Obviously,these Gentlemen need a little "instruction" on the "proper" shooting of people....perhaps set up weapons training classes in the heart of downtown Chicago...

Neo-Confederate code.

Further proof that the gun crazies are against background checks because they know they'd fail. The number of morons with guns is astounding.

But perhaps we can nominate these droolers for the Darwin Awards. Of course, they'll have to get a little bit better at removing themselves from the gene pool in order to win.

i think the hayseeds are pretty good a shooting themselves mr troll boi

Right and the five people that got shot sure think so!

These folks appreciate their guns.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/gun-fails-second-amendment-rights-gone-wrong_n_2490579.html

And on the day of this gun show a 50 year old drive struck two children in Connecticut. Your point is? Accidents happen and we do want to try and limit them, but unless you are wanting to treat cars (which are involved in more injuries and deaths than guns each year) the same way you want to treat cars, you are being hypocritical.

Guns are protected specifically in the constitution, automobiles are not.

You're right. Maybe we should charge about the same amount of money for a gun as we do for a car!

I'm assuming that you couldn't quite write that important third sentence correctly and meant to use the word guns in place of one of the times you used the word cars.

Guns have changed since then. The constitution should change with the times. Unless you'd be happy with just a single shot musket?

Castineme, price of items is directly related to the cost of production. You can find used cars cheaper than some guns.

Yes, you are correct on the duplication of the word "cars" in the third sentence.

Yes, times have changed. So should freedom of speech be limited because there was no violent video games for children to play when the constitution was signed?

I seriously doubt they have read Sanburg but I will bet dollars to donuts that ironically they know this lil' ditty

Lynyrd Skynard Saturday Night Special

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zUGd-VC3wk

Dragoon21b,

Probably they do, but it's probably a safe bet that "Be a Turd", err, umm, "Free Bird" is their favorite LS song.

Whereas Liberals prefer "Kumbaya? or perhaps even more relevant "Money for nothing"?

Personally one of my favorites has always been "Peace Sells"

But who's buying

While they are at it they can do a skit on "Motor Vehicle Safety" as well, because on the same day as these 3 accidental shots at gun shows, over 5,000 went to the emergency room and about 100 died from automobile accidents in the US.

If we saw that on the news every night, there would be a call for more laws regarding automobile safety.

Automobiles are not built to kill someone. A gun is.

Duluthian12,

RobbyWobby (aka Mr. False Equivalence) knows that but doesn't care.

Wait so because something wasn't meant to kill someone somehow that makes it ok?

We are talking about a 1000:1 ratio, and you just nullify it because cars aren't designed to kill people? Shouldn't that make it worse, that more people are hurt by something not designed to kill people than something that is? Or is it just because it's super convenient to what you need in your life. You don't care about guns so it's ok to ban, get rid, restrict or any of the other measures being proposed (it's called a ban for a reason, don't bull@!$%# saying no one is taking anything away).

So I'm glad your conscious is clear. Hypocrites.

Hey Alex: people are LICENSED to drive cars because they are known to be potentially deadly when operated unsafely, and when you do so (DUI) you can lose your right to drive. You want to talk hypocrisy, let's talk about applying the exact same standards to your Smith & Wesson Penis Enlarger.

Guns are not designed to kill, they are design to fire projectiles. The use of the gun is determined by the person holding the gun. Some people hunt, others protect their property, and, yes, some choose to use it to kill others.

As to the licensing, if you mess up with a gun in the same way as a DUI (and are convicted) you lose your right to have a gun forever, that is not true with automobiles. I know of people who have had multiple DUI convictions and still drive.

Alex, isn't it amazing the hypocrisy???

If guns were in the public sphere as often as automobiles, the ratio of injury and death would probably be a lot more analogous. The physics that create injury and death are almost equal, however the potential incidence of contact is much smaller with firearms. Also, there is no licensing for the purchase of guns, unlike automobiles. This, I think violates the 2nd clause of the 2nd Amendment - you know, the "well regulated militia thingy." And, further, since you brought it up, the number of idiots that operate motor vehicles gives me much pause when it comes to the NRA's advocation of universal firearm ownership.

Upon reflection, I nominate RobDon for the bovine feces rationalization award. All firearms, with a scant few exceptions (competition rifles and pistols) are designed to kill. Property protection and hunting are utilization of weaponry to kill the intended target. Not to scare, not to maim, to kill. Military style weapons especially are designed to kill. I highly doubt that the U.S. military spent miilions of dollars developing and mass producing the M16 to "fire a projectile." If so, the military would have been content with single shot Springfields. RobDon's statement about firing projectiles is analogous to calling a thermonuclear warhead an over-sized sunlamp.

Timothy...,

RobDon has a looong history on this site of that sort of thing.

Timothy, I can certainly agree with you comments in part. I probably should have stated guns were not meant to kill "someone" as the orignal commenter stated:

Automobiles are not built to kill someone.

I still would make the case that the gun manufactures do not set out to say, "How can I make our gun kill more..." Most gun owners, the huge vast majority, did not purchase a gun so they could kill someone. If you think otherwise, it is you who are mistaken.

In your logic, police officers carry guns to kills someone. No, they carry a weapon capable of protection and deterrent. Guns are far more often used to stop someone rather than to kill them.

And, I guess the 100 or so people who died in car accidents today are glad to here their death was different than an accidental shooting. Their family must take comfort.

In addition, many of the guns deaths are intentional, meaning their owner (possessor) meant to harm the other person and used it in such a way to harm that particular person. Car accidents and deaths are much more random and puts you at a greater risk.

I'm not saying they are the same, I am saying there are equal comparisons and that gun laws made in haste of emotions is 1) poor law and 2) usually inadequate of the goal. See how New York made police officers criminals by creating a law that made their weapons illegal.

Timothy...,

This sort of petulance and rhetorical flim-flam is typical of him.

Entropy, all you want to do is throw insults or dismissive remarks at anyone who dares to challenge your preconceived ideas of "truth" and relevance. You don't want a debate of ideas, you only want confirmation of your opinions.

If you were truly interested in solving problems or working through challenges, you would engage in dialog instead of heaping accolades on those who share your view and name calling of those who do not.

You are totally undeserving of any serious consideration. I refuse to treat you with anything approaching respect. You have repeatedly demonstrated your dishonesty. You obviously have no interest in honest dialog, solving problems, etc. You are nothing but a right-wing propagandist whose stock in trade is weasel words, guilt trips, and suchlike, and I will always treat you as such. You can take your petulant guilt trip and shove it.

"Guns are not designed to kill, they are design to fire projectiles."

Hahahahahahahaha...., that piece of intellectual flatulence was from RobDon at 6.6.

What kind of a duh mass says something so stupid and expects to be taken seriously? Yeah, and artillery weapons are designed to heave things in the air, not destroy enemy positions. Airplanes are designed get heavy metal tubes in the air and not to transport people. Candles are designed to burn wicks a long time and not to provide a bit of light. Cars are made to make a body metal move but not take people from place to place. ...

Yes, we are supposed to consider only how a tool accomplishes its objective but deny the objective is what to concentrate on.

Unphukking believable. This is what dealing with these phukking buffoons has become. Who would have ever guessed you'd see something so stupid when the discussion was about guns? Oh, ..., that's right. Anybody would have guessed it if they've ever been involved in a discussion with one of these shhit-for-brains gun junkies.

Did I miss sumpin? I thought "Dragoons" carried swords and yes, GUNS !? Maybe its the flamboyant uniforms you like.

Dragoons do and I have and I have also had far to much occasion to use them.

Which is why when I was retired I swore to myself I would never touch another one in my life and so far I have succeed

BDUs are flamboyant?

only when they come in orange and hot pink...which oddly enough they sell at sporting goods stores for people who like to go out in the woods and NOT get shot at

4 Rules for safe handling of a firearm.

1.)Every gun is loaded. (not "as if" its loaded) Assume every firearm you're handling is loaded. Period.

2.)Never cover anything with the muzzle of your firearm that you aren't willing to destroy. (in other words, be very conscious of where the muzzle of your gun is pointed.)

3.)Never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire. Ever.

4.)Always be sure of your target. (and what's BEHIND your target.)

They're simple rules to follow and you will see them broken constantly. Gun shows can be a scary place when you have people that don't know how to safely handle firearms. It's not just rednecks either. I've seen people in law enforcement swing a rifle over the crowd at a few shows. Perhaps its ignorance, perhaps it's forgetfulness, or even indifference, but these rules should be followed at all times by ANYONE handling a gun.

There are two kinds of "gun handlers":

ONE: learned it in Basic Training.

TWO: learned it watching John Wayne movies.

Shadow: Newsflash... A large percentage of gun buyers are not interested in gun safety. Thats a cold hard fact. Because we as a society sell to most anyone, thats the price we pay. We all see these people at the range, fumbling around their packs. I sure try to stay far from these idiots...

You were much more likely to be killed or injured driving to the gun show than by any of the guns at the gun show. Why do we have to have cars that go 70 miles per hour or even 40 for that matter?

and people do not get their guns out every moring to go to work , so why don't you stfu rondon , your fox news blithering again

In 2011, 75% of Americans drove to work in cars

in 2010, just 32 percent of americans own guns ,, according to University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center.

47 percent increase: The change in the number of people wounded seriously enough by gunshots to require a hospital stay from 2001 to 2011. In 2001, 20,844 people suffered gunshot wounds that serious. In 2011, it was 30,759, The Wall Street Journal reports. But the murder rate is going down? Why is that? Because hospitals have gotten better at treating traumatic wounds.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/12/guns-in-america-statistics/60071/

Patango, I am not pretending that it is a perfect comparison only that there are huge similarities. One point noted earlier is that many victims of gun violence was targeted by the gun owner (possessor), automobile accidents are much more random putting you at a greater risk than gun violence (especially given several indicators). To dismiss it is irresponsible.

Patango,

He stays here because he clearly enjoys spouting hogwash and being allowed to do it. Those on the right clearly enjoy being aggressively dishonest.

Entropy, it is impossible for you to be wrong because you seldom include any facts in your posts, only opinion. If you were truly interested in understanding and problem solving you would engage in dialog instead of dismissing those with whom you disagree with labels and name calling.

You are the one hurt in the end, not me.

Malicious misinformation is not "opinion", "point of view", "dialog", etc. You are not here for any honest, constructive purpose, and everybody with any self-respect knows that. Your patent insincerity is nauseating.

"You were much more likely to be killed or injured driving to the gun show than by any of the guns at the gun show"

RobDon makes his case to get rid of gun shows. I agree.

Bridal shows, too...:)

Entropy, you are incorrect. There is value in understanding that hundreds of people are injured or killed in traffic accidents EACH day. The coverage of things like the accidental discharge of firearms at a gun show is much like the shark coverage in 2001.

The sensationalist coverage of shark attacks began in early July following the Fourth of July weekend shark attack on 8-year-old Jessie Arbogast, and continued almost unabated—despite no evidence for an actual increase in attacks—...

The media's focus on any issue can distort the real statistics or frequency. This is NOT to say we do not have a problem with mass shootings, clearly we do.

But you on the other hand, want to pretend there is only one answer, one view, one opinion, etc...yours. I'm not disingenuous, I can be flippant or sharp in my comment, but I try to refrain from name calling or insults, something you clearly have no problem with, but that's your standard.

That said, ignore my comments. Clearly you see truth as threatening and dissent as dangerous, or why else would you continue to attack me instead of addressing my comments?

Your arrogance is phenomenal. You really need to get over yourself. Why don't you ignore me? Your hypocrisy is showing.

I thought I was bothering you. Sorry. Thanks for the advice.

Yeah, we'll see if you follow it. There is a substantial dissection of your rhetorical flim-flam on the following page. I wonder if you will try to deal with it. You have not done so yet.

You'd think these real men with their real toys could do better than just injuries. C'mon, gun nuts! What a disappointment.

Perhaps import a few gangbangers from the killing fields of Chicago for proper instruction?

I bet hurling a few Dale Earnhardt insults through the PA system would motivate these doughy redstate freeloaders to get better results.

Record welfare,Food stamps AND new cases of Disability under this Welfare junkie...who are YOU calling "freeloaders"? LOL

Red states. Get a job you moocher.

Because we're tired of supporting you freeloaders, that's why. Now go check the want ads.

Have you made it through the first volume of the classic "Greatest Hits of NASCAR" this morning? That ought to get you fired up for target practice.

The issue here is gun SAFETY. I know the NRA gives courses in gun safety--those who just HAVE to have a gun in their lives should take the course and re-certify every five years. They would be doing all of us one giant favor.

Your earnestness around the gun addicts is amusing?

Please don't feed the troll.

Don't ignore it, either. Hit "No Value" and "Inflammatory" early and often.

More Neo-Confederate code.

More idiotspeak babbling.

The best strategy for gun safety regulation is just show the public the sort of people how redstate Fox-educated ignoramuses like scottie here thinks. Dumb as a bucket of dirt.

Yep, that's the way it is here in "one nation under [g]od, with liberty and justice for" the right people (pun intended) and to hell with everyone else.

Scott, everything you've said so far only shows how many people wish to have guns. All it means that just because more people want to own guns, it doesn't mean gun control is a bad idea.

Here are other ideologies that were driven by mass thought:

60 years ago, black people didn't have the same rights as white people. 50 years ago, it was more common to think that smoking was harmless to your health. 40 years ago, people were drinking and driving without a thought. 4 years ago, women didn't get the same pay as men for the same type of work. 2 years ago, the military didn't think you should talk about being a gay man in service.

All that changed for the better, not because it was popular, but because it was right.

So, all your talk about people buying guns in droves.... what the f*ck's your point?

Scott, do you really believe that the guns you own will protect you from the arsenal our military currently enjoys? How naive.

C'mon folks. Everyone past the 8th grade should know the 2nd Amendment can't be used to justify individual gun ownership for use against a tyrannical government. A U.S. citizen fighting against the U.S. government is committing treason. (Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution. Yes, the Constitution that the gun idiots all claim to have read and know.) Treason is punishable by death.

What does the Constitution give the body politic as a guard against tyrannical government? Elections.

I suppose it was treason when this country was founded,no? When Government quits listening to it's Citizenry and pushes through Legislation that tramples on the very Document's that give it it's authority? Good luck convincing people of that one. And as I recall, Half of West Point fought for the Confederacy,chief...get a clue.

And those who fought for the Confederacy were, ipso facto, traitors. The US is still paying the price for its failure to treat those traitors as traitors. And furthermore, any Neo-Confederate is, at minimum, flirting with treason.

So what does that make Hussein guilty of then? No less traitorous than any Confederate... committing acts against the Constitution , it is guy's like this anti-American individual, that to keep your mind off of his continuing Economic failure..does a little slight of hand to move the spotlight off the unemployment and Welfare and food stamp rolls....

It's too bad, Scott, we didn't treat your traitor ancestors the way Rome dealt with Carthage. The fact you are here to be the moronic pain in the ass you are is proof we were far too gentle with your inbred traitor family.

This guy has illusions of being an Emperor.But...Your ignorant diatribe changes his Jobs record and Welfare and food stamp numbers...how?

Ol' scottie isn't a very quick learner, is he? Still can't get it through his head that fighting against the U.S. government is treason. Poor scottie.

The Constitution was written in 1789. The Revolutionary War was before that, scottie. Do you know when? (Hahahaha...) So fighting off the British wasn't really in violation of the Constitution, something that hadn't even been written. And it wasn't written to found the British monarchy.

Hahahahahaha..., what an idiot.

I'm certain your blathering has changed Hundreds of thousands of minds on this Socialist and his Bumbling Administration and it's blatant over-reaching. Should really help Liberals in the Mid-terms.....

Exactly, the Socialist to the right of Reagan is blatantly over-reaching. The sainted Ronaldus Maximus was for an assault weapons ban.

Sorry, you didn't make it past the 7th grade. They would have taught you American History in the 8th. Unless that wasn't on the curriculum in the Confederacy you live in.

Oh, well. Nevermind your historical ignorance. It looks like you just might be gettin' yourself a little sideways here, scottie. If you think our Socialist Muslim President Obummer is overreaching, you just might be tempted to take up arms against him and the U.S. government. You know what's gonna happen if you do, don't you?

Now I suggest you go rethink things. Besides, who in the hell's gonna be scared of an aged, overweight, doughy redneck running around with "Don't Tread on Me" diapers?

Scot , we also wrote the 2nd to take care of overly ambitious american traitors like yourself

I suppose Robert E. Lee was "standing up for the Constitution".

OK, Scott, first of all, only about 30% of US Army Officers resigned their commissions to join the Confederate States Army. Only a very small number of enlisted men deserted to join the Confederates. So I would not count on a mass defection if I were you.

Secondly, they say that there aren't any atheists in foxholes. That may or may not be true, but when the lead is flying there aren't any bigots either. It's not going to matter whether the Soldier or Marine next to you is male or female. It's not going to matter what faith they follow. It's not going to matter if they are straight or gay, liberal or conservative. All that's going to matter is that this person is who your life depends on at that moment, just as his/hers depends on you. And yes, I served (and not just behind a desk in CONUS somewhere).

Thirdly, I don't believe there is a single person who is not dependent on the US government in some way. The Federal government helps to fund roads, airports, and waterways improvements. But the most important "benefit" the US Government gives you: every member of the US Military stands guard 24/7 so you will have the freedom to voice your radical opinions and so you don't wind up speaking Russian, Chinese, or Arabic. No, you are not going to make war with your little arsenal. I've seen folks like you in the field, in the gun stores, and in the bars. You are not young enough, strong enough, savvy enough, or tough enough to wage war like the Taliban, so get "Red Dawn" out of your head. In 1776, the weapons employed on both the British and American sides were roughly equal. Most Americans lived on a substistence level, farming; jobs that made people tough. In the 21st Century, any creditable modern military force, including the US military, would prevail against you. Hunting rifles and even assault rifles cannot compete with armed drones, heavily armored vehicles, and precision guided munitions.

If for no other reason than our great military, every one of us are getting a "handout" from the US Government. You may not need any of the "welfare" benefits that you condemn, but it's my experience that like most conservatives, you'll take it if you can. Just like the banks did a few years ago.

Yes, I'm a veteran, a lesbian, and a firearms owner, including a couple of assault-type rifles. Frankly, I do not own them with the intention of overthrowing the US Government. I own them to protect myself from gangs of ultra-conservative "brown shirts" running amok; a threat which I consider to be a credible one, at least on a regional level. When these weapons are removed from their hands, I will happily surrender mine.

I don't think the U.S. military would stand a chance against itself and then the U.S. People. Any target it damaged or destroyed would be an asset taken from itself.

I think it would want to end the chaos and take the smaller opponent, the leadership. What is easier to sack? DC or everywhere else, including possibly Canada (Arms and support), Russia(Arms) and Mexico(Arms and support)?

I do think Canada assist us. Think about it, if the leadership in Canada or the UK started killing it's citizens wouldn't you assist their citizens? I know I would.

That is a terrible thought though.

Too far right and too far left are both crazy. I would defend myself against either. They both are authoritarian, angry, extremist and irrational. They both want your rights and well being. Also they also both believe they are absolutely right and the other side is irrational, angry, stupid, extremist and authoritarian.

Wonder if there were ALREADY laws on the books being ignored to allow this to happen? Now let's make certain we make it harder on LAW ABIDING citizens to attain weapons and we can keep this from happening! *sigh*

Scott: Dead people generally do not speak up for LAW ABIDING citizens. Why do you try to drown out these peoples voices with proclamations about the supposed rights of living people? Terribly disrespectfull on your part, you should be more aware of how craven you sound...

The vast majority of dead people involving Gun violence were made that way either by involving oneself in criminal activity...or by a Criminal committing an act against a law abiding citizen.So again, how does making it harder on those that follow the law lessen these deaths,genius?

ucmyke & Lebowsky...,

People (?) like Scott clearly consider those deaths to be fully acceptable as long as the right people (again, pun intended) can have as many guns as they want.

No, just the REALITY that taking guns from the hands of those that are responsible citizen's leaves the gun's and the advantage over the law abiding citizen's in the hand's of criminals. (You know,the criminals are the ones whose rights Liberals ARE concerned about")

scott..your ignorance is appalling!!.. just because you say something stupid with false information doesn't make it less stupid...all I have to comment to make that faux news informed drivel you just posted a steaming pile..is by telling you that the New town shooter used the weapons his mother bought "for protection"...which he used on HER!!..btw your West Point comment?..half served the confederacy?...how did that work out?.I hope you are stupid enough to try and take on the government...what am I saying? of course you're stupid enough!.lock n load!..idiot!

This Neo-Confederate is a classic example of the ugly reality that those in the Gun Cult are NOT "responsible citizens" and should not be treated as such.

Those with no argument only look pathetic and uneducated..As in Entropy here...look at the people in the streets.

A quick, easy question here...were the states that became the Confederate States of America justified in seceding? No elaboration is really necessary. A quick "yes" or "no" answer is quite sufficient.

Which of course laws were already on the books to stop such things from happening....

With a few more it wouldn't have happened.

Personally I think everyone should be allowed to carry and have as many guns as they want..after all the pro-gun groups are always claiming they need guns to protect themselves, love ones and homes. Even crazy people and criminals should have the right to protect themselves and their property...think about it...I shouldn't have to but /s.

Even more reasons to control guns and who gets to have them.

Hey Alex, thanks for taking time off from your busy work of fornicating your sheep over in Wacko World to come here and give us another demonstration of how big a pain in the ass you worthless wingnuts are.

Alex: 1) there are over 250 million cars registered in the US. There are likely more guns than cars; 2) cars are used by their owners/drivers every day, sometimes multiple times, every day; 3) guns are not used, carried every day by every owner. There are no statistics on that, but a look around your office/home/workplace should suffice. You folks keep using this argument. It is a false equivalency. You can no more equate car safety with gun safety than you can equate aircraft safety with car OR gun safety. Guns are deliberately used by most shooters (suicides & homicides) for their intended purpose of wounding/maiming or killing. Cars have "accidents, but the purpose of operation is not in that category. Deliberate car killings are rare. Yes, stupid car operators wound/maim and kill. Given the numbers, your comparison is inaccurate in the extreme.

Cars and guns don't equate..and yes these individuals were careless or stupid.

Guns are not needed yet cars are.

Cars have uses other than to kill things. And yet, we still require the owner of a car to be licensed, the car to be registered, and come with insurance.

Gun have no uses other than to kill things, especially people. And yet, we don't require owners of guns to be licensed, the gun to be registered, or come with insurance.

There is something terribly and unbelievably stupid about this.

Another drooling homophobe obsessed with the sexual practices of people he wants to eradicate.

Tell you what,genius...look up the word "Deviant" and tell me it's meaning. I could care less, Let's just not make one's sexual preference give to them a protected "minority" status. What about being homosexual makes one a minority?

Scotty just wishes he could act on his suppressed desires. But his wee-wee is so little, even the girls aren't impressed, which is why he has his Glock Penis Size Enhancer.

It's amazing...Coming from the bankrupt and overtaxed cesspool from which you emanate, where do you get the leeway to speak on ANY cognizant issue? ...

How is a rabidly bigoted Neo-Confederate entitled to speak on any issue?