THE TRUTH ABOUT GUNS IN AMERICA: If We Want To Be Safer, We Need To Change The Constitution en-us Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500 Thu, 25 Dec 2014 14:58:01 -0500 The Economist David Bennett Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:08:13 -0500 I am a retired police officer with 30 years experience. The idea that if we ban all guns there will be less violence and we will all be safer is not backed up by the facts. In countries where all firearms are banned crime is very high and the criminals are able to do as they please. They know they have nothing to fear from their victims as the “good citizens” will obey the law. There have been numerous instances where persons who had concealed weapons permits stopped crimes or saved lives. There is no longer a Soviet Union because we stood up to them and they knew we would defend ourselves. When in history has any tyrant been afraid to visit violence on a people who could not or would not defend themselves. Tyrants and dictators are criminals on a larger scale. The only way to lower crime is to give people the ability to defend themselves and solve the problems in society which are the cause for crime. It does not matter how enlightened a society we become there will always be people who covet what their neighbor has or enjoy preying on others. It is easy for movie stars and celebrities to demand that guns be banned and say how horrible gun violence is. They live in secure homes with personal security while the rest of us have to hope when we need help the police are not tied up on a call or too far away to get to us in time. What reasonable person can believe that if you ban all guns we will be safer? Great Britain, Canada, and Australia have banned guns and seen their crimes rates skyrocket. In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner. The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10″ list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime. I can tell you from personal experience that being armed has prevented my family and I from being victims. You who favor banning all guns have a right to your opinion. I do not agree, but that is your right to stand up for what you believe. Please be so kind as to not paint all gun owners as paranoid. The 2nd Amendment needs to stay as it is. Douglas Nusbaum Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:28:16 -0500 "... America can take some solace from the fact that, slowly, as a result of better policing and better treatment for gunshot victims, the number of murders committed each year is declining. But not much." Yes, the number of murders is declining, about in proportion as the number of concealed carry permits is increasing. But that is probably just a coincidence. And if you look at WHITE areas, and by WHITE, I mean White and Asian, you will see that the homicide rate is about what it is in Europe. Except that it is whites and asians that commit almost all of the mass shootings. If there is a mass shooting that kills a lot of blacks, nobody really cares, and that would include our black president, so it is not reported. TheTruthMatters Wed, 26 Dec 2012 16:47:19 -0500 China and Russia, are Sitting in the Wings, licking their chops, just waiting for America to disarm our people, and makes us nice and Ripe for an invasion or take over. No Thanks, I think our Founding Fathers had a pretty good reason for Citizen Gun Ownership. How about you focus your brain cells on school security of the kids. and quit flaming the fire with treasonous articles like this. Are you a terrorist, trying to change our constitution? TheTruthMatters Wed, 26 Dec 2012 16:41:41 -0500 Oh... So you want to change the Constitution.. Good Luck. The Real Truth is: The 2nd Amendment enforces the rest of the Amendments. It was so important my our founding fathers it was made the 2nd Amendment, right after verbal protest of out Government. You do away with the 2nd, then the 1st goes away and then Tyranny then sets in, and then we just lost our democracy. NO THANKS!! You want to save lives, Ban Cigarettes, Ban Alcohol, Ban GMO foods, Ban infections from hospitals, ban Car Accidents, Ban Needless Wars, Ban No-Knock Warrants by Cops. Every law that is created is just one more right that is taken away. How about End the IRS Per Child Tax Credit and use that money to buy some security officers for the schools. Our Government leaves the most vulnerable (our children) unprotected. DDW Tue, 25 Dec 2012 21:33:40 -0500 And the DoD and every other gov organization out there gets to have all the weapons they want. Why don't they lead by example and beat their swords into plowshares? Who or what gives the right to a corporate entitiy that has created and used the A-bomb to take away the right of an individual to owner lesser weapons? Give me liberty or give me death. ENDIF Tue, 25 Dec 2012 16:46:45 -0500 As usual, we liberals are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. We are wasting an opportunity, and handing the conservatives more base-energizing (and expanding) ammunition in one incompetent stumble, cheering all the while. Most of us aren't getting the terms of this discussion wrong, we're getting the problem itself wrong. Further restricting firearms ownership when the problem is actually the social darwinism at all levels of society that leaves people to become so broken and desperate that they give in to their sick urge to take lives, does nothing. The only two things that could actually significantly reduce firearms deaths - ending the Drug War and implementing single payer healthcare with on demand mental health and addiction services - seem mostly neglected in these discussions. Anyone that actually cares about reducing violence of all types, and gun violence in particular, should be focusing on the CAUSES, not the SYMPTOM. We should be flogging how the ACA would improve these services, not fapping about restricting the rights of the law abiding. We should be pushing to expand it to further improve these services. <a href="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ></a> We should be having the discussion about ending the drug war that creates the black market that creates and feeds the cartels and their satellite gangs and distribution networks. The flawed laws that cage casual users with hardened criminals in prisons that are more run by gangs than wardens or guards. Ie, the cause of most violence, particularly firearms violence. <a href="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ></a> Momentum is on our side, it's up to us how to use it, how we frame the issue. But here we are, discussing the symptom instead of addressing the actual problem. It's as if two sides of a partisan donation machine - the NRA and the equally malevolent Brady anti-gun lobby - are cynically manipulating their respective demographics for profit. Have no doubts, each requires the other to stampede their respective constituencies in the desired direction. Focusing on anything beyond closing the gunshow loophole and improving mental health reporting will do absolutely nothing to curb violence. CT is rated to be the fifth "best" state for gun laws according to the Brady Campaign which means they are more restrictive than 45 other states on various laws relating to firearms." Clearly that worked well for them on Friday. An assault weapons ban or attempts to restrict magazine size will *cause* violence in the form of right wing terrorism, as demonstrated throughout the 90s. <a href="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ></a> An all out ban will cause even liberals like myself to think twice about the reasons behind the open insurrection that would result. And that doesn't take into account the thousands of lives it would cost. Assuming you could actually get any of these passed, common sense or not. A complete waste of political capital. Bill Koehler Tue, 25 Dec 2012 09:03:51 -0500 Britain has a lower murder rate than the United States interesting fact. How come the violent crime rate has increased since they were stripped of their guns and their right to defend themselves? Next time you should present all the facts. Darren Wolfe Tue, 25 Dec 2012 08:54:47 -0500 "America's murder rate is four times higher than Britain's and six times higher than Germany's." This is just shameless cherry-picking of facts to support the false notion that gun control works. Russia has a murder rate 4 times that of the US & Brazil 3 times higher. Both have strict gun control. Look at this list <a href="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ></a> The US is down near the middle in terms of its murder rate. Its murder rate is surpassed by many, many countries with strict gun control & low rates of gun ownership. Please stop trying to pretend that gun control is any kind of panacea. It's not & it often makes the problem worse. Rick Testa Mon, 24 Dec 2012 15:44:05 -0500 This devastating act was a terrible tragedy that stunned us all, but this is typical "we have to do SOMETHING" flawed logic... Assuming the goal is to actually reduce the number of homicides and mass murders in this country, a new AWB will be nothing more than a wasted opportunity. The last ban had restrictions on the capacity of new magazines, restricting them to no more than ten rounds, and any new proposal will likely contain this as well. The tragic shooting at Columbine Highschool took place while the previous AWB was in effect. The shooters, instead of modifying their magazines to carry additional rounds (something remarkably easy to do, especially considering the shooters were able to illegally shorten their shotgun below the legal length), decided to bring with them thirteen, ten-round magazines. Clearly, magazine restrictions did not stop crime, nor will they in the future. The second, main prong of the previous AWB was a restriction on various cosmetic features of rifles, for instance, flash suppressors and bayonet mounts. I understand that many deem these to be military accoutrements with little to no civilian purpose, but that does not make these features inherently dangerous, nor does it make a rifle sporting such features any more lethal. In fact, the Department of Justice concluded, in two studies (one included with this letter) of the previous assault weapons ban that these provisions “target…a relatively small number of weapons based on features that have little to do with the weapons’ operation, and removing those features is sufficient to make the weapon legal.” What’s more, the Justice Department concluded that, viewed as a whole, a reinstatement of the AWB would have such a miniscule effect on crime as to be “too small for measurement.” Gun owners should show vigorous opposition to any new AWB. It is a wasted opportunity to take real action in reducing gun violence. Strengthen the background check system by requiring stronger reporting from universities (which may have caught the V-Tech killer, as he was diagnosed by his school with mental illness and charged by the school with harassment and stalking) and mental health institutions; require background checks on private gun sales, or allow private individuals to perform checks on the buyer without having to transfer the firearm through a licensed dealer; most importantly, strengthen the mental health system to provide better care upfront to those members of society who fall through the cracks of our understaffed and overworked mental health system. I would even support mandatory safety education and licensing, say every four years, to be allowed to purchase firearms. We cannot make people store their weapons safely, but we can give them the knowledge required. Legislators should also reconsider the efficacy of “gun free zones.” One must consider how many children would have been saved had the teachers or administrators of Sandy Hook been allowed to be armed. What purpose is served by laws that create “soft target” zones in which we concentrate our most vulnerable and innocent? So many of the recent public mass shootings have occurred in places were either legally or nominally banned. Criminals do not respect gun-free zones, only law abiding citizens, by definition, do. Jim Jones Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:26:14 -0500 Gun control advocates continually ask why the NRA refuses to compromise. The answer is quite simple: None is being offered. Instead, what are being offered are “terms of surrender”. Gun ban advocates somehow see their gun ban demands as an offer. They really haven’t put anything on the table. They want a ten round limit. How come they don’t offer say, national right to carry concealed reciprocity, and federal preemption regarding concealed carry as compromise? If they demand a ten round limit, and we want thirty, why isn’t 20 a compromise? We want zero specific gun types banned. Senator Feinstine wants 200 types banned. Can’t we compromise by banning 100 types? Because compromise isn’t what they want. They demand capitualtion, utter, and complete. So they just ought to drop the pretense. They want them all. They demand their way. They will accept nothing less, therefore there will never be “compromise”. And the anti-gun advocacy stands alone in ensuring that compromise never happens. Nothing in my post should be taken to mean I’m willing to compromise on anything. I’m just pointing out that the anti-gun lynch mob considers what they are willing to let us have as “compromise.” John A. Mon, 24 Dec 2012 10:22:41 -0500 And let's not forget, at the outbreak of WWII, the Brits desperately needed to rearm their citizens to protect against a Nazi invasion. Americans 'lent" them many thousands of sporting rifles and shotguns. When the war ended, the Brit government rounded them all up and melted them. Nice thank you. jeffries Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:23:24 -0500 Better childcare, better mental health care, and a living wage would all go a long way to drop murder rates rather than gun control. In my opinion the 2nd amendment was put into effect so the people would have recourse against their government if it became captured by those whose interests were not to serve the people. If you think about what was going on when the document was written it makes sense. I am not advocating taking up arms against the government but perhaps if we educate our children (better childcare) on the importance of civil involvement, provide mental health help and pay a wage that will allow people to have some dignity we could achieve our goal of having our government serve our society and not just the few that have captured it. Until then I do not believe gun control is the answer. Priam Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:52:34 -0500 They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Ben Franklin commonmann Mon, 24 Dec 2012 07:52:07 -0500 will all this proposed new gun legislation come with a guarantee that there will never be another school/mall/movie theater/etc. shooting? John Ryan Mon, 24 Dec 2012 07:35:32 -0500 So they are using flowers in Syria! Right? How about this you make the first statement and go unarmed. If there is a bank robbery in a city theydon't arrest every citizen in that town. So why criminalize law abiding citizens who did nothing with their guns. Brian in Seattle Mon, 24 Dec 2012 00:59:57 -0500 Go. To. Hell. Daniel Silverman Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:49:57 -0500 We can suggest changing the Constitution, then maybe we should amend all the Amendments, because as you know the founding fathers didn't have the internet either. Simply put Connecticut was a tragedy. Even if we banned all firearms tomorrow, and tried to confiscate them all it wouldn't stop violence. Confiscation would meet with heavy resistance, I can assure you. Clearly we can look to our gun free Utopias, of Australia, and the UK. Violent crime is so bad in the UK, it is safer to live in South Africa. In the UK 49% of all home robberies happen with the person is home! The US is more around 9%. Rapes, murders, suicides and violent assaults are out of control. In the US we are at a 45 year low for violent crime. In Australia, which is a beautiful place by the way, violent crime dipped slightly and is now back up to or above pre ban levels. People say, but no one is getting shot, well gun use in the UK is up 85%. Australia is doing better, but it doesn't matter how someone kills you, you are still dead right? The author is also taking aim at those scary looking sporting rifles. Those were used in only 0.4% of all gun crime. So when he said homicide rates were sketchy during the ban he would be very correct. Even if you made them all disappear, it would only change the gun death rate, by less than one half of one percent, assuming it totally deterred the crime from happening. People talk about the gun show loop hole, but out of all the shows I have been to not once have I seen that in action. The NRA backs having medical professionals to be able to flag people who shouldn't own guns. People are in shock that the NRA would want armed people in schools. This does not come with out precedent. President Bill Clinton did this, and that program is still in effect. Israel does this and it is effective. Texas, and some other states are doing this, despite the federal gun free zone law. It works. It isn't the magic pill, but it is something we can do right now today. Ropingdown Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:47:24 -0500 Lefteris2: You buy the fantasy. You think nuclear submarines and fighter bombers can stop a populace if they recognize a government has turned tyrannical. You are just the sort of person who would thing Viettnam and Afghanistan should have been won long ago. You missed something. First, half the military defect and the planes stop working. Second, a truly tyrannical government never has enough truly devoted combatants to sustain a defense. The right answer is for government to respect rights and to avoid been pulled into an endless chain of subordination to elites that have lost perspective. Violence worked for the black American in '66-'68. Numbers rule, even if they only have slingshots. When the money runs out (Britain) and they can't buy off the poor, they have to even up the game. Ropingdown Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:22:58 -0500 The owner of this blog had, and perhaps still has, an impediment to his legal ownership of a firearm, as a result of his well-known legal problems due to his...well, I'll leave that part out. It is no surprise that he is wildly in favor of banning guns. People who can't own them or are afraid to have one in the safe, would rather we pay an endlessly growing police force in an attempt to keep them safe from non-gun owning muggers, rapists, and burglars. They seek an overly-expensive solution due to their own reticence to have at hand a simple effective defense. Diogenes Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:09:13 -0500 So a pommy twit declares The Economist (with which I am not unfamiliar) to be "the best and most respected magazine around the world" and apparently decides that empowers them to instruct our nation on how we must change our Constitution, the basis of our civil rights, to their satisfaction. I have spent some enjoyable time in England and my brother-in-law was born just north of London (he is now proud to be an American citizen). However the arch snobbery of certain Britons towards Americans is easily explained - Once there was a British Empire, but it is no more - And in its place there is now an American Empire . . . . . . . . and that really pisses you off, doesn't it? Learn to live with it, andrew, just as those pompous jackasses at The Economist will have to learn that Americans don't really care whether they approve of our Bill of Rights. Rimrock Sun, 23 Dec 2012 22:38:52 -0500 F the Economist. What happened to that once great news magazine? Oh yeah, the same thing that happened to the BBC. 1960 left wing losers took it over. John Barnes Sun, 23 Dec 2012 22:12:05 -0500 The Economist is a British magazine. When it comes to the US, it is not included in "WE" We decided over 200 years ago that the British do not get to determine what we do in the US.. andrewriver Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:47:11 -0500 So the gun lovers prefer to assume that The Economist, quite possibly the best and most respected magazine around the world, has some ulterior motive (with no evidence of that, of course), maybe some 21st century British colonial interests (common' really? so scary ;-), rather than face the clear evidence that more guns leads to more homicides! Take a look at the American research on the topic: <a href="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ></a> Diogenes Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:30:39 -0500 So the management of a magazine edited in London has decided that we colonial Americans must change our Constitution at their behest. In case you limeys have forgotten, we included the Second Amendment in our Constitution after having kicked your collective butt out of North America. That Right of the People to Bear Arms resulted in large part from our unpleasant experience with the depredations of a pack of government louts in red coats. We refused to kiss your royal ass in 1776 and we aren't about to do so now, so kindly direct your self-absorbed, sanctimonious lectures at a more servile people who might actually choose to genuflect before the high throne of your overweening arrogance. andrewriver Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:52:56 -0500 Dear gun fans, have you really, really thought through those "self defense" and "freedom fighting" stories you're getting so high on? Take a step back, relax, and imagine you really are facing the type of situations you keep talking about. Think through them carefully. If you have a brain and a heart, you will realize those are just childish (but dangerous) fantasies. More guns only mean more death, not more security or freedom. If you are as free and open minded as you claim to be, try to read something different from what the NRA propaganda machine spits out, and think about it yourself. Try this: <a href="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ></a> and this: <a href="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ></a> and this: <a href="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ></a> Jim in Alabama Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:16:58 -0500 While I do think all people should have their guns registered through a gun dealer (yes even those traded privately and in gun shows) we need at all other cost to protect the 2nd amendment so that we the people of the United States of America can protect ourselves not only from bad people but a government that is slowly taking our rights from us. An armed citizen will keep this out of control Federal Government at bay. Does not matter if you are a Democrat or Republican unless major changes come right now we will see the US go bankrupt but not before the government steals all of our savings and our liberties especially those who stand up to it. Everyone thinks well this is America it cannot happen here but it already has during the Great Depression when gold was taken and paid for by the federal government at what they wanted to pay then when they collected all they could then they repriced gold higher (almost double) wiping out savings of those who did the right thing. We have to stand up for our rights and to have any chance of doing so we must be armed and against our powerful military a 38 special is just not going to cut it. David B Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:34:26 -0500 The Economist and Piers Morgan can both STFU. We don't need foreigners telling us what to think. yup Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:28:06 -0500 The reality is that adhering to the Constitution - not amending it or ignoring it - is what will make America safer. Returning to a militia/reserve-based military and recognizing that the Constitution places all police power (the legal term - not the boys in blue) at the state/individual level not the federal is all that is really necessary. It won't likely do much to change the governing dysfunctionality of places like New Orleans, Detroit, Baltimore, or Chicago - but it will eliminate those places perpetual excuses.he 10th Amendment Mr. Head Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:50:21 -0500 We are safer with guns...period!!!! You clowns all think that if everyone was disarmed, life would be all about Peace. Love & Woodstock Nation.... Your ignorance ans stupidity amazes me....DO YOU KNOW THE NUMBER 1 ASSAULT WEAPON USED IN HOMICIDES ??? BASEBALL BATS !!! Let's ban baseball and baseball bats....forks for fat people. I think if you hate guns so much, move to a safe place like Norway where they ban them...oh ya, and bad people still find them to about Chicago.....Ya, I want to live there "DEFENSELESS". So if we give up all our guns, will Bloomberg, the President, Piers "IDIOT" Morgan and all the celebrities stop having armed body guards? I bet they won't....because bad/sick/demented people always find ways to do bad/sick and demented things to other people Lefteris2 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:48:10 -0500 Any professional security officer and police officer will tell you that there is no defense against someone who attacks like that. No time for good people to prepare, especially when they are little 6 year old girls. There is of course the option of hiring Israeli-style armed guards for each school, although the cost is tremendous and it would make the U.S. look like Afghanistan. There is no need for the public to own assault rifles. The only reason that the NRA is against restrictions (such as we have for car traffic), is that they were never attacked themselves. If they are ever attacked with heavy weapons (their conferences would look like prime target for any semi-trained group with decent firepower), then they will change their minds immediately. For the time being, they will "play men" by shooting little girls. Then there's another question: should a "good guy" enforce the "Bush doctrine" against potential attackers in the neighborhood? Why should we wait until the bad guys attack first? That's unfair. Let's vaporise their houses now, as a pre-emptive strike, to make sure they will not attack schools. Would that fly? Or should we be subjected to the unfair rule "let the bad guy shoot first"? Liz Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:19:38 -0500 I don't think banning guns (or video games or movies, for that matter--which are frankly the MORE absurd ideas here) is really going to help as much as some people think. It will just make the gun nuts fetishize guns even more. It will create a black market similar to what we have with drugs. People clearly want these things and they're going to get them regardless. That's just how Americans are. I also think it's completely stupid to waste possibly billions of dollars of money we don't have putting police officers in every single school when we cant' even make sure that every school has books and the basics it needs to operate. If we can't afford healthcare, or social programs, then we definitely can't afford to put police in every school either. So we'll just have to suck it up and live with the the culture we have created. We live in a violent country that values freedom above damn near all else. Accept that you can't protect your kids from everything. Bad things will happen no matter how much you try to live in a bubble. Liz Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:08:05 -0500 What a stupid comment. If you guys are so gun happy because you think it's your right to protect yourself and to have your freedom from the government making decisions for you then others have a *right* to buy drugs from willing sellers without the government telling them what's 'good' for them or society. This is the problem with conservative America. Too much hypocrisy. This is why I'm routing for the Libertarians. At least they understand just how hypocritical conservatives really are about most of these issues regarding our 'freedoms.' Liz Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:02:30 -0500 You conservatives are afraid of your own shadow. Maxwell Genaw Sun, 23 Dec 2012 16:17:03 -0500 Business Insider must be anti-gun Buy more guns, USA, USA show these globalist scum! KnotheadNed Sun, 23 Dec 2012 16:08:46 -0500 This is exactly why we declared our independence from Great Britain. This article is a clear indication of WHY we need to protect the 2nd amendment and all 27 of them for that matter. R U Serious Sun, 23 Dec 2012 16:05:25 -0500 ""the people's right" doesn't mean an individual's right." If the individuals in this aren't "The People", then who are? Joe Walker Sun, 23 Dec 2012 16:02:20 -0500 Yes please quickly disarm the population before they start pointing their guns at the politicians Lefteris2 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 16:00:06 -0500 I would certainly not shoot 6 year old girls to "claim my manhood". Or use it to re-claim whatever manhood a crazy wife could have taken from me. I would also limit assault rifles to only law authorities and the army. By the way, stereytyping in America won't help in cases like mine. I was in heavy weapons special forces of the Greek army. Would you feel safe if I moved into your neighborhood with a sign "I'm a very responsible owner of a 10KT nuclear device which I will only set off if the government goes tyrannical" ? paulitus Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:57:35 -0500 Hmmm. tough police action, with police coming to our doors to "mop up" the extra guns..that should be exciting! Tony12345 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:52:17 -0500 Yea lets change the constitution and ... Then lets just rename America into something else. Billy Bob Joe Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:37:36 -0500 You know that drug problem we have. Maybe we should ban drugs. That will keep them off the streets. Hal Bohlscheid Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:36:50 -0500 The shooter ( who shall remain NAMELESS) in CT. broke the law dozens and dozens of times that sad day. It did not stop the atrocity. You honestly think more laws will stop this? You sir are naive. A LITTLE GUN HISTORY In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ----------------------------- Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. ------------------------------ JAMES ROY JONES Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:13:33 -0500 The Economist magazine is an overlord gibberish publication. Rich Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:03:38 -0500 No you aren't 1whoquestions Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:55:48 -0500 Let's think things through. A crazy individual killed children. He got a hold of guns. We do know he tried to buy one at a store but, upon doing a background check, they refused to sell it to him. So he takes his law-abiding mothers guns. He got those weapons illegally, thus breaking one law. he took them in his vehicle to a school and went onto school grounds with those weapons. Now we are to two or three broken laws. He used them on school grounds, murdering children and teachers in the process. Tack on a lot more broken laws. When he finally met resistance he decided to pull the trigger on himself. So, how is it the gun is at fault and not the individual? If you swap gun with knife and end up with the same result, was there any real difference? What if he used a bow and arrows? Any difference then? Logic will tell you the gun was not to blame. The individual behind the trigger was the problem. And now they are going magazine capacity. Only a fully automatic weapon can fire 30 rounds in a second. Last I checked, you had to be a member in the military or police to legally own a fully automatic weapon in the US. If you have a really quick trigger finger, you may be able to get off 3 or 4 shots a second with a semi-automatic gun. For comparison purposes, you could fan your fingers over a six-shooter and may be able to fire faster. So what happens if they limit magazine capacity? Criminals simply carry more magazines. Ultimately, all you are doing with any more laws is further limiting the law-abiding citizens ability to defend themselves. We don't know as of yet what sort of precautions the mother may had taken. (Where they in a safe? Did he access the safe? Did he force her to open the safe first? Etc) The only thing we do know is a criminal used an illegally obtained weapon to commit a crime. Whose to say they wouldn't have used something else. Idiocy in knee jerk reactions is fully on display in it's finest. Bobster72 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:54:28 -0500 "Handgun bans, such as those that operated in Chicago and Washington, DC, before the Supreme Court struck them down, would be needed on a national scale" Oh yes - the bans are yielding great results in Chicago - great example of how it could work to make everyplace like Chicago. Without door to door searches (likely yielding more violence) the guns currently out in the marketplace will just become one giant black market. How about focusing on how our society is creating the environment to be willing to pull the trigger in the 1st place. Cameron Fraser Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:47:25 -0500 Rates are based on murders per 100,000 people, not raw population numbers so the differanc ein population is meaniningless. The quote is fact. Kayser Sosa Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:45:36 -0500 I've refrained from putting my thoughts on the Newtown shooting in writing to this point so I might digest as much information as possible about what happened, why it happened, and what the country might do about it. At this point I have little faith that any further useful information or dialogue will occur. Our national attention span being what it is, we will be forced to move on. Whatever "facts" we have on hand now have likely already determined our individual decisions on what we should do about it. Though it's likely we'll never fully understand what or why it happened, it's becoming increasingly clear that we will do something about it and even clearer that whatever we end up doing about it will most likely be wrong. Whether our collective decision turns out to be the right thing to do or not will not be known for months or years, perhaps decades. But one thing has become crystal clear to me; whatever we do will lead to a loss of liberty for us all. Why do I say this? Because no matter who's offering up a solution, they all rely on the same premise: We have to ban ____________. - Obama and the anti-gun crowd wants to ban assault weapons. - Other liberals (and some conservatives) want to ban high-capacity magazines. - The NRA wants to ban violent video games and movies. - Others want to ban the mentally ill, and still others think we can ban immorality itself. Everyone seems to think the answer to preventing future tragedies like Newtown is to ban whatever it is that scares them. Instead of actually dealing with our fears we somehow think we can legislate them away. What those who rely on banning ____________ all miss (or ignore), is the reality of our humanity: If there is a market for a good or service, someone will serve that market, legally or not. If people want assault weapons, they will have them. If people want high-capacity magazines, they will have them. If people want to play violent video games or watch violent movies, they will. Of course we've all seen the Prohibition Movies and we know how they end. Black markets and violence. Despite bans on everything from books, to alcohol, to drugs, guns, gambling, sex, dancing, music, light bulbs, and yes, even in our own country, a ban on teaching others to read and write, somehow we still have ALL of these things. In short, history and our national experience show us: 1) Banning what scares us does not remove that which scares us; and, 2) That what scares us today may not scare us tomorrow. So, regardless of our personal or political beliefs, why do we continue to fall prey to the lie that banning _____________ will solve our problems? For some (usually the high-powered political and business class), it's because they (or those who support or rely on them) profit from the ban. Of course, being the ones in charge it's usually their prescription we end up with regardless of whether that prescription is good for us or not. For others, it's because they're too stupid, closed-minded, apathetic, or lazy to think of a better solution. And for others still, it's because in the primitive animal brain we all posses, fear locks up our cognitive decision-making process and makes us vulnerable to accepting solutions we otherwise would not consider. Thus, when a tragedy like Newtown comes along, we all jump on whatever BANdwagon we most closely align with personally, politically, or financially and away we go. This is not a solution. In my mind it only fails to serve the victims and families of such tragedies as Newtown with the respect, attention, and resolve to find the real solutions they deserve. Banning ___________ out of a desire to profit, control others, apathy, or otherwise is nothing more than a slap in the face of those whom we have failed. Those who have paid (and will continue to pay) with their lives for our failures. So, what is the solution? In a word, liberty. From the most authoritarian governments where practically all liberty is banned, to so-called 'freer' governments, all governments throughout history have negatively addressed the human condition by banning ___________. To my knowledge there has never been a society where the operational premise was based on a confluence of promoting individual liberties while providing a natural deterrence to harm, and at the same time promoting the greatest amount of self-responsibility and self-reliance. What would the laws of such a government look like? In their simplest form, something like this: 1) Do not harm another's person or property. 2) If you cause harm you shall replace no more or less than at fair market value of the damaged or destroyed property in an equal amount to the harmed in terms acceptable to the harmed. 3) If you cannot repay on such terms you will be hanged until dead. To paraphrase, "You are free to do whatever you want so long as your actions do not prevent the same of others, but if you do and you cannot make it right, you hang." Now. Stop. Think. Do not react. Let that sink in for a moment. Mull it over and then ask yourself the following Yes or No questions: Without being given any further explanation of the terms or definitions. . . Would you benefit from such a simple system? Would individuals with differing beliefs from yours benefit from such a simple system? Would corrupt politicians and businesses benefit from such a simple system? Would honest statesmen, business owners, the markets, the environment, the arts, etc. benefit from such a simple system? Would such a simple system lower taxes and government spending? Would such a simple system lower poverty, while increasing educational and financial achievement? Would such a simple system lower crime and violence? Would anyone who caused others harm benefit from such a simple system? Would such a simple system rely on the banning of any number of goods or services? Would such a simple system rely on changing belief systems (be they secular, religious, statist, etc.)? Would such a simple system encourage the respect of other's Private Property Rights? Would such a simple system provide for the enforcement of the Rule of Law? Would such a simple system encourage self-responsibility and self reliance? Would such a simple system reinforce "good" behavior and a society of prosperity and peace? The answers, of course, are all, "Maybe, maybe not". But as long as we live in a society that reacts instead of encourages, and restricts instead of frees, we will never know. What we do know is what we are currently doing isn't working. It's time to get off the BANdwagon and try something new. msimons Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:44:27 -0500 Not conservative, nor Christian, so leave that out. You're right, concerning NDAA, But we're left with our last best hope if ever done of it quickly getting to the Supreme Court where they have little choice but to say it is unconstitutional. Now if they don't do that, time for a revolution, or have States secede. Fritz Pfister Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:43:51 -0500 [....more drastic measures should be contemplated. Handgun bans, such as those that operated in Chicago and Washington, DC, before the Supreme Court struck them down, would be needed on a national scale.] If you didn't notice moron, these are the two cities among the leaders in the number of murders. Touch my Constitution and you set off my 2nd amendment. Cardigan and Birkenstock versus Smith and Wesson? You lose. over-educated economist Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:38:44 -0500 Exactly. These idiots are suggesting things THAT DIDN'T EVEN WORK IN AUSTRALIA AND THE UK. If you want an example of politics before sanity, look at the rush to re-introduce an AWB after the last one failed, and the last mass shooting TOOK PLACE IN A STATE WITH AN AWB. Don't get me wrong: the NRA's response was abominable, but that does not mean the Brady bunch's prescription is going to work, either from a Constitutional or practical standpoint. If we're going to have a conversation, it's gotta be more than two sides talking AT each other with willful denial of the political/constitutional/judicial situation. The amount of mental masturbation I see from both the left ("durr, semi-auto ban even though SCOTUS knocked down a semi-auto ban recently!") and the right ("durr, I have a right to rocket launchers even though the historical precedent was small arms, not ordnance") is unbelievable, and it's not helped when BI and other media providers encourage it. Yes, BI, that's right: you are as much part of the problem as the NRA, just in a more subtle way. awolfbeme Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:32:27 -0500 they have it all wrong.they should let everybody carry opean and loaded ya one of the six teachers would of dropped him like a rock real quick.for 2 centuries they had no problem with they limit you and your defense less when some nut does it.your like sheep can't defend yourself and alot of folks die.the more you limit the more die! The meds. Why is nobody talking about them??? Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:31:31 -0500 Why is nobody still not talking about all the psychiatric medication???? There is like a media blackout on it. This is the reason these kids are going nuts. In the 1950's this crap never happened. Could it be because our children weren't prescribed all these pills? dallenh Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:29:40 -0500 "America's murder rate is four times higher than Britain's and six times higher than Germany's." Another straw man argument. Britain's population is 56 million approx. in 2011. America's has is over 311 million. So we have roughly 6 times the population... dallenh Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:25:03 -0500 The comparison to the maniac in China is pathetic. If he intended to kill those children, he most certainly could have killed them as easy as he slashed their ears. What a straw man argument to push the anti-gun narrative. The most deadly school killing in our nation in the 1930's was a result of a car bomb. Ban cars? Ban fertilizer? Ban Gas that could be used to set a building on fire? Ban hammers? Baseball bats? Marcossa Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:23:05 -0500 The Economist has become an extreme left rag. Will they also propose eliminating the 1st Amendment to eliminate violent murder movies? Mark Caplan Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:21:41 -0500 Instead of changing the Constitution, a better option would be to send five Xtreme Court justices to a remedial reading course. There, they might learn the meaning of "well regulated militia" and that "the people's right" doesn't mean an individual's right. Jeberson Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:18:09 -0500 It must have been online college. Bubba Shawn Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:14:47 -0500 So your solution is to hide under the bed hugging your Barbie doll? Darwin Johnson Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:12:57 -0500 Yes as a citizen ,I am tired of the same diatribes for both sides..When it gets political there is no progress >William S Burroughs.. A gun toting liberal. The fact is that there will be no deviation of direction,in this controversy..The Anti's do not want to abide for security only for control, the Pro's want to secure their same position ..personally I just want to establish a guard presence ,so we can move on with a secured platform..and I am tired of the old cliches and demonization..change the constitution ? Change the amendment ?..let us just bring out a cleaning house of those rascals up in the government , and go across the rubicon! Liz Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:11:38 -0500 It's not going to happen. The gun nuts would lose their f*cking minds if we even tried. Get used to ever increasing violence and more expensive social costs every year. It's just part of being in America. It's just a violent, primitive country. Bubba Shawn Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:08:54 -0500 So you have a problem with black Americans owning guns? Why? Black Americans are no different from white Americans. Both are offended by the anti-gun Barbie doll hugging pansies throwing ignorant rants and accusations at them because they love guns. johnsch Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:08:14 -0500 According to your logic, we should still see a British empire across the world NOW since majority of other ex-British colonies have gun control! You now see the absurdity of your argument. As a matter of fact, gun ownership and American revolution are correlated, but there is no causality. Even with gun control, America would still be an independent country today no matter what. To use your logic, citizens use guns to protect themselves from the government in 18th century. At that time, guns would be enough. But in modern world, do you realize what kind of weapon would be effective against government tyranny? guns certainly would not be enough. and I do not see people fight for rights other than guns. Now you see the pattern, gun-loving people are just hypocrites. They can't reason. joanieandchachi Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:04:05 -0500 China is all for our banning guns entirely. We owe them a lot of money. Hum.....................and I'll bet muslim terrorists would like us to ban guns.............and the gangs and drug dealers, too. Just think how happy we'd make them all if we changed the Constitution. "Come and get us!" Kevin Wayne Pledger Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:01:15 -0500 I believe that a serious pro/con/relevancy discussion should be held on *every* point in the Constitution, but it's not going to happen. The Bill of Rights is sacrosanct to too many people. Slightrecoil Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:01:02 -0500 Mr. 88, why are you so hatefully bigoted? Did some hillbilly from Arkansas shoot your terrorist pedophile daddy over in Helmand province? Or did Obama approve of drone strike on your nieces birthday party? Lefteris2 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:58:34 -0500 If the government ever went "tyrannical", they would be using nuclear submarines and warplanes - resistance with Walmart rifles is futile. The 2nd amendment was useful when both the government and the people used the same toy guns. That's not the case anymore - there is no defense against the No. 1 nuclear (and conventional) power on earth. Just send one (1) F-15 against a gun show and see what happens. The 2nd Amendment is currently used only by the gun industry to promore their lethal products as "manhood" objects. Or as defense against hypothetical immobile targets. Results so far: civliians killing each other. Nothing more. Loginwithfacebook Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:58:06 -0500 Good Luck changing the BILL OF RIGHTS. The last change they made to the constitution was a vote on their salaries 20 years ago. The BILL OF RIGHTS is something this Congress will never even fundamentally grasp. Bubba Shawn Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:56:58 -0500 I 1941 when Nazi bombers where trying to demoralize the English people, America was sending guns to England so they could defend themselves and because the British government confiscated all the guns. I know the Economist does not speak for the wonderful and decent people of England who are our cousins that also feel our pain during tragedy as we do theirs. Alecaldi Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:55:20 -0500 Discussions aside about defending from external invasion (in which the government under urgency could start delivering ammo) or internal tirany, for which i don't have a proper answer (the usual is that your rifle will be useless against Abraham tanks and A-10s, but a population is REALLY harder to bring to submission if armed to the teeth. It's a fact. Still, I would like to remind that, during the Spanish civil War, Republicans gave civilians a lot of guns in order to build up regiments to defend Madrid. And the regular Franquistas (a trained and professional army) used them to clean the floor. You could argue that Spanish civilians barely had training, but the Franquistas were not exactly armed with F-18 raptors with cluster bombs either, even with german backup. I think that's preventing you sell your bullets in the black market should be the easiest part. After all, the government could investigate you the same way occasionally does the IRS, and, if you say you have used your allowance then you should show the caskets (hunting) or a declaration under attorney in case it was in self defense, or at a police station (or the proper equivalent to your country) or show the ammo that you have not used them if you don't have the proper justification. I think that's the easy part (far more complex subjects have been regulated, let's say: family law on divorce. And somehow the world still goes round, people still get divorced and what it's more effective to the argument, people still get married) A lot of people is capable of crafting their own rounds, so that should be prosecuted too, making the whole effort a lot more expensive. If you want setbacks, you have one here. Still you are capable of dealing with the "20 kids with 20 bullies" argument?. I'm not saying that it's for sure, but: a) That should be 20 hits and 0 misses b) That's the whole ammo you have for the attack, including what you want to do after the attack c) You must have not used your allowance before on any other need. Still is not perfect, I admit it, but it's better that the stalemate on a society that will never weapons go. bdbr Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:55:14 -0500 Very true - if people really looked at the gun statistics and who's shooting who, and analyze past incidents to see how things could change, they'd come up with very different answers than the ones being proposed now. Both sides are too busy repeating tired old arguments to think about that. DeRoest Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:55:00 -0500 It's all click-bait drivel. Ripper Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:51:42 -0500 Oh sure, and while you are at it why don't you blame cars for the hundreds of Americans getting crushed to death and disfigured on our highways every week? There are a lot of sick people out thee, and like it has been said lately---the only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun. The more good people the better. hstad6 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:49:45 -0500 No you are right! A British publication lecturing us on criminal violence - that's the height of hypocrisy! The Economist must have missed this piece from the Daily Mail? <a href="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ></a> Ropingdown Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:47:10 -0500 The Economist, a UK publication, is telling us to change OUR constitution? Is this some kind of tag-team with Piers Morgan, who fled his own scandals in London to tell us how to live? If you don't live in an urban ghetto, you are safe. If you do live in a gang-infested neighborhood, it's time to start reporting the crime you see, to be willing to testify to what you saw in court. The rest is hot air. The US has almost reached the stage the UK is in: The upper financial classes in Britain bought off the poor with welfare, hoping they'd go back to sleep while globalization marched onward and as media barons and celebrities grew richer together with their banker friends. Now they can't afford to buy off the poor any longer and they are afraid. Well of course they are. The accents? No longer cute. Go back and face the music in London. Make a living selling the Economist there. Hard row to how, eh? Bubba Shawn Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:44:21 -0500 You British subjects have always had a problem with America's Constitution. Especially the 2nd Amendment. Give our regards to your Queen. Sunwolf Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:43:21 -0500 Nope,you are not the only one,the Britishers want us to be just like them.Misery loves company. Professor Heiss Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:42:10 -0500 Exactly! Remember that Lexington & Concord occurred precisely because the British were sent to confiscate guns. Professor Heiss Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:41:03 -0500 Oh, that's funny. A country without a constitution telling us to change ours. One wonders why I let my subscription to the Economist lapse. And by the way, if anyone says that the Economist is a 'conservative' magazine, I would remind them that the *are* different political systems in the world: a conservative in the United Kingdom would be a solid Democrat here. Moreover, I would take issue with the claim that the Economist is even conservative in the British sense: it has been moving left for the past decade and are closer to Labour now than the Tories. hstad6 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:41:01 -0500 You attended college? Could've fooled me! Kevin Wayne Pledger Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:37:05 -0500 Why would we need to change the Constitution to reflect the state of affairs as it currently exists? Changes are to how we want them to be, and I guarantee that neither liberals nor conservatives want it to be like your four points. soujouner88 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:36:50 -0500 You're comment is a horrifying glimpse into the utter depravity of the rotted Conservative Christian mind. You say "since Congress can get by letting NDAA detaining Americans indefinitely, no one should trust them getting anywhere close to amending the constitution: HELLO, that's the point, your guns failed to protect you from the Constitution already being subverted. They never even had to amend the Constitution, they just violated it. So much for your guns protecting your liberties, gun nutter. moshidog Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:35:01 -0500 Yeah, because DC and Chicago are clearly bastions of safety and great examples of how gun bans work. Oh wait, they are the murder capitals of the country. And your logic about guns being the reason the murder rate is high is also bogus. Russia has a gun ban and has a higher murder rate. So does Mexico, where guns are strictly illegal. Check your facts, don't throw out bad stats you don't understand. soujouner88 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:32:50 -0500 It has nothing to do about a "right" to own guns It has everything to do with money. Guns do not protect your liberty from the government nutter. While the NRA has passed carry conceal laws, Obama passed a law allowing guns in national parks, all the while the Govt has been subverting more of your liberties through the Patriot Act, electronic wire tapping, subversion of the 5th amendment. And you goons think owning a 200 dollar glock with a high capacity magazine is gonna protect you from the big bad government? You are a pathetic feeble minded child. reallly Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:31:12 -0500 Okay...but you can still kill 20 kids with 20 rounds...and how would you prevent people from selling their allotment in the black market? Joe the Plumber Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:31:01 -0500 I suppose we are all just a bunch of tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists but when I look at the ownership of the economist is find .... The "A" special shares are held by individual shareholders including the Cadbury, Rothschild, Schroder and other family interests as well as a number of staff and former staff shareholders Wait arent the Rothchilds part of the pupettmasters of the NWO , wake up sheeple. <a href="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ></a> Ps Cadbury chocolates suck Batman Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:28:54 -0500 Let's make that comment a little clearer. "The Economist" is a British publication, half owned by the Financial Times and half by the Rothschild family. I was subscriber for many years, however, I canceled my subscription 12 years ago when they really went hell-bent on the global warming/one world government/central bank money printing bandwagon. Just some more fun facts: -"The Economist" has a VERY clear agenda, especially after the Rothschild family became owners. -Yes, that very Rothschild family bankrolled a century of European wars, the Bolshevik Revolution, the failed EU, carbon trading schemes and now disarmament of citizens through UN resolutions. It's all factual. Don't criticize me, look it up -Britain has no constitution. The British were disarmed decades ago and stabbings, street assaults and rape are much more common than in the US. My friends in London are afraid to wear a fine watch if they're walking home from dinner in a really good neighborhood (W1). No such fear exists in the US today, unless you're in a really bad hood. -The British lost their backbone years ago. They all have been brainwashed and only think about political correctness. It's actually comical to listen to them. They haven't a clue as to what life is like in the US. Sorry Britain, you can keep your failed model for a politically-correct society. soujouner88 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:28:14 -0500 I understand how the Three-fifths compromise worked. I happen to have read the Constitution and attended higher learning education, otherwise known as college. The point I raise, which the pro-murder NRA knuckle dragging thugs refuse to acknowledge, is they say the Constitution is an infallible document and must never be changed. History proves, that the Constitution is in fact a living document that has been amended and refined over the last 230 years. But once again, if you show a gun nutter the fallacies in their childish logic, they revert to spittle and temper tantrums, like the closed minded, fearful, marginally educated grunts they are. Time to relegate these nits to the trash bin of lunacy. reallly Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:26:07 -0500 Slavery was practiced by the American natives and is still practiced in Africa. Liberals don't seem to have a problem with current Africans enslaving fellow Africans but love to use the historical issue to stir up racial hatred today in American in order to win votes. hstad6 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:25:29 -0500 Oh look, somebody in the liberal Northeast actually has common sense: <a href="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ></a> jersey_town_adopts_schoolhouse_glocks_ID5tknLmS1oOuWbD62d51K This puts all the liberal righteous propaganda to shame! msimons Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:22:47 -0500 Since Congress can get by letting NDAA detaining Americans indefinitely, no one should trust them getting anywhere close to amending the constitution. Some last minute alteration would likely be attempted or done. If anything, the US should go for a couple years with a ban on making new laws, and just enforce the ones we have. end the wars Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:22:12 -0500 Well I did not know the constitution was stll in existence with the years of undeclared wars in the mideast , the NDAA that has basically put america under martial law with indefinite detention, and the the gov being able to kill american citizens by just saying they are terrorists, and the drone strikes in the mideast that are killing thousands of innocent people most of whom are women and children, for all practical purposes the constitution does no exist ,,,, what exists in amerika is a total police state that has made orwells 1984 come to life right here in river city. reallly Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:21:38 -0500 You are free to move to gun restricted safe havens like Chicago or DC....if you do I would recommend kevlar under garments...opps those have also been banned. jay Zee Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:20:42 -0500 Deport Piers Morgan a NWO shill <a href="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ></a> jlmac Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:20:39 -0500 How lazy and incompetent are journalists anyway? Same lameness libtard talking points, never any original research. Change the Constitution? How about a change that makes it easier to remove a standing president? Joe the plumber Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:17:29 -0500 The Britts are not our friends, they suck off us with defence contracts for materiels that could be build by US companies meanwhile they infiltrate our media to spread trash talk about our computers like that POS Piers Morgan , not even his real name. Btw lets deport him while you have some time today <a href="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ></a> reallly Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:16:56 -0500 Good point...they can then unite with Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Arkansas, Alabama, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Georgia, Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Oklahoma, South/North Dakota, Indiana, Iowa, West Virginia, we will also take Colorado (since we have it surrounded), we also get parts of Nevada, Ohio and Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida ....the list goes on. I think both sides would be in agreements. bdbr Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:15:31 -0500 It's called the Bill of RIGHTS. If you want a big government solution that forces us to buy guns, it wouldn't be in that part of the Constitution. rotorhead1871 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:15:24 -0500 pure will not repeal the 2nd amendment......maybe in 200 years....but not now... HariSeldon Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:14:12 -0500 You clearly don't understand the 3/5ths clause. It was the southern pro-slavery states that wanted the blacks counted as whole persons so they could get more reps in congress. The amount of reps is determined by population. The northern states argued for not counting them at all, since they were treated as property and their representation in congress would have been pro-slavery representation (as they couldn't vote). The 3/5ths clause was a compromise that was beneficial to the anti-slavery movement. Steven Hoskins Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:14:04 -0500 John Quincy Adams said "Nothing shall so insure ones immunity from tyranny at the hand of their own government as to be armed". This is the reason the second amendment is in the constitution. These are the words of a man who helped write the constitution and are his explanation for why the second amendment is there. Throughout history, as governments become dictatorial, left or right wing, the first thing they do is come up with an excuse to disarm the populous. So, we are to trade our freedom for a false feeling of security that possibly leads to our serfdom. Bad guys will still get guns just like drug addicts get illegal drugs. They will be smuggled into the country and sold on the black market to criminals. In the case of the mentally ill, mentally challenged, drug or alcohol impaired, and teen angst individuals committing the shootings lately, it is already against federal and many states laws for these individuals to poses firearms. Background checks have been implemented with national databases for felons and the adjucated mentally ill. Our government is failing to enforce existing laws though we spend trillions of dollars a year on governnment. Felons are regularly not prosecuted for having or attempting to buy guns. The solution is the government enforcing existing laws. This includes charging family, relatives, and friends who allow access to firearms to any of the excluded groups above for reckless endangerment, criminal negligence, and if death(s) occur criminally negligent homicide. These individuals should be prosecuted severely. Through their own irresponsible gun ownership they allow these tragedies to occur. If someone owns guns and has a person who has access to their domocile where they store firearms, the firearms should be secured in a fashion where the ineligible should not have access to guns. If people don't secure their weapons and a tragedy occurs because others access them to commit violence, the firearms owner is a non-intentional accomplice through their criminal neglect. They should be made example of by going to jail. Checkessential Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:13:51 -0500 BusinessInsider has turned into GunControl Insider. Whatever happened to the business news? Joe the Plumber Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:10:27 -0500 It is and never has been about hunting. It is about our ability to defend against Tyranny , enemies both foreign and domestic. over-educated economist Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:09:52 -0500 I mean, seriously: "let's kick open the Bill of Rights for revision... nothing could go wrong!" Could you fucking IMAGINE what a nightmare that would be? Every SIG in the country would be jumping for joy to insert their own little constituency into the BoR. The French have a right to keep and bear arms, and manage to have very little gun violence while not denying legitimate sportsmen the right to their evil semi-auto rifles and high-cap mags. Instead of running to the UK and Australia for "common sense" (which is the new code word for "outright ban", it seems), why not look at some other countries on the Continent? Just Saying Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:08:54 -0500 The REAL fix is to change Americas culture. 70 Years ago with an upbringing of love, respect of elders and concern for your fellow man yielded citizens that loved, stood up for and helped each other. Much of this has been lost in the now materialist realm we call the good life. The real GOOD LIFE is love, wishing well and helping your fellow man. Try it you will not be disappointed. Joe the plumber Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:07:34 -0500 Great headliner for giving the NWO a platform to spread Agenda 21, bottom line we are not giving up the 2nd boys. Just ask the victims of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Turks , Darfur why not! It will never happen, the founding fathers put the 2nd in place to prevent Tyrany . End of discussion. Alecaldi Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:06:23 -0500 Please forgive my many typos. reallly Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:04:49 -0500 If it wasn't for American citizens owning guns we would still be British. So yes I understand why the British Economist magazine would have that opinion. Wrong on all Accounts. Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:03:53 -0500 The historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by the Founders; slavery was introduced in America nearly two centuries before the Founders. In fact, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay noted that there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery prior to the Founding Fathers. The Revolution was a turning point in the national attitude against slavery—and it was the Founders who contributed greatly to that change. In fact, one of the reasons given by Thomas Jefferson for the separation from Great Britain was a desire to rid America of the evil of slavery imposed on them by the British. In fact, in the years following America's separation from Great Britain, many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves released them (e.g., John Dickinson, Ceasar Rodney, William Livingston, George Washington, George Wythe, John Randolph, and others In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804. Orlando Anderson Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:03:16 -0500 It has nothing to do with actual Guns, but it has everything to do with having the right to bear arms. please take the fold off your face so you can understand clearly... Alecaldi Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:03:09 -0500 I'm nobody, I don't even live in America so, the subject about changing US constitution is not within my rights (I would be pissed of if Americans start giving blind opinions about my country's constitution) but: What if, instead of gun control, which is well within the roots of your culture, and it's still a big business (let's stop being hypocrites, it's just one of the major, or the only argument of importance here) you start an... AMMUNITION CONTROL.. A) Just saying, you would this way control the harm the 300m guns already on the market, B) people would still be able to buy their guns of interest (yeah, I'll still believe assault rifles should be banned too), but a gun could be a reasonable purchase for your "real need of self defense" C) No one needs 3000 rounds to go hunting. D) Allowance should be per year (or the method you like), let's say, i don't know to much about the subject, but 20 rounds / 3 magazines per year for free withholding, with no limit to use inside shooting ranges or equivalent places. Hard to prove you used them, so the government allows you more. complicated to deploy efficiently, but I guess someone will come with a proper idea here. Don't know. It's not my problem. in fact, I do not want weapons of this kind be banned in America, because weapon industries will start pushing in other countries as mine their agenda to start selling, without proper controls, gun here. Just my 2 cents. Gun Owner Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:02:51 -0500 From my cold dead hands bdbr Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:02:02 -0500 It amazes me that journalists are naive enough to be optimistic about Obama taking action to ban guns. Appointing a committee led by Biden was a strong sign that he isn't going to give it anything more than lip service. reallly Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:01:45 -0500 So how come they say banning drugs increases drug crimes, but banning guns won't increase gun of the above arguments is not true. RogerD Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:00:39 -0500 OK - am I the only one that sees something wrong with a British publication and its banker / globalist elite control agenda telling the USA to change its constitution? Read more: <a href="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ></a> Redneck Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:00:05 -0500 Constitution draft: 1. Property is not guaranteed. After all, you did not built that. 2. Self defense is prohibited, for your own safety. 3. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or write, we record and it will be used against you. 4. Banks own your house, state own your land. You own the debt. PROPOSED CHANGE Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:00:03 -0500 FROM: The RIGHT to bear arms... TO: The DUTY to bear arms... RogerD Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:59:49 -0500 OK - am I the only one that sees something wrong with a British publication and its banker / globalist elite control agenda telling the USA to change its constitution? What No One is Talking About Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:59:46 -0500 It amazes me that no one is focused on the main reason that NOTHING will change the status quo when it comes to guns; no matter what changes in legislation/laws/restirictions occur. The DEMAND for guns in our current American culture is insatiable and it is only growing with all the talk of restrictions. America is 5% of the world's populaiton and we own 50% of the guns. Let that stat sink in for a minute. If History has taught us one thing, DEMAND trumps all. For a point of comparison, just look at the War on Drugs crusade a few decades ago on how many resources were committed to break the drug flow into the USA - How did that end? DEMAND IS ALL THAT MATTERS!!! DanStlMo Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:56:56 -0500 Perhaps that is because there are more of us? sawyer50 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:56:11 -0500 And you'll be the one killed by the stolen or guns sold without paper work. I feel bad for you. Your walking into a world full of guns only owned by bad people. Do you love your family, friends and yourself? Then why would you want everyone to die by guns that will never be seen, unless a crime is committed? Think of those poor teachers, knowing that guy was coming and there was nothing they could do to defend the little ones, nor their selves. Is this what you what? DanStlMo Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:55:21 -0500 There is no way anyone is going to repeal the Second Amendment. soujouner88 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:55:08 -0500 The pro-murder NRA gun nutters have flocked to this article. ScottA Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:53:40 -0500 Following the Chicago handgun ban, the murder rate rose by over 40 percent. Likewise, in DC the murder rate rose by 150 percent. You are advocating laws that are identical or similar to the ones that were instrumental in the atrocious murder rates that these two cities have experienced. You are advocating this on a national scale. BI posting articles such as this one by the Economist is just giving credence to Brit BS and is no better than Piers Morgan's incoherent rant about gun control on CNN. If you actually believe this drivel, write it yourself, don't post an article from the Economist. CurtsMOm Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:52:01 -0500 Exactly. If you don't like American laws then leave. The hypocracy is amazing. sawyer50 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:51:50 -0500 Are you willing to take blame for all the blood that will be spilt? Taking the guns away from good people, only leave bad people with them. Do you know how many guns have been sold without paper work? Where are they? Do you know how many guns have been stolen? Do you know how many people will be unarmed agaist all these guns? Get real, if we want a world with only bad people in it, take away the good peoples guns. over-educated economist Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:50:02 -0500 "There are entirely Constitutional problems" should be " There are entirely Constitutional solutions". Sorry! Orlando Anderson Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:48:36 -0500 Are you still Trying to brain wash people into thinking the constitution is the problem? This article doesn't even have the writer's name, let alone written by the "Economist". Thank you so much for lending your opinion. GTFO out of America if you don't like our laws... Shame on Business Insider for letting this type of articles on their website. over-educated economist Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:47:56 -0500 Irony alert: magazine from country with no written Constitution tells us how we need to fix ours. It's a delusional pipe dream. They will not find 2/3 of states willing to remove the 2A, or even revise it. There are entirely Constitutional problems to halt many of the problems with guns in America, but the left has been so locked into "we need an AWB! we need a semi-auto rifle ban!" that they refuse to even look into them. Safe storage laws, mental health checks, moving more guns into title II territory... there's plenty that could be done, but the media has jumped on the "WE NEED AN AWB" bandwagon so hard that it'll never get done. soujouner88 Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:47:35 -0500 I'm sure the same people who say you should never change the Constitution because our founders were infallible, also believe black people should still be treated as 3/5ths of a man. ChemicalRedNeck Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:42:55 -0500 Let Texas secede and all the 'necks can move there. J Beekman Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:41:53 -0500 <a href="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" ></a> WHAT ALL PARENTS NEED TO KNOW Somewhere in America, a New Massacre Will Strike Send Your Teacher a Lifeline THE SILENT CRISIS DESTROYING AMERICA'S BRIGHTEST MINDS The Silent Crisis Destroying America’s Brightest Minds This brilliant book has a new dedication to Principal Dawn Hochsprung who was murdered in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre and I quote: "Educators need to reach out early to troubled children." This book will bear witness to her message and empower educators. 5 Stars: Book of the Month, Alma Public Library, Wisconsin