What do you think of this commentary?

Poll choices
Posted 9 months.

22 Comments

  • Adam R. - 9 months ago

    J.L...... I am so happy that there folks like you that can speak eloquently about this. I can't unfortunately. Im so pissed off at the ignorance of the people who will back the government on such stupid rhetoric. The states you named off that have such high crime rates are the ones with the most God awful "gun laws"! Why in the hell a person with any common sense would live in a place like that I have no idea. I reckon there just happy being sheep, to bad there getting led to slaughter.

    I have enough land or know enough people and friends like me that there is no way in hell the government could find a cash of our gun's if we really decided to hide them, no way. Guns we use to hunt with, guns we use to enjoy target shooting, or competitions with, and guns we unfortunately need to have for home protection and legal concealed carry. I say unfortunately because it would be wonderful if we didn't need them for protection, but we do. From the criminals of this great Country and evidently the Government. Alot of these people are misled by the media. The media thrives on death, destruction, lie's, & hate! They don't bring news, they bring hatred for anything that doesn't swing left, to there "agendas" a 30 minute news show has 29 minutes of all that I listed above and one 60 second clip of the day?????? What the hell is wrong with that!

    Thank you J.L for not coming off like I do.... For I am so sick and tired of this mess that all my patience are GONE!

  • J. L. Jared - 9 months ago

    BREAKING NEWS: Seventy-Two Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation In Maryland
    National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

    Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.

    Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.

    The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.

    Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.

    One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”

    Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.

    During a tense standoff in the Lexington town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists.

    Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.

    Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.

    Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.

    Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large.

    And this fellow Americans, is how the American Revolution began, April 20, 1775.

  • J. L. Jared - 9 months ago

    A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

    Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    56 million defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:

    You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

    Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

    Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

    The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

    With guns, we are "citizens". Without them, we are "subjects".

    During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

    If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends.

    SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
    SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
    SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
    IT'S A NO BRAINER!
    DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

    Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

    It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us.

    You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people.

  • J. L. Jared - 9 months ago

    Part 2...
    The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."

    Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is “control," not “gun."

  • J. L. Jared - 9 months ago

    There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

    • 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
    • 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
    • 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
    • 3% are accidental discharge deaths

    So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
    • 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
    • 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
    • 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
    • 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

    So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

    This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

    Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

    Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

    But what about other deaths each year?
    • 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
    • 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
    • 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

    Now it gets good:
    • 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

    • 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides......Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

    So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
    Taking away guns gives control to governments.

    The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

    Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

    So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, be

  • Adam. R - 9 months ago

    The fact is you can preach about "sensible gun control" till ya damn blue in the face, the one's making out these laws will leave you defenseless. If your claiming to be a "gun owner" but want "gun control" your a idiot! You will be standing there looken like a fool whenever these jackass politicians send the law to confiscate your one or two guns that you have for protection.

    We have a damn plenty of "gun laws" on the books now. We NEED NO MORE!!!!! Enforce the freaking ones we have!!!!!! There is no such thing as a "loophole to get a weapon, either its a legal sale on it's not. The loophole B.S was made up buy gun grabbing politicians, are they going to provide security for your ass if you run up on a nut wanting what you worked hard to get???? No they aren't, soon as the free people are disarmed they will rule us like we have never seen before. Get yalls heads outta your asses people!

    I WILL NOT GIVE UP ANY MORE OF MY RIGHTS! I do everything by the letter of the law! I have not as much had a speeding ticket in 21 years! I shure as hell ant out drinking or doing drugs but I am the one to get punished, BULL CRAP! It takes the sheriffs between 5 to 18 minuets to get to my home, if some criminal is busting in who don't give a damn about any law and happens to be armed and I am limited by a mag cap, or something else like a single shot or God forbid TOTALLY STRIPPED OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS am I to cuss them??? " Oh you better not break in.... its against the law, wonder how long that would keep them out? I have a 11 year old little girl that NOTHING is going to happen to if I can help it and by God if that means keeping 4 or 7 or 50 weapons in a safe where I can access them quickly enough to provide protection to my family and myself then I will!

    I bust my ass, I pay my taxes, I am 41 and own my on home, 56 acres of land and provide a very good life for my kid. I am just as important to my family as any governor, senator, or house rep. They have armed guards, police escorts, and live in gated, community's. That sounds like a prison to me. I live in the country, in the woods and don't bother a single person but we get punished, reprimanded, called rednecks, hillbillies, ignorant, gun freaks and damned racist by left wing political parties and kids who haven't even gotten outta mama & daddy's house.

    I don't tell you what cars to drive. Who needs a car or truck with 500 hp that will run 3 tims the speed limit. I don't. So hell lets ban them.

    Who needs Scotch whiskey? Hell I dont drink.... Need to ban that crap right now, to many folks getting killed drinking and driving.

    Who need a Mc Donalds? I cook my on food that crap in fast food restaurants will make ya fat and give you a heart attack. Gotta get rid of ALL them. Ban them now!!!!!

    Don't need cellphones, I lived fine without them my whole time in high school and college. Texting and driving and taking on the phone and driving is killing to damned many kids!!!!!! Ban it now!!!!!

    See just how STUPID that sounds. Just because I have simi auto pistols or simi auto rifles do not make it any more dangerous then getting on American highways and driving daily. That just straight B.S. saying that you want something banned that has not affected you just because your mad, your scared of it cause it looks "scary" or your just misinformed about it by.... oh.... David Hog who has about as much a clue about life as a rock. Or what your local left wing snowflake told you is asinine. Folks are scared of what they dont understand. If you don't understand it learn about it, hell go rent one at a fun range and have a good time shooting at target's.

  • Moirraine - 9 months ago

    California what happened to you?

    When will you stop voting for the very people who are causing these massacres?

    And you who are mourning your dead loved ones, when will you comprehend that you are railing against an inanimate object when you should be training your children to defend themselves?

    You are slaves, those of you who decided to give away any right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, - hmmm... Constitutions, state and federal, aren't being taught in states, especially those who decide to give away their rights, their life and their liberty to mentally ill people who can steal a gun and even worse, to those in offices and agencies who are protecting THEMSELVES WITH GUNS!

  • Adam... not the other one. - 9 months ago

    I'm not the Adam above we only share the same 1st name.
    anyone here who is taking the time to read this, thank you for actually taking the time to do so.
    Please walk into your local gun range, and ask if they have gun safety classes.
    Get to know everything you can, and ask questions.

    Please for the love of God, research all the facts regarding attempted mass shootings (5+dead seems quite low for the term but hay it is what it is) that were stopped by people who had guns ON THEM before the attack happened, and were able to act to stop the killer.

    Steven Crowder did an interview with the gentleman that decreased the texas Baptist Church shooting.... please watch the full interview.
    Now imagine how every "mass shooting" could have been decreased had more then 10 people with guns were there... you need to account for tactical advantages, to put a killer down not in a matter of minutes but a matter of how long it takes to duck behind cover, draw and shoot back.

    Here's a thought experiment, that from gun safety training we don't talk about because it is very morbid, but it's still something we go over, in a simulation, or if you wish to use any video game to simulate what tactics work to take down a indiscriminate killer. Those types of idiots are the ones that turn picnics on a beautiful weekend, into literal war zones: how can you stop someone, from a distance ASAP, before cops arrive to do the very same thing?

    So here's the thought experiment:
    you are in a building, a dead end, and there's only two ways out... a body bag, or the front door through a murderer. When being assaulted with a deadly weapon, you can run, hide/ block, or attack... precisely like Chess (which represents war) ... this idiot just turned the walls you're trapped in, into a war zone, and you are an unexpected (tactical advantage of surprised attack) unwilling participant.
    With no way out except Through the killer.

    That is the condition represented, for a concealed carrying individual would be in, before they upholster their gun, and aim with the finger off the trigger until they are ready to destroy the assailant, then fire... to defend their own life until the cavalry in blue arrive: carried by 6, or judged by 12... would you rather be dead, or be alive sitting in a trial determining beyond a reasonable doubt that you were in self defense mode... instead accused as the attacker.

    Now I'lll add more complexity:
    I'll place a table of guns in front of you, a killer is coming around that corner any time now.. between 1-15 minutes as you hear him shooting.

    If you want any gun bans, the table and guns disapear.

    Any law you wish to enact, must be fulfilled before you can touch a gun on that table.
    If you want a two day waiting period... well, you can't touch that table or guns for two days.

    If you wanted background checks NICS, with the chance people with records banning them from buying guns, might actually not be put in the data base, that check bust be completed before this killer comes around the corner.

    I will allow one benefit of having the knowledge, and training, and motor skills, muscle memory, before we start the clock.

    Any law you wish to enact must be enforced, and accomplished between when we start the clock, to just before the killer comes around that brick corner, before you can touch that gun, cocked locked ready to rock, with extra magazines.

    If for any reason you feel free to use the emotional plea bargaining chip: "Please will somebody please think of the children!!!" --- a ploy used by the Romans to sway women of a town to be conquered, to get the Women to convince the men to fight for Rome, while they were at another war.

    If you use that tactic... now they are right behind you.

    Here's the real test, you can only answer this using mathematics, and the laws of Physics.

    If you fail to save one life, you can't enforce that law.

  • Adam - 9 months ago

    @Bill

    You said: "There are 300 millions plus guns in America, and I would say many more magazines to go along with that. An outright ban will just remove them from law abiding citizens who are willing to give them up. You think criminals or anyone wishing to do harm cares that they're breaking another law?"

    You seem to be arguing that we've already gone past the point of return with guns. Maybe that's a fair argument (even though I respectfully disagree), but it also sounds a little bit like "there's no solution to this problem, so we shouldn't even try". People are dying from guns. People's kids and loved ones. Sure, the people committing these crimes are the real problem. I get that. But empowering them with tools that cause more damage adds fuel to the fire. We may not stop all the shootings, but we might diminish their impact if we try. American doesn't have a disproportionate level of mentally unstable people per-capita when compared with other developed countries, but we do have a disproportionate level of gun-related crimes. We also have a disproportionate level of civilian gun ownership when compared with other countries. I understand that correlation doesn't always equal causation, but those two data points sure do raise some eyebrows.

    As for criminals, I'm sure they'll still continue to have guns. Hopefully law abiding citizens are trained well enough to stop a "bad guy with a gun" without requiring the use of an extended magazine or a bump stock. Luckily for you, my whole point wasn't about banning guns. In fact my point was the fact that this article frames a debate about guns vs no guns, which no meaningful legislation is attempting to do to my knowledge.

  • Adam - 9 months ago

    Will, my comment about automatic weapons was that it IS a reasonable restriction. And so too should be extended magazines and background checks (without loopholes). I know that they are already restricted. The fact that those types of weapons are already restricted shows that we've decided that some lines should be drawn between the kinds of weapons that should be allowed for defense vs those that should not. My argument is that allowing for extended magazines and bump stocks are products that attempt to sidestep the spirit of the laws we've already agreed upon.

  • Jacen - 9 months ago

    Now i am still a kid who lives in Texas, but i know for a fact it does not take a genius to put 2 and 2 together, and see that no defense makes for an easy prey.

  • Bill - 9 months ago

    @gunowner

    If he wanted to he would've have been able to own an AR also. Handguns are harder to purchase due to concealability factor. Bullets are bullets. Doesn't matter if it's 9mm or 5.56mm. It doesn't matter if it's from a handgun or rifle. If it hits the right places it will do the damage it's intending. none of the useless laws that California has regarding the rifle would've don't a thing to stop this guy. Bullet buttons, pistol grips, barrel length, mag locks are all a joke. It looks like most of you pro gun control guys have not researched what you're talking about but regurgitating what some "expert" says on the news.

  • NA - 9 months ago

    He did have a semi automatic. It just wasn't an AR15. It was a simple Glock. Gun control is people control. Plain and simple. Can't control a population that can fight back. Just ask any dictator.

  • Gun Owner - 9 months ago

    Erich thanks to CA laws rhe Borderline shooter didnt walk in with an AR-15 and kill 100 prople. Ever think of that, champ?

  • Will - 9 months ago

    Adam, there are already huge limitations on things like automatic weapons. The very fact that some of you still trot out the "automatic weapons" bit is telling that you don't know what you're talking about.

  • Rick - 9 months ago

    I have left guns on top of my fridge, next to The cookies, carrying on my belt, next to my wallet, none of these items have harmed myself or anyone else. WHEN ARE YOU PEOPLE GONNA GET IT!?!? GOD YOUR THICK!! California has a SUMMARY OF 108 GUN LAWS! NOT INCLUDING COUNTIES AND CITY ORDINANCES !! THERES AN ARMED GUARD IN ALMOST EVERY BANK, ARMORED CARS WITH ARMED GUARDS IS ANY OF THIS SINKING IN???.??

  • Bill - 9 months ago

    The problem with more laws is that it laws in itself is a slippery slope. You say it's not about guns vs no guns. But, limit magazine capacity to 10 like i California, and another attack happens, limit it to 5, another attack happens, let's limit all but muskets...see where this is going? There are 300 millions plus guns in America, and I would say many more magazines to go along with that. An outright ban will just remove them from law abiding citizens who are willing to give them up. You think criminals or anyone wishing to do harm cares that they're breaking another law? No one is using automatic weapons here. Unless you have a bolt action high powered rifle, or a shotgun it's 95% of the time all rifles or handguns are going to be semi automatic only.

  • Erik - 9 months ago

    It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Reasonable Controls.

  • Adam - 9 months ago

    The framing of this opinion piece is misleading from the outset. Reasonable gun control measures aim to limit access to guns by those that should not have them, and they intend to ban the sale of products that turn weapons used for self-defense into weapons that empower these types of events. Limitations on extended magazines, bump stocks, or automated weapons are reasonable measures, but the debate always gets twisted into guns vs no guns, which no meaningful legislation intends to do. This article frames a scenario that isn't on the table, and slippery slope arguments are philosophically lazy at best.

    Furthermore, it's silly to point to any given state's record on gun violence in this country when neighboring states have completely different laws. It's a 4 hour drive from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, where gun laws are completely different, yet there are no border checks when re-entering California. Until meaningful gun control measures are federal, we'll never be able to look at state data to tell us anything. All we can do is look to comparisons against other countries, where nationwide policies can tell us something.

  • Mikem - 9 months ago

    You are right Bill - should have said he had an extended magazine which California tried to block. California is trying its best with gun laws - but until all states do so there will always to be ways to get them. Sure driving a truck is another option for someone - but why not try to stop what is happening now. Does someone really need a semi-automatic - for vanity sakes? Seriously - these things are happening so frequently now we have people now who are victims of multiple mass shootings.

  • Bill - 9 months ago

    Mike, the weapon he used was a semi auto. 99.9% of civilians are unable to own fully automatic weapons which is what I believe you're describing. If he wanted to steal a dump truck and ram it into the building, he would also kill scores more. Instead of have 1 to 2 expected arm professionals, what if there Were 1 or 2 surprise concealed carry holders there? That is a force multiplier the shooter would not expect.

  • Mike - 9 months ago

    How many more people would have died if the shooter had a semi automatic? I would think the people that did survive because he didn’t wouldn’t think the California gun laws were silly - would you if you were in that situation - honestly? What happened to the armed professional that did show up?

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment