Does Orlando End the Debate?

Posted on June 14, 2016 by Robert Ringer


I’m tempted to say that the Orlando tragedy finally puts an end to the debate about whether guns should be easier or harder to get. In the words of Fat Al, a logical mind coupled with a spirit of goodwill would declare unequivocally that “the debate is over.”

But given the shortage of both logical minds and goodwill, I’m not naïve enough to believe it is. Experience tells me that the people who want only murderers to have guns will never give up.

A newly arrived, rational humanoid from another galaxy, upon learning the facts in the gun-control debate, would likely ask, “Who in the world are these strange creatures who want to prevent people from defending themselves?” The answer is that they fall into two groups.

The first group resides in Watters’ World and muddles through life in a kneejerk fashion, its members basing their opinions on emotion and thus providing a target-rich environment for sloganeers. You know, drivel like “That’s not who we are as a people,” “equal pay for equal work,” and “income inequality is our biggest problem.”

Those in the second group have a political agenda and are, at best, amoral. At worst, they are out-and-out immoral. Which means neither human rights nor human lives are of any particular significance to them. They prey upon the useful idiots who stumble through life in the first group and promote nonstop hatred against those to whom human rights and human life are sacrosanct.

The Second Amendment is not subject to the whims of criminal politicians and their civilian cheerleaders. On the contrary, the Second Amendment is a fact of life in what is supposed to be a free country, a country where politicians and bureaucrats are supposed to be servants of the people.

While the Framers made it clear that the main purpose of the right to bear arms was to protect oneself and one’s family from the government, they also realized that people needed the ability to protect themselves from (non-government) criminals. Over and over again, we see defenseless human beings being gunned down like fish in a barrel by lunatics who are intent on taking human lives.

The reason they harbor such a psychopathic intent is irrelevant. Right now, of course, a disproportionate number of such lunatics refer to themselves as Muslims. Repeat: They refer to themselves as Muslims. That’s not an opinion; it’s an indisputable fact.

But, as I said, it doesn’t matter what a murderer’s motivation is. What matters is stopping him from killing, and that can only happen if we make some major changes in the generally accepted beliefs of millions of Americans.

I’ve always admitted that if only one or two people were armed in a mass-murder scenario, things unfold so fast that they would probably be dead before they could even get their guns out. In other words, it’s a numbers game.

In the Orlando slayings, for example, imagine if just 50 percent of the people in that nightclub had been armed. That’s about 150 armed folks against a single gunman! Common sense tells you that many of those armed people would have had time to pull out their weapons and start firing at the shooter.

It’s a pretty good bet that he would have been lucky to kill ten or twenty people before he himself was gunned down, which means that thirty or forty innocent people would still be alive today. Having to wait for the police to come and take down the gunman or gunmen is nothing short of suicidal.

Nevertheless, the agenda-driven presidential pretender has already pivoted into his gun-control mode. Why? Because his every action (and inaction) is agenda driven, and his agenda is to destroy the United States of America and silence those who oppose his efforts.

Those in the gun-control brigade care nothing about human rights or human lives. So the drumbeat for gun control continues to grow even while defenseless people are being murdered by maniacs who know they will encounter no resistance when they attack a soft target.

The fact is that we need more guns in more hands, not less. As Armageddon continues to unfold before our very eyes, Americans need to be armed to the teeth. Background checks are fine if used only as a weapon to weed out criminals (who, unfortunately, are going to find a way to get their hands on guns anyway), but as to the rest of us, the government has no right to restrict either open or concealed carry of weapons in public.

You and I already have the right, as supposedly free people, to carry a weapon with us at any and all times. The government, on the other hand, has no right to interfere with our God-given and constitutional rights.

Speaking for myself, I would feel much safer if I knew, before I entered a store, restaurant, or movie theater, that a majority of the people inside were armed. Did you ever hear of an ordinary citizen, carrying a concealed weapon, suddenly pulling it out and killing someone? It simply doesn’t happen.

To help the antigun freaks understand more easily, I’ll offer an analogy. There are tens of millions of cars on the road, but how many times do drivers purposely run down pedestrians or smash into another car head on? It happens, but very rarely.

The reality that the anti-gun lobby doesn’t seem to get, or doesn’t want to get, is that O.J. did just fine without a gun or a car, and endless other murderers have achieved their goal of snuffing out one or more lives by using a pillow, a crowbar, or a poison pill.

None of these killing tools have free will, thus they don’t have the capacity to kill anyone. The will to murder resides only in the mind of a human being. That said, the debate should be over, but, unfortunately, it’s not.

Robert Ringer

Robert Ringer is an American icon whose unique insights into life have helped millions of readers worldwide. He is also the author of two New York Times #1 bestselling books, both of which have been listed by The New York Times among the 15 best-selling motivational books of all time.

82 responses to “Does Orlando End the Debate?”

  1. Rock Roach says:

    I'm not sure how anyone that owns a gun could actually own a gun support the Obama administration or the runner up to Dark Sisk.But I'm sure there are plenty of Neurotics too.
    And on a second note-Why would anyone not want a temporary ban on Muslims(are you listening RINo Paul Ryan)? Wouldn't that make it a bit easier to find the terrorists within our own borders without adding more?
    Of Course the democrat in truth answer is that is more votes for us in a later election regardless of the safety of the American people.
    I;m glad that someone like Trump has the balls to attack our apologetic president hiding behind his office.but very confused why the Republican congressman stand around like a bunch of bewildered dummies.

    • Clay Ziegler says:


      Grammar, spelling, capitalization, syntax, paragraphing, and punctuation are important, when you are writing, and trying to make an intelligent point. That being said, you failed miserably!


      • Rock Roach says:

        Not worried about being politically or grammatically correct at 1 am in the morning.Only time for rough drafts,and in addition -This isn't an English contest.

    • 2 things Rock, you lost me when you first vilified the Obama Administration, I don't particularly like Obama, OR his Administration, but it appears that YOU think that OBAMA is the problem. I think you are missing a few things, My second comment is regarding your evident trust in Donald Trump for whatever reason and actually stated "has the balls to attack our apologetic president hiding behind his office" which seems ludicrous, short-sighted, and narrow-minded to me. My suggestion would be to actually step out of your basement and watch something other than the Corporate Media. Our problems are manyfold in this country and I have quit feeding them. I think that the BIGGEST problems that we face in this country actually have little to do with Obama, although He hasn't done nearly enough in addressing Corporate Welfare in my opinion… He's at least attempted it, as opposed to Bill Clinton that actually brought Goldman Sachs Execs in to form his economic cadre and had FOUR GOLDMAN-SACHS Execs regulating the Banks and Commodities Markets as well as the Secretary of the Treasury. Congress has given Wall Street 15 TRILLION DOLLARS since 2008 and you think OBAMA is the problem? REALLY? Please research the American Legislative Exchange Council.

      • Rock Roach says:

        Well there is the destruction of the middle class by passing the unaffordable health care act that 6 percent of the population paid up to 2000 in fines.( I call that stealing) .AND THAT DOESN'T include the ones that didnt pay the penalty and said they had insurrance. How sbout releasing prisoners from Gitmo?
        What about terrorism and Isis?
        What about the racism his wife used at a graduation ceremony the other day?
        What about illegal immigration, sanctuary cities, and taking jobs away from african americans ?
        What about hyper inflating the economy with 20 trillion in debt?
        And lastly doesnt he have to approve everything congress passes?

        • Rock Roach says:

          By the way did Donald Trump read your article? Amongst Democrats and Republicans it seems to me
          that he is the only one with any sense.In his responses he has repeatedly said."More guns would have
          saved a lot more lives".
          And of course the press finds a way to say Trump is a lunatic for banning assault weapons for people
          on a terror list while also saying more guns save lives,
          And I have to ask the republican party-What the hell is wrong with a temporary Muslim ban?Muslims only account for 1 percent of the US population(it has doubled since 9/11. And by adding 1 million more Muslims,you are increasing their population by 33 percent.I would expect by the laws of averages terrorism in your country would go up by the same ammount.

    • Hollivan says:

      It's easy to see that you stepped on a couple of liberal nerves. When the grammar stasi and insults fly, you've hit the mark. Lol

  2. ◄Dave► says:

    As you suggest, Robert, only a fraction of the carnage could have been done, if a few of the patrons were themselves armed. Gun-free zones should be abolished, or at least rational people should boycott them. What if we all were to refuse to enter such dangerous places, without being provided personal armed guards, like the politicians are permitted to have. Does anyone think the Secret Service leaves their weapons in their vehicles, when accompanying the POTUS on a photo-op at a school, city hall, courthouse or any other designated gun-free zone? Why does he deserve any more protection from crazed Jihadists than we do?

    Then, stop spending taxpayer money to pay police to protect hateful Islamists from irate vigilantes. Reportedly, the local Imam in Orlando has openly preached that homosexuals should be killed “out of compassion.” I would bet good money that if the police would turn their backs, the survivors along with their friends and families, could put a stop that sort of religious nonsense forthwith. Hell, if I lived thereabouts, I would be happy to hold that Imam down, so they could all bugger the bastard in turn. It seems that the number of Muslim youths in America now becoming ‘radicalized,’ is exploding exponentially. What if it became downright existentially dangerous to preach hate from a pulpit? ◄Dave►

  3. Ron Ron McLean says:

    Robert, a very lucid and intelligent commentary on the Orlando tragedy. And I agree that the agenda of the gun control lobby has got more to do with their agenda than the lives of Americans, more about control than about guns. And common sense is sadly no longer common.

    • Jim Hallett says:

      Not to mention that nearly 100% of the gun control clowns also support abortion, so it has NOTHING to do with valuing human life, but rather all about coercion in controlling others.

  4. To repeat, one of my favorite lines from an ee cummings poem: "Bang is the meaning of a gun. Its a man says NO."

  5. RealitySeeker says:

    If I were were gay, I'd keep and bear arms because the Muslims hate gays so much that being gay is an automatic death sentence in eleven Muslim countries —– that's how much the Muslims HATE. Muslims are the predominant HATERS. I think that I'll vomit if I hear one more time that "Islam is the religion of peace".

    What America needs right now is more Islam control, not gun control. And the so called peaceful practitioners of Islam need to clean their own house of the haters. If not, if they don't want to clean house, if they don't want to update their belief system, if they don't want to integrate into a modern Western culture ( or at least show real respect) then to hell with them. Christians fought against their own and cleaned the house of Nazis. Let's now see the Muslims do the same thing with their own haters, or get the hell out, and stay out of the West.

    If you are gay — or straight— Smith and Wesson will protect you, not Obama.

    Join the NRA. Join GOA. Join Pink Pistols.

  6. Figmo says:

    Obama's two (dis)appointments to SCOTUS have already expressed anti 2nd Amendment sentiments. This coupled with the two left wingers already on the court means that if Hillary gets to make the next appointment, you can kiss the 2nd Amendment goodbye. Its sad to see our once great court degenerate into "the law is what we say it is and to hell with 200 + year's of legal precedent!"

  7. Lucky Man says:

    A heartfelt agreement with you Mr. Ringer and with the comments. Obama has a political agenda to destroy America and place what Americans are left in bondage. By taking away their ability to defend themselves, it's comparable to declawing a cat and setting it out in the wild. Now, the cat has no way to defend itself from attacks. Americans need to rise up, band together and fight this injustice even at a loss of life.

    • LENSOL says:

      IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. THAT IS WHY HE BEEFED UP THE FEDS with more ammo and weapons. it will occur before November elections. he will declare martial law and remain in power..

  8. Kevan Rowlee says:

    Sharing to my Facebook wall.

  9. Steven Lamoureaux says:

    Just go out and vote for Trump. Hopefully Hillary will soon be indicted. Then we can get back to cleaning up this country.

    • "Soon" does not seem to be a word in Government, or, it doesn't have the same meaning as the populace uses it. Surely an entire horde of people could move faster , IF they wanted to. Is it part of "the Fix" to keep that Double Ugly, (inside and out) woman (maybe) eligible to run for the Presidency? I watch FOX and CNN, and read NewsMax, but those don't go very deep. No wonder I resort to "Conspiracy Theories". Though from the very first, I read Obama right. He IS the One Come to Destroy America. I hope the theory of Karma is correct. If so, there WILL BE JUSTICE on some level at some "time". But, on a rational level, the Theory of Cycles appears to be on target. Thank God I had the opportunity to work in a full life before the Great BS began. But I feel sorry for those who will suffer this unfortunate Time of Change. REGARDING THE VULNERABLE POWER GRID, I'm thinking that, hopefully, there are enough nuclear armed American, and other, ships at sea to annihilate the Lands of Sand and their inhabitants. May they all be sent to Allah!

  10. Bill Bushno says:

    In a land where Group think, and double speak are the norm any rational debate will be will be overruled by directed mass hysteria ! Thank you RJR for reminding me of your works and philosophy I am a longtime fan but had lost track of or given away many of your previous works and was glad to see you are still publishing them .

  11. Scott theczech says:

    As you write, it is irrelevant what government operatives say or try to enforce; God has given each human an unalienable right to defend themselves from whatever and whomever! The weapon of choice is also irrelevant, as most homicides worldwide are not committed with guns/firearms. A poisonous blow-dart in the hands of a skilled pygmy is deadly. Fertilizer, ammonia and a rental truck is deadly. Improvised explosive devices are deadly…

  12. S.K. says:

    My question is this: Is the issue in this case whether or not people should be allowed to own guns, or—should legislation be enacted to keep ASSAULT rifles out of the hands of the general public?

    • Mic says:

      The term "Assault Weapon" is a completely made up term out of thin air. It was designed by the anti-gun crowd to scare the general public that doesn't understand firearms into accepting a ban on them.

      The military uses the term "assault rifle" which is a rifle capable of fully automatic fire and is only available to the military and has been since 1934.

      When you go into a store and buy an AR-15 you are getting a SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifle. It works like every single handgun and rifle on the market today. Pull the trigger ONE time and ONE bullet comes out. Period. Furthermore, you can't "easily convert them" into fully automatic guns like Hollywood shows in the movies.

      The only similarity they have to a real assault rifle is purely cosmetic. A pistol grip or rail on the top that allows you to mount a scope or a folding stock. These items are PLASTIC components and DON'T do anything to make the gun shoot faster or become deadlier than any other gun on the market.

      Further still IF these guns are indeed only "killing machines" as your side says then why do we give them to law enforcement? Are you saying that the job of law enforcement is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time possible?

      Again, as I replied to your equally uninformed friend above, these are the facts. However as with most of the members of your side don't let the facts get in the way of a good liberal rant.

      • BDR says:

        The term "assault rifle" is irrelevant. What matters is what the gun does. You are correct that 1 pull of the trigger fires 1 bullet. However, it has a high velocity muzzle and can hold a clip of 30 or more rounds that each can blow a hole in a person that you can put your fist through. (It's not the bullet size alone that causes the hole, it's the destruction around the point of bullet impact where bone and tissue are destroyed). Sounds pretty serious whether you call it an assault weapon or something else. I suppose if someone is concerned about an attack by a large group of people, there might be a reason to have that type of weapon (for example, the police may need to stop a group of rioters from killing lots of innocent people. The police also have training to determine whether to fire 1 round or 30. Generally civilians do not.)

        • Ben says:

          There is no such thing as "a high velocity muzzle." Perhaps you mean a that the bullet leaves with high muzzle velocity (meaning the speed of the bullet as it leaves the barrel is high)? The velocity is a function of bullet mass, pressure generated by the gunpowder (There are many different kinds of gun powder with different kinds of burn profiles. How do I know? Because I handload some of my own ammo) and barrel length. Velocity only matters to how quickly the bullet gets somewhere. Momentum, which is velocity times bullet mass along with bullet expansion are what matter in short distance scenarios. A 5.56 round that a AR-15 shoots is a high velocity, low mass projectile. Contrast this with a shotgun slug which is a low velocity, high mass projectile. The difference in velocity doesn't matter at short distances as we are talking 1200 ft/s for a shotgun and 3000 ft/s for a 5.56 which at 50ft means the difference between 0.042s to impact vs 0.016s to impact. How far can you move in 0.042 seconds? The shooters aim and fire time is far more meaningful than the bullet's time to target at short distances.
          I've hunted whitetail deer for many years with a number of different rifles as well as used an AR-15. Not even a shotgun slug puts a fist sized hole in a deer, let alone .308 or a 5.56 round. A hollow point round or similar (like a nosler partition rifle round) does expand upon impact to create a larger wound channel to cause faster death. My deer hunting rifle of choice, a .308, goes in like a pencil and comes out like about the size of a nickel.
          The shooter in Orlando would have been just as deadly shooting a MP5 chambered in 9mm (the NATO handgun round) which would be a low velocity gun.
          I always get amazed by the ignorance of people complaining about magazine sizes. Do you really think that limiting guns to 10 or 7 round magazines would make any difference? Go watch experienced shooters at a range. A practiced shooter can easily switch magazines in low digit seconds. Reloading a magazine from a box of ammo takes time, switching an empty mag for a full one doesn't.

      • WeirdlyCOChick says:

        LOVE your common-sense input!

    • Daniel says:

      "…whether or not people should be allowed to own guns…" Ask yourself this: "Do I have a natural right to defend my life, or not?" If your answer is, "Yes.", then you have a natural right to possess the means of self-defense. Further, do you have a natural right to live free of oppression and tyranny? If the answer is yes, then you have a natural right to possess the means of resistance. A natural right is one you have naturally, without condition; without permission from others. You have a natural right to breathe; you don't have to ask permission to do so. Having natural rights implies natural responsibilities, too. For example, you are responsible to not infringe on the natural rights of others. One of the reasons this debate is so polarizing and contentious is that those who embrace the idea that legislation should either allow or disallow (the natural right of self-defense) are missing the fundamental point: natural rights are not within the realm of legislation. The framers of The Constitution understood this when the 2nd Amendment was put into The Bill of Rights.

  13. TheLookOut says:

    Another great on point article Robert. Thanks for the clarity of commonsense.

  14. Lee says:

    It is always a hallmark of RJR's writing that he expresses the reality of a topic. He is spot on with his comments about our natural right to bear arms at all times. However what jumps off the page is the clear observation that Obama seeks to destroy America and remake it into some weak pathetic lump of humanity ruled by a tyrant. Any rational and impartial observer would come to this conclusion. Every act by this traitor is directed at our ruin as a nation.

  15. Dave says:

    Well said Mr Ringer.

  16. Lee says:

    Ta ta Fred. Blaming Mr. Ringer for the decline of our country is laughable delusion on your part.

  17. larajf says:

    When seconds matter, the police are minutes away. Everyone should be a responsible enough citizen to learn to protect themselves and educate their children about gun safety.

    • Nothing Changes says:

      The Police were actually on site in Orlando. An armed off duty cop who was working as security engaged the gunman immediately. Sadly 49 people still died…thus debunking the good guy with a gun theory.

      • either that person was a slow reactor or a lousy shot, because that is not what eye witness reported he even took a break, that was on the news.

        • Nothing Changes says:

          Complete and utter nonsense. In addition to the armed off duty officer, additional armed Police arrived within minutes. Despite all their firepower they were unable to stop his three hour killing rampage.

          • RealitySeeker says:

            You dumbass,

            The police did nothing for three hours! Meanwhile, the unarmed sheep were getting slaughtered.

            What good are the cops? They even shot and killed more innocent people when they FINALLY decided to enter the night club. For three hours the unarmed, useless citizens were at the mercy of a Muslim.

            Smith and Wesson has protected me on more than one occasion, not the cops, not Obama, not anybody else but Smith, Wesson and me.

            I'll keep and bear arms, and you useless dumbasses can keep the "change".

    • WeirdlyCOChick says:

      Yes, we should have "laws" like those in Switzerland. At least, everyone here, age 18 and above, should have to know how to respect and use a handgun. Just take a look at Switzerland's crime rates!

  18. Mic says:

    Evil will always exist and will always allow heinous acts of violence to occur. No amount of gun control will ever change that. Further unless you have some type of time travel device to go back and stop the invention of gun powder 800 years ago I think it is safe to say guns are not going anywhere either.

    Guns are not terribly complex devices. They can be built in machine shops, printed on 3D printers, or made in the jungles of South East Asia using hand tools and templates. So stopping all guns from existing is simply a fantasy. Most criminals steal guns and there are millions and millions of them already out in the world ripe for the theft.

    Therefore, it is quite logical to conclude that bad people will ALWAYS find a way to do evil and get guns if they want them. If you think bans work simply look at the ban and subsequent war on drugs that has been going on for decades. We spend billions and have armies of police and yet we can't stop the illegal drugs. Ban guns and the same thing would happen to them. The market value would sky rocket for guns and the void would be filled by illegal gun brokers that would supply them.

    As for your point about this not happening in other countries, I believe there are over 100 dead people in France that would disagree with you. France has all the utopian anti-gun laws your side can dream up and has had them in place for decades. It didn't do a thing to stop terrorists from coming in fully automatic weapons and killing over a hundred people who also couldn't defend themselves.

    Honestly I am not sure why I just wasted 10 minutes writing this out. Your side and your supporters are completely incapable of using logic or accepting facts. If you were this would not even be a debate any longer as Robert has pointed out.

  19. Marte says:

    Those in favor of gun control are either complete idiots or have a goal of destroying America. An armed populace is the ONLY route to safety.

    • Lynn Long says:

      What's up with your language Nothing? I would say you're a typical fool who uses this kind of screaming rant to be noticed. I bet you're stomping your feet and clinching your hands too. And your face is probably puckered up. Reminds me of why I don't like libs. Also reminds me why I will buy anything I want- just to piss you off. Yep, the name Nothing fits you.

  20. In these dangerous times and when you see an increase in attacks that we have seen in the last 8 years, security should be mandated and trained to use a gun to stop things like this occuring or at least elminate the large numbers of innocent people being killed. Of course I agree with you someone who has an agenda or is evil will find a way, criminals always do. I reminded my wife that in the 60's & 70's they were useing bombs to attack nightclubs.

  21. Clay Ziegler says:


    You’re absolutely correct! There should be no “new” debate. The original debate ended almost 227 years ago. The Second Amendment, The Right to Bear Arms, was debated thoroughly by a large assembly of our intelligent and visionary forefathers, Congress, prior to its passing on 25 September 1789, and ratification on 15 December 1791.

    They concluded: “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.”

    If we allow our Government to strip us of our Second Amendment rights, we may as well allow them to also strip away the More Dangerous rights that are afforded us by the First amendment. Because we all know that “the Pen is Mightier than the Sword” (or gun)!

  22. Nothing Changes says:

    It's preposterous that over 11,000 per annum are killed by people using guns in USA and yet some people still spout the nonsense about a well regulated Militia. Some people need to get over themselves. This is antiquated nonsense in today's times. Yet still some deluded people think they could defeat their own Gvt. with handguns and rifles if that time ever came about. Fools.

    • Robert Ringer RJR says:

      Are you forgetful of how many dictators have been toppled over the years? It's just that it's easier to do if the populace is well armed.

  23. Patrick says:

    Question for you Robert and anyone else that wants to chime in: If the US government decided to turn on its citizenry with all of it's military might including the plethura of high tech killing toys, do you believe that you and your personal cache of guns stand any chance? I'm going to steal a line from a comic named Jim Jefferies who may not be your cup of tea but is someone I feel offers the funniest and most poignant take on the gun debate. "You realize the government has drones right? You get that? You're gonna bring guns to a drone fight". You realize that the 2nd Amendment was written at a time when it was just muskets right? Muskets are awesome because it gives the potential shooter a lot of time to calm down." The crowd of Pulse nightclub revelers would've stood a good to fair chance of swarming the shooter and disarming with minimal loss of life even if they weren't armed with anything but chairs and bitch slaps (excuse the obvious stereotypical jab). I'm Canadian, we have guns, lots of them. This is a nation of hunters and trappers. Anyone can get a gun as long as they're not a lunatic with a criminal record within a reasonable window of time (it's not less than an hour so I guess 'reasonable' is relative). We, like our neighbors to the south, have racial divides, ready access to mind altering drugs, poverty and a host of other societal ills that the NRA likes to use as smoke screens to take away from the fact that rapid fire, military grade weapons in the hands of anyone that wants them, is indeed the problem. What we don't have is a per capita gun murder rate that's anywhere close to yours. Why is that? Because we're better people? In spite of my bias, I'd say no. When comparing the US' gun murder rate to that of other G8 developed nations, there's only one common denominator. In the words of the great philosopher Spock, "the needs of the many outweigh those of the few".

    • RealitySeeker says:

      Yours is a common, albeit asinine argument, that I've heard for year. Do you people even think? —- let alone think critically?

      What do you think would happen if one thousand snipers started to pick off government goons today? There are at least 80 million gun owners in America, probably more. One percent of that is 800,000.

      What would happen if only one percent of gun owners decided to exercise a Second Amendment veto?

      The U.S. military can't even defeat a lightly armed Taliban. So do you really think that the U.S. military can defeat millions of both violent and nonviolent citizens?

      • Liz says:

        Considering the gun death stats of Canada and the US, maybe "do you people even think?" is not a pertinent question. What I would want to know is since you say you have all these guns and apparently the same kind of problems that we have, how do you manage to keep your gun death rate down? What is the real difference between an armed society that's not turning on itself and one that is?

        • Jean says:

          There are two reasons, Liz. One is demographics and cultural – consider where the US has its greatest issues with gun violence, and consider both the population densities of those areas and the racial makeup of those areas. Now, compare that to Canada – perhaps they have some of the same problems with the native people, but certainly they don't have the equivalent of Detroit, Newark, or Chicago's South Side to contend with. In addition, in the US, criminals are accorded the same constitutional rights as law-abiding citizens. In Canada, however, there is a little-known law on the books that states if a judge deems a criminal to be a continuing danger to society, s/he can remain incarcerated long after his / her sentence has been completed. So under Canadian law, if you are a violent criminal or a serial killer, they don't put you to death, but they sure keep you on ice a long time. We allow our criminals to serve half of their sentences (called "good time" ), and in too many cases, we allow reduced sentences due to prison overcrowding which is considered inhumane and "cruel and unusual punishment," which violates the inmates' rights. And the current Justice Department now doesn't want to refer to offenders of any sort as offenders; the latest PC term for a thug is a "justice-involved individual."

          And you wonder why problems aren't really being solved??? We can't even name them correctly!

  24. BDR says:

    I'm not a gun control nut, but I do have questions. Is there anyone who should not be permitted to carry/own a gun? What about a suspected terrorist? What about someone who has threatened to murder someone? What about someone who has been convicted of a violent crime and just got out of jail?

    Other than the types of people identified above, I may have no problem with anyone who wants a gun to have one. However, anyone who chooses to have one must suffer consequences if it is used improperly. If someone has a gun in their home for protection (a great reason), but a child finds it and shoots themself or someone else by accident, the gun owner should be subject to a charge of at least involuntary manslaughter. If a thief breaks into the home and steals the gun which is then used for a crime, the owner should be subject to a charge of being an accessory to a crime. These aren't hypotheticals. These situations are becoming more common. Again, I have no problem with someone having a gun, but if they do, they should be responsible for what happens with it.

    • RealitySeeker says:

      "Is there anyone who should not be permitted to carry/own a gun?"

      Is there anybody who should be denied a human right? Owning a gun is a human right. And human rights should not be abridged.

      Anybody who is law abiding should be able to own a gun. Period.

      • Patrick says:

        So Omar Mateen deserved his gun then. US Citizen with no criminal record. End of debate.

        • RealitySeeker says:

          I'm I God? Are you? Is Obama?

          I repeat, God given rights cannot be abridged. I don't care if there is one mass killing every day. I still have the right to protect myself. I don't care if there are tens of thousands of people dying from automobiles. You're not taking away my car.

          You're not taking my private property just because somebody else is a criminal or a fool.

          • Patrick says:

            I love the irony of the sentence about God thinking it's an inalienable right to own a weapon that serves no other purpose other than testosterone fueled amusement and ending lives, animal or human. I do however remember scriptures inspired by God back when I used to read that collection of fables and fairy tales admonishing "beating swords into plowshares and shields into pruning hooks". "Live by the sword and die by it (or AR-15)" "You will make war no more.." Apparently he was also a "God of Peace" although plenty of passages in the Old Testament especially, may contradict that. What was the tag line that the holy hoppers held so dearly? WWJD I think? What Would Jesus Do? Yeah I can totally see him packing a glock beneath that robe of his. Spraying a few bullets while chasing the money changers and merchants out of the Temple. He would most certainly insist on an archaic law remaining unchanged (if you can't change something that's called an 'Amendment'..) in the face of precious lives lost senselessly. Just when I think I'd like to embrace Christianity again, I always get a stark reminder of why I ended up Godless in the first place.

          • RealitySeeker says:

            You don't believe in God? Fine. I have no problem with that. I'll tell you what: you go convince Obama or Hillary or any of the other hypocrites to "put down their swords" because there's too much gun violence. Try doing that. Let Obama or Hillary dismiss their hired guns and become pacifists. Let them GO FIRST. Let them set the example. What do you think would happen? Neither one would live more than 24 hrs……

            I say let's make the White House a gun-free zone. It's time for Obama to put up or shut up. Mr. President, you want me to disarm? Then you go first……

            As for the rest of you dimwitted fools who haven't thought this issue though, you can disarm, too, and you better hope there is a God to protect you.

        • Jean says:

          Except that Mateen had been under investigation by the FBI, who thought he was a nice guy who was being picked on by a bunch of "racist" employees who had reported his pro-radical Islamist statements. It wasn't the gun that was at fault here, Patrick. PC and sensitivity training killed 49 innocent people in Orlando.

      • BDR says:

        Since when is having a gun a "human right" or as you say in another response a "God given right". I don't recall anything in the bible saying that God said "Anyone who wants a gun can have a gun."

        • RealitySeeker says:

          God didn't spell out everything, did he? He didn't say anybody who wants a car can have a car or anybody who wants to ride on an ass can do so. God didn't spell out that it's a right to have children, but it is a right. Nobody can tell you that you're not allowed to have children. And nobody can abridge the right to protect your family with a gun. When somebody denies you your right, they are a tyrant.

          • RealitySeeker says:

            Speaking of the right to bear children, have any of you dimwits thought about what is more dangerous?—- people who bear children or people who bear guns?

            I say a criminal or a lifelong welfare case or dimwit bearing a child is far more dangerous than a dimwit bearing a gun.

            Yet, I don't see Obama demanding child-control laws.

    • Robert Ringer RJR says:

      If someone breaks into your home, steals your gun, and uses it to commit a crime, you, the victim of a crime yourself, should be declared an accessory? Are you serious?

  25. stiegem says:

    Patrick – in this case, what are "the needs of the many"? It was one shooter. I prefer the bumper sticker stating. "GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

    • Patrick says:

      To quote Jim Jefferies again (highly recommend you look up his gun control bit on Youtube), society often has to move as slow as its slowest person. I consider myself a great driver in spite of my high speeds although many aren't. Therefore, because some stunned arsehole that no doubt drove 80 mph in a school zone and killed a child, it's now the law to go 20. Are you in favour of drinking and driving laws and penalties? I'd be surprised if you're not. How about newly introduced laws on driving and texting? I can honestly say I've driven while under the influence of alcohol in my time although not proud of it, and didn't kill anyone. I've texted and drove too with the same result. But we've all read and maybe experienced cases where both of the aforementioned scenarios ended in innocent lives ruined. Gun laws are the same. I'm sure that the majority of rapid fire weapon owners are responsible and harbor no ill will but it just takes a few to wreak havoc on many. Thus, I'm in favor of you being compelled to kill deer and practise on tin cans with only a single shot firearm.

  26. Phil says:

    "Immoral" pretty much nails it. Amen.

  27. Ann says:

    According to The American Journal of Medicine the U.S. has the most firearms per capita in the world. Compared to 22 other high income nations, the United States' gun.related murder rate is 25 times higer. Congratulations!

  28. GGM says:

    Can we stop all the tosh about guns to protect ourselves and our freedom? I haven't noticed much defense in any of these mass shootings except from properly trained law enforcement. Civilized people don't need to live like it's the Okay Corral and they don't in other advanced countries. It's really all about profits for the gun manufacturers who don't care how many people die–and thousands do die every year. They saturated the adult market, then produced cool, low cost guns to capture the youth market, filling the streets with armed, hot headed kids who used to settle their differences via fisticuffs. Now it's escalated to military assault weapons and perhaps soon personal rocket launchers. Time to stop being taken in by destructive, fear mongering marketing propaganda and start working on poverty, quality education, jobs and effective measures for the unbalanced among us.

    • Paul Herring says:

      The differences are pretty deep if the remarks posted here are anything to go by. Almost polarised. Many feel that it's an inalienable right for US citizens to bear arms and they use the early American declarations to back it up. But they were written over 200 years ago. It was a different world then.

      Today, a nation arming its citizens is making living there more like an armed truce than a secure nation. In the larger scale, which would you prefer to see: a nation completely disarming with no WMDs or nuclear capabilities, or all nations armed to the teeth as if expecting an attack from another nation across the sea? I know which one I'd prefer. Donovan, in his song "Universal Soldier", said it quite eloquently.

      As a Bible student for 45 years+ I have faith in the prophecy found at Isaiah 2:4. It says there in part that,
      "nation will not lift up sword against nation, nor will they learn war anymore." Only under God's kingdom (many of us were taught to pray for that in the Lord's Prayer) can we expect rulership which will make pale into insignificance rule by men, including those who might win your presidential election in November.

      • Paul Anthony says:

        You say that as if you believe a complete eradication of guns would end hate. No one would ever argue, and we would all live in peace.

        You, sir, are delusional.

        In a world without guns, knives would become more prevalent. Do read your bible. Especially the old testament, where God instructed His chosen people to slaughter thier enemies. And they did, without guns.

        • Paul Herring says:

          Well, delusional is a strong word, Paul, and should be used sparingly. Really, it shouldn't be used at all. With respect, I could rebut your points about the Bible and the entering of the Jewish promised land but time and space don't permit. Suffice to say, there was a purpose to that.

          But the Bible is replete with God's purpose to end the present system and replace it with another. It isn't necessary to end the world – it's certainly fixable. What isn't is the man-made system which is, and always has been, centred on greed. There is much to what the Bible says in all of this and some of it we've probably never heard before, but again, time and space don't permit.

          That said, am I any worse off than you delusional as I might seem, when the Bible's hope delivers answers? Do you really have any that are workable, deliverable and acceptable to all peoples?

  29. Lana says:

    You can't legislate morality. If it's true that a couple of SCOTUS are wavering on the 2nd Amendment, it makes you wonder if they understand the concept of the Constitution, which they are sworn to uphold. If you make enough laws everyone becomes a criminal when you can't make a move without violating one of them. I'm hoping and looking forward to D.T. bringing integrity back to America. We need to start teaching personal responsibility at the first sign a child understands right and wrong.

  30. Carl T says:

    More bombs for the terrorists equals less "gun violence". Then would the liberals be happy? One, simple to construct, FAE bomb would have killed everyone in the nightclub instantly, no need for the police to be involved.Guns are being used by the terrorists as part of the plan to disarm the public, Also I suspect that we have some politicians that are in on this deal to disarm us. Please everyone, let us quit using their term "gun violence" and use the proper term "gun abuse" because the criminal's are actually abusing guns (As in drug abuse). Actually, flamethrowers are a much better weapon for terrorising people.

  31. Carl T says:

    Never mind the mizbelling.

  32. Rocketman says:

    As soon as I heard about the massacre I knew that it was coming. Obama and Clinton are both calling for a ban on semi-autos and Jeh Johnson the head of the Homeland Security says in so many words that no one needs a gun because you have the Homeland Security to protect you. Funny thing, the shooter worked for a company that provides security for Homeland Security! That little fact has been downplayed by the major news media. Why wasn't there more investigating this individual who also had been cleared among other places TO GUARD NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS!!! He pledged his attack to ISIS and his father was a radical from Afghanistan yet he was able to get a security clearance. What's wrong with this picture?

  33. Kelly says:

    BUT WAIT, being armed at a nightclub (straight or gay) should never happen.. dancing, jumping, barely wearing any clothes does not jive with conceal and carry…

    What happened to basic security at venues?

  34. Common sense dictates that guns and alcohol don't mix well. The same goes for drunk drivers putting innocent people at risk.. Therefore, I do not support anyone carrying guns into a establishment that they will be consuming alcohol in. And possibly becoming drunk in the process. Drunks with guns poses it's own special risk. I do support carrying in most other situations.

    Also, police and law enforcement authorities are very good at responding to scenes after the fact in which great carnage has taken place. They can seal off the crime scene, investigate, make arrests, place blame, examine the facts etc… But, they are seldom able to prevent these things from happening without having a crystal ball.

    With that said, each citizen has to become aware of his or her surroundings, and be able to assess potential risks, have a escape plan and be ready willing and able to defend themselves and their loved ones from any harm that others may attempt to inflict upon them. And if that plan includes carrying a gun, I am all in favor of that.

  35. John says:

    Even you Robert admit that abolishing gun control would not stop the carnage completely, only reduce the mortality rate based on the assumption that more people would carry weapons if they had easy access to them, thereby making it easier to kill the aggressor.
    However, even in a free access to weapons scenario, I have to wonder how many people in that club would have had weapons and even if they did, would they be a match for an AK-15?
    So the problem as I see it is that as the weapons become freely available, everybody 'scales up' to more and more powerful weapons, which is exactly what we see the police doing. Is this the society we want, everybody armed to the teeth, waiting for an opportunity to unleash their firepower?
    For sure easy access to weapons would generate lots of jobs in weapons training, manufacture and procurement. But I think a few hundred thousand jobs isn't worth the emergence of a society based on who has the most powerful weapon.

    • Wukong says:

      You opened another can of worms – should there be a limitation on the type of weapons that general public is allowed to have?

      Because the function of a weapon is to kill, people instinctively link the image of a gun with death.That's what I think is the reason behind why majority peaceful, law-abiding people are pro gun control. It takes a second thought beyond the first emotional instinct level to see that a gun can also mean life and safety.

      But I think weapons should not be allowed in places people like to get in a hyper state, such as bars, nightclubs, stadiums, etc. We don't want to see scenes in great western movies happen in real life.

  36. Reality Seeker says:

    "But I think weapons should not be allowed in places people like to get in a hyper state, such as bars, nightclubs, stadiums, etc. "

    Sorry, but that's just another myth that law-abiding citizens shoot people once they enter into a bar, nightclub or stadium. I'm starting to lose patience with all of the unsupported myths people parrot. Where did you people learn how to reason? A public school run by conformist teachers?

    You've been brainwashed by the collectivists if you believe in these myths.

    "The reality that in the post-World War II era, there is not one recorded an example in the U.S. of a person in a restaurant or bar getting drunk and shooting his lawfully carried handgun." ~ Andrew P. Napolitano

    The fact of the matter is that road rage leads people to overreact, but are we to ban cars just because some people are hotheads and fools? No, of course not. We don't ban everybody from having children just because some are bad parents. We don't ban sex just because some dimwit misuses the gun between his legs.

    Really, I'm so disappointed in American's ability to critically think. Boobus Americanus better wise up fast before all of his rights are gone and he is extincted.

  37. At this point in time, Barack Obama works feverishly to inject as many Muslims into America to seed our country with that religion. It likes to call itself “The religion of peace.” However, it’s continued onslaught of Western countries shows it to be the “The religion of pieces.” Muslim martyrs blow themselves to pieces while they blow us all to pieces, i.e., 9/11, Paris, France; Charlie Hebdo massacre; Brussels, Belgium, Fort Hood; Boston Marathon bombers; Times Square bomber; beheadings on the streets of London, England and honor killings of daughters and wives at 10,000 annually. (Source: United Nations, Honor killings annually.)

    Safe to say, Islam proves itself violent and a religion of pieces of body parts from detonations worldwide.

  38. ◄Dave► says:

    Gun-Free Existence – Part I

    To the timid souls and precious snowflakes, perennially advocating gun control and/or a gun-free existence:

    Have you ever lived in a totally gun-free society, where even the police had no firearms, and there was no military? I did, back in the late ’60s on a tropical island out in the middle of the Indian Ocean. At one point, there was a frightening period of political upheaval, before an election. Whipped up by Chicom backed ‘community organizers,’ for the “People’s United Party,” the restless natives, drunk on toddy (fermented palm sap), began rioting.

    The sparse police force, armed only with truncheons, was completely overwhelmed by rioters wielding pangas (machetes), and beyond useless at crowd control. Without an airport, and located a thousand miles from the nearest land mass of Africa, there simply was nobody they could call for mutual aid backup. It got pretty ugly for a few days. I can just imagine the special snowflakes ensconced on today’s Ivy League campuses, stamping their dainty feet over there being no phones, with which to dial 911 demanding their “safe spaces,” be cleared of the unpleasant riffraff.

    The generally ex-military American expats living there, were on our own, and also unarmed; but not quite helpless. Yankee ingenuity was employed in preparing to defend our homes and families. After unstringing our spear guns, and fabricating powerful slingshots with surgical tubing, we turned our attention to what today are called IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices). It happened that large 4 & 6 inch firecrackers were readily available, in the Chinese sundry shops scattered around the island. Encased in glued-on nails, they made passable fragmentation grenades.

    Cherry bombs, installed with shortened fuses, in pipes capped on one end packed with pea gravel, made serviceable defensive shotguns. True, they were single shot; but incredibly easy and cheap to make, so we kept stacks of them at hand. The most formidable item in our arsenal, however, turned out to be the old insurgent standby, Molotov Cocktails. Gasoline and rags were readily available. Empty liter sized beer bottles were ubiquitous in our youthful environment.

    Have you ever messed with one of these things? Be careful! Until my experiments, I had always assumed that they were just a convenient method for getting fire from point A to point B. Naturally, after constructing my first one, I wanted to test it. My home was on the coast, and there was a convenient large rock above the water about 20 feet offshore from my back yard. That seemed like a safe target, so I lit the wick and threw it.

    Holy mother of Zeus! I just barely had time to hit the deck, as it exploded and sent shards of glass singing over my foolish head. I had no idea that they were a form of fuel air bomb, which work like a miniature MOAB. When the glass breaks, and the gasoline vapors mix with the oxygenated air, the burning rag ignites the highly explosive mixture, with spectacular results.

    When finished, I was more prepared for standing off an angry mob of communist inspired, anti-American rioters, than had I been armed with a so-called assault rifle. Fortunately, my servants passed the word about my formidable defensive preparations in the community, which thankfully forestalled the need to ever use them. After a few days, a British frigate appeared on the usually clear horizon.

    It anchored beyond the reef, and sent a shore boat with a dozen armed British Marines ashore. All they had to do, was parade up and down the main street a couple of times, at shoulder arms. The riots were instantly over, and the election proceeded without further ado. Incidentally, the communist Peoples United Party was resoundingly defeated, the Chicom agitators sent packing, and the friendly laid-back island lifestyle reasserted itself…

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Gun-Free Existence – Part II

      I have shared this vignette to make several points. First, those advocating for gun-free zones and/or a gun-free society haven’t a clue what they are suggesting. Even a nominally pacific society of cheerful people, which ours certainly isn’t, can be riled up to commit violence by demagogues. Access to and skill with repeating firearms, can make the weakest man or woman the equal of a gang of brutes. It is incredibly foolish not to avail oneself of such defensive tools.

      Secondly, as long as any teenaged punk or crazed Jihadi, can buy gasoline, the notion that gun control would make society safer is a cruel joke. The Orlando shooter, who was unlikely acting alone anyway, could have easily created even more carnage, with a few simple Molotov Cocktails in a backpack, which do not require a background check to acquire. A cigarette lighter, a couple of gallons of gasoline, an old T-shirt, and a twelve-pack of bottled beer, or a case of mason jars, is all that is required. We should hope the Jihadists stick to knives and firearms.

      Then, notice the effect of the arrival of the armed Marines, who never had to confront any rioter. The appearance of a few firearms, and the implied threat to use them, trumped hundreds of machete wielding malcontents, who quickly faded back into the jungle. At first glance, that appears to be a good thing, which bolsters the argument for defensive guns; but think again, a little deeper.

      This time, from the perspective of the hoi polloi, who (rightly or wrongly) felt they were being oppressed, by the ‘establishment’ controlling the government. The wind went out of their sails, because they were outgunned and thus effectively disarmed. Again, it would depend on one’s point of view, whether this was a good thing or not. At the time, I reckoned it good; but as an educated and apparently ‘rich’ American, I was effectively considered part of the aristocracy of that Third World country.

      Now, I am only part of the hoi polloi of America, with a government that no longer seems benign, and more often strikes me as oppressive and increasingly tyrannical. From that perspective, my foreign experience only reinforces my resolve, to never allow the Progressives to disarm the citizenry on these shores, no matter what it takes. Does this make any common sense whatever, to the gun control advocates, who increasingly appear to be stuck on stupid? ◄Dave►

      • Reality Seeker says:

        Good story. Your point about improvised weapons is well put — and timely.

        "Carbine" Williams designed and built four semi-automatic rifles while in prison. The U.S. Army used his design for combat rifles. Jimmy Stewart played the leading man in the movie, "Carbine Williams".

        Fast forward to 2016. Guns can be produced on a "printer".

        The genie is out of the bottle. There is no gun-control. Not really. Gun control is for the law abiding citizen, not the jihadist. Anybody who wants to build a gun — or make a bomb — can do it without too much technical know-how. It's getting to the point where even a layman is going to be able to assemble a fully automatic weapon, build a hand grenade, make body armor and even improvise a poison gas bomb.

        The dimwits who are flim-flammed by the political criminals are the only ones who'll be unarmed. The ingenuous public will be totally caught off guard when the SHTF.

        The clued-in people are quietly taking out a life-insurance policy in the form of extra food, fluids, fuel, first aid supplies, firearms and other necessities to survive at least a temporary disruption in law and order.

        What happened to you on that remote island is a teachable experience. That breakdown in society can happen anywhere. And when it does, Obama won't feed you, administer first aid and defend you during a temporary civil breakdown.

  39. Carl-Edward says:

    The Second Amendment should be considered inviolable.

    As to the fate of the country, it is too late to save it – not only because of immigration, but because the mass of the people are too backward and ignorant to understand what has been done to them, e.g. most of them think inflation (not that they would recognise it as such) to be the fault of private enterprise, and not the creation of a currency with nothing behind it.

    I do not suppose many people now remember Eisenhower's response to the problem of illegal immigrants: 'Round them up, and throw them out.' Yet, even legal immigrants who do not come from England and Western Europe, corrupt the culture, and destroy any hope of national unity.

  40. LENSOL says: