jump to last post 1-50 of 519 discussions (4003 posts)

The outdated 2nd amendment.

  1. peoplepower73 profile image89
    peoplepower73posted 15 months ago

    Let's face facts people.  The 2nd amendment was written for another time and another place.  It has no place in today's world. It is causing mentally ill people to commit mass killings.  The gun enthusiast who think they are going to protect themselves from government tyranny are wrong.  They have to protect themselves from the mentally ill.  The only problem is they don't know when a mentally ill person is going to commit those crimes.  It's like testing to see if  a match lights.  It's after the fact.  So the NRA wants more guns for everybody.  Let's have a stand'em up shoot'em down bury them in gone smoke kind of country, where it is gunfight at the O.K. Corral.  How do you feel about it?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      To think that removing guns from our society will reduce the homicide rate is ludicrous.  There isn't a place on earth where that has shown to be true, and in fact those localities in the US that have done so have the highest murder rate in the country.

      The problem isn't guns - why then do we insist in putting our efforts into a known failure (taking guns) instead of looking for and solving the real problem?  A sop to those that fear guns?  A political ploy for votes?  Simple ignorance from people that refuse to educate themselves?  We have one of the most violent societies on earth - why can't we put an honest effort into correcting that instead of blaming the tool most often used and pretending that if it weren't for the tool the action wouldn't happen?

      1. ahorseback profile image52
        ahorsebackposted 15 months ago in reply to this

        ++++++++++++

        1. PegCole17 profile image89
          PegCole17posted 14 months ago in reply to this

          I was watching a crime show recently where a woman was killed with a large rock. Perhaps we should outlaw rocks, and hammers, and knives, too, since deranged people use these as weapons. (not really)

          1. Skarlet profile image85
            Skarletposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            lol. Great point.   smile

          2. QuintessenceOfAng profile image84
            QuintessenceOfAngposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            Like :-)

          3. arizdude profile image70
            arizdudeposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            Now and then, professional boxers get killed in the ring.... let's outlaw that, too! Basketball, football? Hell... eliminate all sports! After all, you never know when a ping-pong ball will send you to your maker!

            1. peoplepower73 profile image89
              peoplepower73posted 13 months ago in reply to this

              And there you have it the wonderful retort about let's ban everything because anything including a feather can be used to kill people.  You can tickle them to death with a feather.

              1. Alternative Prime profile image85
                Alternative Primeposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                Actually arizdude, of the 3 mentioned, BOXING Absolutely should be OUTLAWED ~ It's one of the ONLY Endeavors where the Explicit INTENT is to Brutally Beat and at times Kill an Opponent ~ How Barbaric, Inhumane, and Unlawful is That?

                Football should be Regulated as well but not necessarily OUTLAWED primarily due to the INTENT FACTOR ~ Further Medical Studies pertaining to how much BRAIN Damage actually occurs during a career would be necessary to render a FINAL Determination ~

                1. ahorseback profile image52
                  ahorsebackposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                  That's just what boxers need is for you to determine the amount of punch is okay ,  what is it with the mommy mentality of the brainwashed liberal ,  no football too , wow you really do  care about others ?

                2. Jackie Lynnley profile image76
                  Jackie Lynnleyposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                  Drunk drivers kill; do we outlaw cars?

                  1. Celeb Scoops profile image80
                    Celeb Scoopsposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                    I recently wrote a hub about this, if you guys could check it out and leave some ways on which we can put an end to mass shootings without changing gun laws or revoking our rights and second amendment.

              2. jbosh1972 profile image91
                jbosh1972posted 11 months ago in reply to this

                I personally want nothing to do with guns.  That being said I would stand amongst true patriots to defend their second amendments against liberal hacks like yourself.  The fathers of our republic were absolute geniuses and they carefully thought and debated about the future republic.  The crafted a constitution that has values and virtues that are timeless.   I cordially invite you to move into the southside slums of Chicago and you can tell us how your liberal utopia is faring.

                1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
                  wrenchBiscuitposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                  http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12806612.jpg

                  Personally, I would never align myself with murderers, pedophiles,thieves, and slaveowners. And of course, that's what Washington, Jefferson, and the rest of their motley crew were all about. That's good for you! Stand right up front where we can see you better.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                    So George Washington, the one who fought against all odds to bring forth a Nation where religious freedom could be exercised and a government for and by the people could take hold for the benefit of the people, knowingly and intentionally stole from others, molested children, broke The biblical Commandment, "Thou shat not Kill," and owned slaves counter to cultural custom.

                    Your view of the founding of this nation is very warped.
                    Your hatred of the natural fall of your ancestors has warped your sense of reality to the extent you narrowly focus on minor negativity compared to the overall and glorious positivity which could continue to flourish,
                    except for the likes of you ~

                      Thanks for nothin …

                2. peoplepower73 profile image89
                  peoplepower73posted 11 months ago in reply to this

                  I cordially invite you to go into the future 100 years from now and see if the 2nd amendment still holds up the values and virtues that are timeless.   Timeless means timeless.  Do you think the framers  of the constitution and the 2nd amendment could see timelessly into the future?

                  1. Doug Cutler profile image80
                    Doug Cutlerposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                    Yes! I do think they had some access via the Akashic Record or told in a similar way the prophets were informed. There is a better constitution coming. Wont know what it will say about keeping and bearing. Until that time we will user the one with the minor changes as of  early 1800's.

          4. Alternative Prime profile image85
            Alternative Primeposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            PegCole17 ~

            Very POOR examples which have been used by the Gun Lobby since the Dinosaurs Wandered the Earth ~

            Try killing someone with a Heavy Rock, or Hammer, or Knife from 30 or 40 feet away ~ Unless you're Daniel Boone or Jeronimo's Grand-Daughter, it probably ain't gonna work out so well ~

            In CONTRAST, Guns are one of the only Tools Specifically Designed to Kill and are much MORE Efficient at doing so ~ NOT too sure how a MASS Murder would work out on a Train or Bus using a ROCK or Cappuccino Maker, or Toothpick ~ smile

            Which device would you rather have aimed at YOU, and be HONEST with YOURSELF ~ A Gun, Knife, Ping Pong Ball, Tire Iron, Rock, Cappuccino Maker, Car, or Jeb Bush's Personality?? ~ BE HONEST ~

            1. Doug Cutler profile image80
              Doug Cutlerposted 13 months ago in reply to this

              Or those bullets the U.S. gave out free to ordinary people to use to kill buffalo! Did they throw them at the buffalo? Or did they have them eat them and they died from lead poisoning? Or could it have been, as determined, that God /nature killed them through diseases?

            2. jfagan514 profile image60
              jfagan514posted 12 months ago in reply to this

              This guy (and i use that term loosely) would have you to believe that a mass murderer would use a gun in every criminal act, yet we see in today's world of mass extremest personalities this is not the case. so wake up to reality and that until such time as my Lord  and savior Jesus Christ returns in the second coming to cleanse our earth, mankind must take the fight for the weak and oppressed, the widows, orphans, And our wounded veterans of war!
              And the firearms we have allow us to do this against all enemies foreign and domestic.
              Yes I am a Natural born American and try to live a Christian life, I'm a gun owner and have taught all my children and some of my grandsons the proper handling of firearms.
              To you folks that believe removing guns from the law abiding will reduce crime , well just keep on texting and driving who will it hurt?
              And by the way you can be killed with anything!!!

              1. Doug Cutler profile image80
                Doug Cutlerposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                Just today there were two different attacks, the killers using knives. I don't want them to get that close. So, a gun is my choice of self defense device. No mace or such. Do away with them so they don't harm another day. Same with a strapped on bomb. The further away the better. Kill before they can kill.

              2. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
                wrenchBiscuitposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12753256.jpg

                The perversion of Christianity began in earnest with Constantine the Great, and can be observed today in the secular materialism, and the violent methods that have been embraced  by many so-called Christians.

                You may be a "Natural born American", but that's where it ends. Jesus was a pacifist. If you follow Jesus , you must be willing to give up everything, including your life. The only weapon a Christian needs is a weapon of prayer. If you take up arms against anyone, even to save your own life, then you are demonstrating a lack of faith in the will of God. Jesus did not use violence to save himself from the crucifixion. That is the path that a Christian must follow.

                Yet, your very words suggest that your life , the life of a mere mortal, is worth more  than the life of Jesus. You are also suggesting that Jesus requires us to  violently protect the weak and the downtrodden until he returns. Anyone who has ever studied scripture knows that such concepts have nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. Violence doesn't work. Violence has not, cannot, and will never bring  peace to the world. This is why the world hates Jesus. Because in order to follow Jesus, a man must step away from the world, and be willing to give up all of his possessions. And of course, a man's greatest possessions are his life, and the life of his family. Today's Christians cannot reconcile with the beauty and perfection of this teaching.  Instead, they worship vanity and materialism with their heart, while giving lip-service to Jesus. Read and learn.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  Read and learn what? That Jesus wants us to not protect ourselves, our loved ones and our nation?
                  You do not love the nation. Do you love yourself?
                      Jesus did not say what you said he said.
                  Our missions and our roles are not the same as Jesus. He came with a specific mission.
                  We all come with different missions based on our self-guided WILLS and self-chosen paths.
                  You, of all of us, are on the highest of horses.


                  In My Opinion

                  1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
                    wrenchBiscuitposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12754264.jpg
                    Yes, I am on a high horse, that is why I can see so clearly; why I am not as confused as those who spend their days crawling around on their hands and knees; groping in the dark. I have only highlighted the hypocrisy of those who swear by Jesus, but who in reality fear death, and who worship materialism. Jesus wants us to protect ourselves from eternal damnation. Jesus has come to harvest the wheat, and not the chaff.   

                    Who among you will keep a rotten pear, and throw out all of the good ones? Committing an act of murder will not save a man's soul. At best it may prolong his mortal life, but only  for a moment. What kind of a fool would forfeit an eternity for one moment, one day, or even  one hundred years? According to Jesus, there is no justification for violence and murder. Here are the words of Jesus. If they offend you, then perhaps you should shop around for a new God, and a new religion.


                    Matthew 26:52-54
                    Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?”

                    Psalm 11:5
                    The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.

                    Isaiah 60:18
                    Violence shall no more be heard in your land, devastation or destruction within your borders; you shall call your walls Salvation, and your gates Praise.

                    Matthew 5:38-39

                    “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.


                    Proverbs 3:31

                    Do not envy a man of violence and do not choose any of his ways.


                    Romans 12:19
                    Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

                    Galatians 6:1
                    Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.

            3. 72
              Camden Thomasposted 10 months ago in reply to this

              Ah, but what about the Blackmarket? Just because Gun's are outlawed DOESN'T mean that  they won't exist on the blackmarket where ALL the criminals can get access. Then what? What happens when the GOOD people can't access the weaponry to save there lives. But all the bad people have access to destroy lives?

              1. peoplepower73 profile image89
                peoplepower73posted 10 months ago in reply to this

                http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12825113.jpg

          5. MizBejabbers profile image91
            MizBejabbersposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            Sorry to say that they do use these primative weapons. An intruder broke into a house in my hometown and killed a woman with a hammer a few years ago. It is a small town, and he was caught and prosecuted.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              July 18, 2009, North Epping, New South Wales, Australia.

              After government grabbed all the semi-automatic weapons from it's citizens in 1996, the mass murderer here killed 5 members of the Lin family with a "blunt instrument" - a hammer like tool purchased from a $2 store.  15 year old Brenda Lin was the only survivor as she was on a school trip at the time.

              Arson has also been popular since the gun grab; 171 dead in 4 mass murders.  135 of them in one case; fire is much more effective than guns and matches are cheap...

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m … _Australia

          6. wpcooper profile image88
            wpcooperposted 11 months ago in reply to this

            the rock incident from the crime show is just plain silly

          7. 83
            cwritesnowposted 10 months ago in reply to this

            Hahahahahahahahaha. Please stop using your brain. You are making sense. Stop that! You're not allowed to do that.....

        2. My Esoteric profile image89
          My Esotericposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          You are very wrong there.  Every place on earth that effectively limits gun ownership has a much lower rate of deaths from guns, either by suicide or homicide; they also generally have a lower homicide rates overall.  Why is America's homicide rate (from all causes) 5 times higher than Europe's?  Why is America the "killing fields" of all developed nations?

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
            wrenchBiscuitposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12680772.jpg

            One reason is the fact that Europe did not necessarily send her best and brightest to America. Criminals were released from prisons and sent here by the thousands. Thus, the foundation of America not only rests upon slavery, genocide, and the theft of an entire continent, but we also see a criminal element that has been here from the very beginning.

            Below are excerpts from this site: http://www.earlyamericancrime.com/convi … e/epilogue

            " ... Jefferson should have known better. The British were sending nearly 1,000 convicts to America each year around the time he wrote the Declaration of Independence, and about half of them ended up in his own home state of Virginia...,"

            "..When the numbers arriving in America from Great Britain are examined in isolation, the percentage of immigrants who were convicts is of course much higher. From 1718 to 1775, when the Transportation Act was in full force, convicts accounted for one-quarter of all immigrants arriving in the American colonies from the British Isles..."

            1. Zhana21 profile image82
              Zhana21posted 11 months ago in reply to this

              A lot of the people who were transported from Britain were convicted of minor crimes such as stealing a loaf of bread, not of violent crimes.  Having said that. the U.S.A. has a huge prison population and prison breeds violence and a violence mentality.

              1. ahorseback profile image52
                ahorsebackposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                Only one problem with that  is that one question , why are they in prison to begin with !    And yet prison breeds violent mentality ? No , perhaps some cultures breed  a prison mentality .Where and when I grew up  the last thing we wanted was a reason to be criminalized by  our behavior .
                If someone's behavior brings them to prison , there's something else wrong . Not the system itself

              2. Doug Cutler profile image80
                Doug Cutlerposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                Would you rather have those in jails running around your town?
                I would suggest more work out of them like the old chain gangs working on projects.
                Homeless people do something to get themselves locked up for the winter. If they had to earn their keep they may not want to be there. Maybe more solitary confinement would cure some of this.

                1. smcopywrite profile image81
                  smcopywriteposted 10 months ago in reply to this

                  have you ever visited a prison? i believe if you did there would be an enormous change in what your view is. societies which invest in these things will fail. history shows it.
                  being homeless is not a choice for the majority of people. do we lock up the homeless children as well?

                  1. Doug Cutler profile image80
                    Doug Cutlerposted 10 months ago in reply to this

                    There are prisons then there are real prisons. Depends on which you are sent to.
                    From what I see in the documentaries it is like going to a resort.  The guards are complaining that the prisoners have life better than they. If this is just a few, then it is a few too many!

                    Here in Mich. and Ohio there are those that get themselves in trouble so they can winter over.

                    Perhaps you where in some third world crap hole prisons? Lets strike an unhappy medium twixt the two extremes. Moderation!

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            "they also generally have a lower homicide rates overall."

            Your evidence for this?  The study I did, over some 30 countries, plainly showed zero correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates.

            "Every place on earth that effectively limits gun ownership has a much lower rate of deaths from guns,"

            So what?  Does it matter to the dead if they were killed by a gun vs a knife, bludgeoning, bomb or anything else?  This is a common reason to limit gun ownership, but I really don't think the dead will care which tool was used.

            1. Alternative Prime profile image85
              Alternative Primeposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              wilderness ~ The DEAD might not care now, but when they reach Heaven and tell God what happened there will indeed be a reckoning ~

              Here's the Facts in brevity ~ If an individual is interested in committing a Mass Murder the weapon of choice due to non-complexity and ease of procurement would be a gun ~ Far fewer deaths would occur if that individual used a knife or heavy tool with the same intent in the same venue ~

              Bombs? I'm not proclaiming they can't be used but they are an inherent deterent in and of themselves ~ Procuring the wisdom to build, procuring the components to build, then planning the attack and hoping it was constructed correcly ~ Too much of a complex situation that's why the majority of these crimes are performed by professionals ~

              Just because an individual can kill with other utensils or apparatus does not justify IGNORING the outrageous Gun Problem we have in this country ~

              1. Doug Cutler profile image80
                Doug Cutlerposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                The worst school killing in the U.S,1927, was by a bomb that blew up the school.
                How many deaths were prevented by someone having a gun to stop the bad guy/girl?
                Plenty, perhaps more than was killed by the gun. And, how many would have been saved if some would have had a concealed carry in those so called "safe zones" that the shooter picks because they are labeled as such?

                1. Alternative Prime profile image85
                  Alternative Primeposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                  Although attempting to CONFUSE the two, which republicans desperately try to do, Gun Control & Bomb Control are Distinct Subjects/Issues which should be addressed SEPARATELY ~

                  1. Doug Cutler profile image80
                    Doug Cutlerposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                    I am showing that if someone wants to kill they will do it by some other means.
                    Take their guns and they will find another way. The mentally unstable or known
                    criminals should have their guns taken. Leave the rest of us alone.

                2. My Esoteric profile image89
                  My Esotericposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                  And how many school bombings have there been in the US ... one.  How many school shootings have there been since 1927 ,,, the high hundreds.  What is your point again?

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                    That taking away the guns may well result in bombings in the high hundreds.  With a much higher death/injury toll.

                    Can't speak for the small subset of mass murders, or the even smaller subset of mass school murders, but for homicides in general that's what happens.  Take the guns and the homicide continues on it's merry path with no change.

            2. Sam Shepards profile image91
              Sam Shepardsposted 13 months ago in reply to this

              Just an example I found on numbers US vs Australia. Haven't delved deeper yet. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-inf … ates/Crime

              Most crimes are more or less similar in rates. But if you look at violent crimes (without rape) and murder you see the incidents are 4 to 5-times lower in Australia (which is not even the safest country in the world by far).

              But I'm not an advocate for controlling people overal so it's a difficult issue for me. Something has to be done no?

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                Yes, the US has a high violent crime and homicide rate.  But your point is...?

                1. Doug Cutler profile image80
                  Doug Cutlerposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                  That rate is so high in the U.S. because we let anyone in it seems. And the high rate is in certain areas where the gov. lets it happen. Plus we like to drug up people with problems.
                  Stop the drugs and clamp down on the worst areas and I suspect the U.S.would have low rates too.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                    Prohibiting the mentally ill from drugs necessary to maintain "normal" operation doesn't seem conducive to preventing trouble.  And the worst areas (of the US) also have the most stringent gun laws, more police, etc.  I'm not sure much more can be done except raze the inner cities to the ground.

              2. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                "Something has to be done no?"

                Get help more easily for the mentally ill.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                  Easier said than done.  Most, I think, will resist help - it will have to be forced on them.  And THAT is a real problem in a country advertising freedom for all!

                  1. smcopywrite profile image81
                    smcopywriteposted 10 months ago in reply to this

                    countless communities have no help or assistance for mentally ill persons wanting assistance. My state recently closed 3 facilities housing mentally ill persons in budget cuts. These were people "inpatient". imagine where they will go and what will happen. investing more help is the answer. instances of people asking for help and being told there is a waiting period of 7 months to get it is ludicrous, but it happens where i live.
                    the police have asked for help because they wind up in jail instead of hospitals. there is no easy answer. there is no black and white to the issue. we must always remember as well whatever we put in place for laws will not only effect us, but also future generations.

          3. Marcos Arandia profile image59
            Marcos Arandiaposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            You have to look at the increase/decrease in overall murder rates (not just gun-related murders) when determining the effectiveness of gun control.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              Something which seems to escape the attention, but which is very true.  One must wonder why that is so - because it is a no brainer that if guns are confiscated there were be no gun murders (ignoring the obvious that we can't confiscate the gun of someone we don't know has it).  But as you point out that does NOT mean that murder rates will drop at all, and the figures show that to be all too true.

              1. Susie  Aquino profile image60
                Susie Aquinoposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                Guns and firearms sale need to be under control.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                  Why?  Whether I agree or not, why do they need to be controlled, and what does "control" actually mean in this sentence?

            2. Doug Cutler profile image80
              Doug Cutlerposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              We let almost anyone one in. Just South of the U.S. are some of the highest murder rate countries.
              It is not the average person that is the murderer. It is certain groups that live in the U.S. that have high rates that make the average people look bad. A lot of this is the fault of our leaders. One group is looking for cheap labor and the opposite group is looking for future voters.The average person does not want this
              influx. I suspect the murder rate in Europe will go up a lot from all the influx it is getting now.

            3. Alternative Prime profile image85
              Alternative Primeposted 13 months ago in reply to this

              Absolutely Incorrect Marcos ~

              Gun Violence is a UNIQUE Situation and needs to be Addressed & Mitigated as such without CONVOLUTION of irrelevant data inserted primarily by republicans ~

              A MILLION different utensils and or apparatus can be used to commit murder, but a Gun is Distinct in that it is Specifically Designed to Kill ~

              Just because an individual could manage to kill someone with a toothpick or can-opener, dosen't mean you IGNORE Prudent Gun Control Measures ~

              Mathematical Certainty ~ REDUCE the Number of Guns in Circulation and there will be a REDUCTION in Gun Violence ~

            4. smcopywrite profile image81
              smcopywriteposted 10 months ago in reply to this

              i agree with the need to review overall murder rates. There is no easy answer for gun control and questions surrounding it. it has been debated for years and still seems to stay stagnate an unanswered.

          4. smcopywrite profile image81
            smcopywriteposted 10 months ago in reply to this

            thank you for pointing this fact out. before making sweeping statements about stats (guns do kill people and America is a killing field of guns).
            America has nothing to be proud of when it comes to guns. We build more prisons than schools and as a "civilized" society this says a lot about morality and where we are headed. no one needs an assault rifle-there is no justified answer for having one. no one needs i.e. 80 different guns. if there is a collector then display them in a museum. i understand the need for protection.....but guns are not always the answer. the amendment stood for defense against the British invasion of our country. now we use it to justify mass killings in schools, accidental killings in the hands of children and domestic cases gone crazy. get a hunting license and hunt with one or two. if a person is not hunter- you do not need one.
            people speak of mentally ill people getting guns. isnt a person with 40 or 50 guns mentally ill?

        3. lacomfyfurniture profile image79
          lacomfyfurnitureposted 11 months ago in reply to this

          A lot of sense in your post smile)))

      2. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

        Well Damn! That was well stated Wilderness.

        I agree with you, and have heard the gist of that response stated by you and others a ton of different ways, but you were really spot-on this time.

        GA

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          Thank you.  Comes from researching and understand actual facts instead of fear-mongering political hacks.

      3. peoplepower73 profile image89
        peoplepower73posted 15 months ago in reply to this

        Wilderness: If we have one of the most violent societies on earth, what makes it that violent and how do you propose we correct it?

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          Human nature makes it violent.
          Correct it with the private right to carry Guns … since no one wants to listen to Jesus or Krishna or Buddha or Gandhi or Confucius or Plato or Aristotle or Socrates or Hume or John Locke or the saints of any religion etc., etc., etc. or God Himself.

          1. Sapphireid profile image68
            Sapphireidposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            Great point, logic, sense, advice, sage wit, knowledge, feedback and comment, Kathryn!

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              cool

              1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
                wrenchBiscuitposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                Only

                1. Sapphireid profile image68
                  Sapphireidposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                  Hi Kathryn. You're very welcome.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                    Just for this kindness, I am going to follow you!

        2. Suhail and my dog profile image90
          Suhail and my dogposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          "To think that removing guns from our society will reduce the homicide rate is ludicrous.  There isn't a place on earth where that has shown to be true, and in fact those localities in the US that have done so have the highest murder rate in the country"

          Australia is an example. Read about it here:

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk … australia/

          1. DWDavisRSL profile image85
            DWDavisRSLposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            The homocide and suicide rates did fall, however they had been falling for years before the gun ban. Almost every other form of violent crime against people and property including felonious assault, rape, robbery, etc... went up after the gun ban. Robberies went up 69% following the gun ban. Home invasions increased 21%.k The gun ban had no noticeable effect on overall crime rates. The criminals are just using different weapons and the citizens are completely defenseless against them.

            1. thegecko profile image86
              thegeckoposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              So, are you saying...

              assault = death
              rape = death
              robbery = death
              home invasion = death

              I would trade in deaths for robberies and other forms of violent crimes any day. You can survive a violent crime or theft. Death is permanent.

              This topic has been covered so much here, I won't get into all the details again.

              Will banning guns drastically lower the murder rate? Probably not.

              Is owning a gun dangerous? For the most part, no.

              Will you be using your gun someday to defend yourself, your family, or another? Most likely never.

              Could you use your guns to fight against a modern tyrannical government? Don't make me laugh.

              Does placing a gun in a volatile situation increase the likelihood that someone will die? Yes. Research US suicides and accidental deaths.

              Does that mean suicide and accidental death rates will go down if we ban guns? Probably not by much.

              Is there evidence that mass shootings will decrease if we ban guns? YES. Australia is a perfect example, as well as other advanced societies who have banned guns. Almost all the mass shootings in the US were committed by people who had easy access to a firearm and who would pass a background check. Making guns readily available does increase the possibility of an unstable person using that gun to do harm. Given that owning or not owning guns will do little to save lives either way, we could at least consider that we could prevent this type of tragedy.

              Guns are for cowards and cowards use them to act out their own twisted vengeance on the world.

              1. Aime F profile image83
                Aime Fposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                This is basically everything I could ever want to say on this subject. 

                Is your wanting easy access to all sorts of guns more important than the 20 kids who died at Sandy Hook?  That should have been enough.  But instead the body count from mass shootings gets higher and higher.  When's it going to be enough?  How many people have to die that way to give up a little bit of freedom when it comes to buying and owning guns?  Even if all other homicide numbers stayed the same, even if ALL it did was eliminate mass shootings, is that not still worth it???

                Oh, and I also had a little chuckle over "sure, less people died, but like, robberies and stuff!"  Hmm, getting shot to death orrrr having my TV stolen... there's a head scratcher!

                1. Sallie Mullinger profile image76
                  Sallie Mullingerposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                  You look young. No insult intended, but merely pointing out that people have died for centuries over all sorts of things. Even if you want to stick closer to modern history, there have been mass killers over the past 50 years who have murdered many people and done so without benefit of using a gun.
                  Do yourself a favor and if you arent familiar with these names, look them up: Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, David Berkowitz. Oh and for good measure...Lizzie Borden.

                  There will always be people who need to kill. So as horrible as the shootings of modern day are, they are really no different from other eras.

                  They have become the "cause du jour" for the left and while Im as sorry as anyone else that innocent people have died, the fact remains that there will always be a way for unstable people to carry out violence.

                  Fix society and then you might have a fighting chance at fixing mass murders.

                  1. thegecko profile image86
                    thegeckoposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                    The the fallacy of absolutism. You think we shouldn't change our laws and ways of thinking because there has always been killing and will always be killing? Why even have laws regarding murder and death?

                    You think that society has to be fixed as a condition to start changing things on a legal level? Tell that to the people who died fighting in our revolution when many people were fine under British rule. To the women who fought for the right to vote even though most were not treated equally by society or in the workplace afterward (and that continues today). Tell that to the people who fought for civil rights in 60s/70s and whose children and grandchildren still struggle against racism. You think they would say the freedoms and laws they fought for did not matter or made a difference? Of course it mattered.

                    The laws helped force some change, it moved us in the right direction. We don't need the fix to be a fixall. We just need something better.

                    Wilderness said, "is there any reason at all to think that continuing the same thing will suddenly produce results?" No, of course not. People are suggesting we ban guns entirely, that is something we've never done. Will it work? It's worked elsewhere. Will it solve everything? Of course not. Will society still need to change? Yes, but this will help push it closer to changing. Closer to moving our culture away from a gun possession mindset.

                    There will always been crazy people and even if we ban guns, some of them will get them and use them against innocents. But if we can save more people in the process, isn't that worth it? Especially when most of the data out there suggests owning guns doesn't really do a damn thing for us other than make use feel better about ourselves? Make us feel safer even though virtually no one uses a gun to defend themselves (other than criminals)?

                    No one said this was exclusively a modern day issue. Whether it has been going on the past 15 years or past 150 years, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something. You're also a bit young to talk about what's been going on for centuries as if you have more authority to do so smile

                    1. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                      "Wilderness said, "is there any reason at all to think that continuing the same thing will suddenly produce results?" No, of course not."

                      Then why continue on a failed path?  Because it's PC to do so?  Because some people fear guns?  Because it quiets the electorate for a time?  Because it buys political votes? 

                      "Will it work? It's worked elsewhere."

                      Hard facts and figures, please, not just am unsupported claim  that it has worked.  When and where, with homicide figures before and after gun laws.  Show, please, with hard numbers that reducing guns has resulted in fewer homicides.  Facts not only do not support such a claim, they very clearly point to gun ownership is not a cause of high homicide rates.

                      "Yes, but this will help push it closer to changing. Closer to moving our culture away from a gun possession mindset."

                      Again, please support that anything will change (particularly death rates from violence) except that people will not have guns.  While that may be a worthy goal to some, it is very definitely a loss of freedom for others and ANY such act must absolutely be accompanied by a greater good for the whole. 

                      "But if we can save more people in the process, isn't that worth it?"

                      Please indicate where in the entire world this has been successful - where banning guns has saved lives by reducing the homicide rate.  Include the reasoning behind the claim as well as the data showing it to be true, not merely a very rough correlation in timing.

                      "Whether it has been going on the past 15 years or past 150 years, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something." 

                      Absolutely agree.  We need to do something.  Just not repeat a failed action that further reduces the basis of our country (freedom) while producing nothing of value.

                  2. Aime F profile image83
                    Aime Fposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                    I'm 27, is that old enough to have an opinion or should I try again in 10 years? I also have a minor in Criminology with a focus in forensic psychology, so thanks, but I'm more than familiar with the names of some of the most famous serial killers (and Berkowitz was kind of notorious for shooting people...).   wink 

                    But okay, if you want to talk about people using other weapons, let's imagine that instead of someone walking into a school with a gun that can kill a dozen people in a matter of minutes, a guy walks in with a knife.  Or an axe.  With a classroom full of people, it's far more likely that someone's going to be able to stop him before 9+ people get killed.  Other weapons require time and proximity that guns don't. 

                    The difference between the people you named and the mass shooters you see today is that all it takes is a few minutes for the shooters to do a ton of damage.  Someone could decide on a whim to shoot 20 children to death and there it is.  It's done, all in a day's work.  It takes most serial killers years to do that.  I like the chances of a serial killer getting caught before that happens again more than I like the chances of the police showing up and being able to stop a guy with a gun in the 5 minutes it takes him to kill multiple people.  Guns are much more quick and efficient at dropping bodies than other weapons commonly used for homicide, which is why unless there's a bomb or someone capable of hijacking a plane, guns are the weapon of choice for those who want to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. 

                    Yes, there will always be bad people and ways for them to hurt and kill others.  That is an unfortunate reality.  But why does that mean we shouldn't try to limit them as best as we can? 

                    And this is sort of in response to wilderness as well - both Australia and Canada got strict with gun control after major mass shootings.  Canada has had 3 mass shootings in the past 15 years and only 3 people have died.  Australia's had 2 mass shootings with 2 deaths since 1996.  You guys have had almost 300 mass shootings this year.  Do you really think in all of those cases the shooters would have managed to kill/wound as many people with another weapon?

                    1. ahorseback profile image52
                      ahorsebackposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                      I'm actually amazed at the list of this education you note and yet ,  our   assuming that the Writing of a Law , is followed through by the Obeying of that law  ---By the lawless !   

                      I would suggest  that you suggest a new class  in your next course  , Just how insane it is to expect criminals to come about and begin obeying existing  law !

                    2. ahorseback profile image52
                      ahorsebackposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                      By the way , without much thought , in my imagination  I came up with this ,  ,   one man could do more damage in a mass killing by using a can of gasoline and a match !   

                      So all your argument about how the  amount of damage  a gun can do COMPARED to another weapon is Naïve .

                    3. Alternative Prime profile image85
                      Alternative Primeposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                      Aime F ~ You are absolutely correct, not Naive ~ The ONLY plausible way to Reduce or Eliminate GUN VIOLENCE is to Reduce or Eliminate GUNS Period ~ Common Sense dictates that it is virtually impossible to perpetrate a MASS SHOOTING or Murder WITHOUT the use of a Gun and that's a fact ~ Nobody seems to understand the Obvious ~

                    4. Amanda Curran profile image83
                      Amanda Curranposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                      yeah and lets say he can't get a gun and decides to build a bomb and level an entire school instead? if your going to look at the severity of the weapon consider both sides

                  3. peoplepower73 profile image89
                    peoplepower73posted 14 months ago in reply to this

                    So then let's do nothing, because as Jeb Bush says, "stuff happens."

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                  Is there any indication that eliminating guns completely will stop mass murders?  Or will it exacerbate the problem when killers switch to bombs, poison or some even worse method?  Can you definitively show that gun controls ("giving up a little bit of freedom") do anything at all but continue the erosion of the basis of our country?  We've chipped and chipped at it with zero results - is there any reason at all to think that continuing the same thing will suddenly produce results?

                  1. Sallie Mullinger profile image76
                    Sallie Mullingerposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                    Chicago has arguably the worst record as far as gun violence in the entire country. Some would argue the entire world. Since 2012 there have been 6,000 shootings in Chicago. There have been 1,679 murders in Chicago.

                    Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the country and right now, per the liberal mayor Rahm Emmanuel, guns are being confiscated against the 2nd amendment.

                    Gun laws are not enforced. Period. If they were, some of this violence would be curtailed.

                    Police cant be everywhere. Where gun violence has decreased, its because the police, working within communities, have developed programs to aid LEO's in keeping peace.

                    But...despite those efforts, every, single American citizen has a right to protect himself, his family and his property.

                    Enforce the laws which are already on the books and STOP! putting the drug dealers back on the streets because according to our esteemed president...they are non violent offenders.

                    Yeah right.

                    1. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                      Good points - gun laws don't solve anything if not enforced - but you appear to miss the major problem.  It isn't gun violence; it's violence.

                      Data shows pretty plainly that taking guns from people doesn't stop the violence.  Murder rates don't change, people still die just as often and the country is still outraged whenever it happens.  So we make more laws and more people die as a result - as a result because we never even try to address the root problem of violence.  Just chip away at the 2nd amendment in the hopes it will placate people for a while, until the next school shooting.

                    2. Learn Things Web profile image91
                      Learn Things Webposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                      The problem is you can't just have tough gun laws in one city because it's so easy to go outside that city and get a gun. You have to have those tough laws nationwide. Until we have tough laws nationwide it's going to be too easy for anyone who wants to commit a mass killing to get a gun. We've had almost 300 mass shootings this year alone. We sadly haven't reached a point where everyone's saying enough is enough. Too many gun owners believe their right to gun ownership trumps other people's right to life. Until that attitude changes, we'll just have to get used to our homes, schools, malls, churches and movie theaters turning into death zones on a regular basis.

                    3. Alternative Prime profile image85
                      Alternative Primeposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                      Sallie Mullinger ~ If you actually read the 2cnd Amendment without "Pretending" certain words do NOT Exist, you'll surely Discover that it is a BAN on ARMS for ALL unless you are Affiliated with the Military ~

                      The Right to Bear Arms is the result of a Supreme Court Mis-interpretation, NOT a Constitutional Right ~

        3. The Indexer profile image81
          The Indexerposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          "To think that removing guns from our society will reduce the homicide rate is ludicrous.  There isn't a place on earth where that has shown to be true."

          Let me also offer the example of the United Kingdom. We made assault weapons and handguns illegal and there has never been a mass shooting since we did so. The number of "single" murders by firearm has also reduced dramatically. When  you compare the murder rates as between the UK and the US the figures show a stark contrast.

          Americans are scared stiff that the way would be left open to criminals if guns were taken out of society - this has not proved to be the case over here.

          Americans need to lose their Wild West mentality and join the rest of the civilised world in the 21st century.

          1. ahorseback profile image52
            ahorsebackposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            America IS a nation that has grown SOFT on crime ,   I capitalize SOFT cause we are ,  each of us needs to take a look at the uselessness of the legal system that  has  all but installed  revolving doors in the jail cells   In the courts , in the  prisons !    Don't believe it ? And yet it's still the most expensive system in the world .
            The only effective , and that's half assed effective  , part of our justice system is the constitutional  defending of the violent crime perpetrators.     Every possible  lenient opportunity is brought  forth FOR the accused . The victims graves speak for themselves , silence .  Example , John Hinkley Jr. .  is about to be let out of his punishment  on parole , he will live with his sister .  For those of you who  cannot recall who he is  , he shot President Reagan  , his friend Jim Brady and others .

            And yet , ask the average American ,uneducated , [in victimhood ]  about crime and punishment  and most will reply  that the system is just fine !   That our system  should be more lenient ,  that they "don't believe in capital punishment ",  ..

            The main problem in America is the ignorance of most of us as to how immovably slow and ineffective our justice system IS !.

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            Yep - you took away "assault" guns (whatever that means) and the gun deaths went down.  But the death rate didn't, now did it?  Look around you at the other countries with either more guns and fewer homicides or fewer guns and more homicides.

            So I guess that reducing the gun homicide rate will be a big relief to those that are dead from other means, yes?

            1. peoplepower73 profile image89
              peoplepower73posted 14 months ago in reply to this

              One thing that is certain, gun control people state hypothetical  scenarios as fact to try to make their points.  Here are some facts from a guy in this forum who lives in the U.K..

              "Let me also offer the example of the United Kingdom. We made assault weapons and handguns illegal and there has never been a mass shooting since we did so. The number of "single" murders by firearm has also reduced dramatically. When  you compare the murder rates as between the UK and the US the figures show a stark contrast.

              Americans are scared stiff that the way would be left open to criminals if guns were taken out of society - this has not proved to be the case over here.

              Americans need to lose their Wild West mentality and join the rest of the civilised world in the 21st century."

              I know you are going to discredit this person, because he doesn't live here, but facts are facts. Just read this.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_polit … ed_Kingdom

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                OK - the facts according to wikipedia (which needs checked for neutrality according to the article) is that the UK has enacted gun laws.  Not a single fact or statistic about murder rates except that there has never been a problem with mass murders either before or after the laws.

                So...your point here?  That we can make claims without data to back them (the number of murders went down as a result)?  That we can make unsupported insinuations (gun laws reduced mass murders) that are statistically untrue?  That the UK has strong gun laws?  That without guns people don't shoot each other (which we already knew)? 

                What are your "facts" supposed to be showing?

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              Yes, let's compare.  Using figures from 2007 (the most recent year for which stats for a large number of countries was available), England and Wales has a gun ownership rate of 6.2 and a homicide rate of 1.5.  While Romania has a gun rate of .7 and a homicide rate of 1.9 - far fewer guns but more murders. 

              Or Sweden, with a gun ownership rate of 34.6 and a homicide rate of 1.2 - 5 times the guns but considerably fewer homicides. 

              Or Switzerland, with a 45.7 ownership rate but a 0.7 homicide rate - again, 7 times the guns but half the homicides.

              It would appear that more guns means a lower homicide rate, yes?  Or is it just that there is no correlation at all in spite of a few comparisons?

          3. Skarlet profile image85
            Skarletposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            Thank God I read your post. Its nice to know that some people use common sense. Seems to me that  this poster has been nipping on the liberal Kool Aid too long. I am from a "no guns" country; Guess what? Obama lied again when he said only we have this problem. My country is a nightmare of violence and gun power that only bad people possess. I hope the U.S. does not turn into the toilet that I left. If there are enough people who are as smart as you are, we are safe:)

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              +1

              1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
                wrenchBiscuitposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12680213.jpg
                You would have us believe that if every qualified citizen could own a gun in this country you speak of, that the violence would either end, or at least be drastically reduced. That is a popular song often played by the NRA, but it is only a myth. The world is not so black and white, and I am sure there are many other factors contributing to the chaos in your country.

                If guns were the solution mankind would have attained world peace by the 20th century. Instead, they keep making bigger and better guns and people keep killing each other with them. Armies are still going to war, just like they did 2000 years ago. Prophets and philosophers have been warning against using violence as a means of social and political change at least since the time of Jesus. Violence begets violence. Violence also begets money, and that's why violence and war still exist. Now, have a drink of my sweet,refreshing Kool-Aid!

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                  You never know who will get their grimy hands on a gun. Eliminate every single gun.
                  Stop production yesterday! Haven't we yet?
                  No, Thanks to the greedy.
                  So we really need to get rid of capitalism.
                  And I don't know why she swallowed the fly …
                  perhaps she'll die!!!

          4. Misfit Chick profile image93
            Misfit Chickposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            Agreed, for the most part. This article from CNN came across my desk today and it makes some really good points and even offers another suggestion that sounds pretty good to me - namely 'Interceptors'. I have never heard of them, before. Here's the link in anyone else wants to check it out: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/health/gu … -violence/

            1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
              wrenchBiscuitposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              I just finished reading the article. Yes, it sounds good. I will note that what it amounts to is a secular remix of the Christian idea of "loving thy neighbor", or the Beatles song "All You Need Is Love".. It also gives a secular interpretation of what some Christians and others familiar with the paranormal would consider demonic possession, or a manipulation by extraterrestrial or extra-dimensional entities such as the Reptilians.

              According to David Icke, the Reptilians are a race of parasites who feed off of negative human energy. He claims that they vibrate at a frequency outside  the normal range of our five senses, and so like radio waves,cell phone transmissions etc., even though they are all around us we cannot see them.  This would explain many seemingly random acts of violence and mass shootings.The negative energy created by such events would be a feast for these creatures. They would simply use their natural abilities, or technology to manipulate and agitate a human host, inciting them to violence. This would also help to explain why many mass shooters seem puzzled by their own behavior.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4apWOUNOx64

              1. Misfit Chick profile image93
                Misfit Chickposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                "...what it amounts to is a secular remix of the Christian idea of "loving thy neighbor", or the Beatles song "All You Need Is Love"

                Wow, I did not get that out of the article, at all. It sounded to me like someone was trying to think outside of the box and come up with a constructive semi-solution. As far as aliens go; I've heard those theories about them - and they may well be true. They may also NOT be true, in which case, the idea in the link above 'might' work every once in a while. Even if aliens are around us, that doesn't mean that we would have no control over 'intercepting' these people and stopping violence. If we live our lives thinking that aliens affect us to that extent; then we might as well stop trying to fix anything and give up - because obviously, they have already won.

          5. emge profile image86
            emgeposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            The second amendement is over 200 years old and its is something ingrained in American psyche. I dont see it ever going away despite the use of the rifle for killing and shootings. The fact is the second amendment is not to blame as a man who has to kill, will kill anyway. The only thing that is required is to cleanse the moral fibre of America, the second amendment will I think remain in our life time.

          6. 83
            in4mativeposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            I have read the stats stated here on gun related deaths and total murders. Even so, it seems worth considering that a gun enables someone to kill easily, and very soon after they decide to kill, from a safe distance.
            DECIDE TO KILL -> POINT GUN -> PULL TRIGGER -> VICTIM DIES.
            Compare this with use of a knife.
            DECIDE TO KILL -> GET UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL -> STAB VICTIM PERHAPS SEVERAL TIMES TO DEATH.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              Consider all you wish: all the rationalization and logic in the world doesn't compare to real world facts.  And the facts are that taking guns does not, and has never, been successful in reducing the homicide rate. 

              That this is contrary to "common sense" or "logic", that it doesn't agree with considerations such as you present is irrelevant.  What IS relevant is that guns has no causal effect on the rate at which Americans kill each other (or any other country, for that matter). 

              Plus, of course, there haven't been any stats presented here at all; just opinions and numbers concerning "gun homicides".  Absolutely zero as to how effective gun control really in reducing the killing.  Those stats are available (I collected them from UN data worldwide and put them into a hub), but no one wants to see them as they pretty effectively remove any reason for stringent gun controls and that is not the desired result.  Plus, of course, the obvious conclusion that killers will kill with or without guns and that, too, is something we don't want to hear.

              1. colorfulone profile image88
                colorfuloneposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                Your gun control and crime statistics hub is really worth sharing around the globe.
                http://hubpages.com/hub/Gun-Control-and … duce-Crime

                1. Doug Cutler profile image80
                  Doug Cutlerposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                  I read that link. The reason there is a rise in homicides may be: now more people have a means to protect themselves and the rate of increase may be because more of the bad guys/girls are shoot.
                  The stats do not say which side the deaths were on. It does make a big difference as far as I am concerned. Maybe they will get the message and find some worth while activity.

                  1. colorfulone profile image88
                    colorfuloneposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                    I agree with your "may be". 

                    There are 'many reported home invasions' that result in the invaders being shot to death that do not reach MSM.

              2. Doug Cutler profile image80
                Doug Cutlerposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                We have social and mental problems. People are going to kill each other unless there is a change in the way we behave. As long as there are crazies out there we need guns to protect ourselves.
                Way too many drugs and additives.

                1. bluesradio profile image14
                  bluesradioposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                  But isn't part of that problem also that we are over medicating and not really treating these serious mental issues...Some things we are calling mentally ill are just kids being hyper and some serious issues are not being deal with and we are throwing these folks out often times with no true coping skills.....

                  1. Doug Cutler profile image80
                    Doug Cutlerposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                    We in the U.S. are not allowed to discipline badness like in the past. Now you get sued or jailed. Instead, as you mention, people are drugged. Many of these drugs are proven to cause problems. And it is now politically incorrect to hurt anyone's feelings.
                    Another factor is all the additives in our foods and environment.

                    1. bluesradio profile image14
                      bluesradioposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                      So true, we don't pay our teachers, and yet we expect them to do this unrewarding work for no pay and no incentive, and we wonder why in many of the schools, it seems like the kids are running it, and not the teachers and administration....

                    2. bluesradio profile image14
                      bluesradioposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                      And yes, many in society have developed thin skin.......and that's a shame too....

                2. helenstuart profile image80
                  helenstuartposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                  By "we" do you mean the "royal we" Doug?

          7. TwerkZerker profile image93
            TwerkZerkerposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            ^ EXACTLY, Wilderness. Well said.

            If our logic (or lack thereof) as a society is directing us to ban guns (because, y'know, they make people kill people), then we might as well be banning spoons (because they make people fat), banning pencils (because they make today's kids have bad grades), and banning cars (because they cause reckless drivers).

            Nevermind that you'd also have the problem of there being an illegal market for guns, should they be banned. Meth, heroin, cocaine, bath salts, steroids, and ecstasy are illegal, too, but that hasn't stopped junkies from getting their fix.

            People will revert to killing each other with tire irons, rocks, and other blunt instruments if they have to. Just a couple weeks ago in my hometown there were two instances of people being bludgeoned to death with bats. Clearly gun control helped those poor people.

            Oy vey.

          8. joeyallen profile image83
            joeyallenposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            Wilderness, I don't understand. Where are you getting your info? There is no credible evidence anywhere that supports your statements.
            Peoplepower never says he's for taking everyone's guns. I can't help but think there is a lot of paranoia going around.

          9. 60
            cox10posted 12 months ago in reply to this

            the writer is quite corrected . we do not like to used gun,but we all together sitting for discussion in honest way ,the crime is always easy to detected ,u do not used gun miss way do not killed men with out any simple matters

          10. paperfacets profile image86
            paperfacetsposted 11 months ago in reply to this

            Actually, the U.K. and Australia both have banned guns in some form and both countries have far lower rate of mass killings than the U.S. The U.S. has the highest rate in the developed countries.

            We have to get all group ideologies out of the question  and problem. We need to talk about this like tackling the drunk driver problem. The left nor the right had specific "own agenda views" they all thought it was a problem for everyone to solve.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 11 months ago in reply to this

              You neglect to add that neither country saw any change in the rate of homicides, or that mass murders have continued in both countries. 
              The obvious conclusion is that gun control was responsible for a reduction in murders when compared to the US but it is not true - tighter gun controls in neither nation had any results at all.

              On top of that, there are multiple countries with far lower gun ownership rates than either countries and higher murder rates.  Or more guns and fewer rates.  Comparisons between two cherry picked countries shows nothing.

              Drunk driving comparisons may have validity, though.  We didn't ban cars, we didn't ban hooch.  Why then are we talking about banning guns to solve killings?

              1. paperfacets profile image86
                paperfacetsposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                One reason Madd worked is there is no ideology split like with guns. Most think over drinking is not good for anyone. Over saturation of guns is favored by many. By the start of the 19th century gun ownership was not a must with the common citizen. The devices were used for hunting, that was it. Mass killings were very much shocking, the Valentine's Day Massacre was one.
                The Mob problem was not solved by the common citizen nor was the drunk driving, they were both solved by laws.
                Every deterrent in the U.S. is measured by the laws that define what makes up the society. More regulations such as not being able to drive worked. Cars were not banned because behavior can be modified and cars are necessary in some settings. You are able to drive after you modified your ideology and behavior. Laws limiting behavior on owning guns does not jeopardize lively hoods.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                  "Over saturation of guns is favored by many."

                  An interesting statement, but of course it's untrue.  Unless you define "over saturation" as the ability to exercise your constitutional rights.  People with 50 guns will not say they are "over saturated" just as people in Montana said it was fine to drink and drive whatever MADD had to say.

                  I'd point out that the Mob problem was not solved by laws saying they couldn't have a gun; it was solved by putting criminals in jail. 

                  Sorry, but laws limiting gun ownership (not sure what you mean by "limiting behavior on owning guns as there are already laws against shooting people) can and does limit lively hoods; I grew up eating wild meat and a great many still do today. 

                  None of which has anything at all to do with the right to own and bear arms.  We either do or we don't; putting ever more hurdles and obstacles in the path of gun ownership is nothing more than a back-door approach to making sure that fewer and fewer people can own a gun.

          11. wpcooper profile image88
            wpcooperposted 11 months ago in reply to this

            Well when I read this response I think of the phrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people".  Yes that is so true, such a bit wisdom there.  However, I think that it takes a person operating the gun to do the killing.  Unfortunately, using a gun is too easy.   When people go to war, they don't carry knives with them,  they don't drive their cars into people in cities, pick up rocks etc  (during a war time).

            People may use these objects to commit murder, but most people use knives to eat, use cars to get somewhere and rocks usually are placed in a garden or by someone's pool.

            The sole purpose of  gun is to kill or maim.  That is why it was invented.  solely for the purpose of hitting a (usually human) target multiple times, or numerous human targets - that's why they came up with  the six shooter.  The gun  was invented  to destroy - either an inanimate object or a living being.  Usually from a distance.

            1. Doug Cutler profile image80
              Doug Cutlerposted 11 months ago in reply to this

              I do not agree that the sole purpose of a gun is to kill. If the nearly 50% of households that have a gun believed that, half the country would be killed.

              The major purpose is to deter a corrupt gov. or force from trying to take over. The Ruskies squelched the plan to attack through Texas because of the guns and Texans.  The Japs also feared the guns here.

              Other uses are hunting, sports, and collecting. There is a large interest in re-enactments  too.

              1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
                wrenchBiscuitposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12802847.jpg

                Really Doug? They're using live ammo in re-enactments? And when you think about the purpose of re-enactments,which is to glorify war, you start to realize how sick these gun nuts really are. And although I can understand the purpose of killing animals for food, I hardly consider it a "sport". Furthermore, the believers in the Holy Quran haven't been over here with armies invading and occupying various parts of the United States. They haven't been initiating drone air strikes in Topeka Kansas and Houston Texas; all for the sake of gaining control of oil reserves. When you speak of violence and Holy War, you conveniently ignore the fact  that the U.S. is the aggressor in the Middle East.

                That's why many Muslims hate Americans. It doesn't have anything to do with the Holy Quran. It's the simple fact that the U.S. has been killing their people and invading their territories for over 20 years! And no, 911 was "not" an attack on the U.S. by Middle Eastern Muslims. It was a staged event perpetrated by the Bush administration and other entities for the sole purpose of gaining popular support for Imperialist aggression against Iraq, and throughout the Middle East.

                It is the same reason my people hated the Americans, and killed as many as they could. They came upon us like a swarm of hungry locusts; raping, and pillaging, and stealing everything in sight. My Indigenous ancestors were not the aggressors, they were defending themselves from an invading horde of Europeans; the original authors of terrorism throughout this continent. It is no wonder that the progeny of evil would defend the NRA, and all other institutions of death and destruction.

                1. Alternative Prime profile image85
                  Alternative Primeposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                  Everyone needs to LISTEN Up ~ There's ample TRUTH in wrenchBiscuit's Words ~

                2. Doug Cutler profile image80
                  Doug Cutlerposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                  Depends on the re-enactment. When the civil war they face one another and no live ammo. Just powder and flame. Must I always being correcting you?

                  Visit Dearborn Mi. They sure took over that area. Got the church bells silenced because they claimed it offensive to their ears.

                  Will you come off that "sole purpose" one trick pony crap! I guess you never heard of the J.P.
                  Morgan and Brit bank involvement. There appears to be several players there.

                  Hate Americans?? Is that why they are killing all the Christians, Jews and peaceful Muslims in Africa and the east? I don't think so. You have been soaking up too much Obama regime crap.
                  Islam is a terrorist group. They worship it and live it. Obama refuses to say it.

                  Your Indigenous ancestors were a blood thirsty torture loving lot. Why not give your conquering German half some slack?

                  1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
                    wrenchBiscuitposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                    http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12802888_f1024.jpg
                    According to Columbus himself, in his own words, my ancestors were not blood thirsty at all. The image I have provided is an excerpt from his journal.

                    You have raised another good point Doug. The killing of Christians and Muslims in the Middle East by alleged terrorist organizations. Please, on this Christmas Day, let us reflect on the 1993 massacre at the Branch Davidian compound near Waco Texas. 82 people were brutally murdered by elements within the U.S. government. 26 of that number were children. Many died from the poisoning effects of CS gas. Here are a few quotes concerning the matter:

                    "CS gas is one of the most cruel poisons that the government could have used against the small children. Pictures from the massacre showed small children, burned black, with their backs arched backward in what had to have been a most horrible death."

                    “CS gas is banned under the Paris Convention on chemical warfare. The U.S. could not use it in war. It is illegal, but they would use it against their own citizens.” — The Washington Times, April 23,1993."

                    David Koresh was not a threat to National Security. He did not possess weapons of mass destruction; chemical or biological agents. The local sheriff and other nearby residents freely admitted that Koresh and his followers were friendly, and had not posed a threat to their community. Also keep in mind that Koresh and his followers were Christians.

                    Now Doug, once  you wrap your head around the fact  that for whatever the reason, if the government would brutally murder U.S. citizens, including 26 children, in such an horrific manner, it is not such a leap to imagine that much of the killing in the Middle East is being planned and directed from right here in the United States, and through various functionaries of the U.S. government. They are creating a New World Order, and this is how it is being done.

                    1. Doug Cutler profile image80
                      Doug Cutlerposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                      Why do I have to keep telling You Columbus never set foot on U.S. soil. Those natives in the pic were on an island isolated from the others. Nice job of cherry picking to fit. Check what the Canadian Indians did when the Vikiings came there. Long before Columbus. Also, Columbus left 39 on an island and when he came back all had been killed.

                      How old are you. The average age of the Indian was 32 before settlers came. They where far more healther and in larger numbers.  They where dying from their own dieseases and murders. So after Columbus they started living longer.
                      Why are you not saying anything about the Spainareds? They were the worse.

                      It was a brutle time for every group back then. Up untill the 1900's for most.
                      The U.S. gives back lands to those they have to fight for some reason. Could have kept Mexico and Cuba, Phillipines etc. The we keep giving through aid programs and charity.

                      We are in the now. So, end your leectures and what to nowis the question.

                      1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
                        wrenchBiscuitposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                        http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12803071.jpg
                        It is not my responsibility to educate you, so believe what you must.But I do find it remarkable that you accuse me of "cherry picking", when the historical record clearly reveals that you just used 180 words to comment on 8% of my post ;(27 out of 322 words) a small percentage that was included only as an aside.

                        To answer your question about my age: I do not know my exact age, but I do know I am older than the United States.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image89
                    My Esotericposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                    You know as well as I do that our Germanic, English, and French ancestors were no less a "blood thirsty, torture-loving lot" than the Native American people they committed genocide and ethnic cleaning against; neither of which atrocity is associated with Native Americans.

              2. peoplepower73 profile image89
                peoplepower73posted 11 months ago in reply to this

                Doug:  I don't know where you come up with this stuff. We and the Soviet Union were in the Cold War.  The reason it was called the cold war was because, it was a war of ideology.  The Russians didn't invade us or we invade them, because in the beginning we both had radar that protected both sides from being invaded by bombers carrying A bombs.  If either side detected them, they would scramble interceptor aircraft.  Not one shot has ever been fired from either side. 

                Later both sides got missiles as deterrents.  Neither side fired a missile at the other side.  We won the cold war because of Soviet Containment, not because they were thinking about invading Texas where civilians had pea shooters. We stopped them by containing their expansion and their from of communism did not fit with the rest of the world economics.

                We and the Russians still have the missiles in the ground and in submarines and both sides still use them as a deterrent.  We still use the radar, but now we have satellites and other means for detection of missile launches.

                1. Doug Cutler profile image80
                  Doug Cutlerposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                  The Ruskies invasion plans are recent disclosures. They did not want to invade through Texas. Too many guns and people willing to use them. Maybe included Military bases.

                  The major reason was we broke their bank. Containment helped.

                  There is no technology that can read the hearts of the scourge coming. Russia has had problems with this scourge too. Look at the school and opera incidents. A ruthless blood thirsty group from Islam. In those cases it was not Arabs. Don't forget Paris.

                  Sweden is being crushed by their generosity to Muslims. Rape capital of the world save some African country. Those Muslim countries need to emulate the U.S. or the successful countries in their part own of the world. Then there would be no need to invade us, save there world conquering  savage ideology. The Saudis don't even want them. Their own type!

        4. Shyron E Shenko profile image83
          Shyron E Shenkoposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          The NRA folks are for the all-might, All-Mighty-Dollar that is.  If you have the dollars you can buy the guns, any kind and they should be held responsible for an of the shootings by mentally ill people.
          I do not object to people owning guns for protection or hunting as long as the animals they are hunting are not humans, and some of the other animals should not be hunted. I personally do not like hunting for sport, to me that is slaughter, and it is just wrong.
          But, I am just 1 person and what does the NRA care about someone like me who does not have a lot of money.
          There were always guns in the house when I was little about 8 my first time shooting. and I have written several hubs, like when a gun for protection becomes a liability.
          Thank you for writing this.
          Shyron

        5. Shyron E Shenko profile image83
          Shyron E Shenkoposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          The NRA only cares about the all mighty, the All-Mighty-Dollar that is.  I thing the NRA should be held responsible for ANY assault weapons that are used and any mentally ill person who shoots anyone.  I still believe in having a gun for protection. But it is scary when a gun for protection becomes a liability.
          I learned to shoot at age 8.
          I don't want all guns outlawed, because then only outlaws would have guns.
          I don't believe in having guns for shooting animals for sport.
          Lets not go back to the gun slinger days.
          Thank you for this great topic, allowing us to voice our opinions.

        6. Misfit Chick profile image93
          Misfit Chickposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          "It is causing mentally ill people to commit mass killings."

          The 2nd amendment is a bunch of words - it is not possible for such a thing to 'cause' mentally ill - or any other kind of person - to do anything, much less commit mass killings.

          Gun control would do nothing to help mentally ill people resolve their scary issues. And that is where society needs to begin to diminish this danger.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 15 months ago in reply to this

            +1
            The problem isn't the tool used whether it be guns, knives, bombs, cars, chemicals or anything else.

            It is the person using that tool; "fix" the person and there won't be a problem.  Fail to do so and there will, whether we remove one or all of the tools.

            1. thegecko profile image86
              thegeckoposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              The type of tool matters.

              If someone attacks you with a knife, you have a chance to defend yourself. The wounds you incur might not be fatal. Same if someone attacked you with with their fists, or a bat, etc.

              If someone wanted to blow people up, they would need to learn how to assemble a bomb. They would need to put one together without killing themselves. They would need to take the risk of planting it somewhere or killing themselves in the process. This is definitely not a route for everyone.

              However, people in this country in many states can easily purchase a gun and bullets. With little training, they can instantly point and shoot someone from a distance. The victim would be defenseless. The wounds would most likely be fatal. It's such an accessible way to kill someone.

              I'm not saying removing guns will stop people from attacking each other, just that I rather go up against a knife than a gun.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                And that's great, that you would rather fight a knife wielder than one with a gun.  I'm not sure I agree, but that is certainly your choice.

                But what does any of that have to do with thinking that removing guns will lower the homicide rate?  It's a fine rationalization and all (that I can't really disagree with) but it doesn't match real world experience where the facts show that taking guns away from killers does not stop them from killing.

                1. thegecko profile image86
                  thegeckoposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                  I'm not arguing that removing guns will lower the overall homicide rate. I agree with you that it probably won't. I'm arguing that it will reduce the number of mass shootings. It has in other countries. There are plenty of studies that show that access to a gun helps escalate a scenario in which someone will use that gun to do harm. Whether that be suicide or something worse. Yes, they could kill in another way, but the ease and access to a gun allows them to follow through. Most of the shooters were able to get a gun without issue. Most of them could kill lots of people at once with little immediate resistance. Those two factors allowed those specific people to go ahead and commit the crime. It's because it's easy. It's because they can do it so quickly.

                  1. TwerkZerker profile image93
                    TwerkZerkerposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                    "I'm not arguing that removing guns will lower the overall homicide rate. I agree with you that it probably won't. I'm arguing that it will reduce the number of mass shootings."

                    I'm sorry, but what is the point of reducing the number of mass shootings by legislating gun control if that same legislation is going to cause non-mass shooting rates to skyrocket (as it has in most places in he U.S. where it has been implemented).

                    Why is there this bizarre fixation on multiple people being murdered at once? Isn't it just as terrible if twelve people are shot in completely separate homicides as it is if twelve are shot in one instance by one shooter (or group of shooters)? We could reduce the number of mass shootings to zero, but that doesn't mean bum-squat if the regular homicide rates go through the roof (as they are in big cities like Chicago). As far as I'm concerned, all life is precious. The victim who dies in a mass shooting shouldn't eclipse the victims of individual homicides just so some politician can feel important.

          2. Alternative Prime profile image85
            Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

            Misfit Chick ~

            It would be extremely difficult if not impossible for a Mentally Unsound person, or even a sound person to commit a "Mass Killing" without a gun ~ Just look at the nuckle-head on that train recently, he did indeed have a firearm yet according to reports it jammed and he was left with a box-cutter, 3 Heros jumped on his body and subdued him ~ Minor injuries resulted however, if his gun did not malfunction it would have been a massacre ~

            It would have been extremely difficult for the individual who recently killed 2 News-Persons and injured one, to commit this crime without a gun ~ Unfortunately, Mass Killings are much easier when the perpetrater uses a firearm and this is an undisputable fact ~

            Sure, they could use a bomb or other explosive device but these weapons are much more difficult to either build or find already assembled ~

            1. GA Anderson profile image85
              GA Andersonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

              OMG! Did you really say that?
              "It would be extremely difficult if not impossible for a Mentally Unsound person, or even a sound person to commit a "Mass Killing" without a gun "

              Does 9/11 ring a bell with you? Boston? London subway? etc. etc. etc.

              Give it up Ap. Call the Talking Points director and tell them you need some new material.

              ps. it is "Knucklehead," not "nuckle-head . Geesh, you can't even get your pejoratives right. "

              GA

              1. peoplepower73 profile image89
                peoplepower73posted 15 months ago in reply to this

                GA Anderson:  Do you deny that it is easier for a mentally ill person to easily obtain firearms than airplanes and other means of mass killings?  Look at all the mass killing by mentally ill people. They used the tools that you and wilderness are talking about.  What you have cited are politically motivated killings by terrorists.  I know you probably think that if you had your AR-15, you could have stopped all the terrorists, attacks including 9/11.  At the very least protect yourself from insurgents and tyranny by our government.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                  Do you deny that lack of a specific tool means it won't happen?  Bombs, poison or even cars won't be used instead?  If so can you present any supporting evidence for that opinion?

                  1. peoplepower73 profile image89
                    peoplepower73posted 15 months ago in reply to this

                    Wilderness:  You are answering my question by asking another question.  That's a ploy used by politicians and conservatives.  I'm going to answer your question anyway.  The primary purpose of a firearm is to kill.  It can be used for target practice and as a collectors item as well. The primary purpose of  a car is transportation.  Your line of reasoning is if we have gun control then people are going to use other means to kill others, so why do anything at all.  This is a ploy that conservative use to present the slippery slope. Gun control will lead to other types of killing, so it is an exercise in futility to try to do anything, so let's do nothing and just watch more mass killings by those who can obtain firearms effortlessly.  As long as I can protect myself, I don't give a sh*t about anybody else.

                    Now you can answer my question.

                    1. Alternative Prime profile image85
                      Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                      ABSOLUTELY Correct peoplepower ~

                      Conservatives could care less about Logic & Rational Thinking ~ Just take a look at their presidential candidates, or lack thereof ~

                  2. promisem profile image94
                    promisemposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                    2011 murders by weapon:

                    8,583 - guns
                    1,694 - knives
                          12 - explosions
                            5 - poison

                    Source: FBI

                    1. Wrath Warbone profile image80
                      Wrath Warboneposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                      Not bad for a population of 300 million. I will sleep easier for these stats. Thanks.

                      1. promisem profile image94
                        promisemposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                        I wouldn't relax too much. That's just the murder rate. According to PolitiFact, the number of people shot last year was 104,852.

                    2. helenstuart profile image80
                      helenstuartposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                      I think we need to get creative in this country and invent some NON lethal weapons. Like 3 day old 7-11 hot dogs propelled towards a perpetrators kneecaps. Then we can all enjoy being part of a police state, and not being the ones policed all the time. We also get to listen to 2 hours of phone conversation of the politician of our choice. NAUGHTY!!!!!!!

                  3. Alternative Prime profile image85
                    Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                    So wilderness, once arms are banned in the United States pursuant to the 2cnd Amendment , do you anticipate every criminal morphing into James Bond or Flint? Running around theatres in finely woven European Suits,  or in Flint's case, a Turtleneck Sweater and excruciatingly painful TIGHT trowsers, sneaking up behind each individual innocent bystander and while their trying to cop a smooch, carefully placing a single drop of POISON in their Stale Popcorn, or Dangerously Preserved Cracker Jack, or 7 year old  Moldy Mars Bar?

                    Come to think of it, Movie Theatres do a pretty good job of POISONING attendees without anyone elses help ~

              2. Alternative Prime profile image85
                Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                Right GA Anderson, it’s very easy to take jet-liner flying lessons, hijack or simply purchase a massive airplane, gain access to the cockpit, overtake the cabin, then navigate your way to a target of choice ~ VERY SIMPLE and it happens ALL the time ~   

                Yeah GA, if we enforce the 2cnd Amendment by banning all arms except for those who are affiliated with a “Well Regulated Militia“, individuals without access to a gun and who would perpetrate unthinkable crimes could simply just go to the streets or local general store and buy a cheap 747 JETLINER or HELICOPTER or SPACE SHUTTLE or STARSHIP ENTERPRISE to commit these acts ~

                NOW, who’s being ridiculous?

                BTW ~ FYI ~ 9/11 occurred on REPUBLICAN George “Dumbya” Bush’s watch ~ You know, the party that keeps Americans SAFE ~ Apparently George was drinking with his little brother Jeb and was a little tipsy in his first few weeks and months after taking office and failed to read or respond to intelligence reports ~ Not bad for a guy who claimed he didn’t even gaze at newspapers or online publications ~

                1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                  PrettyPantherposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                  The chance of being injured or harmed in a terrorist attack is roughly 1 in 20 million.  You're more likely to be crushed by your television or struck by lightning.

                  OMG, my television is scarier than ISIS!

                  1. Alternative Prime profile image85
                    Alternative Primeposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                    smile -----> Crushed by your Television ----> That's a new one smile

                    Or, POISONED at a Movie Theatre, not by a criminal but by the CONCESSION STAND ~ Whudda U want? It's Capitalism at its finest ~

                    Or, you're more likely to die from voluntarily jumping off the pinnacle of the GREAT PYRAMID of GIZA after discovering that the TV studio just signed the KARDASHIANS for another SEASON!! ~ I'm not sure, but this could actually be the most FRIGHTENING of em' all ~

                    1. helenstuart profile image80
                      helenstuartposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                      maybe the Kardashians are part of some Creator's greater Karma to unite the brownish peoples of the desert, whoever they may be, and whyever we hate them, (I don't know myself, I think it's oil? Or do they hate us? IDK) Well we will all unite and celebrate one love as Bob Marley sang because we love Kim and her big ol butt.  (And Kanye. and East West)

              3. thegecko profile image86
                thegeckoposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                I didn't realize that all these mass shooting in the US were committed by terrorists (sarcasm). The sad thing is, our government is taking away many of our rights to fight terrorists when we've had very few attacks or threats. We're seeing mass shootings every couple of months and no one is willing to take away any rights then.

        7. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          I would say if you had a verifiable way to ensure that the criminals gave up their weapons you may be on to something. But for now even though I am not a criminal nor do I posses a firearm, I like the thought being in a criminals head that if he comes through my door he may get shot. You see détente is another factor you cannot discount.

        8. Thomas Swan profile image92
          Thomas Swanposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          Even Thomas Jefferson recognized that the Constitution should change to reflect current opinion. In a letter to James Madison, he said "It may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. ... Every constitution, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years."

        9. MizBejabbers profile image91
          MizBejabbersposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          Peeples, twice in my life as a woman alone, I'm afraid I may not be here if I had not had a gun to protect myself. At age 20, pregnant and at home alone while my husband was at work at night, I put a shotgun in the face of an intruder. He left without completing his breakin. Then as a single mom when my kids were visiting their father, I heard what sounded like a prowler outside. I had just come home from completing a night shift at a local radio network and was sitting down to eat supper. I got my chrome pistol and set it down on the table while I waited for the police to arrive. I turned it in my hands to make sure he caught the flash of the light on the chrome. The blinds weren't completely opaque, so I knew the prowler could see it. Three nights later I came home and my house had been ransacked. At least the prowler waited until I was absent from home before he or, in this case, I think "they" came back. I believe my life was in danger both times and that the prowlers left because they realized I was armed.

          I do not believe in "open carry" laws like my state just passed because I don't  like the idea of nuts running around carrying guns, but I do believe in the right to own a gun to protect my life. It is tragic that mentally ill persons are using them to commit their crimes. One lawman, however, said concerning one of these theater shootings, thank goodness all he had was a gun, meaning that if the shooter had not used a gun, he may have used a bomb and blown up a theater full of people. Either way, it was tragic.

        10. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          The 2nd Amendment was badly written. People should have a right to bear arms for their self protection. But convicted felons and mentally ill people shouldn't get easy access to them.

          The NRA fights every attempt to put reasonable controls in place. I have been in many debates with NRA members who think it's OK for everyone to own a gun, even if they are mentally ill or a convicted felon.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 15 months ago in reply to this

            why?
            the mentally ill
            those with domestic violence
            their rights need to be curbed.
            Obviously.

            1. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 15 months ago in reply to this

              Because they see any step to curb guns as an absolute violation of gun rights. It's a black and white issue for them. They don't see the gray.

        11. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          "John Lott’s research was in my opinion very instrumental over decades in having more states pass laws to make it easier to get permits to carry concealed loaded guns, and to lessen the barriers for those permit holders to take guns in ever more places, whether it's bars, or places of worship, or schools," says Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. "It’s all based upon Lott’s scholarship that has been completely discredited."

          I had reached out to Webster in search of data on the relationship between crime and concealed-carry laws. "There has been a lot of research," he told me, "much of it bad." And, in fact, the web is full of it. The idea that more guns lead to less crime appears on gun policy "fact sheets," as evidence debunking gun control "myths," in congressional committee reports. It's regularly stated as a causal fact proven by the twin trends that 1) the number of people with concealed-carry permits has been growing, and 2) crime has been on the decline.

          A more recent paper ("the best study on the topic" by Webster's account), written by Stanford's Abhay Aneja and John J. Donohue and Hopkins' Alexandria Zhang, goes one step further. It methodically picks apart the existing literature — including Lott's — and reaches a dramatically different conclusion:

          Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from both the state and the county panel data models conducted over the entire 1977–2006 period with and without state trends and using three different models is that aggravated assault rises when [right-to-carry] laws are adopted.

          - Washington Post

        12. Jack Burton profile image81
          Jack Burtonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          "It is causing mentally ill people to commit mass killings"

          This is going on my list of Top Ten Wacky Posts of 2015. Perhaps even near the top. Maybe even #1... we'll have to see if anyone can better it. Only four months to go.

        13. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          How about this issue?
          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/05/us/ma … .html?_r=0  (… and don't say this is paranoid thinking.)

          What if the terrorists do enter with all these refugees?

        14. SpartaDigital profile image60
          SpartaDigitalposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          Im from the U.k and find it insane that people can legally buy weapons with the power to kill mass amounts of people. If i lived in America id constanly be on edge of some nutcase pulling out a gun and shooting me for no reason, which seems to happen a lot in America

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 15 months ago in reply to this

            How about fertilizer?  Diesel fuel?  Ammonia?  Cars?  Shouldn't we ban anything that might be used to kill people?

            1. SpartaDigital profile image60
              SpartaDigitalposted 15 months ago in reply to this

              fertilizer is for plants, diesel fuel is used for cars, cars are made for transporting people and GUNS ARE MADE FOR KILLING PEOPLE.....

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                I'm sorry, but fertilizer and fuel are for making bombs.  Just as the insane that do just that.  And cars make a fine weapon in a crowd of people as well, or for ramming through store fronts into the crowded interior.  Again, just ask the insane that do that.

                I repeat; should we not ban all tools that could be used for murder?  I can't quite see the purpose in picking on only one tool just because some people are afraid of it.  Or refuse to educate themselves on the real life results of such bans.

                1. SpartaDigital profile image60
                  SpartaDigitalposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                  all the other "tools" you have just mentioned have other purposes. Guns are created to kill things, of course other things kill people but how easy is it to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger and then thats it, there dead. Guns make it extremely easy to kill things

                  1. Jack Burton profile image81
                    Jack Burtonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                    sometimes some things (and people) just need killing, eh.

                    And what would a Brit know about what guns are for?

              2. Jack Burton profile image81
                Jack Burtonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                How odd that my guns that I have had for decades have never, ever, not once, "killed" anyone. And that is with tens of thousands of rounds thru them.

                Is it too late to get my money back for such obviously;y defective guns that just won't do the job they are made for?

            2. thegecko profile image86
              thegeckoposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              No, we should ban something because it is created and used to kill people. It's called a gun.

          2. Jack Burton profile image81
            Jack Burtonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

            I have an elegant solution. Stay in Great Britain. We won't miss you.

            1. SpartaDigital profile image60
              SpartaDigitalposted 15 months ago in reply to this

              you have all them guns to compensate for something else your lacking

              1. Jack Burton profile image81
                Jack Burtonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                So why do my wife and daughters have all ~their~ guns. Perhaps you can tell us what they are "lacking" eh?

              2. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                Conservatives are a fearful crowd, always worried about the next threat around the corner.  It makes them feel safe to have a gun in the house, even though, statistically speaking, it puts them in greater danger.

                I have no problem letting people feel safe by owning a gun, regardless of how "rational" that is.  I do, however, have a problem with those who believe assault rifles are needed for hunting, and those who oppose any new attempt to regulate guns on the grounds that it threatens their 2nd amendment right.  That's a ridiculous argument.  We have many "rights" that are also regulated, including free speech.  Okay, we can argue about the "degree" of regulation needed, but stop claiming any regulation threatens your "right," because it's clearly an illogical and erroneous argument.

                1. Jack Burton profile image81
                  Jack Burtonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                  Yeah... and YOU are the one who wants to "regulate" guns because you are fearful of them. And I didn't see YOU there when I had two social deviants deciding I was a likely target for them.

                  And I have already shown that anyone who dismisses modern sporting rifles as not good for hunting to be ignorant of the subject.

                  And you really don't understand the concept of "prior restraint" do you? Otherwise you would not be posting about "free speech" and its restrictions.

        15. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

          Taking the guns out of the peoples hands would be about as effective as taking drugs out of the hands of the people. The ones who are going to use the guns responsibly have no problem with them. And the ones using drugs in a responsible way also have no problem. Your thought of taking them or a certain type away from the people will do nothing to curb those that would misuse or abuse their rights to obtain and use one. If someone is motivated to buy, steal or borrow a gun to kill someone else whether they be sane or insane, they will find a way to get it done.

          Now if you want to make the government more responsible about how they find and prosecute those who abuse their rights to have and use a firearm I am all ears.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image89
            peoplepower73posted 15 months ago in reply to this

            rhamson: That's the problem.  What do you propose in your last paragraph?

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

              There are purported to be around 20,000 gun laws in the books ranging from how to purchase to sentencing while misusing a gun. The lawyers have been able to get around many of them through plea agreements and loopholes that turn those that would commit these crimes loose with whatever punishment however little or great it may be. It used to be that if someone committed a crime while using a gun there was a mandatory sentence that was not negotiable. If a gun was sold to someone who misrepresented themselves they went to jail for a very long time. Were innocent gun owners caught up in these situations? Perhaps but at least it gave everybody pause when thinking about carrying a gun somewhere it was not wise too. I think if you are a felon and you get caught with a gun in your possession you should get five years. If you go to a domestic argument with a gun, you get five years. If you try to board a plane with a gun, five years. If you try to hide a gun from the police in a stop you should get five years. The gun should remain legally in your home unless you are going to a shooting range, having it repaired or hunting. PERIOD! If you possess the gun legally you should be able to explain one of those reasons competently. If you decide to stop by a bar on the way home from the hunt or have been drinking at the bar or restaurant after shooting at the range you should lose the gun for a period of time and if you do it again you should lose the right to have a gun permanently. If you have a gun stolen from your home it should be reported within 12 hours or you lose the right to have a gun. If your child takes the gun to school and you don't know about it you should lose the right to have a gun. Responsible ownership and use will make people know where what and how their weapon is being looked after.

              I once had a Pitbull and I treated having the dog like it was a loaded gun that I put outside. I knew where the dog was, who it was around and where it went at all times. The dog was a guard dog who trusted no one but me. She protected my property, my family and me and never bit a person. I also had guns I sold when my sons became teenagers. They were a lot like the dog in that I treated them as if they were also a loaded gun. Responsibility and accountability are the key to this situation. One mistake can cost a life.

              1. peoplepower73 profile image89
                peoplepower73posted 15 months ago in reply to this

                rhamson:  That's all well and good, but how do you propose to get your laws on the books?

                1. rhamson profile image77
                  rhamsonposted 15 months ago in reply to this

                  Just the way you propose too. Through Congress.

        16. jgshorebird profile image84
          jgshorebirdposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          Nonsense. Disarm the honest person only arms the dishonest and fills our graveyards with victims. A militia is any group of like minded individuals gathered to insure the protection of a community. But the 2nd Amendment did not state that only militias shall be armed. It stated that since militias are necessary to secure a free State, the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear ARMS. It is not outdated. The police or the militia are not omnipresent. My gun is. The local cops cannot protect me everywhere I go, from thugs who ignore all gun control laws. I have the right to protect my life with a handgun. Mass shootings should not be minimized. They are horrible. But to disarm everyone, make everyone a potential target for any would-be rapist, any two-bit thug, is not a highly intelligent course of action. Clearly you've never faced down a mentally deranged murderer in a dark parking lot. I have. My gun stopped him cold. I am not a statistic. You would have been. It's called natural selection.

        17. Onusonus profile image88
          Onusonusposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          You are completely wrong, and here's why;
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8

          Have a nice day. wink

        18. nicomp profile image59
          nicompposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          An amendment causes people to commit crimes? Can we write another amendment to cause them to stop?

          1. ahorseback profile image52
            ahorsebackposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            Simple and true ++++++

          2. peoplepower73 profile image89
            peoplepower73posted 14 months ago in reply to this

            The first 10 amendments to the constitution are the Bill of Rights. If you don't use a right, you have not violated anything. Conversely, if you exercise it, you have not violated anything. Laws are a little bit different, if you drive through a red light, you have violated the law. The second amendment is the right to bear arms. That is subject to interpretation.  Gun people believe it gives everybody the right to bear arms to protect themselves from tyranny and other threats. If everybody has the right to bear arms, that includes, criminals and the mentally ill.  Gun control people believe it says only a well regulated militia has the right to bear arms.  Therefore REDUCING the chances of criminals and mentally ill in committing crimes involving shootings. To answer your questions, I believe the 2nd amendment should be re-written so that it is not subject to interpretation and we can end this argument once and for all. The 2nd amendment gives the right to everybody to bear arms, even those who want to kill people.  To answer your question, so yes the 2nd amendment as interpreted by gun people causes people to commit more crimes than if it was limited to a well regulated militia..

        19. RJ Schwartz profile image92
          RJ Schwartzposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          Absolutely wrong - you cannot change the law because it doesn't suit your narrative.  Crime control would be a better topic for you to champion.  Gun control is only a tool of the left in their never ending quest to subjugate the world

        20. tjlajoie profile image84
          tjlajoieposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          I wholeheartedly disagree...and here are my thoughts on the matter...

          <link snipped>

        21. TeaPartyCrasher profile image66
          TeaPartyCrasherposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          I agree that the 2nd Amendment was written for a earlier time, I have seen pieces that argue that Amendment was written to deal with slave rebellions.

          BUT, the 1st Amendment did not predict the Internet either.  So why can't the 2nd be intrepreted to deal with a more urban society, and the power of today's firearms.

        22. lindaspreeman profile image75
          lindaspreemanposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          The "right to bear arms" was written in a different era altogether.  However, the basic ethical principals were intact - the authors assumed people (even then) would not go barging into school, shopping areas, etc. and kill innocents.  Legislation is way overdue (for the "greater good al all" - Ethics 101, anyone)?  It's not 1787 and we are not the Wild, Wild West.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            I think you're right - legislation is way overdue.  But the question is, of course, what legislation?

            Should we make violent movies and video games illegal?  Remove violent sports (boxing, MMA, football) from our nation?  Require a stay-at-home parent for all children?  Require mental health testing for every individual every year and jail anyone found lacking?

            Or should we continue down the road of violating the 2nd amendment - a failed program that has done nothing anywhere in the world to limiting the homicide rate?

            1. peoplepower73 profile image89
              peoplepower73posted 14 months ago in reply to this

              And there you go again, with Gun Zealots Logic 101.  It goes like this,  If we do a, then we should do b,c, d e..,z?  No you do  one thing at a time.  You do A. and see what happens. 

              I have a question for you. Civilian drones can now carry firearms and shoot people.  Do they fit into the 2nd amendment as well?  I'm sure the framers of the 2nd amendment took that into consideration as well, as part of the right to bear arms! 

              Or how about lasers that are beamed from the ground to blind airline pilots. They can also be a used as a weapon.  Did the 2nd amendment framers take that into consideration as part of the right to bear arms?

              My point here, if you don't see it is, when times change and technology changes, laws have to be added and changed to continue to ensure the safety of the population. The 2nd amendment doesn't do that except for the PARANOID threat of a Black president and the tyranny he can wrought on the people.

              1. Onusonus profile image88
                Onusonusposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                Uh oh, race card alert! Good idea, lets let that nice president shred the constitution to pieces, and if we object, it must because we don't like black people. Pathetic.

                1. peoplepower73 profile image89
                  peoplepower73posted 14 months ago in reply to this

                  Did you have the same feelings about the constitution and tyranny when George Bush was president? I would like an honest answer. I don't have a racists bone in my body.  You are the racist for calling me a racists because I honestly can say what I believe, but you can't.  All of this bullsh*t about tyranny would go away as soon as we get a white conservative president. Then you would be able to relax again and not be so freeken paranoid.

                  1. Onusonus profile image88
                    Onusonusposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                    Why would my feelings be any different for Bush's faults? Except of course to satisfy your desire to paint me up as a racist. By the way I can't be racist for calling you a racist because we're both white. You do believe you are white right? Or should I call you Rachel?
                    http://i1.wp.com/ramrants.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CHeBOepWsAAiZwW.png?resize=554%2C409

              2. ahorseback profile image52
                ahorsebackposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                Perhaps its the racist view that  lefties project into every  debate that is part of the problem . ! Rather than truly trying to solve this or ANY problem , lets throw racism into the mix ! Shame on you Peoplepower !

              3. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                But we've done A.  Over and over and over, along with the rest of the world.  And it hasn't worked anywhere, anytime.  It's time to stop doing the same thing and hoping for a different result, isn't it?  Time to stop blaming the weapon of choice and address the REAL cause of the violence in our society?  Time to stop pretending the controlling ordinary guns (NOT "assault weapons" or "military grade guns") will limit the number of homicides?

                Or will we keep on doing the same thing, with the same endless result, because...because...because some people are afraid of guns?  There certainly isn't any OTHER reason to keep on refusing to face the simple fact that gun control doesn't control homicides!

                As far as your question, do you suggest we now ban remote controlled model planes (drones) and any form of lasers?  I would have to be against that.  I have a model plane (although it's damaged now) and use a laser to play with my cat.  Another laser to level pictures and such, too.  And two more used in construction work.

                1. peoplepower73 profile image89
                  peoplepower73posted 14 months ago in reply to this

                  You should stop pretending that doing nothing is going to cure the problem.  I can almost predict that Oregon is not the last mass shooting spree and I can also predict with certainty that the gun advocates are not going to do anything about it this time or next time or anytime.  Why, because as Jeb Bush said, "stuff happens."

                  i'm not afraid of guns.  I have two 12 gauge, model 12 Winchester pumps and a Winchester .270 rifle with a Weaver K.25 scope. I used to go duck hunting and deer hunting with my dad.

                  I'm not suggesting banning drones and lasers.  I'm suggesting that we need weapon laws that are for modern times, not something that was ratified in 1791.  The FAA is at loss right now as to how to create and enforce laws on civilian drones.  They can fly as high as airliners and be used as weapons.  Do you thinks a law that was enacted in 1791 will suffice for that type of weapon?  I predict there will be some new laws enacted for those types of weapons.  You see the constitution is a living document.  That is why we have amendments.

                  "A" has worked in the U.K. Read this:

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_polit … ed_Kingdom

        23. G.L.A. profile image82
          G.L.A.posted 14 months ago in reply to this

          Why not do 'something' about the mentally ill people??

        24. BarbaraAW profile image61
          BarbaraAWposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          More so than the second amendment being the problem, the issue to seriously focus on is mental illness.  Only a mentally ill person would destroy lives as we have recently seen in cases of mass shootings.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image89
            peoplepower73posted 14 months ago in reply to this

            I think they are both the problem, we need tighter gun control, that can be brought about by legislation and we need the mental health establishment fixed, but fixing mental health requires not only legislation, but funding.

        25. tommylop profile image83
          tommylopposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          No it's not and outdated admentment or thought.

          Lets take a look at a few things.

          If tough gun laws and even removal prevented crime then why does areas like Chicago and Washington DC places with tough gun laws have some of the highest crimes in the country. Simple the police can't be everywhere, in face nowhere in the constitution or anywhere else in our laws say you are entitle to police protection. You remove the guns from the common man and only the criminal will have them. Everywhere they have confiscated guns from the law abiding citizen only the criminal has them. Want another example the Auora theater shooter, choose is theater not because it was closet to him but because they check for guns at the front door and don't allow them in. He knew if he enter from the back door it would be easy pickings. Most people who do mass shootings usually pick areas where people are more likely to be disarmed, rather then armed.

          Has far has government's goes take a look at some of Jeffersons quotes about guns and government tryany. A government is more likely to be afraid and a lot less corrupt if the populace is well armed. Also sometimes someone who is mentally ill can be in charge of the government. For more information on that fact look up Adolf Hitler.

        26. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
          wrenchBiscuitposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12679795.jpg

          People who make such a big to do about the second amendment  are dealing with serious mental issues. They are suffering from so much confusion I am surprised they can even match their socks in the morning. You are right when you speak of the government. There is no grassroots militia that is going to rise up and seriously challenge the U.S. government. The American people are so used to their servitude that they still persist in defining it as freedom! Consequently,it is doubtful that any amount of government intrusion will ever bring about a confrontation. Give 'em beer , football, shopping malls, and strip bars, and they'll be satisfied. As far as the NRA is concerned, if they ever bring back the practice of tar and feathering, the leadership of this despicable organization should definitely get a taste of it.

          However, I feel that banning guns, or even further restrictions, is not the answer. The only answer is what I have revealed in my latest essay: the proletariat must disconnect from the world. It is not an entirely new concept, but I given it a new coat of paint. Any of you who have read Ayn Rand's famous work "Atlas Shrugged" will understand that my solution is similar to hers, except from the opposite direction. Rand glorified the industrialist, and made the greedy capitalist the hero. In her book the protagonist stepped away from the world and allowed it to fall down,after which the capitalists began the world anew.

          I suggest in my essay that the proletariat must step away, and disconnect from the world. This will cause the current evil system to collapse.This is the only thing that will stop the gun problem and a host of other miseries. My advice to the naysayers: Read,Listen,and Learn!

          1. ahorseback profile image52
            ahorsebackposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            "Doo-Do- Doooo -do do do  do  "!

        27. cathylynn99 profile image79
          cathylynn99posted 14 months ago in reply to this

          by far and away, most shootings are done by folks who don't have mental illness. the vast majority of folks with mental illness wouldn't dream of hurting anyone. folks with mental illness are more likely than others to commit violent crime at a similar ratio to the difference between men and women. should we allow only women to have guns?

        28. 60
          Gregory Amourposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          We care less about human life and more about worshiping a false God of Guns!

          The God of Guns by Gregory Amour

          Hail to the God of Guns...
          Assault weapons are its priests and nuns
          Sacrifice is what the Gun God needs
          He needs to see how humanity bleeds.
          Worship the NRA if you please,
          Raise your weapons and fall on your knees
          The soul of a nation must we seize
          Raise your Gun and fall on your knees
          It is the God of Guns whom we must please...
          Fire your weapons and fall on your knees
          Violence is the nation’s seed
          Watch our children die and Bleed.
          This is the Gun God’s call we heed
          We are baptized in the Gun God's need
          Sacrifice our children and let them bleed.
          To the Gun God's thirst, the Gun God's Greed!

        29. My Esoteric profile image89
          My Esotericposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          The 2nd Amendment had a very specific purpose ... to make sure States had the ability to protect themselves, via their militia, from an oppressive federal gov't or external threats. 

          The individual right to own guns, despite the broaden of the reasons by a pro-gun court, is included in the "right to bear arms" clause necessary to maintaining a well-ordered militia.

          The fact that Americans have no need to break away from British rule anymore is beside the point.  The founders who wrote the Constitution had the future in mind in addition to the present.

          While it is clear the rate of gun ownership between countries (not necessarily between states) is directly linked to overall homicide rates, the solution isn't doing away with the 2nd Amendment; the solution is a set of reasonable regulations whose purpose is to keep guns out of "irresponsible" hands without diminishing the right of "responsible" people to own them.

          1. Alternative Prime profile image85
            Alternative Primeposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            In Reality, the "Specific Purpose" of the 2cnd Amendment was a "Ban" on Arms unless affiliated with a "Well Regulated Militia", a military force assembled to protect the "United" States of America, which of course includes OUR Federal Government which republicans refuse to accept or acknowledge, from an EXTERNAL Threat ~

            Despite what imbeciles like Sean Hammerhead, Bill O'reilly, Jed Bush, Dr. Ben Carson, and other irrationally dumb republicans aspouse, OUR Federal Government is not OUR enemy ~

            This notion that the same forefathers who comprised our first Federal Government, gave out crates of ARMS to "We the Drunk People" via the Constitution, and then basically said "Come and use thy weapons and artillery AGAINST US whenever you FEEL we are OPPRESSIVE" is an absurd, invalid interpretation ~

            Our forefathers were intoxicated and probably high a fair amount of the time during colonial days, but not inoperably inebriated ~

        30. qeyler profile image79
          qeylerposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          In Jamaica, we passed the Gun Court Act in 1974. Originally it was life imprisonment for possession of an illegal gun, now the sentence is no longer a mandatory life but a term of years set by a judge. 

          However, since passage, there has been more gun violence in Jamaica in the past 40 years than in 400 years of history.  Every bad boy can get a gun, decent people can not.   

          Before touching the Law in America, check Jamaica, and see what happens when you outlaw guns.

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
            wrenchBiscuitposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12680881.jpg

            Others have expressed the same viewpoint, and it is a myth. The escalation of violence you speak of is a combination of many factors. One factor many overlook is the role that the United States, and other major world governments could be  playing in the violence. Certainly, the world economic system which is based on wage slavery has a lot to do with it. And guess who sits at the center of this economic system.

            1. qeyler profile image79
              qeylerposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              No.  The fact is, decent people can't get guns.  Try to get a gun and unless an MP likes you,  it will be very difficult.  Of course, if you're a bad boy, you can actually 'rent' guns. 

              If you have friends in Tivoli, Jungle, Rockfort, who are somewhat connected to the 'underworld' ask them.

          2. colorfulone profile image88
            colorfuloneposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            qeyler, I did a little research on what has happened in Jamaica since the gun ban went into place.  It is horrible that good people cannot defend themselves from the violent drug gangs that can easily get guns.  My heart goes out to you for the lose of many lives, and for your civilization and economy that is in ruin because of imposed laws by so called leaders.   

            It is grievous when laws promote lawlessness.

            http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/ … 5_18189602

            1. qeyler profile image79
              qeylerposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              I'm glad you provided an 'authority'.  Too many people live in some fantasy world and alas, I live here.  In Jamaica. In Kingston.

          3. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            +1 yikes! yikes! yikes !

            Thank You Qeyler, Internet and HubPages Forums.

        31. Missy Smith profile image87
          Missy Smithposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          I wrote a hub called "Fighting for Gun Control in America," just recently. This is such a heated debate and I just don't get why. I make a point about the second amendment also in my talk about this. Also, if any would like to read it, there is a comedian that I just posted today on that same hub, that talk's about this subject in such an in your face way. Showing the lack of common sense in some people on this subject. I think the people who are for some better gun control laws would enjoy it.

        32. Misfit Chick profile image93
          Misfit Chickposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          Btw, congratulations on starting an uber-popular topic in here - of course, recent news happenings have also helped prick the conversation. But, this has become the most popular discussion on Hubpages. Well-timed and well-done. Important discussions like these probably cannot be had enough around the web. smile

        33. Inventurist profile image84
          Inventuristposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          Wow, what a sense of the ridiculous. I'm sure when the 2nd Amendment was written there were probably just as many crazy people as there are now as a percentage of the population. Let's just suppose that is 1/100th of 1% of the U.S. population rounded to 313 million. Roughly 3,000 total nutcases wandering our streets that are willing by hook or crook to kill a lot of people. Tim McVey didn't use a gun. No guns onboard the jets that slammed into the twin towers. So if some one of the 3,000 want to kill people, they WILL find a way. Wait, there are 3,000 by that calculation - and during Obama's tenure we have seen maybe 20 individuals taking action - oh yeah, pressure cookers, I forgot. So if it is only 20-30 people, we are now into the 1/10000 of 1% we have to watch out for - AND change the way the other 99.9999% of the people live their lives. Now that is brilliant. So let's do like Australia and ban guns...and then look at the uptick in crimes committed because now no one had guns! Or let's look at a good old closed society like Japan who doesn't report suicides and murders because it shines badly on families.

          Going back to your original premise, pencils are responsible for all mistakes just like guns are responsible for all irresponsible acts. I guess if we made laws against them like heroine and meth then no one would have guns like no one has heroine or meth, right?

          Going after the nutcases is simple too - right? I see Wrath below me, fine looking character, making a great point. Crazy people aren't necessarily stupid people, in fact some are genius. So if you start telling them that, "hey Bill, you seem like you are a little off your rocker, so I have to report to the FBI database you are a nutcase so you cannot buy a gun," how many of these folks will go to see their shrinks? NONE.

          So it comes back to those old European White guys setting around thinking of how a tyrannical government had been terrible enough to run them off, and they were thinking of a word called Liberty. And they said some people should be free not to fear their government but the government should always recognize the people are in charge - so let's make a 2nd Amendment - and they did - so decent law abiding people could protect themselves - from bad guys, from attacking wolves, and from their government if the need arises. Liberty, my friend, is only for those who cherish it.

        34. BernietheMovieGuy profile image81
          BernietheMovieGuyposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          Really?  Then answer this one simple question.  Why do most of the murders involving guns occur in so called "gun-free zones"?  Is it maybe because those people committing the crimes know they'll be able to cause mass panic before they get 'put down'?  Notice too that most take their own lives when they realize that the situation for them is hopeless?  These people want to die, but they want notoriety before they go.  I've owned guns for thirty years and, last I checked, I haven't murdered anyone.  But god help the person who tries to come into my home and threaten my life.  My door will be the last one they pass through in an upright position.

          You want me to surrender my guns so you can feel a little bit safer?  Move to a city where the gun laws are stricter.  Chicago comes to mind.  Meanwhile, I'll stay right where I am.  And my guns are staying right where they are as well.  Federal gun laws mean nothing to me.  My safety means a lot more.  A cop may take five minutes to arrive in an emergency situation.  My gun can put an end to that situation in .5 seconds.  I am a trained marksman so a bullet from my bedroom to the front door will hit a burgler right between the eyes.  No life, no lawsuit.  End of story.

          I've reached a point where this debate has become an irritant to me.  I'm a good person, but good people can be pushed to the breaking point.  Law abiding gun owners are just that - law abiding.  But gun control laws have no affect on the lawless in society.  And as long as criminals can get their hands on guns, those of us that desire the right to protect ourselves will get our hands on guns and ammunition with or without government permission.  You want to be a sheep?  Be my guest.  Better learn to pray to Allah, then, because that will be coming down the pike too.  I will never surrender to the forces that desire to overrun our country in that manner. 

          Think I'm being paranoid?  Crime statistices show that gun violence has actually decreased in areas where gun ownership has risen.  The only places where that isn't the case?  Gun free zones.  I rest my case.

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
            wrenchBiscuitposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            This came up earlier, but I will address it again since you brought it up. Have you personally ever had to protect yourself or your family with a gun?  As I said earlier, I have hung out in tough places like Compton and Tijuana in the past: unarmed with money in my pocket. Never needed a gun. In fact I left my wallet in a booth at a bar in Tijuana one night and didn't notice till about 30 minutes later. When I returned to the bar I was shocked to find out that someone had found my wallet and turned it in to the bar tender. I had over $100.00 in my wallet, and it was still there! Two reasons I never had any problems is I minded my own business and I showed no disrespect. Another is because I didn't walk around in fear. Evil people can smell fear, and they are attracted to it.

            I think you and a lot of other people have been watching too much TV. Furthermore, if someone is going to shoot you they aren't going to give you a chance to respond. They can track your routine and take you out sniper style. Or they can have some hot tamale get your attention and then plant a bullet behind your ear. You'll never see it comin'. Nothing you can do about it. There isn't going to be another shoot out at the OK Corral.Very rarely would a criminal give up the advantage of surprise and allow you to use your weapon in a fair fight. Not in the real world Bernie.

            I notice you are from Syracuse. I used to live there too, Two black guys tried to roll me one night when I was delivering pizza for Sabastino's  to the projects near Erie Blvd East. One got my attention and the other tried to jump in my car. He would have succeeded but my passenger door was locked.If I would have had a gun, do you think approx $20.00 in change and a pizza was worth killing someone over?
            No I don't think so. When I saw what was happening I hit the gas and took off. Problem solved.Nobody hurt.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              You haven't, and therefore no one else has ever used or needed a gun to defend themselves or their families.


              Right!

              1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
                wrenchBiscuitposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                Here you come with the strawman again.Please wilderness, tell us your story of how you defended yourself and saved yourself, or your family with a gun.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                  YOU made the insinuation, YOU back it up.

                  Or do you wish to agree that guns can be useful in self-defense, that not everyone is lucky enough to never need one?

                  1. Alternative Prime profile image85
                    Alternative Primeposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                    The Fact is wilderness, the VAST Majority of Americans have never shot an individual in Self-Defense and if faced with this type of stressful situation, would probably do more harm than good to themselves if a gun were in his/her hands regardless of "Experience Level" ~

                    Moreover, the VAST majority of Americans have never even POINTED a Gun at another individual in Self-Defense ~ if you have said YES to either EXTREMELY Rare scenario, I would suggest you relocate instead of stockpiling even MORE guns ~

                    1. 60
                      retief2000posted 14 months ago in reply to this

                      Facts require citation. Have any sources? Or is this merely a personal opinion without factual basis. If is easy to blather on without reason. It happens every time a liberal talks about firearms.

                2. medopride19 profile image59
                  medopride19posted 14 months ago in reply to this

                  yes smile

            2. Alternative Prime profile image85
              Alternative Primeposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              Agreed wrenchBiscuit ~ Very Solid Points ~

          2. Doug Cutler profile image80
            Doug Cutlerposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            I read the main deterrent to the Japanese from invading the U.S. WWII was because they thought every family had a gun and knew how to use it. Same reason the Germans didn't want to invade Switzerland.
            And why the one world order folk are not running the U.S.

          3. qeyler profile image79
            qeylerposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            A friend of mine who lives in some town in the US told me that the 'Hell's Angels' were coming down the road, coming into this pitiful town, and everyone had a gun, and the first person to shoot was a retired school teacher in her 80's ... she fired in front of the Bikers.   They turned around and left.

          4. Aime F profile image83
            Aime Fposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            You're gonna shoot someone in the head for breaking into your house when all they probably wanted was to take your electronics?  This guns-in-America thing is starting to make more sense to me now.  Because I would not be interested in killing someone for trying to take my stuff.  Couldn't do it.  That's not worthy of death, to me.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              Isn't there a small problem with that "probably" you mention?  Meaning that if you are the victim of a "hot robbery" (you are home when it happens, and thus could shoot the thief) there is a likelihood of personal harm as well.

              My son and his wife were robbed recently, as they slept, including phones, wallet and purse taken from their bedside tables.  They lost over $1,000 of electronics and both took two days off work to replace drivers licenses, close and open new bank accounts, change all passwords, work with the police etc. (think of how much information is on your phone).  I had to meet them at the DMV with cash as they were penniless and their first step was to close all bank accounts.  The thought of a thief bending over them as they slept at night also made them immediately buy (and pay for forever) a monitored security system for the home.

              But to answer your question, no, I'm not going to politely ask a thief that broke into my home if he'd like my electronics and help him carry out thousands of dollars to the waiting car.  I'm going to shoot him before he does the same to me, my wife or my children.  I do not, after all, know what his intent is OR what it will become when presented with people instead of an empty house.  And neither do you - your "probably" is absolutely worthless.

              1. Aime F profile image83
                Aime Fposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                My "probably" was more in reference to other stuff they want to take (and poorly placed, I admit) and not that they might be breaking into your house to kill you and your family for funsies - because people breaking into a stranger's house and killing them almost never happens.  Really.  There's probably as good a chance that the person breaking in is drunk and at the wrong house.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                  Is it worth your life or that of your child to find out it was only a drunk that broke the window or picked the lock?  Because it isn't "almost never" - it happens all the time.  Perhaps a robbery gone wrong when confronted with a homeowner, but does that matter if the homeowner is hurt as a result?

                  Interestingly, I see that "hot" robberies are on the increase in the UK - where homeowners don't have guns to protect themselves.  Even the most liberal can recognize this result of gun control, and the inevitable results.

                  1. Aime F profile image83
                    Aime Fposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                    Break-ins usually turn violent after the homeowner confronts the intruder.  It's very, very rare that an intruder enters a random home for the purpose of harming the people inside. 

                    The chances of my child getting accidentally injured or killed with a gun in the home far outweigh her chances of getting injured or killed by some random intruder who in all likelihood has no interest in hurting or killing her, in my opinion.  But as this discussion goes on I'm realizing that I just don't understand gun culture in America and I never will.  I should've quit when I said I was going to.  smile

                    1. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                      You're right that it's very rare that an intruder breaks in for the purpose of harming the people inside.

                      But yes, break-ins often turn violent after being confronted.  So what will you do - hide under the bed and hope your little girl doesn't get up in the middle of the night and stumble into the thief?  Doesn't sound like a very good plan to me...

                      And no, your child isn't as likely to be injured by a gun in the home...that is owned by a trained, careful owner that also trains the children to never touch and locks it up anyway.

                      I don't think it's "gun culture" nearly as much as independence.  Americans seem more willing to be responsible for themselves instead of letting government do it all, although that IS changing with the liberal entitlement philosophy going on.  Perhaps that's even the ultimate goal in gun control - to force ever more dependence on politicians for our lives as well as our support. 

                      Don't know and don't care - as far as I'm concerned the real problem is more laws giving less freedom in return for absolutely nothing.

              2. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
                wrenchBiscuitposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                From your own account, even if your son would have had an arsenal of guns in the house, it wouldn't have mattered since he didn't wake up; hard to pull the trigger when your asleep. Furthermore, if the burglar would have wanted to kill anybody he/she would have. Your whole argument is based on fear and hypothetical's.  You are also assuming that if you have a gun you will have the upper hand. Not necessarily so. A person so bold as to rob someone when they are sleeping is going to have a contingency plan; usually in the form of a gun. Chances are, if your son would have awakened and tried to shoot the burglar, he would have been shot first and killed. In this case, a home security system, and/or a good dog, makes more sense than a gun.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                  No disagreement with anything you've said here.  The thrust of the story was that taking a few electronics is NOT as simple as it sounds; that home thieves take far more than that, culminating in a lifetime of fear and continuing cost.

                  And, perhaps, if we were all armed and willing to shoot there wouldn't be so many home burglaries.  Certainly communities known to have a high gun possession rate don't, but there are usually other reasons to consider as well.

                  But that has absolutely nothing to do with the premise that removing guns will make us all safer, or with the idea that burglars should be allowed to take whatever they want while the homeowner watches.

              3. thegecko profile image86
                thegeckoposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                $1,000 > murder

            2. BernietheMovieGuy profile image81
              BernietheMovieGuyposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              If someone enters my home with malicious intent, I don't intend to wait until they say, "I'm only here for your stuff.  I'm going to leave you alone."  You enter my home without permission, you just forfeited your right to leave alive.

            3. ahorseback profile image52
              ahorsebackposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              That's a good point , Most people are going to be victims  not wanting to defend themselves ,  but the guy taking your TV  is probably the same guy who takes your life or your daughters life , NOW will you defend your self   ? What about your children ?   -Or isn't that just cowardice ?    I know Dial 911 and wait an hour !

              1. Aime F profile image83
                Aime Fposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                No, actually, the chances of the guy taking my TV also taking mine or my daughter's life are next to zero and go way up if I decide to jump out and challenge him.  If doing what will statistically keep her safest and letting someone take all my crap is cowardice then so be it, at least I have a living child.  Unless I'm a trained marksman who can shoot him between the eyes in one shot, I'm inviting an altercation that wouldn't have happened if I had locked us both in a room and waited for the police to show up, and I'm definitely not keeping my daughter safe by starting a gunfight with a stranger in the house. 

                As has already been pointed out, we have a security system and a large protective dog, both of which make me feel much safer than a gun because they both actively discourage someone from coming to intrude in the first place, rather than waiting until someone gets into my house before shooting at each other with a toddler nearby.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                  But if you are NOT a trained marksman you have no business having a gun anyway.

                  But "locking" the bathroom isn't going to stop a thief that has already broken into your home, is it?

                  I will say, though, that the security system that calls the cops and a large dog is probably better protection for any but that trained marksman.  Don't know that a hidden security system is going to discourage a thief, but a dog will.  Of course not everyone likes dogs (that also bite people), and not everyone can afford not only the installation but the ongoing costs of a monitored security system...

                  1. Aime F profile image83
                    Aime Fposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                    No, but it's going to keep me out of their way and show that I have no interest in being combative.  Again, confronting them is where the violence starts a vast, vast majority of the time... so I'm gonna do the opposite of that to best protect myself and my kid.

                    Look, I get that people want to feel safe in their own ways.  I just hate the implication that someone breaking into your house is there to kill you so you either shoot them dead or you're not taking responsibility for your safety.  It's not accurate at all. 

                    I agree, lots of people don't have any business owning a gun, hence... wink

                    1. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                      You're right - people feel safe in different ways.

                      They also have different ideas on what should be done with thieves.  While very few would recommend the death penalty for someone stealing a TV or something, a great many have a very different idea when that thief is in their home with them.  At that point it DOES change to the death penalty, but of course the "crime" has gone beyond theft as well.  Frightening or angering an armed person is never a good idea.

                  2. Alternative Prime profile image85
                    Alternative Primeposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                    Only one slight problem with your theory wilderness ~

                    "Trained Marksmen" are typically not your average thief ~ "Joe SCHLABB", the average Football Watchin' French Dip Eatin' guy who "Borrowed" his dad's revolver or hunting rifle from the house is usually the misfit who you'll encounter ~

                    1. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                      Read it over again.  "Trained Markesman" refers to the homeowner with a gun.  If they have not been trained they have no business with a gun.  Not necessarily to the level of an army sniper, but trained in safety AND shooting.  If you can't hit the broadside of a barn from 50', don't own a gun.

                      1. colorfulone profile image88
                        colorfuloneposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                        I agree.  Responsible gun safety and training should be required of everyone who owns a gun.  Its not a toy and children need to know it like they know their own name if there are guns around.  Adults accidentally shoot themselves, for lack of common sense or safety training would be my guess.

                    2. Doug Cutler profile image80
                      Doug Cutlerposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                      Trained marksman? That is what shot guns are for! If you are small get a 20 ga. Shoot it a few times so you know how to operate and use it. Also why a lot of people like the AR-15.

        35. jdw7979 profile image80
          jdw7979posted 14 months ago in reply to this

          To the original poster- Do we not learn from history? It's your kind of thinking that served notice in Eastern Europe circa 1938. A free republic such as ours not only needs an armed populace of citizens, but should be encouraged. Besides the over-bloated bureaucracy creeping in every day and even being caught in untruth after untruth, you should have the absolute right to protect you and yours from any evil coming your way.. Be it tyranny, or your insane neighbor! Violence and decaying morals kill, not metal objects in the hands of said individual.

        36. Phyllis Doyle profile image95
          Phyllis Doyleposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          Mass killings are not done only by mentally ill persons. Most mass killings are done by terrorists. If the right to bear arms was revoked, people who want to kill will still be able to obtain guns - but, listen up: people who want guns to protect themselves and family would not be able to have them.

          How many more people would be killed if citizens could not protect their family or teachers could not protect their students?  How many fewer would be killed if teachers and other citizens had a right to carry?

          Very few burglars will break in a house when people are home. If all the burglar wants is food or electronics they would not (unless they are downright stupid) break in when people are home. Most who break in when people are sleeping are ready to kill if they have to or because that is their intention.

          To abolish the right to bear arms is a good way for governments to have more control over citizens. It is also a way for government to gradually work the way up to declaring martial law - and it sure seems like that could possibly happen. Have you read or heard about "Jade Helm"? Look it up.

          What happens if martial law is declared? All elections are postponed indefinitely. The Constitution would become suspended and all rights of citizens would be gone. Military would be in control. Anyone could be arrested at anytime for any reason. Citizens would lose their right to vote. Do you think this could never happen in America? Have you read what the FBI had planned to do during the cold war in the 1950s? Have you read what Ben Carson thinks: "Can Obama use martial law to keep White House post 2016?"  Put that in your search engine.

          Think again and protect your freedom and rights.

          1. thegecko profile image86
            thegeckoposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            When I was in high school, around the time of the Columbine and Santana shootings (Santana High was in our school district), they placed a police officer on our campus. A fellow student who worked for the school paper made an excellent point in an article he wrote. I am paraphrasing, but he basically said:

            "The school district wants to prevent another shooting and protect us, so they place an officer on our campus. Now, we have an old, overweight man with a gun walking around. What would it take for four healthy students to quickly jump him, take his gun, and go on a shooting spree? The district has done nothing but increased the likelihood of there being a shooting on our campus."

            People keep pointing out that guns are just tools and ignore the fact that making a gun accessible is a trigger (no pun intended). People can have all kinds of terrible thoughts in their heads, but they are surrounded by immediate limitations to act them out. When they start thinking about what it would take to obtain a gun as a minor, the people they would need to get into contact with, the risks they would undergo, they back down. If their parents keep a gun up in the closet however, that they could take unnoticed, they might consider it.

            Placing the gun in the situation escalates the likelihood that it will be used in these scenarios. There are numerous academic studies that support this, especially for suicides.

            As for the people that keep referencing WWII and other historical references as a need for an armed citizenry. I agree, at those times, under those circumstances, we were better off. We don't live in that era anymore. If governments plan to kill mass amounts of people in another country, it won't be a gun fight. It will be with bombs, chemical weapons, drones. The individual will be defenseless. If they don't value the lives of civilians, there's no need to send in troops to keep the peace. They can just let everything burn to ashes.

            As for our own government... if we reach a day where we have to fight our military, we've already lost. Other than stubborn resistance and the hope that our leaders retain some sense of morality, we have little to fight back with. Technology has surpassed our basic ability to defend ourselves with firearms. If you want to be protected from such a formidable force, you better start those militias and begin to buy nukes, tanks, drones, fighter planes. You better recruit super hackers and have billionaires backing your cause. That's what it will take.

            But don't cling to your guns pretending one day you might be able to defend yourself against tyranny. In the 21st century, that's the biggest case of delusionment of them all.

            1. Phyllis Doyle profile image95
              Phyllis Doyleposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              I am not talking about fighting tyranny and the militia. You did not address anything I mentioned. I am talking about defending ourselves from burglars who have the intent to kill and a terrorist or other person who goes into a school just to kill.

              WhatI "cling to" is my right to bear arms and protect myself, my family, my home.

              You are not impressing me.

              1. thegecko profile image86
                thegeckoposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                I did address you.

                "How many more people would be killed if citizens could not protect their family or teachers could not protect their students?"

                I commented on the danger of placing guns in schools.

                "Most who break in when people are sleeping are ready to kill if they have to or because that is their intention."

                Can you provide yearly statistics on the number of people who successfully defend their household with a gun from murderous intruders?

                "To abolish the right to bear arms is a good way for governments to have more control over citizens."

                And if the government did declare martial law against gun owning citizens, what could those citizens really do (I covered this)

                "It is also a way for government to gradually work the way up to declaring martial law"

                You think the government wants to abolish gun ownership to declare martial law?

                1. The government does not want to abolish the 2nd Amendment. Most politicians don't, most citizens don't.

                2. Where is your proof that martial law is a goal of the government?

                3. Martial law to what end? What country runs successfully in the long term under martial law? What free society that has banned guns is running under martial law? There's just way too much speculation in this hypothetical scenario.

                "What happens if martial law is declared? All elections are postponed indefinitely. The Constitution would become suspended and all rights of citizens would be gone. Military would be in control. Anyone could be arrested at anytime for any reason. Citizens would lose their right to vote. Do you think this could never happen in America?"

                Fear.

                And that's what many gun owners who do not want real regulation on guns promote, fear. What if this happened, if this person tried to kill you and your family, if the government came after your liberty (which I addressed). I think it's reckless to say we abolish the right to bear guns without any substantial research suggesting it would be better along with a change in our culture. However, other than anecdotal stories, where is the evidence that the average person is under the possibility of so many fatal threats? Of any of these threats, how many have been prevented with guns?

                We're living in one of the most peaceful times in our nation's history, with the lowest crime rates since the 60s. Much of it linked to technology and changes in social behavior (people have more to distract and entertain them). Yet, police brutality is at an all time high. People are buying more guns than ever and a large portion of the population, because or along with the media, are promoting this idea that we all need more guns to protect ourselves. That there are possible threats everywhere that only a gun can ward off.

                The truth? If someone does come to kill you, it probably won't be a stranger. It will most likely be a family member or friend. Someone you know. You won't even see it coming. If your child dies by the end of the barrel, it will probably be an accident, or it will because that child took their own life. But not to worry, it's extremely unlikely you would die by firearm anyway.

                The truth is, you're probably going to die of cancer, or heart disease, or diabetes, or in a car accident.

                And you'll probably never get to use your gun for self-defense. Which should be a good thing, but it's not what many gun owners talk about.

          2. cathylynn99 profile image79
            cathylynn99posted 13 months ago in reply to this

            substance abuse and rage are factors in violent crime. mental illness alone is NOT.

            http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an … der.2.html

        37. Ronald Bachner profile image86
          Ronald Bachnerposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          The second amendment is not outdated. You have forgotten the history of this country and why we fight to maintain our freedoms.  Just look around the world to see what happens when guns are not owned by the citizens or where freedom and speech is oppressed.

          1. Phyllis Doyle profile image95
            Phyllis Doyleposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            +1

        38. nicomp profile image59
          nicompposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          "Let's face facts people.  The 2nd amendment was written for another time and another place.  It has no place in today's world. It is causing mentally ill people to commit mass killings."
          You didn't reply to my earlier question: if an amendment causes people to commit crimes can we pass another amendment to cause them to stop?

        39. GlendaGoodWitch profile image88
          GlendaGoodWitchposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          Very arrogant to think that we are above the 2nd amendment. As though people are superior to what they were hundreds of years ago. This is why we need to read books that were written from other centuries, we need to know that we are not superior to past generations and learn from them, otherwise we get this air of superiority that we are better, smarter, and more sophisticated. Not true.
          Common sense. guns don't kill people, people do. We need stronger, more deliberate laws against criminals, and good people should have the right to fire at criminals. That would take care of at least 50% of our problem. Its truly amazing that just because Obama says something, all his zombies go out repeating his words as though they make sense. The man is out for a power grab and its obvious. He has is political agenda for wanting to disarm us, and he knows it will not stop any killings. At least this time he didn't fake cry for the cameras.

        40. Jackie Lynnley profile image76
          Jackie Lynnleyposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          When my children and I have the same protection that the president and his children have then I will say OK you can have my gun. Until then he needs to start a plan for the crazies because the rest of us aren't.

          1. Phyllis Doyle profile image95
            Phyllis Doyleposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            Bravo, Jackie !  +1111

          2. ahorseback profile image52
            ahorsebackposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            Perfect answer Jackie !Enough said .

          3. Rabadi profile image84
            Rabadiposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            I totally agree Jackie, if terrorists and bad guys can get away with guns we should be able to protect ourselves from them.

            1. Alternative Prime profile image85
              Alternative Primeposted 13 months ago in reply to this

              When is the last time a civilian, non-law enforcement or military person shot and or pointed a gun in defense against a terrorist? ~

              Once again, Backward republicans "PRETEND" a threat exists when in REALITY, it dosen't ~  Just like they "PRETEND" the 2cnd Amendment affords CIVILIANS the right to arm themselves as a RAG TAG group against an internal friendly entity such as the Federal Government or other force when in REALITY they have NO such RIGHT ~

              ~ Terrorists usually hit when not expected, therefore, a gun is typically useless as a defense ~

              1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
                wrenchBiscuitposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12691855.jpg
                That reminds me of all the talk about securing the Mexican border to keep terrorists out of the country. Holy Paranoia Batman! There are over 11 million ":illegals" in the country already. This didn't happen overnight. Even Archie Bunker might assume that it's a little too late to start building a wall. Any terrorist who has wanted to get closer to Allah here in the U.S. during the last 50 years is already here! Their kids have already graduated from Harvard!

        41. Bentlymontclaire profile image70
          Bentlymontclaireposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          Taking away guns or make them harder to get only give them more value on the outside  of the law. Stricter gun control will only make the many gun onwing citizens criminals.

        42. 61
          yanufopivposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          Deleted

          1. thegecko profile image86
            thegeckoposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            Finally, a fresh point of view!

            1. nicomp profile image59
              nicompposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              Something we can all agree upon!

              1. thegecko profile image86
                thegeckoposted 14 months ago in reply to this

                Apparently someone does not support free speech!

        43. bluesradio profile image14
          bluesradioposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          And it is definitely  getting crazy when folks are using Guns for solutions to  arguments in schools versus the old fashioned fists...I think the strongest thing I saw as a kid growing up in the late 70's at a fight in Warren County was a knife.....Not a daggone Gun....

        44. 60
          Gregory Amourposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          The God of Guns by Gregory Amour

          Hail to the God of Guns...
          Assault weapons are its priests and nuns
          Sacrifice is what the Gun God needs
          He needs to see how humanity bleeds.
          Worship the NRA if you please,
          Raise your weapons and fall on your knees
          The soul of a nation must we seize
          Raise your Gun and fall on your knees
          It is the God of Guns whom we must please...
          Fire your weapons and fall on your knees
          Violence is the nation’s seed
          Watch our children die and Bleed.
          This is the Gun God’s call we heed
          We are baptized in the Gun God's need
          Sacrifice our children and let them bleed.
          To the Gun God's thirst, the Gun God's Greed!

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            for gosh sakes! we have always had problems with mass shootings!  with gun violence!    always! since they were invented.
            good grief.

            we are at the lower end of the higher ages. things will improve as the human race continues to evolve.  Meanwhile, we MUST have the right to bear arms.

            Get over it. mad

        45. Wrath Warbone profile image80
          Wrath Warboneposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          Well said

        46. Shyron E Shenko profile image83
          Shyron E Shenkoposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          The fact is that Assault weapons did not exist when the 2nd amendment was written, that does not make that amendment obsolete. There was a ban on assault weapons during President Clinton's term in office and GWB would not continue that ban. The NRA could make tons more money selling assault weapons and these powerful weapons make little men feel like big men to own the big guns. And their love of MONEY is the only reason the NRA does not want ANY kind of gun control.
          Not once have I heard that ANYONE wants to ban ALL guns.
          If someone broke into my house knowing I am home, they are not breaking in to steal anything, they would be breaking in to do me bodily harm and I would do whatever I need to do to protect myself.
          Someone suggested that the reason for gun reform was so that President Obama could stay in office post 2016, is a ridiculous notion.  Do not fear President Obama will not stay in office past January 2017.
          ASSAULT weapons are made to kill people, NO FOR protection, sport or hunting or target practice, and those guns should be in the hands of our military ONLY. 
          My mother while protecting her family had her shotgun taken away from her and smashed across her face.
          What I believe: Assault weapons should be in the hands of our Military only and should be banned for civilian population. PERIOD!

        47. lisavanvorst profile image78
          lisavanvorstposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          Guns do not kill people, people kill people. I feel strongly that every state should have a waiting time to get a gun. Just like when you go for a job and you do not get hired till you pass a Criminal Background check. However, if someone is normal one day, that nice sweet person can just crack, go insane and well history as shown the rest. I myself would never get a gun for the home. It can accidently go off, a child or adult could accidently get killed. However, for some who feel they are being stalked or in danger, it is a comfort to them. For a small retail store that is constantly getting robbed it might be a necessity. I feel we already have strong gun laws, the problem is the people that use the gungs.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            I am scared to death of guns. I really don't think I could never use one to kill any one ever for any reason. For the same reason, I could never get an abortion. I am very in awe of the power of LIFE.

          2. Alternative Prime profile image85
            Alternative Primeposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            lisavanvorst ~ That's a cute little republican mantra, but in Reality, in the Practical Lucid World, GUNS Kill People, People do NOT Kill People ~

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago in reply to this

              and vacuums suck out forming humans, not abortion doctors.
              ban those evil vacuums!

              1. Alternative Prime profile image85
                Alternative Primeposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                A legal Abortion is NOT an involuntary choice as is being the victim of gun violence ~ Women have and deserve control over their bodies, their temples, NOT the intruding maniacal bible belt conservative republican ~

                Your attempted comparison is Invalid & Void Kathryn ~

                And yes, the instrument used actually performs the medical function ~

                1. 0
                  Grant Jollyposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                  The United States sounds like the wrong country for you. Maybe you should move to a place that supports your viewpoints. Your debate leaves much to be desired and brings nothing new to this conversation.

                  1. Credence2 profile image86
                    Credence2posted 11 months ago in reply to this

                    Why should he leave, Mr Grant Jolly? There are plenty of people here that support that viewpoint. Otherwise, all the GOP futile attempts to shut down Roe vs Wade and Planned Parenthood might have yield a more bountiful harvest?

                    1. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 11 months ago in reply to this

                      There are real, actual people that think guns jump up and kill people?  That think a fetus, if it shouts loud enough, will persuade the doctor not to abort it (a voluntary choice to die)?

                      1. Credence2 profile image86
                        Credence2posted 11 months ago in reply to this

                        I thought that you were against maniacal bible banging conservative Republicans?

                        My focus was on Grant's statement which seem to say that pro-choice was equivalent to aliens in our midsts and nothing could be farther from the truth.

          3. My Esoteric profile image89
            My Esotericposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            Fortunately, you are wrong about the laws being strong enough - they aren't, not by a long shot.  I say "fortunately" because that means there is room for improvement and therefore more lives saved.

            There is no comparison between the gun control laws in Massachusetts (rank of 71) and Louisiana. (negative 8, meaning their regulations are more lax than the federal requirements).  The death rate by gun in MA is 4.1 per 100,000, but is 19.1 per 100,000 in LA.  Why is that?

            Now I know you can find opposing numbers that show just the opposite, BUT, when you take all 50 states together it becomes very clear those with stronger gun regulations have a significantly lower death by gun rate than those with weak ones.  Why is that?

        48. Abrushing1968 profile image84
          Abrushing1968posted 13 months ago in reply to this

          PeoplePower You scare me.

        49. letstalkabouteduc profile image91
          letstalkabouteducposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          It's hitting closer to home...these school shootings. We're up to 42 and counting this year. Over the weekend, three young men shot up my son's middle school. Fortunately, school was not in session. But, what do I say to my son when I send him off to school?  Earlier this month, we had the killings at the college here in Oregon. I know there is not one solution; it's more complex than that. But, if we want to lo look our kids in the face before we send them off to school, we need to do something. We must improve care for the mentally ill. The media must stop identifying and glorifying these mass murderers and, yes, we need to stop the gun culture that's overtaking the country.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            We must stop the pharmaceutical industry which has the most power of all the industries.

        50. TheHealthGuy LM profile image81
          TheHealthGuy LMposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          First one needs to understand what the 2nd Amendment is all about. NOT what the current government tells you it's about but what it is really about.

          Owning weapons (guns, etc) for hunting is definitely a plus in regards to procuring food for the table but the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting.

          The 2nd Amendment is about controlling the government and the ability of "we the people" to take down a tyrannical government. Our founders knew EXACTLY what they were doing and what the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect. Which is the entire U.S. Constitution.

          Those who want to control YOU want you to believe that those 27 well selected words of the original 2nd Amendment were only for the militia which they now declare is the National Guard. In fact Congress added a comma where there was none so they could try to further this belief.
          However ...

          The original 2nd Amendment, as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State reads in this manner:

          "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

          Those well crafted 27 words say it all. Notice the ONE comma and the phrase " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

          Yet Congress and lawyers had to "interpret" and CHANGE the 2nd Amendment for their own agenda. It now reads, as passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives, with the rest of the original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights prepared by scribe William Lambert:

          A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

          Notice the EXTRA comma? That allows those who want to control YOU to say that only EIGHT (8) words are relevant. These eight words can be read as: "A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed" giving way to the erronous belief that "we the people" are NOT the militia. What BUNK!

          The government controls the National Guard, the police forces, the military etc ... so IF the government is tyrannical who is going to stop them if "we the people" are NOT the miltia?

          Think! Use the brain God gave you! Those who want you to lay down your arms and turn you into slaves are those who promote gun control and the sheep who follow them.

          Consider the words of Richard Henry Lee:
          “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms…  "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

          James Madison said:
          "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

          George Mason said:
          "I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

          "To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

          Thomas Jefferson said:
          "I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
          - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

          And ...
          "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
          - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

          And ...
          "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

          And ...
          "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

          Do your research. EVERY tyrant (Lennin, Stalin, Hitler, etc) disarmed the populace so there could be no possiblilty of an overthrow via the people.

          The 2nd Amendment is definitely NOT outdated. You can thank the the "gun controllers" for the mass killings. Gun free zones, are a direct invitation to any crimminal to reek havoc at anytime.

          IF you seriously think that disarming law abiding citizens is the answer you definitely need your head examined. A check up from the neck up is in order for crimminals will ALWAYS have guns. They will steal them (as they do now) from military installations and convoys. How do you think gunrunners get their weapons to sell? Do you really think the majority of illegal weapons, owned by crimminals, come from the houses of legal citizens? Do you really think that crimminals will give up THEIR guns? If so you are a special breed of ostrich.

          New York and Chicago gun laws are some of the strictest in the USA and/or world yet their crime rate AND gun violence is the highest. Chew on that.

          Guns are NOT the problem. Guns do NOT kill people. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE and ...

          Those who want to kill others will ALWAYS have guns. Gun control simply restricts the law abiding American, NOT the crimminal. If you think otherwise you really should consider evaluation. And ...

          EVERY legal American who votes for gun control and/or allows it to happen without voicing their opposition or trying their best to inform other Americans about what the 2nd Amendment is really about is either a blind sheep or a traitor to the United States of America.

          Those who have sworn an oath (military, gov't officials, etc) to protect, defend and support the U.S. Constitution yet promote gun control ARE liars and traitors.

          1. Alternative Prime profile image85
            Alternative Primeposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            Pure insane conservative republican propaganda in reference to this "Misinterpretation" of the Amendment ~

            P.S. ~ If PEOPLE Kill PEOPLE and NOT the GUN as you and so many other mis-informed individuals claim, primarily republicans, I'd like to see a spineless numbskull like Sean Hammerhead or Bill O'reilly get into the ring  WITHOUT  a gun and "Take Out" a professional Boxer, or Wrestler, or Judo Expert ~

            The FACT Still remains ~ GUNS KIll, NOT People ~

            Only in "Republican PRETEND Land" does a person actually do the Killing ~

        51. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          The push back you see from organizations such as the NRA is in response to the trustworthiness of the US government. The amendment was made in response to a lack of trust in the government as it was expressed against King George III in his ability to tax or govern without colonists representation. Not much has changed and now it is getting worse as special interest rules the country. Until we trust the government again I don't see any change soon.

        52. Readmikenow profile image89
          Readmikenowposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          Well I'll give up my guns when you can figure out a way to keep all the criminals in our country from having theirs.  Laws mean nothing to these people.  Gun control only hurts those who abide by the law.  And...if you want to change the 2nd amendment or do away with it, it's possible.  A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).   Think that will happen?  I think not.

          1. Doug Cutler profile image80
            Doug Cutlerposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            The Israel gov. has asked all those that are legally allowed to carry to do so. There has been a rash of
            stabbings by the Arabs in the Jewish communities. God knows what kind of drugs or mental indoctrination they are on??? The Israels have leaders that know who the baddies are and are willing to do something about it. Too bad we don't have the same here in the U.S. and some other countries.

            Goes to show you that if not guns then some other weapon will be used by bad people. We need guns to protect ourselves from such and from tyrannical govs.

          2. Alternative Prime profile image85
            Alternative Primeposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            Readmikenow ~ Apply Basic Mathematics, REDUCE the Number of Guns in Circulation and you will REDUCE the number of Gun Crimes ~ Even Criminals will have a more difficult time Finding and or Acquiring a Firearm ~ 

            ~ These are the Fundamental FACTS ~

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 13 months ago in reply to this

              Still on the irrelevant?  The Fundamental FACTS are that taking guns does not reduce the murder rate - why is that little FACT always left out of your rant somehow?

              1. Amanda Curran profile image83
                Amanda Curranposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                Because most people on the side of gun control live in a world of ideologies.I used to get frustrated with the ideologies vs facts debate but then I realized I'm actually envious of said gun control folks. They have never had the opportunity to experience the fact that evil doesn't play by the rules.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                  That and the indication that they don't have to put out the effort to study and think before rendering an opinion.  Instead, the opinion is presented as factual simply because they want it to be and it doesn't matter whether it matches reality or not.

              2. Alternative Prime profile image85
                Alternative Primeposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                ot a Rant wilderness, just a Fundamental Certainty ~

                I'm not sure where republicans are educated but the Basic Mathematical FACT Still remains ~

                A REDUCTION in Circulated GUNS will result in a REDUCTION in Gun Violence ~ A REDUCTION in Vehicles on the road will result in a REDUCTION of Accidents ~ A REDUCTION in Planets wil result in Less Favorable Odds of the Existence of Extra-Terrestrial Life  ~ A REDUCTION in Carbon Dioxide & Related Pollutants will result in a REDUCTION or Mitigation of Severe Climate Change, if of course we are not too late ~ Etc, etc, etc ~

                Your EDUCATION for the Day ~ smile

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                  A reduction in ninjas will result in a reduction of stealth.
                  A reduction in military goods will be a reduction in war
                  A reduction in cross bows will result in a reduction of deaths by cross bows.
                  A reduction in pharmaceuticals will result in a reduction in pharmaceutical users
                  A reduction in rocket ships will reduce traffic to outer space.
                  The reduction of people will result in less population on the planet.
                  ETC.

                    The question is:  How do you reduce the number of any of these things!

                  By stopping production!


                  There is no stopping production.
                  For instance:
                  http://www.zdnet.com/article/inside-the … l-weapons/


                  If Afghanistan produces BAD A$$ arms, Americans by hook or crook are going to smuggle them in and sell them here on the black market.
                  Can you stop black markets and people who refuse to go by the rules?
                  well, can you??
                  can you???
                  ALTERNATIVE Prime????

                2. Amanda Curran profile image83
                  Amanda Curranposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                  There is no stopping Production that is the ISSUE. I agree if there were no guns in the world there would be no gun related crime. But there is a serious problem with your ideology. ......It will never happen............
                  Just like stopping production of alcohol never stopped production of it.
                  Just like banning the manufacturing of drugs never stopped drug production.
                  Maybe you should make it your life mission to go back in time and un-invent the gun. Aside from the pesky fact that you will never be able to stop gun production you will also never be able to stop violence. Evil people are smart and will find ways to commit evil acts regardless of the tool.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                    +1

                  2. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                    Worse, reducing guns (if it's possible) will reduce gun violence, but all stats show, from real world experience, it does nothing to reduce violence in terms of the homicide rate. 

                    A simple fact that AP steadfastly refuses to discuss or even acknowledge - every time it is brought up he defaults to gun violence without responding to the topic of guns vs overall violence.

          3. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
            wrenchBiscuitposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12701291.jpg

            LOL! Where do all of you people live? You give the impression that if you laid your precious guns down for one minute, marauding rapists, crack dealers, and home invaders would surround and overpower you.In medical terms it's referred to as PARANOIA. But the icing on the cake is this business about the U.S. Constitution. Since when has the Constitution provided anything of value to the average American citizen? Two World Wars were instigated,staged, and bankrolled by greedy bankers. Every war since then has been a staged, money making event, at the expense of the poor and the working class.
            How has the Constitution helped all of the U.S. soldiers who have been used as pawns to further the greedy ambitions of a ruling elite?

            Today, the Patriot Act allows the goon squad to spy on U.S. citizens; to take us from our homes and throw us in a prison with no Habeas Corpus. Indefinitely! How can the Constitution protect any of us from the Patriot Act? How did the Constitution protect the children at the Branch Davidian Compound who were gassed to death by Janet Reno and her Death Squad? David Koresh had guns. A tyrannical government came calling. His guns were useless! The massacre at Mt.Carmel is only a microcosm of what can happen throughout the United States. All of your guns and Second Amendment rights aren't going to save you from the real Americans; the real criminals; the ones who branded you with a number and turned you into a commodity.

        53. Amanda Curran profile image83
          Amanda Curranposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          I find the growing idea that we need to ditch certain parts often constitution to be quite alarming, The only reason you have the freedom to even express this on a platform such as hubpages is because we are a country built on laws to ensure certain freedoms.
          The only gun control that will work is when  someone can go back in time and find a way to un-invent them. There's no way to un-invent a technology. With that being said we don't have a gun problem, we have a spiritual problem. Why do people want to hurt innocent people? Its the age old question of why is there evil in this world. Until we can go back in time and un- invent the gun or find a way to eradicate evil gun control is not a logical solution.
          MOLON LAUBE,

        54. lawrence01 profile image88
          lawrence01posted 13 months ago in reply to this

          I'd like to ask a question. When someone applies for a gun license do they have to undergo psychological testing? Over here in NZ you can apply for the gun license but part of the process is you have to undergo a psychological test!
          Maybe the way forward isn't to take the guns away but make it harder to get legal firearms and make the penalties for selling illegally much more draconian, that way you keep the second amendment and tighten the rules at the same time!

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            Unfortunately, the amendment doesn't mention rules or outrageous requirements to fulfill (such as being subjected to a psyche evaluation) in order to have the right.  Just that we have the right.

            In any case, the number of cases of mentally ill people that legally own their guns and have committed a mass murder (or murder at all) is quite small.  That means that onerous regulations are being required of innocent people in order to produce a very small reward for society.  Again, the antithesis of a freedom loving people.

            1. lawrence01 profile image88
              lawrence01posted 13 months ago in reply to this

              Actually worldwide its pretty high! Hungerford England, early 1980s a mentally unstable guy bought a replica AK47, rebored  barrel and killed 18 in a shooting spree. Numerous times since where mentally unstable people got guns and killed. That's why the rest of the world has that criteria!

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                All is relative.  Let me rephrase: the percentage of homicides committed by mentally ill people that legally own the gun they used is quite small.

                I might also point out that your single example was not of a legally purchased gun; it was of a homemade weapon.  A psyche evaluation before buying a gun (not a toy or replica, but an actual functioning gun) would not have prevented anything at all.

                1. lawrence01 profile image88
                  lawrence01posted 13 months ago in reply to this

                  After that incident the UK changed the rule that because a 'replica' can easily be modified (all you need do is re-bore the barrel) they are to be classed as a firearm and must be kept in Police armouries (or gun club ones with alarms wired into the local Police station so that if there's a break in they can be there in seconds!)
                  You're right that the amount of crime commited by mentally unstable people is small, but usually horrific with multiple homicides (ten or more in a single incident!). Introducing such a thing won't impede the average gun owner (apart from a little extra paperwork) but it will help stop another tragedy!
                  By the way the weapon was a legally imported one from the Soviet union

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                    Horror is not a reason to require anyone to submit to a mental evaluation.  And the numbers of multiple murders using their legally owned weapons is nearly microscopic; certainly we have better things to put our efforts into.

                    Except, of course, that it a strong weapon in the arsenal of the gun haters.  Terrorism - the creation of horror and fear - always is, which is why it is popular with people that having else to use.

                    Your "weapon" was only a "weapon" the same way as baseball bat is.  A fancy looking club, nothing more, so it's no surprise that it could be imported at will.  I wonder if the UK will be requiring an evaluation before buying a chunk of pipe now, because it can be turned into a weapon with just some work (a whole lot less than re-boring a gun barrel!), and requiring it to be kept at the cop shop.

                    1. lawrence01 profile image88
                      lawrence01posted 13 months ago in reply to this

                      Actually I now live in New Zealand where if you're walking down the street with one you'll be arrested unless you have reason to have it! We do have gun deaths but they are almost all hunters who make mistakes! The gun laws here have almost eliminated the situation I put forward yet people can still own the gun, they just can't do it for self defence as here in NZ to kill in self defence is classed as manslaughter!

        55. Jackie Lynnley profile image76
          Jackie Lynnleyposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          When I have the same 24 hour protection as Mr President and his family then he can have my gun. He will never win this battle. Not "all" of us are stupid.

          1. lawrence01 profile image88
            lawrence01posted 13 months ago in reply to this

            I'd agree that most folks are good people but the fact of owning a weapon increases your chances of being killed by one sixfold! Three thousand Americans were killed by firearms last year, most by their own firearm! Actually I got the initial figure wrong as in 2011 (according to the guardian newspaper) it was 8,000!!!! COME ON!

          2. Alternative Prime profile image85
            Alternative Primeposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            But jackie Lynnley, there's one little problem with your comparison, to my knowledge, you're not the President of the United States ~

            Another FICTITIOUS "Republican Pretend Land" Scenario ~

            1. Doug Cutler profile image80
              Doug Cutlerposted 13 months ago in reply to this

              Still putting people down with your narrow minded left wing dribble?  You still haven't responded to why the U.S. gov. allowed the blacks and Indians to own guns and they are not militias or military. And why the gov. did not round up guns the last 240 some years. And why they do not make laws on all guns but just certain types of guns. And that the statement about a well maintained militia is permission to have them, in addition to accepted and implied gun uses and ownership?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                It is just dribble, isn't it?
                all capitalized and stuff, made to look like something more, MUCH MORE that just dribble.

                drivel noun
                nonsense, twaddle, claptrap, balderdash, gibberish, rubbish, mumbo jumbo, garbage; poppycock, piffle, tripe, bull, hogwash, baloney, codswallop, flapdoodle, jive, guff, bushwa; tommyrot, bunkum.
                verb
                talk nonsense, talk rubbish, babble, ramble, gibber, blather, prattle, gabble, waffle.
                I may be banned for this.
                but here goes,

                submit: yikes

                We love ya, A .Prime, but just not that stuff you put in CAPITALS and everything in between!!

                1. Alternative Prime profile image85
                  Alternative Primeposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                  "TWADDLE" is my personal FAV of the Bunch Dear Kathryn ~

                  But NOW, would you like to EXPLAIN to the RURALites" Exactly WHY the President of the United States of America is Afforded 24/7 Security & Protection ~

                  I think it's Clearly OBVIOUS to most, but sometimes Ultra-Rural Folks who live FAR away from Civilization and who may Lack a Reliable Connection to the Outside World usually need a little Special Attention & Help ~ Can U be that Helper Please?  Forums like these can certainly be Educational ~

                  1. Doug Cutler profile image80
                    Doug Cutlerposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                    Just because he is the "Fn" pres. Any one in the spot light needs protection over just you and me.

              2. Alternative Prime profile image85
                Alternative Primeposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                Doug Cutler ~ Along with many other things, Obviously Basic Reading & Comprehension are not Strong-Suits for Republicans ~ I see this Nonsense everywhere not just here ~

                Keeping & Bearing ARMS is a Right Granted by the U.S. Supreme Court, NOT a RIGHT Granted nor Articulated within the 2cnd Amendment ~ If a Human can READ, a Human will Undertsand the TRUE Meaning of this Passage ~

                Right Now, it is LEGAL to KEEP Certain ARMS in America and I NEVER said it was iIlegal ~

        56. 60
          vusinuvposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          Deleted

          1. Doug Cutler profile image80
            Doug Cutlerposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            What does this have to do with the 2nd? Scab! You should be banned from Hubpages.

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 13 months ago in reply to this

              I already reported him. He does this all the time.

        57. jeff61b profile image90
          jeff61bposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          It is not necessary to change or ban the 2nd Amendment. In fact, it would be counter-productive to even try.

          We can have both, the 2nd Amendment and reasonable gun control measures. The 2nd Amendment does not prohibit common-sense restrictions like limiting the capacity of a firearm, requiring a background check or limiting certain features of a gun that make it especially useful for killing large numbers of people with little effort.

          We can exercise some restrictions that make it more difficult for felons and certain mentally ill people from getting a gun without repealing the right to bear arms.

          The problem isn't the 2nd Amendment. it is the multi-billion dollar gun industry. They make millions of dollars every year from the illegal gun trade and they stand to lose a lot of money if criminals can no longer get access to guns.

          The whole gun control debate isn't between people who want to take your guns away and people who want to protect your constitutional rights. 

          The debate is between people who want to protect the massive corporate profits of the multi-billion dollar gun industry and those who want to save thousands of lives every year from gun violence.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            The problem seems to be in the term "common sense".  For instance, limiting the magazine capacity - "common sense" says it will save lives, but real life experience does not bear that out.  Nor does it bear out that requiring onerous registration and waiting periods actually helps anything.  Or forbidding semi-automatic weapons.  Or folding gunstocks, barrel shrouds, hand grips or any of the other nonsense turning a gun into an "assault weapon".  So your "common sense" just appears to mean "things I don't like".

            Nor is it simply a fight between corporations and those wanting to save lives.  Yes, the corporations are fighting hard, but no one has ever shown that strict gun laws, or even making guns illegal, actually saves any lives.  It changes the tool used, yes, but doesn't save lives, which makes your statement that that's what the gun haters want very suspect.  Either that or they simply use their "common sense", or intuition, to replace facts and real life experience.

        58. scooterport profile image89
          scooterportposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          The 2nd amendment is not the cause of mass shootings by mentally ill people as this post says. Also Nazi Germany banned guns and look what that government did. I'd rather take my chances with a mass murderer than a goverment  an uncontrolled government.

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
            wrenchBiscuitposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            Seriously, since you brought this up. I would like to know how you , and perhaps some of your friends, propose to "stand your ground" against drones, tanks, Navy Seals, Marines, Army, Air Force, armored personnel carriers, smart bombs , and various other military ordinances.???

            1. Doug Cutler profile image80
              Doug Cutlerposted 13 months ago in reply to this

              For the same reason the Japs didn't. We are a well armed county. It has kept the Chinese and Russians out. In my opinion. The Muslim insurgents across the border are another problem. Now Obama is letting them in thru. legal channels.
              The regime has already tried back a few years ago. There was an incident over missing nukes. A few
              high officials and generals put a stop to it. Around the same time they had to take over some of the secret under ground and under water bases. Shortly after that a large number of generals were fired.Then there was the huge ammo buy by the gov. and the shortages to the public. The public is too strong for them.
              As for those tanks and such. I am sure the public has methods to deal with them .Small hand held armor piercing rockets. Tanks are easy targets in urban situations. Signal jamming of drones and drones of our
              own. Then there are those at the top that don't go along with the regimes desires. We are talking civil war here. Not just a gov. with all the power like in wwii or some of the middle east regimes.
              The shotgun is the best overall weapon in urban combat.
              Let those out there call me a conspiracy theories nut. I would rather error on the side of caution than be taken unaware.

        59. ahorseback profile image52
          ahorsebackposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          "It is causing mentally ill people to commit crime". How naïve ,  How  foolish  a statement , it's  so bland and boring to imply  that the second  amendment is "Causing "crime , shows a complete  lack of knowledge of the human mind  AND  of the written constitution itself . How can a written document "Cause"  anything?
          What about personal accountability ?

          "The second amendment is Outdated ",  What  IS outdated  is this general  lack of interpretable political  intelligence , that no longer do people think for themselves ,  No longer is there the intelligence to  interpret the constitution as a path to personal freedom guiding  us through  the  privileges  of political freedoms .  Socialist's can't think for themselves either .

          What is outdated is when a society needs  a government to think for them , plan for them and pick up the pieces when  a populace fails  to maintain it's own freedoms .  To the point at which we can no longer breathe from the  incessant amount of written  law . 

          "How do I feel about it ?"  You , sir , don't have the faintest interest in, ...." How do I  feel about it ",  or anyone else's opinion ,  yours is the way towards  socialism . Where  a people want a nanny government , to nurture , protect , serve ,....... mostly though to simply serve you whatever your personal  needs or frailties are ,  .  Once again , The second amendment will go nowhere  soon . It was designed  , like the constitution itself , as a right of   freedom .

        60. 77
          Alloni Lionwardposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          You seem to be confusing the effect of an issue with its cause. Mass shootings by the mentally ill are truly awful acts that should be viewed with the upmost amount of grief possible, and we as a moral and righteous society must give our best to figure out why this is happening and to do our best to reduce it.

          You seem to agree with that, as I do feel you are attempting to be righteous in thought, though misguided you are. The cause of these shootings are not the guns or the availability of guns, but the mental illness within the committers. Trying to reduce the effect by not uprooting its cause will never change anything; removing the availability of guns wont cure the mentally ill. We then, as logic would demand, must do better in detecting and treating mental illness.

          A final note not without merit, I believe, would be the overall consequence of your proposal. The reason we do have the 2nd Amendment is so we can not only fight possible government tyranny, but it is also so we can deter it! The ability to fight back makes an attacker naturally hesitant to do so. Removing our deterrence as well as our defense will leave us open and is contrary to what our founding fathers ideals were for our country. For shame on you for such a treasonous proposal

          1. peoplepower73 profile image89
            peoplepower73posted 13 months ago in reply to this

            ALLONI LIONWARD:

            I agree with you about the mentally ill.  But how are we going to cure them when funding was cutoff by Reagan and never re-instated.  How do you solve that and how do keep the mentally ill from getting guns and committing those crimes?  Do you institutionalize them?  How do you know who they are and when they are going to commit those crimes?  Do we just institutionalize everybody that we think might be mentally ill.  The toothpaste is out of the tube.  How do you put it back?

            Why would our government turn against its people?  Our constitution prevents that from happening. What would be the reasons for doing it?  My proposal is not treasonous.  I trust my country and its constitution, obviously, you do not.  What deterrence, how are your going to deter yourself from the might of the United States  armed forces?

            1. Doug Cutler profile image80
              Doug Cutlerposted 13 months ago in reply to this

              If you squeeze the flattened sides of that tube. The created vacuum will suck it back in.
              If a bear is smart and a bear knows how. Some things are a lot harder. Like being a virgin again.

              Start by not drugging up people. Especially with drugs that cause severe withdrawal.
              Next, go back to natural foods. Eliminating GMO;s excessive pesticides, growth hormones, etc.
              People should be made aware of dangers of, example: aspartame, that was allowed in the 70's without proper testing or facts covered up just to make money. Get rid of that "Your special" and "Everyone gets a trophy" crap. Bring out the best in an individual. Not everyone being the same leftist crap. 

              A gov. will turn on its people to get complete control. Hitler, china, others. They are power freaks.
              One of the first things is to disarm the public. This is the main reason they haven't got very far.

              1. peoplepower73 profile image89
                peoplepower73posted 13 months ago in reply to this

                DOUG CUTLER:

                So you want all of these things to take place.  How are you going to enforce them nationwide.  I know through the government!

            2. 77
              Alloni Lionwardposted 13 months ago in reply to this

              PeoplePower73:
              I do not pretend to know the solution for the mentally ill. That is, as you have so correctly states, a difficult situation that we must put resources toward in order figure out the most pragmatic and moral solution.

              Just to make things clear between you and I, I am not in anyway against government intervention. The federal government does have a large part to play in our countries well being, and though I am a republican, no one but an anarchist would think the government serves no role. I am okay with spending money on research, I think we need to do more of it in general, but that is another issue for another time.

              As far as the government going against its people: It has happened in the past in other countries. It continues to happen today in places like China where they limit the amount of children you have, or North Korea. As for the reasons why the government would turn against us, one cannot truly know until it is happening.

              You are also correct to say the US Constitution does limit the power of the government so it cannot do such things, however, if it breaks these rules, and tyranny does start to form, we are obligated as the citizens of these United States to take up arms against our government and return it to its constitutional limits. As a veteran of the United States, I love my country very much, and especially its constitution, however, I am not going to pretend that power hungry people do not seek to change things and to take control.

              Further more, I am under the direct belief that since our founding fathers intended us to be able to take down a tyrannical government, we should have the legal ability to obtain weaponry capable to do so. I understand this is a radical point of view, but I maintain that the logic holds true.

              You also make a good point that I agree with fully; how do we fight against the government even with guns. For starters, if you ever read the Oath of Enlistment, you will understand that the sailor, soldier, marine, and airmen does not swear allegiance to the government but to the constitution itself.
              I hope in this that you understand that the military, if followed correctly, should turn against our government and to be on the side of the countries people, not on the side of her government.


              "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.


              So help me God."

              1. Doug Cutler profile image80
                Doug Cutlerposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                The biggest problem with this statement is:
                "I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me," The lefties will stop hear and ignore "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
                I must admit I haven't read the Code either. Perhaps I will. To see if it addresses out of line leaders.

              2. peoplepower73 profile image89
                peoplepower73posted 13 months ago in reply to this

                I was in the Air Force for four years.  I know what the UCMJ is and I know the oath. Why would our government turn against us?  What is it that they want from us, land, food, money?  Where do they start, we have 50 states.  Do they invade from the sea? Drop bombs on us from the air.  Do they go house to house?  Do you see how absurd this is in a republic with a democracy for the people and a constitution that protects us?  We are not like the other countries that have dictators as their rulers and I don't believe we ever will.  The right wing propaganda has caused many people to lose their trust in this country.

                I'm more concerned about the super-rich and corporations running the country in their best interest and not ours.  It's insidious, most people don't even know it is happening.  The super PACs have the tea party voting against their own best interest and they don't even know it.

                1. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 13 months ago in reply to this

                  Yes, Peoplepower, I served in the AF for 4 years and as a Executive Officer and got close and personal with the UCMJ.

                  I agree with you that the danger is from a government overrun by money interests and influence peddling toward that end rather than the principle of Government itself. I also say that the extralegal, undemocratic approaches are going come from the overwhelmingly influencial business interests that infiltrate our  Government from the inside and from the outside. That sir, is where the real tyranny lies. Anything that Obama has done or even contemplate pales in comparison.

                2. Doug Cutler profile image80
                  Doug Cutlerposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                  Why would any group want be in control? Power, greed, family, etc.

                  Problem is those super-rich and corporations are paying lobbyist to convince government officials to vote for things they want and to hell with what the people want.

              3. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 13 months ago in reply to this

                Your points fundamentally make sense, but this solemn obligation of the people is not to be taken lightly merely due to Rightwing rants that are not of a substantive nature. The rightwing rant about confiscation of the right of the people to bear arms has not materialized in any serious way during Obama term which is almost over. So what is the hubbub all about?

                1. 77
                  Alloni Lionwardposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                  Respectfully, when have I ever said any of that? I never said there was, I am not one who goes on about fear-mongering or the like. I simply stated the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and what our founding fathers considered to be an important concept for the people of this country.

                  I in no way expect within the reasonably foreseeable future, some sort of government take over. I do not consider myself  in constant fear of the government, but I also understand that while nothing is to be feared as of this moment, we should not let that blind us to the possibility of something to fear in the future. It is the same reasoning for when I learned how to fight; I don't expect to have to fight, but I want to be ready in case it happens.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image89
                    My Esotericposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                    Hoo-Rah

        61. James Gaskins profile image84
          James Gaskinsposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          The only problem with your theory is that without guns what's to stop government from becoming tyrants and ruling us all. Hitler disarmed the public right before he began exterminating 8 million jews. The fact is that do guns do exist, they are part of our culture and heritage. The founding father were visionaries who knew this day would come. Just read som of the quotes from Jefferson or Ben Franklin. They saw this coming and warned us. The problem is that liberal think they are so smart and have all the answers about the way things should be. I bet you voted for Obama to didn't you. Figures.

          1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
            wrenchBiscuitposted 13 months ago in reply to this

            http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/12724217.png
            Tyrannical rule has existed in this country since 1776.The government has no need to confront you, the citizen, with military force; they already own you! Might as well sell your guns, and buy a new set of golf clubs. You are about 250 years too late.

            • The first tax imposed on a domestic product by the federal government led to the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791. Many of the resisters were war veterans who believed that they were fighting for the principles of the American Revolution, in particular against taxation without local representation.

            • The black slaves were elevated to a slave status closer to the white proletariat after the Civil War, but tyranny still reigned.

            • The Federal Reserve act of 1913  sealed the fate of Americans, and guaranteed a life of perpetual servitude for U.S. citizens.

            •  The Social Security Act of  1935 gave the federal government the right to brand each citizen at birth; effectively turning the citizen into a living commodity that can be labeled, categorized, and monitored; all for the "security" of the state.

            • The Patriot Act of 2001 suspended Habeas Corpus for alleged enemies of the state, of foreign origin. It also infringed on our 4th amendment rights.  Section 215 permits the FBI to secretly compile personal information about phone calls, video rentals, medical charts, and financial records-as long as such information will protect the country against "international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." This personal information may include a list of books checked out by a citizen from a  local library. Any citizen can now be legally spied upon by the government.

            • The National Defense Authorization Act signed by President Obama on the 31st December 2011 authorizes the indefinite detention, without trial or indictment, of any US citizens designated as an enemy of the state. That could be you, your spouse, or your children.

            1. Doug Cutler profile image80
              Doug Cutlerposted 13 months ago in reply to this

              Rather be owned by this corrupt gov. than by any other.
              At least the regime hasn't started taking guns away.
              In my opinion they are scared it will start a revolution.
              Them being on the loosing end.
              I would rather have arms and not need them.
              The past is the past. We have not been killing each other
              like before 1900. Be thankful.

              1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
                wrenchBiscuitposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12724464.jpg

                In other words, you are content to be oppressed as long as you can have a gun, and as long as you can make someone else rich with the fruits of your labor. OK, I get it.

                1. Doug Cutler profile image80
                  Doug Cutlerposted 13 months ago in reply to this

                  Certainly not content with a lot of things. Not much I can do about a lot of things.
                  Not that I don't try at times.
                  Will not give up on the few rights left.
                  I don't own a fire arm. But don't want the right to be
                  taken away. I am 69 today and am trying to enjoy the
                  time I have left a little. Don't need Viagra yet either.

        62. LuisEGonzalez profile image82
          LuisEGonzalezposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          Agree, it was meant for a different set  of principles and circumstances

        63. FishMountTroy profile image79
          FishMountTroyposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          Should we just throw away the bible too?  Maybe just get rid of any morals/ideals that use to define our great nation.  BTW, another hit and run killing an innocent bystander just happened down the street, I have an idea, lets get rid of automobiles since they kill many more people than guns do...

          1. peoplepower73 profile image89
            peoplepower73posted 13 months ago in reply to this

            FISHMOUNTTROY:  So your logic is get rid of automobiles because you can cite a hit and run. The primary purpose of cars is not to kill people. The majority of people killed by cars is because of accidents, not murders. The primary purpose of  guns is to kill someone or something. Your inane logic has been used ad nauseum in this forum.  It is a false equivalence comparing apples to oranges, but it is a favorite of the NRA.

            1. FishMountTroy profile image79
              FishMountTroyposted 13 months ago in reply to this

              take guns away and then the crazies will just stop hurting people.. is that your logic sir know-it-all?

        64. 60
          luxuryhdposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          Great

        65. TMHughes profile image97
          TMHughesposted 13 months ago in reply to this

          because we all know that making a law about something will make it stop.... just like how illegal heroin fixes the junkie problem. The countries with the lowest crime rates and murder rates in the world include places like Switzerland where it is REQUIRED for all citizens to possess a fire arm, it is their civic duty,

        66. 0
          FreeHelpForFelonsposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          Most of the shooting we see that happen in America are  not due to mental illness in my opinion its due to social isolation and low wages. Many men are becoming totally sick due to not making enough to find suitable partners and rnjoy life.The U.S constitution was given to us to protect us and create equality once we disarm ourselves the system has total control and then the elite have total control to pursue issues like Agenda 21 etc.

          The right to bear arms should be a fundamental right for all people  especially since we may end up in a war with China and Russia  over issues in the Ukarine and China Sea . When disaster strikes Uncle Sam can not take care of everyone. Louisiana went through hell after Katrina   
          When disaster falls upon us every person in a city will want a gun to protect their kids ,wives and to be empowered to hunt and get food. Of course I'd love to live in a world with no guns but as long as division , inequality and the threat exist  it is good to have one if not many. I have my gun rights in New Mexico but really don't like guns I hate them but after seeing what our government did to Iraq soilders in Iraq prisons and the world cop game we play I can't trust good people our bad because when disaster strikes people will do anything to feed their families

          1. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            Good post!  I agree with much of your assessment. I have had a small business for many years and when I hire someone I pay them as much as I possibly can afford. The reason being that someone who is not worrying and thinking how he is going clothe, feed and shelter himself is much more involved with the job. A lot of employers look at labor as a loser for their business rather than an expense much like materials and rent. I have often talked myself out of a job I cannot "AFFORD" to do no matter the situation. If I were to sell that bottom dollar job at a loss I would not be in business for very long. The race to the bottom is paved with many failures.

            I also have a product that is being manufactured in China. That sounds pretty hypocritical you might say being I am against jobs being shipped overseas. The industry demands it due to the competitive nature of the product I have. I can't even get an OEM to consider it without it being made in China. That is our mindset here and it is the new normal.

          2. peoplepower73 profile image89
            peoplepower73posted 12 months ago in reply to this

            FREEHELPFORFELONS:  Can you tell me what is bad about Agenda 21?  Here is what I found on Wikipedia.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

            I can't fathom the disaster that you are talking about.  No need to prove it to me, because it hasn't occurred yet and hopefully never will.

        67. G.L.A. profile image82
          G.L.A.posted 12 months ago in reply to this

          In your own words, THIS sentence explains why eliminating this amendment would have no affect whatsoever... 'It is causing mentally ill people to commit mass killings.'
          Mentally ill people would simply find ANOTHER way to commit murders. This is FACT. Do we ban automobiles when they begin running people down? Do we ban ALL products that could even remotely be considered dangerous? Do we ban ALL knves? Do we ban ALL aerosols, etc?
          If society would assign more emphasis and attention to dealing with mental illness, these crimes would miraculously decline!

          1. cathylynn99 profile image79
            cathylynn99posted 12 months ago in reply to this

            except it's angry people, not people with mental illness who are shooters. 95% of shootings are done by folks with no mental illness and 95% of folks with mental illness have never committed a violent crime.

            the problem with arguing that there are other lethal methods than guns is that it ignores two things: the ease of using guns on impulse and the great efficiency of guns in killing.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              And the problem with arguing that we need to take guns from people is that it doesn't make any difference in the murder rate.  Not a single country on the globe can show that it does; not even the ones that had massive gun confiscations.  All the logic, all the common sense, all the convoluted reasoning that guns are easy to use and thus to blame, isn't worth one piece of real world experience.

              1. cathylynn99 profile image79
                cathylynn99posted 12 months ago in reply to this

                australia had a gun buyback. their overall murder rate went down and their overall suicide rate went WAY down.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  Yes, their murder rate went down - at the exact same slide it had been on for years.  The much touted gun buyback did absolutely nothing but continue the same rate of decline.

                  "What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.

                  Ms. Malcolm, a professor of law at George Mason University Law School, is the author of several books including "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," (Harvard, 2002)." 

                  "While there has been much controversy over the result of the law and buyback, Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides "continued a modest decline" since 1997. "

                  "Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up."

                  http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241 … 0446855466

                  Take a hard at the second graph here, of Australian homicides from 1989 to 2006, and then think about what the gun buyback in 1996 accomplished:  http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

                  1. cathylynn99 profile image79
                    cathylynn99posted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    overall suicides went down and it was statistically significant.

                    1. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                      Can you show that?  I haven't looked at suicides, feeling that protecting people from themselves is not a reason to violate the second amendment.  But perhaps it is - can you show that Australian suicide rate went down in 1996, stayed down, and is significant enough to deny the right to own guns to millions of people?

                      1. cathylynn99 profile image79
                        cathylynn99posted 12 months ago in reply to this

                        they didn't ban guns. they bought them back. link to follow.

                      2. cathylynn99 profile image79
                        cathylynn99posted 12 months ago in reply to this
                  2. GA Anderson profile image85
                    GA Andersonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    Oh my Gawd! I can't believe I am commenting on this thread, but...

                    Wilderness,  I salute your research on this topic. Kinda throws a wet blanket on those who depend on rhetoric to make a point. As you frequently state, (with validation), apparent  common sense logic does not hold water when actual facts are considered.

                    How ironic it is that the common sense perception that if there were less guns there would be less deaths. I refuse to buy into the ban this ban that argument, (cars, butter knives, etc.), because all of those arguments ignore the fact of who it is that are causing the gun deaths.

                    Criminals - non-legal gun owners!

                    A Columbine or Sandy Hook get all the publicity and public outcry for action, (and now it is the mentally ill), when in fact if you take a statistical approach, they are the exception rather than the norm.

                    ps. I will note, that the "mentally ill" is a sound bite that too many folks have latched onto. They are NOT the gun control 'Boogie man` and all this "mentally ill" rhetoric is just more regurgitation of a talking point from the left.

                    But the public demands pablum, and too many legislators are too happy to jump on the public band wagon with this or that  legislation that will pacify them.

                    But comon' this thread is begging for a legitimate burial. How long can these "yes, but..." back and forths continue?

                    GA

                    1. cathylynn99 profile image79
                      cathylynn99posted 12 months ago in reply to this

                      folks who say fewer guns won't mean fewer deaths wrongly discount the high efficiency of guns in killing and the ease of use of a gun on impulse.

                      1. GA Anderson profile image85
                        GA Andersonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                        How do you reconcile that with the statistics that show a+b does not equal c?

                        GA

              2. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
                wrenchBiscuitposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12742128.jpg

                And so you paint yourself into a corner once again. This is really too easy. You commented:

                " All the logic, all the common sense, all the convoluted reasoning that guns are easy to use and thus to blame, isn't worth one piece of real world experience."

                Au contraire! But there is plenty of real world experience! You were responding to cathlynn99 who commented:

                "...the problem with arguing that there are other lethal methods than guns is that it ignores two things: the ease of using guns on impulse and the great efficiency of guns in killing."

                Reading & Writing & Mass Killing at School Since 2005
                           Just the facts:

                April          16, 2007 Blacksburg, Virginia:       33 dead
                Dec.          14, 2012 Newtown, Connecticut    28 dead
                April           20, 1999 Littleton, Colorado:            15 dead
                March        21, 2005 Red Lake, Minnesota:    10 dead
                October        1, 2015 Roseburg, Oregon            10 dead
                April              2, 2012 Oakland, California          7 dead
                October         2, 2006 Nickel Mines, Penn.        6 dead
                February      14, 2008 DeKalb, Illinois               6 dead

                The list above provides  115 pieces of "real world experiences".!

                But when considering school shootings, these are only a hand-full of the total victims  during the last 36 years. Obviously, when it comes to killing en masse, the weapon of choice is a gun, preferably an assault rifle. These are facts, not opinions. Ease of use,impulse,efficiency: these are the factors that make guns appealing to American killers. Lame right-wing arguments in favor of guns may play well on Fox News, but we don't tolerate them on this channel. Goodbye.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  "Obviously, when it comes to killing en masse, the weapon of choice is a gun, preferably an assault rifle."

                  You're right - the gun is the weapon of choice.  Now, try hard and go beyond that to showing that it is the only weapon that could be used; show that if there were no guns there would be no homicides.  That's the claim, after all; that if we take guns killers won't use something else.  Sadly, your beautiful logic doesn't even address that matter - just assumes it to be true, and when experience shows it is not, you stick to it anyway.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image89
                    My Esotericposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    Saying "...Now, try hard and go beyond that to showing that it is the only weapon that could be used..." totally side-steps reality.  Reality is, of ALL the weapons that COULD be used, it is the firearm that is chosen because 1) it is so easy to get in most states and 2) it is so easy to use because of the impersonality of it (most other possible weapons requires the killer to get up close and personal with the victim leaving the chance of failure much higher and worse for the perpetrator, he might end up dead or wounded.)

                    1. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                      And therefore if there were no guns there would be no killings, right?  Taking guns means that killers will no longer kill.

                      The only problem with that impeccable logic is that it doesn't work.  It is flawed, and deeply so, as we know, from real life experience, that the conclusion is not warranted - that it is false to fact.  Sadly, drawing a conclusion from the premise (correct in this case) that guns are common, easy and useful from a distance does not have anything to do with killers wanting to kill.  It happens with or without guns, and we see that in real life experience regardless of all the wonderful statements insinuating that because guns are easy it must mean that without guns we won't have murders.

                      1. My Esoteric profile image89
                        My Esotericposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                        Why do you keep trying to make your point with an all-or-nothing approach, Wilderness?  All-or-nothing doesn't exist in the real world, the real world is somewhere in between.

                        "... if there were no guns, there would be no killings, right?"  Is an absolutely all-or-nothing pointless premise for at least two reasons, 1) there will always be killings since human beings are built that way and 2) in America, the 2A guarantees the right to own a gun, so at least some people will have guns.

                        The goal of my side is to reduce the rate of needless death due to the use of guns, while your side wants to increase that rate, intentionally or not.

                  2. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
                    wrenchBiscuitposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12744928.jpg
                    Yes, it is the only weapon available to the average person that can be used to kill the most amount of people in the least amount of time. I can't imagine your average high school sociopath having the means to procure a tank, drone aircraft, anthrax, or a nuclear bomb! Let's keep it real, and use a little common sense.

                    Of course you can bludgeon someone to death with a toaster, and you can also suffocate a man with a blow up doll. (They should have included that in an episode of "Fargo") But who in their right mind actually believes that anyone would actually attempt to commit mass murder with these implements? Why would people go to the trouble to procure an assault rifle when they could simply beat 20  people to death with a pink dildo?

                    But here is the best part. If guns have little to do with the homicide rate, as many of you claim, and if there are other weapons and implements at our disposal that can get the killing done just as well as a firearm, then why are all of you crying about the Second Amendment?  What do you need a gun for?

                    1. Alternative Prime profile image85
                      Alternative Primeposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                      Good Factual Common Sense Point ~ smile

                      I don't think it would be that difficult to walk around with a Microwave Oven strapped to your rearend, or a bulky Grandfather Clock over the shoulder ~ Or Drag around a statue replica of George "Shut Up & Leave me alone while I give ALL these DRUNK Pilgrims Arms to use AGAINST me & Congress" Washington ~ smile

                      I could realistically imagine these items being used to perpetrate  mal-Intent ~ --------> smile

        68. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          I don't know of any law that can be written to satisfy all with regards to who can get a gun. I don't mean one you have to get a license for but one anybody can get by hook or crook. Taking the right from the law biding citizen to own one does not negate the criminal or mentally ill person from getting one and vice versa.

          With the conversation turning towards nobody can get a gun also is negated by the criminal who will have a shot at the massive amount of guns already out there. They just won't disappear because of their legality. I know living in a rural area where county and State Police have the responsibility to respond it may take up to twenty minutes for help to arrive if you can even get a call in time. Self preservation is of great concern there. Remember "In Cold Blood"? I don't own a firearm by the way.

          Instead of identifying who can legally get a firearm maybe we should just concentrate on those who are not allowed to own one rather than the ones who can. If a legal gun owner commits a crime with his or her weapon then the court system will have to deal with that. In that case it cannot be helped by any gun law that adheres to the Constitution.

          1. Doug Cutler profile image80
            Doug Cutlerposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            Concentrating on the worst offenders is what I am saying. Leave the law biding people alone.
            It is not the 2nd's job to vet who individualy  gets to own and who doesn't. Not yet at least. Cry to the individual states.
            The Fed has jurstriction over across state line sales. Like internet sales out of state perhaps. And other countries. Good job they done in letting rifles getting into the hands of Mexican drug thugs.

            1. peoplepower73 profile image89
              peoplepower73posted 12 months ago in reply to this

              Talk about irony!

              Thirty one state governors have refused to allow Syrian refugees into their states, because their gun laws are too lax. They are afraid it is too easy for the Syrians to get guns.  Twenty one of those states do not require background checks at gun shows.

              http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/five-major-s … n-refugees

              1. Doug Cutler profile image80
                Doug Cutlerposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                Perhaps now there will be some sensible gun regulation. Concentrating on problem areas and leaving the law abiding people alone!

                1. Credence2 profile image86
                  Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  There it is again profiling people without evidence of their intent or history of committing a crime. That is too bad about Texas, if every law abiding citizen should be able to get a gun, that means ALL not just those that you think should have the right.

                  1. Doug Cutler profile image80
                    Doug Cutlerposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    So, You are for anyone getting/keeptng a gun? Except maybe 5 year olds. Allowing  mentally incompetent, drug dealers, those murders that got off on some politically correct technicality, those that threatened another with a weapon, etc. These are part of the "all" you want to allow to own.
                    Lets shake down 80 year olds just to keep some dumb politically correct B.S. ratio alive.

                    1. Credence2 profile image86
                      Credence2posted 12 months ago in reply to this

                      Did you hear me, Man? I said law abiding citizens without criminal records, what about that?  Can we all have a gun now under those conditions.?

                      You are the people that are for unversal accessibility to a gun, but again these people want to qualify what it means to be 'universal'.......

                      1. Doug Cutler profile image80
                        Doug Cutlerposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                        Your statement "that means ALL not just those that you think should have the right." sounded like what I posted. A mentally incompetent that is law abiding according to what you say can keep and own?
                        Also there should be an age limit. say 18. And under certain circumstances younger. Similar to farm permits pertaining to drivers licenses. A case by case would be the way.

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                Sounds more like a fine excuse to pander to the fears of the people and demonstrate how "concerned" the governor is than anything else.  Anyone in this country that wants a gun can get one, laws or no laws.

                1. Doug Cutler profile image80
                  Doug Cutlerposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  That is why the average person needs a weapon to protect them selves. And for expected terrorist, etc.

                2. peoplepower73 profile image89
                  peoplepower73posted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  Thank you.  That's what I have been saying the whole time!

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    I think that's pretty well understood.  Which raises the question of just why we want to continually take guns from law-abiding citizens; given that guns are so readily available to criminals, why disarm those that will neither buy an illegal gun OR use one to murder with?  What is the purpose of such an action?

                    To placate a fearful population?  To get re-elected?  Why do we take those steps?

                    1. wrenchBiscuit profile image88
                      wrenchBiscuitposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                      http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12750566.jpg
                      Since you are so big on your facts and figures. Please wilderness, show us the facts, figures, and graphs that explain how every teenage school shooter would have still gotten their weapons on the black market; in spite of a complete  ban on assault rifles. You can pick up a Bushmaster AR-15 at Walmart for around $1,000.00. A complete ban on assault weapons would raise that figure considerably on the black market.

                      It is one of Archie Bunkers favorite bed time stories:  that if you ban guns , only the criminals will have them. Not true. Only the people with lot's of money would have them, which would eliminate a majority of petty criminals, as well as "heat of the moment" shootings. Furthermore, people with that kind of disposable income are not likely to invade the average consumers home, since they wouldn't be interested in cheap stereo equipment, or velvet Elvis posters.

                      Neither are people with money as likely to engage in mass shootings, since they would rather enjoy spending their money. When such weapons do get into the wrong hands, it is the responsibility of law enforcement to neutralize the threat. Isn't that part of what they are getting paid to do? Or does their job description only cover eating donuts, giving speeding tickets to senior citizens, killing black children playing with toy guns, and shooting black men in the back who are running in the opposite direction?

                      1. Doug Cutler profile image80
                        Doug Cutlerposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                        A ban on assault weapons would not have any affect on Bushmaster AR-15 sales. Unless they don't even know what an assault weapon is. Like you apparently don't.

                        If a person with a thing that looks like a real gun points it at someone, how in hell does the other know that it isn't real? And the intent of the person pointing it? Nice job of cherry picking again!

                        Have you ever had a real loaded gun pointed at you? I have. So close I was debating should I grab it perhaps the safety was on. I just walked away.