Al Franken And The Constitution

Al Franken was questioning Assistant Attorney General David Kris with regard to the Patriot Act and Franken was particularly interested in the roving wire taps. Franken asked a few questions and then pulled out the copy of the Constitution that he received when he was sworn in and cited the Fourth Amendment. He then asked if Kris believed that the roving wire taps were in accordance with the Amendment. Kris explained that they were and cited the courts that have ruled on the issue.

Kris further explained that they actually go above and beyond what the FISA courts require.

It is also important to remember the Fourth Amendment deals with unreasonable searches and seizures.

I wrote long ago about the wire taps and the precedent as well as the court rulings. Carter, Clinton and a host of other presidents have done the same thing because it has been ruled as Constitutional and not unreasonable.

I agree with John at Powerline when he states:

Still, one can only commend Franken for reading that copy of the Constitution they gave him when he assumed office. Maybe he’ll let us know whether he finds anything about owning automobile companies and controlling American citizens’ health care.

I commend Franken for reading the Constitution even if he is fuzzy on what he has sworn with regard to it (“And I was sworn to uphold it, or support it anyway, and protect it”).

I have a copy of the Constitution that I carry with me. Every citizen should have one and every citizen should actually read it.

I would like to know how Franken weighs in on gun ownership and the right to keep and bear arms. I wonder if they get to that debate if he will wave his Constitution and cite the Second Amendment (which is the one that ensures all the others) while proudly affirming that the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Or will he decide that this Amendment is different and does not deserve support. You see, Franken has been against gun ownership and for tighter control and only changed his views when he ran for office:

Franken has expressed past reservation about private gun ownership and admitted to attending marches for gun-control; in Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot And Other Observations, he wrote that having guns in the home was “too dangerous” and included mocking language about needing a shotgun for every room of the house. In 2003’s book Oh, The Things I Know! he also wrote that those who donate to the NRA should volunteer at hospitals that treat gunshot victims. During the campaign, Franken took a more moderate stance, saying he supported the right to own and bear arms for protection and hunting, but it’s unclear how those statements will transfer to his Senate votes. Who Runs Gov

So it would seem that Franken is one of those folks who waves the Constitution but believes that only parts of it apply. He, like many liberals, believe that the Constitution does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Gun control is infringement and violates the Second Amendment, so I wonder if Al will have his Constitution when that debate ensues.

I also wonder if Al could find that passage in the Constitution that allows abortion (Franken is strongly pro-abortion). Perhaps he could find the part that allows the government to take money from people and give it to other people (he is a proponent of heavily taxing the wealthy to pay for government largess). Like John, I would like to know what part allows government to own car companies and I am particularly interested in where the Constitution first defines the right to free health care and then where it says that the government has the right to force other people to pay for it. I would also be interested in the part that gives government the authority to force people to buy it.

I would like Franken to reconcile his positions that run contrary to the Constitution since he has waved his copy and decided that it should be followed (even if he does not understand when things are being legally followed).

Anyone who has Franken’s ear, please ask him how he can put on such a charade when his positions run contrary to the Constitution.

I would be interested in how he answers the questions though I have a feeling he would rationalize his unconstitutional positions.

Totally unrelated link to The Other McCain

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

59 Responses to “Al Franken And The Constitution”

  1. victoria says:

    First we need to find out what role Acorn played in the so called election of this idiot who is now waving the constitution around. What a sham.

  2. Blake says:

    All the political idiots who are for all these government takeovers, and the idea that government should take care of you ALWAYS use Article One, Section Eight- which regulates interstate commerce, but even then they get it wrong, and abuse this Article- this is why we need a Constitutional Convention to NARROWLY AND ONLY redefine this Article and close the loophole in the language that “allows” this creeping fungus of more government to ooze into our lives.

  3. Adam says:

    You’re not being honest here on guns when you say:

    Gun control is infringement and violates the Second Amendment…

    This is absolutely false. The SCOTUS does not interpret gun control as infringement. According to the court there is clearly an individual right but as was recently held in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER:

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

    Your reading of the 2nd may make you think you’re correct but the authority on this is of course the SCOTUS and they do not agree with you.

  4. Adam says:

    While we’re at Blake’s Constitutional Convention we can also end the confusion about the 2nd Amendment which sane people clearly understand but which right-wing gun nuts so obviously ignore.

    • Big Dog says:

      I would like you Adam, to explain how everyone understands the Second Amendment. I want you, as a sane person, to explain YOUR understanding of it. Then I will school you to help end your confusion.

      Notice that what you cite in Heller is not about gun control. It states, that like other rights, there are limits. Then it goes on to describe situations in which guns may not be carried and this equates to shouting fire in a movie theater.

      This decision talks about concealed carry and carry by felons or in sensitive areas (though I think if a cop can carry it there a law abiding citizen should be). I do not dispute these limits.

      Gun control, for the purpose of this exercise, involves laws that forbid people from carrying a weapon openly in public providing that the person has nothing to indicate that he should not be allowed (mental illness, criminal record). I am correct in this because Franken and others who want gun control believe that people should not be allowed to have them at all or only under certain circumstances. This is infringement.

      Maryland requires a person to prove threats, or that they carry valuables. This is an infringement and this is the kind of gun control to which I refer. Like in New York and Chicago, the rights are infringed.

      But please Adam, enlighten me as to what the Second Amendment means. I am anxious to hear what you sane people think it means.

      When a conservative does not like guns he does not own one. When a liberal does not like guns he believes no one should own one.

      • Adam says:

        I believe the 2nd supports an individual right to own firearms but that there are limitations on that right.

        I do not believe that ‘infringe’ in the language means there should be no limitations on gun ownership.

        I do not support full bans on guns in areas such as cities in CA or in DC as the SCOTUS case is looking at.

        I do support restrictions on the sale of firearms and restrictions on who can own a gun.

        So now you can school me all you like, but remember I have the SCOTUS on my side. Who do you have?

        • Big Dog says:

          Restrictions on gun ownership are not gun control any more than restricting what people can say and where is an infringement on free speech.

          You have not made your case for being any saner than those who are on the right. I have clearly told you that there are restrictions that need to be in place to prevent the mentally ill or criminals from buying guns.

          This is not gun control. Gun control is designed to keep all citizens from owning guns and that is what Franken wanted before he ran for office.

          The problem with it all is what is defined as a reasonable restriction. There should be few. They should include carrying weapons concealed (you should need a permit to do that), carrying in places that are restricted like federal buildings and court houses, and buying them if you are mentally ill or a criminal. Deciding that someone should not have a gun because a politician does not like them is wrong.

          To say I have to prove that I have been threatened or that I carry valuables is an infringement. It is how MD politicians subvert the Constitution.

          You use the term gun control to mean some restrictions when that is not the case. Gun control is a process designed to keep nearly all people from owning guns. Franken has stated that allowing guns in the home is dangerous so he is for keeping all of us from having them.

          You can nuance his statement but he is opposed to gun ownership and changed his stance when running for office.

          You define it as certain kinds of gun control. That is not accurate. gun control is a totality issue. restrictions are different.

          Would you make the claim that since shouting fire in a crowded theater is against the law or that saying that you want to do harm to the president is against the law (and let me be clear to the morons, I am not advocating that, just using that as an example) that there is speech conctrol or would you say that the right has some retrictions?

          There is a difference.

          Now you are schooled.

        • Blake says:

          Actually you do not have SCOTUS on your side- they just clarify, that like shouting fire in a crowded theater, there are certain limits that can apply- these being common sense limitations- and of course, restrictions on sales to felons and the mentally deranged (you know who you are)- other than that, Scotus is mute.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “Restrictions on gun ownership are not gun control”>>

          Restrictions on gun ownership are exactly gun control.

          Bigd: any more than restricting what people can say and where is an infringement on free speech.>>

          Restricting what people can say and where is exactly an infringement of free speech.

          Some infringements we put up with, most of them we don’t.

          Why do you play such word games? If you want to know where to begin, you need to start with being honest with language.

          Bigd: “here are restrictions that need to be in place…”

          Then, you are for gun control, like everyone else on the planet (except for a few anarchists).

          Bigd: “Gun control is a process designed to keep nearly all people from owning guns.”

          Rubbish. That’s a non-standard a definition you made up.

          Bigd: “Franken has stated that allowing guns in the home is dangerous so he is for keeping all of us from having them.”

          When did Franken say he is for keeping everyone from having guns? He didn’t. In fact he has specifically stated he is not for that, at your own smear link.

          Incidentally, the Brady Campaign isn’t for that either.


        • Darrel says:

          ADM: “I have the SCOTUS on my side. Who do you have?”>>

          If you have the SCOTUS on your side, you win, no exceptions. The only part of the Constitution the gun lovers need to concern themselves with is the part that tells them who gets to interpret the document (and it ain’t them).


        • Blake says:

          Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

      • Adam says:

        If you want to be against certain types of gun control that is fine. But how should we interpret you when you say “Gun control is infringement and violates the Second Amendment…” and not something saner like “Certain types of gun control that Franken supports supports amounts to infringement…”

        • Blake says:

          Once you begin gun control, then you find you can justify others- it is the old “toe in the door”, or as they like to say nowadays, the “camel’s nose under the tent.”
          The best thing to do is not start-
          Doing nothing can be positive.
          At any rate, if you are talking about limitations, it should be the states that do the deciding, not the Fed.

    • Blake says:

      I said a Convention that “narrowly” ( meaning, of course, that only the designated, in this case Art, 1, Sec. 8 law) considers the Article in question, and NOTHING else- because nothing else needs to be clarified.

  5. Adam says:

    But I’d also would like to see actual quotes from Franken about individual gun ownership. I see your quote saying he has had “past reservation” and thinks guns in the home is “too dangerous” but how does that equate to not supporting an individual right which he does say he supports? Your objection always seems to be if it’s a liberal and he supports any type of gun control then he doesn’t understand the 2nd. It looks like it’s you who doesn’t understand it maybe…

    • Big Dog says:

      I very clearly pointed out his contradictions. He was against guns in the home but then said allow for hunting and protection. Where would they be kept if they are too dangerous in the home.

      The quotes come from his books.

      I understand the Second Amendment and if you would like I will be happy to provide you with a link to the quotes of the people who wrote the Constitution and the Amendment. Those quotes carry more weight than anything you, I or Franken say and should be more valuable because they come from the people who wrote it.

      If I have no disqualifying factor and the state does not let me carry a weapon then it is an infringement. That is pretty simple.

      The state can decide about conceal carry and what areas are protected (ie schools) and can say I can’t carry my gun there but they cannot say I am not allowed to carry it at all except under very limited circumstances. That is infringement.

      Franken also did not understand the Fourth Amendment so why would he understand the Second?

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: “I understand the Second Amendment>>

        No, you have opinions about the 2nd which carry no weight whatsoever.

        Bigd: the quotes of the people who wrote the Constitution and the Amendment.>>

        The quotes of these dead people also carry no weight except to the extent that members of SCOTUS read them and may use their comments to form their opinions (which do matter).

        Bigd: Those quotes carry more weight>>

        Zero weight, not binding in any way. SCOTUS and use them or dismiss them at their discretion.

        Bigd: Franken also did not understand the Fourth Amendment so why would he understand the Second?>>

        Franken doesn’t need to understand any of it, just like you, because neither one of your opinions carry any weight whatsoever. Zero.

        The Constitution means exactly what the SCOTUS says it means, nothing more, nothing less. So says… the Constitution.

        Time wasted pretending to “understand the constitution” (a meaningless statement) would be better spent trying to understand and become informed about actual SCOTUS decisions, because, with regard to the Constitution, those decisions are the ONLY thing matters.


    • Blake says:

      liberals inherently do not grasp the 2nd amendment, just as they do not understand the capitalistic system of free markets- they just feel as if they need a mommy state to kiss their boo- boos when they fail.
      This is why most liberals don’t like the Constitution- it tells them what they CANNOT do, and liberals, like wayward children, have a problem understanding the word “NO”.
      They like the “If it feels good, do it,” school of thought.

  6. Adam says:

    Arguing there is a difference between “gun control” and “gun restrictions” is kind of silly. Maybe in your opinion but not by the generally accepted definition of gun control.

    You didn’t find any quotes by Franken. I’d love to see the full context of his statements on gun control and not the opinion of the website you cited. You have not proven Franken is against an individual right but you’ve made that leap because he’s a liberal and as you say many liberals “believe that the Constitution does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms.” Franken is very much in support of your “gun restrictions” though.

  7. Adam says:

    For instance here are several quotes by Franken on gun control. Do you no suppose if there were actual evidence that Franken is against an individual right to own guns that it would have been overlooked in this press release hit piece?

  8. Blake says:

    Well, it has been shown, repeatedly, that liberals, like Nobama and Franken, will lie to get elected- this isn’t exclusively a liberal thing, but boy oh boy have they made extensive use of that- so I take his words with more than a grain of salt.

    • Adam says:

      To suggest he might be lying when he said he supports an individual right then you’d need some kind of evidence to base your skepticism on, I would think anyway…

      • Blake says:

        Both BD and I have shown repeatedly that Nobama lies, and so does Smalley- but as they say, you can lead a donkey to water…..

  9. Big Dog says:

    Adam, we could certainly debate the issue of gun control but the issue is more about control and less about guns. The gun control that liberals (by and large) support is an outright ban or laws so restrictive that it prevents ownership.

    Suffice it to say that besides the common sense rules about criminals and the mentally ill, there are few reasons to restrict gun ownership. Big difference between owning and carrying. If Franken were against carrying i would say that it was a restriction he wanted that goes too far but his claim that guns in the home are too dangerous means that he wanted to go pretty far in the control part.

    I provided you quotes from his book. I guess they were not good enough?

    Here are more of his quotes. They show he is not big on people owning guns. He is like the rest who think we are not responsible enough.

    He also gives false info about people hurt with guns but he parrots the left.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “The gun control that liberals (by and large) support is an outright ban or laws so restrictive that it prevents ownership.”

      Not true. Not *even* Brady supports this.


      *edited to remove link. No link to Brady from here, you can cut and paste

      • Darrel says:

        No link to Brady? Maybe they could back track and come git yer guns. Good point.

        Q. Is Brady a “gun ban” organization?

        A. No. Brady believes that a safer America can be achieved without banning guns.

        We believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms. And we believe there are sensible gun laws that we can and should insist upon when it comes to gun ownership.

        First and foremost, we should try to keep dangerous weapons out of the wrong hands, including criminals and children.

        Second, there are certain classes of weapons that should be out of bounds for private ownership. They include Saturday-night specials, which are used almost exclusively for crime, military-style assault weapons like Uzis and AK-47s, and .50-caliber sniper rifles, which serve no ordinary sporting purpose.

        Third, we believe that those who do own guns ought to be held to the highest standards of safety. They should be well trained in the use of their weapons and they should be required to keep weapons secure, so that neither innocent children nor prohibited persons can get a hold of them.

        • Big Dog says:

          Replied to. People can copy and paste if they want to go there.

          You want to stop gun violence then lock up people who commit crimes with guns. How many times does a person convicted of violent crimes have to be released and commit another crime before people realize this? Law abiding people do not commit gun crimes. The more laws we enact the tougher it gets for law abiding people to get guns. Criminals will get them no matter what. Cocaine, illegal but people get it. Snoop Dogg, arrested who knows how many times for gun possession (which is illegal for this convicted criminal) and he is continually released. Put people who commit crimes in jail and the crime rate will drop.

          How is the gun ban in Chicago working? Ask Brady why there are a heck of a lot more gun crimes there than in Texas…

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “Law abiding people do not commit gun crimes.>>

          Nice tautology. And actually, they do. All the time, every day. Then they get moved into the “not law abiding” column. Everyone starts in the law abiding column.

          Bigd: The more laws we enact the tougher it gets for law abiding people to get guns.>>

          Not really. They are all subverted and made nearly meaningless by the gun show loophole, private sales and the internet.

          And now this Exclusive: Videos show gun-show vendors flouting the law.

          Bigd: Criminals will get them no matter what.>>

          Funny they don’t manage to get them very much in Britain and Canada.
          “A British citizen is still 50 times less likely to be a victim of gun homicide than an American.”

          Bigd: “Put people who commit crimes in jail and the crime rate will drop.”>>

          It’s pretty clear that failing to lock up enough people is not the problem. Consider:

          United States once again tops the planet in the percentage of it citizenry incarcerated:

          * The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, 756 per 100,000 of the national population, followed by Russia (629), Rwanda (604), St Kitts & Nevis (588), Cuba (c.531). [Canada’s rate is 131 –Dar]

          * …a world prison population rate of 145 per 100,000….

          At last count, Texas prisons incarcerated more than 1,000 prisoners per every 100,000 residents. About one out of every 22 adult Texans is in prison, in jail, on probation or on parole compared to one out of 31 nationally.”


          Bigd: How is the gun ban in Chicago working?>>

          Any localized gun ban is a joke and completely subverted by a simple drive over a state line and what I mentioned above.

          Bigd: Ask Brady why there are a heck of a lot more gun crimes there than in Texas…>>

          I don’t know that that’s true, but they would say it’s the guns.

          “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun).” –Eddie Izzard

          ATLANTA — The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths — murders, suicides and accidents — among the world’s 36 richest nations,…

          Of the 88,649 gun deaths reported by all the countries, the United States accounted for 45 percent,…

          …gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia.”

        • Blake says:

          Guns are just another thing Canadians come to the US for- sometimes they can bundle their shopping- get superior healthcare, and home protection, because mounties, like other cops, usually arrive AFTER you are bleeding and dead.

  10. Adam says:

    “I provided you quotes from his book.”

    You didn’t provide quotes. You have a quote from “Who Runs Gov” that has hardly any detail about what Franken said about guns. The link you cited just now is something I looked over several times and can find no where that states Franken is against individual ownership of guns, simply that he supports what you call “gun restrictions.” Explain his quotes to me better if you think I’ve misunderstood what he was saying.

    • Big Dog says:

      The quotes are footnoted from his book right there at the site. Is there a new standard that we have to discount a quote from a book written by the person we are quoting?

    • Darrel says:

      ADM: “he [Franken] supports what you call “gun restrictions.”

      Everyone, including Bigd, supports gun restrictions, which is “gun control.”

  11. Big Dog says:

    Here is where you are wrong Adam. You say Franken supports an individual right to own firearms. That is what he said AFTER he ran for office. Before that all he wrote dealth with people NOT having guns in their homes and his support for the Brady campaign as well as his agreement with pediatricians that handguns should be banned.

    Interestingly, you claim that the courts define but Franken seems to ignore that (or not understand it) with regard to the Fourth which has been defined by the courts.

    It is disingenuous to say that you are for an individual’s right to own a firearm so long as they meet tightly controlled parameters. It would be like saying you were for free speech but that no one was allowed to speak against government or that you were for freedom of religion so long as the religion was Hinduism and nothing else.

    Placing strict parameters (no one should have a gun in the home, handguns should be banned) means that you are really for tight control and not so much in favor of an individual right.

    The reality is, Franken got the Fourth wrong (and was taken to task by a lawyer) and he got the Second wrong when he was free to say what he really felt. When he ran for office he changed his stance. You cannot show his stance is one he has loing held and those who write about him discuss how he changed (or softened) it when he ran.

    I also would like him and you to show me where the other items I asked about are addressed in the Constitution.

  12. Big Dog says:

    If you look at the site it lists the quotes as being from his book. That means they are his quotes. You have been with meathead way too long.

    I know it is hard for you but when he says that he thinks guns in homes are too dangerous or that he agrees with pediatricians who want to ban handguns then it is clear where he is on the issue.

    Liberals are indignant when someone wants to ban Flag burning because they claim it infringes on their rights. If we called it a reasonable restriction would it be OK or would you call it a ban, or Flag burning control? Say that they said you could only burn flags between midnight and 5 after midnight and you needed a $50,000 permit to actually set the fire. Would you call that a Flag control or a reasonable restriction.

    What Franken likes are not reasonable restrictions. He wants strict control.

    The fact that he said he was in favor of individual ownership when running for office was viewed as phony by gun owners in his state.

  13. Big Dog says:

    As usual, you are wrong. Franken waved the Constitution as if he knew something and then tried to make it look as if we did not follow it. The courts have upheld the aire taps and yet you libs go nuts over them.

    You are incorrect about me and gun control. I do not believe in gun control. I believe that the mentally ill and criminals should not be allowed to own guns and those are legal issues dealing with competence and loss of rights. All the other restrictions I do not agree with. I made that clear and just pointed out that they exist. Therefore, no I do not agree with gun control.

    Brady wants to ban handguns and wants an assault weapons ban which is a BS ban. It deals with appearance and not firepower.

    Franken was clear about his stance on guns. He changed his tune when he ran for office.

    As for Adam having the SCOTUS on his side, I fail to see how the ruling refutes my position.

    I know what liberals want when they discuss gun control because they have been clear on it in the past. They hide it sometimes, especially when running for office, but they want a total ban on guns.

    No matter what the SCOTUS rules, that will never happen and they are well aware of it.

    But Darrel, I am curious. You stated that what the SCOTUS says goes and it matters not what others say. So when you say Bush stole the 2000 election, you are just lying because he was legally elected.

    On December 12, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5–4 vote that the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling requiring a statewide recount of ballots was unconstitutional, and that the Florida recounts could not be completed before a December 12 “safe harbor” deadline, and should therefore cease and the previously certified total should hold.

    The court ruled the statewide recount unconstitutional and that means the certification held.

    Bush won fair and square. SCOTUS said so which means you should keep your mouth shut and admit he was the LEGALLY elected president.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “I do not believe in gun control. I believe that the mentally ill and criminals should not be allowed to own guns”>>

      That’s gun control.

      Bigd: All the other restrictions I do not agree with.>>

      Thank you for using “gun control” and “restrictions” synonymously.

      You do not agree with any other restrictions?

      So for you:

      Kindergartners can take guns to school?
      Full-auto available to the public?
      I can mount a full-auto 50 cal. on my roof and aim it at my neighbor?
      Anyone can carry any weapon in court houses, hospitals, schools etc?

      How about howitzers? Bazookas? They’re “arms.”

      Bigd: Brady wants to ban handguns>>

      No, they don’t.

      Bigd: and wants an assault weapons ban which is a BS ban. It deals with appearance and not firepower.>>

      Assault weapons are designed for shooting and killing people quickly and do present special problems with regard to high velocity bullets which cause more devastating wounds. All carefully explained here:

      Why are you afraid of a link to Brady?

      Bigd: Franken… changed his tune when he ran for office.>>

      You said: “Franken… is for keeping all of us from having them [guns].”

      That’s not true. You shouldn’t say things that aren’t true.

      Bigd: liberals… want a total ban on guns.>>


      Bigd: You stated that what the SCOTUS says goes and it matters not what others say.>>

      With regard to interpreting the Constitution, absolutely right.

      Bigd: So when you say Bush stole the 2000 election, you are just lying because he was legally elected.>>

      No, that doesn’t follow. You presume that the narrow question the SCOTUS ruled on is the only legitimate question/concern about that election. But that’s obviously not true. Two examples. Consider:

      3/12/01 – CNN reports that the confusing butterfly ballot used in Florida’s Palm Beach County cost Gore 6,607 votes. This means that Gore actually beat Bush in Florida by 6,070 votes. Thus Gore won BOTH the popular vote and, by rights, the Electoral College vote.

      So one could say in this regard, Bush “stole” the election (without any effort or intent on his part).


      1/27/01 – CNN reports that “An analysis of a portion of November’s votes in Florida for president shows those for Al Gore were far more likely to be disqualified because of so-called overvoting than ballots cast for George W. Bush.” This add weight to the argument that Bush did not win the election on the basis of votes cast, but only on votes counted.”

      Bigd: “the Supreme Court ruled that… a statewide recount of ballots was unconstitutional,>>

      And according to the rules, that is the correct interpretation of the Constitution, in this narrow regard. That is their right. And no one else’s opinion matters or has any weight.

      Bigd: Bush won fair and square.>>

      Sorry, that question wasn’t before the court, but rather only the constitutionality of the state courts decision regarding a statewide recount. That’s it.

      Bigd: “you should… admit he was the LEGALLY elected president.>>

      I didn’t say he wasn’t “legally elected president.” It’s possible to use the word “stole” in something other than a legal sense. If I were to say that some forfeiture laws seem to allow the state to steal your stuff, I wouldn’t be speaking of the “legal” sense. I would say, considering more people voted for him in the nation and Florida, Gore was robbed (and we were too).


      • Big Dog says:

        Yes, and I already showed the studies that demonstrated Bush lost thousands of votes when CBS called the election before the polls closed.

        No linkt to Brady. I do not want their page rank improving.

        Assault weapons? Get real. The ban deals with how weapons look, not how they fire. Very few murders committed by people with sniper rifles and “assault” weapons. And most of the murders are committed by people who are not supposed to have a gun in the first place. 20,000 gun laws and they still get guns. this is because criminals do NOT obey the law.

        Kindergartners are not allowed by age, that is the law. If you mount a 50 cal on your roof it is your business. If you point it at neighbors you are breaking the law. Full auto is allowed with a federal firearms license. If coups can carry weapons in schools, courts and other places, why not law abiding citizens. You assume they are up to no good beause they have a gun. But, if those are the laws, I can live with them. I just see no reason that law abiding citizens are assumed to be up to no good because they have a weapon. Of course, the accused should not have one because he might be going to jail and he is there because he is suspected of breaking the law.

        You and I just don’t see gun control the same way. Fine, leave it at that.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: Very few murders committed by people with sniper rifles and “assault” weapons.>>

          Not true:

          Report: “Assault Weapons: Mass Produced Mayhem, documents the concerns of police chiefs from around the country on the increasing problem of assault weapons since 2004 (p. 3). For example, during the last year of the ban (2004), Miami police reported that 4 percent of homicides were committed with assault weapons. In 2007, 20 percent were committed with assault weapons (Miami Herald, 2007).”
          –Brady, link forbidden

          20% of murders. How is that “very few”?

          Bigd: Kindergartners are not allowed by age,>>

          We agree. Kindergartners should have their 2nd amendment rights infringed.

          Bigd: Full auto is allowed with a federal firearms license.>>

          You didn’t answer the question. Do you think everyone should have access to full auto weapons just like semi-auto is now? I don’t.

          Bigd: if those are the laws, I can live with them.>>

          So you accept many common sense infringements upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Good.

          Bigd: You and I just don’t see gun control the same way.>>

          Well, we both believe in restrictions and limitations on the 2nd, but differ on where to draw the lines.

          Also, I believe in telling the unvarnished truth about the death and destruction that the US suffers due to it’s extremely permissive gun laws.

          I am thinking of getting a CCW for my handgun. Haven’t gotten around to it yet.

          “In 2004, firearms were used to murder 56 people in Australia, 184 people in Canada, 73 people in England and Wales, 5 people in New Zealand, and 37 people in Sweden.
          In comparison, firearms were used to murder 11,344 in the United States.”
          –WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports.

          • Big Dog says:

            These numbers are flawed. The term assault rifle is used to describe rifles with items that make them appear scary and have hothing to do with functionality. If gun control works then why are there any murders in the countries that ban them?

            Of the 11,000 + people killed int he US how many are murdered by people who are not allowed to get a gun and who have obtained them illegally? How many of the people are in places with tough gun bans like say, Chicago where the murder rate is higher than any state with shall issue laws. I have friends in the UK and they can tell you where to get the guns.

            Gun bans in Australia and the UK have led to huge increases in hot robberies. In America the rate is much lower because a criminal does not know who has a gun in the home. Bet the rates are higher in Chicago than in any city in Texas.

            And comparing gun murders is misleading. The societies are different. If you take away guns from the ways people are murdered the US is still well above all other countries in those other means of murder. In other words, knives are available in these countries (and probably in every kitchen) but more people in America are murdered with knives.

            Brady wants gun control but Mr. Brady was shot in DC by a man who should not have had a gun in the city with (at the time) the second most stringent gun control laws in the country.

            How many murders by gun occur in Israel (excluding terror attacks from across the border)?

            • Blake says:

              As the argument goes, why do we not ban automobiles? They kill far more.
              Personally, I think everyone should have the right to carry openly if they wish- it might just go far in producing more polite people, and muggings might go down if the mugger thought he might get blown away.
              At the very least, it would cull the fools (read liberals) from the ranks, as they would lead with their mouth, and end up exiting feet first.

            • Darrel says:

              Bigd: The term assault rifle… nothing to do with functionality.>>

              Their higher velocity rounds have greater lethality (which is their purpose).

              Bigd: If gun control works then why are there any murders in the countries that ban them?>>

              Countries with moderate to strict gun control have less murders (which has other causes too) and a TINY fraction of the gun death/murder/maiming/accidents that the US suffers. For instance, the US had:

              “52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries… in 2000.”

              A truly incredible number.

              While the US had “three children per day, on average, die in accidental handgun incidents in the United States from 2000 to 2005” CDC.

              Canada had “…just six people under age 25 died in gun accidents (2002).” Link

              That’s comparing just US children, to Canadians up to age 24 and it’s still 1095 to 6. Maybe it’s the guns?

              Bigd: How many of the people are in places with tough gun bans like say, Chicago>>

              As explained, any local gun bans are meaningless and easily and completely subverted. They could only be effective if enforced nationwide.

              Bigd: I have friends in the UK and they can tell you where to get the guns.>>

              Well, those guns aren’t amounting to much:

              “In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population.” Link.

              How many did the US have in 2005 alone? 10,100. That’s over 400x greater. Yet we are only 5x the population. Maybe it’s the guns?

              Bigd: And comparing gun murders is misleading.>>

              It can be, that’s why I am careful not to make that mistake. Any way you slice it, murders, accidents, suicides, non-fatal incidents… if guns are involved, more people die, more people get hurt. And the US is a prime and distinguished example.

              Bigd: How many murders by gun occur in Israel?>>

              In ’93, 0.72 per 100k.

              The US was 3.72 per 100k, in ’99.

              Canada was 0.76, in 1992.

              Do remember the US is about 52 times larger than tiny Israel, which is a bit of a special situation.

              If you compare the US to it’s comparable peer countries, the result is clear. The US pays a terrible and disproportionate price in death and destruction due to it’s lack of gun control. The example below being perhaps the most revealing.

              “…the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries COMBINED. American children are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm accident than children in these other countries.”

              –Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rates of homicide, suicide, and firearm-related deaths among children in 26 industrialized countries. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997; 46 :101 –105


        • Blake says:

          Darrel- we see you cite completely ridiculous comparisons, like kindergarten kids having their gun rights infringed, when you know good and well that only liberals are THAT dumb as to believe that kindergartners are able to own guns, thus be subject to rights and restrictions.
          Quit with the ridiculous- it doesn’t become you-keep your arguments real here.
          True that there are no regulations on usage of guns under adult supervision, but children themselves are not allowed to own guns outright, thus rights and regs do not apply.

      • Blake says:

        Then we can say that Nobama “stole” the election because of ACORN’S illegal over registration and over voting?

      • Blake says:

        And Gore lost for one reason, and one reason only- he couldn’t even carry his home state- what a wuss.

        • Blake says:

          I mean, even Mondale carried his home state- it WAS the only one, but he was able to carry it- Gore couldn’t even do that.

  14. bleech says:

    How bout that Al Franken. He really gets stuff done. How have you wingnuts been.Cant wait for Halliburton to loose thier government contracts over the rape thing.oh and you’ll be glad to learn that not only is the public option still alive but Republicans are going to support it.Embrace the suck!!!!!

    • Blake says:

      bleech, every time you come here you bring your bottomfeeding intellect with you- it’s too bad- you might have been human, but we’ll never know, with that attitude.

  15. bleech says:

    big dog is still an idiot

    • Big Dog says:

      Big Dog might be an idiot, it would depend upon who you ask and how much stock you put in their opinion. I don’t put much in yours so it matters not to me.

      Big Dog might be an idiot in your eyes but he is no coward, unlike you. You come here and comment hit and run style every once in a while and throw invectives around but then you leave to come back later. You are a coward.

      As for the idiot part, I do quite well for myself and my family. Much better than basement dwelling welfare morons like you. In fact, compared to you I am a genius (but then again, so is a dung beetle).

  16. Big Dog says:

    Once again you use these statistics to try and blame the gun instead of the people. Accidental gunshots of children? Children suffer more accidental drownings, should we ban all pools?

    These children being shot include people under 18 who are gang members and committing crimes. These shootings also include the illegals who come here and shoot people.

    You claim a complete, across the board enactment is the was to reduce numbers and this makes the fact that cities with gun bans have higher gun murders moot. Newsflash, laws would still be subverted with a nationwide ban. There is a nationwide ban on cocaine but they still get it.

    Children in the US are more likely to die of non gun violence as well. As I stated before, when guns are removed from the equation we still have a higher murder rate. If you want to stop the crime control the criminals and not the guns.

    The shooting taking place almost always involve people who should not have guns and who have been arrested and should be in jail but have been released for the who umteenth time. Put them in jail and keep them there and gun crimes will go way down.

    How many accidental shootings involve a gun the owner was not allowed to have because of past crimes? We don’t see a lot of accidental shootings involving families who legally own their guns and who don’t have criminal records. Some occur, but it is rare.

    Let’s try criminal control and not gun control. The result will be better.

    Why are you using numbers from 1992 to show murder rates? Is Israel 0.72? And everyone carries weapons…

    Canada and other countries should be at zero but they are not.

    The US numbers involve the illegals, the gun smugglers, the gang members, and the rest of the low lifes who vote Democrat and they will be here for a long time. You want to reduce the numbers then reduce the criminals. Two thing will make the number go down. Put people who commit gun crimes in jail and KEEP them there and allow law abiding citizens to carry.

    You might be able to claim that laws are subverted in Chicago and other cities and that this is why their crimes rates with guns are high. That is bogus (gun laws are subverted no matter how strict they are) but you made the claim so let me put it another way.

    Texas has open carry. What is the murder rate by handgun in Texas compared to the other states and compared to countries with strict gun control? There can be no subversion argument there.

    We have a violent society. In Chicago they beat each other to death with boards. There have been more gun deaths there than in nearly any other city in America and they have some of the toughest laws. The revolving door justice system and the ease with which illegals come to America coupled with gang membership has allowed this of flourish. Those people are NOT buying those guns through loopholes and in other states. They are buying them on the black market which is present because there is a market for guns for the criminal world.

    Instead of trying to control people who obey the law and take away our rights why don’t you libs advocate taking away the rights of criminals and put them in jail. There is an empty one in Montana they would love to have some criminals to use it on.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “What is the murder rate by handgun in Texas compared to the other states and compared to countries with strict gun control?>>

      Found this which is for “gun ownership” not just handguns:

      “Texas, which has a gun ownership level of 39.5% should have a homicide rate of 60.4851%. The actual homicide rate is 64.9727%, making Texas slightly more violent than the predicted value.”

      As to a comparison with peer countries with strict gun control? No comparison. As already shown, they have VASTLY better numbers. Not even close. No comparable peer country tolerates the bloodbath we do.

      Note: “The National Academy of Science has found no evidence that shows right-to-carry laws have an impact, either way, on rates of violent crime.”

      Bigd: Is Israel 0.72? And everyone carries weapons…>>

      Try to turn the absurd claims just down a notch perhaps?

      Bigd: Canada and other countries should be at zero but they are not.>>

      Canada has lots of guns, minus the hand guns, the ownership rate is even similar (remember, lot’s of Canada is located “outdoors”). My dad in B.C. shoots a moose for his freezer almost every year.

      Bigd: The US numbers involve the illegals,>>

      If I was interested enough I would look up the stats to show that this is just xenophobia on your part. Boring.

      Bigd: Put people who commit gun crimes in jail and KEEP them there.>>

      We’ve tried that, having the highest incarceration rates in the world, with extremely poor results. Maybe it’s the guns?

      Bigd: We have a violent society.>>

      Lot’s of dumb dumbs too. Put a bunch of guns in the mix, see what happens. Oops! “Didn’t know it was loaded.”

      Bigd: Those people are NOT buying those guns through loopholes and in other states.>>

      What a load.

      Bigd: Instead of trying to… take away our rights>>

      When did I do that? Read carefully. Just because I tell the truth about guns doesn’t mean I advocate that they should be taken away.

      The US gets what it wants and “reaps what it sews” in this regard. It will grow up someday. It’ll have to. It’ll even go metric.

      The number of kids killed by guns (1995):

      0 children in Japan
      19 in Great Britain
      57 in Germany
      109 in France
      153 in Canada


      5,285 in the United States


      Maybe it’s the guns?

      • Big Dog says:

        John Lott’s book, More Guns Less Crime shows the actual numbers.

        Once again, the US calls anyone under 18 a child but the ones dying are the ones committing crimes against each other with illegal guns, guns they will continue to get. They get them now in opposition to the law.

        Texas homicide rate? Is that rate with guns?

        Look at any state that has right to carry laws and remove any city that does not have them (like Philly in PA) and the gun violence is negligible.

        You keep spouting false numbers. The truth is there, when people carry guns there is LESS violence.

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: John Lott’s book, More…>>

        Sorry, the National Academy of Science trumps the rightwing hack John Lott. His stuff sells books and fools the gullible who want to believe their comfortable myths but it doesn’t remotely stand up to peer review. In fact, he is used as a text book example of statistical BS. I have lots of references on this.

        Try some “Mary Rosh” and see if it floats.

        Bigd: Once again, the US calls anyone under 18 a child…>>

        You’ve got all the cliche’s but you don’t read carefully. Having seen your claim many times, I specifically compared US children (however defined) with Canadians up to age 24.
        And the CDC study showing “firearm deaths [are] almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries COMBINED?” Notice, children are *specifically* defined as “under 15.” That means 14 and less. Try again.

        Bigd: You keep spouting false numbers.>>

        Just try and show they’re false. You can’t do it.

        Bigd: The truth is there, when people carry guns there is LESS violence.>>

        If that were true, the US would have very little violence indeed. But the uncomfortable truth is the exact opposite of that. I have provided multiple lines of evidence from well established sources showing this. And haven’t even scratched the surface. You have responded to none of it.

        Anyone else notice that I respond to your points and answer your questions directly while you ignore and sidestep my points?

        “WASHINGTON, April 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — States in the South and West with weak gun laws and high rates of gun ownership lead the nation in overall firearm death rates…

        The new VPC analysis uses 2005 data (the most recent available) from the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. The analysis reveals that the five states with the highest per capita gun death rates were Louisiana, Alaska, Montana, Tennessee, and Alabama. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.32 per 100,000.

        By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related death.”


  17. Big Dog says:

    It is like this Darrel, I have grown tired of the game. It goes like this, I make a claim and provide supporting information. You claim that the source is either a right wing rag, a hack (like PROFESSOR John Lott), or that you or one of your buddies roasted it a long time ago.

    You then copy and paste thousands of paragraphs from sources that I consider invalid or suspect because they come from liberal organizations. You then claim that your source trumps my source and that you wrote a book about it.

    I have provided plenty of sources but when they disagree with you then you have to make some excuse. I provided the CBS report, its own report, that described the events of election night 2000. It was pretty clear but disagreed with the view of perfect Darrel so you said it was a report of CBS covering its rear. You discount all that does not agree with you and I am tired of providing information when I know what your response will be.

    However, you wrote:

    By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related death.”

    Now DC is not a state but it has the lowest reported gun ownership in the US and has the highest gun murder rate. In addition, there are those who make the argument that it matters little whether there are guns or not (as provided in the DC example). Here is a link that spells it out.

    Here is a link to an article that appeared in the American Rifleman in 1990. It is an interesting study on how statistics are used and why they are wrong.

    I would go further. Philadelphia had the second highest handgun murder rate a few years back. In Philly people are not allowed to carry guns. In most of the rest of the state they are. The rate in Philly brings the state down (like in the California example, different areas of a state have different crime rates).

    I doubt Texas has the handgun murder rate reported if corrected to report illegal guns and legal gun owners. I am willing to bet that most murders with a gun in Texas are caused by illegals and those who are not allowed to own a gun (which means they obtained them illegally). Those with carry permits are involved in very few murders. In order to get the proper statistics one must remove the illegal guns. You cannot claim that less strict gun law states who let people carry guns have higher crime rates with guns if you do not remove the illegals because legal gun owners are being blamed for law breakers. If the argument is that people in states where there are easier rules for people to legally carry guns commit more murders then we need to look at people who have been allowed to legally carry guns.

    As for crime stats, the FBI cautions that the data is based on compliance with reporting and that not all states report accurately or completely.

    As for gun control:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a study last week that states there is no evidence to prove gun-control laws are effective in preventing violence.
    In the exhaustive brief, the CDC analyzed scientific evidence regarding “bans on specified firearms and ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition [including waiting periods], firearm registration and licensing, concealed-carry laws, child-access-prevention laws, zero-tolerance laws for firearms in schools and combinations of firearms laws.” The verdict? “The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.” The task force also concluded that “firearms-related injuries in the United States have declined since 1993” despite the fact that “approximately 4.5 million new firearms are sold each year.”

    Washington Times

    • Darrel says:

      [Dar quote] By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related death.”>>

      This is true. Be careful not to confuse “violence” with “death.” To very different stats.

      Bigd: Now DC is not a state but it has the lowest reported gun ownership in the US>>

      Two points:

      1) “Reported” is meaningless, especially in a city where you are not supposed to have a gun.

      2) As my friend Farrell once put it: “Banning guns in a city or county or even a state is always ineffective, because someone who wants a gun can go out of the city or county or state to get one. As long as there is no nationwide ban in this country, you cannot prove anything with references to cities where guns are banned.” –Farrell

      Bigd: “there are those who make the argument that it matters little whether there are guns or not>>

      These people we call fools. Your DC example (a city with a very high daily turn over of population) doesn’t show a lack of guns but rather a lack of reporting guns.

      Bigd: an article that appeared in the American Rifleman in 1990.>>

      Statistics are complicated. The National Academy of Sciences trumps your 19 year old article in a gun magazine.

      Bigd: I am willing to bet that most murders with a gun in Texas are caused by illegals and those who are not allowed to own a gun>>

      Then it’s only a matter of determining how much you want to lose. You are just regurgitating anti-immigrant BS.

      While immigrants (legal and illegal) account for 35 percent of California adults, they represent just 17 percent of the state’s prisoners. Men born in the United States are incarcerated in California prisons at more than 2½ times the rate of foreign-born men.

      Within the age group most often involved in crime (ages 18 to 40), US natives – astonishingly – are 10 times more likely to be in prison or jail than immigrants (4.2 percent of the former are in correctional institutions, and just 0.42 percent of the latter). Even when the focus is narrowed to inmates who were born in Mexico and are not citizens – the demographic group most likely to include illegal immigrants – the rate of incarceration is only one-eighth that of men born in the United States.”

      If anything, immigrants lower crime:

      “They found that the cities with greater numbers of recently arrived immigrants have lower crime rates, while cities with fewer immigrants experience higher levels of crime.”

      Boston Globe

      Note: “The misperception that immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, are responsible for higher crime rates is deeply rooted in American public opinion and is sustained by media anecdotes and popular myth,” said Ruben G. Rumbaut, a sociology professor at the University of California-Irvine. “This perception is not supported empirically. In fact, it is refuted by the preponderance of scientific evidence.”

      Bigd: The [CDC] released a study… no evidence to prove gun-control laws are effective in preventing violence.>>

      From the Moonie Times, but I don’t completely disagree. This speaks to the fact that if you don’t have nationwide enforcement, these so called “gun-control laws” are not effective in doing anything. They are, a joke. When any felon can pull their pickup truck up to a gun show and buy anything, cash and carry, no background checks, no record, no receipt, you have no gun control.

      That’s what we have.

      And how’s that working out?

      Handgun murders (1992) (22)

      Handgun 1992 Handgun Murder
      Country Murders Population Rate (per 100k)
      United States 13,429 254,521,000 5.28
      Switzerland 97 6,828,023 1.42
      Canada 128 27,351,509 0.47
      Sweden 36 8,602,157 0.42
      Australia 13 17,576,354 0.07
      United Kingdom 33 57,797,514 0.06
      Japan 60 124,460,481 0.05


      Total population of the other countries: 242 million (10m less than the US)

      Total handgun murders: 367 v. 13,429.

      That’s 36 times the US number, and a in a comparison with a similar population.

      Maybe it has something to do with the guns?

  18. Big Dog says:

    DC has the highest gun murder rate in the country. Violence is another matter but there is violence involved.

    Yes, they are not supposed to buy the guns but you make the mistake of assuming a nationwide ban would keep them from going elsewhere to buy guns. On any given day you can buy an illegal gun IN DC.

    There is a nationwide ban on cocaine and heroin. Care to explain how people get it? Using your gun ban logic, they should not be able to.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: DC has the highest gun murder rate in the country.>>

      That may be true (DC actually comes in 5th for “murder rate”), what do you propose? More guns? I think we’ve given that a good “shot.”

      Bigd: you make the mistake of assuming a nationwide ban would keep them from going elsewhere to buy guns.>>

      Where they gonna go? Canada? Columbia?

      Bigd: There is a nationwide ban on cocaine and heroin.>>

      Our peer countries have similar laws against use of these drugs and get similar results. And they have the same results with pools, ladders, automobiles and all the usual red herrings gun nuts like to bring up to distract. The difference is these peer countries have much stronger gun control laws and get radically better results in less, death, destruction, murder, suicide, accidents and maiming BY GUNS. It’s not even close. This is not difficult, it’s not rocket science. It’s the guns. Most of your gun beliefs about guns are emotional and irrational when they aren’t completely false.

      If you want less three wheeler ATV’s you ban them or regulate them. Seen any lately? No. A careful review of our peer countries shows that gun control clearly works, and works very well, but it does not work on a city by city or state by state basis. And it does not work at all when all of the laws are completely, regularly and easily subverted by gun shows, private sales, internet sales, etc.


      ps. Here’s a good overview of Lott btw.

      Question: How serious an issue is gun violence in the United States?

      Answer: In 2004, there were 29,569 gun-related deaths in the United States, including almost 12,000 homicides, more than 16,750 suicides and approximately 650 unintentional deaths. This adds up to about 80 gun-related deaths in the United States every day—or almost 2.5 times of the number of persons killed at Virginia Tech each day.
      There were also approximately 70,000 non-fatal gun shot injuries in 2005 serious enough to require at least an emergency room visit. In addition, there were 477,040 victims of gun-related crimes in the United States in 2005.

      Question: How does the United States compare to other countries in terms of gun violence?

      Answer: The violent crime rate in the United States is about average when compared with most other high-income, developed countries. But our murder rate is much higher than most. The difference is that the violent crime we have in the United States is more likely to be fatal than in most other high-income countries—a difference primarily attributable to the greater use of firearms in violent crime.”

      John’s Hopkins.

  19. Big Dog says:

    My position on guns is not irrational or emotional. It is based in logic. It is not the guns. Guns are inanimate objects that cannot kill anyone. The person who uses them illegally is the culprit for that person has the ability to take the life, something guns cannot do.

    The US does not have a gun problem, it has a criminal problem. If you remove guns from all crime stats the US still leads the world in violent crimes. Part of it is our diversity, part of it illegals, part the education system and the justice system. All of these perpetuate the violence that takes place.

    How many kids in Canada get killed with boards? Not as many as in Chicago. Chicago has strict gun laws and people die there from guns all the time.

    The thing is, criminals know they can attack in places with tight gun control and not be opposed. They get guns illegally and attack people they know will not be carrying. If people carried freely there would be less of this kind of crime.

    The issue is easy to understand. I don’t blame the car or the alcohol for deaths that occur because of drunk driving. If we treated this crime like you want to treat guns we would not have alcohol or motor vehicles.

    The reality is, whether you want to admit it or not, cocaine is illegal and people get it. If you make guns completely illegal people will still get them.

    DC has the highest gun murder rate and has for a while though that might have changed recently. DC is in the top three nearly all the time. Chicago as well. Both places with tight gun control.

    Why punish law abiding citizens because we have the inability to put people in jail and keep them there?

    American children are more likely to be murdered with a gun or commit suicide than in other countries. Take guns out of the equation and American kids are still more likely to be murdered and are more likely to commit suicide. Without the guns they would just find something else to use like boards.

    We do not need gun control. We need criminal control.

    Logical. The gun cannot commit a crime. People, not guns, commit murder.