Love letter to the NRA

April 5, 2013

Pete EvansOPINION By PETE EVANS

Recently the United Nations, those black booted thugs the neo cons hate, passed an arms control treaty (opposed by the National Rifle Association and its selfish allies) in an attempt to manage the obscene weapons traffic over international borders. This huge business has brought unimaginable terror, misery and death to countless millions of people. We have a similar situation here at home to contend with.

For 50 years I’ve watched the gun lobby, led by the NRA, undermine Congressional legislation by frantic lobbying in order to make money from the fear it foments. I have watched in horror as first our defenseless people, including lots of children, are murdered by misdirected cowards and have then seen the merciless and fallacious cowardly NRA evade all responsibility and actually blame the sane minds in government and society of attempting to subvert the constitution.

Guns are everywhere. Many guns and bullets are not regulated and much of the feeble regulation in existence is not effective or enforced. “Until 2006, the president had the power to install a director of the firearms bureau without Congressional approval. But under pressure from gun lobbyists, Congress changed the law that year to require Senate confirmation. Since then, the Senate has failed to confirm any nominee by either President Bush or Mr. Obama as senators who support gun rights have used their powers to delay nomination votes; Mr. Jones is the bureau’s fifth acting director since 2006.” This has led to disorganized regulation and crippled law enforcement.

We all know which party is primarily responsible for reducing or eliminating any safety regulation in this country; they are the darlings of the gun lobby. All the biggest (in fact almost all) donations went to right wing republicans like Bachmann and Boner, though plenty of Dems have been stampeded by the virulent NRA as well.

There is only one exact similarity at all the gun crimes, suicides and accidents in this country or any other. Guns. Only guns. Often the gun is a killing machine such as auto loader long gun or hand gun with large magazine. Sometimes the killer is crazed (whatever that means), sometimes crazy (whatever that means), sometimes just frustrated (like the fruitcake that threatened to shoot anyone who came for his guns (his license to carry was promptly revoked)), sometimes the shooter is just emotionally distraught and the opportunity for disaster was nearby in the form of a gun.

We have all heard the tired old evasions from the NRA and it’s minions-“guns don’t kill, people do.” “Only the mentally ill and criminals kill people.”  “The second Amendment is sacred and gives us the right to have any armaments we want.”

What a load of bull. The liars that spew that line of junk are counting on the public to be dupes, and idiots. I challenge any reader: where would you cut off the weapons that civilians should be able to have? .22 single shot rifle, .303 Enfield deer rifle, BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle), bushmaster (semi automatic assault rifle with large magazine), 50 cal machine gun, RPG (rifle propelled grenade launcher- great for bringing down planes), bazooka, small anti tank gun, stinger missile, small helicopter gunship (with a lovely mini/gun of course), F-16 Fighter plane, light destroyer for your bathtub pleasure, aircraft carrier, nuclear sub- what? Where do you cut off the debate on our frantic right to have (thereby lose to theft by stranger or relative) killing machines without any training, license or sense? Wait, I forgot to offer Sherman tanks or Bradley fighting machines. Did I mention a small tactical nuke to take care of that nuisance liberal down the street? How about one of those for the little lady for Xmas? So far I have not heard of anyone on the crazy side who has ever been able, or willing, to answer that simple question, they just want their guns!!!

I think the little people, with perhaps a small appendage they hope to enhance by clinging to a large gun, are just too greedy to listen to any sensible response to a society gone nuts with violence and deadly weapons. All I ever hear is ‘me, me, me’ from the gun nuts when the subject of reasonable gun control is discussed. What a bunch of babies, can’t see beyond their crummy little shortsighted horizons.

What about Gabby Giffords and the others shot to pieces in Tucson? What about all the school kids shot in all those attacks from Columbine to Newtown? The moviegoers in Colorado? What about all the people standing in line in the post offices — former historical favorite place to murder a bunch of innocents? Those who would cling to their guns with ‘their cold, dead hands’ have no conscience; they are sociopaths who have no remorse, shame or guilt.

Like so many other public debates truth has become a stranger, this has degenerated to a simple power struggle between good and evil. I can only hope that for once, good may triumph. We must discover a way to get rid of the avalanche of guns and the idiotic attitudes that have clouded our judgment.

I would like to get in a comment about our sheriff, who has recently licked the ground our local tea party fanatics walk on by pledging to not enforce any federal gun control plan. Good work, top cop! Violate your oath, become a crook in one foolish step, endanger your deputies. It has been my impression that most responsible law enforcement historically favors getting the machine guns and armor piecing ammo) off the streets so that a few more cops will survive any altercations with angry civilians.

“There is no reason that a peaceful society based on the rule of law needs its citizenry armed with 30-round [ammunition] magazines,” states Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck during a March 2, 2011 news conference.” Such magazines transform a gun “into a weapon of mass death rather than a home protection-type device,” Beck notes.) July 13, 2009—After a birthday party shootout involving a semiautomatic AK-47 in which two young people were killed and 10 wounded, Miami Police Chief John Timoney tells ABC News, “For me it’s a no-brainer. These are weapons of war. Under no circumstance do they belong in the cities of America. Now police officers are facing—and citizens are facing—these assault weapons. If we don’t stop it now, what’s it going to look like 10 years from now? Rambo becomes reality.”

I’m so glad I voted for an honest sheriff candidate, a real man, Joe Cortez.

Recently that solidly American terrorist organization, the NRA, suggested in their latest evasion of the slightest responsibility in the carnage that teachers should be trained by the NRA to carry and operate weapons (New rep). What a joke, most teachers do not want that responsibility; they are teachers, not killers. But it led me to dream up a realistic compromise in this dysfunctional debate with mental midgets. What if the NRA (in league with the gummint) trained and licensed every gun owner in the land to safely own, protect and discharge a gun in an attempt to make sure all were mentally competent and emotionally secure enough to actually handle the great responsibility? Combine that with severe penalties for anyone in possession of a gun without said license. What about that, mister hot shot, gun-toting fire breathing gun lobby? Your goods, weapons and bullets, cost us billions each year, while you make billions in profits. Its time for you to get off the corporate welfare line and start paying your way. You are just another fat cat corporate thief feeding at the public trough- pay your way or get out of the way.

The NRA is even against background checks to make sure the absolute fruitcakes/criminals don’t get guns. It opposes ANY attempt to reduce the carnage; it is adamantly against any reform of our nightmare system. It opposes any research into the ramifications of all the unregulated guns in society. The NRA should be outlawed, for it is an outlaw organization. Many NRA members are law abiding, sensible and caring citizens. Many are not. The former should quit that outlaw group and form another with a heart.

I know many respondents will try to kick me into the middle of next week. I urge the sane readers to follow the lack of logic, lack of empathy for victims, and general lunacy of the landslide of vitriol that will spew forth from others. Some will say this message is too angry, too confrontational. Tell that to the parents, children, sisters, brothers and friends of those shot up by guns in our schools, theaters, homes, office buildings and streets. Someone out there come up with answers; I did, where’s yours?


Loading...
328 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Pete Evans said: “Recently that solidly American terrorist organization, the NRA…”


Making profoundly ignorant and bigoted comments like that is akin to having “I’m an ignorant bigot” tattooed on one’s forehead.


Wake-up, Mr. Evans. Your crap isn’t selling like you thought it would…


Most of these comments, and especially Mr. Evans diatribe are off base. The second amendment of the Constitution, as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights, were put in place to protect “We the People” from the government. The second amendment was not enacted so we could hunt or protect our families from crime, but ONLY as our last recourse to save our country from tyranny. In light of such travesties as the so called “Patriot Act” and the many executive orders put in place by the Obama administration in order to circumvent the separation of powers, as well as the communistic leaning “Green” movement, it appears that we need our second amendment rights more now than at any time since the Civil War. It appears Mr. Evans has forgotten how Adolf Hitler came to power. First disarm the people in the name of safety and then do what ever you want as well butcher the people you don’t like by the millions. This scenario has happened time and time again down through history, first disarm the people and then enslave them. But this could never happen in the good old US of A. Never forget the internment of Americans of Japanese descent during WWII. It is time to covet the rights that our forefathers fought and died for on our behalf and not let these rights be threatened by what has become of the United States Government.


Mostly right Fedup.


Fundamentally, we are all created with a complete set of rights with the Bill of Rights put in place to stop government’s intrusion into our civil rights.


From the moment of our creation, it is a constant struggle to stop the government from oppressing/intruding/oppressing/denying our civil rights. This issue is but yet 1 more example of government seeking to limit our civil rights.


-choprzrul


‘communist leaning Green movement’. I’ll add this to my pile of mental midgets in your midst, gunners.


Pete, I would really like your thoughts and insights on the gun distribution program known as “Fast and Furious” specifically. Do you have a problem with our Government officials buying and sending over 4000 weapons out to criminals? What was the purpose of this program? How many have died due to these actions? Should anyone be held accountable? Thanks in advance for your thoughtful and enlightening response, or lack thereof.


*crickets* from Pete. Please do not ask him to think.


Fedup: For the life of me, I just cannot understand how the Second Amendment is “supposed” to save our country from tyranny; to wit, the very wording of the actual 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.” It seems to me that the first half of that wording actually is about protecting our nation, you know, “free State” and all; how is it that so many make the “leap of logic” that having firearms is going to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government? Do you make the suggestion that if the FBI or the ATF shows up at your doorstep, you are going to have a shoot out with them? I just find the notion that any amount of personal firearms is going to repel a government gone rogue as absolutely treasonous, as well as somewhat um, fanatical. Good luck with that.


How about just investing in some drones for home use? Problem solved!


I think *you* are a drone, sometimes.


Name calling – always the first choice when you have no argument but feel diminished by something.


Pot: meet kettle.


Less about each other, please.


Much less.


? or ! moderator@calcoastnews.com


Please review the events of April 19th, 1775. The government sent its agents out to seize the Arms belonging to law abiding citizens. Those same Arms were used to throw off that tyrannical government.


History: it repeats itself.


-choprzrul


Okay then, you are going to repel any government agency that comes to your front door asking about your firearms, right? Good luck with that.


You are comparing 1775 to 2013? How about citing something after 1776 where government seized arms—or can’t you……..


In any case, it was the British disallowing arms for the Americans. It was British General Gage asking Bostonians to give up their weapons. Be specific if I missed something, what incident, who demanded gun surrender, and where. Read this:


http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html


“His attempts to seize military stores of Patriot militias in April 1775 sparked the Battles of Lexington and Concord, beginning the American War of Independence.”


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


You might also note that the date on the Bill of Rights was December 15, 1791 when after ratification they came into effect via ratification of three-fourths of the states.


Oh, yes, I can. Thank you for the opportunity to again point out the racist roots of gun control. For your review, the Mississippi Black Code of 1865, reading in part:


4. PENAL LAWS OF MISSISSIPPI


Sec. 1. Be it enacted,…That no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife, and on conviction thereof in the county court shall be punished by fine, not exceeding ten dollars, and pay the costs of such proceedings, and all such arms or ammunition shall be forfeited to the informer; and it shall be the duty of every civil and military officer to arrest any freedman, free negro, or mulatto found with any such arms or ammunition, and cause him or her to be committed to trial in default of bail.


The Democratic Party’s KKK really loved this law and used it to seize firearms (either by themselves or via law enforcement proxy) and then kill defenseless citizens.


Given its anti civil rights and racist history, how can anyone support gun control???


It befuddles me.


1865? Right after the war over slavery? Mississippi?


Historians generally see the KKK as part of the post Civil War insurgent violence related not only to the high number of veterans in the population, but also to their effort to control the dramatically changed social situation by using extrajudicial means to restore white supremacy. Wikipedia


So I am guessing wildly here, you are extrapolating a law from 1865 Mississippi to modern day Washington D.C. that that the Democratic Party of now (which BTW was populated then by the once-rich landowners) is now going to run wild confiscating guns because….OK, I can’t finish out what I think you could possibly have meant, *except* maybe you are an old white guy fearful of an uprising by Blacks/Latinos/minorities, who, being mostly Democrats are going to write a law to take your guns away and you, being the fearful, old white dude, need to keep those guns to defend yourself from them because they are all hooligans with guns? OR, you are Black/Latino/minority and think the Dems are old, rich white guys who are going to go back to the dark ages of oppression—but wait—NO! The Dems are the party that minorities belong to!


Sheesh. You really didn’t give me much to work with here. Maybe you could give me some other, more recent examples of how gun control has played out so badly? Thanks in advance.


Please. The civil war was fought over state’s rights with slavery as its catalyst.


-choprzrul


The Bonus Army Scandal is also an excellent example of the US Government using federal military foraces against its own citizens.


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


Excellent example SamLouis, here is another:


American history of taking firearms and then killing men, women, and children:


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


Yes, it does happen here. Yes, agents of our government already have a track record of seizing arms and then killing people. This is what it looks like afterwards: http://a3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/91/186fc754faf6f755011f525df8449399/l.jpg


During both the Bonus Army Scandal and the Wounded Knee Massacre, we just happen to have Republican Presidents; perhaps we should rest easy until we have the next Republican elected?


And Columbine, Aruora Co, and Sandy Hook happened under Democrats. Letters after politicians names have zero effect on evil people in our society.


Evil people love unarmed victims.


My point was about the radical claim that “the government is going to take away your weapons” argument conservatives love to throw out, conveniently ignoring the history of who was in charge when “the government” actually did take weapons away. And yes, the massacres you mentioned did happen under Democratic presidents, but they did not move towards taking away anyone’s guns. I am not surprised that you did not get my point though; just keep repeating the mantra “Democrats want to take away your guns” even though there is no historical evidence that they have or will, only Republicans have ever done so.


Sadly for our country, Native Americans were not considered citizens until 1924, so as wrong as Wounded Knee was, the thinking of the day did not make those people Americans, simple “belligerents.”


“Even Native Americans who were granted citizenship rights under the 1924 Act, may not have had full citizenship and suffrage rights until 1948. According to a survey by the Department of Interior, seven states still refused to grant Indians voting rights in 1938.” Wikipedia


You are technically correct, however, you will notice that I never made mention of ‘citizens’. This was done very intentionally.


Citizens are armed.


Subjects are unarmed.


So you are equating yourself as a potential “subject” not a citizen, as you are fearful that if your gun purchases are limited to rifles and handguns, you will be killed by citizens who have guns? Huh?


Negative. I am a citizen. Which are you?


Apparently you’ve never read the 2nd amendment. It says militia members should be able to have guns. Why? To fight the Brits or the Indians. You “literalists” always like to ignore the militia part. We don’t have militias anymore; ergo the amendment is nonsense in 2013.


Learn to read. Focus on the impact of punctuation.


While you are entitled to your opinion, the opinion of the United States Supreme Court has found quite the opposite twice in the last 5 years. They have held that the 2nd Amendment protects a fundamental individual civil right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense, and then they incorporated their Heller decision against the individual states in their McDonald decision.


So yes, ‘militia’ is mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, but that is NOT what the 2nd Amendment is about.


I took the rate of gun ownership by country, and the rate of homocide (any type) and came up with this graph: It’s set to public, but you will have to have a Facebook account to see it:


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151419547804464&set=a.43050799463.50535.576284463&type=3&theater


At the top, there is a strong correlation between gun ownership and lower homocide rates.. but then it all goes wacky after that. The strongest correlation I have found with homocides is actually poverty rates.


So I’m not saying that more guns=less murders, I’m just saying that there certainly is NO correlation between a HIGH rate of gun ownership and homocide.


To whose advantage is it, when folks can’t defend their home or themselves…. really?


It is to the advantage of the home invader, the burglar, the rapist, the murder… and to the misguided local, state and government official who thinks they know better than you do about such things.


You have articulated very gracefully the concept of:


“Gun control isn’t about guns, it’s about CONTROL”


Thank you Roger.


-choprzrul


What about supporting mental help clinics, or was Sandy Hook just an “oh, well…..” What do you think should be done to keep the crazies away from guns (I already know what you think should NOT be done).


Glad you asked.


Since automobiles cause more deaths and injuries, we need to do the following to obtain and keep a driver’s license:


1. Require psychological testing once every 5 years

2. Create a system by which any medical provider can flag your SSN as medically unable to operate a motor vehicle to include most prescription medications

3. Require insurance to obtained/retained to hold a driver’s license regardless of motor vehicle ownership/type

4. Felonies, restraining orders, domestic violence convictions, etc all mandate immediate relinquishment of your driver’s license for life.


Make all of the above be required and tied to a driver’s license and/or national identification card. Then, simply require a gun shop and/or private parties verify possession of a driver’s license for a firearms sale. If someone can maintain a driver’s license, they are more than qualified to own/possess/bear a firearm.


There are 300 million vehicles in the US and as of 2011, 32,000 vehicle deaths per year.


There are 270 million guns in the US and 32,000 gun deaths per year.


Time do all of the above, but I don’t think there will be funding for #1. On item 4, I’d like to see the stats on restraining orders and injuries to those in protection when the orders are disobeyed—for both autos and guns.


Mr. Evans, I think you are more than a little confused. You are tragically misinformed as well. The Neocons hate the United Nations? Hogwash! The two groups of thugs are in bed together!


Sir, what are “defenseless people,” but people without weapons?


We the people could NEVER accept your implied and twisted definition, “those without adequate police protection? There will NEVER be “adequate police protection”! Such concepts are only for those poor, foolish unfortunates who have given up all their freedoms for a little “security.” Well the rest of us can do WITHOUT that kind of security, thank you very much!


Since when has “Congressional legislation” ever done ANYTHING to protect life and property, its only real responsibility? You talk about “undermining the Constitution”! Congress, on behalf of its paymasters, the power elite, has done NOTHING BUT “subvert the Constitution”!


“Sane minds in government and society”? WHAT sane minds in government and society” can you possibly be thinking of? Who do you think governs this country, a bunch of philosopher kings?


What good does “regulation” without rational and purposeful human action from ORDINARY PEOPLE? The trouble with people like you is that you think that rational and purposeful human action only comes from government. Well, it doesn’t!


If anything, the Congress is full of a bunch of alcoholic psychopaths!


Would you replace the thugs of the streets with the thugs of the federal government? Given such a tough choice, I’ll take the street thugs every time! At least they don’t presume to operate under the color of law or that they are only here to “help” me!


The common factor in crime is NOT guns, it is PEOPLE!


“Guns are everywhere”?


Well so are PEOPLE, and it takes a human being to wield and operate a gun, or any other weapon for that matter.


I wonder how many people are killed each year by knives? Baseball bats? Poison? Bare hands? Quite a few, I reckon.


In any case, it takes a person with a gun to stop a person with a gun.


Just ask any police officer about this. Have you ever seen a police officer without a gun?


This notion that only police and soldiers are “fit” to carry a fire arm is one of the most preposterous ideas ever foisted on the human race and has probably gotten more innocents killed than just about anything that I can think of.


You are of that new, senseless, terminal, brain dead, ahistorical breed which has lost its survival instincts.


You are like those caribou in the far north, stampeded by wolf packs so far away from reality that you no longer even know where you are, primed to be taken down by the very forces in which you mistakenly place so much of your faith.


Using laws and regulations to oppress the civil rights of a minority group is as Jim-Crowish as it gets.


Ethnic minorities suffer as the highest percentage recipients of crimes, so gun laws leave those groups even more exposed to risk and inability to defend themselves. The poor can’t afford the expensive guns that are on the California ‘Safe Handgun’ list, so they are priced out of the market unjustly. Disabled and elderly persons who are physically unable to either escape or defend themselves by hand are left without effective options for self defense.


Historically in this nation, groups that have the highest need for firearms for self defense are the ones that have gun control measures pointed at them. Indians, Blacks, Chinese, Latinos, and Italians to name a few. The history of gun control in this nation is EXTREMELY racist in nature.


Seeking to perpetuate our history of gun control is, in my humble opinion, extremely bigoted. Actively working to oppress the civil rights of law abiding citizens is getting close to the point of operating beyond the bounds of the 1st Amendment. These are civil rights we are talking about.


I am sick and tired of watching ALL of my civil rights being eroded away. It has to stop.


Not one more inch am I willing to yield. The anti-rights crowd has pushed too far.


Gun rights ARE civil rights.


Don’t tread on my civil rights.


-choprzrul


I agree.


Letter like this will only serve to widen the divide in the debate. Concentrate on criminals and their activity and misuse of firearms. Enforce the laws we already have. Do not place me and my rights in your poorly written monolog.


Ian Parkinson is a breath of fresh air compared to what we have had as our sheriff in the past.


Ian Parkinson still actively separates law abiding citizens from their civil right to “…Bear…” arms.


Only concerning concealed arms and that’s only for some but not all. He may not be perfect but what sheriff is? Just think of LA County, Orange County, San Diego County, Santa Barbara County, Monterey County, all anti LTC counties.


California already has more firearms laws than it can handle properly.


Anyway, this letter as posted above is a service to our side of the issue. It makes honest citizens want to buy a quality handgun and gear up. Criminals do not know the firearms laws and could care less about them. The antis will not be happy until they outlaw handguns and rifles that shoot more than one round before reloading. Even with that in place they will want to charge training and license fees that make it next to impossible to own one.


Of what use is “…Bear…” if the government leaves us with ZERO path by which to exercise that civil right? How can you support the policy of allowing a single elected official to be the sole arbiter for distributing a civil right?


Have you sat down and thoroughly thought this through? No single person should ever be put in a position to hand out fundamental individual civil rights. This is wrong. Parkinson is wrong for limiting the exercise of civil rights by law abiding citizens, and you are wrong for supporting this policy IMHO.


We must stop yielding our civil rights simply because the guy we elected is marginally better that they guy elected 1 county over.


Our civil rights are very precious. Guard them closely.


-choprzrul


But the nuts who did the mass shootings in the past few years were not criminals prior to acting. What should be done about them? Or should we just toughen up and not worry about that…..


Wolves


Sheep


Sheepdogs


What do wolves fear and respect? A bunch of sheep or a bunch of sheepdogs?


Bring something to the table, Mr. Evans other than personal judgments and hyperbole…


I think the post had a suggestion that could get a look-see. What about a joint NRA/State/Fed program to assure training for all (madatory)? We cannot control all the crime, no where can that be done. But we can reduce much of the accidents, we can improve everyone’s ability to defend themself and that could be a good start. We might also pick off some of the loonier persons. What about that guy in SLo with all the guns at the school/bank? That was a lucky one, where did his guns come from? The kid in newtown got his illegally (stole them from his mom), they should have been locked up, they weren’t, bunch of people died. What about all those things?


The kid in Newtown had a gun safe in his room.


Wow, the right gets more and more dysfunctional with every post. One writer says the NRA wants to prevent the loonies and crooks from having guns, Bob makes a simple suggestion to accomplish that and you flag wavers hammer him. Read the last pp. of my article, I knew the fruitcakes would come out in droves. Drives you midgets nuts, doesn’t it, to be second guessed accurately.


You (generally addressing the sum total of my adversaries) change the subject, make accusations (illogical and wrong) about my patriotism and other issues, ignore my questions and offer no solutions. Many of you can’t even spell correctly. I feel like this isn’t a fair fight, do you have anyone who can focus on the subject, use proper English, and address the issues? Anyone? I am embarrassed for you folks, this is too easy.


Bring something to the table, Mr. Evans other than personal judgments and hyperbole…


I guess you noticed you made the same reply twice. Needs another comma after ‘Evans’.

I think all we have is personal judgements and our own interpretations of the ‘facts’. But I have offered at least one weak compromise in my article about an NRA sponsored mass training program.

I noticed one writer said there should be no restrictions on any weapons for civilians. His comment was articulate and well spoken, though I disagree. What the national debate has completely ignored is the weakness and shortcomings of us all. Any of us could ‘go off’ given enough provocation, we have seen that in all the shootings. We look at those deranged creeps as just that but any of us could be pushed to shoot someone, and if the motive combined with opportunity then disaster ensues. I know a local famous person who, when asked if he had any guns, said “good god, no! I can’t be trusted, I have ADD”. What an honest, revealing response-and in a sense it describes many of us. That is the whole point of all this, we are all just only so far from the breaking point, the emotional breaking point. Too many have crossed over, creating heartbreak for thousands. This is really big, for it ‘fingers’ many, or most, of us as possible ‘problems’. This is not just about criminals or the obviously insane.


Those of you who are stable and totally sane are not my ‘targets’. My targets are those who don’t respond to stress with calm and restraint, but fly off the handle and strike out. Go to any bar at midnight, see how people act. These ‘normal’ citizens are itching to fight. What if you heard a noise in the night and were aware of prowlers in your area, would you just shoot like mad or exercise caution? What if someone shot at you and you blasted away with your AK-47, the array of bullets went across the street and killed Mrs. Johnson? Or they went a mile and killed little Billy in his bed? A 20 ga shotgun would stop at your walls after decimating the intruder.


Well, I know you are dying to hear more from me but off to the sack.


I’m thinking of holding a raffle to raise money for gun safety. Should I sell tickets to have me tarred and feathered or just lynched? I can’t decide which would bring in the most dough from all my admirers out there.


Actually there is no missing comma. Please check your MLA handbook Mr. Evans.


You are so formal. You may be right about the comma, I was going from common sense and how the wording feels. I’m so dumb I don’t even know what MLA is.


“Common sense”? Hardly. You are one arrogant individual. Whatever “feels” good to you is fine, no matter what the facts might say.


Now go Google “comma splice.”


He’s an idiot. Made up the part about the MLA handbook. He needs a comma. You’re right.


So, your thinking that most who own guns would probably fly off the handle at some point in fits of rage? If you look at the cities with the tightest gun control, they are the very same cities with high crime and interestingly gun crime….why? The criminals obtain guns illegally right, but how come gun crime is not highest at a place where guns are common? The truth is that things are more equalized for the criminals in such areas. It is much safer for the criminal and deadly for the law abiding in controlled areas.


The Newton and Aurora shooters targeted “gun free zones” so they could carry out their plans….possibly with help from criminal elements within our government to help out with this gun control push? Outrageous? These types of operations absolutely have happened on the past on record, one example is the Gulf of Tonkin incident to get us into a war. To people like you, twenty or 40 innocent people killed or wounded would be worth it to turn public opinion against guns. You would find the value in theory of saving lives, but others would see benefit in disarming the citizens. Don’t forget who bought 1.6 billion hollow points to now ” save money” according to Big Sis and who ordered 2,700 huge armored vehicles…to control US.


Yep, right on target. They are called “psy-ops.”


I love when the only thing the liberals can do is hurl insults because they don’t have reason on their side. Gun laws only affect people who obey laws, you think we should take advice from the mental giants on the left like Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette? She thinks magazines are used once and thrown away! Before you start passing bills maybe a little research is in order?


Agreed, exept that they are NOT “liberals,” (at least in the “classical” sense of the word); they are TYRANTS!


1 3 4 5 6 7 10