To those of you who think a gun is a cowards weapon, may I remind you not all of us are young strong and big. A gun will save a 70 year old woman while a fist would do nothing.
To that Z woman, Have you never seen cable TV? You will hear every nasty word you have ever dreamed of. Furthermore, if you want to, you can print anything you want. This is America!

To Studentoflaw, should you love those countries with strict gun laws and safer environments, move there and leave my guns alone. Don’t ever think Canadians are unarmed, they are hunters as well and have many guns….

As a “Fourth Generation” Native Texas I have a right to carry permit and to my knowledge, and I’m sure I would have heard about it, not one Texan with a right to carry permit has committed a crime involving the use of a firearm.

I wish to thank Scott for granting me the right to “bare” arms - so now I can where my sleeveless shirts. And as for those who suggested that I surely have never been or lived outside the US, I actually DO live outside the US! Aren’t you all astute? I live abroad for professional reasons and can see my country from both inside and out.
Other countries certainly have crime, but the murder rate crown belongs to the US. But I see your point and will now apply for a weapon when I return. Since those with handguns have been trumped by those carrying semi-automatics, I guess I’ll go for grenades or perhaps a rocket launcher. Perhaps best to start off in that singularly American phenomena - the gun show! Where you actually take your kids. Those same kids whom you were afraid might become traumatized for life after seeing a nanosecond of a glimpse of Janet Jackson’s nipple.
For those of you who call 1st amendment rights into play, I say I want them fully restored - I’m tired of hearing about the “c-word” or “b-word” or “d-word”, etc. If you’re old enough to tote a gun, you should be old enough to say a word out loud or see it in print. Is this what it means to be a “conservative”???

To Liberal Jim;

I guess Fox News is not so bad since they did post you opinion. I wonder if liberals every really pay attention to Fox…. they claim it is the next thing to the Nazi propaganda machine, and then FOx folls them by allowing their view..hmmm.

Gun free zones… There are good points here, but I find it interesting that the perpertrators picked gun free zones to commit their crimes….. hmmmmm…. Years ago guns were in schools, schools had shooting team, guns were in the cars/trucks since deer season was open and you could get a few hours in before school. There were no Columbines back then either, thought they were much less concerned about Johnny’s self-esteem either. Self-esteem can from achievement, not the no competition everyone is special and a winner trollup of today. One armed student orinstructor could have stopped VA Tech.

Guns stop tryanny…hmmm… If memory serves, most of those governments banned guns after taking power, the tryanny started after the guns were removed. You are correct about the US Military, sworn to serve and protect the constitution. A key question you have to ask is can military of 1.5 million subdue an armed nation of 300 million. If the issue is substantial and true, would the military actual fight their own citizens. The Admiral in charge of the fleet attacking Pearl Harbor did say that attacking the mainland was folly due to the armed populace.

Gun bans in other countries…. It is true the preponderance of the data is spurious, despite reports of increases. But as you your self have indicated, the measurement systems changed/improved. Without out elaborating how the old data is manipulated or adjusted, ANY comparison positive or negative is worthless.

I’ve read reports of defensive uses as high as 300,000 per year. These occurances are poorly reported, how many non-crimes get reported?????? Obivously, you don’t have a gun in the home for protection… to be fully useful, it needs to be loaded and easily accessible. If kids are in the house, they need to be train in proper use and respect of the tool. As for crimes of passion, knives work well (note Britain and Japan), guns are just a weapon of choice. Lets ban cars because of all the accident that happen with them.

AH, the Militia. In the 1700’s, every able bodied man was part of the militia, and they brought their own weapons to the fight. The government didn’t issue weapons to the militia. The militia was used againt indian raids and other threats to the local community (travel was tougher without autos, do we or don’t we want to ban those??). You left out “the Right of the People to keep and bear arms will not be infringed”. I think the People is a key point here. IT was the people the made up the militia at the time. It was another 100 years before a formalized National Guard was formed, but is still not the militia. I think the drunk, camoflaged wood shoot comment tells all….. Liberal Elite who knows what is better for us lowly rabble.

Just for gins and giggles…. hail from NY, 11 years in military service, hold advanced degrees. Manyof your arguments don’t hold water. Some of mine are to jab at some liberal icons. Banning guns means that criminals will have them, hmmm, it was criminals that committed Columbine and VA Tech and the bans against killing didn’t work too well.

I’d worry more about reducing violence and worry less about the guns. Guns are the means not the cause, attack the cause and the means is inconsequential.

Very well said Tammy. And thanks for saying what so many know all to well.

AMEN!

For you people who trash President Bush for his speaking style must mean that you are not intelligent enough to understand plain english. History will show that his handling of the major issues have been outstanding: 1) the forced landing of our patrol plane in China; 2) the disarming of N. Korea of nuclear weapons; 3) his program of reducing income taxes (ala Kennedy and Reagan) during the recession he inherited from Clinton 4) his leadership and success in the war on terror in Iraq and Afganistan that resulted in the death of about 5000 US servicemen whereas Truman-Korea and Johnson-Viet Nam had more than 50,000 deaths. Iraq and Afganistan will be set free as democracies whereas we lost in Viet Nam and fought to a draw in Korea. These are only a few examples of his successes. If the Democrats and a few Republicans had listened to him at the beginning of his presidency we would not have have high gas prices today(we would have more oil of our own) and as a result a much smaller foreign trade imbalance and a much lower debt.

Do you know what they call a state where only the cops and the military are allowed to have guns…a POLICE STATE! Just a thought.

Dan S

Tammy…

I remember back in the 50s when I was in High School, a couple friends of mine and I would get our guns out of the closet and walk down to the hardware store on a Saturday afternoon, buy some ammo and walk out to the woods and shoot some cans, and perhaps an occasional bird. No one said a word or thought it was “un-American” or that we were clinging to our guns out of desperation!

I never thought I’d see the day when the greatest country in the World would become so mired in the nonsense of political correctness that it would so quickly become the exact opposite of what it started out to be. It has now become a terribly failed experiment in so many ways. What a shame!

after reading your comments, it is no wonder that fox news is so deftly able to manipulate its audience (which, numerous studies show, is the most misinformed audience of a major news network)–what about the fact that murder rates in canada dropped significantly following the passage of c-51, a strict gun control law passed in 1978? or that homicide rates are much lower in europe, due to their much stricter gun laws? does it not strike you as odd that, following the recent spate of stabbings in london, NO ONE suggested that the solution to the problem was to arm more young people with these murderous weapons? no, because the idea is simply absurd…much like the idea that putting more guns on the street is the solution to gun violence.

what about the fact that of the eleven federal judicial circuits that have ruled on the subject, NINE have ruled in support of an intepretation of the second amendment as protecting the COLLECTIVE right to bear arms, while ONLY TWO have ruled that it protects an individual right.

if all of this is too fact-based for you devoted fox news readers, i sincerely apologize.

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.

11. What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.

15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don’t shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don’t make more.

24. When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

Could we have a new meaning for Liberal and Elite?
How about “Liberal”: One who is the only one who knows what’s best for the rest of us. One who will control everything we can do, tell us what foods we can eat, where we can go, etc. An All Knowing, Do Nothing person.
And “Elite”: One who stands above all, who looks down on the rest. A judgemental person who does no wrong.
Know anyone like that today? Think HARD, now!

Ahhh, Zilana -

You will continue your anti gun zeal until someone grabs you in the mall parking lot, or kicks in your door in a home invasion and decides to rape you or your loved ones, chop up you or one of the kids just for the fun of it, or maybe make you beg for your life right before they put a bullet in your brain point blank. If for some miraculous reason the criminal does not have an illegal gun, there are baseball bats, hatchets, machetes, swords, Ginsu knives, or a thousand other ARMS they can choose for your demise.

Then, and only then, will your opinion suddenly change and you will be praying for a gun, or a neighbor with a gun, to come to your rescue. But they are all law abiding citizens who turned theirs in - because of laws you so ardently worked for. But not to worry - the good guys with the guns will arrive just in time to let the county coroner in to remove the bodies of what used to be your family.

If that is what you want in your home and for your family, go for it - but don’t impose it on me and mine. You absolutely, positively do not have that right. You never have, you never will.

Just remember one thing - today millions upon millions of LEGAL guns in this country murdered NO ONE.

Zilana:

So, you have succeeded in banning guns from another small piece of America. No doubt you are now enthusiastic, all tingly even, at the prospect of advancing your crusade to protect us from our foolish selves to the next area where we beknigted idiots can be cooerced, connived, cajoled into giving up our inalienable right to self-protection.

Lest you continue in your grand delusion, I feel compelled to now inform you that should you bring such foolishness to my neck of the woods, let me tell you and the rest of your gun grabbers how I shall respond, so that there will be absolutely no room for doubt. To paraphrase John Wayne when talking to the head villian in the movie Rio Bravo (who were doing there best, by the way, to deprive him and his friends of life liberty and property), “If you send any more of your boys after me, you’d better pay ‘em more…’cause they’re gon’na earn it!”

“They cling to their guns and religion”. Take the guns and then we will give them liberation theology

Wow - looks like about 90% of the messages here are to get on my case!! I feel honored.
To Scott, I appreciate you saying I have a right to “bare” my arms! Good thing they’re well toned. Also interesting to note that you quote one of O’Reilly’s silly phrases - “secular progressive” (secular, dear readers, does not mean someone who is against religion, it means someone/something not belonging to the clergy. Progressive means just what it says: progress)
To Bill, who admonished me not to “play wordsmith with the definition of words we all know. Liberal is shorthand for ‘we’ll take some of yours and give it to them. Progressive is a synonym for socialist” Whew! I guess that might be true if you just take as gospel everything that FoxNews tells you, but it’s not really true out in the real world.
To Mike, who told me that it’s obvious that I have never lived outside the US: I actually DO live outside the US - so much for all of you who assume you know someone based on a few simple comments. I’m a full-blooded natural born American who lives abroad for professional reasons. I’ve travelled much of the world. I know of no other country but my own that has mass murders in schools.
As many of you rightly pointed out, there are other ways to kill (Japan’s recent knifings), but the toll is so much lower with a knife than with a semi-automatic rifle.
I never actually said guns should be banned. I questioned why people think they have to own assault weapons (my point about the “muskets”).
And by the way - I never said one way or another if I’m a liberal or conservative.

I wonder how the police are going to do their work. Since guns are now banned on all city property, how are the police going to carry their own wepons. Guess they will now be breaking the law.

That is right, ban guns, so that people are no defenseless to the criminals who will shoot anyone they choose.

Gun control really means hitting your target. Not taking guns away from people.

Zilana,

I know how “liberals” love to try to dazzle everyone with their brilliance. I generally find them more frequently baffling with bullsh!t.

T o quote you “So the word du jour is now “elite”, said with a smirk and indicating it is something bad. It’s a POSITIVE word, readers! It means the best.” I don’t believe you hear anyone call liberals the “elites”, but rather “elitist”. Let’s take at look at that word from good old Merriam-Webster.
Elitist:
“adjective Characteristic of or resembling a snob: snobbish, snobby. Informal high-hat, snooty, stuck-up, uppish, uppity.

noun One who despises people or things regarded as inferior, especially because of social or intellectual pretension: snob.”

I don’t know about you Zilana, but I don’t see “the best” mentioned in there anywhere. Only thinking you’re “the best”.

Quote #2 “By the way, “liberal” means freedom, from the root word libre - but you folks seem to think that’s bad too, just because of the way FoxFolks say it with sneers.

Let’s see what Merriam-Webster says about “liberal”.
liberal:
” adjective
1.
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
1. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
2. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
1. Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
2. Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

n.
1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.”

Again, I don’t see the word “freedom” in there anywhere. I would however like to take a look at a couple of the meanings that are listed.
Adjective #1.2: “…tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others” Can anyone be less tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others than liberals in America?!?!? I agree that liberals in America are tolerant as long as they agree with the idea and behavior (i.e. homosexuals, transvestites, muslims, dictators, communists, etc.). But if you dare mention God, guns (which by the way just happen to be inconveniently enshrined in our national Constitution), Boy Scouts, heterosexuality, personal responsibility, etc. and they are the most intolerant people in America.

Adjective #2.1: “Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.” Liberals in America give freely and are very generous with the wealth of others through their liberal politicians. However, if you do any research at all you will find that conservatives in America give markedly more - as a percentage of household income - in charitable contributions than liberals. Look at all the liberal giving by our government and it is all a disaster. The more we give to the public education system, the further we fall behind the rest of the industrialized world. Is it progress and compassion to start out the future generations of America with a poor education against that of the rest of the world? We gave to the poor and minorities and destroyed the black family unit. Over 70% of all black children born in America are born out of wedlock. Now that may be “progress” in the mind of liberals, but it sure isn’t progress in my mind. Is it “compassionate” to destroy an entire segment of our society

I also have a question for you Zilana. If it is alright with you to abolish the second amendment to our constitution, what other parts of the constitution are you willing to abolish. Right to free speech, right to abortion, unreasonable search and seizure? Which ones are okay to throw away, and who gets decide?

This comment is for all those people who think us CCW holders are “cowards”

I was approached by 3 guys just after I had used the ATM. I was in an area most people would have thought “safe” although it was poorly lit and deserted a 9:00 on a tuesday night. They stood about 5 feet away and asked for my money. After I refused with a stern “sorry can’t help ya” they got agitated and hurled expletives at me. Including “you better give me your money yo mutha*@*@”

I exposed my sidearm which I usually carry on my hip. They promptly left. Game over.

So I guess I’m a coward. Who needs concealed carry when we’re all Chuck Norris right? A few roundhouse kicks and I would have been home eating dinner with my wife and infant daughter? If you seriously think you could have brawled your way out of that situation you’re even more of a moron than I thought.

I say you’re the damn coward. You’re afraid of other people having guns. You’re comfortable with the police, the government, any criminal with a tire iron having the responsibility to decide if you live or die, but you can’t take the responsibility on yourself? You pansy.

I get it if you’re scared of guns. There’s a lot of responsibility involved. You’re not man enough. I get that too. But what in the hell gives you the right to decide for me? Nothing. So go to your karate class, hit the gym, whatever. I’ll be at the range.

If the presence of guns is the cause of violent crime, then the Swiss must be slaughtering each other at a rate similar or even greater than us. Not sure about Spain. Why didn’t Hitler invade Switzerland or Spain?
As I understand the Swiss don’t see anything wrong with even having real machineguns in their homes. Obviously even if they don’t allow full auto weapons in the home, there is some other cause of our crime rate. Perhaps we should look at our justice system. As Janet Reno said when asked about prosecuting existing gun laws. ” It would only clog up the courts” was contained in her reply.
Gangs run wild in the innercities the cops are afraid of them,but the liberals impeed the law from actually doing something about it. When Darryl Gates of LAPD was actually having an effect, the liberal do-gooders brought a halt to that. In their self inspired flawed understanding of what the real liberal is, they “protect the rights” of the criminal. They restrict the rights of the law abiding and endanger them. The last “real” liberal died about in 1964.

That article was a load of crock. Gun violence in DC has gone down the past 10 years. That violence in that neighborhood comes from a turf battle as the last of the really affordable housing in this city vanishes. More could be down by implementing the after school programs and other services that have been cut in favor of ball parks and business perks. These are the programs that helped turn those numbers around and now that they are being cut further we are seeing an uptick.

Nice job Tammy, but you give no numbers and play on peoples fears. America is very violent country for being on the most rich and civilized. Part of that reason is the abundance of guns within it. That and our propensity to find the easiest and most direct issue to our problems. Which is to shoot it. To a lot of people that sounds good, but if you think about it, you’ll know it’s not.

Just trying to put in some reason to network that lost it’s journalistic compass years ago.

Here is a thought for people to think about. When the “liberal elite” successfully takes away the second amendment, how quickly will they take away all the other amendments? Just a thought.

Oh, yeah. This works.
Gun control is really stopping those knife-wielding teen maniacs in the UK and the guy who slashed seven people to death in Tokyo.
I don’t believe in social Darwinism, but if it exists it might come into play here. Eventually the idiots who put these laws in place may meet their end as a direct result.

She’s got it right criminals do not go through the legal process to get guns so as the old saying goes “outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have gun”. It has been proven over and over again in places like Australia which banned gun ownership, crime and home invasions went through the roof. I live in a state where you can carry a gun and I have never heard of a rash of gun violence issues that needed roadblocks like in DC. The liberal once again got it wrong the founding father wanted us to have guns so that an oppressive government couldn’t walk all over us. One of the main reasons Japan didn’t invade the mainland of the US is that they knew a lot of folks had guns and they would not only have to fight the military, but the populace also.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

By the Declaration preamble, you can see, it is either time for a new form of government in the US, or time for the US to split in two,… since obviously there is a large collection of whacktards that don’t seem to “get it”. I’m sure they’ll ove when the split happens and they get the east coast instead of California.

Zilana is right. When the constitution was written, soldiers carried muskets. Today, they carry the A4 rifle or its Euro or post-Soviet or Chinese counterpart. If muskets were what the founders intended for the militia back then, then we need to liberalize what is appropriate today. Everyone should have the freedom to carry select-fire rifles and machine pistols, especially on government property.

Well… If we forbid all guns, I mean that if all ammunition manufacturers quit making bullets and all gun makers destroyed their manufacturing equipment, then we could be gun free!

Think of it… no more shootings, no more violent crime!

But wait!

Take away guns and criminals might start using bows and arrows and swords! o0 Pirates! Garr Matey!

Take bows and arrows and swords and criminals will start using rocks and clubs! o0 Cavemen!

You see… the whole idea of being a criminal is taking something from somebody that they do not have! That could be money, power, control, love, you are not being green enough by starting your car and contributing to global warming! It makes no difference!

Liberal = Freedom????????????????????????

Freedom to not carry guns?

Freedom to not be able to protect yourself, your family and your property from criminals?

Freedom to not be robbed your income and have it given to lazy couch potatoes?

Freedom to not be able to do you want you want with your own property because of a poor, defenseless insect that is on endangered species list also lives on your property?

That’s hilarious! Have you thought of a career in comedy?

Wow that’s a lot of wasted time and type on people like Zilana. What most people don’t understand is that people who like to think of themselves as “elite” are usually trying to convince themselves by telling everyone else. The person who is truly “elite” in their thinking never has to bring it up because they are not insecure about who they are or about what they stand for. I have found it to be a monumental waste of time to debate a liberal because they have not got an open mind. Just remember the person who believes they know everything is most likely the dumbest one in the room. I say all of the people who want to ban guns should buy some land away from the rest of enlightened society. Let them make their own society with no guns and when they are invaded by criminals who take and do what they want…let them appease and reason with these non-law abiding folks in ways that they just know are so much better than anything any one has ever tried. We will all shed a tear for you when reality shoots you in the face.

Zek Hile Zilana
You are the only clueless wonder here.

The populace that can not defend them selves will be enslaved.

Something the Spatans figured out a long time ago.

Guess your to educated to know history.

What did Janet Reno say about enforcing already existing gun laws? ” It would only clog up the courts”. So making more gun laws is the solution?????????

I am an author and couldn’t have said it any better myself. Georgia just expanded the places we can have registered weapons to include public places, restaurants, and even public transportation. Good for you Tammy. Great article

To quote someone anon — “God made big men and God made small men… and Colt made the equalizer. And the same holds true of large and small minds…

here’s an quote I believe appropriate;

“To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own
conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the
law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the
lawless will allow… For society does not control crime, ever, by
forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected
behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals
to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.”
———- Jeff Snyder

To Zilana and Co.
You are way off track here. Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, and other countries have a complete ban on any kind of weapons, but it does not make these countries safe.
Rio, Sao Paulo and Johanesbourg are the most dangerous cities in the world, with far higher murder rates per capita than that of many countries combined, including the US. Guns are BANNED and possesion is ILEGAL, but that has not stopped crime. As a matter of fact, it has helped the criminals to be bolder and ruthless.
If you don’t believe me, just go to one of those cities and hand around for a few hours near the shanty towns. YTou’ll be begging for some protection before you can finish your first beer.

I suggest the anti gun crowd just research a little history as to the effect of their “beliefs”. Hitler banned guns and then led the world on the greatest demonstration of what disarming the people can do. Stalin banned guns then slaughtered millions to maintain his power. Mexico has a history of unchecked crime virtually unapposed. Japan banned firearms for about 400 years while they ran around killing with swords and knives. These same people then launched their bloodthirsty campaign upon the world. These are only a few examples of what disarming the people will accomplish. But of course These anti gun advocates only see thru their tunnel vision. History is the past and does not apply anymore. They do not want to even mention history because it is in conflict with their dreams and ideas.

Here is proof positive that gun free zones work!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8

For Zilana. Fact is when Australia banned guns the crime rate went up and guess what? There are still shootings in Australia. If you have read the news of late there seems to be a rise in knifings going on in England…which also has a gun ban and a ban on carrying of knives over a certain blade length.

As far as having a President who can speak without faltering….you certainly don’t want Obama because without a teleprompter in front of him he fumbles and jumbles words, can’t speak a whole sentence….least one you can understand. I’d almost have to think he is an alien with no idea of how to speak English.

Adam J., you mentioned that the Folk Festival shooter had a permit.

We’re not supposed to drive drunk. Some obviously do, and get into accidents, and yet they actually have licenses to drive. You may have a license, or a gun permit, but the ultimate responsibility for how you use that privilege/right is in your hands.

The shooter at the Folk Festival is ultimately responsible, not his permit, not his gun. Because of his actions, all permit holders are affected. It’s like saying one drunk driving accident automatically restricts all driving, period. The majority of people should not be held accountable for the actions of a few.

Once again the Liberal elite try to push their anti gun agendas on everyone. Just wait till Barack Obama gets into office. The man is for banning all semi Auto weapons. We are talking even pump shotguns. One shot guns for all!!! Not in my America.

Good article, Tammy. Banning guns does not work.

Having a permit to carry does not mean that the shooter will not commit a crime because a background check and/or training does not prevent criminal behavior. Some of our Law Enforcement people have become criminals. That goes to show that owning or carrying guns does not make a person a criminal. Criminal behavior makes you a criminal whether you own a gun or not. To say that only Law Enforcement or the Military should have guns is just plain ignorant because they are only human like the rest of us. Guns do not have a soul, therefore they can be used for good or bad depending on the person using them. Law Enforcement and our Military are human and not infallible. (Don’t get me wrong, I am pro-Military and Law Enforcement)

Also, in response to a previous comment about whether we “need” guns. “Need” is not what is at issue. You have the “right” to own guns as much as you have a right to be ignorant (even if willful) about our rights in the Bill of Rights. For example, the First Amendment gives you the right to speak freely and have your own opinion, however backward or silly it may be. No one is telling you that you HAVE to own or carry a gun, just that you have the right to do so.

Those that choose to exercise the right of ownership and carrying concealed are taking on an extra burden and are held to a higher standard of citizenship than those people who leave their personal protection to our already overburdened Law Enforcement. Law Enforcement cannot be everywhere at once and most people are aware of this. What even more people do not realize is that Law Enforcement is not “required” to provide individual protection.

So who really gets hurt from a gun ban?……that’s right, everyone EXCEPT criminals. Now that a gun-ban has been enacted, that area becomes a safe zone for criminals. Now criminals know that people who obey that law will not be armed and it’s easy pickings because Law Enforcement cannot be everywhere. This is just another knee-jerk, political, and useless response to a crime.

Personally I despise guns. I’m a former soldier and veteran who served in Iraq. I think they are cowards weapons. You want to fight, come at me with your bare hands or with a knife.

That said, I know I live in the real world and criminals (cowards themselves) and terrorists (can you call someone who murders children anything but?) carry guns. As someone said earlier, “don’t bring a knife to a gun fight”. I know my limitations. I know that the likelihood of me surviving with my bare hands against an intruder or footpad with a firearm are extremely low.

What gives anybody the right to take away my ability to protect my wife and daughter? I will use whatever, WHATEVER is necessary to insure their safety. If it’s a gun, then it’s a gun. If it’s a knife, then it’s a knife. If it’s my bare hands, then it’s my bare hands.

I spent thirteen months trying to provide a safe haven for law-abiding Iraqis and hopefully to keep Americans at home safe. I used, guns, knives and my bare hands on the enemy. Please let me continue to do that for my own family.

Everybody has a right to protect themselves.

Gee, the banners are always right. By the same logic that banning a gun works, let’s just make it
illegal to use drugs or even commit crimes. I’m sure it will work, it will work for guns.

Zilana,
Last time I checked, Mexico was a different country. In Tijuana alone, there have been 15 murders (some of them were decapitations) just in the first 11 days of June 08. Firearms are illegal there too. The framers of the Constitution did not care about any frontier when they wrote the second amendment. They had people like you in mind that would come to rely upon a government to protect them every minute of the day and night, and they wanted the people to have the ability to remove the government if it became the tyrany that you’re obviously used to. I understand the good intention of trying to protect from ourselves. There are overzealous busybodies everywhere. I don’t understand how people can convince themselves,the way you do, when there is historic precedent after precedent of what happens when law-abiding citizens are not allowed to defend their own lives from people who are not inclined to pay attention to a futile and silly law that says they are not allow to have a gun when they’re about to commit murder anyway. Do you really expect a criminal to NOT use a gun or some other lethal tool just because some disconnected politician that is out-of-touch with reality says not to use guns to commit a crime?

I’ve noticed over the past few decades that no matter what the facts and the stacks of evidence say, there will always be a liberal making the argument that something like gun control, for example, actually works in some other country. It’s a wonderful tactic for someone who sees the truth as relative. It’s very unlikely that anyone in the discussion will know enough about the particular foreign places being referenced to realize what they are saying is very disputable or just completely wrong. Thus the liberal can score big points in an argument with wrong information.

Just to set things strait, gun control has generally failed in any place in the world where individual freedom also matters. The United Kingdom is a great example. There they are actually moving to make pocket knives illegal because violent crime just continues to rise. They are even joking that the day may come in England when it will be illegal to clench your fist in public. You see where this is going.

My personal hypothesis would suggest that if we gathered and analyzed statistics on crime rates in general around the world and then cross-referenced that with some metric of the level of individual freedom in different countries we would find a correlation. The greater the emphasis and respect for individual freedom in a country, the higher the number of criminals. It just follows that since individual freedom is a responsibility, the more you give to people the more people will tend to abuse it.

That to me means the only effective way to deal with crime in a society that values individual freedom is to deal effectively with the criminals. Taking freedoms away from law abiding citizens should at best be an act of last resort.

So what about the freedom (libre) to own guns that the liberal elites seem to think it’s OK for them to have, since they are the best, but not the rest of us? Then again, we are all just like foolish children incapable of tending to our own needs. Thank God, well, not God, He, or um She, well, I shouldn’t speaking such things in public. See? We really do need them to take care of us, we’re really just like children in that way.

After all, look at Japan. They just had a guy kill seven people. They should look into banning guns - oh they have. And he used a car and a knife. Well the only people who really need cars are professional drivers and the only people who need knives are chefs, so we should ban those, two. They are too dangerous for us rabble.

And I really don’t need this computer. And lots of people use computers to prey on others, especially children, so we should ban those, too. In fact, let’s ban everything we don’t need.

It just seems a little strange that a post the begins by defining liberals as pro-freedom and then propose a ban. So I guess that liberal freedom includes the freedom to limit the freedom of others?

Nobody needs guns but law enforcement and armed forces ? Is this just another way of stating “My personal safety is solely the responsibility of the very few” ? Do people really believe this ?

Go ask the thousands of victims who were raped at gun point if the guns control laws helped them. Go ask the thousands of murder victims if the gun control laws helped them. Now, I don’t doubt that some lives have been saved by gun laws. There are many criminals walking the streets and in jail that owe their lives to gun control laws. Their victims are no longer around, but that’s ok. The gun control laws worked, didn’t they ?

By the way, the military cannot be used as a national police force. This is against the law. We can only protect our neighbors during an invasion of an agressive nation.

LIBERTY means freedom. Did you actually look up liberal ?

ELITE also mean individuals of physical, intellectual, political, or financial advantage. It doesn’t mean they’re the best, but means they have achieved a higher position than others. Some have even done it through - oh my! - illegal means. Is that what you consider the “best” of our society ?

Just curious Austin G could you please provide your souce for statistics on UK crime?

Maybe we should ban bodyguards for politicians?
It has always been the RIGHT of a Free man to go armed.
Ever ask “Why are politicians so afraid of an armed public?”

I hate the fact that some people are actually naïve enough to believe that banning all guns will solve the crime problem.

Let’s see now – cocaine has been outlawed, so no one snorts cocaine or smokes crack. Robbing banks is illegal, so nobody robs banks. Smoking pot is against the law, so nobody smokes pot. Drunk driving is a criminal offense, so nobody drives drunk. So it naturally follows that, if guns are made illegal, nobody will have a gun, and the whole world will be just like Mister Roger’s neighborhood! Yeah, right. If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.

COPYRIGHT 2008 “Things I Hate About America”. Used with permission of the author.

Zilana, I am glad you live in a perfect world were there is no need to protect yourself. Unfortunately the rest of us live in the real world. If you don’t like guns that is fine with me. But don’t put your views or take away my rights. You my want to look up the word “militia”. Would you support a law requiring all citizens to arm themselves? It is easy to point at the UK and say that gun control works. Unfortunately that is not true. I have friends in the UK and have been there also and you stand a good chance of being a victim of a crime. Remember a gun is a deterrent there are many occasion that a criminal will avoid you at the site of you with a gun. Please reread response from Roger and think.

“Comment by Zilana
June 10th, 2008 at 11:04 am

Oh, let me guess - “guns don’t kill, people do”? Don’t forget to add that it’s people with guns who do the killing. Please, no rubbish about how the Constitution grants the right to bear arms. They were talking about muskets, not semi-automatic rifles. And they were looking to protect people living in the frontier, with animals and Indians about.”

Zilana, first of all, at the time muskets were state of the art weapons. The best and most accurate and reliable that could be had. As for living “on the frontier”, most major American cities have a “frontier” - the neighborhood no one wants to enter, even in a tank. It is full of 2 legged wild animals that will kill for a cell phone, your sneakers, or 2 bucks in change - and the “Indians” have been replaced with gang bangers.

But since you’re so opposed to guns, I think you should take it to the next level and tell the whole world where you stand. Take that “moral high ground” you so obsessively insist you stand on and proudly announce it by putting up a large sign in your front yard that reads: “THIS HOME IS A GUN FREE HOME”. (Just make sure all your personal matters are in order and your life insurance policy, and those of your family, are paid up before you do.)

What’s that you say? You would never do that? It would be suicide, you say? You would be giving an open invitation to criminals to come prey upon you? You would be afraid for yourself and your family? Ding! The light goes on! Welcome back to reality! If the ban on guns you have been touting all these years ever becomes law, you will in effect be putting that sign up on everyone’s front lawn – yours, mine, everyone’s. And just what the hell is it that misleads you into thinking you have that right? The right to put everyone’s family at risk? Kinda takes away that warm, fuzzy, “let’s all sing Kum-By-Ya” feeling you get every time you have a fantasy about a gun free America, doesn’t it? Banning guns from the hands of decent law abiding citizens never has, and never will, turn any part of this country into Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood.

The bottom line is this: decent citizens can be victims or they can be gun owners. And it’ll be a cold day in hell before I’m a victim. And for those who choose to exercise their right not to own a gun, you receive the benefit of being protected by virtue of the fact that criminals never know who does and who doesn’t own a gun to protect themselves, so there’s a far better chance they will pass you by rather than prey on you.

Sonja:
In response to your polite request (something I’m not used to seeing associated with Fox) I don’t think that this ban will stop “killers” from killing, if by killers you mean a criminal with an unlawfully possessed firearm intentionally committing a premeditated crime. No law can stop that, nor can anyone lawfully carrying a gun prevent it. At best a lawful gun owner might mitigate the damage a “killer” can do.

Specifically looking at this particular ban, what can be prevented is people who do have carry permits from bringing weapons to places that the city is responsible for. the example cited by the mayor was the shooting that occurred in a city park at some kind of folk music event. There someone with a carry permit had a gun in an ankle holster, got into a fight and shot two bystanders. A ban such as this would (in my opinion) minimize the possibility of people with legal guns bringing them somewhere they probably shouldn’t and where there is typically a higher than average presence of law enforcement. If some increased possibility of punishment by some miracle persuades a lesser criminal not to bring a gun into these areas then bonus but I doubt anyone really expects that to happen.

I would also point out that just because one is a law abiding gun owner, does not mean that the person has the good sense to carry that weapon safely. As I previously pointed out just look at that grandmother in costco.

For the record I am a veteran of the US Army infantry, a gun owner, a CCW permit holder, and work in the firearms industry.

In response to the definition of what it means to be a liberal, I have always found it to be a contradiction in terms….someone calls themselves a liberal which in my book would mean to be free from government and restrictions, yet all you people seem to want to do is create bigger government, more restrictions, more red tape. You complain about the very problem you created, which is creating more government control, by implementing MORE government control! Come on, let’s use some common sense, and stop giving the criminals more power. Criminals DON’T play by the rules, that’s why we lock them up!

Zilina,

Elite is a positive word but it also can be used in a negative way. I.e. The elite laws of gun control have caused 400% murder rate increase in Australia. OF COURSE A PIN HEAD SUCH AS YOU WOULD NOT BOTHER TO KNOW THAT. Liberal is not a bad thing either, how ever the fast number of “liberals” is not truly liberal. They are socialist with an agenda / they are communist with an agenda / they are secular progressives with an agenda. One of the very first things Hitler did in Germany was to ban guns which led to the WW2 and several million deaths. Think about it if Hitler was for gun control can it really be such a good thing.

Liberal = freedom = right to bare arms no more.

Sounds like the Liberal does not apply here. Our right to bare arms is freedom from losers like you.

Tammy, keep up the good fight.