Norcross.Talk

By Justin

February 12, 2007 05:52 AM | Link to this

I think your plan is a good idea, if your intended goal is to reduce the small number of unintentional deaths and injuries that occur. As many people, myself included, pointed out in response to your first post, most gun deaths are the result of suicide. As you and others pointed out, normally law abiding citizens also can become emotional and use a gun to harm someone. Then as you acknowledged above, your plan does nothing to address the injuries and deaths caused by criminals who obtain weapons illegally.

I don’t have any problem with the plan itself though. It makes common sense when you think about what people go through (or should go through) when obtaining licenses for other things.

By Yeah, I said it

February 12, 2007 06:06 AM | Link to this

I just don’t see how your plan will reduce the amount of accidental deaths or how it will help remove weapons from crimminals’ hands. Your plan will not prevent children finding a weapon and accidently shooting themselves or another. Right now gun owners know they should keep their weapons locked up in a safe place, some just don’t. Some people are just smarter than others and you can’t change that. Your plan does not address that. Also, just because someone has gone through gun safety does not mean that they aren’t going to go ballistic some day and pick up that weapon they trained so hard to get. Also, when someone goes through the ownership process and purchases a gun, they know what sort of ammunition it fires. I don’t have any statistics to back this up or anything but I’m pretty confident that when people buy guns they do go to shooting ranges to test them and don’t just put them in a drawer waiting for a chance to use them. I think the population of people you hope to change with this plan is very very very small. Most people who currently own guns are responsible people. Accidents do happen, and that is truely a shame, but the real problem is the crimminals that currently own weapons and/or obtain them illegally from the neighborhood drug/gun dealer. They aren’t supposed to have them anyway and we should be trying to find ways to take them away rather than controlling how the responsible people obtain them. Now I know that some will say that one accident is enough to make a change. Well, let’s look at car accidents and deaths related to car accidents. Statistically, with the millions of drivers on the road, accidents will happen. You can never take that out of the equation. Yes, we can be safer drivers, slow down more, take defensive driving and even take advanced driving courses at race tracks. No matter how educated or experienced you are you are not exempt from accidents. An accident is an “unplanned event causing damage or injury.” That you can not predetermine or change.
FYI, I’m a gun owner and small collector. I keep guns in my house but we don’t have children. We hear gun shots in our neighborhood almost every night. The people most likely shooting them are illegal mexicans who shouldn’t have guns in the first place. Why come knocking on my door wanting to change how I legally obtain mine when you should be knocking on theirs, arresting them and removing the weapons they are owning and shooting illegally. Doesn’t seem right Woody, really doesn’t seem right.

By Tom

February 12, 2007 06:26 AM | Link to this

Woody, beyond the nanny state infringements this is NOTHING NEW. Responsible PARENTS and relatives have been doing just this for God knows how long, probably since guns were invented.

There are already much better courses that gun owners can seek out on their own, remember that whole freedom thing. With freedom comes personal responsibility. You violate the rules you pay the price.

Ways to improve the plan? Teach basic gun safety with appropriate gruesome videos and pictures of REAL wounds in schools, not hollywood BS. I’m an FX guy, and I know first hand that what is shown is 98% BS. Real life is much worse. Ideally, this would be left to parents, but not all of them are comfortable with it or willing to spend the time for whatever reason. Let the kids shoot a gun.

If you want to do something about the “gun problem” focus on enforcing the vast number of gun laws, repeal the ones that make law abiding citizens into victims and get them out of the hands of criminals. Teach kids at an early age about them, honestly, no this anti-gun propaganda we see in PSAs. Did the PSAs about drugs work?

Start addressing the core disease instead of looking at symptoms.

By jb

February 12, 2007 08:12 AM | Link to this

Is step seven: Enter into the house any person who doesn’t pass the test and forcefully take their guns?

By Brian Curtis

February 12, 2007 09:14 AM | Link to this

Woody: Seems pretty reasonable… therefore, the gun nuts will be here within moments to decry your obvious insanity and fascist leanings.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 12, 2007 09:15 AM | Link to this

The way to sell the plan is have a NRA approved and taught course, I’m serious. It would keep the state pretty much out of it, the people may actually learn the proper use of a weapon and the NRA may pick up a few members.

By Woody Bass

February 12, 2007 09:25 AM | Link to this

Bruce: Actually the NRA does have a course similar to what I am proposing, but I didnt see them as taking the position of making something like that mandatory. I could be wrong. However, if they did “step up” and propose this be done… it would speak volumes to me personally.

By InWonder

February 12, 2007 09:41 AM | Link to this

So, what happens to people, that become victimized by criminals with guns they obtained illegally, while they going thru this legal, Six-Step program? I can see this causing MANY lawsuits. They will have no way to protect themselves for however long this program takes…30 days, 60 days, 90 days, 6 months to a year? A gun is going to beat anyone trying to use a bat, knife or any object as a method of self-defense. Have fun waiting for 30 minutes to an hour+ for help. Hopefully the criminal doesn’t come between you and your way to get out or a way to get help. (Don’t try to pull anything you see in the movies either. The REAL WORLD doesn’t work that way.)

By KA

February 12, 2007 09:53 AM | Link to this

Woody, glad you agree with my comments last week regarding educating people. Most responsible gun owners have done most of what you outlined, but educating people is always the best solution. What do you propose to take guns away from criminals?

By Bruce Wilcox

February 12, 2007 09:55 AM | Link to this

InWonder there is a federal law that will put you away for five years for carrying without a permit, the feds say they do not have the manpower to enforce. if enforced it will not stop illegal guns but it will cut down on them. you’ve heard it over and over again, enforce the laws we have.

woody, you never know, if you have to pay for the course the nra may take some interest, they could make a ton of money off the program.

By KA

February 12, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this

Cross Blog Alert! Capitol Updates has a discussion on the Georgia bill to allow concealed weapons in vehicles; http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/georgia/entries/2007/02/12/housewilldisc.html

By Kevin

February 12, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

You are on the RIGHT TRACK…legal ownership of guns (US Citizens only) with responsible gun owners period! Perhaps owners of guns that kill children or others, should be help occountable for their guns, instead of calling it an accident…then the owners of the guns might decide to lock them up. I believe in the right to own guns, let’s eductae ourselves to the proper handling of these weapons, keep sounding off, perhaps people will listen.

By Police Officer

February 12, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

Gun deaths are tragic. However, as much as anti-gun people try and deny it, the 2nd amendment is part of the BILL OF RIGHTS which was always intended to protect the rights of individuals. We already have enough laws restricting gun ownership. It is illegal to use a gun in any crime. It is illegal to provide a gun to a criminal. It is illegal to do any type of reckless act with your gun.

If you look at the statistics, people are making a mountain out of a molehill.

The current US population is 298,444,215 according to the CIA as of July 2006.

According to Harvard, 30,000 people are killed as a result of suicide, murder, or accidental gun deaths per year. Folks, do the math. You have a 00.01 percent chance of being killed by a firearm in any given year. For all intents and purposes, this is a ZERO percent chance of being injured by a firearm.

The statistics on injuries are a little more. Harvard estimates that 65,000 people are injured with a firearm. Therefore, your chances increas to 00.02 percent chance that you’ll be injured this year by a firearm.

Does anyone think that a 00.03% chance that you’ll be injured or killed by a firearm is indicative of a problem in this country? I don’t see a problem. Sure, I realize that when you say there are “95,000” injured or killed by firearms every year it sounds intimidating and like an epidemic. However, something affecting almost ZERO percent of the population is NOT a serious problem.

According to studies, 2,040,000 either DIE or are PERMANENTLY disabled from car wreckes every year. This means it is 21.5 TIMES more likely you’ll be permanently disabled or killed in an auto accident. I think Woody should be working on more responsible car ownership.

By DPlummer in CA

February 12, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

As promised, here is my plan to eliminate some, if not the majority, of the irresponsibility linked to journalism and blogging.

First: Applicants who wish to create or edit content for a newspaper or post to a web log would have to complete a government application process and have to pass a criminal background check.

Second: If approved, applicants would then take a course taught by a certified instructor where they will learn about guns, history of genocidal governments and regimes, original intent of the Founders, the differences between rights and privileges, and the legitimate role of government in a free society.

Third: Once the course is completed, the applicant would take a written test on the topics covered in the class.

Fourth: Upon passage of the written test with at least a 90 percent score, the applicant would then be issued a “learner’s license” good for six months during which time the writer’s submissions would be limited to 200 words per month and would be scrutinized by censors for appropriate content prior to publication.

Fifth: Applicant would then complete 10 hours of supervised personal instruction in an approved content generation facility. He would then be licensed to write on that subject.

Sixth: Prior to writing on any new subject, the applicant would be required to complete a 10-hour course at an approved content generation facility to ensure he possessed at least some knowledge on the subject about which he intends to write. The applicant then receives a an appropriate subject matter endorsement on his license to write.

By 45superman

February 12, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this

DPlummer in CA, That’s the best plan I’ve heard in a long time.

Woody’s plan sounds like a good way of pricing low income people out of the firearms ownership market, just as the ban on so-called “Saturday Night Specials” tries to do. That’s a stellar idea—kind of a rerturn to the feudal system. Are we going to have knights, too?

There’s some commentary about last week’s topic here: http://armedandsafe.blogspot.com/2007/02/no-one-needs-guns-woody-said-so.html

By Matt

February 12, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

I agree with the last two comments. That is a capital idea, DPlummer.

However, I would add an exemption that so long as a journalist is writing about sports or a topic deemed by the attorney general to be appropriately related to a legitimate sporting event, that the journalist is not required to complete step 6.

After all, we only seek reasonable, common-sense control over irresponsible writers, so we should make every effort to be fair.

By woodys mom

February 12, 2007 01:58 PM | Link to this

woodys plan has some merit. why not use the money that is made off of these classes and put it to good use.. like paying law enforcement task force just to arrest these gun toting criminals that are in almost every neighborhood in america. then the law abiding licenced gun owners would out no. the criminals. and you wouldnt have to have a gun to protect yourself and only have to use a gun for target practice or hunting. thats the problem is that the law enforcement dont have the man power to enforce laws the way it is now. so this would be a win win situation.

By Matt

February 12, 2007 02:03 PM | Link to this

I must respectfully disagree with Woody’s mother. His plan is to create a complex government bureaucracy, the sole purpose of which is to regulate and control the manner in which people exercise their rights.

No matter how well-funded and large a police force we have, I will always consider “personal defense” one of my main reasons for owning a gun.

By DPlummer in CA

February 12, 2007 02:07 PM | Link to this

Oh. And how about this…

It would obviously be a great advantage for public safety if law enforcement had the advantage of inspecting our homes.

The legislature raises their hands and states that announced searches are now reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. In order to be free from unannounced searches, a homeowner would make an appointment for a home inspection and at its completion would receive a one year permit to be free from unannounced searches. No permit, no right to be free from being searched at the government’s whim.

Just think of the children’s lives that will be saved.

By DPlummer in CA

February 12, 2007 02:14 PM | Link to this

Oh, I have a question for Woody:

If gun owners were to jump through your recommended hoops, would they be permitted to own guns such as M-16 rifles (full auto, of course), Uzis and other submachine guns, “assault weapons”, M-249 SAWs, M-60 machine guns, .50 Caliber Sniper Rifles, .50 Caliber machine guns and crew-served light and heavy machine guns?

By Brent

February 12, 2007 02:55 PM | Link to this

The plan has merit. I’m leery of allowing the NRA to be the sole provider of something like that, mainly because it appears to represent government support of their positions, which could be politically unwise and can also be interpreted as playing politics, something that government is not supposed to do (not that I’m holding my breath on that one, oh no). I’m a liberal who has no personal interest in owning firearms but, then, I don’t especially care about someone else owning them as long as they are legitimate and have demonstrated that they know how not to endanger others with them. As more than one poster has noted, you have a right to own and bear arms within reasonable limits imposed by public interest (on school property, for example).

@DLPlummer: The idea that you need an M2 .50 caliber machine gun or any sort of crew-served weapon is ridiculous. For that matter, a Squad Automatic Weapon is pushing the edge of what most people would consider acceptable on the streets. I’ve yet to hear a good argument for why a civilian needs an M-16 but, given the number of hoops you get to jump through, if you really think you need an assault rifle, have fun. In most personal defense situations, wouldn’t a handgun or a submachine gun be both less cumbersome and more useful than an assault rifle, especially handled by someone who knows what they’re doing? As for a .50 caliber sniper rifle, have fun hunting deer. In my opinion, there is little to no need for that sort of weapon in a suburb but it’s not something I’d worry about as your neighbor, either, as long you weren’t trying to get arrested for reckless discharge of a firearm.

@Police Officer: Fine, here’s some suggestions for improved traffic safety. Better driver education, more aggressive enforcement, compulsory examinations every five to six years, and improvements in road design and urban planning to reduce difficulties imposed by the roads and traffic densities irrespective of individual driver skills. While I agree with all of those, good luck getting the massive increase in funding required for it, Officer. Particularly under the current political climate in this country, the funding for any of those measures is going to be hard to come by. Further, developers are going to fight the latter tooth and nail, as are some county and city governments, making the entire matter even more divisive and complex.

By DPlummer in CA

February 12, 2007 03:17 PM | Link to this

The notion that you have the power to dictate what arms I may or may not own is ridiculous.

By Tom

February 12, 2007 03:45 PM | Link to this

The police are operating as a money making force. Instead of all the BS laws and speeding details and incentive programs they should be going after the real criminals. They react and mop up after crimes. They always have. It’s up to you to protect yourself.

DPlummer has it right. 45superman brings up the true roots of gun control in this nation.

Brent, you don’t NEED a computer or SUV, a typewriter and bicycle would be better, should we subject you to a federal background check, registration, and all the other hoops? At least you say that ordinary citizens should be allowed to own them if the WANT to. The only legally owned machine gun used in a murder was by a Dayton area police officer. And yes, for the most part as a self defense weapon they are probably more then you need, however, as a militia weapon they are what’s commonly used. If I lived on the Mexican border and was frequently exposed to armed gangs fighting turf battles while crossing into the US illegally, I’d probably be looking for one. Since 1986 however citizens have been denied the ability to purchase a new weapon. Still no crimes committed by anyone but a cop and only cops and military can get them now. Makes me feel safe.

By lynnister

February 12, 2007 03:52 PM | Link to this

That’s fine if you actually obtain your gun legally, but many deaths with firearms are from guns obtained illegally. What do you propose to do with those people? Suggest they take a gun ownership course? Chuckle-chuckle!

By Brent

February 12, 2007 04:16 PM | Link to this

A computer, a typewriter, or a bicycle do not have the potential danger in and of themselves that an automobile or a firearm does, Tom. Bringing up a car in that context is also spurious since I just agreed that regulations on automobiles should be tightened somewhat.

You’re right in saying that I was referring directly to personal defense and urban/suburban scenarios, not militia or paramilitary engagements. Like I said, if you want to own up to and including one man firearms, I don’t have any objection. If you’re in a situation where that sort of weaponry is the most appropriate response to a problem, by all means, get what you need for defense of life and property.

If the situation is dire enough that someone needs crew-served weapons for legitimate defense, I suggest that a special exception be made and that the burden of proof in such a situation be on the citizen. For that matter, any application that is approved should be flagged and sent to the Department of Defense for a very simple reason: anyone entering the United States with that sort of firepower is, in my opinion, asking for a demonstration of exactly what firepower the United States Army is paid to use in defense of this country. If a gang wants to present a clear and present danger of that sort, I say let the military and police forces of this country blow them away the moment they cross the border.

Also, note that I am arguing from a perspective of honest (if overworked) government. A government that does not honestly and properly enforce the law or protect its citizens’ rights is a different matter.

By DPlummer in CA

February 12, 2007 04:38 PM | Link to this

If a firearm - in and of itself - was dangerous to society then it would not be safe for the police and military to carry them in public.

And now you’re back to advocating prior restraint.

I’m glad those right-wing extremists at Lexington didn’t subscribe to your notion that military arms can be possessed by the people only after they made their case to the King and were granted his permission.

By Brent

February 12, 2007 05:13 PM | Link to this

Is there a reason you’re trying to draw an irrelevant comparison? Also, are you incapable of understanding that some people may have concern at the idea of anyone other than legitimate authorities owning heavy weaponry?

I ceded that you may need such weapons in extremely limited circumstances, ones that should be brought to the attention of those who are paid by our taxes to handle them. There are few if any situations that call for such weapons, most of which are properly the responsibility of the military or law-enforcement to handle in the first place. The military and law-enforcement agencies of a government exist to protect and serve the public. Letting them do their jobs is not something I have an issue with. Further, this country is not under occupation nor is its populace in armed rebellion against the government, meaning that your comparison is fundamentally inaccurate.

The American Revolution took place under a very different set of social mores and, further, it dealt with a government that the people did not wish to be under. A modern comparison would be, say, the Green Party attempting armed insurrection, not the NRA or the Libertarians. Gun control was a peripheral issue to self-determination of the American colonists.

By Matt

February 12, 2007 05:21 PM | Link to this

I’ve always been amazed by how eager self-professed liberals are to happily grant a monopoly on the use of force to the government.

The very reason citizens “need” military weapons is because the police and government agencies have them.

“The American Revolution took place under a very different set of social mores and, further, it dealt with a government that the people did not wish to be under”

I bet you a year’s salary you wouldn’t have to look hard to find plenty of people who don’t want to be “under” the government we have now (and I’m not referring to a specific administration - just the pervasive manner in which government has evolved so as to control every facet of our lives).

We’ve simply grown accustomed to the way things are, and enough of us are happy to let the authorities “do their jobs” and go through the motions without making too much of a fuss.

A well-armed civilian population is an important element of checks and balances, and it’s the ultimate safeguard for protecting all of our other rights.

By Brent

February 12, 2007 05:55 PM | Link to this

Did I say a thing about a monopoly on the use of force? No, I argued for restricting certain levels of force to those agents of the public that are paid and trained to use them in defense and service of the public.

The last and final guarantee of freedom is a well-armed population, yes. However, the best and first is an attentive, active body of citizens who hold government accountable. Addressing concerns in civil society prevents that last and final guarantee from being necessary in the first place. I believe in holding the government accountable though the mechanisms that exist to do so.

Further, the majority of the American population lives in circumstances where the types of weapons I’m talking about restricting (crew-served weapons; not an M249, I’ll note, but an autocannon, minigun, or vehicle-mounted machine gun) are not practical in the first place. You do not use heavy automatic weapons in a suburb. Assault weapons are quite sufficient to take out a house or engage small forces under those circumstances and have more limited likelihood of causing extensive collateral damage.

Additionally, weapons of that type are still insufficient against the level of force the government can turn against a sufficiently-troublesome situation. Or did I miss that you were arguing for private ownership of anti-tank weapons?

By Matt

February 12, 2007 06:05 PM | Link to this

I agree with you - using the political process to resolve problems should always be undertaken prior to force. I can confidently claim that gun owners are amongst the most politically active and civically responsible of all groups/coalitions/blocs in the nation.

I’d also argue that given the draconian restrictions placed on firearms ownership in many jurisdictions, the government has in many cases ignored its obligations to recongize our rights and ignored our appeals to have them do so. Given that, I have quite a problem with continuing to allow police and unconstitutional enforcement agencies to accumulate weapons so they can “serve the public.”

There are approximately 80 million gun owners in the United States. Many of them own more than 1 weapon and would gladly share with their neighbors if the time ever came. You could conservatively estimate that in the event of a full-blown escalation of force against an oppresive domestic government, there would be close to 150 million armed Americans. Look at what’s happening in Iraq and what did happen in Vietnam. Ad-hoc forces (of vastly smaller size than the number above) have successfuly fought against tanks, jet aircraft, and missiles.

By Brent

February 12, 2007 06:58 PM | Link to this

Exactly. Thank you. Those numbers sound high to me but, then, I haven’t looked them up, either.

As for Constitutional violations, well, I vote and I protest. I know a lot of conservatives don’t like the ACLU but they do serve a useful purpose. (That said, equal enforcement of rights is what I’m looking for, not complete and total political correctness.)

The use of force by a government is (or, rather, should be) dependent solely on the public permitting that authority to be used. At the same time, the public has a responsibility to ensure that its trust and grant of aggregate authority is not abused. That’s a responsibility we need to take more seriously.

By Dave

February 12, 2007 07:05 PM | Link to this

Your plan to test and license gun owners in much the same way that we do motorists is interesting, but would actually REDUCE restrictions on gun ownership. Here’s a list of current legal restrictions on gun ownership that don’t apply to cars:

If you’re under age you can still buy a car;

You can buy as many cars as you want the same day;

You don’t need to show two forms of ID to buy a car;

You can buy a car without a Social Security number;

You can buy a car without a Criminal Background Check;

You can buy a car if you’re from out-of-state;

You can buy a car if you’re a convicted felon;

You can buy a car if you’re a fugitive from justice;

You can buy a car if you’ve been dishonorably discharged or deserted from the Armed Forces;

You can buy a car if there’s a warrant for your arrest;

You can buy a car if you’re under a restraining order;

You can buy a car if you’ve spent time in a mental hospital;

You can buy a car if you’re an alcoholic;

You can buy a car if you’re addicted to drugs;

You can leave with all of your cars immediately;

You don’t need a driver’s license or registration (unless you want to use public roads);

So go ahead, treat guns like cars; that is if you want more guns in the hands of criminals, fugitives, minors, drug addicts, mental patients, military deserters, abusive spouses and alcoholics.

By Brent

February 12, 2007 07:20 PM | Link to this

Yes, yes, say that to someone who argued for tightening up examinations for competency to operate an automobile. If you are on the road, you have a responsibility to drive safely, just as a gun owner has a responsibility to handle their firearm safely. If you prove, for whatever reason, that you cannot handle that responsibility, you should not be driving. I also didn’t argue for making obtaining a firearm as easy as purchasing a car.

Also, there is a difference between a vehicle (a means of transportation) and a lethal weapon (a means of killing people). Fundamentally, guns are intended to be used as tools for killing people, whatever the reason for that use. While there are legitimate reasons to employ lethal force, the fact that a gun’s intended purpose is solely to do means that it needs to be treated on that basis.

By lynn

February 12, 2007 07:45 PM | Link to this

I will never accept a permit or a license to exersize a right. By doing so you give up your right in exchange for a privilege, and a privilege can be revoked any time a two bit bureaucrat wants for any reason.

By Tom

February 12, 2007 08:28 PM | Link to this

ask someone from MADD which is more dangerous, cars or guns. More deaths occur from cars. Cars are stolen more often. Cars are doing more damage in terms of human and other organisms health, including (snicker) “causing” global warming.

Stones are dangerous too, woman are still being stoned to death in this world. Where does the nanny state end? England banned guns, and still criminals there get guns.

Would you rather be hit by a small bullet traveling at high speed or a large car traveling at a slower speed?

As for computers, when the power goes out, what happens? Banks, grocery stores, gas stations, hospitals, police stations, fire stations are all massively hindered. A computer is indeed a VERY, VERY dangerous weapon in todays world.

The people who seek to prevent all these problems fail to see they’ve been ripped in two and if only they had a band-aid things would be alright. Before any of this nonsense is tried a much larger effort must be made to address the fundamental issues that cause these problems. The abandonment of the family, the weakening of punishment, the lack of personal responsibility. The first step should be to get government OUT of peoples lives, to quit treating everyone as a criminal, to cut taxes back to a maximum of 5% for EVERYTHING. Go back on a gold standard so that both parents don’t HAVE to work full time jobs just to make this months bills. Quit paying so much attention to what some slut died from, or what she’s wearing (or not wearing) today. Basically to go back to the founding values of this nation. Hard work, personal determination for ones own life, respect for others.

It’ll never happen when so many people can just ask the government to do it for them.

By DPlummer in CA

February 12, 2007 09:24 PM | Link to this

Brent whined: Also, are you incapable of understanding that some people may have concern at the idea of anyone other than legitimate authorities owning heavy weaponry?

I might be concerned that you may one day diddle little boys in your basement but I’m not about to give up my fourth and fifth amendment rights so the government can maintain surveillance just because you MIGHT one day do so.

My guns should be no concern of yours unless I break leather. They’re perfectly safe otherwise. If they weren’t, they’d be jumping out of police holsters and causing mayhem all by themselves.

Who are you to say I can’t have a minigun just because I live in the suburbs? If I can afford the ammo, why shouldn’t I be able to take it to the range and rock and roll? Who are you to tell my I can’t? From where do you derive such control over my life?

An armed America is a free America. Man up and deal with it.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 13, 2007 09:45 AM | Link to this

the usual gang of straight shootin, insultin and bullyin gun toters ride again. you would think by now they would have learned that inane stats, laughable scenes and comparisons just does not help their cause.

common sense and intelligent discussion seems to be beyond the reach of the gang that couldn’t debate straight.

“An armed America is a free America” so true, i had to cut down a group of insurgents just last week in the neighborhood.

By jack burton

February 13, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

test

By DPlummer in CA

February 13, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

Gun owners have been bending over and taking it for 70-plus years.

This guy’s had it. Reduction of my inalienable rights is simply not open for discussion.

I’ll simply call you on your irrational fears and cowardice.

I’ll ask again:

Who are you to tell my I can’t? From where do you derive such control over my life?

By Art

February 13, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this

What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?

By Police Officer

February 13, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

This is what really bugs me about anti-gun people. They don’t use their second amendment rights and therefore can’t fathom or understand why anyone else could possibly need or want to carry a gun.

However, it ultimately is none of their business. It is a Constitutional right that our founding fathers felt was essential to the people. As long as the second amendment exists, the right to own guns does not rely on the need, matter, or justification to do so.

I also find it funny that anti-gunners post statistics about gun use. However, when you point out that those statistics affect 00.03 percent of the population, they mock and make fun of using statistics to support a point.

Let me say this again.. Gun injuries and deaths of all forms including accidents, suicides, homicides, etc. statistically affects 0% of the population yearly. The exact number is 00.03%. Therefore, there is no need or justification for the repeal or infringement of the 2nd amendment.

By Woody Bass

February 13, 2007 02:06 PM | Link to this

Police Officer: Im curious to know the source of your statistics. I have done a bit more searching around on and found the following from John Hopkins University Center for Gun Policy and Research they are painting a very different picture:

“In 2001, there were 29,573 gun-related deaths in the United States—or about 80 deaths per day. Firearm deaths represent 1 of every 5 injury deaths in the U.S.”

“Among 36 high-income and upper-middle-income countries, the U.S. has the highest overall gun mortality rate. The rate of gun mortality in the U.S. is 8 times higher than in other high-income countries.”

“In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is about 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns. The risk of suicide of a household member is increased by approximately 5 times in homes with guns.”

They cite several sources including the CDC.

Its an interesting report… [Link]h(http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/USfactsheet2004.pdf)

By Woody Bass

February 13, 2007 02:12 PM | Link to this

Oops that link is:

Link

By Woody Bass

February 13, 2007 02:50 PM | Link to this

DPlummer in CA: I didnt forget about your question.

My answer simply is, yes, so long as its a firearm allowed by law. Assuming you already have a permit, the only other thing I could foresee happening (also assuming the particular firearm is different than one the applicant passed as test for) is to pass step 6 with that particular firearm.

Keep in mind, that the plan mentioned here is written at a very very high level and would require plenty of details added before something like this could be implemented.

My hope is that those of you with such in depth knowledge could fill in some of those details.

By Keith Lynch

February 13, 2007 03:41 PM | Link to this

Georgians: Today I read the story in the AJC concerning Mr. Willie O. “Pete” Williams who served almost 22 years in a Georgia prison for a crime he did not commit, and went into a Fulton County courtroom Tuesday morning to clear his record, along with his name. I just want to know must someone be wrongly accused and incarcerated for years and later after their live has been wasted that someone notice an injustice has occurred. I wrote a book that gives people insight into an inept police investigation of the DeKalb County, Major Felony Unit and list official’s names. My life has been threatened several times if I were to return to Georgia to inform the public about the injustice that has befallen my family. I’ve decided to return Georgia and promote my story “Dirty Justice-Who Killed Mommy.” I’m quite sure there are others who had their rights violated! Review my tragedy @ www.kllundypublishingllc.com

By Atico

February 13, 2007 04:35 PM | Link to this

Your plan stinks to high heaven. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, is going to prevent gun accidents except responsible ownership. All the other “stuff” you lay out is good training, but some of us have all the gun training needed, but do we have the brains to be RESPONSIBLE with our firearms. NO, is the answer and no bullying regulations as you lay out makes one iota of difference. Be re4sponsible or do not own a weapon, period. What a joke this statement is!

Just leave me and my firearms alone……….

By Tom

February 13, 2007 04:51 PM | Link to this

Woody:

http://www.gunfacts.info/

What percentage of the JHU quoted deaths are suicides that were conducted with a gun? How many of those were self defense shootings?

If the government at large is anti-gun, passing unconstitutional laws, do you really expect the CDC to be unbiased?

By Police Officer

February 13, 2007 05:11 PM | Link to this

Woody,

My statistics are the same as yours except that the statistics you cite were made to “intimidate” and “frighten.”

As I said, according to the CIA World Factbook, there are 298,444,215 people in the United States. Based on my statistics that 30,000 are killed yearly with firearms, that would leave you a statistical chance of 00.01% of being killed with a firearm this year.

The math is very simple. Number of Deaths divided by total population comes to .0001. To convert that to a percentage, move the decimal point over two spaces and you have the statistical percentage of being killed with a firearm which as I said is 00.01%. Since those are the deaths per year, this is your statiscal likelihood of being killed in a year.

Now even if you wanted to try and twist the statistics and could multiply that one year statistic by the 80 years you’re likely to live, it would give you a maximum of 0.8% chance that you would be killed in your lifetime.

There is just no way around it for you Woody - The likelihood of death or injury by firearm in your lifetime is practically non-existant.

By lynn

February 13, 2007 06:33 PM | Link to this

I was wrong when I said your not an idiot Bruce. You just proved me wrong by your last moronic post

By Tom

February 13, 2007 06:55 PM | Link to this

Lynn, I was wrong, Bruce may very well be an idiot, or at least he sure sounds like one.

“There is just no way around it for you Woody - The likelihood of death or injury by firearm in your lifetime is practically non-existent.”

Unless of course, you’re involved in criminal behavior, gangs, drug dealing turf wars, or other illegal activities that put you up against other criminals or law enforcement. Just like the chances of getting aids are low if you wear a condom, have one monogamous aids free partner, and avoid IV drugs.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 13, 2007 08:24 PM | Link to this

Hey, hey lynn and tom, just read your last two posts, i couldn’t ask for better straight men than you two, I laughingly rest my case.

And to think you had flip back 11 posts to find something to comment on, amazing.

By lynn

February 13, 2007 08:39 PM | Link to this

an again you “can’t” (snicker) get it right Bruce. Just like all you other posts. You prove us right… idiot BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA yuk yuk

By lynn

February 13, 2007 08:44 PM | Link to this

sorry for the typing errors

By lynn

February 13, 2007 08:45 PM | Link to this

sorry for the typing errors

By Yeah, I said it

February 15, 2007 06:19 AM | Link to this

I fully agree with DPlummer. The idea is that it isn’t right for only ‘legitimate authorities’ to have access to firearms. That makes the rest of us incapable of self protection. And let us remind some of you that law enforcement agents have been known to have mental break downs and kill people too. I will continue to purchase and own firearms, no matter what caliber, and will continue to enjoy hunting and shooting at the local gun range. I will also feel safer in my home knowing that I am protected from anyone trying to break in.

By woodie

February 15, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

Ridiculous suggestion. Clearly you want to limit the right of ordinary citizens to bear arms. Your idea does not take weapons out of the hands of criminals. Guess who really uses guns inappropriately?? Yes my friend, the criminals. They violate gun laws. They would violate your rules. All your silly rules do is disarm ordinary citizens and leave them vulnerable. So in all your zeal to save lives, you place us all at risk. And you use your media influence to promote your misguided agenda.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 15, 2007 02:40 PM | Link to this

“disarm ordinary citizens and leave them vulnerable.” No it would disarm the idiots, the ones that leave guns around within easy reach of children, the ones that do not have a clue on the proper handling of a firearm, the ones that do not know to secure a weapon so that it is not stolen or used by unauthorized people.

The idea that my children know and respect a firearm is lsughable. It must mean your children have no friends so peer pressure would never effect them. Any gun owner that really feels safe leaving his armory in the hands of a child needs help.

The idea that any fool that can pass a quickie background check is a mature competent gun owner is insane. The idea that any drooling dolt need no training or permit to buy a handgun is scary. Do you really think that the Founding Fathers wanted the Second Amendment to protect the Village Idiot?

You do not “disarm ordinary citizens and leave them vulnerable.” you disarm common sense by insisting there shall be no laws protecting the citizens from the village idiots.

By lynn

February 15, 2007 06:53 PM | Link to this

Do you really think the founding fathers wanted the Second Amendment to protect the Village idiot? WHAT? Actually Bruce, the Founding Fathers wanted the Second Amendment to protect the Village idiots from drolling dolts like you!

By lynn

February 15, 2007 06:55 PM | Link to this

Excuse me… drooling dolts like you Bruce

By lynn

February 15, 2007 06:58 PM | Link to this

But then again drolling dolts works just fine.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 15, 2007 08:11 PM | Link to this

lynn, you some kind of stalker? At least try to use a little satire or humor. You sound like you’re in middle school.

By lynn

February 15, 2007 08:42 PM | Link to this

It was humor Bruce. Whats the matter? You don’t get it?

By Bruce Wilcox

February 16, 2007 09:17 AM | Link to this

A child last night died from a gunshot wound to the head in Atlanta. A 17 year old shot the child by accident, lets see 17 year olds can not buy hand guns? The 17 year old was visiting, did he bring the gun with him or was it laying around the apartment.

Who was the 17 year old protecting himself from, the three year old? Was the shot intended to stop the child from running into the street and getting hit by a car or falling into a swimming pool?

Is the 17 year old exercising his constitutional Second Amendment rights, or is it another case of the village idiot having a firearm?

This child was killed by a shooting, who will go and tell the parents more kids die by cars, swimming pools or bathtubs accidents, that guns do not kill, do you really think they’ll care?

By Honor the 2nd Amendment

February 16, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

Bruce,

A six-year old child was killed in an automobile accident on Valentine’s Day. In addition, two people are in serious condition at local hospitals.

Negligent use of the vehicle (speeding) was listed as a cause of the accident.

The driver was properly licensed. They could legally own the car.

Was the driver exercising their Constitutional Right to the vehicle?

Was the wreck intended to protect themselves? Were they trying to stop the other vehicle from breaking the law?

The child was killed by negligent operation of a motor vehicle. Who will tell the parents that kids die from alot of other reasons? Do you think they’ll care?

Accidents happen Bruce. For every one gun tragedy you post, I can post TWENTY-ONE accident tragedies.

There are stories of negligent uses resulting in death for almost every major tool/item we use. It doesn’t mean we should go and ban them.

BTW, I would like to take a moment to offer my condolences for both the child killed in the accident and the child killed by the gun. My thoughts and prayers are with both families.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 16, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

“negligent operation of a motor vehicle”, is it not true that a person has to take a test and pass it to receive a drivers license? Is it also true that to drive these deadly machines you’re required have to have insurance? How many times have you carried you car upstairs? How many times have you conceled your car under your coat? Are cars only purpose is to kill?

Great arguement you just presented, tell that one to the parents.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 16, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this

BTW…where is this paranoid fear of banning coming from? It’s about taking a simple test and passing it, like cars, to understand the proper rules of intelligent firearm ownership. NO ONE is calling for banning anything, if you are a responsible gun owner you should be in favor of it and keep them out of the hands of the village idiots.

If you’re that paraniod build yourself a bunker.

By Honor the Second Amendment

February 16, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

So let me get this straight.. Just to make sure I understand…

Even though cars kill or permanently injure twenty-one times more people, it is different because I can’t conceal it under my coat pocket or carry it upstairs and I’m required to have insurance. Wow. It is all clear to me now. How could I have not realized that makes it totally different. It is ok to keep an item that kills and injures far more people just because of those three reasons but we need to ban the other one. Your logic makes so much sense to me now.

BTW, thanks for making my point about licensing that you seemed to miss from my original post. Car drivers are required to have training and a license yet negligent operation of verhicles still manages to kill or permanently injure twenty-one times more people than guns do.

Btw, just food for thought - It is estimated that there are roughly 200,000,000 guns in the United States. It is estimated that there are roughly 140,000,000 cars in the United States from various sources that I have reviewed.

So… there are *60,000,000 more guns than there are cars in this country. However, cars manage to cause more than twenty-one times the number of deaths and PERMANENT disability injuries than guns do.

Yes… I can see that mandatory training and licensing is very effective.

I hope my sarcasm comes across.

By Honor the 2nd Amendment

February 16, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

BTW, I’m glad you noticed that my first post sounded ridiculous. It was meant to sound just like yours.

You can make that argument for almost anything we own today. Did you see the story about the EZ Bake oven that caused second degree burns to the little girl? Maybe we should do away with those now or require mandatory training in their use. Heck, maybe we should make you get a license to own one of those too.

My whole point is… It is up to each person to ensure they have proper knowledge in the safe and appropriate use of the items they own. We can not continue down this road.. Before you know it, we’ll need a license to own anything.

We have laws on the book to punish those who improperly use firearms. Punish the problem people. Use the laws that we have to go after the bad people.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 16, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this

Do a break-down by state that requires testing, training and licensing compared to states like Georgia.

Your reasoning is that even licensed drivers have accidents so why even bother with testing, great idea, stop all that hassle with the DMV.

Hove often do you ride your gun to work, I’m almost afraid to hear the answer?

As far as banning guns, in over two hundred years of the Second Amendment can you cite me ONE example of an attempt to override or get rid of the Second Amendment.

Dueling sarcasm, I love it.

By Honor the 2nd Amendment

February 16, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

Examples:

For all intents and purposes, you can not own or carry a handgun in the District of Columbia. It is almost impossible to own any other kind of gun.

In the City of Chicago, you can not own or carry a handgun.

In the City of New York, you can own a gun but it is almost impossible to get permission to carry it.

I also consider the act of having to ask the government permission to carry a handgun a violation/attempt to override the second amendment. The founding fathers primarily intended the second amendment to protect you from government. Therefore, having to ask permission FROM the government to exercise that right is an attempt to override it. Since you have to have a permit in almost all States, there are several examples of attempts to override it.

I am so vehemently opposed to these requirements because I firmly believe it is too much government intrusion into my personal life. I am not Constitutionally entitled to a vehicle. Therefore, I do not oppose attempts to license or tax it. However, I am constitutionally entitled to keep and bear a firearm. Therefore, I think the government needs to but out.

I’ll be the first to say that I don’t anticipate the need for armed revolution that our forefathers saw when writing the second amendment. However, I do believe that in the current times there IS a justification for the 2nd amendment. It is called crime and terrorism. Each person has a personal responsibility to protect themselves and their families from harm. The right to keep and bear arms is vital to this responsbility.

By Bruce Wilcox

February 16, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

“However, I do believe that in the current times there IS a justification for the 2nd amendment.” No one is saying there isn’t, there always has and will always be justification. The Second Amendment does not give unlimited rights to own and process a firearm. The Supreme Court has ruled time and again citing Article I Section 8-16 of the constitution that there are controls and those controls are placed in the hands of the states.

Let’s compare New York with Georgia, New York has strict gun laws, Georgia does not. Eighty-eight deaths from firearms last year of youngsters, New York 93. Before you say Georgia had less, check the population. Now Texas is closer to New York in population, but closer to Georgia on gun laws, they had over 400!

By lynn

February 16, 2007 07:28 PM | Link to this

The second amendment does not give you the right to own any firearms period.

By lynn

February 16, 2007 07:47 PM | Link to this

The second amendment secures the unrestricted right to bear arms as the framers had intended it. The courts are commiting treason. There is nothing in article 1 section 8-16 that grants states the power to infringe on any of our rights. SCOTUS is using the commerce clause (Article 1 section 8 clause 3)to uncontitutionally infringe on our rights as gun owners. Governments don’t grant rights, they infringe upon them!

By lynn

February 16, 2007 07:51 PM | Link to this

And I don’t need no stinking license to exercise my right to pack firearms.

By Woody Bass

February 16, 2007 09:05 PM | Link to this

Honor the 2nd Amendment No one said the plan had to exist on the Federal Level (nor did I suggest that)…

For instance… I came to find out (thanks to the Georgians for Gun Safety) that Texas has a similar plan already in place. Therefore, it wouldnt necessarily be an intrusion to any 2nd Amendment rights when the Constitution granted states to enact their own set of laws.

By Heard it here first

February 16, 2007 09:21 PM | Link to this

“EZ Bake oven that caused second degree burns to the little girl? Maybe we should do away with those now or require mandatory training in their use. Heck, maybe we should make you get a license to own one of those too.”

Ahh.. its sad that there have been injuries from things like EZ Bake ovens… and death due to car accidents and the like… which unfortunately have been plenty…

but the intent of their (EZ Bake Ovens, Cars, etc) original design was not to bring harm to another living thing either. Thats the big difference in comparison to guns.

This plan is a proactive approach to a problem, versus a reactionary approach. Surely no one is going to suggest we just wait around till things get worse before they get better? Surely you have a much higher value on life than that.

By Leonidas

February 17, 2007 09:37 AM | Link to this

Molon Labe!

By mike bradford

February 17, 2007 09:06 PM | Link to this

A Responsible Response to “There’s No Reason To Own A Gun” Mr. Bass, if you are so depressed, frustrated and frightened, you are free to leave America and move to a really nice place like Mexico, where citizens cannot legally own guns! Or you could move to a number of other peaceful countries like China, which prohibit the general public to own guns. What? Why haven’t you left yet? What’s wrong? Maybe you’re not quite so frightened after all! Maybe this great country that has given its citizens the right to keep and bear arms for over two hundred years is not so horrific! Maybe you will survive another day. If only those wicked, crazy guns don’t get up and start shooting people again! The 2nd Amendment (which secures for Americans the right to keep and bear arms, that is guns) is deeply cherished by Americans. It goes back to our history. Have you ever heard of Lexington and Concord or the phrase “the shot heard around the world”? It was not the daisy stem sniffed around the world. No, it was the shot heard round the world! And it was not the shot fired by government thugs, nor by state police. No, it was the shot fired by farmers and such, by average working citizens whose bravery and responsible actions would soon forge the greatest nation on earth. Their heroic acts with guns created “The land of the free and the home of the brave”. America is the one country where the general public enjoys the precious right and freedom purchased by the blood of our forefathers to take up guns to defend our families and friends, and even strangers. Daisy stems would not have defeated the British. But guns, guns in the hands of responsible citizens proved to be the most useful tools on earth to fight for freedom and independence! Throughout American history we have lauded those heroes who took up guns to defend their lives, their families and even strangers from ruthless villains! You are either severely challenged intellectually and you are not aware of these obvious realities in American history or else you are just another member of the IDA: Idiots devoted to the Destruction of America! This group prefers several aliases such as democrats, liberals, and progressives. The political agenda of the IDA is obvious: a disarmed public (remember Hitler’s first step in Nazi Germany?) and total government domination, a virtual police state. They seek the destruction of America’s most fundamental and precious freedoms! If you and yours have your deluded way, America will be no better than any of the other countries in the world! You pretend to be so concerned about responsibility. Yet you are grossly irresponsible to not care about the most heinous and animalistic crimes in our land! Where is your outrage over the more than forty million innocent, helpless, defenseless, little unborn babies killed by abortion. Abortion is a most savage form of murder that does not require the wicked gun. And abortion is sponsored and protected by our government! What are you going to do to save us from this most savage cancer in our land? Where is your frustration over the millions killed or crippled by DUI cases, not to mention the countless abused and abandoned wives and children of alcoholics? Where is your great plan to cure this tragedy? Some of my best friends and students suffer in unimaginable ways due to this one horrific tragedy! Are you not depressed and frightened by the millions of drug-related murders and accidents in America? Where is your plan to fix this horrific problem? In 1993 I met a homeless man in Miami who had betrayed a gang up north(Jersey?) and they sent Colombians down to Miami to settle his debt and erase him. In the fight this man killed all of his attackers with his .45 (a very effective combat pistol). Yet in the fight, his attackers, armed only with machetes, managed to deliver a few devastating blows that crippled this man for life. Now he is in a wheelchair for life. You can see the nasty scars on his neck and one on his left forearm. When will you outlaw machetes? Are you not frightened by the millions of grotesque rapes in America? Where is your great plan to eliminate this horrendous tragedy? And what about the countless cases of child molestation? Does this not make you sick to the core of your soul? Where is your plan to eliminate this gross problem? Strangely, you don’t seem too frightened or bothered by these horrible and inhumane atrocities that are far more prolific and deadly than gun violence! Very strange indeed! You and yours (the IDA) don’t seem too concerned about the fact that our country wastes billions of taxpayers’ money each year to save, defend, feed, preserve and nurture millions of murderers, rapists, drug dealers and child molesters! These are the very ones paroled to kill and rape and molest all over again! You and yours are not concerned Americans. No, you’re just liberals who hate God and country enough that you want to abolish our most precious and fundamental American freedoms! You are not American. You are a disgrace to America! You and

yours are not realistic, nor responsible! Your agenda will not save but only destroy America! What’s more, you lie when you say you cannot watch the news without seeing gun violence. I see many more drug and alcohol related deaths in the news. I also know that many more innocent babies are killed by abortion! But oops! That’s not an issue for discussion with the IDA. I’m sorry. Let’s just allow the slaughter to continue. You also lie when you argue that guns by necessity give one an unnatural power
that no human is intended to have. Every intelligent gun owner in America knows that the unlawful use of a gun will result in prison or even death by execution from the state! Obviously, gun ownership is not a matter of unnatural power over others or bravado, it is a matter of being a responsible American, responsible enough to defend life and liberty! It is not bravado or power lust, but sheer responsibility for me now to be armed to defend my aging parents, both of whom are cancer patients. Both my mother and father are unable to fend for themselves! Both are easy targets for robbery, murder or even rape. Yet you probably are not too concerned for them and the thousands if not millions of others just like them! How interesting! How responsible! You also lie when you say no one needs a gun. Countless millions of Americans through many generations have relied on guns to provide food. Many have also enjoyed sport shooting and deer hunting and so forth. And millions of Americans have depended on guns for personal security for many generations! My parents now more than ever NEED GUNS to DEFEND their LIVES! Crime stats have actually revealed that guns are used for self-protection an astonishing 2.5 million times a year! (p.9, Shooting Straight: Telling The Truth About Guns In America) That’s 2.5 million reasons each year for owning a gun! Obviously, you are grossly irresponsible when you say there is no reason to own a gun! Until you can eliminate all crime, you are grossly irresponsible when you say there is no reason to own a gun! Nearly forty years ago, when I was an infant, the approach of my uncle (who was always armed) saved my mother from potential rape and even murder! Nearly 35 years ago my mother’s quick thinking and an accessible pistol saved her again from potential robbery and possibly rape and murder as well in our own home at 1055 Pleasant Hill Road, only a few miles away from Gwinnett Place Mall! My mother and all three of her own sons could have died that day if she did not have access to a pistol! You also lie when you equate gun ownership with irresponsible parenting. Again, countless millions of Americans through many generations have safely owned guns and taught their children to be responsible gun owners! My life and the lives of my two brothers were likely spared due to accessible guns 35 and 40 years ago! My parents are much more responsible than the unarmed parents who are unable to defend the lives of their children! Working as a private tutor for children from kindergarten through 8th grade, I realize the vulnerability of small children. Any decent adult, any decent American recognizes his responsibility to defend defenseless children. Many of my students are the children of illegals. Yet I would fight for them and gladly sacrifice my life today to defend these precious children. If I were unable to defend these precious souls, it would be a case of obvious and gross negligence and irresponsibility on my part! I love these kids and I would die for them today! These kids are awesome and they are worth my life! Even though I’m not their parent, I am still responsible for them. You lie again when you say we cannot use the saying “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. Just because you hate the truth, your hatred does not and cannot eliminate reality! Only an idiot cannot understand this reality! Again you lie when you say we can’t use the argument that only criminals give guns a bad name. This is an obvious truth. I’m sure you have heard of criminal negligence. Yet you and yours refuse to hold criminals responsible for their crimes! It is precisely due to the cancer that is the IDA that we are constantly having to build more and bigger prisons! You demonize guns and law abiding gun owners, and yet you cuddle killers and rapists and child molesters! How responsible! And you lie again when you say guns give only a false sense of security. This is a lie proven wrong 2.5 million times every year. The real security guns provide for my parents is absolutely priceless! Real guns actually provide real security for millions of Americans every day and every night! Each month you can read real life accounts from all over America of how citizens used guns to defend their lives and families from rape, robbery and murder! If you were interested in reality, I would loan you several of my copies of American Hunter magazine published by the NRA. Now more than ever in this age of international terrorism Americans have reason to own guns! A single gun on each of the doomed flights on 9/11 could have saved more than five thousand innocent and precious American lives! The dereliction of duty on the part of our federal government in its refusal to defend the rule of law in America only heightens the citizens’ need to possess guns. Gangs from all over the world can come to America and kill Americans only to be sent back to their countries. Before long they come right back to America and kill or victimize more innocent Americans! Our federal government is so responsible! Our federal government is so responsible that their refusal to do their duty endangers Americans every moment! Here is a case in point. An illegal immigrant from Mexico driving a van ran over a child on a bicycle. He got out of his van, picked the kid up and threw him into a ditch and then drove away! Nothing was done to this murderer besides deportation. Now he is probably already back in America, free to kill another American! Maybe he already has killed again! Yet you are not frightened by this? And we have no reason to own a gun? What grand responsibility! Foreign terrorists from all over the globe now freely smuggle deadly drugs into America. And they kill even defenseless kids not only with drugs and guns and knives but also run over them with cars and trucks! Yet this doesn’t seem to frighten you! Strangely, you don’t seem to care! There are more than 1000 gangs in Gwinnett County alone. But no one needs a gun! In the last couple of years some of the biggest drug busts have been made in Gwinnett County. Often these gang members have large sums of cash, drugs and guns and ammo. Yet they do not only carry 5 shot pistols. These gang members carry fully automatic assault rifles, rifles which very few law abiding Americans ever own. So responsible adults in Gwinnett have at least a thousand reasons to own a gun; and not just a popgun, but real guns, like the AR-15s the police use to combat drug dealers. The man in Miami armed with a semiautomatic pistol (and standing 6’8” and weighing around 380lbs.) barely survived the attack by Colombians armed only with machetes! His name and obituary were posted in the local papers in Miami. If the head gangsters up north discover that he is still alive, they will only send new gangsters down to Miami to finish the job! My father crippled with bone cancer in his spine now only stands about 5’ tall and weighs a whopping 150lbs! My mother has had a mastectomy and she is also very limited in her mobility. In case of a home invasion my parents need and deserve the right as Americans to own and use rifles to defend their lives against robbing, raping and murdering gangsters and terrorists! Every intelligent American would agree with this obvious reality! You are guilty of gross hypocrisy when you defend the right of police to own assault rifles and deny that right to law abiding Americans! Police with assault rifles just killed an innocent 92-year-old grandmother in Atlanta! I will never forget the images of the police beating and shooting the blacks during the civil rights movement. A friend in Florida actually witnessed a beheading via a machete during the race riots up north! In the early 90’s a group of police officers in Atlanta robbed a Home Depot among other places. They are now in jail. No criminals, whether those dressed in FBI garb (the Ruby Ridge massacre) nor those in police uniforms should be able to carry assault rifles that are denied to law abiding Americans! Americans have legally and responsibly owned and enjoyed rifles for generations! If you have ever been threatened by a gang in Gwinnett in a situation where you could have been the victim of a drive-by shooting, you know you have one more hell of a reason to own a gun, even a real gun! I was so frightened recently by such an event that I emailed the GBI and then emailed and called the police. This case branded one reality into my soul: I must be prepared at all times to defend my life! It is my responsibility to defend my own life! The police are not responsible for my life, nor are they able to protect my life from gangs in Gwinnett County. In fact one police officer/preacher told my parents that he would not go where I go tutoring off Club Drive without the added security of backup officers! But you say “no one needs a gun at all”! You are so realistic and responsible! Mr. Bass, your rejection of these realities in Gwinnett and your irresponsible desire to disarm law abiding Americans is idiotic, un-American and dangerously criminal! The following three cases of savage murder prove my point! 1) The daughter of the former pastor of Rehoboth Baptist Church (Dekalb County) was savagely raped in a park in Decatur. Then her attackers grabbed a stick and inserted it into her vagina and kicked it so hard that it exited out her backside. This girl died from this brutal attack. Her father essentially lost his mind with a nervous breakdown and had to leave the pastorate. If this savagery does not make you sick, then you are sick; and you’re not an American! If only she had been armed with a gun, that girl would be alive and well today! Yet you say no one needs a gun! Your irresponsibility is sickening, dangerous and criminal! 2) In 1999 Wesley Harris carjacked and then murdered Whitney Land and her precious two-year-old daughter Jordan Land in Gwinnett County. Yet this doesn’t bother you, does it? You are so responsible! The possession of a simple pistol could have easily saved these two precious lives! Yet you say no one needs a gun! Your irresponsibility is sickening, dangerous and criminal! 3) In the last year or so Kimberly Boyd was killed not with a gun but in an accident caused by Brian O’Neil Clark moments after he carjacked her and held her hostage. Even though he had been convicted of child molestation, statutory rape and burglary the 25-year-old Clark had been released from prison! But again this does not seem to frighten you. How strange! You’re either mentally challenged or else you are so devoted to your political agenda that you really don’t care about these murder victims. Just how responsible are you? You and the rest of the liberals are so responsible that you help pervert our justice system so much that it only defends and cuddles and preserves the lives of the rapists, child molesters and murderers! Yet thank God in this last case a truly responsible American, a hero named Shawn Roberts, with a very good gun, shot the murderer and thus prevented the possible deaths of many more victims! Yet if you had your way this hero would not have been armed and would not have been able to stop this murderer! Mr. Bass, you are so responsible! Every noble, intelligent American recognizes his responsibility to not only protect his own life and family, but even the lives of strangers also! Yet without guns Americans will not be able to fulfill their responsibility to protect human life. Murderers like Clark cannot be stopped with daisy stems. They can only be stopped by an armed America! This is clearly proven by many books like these: Thank God I Had A Gun, Shooting Straight: Telling The Truth About Guns In America. You could even read the book Outgunned, which chronicles the accounts of heroes in the American west, Americans, not government thugs, who took up guns to stop notorious outlaws from ravaging their towns. Mr. Bass, your opposition to lawful gun ownership in America is not only idiotic, anti-American and grossly irresponsible, but it is also very dangerous, sickening and criminal! Only an armed America will remain “the home of the brave and the land of the free”! A disarmed America will become a wasteland of enslaved cowards who are robbed, beaten, raped, molested and even murdered without mercy or remedy!

By Lee

February 18, 2007 09:23 PM | Link to this

Maybe Mr. Bass would like to post a sign in his front yard that says: “I don’t believe in guns and do not have one to protect myself with.”

The one thing criminals fear the most is not alarm systems, or cops, or dogs. No, the one thing they fear the most is running into an armed citizen.

Mr. Bass’ plan for “responsible gun ownership” is little more than a thinly veiled gun tax meant to restrict ownership by those who could not afford weeks upon weeks of instruction.

By Barry

February 19, 2007 07:50 AM | Link to this

Woody,

I have been a gub owner, active shooter and hunter for 30 years and I have no doubt that I could easily pass your six step plan. But unless you are as adamant about having such a plan for alcohol use and responsibility your are just another misguided liberal. Why you are at it, how about teaching people to drive in this town! The last thing I am worried about is having a loaded gun in my house when I consider the danger that alcohol and driving present everyday of my life.

You need to do some more research on the number of deaths and health costs due to alcohol related accidents each year and you will clearly see that the problem is not about responsible gum ownership.

I am always amazed at the liberal news media who just can’t accept the second ammemdement and your continual all out war against gun ownership in a free society.

By Tom

February 22, 2007 07:01 AM | Link to this

anyone who believes that the government doesn’t want to take your guns away…

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16967

By R in GA

February 23, 2007 02:04 PM | Link to this

Brent - You need to wake up. Class 3 weapons have been around for some time and will continue to do so. Does the neighbor who owns a 40mm grenade launcher scare you? The fact knowing he has about 20 HE (high explosive)rounds in his basement, and that he paid a $200 tax on each one, and that the BATF knows he has them and this is perfectly legal.

There are thousands upon thousands of people across this wonderful nation who are class 3 owners, and each and everyone are responsible in his and her own way. I happen to be one of them.

Woody - The NRA has a class much like this, that they have been teaching for a while.