The BEST Gun Control Commercial EVER.

Published On April 17, 2013 | By james |

If ever there was a succinct argument for sensible gun laws, this is it.

  • wesley askew

    Tyranny has not !!

    • John

      Yes, even tyranny has changed. Do you have soldiers living in your home? Must you swear an oath to a monarch? Are you thrown in prison for your debts? Get a clue…move on. Time to evolve, wes.

  • SHAUN PUZIO

    20 shot pistols have been around for 150 years… so, they the only changes are in political advertising and perception. Who needs the second amendment anyway? It’s not like governments have murdered hundreds of millions of people in the last century right? With guns. So maybe we should ban guns from governments.

    • Roxy

      Please.

      Guns are the least of your worries. If our (U.S.) government wants to murder you, your guns and a shed full of ammo are just going to blow up, along with your sorry self, when some joystick jockey in NV points a drone your way.

    • hangemhi

      The 2nd Amendment was written 72 years before your claim. And that isn’t the only change – there were 100x fewer people in 1791, we were largely a lawless land requiring personal protection, and many hunted for food. Unfortunately EVERYTHING has changed except the completely outdated 2nd Amendment.

      • de9802

        You scare me more than the guns!

      • Kei

        Guns will NOT protect a citizen against a tyrannical Government. Governments have F-16s now… the people dont! But you cant beat anything into a brainwashed follower of the Tea Party.

    • Lillian McGee

      You seem to have a firm grip on the situation, thankfully, Shaun!

    • Kei

      Oh? Then show us a 20 shot pistol that was used during the US Civil War…. I am curious to see this proof!

  • John Frazer

    So you’re saying the 1st amendment only applies to manually set print and handwriting and horse-back messengers? Not radio, TV, the interwebz, twitter, or facebook.

    • hangemhi

      Why do you ask? Did someone kill 20 six year olds with a radio?

      • Farfalle

        Somebody did kill over 3,000 people with airplanes. Shall we call for airplane control? More people are killed in auto accidents than with guns, shall we call for car control?

        Holocaust mean anything to you? Hitler took away the people’s guns then threw them in concentration camps and killed them. It wouldn’t have happened if the people could defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

        • gordon

          Yes we do have airplane control. Very tight ones and yes we do have car control. The licensing on both is tougher tan for buying guns. You would not want a mentally ill bus driver driving your kids to school or a deranged pilot flying your plane so why your objection to similar controls for purchasing lethal weapons. The proposals are modest, sensible and proportionate and do not threaten anyone’s rights but merely serve to protect them.

          • Duncan Parcells

            Gordon that comment was brilliant

        • blue

          No, Hitler didn’t. You should question whoever told you this, because they’re lying to you. http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

        • CCinRI

          Your knowledge of German political history proves you are NOT smarter than a 5th grader.

          • http://TheEverlastingGOPStoppers.com Veruca

            Your use of AOL proves that you are… well, I’m not gonna say.

        • stylusmobilus

          Bullshit. Large sections of German society believed Hitler’s message and saw him as a way of breaking French and British oppression from World War 1. They thought the Treaty of Versailles sold Germany out and wanted an end to the Weimar Republic. There was a lot of chaos in Germany in the 20’s and 30’s and Hitler took advantage of that. There was never any intention of German citizens overthrowing a tyrannical government, and that desire only became reality when it was apparent WW2 would be lost.

        • wargun

          Well, actually, Hitler did fairly well at killing people even when they had an army to back them up, so….

    • Figgs

      Excellent point, John. The advancement of technology matters not a whit to Constitutional rights.

  • Edouard

    hahahahahahaha TRUE but irrevelent…..IT IS NOT THE GUNS>>>IT IS THE CRAZY PEOPLE

    • hangemhi

      News flash, if crazy people didn’t have guns they’d have a much harder time killing so many. And your main point of “irrevelent” – is that the 2nd Amendment is “irrelevant” as so visually stated in the ad. Guess you missed that.

      • Farfalle

        If crazy people don’t have guns, they’ll find something else to kill with.

        Guns don’t kill on their own, they need somebody to operate them. We need criminal control, not gun control.

      • Figgs

        That’s a load of garbage. Crazy people kill many people with bombs. Crazy people kill many people with knives. Crazy people kill many people with airplanes flown into buildings. Crazy people kill people with fertilizer and diesel fuel. There’s a trend among all those statements – statements that never once use the word “gun.” The problem is not guns, it’s crazy and/or evil people. THAT’S the problem. We have gun laws, and more gun laws restricting the rights of lawful users is simply not the answer and anyone who thinks they are is a fool.
        See: Chicago violence in relation to gun laws passed.

        • Lady

          You say people are the problem well background checks the “people” not the gun so now what? A person is always a law abiding citizen until they commit a crime. Background checks don’t put limits on nobody except those who can not pass, and if they don’t pass then you might not want them to have a gun! duh And putting a limit on guns (size and number of munitions) is no worst than the FCC laws that we put on the first amendment you can’t curse on TV or the radio. But as I said before you can’t fix stupid! and no amount of teaching will change a stupid persons ideas and beliefs.

    • Lillian McGee

      You are right about that, Edouard!

  • http://rbutr.com Shane

    I love all the comments dismissing this advert.

    Wesley: Tyranny has not – and people having guns in their daily life stops tyranny? No, it doesn’t. Organised militias and armies MIGHT be able to, but having a gun in your bedside draw does nothing.

    SHAUN: “It’s not like governments have murdered hundreds of millions of people in the last century right? With guns. So maybe we should ban guns from governments.” Absolutely. Wouldn’t it be great if we could ban all guns? Well we can’t. But the idea of you, and all of your friends having guns is somehow any match for the power of modern military forces is laughable. Where are your long range remote controlled drone with heat guided, laser guide smart bombs? Or your tank? Or you ICBM? Guns don’t stop governments from murdering people. Democracry enforced can stop that – and democracy can’t be enforced with guns.

    John: I think this was a light hearted dig. Not a serious argument.

    Edouard: You’ll never get rid of the crazy people. But you can get rid of the guns and reduce the damage that crazy people can do.

    You guys have no idea how crazy the USA looks from the outside. You absolute certainty that guns are essential to the solution, and not part of the problem is …just….dumbfounding.

    • billbilski

      Missiles and tanks would incur undue collateral damage to be used in subversive actions against an uprising and would ensure chaos and only help insurgents. An armed citizenry intent on revolution would be able to do so and have done so in modern history. The Murder rate as of 2011 was below historic averages – why is everyone so irrational about this topic? The answer is simple – Media. Ever since Marshal McLuhan observed the change from “cool” mediums like newspapers to “Hot” Mediums like TV had caused a shift in our perceptions, we have become less able to step back and see the trees and more and more obsessed with the latest “story” or trend. With the Internet and I phones “hot has become “hell fire” and with it the chaotic misinformation we now must sift through. Goebbels would love to have today’s media in Nazi Germany. Small problems become large problems, and action becomes paramount. Action in and of itself is meaningless. The action must be one that will ensure the outcomes without creating new ones i.e. Obamacare. Political differences aside. Will these gun control measures actually provide the results in a significant manner worthy of the sacrifice of certain liberties? Our murder rates on a year by year comparison look much like New Zealand and Great Britain since 1988 . There is little correlation to be found between gun control and Murder rates. Let’s be intellectually honest with ourselves when trying to determine whether there is a problem and secondarily what to do about that problem. Emotional rhetoric has no place in the constructs of a rational society….

      • David A Deal

        Great Britain .25, New Zealand 2.66, USA 10.2 These are the gun death rates per 100,000 people. The USA has a death rate 41 times GREATER than Great Britain and we know they have strict gun laws in England. Germany has a death rate of 1.1 nearly 1/10th that of USA and it takes a year to get a bolt action rifle in Germany. I think it is CLEAR that tough gun laws ARE effective. This issue is NOT about emotion it is about FACTS and LIVES!

  • Farfalle

    News Flash liberals….guns are inanimate objects. If you put a gun on a table it will not jump up and shoot the next person to walk in the door. It requires a human to be operational. You think taking away guns will stop crime? How about this novel idea….get rid of the criminals!

    In case you forget…some non-gun related criminal acts:

    9/11 over 3,000 people killed…by airplanes
    Oklahoma City bombing…168 killed (19 under the age of six)…by a rental truck filled with fertilizer
    Boston Marathon…3 killed many injured…by a pressure cooker in a back pack
    over 30,000 killed by drunk drivers

    • Alex

      And there are laws against bombs, drunk drivers, and flying airplanes into buildings. No one is trying to take away your guns. They just want to make it harder for criminals to get them.

  • Tevis

    If you don’t believe in guns, don’t buy one! (or does that argument only work with gay “marriage”)?

    • Jozee

      That’s just dumb… gay marriage never took a life. I swear you people do more to help the gun control argument than debunk it. There should be an IQ requirement for people to be allowed to vote or have any say in policy, seriously.

  • de9802

    The only improvement to this video would be if any one of the 5 people present, when this obviously deranged individual started to raise the old single shot musket capable of taking a life, had a concealed carry license and responded by stoping the musket shot in the first place! Anyone that thinks a ban on all guns will be effective needs to reconsider prohibition and nearly every other “ban” the the government imposes. Laws only are effective for the law abiding citizen. Laws in and of themselves do not prevent the individual intent on commiting a crime. The law only provides for a means of punishment (which the criminal doesn’t care about since we have become so lax (read PC) on imposing and carrying out punishment).

  • Conrad Smelner

    There is one fatal flaw: if a man was walking around with a long rifle, someone probably would have CALLED THE POLICE by then. Believe it or not, most police aren’t corrupt, ineffectual donut-chompers. They will actually respond to a call and come to help. It’s just 3 simple numbers: 911.

    And knowing is half the battle!

  • FrankTheTank

    all you idiots who think that gun control is going to work obviously haven’t spent enough time listening to rush limbaugh and blatantly ignoring the facts. like that every time gun control has been used in other countries that it has in fact worked and decreased gun deaths by about 60% and mass shootings (5+) by 99% for example. Just because it works in other very similar highly populated modern society’s such as Australia doesn’t meat it will work here in merca! (it just means that it most likely will work but there is no way to guarantee 100% effectiveness) You can not change the 2nd amendment! (even though the word “amendment” is by definition “change”) I am a gun owner, and a hunter. i need for large capacity mags and assault rifles.(i am a terrible shot, it is disgraceful really) since i live in California it is required to get a background check for a handgun, which is not a problem unless you have a violent criminal history or an unstable medical condition and we shouldn’t discriminate against those people it is just wrong to deprive them of guns. and even with those laws there is still a handgun violence problem in California so it obviously does not work.(except that most of the handgun violence is committed with an unregistered handgun purchased out of state from somewhere that does not have gun laws) So you are gonna have to pry my gun from my cold dead hands!!!(even though nobody is trying to take it from me and if they were prying it from my cold dead hands really wouldn’t be much of a problem for their drones)

  • wow

    haha this is a funny commercial. If gun laws should change according to this perception then I guess we need to outlaw every pistol , revolver, as well. Forget an assault rifle , when you put this antique blackpowder rifle into comparison then this guy could have killed or hurt waaaay more people with just a .22 pistol or .22 rifle .. If gun laws need to change this drastically then there is no way the government needs to have assault rifles either, or even pistols for that matter. Because they’d have nothing to worry about. But of course that’s not how it will play out. The government will get more assault weapons and all the military-style assault rifles with 30 round clips will be easier for white suburban crazies to get their hands on in a growing underground market that doesn’t require federal background checks which by the way have already been in place for a long time. But first all the gun manufactures are going to make 10 times as much annual profit in only 1 month due to all the fear kicked up that both sides are responsible for. So you’ll have 10 times are more assault rifles on the streets that get “grandfathered” in as pre-bans (meaning they are not illegal because they were purchased before a ban was effectively in place). The whole debate is a bunch of BS for politicians to make themselves look good and for people to make profit. If you want to stop the gun violence you need to create better jobs, healthcare, resources and social infrastructure. The other interesting thing about this is how gun violence kills many blacks and people of color in more economically deprived (poor, working class, low income) areas but politicians never shed a tear. You don’t see all the fancy gun reform laws and commercials coming out until white folks are the victims. Then they pass laws that ultimately criminalize and target people of color and feed the pipeline directly into the prison industrial complex. What a bunch of political BS to keep folks distracted while companies get rich , politicians deceive and pretend to play a victim card to get brownie points, and local and federal law enforcement agencies buy millions of bullets, assault weapons and drones to kill more (hopefully to them unarmed) people.

  • Greennovator

    I have 90 loaded single-shot muskets! I’ll take you all !! My tin-foil hat can detect the drones !!! Keep sucking their c*%ks (Beck, Limbaugh, Jones, etc).
    [snark, in case you needed that spelled out]
    I think I’ve seen two relatively intelligent comments here. Truly. Freaking. Sad.

  • Donald Hobbs

    If the bastard at Sandy Hook had to spend more time reloading several more people would have lived. To the idiots who say “well what if 12 guys break into my house and I only have 10 shots?” Well then unless the fact that you’re armed scares them off, you could have 100 shots, but chances are they’re going to get to you regardless. They whine that there have been a lot of successful defensive gun uses every year. To that there are two easy counter points to make: one we aren’t trying to ban guns so defensive gun use wouldn’t be hampered, and two if we better regulated who can get a gun then the defensive gun use rate wouldn’t need to be so high.
    “Sweden has a lot of armed civilians and they’re fine!” Yeah well, Japan has very few, and they’re fine too. Those 2 countries also have more equality than us, and both have a lot more atheists per capita than us.
    “But our founding fathers-” weren’t perfect, and times then were different. If our founding fathers established that religion has to stay away from our laws, I sincerely doubt the gun fanatics would also be for that. Oh wait…

    To the idiots whining that we need more guns or that gun laws are bad, stfu, learn a few facts, and realize there is not a single good argument for that side of the debate. Get over it.

    • Phearless

      There are no good arguments for your side, either.

      You mentioned Japan and their gun laws. They have very few homicides, this much is true. But what you’re ignoring is the fact that 31,690 Japanese people committed suicide with a firearm, last year.
      That is at least 31,690 firearms in a country where owning one is illegal. Imagine the absolute havoc even one of those people could have caused in a sardine-can city like Tokyo, if he had decided to bring that gun to work with him, instead of quietly ending himself in his apartment.

      • Derek Tube

        So I had a look for where the figure of 31,690-by-firearms comes from. The closest I could find was a report by the Washington post (March 3, 2011) citing that 31,690 Japanese took their own lives in 2010. That’s 31,690 deaths by ALL methods of suicide, not just firearms, and looking at a study on Japanese suicide methods it appears firearm suicides are a miniscule proportion of the total. Unless you can show me a source (study/ original report) then this figure you quoted is incorrect.

        • Donald Hobbs

          Also, a side note, it has been shown many times that if you make it harder to get guns, suicide rates tend to go down, since shooting yourself in the head pretty much can kill you instantly, so you feel nothing. Sure, many would still kill themselves, just they would choose a different method. BUT a different method would take longer. And in that time the person could cool off and think (something a lot of the righties on this page should try) and would be a lot less likely to go through with a suicide.

          • Phearless

            Wrong, again, Don. Firearms aren’t the only method of suicide. In fact, that is the method that produces the lowest rate of fatal results. People tend to reflexively try to jerk the weapon away from themselves at the moment the trigger breaks. So, you end up with near-fatal head wounds. Buddy of mine in the Army tried to check out, that way. Docs patched him up nice, and gave him his walking papers. He’s recovered pretty well, and regrets not getting help instead of putting a gun in his mouth.

            Your statistics are completely wrong. If I was mistaken on the number I quoted, I can accept that.
            But your utopian vision of “gun control always equals safety” is just plain naive. South Africa has some of the strictest gun control in the world, yet their homicide rate makes us look like Iceland, by comparison. Explain that.
            Better yet, explain the gun violence in Chicago, New York City, and Washington DC… three Continental US cities with total gun ownership bans in place, that, combined, give us nearly half our annual firearm homicides.
            I am nearly certain that if I dropped numbers with irrefutable citations right in front of you, you still wouldn’t back down.

            Let me really blow your mind, here… I’m not even a Republican. Nor am I anti-regulation. Unfettered Access policies are total stupidity… but, likewise, so are blanket type-bans and “gun free zones”. Responsible, law-abiding citizens should be allowed to arm themselves… because, let’s face it… the bad guys are going to get guns, no matter what. And the police are only going to jot down notes where they found your body, and try to look for the guy that did it.

          • RitaArm

            You have so many untruths in this rambling mess it is hard to address them all.
            1)According to the Harvard Injury Control Center, suicide by gun is the most effective choice. A study of bridge jumpers showed that the few who survived, never attempted suicide again. They said within 40 seconds of jumping, they had decided they wanted to live. Most gun suicide attempts don’t get a second chance.
            2) Stricter Gun laws for ALL states would effect the ability to sell guns to criminals. The guns in Chicago come from down south. Restrict the number of guns that can be sold to an individual under one criminal check and you take a third of the guns off the inner cities.
            3) New York City is one of the safest cities in the US.

          • Sadie Knows

            Actually Chicago does not have a total ban on guns – they rescinded the hand gun ban several years ago, although, they still have a ban on assault rifles and high magazine clips. They also have a total ban on gun ranges and gun shops. Small mistakes make a difference in credibility.

          • Matt Dylan

            magazine clips? what are these magazine clips you speak of? if you do not know guns do not talk about guns.

      • Michael Simpson

        So you’re saying that guns are doing Japan a public service by stopping people from committing suicide in public places? Either you’re a troll or you have some severely twisted logic running around your brain.

        • Phearless

          You are obviously drastically short on your comprehension skills. I don’t even know how you managed to glean this from what I said.

      • Donald Hobbs

        You can say there are no good arguments for my side all you want, it’s just another point where you’re wrong. By the way, since you’re probably too misinformed to know this: WE AREN’T TRYING TO BAN ALL GUNS! Goddamn, this is why people like you shouldn’t be allowed to vote. We’d have a much better congress if only we only allowed people who actually critically think to be allowed to vote.

        • David Fraine

          See, now this is typical liberal elitist thinking. “this is why people like you shouldn’t be allowed to vote” In other words, if someone disagrees with your point of view then they should just keep their mouths shut. Or, I want to tell you my opinion, but I don’t want to hear yours. People like you would destroy the very foundations that made the USA a the greatest county in the world. Fortunately for the rest of us, you only get one vote and there are some 300+ million US citizens.

          • Donald Hobbs

            No, yet another example of ignorance. Idiots shouldnt be allowed to vote. People who don’t critically think shouldn’t be allowed to vote. People who don’t care about their fellow people shouldn’t be allowed to vote. That should be the case whether the majority of those people end up being left or right. The testing to earn voting rights would not be based on opinions or things like the ability to read, it would be based on ones ability to understand current events and the flows of the country. There is nothing liberal about that. The USA also is far from the greatest country in the world. If you honestly believe the US, as it is now or when Bush was president, is the greatest country in the world then you are too short sighted. Your attempts at sounding like the more mature one here have failed. Your arguments are pathetic and easy to pick apart.

          • patriot 86

            well then if idiots shouldnt be allowed to vote then youd be bitching because your nothing but a blathering idiot that needs to pull her head out of her ass and look around at the world we live in and realize that people cant rely on the cops and need to protect themselves from assholes like yourself and anyone else that wants to take our freedoms away.

          • Donald Hobbs

            When did I say i want to take freedoms away? I AM NOT PROPOSING TAKING AWAY GUNS YOU FUCKING INBRED MORON!

          • vayu

            You’ve lost your critical thinking. I’d like to recommend allowing ignorance. In the long run, you’ll actually reduce it more.

          • Donald Hobbs

            Not really, it just makes it less stressful for the ones ignoring it. The problem is still there, and I have the unfortunate mentality to not be able to ignore problems. I really wish I could, and I have tried tirelessly, but I have failed every time. I know these people will continue to be retarded sheep that are unwittingly making our country worse and worse, and there is nothing I can do about that.

          • Devin_MacGregor

            That is a load of crap. Ignorance breeds ignorance. It is what the internet is for. Each village used to have one idiot then the internet came along and they all discovered that the other exists. Now they just pass along notes to each other patting each other on the back.

          • Edith Parks

            Donald Hobbs
            Your fueling the racial device by attacking peoples intelligence. This no one can hear your idiotic remarks for all of your ignorant remarks. Donald your opinion is not the only opinion, so get over yourself, because your nothing but wasted air.

          • Donald Hobbs

            1, attacking people’s intelligence has nothing to do with race. 2, you have not pointed out how my remarks are ignorant. How is not wanting people who don’t pay honest attention to current events or people who are retarded to be allowed to vote ignorant? Yes, we’ve tried voter suppression before but so far it’s mostly been to keep blacks from voting. What I am proposing is different.

            3, I’m typing. Not really wasting air on that. So, Edith, your whining about me saying idiotic things is just full of idiotic things said by you.

          • Devin_MacGregor

            Edith. I understand what he is saying. The issue we have in the US is far too many people think all opinions are equal. They are not. This is why we are still arguing climate change.

          • Donald Hobbs

            I mean really. This guy, phearless, believes liberals are trying to ban all guns. If someone honestly believes that, there is no excuse, with all the ways of getting information in this country, for such ignorance, and that person should not be allowed to vote because if they can’t understand such a simple fact like that about our politics then they should have no say in what happens in politics, just like how we don’t give people terrible in the field of medicine a license to practice it.

          • Phearless

            When did I say that? Point out where I said that. I challenge you to scoop up my comment where I said anything like that.

            You’re cherry-picking my posts, shifting the focus, and planting words in my mouth. Don’t pretend to know what I believe… that’s for me to tell you all… not for you to make ignorant assumptions and wave it around as though fact.

          • Phearless

            Furthermore, I wouldn’t go insulting the political opinions of someone else, when you have done nothing but show you don’t even see that our government is fascist, and has been since the mid-50’s, if not even long before then.

            But, please… continue to “educate” me.

          • vayu

            I used to expect people to know better. Then I realized I was the one who didn’t know better by expecting that. That was the start of me feeling much more comfortable with people that don’t share my understanding. It feels good.

          • Alexandra North

            America is no longer the greatest country in the world….Mostly because of your kind……& if the right wing had its way liberal supporters would have a tough time casting their ballots….but you won’t ….your on the losing side of the most important issues this country faces

          • Stiles

            its not really his opinion david. its the truth. he said that because your “side” wants to say that we are coming for your guns; meaning all guns. but the list of guns that were on the bill was not any that are “needed” for self-defense or hunting or anything else a civilan does; other than caressing the male ego of course. they were very, very specific about the guns they wanted to ban. i dont know the numbers, but i would bet that a good 97-98% percent of the poplulation doesnt own or want any of them. so where exactly is the problem? its because of your need to put your opinion over the facts that he said you shouldnt be allowed to vote.

          • Edith Parks

            David Fraine
            What rock did you crawl out from?

          • Sadie Knows

            David, I don’t think he means “people like you” in the way you interpreted it. The “people like you” he was commenting about was the writer of the post – and what I think he meant by that is “people” who skew data, statistics, and facts to get a cherry picked result. I’m reasonably sure that Donald knows that not every conservative Republican – with or without guns – is guilty of that…anymore than every liberal wants to strip you of your weaponry and destroy the foundation of the USA. It has nothing to do with being unwilling to hear an opinion differing from his. On a side note, David, the US is no longer the greatest country in the world – only the proudest. We rank on the lower end of industrialized countries in education, healthcare, living wage, and general happiness. We used to be number one in all of these.

        • Phearless

          I shouldn’t be allowed to vote?
          Friend, what have you done with your life that puts you above me? I can tell you that I served for 8 years in the Army, and I have no delusions that I’m better than you, or more worthy of the right to cast my vote at a polling place… and that’s saying something, because I’m also a documented functional narcissist.
          You elitism puts me to shame, here. How did you come to think so profoundly high of yourself?

          • Donald Hobbs

            your 8 years in the army does not mean you are automatically correct about gun control. However, according to the criteria I would create for voting, as long as you are not also a convicted felon then actually you would be allowed to vote.

          • Devin_MacGregor

            I served 4 years in the US Army, honorable discharge so I veto half his opinion. You are welcome. This country has a serious head up its ass syndrome.

    • KPres

      No gun control in any country has ever led to a significant decrease in murder rates. None, zero, zip.

      Go away.

      • Jon Stone

        If that’s even true (and one detects the whiff of horseshit) that would be because countries with gun control have always had gun control, and have avoided a culture of idiots shooting each other.

      • Donald Hobbs

        Wow, thats just full of bullshit.

        • patriot 86

          No your the one full of bullshit.You say you like to debate but its pretty tough to debate someone who has their mind made up that theyre right before the debate even starts.Why dont you listen for once and realize that a gun is only a piece of steel like a hammer or knife that can do nothing until someone picks it up and uses it incorrectly.If a crazed madman had gone to sandy hook with a aluminum baseball bat and before he was stopped ‘ killed 10 kids’ would you all be calling to ban baseball bats.Of course not youd say but the fact that they were killed with a gun makes them somehow deader.Once more so you and all the peabrain anti gunners can understand.The gun is not the killer but the person holding it .End of argument.

          • karensc

            What a stupid strawman argument! Talk about a peabrain!

          • patriot 86

            Says the dumbass who cant add two plus two without a calculator

          • Devin_MacGregor

            I was in the US Army they like people like Patriot. After 4 years I had to get the fuck out of there.

          • Shane Raymond Armstrong

            Except a baseball bat isn’t created with the sole purpose of killing things; specifically people, for that matter.

            You can’t tell me that an automatic rifle, a machine pistol, or an extended 30 shot magazine for a semi-automatic rifle are going to be any use when out hunting. All of those things are designed for one purpose, and one purpose only: Killing other human beings.

            Moreover, it’s a hell of a lot easier to tackle a man to the ground that has a baseball bat than it is to stop someone with a loaded fire-arm. The same can be said of a knife, or any melee weapon. You can’t, however, run at a man with a gun and expect not to die before you reach him.

            This is what you ignorant fuckheads keep forgetting. Yes, a gun is only a tool, but unlike cars, or bats, or any other thing you like to compare your favorite boom-sticks too, none of those things are designed SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF KILLING OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.

          • patriot 86

            What a asshole you are ‘ so guns have no other purpose but to kill someone ; you just showed your ignorance and stupidity for everyone to see’ thanks douche bag.

          • patriot 86

            What a ignorant fool you are to think firearms have no other purpose than to kill human beings ‘ hilarious ‘ do you actually believe your own BS.

          • satiricon

            Yea Patriot, Armstrong doesn’t have a clue that hunting with automatic rifles just makes it easier and more efficient. I use a 30 magazine clip when fishing at night too; squeeze off a few under my snook light is magical. Grenade fishing is the only more successful technique. Don’t you hate it when these liberals think they can stop us from killing whatever the hell we want to kill? Thank God for giving us the strength to pull the trigger for all humanity. You Sir, are a hero.

          • Shane Raymond Armstrong

            “You can’t tell me that an automatic rifle, a machine pistol, or an extended 30 shot magazine for a semi-automatic rifle are going to be any use when out hunting.”

            I rest my case. If you spent as much time reading as you did spewing vitriol, you might actually learn something.

          • patriot 86

            And if you didnt listen to the liberal bs coming from the media you would know that cars and alcohol kill more people every year than all guns ‘ but I can see your a liberal moron who worships at the feet of obumbler so whats the use.

          • patriot 86

            And if you pulled your head out of your ass long enough to take a breath youd see how ill informed you are ‘ I bet you dont even know the difference between a revolver and a semi automatic.

          • patriot 86

            You rest your case ‘ what case ‘ you havent said anything any other anti american ‘ anti freedom moron libtard hasnt said already which is all drivel.

          • matthew

            My first question is have you ever used a gun? Second, 30 round mags might be overkill when it comes to home defense but if we were to ever get invaded where would the offense/defense weapon come into play? We need protection just incase enemy infantry comes to play we have the toys to fight back with. Let me tell ya if a dude broke into my house, he’s armed, im armed I wouldn’t be reaching for my knife or bow id be reaching for an ar15 or a glock cause that mother fuckers gunna die for endangering my family and me. Period.

          • Shane Raymond Armstrong

            Who in the hell is going to be stupid enough to invade the United States? You spend more on defense annually than all the other members of NATO combined, as well as several other large countries. You have one of the largest standing, most well equipped military forces in all of the world, with the capability to mobilize pretty much anywhere. The odds of domestic invasion happening in the United States are slimmer than you winning the lottery.

          • wheelgunfan

            If you think it is safe to tackle someone with a knife, you sir are woefully mistaken. Use your favorite internet search engine and look up images of knife attack, FBI studies show that from distances up to 21 feet a person with a knife can stab you before you have time to react draw a weapon and fire, let along prepare to tackle them. As for solely being designed to kill humans, yes that happens unfortunately, But doctors kill way more people per year. Why don’t you just stand up loud and proud and say what you mean: You hate the freedom the American citizens have and the 2nd Amendment should be repealed.

          • Shane Raymond Armstrong

            Firstly, this is assuming the person with the knife has caught you unaware.

            Secondly, this is assuming you’re drawing a concealed fire-arm in response to a person running at you with a knife, and attempting to shoot them.

            Thirdly, this is assuming that either tackling or shooting a person with a knife is the appropriate response, as opposed to say, grabbing their arm and forcing the knife away from you, or using their own momentum and flipping them over onto the ground.

            Unless someone is specifically trained in knife fighting, chances are they’re going to be woefully inefficient in what they’re doing and it’ll be easy to exploit their attempts to harm you with a counter-attack, since, y’know, they have to be within arm’s reach to stab you. The same cannot be said of a firearm.

            Also, for you to dismiss the fact that guns are designed to kill as being “unfortunate” and then stand up in your next sentence and pronounce me a “freedom hater” is ridiculous. I love freedom. The freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the founding tenets of the United States; and yet here among so called patriots, I find this widespread love of a tool designed expressly to remove from someone their ability to exercise those freedoms, all with the convenient pull of a trigger.

            And as for your assertion, no. I don’t think the second amendment should be repealed. I merely posit that if you can find a single valid reason why a civilian citizen should own a machine pistol, a fully automatic weapon, or a magazine for a semi-automatic weapon for which the number of rounds able to be chambered exceeds 15, that somehow outweighs the statistics of misuse and likelihood of purchasing those items in leading to death of one or more innocent civilians, then I will concede that you have a point.

          • wheelgunfan

            The single valid reason is the Constitution says a person can own weapons. Period. I do not own machine pistols, machine guns, “assault weapons”, or an AR-15. Where do you or anyone for that matter get to decide what a person “needs” versus what they “don’t need”?

          • Devin_MacGregor

            The Constitution says the Right to Bear Arms. That means ALL weapons yet none of us own Thermo Nuclear weapons? Why is that? None of us can buy fully operational military hardware.

            With all this hollow talk of having to have the 2nd Amendment to keep our freedoms all Congress did was 100 years ago limit the size of the House of Representatives which is supposed to get larger with each consensus yet it does not. We just shuffle around Reps with each Rep representative more and more people which means we are losing representation.

          • patriot 86

            oh just shut up will you ‘ your ignorance is deafening.

          • Devin_MacGregor

            I served in the US Army so you shut the fuck up. He is spot on. Each of those things were designed for a primary purpose and often people like yourself like to conflate it like I was trained to kill you with my thumb. So you say see Devin was trained to kill you with his thumb so we should ban that too as if that is a logical argument.

            What you miss is that my thumb is a lot slower than a 900 round per minute weapon. And I am more than likely not going to kill too many people with my thumb before being stopped whereas … well this is really going no where, correct?

          • patriot 86

            Pretty much .

          • Donald Hobbs

            No, I looked at the reasoning. THE GUN IS USED TO KILL! You’re the idiot. Jeeze, why do you people exist? If there were a loving god you all would never have been born.

          • patriot 86

            Your the idiot ‘ the gun is just a tool. just like all you libtards to blame the tool and not the person using it.Best rebuttal I ever heard came from a chicago retired police officer .He said he once placed his weapon on a table along with a baseball bat a knife and a carpenters claw hammer and asked a person totally against guns which one of those tools is capable of killing to which the anti said truthfully that they all were capable of taking a life. he then asked the same person which was capable of killing someone on their own to which the person laughed and asked if he was kidding .He asked the question again and they said none of them were cuz someone has to first pick them up and use them wrong. Check and mate dickhead’ a gun can no more harm someone by itself than the car you have parked in your driveway but you stupid morons continue to balme the tool and not the person .

      • Billy Coley

        really? that is an interesting point.. Do you have the stats/data to back it up? Could you send me the link to your sources? I would be interested in reading over that

    • Stiles

      of course all the nay-sayers that are replying to this great comment are forgetting one very important fact……we are not japan, sweden, england, cananda, or any other country. our attitude about violence is no where near any of these countries. in fact, if you want to compare our attitude about violence with another country (even though we are still unique in that aspect) then take a look at places like iran, afghanistan, iraq, etc. we may have different religions, and politics, but we are just as gun happy as they are

      • Donald Hobbs

        I think our attitude about politics is why we have gun problems. Also, the fact that we have such a strong religious presence here is another problem. Religion causes so many problems, and the few good things that come from it are easily achieved through secular means. Simply being raised to swear to a political group and/or religion blinds people to reality.

        • Devin_MacGregor

          And isn’t it odd that they say they worship a man who gave away free healthcare yet they can’t see fit like other industrial nations to give us universal coverage but bask at the glory of receiving Providence over other’s pain and suffering and well death.

    • vayu

      If you believe there’s not a single good argument on the side you don’t agree with and you use the word idiot, you take away your credibility.

      • Donald Hobbs

        That would take away my credibility, except that they are idiots and there are not any good arguments. Every single argument they have is destroyed by the counter arguments, that is what I mean by there is no good argument in favor of guns.

      • disqus_LfP7ofaP87

        Actually, vayu, it has been shown in numerous psychological and medical brain studies and through IQ testing (and anyone with half a brain already could tell without being told), that “gun nuts” are, in fact, idiots.

        • vayu

          If your concern involves motivating the behavior of others, then the strategy of calling those in the way of that goal idiots is a highly inefficient way of affecting the change you want. If you’re interested in comparing and labeling intelligence what should we label that?

    • wheelgunfan

      Being against guns if fine Mr. Hobbs., until you come up against someone who isn’t against guns. I believe all but one mass shooting over the last 10 years has taken place in a “gun free zone”. Criminals apparently disregard the signs. The probably disregard the laws as well. No, I am not paranoid and yes, I believe that certain people should not have access to weapons. You do realize that blunt objects like hammers, bats and so forth kill more people every year than handguns. Medical errors also kill more people each year. Oh, and an average of 5 children die EACH DAY from child abuse and neglect. Where is the outrage there. Every time a Muslim radical blows up someone we are asked not to judge the whole group based on the actions of a misguided few. Should weapons not be given the same consideration.

      • Donald Hobbs

        And if we had more comprehensive gun laws and background checks those people would be less likely to have guns. You make all of these stupid arguments with absolutely no backbone to them, it’s just making the people on your side seem more detached from reality.

    • Dameon Mrfaircity Mag

      you lost me at sandy hook…u still believe that was real? lmfao…watever ur argument is u lose

      • Donald Hobbs

        You want to throw down a claim like that and provide not a shred of evidence for your claims? Another sheep. You’re one of those people who shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

    • Medusa7

      We should not band guns, the police are shooting us.

  • Tom Hayes

    Crazy shootings media goes gaga for are in GUN-FREE-ZONES and involve heavy prescription drugs. The crazy shootings the media ignores are the trigger-happy cops or the shooters stopped quickly by a licenced citizen carrying a gun.

    • diecuts

      If this guy came into your office, what would you rather be doing, calling 911 or shooting back? Ask the teacher hiding in the closet at Sandy Hook, protecting her kids with her body, watching the bullet holes coming closer and closer to her position. My guess would be that she would rather be returning fire. The 911 call, no matter how prompt, isn’t quick enough, not at Sandy Hook, not at this office. If this were my office, which is almost identical by the way, with 3 ladies in cubicles, the guy would be ‘no more’, and not just by me. We all are decent shots and have concealed weapons permits. The lesson? Perhaps the next guy may be a little hesitant about using the same scenario….and live longer. Since this guy was living in the “civil war’ era of black powder, a 44 remington black powder revolver would have been appropriate to take him down……but a 38 S&W as backup would make sure.

      • Donald Hobbs

        Then its a good thing WE ARENT BANNING ALL GUNS YOU FUCKING MORON!

        • diecuts

          Donald, you are finally getting the point. Glad you could take the time to wake up and figure it out!

          • Donald Hobbs

            UGH no! WE as in the left are NOT trying to ban guns. The RIGHT and people who claim they arent right wingers but are still gun nuts claim WE (the left) are trying to ban guns.And if more people had guns in this country and we regulated them less then it is a lot more likely that one person going on a shooting spree will cause a lot more people to die because of the confusion it would create since this is currently a shitty country with shitty retarded people all over it

          • David Fraine

            Donald, If you hate this country so much, then leave. No one is holding you here (provided you are not in jail or awaiting trial).

          • Donald Hobbs

            Wow what a great argument. Thank you so much, I have been waiting so long to be able to use this comeback. Let me take in this moment before I type it [5 second pause] if you hate our president’s policies so much THEN LEAVE!

            See how that argument can be turned around? And when the hell did I express hatred for this country? I said its a shitty country I never said I hated it. I have read 2/3 of your replies to my comments so far, and I am not at all impressed. You’re just another idiot it seems. I was really hoping for someone with good arguments, because, well, I enjoy debating from time to time. But it seems I’ve picked the side, on this topic, that has 0 points to argue against.

        • Billy Coley

          admittedly, i really dislike how he is presenting himself and his argument…but he never said anything about banning all guns… control and banning are not the same nor are they actually synonymous…. not arguing politics, just English usage……

    • Doc Adam Caldwell

      awesome, well said.

  • Phearless

    I keep marveling at the utopian idea that criminals follow laws.
    Do you guys check your brains at the conventions?

    Yes, the Republican agenda is screwed up as all hell… but living in your fantasy world that putting up signs that say “no guns allowed” will stop people from shooting eachother, is just as outlandish.

    It really doesn’t take much thought to understand that the world doesn’t work like that.
    South Africa has some of the harshest gun control laws in the world… they see over 78,000 homicides with firearms, per year. That’s nearly 9 times our number, with less than 1/8th the total population.
    OBVIOUSLY gun laws don’t work.

    Furthermore… imagine someone trying to defend himself against an armed criminal, armed with the weapon in this video.

    • Yeah

      Do you know how easy it is to buy a gun? Especially not on record. Gun laws does not simply mean restriction, but REGULATION of who owns it. If we limit the ease of access, them we could limit potential mass killing sprees.

      • Phearless

        Well, I own a rifle and a handgun. It’s incredibly easy to buy a gun if you’re not a convicted felon. Even easier when you’re an honorably discharged veteran.

        If you ARE a convicted felon, the only way you’re getting your hands on a gun is by stealing it, or by visiting a “back alley dealer”… and those guys don’t do background checks. There is no way of disarming criminals. Get that through your heads. Passing gun laws only hurts the people who want them for self-defense and recreation.

        There has never, in the entire history of this country, been a gun control law that actually reduced crime, nor have any of these laws been a “compromise”. Take a look at the Department of Justice’s statistics, some time… you’ll find out how wrong both Republicans and Democrats really are on the subject.

        • appleblossom

          In the US you can also lose your right to a gun if you have a protective order against you. Did you know that?

          • Phearless

            I think that anyone who speaks up in defense of the 2nd Amendment and doesn’t take the time to know elementary details like that, is probably just some redneck imbecile with more hubris than brain matter.

            There a reason you mentioned that to me?

    • Shane Raymond Armstrong

      This just in: Criminals don’t follow laws.

      So, by that logic, we should just abolish all laws then?

      I mean, what’s the point if the criminals aren’t going to follow them. It’s not like having something down on the books would allow the police the authority to step in and arrest suspicious persons/those with mental problems who’ve been trying to purchase fire-arms and/or who’ve gone to the black market to purchase them illegally, right?

      Right?

      Yes, the argument you just made was LITERALLY that brain-dead.

      Criminals don’t follow laws.

      Of course they fucking don’t you dumb ass, that’s what MAKES them criminals.

  • http://www.solidgoldgem.am/ Len Groat

    I went to Fort Worth nr Dallas once – there was ‘gun show’ on – people were walking in the street with guns – I left immediately.

    Now I NEVER travel to the US

    America needs to JuMp from the 19th century to the 21st…

    • Phearless

      England, right?
      Where a man hacked a uniformed soldier to death with a hatchet, in broad daylight, in the middle of London, and people just sat there and watched….

      • Phearless

        Don’t misunderstand… I’m a little bit of an Anglophile… and I’m nowhere near as in love with my own country as even the average American… but, goddamn, man. Get the plank out of your eye.

        • http://www.solidgoldgem.am/ Len Groat

          I’m glad you are an Anglophile – I went to the States 30 times, had a partner in Sacramento.

          Please compare the act of one mentally misbalanced terrorist with a knife to your country’s most infamus gun attrocity – we have never had a gunmen go into a school and shoot dozens of small children and teachers.

          THAT is why you need to BAN guns. Period!

          • Katherine Walton

            Unless Dunblane is outside the UK, yes, you have. That said? It precipitated laws which made private ownership of a handgun illegal.

          • http://www.solidgoldgem.am/ Len Groat

            Well done on finding an example to justify your argument BUT that was TWENTY FIVE years ago !

          • Kerry

            If you want a historical and statistical representation of what gun control does and has done:
            http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

          • KPres

            25 years ago? You apparently don’t know anything about the US or the UK:

            “””The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England.””””

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

            2010…not 25 years ago.

          • http://www.solidgoldgem.am/ Len Groat

            And I wonder where he got the idea from ?

          • Katherine Walton

            Oh, sure, old Derrick, he was just minding his own business when, one day, he saw a news report about a mass killing in the US and thought, “Gee, what a good idea!”

          • Katherine Walton

            Which argument would that be, Len? You made an assertion, I corrected that assertion. I then pointed out that the UK government reacted differently after Dunblane than the US government reacted after Sandy Hook. Nowhere in those three sentences did I put out any kind of argument at all.

          • http://www.solidgoldgem.am/ Len Groat

            It’s sad that people in America clearly cannot resolve the ‘gun crisis’ that goes back all the way to the assassinations of Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy. Such a VIOLENT lesson, not learned after 50 years will never be learned. Yet when I attempt to give an outsiders view of how we see America on this issue, I am ‘shot down’ with pedantic arguments far away from the basic point.

            The only thing shot where I now live (Portugal) is rabbits.

            I’ll leave you to debate/argue this for the next 50 years – I hope you survive to do so.

          • kc2livingny

            Len Groat – You speak as though that guy owned a gun legally! He didn’t. In fact show me where a person who went out and shot a ton of people with a gun who actually owned the gun legally. There’s your proof! Sandy Hook school was a gun free zone, but a crazy man stole a gun, went in and shot a bunch of people. Look at how many people died waiting for the police to get there. Now imagine just one person at that school who had a license to carry. Crazy man would have been shot shortly after his first shot! Or he would have been stopped immediately and had to take cover because someone was shooting at him. Imagine all the lives that would have been saved by that one person with a license to carry.

            In Texas you have the right to carry a gun and they do. Did you notice not one person lost control and started shooting at everyone? Do you think anyone up to no good would have tried anything there? NO! You were probably in the safest place in the US at the time but because you weren’t used to seeing what you were seeing and because the media has scared you to death about guns, you freaked out and left. Too bad you could have learned that there are many many people out there who know how to handle a gun, carry one and still act responsibly.

          • http://www.solidgoldgem.am/ Len Groat

            So Texas is ‘the safest place in the USA’ ?

            Top 10 States with Firearm-related Murders in 2012

            1. California – 1,220
            2. Texas – 699
            3. Pennsylvania – 470
            4. New York – 445
            5. Michigan – 450

          • KPres

            Somebody doesn’t know what “per capita” means. And California and New York have some of the strictist gun control in the country. Way to blow up your own argument. You clearly don’t know anything about the US. Please stay in England. Nobody wants you coming here.

          • http://www.solidgoldgem.am/ Len Groat

            I’m sure the ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY FIVE people murdered by guns in CA and NY in 2012 are delighted those states have “some of the strictest gun control in the country”!

            I’m most happy to ‘stay in England’, what shame John Lennon wasn’t…..

          • Donald Hobbs

            I wish I could join you but I’m in no position to leave America right now. If everyone like me left though then these idiots would destroy this country

          • http://www.solidgoldgem.am/ Len Groat

            Thank you. It’s surprising how they can ignore the voice of reason of a nation that’s been around for 1000 years more than their UN united states. They have quibbled, argued and shot each other other for 150 years and not learned the lesson..

            The ‘special relationship’ between the USA and UK is a fallacy pushed by politicians. In reality the UK does not ‘need’ the USA in any way…. Europe is Britain’s future ,and long-term (industrious) China will eclipse every nation.

          • David Fraine

            So, during WWII when we saved your butts from being taken over by Germany should not count ans being needed?

          • http://www.solidgoldgem.am/ Len Groat

            Please re-read this history: America did not even enter the war until after Pearl Harbour, and you did not (as you so colourfully put it) ‘save our butts’, you just dropped a Nuclear bomb. We more subtly (and costing less lives) had the Dambusters and their flying bombs, + Churchill !

          • Donald Hobbs

            Don’t bother with him. I’m not sure how long you’ve been watching American’s argue, but there are a lot, like this kid, who yell and scream crap that they’d know isn’t true if they actually tried to learn something.

          • David Fraine

            Donald, I would love to see the experiment where we divide up the country into 2 separate countries, one for the liberals and one for conservatives. I can guarantee you that the country with the conservatives would prosper for all citizens and crime would be down while the one with the liberals would go bankrupt, poverty would be rampant and crime would be at an all time high and they would be begging the conservatives to defend their boarders (since they would have no military – it’s just not the liberal thing to do) from their enemies.

          • Donald Hobbs

            This is the third and final reply you have written to me, for now. The first two were arguments that were extremely easy to disprove. This time, however, what you have told me is both easy to disprove and completely baseless. No military? Even you aren’t dumb enough to want that. Crime would be down? We’d declare bankruptcy? Yes because clearly the more conservative states are economically all great and have extremely low crime rates. Don’t bother trying to even defend your arguments at this point, you’ll be wasting your time. Its not too late though for you to realize how demonstrably wrong you are. Get away from Fox “news,” go read a book thats not the god damn bible, and try doing some actual research.

          • karensc

            Yes, look how Nazi Germany prospered. Yes, Right-wing America would become like Nazi Germany. Who will you pick to be your Hitler, right wingers?

          • karensc

            Just because they have gun laws regulating the sale of firearms doesn’t mean that they can’t be brought in from states with lax gun laws. You people love guns more than anything. You are paranoid that someone is going to ban guns. Well, brainless, all we want is stronger regulations for gun buyers, background checks, limits on ammo, etc. Not banning guns. You people are so stupid and dense. You don’t understand anything.

          • kc2livingny

            Now compare the population to the murders and take out the police shootings. Oh you might not be able to do that, the numbers like to include all shootings so it looks worse than it is…

          • Donald Hobbs

            Sandy Hook guy took his mother’s guns which were legal. You don’t have an argument

          • kc2livingny

            They were legal for her to own and handle NOT for her son to break in and steal! He did not have a license! You’re twisting the truth to make your point, try to stay with the facts.

          • Donald Hobbs

            No you’re the only one twisting them. SHE had guns even though SHE had an unstable person living in the house and THAT was LEGAL. When I say you don’t have an argument, it is me attempting to save you the trouble of making another misleading claim or shitting more bull. You really should take my advice more seriously. It would save you a lot of time.

          • appleblossom

            You know, there were six minutes between when the first call came in and the shooter shot himself. He killed 26 people in that time. Had he had to have had a musket, he would have been able to kill maybe one-two at the most before being tackled.

            It takes an extraordinary person to be willing to tackle someone actively shooting at them. Or to calmly go and get their gun out of the safe that it is in to keep it out of the kids hands, load it, then aim, then fire accurately enough to avoid hitting anyone but the shooter.

            And shooters will adapt. They already have.

          • kc2livingny

            Once someone shot back at him, he’s hiding and not moving around to do more damage. So he’s either pinned down or if the person shooting is a good shot he’s shot. IF a person gets a gun they learn how to use it and understand if you pick up a gun you better be ready to shoot it and they train to do that. So yes, if a person is license to carry a gun they will be able to go and get it in an emergency and use it if necessary. It can be stored in a locked box and be safe.

          • kc2livingny

            Also how long did it take for the police to get there while all those people desperately needed them? Just one person with a gun could have changed things until help arrived. One person!

          • Donald Hobbs

            Thank you for being a voice of reason here.

      • Negombo83

        Imagine if the two men who murdered this poor man (not uniformed) had been armed with a gun? Suggest you read up on story as people did not just stand by.

    • KPres

      “””Now I NEVER travel to the US”””

      Problem solved.

      • Donald Hobbs

        He’s right. For reasons other than lack of gun regulation this has become a horrible country. We need to significantly improve our education systems and media so we don’t have nearly as many idiots like you. Then America wouldn’t suck so much right now

        • Donald Hobbs

          Oh wow, someone disliked my comment. If someone is going to hate a comment that says America sucks right now, come up with a counter argument. It’s too bad there are none though

  • Doc Adam Caldwell

    sure… disarm everyone so that no on can stop the shooter. DUMB ASs peopel

    • Jon Stone

      Fact: far less gun crime in countries with tighter gun rules. No amount of theory-crafting gets you beyond this point. In Britain, you can spend your entire life in an area with a high crime rate and never even see a gun.

      • appleblossom

        I think most people are looking at the “far less death” portion of it.

    • Donald Hobbs

      WE ARE NOT TRYING TO DISARM EVERYONE! GODDAMN WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU IDIOTS COME FROM? Go back to your sister-mother you fucking inbred moron!

  • Albert K

    They forgot that Ed would have had a bayonet on his musket and skewered at least a few people. Then he likely could have turned it around and clubbed a few more people to death.
    If you’re going to try to make a point with your smarmy, smartass video, at least try to get the facts straight.

    • KPres

      Or he’d have set off an IDE. Gun control accomplishes nothing. Never has, never will.

      • Donald Hobbs

        And again we have this baseless statement. The good news though is more and more Americans, and people all over the world, are recognizing that your statement simply is not true. In the end you’ll just be chanting a false mantra, only embarrassing yourself.

      • Donald Hobbs

        And, a minor point, I think you mean IED

        • Ian

          To all who have replied to this post;
          I am a simple man and have the unfortunate gift to cut through superficial arguments, and see problems of conflict at its core.
          I am a firm believer that America is no longer the greatest nation in the world, but was the bright and shining star of the world for a time. I have hope that one day, we can be a beacon of understanding, liberty, and responsibility once again.
          I believe the biggest issues with our country are not these gun rights arguements, or conflicting words over tax laws, or any other issue with a media strong arm behind, or in front of it. (i.e. FOX – CNN – Whoever) I believe the biggest issues are a epic void of community, unity, education of government, and a total lack of selflessness, passion, mentoring, sacrifice. Honestly there’s more than just those points.
          But the biggest issue of all is the fact that you boys can scream at each other until your blue in the face, attacking each other with mean words, and horrible disrespect. Are we not not kin of different color under our red, white, and blue banner?
          Why is it so damn hard to attack the core issues of this country, and act like a community while we do it.

          • Donald Hobbs

            You are correct. Unfortunately, fixing these people is practically impossible. Sure, they are capable of changing, but we know they won’t. That is why I’ve completely given up on humanity.

  • KPres

    Since most murderers are Democrats, maybe we should just ban guns for them. Let everybody else own what they want.

    • Donald Hobbs

      You need to look deeper into that.

    • David Fraine

      Or we could just ban Democrats all together. Problem solved.

      • Donald Hobbs

        You don’t seem to realize that you accused me (falsely) of saying that anyone who doesn’t agree with me shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Here now you are saying we should ban everyone with the polar opposite political view that you have.

  • ryan miller

    I think only Jews and the gov should have guns Armys and nuclear weapons

  • Pingback: The BEST Gun Control Commercial EVER. | Tasers ...

  • Donald Hobbs

    Another note, does anyone else notice the shot he fires blows a hole in the door frame?

    • EssEffArr

      Man how did you notice that?? LOL

  • aubn

    This is far from ” the best gun control commercial ever”. I portrays a society that is hiding from the decay that is taking place all around it. Drugs, rejection of religion, whatever cause you can think of, you cannot have so poor a security system in your business place so as to allow someone with a 45″ long gun to walk in unchallenged. Sorry, things have changed since the 1700’s. And the best protection is “a good guy with a gun”. The rest is just rhetoric.
    We just had such a multiple murder up here in “safe old Canada”. So spare us the pipedreams.

    • Tilghman Lesher

      The problem is that the bad guy in the video used to be that “good guy with a gun”.

      • EssEffArr

        BOOM! Exactly.

  • acrutiapps

    Whatever arguments that get applied to stronger gun laws would inadvertently then get applied to 1st amendment rights as well. Freedom of speech is alright but it is not okay to hurt someone else’s sentiments and all that.

    Despite an alarming number of guns in United States, this country is reasonably peaceful. A few children getting killed here and there is the price we pay for the freedom to own Guns.

    • EssEffArr

      Compared to other industrialized nations, we are not “relatively peaceful”!!! Look at other nations and the number of killings at the hands of the police. It’s almost zero in other countries.

  • Lisa

    Great video!
    Oh, your Veruca link is broken.

  • vayu

    I am against guns and violence. I do not have a gun, do not want one, and don’t know anyone with guns. In every way, on every political topic, people label me liberal. Yet with all the things going on in our world today, I do not see what all the energy is about citizens owning guns. With our military and our police armed better than Gestapo, and our rights being trampled on in the most hideous of ways, why are people advocating disarming the populace?? Do you not realize how many just regular folk have guns? People are not criminals because they have guns. Criminals will be criminals with or without guns. They will be dangerous with or without guns. I’m all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and legislation in that direction. FIRST start with the police and the military!! Second amendment comes from some far seeing cool cats. The people to fear are not the few crazy wacko’s, not even gun toting meth heads, do a google image search for “militarized police”. Those search results are a lot scarier to me than a crack head in a back ally.

    • http://marconidarwin.myopenid.com Marconi Darwin

      So should we not be allowed to arm ourselves MORE just like the cops? Or even better and have grenade launchers, for example. How about a tank?

      • vayu

        Certainly disarming doesn’t seem wise, but neither would trying to play catchup. Personally I’d disarm the military and the police considerably, leave the people mostly as they are, maybe try to weed out some of the stupidity that’s going on there. One of the things people don’t realize about national defense is that a healthy strong economy turns into a protective war machine very quickly as we saw with WWII, we don’t need to have $3/4 trillion per year spent on military while we starve our entire society. As far as the level of police arming we have now, there’s no excuse for that, it’s pure cowardice from both the police and the people together with ego greed of power from the police and those supporting it.

  • JNWesner

    The Constitution was written in and for its time. Just as Franklin could never have imagined television — well, maybe Franklin could — Washington couldn’t have envisioned an Uzi. We adapt to the times either by adding a list of amendments every year or by taking reality into account. Reality demands restrictions on privately owned weapons. And, since the second amendment is about a well-regulated militia, why are we having this stupid discussion anyway?

    • Tiredoftheleft

      I don’t think you understand what “well regulated” or “militia” means. At the time, the meaning of militia was “all the able bodied men (people) of military age (16-about 45). Well regulated, again at the time, meant “well trained and equipped or supplied. Also, James Puckle received a patent for his Puckle Gun in 1718. It was a flintlock firearm that had a rotary 12 shot cylinder. In 1777, Philadelphia gunsmith Joseph Belton offered the Continental Congress a “new improved gun”, which was capable of firing up to twenty shots in five seconds, automatically, and was capable of being loaded by a cartridge. So there goes the theory of not knowing.

      • EssEffArr

        What you’re missing here is that Britain was trying to control the American colonies from abroad. They wanted to tax us without any representation in their government (taxation without representation). We no longer have that situation now. We the people elect our government officials. That “well regulated militia” existed because we didn’t have a standing Army then. We have one now. I served 23 years myself.

        • Tiredoftheleft

          Once again thank you so much for your service. I agree that our situation now is different then it was then, however, the Constitution and especially the bill of rights were written for all times, not just 1776-1800. Our second amendment rights are given to us by our Creator so that we might protect ourselves from oppression, whether that be a foreign government, our own government, or the bag guy who wants to who do us harm. And during the Revolutionary War the US absolutely did have a standing army, that was assisted by a well regulated (well trained and equipped) militia.

  • Richard T. Watson

    There is nothing wrong with guns just the people. If people were taught better there would be less crime. Im not going into it just saying. My grandmother was a registered Democrat and so am I.

    • http://marconidarwin.myopenid.com Marconi Darwin

      So you’d have no objections to bringing back fully automatic machine guns that were banned in the 30s, and more sophisticated arms?

      Or would you pick and choose?

      FFS, what’d be wrong with better background checks? Keep the guns, but have better background checks. How can that hurt?

  • Tiredoftheleft

    My question is: Are the police and military going to stop using firearms that fire multiple rounds too? Because the Second Amendment is NOT about hunting or shooting sports, it’s about protecting oneself from dangerous/evil people including our government.

    • EssEffArr

      I’m a vet. Now tell me why the military needs to stop using semi-automatic firearms.

      • Tiredoftheleft

        Thank you for your service. I’m not suggest that the military stop using semi-auto or full-auto firearms. What I am suggesting, is that if private citizens are not allowed to arm themselves in a manner similar to government agencies that can/will be used to oppress us, then we are in serious trouble. If private citizens are limited to firearms that hold round numbering only 1, 5, 7, 10, or whatever the powers that be decide, we are at an astronomical disadvantage when it comes to defending ourselves against a tyrannical government. Protecting ourselves from our own government was why the 2nd amendment was written.

        • lolka71

          What are you suggesting is that private citizens should have access to missies, submarines, nuclear weapon and so on and without it we are in serious trouble.

          • Tiredoftheleft

            Hmmmm… you know technically we DO own them. But no, I’m not suggesting that the average citizen own full military armament. The framers of the constitution wrote the second amendment seeing the average citizen (militia) armed for war in the same manner that the average soldier was. In today’s army that is a service rifle and a side arm. One of the reasons the militia was so desired during the revolutionary war, was that quite often their rifles were more powerful and more accurate then the smooth bore muskets that the regular army used. We have been endowed by our Creator to arm ourselves in a similar or the same manner as the average soldier. Not nukes, missiles, submarines, etc. The MAIN point is that Second Amendment is about protecting ourselves against our OWN government, among others. It’s not about hunting or shooting sports.

  • Concerned

    Look at how well Gun Control has worked for Chicago.
    The right to bear arms is absolute…period.
    Regulations to purchase and control are hard to pass because if you give liberals an inch….they will shove the whole thing down your throat. It has happened time and time again on issues like smoking, which has been absolutely demonized, and now look at plastic bags…California is going to outlaw all plastic bags….hello….manufacturing and disposal of paper bags hurts the environment just as much or more than plastic bags.. Liberals just go from cause to cause forcing their will upon the people…they are never satisfied and they lie like rugs…so yes…my right to own a gun is absolute.

  • EssEffArr

    Love it! LOL

  • Andre Bonds

    Lol, good point.

  • Graham King

    We can ban smoking, we can ban pit bulls, but we can’t do a damn thing about guns.
    3 million NRA members are holding 350 million Americans hostage.

    • Phearless

      There are 270 million current or former registered firearm owners in this country.
      That means that only roughly 80 million Americans have never legally owned a gun.

      The majority has spoken, friend. Fact-checking with the Department of Justice could have helped you avoid making this ignorant statement.

      • Graham King

        Yeah, so I fact checked your claim and it appears that you are clearly the one who is ignorant. While neither of us correct, the point that I made, and the math is correct, is that a minority (those who own guns) is holding the majority (those who do not own guns) hostage. But whatever, go back to being a tool.

        • Phearless

          Sorry, but you’re wrong.

        • Phearless

          I’m sure that minority of journalists are holding the rest of the country hostage with their pointless archaic 1st Amendment rights, no?

  • nousernamesavailable

    people like him are why I feel the need to carry a gun, what an idiot

  • Nozmeda

    Freedom:
    exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.

    We’re all on the same side. We’ve all already lost.

    With what the politicians currently “allow” us to have we can still win back our freedom since we have numbers to our advantage. Take any more and hope goes with it. Our government has under its employment trigger happy psychopaths with tanks, grenades, full auto war zone weaponry, and low IQs. Government and politicians don’t give a Damn about individuals and only understand force. Once it’s believed that the masses are completely overpowered and outmatched, “rights” Will be a word from the past.
    It absolutely does make sense that less bullets = less deaths caused by bullets. That only covers citizen vs citizen engagements though. When your way of life becomes “illegal” then what? (I’ll throw in a little current event fear to help in the scenario)
    What if the Islamic Calipahte is actually being established in the USA? And it becomes “law” that all nonbelievers convert or lose your head? For that to happen “law enforcement” Will have to be overwhelmingly more powerful than the entire populace.
    As it stands now, we have the power to stand up FOR OURSELVES. Who will defend your family if not you? So yeah, I’m pro gun. I’m against any more erosions to the second amendment as well. I don’t limit the use of firearms to personal self defense either, I add defense of others and it may take more than 10 rounds to accomplish said goals. Seriously, 10 rounds can be gone in 2 seconds then what? It would only be a short matter of time until EVERYONE finds themselves on a “NO GUN” list. Then the only people capable of defending “freedom” and “rights” would be criminals. I’m absolutely fine being labeled a criminal because at least I’m still a free man.

    (PS [lightheartedly]Star wars would never have worked with gun restrictions)