Pro-gun advocates will never have a rational discussion about gun laws and the 2nd Amendment

[ProSense]

Pro-gun advocates do three things in the wake of every act of gun violence:

1. Claim it's not about guns.
   
   
2. Argue that the solution is to arm everyone.
   
   
3. Go into hiding.

Those positions are not conversation starters.

[cantbeserious]

1. Agreed Gun Apologists Are Beyond The Pail - The Rest Of Us Should Move On With Outlawing Their Toys

eom

[Shuhered]

72. Ann Coulter, another NRA Demoness from Hell

Let's get gun control passed tomorrow. It is long overdue.

[Kingofalldems]

2. Looks like the NRA chicken hawks have been hiding all weekend.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

3. I posted about talking civilly and to quit exploiting things

on both sides of the argument and was hidden as an NRA troll. Kinda makes me sad. I was really trying to come from the heart.


ETA: Fixed spelling

[Cobalt Violet]

13. That's not at all what you said.

You accused the anti gun folks here of exploiting a tragedy for our own personal agendas. Maybe if you don't want to be seen as a NRA troll you should stop using the tactics they use to silence those of us whom want gun control. It's not going to work anymore.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

17. No I didn't...

I said it wasn't a 2A issue. That was aimed at PRO and ANTI's alike. It was a tragedy, and it's being politicized on both sides. That's what I said. Sheesh. I want everyone to sit down and quit yelling. The rhetoric is nasty, and I don't like seeing it. That's it.

As I stated before: I don't own guns. I'm a father of a 7 year old girl. This issue effected me as a parent and I don't like seeing it politicized BY ANYONE (and no, I'm not equating one side's rhetoric with anothers, nor defending ANY positions). Sorry if I came across different. Why I'm trying to prove this to someone on a message board I frequent but rarely post on is beyond me...

[Cobalt Violet]

21. you said nothing about "both sides"

What you said:

[quote]"The tragedy that happened Friday is NOT a 2A issue, NOT a religious issue, and NOT a political issue. It was a sick and fucked up individual who perpetrated TERRIBLE crimes costing the lives of innocent children. Treat it AS such. The only person to blame is the guy who did this. Not the guns, not the media, not TV, not video games. Quit exploiting a tragedy for your personal agendas!

The state of DU after the movie theater shooting and this has been reprehensible."[/quote]


And btw: Telling us who are now talking about gun control that we're exploiting a tragedy is a NRA tactic.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

24. I didn't clarify it until

later in the thread. Since it was hidden, I cannot go back and find that post. Sorry I didn't make it clear when I said 2A issue I meant both sides. That's also why I said religious and political. I thought that was clarification. I was being passionate and not clear I suppose. I apologize. I really don't know "NRA tactics", as I don't follow anything they do.

As far as the state of DU, that SHOULD have been clarified to mean IMMEDIATELY after the shootings, not SINCE the theater shooting. It just turns into a big argument fest and I can't find any real discussion to read, or even latest news articles that aren't surrounding the shooting (John Kerry announced as SOS pick was found buried deep, and this was a HOT topic 3 days ago). That's all I meant. Once again, I'm sorry that it didn't come across the way it was received.

[Cobalt Violet]

27. Well if we can't keep our babies safe it needs to be the hot topic until we can.

Nothing really is more important.

[RC]

39. +100 BINGO!

How can we be safe if we can't keep our kids safe?

[Shuhered]

70. Huckabee is a Demon of the NRA

As a gay man without kids, I am shocked at this atrocity. Those poor little babies died needlessly and this is just so upsetting to everyone, I have to believe. The NRA must stop lobbying in Washington. I feel that they are an organization that does not value human life. They value the almighty dollar-- That is their God. It's a pity that mental health is not a priority since the Reagan Administration, may he (Ronald) rest in Hell as well with this shooter of these beautiful kids.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. Except the common denominator here is that these people used high powered weaponry to kill

Large numbers of people in rapid succession.

So "not about religion, politics, video games or guns" ... Well, you're almost right: but one of these things is not like the others. One of these things is a Machine designed for NO OTHER PURPOSE than to rack up large body counts of human beings.

It fucking A YES IT IS TIME to talk about regulating them. And if people cant deal with figuring that out, then yes, taking them all away.

I was neutral on gun control for a long time. No more.

[cantbeserious]

42. Thank You For Your Change Of Heart

eom

[Warren DeMontague]

48. I've never been pro gun, just pro Democrats winning elections.

Cynical--- perhaps. But enough is enough. Its time.

[cantbeserious]

51. Nonetheless - Thank You For Reconsidering Your Position To Engage On This Important Issue

eom

[Shuhered]

109. Thank You

Guns have been responsible for friends' deaths in the military. They have no place in a decent environment like our neighborhoods. The NRA will lose many people to the backround check, so the Law has to be enacted despite these weasels' efforts to ignore the obvious.

[thucythucy]

101. I always thought that if you're logged in as a DU member

you can see "hidden" posts by clicking on them. You just can't continue the subthread.

As none of my posts have ever been hidden (not in a long long time, anyway) I'm not absolutely certain, but I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

And I agree with the general drift of this thread: Screw the "both sides need to chill out" rhetoric. Children have been murdered, and this has come about as a direct result of the efforts of a certain segment of the population who have been so obsessed with their "rights" that they have blocked or tried to block every meaningful attempt at reform and regulation, all the while demonizing a Democratic president as "wanting to take your guns away."

I hope this is the tipping point. if not, then I truly despair for my country.

[humbled_opinion]

62. Politicized on which side?

There is only one side playing politics and that is the right wing. They won't even talk about this issue with civility, immediately they accuse those that want to prevent tragedy like what happened as gun grabbers, taking away guns.... That is how insanely political the right is..

I say we make anyone on the right that stands up for the status quo defend these atrocities.

[bobclark86]

80. Civility as opposed to...

The literally hundreds of posts screaming "Fuck the NRA!" and "Fuck gun nuts!" which have erupted? Yeah, that's civil alright.

[billh58]

96. Did you just run

over here from another right-wing fucking Gungeon affiliated site? Did you sign up especially to protect your fellow Gungeon NRA supporters form us mean old Liberals?

Fuck you.

[billh58]

93. The 2nd Amendment

Last edited Sun Dec 16, 2012, 11:38 PM - Edit history (1)

and gun control are not political issues -- they are social issues. Almost 100 Americans die from gun violence every day in the USA, and many more are injured by guns. How in the hell is that a political issue?

The fucking NRA has made the 2nd Amendment a political issue by the buying and bullying of politicians to force the dismantling of sane legislation regulating firearms in the USA accumulated over 100 years of experience and lessons learned.

Nasty rhetoric? Hang out in the Gungeon for a few days and learn about right-wing, "me first" nasty rhetoric. The sewer of DU is rampant with nasty, and even nastier people. The outrage you are seeing from the real Liberal Democrats on DU is long overdue, and is not meant to be conciliatory. We have put up with abuse from the NRA and the right-wing Gungeoneers for far too long to be nice at this point.

[axetogrind]

26. I've been pretty civil and so far, everyones been fairly civil with me.

But you're right, we need to move beyond the hate and name calling and have a rational national dialog on the issue of firearms.

[kestrel91316]

53. Disingenuous at best. You ARE an NRA troll IMHO.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

61. Thanks..

Believe what you will. I won't alert on your personal attack. I tried to defend myself, but looks like I'll be bullied down. Whatever.

Enjoy your ignorance and blind hatred towards someone who didn't deserve it.

[billh58]

103. Awww, that's what they

all say.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

107. Like I said...

Believe what you want to believe. I'm not here to incite, flame, troll, et al. I'm here (on DU) for discussion and news (not yelling or rhetoric or name calling) about Democratic politics, but all I've seen is yelling and screaming the last few days. It makes those of us who actually want to read actual news a bit squeamish, and seeing as I haven't quite figured out how to filter out these rants when I look through the site, the rants are all I tend to find (once again, rants on BOTH sides of the argument, not singling ANY side out here).

I don't post much (I have more in the last few hours since my "hidden" OP yesterday). Even when I was on here 10 years ago (under a username I don't remember, but think was similar) while in college, I rarely posted. Once again, why am I defending myself on a message board?

[Cobalt Violet]

4. Sadly some here resort to bragging about their arsenals.

I totally agree that they're not open to rational discussion.

[Skittles]

19. one of them could not state the accurate number of guns

and casually solicited questions about it - the day after the massacre of children....SICK

[baldguy]

5. Amen, Brother.

[ProSense]

8. "Sister."

Thanks.

[baldguy]

81. I stand corrected.

[graham4anything]

6. and the NRA finds some miniscule piece of minutia to argue (the way they took down Dan Rather)

[loudsue]

7. Then they need to be forced to put forth some legislation that will prevent this type of

massacre so the rest of us can be safe. They want rights? Well, with rights come responsibilities. We need to put it on the NRA and the GOP to come up with a way the rest of us can be safe. If they can't, then we get to do the legislation.

[WooWooWoo]

9. anti gun types aren't much better, to be honest

based on what I've seen around here.

[ProSense]

12. For a lot of people it's not anti-gun

If pro-gun advocates were interested in discussing a solution, they would engage with people who want to come to an agreement on how to end the violence.

[msanthrope]

20. Your concern is noted. Please feel free to share more of your concerns, and enjoy your stay. nt

[humbled_opinion]

64. Anti Gun???

Seriously, I am anti killing of innocent children with assault rifles and somehow you want to make that a bad thing? Where do you stand?

[WooWooWoo]

74. I think I have a unique persepctive

I used to be very anti-gun before I joined the army.

I never knew anyone who had one. Never saw anyone using them. My opinion of gun owners was basically based on what I saw on the news - violent incidents and people being faux tough guys.

Then I met people who have guns, and use them for target shooting and hunting and stuff like that, and the mystique about guns was gone.

And my views on them softened. I'm probably not anti-gun anymore.

I wouldn't say I'm pro-gun. I don't like them personally. Even after being in the army for three years and being around them almost every day, I don't really like them or feel the urge to get one.

If they were banned tomorrow I wouldn't shed a tear. But I know that's not going to happen.

But I think the issue of gun violence is more complex than just saying less guns = less violence. I think this country needs a long, hard discussion on guns, and the people on my facebook saying arm everyone and stuff like this wouldn't happen, and the people on DU saying take them all way and this wouldn't happen - aren't adding anything to the conversation.

[humbled_opinion]

79. Truly there is only one perspective

put yourself in the position of a parent of one of the victims, because allowing the proliferation of guns in our society, which makes it easier for those that would do harm to get contorl of those weapons and then to use them to do harm means, that it is only a matter of time before you or I will actually be in the position of one of those parents and then it is too late.

[WooWooWoo]

91. i understand the viewpoint

but I can't agree with the logic, because its one that can be used in other circumstances I don't agree with.

[xtraxritical]

94. Ban all guns with harsh penalties get our murder rates down to UK levels, fuck hunting.

[billh58]

104. Just like the term "pro life"

right-winger Republicans have used the term "anti gun" to frame their NRA bullshit. Being "anti-gun" implies that I dislike an inanimate object, when in fact the correct term should be "pro gun control."

Now that we have that cleared up, let's consider the registration of ALL fucking guns so that responsibility can be assigned to the rightful owners when they are used to commit a crime. Failure to register your gun will result in heavy fines and impounding the firearm until registration is accomplished. Once all guns are registered, a national database can be developed and cross-checked against restraining orders, felonies, and other forms of anti-social behavior.

Then we can start to work on more stringent background checks, longer waiting periods for purchases, and reinstating sane gun-free zones (hospitals, schools, public gathering areas, etc.).

30,000 Americans die each year from wounds inflicted by guns. And before you tell me how many people died from knives, spoons, pitch forks, planes, trains, and automobiles, explain how that lessens the total number of people who died because of guns? Guns are designed for one purpose and that is to kill living things. Just because they are sometimes used for "practice" and "sport," they remain perfectly designed instruments of death and that is why violent people choose them to kill living things instead of knives, spoons, pitch forks, etc.

The 2nd Amendment does not prohibit the strict regulation of firearms, nor does it bestow an absolute right to carry a gun anywhere, anytime. Sane gun control needs to be returned to the pre-NRA Republican "good old boy" levels and maybe even made a little tighter.

Gun dealers and collectors should be held to an even greater degree of accountability, and licensing. Just as we require auto insurance, gun owners should also be required to carry insurance against injury and death from their weapons.

P.S. I was in the Army as well -- in Vietnam, so I believe that I too have a "unique perspective."

[ellisonz]

98. Bite me.

[coalition_unwilling]

10. You forgot #4: This is not the right time to discuss regulating firearms. - n/t

[ProSense]

15. That's typically not a

"This is not the right time to discuss regulating firearms. "

...pro-gun advocate argument. That's usually the argument made by those who don't want to take on the NRA or who don't want to deal with the controversial issue.

[coalition_unwilling]

23. Touche. It's bullshit either way, but I do think you're technically

correct

[OneGrassRoot]

11. I've come to the same conclusion. n/t

[reformist2]

14. If they don't want to talk about it, fine. Now is the time to act, pass legislation.

Their silence will only make things easier for sensible people to discuss the real issues.

[wyldwolf]

16. Every time you try, they move the goal posts, change the focus.

[RomneyLies]

18. We've seen it here on these boards since Friday

Anything but an honest discussion about sensible gun regulation.

And their precious second amendment REQUIRES things be WELL REGULATED!

[jody]

22. ProSense, I'm a pro-gun Democrat and I know others willing to discuss the issue with you but you

must have better arguments than ban,ban,ban, . . . . . .


I challenge you to go to DU's forum for RKBA and post your proposals.

[coalition_unwilling]

25. Not 'ban, ban, ban'. How about 'license, regulate, register'? - n/t

[ProSense]

28. Really?

"ProSense, I'm a pro-gun Democrat and I know others willing to discuss the issue with you but you

must have better arguments than ban,ban,ban, . . . . . . "

How typical. You ignore the point of the OP, which is exactly what is happening, and introduce another straw man.

"I challenge you to go to DU's forum for RKBA and post your proposals."

Since you know "others willing to discusss the issue," why don't you post your proposals? You seem comfortable trying to take the high road, but you're not offering anything. Go ahead, GD is open: post your solutions.

How not to have a debate:

All 31 pro-gun rights Senators decline invites to Meet The Press
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021998887

[jody]

31. Your answer suggests you just want to rant and not participate in a discussion and not stoop

to name calling.

People who oppose RKBA with attitudes like that are a major part of the problem.

[ProSense]

35. Your comment was a "challenge"

accompanied by a taunt: "ban,ban,ban"

Why didn't you offer a framework for a discussion instead of a defensive comment?

[jody]

37. You made the complaint Please provide a link to an OP in DU's RKBA forum or even a post in it by you

Absent that, people have every reason to question whether you are serious.

[ProSense]

40. What the hell gives

"Please provide a link to an OP in DU's RKBA forum or even a post in it by you"

...you the idea that I have to post in "DU's RKBA" to have an opinion on the subject?

"Absent that, people have every reason to question whether you are serious."

Completely absurd. You're simply adding to the non-discussion posture. You don't want to talk, you want to claim that you don't have to talk because your position is the only valid one.

Like I said, GD is open, you can start the framework for a discussion, advancing your proposals, instead of linger here defensively.

[jody]

43. GD has been open to discuss RKBA only since the Sandy Hook tragedy. Please provide proof that you

were serious when you posted "Pro-gun advocates will never have a rational discussion about gun laws and the 2nd Amendment"

Absent such proof, I'll believe you just want to rant and stir the pot and avoid "a rational discussion about gun laws and the 2nd Amendment"

[ProSense]

46. "GD has been open to discuss RKBA only since the Sandy Hook tragedy."

Wow, you're observant in your obfuscation.

"Please provide proof that you were serious when you posted 'Pro-gun advocates will never have a rational discussion about gun laws and the 2nd Amendment'"

You're absurd!

[jody]

54. You've provided posts that suggest you really aren't serious about having " a rational discussion

about gun laws and the 2nd Amendment''.

That's a real pity since if we can't have a rational discussion among pro-RKBA and anti-RKBA DUers, then it's less likely that such a discussion will occur elsewhere.

[ProSense]

59. Stop repeating nonsense.

Since you have nothing to offer, let me help: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022004704

[jody]

63. You offer your post in GD on Dec 16. If that's your answer then it confirms my suspicions. I hoped

you were serious about having a serious discussion but I am sorely disappointed.

[ProSense]

66. Afraid to respond to that OP?

I thought so.

[jody]

68. Put it in DU's RKBA forum and I will. nt

[ProSense]

71. What the hell is with you and the "DU RKBA" forum?

I don't post there, and I'm not going to start.

Are you afraid to discuss gun laws outside that forum?

What are you afraid of?

[jody]

82. Skinner does not allow OPs about RKBA outside the RKBA group, that's why. He made an exception only

for the Sandy Hook tragedy.

What you propose will not be resolved with a single OP.

Given Skinner's rules, the only way you can participate in a continuing discussion of RKBA is in the designated forum.

If you are really serious, you will abide by DU's rules and post in the RKBA forum.

[ProSense]

87. Now, you're just

"Skinner does not allow OPs about RKBA outside the RKBA group, that's why. "

...feigning ignorance. You know that GD (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1002) was open to such discussion in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre.

If you ever decide to drop the pretense, feel free to comment: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022004704

[jody]

92. Your post starts by discussing militias and the 2A but you ignore Congress has all the authority it

needs for militias in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16.

The Second Amendment is about an individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense as SCOTUS said in Heller.

Your proposal "guns be physically inspected and registered periodically like cars" and "Regulated and secure environments allowing those who want the thrill" is not accompained by your theory of how that would reduce violent crime with firearms.

Are you afraid to post your ideas in DU's RKBA group?

[ProSense]

102. Hey,

thanks for commenting: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2005854

[ProSense]

76. Take all the time you need to get over your fear of responding in GD.

Up to you. Given your posturing, I'm sure you don't have much to offer.

[jody]

84. See #82 nt

[arthritisR_US]

45. Of course she's serious but you aren't otherwise

you would post your justifications in this forum without the RKBA pacifyer.

[neverforget]

65. Notice the deflection too. That's another way to derail the conversation about guns

[arthritisR_US]

75. Yep, classic BS

I am getting so disgusted!

[RomneyLies]

67. Why would any reasonable person post in the Right to Kill Babies and Adults forum?

It's a cesspool of gun porn lovers.

[bobclark86]

85. Personal attacks are always helpful... n/t

[MightyMopar]

29. Right to Kill and Bury Americans? These guys even fight for known terrorists to buy guns

Time is past for talk, the gun crowd has made their bed for decades with the the Republicans, the NRA, ALEC, etc. Obama threatened no gun legistlation and the rightwing propaganda machine still amped up the fear. Their lying gives Obama and Democrats a mandate to start fixing this problem.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. 6 bullets an hour.

Thats my proposal. Anything that fires more bullets than that, at a higher firing rate than that, make it a federal crime to buy, sell, OR possess. A felony, with one of those 20 year mandatory minimum prison sentences we usually only reserve for REAL baddies, like nonviolent drug users.

If youve got two hands, that means you can fire 12 bullets in an hour. That should be plenty for hunting, or to defend your house from an assailant.

[ProSense]

41. Would you consider

regulated and secure environments allowing those who want the thrill (I assume that's it) of higher firing rates to use such weapons?

Or would that open a loophole for abuse?

[Warren DeMontague]

44. I dont know. I suppose that might be doable. But why not have something that fires paintballs, etc?

I mean, does it really make that much difference what you're firing, if you're at a target range?

[TheKentuckian]

47. Get to inventing it.

Your law, your job.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. I have great faith in the technological know how of this country's people.

Im glad you support the concept, though.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. Here's a start to work off of:

Fits in nicely with that whole "as the founding fathers intended" thing, too.

[TheKentuckian]

57. A ways to go to reliably under 6 shots an hour, it violates the silliness, an antique.

[Warren DeMontague]

60. I'm sure the technological problems are not insurmountable.

So assuming they're not, glad to hear you agree that no one should have a weapon that fires more than that- in fact, it ought to be a crime for them to own one.

I really believe there is a changing consensus on this and finally we will see some long overdue action at the federal level.

[apocalypsehow]

32. Kick & Rec. n/t.

[ReRe]

34. And in that order.

K&R

[loyalkydem]

36. I am so tired of saying the same thing to them over and over again. I just ignore them.

[Berserker]

73. Just like we ignore you

and the ignorance.

[loyalkydem]

106. Good

Because for the first time since I been here. I have someone to add to my ignore list. Gun nut

[shenmue]

38. True.

There are some people who just repeat themselves like broken records, and that's all they're interested in.

[iandhr]

50. They used to

The NRA used to support promote gun safety and reasonable restrictions on the sale of firearms before they went off the deep end.

[Kablooie]

55. 4. Wait for the NRA to threaten to destroy any politician that goes against them.

[shadowmayor]

56. A well regulated militia

I posted this on another thread, but I believe this applies here as well:

My gun loving friends actually think that the first Black President is going to come and take their guns away. To me, this is insane. The 2nd Amendment folks also think they have the right to own all the firepower they can muster.

The second amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The first part is important - a well regulated militia. Not a group of people calling themselves a militia, but a regulated group. Regulation is the operative word here. The 2nd amendment doesn't call for every crank to own a machine-gun. Regulated militias would provide a much more substantial level of gun control than what we have today. We need a level-headed program to control guns and the nuts who get their hands on them.

It's probably way too late. When uncle Ronnie was running the show, our country had hundreds of millions of hand guns. I seriously doubt this number has dwindled.

I have often wondered why my gun-loving fellow Americans refuse to accept the idea that maybe this right has a provision specifically calling for regulation? It's right there in the first clause.

What we have today is an unregulated gun orgy, sponsored by right wing groups who use very deceptive tactics and language to justify their belief that some kind of wild wild west era is coming, and all men should leave the house with holstered weapons.

If we all carried frisbees, things might be better?

The shadow mayor

[alp227]

58. welcome to DU!

[humbled_opinion]

69. Excellent post

sums up my feelings pretty well.

[jody]

86. Congress has all the authority it needs for the militia in Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16.

The Second Amendment is about each individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

That's what SCOTUS said in Heller.

See http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO

[shadowmayor]

95. SCOTUS Really?

Really?

I can read and understand as well as the Justices. They have made a number of rulings that are incorrect and if the precedent is flawed, so are subsequent judgments base on the same.

A well regulated militia is exactly what is written. Why is this never discussed?

[jody]

97. Read Heller and all the submitted briefs and you will begin to understand. nt

[shadowmayor]

99. I know these cases - often quoted as definitives on the subjet

None of that changes what is expressly written in the amendment and again I ask - why is this never the subject of discussion?

We can agree to disagree, my intent is not to change your mind or others, just to ask a fundamental question. One in my opinion, bears further investigation.

[avebury]

77. K&R nt

[morningfog]

78. They are blinded by desperation, fear and paranoia

To the point of religious faith. I would feel sorry for their inability to think rationally and feel compassion if not for their arrogance and hate.

[werknotgoin2takeit]

83. The definition of insanity...

One of the main arguments for lower taxes is that it stifles growth and the job creators won’t create jobs. In practice, if this were true, America would be swimming in jobs. It is proven false in practice no matter how loud Republicans scream. Now with this horrible shooting, gun proponents say that only more guns will make us safer.

Well, “In the period between 1968 and 1992, gun ownership in the U.S. increased 135 percent--and during that same period, handgun ownership increase 300percent.” AND “As historian Michael Bellesiles notes, during the time between the American Revolution and the Civil War, no more than one-tenth of the American population owned guns.”

http://www.faqs.org/health/topics/9/Gun-control.html#ixzz2FGevImzv

AND “There were 1.5 million guns produced in the United States in 1950, 5.6 million in 1980, but astoundingly in 2010 there were 47-53 million households in the U.S. with guns.”

http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-people-owned-guns-in-the-usa-in-1950%2C1980%2C-2010

AND “Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period.”

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx

So, if gun ownership makes us safer, why have we seen the inverse? The more guns Americans acquire the more violent our society becomes.

Personally, these shootings are a symptom of a deep sickness in our society, a pathology rooted deep. Other countries have guns and although violence does happen, it’s not with the frequency or savagery or high death counts we are continually witnessing here. I don’t know the answer; all I know is that we have to do something. We have tried more guns and more guns and more guns, it is not working. We don’t have to live this way, its time for a new approach. The saying goes that a few bad apples destroy the whole bunch. I have had my life impacted over the years by these few bad apples, mostly in relation to flying by plane. Why should gun owners be any different? There have been too many bad apples lately and so those who own guns responsibly our not must pay the price for that. That is part of living in society.

[JoeyCollins]

88. #1 is correct...

..it's never about the guns, or the lunatics who use the guns.

It's about how the American people refuse to get on board & play ball.

According to right wingers, if idiot Americans would just play ball, (ie, pray harder, shoot back, create your own defensive arsenal, stop playing video games, stop being single parents, etc) then we could finally start making some headway.

[Skittles]

105. always wanting to tell people what to do and how to live

while screaming about personal liberty

[Spitfire of ATJ]

89. I find it funny when they go before Congress,...

....and claim they need the ability to shoot Congressmen if they get out of line.

[liberal N proud]

90. When the 2nd Amendment was ratified, guns only had one round...

Then you had to reload allowing time for your target to retaliate or take cover.

Anything more than 10 rounds are just killing machines in the hands of an irrational person.

[Kaleva]

100. How do you define "pro-gun"?

[OhZone]

108. The Secondment says that guns SHOULD BE regulated!

That's my new reading of the 2nd Amendment!

And not only regulated but WELL REGULATED!

Thanks!