Anyone who is well versed in the use of firearms doesn't need a high capacity mag to make said firearms deadly. Pretty stupid to suggest that renewing the Brady bill would have prevented the NIU massacre.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

but instead has become a state issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Now, the author wants the Democratic Party to plunge back into what the right will (accurately) call "gun grabbing." Great: let's lose another presidential election! After all, it worked out so well for us over the last eight years...

You can pass all the "gun control" laws you want, and they won't prevent such tragedies: laws only affect the law-abiding. If the shooter had been restricted to ten-round magazines, he would have just carried more of them.
Illinois' strict "gun control" made this tragedy easier for the gunman: he knew he faced only disarmed victims.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You answered your title question with your last paragraph. Like it or not, this IS an issue out here in the sticks. It is, in fact, a deal-breaker for some of my close friends when they step into the booth. To be any better than Bushco, Democrats must 1) Get INTO the White House and 2) remember the congressional paralysis caused by failing to 'reach across the aisle'. Finally, we read - every day - of the corruption that has been the GOP. Do not underestimate them. If they can rally their cause by pushing gun control to the forefront of this campaign, they will. And at what cost - a couple dozen students? Forgive the ugly comparison, but a few staged shootings cost next-to-nothing compared to Iraq...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If it was not for us 80+ million gun owner and our 220+ million guns, the Fascist scum in this White House would have declared Martial Law years ago, so please, just STFU about guns already. We have more important things to worry about, like universal health care and the ongoing bloodbath in Iraq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Because I'm one the few progressives that this would be a deal-breaker for.

The democrats already have my vote, (after 8 years of Bush hell, how could they not?).

But gun control could change my mind. I'm a big fan of the Constitution as written and intended.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But that's no reason for the kneejerk liberals, after drying the crying towels, to start talking about "gun control."

It is, of course, a guaranteed method of keeping working middle-class males, mostly suburb and rural whites, aligned with the GOP and against their own best economic self-interests.

There are far too many gun deaths in this country. But there are far, far more deaths due to stupidity and carelessness behind the wheel of an automobile.

So how do our august state legislators deal with limiting the number of traffic fatalities?

By putting more restrictions and controls on the driver, not the machine, i.e. automobile.

In my state, the first time some one applies for a hunting license he or she has to take a hunting/firearm safety class. But if that same individual has no inclination to hunt but still wants to purchase a handgun or a so-called "black" rifle all he or she needs to do is pass the federal background check.

It is not the "gun" that needs to be controlled but the shooter. All shooters should be required to go through mandatory state-licensed firearms safety classes to receive a shooter's permit. Shooter's permits would also require proof of some sort of liability insurance before issuance to an individual. Treat the privilege of shooting firearms like the privilege of driving a car.

Wouldn't eliminate all firearm deaths, but I'll bet there'd be fewer of them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Taking away one weapon just creates the opportunity to replace it with something else. This is a mental health and social issue, and gun use is merely the expression of that.

Seriously, who can't spend 1 minute on the internet and find another way to kill people without a gun?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Apparently no has noticed that since campuses have been declared "free fire zones" AKA "gun free zones" that mass killings have become popular. Neither democrats or republicans care how many people they kill to achieve their dictatorial goals and both feed equally on the blood of these victims. Until enough people take up arms and develop the skills to use them effectively These senseless killings will continue. We are our own defense. Period. The promises of others to "protect" us are nothing but lies to enslave us. Alternet readers must realize that liberty comes with a price and we must accept responsibility for preserving it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't expect the NRA or other elitist gun lobbyists to crack down on bad shooters. Sure, they'll say anything about guns not being the problem but let's face it. Their plans are just like the rest of Corporate America. Maximize profits at all costs. This means that by cashing in on tragedies, just convince more people that having a gun is "mandatory", never mind the fact that the lower, working, middle class voters will decimate each other first while the wealthy and corporate elite have plenty of field days to laugh at us all. This would be similar to the way the fate of the Native Americans took place. In addition to the imported diseases that decimated the population, the European immigrant elitists knew that they could dupe several Native American groups into killing each other off. When the groups finally woke up and joined forces, it was too late and I'm afraid the same thing is happening to this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This piece is my response to an earlier post and I would like to clarify the meaning and purpose of the magical license that everyone seems to think will alleviate the problem of mass shootings. Licensing firearms has nothing to do with safety or security. A license, just like a driver license, has everything to do with selectively controlling entry into activity or controlling activities within an activity..plain and simple. It's codified regulation at its best and has historically served to separate the 'haves' and 'have nots'; licensing serves to subordinate the vast majority of society. If you don't believe this, sojourn to your nearest bureaucracy and attempt to acquire any license without enduring a bunch of shitty requirements that the average person doesn't fulfill thus making all of us ineligible. Have you ever wondered where gun control in America has its origins in the first place? If not, you should reference history before you make suggestions that will inevitably enslave everyone here because your leaders, not mine, tend to seek and garner support from the majority of the uninformed and naive or apathetic. Be careful of what and whom you support because what affects one group today will envelop and affect everyone tomorrow. Does Pastor Niemoller ring a bell? Look for my book, "To Oppress or Not to Oppress". And by the way, owning personal arms has nothing to do with the medieval privilege of hunting on the King's Commons or recreational shooting; self defense against predation, whether the predator wears blue jeans or blue uniforms is a natural right. Watch Animal Planet. IT'S A RIGHT. I've always said that if you scare enough people, they'll eventually 'vote' themselves into a padded concentration camp.

1789

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gee, I thought from reading Mark Ames' incredible article the other day that those killings were the result of NIU being a "glorified community college" where students got allergies from being in the cornfields and the shooter must have been ground down by his boring suburb and boring job, etc.

At any rate, we can always count on the gun stories to bring out the otherwise sane AlterNet misinterpreters of the Second Amendment, ever at the ready to protect us from our own army, police and apparently their conservative fellow gun owners against an oppressive 18th century government.

Now where can I get a musket?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe because the issues the candidates push first and foremost please their corporate backers. What we are trained to see as critical often have agendas behind them; everything from McCain wanting to stay in the war(read continued gravy train for the military industrial complex) to Hilary wanting to reduce obesitity among senior citizens (read government picks up the tab for more risky and ineffective weight loss schemes.) Are chubby senior citizens a bigger threat than a population shooting each other??? Of course not! Sadly, government is not about what is doing what is best for the population anymore. It has become a vehicle for every special interest to drive the people into the poor house. Politicians are the chauffers that take us there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you want progress, Progressives please read the messages on this topic. They are overwhelmingly from Democrats and they overwhelmingly oppose further gun control for law abiding citizens. I own guns and I know how to use them, having been trained by the best (USMC). You need to get elected first, and that won't happen if you favor extremist gun control (means any more than we have now).

Just as a lot of Kansas Republicans pull the trig..., oops-lever..., oops-e-dot for the pro-choice candidate once the curtain closes, a lot of Democrats (me included) will not vote for a candidate who supports confiscatory or even arbitrary determination.(Means the local "sheriff" decides based on anything other than a felony conviction or commitment.)

I would NEVER vote for a Republican after the disgusting debacle of the last 7 years, but if one wins because I won't poke the dot for a candidate who doesn't respect my Second Amendment RIGHTS, well, too bad. Go ahead, anti-gun nuts, put Mad Mac in the White House.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People in my neighborhood subscribe to the protect your home, property and hearth philosophy and that includes having and using guns if necessary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LEAVE OUR GUNS ALONE.. DEFENSELESS POPULATION =SLAVES

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't own a gun and I don't thing they should be legal period. Guns are immoral. If we need a gun to protect our rights we have already lost our rights and our sanity for that matter. The power of a gun lies in the person it is pointed at not in the person pointing it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Welcome to the struggle,

I've written two widely circulated articles on gun control in the past 4 months both widely distributed. One is called "Another Poster Child for the NRA," dealing with the off duty killings of a Wisconsin police officer, and the other, "Taking on the Lobby," talking about the need for Barack Obama to talk about this issue.

I'm glad to see others are finally catching on.

Thank you

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I told them to.

the Dems' deliberate shift in their gun control stance.

It was a good political move for them to make. The right wingers had been destroying them in the elections on this and late term abortions. i wanted the game to work, so I knew this was a needed change. I was very pleased they took my advise, it is saving the party.

Gun control HAS to be a state or regional issue, the nation has spoken. I thought Obama's statement was just fine. I am curious, what exact policy are you advocating for?

Training, background checks and gun locks in houses with children are the issues I would be calling for if I were you. You can't have a ban. What do you want that is achievable?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

all of you live your lives at gunpoint.
Every legal relationship in this country is backed by somebodies finger on a trigger somewhere, usualy a lot more than one, and some of those triggers pack a huge (megaton) punch.

It's the world you live in. If you don't like it, what are you going to do? If you leave only the cops and the military with guns then you live in a prison camp.

Since riding herd on all you crazies is a lot of trouble, we'll just have to curtail your activities a little. Want to make sure you're safe and all, so just stay in your houses unless you're shopping or working; and by the way, make sure you carry your national ID card with all your personal data on it or we'll just have to lock you up for your own protection.

And no you can't get a plane outa here. Gotta have your national ID AND a passport for that don't ya know. What do you want a passport for anyway? Don't you like it here? You some kinda commie?

Anyway, thanks for the laughs.

Molon Labe

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In most cases, shooting sprees were done with guns purchased legally by adults without prior criminal records, and I don't think even most democrats are for outlawing guns completely.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

,.. and WWII doesn't count as a win. We did not defeat the Nazis, we just made them move - mostly to the US.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The NRA "contributes" millions of dollars each year to the senators and representatives we elect. They are being paid off handsomely by the gun lobby which representes a small minority of Americans.
The "arguments" regarding the "right" of americans to buy and use any guns they please, the nonsense that gun ownership will serve as defense against attackers, notions regarding the "evils" or "futility" of gun control measures, the weakness of our representatives in failing to pass reasonable gun control laws claiming that their constituents demand the "right" to own guns, and all the other paper tiger arguments are empty in the face of the fact that our elected representatives are on the payroll of the NRA.
Gun control laws have been working quite successfully in Europe and other countries for many years. No one in those countries pants for a gun to "defend" themselves, while in the US gun mayhem continues at a rate resembling a third world country in the midst of insane religious, political, or ethnic struggles. The Europeans are entirely justified in believing that the USA is a gun crazy society.
The answer to the title question is straightforward. Despite the fact that polls continually indicate that a large majority of US citizens strongly desire gun control laws, there will never be gun control legislation in the US so long as our elected representatives are owned by the gun lobby. Money does all the talking. The rest of the "arguments" are meaningless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guns would have definitely been an election issue ... love her or hate her ... at least when she was on that show last year she got the country talking about anything and everything.

Even though I despise guns myself, the reality is that the The Second Amendment will remain The Second Amendment for the rest of our lifetimes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My handgun, rifle and shotgun.

The Democrats have shown a lack of spine.

The facts are there: Bush and Cheney purposely lied about WMD.

What have the Democrats done?

SHIT.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is placed in our bill of rights right after the first.

Coincidence?
I think not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That would stop the school and campus shootings on the spot. Think of the Church security guard that shot the shooter before anyone was killed or injured inside the church. There are plenty of laws on the books to control guns. Enforcement of laws will curb most illegal gun purchurses. Of course nut jobs what want to kill will use guns, fertilizer, propane, gasoline, clorine ect to kill. They will get these items legally or illegally.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More alarming than any shooting is the continued lack of response from our elected (or soon to be) officials to make any effort to condemn, stop the gun violence.

It is not just the NRA endorsement, but dollars from this powerful lobby group that has our leaders as guilty as the gun industry. They are both profiting from bullets being sold, regardless of the lives lost. Where is the media questioning why nothing is being done? Most newspapers stay away from anything to do with gun control, some will refuse to even post any anti-gun comments. Where are the investigative stories from 20/20 or 60 minutes?

The silence from our leaders and media isn't a result of responsible gun ownership in our country, it instead reflects a state of extremism and anarchism. For who wants to anger the very ones holding the weapons to our own heads.

It will take Americans joining forces to create an impact on Washington by insisting on federal regulation our legislators have refused to provide. If we do not, our society is as good as gone. We are no longer safe here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guns kill more Americans every two months than died in the 9/11 tragedy. Yet we're willing to spend over a trillion dollars, kill a million Iraqis, alienate the world and give up many of our cherished constitutional rights to purchase an illusion of safety, but not to implement reasonable measures, proven around the world, to reduce the carnage in our cities. This all stems from a bizarre reading of the Second Amendment that construes individuals toting assault rifles and automatic pistols as "a well regulated militia." It's time to speak truth to the power of the NRA and manufacturers of the implements of murder.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let me see if I’ve got this straight: Are some here suggesting that Democrat candidates and office holders, regardless of their principles, regardless of their oath to follow and protect the US Constitution, those office holders should LIE to their supporters? That they should make promises they have NO intention of keeping, just so they can get into office? Are you saying these candidates should do this and then, once they get into office, what? Do the opposite? They should support an unregulated, unrestricted gun industry in order to get elected, and once in office they should promote heavy regulation and tight restrictions?

Am I naïve or overly idealistic (no one’s ever accused me of THAT before)? Doesn’t “honor” and “honesty” mean anything anymore? If you're saying it’s perfectly okay for politicians to say anything so long as it gets them elected and then they can do whatever they want once in office, isn’t that exactly what that Cheneybush in the White House has done? If our candidates stoop to his level, then how are we any better than the hopelessly compromised Republicans? They can’t any longer be true even to their outmoded, outdated political philosophy because the special interests are pulling their strings. Aren’t you suggesting the Democrats set themselves the same trap?

I’ve listened to the debate regarding the 2nd Amendment for several decades. As usual, literalists are literalistic only when it suits their own nefarious needs. Somehow they can’t figure out what the Founders meant when they wrote “A well-regulated Militia . . . . “ Doesn’t well-regulated mean there has to be regulations? Doesn’t Militia mean a formally organized citizen’s army such as the National Guard, Reserves, maybe even ROTC? Doesn’t “the people” refer to the people in the Militia? “People” couldn’t have meant “everyone” to the Founders because that would include children, women, slaves and old people. They wouldn’t have admitted these groups into any Militia and I’m pretty sure today it shouldn’t include the posse comitatus, KKK, Skinheads, drug dealers, survivalists, etc.

Now I’d LOVE to make the argument that the Founders, when they spoke about “arms,” couldn’t have foreseen the future and so they only were referring to muskets, blunderbusses, flintlocks, swords, knives, scythes and the like . . . but I won’t.

If everyone had guns, from whom would they protect themselves? Other people with guns? Didn’t the old “Code of the West” prove this is a really, really, really BAD idea? Are we forever doomed to repeat our mistakes?

Here’s a highly possible scenario: A university English class; a car backfires; half the class either draw their guns and start firing or the other half hit the floor and start firing. The NRA is angry because potential customers are dead. It could happen. Ask ANY police officer if he/she thinks this totally stupid idea that EVERYONE should “keep and bear arms” is something other than a totally stupid idea. Know what they ALREADY have said about it? They’ve said it’s a totally stupid idea. Or words to that effect.

So, on one side, you have the people who really know the consequences of such a totally stupid idea saying NO, and on the other side, you have the people who make BILLIONS of dollars selling guns who really know how to profiteer and how to bribe the elected and how to dupe the electorate (that’s some of you guys) saying YES. Hmmm. Could it be their motives have less to do with the Constitution or people’s rights, and more to do. . . wait . . . and EVERYTHING to do with mammon, moolah, filthy lucre, M-O-N-E-Y? Ooo. What a concept.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thats news to me!

steve selverston

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They're just so clever who woulda figured that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I find it more than coincidental, the latest shooter on campus had alledgedly just come off of prescription drugs for depression. WAKE UP!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

About our constitutional liberties has me feeling patriotic. I think I'll hit the range tomorrow. Anyone know where I can buy paper targets of goons sporting the Blackwater logo? :)


If not, I suppose paper targets of goons sporting swastikas will suffice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"One thing the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University shooters had in common was that they both used high capacity ammunition magazines that would have been prohibited under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004."

Response: Would working a few extra jobs and filling his backpack with more guns have been outlawed? This is simple, people. The old cliched "Where there is a will, there is a way" argument sums it up.

More guns and ammo in the right hands is my solution. That and to many nuts being given antideppressants while they're teens needs to stop.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. Off the top of my head I can think of three instances where mass shootings were stopped, averted, or the shooter killed. Southern Appalacian Law school- Student and Prof. both went to their vehicles and brought weapons to bear on assailant. shooter surrendered. Lives saved.Three years ago.
High School - Student shooter surrenders when principal retrieves his own weapon from auto. Lives saved! Sorry don't remember where but it was within the past two years.
Church Grounds in Colorado-Shooter committed suicide after being shot by security guard/church member. Many lives saved. Within the last six months!
We don't need more gun control laws, which criminals don't heed. We need fewer laws limiting law abiding citizens from carrying weapons which can be used in defense of self and others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This debate is NOT about guns, which every American has a Right to Keep and Bear! "Gun control" is simply an attempt to disarm Americans for an easy takeover. But, the debate should be "Why Are We Tolerating This Madness", found here:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter119.htm .

Most of the "shooters" were taking mind-altering anti-depressant drugs which turned their brains to mush and gave them motivation to kill. Why are youngsters given such poison?! When will the debate focus on pharma instead of guns? I dare say that this whole trend of murdering Americans has been designed by the evil shadow government to take our guns away! Ms. Segura misses the story and emotianally jumps on "the guns did it." She's wrong; the pills did it.
Would she feel the same if they had used bowling balls, bats or bayonets?
I doubt it.

Beware of pharma-shoot-to-kills!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Considering that there are many banned things like cocaine, heroin, meth etc it never stopped people from getting access to them if they wanted to (thus breaking the law.)

The VERY SAME thing would happen if more gun laws or even a possible ban were to take place, it would do NOTHING but be an asset to those who seek to find defenseless victims and only certain weak minded individual would consider that "progressive."

A good example of the BS called "gun control" fails, is our nations capital, Washington DC... which denies the lawfull citizens from owning a handgun... did the gun ban help their crime rate? HELL NO... it got WORST, because most people (especially the criminals), know that these laws only disarmed their potential victims... and criminals FEAR a legally armed citizenship MORE than police.

Places like Vermont (with the LEST gun control) is one of the safest places in America to leave, and no permit is even needed to carry a concealed handgun... so where is the "OK Koral" shootouts?

IMHO, the only type of people who support more gun control and especially gun bans are (1.) CRIMINALS who want a defenseless population, along with (2.) DAY DREAMERS who ignore the facts... instead they depend on their emotions rather than logic and intelligence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I keep reading newspaper articles on people getting robbed and raped at gun point, on a college campus, another "gun free zone" on the most part... just like those "gun free zoned" malls and high schools.

Has a "gun free zone" ever saved anyone's life or kept them from being victimized in criminal offenses such as rape etc?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This thread is getting hopelessly entangled and I think I see the reason. Many writers here are confusing "gun control" and "gun prohibition." They're NOT the same thing.

In spite of the fact some of my earlier posts were a sarcastic attempt to confront some illogical replies, I really don't have a problem with gun ownership, but given the potential for their misuse in horrific events such as NIU, I think it only makes sense that guns be HIGHLY controlled. Especially hand guns and automatics with clips the size of a 16 wheeler. The argument that if guns were banned only criminals would have guns is spurious, though it would be a terrific way to spot criminals and doped up, resentful whackos. It’s not just access, but the unfettered, unenforced, ill-regulated access to any type of armament that is the heart of the matter.

Clearly, this lack of oversight causes a Cold War escalation, an upping of the so-called “self-defense” ante to more devastating weaponry. So, you get a semi-automatic rifle and, of course, your nasty neighbor goes out and buys an automatic. You now have to go out and get . . . what? Ah, a grenade rifle. Then, he or she goes out and buys a mortar and, obviously, you go get a second mortgage on your house so you can buy a shoulder-fired rocket launcher.

Guns are meant to kill. Owning one means that you are ready and willing (but not necessarily able, i.e., skilled) to kill someone . . . anyone. Stupid scenarios resulting from NOT owning a gun abound. Here's a couple (sarcastic ones) that result from owning one: You're just back home one evening, drunk and nursing a splitting headache over your wife/girl-friend/ husband/boy-friend dumping you. The kid next store is shooting hoops and his dribbling sounds like, um, cannons going off in your head. You get your gun and shoot him. You realize you've just done a bad thing and so you shoot your brains out.

Here's another : You're home dozing in front of the TV after a long day at the plant. Suddenly you're startled awake by a loud pounding at your door. You suspect it's some rogue FBI group intent on taking you prisoner and waterboarding you for information about your job buddy, Alejandro, who looks Muslim, but is really from Puerto Rico. You pull your AK-47 from under the couch cushion and start shooting at the door while singing The Star-Spangled Banner. The agents at the windows and the back door start firing their weapons, killing you and a couple of agents caught in the cross-fire. And your house is a complete wreck. You bleed out in an agonizing, painful death. In a moment of clarity, you curse the NRA.

(Continued next post)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is fun. A neighbor is running away from some gun-owner down the block for whatever reason. He comes to your door for help, screaming and pounding on your door. You bolt awake. In a daze you pull your AK-47 from under the couch cushion and start blazing away at the door, killing your neighbor. The gun-owner thinks you're trying to protect your neighbor so he shoots back through your door, Your neighbor, bleeding on the floor next to you, reaches out, touches you, forgives you and dies. Now your conscience is bothering you, too and, in a moment of clarity, you curse the NRA and die an agonizing, painful, guilt-ridden death.

Okay, okay, last one: One night, while you and your family are asleep, some thief breaks in downstairs. While rummaging through your meager possessions he reaches behind the couch cushion and finds your AK-47. Assuming you have another gun at your bedside and probably your kids do too, he tiptoes upstairs and first smothers your kids then, using your own AK-47 sprays your bed, fatally wounding you and your wife and you both bleed out in an agonizing, painful death and, in a moment of clarity, curse the NRA.

Owning a gun will NOT protect you from rogue government organizations such as Blackwater or crazed FBI agents or the neo-Nazis or the Chinese, so you can stop watching "Red Dawn." All you can hope to do is (do your best John Wayne imitation here) "take a few of 'em with you, pilgrim." Ooo, yeah. No way, Jose. You'd be better off buying body armor. Oh, wait, anyone can buy or steal armor-piercing bullets. Somehow, it all seems so hopeless.

Hopeless unless, in an attempt to control access to WID, Weapons of Individual Destruction, the few nearly sensible regulations we DO have are beefed up, amended and supplemented. The hope here is that these will help to reduce as much as is humanly possible, access to weapons by those who are most at risk of using them at the nearest college, high school, post office, KKK/Neo-Nazi gathering, or gang owned 'hood, or keeping them away from those who ride throughout our cities, towns, villages randomly shooting into people's homes just to prove how courageous they are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=117

Let's see what criminals think of legally armed citizens. I have seen many documentaries with journalists interviewing criminals, and just about ALL of them stated they greatly feared an armed victim.

I myself once know someone who became a thief (drugs messed him up), and he himself would describe how he would rather prey on the very old, or physically handicapped, because they are lest likely to able to fight back... so I guess he would be well allied with the anti-gun nut cases who seek to disarm the good citizens of this nation.

Also, I am still waiting for examples on how "gun free zones" save lives... or how "gun control" reduces rapes, murders and other criminal activities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]