The Gun Blogs

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has declared the Second Amendment protects the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, striking down the (failed) District of Columbia handgun ban. This article discusses what exactly the court held, and what that means for American gun owners:

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/06/26/district-of-columbia-v-heller-supreme-court-declares-gun-ownership-an-individual-right/

Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin issued a statement that argued cities should be able to ban guns, and that denying cities that ability would result in increased crime. This statement, aside from being inaccurate, fails to take into account that gun ownership is a right, and the rights of law abiding citizens cannot be denied just because it is politically expedient to do so. Allow me to explain further:

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/06/23/gun-ownership-is-a-right-not-a-privilege/

It's funny when parody can become official Government fact. It's sad when the Brady Campaign parrots that information as if it were holy writ and actually uses it to further their own agenda. Talk about getting suckered on both sides by a gag!

Read more about their ineptitude here.

Greetings from the Great White North.

I am the coordinator of a Canadian network of firearms users. It is an information network that stretches coast to coast and north to the Yukon. We distribute and exchange research relative to our interests.

The research is focused both national and international. The purpose is to use knowledge to combat the attack on firearms ownership by our main federal parties and their handmaidens, the various anti-firearms groups.

We actively seek to educate and promote our firearms heritage at the same time. We also confront directly those that spread propaganda and expose them for what they are. Slowly we are gaining acceptance with the urban population that is our main opposition.

Politicians here have promised a safer society through the use of gun bans. That has been a failure here as in other countries. Our universal gun registry is a practical failure with an attached cost of nearly two billion dollars for under 7,000,000 firearms of all descriptions. Don't go there!

Your political battles are different from ours but the truth always wins out. We watch your gun politics with interest.

Good luck!!!!!!!!!

Here's a shocker.

Go figure...the AP report on Baltimore's homicide problem is laden with antigun bias and unrebutted quotes from paid antigun shills.

Bryan Miller exclaims: You can't make this stuff up!.

Bryan, we don't have to make stuff up, but you do.

You'll see that pro-gunners place much of the blame for Westroads Mall and other mass shootings, including the Virginia Tech gun massacre, on so-called 'gun free zones.'

"So called"? That's what the signs say. Signs that are allowed by law. We didn't make that up.

It's extremely difficult to gain a license to carry concealed in the Garden State, so we don't have testosterone-challenged bozos legally packing heat at the mall. Whew!

I know a lot of women who would take exception to your statement. Then again, compared to you, they may be carrying higher levels of testosterone. Whew!

For pro-gunners it's about arming everyone to the teeth.

Liar. You made that up.

I, sadly, have a little more experience with overwhelming firepower than do the pro-gunners seeking to rationalize their petty personal fears and desires by pretending that they're seeking to defend the rest of us. My only brother, FBI Special Agent Mike Miller, was one of three law enforcement officers killed (a fourth was grievously wounded) by a lone gunman wielding a concealed assault pistol at Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Headquarters in November 1994.

Quite possibly the only true thing you've ever written about guns. I'm sorry for your loss. I'm sorry any time we lose good people to bad ones.

But

What's a concealed assault pistol? No such thing, liar. You made that up, too.

So, rather than blaming those who would hope to reduce gun violence by seeking to limit the presence of lethal weapons in public, we should applaud and encourage them. We should also enact a meaningful federal Assault Weapons Ban (unlike the AWB that expired in '04, which gun manufacturers figured out how to get around in no time), similar to New Jersey's state ban, that would actually ban the sale and possession of these outrageous weapons. The secret to societal safety is not more firepower in civilian hands. Quite the opposite.

I'll consider supporting a ban if you can tell me, without equivication, what an "assault weapon" is. You'll also have to provide proof as to the effectiveness of such a ban.

Of course, you'll have to do this without making anything up.

(BTW: I urge readers to check out some of the 'you can't make this up' nuttiness that will undoubtedly appear in the Comments section below and has followed each of my earlier entries. Craaaazy!)

You sure do use the word "crazy" a lot. You have facts presented to you, but you refuse to accept them. You belittle anyone who disagrees with you. Is that not crazy? Pro-gun people come to your site, hoping to shed some light on your stupidity. They stay above the fray, calmly pointing out your many inaccuracies, but it's wasted time.

Me? I'm done with that. You call names, get all over-the-top and I'll do the same, liar. I'm not afraid to sink to your level rhetorically. The one thing I won't do is lie, because I don't have to.

You go ahead and get all Carolyn McCarthy on us, I don't care. You honor no one with your antics. Or your lies.

"Never fight an inanimate object."

-P.J. O'Rourke

This was atop my gmailbox as I look through various snooze alerts. Seemed appropriate.

Brady Campaign says we should give Acting ATF Director a chance!

Between this, and Ted Kennedy's endorsement, is there any doubt Michael Sullivan is going to be BAD,BAD,BAD for gun owners?

More information here.

The GOA has a form letter to mail/e-mail to your Senators here. Just click on the Issues and Legislation tab on top, then find Current Action Alerts, then click on Senate Close To Confirming A Ted Kennedy-style Liberal To BATFE, and take it from there.

Ran across a couple news items concerning another bunch of gun grabbers, the Mayors Against Guns (no link for them, screw 'em)

Number one is a story about the counter suits going on in response to Mayor Bloomberg's law-breaking. Funny thing is, if this actually went down like it's reported here, no laws were broken, no straw purchase took place. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The Bloomberg administration's sting operations involved two undercovers going to a dealer; one would ask all the questions, while the other "completely uninvolved in the sale process" would fill out the information for the gun purchase.

Now, helping someone buy something they are not familiar with (like I've done with a non-computer savvy friend in the past) isn't the same thing as buying a gun for another person. According to what I'm reading, the person who actually purchased the gun filled out the paperwork. No laws broken there as far as I can see.

How the hell does he get away with it? It boggles the mind.

This second one ticks me off. It's about a survey the group sent to all the presidential candidates. The reported then selects a couple sample questions. they are, of course, the ones no one could say no to:

Survey questions include "Do you support increasing the maximum penalty for illegal firearms possession from 10 years to 15 years?" and "Do you believe that gun dealers whose licenses have been revoked for selling guns illegally should be allowed to continue selling guns in their inventory without doing background checks?"

Anyone who answers "no" to either of these questions will look like a nutcase to the average American. Of course, I'm willing to bet there are other questions on that survey that are much less "common sense", and when Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter and others "flunk" the survey, the spin will start.

Oh, now this is nice.

I just clicked over to get info on Tennessee's

not one

not two

but now three anti-gun mayors.

But, before I could get to the Mayors Against Guns site, I was greeted with this message:

The horrifying rampage at the Westroads Mall in Omaha is an appalling crime that has saddened the whole nation. The families and friends of all those affected are in our hearts and in our prayers.

- Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg & Mayor Thomas M. Menino
Co-Chairs of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition

How's that for dancing in the blood of the dead?

Oh, and Oak Ridge, call your Mayor and let him know he's on the wrong side of the issue, will ya please?

Jeff has more on the Bloomie survey.

Common Dreams.org trots out this factually-challenged piece of VPC garbage: SKS Assault Rifles–A Menace to Public Safety, wherein we are told:

these high capacity rifles pose an enhanced threat to law enforcement, in part because of their ability to expel projectiles at velocities that are capable of penetrating the type of soft body armor typically worn by the law enforcement officers.”

1. High capacity? An SKS can't hold more than 10 rounds. 10 rounds, according to the now-defunct "Assault Weapons" Ban, was not considered high capacity.

2. All rifles can penetrate body armor. Always could.

They say that quote is from an ATF report (it very well could be), but no link is provided.

Meanwhile, Essentially Contested (Congested?) America reminds us that Guns Don't Kill, But Assault Rifles Do. They start out by quoting Paul Helmke:

"Having an SKS rifle and high-capacity ammunition clips enabled a troubled young man to kill and injure a large number of people quickly and efficiently.

See #1, above, then add the fact that the SKS doesn't accept "clips". I'm assuming the quote is referring to magazines, of course. The capacity of a true clip is irrelevant, it's the capacity of the rifle that matters. Again, I refer you to #1 above.

The notion that "guns don't kill, people do" while literally correct is contextually absurd ... People need to be involved. But just imagine the degree of lethality of a knife, a revolver, pistol, or even an ordinary hunter's rifle contrasted with an assault rifle. They just don't match.

The idiocy of this statement pegged my bullshit meter so hard the needle bent. Of course they don't match. An "ordinary hunter's rifle" is much more powerful than an SKS. Speaking from ignorance is what they do best, though.

When will we learn?

That's a question I ask myself every time I see garbage like this. When will you learn?

I can't leave these two paragraphs alone just yet, I just wanted to make the point below first, then address the issues. Once again, I'm talking about Supremes take on 2nd Amendment - Yawn, and the usual stupid arguments.

Oh, and about relevance...fact is, the 2nd Amendment was drafted when slow loading, firing (maybe one shot a minute) and inaccurate muskets (5' tall, ramrod for loading, bullet separate from charge) were the sole firearms available to private citizens, as opposed to today's semiautomatic handguns and assault rifles, with their rapid fire and high-capacity ammunition magazines (32 bullets fired in less than 15 seconds, for instance), as well as massively destructive .50 Caliber Sniper Rifles. Does any but a pro-gun extremist believe that the Founders would countenance unfettered access by private citizens to such destructive firepower?

What you fail to realize, Bryan, is that those muskets you refer to were cutting-edge technology at the time. Do you really want to go down this road? I'd be happy to, myself.

That brings me back to 1939, when the Supremes ruled on the 2nd Amendment. They made it patently clear that it was inextricably concerned with that "Well regulated Militia..." of yore - in today's world, the National Guard. In the Supremes' words: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use (of a firearm)...has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." So, if it ain't for the National Guard, you have no right to it. A privilege, maybe, depending upon the local, state and federal laws and regulations in place. But a right, no. Sorry, guys.

Repeat after me: "The National Guard is not the militia." Never has been, never will be. The closest thing to an organized militia these days could be the state guard, but even that's up for debate.

The militia was originally defined as every able-bodied man between 14 and 45. But, seeing as 50 is the new 30, I guess we could bump that age up to 65 or so. Whatever retirement age is, I think, would be a good cutoff. Remember, a militia is a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. National Guard are professional soldiers, every last one. I dare ya to tell one otherwise.

At any rate, you are wrong again. You state your (erroneous) opinion as fact, and expect us to just nod our heads and agree. For that, I call bullshit on your latest article.

In Bryan's latest offering; Supremes take on 2nd Amendment - Yawn, he pretends to not care about Heller while trotting out all the usual stupid arguments.

I'm not going to go through the whole thing (he's a long-winded chap), but these two paragraphs are interesting. Both have been used by anti-gun people before. Here's the first:

Oh, and about relevance...fact is, the 2nd Amendment was drafted when slow loading, firing (maybe one shot a minute) and inaccurate muskets (5' tall, ramrod for loading, bullet separate from charge) were the sole firearms available to private citizens, as opposed to today's semiautomatic handguns and assault rifles, with their rapid fire and high-capacity ammunition magazines (32 bullets fired in less than 15 seconds, for instance), as well as massively destructive .50 Caliber Sniper Rifles. Does any but a pro-gun extremist believe that the Founders would countenance unfettered access by private citizens to such destructive firepower?

So, the original intent of the 2A is irrelevant because of modernization? If that's the case, then why is this the next paragraph?

That brings me back to 1939, when the Supremes ruled on the 2nd Amendment. They made it patently clear that it was inextricably concerned with that "Well regulated Militia..." of yore - in today's world, the National Guard. In the Supremes' words: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use (of a firearm)...has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." So, if it ain't for the National Guard, you have no right to it. A privilege, maybe, depending upon the local, state and federal laws and regulations in place. But a right, no. Sorry, guys.

But, Bryan, that was in in 1939. If the Supreme Court had known then how dangerous our nations capitol would be in 2007, would they have made such a decision?

You can't have it both ways. It's either the 21st Century, or it's not.

Advocating a new tool against crime

While I wouldn't cite this as a case of biased reporting - the reporter uses quotes from the advocates and really doesn't show any bias.

However, it IS about microstamping, so I have to highlight and shoot down some of the things in this story. (Pun? What pun?)

[Providence Mayor]Cicilline likened the advantage of microstamping to the police having a suspect’s home address rather than just his partial fingerprints.

Oh, sure thing Mr. Mayor. Although most criminals don't go very high into the triple digit IQ range, do you really think they're going to legally purchase a firearm then use it in a crime? Criminals may not be smart, but they're clever. More on this later.

This one is alarming:

Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy is preparing legislation for introduction in the Senate that would mandate microstamping and Cicilline announced that he will reintroduce microstamping legislation that failed in the last session of the Rhode Island General Assembly.

As is this:

The enactment by California, a huge state, heartened microstamping advocates because of its potential ripple effect.

We may be winning, but the war's far from over. The ripple effect is something the anti's are counting on. They said so themselves when talking about the DC ban. (I wish I could find that)

Read this, it's something you see on CSI at least once a week:

FOR NEARLY a hundred years, firearms examiners have been matching bullets and shell casings to the guns from which they were fired.

Now, read this:

Those inscriptions would enable law enforcers, using an existing federal government firearms database, to quickly trace shell casings to the maker of the gun that fired the casing and to the person or entity to whom the gun was sold.

Notice what's missing? Bullets. Microstamping still won't facilitate crime fighting. It'll just allow an averagely clever criminal to throw out a few red herrings at a crime scene and totally destroy the prosecution's case.

Microstamping eliminates the “tea leaf reading” now demanded of firearms examiners who try to match microscopic scratches among casings, Horwitz declared.

Of course, matching the bullet to the casing will still require persual of the aforementioned tea leafs.

The legislation that Cicilline had introduced in the General Assembly would make handgun manufacturers and dealers civilly liable for selling handguns that lack the microstamping feature and would make it a criminal offense to alter a handgun in an attempt to foil the microstamping.

To quote Bugs Bunny: What a Ultra-Maroon. I'm sure making it a criminal offense will keep it from happening, it's worked so well in other cases. Like handgun bans and stuff.

Finally, there's this:

Advocates say that a microstamping law would not restrict gun ownership or access, would not require the creation of another database, and would impose a minimal cost on manufacturers.

Pardon me? You already have a database of microstamped handguns? Wow, you all are good!

(all emphasis mine, of course)

And all up in Pennsylvania's business

Guess he got bored, seeing as New Jersey's gun control laws has made that state all crime free and stuff.

While the Garden State has enjoyed nearly two decades of advocacy devoted to reducing gun violence, led by Ceasefire NJ (CFNJ), such advocacy is new to Pennsylvania. Happily, though, such crucial advocacy has grown with the rising tide of gun crime and violence. Tuesday's crack in the wall would not have occurred without it.

Bryan Miller, happily descending on PA to provide them guidance. What is he writing about? Kinda odd, he seems to be applauding Pennsylvania killing the latest round of gun control proposed by their Governor. Guess you gotta take your victories where you imagine them.

(Link via Snowflakes)

And you should too!

Uncle tells us the Bradies get their "membership" numbers from how many e-mail alerts they send out.

As you know, I get those alerts, usually posting up the interesting bits, but no more. I'm cancelling. I know there are quite a few "know thy enemy" pro-gunners out there who get them as well, but other than entertainment value, is there anything in them we haven't heard a million times before?

I'm no longer allowing myself to be counted among them. I'd rather be running with a bunch of Granola Chomping Tree People.

Two people writing about guns, neither being what I would call a "gun person".

First is Mayer Spivack, who writes Guns Have Three Ends. Nice attention getter, eh? Here's some of what he has to say:

We all know that guns have two ends, the pointy end, the one with the hole in it and the blunt end where the shooter is. There is really a third end on every gun, and that is what I want to point out. But to do that I will have to discuss a bit of psychology.

What follows is psychology (I guess), but it sounds to me like the same old anti-gun rhetoric dressed up with psychobabble. Stuff like this:

The pointy end deals death and pain. The blunt end is an anesthetic for the old chronic psychological pain within the shooter.

Or maybe a small wiener?

Healthy first-time gun handlers feel fear, even at the sight of a real gun.

Here's some psychobabble for ya - "projection".

Within a few minutes, even healthy people experience thoughts, memories of movies and TV, associations, and perhaps are aware of some hints of their own anger. Once the hand is accustomed to holding the gun, after perhaps five minutes (that’s all it takes), then the third ‘point’ takes effect.

In other words, the gun possess their very soul. Sheesh

The gun-holder knows that if he or she is careful where the gun is pointed, then he or she is absolutely safe and one hundred eighty degrees out of harm’s way on the painless blunt end of the gun.

It figures. The only salient point in the whole piece, and it's wrapped up in anti-gun BS.

Now, here's someone else, Nancy Reyes writes on Gun control and the right of self defense. Funny how one would think this to be the anti-gun hit piece. It's not. It's a well reasoned piece with a bit of "anti-gun conversion" thrown in for good measure.

I was always in favor of gun control, at least until I was a missionary in Africa, when we noticed the criminal gangs/freedom fighters (the groups, as is usual in the third world, overlapped) started attacking missionaries, in cars, in missions, and in hospitals.

They tended to hit places with nuns, because the veils were easier to identify, and unlike the businessmen’s wives, nuns didn’t have security guards or pack an Uzi

Talk about your reality-based viewpoint. She covers a few more topics in that piece, go check it out.

Well guess who is acting like they know how to write again? Yes, Jayne Lyn Stahl is at it again and just like last time, we are "graced" by her stunning lack of facts and reason. I tried. I really did try to understand her point or at least find some vestige of logic in her statements but alas, there was none to be found. I will leave you with a exerpt of this poorly researched drivel and let you see for your selfs what a......I think you know where I was going.
I'm off to find a aspirin. she made my head hurt.

Indeed, the gun lobby has never been in better shape in Washington than it has been under the tutelage of President George W. Bush, so not a peep has been heard from those whose custom it is to speak out against guns, and the rash of violence in our nation's public schools; schools like Columbine, Virginia Tech, in our nation's inner cities, cities like Compton, East Los Angeles, in our nation's workplaces. We've not heard a peep from the usual suspects who would be active in speaking up for more stringent laws to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of our youngsters.

Increasingly, in a world in which the American flag has become synonymous with another four letter word "duck," and yet another "bomb," this is not time to mince words. These folks who equate what they think of as their constitutional empowerment have, for the past several years, had a free ride, but now that a changing of the guard is in sight, they cling to their illusions of entitlement like a leper clings to what little skin he has left. And, to parody the Dylan Thomas poem, it's as if every gun-toting Tom, Dick, and Harry decided not to go "gentle into that night," but to "rage, rage, against the dying of the might."

Here's a challenge for anyone wanting to restrict my gun rights:

- Establish a G-Mail account.

- Set up an e-mail alert. Make the search terms "home invasion". Have the results come once a day.

- Wait a week, then tell me why I shouldn't have a gun - accessible - in my house.

... and then want more money.

Here's the latest Brady Bunch e-mail (emphasis mine) :

VICTORY! Landmark Gun Legislation Signed Into Law!
Gov. Schwarzenegger Signs Innovative Bill to Reduce Gun Violence

Dear Rus,

We've had a major victory in California! Your Brady Campaign, its California Chapters, and many allies — including law enforcement — worked hard to pass the Crime Gun Identification Act of 2007. And your support helped make it happen.

This ground-breaking law will allow police to match bullet shells found at a crime scene to the handgun that fired the bullets. Law enforcement will now have new crime-solving tools to more quickly apprehend armed criminals and gang members.

[snip]

This tremendous victory in California comes on the heels of passing other life-saving legislation this year in Maine, Illinois, Virginia, and Connecticut that will prevent gun violence. Thank you for your continued support and activism to help us pass sensible gun laws.

We need your continued support to pass similar legislation in other states. Please click here to give a gift of $35 to support our efforts to pass strong state guns laws across the country.

And help us spread the word: click here to forward this email to friends, family, and colleagues.

Thank you for helping to reduce gun violence in America!

Sincerely,

Sarah Brady, Chair

So, Sarah, just how is this law going to allow law enforcement to "more quickly apprehend armed criminals and gang members"? Let me enlighten you on a couple points, and pose a couple questions:

- criminals and gang members don't get their guns legally. They steal them. How will a microstamped shell casing lead LE to the criminal where there's no record of the criminal purchasing the firearm?

- criminals and gang members regularly file the serial numbers off their weapons. What will prevent them from doing the same to the microstamping device on the firearm?

I doubt the Bradies can supply any logical answers to these. Love to hear them, if they exist.

Oh, and the usual suggested donation was $25, now it's $35. What's up with that?

Here's one from King's College, a call for more "common sense" gun control from enlightened academia.

Johnny, Get Your Gun
Drew McLaughlin - Staff Writer for The Crown Online.

Of all the 2 nd amendment advocates seeking the White House, Rudy Giuliani by far is the most peculiar. After all, Mr. Giuliani had long been a supporter of laws which restricted the sale of assault weapons and handguns, such as the Brady Bill, as the mayor of New York City

That's why he won't be getting my vote, or the vote of most anyone who values the constitution in its present form.

Governor Huckabee champions himself as a “zealous defender of 2 nd amendment rights, and the rights of citizens to defend themselves.” When the federal ban on assault weapons expired in 2004, Mr. Huckabee said, “May it rest in peace.”

Probably because the law did nothing to control the illegal possession of guns, had no measureable impact on crime, and simply made certain guns illegal because of how they looked.

This is the same man that when asked on Hardball how he would deal with the escalating violence in major cities, such as Philadelphia (which currently has the highest murder rate in the country), he responded that the solution was not more gun restriction, but less.

We see how well gun restriction works in Philly, don't we? Not to mention, DC, LA, England, Australia, etc.

Mr. Huckabee contends that an armed citizenry would decrease violent crimes because criminals are less inclined to victimize if they fear violent reprisals.

Well, most of the 39 states that allow people to carry guns haven't yet erupted into wild west shootouts. The streets haven't yet run red with blood.

It's the mutually assured destruction scenario on a much smaller scale; however, there is a reason that its acronym is M.A.D.

Ummm, because acronyms usually match the words they represent?

Mr. Huckabee would like a return to the days when every American walked around with a handgun strapped to one's hip, and as we all know that did wonders for law and order in the Old West.

I knew there'd be an "old west" reference in there! Can't lay the strawman at my feet now, can ya?

While the right to bear arms is a personal freedom granted by the Founding Fathers, I would argue that the Founding Fathers also had the foresight to install within the Constitution a mechanism to amend the document in order to ensure that the document remained current on the off chance that the needs and rights of 1787 are not the same as 2007.

Needs and rights - these are not the same thing. The Constitution doesn't provide for our needs, no matter how much some folks would like it to. I know where we're going now, but I'll wait.

I fully realize that in many parts of this country, hunting is considered a rite of passage as American as baseball, and the second amendment guarantees that the right to own a hunting rifle shall not be infringed, but can't we all get together on the assault rifle?

Ah, but the "assault weapons" ban of 1994 did not include any actual assault rifles. There's a big difference, one which I'm sure you are unaware of.

In today's world, with a professional police force in every town and city across America , is there a need for citizen militia?

Ask the folks who survived Katrina. Ask the shop owners who stood guard atop their stores during the LA riots. And find out what a militia is, fer cryin' out loud.

Now, I am not naïve enough to think that stricter gun control laws will eradicate violent crime in this country, but it certainly would decrease them.

Like it has in the cities and countries I listed above? Gun control only works on those who obey the laws, criminals do not. That's why we call them criminals.

On the flipside, check out cities like Kennesaw, GA, who had a drastic reduction in crime (as well as a significant rise in population) after mandating a gun in every house.

Would anyone argue that a mandated federal background check on all purchases of handguns could have prevented the Virginia Tech massacre?

Not many would. That's why the NRA supports the latest effort to strengthen the background check system. We may be called "gun nuts", but we're not crazy, just enthusiastic.

Would any of the proposed gun restriction measures, when conducted properly and efficiently, help prevent handguns and assault weapons from falling into the hands of criminals? I believe it is a place to start.

I assume you're talking about HR 2640. If you are, then fine. I like that law, but not as a place to start. It's a place to stop. Most other gun control ideas are sheer lunacy when looked at from a common sense point of view.

Violent crime in the United States has reached epidemic proportions. I don't know the solution, but I do believe that an armed citizenry would only exacerbate the situation, not improve it.

See again, 39 states, no wild west shootouts, yadda yadda. I really hate repeating myself.

To do nothing would be just as criminal. As the primary season winds down, and November 2008 is not far off, gun control needs to be apart of the national debate, as important as universal healthcare, the war in Iraq, and Social Security.

Shame, Drew for not invoking the "Streets run red with blood" scare phrase. That's okay, you hit a lot of the usual stuff anyway.