Innocents Betrayed

Innocents BetrayedThis documentary effectively shatters gun control myths and fallacies. Owning a firearm is not a privilege - it's a basic right. In fact, it's the basic right to protect yourself and your loved ones.

Throughout History, there has been a disturbing pattern: sooner or later (often sooner than later), disarmed populations become the hapless victims of tyrannical governments and criminals.

The right to own a weapon is one that is usually conquered in the aftermath of centuries of suffering and genocide.

Today, we tend to forget that. Yet, the last 100 odd years were undoubtedly the most brutal of all, in what concerns organized violence against deliberately disarmed populations.

This is what Innocents Betrayed documents. How innocents are constantly betrayed -- and brutalized - by gun control.

Watch the full documentary now. Warning: contains very graphic footage.

1.6k
7.25
12345678910
Ratings: 7.25/10 from 8 users.

More great documentaries

Comments and User Reviews

  • Avii

    Have not watched it yet, but i will just for the sake of seeing his argument...there is a point sure, that the people should have weapons to defend against their government(its in the constitution) but to "shatter gun control myths and fallacies" i mean seriously, USA have more gun related deaths then almost the rest of the world combined(accept those in war that is) so to say its all good just because in the future you can defend yourself against your government...naaa i dono...why not change the system instead so you won't need to be afraid of the government, just an idea ^^

  • Ramus

    Governments are always afraid the people will take their power away and kill them. People are always afraid the government will use their power to kill them.

  • ryan

    OMG I wasnt awere of the first two events! And all the different goverments take the same approach towards control and slaughter, truly sickening. "god help america"

  • Mars

    No Comment> Very mixed up argument.

  • Skeptic

    If people:

    1) wisely chose their representatives.
    2) closely monitored their representatives' once elected.
    3) diligently called/wrote them to complain about mischiefs.

    Then the "vote" would be the only "weapon" one ever need in a democracy. The reason why we have incompetent politicians is because we have incompetent voters.

    Guns lead to accidents and mindless violence.

  • tigerpred

    Now show me how many inoccent people have died from guns

  • magarac

    I find it hard to believe that the russian army would have any reason to fear ukrainian farmers whether they own guns or not.

  • GM

    Uh... right. How is a measly gun going to protect any citizen from their government if the government were intent on killing its citizens? They'd come at you with force, with armies, even. What a ridiculous argument.

  • Achems Razor

    A sort of a convoluted doc. showing "some" of the atrocities committed against humans, by humans in power.

    Do not know the point that this doc is making though!

    Should we all revert back to the wild wild west, and be allowed to carry six guns, and bowie knives.

    Then the strongest and most wary shall indeed survive! Hmmm?

  • spambot

    er "The right to own a weapon is one that is usually conquered in the aftermath of centuries of suffering and genocide." that sentence, if it were true (which I doubt) would seem to imply that gun control was a good idea - and was a consequence of anarchy and violence?

  • Waldo

    @ bob

    Actually we were set up to be both, having a democratically elected represenative to govern. Being a republic basically just means we have elected represenatives that govern, instead of putting everything to a vote. Here is the definition of a republic: a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. So, to say we were supposed to have a republic instead of a democracy makes no sense, they are one in the same.

  • http://www.welcometointernet.org insomniac

    The "guns kill people" argument for gun control gets a bit old. No one needs a gun to be violent. The Rwanda genocide was done the good old fashioned way, with machetes. People still get stoned or beaten to death with sticks on a daily basis.

    We should indeed regulate machine guns and pistols, which are those mostly used in violent crimes, but boldly coming out and saying that either tyranny could never possibly happen again or that the government is all powerful and trying to defend against it is pointless as arguments against all weapon ownership, that honestly sounds dangerously out of touch to me.

    Instead of trying to regulate or remove every possible way we have of hurting each other, perhaps we ought to address the reasons that make us want to do so in the first place. The problem is society, not available hardware.

  • magarac

    Just looked up the site of the JPFO. The are the once who made this "documentary" and after seeing their site i just would not believe a single word said i the whole film.

  • Robert

    The apparent fact that a power with intention to commit genocide or some other catastrophic crime first disarm their victims does NOT mean that all who are not armed to their teeth will be wiped out by some insane power.
    Also, in the last interview it is very clear that he thinks that America is free, just and democratic ... what a joke.
    The most dangerous weapons are the ones with bullets, it's control of the money supply, interests, banks and credits etc etc .. The education systems and media are also very important.
    Erase the capitalistic system and it's inherent demand for eternal growth - install something that's impossible to corrupt and that is built on cooperation and equal rights for all.
    And when I write "equal rights" I don't mean equal rights to exploit, it's about equal rights for all to NOT be exploited.
    True freedom is about being free to be who you want to be and to do whatever you want to do as long as it does not harm the planet we belong to or the other inhabitants.
    Freedom is NOT about justifying doing harm.

    .. a bit of a rant about something that will be impossible to achieve unless we the people and our leaders start to practice a bit more compassion, respect, honesty and love.

  • Waldo

    This is nothing but NRA propaganda. Of course we do not need to get rid of all guns, and no one is suggesting that we do. Well, no one in power is any way. All they (most liberals) want to do is remove the fully automatic amd assualt weapons, which are not needed if all you want to do is protect yourself, and stiffin monitoring and back ground checks on those wanting weapons.

    Really we should be discussing the underlying issues that cause all the violence in this country, and not worrying about removing the tools used to carry it out so much. Many other countries have just as many, or more, guns than the US and have a fraction of the gun related violence that we do. Getting rid of the guns will only do a very little to help, we have to figure out why we have so many people pushed to the point of murder, no matter what weapon they use to do it. I say alot of it is the unrealistic expectations set by pop culture, the inequality that is so apparent, and rampant poverty, lack of education, and under employment. If we adress these issues perhaps it would not matter how many guns are out there.

    Too many of our youths are growing up in dead end slums over run by gangs. So why do we have so many gangs in inner city environments? Becuase people want to feel like they fit into something, and they certainly do not relate to what they see on TV everyday portrayed as the American way of life. These gangs give them this, plus some way of getting recognition and a chance to prove themselves to be something more than just another dead beat. Through the illegal activities they are involved in they get lots of money, respect, and nice things, and we live in a materialistic society that rewards these things.

    As far as the occasional accident, education could do a lot to stop that. Lets face it, any kind of weapon, sharp utensil, or chemical in the home that is not treated as dangerous poses a potential risk for young children. We need parents to be more proactive about reducing these risks by doing simple things like keeping guns out of sight and locked away, keeping knifes and so forth out of reach, and basically thinking ahead more. I know the modern world makes much of this difficult, as people are dead tired from the massive amount of work they do for peanuts, but it must be done if we want to stop hearing about five year olds that have shot other five year olds.

  • mirda

    The problem is easy resolved as Skeptic said.

    Why the f dont you choose presidents that are not democrats or liberals?

    Cause as you see the same politics being run by both partys, so if you want to change something vote for INDEPENDENT candidates..

  • ProudinUS

    I must have my guns for protection because Rosie O'Donnel E-mailed me with a warning: She quotes:Dear B!tch(She calls me her little man in private)If you continue with your barbaric hunting of animals, I'll be forced to have a couple of my bull d*ke lesbo thugs pay you a special visit.They will bardge into your house and pin you down and lodge fish hooks securely into each of your a$$ cheeks and hang you upside down on your ceiling fan.As you start spinning, my 300pd inforcers will whip you with a NRA holster belt for ,no less no more,12 min.And then make me pledge an oath to "the lesbo's of the pick and lick new world order".

    It's true.And there's others on the list.
    -Tom Selleck
    -Toby Keith
    -Ted Nugent(there sending a whole dam squad for him)
    -The whole group of Metalica
    -George Bush...Sr&jr
    -Hank Willams JR.
    -Kid Rock
    and were considering digging up Johny Cash but changed their mind.

    So you see I truly need my guns for self defense if infact the Rosie Regime of bull d^kes are deployed.

  • Atrophy

    Control is necessary, through licensing, registration and education to at least try to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and people who would use them for means other than self defense and legal hunting. Confiscation is not unless it is unregistered, unlicensed weapons.

  • Will

    This type fearmongering really needs to stop. I'm all for healthy scepticism (and am often sceptical of govt), but this kind of thing is absurd.

    If the U.S. Govt wanted to take us out we would be dead. It wouldn't matter how many firearms we could gather. Theirs are bigger and better.

  • JustinLee

    Personal defense alone is all the justification needed. Whether it be from Governments or individuals.

  • pulunco

    In my opinion long guns should be allowed in one's home without registration but concealed weapons, such as hand guns, should be restricted.

    I would not feel safe living in a society where everyone has a pistol in their pocket. Too many short tempered people out there who act before they think.

    And the idea of 911 not happening if people were allowed to carry pistols on planes is simply crazy. I would rather take my chances against box cutters than a gun.

  • Mad

    you'll never get rid of guns ESPECIALLY if you outlaw the legal ones! people in the streets sell machine guns, pistols, grenades, sawed off shotguns, sub machine guns, and rifles. criminals are armed better than police and civilians need protection however i do not believe every man has the right to a gun especially Americant even wipe their own butts. what this countries needs to protect itself from the government is local militias that are well armed and well trained to fight against tyranny. a truly investigative media that's fair balanced and truthful. anybody with a house should be allowed to keep a gun in it, crook breaks in steals your stuff and trips and breaks his leg on the way out he can sue you! so you might as well shoot anybody trying to break into your house without a warrant, police included

  • Anne

    The reason things like this happen, the reason we need to fear the people who are supposed to be on our side, is because too many human beings get off on power, on being a bully, on telling other people what to do.

    What talks is MONEY. If you don't have enough to be worth worrying about, nobody gives a damn. Because if you have money you can get a lawyer to present your views or protect you or to at least get someone to listen.

    I have been through some serious bullshit this past year, totally unnecessary oppressive bullshit that would not be happening if I had money.

    The funny thing about this is that it is because of oppression from our government that people need to be worried about handguns. Because while I am at heart a peace-loving middle aged person who just wants to leave my life in relative peace and harmony, dont Phuck with me and I won't phuck with you, because there are the jerks who like tossing their weight around, they keep at us. And eventually one of us snaps and does something that sets everyone buzzing how this seemingly nice normal quiet person (according to the neighbors) does something totally off the wall like walk into a school board meeting and act really weird and then the cops show up and kill his ass when all he was doing was just basically being tired of being phucked with.

    The people who wrote the constitution were coming from a mindset where they had been living oppressed lives and they sought to be free of that and so they wrote the constitution to provide for as little interference from the government as possible in order that people not be fined and jailed and hassled with ten million screwy damn rules. The trouble is, all these years later, the constitution is being destroyed by WHO ELSE the very government that is supposed to protect us. There are laws everywhere telling us where we can walk, where we can build, what kind of building we can build, where our kids go, when our kids go, what kind of car, tax the cars, tax this tax that tell you when you can put your trash at the curb and what you can put in it, tell you what you can say rightfully (and if you look at what Freddie Phelps does and says the government is a little mixed up when it allows his hate to interfere with someone who is grieving because they lost a loved one defending this God forsaken country, that Freddie Phelps has the right to come and put up signs say God hates fags, God hates service members, all that is protected speech but God help me for disputing his right.

    This country is fucked the hell up and its getting worse every damn day and somethings gotta give. And it will someday, people will only be pushed so far.
    Nikolai Ceausescu persecuted the people of Romania mercilessly and they cowered in fear from him and he lived a very comfortable life surrounded by riches and comfort until one day the people said enough and they rose up and killed him and his miserable wife, and now they are dead rotting in the ground with maggots eating their diseased flesh, but hey HE HAD POWER. And he misused it and he phucking died and THAT is the way the world works. Sad but true.

  • Cool E Beans

    @Skeptic

    Didn't we thoughtfully elect Al Gore, before he was bought, to the presidency? And because he wasn't owned at that time, did he become president?

    We were sold out in 1871 and we have been standing in the checkout line since then waiting for our value to the purchasers to run out. And with the devaluation of the dollar at almost 100% we are just about ready to be cooked and served.

    During the devastation in St. Louis by a hurricane, those free citizens who were defending their homes had their guns confiscated by the National Guard. Marshall Law be da**ed!

    WE THE PEOPLE have less than two years to win freedom or lose forever. December 20, 2012 is either the end of the world, or the end of the world as we know it. It seems to me that this date is THEIR deadline for completion of our total enslavement.

    Ask the dead if they would have wanted to be able to defend themselves against their own governments...OH, that's right, THEY'RE DEAD!

  • Jeigh

    @skeptic. Please re-post on December 21st 2012. You made my day. Study up on your Mayan anthropology. It's just the day the calendar starts over. Lol. If every evening, when you lay your head to bed, you feel the world as you know it is over, then you are correct. Otherwise I recommend a script of Kolonopin. Talk to you in two years.

  • Mo

    This documentary is so ridiculously stupid

  • Tess

    If aggresive people didnt want guns, people wouldn't need guns to "protect" themselves. Heck, if you react by shooting your attacker you may see jail anyway. So be what? Die, or make every citizen capable of becoming a criminal? Guns are for war, not stable society.

  • haps77

    This Doc does show us a lot of sad history but if you think a gun is going to save your a** look at what happen at Waco Texas to a small Church armed with guns held out but end the end they all burned, if you live by the gun you will die by the gun thats a fact jack be like GANDHI.

  • duck

    @ haps77

    Incidents like Kent State, Ruby Ridge, Waco also begs the question why police, military, and other government agencies will willingly kill their own citizens, some innocent, based on orders from higher ups. Those questioned will usually state they were "under orders" but when it is found that the orders were made in mistake, it is usually the lowest in the chain that will pay any price...

  • rtm

    ok well I haven't watched this yet just read the prologue, and would like to say that whoever believes that the last 100 years was the most brutal of all is an i!@#$ of great proportions.

  • http://princejaka.wordpress.com princeton

    gun control is a $illy notion.. same as drug control..
    it don't matter how Manny laws and task forces you create, real criminals will always be able to get guns (unregistered assault & powerful weapons with all the bells and whistles), your laws just disarm the law abiding folks who may need weapons to protect themselves.

    if you think voting is a decent way to prevent tyranny and violent criminals getting into power, you are sadly mistaken... those who truly understand government don't vote because your only options will consist of violent criminals.. those who do vote usually fall prey to nothing more than advertising campaigns, and mass media. Historically, the candidate who spends more money wins the election.

    we all know the media is ran by a few who do not have public interests at heart, and we know the government is none other than a monopoly on violence... and who would want to take charge of a monopoly on violence, but the violent criminals..

    democracy is a joke.... just the illusion of liberty, and a bad one at that.. you have to go through a lot of mind-twisting non-logic (govt education) to perceive a system such as democracy to be a free one!
    at best, nothing more than mob rule.. at worse, well the bush presidency should prove that the mess is an illusion with the choices being made long before you ever see anyone on tv!

    you can have your vote!.. ill keep my gunz & drugs!

  • Peter Doyle

    Hello!!Did you forget a Country, the little Emerald Isle? Ireland (The Great Famine of 1845) When a nation is forced to live on one crop,because it yields the most calories per acre to feed a family and then it fails because of potato blight.When that country is producing enough food to feed double it's population,but is exported by the British Government to better markets,because the Irish are to poor to buy the produce of their own country and a million are left to starve to death...Is that not worth showing? Is that not a government gone bad? They didn't have guns either to stop the British Government.Anyway i'll take my chances with my Government going bad,rather then have guns in the hands of every lunatic where i live. I fear he would be alot faster to shoot me in the dark of night then i would if i was reaching for a gun.I have to make sure I'm not shooting one of my kids.

  • rtm

    ok this doc sucks.

  • daniel

    what a load of bull....
    seriously completely wrong

  • Mo

    lol, I agree daniel, with the reasoning in this stupid film, you should go out and buy a tank! and a jet, and maybe some nuclear weapons. If you really want to protect yourself against the government

  • daniel

    if you need guns for self defense then you don't need guns. you need to get out of the bloody country and find a better place to live.

    do you think the victims of all these atrocities were praying for guns? I think not.

    maybe better politics.

  • darren

    1 bullet can change the world

  • Steddy

    Thank you Princeton. I appreciate you commenting on these videos. You bring a very honest and rational presence to these comment sections. People obviously do not see the real gun in the room that is the government.

  • Manhunt3r

    This is the worst type of propaganda!! F@#$ me!! Do you see multiple gun deaths in the UK where gun ownership is tightly controlled? No!! NRA Propaganda

  • tomdham

    1)I have not watched the video, yet, but will shortly.
    2)I still have to watch the Greek and other docos with Bettany Hughes first. @Ramus
    3)I will not engage in any vitriolic debates with the left/anti Americans out there.
    4)I am an NRA lifetime member
    5)'nough said
    73's,
    Tom

  • Chuck

    The trouble is that no matter how civilized were are, there is somebody else that isn't. I still believe the government is afraid of us, because so many of us are trained by them. No guns may work just fine in other small countries, but there's too much greed and corruption here for anything besides what we have. The people are still the balance of power and they're still waking up. It ain't ever going to be a perfect world, so get used to it.
    Thanks Vlatko Reality slapped me in the face with this one. It's something we don't like to think about, but it's all possible. It sounded like the NRA Lady, but I can get over that, even if they are the republican money machine. The reality is if most of us had just a few days without food or gasoline, we'd go freakin' bananas. All real stuff. New Orleans was just little stuff.

  • Manhunt3r

    Well that was fair and balanced!! All the Genocide was the fault of gun control!! So it had nothing to do with other things such as greed, power, Eugenics, Dictatorship, Religious Ideology, Striking terror and so on and so on

  • Manhunt3r

    With a little more finesse and focus on actual self defense the film makers could have made a good video. Instead they have gone down the road of using fear as a tool to get what they want without the proper facts or context. I love guns and I think they are fantastic tools when used correctly. Do the makers of the film advocate guns for all? What type of world would we be in when everyone is waiting nervously with a gun for someone to make a wrong move?

  • Barbara

    Throughout the entire history of the world, a man had to be prepared to defend himself and his family against aggressors. A man knew he might have to fight to the death, so he learned to use weapons, the more effective and lethal the better. That's why guns are called "equalizers".
    American men as a whole have become spineless namby pamby effeminate jellyfish, expecting someone else to do the fighting for them. If the government was for real, they wouldn't be trying to ban guns, but would not only encourage but require, every city and town to train citizens to use guns to protect not only their homes and families but the homeland itself against foreign. America is not omnipotent.

  • ProudinUS

    1) on hunting day I grab my key that is well hid and go over to my well secured gun case and grab the gun I am wanting to use.I lock up gun case before I leave and hide the key where can't be found.Check gun to make sure it is empty and put it in my carrying case and put in back of truck.
    2) Stop at store on the way out and make sure every door is locked.(Which I normally do not)
    3)I arrive at my hunting ground pull my 12gauge out(I happened to be hunting pheasant and rabbit that day) and load my shells.I make sure the safety is on and proceed to walk.....see hare,undo saftey and blast my animal.Do same sh&t all day and had fun.Put gauge back case and head home.
    4)before anything else is unloaded I retreive my key ,put gun back and relock the safe and hide the key.

    There that's what most of us mainly accomplish with our guns.As a matter of fact I would hope that would be the only motive to own a fire arm.

  • Marcone

    Worst doc ever.. really.. Horrible argument and disgusting use of twisted a** backwards logic.

  • roland gopel

    i think everybody should see this and decide for themselves.

    once you are dead there is no coming back!!! being dead is permanent. there are pros and cons to everything.

    who owns me such that they can dictate how much i may or may not protect myself?

    so here's a question.... if there is gun control and i have a gun and no licence (permission = a piece of paper with funny squiggles on it) and i harm nobody and thus commit no real crime, and if i am found out then the government can impose some arbitrary financial damage (a fine or imprisonment) upon me? why? i will not ever understand how that would be just. never ever ever!

  • Midnight Ride

    After watching this doc I think its name and its aim (pun intended) are off. I had the feeling the makers were more focused on informing and warning people about the disease called Communism.

    The documentary finds even more relevance now then when it was first released in 2003. America is being led astray by a Leninist-Marxist administration with Czars so brazen to even quote Chairman Mao, the butcher of China... Do you remember... "We kinda agree with Mao Zedong that power comes largely from the barrel of a gun."

    At the very least, this documentary shows the foresight Americas' founding fathers had when creating their Constitution.

    @Princeton
    Well spoken, though I remain a little more hopeful for the USA.

  • whizkid

    @princeton
    PROPS, WELL SPOKEN!

    For the rest of you, enjoy Nirvana, as you'll be among the victims of the next atrocity. I will not brook any arguments, nor respond to any hyperbole. YOU are the FIRST and LAST line of defense for your family against all comers, including your govenment. If you fail to recognize this, you deserve what you get from your willful denial.

  • Jeigh

    To everyone.... the easiest and most effective way to take down the American government is to cut up your credit cards and plant a garden.
    @midnight run, You are ignorant and misinformed. Your paranoid rant just confirms this. A Marxist administration would never have Czars. Marxist's are anti aristocracy. Marxist socialism was a democratic platform intended to give power to the people instead of the bourgeoisie. Fascism is what killed Marxist socialism, George Bush's Fascism is what is/was killing American Democracy.
    Please educate yourself about government before coming on here and wasting space. Propaganda. That's all your rant is... and I'll bet money you think your well educated. You praise @princeton when he is basically saying that what you call democracy is a joke... and he is right. You and your government are owned by corporations. If you don't educate yourself, you are already a victim. Please spare us the puns and get a library card... but be careful, libraries are a part of the socialist agenda. How dare we educate the under privileged.

  • Jay

    I'm for guns. Why? because its as simple as the doc says:

    "disarmed populations become the hapless victims of tyrannical governments and criminals"

  • Mo

    Everybody in the NRA, or who is an advocate of gun ownership, is mentally diseased, and has not yet fully evolved into a civilized peaceful human being. They're still monkeys. They are a threat to the collective sanity of the planet and will only weigh the rest of us down with their primitive consciousness.

  • jack1952

    @ Lord Xenu

    Democracy is the best system we have but can only be effective if all citizens take an active roll in the democratic process. Its difficult to know the extent of corporate control of our democratic governments because those corporations cannot exercise their power if their actions are exposed. It is the responsibility of all voters to educate themselves about the issues and then to vote. Gun control and legislation should also be decided this way. Decisions should be accepted as the will of the people and any changes should come from the election booth. It may seem a slow process but it is the only fair way.

  • whizkid

    @jack1952

    jackass.

  • Elwood

    i used to teach Karate and it was about unarmed people befending them selfs with bare hands and farm tools against swords.911 was a tool to take all are rights away it is sad when the laws are for big companies and not for human safety.cell phones are not good for you and let people know right were you are.main stream media is a joke[except Lou Dobs]thats probably why were all on doc,sights and independent tv.i will not shoot animals but every one should know how to shoot self defence weapons.we elected Al Gore but aparently lobbyist have more power than the peoples vote.Dont give up your arms.

  • magarac

    @ Lord Xenu

    That is true. But there´s just one quite important difference to the other countries. Ever tried hiding from a plane i a wheat field? My guess is that mountains or jungle should be the better choice.

  • Mad

    @ Jeigh

    I totally agree I hate how misrepresented Communism is because people don't really know who Marx is in the west, like everybody mistakes him for Stalin and doesn't know shit about Communism. I've heard more Anti-Communist rants in the comments section on this site than in a Cuban Exile forum...

    @ the uneducated masses

    Don't let nobody fool you KNOWLEDGE is the real power for it is stronger than bullets, bombs, or swords if you use it for the good of humanity. And to those supposed 10,000,000 "deaths caused by the commies" most of them from Fascism a perverted form of capitalism in which the U.S. runs today where the state controls the markets and the markets control the state. Look at how many lobbyists are on capital hill did you elect GE to be your president? What about Lockheed Martin? Or Boeing? Don't fool yourself America your freedom has always been illusion

  • ray

    If you think you have any say what so ever in who runs your country... You are seriously r@#$%^&*. The vote you think you have, is useless. You have zero say. Get used to it. Wake the f@#$ up!

  • Waldo

    To all you genuises that keep saying this is not a democracy but a republic, look up the definition of the word republic, here I'll do it for you. Republic: a state in which the primary power lies with the body of citizens entitled to vote for represenatives to actually govern. In other words, a indirect democracy. You can say you would prefer a direct democracy, but that is impossible in a nation this large and a world this complicated. The average cost of a national election is astronomical, to hold one for every single issue that comes about would break the bank. Not to mention the modern world of global finance and strategic democratic negotiations is so far over the average citizens head, they would have no clue what is the best decision.

    Yes, we have very little to choose from in way of a leader. The government is basically turned into a corporation that moves in the same direction no matter who we elect. But, not voting and sitting around whining will accomplish nothing accept to hand over the whole country to the powers that be without even the slightest resistance. The government depends on you guys sitting at home and not voting, because they can not take away our vote and the democratic process. So, in reality you are fueling what you claim to be fighting.

    Ever heard of a write in candidate, this means you could vote for your self if you wanted to. Vote for whomever you like, your mom, your friend, your dealer- but vote. Send the message that you are sick of the candidates and want soemthing more, sitting at home and crying in your milk is getting you and the rest of us no where. You are letting them get exactly what they want and think you are making a stand. No, a write in will not win, but it will send a message. If we get enough write ins the message is loud and clear, we want different candidates. The government has spent millions of dollars and man hours making sure you will do exactly what you are doing, nothing. Split the vote so no one gets the majority and we have actually done something.

  • Waldo

    By the way, the republicans in Alaska didn't like the republican senatorial candidate they had to vote for, so they elected a different republican by write in. This just happened a few months ago, so don't tell me a write in means nothing or changes nothing. The people of Alaska got off their rear and did something about what they didn't like, maybe we should learn something from that.

  • Jeigh

    @Lord Xenu & magarac. I think you are relying on incredibly wishful thinking. You are assuming that these two million magically share the same ideals, that they will be able to align themselves and fight as one force. You are assuming that these two million are made of true grit forged from hardship and suffering. Please. This is a fast food nation. A nation that has born weaker and weaker generations since the 1950's. You and your friends may very well be the real deal, but you will find yourselves lonely and eventually defeated. The majority of this nation does not live in rural areas, that would bed an insurgency. The majority of this nation has no idea what it means to fight for their rights or lives. Just look at voter turn out. This nation wont even get out and vote. So... I applaud your bravado, but it is entirely based on romantic fantasy. If an insurgency could be led and fought via play station, we might have a fighting chance...

  • Jeigh

    @waldo

    That's Alaska. Every state has its own constitution. The majority of them do not have this right written into their constitutions. Also the nation itself does not have this right written into their constitution. We still have an electoral college. I applaud your enthusiasm but this is the United States... not the State of Alaska. It is truly unfortunate. Btw, the write in vote is what cleared the way for medical marijuana in California in the late nineties, and the lack of this right is what holds back the law in the state of New York where a staggering seventy three percent of the population are pro-medical cannabis.

  • Waldo

    One more thing, if there are no good candidates in this country anymore, and you guys hate the choices so badly- when are you going to run for office? See this is how the great politicians of our history came about, they saw no one able to do the job and took upon themselves to do it. I am not kidding here, I like alot of what you guys have to say. The problem is you and I are just whining on a web site and not really doing anything about it. As long as this is all we do, complain and argue back and forth about the way things are- nothing will ever change.

    You don't have to run for office, but at least get up and organize some kind of movement of like minded individuals. I have done this for over three years now, and you would be surprised at the satisfaction and knowledge I have gained by doing so. Democracy only fails when the public is not involved, you can not blame any other reason for the failure of this country. No matter what "they" do or try to do, if the American people stay educated and vote they have the power. even if there are no good candidates, we can split the vote by write in and make a change.

  • jack1952

    @ whizkid

    Since my post elicited such a negative response, I am going to assume any form of government that you would propose would be one based on acrimony and force. I may be a jackass but at least I'm a friendly and reasonable jackass.

  • Waldo

    @ Jeigh

    You may be right about that, I'll check into it. I think we still have the right to write in a candidate, even in federal elections, but maybe not.

  • hanshenning

    This was a rather shocking experience to read (must admit I didn't see the film, the starting description was more than sufficient for me) for an inhibitant of the world on the other side of 'The Dam' - it was completely incomprehensible to me, and I think to most other Europeans, to see the majority of the comments which in general are in agreement with the tendency of that description. I - and I think I can talk on behalf of most Europeans - just simply don't understand the attitudes expressed, in particular the idea that "The government is the enemy of the people" - who on earth should otherwise be responsible for all common services (schools, traffic facilities, courts, laws, police just to mention a few) than a government chosen by the people and for the people - and that is depending on the people for being reelected? It simply doesn't make sense to us.
    And the idea that life should be better if everybody is armed and expecting that everybody else want to attack them and hence will have to be armed themselves is so screamingly illogical that one can only shake one's head in wonder. I can only explain it as a consequence of a very fundamental fault in the rearing of most young Americans that must be instilling in them such a mistrust in ones fellow human beings - the saddest being that, once it is there, I'm afraid it is next to impossible to change it.

  • Jeigh

    @waldo, don't get me wrong, I'm with you one hundred percent. I believe the technical term is voter referendum for the action in California. Most states do not have this right. Our constitution doesn't either. This is based basically on what you said about the size and political education of the nation at large. However it could become law if the population was informed of the lack of it, and voted for candidates ready to make this change.

  • Jeigh

    @hanshenning I agree with many of your points also. It is startling from a European view point. However, I must point out that no continent has a history of violence and continual war than Europe. You will most likely get a lashing for that comment since little more than a half a century ago, Americans reluctantly joined your second great war and almost single handedly saved the entire continent from racist fascism. Good luck defending that point of view with the long, murderous history of Europe in your pocket.

  • duck

    @ hanshenning

    I guess we can forget about the Nazi movement, Mousilini, various occurrences in the East, many South American countries...most African countries.. Each of these were taken over at different speeds by totalitarian governments. Most of the populations supported these governments...at first, when they woke up, it was too late.

    In the USA, we are slowly losing freedoms bit by bit, like a dripping faucet, rules and regulations are slowly being put in place that keeps the population where the powers that be wants.

    Those that implicitly trust their governments usually end up under complete government control.

  • http://princejaka.wordpress.com princeton

    ahh
    "democracy is the best we have"
    um I would humbly submit that it is not.
    All world governments rely on something that is utterly unacceptable in any other social interactions to maintain their power.

    We don't allow the initiation of the use of force in business, and in personal life.. coercion/force is something most of us understand should only be used as a last resort to protect one's self or others.

    Now.. we are very creative and able to innovate at light speeds in all other aspects of life, but when it comes to government, or specifically, how we organize society, we are still using and debating systems that are 100s of years old which were created before the information boom and were inherited from hierarchical power structures.

    If one were to think about it hard enough, there are many ways society can be organized to function, without the need for a central monopoly on the use of violence and initiation of force. actually it has been demonstrated how society would be much more efficient if coercion was minimized and only used as a last resort to defend people.

    all governments.. (democratic/whatever) should be funded voluntarily and should be reduced to the role of dispute resolution and contract oversight..
    allowing some group of people the power to pass laws, and then send men with guns to force us to comply, will always lead to abuses of that power and eventually more tyrannical and oppressive governments.

    the only role for such an organization is to protect citizens, and all our governments fail miserably simply by stealing from us!

    as I stated before.. democracy is an illusion.. but the joke's in our face, because we have a government instituted by the people, for the people.. but they'll shoot the people if they don't pay.. and kidnap the people for traffic violations and leaf possession..

    yea.. keep me and my kids safe (bs), but oh wait.. buy all the bleach and pain meds you like.. even cutco knives, that'll slice right thru your arm... and have a field day at Lowes with all that heavy equipment.. lol.. its such a f'in joke.. i mean c'mon people!

    ;)

  • http://princejaka.wordpress.com princeton

    I could honestly believe there was hope for democracy, if we all voted on policy through the net or cell phones or something.. but to vote on some representatives that you would then trust to vote on policy in a fair way for the public interest is a really bad idea to me.

    these politicians are not accountable whatsoever, its like giving someone a multimillion dollar business for four years.. only a f00l could place trust in such a system and actually believe it will be maintained and not exploited by those who've taken turns controlling it.. they don't own it, so they don't care about it!

    politicians also enjoy the special cover of hidden costs.. yea, everyone can see who benefits when welfare is expanded and government jobs are created or maybe minimum wage is raised.... but no one can quantify the hidden costs

    politicians can just ride a wave of "what is obviously good" and the public at large will be none the wiser to the fact that our life will get a little tougher, products will cost more, our money will be worth a little less, and the most hidden of all.. the jobs that weren't created....

  • Waldo

    @ Princeton

    You had me going there for a minute, until the lowes thing at the end. What in the world is so dangerous at Lowes? Just joking around, but you could have come up with a better example. I don't see government as the enemy, but you and I have had that out before.

    I do agree though that things are f*cked up when you can get kidnapped for a little green or an unpaid ticket. I am in trouble rigth now, big trouble believe it or not, because I bought sinus meds. I do the shopping for my whole neighborhood which is all aunts and uncles, and my mom and dad. So, I bought more than usual and boom, I am accused of making freakin meth. No proof what so ever that I made or did any meth- no record, I passed two drug tests and no one says they bought from me nor was I caught with any meth or accessories. I am facing a felony charge though regardless, and have been fighting it for over three years to the tune of over ten thousand dollars so far. And I am only one of many in this county having this same issue.

    Still I think democratic government and its underlying principles are the best thing we have, it's our fault that we let it come to this. I am sure the guys from Europe don't understand, things are much better there. Much more laid back and less legal interference and government coercion in my opinion. I hear that is starting to change in UK though, according to John Harris- I think thats right. I have no idea if the guy is credible, but he says things are getting rough there, i.e. lots of harrasment from cops and government corruption.

  • Think

    Being from Europe, it's impressive for me to see so-called europeans talking about the 'accountable and democratic' governments of Europe. First of all, you (we) don't even have national governments anymore. Nor countries. It's all gone, with the EU, which is structurally molded after the Soviet system (and ideologically too, I might add).

    Second, we've never been so looted in all your lives, saving during World War II, if you were alive back then. Our governmental structures have never been less transparent and unaccountable to us, the cashcow taxpayers. Our regions (that's how they're called now) have never been more under the rule of banking oligarchs and their puppet governments.
    The state has never been more oppressive, with constant surveillance everywhere, over everyone. Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin would have loved to have the kind of high-tech available today, along with the absurdly naive population.

    Nevertheless here you are, my fellow europeans, instructing other people that they should trust the 'authorities', that government is *naturally good*. This kind of willing naivety was the wet dream of Hegel, Saint-Simon, and other totalitarian freaks such as those. Jesus Christ.

  • Jeigh

    @princeton... pretty flawless and spot-on observations. Nice job. I hope some of the delusional here can finally grasp it. misguided nationalism and ignorance walk hand in hand.

  • addy

    who needs guns to kill someone?

  • teh

    like few pistols would change something in those countries mentioned in the documentary, today only one state in the world has armed citizens and that is USA.. today, killing rates among citizens (say in western countries) is highest in USA, i understand even gabrielle giffords(i think her picture is shown in documentary) was pro arms, well some armed individual showed her/them the way, right?

  • Neale B

    Always gonna be dumbos who believe this c@#$. They believe it despite statistics too, so don't bother trying to explain it to them, they have consciously or otherwise decided to disregard history, evidence and facts.

    You can't expect clever decisions from stupid people, but worse then these run of the mill imbeciles are those i@#$%^ who don't know they're stupid and in fact, think they're quite clever.

    Now they're making documentaries as if the sheer representation of baseless theories can somehow lend them credence. It's the same way humans were dubed into b@##$%^& like Christianity, Islam, Scientology... take your pick. They're all exactly the same.

    Get enough i@#$%^ telling that water is dry and the sky is pink and there will be a whole congregation who take it seriously, just cos lots of their fellow i@#$%^ are doing so.

    Ironically, the people who most need a bullet in their head are those who believe they need a gun. If we killed off all these creepy gun-nuts it would result in a society free of men with tiny penises and a vacant scotum which in turn would mean no cowardly weaklings trying to compensate for their empty jean-fronts with guns.

  • Jeigh

    @teh Why oh why are there so many ignorant positions on this matter. I could actually care less either way. I was raised with guns, I was taught how to respect guns, and I can easily take down an intruder with a gun. If stupid people want to shoot other stupid people with guns... by all means, FIRE! But that isn't usually what happens, and lots of kids and innocent people get killed. But truthfully... that's life. If we all cared more about living life than loosing our lives the world would be a much better place.
    But...Teh, get a clue man... yours is possibly the most ignorant statement of the day.
    "only one state in the world has guns"????? Do you live in a box? Have you ever left your home town?
    I'm not going to give you the entire list, but here are two of the most populated countries in the world where you have the right to own fire arms. BRAZIL, INDIA Do you have any idea how many more people there are in those countries than the USA??? Please do your homework.. Please educate yourself before running your mouth...You have a computer...Use it!
    By the way, it may be regulated but you can even own a gun in CHINA!
    I hope you read this and your face turns red from embarrassment. Maybe next time you will at least Google you ridiculous claims.

  • Jeigh

    @teh... or has armed citizens... whatever. You couldn't be more wrong.

  • teh

    bla bla, put your pistol under your pillow, and go dream of a better place, and don't takeit personaly, i know that you can find gun anywhere in the world, but in usa you can buy it in the 'supermarket'... brasil, india and china are not western countries, and read between lines, dont just take everything to the letter

  • Ramus

    Brazil and Mexico have higher homicides by firearm than America. England are way down the list because its illegal to have firearms here. We have have to headbut and follow up with a knife in the ribs. But if our government turns on us I don't think a kitchen knife is going to help :( WOLVERINES!!

  • Jeigh

    Brazil isn't a western country... lol, wow, okay, I'm wasting my time with you, sorry for trying to educate you. I suppose what your trying to say is, first world country, and there are plenty of those with citizen rights to firearms. I don't take anything personally, and I don't and wouldn't own a gun. I get tired of ignoramuses grand standing and spewing nonsensical information, when a simple google search could quickly clear the air. I did go back and read your post, I did read between the lines, and your laziness and ignorance became even more obvious. You said nothing about western countries except murder rates. You said and I quote "only one state in the world has armed citizens, and that is USA" I see that there is a language barrier holding you back, so I'm going to leave you to dwell in your ignorance. Learn, Read, Grow, Evolve...and for your own sake...think before you speak.

  • Skeptic

    @ tigerpred (Post #6)
    > Now show me how many inoccent people have died from guns

    A young congresswoman in the US, just might die because of the lack of gun control. A child and 5 others died in the incident. Guns hurt innocent people too.

    @ Ramus

    > But if our government turns on us I don’t think a kitchen
    > knife is going to help :(

    Firearms wouldn't help you either, mate. They have heavier gear.

    The best way to get the government on your side is by voting for the people you trust. If you give power to thugs, bigots, extremists and the insane, don't be surprised if they use that power against you or your neighbors someday. He who fears the government, has made a poor job at electing his representatives.

    Use ballots, not bullets. Peace!

  • Ramus

    @Skeptic
    I've yet to find ANY politician I can trust. In England politicians are Cambridge/Oxford toffs who wouldn't know the real world if it bit them in the arse. Politicians should be people that know what's needed rather than what's good for their career. Voting is just "Do you want this clueless prat or that clueless prat?"

  • teh

    at jeigh
    better be an ignorant than blind

  • http://princejaka.wordpress.com princeton

    @skeptic
    sorry bruh.. but I can't trust any system that is inherently based on theft and violence.. all politicians only get their money because hard working citizens are threatened with violence to pay them. that is theft, and I cannot imagine anything other than lying criminals in charge of such an operation.. no matter how much they propagandize the public into a stockholm syndrome state of loving their abuser.

    If you were to take the time to look into it, you would realize that voting is one of the most futile things you could possibly be doing with your time! it is a pitiful illusion of choice.

    I do not support violence against those who disagree with me! I may not like certain things people do, but I am not willing to pass laws, therefore allowing violent people with guns to go harass them. voting for a certain politician or official is nothing more than attempting to use violence to control the actions of others.. this is the root of all our problems as a society.

    all these government debates are pointless, because there should only be one sanctioned use of violence, and we only need one law.. respect each other's property and do not harm others.. . very simple.. non need for all the law books and regulations which are just a trap to steal more and more from civilians.

    @waldo
    LOL
    "Think" put it quite eloquently and I do not know first hand, but I'm sure Europe & the rest of the world are doing just as horribly.
    See, I'm pretty sure all governments have to be this way, its built into the machine.. war, violence and oppression is how the whole thing can even exist and must always be escalated..
    until people can learn to interact voluntarily.. there will be so many unforeseen side effects to the coercion beneath the surface.. and markets will swell out of proportion, the greedy will have a way to cheat the rest of society and all murderous psychopaths will always have a job waiting for them.

    I sincerely hope all goes well with your case.. and you're right, its not out of the ordinary... almost all the thousands of codes, regulations and "laws" passed can be used at any time to pick on anyone, because no sane person can follow all of them. they can just stifle flexibility, create waste, and always have some red tape to pull out against anyone.. and make money from it.
    good luck

  • Jordan

    You guys see this as such a trivial matter. In South Africa, white people have been disarmed whilst black criminals run rampant raping and murdering. A few years back SA civilians were forced to hand back their guns whilst the government stood bye and still stands bye watching whites being obliterated. Millions have fled, been displaced to New Zealand Australia and thousands murdered (men woman and children). Strange thing is that whilst Apartheid thrived, the world boycotted, demonstrated etc - now whites die in their thousands and the world is silent. Word of warning to ALL - never hand in your gun. Its all that stands between you and genocide - trust me its happening right now - dont believe it - go research white farmers - go see what Africans are capable of. You were loud mouthed against apartheid - where are you brave souls now????

  • Reasons Voice

    As usual on this site the comentary is great. @Princeton, Waldo, and Ramus (as well as a few lesser known posters) excellent thought provoking commentary as always. Thank you. I do see the trend as always of over generalization and over simplification of complex issues by most people.
    I am not currently a gun owner but still retain a full carry conceal permit for my state. In a previous job I faced frequent threats on my life by drug addicts and mental health patients. I got my permit and purchased both a live fire pistol and a blank firing replica. Guess which I carried and actually was forced to use. I was confronted by an irate psych case with a knife while on the job and the sight of a shiney chrome noise maker saved me a rather painfull stabbing.
    All people are individuals and as such generalities and all encompassing rules are impossible to determine. One sides statistics are just as cherry picked as the others are in this issue. I have known a gun owner who was clubbed in the head durring a home invasion with her own pistol. I have also known non gun owners who beat a mugger senseless with a grocery bag with canned peas in it.
    I do support the right to bear arms. For those of you who claim we need more regulations i challenge you to go out and get a permit for concealed pistol. Let me know how easy it is. For me it was a 6 month process that involved a full backround check, four character witnesses (whos backgronds were also checked), a letter of requirement, finger printing, regestration of each weapon owned by serial number (matchable to ballistic information), and much much more.
    Legally owned guns are not the issue and untill the issue of illegally owned weapons is solved I will support legal ownership whole heartedly.
    @Ramus; You comment about the oxford pratts had me in stitches. Ohh we are not unalike my friend. Only here in the US the pratts have more varrious university choices but all share the degree in political science or law.

  • Reasons Voice

    @Neale B; Contrary to you perception of the issue there is no correlation between firearms posession and penis size. If you doubt me feel free to go shower in your local penetentury with a particularly slippery bar of soap.

  • Moon

    Interesting documentary. However, I disagree with the way it exaggerates the role of guns.
    Even if jews, farmers and whoever had guns, there were usually armed forces against them. How are they supposed to hold up for long with a lousy rifle when faced with soldiers? It may have helped in individual cases, but on the long run, the outcome wouldn't have been more different.

    Another thing that bothered me - 9-11 was definitely not a result of gun control, wtf. If people were allowed to take f-ing guns onto a plane, that would have made it even easier for the terrorists.

    Nobody's brutalized by gun control alone. That's a ridiculous argument. Looks more like NRA propaganda to me. Also, which country has the hightest rate of gun-related deaths again, hm?

  • Reasons Voice

    @Neale B; Furthermore you should have your above statement tattooed onto your back. If Pavlovian theory is to be believed, incorporating reading and humor with times of relaxation and pleasure may be benefitial to the rehabilitation process of violent fellons.

  • Jeigh

    @neil b, wow, let em rip. A little harsh, but hey, why beat around the bush right?

    @waldo,Skeptic,etc. I went through the very long post, and re-read everything. I think you both have brilliant ideas and strategies, but I still have to say, a little romanticized for me. I see this nation taking a swift kick in the a#$, before things will get any better and rational ideas and policies come to the table.
    @Ramus, I have to agree, and if I were locked down on that island (love it, couldn't live there) I would probably loose it.
    @Princeton, You opened my eyes a little wider. I had never thought about the differences in social order between personal relationships, business relations, and our dysfunctional romance with government. It is completely nonsensical, and unacceptable. Thanks to all

  • Jeigh

    @Reasons Voice, How did I miss that banter. I busted my gut over your encore comment. Holy s^%t that is funny.
    But has there been a scientific study on the matter? I don't really have an opinion over it, but I would like to read it if it existed.

  • Reasons Voice

    @jeigh; Not sure on possible studies. May be some out there though. And thanks. Some times my snarky personality surfaces on here.

  • Jeigh

    Interesting statistic; The last five out of six political assassinations were committed against Democrats. I didn't go back further than that, but I bet you would find about the same percentages for the last century.

  • Jeigh

    I think this could be a useful statistic in this argument. If you are anti-gun control and defend your right to bear arm (assault rifles) to protect yourself from assault, than you should be able to also grasp the opposite side of the argument for wanting these weapons off the streest since it certainly seems the people against it, are the ones getting shot. Just a middle of the road observation for ya.

  • Reasons Voice

    @Jaigh; Not sure which assassination attempts you are referring to, assuming you mean the Kennedys they both especially Bobby went far against the grain for the democratic party. If you want to see correlation to political assassinations look into the standing against the Fed and world banking.

  • Jeigh

    I didn't go back as far as the Kennedy's. Just the past thirty years. I was hoping someone else would take the next twenty for me. I don't know all of the World Bank associated crimes, but I do know they are absolute evil.

    Recent US political assassinations

    * 2008: Bill Gwatney, the Chair of the Arkansas Democratic Party, was shot in his office and later died.
    * 2003: New York City Councilman James Davis was shot in the chest.
    * 1998: Tommy Burks, a Democratic state representative from Tennessee, was shot in the face by a political opponent
    * 1980: Russell Lloyd, the Republican mayor of Evansville, Indiana and New York City Democratic Congressman Allard Lowenstein were assassinated in separate incidents
    * 1978: Harvey Milk, a gay activist and San Francisco city supervisor, was shot dead in his office. Mayor George Moscone was killed moments earlier by the same shooter

  • Jeigh

    @Reasons Voice, I can't add, It's actually six out of seven. Im not sure why it surprises me, so much. I can't recall any assassinations between Bobby Kennedy and Harvey Milk (before my time), so it very well may be eight out of nine. I've been crazy busy writing all day and was hoping someone else would pick up where I left off. Whatever the number, it seems incredibly one sided.

  • Reasons Voice

    Ahh. yea I am not too aware in regards to lower level staff such as those but if you are going back that far leaving out the two attempts on Reagan is silly.

  • Jeigh

    @Reasons Voice. I didn't say anything about attempts. If I would have, of course I would have mentioned Reagan. Reagan wasn't assassinated though. Which makes even more sense. The Republicans are better shot's. Keep in mind, I don't really care either way, I'm just playing devils advocate. And while some may be lower level, these are the only actual assassinations of American politicians in the last thirty years.

  • Reasons Voice

    @Jeigh; It's just a tough subject at the moment. The democratic congress woman from Arizona who was just shot and all. The main stream US press has been blaming the right since it happened, however the kid that did it was a disenfranchised liberal. he was an atheistic anarchist misfit. Not your typical young republican.

  • Jeigh

    @ Reasons Voice, I agree, and I have been laid up from a surgery; without network or cable television, and only just found out the depth of it yesterday. I saw something about it on Sat. but when I went to the video, it was of the Senator's commentary around election time when her office had been vandalized. I thought that was the extent of it until yesterday. I certainly don't mean to be inflammatory, but I also didn't feel right backing down from my position because of it. Even though I have continually mentioned, that I don't really have a position. I also finally understood teh's very tasteless remark and noticed that you and I have been the only people that have been speaking about it for the past few days. The murdered child that was born on Sept 11th and featured in the book about the future really gets to a vulnerable spot in me. So, I hear you loud and clear, to say the least.

  • barry

    I cant stand that womans voice a second longer!!!!!!

  • weasel

    I`m sorry but that`s just stupid. if everyone could own a firegun than deaths would just skyrocket through the roofs. protecting ourselves from goverment? please grow up!

  • Heather

    Whoa, I remember when those kids were killed. It's known as the Merced Pitchfork Murders (Merced, CA). The doc has some facts wrong, but the idea is there.
    It stunned the whole area, and I remember I bought a glock a week later, many of us did, legal or not. We didn't care, we only wanted to protect ourselves and what little we had.
    Seriously, imagine it: Dad went to work, mom went to drop the car off at the brake shop in the morning, and five kids are at home. A completely naked guy breaks in with a freakin pitchfork, and starts stabbing the children. The 12 year old can't get to the gun because it's in a closet up on a high shelf, and it's not even loaded... probably has a gun lock on it too, and those things are stubborn.
    So, yeah, she & her sister go next door and ask the neighbor for his shotgun, or his help... and she's bleeding profusely from being stabbed once. I would have gone over there and shot the guy, sorry, but I would have without hesitation.
    The neighbor tells her to call 911. While her three siblings are getting brutally murdered, and she's losing blood, he wants her to wait on the phone. She almost died before help finally came.
    The police did shoot him, 37 times I believe, and the intruder died on the scene. Tragic. Two little girls, and one little boy killed with a pitchfork in thier own house. Can you imagine for a second what the inside of that house must have looked like when the parents came home?!? To this day the father is haunted by this senseless act.
    And there was a gun in the house, but the kid just couldn't get to it to defend her brother & sisters. I don't know what the grand answer is, I don't know who's to blame; personally I think the crazy guy with the pitchfork IS the one to blame here, but that's just my opinion.

    Point is, this kind of thing does happen, and this particular story is very true, happened in '00. Learn to defend yourself, if by gun, or some other means. Even if it's a metal baseball bat, or a freakin bowling ball, but have something.

  • Whatevermen

    Hmmm… JPFO or Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership…

    With a name like that I truly wonder how they feel about armed Palastinians.

  • odog

    absolutely ridiculous!!!
    Arming ourselves against government....we know government has, can, and will be corrupt as it is judged by the lowest common denominator being the greedy power hungry fools. But come on unless you live in Somolia, Haiti, Rwanda then this argument/statement is BS.
    The problem (with the US gov) is there bully mentality, addiction with weapons, and the perception they are better than the rest (Bigger, stronger, faster- check out this doc!). Guns are a metaphor for bullying, arrogance, and fear- as those who carry them are not not strong enough to use their physical attributes-mind, voice, heart, or personal strength. You wonder why the US is the most obese nation in the world, why they have incredibly stupid murder rates, and why their education levels have sunk to abyssmal lows. The US is a purposely built war machine. Their economy is based on military, entertainment, and stealing oil. No wonder there is a push for Americans to carry guns, they are not making many friends in the world, and probably feel they need to protect themselves from foreigners as well as their own citizens. It is bizarre to me that the US gov plays out like the old west (wasn't that in the 1800's?), but I guess there is a lot of money to be made in the military/weapon war machine. 'Bowling for Columbine' (& many other shootings as last week) effectively illustrates how ass backward this mentality is. A country that kills off its own great leaders- Lincoln, Kennedy times 2, M L King, Malcolm X- to name a few has to look at itself and wonder what is wrong with this picture?

  • http://www.youtube.com/LibertyTruthJustice LibertyTruthJustice

    @odog

    Actually 'Bowling for Columbine' goes forever trying to prove that gun ownership is evil, until they get to the point where they're forced to restate their argument. And that is when they go into Canada and verify that gun owners there aren't shooting each other like mad. They could verify that also in places like Switzerland, for instance, where family households even have machineguns. Michael Moore was honest there, stating that what produces violence is not gun ownership per se, but a culture of paranoia and fear, largely disseminated by the media.

    Now, America (or anywhere else, for that matter). Gun ownership would never be futile, against a tyrannical government, since guerrilla movements DO work. History proves so. Perhaps government would win, in the end. But an armed populace at least stands a chance.
    However one tries to spin the argument, the fact is that gun ownership has been the basic problem of tyrants and bullies throughout history. That's why tyrannical regimes always persuade, or force, their peoples to disarm. That's why the British took such a beating, in the Boer War, where some 40.000 farmers and natives held 10x their number of British troops for 3 years. That's why Japan didn't dare invade Australia, in WWII. If the Australians were disarmed, the Japanese wouldn't think twice about doing it.
    That's the essential point here. And think of this. Just because you feel comfortable with your government today, just because you feel you are respected by them, a stakeholder, it doesn't mean things will not change tomorrow. They do. That's human history.

  • Jeigh

    Well... I'm very surprised this quote has not been used already; I have been waiting for it, since it fits the subject matter perfectly.

    "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.

    ...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
    It is its natural manure."

    -Thomas Jefferson

  • Tigerspaw

    No one has the right to decide if I can protect myself or my family.

  • scott

    looks like you americans are next in line for genocide. your government is trying very hard to disarm you

  • Dacosta

    and they forgot to mention murdering native americans..
    also I think americans think they are ubernation and are better than anyone else with the best country, so why do they suddenly need guns to defend against their government? rofl..

  • john

    "Then the “vote” would be the only “weapon” one ever need in a democracy. The reason why we have incompetent politicians is because we have incompetent voters."

    Scary how the illusion of American politics trick you into believing that America is governed by a true democracy isn't it?

  • Jeigh

    @ Dacosta, Your generalization only proves that you are ignorant, and short sighted. Perhaps you should clarify "many Americans" or the "majority of Americans." Perhaps if almost so much of the rest of the world, wasn't equally as thick as you, and wouldn't have fallen in love with Hollywood and self-servitude above all; you would be able to throw stones from your glass house, and your comments would carry some relevance. You sound like most Americans.

    @John... Yes, it's all a sham. The United States of Corporations.

  • Anonymous Coward

    @ Everyone who says that even if they had guns the civilians couldn't do anything against the government

    Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Go read the wiki article. It's incredibly tragic, but look at what they accomplished with what little they had.

  • Lary Nine

    The unfortunate victims of the intro are irrelevant to modern America's current gun conundrum brcause the regulation of guns in America will not be like the Soviet Union. Come on... get real.

    This documentary represents a weak argument. Are you saying that a solid, active 2nd. amendment would have saved Russia and China from communism? That is what the film seems to be suggesting.
    I think we'd be much better off arming our citizens with engineering degrees and ideas of liberty than the engineering of Samuel Colt and a head full of heroic visions at the O.K. Corral.

  • http://www.youtube.com/LibertyTruthJustice LibertyTruthJustice

    "we’d be much better off arming our citizens with engineering degrees and ideas of liberty"

    Sadly, they've all been 'armed' with an education on communism, now known as UN communitarianism, even though they still call it capitalism. HG Wells, the Fabian socialist, said that would be how the subversion process of America and Europe would occur. They'd be turned into a communist country, run by monopoly capitalists (like the Soviet Union was, btw), but they'd still call it "capitalism" and "free market".

    Now, they're starting to accept whatever comes down the pike, even the destruction of their most basic ability to defend themselves. The Founding Fathers are turning in their graves.

    As a last point, I'm always baffled that people might think today we're above genocide and utter tyranny. In the era when 1,5 million Iraqis are killed to 'be liberated'. That is ALL coming home, and it will probably be played out in a scenario of monetary hyperinflation of both the dollar and the euro. That's why police departments now resemble SS goon squads, and are all training with special forces. That's what the tanks and the humvees, and the massive 'homeland defense' apparatus, are for. All over the western world, by the way.

  • Lary Nine

    @LibTruJust~
    I still fervently believe that we’d all be much better off arming ourselves with engineering degrees and ideas about liberty than the engineering of Samuel Colt and a head full of heroic visions at the O.K. Corral. We shall see which ideas survive as history unfurls---will it be might or right?
    I honestly don't know anymore than I know with certainty whether human beings are capable of cooperation and non-selfish behaviors. But unlike those who have passed sentence ex cathedra (infallibily) on humanity's imperfect, incompetent nature, I really don't have a clue what we can do till we try. What if by trying, we actually adapt?

  • http://www.youtube.com/LibertyTruthJustice LibertyTruthJustice

    @Lary Nine

    Why would true cooperation, in a true community (not one of these fake post-modern, UN-communist ones), be incompatible with having means of self-defense...?

    What does one thing have to do with the other..? Do they cancel each other out..? I really don't see why, or how, that could happen.

    And of course human beings can cooperate. Who said otherwise?

    The problem is when heavily funded cliques of people try to force a paradigm of mandatory cooperation on everyone else, in the name of utopia. Then we get genocide. Then we get a post-modern communist technocracy, which is what we now seem to be going into.

  • Lary Nine

    @LTJ~ That sentence you were confused about, when I re-read it... it confused me too---and I wrote it! It happens.

    What I think I meant was--- I am not prepared to argue whether human beings are intrinsically cooperative enough to succeed in a socialized economy or whether, by virtue of their selfish natures, they require capitalism to thrive. I've heard both arguments in support of each respectively. In terms of game theory, I always argue that a win for the individual can be a win for the group too (socialist game theory). But free market capitalists say it's not possible ...people are designed to compete and compete they must... cut-throat, dog-eat-dog. That is what I was driving at...that I reject this dog-eat-dog view of mankind as inevitable. Man is a tabula rasa as an economic animal.

  • MJ

    Don't get the anti-gun sentiments, never will. Human beings, from the dawn of time, have always possessed some weapon or another. If it's not a projectile or firearm, it's a blade. If it's not a blade, it's the body itself. The right to bear arms isn't just about self-defense, it's about the right to have control of your own life, no matter what situation is presented to you.

    Guns don't lead to violence. Violent mindsets lead to violence. A murderer/ a rapist/ and a robber are all precisely what they are, and no amount of gun legislation will change their minds. However, if humans openly exercised their right to bear arms and made it apparent that they were packing and not to be fucked with, who then, would have the balls to fuck with, but the most insane?

    Now, I don't know about the movie because I haven't watched, nor do I intend to, but gun possession isn't just about defense from government. It's defense from government, trespasses of property and person, and even invasion. In fact, the gun is the stalwart symbol for self-reliance. We should all help each other, but no nation is a strong nation if it's people aren't also self-reliant.

  • Lary Nine

    All guns are unnecessary phallic toys about which people become quite obsessed. Guns, like the 2nd. amendment, are from an age of citizen farmers, militias of the same and pioneering expansionism and should be put in museums like Conestoga wagons. Nobody needs them to survive anymore but thousands of crushed families need to see the cessation of all 'cash-'n-carry' gun shows close to home.
    And before the 2nd. amendment nutters out there start shouting and jumping up & down, let me add, it will come to pass...just a matter of time and you know it. The clock is ticking on the countdown to sanity.

  • http://www.youtube.com/LibertyTruthJustice LibertyTruthJustice

    @Lary Nine

    Yes, I see your view. But I don't view man as stuck in a RAND Corporation, game theory, dog-eat-dog world. You know, when that theory is tested on the real world, it only fits a group, and that is, psychopaths. Only psychopaths are absolutely selfish and ego-driven.

    And you know where you find the biggest concentration of psychopaths in society? At the very top. The clever ones go for banking, politics and big business, and are the ones most likely to succeed, in any society that rewards manipulation and calousness, of the few over the many.

    Marxism was the background for game theory (even though they don't admit it) since scientific socialism is the one that says human action has to be policed 24/7, and socially 'nudged in the right directions', to be humane. When you compare the social engineering practices under sovietism, or chinese communism, to nowadays' "capitalistic practices", you actually verify they're pretty much the same. Social surveillance of behavior, pavlovian conditioning, operant conditioning. Every social sciences student around today should go and compare the socio-economic policies of Stalin under the 5 year plans, in the 30s, to nowadays' "new corporate freedom". The view of man as an economic unit, to be shaped and molded by social engineers going off from a one-size-fits-all theory (which is actually a prejudice) and imposing that one-size-fits-all on individual people. You know, they even invented the bonuses and quotas systems, for straight and graded rewards/punishments. Lots of people today would never guess it. Bonuses, quotas, scientifically-defined grades of rewards, that's "capitalism", right? No, it's scientific socialism.

    As a soviet dissident once put it, it brings out the most materialistic, debased, worst side in human nature. It breaks people appart, breaks human bonding, and then it sets up a police state to run the chaos. Sounds like any modern western megacity, to me.

    The way I see it, it's very dangerous, and misleading, to fall into the dialectical sides of any debate. Two "opposing views" might use different languages, even serve different masters, but end up putting the individual under the exact same, inhumane, system.

    To go back to firearms: every man and woman has the right to self-defense, and history shows us he/she will eventually need to make use of it. You seem to believe that we're somehow above that, that society now offers a system of stasis and stability, where people are somehow safe. That we, as a society, have somehow "evolved" over it.
    Even if that was real (and it's not, just study the functioning of government, and of the big interests that run it), why should we abdicate our right to self-defense? History shows us that armed societies are safe societies.

    Man's history shows us that only a very small minority of people want to have guns to play macho, or harm people. And that minority WILL get them eitherway, whether they're legal or not. Lots of people from that minority will go into crime. Lots of others will actually get jobs in the police and the military (i.e. the "virile jobs", in an unarmed societies).

    Even in that Bowling for Columbine film, Moore eventually had to admit that it wasn't firearm possession that caused violence. It was all in the cultural background.

  • acheron

    The entire concept of people protecting themselves from their governments through guns is completely retarded. They have tanks, nuclear weapons, etc. If they want you dead, an ak47 isn't gonna stop them.

  • Lary Nine

    @LTJ~
    Very well said... substantial too.

    @acheron~
    Of course. But no one ever concedes this obvious point. That's why I continue to say---we're better off arming ourselves with engineering degrees and ideas about liberty than the engineering of Samuel Colt and a head full of heroic militia visions about the shots heard 'round the world at Lexington and Concord.

  • tailspinning

    I demand the right to nuclear weapons to protect me and my family from a corrupt government.

  • forthetimebeing

    As I've often found here, the comments are a better read than viewing the documentary.

    @LibertyTruthJustice, what leads you to say "Sadly, they've all been 'armed' with an education on communism, now known as UN communitarianism, even though they still call it capitalism." I know what the UN is, and what communitarianism is, but I am at a loss to make sense of the expression "UN communitarianism," nor can I guess how the "tarian" from libertarian can be linked to communism, or even the "community" part for that matter. I believe, as someone else has suggested, we in the US, unlike Europe and the rest of the world, are profoundly ignorant of communism, socialism, social democracy, and democratic socialism and any distinctions among them. We have been armed with ignorance and prejudice, where people are encouraged to believe government regulation of any kind is "socialism," any kind of cooperation or sense of common weal is "communism" or "collectivism." There is no education on the subject, but self-education, which is discouraged by every means. I welcome your explanation.

    Regarding the documentary, I found it shallow fear mongering, missing better arguments to make its case than some expressed in these comments, in order to drive home the essential point that disarmed populations are easy for malevolent governments to coerce and kill. I don't think that is something one can dispute. It's plainly a fact.

    To all of those who think a population armed with mere guns is not up to the task of defending, not only hearth and home, but democracy itself (or the vestige of what passes for it here and now) are simply lacking in imagination and knowledge. Impossible odds have been surmounted by revolutions and civil conflicts throughout history, including modern times against modern weapons. One does not need fighter jets and atomic bombs, or even automatic weapons, to fight those who possess them. There is also the question of dignity, going down fighting and exacting a price, or being slaughtered like cattle.

    What does bother me about this issue is the NRA and the Republican Party's monopoly on gun ownership rights. To me, if you accept the people as defenders of last resort against dictatorship, Democrats should be first in line to champion the 2nd Amendment, both militia and individual interpretations (which to me is a distinction with no real difference), and the unabashed party of Wealth and Warfare, the Republicans, threatened by every moral stance on the planet, transmuting corporatism to its fascist kin for the past sixty years under our noses, have most to gain from a disarmed population.

    Or what am I missing?

    Guns are not for everyone no matter how available, nor would a complete absence of control laws by any means translate into the admitedly alarming prospect of everybody with a gun in their pocket. To me, occasional accidents or tragic crimes from people "going postal" with guns are a reasonable price to pay for the wisdom of an armed population. The time may yet come when there is social assurance more compelling than a gun, but then again it may not.

    Those who categorically hate and fear guns just don't have any experience with them. They are a deterrent, but in the meantime, they're a heck of a lot of fun.
    ;-)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_L2KA4B2YVSTSRVLTSDJZ477HNU Rain

    Why are Americans so over the top about guns? I don't know one person who owns a gun, I've never even seen one in real life. I still haven't been invaded by the Government. lol

  • jaysuf

    Another important gun control issue is the fact that when guns are prohibited violent crime soars like at the UK. Since England passed strict gun control in 1999 they have seen a constant increase in knife crimes and home invasions. Australia is another example of this. No government has been successful in the prohibition of drugs, how then can they expect to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I'm proud to live in Arizona where we recently legalized concealed carry without a license.

  • jaysuf

    Did you watch the film? It has happened many times. Why do you think it can't happen to you?

  • http://www.facebook.com/Epion Robert Pizarro

    The want and perceived need for a weapon is primitive. We are shedding our animal instincts for civilization and guns do not belong in that equation. This documentary proves it, guns make the world dangerous, regardless of who has them.

  • GodmanEnki

    YET..........

  • VERITAS423

    "An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject" -Thomas Jefferson

    Those of you who do not want to bear arms, then don't bear arms. But do not attempt to infringe upon my right to defend myself. Long live the 2nd Amendment.

  • http://alsbach-art.com/ Floyd Alsbach

    Which animal instinct have we shed recently oh wise one?

  • Fiona O'Leary

    That's not true. I live in Australia, and we have strict gun control. We have significantly less violent, RANDOM crime than the US (even taking into account per person statistics). We have only had one example of a 'rampage' which killed innocent people in the past 20 or so years. Believe what you will about being armed, but in Australia it is not of concern. FACT

  • Robert Fletcher

    Uh, Yup this is the truth. libs don't want to hear it however progressive liberals is just a euphemism for communist, socialist ideology

  • Eniki520

    then why does the USA have by far the highest murder rate in the world? war zones not included. And as someone else living in arizona ive never heard of a criminal walking up and saying draw before shooting. they dont give time for you to pull out your gun and defend yourself, as soon as you reach for your gun they would shoot you.

  • Eniki520

    who knows maybe because its the only thing we make ourselves anymore ahahahahaaha

  • Eniki520

    guns didnt help the middle east from our invasion

  • Daniel Ng

    HAHAHA! Where are you getting your facts from? Violent crime is soaring because of strict gun control? I live in Australia and there are less crime then in the US. No one is saying that guns are the cause of violent, criminals are. But when someone is committing a crime with a knife they can't cause as much damage as a gun. You Americans are living in lala land thinking you can solve everything with violent.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Robert-Harden/1197492169 Robert Harden

    absolute Power corrupts Absolute! give a government power over something like guns, they will abuse it! Government 101! I'd rather live in a country where I can rely on my self, than a government who can't can't balance economy!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Robert-Harden/1197492169 Robert Harden

    How is being self reliant, "being a bully", Americans believe one's rights are more important than anything else! That people are more important than society as a whole! Going by your attitude you've never fired a gun, you have no idea the amount of time and effort, people put into learning how to safely use a gun!
    Hell at least when someone breaks into my home, I'll live, You'll Die!

  • Guest

    The truth rather is that whatever arms any civilians may have in the USA considering the financial capacity of most if not all USA citizens is in no way any kind of security for their citizens toward the USA Gov.

    Do you have any ideas what types of weapons armies have in now days? I'm talking 'bout armies of the occidental G8.
    A bunch of dudes with 0.12 gauge automatic riffles wouldn't last long in front of one sole M14 machine gun.
    Even seen some battle copters in now days?
    You wouldn’t even be able to hide in a concrete housing.

    Better keep a low profile and go drink your beer after your income taxes are paid, coze they've got the heavy weapons.
    The proper method to take over a country is to confiscate it financial assets. After this, it is feasible to buy to buy arms.
    Not air cork guns but heavy arms.

    Ask "Rumsfeld", he knows B-Coze he sold WMD to Saddam to later claims at the UN that Saddam was concealing these WMD.

  • Guest

    The USA "Patriot Act" nullifies most if not all civil rights in the USA.
    The only right you're left with in the USA is to pay your taxes for remittance of the Nat’l debt.

    Considering Iraq aberration among a long list within USA contempory history that include Vietnam, the biggest business in USA is producing arms sold to the USA nation.
    And at what % rate of budget deficit in term of loan?
    An arm mortgage based on 20, 50 or 100 years?
    I'd suggest 100 years since you'd pass the debt to someone else...

    Wont be long that the best you can do is hold-upping any nation on planet earth?
    Have you guys ever though of any other activities other than the "Protection Racketing"?

    How many are you over there?
    - (3-4%) % of planet earth?
    Be happy, buy a 0.12 gauge and if anyone pass by, shoot him down, better be the 1st to shoot.

  • 0zyxcba1

    @ Pierre

    I have put this up on the board once before, but I think it still could serve a purpose for those who have as yet not seen it.

    The USA PATRIOT Act, at 342 pages, consisting of 156 separate sections, under ten discrete titles, covering 350 subject areas involving 40 different federal agencies, was written within the three week period prior to its intro-duction to Congress, on October 2, 2001, at the average calculated rate of 16 pages
    per day. During the ensuing three weeks, subsequent to its intro-duction to Congress, while the Act was being read and debated,
    a series of anthrax letters were sent to news anchors, leading Democratic Senators, and to the Supreme Court. The bill was then passed by both houses of Congress. Then, on October 26, 2001, 45 days subsequent to the controlled demolitions, the USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush.

    0z

  • Lary9

    Then you would have loved living in Tombstone, Arizona or Deadwood, South Dakota circa 1890. I'll take the world as I really find it with its populations of 10X beyond the levels of the 1890s.
    Answer this:
    Do you really think that the United States can increase from pop: 31,443,321 (1860 census) to 311,772,000 (latest census) and not need more rules & regulations? How about more traffic lights as a metaphor? If there are more traffic lights, then it follows that there needs to be more "traffic managers". Get used to it. It's only going to get more bureaucratic as long as people keep reproducing.The only way we go in the opposite direction is in the wake of Armageddon. ..ala Mad Max; et al.

  • Guest

    I was horripilated to ear the closing song in Yiddish.
    At present time, the Jewish nation is one of those that commits savage sub-human war crimes backed up by criminal USA based psychotic maniacs.
    Where there’s an american, there are democratically voted murders & tortures. They didn't learn a thing in WWII, fogotten through generations.
    No one needed Wikileak to figure that out back in the (60-70)’s.

    The truth rather is that whatever arms any civilians may have in the USA considering the financial capacity of most if not all USA citizens is in no way any kind of security for their citizens toward the USA Gov.

    Do you have any ideas what types of weapons armies have in now days? I'm talking 'bout armies of the occidental G8.
    A bunch of dudes with 0.12 gauge automatic riffles wouldn't last long in front of one sole M14 machine gun.
    Even seen some battle copters in now days?
    You wouldn’t even be able to hide in a concrete housing.
    Better keep a low profile and go drink your beer after your income taxes are paid, coze they are the ones who have the heavy military weapons.

    The proper method to take over a country is to confiscate its financial assets. After this, it’s easy to buy to buy military arms.
    Not air-cork guns but heavy warfare arms.
    Ask "Rumsfeld", he knows B-Coze he sold WMD to Saddam to later claims at the UN that Saddam was concealing these”Made in USA’s” WMD.

    There are good reasons to figure out that the freedom of owning a firearm (Since a long time ago) doesn't have much to do with crime rate, based on other countries regulations, and not on USA’s navel.

    Considering the safe heaven the USA gave to NAZI war criminals after WWII who later engineered and structured not only the CIA; The overthrow in Iran in the mid 50’s; The CIA organized political murder In Chili; The never ending war crimes in Vietnam; The USA lead political overthrow in Guatemala because of a tax on banana exports; The drug business between the CIA-US army with Panama USA installed tyrant: The USA Army/CIA drug deals in the Iran/Contra affair; - What kind of crime rate does anyone can expect from these guys?
    That was left aside the psychotic preachers who foment their so-call bible apocalyptic delirium tremens supposed to take place in the Gaza strip.

    What consideration from any foreign country can 3% of planet earth population can be expected, or imposed would rather be suitable?

    Going back to the 50’s sums up to more than 1 generation.
    B-Coze, more than 1 generation qualifies for delinquency.
    It became a way of life.

    Owning a gun is one thing, registering it is a very different thing as much different as using it to committing crimes & murders can be.

  • Guest

    342 pages? Whouh! It just ought to cover all civil rights in the USA?

    By the way, I never even got close to state that 911 was a conspiracy but rather stated that it just ought to be something else than what "They" told us to be.
    I also put that on the board again.
    -"3 Buildings crumbing down on their footstep in the very same day emanes from a mind disturbed by mushroom consumption"!

    To seal that up, let's scrutinize history, a little...
    How long did it take before a retired abroad Ex-CIA agent confirmed disclosed confidential USA-Gov. documents that the CIA fomented the overthrow of the Iran democratically elected Mossadeth? In those days, all films were in black & white. And the list of similar scheme is exhaustive.

    If you possess the wisdom to know about the details of the "Patriot Act", you sure know about Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Vietnam and the other ones on that list?No one, not even any USA citizen needed Wikileak to figure what was going in Abhu Grahib prison or in Afghanistan.

    The bottom line problem sums up to delinquency.
    Comes a day where liars stating that Saddam hide WMD in Iraq is nothing more than a clownery & sinks the benefice of doubt to the drowning stage.

    Now that the USA based psychotics Elite know that they'd have a hard time to push such childish ridiculous things at the UN, who can they turn to get more money in lieu or arms & drug deals?
    -Where, what geographical location is one of the most important reserve of cash?
    As mortgages on residential homes?

    Next August or in september at the latest, we'll all know.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZTSVOJVGDCT64AESQX6DZP3WCU KK

    From your comment i take it you are a us citizen. So here is some schooling for you. You are mixing up terms like communist, socialists and liberals. FYI : socialists make bmw's and Porsches, and last time i checked most rednecks wouldn't name those "communist cars" as they would trade their "ford" or "dodge" for one of those anytime, if only they could afford one. Just to say: you don't have a clue what you are talking about, do you? Education goes a long way. Get one before spawning opinions onto websites! (p.s. i don't want my neighbours to have the right to have a gun in their house for the simple reason that those things are MADE to shoot people with, and that's exactely what they do in your country). You people need LESS guns and jails and WAY MORE schools.

  • http://profiles.google.com/jonathonwisnoski jonathon wisnoski

    While I do not believe that citizens owning guns are at all going to stop an organized military or the concerted effort to remove the rights of its citizens but the government, it does seem reasonable to bear arms.

    I once heard the argument that as long as the military is allowed to bear arms for protection against foreign invaders then the citizens must also have a right to bear arms for protection against the this same military.

    And sticking the right to anything below weapons of mass destruction like nukes, bombs, etc. also makes sense.

    Still gun nuts are very nutty, You hear tons of crazy things from them; Like in a society where everyone has a gun crime is impossible because anyone with a gun with heedlessly jump to the rescue if you try anything.
    And invasion is impossible, even aerial bombing, because the concentrated fire of thousands of patriots can bring down the highest flying plane and stop the most heavily armoured and concentrated land born invasion as well.

  • Guest

    Owning a gun or an handgun is one thing, registering it is another thing. Both are forbidden in totalitarian countries. On the contrary, countries where regulations are absent do have "Factually" the highest crime rates. Anybody who wants a gun, even if its an automated, should be intitled to it.
    Have you ever seen a mafioso killer registering a any sort of gun in any country?
    If the goal to bare arm is to use it against human beings, that shouldn't be expected!
    Mostly, only mafioso killers would not register arms.
    A car is registered, social security numbers are, as well...
    What's the big difference?
    The registration process doesn't need to be perfect in all details.
    It's only a tool for men of good will.
    As time goes on, why request an old Winchester 30-30 to be registed or else, be punishable by law? Extremism always been ridiculous and always been a barrier of men of will & taste!

    What about drunk driving? Should car registration be banned?
    If any authority within a country make a proof that this of that individual (S) shows any typical dangerous behavior, then enforce the law toward that or these "Weirdo". Get the gun, all guns registered or sease them all to reduce the probabilities of a drama.

    Again, all militaries in all G8 countries do have much more powerful weapons or fire power than anyone could dream ever dream of.

    If for instance, the US Gov. (The "We the Corporates) wants to submit his population to this of that law or legal bill against the will of the USA population (Which they done for years), lie to them as well as the rest of world, the USA army is always ready to intervene.
    The US army & Gov. already have the camp in the USA to lock any and all protesting leaders and their followers.

    Conclusion, let the population have their guns if it induce a security feeling. Beside, it's a good promoter for the youngsters who later will be invading other countries. As long as it ain't our's, understandingly!

    Like the Ninendo games, it keep them busy at something while others are relaxing at the USA expenses.
    Who'd want to waste that much money in murders all over the world?

    Pierre.

  • beepath

    Why don't you people get it that it's about male violence! Not the guns, pitchforks, shovels, hatchets, knives, axes....it's about the goddamn men. The patriarchy must fall, immediately.

  • Guest

    Yikes!

  • beepath

    Lakhotason, evidently you didn't watch the doc...it was pretty intense, and "yikes" is pretty infantile.

  • Guest

    Double Yikes!!

  • urban deadite

    'it's about the goddamn men. The patriarchy must fall, immediately'

    Thats true, hmm how about all the 1000's of Warrior Queens recorded all through History from ALL over the World? who went on Conquests and did terrible things??, Boudicca slaughtered 1000's of people not ust Roman Soldiers infact Her armies razed several large cities, Æthelflæd 'Lady of the Mercians' did the same against the Danes in Britain and also the Welsh peoples. What about the hundreds of Pre Islamic Warrior Queens recorded by the Assyrians?, there are so many Women who have been in power and done terrible things not just Men, thing is being a Male dominated world now these are not heard of as much in the West but go to Vietnam and the Trung Sisters are national Heroes, they are not Heroes for throwing flowers around and being non violent either, this list is endless and the subect has many many sides to it so i cant really express myself in this short comment.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZR2WVCTS2ZJYQD6QKI55FVUIM yahoo-IZR2WVCTS2ZJYQD6QKI55FVUIM

    Utter, self-serving nonsense against sensible gun regulation. They have proven nothing with this film.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZR2WVCTS2ZJYQD6QKI55FVUIM yahoo-IZR2WVCTS2ZJYQD6QKI55FVUIM

    Guns don't kill people - people kill people. But so do monkeys if you give them guns.

  • francuccio

    ...because it's also about the ridiculous availability of guns and the lack of regulation. Why don't you get it? ... that oversimplifying an issue with panic and paranoia, not to mention very selective information, is not helpful.

  • Dave Garry

    Only self-serving nonsense to tyrants and dictators.

  • bohista1

    For all of you who think it's a right to own a gun, well, tell that to all the people who recently lost loved ones while out expecting to watch and enjoy a movie at a movie theatre!!! Or to all the students at Columbine!! Enough said!!!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MOKRGBKUF4OQHRQTCKIRJ3CRZ4 Bradyn

    do you know if any citizen in the movie theater had a gun a lot less people would have been killed?

    average number of people killed when a mass shooting is stopped by an armed civilian at the scene: 2.2

    average number of people killed when a mass shooting is stopped by police: 14.1

    still think guns should be banned? "disarming innocent people does not protect innocent people" what is so hard about that concept??

  • http://archive.org/details/antifederalist_0707_librivox The Federal Farmer

    The genocide in America will start with the wholesale murdering of those we hate the most, followed quickly by their families. It will snowball from there as lawlessness always does.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/36G2DI2CUCAGCRXLJ2W2VN4CCU Nombre

    I read some pretty nasty anti-American comments here. Anti-Americanism is bigotry, very similar to racism, homophobia, religious intolerance. It is one thing to oppose US government policy on particular issues; it is quite another to spread hateful stereotypes. The USA is a big country, made up of over 320 million people who have origins from around the world. We don't all think alike. We don't all act alike. Even all of our governments are not alike. You will find very different (state) governments in New Hampshire and Oklahoma; and very different societies in San Francisco and Atlanta.

    After reading comments such as those from "KK," who I assume is from Europe, should I conclude that every European is as rude and prejudiced as KK?

    Surely not! I have friends from five European countries. Most disagree with me about gun rights, incidentally, but that's OK. I don't mind if my German friend's government makes it very difficult for him to buy a gun as long as he prefers it that way. It's his country, after all.

    As an American, however, I value my right to own a gun just as much as I value the right to say what I wish, to write what I wish, to read what I wish, and to worship or not to worship as I wish.

    I feel so strongly about the right to own arms because I agree with the theme of this movie. I don't care that much about hunting or firearm collecting or sports shooting. Those are not the reasons for our right to own a gun. That reason is to give citizens a fighting chance against government gone awry.

    The people may or may not win such a struggle, but at least they can weaken the dictatorship. Had the millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, liberal thinkers and other minorities in Germany been able to fight before being murdered, they surely would have prevented many others from having to die to stop Hitler. And they might have died resisting rather than being slowly starved, raped, and tortured, only to be murdered later.

    As this documentary attempted to show, there are worse things than peacetime criminal gun violence. Dictatorship almost always is worse. Peacetime gun violence kills thousands; government military dictatorships kill tens of millions.

    Now I would like to challenge both Americans and citizens of other countries who doubt the main argument of this video.

    Name a country that:

    1- has had continuous, uninterrupted democratically-elected government for more than a century and that has not recognized the right of its citizens to own firearms during most of that same period of time.
    2- Name a country that became a dictatorship while its citizens retained the right to possess privately-held firearms.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/36G2DI2CUCAGCRXLJ2W2VN4CCU Nombre

    Maybe, Mo, you ought to round them all up, put them into concentration camps, and burn them.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/36G2DI2CUCAGCRXLJ2W2VN4CCU Nombre

    Hanshenning, Europe's longest period of peace and freedom (1945 to present) came after WWII when the United States set up military bases throughout the continent, employing the constant threat of force to prevent any European government from once again destroying itself and others through acts of bigotry and nationalism. In fact, just a few years ago, the U.S. was forced to intervene militarily to stop European genocide in the Balkans. You may not wish to believe it, but the government that you trust and value so dearly is probably owed in large measure to the Americans, faultily reared and hopeless as they are. Self-righteousness does not speak well of any people, and I include Americans in that appraisal.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/36G2DI2CUCAGCRXLJ2W2VN4CCU Nombre

    Think, my brother-in-arms, when the Man and his minions come finally to lead us to the slaughterhouse, I hope you are able to take a few of them down with you. I'll try to do the same in America.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/36G2DI2CUCAGCRXLJ2W2VN4CCU Nombre

    How about no apartheid and no gun control? Could we agree on that?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/36G2DI2CUCAGCRXLJ2W2VN4CCU Nombre

    Moon, the United States does not have the highest rate of gun-related deaths. It has a higher rate of gun-related deaths than many countries, that is true. But there are many that have higher rates. Also, the United States is a very big country and there are many regional and cultural differences. New Orleans is our murder capital, while a state like Vermont has very few such deaths.

    Regarding the effectiveness of armed citizens – there are many examples in history of ordinary people resisting powerful militaries. If you're an American, you might review our own war for independence in which mostly ordinary people won a war with the greatest superpower of the time. Most of our "soldiers" were just citizens who used their personal weapons in the fight. There are many such examples throughout history, including recent history.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/36G2DI2CUCAGCRXLJ2W2VN4CCU Nombre

    Firearm deaths haven't skyrocketed in Switzerland where real assault weapons are kept in the home in case of an invasion. Hitler realized this. Switzerland was not invaded by the Nazis.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/36G2DI2CUCAGCRXLJ2W2VN4CCU Nombre

    No, most Americans don't think we're better than everyone else. We like certain things about our government - the Bill of Rights part especially, and we're proud of certain things, but that doesn't mean we think we are better people.

    But you are correct that the U.S. government and settlers did fight the Native Americans and sometimes murdered them.

    Did you also know that the USA was founded in 1781, and that the Europeans had been warring with and sometimes murdering Native Americans since the Fifteenth Century?

    Did you know that much of the gold that decorates your beautiful cathedrals once belonged to Native Americans before their cultures were destroyed and pillaged by Europeans?

    Really, Dacosta, can any one of us cast the first stone?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/36G2DI2CUCAGCRXLJ2W2VN4CCU Nombre

    Excellent point, Anonymous C. Imagine if the Warsaw Ghetto had instead been a few million Jews with access to firearms.

    Would they have extolled the virtues of pacifism while their children were being loaded onto train cars? Or would they have reached for their rifles?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/36G2DI2CUCAGCRXLJ2W2VN4CCU Nombre

    The Nazis had quite a few guys with really good engineering degrees, Lary9. They left out the "ideas of liberty" part and also the means by which to defend it.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/36G2DI2CUCAGCRXLJ2W2VN4CCU Nombre

    The USA does not have the highest murder rate in the world, not even close.

  • Lary9

    Well. I was unaware that Switzerland, a neutral nation in WWII, was left unmolested because the Nazis' balked at the thought of all those Tyrolean watchmakers with assault weapons.

  • Lary9

    Yes. But then again, we had more, and better engineers plus we had the DNA of the founding fathers in our veins along with the legacy of the foundational documents on liberty in our heads.
    It wasn't ordnance that won that war...it was superior ideology, clear thinking and resolute commitment that took the day. America's advantage has always been in its citizen/soldiers' will. Hope it doesn't erode or no amount of firepower will hold Fortress Liberty for another century.

  • Lary9

    As a veteran of the Vietnam era conflict, I have no aversion to self-defense nor do I refuse to use guns of any kind. If I need them for an international defensive fire fight, I know where to get them... quickly.
    In the meantime, I'll just stay politically alert and remain without a domestic arsenal in my home till I see "them" coming. It's safer that way for me and the neighbors.

  • Lary9

    I think you're living in an NRA inspired dreamworld. I used to be a member---but I resigned after they stood against laws restricting armor piercing rounds, unlimited ammo clips and assault weapons. Anyone who doesn't "get" the direct connection between the now routine daily gun violence and the availability and proliferation of guns is in 2nd Amendment denial. Additionally, there simply is NO evidence that a coincidentally armed citizen has ever successfully repelled an act of public criminal violence....(unless you count Bernhard Goetz)... because there isn't any.
    Yet gun advocates keep asserting..."if only someone had been armed then..." 99% of the time, all that ensues is more firearm chaos and more casualties.
    31,000 gun deaths a year in America is a high price to pay for weak gun control laws but some of my fellow countrymen are apparently willing to pay the price.

  • Lary9

    That's completely false. It's a matter of wishful thinking fabricated in order to bolster your position. I've studied and researched guns in America as an editor and educator for years and know no such positive evidence of a "Dodge City Phenomenon" exists.
    !!! If I am wrong then I challenge you to show me the facts!!!
    Otherwise don't misrepresent the truth about something like this. It's too important to 15,000 American victims who lose life every year involuntarily to unabated gun violence.

  • Lary9

    That old hackneyed adage omits the obvious fact that people with guns kill astronomically more people than they could with a fist, a knife or their wits!
    Anticipating the next dull-witted response (that only criminals would get guns then)...If we didn't have 300 million guns throughout the unregulated marketplace like so many Bic ball point pens, then criminals wouldn't have access to them either.

  • Lary9

    NRAers would have loved living in Tombstone, Arizona or Deadwood, South Dakota circa 1890. I'll take the world as I really find it with its populations of 10X beyond the levels of the 1890s.
    Answer this:
    Do you really think that the United States can increase from pop: 31,443,321 (1860 census) to 311,772,000 (latest census) and not need more rules & regulations? How about more traffic lights as a metaphor? If there are more traffic lights, then it follows that there needs to be more "traffic managers". Get used to it. It's only going to get more bureaucratic as long as people keep reproducing.The only way we go in the opposite direction is in the wake of Armageddon. ..ala Mad Max; et al.
    Get over it. I want the right to walk down the street with my kids without fear of being gunned down by anyone, including police...and lots more Americans feel exactly the same as I do. The only reason there's no hue & cry about the national disgrace of weak gun control is---the fundamentalist minority, (that regards the 2nd Amendment as immutable), is armed to the teeth and belligerent...and they routinely threaten the rest of us with armed insurrection if we stand firm for saner gun laws!
    That's the only reason why 31,000 Americans will die every year by gun death until our cowardly Congress grows a pair and says enough is enough!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/36G2DI2CUCAGCRXLJ2W2VN4CCU Nombre

    I don't think many of us who believe in a right to bear arms are likely to "get over it" any time soon. Nor are we a "fundamentalist minority." In the most recent 2011 Gallup Poll on the topic, 56% indicated that laws covering the sales of firearms should either be kept as they are now or be made less strict. In any case, the force of the Bill of Rights is not contingent upon popular opinion (unless, of course, there is enough sustained support to amend the Constitution). The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual citizen a right to keep and bear arms. As long as the other branches of our government continue to respect the Court, this right should be secure for the foreseeable future. So I don't think those of us who value the Second Amendment are the ones who need to "get over it."

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/36G2DI2CUCAGCRXLJ2W2VN4CCU Nombre

    Yes, I do respect the Swiss, and I would not dismiss their accomplishments. That tiny land-locked country maintained its sovereignty when so many more powerful countries did not. The Germans did consider the factor of citizen resistance in their military planning, and they rated the Swiss highly.

    I think you and quite a few other posters are underestimating the power of an armed citizenry.

    Consider again Anonymous C's excellent example of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. A few determined and desperate fighters with a few firearms, vastly outgunned, turned back German troops, including tanks and armored vehicles, and resisted for nearly a month.

    There are plenty of other examples of armed citizens resisting autocratic governments, but is this argument valid today?

    If nearly half of all American adults own a gun (as a recent Gallup poll indicated), then private gun owners outnumber the U.S. military by a factor of about 70!

    I believe 70-to-1 would serve as a very real deterrent to any would-be dictator in the USA.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/36G2DI2CUCAGCRXLJ2W2VN4CCU Nombre

    I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "there simply is NO evidence that a coincidentally armed citizen has ever successfully repelled an act of public criminal violence."

    Are you saying that an armed citizen has never protected him/herself or another person in public using a gun?

    If so, I suggest that you Google something like, "armed civilian stops crime," and look through some of the hits. You can't trust all sources, but you'll find some reports from legitimate news sources.

    Crimes frequently are stopped by armed citizens. Many more probably are prevented by concealed carry laws. I don't know if the overall effect of liberal gun laws has a positive or negative effect on violent crime, but to say that law-abiding gun owners have never stopped a crime is absurd.

    Perhaps you were saying that you don't believe gun ownership prevents totalitarian regimes. In that case, I agree that there is no definitive proof either way, although I restate my earlier challenge:

    Name a country that either:

    1- has had continuous, uninterrupted democratically-elected government for more than a century and that has not recognized the right of its citizens to own firearms during most of that same period of time.

    -or-

    2- became a dictatorship while its citizens retained the right to possess privately-held firearms.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/36G2DI2CUCAGCRXLJ2W2VN4CCU Nombre

    It is not half true, it is fully wrong. The question: Does the US have the highest rate of gun violence? There are two logical answers: yes or no. The answer is no.

    Politifact does not list all of the countries that have higher gun death rates, but of the nations named, all of them have laws, and only one has an insurrection.

    In most of the countries that are listed, guns are extremely difficult to purchase legally. In Mexico, for example, it is nearly impossible for an ordinary citizen to buy a gun.

    I've lived in several Latin American countries (two of which are listed) and have traveled extensively in several others. I love that part of the world, but I must say that I value the Second Amendment all the more for having been there. Latin America is clear evidence to me that anti-gun laws, in and of themselves, cannot curb deadly violence. Violence seems much more to be a social/cultural phenomenon.

    Most regions of the United States have high gun ownership, but murder rates are low or moderate. Most gun violence occurs within certain neighborhoods of large cities. That violence skews the numbers, giving some people the idea that it is dangerous to live in the United States. Statistically, that is true only in certain areas.

    Another thing that skews numbers is that gun violence numbers almost always include suicides and justifiable homicides. Most people probably don't think about those categories when they worry about gun violence.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/36G2DI2CUCAGCRXLJ2W2VN4CCU Nombre

    Lary9, where do you get your figure, "15,000 American victims ... to gun violence?"

    According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, there were 8,775 firearm murders in the USA in 2010, the last year reported. Most years are similar.

    Since we're talking numbers now, I would like to ask you and the other people on this forum whether the concern really is about saving lives.

    I mean, is it lives that are the concern, or could it be that you just don't like the concept of guns or private gun ownership?

    It's an important question because if the goal is to save lives, there are many other things we could do to save more lives in ways that do not infringe upon the Bill of Rights.

    There is no guaranteed right to buy, sell, and consume alcohol. The Center for Disease Control tells us that 75,000 Americans die from alcohol related incidents.

    Why then should we ban guns, which are constitutionally protected, but not alcohol?

    There is no right to drive fast, but the evidence is very clear that high speed limits result in more deaths. 55 saves lives, they used to say. According to a University of Illinois Study, abandoning that 55 MPH limit costs about 1,250 lives per year.

    Why do we permit tobacco products? 443,000 deaths per year! (according to the CDC).

    Why do we allow grocery stores and fast food chains to sell unhealthy foods when heart disease is the leading killer of Americans?

    We know that rates of diabetes have been skyrocketing, even among children.

    There is no right to keep and eat unhealthy foods.

    Please do those things first: ban alcohol, tobacco, junk food, fatty foods, sugary foods, high speed limits, unnecessary driving. Make helmet laws extend to drivers and passengers in motor vehicles. Make cell phone use in automobiles illegal. Take out the radios and iPods to reduce distraction. Do those things first, please, before surrendering our uniquely American right to own a gun, before discarding our final means to resist tyranny if it comes our way.

  • Lary9

    Look. I really don't have the slightest inclination to take away your firearms. My concerns are passionately held and entirely focused upon the alarming trends in gun violence and homicides in our country...not any plot to deprive anyone of their 2nd amendment rights. What else do you advocate? Is there a way for you to keep your access to guns open and for Sarah Brady, others and myself to be persuaded that gun control is being addressed seriously but fairly?
    That's all I'm saying. If some kind of reasonable compromise isn't achieved eventually in cooperation with all, sooner or later, given the statistics on gun violence, Draconian legislation will surely follow with or without your consent.
    There were several foundational Constitutional provisions which have had not weathered the transition to modernity very well---the antiquated electoral college, the nightmare of chattel slavery, the denial of the vote to women and the vagueness of the 2nd amendment are among them.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/36G2DI2CUCAGCRXLJ2W2VN4CCU Nombre

    Sounds like we might be more successful at reaching agreements than our current government!

    OK, here are some proposals that I would support.

    1- Background checks of private firearm sales. Private sellers would go to a licensed gun dealer, pay a small fee (maybe $10), and allow the dealer to run a federal instant background check on the buyer. This would make it harder for convicted criminals from buying guns on the private market. This is exactly what a buyer would do if he/she were purchasing a new gun from a dealer. No centralized database of buyers would be kept, receipts would be stored at the dealer, and the seller and buyer would receive a notarized record of the transaction for their own legal security.

    2- Enact safe-storage laws. There now exist many models of super-quick-access gun safes. They come in all kinds of sizes and configurations. Some operate via "biometrics," reading fingerprints and so on. Others use keypad combos. This kind of security is especially important for people who choose to keep loaded guns. Guns carried in cars should also be secured if they are left behind.

    3- People who have their guns stolen should be subject to a maximum civil penalty if those guns are used in a future crime. Penalties should not be unreasonable, but they should be significant, maybe $1,000 for property damage, $2,500 for armed robbery, $5,000 for criminal injury, $10,000 if an innocent person was maimed or killed. Non-criminal accidents would be exempt. My thinking is that this would add emphasis on safe storage and compliance to the sales requirements in point 1. If someone cannot produce his/her own copy of the sale record, and the gun shop does not have a copy, and if the owner never reported the gun stolen, then the gun was likely sold or provided to another person illegally. In that case, the government might also want to prosecute criminally under point 1.

    4- Charge a small ammunition tax used to fund standardized, high-quality courses on gun ownership rights, responsibilities, and safety. These free courses would be completely voluntary, but proof of completion of a course would exempt the gun owner from having to pay future ammunition taxes. He/she would present a difficult-to-forge document or ID to claim this tax exempt status. Again, there would be no central database of course participants, but the ID would be reliable enough that it could be accepted with confidence by vendors. In fact, most states have handgun carry courses. These might sometimes be offered in combination with the course I'm envisioning. We also could consider some type of gun safety course in elementary/middle schools. A simple course might not require more than an hour of instructional time per year. The NRA (which, incidentally, I also have problems with these days) does have a good, non-political course for kids. The principle message to kids is, "If you see a gun, don't touch, tell a grownup." So we might charge a bit more taxes on ammunition for such a school program.

    5- Higher mandatory prison sentences for committing a violent or property crime with a firearm. I believe the current federal minimum is 5 years. That probably should be higher, maybe 10. When a person purchases a gun, he/she should always be informed of this law. I hate to see young kids spend years in jail because of ignorance of the law. Courses such as in point 4 also would help to educate gun owners about firearms laws.

    6- Make hunting more sportsmanlike. This might be a little off topic, but it involves firearms and is one of my pet peeves. I recognize the need for semi-automatic firearms for defense, but I really don't believe it is sportsmanlike or sensible to hunt deer with semi-automatic rifles. Even "muzzleloader" seasons have gotten out of control. Instead of the traditional percussion cap and flintlock muzzle-loading rifles, manufacturers have developed in-line muzzle loaders that are as reliable as modern single-shot rifles. Today you can buy cameras that record game movement, sent wirelessly to the comfort of your home. There are even provisions in some states for night vision equipment! Is this hunting or combat? I understand that hunting is necessary in a nation with so few remaining natural predators (wolves, mountain lions, bobcats, and so on), but hunting firearms and equipment have become ridiculously sophisticated. Having said that, I do believe Americans have a right to semi-automatic firearms for defensive purposes.

    Well, I have been spending a lot of my evenings in this forum, but now I would like to respond to a couple of proposals that I would not support.

    1- An "assault weapons" ban. You seem to be familiar with firearms, so you probably know that the so-called assault weapons ban that was passed in the 1990's and that expired a few years ago did not ban true military assault weapons. It banned a subset of semi-automatic firearms. Many people who have little interest in firearms continue to believe that it is possible for a person to walk into a gun store and buy an automatic weapon - that is, a true assault weapon that discharges bullets as long as the trigger is depressed. This is what many people would call a machine gun. But these guns have been banned from regular sales since 1934. It is possible to buy one, though it is expensive and requires a permit from the federal government. Very few citizens have such a permit, and very few have real (automatic) assault weapons. I have read and have been told (though I can't verify this), that no one who has held such a permit was ever charged in a crime involving that firearm. But again, very few people have them anyway. The current inaccurate use of the term, assault weapon, applies to semi-automatic (not automatic, not machine gun) versions of military rifles. They look especially scary, but they are semi-automatic rifles which have been available for over 100 years. With a walnut stock and in a slightly different configuration, such a gun would likely raise no great ire, though the difference would be purely cosmetic. Of course, semi-automatics are more efficient for combat and defensive purposes than are other actions (pumps, bolt, lever, etc). Nevertheless, our civil police force seems to think they need them. I believe that citizens have the right to be at least as well armed as our civil police. Obviously, we cannot keep up, weapon for weapon, with the military. As someone noted sarcastically, the right to keep and bear arms cannot extend to nuclear weapons.

    2- A magazine capacity limit. Really, these do not make very much sense. If, as was done in the 90's, magazines are restricted to 10 rounds, anyone who wanted to commit a crime could simply carry more loaded magazines, which take a second or two to swap out. Also, it is easy enough to modify a restricted magazine to create a high capacity magazine. If the police feel they need fifteen round magazines, then citizens should not be denied the same.

    3- Restrictions on bullet types. Other than rare, already illegal exploding or phosphorus rounds, calls for bullet restrictions are political, not based on firearms reality. If a bullet is of a full-metal jacket configuration, the anti-gun lobby declares that it is an "armor piercing" round. Yes, depending on the armor, it might be. It would likely penetrate a 14th Century night's armor. But just about any modern round would. I remember seeing Dianne Feinstein addressing Congress, holding up a civilian AR-15 (or maybe a picture of one), and declaring that its bullets could penetrate a police car door. Yet there is nothing special about the bullet that particular rifle fires. Almost any rifle cartridge, and even many pistol cartridge, can do the same. On the other hand, if the bullets are of the hollow point type, you will hear from the anti-gun lobby that these are especially horrible projectiles because they cause more damage to tissue as they expand. This, too, is true, but hollow points are standard police issue for two reasons: one, the objective is to stop a violent attacker as quickly as possible; and two, an expanding bullet will not penetrate as far through other materials (dry wall, for example). Since solid and hollow points are the two main types of bullet, banning them would essentially ban all bullets. Obviously gun owners and gun rights advocates will fight any such provision.

    So, can we agree on any of this?

    No matter what, I thank you for the polite debate.

  • Lary9

    Thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective and the supporting facts upon which it's based. I would enthusiastically share support with you on all 6 of your proposals. They are presented thoughtfully and well reasoned.
    The last 3 "proposals" [more points of order and procedure to me] were interesting and understandable. I need to sift through them a little more before I revise any views I may currently hold---but I'm open to reconsideration when facts are presented with clarifying evidence. My concerns, however, emerge from the idea of "conflicting rights" law...i.e; when the rights of some conflict with the rights of others, whose rights take priority? Often enough a determining principle historically has been that the rights of the few must give way to the rights of the greater number. This idea has evolved as dogma in most western civilizations from J.S.Mill's "greatest good for the greatest number". But in America, as you probably know, it's a principle that doesn't always win the argument in law.
    Anyway, I very much appreciate the opportunity to consider your earnestly held beliefs and the reasoning that informs them. That's always a game changer when serious Americans talk with one another. Isn't this what is is missing in today's toxic, ad hominem debates over ideas in the public square? Perhaps we both ought to run for local office and show the current crop of gridlocked knuckleheads how to start a conversation...and how to listen.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/36G2DI2CUCAGCRXLJ2W2VN4CCU Nombre

    Running for office - that is a great suggestion except that I'm almost certainly unelectable! I don't think I could possibly "appeal to the base" of either major party. Based on our conversation here, I think you would have a hard time also. It seems to me that being willing to consider some sort of compromise is a liability in today's America. When you asked, "Is there a way for you ... and myself to be persuaded [it] is being addressed seriously but fairly?," you showed yourself to be open to other ideas and compromise. I'm not sure where you live, but in my current state/community, no one could possibly win a primary race that way. Of course, I think one of the parties is more unreasonable than the other, but I'll not name it.

    As to the topic of gun laws, I wholeheartedly agree with you that if the NRA continues to be hardline on every single point, there will come a time that the balance will shift toward a draconian ban such as happened in the UK and Australia. The six points I suggested do not infringe on the Second Amendment, yet they would demonstrate that gun owners are willing to make other sacrifices to address gun violence. I personally believe that a free society has to be willing to accept some tragedies – there will always be people who abuse their freedoms – but if we can maintain those rights while mitigating their abuses, of course we should do so.

    If the NRA leaders were wiser they would try to figure out how to help with these problems in ways that are acceptable to its members. Not all NRA members are unreasonable people, but as in in politics, it seems that the leaders of the NRA must always appease "the base."

    Here's another more costly idea that I could support if it were shown to be feasible:

    Metal detectors could become standard security for school entranceways. Market competition should quickly drive down the price for these devices. Couldn't gun owners support such a law, maybe even with a temporary additional tax on firearms or ammunition? These devices can find knives (and maybe even bombs) as well as guns, and, who knows, maybe they can be manufactured in the United States :)

    I personally could get behind all these kinds of efforts, but I also would hope that the anti-gun politicians in Congress would give gun rights advocates some assurances as well.

  • http://www.facebook.com/andrey.nwohater Andrey Nwohater

    u so stupid u have no idia about real combat fight
    they not gonna come to u apartment on tank, they will send cops
    plus tank in city is useless without cover of man with gun.

  • http://www.facebook.com/andrey.nwohater Andrey Nwohater

    Guns are dangerous. The only thing more dangerous is not having them. - G. Edward Griffin.

    Gun-control laws do not control crime because crimes are not committed by guns; they are committed by criminals. Criminals will always have guns because they do not obey laws, including anti-gun laws. Those without guns are easy prey for criminals with guns. Gun control encourages crime. - G. Edward Griffin

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FJROVOQHOSQ6F2KOBXIXMRSJII sam l

    You do not get it. There are no exceptions to the second half of the second amendment, and the first parts "well regulated" in its day meant regular practice not a listing of membership. If a grunt soldier on foot can carry it, so may I.

    Look up a youtube video titles 'police unload 137 bullets into unarmed couple' then tell me why you want to disarm the free people? Get out of the country if you are scared of free people. It is the lack of our free rights that placed all those kids in that school in jeopardy.

    There are strong signals that the latest school shooting was and is an ongoing black operation to gain political support to make us all slaves to the wrong people. To the tyrants that would kill so many kids for their private gain.

    And if it were really (fat chance) as Lt.Vance claims, place the blame where the blame rightly falls, onto the stingy tight wad republicans that closed down government aid for those that really need mental health care, specifically Ronald Wilson Reagan, a loony bin in his own right.

    PS, the school known as Sandy Hook, had the latest "security measures" that a school could get. A locked down campus with a 'buzz in' doorway AND cameras. The perfect location for a black operation to convince the dumb people that security measures are not enough. They want the guns out of our hands, and history proves what comes next.

    If it were the availability of the gun that causes these mass shootings of the innocent, then Switzerland would have the highest gun deaths per capita than any other nation in history. Each home there is mandated to have a military grade weapon in it at all times. So where is the video of Adam Lanza entering the school with the latest high tech security system installed there at that school? Non existent, because he was taken there against his will if he were still alive at all. They have trained you very well. No offense to you is meant Nombre.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FJROVOQHOSQ6F2KOBXIXMRSJII sam l

    The answer is not to compromise on our rights, that is the designed intent. The NRA is a dues collection organization, not an advocacy group defending the second amendment and out rights to defense against a tyrannical government. They have proven that with all of the previous compromises.

    EVERY nation that has removed the gun from the citizens, have turned to a tyranny to fight. Just ask the jews of nazi Germany if they should give up their guns. Oh right, you can't ask them.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FJROVOQHOSQ6F2KOBXIXMRSJII sam l

    What are the largest causes of gun related deaths in this nation? The ignoring of other rights such as with the illegal prohibitions* and the cops shooting up innocent lives.

    * Our ninth amendment demands the end to all prohibitions of any intoxicant of any type**. Go on read it and learn what our rights are really about. They did teach you about the 'bad prohibition' of liquors, didn't they? What happened to this nation then, is happening again, has been going on for most of my life 50+ and counting.

    ** don't buy into the fear mongers wild childish claims about drug users. The problem has always been the black market of them, just like it was with booze. "I don't want druggies driving on the roads",,, well you have them now driving farther than needed to get the illegal drugs across town instead of the local liquor store. You drop in an excuse to keep prohibitions alive, and I'll tell you exactly how deadly wrong you are. Any excuse, try me.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FJROVOQHOSQ6F2KOBXIXMRSJII sam l

    If they want to claim it is the easy access to guns that are causing all the gun problems, then Switzerland would have the highest per capita gun deaths per year. But that is not the case. Switzerland mandates a military grade weapon in each home, with no exceptions to speak of.

    Sandy Hook Elementary had the latest state of the art for school safety, with a locked down campus and a buzz in doorway. There was one part of that policy they forgot, an armed security guard on campus.

    So with the locked down door, and a camera for the office staff to see who is at the door, where is the video of "Adam Lanza" entering the campus? None exists because he was not the guy doing it. Don't tell me they had no recording of the doorway for 'security reasons'. Not another camera malfunction at a major terror sight that had security cameras.

  • Lary9

    Actually there was a brief but unimpressive armed uprising in Warsaw---but the incredulously surreal quality of the Nazi's murderous barbarism kept most victims surprised and in docile 'wait-&-see' holding patterns. They were civilized people with 200 years of commitment to their Polish homeland. They had too much trust in human nature. All the guns in the world wouldn't have motivated them to act at that point in history.

  • Lary9

    Although stringent restrictions on any firearms was the rule in Ireland...a motivated people always found ways to rise-up, armed, against their oppressor...as would we if it ever came to that.

    So I don't buy your idea of pre-arming everybody in anticipation of tyranny. I sincerely believe that action keeps a society set on hair-triggers. Americans have always risen to respond to true tyranny. It is the Will of the oppressed that it is the truly indispensable weapon of resistance. Guns are easy to get...and always follow the Will.

    In the meantime, maybe we could cut back on citizen-on-citizen gun violence with less 6-shooters being carried openly in Dodge City. Even Wyatt Earp knew that.

  • Linda Heavens

    I gotta say, I was steaming through on the dont-take-our-guns train until I read your posts. Very insightful and, truly, a very rational and responsible response. Three cheers to you!

  • Eniki520

    It does if your talking about modern first world countries like i am. unless you count places where the rule of law isnt capable of protecting its citizens like mexico brazil columbia and indonesia and india but they are still developing/modernizing nations.

  • Eniki520

    All a mexican citizen has to do is goto american gun shows or buy guns from private sellers who are not required to do any back round checks. Obviously American guns laws aren't so hard to get around as the Mexican government have already confiscated 10000s of illegally acquired American guns from mexican cartels. it cant be that hard to get guns here as even school children repeatedly get their hands on them.

  • Eniki520

    im pretty sure only 57% of people who can vote voted in the last 2 presidential elections. that means alot of people dont like either party and there are plenty of people to create a new base for a new party.

  • Eniki520

    no they would send predator drones or smart bombs. or maybe one of those concrete missiles to only take out your apartment and not kill your neighbors or they could use cyber warfare and make all records of you disapear and have you sent to git mo as a terrorist. Maybe send in a navy seal team or just a seal sniper to take you out from a mile away. If they wanted you dead theres nothing you could to stop it, theres no stopping the modern american military whole countries with real armies and air forces cant do shit against the might of the american government.

  • Lary9

    Typically, there are over 30,000 deaths per year by firearms but this includes accidents and suicides (which claim a surprisingly large number of that total). For deaths by willful gun violence, the numbers have hovered around the 10.000 to 15,000 mark for years. Research has been very limited on gun violence, lethal and otherwise. Why? Because of funding...which in turn is almost totally influenced by politics. No shock there---huh? The CDC has had several socio-medical research studies pending---written-up and ready to go---but the gun lobby was able to have the funding shot down before they even got out of Congressional subcommittee.

  • Lary9

    I have never thought about nor taken into account the preventative effects on gun violence of concealed carry permits in any given area. But I've heard that gun-related violence doesn't seem to be suppressed by it. Do you know? Is that true or does gun violence actually drop when people-at-large can carry concealed weapons?

  • Lary9

    And back to you also.

  • Eniki520

    Being from tucson, AZ (a place with alot of guns) I remember hearing somewhere that there were people with concealed weapons permits and weapons at the Gabby Giffords shooting but they were scared to use their guns in fear of being thought to be the gun man. So somehow i dont think it would stop anything as also the prevalence of guns is the main reason why cops shoot people going for wallets and things. plus look at the middle east almost every house hold has a ak47 and they arent free or safe. it seams even here the most heavily armed communities ie the "ghettos" are the least safe parts of american cities.

  • Eniki520

    I would just to point out to the video makers that there are plenty of armed populations under the sway of tyrannical governments and dictators as well.

  • Lary9

    That sounds like what I have heard about the ironies of arming populations to achieve peaceful parity. Basing public safety upon the same "mutually assured destruction" theories of the nuclear warhead races of the 50s is unwise at best.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1229872440 Brian Assanowicz

    "the Mexican government have already confiscated 10000s of illegally acquired American guns from mexican cartels".

    Ever heard of an American government ATF op called Fast and Furious? If not, look into it. At the same time our beloved government was allowing thousands of guns to walk into Mexico to the drug cartels....Obama, Hillary, and Holder were holding press conferences bitching about the abundance of US firearms going South of the border. Things arent always what they appear to be.

    Dont be a sheep...or believe everything you hear on the "news". Think for yourself.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1229872440 Brian Assanowicz

    Well said sir. I do have a slight problem with #2. Those safes are expensive, almost punitively. I grew up in a house full of firearms, and knew what they did, and where they were. Never did I take or touch one without permission. Similarly, I have owned what the anti's would call an "arsenal". Of course I have them secured, but I do keep a shotgun handy in the house, and my pistol is always around. Like my dad, I educated my son early and not too worried about him. About the only reason I do have things locked up in a foot locker and keep the shotty unloaded isnt because of my son...but his friends that come over. I have lived on military bases most of my life, and you'd be hard pressed to find a more armed community...and you never hear of shootings and violence in them.

    As for the 3 you wouldnt support...very elegantly written and thought out.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1229872440 Brian Assanowicz

    Ghettos or inner cities are cesspools and violent war zones not because of the firearms, but because of a lack of a family unit, attentive parents, and poor job alternatives which lead many to the criminal drug trade and other criminal activity. As the ghettos deteriorate, the school systems suffer, resulting in poorer education and access to a future, despite us throwing millions of tax dollars at them. Throw in hip hop and rap and the attitudes that swirl around that crowd.

    I would also like to point out, that many of these areas already have restrictive firearms laws on the books. And they are violated everyday. So whats the point of adding laws that wont do anything other than restrict my rights, leaving me and my family prey for the next riot or civil unrest incident?

    Additionally, both Holmes and Lanza...a well as every other mass shooting already broken dozens of laws already on the books.

  • Eniki520

    Im sorry but as some one who thinks for themselves i would like to point out that op. fast and furious was from 2006-2011 and American guns have been in the hands of mexican cartels much longer than that.

  • Eniki520

    Sounds like like both an over simplification and over generalization. Id say that most people in ghetto are normal law abiding citizens stuck in a tough spot. yeah there are criminals also drugs are a problem across both the social and racial spectrums of society not just in the ghettos. also rap and hip hop culture is no longer just a thing of the ghettos. but my point was that the problem is more complicated than just arming because giving everyone a gun wont stop crime. Didnt holmes and lanza both have legal fire arms and ammo? wouldnt that prove that the existing regulations arent working to keep guns away from crazy people? Even the founding fathers knew you should give anyone a gun thats why the second amendment starts off with "well regulated" and not unregulated.

  • http://twitter.com/prologuetonow AMFM

    What a simplistic, biased treatment of a serious problem! Should we arm everyone? Okay. Let's send arms to the Palestinians. It's unfortunate the slaves in American South didn't have guns. What about all the corporate support America gave the Nazis, didn't that maintain Nazi power. Who are we shooting at when the government takes over? I guess you, me, and the neighbor's son who is in the Army. Is it Obama and his army of Black people that are going to take over us white people? The message here is to distrust everyone and be ready to kill your neighbor.

  • 71Magi

    Never hear of shootings or violence on military bases? You, sir, need to open you eyes and clear your hearing.

    Fort Hood, Texas. November 5, 2009 42 people shot of which 13 died.

  • Peter Velja?i?

    YES, WE SHOULD ARM PALESTINIANS! LET THEM HAVE A CHANCE DEFENDING THEIR LAND AGAINST US SUPPORTED ISRAELI AGRESORS!!!!

  • encierro

    We can thank Lyndon B. Johnson for the Great Society legislation that greatly contributed to fatherless children, siblings of multiple women and no family values, etc. to nurture them to responsible adulthood.

  • encierro

    Those who bear those arms are the force the governments use to hold that "sway" over the populace. How else do dictators wield power over them?

  • Kateye70

    Yea, I think we should go back to the slave days when owners could just break up families by selling off the members. That way, no one would would need public assistance. We could just leave it up to the private sector to instill family values in those ne'er-do-wells. Because, yea, poverty isn't the problem at all.
    /sarcasm

  • BeardHero420

    TDF needs to bump this one to the front page.

  • deederrocks

    That shooting occured in an area of the base that did not allow the servicemen to carry their weapons!

  • http://www.facebook.com/jeff.schultz.397 Jeff Schultz

    Because no one had a weapon to stop it.

  • Eniki520

    So your saying that in the rest of the world the only people with guns are governments? what about the mexican cartels at war with the mexican government? all the terrorists in the middle east at war with countries in the middle east? all the african rebles and warlords? all the drug cartels in Latin America and in Asia? what you said is ridiculously naive and ignorant of reality. there are people all over the world with guns who answer to no government.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100005109781330 Andy Constitution

    fbi and cia support Mexican cartels with guns

  • Eniki520

    To bad the cartels don't work for the FBI or CIA. Plus the fact they dont need the CIA or FBI to get american guns! All they have to do is go to a gun show in a border state, like AZ or Texas, and buy from a private seller who do not check out back round of the buyer or if they are even an American citizen.

  • http://www.facebook.com/will.nott.14 Will Nott

    The web servers that host this video file are either second rate of someone is attempting to prevent me from watching this. Much like the unseen hand that tried to prevent me from seeing Zeitgeist. I smell your little fat fingers Cheney, they smell like shotgun and chicken wings.

  • http://www.facebook.com/will.nott.14 Will Nott

    I know someone named Andy that was providing weapons to the cartels and acted like he had no idea that was what was going on. He has loads of innocent blood on his hands and the feds only took his gun dealer license and did not toss him in prison. Odd but true.

  • http://www.facebook.com/terry.clark.9404 Terry Clark

    that total will rise when american gun owners are betrayed by our government. Face facts the government has very little reading ability. people like you harp on the well regulated part of the second and pretend the shall not be infringed part is not there. i will one up the argument here they say the militia is not around anymore in a sense they are right. but look back in a history book and read up on the militia duties of men in the early days. Then tell me how that is different from the selective service obligations all American men have. instead of taking them. they should wanna be giving american men and women who are mentally stable and are willing to submit to drug testing randomly arms

  • Lary9

    "...people like you..." People like me? You don't know me at all, Mr. Clark. Don't put me in a box. I doubled-down on my right to speak honestly by service to my country in harm's way. I hold a variety of opinions on a variety of issues. But I still have questions on gun violence in my country.

    E.g; How do rational gun control laws "infringe" on the rights to "keep and bear arms"? They are no more over-reaching than the registration of motor vehicles and the background-based limitations on drivers' licenses.
    In many ways, I agree with you...much of what is currently being touted as "reform" won't lead to effective change. It even feels rather punitive (to gun owners). Much of the proposed new legislation won't do a thing to change the culture of violence or access to illegal guns. Still...by their intransigence, 2nd. Amendment absolutists will bring about the change they fear the most---the emendation of the 2nd. Amendment itself! It's not written in stone, you know. And there are quite a few precedents for Constitutional upgrades.

    Maybe every 200 years or so, we need to make time for a new Constitutional Convention...??? The Electoral College could stand another look...and the exemption of religion from taxation...

  • Washington76

    " ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    -- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

    "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
    - Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

    "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
    --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

    "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... " - Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

  • http://www.facebook.com/charles.biller Charles Sparkey Biller

    or call up eric holder and have them delivered

  • http://www.facebook.com/charles.biller Charles Sparkey Biller

    by a muslem to top it off and he's still getting paid by the government. just sayen.

  • Eniki520

    So your saying mexican cartels didnt/dont have guns before/after holder?

  • Eniki520

    Unless you were black, Indian, a woman, or poor. The constitution only applied to Citizens aka white land owners. Look into real American history its full of gun control. Even in places like Tombstone you legally had to turn in your guns as soon you got into town.

  • http://www.facebook.com/w.d.sharp70 William Sharp

    We should return to tar and fathers for these politicians who propose gun control as well. Shame on the Governor of New York....When that States crime rate climbs and he is running for President in 2016 the voters should say no to him period! How quickly we forget the horrors of genocide at the hands of a few. How easily the general population is led like sheep to slaughter. First a gun registry and taxes for automatic arms. Then a ban on semi-auto's next could be Marshall law after a bigger event than Katina or Sandy Hook and then the power to take guns or your life is not far away anymore. What part of our rights is maintainable after a city, state, or a country disarms its citizens? NONE

  • cbl302

    don't be a idiot..the number one and two imports to Mexico are the profits from the smuggled drugs and the Guns and assault weapons from the USA..and BTW..it was STRAW BUYERS that were buying and shipping guns to Mexico..and the few hundred that were being tracked that got lost in the process..that the Government was tracking..did not make a bit of difference..since the tidal wave of weapons that the Mexican drug cartels have smuggled in Mexico before and after F&F and the amount of surplus weapons in their possession would Dwarf what the Mexican Government has in their possession and make them envious...

  • any-mouse

    What is being covered up is not that these shootings involved weapons [which cant do any thing on their own], but that all of these perps were on mind altering FDA approved high margin Drugs sold by big Pharma---

  • encierro

    @Eniki520. Not naive...consider those with the guns ARE THE GOVERNMENT by virtue of their controlling, intimidating, buying off officials, police, military and other means to control the government and create fear in those unarmed. We see this very plainly in Mexico, Somalia and many other nations. Bottom line, whoever has the guns IS the government. Get real and look at the picture as it is!

  • Allen Benge

    any-mouse does not know what they are talking about. Autopsies of the perpetrators of those who have committed mass shootings have overwhelmingly been shown not to have any drugs in their systems. It is their mental abberrations that result in the deaths of others, not drugs.

  • Silsal

    Just a note: I like the way you argue.
    Plus I just wanted to bring to light that in England we've had parliament for about 900 years and the first gun law was brought in in 1903.
    Now it is legal to own a gun in England provided you have a license. There are two types available; a shotgun license and a firearm license. To get a license is simple enough you can apply online and it costs about £50 (about US$80) and that lasts 5 years. And handguns are illegal with the exception of muzzle loaders.
    Personally I like the way our law works. I can own a gun if I wish but I feel no need to have one.
    I think a lot of it has to do with our police not carrying guns. We have an armed unit available should they be needed but your normal policeman does not.
    I know a man who got 7 years in prison for holding up a petrol (gas) station with a replica gun.
    We come down tremendously hard on criminals who do carry/use weapons in a criminal act.
    If the police don't carry them, the criminals avoid carrying/using them so the average person is not in fear of being caught in a shootout and doesn't feel the need to carry one either. Just sayin'.

  • fleshbug02

    Wrong. No where in the Constitution, does the Constitution express in writing, anything of the sort of specifics that you self interpret, as "...only for white land owners..." Slaves, yes, were indicated as less than Human Beings. But No More...! But also, since this Precious Documented Instruction Manual Of OUR Sovereign Individualism, is a "Living Document", which does Allow for Increases for Freedom, Appropriate Changes for ALL, BUT has been Usurped by the Elite, after Generations of Encroachment, and the Continuance of Dis-Education, and Dis-Information, as to make WE THE PEOPLE Completely Ignorant, and Fear Driven Compliant, Lazy, Domesticated Herd Animals, Rather than Empowering Us As The Truest Power Of The Land...! This Regime as of at least the last 100 years, and Rapidly increasingly so, has really Destroyed America's Favorable Posterity, and Committed Absolute Treason. Period.
    Please Watch: "Molon Labe". How the 2nd Amendment Guarantees America's Freedom...Top Documentaries. com
    Thank You.

  • fleshbug02

    As they control the Media, they do lead the minds of the terrified masses...

  • fleshbug02

    A Well Regulated Militia is extremely silenced, i.e., IGNORED, as the 1st half of the 2nd Amendment. It has been bastardized as well, to appear a villainous hoard. Completely antithetic to the True intent. THE ABSOLUTE DEFENSE OF AMERICAN'S AGAINST EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE WITNESSING TODAY. TYRANNICAL USURPATION OF THE SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUAL.

  • Eniki520

    I was simply pointing out that when the constitution was written it only protected the rights of white land owning men. It wasnt even until the 60s that minorities were granted equal protection and rights by law.