Why the hype about guns?

Ever since Obama was first elected there has been a ton of hype about how he would take away our guns.

We saw runs on ammo as well as an increase in arms sales.

Why the hype?

Is there any foundation to the hysteria?

I cannot tell you how many times I got an email about how he was banning this or that.

Have you seen any changes in the firearms that have been available? How about accessories?

Didn’t some of the Brady Bill expire under his watch allowing larger magazines to be purchased again?

144 thoughts on “Why the hype about guns?”

  1. I use to own all different calibers of handguns but the last few years I have sold most of them and replaced them all with 45's. Easier to find bullets for one set of guns then multiple when shit hits the fan

      1. Respectfully Griz, I hear you and from where you are coming from and how you see things… I get you.

        But then, you are also the one saying this: "Why the hype about guns?"

        Sorry if this is offensive, but in a way, I sense you've got some rose colored glasses.

        Maybe its because I harbor an "inner racist" and so when I look around…this is what I see. Find fault with me on that if you will… but I am not short of an explanation on the question you posed.

        1. There may be some rose tinting, but I really do not think that there is much left there. The lenses have changed over the years.I do remember seeing plenty of links and conversion on a similar topic in the past. I think we just respecfully disagree, but understand the other's position. 🙂

          1. I'm mulling "why I may be wrong on this", and have at least one thought:

            – The Conservative Media Complex and its adjunct grass roots network of people emailing wacky theories around has blossomed since the early years during the Clinton era. If not – if the same tin-foil-hat-network were in effect then – would a similar hype have occurred during Clinton? Will a similar hype occur if the Dems elect a white person as president in the future?

            …unfortunately, its a poor thought experiment since I believe Clinton actually was more aggressively gun control oriented and I sure do expect the next Dem to be as well. So that will spoil any way to determine that its Obama's skin color that plays into it.

            The thing that gets me is – Obama's done very near nothing at all about traditional liberal gun ideology. NADA.

            Please any gun owners out there share with us your perception of this hype?

            I have my reason. You don't like it. Its ugly.

            But what other plausible reason is out there? I'm waiting.

            1. >This race thing is a bunch of Horse Crap nonsense.

              I have never bought my guns to go around shooting black people. I have bought them to hunt, for home protection (white, black, brown, red, yellow, take your pick) and just because I collect guns and like to shoot them at targets.

              The majority of people I know around me have the exact same attitude about guns. This racist nonsense is all just that nonsense.

                  1. RM, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but please recognize that I am at my limit of believe that you are not just playing games. So I will be very explicit here with what I think is a straight forward question:

                    Do you have any thoughts on WHY gun sales are way up since Our First Black President was elected?

                    [edit] re-reading your last post… maybe you did answer. Are you saying that you think gun sales are way up because all of the folks buying all these guns distrust him and his ilk with his and their wanton disregard for the Constitution in general???

                    mmmm… wonton….

                    1. Yes, distrust.

                      Not only that. Should things continue as they are right now, I believe we are heading for some type of revolt against the power of the federal government. It doesn't require as many people as one might think either. 10 to 25% of the people, who believe that revolt is necessary will be enough.

                      If that happens, then everyone will need protection from the anarchy that will proceed, whether they actively participate in the civil rebellion or not.

                      You can call this alarmist if you like, but it has happened in the past many, many times. We, America, are no different or no better than those who were before us. I will be independant if it comes, I can live off the land.

                    2. So in purpose people who are hording guns,and waiting for the big revolt are basing their actions on White Fear.Anyone who subscribes to this line of reason dose not stand with the Constitution.Guns were included in your rights to defend America not subvert it.

                    3. America is "the People" not the Institution called the Government.

                      That is where you and I have a huge difference of opinion.

                    4. "We the People" Try reading the Constitution.We as Americans are bound by our oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign ,and domestic.Including separatist hyper-partisan Tea-bagging loons that wish to arm themselves to over throw the elected government of the people. If you raise arms against America you will be put down .Just read the history books under Civil war.

                    5. Secessionist are walking a fine line between being a bunch of piss poor whiny little babies,and treason.America is always stronger when we hold to a higher standard than some 3rd world revolutionary Red doctrine of let's overthrow the government.We have not always lived up to that standard.But long ago we embraced that idea. ONE NATION.ONE PEOPLE.ONE AMERICA!

                    6. Never said I would raise arms against our government. I said I can and I will live off the land, with using my guns, when I can't buy groceries because of a bunch of nuts have done something stupid.

                      You seem to have just flown off the handle because of you haven't heard what you personally believe in.

                      News flash for you, I would go and die for this country. You should not assume things through emotion.

                    7. Sorry RM,that comment was not aimed at you.I would never question your Honor,and patriotism.It was for these idiots who signed a petition of succession from the Union,and insist they are willing to go to War with America.The Conservative States of America crowd.The CSA sound familiar?And we the people are the government.FYI

                    8. Secession is not practical for any state, in the current economic conditions. Those that have done those petitions are reactionaries and sore loosers. I also, believe that to be true of all those out there who are saying that the election was rigged.

                      I am an American, then a Texan. Apology accepted.

                      I am still going to be pepared for aliens, zombie, crooks, and revolts. Its either that or go on a very long diet.

                    9. Semper Paratus as it should be.Just hope the Mad Max crap will give way to the rule of law.Gun jerk in Florida making us all look bad right now.Looks like another Trevon type shooting by a dumbass.

                    10. "defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign ,and domestic."

                      It does say to defend the constitution, not the government. When the government no longer follows the constitution it has become the domestic enemy that our forefathers were referencing in that line. They had no love of government, referring to it as “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” – Thomas Paine.

                      Yes, the Civil War was a terrible time, and on it's surface a failed attempt. But it did bring our government back to enter for a time. That is needed again, but hopefully without the dramatic bloodshed.

                    11. Our governemnt no matter what side you align yourself with is the enemy. They are the enemy of the citizens of this country. Things like NDAA, FEMA Camps, SS Admin buying millions of rounds of ammo, drones watching us, all these things unaccepatable for our government to do.

                    12. There are many reasons that our unique love affair with guns is growing stronger. One widely held belief is that President Barack Obama's election -and re-election — spurred fears that he will crack down on gun ownership, I will say that is something he hasn't done thus far.

                      But there's more to it than that. People are buying more guns now for security, particularly as the economy has struggled. More Americans are getting permits to carry concealed weapons. Sport shooting is seeing newfound popularity. And you never know when economic doomsday will hit or, yes, even when zombies will attack.

                    13. all true.

                      I am not wedded to the notion that its simplistically just racial hatred of Obama behind this. I offered that as a theory, but in truth, nothing is so cut and dry.

                      I think your post is pretty spot on. Apparently the American gun-buying public as been intensifying their purchasing going back to 2001. Perhaps it was 9/11 that kicked things off.

            2. Most stockpiling of guns began, oh, about 250 years ago. Most People living in the colonies WERE white then so maybe you have a point, haha, just kidding about you having a point.

              People have been collecting fire arms for different reasons for as long as fire arm have been around. A big boom took place when Jimmy Carter was elected because people felt that the government would no longer be worried about protecting it's citizens under his authority. Another boom took place when Ronald Reagan was elected, because he made it cool to own arms again, and the prices on guns and ammo dropped. Another boom took place when Bill Clinton was elected because everyone knew he was going to push to ban as many weapons as he could so they got what was available while they could. Another boom took place during the Bush Jr. administration when the Brady Bill was allowed to fall off the books because many rifles were back on the shelves and people wanted to get them before a new law took them away again.

              So this isn't something that has just happened because Obama is "black", but I'm sure no amount of history or facts will convince you otherwise.

      2. I have a very old newspaper clipping about my great-great-great grandfather who was a white officer of the confederate army, who saved the life of a run away black slave with his ball and powder firearm who was about to be hung by a mob. On his 100th birthday, Harry S Truman sent him a letter congratulating him. The Shreveport Times wrote all this in their newspaper about him. Everyone called him "General."

        Even back then, not all white people with guns were all about keeping the black man down. This is just a bunch of rubbish.

    1. You do know that the vast majority of hand guns seized every year are from black youth, not the white middle aged. More small weapons are owned, both legally and illegally, by young black males than any other demographic. And more automatic weapons are found with black gang members than in the "redneck" groups. I would say if you added in the hunting rifles and target arms it would probably even out the numbers over all, but are we really talking about the target arms and hunting rifles when we talk about gun control?

      1. so, these facts in response to the question… does that mean that the lawfully purchasing gun buying public is doing so because… they are worried that Obama is in cahoots with all of these black youths, because, you know, they are all black together, in a coordinated gun owning manner?

            1. The Hooie sir, is your comment about guns sales to keep the black man down.

              Gun sales up? That's great for the economy. I may go buy a couple new ones this year myself. I have also thought about getting a compound bow so I can shoot zombies when they attack.

        1. No, your own personal racism is clouding you ability to look at the subject. As I explained in another part of the post, democrats will always raise the "anti-gun ownership" flag with a certain amount of the public, because most of the gun control laws have been proposed and passed under democratic leadership. Regardless of what the present leadership has done, they are stuck with the parties reputation.

          You seem to be the only one bringing race into this debate, and you have only you personal, racist, feelings to back you statements.

            1. No it doesn't. But to judge someone based on their race does. You are seeing only his race as the obstacle that blocks people from following his desires. When it is his policies that people don't like. So instead of debating the issues, on the issue, you claim that race is the problem and dismiss the counter point.

              There is a difference between recognizing race, and using it as an excuse.

              1. I don't buy it.

                I see them over-perceiving "would be marxism" (that isn't really there) and they are doing this… yes, because of race, IMO.

                But no, perceiving this possible racism… suspecting racism… does not make me racist. Not in my book.

                But sure, go ahead and invent your own definition for the word. I know its a popular trend here.

                1. "does not make me racist. Not in my book." Of course not, you are the perfect little American in your book. Thankfully we don't all subscribe to your book.

                  "go ahead and invent your own definition for the word. I know its a popular trend here." Need I remind you, you are the one that brought up the racism bit, and you are the one accusing everyone of being a racist, not the rest of us. So, if it is a popular trend on here, it is because you made it so, not the rest of us.

    2. "seems pretty obvious to me."

      I've changed my mind. On this sad day, when for my part, I've dealt with it by refusing to hold back on letting folks know "how I really feel" in the wake of the Connecticut shooting… the truth is that, on this topic… I've been coming to the conclusion that my above assertion is far too harsh and simplistic.

      Is race a factor? Well, this is America so, still yes, always and forever. But, no I don't specifically blame racism for the gun surge. I've suspected it… thought about it and mulled it. Pissed people off and earned plenty of disdain. But in the process I have a better feel for this notion.

      In finding this article today I believe this is right.

      its about fear to be certain. and the economy. but also about vets coming home. And women becoming empowered, which is interesting.

      but one thing remains true: The more guns are out there, the more the industry will make it seem that we need them. And they will continue taking our money to the bank through and through while America becomes more and more dangerous.

  2. The Brady bill was signed into effect under Bill Clinton, so the democrats will always (for a long time) get stuck with the "liberals hate guns" flag. And it is mostly deserved. Though not all democrats are against gun ownership, the HUGE majority of people that are against gun ownership are democrats, so the effect spills back against the entire group. No different than not all republicans are religious nuts, but the majority of religious nuts are republicans so it spills back and hurts the entire party.

    I don't think any of the bill expired under Obama, but I could be wrong. I thought it all expired under Bush Jr.

          1. I perfer the Lying, Cheating (martial), Slick Bill Clinton to Obama. I also would support the smartest woman in the world Hillary Clinton over his "Very Leftness" Obama, who is as Socialist as you can get.

            Neither Clinton has come out, in public. stating that they would like to take way money from hard working people and re-distribute their wealth to people who have not worked for it. Mr. Obama has made that statement.

              1. Not from me Coggy, I have some very good friends who are black. I also, have the Muslim foreign students from my wife's school over every 4th of July.

                I am neither racist or Islamaphob.

                  1. I am not going to call him that without knowing him personally, however, I have found in my life time that people tend to judge others the same way that they themselves think about things. It is something to reflect upon.

                    1. My reflection is multicolored, I keep a prismatic mirror around for just such occasions. And my gay friends think it's hilarious when they see a straight guy with a rainbow reflection.

                    1. Yes, that is part of it. And the assumption that everyone that doesn't like Obama or his policies does so because of his color. Should we then assume that black people that didn't like other presidents did so because they were white?

                      I don't like his policies because I don't believe he is doing things in the best interest of the country. And I don't like him because I don't like his policies. The majority of Americans that don't like him, do so for the same reasons, but you claim that they do it because he is black and dismiss their points out of spite. That makes you a racist.

                    2. if I were doing what you accuse, then perhaps I'd be wrong, but I wouldn't be racist.

                      To be racist, you have to be judging or critical or biased against someone because of the color of that person's skin. I'm not judging or criticizing or biased against white people in general here.

                      I'm critical of those who are buying up all of the guns… and yeah, I suspect they are white, but their whiteness is not the problem. Their attitude is the problem.

                      Am I generalizing? Am I being a "gunnist"? perhaps. and that's obviously flawed, but its not racism.

                      looking at your comment there… I notice you say "I" a lot. You don't say "we". You are speaking for yourself, and not others.

                      This exploits my flaw. Because I am generalizing. So, mea culpa: No I do not think ALL the people buying up the guns are racists. But I do think that race is a factor. Not present in 100% of the gun buyer uppers. But present among varying degrees among a significant component of them… certainly.

                      So I'm generalizing. And that is bad. Guilty as charged… for generalizing. But I am certainly not singling out and attacking anyone for their color. No sir.

                    3. But your basic premise is wrong, too. Was there a big run on firearms when Clarance Thomas was appointed to the Supreme Court? I didn't buy any then, but I did when Sotomayor was appointed. Are you now going to accuse me of being sexist?

                    4. When you attribute race as a contributing factor to a situation, especially a major factor as you have, regardless of which side the race factor is on, YOU are being racist. And generalizing a large group based on what a few in that group may think goes hand in hand with racism.

                      And yes, I do use "I" instead of "we", because I don't make the mistake of assuming that I speak for all Southerners, or all whites, or all men. That is another one of your flaws in this, assuming you speak for the masses. The majority of people I know in my area are massing the ammo to protect themselves if something happens. Protect themselves from their neighbors that didn't bother to prepare because they thought the government was infallible and would always take care of them. Not because our president is part black! No one plans on going up against the government, just defending themselves and those around us.

  3. The level of stupid hyperbole that oozes out of the mouths of Conservative butt Monkeys is amazing.FEMA camps,Government drones,SS admin ammo stashes,"Their going to take my guns", Brain washing,Black helicopters,Assassination squads,Death panels,Fluoride in the water,Secret Muslim,Science Denying,Socialist plots,Jesus thumping,Flu shot conspiracies,Abortions at Wal*mart,Chem trails,Government secret plans that only conservative bloggers know about.(Because they are so smart)This type of crazy over the top,lunatic Bullshit fantasy world created by the conservative entertainment media to prey on the ignorance of Red State retards like (Rush,Beck,and Fox News) is directly responsible for why it is hard to take them seriously.Knock it off; it makes you people look STUPID.YOUR DOING IT WRONG! But hey,if you want to keep losing elections put that Tin foil hat on tight,and keep drinking the Kool-aid. It seems to be working for you?

        1. How is Miller 64 today? Doing well I hope.

          Now yesterday was out here in the Wild wild west was a real trip. On an American AA plane one of the passengers started yelling stuff in Spanish that got the plane emptied, terminal shut down and handcuffs out. the dogs were brought in and the entire area swept.

          Another day of oh hum.

          1. I'm in the Aerospace/Aviation field,and right now you could not get me on an AA flight.I would rather walk,or swim before flying with them.A Spanish jihadist? Did he have a loaded burrito?

        1. Of course, if the former president of the NAACP doesn't agree with you, then he is either an "Uncle Tom" or an idiot…. I seriously doubt that he is either one, but that comment does prove your racial bias, your racism.

            1. In a word, yes.

              You are racist because you immediately assign color to any problem.

              "Gun sales are up. Oh, it's because they are white racist."

              Who ever said that the people buying "all" the guns and ammo were white, or that they were doing because of a part black president? YOU, and only you. Others have insinuated that it is because of the election, and I agree, but not because he is black, because of his, and others in his parties, policies. Because Democrats historically are the party of gun control. Only you contribute this to the color of peoples skin.

              1. well, I suppose I can call you a blah-baloney-ist, because blah baloney and blah blah. Its so much fun to play the made up words and definition game.

                Meanwhile, back in the world were there is consensus in society about what words mean, a racist is someone who is biased for or against individuals based on the color of their skin.

                Since we're talking about blacks and whites, care to show me where I'm biased against either?

                Until then, I remain unconvinced about your accusation.

                1. RM: "I also would support the smartest woman in the world Hillary Clinton over his "Very Leftness" Obama, who is as Socialist as you can get."

                  You: "and terms like "leftist" and "socialist" are not just code for "black". OK. got it."

                  You: "How so Eyes?

                  Because of my perception that this gun craze is Obama-related, and that the chief characteristic that these people recognize about Obama is something that comes before they hear a single word he has to say? "

                  You: "I'm critical of those who are buying up all of the guns… and yeah, I suspect they are white,"

                  It seems that you are the one that is still interjecting race into the debate, call it racism or reverse racism, whichever, but you are the one that seems to be looking for it and thinking that it is at the core of the issues anywhere you can find it.

                  Why does it matter what color someones skin is?

                  Why do you assume skin color controls peoples actions?

                  Why do you think skin color influences peoples way of thinking?

                  These are the things of a racially minded (racist) individual.

                  1. racially minded does not equal racist.

                    acknowledging race, or skin color (since we are all part of the human race, truly) is just a consequence of opening ones eyes.

                    acknowledging the consequences of skin color, well, one just has to open eyes to history and, let's just say, a remarkable number of non-coincidences we can see today about who-lives-where-and-has-how-much/little.

                    for a guy who self-names "Eyes Open", you sure have trouble with asking the basic question of: "Why?"

                    1. "racially minded does not equal racist. "

                      When you attribute actions to a group because of their race, that is racism. When you contribute actions to a group because of another persons race, and the groups supposed feelings about that, without any proof that is true, that is still racism.

                      You are guilty of the second one.

                      "you sure have trouble with asking the basic question of: "Why?" "

                      I asked you why, you didn't answer any of them. Acknowledging race is human, blaming race is bias. You are blaming Obama's blackness for everyone else's reaction to him.

                    2. "When you attribute actions to a group because of their race, that is racism."

                      okay, that sounds plausible. Where did I do this?

                      oh, you don't say that.

                      You say: " When you contribute actions to a group because of another persons race, and the groups supposed feelings about that, without any proof that is true, that is still racism."

                      not. following. you.

                      the best I can discern from your sentence… you accuse me of racism because I accuse the gun-buyer uppers of racism, when there is no proof.

                      yeah, I get your position.

                      Have you ever said to yourself: "Oh, so and so is telling me I'm racist because of some baloney? Whatever!" …?

                      well, yeah, I guess I feel that way too, now, here.

                    3. Very well, you can deny it all you want, most racist deny their flaw, it's the only way they can keep on thinking they are right.

      1. It's one of the oldest excuses on the books, they don't want to look racist, so they preemptively start calling everybody else racist to cover. Lawyers call it "immunizing the jury against the truth".

      2. Deny that most gun sales have been to right wing nuts preparing for their much desired race war.I can't begin to count the number of Conservatards that have posted "Invest in lead,Brass,and gun powder."The correlation is obvious even to the most dim witted.Guns do not make you safer every law enforcment study has concluded this.You are more likly to be shot with your own gun than that of a criminal.The numbers don't lie.And if you think that is a dream world RM it is more of a nightmare for to many gun owners.

        1. In 1976, Washington, D.C., instituted one of the strictest gun-control laws in the country. The murder rate since that time has risen 134 percent (77.8 per 100,000 population) while the overall rate for the country has declined 2 percent. Washington, D.C., politicians find it easy to blame Virginia’s less-stringent gun laws for the D.C. murder rate. Yet Virginia Beach, Virginia’s largest city with almost 400,000 residents, has had one of the lowest rates of murder in the country — 4.1 per 100,000.

          In New York City, long known for strict regulation of all types of weapons, only 19 percent of the 390 homicides in 1960 involved pistols. By 1972, this proportion had jumped to 49 percent of 1,691. In 1973, according to the New York Times, there were only 28,000 lawfully possessed handguns in the nation’s largest city, but police estimated that there were as many as 1.3 million illegal handguns there.

        2. On the other hand, New Hampshire has almost no gun control and its cities are rated among the safest in the country. Across the border in Massachusetts, which has very stringent gun-control laws, cities of comparable size have two to three times as much crime as New Hampshire.

          Vermont has the least restrictive gun-control law. It recognizes the right of any Vermonter who has not otherwise been prohibited from owning a firearm to carry concealed weapons without a permit or license. Yet Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in America, ranking 49 out of 50 in all crimes and 47th in murders.

          States which have passed concealed-carry laws have seen their murder rate fall by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent and robbery by 3 percent.

          1. Numbers straight out of the NRA news letter no doubt.America has an obsession with the gun culture of violence.How many kids will have to die for having their music to loud?I own guns,but can still see the dangers of a world where every shithead is carrying a loaded gun around.I do not feel safer knowing every time I leave the house I could get in the middle of a gunfight.

            1. Nope these were done by The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published by the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology at Northwestern University School of Law. The fact is you already live in a world where almost every shithead criminal is carrying a gun. You should feel safer knowing Law Abiding citizens can carry. I know when we went from "may issue" to "shall issue" crime has dropped and we have not had any kids (or anyone) for that matter killed.

              1. The wild west mentality of the gun culture here in America is out of control.Your telling me that the normally Law abiding Cisco kid meanest hombre east of the Pecos walking around with a gun ready to shoot a person at the slightest provocation makes the world a safer place.That's stupid.A fender bender should never turn into a homicide,and if neither party was packing heat it would be a non event.As the saying go's 'Gun don't kill people.People kill people,but without guns it's harder."

                1. "our telling me that the Cisco kid meanest hombre east of the Pecos walking around with a gun ready to shoot a person at the slightest provocation makes the world a safer place."

                  No, of course not, but knowing that law abiding citizens who are willing and ABLE to defend against such a person does make the world safer. If such a person existed, he would already be a criminal so he would probably have a gun anyway, illegally caring a gun is normal amongst criminals. Either he can go on a shooting rampage, empty his clip, reload and do it again, or a citizen could be their to stop him when he first gets started, before it becomes a massacre.

                  1. It is a false equivalency to draw a conclusion that CCP laws have lowered crime rates.A straw-man argument at best.States that enforce criminal penalties for illegal guns,and that have strong regulations lower crime rates.

                    1. States which have strict gun laws have higher crime rates. The numbers show that. Look at Illinois especially Chicago. States with the least restrictive have lower crimes rates. I pointed that out above

              2. I do not trust people to be good.Look at that fake Christian L4s how he lost his mind when Obama kicked the Conservatard GOP teabaggers asses for the second time.Good thing he did not have a Nuke to destroy America.I was surprised he did not go on a shooting spree.It was fun seeing his rather public Nuclear Meltdown I have to admit.Rational people occasionally do irrational acts,and guns multiply the results.

          1. EO have been a fan of your since the days of BigG.Glad to see stalker boy Roger has new prey to play with.I'm just here to play Devils advocate being an Atheist and all seems a good fit.Guns have never solved problems in America except to escalate the level of violence.I have lived in the UK where guns are highly regulated,and people walk the streets day,and night without the fear little men with big guns inflict here in the states.The gun deaths in America have become epidemic in scale,and something has to be done.More guns is not it. plus1 for you for you for playing the game.

            1. Then how do you propose to get the guns out of the hands of the criminals, as they are the ones to be feared? Where I live, 9 out of 10 people carry a gun with them all the time, but I don't walk around in fear. I can go anywhere day or night without worrying about violence.

              "Guns have never solved problems in America except to escalate the level of violence." That is just not true, the evidence all leans in the opposite direction.

              If you want to compare the UK to the USA you have to factor in that the UK has had a strict gun ban for almost 100 years. But add in the knife violence and you find out that over twice as many people per capita are victims of knife violence in the UK as are victims of gun violence in the USA. Would you have them ban knives next?

              Proof: http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323

              As anecdotal evidence of how an armed citizenry is good for a country, the reason the emperor of Japan gave for not attacking the mainland of the USA during World War 2 was that he knew that there would be an American with a gun hiding behind every blade of grass and they would have no hope of victory.

              1. I want guns out of the hands of criminals yes by making guns harder to come by for them.Eliminate straw purchases where guns can only be sold by licenced people to licensed people.Make the owners of guns legally responsible if a gun they purchased is used to commit a crime.Make ammunition a licensed only item.Increase penalties for gun crimes.Reduce to number of guns available to the general public by imposing a 100 percent tax getting rid of cheap guns used by criminals.Track gun ownership after the sale making people account for excessive stockpiling.Put trace detectors in ammo to ID the owner.Many things can be done to make owning a gun accessible to only law abiding people.

                1. The consequence of gun control is a society in which violent, anti-social people are armed while peaceful, law-abiding people are disarmed. Legislating gun safety results in greater safety for criminals only. Laws intended to keep guns from criminals end up keeping guns from some of the thousands of people who could use them to defend themselves and others daily, often without having to fire a shot.

                  Guns, which take innocent lives, also save innocent lives. A person left defenseless in time of need by a gun-control law feels no comfort at the thought that somewhere someone might not be killed because of that law. Registering automobiles and licensing drivers has not prevented drive-by shootings, road rage, bank robberies, drug deals, or any crime in which automobiles are used. Perhaps the question should be, if you had to defend yourself, would you feel more comfortable with or without a gun?

                2. ROFLMAO. Those things will never happen, and most of America would laugh at the thought. If you want that level of slavery to the government then go back to the UK, it will never happen over here.

                  "getting rid of cheap guns used by criminals" LOL, criminals have the most expensive guns, and the ones that the general public can't get anyway. No law will ever get guns out of the hands of criminals, and whether you want to believe it or not there are plenty of unregistered guns in the UK, at least in Scotland and North Ireland.

                  1. In 1997, assistant principal Joel Myrick used a gun to stop a violent teen who was shooting up his school in Pearl, Mississippi. He succeeded in preventing a massacre, but was prosecuted for having a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. (Go figure!)

                    Several years before the Columbine shootings, Congress imposed a school-zone gun ban which prohibited firearms within 1,000 feet of any school, under the mistaken belief that potential killers obey gun-control laws. That law didn’t deter the two perpetrators of the Columbine massacre, but it did get Joel Myrick in trouble.

                    1. this may not be important to most but I have a school not too far from me. Is the 1000 feet defined as to the nearest property line or to the nearest structure?Thinking about all of the neighbors who are in violation by possessing in their safes at home.

                    2. Title 18 of the United States Code section 922(q) contains the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995, which prohibits the possession of a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reason to believe, is a school zone. The statute defines a school zone as the grounds of a public, parochial or private elementary or secondary school, or within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a public, parochial or private elementary or secondary school. The ban on firearm possession does not apply: (a) if the possession is on on private property outside the school grounds; (b) if the firearm is properly licensed; (c) if the firearm is unloaded and in a locked container or on a locked firearms rack mounted on a vehicle; (d) if possession of the firearm is for use in a program approved by the school; (d) if possession of the firearm is in connection with a contract between the school and the possessor or his employer; (e) if the possession is by a law enforcement officer on official duty; or (f) if the firearm is unloaded and the person in possession is traveling through the school zone to gain access to public or private hunting lands.

                      So, on private property, and/or licensed, and/or unloaded makes it ok. It is that last one that they really don't want people knowing about. I've known several people to get in trouble for having an unloaded firearm on school property. I put it to the test in my district. The former principal of my kids school not only said he was going to call the cops on me for not removing a rifle from my truck, but he even said that the law extended to the knife I carry on my side. We had our day in court, the district won't make that mistake again, and he won't work at any school again, "forced early retirement".

                    3. Very nice. Thank you EO for the details. It stuns me sometimes when the law actually makes sense and takes other factors into consideration.

                    4. Yes, this is the revamped 1995 law. The original law was passed in 1990, and deemed unconstitutional in 1992.

                      Most people still reference the first law when they talk about how the gun control act and school zone act "forces" people to either move or get rid of (hide) their firearms, which the first law would have done. Proof that sometimes the system still works to fix bad laws. Personally I dislike the law as it stands, but at least it stands now with a little common sense in place.

  4. So are some here suggesting that guns did not play a critical role in oppressing* blacks?

    What overseer lacked a gun?

    What KKK rally lacked a gun?

    What lynching lacked a gun?

    In fairness, guns were also held by the Feds when they forcibly de-segregated schools, but nonetheless!

    Want to leave race out of the discussion? Want to leave American history out of the discussion?

    We can do that. Guns, since their advent, have been an instrument and an enabler of oppression. They give power to an individual over many. This is true worldwide, regardless of nation, race, religion, or time period.

    So, why guns now? The American People have had their fears stoked about oppression. their oppression… by government…?? really?

    1. Guns bring a lethality to a situation that some here have tried to equate to Knife violence.A stupid comparison at best.It is rather difficult to kill dozens of people with a knife before chasing them wears one out.Yet that is the level of discussion when talking about gun violence with people who are not serious about lessening the the deaths from to many idiots with to many guns.We may never be able to eradicate the effects,but we can take certain measures to reduce needless gun violence.The Conservatard entertainment industry should be getting kickbacks from the Gun makers for the amount of ridiculous (The Government/Obama is an evil dictator who is oppressing the people!) bullshit they churn out on a daily basis stoking the fears of middle aged white people who can't stand having a black President.4 years and I haven't been oppressed once.They are all conspiracy nuts,and loons blinded by hate.Blind crazy people are a danger to themselves,and the rest of society,and don't mix well with guns.

    2. So how many KKK rallies have you been to?When you are at these rallies you conducted a poll?I do happen to have the head of the Aryan Nation in my contacts list, did you want me to do some fact checking with him?

                1. I figured you would approve of gun violence in that case. Isn't it amazing how gun violence suddenly becomes OK when it is against someone you don't like. tisk, tisk.

    3. "What overseer lacked a gun?

      What KKK rally lacked a gun?

      What lynching lacked a gun?"

      You left out a few.

      What soldier, fighting for your freedom, lacked a gun?

      What citizen patriot, fighting to free a nation from oppression, lacked a gun?

      What guard, standing in a tower to keep dangerous criminals from escaping into the public, lacks a gun?

      What cop, protecting you from the evil "rednecks", lacks a gun?

      What Guardsman, rendering aid during and after a natural disaster, lacks a gun?

      What hunter, carrying on the tradition of feeding his/her family from the fruits of the land, lacks a gun?

      What marksman, practicing his chosen pastime, lacks a gun?

      What revolutionist, freeing slaves, lacked a gun?

      You know who did lack guns? The people that were forced into concentration camps by Hitler and Stalin. Why did they lack guns? because they were law abiding citizens in nations that passed laws making it illegal for citizens to own guns. Did those laws help them out, by taking away the only means they had to defend themselves?

      Twisting the subject slightly:

      What KKK rally lacked pants?
      What lynching lacked pants?
      What overseer lacked pants?

      Maybe we should make the wearing of pants in public illegal too.

        1. Pants did play a critical role, I doubt many of these people would have ever gone out in public without them, so denying them pants would have kept them home and stopped the autocracies.

          Also, yes some were wearing robes, but they had on pants under them. Never ride a horse with bare skin, that only happens in the pornoes.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.