Is the Right to Bear Arms a freedom that’s gone too far?

“Saturday marks the anniversary of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which left 20 children and six educators dead. And a year later, questions still remain about gunman Adam Lanza, who committed suicide that day and worked hard to obscure his motives,” writes NPR’s Jeff Cohen.

“At least 194 children have been shot to death” following the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary according to Mother Jones.

“Some Minnesota schools are starting to look at a security in new ways. The measures vary from district to district, depending on the availability of resources. Some have added new alarms, classroom door locks and security cameras. Some have considered hiring new police officers and security guards,” writes MPR News reporter Tim Post.

“In the last 12 months … almost every state has enacted at least one new gun law. Nearly two-thirds of the new laws ease restrictions and expand the rights of gun owners,” according to the New York Times.

Today’s Question: Is the Right to Bear Arms a freedom that’s gone too far?

  • AndyBriebart

    You couldn’t do better than that MPR? Stodgy, stuck up European “intellectuals”, who have no freedom telling people who have freedom that freedom is bad. Come on.

    “The scariest people in the world are free people who hate freedom”. Kane Robinson.

    • JQP

      Oh… my goodness …. society has obligations ?

    • Rich in Duluth

      I’m voting this down because I see it as an “ad hominem”
      argument, attacking the person and not the ideas. Also, because the implication that European “intellectuals”
      have no freedom is clearly false. I see
      this as a distraction from the conversation.

  • PaulJ

    It seems like the part about ‘well regulated’ has been forgotten.

  • Jim G

    Amendment II of the Bill of Rights.

    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.

    Please read the entire amendment. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is to enable the State the form a well regulated Militia.

    Yes. The Right to Bear Arms is a freedom that has gone too far.

    What type of society do we want? Answer that question then work for the society you want your grandchildren to live in

    • Gary F

      We could have more gun control and have our cities turn into Chicago, Detroit, and Washington DC. It’s doing wonders there.

      • JQP

        Gun control on future sales is a laffer and the NRA + supporters know it. Any solution related to guns requires 70 years to accomplish the goal of balancing the nations senseless gun-addiction.
        1) national gun registry database( image, serial #, balistics test,
        2) national gun owner registry database (for validating appropriate ownership – because sometimes mental illness hits AFTER you bought the weapons)
        3) all federal, state, local police have access to all databases.
        4) permit doctors and the CDC to collect gun-injury data

        In a data driven world .. the NRA and GOP insistence on NOT providing the data necessary to solve crimes is an indicator of their willful protection of criminals.

        • Gary F

          The government cant get Obamacare right, why would they be able to do gun registry right? More government is not the answer.

          • JQP

            Gun ownership is basic inventory. Walmart could set it up in about 5 months … if congress would let the government write a service contract outside of the current procurement process.

        • Erik

          You do realize that Canada had that beloved gun registry the liberal element in this country is salivating over and ended after it proved to be costly and did not offer any additional resources/benefits to law enforcement to stop crime?

          Do you honestly believe that more ineffective laws are the solution to this problem?

          • JQP

            In the “USA” yes…
            Canada’s laws regarding gun ownership are far more restrictive . If you’re solution is that we adopt (and retroactively apply) Canada’s gun ownership laws — sure , we can do that.

        • Steve Rusk

          If you study the facts from the CDC, DOJ and the FBI. all of you 6 points do nothing to lower crime. They only lead to higher costs of government, data bases that can be hacked and used by criminals and politicians but I repeat myself.

        • JQP: well, that would be going to the extreme. I don’t think there’s a serious proposal to go that far. I think most people just want a reasonable amount of protection through the law and law enforcement.

    • Pearly

      You want a “well regulated Militia” I’m in!

      • Jim G

        When was the last time a group of armed citizens actually were formed into a “well regulated Militia?” Sometime in the early 19th century? Times change… needs change… constitutions, In my opinion, should be reinterpreted to the changing times and needs of the country.

        • The second amendment is in the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution. If we’re going to revisit the Bill of Rights then I assume we get to re-interpret and change any and all of them correct? You know, like the right to peaceable assembly and free speech, illegal search and seizure, freedom of religion…..

          • KTN

            I see that the Tea Party is attempting to use Art.5 to call for a Constitutional Congress, which if this succeeds (it won’t but lets for argument sake say that it does) would most certainly affect the entire Constitution and not just limited Amendments. If that is the tact the right is willing to take, then sure lets dump the 17th, the 3rd has never been adjudicated so it can go too. The 14th would be suspect too, what with the that pesky Citizenship clause. The 2nd could be changed to read” Guns for all”.

          • KTN, if you want to have a fact based conversation, I’m all for it. Your comment is just a rant.

          • KTN

            just answering your question about changing the Constitution and in turn the Bill of Rights, The 2nd would not be the only thing changed by a Constitutional Congress – everything would be fair game.

          • There is no Constitutional Congress. Feel free to play “what if” all you like. I deal in facts.

          • KTN

            Maybe you should brush up on your understanding of the Constitution. Art. 5 says: the relevant clause is towards the bottom. Maybe you failed to read what I wrote the first time, feel free to go back and revisit – I don’t recall saying there is a Constitutional convention (Congress), rather there being a call by the Tea Party to move in that direction. A laughable move, but I guess if that how they feel.

            “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.”

          • Feel free to continue to play, “what if”. The Tea Party calling for something isn’t relevant to this conversation. I’m not going down your rabbit hole any longer.

          • Jim G

            Firstly, reread my first post in this thread. Yes, if we have ever have another constitutional convention I’m sure everything will be discussed again, even whether corporations should be considered “persons.” In my opinion the constitution is a living document, not a sacred text. It will need to be revisited and updated to make it relevant to society’s changes over time

          • MrsFox

            Woah. Did you just say the 2nd amendment is in the Bill of Rights, NOT the Constituion? You do know the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution, right?
            Also, there have been changes to re-interpret the Constitution (Miranda v. Arizona, Griswold v. Connecticut, Schenck v. United States).

          • The Bill of Rights are amendments to the Constitution. They are not in the Constitution.

          • Yanotha Twangai

            According to Article V, those amendments are indeed part of the Constitution. You’re making a distinction without a difference.

          • Ok, I’ll concede. My apology. Anyone want to discuss the issue or should we continue to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

      • Pearly: that’s a real possibility, and that’s a good reason for law-abiding and responsible gun ownership and operation. The proposed legislation for which moderates have expected to find bipartisan support has been aimed exclusively at criminal gun ownership and operation. I think most moderates would be content with that.

    • The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the individual right to bear arms. Furthermore, “the People” is referenced in four amendments. In every case it refers to individual rights. Lastly, the well regulated Militia was made up of individuals that were required to own and bring their firearms with them when there was a call to arms. It’s not enough to just “read the entire amendment”. You have to understand it’s context and factual history.

      • Jim G

        The people back in 1791 were only white men. Slaves were only 3/5 of a person too. They were different times… things change… reading the words …allows them to speak for themselves… to today’s citizen..

  • TCguns_carry

    Clearly, as is demonstrated repeatedly by this website, the First Amendment is a freedom that’s gone too far.

  • Bill

    Not at all.
    Handguns are the weapon of choice for self defence. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police, about 2:1. On the other hand you are 8 times more likely to be killed by a cop shooting you without real cause than you are to be killed by a terrorist.

  • John O.

    Welcome to MPRs “Today’s Trolling.” Good grief.

  • Sue de Nim

    The long-time sound bite of the NRA is “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” The flip side of that now deserves some attention: If guns are not properly controlled, all the outlaws will have guns.

    • Steve Rusk

      Studies that Obama asked for, found your statement to be not true. Restrictive gun law actually cause a rise in crime.

    • Gun homicide is down 39% – 49% and total gun crime is down 69% over the past twenty years. These are facts provided by recent studies by Pew Research and the DOJ. This is during a legislative environment that was largely pro-second amendment and when the sales of firearms rose consistently. Yet 70% of Americans think gun crime is the same or higher. Why is that? Could it be a media that craves the advertising value of “blood lust”, salacious firearm crimes?

  • Jamie

    Over 1,200 children each day are murdered in the United States at abortion clinics. That’s over 1,000,000 children that have been aborted since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary. Stop abortion violence.

    • Rich in Duluth

      I’m voting this down because I find it hyperbolic and off
      topic. Abortions are not legally “murder”
      in the U.S. and they are conducted by and for reasonable people who have
      thought through the procedure and have determined that, for them, it is the
      right thing to do. There is no equivalence
      to the actions of clearly deranged people who carry out mass murder.

  • KTN

    Too bad this debate ( wasn’t used instead of the one above. Four heavyweights in Constitutional scholarship making very cogent arguments on both sides.

    Yes, the 2nd has gone to far. Like the 1st, the amendment is not absolute, but the gun lovers would like to believe it is – too bad their wrong.

    • stromboli

      “To” far? “Their” wrong? At least the average gun owner is literate.

  • Loving Winter

    I’d go for a qualitative assessment rather than a “far” quantitative assessment. The numbers don’t yet bother me (although I do respect the ill effects of any mass killing on the nation’s psyche). The quality of gun ownership seems to have shifted to a kind of perverse psychology where fear fuels an unhealthy mentality in the gun community. There doesn’t seem to be much rational basis for their certainty in the value of taking refuge in arms. In fact gun ownership seems to guarantee a greater likelihood of tragedy within families when viewed statistically. This is all confounded in a fear of the other, a fear of economic loss to the other and seems to be tied up nicely in the belief that a gun can somehow stop the decline of White Culture, whatever that is. Would that this fear and anger be put to better use agitating against corporate destruction of America which is likely the more accurate demon responsible for hollowing out our middle class.

  • Jamie

    1. Registration 2. Confiscation 3. Extermination

    • 1. 15-minute background check 2. no firearms registration, 3. good government.

  • Steve Rusk

    As a Liberal I have to resoundingly say NO, The Right to Bear Arms is a freedom that has NOT gone too far. What has gone too far is that the general population don’t check facts for themselves. I have checked the Brady group and Mayor Bloomberg’s group and they are not even close to showing the true facts.

    After Sandy Hook, President Obama asked the CDC to look into the “real” facts and the report showed that gun laws do nothing to lower crime and in fact can have the opposite effect. FACT: Gun Crime is at it’s lowest level in 20 years. FACT: the number of legal guns is up 50% in the last 20 years. Fact: The four geographical AREAS OF THE USA THAT HAVE THE STRICTEST GUN LAWS (State of CA, Chicago, Washington D.C. and New Orleans) HAVE THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF GUN DEATHS. FACT: take the above four areas out of out of the USA gun crime statistics and the USA would have the forth lowest % of gun crime of all the countries in the world. FACT: Other countries that have pass restrictive gun laws are now seeing double digit rises in gun violence (England, Australia, etc). FACT: Mental health care is at its lowest level of funding and coverage by insurance and Rampage Killers are at all time high. FACT: Rampage Killers kill in gun free zones as they know they are safe and can do the most damage without fear of being shot. FACT: 99% of Rampage Killers die by suicide NOT by police stopping them.

    In the above article they state 2/3 of new laws ease restriction on guns, but they don’t tell you why that is, because they want to make you think guns are bad, when in fact Guns lower crime and violence.

    A liberal for the 2nd Amendment

    • Charlie

      Despite your “facts” as an individual living in the UK, it is far less terrifying to walk around the streets here than in the US, mainly due to the fact there are far fewer guns. Actual research quoted by BBC states violent crime has dropped over the past 10 years, with guns being involved in 1 or 13, whereas in the states its 2 of 3 crimes.

      Furthermore, if your facts were accurate, how would that explain that most conversation I have with Brits eventually leads to a question of why the US has such toleration for guns? I am yet to mean some as outwardly supportive as any individual, liberal or conservative, in the US.

      • stromboli

        Notwithstanding that your last sentence is…well, indecipherable.

        • Here’s a possible deciphering of Charlie’s last sentence: “I am yet to meet someone in the UK as outwardly supportive of unrestricted gun ownership as anyone–liberal or conservative–in the US.” I guess he had to run (and I guess he hasn’t met a diversity of people in the UK or the US).
          The statistics in the article cited by “stromboli” are questionable. Statistics need to be deciphered too, you know.

    • Please check out the concepts of causation vs. correlation.

  • John A Fitzer II

    Its hard to tell that adults are commenting on this. Really, folks? The slippery slope argument that somehow through registration of firearms the government will oppress all of us is a fallacy. Assuming that If A happens then B will happen and then C will occur is not a sound argument. This a serious and complicated topic where simple answers and sound bytes will not suffice. We need to sit down and have a candid conversation over the usefulness of the Second Amendment. Like in the video (for the those of you who actually bothered to watch it before commenting), we are not discussing the repeal of the amendment but rather a modern update. I am very much in favor of the citizenry in this country owning firearms, but just like the First Amendment there has to be a limit on certain things. For instance, your freedom of speech does not allow you to scream “fire” in a crowded place. I believe we should treat firearms like motor vehicles. Having proper training, a license, and registration is required to operate a motor vehicle, so why not a firearm? Both can cause major injury or death if not used properly or used by someone who is not in a safe mental state (drinking, mental illness, etc). Please don’t reduce this argument to insults and catchy slogans, both of those things help no one and actually add to the problem.

    • Bill

      I have a conceal and carry and I have to register my gun, have a background check through the FBI, go through training to carry, and pay to have a permit to carry with another background check. Its already there. Why do we need more laws, the one we have works.

      • .
        Good for you and for all responsible, law-abiding gun owners.
        Unfortunately, it’s too easy for dangerous felons and the dangerous mentally-ill to buy guns without background checks. There is a Constitutional middle ground on which we can control the most obvious abuses of firearms without interfering with responsible, law-abiding gun ownership and use.

        • Richard Unger

          Background checks work about as well as drug laws. It’s just feel good stuff. There is no way to predict who will act out with a gun. It’s already illegal for almost all of the folks who act out with guns to possess them. Mentally ill folks actually act out less often with guns than everyone else. A background check will tell you who pays their bills, but the numbers are too small for this stuff. Unless we look to the causes of violence, and stop bashing gun owners and the “NRA”, we’ll never get to the bottom of it. And we need to acknowlge that violent crime is down 50% in the last 20 years. It’s still a problem, increased gun sales are not driving it. And it’s not the Second Amendment that fuels violence either.

          • RTF

            You’re right! Background checks do work as well as drug laws. People are going to get guns legally or illegally. Same with drugs. So let’s eliminate all drug/gun laws. While we’re at it, let’s eliminate all laws! Because obviously a law against theft or murder doesn’t stop people from doing it, so let’s abolish that too.

          • Criminals do not and will not subject themselves to background checks. The term “universal” is spin. The overwhelming majority of illegal gun possession comes through straw purchases and theft. “Universal” background checks subscribe to the same logic as “Gun Free Zones”. People think that hanging a sign keeps criminals with guns away. That’s been proven a fallacy time and time again. Criminals don’t abide by laws and will not be subject to background checks.

          • Straw purchases are a problem, and part of the solution can be to require background checks at gun fairs, person-to-person transfers, etc.
            Gun-free zones with authorized entry, inspection, and in some cases metal detectors work well. Airports, courthouses, schools, etc.

          • The private sales you’re referring to at gun fairs and person to person transfers represent less than 2% of all legal transfers done in this country. Note the word legal. Criminals participate in illegal straw purchases that are subject to background checks every day or they obtain them illegally on the streets without any type of check. It’s the very reason “universal” background checks is a fallacy. I repeat, criminals do not and will not be subject to background checks whether you try and include 2% of legal transfers or not.

            The vast majority of “gun free” zones don’t have the measures you’re speaking about so they do nothing but disarm law abiding citizens. As for authorized entry, inspection, and metal detectors….. tell that to the dead folks at the naval shipyard, LAX airport, schools, and courthouses where shootings have taken place. While they may provide some level of deterrence, they DO NOT prevent shootings in these venues. What “gun free” zones absolutely ensure is that no law abiding citizen can legally protect themselves with a firearm from an armed individual bent on doing harm.

          • “Some level of deterrence” seems to be all we can really accomplish with any method.

          • Guest

            Scott, you are correct. That is why properly licensed citizens have the right to bear arms. Each of us is ultimately responsible for the defense of ourselves or others when there is an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death. Law enforcement nor the government have any obligation nor ability to protect you when seconds count. “Gun free” zones attract shooters because there isn’t any perceived deterrence. It’s been proven time and time again.

          • Scott, you are correct. That is why U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms. Each of us is ultimately responsible for the defense of ourselves or others when there is an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death. Law enforcement nor the government have any obligation nor ability to protect you when seconds count. “Gun free” zones attract shooters because there isn’t any perceived deterrence. It’s been proven time and time again.

          • Mr. Crucible Arms, you are correct that law-enforcement can’t always be there immediately to protect citizens from harm. However, they have proven time and time again to be a powerful force for deterrence.
            You’re also correct that gun-free zones that are not effectively defended are in danger. We need effective defenses, not the ineffective defenses that we hear proposed by some radical gun proponents; for example, teachers working all day with youth also made responsible for tactical defense.

          • Scott, I have a number of friends in law enforcement. They do a terrific job and they’ll be the first to tell you they can’t respond fast enough in most life and death situations. Unlike their bosses, the Chief’s of Police, they’re not constrained to voice their opinion the way Chief’s are as Mayoral appointees.

            My wife works in a K-12 school district and recently participated in law enforcement sponsored tactical response training. We’re finally waking up and realizing that “hide in place” and waiting for someone to come shoot you and/or your students is ludicrous. We’re now training people to take personal responsibility and make active decisions on what’s best to protect themselves and their wards.

          • Mr. Crucible Arms, that’s great; the more tactical response training, the better. You didn’t say much about this particular training, though, so I don’t know what you mean. All I’m asking for is effective defense, and one of the things I’m dubious of is the ability of schoolteachers (chosen for their teaching skills) to defend their schools using firearms (having nothing to do with teaching skills).

          • Anyone can be trained to act effectively and responsibly in the defense of themselves or another. If you are responsible for children you are obligated to protect them. You won’t find teachers disagreeing with me. Each of us are individually responsible for our safety. Yes, we have law enforcement to help protect citizens but they are not required to do so and are largely unavailable to do so when seconds count.. At the end of the day, we are all personally responsible for the defense of ourselves and others.

          • Mr. Crucible Arms, you’d be amazed if you knew how many people disagree, and what very good reasons they have.

          • I’m very well aware of people that disagree. I also find that the more informed they are the more likely they are to realize that self defense is a personal responsibility. When seconds count, law enforcement is just minutes away.

          • Utopia! No more government, no more crime!

          • Of course there are ways to predict that dangerous felons and the *dangerously* mentally ill are likely to act out with firearms.
            Of course there are ways to predict that these people will buy firearms at places where their records won’t be run through a background check.
            Of course it’s good for us as a society to look for and address the causes of violence.
            Of course the Second Amendment doesn’t fuel violence.

          • Richard Unger

            Well you can get a list of folks who have been labeled mentally ill. But it turns out these folks act out LESS often than the rest of us. They are much more likely to be victims. The numbers are too small. 1 out of a million won’t work with a background check for mental illness. Violent criminals? They are in prison not buying guns. Background checks are for high correlation sorting. Like credit. Don’t work for gun violence.

          • Mr. Unger: how did you miss the first word (“dangerously”) in the phrase “*dangerously* mentally ill?” I put asterisks around it in order to highlight it, as it is an essential part of my statement.
            Gun-control laws in Minnesota prohibit gun ownership by people who have been convicted of violent crime–until they have served their parole and it has been determined that it is no longer a risk for them to own guns.

        • Oscanator

          Yes there is’ make our local, state and federal governments arrest and punish to the fullest extent of the law the people who violate the laws we have on the books now. Passing more laws the make it harder for law abiding people to purchase or own firearms is not the answer.

    • Tell your “no slippery slope” argument to the Bosnian’s that were slaughtered by their own government. Tell it to the Jews who were stripped of their right own firearms by the Nazi regime and then exterminated. Tell it to the Katrina victims that had their firearms illegally confiscated by law enforcement and the military.

      I have to assume you’re willing to have a “modern update” to all of the amendments, yes? You know, free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom of religion….

      The firearms industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in our country. There are all kinds of limits on the right to own firearms. There are over 20,000 laws constraining firearm ownership and transfers. However, when it comes to gun crime, it’s the first charge that gets thrown out in a plea bargain.

      Please don’t reduce this argument to overarching platitudes and false analogies. I deal in facts. Gun homicide is down 39% – 49% and total gun crime is down 69% over the past twenty years. These are facts provided by recent studies by Pew Research and the DOJ. This is during a legislative environment that was largely pro-second amendment and when the sales of firearms rose consistently. Yet 70% of Americans think gun crime is the same or higher. Why is that? Could it be a media that craves the advertising value of “blood lust”, salacious firearm crimes?

      • KTN

        Do you really believe the government is going to come for your guns, really.

        If that is the case, why have, at the federal level, gun rights expanded in the past 8 years – hardly a tactic of coming for your guns.
        Your argument is cold comfort to the parents of the little children blown apart by a firearm that has no legitimate purpose outside of military use.

        • It’s happening right now in New York City. New York is sending letters to citizens that have registered their firearms, per New York City law, telling them that as a result of new legislation, they must surrender their firearms, move them outside the city, or have them permanently altered. If not, they face criminal prosecution. Confiscation of firearms is happening in this country.

          Again, I deal in facts, not opinion, conjecture, hyperbole or emotion. You’re entitled to your opinion but they aren’t facts.

          • KTN

            If New York is doing that, and I doubt very much they are, this is a state right issue, not a federal issue. cite the relevant law allowing NY to do this, but absent that, it appears it might only be in your imagination.

          • See below. I made one error in my comment. The law went into effect in 1995. New York City is now attempting to enforce it. I stand by the rest of my statement.



          • Steve Rusk

            KTN, New York City has really sent out the letters,tell people they must surrender firearms (long guns) that can hold more than 5 rounds. So most every 22, and shot gun it now a felony to own. If they don’t want to surrender them they can move out of the state or they can sell them out of state. If you Google it you will find PDFs of the letters sent. NYC’s actions just prove the point some political billionaires want it the way they think with out asking the people.

    • Steve Rusk

      Dear John A Fitzer II, actually your statement, ” Assuming that If A happens then B will happen and then C will occur is not a sound argument.” is not an accurate statement as it in reality is a sound and logical statement.

      John, actually you can yell and are required to yell fire in a crowded theater if there is a fire, because it will save lives! What you don’t accurately state is you can’t yell fire in a crowed theater if there is no fire as that can cost lives. So now I have proved you don’t have your facts correct your whole post is meaningless.

      What you state is what I as liberal have found after studying the empirical data at the root of what the Brady group and Mayor Bloomberg’s call fact… they make statements that are not true and the facts show how wrong they are.

  • Rich in Duluth

    Yes, but simply because a particular interpretation of 2nd Amendment is
    being used by the gun lobby as a sacred cow.

    While I am notoriously anti-gun, it appears that, although there are many statistical studies with various conclusions, there is not sufficient evidence to show causality between gun ownership and murder rates in the U.S. There is a good discussion of this at .

    One point made at that web site is that on the day of the Newtown killings, another attack occurred at an elementary school in China. At Newtown 26 adults and children were killed. In China, 22 children and one adult were injured . The difference seems to be that a knife was used in China. It seems intuitive that a gun is more likely to kill than a knife.

    However, my guess is that there are many factors involved in gun violence. Poverty, education, mental illness, gun access, attitude, being a few I can think of.

    I think that reasonable people would be anxious to discuss any solution to these horrendous killings that continue in this country, despite words written 230 years ago on a piece of parchment.

    • Steve Rusk

      Rich, the fact are that a knife wound is more likely to kill than a gun shot. It is physics and medial. A Knife wound cuts more tissue and cause the person to bleed out faster than a gun wound. Check with the medical profession if you don’t believe me.

    • stromboli

      When the perfectly worded law convinces all ne’er do wells to leave me the hell alone, I will hand over my guns for cash. Until then…

  • James

    The US is an amazing place.

    A big part of the reason is the First Amendment. Because of it there is an incredible marketplace of ideas, the best of which get to the top.

    The Second Amendment, on the other hand is a terrible mistake. It raised the issue of “ownership of a manufactured product” to a silly and unmanageable level. If the right to bear arms was not in the constitution (just like the right to own a house, or
    the right to own a car is not in the constitution) most people would still be allowed to own guns, and years and years of reasonable regulation of gun ownership would properly balance the desire to own a weapon and the desire to not get gunned down while learning your A-B-C’s.

    I personally wish there were next to no guns in citizen’s possession….and certainly not in their pockets while they walk down the street. Unfortunately that ship sailed 10 or 50 or 200 years ago. The reason local efforts to regulate guns in Chicago and Washington, etc. don’t have a hope, as those places are islands in a sea of guns. Those islands’ hope was that their regulations would spread. They didn’t. Now, there really is no option but a personal arms race.

    It didn’t have to be this way. The Second Amendment is the problem. And that’s the way it will stay.

    • Steve Rusk

      James, I think you are confusing many things here. The 1st and 2nd Amendment were written at the same time. I’m not sure what you mean by a “incredible marketplace of ideas” are you talking then or now? If then, then the idea was to overthrow at repressive government that told the people and didn’t listen to or care what the people wanted. The Point of the 1st Amendment is that people can talk about anything with out getting hung until dead if the Government and it’s agents didn’t like what you said.

      The 2nd Amendment is not about ownership of a manufactured product and you are way off base with that vision. The 2nd Amendment is about having the inalienable right to protect yourself, your family, your community from physical attack. Or as some will call it self defense of people and your abode.

      James, when you state “I personally wish there were next to no guns in citizen’s
      possession….and certainly not in their pockets while they walk down
      the street. Unfortunately that ship sailed 10 or 50 or 200 years ago.
      The reason local efforts to regulate guns in Chicago and Washington,
      etc. don’t have a hope, as those places are islands in a sea of guns.
      Those islands’ hope was that their regulations would spread. They
      didn’t. Now, there really is no option but a personal arms race.”. WOW… you are so off base, I have to wonder what you are smoking! If you took the time to study the empirical data from the CDC and FBI (assuming you have a math background) you would know that Chicago, Washington D.C., New Orleans and the State of CA, have created gun free zones and after they created these gun free zones crime in those areas have gone through the roof.

      At Obama’s request after Sandy Hook he asked the CDC to do a gun violence study, and that report came out a few months back have you heard about it? If you didn’t I can tell you why. It proved that guns are not the problem and it proved that restrictive gun laws do not lower crime and actually increase gun crime as they create a gun free zone that criminals like as they can work with out risk of danger.

      I’m a liberal that believed in the Brady group till I checked the facts…. Now I know and I have email from the MN Brady group they don’t care about facts only getting their way!

      You are right it doesn’t have to be the way you say it is….because it is not the way you say. Have you ever studied logic? I have to say not,. If you had you would have seen the flaw in your post.

      • James

        Steve. I highly recommend the book Gun Fight. A fascinating history of how this whole issue evolved, including in those islands I mentioned.

        • Steve Rusk

          Jame, there are many books call Gun Fight all are fiction. When I searched for “Gun Fight, book with known false facts, known miss information, propaganda” I did find a book By Adam Winkler. Is this the one you mean?

          James, back just a few years ago I too believed that anti gun was the way to go. It was when I started checking the facts they used at an empirical level I found the facts were not facts put made up numbers. I found that the empirical data shows that the anti gun writers are making up numbers and calling them facts. I even have talked with the MN head of Brady group (they now have a different name) and she told me she doesn’t care about facts she just wants to put out numbers that shock people to side with her personal anti gun feeling. FEELINGS? I asked, what about facts. She response was everyone make up facts and the uneducated believe them, so I win my propaganda campaign she told me.

          James what islands are you talking about you did mention cities…but no islands.

    • liquid150

      People like you are the problem.

  • Gordon near Two Harbors

    There’s nothing wrong with the 2nd Amendment. The problem lies with the judicial system’s refusal to severely punish those folks who abuse gun rights (felons who are caught in possession of a firearm; gang-bangers involved in drive-by shootings; individuals who use guns to commit crimes, etc.), as well as the government’s refusal to identify and treat mentally ill individuals and keep them from acquiring guns.

    The average, law abiding citizen poses NO threat to society by enjoying his/her right to bear arms.

    • Steve Rusk

      Great points Gordon!

    • Joe

      And how should the government determine and identify who is mentally ill? Should we set up labor camps? Will there be a review panel who decides which individuals lose their guns before they are marked and loaded on a train? Seriously

  • stromboli

    THE most basic right is that of individuals to defend themselves. I have had a gun held on me twice by those who had zero interest in the rule of law. All of the tortured arguments about gun control disappear in a microsecond when you’re in that shi**y position– which is why I am now legally licensed to carry. And do.

    • Steve Rusk

      Good for you Stromboli! Stand firm!

  • Chuck Cortes

    I have nothing against people legally owning guns, but I am always annoyed by this concept of “law abiding citizens” or “responsible gun owners”. In my opinion there is no such thing because anyone considered a responsible gun owner can easily become an irresponsible one the moment they make a mistake. The problem is making mistakes with a gun can have deadly results. Also to add to my point, I am not convinced of this concept of “law abiding citizens” or “responsible gun owners” when cops shoot first and ask questions later. Too many people have been shot and killed by cops these past few years in situations that just did not seem to be justified to have used deadly force or extreme deadly force such as the college student that was recently shot at 6 times by a police officer all while they were unarmed.

    People are not perfect, they will eventually find a way to become irresponsible and that is when I get worried.

    • Steve Rusk

      Chuck Cortes, WOW YOU SCARE ME! You State that there is no such thing as a “law abiding citizens” or “responsible gun owners”., realize that you just said you are not a law abiding citizen or a responsible gun owner?Chuck, I just have to say you’re telling all of us that no one can be trusted and the world is going to heck in a hand-basket because of how people act and that cannot be changed?.
      you scare me.

    • By your definition all legally licensed drivers of motor vehicles, including you, can become irresponsible the moment they make a mistake. Exponentially more people are killed in motor vehicle accidents than in firearm deaths. So, what is the solution you’re proposing? Being “worried” isn’t a solution.

    • PinguinoRoja

      Laughable… you are too used to staring down the wrong side of the barrel my friend. Come.. join us, Don’t be a victim.

      Honestly, you have no clue what you are talking about if you don’t even have a concept of what a responsible gun owner looks like. Get out and go to the range sometime and see what the community is about. Safety is everyone’s TOP concern. Picking up a gun does not make you want to go out and shoot people; there comes a certain respect and responsibility with gun ownership; and no one take it lightly.

      You guys can criticize the 2nd Amendment all that you want.. but in the end people like you will never make an effective gun law simply because you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.


    Guns are not Going anywhere. So if I were you as Human beings start doing what you need to do right now to protect your families. NOW IS THE TIME TO PLAN

  • Lisa W.

    Yes….I don’t think going into schools & shooting up teachers was something our fore fathers had in mind when they were giving us the rights to bear arms. Back in those days, you didn’t have automatic assault rifles with magazines of ammo. You had machetes, single shot guns & bow & arrows. They would be rolling over in their graves if they knew what has transpired 200+ years later. We need to amend the law to coincide with modern times, in addition to getting people the mental health help they need. Guns don’t kill….people do.

  • Cat

    I can’t advocate this issue well in the abstract, but would tend to agree with the thought that self-defense is the right I would prefer to be protected in the Bill of Rights, rather than ownership of a specific class of manufactured product. I don’t know what has been the experience of others posting here, except for the person who was held up at gunpoint twice. Here is my experience. I lived most of my 70 years in the rural Midwest where guns were taken for granted. My late husband displayed his hunting rifles and one pistol in a locked gun case that was mostly glass. At least he made that much of an attempt to limit their accessiblity — unlike his friends. One guy used to keep a pistol on top of his refrigerator, clearly visible to anyone entering their kitchen. Then there was the guy who left his pistol under the seat of our dune buggy for our preschoolers to find when a group of us were on a family camping trip. Fortunately, I was present when said gun was discovered by the kids. When my son was in his early teens, he came home from school to tell me that one of his friends had been murdered — in fact, the dad had shot the entire family, including himself. I had two women friends who were shot dead by their husband or significant other. Fast forward to the last decade. My granddaughter’s half brother was shot dead. One of her friends here in Minneapolis were shot dead, due to mistaken identity. A grandson’s classmate accidentally shot and killed a friend with the rifle his parents bought him for Christmas. In just the last year, two young people in their 20s that I care about were wounded in gunfire intended for someone else. Frankly, I am afraid of men who would walk around the city, or to the state capitol, with a gun visible on their hip. It tells me they have a chip on their shoulder, and I would just as soon be far away from them in case they are provoked. The question I can’t answer is what laws would have prevented the deaths and woundings I mentioned here? And, what laws protect against the irresponsibility of the men who leave their guns accessible to children or criminals, or give guns to children and fail to supervise them? A sad, sorry gun culture has evolved in this country under the 2nd Amendment and those who exploit it for profit, and there seems to be no turning back.

  • AndyBriebart

    Arapahoe shooter Karl Pierson will not be news and this story will go away quickly seeing he was a liberal and bought a basic shotgun legally. It doesn’t fit the left and media’s agenda.

    • AndyBriebart

      And a good guy with a gun confronted him

  • liquid150

    Voting is a right that has gone too far.

    • Cat

      A suggestion for you: then don’t vote! No one is compelling you to exercise this right.

  • Gary F

    And all those new gun grabbing laws just passed in that state didn’t make the children any safer. Yes, a good guy with a gun stopped him.

    • Cat

      I’m confused. I thought the shooter shot himself. Did he become a good guy with a gun when he turned his gun on himself?

      • AndyBriebart

        He was confronted by a police office and then shot himself.

  • Latsion

    It’s a right that god gave you plain and simple! How can the government give/regulate something that already has been given to you by God? Any law/statute that infringes on any of my god given/constitutional rights is an unconstitutional law and therefore should not be obeyed.All you goody two-shoes,so called law abiding citizens are the first ones they are coming to get! If you would have had the “balls” to stand up to “Uncle Sam” in the first place when they first start pulling this shit,we wouldn’t be in this predicament now! It was O.k with all the “do gooders” when they stripped the right to bear arms from felons(which is a right that shall not be infringed upon) but now that they are coming after everyday people it’s a problem?It was funny as fuck when the cops were just beating/murdering blacks,but now that they are killing whites/mexicans it’s a problem??While they kept most of you dummies preoccupied with politics/racism/t.v./media ect.. they were secretly passing laws that would strip you of every right you have! Wake up America our government has been taken over by the likes of Satan and he wants to destroy all of us!!Stop being a sheep they are leading you to the slaughter,do not participate in these treasonous acts perpetuated by the evil ones/elite.Sandy hook was a hoax as were the others(Boston bombing,9/11/New town ect..) in a move to power grab for gun control. Obuma is using the kids safety as a political pawn on gun control as if to say “either let me change gun reform or your kids might die”They are the terrorist that are destroying America as we know it,They create the fear in order for us to give away more of our rights in order for us to feel safe! WE ARE THE PEOPLE AND THE REVOLUTION IS NOW!! http://WWW.REVERBNATION.COM/LATSION

    • Cat

      If you really believe what you wrote here, and aren’t snickering into your hand, I think you are a very scary person.