With radical political parties forcing laws that destroy the Constitution, you better be armed when they decide to turn on YOU!

"Big man lying on the ground
With a hole in his body
Where his life had been ..." Jailbreak AC/DC

"It's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it."

How many of you have actually had to use your gun for self protection?

@SmellyFeet The idea is - like a fire extinguisher - you hope you won't ever need it, but if you ever do, you'll be sure glad you have it.

Using a gun for protection does not mean shooting someone. Proof is easy to find, even for socialists and communists, police officers do not fire their guns nor do they kill someone every time they draw their weapon for self-defense.

It is the same for civilians, the presense of an armed citizen, homeowner or business owner is enough to make most criminals reconsider their actions, at least until they get elected president or appointed attorney general.

Yes by the way, I have defended myself with a firearm. It works a lot better than waving your little red book or aclu card.

I laugh every time I see something about Obama banning guns, because this was a scare tactic, totally made up by gun and ammunition suppliers to boost their sales about 1000% (which has obviously worked very well!), and every redneck in the country went out and spent all their beer money in one weekend, cause that Bama guy is goin to take our guns away (or pry them from my cold, bloody fingers, as they would say!). Don't get me wrong, I believe in gun rights and own many, but I didn't just go buy them yesterday.

Smelly Feet

How many of you have actually had to use your gun for self protection?

actually, my brother had to do just that. Is that close enough for you?

...it is for ME, Jaco

Sorry, gotta throw the B.S. card. Things under this administration have been more gun friendly than in years. Nothing is happening behind the scenes or conspiratorily. I just finished my Christmas shopping at my local gun show last weekend and things were easy, relaxed, and the money was flowing. We can thank the NRA and NSSF for that, and politicians realize........do you really want to pi$$ off a block of voters as far reaching and powerful as gun owners in this social and economic environment. Remember, with great power comes great responsibility. As gun owners we can't be Bubba's, conspiracy theorists or in your face a$$holes and idiots. Just calmly and discretely ask Santa for that new 20 gun, gun safe , spend quality time at the range being a safe and responsible gun owner , and pass the heritage of ownership, hunting , and the outdoor life down to the young.

Exactly!!! Doing absolutely nothing to hinder gun ownership and allowing to carry in national parks really means an anti-gun agenda. The logic is so clear it's irrefutable.

While running for the senate obama signed a survey approving a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-auto handguns. After he was elected president obama said "the only reason I am not introducing new gun control legislation is I know it doesn't have enough votes to pass. Obama's department of (in)justice is trying to put in place rules requiring the registration of every multiple sale of rifles larger than 22 rim fire sold in certain states (any kind of gun registration at the federal level is forbiddeen by law). Obama has called for the banning of semi-auto only military look-alike rifles.

The reason he signed the legislation allowing conceiled carry in National Parks is that piece of legislation was passed as an amendment to the credit reform act which obama wanted more than he wanted a fight over the amendment.

Smelly feet: My seat belts have never saved my life, either...but I use them ALL the time! And just like car insurance, it's a good thing to have BEFORE you need it.

Spot on, Realist!

Just calmly and discretely ask Santa for that new 20 gun, gun safe ,

LOL that's actually on my list to buy myself this year. I doubt I could ask Santa to bring me one.

smelly feet... i can answer that question for myself. thrice. first time was against a pair of german shepards that someone had let run in the woods. one was for two guys that said that i cut them off at an intersection, which i hadn't, but was willing to apologise for. they didn't want an apology, but got back into their car as i laid my pistol on the dash. the last was a huge (and i'm 6-2, 240#) guy that insisted on coming into my yard from a party across the street at 1130pm on a worknight, using my yard for a toilet and took umbrage at me when i told him to leave. after having a shotgun pointed at him, he left.

It is legal gun owners who are being criminals and selling guns on the blackmarket. Making private sellers do background checks will stop that.

Controlling the criminal element, is not a ban. ITS CONTROL!

The Obama administration has a habit of, just like Bush's administration did, stripping away our other Constitutional rights. Our 2nd ammendment will be one of the next to go, in one way or another. And beside that point, the way things are going, if any of the same cookie cutter Republicrat candidates win in 2012, things will continue to devolve into more and more of a police state, where you're either a slave to the powers that be, or else a gun owner.

Actually, I take that first part back, his administration already has started stripping legal citizens of the right to legal firearms.

http://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/index.ssf/2011/10/medical_marijuana_patients_can.html

Medical marijuana patients cannot legally have guns or ammunition, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Obama's voting record while in the senate clearly defines his views as anti-gun. It's no secret. Clinton is worse though. YOu also have Shumer, Pelosi and reed who have always voted against firearms. The next big thing facing us in the UN backed arms trade treaty. Nifty little piece of legislation. The UN calls for registration of all firemarms and ammo. History tells us what's next after that in places like Germany, England, Australia and Canada. Only problem is the UN shouldn't have any say over our nation. Especially since we fund about 22% of it's operations. Clinton has signed onto it and you can bet Barry will too. Representative Joe Walsh from Illinois is currently drafting a bill that would block US funding of the UN if they try to enact this treaty on US citizens. Would be a good time to write a quick email to your Governors and other local politicians to push them in the right direction on the upcoming vote.

Apparently, gun ownership incites paranoia too.

Apparently non-gun ownership incites blindness to the facts that are staring the rest of us in the face.

Gun control means hitting your target. As far as owning, I have several. The last thing I would hope anyone needs in an emergency is a phone with dial-a-prayer (911) on their speed dial. Just remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!

I think we as a nation as well as our government have under estimated the the impact of crooked congressmen and the 99% verses the 1%. The 99% is not represented in congress. The wealthy and big business buy votes.

Congress cannot fix this mess they have gotten this country into fast enough even if they really wanted to. Just ignore it, it will go away, life for me is good mentality.

This whole mess could get really ugly . . . and I honestly think people may need to protect their families and their well being without the help of this anti 99% government.

@Scott - good one; not always, but very often, they do seem to go hand-in-hand.

Amazing how having inept politicians who continue to throw Americans under the bus while welcoming foreign criminals into our country with open arms will cause citizens to take matters into their own hands.

Obama and his spineless, pandering yes-men have been the best thing the U.S. firearms industry could ask for.... they may have even inadvertently created a few jobs through their incompetence.

Freedom4Everyone

It is legal gun owners who are being criminals and selling guns on the blackmarket. Making private sellers do background checks will stop that.

Controlling the criminal element, is not a ban. ITS CONTROL!

Your name is completely bass ackwards, if you really believed in Freedom, you would hold the Constitution up as one of the most exemplary founding documents any country could EVER hope to acheive. And our 2nd ammendment is designed for OUR rights, every citizen!

• Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.

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.

But only in the service of an organized militia.

Bustem

Gun control means hitting your target. As far as owning, I have several. The last thing I would hope anyone needs in an emergency is a phone with dial-a-prayer (911) on their speed dial. Just remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away!

But, you can't actually rely on the police:

http://psacake.com/dial_911.asp

Underlying all “gun control” ideology is this one belief.” “Private citizens don’t need firearms because the police will protect them from crime.” That belief is both false and dangerous for two reasons.

First, the police cannot and do not protect everyone from crime. Second, the government and the police in most localities owe no legal duty to protect individuals from criminal attack. When it comes to deterring crime and defending against criminals, individuals are ultimately responsible for themselves and their loved ones. Depending solely on police emergency response means relying on the telephone as the only defensive tool. Too often, citizens in trouble dial 911 . . . and die.

It’s not just that the police cannot protect you. They don’t even have to come when you call. In most states the government and police owe no legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. The District of Columbia’s highest court spelled out plainly the “fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”

This is one such example, but... http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=26&gs_id=22&xhr=t&q=police+under+no+obligation&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=police+under+no+obligation&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=497a0dbec56255c7&biw=1291&bih=702

...has many more

pjam................I couldn't have said it better!!!!!!!!

"... By calling attention to a well-regulated militia for the security of the Nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fear of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the 2nd amendment, will ever be a major danger to our Nation, the amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationship, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the 2nd Amendment will always be important."

John F. Kennedy

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
-John F. Kennedy

"A free people ought not only to be armed & disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms & munitions to maintain a status of independence from any who might try to abuse them which would include their own government."

-George Washington.

Yep, I guess one of our founding fathers and one of our greatest presidents must have been "paranoid"? lol....

I expected about 90% of the votes to be against buying a gun as a gift.

I was shocked that 80% voted that they would give a gun as a gift, especially since it would be illegal in many cases.

As the old hippies of the 60s who brought all the delights of political correctness with them, pass into history, hopefully the more conservative common sense generations to come after them will prevail. Gun ownership is assured by our constitution and backed up a number of times by the high court. The key to firearm ownership is training for safety, getting a consealed carry permit, and knowing what to do and when to do it. Shooting sports are fun and protection is a side benefit.

I am a collector and own more weapons than most gun stores. Having said that, I must say the NRA and the polititians on the right are merely using scare tactics which drive up the prices for weapons and ammo. The whole thing is absurd. The media sure doesn't help either. The boogie man is going to get you NRA is nothing more than a Bull.

Roy,

The intent of the law is to keep you or me from taking money from somene who doesn't want their name on ownership papers and buying the gun for them. I would doubt very seriously if there would be a problem for me to buy a gun and give it as a gift to a close friend or family member.

Unfortunately, the anti's keep drafting new bills all the time. Without organizations like the NRA and GOA pushing for defeat of them, you wouldn't be enjoying your collection anymore. Their "scare" tactics are no different than what that anti's such as the Brady campaign put out there...just a diff flavor.

Roy, come on.....

"I was shocked that 80% voted that they would give a gun as a gift, especially since it would be illegal in many cases".

Have you ever heard of a "gift certificate", and do you really believe that there will be any illegal guns under the Christmas tree? "shocked", really.....

Many comments all believe the Militia was a organized governmental unit; (it was not) at the time the Constitution was written, Militia = any able bodied male between 16 and 60 years old. Militia means citizens who organize in a community who are armed to defend their property, family and freedom against any person or group that want to dominate their community, city, state or nation.

B.S. It's the 99% who are tired of being trampled on. The right wing gun nuts and Tea Party fascists are already well-armed.

Last time i checked Kennedy was a democrat.... He was also an NRA member.

It is so comical to hear people screaming about the government wanting to ban firearms. I have been hearing it since the end of WW11 and it has not happened. I am a progressive and I like guns. I own several, and I have used a gun to defend my person. I do think a background check is in order when one buys a firearm. Loons and criminals should be denied firearm ownership.

I gotta hand it to MSNBC - they know how to generate income. Isn't every click on a link another half a cent in their pocket?

So many demons running around in the brains of humans - wish I knew more about the Internet; I'd have 50 sites all dealing with your inner demons...lol. What is there, like 10,000 different sites run by conservatives these days, all laughing all the way to the bank.

99% of the stuff people get wound up about will never affect them or affect them so slightly that it isn't worth the stress the put on them selves and everyone around them... gotta run, need to see a man about setting up web sites...lol.

Those who "beat their swords into plowshares", will plow for those who don't..................Just saying

GI Joe; that's the bumper sticker that was on the truck of the guy who opened fire on the White House in October of 1994...you sure know how to help your cause...lmao.

You can still get that bumper sticker at Amazon.

I bet the Bible lovers appreciate your twisting Isaiah's words.

Lighten up Drain...............Nothing wrong with a little humor in your life. It relieves stress.

So... 0.042% of the US population buys a gun on one day and it's news?

Gee. I wonder what was the percentage for a McRib?

I love all the comments saying that no one is out to ban guns! I guess they don't pay much attention to all the bills that have been wrote on capitol hill since the 60's. I mean, just one HUGE glaring example was Clinton's "assault rifle" ban in the 90's. Why do anti's and lefties REFUSE to accept reality? The facts are there. Use the search function on your web portal of choice.

So... 0.042% of the US population buys a gun on one day and it's news?

Gee. I wonder what was the percentage for a McRib?

McRibs don't cost between $300-$1000. See the difference?

Jeff... Okay, what was the percentage for Louis XIII Cognac? Filled up the house up with heating oil? Flew round trip (domestic)? Bought a 9+ year old domestic car? ...

Or flat screen TVs, laptops, video game consoles, and cheap appliances?

Hey smelly - I have had to defend myself twice with a weapon. Both times I wounded the assailant and they stood trial. Not only did they get a hole hole in em, they now are behind bars.

Oh realist - For the most part you are right - The gun flow has not been stopped - however, in early 2010 the administration had some temp controls on ammo and some ammo was extremely difficult to find, not impossible, they just made it difficult to get some of the more popular calibers. It did not take long for the controls to fall thru tho'.

Tyler - THANK YOU!

"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."

The US has a well formed militia, it's called the National Guard, and is not under control of the federal government, but under the control of the state governors.

@JonSmith: Much as I prefer States rights over federalism, I don't trust governors, either. You can argue 'til you're blue in the face about what the founding fathers meant by "militia," but I've got my own opinion. And a gun. Or two.

(Now, if you really want to push that thing about what "militia" means, go read some history on exactly WHY the founders thought it was necessary for the citizenry to be armed. Here's a hint: To protect them FROM the government.)

@ JonSmith, the national guard is NOT the militia.

Our forefathers knew that the way to enslave a people is to first disarm them, something that they knew first hand while living in England. If you need a refresher, read our Declaration of Independence to see why our right to bear arms will not be infringed. The second amendment is as much about protecting the security of a FREE state from internal enemies as much as protecting the FREE state from external threats.

Think that National Guard is your friend? They were lovely @ Kent State weren't they?

again so it can be clear; the Militia consisted of all able body males between 16 and 60; it was not and today is not part of any Government organization; the Militia was called up in the community's when a treat from outside forces was coming (Indian attacks, government soldiers (British redcoats), they elected their own leaders, no one paid them, they supplied their own guns, ammunition ,food and clothing, they are not the National guard, they are citizens that band together for common protection.

There is nothing wrong with owning a firearm. My concern are the folks that buy guns and don't receive the proper training on how to use the weapon safely.

saxon has it right. And citizen's were expected to bring their own gun. Thus, they had to be allowed to keep one. There are still counties (WV comes to mind) that require homeowners to have a gun. Those laws were to ensure responsible citizens (homeowners) could defend the state iaw the 2nd amendment.

DiHrdLibrl Almost to the bottom:

“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

#1.0...Skiddy.....please provide your source/s of information - otherwise it sounds like old garden variety gossip

So many people are confused about the Militia...

The militia is any able bodied man aged 17-45 that can reasonably be called to duty (i.e. anyone eligible for the draft).

The militia is also the national guard, but NOT the National Guard of the United States.

These definitions were determined by the Militia Act of 1903 and differentiated between the Organized (national guard) and the unorganized (men 17-45) militias--- and the terms "organized vs unorganized" were very specifically used so as not to interfere with the individual citizen's right to bear arms or to infer that the unorganized militia was inherently incapable of being "well-regulated."

• The organized militia created by the Militia Act of 1903, which split from the 1792 Uniform Militia forces, and consist of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.^[2] The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
• The reserve militia^[3] or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft)

History is a good thing to know, folks.

WMG,

Does the Militia Act of 1903 create a command and control system for this reserve militia, or was it merely a pool from which the regular forces, the Reserves, or the National Guard could draw transcripts for training and service.

Further, for those wishing to use the militia as justification for unregulated, uncontrolled firearms ownership, over two centuries of warfare and treaties regarding the conduct of war bans the use of many of sporting arms as either ineffectual except to soft targets, or as unauthorized by the the command of their nation's service. Caught using such weapons could result in summary execution, by either side, even if the attacks were unsuccessful. Interestingly, private weapons ownership and control on military bases (full of issued weapons) is strictly controlled. You get approval, locker you weapon in a secured armory, and check it in and out. This was from my nephew, 18years as an Army MP with service in Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's funny that this is first thread I've had a comment collapsed on; admittedly a bit snarky - funny, but still a little on the snarky side. However; that wasn't what earned it it's unpopular status. Rather, it's because I dared to infer that people that owned guns numbering in double or triple digits might have paranoia issues. I don't currently own a gun, but I don't mind if people do --- as long as they use them responsibly (I have had several drunks point loaded weapons at me, but that's off topic). I also don't mind shooting with friends and actually have been doing some shopping myself, but what cracks me up is that I find people in the gun industry have used the Obama administration as the boogeyman to execute one of the most effective marketing campaigns in history. For very little expense, they've convinced a huge number of people to spend a lot of money stocking up for the gun and ammo restrictions that are never coming. It's hilarious to watch as people spout this nonsense, whipping themselves into a frenzy, before they run out to expand their arsenals. It would not surprise me that the gun industry are major contributors for the 2012 Obama campaign - he's been great for business. It's certainly people's prerogative - spend your hard earned money however you wish - but when is enough enough? Has Bambi started shooting back?

I hear the argument that guns are a deterent to crime as criminals think twice about their actions. I am not sure how criminals know a gun owners house from a non gun owners house?

A pro gun guy I had a discussion with here on newsvine said it was necessary to have a gun because his house had been broken into 4 times. He didn't get the irony of his statement.

Yeee Haw---nothing say "Jesus, the Prince of Peace" like giving a piece for the Holidays!! Bring on the NRA Shills!

Sorry Skiddy, but all Obama has done is INCREASE YOUR GUN RIGHTS. So much for him being "anti-gun."

I am one of those liberals who are supposedly out to get you and your guns. I really have no problem with you having some fire arms. Hand guns okay, rifle okay, shotgun okay. Fully automatic, I see no need for a civilian to own one of these. Any firearm exceeding a certain caliber, no need. Only adults with no felony convictions though, and a required safety class wouldn't hurt.

Just remember that everytime some irresponsible nutjob allows his gun to be abused, he's ruining things for all of you responsible gun owners. So you want to discourage that sort of thing.

Just the thought that around 50% are carrying a firearm has to make crooks think twice.

These numbers are NOT the whole picture. These numbers were generated based on FBI background checks performed THAT DAY. Many buyer mad purchases online (at distributors and such) but they won't have to do a background check until the item is actually shipped to a local gun store for pickup. This means the actual number of Black Friday gun buyers is the number stated, plus a decent percentage of the next week's worth of backgroung checks. Also you can purchase several firearms with the same background check so the number of firearms purchased that day could be well over the number stated - perhaps even 50%, counting those purchased online and shipped to local dealers for background checks at pickup.

This paranoia that the President is "tacitly" against guns is why gun sales are through the roof. If gun makers were smart they'd give millions to the Obama campaign because as soon as another white man is elected president again gun sales will plummit!

Chris wrote with regard to the 2nd amendment:

But only in the service of an organized militia.

C'mon, it doesn't say that and it doesn't mean that and you know it. BTW, if you are one of those who claims that the Constitution is whatever the SCOTUS says it is (I'm not one of them), then you really have no excuse to spout that nonsense.

Also, read some grammar, specifically about dependent and independent clauses. I'll agree that the 2nd is worded awkwardly. Regards....

For all of you that are obviously confused. The second amendment is in-fact as easy to understand as it it written. I know you want it to mean something else but it doesn't. Here it is written in CODE!!!

The definition of militia

10 USC 311 - Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

U.S. Code - Title 10: Armed Forces

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at
least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under
45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become,
citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who
are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the
organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;
and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia
who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The militia is every able-bodied male 17-45 That is not disputable. It has been this way pretty much since day one with certain minor changes in the code to account for women and changes in armed forces structure.

Simply the militia are the people of the united states. We are the last line of defense for this country and as such our right shall not be infringed.

The problem is it is cetaintly infringed. States attempt to disarm their people all the time. They made certain arms illegal(yes that's infringing on a right).

We need to start repecting each "side's" rights. Even when we don't like them.

If you are confused about "well-regulated". well we are "well regulated" the congress regulates each person here in probably at least tens of thousands of ways. If they want to force us all to go through some training they probably could.

Organized is NOT the same as "well-regulated".

the militia that isn't part of the military explicitly is everyone else AND we are well regulated.

If we aren't "well regulated" enough for you , well ask them to regulate you more.

"well regulated" doesn't mean you can infringe on our rights to keep and bear arms..

Machine guns should be legal, well they are, but by law no one can make a new one for sale to the milita any longer.

States shouldn't be able to ban a firearm nor ammunition.

In NJ they are so lost that they banned safer hollow points (outside of home or range) that are made to expand in the body instead of passing through to risk harming someone that isn't the intended target. Stupidity at its finest. In NJ you risk a bullet passing through the bad guy and into a child because of these idiots.

As for paranoia. I would propose that no one that is so paranoid as to fear non-criminal law abiding people having firearms should comment on the firearm owner being paranoid. Either we have crime or we don't. Reality is we do and its been decreasing pretty well over the years with minor fluctuations over the past 10 years or so. None-the-less the prevelence of firearms now is more like 60% of all housholds. The press plays this down consitantly but yet every year they say new ownership goes up 25% and still stick to the 45-48% ownership number. if this year it went up 25% (as they point out) taking into account people just newly allowed (turned 18 (long guns) or 21 (hand guns) ) that means about a 8% gain which would mean this year we jumped from 45-48 to 53 to 57%! The reality is it has stayed steady at aroun 60 to 66% every year.. But that doesn't hold well for the anti-gun agenda.

FYI: at one point, and maybe still today, the NRA had/has more democrats members than Republicans!

Fyi: in PA one can give as a gift a firearm to ones child, parent, spouce or grandparent/child.

Not every state is full of paranoid anti-gun tyrants.

I hurt GI Joes feelings making fun of his bumper sticker mentality...hehehe.

Keep On Truckin

Gun control is having good aim

He who dies with the most toys wins

You can tell a Swede - but you can't tell us much

Is that light enough for ya Bud?

This topic is in the Vine every other week, and only the uptight take it seriously. How you read other peoples posts determines if they are having fun with you or attacking you - beyond the posters control how you take a post.

@JonSmith7383729

The US has a well formed militia, it's called the National Guard, and is not under control of the federal government, but under the control of the state governors.

Wrong. The Army National Guard has reserve status placing them under control of the President if they are called to active duty. You didn't think guardsmen serving in Iraq and Afghanistan were getting their orders from their state Governor did you?

... and it's because NOTHING says "Jesus Christ was born on Christmas, lived, and died for your sins" like a Glock 18.

*facepalm*

DarnThatDream,

I don't know which is funnier, your attempt to belittle my grammar on a statement that was clearly a conjunction of Prohibition's statement or the fact that you'd never join a militia and hate the idea of it as a means to legally own a gun.

Hal-2824511

I am one of those liberals who are supposedly out to get you and your guns. I really have no problem with you having some fire arms. Hand guns okay, rifle okay, shotgun okay. Fully automatic, I see no need for a civilian to own one of these. Any firearm exceeding a certain caliber, no need. Only adults with no felony convictions though, and a required safety class wouldn't hurt.

Just remember that everytime some irresponsible nutjob allows his gun to be abused, he's ruining things for all of you responsible gun owners. So you want to discourage that sort of thing.

This is a valid post that echoes most of feelings on gun ownership. I will not own a gun, but don't mind if others do. The NRA pushes so hard to make more and more weapons available to citizens and there's just no reason for a person to own an automatic weapon, (unless they wish to clear a crowded public place of heartbeats.) Some times I worry that we have become a country that can make only one type product--weaponry. It's a huge part of our economy and the hardest to outsource the job force.

Thanks for the post.

Will all the people that claim Obama is pro-gun PLEASE, PLEASE check his voting record on gun bills while he was a senator. Spewing tainted opinions in lew of the FACTS is a funny thing to argue unless you are a anti-lefty type I guess? Your opinions and reality are two different things.

Chris wrote in response to a comment by me:

I don't know which is funnier, your attempt to belittle my grammar on a statement that was clearly a conjunction of Prohibition's statement or the fact that you'd never join a militia and hate the idea of it as a means to legally own a gun.

Sorry, Chris, I had no issues with your own grammar, rather the grammar used in the 2nd amendment itself. The dependent clause does not alter the independent clause. It merely reveals some of the founders' thinking behind the amendment.

And personally I don't like guns at all, so militia/non-militia -- makes no difference to me. Regards....

Toasty @ comment 1.71

The courts increased our gun rights-- Obama had nothing to do with it. Read comment #1.85

Thanks.

Don't... Forget... To... Drink... Your... Ovaltine...

Ovaltine?

And they won't penetrate the wall, lowering the chance of hurting anyone on the other side. Not to mention, looking down the wrong end of a 12ga would be rather terrifying.

I like large capacity weapons. The more lead in the air the better.

If you think a 12 gauge won't penetrate a wall, you ad better do some more research!! It depends on the shell you are firing at the time. Buckshot will, (#1, #2, 0, 00, and any slug). They don't call them breaching weapons for nothing....

At point blank range, yes, but if you are using a 12 ga as a source of home protection, you probably aren't shooting directly into the wall, which would kind of defeat the purpose; and why would you use a slug for home protection?

Any report I have ever seen shows the 12 ga as the #1 best choice for home defense and one of the most consistent reasonings is it is the least likely to penetrate a wall, lessening the chance of you accidentally shooting someone other than your intended target.

I pulled the plug on my 12 gauge. the first two shells are #8 bird shot for close range work, the next two are 00 buck shot, for when the scum are running down the street, and the last is a slug. just in case they make it to their car.

Actually, the better gauge for home protection would be the 20. It might blow a hole in your wall but it will not penetrate your neighbors. Nothing is more recognizable then the sound a shotgun makes as a shell is pumped into the chamber.

shotguns are too bulky for close range. A revolver with .38 bird shot bullet (the bullet with steel pellets and a blue plastic cap) is what I have for the first two 'warning' shots. It is unlikely to cause much damage but should get the attacker's attention. The second two bullets on my revolver are .38, and the last two shots are .357. Kinda like "progressive discipline".

The myth is you can't miss from short range. Actually, from 10 feet the shot pattern from a 12 gauge with say #7 bird shot is about six inches, which make it missable. The good news is if you hit'em, he's going down and probably not getting up...ever. A 12 gauge is a good home defense weapon and nothing is a more audible deterrent than racking that shell in the chamber. Bad guys hate that sound.

natedom, et al. Please research the ballistic capabilities and performance of various ammunition rounds at The Box O' Truth so as not to perpetuate old timer firearm myths. Many thanks.

Shotguns cannot maneuver around corners very well. An intruder would see you before you see them and rip it right out of your hands. Every instructor worth anything will tell you a hand with as large a bore as you can shoot and hold onto the gun with an ample magazine is far better than any long gun.

@ John - I know the shot pattern of my shotgun using it's chokeless deer barrel is about 1" at 10 feet. I don't think the cup has even peeled away at that range. But I get your point, it's as easy to miss with a shotgun as it is with a rifle at close range. I kind of like the idea that if I should shoot some bastard trying to harm me or mine and he should happen to survive, the surgeon is going to give up picking all the shot pellets out of his body long before he finds them all. With any luck the guy would sound like a bean bag every time he moves..... :)

Oh and here's a tip. If you have a shotgun with a defensive barrel on it and find you are in need of a slug and don't have one. Simply cut through the hull, completely around hull, forward of the powder and behind the shot. When you fire the shotgun the hull will keep your shot together like a slug. it does kick a little more. I probably wouldn't try it in any gun that had more than an improved cylinder choke. But then I wouldn't shoot a slug through one that wasn't an improved cylinder either.

Hey Rogerrabbit; did you know that shooting someone in the back will get 10-20 depending on what state you live in?

Gun ownership is on the rise because we CAN buy guns. It doesn't matter if it's for defense, hunting, sport shooting or just saying you have one. Another reason, guns well maintained will hold their value, unlike most of the items purchased on Black Friday. It is true that political parties have used this explosive issue as a screen to get voters talking, about anything other than the issues. The second ammendment discussions is just as explosive at the abortion issues, just another smoke screen to get voters off topic.

I have a 12 ga. riot gun with an 18 inch barrel, I use No. 4 buck, lots more pellets than 00 and not as likely to penetrate a wall. Just the sound of that slide racking will make even a seasoned burglar crap his pants.

Mossberg 535 with bird shot. Tougher to bring into play than a pistol but worth it considering your chances of hitting something at night. Go to a range, ask them to dim/turn off the lights, disorient yourself then and try to hit COM at 10-15 feet with a pistol then a shotgun. You'll change to a shotgun for home defense if you haven't already.

My choice, Saiga 12 and a 1911 45ACP for backup. alternate load of 00 buck and slugs, 12 rd, mags. Gold dots for the 45, green dot sight for the 12. 12ga is the way to go for home defense but a backup gun is a good idea.

Chance favors the prepared.

Stinky Feet, and anyone else that agrees with him !!!

I own several guns, and have fired them in self defense. But more importantly I have fired guns and killed people in order to protect your right to spew forth your kind of Cr— _. I have now proved that I have the right to protect myself, my family and anyone I deem deserving. BEWARE there are ARMED citizens in this Country woh love it and will protect it at any COST.

rogerrabbit - That is funny. I have a similar, thought-out pattern of 2 shells of buckshot (coyote loads), followed by 3 slugs in my 12 gauge. That is for the gun in my bedroom. I have the same pattern in the gun hidden in the spare bedroom. Downstairs I have 2 long guns hidden out of sight with longer range rounds.

I pity the fool who comes into my house unwelcomed. May God have mercy on their souls because I won't. I have a wife and 2 daughters to think of. If pushed to do it, I will shoot first & talk politics later!

Mike,

My exact thoughts!!! I think its the sound that a shotgun makes pumping the shell into the chamber that would stop me in my tracks. Besides many home invasions happen at night and sound is not afraid of the dark.

Pumping a shotgun is usually all it takes. :)

It's illegal and all, but a buddy of mine has an awesome sawed-off 20 ga. he calls his "pirate gun" -- sort of a new-school blunderbus. Only drawback for home defense is that it's a breach-barrel single shot. Not that that worries him: he's got a number of quality handguns in .45acp too. His thoughts on home invasion:

"If anyone comes to my house to barter for my goods, they will pay a high price."

I mention his opinions and gear because for my part, I currently own only one firearm, and it's not exactly fitting for home defense: a 1936 Mosin Nagant. Then again... it does have a bayonet...

Several posts have mentioned firing on a retreating bad guy. This is a really bad idea. In most, if not all, jurisdictions you may not use lethal force once the actual threat is past. That means if your target is in retreat you can no longer let daylight through him/her. To do so will land you in a world of hurt. In reality, what you want least in this world is to be in a position where you have to shoot another human being. It's ugly, brutal work and you'll remember it. That being said, sometimes it can't be helped. Like any other job, use the tools you're comfortable with. For home defense I use a 12 ga. double barreled coach gun. It's short, it's light and two rounds should do what you need done. My back up is either a .45 acp or a .38 Super, both are 1911 frames. Please, do not be fooled by Obama. He is working steadily with the UN, under the radar, on their push to outlaw gun ownership for the common person. Hilary Clinton is point person on this. If they get their way the UN, not the Constitution will prevail. I have a carry permit and use it. This is not out of paranoia; it is because the criminal element considers us to be their meat. It is my intention to be as difficult to chew as possible. Please, given the opportunity, run if you have the chance. A shot fired can't be recalled.

Mossberg 500, 12 ga., 18" open choke, 2 rds #6 shot, 2 rds 000buck, & if he's STILL idiot enough to keep coming, the last is a slug.

Mike-- well said, sir.

9,082,887 - the number of property crimes committed in the US in 2010. To me, that is 9,082,887 reasons for me to own firearms and be able to protect my family.

summed up well. gun control ensures the safety of violent criminals.

sarg - I know it is not racist rant. Although I don't own a gun I was amused to read, in several different sources, how the first gun control laws were enacted right after the civil war. The argument went, and yes there are existing documents from that era that prove it, the idea behind gun control was that when the framers of the constitution wrote the second amendment giving all citizens the right to bear arms, they had no idea that someday the black slaves would be citizens.

There has never been any dispute over what initiated the first gun control laws, and generally even today places like Washington D.C. which is predominantly black, have the strictest gun control laws. Since in recent years most blacks support liberal groups who in turn support stricter gun control laws, I've often wondered how many people actually know the historical history of gun control laws.

Hey, Sarge... Like to add to your astute comments... EVERY country that was disarmed throughout history, had either a major rise in crime, as you alluded to, AND/OR the government committed genocide on the population because they were defenseless. This info is available everywhere.

Also, the difference between a slave and a free man is the right to bear and carry arms, additionally it is our civic resposnibility to do so, especially to prevent tyranny, as we are quickly approaching here in the U.S. ! God bless our forefathers !!!!

Doc Art,

While I have a balanced view about guns, such as supporting the 2nd amendment because I respect our Constitution, but wanting laws that effectively regulate to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals, I am a little concerned about how you charge, with all caps, about "EVERY" country... because modern day England, Australia, and Canada seem not to have any particular problems. Sure they have crime, but not like the United States. I actually lived in England and Australia and I felt safer there to tell you the truth. And probably one reason was because I knew criminals would have a harder time getting guns than they do here. So while I might agree with you in some respects as to where you stand on the issue, I'm not sure what you are talking about exactly in regard to other countries.

The riots last summer in England and the loss of property and business by an unarmed and subservient country are a prime reason for an armed citizenry. The reason mentally ill can get guns (see Gaby Gifford) is because the liberal courts have made it impossible to commit someone who has been identified as a threat unless they have commited a crime. Unless they have been committed it doesn't go into the FBI database and they will come up clean on the back round check so you can blame the liberals for that one.

Criminals will always get weapons...crime in aus. and England has increased over 20% and the police in both countries are now wearing what amounts to modern chain mail to avoid the knife attacks that have replaced the guns.

I live 30 miles from the most dangerous city in north america (Juarez) yet we have less violent crime in a year then they have in any of the gun control cities in a night!!

An armed society is a polite society.

But, in the age of a military with predator drones, F-16s, tear gas, microwave rays, and all that, isn't thinking that even a rifle is effective? I mean, wouldn't an American resistance be as or more inadequate than the Libyan resistance was? I don't think we'd be able to stand up to the U.S. military without a lot of foreign military help.

i am wildly paraphrasing, but it was said in the cold war that that the US would never be invaded because there is a rifle behind every blade of grass.

as far as standing up to the US military. no one in the world can, maybe China, and then it just be overwhelming numbers.

But, in the age of a military with predator drones, F-16s, tear gas, microwave rays, and all that, isn't thinking that even a rifle is effective? I mean, wouldn't an American resistance be as or more inadequate than the Libyan resistance was?

I get what you're saying, but the Libyan resistance WAS successful, and eventually the Syrian resistance will be as well. Not that I want to resort to guns to change Congress; I'd rather just vote the SOB's OUT!!!

But the original survey question was so STRANGE - I wouldn't buy a gun for Christmas, I'd buy it for self-defense. Black Friday might just have been a good day to do so, with sales and all - and you're out shopping already anyway, so....

the armed citizens outnumber the military 10-1 easy. Guerrilla warfare tactics is why the US lost the war in vietnam,Iraq as the hit a run strategy takes its toll on military morale quickly.

The reason more people are buying firearms is because they think ahead and are taking steps to be able to defend themselves and family,property when the economy collapses . Remember when seconds count the police are minutes away.

@Matt - I have a many military and law enforcement friends. They are sworn to uphold the constitution first...any order to oppress the general population would likely be against the constitution. I believe most US military personnel would not follow an order that requires them to use deadly force on their own citizens. Therefore, it is unlikely that we citizens would have to fight our own forces. Things like enforcing marshal law after disasters is about the only thing I could think of, but then that has it's constitutional limits too.

Matt, I hear what you are saying. I am a father of a marine soldier and know for a fact he and all of his brothers would never fight their parents. He has confirmed that he took and oath to defend the constitution first and would never fight against civilians. I am sure that there are some that would, but would be out numbered by the ones fighting for freedom.

'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.'

i am wildly paraphrasing, but it was said in the cold war that that the US would never be invaded because there is a rifle behind every blade of grass.

That quote was historically attributed to Isoroku Yamamoto, a Fleet Admiral in the Japanese navy during WWII, as a reason Japan would not invade the US mainland.

Kjunme said:

He has confirmed that he took and oath to defend the constitution first and would never fight against civilians. I am sure that there are some that would, but would be out numbered by the ones fighting for freedom.

Recent passage of some of the terms of this year’s NDAA Act may test that, although I desperately hope that it won't come down to your son having to prove his loyalty to the constitution and the people. If it does we are headed for a massive civil war.

The US Senate on Thursday passed its version of a bill that, among other provisions, would enable the US military to indefinitely detain anyone who is deemed to be engaging in terrorist activities. The NDAA authorises $662 billion in funds for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and military personnel. The act's Subtitle D, which discusses "counter-terrorism," would also allow the military to detain anyone, including US citizens, on home soil, without having to guarantee a trial.

93 Senators voted for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), with only seven opposing and none abstaining. (A list of who voted for the bill is available at OpenCongress.) The House will also vote on the bill, and then must reconcile its version with the Senate's, before the legislation could be sent to the President's desk. A roll call was held over the bill in late May in the House, where 322 Representatives supported, 96 opposed, and 13 abstained.

The bill, numbered H.R. 1540, was sponsored by Republican Representative Howard McKeon from California. The full legislation text is available on OpenCongress (warning: large file). John McCain, who had helped write out the relevant provision in the bill, responded: "I think that as long as that individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat."

Senator Lindsay Graham, a supporter of NDAA, explained that it "basically say[s] in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield" and anyone can be detained, "American citizen or not."

Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, also expressed disappointment: "Since the bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent, American citizens and others are at greater risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial if this bill becomes law."

Obama's administration has cautioned it would veto NDAA, though Daphne Eviatar, an associate for the Human Rights First group, told Democracy Now that "[Obama] has said he will. Whether he actually will is a difficult question because, politically, it’s difficult to veto a defense spending bill that 680 pages long and includes authorization to spend on a whole range of military programs."

@Truth- I personally have little concern of my own military being used against me. I agree that most troops would not be willing to kick in the doors of their friends and neibors. My greater concern is that our leaders would sign on to the U.N. arms treaty and then invite U.N. forces to come in and enforce it. All you would need to do is get involved in a few conflicts over seas to keep our own troops occupied...

military with predator drones, F-16s, tear gas, microwave rays, and all that, isn't thinking that even a rifle is effective?

Drones piloted by guys sitting on the ground and communicating through satellites also controlled from the ground. F-16s have to land some time. Combat aircraft and vehicles have to be re armed and refueled. Crews need rest and food. Any force has vulnerabilities that a determined resistance could take advantage of.

Also post 7.6.

US military not using force on its own people? US 1861-65, Bonus Army March on the Mall Wash. DC 1932, Kent State 1970 come to mind right away.

TruthHurts

I believe most US military personnel would not follow an order that requires them to use deadly force on their own citizens.

Tell that to the students at Kent State, or more recently to the UC Davis students who were pepper-sprayed with riot-grade spray for peacefully staging a sit-in on campus.

I strongly recommend reading the book Animal Farm by George Orwell and then rethink the corrisive power of corruption.

JimmySD - That's 47% who answered truthfully. I suspect there are a good many more who answered "no" because they don't want to divulge if they have weapons, how many, or what kind. I don't tell anyone except family and I damned sure don't tell census takers, phone surveys, or news reporters.

Kent state was "national guard" and reserves at that. There is still debate as to who gave them LIVE rounds. It was an isolated incident and the NG immediately withdrew to allow things to calm down. Military is less than 1% of the population and with roughly half the population armed it WOULD be a numbers game... and I would like to believe that half or better of the armed troops would decline to fire on citizens.

No2Green has a point. As close as our present government is with the UN, it isn't much of a stretch to visualize green helmets on US soil, called in to pacify the civilian population. That sounds like rampant paranoia until you look at our elected official's track record. It's one ill thought through act after another. Our fates are decided by 550 people, Senate, House and various other governmental bodies. If you don't like the way your future is shaping up it's their fault. We have gotten away from the time when the electorate thought much about where their vote went. Now, it's "Change" and nebulous promises that more government will fix things. Well, how are you liking the "Change" so far? Our system is busted and will remain so until each and every one of us takes an interest in it.

@ Matt - I get your point, but if 90 million people showed up in DC armed, short of nuking the place all of the lawmakers who plan on getting out had better have already left. If the military attacks them all they are going to do is make the 89.8 million still alive very very angry.

The real question is numbers. If 10,000 people attached the halls of congress, it would probably be a slaughter n both sides - if there were enough warning to get some military types there in time. If they suddenly appeared there would be nothing at all law enforcement could do about it until it was all over. But if a million people showed up and attacked, no one would be able to really stop them anyway. Even if 100 people surprised law enforcement and attacked, there probably isn't a lot they could do about it.

If you don't defend yourself you want worry about prison or anything else because you will be dead.

Ever heard the expression "it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6?" Besides, most states have castle laws, giving you the right to protect your home from invasion, as well as self-protection laws, allowing you to protect yourself and your family.

I promise you, if anyone ever unlawfully enters my home and comes between me and my children, the last thing I am going to be concerned about is if I am going to end up in prison.

A police friend told me very simply that if you have to shoot someone in your house make sure you kill him and he stays in your house. Of course, state laws vary. Kill him/her so they can't sue you later.

I don't have one because I worry that it would be taken from me and used on me! I'm just a small little lady and if I miss, almost anyone could overpower me and take it away!

So take classes to teach you how to shoot. I am also a relatively small lady, (I stand all of 5'6") but I always hit my intended target, and have since I was 12.

It's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

Kudos to you natedom but make sure you train to shoot under stress. Combat shooting is far different than target shooting.

Like the old Clint Eastwood movie, when the ugly said " if you're gonna talk, talk, if you're gonna shoot, shot". If you take it out, use it. Even if you miss at 35 feet or less, the invader will know what that big noise was, and run.

I would rather defend my family and my self and do 20 years in prison as a result than let criminals or government troops come in and rape and kill everyone.

At some point you better quit worrying about legal ramifications or you and your family will be dead. Don't think it can happen in this country ??? Study history of mankind and governments. We in the USAaare no different than any other peoples or governments throughout history.

Those of you who oppose gun ownership live in a fantasy world. Study history !!!

But Melba, what chance do you have without it? They'd still overpower you. At least with a gun, it evens the odds. I'd rather take my chances!

I know I wouldn't be me going to prison because I live in Oklahoma. If you go shoot a would be robber already unconscious lying on the floor and its caught on camera, you go to prison here (at least for the time being) but in general, Oklahoma allows it citizens to defend themselves AND their property.

On the other side, I taught one of the first courses for concealed carry when Oklahoma passed concealed carry. IMHO a goodly number of people probably are no more safe with a gun than they are with there cars, and that gives me some concern, regardless of the 2nd Amendment considerations.

It would not surprise me, on the rare occaision when someone actually has to draw their firearm, they are texting with the other hand...

Also, if you defend yourself with a gun how do you know that you wouldn't be the one going to prison instead of the criminal?

Is there some award for dumbest question of the week?

OMG, shooting with one hand while texting with the other...maybe make a video to post on YouTube:) LOL!!! Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

My only comment to RedWolf is, I'll worry about that AFTER I defend myself!

@Melba. Go to the range regularly and make sure you won't miss. Missing is bad for a whole lot of reasons, not the least being you could hit someone else. If you are very petite, you need something to even the playing field.

Also, if you defend yourself with a gun how do you know that you wouldn't be the one going to prison instead of the criminal

Civilian personal defense follows a couple of basic rules to keep you out of prison. 1) Be sure your are in defensive life or death situation before you draw your firearm, 2) Always hit your target and shoot to kill.

It is important to get some personal defense firearms training with your weapon if you never had any or are a new gun owner. Don't assume you know what to do just because you see it on TV shows or play Call of Duty. ...just saying

Back in the 90's I was thinking of working in Australia and picked of some news papers from there and from other big cities here in the U.S., I was reading them and was surprised to read that there was more rapes and killings in Sydney than in New York. The only difference was most crimes in New York was committed with Guns ( which if the victim had one, it would have been an even fight as even a weaker person can pull a trigger just as good as the stronger person) and in Sydney the attackers use knifes and bats, etc. which puts a smaller and weaker victim at more of a disadvantage. I for one would rather be shoot to death than beaten to death with a bat.

Learn to shoot with your left and right hand, not just a two handed grip. You must also learn instinctive shooting with both hands (just point from above your waist area at your target and squeeze the trigger)you may never have the chance to look down the sights. I am fully right handed but found I have great skill with my left hand also.

@ Melba - I think the problem with your thinking is this. If you are about to be attacked and draw a gun, most attackers will run away. If they don't and continue the attack, then they probably intended to do bodily harm to you anyway and you are not any worse off. If they are armed with guns too then it's a matter of "you takes your chances.".

However I will say that if you are not comfortable with handguns then don't carry one. I think you could become comfortable carrying one by taking a couple of classes and spending some time at the range. If you buy a handgun get one that feels comfortable to you, not the gun your boy friend THINKS you should buy. I would however look at revolvers if I were you because of their ease of use compared to the potential problems of a semi-automatic. For instance if you pull the trigger and nothing happens with a revolver you just pull the trigger again. It's a bit more complicated with a semi-auto.

Anyway the beauty of it is no one is forcing you to get a handgun if you don't want one.

Falconer

The reason to make sure they are dead is because dead men have a very difficult time testifying against you.

The reason to make sure they are dead is because dead men have a very difficult time testifying against you.

Exactly. You should always shoot to kill. You should also have a gun in hand at all times with your finger on the trigger. You never know.

If you receive no training, seek no training and refuse to train, PLEASE, PLEASE leave the guns at the store...

There is nothing more dangerous than a loaded gun in the hands of an untrained and gun-ignorant person!

I recently witnessed a guy purchase a gun in NJ and as he was leaving the counter (with his brand new Beretta 92) asked the salesman if he needed to know anything about guns as he's never handled one!

Sam Adams,

Did you learn your IGNORANCE, or were you BORN this way?

No, the reason to make sure they are dead is to prevent them from becoming a repeat offender, or from tying up the courts and an overcrowded prison system.

Shoot to kill. History is written by the survivors. So are police reports.

Melba---little old lady vs young thug, no contest. Little old lady w/ a gun---playing field leveled. Immediately.

Like we haven't been hearing that LIE since you people told the rest of the nation that fluoridated water was a Commie Plot....

We've been waiting 60 years for the "take-over" that was supposed to be "just around the corner" according to the GOP Cheerleaders....so are you lying, did you miss the prediction by 60 years or are you all just a buch of people who are afraid of your own shadows and anything you cannot understand because you spent more time learning about guns & how to KILL than you did reading, writing & ciphering...? For people who need to be accurate in AIMING you all seem to have missed the bullseye by more than a half a century...!

So Mister Fids,

You can read the future? Just because it has not happened yet does not mean it will never happen. Your arrogant and smug comment lacks merit simply because there are no certainties in life and being prepared for the uncertain should never be shunned. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Last winter I got home from work and found a home monitoring bracelet laying in the snow bank in my yard. Not only had the police not realized it had been cut (which should have sent an immediate message to them) but it took them 20 minutes to get to my house once I called. Of course that was after I was transferred from the local city police, to the state police, then back to the county.

@wb52

Typical response time for a .45....1300 FPS.

What loads are you using??? +p+? Most .45's are in the 700-1100ish fps range.

wb52, i don't know where you got your TIMES at, My business was robbed Twice and I waited over an HOUR for a POLICEMAN to show up.

One time my truck was stolen, It hit a Guy and he called me, To make a story short. He followed them calling 911. They told him to stay where he is and they will send someone. One hour later they showed up, By the Way 2 mails away they found it flipped over in a Creek. Where they were they could have called the STATE, LOCAL, COUNTY, and the NEIGHBORING Town, and had them boxed in,BUT NO just WAIT.

Don't worry though, Three Trucks stolen,Equiptment Stolen No one ever ARRESTED, But my INSURANCE went up.

A law abiding citizen usually buys a gun to maintain peace.

ginger, no privilege at all, simply a God given right.

Peace can sometimes be achieved by having "Superior Fire Power." Therefore just because you have a firearm does not mean you are not a peaceful person. Depending on the individual owning/using the firearm a peaceful solution to any give situation can be achieved when one party has a firearm as a mediator!

As a retired law enforcement officer of over 30 years I only had to actually draw and use my firearm for self protection twice. To clarify when I say "draw and use" I mean actually shoot someone not just the threat of deadly force. More times than not just the mere presence of my sidearm or my 12 gauge was sufficient use of force to get the suspect to comply with my verbal orders. in addition to a firearm, I have found that a big, protection trained dog seems to be a good crime deterrents. I have lived in my home for over 21 years and it has never been burglarized nor has anything been stolen from it. I believe it has to do with three simple things: (1) Everyone who lives in my small town knows my dogs are not vicious but that they will bite in defense of my property, myself or my wife. (2) In the event that the dogs fail for some reason, they know I don't miss what I aim at and know full well when I can and can not use deadly force to defend myself and my property. (3) Due to my background and training (and the fact that I am 6-3 at 240 and can still bench over 300 lbs, no one really wants me to get my hands on them.

Bottom line is this: A firearm is a tool. Like any other tool if it is used properly and for the purpose it was built for it can be very effective in deterring crime or stopping anyone who wishes to cause serious harm or death to another. In the hands of someone who knows how and when to use a firearm, only a criminal need fear firearm possession by private citizens. Prohibit the ownership of firearms by private citizens and all you accomplish is a safer working environment for the criminals. Now myself if I could no longer own a firearm I would have a crossbow. I have seen people shot in the chest with an arrow and in the same area with a bullet. Both died but the person shot with the arrow suffered much longer before expiring!

Thank goodness my father taught me not only how to shoot, but also to disassemble and clean, and put back together. I was around 10 yrs old back then. Same as my brothers, they also learned. Yes, I have a CWP, and at times, I carry concealed.

Want to mess with a person, be damn sure they aren't carrying. And like a couple of poster mentioned, 12 to judge, not 6 to carry you. History has also proven that the reason Japan never came to the US after Pearl Harbor, they realized that people had weapons.

I also have never seen a weapon kill another person. People kill other people, and all kinds of weapons are used to do so. So all of you gun haters, shove it.

@ ginger - I don't usually vote in the polls here because the questions are so leading. It's like they write them such that you feel like the questions read "Do you want to be peaceful and not own guns?" or "Do you want to own an evil gun and destroy mankind?".

Their polls are often written in such a manner that I can't agree with any of the questions. It would be nice if their questions were more simple. Like "Is giving a gun for Christmas OK? Yes or No. The way they have written it seems leading like you said to the idea that if you want peace you have to vote "No".

Many people purchase guns because they enjoy shooting, not because they fear harm or wish to harm someone else.

Exactly. I just bought a car because it looks good in my driveway. I have no intentions of ever driving it.

sam adams

Many people purchase guns because they enjoy shooting, not because they fear harm or wish to harm someone else.

Exactly. I just bought a car because it looks good in my driveway. I have no intentions of ever driving it.

hmmmm....logic was not one of your best subjects, apparently

car = driving; for work, personal business or pleasure

gun = shooting; for duty, self-defense or pleasure

I agree - this whole debt crisis is one of the moves in that direction - We are also looking at the rise of the Homeland Security State.

Let's see. The fact that Japan didn't attack mainland US didn't have anything to do with distance, geographical dispersion of the west coast, military bases all up and down the coast form san diego to Bellingham, or anything else. Only because a realtively small (at that time) number of people had guns and the Japaneese were shaking in thir boots at those few guns. Naw, didn't have anything to do with all these other things. You have competlely rewritten history, my friend.

Ragtopz, You either are not from the USA or you didn't pay attention in grade school. It is documented, Look it up. If my memory is right The Russians had the same response. Oh and by the way our military wasn't that big until Pearl Harbor. In fact at that time in our history no one knew who owned guns or how many they had. When this was a true free country a person could go to the store and show his age ( not sure what age at the time, but it was 16 in the late 70's ) pay the clerk and go home with his purchase. As far as the rest of the world knew, All Americans had a gun in their house.

ragtopz

A lot of military historians believe that the Japanese would have made it to Chicago before we could stop them, whether thats true or not, who is to say, but they definitely took into consideration the armed population of the U.S. in deciding not to attack the continental U.S.

Just wait, 1/3 of the people are done shopping already, and the other 2/3 are half done. Deals will be better in the next 2 weeks...

Caroline Brewer, director of communications at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, called the Black Friday surge a "one-time event." She said any increase in gun purchases "may be the result of marketing."

Yes Midway USA ran some pretty good ones all week long. Lot of good deals = marketing.

As far as her one time event comment I guess she wasn't let in on the 2008 black Friday results mentioned in this article.

Statistcally speaking: Many burglars escalate from simple breaking and entering to other,more heinous crimes. Make sure she has had more than enough range time if,God forbid, the time comes.

I got my wife a nice S&W J frame. 357mag with Crimson Trace laser. Now, even without her glasses (readers only, but she has trouble seeing the sights without them) she knows where the red dot shines is where the slug will hit.

Unless your wife is comfortable with a semi-auto and dealing with misfires or jams, get a revolver.

John 3353456,

John, how many of those burglaries resulted in the home owners being shot or killed? And how many of those homes had guns in their household? In other words, what are the facts?

A revolver is the best first gun, certainly. A newbie can tell if it's loaded. Your wife should get to shop for gun because she might like the way one fits her hand better.

I started my kids out with a .22 revolver because we could shoot it all day for pennies.

I think a lot of people are sensing that something bad is coming. I have two brothers that have never considered owning handguns taking CCW classes and starting their research for a good handgun. All because they sense that things are going down hill the chances they will need one has climbed substantially.

For pistols, revolvers are best for home defense cuz it'll likely sit for years and springs DO go soft in a semi-auto. Personally I'd get the little gal a 410 pump, wide choke. Small enough to handle, obvious enough to figure out in a crunch and the pump will likely do the trick before she has to actually shoot. Remember, criminals are cowards. They just need a clue that they picked the wrong house and they're out of there.

peanut, great post sir...

Peanut, I'd give her a 20 ga. With a little practice, most women can handle it just fine, & you get a bigger shot pattern.

Frankly, I find your comment, and you obvious disdain for the police in this country disgusting. Unless every city is going to hire a police officer to stand sentry at every single house and follow every person, there is nothing the police can do to protect every person before a crime is committed; criminals don't call ahead.

I trust the police to do everything they can to apprehend the criminals and bring them to justice, but I also know that the police are not omniscient and cannot foresee what the criminals are going to do. For that reason, I choose to protect myself.

Well spoken by MR. Non Union Burger Flipper without a pension and plans to retire when he hits 70yrs. old or the 6ft. hole in the ground, which ever comes first. No social security, No medical coverage, what a future retirement plan...............

Mr-392541 and Tony Iron Worker...

First MR.. that's a cheap shot. I'm NOT a cop, but know quite a few who go into places you'd $hit your pants in. Yes, there a few that give the good guys a bad name, but for the majority, it's a thankless job and one quite a few never get the pension for, but they do get the bag pipes at their funeral.

Tony.. I'm non-union and will be more than willing to compare pay checks. Unions DO have their place, Iron workers and Teamsters for instance. But I'm sorry, I draw the line at public unions that can extort the taxpayers. There has to be a happy medium, but I'm not certain exactly what that is.

You hit the nail squarely on the head sir.

BIG difference between 911 dial-a-prayer and the responce time for the police. When your life depends on seconds the police are (at best) MINUTES AWAY. I always carry and too be very clear I live my life as if on camera. I have been finger printed, palm print, side hand print and photgraphed. I have no intention on commiting any crimes.

1. I
   don’t carry a gun to kill people.

   I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people.

I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a
gun because I’m paranoid.

I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don’t carry a
gun because I’m evil.

I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don’t carry a
gun because I hate the government.

I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don’t carry a
gun because I’m angry.

I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself
for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a
gun because I want to shoot someone.

I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a
sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don’t carry a
gun to make me feel like a man.

I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they
love.

I don’t carry a
gun because I feel inadequate.

I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don’t carry a
gun because I love it.

I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police protection
is an oxymoron.

Free citizens must protect themselves.

Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime
after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I
carry a gun because I’m too young to die and too old to take an azz whoopin’…..

Bustem - My sentiments exactly.

Better to have it and not need it - than need it and not have it.

If you only looked at their face you could not differentiate between them and a Playboy reader

Almost the same as a liberal looking at the Communist Manifesto?

voxrationis

Every time I see these type of numbers I think of my loony neighbor who hates Obama

This story reminds me of a day I stopped at Home Depot and watched a rather rotund young guy strutting in from the far end of the parking lot, tugging down the shirt of what obviously was a sidearm as he chewed on a cigar. Getting over the shock of seeing a gun being worn out in public, I glanced back to where he came from and wouldn't you know it? A big honking he-man pickup truck! I had to laugh of this poor guy, desperately trying to show the world how big of a man he was.

But back to the topic, I've owned guns...grew tired of em and sold them. But now days, I have been considering of buying some more..not to protect myself from the unwashed masses, but from self-righteous gun nuts!

I'm what most people would call liberal and I own numerous guns. I have for years. I'm a member of the NRA and a licensed pistol and firearms safety instructor. OBama and the Democrats aren't going to touch guns- it's a losing issue for them. It's a wedge issue. Plenty of blue collar working class people will vote to defend the second amendment in spite of a fact that a candidate or party might not act in their favor on all other issues. Democrats learned their lesson after they got a butt kicking in the election following the passage of the Brady bill. I don't think most of the Democratic leadership cares viscerally one way or another about guns. They'll do what they need to do to build a winning coalition. Gun laws aren't a winning issue for them.

How prepared are people to use a gun during a break-in and
how fast can they respond?

Ask the Virginia State police women whose house was broken
into and she was repeatedly raped. She never
got near her guns.

What a stupid statement. A woman with a gun in her house was unable to reach it, so obviously this will be the outcome anytime someone's house is broken into? What a fuc*ing stupid assertion. I have a concealed weapons permit and I have had to pull out my gun on four separate occasions to protect myself. I guess it stands to reason then that everyone on earth will be able to reach his gun in time. That sentence reflects exactly the same kind of asinine "logic" you are employing. If you don't want a gun, that is your prerogative, but pretending that thousands of people a year (multiple studies found that over 2 million instances of individuals using their guns to defend themselves happen in this country)don't use them for defense in life-or-death situations, simply because you don't like guns, makes you look like an ignorant moron.

people actually need to read the second amendment first "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arm should not be infringed.

according to webster a militia----is ordinary citizens to protect their towns and homes within the towns in case of natural distater floods, or invasion.....sounds like the Nation Guard to me

so going on the founding fathers the normal person does not need to have a gun

That said--I have no problems with people that want to have guns in the home for protection or hunting game or even target shooting.

But can we have "normal" guns do we need guns that can shoot 100 bullets in less the 10 secs? no because that gives it a chance that somebody else might get hurt.

so how about getting those bad A@$ guns off the street and let people buy normal guns (6 bullets all it holds not automatic wepons) and normal shot guns not sub machine

First, there is a comma before "the right of the people...". These are two separate items, as any constitutional scholar will tell you, including Obama.

Second, automatic weapons (i.e. 1 continuous pull of the trigger expends more than one bullet) have been illegal for decades... Only holders of a Federal Firearms License may have such weapons, not holders of state concealed carry licenses. So despite having laws against them for decades, the "bad guys" still have them. The average citizen can NOT go to a gun store and purchase an automatic weapon.

Please learn the facts. The biggest problem with gun control types is that they haven't a clue about existing laws. We don't need MORE laws, we need to begin enforcing the ones we already have.

CeliacLady-

Nice try but that's incorrect. The constitution was written long before the National Guard was formed. And nowhere in the 2nd amendment or the constitution for that matter does it in any way say, or imply… until such time as the National Guard is formed….. Or when the government has a better idea, or when celiaclady "feels there is a need for "normal guns only . BTW The National Guard is run by the Federal Government meaning that, it can and will be used against ''you''. (See Slaughter at Kent University.) Try You tube as well, they may have a video of it for you. If you look up militia you will find that it includes ALL able bodied men, both military, and non military, including from the citizenry from 17 up. (Women too) .

Well regulated means well supplied and trained. Obviously, you've never heard of the term "regulations" when used in reference to the daily ration of beans, coffee and salted pork that each army person was to be allotted per day in accordance with army "regulations". When the "UNORGANIZED" militia is called into service by order of the president, the federal government is required by "REGULATION" to feed, arm, clothe and train them. Hence the term, "well regulated".

"That said" and all...

CeliacLady - "ordinary citizen" these clearly means anybody, not the national guard; and 1929 - the year the federal firearms act was passed limiting the manufacture, sale and distribution of automatic weapons. From this date forward most people can only purchase "normal" guns without going through a very extensive federal background check and paying a hefty fee to the ATF. Despite being heavily regulated for almost a century, the bad guys still have these guns.

Excellent post Jim!

Smelly Feet,

I happen to require the use of my firearms for self defense or in instances of burglary and thieves biannually. The last instance, police did not come for 104 minutes after I called dispatch to report burglars in my presence. Nearly two dozen head of cattle on my family's farm have been killed and mutilated in the past two years. Had I not presented a pistol the time two men tried to pull my girlfriend and I into an alley, her birthday dinner might have ended much worse. Those who don't understand why the right to defend yourself is important have not been in a situation where they needed to protect themselves. Times like that your voice and hands may shake, your gut wrench, and you're at a high risk of jeopardy. So, Smelly Feet, I feel I'm justified in my need of firearms for practical defense. I'm lucky that most of the times I was in need of a firearm, I was conscious enough that morning to leave home armed. Those who do carry their sidearms, please get training. In the event you need to use it, the brain is not as effective as training.

Smelly Feet,

I happen to require the use of my firearms for self defense or in instances of burglary and thieves biannually. The last instance, police did not come for 104 minutes after I called dispatch to report burglars in my presence. Nearly two dozen head of cattle on my family's farm have been killed and mutilated in the past two years. Had I not presented a pistol the time two men tried to pull my girlfriend and I into an alley, her birthday dinner might have ended much worse. Those who don't understand why the right to defend yourself is important have not been in a situation where they needed to protect themselves. Times like that your voice and hands may shake, your gut wrench, and you're at a high risk of jeopardy. So, Smelly Feet, I feel I'm justified in my need of firearms for practical defense. I'm lucky that most of the times I was in need of a firearm, I was conscious enough that morning to leave home armed. Those who do carry their sidearms, please get training. In the event you need to use it, the brain is not as effective as training.

I heard this when I was a cop(don't start cop bashing) and it is very true:

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

In rural areas where one deputy or trooper covers a large area and is tied up on another call, as in a case like Nathan's it could take an hour or more.

It is also the police's job to protect the community, society, etc. Not individuals. It is the responsibility of individuals to protect themselves.

You have three options when confronted with violence:

1. Run and hide

2. Beg for mercy

3. Meet violence with violence, fight back

We have been taught for years not to fight back, in fear of escalating the incident. Look at the recent death tolls due to the run and hide method, vs the fight back method and you will find that it is best to fight back. Unless, that is, you like being sheepish.

Since most aren't raised as I was, learning shooting and gun safety from my parents, grandparents and later from the Army and Police Academy, I concur with Nathan's advice about training. When the adrenaline is pumping, most often the brain shuts down and training and muscle memory takes over.

Timberwollf, you made the point that "We have been taught for years not to fight back, in fear of escalating the incident." I think this mindset is changing within community of people who are interested in learning how to "not be a victim". Statistics show that surviving certain types of violent encounters is far more likely when the victim fights back.

I also, agree that training is important. Fine muscle control movements typically need to be repeated 300-600 times before they are committed to "muscle memory". That muscle memory might make the difference between being an asset or being a liability. Not training/learning about what to do if faced with a violent encounter is as good as training to do all the wrong things. When peoples survival instincts kick in they very often do things that increase their level of danger without realizing it.