Why Using The “Criminals Don’t Follow Laws Anyway!” Argument Makes You An Idiot

You know what argument I’m sick of? The anti-gun regulation crowd’s argument that since criminals don’t follow laws, we can’t create any new gun regulations. I’m sure I’m not the only one to commit a few hundred words to the subject, but over the last couple of days I’ve been bombarded with it to the point that I either need to scream or write something about it. So I’m choosing the latter.

Firstly, let’s just establish what an insanely stupid argument that is. The very definition of criminal is someone who breaks the law and commits crime. Criminals break all kinds of laws. They kill, steal, rape, assault, traffic guns or people, drive too fast in the slow lane, drive too slow in the fast lane, don’t register their car on time, under report on their taxes, and the list goes on and on and on. If every time we wanted to write a law to curb and discourage a destructive behavior someone said “But-but, criminals don’t follow laws anyway, so why do we need a law against rape?” you know what we’d have? A society with no laws whatsoever. Call me fucking crazy, but I have a hard time buying into anarchy as the way to go simply because you have no better argument for why you need to own an assault weapon that fires tumbling rounds that rip bodies into Swiss Cheese with roast beef flapping out of them.

America is better than that…or at least it goddamned-well should be. We should be better than having to suffer inane arguments against writing laws — arguments that essentially throw out the entire rule of law in favor of “Mommy, I want to own a semi-automatic weapon!” Instead, that’s what we’re treated to, sociopathy wrapped in a cloak of pseudo-intellectualism. Of course criminals don’t follow the laws. Bees also sting, and dogs also bark. While we’re declaring universal truths, how about I throw one out: Gun Zealots wouldn’t care if 500,000 children were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary, or in Aurora, Colorado.

The deaths of innocents is acceptable collateral damage to these people; why are we listening to them? 

At some point if you make idiotic, childish arguments you sacrifice your credibility. I’d rather hear just about any other argument than ‘Criminals don’t follow laws anyway!” It’s an affront to what law and order is all about. We’re supposed to be always working towards making society better. Clearly there is a problem staring us in the face — the ubiquity of guns and ammunition that is designed with the sole intent to kill as many people in as little a time as possible. No, an AR-15 isn’t any more lethal at killing people. It’s just highly efficient. And while we’re at this point, and I can actually hear a thousand gun zealots’ voices screaming at me that other guns are just as efficient, I call bullshit. Adam Lanza didn’t have paramilitary training. His mother taught him to shoot, and she taught him to shoot a gun that’s essentially “point and click,” or rather “point and rather easily and repeatedly click.” To get the same kind of efficiency out of a semi-auto handgun or shotgun, there’s a much higher level of training needed, at least so I’ve been told by other gun owners who don’t run out of the room like petulant kids when the very subject of gun control is brought up.

And before you start screaming about “Constitutionally Protected Freedoms” and that they can’t be abridged or restricted: shut up. Just shut up. Look, I know Ted Cruz looks really smart in his suit, but when he asked Senator Feinstein whether she thought the same kinds of restrictions should be put on the First Amendment rights, she should have just looked at him and told him to go yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. We have laws that govern how we can use our First Amendment rights all over the place. Pornography is regulated, as is where you can put up the Ten Commandments, which are part of the freedom of expression and religion. Constitutional rights that endanger everyone’s primary rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness need restrictions. Unfettered liberty isn’t always a good thing. If I had the unfettered liberty to punch  a cat in the face if I felt like it, is that good for me, the cat or society if I exercise it?

The point is that this excuse — that criminals don’t follow laws and therefore we need no new laws — is just another obstacle gun zealots use to avoid actual dialogue. They use it as smoke and mirrors, and nothing else. If the gun zealots can keep hurling one inane and sophomoric argument after another, they’ll never have to answer a very simple question. A question that I think should be asked of everyone who’s shouting about how their freedoms are being ripped from them by instigating universal background checks, putting a limit on magazine capacity, or even an outright ban on certain types of guns. It’s a question that every American should ask themselves.

What’s wrong with putting reasonable restrictions on the expression of our rights, if those reasonable restrictions can in any way make it harder for bad buys to get their hands on guns?

Well, it’s simple, but not exactly short.




About James Schlarmann 2612 Articles
James is the founding contributor and editor-in-chief of The Political Garbage Chute, a political satire and commentary site, which can be found on Facebook as well. You definitely should not give that much a shit about his opinions.
  • OMG. SHUT UP! How about we start with a shave and a haircut? You discredit your own argument when talking about all the other laws that get broken, right down to slow people in the fast lane. Well, right now James, you are the slow one in the fast lane. If the US is “better than that” why are we still writing so many regulations and laws everyday trying to regulate everyone and everything?? Because people like you hate freedom and you can’t keep yourselves out of other people’s business. We don’t want anarchy, we want SELF CONTROL. And with your little tirade you’ve made it obvious that you have little to no self control. You are going WAY TOO far in making the assumption that gun owners are ok with any kind of death toll, have it be at a school or anywhere else. Regulating the law abiding citizen isn’t the answer to getting at the criminal. That seems like logic 101, but guess what…American Universities no longer teach logic or any other form of education that forces a person to learn how to think. You’re just a programmed product of the liberal machine spouting rhetoric and opinions. Time to grow up.

    • James Schlarmann

      So…your counter argument is “Get a haircut, hippie.” Gotcha. Erudite.

      • James, you are so right on. And while neanderthals like John Betancourt prove your point, it doesn’t matter anyhow. You will never get through to them [idiots]. It has to do with the intelligence factor, which Mr. B seems to be lacking, so why even go there. Its futile. We know what we know, and ne’er the tween shall meet.

        • Actually you and James are the idiots. The man made a cogent argument, even though he mentioned the shave and haircut. You two have nothing but ad hominem and bare assertion fallacies. Stupid sheep. Fuck yourselves.

          • kernel85

            @Mike: talk about idiots, and having nothing but ad hominem, fallacies and stupid sheep!

        • Ellentis

          Um, I hate to bust your bubble there Nancy, but if you’re gonna talk about other people’s intelligence, you should know what you’re trying to say before you post it. It’s, ‘Ne’er the TWAIN shall meet.’ Just thought you might want to know that before you try to post that again. You’re welcome….from a ‘gun zealot’.

        • So I made a spelling error. My bigger error was resorting to name calling and I apologize for that. I know better than to try and debate people who obfuscate the facts. My hope is for people with intractable anti-gun control ideologies to understand the US Supreme Court Haller ruling on the 2nd Amendment and to consider the statistics. Over 1,057, 000 people have been killed in the USA by guns since John Lennon was shot and killed on December 8, 1980. In 2010, there was 8775 homicides with firearms in the USA vs 170 in Canada. I think these statistics speak for the need for stronger gun regulation in the US. Research has shown that when other factors are held constant, gun death rates rise in proportion to the rate of gun
          ownership. One study found a 92% correlation between households with guns and firearm death rates both within Canada
          and in comparable industrialized countries. (Gabor T. The impact of the availability of firearms on violent crime, suicide, and accidental death. Ottawa: Department of Justice
          Canada, 1994.)
          Guns can be traded, lent and stolen from law-abiding citizens and firearms sold to criminals from gun shops that do not follow legal protocol. In fact, there are a few gun shops that are notorious for selling guns to criminals. The fact remains that the more guns people own in industrialized nations leads to more gun related violence in those countries. I still don’t understand how anyone can dispute the facts.

          BTW, in reading all of the comments here, I noticed many individuals on both sides of the argument being guilty of poor grammar and spelling errors and I would never use this against them in contradicting their stance on this issue. It is very petty to do so.

          • I meant to say Heller not Haller in case Mr. Gun Zealot is feeling frisky enough to attack me for the mistake.

    • John, we keep making new laws and regulations because society is an ever growing and evolving entity. The founding fathers didn’t mention laws about Internet porn, music piracy, traffic laws and such because they weren’t psychics, they couldnt foresee everything to come. Without these changing laws and new ones this country would have no civil rights laws, no restrictions on sex offenders, women could be beaten by their husbands, children could be employed by sweatshops, there wouldn’t be regulations on the safety of foods and consumer goods, the country would still be run by monopolies, the water wouldn’t be safe to drink, you could drink and drive, and I could go on. That’s not hating freedom, that is protecting society so everyone can live not only free but have a safe, peaceful happy life they choose to pursue. Had we left it up to people to use self control on these issues and not created new laws , I think we would have anarchy.

      • Anarchy is not lawlessness. Anarchy is not rulers. There is law and order in anarchy. There is lawlessness and slavery under the state.

    • irene

      Err… so please explain the lack of logic in your following sentence: ” Regulating law abiding citizens isn’t the answer to getting to at the criminal”. Hmmmmm…..
      I think we all start out as Law Abiding Citizens, until someone crosses the line and becomes a Criminal. Right?
      What line? The Law? Right? So the Law must be regulating Law Abiding citizens. Right? Common logic.
      Next: Who gets to foresee, or who is going to predict whom among the Law Abiding Citizens will cross the Line and become a Criminal, in other words, who the laws and regulations should apply to, if not the Law Abiding Citizens?

    • John, you’ll never get a mature response from this crowd, they’re incapable of rational discussion. Gun Control only has one purpose which is gun control or elimination. These people have a fear of things they’ve never taken the time to learn about and are narrow minded enough to feel that their beliefs are the supreme answer to all the problems of the this country.

      The only purpose of gun control is to make the anti’s feel good about themselves while sticking their heads in the sand believing that government is good and believing that when a situation does arise, the police will be there. Gun ownership is about personal responsibility. The accusations that gun owners haven’t any consideration for murdered kids is a childish response born out of frustration because the aren’t getting their way in the debate. I’d wager a bet that most gun owners are well respected family people and very concerned for the welfare of kids in general.

      If the focus of the discussion was on gun education, or studies on where and why gun crimes are committed, this country could have reduced violent crimes many decades ago. According to the FBI, the majority of gun crimes occurs in about 6 hotspots, most of which have extremely tight gun control. Chicago, LA and DC come to mind. The current argument on guns seek to impose a one size fits all solution to gun crime which is akin to saying the national shoe size is 9. While it may work for a small segment of society, overall the policy won’t work for most. It’s scope is myopic to say the least.

      When the Author of this article calls any group an idiot for not agreeing with his point of view it only shows the level of intolerance and levels to which he’ll go to get his way. We’ve had decades of senseless laws that haven’t accomplished a single thing other than the further infringement of the 2nd amendment rights of US citizens. Maybe it’s time to take a more balanced and logical approach to reducing crime. I’d start with honest gun crime statistics and working the problems where they occur.

    • teaelle

      Take a deep breath, John.
      He doesn’t assume that ‘gun owners’ are ok with any kind of death toll: he assumes that gun owners *who refuse to discuss any kind of gun regulations* must feel that more innocent dead bodies are just the cost of their ‘freedom’. Because that is the inevitable result of their position.
      If that shoe doesn’t fit you…don’t wear it. Take a deep breath and turn off that shrill voice in your head screaming “Liberals hate gun owners!” because plenty of liberals ARE gun owners.

  • Along with the “guns don’t kill, people do” slogan, which bizarrely insists that tools and technologies have no effect on the intensity or frequency of the human behaviors facilitated by them, a notion so thoroughly discredited by a quick glance at human history and a quick exercise of common sense that it’s a marvel that such an absurdity can survive and be repeated so often with such gusto. (Pop Quiz: Does it not matter whether terrorists have access to nuclear bombs, then, since the destructive power of a weapon is irrelevant, and only the intent to commit mass murder is?)

    • Danielle Park


  • Keith

    The author of the article either does not understand the argument, or simply likes to out on the argument his bias.

    Let us be honest, even if his take on the argument were correct (which it is not), it would be no more stupid than it is to suppose that guns commit crimes.

  • Arthur J Edwards Jr

    I believe that your argument would be more persuasive if you did not feel that you had to resort to name-calling.

    There are people out there that are fighting hard to protect your rights, under the Constitution. I think that rather than calling them names, you should thank them.

  • Kathy Mohan

    because it DOESN’T make it harder for criminals to get guns. Do you think they buy them legally and go for the background check!!??

    • James Schlarmann

      And thus the point goes sailing over Kathy Mohan’s head.

      • Paco

        /facepalm. It would be funny if it wasn’t so damn sad.

  • A number of people here say the Second Amendment doesn’t give people the right to own firearms that are made to kill as many people as possible, and no one needs to own a weapon like an AR-15. I would like to ask those people what they think the Second Amendment is for and why was it put into the Bill of Rights? Also, how would a ban on “assault weapons”, large capacity magazines, etc., NOT infringe on the right secured by the Second Amendment?

    • Louise Lang Page

      I think the Second Amendment was to have a well regulated militia. We were a new country and didn’t have the armed forces that we formed later on.

      • That may have been a tiny part of it, but you have to consider why this right and all the others (it was not a command from government, or a right given by government) the people already had was thought it needed to be in the Bill of Rights. The Bill od Rights does not bestow rights, it protects rights citizens already have against a central government from taking those rights away. The founders were afraid a too strong central government would want to disarm the people.

      • David P

        Sure, you can make that claim, but I think in order to really understand what the founders had in mind with the second amendment, you have to know what they said about it themselves. In the context of the rhetoric of the founders and framers, it becomes clear that this *isn’t* actually what they meant.

        In his first State of the Union Address in January of 1790, George Washington said,

        “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

        So while I agree with you that a case can be made to defend what you are saying, it really picks apart the “letter of the law” rather than considering the spirit of the law.

        Let’s take it a step further, though.

        “…the right of the people…”

        This isn’t talking exclusively about military powers. In fact, the bill of rights isn’t about protecting the interests of the government at all. The purpose of the Bill of rights, and the whole Constitution for that matter, is to restrain the government, not the people. Therefore, it wouldn’t make any sense for the Bill of Rights to be talking about protecting the rights of government military powers.

        If you really examine the framers’ intent, I think you’ll quickly realize where your point of view went astray. Thanks for taking a minute to hear me out.

      • This is a bit inaccurate. The armed forces we have today are the standing armies that the founding fathers were afraid of at the start. There are two recognized kinds of militia. Organized and unorganized. The organized militia is today referred to as the National Guard while the unorganized, defined at the federal level, militia is every able bodied male within a specific age range. The militia wasn’t a temporary idea.

        $1 if you can tell me where this comes from:
        [quote]To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

        To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;[/blockquote]

        • John

          Any premise of the establishment of a militia precedes the eventual conflicts that America enjoined that made a national standing army a necessity. That being the War of 1812, our first global challenge to sovereignty … and the Civil War, which proved that an unregulated militia was not feasible. The carnage and disarray that was the Civil War served to point up the obvious flaws of having an untrained militia — on either side of the conflict. The South was humiliated after the first 365 days. Other regiments on both sides found themselves losing hundreds of men because, frankly, a lot of them panicked. Panic will ALWAYS defeat an unstructured military operation. That’s pretty easy to find in any manual.

          If one should choose to ignore those events and hop straight over the rules of engagement for 1783 and overlay them onto 2013, I think they need to stop and get another cup of coffee.

          The concept of a standing army proved quite useful in the conquest of the West, the so-called Manifest Destiny of this country. The Monroe Doctrine and its various interpretations mandated a navy as well as a mobile and AVAILABLE standing army. This is also known as imperialism and that’s another discussion, but in order to effect it, a volunteer militia clearly would never work. Just getting the day off work to go soldier … um … not many military experts would agree that is practical.

          Any efforts to compare all that to some absurd revolutionary war notion of how a “militia” ought be run is foolish. These people act like they are in the Boy Scouts and get merit badges for knowing how to clean a rifle. Real wars aren’t fought with untrained militias, and I don’t much care what anybody says about what the Founding Fathers “meant” by it.

  • hey! It’s wrong to punch a cat in the face.

    Don’t know why I have to be the one to say that.

  • God Lord!!!!! What is it with people who see an article that actually makes sense, but because it isn’t worded as THEY would word it -although I don’t see any attempt for them to make an article – they feel that they have to bash it, belittle the author, etc. This was an excellent article … actually, it’s about the ONLY one I’ve seen about the subject the even begins to make sense.

    Good Job James!!!!! It prompted me to think … I might not agree with all you had to say, but – in spite of what others might think – that’s OK as well…we agree on the majors, the rest? They’re called minors for a reason….
    >HUGE bear hug< …. b

    • James Schlarmann

      Thanks for reading! I agree that dialogue is where it starts. Of course calling people idiots if they use a certain argument may seem counter-productive, I think sometimes you have to grab the reins to guide the horse to water. And that’s not to say my own reins haven’t been yanked any number of times.

  • If grenades were illegal only criminals would have grenades…. oh, wait…. never mind.

  • John

    I’ve been reading and commenting on this blather for about 4 months and the same stuff and the same ridiculous points of view surface. Nobody has had an original thought since Moses first advocated gun control in … I think … 1200 BC.

    The fact remains: Discussing gun control is pointless, and I do mean pointless. Nobody is listening and nobody has made a unique point since Moses was given his first shooting lesson on the banks of the Red Sea in 1100 BC, or when he was about 100 years old, still a child.

    The only solution that remains is to disarm the criminals. Start with that. Go after the street gangs first. And PLEASE, don’t start with the FBI homicide statistics. Street gangs terrorize with guns, they rob stores, and people and intimidate. The homicides are usually *usually* against other street thugs, so screw them.

    We need a better armed, efficient, intelligent, well-PAID and equipped, trained and savvy police department. We disarm the street gangs first. That won’t stop Sandy Hook, but another round of bull**** from both sides of this debate won’t do anything either.

    Find some solutions. Disarm the damned criminals. If it’s such a big deal, that seems like a place to start. Hire some more cops and give them the authority and the means. Then we start on growing some smart people in this country.

    Get out of the revolving door, folks. The argument has run its course. The 2nd Amendment is what it is. Statistics is what it is. Guns are out there. Idiots own guns. Smart people own guns. People who don’t own guns are not “libtards” or cowards. They just don’t own guns. I owned a gun. I don’t now. I am too unheallthy to be firing a weapon at anything.

    This essay is a nice exercise in emotional therapy but it’s not unique. The replies are predictable and solve nothing.

    I suggest a little maturity and … better communication. We know what to do. Let’s do that first. Then we can bitch about the rest of it later.

    • James Schlarmann

      I’m glad you wasted so much time responding to something you think is a waste of time. MENSA called. They’re waiting for you.

    • Well said.

  • Kathy Phelps

    Everybody cries about the Second Amendment. Does anyone realize what the Second Amendment was originally written for? It was so the slave owners could protect their selves and keep the slaves in line not to mention we did NOT have assault rifles and other semi automatic guns then. NEWS ALERT…There is no longer slavery in this Country and black powder is not the only gun available. Get a grip!!! Nobody is going to take your guns, Just ask yourself two questions and be honest.
    1) We need guns for hunting and protection, so what is the use of a large assault gun?
    2) Why are you afraid of a background check for gun ownership? If you are not a criminal and are not insane or have violent tendencies then it certainly will not effect you.

    • This is nonesense. The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because the founders feared the central government might try to disarm the people, it had NOTHING to do with slavery. As for your questions:
      1. I might ask your definition of a “large assault gun” first, but I am probably safe in assuming you actually mean weapons like the AR-17, AK-47, etc. There is a personal, individual defense element to the Second Amendment, but that was not the main purpose. The purpose is to make sure we the people are equipped to defend ourselves against and out of control, gun grabbing, central government. Those who would disarm the people know they couldn’t do it in one fell swoop, it has to be a little at a time. Ask yourself why Homeland Security recently purchased hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition, assault rifles and 2700 armored vehicles like the military uses. They have more than enough to fight a war, who is it they intend to fight with?
      2. I am not afraid of background checks, but I do see what people are worried about. Now, if you are a convicted felon or have a serious mental disorder, you are not allowed to purchase a firearm and I don’t think most people object to that. However, a portion of the people are afraid that as time goes on, little by little, other provisions will be added to that. Such as, ‘have you ever been treated for depression?” that would eliminate about half the population. Or, “have you ever spoken out against the goverment” or ” have you ever made a donation to a group or candidate that is on the governments shit list?

      • Charlene

        Gary, you are wrong and Kathy is right about the original intent of the second amendment. Go read some history about the framing of the constitution. Really. I don’t mean to offend you, I just want you to get the facts.

        • John

          I am often amused at how internet forum lawyers have so much insight as to the workings of the Constitution after they conveniently skip over the Preamble and go straight to the Amendment that suits them — and then define what it means according to what they WANT it to mean.

          There is no evidence that the elitists who wrote the anchor documents for this nation cared in the slightest about the ordinary people. They were inclined to create and approve documents that protected their right to be the ruling class.

          People who had property had rights. The rest of the people were just … whatever. So don’t start with this about “what they intended.” You haven’t read enough about colonial history to look like anything but a fool when you assert that.

          And PLEASE, endeavor to read the Preamble — the part that includes “domestic tranquility.” That would mean, I assume, that having armed idiots out there threatening elected officials who suggest gun control is … well, again, I try NOT to assume much. But it quacks like a duck, Gary. And vowing to disobey the law is somewhat contrary to domestic tranquility. Honestly, if my sheriff said that, I’d start a petition to have the bastard fired — like yesterday.

          The Constitution is holistic, not something you can cherry pick. If you want a gun, get one. Just don’t threaten people with your alleged knowledge of your right to use it.

    • You say that you wish to get the facts straight and then proceed to write this biggest bunch of drivel I have ever read. Where did you study history? What you want to believe and what is true are not necessarily in line here. Yes, guns were kept out of the hands of slaves, but to say that this was the only reason for the second amendment to the Constitution is ridiculous – I doubt it had much bearing at all at the time.

      The Bill of Rights were not part of the original Constitution and were not added until August 21, 1789, introduced at the first United States congress by James Madison. There were many critics of the Constitution, based solely on the lack of a bill of rights. George Mason refused to sign the constitution unless a Bill of Rights were added. Along with Mason, Patrick Henry was extremely vocal about the lack of a BOR. Here is a quote from Henry’s speech, lets see if it mentions slaves:

      “They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?”

      Unless the British guard was made up of African slaves, which you may be tempted to also rewrite to make your point, I don’t clearly see that as a motive. King George had begun to confiscate the guns of the colonists I order to prevent an uprising and was going to the extent of stationing soldiers in houses of colonists without their authorization.

      The second amendment was clearly authored to prevent the newly formed U.S. government from having such power. There were many colonists who desired our government to appoint a king, but Washington rejected the appointment. Our founders knew that any government can become corrupt and abusive and the BOR were created to limit their power over the people. Without the second amendment, how are citizen able to defend any of the other rights?

      For some strange reason, liberals and progressives believe that elected officials are completely incapable of becoming corrupt and abuse their power. History proves otherwise. Of course, every progressive I have met has little knowledge of history or at least anything that resembles facts, rather, they tout stories literally pulled out of their asses. The fact that president Nixon abused his power in order to remain in power was not that long ago, but somehow progressives believe we have evolved beyond that in just the last forty years or so.

      • John

        I think the original premise of this blog article was to move past the ongoing hot air about what is or isn’t contained in the 2nd Amendment. The language is clear and if you insist on interpreting it, then interpret it all.

        We all know the content, so there is no need to recreate it here.

        I find it generally amusing that people who fill out replies on internet forums are so clearly in tune with what the “founding fathers meant” when they wrote this or that. Constitutional law is a doctorate program at Harvard. I doubt most of us have earned that degree, so reading so many diverse interpretations is mind-numbing at the very least.

        At the time, there was no national army, no real nation identity and no real idea what was on the other side of the Allegheny Mountains. Whatever that means to you is what it probably meant to the people at the time.

        It was before they invented Tasers and space shuttles and satellites that can take a photo of your license plate from 58 miles out. On your car, while it’s moving, probably at night, on a crooked highway.

        Or Tomahawk missiles.

        Tying the Bill of Rights to the slavery issue is, at best, an absurd exercise in history revision. There’s no compelling evidence to suggest it was a primary reason for the establishment of any of the first 10 Amendments. It’s possible I’m wrong about that and I am sure someone will find a “blog” with an official-looking banner at the top to “prove” this. (Hint: Most blogs are total bull-shit.)

        All the same, if you want to play “pull the feather” on the Bill of Rights, please start with the Preamble and work your way down from that. The document itself needs to be rewritten in modern English, but I am sure that we’d only spend another $523 million on the project and only piss off 58 percent of the people, all of whom would swear that Barack Obama is really Hitler and that his henchmen are going to take us all away in caged train cars.

        I mean, really.

      • John

        Nancy, as much as your Canadian example is nice to hear and perhaps one we’d like to approach in the states, the reality is that you want to reinvent the wheel after the car has left the garage. If Canada wants to maintain gun controls, they probably will have to do it without a lot of support south of their border.

        Removing guns is all but impossible, impractical on every level and clearly a precursor to a social atmosphere that would be unbearably worse.

        That doesn’t add a lot of positive spin, does it? As much as I support sensible gun responsibility and some serious scrutiny of the NRA and its gun lobby greed, I am also realistic.

        I’ve modified my opinion on this topic a couple of times and I’ve finally come to the conclusion that bitching about the lack of gun control is only making the problem worse.

        The solutions aren’t clear but so far, the recommendations are at best, laughable. The guy who wrote the initial blog mocks me as a MENSA … he made his point and nobody bothered to pay attention to it.

        That should tell you something.

        • John, your seesawing on this issue has me confused. I originally had great respect for the things you were saying, but now, I am not sure you know what to think. As far as you comment above:

          “Removing guns is all but impossible, impractical on every level and clearly a precursor to a social atmosphere that would be unbearably worse.”

          I never indicated that the removal of guns is ever a viable solution. What Canada does have is smart and reasonable gun legislation that has worked to curb gun violence in Canada. I think it would be wise to implement the same laws in the US. BTW, Canada does not ban assault type weapons for personal use, there are just stringent laws around the ability for a civilian to own one of them.

          • John

            Seesawing? First off, I don’t have the answers. I think that should be pretty clear. I think my point was that you can’t overlay the Canadian social structure onto the U.S. and come out with anything that resembles an equitable compromise. There are 300 million estimated guns in the U.S.

            By now, I thought somewhere in all this, I’d made my point — we need to fix the parts that we can fix. Legislation isn’t going to work, and attempting it is worse than doing nothing. That’s already been shown to be a fact. The growth of “militias” has trebled in the last two months. Like, we needed more of that out in the countryside.

            Really, if you have been paying attention to the hatred on social media and in real life protests, that ought to be clear.

            I don’t have an answer but throwing the “Canadian solution” into it is tantamount to asking people to paint their fingernails pink.

            I offered my suggestions a couple of times, and nobody seems to want to read that. I will reiterate.

            — Disarm the street gangs.
            — Stop the interstate trafficking of guns by standardizing the laws.
            — Background checks? Sure, why not … even people who have a suspended license will drive a car if they don’t think they will get caught. It’s a nice idea.

            We can’t do anything else and “gun control” is a total waste of time. How I know this: Because I pay attention to people whose opinions are expressly important — maybe I don’t agree with them, but I acknowledge that what they have to say is important.

            We spend about 60 percent of our effort fucking around deciding if the AR-15 really is an assault rifle and whether Lanza had it or left it in the truck. Who fucking cares? It’s missing the point, again. And the yabbering just goes on and on, and all we can do is say … “the Canadians have a great gun policy.”

            The militia patriots are laughing their asses off at that.

            I am a believer in gun responsibility and won’t waver from that. But why waste our time discussing the same old shit over and over again — and coming up with the same results?

            This is no longer about what we want. This is about what we will get if we try to get what we want. Nobody is going to win and asking U.S. residents to accept the “Canadian solution” really suggests having a tad too little knowledge of the U.S. principles of history. Right or wrong, not many people here are going to agree that the Canadians are better at anything.

            You change THAT mindset, and then we’ll get off the seesaw.

        • john koerber

          @John–i’ve been following this thread since yesterday—you make some VERY valid points , i personally sleep much better knowing i don’t have a gun, and i do believe in personal freedoms, of course or we end up” throwing the baby out with the bathwater” this galloping paranoia mindset is growing daily,from every angle fed largely from the neocons and the so called patriot bullshit –your mind is and thoughts are refreshing—than you

          • John

            I just think we need to define the topic and evaluate the solutions. We need to stop drawing lines on our “rights” and start stepping up to “responsibility.”

            What we have is too much gun violence.

            To mistakenly assume that there are people who want to neuter us and turn us into chattel for the new Hitler regime is not only absurd, it’s reached the point of being an annoying diversion.

            We can’t stay on the topic and we’re lost in data, anecdotes and vapid quotations from people in the 18th century, usually taken out of context and barely relevant.

            Comparing gun crime to traffic deaths or falling trees or tsunamis or abortions is also quite absurd. All those problems are unique and deserve our consideration. But gun violence could only connect to abortions when an armed activist decides to attack a Planned Parenthood clinic. Otherwise, let’s discuss that on its own merits.

            Being drunk and driving isn’t in the same conversation either.

            Disarming our country won’t end the killing — and attempts to disarm our country would create a reactionary backlash that would frighten the Herald Angels.

            What we need to do, up front, is to admit that gun tragedies are real, have a genuine impact on society and aren’t the product of some contrived script that the “libtard” media is using to sell Acuras. This is the NRA’s gravest mistake — projecting an attitude of indifference to Sandy Hook.

            We blame anything but the gun, and we blame anything but the killer. Suddenly, we start pissing around defining the weapon, or whether it was actually used in the first place. The subject stopped being about victims, and started being about … well, the “Second Amendment.” Or mental illness, which can be anything from fear of spiders to unwillingness to ride inside a moving airplane. Or manic depression brought on by childhood trauma.

            Now all we live on are lies, disagreement over lies and … of course, defining the liars themselves.

            Sandy Hook will happen again. Our national mindset has stopped stressing out over it. In a way, I think there are those who are secretly hoping it DOES happen again so they can run new underwear up the flagpole and ridicule the NRA. Either way, we need to steel ourselves for that eventuality.

            Meanwhile, we just buy more guns, say 99 percent of gun buyers are safe — and forget that 1 percent of the total number of gun buyers this week are maniacs. But 99 percent sounds like a nice number. We can live with that. Of 1 million, only 1 percent equals 1,000. That’s not a number that I can personally feel comfortable about.

            But it’s a number. If we want to disarm criminals, we already identified most of them — street gangs. Disarming them is do-able. We know who they are. I honestly don’t care about their civil rights. As active gang members, they are already committing felonies.

            Hire more cops, better cops, pay them better, train them, and equip them. Disarm the gangs first. What this does is send a message to America that America is serious about crime. We want to end the crime.

            Street gangs, the control advocates say, add “only” 10 percent to the homicides in this country. My point is: Get off the groove, homicides are NOT the problem. Many of the aristocrats who want to end gun violence have a real suburban grasp of street gangs in the cities. In other words, they are clueless. (I worked in Gary, Ind., for 12 years. You can “google” for their crime data.)

            The homicides — most of them are against each other — are not relevant. In truth, I’m happy they are killing each other off. It’s the threats, the robberies, the intimidation — all that serves to make people WANT to arm themselves. Most of those people don’t really have the training to be armed. But now they live in a gun culture because the gangs created it.

            A gun culture that thrives in the cities is going to be overlaid across America. Why? Because the urban television media has a large footprint. If you watch how gun crime is reported on local television, it isn’t hard to understand how people who have no other concept of life can begin to believe that we have a killer mentality. “Another senseless killing in our city!” the news anchor roars. “Details at 10!” (Local news does this because, well … that’s what makes their ratings.)

            How difficult is it to disarm the gangs? Well, wiping out small pox was difficult.

    • Oh My God..not this idiotic canard. There were militias PRIOR to the 2nd. By the time of the 2nd being made law, half of the colonies had either made slavery illegal or did so very soon after. The 2nd had nothing to do with slavery.

      1) We don’t NEED guns for hunting. Furthermore, the 2nd says nothing about hunting. And its the Bill of Rights..not needs. As for needing semi automatic rifles, ask the shop owners of LA.
      2) I’m all for universal background checks. When you get your driver’s license or other adult ID, you are checked. If you are not prohibited…you get an endorsement. If you become prohibited, you get a new ID. NO other checks needed. OR open the NICS system to the citizenry. All you need is the buyers ID. Put in that info, get a yes or no back. Its up to him to clear it if there is a problem. NO gun info need be entered.

      The current system requires registration to cover all transfers.

  • Thaytor

    By the logic that arms shall not be restricted means that I am allowed to have nukes. Read second again if you missed that says ARMS not FIREARMS. As well as FULL automatics. The NRA asked for full autos to be restricted despite no restrictions on firearms they are claiming now. Personally I think the Hippies and occupiers should get together with ar15’s and hold peaceful demonstrations and see what the results are.

    • Go for it. Its legal in Virginia.

      Thank you for supporting the idea that the NFA of 1934 is unconstitutional. Btw…Nukes are not “arms.” They are ordnance.

  • William Nailen

    Meanwhile, in England, a young girl is stabbed to death on a public bus. You do have a point — this does not answer the problem, but I don’t see any more or less gun regulation making any difference in the violent species that calls itself humanity. Not that I’m opposed to the idea of additional gun regulation, just the waste of time and money such regulation represents. One thing that I have learned, however: prohibition of a desired substance always leads to an increase in crime, whether or not the proscribed substance is harmful. Ahh, pay me no mind. You’re still a youngish man. Maybe you can figure this out.

  • What I don’t understand is why the gunnies are so afraid of background checks. They do background checks for everything now adays, from getting a job to applying for credit to getting insurance. Why is it so terrible to do a background check before handing someone a deadly weapon (potentially). Even if it stopped just one crazy from getting a gun, then it would be worth it. I know some conspiracy theorist may claim that it is a way to track gun owners so the Man can take all the guns away but nobody has ever proposed that.

    • Because the system being mentioned for universal coverage needs registration to work.
      Besides, background checks are useless.

      • Not useless, is it going to keep out every crazy? Probably not, but could keep out a majority. I think background checks are an easy, noninvasive way to regulate guns. Background checks are done for everything from getting a job or credit or rent an apartment, how is it anymore invasive to do a background check to buy a deadly (potentially) weapon?

        • As long as no registration is involved, and the gov’t cannot restrict rights by shutting down said check agency…I have no problem with it.

  • Jaye

    Personally, I think that if you need an AK-47 to protect your home or your family, you might wanna move somewhere else. But, I do believe in a persons right to own a gun/weapon legally, if they so choose. I’m curious to know what regulation(s) not currently in place, do you think would have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy from happening?

  • Mark

    Before you start bitchin about my AR you should do some research on the use of an AR in shooting sports. I use it in competition with high capacity mags. No one has ever been shot by me or my AR so stop punishing me with more useless laws that will not make a difference. This was from the Denver post “”” STEAMBOAT SPRINGS — Routt County Sheriff Garrett Wiggins and Moffat County Sheriff Tim Jantz say they will join Weld County Sheriff John Cooke and not enforce gun-control measures signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper on Wednesday.

    Wiggins and Jantz maintain the legislation passed by Colorado’s House and Senate won’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals and instead will punish law-abiding citizens.

    Summit County Sheriff John Minor also calls the new laws “unenforceable,” the Summit Daily reported Wednesday.

  • The Second Amendment can be changed. It is already a fricking amendment. An amendment to the constitution. You can amend an amendment.

    The reason the gun manufacturers lobby uses such random crap to keep selling their guns is that all the properly collected data shows that 1) guns make it easier to kill people 2) guns don’t prevent crime they make crime more violent 3) owning guns lead to easy suicide and family murder. The only way to attack science is with smoke and mirror vitriol.

    Eventually this argument will be looked upon like those that took place to keep women from voting, to stop seat belts, drinking and driving, to allow smoking all over, etc. etc. It is not just gun control it is a gun BAN that is needed. Stop being nice to these people. Ban all their guns, short, long, fast, slow, holstered, or hidden. They will actually be way better off.

    • Go for it. Amend away. Still a free country. Pardon me if I, and everyone else who has ever defended themselves with a firearm, disagrees with your opinion. Next time someone does defend themselves, you be sure to tell them that they would have been better off without it.

      Good luck with that.

      • Luck has little to do with it. The gun as a defensive weapon is largely a fiction. The gun as a risk factor for accelerating suicide, murder, and domestic violence is well documented. Your gun is more more likely to cause you trouble than it is to protect you.

        • According to THAT person and study….

          But actual reality…not so much.

          • A systematic review is NOT the world according to that person. It is a measure of available data. The math is then peer reviewed and the results are used to make opinions that are free of bias. The study is what matters and it is very real. The results are very real. If you are proposing some other reality the one observed by this study then please supply a study reference for this “actual reality.” Otherwise you are just another shill for the gun industry spewing anecdotal random poop.

          • And yet, they said the same thing about Kellerman’s study.

          • @cargosquid “And yet, they said the same thing about Kellerman’s study.”

            Who are they? What did ‘they’ say? What was the problem with the study? If there is no analysis that refutes the results then the results stand. The science says your gun is dangerous for you and those around you. It does not mean that your gun will NEVER protect you. The results show that your gun is more likely to be used to complete a suicide, shoot a family member, or be used some other violent crime.

            Again just anecdote from you. As an example there are two other theories on the drop in crime rates in America 1) Broken Windows and 2) Access to Abortion. Below are two articles that CHALLENGE the data with science not poop. Both are interesting reads.

   (Windows versus Abortion Access and Drop In Crime Rate)

   (challenge to Levitt’s theory by anti choice advocates using info)

  • I would invite all gun rights advocates to look at the statistics. Canada has much lower gun related deaths because of very regulated gun laws. In fact, statistics show that the more guns owned by civilians correlates to increased gun violence. If you want to see proof, you might want to read this article: More Guns = More Deaths

    • OK, I read it. A bunch of word twisting from liberal law professors. They say Obama is supposed to be some kind of constitutional lawyer, what a joke.

      • Gary- you obviously missed this part of the article:

        “As Justice Scalia explained in Heller, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment are likewise subject to appropriate regulation in order to enhance public safety.”

        • To reiterate from previous comment by Joe Carroll:

          Scalia, June 26, 2008: Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

          • So, in other words, weapons in common use, suitable for a militia, and being used for a lawful purpose are protected by the 2nd. Hmmm. that would be rifles and pistols and shotguns.

    • Sorry but that is not true for Norway (school shooting despite stri t gun laws), Australia (gun crime doubled after guns were taken away), etc. You can’t just use 1 country’s statistics.

    • You can’t just use the statistics off of 1 country and try to formulate a “fact.” Australia’s gun crime rate doubled when their guns were taken away. Norway has strict gun laws, yet they also had a school shooting. How about Switzerland, where they have one of the highest gun ownership rates, yet very low crime rates?

      • Brooke, your information on Australia is completely incorrect. First off hardly any Australians owned guns before the buy back in 1997. Since the gun buyback the rates of gun related suicides, murders and property crime have decreased. Also the rates of most crimes (except elder abuse, and internet fraud) have decreased.


        Please take the time to read the second journal article. It is not the raving of some libtard professor. It is statistically sound, peer reviewed, and the writer puts both his name and email on it.

    • The FBI statistics disagrees with you. Gun ownership is up. Gun crime is down. Perfect example: Virginia. Canada has a different culture than us and had a lower rate BEFORE they gave up their rights.

  • Oh, and by the way…

    Geoffrey Stone (Edward H Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law-Chicago University) and UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler, both experts on constitutional law, maintain the 2nd Amendment does not preclude Congress from enacting responsible gun legislation. “Statement of Professors of Constitutional Law: The Second Amendment and the Constitutionality of the Proposed Gun Violence Prevention Legislation”

    I challenge any gun rights advocate to read it here:

    • Just read it.
      Restrictions on the manufacture and sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines and assault weapons are also consistent with the Second Amendment.
      The court of appeals recognized such weapons and magazines are not necessary for individual self-defense

      The first statement is ludicrous in that there is no such thing as an “assault weapon.” It is a political term invented by Josh Sugarman to confuse the populace. Define “assault weapon” in a universal definition.

      The second statement merely states that a court of appeal has decided to over reach its powers. Who are they to universally decide that semi auto rifles and standard magazines are unsuitable for personal defense when the government itself describes such as “personal defense weapons.” Furthermore, tell the shop owners in the LA riots, the ranchers in the SouthWest, the farmers across the country, that those rifles are not suitable for defense.

      While they may be “constitutional law experts” they also have an agenda.

      • James Schlarmann

        Your bullshit semantic argument about what an assault weapon is or isn’t doesn’t matter. It’s an awesome little shiny object to flash around and distract people with, but it doesn’t matter. Call it a “dildo” if you want — God knows people like you use them as penile replacements anyway — it doesn’t matter. What you’re still failing to recognize is that this isn’t JUST about assault weapons (whoops! I used that term again!), or just about handguns. It’s not JUST about spree killings, and it’s not JUST about daily gun violence. It’s about all of it.

        And the majority of Americans — the actual majority not some bullshit “skewed poll” version of it — agree that AR-15s have no place on the streets. All your histrionics and blubbering and semantics won’t change that you’re in the minority. You’re welcome to marshal your side’s forces and fight the momentum if you wish.

        But “there’s no such thing as an assault weapon” is a bullshit argument. Thanks though, for giving me one more idiotic gun zealot argument to pick apart.

        • I’m happy that you are comfortable enough to express your fascination with genitalia, but that is not the subject of the comment. The definition DOES MATTER because laws are being made according to said definition. And that definition changes with the politician involved.

          If its about all of it…then let’s talk about ALL of it, including the thousands of defensive gun uses per year. Even the NY Times places that at 100,000 or so. If you are going to advocate for a change in laws that affect fundamental rights, you need to educate yourself on both the guns and the laws and stop being a bigot. Insults do not encourage others to your side.

          Apparently you have not noticed that the American public have been buying the AR’s and other rifles at such a pace, that the shelves are empty. So that blows your argument about a majority of Americans not wanting them at all to shreds. The AR is the most popular rifle in America.

          You are failing to recognize that no matter how hysterical you get, the right to keep and bear arms is here to stay. And that includes rifles.

          Of course, long guns were used in less than 300 crimes..and AR’s are a subset of that. But let’s go with 300…. there are over 3 million AR’s in private hands. I’m sure that you can do the math concerning how few AR’s are involved in any crime.

          And the total number of murder/non-negligent manslaughers were about 8300 in 2011 and dropping. Out of an estimated 200 million guns.

          • James Schlarmann

            Umm. The fact that a shit-ton of scared and paranoid gun zealots are out buying guns because the NRA has them convinced the Federal Government can and would take all their guns away is not evidence of a majority opinion, numbnuts. All it is proof of is a rampant lack of understanding of Constitutional law and precedent. No one is hysterical except you — the gun zealots — who despite having the D.C. vs. Heller decision that sets very clear standards of regulation, and also sets the precedent that the Second Amendment like all rights is not unlimited. Scalia also has said in the past that assault weapons bans are completely constitutional.

            Any stats you quote are suspect. Why? Because your precious NRA has done everything it can for the last twenty years to suppress even the GATHERING of statistics. Even the FBI’s statistics aren’t as complete as they could be without the meddling of the NRA. This idea you have in your head about this being an emotionally driven response is correct though. Of course, the St. Valentine’s massacre was also a turning point — when just seven, not twenty-seven — people were gunned down by fully-automatic weapons. We later effectively banned them, and there’s not been a single spree killing from an automatic weapon in this country since. So there goes any arguments that bans don’t work.

            You’re an idiot if you think this fight is just about spree-killings, and that’s the point. Gun regulations are needed to help stop all kinds of gun violence. But despite your finger wagging about gun violence dropping — and again your stats are suspect as fuck — you’re still missing the point. Check the opinion polls. The majority of Americans support every single component of the initially proposed gun regulations. The margins of favorability vary, but there is majority support for ALL of it.

            So by all means, gun zealots, clear the shelves of the AR-15s and the ammunition. All you’re doing is acting as the middle-men suppliers to the black market. No one is coming for your gun, so you won’t ever get to use it in your Mad Max cum Ayn Rand wet dream last stand against the tyrannical government. Instead, you’ll wind up selling it to pay for your diabetes medications or some more gold to bury in your backyard. The rest of us are going to keep molding society in a less violent, less “Yay we can own killing machines so let’s own them ALL!” kind of way.

          • James, since there is no reply button on your comment below…. I’ll reply here.

            You really ARE a paranoid, hysterical person,aren’t you? Please, show me the quote that Scalia said that gun bans are constitutional. Go ahead. We’ll wait.
            And the FBI stats …THOSE are suspect? Okaay then.

            So…go on. Believe in the all powerful NRA and the effectiveness in gun control laws. The Chicago victims would disagree with you on the latter.

            But since the right to keep and bear arms IS a fundamental right….you are going to have a very frustrating life.

          • James Schlarmann

            A gun zealot calling anyone paranoid is real hoot. Thank you for the laugh. Chicago is such a great city for you to cherry-pick isn’t it? But how about Japan? How about the UK? Want to stay in ‘Murika Fuck Yeah? How about New York City?

            Anyway, you’re boring. Fascinatingly boring, but boring nonetheless.

          • Yes…you are sounding paranoid. I’m not the one questioning FBI statistics.

            Let’s talk about those other places.
            Japan: no culture of individuality or the bearing of arms by the common man. No right to bear arms is recognized. In fact, even the samurai were disarmed by the government.

            UK…most violent country in Europe. Higher violent crime rate than the US. Losing the culture of self defense and sliding down a slope to bureaucratic failure and apathy.

            Along with Canada, they had less gun crime than the US at the HEIGHT of their gun ownership. Thus, its the culture, not the gun laws.

            New York. Amazing what happens when you start putting more cops on the streets…and then tell them to illegally stop and frisk people.

            I don’t care if you find me boring. I just find you childish and wrong. One would think that a writer might actually be able to write coherently and not use childish language.

            But, please, go on. You provide such a great example of the gun control mindset and ethos.

  • As someone who lives in Sandy Hook and across the street from one of the murdered children, I am afraid I have strong opinions on the shooting and gun violence.

    The answer to Jayne’s question of course is: Nothing that morning would have prevented Adam Lanza from murdering his mother and going to the school. If he had not had an armory to choose from, if he’d been helped when he was 11year old (I suspect), if his mother had been more aware of the danger to herself and others . . .if. . . if . . .if. . . But by that Friday morning, it was too late.

    I’m interested that Gary makes no attempt to rebut the arguments in the cited article. Okay, Gary, they’re twisting the words. How? In what way? Let’s hear your argument.

    Finally, I’m not clear on how a gun-lover with a Bushman equates to a well-regulated militia. I thought the National Guard was our militia. I do understand that many people who have guns are frightened. Frightened of home-invaders (we had a particularly viscous case in Connecticut a couple years ago), of gangs, of “the government.” I don’t understand how more guns in the hands of more people makes us safer.

    • John

      Wally, the “patriot militias” DO NOT make us safer, but it makes THEM feel safer. I have often asked if somebody in that side of the argument can define “well-regulated” inside a volunteer group of armed people who might show up if they can get time off from work. Who’s their commanding officer and what protocol for discipline do they establish? What’s the outcome if they “overthrow” this government? Do they disarm the loyalists, sometimes known as the “libtards”? (Not everyone wants their government overthrown, just fyi.)

      I can’t seem to get anybody on that side of the fence to acknowledge these questions, beyond “shall not be infringed” or the other usual blather about “the tree of freedom” or “when seconds count” … that sort of stuff.

      But what I have noticed is a completely movable target for the gun lobby. First, it was about the right to hunt. Then, that didn’t evoke enough passion, so it was about home defense. Then it was about tyranny. And what happens, they say, when 5 or 6 armed invaders attack your house? As if 5 or 6 armed invaders were out there, preparing to attack you. And the latest is about women arming themselves against — what else, rape? The appeals are designed to sell guns, not make us safe. But it makes THEM feel like they’ve done their civic duty by alerting us to the dangers. Forget about the deer now. The 2nd Amendment isn’t about deer. It’s about “libtards.”

      They often invoke the Hitler clause or … when that usually fails, resort to the “liberals saying nothing about the 250,000,000 abortions in this country “last year.” That would the fluid number, depending on the need to create more fear. Did I mention the drones that fly over our towns all day and night?

      When spoons are outlawed, we will eat with our fingers.

      • You know what’s funny? How both sides, Liberals and Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, try to make this an us vs. them argument, and I have to wonder if it’s really about the issue they’re discussing. I’m neither Liberal nor Conservative, neither Democrat nor Republican. I do own guns, yet am open minded and willing to hear valid arguments about gun control. It doesn’t appear that’s what anyone on this page is interested in doing. You all just want to yell at and fight with each other, which by the way, solves absolutely nothing.

        • John

          Brooke, the definitions have been presented by people who see it that way.

          I believe that my comments do indeed make some valid arguments that dispute the “patriot militias,” who actually DO see it as us vs. them.
          If you haven’t followed that, I might suggest you spend a little time looking at the neo-teaparty-Aryan blogs.

          So what exactly WOULD be a valid argument, as far as you can tell?

          Perhaps that would be a starting point — tell us your unique approach to this debate.

          Owning guns is not particularly onerous — advocating an internal revolt is quite another topic. If you think that’s not relevant to the conversation, perhaps you have something more poignant to offer.

          I’ve seen the data, which people claim is a media lie … and I’ve heard the commentary about women carrying a gun and shooting “through the purse” to stop an assailant.

          So, tell me … what part of this argument would work for you that hasn’t already been offered? The gun lobby has a f***-you attitude to all of this.

          I didn’t once bring party politics into this. I happen to not be a member of a political party.

          But you could read past the first sentence if that would help you.

          • I didn’t mean to comment on your particular comment, but on this article & its comments in its entirety. (Was having issues posting from my phone.) I’m tired of the “fucktard” & “libtard” comments and name calling. It negates anything valuable in an argument, as well as maturity, integrity, & intelligence. Just because one side does it, doesn’t mean the other side should. The idea here is to promote change. No one listens when they’re being attacked. In order to make change happen, the other side has to be convinced, because their votes are what’s needed. That will not happen so long as we are only attacking each other.

    • I am hoping I will have time to make a reasoned rebuttal of the article. Skipping to your last paragraph, how does no one having a Bushman equate to a well-regulated malitia? What is meant by a “well-regulated malitia” and why was it thought necessary that individuals be guaranteed their right to bear arms to have this “well regulated malitia”?

      If you think the National Guard is the “well-regulated malitia” that will stand as a guard against an oppressive government, you are sadly mistaken. At the snap of his fingers and President can nationalize those troops and send them anywhere he likes, to another state, or even another country. Not much of a protection. Ask those in New Orleans how protected they felt when those reassigned NG troops were smashing down doors and forcibly confiscating legally owned weapons from peaceful law abiding citizens.

      How would more guns in the hands of more people make us safer? How would less guns in the hands of fewer people make us safer? Safer from what? Would it be “safer” if only those who have control over us had guns?

      • John

        The belief that the National Guard isn’t a qualified militia is an example of constructing a set of beliefs that have zero bearing on reality. Just because YOU happen to think the Guard isn’t effective doesn’t make it a fact. I can assure you, the Guard AND the state police will stand ground on an armed insurrection that I can also assure you THE PUBLIC DOES NOT WANT … and would find distasteful after the first two cops are killed. I would not recommend you advocate such foolish behavior. If you don’t have a structure of protocol or a chain of command, YOU ARE NOT a well-regulated militia. You are a bunch of vigilantes with a self-appointed set of values.

  • StopTheStoooopid

    James, thank you for your excellent post on an important issue. Your ideas and your arguments are completely valid and real. We have a gun problem and until we reduce the number of guns on the streets, nothing is going to get better.

    For those that think their guns will hold off a “treasonous government” — If you think ANYTHING in your arsenal will trump what our government brings to a fight, you haven’t been paying attention. Civilians lost that fight a while ago.

  • Thoughts anyone? And PLEASE, let’s keep it mature and respectful.

    • The best explanation of how the term “assault weapon” was invented and why.

  • Interesting for both sides of this argument to read:

  • Biophuku

    I am a gun owner and 2nd amendment supporter. I own one of the oh so dangerous and scarey SKS Carbines. I also own a 1938 Mosin Nagant, and a pistol. All of my weapons are registered and required a background check for me to purchase.

    I think there are some aspects missing from your discussion here, so i will try to toss a couple things out there and people can respond as they will, i will likely never return to read the responses, since this seems to be a heavy anti-gun leaning discussion.

    Imagine your young grand kids are playing on your property.. You are watching over them from only a few yards away when you notice a small pack of wolves or wild dogs that appear to be ‘stalking’ your precious children.

    Think it dont happen? Move to the country.

    Is the SKS, with its 10 round magazine not a good choice should you need to use lethal force to defuse the situation? Would you rather me be limited to a single shot to stop multiple animals from assaulting my children, or domestic animals?

    Now im not saying my guns are just laying around in the back yard where i could easily pick one up and fire at a threat. They are stored in a safe, locked, with trigger locks in each one, as i do NOT want any type of accident to happen. They are NOT loaded and only i know the combination and have keys to the trigger locks.

    So theres one situation that has not even come up. Having the ability to protect family and property from wild, agressive animals.

    Another thing that has not been touched on is that, as stated in the first paragraph of this post, my guns are registered and required a background check to purchase. Most places already have background checks and / or a “cool down” period before u can receive your gun. If there are states out there that do not require such measures, they should adopt measures that will protect their populace, however a sweeping BAN or FEDERAL BAN LIST is not the answer. If you look at states that have practical approaches to gun control you might notice that they have reasonable crime levels, as compared to cities such as Chicago that has strict gun regulations and rampant crime..

    I hope you enjoyed my 2 cents, and hope you realize i did NOT post this to further the fight for either side, but to display just a couple of the many topics being passed over in this discussion.

    BTW, i am all for registration, background checks, and a requirement to notify a governing body within a reasonable period of time if a gun has been stolen or sold. I do not believe that banning the bushmaster will save any lives.

    • I thank you for being responsible enough to keep your weapon in a locked cabinet. I also appreciate the fact that you respect the gun laws in place. I am not for a ban on all weapons as I feel people have a right to have them. The problem is what happens to them if they get in to the wrong hands. Responsible gun laws can include the steps that Canada took to regulate them as follows:

      In order to get your hands on restricted firearms in Canada you must:

      1. Take the unrestricted and restricted gun safety course, and pass the safety exams with an 80% mark at least on both

      2. Have extensive mental health and criminal background checks done by the RCMP

      3. Go through the 28 day waiting period

      4. Do an interview, as well as have 2 references interviewed

      5. You must be a member in good standing at an approved shooting range

      6. Take the safety course at your range

      7. You must have an authorization to transport to and from the range from your CFO

      8. You must keep these guns locked up with trigger locks or in a secure safe

      9. These guns are restricted and must be registered

      10. The magazine on the rifle must be pinned to 5 rounds and 10 rounds on the handguns.

      11. You can only fire these guns at an approved shooting range and can only take them directly from home to the range (if I stop for a coffee with a registered legal hand gun locked in my car on the way to the range, yes I can go to prison)

      12. Any violent offense or even a complaint from a citizen that you may be violent will have all your firearms confiscated.

      If you try and get any of the large capacity magazines that are readily available in the USA you are looking at serious prison time.

      Statistics show that Canada has far fewer gun related deaths than in the US. Is it actually possible this is due to Canada’s stricter gun laws?

      • Canada had fewer gun related deaths BEFORE they gave up some freedoms.

    • Ellentis

      You’ve brought up a very good point Biophuku. I live in the country where we have coyotes. Another friend of mine brought up the wild hogs in TX that are migrating north, and are now within less that 40 miles of where I live. Those hogs are extremely dangerous and destructive and it would take an AR, SKS, or AK to take care of the situation. I too have the dreaded SKS. I’m thinking at 30 round mag. would be better. Nancy, those guy laws in Canada would be great…except they won’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

      • “…they won’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals.”

        Either Elllentis hasn’t read or didn’t absorb the post that started this whole discussion. (It’s at the top of this thread. You can read it right now, Ellentis.)

    • John

      As much as this scary scenario makes sense, I’d venture to say that NOT VERY MANY people are threatened by packs of wolves or wild hogs. So, bully for you to live in such uncharted territory.

      Here in Indiana, we don’t really have that problem.

      What we have here in Indiana is an unfettered, unregulated, unattended mess that allows people to buy guns at wholesale weekend table shows and take them into Chicago to feed THAT beast. And let me defuse another gun lobby lie: Chicago does NOT have a gun ban. You could research that if you don’t believe it, so we can stop spreading that “gospel” as another vapid example.

      And to the person who keeps stroking off to the “this won’t keep criminals from having guns,” a few notable mass killings lately were done by people who had only a 1973 DUI arrest as a “criminal record.” And a few 4-year-olds were shot by law-abiding brothers and sisters because law-abiding moms and dads forgot and left the old family revolver on the kitchen table while they went in to make whoopee.

      All the same, additional gun laws won’t work and we know it, mainly because of the stubborn refusal of the gun lobby to admit there are ways to MAKE them work. We have to start someplace and I guarantee you, the vast bulk of America is going to *LOL* at a notion we need to have an AK-47 because we have packs of wild hogs or coyotes roaming the countryside. We have coyotes here in NW Indiana and they are hardly a threat to human civilization, though a few folks claim their geese population is declining.

      What we have roaming the countryside is worse — it’s the so-called “patriots” who think they can do a better job than the state police, all the while turning a blind eye to the notion that supporting useful gun trafficking laws would actually HELP the state police control crime. That way, the gun lobby couldn’t prop up their other lie about cops being ineffective.

      Instead, the NRA has boosted and gotten through a series of laws that actually weaken the ATF’s ability to control illegal gun sales. All the while, spewing out the nonsense that “we can’t keep criminals from getting guns.”

      No but we could try and the NRA isn’t interested because its sole function today is to promote gun sales, not gun safety. It can lie about its mission statement all day. We know better. Their president even referred to its opponents as the “enemy.” That is documented, which ought to say something to the person who contends that all we do is take sides and yell at each other. The NRA refers to recalcitrant Americans as the enemy. The enemy!

      Wild hogs? Give me a break. The only thing that needs to migrate out of Texas is the smart people.

      If you want an AK-47 or a similar weapon, just go ahead and have it. But be honest about why you want it. If you are so afraid of your surroundings, I might suggest you move to my town. We haven’t had a gun death here in more than 10 years. And the wild hogs? We sent them all to Texas.

      Be at peace.

      • For such a scary gun mess…you haven’t had a gun death in 10 years. From your description that is surprising.

        Of course, you realize that those buying guns in your state and bringing them to Chicago are breaking the laws. AND if have such an unregulated environment is so bad….why don’t you have a crime problem like Chicago?

        And the Chicago gun ban is a defacto ban unless you can get connected or are rich.

        • John

          First off, Mister Constitutional Law expert, Chicago doesn’t have a gun ban. Since you clearly didn’t research that, the rest of your drivel is also suspect.

          • Hey…look at that: de facto [deɪ ˈfæktəʊ]
            in fact
            existing in fact, whether legally recognized or not a de facto regime Compare de jure

            You need a permit to own a gun. Those permits only go to the connected. And there is a ban on carry that has been declared unconstitutional.

            So, perhap, YOU need to read more carefully.

          • John

            Excuse me? Gun bans are illegal and the Supreme Court ruled on that in 2010. The 2nd Amendment also agrees. So if the 2nd Amendment agrees, then a gun ban is illegal. Hint: Chicago does not have a gun ban. See how I connected those dots?

            Play your own semantics game.

            Needing a permit to have a gun seems pretty rational. Did you just decide to troll the entire board and pretend to have some arrogant self-pontified belief that we haven’t heard all this shit before?

            Guns are not banned in Chicago, no matter how you want to twist your own meaning. People over 18 who are not convicted felons can own a gun. Do you have a problem with that? That’s kind of designed to keep … you know, what the NRA says … guns out of the hands of criminals. I guess that part of the discussion isn’t convenient for you so … yeah, the “connected” can get a gun. I have three totally unconnected friends in Chicago who own guns.

            They aren’t criminals either.

            Funny how those gun bans work in Chicago. Maybe we ought to try it all over the country.

            Your horse is dead. Get up and start walking.

          • So the fact that most people cannot get a FOID card is not a de facto gun ban. You can’t carry outside the home at all. Okay then. And no..I’m not trolling. I brought up valid points. You’ve heard all this before? You don’t act like it. The same failing pro-gun control points were being made. Oh..boy. You have three “unconnected” friends that have FOID cards. How easy is it for poor black people to get a card from the “may issue” authorities?

            So the gun bans work in Chicago, huh? 500+ dead…..

          • John

            Are you really working for the NRA or does being dense just come with the gunsmoke. What about **NO gun ban** did you not comprehend? If you want to discuss how difficult it is to get a gun, you might have a point …. I have no idea how hard it is for a poor black to get a gun so your faux outrage over the racism is kind of lost on me. Why don’t you get up and go to Chicago and head on down toward 112th and State Street and ask the homies about this.

            There is NO gun ban in Chicago so for you to pony up your clever little ….

            ** So the gun bans work in Chicago, huh? 500+ dead…..**

            suggests you really don’t have the intellect to actually check out the fact that the gun ban was overturned in 2010. If you have some obsession over ignoring that and instead propping up some bullshit about how hard it is for a gang member to get a gun.

            I just offered evidence that I have “unconnected” friends who got firearms permits. Evidently since you learned that, you dismiss it as irrelevant, even though YOU were the one who suggested that only “connected” people could get guns. I claim you are wrong about that and you’ve decided that you aren’t interested.

            What about “no gun ban” seems to be so difficult for you to understand? Did you just decide one day that you wouldn’t agree that you might be wrong? THERE IS NO GUN BAN in Chicago.

            Get it? If you aren’t a felon and are over 18, you can buy a gun, maybe not down the street from your house. I have no idea where the gun dealers are located.

            The *500* murders, the annually convenient number — are almost all gangbangers killing other gangbangers. I can assure you, the cops ain’t even interested in those losers.

            So maybe you could just … admit you aren’t right about this. That wouldn’t be so difficult, would it? I mean … your manhood would still be intact and the NRA wouldn’t throw you out for being a beasty libtard.

  • Jon

    Who’s gonna protect us from the well-armed militia that takes out the lawfully elected “Tyrannical” government. It will just become “whose camp has the most guns” as we devolve into chaos and blood-lust. Oh wait, that’s what a society with laws is for….Duh!

    • How is it lawfully elected if its tyrannical?

  • OMGReally

    John, you had really caught my attention with what seemed like a well thought out posts that seemed to display a reasonable thought process on the topic, then you said this:

    “Wild hogs? Give me a break. The only thing that needs to migrate out of Texas is the smart people. ”

    All i can say in response is this: Typical Liberal. Your desires will not control the migration of nature or wild animals.

    • John

      Typical liberal? Is that as good as it gets?

      There’s something that suggests you are taking your “politics” too seriously and by doing so, throw out the “typical liberal” card. I might actually stand by the comment on “smart people.”

      I am far too long on this planet to define myself as anything but “a logical independent.” Wanting people to grow up and act civilized has nothing to do with “liberal.” I think maybe you “conservatives” might have been taught that in Bible school.

      The problem is that anybody who opposes unregulated gun ownership is automatically branded as a “liberal.”

      I am fully aware of how men die at the hands of firearms. I’ve been there. You don’t get to paste the “liberal” label on me, but I am aware that whenever somebody disagrees, the word comes out and you feel all-better-inside for having used it.

      You aren’t advancing your position here.

      Having a defensible position against unregulated gun ownership doesn’t make somebody a “liberal.” But in order to address the discussion, you need to understand the topic. I acknowledge your right to defend yourself against wild animals.

      But somewhere inside all this, finding a way to control the wild animals would be a preferable solution.

      • OMGReally

        You said: ” I acknowledge your right to defend yourself against wild animals.”

        But.. Do you? earlier you said: “As much as this scary scenario makes sense, I’d venture to say that NOT VERY MANY people are threatened by packs of wolves or wild hogs. So, bully for you to live in such uncharted territory. ”

        So you venture far enough to suggest that i should come around to your way of thinking and move to the city? Do I not have the right to live anywhere i want? IMO, that sounds like a liberal stance to me.

        Then you said: “Here in Indiana, we don’t really have that problem.”

        America is a large diverse country with many different landscapes. You cannot compare Indiana to Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, California, or any other state with a heavy nature presence. So it would appear that you are suggesting we should all live an Indiana lifestyle..

        I could go on and on through your posts, but its much easier to just say this:

        Does it make you feel better to blame these issues on the ‘gun crowd’, ‘conservatives’ and the NRA, rather than admitting the truth, which is have a mental health issue in America?

        • John

          I didn’t address mental health because I don’t have any qualifications for that. I am a bit surprised you didn’t blame the media or video games. Seems like that was the point of the entire blog offering.

          Honestly, I think that I wrote that we haven’t had a gun death in our town in about 10 years and we don’t have any problems with wild boars. We have some raccoon life, possums, a skunk or two, a deer (many of them) and some feral cats — mostly in the national forest. A few squirrels. Not many porcupines.

          But we aren’t discussing where I live. Here’s what I addressed: The need to have a gun and the reason. You are telling us that if we lived in an area where wild boars are likely to attack, you need a gun. I think you shouldn’t live near wild animals that are so dangerous. Why would you find fault with that logic? If it’s the family homestead, I understand.

          Live anyplace you want but don’t try to attach some kind of 2nd Amendment right to it. I think the “government” doesn’t much care where you live either. If you live where wild animals are likely to be a problem, then by all means, deal with them in any way you see fit.

          I think that your use of my quote says NOTHING about my decrying your desire to own weapons.

          But look at it again. I mentioned “scary scenarios” and even affirmed that it made sense. But I also wrote that not many people face that problem. At what point inside that quote do you find that I suggest you shouldn’t have the right to own a weapon? Please paraphrase if necessary or interpret it as you probably do anything else that you don’t happen to agree with. PLEASE try again on that comment. Just … try.

          I find it interesting that you equate “liberal” with “common sense,” which is basically where we are.

          In any event, you are assuming that I think you ought to be disarmed, therefore making me a liberal. I just think your reason for being armed was the latest in the *lol* moments.

          Life isn’t that simple and you know it. Is that just something you throw at people who don’t agree with your belief that you ought to own guns?

          F*** it … have all the damned guns you want. I don’t want them.

          I have my own Browning rifle (it is very old and it very much works) and believe it or don’t, that doesn’t make me a “conservative.” My reason for having the gun is personal and I don’t need to go propping up some bogus excuse.

          You use the term like it’s a slur. There’s a reason why this dialog started in the first place, and it’s because — when all else fails, pretend the “liberals” are to blame.

          I blame the wild hogs, personally.

          I still think my points are valid. Maybe that makes me a liberal.

          I like basketball. Liberal?

          I like to eat. Liberal?

          Liberals also developed Medicare and Social Security and rural electricity. And a few of them are responsible for some rather nasty wars, one of which I have some personal insight.

          But they’re easy to blame when things don’t go right.

          Mental health? Could be … anger, revenge, envy, jealousy among the great deady sins … all a problem. Fear is a worse problem. Listening to lies without questioning it is a form of brainwash. Yeah … and the fear that the government is coming to take your guns and force you into some kind of slavery … that is manic paranoia.

          I personally am just afraid somebody who is mentally ill and happens to have a gun and just happens to have had a bad day decides to come looking for his 15 minutes of eternal fame … and starts firing away at the grocery store where I happen to be shopping for pork chops. Domestic hogs.

          This exchange has been quite productive for both of us, I think. I bear you no malice. My position on this is clear but it’s subject to change. I don’t fear having a modified opinion.

          Sadly, there isn’t much of that going on.

          • OMGReally

            John, i fear we have gotten way off track on this. I could fulfill your request and pick apart your posts and show you where i see “liberal” views being portrayed, but that would continue this non constructive conversation, when we should be discussing gun control.

            I don’t oppose reasonable fire arm regulation, I don’t oppose ALL guns requiring a registration, etc. I have no problem with that.. What i do not want to see are a bunch of new laws that will affect only law abiding citizens and not address the issues at hand.

            For instance, Yesteday (Friday) and young woman and her 18 month old child were assaulted by 2 teenage boys with a gun. This happened in Georgia and the baby ended up being shot, in the head, intentionally. To me that is a mental health issue. Any man (or boy) that has such little regard for innocent human life has a mental issue. Or maybe his parents need to neglect him less, either way a mental health issue.

            IMO, the answer is clear, i dont see any reason for all this madness. Here it is:

            1. Set up a system in the department of the ATF that will keep track of gun sales between private citizens, and thefts.

            2 . If a gun is registered to me, and that gun has not been reported stolen or sold (properly) then I am responsible for any incidents the gun might be used in.

            3. Citizens will be limited to both the number of guns they sell per year, and the number of thefts per 5 years.

            After all, how many violent crimes are committed by the actual gun owners? (I have no clue to the answer to this question) Im sure there are some but nearly everything we have heard about the last few years (excluding colorado) have been by guns that were aquired illegally, such as the 14 and 17 year old that committed that horrible crime in Georgia yesterday, where neither was able to legally posses any type of firearm.

            I am a very staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment, but I am also a very staunch supporter of responsible gun ownership, and the 3 things i outlined above should not offend any law abiding, legal, responsible gun owners. They would however greatly encourage people to store and use guns in a responsible manner, as well as curb illegal black market sales, as the original purchaser would be held responsible.

            I have no ill will toward you John, like I said, you had my attention until that comment about what ‘should’ migrate from Texas.. I wish you well in life and all endeavors you might undertake. I think we have the same outcome in mind (a safer place for us all to live) however, i think we disagree on what measures might bring us to this goal.

          • John

            I suppose the migration comment could have been left out of it.

            I don’t find myself to be any more liberal than any other retired white guy who worked for 48 years and lived through … what … 6 presidents, several wars and a couple of pointless moon landings.

            I hear enough comments about my home state to make me angry, ranging from how we harbored the KKK for years … and were at least willing to admit to it, unlike our neighboring states who pretend they had nothing to do with that.

            Not germane to the topic. Indiana gets its share of ridicule.

            Back to gun control. I have another post on here that really didn’t attempt to get into a debate about guns or the rights of gun owners. I find that topic fairly well beaten like a threadbare rug, but decided, one more time to enter the fray. We’re at that point.

            Sensible gun ownership is probably being left at the doorstep of this conversation, nationally.

            Steps I’d take:
            Disarm the street gangs. Screw their civil rights. Disarm them first, let their lawyers fight it out and, in the meantime, start the process of cleaning up the reasons why street gangs exist. I’m weary of those excuses. If they’re in a gang, round em up, jail them, take away their guns and … essentially declare martial law on the process. Is that a liberal attitude? Not really. Sounds kinda radical to me. We have to stop that violence. Kids are dying in the sidewalk on the way to school in Chicago.

            And the FBI data that the CSGV (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence) tried to pawn off on me (after booting me from their FB page) was that only “10 percent of all gun deaths are gang related. I replied, after being banned, that homicide is part of the problem. Unless they understand street gangs (they don’t) pretending that 10 percent is irrelevant is beside the point. Robbery, intimidation, coercion (exactly what gangs ARE) … all done with guns. And fear. These are immature, armed terrorists.

            How to achieve that. More cops, BETTER cops, intelligent cops who know what to do, when, how … paid well enough to attract top people to that job. Maybe we could vet and refine some former military veterans who can’t find jobs. Risky? Maybe. What’s working now? The cops are kissing the gangs’ asses because they have no choice. “Just don’t do it on my shift, OK?”

            There are some really really EVIL people in street gangs. They don’t care if they kill or go to jail or have any reckoning of life outside their world. Most of them ought to be “off’d” before they turn 21. The sad part is that they have 10-year-olds who are the next generation.

            Stop the crap at the state line. Here in Indiana, you can buy guns at a weekend garage sale at the county fairgrounds, pack ’em up, take ’em to Chicago (which does NOT have a gun ban, btw) and sell them for whatever you can get for them. The state of Indiana has an attitude of indifference to a lot of problems, so we aren’t utopia — just really kind of laid back. Chicago is somewhere else to most Hoosiers. We watch their TV programs.

            Mental health. Way too tricky for me to address. Whatever makes somebody mad enough to kill a toddler in a stroller (probably a gang bullet gone astray) … Adam Lanza’s mother should have known better. She’s a mommy, in denial. “My boy would never kill anyone,” she probably said until she saw the body.

            We simply MUST identify the kinds of gun violence that are fixable … the rampant bullet is sad, but in a complex society, there is some TSTL (Too stupid to live) quotients out there.

            As for your wild boars, that seems like a problem for the Interior Department and I truly do sympathize with anybody who has to deal with a government bureaucracy.

            If I sound like a liberal, please advise me on this.

            But we have to start talking about gun usage, not gun rights. The right-wing rebellion militias are too scary and way too dangerous. The NRA and the gun lobby needs to throw some water on their end of the fire.

            In closing, an assault weapons ban is ridiculous, and that’s the reason the CSGV booted me, because I said that legislation aimed at that was political puppetry. Instead, I pointed out that Chicago was doubling up its cops. That, I told them, was what works … not some stupid C-SPAN speech.

            The Senate played the gun card and could barely get it out of committee.

            Bottom line: They are attacking the wrong windmill.

  • Pingback: “I’m with Stupid.” | antijenx()

  • OMGReally

    I agree with 99% of what you posted above, especially the finally sentence: “They are attacking the wrong windmill”. Unfortunately many state and local governments do not appear to agree with us. I left Michigan a number of years ago because the local government felt the solution to all their budget problems was to lay off more and more police every year.. Far be it from them to slow their spending on non essentials..

    There are several news stories about the incident in Georgia, here is one (it happens to be the first one that came up in a google search):

    Clearly we do not know the exact story because we were not there and we must rely on the single witness, the babies mother, who was also shot. The story i linked claims the baby was shot ‘at point blank range’ .. that is not a rampant bullet.

    Unfortunately we have too many corporations that exist only to sue the government into oblivion, in the name of civil (or other) rights. The ACLU comes to mind, there are others. I agree that we need to disarm gangs at any cost, but the government (currently) has its hands tied on civil rights.

    More, better trained, better equipped police is 1 the gang problem but that costs tax dollars and we need to cut spending at this point. Our current representatives are more interested in political gain than finding a solution to these problems, as some have been outed via leaked emails and internal memos suggesting these cuts need to be seen and felt by the public.

    The problem is not the law abiding citizens, the problem is the criminals, who unfortunately dont generally use guns registered to themselves. A big part of this solution is gun responsibility.

    BTW, down here in the south, you have to take a gun safety course (unless you are grandfathered in by age) any weapons you buy new must be registered and you must undergo a background check by the ATF. Currently you do NOT have to report sales or thefts of guns, but IMO not doing so is the first sign of an irresponsible gun owner, and they should not have access to them.

    This post has taken nearly an hour to write and probably has many type-os and possibly rambles. I apologize, i wrote it 1 handed, with a sick grand baby in my other arm.

    • John

      Your typing is fine.

      The problem with government is that is their job to pass laws.
      The problem is so much of it is just puppeteering … they don’t actually care if it passes … they will just attach it to some other spending bill and get a bridge built across some gorge in Maine that nobody from Minnesota will ever use.

      But the part about being under-financed … we could build just one less aircraft carrier and have enough to finance a real war on gang crime.

      As for their civil rights … again, disarm them first and let some other bastard worry about their civil rights. These gangbangers don’t care about your civil rights. Screw them. If it matters, then they ought to quit doing it.

      At least one city in this area does this with domestic violence — they take both people to jail and let their lawyers argue about it. They figure it’s better than sending one to jail and the other to the hospital.

      And in the baby shooting, what it sounds like to me is ex-husband rage and a baby being the victim. Sad mix of events, that.

      • OMGReally

        The baby incident is being sold as a botched robbery by two ‘gang bangers’ .. Its a horrible incident, and im sure the story will change in the months to come, but the bottom line, if true, is they shot this baby in the face to intimidate, no other reason. They will spend most of, if not their entire lives in jail, on our dime. Personally I think public hangings should be brought back for this type of violence. These kids have no place in a civilized society.

        We cannot however continue to produce large numbers of degenerates and keep jailing them. At some point we have to look at the cause of this anger and greed. I am not in any way qualified to speak on this subject but i bet it begins with our current ‘broken home syndrome.’ How do we fix that? How do we convince children that they should wait for sex? Our attempts thus far have been futile.

        Again, i agree with you.. We could easily shift spending from non essential programs to pay for more police. Not just on the national level, as you have suggested (aircraft carrier) but also on the local level. Maybe I-75 can survive another 2-3 years before resurfacing it.. (just an example, i have no information about the current condition of i-75, i only drive it once or twice a year.) Maybe we could cut the grass at the parks every other week instead of every week.. There should not be much issue in finding ways to cut spending.

        In many ways our system is used by these degenerates for their personal gain. Some abuse the welfare system, receiving (up to) Mortgage payments, cell phones, utility bills paid, vehicles bought, even cash money for entertainment. Many of these people are the same ones standing on the corner of Bennet and Richfield selling crack cocaine. The time I spent in Michigan was just disgusting to me.

        Most i’m sure don’t even know they have civil rights, few have a high school diploma or any formal education. They do seem to have amazing luck in not getting caught though, or maybe its the over crowded prison system in Michigan.

        I have lived in areas where in a domestic violence situation they arrest all parties involved. I really dont know how i feel about this. I feel that it would discourage women from reporting DV cases unless they are extreme. I understand why they did it, and it may work out for the better, but i dont know anyone who would call the police to have themselves arrested.

        Again i have gotten WAY off topic, and really its no fun agreeing with each other post after post.. lol I don’t come here to fight with people like so many do, but i do enjoy a good heated discussion as long as the involved parties keep it respectful.

        Its been nice talking with you John, i wish more people on the internet were as respectful and well presented as you. Maybe that could be the start to a better nation.

      • I actually agree with your post about disarming the gangs…but there was no reply button. Gangs could actually be considered illegal militias. They are organized and armed. Sounds like that could be a federal problem needing the Nat’l Guard.

        • Ellentis

          Gangs are domestic terrorists.

  • I watched an episode of The 5th Estate called Crossfire on the CBC. I don’t know if you can watch it online from the USA. It is a serious documentary on how Canada perceives the fight over guns in America. One of the points the narrator made was that most of the guns used by criminals in Canada are smuggled in to Canada from the US. The gun problem in the US is creeping in to Canada. Still, Canada’s gun laws have been mostly responsible for the lower rates of gun violence in Canada. The link to Crossfire is below. You may only be able to view it from Canada, but it may be on You Tube. I really think it i worth watching.

  • Pingback: The Political Garbage Chute | A Politcalocalypse!()

  • Pingback: Tea-Billy Gun Nuts Holding Rational Americans Hostage | vegasjessie()

  • By the way, if you are interested in responses to this:

  • Pingback: What the Stranger Wouldn’t Say | Liz Boltz Ranfeld()

  • Pingback: … find out what we’re made of when we are called to help our friends in need… | kvetchnik()

  • I use this argument, I’m a liberal, and I’m not an idiot.

    The reason I use the argument is because it is those with criminal inclinations that engage in these shooting sprees in the first place. It is not the people who have NO criminal inclinations. But gun control is supposed to prevent shooting sprees. (Supposed to. It doesn’t even work that way in the UK, though it does cut down on their total number–but I thought one gun death was one too many?) Ergo, it’s supposed to stop people with criminal inclinations from owning guns. But people with criminal inclinations will just buy guns illegally, neatly stepping around this law.

    And incidentally, the term “assault weapons” is nonsensical. What are guns usually intended for, flower vases? Maybe to the occasional random hippie…

    • James Schlarmann

      No. Gun control is meant to curb gun violence, period. It’s not just about spree killings, that’s your first mistake in logic, right there. Not all gun laws are targeted at the same thing. The pro gun-hoarding crowd loves to squash it all down into being just about spree killings, but it’s not. Also, you seem to be implying that if you can’t stop all gun deaths (“I thought even one gun death was too many?”) we shouldn’t have any gun laws? Or the ones he have are just fine? That’s about as ridiculous an argument as the “criminals don’t follow laws” argument.

      It’s really easy to demagogue gun laws when you try to make them all about targeting one thing, but that’s intellectual dishonesty the likes of which doesn’t warrant much more of a response. As for the “assault weapons” bullshit? Nice try to derail the argument into semantics. But we all know what we’re talking about when we speak of these weapons. You’re entitled to your minority opinion, but don’t act so incredulous when it’s called out for the bullshit that it is.

  • Emery

    Having grown up in the US, and lived in Germany and now Japan, I can say that the gun issue is totally unique to the US. It can be boiled down to a severe lack of imagination, empathy and enlightenment. Consider for a moment population density of the USA compared to Japan:
    USA – 84 people per square mile.
    Japan – 836 people per square mile. Yes, 10X!

    Now, consider gun crime in Japan (stats from
    836 homicides in 2008
    GUN related homicides in 2008? ELEVEN. (2001 had 56. Still, a drop in the bucket compared to the USA)
    Suicides (1997) – 23,502
    GUN suicides (1999) – 47
    Accidental shootings resulting in death (1999) – SEVEN
    Unsolved gun deaths (1999) – SEVEN

    Presuming LAWS dont WORK… and given that Japan has 10 times the population density of the US, those figures should be more like the USA.. or more accurately, ten times:

    USA Total gun deaths (2011) – 32,163
    Times 10, to reflect the higher population density of Japan, and 320,000 a year should be being popped off in this country.
    The fact that 10 people in every 100,000 US citizens will die in a gun related incident every year should be a wake-up call. There are countries with far denser populations with far fewer gun related deaths. Again, adjusted to reflect population density and a lack of gun control, 100 in every 100,000 would be picked off here every year.

    There are a lot of restrictions to gun ownership in Japan. Including the requirement that all licensed owners living within city limits MUST keep their guns at a certified gun safety shop, shooting range, or police station. You are not permitted to be in possession of the weapon on a daily basis. In the country, I presume you are free keep the weapon on your property, in some sort of safe.

    Key point of the law is this part:
    Genuine Reason Required for Firearm Licence
    Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Japan are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, hunting, target shooting (with special permission).

    I challenge anyone in the USA to provide a GENUINE REASON to possess anything other than a small handgun for personal protection and a hunting rifle.
    If you worried about zombies, then perhaps you MUST be required to have a certified gun safe on the property. Or to keep your AK at the local zombie attack shelter. Or how about you rent lockers at the gun range much like a post office box or bank safety deposit box.

    Here in Japan, you cant register a car without showing proof that you have a parking space. In much the same way, you cant even DREAM of requesting a gun permit without knowing which gun range or police station it will be handed over to when not in use for the designated purpose.

    • Nancy

      Well said Emery! I can’t believe that gun rights advocates will totally ignore the statistics! You make perfect sense. BTW- How many wild hogs do you have running around Japan that people need guns to protect themselves from? LOL

  • Emery

    The facts are on
    Compare country to country. Look at population density vs gun incidents (of any kind).
    Consider traffic of weapons and ammunition, and compare that to transparency of sales.

    It really is this simple:
    * Few countries have outright bans. The safest countries in the world have highly enforced laws and restrictions (meaning permits are hard to get, and you must provide reasonable evidence as to WHY you NEED one, as well as strict rules about storage, transportation and use), but they do not have absolute bans on weapons.

    * Even when population densities exceed the USA by a factor of 10, illegal traffic of weapons and ammo are considered moderate (a standing the USA also holds) and the nation’s transparency of gun transactions ranking is LOWER than the USA, these countries still remain safer (in terms of gun related injuries/deaths per capita) than the USA by a factor of 8 or more.

    * STRONGLY ENFORCED gun control laws work, even when criminals have them.

    * Every country has their troubles with psychopaths bent on mass murder. In countries in which guns are incredibly hard to get, these psychopaths resort to base weapons such as knives, clubs, or attempts at reckless car murder (yes, all three of those happened in Japan, in the 6 years I have lived here, and no more than 8 people were killed in the worst case). Lack of access to even a simple handgun significantly reduces the number of people a psychopath can kill in a given period of time. PERIOD. The numbers speak for themselves. No amount of emotional outrage, fear, anger, constitution waving, or freedom shouting will change that FACT.

    Second worst massacre in Japan:
    Guy busts into a school and knifes 8 children to death, and wounds several more.

    Akihabara mass murder by car:
    Guy flips his lid and runs over a bunch of people with his delivery truck, killing 3. Later, on foot, he stabbed 12 people killing 4.
    Eventually police cornered him and pointed a pistol at him, at which point he was arrested.

    Had even a handgun been available to these guys, the body count would have been much much higher.

  • Genny

    I think this guy has solved the crime problem in the USA. If criminals do not follow the law, and it’s a crime to not follow the law, then we need to eliminate all laws, thereby reducing crime by 100%.

    Honestly, a very good article. Kudos.

  • BeGe1

    There is a serious flaw in this argument.

    Most laws are prohibiting the primary thing that we want to prevent. Rape laws make rape illegal. Even if a criminal isn’t going to follow it, it’s important that this behavior that society has deemed directly harmful to others is illegal so that criminal action can be taken against the offender.

    But there is another type of law, the ones that are not directly making illegal the action that society has deemed directly harmful, but instead which regulates something otherwise fine that we then wish will have the secondary effect of stopping something else that society has deemed directly harmful.

    Not making a distinction between those two types of laws leads to patently erroneous conclusions when dealing with them.

    Nobody thinks that the pistol in someone’s gun cabinet is going to get up and hurt someone on its own, their hope is that putting controls on owning one will stop those with criminal intent from owning one, which will then in turn stop them from using it to harm others. However, much different from laws that prohibit acts directly deemed harmful, laws that are intended to have such a secondary effect absolutely should be judged by their effectiveness in whether or not they actually have their intended effect. If they do not significantly affect the primary behavior they are hoping to affect…then they are nothing but unnecessary restraints on the otherwise law abiding, and have no logical place in society.

    So…does the criminal element or aspiring mass murderer obey the laws governing firearm ownership? Are they even affected by them? Contrary to the article, these are questions that absolutely would have to be answered to know whether such laws are worthwhile or simply a form of emotional self pleasuring to feel better about having done “something”. I do not make attempt to prove it one way or the other, only show that it very much is a logical question to ask when dealing with laws intending to have secondary effects.

    • James Schlarmann

      The point is that whether or not a criminal will break the law is pretty much irrelevant to any law in particular. You write laws to both curb and encourage behaviors. Gun laws are no different.

      Also: TL;DR

      • BeGe1

        It’s quite funny when I saw the “TL;DR” (too long, didn’t read) at the bottom, because about 2 words before that my thought was “Did this guy even read the comment? He couldn’t have, or he’d know his response sounds completely inane as a rebuttal of the things I just said.”

        The entire comment was explaining exactly WHY “the point” you just reiterated isn’t true. If you’re not even willing to read the reasons for why it may not be true, then why would you be so sure it is true that you’d respond to state it as such? To paraphrase: you disagree, but you’re not willing to read what I say to actually know what you’re disagreeing with…you simply feel the need to blindly accept the opposite conclusion without being willing to even read anything that might be reasons it’s not so. Sounds like an emotional pre-judgement if I’ve ever seen one.

        Jus’ Sayin’

        • James Schlarmann

          TL;DR followed by another TL;DR.

          Well done, Captain Consistent.

          • BeGe1

            You’re quite consistent yourself.

          • James Schlarmann

            Okay, sure. You can have the last word.

          • cargosquid

            I’ll have that last word. Your TL;DR just shows that you are proud to be ignorant.

    • rose143

      a car is a useful thing… but we have laws controlling the ownership of cars, and who can drive them. So, by your logic we should have no laws about cars either. No one is saying that people can’t own guns. They ARE saying that there should be controls on who owns them, if they are handled safely, registered, people have training in how to use them, etc. We also restrict what types of vehicles can be on the road. We can restrict what types of guns are in homes.

      • BeGe1

        You didn’t actually read my full post did you? Know how I can tell? Because that was not my logic at all, and I explained that and the differences quite clearly. I explained the two general types of laws and exactly why they were different in this regard.

        We’ll just ignore the massive legal differences between regulation of a privilege (driving) and a right (arms) for a moment and argue as if they are equal things.

        Here’s an example. If there was a law that all cars had to have a breathalyzer machine installed to start-for the sole purpose of lowering incidences of drunk driving-and we ran that law for 10 years with it having no discernible effect on the amount of drunk driving…would it be logical to not have that law any more? The thing it bans (cars without the breathalyzer start) is not the thing itself that we intended to stop, it was intended to have a secondary effect. Yet…it did not have that secondary effect at all. Without having that secondary effect it is nothing but a feel good measure that is putting a restriction on the law abiding, simply sidestepped by the non-law abiding, and costing time, money, and effort in the process, and all the while the law itself doesn’t even ban the thing that we were trying to actually stop, that was already illegal and people will still go to jail when caught.

        Another reason I know you didn’t read my post is this line right here: *”I do not make attempt to prove it one way or the other, only show that it very much is a logical question to ask when dealing with laws intending to have secondary effects.”* You argue against points I never made. I did not say anything about who should or shouldn’t own guns, or that one was not allowed to regulate this or that. I argued that for laws with the sole intention of having a secondary effect (as opposed to laws banning the actual primary effect they intend to stop), whether or not they achieve that secondary effect is ABSOLUTELY a valid argument for whether or not said law should be made.

        It’s very simple. A law that forbids the thing society actually wants to stop has purpose whether followed or not, because it gives enforcement teeth to punish those that break it (such as laws against drunk driving). A law that is solely preventative and has no other purpose than to prevent a secondary effect (like the universal breathalyzer starting mentioned) should absolutely be judged by whether or not it actually achieves that effect. It’s completely illogical for it not to be. And that concept should be applied to gun control the same as it is applied elsewhere in our society.

        • Political Garbage

          a) TL;DR

          b) Driving itself may not be a “right” but it is in fact predicated on our basic freedoms, 100%. In fact there is a strong belief among the legal community that court precedent and case law have essentially turned it into a right. It’s a theory I support.

          but really,


          • BeGe1

            a) Why would you respond to something you didn’t read? I read the article before responding to it. Do you form political opinions on bills without knowing what they say as well? What about without researching the factors involved in that issue?

            b) I’m curious. In your opinion, if you had to get government permission and licensing to run this blog, and could be jailed for doing it without said permission and licensing…would that be in line with having a right to free speech? Or would that mean it’s being treated as a privilege? Just curious of your opinion on that.

            but really,

            Why would you respond to something you didn’t read? Is it habitual to form an opinion on something you admit to not knowing about?

            Also, you know you can put your “right to cars” theory to the test, right? Go ahead and bring a suit against Mackinac Island, MI for their outright ban of personal cars on the grounds that there is a common law right to them. I’m curious to see how that goes. Why sit here and argue about it when there’s a real way to test it? Do you really believe that that suit would go your way? Or is your theory just convenient rhetoric to use against those who disagree with you?

            Last but not least…if you had read the post, you’d know that I specifically said I’d give the benefit of the doubt and would argue as if said right vs. privilege were on equal ground anyway, and argued as such. My argument did not rely on them being unequal. Funny how not reading the opposing side of the argument puts you at a disadvantage in the argument, huh?

  • Metalius Shaperium

    “Gun Zealots wouldn’t care if 500,000 children were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary, or in Aurora, Colorado.”

    “At some point if you make idiotic, childish arguments you sacrifice your credibility.”

    That pretty much sums up your entire argument……Brilliant.

    • Political Garbage

      I know you are, but what am I?

  • Billy Mullins

    If truth in advertising laws applied to naming blogs, this blog would have to be named “The Political Cloaca” unless one considered “garbage” to be a synonym for “shit”. I took the time to read a couple of other postings here. “Shit” is really too kind a description for them.

    • Political Garbage

      Thanks for taking the time to comment on a website you don’t deem worth your time.

  • RLevinson

    Let me tell you why this is an insanely stupid article. Laws neither control nor create basic morality; good men don’t rape women because they know, empathetically, that it’s a horrible thing. Good women don’t beat their children because, empathetically, they know it’s a horrible thing. Good people practice ethical control of their firearms, not shooting any person for fun, because they empathetically know it’s a horrible thing. If the only thing keeping you from raping, murdering, stealing, or driving slowly in the fast lane is a law, then you’re nothing more than a calculated sociopath who has decided that jail would be too inconvenient. Major laws prohibiting horrible behavior go unnoticed by good people because the laws don’t affect their behavior… and it is indeed also true that laws prohibiting horrible behavior go unnoticed by bad people because they just don’t care. Trying to find a reflection in good people of the behavior of bad people is exactly what offends those resistant to redundant, pointless, and oppressive new laws.

  • ;hlkj

    your an idiot

    • Political Garbage


  • Elie Ilano

    Great article. Thanks for the info, you made it easy to understand. BTW, if anyone needs to fill out a form vs 170 form, I found a blank fillable form here: I also saw some decent tutorials on how to fill it out.

  • Jammie@Bachand

    Invaluable piece – For what it’s worth , if someone has been looking for a TX VS-170 , my business partner encountered a fillable form here form VS.170.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :