Steve Marmel

Hey, Second Amendment Lunatics! Think About This:

Published On April 21, 2013 | By admin |
by Steve Marmel
The entire city of Boston was under martial law the last few days.  You get that, right?  MARTIAL LAW.In a cameras-everywhere society, we went from tragedy to identification to capture in less than five days.  And to make that happen, the full-force of the government came in, shut down a major metropolitan area, instituted a no-fly zone, flooded the place with troops and technology and locked it down until it completed it’s mission.Think about that, screaming gun lunatic with more weapons than friends, the next time you think your 100 clip magazine and fourteen guns can protect you from a determined military.  Your “Red Dawn” fantasy is laughable.  Think about that the next time there’s a school shooting that could have been prevented by a ban or minimized by regulating clip-size but wasn’t because of you or the fearful twit in the Senate that represents you.  Think about that when some mentally unstable person gets his weaponry from a gun show without the simplest of background checks, and tears apart dozens or hundreds of lives.My views on the issue haven’t changed in the last week.  I want sensible gun reform and will continue to fight for it.  I stand with 90% of Americans and against the senators who are in the pocket of the NRA. You, on the other hand, got a big lesson on just how sad and defenseless you would be if Obama – or ANY President – truly was the dictator you fear.You wouldn’t last two days.

Steve Marmel | Staff Writer | The Everlasting GOP Stoppers

Follow Steve on Facebook

Like what we do? Make a secure donation here!            

  • DarcyDJ

    I use logic and reason to show my need for a gun. There are 300 million guns out there. I want to make sure that I am armed since others (including people that might want to do me harm) are also armed. I want to have a clip with as many rounds as possible. There may be more than one person attacking/robbing/burglarizing me and/or my family. I might miss.

    • Watzy Norman

      You may continue to cower and live in fear of your imagined “army of burglars,” then. Jesus’s blessing on your arsenal.

      • JB

        The fact that I carry a gun is the only reason I am alive today to post a reply to this asinine rant.

        • Jill

          If you are a legal, licensed gun owner, I don’t see a problem. If you think you are mentally unstable and therefore told you are not allowed to own a gun well, then there’s a problem.

          • http://Somejerkoffplace Jeff Grey

            Who gets to tell you your bonkers? The Soviets used to declare anyone they didn’t like insane. With the rampant corruption in our system it’s not to hard to piss someone criminal off if you are law abiding.

        • missfit

          We have had a ton of cops killed lately including the one at MIT…if only they carried guns maybe….oh wait

        • RM

          I guess that I am now a lunatic because I believe in the Constitution. And I am a crazed loon because I am armed. Being a 60 year old female I bear my arms proudly.

          • DNelson

            The Constitution doesn’t guarantee you the right to have ANY gun you want, or the right to have 20 round clips. And even if you carried a gun with you everywhere you went – concealed or worn out in the open – it wouln’t protect you if some walked up to you, suddenly pulled out. Gun and shot you in the head before you even realized what was happening. The argument that having guns keep you safe is pathetic. President Reagan was surrounded by several armed men, with some of the best training in the world, and on constant guard for anyone with a gun intent on killing the president (not to mention several armed police officers), and even that wasn’t enough to stop someone from wlking up and putting a bullet in him. What chance do you think you would have. There have always been banned weapons — the NRA used to call for certain weapons to be kept out of the hands of the general population before they started working for the gun manufacturers.

          • Karen

            Do you have a problem with having some regulation on your free speech rights? You do know I hope that you cannot call “fire” in a theater unless there really is a fire. You need to check what that icon of liberalism Antonin Scalia said about regulations of guns in the Heller decision.

          • Sandi KHH

            The Constitution was not written for weapons of mass death in the hands of an unregulated general population. They couldn’t even conceive of the kinds of weapons crazies like yourself are trying to make it cover. 300 million more guns in America would not have stopped this bombing, but the ones already there are doing a fine job slaughtering hundreds in the hands of those that shouldn’t have them. How many of you are just flat out afraid YOU couldn’t pass the background check? Because many of you truly sound either insane or incredibly stupid.

          • JDalco

            Actually the right to “keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is what it says. The government does not get to have a say in what guns you can have according to the Constitution. In fact if we follow our Constitution any gun law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. sorry but you are wrong.

        • Karen

          Really, did your having a gun really save your life?

      • Ratcoon


      • Robert

        Because armed burglaries never happen amirite?

      • TopDog

        “imagined “army of burglars,”” ???? What do you live in a cave, or perhaps your mothers basement? For you have no idea of the dangers in the real world. Go ahead live in your make believe world of socialist perfection. I choose to defend myself and family against criminals. Yeah the real criminals committing home invasions everyday in America. And unlike your sarcastic salutation my is real. My God bless you and open your eyes before a devastating tragedy does if for you.

        • Sansa Stark

          lol, these delusional macho bullshit fantasies.

          • Chuck

            …says the commenter with the screen name from a fantasy novel.

            Do you truly believe that violent crime doesn’t happen? Perhaps you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny as well. The most dangerous thing you’ll do all day is drive your car, but that doesn’t mean people don’t drown, fall off ladders, get stuck by lighting, die of asphyxiation in structure fires…or get beaten, stabbed or shot by violent criminals. I keep fire extinguishers and smoke alarms in my house, wear my seat belt , drive a car with airbags, and I carry a gun. I do all these things just in case because if things go wrong I have a better chance of surviving with them than without them. Go on and live your oblivious life and hope that rainbows and unicorn farts will keep you safe and that the police will arrive before you’ve been raped and beaten to death.

            Good luck with that.

    • Jay

      Hey, do you know how many mass murders have been perpetrated with guns since the Australian gun ban?

      Oh, none. Zero. Not one.

      If you think your “right” to “protect” (quoted because instances of defensive gun uses are pretty fucking low) your physical fucking possessions is more important than stopping mass murders someone needs to slap the shit out of you.

      • Henry

        Not to mention the big drop in suicide rates.

        • milehisnk

          Big drop in suicide rates? Actually, according to Australia’s government, suicide rates have not changed. They happen at the same rate as before the ban…just with different instruments.

      • Guardian

        So, just because you dont hear about them, that means they dont happen. A study of 2008 shows that over 900,000 cases where firearms have been used for self defence. These types of stories dont make the news because they wont help the ratings.

        • Jennifer

          What study in 2008? Reference please? Because according to the FBI, guns are only used in justifiable homicides (felons killed while in commission of a felony), on average, 230 times annually. Not even once per day across the US, and this was across a 5-year span. Certainly felons are sometimes wounded instead of killed, but if you are going to wound someone and not kill them, wouldn’t non-lethal means of defense be just as effective? (Hammers or crowbars, since more people are killed with blunt objects than firearms- seems that blunt objects are more effective, anyway!) Many instances of “self defense” are actually not self defense at all. Many are the result of accelerating arguments, resulting in one or both parties brandishing guns, occasionally the guns discharge accidentally, people are shot and wounded, and some shot and killed. Don’t just take numbers at face value- look to see where they came from.

          • Sean M

            Jennifer, you’re assuming that every instance where a gun was involved resulted in a homicide. The vast majority of encounters where a gun is drawn or displayed results in an instant de-escalation and, as a result, no need to fire a shot. Other events involved shots fired that resulted in no injuries, or injuries but no deaths. Also, in these countries where the governments have dis-armed the populace, their violent crime rates have more than doubled. Same goes for the cities in the US with the tightest “gun control” laws. It’s sad that you believe that every person who owns a gun is suddenly some crazed psycho, or a dumb redneck. The progressives’ myopic view of humanity, politics, and economics, and the misguided stereotypes speak volumes to their political views and party.

          • Victor

            Yes Jennifer, I agree with you in that I feel there must be many ways of ‘downing’ a perpetrator, even if she/he IS heavily armed. Why else would taxpayer’s money be spent to train highly accurate Sharpshooters and fit them up with the latest Scopes and Guns ~ go figure. Surely a good kneecapping with a bullet would bring ‘em to the ground, partially reducing the perps accuracy. Apparently the 2nd bomber in Boston had an explosive belt around him, and people have said that this justifies him being killed ~ I’m not sooo sure that it was the Only way of rendering him as a non-threat, but would surely have been worth a try. Vjk

          • Julie

            Really? You would use a hammer against someone with a gun? Or you would protect your children with a bat against someone armed with a gun? I guess that is your option, but as for me and my family, I am not about to take a knife, bat, or hammer up against someone with a gun if at all possible. You talk about killing the suspect as the only time people use guns to protect themselves because I assume those are the only “stats” provided because any incident where the suspect was not killed or injured are either not reported or recorded. But reality is, many time a suspect is stopped merely because the “victim” had a gun, and the criminal was not willing to risk his or her own life, but more than willing to take the life of another. Even IF the suspect had a crowbar, what do you think would be more effective? a hammer or a gun, the odds are in favor of the person holding the gun. The difference is, even IF you took away every gun available to everyone, criminals included, the only difference would be the tool used to cause the crime, well and maybe more victims because the criminal knows his or her victims are not equipped to fight back effectively.

          • M. O. Santy

            Remember – these justifiable homicide rates include shooting involving law enforcement……

          • RM

            Hmm, so being 60 years old I am supposed to either:
            A. Cry on the phone to 911 while being raped/murdered.
            B. Use my cane or walker and whack the perp with it?
            C. Open my night stand and find my pistol and defend myself.
            FYI, I am neither a redneck or a loon just a highly educated old lady with a strong sense of self preservation.
            Sidebar: I have saved my life with it.

            If it is legally self defense decided by a court of law that is exactly what it is.

          • Mike

            Yeah I agree with Jennifer…where is your proof of this 2008 ‘study’? I mean, I can say “this study said…blah…” without proof, right??

        • Marty

          I’ve checked the FBI stats and your a little high, like about 890k too high.

        • MarkDElf

          Ok, bonehead — ONE study (giving you the benefit of the doubt just for the sake of discussion) from 4-5 years ago, attributing 900K incidents to self-defense? That’s ONE in a YEAR for every 366 people; SURE, that just CRIES OUT for 30-round magazines, matching Bushmasters, and a concealed backup Browning 9mm. SURE, that JUSTIFIES 300 million guns in private hands in the USA.

          • Kei

            FUNNY, If guns were banned, then you would need any to protect yourself. Don’t think its true? In Japan, we have fewer Gun related deaths in a year, then the United States has in just 2 days. Continuing Hate and Intolerance towards your own citizens, both towards lawful and criminal citizens, will only end up in a civil war. Until the bad people have too hard of a time getting guns in the US, a Civil War inevitable.

          • BobC

            “Kei says:
            FUNNY, If guns were banned, then you would need any to protect yourself. Don’t think its true? In Japan, we have fewer Gun related deaths in a year, then the United States has in just 2 days.”

            I believe that guns have been banned in Japan for several hundred years. (Something about not wanting those peasants standing up to the Overlord’s Samurai.) “FUNNY” though, it didn’t stop Japan from killing tens of millions of civilians in the first half of the 20th century.
            Of course, those were other country’s civilians, so that apparently doesn’t count as “hate towards your own citizens”.
            (Of course, any Japanese who stepped out of line was treated fairly brutally — Japanese society pre-WWII made “1984” look like a Libertarian utopia.)

            The fact is, Kei; at the current rate of gun violence in America (even counting the 2/3 due to inner-city gang-bangers who won’t pay attention to any “common sense” laws), it would take us thousands of years to match the record of gun murders that Japan achieved in only 10 years.

            And, of course, Japan would be carrying on the same way today if it weren’t for American stopping you.

            Continuing Hate and Intolerance towards your own citizens, both towards lawful and criminal citizens, will only end up in a civil war. Until the bad people have too hard of a time getting guns in the US, a Civil War inevitable.

      • brian

        You cant use one country as a example. If you want to do that, lets look at mexico where all guns are banned. Look at there murder rates. America is a violent country, no way around it. Ifthere were no guns murder rate would bbarely drop, if someone wants someone dead, they will kill them, dont have to be with a gun. Another thing, gun laws are not going to change a damn thing. They will never get every gun off the street, there will always be a black market for them. This whole thing is like the war on drugs, there is a problem, but no law will fix this problem. Its just the kind of country we live in.

      • Julie

        And did you know the worst mass killings in the world, and the US did not happen with a gun? What would that mean, oh, maybe that the gun was only the tool used, but there are much more deadly tools available to killers. Worst school killing in the US was in Bath, MI in 1926, no gun was used, and over 40 died.

      • Josh

        You don’t know what my reasons for owning a gun or guns are! It might be to cap the a-hole that wants to TRY to slap the shit out of me. You don’t want a gun, don’t buy one!

        As for this hack author, the people of Boston were on lockdown because the police were searching for a killer. He has no idea what would’ve happened if the government was actually trying to suppress the people. These mass murderers are willing to commit murder but you libs think that background checks will stop them. Just because Obama is the biggest liberal EVER, doesn’t mean you have to be gullible enough to believe everything he says.

        • Ashley

          Libs? Really? Playing the name game? Please grow a pair if you’re going to engage in adult discussions. No, us Libs don’t think it will stop them, though we do know it’s a start towards cutting down gun violence, it has to start somewhere otherwise nothing will change. The idea is to move forward and make progress so we can live happier and more safe lives. Guns are unpredictable in most hands and extremely lethal, would you approve of everyone keeping a lion that could accidentally maul someone? No? Then shut up, quit blaming Liberals, gain some common sense, or leave the country. We should be shaping a better country for our children first and ourselves/environment second, we don’t need guns to do that.

          • cloudshe

            leave the country? you mean the one with the Constitution containing the 2nd Amendment? hey, genius, why don’t YOU leave, there are plenty of countries smaller, more civilized, fewer guns, less “multi-cultural” where i’m sure you would fit in,

      • Robert

        You seem to forget that Australia is an island nation, meaning heavily-screened imports by sea and air alone. If the US were to outlaw firearms, they would still come in across our borders just like illicit substances and human trafficking, despite the hard work of the Border Patrol. Guns would still be in America, just that this time, all the owners would be criminals.

      • milehisnk

        The instances of Defensive Gun Uses are pretty fucking high…but I wouldn’t expect a moron who talks about how safe Australia has been (with over double the crime rate of the USA) to understand that…

      • Shiftee

        Australian immigration is supposed to be pretty lax… if you start packing now you could be there quicker than a permit to purchase a handgun takes for approval.

      • jo

        No mass murders but Australia has had increased robberies, burglaries and something they have never known – home invasions.

        • Jana

          Home invasions **are** burglaries.

          Same thing, different, more headline grabbing name. Go on, go look up “Home Invasion” as a crime in the statutes of any state in the USA and you won’t find it. If Australia has had burglaries, then Australia has been having “home invasions.”

          • Chuck


            Burglary means the home is unoccupied, usually happen during the day when homeowners are assumed to be away.

            Home invasion means the occupants are home. Typically happen at night WHEN THE THUGS KNOW YOU ARE HOME.

            In other words, anyone who would break into a home they know is occupied is particularly dangerous. They need you to tell them where the good stuff is, or they intend to harm you in some way.

            The reason why home invasions have increased in disarmed countries like the UK and Australia is because the home invaders have little to fear from the helpless occupants.

      • Jim Jones
    • cipher

      In other words, you didn’t understand a damn thing he said.

      And I don’t think you and “logic and reason” are on familiar terms.

    • James Brown

      I also own guns. Mine are for hunting. I don’t own a hand gun, but I’m not against the ownership of hand guns. And if there was a total ban on gun ownership I would strongly fight against. However I don’t believe that a limit to magazine sizes and universal background checks would hurt my right to own a gun. So I do support the legislation that was defeated this week in the Senate. Also, if you believe that the government is out to get you and you need guns to defend yourself, then seek help. You are paranoid and it could lead to a psychotic condition where you may harm yourself or others. And I’m not trying to insult anyone, but from that type of paranoia to serious mental illness is a very short distance.

      • Bill Feagin

        Couldn’t have said it better. You, my friend, are a sensible gun owner.

      • Mike Lub

        Well said James Brown.
        If you fear the government can take all your possessions and oppress your liberty at any time, there is a place to go where there is no government and you are free to defend your self from all perceived threats. It’s called Somalia. Go, enjoy!

    • Henry

      You will miss your target and may hit an innocent. No thank you.

    • Chuck Blalock

      What you are saying is you want all the weapons you can legally purchase. But as I have heard many gun owners say, the criminals can purchase the same weapons legally or illegally, so you want even more people to die from people with guns. More of these criminals who already have criminal records, will continue to be able to purchase weapons at gun shows, evading a background check that would have stopped them from getting a weapon that kills people. In addition, there are many people who shoot other people, that have no criminal record. The background check & the reduction of the number of rounds a clip can hold will save some lives. Isn’t that reason enough to save more lives than what we are doing now. Don’t listen to the NRA garbage. Their motive, along with gun manufactures, is slanted for what is right for them, not you. And the Senators votes was slanted with the fear of how will this affect my future in politics. Why not bend a little and save a life.

      • Dadling

        It’s obvious you’ve never been to a gun show….you still have a backround check when buying for dealers….criminals don’t go to gunshows…..

        If you’re so serious about giving up a little of your rights to get a little so-called security from a government that can do as it pleases with your life….fine…give it all up…..ask the Eastern Europeans, ask the Russians….ask the people in Somalia, …it’s all right in front of you…..if government was so good at protecting us……they would have stopped the bombing from happening….did you see all the cops around the marathon??????? They could not stop 2 college age terrorists from inflicting major terror on a city……..yes, maybe the Red Dawn scene is a fantasy….I supposed you could ask the Syrians about that…or the Lybians…or the Iranians….or, better yet….ask those who’s motto is “power comes from the end of a gun”….I believe they were Chinese…..then, who’s living in a fantasy world???

        • Marty

          Simply, you are, Somalia, a place that has been flooded with weapons. They have no shortage. Russians never had the right except for hunting rifles, and seriously, the Soviet Union collaped with hardly a shot. The college age terrorists got the powder untraced and unflagged due to NRA loggying in the 70’s. Please put your NRA takling points away, the make you look the fool. Unless that’s what you’re going for. In that case you’ve succeeeded Wonderfully! Have a nice paranoid life.

          • Jon

            Um…Marty ! The only fool is you and your spelling ! I have rights and the government has NO right changing what they want. It’s called inalienable and it goes like this: 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. Does that sound familiar to you ? You can surrender all your rights and become a slave and live in FEMA camps.

          • Jsk

            It was explained that taggants would alter the powder in unsafe ways and that no military or police organization would allow it in their ammo, and that the unknown and unsafe taggant effects would likely cause explosive accidents.
            So, common sense prevailed and the adults dropped the idea.

            From that came rumors that the government wanted to put additives in powder or primers that would give ammo an expiration date. Within a set number of years the ammo would simply deactivate itself and become useless.
            This would prevent those NRA crazies from stockpiling ammo.
            When it was explained that there is simply no possible way to do this, and again, no one military, police or civilian would allow such an unsafe additive, most people understood it was just a rumor.

            Like most rumors, it refuses to die.

          • G

            In response to Jon’s comments.. Jon let me ask you a question… Where do you think these rights you mention came from? Did they just appear by magic? The government gave them to you, seems like you are lost in the 18th century thinking as many 2nd amendment rights gun fanatics are.

            The people who included these rights had no idea what would apply to the 20th century we live in and what the needs would be. They no doubt wrote this document to deal with their times, not our times…

        • C GRIFFIN

          I went to a local gun show last winter. My boyfriend bought a rifle without any question of identity or even a receipt. Nadda….nothing. The guy who wasn’t a dealer…even accepted a personal check. The show had a mix of dealers and non-dealers. I was confused as to why. I now know. So you are sadly mistaken.

        • MarkDElf


          First — you think you know so much, what makes you think that criminals don’t go to gun shows and BUY FROM PRIVATE OWNERS?

          Second, you want to name a handful of repressive governments, basically Third World shitholes, to buttress your tired point (that of “slippery slopes” and gradual gov’t takeovers, WHICH, BTW, you couldn’t stop HERE if you tried)

          Third, “all the cops” didn’t stop 2 terrorists BECAUSE THIS IS A FREE SOCIETY, where you can still come & go as you please without being harassed by “Big Brother”. You can’t have it both ways, fool.

          NOBODY can argue this point: IF more guns make for a safer society, then the USA SHOULD be the SAFEST COUNTRY IN HISTORY. Why, then, at the HEIGHT of the Iraq War, was it SAFER to be in BAGHDAD than Washington DC?

          • Cody

            Interesting thing about that, it’s illegal to carry a firearm in DC. In fact, if we took California, Massachusetts, DC, NY and IL out of the equation, our homicide rate per capita would plummet.

          • Jana

            Taking the largest population areas out of equation would merely shift the rate of homicides to the newer large population areas.

            If all states had the same gun laws, the people would be able to purchase a gun at a “sportsman show” in Pennslyvania, then bring the guns to NY or DC.

            And yes, I have been at those shows. And have seen firearms purchased without any kind of background check.

      • Marty

        the gun nuts won’t ask themselves this simple question, where do the criminals get them?

        • Justin

          They steal them you idiot!

        • Jsk

          You can get anything you want if you look in the right places, I take it you’ve never heard of the deep web?

      • http://fb caprock

        I find this artilcle to be very enlightnening in the fact that the author is using selective garbage as his reasoning. If you think that the police will wipe out anyone who opposes them because they have weapons (make sure you understand that they use fully automatic assault weapons) doesn’t mean that they would be able to disarm 25 million combat veterans who are very well trained and lets see, outnumber the cops and the active duty military by about 1200 to one. Naive would be a good description of the idiot that wrote this article. By the way, since California has has the 10 day waiting period for the last 30 years or so you cannot buy a weapon without going through a background check at a gun show, gun store or online, you would think they would be the poster child for how well your background checks have worked. But gee whiz, it has not done a damn thing to stop crime or the gangbangers or the illegal aliens carrying weapons across the border. IF THE FBI HAS THE INFORMATION THAT AN ILLEGAL PURCHASE WAS TRIED, WHY WON’T THEY DO THEIR JOB AND PROSECUTE? The Newtown massacre was done by the kid who tried to buy a gun but would not submit to the background check. Go figure. NEXT TIME DO YOUR HOMEWORK BEFORE ENGAGING WHAT YOU CALL YOUR BRAIN.

        • james

          excellent comments! – james

    • Jennifer

      When you imagine multiple persons attacking you and/or your family, which you clearly have imagined, how does it play out? Are you in your home? Surprised while sleeping as your home is broken into? Watching TV? In your driveway, from where you escape into your home, only to have the bad guy(s) follow you? If you are asleep in your bed, where is your gun? Accessible? Loaded? Yet impossible for a child or teen to access? If you are watching TV, you you watch TV with a loaded gun on your lap? At your elbow? On the coffee table? What if you get up to get a beer/some chips/a sandwich? Do you take it with you? Do you take your gun out into your driveway with you to get the mail/paper, wash your car, work in the yard? If you are asleep in bed, do you sleep with enough lights on to be able to positively identify the intruder as an armed bad guy as opposed to a neighbor whose house has just burned down, a drunk teenager who has mistaken your house for his own, a relative who, in your groggy state you have forgotten is sleeping in the guest room and is coming to ask you where the plunger is because he just blocked the toilet, or your wife coming back to bed after getting up for a drink? Wherever you are, are the bad guys coming at you one at a time, or all at once? If it’s all at once, you are probably screwed no matter how large your magazine, especially if you might miss a shot. Hold on, YOU MIGHT MISS??? Where does the bullet(s) go with which you miss? Are they hollow-point, so as not to go through a wall and hit a person in the next room? I really hope you have made sure it is a bad guy in that case, because that would do massive damage to a person. What if you are in your driveway, or in a public place? Where would the bullet(s) with which you miss go then? Can you be absolutely sure that you won’t inadvertently hit an innocent bystander? Bullets can travel pretty far- you could hit someone you don’t even see!

      Here is the thing: the bad guy(s) with the gun will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS have the advantage, for two reasons. 1) He knows he is going to attack you before you do. 2) He doesn’t care if he shoots innocent bystanders, while (hopefully) you do, so he will go ahead and take a shot even if it isn’t a clear shot.

      This is why it is more important to prevent bad guys from having guns than it is to make sure that your right to bear arms is unrestricted. (BTW, regulation of guns has occurred throughout US history, and has been upheld by a variety of courts. Even in Dodge City carrying a gun was prohibited.)

      • Marty

        Gun Nuts Never Never think ANYONE can’t EVER get the best of them. I know otherwise.

        • Doug Carson

          Exactly how do you know this tough guy? You dont know Jack.

      • Justin

        You clearly dont know a thing about guns or gun owners.

        BTW the Supreme court has upheld gun rights in the last two cases.

        • Lil

          What, too much truth for you there, Justin? Did she just totally destroy your “good guy with a gun” fantasy? She’s made it quite clear why all your home protection excuses are just exactly that, and all you can say is “you clearly don’t know a thing about guns or gun owners”? I don’t think so. Please, Justin, since you clearly think you do know about guns and their owners, enlighten us as to exactly how Jennifer’s ideas are wrong. And don’t try to weasel out of it by telling us we aren’t worth wasting the time on, or it would take too long, or by just picking one thing. Take the time she did and break it down piece by piece! Tell us exactly WHY she is wrong. Change our minds.

      • Mike Lub

        Lol…! Jennifer that was beautiful and well thought out!
        An outstanding narrative of sarcasm and reality!
        Thank You,.

      • Dustin

        As a Marine Combet Vet I spit in the face of everyone involved with this page. If it weren’t for the guy that got car-jacked then escaping it would have either been later or still in search for these guys. So your incorrect there. I can’t even go into a major city in my area where I live without my pistol due to high crime rate and I’ll be damned if I have no way of protecting myself. It’s people like this that make me feel ashamed of serving for. But it’s alright I can sleep at night knowing what I did.

      • BobC

        Perfect example of what I call “Story-book Logic”:

        Jennifer tells a story that comes out the way she plans (having a gun does you no good and only endangers other innocent people), then she thinks she has made a rational argument.

        Progressives never try to actually research any facts about their beliefs — they think their stories prove they’re right, no need for facts!

        This is why they screw up every society they get enough control over — eventually the unintended consequences of acting from ignorance overwhelm any good intentions — and I’m giving them the benefit of doubt by assuming they really have good intentions.

        • BobC

          And, for the scores of low-performing “intellects” on this thread who think that their made-up stories represent reality (all Progressives, that is): Try designing an airplane that way. Reality doesn’t care what you think, and to be ignorant of it is stupid — to tell lies to yourself about it is insane.

      • John F (Boulder, Co)

        That’s why it’s best to not en try to defend yourself, and hope the police get there before you or your female family are raped to death. Jennifer has it all down. You have no chance, civilians are too slow & stupid to learn and retain useful skills. You’re not worthy of the kind of trust to believe you could possibly actually tell the difference between a life & death decision and you’d probably fu<k it up anyway.

    • Vampyredh

      Do you buy tin foil by the ton also?

    • Cheryl

      And while you’re sound asleep, all snug in your bed, and the intruder appears in your bedroom … you will be shot dead before you can rouse yourself, brush the cobwebs from your eyes and locate your gun in your fear and LOAD IT (assuming you SAFELY store your gun and ammunition in different places) and try to shoot. You people are ridiculous. There have been tests done on people experienced with guns and every one of them would be shot before they could react, because the “element of surprise” superseded any “training” they had, or their capability to even get their gun OUT from where they had it concealed. Your arguments are moot.

    • Richard Trombly

      DarcyDJ said “I use logic and reason to show my need for a gun. ” Darcy , you really do not really , fully get that whole “logic and reason” thing , do you? Your one gun against 300 million loses. Guns do not defend you and do not protect you. They just let you kill someone else.
      Go on living in fear. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a society that will tolerate neither.
      It takes a true coward to pull a trigger.

    • charlie

      You are more likely to be shot by someone you know than a stranger. That is a actual fact. Feel free to verify.

    • charlie

      Here’s a fact that may be checked: you are more likely to be shot by someone you know than a stranger.

    • Denis

      You want a gun , to protect yourself from crazy people with guns, who also actually think that they are safer with a gun ?

      Hint – at NRA endorsed gun shows they also have gun controls such as … “no loaded guns”. EVEN the NRA knows that you are safer without a loaded gun than with one !!

      But the NRA and all the terrorist groups that exist because of this irrational paranoia do thamk you for your support. Without people like you, terrorism wouldnt be what it is today – Al Qaeda thanks you !

    • sb

      And yet you will overwhelmingly be likely to react like Barney Fife and becoming a quivering mass of urine-stained clothes if ever put in such a situation. or better yet, as the DA in Texas and his wife, who owned nearly 50 guns in their home, wind up shot to death anyway. All while putting the rest of us in danger over your misguided and misread obsession over an archaic afterthought to the Constitution.

    • Elly

      If you want your guns, we want our regulations. It’s a win-win.

    • Kei

      DO you think ANY of your guns will taker down an F-16? You are smoking crack. If the Govt wants to own you, it will, and there is NOTHING you can do to defend yourself. The US is a Nuclear Superpower, not the Citizens. So if a pea shooter gives you sense of security, fine, but it doesn’t erase the fact it will do nothing to protect you except from maybe a few thugs in the real world, not the US military.

  • Brian

    What Gun Nuts refuse to comprehend is that the Second Amendment wasn’t written to protect us FROM “the government.”

    Article One, Section 8, Line 12 was written to protect us FROM the central government by seeking to prevent the creation of a standing military.

    The Second Amendment was written so that We the People could PROTECT *our* government of, by, and for The People.

    There is nothing to fear from a government when it isn’t in control of a standing professional military. Yet, Gun Nuts and other Conservatives are all too enthusiastic when they hand over the blank check to the Military Industrial Complex every two years. Then they scream about being afraid of “the government” as their justification for being armed to the teeth even as it is abundantly clear that their closet of NRA provided guns is no match for the war toys their tax dollars pay for.

    • Freedom lover

      we aren’t armed to the teeth- no tanks, no artiliery, no MRAPS, no machine guns, no air power.

    • Dan

      You need to read the Federalist papers and articles of confederation before you blindly state the 2nd amendment was not put in place to protect us from the government.

      • Marty

        I have read the Fed apapers and so has EVERY FRicken law student in the United States, that includes the SCOTUS justices, They Don’t mean what you think they mean with your simple understanding of law and justice. Secondly, the federalist papers are in no way binding. You’re just another simple nobody doing nobody things having no responsibility for anything of importance. So please leave your childish concepts at the door. Faling that, please take a donut on your way out.

    • Tony Anger

      I’m going to puke…you side with this idiot?? If the people of this country didn’t have the second amendment, than some asshole like Obama could declare marshal law in a whim…and Boston wasn’t even close to marshal law, it was more like a curfew till the area was safe. You sheep scare me because you have no ideas that involve logic. I have never been in fear from my life from a criminal, because I an armed, I am trained and I prepare. I am terrified of Obama and his socialist agenda, because he, along with you cowards want to disarm me! I am one of the people that will protect you, whether you deserve it or not, because I am an American and will protect American’s…even the stupid cowardly American’s. You want to kill off the sheep dogs and let the wolf protect you, as he kills off a few sheep here and there. This man is a fool…and if you agree with him…well you are a fool as well.

      • jericho60

        Sounds like you’re terrified of a lot of things, amigo.

        Hell of a way to go through life.

      • Susan Meakin-Vacek

        OMG what the heck is wrong with you? NO ONE is trying to prevent you from bearing arms, what the Goverment is trying to do is to do is prevent the use of ASSAULT WEAPONS such as UZI/Magazines guns. By all means, have your opinions, and stick by those ideals. But be careful who you listen to in order to form your opinions. As late as 1999, the NRA thought that mandatory background checks were a reasonable thing to have, not only in gun retailers and pawn shops, but also at gun shows and prior to a person-to-person sale of weapons. They even took out full page ads in national newspapers to this effect. It wasn’t until the board of directors of the NRA became dominated mainly by manufacturers of guns and ammunition that the policies began to change.
        Recent polls of current NRA members have found that the majority of members and licence holders actually want universal and mandatory background checks, as well as a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. It seems that the law abiding citizens who own weapons don’t see the point of having these devices on the streets. The latest statistics show that the people who take the time and money to learn how to use a weapon safely, have it licenced, and have had a background check done on themselves would really like to see that anybody else who would want to own a gun go through the same procedure. One of the major gripes of the members of the NRA is that the NRA is not taking these concerns to heart in any way. And why should they? The NRA is now only a lobby group for the weapons and ammunition manufacturers, according to Adolphus Busch, who just resigned his life-long membership to the NRA.
        I don’t have a problem with anyone owning a gun, as long as it can be shown that they can prove that they have, like any responsible adult, taken the time to learn how to use it, learned how to store it properly, and shown the rest of us that they haven’t, say, robbed a liquor store in the past. That is what the majority of the members of the NRA want. Who can reasonably argue with that?

        • Doug Carson

          First off, what is a Magazines guns? Second, you do realize that the term “Assault Weapon” is something the media and anti-gunners came up with…right? Do you know the difference between Military rifles such as the M4 or m16 and the CIVILIAN AR-15? Military rifles are either full auto or select fire (semi, burst and full), while the AR-15 requires one trigger pull per round fired. You wont find our Military carrying Civilian rifles. It is already very difficult if not nearly impossible for MOST civilians to own a full auto “assault rifle” ( National Firearms Act of 1934 and Gun Control Act of 1968). You dont hear many gun owners complain about that. They do complain when people want to ban a rifle designed for CIVILIANS.

          I assume that you can provide a link to the alleged “polls of current NRA members have found that the majority of members and licence holders actually want universal and mandatory background checks, as well as a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines”…right? I call BS on that.

          I like how you say you dont have a problem with anyone owning guns…as long as it fits YOUR agenda.

          The answer isn’t in banning firearms of any kind. The answer is in actually enforcing laws that are already on the books, rewriting current laws and making severe penalties for anyone using a firearm while committing ANY crime. First off, make all firearm offenses Federal. Then, allow for a mandatory penalty (in addition to the penalty for the original offense) of 15 years for the use of a firearm while committing a non-violent offense (such as robbery) and 25-life for the use of firearms during a violent crime. This would put the burden where it belongs, on the CRIMINALS.

          • Buddy

            Hey Doug, that one trigger pull per round fired sounds slow, it’s kind of like the favorite “gotcha” of gun geeks…how come none of y’all ever mention the Slide Fire replacement stock for the AR15 that will let that poor civilian rifle bump fire one hundred…yes, that’s one hundred…rounds in seven seconds. So says Slide Fire’s own website and it’s perfectly legal. Of course, little fact…again, one hundred rounds in seven seconds…wouldn’t quite fit the narrative would it? Or the other fact that most AR15s today can handle the same ammunition as the military versions…which are designed to be as lethal as possible. So, one hundred military rounds in seven seconds…with a slight, legal modification on your little civilian rifle…is a necessary weapon? Made up term or not, assault rifle kind of fits the truth, doesn’t it?

        • Justin

          The recent pols you speak of were proven false. BTW NRA members to not support ANY new gun control. Funny how the NRA has signed up almost 1 million new members in the last 6 months.

          • Lil

            Please cite the information that shows these polls were proven false.

      • tomg

        @Tony Anger …how exactly will the Gov come and take your guns? Will the military come and knock down your door and take them by force? If you say yes then u have no faith in our military bc they would refuse to obey that order.. and rightfully so. Hitler had his army on his side and to think our gov can order the our military is an insult to the men and women who serve THE PEOPLE not GOV! So pls tell us how the gov would go about taking your guns? Who would do it and how. It wont ever happen unless you surrender them to the gov and that would never happen also. So how again pls tell me/us bc I heard “the gov is trying to take our guns away” but none of you nuts can explain how it would happen.

      • Marty

        Why some asshole like Obama, why not an asshole like you, who disregards the vast majority of the polulation, faces the destruction of young and innocent lives with hubris, and is unknowingly supporting an organization that lobbied in 1the 70’s to allow untraceible Black powder purchases to the brother of a watched foreign national. That’s right, do your research. While you’re at it… did you know the top 10 global school massacres were committed by white Europeans and one Mid eastern. So, the Crazy criminal is YOU.

      • Marty

        The only Brainless sheep that will die, will be you Tony… Have a nice ‘trip’.

      • Karen

        Are you aware that the president expanded gun rights? Do some research on Obama, national parks and guns. St spouting without having some facts. Here is some interesting reading from the. Mouth of that liberal icon Antonin Scalia in Heller vs. the District of Columbia. “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

      • Lil

        When you finally have an idea of how the English language works and can actually read the bill that was before the Senate and rejected, please rejoin the adults in this conversation. Given the tenuous grasp you seem to have on it as per this post, however, I doubt that will ever happen.

    • John F (Boulder, Co)

      Totally recto-cranially inverted.

  • Gabriel…

    …it wasn’t “Martial Law”, it’s called “Shelter in place”. Huge difference.

    • K

      When shelter in place is enforced by the Armed Forces of the U.S. Military, it is Martial Law even if no one officially calls it that.

      • Susan Meakin-Vacek

        I assert that if one of your INNOCENT family members had suffered the same fate as those at the Boston Marathon and the Government had done NOTHING you would be singing from a totally different hymn sheet. What did you want to have happen? leave these 2 men to further terrorize Bostonians? I am sorry but you need to get your head out of your a** and wise up, you can’t fight crime with crime, and a terrorist is invisible until he wants to been seen/heard. It is time to wake up and stop bitching and whinning about the right to bear arms and how you would protect your neighbor with your arsenal of guns even if you didn’t like him or respect him! That is pathetic, and you would’nt stand a chance because your too busy chirping on and twisting the reasoning behind gun reform and puffing out yournone existant chest to recognise a terrorist if he jumped in your lap!!! Your EGO and bravado isn;t going to win against a terrorist, it is gonna take something you don;t have a cool head, clear thinking and the blessed comman sense to make reasoned descisions that get at the root of how to find these people before they get to a place like a marathon and kill innocent people in the name of a cause.

        You might consider shutting the f”””ck up for five minutes and taking a LOOK/LISTEN to who and what is going on right underneath your nose and if you learn anything pass it on to the Government and let them deal with it!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Gabriel…

        …but it wasn’t enforced by the military. It was cops, there was no suspension of civil liberties, and people were free to walk outside whenever / wherever they wanted. Most chose — their decision — not to.

        It’s an “advisory”, that’s it.

  • Whodat-USMC

    What is this “100 clip magazine” you’re talking about?

    • Brad

      As far as I can tell, this article is about making a collage.

    • mickey

      forget it, they jam.

  • Civil War

    Great and apply that one man by millions of guns and determine people. Working well for al quidea and the ten year war.

    • Marty

      bring it ya little beeeatch

  • Freedom lover

    Steve Marmel-
    You are the reason we call your type libtards. Why do you tell the Lybians that winning against a dictactor isn’t possible in modern times. Those people fought thier well trained and well armed military and won. Also- the government took five days to catch two people that had no help what so ever. A whole week just to get two people and only after the fact that they were able to use something that was banned- a bomb plus they had AK-47’s (also banned in MA). How many gun owners are in the US? Way more than just two and most are military and law enforcement. Have you seen the list 90% of them don’t support your sensless gun law proposals. Further you have to get a background check at a gun show- it is a law already. You people just will not do research to find out the facts. There is no 90% of americans that stand against the senators- why do you think they voted against the law- because everyone who was against it worte them telling them not to supprt it.

    • meghan

      “Freedom Lover”-
      Hi. From an outsiders perspective, reading your exchange with Steve Marmel, there’s no doubt that you came off looking worse here. Your logic is flawed, the scenario you depicted (of the Lybians overthrowing the government) is the reason people make fun of republicans. Because you actually think that 1) its plausible that something like that would ever happen in America (I don’t care how much you hate Obama, its not going to happen, you dunce) and 2) the United states Military could decimate you and others like you in a quick minute. Not only that, but your and other republicans continued use of grade-school caliber slurs like “libertard” certainly doesn’t help your case. You might as well have said “That’s so gay! Ugh!” (Although come to think of it, you’re probably homophobic too, aren’t you?) People like you are so frustrating to try to reason with, because, frankly, you’re beyond reason. You’re convinced that liberals couldn’t possibly genuinely care about the dozens of people killed by gun owners every freaking day in this country (Because that would be UNSPEAKABLE, wouldn’t it?) But instead, you accuse them of using tragedies like this to “push an agenda”. You need to open your eyes. Every other industrialized country on the planet who has banned automatic weapons has seen a significant drop in gun violence. That people like you continue to ignore that reality, while citing statistics from the only websites you can find that tell you what you want to hear (cognitive dissonance at its finest), is such a testament to why the republican party has become such a laughingstock in the last decade. You simply don’t want to see the truth. You’d rather believe Obama is this horrible tyrant who plans to take over the world than face facts. Simple background checks are a 100% reasonable compromise, that is, to anyone who’s not wearing a tin foil hat and listening to Rush Limbaugh scream “OBAMA WANTS TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS!!!!” Get your head out of your ass, reread your conversation with Steve, and learn something today. (Who am I kidding, I already know this will go in one ear and out the other. You don’t want to learn. You don’t want to have a healthy and respectful dialogue with those who might think differently than you. You just want to condescendingly lecture liberals, citing questionable statistics and a truly backwards world view.)

      • TJackson

        well said Meghan!!

      • Marty

        Some one Meme Megan. It’s perfect!

        • meghan

          *digs big toe into ground*
          Thanks Marty!

      • C GRIFFIN


      • Lil

        Good job, Meghan!

    • Susan Meakin-Vacek

      I beg to differ, the reason the gun amendment didn’t get voted for by the Senators is simple they are not going to vote for gun control when they are bought and aid for by the NRA and afraid of them to boot!!!!!!!!

      • Justin

        I beg to differ too. The reason the gun control amendment didn’t get voted for by the Senators is simple, they are not going to vote for gun control when their constituents dont wan’t their rights taken away!! Also because there is still a huge percentage of us in this country that respect the founding documents that this country was built on. Patriotism is still alive and will prevail!

    • moonshiner

      Not only that, Freedom lover (great post, BTW) it was the HOMEOWNER that found the 2nd suspect/bomber, NOT the cops/military, etc.

    • Marty

      BTW where on earth did you get the idea they had AK 47’s? There is no indication of ANY type of longgun use, just semi auto pistols.

    • Doug Carson

      Freedom Lover, now you have done it. You have brought common sense and reality to this libtard website. What are you thinking?

      BTW..Well said.



      • Sherrie

        U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals “not engaged in the business” of dealing firearms, or who only make “occasional” sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale.

  • Lorrie Ortiz

    Great article and I am relieved that 90percent want more gun control, it seems the gunnecks are very outspoken and would lead you to believe the whole country is an NRA member. I like to ask these whack jobs to quote me other amendments and they usually can’t. But this article will make for interesting debate the next time I get verbally attacked by these crazies

    • Andrew Podschelne

      Lorie, get his sources, wait, he doesn’t have any. 90% of the population doesn’t want the unconstitutional laws they keep trying to pass, hence they keep getting rejected. Five days to catch two kids, working alone. It took five days to catch a pair of amateurs. An armed militia? What do you think we do/did, play Call of Duty and think we can take on the world? A state militia would be composed of combat veterans. Think about this: we know bases, tactics, maps, layouts, procedures, SOP’s, where things are located, etc. Do you think tanks, airplanes, UAV’s, and cameras will occupy a city? It takes troops, boots on the deck, hand to hand fighting through streets and buildings, and THAT is what the 2nd amendment gives to a militia if the government becomes corrupt. The power to fight corruption.

    • Guardian

      No Lorrie, the whole country does not have a membership in the NRA, but, they do number well into the millions. So, you what to hear other amendments? Lets try the Fifth Amendment:
      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or ottherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in a time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in keopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be witness against himself, nor deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
      Or, how about the Nineth
      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
      I would almost wonder how many you could spout off. I may be considered a gun nut because I like to target shoot, however, I believe that it is my right to own those firearms as they were LEGALLY purchased, and used for LEGAL PURPOSES. Does everyone want guns, no. Should everyone own a gun? That is for them tjat could legally get one to decide. The right of one person does not stop where anothers begin. Whether you thing a person “needs” a certain type of fireakrm or not, is not your decision for that person, but the decion off that person to own it based on a need or want.

  • Robert

    When people like you talk I get upset because you don’t know what you are talking about. The ignorance that comes out of yours and people like senator Feinstein is amazing. But back to you.
    I hope you realize it wasn’t the fact the city went under martial law, became a no fly zone or flooded it with troops and technology that caught him… No what caught him was a man who really takes care of his boat and had more than normal situational awareness than most people saw that the tarp on his boat was loose. It made it the whole winter just fine. He went to inspect further and saw blood and the line was cut.
    I’m not anti gun and I don’t own a gun. But I can’t stand stupid, and this is stupid.

  • American By Birth

    Better to be “a whack job” and “crazy” and stand up for what is right according to the Constitution, than to be a blind “yes man” sheep being led to slaughter. BTW, where can I get these 100 round MAGAZINES?

  • Barry C

    The irony of Mr. Marmel’s article is that he fails to see the other tragedy unfolding before our very eyes. The loss of freedom and liberty, with all nodding their head’s in agreement without so much as a whimper. A precedence has been set for future events. A justification of mind to set aside our liberties as citizens in the guise of catching that one individual for the well being and safety of us all. How many events can we now think of in the past where this same scenario could have played out. California ? Oklahoma ? Serial murder ? Mass shooting ?

    Are we saying that we will happily relinquish our rights and freedoms for some security ? Is that wise to walk that slippery slope ?

    Police + Military + lockdown … nobody is permitted to be outdoors … this is to be the norm going forward ? Worse yet, if you are suspect at any point whether guilty or not… your rights are subject to further dismissal due to special ‘loop holes’ that have been created.

    Does this not bother anyone ?

    • Patrick

      I guess so long as we get to twiddle our gunz in the basement, we don’t give a fig about a lockdown in the outside world… What are firearms outside of being tools for hunting….? I consider them to be Erectile-Deficit-Compensation devices. Perhaps Cialis and Viagra can start making bullet-shaped pills stored in AR-15-shaped bottles.

  • Chris

    By your logic we should have never won the Revolutionary War, guess what, there will always be a special breed of individuals who will fight a tyrannical government. I was born and raised in Europe, in my studies we learned Stalin killed 100-120 million people who didn’t fit his agenda. So if you would rather be a slave, live graveling on your knees, then by all means continue on, but those who are ready will keep the government in check. We outnumber the military, cover every corner of the U.S., and as a service member there is no way we could engage or control every person. Even if the military could there are thousands like myself who would help to bring it down from within.

  • XDisk

    Name ONE SINGLE shooting incident that was stopped by a law, a ban, or a sign that said “Gun Free Zone”. You can’t. Criminals and idiots don’t follow the rules. Making more of them won’t stop the madness. Lanza broke 40 some odd gun laws. How many more do you think it would have taken to stop him? 50? 60?

  • Mikey

    The vast majority of combat hardened military members are conservative, republican, Second Amendment supporters. They hate their commander in chief, he doesn’t respect them and they don’t respect him. If you think for one minute that members of our military would fight against our citizens you are a bigger idiot than the president.

  • Donno

    “Think about that the next time there’s a school shooting that could have been prevented by a ban or minimized by regulating clip-size…”
    I’ll do ya one better, and I’ll think about that the FIRST time that there’s a mass shooting that could have been prevented by either of those!

    • Guardian

      Donno, Connecticut had a ban, did that help to prevent that shooting? Think aabout that for a minute. And while you are thinking, try to think about how many other laws were broken in the commission of that tragedy. Murder, theft, and thats before he went to a gun free zone.

    • Justin

      I will think about it and i’ll think about what kind of idiot doesn’t agree with teachers being allowed to carry guns so that they could have prevented this shooting!

  • Mikey

    In fact our combat units would likely join the civilians rising up against the government. I know all of my buddies who are still in plan on doing just that in the event our government oversteps its bounds.

  • JFKwasTheOnlySensibleLiberal

    When is the next Pity Party at the White House taking place? Guest list: Biden, Obama, Bloomberg, Cuomo, Feinstein, Schumer and even turncoat McCain. Plus, a host of other gun grabbing socialists/communists liberal butt wipes. Poor Biden, he cried his eyes out last week! WAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!

    Gun control is like trying to kill cancer with a drug that attacks only healthy cells and leaves the cancer.

    If the 2nd Amendment is only for muskets and militia, then the 1st Amendment is only for one page newspapers and Olde English.

    That is all.

  • James M

    The one obvious and glaring issue all of you anti gun people seem to conveniently leave out is that all of these shootings have been by people who ILLEGALLY obtained their guns. I’m genuinely interested in hearing any of you explain to me how any laws that have been proposed or currently in place would have prevented ANY of the shootings that occurred? I’m asking a genuine question that should be easy to answer if you are right as you all claim. I have no problem with any of you not wanting guns. I don’t mind one bit. But if you are going to argue a point at least say something that makes sense. Your emotional knee jerk reactions do nothing but make me think you are an unintelligent lunatic.

    • Will

      “The one obvious and glaring issue all of you anti gun people seem to conveniently leave out is that all of these shootings have been by people who ILLEGALLY obtained their guns.”

      Bullshit. The guns used at Sandy Hook were legally bought by Adam Lanza’s mother. Had background checks been mandatory, perhaps someone would have figured out this women wasn’t responsible enough for guns (since she allowed her mentally unstable sun access to them.) This is why we want stricter gun laws, not to punish people but to keep dangerous objects out the hands of idiots and nutjobs. The same reason you have to pass a road test to drive.

    • Jana

      Gabrielle Giffords was shot by someone who purchased his guns legally, I believe.

  • James M

    I forgot to include another huge hypocrisy in the anti gun movement. If bans and restrictions really work, please explain to me why Chicago and New York City have the highest gun violence statistics in the country? They both have pretty much complete bans on guns in general. By your anti gun logic there shouldn’t be ANY gun violence in those cities since they have a gun ban. Please explain this to me because I’m really really interested in hearing an intelligent answer. I have a feeling that I’ll be listening to the crickets chirping on this one yet again.

    • Jacob

      Because people can drive over into one of the idiot states and buy whatever they like. A non-Federal gun law is as effective as a local fireworks ban. Oh, except a bunch of people die.

  • Al L.

    That being said I, by myself, would not stand a chance – you are correct! On the other hand if ALL citizens were properly trained to use and store their weapon then there would be a very different scenario. You may think you are helping your cause but you are just showing your one sided view of reality. GUNS are not the problem. The lack of education as to what they can do and what they should be used for are the problem. Properly checking on the individual may stop some of the crimes but most are taken from the registered owner to be used in these mass killings and were not purchased legally. I do not pretend to be totally for guns without checks. Background checks are important and should be done. But when you say to turn in ALL guns and then to call those with guns, to defend you from someone that has theirs illegally, is just as crazy. I will keep my gun until you pry it from my hand!

  • JFKwasTheOnlySensibleLiberal

    Marmel, you look like the typical west coast CommieFornia liberal puppet master. I bet both of your mommies are proud of you. Too bad they didn’t shut down Chicago last year and do the same – would have saved over 500 lives…”perhaps”. You jackwagon.

  • Aaron

    The gun bill that was voted down in the Senate on Thursday was far from sensible. It was a 600+ page bill that had an assault weapon ban, hand gun restrictions, and restrictions on magazine capacity. Hardly “sensible gun-control” laws.

    I’m all for background checks for gun purchases on the internet and at gun shows, but this bill was far from sensible.

  • Tina

    so because we don’t stand a chance against the government we should just give up our guns and possibly our freedom and just let them walk all over us?? We don’t think we can beat the government the point is we keep our guns and die trying, we don’t just roll over and let them have the guns in the hopes that some power crazed lunatic doesn’t come into office and we end up with what china has. We may not end up with a red dawn reality but at least then we can say we tried… and btw not every person with a lot of guns is a nut job or paranoid most of us are just realistic in realizing that where there is a will to kill people there is a way to kill them and taking guns wont change that… bombs are illegal but that didn’t stop those 2 young men from making 4 of them, planting 4 of them and blowing off 2 of them,

  • Marc

    Wow, I’m impressed.
    You actually made a serious attempt at making a good point.
    The thing is if you had actual facts behind you then Chicago would not be the laughing stock of gun control.
    If you actually believe that purchasing a gun is EASY, perhaps you should attempt to do so, reality is far different than the illusion that you and others that share your beliefs like to shroud yourselves in.
    People that like to argue what the 2nd Amendment is meant to do, tend to overlook the simple fact of what it is: a constitutional GUARANTEE of owning FIREARMS in order to EXERCISE a ____ (insert here your creator of choice) given RIGHT to DEFEND oneself. You might not like it, or agree with it, but those are the FACTS!
    Besides, despite all of the existing laws, regulations, ordinances, etc and etc that are currently on the books, armed crime is still an issue at large in our country, what makes you think that any more laws will change that? Disarming Americans? Really? Most guns in the streets are already illegally owned, yet, the police does nothing about it…
    I wish I could live in the FAIRY TALE LAND that people such as yourself live… Perhaps then I would not be here sitting in Afghanistan hunting fucking terrorists…

  • Ericy

    Better to have it and not need it folks. I can’t believe how retarded anyone would be to try and take everyone’s rights to try and fix 3% of homicides. And clearly… Gun control is workin in Chicago. To the author, disarm yourself… Put a sign on your lawn, making everyone aware that there are no guns in your home. I think you’re a gun control moron who doesn’t know what your talking about.

  • alexander the great

    your logic doesn’t make sense.these were necessary measures for saftey, and there was no reason to defend yourself against the police ATF FBI in Boston. but, there are multiple rebel groups that are causing trouble throughout the world against their governments. Some have completely overthrown their government (Egypt, Libya). Others are on their way there (Syria). US citizens have more firearms than those countries combined. It would be impossible for the government to truly contain/control ALL of the US with how big the country is and how well armed it is.

  • alexander the great

    your logic doesn’t make sense.these were necessary measures for safety, and there was no reason to defend yourself against the police ATF FBI in Boston. but, there are multiple rebel groups that are causing trouble throughout the world against their governments. Some have completely overthrown their government (Egypt, Libya). Others are on their way there (Syria). US citizens have more firearms than those countries combined. It would be impossible for the government to truly contain/control ALL of the US with how big the country is and how well armed it is.

  • Mike

    Wow, you’re all a bunch of sheeple. Wake up to the world around you and realize what’s really going on. May the lord have mercy on your pitiful ignorant souls.

  • Dave

    So standing by the second amendment makes me a lunatic? Hmmm….interesting. I certainlt don’t want to be a lunatic, so I guess we should just get rid of the second amendment.
    Come to think of it, why don’t we do away with the 4th amendment too. I mean seriously…just think of all the crime that could be prevented if the authorities would just go in and search everyone’s home. How many secret meth labs and marijauna grows that would be busted….How many children chained up in basements being used as sex slaves… not to mention all those illegal (or soon to be,anyway) guns just laying around waiting for the perfect opportunity to commit a mass murder. If giving up any right to privacy saves even one innocent child’s life, then isn’t it totally worth it?!?!
    Then, we can focus doing away with that pesky 5th amendment…always getting in the way of justice. Wouldn’t it be so much easier to convict criminals if we would, upon arrest, sieze all thier assets…home, land, money, cars,etc… then force them to testify againts themselves in trial after trial until we get the guilty verdict they deserve for ever being accused?!? If we really want to put an end to crime, then guarenteeing conviction just for being accused and arrested would surely keep anyone from even thinking about breaking the law…right? Right! Hell, may as well chuck out the 6th, 7th and 8th amendments with it, since they’ll be pretty much useless.
    Don’t even get me started on the 1st amendment…that old piece of outdated garbage…it would take way too long to list all the flaws it’s got. Point is, the whole bill of rights is stupid and unnessecary and should be thrown in the trash heap where it belongs. The US and the rest of the world would be alot better off without it.
    Whew…I feel so much saner now….

  • mickey

    in all honesty, if i need to overthrow my government, the first thing i am gonna want to do is get my hands on the gear they use, it’s way better than anything i can buy.

  • dave martig

    This article is typical liberal BS. First of all we do not know who did this . We do not know because we have not had a trial by jury.And if the fascists running this country, like Lindsey Graham have their way there won’t be.Reason being the 2 boys accused of doing the deed may not have done it and may have been patsies.Just as on 9/11 there was a NORAD exercise which should have prevented the attacks so to at the same time in the same place there was a bomb drill. There were many people in the area wearing the same backpacks. Some were filmed with whatq appeared to be transmitters.We used to have a constitution in this country but thanks to a bipartisan effort we no longer do. I don’t expect a terrorist attack in my neighborhood ….all my neighbors and myself are well armed

  • George

    This has to be the worst argument I’ve ever heard.

    Statists gonna state.

  • Shawn

    You might want to go back and watch the news coverage. The police were stumped by one 19 year old kid. To the point that they were calling off the active door to door search and lifting the controlled grid. Had it not been for dumb luck the kid would probably still be on the run or dead in that boat until the owner decided to take it out. One 19 year old kid stumped 1000’s of LEO’s both state and federal.

  • BD

    Will all of you please look up Martial Law and then look up Shelter in Place. There is a difference. Don’t confuse the two. Oh, and don’t fall the for all the errors on this blog either. Do your own research before jumping to conclusions like this author did.

  • Toaster802

    Steve Marmel; slave mindset on the loose. Also read as why God given rights, enumerated by our Bill of Rights are not up for a popular vote. Because tyranny of the weak is still tyranny.

    So all those cops and military for 2 guys? Imagine if there was say forty committed Islamic fanatics on the loose. Vets of close combat in the cities of Iraq. Do you really think the doughnut dollies waddling around in all that taxpayer supplied equipment would be so invincible? As it was, the boat person slipped through the cordon, and was only found by a home owner checking up on his property. Not your vaunted F troop.

    Don’t project your impotence and fear on your political enemies, Steve. It leads to incorrect assumptions and deadly mistakes. You and the rest of your “90%” frauds can continue to believe in your fantasy of total control over your fellow man. Meanwhile all of those guns you fear are being bought up as fast as they can be made by those people in your hated “flyover” country. And Steve, they are not being bought to commit crimes against innocents or to be turned in because some treasonous frauds elected by slaves desires they must comply. Put that in your crack pipe and smoke it.

  • Brian Grace

    YOU ARE ALL POWERLESS in the face of the NRA!!! YOUR SNIVELING ABOUUT GUN CONTROL MEANS NOTHING. My dollars I give to the NRA keep me safe from cowards like you. Martial law??? That was Americans united against terrorism. Dont be confused. When the economy collapses, and people like you rely on people like me for food and protection, you will left out in the cold while merrily eat and drink your food.

  • Chris Langston

    I hope that everyone here who is against the regulation of firearms is also against the regulation of narcotics. Because, as your argument goes, criminals don’t follow the law, so why have any law restricting them? They’re just going to get them anyways, right? Regulation does nothing to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands, it’s futile and useless, so why bother?

    • Ratcoon

      Heck, to use the gunnecks’ argument we may as well get rid of all laws. Criminals don’t follow the law anyway. A murderer’s going to murder, amirite? But come to think of it, most gunnecks are looney Libertarians (the bastardized American brand) anyway so they would probably love having no laws.

  • Sauron

    The 2nd Amendment yahoos need to wake up and realize that Obama is not coming for their weapons– he is coming for their Social Security.

  • fish

    and who was it that actually found the bomber? with how many military, police and swat running around……………great police work! I am sure that a band of gun owners .. well you get my drift. and your argument makes now sense… how many school shootings were done by legal guns owned by the shooters themselves, how many were bought at gun shows…how many were owned by right many were NRA owners? do your research before you think of imposing yourself on others.

  • Rob

    You know, it’s very hard to take the idiot seriously when he obviously doesn’t know what it is he wants to ban. There is absolutely no such thing as a “100 clip magazine.” Honestly, that doesn’t make any sense and immediately renders his rant pointless. With his panties tied in a knot he also doesn’t seem to understand the difference between, Shelter In Place” and Martial Law. If you got past these two ridiculous statements and still feel like he represents you, you may be the kind of Libertard that gets their facts and news from comedians on and celebrities. You are just the kind of sheep that are what is driving this country to ruin. But don’t let me bring you down, put the blinders back on and and keep on playing Candy Crush. I am sure *your* government has *your* best interests in mind.

  • D J

    Douchey article… Most 2nd amendment “lunatics” are simply tired of the govt overthrowing all of the Amedments, as they have been doing systematically in the name of public safety. But I guess, according to this guy, since they were able to lock down 1 city, resistence is futile. I guess we should just shut up and take it. The 2nd Amendment is the last and only line of possible prevention to the loss of all of the Amendments. I love how the left loves to portray 2nd Amendment supporters as “lunatic” or “right wing”. It is no different than stereotyping all violent criminals as black. It is ignorant and hypocritical considering that the left are usually the ones against such profiling or stereotyping. I am most definitely not right wing… I loathe Bush and his cronies. I loved Clinton (though not a fan of his gun control policies). It just seems to me to be a regurgitated talking point from the left, who really seem to love their 1st amendment rights as much as I love all of our rights under our Bill of Rights. I say stop bashing anyone’s passionate defense of any Amendment if you happen to be passionate about one yourself. It is hypocritical, and shows a great deal of intolerance. You think the govt is going to stop at NDAA, CISPA, TSA, Wall street bailouts, SuperPACs, Patriot act, ETC?? Wake up. They will keep nibbling away our freedoms, as they have been, until it will be illegal to speak your mind in a public place.

  • Snowdog

    I am glad that you want to live in a world where those in power can take everything you have, for whatever reasons they choose. I, however, do not; and you have no more right to lock down my city, or search my house, than I have to prevent you from going to work, or searching your house.

    But your premise is flawed. If the people were not behind the police-state like actions of this past Friday, then the weapons the people possessed, could have stopped it.

  • Pingback: Anyone else see this idiot? - INGunOwners

  • Justin

    Steve Marmel,
    I love it when someone tries to say that the people could never stand up to the government. Thats a laugh! Gun owners number 300 Million but lets say only a third take up the fight, thats still 100 million. The military numbers 5 million but well over half are stationed over seas. Of the remaining soldies here better than 50% would not stand with a government that was fighting their own fathers, brothers, and friends.
    For an example on a much smaller scale look at Al Queda in Afghanstan. No disprespect to our soldiers but the insurgents are doing quite well against the best military in the world and doing so with a hell of a lot less than 100 million fighters using 50 plus year old guns and crude bombs. Or you could look back to the American revolution when the colonist won the fight against the worlds best military at that time. Patriotism will previal!!

  • T

    There was no martial law declaration. The conduct of the gov et al was unconstitutional. Sorry no one stood up and refused in that city. That was a major loss for america, and not just because of the loss of life. I hold the loss of liberty of higher regard, than even my own life.

  • Regnar

    Gee, Marty is clearly the smartest SOB in this room! Maybe he should have someone spell check for him.
    He is a troll, go back under your bridge, be way with you.
    I refuse to ague with an idiot and a liar.

  • QUE

    You do realize that all of the police and all of the military with all of their hi-tech arsenal, that you so highly praise, didn’t find him don’t you? It was a simple homeowner checking on his personal property that led to his discovery. You should know your facts before you open your mouth.

  • Sauron

    Gun control, gay marriage, god, and abortion are great issues for the economic elite. If you’re part of the 1%, it’s impossible to stir up voter sentiment to support your greedy personal agenda. The only way to draw people to the polls at election time is to get them riled up over the social issues. So the little conservatives show up to vote in November, thinking that they are defending their precious values, when in fact they are being played for stooges by the Mitt Romneys of this world, who are only looking for another reduction in their capital gains tax. The Republican Party has mastered the art of smoke-and-mirrors; they have built a constituency around the social issues, but their real goal is a better deal for the wealthy. This scam could not be any more transparent, but it continues to fool way too many people.

  • Harvey

    Lunatics, huh? Great way to start a conversation. With yourself.

  • babiceal

    The cops and military didn’t find this guy. He was found by a home owner, after the cops had basically given up. Which is pretty embarrassing that one guy in a 20 block area, who is wounded, can escape and evade that many “professionals” for 18 hours. All that technology did wonders, didn’t it? What happens when 10 trained muslim terrorists try something similar to the Mumbai attack here in any US city? Yes they will probably be killed, eventually, but at what cost? Remember, the police have no duty to protect you, and that was the opinion of scotus.

  • Mark

    There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. Imagine if one half of one percent(.05%) are serious about their 2A rights, at least 10% of that group would then be willing to “take on” the authorities if the shit hits the fan. that is 400,000 people, now split that number into smaller groups of a hundred or so, that’s 400 small armies across the United States. Remember what one man (Dorner) did in Southern California? There is no way the government could handle a serious rebelion.

    • Mark

      Correction typo above, 4000 small armies

  • Pro2A

    Chicago murder capital of the country and only the police & criminals have guns. NO THANKS. I’ll cling to my bible & my evil black semiautomatic rifle. You fu@ktard loony left can cling to your phone and pray to the tree gods that the police will arrive in time to drop your corpse off at the hospital (so you can get the Suckcare Mr ZERO rammed in congress) after some criminal rapes and then kills you with the blunt object (used to kill more then guns). 2nd Amendment is here to stay and so are all the 300 million + guns. Hypocrites how many babies did you kill today with Abortion?

  • FreedomLoverAlso

    I read this debate with a chuckle, having been dutifully entertained. We could debate the facts, the clear lack of understanding of the function of firearms, the conveniently absent recognition of the Supreme Court’s Heller Decision, the blatant lies regarding the content of the federalist papers, or the amazing refusal to comprehend that a successful Defensive Gun Use ends in the death and injury of no one.

    I will point out only two monumental statements

    1) The Police did not locate Suspect Number 2, despite a 16 hour manhunt during which the very fabric of our bill of rights was torn at its seams. Their technology, intelligence and presence did not locate this man cowering in the hull of a boat. It was an ordinary citizen and his situational awareness that located the suspected terrorist. It was the photography and videography of hundreds of dutiful civilians, the tips and information phoned in by citizens, and the diligent awareness of those civilians that brought the identities and whereabouts of these individuals to the proper authorities. As the Intelligence community says “There is No Substitute for Human Intelligence.” No amount of drones, satellites, cameras, wiretaps and hackers can substitute the value of an individual who takes it upon themselves to be a responsible citizen and do the right thing.

    2) Now I am really going to scare you all to your very core. Do you honestly believe that the service members in Special Operations, Combat Arms, and Aviation will blindly obey an order to engage and infringe upon the rights of American Civilians? The most critical assets to the United States Military, the most battle tested and intelligent men and women serving this country, are the exact demographic which sympathize most with the very group of people you are calling paranoid and doomed. You want the nightmare scenario? Special Forces ODA’s running insurgency operations instead of counter insurgency operations. SEAL Teams using hit and run tactics on conscripted, untrained soldiers. Air Force pilots defecting en masse and turning their weapons on the very support system that keeps them in the air. The very demographic you think is unprepared and doomed to fail in an insurgency is the demographic that understands the US Military and how to fight an insurgency the most. What you are frightened to accept, and what ultimately makes this scenario as unlikely as nuclear war, is that the best trained men and women in the United States Military would not be fighting for a tyrannical government. They would be fighting against it.

    • Shiftee

      Well said… these people seem to forget we swear an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION…not the President. We swear to obey the ORDERS of the President…subject to the CONSTITUTION. I like the SOF analysis, couldn’t have said it better myself.

  • Tim

    This guy is a complete and total fool. I don’t buy weapons to protect myself from the government, however, that being said, his logic is fatally flawed. ONE boy shut down the city of Boston for 3 days. With all of the US’s advanced technology, weaponry and resources, they still had to lock down the city, call resources from neighboring cities and states, and it still took 3 days and hundreds of rounds down range to find and arrest one incompetent boy hiding in a boat, and only then because a citizen out for a walk happened to stumble across him while he was bleeding out and called the police. Now image if our government really was tyrannical, and there was an organized resistance, in every state and city in the United States. Now consider that there would most certainly be members of the police and military that would aid or jump ship to said resistance. We have been in Afghanistan for 12 years and still have failed to suppress an illiterate, disorganized, rag tag enemy. We gave up in Iraq. Vietnam kicked our teeth in. Battle of Mogadishu. You guys are ridiculous little statists.

  • Chuck Blalock

    Why can’t some of us stick to the reasons why we need gun control. It’s to save lives. But the NRA worked all the gun owners into a panic by telling them the Government was coming to take their weapons. And to add more panic they mentioned your 2nd Amendment Rights are being decimated. What a bunch of horse shit. Years ago, that same NRA tried to defend gun ownership by saying guns don’t kill people, people kill people…Or guns don’t kill people, bullets kill people. I don’t think hospital emergency rooms are too worried about people dying from a bullet thrown at them. Maybe if we worried more about the numbers of people killed by guns, rather than our own fears, we might actually save some lives. One more thing…Be glad you live in a country where we have freedom of speech, even if it is negative towards our country. I’ll take my right to freedom of speech over your right to bear arms, but the government wasn’t trying to take your guns. What about my right not to be shot by some nut with a gun…Even that wasn’t being taken from you. It’s time to think of all the people who have died.

    • Freedomloveralso

      Yes, lets talk about the number of gun murders.

      And how they are declining steadily, and have been for 20 years despite no new gun control laws.

      Let’s talk about that.

  • CVC

    Wouldn’t last two days?

    Well I guess that’s about a day and a half longer than you would last. I guess that’s worth the cost of the 14 guns. Plus I get the joy of knowing you caught it in the first wave. Double bonus!

  • Tim

    Furthermore, the argument that firearms are rarely used in defense or that one shot is enough to stop an armed intruder 100% of the time, is absolutely and utterly ridiculous. Those of you that subscribe to this line of thinking have your heads buried so deep in the sand you can probably taste vegemite. It must be nice living in such utopian and blissful ignorance. Have fun cowering in your closet if you front door gets kicked in, praying that the police arrive before the intruders can get to your bedroom.

  • Vertigo

    So what the author is saying is….. He’d rather submit to any president that decides to abuse their power because he’d rather give up his rights to be safe than fight tyranny. His choice. Don’t tread on my rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution. You know. That piece of paper that many in the government are now wiping their ass with.

    I’d rather die standing up than live lying down.

    Apparently he still doesn’t understand that most of these people who commit crimes didn’t receive their guns legally in the first place. Bombs are against the law too. Didn’t stop the carnage in Boston now did it? What next? Background checks at Bed Bath and Beyond to buy a pressure cooker? If that was the case, Chef Gordon Ramsay would be banned from the Kitchen.

    We don’t need MORE useless laws. We need to have the laws currently on the books actually upheld and prosecuted.

    • Steve

      OK, I get really tired of hearing all of this BS from the republican right wing catholic constitutionalist (who don’t follow it unless it benefits them) about someone taking your guns away and violating your 2nd amendment rights!!!! No one, from my research (other than maybe the NRA) has talked about removing your guns – stopping you from buying more guns. The only thing we want – and I’m still baffled as to why (really why) you people and the NRA are against making sure that specific people already prohibited from having guns can buy them. The 2nd amendment is great and I understand it very well, and it absolutely (thanks to the supreme court) guarantees YOUR right to own a gun – however, it also says gun ownership is then to be regulated. I’m amazed at how many of you just didn’t like that part and are willing to VIOLATE your own rights be attempting to eliminate that part. I’m still waiting for a sane reasoning why background checks are such a threat to YOUR right to own a gun, which you have already exercised. And doesn’t just the logic of you wanting to let anyone buy a gun regardless of if they are crazy or not – only showing that you are probably not really sane enough to own one either??? OH wait, I understand now – if the crazy people can buy a gun, then at some point, you may actually get to shoot someone with YOUR gun. I know understand the whole thing here.

  • M. O. Santy

    Need to add that while I agree with you – this was not martial law, as there was no active FEDERAL military involvement. The National Guard was called in for traffic & logistics support in limited amounts, and were not armed. The military vehicles you saw used were commandeered by law enforcement.

  • ARWKoppen

    Author? You are telling a correct story.

  • Paul

    God you’re an idiot.

  • AmericanAdult

    Awwwww, this was CUTE, Stevie!

    Mommy let you play on the computer, and you have your own little corner of the internet where you can rant and whine and spew whatever silliness you choose. Very cute.

    Now, go back to the basement and let Constitutional issues like the Second Amendment be discussed sensibly by us grown-ups, without your little nonsensical, unthinking rants.

    That’s a good boy. :D

  • Steve
  • Michael R. Burhans (@Vandeervecken)

    Well since you cannot seem to make a point without seasoning it with an excessive amount of childish insults I am not sure why I am bothering to respond but I’ll try anyway I guess.

    It took over 9000 troops nearly 24 hours to find one severely wounded man. Hardly military perfection. You might also note barely past stone age fighters in Afghanistan are running our military out of their country. As the Vietnamese did.

    You might also note the 2nd amendment is just as important in times of civil unrest.

    For all your bluster, for all your childish insults you cannot argue the the 2nd amendment is not there.

  • Sherrie

    Oh my God…my head hurts after reading all this back and forth “I’m right and you’re not” bull!

    There’s no conspiracy theory about the bombing in Boston. Our government is not taking away our rights. We all need to be a bit more respectful of each other. The “libtard” comments are just childish.

    Just agree to disagree. The ONLY way you’re going to make a difference is VOTE IN THE NEXT ELECTION AND PUT SOMEONE IN OFFICE WHO WILL DO SOMETHING!

  • Shiftee

    This may have been the worst liberal argument I have seen yet.
    1) No, Boston was not under “Martial Law” as the military did not assume command of the city. There may have been national guardsmen deployed under command of their own governor but until you see the 82nd airborne manning checkpoints and said governor no longer has control of the state…just shut up. In the meantime enroll in a poly sci course or two
    2) There’s no such thing as a 100 round “clip magazine”. In fact, go ahead…ban all the “clips” you want. Clips are nothing but ammunition grouped for easier loading into a “magazine”. Magazines feed weapons, clips can feed magazines. If you’re attempting to string a sentence together intent upon making someone else look stupid…it helps to actually know what you’re talking about.
    3) Nobody has ever seriously claimed they could, or would go all “red dawn” on the US military. Ironically, the vast majority of the US military are the very same people you’re attacking. So essentially you think we’re boasting to use our “14 guns” to defend ourselves against…ourselves? That beings said, I guarantee I have more friends than you do.
    4) No school shooting could be prevented by a ban. School zones already “ban” guns. No legislation seeks to remove all guns from the country and, if it did, the people willing to perpetrate mass murder wouldn’t even blink to break any statutory ban. Unless you possess magical powers no regulation on “clip” capacity would minimize a shooting. Millions of MAGAZINES already exist. If possessing a STANDARD capacity magazine became a crime, again, I doubt someone ready to commit murder is going to care about the additional charge of committing said murder with a “regulated” magazine.
    5) Dealers at gun shows already run FBI checks and require a permit, obtained through municipally regulated means, to purchase a handgun. The legislation proposed and defeated by those “twit” senators contained no framework to regulate private sales, which are the only unregulated sales at gun shows. Supposing what you said was actually correct, still…no legislation to date has addressed a mental health component so you’re “mentally unstable” person, as long as they haven’t committed a felony, is STILL going to pass your background check. Many of the school/mass shootings in question were committed by mentally unstable people with guns that were purchased WITH A BACKGROUND CHECK.
    6) 90 percent of people DO NOT agree with you
    7) Should Obama or any other President become the “dictator” these imaginary people you address “fear” they wouldn’t be “sad and defenseless”. The military you obviously know nothing about swears an oath to defend the Constitution…against enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. It would be that dictator President who would find out how it feels to be sad and powerless.
    8) Please research and educate yourself before your next attempt…dumbing down the masses is not progress.

  • Rich

    As one of the “gun nuts” you talk about I have to question how much you really know about the NRA and military tactics in general. First their was not martial law in Boston nor was there any military present except playing support roles. Second, most of us “gun nuts” want to keep and bear arms for our own self defense against armed criminals, not the most free government in the world. We also want guns for things like hunting, competitive shooting and the other really big reason…The constitution guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms.

    One last thing. It took 10,000 cops and federal agents to track down and subdue 2 kids. Hypothetically, if our government went to war with its people, the number of armed citizens we have would be called an insurgency and the only tactic our military has developed to combat an insurgency is to make peace with it. Sorry Steve, I’ll keep my guns for now.

  • Chris

    I’ll simply start with, I have no issue with folks owning a weapon. The 2nd amendment does in fact protect their right to do so. However, The amendment does not say that you would not have to register said weapon.
    Amendment as written:
    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

    The argument can be made that “…a well regulated militia…” can actually be taken to actually support a registration of weapons, as they would need to be regulated. Further, registration does not mean infringement, as long as you are capable of reasonable purchasing them.
    I think some regulation can help reduce violence. However, to use the argument that a criminal will get them anyway is just stupid, then no law should be written as it will only be broken by someone. If you are to say, as some have, that those people who are mentally incapable of owning a weapon should be restricted, than you are a hypocrite as you are preventing a citizen from owning a weapon, and their 2nd amendment rights.
    I’d prefer a person to need some training in a firearm before they could own it, but that would in fact infringe on their rights, if nothing else simple safety measures.but A clip reduction will only slow a person down, not prevent them from a crime.

  • James

    “100 clip magazine”? you must mean a “100 ROUND magazine”. Please don’t use technical terms you know nothing about, it really destroys your credibility and makes you sound stupid. Also, these two extremists DIDN’T have gun permits! What a surprise!

  • Peter Gregory

    Your commentary reflects you have given up and abdicated responsibility to some unidentifiable, formless, government bureaucracy. You lead right into a world like that depicted in the movie “Brazil.” And, this is your advice to your readers. Wave your white flag. The 2nd Amendment will always be a scrum because liberals are so quick to needlessly give up this freedom. Conservatives share every bit of pain about events like Newtown. Millions upon millions of law-abiding citizens participate safely in shooting sports, and take care not to present exploitable vulnerabilities. There is an appreciation of the engineering, the materials, the history behind firearms. Yes, it is a pastime that brings along with it a great, great deal of responsibility. We’ve seen where bad judgment was used, especially in the lead-up to the Newtown killings. Amazingly poor judgment of giving access to guns by someone exhibiting anti-social behavior and a weakened psychological state. However, your comments only make the protection of the 2nd Amendment more credible. This is the issue – you do not understand the issue. Liberals cried and cried with W. at the helm about infringement of personal freedoms after 9/11. When Obama got in office, I just smiled when US Defense advisors sat him down and he got religion. Overnight. His misguided idealogy that the world would just love us if we give them a hug came to an end turned around in an instant. I’m a nice guy and I had to learn that not everybody is going to love me based on my goodwill toward my fellow human. And so, Obama grew up, you might say, when the comfortable veil of ignorance was lifted and he was shown classified documents of networks of enemy-combatants. Obama has expanded freedom-impinging policies liberals found so awful under W. Certainly this topic is not black and white, and truly we will advance when we understand there is a balance of issues. And, not to react in error to horrible events like Newtown with knee-jerk solutions that erode our liberties.

  • StupidHippieLiberals

    “Hey there, can I get that AR-15 off the wall so I can go commit murder?!” Said no one ever… EDUCATE yourselves, most guns that are used in things like armed robbery, car jackings, general shootings or WHATEVER is probably 90% of the time stolen. GUNS DON’T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

    A Gun and a Chesseburger sit on a table. One can end a life in a second, the other can clog your arteries till you die 30 years later. What do they have in common?

    Without a PERSON to use them, they will sit on the table doing fucking nothing.

    You’re not going to stop bad people from getting guns, criminals always find a way (War on Drugs LOLOLOLOLOL) so why take the guns away from the good people that want to defend themselves?

    Fucking. Liberal. Retards.

  • Mark Allen

    I guess the writer above and I have taken away different lessons from the events of the past week. His op-ed piece, in my opinion, actually contains all the ingredients to be a glowing endorsement regarding the need for 2nd Amendment rights.

    Allow me to comment and provide counterpoint on some of his points: “The entire city of Boston was under martial law the last few days. MARTIAL LAW.”

    I say: Yes. I get that. Any Government powerful enough to do it for the right reasons – as in this case – is also powerful enough to do it for all the wrong reasons as well. The price of personal freedom and civil liberty is eternal vigilance.

    “… we went from tragedy to identification to capture in less than five days. And to make that happen, the full-force of the government came in, shut down a major metropolitan area, instituted a no-fly zone, flooded the place with troops and technology and locked it down until it completed it’s mission.”

    I say: Yes, and kudos to law enforcement for doing a wonderful job. But they did that because they did not know for sure how extensive the network (if any!) went. By the way, they still don’t know if these kids were operating alone, or in conjunction with others. Only time will tell for sure.

    “Think about that, screaming gun lunatic with more weapons than friends”,

    I say, ah, the liberal left. They’re nothing if not predictable. Whenever they run low on true logic, they resort to name calling and vilifying. The true sign of a weak argument.

    “the next time you think your 100 clip magazine and fourteen guns can protect you from a determined military.”

    I say, Oh really? There are about 80 million gun owners in this country. There are 1.465 million active duty troops. Do the math for yourself, and get back to me on who you think would win that fight, if it ever came to it (which I highly doubt!)..

    “Think about that the next time there’s a school shooting that could have been prevented by a ban or minimized by regulating clip-size but wasn’t because of you or the fearful twit in the Senate that represents you.

    ” I say,Now we’re getting to the meat of the matter, the reason this so-called “writer” is so upset. He and all the other leftie liberals got their ASSES HANDED TO THEM ON THE GUN CONTROL DEBATE, AND THEY’RE WHINING ABOUT IT! The terrible truth is, assault weapons bans DON’T FUCKING WORK. If they did, I’d be all for them. But name one school shooting stopped by a gun ban or a magazine limit. Remember, there was an assault weapons ban from 1994 – 2004. Columbine happened in 1999. The shooting at Santana High was March 5, 2001. Yeah, those assault weapons bans and gun-free zone signs work real good, dont they?

    “Think about that when some mentally unstable person gets his weaponry from a gun show without the simplest of background checks, and tears apart dozens or hundreds of lives.

    ” I say, FINALLY! Something this guy and I agree on! Let’s institute universal background checks. Let’s include gun shows. Me and the lefties are unified on this one. I don’t want criminals or the mentally unstable getting their hands on weapons any more than my leftie liberal brethren. I just don’t think it is necessary to give up my rights to make that happen.

    “My views on the issue haven’t changed in the last week.”

    I say, neither have mine.

    “I want sensible gun reform and will continue to fight for it.”

    I say, so will I. But I think background checks are sensible. Your idea of sensible is to pave the way for dismantling the 2nd Amendment, followed by the rest of the Bill of Rights.

    “I stand with 90% of Americans and against the senators who are in the pocket of the NRA.”

    I say, stand wherever you want. That’s your right.

    “You, on the other hand, got a big lesson on just how sad and defenseless you would be if Obama – or ANY President – truly was the dictator you fear. You wouldn’t last two days.”

    I say, you’ve drawn the wrong (and incorrect!) conclusion. But it is understandable in your case, because you’re trying to push an agenda. Fact is, the ones defenseless against a President turned Dictator would be guys like you, who would simply roll over and be collaborators while your rights got stripped away. Those 80 million with guns would last a lot longer than two days.

    And they would prevail.

  • Phillip

    I’m Phillip from Germany. I read all your comments and i don’t get it. It sounds like mass murders come into your homes on a daily basis and think “well lets rape some children and the wife of this guy”…that does not really happen, come on be honest to yourself!I mean have you ever heard of locks?This macho “I have to protect my family” is from a really bad 90ies action movie, but that is not reality. If nobody would carry a gun, nobody would be able to harm your family WITH A GUN, don’t you get it?Why the hell do you need a gun anyway?A Policeman and a hunter needs a gun, but no average person. I have a wife and a daughter…and wow surprise, I have no gun and my family is still alive!And i have never heard from anyone, that somebody needs a gun for no reason. Buy some good locks for your house if you are paranoid and over protective. What the fuck is wrong with you Americans?Use your fucking brain, just this one time.

    • BobC

      Hi Phillip — don’t know much about history, eh?
      It wasn’t so long ago that Germany tried to take over half the world and exterminate those it disapproved of. Anyone without guns didn’t stand much of a chance. To a significant extent, it was Americans (and our guns) that kicked your asses back to Germany and spared the rest of the world from your predations.
      Now, if we could only spare the world from your moral posturing — perhaps helping you rebuild your “society” into an economic world power was a mistake …

  • Badger

    In a society were everyone is armed then criminals will not bother letting people live they will simply kill you and your companions and take everything they want. A weapon is only as functional as the awareness, training and reactions of the wielder.

    Unregulated arms are bought in mass by criminals regularly via legal loopholes, go to a gun show in one of the state that background checks are not enforced/done find a vendor or vendors and sell yourself as on their side politically, buy guns leave sell those guns to other people make a profit.

    Arms dealers are only interested in “your” safety so long as it equals a sale. To keep you buying they will sell to Gang bangers, Organized Crime syndicates, and “Ethnic” Nationalist because there money is just as good, they have more of it, and it will keep you buying.

  • Chris

    The organized and armed working class repelled 16 armies in 1917 (including the US). The Syrians are holding their own against Assad’s forces at the moment. That being said the right wing militia/NRA types are suspiciously absent their breathless quest for freedom in regards to martial law in Boston.

  • Chris

    *in Russia

  • Bob

    Ok I’ll play! 
    And to make that happen, the full-force of the government came in, shut down a major metropolitan area, instituted a no-fly zone, flooded the place with troops and technology and locked it down until it completed it’s mission. – Except for all their efforts they missed the suspect by a city block. If the boat owner hadn’t been ordered to stay in his home all day he would have likely discovered the suspect hours earlier.

    Think about that, screaming gun lunatic with more weapons than friends, the next time you think your 100 clip magazine and fourteen guns can protect you from a determined military. –The very nature of warefare for the last 40 years has been asymmetric. The individual terrorist/freedom fighter doesn’t expect to win or even survive for a prolonged period. The whole idea is to make warfare too expensive for the opposing force to continue fighting. Your description above describes perfectly why it is successful. All that effort and expense to eliminate two terrorists, imagine if there were 2000 of them.

    Your “Red Dawn” fantasy is laughable. –There are 80 million plus firearm owners in the US. There are between 250 and 300 million firearms in the US. If only 10% decided to revolt against the government they would outnumber all serving military by a considerable margin. The majority of our combat troops are located outside the US and it’s unlikely that all serving members of the military would be willing to fight US citizens. In this case, your fantasy seems equally laughable.

    Think about that the next time there’s a school shooting that could have been prevented by a ban or minimized by regulating clip-size but wasn’t because of you or the fearful twit in the Senate that represents you. – Bans without confiscation are of limited utility, Confiscation of even a fraction of the 250 to 300 million firearms (or 500 to a billion magazines) would be a logistics nightmare and no government organization would likely attempt it. When San Francisco attempted this the Chief of Police stated publicly that it would be impossible to enforce.

    Think about that when some mentally unstable person gets his weaponry from a gun show without the simplest of background checks, and tears apart dozens or hundreds of lives. – I have indeed thought about it, I suspect you haven’t given the topic nearly the thought you think you have.  I live in Boston and the two suspects killed and hurt more people with pressure cookers, nails and low explosives than guns. Shall we ban propane tanks? Regulate the number of nails a person can purchase in a month?

    My views on the issue haven’t changed in the last week. – No surprise, most people don’t change their minds on this topic, it’s polarizing in the extreme. Histrionic rants like yours are part of the reason why.

    I want sensible gun reform and will continue to fight for it. –Hmm, how would you define “sensible”? If you are viewing those with opposing views as a “screaming gun lunatic” I suspect your “reforms” would be anything but reasonable. On the other hand they sure are entertaining. 

    I stand with 90% of Americans and against the senators who are in the pocket of the NRA. –Ah, so universal background checks are all you are looking for? If you want more then I suggest you review your statistics. As I mentioned earlier there are 80 million gun owners and roughly 5 million NRA members, if you are looking for more extensive “reforms” you are likely to see a much smaller percentage of Americans standing next to you.

    You, on the other hand, got a big lesson on just how sad and defenseless you would be if Obama – or ANY President – truly was the dictator you fear. You wouldn’t last two days. – And this is something you seem quite proud of, that seems equally sad.

  • Wayne

    What can I say? You’re right. Clearly, the 32,000 people of Watertown, shooting from defensive positions on their own turf and each with an entire arsenal ready at hand, would have been no match for the 3,000 or so sitting ducks walking right down the middle of the street in broad daylight in groups no bigger than a platoon, armed with only what they could carry. It would be an easy triumph for the authorities, just like when Lt. Col. Francis Smith’s men proudly marched into Charlestown after having seized the weapons in Concord.

  • Matt

    MARTIAL LAW. You said it yourself. Congratulations for now stripping citizens of their Fourth Amendment rights. Hope that makes you feel all warm and cozy.

    I’ll keep clinging bitterly to my guns, thank you.

  • Brenna

    Hello mates, pleasant post and nice arguments commented here, I am in fact enjoying by these.

  • Braxton Hicks

    You can not argue with insanity. Gun nuts will always be gun nuts. Racists will always be racist. Anyone that quotes the NRA is just getting ass fucked by the gun manufacturers. Congratulations fucktards, you’re doing exactly what they want you to do, and you think you’re preserving your 2nd amendment rights. No, you’re only making rich people richer, so they can make more guns to kill poor people. Morons.

    • Bob

      Wow Braxton, your keen analysis and logic is impossible to refute. You win! LOL so much for reasoned debate… :)

  • Trevor

    I agree! We should also make drugs illegal. Drugs destroy lives and there should be laws in place that restrict the use of them STRICTLY to medical use. I mean anyone can just walk into a pharmacy and buy drugs. Some of them you can even make and grow yourself. We should use that same militarized police force that locked down Boston to hunt down these drug lords and gang leaders. If only there were sensible drug control laws then it wouldn’t be rampant in the streets and people wouldn’t be dying and they wouldn’t be selling it to our kids who drop out school and become useless or worse, overdose and die. Drugs need to be banned and laws need to be written to enforce this! People should go to prison for possessing even an OUNCE of it. IN fact…..wait…..what was that? There are drug laws? There is legislation? People are put in jail? WELL HOW IN THE HELL IS IT GETTING INTO THE HANDS OF OUR KIDS?!?!! WHERE ARE THE LOCKDOWNS TO HUNT DOWN THESE GANGBANGERS?!?!

  • JDalco

    I am so glad you are happy that the government ran all over our civil rights in Boston, managed to not find the Bomber until they lifted the ban and a civilian called them. Also please note that this part of MA is UNARMED. These towns do not issue permits so the madman had free reign while the good citizens of the area were forced to cower and hope that he did not come to their home and kill them or their kids. They had NOTHING to fight him with while the cops were running around man handling civilians and walking all over the fourth amendment. Had they been armed this probably would have been over much sooner.

    Lets also note that the Bombers lived in MA with all the gun laws you nuts love. It did not even slow them down. They got explosives, guns and ammo to pull this off without any permit or background check. . . another gun control failure. . . . Boston got LUCKY it was not MUCH WORSE. Had these two actually known what the heck they were doing it would have been a mess. Yet they still shut down the city for a day costing MILLIONS in damage to local business and people.

    If that police state is where you want to live good luck, not me. I will keep my Constitution and my freedom thank you, you can have your police state.

  • Mykael O’Sruitheain

    The author of this idiotic article forgets that revolutions are built SLOWLY over time. No one is saying that a single individual can resist the military force of a powerful abusive government. But, thousands or millions of individual citizens engaging in united acts of armed guerrilla resistance can wear down a more powerful conventional force. It has happened many times.

  • alanstorm

    “.In a cameras-everywhere society, we went from tragedy to identification to capture in less than five days. And to make that happen, the full-force of the government came in, shut down a major metropolitan area, instituted a no-fly zone, flooded the place with troops and technology and locked it down until it completed it’s mission.”

    Um, no, it didn’t. True, Boston freaked out and over-reacted over one lunatic, but they didn’t catch the guy until they lifted the “martial law” and one ordinary dude went out to have a smoke! Yep, I’m sure that makes everybody in Boston happy about having their civil rights suspended.

    ” I want sensible gun reform and will continue to fight for it. ” Love to see some. I keep hearing that phrase (or the “common-sense” gun control variant), but have yet to see any examples of it. The just-defeated set of measures was not one. Even it’s supporters admitted that it would not have stopped Newtown – which was given as the rationale! More liberal “genius” on display, I assume.

    I’m happy that you have decided that a life of slavery is acceptable to you. What’s that? Not what you said? Of course it is. You just stated that the people have no chance against government force, so you must be prepared to bend over whenever they say so. You have stated implicitly that whatever government wants to do is OK with you, whatever the cost, that there is absolutely nothing government would do to you that you would not accept. I’m sure that’s not how you see it, but that doesn’t change anything.

  • BobC

    Let’s look at Steve Marmel’s “logic” in this piece: He claims that the capture of the Boston bomber proves that a citizen revolt would be crushed by overwhelming government force.
    But, what really happened in Boston? The city was shut down while over 2000 militarized police tried to find one unarmed teenager and failed — he slipped through their dragnet (the police had already checked the boat and moved on), and was only found – by a citizen – when the police essentially gave up and lifted martial law.
    From this evidence, Marmel extrapolates to the conclusion that any armed revolt against the government would be instantly crushed — that a “Red Dawn” fantasy is “laughable”. (Of course, “Red Dawn” didn’t involve a revolt against the government, but let’s not expect too much rationality here.)

    Well, that is what you would expect, if the “revolt” involved, say, a half-dozen poorly armed and not too bright people. But what if it involved 1% of the population in the Greater Boston area? That would be about 50,000 people. Even using all of the armed forces and police (and deputizing all other government employees) the government couldn’t come close to the 2000:1 ratio that didn’t work so well in Boston.
    What could get that many people up in arms? A foreign invasion probably would (the “Red Dawn” scenario) — but also a serious attempt to seize the government and establish a tyranny. These are, in fact, just the dangers the Founders wanted to protect against by insuring that citizens would have the right to be armed.

    Is such an armed revolt likely? No, it’s extremely unlikely — but mostly because so many American Citizens are armed. The “gun nuts” are helping to preserve your liberty just by existing in large numbers — as envisioned by the Founders, and whether you like it or not.

  • Don from CT


    You obviously know nothing about asymmetrical warfare. You don’t directly engage a superior enemy force. you skirmish, harass, drain their will to fight. Thats how resistance to a dictatorship would play out. Do you seriously think someone would put an AR15 against a Bradley fighting vehicle? Comeon. Give the right wing wackos more credit than that. 10 minutes of Internet searching would show you that some strategically placed Molotov cocktails could do more harm than 500 shots from a rifle.

    Now to the crux of your delusion. Do you really think all that force was necessary to catch a 19 year old with a single handgun? Have you figured out that of the THOUSANDS of rounds fired ALL OF THEM except for roughly 30 came from the police. All those bullets went somewhere. They went into people’s homes, they went into people’s vehicles.

    A police officer is responsible for every round he fires. He has to know what is beyond what he is shooting at. They are trained for this. Soldiers do not have to account for every shot. On Friday, those police did not act like police, they acted like soldiers in an occupying army.

    It is a blessed miracle that nobody in Watertown was KILLED by the THOUSANDS of rounds fired indiscriminately at the bombers.

  • John F (Boulder, Co)

    Another view of that whole series of events in Watertown
    What our government is teaching prospective terrorists is that all they have to do is manage to get two jackasses who are willing to die to commit mass-murder…
    The payoff for doing this is that an entire city shuts down to literal empty sidewalks and train service is halted along a hundred-mile+ stretch.
    Even worse now the authorities are allegedly preventing residents who were away from their homes from returning there! You are now being forcibly dispossessed of your residence!

    What should be the response is that every American who lives in that area should go about their business while openly carrying a pistol, rifle or both.
    Instead we have a state and city that claims that doing so is “illegal” and gives the terrorists exactly what they want.
    I remind everyone that the 2nd Amendment exists for exactly this sort of reason and circumstance.
    – – – – – end quote

    I’m perplexed that (so-called ) “liberals”are trumpeting the government’s raw display of power and proclaiming that we’re all helpless before it. Huddle in your “Free speech zone” while protesting illegal wars and loss of civil rights and the government ignoring your votes. You’ll only get pepper sprayed before being arrested -oh what the heck, they’ll probably use potentially lethal force like against the occupations or even real firepower like against the 4 bums killed at Kent State. The survivors will be rounded up and sent to indefinite detention where your coerced confessions will be used against you at your military tribunal.

  • mlee952

    doesn’t know what a “clip” is.

  • Eric Goodell

    First off, regulating guns only limits the people who actually follow the law. Criminals and deranged people can get them off the street illegally. This puts law abiding citizens in great jeapordy when they cannot properly protect themselves due to red tape. Lastly, you may disagree with the Second Amendment, and call supporters of it “nuts”, but our founding fathers considered it vital for a free society and made clear that it not be infringed. You’re welcome to your opinion, but on light of our constitutional rights, it will just have to stay only an opinion.

    • Michael Abracham

      The same can be said for regulating murder, rape and theft.