ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Gun Control and the 2nd Amendment

Updated on April 1, 2018
Source

After the Constitution was ratified, there was a group of Anti-federalist that were concerned that the federal government would have too much power over the states and individuals. They were instrumental in framing the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the constitution. The second amendment was drafted because people were still concerned about the following:

  • Deterring a tyrannical government;
  • Repelling invasion;
  • Suppressing insurrection;
  • Facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
  • Participating in law enforcement;
  • Enabling the people to organize a militia system

The Second Amendment

Therefore, the second amendment reads as follows:

"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."

Now let's parse key parts of the sentence.

The dictionary defintion of A Well Regualated Militia

  • A body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
  • A body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
  • All able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
  • A body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

Firing a Flintlock

Firing a Flinlock
Firing a Flinlock | Source

Flintlock Pistol

Source

Keep and Bear Arms

Based on the reasons that I have listed above, you can see why the people of 1791 would want to have the right to keep and bear arms. But here is what the feature of those arms would be.

State of the art guns in 1791

  • be made by a gunsmith.
  • have rudimentary rifling.
  • be single-shot weapons.
  • be loaded through the muzzle.
  • fire by means of a flintlock.


Defintion of a Gun

  • A weapon consisting of a metal tube, with mechanical attachments, from which projectiles are shot by the force of an explosive a piece of ordnance.
  • Any portable firearm, as a rifle, shotgun or revolver.
  • A long-barreled cannon having a relatively flat trajectory.
  • Any device for shooting something under pressure: a paint gun; a staple gun.


What is a Weapon of Mass Destruction?

You notice in the above definition of a gun, the word weapon is used. But what is a weapon of mass destruction? I know just from my own knowledge, it can range anywhere from a nuclear tipped guided missile to a machine gun. I believe that auto fire assult rifles and handguns with high capacity clips are also weapons of mass destruction. I included the video below because the demonstrator seems to be reasonable, but in the wrong hands, this becomes a weapon of mass destruction.

This is a Weapon of Mass Destruction

I don't think this is what the framers of the 2nd amendment had in mind back in 1791. Tell me why any civilian would have a need for this type of armament? I have friends that are members of gun clubs and I understand they see this as a type of sport, but in the wrong hands this can very easily become an extreme weapon of mass destruction. That's why I believe the 2nd amendment needs to be modified and brought up to modern times. i'm not saying that civilians don't have the right to have guns. But there is no need to bear arms with weapons of mass destruction.

If this government wanted to take you out, there would be no way to defend yourself against the military might of this country. Yes, you have the right to protect yourself against the bad guys. (That's gun club talk.). But there is a price that we pay for that, every time innocent people are killed by crazies. We people pay a price so the gun enthusiast can keep and play with their high capacity, assault weapons..

The NRA Influence

I grew up with guns and have a healthy respect for them.. My dad was an avid hunter. I learned how to hunt with shotguns and rifles. I can understand the thrill that can come from firing high powered weapons. I'm sure there is even more of a thrill and satisfaction that comes from firing high-capacity automatic weapons.

But the NRA has one of the most powerful lobbyist groups in Washington D.C. and they will do everything in their power to protect gun rights. Why, because it's big business and they have bought congress. Just read this article as to why congress and politicians have been told to hush about the Massacre in Aurora Colorado. (After linking to this article, don't forget to come back here to finish reading this hub.)

In 1994 there was a ban placed on assault weapons, but because of "sunset laws", it expired in 2004, it was never renewed. Question: If something was ruled as being bad in 1994, why isn't it bad today. Why would they allow a law to expire?

Conclusion

After doing research on this article. I've come to the conclusion the 2nd amendment needs to be changed. Here it is again for reference:

"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."

I'm no lawyer or supreme court justice, but just plain common sense tells me, we don't need a well regulated militia and we don't need to keep and bear arms that are high-powered, automatic, high-capacity assult weapons.

I know there will be gun advocates out there that will take offense to this article, but I'm just calling it as I see it after doing the research.

After reading this hub, do you feel the 2nd amendment is appropriate for modern times?

See results

Should the law banning assault weapons for civillians be reinstated?

See results

Epilogue

I published this article in July of 2012, but since then there have been many more mass killings including the unthinkable tragedy in Newtown Connecticut. This made me think that our country is divided into two mentalities of trust.

There are those that feel they cannot trust law enforcement and the military to protect them. And if the probability of some invasion of their well being is to take place they will protect themselves, even if it against our own government. Then there are those that trust the establishment to protect them.

The price we pay for having these guns available to the public is that some unstable people also have that same access. If that access is removed, it will lessen the probability of those that are unstable to getting that access.

We are currently in a vicious cycle. When there is a a mass killing, more people buy these weapons which also makes them available to the unstable people. The gun enthusiast like to use the slippery slope argument. If you ban these weapons, then you have to ban knives,forks cars, trains planes and anything else that can be used as a weapon, but that is a very weak argument. It is part of the "what if game" that takes the control out of the person playing the game. The way they get control back is by having these weapons. The whole idea about protecting ourselves from tyranny is a "what if game" on a slippery slope. It is completely based on fear. Another argument is that there are already so many guns owned by the public, it's too late to do anything about it. That also is a weak argument propagated by the NRA. It's never too late to do something that will curtail the use of these weapons.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Leland Johnson profile image

      Leland Johnson 

      5 months ago from Midland MI

      ME: you're splitting hairs. I think tone matters as well. The tone in this forum is that of discourse. You seem to think you're grading English papers. What I said was implicit. Assault weapons are guns, they were banned, hence guns were banned. The fact that I left out the word "all" means it wasn't "all." Had I meant "all" I would've said "all." Within the context of our conversation I think it was obvious that I was talking about assault weapons because that's what you and I were discussing. Isn't it being petty to pick apart my syntax and use that pedantic tactic to make me look as if I'm being dishonest? Doesn't that really take away from the legitimacy of a conversation? I think it does. Finally, we were talking about "erosion." That was the context. A complete ban would not be a proper example of the erosion of the 2nd amendment, but rather, it's outright abolition.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 

      5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Leland, I beg to differ. Your words were "Deerfield Illinois instituted a gun ban..." weren't they? I don't see a modifier in front of the word "gun", unless I missed it. Without the modifier, then you are talking about ALL guns or said another way a "complete gun ban" where the word "complete" is redundant. If complete is not redundant tell me how "gun ban" and "complete gun ban" are effectively different.

      When you said "I said it was an example of erosion of the 2nd amendment, ". Tell me how it is an erosion of the 2nd Amendment when assault weapons aren't protected weapons to start with? Wouldn't erosion be when a protected weapon is somehow limited?

      Given there is no better definition of assault weapons, I'll stick with the one used in the 1995 assault weapon ban and the various state laws which have already been described.

      Clearly, I am not talking about the weapons of yesteryear. For example, I don't think a pistol similar to the Beretta 92 Brigadier Inox (something I just googled) existed in the 1700s, yet it is a protected weapon as is the Sig Sauer P229 NITRON COMPACT.

      When the British marched on Concord and Lexington, they were going after the militias armory, not individual's weapons.

      Words matter, Leland, tone matters. To say that Deerfield " instituted a gun ban" has an entirely different meaning than Deerfield " instituted an assault weapon ban" The former statement is simple False while the latter statement is True. That, sir, is not hair-splitting or mincing words. It is being factual.

      Hair-splitting is if you had said "Assault weapon ban" and I said no, no, it is an "Assault rifle ban" (given Will was trying to draw a distinction that I don't see between the two)

      So, it is NOT that I am "... determined to nit pick and reword what I said until it says what you wished I'd said so you can argue with me. " What I am determined to do is make sure the truth is told.

    • Leland Johnson profile image

      Leland Johnson 

      5 months ago from Midland MI

      ME: I think it's talking about legal ownership vs. gun possession.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 

      5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Here's another factoid I didn't realize - "A Pew Research Center report published last year found that 48% of white men say they currently own a gun, compared with 24% each of white women and non-white men, and only 16% of non-white women."

      Yet the chances of a non-white man getting killed by a gun (generally by his own race) is much higher than a white man you would think that non-white men would have the highest rate of ownership.

    • Leland Johnson profile image

      Leland Johnson 

      5 months ago from Midland MI

      Interesting observation TSAD: I hadn't noticed. :)

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 months ago from now on

      So far Leland you've had to say "I never said" twice. Is someone trying to put words in your mouth?

      Get used to having to say "I never said" here.

    • Leland Johnson profile image

      Leland Johnson 

      5 months ago from Midland MI

      ME- I never said it was a complete gun ban. I said it was an example of erosion of the 2nd amendment, which it is. I have a friend who owns 5 guns, all of them assault weapons so I think for him, it would mean all guns- all of his anyway. By the way, shouldn't we really define "assault weapon?" I mean if a single shot pistol is used to assault someone, isn't it an assault weapon? Finally, if you are saying that the only weapons protected by the 2nd amendment are those weapons that were in use when the 2nd amendment was written can I assume you're ok with private citizens owning cannons? The British marched on Lexington and Concord to confiscate their weapons which included muskets and, you guessed it- cannons. I think you're splitting hairs. I don't want to argue. You asked for an example, I provided one, you belabor every point. I don't think it matters what I say, you're determined to nit pick and reword what I said until it says what you wished I'd said so you can argue with me. That's kind of a straw man argument I think.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 

      5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Leland - obviously I had to fact-check such an inflammatory assertion that

      "Deerfield Illinois instituted a gun ban and forced buy back program. " - I am disappointing because it is mostly false. It is "mostly" false because you use the phrase "instituted a gun ban". Since "gun" is an extremely broad term and what was banned is small subset of "assault weapons" - hardly ALL guns, is it.

      Assuming you did use the words "assault weapons (or rifles)" then you would be only Partly False. Why, unless I missed it in your sources and mine, there is no "buy-back" program, forced or otherwise. Perhaps they used different words?

      I am not surprised the NRA has taken them to court. But since assault weapons are not currently protected by the 2nd Amendment (and therefore banning is no erosion of gun rights). I will be surprised if this suit makes it to the Supreme Court because the SC turned back two other similar ban.

      Further, it is NOT a complete ban is it? Why, because the city council left a loophole. If you possess an assault weapon in the city limits and it is "broken down in a non-functioning state," is "not immediately accessible to any person," or is "unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card."

      Yes, unfortunately, I did see the tragedy up in Toronto. But that was a van and while I am very concerned about reducing death from that cause as well, they have different solution. Van's aren't guns and this discussion is what to do about reducing the number of non-justifiable death by guns.

      If there is hub on van deaths point me to it and I can offer solutions there.

      NOW, there is this from a new study - "These deaths are preventable, and this is evidenced by the different rates of homicide and suicide across states." It comes from - https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/health/gun-deaths-i...

    • Leland Johnson profile image

      Leland Johnson 

      5 months ago from Midland MI

      ME: Deerfield Illinois instituted a gun ban and forced buy back program. It is being fought in court right now. People unwilling to turn in their weapons by the end of the month would be fined 1,000 a day. This is legal arm twisting. Who could possibly afford to resist such financial pressure? It really is tyrannical too because even if you want to leave who could sell their house in such a short time?

      http://www.dailyherald.com/news/20180405/deerfield...

      http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/deerfield/ne...

      Also, I didn't say that 2nd amendment rights were "permanently eroded." I don't know that something can be permanently eroded, because if a law is changed this year it could possibly be changed right back to its original form next year.

      PS I did some checking and from all I could find the gun buy backs offer $100 per gun. This is just not realistic. Who would sell their $1200 AR 15 for $100? The only guns that are brought in for the buy backs are guns that don't function anyway or ones that have been stolen since buybacks always have a "no questions asked" policy.

      Finally, did you see the slaughter in Toronto? 9 dead, 16 injured by a guy who drove a van into a crowd. I'm not suggesting we ban vans or any vehicles. The evil is in the perpetrator, not the vehicle. The guy used the van as a weapon.

      https://www.yahoo.com/news/toronto-fire-says-numer...

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 

      5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Leland - "My point about the Ruger was that it isn't held up by the media as an assault weapon because it doesn't look menacing. It looks simple, not big clip or retractable stock. " - I must say, that is a new on me. I don't believe I have read or heard, other in passing, that what a weapon looks like in defining it as an assault weapon or not. Personally, I only care of what it can do.

      When you say "The point is all firearms are lethal or potentially lethal. " are you suggesting that there aren't degrees of lethality and therefore making one weapon more dangerous than another?

      Can you give me a few succinct examples of how any 2nd Amendment rights have been permanently eroded.?

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 

      5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      And there is this - "Last night, innocent Nashvilleans were terrorized by a man with an AR-15. Let's be honest. Some people see these weapons as having a purpose of terrorizing other people. It's happening too much. Enough is enough."

    • Leland Johnson profile image

      Leland Johnson 

      5 months ago from Midland MI

      Mike: Just a quick fact check- I've consistently read the buy back number in Australia was 200,000 and not the 700,000 figure you sited. Are you sure it was that high?

      ME- My point about the Ruger was that it isn't held up by the media as an assault weapon because it doesn't look menacing. It looks simple, not big clip or retractable stock. My point is the media presents AR 15's to the public because they look menacing to most people. The 22 would be just as effective, if not more so, in close quarters. It's small, light weight, etc. But lets not over discuss its nomenclature. The point is all firearms are lethal or potentially lethal. I agree that there should be regulation. I don't think citizens should be allowed to own tanks or Pershing missiles. But again, I am a student of history and I do believe that a government is capable of disarming it's populace. I think the method wouldn't be barging in and just taking them. Mike's right about that, it wouldn't work. There'd be too much push back, a blood bath. Instead what I believe is happening is an erosion of 2nd amendment rights, not an outright assault on them. I recommend the book "Red Dragon Rising" which sites the specifics of the Tiennamin Square uprising in 1981 or 82. The Chinese government slaughtered thousands of students and when the parents came to protest, hundreds of them were gunned down as well. The depth of the book is too great to get into here, but my point is that governments possess great power and that power is buttressed by the fact that they have military forces under command. As one of you mentioned earlier, we no longer have militia's in our country and THAT is evidence of the erosion of the 2nd amendment. Jefferson believed in militias and that a standing army (which is what we have now) was a great threat to liberty. The military was to remain under the control of civilians, and in practice it does, that's why the president is always a civilian, not a member of the military. Military forces under a military leader at the head of a nation is tantamount to despotism; call to mind Hussein, Quadaffi, and Arafat, etc. The militia concept was gone before any of us in this forum were born, but it's still in the Constitution, still one of the rights of the people and a reminder that, as Lincoln said, we are a government of the people. The people are to hold ultimate power and unfortunately in this world, in this life, temporal power will always have an association with weapons. To what extent we allow that as a people continues to be debated, hotly.

      ME: regarding your buy back question. I've heard that the guns that get "bought back" tend to be broken or relics. Who would invest in a $1500 gun only to have it bought back at a fraction. What is your understanding regarding remuneration? Does the gov pay full price for the weapons?

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      5 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      https://twitter.com/MNPDNashville/status/988055742...

      Dont tell me....could it be an ar15?

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      5 months ago from Placentia California

      ME: That is one comprehensive article. Thanks for posting.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 

      5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Leland, when you assert that "For example, I have .22 with a 10 round clip. It's a Ruger and they make 50 round drums for it, and yet this gun is not considered an assault weapon." - What is the authority you use to assume what you describe is not an assault weapon. As I read those laws I posted way down below, it seem to qualify for those states who legally define it.

      I would suppose it might be the lethality that enters into the picture. My question here is, had Cruz used the weapon you describe with the 10-round clips, would as many people have likely been killed? Meaning, is the Ruger .22 as lethal as an AR-15?

      I do know what the M-1, AR-15, AR-15, M-16 are capable of since I used all of them when I was in the Army. (I can't remember now if I used the M-1 in ROTC or if it was still around when I joined.)

      Having lived in Northern Virginia, near D.C. I would offer that one of the main reasons Chicago (not IL as a whole [rated B+]) have such a gun problem is states like Indiana (rated D-) to the Southeast and Wisconsin (rated C-) to the North have piss-poor gun regulations. I bring up D.C. because I know the biggest conduit of weapons into D.C. was from Virginia where straw-man purchases of large quantities of guns were legal. The same happens to Chicago.

      As to availability of assault weapons, consider this statement in the attached article - "By the 1990s, the weapon sold well to hunters but it wasn't a blockbuster; its fortunes turned and sales exploded, however, when President George W. Bush in 2004 repealed the ban on assault weapons his predecessor, President Bill Clinton, enacted in 1994." -- https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles...

      Some states have very poor gun regulations (Louisiana for example) and others have very excellent gun regulations e.g., Connecticut. The strength of a state's gun regulations correlate very well with the rate of death by guns (from all causes). That tells me - "Regulations matter".

      As to my statistics, they are quite accurate and consistent year-over-year. I hope you realize my numbers are total deaths by gun per day, regardless of cause. And yes, accidental deaths are a very small portion of total deaths, but what difference does that make?

      There very well may be 200 million guns out there. so what? Nobody is talking about confiscating guns so it is a mute point in any case. There are buy back programs, sure, but what is wrong with that?

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      5 months ago from Placentia California

      Leland: You just made the statement that the FBI estimates some 200 million guns are in the hands of private citizens. Can you explain to me how any organization is going to confiscate 200 millions guns from their owners? This is America, not Australia where 700,000 guns were removed in a buy back program.

      The reason the ban doesn't work in Chicago is because a large quantity of those handguns are in the hands of lawless gangs, who probably don't even know there is a ban on their weapons and could care less.

      If you want to get into my head, please understand this. I and people like myself don't believe in tyranny. We don't have a need to have guns to protect our domain, because we trust our government at both the federal level and state level to do their jobs. Yes, there are incidents where they don't, but to my knowledge they are far and few between.

      Speaking of trust, it is very frustrating for us to realize no matter how many we ways we slice the discussion, we don't want to confiscate your guns. We do want to improve gun regulations in all it's facets and we do want to ban the further sale of certain weapons that are used for mass killings. And this is to be done without confiscating your existing arms.

      Going back to set theory, if we make the set of all guns used for killings smaller, then the set of those who would use them becomes smaller. Therefore, it follows that reduces the chances of mass killings. Yes, they may use other methods, but they would not be as effective as killings like Las Vegas where 59 people were shot dead and 546 were injured. They are still alive, but their lives will never be the same again.

      Thank you for your comments.

    • Leland Johnson profile image

      Leland Johnson 

      5 months ago from Midland MI

      Hi Mike: I just saw your post. Thanks for the thoughtful presentation. I don't want to get caught up in the semantics of the discussion- it isn't that the term "gun control" makes my skin crawl, although I think "gun regulation" is a more suitable term, and I think there is a lot of gun regulation as it is. I just don't think its the answer. For example, I have .22 with a 10 round clip. It's a Ruger and they make 50 round drums for it, and yet this gun is not considered an assault weapon. It is just as deadly if in the hands of a killer, yet the media does not use my little .22 as a rallying point for gun control measures, probably because it lacks the sinister looks of a retractable stock and fire suppressor. I have a friend that has a true assault rifle- I can't remember the make or caliber, but he took me out to shoot it once. It jammed repeatedly, kicked terribly, and the ammunition for it is terribly expensive. If I had to choose between his assault rifle and my little .22 I'd go with my little gun. It's more reliable, more accurate, and has a known range of over 5,000 feet. But the issue really isn't the nomenclature of the weapon, Mike. Powerful guns have been available to the civilian population of our country since its inception and we haven't had gun violence or school shootings until the 1990's. This tells me its something other than the guns that is responsible for the violence. My problem with gun control people isn't that they abhor gun violence, so do I. It's that they want to use a hammer for a job that requires a wrench. You cannot change the heart of violent man by taking away his weapons. The only way to ensure people don't kill each other is to amputate their limbs and put them all on respirators, otherwise as long as SOME people live they will seek out ways to kill. I think I know your point on this: If we removed guns even violent people wouldn't be able to kill as many as effectively. I get that. The problem is, that thinking is like saying "if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump it's butt when it jumps." But the frog doesn't have wings and I hope I'm making the analogy clear. Yes, if we didn't have guns we wouldn't have the most effective killing machines, but we do have them, Mike. The genie is out of the bottle and we cannot uninvent guns. The FBI estimates some 200 million guns are in the hands of private citizens. How could these be confiscated without starting a civil war? Also, even if they could be peacefully confiscated it wouldn't change a murderous heart. I'm sure you remember the Rwanda massacre. Most of the 800,000 people killed were killed with machete's. If only those victims would've had guns they could've protected themselves. I appreciate you wanting to get inside my head and I want to do the same. Thanks for sharing your methodology with me. I know you just want to see the violence stop. How can I fault you for that?

    • Leland Johnson profile image

      Leland Johnson 

      5 months ago from Midland MI

      ME: I question your statistics, and I mean to express this sincerely and respectfully: I doubt your statistics because of the fact that I have seen one person in my entire life accidentally killed by a gun. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I agree that it does, absolutely. But I can tell you that I personally know of about 15 people who have been killed or seriously injured due to drunk driving and texting. If the numbers of gun deaths are as high as you say, shouldn't I, and you as well, know of several examples? It isn't that I don't want to do anything about it. The way I practice gun safety is by locking up the few guns I do own and, to tell you the truth, I'm still not completely comfortable with guns. I know their potential. I've been a professional soldier and I've been around guns my whole life. The reason it bothers me when people start throwing verbal firebombs about me being a "gun nut" or being snookered by the NRA or FOX news, is that I have nothing to do with any of those things. I get my information by reading books, not listening to the media. I listen to very little media commentary. I've been involved in news stories, even at the local level, that the media messes up, perhaps not even intentionally. I think when people talk about the lobbyists having politicians in their back pockets I think it is good to realize the same rule applies to the media. If they don't like you it is incredibly easy for them to turn public opinion against you. Back to the point, guns do not take as many lives as alcohol, drunk driving, and even distracted driving which involves the texting issue. I'm not saying something shouldn't be done to curtail gun violence and accidents, but the idea of disarming the citizenry based upon a flawed understanding of the 2nd amendment isn't going to solve anything. The 2nd amendment has its precedent in the English Bill of Rights from 1689. The British allowed "Protestants" to own firearms, but not Catholics. The reason for this is that, at that time, England had recently broken away from the Catholic church and the royals as well as British Parliament viewed Catholics with suspicion because they thought their allegiance was not to the the king, but ultimately, to the Pope. The addendum made to that document by our Founding Fathers was to extend the right of gun ownership to all citizens. Mike just misunderstands this by acknowledging only the clause referring to a militia as does Wind Girl. The Brits practice this policy around the world- in the 1920's they disarmed the Jews of Palestine and armed the Arabs inciting conflict between the 2 groups. In the 50's and 60's they incited Protestants agains Catholics in Ireland leading to the rise of the IRA. Since gun violence was not caused by the 2nd amendment (we never had school shootings in the 40's and 50's or even until the 1990's) removing the 2nd amendment will not stop it. If guns were the cause then yes, remove them, but they're not. It's something else and it's that "something else" people don't want to talk about, or if they do talk about it they only argue. I hope gun violence does curtail and eventually vanish from our landscape. I just want to see and hear ideas that actually work. The record for gun confiscation NOT working is seen in Chicago where it is illegal to own a handgun and yet handguns kill more people there than anywhere else in the country. If it doesn't work there, why would it work somewhere else?

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      5 months ago from Placentia California

      Leland: I mean this sincerely. I'm trying to understand how anti-gun control people think. But by the same token I would like you to understand how I and people like me think.

      Have you ever studied set theory? It is very structured and logical. Here is how I think about your statements.

      In set theory, there is the Universe of Discourse. That is everything in the universe is a member of that set. One of the members of that set is called all deaths on this planet. There is nothing I can do about that.

      A members of that set is called all deaths in the United States. There is nothing I can do about that

      A member outside of the that set is called all murders by every means possible except guns. There is nothing I can do about that.

      A member of that set is called mass shootings by guns. The reason I'm focused on the last set is because I feel their is something I can do about it.

      Everything above that set is beyond my effort and control to do anything about it. But anti-gun control people insist on bringing that up every chance they get.

      It doesn't work on gun control people. I'm sorry I used the term "control." I know now that makes your skin crawl. How about regulation, is that any better?

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      5 months ago from Placentia California

      ME: I wrote an article about Cambridge Analytica (CA). In doing the research, I found that one of the ways they were able to target anti-gun control people was by giving them a questionnaire that looked for what psychologist call the big five. It based on an acronym that is called OCEAN:

      Openness – How open are you to new experiences?

      Conscientiousness – How much of a perfectionist are you?

      Extroversion – How sociable are you?

      Agreeableness – How considerate are you?

      Neuroticism – Are you easily upset?

      They found that anti-gun control people had a significant marker for Neuroticism because they are much more sensitive to threats whether imagined or real.

      Their main motivation for owning guns is for protection of their domain. CA used that to target and tailor Trump campaign ads to influence the Trump vote those people who fit that personality profile.

      I guess I should have been more specific by stating the typical anti-gun control person instead of typical gun owner...my bad.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 

      5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      MIKE - I am not sure I agree with this statement - "Neuroticism of the typical gun owner ". I don't think the "typical" gun owner is neurotic; just the small, yet loud and politically powerful paranoid right.

      Also, what WILL argues for is No Speed Limit at all. That leads me to believe that Will is an anarchist at heart.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 

      5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      "11 kids a day die because of texting while driving. Is one type of death superior to another? Isn't all death terrible? "

      Yes it is, Leland, so why don't you want to do a damn thing about the 8-9 kids a day (as well as 82 adults a day) who are shot to death? Apparently you are unaware (given you state and imply otherwise), people and government do many things to try to prevent all of those other red herrings you throw out there.

      SO, Why does your side want to perpetuate unnecessary death (or injury) by gun?

    • Leland Johnson profile image

      Leland Johnson 

      5 months ago from Midland MI

      11 kids a day die because of texting while driving. Is one type of death superior to another? Isn't all death terrible? Why do you ignore the thousands that die in other, more preventable ways while fighting a battle against guns which takes a fraction of lives? You seem to prefer allowing children to die by the thousands (drinking and driving add to the numbers too) while fighting viciously about those who die by a fraction of that number. You are straining out gnats and swallowing camels.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      5 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Like a brick wall.....

      Only thing you can do is keep up the good fight. They will never ever ever change.

      But America is changing.

      We have a new generation without fear and without prejudices.....and who have suffered under the old ones stupid ways.

      Fight for them. They deserve better than what we gave them.

      Already 17 school shootings since Parkland.

      I haven't kept track of how many cars driven into schools to kill school kids.

      My guess would be ZERO.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      5 months ago from now on

      Another example of your twisted logic and incomprehensible inability to see things the way they are and not filtered through a mind that is out of touch with reality - you can never see it but the truth is every time you open your mouth you confirm everything I have said about you so keep going, I rest my case and my final word of wisdom to you- GOODBYE.

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      6 months ago from Placentia California

      TSAD: With your uncalled for insults, you don't have to curse. You and we all know what you mean. It's like the difference between darn and damn. So in your replies, you never but words in anyone mouths? You want me to prove you wrong there as well. I do not hate you, because I don't know you as a person. But I do hate the nature of your replies which are very insulting and demeaning and are meant to hurt others, whether you realize it or not.

      Here are the synonyms for loony:l

      loony (n.) someone deranged and possibly dangerous. Synonyms: crazy. looney. lunatic. maniac. madman. weirdo. nutcase.

      loony (adj.) informal or slang terms for mentally irregular. Synonyms: insane. loco. wacky. loopy. bats. haywire. nuts. balmy. kooky. nutty. barmy.

      If you don't hate liberals, why do you insult them every chance you get with such visceral passion? Here is why I called you a lying sack of...This is your reply to a liberal and I still believe you still hate liberals. You are just afraid to admit it. liberals are a subset and a function of liberalism. If you hate liberalism then it follows that you hate the members of liberalism which are liberals. Therefore, you are a lying sack of ...by saying you don't hate liberals. This is your reply:

      "I don't hate liberals, I hate liberalism and I've said so often yet you seem to have to attack the messenger every time and make people believe I hate them. You are so predictable!"

      "I have friends and relatives who are liberals and for whom I've put myself out to help financially and in other ways because I value humanity above ideology, but then I understand why you can't understand that, it doesn't serve your purpose, to attack the messenger that is. I hate sin but I don't hate the sinner, maybe that will make it clearer to you."

      If you do hate sin, then you hate the sinner. You may not hate all sinners, but you hate whoever sinned. Therefore you hate sinners. Do you hate the political values and beliefs of your liberal friends you referenced above?

    • tsadjatko profile image

      6 months ago from now on

      Goodbye, the wisest thing you've said Will, and PP thank u again for demonstrating with my comments just how loony liberalism is, how they put words in our mouths as you do and frankly can not be reasoned with because what goes in a liberal's head gets manipulated to say something that was never meant or was never said and that is liberalism, deceit engineered to hide agendas that honest thinking people would never approve of. I never called anyone a lying sack of shit but you did and that demonstrates exactly who the hater from the gutter is. My criticism of liberals are always based on the facts, and I never resort to profanity which we all know is the trademark of liberals and liberalism, just look at their behaviors as well as yours.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      6 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Goodbye.

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      6 months ago from Placentia California

      Will: Neither is tryanny or they are coming for your guns realistic. But I'm beginning to understand the Neuroticism of the typical gun owner who has the need to protect themselves from all types of perceived threats...and I don't mean this in an insulting way.

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      6 months ago from Placentia California

      TSAD: So much for my research and analysis!!! These replies are loaded with classic insults and unfounded accusations from you that reek with hate for liberals. Oh I know you will deny that you hate liberals, because you are really a nice guy who has liberal friends. You wrote this:

      "Lol still have to obsess on the media lol you are the gift that keeps giving liberal loonyness - of course putting words in my mouth - we haven't agreed with anything you've said non of which is actually fact, yet you put on display your deluded mentality as if it is a badge of honor.

      Quack, quack, quack ! ROFLOL"

      "You keep bringing up crazy fox, breitbart and infowarz right wing side when no one has even mentioned or referred to any of them - a typical liberal raising a straw man. The only reference I have made is to an NPR article which you totally ignored,

      I have explained over and over why and how your "experts" aren't qualified to render a medical opinion on Trump and you totally ignore it - it seems all you can do is obsess over Fox News Breitbart and Ingowars when no one has even referred to or sourced any of them.

      That's what I love about liberals like you, all tyou have to do is keep talking and it becomes quite obvious just who the uninformed patsy of left wing talking points is and how mentally deranged by liberalism you are."

      "Of course the left would like to make them take a test because liberal politicians are quacks and need quacks to help them achieve agendas like getting rid of Trump who has kept more promises and done more for Americans in half his first term than the last three presidents combined!"

      "Of course despite psychiatry is not a medical science but quackery, a pseudo-science which lacks independent diagnostic tests, testable hypotheses, and cures for "schizophrenia" and all other types of alleged "mental illness" or "mental disorder" it does not surprise me someone like you would give these quacks credibility. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a regular psychiatric patient cause it certainly hasn't helped you one iota."

      "Experts at Harvard and Yale...and who are they and what are their credentials to evaluate the mental health of Trump whom I guarantee you they have never met or examined or tested?

      You are nothing but a liberal bloviator spewing left wing talking points and Jack is an open minded truth seeker (a phrase that is never in the liberal or progressive vocabulary because their platform is based on lies) who tries to tell it like it is."

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      6 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      "If I can help save the life of one child or one adult from being killed aimlessly, then it is well worth my effort."

      Is it really? Would you be willing then to reduce the national speed limit to 5 MPH and drive bumper cars? It would save thousands of lives every year.

      When reality sets in, we realize that the old 'if it will just save one child's life' is an unreasonable way to think because a risk-free world is neither practical nor realistic.

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      6 months ago from Placentia California

      Leland: If I can help save the life of one child or one adult from being killed aimlessly, then it is well worth my effort. There is an inherit difference in the mentality of pro-gun people and anti-gun people and I'm trying to understand that difference. I think I'm almost there and I'm going to write a hub about it. I hope you visit my hub...take care.

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      6 months ago from Placentia California

      Will: See that is the other difference. I don't won't to invade your privacy. I don't want to take what is yours, and I don't want to tell you how to live. Also I don't have a superior mind. But here is the problem, you won't allow yourself to trust what I'm saying or any of the people like me Without trust, there can never be any solution.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      6 months ago from now on

      Leland, you have echoed the sentiment in my earlier comments, you should read them going back a long way, might have saved you a lot of time and trouble. Will is so right on but just a glutton for punishment at this point. The minds of people who have embraced the delusions of liberalism can not be illuminated with facts or logic.

      PP I'm still waiting for an example in context of your accusation I simply hate liberals because as you say I am a "lying sack of you know what." I asked for only one, can't find one? Hmmmm some "researcher and analyst"

      Btw I don't know what, a sack of I told you sos?

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Still say Will is empty of emotions rhetoric, lol!

      I'd like to know what's free about forcing a woman to give birth against her will...making decisions on her body for her. You think that's freedom?

      Where's my right to speak on forums? Hp took it away, at the behest of so called freedom lovers, I'm sure!

      Gun lovers aren't special. 2nd amend is not sacrosanct. It is gvt duty to keep US safe from things like mass shootings.

      NOT take money from the NRA to increase the danger

    • Leland Johnson profile image

      Leland Johnson 

      6 months ago from Midland MI

      Again you miss the point. I was being ironic. Not emotional, not hyperbolic. In fact I would say euphemistic because I didn't want to come right out and use the word "ridiculous" but you force my hand, mike. You have to know that gun confiscation isn't going to curtail gun violence because of the simple fact that criminals get guns illegally as it is. Chicago is #1 in the country for gun violence and it is illegal to own a hand gun there. Illegal yet more gun violence occurs there than in any other city in the union. Doesn't that tell you something? It's not that you're unintelligent, you're a smart guy, you are. Unfortunately you are also an ideologue, and because of that you are like Kyle Reese's description if the terminator "it cannot be reasoned with..." I wish you well and that's about all the energy or time I have left so adieu.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      6 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      "Will: The difference between the gun control people and the anti-gun control people is that we don't worry about a tyrannical government that is never going to happen.

      We don't worry about protecting our privacy and our domain. We don't worry about somebody coming to confiscate our protection, target practice equipment, and means of hunting for food.

      We don't think of the 2nd amendment as being our god given right to bear arms. We sleep at night without all of that."

      And all that is just fine with me. You are entitled to your beliefs, your rights, your privacy, and your property and I support you in all those things. I would never dream of meddling in your affairs, denying you your rights, or trying to take anything from you.

      Unfortunately, while you wouldn't want me telling you what you can have, what you can believe, or meddling in your privacy, you do not respect my rights at all.

      You want to invade my privacy by demanding to know what I own, claiming it will reduce crime, when you know it won't. You want to take what is mine and you want to tell me how to live and what to believe, because you think you are more virtuous than I am. But you see no tyranny in that because you honestly believe that you are morally superior and you see nothing wrong with that attitude.

      There's no point in trying to persuade such a closed and smugly superior mind. Have a nice day.

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      6 months ago from Placentia California

      Will: The difference between the gun control people and the anti-gun control people is that we don't worry about a tyrannical government that is never going to happen.

      We don't worry about protecting our privacy and our domain. We don't worry about somebody coming to confiscate our protection, target practice equipment, and means of hunting for food.

      We don't think of the 2nd amendment as being our god given right to bear arms. We sleep at night without all of that.

      You people sleep at night knowing you are protecting yourself's from all your perceived threats. That is the difference between us.

      We worry about the mass killings of innocent people and how to reduce it. While you worry about how to protect your domain and all the different ways people can be murdered then other by guns.

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      6 months ago from Placentia California

      Leland: So this assertion came right from your background in history and there is no emotion in it whatsoever, and it is totally rational by listing the tooth fairy, right?

      "You know what guys, making outlandish accusations like "the Russians are funding the NRA" and proving it by adding some silly link only proves a willingness to believe anything that supports your position. Hold on, I have link to prove it: www.toothfairy.com"

    • Leland Johnson profile image

      Leland Johnson 

      6 months ago from Midland MI

      Will- Your comments are reasonable and right, free of emotional accusation and empty rhetoric. It would be great to be able to engage other commentors the same way, but it's not possible. The left argues with misinformation, emotion, and false accusation. There's little doubt in my mind that their intent may be innocent, but it's still inaccurate.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      6 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      The anti-gun folks say they simply want 'common sense' regulations, but when asked if they'll guarantee that those regulations will accomplish what they claim they'll accomplish, they balk and use the lame excuse that success can never be guaranteed.

      Therefore, they're asking us to give up our privacy rights and our Second Amendment rights to satisfy their tyrannical need to dictate terms to the rest of us, knowing full well that it will not accomplish what they claim they want.

      They know that violating our right to privacy by forcing us to tell them what guns we own and how many we have will have no effect whatsoever on the criminals they claim to be targeting. They also know that banning the sales of so-called 'assault weapons' will have no more effect on crime than it did last time. If all AR-15's and similar rifles are banned and even confiscated, these vicious killers will simply switch to handguns like the Virginia Tech and Tucson shooters used. Then the same tyrants who banned AR-15's will also want ban handguns and we all know it.

      The problem for all of them is that we are not British and we are not Australians. We are Americans and not about to surrender our rights or our arms to anyone, including government. That's precisely why we have a Second Amendment in the first place...to prevent that sort of tyranny.

    • Leland Johnson profile image

      Leland Johnson 

      6 months ago from Midland MI

      Mike- Let me turn that right back to you. You chide me for mentioning Clinton and Obama, yet who do you mention? Bush. And you think I'm predictable? Listen, I don't have a "playbook" by anyone. I have never cited FOX news, or anything that could be interpreted as a playbook. I take great efforts to ensure that my thoughts come from my study of history rather than media outlets yet you refuse to see that. Now then, what about you, Mike? You accuse me of cowtowing to media outlets like FOX news, which I don't watch because I don't have cable. I really don't know any of their anchors or commentators, and yet what do you listen to? NPR. You think that because you go by a liberal playbook I must go by a playbook of some sort as well. Be open to the possibility that everyone isn't like you. Just because you go by a particular playbook doesn't mean everyone does.

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      6 months ago from Placentia California

      Leland: When Obama was in office for two years, the right wing said don't look back at the mess Bush made, because now you own that mess and have had two years to straighten it out. How many black people were unjustifiably shot by police officers? Perhaps if we had reasonable gun control, those sheriffs would still be alive.

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      6 months ago from Placentia California

      Leland: See what you just did is right out of the anti-gun control play book and so predictable. When credible sources like NPR are cited, you people dismiss them as not being credible and just a silly link. Good for you. I could of bet money on it,

      You and yours have a fear of having your guns confiscated. I have a fear of you people believing real fake news like Fox and the the rest of the right wing propaganda sites. That is what is going to get this country into trouble.

    • Leland Johnson profile image

      Leland Johnson 

      6 months ago from Midland MI

      You know what guys, making outlandish accusations like "the Russians are funding the NRA" and proving it by adding some silly link only proves a willingness to believe anything that supports your position. Hold on, I have link to prove it: www.toothfairy.com

    • Leland Johnson profile image

      Leland Johnson 

      6 months ago from Midland MI

      Mike- I look to Obama and Clinton because they had 8 years to something and didn't. How can you NOT look at them? Moreover, how can you complain about Trump when he's only been in office for 2 years, as if he's to blame for gun violence? You know who most cops blame for the increase in violence against police officers? Obama, because of his incessant rhetoric against them. 2 more sherrifs were just murdered this week as they were having a cup of coffee in a restaurant.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Leland - "ME- it sounds like you are placing a failure to advance stricter gun regulations at the feet of conservatives and republicans." - Yes I am, directly at their feet.

      What 8 years would that be? 2011 - 2016 when conservatives controlled either the House or Senate or both? Or 2009 - 2010 when Obama and Ds were fighting (successfully) to prevent a depression and dig America out of Bush's mess? Or is it 2006 - 2008 when Bush was president even though the Ds did have marginal majorities in both the House and Senate (where conservatives and the NRA successfully defeated any gun control legislation by not allowing cloture). Are those the eight years?

      What happened after the reaction to the Sandy Hook massacre? Not a damn thing because of the NRA and conservatives. Ditto after Pulse, ditto after Parkland, ditto after ...

      BTW, MIKE, the NRA is also funded by Russia.- https://www.npr.org/2018/03/01/590076949/depth-of-... (I wonder how many patriotic NRA members know this?)

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Yes, lets fight for the "right" to bring guns into a bar...with people drinking alcohol.....question: do we have the "right" to be safe from these deadly weapons anywhere? They already want them in schools, and bullet proof backpacks....KA-CHING. $$$$$

      https://qz.com/1214787/how-the-nras-money-forces-r...

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      6 months ago from Placentia California

      Leland: Why do conservatives and republicans always look backwards to place the blame on Obama and Clinton's? They were not able to pass any significant gun control laws because of the strong gun industry and NRA lobbyists who thwarted their every move. This is issue is in Trump's and the NRA leadership's wheelhouse now.

      Follow the money. The gun industry funds the NRA leadership to promote more guns. The NRA lobbyists fund the congressmen who support the NRA.

      Congressmen who received the funding are then beholden to those who funded them. Therefore more guns are sold. The money flows and everybody is happy.

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      6 months ago from Placentia California

      Leland: I think you miss-understood. The NRA score is not for voters. It is for congress and how well they support the NRA and their gun lobby. The higher the score the more money the NRA contributes to a congressmen's campaign for re-election.

      https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/intera...

    • Leland Johnson profile image

      Leland Johnson 

      6 months ago from Midland MI

      ME- it sounds like you are placing a failure to advance stricter gun regulations at the feet of conservatives and republicans. What about 8 years of Obama and house and senate controlled by democrats? What about the Clinton years? Democrats have had their hands on the wheel for many years and yet you say and mike says no significant gun control laws have passed. You should be blaming democrats for that, not the NRA.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      I see what Leland is talking about - first I have heard of any other guards other than the one resource office and then the deputies that showed up later.

      At Aurora, the guns were apparently bought legally and no mention of a machine-gun like capability. They were Police say he used an AR-15 rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and at least one of two .40-caliber handguns police recovered at the scene. https://www.cnn.com/2013/07/19/us/colorado-theater...

      One needs to be clear about the NRA. It is the leadership that is the problem, not the membership; most of who support more gun regulations like universal background checks. But make no mistake, NRA leadership spends tens of millions of dollars to tell conservatives and conservative Congressmen and women how to think and vote. That is why there has been no significant improvement in gun control since 1995.

      NRA score: you might find this interesting https://www.gq.com/story/nra-grades-and-congress

    • Leland Johnson profile image

      Leland Johnson 

      6 months ago from Midland MI

      Mike- I read the article you linked regarding the aurora massacre. It talked about "machine guns capable of firing 100 rounds in seconds" as though guns like that are legal and on the street. They're not. The article has other inaccuracies. I don't take any cues from the NRA. I hear and read people on the left referring to the NRA as if they are telling conservative voters how to vote. Even if there is such a "scoring" system as the article asserts, do you really think voters consult such scores before voting? Is that the way you vote? You listen to a left wing lobbying group giving scores as to which politician votes the most liberally? I don't think so. I don't think you listen to Planned Parenthood, NAMBLA, or any other group to help you decide who to vote for. I think you're like me. You base who you're voting for on how well the candidate lines up with your convictions. I think you , and people like you, should stop assuming people on the right wait until they hear from some illuminati group before casting their vote. It's naïve.

    • Leland Johnson profile image

      Leland Johnson 

      6 months ago from Midland MI

      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/parkland-florida-marj...

      5th paragraph down mentions unarmed guards.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Will, you keep flip-flopping between Democrats (or liberal Republicans or liberal elitists, or the term de jour) wanting to ban ALL guns (which they don't) and banning assault weapons (tomato) or assault rifles (tomoto). Which is it you are asserting???

      If it is the former, then you are more or less correct, many Ds do want to reinstitute the assault weapon ban. Personally, I don't think it needs to go that far, but if that is the only way ... then ban them; many lives will be saved as a result.

      If it is the latter, then you are demonstrably wrong, wrong, wrong and no matter how many times you say it, it will not become the truth.

      Will - why do you destroy a perfectly good question to Mike by inserting the word "guarantee"?? I suppose you are smart enough to understand Nothing Can Be Guaranteed - not even saying the Sun won't explode tomorrow. When you play semantic games like that, why should anyone ever take you seriously?

      Amazing, you ask for legal definitions, I give them to you and you make light of them. What, you don't believe in State's Rights when you say "You just made my argument for me, ME. Democrats in those different states define 'assault weapon' as whatever they want it to mean and it's never the same! " To take that to its logical extreme, no state should pass any law whose definition differs from any other states or alternatively, the federal government should set all definitions ... How silly. (BTW, you forgot to note that the Republican state Ohio defines assault weapons the same way although Democratic states. Another BTW, the Virginia legislature, up until recently, was also Republican, so they, not Democrats set the definition.)

      You want reasonable regulations? I pasted the list from below that I gave for Automatic Weapons:

      - Automatic weapons should be kept in a secured location (such as a gun range), accessible when the owner wants to shoot it, then it needs to be returned.

      - There should a deep dive background check

      - They should be available only through federally authorized source and definitely not online

      - The owners need to insure them and be held strictly liable unless ownership is officially transferred

      - Among many other things.

      And then correct for the fact we are now talking about non-automatic assault weapons by saying the first bullet isn't necessary so long as the owner has and uses an approved storage container kept in his or her house. The remaining ones still apply.

      I suspect most people, apparently not you though, understand the very clearly worded and emphasized ""What we are SAYING is that guns should NOT be banned but sufficiently REGULATED to MINIMIZE (not eliminate) non-justifiable homicides and injuries from the use of guns" Tell me, what don't you understand about that (or are just pissed because I am so precise)

      MIKE - You are SO correct when you say "I truly believe no amount of facts, truth, and convincing will bring them around to accept what reasonable gun control is. "

      WILL - there you go again flipping the bird at 250 lives when you declare "only account for less than 250 murders a year, there's not going to even be a blip if they're banned!" You simply don't care about any other life other than your own, do you?

      LELAND - The Parkland resource officer WAS armed - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/parkland-shoo...

      So you think you can't buy a gun on the internet? Read this - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/0... Easy Peasy.

      WILL - VA Tech. Yes, they were "handguns", semi-automatic ones .22-caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic handgun and a 9 mm semi-automatic Glock 19 handgun. with multiple 10 and 19 round magazines. Now he killed all those people over a two hour period in two different episodes. Consider how many people would be dead had he been armed with an AR-15 with the same 400 rounds of ammo? A lot more than 33 I wager.

      In any case, your example is just another red herring and yes, ownership of semi-automatic handguns should be tightly controlled such as:

      - Universal background checks

      - Registration

      - Periodic proof of ownership

      - Training

      - Expanded reasons for denial such as domestic violence, terror watch lists, diagnosed mental issues, etc

      - among others.

      One might use CA or CT or MA or NY regulations for starters. Each one of those states have way below average rates of death from guns while poor regulation states such as LA, AZ, MS, AL have very high rates of death by gun. That is no coincidence.

      OK, I think I caught up on all the comments, lol.

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      6 months ago from Placentia California

      Will: The Las Vegas shooting left 58 people dead and 851 injured in 10 minutes. So one fifth of your 250 was done in less than 10 minutes. I'd say that is pretty efficient shooting wouldn't you?

      The problem of the ban not being effective is attributed in part to not being able to define exactly every model of weapon and their modifications. That allowed many that were not specified to sneak through that loop hole and still be in use.

      Here is everything you wanted to know about the 1994 ban, but were afraid to ask.

      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/assault-weapon-ban-ex...

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      What plan? You are making it up to prevent any safety measures for the rest of society. No one is taking the bullying anymore. We are getting rid of military weapons in civilian life. And Oliver North should have gone to prison for covering it up. His gang gave us crack and ar15’s.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      6 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      I find no mention of any unarmed guards at Parkland, LeLand. Do you have a source?

    • Leland Johnson profile image

      Leland Johnson 

      6 months ago from Midland MI

      There were two guards there. Both were unarmed. I didn't mean the officer was unarmed.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      6 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      BTW, the worst school shooting (33 dead) was Virginia Tech, and the shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, was armed with handguns. In fact, most mass shootings are carried out with handguns,

      So should we also ban handguns?

      The answer is yes. Once AR-15's and the like are banned, handguns are next. That's the plan.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Noooo, the ar15, silly. Get them the eff off our streets. Period.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      6 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      (sigh)

      1) We cannot buy a firearm over the internet.

      2) The resource officer at Parkland was armed but never went in.

      3) Nikolas Cruz would never have passed the background check if not for the idiotic Broward County PROMISE program that prevented arresting him. Obama and Eric Holder liked that program!

      4) The FBI was notified about Cruz and his threats but never followed through.

      So who is blamed? Law abiding gun owners and the NRA.

    • Leland Johnson profile image

      Leland Johnson 

      6 months ago from Midland MI

      The guard was not armed.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      17 deaths would have been prevented without this guy buying an ar15 over the internet......

      The deaths in the church

      The deaths in Las vegas

      All using the harmless little feather of a gun.

      Gosh. I wonder why they didnt use a car, or a knife, or a bomb...

      Maybe cause getting that ar15 is so easy. And it kills so fast.

      And even the armed security guard was no match for it.

      Ratatatatat...17 kids. Gone.

      I think thats quite enough. And if some kook wants to murder people, at least we can do is make it harder.....not hand them the trigger, easy-peasy.

      Red flag laws are needed as well. Because, as it stands, if someone tries to take someone's gun, all they have to do is say "2nd amendment, bite me"

      We need right to life for the already born.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      6 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      Nonsense. The ban failed and failed utterly simply because it banned rifles, and rifles are seldom used in murders, so it made no real difference at all. The Democrats, still smarting from losing the House over this idiotic ban, knew it was bad politics to try to extend it, so they looked the other way.

      It's just as stupid today. Since rifles, which includes all the so-called 'assault rifles', only account for less than 250 murders a year, there's not going to even be a blip if they're banned!

      Rifles of all types account for just over 1% of all murders in the US, so if so called assault rifles are banned, it will make almost no discernible difference at all.

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      6 months ago from Placentia California

      Will: I'm sorry, but you are wrong about why the 1994 ban ended. The only way the ban could get passed is by agreeing to a "sunset clause" that stated: after 10 years, the ban would expire.

      In 2004, they tried to get it re-instated,but the NRA and the gun industry with their funding to the republican party, held more sway, then the regulation people. It wasn't a quite death, it went down with a lot of money to kill it.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      6 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      I asked what 'reasonable regulations' you propose that you guarantee will minimize the already less than 250 murders per year using a so-called 'assault weapon', and all I got was the run-around. That figures.

      If you are not willing to guarantee a regulation will work, why do you expect anyone to support it?

      The 'assault weapon' (a meaningless term) ban of 1994 did not do what the supporters claimed it would do, so it died a quite death in 2004. Now they want to try it again.

      The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result.

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      6 months ago from Placentia California

      Everybody: The NRA, FOX News, Breitbart, Alex Jones, et al, have done a number on these people. They have reached that part of their brains that deals with primitive survival of their domain by whatever means is available. In this day and age, it is guns that they use to protect themselves.

      I truly believe no amount of facts, truth, and convincing will bring them around to accept what reasonable gun control is. Just the word "control freaks them out. Mass killings mean nothing to them when they think their guns are going to be confiscated.

      They have a playbook that has been inserted in their minds as follows:

      "How many lives is gun control going to save?"

      "Unless you can solve the issue of all the people who are killed by cars, knifes forks, hands, feet and what what other means I can think of, your efforts towards gun control are useless to me."

      "I don't care how hard you try to convince me that you are not going to confiscate my guns, I can not trust you and will never believe you."

      "You can't define what an assault weapon is."

      "The 2nd amendment is not subject to any interpretation."

      Please feel free to add to this play list.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      6 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      BTW, ME, as I told Mike, it really doesn't matter what you want. It's what Democrat politicians want that matters because they want guns like the AR-15 banned. Period.

      They already banned them once, so don't piss on my leg and try to tell me that it's raining.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      6 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      You just made my argument for me, ME. Democrats in those different states define 'assault weapon' as whatever they want it to mean and it's never the same! "Assault rifle' however, is a legitimate military term and it means 'a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power', and since an AR-15 is not a selective-fire rifle (a machine gun!), it is not an assault rifle.

      You continue to use your weasel-wording to confuse the unwary.

      ""What we are SAYING is that guns should NOT be banned but sufficiently REGULATED to MINIMIZE (not eliminate) non-justifiable homicides and injuries from the use of guns"

      And exactly what 'reasonable regulations' do you propose that you guarantee will minimize the already less than 250 murders per year using a so-called 'assault weapon'?

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Add to my "elitist" question - what is a "political elitist"?

      Oh, come on Will, you are really stretching in trying to embarrass me "Assault Rifle" vs "Assault Weapon"? Give me a break, "Tomato" vs "Tomoto", lol. BTW, what is your military experience?

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Sorry Will, I left out the lead-in phrase to legal assault weapon definition #1. It is "Drawing from federal and state law definitions, the term assault weapon ..."

      Or, if you had read the article you would have found, among other things, the following:

      * California defines assault weapons by name, by "series" (AK or AR-15), and by characteristic.[26] A shotgun with a revolving cylinder is also defined as an assault weapon.[11]

      * Connecticut defines assault weapons as selective-fire firearms (including assault rifles capable of fully automatic or burst fire); semi-automatic firearms specified by name; and semi-automatic firearms with specific characteristics.[12]

      * Hawaii defines and bans assault pistols.[27]

      * Maryland defines and bans assault pistols. It regulates 45 other assault weapons listed by make and/or model including copies, regardless of manufacturer.[27][28]

      * Massachusetts defines assault weapons as semi-automatic firearms with the same definition provisions from the expired federal ban of 1994.[29]

      * New York had an assault weapons ban prior to 2013, but on January 16 of that year it passed the SAFE Act, which created a stricter definition of assault weapons and banned them immediately.[30][31][32] The NY SAFE Act defines assault weapons as semi-automatic pistols and rifles with detachable magazines and one military-style feature, and semi-automatic shotguns with one military-style feature.[31]

      * Virginia defines certain firearms as assault weapons and regulates their sale and use.[27]

      The numbers in brackets are footnote references for references

      Does that help you?

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      It dawned on me early this morning (yes, I think about things like this before fully waking up) that the Rights' (not just the paranoid Right) boogeyman is something called a "liberal elite or elitist". Exactly what is a liberal elitist?

      Can someone help me out here?

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      I just noticed this gem from Will "If folks like you say you don't want to ban guns, then what are you saying? " - This is CLEAR PROOF that Will (and Brad since he keeps asking the same question) does not read what is written other than looking for hot button words.

      Let me be CLEAR, Will - "What we are SAYING is that guns should NOT be banned but sufficiently REGULATED to MINIMIZE (not eliminate) non-justifiable homicides and injuries from the use of guns"

      Let me repeat -

      "What we are SAYING is that guns should NOT be banned but sufficiently REGULATED to MINIMIZE (not eliminate) non-justifiable homicides and injuries from the use of guns"

      Now, if you don't understand what we are saying that means YOU DO NOT WANT to understand what we are saying.

      Another thing you apparently refuse to understand is that "Regulation DOES NOT equal confiscation". I understand you must believe that it does to justify your false logic, but it simply isn't true; Never has been and Never will be.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Jesus....these gun people really are snowflakes. Big bad Hillary...aarghhh

      https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence...

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      The political elite are the Wall Street firms that make a profit off guns

      https://thinkprogress.org/funds-invested-guns-8902...

      And, of course, lapierre, the 5 million dollar carnival barker.

      And I watched that video....she said a gun buyback was “something to consider”.....oooooh.

      And cops do it all the time. Ask them how THEY feel about military style assault rifles out in the streets.....aimed at THEM, and brought here by Reagan’s contra war and a rogue faction of the cia.

      Ask the moms who have to send their kids to school walking through a war zone of gang wars and drive by shootings.

      Guns HAVE to be taken seriously. And here are the actual proposals of Clinton:

      Universal background checks

      Ending gun loopholes

      Making gun manufacturers more responsible

      Do not allow mentally ill to have guns

      Do not allow domestic abusers to have guns

      ......Can’t remember the rest.

      But she put her hands out to gun owners to work with them, too. It is NOT about confiscating guns, it’s about holding this special interest group to the same safety standards as everyone else.

      They (nra) have painted guns as some sort of sacrosanct gift from God.....as if God sat up in heaven inventin* a gun to pick off her own creation.....pullleeeaassee

      You want to get real? 2nd amend was created to prevent a slave rebellion after they were freed....same reason for police dpts. That’s why there are so many kkk in the police, and why they kill unarmed black men.

      Thats one reason for it.....nothing godly at all. And of course, for a militia against England.

      But now, they are used to shoot fellow Gang members, shoot wives and girlfriends, to shoot little babies caught in the crossfire, to shoot up womans clinics, shoot each other, and to use American citizens as target practice.

      If you are a law abiding, SAFE gun owner, you have nothing to worry about, and you should be ashamed and angry at how these other factions are using and abusing guns.

      It’s domestic terrorism and they bought and paid for the privilege.

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      6 months ago from Placentia California

      Will: You and your kind have been brainwashed to think that reasonable gun control means banning everybody's guns that they already own. It doesn't it means banning any further sale of the types of guns that have been used in mass killings, like the Las Vegas shooting, school shootings and terrorists shootings. it means AR-15's, high capacity magazines, and bump stocks. And I emphasize Any Further Sale.

      Who are the "Political Elite" that you refer to? Are they like the boogie men of the Deep State that Sean Hannity has contrived or the tyranny of the government which Mark Levin made up? Or are they like Alex Jones who said that Parkland was a hoax made up by actors?

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      6 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      What people like ME will not tell you is that there is no legal meaning to 'assault weapon'. It means whatever shysters like ME want it to mean, and as ex-military, he knows that, or he damn-well should know it.

      The AR-15 is not an assault rifle, which is why ME called it an 'assault WEAPON', which would include anything they want it to include. By their definitions, 90% of all firearms could be designated 'assault weapons' and could then be banned.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      6 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      This is the definition of an 'assault rifle', a legitimate military term:

      By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power.

      If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect.

      ME is using 'assault weapon', a made-up political term, to confuse the unwary.

      Shame on him.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      6 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      "Bottom Line - AR-15-type weapons ARE assault weapons no matter how much you fantasize that they are not."

      Bottom line - There's no such thing as an 'assault weapon'. It's a political term coined by Democrats.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Definitions of Assault Weapons -

      1. Common attributes used in legislative definitions of assault weapons include: Semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine. Folding or telescoping (collapsible) stock, which reduces the overall length of the firearm. A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon (sounds like an AR-15 to me)

      2. To be clear, though, the federal government usually refers to a military-style weapon capable of firing multiple rounds, either semi-automatic or a fully automatic firearm. - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/definition-of-what...

      3. he Ohio bill defines an assault weapon as "an automatic firearm that has not been rendered permanently inoperable, a semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine with the capacity to accept ten or more cartridges, and a semi-automatic firearm with a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept ten or more cartridges." - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/definition-of-what...

      4. The 1994 federal assault weapons ban, officially known as the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was passed as a crime-fighting bill and identified more than a dozen specific models of firearms, including the Colt AR-15, that were defined as semi-automatic assault weapons. It also defined the term by specific characteristics, such as the ability to accept a detachable magazine and by certain cosmetic features. - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/definition-of-what...

      5. The 2013 gun legislation would have banned nearly 160 specific firearms and further defined what constituted a "semi-automatic assault weapon." Moreover, it also would have banned parts or devices to the firearms that accelerated the rate of semi-automatic rifle fire. - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/definition-of-what...

      Bottom Line - AR-15-type weapons ARE assault weapons no matter how much you fantasize that they are not.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      I noticed the following from Will's List contained such famous liberals and Americans like:

      * George Will

      * Mao Zedong

      * Mark Urbin

      * A selection of reporters

      * Rosie O'Donnell - actress

      * Charles Krauthammer

      * Adolf Hitler

      * Heinrich Himmler

      * Erwin N. Griswold (Nixon's solicitor general)

      You get the idea. Also there is this:

      * Very few of the quotes were asking for a complete ban on all guns (which I thought was the point of WIll offering this)

      * The date range for these quotes are from 1938 (Adolf Hitler) to 2012 (as best as I can tell) with the Vast Majority between 1986 and 2000,

      Bottom line, Wills set of quotes do not even come close to supporting his claim that "the political elitists who very much want to ban guns"

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      6 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      If the left succeeds in banning so-called 'assault rifles' (real assault rifles are not sold to the public!) based on simple hysteria (rifles of all kinds are used to murder far fewer people than hands, fists, and feet, a fact that people like Mike, My Esoteric, and LoveMy Chris simply ignore!) then the camel's nose is under the tent and all guns will eventually be banned.

      My Esoteric sneers at the quotes I provided, but who can forget that Hillary Clinton, the 2016 Democrat Party nominee for President, openly stated that she wanted an Australian solution to guns, which is a ban and confiscation:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvcWePEsg94

      The left is declaring war on guns, gun owners, and the NRA, whose only sin is defending the Second Amendment. Perhaps folks like Mike ME, and Chris don't realize that, and if so, they need to open their eyes, because 100,000,000 Americans are law-abiding and patriotic gun owners and the majority are not about to allow anti-gun liberals to disarm them.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      6 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      "But I'm sure you believe they are plotting against you. "

      I certainly do when they say so publicly. Wouldn't you? Only a fool would ignore that!

      "The site that you got these from is called The Firing Line. It is a pro gun site."

      So what? The quotes are real and references are given. I actually looked them up. And of course a pro-gun site has not just a right to expose such quotes, but a duty! How else would we know what these elitists are planning?

      I don't much care what you want, Mike, because you are an ordinary guy like me, but I care very much what the politically elite want and they want America disarmed. If you don't want to believe that with their quotes so easily verified, then it's you who is afraid to face the truth.

      If folks like you say you don't want to ban guns, then what are you saying? You only want to ban certain guns you don't like even though they are almost never used to murder people? If you don't want to ban guns, then why did you publish this article saying you want to ban at least some guns? I guess you mean you don't want to ban ALL guns?

      You think I should agree with that even though the gun you want banned is the one that I use the most? You think I should give up my right to own an AR-15 or some similar rifle simply because some guy named Mike doesn't like it? Who do you think you are?

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Speaking about quotes, I would posit that if you randomly selected a 1,000 liberal quotes regarding regulating guns, you might find one or two the suggest ALL guns should be banned.

      All guns should be banned is simply a big red herring tossed around in the paranoid rights' echo chamber to keep their juices flowing. Nobody else believes it.

      Since this is all subjective anyway, what is needed prove by the paranoid right that the motivation of the rest of the country is to take away their guns is a large scale randomized study of views. It would be simple to construct.

      Question to 10,000 randomly selected people: "Do you think all guns should be banned in America?" A simple question with only three possible answers, Yes, No, I Don't Know.

      Demographic question is "Do you consider yourself a : 1) Liberal, 2) Moderate, 3) Conservative, or 4) None of the Above.

      Then, and only then, would you find out if regular Americans want to take your guns away. Keep in mind Will, that your side makes up the 3rd standard deviation to the right of the average of political orientation (that is about 0.27% if the population or about 671,000)

      Now you say, but wait, there are 7 million NRA and GOA members of which polls show about 80% of them support reasonable gun safety regulation or 1.4 million people who don't. So, taken the previous statistic then we can safely say your side makes up between 0.27% and 0.54% of the voting age population.

      What does that say? It says Will's side is a very small, but terribly loud segment of society whose influence far exceeds what it should.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Mike, there was another hub advertised on this forum. I read it, and it was pretty good. I wrote a reply which, immodestly, I really liked so I copy it here.

      The way to win an unwinnable position is to deflect, create a problem where none exists, outright lie and make up things, and to talk/write about everything but the real issue.

      The REAL issue, of course, is will reasonable regulation cut down on the number of people killed by guns. The answer, obviously (and statistically), is Yes.

      Reasonable gun control has Always been found constitutional. Granted, occasionally jurisdictions go too far, such as Washington D.C. which led to the Heller decision.

      And that is the alpha and omega of it.

      Knives kill people - Red Herring

      Cars kill people - Red Herring

      They want to take your guns away - Red Herring and a big fat lie

      The only two issues that matter are:

      1. - Will the regulation save lives? If so, implement it

      2. - Is the regulation so onerous that it violates the 2nd Amendment (in Heller, the answer was that they were)? If not, implement it.

      It is as simple as that

      Factoids:

      * Around 2015 German law enforced killed a total of 8 people

      * Around the same time, English police killed no one.

      * Through May 2015, police in the US shot and killed 365

      * In 2012, there were only 259 Justifiable Homicides (mostly law enforcement) out of around 35,000 death by gun.

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      6 months ago from Placentia California

      Will: They are not plotting against me. But I'm sure you believe they are plotting against you. The site that you got these from is called The Firing Line. It is a pro gun site. I went to the page where you got your quotes and they are listed under the category of RKBA, which is the acronym for The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Here is a quote for you: When the only tool in your tool box is a hammer, all your problems look like nails.

      I'm not going to try to convince you that I don't want to confiscate your guns. That is an exercise in futility, because I think you and the gun people feel a deep emotional fear that will not let you trust what we say and that is too bad.

      I don't think even the next mass shootings will convince you and others of any type of reasonable gun control, because you are fearful and want to protect you and your family from any left wing threats whether real or imagined.

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      6 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      "Will: You want to talk hysteria, how about the hysteria of gun people thinking their guns are going to confiscated. Oh excuse me, that is not hysteria. It is paranoia of the first degree."

      Here are years of quotes (and most of these people are still in power, still around, and still trying, plus lots of new ones) from the political elitists who very much want to ban guns. It's not paranoia, Mike, if they really are plotting against you:

      https://thefiringline.com/library/quotes/antifreed...

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      6 months ago from Placentia California

      Will: You want to talk hysteria, how about the hysteria of gun people thinking their guns are going to confiscated. Oh excuse me, that is not hysteria. It is paranoia of the first degree.

      I know you can't trust the big bad gun control people. You like to talk probabilities. What is the real probability of that happening? Don't trust me, because in the back of my mind, I'm coming for your guns.

      That is and always has been my ultimate goal. Let me imagine how I would even go about doing it. Better yet why don't you envision how it would be done and let me know. And don't tell me how it happens in other countries. This is America.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      Cool. Lets make sure that holds true for everybody.

      And once again, there is nothing in the constitution that says you have a right to kill 17 people in 6.5 minutes.

      You have the right to a well regulated militia, guns for hunting meat, and a pistol for protection in the home.

      Everything else is ego, and nobody is special in that regard.

      And transportation is neccesary when you need to get to work.

      What do you need a gun for? See above.

      Good enough. I dont think you need a bump stock or an ar15 for that.

      Furthermore, cars are regulated for the safety of others, something the NRA has paid to be ignored here.

      Maybe you dont get it, so ill tell you: gun owners arent special.

      You are a special interest group in our gvt, and we will be ending that.

      Right to life of the already born.

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      6 months ago from Placentia California

      Will: Your are right again. It's not about saving everybody's life. It's about saving the lives of those who could be killed by guns being in the wrong hands. Why do gun control people have to take on the burden of saving everybody's life? That ploy is getting old.

      Do you know why 2015 is the last year CDC stats are available? It''s because of this:

      http://abcnews.go.com/US/federal-government-study-...

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      6 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      So saving lives is not important to LoveMyChris either.

      Cars have one use...transportation. How many uses does something have to have before liberals will approve of it? And why do liberals think it matters what THEY 'approve' of in the first place? That's why our rights are Constitutionally guaranteed...to protect them from hysterical mob rule! Your approval is not required.

      If you aren't suicidal and not a criminal, LoveMyChris, your chance of being shot is almost zero, so you have no case (and your hysteria is not justification. It never has been.)

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

      gawwd. Many Many Many Many more people own cars than do guns. Half the guns are owned by only 3% of the people here.....78% of adults do not even own guns!!

      Just about everybody needs a car. Unless you live with very good public transportation.

      Cars are meant to drive, not kill.

      What are guns made for?

    • WillStarr profile image

      WillStarr 

      6 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

      "Who in their right mind would do something like that?"

      It's usually a boyfriend, and it was a boyfriend in this case too.

      In any case, in the last year available (2015) the CDC stats lists 489 people nationwide dead from firearms accidents. That's a remarkably good safety record considering that there are an estimated 300,000,000 firearms in civilian hands.

      In that same year, the CDC lists 37,757 people killed in traffic accidents, but no hysterical liberal is calling for increased measures to limit traffic deaths, so it's not about saving lives. It's about banning guns.

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      6 months ago from Placentia California

      ME: Who in their right mind would do something like that?

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      "Those sites" also provide DOCUMENTED evidence of their findings which Brad et al never do.

      News Flash - Lawful gun owner enables toddler to shoot pregnant mom. He needs to go to jail for his carelessness (and become one of those "former lawful" gun owners I have written about existing) https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/201...

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      6 months ago from Placentia California

      Brad and all you right wingers: We give you evidence from Politifact, Snopes, and Fact Check.org, etc. and all you right wingers dismiss the evidence as those sites not having any credibility,

      As I said before, you are in denial. If you accepted the truth from those sites, your world would come crashing down like a house of cards.

    • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

      Mike Russo 

      6 months ago from Placentia California

      Brad:

      B1:

      I gave detailed and specific arguments on my view?

      M: So do I, you just dismiss them. All you are doing is playing the game of one-upsmanship by saying your replies are better than others. Your detailed and specific arguments are so long. They are so overwhelming that people don't even want to reply That is probably your intention. For saying you didn't answer the question. That could also be one of the factors why your scores are so low.

    • My Esoteric profile image

      My Esoteric 

      6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

      Brad - "When did they take the cars away from potential DUI drivers?" - OH, I don't know, like when they failed their driving test?

      and "And neither of you two answer the questions, you cherry pick and try to give answers, but you take the easy ones." - That is not true and you know it. The fact is you don't read the answers or, if you do, you ignore them and repeat the question ad nauseum.

    • lovemychris profile image

      Leslie McCowen 

      6 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)