There's good law abiding people that have guns, who take car of what they
have. There's some bad one's out there to. You don't need a gun
to kill. The most dangerous weapon in the world is the human mind.
The author is assuming that gun control laws prevent bad people from getting
guns which they never have and never will. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you
Chicago, Illinois, the murder capital of the world with the strictest gun laws
in the nation! Anyone with a brain can see more gun control laws are useless and
only serve to punish law abiding citizens! Cops can not protect you from bad
Let's compromise on this name change: you call it the Un-American Rifle
Association, and I'll call Obama's health care plan for what it is:
the Un-Affordable Health Care Act. Deal?
My U. S. Army drill instructors, in the year 1964, had a little gem that sums up
the following quote taken out of context from an above DN post.
"...Chicago, Illinois, the murder capital of the world...""Some of you people must live in a vacuum."There are small
countries with murder rates substantially higher than Chicago.
Guns are merely tools. By themselves, they can do nothing. It takes a human mind
and heart to put them to use, for good or ill. Gun control laws are not going to
stop evil people from violently attacking those they wish to hurt. Americans
have a constitutional right to defend themselves. The NRA merely helps protect
The reason we have these mass killings is because we have crowds of unprotected
people. So let's pass a law that says everyone must wear full body armor
every time they go out in public...or...lets pass a law that says no more than 2
people can be within 100 yards of each other. That will solve it...right?I'm sure the writer would be for such measures, because as he put
it..."Why would anybody be against a law that may have the possibilities of
reducing the number of killings?"Such silly notions make about
as much sense as this gun bill does.
"Bombs are merely tools. By themselves, they can do nothing. It takes a
human mind and heart to put them to use, for good or ill. Bomb control laws are
not going to stop evil people from violently attacking those they wish to hurt.
Americans have a constitutional right to defend themselves. The NRA merely helps
protect that right."--------------If you do not see
anything wrong with this post, I pity you.Why ARE bombs illegal?
Did you call your legislators to let them know how you want them to vote on gun
control measures?Apparently your legislators believe voting against
expanded background checks is politically the right thing to do.
Keep in mind that the NRA represents the gun manufacturers. Their goal is money
money money. This scare over "they might take my gun away" has
generated a nice spike in the sale of guns and ammo. As gruesome and repugnant
as it sounds, the massacre of children at Newtown was great for business.
Re: "Why would anybody be against a law that may have the possibilities of
reducing the number of killings? "Primarily because it does NOT
"have the possibilities of reducing the number of killings."The current crop of Anti-American liberal gun control proposals don't
address the issue of reducing the number of killings. They don't even
address the issue of gun control. They only address controlling people, and even
then, they're directed at controlling the wrong people.Liberals
are well aware of the ONLY tactic that actually has a chance of reduceing the
number of killings -- directing their efforts against criminals, rather than the
law-abiding.Well-known Republican liberal, Rudy Giuliani, even
implemented that tactic, and it worked. He reduced the number of killings in NYC
by 65%, simply by getting serious about enforcing those laws already in
effect.But today's anti-American liberal politicians clearly
want a festering political crisis they can run against, WAY more than they
wan't an actual solution.
Re: "Why ARE bombs illegal?"They aren't. Unless you
intend to use them to kill or injure people. See 18 USC 921.Why is
it so hard for liberals to wrap their heads around the concept that the cause of
crime is criminals, not their tools?
The 5 year old that gets run over when mom backs up the SUV cannot defend
himself eitherSo what’s your pointI am NOT a gun person.
But I am an anti-politically correct silliness person: So in the spirit of
renaming efforts, I give you: Planned Anti-parenthood, Nutty Organization of
Women, Unoccupied (brain) Wall Street, National Association of Professional
Victims, Human Rights Crushers, PMSNBC
From the t-shirt that is worn by Mr. Larsen in the movie Happy Gilmore,
“Guns don’t kill people, I kill people”My heart
and prayers go out to all those who were victims of the Boston bombings, the
shooting in Newtown, and the other violent tragedies that have transpired. It
is clear that there are some very sick people among us, and unfortunately it is
unclear when, where, and how the next catastrophe will occur.Whether
it is by gun, pressure cooker, or airplane, it is apparent that anyone who is
determined to inflict pain and carnage, they will by any means necessary. Keep
the guns in the hands of those who respect them, and who are trained to use
them.Why would I ever give my gun to the government in return of
their protection? It is quite obvious that the protection they are currently
offering can’t catch everything. It is because of that I have guns to
protect myself, my family, and my property from the previously mentioned people,
and if needed tyrannical governments, and foreign attacks/invasions.
We won't see progress on this front until the elected ones are as fearful
of the electorate as they are of the NRA.
Here is the ironic paradox of "gun control"; Obama and the
"important" people in government all have armed guards to protect them
and their children but you and I must not be allowed to protect ourselves!
Welcome to the new America!
Let's be honest, there is no way prudent gun control ever has or would ever
violate any reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, let alone weaken the
Constitution and hasten the downfall of the government. And regardless of what
federal policies under consideration are adopted, there is no legitimate reason
to suspect that we won't be at least as protected and as free as ever. So
why the conniption?Obviously hidden under a welter of competing
facts are deeper issues influencing the debate. All of us
(regardless of how objective we fancy ourselves to be) mostly believe what we
want to believe and find what we look for. Researchers have even suggested a
genetic component to a person's conservative and liberal leanings.Key to our understanding is recognizing that the way we see our world is very
much a projection of our inner selves. Acceptance of ourselves precedes
acceptance of others, and to an important degree it is our inner insecurity that
drives our outward aggression.You could say like Pogo of old that,
"We have met the enemy and he is us.
The mentality here seems to be; laws will not stop people from getting guns
illegally, so we should not have gun laws.Could we not apply this logic to
any crime? Do murder laws stop murder? Do other laws stop crime?I do not
think it is unreasonable to require a background check before selling a gun at a
shop, gun show, or between two people.They register when you transfer a
car, why not a gun?
I am still trying to figure out what is unamerican about defending
constitutional rights. The NRA is defending our rights, and I can't figure
out why that is wrong.
I think there should be a background check on our Commander in Chief who orders
thousands of armed citizens into conflict. None such has been performed...
The nra tells us we will all be safer if everyone owns lots and lots of
weapons.There is really no need for background checks.The 2nd Amendment was written to enable all of us to be safer since everyone
is allowed, by the Constitution, to own lots and lots of weapons.The
nra represents weapons owners and would-be weapons owners.As
advocates for weapons owners and would-be weapons owners, the nra will soon be
lobbying all weapons manufacturers to make more weapons so that we can all be
safer.Stockholders holding weapons industry stocks salute the nra
and the weapons industry!What could be more American?
Is a pressure cooker worth more than the lives of fellow Americans? Why would
anybody be against a law that may have the possibilities of reducing the number
of killings? Do we need pressure cookers capable of killing 20 runners in a
marathon for our own cooking?
Guns are terrible home defense. Strong doors, alarms and security shutters are
the right tools to keep your family safe. All these gun nut's fantasy is to
take down a robber IN their home but to do that they first have to FAIL to keep
their family safe. Pathetic.And as far as defending against tyranny,
they may as well be concerned for their ability to have a spear. They should be
limiting the size and spending of the DOD. But that's what conservatives
do. They're in denial and resistance to change.
Let's be honest, the downfall of the government or the weakened
Constitution and gun control would violate the reasonable interpretation of the
2nd Amendment. Why did the English request any firearms from the U.S. during
WWII? Why did the Nazi army go into the local governments to get the gun
registration records first? Why does China support gun registration in the
United States? And what program does the federal government administer without
corruption and fraud? Which tyrannical government that has existed in the last
100 years didn't start with the concept of taking care of the people?
"They register when you transfer a car, why not a gun?"Well
for one, you do not have the constitutional right to own or drive a car. It is
considered a privilege and the state can regulate that privilege.
There You Go Again,Your logic will lead the manufacturers of pressure
cookers to join the NRA.
"They register when you transfer a car," Yes and the only reason they
register cars is for the collection of taxes.
@Procuradorfiscal:"Why is it so hard for liberals to wrap their
heads around the concept that the cause of crime is criminals, not their
tools?"If the "tool" is irrelevant, why are the
penalties for committing a crime with a firearm enhanced over committing exactly
the same crime without one?Why is it so hard for conservatives to
wrap their heads around the concept that a person who commits a crime with a
firearm is more culpable than one who commits a crime without one, hence the
"tool" used is not irrelevant?
Re: "Let's be honest, there is no way prudent gun control ever has or
would ever violate any reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment . . .
."Yeah, and while we're being honest -- let's admit
that the US Supreme Court recently struck down laws that really DID violate the
Second Amendment, laws that must have seemed "reasonable" to someone.Let's also be honest enough to admit liberals DO want to disarm
America. Adoption of one or another "reasonable" restriction won't
solve the problem, and is not the real end to liberals.Though the
people have spoken, they have no plans to quit.They justify their
perfidy with various excuses -- "people don't need guns;"
"it's not 1791;" or my favorite, "armed insurrection is
illegal."Actually, our Declaration of Independence sets out the
conditions under which we, the people, may rebel. And there are millions of us
that have sworn a perpetual oath to "support and defend the Constitution of
the United States," NOT its government.Real people really do
associate Lexington and Concord with our guns, not Newtown and Aurora.
Re: ". . . a person who commits a crime with a firearm is more culpable than
one who commits a crime without one . . . ."Huh? Seems like
desperate, anti-gun liberals are now reduced to "jumping the shark."It's a little hard to ask them, but I'd bet big money that
murder victims are WAY more concerned about being dead than about what tool was
used to kill them.If that's the best liberals have got,
it's no wonder they lost the argument.
I suppose proc knows that the measure actually passed by 54-46, but of course
the GOP has changed the Constitution to to require 60 votes under filibuster
rules. Their battle cray is "Do nothing!"
Is it Constitutional to prequalify us for ownership of guns when the
Constitution explicitly forbids government from infringing on that right? That
right is one that the people made perfectly clear to Obama and all who believe
him that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms and that government has
no right to infringe. If yesterday's melt-down by the
President has shown us anything it is that we must distrust Washington when our
liberties are at stake. When the President of the United States throws our
liberties under the bus for political gain, he is someone to be pitied not
someone to be admired. His total and complete disrespect for the Constitution
has reached a new low. He, who swore and oath to protect and defend the
Constitution has done exactly the opposite.In America, we are
innocent until PROVEN guilty of a crime. Owning a firearm is not a crime; it is
a right that we, the people, have reserved to ourselves without any government
oversight.Anyone who trusts the government to provide security need
look no further than Boston.
"People have told me that I'm courageous, but I have seen greater
courage. Gabe Zimmerman, my friend and staff member in whose honor we dedicated
a room in the United States Capitol this week, saw me shot in the head and saw
the shooter turn his gunfire on others. Gabe ran toward me as I lay bleeding.
Toward gunfire. And then the gunman shot him, and then Gabe died. His body lay
on the pavement in front of the Safeway for hours.I have thought a
lot about why Gabe ran toward me when he could have run away. Service was part
of his life, but it was also his job. The senators who voted against background
checks for online and gun-show sales, and those who voted against checks to
screen out would-be gun buyers with mental illness, failed to do their job.They looked at these most benign and practical of solutions, offered by
moderates from each party, and then they looked over their shoulder at the
powerful, shadowy gun lobby -- and brought shame on themselves and our
government itself by choosing to do nothing."(Gabby Giffords) Amen
jsfCenterville, UTwell how many people die by pressure
cooker compared to guns?
Banning pressure cookers would be much easier than banning guns. The Founding
Fathers didn't foresee the need for them so they are not protected in the
Mike:If the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is absolute,
as you seem to argue, then you must support the right of felons, minors, and
lunatics to keep and bear arms of all types (since the 2nd Amendment contains no
exceptions), and you must also think that the current federal requirement for
background checks when buying from a gun dealer is unconstitutional and should
be abolished, right? And you must disagree with the Supreme Court, which has
the responsibility to interpret the Constitution, as well as with common sense,
both of which tell us that there are and must be some limits on 2nd Amendment
rights, just as there are on all the other rights enumerated in the Bill of
Rights.Do you have any idea how extreme and irrational you sound?
Adolphus Busch IV, heir to the Busch family brewing fortune, resigned his
lifetime membership in the National Rifle Association on Thursday, writing in a
letter to NRA President David Keene, "I fail to see how the NRA can
disregard the overwhelming will of its members who see background checks as
Re: People that say gun laws won't stop gun violence.So by that
logic, should we also do away with all traffic laws? Because hey, even with
traffic laws people are still running red lights, etc.
The title on the letter accuses an organization of being un-American. But the
screeners won't pass any post I have tried saying that those who are trying
to circumvent the constitution are the ones who are un-American. Maybe I don't have to name them. You know who they are.Thank
God for a Patriotic American organization that upholds the Constitution, called
In the 1920s and ’30s, the NRA was at the forefront of legislative efforts
to enact gun control. The organization’s president at the time was Karl T.
Frederick, a Princeton- and Harvard-educated lawyer known as “the best
shot in America”—a title he earned by winning three gold medals in
pistol-shooting at the 1920 Summer Olympic Games. As a special consultant to the
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Frederick helped
draft the Uniform Firearms Act, a model of state-level gun-control
legislation.Frederick’s model law had three basic elements.
The first required that no one carry a concealed handgun in public without a
permit from the local police. A permit would be granted only to a
“suitable” person with a “proper reason for carrying” a
firearm. Second, the law required gun dealers to report to law enforcement every
sale of a handgun, in essence creating a registry of small arms. Finally, the
law imposed a two-day waiting period on handgun sales.In the 1960s,
the NRA once again supported the push for new federal gun laws.Today, NRA=gun maufacturers.
But VIDAR the liberal argument is if it saves one life, we need controls.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011, Miami woman hurt in pressure cooker accident dies. Just
one death could have been prevented by common sense laws. Oh and for the last
40 years pressure cooker bombs have been used to kill thousands. It is about
time liberals use reality checks.
@Curmudgeon,If you think that I'm "extreme", then you
must also think that President James Madison was "extreme", because he
wrote the Bill of Rights. You must also think that Alexander Hamilton was
"extreme" because he argued that no Bill of Rights was necessary because
the people, not the government, held all rights.You must also think
that Jesus Christ is extreme because he forgave fully some "sinners".
He did not limit their freedoms after they had been forgiven. A
felon who has been released from jail has paid whatever price demanded by
society. He owes nothing more to society. Society owes him his freedom. He
paid the bill in full. You imply that a convicted felon is forever
a slave to the State; that he can never again receive his freedom, no matter
that he paid the price required. I find that line of thought to be both
illogical and reprehensible.
re: jsfI think the point is here that many commenters are comparing
a pressure cooker to a gun. And suggesting if we ban guns we need to ban
pressure cookers. It’s a silly comparison, and they all know it. Having a
pressure cooker is not a crime. Using a pressure cooker to make a bomb is.
Bombs are pretty much illegal for anyone to make or have. No one is suggesting
that all bombs are registered, or that we need to have a background check before
someone buys a bomb.I certainly think people have the right to own guns.
Along with that, I would like to see gun owners secure their weapons, and be
held responsible when they are not secure.If your gun discharges and kills
a person, toilet, or table accidentally, you should be charged with something
criminal.If a child get hold of your weapon and kills another child, you
should go to prison.Requiring a background check to buy a gun is not
@Mike RichardsSo I guess you are also against a registry for
convicted sex offenders. After all, once released from prison, they have paid
their debt to society, and no one is entitled to know that they once molested
little girls. I suppose you'd have no problem employing them to care for
your granddaughters. Every time you post you confirm my statement.
How tragic it must be to view the world in stark black and white--no gray, no
@RoscoeThere's not constitutional right to have zero regulation on
guns in this nation. Even Scalia agrees with that. (Scalia's the most
conservative judge on the court... and yes I have to state that because someone
in one of these threads once responded to my stating this by calling Scalia a
Public Service announcement–Some Important signs of lead
poisoning: Learning difficultiesDeclines in mental
functioningMemory lossMood disordersPlease wash your
hands with cold water after handling your ammo.
The NRA is a lobbying organization to promote the sale of guns. Period. Before
it promoted gun safety. Now it works to encourage everyone to have a gun for
defense against a tyrannical government. It concerns with the Constitution and
2nd Amendment rights is just a ruse to sell more guns. Nothing in the
Machin-Toomey bill allowed for any infringement upon someone's right to
purchase a gun. And the idea of developing a national registry was explicitly
declared illegal under the legislation.However, the NRA said that
the legislation would invalidate the 2nd Amendment and move toward establishing
a national gun registry. Both false allegations. The fear the NRA has ginned
up and the paranoid they generate is, as they have determined, is the best
marketing tool they have. In fact, NRA finds that mass shootings like at
Aurora, CO, and the Sandy Hook Elementary School is good for business. More
guns get sold after such disasters than without such tragedies and the NRA
simply fans the terror for financial gain.
The defeated legislation will assist bad people and potential bad people in
It seems to me that the people who support this bill are the same people who
supported the income tax amendment. They probably used the same arguments. It
only affects a select few people. Now it affects everyone. The bill
will only start as just background checks, but it would grow into something
more. Just like New Yorks bill. They said it wouldn't lead to any
confiscation, but it has.
History will decry the failure of this country to enact reasonable laws to
protect citizens from the ravages of assault weapons. You who parrot the NRA
lines will bear much responsibility for the continued slaughter.Since 1980 about 3500 people on American Soil have been killed by terrorists.
Most of them on 9/11. To counter that we created a whole new government agency
and legislated vast new laws granting the Federal Government sweeping new
powers, some of which clearly infringe on certain Constitutional rights. But
guns are killing more than 30,000 Americans each and every year, and we
can't even get and up or down vote on legislation to require a background
check, even when it was so watered down to exclude private sales? What is wrong
with this picture?
Guns, just like bombs, axes, swords, knives, and hands, kill people. These,
though, are tools. We trust these tools in the hands of experts, such as law
enforcement, and chefs, but we don't trust them in the hands of
psychopaths, and rightly so. The NRA encourages proper training for the safe
handling of these tools. Why vilify them and not the people who perpetrate and
promulgate heinous methods of using these tools? People, it would seem, are the
problem. When we have better people, we will have less problems with the ways
they use their tools. Until then, depriving people of tools to defend themselves
doesn't seem like such a good idea.
Are you kidding me? Albertus, this must have been done
"tongue-in-cheek". How can anyone be this ignorant. And once and for all, it isn't the NRA's fault. It's the
Constitution's. So if you want to place blame, then look no further than
the Founding Fathers.
Using this same sort of ignorant thinking perhaps we should now ban all PRESSURE
COOKERS after the Boston bombings - right? Yes let's go door to door and
take granny's pressure cooker away - the one she uses to put up peaches -
after all if there are no more pressure cookers there will be no more bombings
...CORRECT?? Holy geez people this really isn't this hard if
you think with your head instead of your emotions. Bad guys will ALWAYS get
illegal guns. The guns used at Sandhook were obtained ILLEGALLY !! Bad people
are going to kill. Evil exists. Taking guns away from law obeying citizens only
makes it much easier for bad guys to rob stores, kill at will in grade and high
schools, rape and do pretty much what ever they want. To the college co-ed
walking across a dark parking lot - if this girl has a 9mm semi auto in her
purse and is trained in it's use her chances of getting assaulted just
dropped dramatically. Good people have the RIGHT to protect themselves and their
families regardless of what the communist left thinks. In Communism there are no
I am a proud member of the NRA for 30 years!!! I hunt and my wife and family all
have been trained in gun use. God bless the NRA. Without the NRA America would
soon become the old USSR or Communist China - a gun-less society. People
..please do some research regarding the second amendment and why it is CRITICAL
in any free society.
Let me tell you something, when someone comes to your house to rob you and they
have a gun pointed at you, and you don't have anything to protect yourself
such as a gun...you're going to be out of luck...even though you're
like 80 years old Ad.