Dems kill assault weapons ban

Forget that in a poll only two months ago, 74% of Americans supported a ban on assault weapons.

That’s just not enough support for Democrats in Congress.  If the NRA and their vassals, the Republican party (and conservative Dems), say you won’t pass any gun control even over the dead bodies of twenty school kids, then who are we, 74% of the country, to disagree with them.

Democrats in the Senate today killed the assault weapons ban that had passed earlier in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  According to the Washington Post, it was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who killed the ban, likely because he feared the overall legislation wouldn’t pass with the ban in there, but then again, Reid is pro-gun, and just until his last election, a close friend of the NRA.  So it’s entirely possible that the Democratic leader had multiple motives for pulling the plug on the popular provision.

(And don’t believe anyone’s assurances that the assault weapons ban will be permitted to come up as an amendment.  That’s how they kill things they don’t like in the Senate – like helping gay couples in immigration reform.  They strip you from the bill, then tell you that you’re free to offer an amendment later, knowing that it’s 100 times harder to get a provision into the bill than to strip it out.)

Zack Beauchamp at ThinkProgress did a list of the top 8 NRA-backed Democrats in the Senate who were blocking gun control efforts, particularly the President’s post- Sandy Hook initiative, and Reid was in that small list.

kid with gun

Kid with gun via Shutterstock.

Other NRA-enablers include Max Baucus (D-MT, a usual sell-out on anything that involves big-monied lobbyists knocking at his door (see health care reform)), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND, new to the Senate, but quickly learning the game of selling out to the highest bidder, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Mark Begich of Alaska, Joe Manchin of West Virginia (what hasn’t Manchin sold out on?), and Jon Tester of Montana.

As always with Democrats, the lack of nerve is often mixed with a lack of support for the underlying proposal.  Democrats like Baucus weren’t just bad on health care reform, they didn’t want it in the first place.  So it’s really a two-fold problem we tend to face with Democrats; a lack of guts; and a distaste for progressive proposals, regardless of how popular they are.

That last point, about Dems just not being that into us ideologically, reminds me of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal debate.  For the longest time, Democrats claimed they were on our side, but it sure felt like they were afraid to even try to do the right thing.  Our then- deputy on the blog, Joe Sudbay, coined the term “political homophobia” to describe this apparently fear of Democrats to follow through on pro-gay promises that were getting 70% support in the polls.

But the Democratic fear of doing the right, and popular, thing isn’t just limited to gay rights.  Clearly it permeates the gun debate, in addition to climate change, immigration reform (until the Republicans blinked, at least in the Senate, out of fear for their future electoral prospects in a country increasingly-Latino), abortion, Wall Street Reform, and really pretty much every progressive issue.

Remember when George Bush and the Republicans kept accusing Democrats of embracing far-left positions, like withdrawal from Iraq, when the majority of the public agreed with us?  Or that “crazy socialist” notion of passing a public option in health care reform, that was “only” supported by 70% of the American public?

boy with gun kid child

Boy with gun via Shutterstock.

In contrast to Republicans, who really are being sunk by their own bad ideas (you really can’t hate women, blacks, gays, and latinos and expect to win a lot of elections), in the case of Democrats, its their spine and their marketing, which is affected by their lack of spine. Democrats really are the kings of not trying to effectively sell a position, then claiming that the position’s low support in the polls means it’s a bad idea.  Maybe.  Or maybe it would be a good idea if you just did a better job explaining it to people?

Health Care Reform is probably the best recent example of this conundrum.  I think my favorite poll of late was from Newsweek showing that the public hated “health care reform,” but loved what was in the legislation. In other words, Republican messaging won the day – “health care reform” was a “bad” idea – but when you asked people about the details of the legislation, and didn’t tell them that the proposal was actually in the health care reform bill, they loved it!

When asked about Obama’s plan (without being given any details about what the legislation includes), 49 percent opposed it and 40 percent were in favor. But after hearing key features of the legislation described, 48 percent supported the plan and 43 percent remained opposed.

The NEWSWEEK Poll asked respondents about eight health-care-reform provisions that Obama and many Democrats in Congress have generally supported. It found that the majority of Americans supported five of those provisions, three by particularly large margins. Eighty-one percent agreed with the creation of a new insurance marketplace, the exchange, for individual subscribers to compare plans and buy insurance at a competitive rate. Seventy-six percent thought health insurers should be required to cover anyone who applies, including those with preexisting conditions; and 75 percent agreed with requiring most businesses to offer health insurance to their employees, with incentives for small-business owners to do so.

Of course, Democrats see that the public opposes health care reform, deem it a “loser” issue (like the stimulus), run from it, and the polling gets even worse, causing more Democrats to run from it.  The “badness” of health care reform becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, when in fact, the proposal wasn’t bad, the selling it of was.

child gun control

Child with gun via Shutterstock

The pro- gun control side of the argument has been gravely wounded over the past decade and a half.  Democrats clearly consider it a loser issue, while Republicans, along with conservative Dems and their buddies in the NRA, seem to have no shame in loosening gun laws even further, to hell with this country’s near-fetish with violence as compared to the rest of the developed world.

It’s time for gun control advocates to lose their shame, and start demanding the legislation they want, and that America needs, regardless of how much it ticks off their supposed friends in the Democratic party.  It’s often the only way to win.


Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

203 Responses to “Dems kill assault weapons ban”

  1. Josh Apple says:

    I never called for armed insurrection only to be left alone to live my life under the spirit and principles set forth by the Founding Fathers and to not have my freedoms chipped away by Liberals looking for feel-good legislation which in the end accomplishes nothing.

  2. citizen_spot says:

    LOL!! Regarding your “reference” material, the 90’s called and they want their web design back. Again, best of luck to you and your ragtag team of gruff but lovable troo patriots as you raise arms against the tyranny of the evil gubmint. I suspect it will go about as well as the Whiskey Rebellion. Don’t shoot your eye out, m’kay.

  3. Josh Apple says:

    “First YOU restricted YOUR definition of a “well regulated militia” based on the definition of the time period, not as one would define a “well regulated militia” now.”

    Sure lets do that. “The United States Code (the laws of Congress) states in 10 USC 311(a) that, “The Militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…” The US Supreme Court ruled in US v. Miller that when called into action the militia was to show up “bearing arms supplied by themselves…” Black’s Law Dictionary defines militia as, “The body of citizens in a state” and not the “regular troops of a standing army.” The militia is distinctly different from the National Guard or the US military forces.” So the militia is the average public with their own guns ready to defend their particular area of the country.
    Source: http://www.foundingfathers.com/militia.htm

    “I suggested that you must then also keep the definition of arms in the 2nd amendment to the definition of the time period.”

    Let us do that too. The arms of the period were the same arms as provided to the Continental Army. So in that vein of thinking then each American should have the right to their own fully automatic M4 rifle with as much in the way of 30 round magazines and ammo as they can carry, plus handguns, large knives, bayonets, and hatchets. The flintlock rifle and musket were the combat weapons of the Founding Father’s as the M4 rifle and M9 handgun is in ours. I like the way you think except I would trade a Glock pistol for the Beretta M9 and an AK47 for the M4.

  4. citizen_spot says:

    I see that my mockery of your ridiculous position regarding the definition of a well regulated militia was too subtle for you. Let me explain.

    First YOU restricted YOUR definition of a “well regulated militia” based on the definition of the time period, not as one would define a “well regulated militia” now.

    You wrote: “The problem is the phrase has changed meaning over the years and when
    reading and discussing the wording in the 2nd Amendment you must look to
    the intent of those that wrote the Amendment and keep to the definition
    of the time period.”

    Using your “logic” (not mine), I suggested that you must then also keep the definition of arms in the 2nd amendment to the definition of the time period. After much yargle blargle about the 1st amendment, you then eventually claim that the Constitution is a living breathing document that adapts to the modern world (unless of course, that conflicts with your definition of militia, then it has to be as defined at it was at the time). Clearly you are contradicting your own positions, also known as cherry picking what you want to support your ideas regarding the 2nd amendment. But hey, best of luck with your future armed rebellion against the “Tyranny” that is infringing your rights in your fantasy world. Don’t shoot your eye out Ralphie!

  5. Josh Apple says:

    “You can’t cherry pick which Constitutional rights you think are applicable to today.”

    And yet, you did when you wrote this:

    “when reading and discussing the wording in the 2nd Amendment you must look to the intent of those that wrote the Amendment and keep to the definition of the time period”.

    How so? The Amendment states that “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. You are the one who wishes to restrict arms as “defined as black powder muskets and flintlocks”. The Founders realized that the technology would continue to advance and that the arms available to the people would likewise increase, in amount and power. By letting the law abiding citizens own semi-auto rifles, handguns, modern day shotguns, revolvers, and other misc. firearms the spirit of the 2nd Amendment is still being honored. The Constitution is a living breathing document that adapts to the modern world while maintaining the spirit of the law that our Founding Fathers intended. I wonder if your same strict/concrete definition of the 2nd applies to the 1st? No more computers, cell phones, smart phones, TV, radios, eBooks, etc. No more interesting conversations on the internet in comment sections. I would be hard pressed to imagine George Washington tweeting or updating his Facebook page.

  6. Josh Apple says:

    I don’t care about polls. As I said “the opinions of .0003226% of the American population” is less than a drop in the bucket, more like a half a teaspoon. I don’t care about the results of Conservative polls, Liberal polls, NRA polls, or Brady polls. Taking a super tiny slice of America and passing judgment on a Federal level on issues that touch the lives of all Americans is irresponsible at the least and probably damn near criminal. This is a Republic not a Democracy and it should be run as such.

  7. Josh Apple says:

    “So background checks, registration and fees are no big deal if you want something bad enough.”

    The point is that there are already laws in place and they work so how are adding more laws going to make the law abiding people of the this country safer. They won’t, plain and simple.

  8. citizen_spot says:

    “You can’t cherry pick which Constitutional rights you think are applicable to today.”

    And yet, you did when you wrote this:

    “when reading and discussing the wording in the 2nd Amendment you must look to the intent of those that wrote the Amendment and keep to the definition of the time period”.

    Your words, not mine. I can see how the world must appear to be a very scary place when one is so confused.

  9. Ninong says:

    Polls can accurately reflect the will of the people when they are properly conducted. For example, they accurately predicted the results of the 2012 presidential election — except for those internal Republican Party polls that were adjusted to reflect what they expected would be the actual makeup of the turnout.

    If you look at the predictions made by Nate Silver over the past several years, he has been extremely accurate in predicting the results of virtually every election, even to the point of calling each state correctly — even the really close ones.

    Polls are not meaningless. They have proven to be quite accurate if the sample size is large enough. There is not doubt that the majority of Americans do not agree with your position on the need for gun control legislation. Virtually every national poll has shown that a very large majority of Americans are in favor of universal background checks for example. What’s wrong with that? Why shouldn’t we want to close the gun show loophole? If we don’t do that then there is no sense in having any background checks at all.

    Polls with a sample size of around 1,000 people have a margin of error of less than 4%. Once the sample size gets over about 2,500 people, the margin of error drops to less than 2%. The problem with the polls conducted by Karl Rove and Dick Morris that caused them to predict that Mitt Romney would “win in a landslide” was that they adjusted the raw data to reflect what they believed would be the actual percentage of each demographic in the turnout. They had been saying all along that all of the mainstream polls did not include a large enough percentage of people who identified as Republican or leaning-Republican. As it turned out, the polls were correct because a lot of the people who previously identified themselves as Republican or leaning-Republican had changed their minds and now told the polling people they were Democrat or leaning-Democrat.

    You may not agree with the results but it is clear that most Americans believe that something has to be done to change the direction of this country when it comes to gun control policy. That doesn’t mean Congress will actually do much of anything, because Congress is owned by the NRA lobby. Actually the NRA lobby is just one of the special interest groups that owns Congress.

  10. citizen_spot says:

    “In modern America, if you want a cannon, a fully automatic rifle or
    pistol, a silencer or an odd ball shortened firearm you can have one if
    you fill out the proper paperwork, pass the Federal criminal checks, pay
    the particular fees and pay for the item.”

    So background checks, registration and fees are no big deal if you want something bad enough. And yet this becomes tyranny to you and “infringes” on your right to bear arms when it is applied to commercially available weaponry. Love the double standard.

    Well, don’t worry, no one is going to take away your shiny metal binky. But if you decide to make your own receivers through the wonders of 3-D printing, well, then all bets are off. The NRA and gun lobbyists will be working hard to “infringe” on your right to bear arms by working to ban and criminalize 3-D printing of non-metal receivers. Because in modern America, gun manufacturer profits take precedence over your perceived “right” to bear cheap and affordable arms.

  11. Josh Apple says:

    “Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted Jan. 19-20, 2013, on the Gallup Daily tracking survey, with a random sample of 1,013 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.”
    Source: the gallup website you provided

    Once again polls are for the simple minded and the easily swayed. This “definitive” poll where 2/3rds of America agrees with Obama on the “evils” of certain bullets was based on a “random sample of 1,013 adults” from all over America. Do you really believe that we as a nation should justify Federal legislation on the opinions of .0003226% of the American population? I could go and “randomly” pick out 1,013 people at the next gun show in town and I bet the opinion presented would not be to your liken. Polls are meaningless but they are fun to rip apart.

  12. Ninong says:

    Two-thirds of Americans agree with President Obama’s call to ban the possession of armor-piercing bullets by civilians according to a Gallup poll conducted just six weeks ago. http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-violence.aspx

    In every national poll published on the topic of gun control the majority of Americans support stronger gun control laws.

  13. Ninong says:

    That Reuters/Ipsos poll was the subject of this discussion because it was the one talked about in this article by the author. However, you’re right, it does have a margin of error of approximately 5% or so. I found several other polls and ALL of them show a majority of Americans support stronger gun control measures, although the percentage is not as high as the Reuters poll.

    Gallup did a similar poll about six weeks ago using a random sample of 1,013 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Their results are more representative of the average of most of the other national polls. http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-violence.aspx

    Americans Back President Obama’s Proposals to Address Gun Violence

    “Given the chance to vote “for” or “against” each of nine key proposals included in President Barack Obama’s plan to reduce gun violence, Americans back all nine.”

    “Americans are most likely to be in favor of requiring background checks for all gun sales (91%), increasing funding for mental health programs aimed at youth (82%), increasing funding for programs to train law enforcement and schools in responding to active armed attacks (79%), and increasing criminal penalties for people who buy guns for others — so-called straw purchasers (75%).”

    “The two least-broadly supported proposals, but ones majorities of Americans still favor, are reinstating and strengthening the 1994-2004 ban on assault weapons (60%), and limiting the sale of ammunition magazines to those with 10 rounds or less (54%).”

    “The three other specific policies tested in the new poll that garner somewhat lower — although still majority — support are federal funding for 15,000 street police officers (70%), federal funding for helping schools develop emergency response plans (69%), and banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets by civilians (67%).”

  14. Josh Apple says:

    An online poll of 559 people is hardly a definitive voice on the wants and desires of a nation of 314,000,000+ people.

  15. Josh Apple says:

    “Would he agree to ban cop-killer bullets?”

    Couldn’t any bullet kill a cop? Is the same bullet OK if it is only used to kill people other than policemen? Does the bullet know the difference between a cop and average citizen? Whoa… to really blow your mind what if the shooter is using the same bullet (maker, model, bullet weight, average velocity) as the policeman? Can a bullet used by cops in turn be used to be a cop-killer bullet?

    Where do you find the thug/rapist/robber-killing bullets; they would helpful for personal defense?

  16. Josh Apple says:

    “sane” gun policy as opposed to insane gun policy?

  17. Josh Apple says:

    The flintlock rifles that our Founding Fathers would have been quite familiar with would have been the .75 caliber Brown Bess musket, the .69 caliber Charleville musket, and the .50 caliber Pennsylvania Rifle. The well trained soldier or seasoned outdoorsmen could get off 3 aimed shots per minute. These were the “assault rifles” of their day. Your giddiness over the notion of limiting the 2nd Amendment to only those weapons available to the Founding Fathers does beg a question. Does that idea of limiting also apply to the 1st Amendment? If so then your cell phone (smart or otherwise), computer, radio, TV, eBooks, etc. are not covered under the 1st Amendment. Only direct conversations, speeches, or books/pamphlets printed on a manual printing press would be constitutionally protected. If we are going back to an overly strict interpretation of the Constitution then it would seem that you don’t want black people to count as actually people or for women to vote. You can’t cherry pick which Constitutional rights you think are applicable to today.

  18. Josh Apple says:

    You can yell “FIRE” all you want in a theater and should if there is an actual fire. But if there isn’t then you have to face the Justice System and answer for your actions. Just as every Policeman has to account for the bullets that leave his/her gun. Just as the private individual must account for his shots in a self-defense shooting.

    In modern America, if you want a cannon, a fully automatic rifle or pistol, a silencer or an odd ball shortened firearm you can have one if you fill out the proper paperwork, pass the Federal criminal checks, pay the particular fees and pay for the item. I love when Liberals bring tanks and RPGs up as the standard by which gun owners are supposedly showing their “hands” in the gun control argument. Why is a semi-auto rifle different than an RPG? If you can’t tell the difference between these two types of weapons then spend some of your time on Wikipedia and absorb some of the basics before you show, through your words, your basic ignorance of weapons.

  19. Josh Apple says:

    You keep bringing up election results as definitive proof that “the majority of your fellow Americans supports the government that you feel should be overthrown by military force.” Firstly I never called for an overthrow of the US Government; I said don’t underestimate the power of the common people. Secondly, if the present Administration has SO much power and a mandate from the people then why can’t they get anything done? Eight years of out-of-control spending and back peddling will be Obama’s legacy.

  20. citizen_spot says:

    “when reading and discussing the wording in the 2nd Amendment you must
    look to the intent of those that wrote the Amendment and keep to the
    definition of the time period”.

    Well, in that case, arms were defined as black powder muskets, so you can have all the muskets your “well regulated militia” can carry.

  21. Penciljockey says:

    All weapons are designed to kill or maim. Would they be calling for the ban of handguns if this were done with handguns? Oh yeah I forget the Virginia Tech Guy used a handgun, but no ban of handguns. How strange. Those weapons in a free society is what keeps this society free. Read the Bill of Rights and a whole and if you’re bright you’ll understand. Look at history and look at other countries where government became corrupt and tyrannical, millions died and many many of those were innocent children. Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it. We have the inalienable right to bear arms in order to protect ourselves if need be. We will not give our rights away that were fought for by those before us, because an Insane 20 year old with a Blood Lust went out and killed innocent children. We don’t negotiate with terrorists.

  22. Penciljockey says:

    What does it say? What do you know about it?

  23. Penciljockey says:

    It took a whole police force here in LA to take down an ex-cop on a mission. Figure out the math. It doesn’t matter if we can’t win. The question is are you willing to die for you freedom and for the freedom of the future generations? You’re sure as hell not going to survive very long with hunting rifles and sling shots.

  24. Penciljockey says:

    The military going up against 100 million plus or more people with shovels would be scared. How long has it taken our mighty military to settle Afghanistan? Oh yeah it’s not settled yet is it.

  25. citizen_spot says:

    Rocket launchers, tanks and surface to air missiles are banned. Is that unconstitutional as well? You can’t yell “FIRE” in a theater. These are common sense restrictions that have been deemed constitutional. And if the market for guns and ammo is such that the price is high, (as is it now, without a ban, because of the irrational fear of impending government confiscation amongst the gun loving, liberal hating patriots) how are poor people supposed to buy guns now? I guess you are in support of vouchers to help poor people buy guns then. So you are against the free market and support socialism. How Liberal of you. Welcome Comrade!
    Good thing you aren’t conservative because they despise the poor because they believe them to be violent thugs they need guns to protect against.

  26. Josh Apple says:

    My facts are just that, facts. I’m sorry if my facts disrupt your reality.

  27. Josh Apple says:

    I didn’t edit anything; it is as it was originally posted.

  28. Josh Apple says:

    How does that old saying go, “A government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take everything you have.”

  29. Josh Apple says:

    How about a ban is an infringement of our rights and therefore unconstitutional? And where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that price is of no concern in the exercise of those rights? It says “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Poor people should have the option to defend themselves with firearms they can afford just as the rich do. Causing a weapon’s price to sky rocket only keeps it from those on lower incomes. Why do Liberals hate and despise the poor and wish them to face the thugs on the street defenseless?

  30. Josh Apple says:

    Very true. Think of all the tax money that could be rolling in on the legal sale of marijuana. How is that any different from the tax revenue made from the sale of alcohol?

  31. lynchie says:

    no you edited your original post

  32. Penciljockey says:

    Of course they don’t want the poor people they want to feed to be able to have weapons to defend themselves with.

  33. citizen_spot says:

    The second amendment does not guarantee you a right to bear cheap or affordable arms. So which is it, a ban is useless because there is enough supply in the secondary market to meet demand so why even bother, or a ban will cause a supply shortage unable to meet demand, thus raising prices and effectively decreasing access?

  34. Penciljockey says:

    Yeah we have laws against that and yet it still happens. Hmmm… Do you want pre-crime prevention? How do we go about that? Just restrict everyone from every possible means to harm each other? OK that’s sounds like a great place to live.

  35. Penciljockey says:

    Yeah and places with little to no cars have less car related deaths, etc. Duh. UK has higher assault, rape, robbery rates than the US. Look it up and see.

  36. Penciljockey says:

    They aren’t a tenth as smart and 100 times more corrupt.

  37. Penciljockey says:

    So you don’t want to reduce crime, just reduce the amount of guns? You think people won’t find another way to kill? How about the 1.5 million times per year people prevent being attacked, robbed, raped, killed etc with the use of guns? Should we just let those people be attacked? So people don’t have a right to protect themselves, cause people like you are paranoid that your friends and neighbors are going to snap and start going door to door killing everyone?

  38. Penciljockey says:

    You’d think conservatives against gun bans would realize the drug ban didn’t work either. Both sides are idiots in my opinion.

  39. Josh Apple says:

    Amen to that.

    “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.”
    ― George Washington, George Washington’s Farewell Address

    To bad our leaders today aren’t a tenth as smart as the Founders.

  40. Josh Apple says:

    It was a 45ACP. We are supposed to believe that it was a stunt to prove how EASY it was to buy a handgun and “assault” rifle. Sure it is EASY for a law abiding citizen who passes the background check and doesn’t count as a menace to society to obtain the weapons legally. Truly a shocking bit of gotcha investigation. I personally feel the jerk got caught buying something that he has publicly denounced. Elitist ass-hat thinks he is good enough to own the weapon but not the riff-raft public. Screw him.

  41. Penciljockey says:

    Not just that. There are many people who hate the Neocons and extreme right wing conservatives so much they’d cut off their nose to spite their faces. I’m never voted for either one. We need to get out of this 2 party system.

  42. Josh Apple says:

    If I am… [dramatic pause]…uppity for believing in the basic freedoms that our Founding Fathers enumerated in the Constitution then so be it.

  43. Josh Apple says:

    It jacks the prices through the roof and “infringes” on my right to bear arms.

  44. Josh Apple says:

    “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.”

  45. Josh Apple says:

    Your Reuters poll is complete crap.

  46. Josh Apple says:

    Gun safety should also be part of the high school curriculum, if not in middle school.

  47. Josh Apple says:

    And at Columbine High School Eric Harris was equipped with a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun, (shot a total of 25 times) and a 9 mm carbine with thirteen 10-round magazines, which he fired 96 times. Dylan Klebold was equipped with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun with one 52-, one 32-, and one 28-round magazine and a 12-gauge double-barreled sawed-off shotgun. He basically fired the handgun, for a total of 55 times.

    The limited number of rounds in the magazine doesn’t curtail nut-job behavior.

  48. Josh Apple says:

    Idiot voters looking for a handout from the Federal Government and blindly vote for whoever they are convinced will give them that free stuff are the problem.

  49. Josh Apple says:

    And how many other situations just like that one have you heard about?

  50. Josh Apple says:

    How do you know this?

  51. Penciljockey says:

    The problem with many liberals and anti-gun fascists is that they are all about feeling good. They don’t care about people really. They just want to pretend they are working towards a Utopia. Some may mean well and I think others are just liars. The reality is lots of these murders could have been averted if the families and friends of these psychos would have just paid attention to them. Adam Lanza had years of research printed out of mass murderers. Apparently he was obsessed with mass killers so he just didn’t snap one day.

    “Law enforcement reportedly discovers a sickeningly thorough 7-foot-long, 4-foot-wide spreadsheet with names, body counts and weapons from previous mass murders and even attempted killings. ‘It sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research,’ an anonymous law enforcement veteran said.”

    “What investigators found was a chilling spreadsheet 7 feet long and 4 feet wide that required a special printer, a document that contained Lanza’s obsessive, extensive research — in nine-point font — about mass murders of the past, and even attempted murders.”

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lupica-lanza-plotted-massacre-years-article-1.1291408#ixzz2O7ikb581

    and no one noticed? Where’s the real problem here? It’s not the so called military style assault type weapon.

  52. Penciljockey says:

    No we don’t look the other way. We enforce the laws we have and we convict murderers. We also need to have gun safety PSA’s on tv and Mental Health PSA’s on tv so that people feel more comfortable getting help for their messed up children.

  53. Penciljockey says:

    The idiot voters brainwashed by corporate owned/government media who vote based on what they see on the news?

  54. Penciljockey says:

    Yup he bought that and a pistol of some kind. Total political BS and we are no longer standing for it. Our voices were heard and the AWB was dropped, but it’s not over.

  55. FLL says:

    Your argument would be valid if a government took over that represented only a minority of the American public. But in this case, the majority of the American electorate is responsible for the elections of 2008 and 2012. The election results are what they are, and the majority of your fellow Americans supports the government that you feel should be overthrown by military force. Your cause is hopeless because the majority of the American Public is against you. The only thing that will happen is the most of your fellow Americans will call you… [dramatic pause]… uppity.

  56. Josh Apple says:

    Liberals love to bring up the “well regulated” section of the 2nd Amendment in hopes of pointing out that regulated should mean controlled, monitored, or governed. The problem is the phrase has changed meaning over the years and when reading and discussing the wording in the 2nd Amendment you must look to the intent of those that wrote the Amendment and keep to the definition of the time period. A “well regulated” militia of the period was made up of average citizens who decently disciplined to stand the trials of combat, trained in the proper function of their weapons, and maintained their
    weaponry in good working order. Alexander Hamilton declared in “The Federalist Papers, #29” that “the character of a well regulated militia” was found in a state of preparedness only reached after rigorous and consistent training. But that to fully acquire “the character of a well regulated militia” would be so time consuming as to be “a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.” So the best we can do is be ready to fight if needed in defense of the State, keep our firearms in proper working order, and know how to use them.

  57. citizen_spot says:

    “Wolverines!!!!”

  58. Josh Apple says:

    You would know.

  59. Josh Apple says:

    The also don’t have our Constitution, our laws, our standard of living, or our relatively stable history.

  60. Josh Apple says:

    Thunderslide is correct. I stated, “This does ignore suicides, they are victim and perpetrator and have a right to live their own lives as well as take them.”

  61. Josh Apple says:

    A fine example of strict gun laws and the never ending war on drugs.

  62. Josh Apple says:

    And her husband went out and bought one of those “evil” assault rifles. Liberal Hypocrites all of them.

  63. Josh Apple says:

    I don’t believe that you understand the situation at Ruby Ridge.

  64. citizen_spot says:

    Well then, if there are enough guns and high capacity magazines in the secondary market, why are you against an assault weapons ban? Clearly it won’t affect you, you can buy all the guns and ammo you want, according to you. So why are you against a ban that you claim will have no affect on your gun buying activities?

  65. Josh Apple says:

    I love the people that seem to think that the American Public would have no chance against the military might of the US Government. Look to history. The Founding Fathers knew they could not fight a protracted and conventional war against the British Army so they varied their approach and used guerrilla tactics. If a second “Civil War” did occur it would initially be a very quick takeover by the stronger Governmental powers followed by years, if not decades, of covert action by American insurgents. This “slow leak” type of conflict has happened repeatedly throughout history and for the most part always ends up with a victorious ‘David’ against an overwhelmingly powerful ‘Goliath’. Look to the colonists against the British Army in the late 1700s, the Viet Cong against the Japanese, French, Americans in the 20th century, Afghanistan against the Soviets and the US in the later part of the 20th century, and Iraq insurgents against the US in Gulf War part 2 as examples of the power of the underdog. I also would not discount how many soldiers would side with the American Public. When they enlisted they did swear an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution and not just the present Administration, no matter who they are at the time. Never forget that this is a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”.

  66. Josh Apple says:

    “Polls don’t lie.” Sure but they can be twisted to say whatever you want them to say. A conservative poll slants in a conservative direction and a Liberal poll slants in a Liberal direction. And the Reuters/Ipsos poll you alluded to is anything but a comprehensive view of how the American public truly feel. The poll was an online poll of 559 people. So am I to believe that the liberal leanings of 559 people out of 314,000,000+ is the definitive answer on the need to restrict our 2nd Amendment Rights. Do you steer your life, freedom, and daily goings-on by the will of .000178% of America? Not me.

  67. Penciljockey says:

    Yeah and when she was running for office she wanted to harden her image so she had photos posing with AR-15’s and AK-47’s. She didn’t end up using the photos, but it goes to show how this is really a game for politicians. Fact is we the American People are not willing to negotiate our rights away any further than they have already been. Enough is enough. We demand a plan to restore our rights protected by the Bill of Rights.

  68. Penciljockey says:

    “A Reason-Rupe Public Opinion Survey conducted this month suggests such misconceptions are common. After asking the 1,000 respondents if they thought people should be “prohibited from owning assault weapons,” the survey (which is sponsored by my employer, the Reason Foundation) asked half of the sample to “describe an assault weapon.” The answers are illuminating.

    About two-thirds of the respondents described “assault weapons” as guns that fire rapidly, guns that can fire a large number of rounds without reloading, guns with a lot of “power,” or guns used by the military. More than a quarter described them as “machine guns,” “automatics,” or the equivalent (e.g., “multiple rounds with just one pull of the trigger”).

    Overall support for banning “assault weapons” was only 44 percent, considerably lower than the 60 percent or so in recent Gallup and ABC News polls. But there was majority support—53 percent and 59 percent, respectively—among people whose descriptions of “assault weapons” emphasized rate of fire (including those who mistakenly described them as machine guns) or ammunition capacity.

    One respondent said an “assault weapon” is a “weapon that is similar to the one that caused the tragedy in Newtown,” referring to last month’s massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. That horrifying event, of course, was the pretext for Feinstein’s bill, although the Bushmaster rifle Adam Lanza used to murder 20 children and six adults was not covered by the old federal “assault weapon” ban or by a similar law in Connecticut.

    Feinstein has addressed that omission by adding Lanza’s rifle to her list of prohibited weapons, which may seem emotionally satisfying. But since would-be mass murderers have plenty of equally effective alternatives, it is logically equivalent to banning the car Lanza drove to the school.”

  69. Penciljockey says:

    Of course they are “Feel Good” measures. Most Liberal policies are. They need to have facts and reason behind their legislation. Just like idiot far right Conservatives can’t give a rational reason why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry and are in turn rightly criticized and ridiculed by Liberals, same goes with this issue. Use reason and logic, facts and present you case detached from emotion.

  70. Josh Apple says:

    If the Liberals really care about “gun violence” they would throw their weight behind banning handguns. There is too much feel good legislation going on which in the end gets nothing done.

  71. Penciljockey says:

    The healthy majority of Americans you speak of don’t even know how to identify an so called assault weapon.

  72. Penciljockey says:

    Define an assault weapon and tell me how it’s any different in function to any other semi-automatic not on the ban list. Also, tell me how banning specific styles of rifles is going to do anything to keep an insane person from killing. I’ll be waiting.

  73. Penciljockey says:

    No one cares when it was happening in the ghettos, but once it happens in Never Neverland oh shit!

  74. Josh Apple says:

    Self-defense “Fantasy”

    Gun Owner Saves Cop’s Life by Shooting Deranged Gunman!

    http://www.guns.com/2012/08/01/texas-gun-owner-shoot-out/

    Police: Woman Shot Intruder 9 Times In Self Defense

    http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/police-woman-shot-intruder-9-times-in-self-defense/nFB7g/

    CA Businessman Kills Five Gang Members In Multiple Attacks

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pkWgp2abM2w

    Rockford liquor store employee shoots suspected robber

    http://www.rrstar.com/updates/x1959358070/Rockford-liquor-store-employee-shoots-suspected-robber

    Drunken intruder shot by resident in Tower Grove South

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/drunken-intruder-shot-by-resident-in-tower-grove-south/article_ad89c240-c524-55f2-a82d-03f9c2d598d1.html

    Marine with concealed carry permit stops man from beating woman

    http://fox6now.com/2013/03/12/marine-with-concealed-carry-permit-stops-man-from-beating-woman/

    Clerk shoots robbery suspect armed with toy gun in Harris County

    http://www.khou.com/news/local/Man-found-dead-outside-northeast-Harris-County-smoke-shop-196837591.html

    Retired widow holds burglary suspect at gun point

    http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/21487553/retired-widow-holds-burglar-at-gun-point

    2 in serious condition after attack, shooting

    http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20130226/NEWS01/302260302?nclick_check=1

    72-year-old great-grandmother holds men at gunpoint for police

    http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/21215494/woman-72-holds-men-at-gunpoint-for-police

    Do you want more of this “fantasy”?

  75. Penciljockey says:

    Oh man you and your facts. They don’t want facts they want emotional and irrational responses to their fears. “I don’t feel safe go to the movies.” Grow some balls! LOL!

  76. Penciljockey says:

    Good for and thanks for service in the defense of our constitutional rights.

  77. Penciljockey says:

    Yeah and they are being shipped to fight overseas to make Halliburton and other Corporate greed mongers more money at our expense. Wake up man. The right of people, the right of the people is repeated in every amendment in the Bill of Rights. Figure it out.

  78. Penciljockey says:

    What part of the rights of people to keep and bear arms don’t be understand? If the 2nd amendment was a safeguard against future tyranny, why would we allow the government to tell us which weapons we are allowed to keep and bear?

  79. Penciljockey says:

    Laws are for good people to follow and to punish the bad ones that break them. So yes we should have laws against murder, rape, torture and such. Those are laws that deter and punish people who break laws. Banning a certain style of firearm is not the answer, clearly.

  80. Penciljockey says:

    Yeah and James Holmes had an AR-15 with a 90 round drum magazine which jammed around at 30 rounds and no one rushed him. He just switched to his pistol and shotgun and just keep reloading and reloading and reloading and no one rushed him while he was reloading. Hmmmm….Interesting isn’t it? You really think a room full of kids was going to rush Adam Lanza when he was reloading? Do you know how fast you can reload almost any semi-automatic? Probably not, cause you probably have no experience with firearms whatsoever. We have the right to bear arms how we see fit and we are no longer willing to have anymore bans than we already have. Plus we don’t know and it’s not a fact that Adam Lanza even used an AR-15. I know, I know, but that’s what was reported. Yeah and Iraq had WMD’s. No video or photographic evidence has been shown that he used an AR-15 to shoot those kids so as far as I’m concerned he allegedly used one. Also, banning a certain style weapon, because a mad man used it to kill innocent people would be the equivalent of banning Boeing 747’s cause they used to kill 3,000 people on 911.

  81. Penciljockey says:

    That’s exactly right! People have no idea what an “Assault Weapon” is, but they know what one “looks” like. That’s the problem right there. They watch movies and play video games with guns that look like an AR-15 or AK Variant and assume they are same. Some politicians are shying away from the Assault Weapon term and calling them “Military Style Assault Weapons”. Military Style? So it’s designed in the style of military rifle, but not a military rifle right? The ergonomics are military style, not the function. I’m a social liberal gun owner and I say we don’t give any of our rights away. They are non-negotiable.

  82. Josh Apple says:

    Damn right!

  83. Josh Apple says:

    The Amendment never pulled a trigger. Did the Amendment kill Osama Bin Laden? Did the Amendment kill the recent UCF wannabe shooter? Did the Amendment kill those children at Sandy Hook Elementary? No, the individual whose finger was on the trigger killed them. Last year when the idiot Todd Akin, the Republican Senate nominee from Missouri, made his “legitimate rape” comment I don’t recall anyone blaming the 1st Amendment for saying such a stupid thing. Likewise, Rob Parker of ESPN was held responsible for his demeaning “cornball brother” comment about the Washington Redskins quarterback RGIII; he was suspended for 30 days and then didn’t have his contract renewed. The 1st Amendment didn’t say those asinine things they did, so why does the 2nd Amendment get held to such a different standard?

  84. Josh Apple says:

    Got to get it past THE House first. And there are enough (Magazines and guns) on the secondary market to keep the gun buying public armed for at least 50 to 75 years. And ammo if well taken care of can last damn near indefinitely.

  85. Ford Prefect says:

    The Senate is where democracy goes to die. With a few exceptions (The Church Committee, etc.), the Senate has always been this way.

    It’s not logical to expect people to be moved by atrocities, when they’re so open to committing them themselves. GMOs are poisoning the food supply. Fracking is destroying the water supply. Our wars are killing innocents all over the planet. They want to intervene directly in Syria and eventually Iran. The list of atrocities they are committing, albeit indirectly, is too long to visit in one comment.

    So this isn’t surprising. At all.

  86. citizen_spot says:

    Universal back ground checks and limited capacity magazines (for semi-automatics) apply to handguns as well as rifles. Poof! goes your point.

  87. citizen_spot says:

    “Wolverines!!!!!”

  88. FLL says:

    So glad to find out that you were able to work around the ban. But tell me, what’s the point of you and others owning assault rifles? You don’t like the results of the last election? Tough. Your popguns are no match for the FBI, local police or National Guard. I hope you don’t think that taking a baby step toward reforming health care gives you the right to overthrow the government by force. If you consider you assault rifle a collector’s item, fine. But if you think you’re going to use your popguns to change the results of elections, you’re going to hear you favorite: “Hey, loser, don’t get uppity with us because we’re the voting majority.” U-P-P-I-T-Y.

  89. FLL says:

    Polls don’t lie, especially a large number of them, all of which show that a healthy majority of Americans support a ban on assault rifles. The Reuters/Ipsos poll that John linked to is right here. Polls are sure more trustworthy than your opinion.

    The word “uppity” rubbed you the wrong way? Oh, I get it. You’ve lived most of you life with the majority of Americans agreeing with you on who gets higher or lower status in American society, so you get to call people uppity if they disagree with you. Surprise, it’s the 21st century and your opinion is distinctly in the minority.

  90. Josh Apple says:

    You are really one confused Liberal. And you apparently don’t read so well either. I said, “they have the right to live their lives as well as take them”. The statement was about suicide, you know one person taking his/her own life and not one person killing another maliciously (self-defense is still OK).

  91. Josh Apple says:

    Fewer guns involved in crimes doesn’t mean there would be fewer crimes.

  92. Josh Apple says:

    “the assault rifles that you so desperately want to keep legal, even though they’ve only been legal since George W. Bush let the ban on assault rifles expire in 2004.”

    Liberal ignorance abounds. The weapons under the assault weapons bill of 1994 allowed for any existing weapons to be grandfathered in. All the AWB did was restrict the supply and raise the prices of the firearms and the magazines needed for them. I purchased my “evil” rifles and magazines during the ban. Before 2004 a 30 round magazine costs, if you could find it, $70-$100 after the ban you had more selection and the magazines cost around $20. The ban was in place but the items were still available for a higher price.

  93. Josh Apple says:

    If Liberals REALLY cared about the supposed gun violence problem in this country then they would go after handguns which are used a hell of a lot more than rifles in shootings. By the FBI’s own numbers, in 2011 handguns were used to murder 6,220 people while rifles were used to only kill 323 people. It would seem that your anger and energy are misdirected.

    Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

  94. Josh Apple says:

    I not only oppose the assault weapons bill, I also champion freedom and the Constitution. And if that makes me U-P-P-I-T-Y then what does that make you? Also where is your 26% coming from?

  95. Second amendment rights? This argument left 26 innocents riddled with M-16 like wounds designed to kill and maim. Defense of such weapons in a free society leaves us at the mercy of crazies. We are no longer free. It’s beyond obvious that this amendment be amended, but our legislators don’t have the ‘balls’ to keep us safe. Very sad indeed.

  96. Josh Apple says:

    Registration = Confiscation

  97. lynchie says:

    My name is not Dionne Warwick i am not part of the psychic network. Are you channeling Josh? By the way if you warlocks think you will change our minds about our liberal beliefs you will have to come up with more than your pre-pubescent rants. I fear your mother will kick you out of the basement and you will have to go back to your job of cleaning toilets.

  98. Penciljockey says:

    We are not giving up anymore rights and this ban was defeated by the people not the NRA

  99. Penciljockey says:

    Mexico?

  100. Penciljockey says:

    He could have done the same harm with pistols and a shotgun. They were unarmed children genius

  101. Penciljockey says:

    Oh so next time you need the cops to save you tell them to leave their evil guns at the station

  102. It’s so exciting to read libtards passion and determination for there own ultimate extinction! YEA!! Just a little patients! Libtard souless animals are Committed to Darwinist theory, survival of the fittest, they are the weakest, least able to defend themselves, Bragg about defying the laws of nature (silly faggots dicks are for chicks) brainlessly support a president named Hussein Obama who’s father was a Muslim, and supports radical Muslim extremist! The first order of business (after BHO allows them to build strength and begin to dominate and implement Sharia Law) will be the extermination of fags! More sick irony, how many gays will be killed before gays begin denying being gay hoping to save their pathetic life, AK47 Al the Jihadist says “you not gay”? Takes out pathetic gay boys wallet, as he is pleading for his life, AK47 AL says Hmmm, Josh and Lenny Queer, husband and husband. BANG!! I say live and let live! We do nothing! No more arguing. No more insults. their self determined Extinction is only a generation away!

  103. BeccaM says:

    I don’t support your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, because you guys always leave off the “well-regulated” part and add in armed insurrection.

  104. BeccaM says:

    I know. And his argument contradicts itself. “If there are fewer guns, by definition there would be fewer guns involved in crimes, so don’t ban guns.”

  105. BeccaM says:

    I look at what happened at Ruby Ridge, Waco, Kent State, and on that bridge in New Orleans after Katrina and have to disagree with you there.

    And in the latter two cases, we’re not even talking armed civilians.

  106. Thunderslide says:

    Go back.and actually read the text. He meant take their own life.

  107. htfd says:

    Didn’t anybody notice how smoothly Obama back off on this issues. Obama only whats what he purposed which is a gun owner registry. Why do you think he (HLS) wants to know who has the guns, how many they have and what type of gun they have?

  108. FLL says:

    Most of the people who insist that civilians have the right to own weapons of warfare are just unhappy about the results of the elections since 2006, elections that resulted in George W. Bush and the Republican Congress falling from power. That may not be your own motivation since you said, “I’m not saying the government is oppressive currently.” However, if you should run into people who want to overthrow the government because the results of recent elections don’t suit them, could you give them a message? Please tell them that their popguns are no match for the FBI and local police, let alone the National Guard. And, for what it’s worth, the U.S. military represents the will of the majority of Americans, despite the best efforts of the Tea Party nuts to gerrymander congressional districts and suppress the minority vote at election time. And if you don’t happen to see these conservative coup plotters in person, then just send my message to their stinking little Aryan-Christian-Identity compound in northern Idaho.

  109. ComradeRutherford says:

    You must be too young to remember the Bush II and Reagan Administrations: those were the high-water marks of dictatorial bullying. Obama and Clinton are wishy-washy softies compared to the Republican president’s fascism.

  110. ComradeRutherford says:

    Your ‘facts’ seem to consist of poking everyone in the metaphorical eye and then shouting ‘Liberal name calling!’ when they complain about your goading them.

    And you have yet to cite one single fact, all you have done is call people names.

  111. ComradeRutherford says:

    He can’t, of course, because that would dispel the fantasy world he made up.

  112. ComradeRutherford says:

    And you fail to take into account that those soldiers will be told that the people they are targeting are TERRORISTS!!! that are out to destroy the Great and Glorious American Way!

    And BeccaM is correct: a bunch of idiots running around in the woods with small arms is NO match for the US Military.

  113. ComradeRutherford says:

    “arm ourselves if the government becomes oppressive”

    This is a huge LIE. The Second Amendment does NOT say that, does not even hint at that at all.

  114. ComradeRutherford says:

    “Why not someone legally carrying a gun stopping a robbery, assault, or rape?”

    Because that is a fantasy made up by Conservative liars.

  115. ComradeRutherford says:

    They wouldn’t be Democrats if they didn’t spinelessly do exactly what the GOP tells them to.

  116. lynchie says:

    Facts always clutter a simple mind

  117. lynchie says:

    That’s not what you said in your post “they have the right to live their lives as well as take them. By the way what is a fuck planet is that on close to URANUS

  118. lynchie says:

    What does that have to do with my point==you guys can’t hit shit. Oh you can enter a gun show with a gun on your hip–just like the old west. But your ass will be on boot hill. The sound will scare the shit out of you

  119. FLL says:

    Or serious debate and troll parlor games.

  120. FLL says:

    Why not stop blaming inner-city gang members with illegally obtained handguns for the mass murders of the last decade, virtually all of which were committed by middle-class white guys using legally obtained guns, usually the assault rifles that you so desperately want to keep legal, even though they’ve only been legal since George W. Bush let the ban on assault rifles expire in 2004.

  121. John says:

    Liberals crack me up. You are free to do whatever we tell you you can do, that’s the liberal way. Take the guns away from law abiding citizens to protect the right of the liberal to dictate. LOL!!!

  122. PI says:

    You fail to take into account the number of active duty military members who would not be willing to fight against his/her own countrymen, who do not believe such actions would serve our constitution which they have swore to protect. As well as the large number of combat veterans outnumbering all active duty military personnel. Add the masses of an arm civilians, yes, the people of America seriously have a fighting chance, otherwise you’ve already given up your freedom.

  123. Josh Apple says:

    Yes “accidents” happen and in my opinion those idiots deserve to have criminal charges for a negligent discharge. A couple of months ago an idiot “accidentally” shot a couple of people at the entrance to a gun show I regularly go to. It was deemed an accident and no charges were filed; I didn’t agree with that decision then and still don’t.

  124. Josh Apple says:

    I enjoying battling against the Liberal Left, their “facts” usually fall apart quickly, they then resort to emotionally charged name calling. Maybe after hearing the facts and a common sense approach to an argument the Liberal might see the error of their ways and convert. We’ll take you in with loving arms.
    And as for AmericaBlog, John Aravosis, and money, I would have thought that the “distribute the wealth” Left would be thrilled that some of Capitalism was working in your favor. I support your right to the 1st Amendment as I’m sure that you support my 2nd.

  125. BeccaM says:

    Except when they’re not unloaded.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/19/us/north-carolina-gun-show-shooting

    Look, you may not believe this, but I really did grow up in a gun-owning family, have been to numerous shows, and own firearms myself, and one of the very first lessons my father drilled into me as a young girl was to assume always, ALWAYS, that a gun is loaded. Even if I just saw the chambers were empty. I do my best to be a responsible gun owner, but one thing I will never ever do is assume that this hypothetical other person with a gun on their hip has the same degree of responsibility and mindfulness.

  126. BeccaM says:

    You seem to be wasting an awful lot of time here today, on an admittedly progressive-liberal blog.

    By the way, I’m sure John Aravosis is very appreciative for all the ad revenue from you and your pro-gun friends. Your visits, page-refreshes and clicks are helping to fund AmericaBlog.

  127. BeccaM says:

    Then go ahead and “play” with your numbers and show me some higher violent crime stats in Australia, Canada, and the UK relative to America.

  128. Josh Apple says:

    Yes, the gun death numbers are going to be low in countries that severely restrict if not outright ban firearm ownership; look to their violent crime stats. You know if Australia outlawed cars or severely restricted the ability to own a car then I bet our vehicular homicide rates would much higher than theirs. See I can play with the numbers too, especially when you compare two unlike things.

  129. Josh Apple says:

    Have you ever been to a gun show? I can’t speak for all states, I can only speak for mine and in NC anyone not a Cop can enter a gun show with their gun on their hip but it must be and stay unloaded.

  130. Josh Apple says:

    If you mean Liberal BS then yes you’re right I don’t waste my time with that.

  131. Josh Apple says:

    I live on Earth; that’s the fuck planet I live on. And I never said that anyone had the right to kill someone, other than in self-defense.

  132. zion1king says:

    Once again another person resorting to name calling rather than debating the issue by looking at verifiable facts. There are already enough enforceable laws on the books genius, we don’t need any more. The mania surrounding this magazine ban rhetoric is underscored by the fact that rifles of “every” description are responsible for fewer deaths than those caused by fists, hammers, feet, clubs, falling off ladders, etc.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/15/Percentage-of-Deaths-That-Were-Gun-Related-In-2011-34-percent
    http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/tabor/041229
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

    The number of deaths attributed to semi-auto rifles fall into the category of being so small as to be included in the same category as the numbers of people killed by insect stings, snake bite and animal attacks. Which is to say fewer than other more pressing causes of death that we should be much more concerned about considering the odds of actually being effected by these causes.

    The above links speak for themselves but you like so many other are more interested in drama and knee jerk reactionary emotional response to issues that need to be addressed with deliberation and careful dissemination of the facts.

  133. Mike meyer says:

    Third Party, Folks.

  134. BeccaM says:

    You come onto an obviously progressive/liberal Dem-friendly blog and wonder why the people who hang out here regularly don’t like it when you insult us and display no respect for our right to have opinions other than yours? How dense can you be?

  135. BeccaM says:

    I disagree that these numbers are low. And here are some statistics to back it up:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

    U.S. death rate by firearm: 10.2/year per 100,000.
    Australia: 2.94
    Canada: 2.13
    United Kingdom: 0.25

    America is in 11th place on that linked list, out of 75 total, and the only one until you get all the way down to Switzerland (3.84, 19th place) not generally considered to be in a state of uprising or civil or political unrest. Per capita gun ownership? 89 guns for every 100 people. Has it made us safer? More free? Last I checked, our government was asserting the right to spy on us without warrants, arrest us without charges, and imprison us without trials. Where’s the freedom in that?

  136. lynchie says:

    Thjey wouldn’t get show cause you guys couldn’t hit shit

  137. lynchie says:

    Yeah we are all commies and we are going to arm ourselves now and come and get you all

  138. lynchie says:

    Facts something you know nothing about

  139. lynchie says:

    I have no fear and you are right America is hated around the world. Drones, lies to war etc.

  140. lynchie says:

    No one has the right to take another life. What the fuck planet do you live on.

  141. BeccaM says:

    An AR-15 isn’t gonna take out a JDAM-equipped drone or a helicopter gunship. Just saying.

    America’s military budget is larger than the next 15 largest nations’ combined. Does anyone seriously think a bunch of untrained civilians are going to topple that, even if heavily armed? Some tin-pot 3rd world nation — sure, it can be done. But no matter how many guns its citizens has, the U.S. military isn’t going to fear them, no way, no how.

  142. BeccaM says:

    Easy. And Youtube is not a source of reliable objective information. Nor are most of the wingnut websites you’d probably claim to be ‘evidence’.

    THE risk of dying by gunshot has dropped dramatically since the gun buyback scheme was introduced after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, a new report says.

    Dr Philip Alpers, a University of Sydney academic who helped write the report, said the buyback saw the number of gun deaths a year fall from an average of 521 to 289, = “suggesting that the removal of more than 700,000 guns was associated with a faster declining rate of gun suicide and gun homicide”.

    The Prime Minister, John Howard, introduced some of the world’s toughest gun laws after the massacre, forcing people to surrender semi-automatic rifles, which reload each time the trigger is pulled, and pump-action shotguns.

    The new report, titled Australia’s 1996 Gun Law Reforms: Faster Falls in Firearm Deaths, Firearm Suicides and a Decade without Mass Shootings, finds that in the 18 years before the gun buyback there were an average of 492 firearm suicides a year.

    After the introduction of the buyback scheme, that figure dropped to 247 in
    the seven years for which reliable figures are available. The report also found the rate of gun homicides fell from an annual average of 93 in the 18 years before 1996 to an annual average of 56.

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-deaths-in-rapid-decline-since-buyback/2006/12/13/1165685752421.html

    Surveys have indicated consistently that around 85% of Australians are in favor of gun control laws, including their regimen of universal background checks, bans on assault weapons, and semi-automatics. Seems to me I could stop five random Australians in the street and ask them if they’re in favor of their current laws and four of them would answer in the affirmative.

    Instead of demanding I go find information to back up your position, how about you go do it? How about YOU refute my statement with something other than assertions and Googled links to neo-fascist fringe websites?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

  143. Josh Apple says:

    The use of the pictures with kids with guns really is a new low for anything remotely called journalism. Why not pictures of gang bangers in Chicago gunning down children in playgrounds or average people going about their daily business getting killed because they happened into the middle of a turf war? Why not someone legally carrying a gun stopping a robbery, assault, or rape? This seems to have been a Michael Moore-lite attempt to sway the reader. You should be ashamed.

  144. Josh Apple says:

    or Liberalism and Common Sense

  145. Ninong says:

    Danny, what are you talking about? Here’s exactly what SneakyGuy wrote in its entirety:

    “Another point to ponder. How many people think that Democrats don’t own guns – or that some of those gun-owning Democrats aren’t politicians? I have no doubt that there are a lot of Democrats out there who might be liberal on every other issue EXCEPT guns.”

    I told SneakyGuy his statement is factually correct and you said I recognized a lie. Please point out the lie in that statement.

  146. caphillprof says:

    I think we always need to remind the gun nuts that the country was founded on the right to LIFE as well as liberty and happiness and that the well-regulated militia must be balanced with the right to LIFE. The law need not prevent all murder, it’s okay if it prevents some or even one. “Whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.” Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5; Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin 37a

  147. Ninong says:

    Danny,

    Perhaps you should go back and read what SneakyGuy wrote because he said absolutely nothing about Australia.

    Here is what he wrote:

    “Another point to ponder. How many people think that Democrats don’t own guns – or that some of those gun-owning Democrats aren’t politicians? I have no doubt that there are a lot of Democrats out there who might be liberal on every other issue EXCEPT guns.”
    I told SneakyGuy that his statement is factually correct and you said I recognized a lie and stood by it. Where is the lie in what SneakyGuy wrote? Go ahead, I’ll wait for your answer. Take your time.

  148. Ninong says:

    Danny, how do you know the 74% figure is bogus? Did Karl Rove or Dick Morris tell you that? Those are the guys who predicted Mitt Romney would win the national popular vote by 6% and carry the Electoral College with 300 votes. They claimed that ALL of the polls were wrong and only their own internal polls were correct.

    One glaring outlier in the national polls prior to the election was the once-respected Gallup Poll that had Mitt Romney ahead by 6% a week before the election and then adjusted that to only 1% the day before the election.

    Anyway, Danny, what do you think the number should be and do you have a link to your source? I’m just curious. I know an assault weapons ban is very popular in some cities and not at all popular in some rural areas but what are the “correct” national figures?

  149. TheOriginalLiz says:

    And the child sacrifices will continue.

    We have two gods in this country – the dollar and the gun.

  150. Josh Apple says:

    I would love to see someone try that at a gun show. They might not be shot to death but I can guarantee that they would probably be beat to death with all the “metal and wood” blunt objects just sitting around.

  151. Badgerite says:

    Actually, Rachel Maddow did a segment about this. It seems Adam Lanza fired something like 155 bullets in the space of 4-5 minutes at that school before he put down the Bushmaster and put a pistol to his own head. Because of the capacity of the ammo clips, he barely had to reload during that time. If someone comes in with that kind of fire power, there is pretty much nothing you can do but hope he doesn’t see you. He didn’t even have to be a good shot. And the ‘criminal’ who only became a criminal when he walked into that school, got his weapons from his mother’s house. And she got them for ‘protection’ . Which is, of course, the point. If that kind of weaponry floods society it will inevitably fall into the hands of someone who will use it for its intended purpose. Killing as many people as possible as fast as possible.

  152. Josh Apple says:

    That’s called Liberal even handedness with nothing but facts and cold hard statistics.

  153. Josh Apple says:

    “the US…freaking shooting galleries”

    Out of a nation of 314,000,000+ the US averages the number of people who got shot, either fatally or non-fatally, at about 86,000, or roughly 235 a day with the daily number of firearm deaths coming out to 35 per day. This does ignore suicides, they are victim and perpetrator and have a right to live their own lives as well as take them. This is still a nation of free people. And with numbers that low it hardly seems to be a shooting gallery in the US today.

    Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/23/facebook-posts/do-people-get-shot-every-year-facebook-post-says/

  154. Rider says:

    Just means more time to buy more hardware and lots more ammo…gunshow this weekend..w00p!

  155. BR says:

    The first two Amendments of the Constitution recognize that the government must protect our rights to protest against it and arm ourselves if the government becomes oppressive. It is essential to the idea of a republic and division of power. I consider myself a liberal, definitely socially and for the most part, fiscally as well. We are living in a much different time than when those first two Amendments were adopted, but I believe those two rights must be protected. A government should fear its people, not the other way around. The government should serve the people it represented, not feel power over them. I obviously don’t support weapons being in hands of the mentally ill, nor criminals who have proven they can’t be trusted. But responsible Americans have the right, arguably the duty, to protect the country from an oppressive government. I am not saying the government is oppressive currently, but once our rights are taken away, what will stand in the way?

  156. I once served in them by the way in the Marine Corps Reserve.

  157. We have well regulated militias and they can get ALL the weapons they need including jet fighters. They are called the National Guard and Air National Guard and Reserves.

  158. Clecinosu says:

    “Dont believe everything you read.”

    I certainly don’t believe your B.S.

  159. That’s why I always have to laugh at the paranoiacs who claim that guns are the universal panacea for fighting crime and defending freedom. Countries where everybody above the age of ten has a Kalashnikov tend neither to be very safe nor very free.

  160. Inis Magrath says:

    Just as I expected. If congress didn’t do anything after one of their own, Gabby Giffords, was shot in the head, then they will NEVER do anything.

  161. doesn’t speak well for you that you can’t argue without personal insults. I was pointing out that these shootings can and do take place in settings where guns are readily available and it is assumed that everyone there knows their way around gun safety.

  162. Ninong says:

    Okay, so could you please give me the correct facts? How many mass murders has Australia suffered since the assault weapons ban?

  163. nicho says:

    Nothing like a discussion on a sane gun policy to bring the nuts out of the woodwork.

    Countries with tough gun laws have fewer gun deaths and in many cases zero mass shootings. Period. That’s a fact.

    Countries with lots of guns — Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, the US — are freaking shooting galleries.

  164. Danny Green says:

    Wrong. Australian fact is totally bogus.

    Ninong, you recognized a lie and stood by it. Maybe you should run for office too!

  165. “…to defend against tyranny.”

    Phew. Your persecution complex, buddy, not mine.

  166. Danny Green says:

    Stop with the lies, right there. The success of the Australian experiment? My god man, have you talked to an Australian?

    Stop right here.. open a new window and do this search:

    “you tube australian gun ban”

    Find me a video that supports the gun ban.
    Find me a statistic that supports the gun ban.
    Find me an Australian that supports the gun ban.

    Home invasions are through the roof and the Australian people were lead to believe that by giving up their weapons the police force would be increased and protect them. Recession kicked in an no more police. Oh well, can’t have your guns back either. Whoops!

    Not in the USA! EVER

  167. Ninong says:

    It was just the three of them at the gun range. That’s not the same as a gun show. I’m just pointing that out. The shooter was suffering PTSD and his friends were trying to help him. That was a tragedy. I should say that every victim of gun violence is a tragedy.

    Here’s another fact to ponder. Countries with strict gun control do not suffer nearly as many deaths from gun violence as we do here in America. Just look at the difference the assault weapons ban made in Australia after it was passed. They had suffered, I think, about two dozen mass murders prior to the ban in 1996 and not a single one since. Just sayin’.

    So I don’t know what’s the answer here in America. I don’t think we can pass an assault weapons ban right now. That doesn’t mean we can’t make some progress. We could pass a universal background check. What’s wrong with that? Does anyone besides Wayne LaPierre think that’s a bad idea? We certainly don’t need cop-killer bullets either. Let’s just do whatever we can get through now. I don’t always agree with Harry Reid but I know he can count votes, unlike John Boehner. The best vote counter in recent history has been Nancy Pelosi. Unlike Boehner, she never brought a bill to the floor that she didn’t pass.

  168. Danny Green says:

    Sounds like you need some help seeing this. Be glad to help out:

    A well regulated militia needs to be able to combat a tyrannous well regulated military. So, given that notion, the militia needs the same armament as the military. Unfortunately this is not going to happen, as they will not legalize fully automatic weapons such as the military. So therefore the militia must be constrained and use semi-automatic weapons (such as assault weapons.)

    The liberal policymakers want to reduce the militia to operating with hunting gear, which clearly violates the second amendment right to bear arms necessary to defend against tyranny.

    See the point? This has nothing to do with hunting, or self protection, or murdering a bunch of school kids. This has to do with our government getting so big it needs to control the populace by removing rights.

    I hope this helps clarity what is at stake. I question whether the person that I am replying too really gives a crap, but I’ll be satisfied if just one person reads this and says, “Ahah, I get it now. The government really is doing something wrong here.”

  169. roxas says:

    honestly i’m sure a world without guns and war would be the ideal place to live but clearly that’s not ever going to happen all i’m saying is i’d rather have one myself than have one pointed at my head. i rest my case guns are necessary in this screwed up world we live in and those who don’t agree or see it are only blinded by fear and not facts
    i suggest owning one and growing up with one then you will understand the vast need for such a deadly weapon
    american’s are the most hated people on the planet gear up kiddos life’s about to get real

  170. Ninong says:

    Your statement is factually correct. That doesn’t imply anything on my part, just recognition of the truth as it stands today.

  171. Danny Green says:

    Excellent point! Who are the four idiots who downvoted this well versed point?

    Jeez, you four should strap on your super liberal capes and jump off the nearest tall building!

  172. Danny Green says:

    Whoa.. lots of facts there.

    Lets ban guns because of some guy who who killed someone at some place. By the way, he was talking about gun shows, not ranges. idgit

  173. Danny Green says:

    It was proven in a recent study that 82% of Americans were unable to distinguish an assault weapon from a non-assault weapon.

    This means that well over half of the people who say “Assault weapons should be banned” have no clue what they are talking about.

    This is the issue. Big media (including this site) is hurting America by propagating half truths.

    Wise up America, do your own homework, make up your own minds.

    Don’t believe everything you read.

  174. ThatGuy says:

    The photographs of the children with guns are a nice touch. Although they appear to be Airsoft guns.

  175. BeccaM says:

    Being a liberal and/or a gun owner does not equate to knee-jerk opposition to gun regulation.

    I grew up in a gun owning family, and my father — crazy as he was in the end — was a licensed gun and arms dealer who once had a Class 3 permit (until they became too expensive). I respect firearms and enjoy game hunting. I believe people should be able to own hunting and target shooting firearms, and I’m not opposed to the notion of double-action handguns either.

    I myself own firearms.

    I do question, however, why some feel they have a right to explosive-tipped or hollow-point bullets. Or semi-automatic assault rifles intended to perform exactly like their military counterparts — which exist for no other purpose than to maim and kill people. Or to extended magazines. Or those kits that allow you to fire a semi-auto nearly as fast as a full automatic. Hell, I look at the success of the Australian experiment and wonder if semi-automatic weapons of any kind should be in the hands of the general public.

    Those recent polls have shown that even among NRA members, they’re in favor of universal background checks and keeping guns out of the hands of convicted criminals and professionally diagnosed crazy people. Positions the NRA leadership itself has come out against.

  176. Danny Green says:

    No we enforce the laws on the books. Jeez, you liberals are all or nothing aren’t you? If you cannot have it your way, then it must be crazy.

    Time to grow up and realize that the 74% figure is bogus, most of us disagree with Feinstein.

  177. What part of maintaining a regulated militia would have been affected by the proposed legislation? I don’t see any threat to the 2nd Amendment at all.

  178. Danny Green says:

    Both of you are ridiculous! No laws? who says that… oh, just you and the rest of the liberals. What about the laws on the books that Biden says we don’t have time to enforce. How about throwing a few bucks behind those instead of creating new ones?

  179. New World Patriot says:

    I’ve an idea, why don’t we enforce the laws that are already on the books as opposed to starting down the slippery slope of giving up our constitutional rights. Give them the 2nd and they’ll take the 1st. Oh, love the impact pictures too.

  180. Danny Green says:

    Today is a wonderful day! I am so glad this lame war on evil looking weapons was dropped. Good riddance! Enforce the laws on the books, not create new ones that serve a liberal agenda to disarm America!

    Good job for the 26% majority! (though I don’t believe the 74% figure anyway, don’t believe the media!)

  181. The “heartland” is like 20% of the population. Most Americans live in the icky liberal cities.

  182. BeccaM says:

    Murder is already illegal. Strange how that doesn’t seem to stop the bad people from committing murders anyway.

  183. exactly. Based on the “criminals don’t obey laws” argument, we shouldn’t have laws for ANYTHING; why have them if criminals will just break them?

  184. What about that veteran who shot his friend at a gun range?

  185. zion1king says:

    I always here about all these polls being referred to that 75% of Americans favoring a ban on this and a ban on that. Oddly enough I have never met a single person in my life that was ever asked their opinion on anything from these mysterious pollsters.
    Fact of the matter is “Mainstream” and “Main street” America which is the “Heartland” of America is never asked to participate in such polls. These polls as indicated by the results are either bogus, slanted or strictly reserved for liberal crackpots, communists, socialists.

  186. SneakyGuy says:

    My kid’s junior high had metal-detectors on every door … and counselors watching every door (with one of them armed). This was over 10 years ago – and the policy is still in force today. So far, no one has attempted a gun crime there – nor even tried to tempt fate by bringing a gun to school.

  187. nicho says:

    No, idiot voters are the problem

  188. nicho says:

    So, basically, we should have no laws, since they don’t seem to prevent people from breaking them now and then. Idiot.

  189. Bill_Perdue says:

    The idea that reforms are possible is preposterous.

    The idea the he Democratsand/orRepublicans are qualified is preposterous.

  190. SneakyGuy says:

    Another point to ponder. How many people think that Democrats don’t own guns – or that some of those gun-owning Democrats aren’t politicians? I have no doubt that there are a lot of Democrats out there who might be liberal on every other issue EXCEPT guns.

  191. anonposter451 says:

    Schools are already “gun free”. Strange how that doesn’t seem to stop the bad people from bringing guns anyway. Every notice how no one ever goes on a shooting rampage at a gun show.

  192. zion1king says:

    Yeah that’s correct. Nothing like a broken record playing the truth. Must be painful to your ears huh?

  193. Ninong says:

    Even if 74% of the American people support something, we’re not going to see senators from states that are strongly in the 26% non-support group vote for it. That’s just the way it works, especially since we don’t have a parliamentary system of government. We run into that same problem every time the Democrats want to repeal some of the tax breaks enjoyed by the oil and gas industry. In fact, if you look at the list of senators who are opposed to an assault weapons ban most of them are the same ones who are in the pocket of the oil and gas industry. Of course, you would have to add Mary Landrieu to the list if it had anything at all to do with being a servant of big oil.

    People in San Francisco and New York City may be for an assault weapons ban but the majority of the residents of those fly-over states, especially the ones with lots of land and not many people, aren’t. So that’s the problem. California has only two senators, the same as Montana, or Rhode Island for that matter. That’s just the way we have the system set up.

  194. Harold Ramins says:

    So we just look the other way and hope for the best? Ridiculous.

  195. fedup says:

    DC is the problem not the answer.

  196. Just_AC says:

    oops, here not hare LOL

  197. Just_AC says:

    I do notice that most of the senators mentioned hare are from the rural western states. Maybe that had something to do with their policies.

  198. Guest says:

    Same tired argument. You’re a broken record.

  199. guest1 says:

    I doubt it would save one life anyway, killers dont care about gun laws especially “gun free” zones.

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS