1. yes fine with working for Monsanto and fine with them giving gmo to children, but not ok with guns and would see us all reduced to having nothing but muskets.
      shes not a patriot. she’s a self serving domestic terrorist who only cares about money and her own fame. don’t believe me look at any article and you will see more about shannon watts than the mda.

    2. Notice article did not mention former mayor Michael Bloomberg? I will not stop carrying concealed no matter what these anti gun nimrods say. When Kroger posts signs banning carry, open or otherwise, I will take my business elsewhere.

  1. Shannon Watts’ energy and commitment not only to legislative change, but the more sustainable and perhaps more meaningful cultural change, is remarkable, visionary and admirable. In a heartbeat, her commitment and passion have replicated all across this country, in living rooms and on laptops and smartphones from East to West and everywhere in between. This moment marks the moment of cultural transformation both at home and across the globe as the US participates in an ever more global economic and social community. Moms Demand Action compels us all to care not only for ourselves and our families, but also for our neighbors. When we stop seeing ourselves in one another, we fail to trust or care for each other’s children, families, communities. This work toward cultural transformation is redefining what it means to be an American in all the right ways–it’s an America we all know is within us, we just need to mobilize it and work together to make this country what we all imagine it can be. Mothers’ voices are simply growing stronger, despite the ill will we encounter every day by extreme opponents. Women–brave, intelligent, passionate–and mothers in particular embody the power for meaningful change and an end to gun violence in America. Brava, Shannon! Brava, Moms!

    1. I don’t think that you are addressing the correct issue. This doesn’t need to be a campaign crucifying legal gun owners. What we have in America is a violence issue, regardless of the weapon. This shouldn’t be about the guns.

  2. Thank you Stir and thank you to Shannon Watts! The “Connecticut Effect” is not going away anytime soon. Moms across the country are fed up with active shooter drills that traumatize our children and the gun violence epidemic facing our nation. We refuse to be silenced or threatened. I will keep up the work! Thanks again.

    1. you know those active shooter drills have been going on for decades. they are not a new thing they are just newly put out their for the world to hear about.
      back when i was going through school elementary, middle, and highschool we had lock down drills and earthquake drills even though we lived in a safe part of the country, and at the same time the police ran drug dogs through the schools and by all the lockers.
      it is not a new thing and we wouldn’t need to have those drills if the mda and the government would stop assuming the a little sign stating no guns beyond this point could actually protect a single life.

      1. Then again, Mat, there have been 44 school shootings since 2014. Im guessing we’re about the same age and probably from around the same area (earthquake drills) and you just cannot deny the deaths are happening in crazy numbers.

        1. The “44 school shootings” is disingenuous.

          The MDA included suicides that occurred on a school campus but were way after school hours or were in empty classrooms.

          At least four of those shootings were gang related, one gang going after another.

          Also, there is evidence that school shootings are on the decline.

          If you would like cites, i can provide. Dont know the policy of this website for links.

          1. Yes please provide those links, it will say you are moderated just to prevent spam but Ill make sure they come through.

          2. First link is John Lott, he goes into detail on the stats. Normally, I wouldn’t link this, but the cases hes talking about are linked in the article about halfway down and its much easier than linking all the individual stories.


            The second is a USA Today article that quotes the Justice Department and Department of Education.


            And this last link is one that looks at non-gang, non suicide deaths in schools


          3. actually 99% is pretty close to the number of false positives on the background checks considering most of the denials are where people accidentally checked a wrong box or mispelt/wrote something.

        2. I thought you guys were touting “facts.” This “44 school shootings” BS is just more MDA/MAIG disinformation. 16 of the 44 were on College campuses. There were a total of 28 deaths. 11 (40%) were suicides. Several instances were not even during school hours. Also included are late night shootings taking place in school parking lots, on their grounds or even off school property, often involving gangs. As “shootings,” they also include any incident where shots were fired, even when nobody was injured. I can make spectacular claims that make about as much sense too: “6,762 people died yesterday (true). Stop the carnage. For the children!” MDA’s propaganda is insulting to to all American citizens. Give me a break.

          1. William OK got it. I see the links and Im looking at all of them. Thank you for these

        3. and if you look at the number of actual school shootings you would see they are on a downward trend.
          let me ask you something in all honesty how many mass shooters have ever been actually stop by a sticker or a sign that said either this is a gun free zone or no guns allowed on this property?
          id really like to know.

        4. What happened to my comment? There was no profanity or anything. Only pointing out how misleading 44 school shootings is.

          1. Nevermind, just showed up lol. That was weird. It was there one second, gone the next.

            No harm done. 🙂

    2. Here is how one can traumatize children:
      Watts said. “He watched the news the night before and was so shaken up by the story he had a panic attack in the theater and had to leave. Here was my son, telling me he was sure the man next to him was holding a gun. He thought he was going to die. A child should not think he is going to be killed while watching a movie about a superhero. What do you say to that?”

      This is also quite telling as to who Watts is and her motives are. She is totally oblivious or calculating. Given her past career choice and limited time with her children you can choose. She used her own son to be a victim to further her “cause” plus her PR training to promote it. Or she is oblivious as to how to raise a child? Either way she does not deserve the attention or cash infusion she enjoys. She counted on the term “moms” to insulate her in the mainstream. As we all know politicians and public figures dare not question the sacred “mom” entity. The using of her son to have a panic attack to promote her “belief” is utterly contemptible but the title of “mom” has done its work. She should be charged with abuse instead of glory. Shame on all who have fallen for her charade. Excellent PR work lady.

  3. Kaaren – I love the point you make about cultural change. I remember growing up in the 70’s and my mother (who was an alcoholic) driving my sister and me around when she was drunk. No one ever stepped in to tell her she shouldn’t be driving or offered to drive her. These weren’t bad people, but there wasn’t awareness around the dangers of drinking and driving. I knew how scary it was being a kid in the car, but even a couple of times when police stopped her, they would let her go if she was a few blocks from the house telling her to “be careful” or they would follow her home. That would be unheard of today.

    When Mothers Against Drunk Drivers came around we certainly didn’t ban all driving, but put regulations on unsafe behavior that puts everyone in danger. Now it’s the norm. We have to start thinking in that mindset when it comes to guns.

    1. Sorry Jonna, but that approach will fail miserably. You see, unlike drunk driving, firearms in Civilian hands SAVE lives and prevent crimes innumerable times per year more than they contribute to illegal homicide. (FBI stats)
      When MADD went on their campaign there was NO opposing group who was promoting drunk-driving.
      Pro-2nd Amendment groups are well organized, well determined, and are Long-practiced at defending their rights from Anti-Constitutionalists.
      Anti-gunner Eric Holder stated back in the 90’s (you can find this on Youtube) something similar of what you propose. he took it farther and said that “We need to Repeatedly BRAINWASH the public into believing that it is no longer culturally acceptable for Civilians to openly carry firearms in public”. 20 years later take a look at the backlash his plan is getting. Have you ever been to a very rural town in a Red State? Firearms are EVERYWHERE in plain site and crime is so low that the town cops are so bored out of their minds that a DUI would be the highlight of their month.

    2. I must point out your mistaken notion of “cultural change” and that society labors under the beliefs they themselves develop. It is nothing to do with if we are getting better o smarter because we are not. Your mother’s drinking and driving is your experience and has nothing at all to do with drinking and driving all over the county then and now. You do not know if she was approached by anyone about as you did not monitor her 24 hours a day. The dangers of drinking and driving were just as known then as now. I might even add it could be more dangerous now in respect to the numerous safety features in cars that were not invented yet. The one difference is the attitudes of today are that we are encouraged to interfere in others lives without any actual knowledge or justification. It is fine with you that The Bill of Rights are violated by having checkpoints is it not? You are not aware of your Rights probably due to the poor state of education. Our Rights come first, it is all we have. The DUI “crackdown” if you look closer is nothing more than a money making industry for the court system. It is corrupt and flawed but untouchable. They care not for people who are inflicted with alcoholism or why ,only they be caught and ruined financially. They have not reduced DUI at all. They will claim 500 out of 1000 drivers drove drunk last night in Denver and 10 were caught.and 10 were in accidents. Therefore they claim they saved numerous lives and the loss of Rights is “worth it”. But wait, they did not report that 480 drinking drivers arrived home safely did they? If they reported that then the motives for DUI crackdown would be revealed. Bad or stupid driving is just as deadly…So you are not a new aware generation and smarter than the old guy writing this. You are actually propagandized and dumber than you thought. Gun control advocates are doing the same thing and it is the same goal: money. Illegal drugs is another. It is about money not public health or safety. Find out how drugs became illegal and also ask yourself why is it you believe that drugs kill yet there are way more drug users than you know. The worst thing a drug can do is kill you but that is mostly heroin. The second worse thing is being caught. The punishments are more severe and devastating than what the drug would do.
      Consider that if you have a sip of wine then get behind the wheel then the law says you are “impaired”! Hardly fair or justice when you are charged. The same holds true with firearms. Having a firearm is a Right and does not indicate you are a killer any more than the one sip of wine makes you impaired. It is about money and it will cost us all our Rights as well. It is UN-Constitutional to ban weapons but people try anyway because they are swayed by a mistaken belief told them by someone who collects dues and donations. I could point out Ms. Watts tactics that she uses to portray herself as being right but I may be wasting time. Just see who has a payday and how much of one then you know the reason for laws and the media campaigns that promote enforcement tactics which violate your Rights. The media is supposed to inform us of government abuse not mislead us with misinformation.

    1. Al, Im not sure why you would say the mom’s are afraid of discussion. That’s pretty much their job now.

      1. tracifoust—-He probably said it because anyone with an opposing point of view has their comments deleted and gets banned from future comments.

          1. I was banned and my post deleted for asking ” why do you hate all guns…? ” simple question…. try it yourself and see how long it takes them to block you….!

          2. I think your comment asking why people hate guns was pulled probably because it is not a discussion but an assumption. I don’t hate guns but think we need background checks and some kind of gun safety laws that I talked about in other posts.

      2. because every time someone points out that one of their facts is incorrect or says anything that isn’t 100% in line with their goals they get banned from the bag and the comment deleted.
        in my case i posted a couple replies to some comments made by their members about how they are incorrect in a polite manner.
        and what did it get me? blocked deleted and a 3 month suspension from posting on any facebook page at all because several of their members falsely reported me for harassment’s/death threats.
        they call us the paranoid ones and yet they are the ones afraid of an inanimate objects. they are the ones afraid of anyone with a gun even though they are just exercising their perfectly legal rights, they are the ones sowing fear with inaccurate stats and opinions and polls of people.

      3. Because they are afraid, or unwilling, to have ANY conversation, much less an honest one. I have now been banned/deleted on 49 of the 52 MDA pages on FB for nothing more than asking a simple clarification about their stance. With ONE SINGLE exception (the Wisconsin chapter), I have been summarily blocked from having any kind of conversation with MDA (the other two haven’t posted anything in months, so I don’t think anyone much really cares in those states). Many within a minute’s time. If that is “pretty much their job now”, as you say, they should be fired for non-performance. Funny how one of Shannon’s first priorities was to hire someone for Troll Patrol to control the “conversation”, instead of cultivating actual solutions to the issue.

        1. As the article states Shannon never hired anyone. These are all volunteers who do not get paid, but WTF (ha, your name I mean) I hope you can feel that we’re doing a good job letting everyone speak. Even though we may not agree, it’s important that everyone gets a chance to be heard. Im trying to read everything, though I wish I could comment on everything, and I have to say that I can see there are many many people who can truly state their case in a calm articulate manner. I didn’t think we would have so many pro gunners (and I am NOT anti-gun) who would be willing to share so much info. Im a person who likes facts. I guess that’s why I write, so I want to make sure STIR is also presenting facts from as many angles as we can get.

          1. Traci, there are lots (LOTS) of pro-gunners willing to have a discussion, but the other side has no intention of listening, because they know they are wrong, and the facts don’t back their position. Their argument is based on emotion and fear. Our position is based on truth and facts. I am grateful for this forum to allow this discussion. It is lightyears ahead of anything the Antis will allow. Even if you are biased 🙂

            And I stand corrected, Shannon did not hire anyone, but a person was found to fill the position of Troll Patrol early on. One might think that if so many people were against your idea at the outset, maybe it wasn’t such a great idea.

          2. Whiskey (Im just going to say that now instead of WTF, though I do think it’s funny) your comment ” I am grateful for this forum to allow this discussion. It is lightyears ahead of anything the Antis will allow. Even if you are biased” Is great and thank you. Believe it or not Im really learning a lot from everyone here. You can understand how something like that, I mean, what happened at my son’s school would change me, would change anyone, yet I really see no one in this discussion who I wouldn’t sit down with in person and just shoot the shit (OK the moderator is allowing a nasty word) It seems like there are a lot of bright people in this world with views that are different from mine.

    2. Al, are you even aware of their platform? What they are trying to do? It’s so clear in this article. Why would anyone be against safer gun laws?

      1. Because they are not for safer guns laws, read the web and check their stories, they have aligned with Mayors against illegal guns..which recently have had Mayors dropping out because of the Bloomberg policy of all out gun control. Just check you will see and there is also many of the mayors in the group committing various crimes, what a group to be associated with.

        1. Tired – exactly. They ONLY want to have posts that agree with them. I’m hoping the IRS audits them to see exactly where all the funding comes from and is spent on travel for their dog & pony shows.

    3. Al Enochs, thank you very much for the link, I had no idea such a wonderful organization existed. As for the moderator’s comment about more interesting or specific, seems like someone misread your post.

  4. I see a lot of comments on Twitter about how MDA does not support 2A (the second amendment) and Im just wondering if anyone has any facts on this or has eve bothered to read what MDA is all about.

    “TF: Let’s talk about the Second Amendment. Many people believe Moms Demand Action opposes Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.

    SW: Oh, I know, yet that is so far from the truth of what we are trying to accomplish. We think that regulations for buying and operating a gun should be at least as stringent as buying and driving a car. More than 6 million guns are bought in America every year without a background check, which means too many guns are ending up in the hands of felons, criminals, and even minors. Common sense laws and policies will help change our culture of gun violence.

    TF: Stricter gun laws, background checks, cracking down on irresponsible gun owners. Does this pose a threat to the Second Amendment?

    SW: I think the majority of gun owners in this country are responsible. But there is this vocal minority, and they think our group wants to abolish their right to own a gun. Moms Demand Action isn’t about that at all, but there is nothing you can do to convince them. It’s very frustrating.

    TF: Your platform is clearly outlined on the Moms Demand Action webpage. You’ve also spoken on national television about what the group represents. Is there a way to convince people you are not trying to undermine the rights of responsible gun owners?

    SW: If someone doesn’t want to listen there is no trick to changing them. I think some people are resistant to listening to the data that shows what is actually creating our gun violence epidemic— easy, unregulated access to guns. So it’s important to stay focused on the things that can be changed. We are trying to get responsible gun owners on our side to make the laws tougher. Believe it or not, most of them want what we want. The purpose is to raise awareness for people, including those in government positions, who have never voted on this issue.

    In this country, eight children [aged 10-19] are shot and killed every day.* Those are children who have lost their lives. Shouldn’t this be something that takes top rank among voter issues? So many people have no idea these statistics exist. They don’t know how easy it is to work around the laws that are already in place. There are huge background check loopholes in many states, and until I began my research, I was also one of those people who didn’t know.

    1. Show you facts that 8 children are killed every day, what are your sources for these facts? Are these 10-19 involved in crimes, such as home invasions? also what resources are MDA using to have the current laws on the books enforced?

      1. Tired: Here are some links to those numbers including ATF, CDC and National Shooting Sports Foundation and U.S. Census, Small Arms Survey Data data.

        I actually prefer this CDC site because it;s a government site
        and is easier to get around then reading a complete PDF http://wonder.cdc.gov/

        Calculations based on National Shooting Sports Foundation and U.S. Census data.
        Department of Defense, and Defense Casualty Analysis System data.
        CDF calculations based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Federal Bureau of Investigation data.

        – See more at: http://www.childrensdefense.org/programs-campaigns/protect-children-not-guns/#sthash.8CiX4UP9.dpuf

        1. The government sites often do include those over 18 as “children”. That means the real gang members who are responsible for most of the homicides. Half of the remaining are suicides. They are lumped in the same category of “Gun deaths”. Those suicides would have ended in other tragic ways if the guns weren’t around. Secondly, your other link at the bottom is a link to a biased, anti-gun organization. Nothing they say is going to be neutral. You cannot present those kinds of sites and be considered to be truthful and not cherry picking stats. If you can add those, I will add this government link here:


    2. tracifoust, sorry to hear you came so close to a tragedy at your son’s school.

      A few points about support of the 2nd Amendment. First, comparing the 2nd Amendment to driving a car is a red herring. Could you also compare the 1st Amendment to driving and owning a car? In other words, shouldn’t words be regulated like we regulate transportation? After all, words do kill. In fact, we do regulated some 1st Amendment freedoms but we don’t license or restrict them. Laws are put in place to prosecute those who use a civil right to harm others willfully and with malicious intent. Think yelling “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. We don’t license the ability to speak or disagree. We don’t test you for your ability to make coherent points. We don’t limit the medium in which you can speak.

      Secondly, there is no civil right to transportation. There is a civil right to free speech and to bear arms. To compare it to public transportation is either showing a) a misunderstanding of the civil right, or b) a calculated attempt at sophism to push an agenda.

      1. You’re right about no civil rights to transportation. But again no one compared 2A to driving a car, it’s the laws surrounding what comes from that right, not the right itself. And yes, that was the scariest day of my life, though sometimes it;s still just a big blur. You say we regulate 1A freedoms, yes, I think that’s a great example because look how many teens kill themselves over words. Rallying for stricter gun laws without banning anyone’s rights to keep and bear them is an extension of what you’re saying. These irresponsible gun owners need to be held accountable for their criminal negligence. It took MADD a long time to get stricter laws into place on negligence. So it’s certainly not the freedom or the rights, it’s what comes about on the abuse of those rights.

        1. first off there is a difference between a teen killing themselves as the result of bullying and the actual regulations for free speech.
          second stricter gun laws only leads to bad things happening you say no one wants to take our guns but that is actually what shannon watts wants, she wont be happy till the only thing left are muskets, she even tweet anything that can shoot 10 rounds a minute is an assault weapon, well that is just about 95% of all guns.
          states have already begun require registration and proving our fears of registration. new york is confiscatiing/ outright banning previously legal firearms and they are using their registration to do it, and there are many instances where the registration system has been abused not only by the police but by the media and other civilians.
          shannon watts likes to compare herself to MADD but in that comparrison she is going after the vehicle and the vehicle manufacturers to punish them instead of the drunk drivers.
          and she doesn’t care about your children which is why she had no problem with monsanto pumping our children full of GMOs

    3. MDA absolutely does oppose the right to bear arms, and therefore I assert that she opposes the Second Amendment.

      She made a comment about the Luby’s Cafeteria massacre. Let’s look at that for a minute …

      Suzanna Hupp has far more reason to be angry at the misuse of guns than Ms. Watts in regards to Luby’s Cafeteria. She was actually THERE – and saw her parents killed there.

      As it turns out, Ms. Hupp normally carries a firearm, but because Texas law at the time prohibited her from carrying in that restaurant, she wasn’t able to use it when she actually needed to. There are no guarantees, but if she’d had her firearm on her person, she would have at least had a shot to prevent a lot of killing. If her, or someone else there, had been armed … then perhaps one of them would have stopped much of the slaughter. All of it? Probably not. But I think if the madman had faced some armed resistance, he would have been stopped sooner.

      Thankfully, Suzanna Hupp realized that problems are not solved by crippling the ability of good guys to have guns. She has worked to expand the right of persons to carry firearms.

      Ms. Watts and her organization ACTIVELY WORK AGAINST the idea of carrying firearms in public. They are on a campaign to harass Staples into prohibiting firearms carry in their stores. So regardless of what Ms. Watts claims, she clearly does NOT support the right to bear arms. If she did, she wouldn’t be trying to prohibit people from bearing arms at Staples.

      So I would suggest that claiming that Ms. Watts supports the Second Amendment is simply false, IMO.

    4. ok.. for 2a…
      We have a bill in GA, Safe Carry Protection Act, HB875

      MDA email to members… We must oppose this bill. The GCO supports it so it must be bad.
      MDA labels bill a ‘guns everywhere bill’ which Politifact investigates, and finds false.
      MDA shows up at HB875 meeting wearing ‘guns everywhere bill’ stickers…. several days after this is found to be a false claim

      When MDA starts reading bills before opposing them and making false claims about them perhaps they will be in a position to be pro 2a. Until then, MDA behaves more like a hate group.

      MDA’s chosen partner (financial parent) group MAIG has a published member list. If you compare that member list to the statistics kept by states that record weapon license status along with convictions (like Texas), you will find that MAIG members are 67 times more likely to be convicted of a crime than weapon license holders… 67 times more likely… and that is the chosen partner organization? that speaks volumes.

  5. I was banned from the Moms demand action Facebook page for stating that I was pro second amendment and a concealed carrier.I was in no way rude or confrontational.I said that I welcomed civil fact based discussions and for that my comment was deleted and I can no longer comment on any post.I even ended my post by thanking them for taking the time to read it.

    I have read most of the posts from Shannon and other members and the views expressed here and on her Facebook page concerning legal gun ownership are complete opposites.Many of the posts call for the total banning of all firearms.Some of the posts even go so far as to suggest that all gun owners are potential baby killers.There are threats of violence against gun owners and wishes that they be shot with their own guns.They insult anyone with an opposing view and delete their comments no matter the tone.

    Her group claims to want to educate people.But I have found most of the posts to be purely emotional with no room for discussion.In my experience emotion and common sense rarely go hand in hand.Without discussion or opposing points of view or allowing people the chance to rebut the “facts” presented you’re not really educating.You’re indoctrinating.

    1. Joe: I agree . It’s hard to stay focused when emotions run so high, especially if you’ve had a child or loved one die due to negligence. STIR is certainly not calling for a ban on guns. Three years ago when a mentally ill person opened fire at my son’s school, shooting two 7 year olds (thank god only in the arm) I was completely out of my mind. All I could see as I was driving to the school was my son. Nothing happened to him, but I often wonder, if something had happened, would I still be able to look at 2A with a clear head? I don’t know how to answer that. I can see by your post that you can articulate your feelings without mud slinging. So thank YOU!!! And your comment also supports what Shannon told me in the interview about most people ARE responsible with their guns. But I like the analogy she gave about drunk drivers, before laws were passed to hold them responsible for “accidents”. It’s so incredibly difficult to get people to understand this. It sometimes makes me feel like I just want to give up.

        1. THree construction workers saw him, tackled him then ran ver his head with their truck, not killing him but to hold him while police were on their way.

          1. Sorry, I mistook the above poster for someone different. You just said that most gun owners are responsible. I would agree with you and say that I am sorry for what happened, but you cannot allow that to reflect on the rest of us.

          2. “THree construction workers saw him, tackled him then ran ver his head with their truck, not killing him but to hold him while police were on their way.”

            I see that you changed your quote (March 17, 2014 at 7:46 pm) from what you had above, this time adding the “not killing him” part. I guess I will also have to modify what I wrote above.

            Wait, so after they had subdued him, they ran over his head with their truck? Last time I checked, actively TRYING TO KILL someone by running over their head with a 2 ton vehicle AFTER that person had been apprehended is called ATTEMPTED MURDER and is STILL illegal. But it’s still ok because it’s still for the children…..

  6. The MDA group was present at the HB975 hearing in Georgia. They were opposed to every facet of the bill that gave rights to law-abiding, licensed gun owners. They were even opposed to a section that would require training for armed guards at schools (currently, no such training is required for school guards in GA). As long as the group is blindly opposed to any gun bill, I will continue to be opposed to the MDA movement.

    What has MDA proposed in GA that affects criminals? Nothing I’ve seen.

    1. Rory, you make some good points, but you also have to factor in car break-ins, it’s the number crime on school grounds. You’ve got to think of scenarios that will lead someone who is unstable to get a gun from a teacher’s car, and let’s face it, some of those guards at school aren’t exactly the fittest characters around. We’ve all ditched a guard at some point. What if some kid or teacher just decided to clock a guard and get his gun?

      1. Traci, I think you’re stretching the “what if’s” a bit far. What if a bad guy came into a school with a gun. Wouldn’t a good guy with a gun be a great equalizer? Even if it saved just one child, wouldn’t that be enough?

        1. Good lord no! Most schools have their own police officer. When it comes to safety there just isnt a way to stretch the what ifs too far. There have been 44 school shooting since the beginning of 2014. Though I can see your point I can’t agree. When that gunman opened fire on my son’s school, he was in a bushy area where he could not be seen by teachers or office staff it was unarmed construction workers who tackled him then ran over his head with their truck.

          1. Good. They brought him down under their combined weight. We should hire a burly construction crew to patrol the hallways with a truck, because that is far more effective than an armed security guard. The armed guard concept has worked before. What is the opposition to it? The break-ins that you originally talked about could happen across town, or in someone’s house. That is essentially the same thing. You also have to remember that school shootings are usually long, planned out things. They do not take place in the spur of the moment. People don’t snap from one moment to the next, nor do security guards go down in one punch. There are holsters specifically to avoid the perpetrator from getting the gun. It would have to be an extreme case.

            And no. Most schools aren’t allowed to have their own officers. Especially not the ones around here. The children are not allowed to have protection beyond easy-to-break sheet glass and thin, hollow wooden doors with large windows that are simple to open. Armed security guards are a far better way to protect our children than passive, easy-to-defeat barriers.

          2. ” it was unarmed construction workers who tackled him then ran over his head with their truck.”

            Wait, so after they had subdued him, they ran over his head with their truck? Last time I checked, killing someone who has been apprehended is called MURDER. But it’s ok because it’s for the children…..

      2. Ok, let’s play the “what if” game, since you started it. My turn: what if a cop (with a scary gun!) was inside a school (near children!!!1) and some kid or teacher just decided (because, let’s face it, self-preservation is overrated) to clock him right in the jewels and, while he’s down for the count, pondering why on Earth his daughter’s elementary school math teacher just whacked him in the groin with a yardstick, grab his gun from his duty-issue level 2 retention holster (because who doesn’t know what a level 2 retention holster is and how one works, am I right)?

        When you start to think about how ridiculous that scenario is, remember who propose finding a “solution” to this virtually non-existent problem: you and MDA.

        1. yeah all school teacher are gonna know what a level 2 retention holster is and how to get the gun out… hahaha good one. That is the whole reason I wear a level 2 retention holster when I open carry. Great point in the “what if” game.
          But then that goes back to responsible gun owners.

      3. Exactly the argument FOR lawful concealed carry on school grounds. The uniformed guards are highly visible targets. If the bad guy doesn’t know who is armed, that is a huge tactical advantage. But no one in the Civilian Disarmament Complex will even consider this as an option, when it clearly would save lives. They said they wanted to have a conversation. But a conversation is not mono-directional. But that is all that has been accepted to this point.

      4. ok, car break-ins.
        Under current GA law a licensed gun owner can leave a gun in the car on school property. This has been the law for some time. When it was passed we had headline articles talking about how there would be blood in the streets. And it hasn’t happened, the sky hasn’t fallen, etc.

        Anyway, I agree, it would be much safer if the owner was able to maintain direct physical security of the gun rather than leave it in the car. Direct physical security = carry.

  7. MDA bans anyone from posting on their page that asks a honest question. They only allow THEIR side. And as to Mz Watts finding nothing for “gun control” out there she obviously didn’t look very hard.

    1. Hey There Bubba: I think what Shannon was referring to when searching for gun control groups was wanting to find a group that was as big as MADD: I wasn’t sure where to begin. “After Sandy Hook I checked online for something similar to Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), but for gun reform, and found nothing.” I know there are many groups who rally for stricter gun laws but I think the main concern was REALLY getting out there and seeing some changes. There just haven’t been any new laws passed in such a long time. With so many children dying in school shooting and negligence with irresponsible gun owners, it’s not worth the wait anymore. I realize that violence and what drives someone to a mass murder is very complex and goes deeper than just gun laws, but we have to start somewhere. Mental health and insurance laws in this country are certainly another place to look, but still, we’ve got to at least TRY and get tough on background laws. Who wants a person with a criminal background and/or mental instability owning a gun?

      1. I mean we’ve all dealt with that “crazy neighbor” right? Or a person who was just totally out of control. Geeze, there are times in my OWN life when I’ve been so worked up and think, “Thank God I didn’t have a gun in my hands” We’ve all been at that place haven’t we?

        1. No Traci, not all of us have been in that place. I think that gun control advocates cannot trust themselves so therefore no one can be trusted. That is just not true.

        2. And you should have that right to choose to not own a gun. The issue is why do the antis want so much to revoke my right to choose to own a gun, and be responsible for my own safety?

        3. No. We haven’t all been at that place. Just because you cannot handle your emotions does not mean that I (or anyone) need to have my firearms regulated, registered or confiscated. I’ve legally carried a concealed firearm for over 20 years and have never had to be concerned that I had a firearm ready at hand. We that carry know the responsibility we carry. Facts show that we carry that responsibility very well.

        4. “Geeze, there are times in my OWN life when I’ve been so worked up and think, “Thank God I didn’t have a gun in my hands””

          In psychology this is called “projection”. You are projecting your own inabilities to rationalize the situation at hand and then assume that because you can’t deal with it, then know one else can. Please do not project your own short comings onto other people. Just because you believe that you are incapable of owning a gun, doesn’t mean that the rest of us are.

  8. I’m curious to see how you guys feel about that billboard. I thought it was fake at first. It’s not, and more are going up.

    1. The billboard is more acceptable than many of the other provocative ads for strip clubs/”Gentleman’s clubs” that I have seen, or perhaps the billboards advocating the consumption of alcohol. I have seen political statements, smear ads, and advocacy groups post their message across the billboards along the stretches of road I have traveled. Why is there such outrage at a company posting a non political statement? This isn’t even a vulgar ad. It is simply a statement of society. Guns are considered by many, if not most, to be a normal part of American society. Where else in the world is the sport so supported or popular?

      As for the nature of the product, I have to say that Shannon Watts is wrong on the subject. The Slidefire stock does not allow you to, “turn semi-automatic weapons into automatic weapons” Fully automatic weapons are very different in their handling and functionality. I know, I own a Slidefire. I can do the same thing that the product does with a normal rifle. It is even specifically classified by the ATF to not produce fully automatic fire. It is simply a product for fun.

      1. Well i completely disagree here. In countries where gun violence is non existent there are many billboard ads for strip clubs. I would much rather have my children see boobs and get happy about that, than see a gun and wonder if there is someone they can use it on.

        1. A child who, upon seeing a photo of a gun, wonders who he can use it on has not been raised correctly. He has not been taught to respect life nor the rights of others. This is the parents’ fault, not gun manufacturers.

        2. Do you really feel that way about your children? If so, I would advise helping your children to moralize against murder. Then again, if that is their train of thought, why haven’t they stabbed someone with a pencil or a kitchen knife to see if they could “Use it on someone”. That is a lot of assuming, even for a mother. I hate to ask, but how young are your children?

          1. Traci @ 10:01
            Okay, then they should not be thinking that at that age. If they were younger then I should say it may be a curiosity thing, but children that age should not immediately think “Who can I try this (Weapon) on”. That’s an issue, and unfortunately, that’s something you need to work out before they drive their children into the ocean or run their car into a crowd of people wondering “I wonder what running someone over with a car feels like”. It’s not a problem with the manufacturer or the product, it is a thought process on a personal level with whatever they are in control of.

  9. An important interview of an extremely brave woman. I agree that we can and should limit 2A rights in the interest of public safety. I would like to hear all the 2A advocates on this page come out against threats of violence against Shannon Watts. That would be a positive step towards a more civil discussion.

    1. I don’t approve of the threats that some gun owners have made, however, Shannon Watts hasn’t come out to speak against the violence and threats that her group has made against gun owners. I find that just as disturbing when she is trying to facilitate a discussion. She bans those that speak out against her. Let’s face it. Shannon doesn’t want a civil discussion no matter what she says in public.

    2. Brave? Has anyone verified anyone has ever made a credible threat to her safety? It seems reasonable to believe she’s trying to play the victim card so people will listen. Other than “victimhood” and “motherhood” she’s a nobody. There’s no reason to give her a platform.

        1. Because the gun lobby frequently attacks those they disagree with. You wish – the media, Shannon and all your left wing buddies would be all over that.

          We have to be the adults in the room, because the left always gets a pass for their extremism.

          1. LOL. I love it when the right wingers claim to be grown ups. That always cracks me up…

          2. And, actually, DJ they do constantly. You know that. What’s the NRA do with all its money? It doesn’t happen to fund political attacks on people that disagree with it, does it?

  10. Maybe an important way to look at this is to figure out what most of us can agree on. As in the Abortion debate, I expect that most people are somewhere in the middle between outlawing all guns and exercising an unfettered right to carry and use them. If we can agree that people have some right to carry guns but that we as a society have a right to regulate that ability maybe that’s a good place to start. Is there anyone who disagrees with this basic premise? If you disagree, on either side, why? I don’t want to simply hear people quoting the Second Amendment. What reason do you have for wanting this right to be unfettered? What do you want to be able to do or not do?

    1. I can agree that the current background check system that every one goes through in a store is not working. However, no one can prevent someone from getting a gun if they really want one. I disagree that there is a “fettered” right to carry. By carrying, you are not committing a crime, nor are you demonstrating a willingness to commit a crime. Assuming that is a dangerous thing. It’s essentially declaring guilt before a trial. Allowing people to protect themselves without paying onerous sums of money, or overly long waiting periods is a very important thing for those who don’t have resources or time for such a thing. For example- The underprivileged family who cannot afford the permit to purchase a gun for their own defense in the worst part of the cities, or the woman who has just been alerted to the fact that she has a new stalker who may cause her harm, but the police cannot do anything about it because no crime has been committed or there is no concrete evidence to warrant an arrest.

      I do, however disagree on the topic of mental health evaluations. The issue with those is that there is no concrete stopping point for what is and is not considered a mental disease/disorder. Much of the United States could be considered depressed. What if that was added? So few depressed people decide that they are going to go kill school children. Most are just normal citizens. You cannot overlook the ability to abuse the system here.

      1. Thanks for the response, Dracon. I guess I could flip your logic and say that you’re assuming carrying is a good thing. But why is it a good thing? Can you make a case that we’re safer if people are allowed to carry? Is there less crime here than in other countries where it is illegal for people to carry firearms? I don’t know the answers to these questions off the top of my head. I’m trying to get beyond the just this is an absolute right debate and get at why. It’s got to be something beyond personal freedom. There has to be some compelling reason for society to let people carry guns, items that you have to admit are dangerous in anyone’s hands.

        1. Well, I’ll address your last point first. Guns are not inherently dangerous at all. They are inanimate objects without a tendency to cause harm one way or the other. Perhaps this is a large issue of the debate. The firearm is only as dangerous as the person holding it. The person is the one with malicious intention, and not the hunk of metal and plastic that they are holding.

          The issue with the logic of disallowing everyone to carry is an assumption that those on the wrong side of the law will follow the law. There are so many people that carry (Most gang members, drug dealers, etc.). They aren’t legally allowed to now. We cannot stop them with a law. The only people fettered by the law are the good citizens who are concerned about it. That will never change. I would, however, advise an increase in the penalties for those n’er-do-wells found in possession of a firearm, or perhaps properly prosecuting them and not playing catch-and-release.

          In the world, we are not the highest violent crime nation. There are many countries. I will not post them without finding a non-biased article one way or the other. However, I know for certain that your chances of being injured in a violent crime do increase.

          If not guns, criminals have many other tools at their disposal. Just look around and think about it. They don’t even have to use a gun to threaten you with a tire iron or kitchen knife. However, if you have a firearm, you can protect yourself. It’s all about mindset and preparedness. So. Why don’t you feel that legal, responsible citizens should be able to have the option to carry and defend themselves?

          1. I don’t exactly agree with that first point. Guns are made to be fired. If they weren’t, they’d be useless. I agree with you to some extent, but I think you are taking your point too far. By your logic we should let people carry around nuclear suitcase bombs or airtight vials of diseases. As long as a human being doesn’t make either of those weapons operational, there should be no problem. But we don’t allow people to do that because there is a propensity to use those items for a violent purpose. The same propensity exists with any weapon including guns. Maybe if we made the penalties more severe there would be less people willing to take the risk of carrying illegal weapons. I wonder about that. If we enacted different laws and proved that we could keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, would you be willing to accept stronger gun laws relating to non-criminals as well?

      2. Excellent points Dracon, but the situation cannot be hopeless. There has to be a way to stop illegal gun purchases. I want to say crack down HARD on first time offenders. No 3 strikes your out nonsense.

        1. Agreed, However, the current laws are not being appropriately enforced. How can you expect the new laws to be enforced when we can’t even have the old ones correctly utilized?

          1. I get your point but I don’t think that’s entirely fair. No law will ever be perfectly enforced. That doesn’t mean we give up trying to make laws. Do you agree that if the penalties for illegal ownership of guns were more severe, illegal ownership would go down?

          2. kurtbaumeister-(I couldn’t reply to you for some reason)

            You would be correct. They are intended to be fired. That is the reason they are here. However, you are misconstruing my argument. They aren’t meant for a murderous purpose when they leave the factory. No one in their right mind manufactures a firearm this way. The bombs and vials are a strawman argument. I won’t answer to that.

            I agree that the penalties should be stronger.

            Provided they finally get enforced.

            On your last question- What? There should be stronger gun laws on non-criminals? You want to find a way to punish those doing no harm and breaking no laws? Why would you do that? Non-criminals, by definition, cause no crime. They are not the problem.

            I would just like a solid answer from the other side of the fence. What measure relating to guns will guarantee that I or any other citizen of America will not be victimized?

          3. To your post at 10:19. Why would we make new laws? Since you can’t enforce what you have, why make a new law that won’t be enforced? Why would we keep trying to make new laws restricting ownership? That’s what we have been doing. Trying the same thing over and over and getting the same result is a sign of insanity. Why don’t we try loosening the laws or anything different.

            Your second question, I cannot remark on the trends of the future. But, hey, if the penalties go up the criminals, who by definition, already ignore the current laws will start to follow them, right?

          4. Dracon, Guns are designed to hurt and/or kill living things, right? You can’t possibly dispute that. If they weren’t, they would be useless. It doesn’t really matter what anyone’s intent is who produces them. They are not the ones making use of them. I don’t understand why you see the nuke/disease argument as a straw man. Please explain. Re: the point about restricting non-criminal ownership of guns…your point seemed to be that non-criminals need to own guns because they are not safe from gun wielding criminals. I was asking you whether if gun laws were tightened, and the number of guns in the hands of criminals reduced, whether you would be willing to accept additional restrictions on everyone owning guns.

          5. Dracon to your post at 10:27 I don’t understand the point that if the law doesn’t work perfectly we shouldn’t have one or try new ones. I just don’t understand that logic. NO LAW works perfectly 100% of the time.

          6. @10:31
            They are a tool with a purpose, yes. No one is disputing that. However, the gun does not have a malicious purpose. Is everyone that carries bad? The nuke/ disease argument is misconstruing the identity of my argument. Guns are a controlled, accurate weapon. A nuke or disease is completely different. That is not controlled. It would not help you in most situations, and if it would, you are either a terrorist or part of the government. It is a whole different level.

            As to my argument, the problem isn’t guns. How about knives, hard objects, or even extremities. The trouble is, if there is a will, there is a way. You still have to protect against all manner of dangers. More and more crimes are becoming group efforts, even without firearms. You won’t stop the criminals, just the civilians.

            I also want to say that you are talking about placing restrictions on people that don’t need them “Non-criminals”. Why would you want to do that?

            No, you’re right. No law works 100% of the time.

            How does 0.055% sound to you?

            Out of 80,000 failed background checks in 2012, only 44 were investigated and prosecuted.

            That terrible rate is catastrophically bad. That is just 1 law. 1 of 20,000 gun laws in America. And it’s the most important one! How can a new law that may be even poorly followed or enforced can stand. We have made new laws for too long. I am not advocating doing nothing, I just say that we need to change our ways for things that aren’t working. Enforce the law. Start teaching morality and improving the standard of living and see what’ll happen.

          7. Thanks for your great comments, Dracon. I am going to give some thought to our very different perceptions of what guns fundamentally are and what purpose(s) they serve. I think that issue is at the heart of the debate. I (and a lot of people) view them as, on balance, negative. You (and a lot of people) view them as, on balance, positive. We need to figure out how to meet somewhere in the middle. And I’m not just talking about you and me. We as a society need to do this.

    2. “I don’t want to simply hear people quoting the Second Amendment.”

      That’s kind of a strange way to go about this conversation, since the 2A is a huge part of it! It’s kind of like saying “Hey, the government is banning all religious practices and also wants to quarter troops in your house. Please argue your side without bringing up the 1st and 3rd Amendments.”

      See how ridiculous that sounds? We already have this thing that RECOGNISES and PROTECTS our inalienable rights, its called the Constitution. Furthermore, if you don’t thinks that the 3rd Amendment is relevant in this day and age, I will point you across the pond to England (where they don’t have these protections):


      1. The point being that simply stating the Second Amendment and saying that you construe it as meaning you should have x rights does not get at the question of why. What is so good about guns? What do you need them for? Hunting? OK. What else? We, as a nation, have the power to restrict rights. I want to hear why 2A advocates believe gun rights to be good. For you to say I think 2A guarantees me X rights and me to read it back to you and say no it doesn’t because we as a society can restrict those rights doesn’t really get us anywhere. I want to look at this in terms of what is good for society. Why are we better off having guns than not having guns? Or better off having lots of guns than only having a few guns?

        1. Why should you have the freedom to post your opinion, Kurt? Why should you be secure in your property? I bet we could solve a lot of crimes if the police could randomly search your house with no warrant. In fact, I bet we could prevent even more crime if we just had a police officer live in your guest room. You can’t be too careful, and since I don’t know what you have in your house I can’t tell what your up to. Yep, the 1st, 3rd, and 4th Amendments all need to go, it’s in the interest of public safety. We’re better off without them.

          1. Actually, that police officer in the guest room thing sounds a lot more like having a gun-packing cop in every school than anything I’m talking about…Clearly Americans have a right to regulate gun ownership. I am trying to get at a consensus on what those regulations should be. So, I’m not interested in hearing either extreme position. I asked a simple question. If you don’t want to respond to it that’s fine. Go talk to someone else…

          2. Kurt, my response was the same reducto ad absurdum reasoning you’ve been using throughout the thread.

            I have no idea why you think you’re entitled to define the terms of the discussion.

          3. Well, I’ll tell ya, DJ, if you’re going to reply to my comments it only makes sense that you should do so rather than talk about something else. That’s the point. If you don’t want to reply to my comments, don’t. No problem.

        2. kurtbaumeister, I get what you are asking. However, the beauty of living in a Constitutional Republic with a Constitution that recognizes and protects inalienable rights, is the fact that I never have to justify or construe having those rights. To anyone. Ever.

          “I want to look at this in terms of what is good for society.”

          If you truly do seek knowledge, then start here and read EVERTHING. Everything posted in these links are based off of actual statistics, not just “feelings”:


          1. If I’m hearing you right, usmc, you’re saying you believe 2A rights are NOT open to any regulation by the state?

          2. “If I’m hearing you right, usmc, you’re saying you believe 2A rights are NOT open to any regulation by the state?”

            kurtbaumeister, you are hearing me loud and clear. How would you feel if states decided to regulate (this version of regulate meaning “to control”, not the 18th century version of regulate meaning “to train”) any other Constitutional rights?

            What if a state abolished the practice of free religion? Is it ok for a state to suddenly do away with probable cause and search warrants? How about if a state decides that you must incriminate yourself during a trial? Might as well do away with that whole cruel and unusual punishment thing because a state decided that the 8A was open to state regulation.

            See where I’m going with this? The discussion for Constitutional rights happened before March 4, 1789. If states want to mess with these rights, then get 3/4 of them to repel the 2nd Amendment. If not, then hands off.

          3. There was no need to re-post this above. Yes, I see where you’re going. And you are completely wrong based on the facts. 2A has repeatedly been regulated. Period.

      2. I’d also like to point out that those rights are inalienable because they aren’t granted by government. We’re endowed with them by our Creator – according to the language of the founders.

        The government can’t take away rights they never granted.

        1. I don’t think there was a Creator involved in the promulgation of any of our laws. And I certainly don’t see any evidence that there was. Until you can provide such evidence–not the fact that some human referred to a Creator that they erroneously believed in, but proof of his actual existence–I’m not going to grant you that first part. Period.

          1. Regardless of religion. If a lion charges you then you should allow it to eat you, correct?

  11. I appreciate the opportunity to join in this conversation since I can not post on the Moms FB page. I was on their page and was very polite and ask a question and was immediately banned and the comment deleted. I have seen many people who have posted a legitimate question or made a polite comment and it was deleted and they were banned. I am one of those vocal few who are for the law to pass in GA. It is not that I don’t care about children.. I do. I have children and a grand child that I adore.
    I have made the point in my testimony at both the House and Senate committee hearings that guns are an inanimate object that can not kill anyone without a person attached to it just like a car is an inanimate object that can not do anything without a person behind it. My daughter was killed by another mom who had just dropped her kids off at school. She was not drunk … she was on her way to work. Pure accident. And I hold no hard feelings toward her
    The truth is that there are bad people out there that are going to do bad things. But just like the mom that had the “accident” that took my daughters life, bad things happen to good people and you cannot target all good people because of the actions of a few bad ones.
    The criminals are going to have guns no matter what. They will steal them or get them illegally. They are “criminals’. and just by their nature they do not care about laws. You can pass or not pass all the laws you want and you are still going to have bad guys out there with guns that are going to do bad things. I would rather have good people with guns who can protect you/ us with guns by taking out the bad guy rather than he be the only one with a gun.
    And as far as calling names and being attacked, one of the members of the group said that I was the lowest of the low.. because I fabricated my own child’s death. That is pretty low. So the mud slinging doesn’t just come from us redneck gun owners.

    1. Oh geeze, I am so sorry to hear about your daughter. I have five boys and cannot imagine that kind of pain. But I think those few bad accidents aren’t just a few. One life is too many, and it’s happening more and more. It’s criminal negligance. Like that guy in Florida who’s precious little daughter shot herself in the head with his gun Three times she had gotten into her father’s gun. Why on the third time, the time it took that baby’s life, is he now reprimanded? Why not the fist time? She would still be alive. Things like that make so little sense. Your attitude towards the woman who hit your daughter is one that I hope to aspire to someday, Grandma 🙂 And then I think about things having to do with my children and how crazy backwards are laws can be. If I owned a gun and someone hurt one of my kids, well, I cannot tell you I would have my head on straight. Then where would my family be? I’d be in jail and my children wouldn’t have a mother. The man who shot two little children at my son’s school was mentally ill and had a record. Why was he still able to purchase a gun? Strictly speaking on background checks, I don’t see why anyone gets riled over wanting tougher background checks. I believe in 2A but I dont believe that should include everyone. Me included. I know the mud slinging comes from all directions and that is just wrong because no one knows your story and your feelings better than you. But gosh, when I saw that little girl’s face on the FLorida news story, I felt so much hate towards her father. 3 times!!! that little one got a hold of his gun. Now there’s a line between stupidity and insanity. I think that man crossed both of them

      1. I am in complete agreement that there should be consequences for reckless use of firearms and leaving them unattended. Like the father. He should be punished. But if a crazy wants to get a gun he will get one no matter what the laws are. As far as background checks they are done. Each time you buy a gun in GA a background check is done unless it is from individual to individual. Even at gun shows. If you have a carry permit then you have already been vetted by the FBI and GBI and fingerprinted. I am a certified instructor and I devote my time to training people to be responsible gun owners. You are not going to stop criminals from owning guns with gun legislation. They will steal or buy them on the streets. If they want one they will get one. They don’t care about laws. The only thing strickter gun laws does I limit the lawabiding citizens. We all want children to have a safe and happy childhood. But I want my gun to be able to make sure my granddaughter has a happy and safe one.

        1. Grandma: Its those individual from individuals and online trading: Like I’ll swap you an iPad for a gun, in VA the DC Naval Yard shooter was under military supervision for depression and had several offenses yet he was still able to buy a gun and kill 12 innocent people. Maybe the background checks themselves need to be REALLY strong. Ive bet we’ve all had tun ins with people who were seemingly not certified crazy or a felon, but who would be considered just an all around nut bag. And those are the ones who are getting guns online or finding loopholes, like the VA Tech shooter.

          1. You realize what you described is a felony, right? You can’t just “swap and ipad for a gun” online…

          2. So then, perhaps the solution to the problem isn’t finding new ways to disarm victims, but instead promoting the right of people to defend themselves? Because the strategy of strictly regulating guns seems to be a complete failure from where I’m sitting.

          3. And so it comes down to the deficiencies of the mental health care system. Which I believe a bunch of folks offered up as a starting point to focus on in the aftermath of Newtown. Which was summarily dismissed by the Antis, and the parroted by the media, in lockstep with the Executive Branch’s agenda. That was the extent of the “conversation.”

          4. “Maybe the background checks themselves need to be REALLY strong”

            Because that doesn’t go against the who “shall not be infringed” thing…..

        2. Grandma, you bring up some really good points, so what can we do to help keep guns away from people who simply just out to kill?

          1. You can’t. Unless you exercise prior restraint. Which is the same as shutting down your blog, because you MIGHT, at some point, decide to encourage sedition, Traci.

            You haven’t yet. And you may never. But you have a lot of power, because people read your blog, and so I think the only responsible thing the government can do is to shut you down, because you MIGHT, at some point, decide to use it in a way that violates the law.

            That is prior restraint, the imposition of penalties on the innocent in the anticipation they might commit a crime. But for some reason you aren’t for it when it comes to the first amendment, only the second. Why is that?

          2. Of course its a felony? Its on FB so someone needs to crack down on things like that

          3. If you really think that people are anonymously committing a felony via Facebook, I can’t help you.

            I’m really thankful that I grew up when critical thinking was still taught in schools.

          4. DJ: MDA just fought for FB to change their policy on people swapping guns. It’s not something I think, it’s something I know. Their doing it right now on FB on a site called GUND FOR SALE. And this is a huge problem, though FB made a worldwide announcement that they recognize this and are taking steps to fix it, but that is what I mean by huge loopholes and how easy it is to swap fro guns without background checks

    2. Grandma,
      sorry to hear about your Daughter
      You have to understand who you are talking to and not take offense to their ignorance. You have to have a pretty thick skin when you attempt to debate with them. Millions of law abiding like
      minded gun owners support your views.
      Keep your powder dry sister!

  12. The MDA Facebook page has a “my way or the highway” mentality. The moderators delete any post or comment that does not follow their agenda (no matter how polite the post is), yet they leave posts / comments that belittle legal gun owners, that call for violence against legal gun owners, and even posts / comments that call for all-out bans of guns, even for legal gun owners (which is so-o-o not pro 2A).

    Some of the comments made by fans of the MDA Facebook page that were not deleted (grammatical errors included).

    “They carry big guns to overcompensate for their anatomical shortcomings.”

    “Guns exist only for killing. We don’t need them in this country.”

    “What is wrong with these stupid people-I think Texas should just be there own country of nuts and leave the rest of Us alone with their nonsense ideas – maybe all that inbreeding is catching up to them.”

    “Why would this pathetic loser need this gun with his family – ANYWHERE!”

    “I wouldn’t go near this festival after learning this, and I’ll SURE to tell everyone I know. I think they’ll lose lots of customers, but then, they might gain all the gun nuts, who hopefully will shoot each other.”

    And, there are many comments that are worse than these. It’s very hard to believe that Ms. Watts and her group truly support 2A, when all they do is try to impose more restrictive laws on legal gun owners, propose nothing that will affect those who obtain guns illegally, and allow hate speech on the group Facebook page while disallowing dissenting views and discussion.

  13. Poodlin, Im going to remove your comment because we ask that you do not call anyone a bitch or make threats. If can repost in a respectful manner please do that

  14. Just had to remove our first comment: Please stick to our comment policy. We will not tolerate anyone calling someone a bitch. We’re all hear to vent, listen and add
    A note from STIR: We appreciate that gun control is an especially inflammatory issue. We ask that you participate in the conversation only if you can do so constructively and respectfully. Imagine you’re at a bar with friends whose views you don’t necessarily agree with, rather than on an anonymous forum full of strangers. Comments containing hate speech or personal attacks will be deleted. Please don’t make us turn this car around!

  15. Rather than arguing about what Shannon Watts and MDA do or don’t stand for, and complaining about being blocked on Facebook (which sucks, I agree), it might be more constructive to talk about the actual issue of gun violence.

    I think we can all agree that we don’t want kids killed by gun violence. What can we do to help prevent more mass shootings? How can we keep semi-automatic rifles out of the hands of mentally disturbed individuals? Mandatory background checks seem like an obvious solution. Why is anyone opposed to that?

    1. I have an Idea, how about focusing on the mentally disturbed individual and not so much an inanimate object ..Mandatory background checks are already in place Have you evertried to go to the store and buy a gun?.. I have bought eleven.. and I had to pass a background check everytime.. Why do I get the feeling it’s the same questions getting the same answers, getting the same questions?.. havnt we already walked around this block?.. lets try another:)

      1. Sorry but background checks are not in place everywhere. Take the DC Naval yard shooting. The man who purchased a gun in Virginia was under military doc for PTSD and depression, he was a repeat offender for military violations and had no problems at all purchasing his weapon

          1. Are you saying she can’t have an opinion on gun laws unless she has purchased a gun?

          2. Yes, I used to hunt with my father. At the time I already had a government security clearance so it was pretty easy for me.

        1. “Sorry but background checks are not in place everywhere. Take the DC Naval yard shooting”

          Ok then, how about James Holmes? He passed the REQUIRED BACKGROUND CHECK when he bought his firearms from an FFL and then AFTERWARDS he killed 12 people in a movie theater. I guess those background checks really stopped him! BTW, I’ll cite my source below:

          “He purchased his four guns at area gun shops”
          ““Background checks, as required by federal law, were properly conducted, and he was approved,” Larry Whiteley, a Bass Pro Shops spokesman, said in a statement.”

          Read more: Colorado Theater Shooter Carried 4 Guns, All Obtained Legally | TIME.com http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/21/colorado-theater-shooter-carried-4-guns-all-obtained-legally/#ixzz2wHqpXSc3

          1. Exactly USMC, so this brings my point around that these checks need to be tighter.

          2. “Exactly USMC, so this brings my point around that these checks need to be tighter.”

            Nothings ever good enough, is it? It’s always been take, take, take with the anti-2A crowd. Let’s take a look back in history shall we? 1934 National Firearms Act, 1964 Gun Control Act, 1986 Hughes Amendment, 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. But now we need more gun control! If you want to negotiate, lay something FOR US on the table. I shouldn’t even say negotiate, after all, we do have this thing called the Constitution on our side.

            Also, so then what about Adam Lanza? I could have sworn that he killed his own mother, broke into her locked gun safe and then massacred 26 people. I guess stricter background checks would have prevented that as well.

        2. Sorry Traci, but he passed a background check. The Navy never flagged him as dangerous in the system.Try again.

          1. Foggy That’s my point! Why wasn’t he flagged? That’s exactly what Im saying

          2. What Im saying is form 7743 is the federal background check paperwork… anyone who wants to purchase a gun must fill it out…opinions don’t trump experience.

            Now if you are unhappy with the process, then that is another matter, but everybody gets the same federal form 7743 background check paperwork.

          3. He wasn’t flagged because the Navy fell down on the job. It’s disingenuous, however, to say that he didn’t pass a background check. He did.

    2. You are trying to frame the question on biased terms from the outset. What is your hang-up with “semi-automatic rifles,” verses all other types of firearms? Why do you keep saying “gun violence?” Aren’t you against all violence, or is gun-free violence OK with you? Violence is a human trait; an inanimate object does not propagate violence. You don’t proclaim “pool violence” when someone drowns, do you? Or “fist violence” when some punk kills a bystander in a game of knockout? If you want to talk about this stuff, please don’t insult us using these ridiculous, disingenuous, biased terms designed to elicit emotional responses and regurgitation from low-information sheeple.

    3. You talk about “kids” like we are talking about grade school students. Preteens have a MUCH greater chance of drowning than being killed with a firearm. You can look that up on the CDC website. We’ll wait.

      Who you are really talking about when you say “kids” are not “kids” – it’s gangbangers. When the “kids” in question are between the ages of 16 and 19 years of age, and they are killed during the commission of a felony, it’s hard to be really sympathetic. Yes, there is a problem with gang activity in this country, but Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country and they still kill each other at record rates, so Shanon’s “solution” does not work, even in that context.

      If you want to stop the violence, you can start with a practical solution – fix inner city schools so these kids can get a job, And you start that by reinstating discipline in public schools so the thugs don’t keep the good kids from learning.

      1. Excellent point DJ. The US government views people aged 18 and over as adults (there are exceptions in some circumstances where this is lower). There, these ADULTS aged 18 and 19 should never be included into the “kids” or “children” statistics. Shannon and her crew only add them to help pad the “numbers” in there favor. You also have to consider that in mutual gang member killing fellow gang member violence, there are no victims. If a 19 year old gang banger shoots a rival 19 year old gang banger, I see absolutely no need to classify this into the “victim children” category, and yet that’s exactly what Shannon does with her “child” statistics.

    4. Laurel, “gun violence” is a very small part of violence in general. MDA and other gun control special interest groups use these words with effect. These groups have begun a marketing campaign to associate guns with violence when in fact there is little correlation. We should be talking about violence in general. In my state, which by the way has some of the most restrictive gun control laws including oppressively restrictive state run background checks, in 2011 there were 28,797 violent crimes of which 398 were murder and non negligent manslaughter, 1194 forcible rapes, and 16,862 aggravated assaults. Yes, that’s 1194 FORCIBLE RAPES or 4% of all violent crimes. Even if all 398 murders were committed with firearms, than that’s still only 1% of violent crimes. That’s a trend pretty much nationally but given my state is a place that models what MDA is all about, than it should mean a state, say like VA where gun control laws are more reasonable AND the Naval Yard shooter purchased his firearm would obviously be way higher in murders and violent crimes. VA had 15,923 violent crimes with 303 murders, 1536 rapes, and 8654 aggravated assaults. Oh, and to top it all off, VA is a more populated state than my state so the per capita numbers are much better there.

      So you can see when it comes to having a discussion about gun control and agendas by groups like MDA it’s very hard for anyone who supports civil rights and the 2nd Amendment to have an honest discussion when the facts just don’t line up with the rhetoric.

      I also agree with the notion that if Ms. Watts really wants a discussion, she should open up her FB page to dissenting views. Otherwise any claim on wanting to find solutions is disingenuous.

      1. I can’t imagine what makes you think that Facebook is a good place for a discussion. MDA is using it to coordinate their efforts, not as an open forum.

        THIS is an open forum, but instead of talking about solutions or even admitting there might be a problem, people are venting about Watts, MDA, the language they use, and how they choose to run their Facebook page.

        Yes, we published an interview with Shannon Watts knowing that her high profile would attract a broad audience. But we hoped it would be a jumping off point for a real conversation about the issue, not the people.

        What I would love to see is some pro-gun commenters talk about what they are willing to concede, rather than simply citing statistics. A few people here seem willing to find common ground, but the majority have come via a link on The Truth About Guns website. They’re not showing any more flexibility than the NRA.

        So I’ll start. I am not anti-gun or anti 2A. My husband has a gun. I’d love to own my own gun and know how to properly use it and care for it. I’d love to spend time at a shooting range; that seems like it would be fun. I have friends and family who own guns, either for hunting or as a hobby. They keep their guns away from kids, and are representative of what I consider responsible gun owners.

        What I object to are loopholes in background checks and weak enforcement of existing gun laws. If most gun owners follow the rules regarding background checks, registration, etc., why shouldn’t everyone do the same? Why should private sales (or “trades” like Facebook was allowing) not be subject to the same laws as other gun sales? Why should gun shows be excluded from those laws?

        And just to piss everyone off, I don’t understand why any U.S. citizen needs a semi-automatic or automatic weapon. Their sole intent is to shoot as many rounds as quickly as possible. They aren’t used for hunting and I can’t imagine they’re necessary for self defense.

        What are you will to concede? Are you even willing to admit our system is imperfect?

        1. I agree. The problem is when folks aren’t willing to look at a middle ground. In a shooting having to reload has saved lives. Some little ones ran out of a classroom when the shooter was reloading. Adam Lanza’s mother was completely irresponsible teaching her son how to shoot with the problems he had. She was a teacher and should have known better. If he did not shoot her I think she should have been put in jail. We have to hold people accountable for their bad decisions. It is not a 2nd amend. argument. Strong background checks that people pay for are needed as is strong accountability laws. I did not like having my tobacco taxed but I pay it. I too see a major problem with automatic weapons.

  16. Is there any way we can have Ms. Watts reply to some of the posts? Especially the ones about people being banned from the Facebook page and comments being deleted. Since I, too, have been deleted / banned from her Facebook page, I cannot engage Ms. Watts in a discussion there….

    1. We’re trying to have a conversation about gun violence, not Facebook behavior. Shannon Watts is not responsible for every comment made by members of MDA, nor should she be. Can we PLEASE stick to the issue rather than personal grievances?

      1. But your article is promoting Ms. Watts, MDA, and their unreasonable demands. She should come here and explain why she bans anyone who disagrees with MDA, yet allows all the hate speech against law abiding gun owners to stay on the page.

        Gun violence will not decline just because it is harder for law abiding citizens to buy a gun. Criminals and people who intend to harm others don’t care about gun control laws. They are still going to get their guns when they want them. They also don’t care about gun free zones. In fact, I believe they look for gun free zones, easier targets there, and they don’t have to worry about anyone shooting back. We already have plenty of laws, how about actually ENFORCING the laws already in the books?

        1. Carol, I agree with the enforcement and MDA spends most of their time doing just that, as in Missouri.

          1. I will have to respectfully disagree. MDA may claim to do that, but their real agenda is total gun control if not outright bans. This may or may not be as Ms. Watts originally intended, but the extremist views of many of her followers have steered the group in that direction.

      2. “Is there any way we can have Ms. Watts reply to some of the posts?….. I cannot engage Ms. Watts in a discussion there”

        I don’t think “personal grievances” about being banned from that facebook page is the concern this person has. I believe that Carol would like to have a rational dialog with Shannon about this issue on an open forum where her questions can be answered. After all, dialog is a 2 way conversation, whereas the above article is a 1 sided monolog without the interviewee answering comments from the audience (comments section). For how much “discussion” Shannon wants on the topic of gun control, there really isn’t too much “discussion” occurring when she stands on a soapbox.

      1. STIR is ALL about opposing views. It seems that’s the majority of whom we are speaking to. That’s what the forum here is all about. If everyone agreed there wouldn’t be a conversation

  17. As to Mrs. Watts comparing buying a firearm to that of buying a car, that she essentially wants it as stringent as buying a car.
    As a gun owner, I completely agree. Since there are NO restrictions to buying or driving a car on ones own property. No license, no background check, no registration, nothing.
    Hooray! We agree on something!

    1. Bill, Are you saying that you are OK with 2A being regulated (as heavily as society deems necessary) when a person is off their property? I think we need some regulation around what rights are even on your own property BUT I think regulation of what can be carried and used in public is a much more serious issue. So, we might be able to find some common ground here…

      1. What bill is saying is that there are no laws pertaining to buying a car.. Buying guns is heavily regulated… thus..if it were as *hard* to buy a gun as it is a car.. you would make us gun owners happy…. Have any of you anti gunners ever tried to purchase a gun?..because I get the feeling there is a whole lot of basic gun stuff, that you folks just don’t know… the things you say just dont jive with the reality inside gun ownership.

        1. Yeah, that’s not what he said. He was talking about buying and driving cars which would equate with buying and USING guns. At any rate, guns are made to injure and kill. Cars are made to transport people from place to place. They are fundamentally different inventions.

          1. uhh… I dont think so.. Go back and read his statement agian.. from a gun owners angle…and Bill is a gun owner..he is equating restrictions not USING.

          2. If cars are made to transport people, and guns are made to injure and kill, why are more people injured and killed by cars than by guns? Sounds like guns are safer than cars. Sounds like a resounding failure of the automotive industry. Perhaps more vehicle regulation is in order.

            On the other hand, how many lives have been saved by cars? And how many by guns? Might surprise you.

        2. Im not sure how many anti-gunners are on here. Im not anti-gun, maybe you should go back and read what we are saying.

          1. He talks about “buying or driving a car on your own property.” That is use and that was my initial point. But if you’re not him I don’t know how you can speak for him anyway…

          2. And I just read it back to you refuting your interpretation so there you go. Maybe if you’d have read my comments too you’d have understood what I was getting at.

      2. Absolutely never. No.

        I curse president Reagan for sighing the 1986 Hughes amendment.
        I should be able to buy a 1,000 dollar machine gun. Not a 20,000 dollar machine gun.
        And there should be zero, no paperwork other than what I want to keep for insurance purposes.

        1. That’s fine. I don’t think there’s much room for agreement between people who take either extreme position (a. no restrictions on gun rights or b. no guns). You answered my question. No sense either of us wasting our time. Like the fight on Abortion, I think the middle is where the solution will be (and already is) not at either margin. Thanks for your opinion.

          1. Yes, I agree, the current situation lies in the middle already. So why should we follow Shannon watts to the other extreme?

            What you don’t understand is there is already many products that get around the machine gun issue to make a semi-automatic firearm fully automatic. The fact of the matter is… the gun isn’t the issue or cause of the violence… and they will always be available to criminals anyways… so why is the law abiding continually punished? You say “extreme position.” Criminals lie in the extreme position but the regular Joe lies in the middle. How is that effective in any case? Gun control doesn’t work. Gun regulations don’t work. you want to curb “gun violence?” Focus on the violence not on the gun.

        2. I agree. Any criminal can get out his file and make most semi-automatics fully automatic and it only costs him 30 minutes – not 20,000 dollars. The 1986 legislation only hurts lawful gun owners.

          1. I have tho hours, four guns and one file. Please show me the youtube video explaining this!!

    2. Shannon never made a comparison to buying a car in regards to the gun LAWS. Here is the direct quote from the article. We really need to stay with the facts that are presented in the article if we’re going to quote:

      The people we are targeting are parents who leave their guns loaded on top of the refrigerator or who carry them openly everywhere they go, even in places where children are present. That is not okay. So we are definitely trying to change the culture of gun violence, which will take a long time.

      In the ‘80s, when people would drive drunk and kill other people, it was all about “what a horrible mistake.” A drunk driver could get off without any charges. Then people began to understand the obvious: Let’s hold drunk drivers accountable, make them liable for the people they killed because of their negligence. Driving drunk became unacceptable because laws were changed and there were repercussions involved.

      1. “…or who carry them openly everywhere they go, even in places where children are present.”

        This ignores the fact that in the hands of responsible, peaceful people, guns save lives. Every day. They save children, too. But people can’t save children if they can’t have effective tools of self-defense where the children are.

      2. Shannon most certainly made a comparison to buying a car in regards to gun laws – within this article:

        TF: Let’s talk about the Second Amendment. Many people believe Moms Demand Action opposes Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.

        SW: Oh, I know, yet that is so far from the truth of what we are trying to accomplish. We think that regulations for buying and operating a gun should be at least as stringent as buying and driving a car….

        You say:

        The people we are targeting are parents who leave their guns loaded on top of the refrigerator or who carry them openly everywhere they go, even in places where children are present. That is not okay. So we are definitely trying to change the culture of gun violence, which will take a long time.

        First of all that is not “gun violence” that sounds like a “gun accident.” As there is no violence in that part of the equation. Secondly, “that is not okay” is her opinion. Who is she to tell us where we can and cannot store our possessions within our home? That is our private business – not anyone elses. The availability of firearms to our children is our private business. Some may not want their firearms available until a certain age. Others teach their children very young about the hazards of firearms and how to use them. This is an issue of personal responsibility within private homes.

    3. If only it was as easy as putting some money on the gun counter and walking out with a new AR-15 or 870 remington, or a springfield XD… sigh!…….I love my gun hobby.

  18. mod:
    please don’t pretend to have axconvrsation here after denying the banning and deleting of comments at MDAs Fakebook page. MDA is a pr effort and you are part of it. To oretend otherwise is disingenous at best.

  19. Regarding “background checks”, or “Universal Background checks (UBCs)”.

    We have those in California. Anytime anyone wants to buy a firearm, they must pay for the firearm, the transfer fee, tax, DROS (dealer record of sale) fee (mandated at $25) and are required to buy a lock even if we own 50 just like it at home. We must then wait ten days before taking possession.

    The fees can add up to $100 and beyond on the purchase. This is not insignificant, especially when an individual is already spending $500 and up for just the firearm.

    It is also completely unacceptable as the DROS system has been operating on a huge surplus of money for years. To “solve” this, California passed a law that allows the money to be “requisitioned” for alternate things instead of lowering the cost to gun owners.

    However, even if the system was free (i’ll believe that when i see it lol) it has a glaring defect. Unless selling to an undercover officer without said background check, there is no possible way to tell if the buyer went through a check without a registry to tell who owns what guns. And this only works if a LEO runs the serial number and determines that the individual is not the owner.

    At the national level, a gun registry is against the law per the Firearms Owners Protection Act. So any attempt would violate that law (though the ATF has tried to skirt this with form 4473… another discussion entirely).

    Right now, when a firearm is purchased in states without registries, a background check is performed through NICS if buying through a dealer but the firearm is not tied to the individual a la a registry.

    In conclusion, while it sounds good on soundbites, UBCs would not do anything other than financially burden legal gun owners.

    1. “We have those in California. Anytime anyone wants to buy a firearm, they must pay for the firearm, the transfer fee, tax, DROS (dealer record of sale) fee (mandated at $25) and are required to buy a lock even if we own 50 just like it at home. We must then wait ten days before taking possession.”

      Definitely agree with you, William. Poll taxes are illegal for voting, but why are we taxed to express our 2A rights? I guess some people just recognize the parts of the Constitution that they agree with and not the other parts. As for the 10 day waiting period, I will quote an amazing civil rights activist:

      “A right delayed is a right denied” – Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

      Of course his quote was in reference to civil rights, but it applies to Constitutional rights as well. Also, Dr. King applied for a concealed carry permit in Alabama, but was denied.

  20. “Guns cause crime and if we take guns away from people who haven’t broken the law yet, then criminals will also not have guns somehow. Gun-free zones also protect people from criminals, who we’re sure won’t enter “gun-free zones” for some reason. Unless they do…. Which proves the problem is actually law abiding gun owners somehow or another. And that’s why we need more and more gun laws until all the people who obey gun laws can’t have guns any more, which will save us from criminals and crazy people who don’t care about the law. ” – John Hawkins

  21. Traci, you ask a number of times (to paraphrase), “what can be done to keep guns out of the hands of those who would kill?” The answer is: nothing. Criminals, bad seeds and nutjobs always have and always will get access to guns, regardless of any law out there prohibiting it or making it harder for a law abiding citizen to get them. Have people learned nothing from prohibition, the war on drugs, et al? All one has to do is look across our southern border to find a utopian “gun free” country. It’s virtually impossible for an ordinary citizen of Mexico to legally obtain a firearm. Yet it is one of the most violent societies on the planet. Real military firearms are in the hands of criminals. Not just semi-auto rifles but fully automatic machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, hand grenades, and on and on. And they’re using them on ordinary citizens as well as their rivals. I’ll bet you are completely unaware that the ordinary citizens in some Mexican villages have taken up arms (quite illegally) for self protection against the cartels since the police and military won’t. Regardless of their public face, what MDA, MAIG, and their ilk really want is total disarmament of ordinary citizens in this country. If they could snap their fingers and magically remove every firearm from the hands of anyone not “worthy” of the “privilege” they would. The effect of such a wonderful thing would be a black market in firearms the likes of which you find in the border areas of Pakistan, and, yes, our neighbor to the south. Police and military firearms will be stolen for trade in this market. The proliferation of organized crime in this country was given a massive boost with the implementation of alcohol prohibition. There is currently a massive worldwide trade in every imaginable drug. Yet history is ignored and everything will be better if we just pass more new laws. I say this as one who spent 32 years in street level law enforcement.

    1. Lewis, thank you for all these comments. I know what you are saying. But let’s for a minute look at a country like Germany. Not NAZI Germany I mean NOW Germany. I used to live there. The crime is so low people can leave their babies out in strollers in the entrance of the pubs (which is totally the norm) I dont want a Utopia, but when I was there I always felt safe, so I guess Im thinking I’d like that same feeling for my children without having to move

      1. “The crime is so low people can leave their babies out in strollers in the entrance of the pubs”

        Besides being a completely irresponsible thing to do (unattended babies on the street), this does not constitute any actual statistic to back up any argument ever.

        Unless that argument is “75% of bar patrons in Germany (not NAZI Germany I mean NOW Germany) leave their babies in an unattended stroller outside said watering-hole while they’re inside getting hammered, therefore, these are responsible parents because they chose not to drink and drive.”

        Yes, lets look to Germany (not NAZI Germany I mean NOW Germany) for guidance on gun control because of what you just stated above this response. Well done.

        1. I only wanted to use that as an example. Maybe it wasn’t the right example, of how a country with almost non existent gun violence can flourish. The pub/stroller thing is just part of their custom. But so is being able to ride subways and buses without the threat of violence. And it’s not that guns are illegal there because they are not. Yet it’s the culture of non violence is what I was trying to get at.

          1. “how a country with almost non existent gun violence can flourish”

            Gun legislation in Germany is considered among the strictest gun control in the world. Same with China:


            And England with more than double the violent crime rate of America:


            Well, don’t let the lack of guns stop the Japanese from harming themselves:


            BTW, the gun crime rate is plummeting in the US and we somehow seem to be flourishing just fine:


      2. Maybe that is the wrong country to compare. They are years ahead of us in almost everything. I was only trying to say how great a place feels when you know the crime is so low

        1. “They are years ahead of us in almost everything”

          Yep, especially when 1 in 6 German kids are now on welfare, 21.6 percent of all youngsters were only able to do mathematics at or below fourth-grade-level, a growing number of Germans are functionally illiterate, some German states have banned Muslim teachers from wearing headscarves in class, the number of officially recognized violent hate crimes has risen, women are noticeably absent in the top tiers of German businesses and “people can leave their babies out in strollers in the entrance of the pubs (which is totally the norm).”


          Doesn’t really sound like “light years ahead of us” to me. Granted, we have our fair share of problems, however, we are also the largest economy in the world, are the 3rd most populous country in the world, are a mixing pot of tens of thousands of different cultures, and the most free people in the world. That whole “light years” thing is pretty exaggerated. Sorry about the last point in the above paragraph, couldn’t resist.

        2. If you want to know what a place with virtually no crime feels like, go to almost any of hundreds or even thousands of small towns (I’m talking really small, like 2,000 or less) in the rural western U.S. These are also places where guns probably outnumber people — proof that it’s the connectedness and culture of the people that matter, not the presence of guns.

          These are the people that MDA’s proposed actions will affect, not criminals and psychopaths.

        3. Traci, when the media (US media) only broadcasts gruesome murders and nothing else – then yea. people are not going to feel safe.

          Also, there are other issues – cultural – moral – educational issues. The key item is “violence” – not “gun” violence… or “knife” violence… or “vehicle” violence. When a country has a very low level of violent crime there is a reason behind it. In no instances is the culture of said country violent due to the presence of firearms or lack thereof.

        4. Germany in 2010 had 0.20 homicides/100000. Switzerland had 0.52 homicides per 100000 (2010) – also very low. The US in 2011 had 3.6 per 100,000. All of them in my opinion are very low. However I don’t think that the guns are the issue considering in Switzerland every family is issued a fully automatic machine gun.


          source for switzerland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

        5. I feel quite safe in the US. I live in a rather “bad” neighborhood in the city of Phoenix. However it’s no more a shooting gallery than Germany is a hotbed of evil villains. People make it out like America is all guns and death, but really, it’s nothing like that. You have population centers that have a great deal of crime that makes it seem like it’s all violent. Then you have small towns where people leave the keys for their cars in the ignition, and the door unlocked.

          You compared a completely different CULTURE to ours. It’s no more a fair comparison than comparing the taste of chicken to the taste of beef. They are not the same. Find a country with the economic disparity, cultural diversity, and heavy drug trade equal to ours. If you can’t find one, you understand WHY we cannot be compared to those other countries.

  22. Q: “Is there a way to convince people you are not trying to undermine the rights of responsible gun owners?”

    A: Yes. Stop trying to undermine the rights of responsible gun owners.

    And I have to ask. Shannon, you’re the founder of Moms Demand Action…would any of the actions you demand have prevented a single death in Aurora or Sandy Hook?

    What kind of mother cherishes the “sanctity” of helplessness so much that she would deny me, as a father and teacher, the ability to defend my own children (and maybe also hers) in utmost need?

  23. The First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution for your perusal…

    The First Amendment

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    The Second Amendment

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Note that the Supreme Court has established that the rights in the First Amendment can be REGULATED. Example 1, you may not yell “Fire,” in a crowded theater. Example 2, you may not claim your religion directs or allows you to murder someone else thus relieving you of responsibility for the crime of murder.

    Note that the Supreme Court has also established that the rights in the Second Amendment can be REGULATED. Example, you may not keep and bear any form of arms that you wish; only those legally prescribed as eligible for use by private citizens. You may not own nuclear weapons, chemical munitions, etc., etc., etc.

    This is the reason I am steering people away from simply spitting the Second Amendment out as though it’s some magic argument winner. 2A DOES NOT afford a right that cannot be REGULATED. If you say it does, the Supreme Court has clearly ruled against you time and again. There is NO RIGHT in the Constitution that is NOT OPEN TO REGULATION under due Constitutional process.

    1. Note that the Supreme Court has established that the rights in the First Amendment can be REGULATED. Example 1, you may not yell “Fire,” in a crowded theater. Example 2, you may not claim your religion directs or allows you to murder someone else thus relieving you of responsibility for the crime of murder.

      This is not regulation, these are examples of consequences.

    2. I agree. The supreme court has ruled against us time and time again. By your example, yelling fire in the theater would cause a stampede and could kill or injure people. If you have a religion that directs or allows you to murder someone that could injure or kill people. I also agree that firearms should not be used to injure and kill people. In all circumstances, the person injuring and/or killing is criminally liable. Your provided comparison between regulation on the first amendment is not equivalent to the regulations on the second. In your example – saying that some specific people should not be able to have certain types of firearms regarding the second amendment is like saying people aren’t allowed to say certain words in the first amendment. Maybe they should have their lips sealed. Maybe the press should not be allowed to print certain words, phrases, or topics. Not an equivalent comparison.

      Regarding the nuclear weapons issue. Rest assured, if someone had the money, the equipment, and the desire to build and use a nuclear weapon they would do so regardless of the law. Killing hundreds of thousands of people is in fact against the law. If they are willing to perform that act, what would they care about a law that says the building of nuclear weapons is not allowed.

    3. Actually, yes you can indeed yell “fire” in a crowded theater. See Brandenburg v Ohio, 1969.

      Here’s a regulation on the Second Amendment: Don’t shoot anybody.


      1. I do not invite anyone to do this! But should you, without cause, yell, “Fire,” in a crowded theater and that utterance result in someone’s death, rest assured that you will face criminal charges up to murder. It’s so foolish to take the position that our rights cannot be regulated. And it really kills the debate. You are indeed taking an extreme, logically indefensible position. And I don’t know why the Pro-2A crowd insists on doing it. Or, rather, I don’t know why they insist on discussing it. Think what you want, but saying that 2A rights can’t be regulated is not aligned with the facts, and it’s a waste of everyone’s time. 2A rights have been regulated, are regulated, and will continue to be regulated.

        1. You can yell fire in a crowded theatre if the theatre is on fire.
          You can shoot someone who is trying to kill you or someone else.
          I invite anyone to do either of these things under those circumstances because if they don’t they will probably die.

          I would have a lot more sympathy for your “right” to regulate my second amendment freedom if so many on your side weren’t so quick to equate common, semi-automatic rifles with nuclear bombs and biological weapons. It is very similar in extremity to insisting that a background check will inevitably lead to an Auschwitz style concentration camp.

          I realize that SCOTUS has ruled on this issue, but I don’t think you realize which side of the wall YOU came down on; the proposed assault weapons ban didn’t just die on it’s own, consideration to the Heller decision was made and swayed the votes of several senators.

          1. Do we have ANY gun laws in this country? Yes, we do. These gun laws are absolute, incontrovertible proof that the Second Amendment can and repeatedly is regulated. Accept the facts and move forward.

          2. I guess you misunderstand me. Yes, we have gun laws in this country. No, you will probably not be able to federally ban my “assault rifle” at any point in your life. Google “heller common use” and move on.

          3. I didn’t say anything about a ban. See, if you on the right accept that 2A rights can be regulated and we on the left accept that without a Constitutional amendment there is some right to keep and bear arms under 2A then we can have a discussion. If we get stuck on the opposite poles we can’t. This is my main point.

          4. Man, are you late to the party. Yes, our second amendment freedoms can be regulated. See any one of a number of rants on this very thread regarding the various acts that have done no good at all and have made American firearm owners lives a living hell. These “conversations” that your side wants to have always, in our experience, end up with us giving up something and getting nothing in return. It is many years past time for us to actually push back and insist on RESTORING gun rights, the way we have with concealed carry laws. We are on “opposite poles” for a reason; we believe in different things.

          5. Right on. There you go then. Nothing to talk about. Like most conservatives you’ve got a my way is the only way approach. And if you’d really been reading the threads, you’d realize I’ve been in on this discussion way longer than you…Have a good night. We’re done.

      1. USMC, Please see my comment above. If you don’t accept the fact that our rights (including 2A) can be regulated, what is there to discuss?

        1. I had already answered this question from you further down in the thread, but I’ll post it here so you can see it:

          “If I’m hearing you right, usmc, you’re saying you believe 2A rights are NOT open to any regulation by the state?” -kurtbaumeister

          kurtbaumeister, you are hearing me loud and clear. How would you feel if states decided to regulate (this version of regulate meaning “to control”, not the 18th century version of regulate meaning “to train”) any other Constitutional rights?

          What if a state abolished the practice of free religion? Is it ok for a state to suddenly do away with probable cause and search warrants? How about if a state decides that you must incriminate yourself during a trial? Might as well do away with that whole cruel and unusual punishment thing because a state decided that the 8A was open to state regulation.

          See where I’m going with this? The discussion for Constitutional rights happened before March 4, 1789. If states want to mess with these rights, then get 3/4 of them to repel the 2nd Amendment. If not, then hands off.

  24. Shannon says:
    “We think that regulations for buying and operating a gun should be at least as stringent as buying and driving a car.”

    This is simply not true. This is not what Shannon and MDA wants. In current law, it is completely legal to sell a vehicle to another person with no registration, no insurance, and no traceability whatsoever, no license, no fees, and no background checks as long as it stays on their private property. According to those rules, I should be able to buy tanks and machine guns as long as I keep them on my private property. Vehicle laws end at your driveway. Shannon wants absolute traceability of all firearms through registration and background checks to boot. There is quite simply no other product in existence that anyone can own that requires such. Much less a product protected by the 2nd amendment. The wording of the 2nd amendment is quite clear.

    The above I actually posted on the MDA (moms demand action) facebook page and it was subsequently deleted and I was banned. MDA is not interested in a discussion. It is not us that is intolerant. It is them. After all, it is not us pushing guns in their hands but it is them that seek to take guns out of our hands. We have always been tolerant of them – but they are intolerant of us. Intolerant of our culture, intolerant of our teachings to our children, and intolerant of our private business within the home.

    Shannon watts, MDA, and other organizations keep saying… us gun owners need to “compromise.” However we are the only side that compromises. We keep giving them more and more:

    National Firearms Act (1934)
    Gun control act of 1968
    Undetectable firearms act 1988
    Assault weapons import ban – 1989 (HW Bush)
    Gun free school zone act of 1990
    Brady handgun violence prevention act of 1993
    Federal assault weapons ban (1994 – 2004)

    Meanwhile, the definition of “Assault weapon” keeps changing to the anti-gun community. First it was a fully automatic machine gun, then it became a select fire auto/semi auto firearm, now days it is any semi-automatic that looks scary and can take a high capacity magazine. When I say high capacity magazine, the definition of high capacity keeps changing to them also. First high capacity was 100 round drub/belt fed systems. Then it became the standard capacity magazines (the 30 round magazines) and by god… now it is any magazine over 15 rounds in Colorado – over 10 rounds in some states – and over 7 in New York.

    So yeah. I’m done compromising. Previously, I have always abided by the law no matter how ridiculous it became and ridiculous it has become. In the UK, silencers are very popular and not regulated like here. Here they are scary assassin/spy instruments of death. In the UK, they are a means to make your rifle quiet so you don’t disturb your neighbors. In the US you can’t have a shotgun under 18in, or a rifle under 16in in length. Which is ridiculous and makes no sense. Shorter rifles (14in) are actually more accurate than 16in rifles. Canada doesn’t have these rules. In fact no country that I know of have these rules. Making them longer or shorter does nothing to make them less “deadly.” George bush senior’s ridiculous assault weapons import ban makes it illegal to modify any accessories on imported semi-auto sporter rifles. Therefore, american gun owners have to replace a bunch of parts on imported sks/ak pattern rifles in order to change the stocks or grips – and does that save any lives? Please. So I am done compromising. If their solution is to make my firearms illegal (which is what they have done in Connecticut and NYC) then i’m just going to go ahead and embrace criminal-hood. They have sent out letters to Connecticut and NYC owners already informing them they must sell or otherwise get rid of their firearms. This is doing what exactly? Are criminals turning in their firearms? No. Only the average Joe that never hurt anyone. They are no longer targeting the criminal but any american citizen – all under the pretenses of “safety.”

    Some of us actually don’t want to be safe. We want to be free. This country was founded on the principals of freedom – not safety. If everyone was safe we would have no rights at all. So I, personally, feel freedom is a better means than safety. Also, personal responsibility is the solution – not additional legislation. People that have firearms need to teach and train their children about the hazards of firearms as well as their uses. It is a moral, ethical, private matter within the household. Trying to legislate rules for training, keeping your firearms in a home safe, etc is the business of that household – not the state.

    Police can’t be everywhere and they aren’t going to be able to keep you safe. Criminals will always have weapons (including firearms) regardless of the law. It is the personal responsibility of each and every household to keep their persons safe – not anyone else. No one else can do it for them anyways. If Shannon Watts and MDA want to be unprepared when an intruder breaks into their home, that is their choice. They can call the cops and wait the 10 minutes for them to arrive. 10 minutes is a very long time with an armed intruder. A lot can happen in 10 minutes. I would prefer however, that MDA and shannon watts not make my household decisions for me through lobbied legislation.

  25. I strongly support Shannon and Moms Demand. Because of this I have been bullied and threatened by some rabid pro-gun groups. I had, prior to Newtown and on a small scale, been active in advocating for consistent common sense gun laws. I met some opposition but not the pure hate that I have witnessed since Sandy Hook. I greatly admire Shannon and the strength of character she has displayed. I will continue to support her and Moms.

    1. ?? Us on the pro-gun side have received pure hate as well. In fact, historically people who didn’t have guns or didn’t like guns were welcome to continue to not have guns and not like guns. However, it is the anti-gun pro-gun control advocates that are in fact intolerant. We are not trying to take anything from the anti-gun crowd. However the anti-gun crowd are trying to take from us. Who is the intolerant one? You are bullied? We are the ones that feel bullied.

    2. There have been numerous national drives to bully us out of our property and freedom. We don’t start nationwide campaigns to strip you of your constitutional rights and throw you in jail. Pure hate, you say? Is that like the pure hate of blaming law abiding gun owners for the murder of children thousands of miles away? The anti-gun side sees this as a game, the pro-gun side DOESN’T WANT TO DIE IN PRISON! It was over before it started.

  26. “Feeling safe” is not a Constitutional right. That being said, if we want our children to be safe, why not take the time to teach them about firearms? Take away the mystery and allow the children to learn and satisfy their curiosity about firearms in an environment that is conducive to safe practices of handling firearms. I believe the reason so many children do end up accidentally shooting one another or themselves is due to the fact that most safety classes are for adults only. Sure you might have to be 18 to buy a firearm, but as long as you’re with an adult it is perfectly acceptable to take a child shooting. Teach them how firearms work, how to know if they are loaded or not, how to unload them if they find one that is. These are the common sense things that can be done in this country. Education in safe practices should be our number one priority.

    On a different note, if you rule out suicides, which is a whole other problem, one can find that according to the FBI crime statistics for gun deaths in this country, only 0.05% of a 310 million person population are affected. Think about that. The people who want stricter regulations would impose these restrictions based on the actions of a tiny fraction of the overall population. Yes, the raw number may seem high or upsetting, but compared to the total population in this country, they are miniscule.

    1. Don’t be lulled into that false argument. There is no slaughter of innocents going on. When the CDC say X number of children between the ages of 6-19 are killed with firearms, what they aren’t telling you is more than 80% are aged from 16-19, and that they are killed when engaged in criminal activities – usually by each other. None in that age group can purchase weapons legally, so a background check is a moot point. In this country we have systematically crowded our cities with young people with few options for earning a living, while at the same time prosecuting a drug war that has created a lucrative black market. The affect of this is to drive these “children” in droves into criminal livelihoods and a culture based entirely on violence. Cruelly, the statistics generated by this phenomenon are then turned back on the law-abiding as proof their self-defense rights must be curtailed and limited. Its sick, disgusting, and deceitful.

      1. Which false argument is that? When I say educate the children I mean exactly that. Children. If you are old enough to vote or join the military then you are no longer a child. What I find ridiculous however is that when I was 20 I was in Iraq and Afghanistan with a battle rifle but couldn’t legally purchase a pistol when I came home.

        1. I think he means to say that you accept the “children are in jeopardy” framing of this argument when you state “I believe the reason so many children do end up accidentally shooting one another or themselves…” The rate of accidental shooting deaths are at a 100 year low. A trivial point, IMO, as the rest of your post addressed the issue quite well.

  27. There are extremists on both sides of this issue. On one side there are people (although I haven’t met them) who believe that absolutely no one should have guns – not even police. On the other extreme there are those who feel there should be absolutely no restrictions on guns. They believe that anyone, at anytime, should be able to carry any weapon. I have met some with that point of view.

    Moms Demand Action is more centrist. They focus on responsible and respectful gun ownership. We need better gun legislation, better regulation and better gun related behaviors in our country.

    Those of us who are responsible gun owners should feel comfortable with what Moms Demand Action is trying to do. It is not an extremist organization at all.

  28. My pet peeve: PLEASE let parents of playdates know that you have guns in your home. You have a right to own a gun. Please respect another parent’s right to decide whether or not they want their child visiting a home that has guns in it. It is their right as the child’s parent – they are the most important thing in the world to them. It is not fair that so many parents have lost children in this way. You want us to respect your rights, please respect our right to keep out child safe in the way we see fit.

    1. I SOOO agree with you, JM. I ask now. I never did before that incident at my son’s school, but I ask now.

  29. If she actually had facts to back up her claims instead of simply using the standard emotional arguments, she might hold more weight in her arguments. Unfortunately for her the facts indicate that regulation has not prevented any attacks. Not once has a criminal been deterred by a “No Guns Allowed” sign. In fact the only ones who pay attention to it are the people you should WANT to have the firearm, the legal concealed carry license holder.

    I would like if they did treat firearms like cars. You only have to register any firearm you USE on public roadways, but you can own any you want. You can carry any you want. You can transport them anywhere you want. You have reciprocity anywhere in the US. There would be no ammunition limits on magazines. You could use it in town as long as you are registered. You can build a fully automatic firearm. You don’t need to get permission from any other state to carry/transport/buy/sell any firearm. You can sell across state lines. You could sell any parts across state lines. You could sell your personally crafted race gun(machine gun) to anyone without a background check. Even criminals are allowed to buy a car, soooo even criminals would be able to own a gun? I don’t think she thought that one through.

  30. I know I’m late to the game here, but may I make one observation; the reason MDA moderates their comments so heavily is because if they didn’t every one of their walls would look like this page, essentially turning their posts into pro-gun pieces. Gun owners are very, VERY committed to this cause!

    1. Maybe so, but you have to let people talk and explain. Both sides, sure it would be nice to see more anti-gunners in here or at least middle guys like me.

  31. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/14/277058739/1-in-4-americans-think-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says
    Posting this for the folks that think Americans should know already about gun safety. I come from a family that has always hunted. I have a sister with a concealed weapons permit because she leaves her workplace late at night. I am not anti gun. In my own house I am. I have had intruders and took care of it. I am not a fearful person. I also don’t want guns in my house. Especially since my son came back from Iraq with TBI and PTSD. He was depressed with hair trigger emotions for a while and I told him he could not bring firearms to my house. It was smart because he did not have control over his emotions for a bit. The risk of suicide is important when you think about soldiers. Violence towards others can be a factor also. I think many people do not have common sense about weapons. If you think your kid is not going to touch your gun because you told them not to then that is probably a naive position. I went up to the VA hospital to pick a few of the young men up after their alcohol assessment when they returned from Iraq. They all passed their assessment and were all drunk. I know more than a couple that have had violent encounters with family and police. I took my son to the VA after he agreed to go to a PTSD group and the counselor did not show up. He was told to come back in a month. He is doing better and hunts now. Common sense told me to tell him no at the time. Do I believe most Americans have common sense? No. The average IQ in the US used to be 100 the last time I checked which is not very bright at all. I do think we need reasonable laws with a waiting period. I don’t think we need assault rifles. I do not want people open carrying around my family. If you need a gun then conceal it. If you have one at home then lock it up. And if you did not lock it up and your kid kills people or accidentally hurts themselves then you should go to prison for their crime. If you are cleaning your gun and shoot someone then you should go to prison. Accountability folks. If you teach your child how to shoot and they as a child or mentally ill person hurt someone else then take responsibility and go to jail. You don’t get to just say oops. PS The “Stand your ground laws” need to be revoked.

    1. “I don’t think we need assault rifles.”
      I do.

      “I do not want people open carrying around my family.”
      I can respect that.

      “If you have one (a gun) at home lock it up.”
      No. It’s my house.

      ” And if you did not lock it up and your kid kills people or accidentally hurts themselves then you should go to prison for their crime.”
      We can talk about this and work something out.

      “If you are cleaning your gun and shoot someone then you should go to prison.”
      Works for me, I actually know how to clean a gun.

      ” If you teach your child how to shoot and they as a child or mentally ill person hurt someone else then take responsibility and go to jail.”
      This bothers me. I have actually taught kids how to shoot, boyscouts. You want me to be liable for any crimes they may commit with a firearm from now until the age of 18? What if their life of crime was not my fault? I smell slippery slope all over this proposal; federal ban on all youth shooting sports? Also, you may not be aware that children from the age of 14 are regularly tried as adults.

      “The “Stand your ground laws” need to be revoked.”
      SYG laws arose out of public outrage over “Run and Hide” laws that placed victims of crime in unacceptable legal jeopardy. Their repeal is (thankfully) highly unlikely.

      1. If your child commits a crime with your gun or a gun you gave them while they live with you then yes I think you are responsible till they are 18. Yes I think you ought to lock up your gun in your own home. It is safer especially when you have kids. I do not believe we should try children as adults. The nature of it is in the name “children”.
        My brothers were scouts and they never messed with guns. They learned to hunt at home. Why do you need to do that? Scouts used to be about camping , first aid and being good citizens.
        Stand your ground laws are being misused. I meet too many people that want guns because of irrational fears of people from other races. Or irrational fears period. People are being killed unnecessarily from others overreacting.

        1. If you own a firearm for self defense as the vast majority of gun owners do, it does you no good at all to lock it up and render it completely unusable. Have you seen this video before?
          You would put someones wife and child at this animal’s mercy because you are uncomfortable with the second amendment?

          As to the scouts, I didn’t teach them to hunt. I taught them to shoot, and they got a patch for it. I’ve also shot with cops, and I have to say the kids are easier to teach! Just because you are uncomfortable with these centuries old traditions does not mean you can go around banning them without a fight, especially when their connection to violent crime does not actually exist.

          I do not know how I am supposed to stop people with irrational fears from overreacting and killing others (with or without a gun), but I DO know how to stop people with irrational fears from overreacting and passing ridiculous laws that punish people who have committed no crime. See you in November.

          1. In this country you are more likely to be killed by a friend or relative than an intruder. I did not know but have looked up the scout shooting program. I would not sign for my sons to learn about guns from an acquaintance but other people can. My mom probably did not sign for it either.
            What I am calling for is accountability. You or your kids screw up and you pay a price. It’s not just oops. Background checks hurt noone. Keeping guns out of the hands of people with domestic violence issues or certain mental health issues makes good sense. I really don’t see a need for automatic weapons. If you need to carry a weapon conceal it. There are compromises to be had.

          2. “In this country you are more likely to be killed by a friend or relative than an intruder”

            Please provide your source for this “statistic”

          3. “I really don’t see a need for automatic weapons”

            Sorry, but it’s the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of NEEDS. If you don’t want one, don’t buy one, just leave the rest of us alone.

          4. The bill of rights was set up for states militias. It was not set up for automatic weapons.

          5. “The bill of rights was set up for states militias. It was not set up for automatic weapons.”

            And militias are make up of individual citizens, therefore we should all have guns. As for the automatic weapons, the Founding Fathers didn’t foresee the internet as well, yet we still have protected 1A rights in regards to it. Also, the militias that fought in the Revolutionary War were using the state-of-the-art Kentucky Long Rifle to overcome British opposition. After fighting against tyranny, it is ridiculous to assume that the drafters to our Constitution would limit the type of arms we choose to bear. This is exactly why the 2A never mentions “hunting” or “sporting purposes” or anything else. Like I said before, if you don’t want one, don’t buy one. Your feelings end where my rights begin.

          6. Go ahead then, stop this Constitutional infringing incrementalism and get 3/4ths of the states to repeal the 2A. Good luck with that.

          7. You are assuming I want to repeal the second amendment. Wrong. We can pass sane laws about guns without repealing it. We can also pass laws to hold gun owners more accountable for there mistakes.

          8. “We can pass sane laws about guns without repealing it”

            Shall not be infringed. Period.

    2. “The average IQ in the US used to be 100 the last time I checked which is not very bright at all.” Because it is so far below the country with the highest average IQ of 107. Belgium, China, New Zealand and United Kingdom all have an average IQ of 100. Where did you acquire the idea that an IQ of 100 is not very bright?

  32. The homicide rate in the US is approximately 4 TIMES what it is in the UK. Hmm, pretty similar societies. Big difference: extreme limitation of gun ownership in the UK…

    1. The homicide rate in the UK rose and continues to stay at higher than pre-ban levels.


      While the homicide rate in the US has plummeted and continues to drop even as gun ownership rises and carry laws become more permissive.


      A gun ban would submit the American people to a UK type rise in homicides.

  33. do I think MDA is anti gun…..? do I think MDA is anti 2A….? do I think MDA is a hate group…..? yes, yes and yes….

    hate group….. well just look at the way they treat people. post anything not anti gun on their fb page and see how long before you are blocked and the post is deleted….! go ahead and posting something simple, try, and see for yourself’s….. most times less than 1-2hr’s and it will be gone

    anti gun or anti 2A well misss watts is anti gun and has always been so but well get to that. you all know she started her (anti gun) fb page and group the day after sandy hook right…. well the name of the fb page and her group speaks volumes about their true agenda, she rebranded it after a focus group…. remember she has been in PR all her life….. her groups real name was “one million moms for GUN CONTROL” not Gun Sense but GUN CONTROL….! gun control IS anti gun and anti 2A…..

    here from the journalgazette.net article about a meeting was to hash out differences on Senate Bill 229. No final compromises were reached.
    “It got especially heated when Zionsville mother Shannon Watts, of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, testified.

    For every statistic she used, Lucas countered from a book he carried. For every statement she made on mass shootings, another lawmaker would refute.

    Lucas even pointed out her maiden name and read a list of her previous jobs to note her expertise in media and marketing.

    And Rep. Jud McMillin, R-Brookville, called her disingenuous for supporting background checks and other gun regulations but claiming to be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.” she doesn’t do well in the face of facts

    1. It’s up to Moms Demand Action whether or not to include pro-gun comments on their Facebook page. That doesn’t make them a hate group. My guess is that they have neither the time nor inclination to be distracted from the work they’re trying to do.

      What’s wrong with rebranding a group in order to avoid potentially offending people who don’t agree with you? Those who are extremely pro-gun may find the term “gun control upsetting, but many gun owners do not. If anything, it was smart of them to go with “gun sense” instead.

      There is also nothing wrong with working in PR and marketing. Without that experience, one wouldn’t get far with any movement, politically charged or otherwise.

      1. Actually it does not even have to be pro-gun. Many times stating a fact that has been misrepresented is removed and the poster banned. There is no room for truth which I feel does cause the group to be a “hate” group, although not in the same degree as others. IF they delete the truth and propagate lies, that qualifies hate speech.

  34. Hi Everyone! Just wanted to let you guys know if you make a comment that has links it may be moderated to prevent spam, but I DO see all those comments and I’m trying my best to get them through as fast as I can, links and all 🙂

  35. People, sure, you can claim for having guns for your own safety, as self-defence and so on. But don’t forget: this “exculpation” was given you by weapon lobby. Thy want to make money with lifes of our children. They take you for a fool. Open your eyes. The less guns we have, the less crimes we will have. Because otherwise it’s just a spiral of violence, which will never stop, and everybody is involved.

    After all, people, re-read New Testament, please. This dangerous obsession with guns is non Christian.

    1. “The less guns we have, the less crimes we will have”

      This is a laughably incorrect assumption. Take England for example; they have outrageously strict gun control laws and yet they have more than double our violent crime rate:


      “Because otherwise it’s just a spiral of violence, which will never stop, and everybody is involved.”

      Again, you couldn’t be more wrong. Here are actual statistics showing the decrease in crime in America:


      “But don’t forget: this “exculpation” was given you by weapon lobby. Thy want to make money with lifes of our children.”

      Also completely incorrect. Our largest “gun lobby,” the NRA, has nothing to do with making money from firearms and accessories sales. The NSSF is the main “gun group” for manufacturers and they have avoided all this “fear mongering.”

      “After all, people, re-read New Testament, please. This dangerous obsession with guns is non Christian.”

      I think you might want to re-read the New Testament yourself, arming oneself is indeed very Christian. Here is why you are wrong, again:

      “He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.”
      -Luke 22:36

      “If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.”
      -Exodus 22:2-3

  36. There seems to be a lot of talk about hate and violence, a lot threats coming from both sides. Pro-2A people need to bear in mind, though; YOU are the ones with the guns. This is especially an issue when you bring loaded weapons to peaceful demonstrations and speeches.

    1. “Pro-2A people need to bear in mind, though; YOU are the ones with the guns”

      Guns? I prefer to call them “Tyranny Preventers.”

      1. A cute reply. But making light of a valid point doesn’t get us anywhere in a discussion. Maybe if you acknowledged the reality of the situation (that you, the armed side, present verbal threats that seem much more plausible to the average observer–you are carrying lethal weapons), that bit of honestly would help move the discussion forward. The more I listen to you, the less I think you want to discuss anything.

        1. “a lot threats coming from both sides”
          “present verbal threats”

          Not sure where you’re getting that from, the discussion on this forum have been very respectful and NO threats have been made from either side.

          “the less I think you want to discuss anything”

          Actually, I have discussed quite a bit on this forum and have actual facts and statistics to back up my arguments. I have refuted just about everything you have presented to me as well. If you want to jam your fingers in your ears and scream LALALALALA, then that’s on you. If not, I suggest you start reading:


          1. Lol, funny website address change! However, I would rather have you delete my post as opposed to changing what I wrote in my post.

          2. We don’t want to delete posts. That’s not what we’re about. We might seem overly earnest to you, but we’re serious about having a productive conversation.

          3. “We don’t want to delete posts. That’s not what we’re about”

            So changing what someone wrote is totally acceptable? Interesting policy, but I find it rather disingenuous. Especially when you have the word “honesty” written at the top of this page right by your logo…..

          4. We didn’t change what you posted, just the link to a website that you have repeatedly posted throughout this thread. We get it. Everybody gets it. You want people to go to your site but there is no need to post the link over and over and over. We all saw it the first 10 times.

          5. “We didn’t change what you posted”

            Actually, you really did. The original intent of my post was to point someone to a place that has facts, figures and statistics all in one easy to read place. My intent was NOT to point someone to a place that has pictures of cats. This shows great dishonesty on your behalf. BTW, I completely understand that this is your site and your rules, but it is a much more honest course of action to delete posts that go against the rules, instead of being completely disingenuous and changing the post’s original content.

            I did post a few links to that site (BTW, not my site, I just like easy to find info in one place), but the information it provides adds quite a bit to the overall discussion.
            The site is full of relevant material that helps people understand the issues at hand and provides full documentation for all statistics. This wealth of information is not easily discredited.
            I also chose to summarize much of the material from that site and leave it up to the readers if they want to follow up with more information; I did not feel like regurgitating what has already been written.

            Because of this, I feel that I have indeed added to the discussion on this some of the posts I made were not inline with your overall intent for this discussion, you also have to take into consideration that other posters continued to engage me in conversation while using the same tone. However, I’m the only one you decided to call out on it.

            If you feel that some of the posts I made were not inline with your overall intent for this discussion, you also have to take into consideration that other posters continued to engage me in conversation while using the same tone. However, I’m the only one you decided to call out on it.

      2. You’re not contributing in a meaningful way. Please read our comments policy. And no more links to that website.

    2. And how many attend with knives? Then of all those attending with either or both for that matter, intend to utilize either? Why are you assuming that everyone who is pro 2A is a dangerous individual? I have owned firearms since I was 8 years old. In all those years I have never had an accidental fire, I have never had a firearm stolen, I have never had a child “play” with a firearm and be injured. I have watched and complied as the laws changed and yet you lump all pro 2A individuals into the same group of individuals who are not law abiding or of stable mind. After roughly 40 years of this treatment why do you have such a hard time comprehending that your regulation of law abiding individuals has done absolutely nothing to combat the violence? Why are you having such a hard time comprehending the frustrations of the hyper-regulated innocent individuals as you propose more onerous restrictions on those who are not committing the violence? Would you be happy with a law that mandated BAID devices on all vehicles as a way to prevent drunk driving? Which by the way still kills more people then firearm violence.

  37. I am for sensible gun laws yet I also would not be part of any organization that’s founder had worked for the corporations of BP Amoco and Monsanto. These are two of the most corrupt corporations. The damage to the environment and health by BP and Monsanto is definitely anti children and persons. I agree that we need to look at waiting periods etc… and that automatic weapons should not be legal. But I have to step away from an organization where the head of it has not followed through on values that it proposes to have.

  38. I’ve been online tweeting and FB posting about gun violence for around 3 months now, ever since I published “Guns In America: Common Sense Versus Nonsense” (Amazon). I thought the vitriol on Twitter and FB was intense, but here, even though it’s being monitored (and thank God for that),the tension is even more palpable. (I read about 30 comments.) The die-hard pro-gunners obviously don’t want to work anything out. They’ll refute anything and everything and every which way. I would never have used “Common Sense” in the title of my book if 91% of the polled population didn’t support background checks. Because, what is common sense when it comes to the general public based on 1000s? I’m going to go with 91% of the general public agreeing on something as being common sense. And I’m going to guess that the remaining 8% (1% have no opinion)fall into the less educated quadrant of Americans, which in many instances is no big deal. But when it comes to being opposed to 91% of the rest of the country, education and sophistication should be present in order to have better arguments than reciting the Bible or imagining tyranny or considering America exceptional but having no faith in its exceptionalism w/o the freedom of carrying a gun around in public.

    1. I think there are plenty of middle of the road people that do want to work together. They are just not as loud.

      1. By “work together” you mean give up more in return for absolutely nothing right?

        This is all gun owners have done. We have acquiesced and acquiesced time and time again, yet the other side still takes more. At some point however people resist further encroachment. This is what you are seeing now.

        After the NFA Act of 1934, the Federal Firearms act of 1938, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the LEOPA and FOPA of 1986, the Crime Control Act of 1990, the VCCLEA of 1994, 77,000 other local, State and Federal firearm laws, 250,000+ rules, regulations and directives that carry the force of law… how much more “working together” do you really think we’re willing to do?

    2. I completely agree with this comment. My big takeaway from this discussion has been that Pro-2A people represent an extreme, inflexible position and generally have no interest in real compromise or discussion. They are convinced that they are entirely (or almost entirely) in the right and only have an interest in restating their “rightness” again and again and again. This doesn’t make me happy at all, and it’s not what I had hoped to achieve with this discussion. Sadly, the only way to deal with them may be to excise them from the debate.

  39. I haven’t read through all of the comments, but certainly glad to see the discussion on this VERY important subject matter. In talking to gun enthusiasts, or those that support gun ownership, I’ve compared being a licensed/registered gun owner, and the responsibility that goes along with it, do having a driver’s license and being responsible — you need to pass a written and driving test to get your license and to legally operate a vehicle, you need to have your vehicle registered and insured in order to legally operate it, and if you’re in accident and someone kids killed you can be on the hook for manslaughter — unfortunately, it’s a bit of a hard sell to these people because they’re standing behind (or beside or on top of) the 2nd Amendment. So, I find you have to fight Constitutional Amendment vs. Constitutional Amendment, and what better one than those Amendments (15, 19, 24, and 26) that have to do with voting. Voting is a constitutional right, but in order to vote you have to meet certain requirements, the most popular is that you have to be 18. Additionally, you have to REGISTER TO VOTE in order to be eligible to vote and/or to have your vote counted. All US Citizens comply with these Amendments and the rules and laws that surround them (although certain groups do not play fair when it comes to the actual voting process…another topic!), so why should the 2nd Amendment be any different? Yes, have your gun(s), carry them and be responsible, but have a license that states you are qualified to use a gun safely (like driving a car), and register the guns that you have in your possession. The major difference here in all of this is,a vehicle isn’t designed to be a weapon but rather designed for transportation and ease in getting us humans from one place to another. Guns, on the other hand, are designed purely as weapons. Here’s another thought. The 2nd Amendment allows us to “Bear Arms” but I don’t know that it says anything about ammunition. Are bullets covered under the 2nd Amendment? What about magnums? What about requiring a person to have gun insurance, or heavily taxing ammunition, just like alcohol (prohibition), cigarettes, and gasoline are taxed? I don’t think doing any of these things diminishes a persons 2nd Amendment right, but instead encourages them to be responsible, safe, and accountable for their actions.

    1. But once you register to Vote we go to great lengths to make it easy to do so. In the context of screening to determine eligibility to exercise a fundamental right, for example, we tend to be very concerned about obstacles that would prevent minorities from voting. The taxes and insurance schemes you propose smell faintly of a poll tax.

      As to taxing ammunition – taxing a right for the purpose of discouraging its exercise is unconstitutional. There are other contexts where taxation of a right is completely impermissible, such as in free speech, per the case Arkansas Writers Project, Inc v. Ragland, or in the case of marriage, the Illinois Supreme Court already rejected a 10 dollar fee on licenses to fund services for victims domestic violence.

        1. Mary, go on…not sure if you followed my comment. Tobacco use is not a constitutionally protected right.

          1. I am a Native American friend and we use it for spiritual practice. Tobacco is sacred to us. Religious freedom.

          2. In fact I am pretty mad I can’t pray with tobacco in restaurants anymore or inside anywhere. And outside in many places. My rights are being stepped on all over the place. All you people that love freedom and the constitution so much start hollering for me would ya?

          3. As a native american you should stop being disingenuous. The taxes on tobacco are not applicable in the nations. IF you chose to purchase tobacco in other areas that is a choice you freely made.

      1. I would argue that recent political maneuvering has made it more difficult for minorities to vote. Redistricting, scarcity of polling stations in minority neighborhoods, photo ID requirements, restrictions to registration, cuts to early voting — all of these target historically disenfranchised voters.

        1. True. Several reservations tried to get polling booths on them to no avail. All of what you said is true as poorer peoples are getting more marginalized.

        2. Absolutely, but I’m not arguing that any of what you mention, Laurel, is right. Quite the opposite — It’s Thomas Lister-Looker who seems to be completely all right with this.

    2. Actually someone does not need to register a vehicle, be licensed to operate a vehicle, or be of a certain age to buy / operate a vehicle so long as the vehicle is operated on private property.

      As for having a license that says one has passed a safety course in firearms operation prior to owning a firearm- that I am for. I have carried firearms into harms way both within the US and overseas and fully support proper training in the use, handling and storage of firearms.

      Ammunition is part of the Second Amendment as “Arms” as in common usage in the 1700’s encompassed “Rifle/Musket, pistol, fowling piece (shotgun), powder, ball and flint”. It addresses that which an infantry soldier would be expected to carry and excluded things such as field pieces (cannon). Today it would allow rifle (any sort), pistol & shotgun but exclude crew served weapons (belt fed MGs, mortars, rockets).

      As for “Magnums”- all the term “Magnum” means is larger. A .44 Magnum differs from a .44 Special or .44-40 in that the cartridge case is slightly longer.

      As for taxes- you are advocating Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise poor people? To me that is kind of harsh and wouldn’t stand the test of Constitutionality. People in the south already tried that to disenfranchise people and it didn’t work.

  40. I have a simple question:

    How can someone claim to support the second amendment when they are completely against people bearing arms?

    “Bear arms” = “carry arms.” The right to bear arms means the right to carry arms. Watts and MDA are actively fighting against people carrying arms (see their efforts re: Staples). I do not see how they can honestly claim that they support the second amendment when it seems obvious that they are fighting against it.

    1. No right is absolute. I think that’s what the Pro-2A crowd is missing. If you’d recognize that society has a Constitutional right to regulate your gun rights that would be the beginning of compromise. But by your question I’m guessing you reject that notion and thus reject any idea of compromise. I can be for gun rights and still see the need to regulate them just as I can be for freedom of speech rights and recognize that 1A does not protect libel and slander (that, in that prohibition against libel and slander, 1A rights are REGULATED).

      1. Kurt- Compromise means both sides meet in the middle. Everything from the gun control side has been nothing but “We want you to give up more and get nothing in return”. That is not compromise, at least according to every definition of the word I have ever read.

        As for regulation, there are already 77,000 laws and over 250,000 rules, regulations, directives and ordinances at the Federal, State and local level that carry the force of law. How much more regulation is needed and in exchange for that additional regulation, what do gun owners get in return (in the spirit of compromise).

        As for the 1st Amendment rights being regulated, the government does not prevent someone from speaking libel or slander. One is free to libel and slander whomever they want. There are CIVIL remedies for those who are the subject of libel and slander however they are not criminal actions fo which the government may punish you.

        1. I don’t know why you’re trying to draw a distinction between civil and criminal law. I don’t know why others have tried to draw a distinction between consequences and regulation. You guys just (apparently) want to keep fighting about whether your 2A rights can be regulated. They have, can, and will continue to be regulated. End of story. And there are criminal defamation laws in many states. If they were unconstitutional per se they would have been challenged and struck down by the Supreme Court. But again, that’s 1A. I just find it incredible that you guys keep trying to argue and/or quibble about whether your 2A rights can be regulated. Amazing.

          1. I make the distinction between criminal and civil because one is a function of the government and one is a function of the court system.

            I draw a distinction between consequences and regulation because one addresses misuse of an item whereas the other presupposes future misuse of an item.

            My point was that yes the 2nd Amendment rights of all Americans are regulated to the tune of 77,000 laws and 250,000+ regulations, rules and directives yet you guys want more. Name one other of the first 10 Amendments that require a background check to exercise. Name one other that a person must get a license to exercise. Name one other that a person must beg permission from the government to exercise. (I am not expecting an answer as you ignored prior questions so consider the previous ones rhetorical)

            I just find it incredible that your idea of “compromise” is a one sided demand in which the other side gets zero concessions whatsoever. In the words of Inigo Montoya- “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means”.

            You see we know our rights have been regulated, almost into non-existence in many cases. The reason we do not wish to “compromise” (read as submit to further demands) is that enough is enough already.

            We must beg a government official to be allowed to exercise our right. We must get a permit from the government to exercise our right. We must be on a government list to exercise our right. We must have a background check to exercise our right. In many places we cannot exercise our right unless we are rich or famous.

            To put it simply, we’ve had enough of that kind of “common sense” regulation and “compromise”.

          2. I do not see a single question mark in your prior comment. So these “questions” you claim to have asked must have seemed rhetorical to you. They certainly did to me. Frankly, I don’t care if you’ve had enough of compromise. Get ready for more. The more staunchly and unrealistically you cling to some fanciful notion of what the Constitution “intended” (in spite of two hundred plus years of precedent) the easier if will be to convince the rest of society to strip more and more of your gun rights away in the interest of public safety (a concern that trumps your desire to shoot things). If that’s how you want it, continue on your current inflexible, irrational course. And have a nice night…

          3. Well at least you’ve abandoned your nonsensical “compromise” statement and admitted that you just wish to enforce your will on others through the use of armed government agents who will beat/shoot me if I do not agree with you and of course degenerated into ad-hominems.


          4. Hey, man, I’m actually not for a complete ban on guns. See, this is a classic example of why you guys are losing the argument. Anyone who wants to LIMIT gun rights you construe as wanting to take them away entirely. And that just makes you seem inflexible and illogical.

          5. Hey man I never said or inferred that you were for a complete ban on guns. See this is a classic example of why you guys are losing the argument. Anyone who disagrees with you winds up having things attributed to them that they never said via lies and misdirection. And that just makes you seem inflexible, illogical and dishonest.

      2. The 9th circuit has helped you out with regards to regulation of 1A & 2A rights.

        Page 55 of the ruling:

        To reason by analogy, it is as though San Diego County banned all political speech, but exempted from this restriction particular people (like current or former political figures), particular places (like private property), and particular situations (like the week before an election). Although these exceptions might preserve small pockets of freedom, they would do little to prevent destruction of the right to free speech as a whole. As the Court has said: “The Second Amendment is no different.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 635. It too is, in effect, destroyed when exercise of the right is limited to a few people, in a few places, at a few times.

    2. I think that’s a really good question, and I think I have a reasonable answer. The courts are constantly struggling to interpret the Constitution within the context of a changing society. Just yesterday the Delaware Supreme Court ruled on a case where a public housing authority changed its policy to prohibit firearms in common areas. The court ruled against them, but noted, “[A]n individual’s interest in the right to keep and bear arms is strongest when “the weapon is in one’s home or business and is being used for security.”

      I think it’s possible to support the spirit of the Second Amendment and still question some of its provisions. Society changes, and the laws that govern them cannot remain inflexible forever. That’s what the higher courts are for.

      1. Chief Justice Roberts noted that things are different now than they were in 1965? when the Voting Rights Act was passed. So, therefore, his court ruled against a key provision of this law. Bush Jr. famously said “the world’s a different place now” and didn’t want to use the FISA Court in wanting to spy on Americans. But when it comes to changing something written over 200 years ago that now makes it easy and faster to kill innocent people, even children, the Pro-2A people want to threaten using their weapons to stop it. Are they threatening using their guns to stop voter suppression? Or spying on innocent people? The pro-gunners aren’t open to changing with the times. The 2nd Amend should be a useless statement. The vast majority of Americans know that it’s a dangerous world out there and are in favor of people having a gun to protect themselves in their home. A reasonable gun. Not one that can be taken outside the home and unload on innocent people. Why are people caught up in the sacred-ness of a sentence written over 200 years ago? Are we to think that these same people who may also consider themselves good Christians are obeying all the Commandments?

  41. It’s important to understand the definition of the word amendment as well as the phrase “well regulated” the Constitution gives much room for changing times. We are no longer living in an era where the railroad can come and take away our homesteads, where shootouts at a saloon over a poker game are part of every day life, but it feels as if 2A extremists would like those times to come back again.

  42. When you actually look at what happened with Starbucks and Facebook, and leave the spin out of it, MDA didn’t really win anything with Starbucks, since you can still carry a firearm there, and Facebook didn’t really give them anything they were asking for, but offered them a way to back down and save face by claiming a victory when none existed. Even the Brady Campaign admits this.

    1. Thank you for posting this Mary. This is horrible and represents so much of what MDA is trying to change. As many people say, “Guns don’t kill people.” Right. Irresponsible people do, and they need to be punished

  43. I would like to post a link which proves the often quoted “40% of gun purchases are made without a background check” or the similar quote from Shannon Watts “More than 6 million guns are bought in America every year without a background check…”

    Fortunately, the source for the 40-percent claim is widely known. It comes from a 1997 National Justice Institute report.
    It was based on a phone survey in 1994 where 251 people who’d bought a gun in the previous two years were asked if they got it from a licensed dealer, who would’ve been required to run a background check.
    The survey found that 64.3 percent thought they got their gun from a licensed dealer, and the study’s authors assumed the remaining 35.7 percent did not. Somehow this was rounded up to 40 percent.

    There will never be a rational discussion on this topic when one side continues to use “stats” that are never investigated. It took me five minutes to do so. If you want to conduct an intelligent discussion on this topic, just spend a little time backing up your numbers please.


  44. http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home
    In the late ’80’s, early 90’s I used a curriculum to work with gangs in schools that cited studies regarding health, violence and having a gun. Guns do not deter crime and having one in the home puts everyone in the home in greater danger than their neighbors. The National Board of Pediatrics cautioned parents against having a gun in the home, not just to lock it up. Securing a gun does not reduce the danger to children or other family members.

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please enter CAPTCHA value: * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

© 2016 STIR Journal All Rights Reserved