If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

solgunsI feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.

Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

supremeThis is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams

founderspicI could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.

We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much  in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

soulonfireIt is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.

Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770’s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.

I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.

What I do know is that this country was founded by people who had balls the size of Texas and Patriotic Americans take shit off of no one, especially our own government. For evidence of that, you might research the Revolutionary War. My question is how many Patriots are left?

I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I can not tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

thinkingYou must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.

For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.

Are you willing to die to take my guns?

Don't forget to follow the D.C. Clothesline on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

About Dean Garrison

Keep it simple. I believe in God, Family and Country (in that order). My articles can be freely reproduced in full, or in part, so long as you credit me as the author and provide some sort of link to www.dcclothesline.com. Send me a Friend Request on Facebook
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4,366 Responses to If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

  1. Pingback: I Have No Time to Reflect on the Horrors of 13 Years Ago. I Must Face the Horrors of Today. -

  2. Pingback: Why Own Guns? Sex Offender, on Probation and Fitted with Police GPS, Rapes Woman in Memphis | PatriotsBillboard

  3. Pingback: Why Own a Gun? Sex Offender, on Probation and Fitted with Police GPS, Rapes Woman in Memphis -

  4. Pingback: Gerald Rivera Calls the Second Amendment "blind and stupid" -

  5. Pingback: Unconstitutional Gun Confiscation Coming to Texas? Or Common Sense? You Decide -

  6. Pingback: Gun Control Dictators – Tyrants Who Banned Firearms Before Slaughtering The People -

  7. Pingback: 10 Things That Would Definitely Cause Americans to Start Shooting -

  8. Pingback: Organized Community Defense Is America’s Last Hope |

  9. Pingback: Illegals Living Large: Suites With Flatscreens, Ping Pong Tables, Artificial Turf Soccer Field...Welcome to Obama's America |

  10. Pingback: More Boobs, Less Guns... "Moms Demand Action" Uses Public Indecency Stunt to Push Anti-Gun Agenda |

  11. Pingback: Will America Die On Her Feet, or Will We Continue to Bend Over? | PatriotsBillboard

  12. Pingback: Will America Die On Her Feet, or Will We Continue to Bend Over? |

  13. Pingback: The Three Stages of a Revolution: The People Are Being Dragged Into the Third Stage |

  14. Carolyn Palo says:

    They took away my freedom of speech they demanded I join their party, they tracked every move I made online. I have been victimized again and again. My sister died froze to death in an abandoned house, while under state ordered confinement. I am not allowed to twitt or complain. The city does nothing to those who stole my car, my ids, my house is vandalized again and again. The women who tried to run me down in the street.
    They bombarded my house with sound cannons, for over a year to shut me up.
    They won’t let drill a new well so I am denied water.

    Then they have the balls to tax me to death, to make more of a profit from the sale of my family’s land. They have killed us. We are the American small business owners. Ones who invented our own inventions. I go Hungary and am denied health care. They have killed us all. When you are losing it all, and you have been beaten down so far. I will use my gun if they come for it. , and they can have it off my dead body before I give it up. No freedom left here.

    Course that would make them happy they hate loud mouth people who speak out.
    and who needs inventors. After all women need to be kept in their place, and made to shut up, even if it kills them.

  15. Pingback: Hillary Clinton Calls To "Reign In" Gun Culture |

  16. Pingback: Are You An Eloi Or a Morlock? |

  17. Pingback: IF THEY COME FOR YOUR GUNS ARE YOU READY TO DIE? | Americas Freedom Fighters

  18. Dennis Habern says:


    Dennis Bartlett, you are a Moron. Evidently you, and many other
    millions of Americans, did not pay attention in High School in the
    discipline of History/American Government. There is only one plan
    worthy of discussing, and that is to storm the White House and get
    rid of the Black Witch-Doctor from Kenya, George Soros, and his entire
    Communist/Muslim administration. Therefore, what is your plan?

  19. Dennis Habern says:


    Americans wake up. When a farmer rids a vermin from his hen-house by
    extermination, he does not procrastinate as to which is the best
    method of extermination, because he already has his shotgun loaded and
    ready for action. Therefore, we patriotic Americans are currently
    facing the same conundrum that the farmer faced. That Vermin is the
    current POTUS, a worthless POS of half-baked Muslim Black-Mutt that
    takes up space in the White House, and like the vermin in the hen-
    house, he must be dealt with in a similar fashion, by storming the
    White House similar to the French Revolution of 1789, where the French
    peasants stormed the Paris palaces and got rid of the vermin they
    viewed as their King whom desired to become their dictator. So let it
    be imparted, so let it be written, and so let it be enforced.

  20. Dennis Habern says:


    Hey Einstein, you are a Moron. The United States is above all, a
    Constitutional Republic. The author is correct. What is your level
    of education. Perhaps you are one to be re-educated at one of the
    worthless POS’s FEMA camps in the discipline of American History.

  21. Pingback: If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight? | Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

  22. Pingback: We Will Not Be Disarmed – We the People are the Militia | PatriotsBillboard

  23. Pingback: Defending our Constitution Rights...going there..

  24. Pingback: If They Come To Confiscate Your Guns You Have to Know What to Expect - Tea Party Tribune - Tea Party Tribune

  25. Pingback: If They Come To Confiscate Your Guns You Have to Know What to Expect |

  26. Pingback: Sheila Jackson Lee as DHS Chief? That Would Be a Declaration of WAR |

  27. Pingback: Was IRS Targeting Christians Too? More Potential Evidence of IRS “Leftist” Agenda | The D.C. Clothesline

  28. Thom says:

    LMAO! I say Oswald is the second smartest and funniest guy in here.

    I’m just sayin that Mark’s and Greg’s mental “disorder”? is a mirror image of each others. All we want and expect, GUYS, is our God given rights to protect ourselves from, not only each other , but all other enemies , foreign and domestic governments included. Now, if we had a military without arms how well do you figure that would work out? GREAT for the countries that have no respect for the rights of other countries! SOOO, doesn’t it make sense to arm our military and the citizens? As an emperor of Japan once said in addressing a Japanese general shortly after their attack on Pearl Harbor 12/7/41, “why not continue on and attack the American mainland…….” and the general responded by saying ” because there would be a rifle behind every tree…………..” I’m only adding this next quote because I find it so funny. ” So what did they do instead, they only invaded the Aleutians with, oops, a Kodiak bear behind…………..”

    I wonder if there was a total “gun Ban” if it would lead to even more killing?

    A bomb is easier to hide and will kill a lot of people a lot quicker than any “gun” Same goes for a grenade. How much damage could an insane person do? A butcher knife makes very little noise. How many 5-6 year old school children locked in a classroom with the door locked, the teachers throat slit and dying on the floor, how many would make it out alive? When the killer is finished with the first classroom how many more will he kill before someone with a gun could stop him?

    It doesn’t take to much brain power to figure out that more “gun” ownership would result in less killing AND less crime. (ask the Swiss)- and locking away the criminals forever that use “guns” in any kind of crime. And not releasing criminals back into the general public like obama just did. MANATORY GUN OWNERSHIP SHOULD BE THE ORDER OF THE DAY. And firearm training should be supplied by the government free of charge.

    Instead of schooling our kindergarden kids about sex, as some liberals propose, I say teach them how to shoot the head off a fly at 30 yards. (again at the governments expense!) We could find a lot better uses for $250,000,000 than sending it to Egypt. or Pakistan. or……………………..

  29. Pingback: If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight? | The D.C. Clothesline | Rants of the Worlock

  30. Dennis Bartlett says:

    First of all we are a democracy and not a Republic . We were , but no longer and haven’t been for nearly a hundred years . Second is very few will fight for our liberties . Most have never heard a bullet pass their heads or a tracer coming their way . It changes everything in a hurry .
    They have a plan , we don’t . I have a plan , do you ?

    • Paul Smith says:

      So long as the Constitution, the Bill of Rights (especially the 2nd, 9th and 10th Amendments), a functioning SCOTUS,and States’ governments are in place, we will be a Republic albeit a failing one. All is not yet lost.

    • Brad says:

      Dennis, you are completely wrong. Our form of government is a Constitutional Republic. They may be acting like it is a democracy, but the constitution is “supposed” to be the rule of law. It may be just semantics at this point, especially with a bunch of liberal judges legislating from the bench, but our form of government hasn’t been “officially” changed.

      And I commend you for being prepared. Many of us are. Malon Labe!

    • Dennis,

      I agree with Paul and Brad (hi guys), we ARE still a constitutional republic. Our government is acting like we are a democracy, except for obama, he’s acting like it’s a dictatorship, and many people believe we are a democracy, but, thankfully, our Constitution is still intact, bruised and bloodied, but still there.

      I believe you are wrong that not many of us will fight for our CRs (constitutional rights, get tired of spelling it out all the time). When was the last time we had such a all-out assault on so many of our CRs in such a short period of time? When has there been so much legislation passed, in a short period of time, that has violated our CRs?

  31. Rob Price says:

    Under the guidelines of the second Amendment, it is the right of every American to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” The latter being our own corrupt governing bodies. If you truly love this country and the values for which it stands, then you have an obligation given with the blood of our forefathers, sons, daughters, fathers, and grandfathers to fight to keep it a legitimate foundation for peace and freedom throughout the civilized world. Does this mean to spill the blood of our own citizen’s to guarantee these constitutional principles? The civil war should be enough to answer that question. Armed resistance shouldn’t be taken lightly, for it would pit brother against brother. and divide our country even farther apart than it already is. For this country to remain a free republic, it means that every man, woman and child will have to decide for themselves how much they want to keep their freedoms. Finally, if America as we know it today is going to survive this administration’s attack on our liberty’s, then people will have to get back to being a God loving and fearing country with traditional family values, where patriotism is something to be proud of and not spit at. Where the “Pledge of Allegiance” is said proudly in our schools again. Where the United States of America is not looked down upon by the other countries of the world.
    this is the America I remember and will fight to protect with my last dying breath.
    R. Alan Price
    proud, patriotic American

    • Brad says:

      Amen Rob, well said and thank you for your service and dedication to the principles upon which this country was founded.

    • Thom says:

      Very true ROB. But unfortunately the hate was mostly fueled by the liberals right here at home. Really think about it, “Did Chavez really die?” I think he lives on in the form of an American President. I don’t care how much I love my “male buddies” I am never going to kiss them on the lips. Never, Never, Never!!!!

  32. Dave says:

    “Yer men ain’t ya? You may not know this, but there’s things that gnaw on a man worse than dyin’.” (My favorite line from “Open Range”)

  33. Do you find it interesting that so many have taken the oath to ‘Protect And Defend’ yet each has a variation on exactly what it is he, or she, will protect and defend?
    The people of our nation are basically a mob of uneducated and mentally lazy folk who are eager to bray and kick at the fence but somehow go lame when it comes time to pull their share of the load. I blame their, our, lack of education and interest in the history and purpose of this nation.
    I applaud all of you who know what your talking about and have resolved to defend and protect our nation.. I pray that you are all fully aware of the enormity of the decision you make and are able to make that decision with knowledge, wisdom, and a full understanding, of what you intend to do.
    We are talking about taking the lives of our fellow Americans. Nothing more. Nothing less!

  34. Gerald says:

    JESUS CHRIST! (sorry) …er, HOLY SHIT!!! (sorry) There are over 4000 comments in this thread. (…as I’m just realizing this) Great Koogly-moogly [ ;) ], we are a passionate bunch. Thank God!

    • Brad says:

      Amen Gerald, let freedom ring. And let’s cast out the dissenters that want to take those freedoms from us.

    • GreatGoogleyMoogleY says:

      Some of us are and some of us are just here to BS evidently. Im sure Glad the founding fathers were passionate arent u. And pretty much about everything Ive said mmm.

  35. Thom says:

    A group is being organized for April 20th to approach the White House in D.C. http://globalmutiny.blogspot.com/2013/03/outline-and-plan-of-action-for-new.html?m=1 Comments are welcome

  36. ChristCrusader says:

    I’m frustrated with WordPress ‘ inability to track find or access a specific post or poster. Small exchanges may work with their sysytem but is entirely inadequate to the task of a conversation with thousands of posts. Even from my acct I can’t see specific posts I’ve made or the thread of responses. Disqus is superior in this respect t. WordPress or dcclothesline, please pursue a better system so comments and threads aren’t lost and unaccessible in such grand exchanges

    • Oswald Bastable says:

      Check the “Notify me of follow-up comments via email” option below the “Leave a Reply” box, the next time you reply to a conversation. Then use the search option in your email client when you want to find a specific conversation.

  37. David Ruddell says:

    I was taught as young man that The Bill of Rights were the enumeration of Our UNALIENABLE RIGHTS spoken of in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. An Unalienable Right cannot be given away or taken away, you can can only choose not to use them. An Unalienable Right is before government and after government. Unalienable Rights are God given rights and are ours even without a government. We denigrate our Unalienable Rights when we refer to Constitutional Rights because Constitutional Rights are man made. As long as those folks can keep the conversation on the word Constitutional they pretty much control the dialogue with much of the media’s help. Let us change the dialogue from constitutional to UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. As long as it keeps on going as is we are fighting an uphill battle.

    • Thom says:

      I believe you are 100% right, David. However, there are those that believe their rights are constitutionally given to them, when in fact, the Constitution only, and I repeat, ONLY protects and quarantees their rights. Most of us already know that, but there are many that have never really given any thought to the matter. I hold fast to my belief that any bill passed to gain gun control over the mass is in fact, no law. R/Dick Act of 1902.
      I will add, just as some trivia for the uninformed, that the procedure to amend or add an amendment to the constitution is a long and arduous task. It involves individual states, the congress and the senate and the suspreme courts. Maybe not in that order? TaTa.

  38. 7delta says:

    Mark said: You must live in the state of Utopia, where every dealer is true and honest, where the bad guys wear black tops masks and carry bags with SWAG written on them.

    I don’t think you understood what I said. In my post, I wrote: That doesn’t mean every private sell is respectable, but then neither is every car sell. People drive unregistered cars that have had the serial numbers filed off and they drive without licenses.

    I fail to see how you arrived at the conclusion that by my pointing out the criminal activities of car dealers and gun sellers, as well as the criminals who misuse inanimate objects is the state of Utopia. My intent was the opposite. There is no state of extreme bliss where everything and everybody will abide by the law and that more laws do not curb the behavior of people who have no respect for the law. Not all laws are good or effective, since the only people who will abide by them are people who are not going to break them.

    But upward and onward. I read the study you linked. I mourn for my tax dollars. That’s Clue # 1.

    However, with 6 pages of notes, I’ve tried to encapsulate what it says, but it’s still too long. Brought to you by tax dollars.

    The authors argue that California’s more stringent laws and regulations create a longer interval from the time a gun enters the private sector in a legal sale until it is used in a crime than states with fewer laws and regulations. They propose that this is an indicator of gun trafficking. They also say they states with stronger regulations and laws have a higher proportion of older recovered guns that could not be traced…except for California, which is the ideal subject they have chosen because it has stringent regulations and laws and doesn’t have as many people moving in who might have more old untraceable weapons…maybe…but further analysis of guns recovered in all states found California has ‘more’ untraceable weapons used in crimes that states with fewer regs and laws because California has more old guns…maybe. However, California took the category of longer time to crime because they have a lower number of turn around per year category.

    They use a lot of old data from the 90’s, but it’s possible those studies are the newest ones. They don’t say. But the guns noted in the Boston study as recovered were rarely from the hands of original buyers because they were the direct result of property theft, rather than trafficking…maybe. But the new guns recovered suggest that a short time to crime is a valid indicator, though not conclusive evidence of a close-to-retail illegal diversion from retail illegal diversion from retail outlets that supplies criminals with guns.

    As regs increase, the secondary market becomes more attractive. (No joke?)

    Okay, well, it’s true that gun are stolen. Surveys show that upward of half of all guns used in crimes are stolen. Little evidence suggests that successful regs and enforcement actions against point and diffuse sources actually reduce availability of guns and hence, the gun used in a crime.

    Since the Gun Control Act of 1968, records are required to be kept by manufacturers to the distributor to the outlet to the buyer. Serial numbers were mandated. All records must be retained from shipments to wholesale to retail. A law passed in 1994 requires all manufacturers to respond to law enforcement requests within 24 hours. This, does not, however, record secondary sales.

    In 2002, Koper (another researcher) questioned the usefulness of increased FFL restrictions, since he found little evidence to suggest the guns sold by the dealers who left the market after the stricter regulations were more likely to be used in crime or moved more quickly through criminal channels when compared to active dealers. Few dealers are associated with the bulk of crime gun traces.

    The best programs, the authors say, are best suited to area needs, but efforts, though appearing to successfully increase the time to crime interval, may simply cause a shift in how the illegal market works. (Which suggests crime rates aren’t effected.)

    There was no significant difference between California and states with few restriction in recovered firearms distribution over types of crimes, ages of perp, guns used…IOW, pretty much the same.

    But the ATF notes that time to crime is an important measure of illegal markets. (Though we’re not sure why since it appears to have no real-time effect on reducing trafficking or crimes.)

    They also note that sales of newer guns in California are down, older guns are fewer (Huh? Didn’t they just say California’s recovered older guns outpaced most of the other states? Even if they’re fewer, they’re still taking the spotlight. It’s that attractive shift they mentioned earlier) since there are fewer new residents to bring old guns into the state. (Yep. Gun control is the least of the reasons people and businesses are bailing from Cal, but it is a symptom.) Then they say states with more stringent laws and regs that trace to purchasers are low because a lot of recovered guns are too old to trace. (Are you getting dizzy yet?)

    But it’s not California’s fault. It’s the fault of those ‘other’ states. (I think I’ve heard that before.)

    The authors also bemoan that Federal law is silent on private sales at gun shows and between individuals and PERMITS private party gun sales to occur. (Not true. The federal government does NOT permit private party gun sales. They have no authority to permit it or to deny it, which the authors note in a roundabout way by placing the onus on the states to beef up their laws, which is the proper distribution of power anyway. It’s just more efficient to get people to pressure Congress, even though it’s not within their scope of authority.)

    So, they recommend all the states do the same as California, but they also admit that other sources will likely provide guns to people who shouldn’t have them as the illegal market adapts. But, they say, maybe the old guns will eventually dry up. Maybe.

    Missing from their study, which was not part of the premise, but essential to determining the effectiveness:

    Has California lowered its gun-crime rate? No.

    Has California increased its disruption of illegal trafficking? They don’t say, but I would think that would be a big boon to their theory if it had and they’d like to include that.

    In comparing California’s time to crime across all fifty states or to states with few laws and regs, did California have a lower gun crime rate than the states with fewer regs and laws? They don’t say. That would be an important validation of their theory, if California had a significant decrease in crime and in arrests and convictions of traffickers due to their stringent laws. Does not bode well for their theory that they didn’t demonstrate effectiveness compared to states with fewer restrictions.

    Have the more stringent regs and laws resulted in more perpetrators being apprehended? The traces have tracked back to some of the original owners who were the perp. While it’s good the criminal was caught, that’s not trafficking and the same trace could be done under the GCA of 1968 since these were all legal sales.

    Has California increased its conviction rate of trafficking? They didn’t say, but looks like the answer is no.

    Overall, this study is an academic exercise that concluded stricter laws and regulations MAY (their word) increase the time between when a new gun enters private hands and when it is used in a crime and MAY reduce the number of guns going into the illegal market. But then again, it might not. Too may variables to definitely conclude. But it gives them insight into trafficking patterns, which apparently has no usefulness in actually disrupting trafficking or bringing to justice traffickers. If it does, they didn’t demonstrate it.

    My conclusion is that other than conducting a study more boring than watching paint dry (funded by my tax dollars) their speculative conclusion and suggestions translate into the real world as an academic exercise more boring than watching paint dry. Even they acknowledged that criminals may simply adapt, but they stuck by their original premise that everybody should do it. Typical government approach. If something doesn’t work, do it bigger. I would put more faith in a study done by neutral researchers with only non-ideological private funding and that demonstrated an actual positive impact.

    By the time I finished reading this thing, I wanted to bite the head off of a snake. Each time they seemed to be progressing toward actually providing some useful statistic, the next paragraph or so undermined it by the influx of uncontrollable variables and the resulting uncertainty. And all for what? To tell me that California’s regs and laws produced a longer time to crime ratio than states with fewer restrictions, but they did not demonstrate at all that this reduced trafficking, reduced gun crimes or altered the flow of guns into the hands of criminals in any way. It just told me that the stringent laws in California have reduced sales and MAY mean that Californians who buy guns hold onto them longer than people in other states, but any positive effects of this slower movement from original buyer into the secondary market and into the hands of criminals is speculative and undemonstrated by this study.

    I’m not reading anymore of these things for a while.

    • 7delta says:

      Mark–in the bright light of the morning sun–I apologize for the sarcastic tone of my post about the study. I grew increasingly frustrated with the study’s detailed analyses of such demographics as the distance from the original gun owner to the gun when it was recovered from a crime, and the lack of information in their overall state comparisons that demonstrated that states with stricter laws reduced undesirable behavior and increased the effectiveness of law enforcement more than states with few restrictions, etc. I should have also noted in my first post that the highest percentage of recovered guns in California entered the private sector in California.

      While these statistics may provide some information regarding trafficking patterns, they failed to demonstrate the significance and application. According to their stated premise, that wasn’t their intention anyway. They were simply assessing ‘time to crime’. It was a frustrating slog through tables and meandering comparisons to find the researchers provided only speculation and inference that more stringent laws and regulations and that by increasing a guns’ time to crime resulted in any positive effect on gun related crimes.

      At any rate, despite my frustrations with the study, I appreciate you posting the link.

    • Brad says:

      Great analysis 7delta. I believe that most of these studies are written so that the reader gives up quickly and then just performs a cursory scan and skips to the conclusions. You on the other hand slogged through it and proved that their conclusions are often not supported by their own data provided but are just their interpretation of the data. Anyone else reading that same data may come to a completely different conclusion, it depends on what your bias is to begin with. And yes, I used the word bias because no matter how hard a person tries to be unbiased, the final conclusions reveal what their intended result was in the first place.

      YOU CAN MAKE ANY STUDY SAY ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT IT TO SAY!!!! Studies for the most part are completely useless.

      • 7delta says:

        And yes, I used the word bias because no matter how hard a person tries to be unbiased, the final conclusions reveal what their intended result was in the first place.

        True, and I was aware of my own bias as I read it. I started out to be open minded and to be open to the data. Frustration arrived early. Several times, I took a deep breath, then left it for a while to regain a clinical view, but by the end, frustration won out as they compared California to nameless states without any analysis of impact on actual crime or convictions resulting from stringent or lax laws or time to crime rates.

        In fairness to the researchers, they reported previous studies that pointed out variables that could impact results and acknowledged some themselves. Within the parameters they set, they did make a case that California’s time to crime ratio is higher than states with fewer restrictions. However, they did not show any usefulness of that data as a deterrent of crime. They made a conjecture of its usefulness that should be applied in all states, but didn’t define exactly what that usefulness is, other than tracking trafficking patterns and one mention of crime rates early in the paper, but without drawing any data supported parallel between their work and crime rates.

        They did have in California a state with stringent laws and regulations and reported that most guns used in crimes in California were bought in California and did not originate in other states. If I understood correctly, California also requires registration of private sales. They had a good test tube, a nearly closed system, for the purpose of the study, to compare the usefulness of the time to crime rate and the corresponding lowered gun crime rates and increase in convictions, both of which result from stringent laws and regulations, to the crime and conviction data of the less restrictive states, but, again, that was not part of their stated premise and was not addressed. Much of my frustration was not that they erred in analysis supporting their premise, but that they provided an incomplete, and maybe even misleading, study by not constructing one that showed the applicable impact of that data on crime and conviction rates.

        Isn’t the entire purpose of more stringent laws and regulations supposedly to decrease crime and to increase disruption of trafficking? Yet, the entire focus of the study was simply about how quickly a new gun entered into the realm of crime use. If this is significant to altering crime patterns, then it must justify its usefulness. They drew, in my opinion, conclusions of its usefulness in reducing crime and trafficking from data that did not evaluate it.

        • Brad says:

          7delta, “They drew, in my opinion, conclusions of its usefulness in reducing crime and trafficking from data that did not evaluate it.”

          Prestidigitation, slight of hand. Look at all the “scientific” data I collected and analyzed. My conclusions must be right, right! If 1 plus 1 equals 2, then 1 plus 2 must equal 4, right??? And as you said, the data did not evaluate it. Unsupported conclusions from outside the parameters of the study but clouded in the plethora of unrelated research data.

          • 7delta says:

            I thought later that I could take the exact study, tweak a few words in the text and in the premise to demonstrate that states with less stringent laws and regulations exhibit a faster time to crime rate than states with more stringent laws and regulation. When dealer related variables are entered into the overall model of time to crime, the effects of states with less stringent laws and regulations are increased over states with more stringent controls. Less stringent laws and regulations yields a faster time to crime and may lead to lower crime rates by the early removal of guns from the hands of criminals. Early removal limits the legacy of illegal guns by interrupting its movement through illegal trafficking. The longer the time to crime rate of an legally purchased gun that is later used in a crime increases its crime legacy.

            And my theory would be as supported by their data as theirs.

          • Brad says:

            Amazing isn’t it? Studies can be very misleading.

            Again, thank you for your diligence and the ability to reason with very limited bias obscuring your conclusions. That is a very rare quality in most individuals today, most everyone has an agenda and they don’t mind “tweaking” the facts to support it.

      • Thom says:

        I plead guilty as charged. But on the occassions that that has happened I have or do and will offer an apology.

    • Oswald Bastable says:

      Quote: “Overall, this study is an academic exercise that concluded stricter laws and regulations MAY (their word) increase the time between when a new gun enters private hands and when it is used in a crime and MAY reduce the number of guns going into the illegal market.” End Quote.

      Curious here, 7delta…

      Did the study mention how much time (on average) that delay would be? I believe CA has a longer waiting period than most other states, between the time a gun is purchased, and when it can be picked up by the buyer. Is it possible that delay could be equal (or nearly equal) to that waiting period? If the study did not include any data on that delay period, I would suspect it’s entirely due to that longer waiting period…and therefore just another dodge to make a claim that is effectively false.

      • 7delta says:

        Did the study mention how much time (on average) that delay would be?

        It was broken down into intervals of 1-3 years, 3-6, etc. That sort of thing.

  39. Greg says:

    What part of suiting up and getting catapulted off the forward end of an aircraft carrier fits your definition of coward? Or gay? You don’t have a clue who you are responding to. You might fill in your ignorance by asking questions instead of making ASSumptions. And when the next hurricane, tornado or flood bites that ass you might consider the fact that evidence and science are more powerful tools than wishful thinking.

    • Greg says:

      Posted in reply to Thom’s post at 8:37 pm.

    • Oswald Bastable says:

      Well Greg…I admit I haven’t been paying the attention to your participation on this blog the way, perhaps, I should have. But i have now rectified that, going back several pages to read your posts, and their attendant replies. I really needed to find out what had you so pissed off at Thom, given I’ve found him to be both a rational character throughout these postings, and not likely to cast aspersions where they’re not warranted.

      But, the biggest reason I went back several blog pages was that your time stamp for Thom’s post made no sense, given there was no associated date and there was no post by Thom with that time stamp on this blog page (as it appears in my browser) of recent date….

      Near as I can make out, you’re not terribly friendly toward the 2nd Amendment to our constitution…

      …and now, suddenly, you intimate you are an AF pilot on a carrier?

      If true, one would infer that at some point you took an oath to both defend and secure our constitution, including the 2A, as written. Is my inference correct Greg?

      If so, I can only say the caliber of “some” of our AF pilots has seriously declined in recent years, because your whiny rant strikes me as coming from someone who needs to go stand on the flight deck, spread his legs wide, jump up and down and shake the sand from his mangina; particularly if you can’t take a bit of crap on a blog. He then needs to immerse himself within the history that gave him the opportunity to serve the greatest nation that has ever existed upon this planet, and indeed, to find his place within that “moment” of history.

      Because the “moment” you appear to have staked out is one that will only be remembered in historical annals as, “one who betrayed his oath”.

      • Greg says:

        Oswald, “rational” doesn’t even come close to describing Thom’s posts, at least his posts to me. You might want to reconsider defending his character.

        As a Naval Flight Officer I took an oath to defend the Constitution, and I’m not about to let it be trashed by gun enthusiasts with a “me first and to hell with everybody else” attitude.

        • Paul Smith says:

          So is that some of the Constitution or all of the Constitution, Greg? How far will you go to defend the 2nd Amendment? How about the 4th against the NDAA? How about the 10th against POTUS signing statements?

          • Greg says:

            It will have to be with the pen rather than the sword, since I’m no longer active duty. I agree with you that there are provisions in the NDAA that are simply un-American, especially on torture and indefinite detention without charge or trial. That cannot be allowed to stand; short of using violence we need to do everything in our power to change the law.

          • Zenphamy says:

            In response to Greg and in support of Paul Smith: I took the same oath as Greg and as I remember it, I had to swear that I would support and defend the Constitution (not just the parts I liked) against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. That oath does not diminish nor disappear after active service but is life long. I have chosen to be an Oath Keeper and will continue to defend my Constitutional and unalienable rights against all enemies. Today it appears that those enemies are more domestic than foreign and it’s a down right shame that a veteran can write opinions as Greg. He doesn’t have to agree with me, but he does have to hold fidelity to his oath.

        • Oswald Bastable says:

          Well then Greg, given the 2nd is a part of that Constitution you swore to uphold and defend, you might want to allow a bit of latitude and try to understand the feelings of gun enthusiasts, since they are generally some of the biggest supporters of that same amendment.

          Given you’ve chosen to eschew that amendment, it would appear your “oath” is of little worth.

          Tell me Greg…as an AF flight officer…if your superiors order you to bomb, say, a target in suburban Missoula, Montana…will you obey without question?

          • Oswald Bastable says:

            “feelings” above, should really be “concerns”…as “feelings” have little to do with it for most of us…

          • Brad says:

            Oswald, I’m not quite sure if you are just twisting the knife here a little with the AF reference, but he did state that he was a Naval Flight Officer, not Air Force. And he did not say he was an aviator (naval and army term for pilot, which I am or was, by the way), so the question about bombing Missoula may not be a poignant as it might otherwise be.

          • Oswald Bastable says:

            Ahhh…my mistake Brad, and thank you for pointing it out. I knew carrier pilots were Navy, not AF. For some reason the idea of pilot and AF became implicitly connected in my thought (stupid, I know) even though I knew better… :)

            Okay Greg, change of target…lets say it’s suburban Hoboken, NJ, instead…

          • Greg says:

            Oswald, I have to admit, your post brought some levity into an otherwise serious (overly serious?) debate. Good one. I’m no longer active duty, but I was an aviator in an ASW squadron and trained to take out Soviet subs. (So now I just gave away my age.) Anyway, who lives in Hoboken that you don’t like so much?

          • Brad says:

            lol Greg, that was good too. From one aviator to another (and I know that Naval Aviators don’t really consider us lowly Army Pilots to be aviators. It’s a pride thing.), thanks again for your service. But congrats on the stones to be catapulted off the forward end of an aircraft carrier, that is something I always wanted to do. Wrong branch of service though, but I was carrier qualified (helicopter carrier), on 4 different occasions by the Navy. But only in Monterey Bay, CA. Calm seas, day time and I believe at anchor. :o)

          • robert says:

            PLEASE FORWARD


            The USA is nearing the making of a revolution against our corrupt and non-abiding government officials who have no thoughts in following our constitution amendments. It’s obvious that the current liberal congress and our devoted Muslim, non-American president are interested in increasing the power of federal government to make the US a socialist state. The federal government is currently working on seizing all guns violating the second amendment. After they seize all the American citizen’s guns, the liberals are going to suffocate the first amendment ending freedom of speech thus ending the freedom of Americans.

            Our current federal government is trying to destroy our loved way of life enjoying the freedoms that our constitution provides us. The freedoms that 100s of thousands of our service men and women have died for in the past and present wars in order to preserve freedom for the next generations.

            This question is for all military and law enforcement agency personnel:

            If god-loving, freedom-loving American citizens are forced into protecting their constitution rights by the final recourse of bearing arms against the traitors in our government, where are you as an individual man or woman of the military or law enforcement going to stand?

            Will you guard the current corrupt government officials?


            Will you stand with the common citizens fighting to keep your constitutional freedoms which is why you actually wear the uniform now?

            God bless every man and women serving in uniform. I trust that your guns will be pointed in the direction to uphold our constitutional rights, not the impeding socialistic government officials. Without our dedicated military, Americans would have no freedoms. Without our military, Obama and his Cronies will not have the power to turn our free country into a totalitarian state with him as the dictator.

          • Greg says:

            Brad, you have my respect. Flying two planes in formation is difficult enough, but flying a helicopter, often described as 10,000 bolts flying in formation (ha!), is no small challenge. Kudos to you.

          • Oswald Bastable says:

            Damn…we’d need a lot of planes if I were to describe all the problems that needed bombing in NJ (not just Hoboken).


          • Brad says:

            lol Oswald… and that was a nice shot across his bow!

      • Brad says:

        Amen Oswald. I thanked him for his service as at least he was willing to serve. But he needs to reevaluate his interpretation of the constitution and his honor and integrity, because he is now violating the oath that he took. Of course that doesn’t surprise me as Liberal theology is the most narcissistic, hateful and intolerant stance of any that I have ever had the displeasure of seeing. The word “liberal” has no business being used by these folks whatsoever.

    • Brad says:

      Greg, not quite sure what your inference here is, are you a “global warmer” too? All that “science” is open to interpretation. And if you had been paying attention, those scientists that support the idea of “global warming” have fabricated a lot of the evidence that they tout. We have had “climate change” since the dawn of time. It is natural and cyclical, and many, many scientists agree that those “climate change” proponents are wrong. Climate change is what those “global warmists” changed the name to when over the past 16 years the earth has been proven to actually be cooling off, and they could no longer support their lies with anything close to accurate and indisputable numbers. All of this is nothing but hype and a means to make money (or take money) from businesses and corporations. Carbon exchanges do nothing to clean up the air, they charge money for doing it. Kinda like paying indulgences in the Catholic church. And mans contribution to the carbon in our atmosphere is less than one tenth of one percent as of the last numbers that even the IPCC put out.

      As for your military service, I thank you and applaud you. Although you are in the minority of veterans that support arms control and climate change.

      • Greg says:

        Thank you, Brad, for your appreciation of my service.

        The issue of global warming is off topic, so I’ll keep this reply brief. Most of the points you made are factually incorrect. The overwhelming evidence and vast majority of climate scientists point to the same conclusion: global warming is not only happening but it is happening faster than early models predicted and it is directly linked to human activity (CO2 emissions, burning fossil fuels, etc.). To deny this is worse than walking on thin ice. It is going over the climate cliff because you failed to notice you are no longer on solid ground. The consequences of even a 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature are catastrophic (it has risen about 0.8 C in the last 100 years, 0.6 in just the last 30), and it will be too late to do much about it once we reach that point. By then the Second Amendment will be the least of your worries.

        • Greg says:

          P.S. to the “my rights regardless” posters: With 1 billion Chinese wanting to live the same lifestyle as Americans (i.e. unsustainable consumption) and the Keystone XL pipeline possibly coming online, we can easily reach a global rise in temperature of 2 celsius in the next thiry years. So this won’t just affect your kids. Its going to affect you and me.

          • Thom says:

            Were you in the room when Gore invented the internet also? Or was you busy playing with your joy stick?

        • Brad says:

          Greg, I hate to tell you this, but you are as wrong on the global warming front as you are on the second amendment. And I will not slog this blog down with the off topic points of global warming either, but suffice it to say that there are just as many if not more scientists and scientific studies that refute the global warming proponents. It just happens to be more politically correct to agree with the false premise of global warming. It is just a means of creating money out of thin air.

          But, should we be good stewards of this earth? Absolutely! Should those that purposely pollute the earth, oceans and air be prosecuted? Yes! Should we leave this earth in better shape then when we entered it? Affirmative! On all of that I will agree, but the LIE of global warming isn’t about any of that, it is about control and money, PERIOD!

          Maybe we can find a climate blog and I will unload all of my research on it. And I have tons of studies and reports that support what I am saying, just as I am sure that you do as well.

          • Greg says:

            Brad, you made some great points in that middle paragraph on which I would agree. As for the rest, it’s a debate worth having, but on another blog.

          • Brad says:

            Greg. I agree. And I appreciate your passion and your dedication. I believe that you are misinformed, but I am sure that you believe the same about me. We can agree to disagree and still be civil. Thank you.

          • GreatGoogleyMoogleY says:

            Hey Brad I commend you for your effort to enlighten Greg, but your never gonna do it, liberals don’t wanna know the truth they just wanna drink the coolaide and feel good about themselves. The truths not important just spew the crap the Democrat politicians( mostly lawyers ie lying pieces of crap that i wouldnt trust as far as i coudl throw them) feed them, Like al gore who invented the internet and global warming lol. Its a proven fact that the earth has cooled (ice age) and then warmed back up, several times throughout the centuries. And that right now the sun is in a cycle where it is hotter than normal which has more of an effect on global warming than man could ever have. But the evil america is the cause of global warming so they must pay and be brought to their knees, so the UN thinks, which is mostly made up of murderers, despot, and tyrants. Yeah Im gonna believe them. The reason why the world wants America brought to here knees is so we won’t be there to stop them from invading countries and looting and killing everybody and just being the all around assholes that they are. And pretty much doing what we have prevented them for doing for years.And they have half of the citizens of this country doing their job for them, its just sad.

          • Brad says:

            I agree Moogley. The US out of the UN and the UN out of the US!!!!

        • Paul Smith says:

          And what you fail to notice, Greg, is that the United States of America is not responsible for any change whether perceived or real. Look to China, Russia, et. al. who have no control over their carbon emissions and quit trying to destroy our economy.

        • Oswald Bastable says:

          Greg…please explain to us how we (the US) or the UN is going to prevent China from reaching that plateau of consumption, given they will need it to support the continued growth of their economy. Additionally, please explain how we (the US) or the UN is going to force China to implement environmental regulations anywhere near as stringent as those in the US or Europe.

          After that, please elucidate on the same points as regards India.

          • Greg says:

            Oswald, that is the million dollar question. Not only China and India, but every developing country in the world want what we have; and if they achieve that, it’s game over. It’s a debate worth having, but not on this blog. Here’s a point to ponder though: we beat the Soviet Union to the moon, so I have no doubt that if we put our best minds on it we can beat this problem as well.

          • Oswald Bastable says:

            Since we can’t control it, what matter what we do? We have some of the most stringent environmental standards in the world. If every man, woman and child in the US died and stopped emitting carbon tomorrow, and all the beasts of the field died from starvation the next week…do you think that would prevent China, India or the rest of the undeveloped world from continuing on the path they are on?

            And given we do have some of the most stringent environmental laws in the world (i.e. and example for developing countries) why do you think the onus is placed upon the US and Europe to do more, while China, India, and the rest of the developing world are given a pass?

            Follow the money Greg. Where are those taxes for the continued growth of the UN and world government going to come from? From China? From India? From the rest of the developing world? How much will the UN and world government get from those sources, in the near term? Possibly, over the long haul, yes…but who has to be brought to their level before that happens?

        • Thom says:

          There are only fabricated lies supporting global warming if indeed global warming even exsists. I and others believe it to be a topic of discussion for only one reason. “World Government” In other words, using my .05 cent words, its a bunch of BS. You sure like pushing, Greg, I think the G-forces must have compressed your brain.

          • Greg says:

            Thom, “world government” might be a concern to all of us, but you can use your freedom now to investigate the facts for yourself. If you want raw data to draw your own conclusions you can go to climate.nasa.gov; if integrity is a concern see ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity. There are hundreds of sites; if you are sure of your position then no harm in checking sites with an opposing view to verify you haven’t missed something.

            Thanks for your concern about my brain. The astronauts had it much worse….

          • Zenphamy says:

            Greg: Climategate, 2009 caused the ‘scientific consensus’ that you speak of to change the name of their supposed phenomina from global warming to climate change since the empirical data for warming was admitted to not exist without ‘tweaking’ the data. The entire supposed science behind the hysteria of human caused global wide destruction of the Earth has been falling apart ever since and at this date is only supported by computer models which do not include all possible or known variables.
            It’s a terrible shame that politics and ideology and government grant money have entered the ethical and professional realm of the physical sciences.

      • Brad and Greg: despite your mutual lovefest, if either of you wishes to ignore the scientific evidence that has been amassed by juried, panels of climatologists, then you won’t have to argue about dropping bombs on Hoboken…..it will already be underwater.

        ……..ask any survivor of Hurricane Sandy…….

  40. Oswald Bastable says:

    And so they begin laying the groundwork for the final assault on liberty.

    Attorney General Eric Penis Holder can justify government sponsored and administered unconstitutional, extra-judicial murder of Americans on American soil, without legal charges, without a trial, and without a conviction.


    If you thought 1776 might have been a bumpy ride, you ain’t seen nothing…

  41. Rick says:

    what’s the email address written in the backgroung of the picture of the statue of liberty holding an assault style rifle?

  42. dan says:

    I had a fight on Facebook with Scott wulwick who is in the navy as an Intel specialist and he was for a complete gun ban. He thinks the European way is better. I tried telling him that a gun ban will make us vulnerable and he just said I was naive . You kidding me bro ? I tried asking him what we should do to protect ourselves in the event in a gun ban and then he blocked me. He tried calling me stupid and a gun not at every turn . He was very condense ending. I would encourage someone reading this to find him on Fb and try let him know that I am not alone. He said that I hate America.

    • RobertD says:

      The debate with gun control is an honest one, not an “unconstitutional” affront to our second amendment rights. The second amendment was developed with the understanding that we did not want a standing army, so those citizens able to arm themselves should so that each state could muster a militia in order to defend our borders. Unless you seriously believe that Red Dawn is going to happen, by the word of our constitution in this day and age, with not only a standing army of massive proportions but a state-run national guard that is the replacement for those militias, it is completely reasonable and within constitutional rights to say that the average American is not constitutionally protected to own guns, because it was never the constitutions intent to protect the right to hunt, or shoot for sport, it was solely meant in defense of this nation. With that said, I believe the true way out of this mess of crap is for a constitutional amendment to either REMOVE the second amendment, or REWRITE it to take away the old language and make it something that actually conveys in modern times.

      • dan says:

        Okay . So we are not allowed to defend ourselves. We have to rely on only police to defend us when they don’t have to?

      • ChristCrusader says:

        Bob, the founders wrote quite clearly and deliberately that the 2nd Amendment was about defending ourselves from our own federal government as well as foreign aggressors. Understandably, this was at the forefront of their minds, since their greatest contemporary aggressive conflict was, in fact, against their own former tyrranical government, king of England; as well as a God inspired, historical, educated perspective of prior cultures and nations with their respective abuses and governmental failures… which unfortunately is now a much fuller, horrible list of abusive regimes since then. You can’t give up your weapons because it’s “peaceful,” and assume it’ll stay that way. Even if the next x# of years offer no consequences to having disarmed, the deterrent has been removed, and leaves the door open for the winds to change to abuse of power. However, in this case, with this administration, the danger is readily apparent and appears to be much more imminent. This has all been discussed, better than I have here, with founding fathers’ quotes and Federalist Papers’ references.. Dunno if you haven’t bothered to learn the pro 2nd Amenment side, or if you’re just trolling. On the chance you’re just not informed on the topic, I’ve taken the time to try to enlighten you, but of course if you’re just trolling for entertainment, you’re rude and wasting both of our time. I hope you’re the former, and in fact an awakening, patriot-to-be, newly aware of the true purpose behind the 2nd Amendment.

      • Brad says:

        Robert, I hate to say this, but you have no idea what you are asking for. And you definitely have no knowledge of the 2A at all.

        If there is a constitutional convention, they are not limited to changing only what they said they wanted it called for, but are able to change anything in it that they want. Now by the tenor of your post here, you sound like a liberal and you are probably all for that, but as for me, I wouldn’t trust any of those presently serving in our government (there are a few exceptions), with the keys to the candy store if you know what I mean. The last thing we need is a constitutional convention with the present pathological liars and emperor wannabe running this country.

      • Sir,

        You couldn’t be more wrong. The reason the FFs didn’t want a standing army was because an oppressive government could use it against the people, to control them. The 2nd protects our natural, unalienable right to self-defense. US Code 311 provides for two kinds of militias. The first, an organized, government controlled national guard AND the unorganized, reserve, citizen’s militia, consisting of every able-bodied citizen who wishes to serve. The citizen’s militia is for DEFENSE of community, state, country against invasions, insurrections, and rebellions. The MOST IMPORTANT reason the FFs kept the militia and protected it in the 2nd Amendment is to take action against an oppressive, illegitimate, and unconstitutional government. The people hold the power and our representatives ONLY govern with our PERMISSION. The FFs gave the citizens the authority and means (2nd A) to take action. That is the reason for SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED in the 2nd. In case you’re thinking of pointing out ‘well-regulated’ most everyone gets this wrong! A well regulated militia is one that is practiced, trained, in good working order, ready to be called out by the government. Most importantly, the militia was SELF regulated. Each member was responsible for his own arms, practice, training, and being always ready. The citizen’s militia in not under the authority of the gov until they are called out, remember the unorganized part? People may say that no citizen fits the definition of a militia member. That may be true, because of our military and national guard we haven’t been needed. However, the need for the militia never goes away. As long as we have a government, there is ALWAYS the possibility of it becoming oppressive. Last point: the Constitution limits the powers of the government, right? Enumerated powers and the 9th and 10th Amendments. Two words very important in both amendments are ‘the people.’ Why is that phrase used? Because the PEOPLE hold the power. Now, my point, the FFs wrote the BoR to warn the gov that certain rights were off limits to them. Speech, press, religion, arms. The FFs would never and did not give the government the authority to ‘regulate’ our arms. Sorry, gonna sneak in a point before my last point. Sovereignty belongs first to the individual, 2nd to the state, and finally to the Federal gov. The 2nd ‘being necessary to the security of a free State’ applies first to the individual, 2nd to the states, and finally to the whole nation. So, the FFs warned that the gov SHALL NOT infringe on our right to own arms, why would they then say that entity, to which the warning is directed, is allowed to impose regulations on that right????? Complete contradiction to read it that way. Technically, the gov – state and fed – have no authority to pass ANY laws regulating our right to own firearms. We have allowed it because some firearms are too dangerous and not necessary for militia service and self-defense. People can argue both ways whether those laws are right.

        That is why the current gun control debate is absolutely a Constitutional one AND why what they are trying to do is unconstitutional!

        • Brad says:

          Hear, hear. Well said, there is no argument that will stand against the truth. Well explained and in no uncertain terms.

          • Thom says:

            Keep up the good work Laura, and pay no attention to people like Daddy-Jeb. I like the way you present your point. I wish I was as more like you and as cool headed.

          • Thom,
            Thank you for your comment and the complements. I welcome comments such as Daddy-Jeb’s, they provide the opportunity to understand views opposite of mine. As for being cool-headed, I’ve had a lot of practice. I am the middle child, I grew up being the referee and peacemaker when my siblings fought.


          • Gerald says:

            I’ld like to second (or is it “third” at this point) both Brad and Thom. Here here, Laura.

          • Gerald,
            Thank you for voicing your agreement with and appreciation of my comments. I’m actually starting to feel a little embarrassment, I’m just saying the same things other wonderful people are saying.

            P.S. My mom’s name is Gerri.

        • goyaathle says:

          Thomas Jefferson almost started another revolutionary war when he used Federal Troops to put down the Whiskey Rebellion over the whiskey tax. Except in time of war the government was not to have a standing army for any longer than one year. The government got around that little problem by budgeting the army once a year, so each year, it is a new Army. Give an inch and they will take a continent. I should know, I am half Apache from oklahoma, the Government took all we owned and my wife is part Creek. The difference between Insurrection and revolution is if you win it is a revolution and if you loose it is treason.

        • Dave says:

          VERY WELL done!!

          • robert says:

            PLEASE FORWARD


            The USA is nearing the making of a revolution against our corrupt and non-abiding government officials who have no thoughts in following our constitution amendments. It’s obvious that the current liberal congress and our devoted Muslim, non-American president are interested in increasing the power of federal government to make the US a socialist state. The federal government is currently working on seizing all guns violating the second amendment. After they seize all the American citizen’s guns, the liberals are going to suffocate the first amendment ending freedom of speech thus ending the freedom of Americans.

            Our current federal government is trying to destroy our loved way of life enjoying the freedoms that our constitution provides us. The freedoms that 100s of thousands of our service men and women have died for in the past and present wars in order to preserve freedom for the next generations.

            This question is for all military and law enforcement agency personnel:

            If god-loving, freedom-loving American citizens are forced into protecting their constitution rights by the final recourse of bearing arms against the traitors in our government, where are you as an individual man or woman of the military or law enforcement going to stand?

            Will you guard the current corrupt government officials?


            Will you stand with the common citizens fighting to keep your constitutional freedoms which is why you actually wear the uniform now?

            God bless every man and women serving in uniform. I trust that your guns will be pointed in the direction to uphold our constitutional rights, not the impeding socialistic government officials. Without our dedicated military, Americans would have no freedoms. Without our military, Obama and his Cronies will not have the power to turn our free country into a totalitarian state with him as the dictator.

          • Steve says:

            Ladies and Gentlemen, I am a member of our military. In order to enlist, I had to swear an oath. As follows;

            The Oath of Enlistment (for enlisted):

            “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

            The Oath of Office (for officers):

            “I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance tot he same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

            The Uniform Code of Military Justice has Article 92 which legally binds military members to DISOBEY unlawful orders ie; orders that contradict the Constitution. You will notice that I am sworn first to defend the Constitution, then to follow the orders of the President. If the Pres is defying the Constitution, then I propose that he/she is now a domestic enemy that I am sworn to fight.

            I cannot and will not speak for my peers, however, most people I have discussed this with have said that they will not give up their own guns, nor will they go door to door to collect other’s. I personally find it appalling that there is even debate over the Bill of Rights, and I am doing my part by teaching my child the meaning of rights and freedom. If every knowledgeable American would do their best to teach one or two people the truth about our own country, we will be better off in the future.

          • Brad says:

            Amen Steve, thank you for your service and God bless you and yours. And thank you for bringing up Article 92 of the UCMJ. Many have no idea that it is even there or what it states.

          • Steve,

            Thank you very much for your service; for assuring us that you will defend the Constitution and not follow unlawful orders; for assuring us that you won’t be a party to the disarming of citizens; and for teaching your children how important our rights and freedoms are.

            You have my sincerest gratitude,

        • Laura, very well stated and exactly on point!

      • Scott Battles says:

        What history book did you find these half-truths?? The Second Amendment in the words of the founders was ther to guard against”tyrranical governments”.. I hope you are willing to fight and die for those above beliefs. I know I am willing to protect the Constitution AS WRITTEN by any means necessary. I can hit a 600 yard target 9 out of ten shots in the black, what about you and your Liberal friends?

      • GreatGoogleyMoogleY says:

        I find it sad that there are those that live in this country that have never been taught or taken it upon themselves to learn of our heritage. RobertD if you had done this you would know that your comment was so ludicrously stupid that you would be imbarrassed for posting it. If you had any knowledge of what the 2nd amendment was for ypu would never had posted it. The people who wrote the constitution, who came up with the ideas, who made it our standard to go by, who gave evrything of themselves to form this Constitutional Republic ( not a freaking democracy) like the misinformed call it. They repeatedly over and over excoriated what the second amendment was for and the reason teh was always in the forefront was so that the citizens of this country ( who are the ones supposed to be in control not the politicians) would have a defense against the or a government becoming too powerful ( ie our present government) and they would summeririly be able to overthrow, bring down , stand up to and stop that said overpowering tyrannical governemnt from continuing to ride roughshod over the people. And to bring about the change to start from scratch if need be and continue with the freedom they set out assure everyone had. They never talked about hunting(the liberals do that) they never said it was for that. And yes it was also in case of another country attacking us, then there would be plenty of militia to help the standard amry of the country. And it was for the states to have a force against a central army by a governemnt gone bad. I dont mind other peoples point of veiws but at least get your facts right and do some research b4 you spout off at the mouth and show how ignorant you really are. Like Mark for instance lololol.
        So to end I say those of yopu that don’t want or like freedom and need the governemnt to do everything for you to p[rotect you and let you sucjk from its tit, then why dont you just moved to europe somewhere and have at it. Oh but next time some despot raises up ( like Hitler and obama) and tries to take you over or put you under his heel, pease please do not look here for help. If you knew the facts about the forming of this country and or the people who formed it, then you would know they would have taken arms up agaisnt this present governemnt long ago. After all they started their revolution over way less taxes than we have forced on us and way less regulation, the defining moment was however when the British marched on them to confiscate the weapons they had at a certain armory, I believe it was called the shot heard round the world at lexington and concord. But then if you knew that then you woud never had posted your rediculous post.

      • Gerald says:

        RobertD, you have no idea what you are proposing with rewriting the Second Amendment, or any part of the Constitution, for that matter. To do so would require a Con-Con. And at this moment of ignorance in our country, I will fight against that-including those that would support that, unitl I could fight no more. If you cannot understand the Constitution in its simplistic, page and a half (BTW: have you ever read through the Con.? I’m doubtful at this point)…,page and a half, easy read; then, I would suggest introducing yourself to both the Anitfederalist Papers and Federalist Papers,…wherein you can easily decern the Founding Fathers intent — which is key to law — something else you want to read up on.

      • Bruce Crane says:

        well spoken for a commi, hitler would have been proud of u bucko. i fought in combat in viet nam for the sake of freedom and swore 2 uphold the CONSTITUTION. now this gov. put a fully automatic gun in my hands 2 do that, and obummer and his band of fools r trying 2 take those FREEDOMS and RIGHTS away from us. so now i have put a gun in my hands 2 keep what i have already fought 4, and the constitution means just what it says and i’ll fight till the end ,our gov. and anyone like u who tries 2 change it just 2 fit their way of thinking or their life style. i bet u would change the wording of the BIBLE 2 agree with the way u think and live your life. u won’t change the constitution and u certainly won’t change the bible. i fought 4 your freedom of speech or u wouldn’t b able 2 say the things u say, now should we do away with the 1st amendment and keep u quiet , a freedom in which u are now enjoying that so MANY have fought for [ w/ gun ] and MANY have shed their BLOOD 2 give u that freedom !! to talk like u do ,you might as well crap on their graves and tell their families that they shed their blood 4 NOTHING !!!!!!!!!! u need 2 think some more.

  43. ChristCrusader,

    Thank you for your kind remarks. I mentioned in another comment that I am grateful and humbled by the generous words from such wonderful people regarding my comments. I am so greatly encouraged by the many, many comments made on this blog post, and others, from people who cherish liberty and freedom as much as I do. Those people are also outraged by the unconstitutional acts of our government and support action to rectify those misdeeds made by the people who are supposed to be representing us.

    Thank you,

    • Daddy Jeb says:

      Laura, time to shut up. You’re entering a male domain (conflict, war) with your paint brush.
      You don’t get it. You are facing evil, while trying to speak nicely to get the communists to stop being bad sports. You are a damn fool.

      Tend to your family. Goodbye.

      • Daddy Jeb,

        Oh, I apologize, I didn’t realize love of country, freedom, and liberty was gender specific. I’ll be quiet now. ;)

      • Brad says:

        Whoa, whoa, whoa there Daddy Jeb!!! You are completely out of line there and had better go back and read her posts. She has more patriotism and knowledge in her baby toe nail than you have in that entire Neanderthal head of yours. Learn some manners and act like an educated individual instead of the backward, inbred turd of a person that you are. Now go back and slap your Uncledad and your Auntmom, and tell them that what they did was wrong and that you are the proof that close relations shouldn’t have children.

  44. goyaathle,

    I started a new comment thread, the other one was difficult to read having only a couple of words on a line. I hope you see this.

    It is an honor to be able to thank you for your service to our country. We owe a debt we can never repay to our military for what they risked and the sacrifices they, and their families, made. ‘Thank you’ is woefully inadequate, but you have my eternal gratitude, Sir.

    I am grateful and humbled by the extremely kind words wonderful people have offered regarding my comments. Words can have a powerful affect on people. They can build a person up, strengthen and encourage him, give him what he needs to carry on. Or, they can tear a person down, diminish his self-confidence, strengthen his belief that he isn’t worth anything. I am fortunate that my childhood consisted of words of the first kind and not the second. I tried to do the same for my children. I am profoundly grateful that they are both strong, kind, intelligent, and moral young adults. I hope and pray they never are subjected to the type of words I mentioned secondly.

    Many things affect a community’s crime statistics. Economic conditions, education, family and home environment, religious and moral beliefs, population density, drug use, gangs, and gun laws. Concealed/open carry communities do have lower crime rates. I have read surveys of prison inmates that show without a doubt that if the criminal knows or even suspects a potential victim is armed, he chooses someone else. I have read numerous accounts of successful defensive gun use. Some reports put the number at 2.5 million, others 80,000-100,000. A study comparing both previous studies and using the same methods, puts the number at 1.5 million. Whichever number is correct, it far outweighs the firearm deaths. Firearm accidental deaths and firearm deaths of unknown intention are less than 1000.

    Many people are don’t know or choose to dismiss these reports and statistics. Some people dismiss them because the lies enforce their already held belief that arming citizens is just wrong. Whatever reasons for that belief, they will bitterly cling (sorry for using an obama phrase) to the belief that it is wrong, no matter how much evidence they are shown.

    Regarding criminal atrocities/massacres committed by the government, I know what they have done and of what they are capable. Anyone who doesn’t believe is being willfully blind. They just need to read the news. Plenty of evidence of the government’s actions in recent times. I know obama/the people behind him are extremely capable and willing to continue these actions.

    Thank you again for your kind words, Sir. Your comment, and the others that have been made, mean a great deal to me.


    • Mark says:


      Sorry but you can’t put false information out there. You said you checked your stats. What are your sources for your claim that self defence use Is greater than gun deaths. This is not true according to Harvard. I am not imposing my view but showing you statistics that you may not see yourself.


      • Oswald Bastable says:

        Gary Kleck: Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control.

        From Chapter 5, a good summation can be found here:


        If that’s not good enough for you, try this link, it refutes the biased Harvard study:


      • Mark, Mark, Mark,
        I didn’t put false information out there. I said I read studies that showed different numbers of defensive gun use. I should have posted the links to those studies, I admit to that mistake. You should know from our previous conversations that I ALWAYS have sources to back up my statements and I NEVER say anything I can’t back up. That is why I used 3 different numbers of DGU and said whichever number is correct.

        Here you go sweetie:

          • Mark says:


            You did put in your post that the stats for defensive gun use vary, but the problem with the defensive gun use figures are that the Harvard studies (link provided earlier) show that guns are used more often in antisocial ways than in defensive ways which negates at least part of this argument. I don’t think either side of the debate is on solid ground and certainly we would be arguing for a long time without changing anyones view or producing stats that catagorically prove one way or another. Again, my point here is that when I read posts and know of studies that offer a contrary view I will share them. Education is key to good decision making.

          • Mark says:


            In addition to death by gun the numbers below start to add up closer to the defensive gun use

            “More than 31,000 people a year in the United States die from gunshot wounds. Because
            victims are disproportionately young, gun violence is one of the leading causes of premature
            mortality in the U.S. In addition to these deaths, in 2010, there were an estimated 337,960 nonfatal
            violent crimes committed with guns, and 73,505 persons treated in hospital emergency
            departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds.”

            From John Hopkins (a commie Bloomberg liberal stinking gay loving etc etc I know!)

          • Mark,
            My first reply is still awaiting moderation, probably because I had so many links in it. Only my second reply is showing up. You don’t need to convince me we have a gun violence problem, we don’t disagree on that. Where we disagree is how to reduce the numbers. I don’t see guns as the problems, I see criminals as the problem. You’re correct that education is good, but I don’t need help making a decision, mine is already made. You’re sweet and I do read the links you provide.

          • Gerald says:

            Mark, are you sure of that “31,000 people a year”,…or am I missing something here?

          • JM says:

            Around 19,000 of those 31,000 deaths are suicides. if guns did not exist those 19,000 people would still be depressed, troubled, and feel like the only way out was death and would do so some other way. So if we are being honest the number is more like 12,000.
            “one of the leading causes” here are some others that are higher on the list:
            Drug overdoses (maybe we should outlaw Meth ….wait tried that)
            Poisonings (intentional and unintentional)
            Car fatalities–many of which are also:
            Alcohol Related deaths (how about banning alcohol …. oh, wait tried that too–in the early 1900’s–that went well. Your welcome Capone.

            Check your facts please

          • Mark says:


            Suicides – means matter – A gun does not allow for second thoughts. Studies show that not all people who attempt suicide unsuccessfully go on to try again. The main way to commit suicide in a part of Asia was to drink poisonous weed killer. Authorities reduced the toxic level of weed killer and suicides dropped by half.

            check your facts please JM

          • Oswald Bastable says:

            You ever going to answer [b]MY[/b] question Mark? Or are you going to continue to avoid it and prove yourself the same useless, partisan hack you’ve always been?

          • Gerald says:

            Eww… “Wikipedia” in response? Yikes! May I add: …taken with a grain (or 2….thousand) of salt.

            ..just sayin’… ;)

          • Hi Gerald,
            I received a similar response to a comment on another site, his words weren’t phrased as nicely. My first reply is still awaiting moderation, I have 5 other sources in it. Hopefully it will be okayed soon. My comp I instructor told us never to use wikipedia as a source. I only do if I have verified the info from other sources. I like this page because it mentions 4 different studies – Lott, Kleck & Gertz, the National Self-Defense Survey and the National Crime Victimization Survey. The page reports the numbers from those studies and mentions different criticisms of them. :)

          • Hi Gerald,
            Trying again, third time I’ve tried to post this comment. I received a similar response to a comment on another site, his words weren’t phrased as nicely. My first reply is still awaiting moderation, I have 5 other sources in it. Hopefully it will be okayed soon. My comp I instructor told us never to use wikipedia as a source. I only do if I have verified the info from other sources. I like this page because it mentions 4 different studies – Lott, Kleck & Gertz, the National Self-Defense Survey and the National Crime Victimization Survey. The page reports the numbers from those studies and mentions different criticisms of them. :)

          • Damn, sorry for the double post. Oh, but hey, this double post will probably make Daddy Jeb smile. :)

          • Gerald says:

            Sorry, just seeing this.

          • Gerald says:

            Yes,…sorry. I didn’t mean to degrade a point, only that I’ve noticed Wiki,…Snoops, etc, having issues. Hell, I (we) know that to recite court rulings anymore is like arguing over how thick the ice is – while we’re standing on it. :)

            My point (if I have one…) is that all of this (even the Constitution) is one based on our own common sense,…our own morality,…our ability to think…for ourselves.

            I must say that aside from those few herein, I am glad (as an Oathkeeper, and active duty soldier, and former Marine) that there are so many out there (you) that have a great grasp on this issue. Thank you.

          • Brad says:

            Amen Gerald, and thank you for your service. I to am a veteran of over 8 years active service. I am proud to be on the same side as you.

          • Gerald says:

            Roger that. And dittos, mate.

          • Forgive me for overlooking this, but I am so grateful for your service and for being an oathkeeper.

            I completely agree with your common sense sentence. Doing all the research for this issue, I’ve learned a great deal about the ideals and principles of our FFs. Reading their speeches and writings, I’m awed. I always took for granted our rights and freedoms. I never realized just how amazing, unique, and wondrous the country they created really is. The power would always reside with the people and we could only be governed by granting them the permission to do so. That the gov. is accountable to us and the Constitution recognizes and affirms our authority to remove an illegitimate and oppressive gov. and protects the means (2nd A) with which to do so.

          • Paul Smith says:

            Spot on, Laura. Why is it so hard to get people to see that simple truth?

          • Paul,

            I had typed out a nice thank you, but I lost it when I tried to post it. So, I will just say thank you for your nice remark.


          • Paul Smith says:

            My pleasure, Laura.

          • Mark,
            My first reply is still awaiting moderation, it might be because I included several links. I’m going to post the links in a few messages, hopefully I can sneak around the filter. :)

            http://www.saf.org /lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm
            http://www.businessweek.com /articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense
            http://www.guncite.com /gun_control_gcdguse.html

            Just remove the space after ‘org’ and ‘com’

          • saf.org /LawReviews/SmithT1.htm
            factcheck.org /2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

            Remove the space after ‘org’ The first comment didn’t work.

          • Alright! That worked. Going to repost the other 3.

            saf.org /lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm
            http://www.businessweek.com /articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense
            guncite.com /gun_control_gcdguse.html

            Remove the space after ‘org’ and ‘com’

      • JM says:

        First I have only skimmed the article you linked and have already found several glaring misuses of statistics:
        1: “Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense.” adolescents (12-17 yrs) by law cannot own guns so this is an irrelevant stat.
        2: “Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime …. Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail …” Washington D.C. is a no gun zone so there are NO law abiding citizens carrying only criminals. so this is massively skewed.
        3.”Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens” One could also state that few criminals are shot by the police. Most of the time the presence of an armed citizen is enough to stop a crime for the simple reason that criminals don’t want to get shot. I know someone who stopped a robbery at a gas station by simply lifting his shirt and placing his hand on his holstered gun while backing around a corner. after waiting a few moments he looked around the corner and the suspect was gone–crime prevented–no shots fired.
        These are issues I found with your link with out even having to do research but simply reading with an analytical mind. So take your own advice don’t put false information out there do you own research, don’t just trust it because it says “Harvard.” Where would we be if Galileo and Copernicus had simply trusted the “Harvards” of their day. (if you don’t know what i mean grab a middle school science or history textbook).

        • Brad says:

          Excellent point JM. Sometimes all it takes is a little common sense and an analytical mind. Unfortunately common sense isn’t as common as it used to be, as a matter of fact it is down right uncommon as evidenced by the liberal mentality.

        • Mark says:

          Answers to your comments/responses:
          1. Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense.” adolescents (12-17 yrs) by law cannot own guns so this is an irrelevant stat.
          Answer: Not irrelevant – Another part of the study states “We surveyed 7th and 10th graders in inner city schools in Boston and Milwaukee. We found that almost a quarter of 7th grade boys had already carried a gun, illegally.” Easy access to guns makes this possible.
          2. “Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime …. Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail …” Washington D.C. is a no gun zone so there are NO law abiding citizens carrying only criminals. so this is massively skewed.
          Answer: See the answer below
          3. ”Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens”
          Answer – The study answers itself – if you had bothered to read it – “To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals.”

          So if you take the study as a whole then you can see the sense. You say later that I should do some research. Take a longer look yourself, read information fully that supports the other side of the argument to educate yourself rather than sticking to subjects that reinforce your beliefs.

          • JM says:

            1. why ONLY 7th and 10th graders. Why ONLY inner city city schools. why ONLY 2 cities. I don’t know how long it has been since you took stats but that does not seem like a representative set to me. I don’t disagree that there is a problem with violence and poor parenting in this country this is often most evident in poorer areas which tend to be inner city areas. but guns and gun violence are just a symptom of a much larger problem.
            2. My point here was the same as above. a SINGLE jail in ONE city is not a representative set.
            3. Self defense gun use does not mean “criminal was shot” just as apprehended by police does not mean “shot by police” also I made no statement as to how many instances of self defense gun use I believed there was. Even if it is only 80,000 that is a significant number.

            Additionally it is interesting to note that the mere possibility of the presence of a gun causes a difference in criminal behavior to other countries 43% of UK burglaries occur with the resident home, compared to 9% in the US.

            as far as sticking to subjects that only reinforce my beliefs. these have all been my OWN arguments in my OWN words, backed my OWN research. I admit that I am not perfect and may misspeak from time to time but at least I am not simply quoting from 1 study that happens to be in line with my beliefs as you are.

          • Thom says:

            Welcome aboard, JM!!

          • Mark says:


            I agree with you that to are not be conclusive but they cant be ignored. There are many points in the link that should provoke honest debate but by your own words you stopped reading.

            you said that “43% of UK burglaries occur with the resident home” where is that stat from? That seems very high.

          • Mark says:


            You were wrong on both your stats used for homeowners at home during burglaries (Just saying you were wrong, unfortunately I cant disagree with your point)
            USA – 28%
            UK – 57% (yikes much higher than I thought)

            More burglaries are committed at night in the UK against more committed during the day in the US. It is easy to point towards the US burglars fear that he may be confronted by a gun owner as a reason for choosing to burgle during the day.

            But to get back to my point (you new I couldnt just leave it like that). Higher murder rate, higher suicide rate etc etc.

          • Oswald Bastable says:

            Funny how burglars fear being shot by a homeowner in the US, so burgle during the day when people are not likely to be home, and burglars in the UK fear it not, so burgle and terrorize people in their homes in the dead of night in the UK, when they are the most confused (sudden awakening) and defenseless…isn’t it Mark?

            I wonder what might happen to that rate in the UK if the scum who burgle in the night and terrorize good honest folk feared for their lives and safety during those acts?

            You know, if the Brits had the ability and right to actually protect themselves, as opposed to submitting meekly to whatever the scum had in mind…

          • JM,

            Wonderful comment. Many people believe DGU means shooting and/or killing the attacker. One of the studies I have read breaks down the numbers: the potential victim saying they have a gun; showing the intruder the gun; shooting the gun, to scare the intruder; and wounding/killing the intruder. I can’t recall the actual percentages, but wounding/killing the intruder happened only 3-5% of the time.

            Thank you,

      • JM says:

        Also on further investigation, although that article seems to quote several sources it is actually only quoting several publications by David Hemenway. Also known as the director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. So basically he quotes himself a bunch on his own website to support his position …. kinda circular.

        • Mark says:

          i’m not really sure what your point is, that someone published their own work? if this was done and was questionable there would normally be other sources debunking the findings. I have not found any debunking this work. I’d be happy to see some and wait with an open mind.

          John Lotts work on the other hand, some self published and also debunked.

          You must have found the findings troubling and against your dogma of more guns solve everything. You comment about your friend at the gas station is indeed a brave and laudable act but if guns are used more often to commit crimes than prevent them it starts a different debate.

          • Paul Smith says:

            What debate, Mark? The Constitutional authors, in their wisdom, recognized the God given right to keep and bear arms and enshrined that right in the Constitution. You will NEVER get enough support to change that therefore we will always have guns in this country at least until a superior force enslaves us.

          • JM says:

            I find it interesting that you skipped over my whole first comment where I show that parts of that article are self-debunked. please read all of my response before going off half-cocked. I did not find the statistics “troubling” I found them irrelevant and obviously construed to promote an anti-Constitutional agenda. Please read and respond to my first post or I will assume that you concede my points.

          • Mark says:


            Furthermore these are published and peer reviewed. Its funny when you sid on further investigation – but you obviously didnt do any further investigation? You dope!

          • Oswald Bastable says:

            Just can’t respond to the legitimate questions and concerns asked of or pointed out to you, can you Mark?

            Always slippery like the slimy eel you are…possibly a result of your diet?

          • 7delta says:

            John Lotts work on the other hand, some self published and also debunked.

            I’ve seen you say this several times and I’ve seen it a few times elsewhere, but I’ve never seen any comparative study debunking his work. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but can you provide a source?

          • Oswald Bastable says:

            “I have not found any debunking this work. I’d be happy to see some and wait with an open mind.”

            I’ve already posted them, you blasphemous, pustulant git.

            Your mind is as open as a sewer and as discerning as a sewer grate.

          • Mark says:


            You post inaccuracies and have never disproved anything. You have a different view point and you are welcome to it. You have deflected to many other topics during the whole argument once the points start to work against you. I asked some time ago if you could point me towards any of the blogs where you are arguing your points among pro gun control people, but the silence was deafening. You seem to like being a loud, angry, obnoxious oaf in front of your mates, bullied at school were we?

            I have respect for some in here but not for you.

          • Thom says:

            Hey Mark, Oswald is one of our heros in here and your not showing the proper respect he deserves.If you’re thinking you can win a war with words him all I can say is “go for it” I can hardly wait to see his next post to you!! tata

          • Mark says:


            That you follow Baaastable is a good sign of your character.

        • Brad says:

          Great catch JM, I wonder how many others caught the fact that he was referencing his own work with those sources. I can’t believe the publishers didn’t or wouldn’t prevent that from occurring. There is no credibility any longer in academia.

      • 7delta says:

        Mark, do you remember what the Home Office said about the reliability of surveys? They’re unreliable. People report things from their perspective. There is no corroborating evidence or witness. There is no police report, or if there is, it may directly conflict with the interviewee’s account. A crime survey’s only value is in giving a broad overview, but it cannot be depended upon to drew conclusions such as this compilations of Harvard studies in the link you posted. I didn’t see any links to their work to see the questions asked to the interviewees. How a question is framed is essential in eliminating bias. There was no correlation of their information available or any statement regarding their methodology in choosing how their ‘random’ phone calls would be made. Were they evenly spread out all over the U.S., or regional or random within a smaller demographic? If the bulk fell into Detroit or in rural Kansas matters.

        The most defective category on its face was the prison survey. I’m sure you’re aware that there are no guilty people in prison. Everyone there is innocent…or so they say. Of course, they were not engaged in criminal activity at the time they were shot. Every single one of them was either helping an elderly lady across the street or taking a casserole to a sick neighbor. Without documentation of their claims, I’m afraid the information is completely unreliable.

        The most unintentionally humorous category was: Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens. As opposed to indecent law abiding citizens? Word placement creates an impression. You can take a person who is unassociated with an ‘undesirable’ group or person, slide their name in with the rest, and you’ve created a subconsciously negative impression of that person with the listener or reader. That’s what the word ‘decent’ does in that sentence. It creates the impression that the gun owner who did not shoot the criminal cannot possibly be decent, because to be a possible shooter that was eliminated, he would have to own a gun. I get that they’re trying to project that guns aren’t used in self defense to shoot criminals, but the way they’ve framed the sentence, it’s either impression word placement or they’re saying decent gun owners don’t go around shooting people, criminal or not. I don’t think it’s the latter, even though it’s true that most criminals are shot by other criminals, which would have been a clearer statement, but that would not appear to address their premise that guns aren’t used in self defense, nor would it create a negative impression of gun owners. Kinda manipulative.

        They didn’t make their case.

        I did search for FBI stats or another reliable source, but I found the FBI page to their page that included self defense data was mysteriously gone. I tried several times. The others I found were mostly the shoot out between opposing sides of the argument. I’ll check to see if the FBI page resurfaces later.

        • Mark says:


          The two sources for data in the UK are the Home Office and the England and Wales Crime Survey. The Home Office data is collected largely from Police forces and the survey is, well, a survey. I agree completely with you on the reliable level of the data, differing way to collect, store and publish the data make it difficult to compare, even within the same country. You are well read, articulate and have a more analytical mind than I. But you are in a very different part of the argument.

          I don’t disagree with you on the reliability of the sources. I post in here largely because of the inaccuracies that I have read posted as facts. At the start of my involvment in the discussion there were lots of posts pointing toward the UKs high crime rate. Taking the UK crime survey (high data) for a high year and comparing it against US FBI records for a different year. This is a poor way to represent an argument. There were mulitple media outlets in the US, Fox 19 and others, I didnt write them down, claiming that the UK crime rate was at least 3 times higher than the US and that this was in some way connected to our gun control laws. On closer examination our countries were not that much different on the crime rates, but they couldnt be directly compared due the apples and cows recording.

          I focus on the one thing that is easy to count, death. Deaths caused by guns are very high in the US compared to the rest of the world and in particular when focussed on countrie of similar economic standing. Deaths are recorded similarly across most developed countries therefore are easier to compare.

          I differ from 90% of the contributors in that I believe that gun registration and control would help reduce this. I respect the need for personal weapons in the US for self protection given the amount of criminally held firearms, but don’t see the problem with citizens registering what they own, being responsible for them and being licenced.

          My postings in here previously have stated that both sides stretch the truth at best and downright lie at worst. Academia and the media hold a lot of the blame.

          Both sides of the debate need to sit down and work things out, but the chances of that happening are slim.

          I only have a dog in the fight when bad stats are used in the debate referencing the UK.

          • Mark,

            Focusing solely on firearm deaths is misleading. What about total homicides from all weapons. I propose we both put together stats for different crimes. Total homicides; firearm homicides – if possible break it down into handgun, rifle, shotgun; total homicides using knife, blunt object, hands/feet/fists.

            So everything is equal, homicide includes intentional death – murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter. It does not include unknown intent, justifiable homicide by cop or citizen, or accident.

            Since our populations are very different, please convert the numbers to per capita for 100,000. I have stats for 2011, if you don’t have stats for that year, please let me know the most recent stats you have.

            I also propose we do violent crime. I’ve already posted your rape rates ;) and we are doing homicides separately. So we should do ag assaults, robbery, burglary, and arson. These would be per capita totals. Then we can make apple to apple and not apple to cow (did you steal my phrase ;) ) comparisons. This should be a lot of fun.


          • Mark says:


            Thanks for your response, my point is that some of the detail cannot be easilty compared, do we use survey results of national reports? The FBI only record aggravated assault and above. The Home office report every punch up. UK firearm offences include BB guns, airguns and replica firearms in one number. We are a small country, 56 million people in England and Wales.

            I would also argue that intentional homicide by a cop should be counted in gun death, as I’m guessing that cops normally shoot and kill suspect only when that about to endanger life (probably with a firearm?).

            The idea is good though but I would need time to do it, I’m just coming into a busy work period. Do we need to arson and rape? Rape is a horrible subject and because of changes in reporting and understand criteria I think we would spend much time researching and collecting data only to argue about it and it not be that accurate anyway. I found 5 different versions of the same data when I looked before.

          • Mark,
            They don’t break down the stats? really? they lump all firearms together??? I find that hard to believe. Sorry, no, intentional homicides only – justifiable homicide by citizen or cop is not included. You know what, I’ll give them to you right now. 2011 accidental 851; unknown intent 222; jh/cop 390; jh/civilian 153. total for those four categories is 1616. I already showed that your rape rate is higher. No surveys, those aren’t stats, hard data only. I’ve already done my research, I can get it in a matter of minutes. I have to say that you sound like you’re making excuses. Why would you have to research and collect? doesn’t your gov. provide that data for you??? If you don’t ALREADY know these statistics how can you even come on here and say people are wrong? Come on, what gives? Did you see I was able to post those likes for the DGU? I hope you’ll have a chance to read them.

          • 7delta says:

            Mark said: But you are in a very different part of the argument.

            I’m not sure I follow you here. Like you, I’m looking for the truth, especially in any of these studies used as support for a position. I’ve not had time to look at Lott’s work yet, but I will. I’ve seen his book around and the next time I do, I’ll get it. I’ll give it the same scrutiny I’ve given the studies posted here. A study’s value is only as good as its unbiased methodology and evaluation. Sadly, it appears far too many skew their data to make it fit an agenda. This is why, from the beginning of this debate, I’ve maintained that government studies must be viewed in light of an administration’s position. After all, in most cases, the researcher’s bread is buttered by that administration. Unfortunately, this extends to far more than simply the gun debate and is a sad commentary on the integrity of the scientific and academic communities and on the political machinery that ‘buys’ it.

            I found one study done during the Carter Administration that looks promising, but I can’t say for certain until see it. “In the late 1970s, former President Jimmy Carter assigned two highly respected pro-gun control professors to research this subject.” The information I found stated: “After four years of work, James D. Wright and Peter Rossi published their findings in a three-volume work called “Under the Gun.” Their conclusion is that “gun control laws do not reduce crime. Wright and Rossi concluded that private citizens use guns to thwart an average of over 400,000 crimes per year.” I have not found the actual study yet, only this summary. But I’ll look at the actual work itself, if I locate it.

            The fact that Carter is quite solid in the anti-gun camp, I tend to think this study returned surprising results for the administration and perhaps is why it’s a rather obscure study now. Other than posting the summary, I can’t comment on anything else about it until I lay eyes on it, but it drew my attention because it contradicted the administration’s stance. It may be no better than others, but it captures my interests because of its dissent. I would feel the same no matter what administration commissioned it. It’s an oddity. That alone is endorsement enough to seek it out.

            I post in here largely because of the inaccuracies that I have read posted as facts. At the start of my involvment in the discussion there were lots of posts pointing toward the UKs high crime rate.

            I understand and I don’t blame you for defending your country and a position you support. We are in the same position on this side of the pond. If we have all learned anything from this interaction, it’s to not throw around statistics or studies without scrutinizing them objectively first. I would not have bothered to read any of the studies or look to make comparisons of different countries had it not been for this debate. I’ve learned quite a lot from our discussions.

            There were mulitple media outlets in the US, Fox 19 and others, I didn’t write them down, claiming that the UK crime rate was at least 3 times higher than the US and that this was in some way connected to our gun control laws. On closer examination our countries were not that much different on the crime rates, but they couldn’t be directly compared due the apples and cows recording.

            Exactly. The news outlets made the same mistake as many of us did in the beginning by simply looking at numbers and trying to make comparisons. And we, who should know better than to take the media at face value, made the mistake of parroting them without evaluating their sources. Both sides of this debate are equally guilty.

            I focus on the one thing that is easy to count, death. Deaths caused by guns are very high in the US compared to the rest of the world and in particular when focussed on countrie of similar economic standing. Deaths are recorded similarly across most developed countries therefore are easier to compare.

            I understand. However, I disagree that this raw number is any better of a gauge than unevaluated statistics. Again, the variables are too numerous to make same to same comparisons. Statistics are largely drawn from these numbers, with few addendums that note unusual circumstances that may or may not effect the overall count. That’s not the job of number crunchers anyway. Their numbers are very cut and dry and the value is limited to simply a broad overview that appears to be useful only in tracking events from year to year.

            I differ from 90% of the contributors in that I believe that gun registration and control would help reduce this. I respect the need for personal weapons in the US for self protection given the amount of criminally held firearms, but don’t see the problem with citizens registering what they own, being responsible for them and being licenced.

            I understand and respect your position. As I’m sure you know, I do not share your belief, because I don’t see, from any perspective, that the benefits outweigh the risks. We’ve shown here, in this post, that neither side is above using disingenuous tactics to support their position. Since we can’t depend on ‘official’ sources to provide us with accurate assessments, that leave us to determine our position by other means. As far as I can see, the only valid means of ever determining our position on any issue is by moral principle. Principles that are rooted in truth and within the context of a greater experience than the narrowly focused timeline we find ourselves in, remain as true today as they did before written history. “We find these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness—“. Self-evident truth.

            Neither time nor technology can alter principles rooted in truth. Misapplication of this truth in the past is never a justification to dispense with it. We either rise to meet the challenges every generation faces with those truths firmly in our grasp, or we fall into the darkness that has always lurked just beyond the boundaries of a lighted path. Mankind has been seduced by the darker regions of his soul since the beginning of his existence. This duality is as much a part of our design as it is that we have a smooth muscle that pumps our circulatory system. Our only weapon against the deceptive lures is to stay the principled path, even when it runs counter to popular sentiment. We solve problems, one person at a time, by bringing each person onto the principled path where they see that true liberty is not doing whatever you want, whenever you want, but having the tools to discern that simply because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should. Moral principles are the tools in determining what we should do and what we shouldn’t. Without those guides, we wander in the wilderness of carnival barkers calling to us to go ‘this way’, the seductive whispers of sirens drawing us ‘that way’, and the sweet aroma of ‘getting mine’ leading us around and around on this well-trodden path of going nowhere.

            I only have a dog in the fight when bad stats are used in the debate referencing the UK

            That may only be partially true, Mark. Yes, as I said earlier, you have every right to defend your country and your position, but in the larger picture, you are on the same journey as the rest of us in our quest for truth. We have all hit the potholes, got covered in mud, then climbed out to start again. Everyone has to choose which path they’re on and whether it’s illuminated by truth’s light or by the false flicker of light that has deceived man since his first breath with promises of ‘if only…’ Only you can choose which path is yours, just as only I can. I think we’re all here checking our road maps in an attempt to discern which path we’re on.

            I’ve learned a lot at this rest stop on my journey, things I don’t think I would have had I not taken this reprieve. If you and I learn nothing else, I hope we can say we have learned that we don’t have to always agree, but that we can always support one another in our quests to find the truth. Our common enemy is the lie. That’s enough to sustain one another as we set back off on our long journey home.

          • 7d,

            Once again I am awed by your comments. Here are two links for articles. I don’t have a link for Lott’s work, I had to actually download the whole file. I have other links in my comments above. If figures that didn’t show up, would now show up, so it looks like I just went ‘comment posting wild.’

            Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern)

            Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern)
            A CALL FOR A TRUCE IN THE DGU WAR Tom W. Smith *


    • Daddy Jeb says:

      your damn polemics are tiresome. save your polemics for your women’s bible study gossip studies. you don’t have a clue about how to protect you & your family. you just want to give us another bible devotional.


      shut up & go away.

      • Daddy Jeb,

        Aw, you caught me, and here I thought I was being subtle. You are so right, I have been neglecting my women’s bible study group, but how did you know…..

      • Brad says:

        Daddy Jeb, your use of 25 cent words (polemics), does not hide the fact that you have a nickle education… You are the one that needs to leave this blog and learn some manners.

      • Oswald Bastable says:

        Jeb…when you decide it’s time to stop playing with little Jeb and want to play with the big boys…you let us know, ya hear? Until then, keep little Jeb well in hand and enjoy your inbred relationship…you’re the only one who is…

  45. T Chambers says:

    Nobody is coming to get your gun. You are the one manufacturing the confiscation fobia in your own head. Yes, the constitution gives everybody the right to bear arms, it does not give you the right to be careless with your gun or the rigtht to kill children with your guns.

    • ChristCrusader says:

      you’re right there. such gun misuses are and should be punished. But the politicians who ARE moving for gun control against the 2nd Amendment actually have nothing to do with that. They and you just try to muddle the two of them together.

    • Thom says:

      No Shit!! Where did you read that at??

    • Daddy Jeb says:

      Jesus, I am late to this debate but you idiot are late to higher critical thinking. Now, go back to your bunk bed in your historically black college dorm room.

    • Jeff says:

      Apparently you haven’t be watching the news.

    • B Migliaccio says:

      So I guess you don’t see the proposed law for California to ban and confiscate ALL semi-automatic firearms

    • Mr./Ms. Chambers,
      I hope you will indulge my curiosity and help me understand your viewpoint a little better. Many times gun control advocates have expressed the same opinion as yours. I think we both agree that no one wants gun owners to be careless nor for children to be shot and killed. I’m at a loss in understanding why gun control advocates equate someone who commits a crime with a gun to innocent, lawful gun owners who have never used their guns in an illegal manner. In an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the 99.8 or 9% of gun owners who haven’t broken the law are treated the same way the 1 or 2% of law-breakers are. I just don’t understand the reasoning behind this.

      Thank you,

    • ken says:

      T Chambers ….. If you learned to spell people might take you serious.

  46. A. Gatz says:

    Concerned Canadian:
    A profound congratulation is due to Dean Garrison for his down to earth, openly written presentation
    on a subject that none of your politicians has the fortitude or courage to address. I do hope all
    good Americans heed Dean Garrison’s concerns and to be prepared to act accordingly!
    My best wishes to our close friends to the south.

  47. Lynda says:

    PLEASE America wake up before our government takes everything we love away from us!! And I’m talking about our FREEDOM all of our FREEDOMS!!!!!!

  48. Mitche says:

    I believe the next American revolution will start when they begin to try to confiscate our guns. I will be standing beside you with my shotgun in my hands. If I die defending liberty, so be it. There are much worse ways to die.

Leave a Reply