead of us in solar technology, the Japanese kicked our asses with better built and better performance automobiles, and electronics. We are buying our own technological ideas developed in America which suffered from the lack of funding or threat to the oil and coal industries, to keep ahead of the world, so the inventors and idea people were lured away by foreign countries to develop the technology for them.

      Perfect example: William Deming: In Japan, from 1950 onwards, he taught top management how to improve design (and thus service), product quality, testing, and sales (the last through global markets) through various methods, including the application of statistical methods.

      His ideas were rejected by the Conservative mindset in Post World War II. They shipped him out to Japan to do the census for post war japan, ,to stop him from preaching his new ideas as to how to do business more effectively. The Japanese loved him, he is responsible for the success of Post War Japan. The Japanese created the Deming Award, the most prestigious award given to Companies that excel.

      He told Ford that management actions were responsible for 85% of all problems in developing better cars. Not the workers or their Unions. In 1986, taking Deming’s direction, Ford came out with a profitable line of cars, the Taurus-Sable line.

      Think about it,from 1950 on , an American was helping the Japanese kick our butt.
      36 years later Ford hires him to help them out of a 3 Billion dollar mismanagement mess. That’s 36 years he could have been here in the USA helping our auto companies, rather than helping Toyota become the number one automobile company in the world. Some of his ideas were better wages, health care, retirement packages, rotation of jobs, and regulated working shifts, to avoid stress and inefficiency. Now you know why he was banished to Japan. No conservative in his right mind would have bought that out look for America.

      Could you ever imagine an American Company buying into the Deming philosophy. We are an instant gratification crazy people. Long range success is anathema to our get rich quick financial markets. Take overs, bankruptcies for a quick profit. It’s is an insanity encouraged by the GOP’s support of wealth for wealth’s sake and money and wealth are the answer to everything.

    12. Mark Fan January 14, 2013

      I believe in the tooth fairy. Doesn’t mean I am correct.

    13. abunudnik January 19, 2013

      The Constitution does not give rights but forbids Congress from passing laws infringing upon those rights.

  5. Dominick Vila December 15, 2012

    I am anxiously waiting for the NRA and gun manufacturers to reiterate their conviction that guns don’t kill people, people do. I suspect very few families in Connecticut and throughout the United States will find comfort in their message. Guns may be inanimate objects, but they sure make it easier for psychopaths and criminals to carry out their nefarious deeds. Our goal should not be to use Gunfight at the OK Corral as a model for how life ought to be in America, our goal should be to find ways to coexist peacefully, prosper, and enjoy life to the fullest.
    The lives of 20 innocent children were cut short by a man who was able to buy a Remington .223 caliber assault weapon and enough ammunition to destroy a community. People of good will should not tolerate things like this. It is incumbent on all of us to send a clear message to Congress demanding action to end the carnage that is transforming the streets of America into a war zone. Enough!

    1. onedonewong December 15, 2012

      You seem to have no problem with the IRS taking your $$ at the point of a gun. Your issue isn’t guns its the reason they are being used

      1. George December 15, 2012

        When has the IRS EVER taken anyone’s $$ at the point of a gun? Never! I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you otherwise, but at least keep it real!

        1. Hillbilly December 15, 2012

          He doesn’t know how to keep anything real

        2. onedonewong December 15, 2012

          are you under a drug induced coma??

          1. Sand_Cat December 16, 2012

            No, that’s your coma you’re experiencing.

  6. nobsartist December 15, 2012

    I believe that it is time to make ammo illegal. The nuts can keep their guns but the 2nd amendment says nothing about the right to buy ammo.

  7. Timothy Flanagan December 15, 2012

    What is wrong with you?? Do you thing GUN CONTROLE is going to keep guns out of the bad guys hands?? Do you think the bad guys go through a background check and fill out paperwork for the guns?? The bad guys are ALWAYS going to get guns. Check your facts, the majority of guns used in crimes are brought in from overseas, and sold on the streets, not from a dealer. Gun controle will only hurt the honest American, and make it hard for him to get a gun. “Disarm The People” do you know who said that, Aldolph Hitler!!! Thank God this is America, and we have a Constitution we must follow. You want to stop gun violence, then get them off the streets, not stop the sale to honest Americans.

    1. stcroixcarp December 15, 2012

      Enough already with the Hitler crap! So why wouldn’t “honest” Americans want accountability? Shouldn’t we be going after arms dealers and those illegal weapons deals? Shouldn’t we be tracking guns from the point of manufacture to make sure they are not traded illegally? The only purpose of a gun is to kill. Killing is illegal, not protected by the second amendment or any thing else.

      1. lana ward December 15, 2012

        Killing unborn babies is murder. So WHY is it legal. Slaughtering the most helpless

        1. Hillbilly December 15, 2012

          Unborn babies aren’t murder, the biological matter that female and male mix does not because anything the even resembles a baby until 39 weeks after the two mix before that it is something that could not live outside of the womb and does not resemble a baby at all. Ask women that have had miscarriages in the early stages of pregnancy and they will tell you all there is a bloody blob of nothing when they miscarried.So stop comparing 20 live kindergarten children that were murdered in cold blood to having abortion , those children were living and breathing humans not a bloody mess of biological matter there is when there is an abortion.

          1. lana ward December 15, 2012

            What will unborn babies be if left alone? Frogs?

          2. Alandro Berry December 15, 2012

            You can’t argue with wingnuts. I like guns too but common sense regulations would not be a bad thing. Why does every conversation somehow lead to abortion.

      2. MrStoneheep December 15, 2012

        Interesting questions, and all already answered. Accountability? Myself, yes I do want this, but most Americans today do not. Most want the Government to be accountable not only to them, but also FOR them. Again, I’m a Democrat, but somewhere within accountability comes the 2% argument. Illegal weapons deals? MMmmm…. Fast and Furious comes to mind, but who is stonewalling that one? It’s not the other Party, it’s mine, sorry to say. Track from manufacture forward? Yes and we do. That’s the first and primary function of BATFE. There are other purposes of guns than “to kill”, but it can be argued the other purposes are for the end result being “to kill”, either birds or mammals. It’s my wish our networks would show the Olympic Shooting Sports, but they won’t, even though our shooters on the team were the best in the world at the last Olympics earlier this year. FWIW, I’m a believer all gun owners should also have a gun safe. I do and all my weapons are housed within that safe AT ALL TIMES they are not being used. My safe weighs 13oo pounds, so even in the event of a house invasion, it’s not going with them. Had the shooter’s mother had her three guns locked in the safe, would this have prevented yesterday? Don’t know, but it might have. Accountability? Best question asked today !!
        “Hitler crap”? I agree, it IS overused, but it IS true. If you prefer, more recent ones are also available, like Castro in 1960, Nicaraugua, Honduras, any number of countries in Africa, but the message is all the same; To control the populace, the populace first needs be disarmed. History proves this more times than we care to hear about because it upsets our overly protected sensibilities. One of the bigger lies in our society we see almost every day on most of the police cars in the country; “To Serve And Protect”. How rediculous ! A LEO cannot do ANYTHING until AFTER a crime is commited. He/she cannot protect you from the crime in advance. Accountability? I am accountable to my family and myself to protect them and myself, BY myself.

  8. elijah50 December 15, 2012

    The second amendment sucks. A lot of countries around the world do not have such an amendment and you don’t hear about mass murders in those countries do you. England, France, Germany, Switzerland, need I say more. Wake up America we are not fighting the Brits anymore. George Washington been gone.

    1. Richard Thompson December 15, 2012

      what if all the jews in europe were armed in 1939? would so many have died in ww2?

      1. Hillbilly December 15, 2012

        Yes, because Hitler would have taken their guns the first thing and then proceed with the mass murders.

    2. arkconstable December 15, 2012

      Guess you did not hear about the mass killing on the island last year. Security on the island did not carry guns. Could not do anything to save the people.

      Now what? I pointed out in my last post that Timothy McVeigh did not use a gun, nor did the Sept. 11 thugs. If you want to mass murder, there are plenty of ways.

      What specifically would you outlaw that would have prevented this tragedy? The weapons were bought legally AND registered. Criminal stole them!!!!!

  9. Cory Braverman December 15, 2012

    If they stop Guns they will use Bombs

  10. 13observer December 15, 2012

    WHY DON’T YOU JUST BRING jESUS BACK INTO SCHOOL? But, we don’t want to offend anyone! You can’t just “round up” all the millions of guns so……………….you know……………..like illegal immigration.

    1. dtgraham December 15, 2012

      Bad idea. They’d shoot him.

      1. MrStoneheep December 15, 2012

        On this Mr dt, we agree.

  11. Male_DV_Victim December 15, 2012

    A place where ONLY the government has guns???

    I would not want to live there!

  12. Mimi2kool December 15, 2012

    This is gun porn for all the gun lovers out there.

  13. Male_DV_Victim December 15, 2012

    A place where ONLY the government has guns???

    I would not want to live there!

    1. Kent December 15, 2012

      I live in a country where only the government police forces, certain private guard compaies, , and strictly licensed and registered hunters are allowed to have guns. Neighboring Switzerland has “regulated” milita having certain standard Swiss Army rifles in their homes. But no sane European country has the unlimited access to guns that the U.S. has. Coseqsquently, we have much lower death rates by guns that the U.S.. I don´t miss guns where I live, and feel much better off without them.
      While I lost many of my U.S. childhood friends in the Vietnam war, I advisedly note I lost six – count them – six -gun related incients- three youthful suicides while drunk, one accidental gun discharge icident, and one drug related murder. I personally don´t know of any gun related deaths in Europe. Big difference, don´t you think?

      1. dtgraham December 15, 2012

        It sure is Kent. My own observations on this are that many Americans feel that their Second Amendment gun freedoms are inexplicably intertwined and wrapped up with every other freedom. The feeling seems to be that if this freedom is tampered with, all others will be eventually. It’s opening Pandora’s box. I’ve heard and read this sentiment expressed so often. They simply don’t care. They’ve accepted what happened in CT as one of the costs of ultimate gun freedom which is thought of as ultimate freedom.

        I disagree but, in the end, it’s their country and who’s to say they’re wrong. Whatever they want. Mind you, given that, there are a lot of Americans on this website with far different opinions on guns, and there are a lot of them in fairness.

      2. onedonewong December 15, 2012

        Yep those countries have caused multiple wars and 50 million deaths. what an enlightened group

        1. Sand_Cat December 16, 2012

          Ours probably killed that many in settling here.

          Face it; you’re just a moron with nothing relevant, or even intelligent, to say.

          1. onedonewong December 16, 2012

            yea no doubt the Native population is 1600 was 500 Million according to the left wing nuts

  14. 13observer December 15, 2012

    No guns are deady by themselves….its the nuts who use them illegally……We do nothing about illegal immigration so why do you all of a sudden want to take RIGHTS from law abidding CITIZENS while GIVING RIGHTS TO ILLEGAL ALIENS?

  15. 13observer December 15, 2012


    1. Scott Passmore December 15, 2012

      The automobile’s primary raison d’etre is not to kill someone. Big difference, bro.

      And, it’s harder to get a driver license than to buy a gun.

      1. 13observer December 16, 2012

        why are police allowed to carry guns? Did you say for protection? Say it again please….louder……and what about these democrats trying to take a WOMAN’S RIGHT to protect herself??????????? This will piss off the ladies.

  16. Richard Thompson December 15, 2012

    i would love to know how many mini guns are in private hands. this whole story was meant to make people think crininals own all these weapons. i believe there are existing laws against sending gun to individuals.

  17. Doubting Thomas December 15, 2012

    Stop with the emotional scare tactics al ready/ You gun haters latch on to a tragedy and try to scare the public to death. The statement of no background checks for guns bought on the internet is false. Any weapon purchased on the internet must be shipped to a dealer that has a valid FFL Liscence. you must complete a background check form via ATF or you will not get the weapon. So please stop putting out false info just to mak your case, in this time of crisis.

    1. George December 15, 2012

      What about internet purchases from private sellers, Doubting Thomas?

  18. Charles Shank December 15, 2012

    We should not allow this incident as tragic as it is upon innocent children, to change a constitutional law for our protection as a “NATION”.. actions like these isolate certain individuals not mentally capable of moral thought, to use FEAR without ration for accomplishing the destruction of our already sought after freedoms..Even this being a more frequent occurance than we would want , RATIONALLY” decide what can be done.. Dissarming a nation is not the answer, please consider a bill more thorough in the sale and dispersment of weapons that are used for personal defence & recreation..As hunting or target practice..Don’t blame the NRA for government failure to find answers to the problem.. The lacidasical disclosure of sales of weapons is the problem, I have purchased guns in the past many times..Please find Rational” methods & or alternative methods to control this kind of activity by mental, imoral retards…

  19. Belinda Kachmann December 15, 2012

    Does anyone think guns are deadly? I would argue that it’s the person controlling the gun. How they get them won’t really be an issue if they are bent on killing.

  20. True_Realist December 15, 2012

    Anyone who talks Gun Control, would talk differrently if faced with a life and death situation or their spouse, child, family member, or any loved one. We have a duty to protect our loved ones, and a right to do so. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens will only endanger more lives( As only Law-Abiding Citizens own Registered Guns). The criminals are still going to have their unregistered guns. There is no method in which you could remove all guns from society. Till then, Gun Control is the stupidest idea ever !! A gun kills no matter if it s a .22 cal. or a 50 cal., or if it is a single shot or a full-auto. All this Gun Control or deadliest weapon talk is total hog wash. All I can say is ” Pull your head out, and use your brain.” The governments kill more people with guns than the criminals do. So how about “Government Control” !! Lets Talk about That !!

  21. Jonetta Kurtz December 15, 2012

    You can talk until you are blue in the face but why does a private citizen even need semi-automatic pistols in the first place??? Read that carefully. Pistols. I hunt but I don’t have a semi-automatic rifle. There is no need. AK47s? Why? Think of the police families that have lost loved ones because of someone with a gun who shot their family member and those policemen were armed. The argument of protection is groundless. This was a tragedy of the first order and online buying of weapons should be banned as the first step.

  22. ayayaboy December 15, 2012

    No need for individuals to have more than a hunting gun. You don’t need university or college education to know that. Even a hunting gun should only be sold by the military and police departments.

    1. MrStoneheep December 15, 2012

      I love it. Another sector for the Government to take over. Just what we need. NOT !!!

  23. ExPAVIC December 15, 2012

    Add This

    It is being reported that Lanza used two Glocks in the Newport, CT, massacre.

  24. JohnH December 15, 2012

    Yes, this shooting was very tragic as well as all the others that have happened. But, let’s think this through logically. Instead of blaming the sale of guns and the freedom of owning firearms on these tragedies, we need to examine the real causes.

    First, if we amend the second constitutional amendment, we law-abiding citizens will be at the mercy of every deadbeat, low-life criminal. How do you propose to defend yourself and your loved ones should you be threatened by one thug or a group of thugs? I suppose you’ll try to talk them to death, throw pillows at them, throw rocks at them, etc. My point is that if we ban all firearms, the criminals will be the only ones with the guns. And should you not believe this, look at what is happening in Australia since their gun ban was instituted.

    So now you are blaming the NRA and the sellers of firearms for these acts. Many of you are the exact cause of this. This will probably infuriate many of you, but I don’t care. When my friends and I grew up, most of us had a two parent family. Most of us heard the repeated saying, “Spare the rod, spoil the child.” If we did something really bad, we got a spanking. So, most of us would think twice about repeating that offense or attempting a new one. There were no “timeouts” of any type. I had a friend in high school who grew up with only his mother and aunt. His mother gave him everything he wanted (including a new car) and never punished him for his bad actions. As an adult, he felt that sodiety owed him, and as a result he ended up in prison.

    What is my point? Let me go back thirty-some years to the first beginnings of your stupidity. We began seeing more and more single parents and we also witnessed the beginning of the downfall of a parent being a parent. You were told that you were abusing your child when you spanked them. You were told that spanking was a form of violence and that would promote violence in your child. What a bunch of horse puke. But, this concept has been handed down to your adult children and they have continued this fantasy. What if you and your child or children are in a busy mall parking lot and one or two of them start running away and almost get hit by a vehicle? Do you catch them and tell them they are going to get a timeout when they get home? Or do you spank their little butts and warn them to never do that again? Whivh one of those actions do think they will remember best if they should entertain the thought of running wild in a busy parking lot? If you said timeout, then I say that you are a very lazy and unconcerned parent.

    Now let’s fast-forward to the past few years. You (parents) have allowed the banning of prayer in schools, because it might offend someone. What a crock of cow dung. Many of your children have no sense of values, because you have none yourself. And many times the only place that they could possibly learn some was in school. Guess what? You have allowed a few to ban that. What kind of idiot are you? The way I see it is that many of you are so busy trying to pay for that high priced house, luxury autos, expensive vacations, etc. that you leave your children to fend for themselves. Whether you are rich or poor, you buy them the xBox or WII to keep them off the streets. Then you buy them the expensive and adult only, very violent games. ( Oh yes, you do that. I’ve seen it happen over and over.) Your kids get so engrossed in these games. They play them for hours, everyday. For some of them, it may subconsciously lead them to believe that this could be a an actual reality. Some of them could actually reenact what they have been playing for a long time.

    My final question to you idiots is; If we were to ban law-abiding citizens from having firearms, who is going to protect us from the monsters you have created?

    1. dtgraham December 15, 2012

      A growing body of research has shown that spanking and other forms of physical discipline can pose serious risks to children. The research is extremely telling and very clear and consistent about the negative effects on children. You can’t just give anecdotal examples John. Take the time to flesh out all of the studies that have been done on this.

      A regimen of spanking can lead to increased aggression, anti social behaviour, and other mental health problems for children. This has been verified. It isn’t guess work.

      Thirty countries have put an official ban on spanking although the “ban” is mostly just a public education tool that doesn’t criminalize parents.

      The United Nations issued a directive in 2006 calling all physical punishment (including spanking) “legalized violence against children” that should be eliminated. That directive was supported by 192 countries with only the United States and Somalia failing to ratify it.

      The United States has some of the most lax gun laws among the wealthy democracies and is the only one who openly advocates corporal punishment on children. I understand that these mass killings are complex matters and I would definitely not boil it down to a few hot button issues, so don’t get me wrong here. There are a lot of ingredients in this soup. You might want to start looking at hard data though and examining results instead of just going with your feelings and politically inspired intuitions. After all, results are what matters.

  25. howa4x December 15, 2012

    Chris Rock had it right. He said don’t control the guns since they are already out there, rather control the bullets that aren’t out there yet, or put a death tax on them like we do on cigarettes. What if every bullet cost $50 dollars or more? Think people would be stocking up if bullets cost over $500.00 per box of 10.? Also we have to stop using the term gun control since in conjures thoughts in the NRA mind that the government will round up all the guns, rather we should talk about gun saftey which the NRA endorses. So if we talk about how we could have prevented what happened to those children in conn. in that mindset, the the 1st discussion would be from a child saftey point of veiw. Then issues like access by mental patients to guns could be dealt with without it being a threat to all gun owners. Then the NRA might move from it’s rigid position that any compromise is defeat on guns.
    We can be under any illusion that the spineless politicians will be courageous enough to do something about this, so we need to make coalitions or groups including people from the NRA to create a movement around gun saftey. Finally we can’t demonize legal gun owners if we want to get them to come to the table and be reasonable.

  26. John December 15, 2012

    Every week I get an advertisement with the newspaper from two major sporting goods stores. A major part of each flyer is dedicated to firearms. Many of the guns have high capacity magazines and don’t come close to looking like anything that you would use for hunting. They also sell a number of shotguns with names that have no reference to hunting. Their advertisements for pistols are also along the same line.

    What is interesting is that I am starting to think that I should get a conceal/carry license to protect myself against the customers of the two stores…

  27. Ibsyboy December 15, 2012

    Back in the 1960s a British writer, John Brunner, wrote a book entitled “Stand on Zanzibar,”
    a SciFi book about an over populated earth. In it, he portrayed the people of the 2000s as having: tattoos, body piercings, dyed hair, cosmetic surgery, a 24-hour-a-day TV news network, in-home computers, large flat screen TVs. He also had a reoccurring crime: mass murders committed by people he referred to as “Muckers.”

    The Muckers were not an organized group, just random individuals who would, without warning, enter a shopping mall, or any other place where there was a crowd of people and proceed to kill as many as possible before the Mucker was killed or killed his or her self. Quite prescient, Mr Brunner. He also had specific spots on the sidewalks designated for homeless people.

    Well, here we are in the 2000s, and we have our “Muckers.” It appears it is something we cannot prevent, and will have to accept as a part of our daily lives. 24/7 News will cover every event ad nauseum, until, due to increased frequency, it just becomes weekly body count reports.

    In the present overpopulated, over stimulated, over armed, the economic inequality of 21st Century America, we have a case of getting exactly what you want: Free access to guns. And not feeling any guilt for the consequences.

    There will be the gun advocates, defending the gun and putting all the blame on the gun holder. Forgive me for the next comment. It is a result of my frustration. But, I see some gun nut, who will come forward and suggest if there were a few kids with guns this may not have been as bad.

    A note to gun advocates: The US military has tanks, fighter jets, stealth bombers with smart bombs, drones, cruise missiles, the latest weaponry. Any thought of the public needing guns to defend themselves against the Government is a no contest. Any romantic notion of being rebels in the hills of Montana, is ludicrous. The people in countries today who arm themselves and rise up, truly live under Governments that deny freedom. Here in America, the people who have fears of our government are romantics with paranoid delusions, and a deep hatred for people of color and a grave disrespect for women. It is not the Government, it is a stunted juvenile mind at work.

  28. Alan Yungclas December 15, 2012

    I’m paranoid that Obama is going to take my guns away!!! I really, really need two of each of those!!! 🙂

  29. Jack Holthausen December 15, 2012

    Get your facts straight!, “5 Deadliest Guns you can buy on-line” To say your article is misleading is more than kind. You cannot buy assault rifles on-line. Background checks are required for all pistols and long guns with exceptions in some states for antique weapons, BB guns, air rifles, and muzzle loading primitive weapons. These are not used by mass murderers. If you could buy them online, there would be many more shootings.

    What makes you think that government restrictions will make this all better? In most states the sale of narcotics with out a prescription is illegal, get it goes on every day.
    I have noticed that most shootings include a shooter who has mental issues. Mental issues which families , neighbors, colleges, and schools knew about. No one wants to commit their own family member.

  30. oldnick2 December 15, 2012

    May I suggest a book that will, at least, give insight into the subject of gun control. Although it will never be a literary classic, it is very informative. The book is titled “Out of Range–Why The Constitution Can’t End The Battle Over Guns” by Mark V. Tushnet. It’s available from Amazon for less than $10.00 . This is not a novel. Its non-fiction.

  31. Bob Carlson December 15, 2012

    Killing Connecticut’s Children
    (Will the survivors grow up to support gun control?)

    The NRA is quiet?
    The NRA is mum?
    Twenty little children,
    Blown to kingdom come.

    “It’s not about the weapons.
    It’s about the guy who shot.”
    Do they believe the murderer
    Would strangle every single tot?

    It’s time to get a grip, boys.
    This is our own U.S. of A.
    Guess who’ll crack the whip? Killjoys
    Who hate mayhem from the NRA.

    Getting little children killed
    We think is pretty dumb.
    How can you guys not help but see
    That what is being done must be
    Too much fun?

  32. Robert Iozia December 15, 2012

    Total Bull…. !
    Any gun you purchase online can only be delivered to an FFL holder in your respective state.
    And then that FFL performs the required check before allowing you to take possession of the firearm.
    That is the TRUTH.
    And this is just another Anti-Gun LIE!
    You can look it up!

    1. Hillbilly December 15, 2012

      It doesn’t happen that way if you are buying a gun from a private owner, so you are the one lying. Buying from a private owner, meet in a parking lot, you get the gun without a background check and he gets your money.

  33. Rob Robinson December 15, 2012

    The second amendment is not about giving you the right to protect yourself against your neighbor, or a criminal, or your ability to hunt. The second amendment was put there to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. Our government is already better armed than we are. The Patriot Act has already stripped us of many of our rights. Should the government ever choose to implement martial law and try to take control of the American people, how would you suggest we protect ourselves? For the record, I am a 46yr old father of 7 children. I have never owned a gun.

  34. emadis41 December 15, 2012

    What gun did the shooter used doesn’t matter much, what matter is that guns were readily available to him. We became fond of guns and gun related violence. It will take more than the mere gun control to remedy the situation, and I hope that we stand up for that and start the change by limiting the violence on TV screen and movie theaters first. Second to discourage gun acquisition and strengthen the police and law enforcement
    this is what a leading civilized nation should do.

  35. Rob Robinson December 15, 2012

    National Guard is a US Government Entity…. They don’t protect YOU, they protect the US Governments interests.

  36. Carlos December 15, 2012

    What a pack of BS you can not by guns without a background check, you have to have them shipped to a Federal firearms license ( FFL) dealer who will not release the gun to you
    unless you pass a background check, A call for more gun control laws is a knee jerk reaction by anti rights group, lets ask ourselves why is this happening l,ets looks for answers as to what
    drives these for the most part yong men to comit these crimes, inacting new laws like creating “free gun zones” will not help in the least, support the right to defend yourself, loved ones and others who may fall pry to these acts of violence

  37. 7l7 December 15, 2012

    I understand it is very easy io make a bomb from fertilizer. My guess is that this would be the wepon of choice if all guns were were eliminated. It might be that more people would be killed if guns were out of the picture. I would like to see a team of the best put together to explore the possibilities, such as identifying potential killers and taking necessary action.

  38. norman December 15, 2012

    Guns are NOT the problem, here. The problem is PEOPLE. In the hands of the right person, a gun can save lives.

    The problem, here, is that we have too many un-stable people, on our streets. People who SHOULD be in structured care (which costs taxpayers as much as $30,000.00 per month).

    There are those who would argue that it is better to place these un-stable people into private apartments, at a cost of just $400.00 per month, and pay a “case-manager” just $800.00 per month, to provide PART-TIME oversight of the person.

    This does provide a savings, of $28,800.00, for taxpayers, but at what COST? How many, of the recent shooters, have been diagnosed with mental health issues? How many of these people were denied access to medication, since they didn’t “fit” into a category?

    Finally, the claim is that it costs as much as $3,000.00 to lay each dead person to rest. This means that tax-payers are “saving” about $27,000.00 per month, while guns get the blame, for HUMAN choices.

    By the way, the $30,000.00 per month is PER PERSON, who is in structured care.

    This means that, while victims families are paying out $3,000.00, to bury the dead, Washington can HAIL a SAVINGS, of as much as $10 million per month, on structured care costs.

    Just something to think about.

    1. leadvillexp December 15, 2012

      You are correct. We have opened the doors and let them run loose. But why $30,000? We should get rid of the grubbers that gouge the system and taxpayers.

    2. Hillbilly December 15, 2012

      It costs a lot more than $3000’00 to bury someone these days.

  39. leadvillexp December 15, 2012

    I think most have the Second Amendment all wrong. It was written at the time of the Revolutionary War and King George locked up all Americans weapons. This was not to happen again by a tyranical government. While we need some controls auch as licensing we have to be very careful of what rights we give away. Registration is out of the question. Firearms background checks and a license renewed every five years might help. Add it to your enhanced drivers license, and yes we need weapons equal to the governments. It keeps the government in check.

  40. Mike December 15, 2012

    Really a mini gun? They make it sound like its a simple mail order. I have several guns and if I were to try and get a minigun it would take a long time and it doesn’t ship right to your home its all done through a class 3 dealer. I like that little kids are in most of the pics. I am very liberal leaning but this article is B.S.

  41. Pi_Boson December 15, 2012

    We have a very sick society. Only irrational people believe that more guns, more munitions make for a more secure person. Only the weak or insecure believe a weapon is necessary for personal security.

    1. leadvillexp December 15, 2012

      Tell that to a person who has been attacked or raped. The courts have upheld that the police have no obligation to protect individuals only society as a whole. They can choose what calls to answer first and you have no recorse. Hope it never happens to you.

  42. MARK December 15, 2012

    I am sixty years old and have been a hunter for most of my life. I own a few long guns of various design but only one of them holds five rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. I have never shot more than twice while hunting.Early this season I visited a Gander Mountain store for a few supplies.I was amazed to see the gun rack on the wall looking like an arsenal of military type weapons rather than traditional sport hunting guns and rifles. Several months ago when I had occasion to join an on-line discussion about guns,I was astounded at the strident vehemence of the replies to my comment that AK-47’s were not hunting guns but rather military weaponry.Nothing short of blasphemy in the gun culture I guess.While I am glad that there are those who look out for second amendment rights and I am grateful for mine,I do not and never will give carte blanche to the NRA. I don’t require anyone to tell me what is or isn’t a hunting rifle. I have known the difference between them for a very long time just as surely as I know the difference between the truth and a lie.

  43. George December 15, 2012

    I could argue both sides of the gun-ownership controversy, but don’t you think the weak and insecure are the very people who DO need firearms to protect themselves from armed intruders?

    1. Pi_Boson December 15, 2012

      I can assure you, based on hours and hours of fact-based six-sigma studies, gun owner possession or weapons ownership is not the answer. Think about gun violence and the spontaneous nature of weapons-based attacks. The attacker is going to wait for you to get your gun. The weak, crazy guy in FL that killed the student on his way home was looking for a reason to use his gun. Guns are owned or possed by the weakest in our society.

  44. George December 15, 2012

    Re: “we need weapons equal to the governments” — Really? Then you are saying that private citizens should own tanks and military aircraft! Bazookas? RPG’s? Mines? Ludicrous comment.

    1. Alandro Berry December 15, 2012


  45. George December 15, 2012

    But Robert, many guns are bought and sold privately, with no FFL holder involved. You are correct that all LEGAL online purchases require FFL handling, but that doesn’t really solve any problems. I haven’t seen any reports yet about whether the guns used in this shooting were legally owned, but isn’t that pretty much irrelevant?

  46. George December 15, 2012

    “What is interesting is that I am starting to think that I should get a conceal/carry license to protect myself against the customers of the two stores…”

    I have recently done exactly that: purchased a handgun and went through the class and obtained a concealed carry permit. And my reason is more to protect myself from the crazy, far-right nutjobs than burglars.

  47. George December 15, 2012

    Very good idea, howa4x. Given the string of recent rampages, now might be just the right time for Obama to form a commission made up of all interested parties (i.e. including the NRA) to come up with some ideas that might reduce the occurrence of these kinds of tragedies. All politics aside…a truly bipartisan group made up of people from all walks of life. The climate is finally right.

    1. Jim Myers December 16, 2012

      Replying to George –

      I can see the NRA agreeing with President Obama on the need to find ways to restrict firearms anywhere.


      By the way, I was taught how to use a rifle by a gentleman named Mr. Zook. He was a member of the NRA, and very proud of that organization.

      Mr. Zook was probably in his late 60’s or 70’s when I was a teenager. I am 65 years old.

      He was a very genteel man. Thankfully, he is no longer alive to see what his NRA has evolved into.

  48. leadvillexp December 15, 2012

    When I said match the government I was talking about the reason for the Second Amendment as our forefathers saw it. Therefore rifles and handguns to match the governments. I don’t see a revolution in the future but the fact we are are armed makes those that would take power think twice. Also please note I offered suggestions on ways to improve while still keeping to the way the Second Admendment was intended. I agree with your comment bipartisan group. I am also a Life Member of the NRA, a Republican and I voted for President Obama.

  49. Paul Goodell December 15, 2012

    This is a huge pile of misleading crap. Yes, I can order a gun online, but UPS doesn’t drop a gun off on my porch. It has to be transferred to a Federal Firearms License holder’s shop where I can pick it up. In order for the gun shop to let me leave with the gun, I have to fill out an ATF form 4473 and hand over my drivers license so they can do a NICS background check to make sure I’m not a felon or person who has a history of violent mental health issues.

    1. leadvillexp December 15, 2012

      While you are correct, the article is blowing smoke. What it is talking about is two private citizens meeting on line and making arrangements to sell in a parking lot. this is legal in most states. You can’t buy a gun/recieve on line without an FFL. It si illegal for a private citizen to sell to a person who would not be able to pass a ATF form 4473 or NICS background check.

  50. Jesse Greathouse December 15, 2012

    The second amendment exists because of the brutality and lawless actions of British soldiers leading up to the American declaration of independence, and throughout the Revolutionary war. The framers of the constitution recognized the endowment of this right because we should be able to protect ourselves from those who would abuse their authority. If you have any doubt in your mind that our own Police and law enforcement agencies will not revert to the same type of moral abuses as the British authorities in the 1700’s, then I have serious concerns about your judgement and your absolute faith in those who have the authority to detain and incarcerate you.

  51. Kirk Hemphill December 15, 2012

    Common Sense — Why is it so rare?

  52. gopnut December 15, 2012

    hold on People are we missing something very Important here. is not the guns or the 2nd amendment. fault if we where to outlaw guns, then a serial killer will be Using a Machete, if we out law the Machete then they will be using a butcher knife. so what is the Problem here the Problem is that in our present society both parents work long ours. leaving their kidds long ours unatended, the kids don’t do the home work, they start gertting involved in drugs and all kind of problems. the parents Tired from work, get in their kidds ass because the drugs and the problems theyr are getting in to, the Kids Feel left out no love no hugs no good home family time, of course the Kid is going to hate his parents that just Naging, they get depress and full of hate all they can think is to grab a gun kill themselves but also kill thir parents and who ever come to their trouble minds,
    all What we need to do is Get closer to our Kids Talk every day to them show that you love them and that they are very Important in your life as a Parent go to the movies with them go bowling show them Respect and Respect for others, then we will solve all of this problems

  53. Bruce Cohn December 15, 2012

    No the kids shouldn’t have been “packing” but if the teacher and or Principal were that list might be a lot shorter…the criminals will ALWAYS get weapons (there are over 200 million privately ones out there already), don’t you want to at least try to protect your family and yourself?

    1. Jim Myers December 16, 2012

      Replying to Bruce Cohn –

      Try to reason this one out. If the teacher has a single shot, or even a semi-automatic pistol, facing someone with a fully automatic rifle is akin to suicide.

      So, you would like to have the Principle and all the Teachers have fully automatic rifles, all loaded with 30 round magazines, and fully loaded magazines in reserve.


  54. arkconstable December 15, 2012

    Think about the fact that New York City has the toughest gun control laws of any city in the U.S.
    Out of town police officers cannot legally bring a gun of any kind into the city unless approved, in advance, by the NYPD. That being said, we witnessed a cold blooded “hit” in the middle of the city, in broad daylight. Also, the gun violence in NYC is not any lower than most metro areas.
    Also, Conn. has some of the strictest gun registration laws in the country. The criminal who did this shooting obtained these guns by STEALING them!!!!! I have no problem holding people accountable. However, there is no practical legislation that can be passed to prevent crazy people from doing these things. Just ask Timothy McVeigh!!!

    Outlaw fertilizer? Outlaw airplanes? Killed more than guns in one act. Think about it!!!

    1. Hillbilly December 15, 2012

      That shooting was a set up and was pre planned so the man could be shot and the shooter get away. Since no one knows where the gunman lived in New York or came in from outstate to do the hit, there is no way to say that NY’s strict gun laws could have prevented that murder.

    2. Justin Napolitano December 16, 2012

      Hey ark, it is difficult today to buy a large quantity of fertilizer because of McVeigh. Perhaps we should do something about guns?
      Twenty thousand people die every year of gunshots in the US. TWENTY THOUSAND!
      That is 67 times more than Oklahoma City and 5 times more than 911. EVERY YEAR!
      Yet we do nothing, how does that make sense?

  55. Ron December 15, 2012

    We have to do something, those and other type human killing weapons in the hands of a sick person has just been …just enough… already! We as citizens must stop this insanity. More stringent gun control must be in acted. NOW ….watch all the gun nuts come storming out. ……27 more dead and counting….sad….so sad !

  56. mwpv11 December 15, 2012

    Gun control laws are not the answer. Sure we need to control the guns to a degree but the real problem is in the moral fiber of America. We have strong gun legislation in many states, NY being one of them however this past week somone was able to walk up behind another person and shoot that person in the head in broad daylight with many witnesses standing around then the shooter got into a car and they drove away. So how effective is even strong gun legislation. The issue I believe is to stop making our children numb to other peoples feelings. Have any of you ever listened to kids when they have a conflict? Their first inclination is to go beat the crap out of the other person and do it in gangs not one on one. What’s up with that line of thought. That is what the problem is. The person who was the shooter in Connecticut apparently lived with his mom. Why would she even think of leaving weapons in her house knowing her son was disturbed and make them available to him. It sounds like pure carelessness to me but I guess we will see in the long run what the issue was there. Too many people in our society suffer from all forms of mental illness and don’t even know it! People tend to look the other way when they see someone out of sorts mentally. Maybe it’s time we all pay attention to those around us and try to get them help instead of ignoring them hoping they will go away. Laws are not the answer here. The issue goes into the deep consciousness and greed of the American people. We all need to take a real good look inside and also look at those around us and open communication more that is what is really needed in this country. Families don’t even eat together any more. Most are just collections of people in a house who don’t really know each other. We need to stop and talk with those around us and find out what they are thinking and most of all feeling and offer help when needed. That is the first step of many to help stop violence of this magnitude. Let’s hope we don’t get used to this happening then we are in real trouble.

    1. Justin Napolitano December 16, 2012

      The answer is simple. Just do nothing and once everyone is armed they can just go shoot each other. Once enough people are dead then those remaining will outlaw guns and live civilized lives.

  57. max357shooter December 15, 2012

    Yes you can buy the weopons on the internet and I have and that did not require a background check. But to have it shipped to you it must first go to a licenced FFL dealer who does a background check before he give it to you. So what the difference. It is already illegal to ship a gun across state lines without it going through a FFL dealer.

  58. leadvillexp December 15, 2012

    mwpv11 You are so right. Guns are not the problem, society is. Some of the vedio games we allow our children to watch are the same ones that the military used a few years ago to help soldiers desensitize for killing in combat.

    1. Justin Napolitano December 16, 2012

      So what is the difference, give guns to a problem society and you have an armed problem society. Gee that should work!

  59. gargray December 15, 2012

    They tackled the Gifford shooter because he had to reload, if you have a 20 round magizine you can kill 20 people, (“the saying guns don’t kill people people kill people”) is wrong guns kill, people pull the trigger.

  60. Meep December 15, 2012

    The second amendment is not about hunting, it is a safeguard against tyranny. And just because the government is not a tyranny now, doesn not mean that it wont be 50 years down the line after they confiscate all our weapons. There are plenty of weapons laws in place right now, lets enforce them and make sure that we make sure that we deal with these people who have mental problems and keep guns out of their hands.

    1. Justin Napolitano December 16, 2012

      Oh sure, your little pea shooters are going to take on the US army, get real.

  61. quasm December 15, 2012

    Mr. Marks;

    I assume you do not own any guns. Please avoid in every way possible publicizing where you live.

    Dik Thurston
    Colorado Springs

  62. Bob Williams December 15, 2012

    I’m calling “BULLS**T” on this article. Please supply with the dealer’s name, address and phone number where I can order any of these weapons by mail.

    You can’t? I didn’t think so.

  63. Ibsyboy December 15, 2012

    There was a continuing fear by the Republicans, that the British would attempt to retake the Colonies. The British Army was sitting up in Canada waiting for the signal from the Loyalists in New England, many of them Federalists who felt the form of Government the US had at that time was unworkable and a return to British rule would be best for America. The Continental Army was down to 80 soldiers following the Revolutionary War. A need to have armed men available was crucial. Jefferson did not trust Hamilton and the Federalists. Jefferson and the republicans were the progressive states rights crowd, Hamilton and The Federalists, were not in favor of the states having power, and the Federalist were pro business and banking and strong central government. Hamilton was not crazy about the set up of the new Government. He was a Loyalist of sorts. So, there was this concern that with the loyalists and the New England state unhappy with the power of the Southern states, there was rebellion in the air. And militias made up a good part of the Continental Army. So there needed to be away of having guns in the hands of the citizens. The 2nd amendment went through quite a few changes before it was accepted by both houses. I still question the coma after the word State.

  64. leadvillexp December 15, 2012

    To Meep. You are so right. Lets rethink about putting mental ill patients in jails and out in the public. They need medical help in a secure place until or if cured.

  65. George December 15, 2012

    Functionally no different but have the abillity to carry many more rounds of amunition which in turn give the wielder of the weapon the ability to kill more people. Not deer, and rabbits and turkeys and ducks.

  66. George December 15, 2012

    Bottom line stcrioxcarp, you and I and them know that what you say is the truth. We use the second amendment argument to do evil and not good anyone that knows the difference between evil and good knows what is right. It is not good for regular citizens to have these military like weapons, they are designed to kill people.

  67. Simpleisbetter2 December 15, 2012

    I just read about the heroic teacher who took her students and hid in the closet. Do I think the students should have been armed? Heck no!! But….. I’ll be had that teacher been armed or had access to protection not only would her students have been saved, but many others as well. Making us all defenseless so that the murdering crazy folks can come in and shoot us at will is NOT the right answer. Perhaps the fact that it is a crime to carry a gun on school property (which restricts those who work there from protecting themselves) should be changed. I don’t think the assailant in this case would care one way or the other. He’s dead. Perhaps, when the assailants see someone pull out a bigger gun then they have, they will decide to take out their pent up anger on themselves, rather then others.

    1. Jim Myers December 16, 2012

      Replying to Simpleisbetter2 –

      Sure, put a gun in every classroom. That will stop the violence.

      ARE YOU F……G CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!


    2. Justin Napolitano December 16, 2012

      More guns equals more deaths. Twenty thousand gun deaths a year in the US. Double the amount of guns and it will be forty thousand. When is it enough, 500,000 a year?

      1. Jim Myers December 16, 2012

        Replying to Justin Napolitano –

        Not for the wackos from the NRA and the gun nuts who favor fully automatic weapons for anyone who can crawl up to the counter and plop down a couple hundred dollars or more.

  68. one_veteran December 15, 2012

    I am not anti 2nd amendment, however we do need a better ballance with reality! When the 2nd amendment was added to the constitution a wepon (arms) consisted of Flint Locks and muskets which were single shot and took some time to reload. Their is NO practical need of any kind (unless you want to commit mass murder) for a wepon that can shoot 30 to 100+ rounds with out reloading. Hell when I was in Vietnam our M-14 and M-16 only had a 20 round magizine! AND THAT WAS WAR!.

    1. Jim Myers December 16, 2012

      Replying to one_veteran –

      And the manufacturers had to set the speed of full automatic back from 650 rounds per minute to 450 rounds per minute because the faster firepower was the cause of so many jams.

      Too bad the gutless bastards that kill innocent civilians don’t have more jams.

  69. thebunt December 15, 2012

    I hate to see bloggers talking about the Constitution instead of talking about laws prohibiting guns. The Constitution is merely a document written by the politicians of the time. Would we want to rule our lives by a document written by the politicians of OUR time? The Constitution inhibits our thinking and keeps us from discussing issues.

    Many years ago I was living in Australia in the state of Victoria. The road toll for the year was 1,034. (deaths) The government attacked this problem with the slogan ‘declare war on ten thirty four’. One of the major changes – booz-busses. Road blocks are set up. Every driver has to blow into a device. If you exceed .05 (alcohol in blood) you are tken away to be given more detailed blood test. Over .05 and your license is gone for 6 months. No other discussion necessary. It’s the law. Doesn’t matter if you job depends on having a car. Doesn’t matter if your level was caused by a big party the night before, eating a box of rum-balls, prescription drugs, over .05 and you are gone. You DO NOT drink and drive anymore. If you have a night out you have a designated driver or take public transport. The road toll now averages 250 a year. IT HAS BEEN REDUCED BY 75%.

    I recently was listening to talk-back radio in the USA and the topic was what was the best thing to do if you were pulled over by the cops while you had been drinking. Since the Australian issue was somewhat on the topic I called and explained about the booze-busses. The result: 10 or 20 callers asking how anyone could possibly live in a country where you could be stopped and breath-tested.
    Didn’t Australia have a constitution? How could anyone live there? Not ONE caller commented on the fact that Victoria had saved 750 lives a year. Not one. Everyone praised the constitution and how lucky the USA was to have such a document.

    I imagine that recently someone questioned the fact that it was OK for individuals and corporations to put unlimited amounts of money into political campaigns. Everyone who is old enough to tie their own shoes know that this is wrong. (91% of all political campaigns are won by the candidate that spends the most money) We simply checked with the constitution and decided it was OK. Question solved and discussion ended.

    Is it OK for a right-wing looney church group to disrupt funerals of soldiers. Check the constitution – OK, It’s cool.

    OK to kill someone because you are scared of them? Yeah – Thats cool too. No discussion needed.

    Forget the constitution. When there is an issue, discuss it, debate it, and find the best answer. THEN, and only then, check the constitution and if the constitution does not allow for the ‘best answer’ – CHANGE the constitution. Don’t let yesterday’s document restrict today’s thinking. Why should we dwell on the words and ideas of Jefferson any more then we would expect the Americans in the 22nd century dwell on the words and ideas of Palin or Pelosi?

    If the macho gunslingers want to walk around in singlets, show off their tattoos and muscles and demonstrate their ‘right to bare arms’ (had to get that joke in there somewhere), let them – but don’t let them have guns.

    What makes the USA so violent compared with other countries. Could it be our constitution?

  70. Pamby50 December 15, 2012

    As I was reading through all the comments, I hear the debate going on. Whether there should be a ban on assault weapons. Should military grade weapons be banned? Should the language of the 2nd ammendment be changed? Should we ban selling weapons on the internet? Should there be a background check done before you can purchase a weapon? Should there be a list banning all people with mental disabilites from purchasing a gun? Should known terrorists be on the do not sell to list? Then the debate digresses to Democrats vs Republicans and I know in my heart that nothing will be done. We will wait to have this debate in public till after all the children are buried. Then people will say it will be to soon. I am still waiting for the debate to take place. It was promised after Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head. Out of sight out of mind.

    On Friday December 14, 2012 there were 20 children murdered. 16 6 yr olds & 4 7 yr olds. Each child had anywhere from 3 to 11 bullets in them. The principal, the school nurse & 4 other teachers were killed. The article stated at least they didn’t feel any pain. That may be true but there is so much pain left behind.

    Hopefully, this time will be different.

    1. Justin Napolitano December 16, 2012

      How do they know they didn’t feel any pain?
      Twenty six people dead this time. The next time it might be twenty six hundred. Does anyone care?
      All I read is how so many people have sympathy but that is worth little if nothing is done to prevent the next killings and I have read very little about what should be done.
      Just shaking your head, offering condolences and going about you business accomplishes nothing.
      Perhaps we should just prepare for the next mass murder for it is surely coming.

  71. Cairndance December 15, 2012

    You think that spanking may lead to anti-social behavior?
    Have you watch the killing video games that kids play?
    I watched my 11 year old nephew “playing” a game where he shot people running in and out of buildings! It actually had blood spurting from the bodies! It also kept a running count on the “dead” bodies! I was apalled that his parents allowed this! When 11 year olds “play” at killing, what can we expect the outcome to be?
    I think I would allow a spanking rather than these disgusting Games!

  72. Newborn December 15, 2012

    Living in Canada and being an urbanite buying all kind of things online this kind of «goods» is entirely out of my mind. Maybe U.S. has to become first a civilized country before people can feel free from the need of buying war weaponry (to protect themselves?).

  73. Glen Thamert December 15, 2012

    Maybe those pushing the NRA agenda and the DC politicians who let the NRA push them around might well think differently would they have a close loved one die by the violent insanity that is escalating, even though this would be sad. When tragedy visits one’s own family, one does wake up and see what otherwise is only something to be talked about. Would those who bow down to the NRA go to Newtown CT now, they might have their hearts Broken and begin to think/live differently. Do USA vets – who have returned from violence in Iraq and Afghanistan – think that a house full of guns is a way to live? For those NRA folks who have investments in the weapons producing companies, it is time to ask why. Greed is a sad reality for many in this land of ours. Maybe NRA folks need to go and live in Juarez, Mexico for a while and experience the horror of daily violence. It seems so ridiculous that we must “live” by guns, rather than by non-violence. As for me and my family, we work at being peaceful members of society and do what we can to encourage the same in others. Our prayer is that everyone begin to live with the desire to have Peace On Earth.

  74. Glen Thamert December 15, 2012

    Thanks, Dad. I, too, believe we all must live without guns, everywhere. I am sure those who have lost loved ones in Newtown, CT, will agreee.

    1. lana ward December 15, 2012

      Some will always have guns. The animal thugs would have a good time if they know people don’t have guns to protect themselves. ther would be slaughtering all the time!! My son was shot and murdered during a home invasion and I wish to God he had had a gun to protect himself. If ever in that situation, you’ll wish you had a gun too!!

      1. Glen Thamert December 15, 2012

        Lana, I can understand you. I am very sorry and sad that your son died. Personally, I hope the person who killed your son was found and is doing time.

        1. lana ward December 15, 2012

          Thank you for your thoughts. It’s still unbelievable to me. No, they still don’t know who killed him and it’s been 1 and ahalf years!! My heart aches when I hear of those losing loved ones, even when not through violence. It’s terrible!! Some of us believe in having guns, some of us don’t. Since thugs will ALWAYS have them, people should be able to protect themselves—Merry Christmas to you and your family!!

          1. Jim Myers December 16, 2012

            Replying to lana ward –

            I have been diametrically apposed to nearly everything I have ever seen written by you.

            However, my heart goes out to you and anyone who has had to live through the senseless violence that seems to be ever increasing in our beautiful nation.

            May the future bring you peace.

          2. lana ward December 16, 2012

            Thank you!! And Merry Christmas to you and your family!!

          3. dtgraham December 16, 2012

            I can second that Lana. A lot of things transcend politics and this is one of those. I’m so sorry for your family’s loss. I hope you have as nice a Christmas as possible. Take care Lana.

          4. lana ward December 16, 2012

            Thank you!! I miss Brad so!! Merry Christmas to you too, and your family

      2. Justin Napolitano December 16, 2012

        Arming everyone to the teeth is not going to solve the problem. We have more guns in the US than ever and it isn’t a coincidence that we also have more gun deaths than ever. You are not going to arm and shoot yourself to having a civilized society. We tried that a hundred fifty years ago and found that people preferred living in a community with less guns. Now we are determined to go back to the old west. Do we never learn?

        1. lana ward December 16, 2012

          You wouldn’t want a gun if someone broke into your home? Violence is up in gun free zones, they know people are helpless. Criminals will ALWAYS have guns, law abiding citizens will die

  75. Johnie December 15, 2012

    REALY? Listen you gun grabers, any gun you can buy any ware; put in the wrong hands are the worst thing that can and does happen!

  76. Muriel Schlecht December 15, 2012

    I used to live in farm country in the NE. When hunting season opened, we were afraid to go outside…day or night. I can’t tell you how many times these so-called “sportsman” fired shots that killed our grazing animals. We could see these animals from our window. There were acres of large fields and pastures all around our house, and woodland around those fields. Our land was fenced and posted, yet after hunting season we’d find snowmobile tracks and fences cut and beer and liquor bottles all over our 700 acres. Once we had a flock of domestic turkeys that we had raised running around close to the house and barn. There was a well-travelled road that ran within feet of our driveway, front yard and apple orchard. The majority of the fields were across the road. These so called card-carrying “sportsman” thought nothing of stopping their cars on that road at the farthest point of our front yard and apple orchard and shooting those turkeys. Maybe the NRA should do something about THOSE kinds of card-carrying, gun carrying, totally incompetent, dangerous, “sportsman” who have total disrespect for human life and home. The drunken fools who just don’t care about me, you, or anybody else, as long as their having a “good time” at somebody else’s fear and expense. Until they CAN, I think they
    should butt out of any discussion about “constitutional rights”. Especially for self-defense because if I fired a shot at someone invading my home, I would be the one who went to jail.

    1. Justin Napolitano December 16, 2012

      Thank you Muriel for telling the truth.

  77. Bob E December 15, 2012

    Yes you can purchase fire arms on the internet. They are then sent to a local Federal Firearms License holder, i.e. your local gun store where you WILL GO THROUGH A BACKGROUND CHECK. If you fail this check you DON”T GET THE FIREARM. It’s that simple.

    1. Justin Napolitano December 16, 2012

      The article just said that you can get these weapons on the internet without any background checks. Did you not read it?

  78. James Weiske December 15, 2012

    lets use the 2nd amendment to destory some more lives.I’am a hunter , the only thing i would hunt with a AK, AR15, 9mm is (you).

  79. Keith Alberson December 16, 2012

    The NRA is in this for the money, they don’t give a Da# about you and i, until its their kids.

  80. ridemybroom December 16, 2012

    1 question only……is it guns or is it people ?

    1. Justin Napolitano December 16, 2012

      What difference does it make, a gun in the hands of people that shouldn’t have one is deadly, get it?

  81. ridemybroom December 16, 2012

    DR Tom REV…..God said to be kind to dumb animals…not go out and kill them….

  82. Clyde Johnston December 16, 2012

    I can shoot, reload a revolver and get off the next six rounds in under 5 seconds. Limiting the size of the magazines means nothing. Anyone skilled with weapons knows how to reload quickly.

    1. Justin Napolitano December 16, 2012

      Well that being said then it should be legal and proper for everyone to have a mounted 50 caliber machine gun with a thousand rounds on their car ready to shoot at any second.
      Would you feel secure if there were many cars in your neighborhood so equipped?

  83. Elvis December 16, 2012

    Ok dude I really HATE to inform you of this..but if they outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns..I assure you they already have them…for every ” since less act of violence” you can quote me I can refer you to dozens of incidents where law abiding citizens protected their lives and shot the aggressor.

    1. Justin Napolitano December 16, 2012

      OK, so let’s make everyone a criminal, that should solve the problem, right?

  84. 13observer December 16, 2012

    This gun ban is an actual WAR ON WOMEN!!!!!! Don’t let them fool you, it is designed to render women defensless against potential threats! This WAR AGAINST WOMEN has to STOP NOW!!!!!

    1. Justin Napolitano December 16, 2012

      Someone needs to find out if you own guns because evidenced by your writings you are one card short of a full deck.

      1. 13observer December 16, 2012

        yes i do own guns because i am a law abidding citizen of this country!!!! The Second Amendment of our Constitution says so……but commies like you do believe in our Constitution. Why would you deny a woman her right to defend herself against pervy weirdos like you? Besides, with all the illegal aliens running around with Odumba’s blessing, we need to defend ourselves!

      2. MJRinPA December 17, 2012

        He doesn’t sound one card short of a full deck, he sounds like he’s short a full suit. Maybe the hearts?

  85. 13observer December 16, 2012

    What will these democrat communist lefties want to take from women next????????????

  86. 13observer December 16, 2012

    If you listen CLOSELY, all these people speaking for gun control know the very least about the subject of guns! The NRA is a strong force because millions of Americans support it! Alot more than the lefty commies that don’t! SIMPLE AS THAT BRO!! !You will get nowhere on this!!!!! Besides, why this WAR ON WOMEN’S RIGHTS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES????????????

    1. Justin Napolitano December 16, 2012

      Tell your bullshit about the NRA to those twenty kids that just died of gunshots?

  87. Dr. AndrewK December 16, 2012

    Do the person or people who wrote this article actually have any actual, practical or real – life knowledge of guns? The use of exotic or military weapons for any purpose in the US is virtually unknown. Semi – automatic pistols, which have been around for almost 100 years, are the weapons of choice for virtually anyone in a situation for action against individuals at close range, whether it be for action in the jungles of the SE, the trenches of Europe, a street corner in Chicago, your home in the middle of the night with a burgler inside or a school in Connecticut. Even in these situations, professionals have a revolver, which don’t jam, with them. The use of long guns, or high capacity magazine long guns, which jam FREQUENTLY, is virtually non existant, except in the movies. Long guns are used in the military, at a distance. …. also in hunting…and by whackos in home violence situations and that’s about it. The crazy in Connecticut had a rifle, which he never apparently was able to use. Semi -automatic pistols JAM frequently. Carry a bunch of them if you are in harm’s way. But this pertains to sane as well as insane people. The trick is to identify these people beforehand and keep guns out of their hands. In this case, the nut used his mom’s guns. It sounds screwy….but she is culpable in this case as she had to know her son was crazy…seeing as she apparently was living with him. She should have gotten rid of her guns…or at least locked them away from him. Too bad the school didn’t ‘ have an armed security guard. A bullet in the whacko’s head right away would have put him out of his misery early and saved hunanity its’ grief.

  88. jeff December 16, 2012

    I think that we are forgetting that criminals will always have guns and as a responsible citizen should have the means to protect themselves from harm. We all grieve for the loss of lives of horrific violent acts especially when children are victims but we must look at the profile of these cowards who kill themselfs after. The mental instability of these people show that we are not picking up these signals and not stopping these occrances before they happen, All of the profiles show red flag behavior. As for access of guns online we can do better to screen people but most of these criminals that are involved in mass shootings are the people next door type! Which again means we are not picking up the signals.

    1. Justin Napolitano December 16, 2012

      That is total BS. How were these children supposed to protect themselves? What are you going to do arm 6 year olds? And if you secure the school by making it barbed wire enclosed compound with an armed security guard how are you going to secure the children once they leave the premises? Moreover, should an elementary school resemble a penitentiary? I don’t want to live in a world where bullets are flying everywhere because whether you are armed or not sooner or later one of those flying bullets is going to find you or one of your loved ones.
      I sometimes think some of you folks like living in a war zone. And how is the US any different than, say, Syria where thousand are being killed each year? We are killing thousand with guns each year in the US.

  89. Ron Hann December 16, 2012

    guns are not the problem here in the u.s.a. its the people that abuse them,if the wrong people want guns they will get them if its against the law or not . i personal own guns you dont see me out there shooting everyone,wake up people some day we will need these guns,and thats no bull.

  90. fishereddie13 December 16, 2012

    The only one that you would be protecting is the crimanals that know were to get them . The people that use them for protection,or the ones that have knowway to get around and protect them selfs any other way. pluse you are missing with the right to bear arms and that is something that should be protected . I like every other person who has herd of this last insadent are greving four these children and there family,s . But thing if you start taking gun,s away then soner or later the police won,t be able to cary a wepon to protect him or any one else,the other thing is we need are wepons to hunt to protectourself,s from people like that shooter an the real bad guys

    1. Justin Napolitano December 16, 2012

      If I use your logic then since guns do not kill people then everyone should be able to buy and own a nuclear weapon. I mean nuclear weapons don’t kill people, people kill people, right?
      Did it make any difference to those children whether a nuclear bomb killed them or a bullet; they are still dead. Many more children and adults will be killed by guns in the US in 2013.
      It is estimated that 20 thousand people die of gunshot wounds in the US each year. What number does it take for us to realize that guns are a problem. Would 100,000 deaths a year be enough? How about 500,000?
      Those children didn’t have a chance and since we will never allow children to carry guns they will always be vulnerable. If you have children do you like the idea that anyone can kill them anytime they want, that anybody that is simply having a bad day can take a deadly weapon and shoot one of your kids just because they feel like it?
      Guns are a problem because just like a nuclear weapon in the hands of an unstable person many people can die?

  91. Kansan December 16, 2012

    Alaska Court Rules on Concealed Gun

    By MARY PEMBERTON AP 1/12/02

    ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Judge Natalie Finn took away Timothy Wagner’s gun permit after he claimed someone had implanted a computer chip in his head and injected him with deadly chemicals.

    A state appeals court, though, ruled that Finn erred, saying Alaska’s concealed-carry law does not allow general concerns about mental illness to play a role in deciding whether someone should have a gun.

    Gun control advocates say the episode illustrates a dangerous accommodation to the gun lobby by Alaska’s Legislature. Gun owners, however, argue that Alaska’s law safeguards their Second Amendment rights and that the public is adequately protected.

    “Alaska seems more likely than many states to allow mentally ill people to carry guns in public,” Tolley said. “By establishing such a narrow definition, that is allowing an awful lot of people who are mentally ill to carry guns in public.”

    NRA VP Wayne Anthony Ross defended Wagner’s rights.

  92. 13observer December 16, 2012

    We must have a discussion about the DEMOCRATS trying to take the RIGHTS OF WOMEN AWAY! IT HAS TO STOP NOW. NO MORE WAR ON WOMEN’S RIGHTS!!!!!! Women have the right to defend themselves per our Constitution! No liberal lefty can take it away. You all let me know how the attempt at gun control works out for ya, because OBAMA DAMN WELL DIDN’T GET A “MANDATE” TO TAKE ANYONES GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HE DOESN’T WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR “CIVIL WAR”!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Dr. AndrewK December 16, 2012

      You’ge got it backwards…the REPUBLICANS don’t even give a darn about women’s rights, much less even want to give them any so they can take them away in the future. President Obama has received TWO mandates in the past two elections which are just as big as Bush the 2nd EVER got. But…HE can’t do anything without the approval of BOTH Houses of Congress. The Republicans, thru GERRYMANDERING, were able to rearrange the Congressional districts after the 2010 elections so that in this past election….they received LESS Votes in the Congressional elections…. yet were able to win 40 MORE seats in the House. So ….. no gun control soon ….. but it isn’t even necessary. NUTS have to be kept away from guns. And if they do crazy things they need to be made to pay the ultimate price in a horrible way which needs to be publicized. FEAR MIGHT deter some…but I don’t even know if that would be enough. The only thing Obama has done with regards to guns is that he backed gun-owners’ rights to carry guns in National Parks….for which I will br eternally grateful. I feel safer when camping if I have a rifle. Thank President Obama for his wisdom in backing this initiative.

  93. 13observer December 16, 2012

    How do you ask our elected officials to RESTRICT gun ownership when you have all these “ILLEGAL ALIENS” running around using our country for a playground? When the federal extension of unemployment runs out for our jobless who are now desperate, the illegal immigration issue will be more harshly scrutinized! What about Colorado? Odumba just said he will look the other way on enforcing federal drug laws (no surprise)…(illegal immigration)……….so now we have a bunch of the population “HIGH” on drugs with guns and for sure if something happens……………….the guns will get blamed……….and what about TAKING A WOMENS RIGHT TO DEFEND HERSELF…….JUST LIKE IN THE CAMPAIGN WHEN REPUBLICANS TRIED TO COMPROMISE THEIR RIGHTS TO CONTRACEPTIVES…………………SAME THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!You can………………. take a break, take a shit, but you can’t take a gun from a pissed off woman!

  94. 13observer December 16, 2012


    1. Green Forward December 16, 2012

      You sound like a shill for the NRA.

  95. 13observer December 16, 2012


  96. ridemybroom December 16, 2012

    @ Justin….who gave it to him….wasnt santa clause !…got it…!
    there again….guns or people ?

  97. William Heiland December 16, 2012

    We as thoughtful people in America must come to the understanding that the unregulated gun purchases online must come to and end. Gun owners must be licensed with thorough background checks. They must also be evaluated to be both mentally and physically competent to own a gun. We now require a license to drive a car, and must pass physical and mental tests to get that license. I believe along with many others that should be a requirement of gun ownership.

  98. William December 16, 2012

    People in Canada have guns, don’t live in fear, most don’t even lock their doors at night. Why do we have the problems here?

    1. braytjr December 17, 2012

      It’s called “Income Inequality”.

      As income inequality goes up, the amount of violence goes up.

      The United States has the largest gap between rich and poor in the industrialized world.

      This is even played out in states where there is greater income inequality.

  99. GELjr December 17, 2012

    I have to disagree with your statement that the root of the problem is the lax gun laws. As the saying goes,” it’s not the gun that kills people, people kill people”. It should be as easy to get mental health treatment as it is to get a weapon. If you got rid of every gun in the U.S., individuals bent on killing others in these mass killings would find a way. We as a society need to get rid of the stigma of one of our family members/friends having mental issues and get them the help they need. My 2 cents worth.

  100. Charles2051 December 17, 2012

    This didn’t need to happen, Train Just Three or Four in each school Office personal or Teachers very well on control of fire arms and how to keep guns away from any kids in school, If this had already been setup, we’ll still have these kids going home. This thing is so sad. We’ll never stop the bad guy or crazy guy from coming, but we can stop him from doing or trying again.

  101. majordad75 December 17, 2012

    One of the fallacies of this article is that the author (either because of dishonesty or ignorance) does not seem to understand that the term ‘assault rifle’ describes weapon that is capable of firing either full auto fire, or (as more often used today) a “3 round burst’ with one pull of the trigger. The Bushmasters /AR-15’s and other “M-forgeries” are all semi-automatics and only fire 1 round at a time. Gun stores and online sales offer only the semi-auto rifles (not assault rifles) versions of these weapons that resemble the military weapons but are not. They may look alike – but the internal functioning is different; something the media does not seen to understand.

    Now it is legal for citizens to purchase and own fully automatic and assault weapons, but the person and the weapon has to be registered with BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco) and the owners pay for permits to own them. Such weapons are not sold by anonymous people to other anonymous people as the article seems to indicate. Sales are tracked and are required by law to be done through dealers who possess current Class III licenses. BATF also reserves the right to enter the domicile of anyone who has a registered automatic weapon/assault weapon at any time to make sure it is properly stored and locked. Failure by the owner to do so can be a jail sentence.

    (It is also my understanding that the .50 Cal pictured in that article also has to be registered by the owner with BATF – although I have not confirmed that with BATF myself.)

    What the author also does not point out is that an ‘automatic pistol’ also only fires one bullet at a time but seems to lead unknowing people to the conclusion that it fires continuously with one pull of the trigger.

    Finally, one last point. It is tragic when any life is lost to violence. But to determine that law abiding gun owners (who have that right guaranteed by the second amendment) should have to give up their guns because someone misuses a gun, is like demanding all law abiding car owners to have to get rid of their cars because someone stole a car and caused an accident that killed people. That by the way happened in my home town. A stolen car with 4 occupants ran a red light at high speed and T-boned an SUV killing occupants in both vehicles. Since ‘vehicles’ were responsible (as the current thinking goes) for over 170,000 people last year and gun violence killed about 12,000 – maybe its cars we need to ban since those ‘objects’ seem to kill more people than ‘guns’. Or maybe perhaps, we ought to look more at the people who operate and own them and blame the owners and not the objects for how they are used.

  102. majordad75 December 17, 2012

    I spent 32 years in the USMC defending you defending this nation. Do I need to go National Guard now as well in order to have they 2nd amendment apply to me?

  103. Troy Surratt December 18, 2012

    That’s a lie,I’ve bought several guns online, But never without a background check.(Falsehoods don’t help your case)

  104. Lucy Estes December 18, 2012

    Why? What’s the need? This is overkill or should I say this for the sick American.

  105. Lucy Estes December 18, 2012

    America we don’t need these guns. This is overkill. Get rid of these guns now.

  106. Matt December 18, 2012

    Oh gosh this is funny. Just to spite you morons, I am going to buy an AK47 that is classified as a “pistol”. I can pretty much store it any where, and even carry it legally with a conceal carry permit issued by my state. It is the Zastava PAP Pistol, check it out friends.

  107. Skeletron December 18, 2012

    >Not adding guns that criminals actually use.
    >Not talking about ways to help those with mental handicaps.
    >Implying any person off the street can buy half of these easily .
    >Wanting to ban guns with out addressing the culture that leads to these crimes.
    >Implying that criminals get guns legaly.

    I’m a Liberal and not a gun fan but this article was bad. 0/10 Would not use for toilet paper.

  108. afairhope December 18, 2012

    I’m not a gun man, but after reading these comments and seeing all the venom being spewed perhaps I should get a few.

  109. Sean Maio December 19, 2012

    I like how this article laments over the existance of weapons like the Barret .50 cal and the minigun, yet makes no mention of the prohibitive cost (Barret, $5,000-$10,000 depending on model, and you will not find a fully-transferable, legal-for-sale M134 minigun for less than $100,000), or the fact that according to the National Firearms Act, owning a weapon capable of firing more than one bullet per trigger pull requires a very expensive tax stamp that further adds to the prohibitive cost… assuming your county Sheriff even approves you for it at all.

    AK-47s and AR-15-style rifles sure look and sound awful scary, but their similarity to military assault rifles is in appearance only. Civilian versions of these rifles lack the capability for automatic fire, by law – and again, if you want a version that is capable of other fire modes, you have to pay for the tax stamp and register it with the government, ASSUMING your county Sheriff will allow it at all.

    You have the Glock-23 in this list. Explain to me, exactly, what it is about the Glock model 23 that makes it more dangerous than any other pistol legal to own in this country? Chances are you can’t, because every word I’ve read in this article tells me you’re just parroting someone else’s words, and that individually you don’t actually have the slightest clue what you’re talking about.

    How about you report the WHOLE truth, instead of cherry-picking the parts of it that make the point you want to make and leaving out the rest?

  110. Sean Maio December 19, 2012

    General Electric M134 Minigun: $100,000-$250,000
    Tax Stamp to show proof of transfer of ownership in the National Firearms Act registry of a “Class 3” firearm: $200
    Pointing out to an internet journalist and his fans that the firearms on his Top 5 list were just chosen because they SOUND SCARY without any concern for the actual truth: PRICELESS.

  111. paul83814 December 19, 2012

    If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, try the other policies.

  112. Aaron Horrocks December 19, 2012

    Lie 1: Barrett M82 .50 Caliber. Can not buy online, it must be transferred through an FFL. This weapon is illegal in several states.
    Lie 2: The maximum range of the .50 BMG is not 5 miles. Not even if you include bouncing the round. The actual maximum range is 4.2 miles, not the effective range, and even that is indirect fire.
    Lie 3: The .50 cal sniper rifle has never brought down an aircraft. There are some M2HB (fullauto) anti-aircraft setups, however those are ineffective, and were promptly scrapped after WWII.
    Lie 4: The fact is that the .50 cal isn’t used by bad guys. It’s too large and heavy for criminal purposes.
    Lie 5: The M134 can not be ordered online. You can arrange to buy one, but it still has to go through the ATF. Even then, most states it’s illegal to own a machinegun.
    Lie 6: It’s okay, because it was constructed before 1986. The fact is that it must have also been REGISTERED with the ATF before May of 1986. Otherwise, it’s not a “transferable machinegun”.
    Lie 7: The AK-47 can not be ordered online. Again, this is a NFA controlled weapon.
    Lie 8: Glock 23. Aside from a dumbass choice, this also has to go through a FFL.
    Lie 9: Again, can not be ordered online.
    Lie 10: It’s not an assault rifle.
    Lie 11: There is no “online loophole”.

    It seems to me, that this Josh Marks guy, who wrote this article is himself either: part of the vicious fascist/communist anti-gun agenda, who wants to disarm American citizens so that we are all defenseless… Or a complete dipshit, that actually believes the lies that he’s told, and is here, repeating them. When you use your position in the media to write such a report, you should at least check your facts, of which this article has none. By not checking facts, you’re actually not doing your job, and are doing a huge disservice by misinforming the public. Which of course, misinformation is the basis of every argument of anti-gun fascists.

  113. Michael Potter December 19, 2012

    As an Englishman I am not up to date with the specifics of the US constitution, and quite frankly nor do I care. I think that the minutiae are irrelevent, as everybody seems to have their own take on what they actually mean. Maybe your government should clarify some of these for you because I cannot believe that so many of you(and given the opposing viewpoints on offer somebody must be wrong)are so vague on what the rules actually mean.
    I fully respect the rights of the average American man on the street to bear arms, it is your country so your rules apply. Historically this is the way it has always been, but I will suggest that while this is the case things of this nature will always occur. You can argue that gun control laws would put the armed criminal element in the ascendancy but it is those same gun laws that will have made that rod for your back at the end of the day. The mass availability of weapons means that, like it or not, access is easy for crime as well as home defense,and that culture is too deeply and historically entrenched now to easily go back on.
    I am also amazed to hear so many of you want these weapons to protect you from the government, are you really in any danger on that front? Yours is the most famous(and loudly proclaimed) democracy in the world. Yes the government will tax you to the hilt and you will see very little in return, but this is the same everywhere, and we in the ‘first world’ have it far better than a lot of others.
    It seems to me that a lot of you want the government to stay out of your business and let you do what you want, but the idea of millions of armed people doing what they want, when they want, is an unappealing one and should scare the hell out of you.
    As for the gentleman who suggested that without guns, we(non-americans) have no means to defend ourselves, I will say defend ourselves from what? I have never seen a gun that wasn’t in the hands of a soldier or specialist firearms police unit. Our street police do not carry guns and no-one I know has ever been killed or even injured by one.
    I am no more immune to being burgled than the next man, but I don’t have to be concerned that anyone is going to break into my house packing a gun, that is not to say they are not dangerous if armed with a bat or knife.
    Though we don’t carry guns here we do have a rising problem with knife crime on our streets, and we can’t well ban knives now. I can see the argument for and against tighter gun laws, the whole ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’ argument does hold true, after all the gun is a tool, an inanimate object.
    It makes killing people a hell of a lot easier though. Too easy if I am honest.

  114. William James Woodward December 20, 2012

    Since 1902 in Canada (where guns are restricted) there have been only 11 school shooting incidents and a total of 28 people died in all those years (same number as Sandy Hook alone). The vast majority of the 28 were suicides and there were no other victims. Just Google “school shootings” and click on the USA statistics, I defy anyone to count the number of school shooting incidents since 1902 let alone the number of victims. It’s mind boggling there have been hundreds of such incidents and many more victims.

    In the 70s you guys graduated to US Postal Service mass shootings, which even added the phrase “going postal” to the English vocabulary. Then other workplace massacres, theatres, shopping malls and almost any other place you can think of for a shooting rampage to take place.

    When will the “body count” be enough that you people come to your senses and realize that the only thing that will prevent the 28,000 gun related deaths each year in the USA is gun controls? Gun controls aren’t the answer you say? Well just think about this:

    In all of Canada there are only around 600 murders each year (the whole country) and this figure has remained stable for at least 4 decades. Of those 600 relatively few are gun related and those that are the majority are suicides. Even if you correct the figures to account for the population difference between Canada and the USA you will see that with gun controls our gun death rate is almost zero compared to the USA.

    Figures don’t lie, arms manufacturers, gun owners, the NRA , pro-gun politicians and just your common garden variety REDNECKS clearly do.

  115. William James Woodward December 20, 2012

    While I don’t advocate an absolute ban on firearms, it would be far better even if the government did take them away completely than sit on their collective butts as they are right now and do absolutely nothing about this growing problem that started way back in the early 1900s and began to escalate in 1970 with the Kent State University Shootings.

    The country graduated to a series of US Postal Service massacres in which which claimed dozens and dozens of lives and even added the term “going postal” to the English vocabulary in North America.

    The American people should have learned and the US government should have taken action following the Columbine massacre in 1999. Even by then it was common knowledge that the problem had reached epic proportions and was out of control. Again the US government bowed down to their almighty masters, the gun manufacturers and the NRA and did absolutely nothing.

    If you want some idea how effective strict gun regulation is just think about this:

    In all of Canada (the whole freaking country) there have been exactly 11 school shooting incidents since 1902. In all those years only 28 people were killed. That’s the same number of deaths as in Sandy Hook Elementary School, if you count the shooter. 28 school shooting deaths in the whole country since 1902.

    Now, Google the Wikipedia list of “school shootings” ‘ in the USA. Go back to the year 1902 and just try to count the number of incidents, not to mention the victim count. I defy anyone to count the number of shootings. It staggers the mind! Just look folks! And you Americans still fight gun control????

    For at least 4 decades the national murder rate in Canada has been around 600, very few of those gun-related because of strict regulation. Even if you said 10% that would be high, so 60 per year as opposed to the 28,000 per year in the USA. Correcting those figures to account for the population difference Canada´s gun-related death rate is a drop of water in the ocean by comparison to the USA.

    When will the body count be enough for you guys to do something?

    The figures don’t lie……. gun manufacturers, the NRA, pro-gun politicians, gun owners and your common garden variety REDNECKS clearly do.

  116. Cliff Stokes December 20, 2012

    What so many of the rabid anti-gun people fail to realize, and in particular the author of this editorial masquerading as journalism while the online sellers of these firearms will sell them without a background check, to take possession, the purchaser must present in person and submit to a background check or have his states equivalent of a concealed weapons permit, and regardless of permit or not, fill out BATFE paperwork and show current government issued picture ID, and in most instances pay a transfer/check fee. If the purchaser infact turns out to be ineligible he forfeits his money used for the purchase, and if the reason for denial was felony or dishonorable discharge, is subject to immediate arrest and charges of felon attempting to purchase a firearm and if actually touched the weapon felon in possession.
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people, to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed.
    1. What about a well regulated militia
    2. Being necessary to the security of a free state, still no complete though here
    3. The right of the people, what right are we talking about here, and in every other place this phrase appears in the constitution it refers specifically to individual citizens.
    4. To keep and bare arms, who gets to do this?
    5. Shall not be infringed, curtailed, reduced eliminated, interfered with, what won’t be limited?

    “A well regulated militia shall not be infringed”, sounds good, but if you don’t have the state militia, how exactly will the president call them out for federal duty? (fluff)

    “Being necessary to the security of a free state shall not be infringed.” What is necessary to the security of a state of freedom and liberty? (looks like a sentence but it is not a thought statement) Let us suppose we are attributing the security of a free state to a well regulated militia, see the explanation of the the militia with this explanatory statement, it just becomes overly wordy, and still serves no real purpose.

    “The right of the people shall not be infringed” Very well, here we address something, but it’s still vague what we are talking about.

    “To keep and bare arms shall not be infringed” who is assured of being able to do this.

    If we attribute this to the State militia we’ve already demonstrated that to be fluff; to the security of a free state, yeah that is getting somewhere but we still don’t have a complete thought going on.

    No let us suppose this statement, “The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.” Full thought, should be intuitive, but as demonstrated by this author and so many comments it obviously is not intuitive. If we take, “Being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed” we now have a complete thought and open with the reason for the presentation of the thought.

    Now suppose we take the well regulated militia to be part of the explanation why the people are assured their right to keep and bare arms. How could you be assure the people could be adequately prepared to serve at zero notice of the need to defend their home in State Government call out of all willing and able bodied people to come to the defense of the state, by those citizens have the arms and being able to practice with them, at least in the configuration they would be used when activated in such a manner if not simulated conditions.

  117. Ibsyboy December 20, 2012

    May I address the gun rights folks. No matter how you choose to interpret the 2nd Amendment. The Government is not going to be able to take your guns away.

    I think what is going to occur, is a desensitizing of the American public to these mass killings.
    They are going to increase in frequency. There are a lot of crazies out there, with dead end existences, who have nothing to lose and a delusional sense of themselves as protectors of some paranoid view of the world. They will arm themselves and kill people. In time the News Networks will stop the over blown coverage and just go to weekly body counts, like reporting the DOW JONES or NASDAQ numbers.

    America has got to suck it up. Guns are here to stay and you have to pay a price for freedom. It may not be you personally paying the price, but there are millions of innocent people in America that are available targets for the next psychotic outburst.

    So it goes. So just get used to it. Freedom is at stake. So I have been told.

  118. Ceunei December 21, 2012

    “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.” Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ratified in 1791.

    The ENTIRE Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Many people seem to only have been told this part: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    So…two entirely different meanings depending. However, most state laws (my state included) have further refined the truncated United States Constitution’s Second Amendment to read “The Right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” My research shows, this may be the work of the NRA, whose backers are more interested in marketing the product they sell…a product meant to kill living and breathing animals and meant to disrupt the natural order.

    1. Allen F December 27, 2012

      Sorry Ceunei, but the United States Supreme Court itself has rendered its opinion that the 2nd amendment apply s to the indavidual, perhaps they took the time to read up on the various letters and opinions of our founding fathers who left no doubt about their perspectives and intention in regards to citizens and firearms, in fact they created the term “right of nature” for every law-abiding citizen to own a firearm for the purpose of self defense that pre-dates the constitution itself.

  119. Al Quick December 23, 2012

    I would like to know where you think you can legally buy any firearm on line. You can order one on line but you need to buy it through a licensed dealer and pick it up at their shop after going through the federal background check. Also you show the mini-gun as a weapon a person can just buy on line, this is an out and out lie, to buy and posses any fully automatic firearm you must obtain a class III firearms license for each fully auto you would possess and go through all the federal firearm forms and background checks. As a retired police officer and former combat Marine I have seen more problems with our society because of organizations like the ACLU. Prior to the 1970’s a Police officer could take a person to a physciatric hospital for observation when there was cause to believe that person was a danger to their self or others or could not care for themselves. Once the lawyers got through and the laws were amended the homeless population skyrocketed and and violent crimes soared involving persons with psyciatric problems. Also I did some checking and could not find one illegal violent act with a .50 cal sniper rifle. I know it is a cliche but if laws are inacted to get rid of any type of firearm then the law abiding citizens will not have them but the criminals will, remember something called prohibition?

  120. Allen F December 27, 2012

    When you purchase weapons on-line they are shipped to an FFL where you still have to go through the required background checks, no different then if you bought directly from a sporting goods store.

  121. Rowland Parks December 27, 2012

    You gotta be kidding me. Is this a serious article or an I reading the Onion? A minigun? Really? If anyone that reads this article believes this I have a bridge in the Everglades to seel them. This really is the depths to which the media has sunk?

  122. Allen F December 27, 2012

    What a load of misinformation by and for the uniformed, you CANNOT legally purchase a firearm on-line without a background check, firearms can ONLY be shipped to a FFL dealer in which the purchaser must undergo a background check before he/she can take possession of said firearm , its no different then purchasing from you local FFL sports retailer, the SAME rules and restrictions apply! I have purchased firearms online on more then one occasion, each time I must provide the seller with the name and FFL number of my local Federally licensed Firearm dealer, the information is then Verified, the weapon mailed directly to the FFL dealer, who then does the required registration and background check on me before allowing me to take possession, and this part of the process takes place face to face with the FFL dealer, in my case my local sporting store.

  123. lynros2011 December 27, 2012

    As I do recall, from a very simple assessment of HISTORY and our forefathers own words, the 2A was written so that WE the people would be able to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government.

    Remember, the government of the day was in the process of trying to disarm AMERICANS. And from what is obvious now, the present day democrats are trying to the same.

    When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.
    When the government fears the people there is liberty.

  124. C Luke December 31, 2012

    Josh Marks, You really are clueless. This clearly falls under the title media stirs pot to keep readers looking because there is no truth to what you wrote. Just try to get any gun, even a .22 cal shipped to you without a FTL. You wanna know what the most dangerous gun is? It’s a gun in the hands of a criminal in a room full of unarmed and clueless people. The criminal protection zones that ensure bad guys can enter certain to meet no resistance is a greater killer. Get educated and stop spewing the media fear to entrap readers so you can get more advertisers Like Franklin University. Shame on you.

  125. maurice January 2, 2013

    personaly i think that the only way the NRA wil allow there backed politicians to adjust the 2nd wil be if some nuthead where to storm into the school where the mayority of the kids of the NRA leadership goes to school. or if such a mad man would do his rampage in the uptown districts where they live as long as its only the common man i dont think they wil see the light

  126. Lori Sheeley January 2, 2013

    Gun violence is not fueled by the NRA, it is fueled by the violent video games, movies, music and the rest of anti morals hollywood crowd.

  127. Phil Briggs January 3, 2013

    Josh, if your going to post links to refute facts (the Violence Policy Center), maybe you should actually read them and try and decipher what they’re saying. The .50 cal. Barrett was not used to commit any crimes… they were collateral evidence (possession only, not actually ‘used’) collected when other crimes were permitted. None of the links mentioned where a 50 cal was used to actually shoot someone. Of course, it’s all in the definitions (progressives love to dissect grammar… depends on what “is” is.)

  128. Phil Briggs January 3, 2013

    Please, please, please…. show me a link where one can buy a minigun. All sales are Class 3 NFA weapons… ATF tightly controls these. You theoretically could find one, but you’d have to get a permit from the govt. to buy it… plus, probably pay at least six figures for one. You WILL not find these at gun shows, or on the street… rare as an honest gun control advocate.

  129. mxprivateer January 3, 2013

    The Bushmaster has NEVER been used on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, and is NOT an M4. The “M4” is one of the U.S. military’s battle rifles and fires single shot and 3 round burst (and full auto in some models) and is not available to the public. The Bushmaster is an AR-15 derived rifle, along with similar semi-automatic offerings of companies like Colt, Stag Arms, Delton, etc. who all offer a version of the AR-15 to the public. The Glock 23 is essentially no different than any other semi-automatic pistol on the market, except that it’s relatively low cost and reputation for reliability and accuracy makes it a popular firearm for police, security and personal protection. The Barrett .50 caliber rifle costs seveal thousand dollars and is not equipped with any type of sights. Optics costing as much (or more) than the rifle must be purchased to make the rifle effective. The M134 is such an expensive weapon and fires at a rate of 6000 rounds per minute (at approximately $1 or more per round), meaning a 60 second burst from the gun would cost at least $6000. The level of ignorance in this article is laughable. It might do the author some good to actually gain some exposure to firearms before attempting to scare uninformed readers with bad information.

  130. sting174 January 3, 2013

    There are so many uninformed individuals in the US who have no idea what responsible firearm ownership is. You NEVER hear about the mugging or robbery that was stopped by an armed citizen or by a concealed carry holder. Every nation that has banned gun owneship has seen a huge increase in gun deaths. It is a fact that has been proved time and again. But please don’t let the facts confuse the truth. Gun owership is a right that must be preserved and protected. The first thing Hitler did was require gun to be turned in to the State. Then he murdered several million people who were unable to protect themselves. This also happened in several African countries. Check the facts before you spout lies and misinformation.

  131. X January 3, 2013

    LOL! Biggest bullsh!t list I EVER read. Glock #2 and M4 #1…..wow….the ignorince of ANY knowledge of firearms here is pretty clear.

  132. Eric Scher January 3, 2013

    The article is wrong. If you buy a gun online, unless it’s from someone IN your State, it has to be sent to an FFL; who will do a background check on you before releasing the gun.

    Regarding the guns:

    The article gives a link to a list of crimes committed where the Barrett .50 Sniper Rifle was the “weapon of choice”. What they don’t tell you is that the Barrett, which is well over 5 feet long about 30 pounds and costs between $9,000 & $12,000; was not used to COMMIT a crime, but was INCIDENTAL to a crime. As in, it was found during a drug bust, someone tried to smuggle one, etc.

    The next one up is an M134 electric Gatling gun, an artifact of the Vietnam war. Just the DOOR MOUNT for a Huey Helicopter is a $3,000 item, parts kits go for ten grand and to actually BUY one of these 85 pound monstrosities will set you back about a quarter of a million dollars. Nobody is out ripping off liquor stores with one of these. And the licensing restrictions are NOT trivial, not to mention the $200 NFA tax you have to pay.

    An AK-47 is a fully automatic military main battle rifle. IF you found one for sale, could afford the approximate $15,000 and could pass the background check, then you could own one.

    A glock 23 is just an ordinary semi-automatic pistol. And no, you can’t buy one online without a background check unless it’s an in-state transfer between private citizens. A face-to-face one, because if you mail it, even in state, it has to go to an FFL.

    Finally, “Bushmaster” is just a name-brand of rifle, in this case an AR-15, which is NOT fully automatic, a machine gun or even an assault rifle. It is a non-select fire COPY of a military assault rifle, which by definition has to BE capable of fully automatic for to BE an assault rifle. Also, it fires an ordinary .223 cartridge that is found in a dozen other semi-automatic rifles and I don’t even know how many in bolt-action rifles. It’s just a varmint round, useful for killing small animals and making holes in paper.

    This article is nothing more than naked scare-mongering, intended to prey on the ignorant.

  133. Olden January 4, 2013

    Buy a M134 General Electric Minigun on-line legally?

    Impossible. Your entire article is full of lies that negate your premise.

    GE would ONLY (and can ONLY) sell to the US Military or to a foreign military that was PRE-APPROVED by the State Department.

    Morons. Is it any wonder no one trusts people like this that say they will allow ‘some’ ownership in the future?

  134. 1OldGunny1 January 4, 2013

    It is illegal to sell a gun on the Internet to a non-FFL dealer in the United States. Any firearms sold on the Internet must go through a FFL dealer on both ends. This article is full of lies.

    I have been to these gun auctions online and they look some what like E-Bay in that people can either buy or auction off their weapons online. The thing is is that the gun does not go to the customer first but will be mailed to the nearest FFL license holder of the buyer’s choice. And still you will need to go through a background check as well as to fill out federal paperwork mandated by law. All of these online gun auctions work this way so i could not understand why these anti-gun and even the government itself are feeding this blatant lie to the people.

  135. 1OldGunny1 January 4, 2013

    Obviously you don’t keep up with current events and the news. New York’s Governor Cuomo and the West Coast Senator Diane Feinstein have been calling for just that. Along with many other “progressives”. Wake up sir.

  136. 1OldGunny1 January 4, 2013

    No they don’t. I am a LEO. We don’t do that. Stop with the ignorance.

  137. Mark Goddard January 4, 2013

    Incredibly biased article and full of mis-information. The NRA “gun culture” does not promote the murder of people. It promotes the responsible and safe use of firearms for sport. The rounds for this sniper rifle are around 20 dollars a piece and it is a heavy gun, not very portable.
    The bushmaster is a semi-automatic lookalike and would not be taken into combat.The mini gun costs thousands of dollars and nobody could afford or transport the thousands of rounds it burns up in seconds.
    And nobody has mentioned mental health or the role that pharmaceutical drugs might play.
    I can agree with a magazine limit though. And if it is true that online sales are not screened, then that should be changed.

  138. MLChevy January 5, 2013

    We can get semi automatic handguns but we need to pass a more advanced course for our restricted license which is not any harder.

  139. LLeone January 5, 2013

    This is such BS….All the best guns I want to buy are on backorder because they keep flying off the shelves quicker than they can roll off the assembly line. It’s about the only sector of our economy that’s booming right now.

    The only problem with firearms in America that I see is that some people keep hogging all the action before I can get mine….Now knock it off people…And spread some of these good guns around.

  140. Ronald M Cox January 5, 2013

    usmcblackops spoken like a true coward…i bet you sleep underneath the bed with the lights on , clinging to your big gun in one hand and your little in the other…hahaha scared little boy are you!!!!!

  141. williamt January 5, 2013

    id like to see how they bought any of these guns on line and had them shipped to there homes . i think its a lie , you can buy a gun on line but you cannot have it shipped to your home unless you have a federal firearms licence to sell firearms. other wise you have to find a gunshop to take the shipment and then he has to make sure you can legaly own the gun and do background checks also unless you have a permit. you canot own a full auto gun.

  142. Hello Kitty January 5, 2013

    Fuck the assholes that wrote this article. Fuck you all! I am reading this article in China right now and I can tell you that without guns people FEAR government and if you don’t think so, consider the events of Tienanmen Square. SUPPORT YOUR 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

  143. MLChevy January 6, 2013

    I don’t know how many people use them for fun if you want me to get exact statistics I could go door to door across America but the people I know buy rifles because they go hunting they generally buy bolt actions for this and all the people I know who go to the range and shoot semi autos its because they are easier to clean and more fun to use and have less recoil so shooting them is more fun because if you want to shoot more at a range you won’t leave with a bruised shoulder. And just because a semi automatic is more deadly doesn’t mean only one person would be killed with the hammer and yes there are reasons to shoot with semi automatics even if you only go hunting with bolt actions or lever actions which is to practice proper shooting form.

  144. Charless Mikesells January 6, 2013

    wow, the amount of mis information in this article is stunning, did the writer do any homework at all or just make it up as they wrote like any good liberal does?

  145. berlinfoto January 7, 2013

    What is your profession? Are you a professional propagandist?

    Your piece is full of half truths and deception.

    Your kind always go after the black colored guns with stocks or hand grips made out of some synthetic black material, when they are probably more identically functioning models of firearms with natural wood stocks and hand grips.

    Is it the Black color that really disturbs you?

  146. Hassan Nød January 7, 2013

    in switzerland 1 out of every 2 citizens has guns, but they still have the lowest crime rate in the world
    and here in Denmark we have the strictest gun laws in EU (we are not even allowed to own a knife with a blade over 2 inches)
    but we still have gang related shootings almost every week
    So i call bullshit on gun laws

    1. shediac January 8, 2013

      The Swiss are intelligent the Danes…

  147. NO HELMET NO RIDE January 8, 2013

    High court orders Makati hotel to pay dead guest’s heirs P52M
    By Jerome Aning
    Philippine Daily Inquirer
    3:12 am | Monday, September 17th, 2012