Lalo Alcaraz for September 18, 2013

No but they receive major funding from gun manufacturing, hence they love gun sales.

^You, never mind, well, you’re just to ignorant and bigoted, but we’ll just again write it off that your I.Q. is a bit less than your “number”.

Just for once, put aside your vile nature: you need to express an apology to all my Democratic friends on “The Wall”, and in Arlington after Iraq and Afghanistan.

Billy, why do you keep spamming this, and then running away with your tail between your legs instead of answering replies?From what you write, the only conclusion possible is that you feel that we should all just accept shooting rampages and not attempt to do anything about them because:1) Some people abuse cigarettes, alcohol and food.2) Some people are killed by modes of transportation…modes that are ironically heavily regulated to prevent far more deaths…yet you feel any attempts to do the same to guns means the end of our Constitution.

Tell me I’m wrong, and you actually have a more rational point?

Do you also feel we should do away with driver’s licenses, road rules, car safety requirements? After all, people die from obesity, so why try to reduce car deaths?

Keeping track of over 300 million people’s private lives is both unconstitutional, and “difficult”.

There ARE more cars than guns in America, every one is registered somewhere, and if the owner hasn’t done anything illegal with it, the state has no interest in seizing it. Every new car IS registered and licensed, guns can be tracked as well. If the license number of a vehicle is obtained leaving a robbery, it can be traced, and may,or, if stolen, may not be the actual perp, but gives a place for police to start to track the bad guys.

btw, “58”, I meant of course “liberals” who actually think regarding their world, and not just “Democrats”, who have died, or sacrificed, defending this nation. That of course doesn’t mean chickenhawks with five deferments, or going AWOL and deserting, or just otherwise planning wars that will kill other folks, and only bring them profits, and/or power.

“The US should never have drafted and sent into combat Liberal bed wetters.”You honestly want military eligibility to be based on political affiliation??? How would you check for that?Or are you just trying to lower the average IQ of the military?

We now know conclusively that liberalism causes MORE, not less, gun deaths- just look at Chicago and other urban-war zones and the fact that all except for two killings with multiple gun victims in the last 50 years have occured in actual or de facto gun-free zones. Shall we ban the Democrats and their un-intended consequences?

Hmm, that would include the dozens of draftee “bedwetters” who received the Medal of Honor, right, onguard?

All of you gun ban types can move to CA and lobby the governor to sign all of the ammunition ban legislation sitting on his desk. When you’re being shot at with an illegal gun and illegal bullets, just waive the legislation around and proclaim ‘this is wrong’.

Does the report say anything about the changes Australia made to their gun laws, and the effects those changes had?

^Anthony: add in, or subtract, that much of that verbiage is “legalese garbage”, and you cut actual content in half again, at a minimum. The REAL problem is when laws only cite changes in OTHER laws, sometimes 3-4 steps removed, before you can find out what they’re actually saying will happen!

It does indeed seem that prohibition of guns would work as well as with alcohol and drugs. But I don’t understand why the NRA works so hard to block gun registration, networking of computer records, background checks, etc. It seems overly paranoid to think that the main purpose of such registration will be so the government can suddenly seize all private weapons, as opposed to the more realistic use of catching people who abuse them.I also still haven’t seen anyone give a legally rational reason why I can’t own a shoulder-mounted tactical nuke, or a laser rifle. Granted, the Founding Fathers couldn’t have imagined such weapons when they wrote the Second…but they also couldn’t have imagined any other of our modern weapons, so that can’t be used as an argument.

Thanks for the links, Jeff, but they don’t really cover my particular question about personal ownership of devastating weapons. There are some interesting non-academic answers here, where a similar question was asked:http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110111002036AA0g9aFOf particular interest are the answers saying it should be allowable to ban weapons that aren’t used for hunting or target practice; one person said that weapons designed for killing large groups of people should be banned. Yet these people overlook the fact that the NRA gives as a major reason for private ownership of weapons is to allow the citizenry to overthrow the government should it become too tyrannical. If that is true, then in order to take on the US military, simple handguns won’t be enough.

Thank you Chicago (not) for proving my point! It’s easy , Anthony, Libs aren’t up to their “pay grade”.

Thank you, Jeff…that was the best answer I’ve ever seen to that question.And apparently I should have put a smiley face with my Jon Stewart comment. I actually don’t watch TV news at all…I get most of my news from the internet, and some occasionally from news radio stations.