An open letter to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives:

I’m writing to ask that you tighten up rules on guns, gun control and background checks. The reason that such efforts have failed in past is because of the intense lobbying of the National Rifle Association. Please consider the Sandy Hook school, the shootings at San Bernardino, Cailf., the shootings at the Columbine High School in Colorado, movie theaters in Aurora, Colo., Pulse Night Club in Florida, and the recent shooting in Las Vegas.

These events get media attention. But much more numerous are local shootings in bars, on the streets and in people’s homes. Isn’t it past due to get tough regulations and ignore the NRA? Regardless of the circumstances, the NRA always trots out the same lines.

Now would be a good time to prepare legislation because of the recent shootings in Las Vegas. The NRA is in a weak position, and for the first time, they have suggested modifying the rules. Their modifications, though not yet spelled out, would undoubtedly be minor changes, perhaps procedural changes that would mean very little.

If everyone teams up for adequate regulation, the NRA couldn’t stop it and they couldn’t retaliate on everyone. For guidance, we could look to European countries, such as Sweden, France, and Switzerland and see how they deal with gun regulation. They don’t have the same gun culture that we do.

The recent issue of the Scientific American magazine studies the issue of gun control. It discusses the facts about whether people are more safe by possessing guns and also shows the misleading facts presented by the NRA.

There are polling organizations, such as Gallup, Pew, Survey USA, that would let you know where the public stands on the issue. Some of the TV news stations such as CNN, also conduct polls. Polls are relatively inexpensive.

People, legislators, and the NRA always point to the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The Second Amendment allows people to carry weapons only in conjunction with a “Well Regulated Militia,” now called the National Guard.

If you need a weapon, you can join the National Guard or get a hunting license. Your need for the weapon would be during the hunting season. Please read the Second Amendment to check the information presented herein.

The time to start on such legislation is now, while the NRA is down.

Stephen Hodgson lives in Galveston.

Locations

(62) comments

horace norris

Sounds good....we can now beat off the bad guys with sticks....uh no thanks 😀

Mark Aaron

Horace: [Sounds good....we can now beat off the bad guys with sticks....uh no thanks]

Or you could do what normal people do and dial 911. Let the professionals deal with them. Amateurs are liable to make things even worse.

Doyle Beard

911 in the meantime they have killed you. great thinking.

Mark Aaron

Doyle: [911 in the meantime they have killed you. great thinking.]

It likely would have happened anyway, guns or not. The vast, overwhelming majority of people are not trained to qualify a target and kill it. Maybe it's a legitimate target and maybe it is a neighbor noisily taking out the trash at night. If the police don't have time to react, then you probably don't either. You are far more likely to kill an innocent than a professional would be.

Your 2% possibility doesn't outweigh the 98% safety needs of your neighbors.

==> [25 miles from the city by all means call 911.]

Rural users can also call for help. What is it you think is going to happen to you that you can solve with a gun? How often does the sort of crime you are imagining take place?

Doyle Beard

yes 25 miles from the city by all means call 911. Boy does this guy live in a sheltered world. As I have said many times common sense has died.

PD Hyatt

ROFLOL @ you.... The police only show up after the fact, and I do realize the progressive liberal demon-crats do not care about facts as none of you understand that baseball bats, knives, scissors or many other things.... Now if you would include cars and their stupid drunken drives they kill far more in one year than guns do in a decade....
Liberalism is a mental disorder and because of it our nation is being destroyed....

Charles Tucker

Put into words the exact law that would have prevented Sandy Hook from happening.

Tell me how changing the rules on a single type of tool prevents people from committing acts of violence.

Give us the reason you want to punish the people who didn't commit an act of evil with more laws and restrictions.

Mark Aaron

Charles: [ Put into words the exact law that would have prevented Sandy Hook from happening. ]

So you believe the law has to be perfect to be effective?

==>[Tell me how changing the rules on a single type of tool prevents people from committing acts of violence. ]

Taking away their bump stocks sure slows them down and would likely save lives in another Vegas type shooting. Why wouldn't you want that?

==>[Give us the reason you want to punish the people who didn't commit an act of evil with more laws and restrictions.]

There is a difference between punishment and just being inconvenienced. How many lives is your convenience worth Charles?

PD Hyatt

People who had any sense would know by looking at the liberal progressive demon-crat led cities (Chicago, Detroit, Phillh, New York and many others) would see that their very restrictive gun control measures do NOT work.... Of course I do realize that facts are ignored by people like you.... Gun control by the liberals is for one thing and one thing only.... That is to disarm We The People so that they can dictate to everyone what they demand us to do.... Liberals hate our republic and want to destroy the principals that our nation was founded upon.... How sad those people are!

PD Hyatt

"There is a difference between punishment and just being inconvenienced. How many lives is your convenience worth Charles."
When it comes to my family anyone trying to hurt them are not worthy of living! No matter how many that may entail.

Claudia Burnam

How many of these (I can't think of a nice word to describe them) are out there? Misters Norris and Tucker are absolutely right! E G Wiley

Mark Aaron

Claudia: [How many of these (I can't think of a nice word to describe them) are out there?]

Many more of them than you.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Claudia Burnam

Mark are you so dense that you don't realize that is someone else posting and not Claudia? This the second time you have done this on my post . E G Wiley

Mark Aaron

EG: [ Mark are you so dense that you don't realize that is someone else posting and not Claudia? This the second time you have done this on my post .]

My apologies EG. I'll try to note it in future posts.

Carlos Ponce

Stephen wrote:"If you need a weapon, you can join the National Guard or get a hunting license. Your need for the weapon would be during the hunting season. Please read the Second Amendment to check the information presented herein."
I suggest you read the basis for the Second Amendment which is based on English Common Law.
I suggest you read the writings of Alexander Hamilton on the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms in The Federalist Papers.
I suggest you read Judge Antonin Scalia's decision in DC v. Heller. You may disagree with it but it does set legal precedent and is LAW.
The second Amendment says individuals may possess arms. That was debated in court and a decision was rendered. Live with it or go through the process of proposing another Constitutional Amendment to render individual arms ownership negated. Doubtful it will get very far.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [I suggest you read the basis for the Second Amendment which is based on English Common Law.]

I recommend you read what the courts say about the language of the 2nd Amendment. You can start with the seminal _Aymette vs. The State_ case.

_"When, therefore, Parliament says, that "subjects which are Protestants, may have arms for their defence, suitable to their condition as allowed by law," it does not mean for private defence, but being armed, they may as a body, rise up to defend their just rights, and compel their rulers to respect the laws. "_
http://www.guncite.com/court/state/21tn154.html

==>I suggest you read the writings of Alexander Hamilton on the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms in The Federalist Papers.

I recommend you read this paragraph from Federalist 29.

_The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. _
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp


==>[I suggest you read Judge Antonin Scalia's decision in DC v. Heller. You may disagree with it but it does set legal precedent and is LAW.]

I recommend you read the holding by Scalia in Heller:

_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons._
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

==>[The second Amendment says individuals may possess arms. That was debated in court and a decision was rendered. Live with it or go through the process of proposing another Constitutional Amendment to render individual arms ownership negated. Doubtful it will get very far.]

Scalia's "personal right" goes against all precedent and even his own words when he cites Miller. Miller cited Ayette (posted above) in its definition of the rights of the 2nd Amendment. Heller did little more than pay lip service to the "personal" claim. Weapons can be regulated, stringently if neccessary. The public wants it. ALl that is missing is the political will to do so.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Robert Braeking

Perhaps Stephen would like to also outlaw hammers for any other than licensed carpenters. In all seriousness, I believe Stephen to be naive and perhaps sheltered. He has never been burgled or attacked. He does not believe that the government will need to be repelled if it becomes tyrannical. He thinks that he can stop a hijacker or mugger with a cell phone with 911 on speed dial. There are bad people in the world. The second amendment merely confirms an unalienable right bestowed upon man by God. Gun control laws are in violation of the amendment. Want to change it, Stephen? Amend the Constitution. It is the only way.

Mark Aaron

Robert: [Perhaps Stephen would like to also outlaw hammers for any other than licensed carpenters.]

Are hammers designed to kill people? Can you go to Ace Hardware and buy a killing hammer?

==> [The second amendment merely confirms an unalienable right bestowed upon man by God.]

Do you have a link to the bible passage?

==> [ Gun control laws are in violation of the amendment.]

Then you are not going to like what Justice Anton Scalia says about gun control.

_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons._
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

Doyle Beard

ammonium nitrate is a fertiliezer but has killed many people. Your comparison pales man.

Mark Aaron

Doyle: [ammonium nitrate is a fertiliezer but has killed many people. Your comparison pales man.]

How many times has ammonium nitrate been used as a weapon in the US and worked? I can only think of one. Do you know of others?

Robert Braeking

Mark, you need to study our Constitutions, its origins, its founder's study of other self-governing democracies and republics, The Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist papers. Once you have educated yourself perhaps you can comment on matters pertaining to the Constitution. BTW - SCOTUS has been wrong on numerous occasions. Perhaps Scalia's opinion on gun control is not an exception.

Mark Aaron

Robert: [Mark, you need to study our Constitutions, its origins, its founder's study of other self-governing democracies and republics, The Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist papers. Once you have educated yourself perhaps you can comment on matters pertaining to the Constitution.]

Okay. All done. I'm ready to comment. In fact if you check this page you will find considerable evidence that I do indeed know what I am talking about.

==> [BTW - SCOTUS has been wrong on numerous occasions. Perhaps Scalia's opinion on gun control is not an exception.]

There is no question that his 'personal right' claim is an outlier. Whether future courts agree I think is highly doubtful. I could be wrong, but Scalia's finding still doesn't do much to support this alleged personal right. Scalia still finds that the "right" is very limited and dangerous weapons can be banned. That leaves plenty of room for laws to restrict the sale of firearms like the AR-17 and similar high rate high capacity guns. I could happily deal with that outcome.

Jennifer Lance

Hermann Suter, vice-president of the Swiss lobbying group Pro Tell, is infuriated by calls that the Swiss military should give up their guns and store them in a central arsenal.
"It is a question of trust between the state and the citizen. The citizen is not just a citizen, he is also a soldier, " he reminds me. "The gun at home is the best way to avoid dictatorships - only dictators take arms away from the citizens."

Mark Aaron

Jennifer: ["It is a question of trust between the state and the citizen. The citizen is not just a citizen, he is also a soldier, " he reminds me. "The gun at home is the best way to avoid dictatorships - only dictators take arms away from the citizens."]

From Wikipedia:
_Switzerland has mandatory military service in the Swiss Army for all able-bodied male citizens, who are conscripted when they reach the age of majority, though women may volunteer for any position. In 2016, an expert commission that the Swiss government charged with reviewing the country's conscription system recommended that women be included in the military draft in order to meet its annual demand of 18,000 new soldiers a year._
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Switzerland

Does this mean you want to reinstate the draft Jennifer?

Lisa Gray

The draft would be an excellent idea, Mr. "Facts". The young in this country have lost their moral compass due to the liberal education system and breakdown of the family. I think that the draft or a 2-3 year civil service period would due very well to make productive citizens out of our lost young people. It certainly would not hurt the country as a whole to have us all pointed in the same direction instead of trying to destroy America as your people want to do.

Mark Aaron

Lisa: [The young in this country have lost their moral compass due to the liberal education system and breakdown of the family. I think that the draft or a 2-3 year civil service period would due very well to make productive citizens out of our lost young people. It certainly would not hurt the country as a whole to have us all pointed in the same direction instead of trying to destroy America as your people want to do.]

Who gets to decide that direction, Lisa?

Emile Pope

The government has predator drones, tanks, and nuclear weapons. Plus people that train everyday to use them. Your handgun would be useless...

Carlos Ponce

Not really, Emile.
"Posse Comitatus Act" - The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States.
Use of predator drones, tanks, and nuclear weapons is prohibited by law.

Carlos Ponce

Why did they write the Bill of Rights? Delegates from the individual states were reluctant to sign on to the proposed Constitution unless they received assurances a Bill of Rights was included.
Stephen, take time to read each of the first 10 amendments. It should be obvious that each was designed to prevent government over reach and intrusion into the lives of the ordinary citizen. If the right to keep and bear arms was only restricted to the militias it would run contrary to the spirit of the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [If the right to keep and bear arms was only restricted to the militias it would run contrary to the spirit of the rest of the Bill of Rights.]

Then why did the US courts find that there existed an inextricable tie to militias for over 200 years Carlos? Even Scalia admits the weapon had to apply to militia service.

Carlos Ponce

FALSE!

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [FALSE!]

Let's see you prove otherwise Carlos. What Federal case would you cite?

Carlos Ponce

U.S. v. Cruikshank 1875
"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress."
Presser v. Illinois 1886
" "[t]he Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this . . . means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National government . . . "

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [U.S. v. Cruikshank 1875 "The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress."]

There is more to that decision that helps clarify it:
_The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.'_

_. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes_

Not much about personal versus collective there, Cruikshank was more about who had the authority to enforce the law. What little it speaks of any right it suggests the collective: " 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose'." Followed later by: " leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes." Both can be fairly construed to mean in reference to a militia. Why say "lawful purpose" if it is supposed to be some inalienable natural right.

Mark Aaron

[U.S. v. Cruikshank 1875]
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/92/542.html

[Presser v. Illinois 1886" "[t]he Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this . . . means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National government . . . "]

What do you think this proves, Carlos? This isn't about personal v. collective at all. This, like Cruikshank, is concerned with federal v. state. There is nothing there about personal ownership. It was about who could decide who was a militia. The Feds could federalize a militia, so they should be able to regulate their training, but states have an inherent right to regulate their men at arms. The state trumped the Fed on the question. However, Presser also noted:

_ As the district court explained in detail, appellants' claim that Presser supports the proposition that the second amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms is not subject to state restriction is based on dicta quoted out of context... This argument borders on the frivolous and does not warrant any further consideration._
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois

Or put another way, the 2nd Amendment does not bestow a personal right to anyone, it bestows a collective right to the states. Those states can regulate however they want, within their state. Some even bestow a personal right if I remember correctly.

Carlos Ponce

The right of Black Men to keep and bear arms for self defense had been infringed by a group of White Democrats. The court ruled it the Second Amendment does not apply since it pertains only to Congress. The second Amendment was inapplicable since it was not Congress that deprived the Black men. BUT the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by Congress is clearly stated in the decision.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [The second Amendment was inapplicable since it was not Congress that deprived the Black men. BUT the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by Congress is clearly stated in the decision.]

The White mob who massacred the Black community deprived the collective of Black people from forming their own militia or guard. That is all Cruikshank found. Nowhere does it identify an individual right to own firearms. Feel free to show me a quote from the decision that says otherwise if you can find one.

Carlos Ponce

Little Marky must still need a reading lesson. Read the entire case "U.S. v. Cruikshank 1875".

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [Little Marky must still need a reading lesson. Read the entire case "U.S. v. Cruikshank 1875".]

Quote the part that concerns you and we can discuss it Carlos.

Doyle Beard

This guy needs to talk to people in Hungary about gun control.

Mark Aaron

Doyle: [This guy needs to talk to people in Hungary about gun control.]

Or Somalia.

Kelly Naschke

Hey Stephen...the FBI, State of Texas, and our local municipalities have determined that I can legally carry a firearm just about wherever I go. AND I DO. I don’t even have so much as a speeding ticket on my record. In other words...I am pretty trustworthy, not a criminal now...nor ever have been. What makes you think I can’t make my own decisions to protect myself and my family?

Mark Aaron

Leroy: [.I am pretty trustworthy, not a criminal now...nor ever have been. What makes you think I can’t make my own decisions to protect myself and my family? ]

Or you could just call 911 and let the experts do their job.

Robert Braeking

Mark, your naivete is showing. "Or you could just call 911 and let the experts do their job. " Let me educate you about law enforcement experts. Their job is to investigate crime and prosecute the perpetrators. They cannot be in all places at all times. You go ahead and resist a mugger with a knife using your cell phone. The police will arrive in time for them to witness your last dying gasp in a pool of your own blood. The 'experts' cannot prevent crime.

Mark Aaron

Robert: [Mark, your naivete is showing. "Or you could just call 911 and let the experts do their job. " Let me educate you about law enforcement experts. Their job is to investigate crime and prosecute the perpetrators. They cannot be in all places at all times. ~~ The 'experts' cannot prevent crime.]

So you want to claim that the police never stop crimes in progress, or before they can occur, is that what you are claiming Robert?

==> [You go ahead and resist a mugger with a knife using your cell phone. The police will arrive in time for them to witness your last dying gasp in a pool of your own blood.]

So what happens if they have a gun and they know how to use it? Are you going to have a quick draw competition? How often does this scenario take place and what usually happens? Do you have any sources?

I'll take my chances with the cellphone. I know I will never accidentally shoot someone with it. I might take video and show it to the police when they get there.

Kelly Naschke

Dude...you are a total TROLL. And the cops only show up AFTER the damage is done. What a buffoon.

Robert Braeking

Mark,
NO. Police do not prevent crime except in the rare circumstance that they are there when it is happening. If YOU cannot handle a weapon then by all means do not own one but don't try to take away my right to own one either. I would no more accidentally shoot anyone, as you suggest, than I would hit the wrong nail with a hammer. A weapon is a tool. If you don't think you would have occasion to use it then don't buy one.

Mark Aaron

Leroy: [Dude...you are a total TROLL. And the cops only show up AFTER the damage is done. What a buffoon.]

So cops never break up fights? Cops never stop altercations from going too far? And you have evidence of this?

Mark Aaron

Robert: [NO. Police do not prevent crime except in the rare circumstance that they are there when it is happening.]

And you believe that to be true?

==> {If YOU cannot handle a weapon then by all means do not own one but don't try to take away my right to own one either.]

I served as a helicopter crewchief/doorgunner with the Air Cavalry in Vietnam, so I have a passing acquaintance with firearms. Part of the job and all. That doesn't mean I need an M60 or an AR-15 today. My old H&R single shot shotgun will stop most any problem I would ever expect should 911 fail. Even with my training I know the experts should be allowed to do their job first.

==> [I would no more accidentally shoot anyone, as you suggest, than I would hit the wrong nail with a hammer. A weapon is a tool. If you don't think you would have occasion to use it then don't buy one.]

No a firearm is more than a tool. It has the immediate potential of being deadly and should always be treated as such. So what training do you believe prepares you to safely use a firearm in an altercation? How often do you have to draw down on people?

PD Hyatt

Just another progressive liberal leftist spewing forth garbage about something he knows nothing about.... If gun control really worked then why are places like Chicago, Washington D.C., New York, Detroit all very good progressive haters of our Constitution that have very strict gun controls still have the highest killings or murders of people shooting each other with guns? If this liberal is so against people getting killed, I do wonder why he isn't complaining about all of the deaths by cars, hammers, baseball bats, crow bars, knives? If he was so concerned about saving lives why isn't he trying to save all of the babies that he and his kind are slaughtering upon the alter that they call choice?
The progressive left always whines about guns, and yet they do not seem to have the ability to understand that it isn't the gun that is the problem it is the person behind the gun that is pulling the trigger.... Besides if they succeed in taking away our weapons then only the government and the criminals will have them and I for one do not trust that a leftist government will not get stupid on us and I never trust the criminals as the police only can show up after the criminal is done....

Mark Aaron

Paul: [If he was so concerned about saving lives why isn't he trying to save all of the babies that he and his kind are slaughtering upon the alter that they call choice?]

If you are so pro-life Paul why are you so pro-war, pro-gun, pro capital punishment, and so anti-welfare? Where are you after the children are born and in need?

Allison Mugnier

Mr, Hodgson -- I see the trolls and loudmouths and fools have come out to tell you why you are wrong. All they can do is spout talking points given to them by the NRA. They are obviously incapable of thinking on their own. Don't listen to them. There are a lot of us out here who agree with you.

Doyle Beard

Allison to set the record I am not a member of the NRA and have never been. They have given me no info or talking points. All I can say is you have a phony source as far as I am concerned. I have owned guns since I was 12 yrs old. Fact of matter I bought a 410 shotgun when was a teenager and used it properly and did not have to be supervised as I was taught at an early age to respect guns. So you and your phony can say whatever you may but probably falls on deaf ears.

Mark Aaron

Doyle: [Allison to set the record I am not a member of the NRA and have never been. They have given me no info or talking points.]

Yet you parrot their claims word for word Doyle. Just because you don't know it doesn't means the NRA hasn't bought and paid for your "talking points." They have spent a lot of money duping America.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eya_k4P-iEo

==> [All I can say is you have a phony source as far as I am concerned.]

What is your source? Are you qualified to interpret legal documents, especially those written in the late 18th Century?

==>[So you and your phony can say whatever you may but probably falls on deaf ears.]

Are you saying you willfully refuse to learn Doyle?

Doyle Beard

What a dumb last question, trying to show some intelligence yet showing ignorance .I don't know if the NRA existed in the early 50s or not. Maybe they are parroting my claims. Ever give that a thought? I would be careful about using the word duping.

Mark Aaron

==>[So you and your phony can say whatever you may but probably falls on deaf ears.]

Are you saying you willfully refuse to learn Doyle?

Doyle: [What a dumb last question, trying to show some intelligence yet showing ignorance.]

It sure reads like that is what you are suggesting. Aren't you saying you won't bother to read or consider a response?

==> [I don't know if the NRA existed in the early 50s or not. Maybe they are parroting my claims. Ever give that a thought? I would be careful about using the word duping.]

If you are honest about it and reconsider thoughtfully you'll find your political views about the 2nd Amendment began in the late 70's or the 80's.

Doyle Beard

The 70s and 80s there was more publicity about it due to the liberals wanting gun control. They stirred the pot

Mark Aaron

Doyle: [The 70s and 80s there was more publicity about it due to the liberals wanting gun control. They stirred the pot]

You are misinformed Doyle. An NRA coup d’état by ultra nationalists in 1977 was the ladle that started the pot roiling.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment

Robert Braeking

It would seem that the protected class is spewing liberal talking points. Those who agree with Mr. Hodgson are equally naive. True gun control is the ability to put projectiles on the target with speed and consistency.

Mark Aaron

Robert: [It would seem that the protected class is spewing liberal talking points.]

The what? The "protected class?" What is that supposed to mean?

What points are you labeling as "liberal?"

==> [True gun control is the ability to put projectiles on the target with speed and consistency.]

Is that all you need to know Robert?

Robert Braeking

The protected class are those who depend totally on government to solve their problems. Obviously you go everywhere with an armed body guard protecting you from those on the street who would do you harm or you cloister yourself in your protected enclave never to venture out.
That's just about it. Identify the target and punch little holes in it until it is no longer a threat.
Liberal points? Gun control, call 911, your naive expectation that the police can protect you.

Mark Aaron

Robert: [The protected class are those who depend totally on government to solve their problems.]

Totally. And what percentage of the populace do you believe makes up the "protected class." Also, who is not part of the "protected class?"

==> [Obviously you go everywhere with an armed body guard protecting you from those on the street who would do you harm or you cloister yourself in your protected enclave never to venture out.]

Are those the only two possibilities?

==> [That's just about it. Identify the target and punch little holes in it until it is no longer a threat. Liberal points? Gun control, call 911, your naive expectation that the police can protect you.]

So anyone who calls 911 is a fool or a sissy?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.