Debate on Gun Violence Limited by Either-Or Thinking

let us live gun violence kids
It is not only our arguments, but more importantly, how we frame our arguments, that shape our perception of the issues. Each party has a narrative based on its ideological stance on a particular issue – for example, women’s reproductive health vs. “religious freedom,” or “anthropogenic global warming” vs. “climate change.”

Often, however, how those issues are expressed is, for want of a better word, dishonest. The Keystone XL pipeline comes to mind: Give the Kochs more money becomes a “jobs” bill.

We also see plentiful examples of various logical nightmares, from straw man arguments to special pleading to the infamous false dilemma (the either-or fallacy, or black-or-white thinking). An example of the latter is a poll by Lean Right America, which frames the gun violence article thusly:

lean-right-gun-control

It serves the interests of the gun lobby to paint the picture in such stark and simplistic terms, that the only option to gun violence is to ban guns. But it is a far from realistic portrayal. It is not the platform of the Democratic Party to ban guns outright, nor that of any major Democratic politicians, from Barack Obama on down, despite the suggestion created by the quote used above, that,

[Gun violence] has terrible consequence for our society … and if we can only do one thing to stop it, we should all try and do that.

One would think from the choices present that the president is making the second choice, the dreaded “one thing.” But the quote is taken from Obama’s press conference following the Newtown School shooting in December 2012, in which he said,

We may never know all the reasons why this tragedy happened. We do know that every day since, more Americans have died of gun violence. We know such violence has terrible consequences for our society. And if there is even one thing that we can do to prevent any of these events, we have a deep obligation — all of us — to try.

President Obama is talking, obviously, of ending gun violence. He talked about high capacity ammunition clips. He talked about background checks. He said nothing about ending ownership of guns. Obviously, there are a broad range of possibilities beyond these two extreme points of view.

The President’s Plan to Reduce Gun Violence, unveiled in January 2013, embraced the following positions:

  • Require background checks for all gun sales
  • Strengthen the background check system for gun sales
  • Pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons
  • Limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds
  • Finish the job of getting armor-piercing bullets off the streets
  • Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime
  • End the freeze on gun violence research
  • Make our schools safer with new resource officers and counselors, better emergency response plans, and more nurturing school climates
  • Ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people.

Not only do we not get these measures, we do not even get a discussion of these measures. They get dismissed out of hand by the gun lobby. As The Washington Post reported in July of 2013, “None of President Obama’s other legislative initiatives survived the congressional debate that followed the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., in December.”

In fact, as of that July, when the Senate confirmed B. Todd Jones to the position, the United States had been without a director for the Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol, Firearms (ATF) for seven years because of opposition to the idea of oversight from the gun lobby, starring the NRA, which doesn’t want the fruits of modern technology brought to bear on the problem of gun violence.

Instead, in response to more school shootings, we get Mike Huckabee telling us that having chapel services in public schools will end shootings. We get things like Texas’ “The Teacher’s Protection Act,” which permits a teacher to kill in defense of school property. In essence, teachers can gun down students engaged in vandalism. As Keith Brekhus wrote here Friday, “Stand Your Ground’ mentality gone mad.”

Yet that may not be the craziest idea put forward. Gina Louden wrote last October at World Net Daily that the Democratic plan is to destroy marriage, which will cause gun violence (an interesting admission, by the way), which will give Democrats an excuse to ban guns.

It is easy to see why we are not getting the intelligent, relevant public discourse we need on gun violence. And heavily armed open-carry advocates storming government buildings is not helping.

Everytown.org provides a list of school shootings since Newtown in December 2012 up until January 26, 2015. There have been 101 school shootings in that time. Twenty-four have resulted in deaths. President Obama said in January 2013, “the time is now.” It is now well past time, and still nothing has been done.

Any attempt, no matter how incremental, to rein in the indiscriminate use of guns even by criminals and the mentally ill, comes up against a brick wall.

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens, for example, would modify the Second Amendment, which reads as follows:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And change it so that it reads as follows:

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

Obviously, the Founding Fathers, prefacing the Second Amendment with mention of a “well regulated militia” intended arms to be kept and carried for that purpose. Five simple words restore the original meaning.

It is difficult to believe that gun owners should be so easily convinced but the NRA has had them believing for decades that each successive Democratic administration is going to come and take their guns, even though nobody, in all those decades, has ever come to take their guns. If that works, an ad like that shown above (and it is certainly more add than poll) will have its desired effect: Democrats want to take your guns, so vote Republican.

If you’re ready to read more from the unbossed and unbought Politicus team, sign up for our newsletter here!

195 Replies to “Debate on Gun Violence Limited by Either-Or Thinking”

  1. It seems that in light of current events the first step to end gun violence is to remove firearms from ALL law enforcement.

  2. The problem is that we have had the deliberate inculcation of a cult of Brown Shirtism…and believe me, someone has an ultimate purpose for those Brown Shi(r)ts.

  3. There is no debate about the horrific, Third World worthy gun violence in our society. The problem is that so many people are willing to tolerate it, justify it because of a poorly written, outdated paragraph in the constitution. 30,000+deaths a year, because freedom. Well, I want freedom FROM guns. I don’t want a bunch of yahoos with concealed carry permits itching to prove their manhood walking around. Studies prove that the states with the laxest gun laws have the highest rates of gun violence, that having a gun in your home makes you less safe, that suicides drop dramatically without gun availability. Who wouldn’t want to emulate Australia, or England, or Japan? I don’t want to live in freaking Somalia, I just want to know I won’t get shot if some moron thinks I cut him off on the highway. What the f**k is wrong with us?

  4. I’ve thought a lot about this lately and I’ve been thinking that if the Constitution were written today that it would include clauses for a free and open Internet and the absolute right to own a computer…

    the Constitution was written at a time when the technology available was the printing press and the gun… and the experience was that the press allowed opinions and information to circulate freely… and the guns had just been used to toss out the Brits…

    now the experience would be the ‘Arab Spring’ and/or the attempts by countries to control the content and information available to its citizens… witness the attempts to close down various information exchanges when a country experiences turmoil… Twitter, Facebook, the internet itself…

    I also think that just because you’re allowed to have something… a gun, a dog, a child… doesn’t mean you SHOULD have it… plenty of examples of abuse for each of those things..

  5. It is very clear that democrats are the party of gun control. Liberal policies have destroyed our great cities and lead to high crime, unemployment, and gang activity. Gun control schemes by the democrats are trying to cover up these failed liberal policies by punishing all Americans. They are designed to limit and thwart any lawful gun ownership and confiscate existing guns from lawful gun owners. NY and CA are doing this right now.
    Democrats = Gun Control = Registration = Confiscation

  6. I know this may seem like a innocent question but On what planet as anyone talked about taking away your guns dumbass?

  7. ummm… I live in CA and no one has been by to get my guns yet… since you seem to have some special knowledge could you please provide the timetable?

    I have more to worry about my wife taking them away than I do the state…

  8. Congress of the United States
    begun and held at the City of New-York, on
    Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

    THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further DECLARATORY and RESTRICTIVE clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. . . .

    . . . …Amendment II

    DECLARATORY clause; [Common Defense]

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

    RESTRICTIVE clause; [Self-Defense]

    the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed.

    Simple, isn’t it? Self-Defense is the first law of nature. And is the whole basis of life. We join together for common defense in order to combat violence on a grand scale.

  9. Yes, and the big bad gummit requires that I be licensed to drive and register my car. There are also those pesky speed limits and traffic lights I have to follow. Oh the horror – I guess they will confiscate my car next!

  10. There you have it, the tea-bagger world view and the reason there can be no reasonable discourse on gun control.

    The paranoia of “everybody is out to get me” completely closes the mind and will allow no other thought to enter.

    IMHO it is fear that is driving these people to be the extremist they are. I think it is terribly sad to be so afraid of everything.

  11. OK Abe, you declared it now back it up with some evidence. What liberal policies? How are Americans being punished by these policies? And who, exactly, has had their guns taken away?

  12. The questions in that “poll” make me laugh. Hardly an honest poll, is it? But then again, it’s not really a poll.

    It’s taken a complex issue and simmered it down to THE most basic level, where no one actually has to THINK before answering the question(s). They use questions that are designed to raise emotions – not induce critical thinking. Quite frankly, they don’t want people to start THINKING about these issues – I mean really thinking, taking the issue apart and looking at each piece of it in order to gain a better understanding.

    They start doing that – they start thinking – and all of a sudden, they stop buying what these people are selling.

    Can’t have that.

  13. “Studies prove that the states with the laxest gun laws have the highest rates of gun violence”

    Oh, you mean like Illinois, NY, NJ, and DC?

  14. 30,000+ gun deaths a year in the US. Massive bloodshed. Is this not “violence on a grand scale.”? So, I buy your argument, just not the means to achieve it. You say guns prevent violence, I call BS. Look at stats for really civilized countries, then go stroke your barrel affectionately.

  15. In California we have the Mulford Act signed by scared shitless Ronny in ’67

    The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill which repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[1][2] The bill was signed by Republican California Governor Ronald Reagan and became California penal code 12031 and 171(c).

  16. Us in BLUE California have the Mulford Act signed by scared shitless Ronny in ’67.
    I haven’t voted on any proposition to disarm any Californians and there is nothing going thru our legislators.
    Do you have a link to your absurd comment?

    The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill which repealed a law allowing public carrying of loaded firearms. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, the bill garnered national attention after the Black Panthers marched bearing arms upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.[1][2] The bill was signed by Republican California Governor Ronald Reagan and became California penal code 12031 and 171(c).

  17. you must live in tea bag, Texas since you’re obsessed with everyone in the big cities.
    You’re obsessed with gays, guns, god, greed and gynocology.

  18. In 2013, handguns killed
    48 PEOPLE IN JAPAN
    8 IN GREAT BRITAIN
    34 IN SWITZERLAND
    52 IN CANADA
    21 IN SWEDEN
    42 IN GERMANY and

    10,728 IN THE UNITED STATES

    Those that carry a gun are trying to compinsate for their tiny manhoods

  19. You say guns cause suicides and then in the very next sentence he says we should emulate Japan. Well the suicide rate in Japan is 21.4 per 100k, vs. the USA rate of 12.5. Please explain why you would want to increase suicides.

  20. Violence is and always will be a bad thing. But the people committing the violent acts are almost always criminals who have managed to obtain their weapons ILLEGALLY. Almost always the articles covering a violent act there are drugs, money, gangs, or other criminal activity going on. Even in Chicago, Miami, Oakland, Camden, Newark….. most of the violence reported is due to CRIMINALS. CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY THE LAWS. The LAWS ONLY AFFECT THE LAW ABIDING. Also the weapon is NOT what should be blamed for the violence. Suge Knight used a car the other day.

  21. CJA,
    I would like to inform you that you do not need a license, tags, or even insurance, to drive a car. The car just hast to stay on private property, and you drive it all you would like to. Once you go out on public road ways then yes you may need those things but not until then. On second thought a person has the right to free travel, thru the USA, so maybe you should peruse a case to throw the license out of the law. I wish you good luck with that.

  22. In Japan, hanging is the single greatest form of suicide (22,000+). Does that argue for restricting sales of rope or requiring registration for purchases of rope over 6′ in length?

  23. Ad hominimem, strawmen, and racecards, oh my! Are any of you aware that the NRA won over %95 of the races they were involved in for the first time in their history last November? Do you think it’s because or despite the claim that %99 of the people want more difficult background checks (or whatever obviously lie you’re pulling out of your ass today)? Is it because or despite the country sharing your desire to stick it to christian conservatives? Has it occurred to any of you slick tongued little hipsters that your childish exchanges with us are the primary thing pushing the grown up voters our way? Spoken by a proud “ammosexual.”

  24. Rope has numerous uses, and that is a pretty minor one. Machetes can be used in the garden and the kitchen. Cars are for transportation. There’s only one use for a gun.

  25. NYC confiscated guns in 1991 and Connecticut is now in the uncomfortable position of having made thousands of its citizens felons with its “assault weapon” law.

  26. There are many uses for a firearm. It can be used to terrorize, to murder, and to defend against deadly force. It’s absurd to equate a person using a gun in self-defense with a person using a gun to rape, rob or murder an innocent victim.

  27. The top five murder cities in America:

    Flint MI
    Detroit MI
    New Orleans LA
    Jackson MS
    St Louis MO

    Mayors:
    Flint MI – Dayne Walling (D)
    Detroit MI – Mike Duggan (D)
    New Orleans LA – Mitch Landrieu (D)
    Jackson MS – Tony T. Yarber (D)
    St Louis MO – Francis G. Slay (D)

    I say the simple, logical, common sense solution is to outlaw Democrat mayors from America’s cities.

  28. The Constitution restricts government, not citizens. The Constitution protects our rights from government at every level.

    Rights are not an issue of asking permission from the government.

    Would you accept a state sponsored religion or newspaper? How about letting the government choose when it’s appropriate to follow the 4th Amendment?

    We are a Constitutional Republic. This provides protections against tyranny of the majority. In turn, this adds to the assertion of individual rights. Rights give you choice, free from government meddling.

    I am up for the responsibility of choice, aren’t you?

  29. The problem is, someone getting raped, robbed or murdered is usually eh ones to die if they ask the criminal to wait while they pull their gun out

  30. Judging by the false claims, slanted and disproved stats, and general tone of the obvious sockpuppets, and the author himself making ad hominem arguments, summarized by the Everytown reference, this article was written to order, probably by Bloomberg, and reinforces the obvious, last ditch, desperate campaign to give Obama something, anything, for his “legacy”.

    And the near desperate rhetoric, and hysterical tone of Journolistas like Mr Sitzpinkler, are simply not persuading anyone outside the shrinking echo chambers, like politics USA, Salon, Vox,
    especialy when its obvious that the Talking Point Memos have been reissued, and coordinated in yet another tiresome “campaign”.

    In spite of America saying, no more gun control laws, per Pew Research, and the historic 2014 elections that put conservatives and independents in the Senate, and House in majorities not seen since the 30’s, and Governors and state legislatures in 130 years.

    I will be surprised if this comment is not…

  31. Wrong. In your “historic” elections, more gun control was desired through voting on proposals.

    Your histrionic elections, in which the lowest number of people practically in history voted, are hardly historic. Dems seldom vote in numbers in off year elections

    You should be surprised. Your comment is historically stupid

  32. Just an aside to debating anything gun with a conservative: “To argue with a man who has denounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”-Thomas Paine.

  33. Yes, motor vehicles are designed specifically for transportation, but kill more people than crimes committed by those with a firearm.

    Medical Malpractice kills 90,000+ Americans annually. An industry that specifically states to “do no harm” is more efficient in killing Americans than criminals with firearms.

    You don’t think Medical Malpractice deaths can be reduced for immediate impact?

  34. If it’s poorly written, find enough like minded individuals and change it.

    And to those using raw numbers as some sort of argument…your argument is weak. In point of fact, out of 216 sovereign nations, the US ranks 111th for homicide. We’re decidedly in the middle of the pack, and the majority of the 110 countries with a higher rate than the US have strict or total gun control.

    As to the “states with the laxest gun control” argument…it’s blatantly incorrect. Vermont and New Hampshire have the lowest murder rates in the country, and they have the least amount of gun control. But even that is flawed. Correlation is not causation. Drug sales/consumption are a much bigger factor than guns as an indicator of violence. If you want to reduce murder, learn a lesson from the 18th amendment, and legalize recreation drug use.

  35. Do you remember Mr Obamas caught on mic slip promising the Brady people, for gun control, after the election?
    Do you remember how Holder denied knowing about F&F until caught in his lie, by multiple emails? And Sec State Clinton repeating the discredited claim that 90% of illegal guns were sold to Mexicans by small gun stores, in a speech to the Mexican congress, just before Brian Terry was killed by one of the guns run into a sovereign country, our neighbor, without their knowledge, and aproval by DOJ and State Dept. And Mr Obama claiming Executive Privilege, when Holder was forced by Congress to release files for investigators?

    These are frimes by the State, against the People, that would have had the readers here foaming at the mouth, f committed by a Republican president. Instead, the WH directs news outlets to suppress journalist investigating it, and even spies on them, including hcking the home and work computer of CBS’s Atkisson.

    Do you wonder why no one trusts th…

  36. Then I would suggest that you move to one of those “gun free” nations.
    How do you propose to impose Australian or UK style gun laws without using guns and gun violence to enforce it?

  37. “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”
    – Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

    https://archive.org/details/pennsylvaniamaga11775phil

  38. You are deflecting with an excuse for Democratic voter non-participation? 80 years of elections for a Senate and House shift, and 130 years of elections in states includes a lot of off and on years.

    The author cites the small misleading question Quinipac poll for 90% but ignores the much larger Pew poll, and the successive results showing arising and majority opposition to any more gun control, and fails to mention te massive fail of Feinsteins AWB effort.

    It is you, Sir, who are ignoring the facts, and history, and compound it with silly insults.

  39. @Shiva, So now the argument is that guns are not an effective defensive tool?

    If I’m going to be attacked, I’d rather be armed. An armed citizenry acts as a strong deterrent to violent crime. Career criminals are logical predators who seek out the weak systematically. Criminals fear an armed population.

    There’s a trope that guns are a fetish of fat old men. I think there’s something to that idea. When I was a young man I felt pretty comfortable in my ability to handle myself. Now I know that I’m no match for a younger, stronger predator. My theory is that in general women and wimpy guys developed a strategy of avoidance early in life and continue that strategy throughout their lives. Men who previously acted as protectors see a gun as a simple tool to allow them to continue that role in later life.

    The problem with avoidance is that it just doesn’t scale. You need someone to stand up to the bully.

  40. “If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in — I would have done it.”

    Diane Feinstein talking about the 95 gun ban on 60 minutes. I’m not sure but I think she was on planet earth.

  41. Interesting that Obama is guarded by the Secret Service. They carry Sig P229 Pistols in .357 Sig with 15 round magazines. AR-15’s with 30 round magazines. He is surrounded by the some of the finest firearms in the world. No 10 round mags. No 7 Round New York mags. No 5 round NYC mags. His children are also surrounded by armed Secret Service agents. Even in schools.

    There are lots of “important” people in this world surrounded 24/7 by armed guards.

    Also, the 30,000 deaths a year number thrown around is comprised of 2/3 of suicides. Of the remaining 1/3, 2/3 of that is gang violence in the inner cities. Mexico is much worse, and they have scads of gun control laws.

    So if you want to counter “gun violence” by hiding under a desk and cowering in fear, you are free to do so. I’ll be returning fire. I’m a cop, and always carry on duty and off, and know from personal experience that I can shoot better than most cops. I care personally about my family. The governme…

  42. @djchefron @reynardine
    Allow me to connect the dots for you as you apparently couldn’t see through the sarcasm. Guns are banned in Japan. No guns – whatsoever. Yet the suicide rate there is almost twice that of the US. Pssdov stated suicides drop with the reduction of gun availability. However, suicides do not correlate with gun ownership whatsoever as the suicide rate in Japan demonstrates.

  43. Isnt that better then staying here and watching 70,000 people a year go to the hospital for gunshot wounds? 32,000 dying annually?

  44. Your theory that when someone has the jump on you , you are going to win is silly. If they come into your house you may have the jump. On the street you are dead

  45. So we are to not consider environment as well? The pressures of life in Japan are far higher then here. You need a quarter to buy a global education?

  46. “Studies prove that the states with the laxest gun laws have the highest rates of gun violence …” – Pssdov commenting on Debate on Gun Violence Limited by Either-Or Thinking

    Except there are no such studies. Maine has the lowest violent crime rate in the United States. Vermont has something like the third lowest violent crime rate in the United States. And Utah has something like the fifth lowest violent crime rate in the United States. And yet it is exceedingly easy to legally purchase firearms and carry them in public in those states. Maine and Utah are both shall-issue concealed carry states. (Those states must issue a concealed carry license to anyone over the age of 21 who has no criminal record.) And Vermont is a constitutional carry state where anyone over the age of 16 can carry a concealed handgun in public as long as they have no criminal record. And there are no locations that are off-limits (e.g. “gun free zones”) in Utah for people who have concealed carry l…

  47. 30,000+deaths a year, because freedom.

    About half of those are suicides and they do not count. If a person wants to kill themselves there are a great deal of convenient painless ways to do so and a firearm will not stop it.

    I’m sorry you hate freedom – because that is historically what the united states is all about. Why do you preach about “gun violence” but not “violence” as violence is the root cause – not the gun. Case in point – Switzerland. 0.6 homicides per 100k. People there even open carry their assault rifles.

    http://i.imgur.com/V2TCu.jpg

    http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Switzerland-Sig-SG-550-Apple-Store-Open-Carry.jpg

    http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0705/switzerland_guns0502.jpg

    It is not about the gun – it is about the culture of violence.

  48. Patricia, when you make a gross generalization about a large group of Americans, using a homophobic slur, you discredit yourself.

    I dont read angy comments here as being paranoid, nor do you cite specifics. Yet you make that claim, twice, to jstify your positon of moral superiority.

    You are aware of the concept of “projection”?

  49. Liar
    Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder
    The largest study of gun violence in the United States, released Thursday afternoon, confirms a point that should be obvious: widespread American gun ownership is fueling America’s gun violence epidemic.

    The study, by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University and two coauthors, has been peer-reviewed and is forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health. Siegel and his colleagues compiled data on firearm homicides from all 50 states from 1981-2010, the longest stretch of time ever studied in this fashion, and set about seeing whether they could find any relationship between changes in gun ownership and murder using guns over time.
    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/

  50. The author misinterprets the founding fathers statements:

    Obviously, the Founding Fathers, prefacing the Second Amendment with mention of a “well regulated militia” intended arms to be kept and carried for that purpose.

    The founding fathers were philosophers and armed insurrectionists. The militia statement is not for government employed entities – it was for the people.

    For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.
    -James Madison

    “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
    -Alexander Hamilton

    I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
    — George Mason

  51. To add to the facts noted by A81, about the often misquoted 30,000 gun deaths, of the 2/3 in urban deaths, something like 60% are ages 16-25, 90% black on black.

    We have the firt post-racial POTUS, and Democrats controlling Congress for 6 years, and not a peep on that, or solutions, despite pleas from black leaders in Chicago, the city poster child for the failure of gun control.

    Why is that? Why more calls for more laws applied to the law-abiding, when its clear that the law breaking are not abiding by what we have now?

    What purpose can laws requiring registration serve, when criminals dont buy guns legally, or register them, legally?

    Read your history…

    Or, for more reasoned debate, and facts, for the Curious Independent and Classical Liberal, come to the largest independent gun culture blog, The Truth About Guns.

    Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away…and you are responsible for your own families safety…

  52. The US is a violent place. However Guns are not the problem. Comparing your supplied data with this chart:

    http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/65788000/gif/_65788483_gun_ownership.gif

    Switzerland (mentioned in your data) do not have a standing army – but the whole of the population is the army. Each man between a certain age even has a fully-automatic weapon in his house. He can obtain ammunition for that weapon from any local shop. There is no limit the number of firearms a Swiss citizen may own – and yet their crime rate is so low.

    One can see “guns” are not the issue.

    Those that carry a gun are trying to compinsate for their tiny manhoods

    A common ad hominem from gun hating polemics which does not contribute to a meaningful discussion.

  53. Caron. Interesting quote, and the appeal to authority fallacy Thomas Paine,

    combined with getting it exactly backward…

    You conflate ‘gun’ with ‘conservative’ to make your point you ‘cannot reason with them.’

    You have simultaneously insulted your partner, in the debate, and taken your football to go home…

    Hardly an act of “reason”…

  54. Switzerland is not a comparison. It has a culture far older then ours. They do not obsess over guns like you do.

    Stick to the US.

    BTW, the Swiss government controls who gets guns and in most cases Ammo is kept in arsenals(since 2008). Not every man gets a gun as soon as he reaches a certain age. They are allowed 3 weapons by permit. No auto fire guns or selective fire guns

  55. Good article. There isn’t really any debate going on. Both sides barrage each other with endless statistical and often hysterical analysis of guns, their purpose and their future in American culture. This has led to where we are now. Think back about a hundred years ago to the Western Front in Europe and the stalemate in the trenches and you can see the difficulty facing both sides. Pro and anti gun control forces feel they have compromised enough and everybody is drawing red lines in the sand all over the place. We pay the price while this battle rages as the death and destruction from gun violence touches us all deeply. Maybe the next generation will actually have that debate.

  56. Now you are going on to pander about chicago? When Illinois has a much smaller death rate by guns then the southern states?

    Gun registration has to be country wide or it doesnt work.

  57. That was during a time when every man was the militia. That time is long gone. There is no militia today except for extremists.

  58. It would seem that you’ve never heard of the term “preparatory clause”. It sets the stage for the main portion of the sentence, so to speak, but the main portion of the sentence can stand without it. The first portion of the 2nd Amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”, cannot stand on its own. The second portion, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”, can stand on its own. IF the intent was merely to arm militiamen, the 2nd would have been written in a manner that reversed the two sections. You are simply wrong. Move somewhere they have disarmed the populace if you want an illusion of “safety”.

  59. I was commenting to an individual who made the comparison between the US and Switzerland – so I believe I am entitled to further that comparison.

    Your statements were inaccurate and some incorrect:

    BTW, the Swiss government controls who gets guns.

    There are no psychological tests in order to own a gun in Switzerland. Anyone can get a gun as long as they don’t have a criminal record. They do undergo a background check.

    and in most cases Ammo is kept in arsenals(since 2008).

    You can own as many guns as you like with all the ammo you want – privately.

    Not every man gets a gun as soon as he reaches a certain age. They are allowed 3 weapons by permit. No auto fire guns or selective fire guns.

    Full auto (select fire guns) can by bought with a permit. Again – no limit on the number of guns owned.

    http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/2cl0uk/swiss_gun_ownership_and_gun_laws_condensed_into_a

  60. Mr HH,

    I’ll just make one point that speaks to your entire article:

    When you present the same tired misrepresentations, faux facts, and bogus stats Bloombergs serial sockpuppet.orgs, you are only demeaning yourself and politicsususa.

    Especially when Everytown, the reference source you closed your argument, has admitted to misrepresenting the facts, and is being sued for same.

    Do your homework, Sir, or be reduced to a paid flack.

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/johannes-paulsen/everytown-gun-safety-admits-misrepresented-facts-lawsuit-pending/

  61. You changed his stat instead of addressing it. You know you are simply wrong. If the gang-bangers and other repeat offenders were taken out of the equation, the USA would have a very small number of homicides, and many of the remainder would be justified homicides, aka self-defense. Why don’t you simply admit that you want the entire populace disarmed so that draconian leftist policies can be implemented? I bet you get your jollies looking at pictures of Stalin, Mao, and the other murderous leftist dictators.

  62. Then I guess you dont read the news much. I didnt change his stat, I fixed it for him. Gang activity doesnt account for more then 50% of murders

    Forget the self defense crap, thats what the NRA teaches you

  63. This is the definition of freedom:

    https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=define%20freedom%3A

    Freedom from death or injury from guns you mean?

    You want freedom from “gun” violence, but you aren’t looking to address the root cause, you are looking for the Nanny state to enact legislation limiting peoples options. This is the freedom or lack thereof that I speak of.

    “freedom from” gun violence??

    So Freedom From – the Freedom To – own/carry a gun?

    In other words no freedom?

    Lets go further – Freedom From – the Freedom To – Have freedoms.

    I think it is better we punish those who are personally responsible for the crimes they commit rather than reduce the freedoms of 300 million American’s nationwide because of the crimes of those individuals.

  64. That was during a time when every man was the militia. That time is long gone. There is no militia today except for extremists.

    That is just your opinion. This is mine:

    Gun owners today should have the rights and freedoms exactly as enumerated and explicitly described in the constitution of the United states and as detailed in the bill of rights, written to limit government control over the people of the United States all for the purpose of… Freedom, domestic tranquility, justice, etc.

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

  65. I am ready for the NRA to stop claiming that the Construction prohibits ANY regulations of guns, which it certainly does NOT.

  66. @Shiva, djchefron

    A Marlin 22LR is not an “assault weapon” – but then again – what really is?

    http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Screen-Shot-2013-11-27-at-9.31.12-AM.png

    http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Screen-Shot-2013-11-29-at-7.08.26-PM.png

    Some of these rifles are “antiques.” Modifying them by a gunsmith to meet compliance destroys their value. Make no mistake, gun confiscation happens daily and on an individual basis, rather than by a nationwide decree. Your snide ridicule does not convince us from these facts.

  67. 1991! What does that have to with 2015? There obviously was no permanent ban. Too bad you folks can’t be so obsessive about something worthwhile.

  68. HOPLOPHOBIA The irrational fear of guns. Those that screech, gnash their teeth, and beat their breasts about guns and the desire to control free citizens access to them, do so out of that irrational fear. What it really boils down to is a bunch of pants-pissing, diaper wearing liberal retards with nothing better to do. I did my own personal study. I took every single gun I own, put them on the floor in front of the door to my house, and then left them unattended for HOURS! Guess what? When I got back, every single one of these guns was still lying there. What does that tell us? That guns are nothing more than inanimate objects, much like a hammer, or a butter knife. However, in the hands of the wrong person, each can be utilized to cause harm to another person. A liberal’s propensity to advocate for gun control isn’t really about guns, it’s about CONTROL. It’s also a well known fact, that liberals have no balls. Thus they will always be the recipients of tea bagging.

  69. go stroke your barrel affectionately.

    You must need a gun to masturbate with

    More ridicule and vitrolic comments from a people intolerant to rights and freedoms. Why they stay here in the supposed “gun terror” capital of the world is beyond me.

  70. 1991! What does that have to with 2015? There obviously was no permanent ban. Too bad you folks can’t be so obsessive about something worthwhile.

    They don’t need a ban, they can use progressivist ideals (otherwise known as “opinions”) to further their cause to an eventual ban.

    Worthwhile is in the eye of the beholder, and what is worthwhile to me may not be worthwhile to you and is it right that I seek 51% to vote your options outside your reach? Particularly when you did nothing to hurt or bother anyone else to deserve such? Why can’t I just tolerate you and you tolerate me?

  71. okay, the disparity you’re pointing to exists, but by using total numbers rather than per capita rate, you’re being intellectually dishonest. The USA is much, much, much more populous than Japan, or Germany, etc, so there will be a correspondingly higher number of ANYTHING that goes on here than in smaller countries. We have more weddings, snow blowers, barbecues, and cases of toxoplasmosis than they do in the UK, too.

  72. ummm… I live in CA and no one has been by to get my guns yet… since you seem to have some special knowledge could you please provide the timetable?

    I have more to worry about my wife taking them away than I do the state…

    I don’t even know you, yet if I got your information, I could file a restraining order against you and the state would come to confiscate your possessions (guns). The state gov has made this possible.

  73. WTF people!!! Its Super Bowl Sunday and I got to read this shit. No one is taking your guns away so stop sucking the NRA flaccid penis. Just stop it

  74. @Shiva,

    Try it. The more guns in a state the more gun deaths

    Is death by knife any better?

    Maybe we should focus on the act of violence not on the utility used.

  75. I should think you’re anonymous.

    I sliced some beef, quartered some potatoes, peeled some onions, and snipped some parsley for stew with my. 44 snub (whoops)(sorry– that was my kitchen knife)

    Then I went out and notched a native black cherry tree to receive an orchard cherry graft with my bolt-action Mossberg. 410 (whoops) (sorry) (that was my grafting knife)

    Then I absolutely mowed down the lianas and cut up a hard calabaza with my godson’s Kalashnikov (whoops)(sorry) (that was my pair of machetes)

    Get the picture? Get a clue.

  76. @CAJ

    Yes, and the big bad gummit requires that I be licensed to drive and register my car. There are also those pesky speed limits and traffic lights I have to follow. Oh the horror – I guess they will confiscate my car next!

    You don’t have to be licensed to drive or register your car to own a car – only to drive one on the road. You don’t need registration, a license, a permit, or insurance – and you can modify it anyway you please as long as you keep it off the road.

  77. You know what happens to you if you knowingly file a false affidavit? And you can’t get a cake with a file in it through prison security any more.

  78. Most of those are grandfathered in. Someone who buys an antique purely for display can usually disable it in a way that does not destroy its authenticity.

    I used to have such a Marlin. It in no way resembles a military rifle.

  79. I think it is terribly sad to be so afraid of everything.

    I think so too – now why do you want further regulations on guns?

  80. Excuse me, but none of you gun obsessive conservatives are heads of State. Notice the Heads of State are not armed themselves. That is left to trained professionals.

    I will never understand your obsession with GUNS. It makes absolutely no sense to me at all and it never will. I have never owned a gun, never wanted a gun, never needed a gun and never felt I’ve missed anything.

    The most I’ve ever been involved with any gun was on an extremely windy day was when our nearest neighbor – we’re on a farm – came out into the field between us which is not his property btW, and started target practice with the howling wind to his back. My horse and I were standing just outside our barn when something went whining right between us and into the side of the barn. An inch or so either way and it would’ve hit my horse in the throat or me in the head.

    I’ve never seen my husband run so fast to get the car and fly over there before that fool got off another shot.

    Your rights stop wher…

  81. @Shiva,

    Totally wrong. You cannot have a criminal background

    world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-d…

    3 weapons per

    I don’t know if you read my post. Looks like no. I already indicated in my post above that those with a criminal background cannot or will have great difficulty obtaining a permit.

    In regards to your “totally wrong” – did you read my source? I’ll believe a gun owning Swiss citizen over TIME any day when the question is over gun ownership. The article I referenced was just 6 mo ago.

  82. Yes J, but guns are scary and they want to focus on scary things that make them feel unsafe – not bigger issues at hand or even the root cause of crimes where criminals use a gun.

  83. @IAB2

    Apparently everything is laughable and dismissible – and this absolves one of providing counter arguments.

    For Shiva:
    Argumentum ad lapidem

  84. @Shiva,

    Please check your facts.

    Then I guess you dont read the news much. I didnt change his stat, I fixed it for him. Gang activity doesnt account for more then 50% of murders

    Forget the self defense crap, thats what the NRA teaches you

    Chicago:
    The department and other city officials have pointed out that the drop in homicides, shootings and other violent crimes coincides with changes in police strategies, including tactics targeting violent street gangs that are responsible for the vast majority of the city’s gun crimes and, significantly, about $100 million in overtime pay for hundreds of officers deployed nightly to high crime areas.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/chicago-homicides-down-dr_n_4531328.html

  85. “No one is taking your guns away so stop (childish invective)…”

    Why can’t you guys ever be honest? Don’t you realize that we are still trying to get guns BACK that were, in fact, TAKEN AWAY from us? Do you think that time erased our memories of all those past infringements? People go to jail for having a barrel one inch too short, when you can legally own a pistol of any size. Mufflers are required on cars but put one on a gun and you’re a felon. Machine guns are legal (I’m happy with that) but you may not purchase a modern version without extensive licensing. You came for our guns, guys, and we’re coming back for them. That’s what’s happening, not some delusional revolt against a thing that didn’t happen.

  86. @Suzanne

    Excuse me, but none of you gun obsessive conservatives are heads of State. Notice the Heads of State are not armed themselves. That is left to trained professionals.

    They don’t need to be armed – they have paid armed escorts. Bloomberg (everytown for gun safety) has a security detail of 17 armed guards. As an elite, their protection is secured. You and your family deserve no more than a 5-10 minute police response time and Bloomberg is offended that you peons fail to accept the lackadaisical protection provided by your superiors in government.

    I will never understand your obsession with GUNS. It makes absolutely no sense to me at all and it never will. I have never owned a gun, never wanted a gun, never needed a gun and never felt I’ve missed anything.

    That’s fine. If you don’t want a gun – that’s great and we’re not forcing you to have one, but please leave ours alone. Mutual tolerance is what we need.

  87. Sooooo… we can haz taxpayer funded armed security!? Sorry our rights don’t end where the “heads of state” you worship begin, we ALL have a human right to armed self defense.

  88. You are wrong. 10 US Code 311 states:
    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

  89. This comes down to the right to choose. Every means you give the government will be used against its citizens.

    There are tangible, relevant and ongoing examples right here the US.
    NSA – blatantly illegal monitoring of US citizens approved by secret courts
    IRS – illegal targeting based on political affiliation
    VA – the corruption, lies and secret lists that have caused deaths of veterans for the sake of bonuses
    The President – the Supreme Court has declared some of the President’s executive orders to be unconstitutional.

    All you have to do is flip it around. How would feel if the government sanctioned a right you use regularly or favor?

    The rights you or the government feel are most dangerous are the ones that need to be defended zealously.

  90. You want to get rid of the guns for your peace of mind. 30,000 deaths a year from about 600,000 crimes a year committed with them…and completely ignoring the 2.5 million times a year guns are used to stop or prevent crimes.
    That’s not very good math.

    You want to emulate Australia and/or England? You’re an idiot. Australia’s violent crime rate has been going up steadily ever since they imposed their gun ban. Steadily and disappointingly enough that both their local and national governments have been cooking the books to make it look otherwise. To the point where it’s become a national scandal. England? You are now more likely to get mugged anywhere in England than you are in NYC. This on top of laws making it a punishable crime to defend yourself IN ANY WAY against any kind of assault, even if it’s in your own home against invaders. (See “Tony Martin”.)

  91. Whats wrong with us?

    “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason

    “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” Samuel Adams

    As an example of “what’s wrong with us”, look at Mexico, Russia, China, 1930’s Germany, or pretty much any country in today’s Africa. If it wasn’t for the Bill of Rights, we’d be a lot further down the road to tyranny than we are right now.

    To put it succinctly, I’d rather be a student of history than a victim through ignorance of it.

  92. “The time for militias is long gone…” (paraphrased)

    I think you’re in for a really big surprise. As long as we are “governed”, the time is right for militias.

  93. @reynardine

    I should think you’re anonymous.

    So you didn’t address my statement or make any kind of refutation – instead you make the (implicit) argument that knives have a legal and useful purpose – but firearms do not? That my friend is really weak sauce.

  94. @Reynardine,

    You know what happens to you if you knowingly file a false affidavit? And you can’t get a cake with a file in it through prison security any more.

    Exactly! It’s called personal responsibility. We make those who do bad things – personally accountable and punish them accordingly. In contrast, we shouldn’t punish all of the gun owners in California with legislation like AB1014 because they own guns. All that is needed for confiscation is an “accusation” not even real evidence. It is “guilty until proven innocent” legislation and a violation of Constitutional amendment 4.

  95. @Reynardine,

    Most of those are grandfathered in. Someone who buys an antique purely for display can usually disable it in a way that does not destroy its authenticity.

    I used to have such a Marlin. It in no way resembles a military rifle.

    They are not “grandfathered in.” The letter is a confiscation letter demanding they turn their firearm in for confiscation, disable it permanently, or modify it by a gunsmith. I agree that a marlin 25N looks nothing like an “assault weapon” if there ever was such a thing:

    Marlin 25N
    http://www.survivalprimer.com/PaulsGuns/NEW25N.jpg

    And

    Winchester 94
    http://gunliberty.com/gun_pics/win94-30-52.jpg

    Yes NYC demands these be removed from the state, made inoperable, or modified.

    Also, you cannot disable it permanently without devaluing it.

  96. You’re not forcing me to own a gun, but you are making me wonder whether some road-rage idiot is going to come up shooting. I don’t have bullet proof windows in my car. Or someone gets passed waiting in checkout line…

    And, oh yeah, I did have one other gun idiot experience in the early 1980s.

    Two friends and I were riding our horses along the shoulder of the road in east Texas – I was born and raised in Dallas. This car had barely gotten ahead of us when a very loud shot rang out. Sounded like a .45. Of course they weren’t trying to hit us – just scare the carp out of our horses, obviously without a thought about the tragedy they might have caused. Fortunately, our horses were smarter than they were and denied them the riot they were hoping for.

    People who are not capable of handling guns responsibly should NOT be turned loose with them. Period. The rest of us have rights too. Naturally, they’re not as important as your right to have a gun to hug every minute of every day.

  97. Gun control is a band aid in attempts to address the impoverished and the demoralization of America when an aggressive and crescive education is the cure.

    Regulating guns does not regulate violence nor does it regulate suicide or crime or the mentally ill.

    Gun control takes the accountability from criminals and law breakers and places that accountability in the hands of gun owners everywhere. (e.g. universal background checks – I594).

    Gun control seeks to prevent crimes before they happen but all this really achieves is making lawful gun owners “guilty until proven innocent.” (e.g. AB1014)

  98. I suspect you are not putting the same construction on “militia” as that which the Founders intended. They were speaking of township and county constabularies, currently supplanted by police/sheriff departments and the National Guard.

  99. If you get mugged, it’s likely to be at a soccer riot. Any assertion you make that the number of *deaths* has gone *up* because of *that* had better be supported by a reputable cite.

  100. Australia crime rate has not gone up. Your cliches are garbage given to you by braindead people like the nra. Take that someweres else

  101. Please read my posts and then say I haven’t been given a reason to be wary.

    I am NOT afraid of GUNS, you cement-headed fanatic. It’s the people who don’t have a clue about responsibly that bother me. I think it looks utterly ridiculous to walk around Target toting a gun that’s as long as you are tall, but, hey, that’s just me.

    Now, if you refuse to understand my concerns given my experiences, that tells my that all you’re capable of doing is slinging insults at people who only want their rights respected, same as you. Geez, I’m glad I wasn’t standing right in front of you during that rant. Icky!

  102. Ignorantio elenchi. We were talking about the possibility of someone getting a restraining order under false pretenses. As soon as I stated that this was neither easy nor unpenalized, you rather changed the subject, didn’t you?

  103. New York City? That’s supposed to represent national gun control? They had the Sullivan Act decades before you wet a diaper. Don’t put that forth as representative of modern -or model- legislation.

  104. Wish I could upload the Rabbit from Hell. Seriously, though, even a 35 lb German Giant rabbit running amuck wouldn’t require heavy ordnance.

  105. I live in Australia and I say you’re full of shit!!! Where are you getting your information from? Stop spreading lies. Guns are not an extension of your dick. Get over yourself.

  106. WE had nothing to do with “taking” your freaking guns! Besides, you are talking regulation not seizure for No cause.

    Seems to me you have more than enough “rights” with your deadly weapons. One of you threatened the President, and nothing was made of it. Just recently, a gun toting goof said he was going to monitor law makers who don’t follow the Constitution. Now why would normal people find that rather unacceptable? Address some off these legitimate issues and we would be happy to consider YOUR solutions. So far you seem to deny that there ARE legitimate issues, let alone suggest solutions.

  107. Hey, muttonhead, why don’t you call up Osama Bin Laden and tell him not to worry because liberals have no balls. The goal is to keep the guns away from the children, like you.

  108. “We don’t even get a discussion.”

    Funny – it seems like all I ever do! I’m not the NRA, just a member and certified firearms instructor. But I CAN give you the discussion you seem to have missed.

    1. The BG check bill was terrible for several reasons: it placed a defacto TAX on private sales, burdened licensed dealers to conduct said sales, and created a gun registry. (This is bad for a whole other set of reasons.)

    2. “Assault weapons” is a fake controversy; they are NOT machine guns. They’re also rarely used in crimes.

    3. A round limit helps no one; police want no part of it. What’s good for them is good for me. (Cont’d)

  109. Yes you are just a member and an agent for escalation of weapons
    Assault weapons are not a “fake controversy”. Try that one people at world net daily
    Poor gun sellers have a burden. So do familys that have lost members. The ones you could care less about
    You dont need any more then 10 shells. If you need more you shouldnt be shooting guns

  110. I grew up in a neighborhood where there were many incidents of firearm related homicide and suicide, including one of my friends who was killed for allegedly fighting the police. But even with this experience I’ve never considered turning on law abiding people and demanding their rights. My uncle was shot six times in the chest when he tried to intervene in a domestic dispute, but I’ve never considered that an excuse to constantly attack the human right to own a gun. Far from it, I’ve always considered it a really good argument FOR civilian armament. Kind of like how I consider the charlie hedbo attack to be a good argument FOR freedom of speech. Violent maniacs don’t get to decide what our freedoms are, what cartoons we can draw, what politicians we can criticize, and yes, what guns we can own. We don’t really care if you guys don’t like it, we’re gonna fight you on this until the end.

  111. You have abdicated your personal defense and the maintenance of a civil society to others. Fortunately for you, you have lived in a time and place where that has been successful for you, yet even in this country that is very safe by historical standards, I would have no problem finding people that found having their own firearm to be instrumental in continuing their life. To say that your security is not provided in part by the fact that others in society are armed would simply be folly.

  112. Suzzane;

    One second we’re living in Somalia and people are dying left and right, the next I have nothing to fear from criminals so I should turn in my guns… can you PLEASE make up your damn mind?

  113. You don’t speak for “familys who have lost members.” Not all of them. Not for me. Not for even about half the Sandy Hook families, who refused to be part of that ridiculous unAmerican class action lawsuit. I’m pretty sure most truly innocent gun shot survivors understand that if you have your own gun your chances of survival would be much higher, at least much higher than if your alternative strategy is to rid the world of all guns. Just putting that out there.

  114. What the hell does hunting have to do with this? Are you really not aware that most of our food is grown, trapped, or farmed, and has been since freakin babylon? People had no problem eating good before guns, so I really don’t understand where this facile argument comes from.

  115. Look no further than recent events to see the absolute destruction gun control has brought to the people in France. Cops had to runaway from criminals with real assault weapons. One cop lacking any way to defend himself was gunned down in the street while begging for his life. People watching it happen could only shoot the terrorists with a camera. Yeah that worked out well.

  116. No, they were speaking about the general population. This is shown by Hamilton in Federalist Paper #29. It is also why the term “militia” is used and not “militias.” It is why the Congress is granted the authority to call forth “the militia,” not to call forth the “militias.”

  117. Where to begin.

    The article says that it is not the policy of the Democratic party to ban guns outright. That is like saying it is not the policy of the party to ban speech outright. The Democratic party wants to ban so-called “military guns.” That would be like saying they want to ban political speech. It goes against the whole point of the protection of speech (and in this case, arms) written into the Constitution.

    Regarding so-called “assault weapons,” there is no such thing. It’s a term that refers to their cosmetics and which is literally defined by politicians however they want, meaning that any gun can be labeled as an “assault weapon.”

    Magazine capacity is the same. The idea that anything over ten rounds is “high-capacity” is something that was arbitrarily made up by gun control proponents. And as we see with New York state right now, they can reduce it to below ten rounds as well.

  118. Shiva, the term “assault weapon” is a political term with no real meaning. Politicians can define it however they want. So it is basically a way to blanket ban any and all guns for the most part. It would be like saying, let’s ban hate speech. How does one define “hate speech?”

    As for number of rounds, if all you need is ten rounds, then why do police officers carry larger magazines than that? The reality is that you may need significantly more than that. You could be dealing with some drug-crazed nutcase, multiple opponents, plus how you shoot when your adrenaline is pumping and your life is threatened and you are shooting at a moving target is far different from how you shoot at a fixed target at the range while you are relaxed (so you could miss). There are instances of criminals who have taken up to fifteen shots and were still able to walk afterwards. The idea that a person just drops with one gunshot is mostly a Hollywood myth.

  119. Two Pet Peeves Here:

    1) This notion of a right “from” guns. There is no such thing. I could say I have a right from speech I label dangerous, that I have a right from violent crime and therefore we need to do away with things like right against unreasonable search and seizure, right to privacy, etc…so that police can better do their jobs. Or how about I have a right not to get killed by terrorists, so waterboarding of terrorists is perfectly fine. Your rights do not mean you get to violate the rights of others.

    2) This notion that the right to keep and bear arms to check a tyranny is obsolete. How can anybody say that with any certainty? No one knows what the future holds. As for anyone who thinks a modern military would run roughshod over an armed population, then why is the idea of invading Iran considered so crazy? The main reason cited is that it’s seventy million people. Rights do not become obsolete with the passage of time. They are timeless.

  120. Most gun rights people are not at all obsessed with guns. No more than free speech rights person is obsessed with speech or a privacy rights person is obsessed with privacy. We are just devoted to protecting the right is all because of how constantly it is attacked.

  121. reynardine, What makes you think that? It took the police over twenty minutes to get there. If Adam Lanza had been limited to ten round magazines, he’d just have had to reload more frequently, which can be done very quickly. Ten round magazines can even be a benefit to a mass shooter as they can prevent jammings from occurring, as lower-capacity magazines are less likely to jam. Remember how the Aurora Colorado movie theater shooter’s AR-15 jammed after 30 some rounds had been fired? If he’d been using ten round magazines, he might well have been able to fire significantly more rounds.

    The only way that magazine size really limits a mass shooter is the possibility that a person could tackle the shooter while reloading. With Lanza, that wasn’t a possibility. It did happen with Gabby Giffords, but the problem is that you don’t limit a right based on the remote possibility that someone might be able to tackle the shooter during the remote chance of a mass shooting.

  122. @Reynardine,

    New York City? That’s supposed to represent national gun control? They had the Sullivan Act decades before you wet a diaper. Don’t put that forth as representative of modern -or model- legislation.

    NYC is part of the US. I never said it represented “national gun control.” I provided a counterargument and example to the statement made above. Your attempts to limit the scourge of anti-freedoms and anti-rights does appear to have centroids on the east and west coast. I am glad you acknowledge the problem has been around for some time.

  123. Ignorantio elenchi. We were talking about the possibility of someone getting a restraining order under false pretenses. As soon as I stated that this was neither easy nor unpenalized, you rather changed the subject, didn’t you?

    Uh no… It falls right into our topic of discussion. Allow me to connect more dots for you:

    You implied that a person who makes a false affidavit will/should be imprisoned (personal accountability), while at the same time don’t want personal accountability for gun owners, but rather to regulate the guns of all the gun owners – because these shouldn’t be governed on the basis of personal responsibility but of that of statistical and ideological opinions.

    Also, anyone can get a restraining order against anyone. All they need to do is make a false claim that cannot be proved false.

    Have a read here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraining_order#Burden_of_proof_and_misuse

  124. @Suzanne

    You’re not forcing me to own a gun, but you are making me wonder whether some road-rage idiot is going to come up shooting. I don’t have bullet proof windows in my car. Or someone gets passed waiting in checkout line…

    Unless your goal is ban all guns and enforce North Korea style gun control the only effective deterrence and prevention of such behavior is a court appearance. Punishment for the crime is the deterrence for the crime. If someone is willing to shoot you in your car or off your horse, what makes you think the criminal is going to rethink his position on shooting you because there is a law against concealed or open carry, or that he should have underwent a background check before he bought his gun out of the trunk of a car, etc?

  125. @Suzanne, Tony, Reynardine,

    By the way, Anon, that’s my real name on my post. Is Anonymous your real name? Naw.

    Why is it gun-humping ammosexual cowards always post as anonymous?

    It’s the coward part.

    So – ad hominems and name calling. Did you guys run out of meaningful arguments? Did I complain to Reynardine because that is not his real and/or full name? Or Tony D. or djchefron or Shiva? How does my or their identities have anything to do with the validity of our arguments?

    http://qc.createdebate.com/img/blog_article_images/disagreement-hierarchy.jpg

  126. @Tony D.

    what guns would those be? do you really need a fully auto with 30 round clips to hunt a bunny rabbit?

    Here is part of the problem. You guys don’t know anything about guns and think that hunting is their only purpose. Guns were initially designed for killing – there is no doubt about that. However, from that old past time there exploded a very large area of uses:

    (Switzerland)
    Eidgenössisches Schützenfest:
    http://www.vs2015.ch/

    (US)
    http://www.nssf.org/msr/
    http://www.nssf.org/shooting/sports/

    Look at these 3gun competition rifles from Germany using US designs:
    http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/03/12/dynamic-arms-research-dar-15/

    Hunting a rabbit? Come on. Uses for guns:
    * Personal safety and self defense
    * Preventing and deterring crimes
    * Commerce and employment
    * Historical preservation and study
    * Obtaining food by hunting
    * Olympic competition
    * Collecting
    * Sporting pursuits
    * Target practice
    * Recre…

  127. @ Suzanne

    WE had nothing to do with “taking” your freaking guns! Besides, you are talking regulation not seizure for No cause.

    Regulating our future purchases out of reach not much different than “taking” our guns. Also, there are gun confiscations all the time on individual basis in lieu of national decree as I detailed above.

    Seems to me you have more than enough “rights” with your deadly weapons. One of you threatened the President, and nothing was made of it.

    None of “us” threatened anything. That one guy threatened someone and he has nothing to do with me or gun owners in general. That’s part of the problem. Accountability. Some criminal does something with a gun and every gun owner in all of America has to pay for it.

  128. @Reynardine,

    Commerce and employment? Is that what you call armed robbery?

    Those are called jobs. Kind of like if you go bowling or play tennis. Someone has to make the tennis court. Someone has to make tennis rackets and balls.

  129. But then again, not everyone supports gun escalation like you do

    Not sure where “gun escalation” came from or what is really meant by it. I do enjoy freedom and the option to my pursuits of happiness for myself and all the people of the US regardless of race, ideals, and culture. As a nation of many different people from many different backgrounds I do believe that everyone should be allowed their own personal pursuit of happiness and we should all accept and tolerate each others differences, likes, dislikes, and not try to regulate each other’s cultural differences away.

    Stop being an idiot.

    I could say the same of you, but do these kinds of comments stir up any meaningful discussions?

  130. @Shiva,

    …Assault weapons are not a “fake controversy”…

    “Assault weapons” or “Assault rifles” or whatever you call it – assault with weapon? I don’t know – but apparently they are virtually a non-issue:

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/crs-under-2-percent-of-gun-crimes-involve-assault-weapons/article/2516512

    So do familys that have lost members.

    And the gun is responsible how? Why not hold the person performing said acts responsible? Do we blame spoons for making people fat?

    The ones you could care less about
    You dont need any more then 10 shells. If you need more you shouldnt be shooting guns

    I also don’t need a hummer. Look at this hummer:
    http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/02/14/four-year-old-killed-by-hummer-shouldnt-have-died-in-vain/

    He should have been driving a Prius. Nobody needs a car that size.

    But again, maybe we should focus on the culprit, not his tool of choic…

  131. The author assumes we should be OK with anything less than a total ban. There are many levels of control far less than a total ban that are also unacceptable. For example, we’ve seen in New York State how far American gun controllers want to go, and we don’t like it at all.

  132. Some facts for you to consider. More law abiding citizens own and carry guns then ever before. There has been a liberization of carry laws in the U.S. and gun ownership has increased substantially (Nics checks in the last 6 years are 21% higher than the previous 10 years). At the same time the homicide rate in the U.S. is the lowest it has been since 1957 (FBI UCR). By the way I have researched the Austraian violent crime rates. There violent crime rate is down 4% since the law changes after the Dunblain massacre. The U.S. violent crime rate is down 25% over that time. Looks like we are on the right track. Now, if we could only eliminate “gun free” zones we could decrease violent crime even more.

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

    How exactly is the Militia(The People) supposed to be a well regulated force when the only time they’re allowed to bear arms is when the militia is called to service? The answer is, they’re not. This change destroys the intent of the 2nd, you might as well get out an eraser and just remove it in it’s entirety. Oh, and this,

    “even though nobody, in all those decades, has ever come to take their guns.”

    is a lie. Firearm enthusiasts have had their rights attacked NONSTOP for decades, despite declining crime. They’ve been coming for our guns for a long time, and given absolute power they would snatch away every firearm from every law abiding citizen without thought to the repercussions of such an act.

  134. If by the militia you are referring to the National Guard, please remember that they do get training and most were in the military.

    No one is coming for your guns unless you are a criminal. Stop the fake paranoia

  135. Yes, what if firearms could be treated exactly like cars.

    1. Can own any car you wish? Yes

    2. Even if that car is not considered street legal? Yes, so long as you don’t drive it on public roads.

    3. Do you need a license to own a car? No

    4. Do you need a license to drive a car? Only if you’re going to drive it on public roads.

    5. Is your state issued license that allows you to operate a car on public roads good in all 50 states? Yes

    6. Do you need to register a car? No, again not if you keep it off public roads.

    7. Do you have to keep a car secured when not in use? No

    8. Can you own a car that lacks any safety features? Yes

    9. Do you need a to pass a background check to own a car? No

    10. Are there limits on how many cars somebody can purchase in a month or purchase at the same time? No

    11. If I buy a car from an out of state buyer or from an internet source do I need to go through a car dealer to facilitate the transfer? No

    and so on.

  136. Two thing about Justice Stevens’ proposed rewording of the Second Amendment:
    1. There will never be a rewording of 2A or any other article of the Bill of Rights. No proposal to do so has ever even passed the first step. It’s not gonna happen, so why waste any breath on it? It’s a liberal fantasy.
    2. His rewording would make no difference. The Heller decision established that a “militia” is not a government entity. It is an armed citizenry. Also, the US Code says that any able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 34 are officially considered members of the militia. My state also declares that all honorably discharged veterans are considered members of the militia.

  137. What if they were treated like firearms and regulated so lunatics, criminals and people who think guns are the most important thing in the world couldnt get them?

  138. And what militia would that be? The one thats going to last 3 minutes fighting the government? Is that what the militia is?

  139. The idea of a militia is not to fight against the current Constitutionally elected government. It is to provide protection when the government cannot, such as a widespread disaster, and to fight against an unconstitutional government. If there is a coup in the US, the forces of the government would be divided. Those behind the coup would be one side, those regular forces loyal to the Constitution and the militia on the other side. This has happened in many other countries. And if you think irregular forces like a militia could not stand against regular forces, I suggest you review the histories of Vietnam and Afghanistan. The Viet Cong and the Mujahadeen started with hunting rifles and held out that way for a long time until they got the help of regular forces and weapons. In addition, as a former military officer I can also tell you that many, many US military regular forces would refuse to fire on US citizens, no matter what.

  140. Just think “Bundy Ranch.” When it’s about their precious government getting their extortion money for grazing on the wrong side of the fence, they have no trouble at all howling for drone strikes.

  141. PSSDOV is right, Gun Control actually works. Here’s some history on the subject:

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

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

    -Germany established gun control in 1938, and from 1939-1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

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

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

    -Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, wer…

  142. Guatemala = Reagan provided the money for those Indians to be killed.

    Germany, now that is hilarious. There were not 13 million Jews in Germany, and none of them would have had a chance to start with if they were armed.

    None of those people had a chance to live armed or not. And here you are, stupid enough to buy into it. That garbage no longer flies cause people are onto the BS. Take it somewhere like world nut daily where they will believe you

  143. Shiva, it’s quite obvious to anyone that you have never operated in a Counterinsurgency Environment, so I’ll just let you live in your own reality. Be safe there…..

  144. My problem with everyone having guns is the ‘everyone’ part. When I say ‘armed citizen’ some people think of their well-trained, level-headed friends from the shooting range. Other people think of that idiot their sister married, and others think of George Zimmerman.
    Sometimes armed citizens defend themselves and stop crimes. Other times they shoot each other during arguments. Sometimes their children find the guns. Sometimes the guns are stolen by criminals who will sell them on the street.
    If more people have guns, there will be more of all of this. BTW, my wife has said, more than once, that I’m lucky we don’t keep loaded guns in the home. She was only half joking.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.