One Voice Can Change a room....

What the world needs now is a united states of America. We need to pass gun control laws,

No votes yet

I agree. We need to have dialog with all included, but talking about facts not myths. Small special interests groups are trying to represent the rest of us. The NRA says we should use the laws on the books; but those laws have been rendered useless by revisions orchestrated by the NRA.

We license cars, but then "the government" knows who owns them and that's what a lot of people are afraid of. I say let's license people who are allowed to own guns whether they own them or not. Many people have driver licenses who don't own a car.

And here is my suggestion for a very simple requirement for a license to own a gun:

You have to graduate high school with a 3.3 out of 4.00 grade point average. And if you don't have both of those requirements, you can get a license after passing an intelligence I.Q. test with a score above 105, no exceptions. You have to prove you are responsible enough to operate a motor vehicle, why not have to prove you are responsible enough to use a firearm? And anyone caught with a gun, but not a license gets the book thrown at them in a big way.

Rodeo your law is just stupid. If not let's apply it to things like the first amendment and voting.

The NRA did not render any law useless that could have prevented Newton, Arizona or Colorado. In two of those cases the individuals failed background checks but obtained guns elsewhere. The problem is enforcement of the laws we have.


"Rodeo your law is just stupid"
A person comes on here and states his opinion and you have to attack him by calling him stupid. I realize that your a disciple of Fredo, the smartest person on the planet but are you also a genius by osmosis? Like most right wingers on here your very bitter and frustrated.
Try disagreeing with someone without calling names. Thanks!

Willard what you failed to realize is yes I did call his law stupid, not him. I further went on to show why it is stupid. Now you support people here who just namecall and fail to show WHY their point is valid.

Now you call me bitter and frustrated. Yet you fail to show how or why. Additionally you namecall Fred. So, please spare me your righteous indignation and refrain from commenting until you have a cogent point.


Well said :)

How do you know if I am a "him" or a "she"?

1. An automobile can be dangerous and there are some requirements put on getting a license to operate. What's the matter with requiring some responsibility before you are allowed to possess an instrument that can kill?

2. The laws we have are practically useless due to changes made to them, many backed/written by the N.R.A.

3. We do have certain requirements for voting and free speech if it's intention is bad.

4. How many people to you personally know that shouldn't be allowed around a gun? Let's start with kids.

1. There is no constitutional right to an automobile. So please stop comparing guns to them.

2. You are wrong. What you are referring to is the Assault weapons ban, that expired years ago AND it was poorly written in the first place. Plus it failed to protect the students of Colombine.

3. We have restrictions already on owning guns. Show me a place in the US that doesn't.

4. There are already limitations. The problem is not the laws or the need for more but the lack of ENFORCEMENT of those laws.


There is no constitutional right for women to vote. If it's the Constitution that is stumping you, we can change that. And that is a right.

And you're confused about gun laws. First you say they're poorly written, then you say there are restrictions (poorly written too?), and you end by saying the laws need to be enforced.

Isn't that the whole argument, existing laws need to be fixed so they can be enforced?

Are you actually implying that the 19th amendment does not exist?

Rodeo it has become apparent that you are woefully uninformed about your own government.


What's the sound...rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Oh, it's the point going right over your head. My point was that the Constitution has been changed to reflect progress in the country and society.

"There is no constitutional right for women to vote. If it's the Constitution that is stumping you, we can change that. And that is a right."

Well maybe you should say it that plainly. Because when you say there is no constitutional right when there is you're not making a point, you're saying a factually inaccurate statement.

Now, if you believe there should be a constitutional amendment to eliminate the 2nd Amendment then you should do that. However, the laws being proposed are not an amendment, they specifically go againsted the amendment which states the right shall not be infringed.


You should read the actual amendment and not listen to questionable sources.

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

So you belong to a "Militia"? The amendment was written at a time the United States did not have a military. We do now.

Bearing arms was understood as not referring exclusively to military service.
[T]he said Constitution [should] be never construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration, “Father of the American Revolution.

Significantly, the Second Amendment did not grant or bestow any right on the people; instead, it simply recognized and provided what Constitution signer James Wilson called “a new security” for the right of self-defense that God had already bestowed on every individual..

You better take a look at New York, Colorado, and tell me if these laws won't eventually affect you... The laws keep changing so keep enforcing them until your only allowed to own a double barreled shot gun with a two shot limit.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Interesting arguement. "You should read the actual amendment and not listen to questionable sources."

In other words, forget the "questionable sources", you should look at what the people who WROTE the Constitution said, right?

So what did the people who WROTE the 2nd Amendment mean by "militia"?

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The Founding Fathers on Arms
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.


"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8


The Founding Fathers on Maintaining Freedom
"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States


"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. "
Noah Webster
American Lexicographer


"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
Edmund Burke
British Statesman, 1784


"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison


"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
American Statesman

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

Ok now that you have recognized ever legal citizen that owns a gun, what will you do about all the criminals who will have access to guns.. Does the book get thrown at them before they get caught or after they commit the crimes, i.e mass murder, murder ect ???

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

 photo shove_gun_control_light_t_shirt.jpg

"One voice can change a room".
I have to agree, yours just made "the room" dumber.

Gun control works great for Chicago eh?
Anyone that thinks MORE feel good laws will keep criminals from getting (and using) guns is just too stupid to even talk to.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

I certainly agree with a law requiring someone having a decent IQ score to vote!

Be aware that if you choose your cutoff to be the White average IQ of 100, that means half of Whites won't be able to vote, but it also means at least 75% of Blacks won't be able to vote. Setting the IQ limit to 115 would exclude 97.5% (39/40) of Blacks and 84% (5/6) of Whites. If you passed laws specifying that mentally retarded people by IQ (75 or less) can't vote, you still zap nearly half of the Black population. And most of the exclusion would be in the South.

That's why qualification laws will never, ever be passed in this country. All those people vote now. They'll never allow that sort of disenfranchisement to take place. Most are smart enough to follow basic self interest.

I saw the following posted on Facebook the other day.

You may not like guns, that is your right.
You may not believe in God, that is your choice,
but if someone breaks into your home, the first
two things you will do, are, call someone with a gun,
and hope they get there in time.

Hard to argue with that.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

when you deliver those peperoni pizza's?

Having firearms everywhere just makes the world a more dangerous place.

(A pizza delivery guy gets the house number wrong, you see and hear a stranger banging on your door, ......BAM !!!)


The states with higher gun ownership have lower crime rates and violent crime rates.


High crime areas have very little to do with gun ownership. If that were true, Europe would be crime central.

Look at the crime rates of european countries. They are still comparable to the US especially when factored by population size.

Norway had a much deadlier mass shooting than we experienced, yet they have gun control.

Gun control has not proven to be effective. However, dictatorships almost always have the most stringent gun control laws. There is a reason for this. Much like there is a reason the found fathers specifically chose this right to be place before right to unreasonable search and seizure, being held without indictment, and speedy and public trials.


"Look at the crime rates of european(sic) countries. They are still comparable to the US especially when factored by population size."
The European rates you are referring to are not based on the population size, but the number of crimes compared to the number of guns.

And your other statement should have read "Norway had ONE much deadlier mass shooting than we experienced, yet they have gun control."

So infrequency matters?

Because mass shootings are very rare, even here where there is lots of gun ownership.

But the point is even with total gun control, it didn't prevent a mass shooting, so the laws being proposed would not work.


One of the lowest crime rates in the world.
Could it be because EVERYONE who is over the age of 18 MUST own a gun? MUST have military training?

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

One thing you're overlooking is how racially and culturally unary that Switzerland is. Its diversity is just about zero. Funny how people keep ignoring that factor.

Your statistic was interesting, then it dawned on me. Crime is probably lower where more guns are registered., not where there are more guns. Could it be that in areas that require registering guns have less illegal guns?

Are you suggesting that where there are more registered guns there are actually less guns?

If so, why do you think that is? I can tell you I don't believe that to be true.


What do you consider to be illegal guns? There are a lot of legal guns out there that are not registered, does that make them illegal?

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Huh? Based on what? Conservative meme doesn't count.

I think you can pretty much pick and choose any statistics you want.

Most Red states have a higher firearm’s death rate that blue states...

Of course part of the high rate is because red states are such crappy places to live in most cases; the suicide rates are pretty high.

As for violent crime, 8 of the 10 least violent states are blue states and 9 out of 10 of the most violent are red states, with few gun restrictions…

More Guns = More Gun Homicides, Statistically Speaking

Actually Sensor I am not using the conservative meme. The NRA has suggested that the UK is 4 times more violent. I'm not suggesting that. I've stated that they are comparable violent crime rates.

AS for the least/most violent states, you are correct, what I was referring to was the trend lines and I should have made that clearer. The states that have allowed for better access to guns has seen crime drop across the board with significant drops in violent crime.

Additionally, the states you are quoting include suicide. That's not really the type of gun crime we're committing. We don't see a drop in suicides because of limitations to guns. It's a separate issue and should be treated as such.


"The states with higher gun ownership have lower crime rates and violent crime rates."

Another "fact" being retold by, less informed (was that nice enough?). Some people sour the internet looking for sources to substantiate their own unfortunate beliefs. And when they can't find any, they take valid news sources and "adjust" (add/deduct or change) the facts.

Here's a link explaining where you got that "fact" from"

Actually rodeo that's not where I get my "fact" thank you very much. It comes from what I've studied about concealled carry on my own, not one study. And yes, lessening gun control laws and allowing for concealled carry causes crime especially violent crime to drop.

Additionally, I already expanded on my fact, before you posted this.


Is that any better than name calling?

Says the guy who accused me of calling someone stupid, whereas if they had read the quote they themselves posted they would see I did not.

I am beginning to think Willard has sustained some head trauma.


Why do you respond to a legitimate post like that, with a stupid assed remark about pizzas?

... need more gun laws? Because if your reason is unnecessary loss of life.... then you would also be unalterably opposed to killing babies....


Because if you are, by any chance, pro-abortion - well then you need to sit down and be quiet about tools that have legitimate uses, but could also be used (by the twisted or mentally ill in society) for human-to-human violence.

That's one of the main reasons most conservatives don't listen to liberals. Liberals always, very selectively, pick and choose what they deem "right" or "wrong". Liberals decline to embrace moral absolutes. They do not believe, to begin with, that right is always right and wrong is always wrong. That's why conservatives call liberals hypocrites.



You'd have to be one sick puppy to be "pro"-abortion. Actually, you'd have to be a little off to think anyone is pro-abortion. I think everyone (I hope everyone) is anti-abortion. The differences are whether you are pro-choice versus anti-choice.

Is it just me or does it seem those people accusing others of being pro-abortion the same crowd opposed to easy access for contraceptives? I mean, if the fetus was never conceived in the first place, there would be not need for abortions.

Welcome to Swampbubbles!

Here is why most of the new laws being proposed are a bad idea. The enforcement on the current ones are not enforced correctly.

This guy and his son were harassed for walking down a rural road.


In Texas of all places...

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

DTOM if there are laws in place that justify the police doing this then why would we need any others?


The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers are forced upon them.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

a big baby. Babies don't need guns!

Gun bill in senate re: background checks, just got TOSSED!

Yep, it appears Bloomberg's gonna need some deep pockets if he intends to continue with his threats.


Good. The Second Amendment should have stopped that sort of crap in the first place. Screw Feinstein and her illegal intentions. The SA is supposed to STOP the federal government from infringing on your gun rights. And Ohio's constitution does the same for the state level. Therefore the gun grabbing is DONE... there is no other government level (international, county or city) that has the authority to ban or restrict, as least for Ohioans.

The gun bans passed in Connecticut recently are unconstitutional by their own state constitution. It remains for the people of Connecticut to overturn those laws through court actions. Those are the facts.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.