Hey DAY was Wayne Pierre in your dream spouting off to America:

"Badges, what badges, I don't need no stinking badges!?" -Kevo

He must not watch the news, the only guns being used are the ones that are killing people in America. He must not care about that, the only real protection we ever need is from God.

Kevlar > God.

Im sure lots of those people in Sandy Hook or Aurora were praying to god. Didnt help them much did it?

Day...so glad you survived your halcyon chilli-gangsters.Was your fine wife armed when she disposed of them. Maybe some flowers for her today?

Man, all I ever dream about are giant black scorpions the size of school buses

I'm more concerned about the rwnj next door who is stockpiling ammo and guns and beer than I am about the Mexicans across the street. Seriously.

Hahaha-you are definitely a creative thinker! Got a chuckle outa me!

You would be right except that Mexico is known for its extraordinarily strict gun laws. Part of LaPierre's argument is that strict Mexican gun laws haven't protected Mexico from extraordinarily high rates of mob violence. Since the only response possible from our law enforcement is the kind of utter corruption seen in Mexico we need all the guns we can get to fight the bad guys at the gate.

Of course, the real reason the cartels are so powerful is there is a lot of money in supplying the American drug market. We should have learned our lesson from prohibition, nothing enables criminals more than making substances illegal which a significant part of the population wants.

We do have a serious problem with gun violence on our southern border, due to the drug cartels. Juarez has become the murder capital of the world. In the 3rd world, kidnapping rich people is a growth industry. And when a lot of Mexicans live in what barely qualifies as shacks, a middle class American can be considered rich, at least by the standards they're living in.

We could end this tomorrow if we decriminalized marijuana, which is the bulk of the drug cartel's business.

Ron, most of those guns are being bought by straw buyers and taken over the border for the gang drug wars financed by our illegal drug trade. decriminalize drugs, close loopholes. I lived in Phoenix and it seemed there was a gun convention every month. The NRA has fought to limit gun purchases to even one a month! Who need to buy more than one gun a month? Guess. Wayne LaPiere and the NRA are aiding the mexican drug war.

@Ron Byers: you speak of Mexicos gun laws not being effecteve they are, all of the assault weapons, pidtols, ect. are smuggled in from the US. The US border patrol constantly checks vehicles returnning for guns and cash. The cartels ship drugs into the US and guns and money out, they go through straw buyers to obtain the guns. Do the dealers know they do this? You bet they do , id a daler can sell a half million dollares of guns at one time it won't take long to find one that will.

"Nobody listens to those that sound reasonable, "

No one in your loopy circle. But people with brains who aren't scared of everyone who is not just like them DO listen to reason and logic and don't live in paranoid fear.

If I read the ideas of this man on a psych report, I would have to think he was a paranoid, delusional schizophrenic. I recommend confinement and medications until he becomes more lucid and rational. He is the very type who should not be in possession of firearms. He sees danger where none exists. The drug cartels are the same as the gangs that once bloodied the streets of America during alcohol prohibition. You take away the profit and you eliminate the criminals. There has to be some people high up to let tons of pot into the country. Does anyone recall the Wall Street banker who was charged with putting up five million dollars for a cocaine shipment? It takes big money to channel big shipments and we all know it. It isn't someone sneaking in with a pound or two. Why the heck would we put money into a wall between the US and Mexico? Should we put one up on the northern border? Drugs come from direction, too. I guess we could also put a wall on both shores. Al least there would be jobs. LOL

And what size is your tinfoil hat ? "news blackout from the Sandy devastation courtesy of the MSM"

Blackout?

Gee I must have missed that in the nonstop wall to wall 7-24 coverage on my teevee.

I guess the reception aint so clear on your planet.

What news blackout? It was the lead story on every new broadcast I watched for days after.

Not in DC. Certainly not like Katrina's 24/7 coverage and the reports of shooting, looting, and dying. So in comparison, yes there has been a news blackout.

Certainly not like Katrina's 24/7 coverage and the reports of shooting, looting, and dying.

Sandy was overseen by a competent community organizer who knows what it takes to run a recovery operation.

Katrina was (not) overseen by a horses ass in a ten gallon hat whose ignorance was only exceeded by his incompetence.

But that difference is completely lost on you, obviously.

blanks,

Life is not a "Black Hawk Down" movie. That is make believe.

Join the rest of us in the real world.

So, it wasn't reported on Fox News, eh?

Shooter, quick question: is your name Wayne?

You certainly sound as paranoid as the subject of Steve's post.

Here's an example of what Lapierre described. Obviously he's not the one denying reality.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/31/hurricane-sandy-looting-brooklyn-coney-island_n_2047183.html

Blanks Logic: I didn't see it so it must be there.

Seriously ? If there was a chance that Faux Nooze could trump up some manner of failure by the Obama or Bloomberg administrations , don't you think they would be all over it like white on rice . See: ( Libya,Benghazi)

Maybe because there wasn't so much shooting looting and dying as there was in Katrina?

But you knew that, you cute li'l attention whore, you.

http://moelane.com/2012/06/09/troll-hunting-101/

shooter242

June 11, 2012 at 6:54 am

I’d like to encourage more trollery on left wing sites. Specifically pushback on common memes such as identified by Jonah Goldberg as unchallenged cliches. It can actually work, and it can actually change the course of debate.

For instance, I always challenge “the rich take too much of the pie” meme. There is no pie, no one decides who gets what, and the “pie” is a measure of contributions to a total. Ergo the rich don’t take they contribute. It’s been gratifyingly effective.

Try it you’ll like it. Don’t curse and keep the personal insults to a bare minimum, don’t allow moving goal posts or distractions. Ignore trollish responders, and be four times more civil. They hate that.

So, first you say there is a news blackout because of the liberal media, then you cite one lonely article from a left wing site.

You're patheticly bad at this.

Please, this entire post is devoted to trashing Lapierre by denying what is demonstrated by one article. The left is pathetically bad at this. Not Lapierre.

I see, because YOU didn't see 24/7 coverage, it was a "news blackout"...because your experience is reality for everyone.

Sorry, shooter, but your perception of your own importance is over-inflated.

3.5 - Not to quibble but "Black Hawk Down" was based on real events.

I'm not sure whose side the police are on. That's pretty sad, isn't it.

Yes, Secret,

But the film makers took poetic licences that were not historically accurate.

That is the nature of Hollywood.

@ Slappy Magoo

I lived in New Orleans for 16 years and it had the worst murder and crime rate of any city in America. We're talking at least one murder a day. (A few of my friends were murdered and/or raped) And it also had some of the worst poverty and education levels in America, with a literacy rate so low it was astounding. So while I hated Dubya and the way Katrina was handled, it wasn't surprising to me that all that violence broke out after the storm. Katrina set off an already ticking time bomb.

3.8

"UPDATE: NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly announced on Thursday afternoon that 18 individuals were arrested for looting at a Key Foods in Coney Island, and 2 more were arrested in Staten Island, ABC News reported."

Yep, Wayne was right. Law enforcement collapsed.

@Randy Dethrow,

I don't doubt that the dire circumstances after Katrina took an area already hit hard by crime and made it worse. But if D.C. really had less news reports about areas ravaged about Sandy, it might have to do with the fact that, as bad as things were for those hardest hit (and I was down the Shore so I can attest to at least a nugget of the devastation), crime and riots and looting and murder and government inceompetence never reached the levels of Katrina.

I'd also point out that D.C. is an incredibly insular city, and Sandy hit the US about a week before Election Day during a Presidential yea., So DC news outlets may have decided -right or wrong - that the things most directly affecting them warranted more airtime and print space than what was happening further up the coastline.

And finally, I'd point out that Shooter is kind of a dipwad whose only purpose for being here is to make the more sensitive progressives apoplectic with rage, and they take the bait every single damn time. A comment to shooter should be met with a short sarcastic response, followed by a post he once made that lays bare his M.O., and exposes him for nothing more than a common troll, so why get your nipples in a twist?

http://moelane.com/2012/06/09/troll-hunting-101/

shooter242

June 11, 2012 at 6:54 am

I’d like to encourage more trollery on left wing sites. Specifically pushback on common memes such as identified by Jonah Goldberg as unchallenged cliches. It can actually work, and it can actually change the course of debate.

For instance, I always challenge “the rich take too much of the pie” meme. There is no pie, no one decides who gets what, and the “pie” is a measure of contributions to a total. Ergo the rich don’t take they contribute. It’s been gratifyingly effective.

Try it you’ll like it. Don’t curse and keep the personal insults to a bare minimum, don’t allow moving goal posts or distractions. Ignore trollish responders, and be four times more civil. They hate that.

Spoken like a man that's never been mugged by man or Govt. Ignorance is bliss, yes?

In Shooterworld, everyone shall be mugged to prepare for the apocalypse.

blanks, you sound like a man who lives in a bunker waiting for the end of the world.

Donna, you forgot the "fondling the barrel of his gun" part.

How many more children need to die, do you have any estimates? We're not taking care of our children if we allow this to go on. We should not be living in fear for our lives everytime we walk out the door. We did quite alright before macho men and woman decided they needed more protection and a license to kill.

Pea Shooter, not only have I been mugged

but I've been shot, twice in Chicago, this before I join

the Army, 82ND Airborne Paratrooper 13 Bravo.

Since I left the service I've not touch a weapon or

needed one, I don't in fear and I don't live in dangerous

areas. While crimes happen everyday, how many times

in our lifetime are we going to encounter a crime that would

require and armed defense? Should that possibilty compell us

carry a weapon everyday, knowing that if there is a gun in the

home you are 43 times more likely to shoot a friend or family

member. Also just because you have a weapon, that doesn't mean

you will have the time or opportunity to defend yourself, muggers

tend to launch surprise attacks.

Have to agree . I was mugged twice many years ago. Once around 6PM carrying groceries into my apt building. Three teens jumped me as I went in. The building had a tenants watch group and although I was knocked down they got nothing. Second time was about 4AM totally drunk and the police chased the muggers before they got anything although again I was knocked down. Point is even if I had been armed I was jumped before I would have been able to do anything. I too served in the US Army but never used a gun after except once to hunt deer with a rifle

FuturePrez..have you not heard of the emergency Epi-glock?

Speaking of Glocks, for awhile on this blog, I was getting adverts for them. No idea why Glock ads would show up here, of all places.

And yeah, when you put Mr Rogers on your enemies list, you've definitely gone around the bend and over the falls.

Sprint, ad placement engines see the word "gun", and pop an ad for guns in the margin. Computers aren't real good at reading context.....

...and yet if what I have read is true, Ted Nugent has a whole room full of guns and he crapped his pants for two weeks then was deemed insane.

One would think that a gun fan like Ted would want to go into a organization that shoots people.

One would think that a gun fan like Ted would want to go into a organization that shoots people.

But in the Army, the people you shoot can shoot back. Not really what your 21st century patriot wants.

So, are you saying that since its Latino on Latino violence It doesn't count?

The article says:

(1) There are no definitions or statistics to back up the claim that Phoenix is the "number two kidnapping capital in the world."

(2) What kidnapping is occurring in Phoenix is not a spillover of kidnapping in Mexico, where kidnappings are related to the violent drug trade. Arizona kidnappings are related to illegal immigration, which leads to "coyotes" holding vulnerable immigrants until they pay more for being transported across the border.

Therefore kidnappings in Arizona are not a reason to arm people who are not illegal aliens; and illegal aliens who have made it out of the hands of the coyotes do not need to protect themselves from coyotes.

Arizona is not the same as Mexico.

Not true. I read the history "theory" behind this meme. At best it's a reinterpretation of history to suit the authors rabid anti-2nd amendment stance. At worst, it's fabrication.

John you may be overreacting a bit . The oppression du jour in c 1775 - 1785 would be in the eye of the beholder .

I gain admission to the hall of mirrors by virtue of a non reflective mind .

Perhaps, but the authors theory is based on assumptions and conjecture of what was in Madison's mind, not on any actual evidence.

As a consequence, it is Shrodiner's cat. We have no way to tell if the theory is true or not. Repeating it serves no purpose, except to inflame the debate.

I saw no such referencing , assumptions , or conjecture .

The real historical roots of the 2nd Amendment go much further back than 1776-1789. A very old but well respected history, Short History of the English People by J.R. Green begins by describing the social order of the Saxon tribes in northern Europe before they invaded the British Isles--circa 500 a.d. These people elected their leaders, called kings. In order to have a vote a man (women did not count) had to have a "holding" in other words a farm. If a man had a holding he was considered to be a citizen with the right to vote, to serve on a jury and, here is what is relevant to the right to bear arms, he could carry a sword in battle. If he did not have a holding, he could not vote and he could only carry a pike, a sharpened pole, in battle. Thus the right to bear arms was associated with the right to vote and to own property. (This information comes from the first three paragraphs of the first chapter of Green's history. This book is too old to be on-line, but it should be available in the Library of Congress, the New York City Library and most university libraries of any stature.)

The other historical event/events of importance are the English Civil Wars in the 17th Century, when the Puritans took over Parliament and executed Charles I and then the Glorious Revolution in 1788 when James II was driven out (because he was a Catholic, had married a French Catholic princess and had a son who was to be raised as a Catholic) and William (of Orange) and Mary, James's Protestant daughter by a former marriage became the monarchs of both England and Scotland. When James's Catholic son grew up, he made several attempts to lead revolts in Scotland.

As a result the British kings confiscated the guns of many of the insurgents especially in Scotland. Many of them fled to America.

This period of turmoil in England and Scotland was fresh in the minds of the American revolutionaries. What is interesting to me is the connection between the right to bear arms and the right to own property and the right to vote.

Many of these people now who want to be an army unto themselves do not seem to have taken it in that we won the American Revolution, wrote a Constitution which sets up a system of government by which we elect those who make our laws. We have the right to serve in military organizations under the Constitution and to defend the country from foreign invasion and from piracy on the high seas. (Women have even gained the right to be full citizens and fight to defend the country in all services and all ranks -- just last month.)

The right to bear arms has never meant the right to kill one's fellow citizens or the duly constituted law enforcement agents. If you have a grievence againt the government, there are legal methods of redress which are guaranteed under the Constitution and the laws passed according to the Constitution. It is the courts that keep the laws constitutional. And the reason we have elections is to select those who will make the laws. If they do not do their jobs, we vote them out of office. Granted we must stay informed and engaged in the process to be sure our elected representative really represent us and not just the special interests.

To the Teflon Gym with you !

Joe, do you think it is paranoia to buy a gun? I bought my first gun after my neighbor's house got broken into more times than I could count and someone tried to break into my car while it was parked in my driveway in front of my house.

You miss the point. The NRA is no longer about the Second Amendment - it is about the amount of money they can garner from the gun manufacturing sector in this country. He wants people to buy guns to help line his pockets. End of story.

Sounds like you need to move Alva

Alva, I think that there is a difference between buying a handgun or shotgun to defend your home against burglars and buying a Bushmaster with a 30-round magazine to defend your home against some highly unlikely invasion by crazed whatevers.

The first is a reasonable response to a real situation. The second is paranoia.

I think it becomes paranoia when you buy a gun because someone who doesn't know you or your situation tells you that you need to buy one because "they're coming for you".

Alva, it's an unfortunate situation that demands someone prepare for seemingly inevitable deadly force. Would there not be several other options and lines of action that could be taken such as further community involvement, bringing attention of the issue to law enforcement being just a few--perhaps even a change of location if it truly is such a dangerous environment?

15.1 Alva, how has your gun helped the situation?

Citizen, no way. This is my home, and this is where I'll stay. Besides, I got this house for 147k when the market tanked. I live at the end of a cul-de-sac. The last house that sold here sold for 299k. I think in another 7 years or so, I'll be sitting pretty.

Dam, an AR-15 does have a defensive use.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-q2zHIovOE

1 Opinion, I think it's folly to rely on law enforcement. I won't go into it, since it's a long story, but I have had my life placed in serious jeopardy just because the police were more interested in protecting themselves than protecting me. No thanks, I'd rather protect myself.

Secret, if you're asking if I've had to use my gun defensively, no, I haven't. I hope to hell I never, ever have to. But I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

Alva, did you shoot any of these attackers? Do you plan to? Are you aware that, just by having a gun in the home, you are MANY, MANY times more likely to be victim (or have a family member/guest become victim) of gun violence, either accidental or domestic than to need to/be able to defend yourself from surprise attack?

Further proliferation--universal, if the gun manufacturers (read, NRA) have their way--is not the answer. Reasonable control (universal background checks, enforced training, elimination of over-the-top individual WMDs) will do more to reduce the threat than arming everyone.

For those who say, "We outlawed heroin, and that's still around...." There are many basic differences between street drugs and guns. The most important being: I could, if I chose, manufacture drugs wholesale in my basement; not so, guns. It takes a factory to mass-produce weapons; when the production/sale of certain weapons becomes restricted or illegal, the market (demand) dwindles, the supply will dry up.

FINALLY, how did we allow the NRA to phrase the debate as "Everyone armed to the teeth", versus "No guns at all"? Few reasonable people are trying to reverse the 2nd Amendment--that will never happen in America. We agree that law-abiding, sane citizens should have the right of gun ownership; we also, I believe, agree that private citizens shouldn't own tanks, anti-personnel mines, cruise missiles, or nuclear warheads. So SOME level of control is appropriate--we're only arguing about where to draw the line.

And freaks like LaPierre do nothing to advance the debate. Even most gun-owners wish he would STFU.

No Gun Problem here only 1793 since Sandy Hook .

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

A Lot of children... but you know they got in the way of someone stopping looters

Hey Wayne, every "minor" that gets shot is one less gun buyer in the future. You're losing money!

Sales statistics tell us it NOT more people buying guns, it is gun owners buying MORE guns. As Toni Tennille sang, "Once is never enough with a man gun like you."

Effin

Do you have the figures on how many of those killings were done with legally owned firearms?

Also I can't find any data on how many of those shootings involved drug dealers shooting each other.

Gun owners are buying guns largely because if a ban goes through, they plan to sell it and make a bundle. I know a guy who bought an AR-15 for about $400 months ago. He's already sold it for $1000.

Missing the Point: the premises of one argument support a particular conclusion, but another vaguely related conclusion is drawn instead.

The missing point fallacy is a specific kind of fallacy of relevance.

• What difference would it make if you had that kind of data, inspekkktor?
• None. Not a bit of difference.

The fact remains: 1793 people have been shot to death since that fateful day at Sandy Hook.
Guns are a major problem here in America and something must be done about it or more people will continue to be shot to death.

...that the blacks and browns down in the inner city are Americans, are humans, just like them and are deserving of opportunity, just like them...

I uusta think better policing specifically when , way back in the early dawn of civilization , or about 1984 .

I was introduced through the pollution of R Limbaugh that the notion of protecting the public property in the matters of our airwaves , as in being better defended against the crimes of R Limbaugh , then things must certainly find improvement .

The removal of the increasingly thick film of filth , the crude mixture with all the grudging hair splitting artistry in errors of fact and worse , was a civic duty . The deliberate misconstruing of the various poses struck in the dignity of men and women , to flesh out the by now droll , farcical , delusionary cruelties of R Limbaugh's perversions . A spew that has woven a indelible , seemingly permanent sepia over the virginal American smut scape .

I don't wonder if the unanswered charges called swift boating had its demon birth at the nascent pedigree of meretricious branding . The beaming father of the tendentious factoid either has degraded America with his lusts , and search for power , or he has inadvertently made us stronger . I don't know .

So in my own turn , I tuned out the noise . Your -

"Better policing is the answer, developing trust in the society is the answer, giving poor young men a path out of poverty is the answer, better education is the anwser, but the answers all cost money and require hard work."

-is true regardless of hairsplitting circumlocutions found in missing white ladies brides , and our latest 'Reds under the bed' microscopic view mongering .

No Donna You miss the point. as usual you go off on some lame attack when someone asks a real question. The point is that making gun laws for law abiding people doesn't solve the problem. The problem is that people like you never want to address the real problems you just want to make more problems. You are always at the ready for someone on the right to say something stupid so you can paint ALL rebublicans as stupid then you cry like a little girl when someone paints all black inner city males as gangbangers and lowlifes. You can't have it both ways. Get off your dead rear and go explain to those few people making problems that violence is not the answer to all their problems. Most gun deaths are carried out by the inner city youth. That is a fact you cannot deny. So take your holier than thou attitude out there and fix the problem. It's a culture problem and you my dear need to fix it starting with yourself.

*sigh*

Poor inspekktor still so uninformed. Your reading comprehension needs work as well. Google missing the point as an argument technique. You will learn that you are doing the exact same thing as you did in your last post.

• The point you were trying to make bears no relevance to the issue at hand here.
• The point is: not passing laws, not doing anything doesn't do anything to solve the problem and innocent people are still being killed by guns.
• The problem is that people like you say "u never want to address the real problems you just want to make more problems" as a straw man argument in a desperate attempt to defend an indefensible point.
• You accuse others of exactly what you are doing: painting all liberal people as weak, painting all people who need government assistance as lazy, gang bangers, etc. You have a mean case of projection. I suggest you get help for that.
• You are also an insecure person: it is you who is getting emotional and trying to provoke me to respond with the same irrational emotional response.
• When I give you a dose of your own medicine you cry like the little bitch that you are; you can give it out but you can't take it.

You can't have it both ways: you can't remain ignorant, uneducated, and hypocritical and expect not to be called out for it.
It makes no difference who is being killed or who is doing the killing: guns remain a problem and something must be done to make it more difficult to get guns. That is a fact that you cannot deny.
And harping on inner city this, gang banger that...well it only shows you to be bigoted as well as ignorant.
You are brain dead and really, quite amusing.
So take your ignorant, uneducated, hillbilly self and STFU while the educated figure out a way to solve the problem.
And it isn't a culture thing-it's an education thing, you being proof positive of that. And you, my dear, need to go get some education.

That was a very nice "tangent" rant there but you never did come around to why you think that law abiding gun owners are the problem that needs to be fixed.

Sperm doners are the problem and you actually know it but that doesn't fit your agenda. The "Strawman" for the left in all of this is Guns. "Guns kill people" We have to get rid of guns so we can feel like we actually did something. History suggests that doing the wrong thing is NOT better than doing nothing. Just look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Here is something that will work. President Obama has this huge political network, Why can't we aim it at the sperm doners and make them stick around after the orgasm and make sure that they raise the child to be a productive member of society instead of a liability. I HAD a nephew that was shot 5 times and killed in a gas station parking lot by a pants dragging corn rowed peice of crap just because he asked him if his mom ever taught him manners. This 21 yr old had just cut in line in front of 3 or 4 people because he felt "entitled" because he was a bad ass. If in fact the sperm doner that created this POS would have stuck around and instilled some values in him he would not be somebodies bitch in prison, and my nephew would still be alive. Bill Cosby tried in vein to put forth this idea but was beat up pretty bad by the liberals for it. I and nobody in my family blames the .22 pistol in the senseless death of my nephew, but they sure as hell blame the kids parents for not teaching their son "manners". Now I will sit back and wait to hear from you on how My "HILLBILLY ASS is the problem.

inspekkktor,

Your post is a perfect example of pure babble.

You are to ignorant to be talked to in any type of rational way.

And I will tell you why: you make arguments that are irrelevant, and when called out for it, attempt to shift the goal post in an attempt to change the subject.

However: the post 16.10 is pure hillbilly babble.

Try again.

Donna

Go ahead and live in your little college theater world where you know you are safe from reality.

inspekktor,

Go ahead and live in your little uneducated trailer park world where you know you are safe from reality.

You got that right. La Pierre and Hitler/Goebel/Goering are a good match. Hitler wanted to restore Germany ( after it's defeat -1st WW) and create the 3rd Reich purified from non-Aryans and other unwanted subjects, to him, riffraff's. His corrupt, evil gang and inner circle managed to steal, plunder, loot, confiscate and, otherwise, enrich themselves on the shoulders of the brainwashed society and those in the extermination camps. The end is history - genocide and a country in roubles. You have nothing to fear, but the power hungry demagogue La Pierre himself and his lobotomized gang called NRA -NSDAP). He is following his own " Mein Kampf!" He is misusing the 2nd Amendment to create his own SS and Gestapo Militia/Force/Army, to ultimately topple the government and create an America under his dictatorial rule and demented vision.

I think you got it :

Gun Futures : Better than gold or Platinum

"Many people buying guns are doing so because they want to resell them after a ban kicks in. They expect to make a lot of money off of it."

That's the Amurricun Way, doncha know? Wayne is nothing more than a paid spokesmodel for gun manufacturers. His speeches should be followed by that rapid-fire disclaimer you always hear after automobile ads on the radio.

Sick and F is right: I googled .223 ammo the other day, and 1000 rounds (five 200 round 'battle packs') are now north of $900.

The gun store I went to had a limit on the number of magazines they will sell to a single customer. This store had an entire wall dedicated to extra magazines. Floor to ceiling, perhaps 20 feet wide. There were only 3 magazines still in the store.

Remember that gun buyers are conservative, and they have a very pro-business mentality. They're looking to make a buck. That's why gun sales are going through the roof.

I kid you not. 1 month waiting periods for just about all guns.

One of the cheapest places to find an semi-auto tactical rifle like an AR-15 or an AK-47 is from a website called Atlantic Firearms. They're having trouble just keeping their website up and running. They are sold out of just about everything. See for yourself!

http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/

Sooo... make weed legal and keep the guns. Got it.

Are you sure you aren't being paid by LaPierre?

Donna..do you not like weed? Is weed, in your mind. more dangerous than guns? Are pot smokers to be lumped into the same group as cartel gangsters? Face it. the US has run out of good options. Now she must choose the lesser of two evils.

I love weed. Smoked it when I was in college. Those were good times. Then I grew up and put that part of my life away. I got no problems with those who like to smoke weed; more power to them. Hope that answers your question there, sheppy.

And weed was not "on my mind;" but is sure as hell is on Alva's mind, so you need to ask him that question. And Alva "lumped weed smokers into the same group as cartel gangsters," so again, you need to take that up with Alva, not me.

So as to what YOU need to face: reading comprehension is your friend.

My point was this: the sole action of making weed legal will not get rid of America's gun problem. So face THAT, sheppy.

There. I hope I answered your "questions."

Donna, making weed legal won't solve the problem, but it would go a VERY long way towards fixing it.

Consider that pot is by far the most popular illicit drug in America. It is incredibly popular. There's no comparison to other illicit drugs like heroin, meth, cocaine, etc.

Much of the gun violence in this country is happening in the inner cities, where there's gang warfare going on over drug dealer territory. Pot is the single most popular product sold by the Mexican drug cartels.

But here's the thing. No one in California will buy weed from Mexico. They can get it legally with their medical card. They get quality product from quality producers who are Americans, and they're well regulated.

The vast majority of the drug cartel's product is going to the American south. Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, etc.

If we legalized pot nationally, the drug cartels would see 90% of their profits evaporate overnight. Drug gangs would lose the vast majority of what they have to sell as well. It simply would no longer be profitable to stay in a gang.

The same thing happened with alcohol prohibition. Alcohol became illegal, and selling alcohol suddenly became very cut throat and incredibly profitable. Once it was legalized again, all those gangsters were left with nothing left to sell.

Alva's right. As a deputy sheriff we don't really worry about weed, unless you are driving while intoxicated, or selling mass quantities of the stuff. Oregon too has a medicinal card program and the Mexican stuff is regarded as crap. I think if it were regulated and taxed like tobacco we'd see a lot less incentive for the illicit trade.

Meth is far and away our biggest drug concern, though driving drunk is pretty darn close.

I get you, Alva, I do: but STILL: the gun issue will not be solved by doing that alone, and to think so is really unrealistic. Really. You seem rational in most things, but when it comes to guns, you lose your perspective on things.

Donna, I don't know how much of the problem it will solve. I think the only way to know for sure, is to legalize it and see what happens.

What strikes me is that when looking at the data of gun violence, almost all gun homicides happen in impoverished neighborhoods, where gangs and the drug trade is a serious problem. I wonder if weed was legal, if Hadiya Pendleton, the teen girl who performed at Obama's inaugural would still be alive today.

If we legalized weed, yes there would still be firearm homicides. But instead of 11,000 dying every year, I suspect it would drop to below 3,000. That would still put the US in a bad spot by international standards, but it would also mean a lot of lives would be saved.

I know what you're saying. Your love of guns seems to border on the irrational side of things.

And the "impoverished neighborhoods are the problem" meme is something that you, inspekktor, and Ann Coulter seem to use all of the time. And my answer to that is: So the f*ck what? Does pointing fingers to lay blame solve anything? Does it lower the amount of people who are being killed by guns?

I am sure those parents at Sandy Hook lay the blame at the feet of those neighborhoods and not the fact that it is incredibly easy for anyone, including the mentally unstable to get access to guns.

Those impoverished neighborhoods are proof positive of the symptom of the disease, and should NOT be used as an argument to do nothing about gun control.

As a matter of fact, it seems a really f*cked up argument to use to defend one's self. It seems quite callous; THOSE people are killing each other so we should do nothing about gun control. Well, one of the reasons THOSE people are shooting each other is because it is easier to get a gun than it is to get a job in those neighborhoods.

Which brings me to my next point: those who are desperate to keep all their guns don't give a sh*t about those people, are not interested in WHY this is happening, and will not lift a finger to help the people who live in those neighborhoods, other than to point a finger(see? see? its their fault) or point a gun at, and as a reason to keep their bigoted beliefs by validating the stereotype of "those people."

To use your first sentence: Alva, I don't know how much of the problem it would solve. I think the only way to know for sure is to profoundly limit the access to guns, ban certain types of guns, and do everything possible to get those guns off the street.