Guests include Republicans, Democrats, people from blue states, red states, and criminals everywhere. To a pro-gun advocate, political parties are almost meaningless; the lines are nearly invisible. If you own a gun, a handgun, a machine gun, any gun that fires bullets—the more the merrier—you’re welcome to the party. As long as you remember, there is some danger involved. Other things to remember:
We are not talking about rifles, shotguns, skeet shooting, duck hunting, guns we use to protect domestic livestock, or thinning the herd. We are talking about weapons made to kill people.
Guns are often used in domestic violence against women. Men commit homicide 10 times more often than women. Their targets are often girlfriends, wives, or other female family members. In a fit of jealousy or anger, a man with a gun is a dangerous beast. He probably wasn’t so beastly when he bought the gun. He may have even passed a background check.
Will greater access to guns—handguns, automatic and semi-automatic weapons, larger clips, longer bullets—make women safer? Obviously not! This is not a tea party.
The Harvard School of Public Health reported, “Guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime.” I can vouch for the accuracy of that; an overwrought friend of mine once reached into the top drawer of his nightstand and began waving around his Glock handgun, threatening to shoot himself or anyone who tried to disarm him. I am used to being around guns, and so was my friend—there was little to do in such a situation. Sweat.
Most gun owners lack any training in handling or firing a handgun, much less an assault weapon. Most have a license to drive a car, but lack a license to carry. They don’t think a license is necessary. If they can load a gun, pull the trigger, and afford ammunition, they’re ready. I haven’t killed an animal for food in many years, and I never went hunting with a handgun. A handgun in every purse, a holster on every hip scares the hell of me. I’m frightened for my kids, for my wife, for my friend.
The gun party’s primary argument and excuse to carry is self-defense. That argument is not supported by the facts. Domestic violence, accidents, and suicides involving guns are far more numerous than acts of self-defense.
At least, I want to be as safe here as my friends are who live in England, Canada, and Australia. Our rate of gun homicides is exponentially higher than countries with less access to guns than we have. Greater access to guns does not mean greater safety for us.
If the only people with guns are criminals, they will be easier to spot by the people we elect, appoint, and hire to protect us. Enough with the crazies with assault weapons! Enough with handguns! Hire more cops.
We already have too many guns to get rid of, claims the NRA. So, we need more? Gun buybacks in Australia reduced gun violence down under. Why not here? Never happen, says the gun party; we have too many guns to buy back. But we have fought greater battles in our history: enrolling black children in white schools in the south, universal suffrage, electing a black President. We have had bigger challenges, never a better cause. It will take courage for members of Congress. They are afraid, scared they might lose their jobs, but they have no other ethical choice.
We have the magic bullets: our votes.
So to him having armed drones over US territory is ok and inevitable, but the 2nd Amendment is worthless.
Why are you censoring me? Everything I stated was on-point, and echoes the sentiments of my conservative brethren. You should be watching these off-the-wall libs with their incendiary and offensive posts. Go surfing, please.
When I was in the Army Back in 68-69, I was RESPECTED BY SOME, AND FEARED BY MOST! Yeah, I was a stateside cook at Fort Ord!
No my friend, just another strict constructionist conservative - taking refuge in my Rights. My flippant side would retort... "do you know me?". I am a strict-constructionist conservative, not cut in Southern California cloth. I come mainly from two western conservative states, have utmost appreciation for the commercial(Madison's) representative republic we were handed - and generally detest unduly instituted Amendments to our original perfect document limiting the scope of Government in American's lives.
'Jac's empirical evidence finds the status quo intolerable. The status quo of the Constitution seems an inconvenience to his liking and suggests, that conditions cry for further changes(unduly) to the once perfect document? 'Jac' insists "We are not talking about rifles, shotguns, skeet shooting, duck hunting, guns we use to protect domestic livestock, or thinning the herd. We are talking about weapons made to kill people." True, that in veiled non-sincerity his ilk(reactionaries) is attacking "handguns, automatic and semi-automatic weapons, larger clips, longer bullets" with a false premise of the protection of women in his mental chess-game, while other elements of his ilk attack ammunition and ammunition components in the deprivation of them. The recent military orders for ammunition, have skewed the markets in supply for the consumer or primers, powder and brass momentarily but with opportune timing.
Pg. 2 of 3 This two-fold attack of the responsible gun owner community, is a concerted effort of the Liberal ilk for a shift of control from markets. Meant to expedite legislative efforts to undermine the prescribed Rights of Americans to defend themselves and preserve the status quo, rooted in self-reliance and Free Markets... the unwieldy counter-balance achieved over time and more in-line with the Founding Fathers' idea of liming Governments intrusions and overbearing in Americans' lives is an unwritten outcome. However... just the fact that 'Jac' is afraid enough to give up Rights preordained is somehow comforting, identifying him adequately as a proverbial sheep. I was in my secure storage bunker yesterday... rooting and sortin' through fifteen years of collecting and reducing double tools for sale... found a carton of high-end ammunition for my HK USP!!! What joy, I experienced in the find. Originally invested about $14.00 in about 1999... the same box today would be retailed at $36.00-40.00 for a single box. Had I interest in selling the carton, the main consideration would be... who could be in need and responsible enough to own it. Luckily, I I perceive personal need to retain the investment for myself considering the ruminations of 'Jac's ilk. This serendipitous find, reduces my desire to compete with the current market consumers who have come late to the party... not 'Jac's Party of prevarication.
'Jac's falsely premised Party, he places as entre'... the problematic small percentage of possessors of illegal guns... committers of crime as impetus to limit the hard-fought Rights of Americans. Is it the violence these criminals perpetrate or the lock-step gait of Liberal thought to have Government make a larger footprint on citizen's lives? We understand... the false fronting of the loss of innocent children as a standard and the Liberal drive to use them for their means. We understand... 'Jac's urgency and perceive his fear. This citizen is open to a full "conversation" regarding crime/criminals and relation to gun-control. However your false premise, is of no interest other than simple disparagement of your sheep-like position and Liberal disregard for the precepts and historical importance of the Constitution as our guideline. The bothersome nature of 'Jac's position, his espoused empirical evidence and seeming complicity in media to remain lock-step to the current regime is taken on-face and reasonable to counter in these pages. Many recognize the overbearing and attempt to control American's lives through 'Jac's premise offered. At root, is expanding footprint of Government and the seeming limitless agenda of the Liberal left. If I have incorrectly read 'Jac's position as somewhat Liberal and with a leftist lilt... my apologies sir. Please elucidate, if you have a different view within your premised previous remarks.
"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]" That is forever ...
Yet, ALL the other fact checking sites say that Snopes.com IS legit and DOES tell the truth. These are all the other fact checking sites that agree that snopes is not "controlled by the liberal agenda." http://www.urbanlegends.com/ | http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/anti_quack_sites.html | http://www.truthorfiction.com/ | http://vmyths.com/hoax.cfm So how do you explain Readers Digest and all the COMPETING fact checker sites saying that Snopes.com is legit? Answer? You have been wrong all this time and Snopes IS a reliable source according to far more authoritarian sources than you are.
You are so wrong about fact checking site, www.Snopes.com IN FACT, Reader's Digest, the most conservative magazine in the US, wrote a favorable piece on Snopes.com, but Right Wingers, who hate how Snopes fact checks on their lies, naturally denounce Snopes. Yet, ALL the other fact checking sites say that Snopes.com IS legit and DOES tell the truth. These are all the other fact checking sites that agree that snopes is not "controlled by the liberal agenda." http://www.urbanlegends.com/ | http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/anti_quack_sites.html | http://www.truthorfiction.com/ | http://vmyths.com/hoax.cfm So how do you explain Readers Digest and all the COMPETING fact checker sites saying that Snopes.com IS legit? Answer? You who say it is a left-wing tool, have been wrong all this time and Snopes IS a reliable source according to far more authoritarian sources than you are.
Now The Dumb and the Willfully Ignorant are unemployable so they spend their days comment on the Patch. Even when the article deals with topics they know nothing of; they live to spew their ignorance and hatred. They don't use their real names because they claim speaking your mind can be dangerous. Tell that to Martin Luther King, Jr. Malcolm X, Nathan Hale, Thomas Paine... They are cowards and like all cowards they bully if you point out their complete lack of logic. They ruin online communication and any chance we may have had to learn from each other. They will continue to do so until we stand up and shout them down.
If a parsley farmer declares bankruptcy, may we garnish his wages?
The firearm can only do two things: 1- Function; 2- Malfunction. The firearm in of itself CANNOT kill...it is the PERSON using the firearm that does the killing. Mολων Λαβε