Scott, I just checked in with "Google" and your stated figures are grossly exaggerated. Just ask Google, "Gun related deaths in the U.S." And let us eliminate the guns involved in suicide as those individuals will use the tool available---perhaps a car driven at 100 MPH into a bus, school or shopping mall. And, if our guns are "taken", just how many more violent crimes are going to be committed? History reveals in Australia, Great Britain and France, when their guns were taken, the violent crimes doubled and in select areas by a factor of ten. Please enlighten the readers as to your solution(s).

Brian, you reference several European countries and Australia. A survey of their citizens reveal a great majority clearly advise Americans, "Don't give up your guns". In addition to our crime problem, we now have a NWO/Muslim issue wherein they have indicated they are going to take over this country and then the rest of the world---and they have been making significant progress in those efforts---are we going to "fight them off" at the "debate podium? And, if our guns are taken, the violent crime in this country will escalate by a factor of at least 2 and perhaps 4. Just how much more crime will there be if the "bad guys" know we don't have guns?---just what is your alternative?

Sir, are grossly misinformed. The states with the most gun deaths are those same states with the strictest laws, Illinois, New York and good ol' Washington DC. And you think taking the citizen's guns will reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals---they have their own supply sources and they do not and never have voluntarily given up their guns. And, let us "face it", our law enforcement agencies, no matter how good, just cannot be everywhere , all of the time---they "respond" to problems. This evidence is so clear that I sense you have ulterior motives in mind, or you are grossly ignorant (not knowing the facts).

[quote=Brian Devon]Save our children. Repeal the 2nd amendment. Join the developed nations of the world and enact sensible gun control. Stop being the nation that everyone views as the crazy "get off my lawn" guy. Time for the U.S. to grow up and mature past the frontier mentality. The frontier closed in the 19th century!!![/quote
Sir, I know you mean well but you have to look at the much larger picture. If the citizen's guns are taken, the criminals will still have theirs, as they never voluntarily give up theirs. Now, today with almost all adults owning guns, there still much crime. If the criminals know that there will be no guns, the violent crime will increase by a factor of at least 2 and perhaps 4---this was proven in Australia, Great Britain and France, when their guns were taken. With the increased crime, no one will be able to go out in public and have to say home with their doors locked---and even that will not stop the criminals from breaking down the doors. What alternative to guns do you offer to stop the present carnage and its great increase if the citizen's guns are taken? About 20 times more teenagers are k**led or maimed in automobile accidents than with guns and I don't see a clamor to take the cars off of the streets.

If Wal-Mart raises their wages, the price of their products will go up and they will lose their competitive position---something called "supply and demand" and they must make a profit to stay in business.

You are correct. I clicked on the wrong block. It was to be directed to a selected person, but it does apply to all of us---if the shoe fits....

Some will say "much ado about nothing", but I am going to print and read them and keep most for future reference. Thanks.

Sir, keep it civil, your posts reveal a lot about you.

Sir, I am a retired military officer. You obviously do not understand the tactical and strategic advantages of having troops stationed at various locations throughout the world. Basically it gives us a "time and distance" advantage in case of attack, especially when WMD probably would be involved. An attack on our bases at say, Okinawa, Japan would give us perhaps 30 minutes of reaction time. An attack on the U.S. mainland would alert the several overseas locations---and to attack several or all of our overseas locations simultaneously probably would be cost and manpower prohibitive. Not, only that, there are very large "dollar" advantages to those many smaller countries and our dispersed forces surely must deter at least some of the "bad guys" from invading those little countries. Also, I note you were hesitant to address my several other issues.

3jack, you are very naive. Politicians seldom perform direct involvement, they usually always go through 3rd (or higher) parties so that their fingerprints won't be on the issue until it comes out they way they want it.

Sir, you have the cart before the horse. Most all of our English language originated from other languages, with Latin being the primary one.

Sir, keep you remarks civil. Nothing is to be gained by off-subject personal one-on-one gutter talk (mental masturbation), other than to suggest, while you desperately want to comment, you really have nothing valid and on-subject to say.

I am pleased of oblige. True, the libertarians have many good points and ideas but you neglect to reveal they are adamant in bringing our military and state department personnel "home" (circling the wagons). If we do that, those bombs now going off in overseas shopping malls, train stations and airports will be going off on our very doorsteps. They refuse to acknowledge we inherited the roll of being the world's "peace keeper" after WW-II. And while we have not be 100% perfect in that regard, if it were not for the U.S. this planet would now be under a NWO or Muslim dictatorship. The libertarians refuse to acknowledge the tactical and strategic advantages of having our military and embassies stationed throughout the world. Those "time and distance" factors give us a 30 or 40 minutes of time to react in event some aspiring or rogue group or nation attacks us or one of our allies. Those factors alone by far, offset the good ideas and concepts Libertarians may have.

Sex mundths ago I couldn't even spel edittor, now I are one! Thanx for the "chuckle".

"C3j", all of those points can be far more civilly and effectively broached via a "Worker's Council". Unions earned their keep in the 1800s but now are controlled by powerful people that use the workers as mere "useful i***ts" to get their huge money demands. When I mortgage my house, beg and borrow every dollar I can get, to start a business, I don't want any outsiders trying to get more than their fair share of my financial pie---I am the one taking the risk, working 15/7/365 to get the business up and running and there is no room for powerful outsiders to be involved. I also don't quarrel with fair wages but supply and demand has a roll in those processes. I am not even opposed to a reasonable "profit sharing" plan. And, safe, sanitary and reasonable working conditions are of a greater interest to me than the individual employee as they all affect my "bottom line".