Worth A Thousand Shells?

A Leak in The Blue Wall?

It has been said a picture is worth a thousand words; as a self-taught photographer, I can attest to the power of an image. Michael Moore, in a recent piece in the Huffington Post, alluded to this power in mentioning the case of Emmett Till, the marchers at Selma, Alabama, and My Lai. I am surprised he made no mention of the role the pictures from Abu Ghraib probably played in turning public opinion against the war in Iraq.

But what he was wondering about was what the effect would be if the pictures of the 20 children from the Newtown school shooting were to be made public? The pictures would have to be either leaked, as Moore suggests, but another scenario could involve someone hacking into the Newton Police Department's system.

From Moore's research, the pictures would be gruesome. One of the parents did request an open casket funeral and the Governor of Connecticut was moved to tears?

But would people be that affected? The "Bloody Fetus" is a common picture used by opponents of women's reproductive rights, and many people have likely grown used to seeing images of bodies shot with automatic weapons from movies and video games.

The NRA would surely have some response to rationalize this. Most likely they would dismiss this as another attempt to turn public opinion against the 2nd Amendment. But that rhetoric may just be sounding more and more shrill as people see through the NRA.

Would I look at the pictures. Probably not, I don't take well to such images. But as has been proven time and time again, sometimes a picture can lead to a million voices.


Comments 162 comments

Sooner28 3 years ago

I think the emotional impact alone would forever change the gun debate.


Alberic O profile image

Alberic O 3 years ago from Any Clime, Any Place

The emotional impact will be greater, and more fallacies will be slung by both sides. Arguments are going to be purely based on emotion, not logic.

Pictures or movies of people severely wounded or killed is nothing compared to seeing it in real life.


Cantuhearmescream profile image

Cantuhearmescream 3 years ago from New York

I agree with Alberic O; emotions would fuel the debates rather than logic and in turn be counterproductive for the issue at hand. Like you, I don't think I would want the see the pictures; knowing the story is enough for me and graphic images would probably prevent me from sleeping at night.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

We'd finally see what we care more about...the carnage and horror that gives certain people pleasure is what we care about, not children's lives. We would NEVER allow assault rifles in public arena if we cared about lives.


Neall profile image

Neall 3 years ago from Philadelphia

While I totally see Michael Moore's point, I don't believe the pictures should be shown for the sake of the families. Someone of the ilk of a Wayne LaPierre knows exactly how much damage was done to those kids and seeing the pictures, if that person would even look at them, would do little or nothing to change their minds. So why put the families and friends through it? Several years ago there was a young man from where I live who was captured by the Taliban and had his head cut off. The execution was videotaped and put on the internet. For all I know it may still be on there. I was teaching school at the time and all my kids were talking about it. I could never bring myself to view it. It made me sick. I didn't even know the guy. I can't imagine seeing a picture of my kid, family member or someone I know.


ikepius profile image

ikepius 3 years ago from Twittosphere: @ikepius

In the interest of the affected families I say the pictures should not be released. Imagine the heartbreak of seeing your slain kid being hijacked by politicians to score points.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Well, it's good to hear the anti-freedom folk admit that all they have to offer to the conversation is inflamed emotions.

BTW... it's a real shame that lovemychris wants to ban such things as hammers and fists. We would NEVER allow these things in public arena if we cared about lives.

In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded...

For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-...

Another interesting fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded...

I don't think LMC is going to get away with his call to ban all arms below the elbow though.


TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 3 years ago from Camp Hill, PA Author

As do the insurgents and insurrectionists, Jack.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Ahahaha----where did he say that? That lmc is some guy...saying things in your mind!

Ban assault rifles, 100 round clips, those bullets that cut through police vests....as Feinstien said: that leaves 2, 256 weapons to choose from. Isn't that enough? Do you need a Bazooka?

And keep in mind, the words not allowed to speak in your 1st amned ,due to Cons tender eardrums, and the uterus you seek to own, by spitting on 14th.


Mike 3 years ago

@love

The biggest gun running in the nations history was Obama's "Fast and Furious" that got 250 Police Officers murdered as well as several thousand citizens of Mexico. Obama, Holder and the ATF broke the law called "The King Pin Act" which is specifically for gun running into Mexico, Feinstein wrote the law and she ignored it because Obama is the one who broke it. Is she so senile that she thinks people don't know about her selective enforcement of gun laws, she makes it seem that laws are for only the little guy now. I can already see millions of fists raised on high with the middle finger extended to Ms. Feinstein as a salute.


TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 3 years ago from Camp Hill, PA Author

Typical insurrectionist rhetoric, Mike.

Read my hub "Why Mess With The US?" and get back to me. . .


Mike 3 years ago

Afraid not, those are facts.

Feinstein is just a huge hypocrite. She feels us commoners should be heavily restricted on what firearms we are allowed to own and where we should be able to have them, but she awarded herself a concealed carry permit. How many other commoners have been issued a concealed carry permit in the great state of California?

It is interesting why some politicians think that their right to self-defense, whether in the form of concealed carry handguns or personal armed security, is superior to others’ right to self-defense. I thought the Democrat Party was all about equality and rights? It appears to be more about government control over individuals.

Feinstein says she no longer has a concealed carry permit… because she no longer needs one. As a United States Senator, she has access to armed security. But when she someday exits office, does anyone wonder if her home will be without any kind of arms on the premises?


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Lmc sez: Ahahaha----where did he say that? That lmc is some guy...saying things in your mind!

Jack replies: Well, let’s take a closer look, shall we.

Lmc previously posted: “We would NEVER allow assault rifles in public arena if we cared about lives.” That’s a direct quote, my friends.

It’s well established that baseball bats and hands cause FAR more deaths a year than so-called “assault rifles” do. Since lmc “cares about lives” then obviously, logically, and rationally, he would never allow baseball bats and hands in public. And we noticed that he never actually quite denied that, eh.

Lmc sez: Ban assault rifles,

Jack replies: lmc has never quite come to an understanding of just what a so-called “assault rifle” actually is. But he knows he doesn’t like them. Ffffeeelllllinnnngggssss is the primary concern here, my friends. If you would like to know more than lmc, and have a logical and rational understanding of the firearms you can always read my hub on Assault Rifles: Evil Black Guns.

You’ll know more in five minutes than lmc has learned in a lifetime.

Lmc sez: 100 round clips,

Jack replies: About 100,000 100 clip “magazines” out there in the public. Lmc can post about maybe, three or four incidents where one was used to do harm to others. That means that because less than .001 percent of people misuse one, lmc thinks that the other 99.999 percent of the law aibiding citizens should be punished. He really, in his heart, believes that the behavior of the weakest amoung us, the social deviants, those obey no law, should set the amount of freedom that the rest of us get to have.

Lmc sez: those bullets that cut through police vests....

Jack replies: This, my friends, is an example of how ignorant people who attempt to make laws wind up with ignorant laws. Lmc is just too ignorant to know that virtually every rifle round in existence will shoot through a standard police vest. Yes, that includes the very same rounds that Uncle Bob takes deer hunting with him… but lmc? He is now on record as wanting to ban Uncle Bob’s hunting rifle.

lmc sez: as Feinstien said: that leaves 2, 256 weapons to choose from. Isn't that enough?

Jack replies: Feinstien? You mean the lady who is surrounded 24/7 with armed security guards? That Feinstien? And you believe that SHE is the one to look for as to what America “needs.”

Lmc sez: Do you need a Bazooka?

Jack replies: I wasn’t aware that bazooka were part of the thread. My bad. Perhaps you can point out where I missed that part of the conversation.

Lmc sez: And keep in mind, the words not allowed to speak in your 1st amned ,due to Cons tender eardrums,

Jack replies: What? Those who support the 2nd Amendment just love the 1st Amendment. It is the best way for us to be able to spot those like lmc who offer nothing but emotion and feelings to the debate. And spurious info.

Lmc sez: and the uterus you seek to own, by spitting on 14th.

Jack replies: I must have missed the word “uterus” in the Constitution the last time I looked at it. But if you want to be known to the world as a supporter of killing babies in the uterus I won’t stop you. But it does point out your hypocrisy that millions of children in the uterus can be wantonly slaughter and you don’t blink an eye, but a few post-uterus children are killed by a madman and you want to rip the Constitution to shreds.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

tpc sez: As do the insurgents and insurrectionists, Jack.

Jack replies: Well, t, when the insurrectionists come for you there is not a whole lot you'll be able to do about it, eh. Good thing they really are just imaginary boogeymen hiding in the closet of frightened little paranoiacs who have to demonize those who disagree with them.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

I cannot belive the amount of gobbledeegook that passes through here.....Good Night Irene.....

Where do they find these people?

Honest to god--they believe Beckles the Evil Clown and Klannity!!!

This is why I don't even read what people post: it's gibberish.

But I'm with you TPC....the insurrectionist are going to have their day! That blood they seek to spill in the name of Liberty is never going to happen.

As Max Keiser said, if they had any intention of using guns to stop tyranny: they would have done so a long time ago.

As it is, all they did was rah rah sis boom bah, W is our man!!

This country has long since moved past their 1850's mentality. They should probly go find a cave to live in.

"Me Tarzan, you Jane." ugga bugga


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

lmc sez: "Me Tarzan, you Jane." ugga bugga

Jack replies: And ~this~, Dear Readers, is the very best that lmc and ilk can do. As duly noted... all ffffeeeelllliiiinggggssss and no ability to discuss the problem in a rational and logical manner.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Uh, no...actually I though the part about people speaking gibberish was much better. I mean: if you can handle sl*t on the air, but not bOObs, and think an egg is a human being.....over and above the human being whose life it resides in.....then what do you expect!

Not to mention anyone who equates a fist with a 100 rounds of ammo.

What is that: genius? Hardly.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

ltc sez: Uh, no...actually I though the part about people speaking gibberish was much better.

Jack replies: As duly noted, ltc relies virtually 100 percent on emotions.

ltc: I mean: if you can handle sl*t on the air, but not bOObs,

Jack replies: This really is the best he can do. :-)

ltc: and think an egg is a human being....

Jack replies: I am not aware of any one who thinks that an "egg" is a human being. But as typical, you can't be honest in your statements. Doesn't that get tedious?

ltc sez: over and above the human being whose life it resides in..

Jack replies: Yes, a human baby resides in her mother's womb for nine months. That's kinda the way nature planned it.

ltc sez: Not to mention anyone who equates a fist with a 100 rounds of ammo.

Jack replies: That's pretty damn cold of you, ltc, to not have any compassion for those hundreds of people who are killed each year by fists. And hammers. Hundreds upon hundreds more each year than are ever killed with a "100 round magazine."

I guess those lifeless bodies who left loved ones weeping on their behalf just don't count with you.

ltc sez: What is that: genius? Hardly.

Jack replies: You're right. It doesn't take a genius to know that a baby person in the womb will never, ever once be born as a puppy, a turtle or a frog. It will always be born as a human baby. If we let it, that is.

But it does point out your hypocrisy that millions of children in the uterus can be wantonly slaughter and you don’t blink an eye, but a few post-uterus children are killed by a madman and you want to rip the Constitution to shreds.

BTW.... Dear Readers.... did you note that there was not one sentence of logic or reason in ltc's post... just pure eeeemmmmoooottttiiiiooonnnaaallll ranting.


Mike 3 years ago

@ tea

"Typical insurrectionist rhetoric, Mike."

That is one of the things that folks like you label people who don't agree with you. You expect people to follow your cause even though you are unable to argue or even adequately express your viewpoint. All you can do is think there must be something wrong with others because they don't follow your web of nonsense.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Here's the good news...since you feel that way...you do not ever have to have an abortion!!

But you want to force me to give birth! See the difference?

Just as I would never own a gun.....But not stopping you from killing should you see fit.

See--I coud've had an abortion as we speak, and would not affect you in the least.

However----when you allow those big guns w all those bullets around my family.....that's your fist knocking on my nose.

I'd say I am minding my own business--as long as you don't tread on me. You are saying you have every right in the world to tread on me.

See the difference?


Mike 3 years ago

@jack

I think love is just batshit crazy.


Alberic O profile image

Alberic O 3 years ago from Any Clime, Any Place

Some of the information spewed out is wrong. See the following below.

Assault rifles are rifles that can fire both semi automatic and burst/automatic. These rifles are heavily regulated by the ATF (along with machine guns, sub machine guns, automatic pistols, explosives, mortars, rocket launchers and other dangerous arms) and you cannot own one with out paying special taxes and having a permit. So technically speaking, you can legally own a bazooka. Just prepare to pay money and go through the ATF background check.

Rifles that look like assault rifles but fire semi automatic only are not classified as assault rifles (under federal law and in many states) unless they mean the definition as stated in the first sentence in the 1st paragraph. Mechanically speaking, your civilian AR-15 is not that much different from a typical semi auto .22 rifle.

However, semi automatic rifles that look like their assault rifle counter parts (but again they are mechanically different) may be termed 'assault weapons.' If you study firearms or know about them, you will find this is not an actual firearms term. For gun control debate purposes, it is a political definition for any firearm(s) that 'needs' to be banned.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

2,236 or so guns you have to choose from.......and I can't say bOOb on tv or radio.....I'd say you have WAY more rights than I do.


Mike 3 years ago

@love

"2,236 or so guns you have to choose from.......and I can't say bOOb on tv or radio.....I'd say you have WAY more rights than I do."

How is your restriction of speech our problem? I haven't seen any of the pro-firearm folks on here attempting to place more restrictions on you or advocating current ones. I think you're just nuts.


TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 3 years ago from Camp Hill, PA Author

They are not imaginary, as the Coalition To Stop Gun Violence has pointed out


TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 3 years ago from Camp Hill, PA Author

The only nonsense I and more and more Americans see, is what's coming from LaPierre and the rest of the Gun Manufactuers lobby.


TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 3 years ago from Camp Hill, PA Author

This from a person who seems to put more worth on an inanimate object than a human being?


Mike 3 years ago

Really? Now you are quoting the most extreme groups possible to back up your arguments?


TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 3 years ago from Camp Hill, PA Author

Keep it up LMC. Let people see how the insurrecionists "think'


Mike 3 years ago

I haven't seen any insurrectionists (spelled correctly) yet on this hub. I have seen people questioning why there should be more restrictions passed on them without a clear argument of the benefits. Stop arguing like a 6 year old and state your case.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Wednesday, Jan 23, 2013 4:20 PM UTC

"Religious right joins the NRA in gun control battle

Unsurprisingly, groups like the Family Research Council and the Liberty Counsel are standing with Wayne LaPierre"

**********

Same people who fined Howard Stern off the air, fight against gay rights, and seek to invade my womb.

They are all one and the same. Vast Right Wing Con. Or, as I see it: fascists.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

The benefit is we get no more mass murders because some "lone" nut gets his hands on a 30 magazine gun.

More living/less dead.

articel on nra n relig right

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/religious_right_jo...


Mike 3 years ago

"The benefit is we get no more mass murders because some "lone" nut gets his hands on a 30 magazine gun.

More living/less dead."

So you really believe there would be no more mass homicides in this country if 30 round magazines were banned tomorrow?


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Less of them, that's for sure.

10 bullets at a time is plenty to protect yourself.

If not, you shouldn't have a gun in the 1st place.

OverKill...literally.


Mike 3 years ago

I find it highly unlikely that less innocent people would be killed if magazines were limited to ten rounds. Have you done any research on the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban? It had no effect at all on crime. Are you aware that the Columbine massacre happened right in the middle of the ban?

Once again, you are focusing your attention on the tool rather that the person using it.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Hey--I'm being generous. I'd like to see all guns thrown into the sea.

If you see no limits in what you can do......then we have a different view of your fist ending where my nose begins.

You do NOT have the right to own an assault rifle at all, imo.

That is a military weapon, not meant for civilian use.

It was brought into civilian life by the Iran/Contra black-ops, and of course, allowed to stay by the same gang.

You have 2,000 or so choices of deadly weapon to choose from, if that's not enough for you: tuff.

WE have the right to live free from your guns, too!

And the 1st line of the 2nd amendment is WELL REGULATED.


Mike 3 years ago

"Hey--I'm being generous. I'd like to see all guns thrown into the sea."

Unfortunately this is the base of the argument of the anti-gun side. They often start out saying that only certain firearms should be banned then admit the truth and wonder why people don't trust them.

"If you see no limits in what you can do......then we have a different view of your fist ending where my nose begins."

There are already thousands of limits placed on firearm ownership.

"You do NOT have the right to own an assault rifle at all, imo.

That is a military weapon, not meant for civilian use."

Please explain to me what the anti-gun folks deem as an assault rifle. It has become nothing more than a catch phrase to elicit emotion.

"It was brought into civilian life by the Iran/Contra black-ops, and of course, allowed to stay by the same gang."

Ok, and what does this have to do with firearm ownership in the United States?

"You have 2,000 or so choices of deadly weapon to choose from, if that's not enough for you: tuff.

WE have the right to live free from your guns, too!"

I'm absolutely certain my firearms have not impacted you in any way.

"And the 1st line of the 2nd amendment is WELL REGULATED."

The second amendment has been a hot topic. You and I will likely disagree on what it means, but the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it to protect private firearm ownership. Case closed.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

"There are already thousands of limits placed on firearm ownership."

Well, how did high-capacity magazines, .40-caliber Glock, AR-15 assault rifle, .223 Bushmaster semiautomatic assault rifle get through those?

You know why? Watered down by NRA, that's why. Paid off pols.

How come they get to have bullets that cut through police vests?

WHO needs those?

I think the 2nd means to protect yourself and your family, not the ownership and obsession with "trophy" killing machines.

Well regulated means just that. Just as I cannot say offensive words in the public space....so you can't throw whatever type of weapon you feel like into the public space.

I can't drive over 55 on my highway, must be licensed, pay every year for registration, inspection, insurance and wear a seat belt.

This is not for me...but for the good of society as a whole.

Maybe you might consider the cost to society for all the gun violence, injuries and death?

The gun-nuts have taken a very dangerous instrument and set it loose on the world. For all to use, no barriers, no requirements, no safety of others taken into account whatsoever.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Lmc sez: Here's the good news...since you feel that way...you do not ever have to have an abortion!! But you want to force me to give birth! See the difference?

Jack replies: Unless you were raped I don’t see anyone “forcing” you to become pregnant. See the difference? And yeah, with most people there is an inbuilt system that demands we protect innocent children from harm. Some people are born without that – they are called sociopaths.

Lmc sez Just as I would never own a gun.....But not stopping you from killing should you see fit.

Jack replies: Notice, Dear Readers, how lmc tries to equalize “owning a gun” with “killing someone”.

Lmc sez: See--I coud've had an abortion as we speak, and would not affect you in the least. However----when you allow those big guns w all those bullets around my family.....that's your fist knocking on my nose.

Jack replies: Thank you, lmc, for showing the ultimate bankruptcy of your argument. When a pregnant lady with her unborn child walks into an abortion clinic – only one of them walks out alive.

When any person in any family sits in a room with one, ten, a thousand guns, they walk back out alive because the guns don’t do a damn thing to hurt them. Not even a scratch on the nose.

So… one dead person on one side of the equation… and everyone alive on the other side. See the difference? No… of course you don’t. But others certainly do.

Lmc sez: I'd say I am minding my own business--as long as you don't tread on me. You are saying you have every right in the world to tread on me.

Jack replies: If you want the right to murder children without people “treading” on you then go ahead and claim it. I certainly won’t stop you from declaring that to the world. I am glad to let you point out the “difference” between you and I.

But again... see how she constructs all her thoughts on pure feelings and emotions.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

mike sez: I think love is just batshit crazy.

Jack replies: No... just hyper-emotional without a logical bone in her body.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

lmc sez: The benefit is we get no more mass murders because some "lone" nut gets his hands on a 30 magazine gun.

Jack replies: Almost a 1,000 people each year die because of hammers and fists and you don't give a damn.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

lmc sez: 10 bullets at a time is plenty to protect yourself.

Jack replies: And isn't it amazing, folks, that people like lmc who never shot a gun, who are dreadfully afraid of guns, who believe that guns CAUSE good people to go bad, who only barely know which end the bullet comes out of, are somehow the people to whom we should take advice from on just what kind of gun works best for self defense?

While we simple-minded, misguided, befuddled people with years and decades of military and other experience with guns in all circumstances really apparently have no clue about how to effectively make guns work, and without the anointed ones guidance we will merrily continue to shoot ourselves in our feet, kill our children, and generally screw up society?

Like they say: When you're sick you go to a car mechanic; when you're in court you need a good butcher; and when you want to know something about how to defend yourself, you go to lmc.

lmc thinks that ten rounds are sufficient because she read it somewhere and that makes her ffffeeeelllll ggggooooddd. She has no logic behind it... no reason for stating so... no anything. Just pure emotions.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Lmc sez: Hey--I'm being generous. I'd like to see all guns thrown into the sea.

Jack replies: Brings to mind a fascinating article titled “A World Without Guns.”

http://old.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.sh...

lmc sez: If you see no limits in what you can do......then we have a different view of your fist ending where my nose begins.

Jack replies: lmc is fixated on her nose. Must be a real honker, eh. But here’s her hypocricy. A gun owner never touches her nose. A gun owner is not interested in her nose. Her nose is her nose. Me owning a gun has NOTHING to do with her nose.

This is why lmc never actually make sense in her posts, and why she can’t be reasoned with, ultimately. She equates the mere ownership of guns by someone else with an actual physical assault on her body. I am sure there is a psychological term for such thinking but I call it living in fantasy land. That works for me.

Lmc sez: You do NOT have the right to own an assault rifle at all, imo.

Jack replies: Lmc has had plenty of opportunity to read my hub on Evil Black Rifles but she has always perfered to live in the fantasy land where she doesn’t actually even know what an “assault rifle” is (but it sounds ssssccccaaaarrryyyy).

Lmc sez: That is a military weapon, not meant for civilian use.

Jack replies: The Henry lever rifle was designed in the early 1860 as a “military weapon.” It became the most feared weapon of the Civil War, responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of soldiers. It also became the most popular hunting rifle for the next 100 years, and is still one of the top three choices for hunting everything from rabbits to elephants.

The Mauser bolt action rifle was designed in the 1880s as a “military weapon.” It became the most feared weapon of the Boer War and every war between then and WWII. It was responsible for killing millions of soldiers. It also became the second most popular hunting rifle from the 1920s to today. Millions of citizens take to the fields every spring and summer carrying a bolt action to take game.

You want to explain more to us in your ignorance about guns and the proper use to “military rifles”? You want to show the world more about your absolute lack of knowledge of the history of guns and how they have been used thru the centuries?

Lmc sez: It was brought into civilian life by the Iran/Contra black-ops, and of course, allowed to stay by the same gang.

Jack replies: This is just pitiful. The AR style rifle has been available to civilians since the early 1960s, and was sold on the civilian market before the Army even had one. Lmc is just ranting purely emotionally and has no facts, no reason to her sentences.

Lmc sez: You have 2,000 or so choices of deadly weapon to choose from, if that's not enough for you: tuff.

Jack replies: It is not a choice that you get to make.

Lmc sez: WE have the right to live free from your guns, too!

Jack replies: Actually, you don’t. You cannot find that “right” in any laws, any history, any philosophy or any religion. But it makes you ffffeeeellll ggggooooodddd to post it, eh.

Lmc sez: And the 1st line of the 2nd amendment is WELL REGULATED.

Jack replies: And why you find out the actual meaning behind the 17th century use of the phrase then get back to us. But with your inability to even know the history of the AR going back just a few decades I don’t hold out much hope for your understanding of history a few centuries old.


Mike 3 years ago

"Well, how did high-capacity magazines, .40-caliber Glock, AR-15 assault rifle, .223 Bushmaster semiautomatic assault rifle get through those?"

Maybe because more restrictions written by ignorant people don't seem to work. Let's go after the cause, bad people. I think we can agree that there are people in the world that want to do harm to others.

"You know why? Watered down by NRA, that's why. Paid off pols.

How come they get to have bullets that cut through police vests?

WHO needs those?"

Sorry, I don't think Feinstein catered to the pro-gun lobby and AP bullets are already restricted.

"I think the 2nd means to protect yourself and your family, not the ownership and obsession with "trophy" killing machines."

You couldn't give me the definition of an assault rifle. I dont expect you to tell me what a "trophy killing machine" equates to.

"Well regulated means just that. Just as I cannot say offensive words in the public space....so you can't throw whatever type of weapon you feel like into the public space."

The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment pertained to private ownership.

"I can't drive over 55 on my highway, must be licensed, pay every year for registration, inspection, insurance and wear a seat belt."

I can drive 85 on a road here legally. Also, almost all firearms require a background check and if you a break a law with a firearm you will be punished worse than if you break a law with a car. The problem is that the criminals don't care about the laws, that's why they are criminals.

"This is not for me...but for the good of society as a whole.

Maybe you might consider the cost to society for all the gun violence, injuries and death?"

You don't get it. Bad people commit evil acts. You can not legislate their ability to commit such acts by trying to limit their tools. The only people who will obey the restrictions are those that are not your threat.

"The gun-nuts have taken a very dangerous instrument and set it loose on the world. For all to use, no barriers, no requirements, no safety of others taken into account whatsoever."

Please see previous answers and educate yourself on current gun laws.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Lmc sez: Well, how did high-capacity magazines, .40-caliber Glock, AR-15 assault rifle, .223 Bushmaster semiautomatic assault rifle get through those?

Jack replies: Because these are all ordinary guns just like any other semi-auto firearm. You don’t even know what a .40-caliber Glock is, do you? This is so freaking funny.

Lmc sez: How come they get to have bullets that cut through police vests? WHO needs those?

Jack replies: lmc has been told the truth dozens of times that any ordinary hunting rifle shoots bullets that will go thru a standard police vest. She knows this. There is no doubt as to why she keeps repeating this question though. It makes her ffffeeeelllll gggggooooddd.

Lmc sez: I think the 2nd means to protect yourself and your family, not the ownership and obsession with "trophy" killing machines.

Jack replies; The true meaning of the 2nd is discussed in my hub, “The Second Amendment as a Prophylactic.”

Lmc sez: Well regulated means just that. Just as I cannot say offensive words in the public space....so you can't throw whatever type of weapon you feel like into the public space.

Jack replies: Again, lmc posts from ignorance. The Supreme Court has rules multiple times upon multiple cases that the community cannot regulate against “offensive words in public.” She just does not know or understand that, yet she is compelled to post about it anyway.

And she still can’t explain the 17th century meaning of “well regulated.”

Lmc sez: I can't drive over 55 on my highway, must be licensed, pay every year for registration, inspection, insurance and wear a seat belt.

Jack replies: On your own property you can drive like a bat out of hell, you don’t have to be licenseed or register or have insurance or wear a seat belt. Again, you actually didn’t know any of this, do you. You’re just make up stuff from thin air to bolster a pitiful case. Pure emotional appeal.

Lmc sez: Maybe you might consider the cost to society for all the gun violence, injuries and death?

Jack replies: YOU are the one who has totally ignored those hundreds of people who are killed each year by hammers and fists… which is far more than are killed by rifles.

Lmc sez: The gun-nuts have taken a very dangerous instrument and set it loose on the world. For all to use, no barriers, no requirements, no safety of others taken into account whatsoever.

Jack replies: That’s right, lmc. Just pretend that those 20,000 guns don’t really exist.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

"A man driving a motorized shopping cart shot an Anchorage Walmart assistant manager during a dispute over the man's unrestrained dog on a busy Saturday afternoon inside the Midtown store, police said."

"There was some kind of dispute," Hokenson said. "They were escorting him out of the store and something happened on the way out where the suspect pulled out a weapon and shot the employee."

"He said, 'I can't feel my feet.' He just kept talking about his kids," Morales said. " 'My kids, my son,' that's basically all he was saying. Everyone else was just trying to keep him awake."

Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2013/03/16/2828283/one-shot-at-...

********

This happens every day of the week, and little kids get shot every day of the week, and where some people live can be considered a war zone, thanks to guns.

That man has a son, who's DAD is lying there shot.......what about his rights and freedoms? He has a right to his dad as far as I'm concerned.

This is what you are screaming to protect, because you think asking you to take some regulations to make us all safer is somehow infringing on you.

Well, it's the other way around.

Your deadly weapons are and have been infringing on the rest of us. Many of us don't like to have guns around our kids at all...where are our rights?

You have the right to protect your home...period.

You don't have the right to go to a Walmart store and shoot someone cause you're mad. Or shoot someone in line at a pizza shop. Or shoot someone in line at a grocery store. Or during "road rage". Or take a gun into a bar and get drunk with it on your person.

Your rights are not more supreme than other citizen's. We have rights too. YOU are not the only ones who live here. WE have the right to regulate a deadly weapon. "Well Regulated." 2nd amendment.

In fact, it is the duty of lawmakers to do so.

You choose to own one...deal w it.


TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 3 years ago from Camp Hill, PA Author

Your side does a great job of that, they've been setting the terms of the debate since the late 1960's


TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 3 years ago from Camp Hill, PA Author

You aren't looking carefully, or are they your allies?


TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 3 years ago from Camp Hill, PA Author

The Court also said the right is NOT absolute.


TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 3 years ago from Camp Hill, PA Author

Seems that NRA, etc has been appealing to emotions for years.


TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 3 years ago from Camp Hill, PA Author

The problem is that folks like Mike and Jack don't see it that way.

Kinda a common trait of the Right: All about ME, MINE, like a bunch of spoiled, "%1" brats!


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Anyone who is anti-abortion, yet cries about gun rights has nothing to say, as far as I'm concerned.

We already have a militia.....which most of them don't bother serving in. Probly because then they'd have equal chance of being killed.

I'm sorry: right to bear arms in a well-regulated way does not in any sane manner mean: a military-style assault rifle that fires 30 shots in 27 seconds. Get real!

It's ridiculous on the face of it. Get a musket if you want to follow the Constitution!


Mike 3 years ago

@love

"This is what you are screaming to protect, because you think asking you to take some regulations to make us all safer is somehow infringing on you.

Well, it's the other way around."

Actually you are the one screaming. We keep addressing your points and you keep spewing emotional nonsense. You couldn't even tell me what an "assault rifle" was and brought up the Iran-Contra affair in your arguments. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

"Your deadly weapons are and have been infringing on the rest of us. Many of us don't like to have guns around our kids at all...where are our rights?"

I addressed this one previously by stating my firearms have never bothered anyone. Also, is there an unknown epidemic in your area of gun owners breaking into homes to let children play with firearms?

"You have the right to protect your home...period."

Thank you for your opinion, but fortunately you don't make the laws. In the state of Texas and many other states we are allowed to obtain concealed carry permits to protect ourselves. There are over 8 million active concealed carry licenses in this country and the people legally licensed are not causing problems. The people causing the problems are the criminals. They don't care about additional restriction. They also carry whether licensed or not.

"You don't have the right to go to a Walmart store and shoot someone cause you're mad. Or shoot someone in line at a pizza shop. Or shoot someone in line at a grocery store. Or during "road rage". Or take a gun into a bar and get drunk with it on your person."

Wow, and all this time...

"Your rights are not more supreme than other citizen's. We have rights too. YOU are not the only ones who live here. WE have the right to regulate a deadly weapon. "Well Regulated." 2nd amendment."

I don't feel supreme. I am a law abiding citizen who doesn't bother anyone and doesn't support more restrictions that won't work. Somehow you feel this is infringing on your rights and warrants an attack on me because I don't agree with you.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Ahhh.... Mike, I was going to address lmc but you did such a good post that I'll let it do the job for both of us. It's a lazy Sunday afternoon.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

OK..I get it.

Guns don't kill...people kill.

A gun is the same as a fist or a hammer.

Mass murders would not decrease by banning assult rifles with 30 round clips.

Your right to bear arms does not include being regulated.

You can make up your mind for yourself, and everyone else can do the same.......

That about all?

********

Ps I have not personally attacked anyone. I speak in generalities. People in general, not personal. Only personl if it's a politician.

I suggest you read Why have so many Americans unfriended America ?thread to see personal attacks.


Mike 3 years ago

@love

Jack and I addressed every concern you had. You on the other hand, could not answer any of my questions. Are you looking to change the views of others or just scream at people who don't agree with you?


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

What?

I want to ban military style assault rifles.

You say no...why?

I don't want guns in bars and grocery stores...how come we can't regulate that?

Why is your right to have a gun superior than my right to be free from it?

Keep it at home....not in public.

*****

And speech is most definately regulated. Check HP for the prime example. I can't speak in forums.

Where is my 1st amendment right to free speech?

Private interest usurp, that's why.

1st amendment is not pure: neither is 2nd. 4th is gone: so stop acting like 2nd is sacrosanct. It isn't.


Mike 3 years ago

"What?

I want to ban military style assault rifles.

You say no...why?"

At this point, you haven't been able to explain to me what an assault rifle is. Why would I consider banning something that you can't define.

"I don't want guns in bars and grocery stores...how come we can't regulate that?"

We can't take firearms into a bar with a concealed carry permit here in Texas. We also can't legally carry a firearm if we have consumed alcohol. That's common sense and the law.

As for grocery stores, please give me examples of concealed carry holders causing trouble in grocery stores. Also, businesses who don't want to allow people to carry firearms can place signs prohibiting them. I suggest you shop at those. As for me, I'll choose not to give them my business. If I am the minority as you claim, that should have no impact on their business.

"Why is your right to have a gun superior than my right to be free from it?

Keep it at home....not in public."

The law. People you vote for pass them. If you are unhappy with the laws in your area, vote in new representatives.

*****

"And speech is most definately regulated. Check HP for the prime example. I can't speak in forums."

What does this have to do with more gun control?

"Where is my 1st amendment right to free speech?

Private interest usurp, that's why."

It sounds like you have another charge to lead.

"1st amendment is not pure: neither is 2nd. 4th is gone: so stop acting like 2nd is sacrosanct. It isn't."

The second amendment is much more regulated that the first right now. Also, how does the dismissal of the fourth amendment (your stated opinion) justify treading on the second?


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

"high-capacity magazines, .40-caliber Glock, AR-15 assault rifle, .223 Bushmaster semiautomatic assault rifle" ...from above.

These I want banned. And those bullets that go through police vests.

Do you know anything about the 2,236 guns that will be allowed should this bill pass?

How come that's not enough?

There was a story about a man pulling a gun on the woman ahead of him in line because she had too many items....

Story of man walking around w loaded rifle--because it was "his right"..people called police because they were scared....etc etc

People use guns to bully all the time. Accidental shootings happen all the time. Drive-by shootings happen all the time.

Murder rate is atrocious.....shall i blame free speech? privacy?

No: but free speech is regulated, and privacy is gone. The "right" to own a gun is how important we make it...

I do not consider making them responsible to be "treading" on gun owners rights.

If you are safe and reasonable, you are in the majority: however, the minority is a deadly one....

And if guns are so highly regulated, how do these mass murders keep happening?

Something is not working, and something must be done.


Mike 3 years ago

@jack

Your turn. I'm not sure I am going to be able to convince her that a .40 calibre Glock is not an assault rifle or even a rifle.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

So deal w the other ones! And deal w the 2,000 others you will have to choose from.

Then tell me the poor gun-owners are infringed upon, when my choice for a tv company is: 2

Phone: 2

Electricity: 1

Grocery: 2

and then tell me that their freedoms are infringed upon.

oh sorry--- you can't rip a kid to shreds in 27 seconds....so sorry.


Alberic O profile image

Alberic O 3 years ago from Any Clime, Any Place

There is one such thing as a semi automatic assault rifle. The rifle is either an assault rifle or a semi automatic rifle. Your AR-15 sold in the civilian market isn't an assault rifle unless it can fire burst/automatic in addition to semiautomatic. Any semi automatic weapon can spit 30 rounds in 27 seconds. If you feel like the country should ban semi automatic weapons, that's your opinion and your right. However, use the correct terminology or else you will look foolish when arguing with people. My job involving operating and qualifying on various firearms from pistols to light machine guns, so I know what I'm talking about.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Good--I know nothing about guns except they are made to kill.

But I personally think it's the height of foolish to compare a gun with a fist or a hammer: different strokes I guess.

Perhaps then, you know something about this list of 2,226 or so guns that are not included in the assault weapons ban?


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

lmc sez: Why is your right to have a gun superior than my right to be free from it?

Jack replies: Basically, because you have NO right to be "free from it."

None. Nada. Zippo.

And you don't understand that.

You see, even the lowest animal has a right to self defense... and there are no animals that have a right to be free from any danger, in all places, at all times.

I and everyone else have a right to defend ourselves. Our carrying a firearm for the expression of that right impacts you in no way. You don't have to carry it for us... you don't have to shoot it for us. We require absolutly NOTHING from you in order to exercise our right.

But you? You want the "right" to make everyone take action according to YOUR sense of what you want. You demand that other's actually change their behavior... that your "right" demands that they actually "do" something.

Where as our right to defend ourselves requires nothing from you. And that is why you don't have such a "right" as you think. You have no right to demand any action from us.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

lmc sez: And speech is most definately regulated. Check HP for the prime example. I can't speak in forums. Where is my 1st amendment right to free speech?

Jack replies: When you learn the difference between actions of the government and actions of private parties then get back to us, eh.

Do you really think you can go into someone's home and have a "right to free speech"? Or someone's business?

lmc sez: 1st amendment is not pure: neither is 2nd. 4th is gone: so stop acting like 2nd is sacrosanct. It isn't.

Jack replies: When you learn what "prior restraint" is then get back to us, eh. We can discuss the issue on an adult, rational level with facts and reason or we can discuss it purely on emotions with no real understanding of the legal issues involved. The choice is yours.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

lmc sez: I want to ban military style assault rifles. You say no...why?

Jack replies: Generally, if someone wants to "ban" something the obligation is on them to make the case for it. You cannot make any case except "I don't like them."

That's it. And that's why we don't have to explain "why not."

lmc sez: I don't want guns in bars and grocery stores...how come we can't regulate that?

Jack replies: Some people say they don't like black people and Jews in bars and grocery stores. I suppose you have sympathy for their point of view and want to know why that cannot be regulated.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Lmc sez: "high-capacity magazines, .40-caliber Glock, AR-15 assault rifle, .223 Bushmaster semiautomatic assault rifle" ...from above. These I want banned. And those bullets that go through police vests.

Jack replies: As noted above several times, lmc still doesn’t actually know what any of these firearms are. But they sound ssscccaaaarrryyyy and that is sufficient enough for her.

Lmc sez: Do you know anything about the 2,236 guns that will be allowed should this bill pass?

Jack replies: lmc believes that it is acceptable to ban 42 versions of the Bible because that still leaves 23 different versions that people can choose from. And that it’s okay to ban Fox News because that leaves four other cable news channels to choose from. And that it’s okay to ban conservative columnists because that still leaves liberal ones to choose from.

Lmc sez: There was a story about a man pulling a gun on the woman ahead of him in line because she had too many items....

Jack replies: Lets’ match stories from the past few weeks….

• Man shot while trying to break into house, police say (LA)

• Resident fires at 2 suspected of break-in (PA)

• Homeowner: Illegal entry was more than that (MI)

• Drive-Through Shooting Leaves Would Be Robber Dead (CA)

• Mobile home intruder met by gunfire (AK)

• Robbery victim shoots attacker (South Africa)

• Gun shop owner apprehends suspect during armed robbery (TX)

• Prowler prompts man to fire gun (IN)

• Fatal double shooting in Jacksonville ruled justifiable homicide (FL)

• Jeweler gets best of robbers in gun fight (LA)

• Gunman Shot By Store Clerks During Acampo Robbery (CA)

• Robbery suspect killed at diner (TN)

• Man kills burglar, police say (LA)

• Police: Armed burglar killed by homeowner (TX)

• Early Morning [Self-Defense] Shooting (FL)

• Homeowner, 79, Not Charged For Shooting Intruders (KY)

• Police say man was killed in self-defense (WI)

• Intruder Shot To Death After Breaking Into Home (FL)

• East Side Shooting Involved Earlier Assault, Vandalism (TX)

• 79-Year-Old Shoots Two Intruders, Police Say (KY)

• Merchant ends holdup, shoots robber (IN)

• Suspect shot in head by liquor store owner (CO)

• No charges for wife who shot and killed her husband (NY)

• District attorney's office rules shooting was self-defense (NC)

• Woman won't face charges in husband's death (SC)

• Police: Burlington store owner shoots would-be burglar (NC)

• Convenience store owner fatally shoots would-be armed robber (TX)

• Police: Store Clerk Shoots Back At Robbers (NC)

• Alleged Burglar Shot in East Montgomery (AL)

• Teen Intruder Shot By Neighbor, Police Say (MS)

• Mother Fights Back Against Intruder (TX)

• Grand jury no-bills woman in shooting (TX)

• 2 try to rob jewelry store; 1 suspect shot, still at large (AZ)

• Jewelry Store Owner Grabs Gun, Chases Robber (MI)

• Police: Homeowner shoots, kills intruder (TN)

• One Man Dead, Another Arrested After Attempted Robbery (NC)

• No indictment in fatal [self-defense] shooting (KY)

Lmc sez: No: but free speech is regulated

Jack replies: You simply have no concept of prior restraint, eh… but you think that speech is “regulated.”

Lmc sez: If you are safe and reasonable, you are in the majority: however, the minority is a deadly one....

Jack replies: she would have us regulate our freedoms by the unlawful actions of .0001 percent of those who have a gun. The 99.9999 percent who do no harm only have as much freedom as the actions of those social deviants allow us. And this is her “common sense” approach to gun control.

Lmc sez: And if guns are so highly regulated, how do these mass murders keep happening?

Jack replies: When you find a cure for the evil in men’s hearts then get back to us.

Lmc sez: Something is not working, and something must be done.

Jack replies: lmc doesn’t even know what the problem is, and she expects us to believe that she knows what “must be done.”


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Mike sez: Your turn. I'm not sure I am going to be able to convince her that a .40 calibre Glock is not an assault rifle or even a rifle.

Jack replies: the .40 caliber Glock? You mean the handgun that shoots 100 rounds with one pull of the trigger, turns invisible so that metal detectors won't pick it up, and shoots down tanks a mile away and airplanes cruising at 30,000 feet.

No wonder she wants it banned.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

lmc sez: Good--I know nothing about guns except they are made to kill.

jack replies: Okay, lmc, time to put up or shut up. I've begged you in the past to help me with the gun dealers who won't give me back my money for my guns that I've had for decades that have not killed anyone.

Obviously they sold me defective guns. If you would only let me have your phone number I am sure you can persuade these dealers to a more reasonable position. They only laugh at me when I tell them they sold me guns that are only made to kill something and they have never, ever, once killed anything.

I am sure they will respect your argument.

lmc sez: But I personally think it's the height of foolish to compare a gun with a fist or a hammer: different strokes I guess.

Jack sez: How bloody cold minded of you to so easily dismiss these thousands of innocents who have been killed over the past few years with hammers and fist. That is a "different stroke" indeed.

lmc sez: Perhaps then, you know something about this list of 2,226 or so guns that are not included in the assault weapons ban?

Jack replies: lmc is perfectly fine with the government telling libraries that they can have 2,226 books on their shelves, but only the ones the government approves.


Alberic O profile image

Alberic O 3 years ago from Any Clime, Any Place

IMC- People who are somewhat knowledgeable in firearms (regardless of their position in gun control) know this. 2,226 or so guns that are not included is irrelevant to the validity of the law. The law doesn't make sense, and if passed, it's not gonna limit crime. What makes a pistol grip on a semi automatic rifle more dangerous than a semi automatic rifle without one? Nothing. If you want to address crime, do something to address repeated felons who cause 90% of the violent crime. Universal background checks make more sense than this law. And quite frankly, I agree with them.

I'm not saying all gun laws are bad, but many laws addressing guns that do not make sense come from people that have little understanding of firearms and violence. Violence is caused by people, hence the quote, 'One Mind, Any Weapon.'


TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 3 years ago from Camp Hill, PA Author

So the goal should be to make sure that weapons are capable of killing the least number of people possible,


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Well, TPC...you would think that wouldn't you?

I think the goal of the NRA and such is to make sure every person is armed : the more deadly the weapon, the better...that way we will all kill each other off, and save their Masters the trouble.

******

One mind...any weapon would not have worked with a hammer or a fist in Aurora, Sandy-Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc.

That took a gun. Massively loaded, locked and ready.

Easy to get: easy to use: easy to kill.

But go ahead...it's your right.

Just keep your dam paws off women then will ya?(not you personally, ok?)

Don't people like this ever tell me how much they value life.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

"Early last year, after a series of frightening encounters with her former husband, Stephanie Holten went to court in Spokane, Wash., to obtain a temporary order for protection.

Her former husband, Corey Holten, threatened to put a gun in her mouth and pull the trigger, she wrote in her petition. He also said he would “put a cap” in her if her new boyfriend “gets near my kids.” In neat block letters she wrote, “He owns guns, I am scared.”

The judge’s order prohibited Mr. Holten from going within two blocks of his former wife’s home and imposed a number of other restrictions. What it did not require him to do was surrender his guns."

Well--you can guess what happened: he shot her and she died.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/facing-protec...

You can also guess this:

"Advocates for domestic violence victims have long called for stricter laws governing firearms and protective orders. Their argument is rooted in a grim statistic: when women die at the hand of an intimate partner, that hand is more often than not holding a gun.

In these most volatile of human dramas, they contend, the right to bear arms must give ground to the need to protect a woman’s life.

In statehouses across the country, though, the N.R.A. and other gun-rights groups have beaten back legislation mandating the surrender of firearms in domestic violence situations. They argue that gun ownership, as a fundamental constitutional right, should not be stripped away for anything less serious than a felony conviction — and certainly not, as an N.R.A. lobbyist in Washington State put it to legislators, for the “mere issuance of court orders.”

******

This country has taken the 2nd amendment as the right to kill-- wherever, whenever and whoever you like: "Stand your ground" is basically carte blanche! After they're dead....who can dispute you?

---Congratulations.....fear and bullying are alive and well...sanctioned by law.

But let's make sure those women who remove an egg are criminalized. Congrats---you did it.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

tpc sez: So the goal should be to make sure that weapons are capable of killing the least number of people possible,

Jack replies: How about a goal of a society where people don't run wild, thinking they have the right to "kill as many people as possible"?


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

lmc sez: I think the goal of the NRA and such is to make sure every person is armed : the more deadly the weapon, the better...that way we will all kill each other off, and save their Masters the trouble.

jack replies: This is really the best that lmc can do, eh. Over the decades I've seen people equal her rank hyper-emotionalism but none exceed it.

lmc sez: One mind...any weapon would not have worked with a hammer or a fist in Aurora, Sandy-Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc.

Jack replies: But a hammer and fist worked with the thousands of dead people over just the past few years, which far exceed the number of people who were killed in the incidents you mentioned. But you don't care about that, do you. Their deaths are meaningless to you, eh. Totally insignificant.

lmc sez: That took a gun. Massively loaded, locked and ready.

Jack replies: What gun was responsible for the murders of 100 people at Happy Land night club?

What gun was responsible for the 400 deaths in Oklahoma City?

What gun was responsible for the deaths of thousands on 9/11?

Oh... what's that you say? There were no guns involved in any of these and many other incidents?

lmc sez: asy to get: easy to use: easy to kill.

Jack replies: Again, when you figure out a way to stop evil in people's hearts then get back to us.

lmc sez: But go ahead...it's your right.

Jack replies: lmc still can't explain how and why a bad guy doing evil actions affects my rights.

lmc sez: Just keep your dam paws off women then will ya?(not you personally, ok?)

Jack replies: Okay... just don't murder innocent babies and I will never put a paw on you.

lmc sez: Don't people like this ever tell me how much they value life.

Jack replies: 20 million murdered babies over the past few decades and lmc thinks this is find and dandy... and she "values life."


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

lmc sez: "Early last year, after a series of frightening encounters with her former husband, Stephanie Holten went to court in Spokane, Wash., to obtain a temporary order for protection.

Jack replies: Thank you, lmc, for pointing out to the world that a protection order is a worthless piece of paper. But lmc really thinks that the ONLY way this thug could have harmed this woman was with a gun. The idea of using a knife, baseball bat or even his fists just never would have occurred to him.

In the meantime, we can enjoy these dozens of stories from just that past few weeks where ordinary citizens save their lives with firearms.

http://www.examiner.com/article/30-days-of-guns-sa...

lmc sez: This country has taken the 2nd amendment as the right to kill-- wherever, whenever and whoever you like:

Jack replies: There ya go, Dear Readers.... can you say "hyper-emotionalism"? I knew you could.


TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 3 years ago from Camp Hill, PA Author

Jack:

Advocating a sort of "Mutually Assured Destruction", as LMC alluded to :P


TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 3 years ago from Camp Hill, PA Author

Also, ever read my hub "License To Kill"?


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Well, it's uterus envy. They can't give life, so they want to take it, using a de-facto penis to do it.

"Happiness is a warm gun, Mama"

"Happiness is a warm, yes it i-i-s, GU-U-U-AH-UN"

********

I have a real worry for our country, when it's inhabited by people who think an egg is more important than a full grown woman.

Perhaps, they need to start picketing vasectomy clinics, where life is being sown up and prevented.

"20 million murdered babies"...now THAT is hyper-emotional!

How about the real, live babies that must die or be made parentless, so you can play John Wayne?

Oh My GOD.......Harry--they are Killing babies in the vasectomy clinic!!!

"Don't worry Dear.....it's men doing it, so it's fine."


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Yes, I read it.... and let me quote from noted attorney, Dave Kopel...

"The assertion that Florida law allows shooting whenever someone believes it to be necessary is a flat-out lie."

You can read Kopel's works about the Castle Doctrine here

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/2/deb...

and

http://www.volokh.com/2012/03/27/floridas-self-def...

YOu can also read Attorney Peter Ferrara thoughts here

http://theacru.org/acru/stand_your_ground_america/

or Attorney John Corson here

http://www.corson.org/archives/legal/L2012_09.htm

I do thank you for providing the opportunity to set the Dear Readers straight with legal advice and knowledge from nationally known and respected attorneys as opposed to nothing but emotions over the net.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

lmc sez: Well, it's uterus envy. They can't give life, so they want to take it, using a de-facto penis to do it.

Jack replies: This ~really~ is the best that lmc can do, eh.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

hmmm, I feel a ban coming on, and I would like to point this out:

"20 million murdered babies over the past few decades and lmc thinks this is find and dandy... "

Jack said this about me, remember that.

and this:

"just don't murder innocent babies"

and this:

"Okay, lmc, time to put up or shut up."

and:

"But with your inability to even know the history of the AR going back just a few decades I don’t hold out much hope for your understanding of history a few centuries old."

---I don't have a clique to come here an report him: but he does.

He has no grounds.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Good articles... but let's take a look at what they actually say, eh

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/drug-

"Smith claimed self-defense in both cases and prosecutors agreed"

[What? The PROSECUTOR agreed? And ~this~ is supposed to be a black mark against the stand your ground law?]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-28/news

"Michael Dunn, 45, is being held without bail on charges of second-degree murder for the Friday night shooting of Jordan Davi"

[So someone who shoots someone else is being held without bail on murder charges and ~this~ is supposed to be a black mark against sand your ground laws?]

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item

"There are some questions in the case that slightly cloud Alexander's defense"

[So a woman DOESN'T get away with murder since there are questions about her defense and ~this~ is supposed to be a black mark against the stand your ground law?]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/23/us-usa-f

"Exactly what happened that day in Clearwater, Florida, is still open to dispute"

[A case that is "open to dispute" is the one that lmc wants to stake a claim on as a black mark against the stand your ground law?]

lmc thrives on emotionalism. She revels in it. It is her standard operating posting style. So much so that I bet she didn't even read this articles. She just ffffeeeelllltttt that they were going to "show something."


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

lmc sez: I don't have a clique to come here an report him: but he does. He has no grounds.

Jack replies: :-)


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

"lmc is fixated on his nose. Must be a Honker."

"You’ll know more in five minutes than lmc has learned in a lifetime."

"Lmc is just too ignorant to know "

---oh wait: here's my saving grace!!!!

"millions of children in the uterus can be wantonly slaughter and you don’t blink an eye"--Jack

If they want to ban me for "butcher the 4th and 14th to suit your religion"...."not caring for the wanton slaughther of children" must be worse.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

...and lmc was actually complaining about the "lack of free speech" on hubpages, eh.

That calls for two smilies...

:-)

:-)


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Nope: just defending myself for the inevitable lmc ban, while youze guyz are free to bash me at will.

History....learn from it or die repeating it: oh yeah....that's the Republican way

:-)

:-)

*****

"complain"

"whine"

are gang-stalking terms used to defame or flame a person.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

and anti-freedom folk call gun owners "paranoid." :-)

BTW... just what are "gang stalking terms"? Now's your chance to educate me on a subject that apparently you actually know.


Alberic O profile image

Alberic O 3 years ago from Any Clime, Any Place

If you study martial arts, you will know what 'One Mind, Any Weapon' means. Anything can be used to kill (parts of the body, or tools) and if you do the technique correctly, you can dispatch someone in seconds. If you think I'm BS'ing, ask those who study the following: LINE, Hapkido, Aikido, Ninjitsu, Jujitsu, Wushu, Krav Maga, Combatives, MCMAP, Systema and other combat systems.The will to commit violent lies in the person alone and their desire to use violence to achieve an outcome.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

If you support forced birth, you are anti-freedom, just so know.

It's you, Jack.

You can't respond to me without a slur on my character. Either as stupid, lazy, ignorant, or hysterical.

Using the term "complain", for stating a fact, is an attempt to lesson the fact to-- "oh, it's just sour grapes".

I don't say it to complain---it's a legitimate wrongdoing!

Check yourself....every single answer to me is couched in insult and character slurs.

You come out of the box throwin slurs. How come?


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

People who study martial arts do it for the purpose of learning the art....the fact that they can kill is the reason they don't! IMO

A person who wants to set up and execute a mass murder has only to go buy a gun.

The deadlier, the better. Didn't one of them buy bullets over the internet?

If you need a gun: why the need for more than one bullet?

Why the need for military-style weapons on OUR streets?


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

lmc sez: If you support forced birth, you are anti-freedom, just so know.

Jack replies: The baby is unavailable for comment about his freedom.

lmc sez: You can't respond to me without a slur on my character. Either as stupid, lazy, ignorant, or hysterical.

Jack replies: I have never once called or labeled you stupid or lazy. The other two labels have nothing to do with your "character."

I am ignorant about knitting. I don't feel a compulsion to go onto a knitting site and tell them that pearls come from an endangered species and they should quit routinely using them in their knitting.

I use a reasoned, logical style of posting. You use a different style of posting. Pointing that out is no different than pointing out the style that I use.

lmc sez: Using the term "complain", for stating a fact, is an attempt to lesson the fact to-- "oh, it's just sour grapes". I don't say it to complain---it's a legitimate wrongdoing!

jack replies: Unfortunately for you, there is no "fact" to any statement that hubpages is suppressing free speech. Unless, as noted previously and thank you for allowing me the opportunity to repeat it, you actually believe that you have the right to demand the use of other people's property for your "free speech."

Hubpages doesn't belong to you. You can start a blog that belongs to you and say anything you want. You know both these "facts."

lmc sez: You come out of the box throwin slurs. How come?

Jack replies: Oh... .let's just say that I am naturally prejudiced against ignorant people who know absolutely nothing about freedom and who express strong opinions based on no fact but just hyper-emotionalism desiring to deny others that freedom.

You've yet to establish one single piece of knowledge that you actually know as true about firearms. You've made statements about firearms that even the least educated person about them know to be false.

And you really expect people to treat you as competent? As an equal in a discussion about firearms?

I am not slurring you. I am just pointing out the truth. You have the choice. You can study up and actually learn something. {and that doesn't mean agreeing with me and my positions. It means learning basic facts.}

Or you can continue to post rank nonsense such as ARs and Iran-Contra. You believe in choice. Well, it's your choice.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

lmc sez: If you need a gun: why the need for more than one bullet?

Why the need for military-style weapons on OUR streets?

jack replies: Perfect example of what I mean when I state lmc posts in willful and knowing ignorance.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

*sigh*...so, you think a fertilized egg is a baby? Nothing more to say.

slur: "Pejorative, any term of disparagement" You know all about it Jack. Don't pretend otherwise. All you need do is read your own responses.

"am not slurring you. I am just pointing out the truth. You have the choice. You can study up and actually learn something. {and that doesn't mean agreeing with me and my positions. It means learning basic facts.}

Or you can continue to post rank nonsense"

*****

You say that I post rank nonsense.

Slur.

And a complete dismissal of me.

So be it....just don't have your crew gang up and report ME.

It is a fact that Reagan's WH were running guns and crack cocaine through US ghetto's to get $$ to fund their illegal war.

Freeway Ricky Ross went to prison for it....ask him.

Reagan claimed he knew nothing about it, but Oliver North sure did, and so did HW Bush.

This is historical fact: You can look it up for yourself.

So--you can stop blaming Obama for the guns: It was Uncle Ronnie that started the whole ugly thing.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

"And you really expect people to treat you as competent? As an equal in a discussion about firearms?"

Am I or am I not a citizen of USA? Or do we have able to speak vs stfu now?

And you say this about me:

"He really, in his heart, believes that the behavior of the weakest amoung us, the social deviants, those obey no law, should set the amount of freedom that the rest of us get to have."

And I'm supposed to take YOU serious?

ehhhhhhh. Why the slurs, Lady?


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Lmc sez: *sigh*...so, you think a fertilized egg is a baby? Nothing more to say.

Jack replies: How odd. The aborted baby has nothing to say also.

Lmc sez: slur: "Pejorative, any term of disparagement" You know all about it Jack. Don't pretend otherwise. All you need do is read your own responses.

Jack replied: Never said I didn’t slur you. I just said that the slurs you said I said are not what I said or actual slurs.

Lmc sez: You say that I post rank nonsense. Slur.

Jack relies: But you don’t label it as a lie, eh.

Lmc sez: And a complete dismissal of me.

Jack replies: No more so than what a flat-earther would experience at a meeting of NASA scientists.

Lmc sez: So be it....just don't have your crew gang up and report ME.

Jack replies: So paranoid…

Lmc sez: It is a fact that Reagan's WH were running guns and crack cocaine through US ghetto's to get $$ to fund their illegal war.

Jack replies: Unfortunately for YOU, this has absolutely nothing to do with what you posted earlier. You said, speaking about the AR style rifle, and I quote…

“It was brought into civilian life by the Iran/Contra black-ops, and of course, allowed to stay by the same gang.”

And, as I pointed out, this has no more truth to it than a flat earther has on geology. If you want to argue the merits and deficiencies of the Iran Contra scandal that is a good, different thread. But attempting to change the subject that you botched so poorly is indicative of why you get laughed at here on hubpages.

I suggested that you spend some time learning actual facts. It appears that you have doubled-down on defending ignorance. So be it.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

lmc sez: Am I or am I not a citizen of USA? Or do we have able to speak vs stfu now?

Jack replies: As typical, confusing her right to speak with the rights of others to laugh at her misstatements, wrong facts, and general lack of ability to put reason and logic in the same paragraph.

You don't have a right to be respected, lmc, or even a right to demand that you be heard.

Is this really too hard to understand?


TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 3 years ago from Camp Hill, PA Author

I did Aikido for a few years if that counts.

But that still, IMO means the goal should be to limit damage


Mike 3 years ago

"I did Aikido for a few years if that counts."

No, what does that have to do with additional regulations on firearms.

"But that still, IMO means the goal should be to limit damage"

So do I. That is why evil or crazy people committing horrible acts should be dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

"You don't have a right to be respected, lmc, or even a right to demand that you be heard.

Is this really too hard to understand?"

*********

No, I hear you loud and clear.

In fact, I see this attitude every day, directed at the President of the United State...why should I, as a citizen, expect any better?

Just you know: I'm onto you.

*******

Here's more of the clique at work...and this is how you know them:

"squeeknomoreposted 2 days ago" 1.......silly name

Marquis wrote:

"Jandee, you know you suck, right?" 2....not discussion of issue: personal attack

"Be careful, Marquis, I know someone who got kicked off for three days in responding to all this. We need you here... but don't kill yourself over it!"

3.....Who is this We?

Keep it up quackers and yappers. Fish rots from the head. And ole Rushbo is looking a little grey at the gills.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

I misspoke and need to correct myself. I previously posted…

"You don't have a right to be respected, lmc, or even a right to demand that you be heard.”

This is wrong in a way. Yes, lmc has every right to demand that she be heard. What she doesn’t have is the right to enforce her demand by any means at all. There’s a subtle but big difference in the two concepts.

Lmc sez: No, I hear you loud and clear.

Jack replies: Good.. now will we finally see an end to the complaints about the 1st Amendment not being “respected”?

Lmc sez: In fact, I see this attitude every day, directed at the President of the United State...why should I, as a citizen, expect any better?

Jack replies: The better question is why should the president expect anything better than any other citizen. He’s President Obama, not King Obama.

Lmc sez: Just you know: I'm onto you.

Jack requests: Errr…. Could you please not use phrases such as that? My wife reads these and might think you are coming on to me or something. It’ll be embarrassing explaining to her.

Lmc sez: Here's more of the clique at work...and this is how you know them:

Jack replies, while scratching his head: I have no idea what lmc is posting about, Dear Readers. It appears to be random sentences perhaps from another hub, or some other site. Just dunno about that.

But her emotional investment in it certainly comes through, eh.

Lmc sez: Keep it up quackers and yappers. Fish rots from the head. And ole Rushbo is looking a little grey at the gills.

Jack replies: Errrr….. the “head” of the country is Obama. And if Rush had a dime for everyone who said he was on the way out he’d be worth twice the couple hundred million he already has.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

No--I think you were right the 1st time.

That is how you have always addressed me: as a second class rat who deserves no respect. No need to stop now.

And anyway, I'm born in the year of the rat, good enough.

You forget: I've put up with this righty-faux-patriot-religio crap for 12 yrs.

I know it like the back of my hand.

And if Rush had a dime, he'd have more than he's worth.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

"Good.. now will we finally see an end to the complaints about the 1st Amendment not being “respected”?

---Sure, as soon as I see these people calling others suck, loser, filthy,trash, etc banned for 3 mo's, like I always was.--and I never called any names like that.

And sure----when you let me know just how many times these people get to come back after their bans.....seems like they get light-weight treatment for heavy duty attacks.

so yes.....when this happens, let me know. I'll stop questioning.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

My daughter and gs live here, so I'm glad. And her father's family are tru-blue Colarady redneck.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_XGR_GUN_...


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Lmc sez: No--I think you were right the 1st time.

Jack replies: Poor lmc… even when I give her an example of how a conscientious poster corrects a mistake she still misses the point. :-)

Lmc sez: That is how you have always addressed me: as a second class rat who deserves no respect. No need to stop now.

Jack replies: But even second class rats deserve accurate information. Otherwise how can they work their way up to first class rats?

Lmc sez: You forget: I've put up with this righty-faux-patriot-religio crap for 12 yrs.

Jack replies: I have always thought that there was something a little immature about your posting but I didn’t realize you had not yet hit puberty. But you’re hanging in there pretty good for a 7th grader.

Lmc sez: And if Rush had a dime, he'd have more than he's worth.

Jack replies: Jealous much?


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Lmc sez: ---Sure, as soon as I see these people calling others suck, loser, filthy,trash, etc banned for 3 mo's, like I always was.--and I never called any names like that.

Jack replies: Again, hubpages is a commercial business. They have the “right” run it EXACTLY the way they choose in regard to how they accept certain things and how they don’t. Do you disagree with this?

Lmc sez: And sure----when you let me know just how many times these people get to come back after their bans.....seems like they get light-weight treatment for heavy duty attacks.

Jack replies: You’re really fixated on this, eh.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

lmc sez: My daughter...

Jack replies: Daughter? I thought you were 12. I am sooooo confused now.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Heres' another example of their integrity:

"Daily Caller's smear campaign implodes as more Dominican women recant their stories on Senator Menendez"....I know, I know.... "they both do it"

So, where's the liberal website that paid prostitutes to lie, and say they were molested by a Republican Senator?

**********

12? I raised a grandson til he was 12....working on #2....pulleeeeze.

I will say though, I never saw such tantrums and disgusting behavior from them like I see from grown people here.

They have manners.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

btw, conscientious and conservative don't mix. Not in this day and age.

The word is CON.

"You’re really fixated on this, eh."

Yup...it's a thorn in my side. I don't kin to backing down when treated badly.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

lmc is getting far, far away from the topic of guns. Not that I blame her, of course.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Nope: you took it off course in your 1st post:

"BTW... it's a real shame that lovemychris wants to ban such things as hammers and fists. We would NEVER allow these things in public arena if we cared about lives."

******

If you'll notice: not on topic, smug slur on my person.

Grow Up lady.


Mike 3 years ago

"btw, conscientious and conservative don't mix. Not in this day and age."

I could debate that, but this is supposed to be a thread about gun control. It definitely doesn't seem to be that any longer.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

lmc sez: If you'll notice: not on topic, smug slur on my person.

jack replies: Errrr.... it was YOU who want to ban things that people use to hurt other people. YOU stated that if we cared about life we would NEVER allow these things.

Hammers and fists kill far more people each year than rifles do. Thanks for giving me a chance to remind readers of that since you can't explain away your inconsistency on this.


ImKarn23 profile image

ImKarn23 3 years ago

i do not have the strength at the moment to deal with the heartless morons - who probably have never even read the 2nd amendment - and give no thought to the bloody swiss cheese that used to be live children!

'Hammers and fist, cars and bicycles' - all pure crap - nobody loads, aims - and SHOOTS a hammer - you can't murder 20 children in 30 seconds with your fists...etc...etc...

Distraction, distortion, and delusion..

in other words - the ignorant kool-aid drinkers that the piranha of the NRA ADORE!

well done lmc..

up and sharing


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

Im sez: i do not have the strength at the moment to deal with the heartless morons - who probably have never even read the 2nd amendment - and give no thought to the bloody swiss cheese that used to be live children!

Jack replies: This is a typical rant of someone who really has nothing of value to add to a dialogue. Because we disagree with her than obviously, to her way of thinking, we have given “no thought” to the harm that happens to children. This is the best she can do. No logic… no rational discourse… no reason… just pure hyper-emotionalism.

Im sez: 'Hammers and fist, cars and bicycles' - all pure crap - nobody loads, aims - and SHOOTS a hammer - you can't murder 20 children in 30 seconds with your fists...etc...etc...

Jack replies: But, as noted in the statistics from the FBI, you can kill many more people a year with hammers and fists than you can with all the kinds of rifles put together. IM must only care about dead children when they are killed in large numbers at one time, eh. Those thousands of people killed by hammers and fists in just a few years must be meaningless to her.

Im sez: Distraction, distortion, and delusion..

Jack replies: Notice that she really can’t answer anything?

Im sez: in other words - the ignorant kool-aid drinkers that the piranha of the NRA ADORE!

Jack replies: Im is the one who is willing to avoid the awful, painful reality of thousands of dead people and she calls others “kool aid drinkers” eh.


HLPhoenix profile image

HLPhoenix 3 years ago

Short ... and absolutely on point. I think the pictures should be released. Just seeing the coffins come home from the Vietnam War got the protests going... that is why Bush wouldn't allow photographs of our Soldiers bodies coming back from Iraq etc... Obama reinstated the custom of pictures of them returning home... thus giving them honor and allowing us to see what the price of war actually was.

I wouldn't want to look at the pictures of the children BUT our Congresspeople should Have to do so before they vote. They are all for us seeing aborted fetuses... let them look at their handiwork... after all many of them were in Congress when the last Ban on Semi-Automatic weapons and multi clip ammo was allowed to expire. They are as guilty as the shooter.

Thanks for the Hub... a very different 'eye' view of the topic.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

hl sez: when the last Ban on Semi-Automatic weapons and multi clip ammo was allowed to expire. They are as guilty as the shooter.

Jack replies: HL doesn't know that there was NEVER a "ban on semi-automatic weapons and multi-clip ammo" but yet he blames Congress for allowing a non-existent something or other to "expire."

This is a prime example of what I mean when I post about people who just have no clue as to what they are posting about but they feel compelled to post anyway. Honestly, I just don't understand it.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

100 ++++Phoenix.

Nothing left to say.


TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 3 years ago from Camp Hill, PA Author

I was respond to your references to Martial Arts.

And to me that means that there should be a limit to the potential to commit horrible acts.

But that would be bad for the Gun Manufacturers that the NRA has become an de facto lobby for.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

lmc sez: 100 ++++Phoenix. Nothing left to say.

jack replies: Nothing left to say except that phonix was 100 percent wrong in his facts. But his post makes people ffffeeeellll gggggoooddd and that is what is important.


Mike 3 years ago

@phoenix

"Short ... and absolutely on point. I think the pictures should be released. Just seeing the coffins come home from the Vietnam War got the protests going... that is why Bush wouldn't allow photographs of our Soldiers bodies coming back from Iraq etc... Obama reinstated the custom of pictures of them returning home... thus giving them honor and allowing us to see what the price of war actually was."

They were never showing the bodies coming back from Iraq. They were showing the coffins the bodies were coming back in. The problem was that these troops' sacrifices were being disrespected by those seeking to use them for political gain. Michael Moore is hoping to do the same with these dead children and take it to the next level. Showing a funeral or a coffin is not enough for him. He is hoping for grusesome pictures of dead children. The more grotesque they are, the happier he would be.

"after all many of them were in Congress when the last Ban on Semi-Automatic weapons and multi clip ammo was allowed to expire. They are as guilty as the shooter."

Is there one anti-gun person anywhere that knows anything about firearms or the law?


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

I remember Obama doing that...and how he stood there giving the military salute when they came off the plane....

Nice. That's what a Commander in Chief does.

As well as not jump into the PNAC plans at the drop of a hat.

*****

Gosh....I guess it was all a dream that we all watched that on tv.

My C-Span....*love*

Yep: it was a fact.

But it makes Cons Feeeeel Gooood to ignore facts.

Hey egg: need a baba?


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

is there one gun advocate who can debate without using the term anti-gun?

Far as I know.......most people around here own them.

I am def anti-gun: but they label all of them that to smear.....

Stop it. IF you are honest intent that is.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

mom, when I grow up I'm going to marry a corporation and take our egg for a walk in the stroller....


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest

knc sez: I remember Obama doing that...and how he stood there giving the military salute when they came off the plane....

Jack replies: Yes he did... but the motives that phonix ascribed to the acting parties had nothing to do with it.

BTW... do you believe the phonix was right or wrong in his statement about the ban on semi-auto guns? Yes or no? I am really interested in your answer.

lmc sez: is there one gun advocate who can debate without using the term anti-gun? Far as I know.......most people around here own them.

jack replies: That's like the KKK member who typically says, "Of course I have a Negro friend."

lmc sez: I am def anti-gun: but they label all of them that to smear.....

Jack replies: So I am confused. It's now a "smear" to label you with the truth? And yes, one can own a gun and still be "anti gun." It's quite easy. Feinstein owns guns but do you think she is "pro gun"?

lmc sez: and take our egg for a walk in the stroller....

Jack replies: How pitiful. But the best that lmc can do, eh.


Mike 3 years ago

@love

"I remember Obama doing that...and how he stood there giving the military salute when they came off the plane...."

I'm hoping he did that because he felt it was the right thing for him to do. I'm not going to question his motives. Again though, they showed the coffins. I wasn't implying there were not dead Americans in those coffins. Michael Moore wants pictures of dead children, hopefully at the crime scene with lots of blood, to be distributed to the public to further his agenda.

"I am def anti-gun: but they label all of them that to smear....."

What would you prefer? Firearm ownership challenged? Pro restrictive laws that do nothing person? It honestly wasn't meant as a smear. It was meant to identify those on the other side. I have no problem being labeled pro-gun.


Mike 3 years ago

Also @love

Abortion is not a factor in all of the world's arguments.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

No one is challenging ownership!!!

They are trying to restrict some semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines, and are trying to get universal background checks.

The fact that this seems to be too much for the NRA is very telling!

And abortion IS a factor here: Gun-Owners demand the choice to kill if need be.

....And No one better take that away!

Women demand the same CHOICE to abort a fetus should they need it.

Gun owners are saying THEY have the right to kill, but not women-- in their own property: their body.

They are saying their choice is sacrosanct, but IGNORE the SC ruling in favor of women's choice.

and y'all had better look around you.....your rights are not going anywhere.....mine are already gone.

Spare me the 2nd amendment hoohaahaa...you don't get to pick and choose the Constitution.

OR you'd respect the 14th as well!


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

"How pitiful. But the best that lmc can do, eh."

just can't help yourself, can you?

Like I said: I know you like the back of my hand.

Cheers, and pip pip


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

"What would you prefer?"

anti military-style, mass-murdering instruments of war.

what, pray-tell is michael moore's agenda?

He is or was a member of the NRA you know.


Mike 3 years ago

@love

"No one is challenging ownership!!!

They are trying to restrict some semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines, and are trying to get universal background checks."

That is challenging ownership. You think I should be able to own only what you and others like you approve of.

"And abortion IS a factor here: Gun-Owners demand the choice to kill if need be.

....And No one better take that away!"

Humans have the choice to kill "if need be" whether there are fireams in the world or not. The problem is when and why some people feel that need.

"Women demand the same CHOICE to abort a fetus should they need it.

Gun owners are saying THEY have the right to kill, but not women-- in their own property: their body.

They are saying their choice is sacrosanct, but IGNORE the SC ruling in favor of women's choice."

I haven't brought my personal views on abortion up in this argument. They are irrelevant. There are pro-gun and anti-gun folks on both sides of the abortion argument.

"and y'all had better look around you.....your rights are not going anywhere.....mine are already gone."

You have lost me on this one. If you gauge your freedom by the ability to have an abortion then it sounds like your good to go. Abortion is legal.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Welp...just heard: no assault weapons ban. Didn't have the votes in the Senate.

US Senators: When a mass murder happens again: do me a favor and look in the mirror.

"Abortion is legal."--try getting one.


Mike 3 years ago

"Welp...just heard: no assault weapons ban. Didn't have the votes in the Senate."

And the Senate is run by the Democrats. Go figure.


Mike 3 years ago

"Abortion is legal."--try getting one.

I'm a guy. I don't think the doctor would take me seriously.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

That's right....I said so already....most people own guns themselves, so they are not anti-gun people. They just want some common sense...and they lost.

There are plenty of blue dog Dems that I have a problem with just as much as the Baggers. They are greedy and anti-abortion and use money and religion to make decisions just as much.

But now you guys really can't call the Dems Obama shills either: as he was pushing for this assault weapons ban and universal background check.

And don't worry--most doctors have quit the abortion game, as it leads to terrorism, stalking and death. They do take it seriously, and it's not worth their while to do it.

But hey!....we can still blast 20 kids away in minutes! USA USA USA


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Just in case anyone interested:

“The five Democratic senators from traditionally pro-gun states who have expressed skepticism about the bill are Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Independent Senator Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, also said he opposes a ban.”

*******

I'm assuming every R voted against it....

Now I's done. So angry and pizzzzed off about all kinds of things: better go let off steam.


Mike 3 years ago

@love

"I'm assuming every R voted against it....

Now I's done. So angry and pizzzzed off about all kinds of things: better go let off steam."

No Republican ever had a chance to vote on it. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid voluntarily dropped her plan.


Mike 3 years ago

@love

"That's right....I said so already....most people own guns themselves, so they are not anti-gun people. They just want some common sense...and they lost."

Common sense is not universally the same. Your idea of common sense and mine are two different things. You've said before that I should be allowed to have firearms, but only those that people like you approve of.

"But now you guys really can't call the Dems Obama shills either: as he was pushing for this assault weapons ban and universal background check."

Any Democrat voting against Obama's initiatives must be worried about their constituents voting them out of office next election. That means the people they are representing do not agree with some of Obama's intiatives. This is how representation works.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

People like me are citizens here too. Seems to me what you are saying is we have to put up with whatever people like you want!

And trust me, I do it plenty already.

I happen to live in a place where speech is bought. Those with the most money: speak!

I don't listen to radio anymore, because there are no people like me on it. People like you bought up all the airwaves.

******

And yes, those Dems live in Red states, and they fear going up against the NRA. Lot o money there for adds, smear-campaigns etc.

Hell, even threats maybe! You heard Nugent....he was pretty violent towards Obama , Pelosi and Clinton. Have gun, will bully.

Or--they are gun owners too, and just agree with the NRA.

****

I'm just saying.....next time: you all take the blame, and own it. No more cop outs: blaming video games and drugs.

People kill w guns: the gun is the weapon of choice.

Y'all are just making it easier for everybody to do.

In the name of your freedom.

How many more next times will it take?


Mike 3 years ago

@love

"People like me are citizens here too. Seems to me what you are saying is we have to put up with whatever people like you want!

And trust me, I do it plenty already."

I agree with you in your right as a citizen to express your views. In this case it seems that representatives could not support the assault weapons ban based on the will of their constituents. Any Democrat is certainly taking a risk by going against Obama.

"I happen to live in a place where speech is bought. Those with the most money: speak!

I don't listen to radio anymore, because there are no people like me on it. People like you bought up all the airwaves."

I haven't found a radio or television station that has folks on that I totally agree with or even mostly agree with. That is why I like the internet so much. If I think an article or story sucks I can just move on to the next. I see the the internet as having the greatest potential to bring people together right now. Never has there been an opportunity to search such a large amount of information at will and communicate with people around the world.

"And yes, those Dems live in Red states, and they fear going up against the NRA. Lot o money there for adds, smear-campaigns etc."

That's just not true. Democrats can also be voted out of office by their constituents for another Democrat representative.

"Hell, even threats maybe! You heard Nugent....he was pretty violent towards Obama , Pelosi and Clinton. Have gun, will bully.

Or--they are gun owners too, and just agree with the NRA."

Ted Nugent is a little extreme, but he is entertaining. The Secret Servie investigated his supposed threats and interviewed him. Their conclusion was that he is not a threat. If Uncle Ted hurts anyone unnecessarily or for the sake of cruelty, please let me know. That will be enough to change my opinion of him immediately. I don't totally agree with his hunting views, but he does eat much of what he kills and also brings disabled veterans to his ranch. Overall, I think he is a plus at the moment.

"People kill w guns: the gun is the weapon of choice.

Y'all are just making it easier for everybody to do."

If someone could wave a magic wand and make all the firearms in the world disappear, there would be another weapon of choice.

"In the name of your freedom.

How many more next times will it take?"

Hopefully there will never be another shooting massacre, but we both know there will be regardless of additional laws. The Columbine Massacre happened in the middle of the last "Assault Weapons Ban." It had absolutely no effect on crime.


TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 3 years ago from Camp Hill, PA Author

I've been using the term "gun safety" myself.

Or "gun sanity"


TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 3 years ago from Camp Hill, PA Author

Nor are guns


TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 3 years ago from Camp Hill, PA Author

LMC:

Google "The Rick Smith Show" or "Equal Time Radio".

And if you're wondering why the comments regarding the Ban have been denied, I plan to do a whole hub on that, we can discuss that then--K.

I also think the American "Culture of violence" is a factor, and one that the NRA, etc count on.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Yes...most def. The sales of guns and ammo would be my bet. Otherwise, they could not possibly defend allowing people to own friggin military-style weapons in the friggin neighborhoods of America....

And they diss Obama for drones?

HA!....right up the same GD ally.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Mike..I've heard all the justifications. I get it.

Just own it next time it happens. That is your responsibilty. You defend it: own the consequences.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

"Shortly after the 2006 law took effect, President Bush nominated U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan to head the ATF, but even a Republican president’s choice proved unacceptable to pro-gun lobbyists. The NRA, in particular, accused Sullivan of “overly restrictive legal interpretations” and “overly zealous enforcement activities” because, while Sullivan served as Acting Director of ATF, the agency revoked several gun dealers licenses to sell firearms. Sens. David Vitter (R-LA), Larry Craig (R-ID) and Mike Crapo (R-ID) quickly took up the gun lobby’s cause, placing a hold on Sullivan’s nomination until he agreed to comply with the NRA’s demands. Sullivan was never confirmed.

The problem only got worse once President Obama took office. Obama did not nominate an ATF Director until Nov. 2010, in no small part because the administration “had a tough time even finding a candidate interested in the ATF job because of likely gun-lobby resistance.” When Obama finally did nominate Andrew Traver, a 23 year veteran of the ATF and the head of its Chicago office, the gun lobby did not disappoint. Within 24 hours of the Traver nomination, the NRA officially announced its opposition."

*******

"Freedom"


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

2 headlines:

Tuesday, Mar 19, 2013 7:16 PM UTC

Homeowner shoots, kills teenager who mistakenly entered the wrong house ---he was 16.

March 20, 2013 Colorado Prison Chief Shot Dead Hours Before Governor to Sign Landmark Gun Laws

*******

This is what caught me cold:

"The National Rifle Association’s local affiliate fought hard against the measures, arguing that the laws aimed at protecting human life will harm the state’s economy."

---there is nothing more to say.

And I'm done being nice.


Mike 3 years ago

@love

"Homeowner shoots, kills teenager who mistakenly entered the wrong house ---he was 16."

Did you read the article. This kid was a big athlete who came through the guys window drunk at 2 AM with the help of his friends and wouldn't stop when warned.

Here is the story folks:

"When he left the party about 2 a.m., Caleb needed to sneak home. His friends dropped him off and helped hoist him through a back window. But Caleb had been drinking and had gone to the wrong house. The brick homes on his street are similar, and Caleb was two doors down from his own.

The homeowner heard his burglar alarm sound, grabbed his gun and went to investigate. When the two met on the stairs inside the house, the man said he told the teen to leave and fired a warning shot, according to a law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation.

Caleb didn’t stop, and the home-owner fired again, striking and killing the teen, the official said."

Your second article:

"March 20, 2013 Colorado Prison Chief Shot Dead Hours Before Governor to Sign Landmark Gun Laws"

This individual was clearly targeted and now there is speculation it may been a professional hit.

Please explain how either of these shooting highlights the need for a ban on "assault rifles," high capacity magazines, or anything else for that matter.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

"They have the exact same staircase as us, the exact same carpet. Caleb clearly thought he was in his own house,” said his father, Shawn Gordley, who provided the account of his son’s night. “He probably stumbled around and was just trying to go to his room.”

Lived 2 houses down: honest mistake, but kid is dead, due to the media-driven paranoia we all live in today.

You really think the kid deserved to die?

Once my drunk husband came at me, and I clocked him a good one. He's 6'4, I'm 5'5. It worked.

Guess now--if I shot him instead, you'd be cool w it? BUT.....a woman is scared to death of an ex, and she can't get the law to take his gun?

We need a ban on gun culture, period. This is not the wild wild west, and everyone here is held hostage to your supposed freedom.

A ban on those rifles and high-capacity mags would have sent a good message: we aren't taking it anymore!

As it is, we'll just sit back as people are shot down day after day after day after day......

And people can't vote, and women can't get abortions, and gays can't marry.

But hey--send me the stats on murder by hammer and fist, that'll make it all even.

********in case you missed it, my answer:

"A ban on those rifles and high-capacity mags would have sent a good message: we aren't taking it anymore!"


Mike 3 years ago

@love

"Lived 2 houses down: honest mistake, but kid is dead, due to the media-driven paranoia we all live in today.

You really think the kid deserved to die?"

Honest mistake? Paranoia? What is wrong with you?

The man was awoken by his burglar alarm going off and found a large male coming up his stairs. He fired a warning shot and told the large male to leave his home. The large male then proceeded to come towards him and was shot. What the hell was he supposed to do?

"You really think the kid deserved to die?"

I think the homeowner had the right to defend himself from an intruder coming through his window at 2 AM.

"********in case you missed it, my answer:

"A ban on those rifles and high-capacity mags would have sent a good message: we aren't taking it anymore!""

My question, in case you missed it is: What does this shooting have to do with "those rifles" and high capacity magazines?


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Well, you didn't answer my question, but I did answer yours. Twice.

You don't like my answer, that's not my problem.

A gun is a gun is a gun....they all kill.

All shootings are related to all guns. You have to take responsibilty for what you are doing to the rest of us.

And so I can take you to mean that: Yes, that kid deserved to die because he was drunk and went in the wrong house.


Mike 3 years ago

"A gun is a gun is a gun....they all kill."

I'll take that to mean that your argument has progressed from opposition of "assault rifles" and high capacity magazine to an all out ban on firearms.

"You don't like my answer, that's not my problem."

Your answer is similar to me asking you what color the sky is and you telling me that rocks are hard.

"And so I can take you to mean that: Yes, that kid deserved to die because he was drunk and went in the wrong house."

The "kid" was a large male who broke into someone's home at 2 AM setting off his burglar alarm. He then proceeded up the homeowner's stairs and continued to advance after being warned. The fact that he was drunk not only caused him enter the wrong home, but I'm sure it also made the confrontation much more confusing. I'm not happy the young man is dead, but I certainly do not fault the actions of the homeowner for his death.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

3rd try:

do you think the kid deserved to die?

...you need to say yes, to be an honest broker. This is the whole credo of what the 2nd is: you have the right to kill.

Yet, you keep denying it.

and you need to stop thinking I am beneath you, and my answers aren't up to your standards.

I support the Feinstein bill.--that leaves 2,000 something choice of guns.

Passing that would have sent a message that "no, you don't have free reign to have any type of weapon you want...we get to set limits." 2nd amendment: well-regulated.

That is how it relates to these 2 stories. People in Ameria think they have the right to do anything they want regarding guns.

Passing Feinstein's bill would have sent a message, that no you don't.

Change of mind-set.

What is the message we have now?

There is no prohibition on what type of guns or ammo you own: go for it: free-for-all.


Mike 3 years ago

@love

"do you think the kid deserved to die?"

Based on the information so far, the young man's actions caused his shooting. It was justified. If I had been in the homeowner's shoes I likely would have fired also.

You're not looking at it from the homeowner's point of view. The article I read earlier didn't mention his health or whether he had a family. Did he think he was physically capable of stopping the intruder without shooting? Did he have a wife and children he wanted to protect? I am divorced and have no children. I can tell you without a doubt that my response would be more severe in that kind of situation if I thought harm would come to those I cared about if I failed to stop an intruder. It's one thing to except a risk of losing at you own safety, it's another to risk the safety of those looking to you to protect them.

"...you need to say yes, to be an honest broker. This is the whole credo of what the 2nd is: you have the right to kill.

Yet, you keep denying it."

You picked a bad example to try to prove the 2nd amendment is about killing. This man was protecting his home from an intruder. You have stated in your previous posts that people should be allowed to protect their home.

"and you need to stop thinking I am beneath you, and my answers aren't up to your standards."

Then put yourself in the homeowner's shoes. Think about what he observed at the time.

"I support the Feinstein bill.--that leaves 2,000 something choice of guns.

Passing that would have sent a message that "no, you don't have free reign to have any type of weapon you want...we get to set limits." 2nd amendment: well-regulated."

We don't have free reign to any firearm we want. Firearms are heavily restricted. Many of just don't believe in her regulations. The 1994-2004 ban did absolutely nothing to stop violence or even gun related violence.

A couple of other scenarios if you believe his actions shoud be excused because he was drunk:

Would you call for immunity for a person with no criminal background getting drunk and causing a car accident that killed a husband and two small children?

Would you ask for forgiveness for a person without a history of violence deciding to use drugs which influenced their reasoning and played a role in them raping a woman?


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

People need to pay for their actions.

I don't think getting drunk and going in the wrong house deserves the death penalty.

You suppose the man was old enough to have seen a drunk person before...and a kid, at that? It's a dereliction of a life as far as I'm concerned, and without a gun, the kid would most likely just have passed out drunk.

But, that is only my opinion, and it has no bearing on anything. The kid is dead, the man is not charged, and he will have to live w it for the rest of his life.

I'm just telling you I hate this gun culture, and I am forced to endure it, while you all tell me how you stand for freedom.

And I hate to tell you, but all those regs you mention are hampered due to the NRA. ImKarn wrote a couple of hubs on it. Or you can google it.

Laws aren't enforced, or they are watered down, or ignored due to their influence. Them, and ALEC.

*****

I can't call for immunity on anything. And forgiveness depends on the situation at hand.

I have been raped, and I have forgiven. But it took a long time, so there is no easy answer. I just know this: once you are dead, it's ovah.


Mike 3 years ago

"I don't think getting drunk and going in the wrong house deserves the death penalty."

You are over-simplifying it again. He broke into a man's home through a window at 2 Am setting off the burglar alarm. He was then confronted while coming up the stairs and was told to leave. He then proceeded up the stairs and was shot. Stop making it sound like he walked in the wrong house, said "damn wrong house," and was shot.

"You suppose the man was old enough to have seen a drunk person before...and a kid, at that? It's a dereliction of a life as far as I'm concerned, and without a gun, the kid would most likely just have passed out drunk."

The young man was illegally under the influence of a substance and broke into a home. Again, put yourself in the homeowner's shoes. Also stop calling the young man a kid. He looks to be over six feet tall and there is a picture online of him palming a basketball. Anyway, a 16 year old is more of a threat than a 26 or 36 year old. They are way more unpredicatable and are less likely to think things through.

"But, that is only my opinion, and it has no bearing on anything. The kid is dead, the man is not charged, and he will have to live w it for the rest of his life."

I feel sorry for the man. He probably feels horrible and didn't have all the information you are arguing with when he pulled the trigger.

"I'm just telling you I hate this gun culture, and I am forced to endure it, while you all tell me how you stand for freedom."

The young man was not shot because of a "gun culture." The young man was shot because a homeowner defended his home after the young man broke into it and came at him.

"And I hate to tell you, but all those regs you mention are hampered due to the NRA. ImKarn wrote a couple of hubs on it. Or you can google it."

I don't think the NRA is interfering with the enforcement of gun laws. Even those of us who are pro-gun often ask why some laws are not enforced. My main question is why those who lie on background check paperwork are merely told that they can't purchase the firearm. Why aren't they criminally prosecuted?


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Basically Mike, all you have said is the kid deserved to die, and the man had the right to kill him.

It IS as simple as that!

And it IS about gun culture.

Because, had that kid come in my window, my old man would have belted him--but he would be still alive.

The price for your gun freedom is that people die.

Deserving/undeserving.

It's not all good. It's black and white.

I think the answer to your question is corruption and money. And I posted an article recently where Obama didn't even try and fill the ATF post because there was no one who would take it and go up against the NRA.

http://educationclearinghouse.wordpress.com/2012/1...

one of many examples.


Mike 3 years ago

You are beyond reasoning with. You have utterly failed to comprehend the perspectives of others. You fail to consider any arguments and then attempt to bring completely unrelated issues into the topic. I'm through arguing with you.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Right back atcha bro.


TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 3 years ago from Camp Hill, PA Author

LMC:

Folks like Mike and Jack can't see past the crosshairs, IMO.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 3 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Read this if you haven't already:

All of their concerns must be met of course, or Obama is a bad bad man.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/15241-iraq-sandy...

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working