Some have been using the two synonymously, which is incorrect. The 2nd amendment does not give every one the "right to bear arms". It does give the States the right to have armed militias, which the Fed. co opted as the National Guard. That debate is irrelevant.

What would happen if every citizen had unfettered access to weapons? Chaos, mayhem, violence? Probably not, but there would be consequences. Criminals would tend to shoot first, for fear of an armed victim. Crime would NOT be deterred because criminals commit crimes - it's what they do. Criminals are not capable of making rational decisions, at least the way most of us would view it, but to them, it IS rational. So, if they don't want to get shot, they'll need to shoot first and they'll have to shoot everybody because anyone could be armed.

Gun control is a joke. There are already enough weapons out there to arm every man, women and child several times over, so gun control would be too little, too late. Criminals would always get guns anyway, they'd just steal them, if nothing else. Criminals don't obey laws so more laws would have no impact on them. Now, imposing mandatory 20 year sentences IN ADDITION TO any other sentence for using a gun in a crime, MIGHT cause some criminals to hesitate. We won't do that though, because we don't want to pay for a whole lot more prisons.

When trained police officers empty their clips at one person - and miss, you get the idea that shooting at a person is a far cry from target shooting. Look at the numbers of shootings and the numbers of rounds fired and you'll see what I mean. Asking untrained citizens to do any better is very silly, but that's the impression that's being given. " protect yourself! " they cry, or " don't be a victim! " they claim. Ask yourself why cops are killed and you'll answer " because the criminals shoot them first ", then ask yourself how criminals will act when they know everybody is armed. If cops can't protect themselves, what makes you think you'll be able to do better?

All this talk about 2nd amendment rights and gun control are merely political tools used by unscrupulous people to manipulate the public. Using scare tactics, bogus statistics and other unsavory things, as way to get you to act how they want you to. The politicians, the NRA and all other involved groups, know the truth, but they don't care. For every crime prevented due to an armed victim there is an accidental death due to improper use of a firearm. Do you think they care? As long as they get what they want, they don't. As soon as "gun control" rhetoric is raised in DC, NRA membership goes up and more NRA money goes into politics. Kind of neat huh? Need more money from the NRA? Just bring up gun control.

Most state elections are rigged to favor Republicans.And and Republicans are making a big issue about Voter I.D.now ,like there is all kinds of voter fraud going on.The facts show almost none.Repubs looking to scam the system, because you're so out of touch with the middleclass and poor, you pulled those gerrymandering stunts all over this country.Gore really won that election against Bush and he wouldn't have sent us to the wrong place to fight a war and put the first shovel in the hole Bush and Cheney dug us. They made it so difficult to get out of this whole mess and for this president that it may take another ten years, thats if we don't get another bunch of Republican vultures in power.

I watched the video. Senator Miller could have used a better choice of words...not a great sound-byte for his next political campaign.

That being said, I never cease to be amazed by Republicans who are more offended by street references to bodily functions than they are by children being gunned down in the classroom or our leaders being gunned down by angry men with guns.

There are definitely misplaced values at work here. Some of these NRA bible thumpers, like Gen. Boykin, even have the chutzpah to say that Jesus would have carried an AR-15.


I think Senator Miller should have chosen his words more carefully, however I can totally understand his frustrations with the Wayne-Lapierre-Pepe' Le-Peu-lock-and-loaded crowd.

Funny, but I do not find BoJester any better or worse than other posters on this site. He will respond in a very nice way, if you are polite with him. Which is not to imply that you have to agree, there have been many times that I disagreed with him, but his responses were very polite. Perhaps because I do not start off with calling him names. Others on this site will just ignore people and not try to respond. BoJester may post some topics that do not site well with people, but many of them are worth the read. Others on this site, well they post religion or their views of whether or not butterflies pass fecal matter or urine.

My point was this: 'Right now the divisiveness thoroughly overwhelms any true recovery of the economy or the day-to-day operations of government and has "we the people" acting more like we're the monkeys." Your point was turn up the magnitude on the divisiveness, claiming somehow only the evil liberals insult or act in name calling. Spend just a little while perusing the threads here to refute this absurd statement. Hyperbole such as you purport marks your comments as a preferred blindness. We all get overheated at times and say ridiculously extreme comments, but for many, given a brief respite, a cooler head usually prevails; instead, you double down. What is really troubling you?