goodbye

The funny thing is tons of people I know saw this gun control thing coming right after the Trayvon Martin case. This isn't being hyped up because anyone cares that this kid died. This whole thing is just a way to attack gun ownership.

Liberals fear gun owners because it's indicative of someone who is independent and just wants to live their life. It's a lot easier to take what you have if you can't defend yourself. Guns represent the last barrier to complete government takeover of your lives.

And you can't knock Fox News for broadcasting at a 4th grade reading level when the president can only speak at an 8th grade reading level.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/state-of-the-union-registers-at-th-grade-reading-level-112236.html

Which side of the Government are we talking about here, the one that is listening to the American People or the one that isn't. Which governing side is being honest, which is lieing. Which governing side is inciting mini-wars against every class of citizen there is? Romney is on the side who has incited all these wars, and now he is proclaiming to be able to bring Americans together after he has helped tear us apart..Maybe this is the business model he has in mind. Which governing group is trying to help the poor people of this world? Which is engaging in taking over cities. using dictatorship. Who is dividing the American people. Which one scares you the most? The Lord is my strength.

Interesting you say that because Obama has engaged us in several conflicts since he's been president. But I'm sure you don't think that counts...

I'm talking about the side that's made a business of taking property from the producers and giving it to their constituents. And neither side is trying to help the "poor" of the world. The poor population in the USA is less than 1%. The American idea of "poverty" is not poor.

What scares me is the huge amount of Americans who want to take what is not theirs because they feel entitled to the hard work of others. The side with the guns need those guns to defend themselves from looters and the government. I hear all this talk about greedy CEO's and greedy Wall Street. True greed is wanting to steal someone else's work. One side has turned the government into legal thugs, extorting the half of the population that works for the sake of those who'd rather not.

REALITY CHECK!!!

"The level of gun violence we have in this country is out of control. But I think it goes without saying that any number of these tragedies could have prevented if some lawful citizen was carrying concealed."

I've been in law enforcement all of my career, both armed and unarmed, and I guarantee to you that NONE of these tragedies could have been prevented.

Do you know the most dangerous thing a cop can do? It's respond to a domestic violence call. More cops get killed at these incidents than in any other way. Don't you ever wonder why that is?? The cop HAS a weapon and he usually has it out, and yet he gets killed!! The reason is that the "bad guy" NEVER gives the cop a chance - and in all these tragedies, that is exactly what would happen to you!!!

Do you HONESTLY think the "bad guy" will give you time to get your gun out of the holster and aim??

And BTW, do you REALLY think you could control your gun under those circumstances?? Cops are trained OVER AND OVER to handle their weapons when they are under stress! Have YOU ever tried to shoot a gun when you've been in a life threatening situation? That gun (if you get it out of your holster) will flop around in your hand like a dying fish!! Yea, THAT is REALLY useful!!! You won't be able to shoot straight EVEN THOUGH you think your life depends on it!!

Yea, and there's that - your thinking!! Violent situations happen in a blink of the eye. Will you actually REALIZE what is going on? Either you will react too slow and get killed or you will react too fast and kill someone who didn't need to be killed. And then you end up in a George Zimmerman situation. Cops are also trained about when they can use their weapons. You ever hear about the Level of Force diagrams? Every cop will tell you that the gun ISN'T the answer to all situations!!!

Another thing that you just don't get is that these incidents are RARE - that is why they are in the NEWS!! You can start worrying when the newscasters no longer cover them!!

I'm not against guns, I have had many during my life, and I have enjoyed shooting them at competitions, and many of my family members hunt. What I AM against is STUPID people having weapons and idiots who think having a concealed weapon gives them some sense of security!!

Yea, I know, you are "different", you are "special" - and you live in lala land if you think having a concealed weapon protects you from your paranoia!!!

I don't know of any example of poor people trying to take someones property away from them? There are a lot of examples of poor people being left to die because they have no healthcare. Alot of poor people are dying everyday. Most Americans I know just want decent living conditions, healthy food and water. If there are 1% poor people then that is 1% too much. They don't want anything from you, they just ask to be treated with dignity. They want to live because they love their families just like everyone else. They cannot afford to pay their bills because their jobs don't pay well, because they are not allowed to have unions in their states. I have been working since I was very young and I am still scraping by. If we do not help our brothers and sisters like Jesus would then something is wrong. You are afraid of them. But, they are a product of your Corporate World. To help these people would be like a drop in the hat for rich people. Instead they would rather shoot them. They are not your enemy. Your enemy is the person who is trying to convince you they are your enemy. If all Americans are happy then all Americans can stop being afraid of each other. The only reason that people are breaking into your homes is because they have a drug problem and they need the money. If the rich people put enough money into helping these people instead of incarcarating them there would be a significant drop in crime. The source of a lot of crime is addiction. You can have everything I've got just don't kill me, this is what the poor are saying. So, the rich are doing exactly that. You have been brainwashed into believing that your fellow citizens are your enemies, they are not.

"The level of gun violence we have in this country is out of control. But I think it goes without saying that any number of these tragedies could have prevented if some lawful citizen was carrying concealed."

Yes, I can think of nothing that would reduce gun violence more than giving a bunch of yahoos who've never shot outside a range in their life permission to carry a gun everywhere they go.

Angel, demanding more federal benefits is taking other people's property from them. And if you say there are a lot of examples of poor people left to die because they don't have healthcare, please provide some evidence.

I agree that 1% is too much and I'd be more than willing to help those people out as much as I can. I'm not talking about those people though. There are plenty of people who are perfectly able to take care of themselves but refuse to do so. And it's not that bottom 1% that anyone is afraid of. It's people like the OWS protesters. A group of entitled college kids who defecate on police cars, rape each other in the park, and are violent towards everyone who doesn't agree.

There's a difference in helping those in need and helping those who won't help themselves.

samusx,

Sigh, the SAME OLD RHETORIC that has been used for YEARS to deny people anything YOU don't want to give them! You can ALWAYS justify it in your mind that it is THEIR fault because they don't "deserve" it.

This rhetoric was used to justify slavery, was used by Hitler, was used in Rwanda, and is used OVER AND OVER AGAIN and it holds no more logic than it ever did!! PLEASE for ONCE, use that piece of gray matter between your ears and come up with something new!!!

You want examples of poor people left to die because they don't have healthcare???? For many years, I volunteered my weekends as an EMT with local fire departments and hospitals and I can give you MANY MANY instances of where poor people came to the Emergency Room for healthcare - usually when it was too late to do much for them - because they couldn't afford to go to a doctor earlier in their sickness when something could have been done!

samusx, just because you live in a cocoon and don't know what is happening in the real world, doesn't mean that it isn't happening!!!! Maybe you should fill your time volunteering at some hospitals or food kitchens instead of spewing FOX NEWS's version of the world.

BTW, you obviously have never been at an OWS protest cause AGAIN, you don't know what you are talking about!!

The level of gun violence we have in this country is out of control.

I've been in law enforcement all of my career, both armed and unarmed, and I guarantee to you that NONE of these tragedies could have been prevented.

Yes, the level of gun violence we have in this country is out of control.

HOWEVER, these tragedies could most certainly have been prevented. If people don't have guns, people can't use guns.

If Zimmerman had been armed with a knife, and not a 9mm, I doubt he would have been so quick to pursue Trayvon Martin.

If Jared Lee Loughner had only a pig-sticker, would anyone have died in Tucson?

But we can't have an intelligent conversation about guns in our society. Gun nuts and the NRA won't let us. Every time there's a shooting, the NRA starts screaming about how them damn liberals are going to take your guns!

I don't feel safer knowing there are civilians out there with concealed guns. The images of tea baggers in public with guns in full view at public meetings are horrifying. There were no corresponding images of OWS supporters with their guns. They didn't have any. Almost all of the violence at the OWS protests came from the police.

Gun violence will continue to be a problem in our country, and it's only ever a matter of days before the next shooting spree is being televised.

When will it end? It won't. We're going to continue being shot by people with guns. We're not safe on the streets, and we're not safe in our homes.

The more people carry guns, the less safe we'll be.

Peanut, you bring up some good points. Yes, if people don't have guns they can't use them. That's why we would be less safe without them. Any gun that can be used to create a tragedy can also be used to save a life or even stop a crime. It happens all the time, often without the need to fire a single shot.

You're right, if all Zimmerman had was a knife, he probably wouldn't have murdered Martin. Of course, if he had only been armed with a Tommy gun with a 100 round ammo drum he wouldn't have pursued him either.

What happened to Gabby Giffords was a tragedy, but if just one person on her staff had been carrying concealed, who knows how many lives could have been saved.

The reason why we can't have an intelligent conversation about guns is because one side is a bunch of right wing paranoid lunatics with white supremacist tendencies, while the other side doesn't know JACK about guns, and wouldn't be able to clear a pistol if their lives depended on it.

If you do not feel safer with people carrying concealed, then you have two options. 1) be less safe or 2) buy a gun, learn how to use it defensively, and carry it on your person at all times.

You bring up a very good point about the Tea Party protests and OWS. Did you notice that the tea party protesters carried guns openly? Did you notice that the OWS protesters were unarmed? Which group got the snot kicked out of them by the police? Which group didn't get touched by the police? What does that tell you OWS protesters should do if they don't want to get their heads beat in by the police?

Your own safety is always your own responsibility. Furthermore, the safety of the people around you is also your responsibility. Before you even question this, stop. If all of us are responsible for each other's safety, then all of us will be more safe.

Now, what are you doing to be responsible for your own safety? Practicing your tackling technique should someone shoots a place up with a gun? That's absurd.

My fellow progressives, for Christ's sake PLEASE. Buy a gun. Learn how to use it. And carry it on your person at all times. We need sane people to be armed. Right now the only people who are are right wing lunatics and criminals.

Liberals fear gun owners because it's indicative of someone who is independent and just wants to live their life

Both Alva and I are gun owners and liberals. Once again sam makes assertions about things w/o actually bothering to fact check those assertions. By the way do you know what the total ownership of guns is in America and what the breakdown is by conservative vs. liberal? Or are you just pulling that out of your hindquarters again?

And if you say there are a lot of examples of poor people left to die because they don't have healthcare, please provide some evidence.

http://www.wisegeek.com/why-is-the-infant-mortality-rate-high-in-the-us.htm

At the top of the list is inequitable access to health care. Especially among those who are very poor, and among teens who have children, health care was not always equally available

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1955420/

Poverty and health status are interrelated, and their effects on each other are often bidirectional: poverty leads to poor health and poor health leads to poverty

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/17/us-usa-healthcare-deaths-idUSTRE58G6W520090917

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/the_150000_life_health-care_pl.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/insurance-24-year-dies-toothache/story?id=14438171#.T4m8vdWiZsU

http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/06339/743713-84.stm

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/7429-focus-is-poverty-a-death-sentence

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/11/study_over_2_200_us_veterans

And you can't knock Fox News for broadcasting at a 4th grade reading level when the president can only speak at an 8th grade reading level.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/state-of-the-union-registers-at-th-grade-reading-level-112236.html

Actually this is rather post hoc reasoning (in both cases). You are assuming that the audience to which the POTUS has to speak will be able to comprehend what he is saying if he uses a higher level intelligence. Most POTUS' do not speak above the level that PBO is speaking and this includes former President Bush. It has far less to do w/ the person speaking than it does w/ the audience to whom he/she is speaking. I would think you'd know that.

As for Alva:

I'm not going to get too in depth w/ you on this one since we went round and round in circles last time. But a couple of things-

1) You are assuming things that you do not have evidence to actually support. Remember many of the cases that Maddow reported on involved police officers. Those officers were armed and yet still died. If your theory holds true 100% of the time then this would not be possible.

2) You are misconstruing peanut's point and deliberately so. Peanut is saying that if no guns existed (so if no one had guns) then we would all be safer. You then construe this to pose a hypothetical in which only the bad guys have guns and good guys do not. This is NOT what she said.

3) It's presumptive for you to say that liberals don't know how to use guns. I oppose a lot of the current gun laws because they are unnecessary and I believe they increase risk. To be fair this is as much of a hypothetical as your hypothetical, so in reality we are both postulating a hypothesis as opposed to something that has been proven. I would point to the many, many instances in which individuals carrying guns (such as police officers) are killed every year and state that their ownership of a weapon did not help. However- to be fair to you- I don't necessarily want to see bans on shotguns or rifles or handguns (which are the most likely to be used in crimes). I would just like to see tighter regulations on certain high-powered semi-autos and automatic rifles as well as tighter regulations on where guns can be carried. For instance I strongly disagree w/ allowing people to bring guns to bars or stadiums, but I believe that in other cases a person should be registered w/ the state (much the same way you are w/ a car) and should have to demonstrate gun competency (much like you have to do w/ a car).

4) You are using post hoc reasoning w/ the OWS protests. You do not know nor do you have evidence of why the police targeted OWS. There were, more than likely, a number of factors. Had OWS been armed you have absolutely no evidence to prove that the protests would not have just ended up w/ people dying as opposed to civility from the police. And before you bring out the thing w/ the Black Panthers this is a. not historically true and b. again post hoc reasoning. The Black Panthers often used violence to intimidate people into submission among other things. Additionally there were several instances in which Black Panthers and police had violent stand offs and in which both lost lives.

5) You are still ignoring the problem of escalation. Which is weird because your response to peanut was that she should carry a gun around herself is she doesn't trust people carrying concealed weapons. If they are concealed then peanut will not know whether or not someone is carrying so you are proposing that peanut carry a gun on her at all times and be paranoid about whether or not someone else is carrying a gun. I really wouldn't want to worry about whether or not the person next to me is carrying a gun and I really don't appreciate a black and white framing that says either I have to carry a gun or be made a victim (especially since this isn't reality).

Mouzzer,

Well put!!!!

if he uses a higher level intelligence

Sorry I misspoke above. I did not mean to say that if the POTUS uses higher level "intelligence" that was bad wording on my part. What I meant to say was if the POTUS uses higher level language. Same concept, but different verbiage which dramatically changes the meaning lol.

MechTrek, if I were in that hair salon, then you better believe that if I didn't have my gun, I would hope and pray that someone else had theirs. Just because you have no idea how to even clear a gun, don't assume that someone else can't be highly trained to use a firearm.

Mouzer, it's good to hear from you again. Yes, whenever some lunatic pulls out a gun and wants to kill people, you run the risk of dying. That goes without saying. Your chances of surviving increases significantly if you can run away. If you CAN'T run away, then you better believe I'd want a gun to protect myself. It beats trying to play "dodge the bullets while you tackle the lunatic".

You're absolutely right that if we could wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear tomorrow then we'd all be safer. Of course, that's not going to happen, is it? I was watching a news segment on the BBC once and a lot of people there get all up in arms about "hoodlums" who carry knives. Would I want a gun if someone was trying to kill me in a knife fight? You bet.

Tougher regulations on "high powered semi-autos" (I can only assume you mean assault rifles like an AR-15) doesn't seem to make sense, since these weapons are almost never used in crime. Tougher regulations on where a firearm can be carried will only mean that people like me will have to break the law to keep people like you safe.

I think guns in bars are perfectly fine, but you should have your weapon checked when you enter, and you should be prohibited from drinking if you have one. I agree, guns in a stadium is a dumb idea. Just like a gun on a plane. In that instance, it can't be used defensively. I have no problem with guns being registered with the state.

All I can say is that if you have a gun pointed in your face, you tend to stop being violent real damn quick. I've seen it happen. I have no doubt in my mind that if OWS protesters held signs that said, "We are armed" then the police would not have behaved as they did. It wouldn't guarantee that no violence would happen, but it would prevent police casually practicing their pepperspray technique.

Yes, that is reality. Take responsibility for your own protection, or be a statistic. It's plain and simple. By the way, people who go nuts and shoot places up, don't tend to carry concealed. That lunatic who shot up the hair salon wasn't carrying concealed. When you're trained to spot danger before it happens, you can react accordingly. It's not a 100% guarantee, but it beats being a statistic.

Would I want a gun if someone was trying to kill me in a knife fight? You bet.

This is the problem w/ escalation

Tougher regulations on "high powered semi-autos" (I can only assume you mean assault rifles like an AR-15) doesn't seem to make sense, since these weapons are almost never used in crime. Tougher regulations on where a firearm can be carried will only mean that people like me will have to break the law to keep people like you safe.

Yeah I'm referring to things like an AR-15 or it's predecessor the AR-10. There are other examples, but an AR-15 is probably the most common. If you are curious why I used to term semi-auto and automatic that is because there seems to be a lot of confusion out there as to what constitutes an assault rifle or assault handgun.

As to your second point, high powered semi-autos or automatics aren't used that often comparatively in crimes. Which is to say that they aren't used as frequently as other, more accessible guns. This is not to say that they are never used. If we are going to go from the perspective of reducing crime- as is your rebuttal to my saying even police die when they are armed- then we must follow your logic to it's conclusion. Which is that we can justify certain restrictions to lesson the instances of crimes.

bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/06/police-say-i64-shootout-suspect-used-ak47-assault-rifle

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/police-assault-rifle-used-in-florida-mall-shooting-one-man-dead/

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/assault-weapons/what-law-enforcement-says-about-assault-weapons

ag.ca.gov/publications/Firearms_Report_09.pdf

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20781848/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/assault-weapon-attacks-rise-miami-area/#.T4nw6dWiZsU

Again I would be in favor of a compromise where instead of outright banning what would effectively be labeled an assault rifle or an assault handgun you simply put tougher restrictions. As I stated last time we could mandate that we do something similar to what Nevada does. In Nevada you are allowed to own AR-15's and AK-47's, but you must have them registered at one location, you must have a state certified license to carry those particular types of weapons, and the FBI and ATFE must be notified anytime you intend to sell those weapons or those weapons go missing. This seems a reasonable compromise to me. This would also, at least if implemented nationally, mean we'd have to close the 'gun show loophole' as it's now called in the vernacular.

I think guns in bars are perfectly fine, but you should have your weapon checked when you enter, and you should be prohibited from drinking if you have one. I agree, guns in a stadium is a dumb idea. Just like a gun on a plane. In that instance, it can't be used defensively. I have no problem with guns being registered with the state.

Well if we're making the compromise that you have to check your gun at the bar if you drink OR you cannot drink and you have to make it known that you have a gun well then OK. I could compromise this. This is not, however, how current states like Ohio have put these laws into place. These laws simply say you get to walk into a bar carrying a concealed handgun. And this seems in and of itself stupid. Now if we're talking about a compromise where those working at the bar are aware of your handgun or whatever it is that you're carrying and you can either hand the gun over while you drink OR not be served alcohol then I'm OK w/ that. But w/o that regulation then it just seems idiotic.

Yes, that is reality. Take responsibility for your own protection, or be a statistic. It's plain and simple. By the way, people who go nuts and shoot places up, don't tend to carry concealed. That lunatic who shot up the hair salon wasn't carrying concealed. When you're trained to spot danger before it happens, you can react accordingly. It's not a 100% guarantee, but it beats being a statistic.

I completely and utterly reject this framing. It's not either you're armed or you're a victim. You can be not armed and not be a victim.

The actual argument about guns takes place at an intersection we simply can't reach.

Where does your right to be armed intersect with my right not be be shot?

So far, gun control in this country amounts to this: you have the right to put me at risk of being shot, and I don't have the right to prevent you from doing so.

Until we can have a reasonable conversation about my right not to be put at risk of being shot by a civilian, we can't have a reasonable conversation about just how unreasonably armed we are, and how much worse it's getting.

The actual argument about guns take place in the constitution, where it is explicitly, without a doubt, a right. If you want to take my guns away, make an amendment. Right after you take away all the implied rights that liberals claim are in the constitution.

Nut, I don't even know why you're in this discussion. You have about as much understanding of the constitution as the president does. Which amounts to little or none.

And name-calling makes your argument stronger, Sam? Makes you seem smarter? Why is name-calling always the first knee-jerk response from the right? That and: "You don't like it, leave!"

I'm asking where your right to shoot me comes up against my right not to get shot.

You're telling me your precious second amendment supersedes my right as a citizen to live in safety, and I disagree. That's not a lack of constitutional knowledge. It's a question that deserves serious consideration if we're going to continue to live and grow together as a society.

It's people like you who make this such an impossible conversation to have.

The actual argument about guns take place in the constitution, where it is explicitly, without a doubt, a right. If you want to take my guns away, make an amendment. Right after you take away all the implied rights that liberals claim are in the constitution.

You have the right to not be killed by a gun just as you have the right to own a gun.

Explicitly saying the constitution only guarantees you the right to own a gun if you are a part of a militia. The SCOTUS has expanded the 2nd Amendment to state that 'militia' covers citizens w/in their own homes and that it's against the constitution for cities to outright ban all ownership of guns. However we still have not had a SCOTUS ruling that expressly states what a militia is.

The specific intent of the militia- if you go back to when the constitution was written- was to have us use those militias as our primary military source. The constitution gives us the power to have a reserve army and a long standing navy. An air force or the idea of a long standing army aren't mentioned in the US Constitution. This is not to say that these things are necessarily unconstitutional, but rather to say that if we take a purist mentality about what the constitution states then this is where it brings us. The militia in all reality has no relevancy today since we now have said long standing army and a national guard. But more than likely if we had stayed purist to the constitution we'd still have minutemen and the idea of armed militias would still be relevant. W/ that said I find it highly doubtful that when the 2nd Amendment was being drafted our founder's expected the 2nd Amendment to apply to things like shotguns, hunting rifles, or basic handguns. They more than likely intended it to apply to things like cannons or grenades/other low-impact explosives that existed at the time. They more than likely never assumed the ownership of hunting rifles, as an example, would be an issue since so many people used them for their livelihood and home protection.

It's for this reason that bringing up the 2nd Amendment is somewhat silly. No one is proposing that we ban all guns outright and no one is proposing that current owners have their guns taken away. Even if we re-instated the assault rifle ban you'd still be able to keep your current assault rifle simply because you'd be covered by a grandfather clause. But the fact that someone would go to that extreme- the either you want to take my guns away or you must allow me to have unfettered access to any type of firearm I want- that makes it so impossible to talk about guns.

samusx

Have you ever read the Second Amendment????? It isn't quite as "clear" as you make it out to be. Here it is for you:

"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."

These 27 words have been interpreted and reinterpreted several times and will be reinterpreted many more times in the future.

What does "the people" mean? Does it mean individuals or the collective group of individuals. Could this have been written to mean: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the United States to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

And then you have the debate about what "arms" means. Certainly the framers of the Constitution never knew that there would be weapons as portable and dangerous as those we have today. Did the "arms" the writers of the Bill of Rights mean only musket loaders and derringers? Could this also mean: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear bombs, bazookas, and tanks shall not be infringed."

Instead of calling other people names, maybe YOU should spend more time reading the Constitution and the Bill of Rights!

That's a good point once.

For the record the reason why I said that it's highly specious the founding fathers ever intended for the 2nd Amendment to apply to handguns, hunting rifles, or shotguns is because this is the position most frequently held by constitutional scholars. Most scholars believe that the 2nd Amendment was meant to deal w/ heavy arms like cannons or in today's world bazookas, bombs, etc. Just because I realize there's some confusion here I'd like to clarify: saying that the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist explicitly to protect handguns, hunting rifles, or shotguns does not mean that you don't have the right to own these items or that their ownership would be in question w/o the 2nd Amendment.

What I am saying, rather, is that such ownership would fall under an assumed right (similar to the right to privacy). Presumably the founders would have never seen a necessity to writing down yes you can own a shotgun because it was so common place and necessary for people to survive that the founders in all likelihood never imagined a situation in which a state would bar someone from such weapons. More than likely the 2nd Amendment only exists to cover heavy arms that a state would reasonably want to regulate (like cannons). When we were discussing the assault rifle ban the first time- as an example- the majority of the discussion focused on whether or not the assault rifle would fall under the assumed right of gun ownership or whether it would fall under the 2nd Amendment. If it falls under the 2nd Amendment then you can only own that rifle as part of a well regulated state militia (and since we don't know what that is that leaves more questions than answers). If it falls under the assumed right then you can own the gun outright w/o the regulation.

This is part of why I hated the NRA because the NRA wants you to automatically assume that the 2nd Amendment covers any type and every type of weapon out there and they want you to think that no discussion about the subject has ever existed. In reality people do not accept the idea that assault rifles (like an AK-47) necessarily are categorized or should even be legally regarded the same as a hunting rifle (like a Nosler M48). The NRA wants you to think that there is no disagreement about the scope or applicability of the 2nd Amendment, but there is. In fact what exactly counts as needing to be regulated by a state militia (as opposed to an assumed right) and what a state militia is still to this day is in dispute.

I personally look at the original intention of the state militia and conclude that the 2nd Amendment is completely obsolete. It's an archaic piece of legislation that quite honestly should be removed and replaced w/ something that is up-to-date and actively reflects today's world. We're never going to go back to the world of having a reserve army and minutemen. We will always have a long standing army, navy, air force, and a national guard/coast guard. Because of this there's no reason to speculate that you're going to have hundreds of people out in the woods training for the possibility of an invasion. We should replace the 2nd Amendment w/ something that gives the government mild regulation (such as saying that you have to register your gun w/ the state and notify the state any time that gun leaves your possession just like you do w/ a car), but that otherwise preserves our gun enthusiastic history and our right to bear arms.

You may be right, Mouzzer.

We do know that the Constitutional Convention debated having a standing army and decided against it. We also know that the Second Amendment was a necessary compromise to allow for protection of the newly formed country (while still limiting the Federal Government's power) so they very well may have mean only those weapons used solely for war.

The clauses: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," makes me think that the original framers WERE more concerned about arms to be used to defend the state, rather than weapons used for hunting or sport. But since those musket loaders that they used to feed themselves, were also required to be put in service to protect the country, I still really have questions about what "arms" meant to them (and now means to us!).

Oh no doubt once ;-) I am not at all pretending like I have all the answers by any means. It seems to me that my interpretation is correct, but this is the fundamental problem w/ any 'solid' document whether it be the US Constitution or the Bible. You are attempting to make modern era things fit and conform to vague words put into place in a document written well before your time. So perhaps they meant all arms. Perhaps they meant big arms. I think it was stuff like cannons and they had small explosive devices back then that lead to the invention of the grenade. I think they also meant it for people who would have an unusually high amount of gun powder or other materials that might otherwise be regulated by the state (because presumably a person holding stockpiles for military use would have more than a person just running his or her farm). But regardless if you are correct or I am correct one thing we can be certain of: the conversation is clearly not as simplistic as the folks at the NRA keep trying to make it out to be. That's part of why I left them (this being back when I, like you, was a conservative Republican). Because they want the conversation to be black and white. Nuance isn't a right-winger happy place.

I think that all the people who say that gun crime can be prevented by concealed weapons need to be reminded that Ronald Reagan was shot by John Hinckley Jr. while in the presence of some the worlds best shots (all of whom are known and expected to be carrying a weapon).

Sure, carrying a weapon can (in your imagination) stop a crime. But in the real world, with professionals whose job is to expect an attack and respond as quickly as possible, when they can't stop the crime... Honestly, I think you're fooling yourself.

The second amendment, as written, doesn't cover all sorts of extended magazines, and assault weapons people insist are necessary for their safety, or provision for their table...

The second amendment is being heinously abused, and so is my right not to get shot!

Militia has been replaced by Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, National Guard; Federal, State and Local Police; Sheriffs, etc. We, as civilians, do not need to maintain the ability to go to war.

And if you think you need the ability to protect yourself from your own government with bullets, then we need to keep you quiet and observe you closely.

Yes this has been a really good conversation. And we've actually discussed things and came to agreement on some things. Maybe not universal but we've agreed on some compromises to appease both law abiding gun owners and those who don't want to be shot by criminals or by accident.

As for Peanut: you know this is another reason why I left the NRA. The NRA insists that the reason for the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do w/ our lack of a military (at that point of time) and everything. They insist it was meant for overthrowing a corrupt government. They refer to all the passages written by the founders in which the founders talk about overthrowing the British government and our foreign occupiers on our soil (such as the Spanish and later on the French and Mexicans). They then manipulate this and say that oh no the 2nd Amendment is so that you can overthrow the American government! Remember the 'don't retreat, reload' quotes and the 'if ballots don't work bullets will'? This isn't just hyperbolic nonsense. These people actually believe that the US Constitution tells them to kill their elected representatives, police officers, and if necessary US military personnel in order to enforce their interpretation of 'freedom.' When Sharon Angle was talking about '2nd Amendment remedies' that wasn't just over the top rhetoric. She was literally speaking to people in America who believe that they own guns solely to destroy the government. And isn't it just beyond ironic that the government that always needs to be overthrown isn't the fascist, do everything I tell you to do government of the right? Nope. It's the conservative and sometimes moderate Democratic party. Ya know...cause it's socialism that's gonna kill ya. =P

Yeah, that whole, don't retreat, reload would be why we fear you. Retreat allows for conversation. Reload means "I'm gonna shot you, so you'd better start runnin''" I don't want to be shot, and I don't want to have to run. I just want to live my life without fear of being shot.

and nothing changes the fact that we wrote most of the legislation to prevent feeling guilty about taking the land from the native americans, who didn't have guns to stop us.

Please understand: I'm a crack shot. Really good. OMG, you hit that?? good. I just don't like guns, and don't think they have a legitimate place in our modern civilian society.

I don't know, I can't trust an organization who is inciting violence and fear. If we are in any danger there are programs in place, I hope ,that will instruct people where to go and what to do. The Emergency Broadcasting Network. So, I guess it was a good idea to nationalize this program and make sure every citizen has access to the Cable shows that support real news. We better figure out real quick which station that is. It might be helpful if our President could assure it's citizens on what to do. This is information we just let slide by us. Everyone should know who are real enemies are. The question now is who do we trust? I'm going with President Obama. Romney is not so honest.

I'll address several people in this post. I'll try to keep things concise.

Mouzer, we've talked about the whole assault rifle thing before. I've demonstrated that they can be used defensively. I would also note that while they are sometimes used in crimes, there wasn't a massive uptick in crimes with assault weapons when the assault weapons ban lapsed. I'm perfectly okay with gun registration. I also think you should be able to prove that you have some minimal gun safety knowledge before buying a gun, as opposed to just having that knowledge to get a concealed carry license.

As for bars, they are private businesses. A private business does have the right (and should have the right) to deny entry to anyone carrying a gun.

Peanut, Yes you have the right not to be shot. I also have the right to be armed. You and I both have the right to our own lives. Therefore, I have the right to protect my life. If I'm armed, I can better protect your life as well.

Oncearepublican, here's the reality. The 2nd amendment is very poorly worded. Not many actually understand the history behind it. Have you ever noticed that not many people ever talk about the 3rd amendment and how this all ties in together?

Here's the history, as concise as I can make it. Jefferson and Madison was opposed to the USA having a standing army during peacetime. A military was often what was used to overthrow a gov't. It's for this reason that the President is the Commander In Chief, and not some general or the Secretary of Defense. Jefferson and Madison envisioned something similar to what Switzerland has. Instead of a national army, each state would have it's own army, or "militia", what we today might call the state National Guard. If we were ever invaded, an army could be drawn from each state. If the federal gov't ever got tyrannical, these state controlled militias would serve as a check against that power. Who was to be a member of these militias? Well, everyone was. Or every able-bodied male in those days. So the idea behind the 2nd amendment is a guarantee that every person had the right to have weapons, while serving as members of the militia.

Well, things didn't exactly work out that way. But Jefferson got his compromise against one of the dangers of a national army in times of peace, and that is how the 3rd amendment happened.

So technically, the 2nd amendment only applies to people in state militias, but everyone was supposed to be in the militia. The idea was that if we're ever invaded by a foreign country, ding goes the church bells and everyone is at their front door with a gun.

It implies that all of us, civilian or no, is responsible for the defense and safety of our nation. Furthermore we're all responsible for the defense and safety of each other.

I would also note that while they are sometimes used in crimes, there wasn't a massive uptick in crimes with assault weapons when the assault weapons ban lapsed

This is not true. If you mean it literally- that immediately after the assault weapons ban lapsed assault weapons violence did not go up then yes. But things like this will not immediately have a reflection. Policies this massive do not have immediate outcomes. What we know is that since the assault weapons ban was allowed to lapse violence w/ assault weapons has increased by almost 400%. It still is- compared to all other versions of crime- the least likely to happen and I've already given you that. But the numbers have steadily increased over time now that the ban is gone. The numbers now are almost as high as they were prior to the assault weapons ban going into effect in the first place.

Now as I stated this is primarily in places that have lack gun registration laws. Some sort of registration process could be the only necessary loophole that keeps guns from the streets, but that also allows law abiding citizens their guns. I will not pretend like such a regulation cannot work because most places do not enlist such a ban and therefore there's very little data.

Every able bodied male who was the first born son of the family was supposed to belong to each town's militia, this is correct. However I would strongly dispute the notion that this means it was meant to apply to "everyone." Percentage wise we're talking about maybe 10% of the population that would've been covered by the 2nd Amendment. We are also not sure what types of arms the 2nd Amendment is specifically referring to. We are also not sure what well regulated means. Does this mean that the government can regulate it or does this mean that the militia is to be well trained and disciplined like an army? If it's the latter then this would also necessitate that the militia loses persons as per the regulation. This is part of why I said we should- you know if we weren't such a stupid country and all lmao- repeal the 2nd Amendment and put an amendment in it's place that's far less confusing. One that expressly says every citizen has the right to own guns, but that also allows states to regulate the trafficking of those guns.

Alva, I don't want you "protecting" me. Don't you understand that? The fact that you're running around with a gun scares me utterly. I don't feel safer. I feel at greater risk of being shot.

There's always someone bigger, smarter, faster, whatever, who can disarm you and use your gun against you. Have you ever taken Krav Maga classes? I have. I'm better prepared to protect myself than you are.

But I've gotta say: This is the closest to a reasonable conversation about guns I've ever participated in, and I want to thank you all for that!

And Alva, thanks for the history lesson. I didn't know the back story.

Mouzer, I'll take your word for it that the level of assault weapon violence has gone up so much, but given how many advancements has been made in assault weapon technology, and the utterly staggering number of assault weapons that have been sold, that assault weapon violence is still below what it was before the ban is great news. You realize we know have fully automatic shotguns these days? I've seen shot guns that hold 100 rounds, and the rounds act as mini bombs! I don't think those are sold to the civilian market though.

I will say this: Walking into a gun shop and seeing a wall of assault rifles is a pretty staggering experience. I think they should be legal, but damn, I'm freaking amazed that they are.

I suspect that every able bodied male was to be a member of the militia. It's just the way things were in those days. I'm pretty sure the kind of weapons this applied to were muskets and bayonets. It wouldn't have applied to cannons because those were kept in the local armery. I'm pretty sure "well regulated" meant in today's terms would be well regimented. The term "regulation" didn't come into modern use the way we use it until after the New Deal I imagine. It's like the term privacy wasn't used back then as we use it, because to have privy meant to use the outhouse. But the right of privacy is expressed in the 4th amendment.

Peanut, I can perfectly understand why you'd be scared that I carry a gun on me concealed. I imagine if you had no idea how to drive a car, you would be frightened at the idea that we let 16 year olds drive them, despite that 40,000 die a year from traffic accidents.

I know this may sound strange, but if you knew me, then you'd know that around me you're less likely to get shot than you otherwise would be.

Yes, you always run the risk of someone taking your gun and using it against you. Cops have to worry about this all the time. When it comes to self defense, some strategy has to be used here. For instance, if you use a revolver, than someone can take it from you, and well, you're screwed if you didn't fire all the rounds. If you use a semi-auto pistol, you have options.

When a pistol fires, the bullet exists the barrel. Hot gas from the bullet pushes the slide backwards against the tension of a spring. This causes the spend bullet casing to eject out of the gun. When the slide moves forward it pushes a new round into the chamber from the magazine.

Now, if you drop the magazine (I don't mean accidentally, when you push the magazine release button it's called dropping) then no more bullets can be fed into the pistol. However, there's still one bullet in the chamber.

Some people who practice self-defense gun training believe that it's better to have that one last round and to be able to use it against your attacker. Others feel that you're better off with that gun being disabled (as in it won't fire no matter what you do without a magazine) because of the risk that your gun is taken from you. Both types of pistols are made.

I personally feel that I prefer the gun being disabled when the magazine is dropped. It's one of the reasons why I have a Beretta PX4 since it does this.

So no, you don't run the risk of being shot by someone taking my gun from me.

Alva, I don't want you "protecting" me. Don't you understand that? The fact that you're running around with a gun scares me utterly. I don't feel safer. I feel at greater risk of being shot.

No, I've never taken Krav Maga, but I have taken jujitsu courses, and I also wrestled in school. Of course, I hope to stop a threat before someone ever gets within striking distance from me.

*exits the barrel. sorry I didn't catch that in the allotted edit time.

Alva, really, I'm not so naive as that. Nice attempt to minimize my concern, though. I can kill you with a piece of paper, if need be. :D

And disarming you? not as hard as you'd like to think!

A piece of paper? That's a new one on me. I think anyone will have difficulty disarming anyone at 25 yards. Good thing too. I can shoot a 1.5 inch spread from that distance.

It wouldn't have applied to cannons because those were kept in the local armery

This is what many scholars argue. We're not disagreeing on the fact that the 2nd Amendment was meant to establish militias. But many also believe that the 2nd Amendment was established to also give legal protections to minutemen and volunteers for the militia who would be keeping large armaments at home as opposed to an armory.

The point I was getting at, however, was that there isn't universal consensus on what the 2nd Amendment's application actually is in today's world. That's, again, why I think it's a pointless amendment. If we just had an amendment that said clearly and w/o ambiguity that you can own guns and possess guns, but that such ownership can be restricted by the state then we wouldn't have so many problems.

Like I said it's like w/ the Bible- you're taking an archaic piece of legislation not written for our time period and attempting to make it fit. It doesn't always work so smoothly =P

Mouzer, I agree. No matter how you cut it, the 2nd amendment is very poorly worded. I haven't looked into this all that much, but I think it would be rare for people to keep large armaments in their homes, because large homes were fairly rare in those days. Although I do know that General Washington had cannons in his home during the Revolution. He even had his own troops destroy his home in order to keep the British from taking the cannons.

I do want to thank you for the lively discussion Alva. It's been really nice discussing this

Did any of you read what I said? Or are you just looking for a forum to restate and restate ad nauseum your position no matter whether it actually answers the question asked? Take your discussion elsewhere if you can't say something germaine to what I said. I don't mind your debating endlessly and pompously somewhere else, but at least say something appropriate in response to my comment when "responding" to my comment.

I said, quite clearly, if enough like minded people joined the NRA, they could change it and its' policies, and make it a force for good, instead of what it is. Change must come from within in any political organization--opposition from without only entrenches it in its wrong-headed ways.

So--do any of you have something to say about that?

Yes, Steve, I do. You're right.

However, the NRA is kind of a seething toxic stew, and I'm not jumping in.

Once, I went to a pro-gun chat room, and the level of name-calling, "leave if you don't like it" shouting, etc., made meaningful conversation impossible. Many of them threatened to shoot me, told me I deserved to be shot, etc. No reason, just blind hatred and rage; a tangible force that choked me.

How do you propose breaking through that to reach people who might be willing to work with you for reasonable changes in gun control? With each new public shooting, the pro-gun people become increasingly paranoid and pugnacious, buying more and more guns in the fear that "They're comin' fer ya! They're gonna take yer guns!!" And that fear is being encouraged by the NRA.

Children can't take guns to school if there are no guns in their homes. When kindergarteners are being shot by their classmates, we're long past the need for intelligent conversation.

There's a divide in our country's ideology that grows wider daily. God and guns are on one side, compassion and social responsibility are on the other.

Fascinating dichotomy, don't you think?

Alva,

Do you HONESTLY think a gun will save you from "the extreme right"? They have guns too - why is YOUR gun better than THEIR guns?

Guns are NOT the way to change the world - education and vigilance ARE!. Get involved in political organizations - speak out against some of the nuttiness that is going on in the world - VOTE!!! That is the way to change the world!!!

oncearepublican, I'm involved in many organizations, as any progressive activist would. Hell, I even occupied the US Chamber of Commerce. :) Here's some fun video I shot. Jump ahead to the 9 minute mark for some awesomeness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eMEz8cHA0c

But the reality is that this nation has become reform-proof. What's that old saying? If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.

Protests used to change things for the better, but not anymore.

So if voting doesn't change anything, and protests don't change anything, and organizing doesn't change anything, then what is left?

I'll let you answer that for yourself.

Alva,

If I can't convince people through any means besides force, then it is time for me to leave this country. I really DON'T want to live in a country where the only way I can feel safe is if I have a gun.

Haven't you been watching the polls? Things ARE changing. Isn't it a little early to be thinking about Civil War?

oncearepublican,

I want you to think about this. In 2006 the Dems took back control of the Congress. In 2008 they solidified that control and took over the White House as well. In 2010 the GOP took back control of the House.

In all that time, 81% of the people wanted higher taxes on the rich. What happened? They got tax breaks. 60% wants to get out of Afghanistan. Guess what? We ain't leaving anytime soon. The majority wants Wall Street prosecuted. It doesn't happen. The majority doesn't want Congressmen bribed by corporate lobbyists. What happens? The Supreme Court declares it free speech.

If voting changed things, things would have changed. If protests changed things than the Iraq War never would have happened.

Seriously. What option is left? We have 3 options. 1) accept that our opinions don't matter. 2) leave the country or 3) MAKE our opinions matter.

But for heaven's sake, don't pretend that things are not the way they are.

Alva,

I've come to the conclusion that:

1) You are off your rocker or

2) You are just "baiting" us, putting up a "strawman", if you will.

Much as I am chagrinned by this, I prefer the second option! Good Show! You really had me going!!!

Sigh.

Did you happen to watch Capitalism: A Love Story? Remember that little segment where Citi (or some bank, I forget which) said that the United States was now a "plutonomy"? I assume they meant plutocracy, but corporate executives don't exactly have a good grasp of the English language. (seriously, they don't. Check out Barbara Ehrenreich's Bait & Switch)

Now as a progressive one can look at that memo one of two ways. 1) you can say to yourself, "what a bunch of pompous *fill in your favorite expletive here* Or 2) you can say "wow, they're right."

And they are right. We don't live in a democratic republic anymore. Our opinions really don't matter. How long have we raised hell about electronic voting machines? Did they ever get rid of them?

The heart breaking reality is that we are not a democratic republic anymore. Nothing will change because things have been designed to prevent change. It won't happen. Not now and not tomorrow.

Just think of how much worse this country has gotten over the last 12 years. Did anyone want that to happen? Did we protest against it? Did we vote against it? Did it happen anyway?

If your opinion doesn't matter, and if you do nothing about it, then doesn't that mean you're perfectly happy with your opinion not mattering? If it's time to move, then what are you waiting for?

They may be doing this because a lot of people are so disensitized, and they are trying to bring out the emotion the victims are feeling. I don't know how many times I have cried lately, just looking at Trayvon's parents. Unfortunately, I know what it's like to lose a child. The de-huminization factor is also present. I cannot believe that Republicans are this cold-hearted. Something is at play here, we used to be able to talk to our public officials.Now they are not listening at all. They need to protect us by telling us the truth. If the truth comes out then it can be investigated. I don't know where our loyalty should be right now. Should we trust people who would let us die and not give us medical attention.

"Do you really need to reference that one victim was killed on her birthday?"

Oh, yea, she does!! We all need to be reminded that every one of these deaths was a human being who loved and laughed and felt all the things we feel, and whose "promise" was ended for no good reason.

When we start to see them as faceless persons, "statistics", we lose our empathy for the victims and begin to "accept" their deaths as "just the way the world is", and we do NOTHING to stop this from happening to other people.

I understand your point of view. There are soldiers all over the world who are brainwashed also. Thus, the Arab Spring. Our message as Americans should be that we are against wars, which President Obama is doing a good job with. Maybe we're not there yet. Every country has it's extremist. The dissension is also carried to other Countrys. Just like here we are being brainwashed to turn against each other. Countries have also been brainwashed to turn against each other. And they're all fighting about who has the most oil and who has the most guns. They can't trust us because they see the war that is being waged against it's citizens. Other Countrys are seeing how cruel we treat our poor people, our elderly and our minorities. They have heard the crowds cheering "Let him die" they do not want to associate with a Country who is doing to their citizens exactly what we are doing now. Who is behind the"Let them Die, mentality" ? Whoever it is, is telling other countries their refugees are not welcome here. I would say that this is the bigger injustice against the Constitution.

Alan,

Do you drive a car? There were over 30,000 traffic fatalities last year - about one death every 15 minutes. Now are you going to STOP driving?

Has Al Queda won? Has our society changed so much that we are afraid of doing the things we did BEFORE 9/11?

Oh, blah, blah, blah. Cars are transporation, and stuff happens. Guns exist only to kill things. There is no other reason for guns.

Peanut, guns can also be used to prevent crimes from ever happening.

lol, guns were not invented as a deterrent.

Is it possible to live without oil?

Alva,

You are talking smack!

You really NEED to get over your false sense of bravado! It might save your life!!

What I know from reports about that hair salon shooting was that the man, known to people at that hair salon, burst in and started shooting. I really DON'T think he walked in and said: "Now, I am going to start shooting people, so everybody - go get your guns!"

OK, so you are sitting there in the hair salon with an apron over you and you are reading a magazine and suddenly you feed the "need" to go for your gun. First of all, you are going to have to fight that apron and it won't be the easiest thing you ever did. Then you have to remember to put down the magazine. And all of a sudden, that clasp on your holster is IMPOSSIBLE to open! OK, now you finally have your gun out and you start shooting but at WHAT, because by this time the "bad guy" is gone.

But say you DO shoot someone - know what happens next (or haven't you thought that far ahead)? You BETTER have made the right decision (and it will be by accident if you do) , because if you didn't, you are going to jail for the rest of your life. Just as nobody buys a car without the intent to drive it, no one buys a gun without the intent to use it. And having a concealed weapon means you don't want us to know you have it. No prosecutor in this land would have any problem proving your "mens rea"!!! Is being in prison your idea of a "life"???? And all that SMACK about "having one life to live" isn't going to mean SQUAT in front of a Judge and Jury!!

BTW All that BS about targets and what's behind the target???? Do you REALLY think a cop who has to open fire is first thinking about "what is behind the target"?? Do you REALLY think a cop who has to open fire is thinking about his "breathing" (Oh, yea, wait, I have to slow down my breathing before I stop this guy shooting at me????)???

All that "training" you get at a range shooting at still targets doesn't mean CRAP when you really have to use the gun!!

What, was this guy hiding in a car or a van parked in front of the hair salon and sprinted to the salon? The first guy shot saw what was going to happen. That's why he was going towards the door to try to lock it. What if he'd had a gun instead?

Well, first off I wouldn't be at a hair salon in the first place, but all this is hypothetical. The only way I would be there would be waiting for someone else. Too bad, a salon chair would be great to duck behind. Oh well.

So I'm reading a magazine. Being trained in self-defense, I know to pay attention to my peripheral vision. I see this nut approaching the door. I drop the magazine. I reach into my pants. I do this because I carry with a thunder holster. I squat down and have my gun pointed in about 3 seconds. Yes, I've timed this. If I'm clear to take the shot, I take it. A guy armed to the teeth means business. I aim directly at the tip of his nose. If my aim is on, the bullet severs his brain stem, killing him instantly.

But suppose I miss. Maybe a bullet hits a metal frame of a window, and ricochet's back, hitting the guy who was going for the door. He dies from my bullet. Do I go to prison for murder? No. Why? Because the lunatic who came to shoot up the place is responsible for that guy's death, even if the bullet came from my gun. Knowing the law is part of self-defense gun training.

I don't know what I can tell you if you don't take your own training seriously. I will tell you that I take mine deadly seriously. It's why I practice hitting moving targets. All you need is a block of wood tied to a rope that's tied to a tree. Swing it, and then aim. It's why I will sometimes do 20 quick pushups before firing. Shooting when you're arms are tired and trembling will mimic a similar nervous reaction from the flight or fight response. If you don't know what lies beyond your target, you better not shoot. If you can't take the shot, you can't take the shot. Duck behind something and reposition yourself.

I hope and pray I will NEVER and I mean NEVER have to use my gun to protect myself. But I'm prepared just in case I do.

You know, like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8oEO_MV57I

and this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_Yqk-6KKM8

and this.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNZ0z1hQVZ4

and this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8oEO_MV57I

or this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2wCZsGlg74

how about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1zZGe3f0mc

or this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcLo_TGy7pA

what about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJte2qN_yKQ

or this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duVPOR4BKeU

or this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9lpJM6GriI

or this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3jURuXjjJ8

or this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPYu4Mu2dto

But what you're missing more than anything, is that you're only counting when a gun is fired. You're not counting when a gun is used to prevent a crime from ever occurring.

I've had what I can only assume is a would-be mugger approach me before. I saw him coming. I reached for my gun, but I didn't draw it. The guy changed his mind and walked away.

Hurm. Thinking and training are very different things.

"He was surrounded by guys carrying guns".

And by guys FAR better trained than any civilian will ever be!!

Do you really think civilians are incapable of training themselves in firearm use to the same degree as the police or military? Do you really think they can't have better training than you'd get in the police or military?

keeping someone like a President, who's out in the open, and instantly recognizable to everyone, who has to be around large numbers of people is a hell of a lot harder than just keeping yourself alive. I have full control over my own body. I can duck behind things to keep from being shot. Doing that with someone else, especially if they're not right next to me, sounds like a freaking nightmare.

I'm pretty good friends with a guy who's a retired secret service agent. The amount of training some of those guys get is quite staggering. But you want to know something scarier than your average citizen carrying a gun? This retired secret service agent...HUGE Glenn Beck fan.