1. Cody says

    What it CAN start with outlawing, Joe, are these ridiculous dozens-of-bullets-in-a-minute clips that Bush shuttered the regulations on. No one needs 100 rounds of ammo per clip for hunting OR for home protection, the two legal, valid uses for guns.

  2. io.caprone says

    exceptional work.
    this is not a first second or third plan for whoever enters the white house…gun laws have been constantly been skirted and killed in the house and executive branches by the nra.
    i say outlaw the nra

  3. says

    the most galling thing about the pro-gun nuts is that they refuse to be intellectually honest.

    what discussions were there after Columbine? uh, attacks on the music industry. not on how bloody easy it is for any insane person to get guns and ammo. i mean come ON.

  4. Lio says

    There won’t be. The NRA’s bought the Republican Party and the Democratic party’s scared of them.

    As for my opinion, I completely understand the purpose of the second amendment, but it’s loudest defenders have taken it to mean the ability to convert the basement into an arms factory. Let’s get real folks – if the government wanted to take over you and your property, they’re bound to have some insane weaponry you likely wouldn’t be able to keep legally anyways.

  5. says

    the worst thing about the Second Amendment apologists/abusers is that they put more effort into screaming about “their right” to own and carry guns than to work toward creating a culture where fewer people FEEL A NEED TO ACT UPON THAT RIGHT.

    a society of armed-citizens is a society that has failed itself.

  6. says

    NPR ran an interview of Texas gun owners recently that I really found frightening. Let me also say I’m American Indian and we always had rifles because a lot of our meat supply came from deer and elk. But in Texas, the people interviewed had a conspiracy theory tied to Obama doing treaty negotiations with other countries in terms of limiting arms control, and they were convinced this was some sort of “back door” way of taking away all of their guns. They also fantasize that because of the NRA, it’s almost impossible for the government to ban guns, so they believe it will instead try to regulate ammunition. Just so, they order ammo literally by the thousands.

  7. Luke says

    Guns will never be banned in America, nor should they be. We have a second amendment that explicitly allows us to bear arms. However, high-capacity magazines should be outlawed, and there should be mental health screening for anyone who wants to buy a gun. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

  8. anon says

    The US has a very high violent crime rate in relation to it’s per capita gun ownership rate. Also, about half the victims of gun violence are suicides.

  9. nico says

    also what is the connection between the above posts by ‘LITTLEKIWI’ and ‘RICK’ which link to the same blog?

  10. AT says

    All this “guns don’t kill people” stuff is crap. Access to guns + no screening + people + bad situations = unnecessary deaths. It’s possible to intervene at any point, we don’t just have to use one reductive solution.

    The second amendment needs to be struck down.

  11. Mark says

    Kiwi before posting as Rick don’t forget to change your URL when u switch anonymous aliases. Autofill’s not your friend today! LOL

  12. Anon says

    Actually the endless arguments between you two have gotten really old and sort of ruined the comments section of this site. I wish that Andy would ban Rick/Jason/Ratbastard so that productive discussions could return instead of whiny, repetitive so-called debates.

    But Kiwi, using someone else’s name to make them look stupid (when he already does that quite well for himself) isn’t exactly mature.

  13. says

    I’m all for registration-required commenting, yo.

    and you’re right. the debates are stupid. one side speaks the truth, the other uses the internet as their burqa to scream a lie from the darkness.

  14. Bob says

    How do we know the CIA or some government agency is not brainwashing some person using Hypnosis and drugs to go out and shoot somebody so that people will demand gun control and that way take away our last defense, if a mad men should try and take over our government. Read your history books and you will see it always happens from time to time and it can happen again.

  15. says

    Bob, whatever you’re supposed to be “on” I suggest your double your dosage.

    read your history books and remember that if the kind of weapons available today were available a century ago the country would have been wiped out.

    I don’t get America. I don’t get it. Who are you idiots who care more about the ‘freedom’ to carry a gun than living in a culture where people feel no *need* to act upon that freedom?

    You wanna know freedom? It’s walking around unarmed and unafraid.

  16. Jack says

    It’s funny how some accuse the gun lobby of being dishonest, while the anti-gun lobby is AT LEAST as dishonest.

    Calling any gun that looks scary an “assault rifle” when in reality it operates no different than any standard semi-automatic weapon? Focusing on “high capacity magazines?” Tell me, how on earth would forcing the gunman to take less than 1.5 seconds (and yes, magazines can easily be switched in that time) to switch mags really have changed any outcome? You think someone hell-bent on killing others is going to think “oh man, I really want to kill all these people, but that extra arm movement really just isn’t worth it?”

    I mean, come on.

  17. says

    why should someone hell-bent on killing someone even have access to guns and ammo?

    the problem, America, is that it’s way too easy for your looniest nutbags to arm themselves.

  18. Jack says

    Because there are no such thing as background checks? There is no 100% fool-proof way to ensure that nobody intending harm gets their hand on a gun. Period.

  19. Luke says

    @AT, the second amendment definitely should not be struck down, and you’re living in a fantasy world if you think it ever will be. People kill people, not guns. If there wasn’t a gun around, a person hell bent on killing someone will just use something else to kill them with.

  20. Miles says

    the 2nd amendment is not so we can be armed against other citizens, it is so we can be equally as armed as the government so we can fight back if they try to take away our rights and liberties. So we do need those clips, guns, etc.

  21. ratbastard says

    If half the victims of ‘gun violence’ are suicides, I’m intrigued, because it actually substantially lowers the so-called ‘gun crime’ rate IMHO. As for suicides, they’d simply find another way. People committing suicide by jumping in front of subway trains, touching the 3rd rail, jumping off bridges, is common in my city. Do we ban trains, electrified 3rd rails, and bridges,too?

    Truth? Most homicides and violence committed with firearms in the U.S. follows a predictable pattern, predictable locations, and predictable cast of characters. Most murders in general BTW involve perp and victim knowing each other.

    I’d suggest a good start at seriously tackling violent crime in the U.S. and violent crime committed with firearms would be to acknowledge openly what the statistics bear out. Most U.S. communities are reasonably safe and your likelihood of being randomly murdered or victim of a violent crime is small. A few places it’s very, very dangerous. This has essentially been the case since the late 1960s-1970s, and really hasn’t changed that much except superior trauma treatment now keeps more victims alive than in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. This and locking up violent offenders for a long time was what caused NYC’s dramatic drop in homicides from average 2000 a year to under 400 a year.

    Spree killers, mass shooting and serial killers make great headlines and bring a lot of viewership and readership to news media outlets [$advertising revenue$…if it bleeds it leads] because they’re so spectacular and actually pretty rare statistically, and not at all a typical example of a murder or violent crime in America.

  22. ethanjrt says

    “The 2nd amendment is not so we can be armed against other citizens, it is so we can be equally as armed as the government so we can fight back if they try to take away our rights and liberties. So we do need those clips, guns, etc.”

    I completely agree! In fact, I’m going to elucidate further:
    Current arms restrictions are infringing on my right to bear arms, which as you know is protected by the second amendment. I think that anyone with enough money should be able to buy hand grenades, fighter jets, and indeed nuclear weapons. Because, as you noted, when the military takes over in a unified coup, the only way we will be able to mount an effective resistance is if every citizen has have first-strike capabilities equal to that of the new Military Council. I mean, look at how quickly and easily the unified Iraqi insurgency was crushed without arms parity between the people and their overlords!

  23. Jack says


    Ah yes, THAT particular disingenuous argument.

    “Militia” is a light infantry, so the Second Amendment extends to light weaponry capable of being used by a single person. Militia =/= military. When was the last time you saw a light infantry company with a fighter jet or nuclear weapon?

    And even if I grant you that the government would be able to easily overcome said resistance due to its greater military power, it makes no difference. Just because it would not be effective does not mean that citizens should not have the right to try.

    The amount of freedom and liberty that people are willing to hand over willy-nilly to the government in complete trust that it is always out for their best interests is frankly scary.