Columbia Mall Shooting signals time to amend the Second Amendment

Another shooting. This time in Maryland. Brianna Benlolo, 21, of College Park, and Tyler Johnson, 25, of Ellicott City were tragically gunned down at Zumiez skateboard clothing shop in the Columbia Mall.

The reprehensible met the ordinary.

I wish it were unusual or unfamiliar, but with more than 20 mass shootings and more than 300 casualties in the United States since 2009, it’s sadly common. CNN wrote, “The mall shooting capped a week of gun violence or threats of it in ordinary places across the country.”

After the horror of Sandy Hook, no meaningful gun legislation passed despite strenuous efforts of President Obama and surviving Newtown residents.

Tyler Johnson
Tyler Johnson

By contrast, the United Kingdom enacted strict gun control laws in 1997, after a former Scout leader gunned down 16 children and a teacher in a school gym in the small Scottish town of Dunblane. Ensuing legislation banned all pistols in the UK.

The United States’ homicide rate exceeds the United Kingdom’s by 20 to 1. Both are republics, yet one retains a pernicious remnant of slavery attached to its Constitution, the 2nd Amendment. It was included assure slave holding states, particularly Virginia, would ratify the Constitution.

The rhetoric of freedom did not align with the “curious institution” of slavery, and in northern states abolition fervor ran strong. Across the pond, Dr. Samuel Johnson sneered, “How is it that the loudest yelps for liberty come from the drivers of slaves?”

How is it?

Prominent Virginians such as Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and George Mason, were caught in the crux of history, a strange vortex dividing thought and reality.  They sought to abolish slavery even as slaveholders.

Freedom snapped forward at a faster clip than tradition tolerated. Slave uprisings were a major concern to “free states.” There had been a couple hundred rebellions already. In Southern states, slaves far outnumbered free men and slave militias were deemed necessary to assure stability. Fredrick Douglas wrote, “Patrols were small units of white males connected with their local militia—often three patrollers led by a captain— that monitored slave mobility outside plantation grounds.”

There were also concerns that northerners would seek to emancipate slaves by drafting them into Federal rather than state militias.  Patrick Henry, of  “Give me liberty, or give me death!” fame, worried, “In this state [Virginia] there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free.”

Briana Benlolo 21, shown here working at the mall a week ago. BENNYLULU_ VIA INSTAGRAM
Briana Benlolo 21, shown here working at the mall a week ago. BENNYLULU_ VIA INSTAGRAM


And that’s exactly what Abraham Lincoln did four score and seven years later. And that’s why the Second Amendment begins, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”

So where does King James II fit in this picture?

Even by obscure standards, it seems obscure, which it is. Nobody at Zumiez skateboard shop was thinking of James II, the Glorious Revolution, the schism between Protestants against Catholics or the Second Amendment when a 19-year-old in armed this weekend.

James II is a useful artifact of history for the gun lobby and the multi-billion dollar gun industry developed and matured on a deliberate misreading of the Second Amendment and its history. Second Amendment advocates twist their logic into phantasmagoric sculptural confabulations to justify a liberal (by that I mean generous) interpretation of individual liberties. The wording, etymology and inclusion of “well-regulated militia” is conveniently forgotten, whereas the use and ownership of guns for self-defense remains.

In England, guns are only used for sport and hunting, and their use is highly controlled. By the historical standards of English Common Law, the British should own more guns per capita than any nation on Earth. They don’t.

One of four copies of the Magna Carta of 1215 in its teeny and precise script, sealed under oath by King John with his giant wax seal, is on display at the National Archives in Washington, DC. It is the heart of English Common Law, from which our law derives. The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution are its heirs.

English Bill of Rights (1688 or 1689) (Wikipedia)
English Bill of Rights (1688 or 1689) (Wikipedia)

Take us forward 475 years to English Declaration of Rights of 1689 and its Bill of Rights, it includes freedom of the people to have arms, specifically for Protestants to defend themselves from the recently deposed Catholic monarchy of James II. (At least he just lost his crown and not his head, as his father, Charles I had.)

In 1689, in the midst of religious warfare, Protestants against Catholics, the Papacy and France against Anglican English, inserted in the Bill of Rights was the right to bear arms. It reads in part, “Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome…That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.”

Justice Antonin Scalia, as a phoenix who stepped through time, ignored the slavery debate leading incorporation of the 2nd Amendment, amended the 1689 English Bill of Rights with District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) to read in part, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”

There is nothing everyday about Antonin Scalia. The unremarkable, commonplace and ordinary is not his realm. But the routine; attending school, going to a movie or buying skateboard clothes in a mall is what dominates most American lives. Justice Scalia’s mind resides at the intersection between constitutional and common law, but reality is devoid from his thinking. His misocainea is demonstrated best by the gargantuan abyss between his anachronistic Stuart era rhetoric and the needs of today’s Americans.

We are suffering daily gun violence in schools, malls, and churches. A distant black-robed Supreme Court Justice combatting “Charles I and his two wicked sons and successors,” is Daily Show material, but is too tragic to be funny. A shooting at Zumiez isn’t a schism between states, nor does it threaten our democracy. Unmitigated gun violence does. It forces everyone to take extraordinary measures to prevent and combat violence. A police state is ideal for the gun industry, intent on selling ever more weapons, but a state of siege is not conducive to democracy.

James Madison painting. (Public Domain)
James Madison painting. (Public Domain)

James Madison wrote, “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms,” but he was wrong.

He was wrong when he owned slaves, and he was wrong to advocate for the 2nd Amendment to spearhead state’s rights against Alexander Hamilton’s federalist efforts toward the manumission of slaves. We live in a different age.

Freedom and democracy are founded on trust and thrive on peace. Toward that end, it’s time we open debate toward amending the Second Amendment toward a saner course.

173 thoughts on “Columbia Mall Shooting signals time to amend the Second Amendment

  • January 29, 2014 at 11:30 PM


    As you’ve stated in other comments, you care about the children.

    “Every day, about ten people die from unintentional drowning. Of these, two are children aged 14 or younger. Drowning ranks fifth among the leading causes of unintentional injury death in the United States.1

    How big is the problem?
    From 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day. An additional 347 people died each year from drowning in boating-related incidents.2
    About one in five people who die from drowning are children 14 and younger.2 For every child who dies from drowning, another five receive emergency department care for nonfatal submersion injuries.1”

    That is pulled directly from the CDC’s website. Feel free to verify. So we recognize that drowning is the 5th leading cause of unintentional injury death in the US but yet we still have pools at home. Last time I checked there is no dedicated govt agency to help limit the drowning deaths in this country (over 4k per year). But you and gun grabbers say gun violence must be curbed to save the children. There’s a lot of children drowning – I’ll let you look at the rate per 100k. Just males are 2.2/100k. In contrast, citing again the CDC,
    Children (1-14) have a firearm death rate of approximately 0.7/100k. So, where is the outcry to save children from drowning???

    These are statistically significant numbers. How can you say you need to protect children from firearm deaths when more children die from drowning EVERY year?

    Matt “BINCS” Zublic

  • January 29, 2014 at 4:42 AM

    Abolish the 2A.

    • January 29, 2014 at 8:21 AM

      Abolish 7 times inherently more violent progressives and 85% of all violence ceases to exist!

  • January 29, 2014 at 3:35 AM

    not a chance in hell! carry on!

  • January 28, 2014 at 11:18 PM

    The author goes on much about slavery and racism. Interestingly enough the first gun control laws enacted in this country were to prevent slave and, later, free blacks from possessing firearms. They didn’t them shooting back when the KKK came visiting.

  • January 28, 2014 at 9:22 PM

    So just curious: does anyone around here actually think the 2nd Amendment protects them from any kind of government action whatsoever? Has anyone here successfully deterred government action using their gun before? Does anyone here actually think that they could even win out in a stand off with their local police?

    • January 28, 2014 at 10:22 PM

      Does any progressive have all 100% proof the government is all powerful, all knowing, resistance is futile all throughout history and that all of us should just be good little obedient drones….NOPE!

      • January 29, 2014 at 8:25 PM

        Why would anyone need to prove any of that? It’s just a matter of pointing out that the U.S. government is *more* powerful than your typical armed citizen or militia.

        This isn’t even about whether we “should” be obedient or resist. If there’s an effective way of enforcing autonomy from government tyranny, I’m all ears.

        But I have yet to hear a scenario that sounds any more plausible than what David Koresh or that Killdozer guy came up with. These days, as far as I can tell, the 2nd Amendment is mostly an excuse for dudes to fantasize about being unstoppable Hollywood-style freedom fighters taking down the entire federal government.

    • January 28, 2014 at 11:15 PM

      Carl Wood, I cordially invite you to Google “The Battle of Athens”. Returning WWII vets used firearms to successfully oust an entrenched and corrupt local government which had complete control of local law enforcement.

      • January 29, 2014 at 8:08 PM

        This would have been an excellent point in 1946.

  • January 28, 2014 at 8:52 PM

    More deliberate misinformation by a liberal author. Look at his background. Born in Germany and spent his entire career in the liberal east coast and now lives in D.C. Where Dick Heller, a security guard, sued, because he guards federal buildings all day long, with a gun, that is issued to him by the government. Yet, when he leaves his job at night, he can’t be trusted with a gun.

    The UK of course has a lower gun homicide rate. That’s because the crown, took the right of the people to own guns. However, the homicide rate is significantly higher in the UK than the united states. Why? Because weather your beat to death with hands, feet, ball bats, or stabbed, your just as dead!

    Lets look at the old tired argument, liberals use. The 2nd amendment doesn’t really mean what it says. Us gun people are just too stupid to read. In reality, liberals are so intent on controlling the language because they think they can control the debate. But, Well regulated, doesn’t mean what it means today folks. To you that means CONTROL. In the time of the founders, “well regulated’ actually meant, “well maintained and in good condition”. They were talking about having a rifle that went BANG when you pulled the trigger. Nobody understood this more than George Washington, who’s rag tag army beat the worlds biggest super power of the time.

    Liberal gun haters, FEEL. They don’t think! As long as you FEEL safe, because you live in GUN FREE ZONES, your ok with that. When in fact, the GUN FREE ZONES are really KILLING ZONES.

    You elect people like former Mayor of NYC, Nanny Bloomberg. Who wants to decide how much sugar you eat and how much salt you can have. You sure as hell can’t be trusted with guns, while you pay taxes to provide him with ARMED security details.

    Oh and one last thing, your charge that the founders were just racist, slave owning, rich white guys. You better really look at history. They knew that tackling slavery would doom the union before it was even a union. They left that fight to be fought later in history.

    The real truth is that GUN CONTROL is racist. The very people, you say you want to help, the inner city, poor black communities, are the ones you keep unarmed. The 1968 gun control act was written to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. In places like D.C and Chicago, you take away the guns of the very people who need them. In NYC and D.C. you make the fee’s for a permit just to own a gun, let alone carry one concealed, so expensive, that you keep the very people who need the guns the most, unarmed and victims.

    Gun control is racist! So cut the crap!

    The bottom line is that you hate freedom more than you hate the guns! Well, the 2nd amendment exists, it’s not going anyplace and to all the liberals in the east coast. May I say, in the words of Davy Crockett “You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas”.

  • January 28, 2014 at 7:42 PM

    Good God, y’all! So much fail in this article, it’s sickening…

  • January 28, 2014 at 4:28 PM

    What about antidepressants?

    Kip Kinkel was withdrawing from Prozac and had been prescribed Ritalin when he murdered his mother and stepfather then shot 22 classmates, killing two, in 1998.
    Christopher Pittman was withdrawing from Luvox and from Paxil when he killed his paternal grandparents in 2001.

    Elizabeth Bush, who fired at fellow students in Williamsport, Pa., in 2001, wounding one, was on Prozac.

    Jason Hoffman, was on Effexor and Celexa when he opened fire at his El Cajon, Calif., high school, wounding five.

    Shawn Cooper of Notus, Idaho, was on antidepressants when he fired a shotgun on students and staff.

    T.J. Solomon, on antidepressants, wounded six at his Conyers, Ga., high school.
    Eric Harris was taking Luvox when he and fellow student Dylan Klebold killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 24 others before turning their guns on themselves at Columbine High School in Colorado

    At Virginia Tech in 2007, where 32 were murdered, authorities found prescription medications related to the treatment of psychological problems

  • January 28, 2014 at 8:09 AM

    Remind me again how the state of Maryland and the city of Baltimore don’t already restrict people from owning and carrying guns.

    The victims were disarmed by law already. If you are calling for gun control, this blood is on your hands, and you are demanding that people with guns threaten me despite my not harming anyone. What is wrong with you?

  • January 28, 2014 at 7:11 AM

    Oh you want numbers, ok!

    Since suicides are illegal, murder is illegal that means accidental deaths, justifiable homicides and the % of murders not committed by FELONS or any of the other 9 categories of people banned can be removed from the 31,084 total, which as noted in the multiple USDOJ studies and reports 80% of the most violent crimes are committed by career criminals, gang members.

    Do the numbers now that you have the premise, here are the numbers for 2011.

    31,084 killings by use of gun
    9,892 murders
    19,766 suicides
    591 justifiable homicides (209 by civilians using a gun, 270 total)
    835 accidental deaths

    ((9,892 x .8)+19,766)/31,084 -(591+835) = 27,860/29,658 = 93.9%.

    Oh darn, forgot the FBI not reporting the correct number of justifiable homicides, so since 209 justifiable homicides were by firearm alone by civilians, 5 times 209 = 1,045.

    So 29,658-1,045 = 28,613

    Redone = 27,860/28,613 = 97.3% darn, that’s more than 96%, my bad!

  • January 28, 2014 at 7:10 AM

    Lets identify who exactly is responsible for the majority of that violence first.

    For several decades, studies have been conducted on crime and causalities by various bodies including major universities, criminologists and even the U.S. Department of Justice. These studies have found that approximately 80% of all crime is committed by 20% of all criminals. Some of the studies have provided slightly different numbers but all of them have found that a small group of criminals commit a vastly disproportionate number of crimes than their peers.(Wolfgang et al ., 1972; Petersilia et al ., 1978; Williams, 1979; Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982; Greenwood with Abrahamse, 1982, and Martin and Sherman,1986).

    Andrew Papachristos, an associate professor of sociology at Yale, analyzed police and gun homicide records from 2006 to 2011 for people living in a high-crime neighborhood in Chicago. He found that 41 percent of all gun homicides occurred within a network of less than 4 percent of the neighborhood’s population, and that the closer one is connected to a homicide victim, the greater that person’s chances were for becoming a victim. Each social tie removed from a homicide victim decreased a person’s odds of becoming a victim by 57 percent.

    “What the findings essentially tell you is that the people who are most at risk of becoming a victim are sort of surrounded by victims within a few handshakes,” Papachristos says. “These are young men who are actively engaged in the behaviors that got them in this network.”

    The network in question consists of more than 3,700hig h-risk individuals – young, African-American males from a poor neighborhood – who were clustered into a network by instances of co-offending, meaning each person in the group had been arrested with another person.

    Overall, the community’s five-year homicide rate was 39.7 per 100,000 people, which was still much higher than the averages of other areas of Chicago (14.7 per 100,000). But being a part of that network of co-offenders, essentially just being arrested, raised the rate to by nearly 50 percent, to 55.2 per 100,000. What’s more, being in a network with a homicide victim increased the homicide rate by 900 percent, to 554.1 per 100,000.

    “You’re at a risk for living in this [certain] community, but if you’re in the network, your risk is astronomical,” Papachristos says. “That rate is beyond epidemic
    proportion, that’s actually scary.”

    Recidivism rates being over 40% as well!

    2.7mil prisoners

    1.4mil active gang members

    2.5-3.5mil active criminals

    1.043mil plus open felony warrants

    Hence add in the career criminals.

    CDC -Suicidal people speak for them-selves as suicide is a felony.

    Shall we review police firearm discharge reports in Chicago and NYC
    where between 76-80% of those involved in shootings, both shooter and injured
    were both involved in criminal activity at the time of the incident.,,

    Yeah, review of all the govt. data above shows over 96% of all killings by illegal use of a firearm are committed by career criminals, gang members, suiciders & crazies w approximately 50% of the remainder due to domestic violence incidents.

    A sane person would normally address the largest problem first don’t you

  • January 28, 2014 at 7:07 AM

    Were you aware of this study? It’s not done by a pro-gun think-tank , it’s the CDC.

    “Estimating intruder-related firearm retrievals in U.S. households, 1994.”

    The CDC estimated that “497,646 incidents occurred in which the intruder was seen and reportedly scared away by the firearm… ”

    And that is an annual number.

    Geez, where is your government data to show this has changed, hmmmm, oh wait, anti gun nuts never have GOVERNMENT DATA to back up their lies, mu bad!

    Almost 500k defensive uses of a gun in one year, only in homes. So you going to prove not one single violent crime is committed outside the home, lol!

    Many defenses uses of guns are never reported because the defender simply shows the gun and the criminal ceases.

    Really sucks when your own anti gun pundits start putting up numbers you cant refute.

  • January 28, 2014 at 7:05 AM

    Oh you want data, hey lets review the following. FBI UCR Database

    You know, the government database showing in 2008 that 1.38 mil violent crimes were reported and that of those 381,000 involved a firearm, 15% of the incidents were shots fired.

    Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001 Hmmmm, where were all the police to protect these victims eh? USDOJ National Victimization Report 2008

    You know, the government agency sub annual report showing in 2008 alone that 70% of all violent crimes committed each year were not reported. Funny how we see Canada & England perform this same study and get the same results, go figure eh!

    Oh wait, what’s this, annual firearm discharge reports that show the police only hit their targets 15% of the time, such a common trend.

    Uh just an fyi there were approximately 12,252 murders and 70,000 injuries by firearms in 2008.

    So using the standard shooting percentages, and hit % provided by all that government data these antis cant refute, lets calculate and see how many people self defense has saved the US per year, and we will only concentrate on the law abiding to start with. Even though the anti’s wont admit that even felons, who are citizens, have the right to defend themselves.

    Self Defense saves lives

    FBI UCR 2010

    278 documented justifiable homicides and since there are oh 2.5 people per household per US Census, almost 6 injuries per death we will calculate from that point.

    278 incidents + (6 x 278 = injured) = 15% of shots hit target /15 = 1% x 100 = # of shots fired = 12,973 incidents shots fired by law abiding citizens.

    12,973/15 = 1% x 100 = total number of self defense incidents just of people not involved in a criminal activity =86,488 incidents.

    Since 70% of all violent crimes are not reported, do you have any data that self defenses aren’t reported at the same rate, no you don’t, so……

    86,488 / 30 = 1% X 100 = 288,293 total incidents of self-defense in 2010

    288,293 x 2.5 people per household = 720,723 people defended or defending themselves.

    Now we know that of 381,000 violent crimes in 2008, there were 12,252 murders, and 70,000 injuries, and assuming the same rate of injuries = 3.2% deaths 18.4% injuries.

    12,252/381,000 = 3.2%
    and 70,000/381,000 = 18.4%

    288,293 x .032 = # of deaths saved 9,225

    288,293 x .184 = # of injuries prevented 53,045

    So sad we can using this government data show law abiding civilians preventedsince 1960 over 1.131 Mil murders and prevented over 6.5 mil

    If it saves just one life, it is justified.

    But anti gun nuts always want to forget the benefits!

  • January 28, 2014 at 7:02 AM

    Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001

    85% of incidents involving a firearm, no shots are fired,,

    15% of time shots are fired is the target hit (Police Firearm Discharge reports)

    So maybe this nutjob who wrote this fictional article can explain just how many incidents where no shots occur actually get reported, oh wait, we already have GOVERNMENT STUDIES showing 73.95% of all violent crimes never get reported, the same thing that occurrs in GASP ENGLAND!

  • January 28, 2014 at 6:58 AM

    USDOJ National Victimization Report for 10 years.

    Canada & England show the same results.

    VCR=Violent Crimes Reported (FBI UCR)
    VNR = Violent Crimes Not Reported USDOJ

    Year / VCR / VNR / % of violent crimes not reported

    2001 /1,439,480 /5,743,820 /74.94%

    2002 /1,423,677 /7,424,550 /80.82%

    2003 /1,383,676 /5,401,720 /74.38%

    2004 /1,390,745 /5,182,670 /73.17%

    2005 /1,390,745 /5,162,400 /73.06%

    2006 /1,418,043 /3,672,940 /61.39%

    2007 /1,408,337 /5,177,130 /72.80%

    2008 /1,394,461 /4,856,510 /71.29%

    2009 /1,325,896 /4,343,450 /69.47%

    2010 /1,251,248 /4,935,980 /74.65%

    2011 /1,203,564 /5,805,430 /79.27%

    Totals 15,029,872 /57,706,600 /73.95% avg. per year

  • January 28, 2014 at 6:56 AM

    Armed self defense Sept 2013

  • January 28, 2014 at 6:56 AM

    Armed self defense Oct 2013,0,4652648.story

  • January 28, 2014 at 6:55 AM

    Armed self defense Nov 2013,0,4652648.story

  • January 28, 2014 at 3:31 AM

    “Time to Amend the Second Amendment”

    The 28th Amendment is just waiting for a genius wordsmith (such as yourself) to create Utopia through disarmament.

    I’ll be anxiously awaiting your forthcoming Amendment doug, as well as the subsequent vote in Congress.

    • January 28, 2014 at 3:34 AM

      …and ratification by all those Red States out there.


  • January 28, 2014 at 2:31 AM

    Acceptable loss to keep and bear arms. No emotion here.

  • January 28, 2014 at 2:14 AM

    it is a GUN FREE zone, if this was not the case, he may never have even tried knowing that he could have been shot before he fired his first shot. The more gun controls the higher the crime and killings that is a fact, Jack!

  • January 28, 2014 at 12:49 AM

    The author starts of by lumping Columbia Mall in with other mass shootings. FBI defines mass shootings as have 4 or more victims. There were two victims in Baltimore and one suicide.

    Others have pointed out his statistical errors.

    The Founders and Framers were well aware of the dichotomy of establishing a nation with Individual Liberty as a core core value. The realized they would have neither liberty or a nation if they chose at that time to abolish slavery. They realized they needed unity at that time. Without unity they would remain at the mercy of England and King George. They did sow the seeds for the issue to be resolved 80 years later.

    The history of other colonies shows what may have happened in the South had we remained divided and subjects of The Crown. The Apartheid of South Africa, and the failures of other Colonies in Africa and Asia. Calling the Founders and Framers decisions slavery a mistake minimizes the complexity and history of the issue.

    The 2nd Amendment is the corner stone to the individual liberty the founders sought. They sought despite decades of illegal actions by Britain to resolve the difference by dialogue and petition. It wasn’t until the British came for the Colonists arms at Lexington and Concord the war started.

    Neither did they make a mistake with the 2nd Amendment, the Founders and Framers where nearly unanimous in the opinion that an armed population was the last bulwark against tyranny.

    • January 28, 2014 at 1:20 AM

      3 killed and 5 injured.. Those 5 injured are not victims?

      The Battle of Gettysburg left over 40,000 casualties. Of that, about 8,000 were deaths. The casualty rate is usually listed.

      Injured are victims.

      • January 28, 2014 at 1:22 AM

        How do you get “3 killed and 5 injured.” from “two victims in Baltimore and one suicide.”?

        Consistency, please.

        • January 28, 2014 at 1:59 AM

          Deadlines deadlines. Yes, I would change it. If you read the NYTimes website, they are constantly correcting.

          • January 28, 2014 at 2:45 AM

            Yep, the almighty dollar was calling I’m sure. Don’t worry we all understand your motivation for the shock article and your so called “debate” on here.

            Musket Morgan does the same routine, he rants and raves until his guest makes him look like a raving idiot…rinse and repeat.

            Well at least you admit it, I guess.

  • January 28, 2014 at 12:27 AM

    Amazing how this piece manages to roll so many easily-refuted “facts” and tired talking points into a few short paragraphs (as “Mike the Limey” and others have already able noted). I’ll at least give the author credit for acknowledging that the 2nd Amendment actually means something, in his call for repealing or amending it; most hoplophobes pretend it’s just “a right to join the National Guard”, or some similar drivel.

    • January 28, 2014 at 1:22 AM

      I ended the column calling for an opening of debate. In this forum, I have accomplished that!

      • January 28, 2014 at 1:25 AM

        You accomplished making yourself look like a Piers Morgan wannabe with a fistful of misinformation and a foreigners perspective. We’re used to it and have heard all of your talking points before. Like I said before, Amend it or STFU.

        • January 28, 2014 at 1:54 AM

          Thanks for the compliment. I love Piers Morgan’s interview with Alex Jones. Shows what a nutcase Jones is. I love good debate. That is the essence of democracy!

          • January 28, 2014 at 2:12 AM

            Do you love the one with Ben Shapiro? Makes sense he would bring Jones on a few shows later after getting his A** handed to him.

          • January 28, 2014 at 3:18 AM

            Piers Morgan is a cowardly, lefty, persona-non-grata-in-his-home-country faggot BULLY.

            Besides that, he’s a perfectly nice guy.

      • January 28, 2014 at 1:35 AM

        Indeed you have, but by raising straw man arguments and moot points.

        I quote: “time to amend the Second Amendment”

        I proved that even the proposition is moot. So, then, where do we go from there? An exercise in rehashing established refutations of practically everything you asserted?

        Doug, by resurrecting a “debate” that is over, checkmate, game set match, what do you and other liberals hope to accomplish, besides driving everybody nuts?

        Amend the Second Amendment?

        Given that all it does is to guarantee a right that exists independent of it, and wouldn’t disappear even if the amendment did, what IS your point?

        That you can get rid of the right by getting rid of the amendment?

        You can’t.

        You guys need to accept that.

        You can’t.

        • January 28, 2014 at 1:43 AM

          Did I say, “time to amend the Second Amendment”?


          I said, “Toward that end, it’s time we open debate toward amending the Second Amendment toward a saner course.”

          I don’t believe it is possible to rid of the 2nd Amendment, but loony interpretations of it that are outside its original intent lead to a situation we have now where kids are shooting up other kids in a mall, or a kid is shooting schoolchildren in a school, or a kid shoots and kills scores of movie goers. That is not freedom, but terror.

          • January 28, 2014 at 2:16 AM

            Wrong again. You have cited examples of murders committed with handguns and shotguns to beef up your argument, while the SCOTUS and the POTUS have said these weapons are not up for “gun grabbing” debate.

            Don’t look now but your lies are showing.

          • January 28, 2014 at 3:05 AM

            Guns are not the problem, it is noted the so-called evil “assault rifles” with standard capacity 30 round magazines are nothing new. They were invented after World War II in the late 1940’s and have always been available to the public (note the “47” in AK-47 stands for 1947, the year the firearm went into production). As a matter of fact fully automatic versions (i.e. machine guns), which are true military grade rifles, were available to the public until 1986 and except for the machineguns, background checks on firearm transfers weren’t required until 1998 – yet nobody talks about mass shootings with any version (semi-automatic or automatic) of these rifles during the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s so it’s a relatively new phenomenon so logic would indicate it’s being caused by something else.

          • January 28, 2014 at 3:15 AM

            “Did I say, ‘time to amend the Second Amendment’?”

            Uh… *ahek*… let me see here….


            “Columbia mall shooting signals time to amendment Second Amendment”


            It’s the TITLE, Doug.

            Wiggle away, little worm.

  • January 27, 2014 at 11:56 PM

    You conveniently left out the fact that two states refused to ratify the Constitution without a Second Amendment. Virginia was one, the other was New York.

    • January 28, 2014 at 12:20 AM

      The latter is distilled, complete irony.

    • January 28, 2014 at 1:26 AM

      Yes Parnell. Why wouldn’t Virginia ratify the Constitution without the 2nd Amendment? I answered that question in the column.

      Slaves were also prevented from learning how to read and write. Too dangerous. In 12 years a slave, Samual Northup had to pretend he was illiterate to stay away from the whip or worse.

      Which is more dangerous, the gun or the pen?

      • January 28, 2014 at 1:36 AM

        Thanks for your snarky response. Of course you choose to gloss over the fact that the other slave states of the South ratified the Second. Further, Slavery was not very widespread in New York and the reasoning for a demand for the right to keep and bear arms had more to do with the continuing Indian raids and the presence of the British in Canada. The pen is mightier than the sword or the gun. However, like those weapons, the pen must be wielded by a trained person.

        • January 28, 2014 at 1:48 AM


          • January 28, 2014 at 1:54 AM

            LOL? That’s an rebuttal? Don’t bother replying > I tire of attempting to debate an idiot.

          • January 28, 2014 at 1:58 AM

            Ok, I will spell it out: Lots of Laughs. I assume you meant to imply my writing is dangerous. If so, good! If it spurs debate, mission accomplished.

          • January 28, 2014 at 2:07 AM

            I’m perfectly aware of the meaning of LOL. I marvel at your ego. How do you get your head in the office door? I certainly don’t consider your writing dangerous. It’s insipid and written from total ignorance of the subject matter. One doesn’t amend an amendment.

          • January 28, 2014 at 3:33 AM

            It doesn’t :”spur debate”. It drags up settled issues for the purpose of creating unrest.

      • January 28, 2014 at 1:37 AM

        Well, let me put both a gun and a pen to your forehead, and then, YOU tell ME.

        • January 28, 2014 at 1:47 AM

          The United States is a country of laws – including the 2nd Amendment. A contrary country, the USSR, was a military dictatorship under Stalin. He murdered 40,000,000 of his own countrymen, yet the USSR fell and the US is strong.

          You tell me which is mightier, the pen or the pistol…

          • January 28, 2014 at 3:28 AM

            The pistol. The USSR didn’t have a Second Amendment, and its behavior was unconstrained by that circumstance.

            “a country of laws”, you say?

            Well, your presidential wet dream is ignoring laws all over the place, imposing his ideology by refusing to comply with constitutional constraints. You know, kinda like he and his cabinet are the U.S. version of the Central Committee?

          • January 28, 2014 at 7:52 PM

            Uhhh. He murdered them after disarming them! Had they (and the Jews in Germany) not been disarmed, perhaps history would be a little different.

  • January 27, 2014 at 11:45 PM

    I wish they would try and amend the the 2nd Amendment, that would be good for a laugh. Maybe then all the progressives and foreigners would shut their mouths after that move completely fails.

    • January 28, 2014 at 2:05 AM

      I’m a furriner & I’m on your side.:-)

      • January 28, 2014 at 2:25 AM

        My apologies, my insults were intended for the author and his life partner Piers Morgan.

        • January 28, 2014 at 2:49 AM

          No worries.
          Please do NOT deport the latter – we don’t want him either.

          • January 28, 2014 at 3:53 AM

            “we don’t want him either.”

            And that’s OFFICIAL. He comes home, he gets arrested.


  • January 27, 2014 at 11:11 PM

    All people should be background checked. Then we could remove the defectives and deviants from society and quarantine them in special camps.

    • January 27, 2014 at 11:50 PM

      The mall shooter and the LAX shooter were background checked. Adam Lanza’s mother was background checked for the guns, she bought for her son. Those background checks really helped in those murders…

      • January 27, 2014 at 11:55 PM

        You forgot to also mention that the Maryland mall shooter used the Joe Biden special (12 gauge shotgun) and was in a “Gun Free Zone”. Progressives are a large mix of arrogance and ignorance…a dangerous combination.

        • January 28, 2014 at 1:52 AM

          Agreed re background checks. Why did the British ban pistols? Was it because they loathe freedom? Did Adam Lanza need an AR-15 in his possession for any reason ever? Was democracy really at risk in Newtown, CT?

          If you say yes, I will just laugh at your ridiculousness!

          • January 28, 2014 at 2:07 AM

            There’s that word again…”need”. How many individuals are killed a year by automobiles? Still want to talk “needs”?

            What do you think Adam could have done to 20+ defenseless children with an axe or a baseball bat, if your answer is “wouldn’t have been as bad” I will just laugh at your ridiculousness.

          • January 28, 2014 at 2:14 AM

            Successive UK governments progressively restricted firearms ownership out of a desire for more social control.
            It is an unfortunate fact that almost ALL restrictions on firearms in the UK came under the auspices of Conservative governments.
            The AR15 is probably THE most popular rifle in the US. It is used for hunting, target shooting, varmint control, & self defence. It is a LOT less powerful than many, if not most hunting rifles & the main difference is it “looks scary” to many of the uneducated – hence firearms enthusiasts ironically referring to it & similar looking firearms as EBR’s or “Evil Black Rifles”.

    • January 28, 2014 at 12:00 AM

      There would be no politicians or police left!

  • January 27, 2014 at 9:26 PM

    Douglas, if I ever have a question about cameras or photography, I’ll give you a call.
    If you ever want to learn about American history, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and Freedom, feel free to contact me, as it is apparent that you know very little about the founding of this country.
    “Well regulated”, as the term is applied in the Second Amendment, means trained and disciplined in the Art of War, and the tools and weapons thereof. It most certainly DOES NOT mean mandatory “government” regulation of arms, or the Right to Keep and Bear them.
    Good job on twisting the facts, though. Have you even considered writing fiction for a living?

    • January 27, 2014 at 10:24 PM


      If I twisted the facts, please tell me where. If I am a good fiction writer, thanks for your compliment!

      The Supreme Court ruled that a “well regulated militia” is not as important as individual liberties regarding the 2nd Amendment. That’s a problem.

      I assume when Sun Tzu wrote The Art of War, in 500bc he wasn’t writing about guns! But cleaver tactics are timeless.

      Guns in domestic disputes are not Sun Tzu material.


      • January 28, 2014 at 4:09 AM

        “The Supreme Court ruled that a ‘well regulated militia’ is not as
        important as individual liberties regarding the 2nd Amendment. That’s a

        It did no such thing, because the amendment itself doesn’t present that juxtaposition. The prefatory clause states a reason, the operational clause declares the right. By construction, there is no conflict created between the two – one is grammatically subordinate to the other.

        And yes, it is a problem.

        For you.

        Not for American people.

  • January 27, 2014 at 9:21 PM

    The UK also only counts “solved” cases as murders while the US considers “unsolved” cases as murders. Unsolved cases don’t factor into the Brit’s statistics. That and a few other little accounting tricks used by the Home Office make the UK look much better than it is. By every rational measure of overall murder (as opposed to the “selection bias trick” of counting only “gun murders”) the “gun crazy” US is among the safest places to live in a very dangerous world.

    • January 27, 2014 at 10:27 PM

      Very good points. Most of South and Central America are pretty dangerous.

      The border between Mexico and Texas is a war zone, with tens of thousands of deaths. Many are not gun related, but simple torture.

      • January 28, 2014 at 3:42 AM

        …and the success of civil disarmament in Mexico is?

    • January 27, 2014 at 10:50 PM

      “The UK also only counts “solved” cases as murders while the US considers
      “unsolved” cases as murders. Unsolved cases don’t factor into the
      Brit’s statistics. ”

      Sorry but this simply isn’t true.
      I first saw this stated a few years ago & it is one of those “urban myths” that needs dispelling.

      The UK does have a violent crime rate of more than twice that of the US but our homicide rate really IS 1.2 per 100,000.

      Our home invasion & burglary rate is also double that of the US, with “hot” burglaries where the residents are present running at four times that of the US.

      • January 27, 2014 at 11:12 PM

        I will defer to your expertise since you are from those parts. The analysis I read appeared sufficiently comprehensive so I still suspect the comparison is not apples to apples as the gun grabbers would have us believe.

  • January 27, 2014 at 8:28 PM

    Notice Douglas fails to mention that these tragedies occur in “gun free zones”. And again we have a mindless twit crying for citizens disarmament. His ideals worked so well in Germany that Hitler was able to round up millions unopposed for a ride to the death mills. Douglas should study history prior to displaying his ignorance.

    • January 27, 2014 at 10:42 PM

      I’m sure I haven’t studied Hitler enough. The tragedy was so great, it always deserves more reflection. Crazyly enough, the copy I read of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich was signed by William Shirer. I received a signed copy after we rode on the train in Germany with his wife. (If you haven’t read it, it’s worth the considerable time it takes.)

      A couple, I knew very well in Belmont before they moved back to Jerusalem were members of the Haganah. They were married in one of the Haganah’s underground bunkers. Both suffered the ravages of Nazi Germany, but they are now active members of the Peace Now Movement.

      Uri and Shlomit fled Berlin in 1933, right after the Nazis were elected. So they were profoundly lucky. (He dragged his pianos throughout Europe.) But as they told me, there was Jewish armed resistance during the holocaust. A gun here or there wasn’t going to stop the Nazi War machine. (The Nazis were popularly elected in Germany.) It took most of the United States’ resources to defeat Germany. That’s considerably different than a household gun which most likely will just kill a member of the household.


      • January 27, 2014 at 11:59 PM

        Fisrt of all your erroneous theory about so called household guns is as wild as it gets, just what is a “household gun”? Actually the US did not enter the war until the German Army was having a hell of a time with the Russians, guess you forgot them. No one said a single firearm would stop[ the Nazi war machine but arm ed resistence in the early 30s would have hampered the early movement. And, if France had any futs and resisted Hitler’s march into the cor areas chances are WWII would not have happened. According to you resistence groups should have just rolled over. Not very well informed, are you?

        • January 28, 2014 at 1:15 AM

          Re: “if France had any guts and resisted Hitler’s march into the SAAR areas”…

          You forget that France lost over 40,000 soldiers when the Nazis invaded. They weren’t drinking lattes, as you might imagine. The Panzer blitzkrieg was not some merry march where the French just put down their arms and invited the Nazis to occupy.

          • January 28, 2014 at 1:17 AM

            No, what it was was comatose oblivion to the threat, and a lack of preparedness.

          • January 28, 2014 at 2:03 AM

            It’s impossible to call the Maginot Line “comatose oblivion to the threat”. Indeed it’s very instructive for today’s military spending.

            As usual, a military prepares for the tactics of the previous war, which is ineffective to new techniques. The Maginot Line was the single most expensive and advanced military defense system to date in 1940.

          • January 28, 2014 at 3:07 AM

            Sounds like you have a great amount of knowledge concerning military tactics and force training implementation. I must have missed it in your bio, please tell me more about this wealth of knowledge and all the books you’ve read on war.

            On second thought, don’t bother.

          • January 28, 2014 at 2:24 AM

            You forgot, the French were over run in record time, hardly no resistance at all. The French military at that time was a joke!

      • January 28, 2014 at 12:28 AM

        “A gun here or there wasn’t going to stop the Nazi War machine.”

        Again, you inadvertently make our point.

        In the U.S., it isn’t “a gun here or there”. It’s guns EVERYWHERE.

        And the government is well aware of this, which is why it is on a mission to incrementally disarm all civilians.

        • January 28, 2014 at 1:29 AM

          Agreed, guns are everywhere. Funny you think I’m some anti-gun nut.

          Rather than look at this as a liberty issue, think of it as a health issue. Guns provide easy means for suicide. We don’t allow heroin to be sold for the same reason.

          • January 28, 2014 at 1:40 AM

            Misdirecting the point won’t hunt, Elmer.

            You actually thing that by revising the argument changes the principle?

            Health issue, crime issue, whatever issue.

            Nothing, NOTHING overcomes a fundamental right.


          • January 28, 2014 at 2:04 AM

            Pulled to the extreme, if you’re dead you’re free. Doesn’t the government have an obligation to protect its citizens?

          • January 28, 2014 at 3:01 AM

            Not a legal one. Google Castle Rock vs Gonzales

    • Tim Forkes
      January 27, 2014 at 11:22 PM

      Actually, one of Hitler’s first acts as dictator was to loosen up the gun owning regulations for “Aryans.” And as even casual readers of history would know — and has been noted in these comments elsewhere — there was armed resistance to Hitler and the Nazis in all the nations that were occupied and controlled by the Nazis, including Germany.
      Before displaying your ignorance again, I would suggest, RE Hafner, YOU study the history of the rise of Hitler and the Nazis and World War II.

      • January 27, 2014 at 11:53 PM

        Since I was alive during that era as were my parents Adolf disarmed all whom he considered a threat to the security of the state. The so called armed resistance you mention did not exist as the countries he occupied had their own form of gun control and the governments and people cheered the German armies as they marched across their borders, except for Poland. The Jews were disarmed by Hitlers gun control act of 34, shortly after the round up started and the concentration comps were in full bloom. Disarmed people cannot resist. Go back to a educational facility that will provide facts, not propaganda.

        • January 28, 2014 at 1:34 AM

          Agreed. Disarmed people can’t defend themselves.

          I would disagree with you that somehow the victims of Nazis could have successfully overthrown the regime. It was popularly elected.

          • January 28, 2014 at 2:09 AM

            It’s referred to as disrupting the process, thus allowing for more escape.

      • January 28, 2014 at 6:01 PM

        Actually when ones reads the details and context of what Hitler did, he only loosened the law for his dedicated boot lickers, and again it was only for LIMITED firearms and per GOVERNMENT permission.

        But hey, banning firearms from only a portion of the population because of political affiliation or genetics is perfectlly and morally acceptableto leftist wack-a-loons like the article writer eh!

        The election in 1933 wasnt a majority of Germans, it was a 43.9% of those who voted for Hitler.

        The actual % of Germans who voted for Hitler was 31.1%, hmmmmm.

        In 2012 only 27% of eligible voters voted for Obama, neither is a majority of people.

  • January 27, 2014 at 8:00 PM

    “The United States’ homicide rate exceeds the United Kingdom’s by 20 to
    1. Both are republics………”

    Deliberate misinformation like the above is typical of the anti firearms left.
    The UK isn’t a republic; it is a Constitutional Monarchy & the homicide rate here is 1.2 per 100,000 compared to the US with 4.7 per 100,000.
    That’s 3.92 to 1 which is a LOT different to the writer’s untruth.
    The writer also fails to address the cultural & racial differences between the US & UK, despite the fact that half of the homicide victims in the US are blacks, as are the perpetrators of those homicides, whilst blacks only make up 12.4% of the population of the US.
    Another fact conveniently ignored is that crime involving firearms in the US is at a 50 year low, whilst the number of legally owned firearms has increased by more than double. The population of the US has also grown by more than 50% in that time.
    These anti firearms activists would find their time better spent campaigning against the overprescription of drugs, or safer packaging for household chemicals if they really want to save lives – but they don’t, because their real aim is social control & the erosion of personal responsibility in order to bring everyone else down to their level of inadequacy.

    • January 27, 2014 at 8:07 PM

      S-a-a-a-y…. you’re pretty savvy for a Limey! You don’t believe in the State subverting your natural right to liberty!

      How’d THAT happen?

      • January 27, 2014 at 8:45 PM

        I’ve always been a true conservative, plus I’ve been corrupted by all my friends in the US. I spend at least five weeks a year on your side of the Pond, shooting all those scary firearms.:-)

        • January 27, 2014 at 9:01 PM

          AFAIC, you’re welcome here in perpetuity.

          Would that half of our own citizens had the capacity to understand First Principles as clearly as you do.

          • January 27, 2014 at 9:15 PM

            Thank you sir.
            If I could move over, I would but my mother’s in her 80’s & needs looking after.

          • January 27, 2014 at 11:59 PM

            Indeed. That’s a GOOD son. A GOOD son.

      • January 27, 2014 at 10:10 PM


        It seems to me more likely the state subverts our liberty with domestic spying than domestic violence. (Guns aren’t as effective as ubiquitous wiretaps.)


        • January 27, 2014 at 11:56 PM

          Douglas, the government subverts our liberty any way it can. That is the nature of government. And that is why the people’s right to arms was enumerated.

          • January 28, 2014 at 1:01 AM

            As one who’s favorite teacher was blacklisted during HUAC, I agree that government’s ability to subvert our liberty is always a danger. But in Ed’s case, guns didn’t solve the issue. Ending HUAC and blacklisting did. Interestingly enough, a great hero on the left, Robert Kennedy, was also a member of HUAC. That’s why I have always had problems with his legacy.

          • January 28, 2014 at 1:11 AM

            Doug, there were commies infiltrating our society. They now exist as embedded bureaucrats in our State Department and elsewhere. Hell, there is even credible evidence that our president is one. He was born of a commie. He was sired by a commie. He was raised by commies. He was tutored by a commie. He is an Alinsky acolyte. The nut doesn’t fall far from the tree.


            I suspect your teacher wasn’t as pristine as you assert. And, guns are always the last resort, not the first. I don’t support shooting commies, my admiration for Pinochet notwithstanding.

          • January 28, 2014 at 2:31 AM


            Your comments deserve more than just a simple reply. I have met Alger Hiss’ son and I knew (well) Whittaker Chambers’ grandson. Another of his grandsons, I have been in contact with since writing this column.

            Agreed that Alger Hiss was a communist spy. No doubt. (Tony HIss disagrees with me.) But to then leap and say Obama is a communist is silly.

            Look at his fiscal policy and who his treasury secretaries have been. He is a great friend to free enterprise. (He’s also a great President.)

          • Tim Forkes
            January 28, 2014 at 2:56 AM

            Douglas, judging from his remarks, there is no point in debating him. Logic is not one of his long suits.

          • January 28, 2014 at 2:57 AM

            “long suits”? oh, the irony

          • January 28, 2014 at 9:05 AM

            Refute the facts I stated.

            I DARE ya.

          • February 3, 2014 at 11:45 PM

            Douglas, you misunderstood my dare.

            It was to refute the facts I stated about Obama.

            I didn’t see anything refuting Obama’s communist roots in that article….

          • January 28, 2014 at 3:04 AM

            Regardless of what he is doing at the moment (BTW, his SOU address has been released – he intends to continue making law without Congress if he can’t get them to knuckle under), he came from a communist environment born of communist parents, he was nurtured in communist ideology by both his grandparents and his biological father (Frank Marshall Davis), he affirmatively followed a communist agitator (Alinksy) and he actually gave seminars on how to marginalize political enemies a la communist theory, yet you expect me to agree that because of his superficial identity, he’s NOT a communist?

            Please. You can quit pissing down my back now. I know it isn’t raining.

          • January 28, 2014 at 12:38 PM

            Thank you . I needed a good laugh.

    • January 27, 2014 at 10:08 PM


      Yes you are right, the homicide rate is 3-1, and I should have written that differently. However gun deaths IS 20-1, and that gets to my point. Most deaths are needless stupid acts because a gun i laying around the house.

      I love shooting guns BTW. I find target shooting to be meditative and excellent for relaxation. i also believe Biathlon (based on military patrols during WWII), is one of the most amazing Olympic sports.

      But gun deaths are outside of any bounds of acceptability. When you consider how much effort is presently made to improve child car seats, destroying a plethora of experimental cars, so the new generation will save an additional 5 lives, and then consider we leave the gun debate off the table – it makes no sense.



      • January 27, 2014 at 10:45 PM

        The number of deaths caused by firearms ISN’T the point. If it was & firearms regulation worked, the UK homicide rate would indeed be one twentieth of the US.
        Most deaths aren’t domestic; they’re gang & drug related & THAT is the area where effort should be directed. Not gun control but gang control.
        You fail to address where I pointed out firearms homicide in the US is at a 50 year low, as are crimes where a firearm is present.
        You don’t HAVE a “gun crime epidemic” in the US.
        YES there’s still a lot of people getting killed BUT making it harder for law-abiding citizens to possess firearms will do nothing to reduce that number.
        What WILL make a difference is when the US prisons cease being stuffed with drug users & petty criminals so that violent felons caught with firearms CAN be locked up for five or more years, rather than the revolving door, three months served they currently enjoy.
        USE the current laws to go after the REAL dangers & STOP blaming law abiding gun owners.

        • January 27, 2014 at 11:04 PM

          BTW, I neglected to mention in the article that 2/3 all all gun related deaths in the US are sadly suicides. (Another excellent reason not to have a pistol in the home.)

          So we’re left to 1/3 of the gun related deaths between domestic disputes and other causes.

          • January 27, 2014 at 11:22 PM

            Christan also fails to disclose that of the remaining 1/3 of gun related deaths 7-800 are at the hands of Police Officers and another 1500 are at the hands of law abiding citizens defending themselves or other.
            Removing firearms deaths in Chicago, Washington DC, Philidelphia and New Orleans, all cities with strict gun control laws, to the bottom of all nations with firearms related deaths.
            Stay with the facts leave the emotion aside.

          • January 27, 2014 at 11:58 PM

            1/3 of gun related deaths which is largely gang activity related. Keep manipulating facts please, it makes you seem extremely well informed.

          • January 28, 2014 at 12:19 AM

            You can’t stop irrational or criminal human behavior, not even under absolute state control. To put a finer point on it, look at the late Soviet Union. Crime was not eradicated by that system.

            I might add, the innate human striving for liberty wasn’t, either.

          • January 28, 2014 at 2:13 AM


          • January 28, 2014 at 12:47 AM

            Still looking for any government proof that a gun is the root cause of mental illness, is alive, or the root cause of violence.

            Still looking for the government data showing how suicides attempted were affected by gun control being implemented, oh wait, not one single country can show that, sucks when government data doesn’t support the gun grabber nut jobs.

          • January 28, 2014 at 1:18 AM

            Sheeeyeah. The “trigger pulls the finger” thingy.

          • January 28, 2014 at 1:02 AM

            So now it’s people committing suicide with guns ! Doug, did you ever know anyone hell bent on suicide ? Well I have ! Myself and his family took his shotgun all sharp objects and got counseling for him. One night his sister was staying with him and you know what ? He took a bath and used her electric curling iron as a bar of soap ! So enough of, IF WE BAN GUNS LESS PEOPLE WILL COMMIT SUICIDE ! Look at Japans suicide numbers, give me a break. Why don’t you write a article on how we can eliminate gangs and gang violence. How about a article outlining warning signs every parent should know about mental health in the home, and what to look for. How many lives can YOU save, by using your pulpit for this, instead of demeaning law abiding citizens, and pushing for loss of freedom and liberty, let alone the loss of responsibility of ones actions. So try to save a life this week and write about the causes and not the end result . I know you can do this, so get to it ! SAVE A LIFE Doug, stop a madman or some gang violence.

          • January 28, 2014 at 1:50 AM

            The US suicide rate is on a par with other western nations, thus proving that guns AREN’T a factor. If they were, you’d have a higher rate.
            Once again; it is culture, not inanimate objects that are the issue.

            Domestic disputes are involved in a small percentage of firearms related homicides, whereas drug dealing &/or gangs are involved in more than 70%.
            Go after the gangs, not law abiding gun owners. Do you want to know why the government wont do this & go after headline grabbing attempts to regulate lawful firearms possession?
            It’s because they aren’t up to the job, as proven by the utter failure known as the War on Drugs.

          • January 28, 2014 at 10:25 PM

            so, you claim that a gun is necessary for suicide? You might want to look at Japan and suicide rates.

        • January 28, 2014 at 12:39 AM

          Mike, what you say is true about gang control, but to castrate the gangs, intoxicants should be decriminalized at least, legalized at best, and the “syndicate syndrome” would practically disappear.

          One would think our country might have learned its lesson from Prohibition.

          I submit that those in power aren’t stupid, and that drugs are deliberately kept illegal to justify the police power assembled to “combat” them. I further submit that the TSA and NSA derive their power from a milking of the “terrorist threat”. Not that it doesn’t exist, mind you, but no threat extant justifies the broad denial of the people’s liberty in order to “combat” it.

          In our system, as enunciated in the Declaration of Indepedence (no national slight intended), the primary purpose of government is to secure LIBERTY. Security must submit to this principle, because without liberty, there is nothing to secure.

          • January 28, 2014 at 2:01 AM

            You’re right about drugs: decriminalise them, then regulate their supply through pharmacies & tax them. That way, those inclined to use drugs would get a clean product & lessen the health burden & the tax could in part be used for rehab for those who see the error of their ways.
            Decriminalise drugs, take over their distribution & my guess is violent & property crime would fall by at least half.
            I too see the excuse of terrorism being (ab)used in order to further social control & surveillance. One has only to take note of Snowden’s revelations to see how far over the line the latter has gone.

      • January 28, 2014 at 12:00 AM

        Just another ” I like guns, but…

      • January 28, 2014 at 2:47 AM

        RE: “we leave the gun debate off the table “

        Guns are hardly off the table. In 1934, 1968, 1986, 1993 and 1994 similar arguments were made for “more regulation” when more restrictive gun laws were passed. Since all of the regulations promulgated from these laws are apparently not enough, maybe you can understand the reluctance of gun owners to entertain the idea of accepting this latest barrage. The problem is the real agenda of progressives is to ban all guns except for the government and governments (unlike individuals) have the track record for killing people that don’t agree with them. The reality is banning semi-automatic rifles (like the AR) or standard capacity magazines has nothing to do with keeping the people safe – its about using a horrific crime like Sandy Hook to whip lawmakers into an emotional frenzy to goad them into quickly advancing the agenda of gun control irrespective of any facts in more incremental “progressive” steps in order to set a new baseline and move the goal posts to the point where an unscrupulous government could do what ever they please.

      • January 28, 2014 at 2:51 AM

        RE: “But gun deaths are outside of any bounds of acceptability”

        The facts are in 2010 there were about 8775 people murdered by firearms in the US which works out to about 24 people per day (See These are the “word doctored” figures the news media and anti-gun folks like to publicize because people relate to the magnitude of those numbers and it sounds like a lot of people until you realize this is out of a population of 310 million Americans. In that context, it works out to about 1 person out of every 35,000 people being murdered by a firearm. Dwell on the magnitude of your individual significance next time you are in a stadium with 35,000 people. To me, 1 in 35,000 is an acceptable cost to help ensure the security of a free state and the right to own a firearm that has harmed no one. If 1 in 35,000 is too high, how about 1 in 860,000. That’s about the number of people that can be accommodated by 10 Dallas Cowboy stadiums. Would that be acceptable? That is the equivalent number of people (358 out of 310 million Americans) that were murdered with a rifle in 2010 (The AR15 is considered a type of rifle for you non-gun folks). To me, 1 in 860,000 is an acceptable cost to help ensure the security of a free state and the right to own a semi-automatic AR15 rifle with a standard 30 round magazine that has harmed no one. If that is not an acceptable cost, than what is? Given the fact that murderers are an intrinsic part of the human race, what number would ever satisfy you? If all the guns were banned, do you really think that would stop a person who is determined to kill a lot of people? Human beings adapt to situations and constraints – it’s called tactics. The Sandy Hook killer probably chose the rifle (AR15) because it was available and met his needs. Ban all the guns and a determined individual could have used something else and there are a lot of other options thanks to the Internet. If you think this was a horrific crime, imagine the carnage and suffering if he had used a homemade flamethrower and accomplished the task in half the time. What would you do then? Ban gasoline?

  • January 27, 2014 at 7:56 PM

    BZZZZT!!! Sorry, Douglas. You lose. Please read the following, CAREFULLY:

    “The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” – U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) 92 U.S. 542

    Translation: You can’t get there from here.

    Have you thought of some other endeavor, one that will bear fruit, instead of beating this dead horse?

    • January 27, 2014 at 10:52 PM


      It would be nice to “use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes”. It would be nice if there wasn’t domestic violence.

      Do you remember the murder victims (a couple) who were staunch gun advocates killed in Texas a few years ago? He believed in the right to defend himself, and from all accounts he was a stellar person. The attacker came in and killed them. I don’t remember details. Wasn’t the killer a woman?

      So because he advocated for defending himself, shouldn’t he have just asked the killer to pause for a moment so he could grab his gun?

      That’s how silly the argument for self-defense is! Unless you are always armed all the time, self defense is fruitless.


      • January 28, 2014 at 12:01 AM

        Doug, It would indeed be nice. But in our country, you can’t burden the vast majority of the population that aren’t abusers, home invaders, armed robbers, mass shooters, etc. for the heinous acts of those who are.

        And, I am always armed, all the time.

        Which is precisely the point.

      • January 28, 2014 at 12:49 AM

        Yeah we know, your momma raped and strangled with her own panty hose rather than the bad guy getting shot or scared off is more morally acceptable to a blood thirsty heathen leftist we know.

      • January 28, 2014 at 10:39 PM

        “Unless you are always armed all the time” – bing bing bing –
        Correct answer.

      • January 29, 2014 at 1:40 AM

        I had a good friend, who I even helped change out the batteries in his smoke detectors, burn to death in a house fire about 8 years ago.

        Using your supposition about guns, we could all save a lot of money by doing away with smoke detectors, couldn’t we?

  • January 27, 2014 at 7:42 PM

    Evil people will do evil things, crazy people will do crazy things, stupid people will do stupid things. Any solution to this problem cannot — CANNOT — involve making it impossible for good people to do good things.

    When you tell all the people, good, evil, crazy, and stupid; to leave their guns home, only the good people comply, leaving the crazy, stupid, evil people as the only ones armed.

    As solutions go, that’s one crazy, stupid, and evil solution.

    • January 27, 2014 at 10:14 PM

      Good points Frank.

      Let’s agree that most domestic gun violence is just plain stupid. The question is how to make sure stupid people don’t do stupid things. Guns make it profoundly easy to kill people. Knives are effective too, but they’re more difficult! I have slaughtered a goat with a knife, and I had to put myself into it as the goat made one last wail before dying. Pulling a trigger is a lot easier!

      That;s the problem with too many guns.


      • January 27, 2014 at 10:25 PM

        I’m going to start calling you Canute after the Danish king who discovered how difficult it is to stop the tide coming in.

        “Too many guns” is a fact of life and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it. On the off-chance you actually manage it, your next complaint will be “too many knives/baseball bats/hammers/whatevers”, nor is it realistically possible to stop stupid people doing stupid things.

        The only solution is to be prepared (or to allow others to be prepared in your stead). The shooting in this case happened in a gun-free mall in a largely-gun-free state. They volunteered for this.

        • January 27, 2014 at 11:11 PM

          As the marathon bombers showed,, a device can be manufactured in the kitchen. (My office in 2011 was a block from that bombing at the corner of Dartmouth and Boylston Street.) Pretty weird.

          Considering by best estimates, guns ward off crimes about 1% of the time, how do you account for the the balance? How does pistol ownership prevent suicide, which accounts for 2/3 of the deaths?

          • January 28, 2014 at 12:09 AM

            Those are not “best estimates”, Doug, they are calculated propaganda.

            I see local news stories daily (many, in fact) of people thwarting violent attacks with personal firearms. Many, many more than gun-related incidents the national media consider fodder for hyperventilation.

          • January 28, 2014 at 1:05 AM

            It’s silly to complain of a “left wing conspiracy” or propaganda. Why and how?

          • January 28, 2014 at 2:29 AM

            Simple, supra.


          • January 28, 2014 at 7:27 AM

            Estimates range as high as 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGU) per year, but I’ll settle for the DOJ estimate of 108,000 per year. Given the 30,000-or-so gun deaths, I think this is something other than 1%, don’t you?

          • January 28, 2014 at 10:36 PM

            A gun being present does nothing to affect suicide attempts. Some people claim that the suicide person depends on being unsuccessful and that using a gun makes that un-likely. Not sure that we need to address suicides by the tools available but by what does it take to make the person not want to commit suicide.

        • January 28, 2014 at 10:33 PM

          Maybe the two victims families should sue the mall for not allowing people to protect themselves and not providing enough protection. Maybe 100 million per victim would be about the right amount for a mall being a “No Gun Zone”.

      • January 28, 2014 at 12:03 AM

        “The question is how to make sure stupid people don’t do stupid things.”

        You can’t do that without imposing a police state. And arguably, not even then.

        Which, of course, is out of the question.

        A monster can beat his wife to death just as surely as he could shoot her. And a suicidal person can hang himself just as surely as he can blow his own brains out. I know. One of my dearest friends did just that.

        Imposing egregious burdens on peaceable people is just plain wrong, and in our republic, is unconstitutional.

        • January 28, 2014 at 2:32 AM

          Yes. That is the question.

          • January 28, 2014 at 3:47 AM

            And I’ve given you the answer.

      • January 28, 2014 at 10:31 PM

        Bombs, poison, and viral agents are in line as replacements.

  • January 27, 2014 at 7:41 PM

    Douglas Christian…you are anti American……you want a dictatorship, go live in Russia or Iran….Better yet, North Korea, where the son is killing his uncles family… really are An A$$ Dougielas……

    • January 27, 2014 at 9:57 PM


      Resorting to ad hominems, I assume you ran out of logic to make your point. You didn’t address the problem that gun violence is killing our children in the United States, and gun violence in Western European countries, specifically the UK, is much lower. If you equate the UK with North Korea, I am speechless..It is true the UK does have a family dynasty – but the Constitutional Monarchy of the Royal Family is a bit different from the North Korean Dictatorship started by Kim Il-sung.


      • January 28, 2014 at 2:16 AM

        We are the freest people on earth and will remain so with our individual freedoms. A wise man once said that a fool who surrenders his freedom for a false sense of security will soon have either. Take the UK foir example, a criminal can enter your house, rape your wife and kill you daughter, if you interfere harming the criminal you will be going to jail. Here in the USA, free states that is, the criminal can be terminated with a firearm and it is all over.

        • January 28, 2014 at 2:34 AM

          See, that is the problem with leftists. They subscribe to the same inverted worldview that does Europe, indeed, the whole rest of the world in varying degrees.

          Their problem is that our country is deliberately founded on principles that espouse exactly the opposite, i.e. that all power resides in the people not in government, and that government exists at our behest, not the reverse.

          To leftists, government is the answer to everything. To real Americans, government is a fearsome power to be contained and controlled.

          “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” – George Washington

      • January 28, 2014 at 3:57 AM

        “Gun violence is Killing our Children”

        Please tell me how many children are killed by gun violence every year doug? And no, I don’t consider 19 year olds or criminals to be “children”

        …Then please tell me how that compares to children deaths per year by drowning and accidental poisoning.

        I’ll give you time to research it, because we know you don’t make wild assertions without proof. That would be unethical

      • February 11, 2014 at 10:55 PM

        I do not reply to an IDIOT or IDIOTS

      • February 19, 2014 at 7:59 AM

        I have a degree in Criminal Law, served in both Federal and Local law enforcement, your so way off the the mark its asinine, people like you manipulate current events so you could exaggerate them in your favor, do you hear your self when you write half-truths, do you…..your an A$$….

      • February 19, 2014 at 8:03 AM

        I really can’t stomach foreign nationals who come to my country and try to reshape it to socialist idea’s, I am Native American, more American than you Hoss, Numb Nuts….!

      • February 19, 2014 at 8:06 AM

        You are an highly educated rug and photo op. salesman with no education in Constitutional Law like me, c’on man

  • January 27, 2014 at 7:38 PM

    The last 10-12 shooters where on some type of anti-depressant. These anti-depressants have horrible side affects that could easily lead to suicide and/or these types of events. The guns are here, a total ban on guns would make the criminals the ruling class (they don’t adhere to any law).
    Remember prohibition? banning of alcohol? What did we get, as a nation, from that? some of the most famous and murdering criminals in our history. History already has the lesson about this path, is anyone else seeing this?

    • January 27, 2014 at 10:01 PM

      Very good point! Did you read my articles on drugs? It is true that when a state criminalizes anything, it creates a black market for that.

      On your point,, there is no doubt that criminals will always have and get what they want. (That’s why they’re criminals.) But sadly, most gun deaths happen from domestic affairs or accidents.

      • January 27, 2014 at 10:28 PM

        I’ll have to find that article.

        ex-lovers turning to scorched earth policy on each other is as old as time.

        • January 27, 2014 at 11:06 PM

          True. That’s why family court judges yawn when they hear how one’s spouse or another’s is horrible. Really? Is that news?

          • January 28, 2014 at 12:12 AM

            Again, Doug, it is impermissible to broadly attenuate a right of the people for individuals’ criminal exercise of liberty.

          • January 28, 2014 at 1:10 AM

            But we already did that with drugs! I don’t agree with drug laws as they are now, but the point is we have done that.

            Liberty is one thing. Needless mass murder is another. The Founding Fathers debated the nature of freedom and liberty ad nauseam. (For some reason, they didn’t debate whether a person can yell fire in a crowded movie theater.) B,ut they did debate freedom on so many levels, and public safety is a concern.

          • January 28, 2014 at 1:20 AM

            Drugs are not included in the Bill of Rights last time I checked. Please tell me how that war on Drugs worked out?

            Guess what Doug, it’s already illegal to shoot another person (among numerous other “gun” laws) so your “yell fire in a crowed theater doesn’t hold water.

            Let me know when people are made to wear muzzles before entering the theater and it would make more sense. Preemptive laws punish those who haven’t committed a crime. But you know all of this, you’re just trying to push buttons.

          • January 28, 2014 at 2:12 AM

            Agreed Ash. Yes I am trying to push buttons. The War on Drugs was an utter failure. Did you read my pieces on it?

            Guess what? I own a gun and have owned many guns. Weirdly enough, one politically ambitious parent reported to the elementary school that I had guns in my house. Yes, they were flintlocks from the 19th Century that were seized from the British by Afghanistan fighters during the failed British invasion. These flint locks, beautifullly carved with intricate inlay, hadn’t fired a ball in 150 years, but I had to answer to the school why I would own such dangerous items!

            Crazy, but that really did happen! Sadly, I can ‘t find them now. I think my ex-wife chucked them after that experience.

            So I know the difference between crazy anti-gun people and crazy pro-gun people. Both are crazy.

          • January 28, 2014 at 2:24 AM

            I sure it was a “piece”, I will not be reading it.

            What is your point about ancient flintlocks, that you’re the type of man who is controlled by the whims of other parents and ex-wives?

            I understand you are trying to paint the tape a little with your analogy but you just come across as another weak-willed liberal.

          • January 28, 2014 at 2:39 AM

            Drug laws are a deliberate mechanism to justify the expansion of government power.

            Government has no business interfering with anybody’s choice of intoxicants. It only has legitimate power to regulate public behavior, such as “public intoxication” laws.

          • January 28, 2014 at 12:21 AM

            In the end so many people are worried about the 2nd amendment modifications to fix our sick and heart less ones. In the end the 2nd amendment will stay as it is. If you want a socialist (or other) political system, the world offers many choices. For the pro-gun crowd, their only option is here.

Comments are closed.