Democrats , the 5 worst mass muders with a firearm

The five worst mass killings, where a firearm was used, have a common thread. Hint #1: They didn’t belong to the NRA. They don’t fit the stereotype of the “red-neck” gun owner

http://clashdaily.com/2013/01/the-5-wor ... z2INGaWT1E

The story quotes a radio talk show host, with no verification or sources so it may or may not be factual.

An Arizona man who on Wednesday reportedly killed four people, including a 47-year-old grandmother and a 15-month-old infant, and then took his own life was also a former Republican Party official, a former white supremacist neo-Nazi and the founder of a border patrol vigilante group that advocated using violence on immigrants.

On Thursday morning, police in Gilbert, Arizona confirmed that J.T. (Jason Todd) Ready had committed suicide after killing his girlfriend, 47-year-old Lisa Mederos, along with her daughter, her daughter’s boyfriend and her granddaughter, according to The Arizona Republic.

Source: Raw story: http://s.tt/1d7Z8


The problem is not Democrat or Republican. Americans getting killed by guns is a U.S problem.

Since parties don't really get to choose their members I feel this comparison is unfair. The Westboro head creep ran as a Democrat and I have even registered as a Dem so party affiliation can change.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... otings-map

Although it does look like Blue States do have more murders per capital.

"Of the 142 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally."

So much for the "gun laws won't stop criminals from shooting people" argument.

Raees wrote: "Of the 142 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally."

So much for the "gun laws won't stop criminals from shooting people" argument.

Poor logic. Just because they were able to get them legally doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to get them illegally. Severe MJ penalties doesn't shut down the drug trade. Gun laws in Mexico don't seem to work.

Raees wrote: "Of the 142 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally."

So much for the "gun laws won't stop criminals from shooting people" argument.

I don't want to put you on the spot and you don't have to answer this, but what would be your ideal ultimate solution if you could just snap your fingers and make it so when it comes to guns in the US? Would you want guns to only be in the hands of government employees or something in between?

I ask this because we keep hearing about more gun laws from the president, but we don't hear about what he really wants as an ultimate solution for his ideal society. For example, we know he really wants single payer health care, but he doesn't come out and say it for some reason. He wants his idealogy to be satisfied in incremental steps instead of just coming out and being honest about his ultimate goals.

I've posted my solution previously: All gun owners must be active members of the National Guard, or some other new "well-regulated" militia. To me, the Second Amendment clearly states the purpose of gun ownership.

It's not going to happen, I know, and the U.S. will be home to more and more guns and more and more gun violence. The situation will get worse and won't get any better, I fear.

I'm at a loss to understand why when Reagan signed the assault weapons ban it was considered a good thing but when Obama tries something like that, he's "attacking our liberties."

BTW, I'm not sure why we didn't hear more about this during the first presidential campaign. The right was strangely silent.

In 2008, the Anchorage Daily News ran this deck bellow the headline: “NO MORE GUNS: Alaska State Defense Force stripped of many powers.”

Irony knows no bounds when it comes to the Tea Party.

In 2008, Tea Party Queen and Shoot ‘Em Up and Hang ‘Em Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) disarmed brigade members of the Alaska State Defense Force (think volunteer militia) at the recommendation of the state military officials, based on a report by an investigator with the Washington National Guard.

http://www.politicususa.com/tea-party-d ... litia.html

Raees wrote: I've posted my solution previously: All gun owners must be active members of the National Guard, or some other new "well-regulated" militia. To me, the Second Amendment clearly states the purpose of gun ownership.

It's not going to happen, I know, and the U.S. will be home to more and more guns and more and more gun violence. The situation will get worse and won't get any better, I fear.

I'm at a loss to understand why when Reagan signed the assault weapons ban it was considered a good thing but when Obama tries something like that, he's "attacking our liberties."

BTW, I'm not sure why we didn't hear more about this during the first presidential campaign. The right was strangely silent.

In 2008, the Anchorage Daily News ran this deck bellow the headline: “NO MORE GUNS: Alaska State Defense Force stripped of many powers.”

Irony knows no bounds when it comes to the Tea Party.

In 2008, Tea Party Queen and Shoot ‘Em Up and Hang ‘Em Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) disarmed brigade members of the Alaska State Defense Force (think volunteer militia) at the recommendation of the state military officials, based on a report by an investigator with the Washington National Guard.

http://www.politicususa.com/tea-party-d ... litia.html

I don't know how the average single mom who would want some sort of last resort defense would be able to join the national guard or some sort of militia (or most working people with families for that matter). And I can only imagine the hysteria from many people on the left if militias started springing up everywhere. I'm quite sure Obama would be very opposed to that since a militia by definition is not part of government control.

If you could find a way to remove all guns from the hands of non-government citizens, would you?