“A gun is a tool. The problem is the criminal.”

Wayne LaPierre

NRA President Wayne LaPierre appeared on Meet the Press today to respond to the media’s panning of the organization’s first public comments since the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary.

“I know there’s a media machine that wants to blame guns every time something happens,” NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I know there’s an anti-Second Amend industry in this town.”

Calling on Congress to immediately appropriate funds for school security guards, LaPierre said it would make every mom and dad feel better to have a “good guy” protecting children if “some horrible monster” tried to do something.

“If it’s crazy to call for putting police and armed security in our schools to protect our children, then call me crazy,” LaPierre said. “I think the American people think it’s crazy not to do it…I think that is the one thing we can do immediately that would make our children safe.”

LaPierre said gun control laws aren’t going to make children safe and that the NRA would not support reducing magazine capacity or similar measures.

“We don’t think it works and we’re not going to support it,” LaPierre said. “A gun is a tool. The problem is the criminal.”

That last comment is interesting, and a part that gets overlooked int he gun control debate.

There are a lot of assumptions being made in the media-stoked hysteria following the mass murder in Connecticut. One assumption is that violent crime, and mass murders in America, are getting worse. The other is that gun control can stop that trend.

The first assumption is demonstrably false. Mass murders peaked in 1929 (not coincidentally at the height of alcohol prohibition, perhaps a lesson for the “war on drugs”), overall violent crime in America is trending down and while death from guns are increasing, that has more to do with an increase in suicides than gun murders.

America is becoming less violent, not more. Fewer people are being murdered by other people with guns. These are facts.

As to the other assumption, where has gun control worked? Places like Chicago and Washington DC, which have some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation, also have some of the worst levels of crime committed with guns. Connecticut, specifically, has been held up as gun control advocates as a model of gun control policy for the rest of the nation, ranking at or near the top in lists of states with tough gun control laws. Yet, did that stop Adam Lanza and his murderous rampage?

It’s tiresome to hear those who point out these truths castigated, sometimes being called accomplices to armed gangs and mass murderers, for pointing out these truths. Gun control doesn’t work, and America’s trend is away from violent crime not toward it.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • WOOF

    See La Pierre go into apoplexy when it is suggested that the nation
    pay for armed school guards by taxing “tools”.
    Hate taxes, how bout fees ?

    • two_amber_lamps

      How about “tribute?” We know how much authoritarians such as yourself prefer the political/”intellectual” elite be placed on such a pedestal…. we’ll just call it their entitlement since every other redistribution of wealth is called this in a pathetic effort to legitimize theft.

    • $8194357

      How about jizya?

    • mickey_moussaoui

      the stimulus did nothing for the nation as a whole. The GM union bail out did nothing for the auto industry except save the union pensions at GM. Imagine if that money were spent on making schools more secure instead of bankrolling the teacher salaries. too little too late. obama has a vacation to take.

      • SusanBeehler

        So armed guards’ salary would take precedence over those “bankrolled” teachers. We could just put our children in prison to teach them, is this your idea of armed guard schools?

        • mickey_moussaoui

          Did I say that? NOPE. Stop playing the lib game of make believe statements. You aren’t cleaver enough for the ‘gotcha” argument.
          Our international rating of education accomplishment speaks for itself. Our teachers failed. I use you as an example.

        • donwalk

          What is the problem? It seemed to be a good solution for one of your esteemed leaders previously?

          Clinton Requests $60 Million to Put Cops in Schools.
          Liberals and Democrats (one and the same) have apparently
          forgotten that back in 2000, on the one-year anniversary of the Columbine shooting (which occurred with an assault weapons ban in place), President Clinton requested $60 million in federal money to fund a fifth round of funding for a program called “COPS in School,” a program that was to do exactly what the NRA is now proposing and what the media is now mocking:

          Liberals and Democrats are now attempting to convince parents that their children will be less safe with police officers in their schools.

    • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

      Speaking of gun control, Woofie, you were going to regale us with how gun control laws would have prevented the assassination of Milk & Moscone in SF, and how it imparted some unique knowledge to Di Fi as a result of it.

      • mickey_moussaoui

        Gun control didn’t stop Eric Holder and BarryObama from giving semi auto weapons to the Mexican drug cartels now did it

        • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

          Gee. Maybe if we’d just outlawed drugs first, there wouldn’t have been any need to sell them (give them) the guns?

    • 308T

      How about the Govt stops giving a billion dollars to illegal aliens in this country & use that money to keep it’s LEGAL children safe.

    • donwalk

      Nothing new being proposed here – Headlines from the past:

      Clinton Requests $60 Million to Put Cops in Schools
      Obviously, Liberals and Democrats don’t care how
      hypocritical they look.
      Liberals and Democrats (one and the same) have apparently
      forgotten that back in 2000, on the one-year anniversary of the Columbine
      shooting (which occurred with an assault weapons ban in place), President
      Clinton requested $60 million in federal money to fund a fifth round of funding for a program called “COPS in School,” a program that was to do exactly what
      the NRA is now proposing and what the media is now mocking:
      Liberals and Democrats are now attempting to convince parents that their children will be less safe with police officers in their schools, while B.O. and elite Liberals send their own children to schools with armed guards.
      Hypocrisy is quite evident to most citizens.

      • ellinas1

        Why it it that you believe everything you hear coming out of the Breitbart web site?
        A little research on your part will reveal the truth which is as follows:

        Clinton’s 1994 COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) program,
        which Republicans tried to kill in 1995 and Bush defunded, was not about armed cops carrying weapons into schools. It was part of a broader approach to decrease crime rates by getting police involved in their
        communities.

        “The original Clinton plan, enacted as part of a crime bill in 1994,
        envisioned hiring 100,000 police officers who would walk the streets,
        visit the schools and get to know the communities they were policing.
        The federal government paid 75 percent of the cost for three years, with
        a salary and benefit cap of $75,000 per officer.”

        It also included money for police departments to buy computers and
        other new equipment. Note: No one was paying the NRA with taxpayer money to train armed police in order to patrol our schools.
        It’s a shame that Nolte missed that part, because that part contributed
        to LaPierre appearing like a cold-hearted, greedy, out-of-touch man
        whose relationship with reality is now in question.

        Of course, Republicans were against Clinton’s COPS program back then.
        Republicans preferred to focus on punishing crimes and claimed to
        have issue with the federal government having any say over local
        government. It was a waste of money, they cried! They felt so strongly
        about this that it contributed to their shut down of government. Of course, the current proposal by the NRA is estimated to cost around $5.4 billion. This from the “fiscal hawks” who just hightailed it out of
        congress after failing to pass a budget plan out of alleged concern over
        spending.
        Obama started funding the COPS program again via the stimulus, at a
        time when police departments couldn’t afford to keep fully staffed.

        • donwalk

          “COPS in
          School” – a federal grant
          program started in 1999:

          The COPS in Schools (CIS) grant program is designed to help
          law enforcement agencies hire new, additional school resource officers (SROs) to engage in community policing in and around primary and secondary schools. CIS provides an incentive for law enforcement agencies to build collaborative partnerships with the school community and to use community policing efforts to combat school violence.

          The COPS in Schools program provides a maximum federal
          contribution up of to $125,000 per officer position for approved salary and benefit costs over the 3-year grant period, with any remaining costs to be paid with local funds. Officers paid with CIS funding must be hired on or after the grant award start date. All jurisdictions that apply must also demonstrate that they have primary law enforcement authority over the school(s) identified in their application, and also demonstrate their inability to implement this project without federal assistance. Funding will begin when the new officers are hired on or after the grant award date, and will be paid over the course of the 3-year grant period.

          In addition:
          http://www.copsinschools.org/Downloads/mou.pdf

          Excerpts from the L.A. Times, April 16, 2000
          Clinton Pledges Funds to Add Police to Schools
          WASHINGTON
          — Marking the first anniversary of the shooting deaths at Columbine High School, President Clinton announced $120 million in new federal grants Saturday to place more police officers in schools and help even the youngest kids cope with their problems.Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for “COPS in School,” a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities.

          Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: “A gun is a tool. The problem is the criminal.”

  • Guest

    Armed guards in every classroom. Mmmm. Smell the freedom.

    • two_amber_lamps

      Turn the US into one grand “gun-free zone”…. Mmmmm, Smell the freedom.

      Silly bolshevik.

      • Guest

        Damn government already took our personal nuclear weapons, land mines, and grenades. Not being able to kill hundreds of people in seconds is tyranny. Derp.

        Silly $hitehead b*tch.

        • two_amber_lamps

          Whazzamatter Comrade Douchebag? Nothing relevant to say so you go the route of argumentum ad absurdum?

          How wretched, even for you.

          Erp… derp.

          • Guest

            Ad absurdum cries the hypocritical, $hitheaded b*tch who asserts the US will be a gun free zone.

            How $hiteaded of you, how exactly like you. Especially not knowing how to use derp correctly to indicate sarcasm. It has been funny watching you mock your own beliefs with the term though.

          • two_amber_lamps

            The jury has found you guilty as charged… sentenced to a life of stupidity but as you are a leftist I guess you’ll just have to serve your sentences concurrently.

            God have mercy on your cretinous soul.

            Deeeerrrrpaaa- derp!

          • Guest

            The jury has found you guilty as charged… sentenced to a life of being a $hithead fat b*tch, but as you are a you’ve inflicted that severe punishment onto yourself already I guess you’ll just have to serve your sentences concurrently.

            God have mercy on your glutunous soul.

            Deeeerrrrpaaa- derp fat b*tch!

          • two_amber_lamps

            Oh how cute! Just like having a conversation with a 5 year old…. a mentally retarded one with tourrets syndrome to boot!

            Merry Christmas Godless leftist!

            Deeeeerpa-doo… pederast douche! :D

            http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Adph3CpmIns/TuZ1WtZ77nI/AAAAAAAADEw/rz8x7Y5oYAk/s1600/coal-stocking.jpg

          • Guest

            Oh how obese! Just like having a conversation with an enormous f@t c#$nt… a mentally disabled one who stench emanates even from her posts!

            Merry Christmas you total f*cking b*tch!

            Deeeeerpa-doo… ponderously fugly c*@nt! :D

          • two_amber_lamps

            “A “guest” is a tool. The problem is liberalism.”

            Excellent title for the sum of your existence eh toad?

            You know you really don’t have time to be trolling this blog since your line of derelicts and bar crowd really want their slurpies and Doritos. When you’re done with them, the women’s bathroom needs to get mopped, don’t forget to clean out the used tampon box.

            Get on it Comrade 7-11! Your chariot awaits!

            Erpa-deeeerp!

            http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41BbLqsk4BL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

        • $16179444

          your strawman is ridiculous.

          • Guest

            Dismissing the NRA’s proposal as a strawman, lol what a sh*thead. Way to shoot down their proposal moron.

        • donwalk

          But nothing was taken from B.O. or Elite LIberals?

          School Obama’s Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards.
          Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are
          used as a matter of fact.
          Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security
          officers.
          If you dismiss this by saying, “Of course they have
          armed guards — they get Secret Service protection,” then you’ve missed the larger point.
          Their children sit under the protection of armed guards, while these same Liberals and Democrats attempt to convince parents that
          their children will be less safe with police officers in their schools.
          Can you say or spell “Hypocrisy?”

          • Guest

            Yes, Obama’s children aren’t at special danger because of their status as the President’s daughters. There’s absolutely no difference between them and any other random individual’s children. You’re so smart. Derp.

          • donwalk

            What about the other Liberal Politicians and Media Liberals who are sending their children to the same school? Why are guns allowed at their school but not any others? B.O. and you Liberals have been preaching that everyone and everything should be fair and equal, so does that apply to everything except for the safety off the citizen’s children? Why was the proposal from Bill Clinton for placing guards in schools met with praise and applause, but now it is ridiculed and slammed? Guns are not allowed to protect the voter’s children because they are unsafe, yet guns are allowed to protect B.O.’s children, the media elite’s children and Liberal Politician’s children because they are safe for their children? At the least, hypocritical! At the most, class warfare and political elite protection. Either it is a safe practice and procedure, or it is not. Anything else is hypocritical! Campaign slogan: Fair and Equal – what happened?

            Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: “A gun is a tool. The problem is the criminal.”

          • ellinas1

            That is a private school.
            They can and do have armed guards.
            Class distinction and elitism did not end with the American independence. It continues even today…..the constitution and Bill of rights notwithstanding where we are all equal under the law.

          • donwalk

            Just because it is a private school doesn’t change the argument about the safety of guns or armed guards. Armed guards are good enough for the elite, but too dangerous for the common citizens? Is that what you call equal under the law?
            Wouldn’t you like to see B.O. stand up before the media and take that stand, i.e. “I can afford private school, therefore armed guards are OK for me, but not for thee!” If everyone is equal then everyone should be able to receive educational vouchers so their own children can go to private school – equal is equal!
            Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: “A gun is a tool. The problem is the criminal.”

          • ellinas1

            Does Narack Obama receive educational vouchers as you envision them?

            Like I said: Class distinction and elitism did not end with the American
            independence. It continues even today…..the constitution and Bill of
            rights notwithstanding where we are all equal under the law.
            Some people are more equal than others….that is the reality of our society.

          • Bat One

            And that is as it should be!

          • ellinas1

            My point, exactly.

          • Bat One

            Progressives have never been noted for their honesty, least of all Obama!

          • Bat One

            Class distinction and elitism did not end with the American independence. It continues even today.

            Nor should they have ended. The desire for more and better is a natural human trait, and it is what drives economic growth… if only liberal re-distributionist control freaks would stand aside and leave the individual freedoms of the rest of us alone.

          • ellinas1

            I was answering your conservative compatriot who was bitching and moaning about equality, and you find issue with me?
            Take it with the conservative that wants what the rich have…such as private schools with security.

    • $16179444

      do you have an issue that Obama’s kids have armed guards at their school?

      • Guest

        Yes, we should have armed guards for every single child in America, just like the Obama children since they aren’t any greater of a target as the President’s kids than any other child. Personal guards for every child are much better than reasonable gun regulation. You’re so smart. Derp.

    • donwalk

      Nothing new that hasn’t been proposed before!

      Clinton Requests $60 Million to Put Cops in Schools.
      Obviously, Liberals and Democrats don’t care how
      hypocritical they look.
      Liberals and Democrats (one and the same) have apparently
      forgotten that back in 2000, on the one-year anniversary of the Columbine
      shooting (which occurred with an assault weapons ban in place), President
      Clinton requested $60 million in federal money to fund a fifth round of funding for a program called “COPS in School,” a program that was to do exactly what
      the NRA is now proposing and what the media is now mocking:
      Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for “COPS in School,” a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money was to be used place 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities.
      Liberals and Democrats are now attempting to convince
      parents that their children will be less safe with police officers in their
      schools.

      • Guest

        Yup, the armed guard at Columbine certainly stopped that massacre. Derp.

        • donwalk

          Care to reply to the post about Clinton’s proposal in 2000, or just an expert at name calling? Care to explain why Clinton’s proposal was met with praise and applause, yet today’s proposal is mocked and ridiculed? Care to explain how you and B.O.’s “Fair and Equal” protection is not being applied, since B.O.’s children, numerous media elite children and numerous Liberal Politician’s children all attend schools where armed guards are allowed. Are guns only dangerous to the working class? How do guns distinguish between the working class children and the Political elite children? What happened to the Liberal Democrat campaign of “Fairness and Equal Treatment” for all?

          Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: “A gun is a tool. The problem is the criminal.”

          • ellinas1

            See above for the answer to your question.

        • ellinas1

          See above for the answer to your question.

      • ellinas1

        Clinton’s 1994 COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) program,
        which Republicans tried to kill in 1995 and Bush defunded, was not about armed cops carrying weapons into schools. It was part of a broader approach to decrease crime rates by getting police involved in their communities.

        “The original Clinton plan, enacted as part of a crime bill in 1994,
        envisioned hiring 100,000 police officers who would walk the streets,
        visit the schools and get to know the communities they were policing.
        The federal government paid 75 percent of the cost for three years, with
        a salary and benefit cap of $75,000 per officer.”

        It also included money for police departments to buy computers and other new equipment. Note: No one was paying the NRA with taxpayer money to train armed police in order to patrol our schools.
        It’s a shame that Nolte missed that part, because that part contributed
        to LaPierre appearing like a cold-hearted, greedy, out-of-touch man
        whose relationship with reality is now in question.

        Of course, Republicans were against Clinton’s COPS program back then.
        Republicans preferred to focus on punishing crimes and claimed to
        have issue with the federal government having any say over local
        government. It was a waste of money, they cried! They felt so strongly
        about this that it contributed to their shut down of government. Of course, the current proposal by the NRA is estimated to cost around $5.4 billion. This from the “fiscal hawks” who just hightailed it out of congress after failing to pass a budget plan out of alleged concern over spending.
        Obama started funding the COPS program again via the stimulus, at a
        time when police departments couldn’t afford to keep fully staffed.

        • donwalk

          Semantics;
          “COPS in School” – a federal grant program started
          in 1999:

          The COPS in Schools (CIS) grant program is designed to help
          law enforcement agencies hire new, additional school resource officers (SROs) to engage in community policing in and around primary and secondary schools. CIS provides an incentive for law enforcement agencies to build collaborative partnerships with the school community and to use community policing efforts to combat school violence.

          The COPS in Schools program provides a maximum federal
          contribution up of to $125,000 per officer position for approved salary and benefit costs over the 3-year grant period, with any remaining costs to be paid with local funds. Officers paid with CIS funding must be hired on or after the grant award start date. All jurisdictions that apply must also demonstrate that they have primary law enforcement authority over the school(s) identified in their application, and also demonstrate their inability to implement this project without federal assistance. Funding will begin when the new officers are hired on or after the grant award date, and will be paid over the course of the 3-year grant period.

          In addition:

          http://www.copsinschools.org/Downloads/mou.pdf

          Excerpts from the L.A. Times, April 16, 2000

          Clinton Pledges Funds to Add Police to Schools

          WASHINGTON — Marking the first anniversary of the shooting
          deaths at Columbine High School, President Clinton announced $120 million in new federal grants Saturday to place more police officers in schools and help even the youngest kids cope with their problems.

          Clinton also unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding
          for “COPS in School,” a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money will be used to provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities.

          Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: “A gun is a tool. The problem is the criminal.”

  • http://www.lp.org/ Mark Hinkle

    Oh great, a big government solution to a problem (gun free zones) created by big government. Yeah, that will work. NOT!

  • WOOF

    So that will generally be a NO on fees, licensing , taxing ,
    testing for competence on firearms like we do on cars or airplanes ?

    • borborygmi

      apparently not.

      • mickey_moussaoui

        ignorant

    • 308T

      Driving & flying are not Constitutional rights like owning guns, they are luxuries. I guess you wanting fees,licensing,taxing,testing & competency tests for the rest of our individual rights too? It’s because of asinine ideas like you suggest that this country needs to be divided by political affiliation.

      • WOOF

        Covered by the “well disciplined” part.

        • mickey_moussaoui

          we have 200 million legal licensed weapons in America. we also have 312,000,000 citizens. considering that we have had less than 13,000 gun related homicides in 2012 I would say that stats prove our citizens are very “well disciplined”

    • mickey_moussaoui

      I’m all for testing liberals on their constitutional knowledge in order to allow them to vote

  • Neiman

    I am amazed how the messengers of conservatism, in the past several decades cannot seem to express an intelligent thought gracefully, but rather seem intent on committing political suicide by ill chosen words and in giving the Left many ridiculous quotes to turn against them. LaPierre is hurting his own cause IMO in reacting as he did, when did we forget not to react in haste, lest we repent in leisure.

    Conservative politicians – shut up! Go somewhere and learn how to react slowly to events in which fast reaction is not demanded, only speak in the most concise sound bites that have been extremely well thought out in advance and very carefully consider what reactions those words will generate BEFORE speaking. My lord in heaven, don’t you conservatives get it yet? Yes liberal ideology is spiritually, morally and economically bankrupt, but they are very skilled sales people that make pig crap look like fine caviar, that is what they do, that is all they do, they sell lies and they are damn good at it. If conservatism is to survive, we need not compromise our values one iota, which are far superior to those on the Left, but dagnabit we have to learn how to sell the conservative brand much, much better and it starts with silence, staying away from the dang cameras and microphones, until we have refined our words and made them available in modern high speed, internet forms of conversation.

    I have been asking what price are you willing to pay for the illusion of safety in this lunatic, godless generation? I don’t get any direct answers, but it seems that sacrificing the 2nd Amendment to some degree and that by government regulation is gaining acceptance in both parties. Further, we seem to be willing to increase what I can only describe as a police state wherever we go, making body scanners into a cottage industry and cops on every corner the new normal. We also seem willing to sacrifice free speech, being subjected to warrant-less searches and detention at public buildings.

    The world is changing fast and it seems conservatives are greasing the liberal tracks to help them win.

    • Oswaldo

      From the Second Amendment: 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.

      For me that means the right to keep and bear arms ONLY in connection with operations within a well-regulated militia, i.e. regulated by the government.

      Way back, Alexander Hamilton; interpreting the Second Amendment, and discussing the make-up of a well-organized militia and the need for control and uniformity, stated, “This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority.”

      To say that the Second Amendment gives you the right to bear any firearms you wish without participating in a government-regulated militia is pure hogwash, conducive to the mass shootings we have been witnessing.

      Be reasonable. Let the government (representing the people) do its job of regulating the types of arms available on the market. It’s all right to have rifles for hunting or competitive target shooting, or even a handgun after obtaining a permit, none of which is specifically granted by the Second Amendment, but if you want to use an assault weapon, join the army. Gun control should focus on those weapons, and other fast-action firearms loading multiple cartridges currently available on the market. The NRA conveniently and irresponsibly avoided any reference to such weapons.

      • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

        This is hardly a new argument Oswaldo. The anti-gun left has been using it for some time. It was DC’s argument in the Heller case, and it lost for a number of reasons.

        For one, the militia at the time of our founding was the people, not some official National Guard as we think of it today. For another, look at the second clause. The right of the PEOPLE to keep and near arms. The 2nd amendment protects the individual right to keep and near arms so that the PEOPLE would be enabled to defend themselves and their communities if called upon.

        Which is exactly why the SCOTUS upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms in the Heller case and others,

        • Bat One

          The Court declared the right to keep and bear arms to be a “fundamental” and “individual” right. Period.

        • 308T

          Don’t be silly Rob, THE PEOPLE means the National Guard. Just like THE PEOPLE pertains to the National Guard in the other Amendments, right ;-)

          • Neiman

            “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.”

            Unfortunately for your argument, the 2nd Amendment gives “the people” the right to keep and bear arms, not the militia. In those days there was little to resemble a uniformed militia, it was private citizens called from their farms or business to fight against the enemy, then being part of that militia. It was every male and as many females that could shoot, the founders were not interested in a militia apart from all the people.

            So, it is a right given to “the people” or words have no meaning.

          • 308T

            Read my post again, I was being facetious. I assure you I’m fully aware the 2A is an individual citizens right & anyone who seriously tries to claim otherwise is either a total idiot or a complete liar…or both

          • Neiman

            Sorry, sometimes we read too fast and need to slow down. Thanks for pointing out my error.

          • 308T

            No problem I do the same thing sometimes.

      • Neiman

        One major drawback is that the Constitution does not allow the Congress, the only law making body of government, to make any laws (regulations) infringing on these enumerated rights. Each regulation violates that clause.

        The militia when written, was not made up of people in uniform, they were private citizens well armed that could be called to duty from their fields to help defend their land. So, the 2nd Amendment put those guns in the hands of the people and denied government the right to take them away or play any role in what weapon a man owned.

        Next, it is a partisan issue when regulation is involved, the party in power, run by frail, finite men and women will write regulations that they want and those in power do not want the people to have any power to resist the State.

        When we say no right is absolute, who decides its limits, partisan elected officials or the people? I think the founders of our nation invested that power with the people when it came to our fundamental rights. What weapons can be owned and used? Who decides? What seems reasonable to you may not be reasonable to me and to me it may seem to deny me my right to self defense and to resist tyranny. The issue divides people and sadly, that is what people on the Left, in government want – us to be divided, as a house divided cannot stand.

      • tony_o2

        For me that means the right to keep and bear arms ONLY in connection
        with operations within a well-regulated militia, i.e. regulated by the
        government.

        So you’re saying that they only intended for government operated militias to own firearms to protect us from these same government operated militias?

        Why would they include firearm possession in the Bill of Rights if they only considered possession to be a privilege granted by joining the military?

      • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

        “For me”

        And there lies the rub! Not in fact, but “for you”! How many other rights in the Bill of Rights are for individuals only in connection with particular activity? How many of them are for groups and not individuals? (The answers are “none” and “none”.)

        “but if you want to use an assault weapon, join the army. Gun control should focus on those weapons,”

        They did. In the National Firearms Act of1934. The semi automatic rifles you bleat about and want us to “focus on” are not “assault rifles”. The NRA has its facts straight. You conveniently and irresponsibly have no idea what you’re talking about. And as always, this has not prevented you from offering your ill informed opinion.

        Ill informed comments like yours are more like the hogwash you attribute to those who have their facts straight, but with whom you disagree.

        Be reasonable. Let the adults talk and you listen until you learn enough to make a rational contribution?

      • guest

        Even he knows better!

  • borborygmi

    Additional taxes on gun and ammo purchases to pay for private trained security guards now needed at our schools.

    • Neiman

      Punitive taxes on guns and ammo represent unconstitutional regulations and a violation of the 2nd Amendment. It cannot be constitutionally done, although your side has little regard for the Constitution.

      • SusanBeehler

        Change the constitution

        • Neiman

          That is the way our Founding Fathers wanted it, but don’t forget Susan there are always dangers involved, what may seem common sense to you may, if written poorly, cause even more problems.

        • Bat One

          Susan, If you can for just a moment put aside your determined insistence on banning that with which you have an admitted unfamiliarity and for which you have an obvious contempt, and think for a moment, please. The cliche is that when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. But cliches come to be cliche for a very good reason. So I wonder if you could identify for those of us who are skeptical of your anti-gun zealotry an instance or two when something has been banned by law and for which there has not developed a thriving, profitable underground market as a result of the ban. By contrast, I can name any number of products or services which, although banned, are readily available to anyone willing to take the risk and pay the price… from back alley sex to snuff films, from pot to opium, from theft or even murder for hire to a new kidney to internationally banned nuclear material. Banning something doesn’t eliminate it. It merely raises the price… and the profit.

          • two_amber_lamps

            B1 said: “Susan…. think for a moment”

            Bwahahahahahaahahahahaahahahaahaahahahaha….. hohehehehehahahahahahaha!

            Whooo! That was rich!

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            I just checked. Gawd! It’s so easy to feel I hate to think about it.

          • two_amber_lamps

            “Feel” is the seductive trap the leftists and right-center douchers fall into time and again. I have entirely too much respect for you to think you fall into that catagory sir….

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            I am reminded of Goethe’s “Faust” where Faust exclaims that “Feeling is all!!!” Then he goes on to wreak havoc on innocent people until the end of his life.

          • two_amber_lamps_psa

            In addition to the warning lights located in her username, this first public service announcement is to underscore the dangers of being a vile c@#nt like two_amber_lamps. Before making mean-spited, worthless posts such as the above, please reflect on two_amber_lamp’s trajectory toward a self-inflicted gunshot wound and funeral with none in attendance. While it is too late for two_amber_lamps, who will undoubtedly sit online continuing to mistakenly believe her virulent posts validate her life in meaningful way, but hopefully others can avoid such a pathetic life.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Lol…!!! Positively PRECIOUS!! Our favorite not-so-friendly 7-11 clerk is back for another round of “troll!” So let me guess… since google didn’t provide you a “snarky name generator” function you have to cut and paste someone elses… Congratulations… you have officially passed beyond mere Regurgitator of Google-Search.

            I’d call you a robot but even that’s a compliment. You’re much less than that….

            http://biblewalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/tin-windup.jpg

            Now quit playing on the interwebz… besides, the last group of juvenile delinquents made a mess of the soda fountain… and tracked slurpie juice up the snack aisle. Go earn your $7.25 an hour little buddy!

          • mickey_moussaoui

            well said Bat One. unfortunately, her eyes glazed over after you wrote “If you can”…
            stupid is terminal

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister
          • SusanBeehler

            So do nothing?

          • Bat One

            So, Susan, you can’t come up with some examples in which banning or prohibiting a something, a product, a service, an item or a substance, has NOT led to a high priced, profitable underground (or under-the-counter) market in that which was banned? No examples at all of effective banning or prohibition? Then why on earth would you believe that violating the FUNDAMENTAL and INDIVIDUAL rights of million of law-abiding firearms owners would be any more effective than any other prohibition in history? And why would you foolishly believe that individuals who are intent on committing murder are going to be inhibited by a law banning guns? Hmmm?

          • SusanBeehler

            Rick sorry I was celebrating the birth of Christ; examples: sudafed and the generics like it, here in North Dakota, liquor for those under 21. Maybe you are looking at the problem as a “black” market, I am not. I do not foolishly believe individuals will not commit murder if certain guns are banned or getting guns made more difficult even if it is increasing the price through a “black” market. How the act will be inhibited? It will not be as easy; people of today and by nature like instant gratification; the more hoops they have to jump, the higher the probability they will give up or choose a less effective weapon. Most criminals do not have real good impulse control, removing a gun from them gives them less opportunity to act on their impulse.

        • mickey_moussaoui

          ignorant….better to change your view

          • two_amber_lamps

            Ms. SuzyB’s view gets changed on occasion… when they roll her chair to another part of the institution anyways.

        • donwalk

          Go for it. We are happy and proud of our constitution, unlike you liberals who want to change it or invalidate it.

          • Bat One

            … Or worse, ignore it altogether, because to liberals the end justifies the means. and intentions are really all that matters anyway.

    • Spartacus

      Another suggestion could be to apply higher tax rates to those who vote for Democrats since they’re in favor of government playing a larger role in THEIR lives. Think that would fly?

      • borborygmi

        When kids at school start being mass murdered with knives taxes on them also. Status quo It is just good enough for Conservatives. A few kids killed at school just minor historical anecdotes.

        • Neiman

          You Liberals have the record for mass murder of children at over 50 million and your preferred method is scissors in the base of the skull, you know, stabbing them in the brain. You liberals don’t make them historical anecdotes, you call them zygotes and masses of tissue no different than a tumor. So I think just a little perspective is called for on your part. I guess you could tax your abortionists X amount per murdered child.

        • yy4u2

          http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/14/china-knife-attack-school.html

          Understanding that there are challenges in life and that central planners like yourself can’t build the perfect world according to your ideals has plagued politicians for decades. Probably should have linked to the Beatles “The Tax Man” as well.

        • mickey_moussaoui

          emotional knee jerk liberal response as expected.
          how about your messiah stops throwing good money away on stupid failed green energy boondoggles and instead spread the welth on something like improved security at our nations schools.

  • Spartacus

    There are already 15 million semi-automatic copies of the AR-15 in circulation, not to mention even more semi-automatic replicas of other military issued guns from around the world. Passing a law to stop further sales will do absolutely nothing to prevent gun crimes. The demand for stricter gun control laws is an emotional reaction that will accomplish nothing. Real solutions come from the head not the heart, this is lost upon brain dead twits like Liberals.

    • Neiman

      You may be surprised. Feinstein will introduce legislation after the 1st of the year, making certain weapons retroactively illegal and it being mandatory to surrender them. They want your guns – all of them. Like Cuomo making confiscation mandatory.

      • Spartacus

        Feinstein and Cuomo are already brain dead, they have nothing to lose. Let them personally try to take my rifles, I have shotguns too and know to always double tap zombies.

        The part that scares me is that they’re coming up with emotional reactions from an organ neither of them have.

    • SusanBeehler

      And this is why a buy back program with a ban maybe legislation introduced.

      • tony_o2

        You can pass legislation for a buy-back program. But it’s going to take a Constitutional Amendment, ratified by 3/4 of the States, to make a ban legal.

      • Bat One

        Of course it will be “introduced.” And even if it passed in the Senate, the chances of it passing in “the people’s house” are at best slim – Code Pink’s silly theatrics not withstanding. And even then, the lawsuit would be ready for filing in federal court before the ink on Obama’s signature was dry. And given what the Supremes have only recently ruled in Heller and McDonald, I can’t see that anyone who seriously believes that the Second Amendment means what it and the Court say it does, would be turning in any of their registered firearms – never mind the unregistered ones.

        Tony has it exactly right. And the gun-banners don’e have the 2/3 votes in Congress or 3/4 of the state legislatures. Nor do they have the patience to wait 10 years just to be turned down by the people they say they are trying to protect.

      • $16179444

        gun buy backs do nothing

  • silverstreak

    I am still amused by people that worry more about what a weapon looks like than what it is.
    My Remington 7400 30.06 (7.62x63mm)may not look bada$$ but looks are deceiving.
    The rounds that come out of the business end are the same stuff (just not armor piercing)that came out of Army Browning Automatic Rifles and 30 caliber machine guns for decades.
    Just like any legal so called assualt rifle,it will fire just as fast as I can pull the trigger.
    So…why should I really care what a weapon looks like?

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      So much anti gun sentiment comes from people who don’t know anything about them. They just have an emotional reaction based on what they think is true.

      • Bat One

        “Think” is probably the wrong verb,

      • SusanBeehler

        It is a shame the gun owners here refuse to discuss the differences and rather make fun of those who do not have as much knowledge of the vast different kinds of hand guns, rifles and their ammo.

        • mickey_moussaoui

          once again you make things up. What difference do you want to discus and LEARN about? Just ask. Maybe if you libs just asked first you would discover that we conservative have MUCH to teach you

        • $16179444

          then LEARN about them. duh.

        • donwalk

          Maybe you need to make an effort to obtain some knowledge, rather than live in ignorance?
          Or would you much rather have Liberal Politicians spoon feed you information so you won’t have to make an effort to learn something on your own?
          Thank you for admitting that you don’t know what you are talking about though. You are at least being honest in one respect.

    • tony_o2

      Once they bring back the assault rifle ban, they will use those facts to take away your hunting rifle as well.

      • silverstreak

        Libs are always saying that we should give back so I’ll start with the bullets

        “Those who hammer their guns onto plow shares will plow for those who do not.” (Thomas Jefferson)

    • mickey_moussaoui

      My BAR 308 semi is just as deadly even with it’s custom engraved wood stock. But don’t tell the libs, they have a fantacy to live.

      • silverstreak

        “A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone”
        (unknown)

  • SusanBeehler

    Our country does a better job in who can own a car and how a car is licensed than we do with guns. Both can be used as a “tool” to kill.

    • 308T

      Owning guns is a right, driving cars is a privilege. What license did you need to get in order to exercise your 1st & 4th Amendment rights?

    • mickey_moussaoui

      The DOT is a screwed up mess. You want that style of mismanagement to regulate guns? hahahahaha

    • Bat One

      If you mean that there are vastly more regulations regarding automobile ownership, registration, and operation than there are for firearms, you are correct. Of course, cars aren’t listed in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights as a fundamental and individual right, are they?

      But on the other hand, if you are talking about documented causes of deaths, all those vastly more regulations don’t seem to be helping much. In 2006, according to CDC, 43,664 were killed in automobile accidents, while there nearly 31,000 firearms related deaths of which 16,883 were suicides and 12,791 were homicides. And a preliminary report from CDC for 2011 lists 11,101 firearms related homicides and 19,776 gun related suicides (75% more!), as compared to 34,677 deaths due to motor vehicle accidents.

      While the number of deaths from both motor vehicle accidents and firearms are declining, the number of suicides by gun has increased even as the number of gun related homicides declined.

      People intent on banning guns like to point to the “frightening” number of guns in the US. But the rate of deaths per 100,000 guns – even including suicides – is far lower the the number of deaths per 100,000 cars, despite the vastly more laws and regulations you trumpeted.

      (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf)

  • Neiman

    To all those people that think regulating guns is the answer, please tell me who is it that will write those regulations limiting guns?

    By definition the only people that will be willing to write such legislation will have to be people that already want gun control, it is impossible to be otherwise; so it is the enemy of gun owners that will make all the rules.

    That is exactly why, IMO. the Founding Fathers were wise enough to say Congress shall make no laws infringing on our basic rights, they knew that only enemies of those rights would want to regulate them and thus take them away from the people for their own selfish interests.

  • SusanBeehler

    Here is what a gun,not a criminal did to this man. A gun manufacturer can continue to make a gun even though it was defective. What other “tool” is protected when found to be defective? We have 1000’s of people under the age of 30 who are injured according to the CDC, this is the gun, the tool, not the criminal which causes this damage. Which limb are you willing to give up to protect gun manufacturers? A protection or at least a consolation would be to allow victims of gun violence some form of court action to hold gun owners and or manufacturers responsible.

    • mickey_moussaoui

      Call OSHA. What you describe is a manufacturing issue related to one specific product. What you expect to be done is like banning all cars because one failed a safty test. bad analogy

    • mickey_moussaoui

      I know a person who was injured when a gas grill exploded. should we ban ALL gas grills now.

      • SusanBeehler

        Maybe that particular model should be banned. Congress hasn’t made a law which says you cannot sue gas grill manufacturers in 2005 they made a law which restricts the lawsuits which can be brought against gun manufacturers.

        • tony_o2

          If someone kills someone with a knife, can you sue the knife manufacturer? If someone kills someone with a bat, can you sue the bat manufacturer? So why is it that you should be able to sue a gun manufacturer if someone uses it to kill someone?

    • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

      “A gun manufacturer can continue to make a gun even though it was defective.”

      Any manufacturer can continue to make anything even though it was defective, if they are willing to risk the lawsuits, bad press and loss of customers. I believe the Ford Pinto continued to be manufactured after serious and deadly flaws were found with the gas tank.

      I think you may be having problem with the word “defective”, or maybe it’s just words in general. You seem to bring up a lot of baseless, meaningless points, Susan.

      • mickey_moussaoui

        bingo. lib logic ( loose description )

    • Spartacus

      Circular saws are tools which even if not defective are responsible for far more serious injuries than defective fire arms. Should the sales of circular saws be be regulated or banned too?

      • SusanBeehler

        “Far more serious injuries than defective fire arms” Say it ain’t saw, I love my circular saw? Really when was the last time a circular saw turned on and amputated a leg? When was the last time 20 children received 2 to 6 blows to the head from a circular saw? How many suicides are committed by a circular saw?

    • donwalk

      Your statement:

      “A protection or at least a consolation would be to allow victims of gun
      violence some form of court action to hold gun owners and or
      manufacturers responsible.”

      The law already allows court actions for negligence and reckless behavior and it not only applies to guns. You can include knives, hammers, egg beaters, rolling pins, weed whackers and anything else that might come up in your mind. Where would you like to draw the line on recourse for negligence?

      Are you making these statements honestly, or are you really as naive as your postings appear?

      • SusanBeehler

        If what you state is true than why did Congress pass an act to protect gun manufacturers. “The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), enacted in 2005, grants the firearm industry broad immunity from liability. The PLCAA not only prevents most people from receiving compensation for their firearm-related injuries, it erodes litigation’s ability to serve its public health role of providing manufacturers with a financial incentive to make their products safer.”

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          The PLCAA doesn’t make the gun industry entirely beyond liability. They’re still responsible for things that are actually their fault, such as injury or damages resulting from manufacturing flaws.

          What the PLCAA protects the gun industry from is being sued for the crimes people commit with their products. Which only makes sense (except, perhaps, to people like you). After all, wouldn’t it be silly to sue Ford every time a drunk driver runs someone over? Or every time a Ford vehicle is used in a bank robbery?

          • Lianne

            Rob, remember you are talking to a liberal. Of course, that would make sense in her mind. The accident would never have happened if the drunk driver hadn’t had access to the Ford.

        • donwalk

          The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products.

          However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible. A similar measure had been rejected by the Senate on March 2, 2004 after it had been combined with an extension to the assault weapons ban into a single piece of legislation. The final bill passed only after an amendment was added that mandated safety locks on handguns and after the assault weapons ban renewal had been prevented from being added onto the bill. Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: “A gun is a tool. The problem is the criminal.”

          • SusanBeehler

            Some guns are a problem and than criminals get their hands on them.

          • donwalk

            I have had a 357 for about twenty years now. Not once has it broke curfew, climbed out of its protective gun case and/or removed its trigger lock. How does a gun become a problem, or create a problem without the help of a human?
            Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: “A gun is a tool. The problem is the criminal.”

          • SusanBeehler

            I am sure the mom of the CT killer thought the same way until her face was blown away by it. Do you know where your gun is tonight, your ammo? Is it locked away, where no one can get it but you? I have been in homes where the gun owner keeps it in a drawer with the phone book in his unlocked home. They probably would not know it was even stolen right away.

          • donwalk

            Golly Gee!
            My 357 got up, walked out of the house and went partying without my permission. No one can get it but you?
            How do you know that the son did not break into the locks or the gun cabinet, or force the mother at knife point or through threats to unlock the cabinet? I understand that your answer is to prohibit guns period. What is next, knives, hammers, rocks, shovels, pitch forks? Just because you choose to live with intimidation and in fear doesn’t mean everyone else should. You cannot go through life trying to prohibit everything that could possibly hurt, maim or kill someone. You choose to ignore our constitution and/or change it and you have the right to make that effort, so go for it. If enough citizens choose to modify or change our constitution then I wouldn’t like it but I would live with it. In the meantime I choose to honor and live by the constitution that made this country great and I intend to use the 2nd amendment as I see fit and to use the 2nd amendment to protect my family. You can make your choice as well, but you are no supreme being or almighty god, so you have no right to try to dictate how others are to live, other than through legal and majority rules that do not violate our constitution.
            Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: “A gun is a tool. The problem is the criminal.”

          • SusanBeehler

            The problem is a criminal with a gun.

          • donwalk

            Without the criminal, there is no problem :).

            Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: “A gun is a tool. The problem is the criminal.”

  • mickey_moussaoui

    The solution is right in front of your face. Even the libs can’t see it. Obama and his minions can simply outlaw insanity and EVERYONE will be required, just like Obamacare, to fall into compliance. Everyone will fall into line and problem solved. No more crazy people killing innocent people. Damn, I deserve a czar position in this regime. Gimme 5 libs, YEAH, we did it, we solved all the problems. Let’s party in Hawaii with the Obama’s. WHOOOOO HOOOOOO

  • Neiman

    GET THIS ONE FOLKS – THE LIBERAL/MEDIA HATES THE CONSTITUTION

    NY newspaper runs interactive map with names, addresses of handgun-permit holders…

    The map indicates the addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties. Each dot represents an individual permit holder licensed to own a handgun — a pistol or revolver. The data does not include owners of long guns — rifles or shotguns — which can be purchased without a permit. Being included in this map does not mean
    the individual at a specific location owns a weapon, just that they are licensed to do so.

    http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-?nclick_check=1

    • Bat One

      An unintentional public service! Any potential thief or home invader with even a room temperature IQ will avoid those houses, as will any moderately intelligent liberal protesters. Thus lives are saved (the bad guys’ lives), as is the private property of the individual homeowner. And Westchester’s finest are saved the tedious paperwork that comes with the shooting death of a thief/home invader.

      • Neiman

        I understand that perspective, but I also see a terrible invasion of privacy by the media, a misuse of public information and giving aid and comfort to the forces dedicated to banning guns.

      • donwalk

        Or,
        The criminals will just wait until the homeowner’s are at their place of employment or somewhere else, then they will break in and help themselves to the home owner’s property rather than taking a chance on the gun being used by the homeowner to protect himself or herself.

  • Neiman

    GET THIS ONE FOLKS – AMERICANS WANT CNN REPORTER DEPORTED FOR SPEAKING OUT AGAINST OUR RIGHTS

    More than 60,000 sign petition urging deportation of Piers Morgan after he told millions of viewers why they should
    ban assault rifles

    Tens of thousands of people have signed an online petition calling for British CNN host Piers Morgan to be deported from the U.S. over his gun control views.

    Morgan has demanded tighter U.S. gun laws following the Sandy Hook massacre and last week on Piers Morgan Tonight, he interviewed a gun advocate and called him an ‘unbelievably stupid man’.

    On December 21, a man in Texas launched a petition on the White House e-petition website demanding Morgan be deported immediately for ‘exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens’.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252907/Tens-thousands-sign-petition-deport-Piers-Morgan-gun-control-views.html#ixzz2G0qlZMKk

    In response to the petition, Jeremy Clarkson, the British Top Gear presenter, added on Twitter: ‘Americans. It took us 40 years
    to get rid of Piers Morgan. Pleease don’t send him back.’

    Morgan will have to do more than express an opinion to get booted out the country, immigration attorney Mark Schifanelli told ABC News.

  • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

    The racist basis of the Sullivan Act and the prevalence of illegal firearms in other countries: http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-always-bred-defian

  • Yogibare

    Readers: look into this bit of news! On the Sunday show David Gregory waved a gun clip around (extra size capacity) telling the transgressions of the “gun people”.

    He was breaking the law by having this clip in his possession in the D. C. area. Plus the people who got it for him broke the law.

    So, are we going to see the law enforcement people go after Gregory?

    Another interesting point. The wife of Gregory is a woman named Wilkerson; a lawyer who has had some interesting jobs in the D. C. area including a 2 year stint with Fannie Mae in the years 2006 thru 2008; this is just before the crap hit the fan at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    Check it out on Wikipedia. Interesting how the liberal press and media seem to omit these details from their “full disclosure” as they give us the news.

  • SusanBeehler

    The day after Christmas; the year 1944; a 16 year old boy borrowed a friend’s rifle to go rabbit hunting. Little did he know the gun he borrowed was defective. As he rode horseback with his friends,the rifle in a shoulder harness; the gun discharged. He thought the horse was shot, but dismounting he found it was himself that had been shot. That 16 year old boy’s life was altered forever. He lost his leg. That boy grew to be a man and he became my father. His attitudes towards guns changed too. Guns are a tool which can kill and maim, yet the attitude and the laws allow us to pass them around like Christmas cookies to share. We can do better and we should.

    • Lianne

      Susan, life is messy. It is not perfect. Accidents happen. I am glad your father lived. He could have just as easily been bucked from the horse and died from a head injury.

  • Alex

    Gun control is a huge issue, I live in California and I know
    that there are so many people here who own guns. I honestly think, like the article
    stated, the gun is a tool for people to use if they are ever in a situation
    that is compromising their lives. I do also agree with the fact that there is a
    lot of gun violence and it is really pretty unnecessary. What we should do is
    put more restrictions on people that will make it difficult for people to
    purchase guns. Some people are mature and know how to handle their weapons and
    there are some who have no clue. If you are living in California and have been
    a victim of gun violence in any way, you might be entitled to compensation,
    which you won’t know for sure unless you look into getting Los Angeles criminal defense attorney.

    • Alex

      Gun
      control is a huge issue, I live in California, I
      honestly think, like the article stated, the gun is a tool for people to use if
      they are ever in a situation that is compromising their lives. What
      we should do is put more restrictions on people that will make it difficult for
      people to purchase guns If
      you’re in California and are a victim of gun violence,
      you might be entitled to compensation, you
      should look into getting a Los Angeles criminal defense attorney”

  • David

    Gun control is a huge issue, I live in
    California and I know that there are so many people here who own guns. I
    honestly think, like the article stated, the gun is a tool for people to use if
    they are ever in a situation that is compromising their lives. I do also agree
    with the fact that there is a lot of gun violence and it is really pretty
    unnecessary. What we should do is put more restrictions on people that will
    make it difficult for people to purchase guns. Some people are mature and know
    how to handle their weapons and there are some who have no clue. If you are
    living in California and have been a victim of gun violence in any way, you
    might be entitled to compensation, which you won’t know for sure unless you
    look into getting a Los Angeles criminal defense attorney. http://www.nocuffs.com

Top