Letter: Guns a check on government

A certain cautionary temper is necessary relative to the present government response to gun control. Having left an oppressive government, our forefathers recognized the necessity of putting gun rights in the hands of the populace, and affirmed this by placing this right in the Second Amendment of our Constitution. A common thread inherent in all dictatorships is total gun control. An individual with a gun is a citizen. An individual without a gun is a subject.

Hunley Dufour Jr.

engineering inspector

Marrero

Comments

1) Comment by Whatnow - 18/01/2013

MBW, and you don't mind one bit that Obama is not only carrying that torch, but broadening it.

2) Comment by nimby? - 16/01/2013

poorly armed , untrained Afghan rebels held the Soviet Union and now the U.S. in check .

3) Comment by MBW - 16/01/2013

If the far Right is really worried about tyranny, why did they vote for a president (GWB) who brought us warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detainment with no trial??

4) Comment by MBW - 16/01/2013

More NRA talking points. Requiring driver's licenses didn't cause us to lose our cars, did it? So stop pretending that some basic, common sense regulations will lead to tyranny. Paranoid much?

5) Comment by MBW - 16/01/2013

This argument is nonsense. The vast majority of developed countries have stricter gun laws than the U.S....and are not "living under tyranny". The Canadians seem to be doing just fine....and they have far fewer gun deaths too.

6) Comment by MBW - 16/01/2013

Get real. Your shotgun (or even your assault weapon) is no match for a government with drones, tanks, and chemical/nuclear weapons.

7) Comment by nimby? - 16/01/2013

just because there is access to something doesn't mean it will be used , education for example ...

8) Comment by nimby? - 16/01/2013

just because there is access to something doesn't mean it will be used , education for example ...

9) Comment by nimby? - 16/01/2013

perhaps we should ask these individuals where and how they acquired these weapons , I'm sure they will answer honest and forthright .

10) Comment by DMJ - 16/01/2013

The "common circumstances"? Someone having a gun and someone else getting shot by it. Simple. Sure, there are other variables, but access to guns is the one thing ALL shootings have in common.

11) Comment by nimby? - 16/01/2013

there were 83 gun related deaths in the B.R. area in 2012 . perhaps we should further investigate the common circumstances surrounding most of these , since they are closer to home .

12) Comment by DMJ - 16/01/2013

Cringe away, billy. You know what's crazy? Back in the late '60s, banning handguns (which are used in the vast majority of shootings) nationally was actually part of the conversation. Now.... we can't even ban assault rifles. Conservatives act like they're the ones under siege when their policy towards guns (a veritable free-for-all) has been the norm for decades. The result? The number of gun deaths could very well surpass the number of automobile deaths by 2015. The U.S. towers over every other developed nation in gun violence. Don't you understand? You guys are winning this fight and have been for a long, long time. Of course, you winning means people getting shot, which I kind of have a problem with. I'm a hypocrite? I don't think so. Just a concerned citizen who hates gun violence almost as much as you love your guns.

13) Comment by nimby? - 16/01/2013

"the government is not going to take your guns away" , yet . this administration will continue to do as it pleases and doesn't want to hear a dissenting word . guessing someone needs to sit with civil war scholars and give them the facts ....

14) Comment by billynurse - 16/01/2013

Amen, Mr Hunley...DMJ, your hyperbole makes one cringe. What has changed to make us a sick, violent society?.. the mere presense of deadly weapons? Killing capacity has really changed little in a century. Our culture gets sicker every year, and political correctness has evolved to prevent us from violating the "civil rights of the deranged and of the career criminals, and...heaven-forbid!...commit for treatment and give mandatory sentences to(respectively). DMJ and others under liberal delusions , TYRANNY is not a made-up word to scare kids. History is full of corrupt governments that turn on their people. It starts insidiously, and along the way, we're treated like mushrooms.

15) Comment by DMJ - 16/01/2013

"We have already fought a civil war over government intrusion." Good lord, this debate has become stupid. Are we trying to see who can post the dumbest, most historically innacurate comments? We've got the theory about how the WWII happened because Hitler took everyone's guns.... we've got the theory about how Japan didn't invade the U.S. because of guns....and now we've got the idea that, even though the South fired first in their attempt to literally destroy the United States so they could continue to subjugate an entire race of people, the Civil War was about "government intrusion." Wow. Silly Season is upon us folks. Who's next? I bet guns were somehow responsible for the polio vaccine? Ooh, ooh, how about how guns were responsible for the Civil Rights movement?

16) Comment by Grobeck - 16/01/2013

First off, thanks to Mr Dufour for a well written and, above all else, ACCURATE statement. Very well put. To those who believe that the government banning arms is the best answer, have a look at the following quote from Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II said it best with the following quote: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." While the there wasn't necessarily a rifle behind every blade of grass, the mere fact that US citizens had and still have the constitutional right to own guns was evidently reason enough to keep them from invading. So before you start preaching about how much safer we would be without them, think about what the potential implications of such measures would entail. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.

17) Comment by wherearewegoing - 15/01/2013

I have a few questions that maybe some of you folks could help me with. Doesn't Israel have nuclear weapons, missiles, and a large military (maybe not by US standards but far greater than their opponents) and they are seeing quite a lot of open opposition from their neighbors? In the same way, wouldn't you think an armed citizenry could cause quite a bit of trouble for an oppressive US government? Not saying that we currently have that situation, just that if it came down to it, is it really that hard to believe that because of nukes and missiles the citizens being armed would just be immediately brought to their knees? You really think the government would drop nukes on it's own citizens? We didn't even do that to those in the middle east, and they aren't NEARLY as well armed as American citizens are. They caused (and are still causing) us quite a numbers of problems, eh? As for the "Hitler didn't disarm his country" crowd, that's all fine and good. I appreciate the history lesson. But here's another question for you (which I honestly don't know the answer to). Though it is apparently true that Hitler did not disarm his country's citizens, does that mean that they were in fact well armed? Because he sure did take them over pretty easily. Isn't that how most tyrannical governments are able to take over? What's the saying? Like taking candy from a baby? Try taking candy from a baby that knows how to wield a Smith & Wesson. It's much easier to do if that baby doesn't have a right to his pistol.

18) Comment by nimby? - 15/01/2013

1ryben , it is a catch 22 world we live in . and you're correct , only the law abiding citizen will face consequences .

19) Comment by nimby? - 15/01/2013

"For the life of me, I can't understand what type of music would need censored" , wasn't Mrs. Al Gore at the head of that witch hunt ?

20) Comment by 1ryben - 15/01/2013

Tell me about your real world.....the one with the invasion again. In your world did we change our cultural norms yet to include equality for women and people with dark skin? We certainly didn't eliminate racism or misogyny but I'd venture out to say that's the minority. We need to change the cultural obsession with guns. It's gun worship. It's the illusion of control. In your reality, who is coming for your guns? Again, most of us agree that banning guns is unrealistic so let's quit with the hysteria that they're coming for you, okay? So help me understand, video games and music are a cause for gun violence, but not the machine that actually pumps the bullets into people? Video games and music....riiiight. thats it. I'll bite, here's how you tighten the reigns on mentally ill owning guns. Require everyone, in addition to the background check, take regular licensing exams. Part of the exam includes a mental health exam. I know, I know, but only the law abiding citizen will take the tests. We've been through this, it's a ridiculous argument. For the life of me, I can't understand what type of music would need censored.

21) Comment by Attila - 15/01/2013

@1ryben: To answer you in a world...NO. I live in the real world, not a fantasy land. Guns are a fact of life...they are not going anywhere, and will NOT be confiscated by the federal government. We have already fought a civil war over government intrusion. I will agree that we need to tighten up on mentally ill people acquiring guns...now if someone will come up with a viable way to do that, that does not infringe on any other rights let me know and I will be all for it. I have said before that as soon as you start putting regulations and requirements on reporting mental illness the ACLU will be all over it like a duck on a Junebug. Same goes for violent video games and 'crap" music.

22) Comment by 1ryben - 15/01/2013

I have no problem with anyone going through the same training and background checks as the Air Marshals do to have a gun. All of those security checks at the airports is because the terrorists used the plane as the weapon. They are there to prevent similar minded people from doing the same. I have no problems putting similar measures in place in order to prevent people from obtaining devices designed to kill. We didn't outlaw flying, we won't outlaw gun ownership. I feel as though you are missing the point. No one is claiming that we will eliminate all gun violence just as we didn't eliminate drunk driving fatalities. We sure did reduce DUI fatalities. Laws are not laws or the sake of law and order. They are also a statement of who we are and what we believe. It a statement of what type of society we aspire to become. My feelings of gun ownership/rights are not any different now than they were before the Newtown shootings. My beliefs are not a reaction to mass shootings. I am more concerned about the shootings that happen every day in our city. The guns brought to our schools. I have ideas, they're not easy fixes. It takes time and commitment. They won't bring quick results. I'm ready to take those steps to protect everyone's lives and freedoms. Are you?

23) Comment by nimby? - 15/01/2013

is it now being called selfish to show concern for your home family ? as I have asked many times how do we reduce the number of guns on the street if we cannot identify who's the bad guys ?

24) Comment by foldgers - 15/01/2013

OK, first, DMJ. Apparently you do not read all of my posts. I have said in the past that my AR-15 is locked up, always. Yes, a few armed burglars would have the element of surprise, but if they make a lot of noise getting into my house to wake me up, I guarantee you that I can unlock that gun in less than 10 seconds and I will then have the element of surprise. Not to mention, before I go to bed each night, I UNLOCK my hand gun and put it next to my bed. I would hand that to my wife who knows how to properly use one and she could buy me the few seconds needed, if necessary to get my AR. And how likely is it that will happen? Do I need to remind you about the incident last year where an elderly couple were cut to death by a few intruders to steal the couple's gold? You never know, that is the point. But I do know this, if criminals KNOW for a fact that those types of weapons would have no chance to be in my home, they would be more willing to break in. And to 1ryben: First, you say 87,00 flights a day and only a few thousand air marshals. OK, well that does not mean there are 87,000 planes flying around all day. Each plane can make many flights, reducing the number of marshals needed. Second, you agree that air marshals do exist and that they were a good security measure? If so, why is it that one way for the government to protect planes is by putting TRAINED ARMED people on them, but for some reason, that is NOT necessary for schools? Now, if there were armed guards on campuses, these types of incidents would not happen nearly as much. There will always be a psycho who doesn't care. Other ways the government protect places and the main way is full body xrays and/or metal detectors. Second is removing shoes. Now, I doubt people would sneak shoe explosives into schools, but I could see using metal detectors. Limiting guns will not prevent a mad man from causing havoc. Make high capacity clips illegal, make any of these "scary" guns illegal, I promise you, criminals will still get them. They do not go through background checks on the streets. The only problem I have then is that they would have them and I would not. Not to mention, it sure stopped people from drinking and doing drugs when they were made illegal...right?

25) Comment by 1ryben - 15/01/2013

In all seriousness, this isn't an "either/or" game. We can reduce gunviolence in America if we really wished. We can do so without banning all guns. The people calling for a ban on all guns are just as crazy as Mr. Dufor. Until gun violence is no longer a problem for someone else's children. A problem in some other neighborhood there won't be a call to action. Typical me, mine, selfishness.

26) Comment by 1ryben - 15/01/2013

@foldgers: "Heck, I NEVER thought anyone out there would use our airplanes as missiles in our own country after using box-cutters to kill passengers on those planes, but it only took ONE psycho." Thank you for helping me make my point. After those horrific events we took action to prevent such horrors. Where is the action here? Did we load the planes with more terrorists? There was that one guy who FAILED to set off a "shoe bomb" and since then, have you tried to get through security without taking off your shoes? The shoe guy killed ZERO people. Oh, and there are over 87,000 flights dail in the US alone. There are a few thousand air marshalls. How do we get air marshalls on most flights as you claim? If you account for time off and their other responsibilities there are actually very few air marshalls flying each day. So yes, I agree with you, we should react to gun violence exactly the same way we reacted to the terrorist attacks of September 11. Afterall, there have been zero Terrorist attacks since. Are you going to bring up the OKC bombing next...we regulated the purchase of amonium nitrate after that incident.

27) Comment by nimby? - 15/01/2013

a few questions , if anyone can answer please do . were the guns in the Lanza home legally purchased according to Connecticut law ? were there any records he had been professionally diagnosed as mentally unstable ? were there any criminal records , anything a background check could have provided that would have prevented Mr. Lanza , had he been of age , from purchasing a gun ? the idea is to keep guns out of the hands of those who would do harm . so how do we identify who's bad and who isn't ?

28) Comment by DMJ - 15/01/2013

I guess you'd have to have your assault rifle handy, like sitting around not locked up...kind of like Adam Lanza's mom and her AR 15. I mean....what's the worst that could happen?

29) Comment by DMJ - 15/01/2013

Folgers, just how likely do you think that scenario really is? And how likely do you think it is that you'll be ready for such a scenario? People attempting armed robberies tend to have the element of surprise, you know.

30) Comment by Scrooge - 15/01/2013

If Yamamoto referred to "blades of grass" he was probably talking about his own lawn since there is no historical record or witness to this quote.

31) Comment by nimby? - 15/01/2013

Mr . Lanza was neither an NRA member or a redneck . he came from a well educated upper income family . his mother may have been irresponsible but loved him , allowing him to spend hours in a dark room in front of a video screen killing everything on sight , of course this had no ill effect . to those who consider all as John Wayne wannabes , gun carrying , right wing nuts , incapable of rational thought a suggestion ; don't park your vehicle in a well lit area or lock/alarm it . do away with your home security system , don't lock doors or windows . after all the odds of someone breaking into your home are only ....

32) Comment by KilgoreTrout - 15/01/2013

Posting anonymous internet bravado about "my gun is bigger than yours" probably doesn't do much to scare off invading foreign armies. It might be more effective to put a neon sign warning off intruders on the front lawn.

33) Comment by foldgers - 15/01/2013

Another reason for my high capacity magazine, if multiple persons break into my house with intent to do harm to me or my family, chances are they will have guns and I am sorry, but a 6 shooter against 2 or 3 illegally well armed intruders would do nothing to protect my life, my property or my family. Once again, it is these weapons in the hands of psychos or criminals that make us look bad. It took one psycho to go to that school a month ago (even though news footage also showed cops chasing a guy in the woods next to the school as well and apprehending him). I did not do that, nor would I ever do that. You are so worried about how many children are killed by guns in these types of incidents. I would guarantee you that most murders with guns are between people performing an illegal action with each having illegal guns. These incidents in theaters and schools are huge tragedies, I am not debating that, but I promise you, more kids are killed annually through some sort of alcohol usage. How many children are killed each year at the HANDS of their parents or at the idiocracy of their parents leaving them in a car. Or regular car accidents. Or drowning in a pool and so on. Yes, being killed with a gun is more "newsworthy" so those are the ones the sheep in this country hear about the most and for some reason, believe that violent crimes and murders would stop with no guns. Our country has the highest murder by gun stat I believe, but I guarantee you that countries with no or little guns have more "violent crimes" with other weapons...not to mention I would also guarantee you that the citizens in most of those countries live in fear of their government. They may feel safe around their fellow citizens, but I guarantee you they do not EVER say anything against their government.

34) Comment by DMJ - 15/01/2013

"BUT...it just takes one crazy man or woman..." You're right. Hopefully, that person doesn't have an AR 15.

35) Comment by foldgers - 15/01/2013

@1ryben: You said, "Stealth bombers are too far, but your pea shooter will do nothing against the might of the US Armed Forces." You are absolutely correct. But, the fact that you and many others in this country are OK with that, frightens me. First off, if my AR-15 is a pea shooter, then let me keep it. Second, I am sure I can speak for many people here, we do not THINK or BELIEVE that our government would ever try to take over our lives completely or turn against the very people that trusted it in power, BUT...it just takes one crazy man or woman who would be elected, realize the citizens are unarmed and to realize the true power they have at that point. Everyone LOVED Hitler when he was elected. It can happen to any country, to any nation, to any people. NOW, my pea shooter may not be a match for the military, if they ever decide to go along with a mad man in power (Which I doubt), but if it did happen...IF.... then I guarantee you that millions of pea shooters combined would protect us way better than zero. Not to mention, IF the military did in fact decide to do the will of a mad man, then I would also say that many of those in the military would go AWOL and join the citizens. And we would far out number the military. Watch "A Bug's Life" the scene where the grasshopper explains to the other one how one ant is nothing, but if they ever realize that their number together far outweigh the numbers of the "dictator" grasshoppers, then they could easily win their freedom. Once again, I do not believe our government or military would ever do such things, but it literally takes one person to change all that. Heck, I NEVER thought anyone out there would use our airplanes as missiles in our own country after using box-cutters to kill passengers on those planes, but it only took ONE psycho. Now, air marshals are on most flights... guns on a PLANE to protect who???

36) Comment by Scrooge - 15/01/2013

Bowman, in America , "Achiever" and "fascist" must not be synonymous. In other words, shoot anyone who does not agree that military grade weapons belong in the hands of civilians?

37) Comment by Whatnow - 15/01/2013

nimby?, you are so right about the mother's lack of parental responsibility. She even taught her young monster how to do it. She should have given him another hobby. Basket weaving or legos would have been better.

38) Comment by DMJ - 15/01/2013

Nimby, you're right. The mother was to blame for Newtown. She had an AR 15 just sitting in an unlocked cabinet (along with 2 handguns). Plus, she taught Lanza how to shoot, so he was very accurate (he had a 100% fatality rate). Had she locked that gun up in a safe or never had it to begin with, the tragedy may have been avoided. Sure, Lanza may have gotten a gun from somewhere else, but in this case, he didn't need to. Think about it.

39) Comment by Bowman@ms - 15/01/2013

Good job BigMike Your one comment brought 'em out of the woodwork. It's easy to watch the flow of comments and realize who doesn't have the arguments. RCFA stands for "root cause failure analysis". Achievers realize to solve problems you first have eliminate the true "root cause" and not the symptom.

40) Comment by nimby? - 15/01/2013

the one person who could have prevented the Conn. shooting may have been the 1st to die , parental irresponsibility . "the government is not going to take your guns" , yet the general consensus of the left leaning thinkers here expresses the opposite , that those in disagreement are incapable of decision and should not be allowed such , that any speech from such folk is silly and irrelevant and doesn't need to be heard . 'the government is not going to take your guns" , yet ...

41) Comment by 1ryben - 15/01/2013

Recalling an accidental shooting of a person by a gun. Recalling 20 kids and teachers in a school mowed down. Recalling....

42) Comment by nimby? - 15/01/2013

recalling two murders in the downtown area where a handgun could have made a difference .

43) Comment by Scrooge - 15/01/2013

1ryben, I salute you. Well done. One consideration is that weapons do become an equalizer when confronted by persons like BigMike who fancy themselves to be bullies whose apparent definition of 1st amendment rights exclude anyone they doesn't agree with, but expressing that disagreement with 2nd grade playground histrionics lends little credibility to the idea of placing weapons into the hands of a 2nd grad thinker.

44) Comment by Chucky - 15/01/2013

Silly man, you do not fight the United Sates of America, You fight FOR the USA. When you need change vote.

45) Comment by gvm - 14/01/2013

BR Chairborne Rangers. Motto: write cool posts online; avoid military service at all costs. Hoorahhh!!!

46) Comment by gvm - 14/01/2013

I suspect that most of these John Wayne wannabes would simply soil themselves if they ever found themselves facing a foe with overwhelming firepower. It is quite easy to appear to be a tough guy absent a real threat - quite another to be one when the heat is on.

47) Comment by gvm - 14/01/2013

@BigMike: your vocabulary is that big??

48) Comment by BigMike - 14/01/2013

Maybe in your home, but not in mine. Now go sit back down & next time, raise your hand.

49) Comment by BigMike - 14/01/2013

My apologies, but evidently my use of the medical term for the muscle controlling the opening & closing of an orifice, through contraction, is not permitted here...... Pity.

50) Comment by palefire - 14/01/2013

Fun fact of the day: a gun in the home increases the chances of being killed by firearms 72%.

51) Comment by palefire - 14/01/2013

Bighug, sorry it was late, and I wasn't thinking except about the stupidity in the letter above. If there was an edit button I would fix my post. As for the rest of your post, well that nonsense was answered by others already.

52) Comment by BigMike - 14/01/2013

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

53) Comment by gvm - 14/01/2013

@BigMike: I stand by my previous comment. Bighug's post states that the wars against Japan and Germany were fought by "armed citizens." That's simply not true: they were fought by armed military personnel (armed by the US govt, by the way). There was a massive draft during this time. Really, if it had been left to the general populace to fight these wars, with their assortment of .22s and shotguns - I think the national language might well be Japanese or German. Verstehen Sie das?

54) Comment by 1ryben - 14/01/2013

You right, I was out of line. Stealth bombers are too far, but your pea shooter will do nothing against the might of the US Armed Forces. I would hope that if you and your little pals in your RealTree cammo leading an uprising against the people of the USA would be put down fairly quickly. There would be no need for the stealthy bombers. Give me a break, the wahoos that have an irrational fear of the government are the same people who shouldn't have the guns in the first place. My larger point is still valid, you people are so hypocritical. You have no issue trampling on first amendment rights but treat the second amendment like it is the 11th commandment. Pro-life yet pro-death penalty. Have no problem giving corporate tax breaks but whine about food stamps. Selfish behavior. Mine mine mine.

55) Comment by BigMike - 14/01/2013

My goodness! So many scholars in one place & not enough collective intelligence to tie a shoe! PALEFIRE, you are so off in left field, I don't even have to address your comment. Please sit down. PS56, the musket was the premier weapon for that time and thus, the founding fathers "envisioned" having comparable weapons. Since the people were the militia, what good to show up with a sub-standard or obsolete weapon? "Regulated" did not mean then what it means now. If so, please provide a link to those "regulations" from long ago (Good Luck) & as to your final point, PS56, I wonder if those people who have been executed by their own government (like the jews or the russians) were too "mentally and emotionally unstable" right before they died, knowing that they allowed themselves to be disarmed by their own government, in order to be executed without resistance? GVM, obviously BIGHUG is referring to Yamamoto's thoughts on invading the US vs. "blades of grass". Now, go sit next to PALEFIRE. DDAY, you too. SUZANNEMS, thanks for a lucid, thought-out response but the insurrection you're referring to would be one by British loyalist. I'm not sure how that would play out today. However, it is precisely those "random individuals owning weapons in order to provide a "check on government." that was the intention, at that time. DMJ, with all that high tech weaponry (nukes, tanks, subs, etc.) no chance of a serious challenge, huh? you mean like that rag-tag band of desert dwellers that have managed to kill thousands without nukes, tanks, subs, choppers, jets, etc.?? And if our government started to resemble cold war russia or WW2 germany, with an internal federal police force, government endorsed wire-tapping & (e)mail screening, facial recognition cameras on every corner, a "leader" who continues to side step established government procedure to do things by executive order... you think the biggest threat is "easy access to guns"?!?! That, Sir, is "totally insane". NIMBY?, you walk a razors edge, my friend, making just arguments for both sides, in a twisted kind of way. I like it. Kudos. 1RYBEN, you ask what goods an AR vs. an F-18?? I pray to God that we never find out, but... IF... that day comes to use an F-18, you think only one side will have them?? Not everyone that wears a uniform will disregard their oath to follow orders. If you don't realize this, you better go back to drinking..... Thanks, folks. When it gets boring, I can always amuse myself here. Take care now, bye-bye then.

56) Comment by Whatnow - 14/01/2013

DMJ, especially when they are given to the cartels. Or does that make them legal since the government let them walk? So, I guess all those people were killed with legal guns? Sorry, I don't want to live in a country where the only people who have guns are the government and the criminals. Stealth bombers, 1ryben? The minute someone from the government orders that, he is a target for the military, not the commander.

57) Comment by DMJ - 14/01/2013

I wish gun rights were as "settled" as abortion. Then, we could enact a plethora of restrictions on them.

58) Comment by 1ryben - 14/01/2013

@Atilla, SCOTUS has legalized murder (using your term for abortion) and it's settled, it's law. Fine, Lets do the exact same thing Mississippi did to essentialy eliminate abortion from Mississippi to guns? Sounds fair to me. Or is that too logical?

59) Comment by 1ryben - 14/01/2013

PREPARE FOR THE OCCUPATION OF THE UNITED STATES!!!!...by the United States? Whatcha gonna do, take aim at a stealth bomber? Your AR-15 will do what exactly against an F-18? Are we really that dumb? We would've lost WWII if it weren't for my grandpa's 12 guage? really? no, really? serious? "Only law abidig citizens will follw the laws"...duh, isnt that the definition of law abiding citizen. If that's your argument, abolish all laws. Heck, "only the law abidig citizen will follow." We will never eliminate all violence or deaths. We sure didn't eliminate drunk driving but those laws have certainly reduced drunk driving fatalaties. I know those laws have stopped me from having that "one" extra beer (as if it's ever just one) or driving impaired. I know if it weren't for those laws, I would've "chanced it." does that make me a bad person, hope not, but its the truth, I know I would've killed someone by now.

60) Comment by DMJ - 14/01/2013

People who disobey the law get their guns from somewhere. All guns are legal at some point.

61) Comment by nimby? - 14/01/2013

hate to beat a dead horse but reduce will only work with those obeying the law , correct ? I would love to live in a world with no hate , where we don't need guns , police or armies , where all our efforts would be towards a better world . there will always be those who won't cooperate ...

62) Comment by DMJ - 14/01/2013

"fact ; the only way to eliminate the threat of gun violence is to eliminate the presence of all guns." Glad to see you're coming around. Take the word "eliminate" and replace it with "reduce" and I think you'll find a more achievable goal.

63) Comment by nimby? - 14/01/2013

fact ; the only way to eliminate the threat of gun violence is to eliminate the presence of all guns . since that is not possible the next step would be to confiscate all of the weapons known about . the legal process of doing such would create loopholes , grandfathered clauses , and would take years , would be much easier to bypass both houses and ... but that's not going to happen , soon . as the right points out the areas of highs crime have some of the strictest gun laws . as the left points out it is easy to leave a county , cross a state line . if a person returns with a weapon then they are breaking the law correct ? gun control laws will not regulate weapons of those having little regard for the law .

64) Comment by Attila - 14/01/2013

I think that the "totally insane" here are you dolts that keep bringing up "well regulated militia' phrase as justification for your paranoia concerning the right of the people to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS has spoken on that...it is what lawyers refer to as "settled law". It is no different than Roe v. Wade. While I do not condone murder of any type the SCOTUS has seen fit to legalize murdering babies...it is "settled law"..Seems as if some of you like to pick and choose which settled law with which you decide to conform.

65) Comment by DMJ - 14/01/2013

it's insane that the Mr. Dufours of the country let a totally unrealistic, hypothetical, fantastical threat (U.S. takeover of the ..U.S.??) keep us from dealing with the actual, real, measurable threat that is easy access to guns. Totally insane.

66) Comment by Lannonmac - 14/01/2013

It is obvious Mr. Dufour sees the Government as the enemy that he has to be willing to shoot and kill to protect his “rights”. So I guess Mr. Dufour views U.S. military personnel, the FBI and local law enforcement as agents of the enemy as well. In fact it is reasonable to expect that Mr. Dufour views just about anyone that works for the “Government” as a potential enemy that might need “shooten” if they infringe on his “rights.” I wager that Mr. Dufour regards himself as some sort of American Patriot, even as he spouts outright sedition. I hope the rest of the people that read Mr. Dufour’s letter understand just how stupid his worldview is.

67) Comment by DMJ - 14/01/2013

In order for regular citizens to pose any kind of threat (or check) to the government of the United States, we would need to make it legal for private citizens to have nuclear weapons, submarines, tanks, an array of missiles, drones, etc. People who hang out at gun shows are no match for the might of the U.S. Military. This guy thinks the only thing keeping America from being a dictatorship is people having easy access to guns? What a rube! No, Mr. Dufour, easy access to guns doesn't keep us free; it keeps us at the top of the list of wealthy developed countries in terms of gun violence.

68) Comment by SuzanneMS - 14/01/2013

You might also want to look up the definition of the word "treason," while you're at it. The founding fathers did not enshrine treason in the Constitution. The 2nd amendment provides for a "well regulated militia," primarily because they did not envision a standing army of any size. That was their check on a central government with too much power -- a small military supplemented by states' militias. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" -- suppress insurrections. That would be citizens taking up arms against the government. Also, "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." This is a far cry from random individuals owning weapons in order to provide a "check on government."

69) Comment by dday198 - 14/01/2013

you lost the election get over it

70) Comment by gvm - 14/01/2013

@Bighug: "Without armed citizens, we could be ruled by Japan or Germany today." Are you suggesting that WWII was fought using grandpa's old shotgun or .22 rifle?

71) Comment by postscript56 - 14/01/2013

A couple of points to make - First, at the time of the bill of rights "arms" was more or less a black powder musket. If we're talking about keeping and bearing black powder muskets, fine. Otherwise, we're not talking about the same thing. The founding fathers did not envision assualt rifles with 30 round clips. Second, "a well regulated militia" means just that - well regulated. Third, if you really believe you might have to take up arms against our government you are too mentally and emotionally unstable to own a weapon.

72) Comment by postscript56 - 14/01/2013

A couple of points to make - First, at the time of the bill of rights "arms" was more or less a black powder musket. If we're talking about keeping and bearing black powder muskets, fine. Otherwise, we're not talking about the same thing. The founding fathers did not envision assualt rifles with 30 round clips. Second, "a well regulated militia" means just that - well regulated. Third, if you really believe you might have to take up arms against our government you are too mentally and emotionally unstable to own a weapon. Bighug - no standing army in 1941? What do you mean by that?

73) Comment by Bighug - 14/01/2013

A standing army, palefire? Perhaps you are the one who should be looking up something, such as the definition of 'militia.' One proof of the value of citizens owning guns in the US is that we don't have an oppressive government. Without armed citizens, we could be ruled by Japan or Germany today. That was the value of the militia, since we didn't have a viable standing army at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack.

74) Comment by palefire - 13/01/2013

Our forefathers didn't give us gun rights; they gave us the rights to a standing army. I suggest looking up the phrase "bear arms" and what it meant back then. It has nothing to with the right to carry arms. And keep in mind our early presidents got rid of that right almost on the onset of The Unites States.