Comments (38) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   Nabuquduriuzhur said, 3 months ago

   1 Samuel 13:19-21:

   19 Now no blacksmith could be found in all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, “Otherwise the Hebrews will make [a]swords or spears.” 20 So all Israel went down to the Philistines, each to sharpen his plowshare, his mattock, his axe, and his hoe. 21 The charge was [b]two-thirds of a shekel for the plowshares, the mattocks, the forks, and the axes, and to fix the hoes.
2. 

   margueritem said, 3 months ago

   No big surprise there, guys.
3. 

   Altair1371 said, 3 months ago

   This is something I feel the government never understands. If somebody wants to kill someone, they’ll beat them senseless with a stick if they have to.
4. 

   Bruno Zeigerts said, 3 months ago

   @Altair1371

   Tough to go on a mass murder spree with a stick … easy with an automatic weapon.
5. 

   fullmoondeb said, 3 months ago

   Amen, Bruno!
6. 

   Phatts California said, 3 months ago

   @Bruno Zeigerts

   … and hard to stop a murder spree without one also …
   
   or did you imagine we could legislate automatic weapons into non-existence?
7. 

   old1953 said, 3 months ago

   Sigh. Nobody is trying to get rid of guns, just get the matter under control enough so that idiots aren’t shooting up schoolyards to prove they can do it as part of a suicide. You tell me how to get the guns away from those characters without any inconvienence to the other gun owners, keeping in mind that in the last half dozen massacres the weapons were obtained legally. Come on, what’s your solution? Because if you don’t find one, and this keeps up, there’ll be a 700$ a lb tax on propellant powders, with a requirement they be formulated to lose power below 50% in three years or less, and bullets will be about 5$ each, with no point in stockpiling them. Which certainly solves the problem of “everyone has guns” in a wholly constitutional way, but isn’t going to make many people happy.
8. 

   Brandon said, 3 months ago

   I don’t drink. I see all the misery caused by alcoholism- abused spouses and children, innocents killed by drunk drivers, people losing their jobs because of alcoholism, children drinking the alcohol they sneak from adults who purchased it legally, etc.

   So, following the logic of the gun control lefties, we need to crack down on alcohol problems, we need to track everyone who purchases alcohol, ban many people from purchasing it based on their being at risk of any problems, etc.

   Funny thing how the hypocritical, dishonest, perverted lefties are always quick to stomp on our Constitutional rights when they don’t like those rights, but can turn right around and justify anything they like.
9. 

   Randy_B said, 3 months ago

   It’s really tiring to beat someone to death with a plowshare.
   Fatality comes much more quickly with a sword.
10. 

    Varnes said, 3 months ago

    Hey, did ya hear the one about the plow that wouldn’t share? I didn’t think so….
11. 

    Gary McSpook said, 3 months ago

    @Brandon

    “Funny thing how the hypocritical, dishonest, perverted lefties are always quick to stomp on our Constitutional rights when they don’t like those rights, but can turn right around and justify anything they like.”
    Wow, there’s a big ol’ mouthful of self-serving, hypocritical b.s. for you.
    Just so we’re clear on this, you are aware that the 2nd Amendment only covers possession of weapons for “well-regulated militias,” right? Tell me which militia you’re in, and then we’ll discuss your “right” to own a high-powered semi-automatic rifle with a thirty round clip meant only to kill other humans.
    If you can’t feel secure enough with a pistol or a shotgun, you may too paranoid to be allowed to own weapons.
12. 

    pcolli said, 3 months ago

    @Gary McSpook

    When politicians set us a good example, we’ll think about following it. Until then we’ll be just as corrupt as they are.
13. 

    Cat Hammer said, 3 months ago

    @ Gary McSpook
    You said: "Just so we’re clear on this, you are aware that the 2nd Amendment only covers possession of weapons for “well-regulated militias,” right? "

    Before you “correct” someone, it might be a good idea to make sure you’re not absolutely wrong….as in your opinion being refuted by the Supreme Court, and historical evidence.

    “Well regulated” refers to the idea that the militias should be in good working order (like a clock)…properly trained and equipped. The acknowledgement of the peoples’ right to arms is the actual (existing, not government granted) right enumerated in the amendment, and the “militia” part is an instruction to the states to take advantage of this in organizing their militias. This intent is more easily seen (by us, today) in the format of some of the suggested versions of the amendment offered at the time by some of the states (including New York). There, the phrasing is reversed and the individual right stated first.

    This also implied that the individual right included access to the same type of arms “common” to an individual soldier, a test the courts have continued to use.
14. 

    GoodQuestion said, 3 months ago

    Guess they missed the point, too . . . ☻
15. 

    pcolli said, 3 months ago

    I get the impression that Americans never agree about anything.
16. Load the rest of the comments (23).