Thursday, January 31, 2008

Blog Item #2: What is your opinion on Gun Control?


Phoenix said...

Right to bare arms......

I just wanted to put out there to all of you that are arguing about guns and gun control. First and foremost I just wanted alll of you to understand the real reason for the 2nd amendment: it was not intended to give us protection from some burgular, but the intention of our forefathers was to insure that when our government got to be too big for it's britches "WE the people..." would have the resources to stop it. Those resources being "arms" be it guns or tanks or what the hell ever is necessary to stop the -law making right taking- liberal and conservative a**holes alike.

Anonymous said...


They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq . Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it has worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it anymore.

An Armed and Prepared Woman said...

To My Stalker

Oooooh I'm so scared !

Go stalk yourself, lol !

Meanwhile I'll be cleaning my 'weapons' !

in Philadelphia said...

Guns do not make you a killer. I think killing makes you a killer. You can kill someone with a baseball bat or a car, but no one is trying to ban you from driving to the ball game.




Boston MA said...

You gun-toting right-wing wackos

What a fucking moron you right-wingers are. Almost 80 percent of gun owners are right-wing loonies. Ted Bundy was the typical Republican closet psycho...he was an organizer in fact, for the Republican Party.

Crimes on all levels are almost always right-wingers. Most pedophiles and rapists all fit the FBI profile..."conservative Republican type". Look no further than Ted Haggard...meth head and male prostitute fan...head of the Evangelical church (actually cult). Then there's Larry Craig, current Senator...a typical closeted Republican bathroom stall toe-tapper.

I just saw today on Craigs about 63 priests in this area that committed crimes against children. No...the Bible thumping has always been a front and a mask for conservatives and Republicans for being the most deviant creepy people in America.

Poor Logic Elementary School said...

re gun-toting right-wing wackos

Thank you for displaying your hatred and your name calling skills without actually addressing the problem.

Maybe you could put your mind to use and address an issue such as "How do we keep people from killing each other?" The answer is not to take away guns.

However, you were able to display, like an armband, your bitter attitude toward the rest of the world. (Leave the basement and breath some fresh air -- it's beautiful outside and you might meet your neighbors.) Please note that your priest comment refers to Catholics, who tend to be Democrats so I didn't understand why you lumped them in with Ted Bundy and some "FBI profile." By the way, I've been associated with the FBI for decades and your information does not match their policies.

Please people, discuss problems and solutions and frustrations and joys (i.e. rants and raves) but please keep your own emotional problems and mental shortcomings at home!! Have something to say besides some finger pointing comment. "It's not me, it's everyone else who's wrong."

Anonymous said...

Gun Cultists

Gun ownership should not be regulated by having to buy a permit. Unlike driving, which is a privilege; gun ownership is the right of any American citizen

Once we allow the government to step in, take away our freedom, and regulate who gets to own a gun by making us take a test and paying money for a permit, we are not too far away from having full gun control like England has. One day a permit may cost $100,000.00. and noone will be able to own a gun legally.

Remember, this country was founded by revolutionaries that needed guns to break free of the tyranny of Great Britain. We have the right to bear arms not only to hunt, but to defend ourselves from our government becoming too powerful and overstepping its boundaries. Our founding fathers knew that, and that is why we are we allowed to have guns. They knew nothing lasts forever perfectly.

A quote from the Declaration of Independence:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

If a day ever comes that we need to overthrow our government because it has repressed our freedoms... do you think those in charge will just hand over power? We will need intelligent, worldly people to found a new government... and guns to back them up!

Ben Franklin once said: "Any man who is willing to give up his freedom in the name of safety deserves neither!" just because some people may not like guns, does not mean they have no purpose.

Thinking Caps R Needed said...

re:gun cultists

"If a day ever comes that we need to overthrow our government because it has repressed our freedoms... do you think those in charge will just hand over power? We will need intelligent, worldly people to found a new government... and guns to back them up!"...................................................... have you built your bomb shelter in your basement yet you retard... everyone understands the right to bear arms... the problem with it is the common sense used regarding guns... you also have the right to free speech... that doesn't mean everything we say is right... restrictions should apply... it's a new world buddy, about time you wake up and realize it... things aren't quite as cut-n-dry as they used to be...

Kill said...

Reply to:
Date: 2008-02-17, 3:27PM EST

The Second Amendment SUCKS. Not everyone SHOULD have this right. Police and military...THAT'S IT. I know I wouldn't want a gun. The way I flip out when someone pisses me off - might not be a good idea to have a .45 handy. You don't deserve the right either, my friend. WHY do you need a gun? If we did away with this bullshit amendment and made it IMPOSSIBLE for people to have guns, I can assure you that the crime rate will go down in every city and state within this country. I'm no liberal, either. I'm rather a right-winged conservative. I'm just so sick and tired of hearing kids killing kids with guns, drug dealers killing people, etc. The second amendment should be abolished. No one deserves a right to have a gun...NO ONE. It's a bullshit amendment. Don't bother way you can change my point of view. And, this is coming from an offspring of a police officer who is a big, BIG NRA supporter. Can't stand the NRA or anyone else that supports #2 amendment. Ya'll a bunch of white trash hicks (yea, I'm white).

Anonymous said...


if you outlaw and ban guns, yes the crime rate might drop. but not a significant amount. true some criminals act braver with a gun, but the bottom line is, they are criminals and would have acted as such no matter what. but the opposite is equally true, some criminals would be much braver if they knew that their prey had no means of defense. I agree that the average joe should not have fireamrs. I think the NRA is a scary bunch. just as scary as those that saw all guns must go.
if a law is passed that bans the personal ownership of firearms, I think you will see a very large spike in reported stolen firearms. "yes Mr. Government, I went to turn in my firearm only to find that it had been stolen. (wink)" there is nothing that can be done about the issue now. they exist and are in circulation. the only solution is to stop the catch and release of those with the mental weakness that makes them criminals.

Sven Forkbeard said...

Re: Guns
In an ideal world, yes. It would be nice if guns ( let us say, handguns) didn't exist. However....that is also naive and child like thinking.
Here's a scenario: A left wing socialist is president, and a compliant Congress passes a law to eliminate the 2nd Amendment. The Supreme Court has two or three "Ruth Bader Ginsberg" type appointments...and now all gun ownership is severely restricted. ( some hunting rifles and shotguns...but all handguns and
non hunting rifles are outlawed. Ownership is now a crime with prison time)

All the folk who obey laws, go to work every day, have families, etc...dutifully turn in their weapons for fear of the law and its consequences.
However..all the thugs, killers, muggers, thieves, rapists etc. ...who never obeyed laws at all....don't turn them in since obeying the law was never a priority for them. have a situation where the productive, law abiding people are defenseless. You've taken away their protection. ( don't tell me a cell phone and 911 call are all you need)...and the killers/social missfits are armed. The misfits also know that their targets for crime are now defenseless. You have to go somewhere in your car..park and get out. You are a target. The person who wants to rob or rape you knows you are unarmed. This is the situation you create, when you outlaw guns. Only the law abiding will be deprived. The worst elements will be the only ones out there with weapons.
My children are adults now. I have a loaded 9mm in my car within easy reach.
I have a .32 Beretta Tomcat in my pocket. At home...I have a 12 guage short lenght double barrel "coach gun" for any home invasions.
Like Clarence Worley (Chritian Slater) said in "True Romance"...." It's better to have a gun and not need it...than to need a gun and not have it"

As I said...if everyone was a Quaker, and free of mental health problems, or something similar...I guess the world could melt their arms down into plowshares ( if they still make them)....but until that time, we need an armed citizenry simply to defend itself against the barbarians in our own society.

godblue bluff said...

guns .... i don't have one but i'll....

defend to the death your right to own one. the thing that the anti gun people don't understand is "they" want your gun so as WE won't be able to defend ourselves. EVERY SINGLE MASS MURDER HAS BEEN DONE by individules who are taking anti depressent drugs, these are known to cause severe psychosis, yet they are prescribed to people who should probably recieve hug therapy. this country would be like orwells 1984 now if there weren't 250 million guns in crazy ass US citizens hands,and i for one, feel safer knowing we outgun"them" 100 to 1.


re:Re: Guns (Sven Forkbeard)

OMG! That is so anti-Obama-Billary!!! When we get our first black-black, socialist president (Obama), or our first-white-black-woman socialist president (Hillary), the second Amendment will have to go. We can't have law-abiding, hard-working, straight white males defending themselves against the downtrodden blacks, latinos and transgendered community, can we?! Only Bloods, Crips, MS13 and paranoid white women afraid of white, male rapists should be allowed to carry guns. They should even get to claim it as a business expense on their tax forms. I guess that makes me a NAZI....i'm so ashamed of myself. I'm a white male and I apologize!!! Hey Jamal, date my daughter and give me some street creds will'ya? ;>

Anonymous said...

re:Re: Guns (Sven Forkbeard) - (REVELATIONS) pic

I have noticed you made posts calling obama and clinton socialists, would you mind telling us exactly what YOU think socialism is? I think you are an idiot who throws that word around because maybe you heard your dad say it about Minorities or something. Were you one of the people that gave a ration of shit to East Indian people who work at gas stations too?

Phila said...

RE: Guns

All banning guns will do is make it harder for the lawful to have them. The shit heads that sell the drugs and kill the kids are going to have guns no matter if they are legal or not. I am a black belt and a CCW holder I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

NYC said...

I'll give up my legally owned gun when...

they make it a law that if you commit ANY crime with ANY gun, you get the death penalty, no appeals, sentence carried out immediately, and the lawyer who tries to get anyone off that commits a crime with a gun gets the death penalty, no appeals, immediate execution. And yes, this means that when a black person commits a crime, they also come under this new law. Until then, I'm keeping mine because the laws currently are skewed to protect the criminals, especially black ones, not law abiding citizens. Making guns illegal will only greatly increase the ratio of criminal gun owners to law abiding gun owners.

Anonymous said...

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
I believe in self defense and I believe in capital punishment. I also believe in birth control. I'm not as cold blooded as one may think, people in America have too many psychological problems because they grew up used, unwanted and unloved. The narcissistic mainstream is enough to make one a sociopath. Add on life troubles and you have a cry for help.

Paranoic said...

Shooting at Illinois University
Still, though, there are more people with depression or any kind of mental illness than robbers in this country.

Guns are for people very insecure. They want to impose and show some power. Somebody that is not in war shouldn't be able to have guns.

The laws in Connecticut appear to be weaker than the laws in New York about guns.

NYC Posted said...

The Terrorists Within Our Borders
We're so worried that foreigners are going to kill us when more than likely, as we see every day across our country, it's our own disturbed individuals, the police, the government that will destroy us.

Maybe we need to heal within instead of painting the 'other', that evil foreigner out there who the
govt. wants us to focus on.

We have the worst record of gun violence in the world. Maybe the NRA and all these pro gun groups
should back off and ban ALL guns, as they do in Europe and Asia.

Anonymous said...

Re: The Terrorists Within Our Borders

Banning guns in this nation will do only one thing, it will give the criminal element free reign to do as they please. Criminals are that because they do not respect the law, they arent going to care how many laws are passed restricting or even banning guns. Legal guns owned by respectful law-abiding citizens in this country are rarely used in crimes. The first thing a government does to control the population is to take away their guns. Thats what the Nazis did, thats what the Communists did. Do you want this to be a facist state? I surely dont. I have a variety of views on gun control. I think it is a good idea to ban automatic weapons, however, its a slippery slope, once you ban one, then you ban the rest eventually, and thats why i think automatic weapons need to held legal, HOWEVER, make it so difficult and expensive that few will be sold.

Want to stop illegal gun sales? Hold the seller of the weapons as part of whatever crime its used in. How many gun sellers will think twice about selling a gun knowing that if its used to kill, they could go to jail for life or be executed? Money - is truly the root of all evil. People dont commit crime for fun, they do it because they want money or soemthing of value. Remember that.

How can we heal people who dont want to be healed? There was a time when those who were mentally ill, would be put into an institution and medicated. Now we cannot do that, as its against their rights. What about the rights of our society to be safe? Why is the right of the individual held higher than that of the general public?

Explain to me how we are to "heal" with individuals who hate our nation for our way of life? Who want "us" to convert to their lifestyle? Because of the hard work of our forefathers who made this nation what it is, we have more of just about everything. Even the poorest family in this nation has more than the poorest in Africa and the Middle East. We are the envy of many nations. Not only that we support the Nation of Israel. THat alone makes us a target. Even if we were to break of ties with them, eventually we would be in their target sites.

Another Moron said...

re The Terrorists Within Our Borders.....
The next microcephalic that tries to use the old "colonial army" bullshit to claim the Founding Fathers would be anti-gun for "commoners" should go read the Federalist Papers..(Franklin, Paine, Jefferson, among others wrote them!) and LEARN that their INTENT was that EVERY "able-bodied" man in the Union should own, use, and be PROFICIENT with guns, not only for the obvious purpose of defending the land against foreign invaders, but, ALSO SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of defending against a GOVERNMENT taken over by "tyranny"!!! THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT TOO MUCH GOV'T POWER EVEN THEN!!!!! #2... stated well by the NRA.. if you get everyone to turn in their guns... (Hey,I can suspend my disbelief with the BEST of the X-tian crazies..) do you REALLY believe criminals will all have simultaneous changes of heart and turn THEIRS in too? I have some land in florida if you buy that bullshit... NOOO.... what you'd DO is create a crime wave that'd make the Heroin-ravages of the mid-'70's look like a quilting bee.

... and lastly... STOP THINKING THAT "LIBERALS" all want your guns... other than victim-groups, do ANY of you assmonkeys know WHAT institution supports Gun Control shit the most??......Answer: CHURCHES!!!!!!!!!!! Evangelical Churches, Catholic Churches, Lutheran Churches... Left-wing, Right-wing, Mainstream(Southern Baptists, Protestant), even the ADMITTEDLY off-the-wall churches(7th-day Adventist, Christian Scientists... YES.. SCIENTOLOGISTS TOO!!!!! While a small percent of that bunch ARE liberal, the GREAT majority are as Right-wing as Dick fucking Cheney. SO STOP Chundering that lie-arrea about "Libs" want your guns.. the FUCKING CONSERVATIVES want them... probably so they don't get shot when the depth of 25 years of traitorous treachery comes to light!

You say elements within the US government are more dangerous than oversea terrorists [Who are mostly CIA operatives]. Then you advocate the disarming of the citizens. Just how the fuck are unarmed, defenseless citizens supposed to reform their pariah government? With flowers? Tienanmen Square ring a bell? Fuck, you are stupid.

History Note said...

re: re The Terrorists Within Our Borders

If you are going to put forth an argument, at least get your facts right.

The Federalist Papers were not written by Franklin, Paine and Jefferson. They were mostly written by Alexander Hamilton, with some papers written by James Madison and John Jay.

Far from endorsing the Second Amendment, or anything close to it, the authors of the Federalist Papers opposed the entire Bill of Rights--including the Second (the Gun) Amendment. In a nation of farmers, most Americans did own guns. It was assumed these guns would be used for defense if necessary but nowhere in the Federalist Papers do you find specific backing for a constitutional amendment forbidding the government to interfere with gun ownership.

I know you fruitcakes believe you could use a personal weapon to end the Northern Illinois University shooting: One shot from you and it would be over. The reality is that 99% of gun owners have had no combat training and would be unable to produce, aim and accurately fire a weapon in the face of an armed person shooting at them.

More likely you would spray enough fire around to kill still more people. The military does not give soldiers control of a weapon until they have been trained and tested. Ditto for the police and other law enforcement officers. You want anyone who can pay for a gun to be able to carry and use it without any training or testing.

And you justify that with a completely bogus interpretation of the Federalist Papers.

ARM Yourselves said...

Another University Tragedy
Criminals and nuts will always be able to get guns...Drugs are illegal and imported from (generally) south of the boarder and anyone who wants them can get them. These same industrious folks will gladly import guns to sell to our criminals or psychos.

I carry a legal firearm and I have a permit to do so. IF someone was armed during the LI train shooting, VT, or NIU, the mass murderers might have been stopped before they killed or maimed so many people. Guns STOP crime. The unfortunate incidents of accidents in the home are 99% the result of carelessness, stupidity, and UNQUALIFIED UNEDUCATED gun owners.

People seeking to carry, should have to pass a background check, take classes in the use, care and ramifications of using your weapon, pass tests, and be required to purchase a gun safe to store multiple weapons if collecting them.

Look at the rise (huge) in gun crime in the UK, and other gun free "utopias'. Check the FBI and DOJ stats...Areas with high gun ownership DO have less crime. Don't be a victim.

big picture people said...

Another Shooter. Why cant people see the real reason

Psychiatry and pharma make billions drugging people, and then they flip out and kill or suicide. All the shooters were on psych drugs. So were many celeb's who died recently (ledger)
Now big brother wants to take away gun rights, for even "sane" people.
No one will have guns, and then they can take over with no fight.

a dumb statement said...

re-guns don't kill people, people kill people...
this is clearly the dumbest statement ever, promoted by NRA loving illiterates...

would any psychopath with the intention to murder innocent people have the ability to kill as many people if the murder weapon was a:

knife/lead pipe/rope/candlestick/computer keyboard/textbook/doorknob/ruler/pen/lamp/speaker wire/razor blade/broken bottle/saw/letter opener/wine opener/etc.?




Jackasses One and All said...

re-guns don't kill people, people kill people -
A Dumb Statement ......

You're the one who just made the dumbest statement of them all.

What if that person used a homemade bomb or flame thrower ....

Now piss off you Liberal num nutted asshole.

Anonymous said...

banning guns is a band-aid. the root of the problem will still exist

Anonymous said...

re, re, re: Guns don't kill people, people kill people

Listen up ant-brain - guns are here to stay. You may ban them entirely but they will always be available to those who really want them. Look at Britain, virtually nobody is allowed to own a gun and yet their gun violence is slowly creeping up to our levels. Look at Scotland. Again, virtually nobody owns a gun legally and yet they have a higher murder rate than the US.

If your fictional mass murderer set about attacking people with knives or whatever, then he wouldn't even get to kill ONE person if someone nearby was armed. In fact, if he knew that the probability was that most of his victims were armed, he wouldn't even TRY. Ditto the college shooter - if he knew that there were people in that audience who were armed in self defense, then he wouldn't be attacking a room full of defenseless people - which is after all the whole attraction to them in the first place - he would be attacking a group of people who would most likely pump 100 holes in him before he even got a chance to shoot the second person.

Who the fuck are you to say I can't exercise my most basic human right to protect my own life?

Anonymous said...

re, re, re: Guns don't kill people, people kill people

Listen up ant-brain - guns are here to stay. You may ban them entirely but they will always be available to those who really want them. Look at Britain, virtually nobody is allowed to own a gun and yet their gun violence is slowly creeping up to our levels. Look at Scotland. Again, virtually nobody owns a gun legally and yet they have a higher murder rate than the US.

If your fictional mass murderer set about attacking people with knives or whatever, then he wouldn't even get to kill ONE person if someone nearby was armed. In fact, if he knew that the probability was that most of his victims were armed, he wouldn't even TRY. Ditto the college shooter - if he knew that there were people in that audience who were armed in self defense, then he wouldn't be attacking a room full of defenseless people - which is after all the whole attraction to them in the first place - he would be attacking a group of people who would most likely pump 100 holes in him before he even got a chance to shoot the second person.

Who the fuck are you to say I can't exercise my most basic human right to protect my own life?


Re" Guns Kill People?
What kills people is Pyschiatry, and Drugs. The pharmaceutical companys make BILLIONS of of people, and the psychs are the drug pushers. The drugs make people insane, and they flip out. They were'nt "allready" fuked up, the drugs made them more fuked up. Now big brother can claim guns are dangerous. Yes dangerous to them!

Proud Liberal said...

RE: Guns Kill People (?)

Very good post.

The people that actually believe that a gun would shoot itself, and doesn't need the psycotic behind the trigger, most likely believe that forks, knives and spoons cause overweight.

transplanted yankee said...

Re: Guns kill people (?)

I have to agree. But living in NYC my whole life, I was not able to own a handgun, even though I've wanted one since I was in my mid-teens. I'm 41 now and last year I smartened up and moved away from NYC to a land where you can't get more different, Fort Worth, Texas. I did my research on which gun I wanted to buy. It took me a few months to narrow the field to five different models. Then one day I walked into Cabela's here in Fort Worth and bought a brand spanking new Beretta Px4 Storm. It took me all of five minutes to fill out the form and it took them about 10 minutes to call the ATF and/or the FBI to ensure I was not ever convicted of a felony. Yeah,I was nervous because I was never on the Government's radar before and now I am.... well, maybe not but I was still nervous. I walked out of the store with 150 rounds of ammo, a gun cleaning kit and my brand new 9mm pistol, which came with two 17 round magazines, which you can't own in NYC by the way. NYC law dictates no more than a 10 round magazine is legal. I now have in my home 1,500 rounds of ammunition, 300 rounds of those are hollow points for home defense and personal protection, the rest are just plain old full metal jackets for the range, eight magazines, six of which hold 17 rounds, the other two hold 20 rounds each (yes, two 20 round magazines in a handgun, it's legal here in Texas), tow gun cases, a safe, a gun lock assorted cleaning materials and my hand gun. When I'm home it's within reach with a loaded 20 round magazine filled with Remington Golden Saber 124 grain +P 9mm ammuniton. In the instance of a home intruder all I have to do is rack the slide and I'm good to go. When I go out, I lock it in the safe without the magazine loaded but I put the magazine in the safe too and I put the lock on the gun. When I go to the range, I lock the gun under the seat of my motorcycle. Sometime in the next month or two I plan on getting my CHL, Concealed Handgun License.

Lets Go European said...

Guns DON'T kill people, people DO KILL PEOPLE! It is a true statement and as a matter of fact in france they have strict laws on guns and who can own them so do you know what the criminals are doing? They are killing people with butcher knives and many are getting away with it because a butcher knife doesnt make the loud bang that a firearm makes that a passersby or neighbor call the police. The crime rate over there has actually risen because of this.

You also said that if there were not any guns out there a psychopath would not be able to kill MULITIPLE people.... Do you really believe that??? Have you ever heard of the Unibomber? This guy used to send bombs through the postal service and when the person of his target gets the package and opens it up, boom! They are dead. And this went on for years before he was caught.

Guns also save lives too, you never hear about how many times people have either used a gun or even flashed a gun to a criminal to save themselves and their families. But people like you never hear about those stories and it makes you have a one sided opinion of firearms.

No, the government should not ban all guns from law abiding citizens. People that sell guns need to think more about the safety of the public and NOT about making a sale for profit. This is how firearms fall into the hands of criminals along with the burglary of a gun owners home.

just a scenario said...

Why guns should be banned -

I have a legal gun. So do all my neighbors.

But I happen to hate neighbor A across the street. So one day I invite him over late at night to watch a football game. Over he comes. BANG! He's dead from my legal gun. I call 911. Damn, I thought he was a burglar! Oh well...mistakes happen. away with murder.

I hate those guys on the corner too. They never did anything to me but they are black so what the hell. I roll up on them. BANG! One is dead the others are running. I call 911. The guy tried to rob me, I say. Oh well...won't rob anyone again. away with murder.

I wonder how many in Texas and other gun-happy states are DEAD and are not criminals, just guys who were hated by some gun-toting nutcase who wanted to kill them for no reason and who later called them robbers. Oh well...mistakes can be made.

Woodside USA said...

To the Idiot who thinks guns should be banned.

So what your're saying is that people are too fucked up to be trusted with the necessary tools to protect themselves and their families and to enjoy their hunting and target practicing.
Only the Federal Authorities and Police shoud have them, because God knows, their 3 to 6 months in the Academy insures that they will have more self control than the rest of us stupid and inept people.
A Cop or Fed would NEVER lay plot and design to murder someone they may hate, becuase they are our heroes who we must look to for protection.

Sir, your first line of defense against anyone who might do you harm is YOU!
Not 911!
You, and no one else, are responsible for your own personal safety and that of your loved ones, which, incidently, is why I'm against seatbelt and helmet laws.

You sound like a typical liberal who would rather be safe than free!
You sir, would have no problem having more Government in your life and less freedom, as long as you are protected!

Someone, I'm not sure who, once said, "A Patriot must be ready to defend his Country against it's Government."

I believe in power to the people, which is impossible without the people's right to bear arms!

Anonymous said...

To the Anti Gun People

Seriously you people ACTUALLY THINK that banning guns will keep criminals from getting guns???

Does 'Prohibition' ring a bell in history with your idiots?

A Measured Opinion said...

WHY I'm Against Gun Ownership In The Wrong Hands

1). Illinois college campus massacre (recent news).

2). Virginia Tech massacres ( last year).

3). James Brady assassination attempt.

4). Ronald Reagan assassination attempt.

5). John Lennon death.

6). Assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II.

7). Numerous reports of children being shot while innocently playing in the streets of the U.S. by those possessing illegal guns.

The Constitution was meant to be a living document. As stated in my prior post, the Second Amendment ( right to bear arms) was necessary in those frontier times. Questioning the validity of this Amendment in the year 2008 does NOT make me anti-American.

I maintain my original position- run FULL psychological profiles prior to those that purchase guns and require all that purchase guns to be registered. The intent of how the guns will be used should be stated. Clean up the streets to prevent illegal handguns from being sold and purchased. In addition: What other uses does a gun have but to kill? The same cannot be said about other items that could be used as weapons.

How many more human lives must be sacrificed before we come to our senses? It's time for our society to design realistic gun control laws. Oh- to the person that called me a certain colloquial name- Bless you, too!

Anonymous said...

re: WHY I'm Against Gun Ownership In The Wrong Hands

I agree with you except I wish the pope had been killed. The dumb fucking asshole told people in AIDS ridden countries not to use condoms. That probably killed more people than all the illegal hand guns in the world.

Anonymous said...


1.Gun ownership is a good idea because violent crime is out of control. One recent survey revealed that a violent crime occurs somewhere in the U.S.A. every 23.1 seconds.

2.Gun ownership is a criminals' worse nightmare. Criminals prefer unarmed victims. Guns are used thousands of times every day by law abiding citizens for personal protection – usually without a single shot being fired.

3.Gun ownership is your lifeline when the police can't help you. The average nationwide response time for the police to arrive at your front door, if somebody is kicking it in, is over seven minutes! (That assumes you actually have time to call them).

4.Gun ownership is good personal protection at all times. Home alarms and dogs can't help you when you are away from home, but a gun can! You should possess a concealed-carry permit, concealed-carry does what gun control laws don't do; it protects people and reduces crime.

5.Gun ownership is your best line of defense because the criminal justice system can't protect you. You can't depend on the courts to keep criminals off our streets. But, you can depend on them to put criminals back on the street.

6.Gun ownership – because you have the responsibility to protect your family. It is far better to own a gun and to never need it, than to not have one if you ever do need it.

7.Gun ownership is a good idea because the fluff and bluff gun control laws don't work. Criminals don't obey gun control laws! For personal protection, the liberals prefer gun control over gun ownership. But the liberals are dreamers. Dreams are good but reality is better!

8.Gun ownership is the right of the people. It is an essential right because it is a vital necessity. Our founding fathers were freedom fighters. They only had one weapon – guns!

9.Gun ownership is a God-given right! Self-defense is a basic fundamental, absolute right like eating and breathing. You have the right to decide how best to protect your family. The Second Amendment does not give you the right to own a gun. It acknowledges that you already have that right. You were born with that right!

10.Gun ownership – because the Second Amendment protects all the others. It protects all our rights and freedoms. My gun protects your freedom and your gun protects my freedom. The guns of the people restrain the power of the government. Fear the government that fears your gun. It's more than guns – it's freedom!

NY Gun Owner said...


Ummm..Banning guns only applies to the honest American..not the thugs, rapeists, criminals, or nut-jobs. They will get thier guns any way possible, legal or illeagle. So,now honest law-abbiding tax paying citizen can not purchase a gun, but the fucking law breaking criminal can? I have to rely on the police to get to me and save my ass while this armed criminal invades my house, harms my wife and 3 children, god forbid rapeing someone? I have to beg him or them to wait outside untill the police get there? FUCK YOU!!! I am a resposible gun owner, and my children will be also when they grow up. You have to able to protect and defend yourself. there are too many gun laws already..back the fuck off. Use my hi tax money to keep criminals in jail..or get the ones off the street. By creating more stupid gun laws, the government is going to turn me into a criminal because I want to be able to protect my family? Gun controll is communism..Look what Hitler all started with gun consfication. Take away my 2nd Amendment right, and I have no way to stop you from from takeing away any of my other rights. My gun protects your Freedom..leave it alone.

A Canadian said...


When are you moronic, barbarian Americans going to stop being more concerned with your guns than with people? Your obsession with guns, prisons, and violence, in life and on television, has no equal in any other Western industrial country, and you truly are at the nadir of all civilised societies. No wonder so many of your people kill one another, in all places and at any given time. No wonder the Muslims would not even hesitate to bomb you back into the stone age again!
All too sad and too bad.

Thank you for listening. said...

Something has to be done.....
about these loser 40+ shut-ins, middle-aged, never been married, no kids, living more or less with mom and dad. They are starting to KILL people. They can snap at any minute. If you ladies know someone like this, PLEASE PLEASE alert your local police department. File a report. They may laugh but you can tell them that these people are ticking time bombs, ready to EXPLODE. You can even lie and say they have guns up in the house (they probably do) or have kiddie porn on their computer (they probably do) and even if they don't you get the cops to raid the joint and maybe stop a full-fledged massacre by scaring the guy into not buying guns or kiddie porn.

When these guys lose it, they lose it violently and tend to commit suicide later. the way, make sure you tell the cops to beware and keep and eye out for when the parents die, because that's when suicide is most likely because they cannot live without their mom or dad at this point...they are too entrenched as being adult children. They have no knowledge of even how to pay rent or bills or cook, clean, or do laundry.

Anonymous said...

re, Thank you for listening.

Spoken Like A True LIBERAL !!!!!

Anonymous said...

Back in the early 1980's I worked full-time as an armed security guard in Los Angeles, it was scary then.

Now I wouldn't go anywhere in Southern California unless I was armed, and you shouldn't either!

Legal Gun Owner said...

Gun Control Nuts

Do you people really believe that it would be possible to collect all of the guns from criminals??? Do you really think they would just say... Oh damn, they banned hand guns and assault rifles, I better go down and turn mine in. Get a clue. The post about crime in the cities with the tough gun laws says it all. It's common sense stupids. Come to my house or try to car jack me... you will lose. You people against having guns will most likely die. You libs just see the world through rose colored glasses and think if you just talk or be nice criminals and terrorist will leave us alone. I really hate to be so rude but you are just so stupid!!! Get a clue Libs. Guns save lives!!!

former marine said...

Guns dont'kill people,people kill people with guns...

hhmmmm what a debate. Well I guess their right on this one. Guns don't kill people. People kill people ...and sometimes with guns. When used in combat or self defense there is nothing wrong with guns. Samuel Colt said his pistol the colt revolver has become the "great equalizer" And no man will fear another when armed with my pistol. Guns were a part of this country since it's beginning. With so much violence being perpetrated on victims, what recourse does the average Joe have but to defend himself against all that would do him ...or her harm. One innocent life is too much to be taken. If more guns stop would be assailants and then maybe more violent crime would be less. Blame lawmakers for too lenient sentences on people that have commited too violent crime .

In the USA said...

Guns and Violence

Has anyone caught on to the statistics on gun bans and violent crime?
What do the following areas have in common...
Washington DC
New York City
Los Angeles
Answer: You arent allowed to posess or carry a gun. What else do they have in common? How about a high rate of rape, murder, home invasion, aggrivated assault, and the list goes on and on.
Maybe it's just my screwed up way of thinking, but if I were a criminal, I would also love to have my victims unarmed.
And remember one other rule: in an armed public, people are called citizens, in an unarmed public, people are called subjects.
I own many firearms, and fully believe in the 2nd Amendment. If you don't, well, then that leaves more guns for me...and if the day ever comes when you would have to pick up a gun to defend yourself or home and family, try grabbing that bat or fireplace poker from behind the door.I'm sure that the guy holding a gun to your family will immediately drop the gun and head for the door.

Anonymous said...

They just don't always kill the right ones. Cars, dogs, knives,trees,la,la,la,la kill people too. Maybe one day you'll be saved by one- oh wait you already have if you live the US!!!

People Will Protect Themselves said...

Utah students hide guns, head to class

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah -- The senior at the University of Utah gets dressed and then decides which gun is easiest to conceal under his clothes.

If he's wearing a T-shirt, he'll take a smaller, low-profile gun to class. If he's wearing a coat, he may carry a different weapon, he said.

He started carrying a gun to class after the massacre at Virginia Tech, but the student says he's not part of the problem of campus shootings and could instead be part of a solution.

Nick, who asked not to be fully identified so his fellow students wouldn't know he carried a gun, says he has had a concealed weapons permit for more than three years. But it was Seung-Hui Cho's murderous campus rampage that made him take a gun to class.

"Last year, after Virginia Tech, I thought 'I'm not going to be a victim,' " Nick said.

"My first thought was 'how tragic.' But then I couldn't help but think it could've been different if they'd allowed the students the right to protect themselves."

Days after another campus shooting in which five students and the gunman died at Northern Illinois University students at colleges in Utah, the only state to allow weapons at all public universities, are attending classes.

Nick says his gun doesn't make him feel immune from attack. "But I feel that I will be able to protect myself, and I'm confident in my training and my ability," he said.

His confidence is not shared by fellow student Griselda Espinoza, who recently transferred to the university. Some 28,000 students attend the school, as of the latest enrollment figures.

"I feel less safe knowing that a stranger sitting beside me in class may have a gun in his or her backpack," she said.

"The only people that should carry guns are trained officials."

University of Utah spokeswoman Coralie Alder stressed that although the school has become a poster child in the media regarding guns on campus, the debate is really a statewide issue.

"The university is following the law as determined by the Utah Legislature during last year's session, which allows concealed weapon permit holders to carry guns on university and colleges campuses, as well as other locations," she said.

Amanda Covington, Utah State Board of Regents spokeswoman, would not comment on the current gun laws on school campuses.

However, she said the regents are opposing a legislative proposal to allow people with concealed weapons permits to have the weapons visible in public.

"We are worried that it may affect their [students' and teachers'] willingness or desire to go to or teach a class on campus," she said.

The University of Utah, based in Salt Lake City, had prohibited firearms on its campus until that ban was struck down by the state's Supreme Court in late 2006. The institution, backed by all other universities in the state, is still fighting through federal courts to reinstate the ban.

But state legislators could be moving in the opposite direction, considering a bill to modify current law to allow people in Utah including students to carry loaded weapons openly.

Utah State Representative Curtis Oda said the bill, which he is sponsoring, is merely to clarify that people with weapons permits may carry a gun openly or with a concealed permit they may hide it for the sake of surprise.

He stressed that people with permits have gone through rigorous checks.

"When you see someone with a gun, you are looking at some of the most law-abiding people in the state," he said.

The issue goes beyond campus. Last year, a few miles from the University of Utah, a man walked into Trolley Square, a Salt Lake City shopping mall, and opened fire. Police were there in only three minutes, but the shooter had already killed five people and wounded four others.

"And not just shootings, but [serial killer] Ted Bundy did some of his crimes at the University of Utah campus," said David Seelly, a recent University of Utah graduate who says he carried a concealed gun on campus.

"If one of those ladies was a concealed-weapon holder, she could've stopped him before he did as much as he did."

To get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, people in Utah must, among other things:
Be 21 years old
Have no criminal record of violent, immoral or substance-related crime
Be mentally competent.
Student Kevin Rechtenbach of the University of Utah said he was open to carrying a gun, but not certain that would solve problems.

"If acts of terrorism continue on campus, then I will have no choice but to carry a concealed weapon," he said.

"But you see, that is where the problem lies: Everybody will end up carrying concealed weapons, and everyday problems will be solved with guns rather than words or even fists."

The only places on campus that have restrictions are the dormitories. Students can request a roommate who doesn't carry a gun.

Private colleges in Utah, like the Mormon Church-owned Brigham Young University in Provo, do have more power to ban weapons on campus, but that, too, causes disagreement among students.

"I own some guns, and I wish I was allowed to have them at school," said Collin Barker, a BYU student. "I would just keep [them] in my car for target shooting."

Casey Matheny, from Plano, Texas, now studying at BYU, appeared indifferent to the debate over students carrying guns.

"I don't mind if they have one, I just don't want to know about it," he said.

Rob Morrison, a BYU student from Ontario, Canada, doesn't think that having guns on campus would necessarily stop a potential killer.

"The people that do it want to commit suicide anyway," Morrison said. "But it would give students a chance to defend themselves, and at Virginia Tech, it could have ended sooner than it did."

Anonymous said...

guns guns

everyone should own and be proficient at using at least one "weapon"..
and have the ammo to keep using it as needed !!

Anonymous said...

guns guns guns

Your right is to bear arms. You are under no obligation to ask others to do as

The Criminals Are Watching You said...

This message is to the head shed who wants to put a "no guns here" symbol on their home. Has it ocurred to you that bad guys don't know who is aremed and who isn't? So you want to put up a great big sign that screams "pick me.... pick me...... pick me....... I have two daughters and my wallet in on the table ... oh please, pick me"? Well, dumbass, I will get them printed for you and will even help you find other morons willing to put "potential victim" sympols on their homes. That will make the rest of us just that much safer. Jesus, where were you when the IQ line was forming?

If I am busy I can assure that any criminal in town will also be willing to help print them up and pass them out, if they can stop laughing long enough. Yup, good idea.

Criminals Welcome said...


I am a female and I have always had and fired guns.
I always will, and by the way, I am also a democrat/liberal/non conformist, and smarter than you !!!!!


Committee to Elect Hillary Clinton for President said...



Liberals Everywhere said...

re, guns and hillary clinton....

and you doo doo ding dongs think Obama wont take them, he is a Hillary Clinton in disguise.

Wake Up Sheeple, your government is calling said...

Old bastard pushing 72 with the gremlins still running around in that George Bush hugging head of his that crawled into his mind while staying at the Hanoi Hilton, you'd have to be Insane to Vote McCain !!

Clinton, Obama, McCain they all have the same agenda, open borders, screw the middle class, socialized big government - and disarm America.

Anonymous said...

Gunz and Nutz

"Saying guns kill people is like saying pencils cause spelling errors." Please. That's high school logic at its finest. Even our Real World poster tapdances around the issue.

All of us are irrational at best, and frequently stupid as well. Holstering one's emotions is a great ideal and an even better bumper sticker, but totally inapplicable to the real world. Of course a pile of problems would be solved if we could learn to control our emotions and tempers. Keep waiting for that to happen and tell me how it turns out, okay?

Killing a person without a gun means you have to get up close and personal. It means you have to get physical. It means your victim will probably have a chance to run away or fight back. It means you will probably get blood on you, or be forced to listen to your victim's pleas and look him in the eyes while killing him. It means you will have to physically hurt someone else for at least a few seconds while you watch your own actions. It means you will draw the attention of other people, subjecting you to their judgment or the the judgment of whoever they tell. These things alone deter most killings. They make killing anything but casual.

A handgun lets you kill from a distance with the squeeze of a trigger. Its effect is immediate. There is no decision to stab him again, to hit him again, you just squeeze your hand. You will not have to account to yourself because all you need to see is the victim drop from 100 yards away: no blood on you, no pleas for mercy, no eye contact, no interaction at all with the condemned. No one needs to know where the shot comes from, you can do it while hiding. You can do it without getting caught or having to account to anyone else. Without a gun, killing takes serious balls. Handguns allow everyone to kill, including those without the balls to do it any other way.

Handguns and assault weapons are made for killing people, and for nothing else. As hunting tools, they are far inferior to rifles. If you give irrational people the opportunity to kill without all the usual deterrents associated with killing, there will be more killing. Knives and poisons and ropes and clubs have been around a lot longer than handguns, yet only handguns dramatically increase the number of homicides.

Keep your guns if they make your dick feel bigger. Just don't bullshit that handguns don't kill people...that's the only thing they do.

Anonymous said...



Myths of the anti-gun crowd said...

People with guns have short dicks.

All people with guns are one step away from mass-murder.

People who own guns are insecure.

People with guns are not intelligent.

If there were no guns, there would be no murder.

The police will protect you.

The police are but a phone call away.

Only the police and military should have guns.

People who own guns are secretly full of rage and can’t be trusted.

My neighbor would murder me if he/she had a gun.

People with guns only own them because they are paranoid.

If you don’t resist a rape, you won’t be murdered.

Robbery would stop if there were no guns.

Crime in ghettos and barrios would go to near zero if there were no guns.

Only swill drinking rednecks own guns.

Intelligent enlightened people like me don’t need guns.

Guns kill little kids.

There are too many accidental gun deaths.
If we let everyone have a gun, society would be nothing but the Wild West again.

Anonymous said...

People with Guns
Clint Eastwood probably settled the gun control arguement years ago in one of his Westerns when he stated and I quote...

"There are two kinds of people in this world. Those with guns, and those who dig. You dig."

So you can either be the one with the gun who can defend himself...
You can dig the hole. Better do a good job or you will wind up in it.

reposted said...

There go the handguns

Promises breached
Robert A. Levy
February 14, 2008
If you think the District of Columbia's ban on all functional firearms in all homes is a reasonable regulation under the Second Amendment, you'll love the friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Bush administration in D.C. v. Heller, now before the Supreme Court.

The Department of Justice's (DOJ) previously stated position is that the Second Amendment secures a right of individuals not restricted to militia service. But astonishingly, the Justice Department now recommends an elastic standard for determining whether a handgun ban is reasonable. According to the DOJ, the courts should consider the nature and functional adequacy of available alternatives. That may sound sensible at first blush, but it could be fatal to the Heller litigation.

Here's the rub: The Justice Department says the Court of Appeals ruling that overturned the D.C. ban might cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation, including machine-gun regulations. So the administration urged that Heller be returned to the lower courts for appropriate fact-finding to determine whether rifles and shotguns in the home, as permitted by the D.C. Code, are an adequate substitute for handguns.

That came as quite a shock to those of us who believed the administration's professed fealty to gunowners' rights. What we got instead was a recommendation that could be the death knell for the only Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court in nearly 70 years.

Rather than a foursquare pronouncement that the D.C. handgun ban is unreasonable by any standard, the Justice Department has essentially endorsed years of depositions and expert testimony, and a rerun before a less hospitable Supreme Court.

In effect, a conservative administration has thrown a lifeline to gun controllers. Following the DOJ blueprint, they can pay lip service to an individual right while simultaneously stripping it of any real meaning. After all, if the D.C. ban can survive judicial scrutiny, it is difficult to imagine a regulation that would not.

The proper standard of review under the Second Amendment is what the courts have termed strict scrutiny. Government must justify its restrictions by showing that they are narrowly tailored to satisfy a compelling governmental interest. That's a tough test, but not fatal. Traditionally, the court has strictly scrutinized all regulations that infringe on fundamental rights deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions. Virtually all of the Bill of Rights qualifies, and the right to keep and bear arms is no exception.

In fact, the Court of Appeals did not suggest that any federal gun regulations (including those on machine guns) are unconstitutional. Moreover, under the Supreme Court's 1939 precedent, U.S. v. Miller, machine guns are not protected by the Second Amendment without showing that they are in common use by civilians.

reposted said...

SWAT Goons Dispatched On Homeschoolers in Colorado

January 8, 2008
In Garfield County, Colorado, not only will the state determine if you should take your child to a doctor after a mishap, but if you don't comply with their on-high directives, they will dispatch a SWAT team to ensure compliance.

According to Tom Shiflett, a Vietnam vet, his son was injured during horseplay, WorldNetDaily reports. Shiflett's son, John, "was grabbing the door handle of a car as his sister was starting to drive away slowly. He slipped, fell to the ground and hit his head?. There were no broken bones, no dilated eyes, or any other noticeable problems."

After a neighbor called an ambulance, paramedics "were allowed to see the boy, and found no significant impairment, but wanted to take him to the hospital for an evaluation anyway. Fearing the hospital's bills, the family refused to allow that."

According to friends of the family, Tom Shiflett, who has 10 children including six still at home, and served with paramedics in Vietnam, was monitoring his son's condition himself.

The paramedic and magistrate, however, ruled that that wasn't adequate, and dispatched the officers to take the boy, John, to a hospital, where a doctor evaluated him and released him immediately.

But this was not sufficient for the sheriff's office and social services. "Nearly a dozen members of a police SWAT team" were subsequently unleashed in response, "punched a hole in the front door and invaded a family's home with guns drawn, demanding that an 11-year-old boy? accompany them to the hospital, on the order of Garfield County Magistrate Lain Leoniak."

It appears Shiflett and his family were made an example, as in part they "live by faith and homeschool," social behavior anathema to the NWO and its minions in Colorado government and so-called social services and various control commissariats, conversely known as child kidnapping services.

"While people can debate whether or not the father should have brought his son to the ER ? it seems like this was not the kind of emergency that warrants this kind of outrageous conduct by government officials," a spokesman for the Home School Legal Defense Association told WND.

During the SWAT raid for non-compliance, the "boy's parents and siblings were thrown to the floor at gunpoint and the parents were handcuffed? all because a paramedic was upset the family preferred to care for their son themselves."

Of course, caring for your own is unacceptable, same as it was in the Soviet Union. Mr. Shiflett and his family learned first-hand that all of us are serfs and when the state barks "jump," our only response should be "how high, sir?" Our children are property of the state and we will not be allowed to care for them ? or for that matter, school them at home ? and government intervention will be mandatory, otherwise SWAT goons will be dispatched to kick in the door and act like what they are, Gestapo goons revisited.

SOUTH Florida sucks said...

it's not just the traffic, not the ethnic diversity, it's the friggin guns and ill tempered clods that believe they have the right to protect "their lane" with violence.
This Miami boy left 11 years ago and has never regretted it.

In LA said...

re, SOUTH Florida sucks.........

Yeah shooting like this occur on California freeways because of the long commuter drives.

But I'd rather be one that is armed and can fight back than one that is just a victim......
You think about that!

K-bar and me said...

Guns, Gun Shows, and Keeping me and mine safe...

When I see a blue helmet whatever is under it will be turned to mush. I'll be a long fucking ways off, you'll get my guns only after taking all of my well placed rounds. I'd love for you to try to take my guns after I leave the gun show. The U.S. government spent millions training me for combat funny how the UN is made up of a bunch of pussy ass cowards. Gotta talk it out before doing anything, politics is for the weak and diplomacy didn't get the U.S. out WWII, we bombed Japan the fucking war ended, the UN wasn't around to dictate how to fight a war. Where was the UN when the U.S. went into Mogadishu? Huh....sitting on their hands, thats where.

If by some chance you live next door to me and you are getting robbed I will simply refuse to shoot the intruders because you feel I have no right to self defense or no duty to help my fellow friends or neighbors out during a robbery, I'll just wave to the bad guy and wish him well, the most accurate description I'll give police will be, he was mexican they all look the same, after all you'll get what you want unarmed people relying on the unreliable police to stop crime.

:) - said...

Guns for a Free America

I encourage everyone to own a gun as a form of population control.....

Obviously, a large portion of the population is too dim-witted to appreciate the difference between a tool and a tool user.
(Hint: only one of the two is capable of initiating action on its own.

Them Burglars said...

Protect yourself children

I know many of you younger folks on here are not prepared for such actions required to save your life and your families lives in the event that someone is robbing your house or breaking and entering your home. Here are some simple reminders on just what to do in those circumstances.

1. Be prepared(Boy scout rule #1) Have weapons at hand to defend your Family and yourself.
2. Use weapons only for a direct kill of the intruder, dead Men tell no tales.
3. If the intruder is breathing, talking, or moving, kill that person dead.
4. Other weapons which should be used; Scissors, throwing stars,knives, baseball bats,swords,lead pipes,ropes,guns,candle sticks,bottles,skate boards,pogo sticks, and anything thing else you can find to kill the intruder.


Few Guns made here in the USA.....

Also, HARLEY DAVIDSON Motorcycles -
buy both, a Harley and a Gun!

Joe Joe said...

Posting pictures of your firearms on the Internet:

Sure, go ahead and let Homeland Security know just what firearms you have. You will be the first ones to loose them. Do you think they can't get your personal info from your ISP?

Rule # 1: Weapons ownership in our country today should be: NEVER let anyone know what firearms you possess.

Rule #2: Do not store all your fireams in one place, especially a gun safe. That is the first place they will look. Learn how to cache them and keep only what you need for self defense. PVC pipe and a 2 ft deep trench works good especially if it is on government land. Include lots of ammo and a cleaning kit.

Rule #3: Buy only from private sellers. If possible use someone else to buy them for you. Leave as small a trail as possible.

Rule #4: Buy all the ammo you can. If they can't take your guns the anti gun wackos will try to stop the supply of bullets. That makes your AR-15 just an ugly club.

If the day ever comes where American citizens have to again stand and fight for our freedoms against a domestic enemy do you really want to advertise your vulnerability? Remember, there are more private security troops in Iraq than there are US troops. When they no longer have Iraq as a killing ground where do you think they will go?Do you think the mercenaries employed by Blackwater will respect your rights? Fat chance.

Living the Good Life in Nevada said...

Carry a Gun, I do.....
Crime and in general nits are everywhere.
I carry a gun at all times.
At work, I leave it in my car, but I never go anywhere without a weapon.

The Boss said...

Bring your gun to work... your boss, I will fire your ass, that includes keeping guns in your car when parked on my company's property. If you don't like it, you find another job. I dont want you to bring your bad vibes and bad karma to the place I have work so hard to build and work for 25 years. Fucking move to Texas if you wanna carry guns, u fucking redneck!

Donations Welcomed said...

Damn ! You mean I can't form an organization that worships guns ?


And I had a wonderful idea, too.

I was going to form an organization...JUST for gun-lovers, and call it


We're coming for your guns soon said...

Guns, the world, the universe and everything else:

"...the same thing that happened when Australia and England banned guns. Crimes have increased exponentially." - Total boolshit. Please provide a source.

"If they did ban guns, knives would be used, sick minds would use poison or any other means to kill their victims." - More boolshit. This is a projection at best, it has never happened.

I think we agree that, if someone really wants to kill someone, they will find a way regardless of what weapons are available. We also agree that criminals would think twice or more if the citizenry were armed. And I'll bet we agree that the framers of the 2nd Amendment thought an armed citizenry would, among other things, keep their government in check by keeping real the threat of violent overthrow. (that works great for a geographically small country of only 2.4M in 1789)

We part ways on two issues. First, I believe that killing by the citizenry must be made difficult, personal, and conspicuous. Those are the real deterrents. Killing to defend oneself or as part of a military action would not be deterred by difficulty, personal-ness(?), or conspicuity. Ban handguns and you're halfway there. Kiling cannot be allowed to become casual; we must work to keep it a big deal.

I also believe that people are necessarily too busy or uninformed to govern themselves in a country of 300M (125x bigger than when the 2nd Am. became law!) and a major player in the world market. I'm all for small government, but our population has doubled just since 1950. The "small" in "small government" varies with population, with "too small" going down a slippery slope to anarchy and impotence. This includes the ability to trust your population with cheap, easily concealable, unregulated, long-range weapons.

Maybe the right to bear arms was inalienable and self-evident when we were a small country united and excited about our sovereignty and principles of liberty, but not now that we're excited about Britney, SUVs, and Wheelie sneakers, we need SOME manner of gun control.

somewhere in america said...

Guns, Veterans, and Civilians

In 1991, I lay in a shallow ditch called a “fighting position” on the border of Iraq, with the Third Infantry Division, B Company, 1/15. Next to me was my buddy, a black guy from Chicago named Hyches (pronounced “hikes”). Instead of it being warm, it was cold, miserable, and it was raining. Our small ditch filled with water, but we remained there, silent, wet, and cold.

At about 11 or 12 at night, the word went out that our compound had been compromised, and we were on high alert. The enemy was in our midst, but evidently someone had neglected to notify the higher-ups that our M-16 rifles might require ammunition to defend our position. As a result, our lieutenant advised all soldiers to “fix bayonets” to prepare for any enemy infiltrating our positions. We waited out the night in terror, unarmed and vulnerable until first light, when the “all clear” was given.

A person who has not been in the war zone; who has not lain themselves bare to the talons of death; who has not wondered if they might live to see again the faces of loved ones back home, could not begin to understand the importance of having a loaded weapon close at hand, to defend themselves or loved ones.

Yeah, maybe no one will walk into McDonald’s with an AK-47. Yeah, maybe I won’t be the hero at the next post office or WalMart, where some jerk whips out a handgun and starts blowing people away. And, yeah, maybe no one will ever kick open my door, then rush in with guns pointed.

But then again, they just might. Those who are dead cannot tell us of their regrets. As for me, I, like Audie Murphy, keep a weapon close at hand. I may never be a hero at McDonald’s, Columbine, or the next rampage, but I won’t ever again be that soldier out on the field, unarmed and vulnerable, again. Now, I can kill my enemies.

Think Middle Finger said...

To be a good Democrat (Liberal American Hater) you must believe....

You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs.

You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

You have to believe that self esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make The Passion Of The Christ for financial gain only.

You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.

You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

singing in the rain said...

Gun Owners, Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, et al

I'm not a gun owner, but I feel those that do own guns should have the right to do so as long as they don't shoot me or my dogs.

I don't believe anything is free and must be earned.

I never expected or would I care to see a White History Month. Not all white people are good people. Didn't one just yesterday shoot up a school in Illinois? History is more than just good and honorable deeds, isn't it?

I'm an angry white man like the article says and I can handle the heat if anyone cares to give me any for saying so. Oh yes, I also believe in free speech. Sometimes it might tend to rile some folks. So be it! Sometimes the truth hurts.
Boomer in Guam

PS: One more thing. When it comes time to beat on Witch One (hillary cllinton) I'd like to be one of the drummers. I just happen to be wearing a brand new T-shirt received just yesterday from a friend in Florida. In big letters across the chest it says 'ANYBODY BUT HILLARY'. My friend Buzzard knows me well even though we've never met personally.

enough has been enough... said...

arm up now or forever wish you had...
there are plenty of serviceable weapons(legal) available
laugh at the tin hat dork...he's got a real heater, don't think that uncle sam is gonna save your ass when the shit hit's the fan....not happening !!!

you as a legal resident can purchase "long guns" and shotguns with little or no waiting period...stock up on ammo too cuz that is how you will be found out in the future...

be fully prepared to defend america, the government can't...


Recent passage by the District of Criminals of the legislation known colloquially as the Veteran Disarmament bill raises the question of why the conspiracy for world government would want to disarm returning veterans. The conspiracy trusted these men to use the most devastating ordinance abroad; it does not trust them to keep and bear much smaller weapons here at home. The obvious answer is that these are the millions of well trained military men I was talking about in my recent piece about a possible assassination threat to Dr. Ron Paul.

These are the men the psychos at the top are afraid of, the men who can stick the red dot in their eye from a mile away. The psychos know these men are out there, watching, stewing, temperatures rising every day; they are beginning to understand that they are dying now because the psychos have poisoned them with Depleted Uranium in the field.

They are beginning to realize that the buddies and the limbs they left behind in Iraq were lost not in defense of this beloved country but in behalf of the megalomaniacal nightmare of conquest the psychos think is “normal.” Now the veterans understand that the monsters who sent them half way around the world to get sick are dismantling the system of freedom the Founding Fathers gave us here at home.

So far, they haven’t said much, but the psychos know they are simmering and that something could set them off. So, the Nazis at the top want their guns, because it is very nerve wracking to have to keep watching your chest and tum-tum, hoping that if you see the red dot there soon enough you will have time to hunker down before the round that follows it smashes through your perfumed skull and distributes gobs of your polluted brain all over the haute couture ensembles of the distinguished ladies enjoying cocktails on the balcony of your penthouse.

Proof that they are crazy is their assumption that passage of this “law,” signed by Communist world government traitor Jorge W. Boosh, will intimidate these men – who have come home from Hell – into surrendering the ordinance they are buying to the bare walls at gun shows and stores; which logically brings us to the proper application of the Second Amendment.

Some Americans understand that the main purpose of the Second Amendment is not hunting, not sport shooting and not even self-defense, although it would certainly underwrite those worthy activities. No, the Fathers wanted each and all of us to be armed in the event that somewhere down the road this shaky experiment they had created but did not trust themselves – the federal government – were to get out of control and try to destroy our rights.

They wanted us to “keep and bear” – to carry – the guns we would need to do the job if it became necessary to “abolish” the government. Remember, the government is not the country. They are two entirely different things. The District of Criminals is the government. You are the country.

Of course, these are not my ideas. I can’t take credit for them. Remember that the nation’s birth certificate – the Declaration of Independence – says that whenever government becomes oppressive, whenever it tries to deny their rights, the people under it have the unalienable right to rise up and cast it off, even “abolish” it.

So, I write with the authority and under the protection of the President of the United States, because the man who wrote the Declaration later became President. Indeed, he also wrote that every generation or so, the people should rise up and enjoy a bloody revolution, in which the tree of liberty is refreshed “with the blood of patriots and tyrants,” presumably to remind everyone who has the power.

Many Americans know this and believe it, but I have yet to see a piece by some expert explaining what it would be like today to “abolish” the federal government as the Declaration teaches. How would it be done? Remember, I am merely speculating about some statements by the President of the United States. I am advocating nothing. I am too decrepit to do something myself. Shirley Temple in her prime could take me down. And everyone I know is as decrepit as I am. I do know from the movies that the bullet comes out of the round hole in the gun, but that is all I know.

No, I am merely speculating as a professional commentator for almost fifty years about what others – others I don’t know – could elect to do. The fury of the responses I am still receiving from around the world to my pieces about the possible assassination of Dr. Ron Paul tell me that such speculation is desperately needed today – especially from the real military experts –but, strangely, I have seen none. So you will have to settle for speculation from me.

Who, in the Founding Fathers thinking, would abolish the government, if it goes wrong? It would be the militia. What was and is the militia? Despite the obfuscatory efforts of Nazi gun confiscators like Carolyn McCarthy and Sarah Brady (Lord preserve us from crazy women whose husbands have been shot!) and Chuck Schumer (another schmuck), the Fathers said the militia was the able-bodied men in a community, i.e., the veterans the Nazis are now trying to disarm.

What the Fathers could not anticipate, and would be utterly horrified to learn, is that the experiment they created – and were so suspicious of themselves – has by now metastasized into a totalitarian monster that makes George III and his charming, little tea tax look pleasantly quaint, something Ludwig von Mises and Dr. Ron Paul would endorse as a classic exemplar of Free Enterprise.

With the destruction by the Boosh treason gang of the Posse Comitatus law, our military now can intervene domestically like George III’s British Army. Local police have been militarized. Their SWAT teams have been trained to perform military functions. Brainwashing has turned some of them into imperial zombies who would make Darth Vader proud. The Boosh treason gang has canceled habeas corpus, the ancient jewel of our system of law, and its ability to spy on us would inspire Heinrich Himmler to register Republican.

Many commentators make the point that we must tread with great caution, to avoid giving Boosh & Co. the excuse to impose martial law. Those warnings are very wise. The Boosh treason gang is looking for such an excuse to try their new weapons that can fry your brains and look inside your underwear. If the militia accidentally gives them one, they will use it to cover and justify themselves.

But if the militia does not, the Boosh treason gang would not stand down and go home. It would concoct a reason. What we are really talking about here is timing, is when it will happen. Remember that four-star general Tommy Franks, who led the invasion of Iraq, said that the next emergency like Nine Eleven would cancel the Constitution. And when a four-star general speaks, I listen. So, the mistake the militia could make is not to act; it is to act at the wrong time.

Despite this, some people say the risk is too great; that only the moral power of non-violent resistance could work. Yes, it could and did, in British India and the American South. But it could work only against people who have consciences non-violent resistance can afflict. British India and the American South were Christian. The monsters who control the District of Criminals now are not. Using non-violent resistance against them would be like using it against a crocodile.

How could it happen? For about a century, we have lived under government by emergency. I have lived abroad in a couple of other countries, so I know what it is like just to live. Most Americans do not. Here we endure endless “wars,” and “emergencies,” in quotation marks because they are as phony as a one dollar bill, not just the military wars, WWI, WWII, etc. and etc., but also the “War on Poverty,” the “War on Drugs,” etc. So my speculation is that the next phase in the battle to subdue America will be launched with the pretext of some new “war” or “emergency.”

It could be financial via the impending, engineered “collapse of the dollar.” It could be military, via the attack on Iran. Another terrorist attack across the country, even bigger than Nine Eleven could launch it. My speculation is that the conspiracy could use a medical attack. Among the advantages of such an attack is the fact that it affects everyone. The victims don’t even know they are under attack. And Boosh has said in almost as many words that a contagious epidemic of something like “bird flu,” or some other concocted disorder could trigger a “national quarantine.”

What would that include? It would include the camps. Remember the camps? One hesitates to call them “concentration” camps, but that is where the population would be concentrated. Remember that the English invented concentration camps to win the Boer War. Then Hitler, ever the copy cat – he copied his racial “science” from people like Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger – copied them. Now they sit here, built by Halliburton, staffed, supplied, fenced, but empty, ready and waiting. For part two click below.

Waiting for whom? For illegal alien invaders of our country, brought here by the Boosh treason gang? My guess is no, because no illegal alien is incarcerated there, despite overwhelming provocations like enormous numbers. There are only two kinds of people in this country: illegal aliens and legal residents. If the camps are not meant for illegal aliens, they are meant for us. One reason – preeminent among many – could be a national epidemic.

A new “terrorist attack,” or a national quarantine could be the best “temporary” use for those camps. How would you get there? You would get there by bus, supplied by the kindly federal government, which would also help “solve” the “problem” of the guns. The Boosh treason gang knows as much about the guns as I do. More. They know the militia will not give them up. So, when the bus comes down the streets, would the militia fall for this?

“We’re not asking you to give up your guns, as we did in New Orleans. That lawyer, the one we saw on television promising that, if we came for his guns, somebody would die, scared us. The little, old lady the SWATster from California disarmed, was a public relations disaster. So, no, we certainly won’t take your guns. We don’t believe in that. Taking your guns would violate the Second Amendment. Just get on the bus. Leave your guns right where they are, in your gun cabinets. Be reasonable. The bus will be full of women and children. In such cramped conditions your guns could endanger them. The guns will be where you leave them when you come home.”

Would the militia fall for that? It sounds so “reasonable.” It would sound even more “reasonable,” if a preacher from the totalitarian “religious right” were there to plead with you to be “reasonable.” Do you really want to be a sorehead? Indeed, would the militia get on the bus at all, with or without arms? Or would the abolition of the government start at the curb? When the bus arrives, would it be too late? Or would the bus find no one home?

Which logically raises the forbidding question of how the militia would fight such fearsome weapons? Remember, I am writing under the protection of the President of the United States. I advocate nothing. I am simply speculating, wondering, which is certainly “reasonable” to do in the present situation. What would a galvanized militia do?

Tradition would pick a leader, organize and recruit, thinking that the new organization would grow quickly and do what is required. Sadly, that would probably be the worst action to take. During a century and more of activity, the conspiracy for world government has become quite adept at the art of infiltration. It infiltrates any and every organization that is or could become influential.

Indeed, before long the ringer the conspirators send to infiltrate the new patriot organization would be running it. How? Simply because the infiltrator would be the best member. He would be the man you always call on. He would do the dirty jobs, the jobs no one else will do. He would come early and stay late.

Other members of the group would be proud of him. “Good old Charlie. He’s the heart and soul of the group.” Soon, the group would be perverted, implementing a goal completely different from the one the founder proclaimed. The organization would be working against itself, useless. Remember the priceless New Yorker cartoon? It shows a dark, smoky opium den, in which half a dozen men hold guns on each other. The caption says, “You mean, we’re all Treasury agents?”

Any leader that emerges would be bribed, co-opted, blackmailed or killed. Hasn’t this happened again and again? You don’t need to guess about it. I have named some of the fallen in previous pieces. So, my speculation is that, when the feces hit the fan, the militia would choose different methods. What would they do? If organization and leaders wouldn’t work, what would? How can you win a battle without them?

My guess is that first they would read Anabasis by Xenophon, a historian who wrote some four hundred years before Jesus. Anabasis is the story of some ten thousand Greeks, betrayed and stranded on the Anatolian plateau, in what is now Turkey, who had to fight their way through hundreds of miles and numberless Persian enemies, from ancient Babylon, near modern Baghdad, to the Black Sea and home.

Their general, Clearchus, invited to a “peace conference” was captured and killed. They had no leader. Yet, the ten thousand beat the Persians, who outnumbered them by a factor too high to multiply. How? Xenophon, who was one of them, relates that when the leader in a Persian unit was killed, the unit would disintegrate. When a Greek commander was killed, the next man in line became the leader. Every Greek was a general. One of the most thrilling scenes in all literature comes when the head of the column arrives and the others hear them shouting, “The sea! The sea!”

How does this apply here and now? Remember, a military man really should be writing this. I am what George Wallace used to call a “pointy-head” – you can actually see the point on my head – not a military man, but I am writing it because I haven’t found a military man who is. Remember also that I write under the protection and with the authority of the President of the United States.

My speculation is that when the conspiracy for world government finally does come all the way out into the open, when it tries to nail the dictatorship down by imposing martial law, the militia would employ a tactic the military men in the Nam used to call “target of opportunity,” in a species of guerrilla warfare. There would be nothing to infiltrate; no address, no headquarters, no membership records to seize. There would be no leaders to execute. Every man would be a general, or, as one of my readers has suggested, a fish in the sea, a fish with teeth, a sea teeming with piranha.

The militia would strike from the shadows and be gone before the world government Nazis could respond. Wouldn’t that get nasty? Mercy sakes, yes, it would get nasty, nasty beyond the imagination of most Americans to conceive. It would get nasty because the conspiracy for world government is trying to impose a dictatorship and has already killed tens of millions around the world for the purpose in the most horrifying ways. They treat our own military men like dirt. If they were to obey the Constitution, my guess is that none of this would happen, but did you really think they would just put down their brain fryers and walk away?

What would the militia do? First, pray that nothing happens to the President. Yes, Boosh is a traitor, but remember that his successor would be Darth Cheney, who could be his control. Yes, Soviet agent Heinz Kissinger is a traitor, but the militia would probably not run into him and the same with traitor David Rockefeller who actually confesses in his autobiography that he is “part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States.”

They are protected by layers of security. Of course, they could accidentally become “targets of opportunity.” Pray that they don’t. Honestly, I would hate to hear that treasonous scumbag Herr Kissinger or David Rockefeller’s entourage turned the wrong corner and were obliterated by a superannuated 82nd Airborne unit (“Death From the Sky”) in a bloody cross fire that left their greasy body parts hanging on a fence.

When and if – God forbid! – this thing starts to happen, how will you know it is genuine, or phony? You will certainly know it is phony if it kills large numbers of innocent bystanders, who just happen to be present. That kind of thing is the telltale signature of governments conducting Communist terror to intimidate populations, like the bombings presently perpetrated in the Middle East. What we are speculating about here, on the contrary, would regrettably target the individual guilty perpetrators of world government crimes.

Who would they be? Some genius has said that all politics are local. The conspiracy for world government has a big Achilles heel. Somebody has to enforce the myriad dictatorial controls the conspiracy has imposed. Some of those controls are installed by local governments inspired by federal bribes. That is how the District of Criminals nationalized the local police.

Others are administered by locally-based federal employees. They range from the construction of your commode to the new, mandatory light bulb loaded with extremely toxic mercury; from banning political signs for the “wrong’ candidate on your own property to prison for a cancer victim who uses marijuana prescribed by his physician for pain, to the use of “federal” land, and on and on and on.

The totalitarian insults are endless. Yes, the militia could reach the monsters at the top only with the greatest difficulty, only by accident that creates a “target of opportunity.” But the pimps who must impose the metastasizing dictatorship – and are essential to it – are easy to reach. The militia knows who they are, where they are, even where they live.

They could even live next door. Sadly, they have made themselves progressively obnoxious. They strut and preen about their new power. They can’t be fired and make more money and benefits than you do. They think they are the new Lords of Creation. As you read this paragraph, each of you sees their exulting faces in mind’s eye. What would happen if one by one they disappear? Would not their ranks be roiled by panic? Remember that the dictatorship could not work without them. Would they start to call in sick?

What could such a tactic accomplish? Remember Alexander Solzhenitsyn? His Gulag Archipelago introduced a new word to our language. Because the Party line at the time called for constant reminders of the horrors of the Soviet system, he was a media darling here for a few years – until the famous speech at Harvard in which he denounced the spiritual collapse of the West and said that like his own people we have forgotten God. Our Communist media dropped him like a rock. He has been back in Russia for many years. Today, few Americans have ever heard of him.

Solzhenitsyn says this: “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests . . . people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers or whatever else was at hand? . . . And you could be sure ahead of time that you would be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur – what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and . . . the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!”

Solzhenitsyn concludes: “If . . . if . . . We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation. . . . [W]e hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure! . . . We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” Are we aware of the real situation? Do we love freedom enough? If not, we shall deserve everything the conspiracy for world government is preparing to do. Like Solzhenitsyn, you would have plenty of time to discuss it in the Halliburton camps.

There is another Achilles Heel. Yes, it is perfectly true that the psychos have weapons that would make most private arms look like sling shots. But precisely because those weapons are so sophisticated, they are run by computers. And the Freedom Forces have the nerds who run the computers, and who know that defeat would mean the loss of their internet freedoms. That is why Dr. No enjoys almost universal nerd support. And they can hack into anything! I speculate that when the fit hits the shan the nerds could bring the system down. What would that do to the psychos’ weapons? The plethora of history and economics majors in the Dr. Paul ranks can easily be explained. He is the only candidate who knows what they are talking about.

Remember, I do not advocate anything. I don’t do anything. Because I’m so decrepit I don’t know anyone who does. I’m too decrepit to hit a face with a pie. I’m simply speculating about what could happen, based on where we are now, combined with the scary feedback I am still receiving from the militia. The only thing I advocate is complete, docile obedience to law, in the true spirit of Romans 13 and the teachings of the President of the United States.

Which recalls the fact that fears for my own safety are now arriving. Regular readers warn I could be killed myself. I do not believe it. Why would anyone take the risk of rubbing out a man as meek, as mild and inoffensive, as your doddering correspondent? But just in case these warnings have substance, may I publicly suggest that I have earned the services of a professional who will commit to do a thorough job. My innumerable warrior grandma fans around the world would be very disturbed were an amateur merely to mess up my good looks. There is also the fact that these grandmas are already riled up. Believe me; you don’t want to make them any madder. For part one click below.

Columbine said...

Proof NRA members are crazed!

The only NRA mantra left out is "Guns dont kill people, people kill people". Sorry about your NRA member Tim McVeigh! Our evil liberal government put your buddy to death just like Stalin would have. Imagine the NRA is really worried when even a right wing nut like Rudy is against you! Pierre LaPonte? now that is a gaylord french guy. Can't the NRA find an american spokeman that is not senile? If another NRA friendly like Bush gets elected next year, I am moving to British Colombia. I hear its beautiful, hot chicks from all over the globe, good weed, and best of all, no NRA gun nuts.

Anonymous said...

re, guns at work......
After consulting with my attorney, I fired a gun loving redneck last month. I asked him nicely to stop bringing his guns to work, I own the company and the property, because guns and violence are against my beliefs. He refused, I called the cops and they took his pasty,redneck ass to jail. Federal Law is on my side, no guns in public places such as schools, government buildings, and places of employment.If you dont like it move back to....texas?

In Redneck Land said...

To all you redneck bad neighbors:
I love a redneck catfight! What say you guys take your machine guns and have a duel? The last person to die wins. Make sure to update your will so that the Mexicans get your trailer. Even the dumbest redneck is still way smarter than the smartest beaner, that's why your neighbors use the Mexicans as slaves. Why poop on each other's mailboxes when you can settle this once and for all with massive small arms firepower?

Anonymous said...

Re: Boss who fired gun owner

You are against guns and violence. I am sure that the criminal that wants what you have is going to respect your views and leave you alone. Most likley he will shoot you, rape your wife, take what he wants, and laugh over your corpse. You are such hot shit when it comes to beating your employees down but I'll bet my 15 year old grand-daughter, with her boxing lessons, could whip your chickenshit ass, and your attorneys too.

On second thought I don't think you own a business. You are just another troll that should not be shot, but should be stomped into the dirt until your necktie and entrails are all the same.

staying real said...

Re: Guns and gun owners

I know about guns. I grew up in the midwest hunting as a kid. I was taught safety and that you should never shoot at anything that you don't intend to eat. The only self defense talk I ever heard was during the race riots in '68. Everyone with a hunting rifle was prepared to use it to defend his home if need be.

The gun owners that I know these days are just the opposite. They don't have a shotgun behind the door, they have an arsenal in their walk-in closet. All of the weapons are assault-type and they explain their features in relation to shooting a person. Not a deer, not a intruder, or someone who might pose any type of threat to them. They have a survivalist mentality and see weapons only in terms of assault or self defense. They never shoot people, mind you...they just talk about it all of the time. They go down to the shooting range and spend hours and use up countless rounds proving that they are ready to handle any situation that arises. They shoot paper and other inanimate objects while pretending that they are stopping some bad guy's clock.

The right to bear arms? Sure, I'm for it. It beats having the feds tell everyone that only THEY can be armed. Still, any idiot can get a firearm or a driver's license, or have children. It's not the right that I am concerned about, it's the end result. The gun is the 'great equalizer'? And just what does it make us equal with?

Sometimes you have to holster your emotions in the real world.

someone's on the warpath said...

RE: Re: Bring your gun to work....
Guns being responsible for murders is the same as fucking causing virginity

That is the lamest, most misleading analogy presented on this board all year. You might be able to say:

"Guns are not responsible for murders, just like condoms are not responsible for virgins losing their cherry."

Guns are a tool, and an VERY, VERY, VERY effective tool. If people didn't have such an effective tool to kill (or as many of them), they wouldn't be as many murders. In fact, there wouldn't be as many murder attempts. You are right to say guns are not responsible for murders, murderers are responsible for murders. But how many times have you heard, "The club just drop on his head" or "the knife just flew across the room" versus "the gun just went off."

If you have a CCW permit, good for you. If you are packing at my place of work without a CCW, you better believe I would turn you in. Guns make more effective murderers. The guns aren't responsible other than turning EVERYONE into someone powerful enough to murder anyone.

Anonymous said...

Re: Guns at work

Jeez you gun-nuts are as stupid as you are inbred. Your use of logic is laughable. Watch.

"Guns being responsible for murders is the same as fucking causing virginity"
"My Response: "Guns being responsible for murders is like saying typewriters are the cause of dictionaries" it called logic, you know two premises and then a syllogism.....I learned that in college because I can read and you know how to comprehend.....ya ignorant fuck?"

"Fucking causes virginity" == the thing that destroys it is what causes it
"Guns cause murder" -- guns do not destroy murder

Do you see your own stupidity? Of course not. Any odd semester you spent at college before failing out was useless, like yourself. Using "syllogism" and "premise" in a sentence does not mean you know what they mean...obviously. What's your premise, logic-master? Education would be wasted on you. You're so desperate to seem powerful that you need a gun to do it. You're too cowardly to use your hands or a knife, you have to be far away. You're a coward.

Want more? Typewriters and dictionaries have no negative consequences. Guns in the hands of inbred cowards like you ABSOLUTELY cause murders.

An Armed Nation is a Free Nation said...

Absolute proof that Guns save lives -

The bill of rights do not protect your guns, your guns protect the bill of rights.

yes indeed said...

guns and owners

Not all of us have a closet full of assault weapons. If you come in my home uninvited, you will most likely get to meet my old Coach Gun or Riot Gun. Both are 12ga shotguns. If you try to assault me on the street, I will not "bust the cap" from a Tec 9 or Mac 10. You will probably get to meet my old friends from Smith & Wesson in the form a a .357 Magnum.
Please don't lump all gun owners together. That would be like saying that anyone who spends his time posting on the computer is an unemployed computer nerd.

just plain facts said...

RE: Guns and Nutz

But as any good hunter of experienced home defender would know it is very rare that you shoot a person or prey and they
1. go down instantly.
2. Don't get a chance to look into their eyes.
3. Don't get bood on you(close range firing) 4.Never have to take a second or even third shot. Guns are mystical creations that have the power to destroy our species. They are tools, just like hammers, cars, knives, ect. Its not the knives' fault you cut yourself because you were trying to pry something open with it. They serve a purpose and when used correctly, can do a lot of good and help to anyone who uses them correctly. If it weren't for guns the progress of our civilization would have been greatly SLOWED.

Liberals Like Chasing Their Own Tails said...


Isn't taking guns away from the population, prior to grabbing power, what the NSDAP did?

You anti-gun people are soooo Pollyannish. Read your history.

Anonymous said...

Re: Gun Control Nuts (Gun Owner)
Guns save lives, huh? Why don't you look at the number of homicides in each industrialized nation that restricts gun ownership by the citizenry, and compare all of them together to the US. The numbers don't lie, pal. I guess the US is the only country with criminals, huh?

If you took Limbaugh's cock out of your mouth long enough to actually read for yourself, you'd see that this is not a "Lib" issue. That's what the neocon TV fags say to grab headlines.

Hey I know...why not replace that big cock in your mouth with one of your, I mean guns. Then cock that and pull the trigger.

Anonymous said...

Re: Re: Guns and the world the way it is -
You are wrong in saying that guns were allowed to be carried in Dodge City and Tombstone. Both cities has restrictions on carrying guns in public. Most "wild west" cities had the same laws. Keeping whatever firearms you wanted in your home for protection, sport, hunting, or just because you could was totally legal. Maybe the British have has some success with their heavyhanded gun ban. It is a country where someone is a subject, is a victim of a tightly structured class society, and doesn't have the rights that are guaranteed by our Constitution and original Bill of Rights. Part of the British governments love for their gun ban came from the fact that the British Empire got it's ass kicked out of every colony it had where guns were available to the populace. They didn't want it happening at home by their own people. It is more a matter of public control than public safety.

Yada Yada says Yoda said...

The Little Dicks

I have to agree, its not about a penis size or compensating for something. Its about guns. Guns cause crime like cars cause accidents. Its not the object, its whose behind it.

him scary to me said...

Re: Gunz and Nutz, more like Nutz and Gunz

Wow are seriously disturbed, and just a little too into guns. What type of ammo did he use? What? Metal detectors and armed guards everywhere...

do society a favor and re-enlist to a foreign post, wacko

Miss Y. said...


People who have a clear conscious and an open heart do not need to carry any guns, they know "...The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life." I am sure you a a nice person but your intentions are evil!

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society."
Thomas Jefferson

reposted from another blog said...

Scumbags in the hood -
I wish I could take that trigger finger...
and - here is my story.................

I woke up the other day to find a dented panel on my garage door, for the life of me I could not figure out what had hit it. The I saw the very nice ding in my truck hood thought "F**k!" a bullet fired in the air found a mark. I just had my truck painted 6 months ago and now some scumbag jacked it up. I wish I cold find the jackass and use my pruner to take that fucken little pussy gangbanger finger to teach him a lesson. Or at least make him hold his pathetic hand out while I blow a hole in it with my springfield 1911......I know it sound harsh but ya know some people just fucken deserve to be shot because their stupid.
Especially when they mishandle guns............

Waiting for them, I am !!! said...

bb guns

Squirrels deserve to be shot with bb guns if they are messing with your stuff.

P.S. - this includes pigeons, dogs, cats, rabbits, and other critters that poop on my property, eat my veggies, etc.

in phila said...

Re: Guns

Windows kill people too... Would it make you feel better if we pushed the people out of them?

Anonymous said...


Guns don't kill people...people kill people! I love that thought process!

Dead is dead though...explain that and you're a genius.

think outside the box said...

the 08 election

I am telling everyone -
The Guy from Boston is looking better every minute!

Got Guns Anyone? said...

Personally I have the best gun holster is shoving the barrel up one of you anti gun nuts asses!

Think Before You Act said...

I own a gun and anyone who tries to take it away will not live long enough to regret it, but may be their family will........

D.C. gun ban's effectiveness questioned said...

WASHINGTON DC - On Sept. 24, 1976, one of the toughest gun laws in the nation took effect in the District of Columbia, essentially outlawing the private ownership of new handguns in a city struggling with violence.

Over the next few weeks, a man with a .32-caliber pistol held up workers at a downtown federal office at midday, a cab driver was shot in the head, and a senator was mugged by three youths, one carrying a revolver, near the U.S. Capitol.

Since the ban was passed, more than 8,400 people have been murdered in the district, many killed by handguns. Nearly 80 percent of the 181 murders in 2007 were committed with guns.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in a challenge to the city's handgun ban. The case is likely to produce the most important firearms ruling in generations and could undermine other gun control laws nationwide if the court takes an expansive view of the right to bear arms.

The central question is whether the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to bear arms, or instead protects the collective right of states to maintain militias. The court probably won't base its ruling on the effectiveness of Washington's law.

Outside the court, however, a long-debated question is whether a strict gun law like Washington's has any effect on violent crime.

City leaders say the law has kept many guns off the street and warn that violence could increase without it. Firearms still flow in from states like Maryland and Virginia, but District of Columbia officials say the ban reduces the number of legally owned firearms that are stolen or used in domestic killings and suicides.

"Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the district to stand by while its citizens die," the city wrote in its petition to the Supreme Court last year.

To gun rights advocates, the numbers prove a different point: Violence continues unchecked despite the ban. And while criminals seem to be able to get guns with ease, law-abiding people are being denied the means to protect themselves, they say.

"I should be able to live in the district and protect myself," said Shelly Parker, who said she was harassed and threatened in her former Capitol Hill home by a drug dealer who once tried to break down her door. Parker was a plaintiff in the original case against the city.

Those who live daily with gun violence on Washington's streets, many of them just teens, paint a stark picture of how easy it is to get a firearm. A gun can be bought with a few well-placed calls and a couple hundred dollars.

"Some people look at a gun as part of their outfit," said Maurice Benton, a 19-year-old who says he has never had a gun but was shot in the abdomen by members of a gang while leaving a party in 2006. "They can't go anywhere without it."

The city's gun ban emerged from exasperation. Still reeling from the riots of 1968, the city saw violent crime rise and residents flee to the suburbs. In 1974, two years before the ban took effect, more than half of all homicides were committed with handguns.

There were an estimated 22,000 registered gun owners in the city in 1976, but a Georgetown University poll found three out of four city residents supported the bill. The law cleared the D.C. Council in a 12-1 vote and went on to survive both a court challenge by the National Rifle Association and efforts in Congress to scuttle it.

"Handgun crimes were just getting out of sight," said Sterling Tucker, D.C. Council chairman when the ban was enacted. "We had to isolate and contain the problem. We thought a handgun law would do that."

The law bars private ownership of handguns, with exceptions for law enforcement officers and those who had registered handguns before the ban took effect. Shotguns and rifles are legal, but must be disassembled or stored with trigger locks.

Homicides in the district did ebb over the next few years, largely following a national trend. In 1977, the U.S. Conference of Mayors reported robberies, assaults and homicides using handguns had fallen sharply in D.C. and concluded the ban was working. However, the results were challenged even by the city's police department, which said police tactics had contributed to the drop.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, murders spiked as Washington, like many other cities, was hit by the crack epidemic. By 1991, the number of homicides reached 479, or 81 deaths per 100,000 people, earning the city status as the nation's murder capital.

Yet that year, a study released by University of Maryland criminologists in the New England Journal of Medicine suggested the gun ban had saved lives in the decade before. They argued the ban had prevented 47 deaths per year in D.C., both suicides and murders. Surrounding areas in Maryland and Virginia had not seen a corresponding drop in gun crime.

The study analyzed data only through 1987, and did not incorporate the higher murder rate during the crack surge, an epidemic critics said revealed the law's weakness. Other criminologists said the study should have compared the district to Baltimore, a city with similar crime problems where violence also declined during the same period. The authors went back and compared the district to other cities, including Baltimore, saying their conclusions still held up.

In the late 1990s, the annual homicide numbers began to fall as the crack scourge ebbed. In the past decade, many of the city's neighborhoods also have undergone a revitalization, attracting more affluent residents. Last year, there were 181 murders.

But the city's location remains a problem for the law. Washington is surrounded by Virginia and Maryland, where guns remain legal, and many firearms can be traced to shops just across the line. The number of guns seized by police has surged in recent years, reaching 2,924 in 2007, nearly 1,000 more than in 2003. Most of the guns were used in crimes.

Sterling Tucker said city officials realized the law had its limits, that guns would never vanish from the streets. And they never imagined it would do away with homicides and violent crime altogether. He believes it has at least provided some check on violence, taken away a tool for some criminals.

"We knew there were problems we couldn't wipe out," he said. "But we had a little more control over it."

Supreme Court reviews D.C. handgun ban said...

WASHINGTON DC - The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to endorse the view that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, but was less clear about whether to retain the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.

The justices were aware of the historic nature of their undertaking, engaging in an extended 98-minute session of questions and answers that could yield the first definition of the meaning of the Second Amendment in its 216 years.

A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, left little doubt about his view when he said early in the proceedings that the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms."

Several justices were skeptical that the Constitution, if it gives individuals' gun rights, could allow a complete ban on handguns when, as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out, those weapons are most suited for protection at home.

"What is reasonable about a ban on possession" of handguns?" Roberts asked at one point.

But Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the District's public safety concerns could be relevant in evaluating its 32-year-old ban on handguns, perhaps the strictest gun control law in the nation.

"Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime say no handguns here?" Breyer said.

Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right, but urged the justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said the court should allow for reasonable restrictions that allow banning certain types of weapons, including existing federal laws.

He did not take a position on the District law.

The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

The amendment reads: "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."

While the arguments raged inside, advocates of gun rights and opponents of gun violence demonstrated outside court Tuesday.

Dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying "Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns" or "The NRA helps criminals and terrorist buy guns."

Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted "guns kill" as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and Maryland Shall Issue.Org shouted "more guns, less crime."

A line to get into the court for the historic arguments began forming two days earlier and extended more than a block by early Tuesday.

The high court's first extensive examination of the Second Amendment since 1939 grew out of challenge to the District's ban.

Anise Jenkins, president of a coalition called Stand Up for Democracy in D.C., defended the district's prohibition on handguns.

"We feel our local council knows what we need for a good standard of life and to keep us safe," Jenkins said.

Genie Jennings, a resident of South Perwick, Maine, and national spokeswoman for Second Amendment Sisters, said the law banning handguns in Washington "is denying individuals the right to defend themselves."

Even if the court determines there is an individual right, the justices still will have to decide whether the District's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws. This issue has caused division within the Bush administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the administration's official position at the court.

The local Washington government argues that its law should be allowed to remain in force whether or not the amendment applies to individuals, although it reads the amendment as intended to allow states to have armed forces.

The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."

Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection. His lawyers say the amendment plainly protects an individual's right.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."





Black Market Guns in Europe said...

Contrary to popular hype, European gun control does not mean that European citizens lack access to firearms. In fact, street prices of more common firearms in European capitals are not much higher than what one would expect to pay in a gun shop in the US.

London has become famous for two things: Strict gun control and easy availability of firearms for their criminal classes. Generally, shopping for black market weapons on a small scale is not like browsing gun shops in places where the weapons are legal. Browsing is bad form and you must be prepared to buy once the connection is met. Extended negotiation or waffling on a deal is bad form and more likely than not going to burn the possibility of any future contact with the other party. Selections are often very limited. Unlike a conventional commercial purchase, the buyer will probably not be able to dictate the make and model of gun that he will buy, but will probably be able to request the type. IE, an automatic or revolver, and dictate the caliber. If the weapon is an assault rifle, the buyer will probably be able to pick the make and model, as long as it is some derivative of an AK.

Smugglers will favor compact weapons that have a high profit ratio. This usually means handguns which are cheap in the source country and can be sold at a healthy enough markup for the chain of middlemen involved. The selection of guns available in London is a pretty good example of this.

The Uzi pictured in this British illustration is probably not the model commonly available there, but the picture is meant to represent the four most available guns in London. Prices range from 200 to 300 British pounds but I suspect the Uzi is a little more. The most likely Uzi models they have available are the full size ones. While the Brits credit the availability to the Israelis, they conveniently leave out that copies are in production in at least four other countries. This includes China, Croatia and quite possibly Iran.

Source countries include most East European countries other than Poland and Russia, and China through middlemen in Jamaica. Most likely, the Jamaican connection somehow involves Cuba. Rumor has it that many newer model quality guns on the black market are products of Croatia being marketed by a loose alliance of "former" intelligence agents also responsible for the infamous "Amsterdam cell phone gun" which is a handgun built to closely resemble a cell phone.

We are researching how the connections are made for these guns in Europe, but what I found is that black Europeans tend to have more ready access than white Europeans, but the white Europeans tend to have access to the more costly higher quality weapons.

The other sources of black market guns in Europe are "repaired" guns that were once deactivated war trophies traded about by collectors. The craftsmanship involved in "reactivating" the war trophy guns makes them a costly item traded about in antique collecting circles as a "special" item among close knit associates usually connected with government of one type or another and frequently retired military personnel.

There is also a limited business in stolen military weapons, but it has been hard to determine how extensive it is. My guess is that it is pretty minimal given the high security at most military installations, although Russian army deserters commonly take weapons with them to sell once they reach closer to the west. In such cases, the weapons will usually be folding stock AK derivatives like the AK74 or AK 100

What can prove even more difficult than obtaining guns in Europe is getting supplies of ammunition. The old rule of "buck a bullet" often applies. Sometimes (like in the UK) there is an "underground" of reloaders manufacturing ammunition from components on a small scale and secret indoor shooting ranges. Otherwise, the ammo is smuggled in and the smugglers expect to make a healthy profit.

This select clientele is usually former military personnel employed as bodyguards and sometimes mercenaries. Unlike the US, mercenaries are openly recruited in several European countries. These people usually have better connections for weapons, but are more select and secretive about who they deal with.

I have been reading reports of Albanian and Middle Eastern heroin running gangs using heavier military weapons in France, including one apparent gang leader who fired several shots from an RPG-7 at police in a long drawn out car chase and gun battle at an apartment complex.

The reality of the European black market arms situation is that the relative ease with which guns can be smuggled in from places where they are cheap

From what I have gathered, a number of connections for the guns are made the following ways:

At large parties and nightclubs, especially the "underground" nightclubs where narcotics are commonly available. These will be frequented by gangs, organized crime, and military deserters.

Through professional bodyguards, mercenaries and the organizations that broker their services. This includes a number of the "bodyguard" and "mercenary" schools operating in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, often through a loose alliance of "retired" military and intelligence personnel. Gaining the trust of these people can be difficult, but once they trust you, they can make almost anything available, up to and including combat aircraft. It can be very difficult to sift the bullshitters from the real players so don't put money up front until you can see some serious evidence that they can deliver.

Through loose associations of militaria collectors and former gun collectors and dealers. Most are under active investigations by law enforcement, so they are usually pretty paranoid, but they do have access to the weapons.
Those who I found often will not have access to weapons or have them but are unwilling to sell them off:

Political and "terror" organizations like the IRA and Orangemen. They have weapons, but jealously guard their contacts and almost never sell them off. Marxist organizations rarely sell weapons to anybody other than "fellow travelers" in allied Marxist organizations. The trick is to find the occasional deserter or corrupt individual in one of these organizations who can be convinced to give something up for cash or something of value.

Skinhead and Neo Nazis. They may be ultra-violent, but they are mainly brawlers and vandals, not bomb makers or gunfighters. Weapons they use are usually improvised and disposable and nearly all arms dealers in Europe avoid dealing with the skinheads. They are usually under active investigation by any number of agencies thus it becomes very risky for most arms dealers to associate with them and thus what weapons the skinheads get, they rarely are willing to let loose of. They do usually know where and how much the weapons cost, but are usually looking to make a connection rather than become the connection.

In general, the survivor in Europe is often going to be on the same ground as the criminals until some events happen that separate the good people from the bad people. That is not to say certain weapon permits are impossible to obtain in Europe. In fact, there is a growing international movement for the rights of citizen's to own weapons which is challenging Marxist policy in many west European countries.

Anonymous said...

This information may not be up to date, please check the laws in your specific area.......
Issued as a guideline - ONLY:


Stun Gun Laws






District of Columbia Law. DC Code Ann. Title 6, Chapter 23. Firearms Control. Subchapter I. General Provisions 6-2302. (7) "Destructive device" means: (B) "Any device by whatever name known which will, or is designed, or may be readily converted or restored, to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant through a smooth bore barrel, except a shotgun." (D) Any device designed or redesigned, made or remade, or readily converted or restored, and intended to stun or disable a person by means of electric shock. Subchapter II. Firearms and Destructive Devices. General Provision 6-2311. Registration requirements: (a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, no person or organization in the District of Columbia ("District") shall receive, possess, control, transfer, offer for sale, sell, give, or deliver any destructive device, and no person or organization in the District shall possess or control any firearm, unless that person or organization holds a valid registration certificate for the firearm. Subchapter V. Sales and Transfer of Firearms, Destructive Devices, and Ammunition. General Provision 6-2351. Sales and transfers prohibited. No person or organization shall sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of any firearm, destructive device or ammunition in the District except as provided in *** 6-2352, or 6-2375.

SUMMARY: Possession and sales of Stunning Devices are banned in Washington, DC.

HAWAII: Illegal

Hawaii State Law. Rev. Stats. Title 10, Chapter 134. Firearms, Ammunition and Dangerous Weapons. Part 1. General Regulations. Chapter 134-1 Definitions. "Electric gun" means any portable device that is electrically operated to project a missile or electromotive force. Chapter 134-16 Restriction on possession, sale, gift or delivery of electric guns. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person, including a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer or licensed dealer, to possess, offer for sale, hold for sale, sell, give, lend or deliver any electric gun. (b) Any electric gun in violation of subsection (a) shall be confiscated and disposed of by the chief of police.

SUMMARY: Possession and sales of Stunning Devices are banned in Hawaii.


1. In order to possess a Taser or stun gun, an individual must have a valid FOID card, as is currently required for firearms. 2. Sellers of Taser or stun guns must check the buyers FOID card and keep the record of sale for ten years, the same requirements for firearms sales. 3. When a licensed firearms dealer sells a Taser or stun gun, they must request a background check of the buyer. 4. The 24-hour waiting period required for long guns, shotguns, and rifles, will also apply to taser and stun gun purchases.


Massachusetts State Law. Ann. Laws of Massachusetts. Chapter 140. Sale of Firearms. Section 131J: Sale or possession of electrical weapons; penalties. Section 131J. No person shall sell, offer for sale or possess a portable device or weapon from which an electric current, impulse, wave or beam may be directed, which current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to incapacitate temporarily, injure or kill. Whoever violates this provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than two years in a jail or house of correction, or both.

SUMMARY: Possession and sales of Stunning Devices are banned in Massachusetts.


The Michigan Penal Code Act 328 of 1931. Chapter 750.224a Portable device or weapon directing electrical current, impulse, wave, or beam; sale or possession prohibited; testing. (1) A person shall not sell, offer for sale, or possess in this state a portable device or weapon from which an electric current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to incapacitate temporarily, injure, or kill. (3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony.

SUMMARY: Possession and sales of Stunning Devices are banned in Michigan.


New Jersey State Law. New Jersey Stat. Ann. Title 2C. New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice. Chapter 39-1. Prohibited weapons and devices. (Section "r" summarized from Chapter 2C:39-1) "Weapon" means anything readily capable of lethal use or of inflicting serious bodily injury. The term includes, but is not limited to all (4) stun guns; and any weapon or (this section refers to tear gas and has been updated in 1995) other device which projects, releases, or emits tear gas or any other substance intended to produce temporary physical discomfort or permanent injury through being vaporized or otherwise dispensed in the air. (t) "Stun gun" means any weapon or other device which emits an electrical charge or current intended to temporarily or permanently disable a person. Senate, No. 2871 -- L.1985, c. 360 Senate Bill No. 2781, as amended by the Senate Law, Public Safety and Defense Committee, prohibits as a crime of the fourth degree the possession of a stun gun by any person, including a law enforcement officer. A crime of the fourth degree carries a penalty of imprisonment for up to 18 months, a fine of up to $7,500, or both. Prior to being amended the bill classified possession of a crime in the third degree. {Editor’s Note: According to Len Lawson of NJ Legislative Council, (609) 292-4625) NJ does not classify crimes in felonies versus misdemeanors. The highest crimes are in first degree on down to fourth degree. A fourth degree penalty is a serious charge and is generally considered a misdemeanor in common terms. It is however an indictable offense. A fourth degree crime does contain "a presumption of non-custodial sentencing," meaning that there is not imprisonment if there are no prior convictions. In some cases the sentencing is obviated from one’s record if there is a period of good behavior following the charge.} The committee amended the bill to include a provision authorizing the Attorney General, at his discretion, to exempt law enforcement officers from the prohibition against possession stun guns. The bill also was amended by the committee to include stun guns in the definition of "weapon" in paragraph r. N.J.S. 2C:39-1. (Chapter 2C:39-1) (h) Stun guns. Any person who knowingly has in his possession any stun gun is guilty of a crime in the fourth degree.

SUMMARY: Possession is banned of Stunning Devices in New Jersey.

NEW YORK: Illegal

New York Consolidated Law (McKinney’s) Book 39. Penal Law. Article 265. Firearms and Other Dangerous Weapons 265.00 15-a. "Electronic dart gun" means any device designed primarily as a weapon, the purpose of which is to momentarily stun, knock out or paralyze a person by passing an electrical shock to such person by means of a dart or projectile. 15-c. "Electronic stun gun" means any device designed primarily as a weapon, the purpose of which is to momentarily stun, cause mental disorientation, knock out or paralyze a person by passing a high voltage electrical shock to such person. Article 265.01 Criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree when: (1) He possesses any firearm, electronic dart gun, electronic stun gun ***; or ***

SUMMARY: Possession is banned of Stunning Devices in New York.


General Laws of Rhode Island. Title 11, Chapter 47. Statute Subsection 11-47-42. Weapons other than firearms prohibited. - (A) No person shall carry or possess or attempt to use against another, any instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a *** stun gun ***. Any person violating the provisions of this subsection, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by imprisonment for not more than one (1) year, or both such fine and imprisonment, and the weapon so found shall be confiscated.

SUMMARY: Possession and use of Stunning Devices are banned.


Wisconsin Sta. Ann. Chapter 939. Crimes - General Provisions. Chapter 939.22 Words and phrases defined. (10) Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing great harm; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295(4); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Chapter 941.295 Possession of electric weapon. Subsection (1) On or after July 1, 1982, whoever sells, transports, manufactures, possesses or goes armed with any electric weapon is guilty of a Class E felony. Subsection (4) In this section, "electric weapon" means any device which is designed, redesigned, used or intended to be used, offensively or defensively, to immobilize or incapacitate persons by the use electric current.

SUMMARY: Possession and sales of Stunning Devices are banned.



BALTIMORE: Illegal (Including Baltimore County)

Baltimore City Code 115. Stun guns and similar devices. (e) It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to sell, give away, lend, rent or transfer to any individual, firm or corporation a stun gun or other electronic device by whatever name or description which discharges a non-projectile electric current within the limits of the City of Baltimore. It further shall be unlawful for any person to possess, fire or discharge any such stun gun or electronic device within the City. Nothing in this subsection shall be held to apply to any member of the Baltimore City Police Department or any other law enforcement officer while in the performance of his or her official duty (Ord. 385. 1985).


Sec. 8.404. Sale or possession of electronic weapons prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to sell, give away, lend, rent or transfer to any individual, firm or corporation an electronic weapon within the limits of Howard County. It further shall be unlawful for any person to possess, fire, discharge or activate any electronic weapon within the limits of Howard County. (C.B. 38 1985).


Philadelphia City Ordinance. Statute 10-825 Stun Guns. (1) Definitions. (a) Stun Gun. Any device which expels or projects a projectile which, upon coming in contact with a person, is capable of inflicting injury or an electric shock to such person. (2) Prohibited conduct. No person shall own, use, possess, sell or otherwise transfer any "stun gun." (3) Penalty. Any person violating any provision of this section shall be subject to a fine or not more than three hundred (300) dollars and /or imprisonment for not more than ninety (90 days.)


Administrative Code of the City of New York 10-135 Prohibition on sale and possession of electronic stun guns. a. As used in this section, "electronic stun gun" shall mean any device designed primarily as a weapon, the purpose of which is to stun, render unconscious or paralyze a person by passing an electronic shock to such person, but shall not include an "electronic dart gun" as such term is defined in section 265.00 of the penal law. b. It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale or to have in his or her possession within the jurisdiction of the city any electronic gun. c. Violation of this section shall be a class A misdemeanor. [Exemptions under this section are provided for police officers operating under regular department procedures or guidelines and for manufacturers of electronic stun guns scheduled for bulk shipment. NOTE: The electronic stun gun is not a "firearm" under the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 because it does not "...expel a projectile by the action of an explosive..."]

SUMMARY: Possession and sales of Stunning Devices are banned in New York City.


By placing an order, the buyer agrees to the facts that:

1. It is legal to possess and use the items being purchased in your community.

2. You have contacted any local, state and/or federal authorities where necessary, and are acting in a lawful manner with regard to any type of products ordered from Safety Enforcement and anyone affiliated with Full Circle Enterprises.

3. You are at least 18 years of age and of legal age to own and possess the items being ordered.

4. Any products received will be used for self defense or training purposes only.

5. Any products received will be used for legal purposes only.

6. You have read all information on this disclaimer and understand its contents. Also by placing an order, you agree that and anyone affiliated with it in any way, has no control over the use of any product ordered. The buyer also agrees that, under no circumstances will you hold Full Circle Enterprises, the manufacturer, or any Resellers liable for any loss, including any circumstances arising out of the use, or misuse of these products or services it represents.

reporting from london england said...

Gun Control in America ...
Many anti gun shit heads say look at England handguns are outlawed and the police don't carry guns.

Well both of those statements are wrong.

England is experiencing a serious crime wave, this is due too vast amounts of immigrants flooding into the country.
These immigrants come from two sources -
1 - Europe because any EU member country citizen can come here. The UK needs to get of of the EU, a vast mistake, make sure America does not make the same mistake with the proposed North American Union.
2 - Immigrants primarily from Pakistan, Nigeria, and India. The Muslims are the worse. They are like your stinking illegal Mexicans. All you hear from them is give me, give me, give me. They are fucking worthless.

As a result of out useless ass government and its open border policies and being politically correct everyday common Brits are forced to buy handguns on the black market.

Soon this problem will be like your pre-war prohibition were everybody bought beer because you were told you were not allowed to have it.

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a fucking idiot said...

Toy guns look more and more like real guns, and real guns look more and more like toy guns -- and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg sees in this a real threat to police officers and the public.
Back in 1999, the New York City Council passed a law requiring that toy guns be painted fluorescent to make them easily identifiable as toys. But now that real guns are colored with the same fluorescent paint, they look like toys.
As part of a larger piece of gun legislation, Bloomberg wants to ban the selling of gun coloration or paint kits to anyone in New York City's five boroughs.
Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn say these paint kits make real guns look like toys, putting police officers and children in danger. Mayor Bloomberg held up a toy gun and a real gun that had been colored using a paint kit to demonstrate how indistinguishable the guns would be to a police officer who might be confronting a person with one of the disguised weapons.
Creator of Coloring Kits....
But Steve Lauer said Bloomberg's demonstration was a foolish one because, said Lauer, the real gun was obvious: "Maybe the real gun is the one with a hole and a barrel?"
Lauer is the owner of Lauer Custom Weaponry in Chippewa Falls, Wis., and the inventor of Duracoat, a popular gun coloration chemical that has taken heat from Bloomberg. Lauer invented Duracoat more than a decade ago. He said he can't keep up with the abundance of phone and Internet orders for the product.
"Our customers are all avid hunters, law enforcement, not gang bangers," said Lauer. "We're not getting orders from New York City. Our sales records only show two orders placed from there, and same thing with Los Angeles. We're only getting order from movie makers."
Regardless of how many gun-coloration kits Lauer is selling in New York, 80 percent of the guns used in committing crimes there have come from out of state.
Lauer said he gets the largest amount of sales from California, Texas, Florida and Arizona. Many people overseas are also heavy purchasers of gun-coloration kits. "Just go to Google and type in Lauer. What comes up? Me, my site. Not Matt Lauer. I have a huge international presence."
Education More Important Than Legislation?
Lauer insists that his product's popularity doesn't pose a safety threat. He said his gun-coloration kits don't contribute to injuries or deaths. He said he doesn't sell to criminals and when it comes to children's safety, the color has nothing to do with it. "Kids are in danger when they aren't educated on gun safety."
Lauer doesn't buy Bloomberg's argument that coloring guns puts kids in harm's way by making them believe the gun is a toy when it's real. "That's never happened before; the scenario is a figment of someone's imagination."
But Bloomberg is convinced that gun-coloration kits put kids in danger; even if a single death happens as a result of someone thinking these guns are toys, that's one death too many, the mayor said.
Already, one child is killed every three hours in the United States by gunfire, according to the Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics. The New York City Council reports that more than 300 New Yorkers, many of them children, were killed with illegal guns last year alone.
A Gun as an Accessory?
At least three companies are selling these kits on the Internet: KG Industries in Hayward, Wis., Brownell's Inc. in Montezuma, Iowa, and Lauer's Custom Weaponry.
Bloomberg is the first official to try to enact legislation that would make gun coloration a crime. Under Bloomberg's proposed legislation, if someone uses, buys or sells gun-coloration kits they could face up to a year in jail, a fine of $1,000, or both.
Lauer said Bloomberg's attempt to ban these coloration kits won't do anything to curb crime or gun coloring. "Criminals will just go get a spray can."
The National Rifle Association shares Lauer's sentiment. "Banning paint is not going to stop crime. The color of the gun doesn't matter. It's the criminals, not the color of the gun that's the problem. Bloomberg doesn't get that simple concept," said Andrew Arylanandam, director of public affairs for the NRA.
Lauer said he sells the gun paint mainly to law enforcement and the military, who either want to camouflage their guns or make them more visible in low-light situations. Lauer said he "rounds out" his sales by selling to the general public. "Women shooters like to accessorize. They like their gun to match their earrings," he said.

can't fix stupid said...

re, New York City's Mayor Michael Bloomberg

I concur he is an anti gun nut and a useless liberal fucking idiot.

I hope his home is broken into and his wife raped, then may be he will come to realize with crime and illegals in America rampant and out of control, private citizens need to be armed and protected.

Gun Owner Alert said...


April 6, 2008
I would like to start this report by noting that I have personally spoke with several sources who were directly involved in the incidents that I am about to report that took place in Greensburg, KS in the aftermath of the horrible CAT 5 tornado that ravaged and destroyed that town. I will not be divulging their names in this article as they have requested I not do so.

The first thing I would like for everyone to acknowledge is that the residents of Greensburg were forced to evacuate and that, in and of itself, was an illegal action as martial law had not been declared. There were many people who wanted to stay and they were threatened with arrest and forcible removal if they did not leave as ordered. The tornado happened at 9:46pm on Friday evening, May 4, 2007 and they were forced to leave within a couple hours of it, being given no time to collect themselves or assess the damages or even try to pick up anything such as guns and valuables. Ed Klummp, Police Chiefs Association, testified at the House committee hearing with a position opposing The Emergency Powers Act and said the evacuations were so they could search for bodies and shut off gas and power and that the evacuation was for the safety of the residents. I have been told by a reliable source that the electricity was shut off prior to the tornado striking and the gas was shut off within a few hours after. It would seem that the evacuation was not necessary in light of that information. Perhaps the position should have been that those who want to leave be provided a way to do so and those who wish to stay be allowed to stay.

This town was locked down tight for several days and no one was allowed in or out. The only people in that town during this time were Sheriffs Officers, Kansas Highway Patrol Officers, ATF, FEMA, National Guard, Police Officers from surrounding areas and some volunteers from Ft. Riley, generally speaking, government officials. Authorities claim no one else was there or could have gotten in or out. Interestingly enough, I have been told repeatedly by all sources that the media was allowed to roam freely without escorts through Greensburg. Shall we ask why residents were not allowed to stay on their own property but media was allowed unfettered access?

Many guns and other valuables such as jewelry have gone permanently missing and have never been recovered. There were some houses that were not destroyed and were in tact and habitable. Those folks did not want to leave but were forced to do so. When they returned they found their houses had been broken in to and all of their guns missing. One gentleman reports that when he went to claim his guns, taken from his secure home, they were returned to him in damaged condition. They were not damaged by the tornado. They were locked up in his home and illegally confiscated. So how do we suppose that damage occurred?

Guns and ammunition that were collected were taken to a trailer and an ATF agent manned the trailer. When people first came to collect their guns they were asked for proof of ownership such as receipts and serial number lists and they had to fill out a 4473 and get a NICS approval before they could claim their guns. No one had paperwork, receipts, or lists of serial numbers because it had all blown away. Later into the process they quit demanding these items and asked only for a list with make, model and description of the firearm. In one case, in the collection trailer, a gun case was claimed by one man who had a very nice trap shotgun in it and when he opened the undamaged and closed case, he found not his nice BT99 but another damaged gun that did not belong to him. That $1500.00 BT99 has never turned up. One comment made by all sources is that many “nice” guns were never recovered. Every source has reported that little to no care was taken with any of the firearms retrieved and taken into protective custody and they were not catalogued in any fashion. One resident said “they were just thrown in there in piles”.

One family, whose house was not damaged, reported that officers were going to remove them at gun point when they refused to leave their property and a gun fight was only averted when a KBI agent stepped in front of the other officers and pleaded with them to consider what they were doing. Those residents had taken up their shotguns and were not going to leave. We can only say thank heavens for that KBI officer who had the sense to realize what pressing these people at gun point would mean.

As I talked to these residents of Greensburg the accounts of their personal experiences kept flowing and they all had certain things in common. Their rights were violated, guns were confiscated illegally and they were forced to leave their homes illegally. When government agents came to their property they did not ask them if they were okay or needed help. They were there to forcibly remove them and confiscate their property. Many of them expressed fear of reprisal should they go public. Do they have the names of the officials who they believe acted illegally and inappropriately? In many cases, the answer is yes. Did all officials act illegally and inappropriately? NO. Many were very helpful and had great concern for the well being of the residents and were there to assist them with the best of intentions.

The people in Greensburg are a close, tight knit community, everyone knows everyone kind of place. They were very resentful of government coming in and telling them what they had to do. They would have preferred to stay and help each other locate valuables and guns and not leave their property. Several residents have reported that FEMA did more harm than good and would not even cooperate with local law enforcement. Residents of the town who were firefighters and trained in rescue operations wanted to stay and help their neighbors and friends and were told they could not.

The many stories that have been shared with me are too lengthy to include in this report. I just pose these questions. If there was even one act of misconduct or illegal activity by any governmental official are we to stand by idly and allow it without complaint? Should those who broke the law be allowed to continue to “serve” as law enforcement officials without question? Should the residents of Greensburg have to fear reprisal if they report and file complaints about what happened to them? Should Kansas and its legislative body do nothing to see to it that this never happens again?

I am turning over all of the information I have obtained to the NRA complete with names and numbers of those residents which I have spoke with. I am also going to turn the information over to some members of the Kansas House and Senate. I would urge KSRA members to contact their legislators and demand that a full investigation be conducted in to the events that took place in Greensburg. HB 2811, The Emergency Powers Act is a bill designed to prevent this exact kind of thing from happening and provide a remedy if it does (see that article). At the time of this publication that bill is in the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee. Rise up Kansas! Let your voice be heard! Don’t let your town be next!!

Posted By ......
Target Master Shooting Academy, LLC
NRA Certified Training Counselor
KS Certified CCH Instructor
KSRA Board Member

GunsR Good said...

Here is a quote from President George Washington:

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They (guns) are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence.

From the hour the Pilgrams landed, to the present day, events occurrences and tendencies prove that to insure peace security and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable.

The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains eveil interferance. They deserve aplace of honor with all that's good.

Why would U fear an honest man with a gun? The criminal's R already armed U moron!

any questions???? said...

Gun owners suck.

Anonymous said...

re, Guns R Good

I totally agree with this posting!

Use your IRS Tax Rebate wisely, buy a GUN !!!!

A Little Gun History Lesson said...

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by
their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

do away with all guns said...

Guns are loaded by the devil

Machete Season said...

A recent poster suggested if all guns were taken away, it would be more difficult to kill someone. He suggested No Guns = less senseless deaths. Let's forget for a moment that guns are already illegal in Chicago and Washington DC.

In "Machete Season," 10 black Hutu men recall how they enjoyed slaughtering their neighbors with machetes and clubs -- and six years after the Rwanda genocide they feel no guilt for the horrific event that claimed 800,000 deaths. You may recall the slaughter garnered worldwide attention thanks to numerous books and documentaries, and even a Hollywood film.

800,000 black on black murders. 800,000 murders. No guns involved. No remorse for the slaughter.

I believe this is called savagery. Guns are not the problem.



Liberals We Overcome said...

It never serves a purpose to argue with a gun owner. He will never change his mind. It is senseless. There is always some anecdote they will pull from their nra talking papers.

America versus Socialism said...

So for the anti gun nuts who always like to spout things like the Columbine High School Massacre or Virginia Tech College as an excuse of why we ought to ban handguns ...
then what about the high school student just arrested in North Carolina for making homemade bombs?
What's next ?
Ban fertilizers, household chemicals.
Make everyone get a goat to mow their lawn and fertilize it naturally.
After all you Liberals get all the guns and chemicals banned, how about you come over to my home and lick my toilet clean?

american pride said...

RE:Machete Season

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

For all of the mindless wonders who think that gun control is a good thing...
remember the above quote and most of all the person who made it -

Adolph Hitler, 1935

Living in Phoenix AZ said...

Guns an Objective Point of View:
Only simple people look for soulitions to complex issues. The violence around the world will continue guns or no guns. We need to recognize that we have a large portion of the population that has little or no hope for the good life. Cause and effect, frustration = violience.
Drugs have been banned, that did no good what so ever, the drug trade is alive and well.
Some simple minded people see a forest and never look at the individual tree.
The fact of the matter is over 100 million guns are in homes around America. and yet the percentage used in the commision of a crime is quite small. If ownership of a gun makes you a bad person then most of Americans are bad people.
Banning any one thing, will never solve the problem of violence. Working to make life better for every one might just have a chance. However as long as close minded people argue banning will solve the problem, the issue will be alive and well.
Open yourself to a more broad based solution, embrace a new way of looking at the problems roots. People kill people, some use knives, rope, clubs, guns, their bare hands, I could go on and on.
Finally I carry a concealed weapon at night if I have to travel in some parts of this fair city, because some bad people live in this town. The State of Arizona issued me a permit to do so, and I pray I will never have to use it.
We are afforded the right to do so, banning my right to carry, is banning my right to defend myself.

never-never-land said...

People who want guns banned live in a fantasy world. you can only take guns from honest people, bad people won't give up their guns because....well....they don't abide by the law, go figure. a quick history check tells me that people killed people BEFORE there were guns (it's true) so take away ALL guns and bad people will STILL kill people. people advocating no guns are just frightened in general about society and don't want to live in the real world.

the zoo is crowded said...

I think I figured it out!
Those that are for complete gun control or better yet would rather not have any one own one have yet to have the joy of shooting one.

All you liberals need to get your asses to a shooting range and just shoot a gun a few times. Start with with something small like a 22, then work your way up. The AK is only for those of us that truly enjoy it so don't use that one first. As a first timer you want to stay away from the shot gun, it packs a powerful punch. However I promise once you are ready to try the shot gun and do you will just think it's one of the coolest things you have ever shot.

It's fear of the unknown that cause shit like "gun control". Before you get up on your high horse please get yourself to the shooting range and shoot a gun before you tell me if I can have one!

crime victim speaks out said...

re, I think I figured it out -
Nope you got it wrong.
These asshole anti gun nuts have never been a victim.
Let them suffer a mugging, a home break-in (invasion), a car jacking, or worse yet - a loved one killed.
Then you'll see a whole new attitude.
They'll be at the gun store purchasing a weapon for the home and one to carry.
They'll be getting a concealed permit.
Once a victim, your attitude changes.
Count on it, I know I was a victim, never again.
Next time I send them to the morgue in a body bag with a gut and head full of lead.

the zoo is crowded said...

re, crime victim
You are correct. I was just keeping it light. However once you have been violated then you will know the reason to own a gun.

However, it truly is lots of fun just to shoot for the hell of it.

An Older Woman said...

Happen to live in a home that has 2 guns owned by a brother. Personally, do not know how to shoot one. Will learn very fast though. If someone were to break into my home when I was alone, going to shoot to kill. I'll ask questions later. AZ needs to change the law on using equal force "if &/or when" someone breaks into your home. The state I'm from says if anyone breaks into your home, the minute they step foot onto your floors, you have every legal right to protect yourself, even if it includes killing them. The 'equal force' is pure BS! Lots of women live alone & not too many are a match for men.

on the money said...

Some of societies loosers in Chicago shot several people last weekend and soon everyone who does not understand the big picture will be wailing for more gun control.
Enacting laws that only really affect law abiding citizens is a waste of time, money, does not stop the problem and infringes on our personal freedom and rights.
Until we make it too unsavory for criminals to use firearms for crime it will continue regardless of whatever laws are passed. If there was a minimum sentence of 15 or 20 years for being in posession of a firearm during a crime do you think it would be worth it to do a 7-11 heist? Add to that mandatory hard labor such as road construction in the summer. Right now the sentences are jokes for crimes with weapons. You are in about as much trouble if you were stopped in a car with some acquaintances and someone had some pot in their pocket you were not aware of.
Consider these facts.

You will love this said...

THE BEST Put Down LINE EVER.......
For those that don't know him, this is Major General Peter Cosgrove not only a valiant soldier but as well an 'Australian treasure!'

General Cosgrove was interviewed on the radio recently.
You'll love his reply to the persistent lady who interviewed him concerning guns and children. Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you gotta love this! This is one of the best comeback lines of all time. It is a portion of an ABC interview between a female broadcaster and General Cosgrove who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military headquarters.

So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.
Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.
Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

< /SPAN>I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?

The radio went silent and the interview ended.

gun laws are useless said...

Ok. I'll prove it. The city with the highest rate of gun crime is Washington DC.. the city with the toughest gun laws is also Washington DC.

From my cold dead hand.

alert said...

Comparing the NRA to Nazi's

The first thing that Hitler had to do was disarm the people of Germany in order to start his agenda. The NRA is here to stop the American government from attempting the same. Your second amendment right to own firearms is the one that protects all the rest.

44 magnum said...

Gun control, is hitting what you aim at.

inquiry minds want to know said...

Why does anyone feel that their desire to live a firearm-free existence trumps everyone else's right to keep and bear arms?

liberals never address the facts said...

Washington D.C. has among the most stringent gun control laws in the country, yet also one of the highest crime rates.

Liberals address this true fact said...

Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world - it's male citizens are required to serve in the military (actively, for a time and in a reserve capacity for life) and maintain ownership of a firearm.

But the liberals refuse to concede said...

Australia outlawed almost all private gun ownership - result: criminals, no longer fearing citizen self-defense, launched a crime wave.

nyuk nyuk said...

A well-trained militia......

is a group of naked babes running around with automatic rifles.

in arizona said...

Liberal, non conformist, Opera loving, youth volunteer, sports playing, sport bike riding, classic reading, tattooed, non smoking, anti drug, light drinker, over 45, single woman and multiple gun owner. I would not live any other way.

Liberals are close minded people said...

Gun control, anyone? America

One thing you have to understand is that I am a gun owner and I really don't care if you own a gun or not. It is simply a personal decision as is your
belief in a supreme being. Facts imply truth and when someone pulls out the spoon making Rosie O'Donnell fat fact, I am less than impressed. At the very least, get some new stuff.

Now go shoot your little gun and leave me alone. Post what you wish. I just gave you my personal opinion.

living in the real world said...

I purchased the gun I used in my crime from a "reputable" licensed gun dealer. I reiterate: many gun crimes are committed by persons who have no previous criminal record, and have therefore purchased their firearms legally. This reliance on criminal records to determine the legitimacy of a person's gun ownership removes personal judgement and responsibility from those supplying said firearms. Yes; when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Also; when people rely too heavily on others to govern and protect them, they find themselves at the mercy of all - with no power over their own lives.

stop the beaner babies said...

re, Guns R Loaded by Devil
to the person that said that- -

You are in error......
please self-destruct, you are not a perfect life-form!

Gun are loaded by dirty little filthy Beaners....
Deport all Mexicans now -

Anonymous said...

Bitter, Clingy, Gun Owners

Aside from the extra surge that gun owners feel in their loins when handling their weapons, do they really think that a .22 pistol or an AK-47 or anything in between will keep them safe from the government?

taxes r fun said...

Got your Tax Rebate / Refund yet?
Remember - run, dont walk, to the nearest gun store and buy yourself a gun and lots of ammo.
Buy two guns if you an afford it.

Obama will take your guns away said...

gun control-The BIG lie
“We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measures that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions. I think there’s a lot of room before bumping against a constitutional barrier... I am not in favor of concealed weapons. There has not been any evidence that allowing people to carry a concealed weapon is going to make anybody safer... I wanted to make sure that local communities were recognized as having a right to regulate firearms. The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun laws isn’t born out by our Constitution.” —Barack Hussein Obama on “thoughtful” adulteration of our Constitution.

Non-Compos Mentis
“While I may favor common-sense gun control laws, that doesn’t keep me from reaching out to NRA members... I’m a strong believer in the rights of hunters and sportsmen to have firearms.” —Obama on “common-sense” adulteration of our Constitution.

On cross-examination...
“I knew Obama during the mid-1990s. The first time I introduced myself to him he said ‘Oh, you are the gun guy.’ I responded ‘Yes, I guess so.’ He simply responded, ‘I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns.”’

Professor John Lott, PhD, author of More Guns, Less Crime

Take That U Anti-Gun Nuts! said...

Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling overturns D.C. handgun ban....

(U.S.A.) said...

Supreme Court, 5 to 4 Guns

Well folks, the Court up held your rights. But it was not with out desent.
You have the right to owne a gun and use it in self defense. Those who think its ok to strip citizens of rights have taken a step back. Its not just guns it all of our rights, under attack from polition's in power around the country.
They always have a solution to problems, lets ban guns, lets ban drive through resturants, lets ban, lets ban, lets ban. In 2014 you will not be able yo buy incondesent light bulbs.
Enough is enough, We need to take care of the problems buy a more simple method. If you commit a crime, you go to jail. If you use a gun you go to jail for a long time. If you murder some one with a gun you are excuited.
If you commit a crime you loose your rights, this is all of course after you have been convicted. have appealed,and you conviction upheld.
As an honest law abiding citizen, you should never have anything taken away that you are entilted to under the constition.
Dian Finstine is unhappy with the Courts Decision. She says it makes us less safe. A woman in her position should be able to see the difference between law abiding citizens, and criminals. She should understand the bill of rights, and the constituion.
The Court has 4 members who think its ok to take away your rights as an honest citizen.
Take America back never vote for any one that thinks a ban will cure a problem. Ask them, if they say yes to a ban, they can not understand freedom.
Examples of bans that never worked, never will. Proabition, prostitution, drugs, incondesent light bulbs, drilling for oil, the list is growing.
Liberal Democrats, Liberal Republicans, all perticapate in this errosion of rights.
The need for oil will eventualy overturn the ban on drilling for oil in the good old U.S.A.
Ok I feel much better ranting about the liberals shallow view that a ban is always good. So someone will flag this because they don't like what it says.
Ever hear of freedom of speech.

in arizona said...

Supreme court DC ruling..

WE won you gun control freaks!!!Suck on that one bitches!!!Now you can never take them away.HAHAHAHA

so u think I am trash said...

Why I want my guns....

I'm very thankful for the ruling that came down from the Supreme Court last week. I happen to be one of those Americans who believe in the right to bear arms. Why, because I like guns and I enjoy shooting as a hobby. I also believe we have the right to use deadly force when necessary to defend our homes, property, neighbors and the people we love.
I live just 1 mile from the new stadium complex in Peoria and just two weeks ago we had a strong arm robbery in my neighborhood. Apparently to individuals(illegal alien criminals) entered a home at random and robbed the occupants at gunpoint. This occurred at about one o'clock in the afternoon and both were caught by the Peoria police within an hour. One of the guys was hiding between the houses just three doors down from my house. Thankfully nobody was hurt.
I'm sitting here writing this and within arms reach sits a loaded 38 revolver. In the next room my 18-year-old daughter is taking a nap before she has to go to work . I'm not going to sit here and try to explain the pros and cons of gun ownership. I just know that if some criminal element were to enter my home I'm going to assume that they have very bad intentions. And without any hesitation I will shoot them DEAD,DEAD.DEAD.

Associated Press Reporting said...

ATLANTA GA - The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves.

Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There was nothing unique about that year — gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent.

screw you all said...

re, Associated Press Reporting

So what's the point here.
Take away their gun they will just use some other method for killing themselves.
It could be worse, they could get behind a wheel and use a car then maybe kill some innocent person.
The news media is full of idiot liberals.

Seattle WA said...

re,re,Associated Press Reporting

Here is another benefit of owning a gun. You can kill yourself. Something good comes from everything.

Gun Control Nuts Lose Again said...

Ammunition Registration Unworkable

California, the land of innovative gun-control schemes, is at it again. This time the focus is on regulating ammunition preferably out of existence within the state.

Democratic State Senator Joseph Dunn has introduced Senate Bill 357, which would require that all handgun ammunition sold or taken into California carry a unique serial number for tracking purposes. At first, the number was to be engraved on the bottom of each bullet (the projectile portion of a cartridge) and on the inside of each cartridge casing (the portion in which the bullet is seated until it is fired). As of this writing, legislators are considering changing the location of the engraved serial number to the bottom of the cartridge and side of each bullet after manufacturers pointed out that enforcers would have to disassemble each cartridge to determine whether it complied with the law. The bill would also register ammunition purchasers and make possession of unserialized ammunition illegal.

Backers tout the proposed law as yes, you guessed it another crime-control measure, claiming that its purpose is “to give law enforcement a tool to solve handgun crimes.” Opponents see it for what it is a gun-control measure aimed at reducing handgun ownership in the state.

Proponents argue that the cost of compliance would be only a half cent per round. According to the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute, however, the cost of numbering each cartridge going to California with a unique identification number would be prohibitive. It would increase the cost of ammunition from pennies to several dollars per round, require new production facilities and equipment, negate the economy of scale ammunition manufacturers depend on to make their product cost-effective, and require three weeks to produce what now takes one day.

The bill’s sponsors reply that the law would apply only to handgun ammunition and, therefore, should not place too great a burden on manufacturers. This is deceptive because most ammunition used in rifles can also be fired from handguns, thereby forcing manufacturers to number almost all ammunition to avoid possible violations. In the end, it would make more sense for ammunition manufacturers not to sell to California dealers than to undergo the expense and time of complying with the new law for one state. The predictable result: gun control. After all, if you can’t get ammunition for your gun, it becomes about as useful as a rock.

There are several reasons why this law would be ineffective in fighting crime. Even if the serial number is applied to the casing as well as the bullet, not all handguns leave casings behind as evidence at the scene of the crime. Although semi-automatic pistols eject spent casings, revolvers do not. In a revolver, they are retained within the cylinder until they are manually removed. A criminal using a revolver is more likely to leave the scene of a crime expeditiously than to take precious time to remove and drop the spent casings there, regardless of whether the ammunition is marked, but especially so, because the scene of the crime is no place to linger. But wouldn’t criminals be apt to reload at the crime scene to fire off more rounds? Rarely. Most revolvers hold 5 or 6 rounds. According to FBI statistics, the number of rounds fired by each participant during the average gunfight is 3.5. Therefore, there is no need to reload at the scene of the crime and drop spent casings. Besides, most crimes involving guns don’t result in gunfights; they are generally one-sided events with one or two rounds fired, again with no need to remove spent casings and reload the revolver at the crime scene.

Wouldn’t criminals use the more sophisticated semi-automatic pistols, which eject spent casings? Not necessarily. Semi-automatics cost more, require more training to use, and are more apt to jam. Chances are, the average criminal who uses a handgun will have a small, easily concealable model such as a snub-nosed (two-inch barrel) revolver. You can bet if this bill becomes law many criminals who now use semi-automatic pistols will switch to revolvers, or pick up the one or two spent casings at the scene of the crime, time permitting.

Even if casings or bullets are left at the scene, how do you know who fired them? The original purchaser may have sold, given, or otherwise disposed of the ammunition, only for it to fall into the hands of criminals somewhere down the line. Go to any shooting range, for example. The place is littered with spent casings. If only marked ammunition is sold in California, don’t be surprised if a lot of these spent casings end up in the hands of criminals who will drop them at crime scenes to mislead investigators. Also expect registered ammunition to become high on the list of stolen items. Then again, an enterprising crook could always purchase unmarked ammunition out of state and smuggle it into California.

Another way to circumvent the proposed law would be to use reloading equipment to make unmarked ammunition. There are literally millions of unmarked bullets and reloadable casings on the market, and thousands of people who do their own reloading. Who knows how long it would take to consume what’s already available, to say nothing of what would be brought into the state clandestinely after the passage of such a law? Disassembling marked rounds and reassembling them as unmarked is always an option, though hardly necessary, because of the other options mentioned above.

No one is even sure investigators would be able to read the engraved serial numbers on spent bullets and casings, given the pressures and deformation they undergo when they are fired and strike targets of various hardness.

In addition, the bill makes no exception for cartridges going to law enforcers and the military within California, making ammunition to these entities either prohibitively expensive or unattainable.

In 1986, Congress repealed the federal law regulating ammunition because it had proved unworkable, time consuming, and unproductive in solving crimes.

The California legislators supporting this bill are not unintelligent or naive. They are well aware of the bill’s drawbacks as a crime-fighting tool regardless of where they ultimately decide to place the serial number. Like the now-discredited ballistic-fingerprinting scheme, ammunition serial-numbering will prove another failed attempt at crime control, and may even lead to increased crime. However, it will accomplish the end for which it is intended —more gun control.

religious nuts scare me said...

Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway
OKLAHOMA CITY - An Oklahoma church canceled a controversial gun giveaway for teenagers at a weekend youth conference.
Windsor Hills Baptist had planned to give away a semiautomatic assault rifle until one of the event's organizers was unable to attend.
The church’s youth pastor, Bob Ross, said it’s a way of trying to encourage young people to attend the event. The church expected hundreds of teenagers from as far away as Canada.
“We have 21 hours of preaching and teaching throughout the week,” Ross said.
A video on the church Web site shows the shooting competition from last year’s conference. A gun giveaway was part of the event last year. This year, organizers included it in their marketing.
“I don’t want people thinking ‘My goodness, we’re putting a weapon in the hand of somebody that doesn’t respect it who are then going to go out and kill,'” said Ross. “That’s not at all what we’re trying to do.”
Ross said the conference isn’t all about guns, but rather about teens finding faith.
“You make a lot of new friends down here,” said Vikki Goncharenko, who attended the conference. “You get to meet new people. There's a bunch of things that are going on. It's just, you have a wonderful time.”
Friday evening, Ross said the gun giveaway had been canceled. Pastor emeritus Jim Vineyard, who ran the event, injured his foot and wouldn’t be able to attend. The gun giveaway was also removed from the church Web site.
Ross said the church would give the gun away next year instead. He said the church spent $800 buying the gun for the promotion.

Anonymous said...

the only reason the supreme court issued their ruling was because they new there would be chaos and reason to overthrow the govt, thus creating a new revolution in this country

Anonymous said...

WASHINGTON DC - Twice convicted of felonies, James Francis Barton Jr. faces charges of violating a federal law barring felons from owning guns after police found seven pistols, three shotguns and five rifles at his home south of Pittsburgh. As a defense, Barton and several other defendants in federal gun cases argue that last month's Supreme Court ruling allows them to keep loaded handguns at home for self-defense. "Felons, such as Barton, have the need and the right to protect themselves and their families by keeping firearms in their home," says David Chontos, Barton's court-appointed lawyer. The legal attacks by Chontos and other criminal defense lawyers are separate from civil lawsuits by the National Rifle Association and others challenging handgun bans in Chicago and its suburbs as well as a total ban on guns in public housing units in San Francisco.

take that you stinking liberals said...

After court ruling, towns rush to repeal gun bans

MORTON GROVE, Ill. - In 1981, this quiet northern Chicago suburb made history by becoming the first municipality in the nation to ban the possession of handguns.
Twenty-seven years later, Morton Grove has repealed its law, bowing to a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that affirmed homeowners' right to keep guns for self-defense.
It's one of several Illinois communities reluctant to spend money on legal fights rushing to repeal their gun bans after the court struck down a Washington, D.C., ban, even as cities such as Chicago and San Francisco stand firm.
Mayor Richard Krier acknowledges Morton Grove's place in history, but said that didn't affect the village board's 5-1 decision Monday to amend its ordinance to allow the possession of handguns. The village still bans the sale of guns.
"There hasn't been any pressure" to keep the ban, Krier said, noting that the village's ordinance has been under scrutiny since the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Washington case. He also pointed out that the mostly residential village has never had a big problem with gun crime.
Though Morton Grove's gun ban is five years younger than Washington's, it's considered the first in the country because the village is a municipality, whereas D.C. is a federal district.
Gun rights advocates hailed the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision affirming that individuals have a right to own guns and keep them in their homes for self-defense.
The National Rifle Association and others carried their enthusiasm straight to federal court, suing the city of Chicago and Mayor Richard Daley, a vocal supporter of gun control, and the Chicago suburbs of Morton Grove, Evanston and Oak Park.
Wilmette, another northern Chicago suburb, voted to repeal its ban. Officials there said they believe they weren't sued by the NRA because the village stopped enforcing its 1989 ban after the high court ruling.
"In my mind we had to repeal," said Wilmette Village President Chris Canning, who is also a lawyer. "I knew that our ordinance would not survive constitutional scrutiny."
Todd Vandermyde, an NRA lobbyist in Illinois, said communities working to repeal their gun bans simply see the writing on the wall.
"Some communities are truly seeing what is contained in the Supreme Court decision and they're reacting appropriately," Vandermyde said.
"Others want to spend taxpayer money on some Don Quixote-type quest," he said, referring to Chicago, whose lawyers insist the city's ban will withstand any legal challenges.
"We have no plans to amend our ordinance at this time," said Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for Chicago's law department, noting that the ordinance has survived three previous court challenges. "We're prepared to take this fight to the Supreme Court if necessary."
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said last month that his city would "vigorously fight the NRA" and defended the ban as good for public safety.
Even Washington, D.C., has remained defiant, quickly enacting gun regulations that advocates say are still among the strictest in the country.
Gun control advocates say communities should not rush into repealing gun bans, arguing that if Chicago and San Francisco win in court, bans elsewhere would be protected.
"We went through a lot 27 years ago," said Don Sneider, one of four trustees who voted for Morton Grove's gun ban in 1981. He's upset that the current board voted to repeal it.
"There was tremendous pressure from the NRA and from citizens," he said. "We got threatening letters, letters swearing at us. ... I didn't feel that they had to rush into repealing it."
Patrick Kansoer, a hunter who is a plaintiff in the lawsuit against Morton Grove, said he was pleased with the board's vote but hasn't decided whether to drop the suit because of a possible provision outlawing shotguns.
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said he was disappointed to see communities' gun bans disappear because of financial concerns.
"The pressure that Morton Grove is feeling is because the NRA and the gun-lobby lawyers are pushing these issues, basically forcing them to make a decision on where to spend their money," Helmke said.
He said he is hopeful that Morton Grove and other communities will quickly write new gun regulations, like Washington has.
For his part, Krier, Morton Grove's mayor, said he is relieved that the Supreme Court has handed down a decision, leading the way for the village to act on what ultimately isn't a big issue in a place recently voted by Family Circle magazine as a "Best Town for Families."
"I don't blame Mayor Daley and the mayors... they want every tool available to them to stop the violence," Krier said. "If they believe that it has helped one homicide, then it's a good reason to fight it, but we don't have that issue here in Morton Grove."

How R U Voting? said...

Remember both Barack Obam and his running mate Joe Bide, both devout Liberals have said they will get rid of guns in America.

Sara Palin said she will never allow anyone to take our guns away. Why her, John McCain will die of cancer in office.

Clay said...

Ted is my American Hero. I now you probably have read both of his books, but if you haven't....

Marshall Wirig said...

Thanks for the pictures!

Anonymous said...

I believe in gun control 100%. I control all of my firearms, nobody else.

For all of those who would say that 'we the people' still exist, take this scenario into consideration, and we can stop them dead in there brainwashed tracks.

We the people decide that as per our rights given by our forefathers (and the constitution) we no longer feel that our current government can properly head our people. We exercise our right to take control of OUR government, in order to start repairs.

The government will not simply hand over all of their money, power and status. They will have our sons and daughters serving in OUR army fight us.

Anonymous said...

hoptzrbrz ugg サンダル ugg ムートン アグ ugg ブーツ ugg

ugg ブーツ
ugg 本物
ugg フラットシューズ

[url=]ugg ムートン[/url]
[url=]ugg ブーツ[/url]
[url=]ugg ブーツ[/url]
[url=]ugg ブーツ[/url]

Anonymous said...

[url=][img] alt="cheap chanel outlet" title="cheap chanel bags"[/img][/url]