Google+


Commentary duncecap_GUNS_DONT_KILL_FI

Published on April 9th, 2013 | by James Schlarmann

132

“Guns Don’t Kill People, People Do” Makes You Sound Like a Buffoon & Here’s Why


Let me let all the gun zealots in on a little secret — we all completely understand what you mean by “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” We’re not idiots. Yes, a gun does not kill anyone of its own volition. So congratulations. In the debate over whether inanimate objects can kill people without some help from a willing human, you win! Yay! Now, let’s get to why this elementary statement of fact is not in fact a valid counter-argument to gun control, and more importantly why you look like a heartless jackass when you use it, shall we?

Of course the people pulling the trigger are the ones guilty of committing the crime. I have yet to hear one single, solitary advocate of tighter gun laws advocate indicting the weapons themselves. We’re a violent species, warring on each other since the very first time a caveman told another caveman to get out of his cave and go find a cave of his own, and no one is denying that humans will find a way to kill humans regardless of the tool they choose to use, but nothing changes the fact that it is in our best interest to tightly control tools of wanton murder.

PARANOIA_GUNS.pngWhat those of us who want to see a renewed assault weapons ban, universal background checks, and limits on the size of ammunition magazines, cartridges and clips are asking for is an adult conversation, and an acknowledgment from the other side of what we all know to be true  – there is no logical reason for a citizen not in a militia or branch of the armed forces to own an assault weapon. If they were to be honest, they’d admit that it’s a tantrum they’re throwing and nothing else. A tantrum over being even asked to be inconvenienced, and in terms of the assault weapons ban, a tantrum over whether or not we should allow these kinds of guns to hit the black market, or whether we should at least attempt to stem the tide of their flow into the black market.

Banning guns will not stop all the killing everywhere. Of course it won’t, but that’s not what gun control is about, and it’s not about taking guns away from everyone. The truth is that for every Sandy Hook there are dozens and dozens of every day gun crimes that are perpetrated with handguns. Of course an assault weapons ban wouldn’t stop those crimes, but that’s what other laws are for. It’s as if the gun lobby’s stance is that if you can’t fix the gun problem with one sweeping law, you have to take them all off the books for fear of impinging someone’s Constitutional freedoms.

Over and over again gun zealots try to hijack the argument and make it about outright banning of all guns. No matter how many times advocates of tighter gun laws tell them that they understand there’s no Constitutional grounds for confiscation, that’s the only point of focus the gun lobby wants their people focused on. It’s all about avoiding the big “gun grab” by the government at all costs — all the while ignoring the fact that society is becoming increasingly discontent with the notion of innocent bystanders being the collateral damage in our struggle to responsibly and reasonably abridge our Constitutional right to a gun.

We don’t want to take away your guns, we just want to do everything possible to make sure only people we all trust get them.

We are a nation that loves its guns and while we continue to operate under those auspices we’ll never be able to rid our society of guns altogether. Considering that guns sure do make the job of killing someone that much easier, it only makes sense from the standpoint of peace and stability to limit just how much firepower one citizen has access to. That notion may sound treasonous to some, but it’s certainly not in anyone’s best interest for civilians to own any kind of weapon they want. Supreme Court Justice Scalia himself has noted that the Second Amendment is not unlimited, and all we on the side of gun control want is to have a talk about the boundaries and limits, nothing else.

Ultimately it’s not about whether the gun kills people or people do the killing; it’s about being reasonable. It’s about looking at gun ownership under the auspices of personal protection, and deciding as a people what we consider to be reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. That’s why using the “guns don’t kill people” mantra makes you look like such an asshole. No one is arguing with you about that. No one is insisting that guns kill people of their own accord. Of course they don’t. But in two of the six mass shootings last year, the killer chose the Bushmaster AR-15.

Both the Aurora and the Sandy Hook shooter found the AR-15 good for their purposes, and those purposes were to slaughter as many people as they could as quickly as they good. Had the Aurora shooter’s AR-15 not jammed, how  many more people would have lost their lives in the theater that night? It doesn’t take a ballistics expert to see that novice shooters would prefer a gun that’s light, has very minimal recoil, and will allow you to fire pretty much however many rounds your finger can squeeze off  in any given time period. Then we have to ask ourselves if unhinged people are using these weapons we have to ask ourselves if that they are something we the people — not the Founding Fathers and not the gun lobby — consider to be sensible for home protection.

In other words — it’s about Democracy.

GUNS_COLD DEAD HANDSThe reason that the gun lobby loves to trot the “Guns don’t kill people” line out is that it’s a cute  little bumper sticker slogan. It’s easily repeated and remembered, and again from a very elementary standpoint, it’s true. Then once they get you agreeing that guns are just a tool, they can bring out their other whopper, comparing regulation of guns to things like drugs and cars. They’ll ask if we should ban all hammers because they can be used in a murder. They’ll ask if we should ban all cars since cars kill more people every year than guns do.

What the gun zealots don’t quite grasp is that guns are not like cars, hammers or even drugs. There is no benign purpose to a gun. It’s designed intent is one of killing another living thing, and to conflate guns, cars and drugs is just wrong; it’s a false comparison. Sure, cars and drugs aren’t mentioned as specific Constitutional rights, but that doesn’t mean that laws cannot or should not be written to better frame what we consider a valid expression of our Second Amendment rights — a shotgun or a handgun — and what is out of bounds for us. But one thing that gun control is not about, nor will it ever be about, is an outright disarming of the populace.

A government that trusts its people to own any guns at all is not a government of tyranny, period. So once you strip the Second of that false narrative — protection against tyranny — it becomes a Constitutional right to protect your property and ostensibly your other Constitutional freedoms. Thank God not everyone feels they need a gun to protect their freedoms, but let’s say you feel you do. Most of us wouldn’t quibble with that assertion. What we’d like to do now is ask you why you think you need a lightweight, military-style semi-automatic rifle with lightweight large capacity magazines to defend your home. If your answer to that question is “I don’t have to tell you,” or “AMERICA!” then you’re wrong. Dead wrong. This is how democracy works. Enough people get tired of the way something is going and they get together and address it. Whether or not guns kill people, cats kill people, or people kill people, more than nine out of every ten Americans wants a background check done before you buy a gun anywhere.

Irrelevant arguments don’t make cliches, cliches make irrelevant arguments.

 

 

Tags: , , ,


About the Author

James is the founding contributor and editor-in-chief of The Political Garbage Chute, a left-leaning satire and commentary site, which can be found on Facebook as well. You definitely should not give that much a shit about his opinions.



  • Joel Wilkins

    OK, let me first state that I am a liberal through and through. Have voted Dem for ever and yet…. I have guns.

    I’m OK with expanded registration, licensing and background checks, what ever helps us track gun purchases. I don’t buy into the paranoia that this will lead to a slippery slope where it’s then easier for guns to be confiscated. But, I do have issues with “Assault Weapon” ban.

    Just the mere mention of the phrase sounds scary…they exist, of course, to assault something…my god… it must be bad! So let me ask a few questions…

    1. What are you going to do about the existing “Assault Weapons”? Grand father them in or confiscate them? How about the “High Capacity Magazines”… same question.
    2. What about pistols that have “High Capacity” magazines? Are those guns banned too? If so, you’ve just eliminated about 75% of all semi-automatic handguns.
    3. Why are some guns (look up Ruger 10-22) legal (and in fact considered a kids gun) in one form, but change one (non-functional) part like a handgrip and suddenly it becomes an “Assault Weapon”.
    4. I know YOU don’t care, but there are several shooting sports (that have nothing to do with hunting) that cease to exist with your ban. Look up USPSA, IDPA or IPSC on youtube.

    So, while I agree that the NRA is using sound bite phrases to further its message, so are the anti-gun lobbists… “Assault Weapon” is simply used for scare sake as it really means nothing. If you really mean AR-15 and AK-47, then SAY AR-15, and AK-47.

    And while I’m at it… learn the language of the subject matter. A clip is NOT a magazine. A clip loads an internal chamber with bullets while a magazine holds the bullets itself. NO MODERN gun uses clips. And to say a magazine/clip as the Colorado congress woman said just makes liberals sound stupid.

    • Michael4000

      Every time in history where the state has required the registration of guns… within 10 years they seized all of them from the citizens.
      1. assault weapons is an incorrect term. They are rifles. They do nothing special… no magic bullets are shot from them. They dont have grenades or missiles shoot out. They are rifles that look cool. My kids corvette car looks cool and it doesnt do anything like the real thing either.
      2. I agree that high capacity magazines cant be restricted. But progressives will continue….
      3. Because progressives want submission. They dont like the constitution. Even the President said it himself…

      Its simple. 2191 people protect themselves with their CHL handgun PER DAY from a crime.
      That is 2191 reasons why progressives wont win this fight.
      ~M

      • http://www.facebook.com/chris.humphrey3 Chris Humphrey

        This is exactly the kind of meandering argument that someone makes to excuse a temper tantrum, and that’s ALL it is..

        • wes

          maybe you should try responding to the argument.

          • rhiannon

            OK, I’ll bite, first there are states and countries that require registration of guns to one extent or another for decades, and there has been no attempt to take guns away. Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Israel, Norway, Australia, Canada, UK, Japan, all regulate guns or gun owners in some way, but they’re not all grabbing guns from citizens just as the US has no plans to take guns from lawful owners.

    • http://www.facebook.com/remi.lafontaine Remi LaFontaine

      People are less concerned about how the bullet enters the weapon than they are about how and why it comes out.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.mcneal.5 Jeffrey McNeal

    So liberals sound stupid when they confuse clips and magazines. Tea partyists sound stupid when they say that they can see Russia from their house. Which is more stupider? And yes that question was intentionally stupid-fied.

  • LF

    Maybe she lost that info when she was shot….in the head

    • LF

      Sorry..I thought you meant Gabrielle Giffords.

  • Kris

    This is what happens in countries with stricter gun laws. Enough said

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/12/14/china-school-stabbings/1770395/

    • http://www.facebook.com/chris.humphrey3 Chris Humphrey

      And they lived. What a shock.

  • Dana

    Typo- *could should replace “good” in the article. Love the article. Thanks!

  • Chancellor C. Roberts, II

    The author misses a very important point regarding gun ownership in America: that one of the reasons the founders opposed “gun control laws” is so that the American people could, when necessary, defend themselves from a tyrannical government like the one against which the founders fought a revolution. There is no valid argument for the government being allowed to dictate who can own guns, what kinds of guns, etc. in a free society. It is the statist, the government-lover, the hater of liberty, the dictator that wants to restrict people’s ownership of guns. Gun-control laws are entirely contrary to the founding ideals of individual liberty and severely-limited government (and, no, the Republicans don’t have a clue about limited government and are just as much liberty-hating, government-loving statists as the Democrats).

    Gun control laws don’t prevent the criminally-minded from obtaining guns. The Sandy Hook shooting took place in a so-called “gun-free school zone” (no guns allowed). The shooter was committing a gun crime from the moment he took the gun into his hands in his mother’s home. No amount of gun control laws will stop someone who is intent on killing others.

    Gun control laws fall into two categories: 1) government restricting the ability of the people to rise up against its tyranny and; 2) meaningless, idiotic, feel-good legislation based on silly emotionalism.

    However, for those liberty-hating, government-loving statists who just insist that we must severely restrict people’s ability to own guns, that we must keep the people from being able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government (or at least from people breaking into their homes or robbing them on the street), the Constitution has an amendment process built into it and the only way government can LEGALLY restrict gun ownership is to repeal or amend the Second Amendment. All I ask is that you people follow the process.

    • James Schlarmann

      “…gun ownership in America: that one of the reasons the founders opposed “gun control laws” is so that the American people could, when necessary, defend themselves from a tyrannical government like the one against which the founders fought a revolution.”

      Wrong. Dead wrong. That’s just plainly not true. I mean, if you judge by things like historical record. The “tyrannical government” narrative is one that the NRA and the gun lobby have created, but that is simply not why the Second Amendment was created. So…yeah. Your argument is irrelevant.

      • Chancellor C. Roberts, II

        A statement attributed to Thomas Jefferson: “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

        Thomas Jefferson said in 1803: “None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.” (He meant that the people, who are the nation, should be armed, not that there should be a standing army).

        According to Samuel Adams: “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”

        Also according to Samuel Adams: “The said Constitution [shall] 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.”

        Father of the Constitution, James Madison, wrote: “A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression.”

        • James Schlarmann

          Great. Now find me quotes from people who haven’t been dead for almost 200 years and who didn’t live at a time when the most advanced gun was a muzzle-loading musket.

          • wes

            You want him to find quotes from people who wrote the constitution in the late 1990′s after they were all dead? Who else can you think of that would know the intent of the founding fathers better than the founding fathers themselves?

            Also do you think they believed that the government would have the weapons that it does now?

          • James Schlarmann

            And thus the point goes whizzing by your head, Wes. Thanks for the umm…stimulating “conversation.”

          • wes

            please explain? I get that you are the kind of person who is so insecure in your beliefs that you ignore valid questions but I legitimately do not understand how I missed the point of your nonsensical post?

          • James Schlarmann

            Insecure? Hmm. Okay.

          • wes

            there you go ignoring questions again. You sure are good at that. A lot of practice no doubt.

            I really am curious why you seem to believe that the people who wrote the constitution should not have a say in the meaning of the second amendment?

          • Chancellor C. Roberts, II

            You challenged a statement I made about the founders. I provided quotes from some of the founders that prove my statement to be correct. The burden is now on YOU to prove that those founders’ statements are incorrect.

          • http://www.facebook.com/joseph.digiovancarlo Joseph DiGiovancarlo

            I wont spend the time and dig to find quotes, but our supreme court justices have reaffirmed our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, including what some people refer to as assault rifles.

        • Janet Delicata

          How about when the people fear the people? My vision of the world doesn’t look like an old western movie with shoot outs in the streets. We should have moved way beyond that by now.

          • http://twitter.com/SoCalVillaGuy Michael C. Cordell (@SoCalVillaGuy)

            Well put, Janet! I’m of the same mind – my fear of my fellow citizens with guns far exceeds that of my government. I’ve seen these people behind the wheel of a car — I DO NOT want to see them with a gun in their hands!

        • rhiannon

          So we should get rid of our standing army and let each state provide a militia next time we go to war. The founding fathers never envisioned a standing army and they’re ALWAYS right and relevant in the 21st century.

          • Chancellor C. Roberts, II

            Well, getting rid of our standing army would by my first choice, but I’d settle for you liberty-haters and government-lovers following the amendment process that’s built into the Constitution.

    • Gnome de Pluehm

      “It is the statist, the government-lover, the hater of liberty, the dictator that wants to restrict people’s ownership of guns.”

      Apparently, your notion of liberty is the law of the jungle — only might makes right.

      • wes

        I believe his notion of liberty is more like he doesn’t want the government to have more power than the people they serve.

        • Chancellor C. Roberts, II

          Exactly, Wes. The government should never have been allowed to become more powerful than the people. That’s one of the reasons the founders were opposed to having a permanent, standing army.

  • James

    If we’re going to have an “adult conversation,” then can we at least acknowledge that, YES, the right to own weapons is, in fact, a constitutionally guaranteed right granted to individual citizens? Why are people so god-damned casually dismissive of a fundamental human right? You’re just as bad as Christians when they try and argue that the 1st Amendment doesn’t really mean that Church and State are truly separated. The language is pretty clear and the intent is totally unambiguous.

    We’re talking about a safeguard (one of many) against an overreaching government. Do we really need Miranda rights? Do we really need trial by jury? Do we really need limits on searches as seizures? Individually, none of these things really protect our liberty, but when you take them all together, they collectively safeguard a free society. The entire gun control lobby is a group that literally wants to curtail one of our most potent safeguards. Would we really be this casual if they were trying to eliminate trial by jury?

    • http://www.thebrewgeek.com Nick R.

      You may not have outright said as much, but you are another person falsely screaming “The gov. gonna take my guns”. Supporting stronger background checks, limiting/banning high capacity mags are not secret government code words for “Lets disarm the populace”. As they say, you are entitled to your opinions but not your facts. Fact is, in general, the countries that have stricter gun control laws, have fewer gun related crimes.

      You brought up the 1st amendment. It guarantees our right to free speech. Do we have truly free speech? Of course not. Our freedom of speech is regulated. You can’t scream bomb on a plane, fire in crowded theater, or threaten to kill the President….well unless your Ted Nugent…..We have laws concerning slander. We have obscenity laws that ban “obscene” content. Our 1st amendment rights are strongly regulated. Do these regulations prevent you from expressing yourself? From speaking your mind? Do they completely hamper your artistic freedoms?

      Despite what you may believe, it is possible to regulate our constitutional rights, with out taking them away.

  • http://Runwolf.wordpress.com Michael

    You claim you want an intelligent adult conversation about gun control. Then start talking like an intelligent adult instead of a fear inspiring politico.

    In America, we don’t look at things based on need, but based on want and ability to acquire. I don’t have to give you a reason why I want something, the fact that I want it is reason enough that I should have it. If you think I shouldn’t be allowed to have it, you need a powerful good reason to tell me I can’t.

    But the best you can do is tell me what I want looks scary, even though it is functionally identical to this other gun that you seem to think is safer.

    Or you accuse me of some vile intent, like black market sales or comparing me to a mass murderer. I’m not a criminal, so stop treating me like I am just because I want a thing.

    You want a conversation about sensible gun control laws, drop your preconceived sound bite ready ideas at the door, pull up a few chairs with law abiding gun loving citizens, and have this talk. Drop at the wayside your bans and background checks and really talk. But also really listen.

    Here’s a few ideas. Want real gun control? Pass laws requiring that guns should be kept unloaded and securely locked at home. Responsible gun owners would be happy with such laws, since responsible gun owners already do this. And it would cut down on gun thefts and your fearful black market supply.

    Standardize conceal carry laws. Stop the arbitrary system where a sheriff decides who can and who can’t. Put clear standards in place on how one can carry concealed.

    Let go of your gun free zones. Recognize that declaring a place “gun free” is putting a target in it. Why do these mass shootings most often happen in gun free areas? Because they are gun free.

    Stop blaming everything but the shooter for the shooting. Stop blaming gun owners, video games, movies, culture, and drugs.

    Acknowledge that background checks aren’t going to stop gun violence. Admit many of the mass killing suspects would have passed the background check and gun owners might be more willing to consider checks as an option.

    You’re right. There are silly arguments in the gun control debate. But stop and study the issue long enough to recognize some of those silly arguments are on your side as well.

    • James Schlarmann

      Want is not a good enough reason in this country. Never has been. That’s a false narrative pushed by selfish assholes. The South wanted to keep slavery and their slaves. We kind of had a “talk” about that as a nation and decided no matter how much someone WANTED to own another human being, we weren’t going to allow it. The rest of your verbal diarrhea I don’t have time for.

      • Chancellor C. Roberts, II

        The American people don’t need a reason to bear arms and, yes, want is reason enough. The right to keep and bear arms is absolute and the government doesn’t have the authority to infringe on that right. The real issue isn’t gun ownership, but the use of guns for unlawful purposes (e.g. murder).

        • James Schlarmann

          No. Want is not enough. You see, where you’re wrong is that we absolutely do need a reason to bear arms. All the Constitution does is guarantee our right to bear those arms. It doesn’t say we can take them up for any cause whatsoever. In fact, in its vaguely worded prose it implies that our right to bear arms is tied specifically to defense of the free states. It’s a national defense policy, and nothing more.

          And “want” is not a valid excuse for anything. The government has the right to infringe on anything we the people give them the right to infringe on. Hence “fire!” in a crowded theater and child pornography not being valid expressions of our First Amendment right. Just because YOU are so un-evolved as to believe that your rights to bear arms are unlimited doesn’t mean anyone else has to believe it; and most don’t. So cling all you want to your guns, my friend. The rest of us are moving on.

          • wes

            You’ll make a good little puppet.

          • wes

            I also assume that if 50.0001% of americans decided that they wanted the first ammendment removed then you would be fine with it because the people said its what they want?

            There are plenty of reasons why people need guns like self defense and a last line of defense against government like the founders intended.

            If the colonists had given up their guns to the british how do you think things would have turned out?

          • James Schlarmann

            Who said anything about removing the Second Amendment? Talk about a straw man…

          • wes

            That is a good question where did anyone mention removing the second amendment?

          • Chancellor C. Roberts, II

            No, James, the Constitution (as amended) doesn’t merely guarantee a right to bear arms, it puts restrictions on the government (which is the real purpose of those first 10 amendments). The Constitution itself was written to enumerate (list, name, identify, etc.) exactly and only what powers were being given to the federal government and what few restrictions were being put on the states.

            The founders understood that rights exist naturally, that they aren’t something conferred on people by the government. While they did accept that there was a certain social contract (as explained in John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government), the emphasis was on individual liberty and not on the collective.

          • James Schlarmann

            The Constitution puts restrictions on citizens. You’re pushing the conservative “idea” of what the Constitution is, but it doesn’t just tell the government “Hold on there, buddy, you can’t do that!” It very specifically restricts the average citizen from things. Don’t believe me? Try declaring war on another country. Or creating a tax. The Constitution is simply the founding document of our nation, it both grants and denies powers to citizens and the government. It’s a two-way street. The Founders — who again, who really gives a fuck what they thought — were at least smart enough to realize we didn’t need a bunch of assholes declaring war in our name. They still believed in the “rule of law” as you say. And that rule of law vests a large amount of power in the Federal government.

            We tried your way of doing things, under the Articles of Confederation. That sucked out loud and they had to recreate our founding documents within a relatively short amount of time. The Founders also understood, unlike you, they they were not immortal or omnipotent, hence giving us the power to change whatever the fuck it is we want to about this country. Provided we have more people supporting us than not. You’re boring though “Chancellor” and I have shit to do, so please continue to piss in the wind if you want.

          • rhiannon

            Background checks and registration (at least records kept at the dealer level) will keep more guns from getting to the criminal element if only because gun owners will think before selling their guns to a stranger. If a gun is found used in a crime, the original buyer had better have proof that they sold that gun and to who, (or had reported it stolen) or they can be held for a crime.

            If there were some way, it doesn’t have to be registration or background checks, that gun owners could be held responsible if their guns are improperly stored or sold and later turn up at a crime scene, I think that would satisfy a lot of people. The desired result is to keep guns out of the hands of those who would use them illegally, the means is being debated. I would be happy if gun owners had to pass a test on gun safety and storage

  • Jaws of Life

    The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy… So the way it’s supposed to be is the if even 1 person in the country wants to exercise that Right… It is to be protected! Enough said, What does “Shall not be infringed” mean to you?

    • James Schlarmann

      Uhh. No. That’s not how it works. It has nothing to do with “want.” In your scenario the will of the people are completely ignored. We’re a representational Republic as well. Which means we vote. Which means the majority rules. So you need more than one person standing in the room with their pacifier hanging out of their mouth demanding assault weapons. Thanks for trying though.

      • Chancellor C. Roberts, II

        James, you’re really missing it. No, it isn’t about what the collective wants, it’s about the individual. The founders described democracy as two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner, as tyranny of the majority. The founders didn’t establish a democracy, they established a constitutional republic. So, no, it isn’t majority rules, it’s the rule of law (as long as the law doesn’t violate the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land).

        • James Schlarmann

          So you’re saying that’s why you can win the Presidency in this country without getting the majority of the electoral college votes? Is that way you only need 49 votes to pass something into the Senate? Don’t you only need like 32% of the House of Representatives to vote for your bill to pass it onto the Senate.

          You’re right, “Chancellor,” the concept of the majority party rule is completely foreign to us here in America. I’ve never seen it put into practice anywhere. Certainly not in elections all over the country from high school elections to votes on legalizing marijuana. Also – who gives a fuck what the Founders said? They’re dead. We can’t ask them to help pitch in. Thanks for your system of government and all, but I’m not beholden to old, dead, slave owning white men. You can deify them if you wish. But I’d like to think 200 years of societal evolution trumps whatever 18th Century ideals you think they ascribed to.

          • Chancellor C. Roberts, II

            I wasn’t even referring to elections, but what I’m saying is that’s why you can win the presidency without getting the majority of the so-called “popular vote.” The electoral college system was set up because it’s the states, not the people, that elect the President.

            If you have such hatred for the system of government the founding fathers gave us (a constitutional republic, not a democracy), then you have a couple of options: 1) move to a country that has a government more to your liking or; 2) work to get the Constitution amended or to get a new Constitution. Until then, the system is what it is.

          • James Schlarmann

            So…you don’t understand the function that elections serve in our Republic and you want to ignore the fact that you need the majority of electoral votes to win the presidency because you can split that hair a couple times and not feel like a jackass for insinuating that in America one person can demand something and he or she has to get it, simply because they claim it as a right. Your grasp of the Constitution, and how it’s applied, is astoundingly elementary in nature.

            And I have a third option, in case you were wondering — I can voice my opinion. I can make my voice heard and then we see how many people agree or disagree. Of course the system is what it is, What a lovely attempt at sounding intellectual when you just wind-up sounding like a simpleton.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jstec921 Jason Stec

    Fantastic work! The time has come where we NEED a surly stance in combating the standard monotonous parroting of empty assertions. Nicely done, Sir.

  • http://www.facebook.com/joseph.digiovancarlo Joseph DiGiovancarlo

    The simplistic definition of the statement “Guns don’t kill people, People kill people” is easily demeaned to a position of an indefensible temper tantrum, but only by those who oppose its view. There are many opinions that can be just as easily dismissed as childish by way if “rationally dissecting” its basis. The simple fact is our Constitutional rights should never be thought of as something that is fluid, they are concrete and unalienable. A difference of opinion is nothing near tangible enough to consider modifying the foundation of our Republic. The Constitution never guaranteed your safety, only your rights. Freedom is not something you can choose from an ala carte menu, so you can pick and choose what you feel comfortable with. Many men and women have died, and continue to do so everyday to secure our freedom, the opinions from both sides of the isle are only that, opinions and have no basis for limiting the rights that are guaranteed to us. The only way this should be modified if it was brought up for a nation wide vote, then “We the People” will have spoken, and not some politically motivated sell out who thinks they know whats best for us.

    • rhiannon

      The founding fathers put the 2nd amendment into the Constitution to ensure that the Federal Government could place limits and definitions on it. Otherwise, they would have left it up to the individual states to devise their own regulations. The fact that it was included in the Constitution means that it is under the purview of the Feds.
      We need a national dialogue and some common sense laws to stop guns from bleeding into our streets. If lawful gun owners would keep their guns locked up and away from their kids, and not sell them to strangers, and promptly report if they’re stolen, we wouldn’t have this problem. Gun use should be limited to adults, most teens lack the self control, and most parents think their kids are different and can handle them (like Adam Lanza’s mom). A nationwide limit on how many guns can be bought at a time (or in a month or year) would cut down on large scale straw purchases. Gun laws need to be standardized for all states, otherwise a short car ride to an uncontrolled state or county will defeat the purpose, which is keeping our kids alive.

      • Chancellor C. Roberts, II

        No, Rhiannon, the founding fathers didn’t create the Second Amendment to ensure the feds could place limits and definitions on gun ownership, they created it to specifically prohibit the federal government from placing limits on gun ownership. The Constitution enumerates (names, lists, identifies, etc.) exactly what powers the federal government has and puts a few restrictions on the states.

        No amount of gun control laws (all of which are illegal because they’re unconstitutional) will keep guns from “bleeding into our streets.” Gun control laws do not stop people with evil intent from trying to find ways to get them. History has proven that laws banning something (e.g. alcohol, “drugs,” guns) don’t work.

        • Jenn

          Wow, your understanding of Constitutional law is quite rudimentary, isn’t it? You may want to check in on some other founding father writings, wherein Jefferson (whom you seem to enjoy quoting) corresponded with Madison regarding his expectation that the Constitution would be rewritten each generation, or approximately once every thirty years. The trouble with parsing the “true intent” of the founding fathers, you see, is they can’t be asked what they really thought, as they are dead. For every interpreter who holds the Constitution inviolate and unalterable, there is another who interprets it as a living document open to change ( Ben Franklin was of this thought school as well).

          I would note, however, that if your thinking about the Bill of Rights and the Constitution held true, and the FF wanted to keep these issues untouched and outside the purview of the Fed, wouldn’t we still be counting 3/5 of a person for people of color, and restricting voting to landed white men?

          • Chancellor C. Roberts, II

            Actually, Jenn, I’d say that your reading comprehension skills are “quite rudimentary.” There is nothing in anything I’ve written to even remotely suggest that the Constitution is “inviolate and unalterable,” the utter stupidity of your suggestion that anyone thinks it’s “unalterable” is amazing! Maybe you missed the section in the Constitution that sets forth exactly how to go about amending (altering, changing) the Constitution.

            Maybe you missed the my earlier post where I suggested to someone else: “work to get the Constitution amended or to get a new Constitution.”

            Next time, maybe you should make sure you actually understand what other people have written before you presume to comment.

            If all you liberty-hating government-lovers out there so hate the constitutional republic the founding fathers gave us that you so cavalierly push for violating its principles and for violating the document that establishes our republic – as if the Constitution doesn’t even exist – then work to get a Constitutional Convention together to write a Constitution that is more to your liking.

          • James Schlarmann

            Liberty-hating government lovers? Who the fuck talks like that? I mean besides idiotic conservative talking heads like Ann Coulter and Lush Rimjob? Seriously. You’re just bummed because the country is starting to wise-up about guns, and that SCARES you.

            Also, we don’t need to get a new Constitutional Convention together you twit. We just need to elect people who aren’t science hating Corporate Welfare lovers (see what I did there?)

            Votes are all we need. Votes and time. You guys need a miracle of conscience.

          • Chancellor C. Roberts, II

            Yes, James Schlarmann, “liberty-hating government-lovers.” I took it from a phrase that I came up with in other contexts where I’ve referred to Democrats and Republicans as “two sides of the same liberty-hating, Constitution-trampling, big government, nanny-stater, interventionist coin.”

            While I question the sanity of those who seemingly want to disarm the American people (or at least severely restrict what arms they can have), I accept that such people do exist. All I ask is that those who so stupidly wish to give government the power to take away people’s guns (or severely restrict what guns people can have and when) follow the process established in the Constitution for doing so. In other words, get Congress to put forth a constitutional amendment repealing or amending the Second Amendment. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

          • James Schlarmann

            Who’s talking about disarming the American people? No one is. It’s just that a whole bunch of us get that the Second Amendment is sort of outdated and unnecessary thanks to our bloated Defense spending of the last seven or so decades. Get a grip, my friend. A good firm one.

          • Jenn

            @Chancellor, if you care to reread my commentary, you might see that I did not say you in particular held the Constitution to be Inviolable; however, your own statements do put forth the idea that the Bill of Rights enumerate items the FF wished to keep outside the control of the federal govt. I do in fact understand the methodologies behind amending the Constitution, I just don’t happen to think it necessary, as legal interpretation of the words as written has been put forth as appropriate by just as many FF and Supreme Court Justices as those who hold to strict readings. There really isn’t a right or wrong here, sir. It’s a debate that has been raging for more that 200 years. It’s not going to stop now.
            BTW, it’s generally not considered polite to call someone names. Insult what you think of my opinion if you wish, but personal insults demean us all. I completely understand your position,(and I assure you my reading comprehension is excellent) I just happen to find it faulty.

    • Chancellor C. Roberts, II

      Joseph, you wrote: “The only way this should be modified if it was brought up for a nation wide vote, then “We the People” will have spoken, and not some politically motivated sell out who thinks they know whats best for us.”

      Amazingly, that’s exactly what the amendment process in the Constitution is for.

  • TALIWACKER

    here is why this article, written by some liberal cock gobbler, make you sound like a BUFFON.. you state that ” We’re not idiots. Yes, a gun does not kill anyone of its own volition. So congratulations. In the debate over whether inanimate objects can kill people” then in the very next Paragraph, call them ASSAULT rifles.. well if you are such the intellectual scholar, if a gun it self can not perform the act of killing, on its own, then how the fuck does it perform the actions of assault by its self
    its called a rifle, the person holding it IS THE ASSAULTER, the attacker, THE KILLER…
    AND THAT IS WHY WE MUST GET ELEMENTARY WITH YOU MORONS.. cause for one, you have no clue how to speak, without contradicting yourselves. and 2 you speak up about shit you have no clue what your talking about…
    pot a picture of these 30 round clips you speak of…

    • Political Garbage

      Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

      • TALIWACKER

        yea same thing I said about this article.. goes to show what a college education in journalism get you these days..

        • TALIWACKER

          this article has the intellectual capacity, as the liberal moron political flappers, who go on national tv, claiming unloaded guns kill people…

          • Political Garbage

            I think you need to read this as to why you ALL-CAPS BLASTING THAT YOU NEED TO GET ELEMENTARY WITH ME SINCE I USED THE WORD “ASSAULT” BEFORE RIFLE doesn’t matter worth a bucket of piss.

            http://www.politicalgarbagechute.com/why-semantic-arguments-about-gun-specs-are-a-stupid-distraction-for-simple-people/

          • TALIWACKER

            cause your to stupid realize in your article, a gun cant kill, but a rifle can assault.. there both actions…. its a contradiction to the whole article… shame on the editors for not picking that up…
            you want to make the point that guns can not kill on their own. but some how they can assault, all by themselves…

          • TALIWACKER

            and as to why I ” caps blast”. first off I do not get paid to write articles.. secondly, I did no go to college to do so either. most importantly, I do not have editors to re read my writings, to correct my emotions, or feelings, and obviously your editors failed at objectivity, and contradiction classes..

          • Political Garbage

            Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

          • TALIWACKER

            but you are right.. the phrase ” guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is old tired, and elementary.. so I got a new one for ya…
            guns don’t kill people, giant holes in vital organs kill people..

          • TALIWACKER

            just like killing, and assault are action.. a criminal, by their actions of breaking the law, is also an action.. and no past present, or future gun bans, gun control, or gun measures address someone who breaks the law.. they got ak 47s, and tech 9s off the black market, during the 90′s, when they were ban.. the felons ( not able to legally buy a gun, or pass any type of background check) still get guns off the black market today..
            so tell me how banning guns, magazine capacities, and stricter back ground checks, is goanna curb criminal use??

          • TALIWACKER

            remember how well things are working in Chicago…

          • Political Garbage

            Why don’t you just admit that you don’t care how many people are killed with guns, you don’t want to take any common sense measures to reduce that number? I’ve never once advocated the outright banning of all weapons everywhere. I’ve advocated filtering and limiting our constitutional right to arms in the same way we filter and limit literally all of our rights. Because only tantruming toddlers want unfettered freedom without ANY responsibility.

          • TALIWACKER

            you have no fucking clue what freedom is then, if you want the government to tell you when you can have it…
            yea I see how common sense measure’s, work in Chicago.. But furthermore, when voter IDs become law, and Securing our boarders, and enforcing current immigration laws are passed, and enforced.. then we can talk further..
            Cause people like Brian up there seem to think that just because full auto weapons are regulated, none come across the boarder illegally, and unknowingly.. wow what a cool aide world we live in…

          • brianmc3113

            You sure have the freedom to look like a brain dead douche with a complete lack of cognitive thinking, so at least ya got THAT going for ya ….. stay OFF the paint thinner from now on …. its eating holes in your already damaged brain

          • TALIWACKER

            but hey, if you idiots want a state that is gun free, and bans all gun.. I hear mexico is nice for that.. it seems to be working well for them too…

          • brianmc3113

            Wow, do you ever have any thoughts of your own or is your intellectual limit just spouting out bullet points and quips that have been regurgitated by hypocrite conservative pundits for a decade now?

          • TALIWACKER

            I am far from a conservative pall.. but I am now where in the far, far away world of liberal retards either. got an idea, since you morons want government to be able to tell me what type of gun I can and cant own.. how many bullets I can have in them, and when I am able to carry it…
            I think it would be fair for the government to regulate, who writes article’s, what they are allowed to contain, how long they are allowed to be, what you are allowed to write them with, and not allow total bullshit fact less article like this one,.

          • drklassen

            There *are* laws governing such things.

          • TALIWACKER

            more people are killed with, or by cars, than guns… can we address that issue too??
            then we can move to addressing deaths by knives, hammers, and fists.. cause they outnumber gun killings as well..

          • brianmc3113

            So, by your pathetically ignorant and whacked reasoning … since laws against murder don’t stop all murders, you think we should just get rid them? Seriously, did your mother ever have any children that lived?!?!

          • TALIWACKER

            hey you know heroin is illegal to own too right??? that’s working well I see..

          • TALIWACKER

            but lets go with your clueless reasoning.. since DUI laws don’t work, lets ban all cars…

          • drklassen

            That’s not his reasoning. The better analogy would be: since there are folks driving drunk, let’s outlaw that and punish it accordingly; let’s make sure every kid getting a license knows and understands the new law; let’s hold bartenders culpable for letting their patrons get dead drunk and go driving.

          • Kevin Schmidt

            Let’s go with your clueless reasoning. Since criminals do not obey the law, laws do not work, so let’s get rid of all laws.
            Oops! Then there would be a complete breakdown in civilization, which means laws do in fact work. For those few people who chose not to obey the law, we have the police, courts and prison.

          • TALIWACKER

            yes she has two ( including me) we even survived 4 combat tours… imagine that..

          • drklassen

            Guns kill more than cars in several states. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/state-map-gun-suicides-traffic-deaths

            The article addressed hammers and knives.

          • Kevin Schmidt

            Obviously you either did not read the article, and/or you are a functional illiterate.
            My guess is the later.

          • milehisnk

            You haven’t suggested anything common sense yet. So it would be more beneficial if you just closed your garbage chute and let the adults who know what we are talking about deal with it. You’re far too immature and uneducated.

          • ThePoliticalGarbageChute

            It’s not common sense to keep guns away from murderers and rapists and terrorists?

            Oh, I get it. You never progressed past the point of wanting whatever you want, whenever you want, as much as you want.

            And you’re calling me immature?

            LOL to you sir. LOL to you.

          • Ian Matthew

            common sense measures? 8,500 gun related deaths a year, that includes suicide, homocide, self defense and the defense of others, and accidental. of those 8,500, ur lookin at around 350 gun related deaths from LONG GUNS, to include, shot guns, lever actions, bolt actions and semi autos. So if u really want to make a difference youd educate urself and others on gun safety and when and how to properly use a firearm. So targeting scary rifles such as the ar platform really wouldnt make a difference… would it, considering its not the problem when it comes to gun related deaths…. common sense.

          • ThePoliticalGarbageChute

            More people have died from gunshot wounds than all terrorist attacks combined. Gun-related deaths are actually on a trend line to surpass even vehicular deaths. So yeah…

            http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/22/3320751/gun-deaths-surpass-car-accidents-leading-cause-young-people/

          • Ian Matthew

            did u not understand the point i was making? terrorist attacks and vehicular deaths have nothing to do with anything i said… so yeah…

          • brianmc3113

            Yeah, it’s common sense that those laws won’t work well when you can go right across the border to Indiana and buy whatever the hell gun you want with little oversight, but keep pulling that old trick out of the bag. You know where ELSE they have rampant violent crime? Little Rock, New Orleans, Houston,Memphis, Baton Rouge, Birmingham (all “red states” with lax gun laws). In other words, your argument would only hold water if cities with lax gun laws had less crime on average than ones with stricter laws. I know this kind of thought is way beyond taliwacker’s ability so this is more for the benefit of political garbage

          • TALIWACKER

            sorry to tell you moron. but most gun crime in Chicago, is from pistols.. and you are unable to buy a pistol out of state… but that’s for play im the moron, who has no clue what I am talking about…

          • TALIWACKER

            yea cause Chicago’s 28. 5 killings per 100,000, vs Huston’s 9.5 per 100,000. is such a close call, its a nail biter… and all those other cities don’t even compare to Chicago as well.. not to mention, all those mayors are democrats.. and some even have gun policies that differ from the state.. much like Pennsylvania, is an open carry state, Except for Philly, and Shitsburg..

          • drklassen

            Let them control their border.

          • brianmc3113

            How about we just replace “assault” weapon with “military-style” weapon so willfully ignorant douche bags like taliwacker can’t whine and moan like petulant children about the wording of an argument in order to obfuscate the real issue …… grow some balls and stop hiding behind your rapid fire weapons you paranoid pansy. I have to wonder if taliwacker ate paint chips as a child … it would explain a lot. Just realize we’ve had some form of gun control since 1934 ….. mainly because of automatic weapons like the tommy gun and the criminals that used them. Funny how the strong regulation of automatic weapons has curbed the use of them in crimes, isn’t it?

          • TALIWACKER

            yea cause no one owns one any more.. and no criminals have them either…funny I got two.. ha ha ha… legally.. how is that ban working for ya???

          • TALIWACKER

            secondly you still have no clue, a ” military style weapon, would be one that is just like the ones the military uses… lets see, does my AR- 15 have a three round burst capability like our military??? nope… wrong again…

          • brianmc3113

            I really have no words to describe how stupid you sound …. I said not one single word about a ban on automatic weapons …. I just said they are well regulated due to a gun control law from (the 1934 National Firearms Act of 1934). Since you are obviously too thick-headed to comprehend what you read in any meaningful way, I suggest the next time you clean your guns (and every time after), you should look down the barrel to make sure its clean …. no need to check to see if it’s loaded.
            Now if your ignorant asz can give me one example of automatic weapons being used in this country to commit crimes, then I’ll give you some credit for having brain power above the level of neanderthal ….. otherwise, go take a long walk off a short pier and make your family proud dumbasz

          • Dex

            Banning “military style” weapions because they have pistol grips is on the same level of idiocy as claiming that putting a spoiler and stripes on a Prius makes it into a race car.

          • milehisnk

            The strong regulation of automatic weapons didn’t curb their use in crimes. You must be an idiot if you actually believe that.

        • Mark Wandrey

          Degree in ‘journalism’?! Bwuahahahaha! You want fries with that?

      • milehisnk

        That’s about as logical of a retort as the moronic article.

        • ThePoliticalGarbageChute

          Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    • Kevin Schmidt

      You project your own MORONIC BUFFOONERY.

      Considering the seething anger and irrationality in your comments, you are probably one of those NRA gun nuts who should not be allowed to own or operate firearms until after successfully undergoing a psychiatric evaluation, completing an anger management program and then a firearms safety course.

      Personally, I think you are nothing but an ignorant disruptive troll who should be banned and all trollish comments deleted.

      By the way, how do you, “pot a picture”?

  • John Bradley

    There is no such thing as a common sense dialog about limiting second amendment powers. If the Second Amendment was treated like all the other articles and amendments, the ACLU would have seen to it that ALL Americans were provided with M-16 rifles. M4 current military issue!

    • Kevin Schmidt

      You project your own lack of common sense.

  • Hopa Ceta

    Have to admit comments were entertaining to say the least..Taliwacker it was great fun…but you’re a moron to top all morons

  • Brandon Brooks

    we don’t trust you because the term “assault weapon” is made up by people trying to look like they don’t want to ban EVERYTHING. it is a fluid term that morphs into whatever you’re trying to get rid of today. you base the term on ergonomic pieces. the basic list goes: any semiautomatic firearm with , flash suppressers/muzzle breaks, a pistol grip, thumbhole/adjustable/folding stock, forward grip, barrel shroud, bayonet lug(for all those bayonet charges that happen all the time), grenade launcher(already an NFA regulated item, along with each and every grenade one buys) and then tacks on the number of those things to meet the “assault weapon” qualification. some states say 2, others two new york just said ONE of those things makes it an assault weapon. gun owners have managed to defeat all of those laws by changing the super hated/modular AR-15. none of those parts change how the ar-15 works. it still shoots the same round, the same speed, at the same rate. moreover there are plenty of other guns that don’t even hit the list that shoot the same, or more powerful rounds at the rate. the m1a is cali legal. the volquartzen evolution takes the same magazine as the ar-15 and fires at the same rate, and comes new york legal at its LOWEST price(ny legal ar-15s cost more than normal ones). a more honest approach would be to say “this time we’re going to ban all semiautomatics.”

    then we get into magazine bans/round limits. cali wanted people to pin their mags, and required that a tool be needed to take out the mag. bullet buttons were born! it takes something small with length(like the tip of a bullet) to remove the mag. it takes a TOOL! cali tries to ban bullet buttons. new jersey is trying to lower the round count for all semiautomatics from 15 to 10. this has no effect on most of your already loathed “assault weapons” but just gut punched anyone who believed the we don’t want YOUR guns bs. it just labeled tube fed .22 caliber squirrel guns as banned. one of the smallest rounds, in the simplest semiautomatic rifle you can get. no removable mag. no evil pistol grip. not one feature from your little list of evil ergonomics. banned.

    in my time in the army i always laughed at how everyone was worried all the time deployed, but was fine at home. there is a better chance of being killed here than there was over there. ALWAYS. why would i trust my life, and the lives of my family/friends to cops with less training, and less experience than i have? why would i be hindered by a small magazine? why must i buy the rifle or pistol that YOU want me to buy? the champions of your cause prove over and over again that one more thing will never be enough. those same people continue to prove that the don’t even know what the parts they’re banning do. why should we do anything other than stop you?

    • Kevin Schmidt

      You make it sound as if there is no well defined definition of “assault weapon,” when there is one that is also rational.

      Of course, no where in your comment is a rational explanation as to why any citizen should be allowed to own one, other than wanting to own one.

      • llkkjjhh

        If you want to ban something, you need to explain why it should be banned. If your argument is that people must justify every item in order for it to be legal, you’re not only running counter to how our legal system works, but you’ve just spoken in favor of banning almost every item in existence. Go ahead, explain to us why “any citizen should be allowed” to own a video game system. Or a musical instrument. Or a house with more than 200 sq ft per resident. Or a backyard swimming pool. The whole reason that people own most of the things in there home is… they want to own them.

        And to your first point, the quoted definition of “assault weapon” is the 1994 statute verbatim. If “there is one that’s rational”, why don’t you tell everyone what that definition is?

        • Brandon Brooks

          thank you, sir

      • Bob Smiton

        It doesn’t seem to be common knowledge but there is in fact a term assault weapon but it does not refer to a firearm. An assault weapon is a device such as an anti tank weapon like the LAW-Light Anti-Tank Weapon or SMAW-Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon.

        • Brandon Brooks

          the only assault weapon the US military ever had was the infantryman’s assault weapon which was an anti-material grenade that was fired from a rifle barrel using an adapter, and a blank for propellent.

          • Bob Smiton

            It seems that you’re suggesting the US military has never used an M72 LAW or the SMAW?

          • Brandon Brooks

            law is an anti tank weapon(or LAW!) but i’m gonna have to give you this round on the smaw, as it’s right there in the name.. it also serves a similar function to the grenade i spoke of earlier. happily your win, gives me one more bit of info to use against the enemy.

          • Bob Smiton

            It does indeed serve similar function to the grenade you spoke of. I added the LAW in because I have heard it lumped in with the SMAW by a number of people. I have not seen anything officially defining it as an assault weapon though but the SMAW, yeah no denying that one. Certainly nothing like our little AR15 semi automatic rifles, carbines and pistols.

      • Brandon Brooks

        i just wrote out for you the exact definition of assault weapon in multiple states and how they decide what to ban. read some laws. ct had an assault weapon ban during sandy hook. the bushmaster used was ct ban compliant. you don’t even know what you’re asking for. the reason anyone should be allowed to own it is because it is a natural progression of technology. they are easier to clean, more sturdy, and no more dangerous than any other semiautomatic.

      • Brandon Brooks

        you should get back to us with your hard definition of an assault weapon. two states trying to bring down the ban hammer are in strong disagreement with you.

        colorado has proposed a a magazine restriction bill. The bill prohibits the sale, transfer, or possession of an
        ammunition feeding device that is capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition or more than 5 shotgun shells (large-capacity magazine). that would be ALL pump action and semiautomatic shotguns. this bill will allow you to keep your weapon, but if you transfer control of it for any reason(take it in for repair) you have committed a crime and they commit one for taking it.

        new jersey is trying for a similar ban which makes possession a crime period. it is a similar number of rounds and even goes on to ban tube fed semiautomatic .22 rifles (colorado wrote those out) that have no military style features, and whose rounds, are of no military use.

        most people think this is some accident, or that these politicians don’t know anything about what they’re trying to regulate, but i think it is another case of “assault weapon”(which is what all the new banned items will be considered in these states) being a fluid term that seems to mean “whatever we’re trying to ban today”

        “Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.” Josh Sugarmann executive director and founder of the Violence Policy Center and was the communications director for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns which became the coalition to stop gun violence, because we all want less gun violence, but most of us don’t want to ban guns, just in case someone tries all those other kinds of violence on us.

        that last part reminds me i didn’t hit you back on why anyone should own one. with it’s simplicity and ease of cleaning, the ar-15 is a weapon that can be trusted to do what it needs to do when called upon. with it’s small round(many states won’t allow you to hunt deer with the .223/5.56nato that is the standard ar-15 round) makes it more useful for home defense because it is precise and the average round will become significantly less effective if it goes through a wall. it’s modular design makes it easy to configure into the rifle that works best for me(and has turned it into the barbie doll of rifles. it can be made into a 1 shot .50bmg bolt action, or even an f’ing crossbow!!! there are literally THOUSANDS of accessories for the damn thing) as well as make it simple to get around all those ergonomic parts bans your friends keep writing.(have you seen the ny safe act compliant ar-15? it’s cute.) a sturdy weapon that can be made into what you need it to be makes it the best tool for the job, whether your saving your crops from groundhogs(there is a bounty on their feet in some states it’s gotten so bad) or your home, property, store, from thieves. before you tell me to let the professionals/police protect those things, i will say again, i was in the Army for 15 years, 9 of of those years were combat arms units. i have more training/experience than most cops. if you feel like” thats great for me, but what about all those other guys?” i will remind you that the ar-15 is made to fit to anyone and is simple to learn. then i’ll say it is everyones responsibility to learn to defend themselves” a statement that the supreme court would back since they said the police have no duty to protect anyone, as have many lower courts. here’s one

        http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

        oddly enough the nypd is about to go to court over another one like that where some cop hid in the next train car while some random citizen subdued an attacker with a knife while getting stabbed.

      • Brandon Brooks

        are you still out there?

  • Bragg

    The people attacking this article, the people defending this article, and the person who wrote this article are all very silly. Why are we arguing about what the government can and can’t steal from us when it is the most efficacious proponent of murder worldwide. I mean, I’m not saying the government is imperialistic, corporatist, and corrupt… but it kinda is.

    That’s why this debate will always be silly, to me at least. Prattle on, you lot.

    • ThePoliticalGarbageChute

      uhhhhhhhhh. Okay, Beavis.

  • llkkjjhh

    “…there is no logical reason for a citizen not in a militia or branch of the armed forces to own an assault weapon” The author clearly doesn’t know or understand what an “assault weapon” is. Kinda silly calling for common sense, when you’re displaying such a glaring lack thereof.

  • kris littledale

    Where does America find people as stupid as the author of this drivel? And what part of “shall not be infringed” does he or she not get? The 2cond amendment is not just about defending ourselves from home invaders. It is primarily about defending ourselves from government tyranny. Molon Labe.

    • ThePoliticalGarbageChute

      Your mom’s house.

      • kris littledale

        That wouldn’t surprise me. She’s a brain dead liberal. But I will repeat my question….what part of “shall not be infringed” does he or she not get? That would be you. You can make smart cracks but you can’t answer a question eh? And where did America find someone as stupid as you? No wonder kids on pills are shooting up schools. They probably got the same education you did. In other words–none.

    • booley

      Ignoreing for a moment that one of the powers of the constitution gives the government to call on militias to put down insurrections…

      ..and also ignoring that we have changed parts of the constitution because we found a better way…

      .. and that the 2nd amendment also say “regulated” so clearly they didn’t’ mean “shall not be infringed’ to mean guns should be a free for all..

      … how exactly is even the biggest gun nut’s (sorry gun enthusiast’s) arsenal going to counter a military budget in th hundreds of billions?

      The iraqis had guns when we invaded. Didn’t’ stop our military.

      • kris littledale

        You need to read SCOTUS’ ruling in Heller vs DC in it’s entirety.

        The important parts are….

        1) 2A is an individual right.

        2) Firearms ownership is not a “free for all” but does protect firearms in “common usage”.

        # 2 above makes it clear that that AR-15s (the largest selling rifle platform in the US–and therefore “in common usage”) are protected under 2A.

        As to your Iraq analogy. I do not advocate violence. Rather I abhor it. But the fact remains that it was the founders intent in writing 2A that the ultimate purpose was to give “the people” the right to start another revolution if need be.

        Witness what is going on in the Ukraine.

  • nsumniac

    I’m having a hard time understanding how your argument here is supposed to help or change anything positively concerning these shootings when you openly admit in this article that it won’t and its not even intended to…

    You should look up the definition of citizen and when you do please explain to me why these laws are directed towards citizens and NOT the people who are committing these crimes.

    Explain how a mag capacity limit is going to stop someone determined to commit a crime from carrying more than one magazine OR illegally owning mags that allow more or illegally owning these “assault” weapons. Exactly how would it help a law abiding citizen to be an under dog should he/she be confronted by someone who could give 2 shits about your “gun control”?

    Have you done any research on fire fights between inadequately armed police officers and criminals? Why they no longer carry 9mm or revolvers as standard issue? Well here’s a hint, because they were being slaughtered by people who don’t follow LAWS!

    Your argument makes as much sense as driving uninsured across the country. Yeah, you hope you don’t need it, you hope you don’t have to use it, but you still have insurance right? Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it…

    ^id be apt to say that every law abiding gun owner lives by this creed.

    2 out of 6 shootings 1/3… Which still leaves a majority, but it still seems to make sense to you to ban a specific rifle for exactly what reason again? I promise, I read this entire article and never came across an actual fact based reason on how these laws are supposed to help the majority, the other millions of law abiding gun, rifle and shot gun owning citizens who properly use there weapons for there intended purpose.

    Here’s another cliche you can sink your teeth into, psychopaths and/or criminals don’t give a damn about laws!

    Try focusing on that fact and we might make some progress toward controlling random shootings and less of punishing those who have nothing to do with the senseless killings you speak of.

    In closing:
    Laws of ANY KIND only effect those who follow them.

    • Political Garbage
      • nsumniac

        Glad you got that out your system, but it still doesn’t explain how banning a particular rifle is suppose to help in the situation your ranting about. I’m all for doing something to curb these incidents, but I really don’t understand how this supposed to help anything.

        Call it what you want, I was under the impression that you wanted Adult conversation, yet you respond like a child. Either way, you have your opinion and I have man, I’m for a change that’s a bit more strategic. No idea what that might be but what we have here (banning specific weapons and mag cap laws) IMHO is for the birds.

Back to Top ↑
  • Sponsored Links


  • Get Updates Via Email

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Follow Us On Google+!

  • Sponsored Links


  • Chute Shop

    The Political Garbage Chute on Cafe Press


UA-27764387-1