Moms make case for gun control

Moms make case for gun control

There are 9245 comments on the usatoday.com story from Mar 16, 2013, titled Moms make case for gun control. In it, usatoday.com reports that:

Peg Paulson had never beaten a path through the halls of Congress before or met a U.S. senator's staffer or advocated for a controversial issue.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at usatoday.com.

“BILLARY 2016 ”

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#511 Apr 13, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Rush, the draft dodging pill junkie who called for the death penalty of drug kingpins and got caught with $10,000 worth of illegal pills in his car?
That's why Rush has been married something like 14 times.
Every new wife means unlimited prescriptions for papa. So much for those 'conservative values' and 'defense of marriage' b.s.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#512 Apr 13, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Rush, the draft dodging pill junkie who called for the death penalty of drug kingpins and got caught with $10,000 worth of illegal pills in his car?
Damn. You found us. It was a troll-free room until you got here.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#513 Apr 13, 2013
x0x0x wrote:
<quoted text>It already has upheld laws that limit freaks like you from purchasing weapons of death.
Tell me, where can you buy a grenade?
Oh, right. You can't. As a result,
guess how many Americans 'die by grenade'
every year? None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
There are a lot of laws the Supreme Court upheld that you don't know about. Most FOXbots like you know very little, apparently.
I would say the same about you since you don't understand that all guns are "weapons of death."

No, I can't buy a grenade unless I go through the federal government. But using those standards, I can't buy recreational drugs either now can I? Makes you wonder how the US has the highest percentage of their people imprisoned in the world, and much of that is due to drug convictions.

You also don't understand supply and demand. Supply is only available when the demand is there. You will never, ever stop the demand for guns and I don't care if you make every single gun illegal in this country. Like narcotics, the demand is there and to hell with the law.

Grenades on the other hand have no demand. That's why nobody dies from grenades--not the law. Nobody is going to rob a bank or convenient store with a grenade.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#514 Apr 13, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn. You found us. It was a troll-free room until you got here.
Tell us how your "vital" job as maintenance man got you out of jury duty again, Pinocchio.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#515 Apr 13, 2013
x0x0x wrote:
<quoted text>That's why Rush has been married something like 14 times.
Every new wife means unlimited prescriptions for papa. So much for those 'conservative values' and 'defense of marriage' b.s.
Siding with the troll I see. Birds of a feather. But just some advice: he talks nothing but BS and can't provide evidence for anything he says. Rush was never caught with illegal pills in his car.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#516 Apr 13, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Siding with the troll I see.
Siding with the junkie draft dodger, I see.

I doubt Rush ever served on a jury, either. We can be certain he never served the country.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#517 Apr 13, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
he talks nothing but BS and can't provide evidence for anything he says.
You told us that pedophile Zimmerman only followed Martin for ten seconds.

Total.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#518 Apr 13, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
But just some advice: he talks nothing but BS and can't provide evidence for anything he says.
You told us you got out of jury duty because you had a "vital" job...

Maintenance man...

“BILLARY 2016 ”

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#519 Apr 13, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Siding with the troll I see. Birds of a feather. But just some advice: he talks nothing but BS and can't provide evidence for anything he says. Rush was never caught with illegal pills in his car.
I didn't say Rush was caught with pills, another poster did. Rush did, however, face legal action by authorities for his abuse of prescription drugs. He also admitted he was an addict and he, of course, thanked God for blah blah blah and yada yada yada and went into treatment. If you deny his drug abuse, you deny reality at this point.

Rush, along with Newt, scorned Bill Clinton, married once btw, for being unfaithful while they themselves were on marriage # what? 3? 4? 5? 6? That's called "Being a hypocrite". Although disgusting, President Clinton proved his one weakness; women, but at the same time, he worked his ass off and as a result, is ranked 15th out of 44 presidents because he was an awesome president while also being a shitty husband. Personally, I don't think it's any of our business. Hillary decided to stay with him and I would think conservatives would applaud her loyalty to Bill and her will to save the marriage. Unlike Newt and Rush, the Clintons have stuck to their life long commitment of marriage proving liberals DO have values and morals and in fact, liberals have a lower divorce rate than conservatives.

Rush sits in judgment of gang bangers who sell illegal drugs when he himself is guilty of the same offense. Purchasing drugs illegally. Again, he's a hypocrite and again, remember Google. You can't ignore the facts. Rush is not a man others should respect. They should pity him and his giant pile of money that he made being a liar, a hypocrite, a racist, a misogynist, a fear monger, hate monger and an anti-American.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#520 Apr 13, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>Are you f-ing kidding me you can buy a gun anytime anywhere no questions asked - it's like friggen candy ... at the local street corner, out of someones trunk, guns are every f-ing where!
Thanks for pointing out the crowd you hang out with. It explains a lot.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#521 Apr 13, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>You are basing your blather on ideology not verifiable facts. Since 1982, there have been at least 61 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii.” And in most cases, the killers had obtained their weapons legally. World wide, 15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States. The South is the most violent part of the US, the south has more than twice as many gun related assaults than the National average.
Ok, give us your source for "verifiable facts".
What is your criteria for mass shooting?
Are there any common denominators among those 30 states? Where do those 30 states rank on gun control? Do those 30 states have big cities, run by Democrats that represent the most gun violence in the state? Do those states have high minority populations? Or do those big cities?
Prove most of the killers obtained their weapons legally!
Do the countries you compare the US to have the same percentage of incarcerated people?
Prove the South is the most violent part of the US.
The south has more minority population than the North.

Looking forward to your facts and sources!

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#528 Apr 13, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
Thanks, but I have a folder on the founders quotes myself. So because you provided me these quotes, I assume you think that all people (regardless of past crimes) should be allowed to have and use firearms at will. However, I think your opinion would change if your daughter was a victim in a Sandy Hook murder spree or perhaps if they became more frequent.

Remember that murderers back then were taken out back and hung immediately. They didn't go to a prison with cable television, a pool room, a workout room, three square meals a day plus snacks, and were allowed to have their wives visit from time to time for a little screwing around.

The intent here is to reduce crime, and you will only promote more violent criminal acts by allowing ALL people regardless of mental capabilities to have and use firearms. The majority of people would reject that notion.

I believe the founders overlooked kooks and evil people when they spoke. I think if they could come back today, they would have to consider the new world we live in, and write exceptions to the rule.
You hit the nail on the head about prison today.
I think those people that commit crimes, pay their debt to society, and get out, should retain their gun rights. IF they do hard time! Murderers should be executed. No chance of them getting gun rights back. Other criminals should really be punished with hard time. Too much political correctness has been injected into the penal system. For that reason, there is an argument for restricting their gun rights.
All the problems this country is experiencing is due to liberal changes. The answer proposed by liberals to the problems they created? More liberal changes.
It has to stop! Criminals must be punished and rehabilitated! The People must have ALL their rights restored!
Unfortunately, the only way that happens is rebellion/revolution.

“BILLARY 2016 ”

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#530 Apr 13, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, give us your source for "verifiable facts".
What is your criteria for mass shooting?
Are there any common denominators among those 30 states? Where do those 30 states rank on gun control? Do those 30 states have big cities, run by Democrats that represent the most gun violence in the state? Do those states have high minority populations? Or do those big cities?
Prove most of the killers obtained their weapons legally!
Do the countries you compare the US to have the same percentage of incarcerated people?
Prove the South is the most violent part of the US.
The south has more minority population than the North.
Looking forward to your facts and sources!
FACT:
The red states (conservative/Christian) have higher rates of:

Divorce
Addiction
Incarceration

The red states also have lower high school graduation rates than the blue states (liberal).

Do you see the correlation, zippy?

Sorry if the facts get in the way of your fantasies.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#532 Apr 13, 2013
x0x0x wrote:
<quoted text>FACT:
The red states (conservative/Christian) have higher rates of:

Divorce
Addiction
Incarceration

The red states also have lower high school graduation rates than the blue states (liberal).

Do you see the correlation, zippy?

Sorry if the facts get in the way of your fantasies.
Actually, I do. Look at the Black population of those States, zippy.
I live in the one with the highest percentage of Blacks. Most of the State's murders occur in New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Shreveport. All big cities that are Democrat run. Thus my points in the previous post. I notice you chose only one question to answer. I know the reason for that as well.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#533 Apr 13, 2013
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
You hit the nail on the head about prison today.
I think those people that commit crimes, pay their debt to society, and get out, should retain their gun rights. IF they do hard time! Murderers should be executed. No chance of them getting gun rights back. Other criminals should really be punished with hard time. Too much political correctness has been injected into the penal system. For that reason, there is an argument for restricting their gun rights.
Bottom line is if we don't put up a deterrent to crime, then crime will continue and even increase. If our jails are not a deterrent, then our guns should be. Make jail like the movie Cook hand Luke, and now you're talking.
spocko

Oakland, CA

#541 Apr 13, 2013
"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 2nd amendment starts with "A well regulated Militia ....." and this is the answer. A well regulated militia means a military group such as a National Guard unit. They are well regulated. A single individual is not a militia, nor are they well regulated. They should be the ones to own military style weapons, automatic or otherwise, for the sole reason "being necessary to the security of a free State". Normally an average citizen is not securing a free state when he goes out to shoot a poor animal just for the sport of it. So just on that statement alone, the National Guard and the police force, as well as the national army should be the only ones to have heavy, automatic weapons.

Now the second statement is the most quoted part of the second amendment that almost everybody thinks that is the whole the whole amendment. Nothing is said of what kind of arms we have the right to, but at that time all they had were muskets, revolvers, and bows and arrows. I would suggest that regular civilians have the right to bear rifles, revolvers, and bows and arrows, nothing automatic. What could a civilian use an automatic weapon for? Shredding the meat he is hunting, maybe, but then you could not use it for food. So, it is my analysis that the bill of rights is in two parts. One part for the state, one part for the civilian, if we are going to quote anything, we should quote all of it; otherwise, we will take it out of context.

So here is my solution to gun control: the government allows the States to have automatic and military weapons, the civilian keep rifles, guns, and bows and arrows. Maybe the massacres of the last decade would be almost non-existent. There will still be crimes, mind you, but the large massacres would be a thing of the past. Conservatives and liberals should be happy with that.
Sir Bucking Fastard

UK

#542 Apr 13, 2013
spocko wrote:
"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 2nd amendment starts with "A well regulated Militia ....." and this is the answer.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
drink The hivE

New York, NY

#543 Apr 13, 2013
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#545 Apr 13, 2013
DavidQ762 wrote:
<quoted text>
I lost my favorite uncle to a gang-banger that shot him in the back because the gangster felt he hadn't stolen enough from him. My uncle was mentally challenged and was almost child-like in manner. He wouldn't have hurt a fly.
If the ACTUAL intent were to "reduce" crime. Then our treasonous politicians would return to what works. Which of course is MORE GUNS = LESS crime.
Gun control has been PROVEN to have NO effect WHATSOEVER on crime, other than to make it RISE. While on the other hand, areas with the LEAST restrictive 'gun control laws'. Are the very same ones with the LEAST amount of crime. THAT is statistical FACT.
So then, what you advocate for. Is that MORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, meaningless, and ineffective 'gun control' laws be passed. In order to try to fix what the previous UNCONSTITUTIONAL, meaningless, and ineffective 'gun control' laws couldn't?
And here I had hoped that you were intelligent and rational. Oh well....
Apparently, the only posts of mine that you read were the ones addressed to you. I am pro-gun. I have a CCW permit here in Ohio and carry my gun most places I go when allowed. However, I do not believe everybody should have that same right. I think extending that right to criminals and mentally impaired people is a mistake because they are likely to use those firearms to cause harm and death to innocent people. Look at these mass killings. Who are the people responsible for them?

I'm sorry about your uncle...... I really am. But if your sisters ex-boyfriend who spent seven years in jail for beating her nearly to death, and also had a long history of violence before her, would get out of jail today and legally be allowed to own and carry a firearm, would you be okay with that? I know I sure as hell wouldn't be. I'd be a nervous wreck, and most people would. That would be like allowing a convicted pedophiliac to work at a daycare center. Would you send one of your children there? It's just not a good idea.

As for everybody else, we should be allowed to carry and use our firearms. If you want a semi-automatic, you should have a semi-automatic. If you want to own an assault rifle, you should be allowed to own a assault rifle. In my state, I would like them to extend our gun rights so we can legally protect our property with our firearm. I would also like them to restrict liability in justified shootings which isn't the situation right now.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#546 Apr 13, 2013
spocko wrote:
"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 2nd amendment starts with "A well regulated Militia ....." and this is the answer. A well regulated militia means a military group such as a National Guard unit. They are well regulated. A single individual is not a militia, nor are they well regulated. They should be the ones to own military style weapons, automatic or otherwise, for the sole reason "being necessary to the security of a free State". Normally an average citizen is not securing a free state when he goes out to shoot a poor animal just for the sport of it. So just on that statement alone, the National Guard and the police force, as well as the national army should be the only ones to have heavy, automatic weapons.
Now the second statement is the most quoted part of the second amendment that almost everybody thinks that is the whole the whole amendment. Nothing is said of what kind of arms we have the right to, but at that time all they had were muskets, revolvers, and bows and arrows. I would suggest that regular civilians have the right to bear rifles, revolvers, and bows and arrows, nothing automatic. What could a civilian use an automatic weapon for? Shredding the meat he is hunting, maybe, but then you could not use it for food. So, it is my analysis that the bill of rights is in two parts. One part for the state, one part for the civilian, if we are going to quote anything, we should quote all of it; otherwise, we will take it out of context.
So here is my solution to gun control: the government allows the States to have automatic and military weapons, the civilian keep rifles, guns, and bows and arrows. Maybe the massacres of the last decade would be almost non-existent. There will still be crimes, mind you, but the large massacres would be a thing of the past. Conservatives and liberals should be happy with that.
Well..... we could, if it worked. But it won't work. When you say civilians allowed to keep their guns, you are also including semi-automatic weapons. The mass shootings didn't have automatic weapons mentioned in the stories. They were all semi-automatics.

As you stated, back when the Constitution was written, the only firearms people had were muskets. So what they had is civilians just as armed as the militias. They all had the same kind of weapons.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Secret CIA assessment says Russia intervened in... 1 min Mikey 98
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Aquarius-wy 1,460,461
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 min District 1 231,241
News If Donald Trump Was President, Here's What Woul... (Oct '15) 4 min USA 13,254
News Cooper names NC governor transition team Read S... 8 min Muffy Pierce 18
News As anger over election of Donald Trump erupts, ... 10 min Trump your President 3,234
News White rage and racist thought: How history puts... 12 min Mikey 98
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 26 min replaytime 217,131
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 28 min Trump failed Us 404,335
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... 1 hr Duke David 686
More from around the web