Abby's Road: Let's talk about guns

  • Mail this page!
  • Delicious
  • 10

I don’t want all your guns. In fact, I hope never to see your guns. I hate guns.

I accept, however, that guns are the accessory to some people’s hobbies and sweet dreams. Target practice at a gun range. Hunting. Something in your bedside table to give you peace of mind about a hypothetical home invasion. I also accept that guns are the office equipment of certain trained professionals. I am therefore willing to accept a compromise between my feelings and our practical reality.

Are you?

I ask because you seem to hear “gun eradication” when I say “gun control.” You call me stupid, and irresponsible, and a threat to our freedom. I don’t know how to have a conversation with you about this, but I want to.

It is not a conversation when you play the Second Amendment like a trump card. If you want to talk about the Second Amendment, let’s talk about it being drafted when the standard firearm was a musket. Let’s talk about its motivating concern for a “well-regulated militia.” Let’s talk about how it’s followed by an amendment that addresses quartering soldiers. Please take a moment to reflect on the Founding Fathers drafting for times that are very different from ours.

Or don’t. Stick to your position that the Second Amendment is absolute. In that case, let’s consider the First Amendment.

The First Amendment explicitly says that Congress can’t make a law that “abridges” free speech. Now let’s acknowledge all the ways free speech is legally abridged. If it weren’t, you might see highway billboards featuring hardcore porn, for example. Please take a moment to consider why time, place and manner restrictions are acceptable for undisputed First Amendment rights, but not for whatever rights you claim exist under the Second Amendment.

Or maybe your argument isn’t constitutional. Maybe your argument is practical.

After all, you call me stupid for suggesting new guns laws because you say no criminal would comply, resulting in a wasted effort. Allow me to ask why our laws should be based on what a criminal would comply with. Also, if we should only pass laws that won’t be broken, what kind of laws should we pass? Certainly not laws on, for example, immigration, right? Wrong? Please help me understand your distinctions.

You call me a simpleton because I seem to think that gun violence will magically disappear once we pass new gun laws. Allow me to reassure you. I’m open to attacking gun violence from every available front. I’m willing to put everything on the table. Please tell me what you are willing to put on the table.

You call me irresponsible because I want fewer guns, while you say we actually need more guns. Allow me to ask: more guns than what? According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the United States constitutes less than 5 percent of the world’s population, but 35-40 percent of the world’s civilian-owned guns. And we also have more mass shootings here than any other country in the world.

Do you mean, perhaps, that ideally a civilian would have multiple guns of various models? I can certainly think of gun-bearers who fit that description. They’re the young men responsible for many of the recent mass shootings.

Perhaps what you intended to say was that however many guns a bad guy has, the good guys need more. Our schools, movie theaters and public events patrolled by armed security guards. Our classrooms led by armed teachers, our date nights third-wheeled by a concealed weapon, our spectators waving rally flags with one hand and cradling a handgun with another. Please help me see freedom in those images.

I think we need to have this conversation.

Because I am not prepared to accept frequent mass shootings as inevitable, especially where we do not resign ourselves to terrorism, or disease, or natural disasters. I am not prepared to agree that one strict interpretation of text is more sacrosanct than thousands of human lives. I am not prepared to bear witness to the murder of my children by a young man who had an easier time stockpiling weapons than getting a girl to go on a date with him.

Are you?

Abby Diaz grew up in Falmouth and lives there again, because that’s how life works. She blogs at Follow Abby on Twitter: @AbbyDiaz1.

  • Kevin McCarthy

    Another excellent column, Abby. Thank you.

  • David Craig

    Perfect! The conversation MUST happen or we’ll continue to see a mass shooting in our nation’s schools every few months and single victim school shootings on almost a weekly basis.

  • EABeem

    Why is it that all those flag-waving, gun-toting NRA members are never around when mass shootings take place? They like to say that it takes a good person with a gun to stop a bad person with a gun, but what it really takes is someone with guts and the willingness to sacrifice one’s self. Those American GIs who tackled the terrorist on the French train were not armed. More guns just begets more violence. Great column, Abby. Now wait for the nasty 2nd Amendment types to get wind of it.

    • Jason St Pierre

      GUN FREE ZONE, there’s one reason…

      • EABeem

        Umpquaa Community College is not a gun free zone. It would great if the whole country were however.

        • Guest
        • Jason St Pierre

          That was a generalized statement. But it’s worth noting at that time,

          The Oregonian noted more specifically that although UCC did have a no-gun policy, they were required by law to allow anyone with a concealed firearms permit to bring guns on campus:Umpqua Community College, site of a mass shooting, bans guns, knives longer than 4 inches and other weapons from campus.

          But that policy has one big exemption that renders the pastoral 100-acre campus near Roseburg anything but a gun-free zone: Everyone with a concealed firearms license is allowed to bring guns on campus.

          That is because a 1989 Oregon law forbids any public body except the Legislature from restricting the rights of concealed weapons permit-holders to bring guns where they wish.

          Proponents of gun rights have seized on [the] tragic killing of eight Oregon college students and their writing instructor as evidence that so-called gun-free zones, or places where all guns are banned, are especially dangerous because a gunman plotting a mass killing will know there is no armed person there who can stop him. Proponents of gun restrictions have shot back with their own take on gun-free zones.

          The college’s no-guns policy seems to be obvious evidence that the Umpqua campus was such a place. But Oregon gun owners with concealed firearms licenses know those licenses entitle them to carry loaded guns in nearly all public places. Guns, including handguns and rifles, are allowed on campus for people who have passed all background checks and conditions to qualify for a concealed weapon permit.

          Many Oregon college and university leaders dislike having armed people on campus, and public colleges have tried to make rules prohibiting the practice. But the courts have ruled those policies invalid when it comes to licensed permit-holders.

        • Glenn Hamilton

          ok, you just made the entire US a soft target for terrorists. Very Intelligent.

  • Leslie Hyde

    Clear, cogent and brilliantly stated. Thank you, Abby, for inviting a reasonable discourse on this inflammatory topic.

  • truther

    BBC News has an article today about an 11-year old boy in Tennessee who shot and killed the 8-year old girl next door because she wouldn’t let him play with her puppy or something. He used his dad’s shotgun.

    There’s a nice graphic at the bottom of the story that shows the respective murder rates in the US, Canada, Australia and the UK. Oddly enough, our murder rate is vastly higher than theirs and our rate of gun deaths is astronomically higher. More guns = more killing. It’s genuinely baffling that so many refuse to acknowledge this fact.

  • SteveWoodsME

    Excellent piece and perfectly on target!

    • Guest

      No pun intended?

  • dylanesq

    Clinging on to some set of concepts, like the ‘U.S. Constitution’, created in a completely different set of circumstances from a time period hundreds of years ago is sheer madness, just as spouting writings from thousands of years ago is while frantically flicking through the pages of some book in order to find a reference to support some theory you want to expound. It’s sheer madness.

    If guidance is what a person seeks then first of all we must all agree on the validity of any set of guidelines. I don’t agree that stockpiling weapons is likely to help us protect us from our government when just by voting we can do that. Do you really think that some raggletag militia can last longer than a few days when by simply securing and confining ammunition sources, any insurrection can be ended in a heartbeat ? Nor do I agree that some ancient tome, loosely based on events but deeply embellished in fiction and unrelated to today’s human world is an acceptable source of rules which ought to be applied.

    The 2nd Amendment needs to be scrapped, and along with all the others, revised to relate to the needs of the modern world in a realistic form. What passes for culture or religion needs to go the way of the dinosaur and humanity needs to wake up to the world of the ‘now’ before it is too late. As long as we cling to the concept that another world awaits us after we die or that there is some big daddy in the sky taking care of business, then we are hardly likely to stop, take stock and realise that we have almost ruined our beautiful home with our greed, selfishness and lack of awareness.

    Only we can change the direction in which we are stumbling. Something must be revised. We must examine our concepts, sort out the realities from the fantasies, scrap our delusions, examine our true purposes, mould our societies differently and be willing to face our own hypocrisy.

    • Jason St Pierre

      “Clinging on to some set of concepts, like the ‘U.S. Constitution” You are the worst of Americans. Please take your logic and ideals to another place, where it belongs.

      • knighthawk

        Yeah, like outside of America.

  • Jason St Pierre

    I would like to add, without the media’s (not this instance) enthusiastic coverage of shooters and ignoring most anything else there would be fewer or perhaps no “copycat events” Also if we sought to reform rather than closing mental health facilities over the years perhaps they would have improved and then treated many more people that were in danger of harming themselves and others. I don’t understand why there is no activism push against the two most obvious contributors to the mass shooting reality TV show. This anti-gun push has been funded and promoted not by Liberal agenda; (they are the target) but instead by the 1% Oligarchs that own media and policy. And by controlling TV & Radio, they own the minds of most non-gun friendly folks telling them constantly to challenge law abiding gun friendly America while profiting politically & financially from promoting the effects. Guns in America, has been a constant since day one, why can’t you all address the important question what’s really happening in society that’s changed? It’s POWER to secure the control of assets from you.

    • Guest

      Agree with your points. Yes, “Let’s talk about guns”; Abby is absolutely correct because these discussions need to take place. The bigger picture is not a dichotomous one: guns or no guns. Mental illness appears to be a common problem in mass murders. There remains a societal stigma regarding mental illness and we need more education and funding to understand and provide better treatment options, while keeping in mind the majority of mentally ill people are not dangerous, suicidal, and/or homicidal. It’s fact some psychotropic medications carry warnings about suicidal ideation as possible side effect and some are also inappropriate for teens. If someone is fixated on suicidal and homicidal ideation and without a gun it seems likely they’ll find other means of mass murdering, such as strapping on explosives and finding a crowded area. The lack of availability to guns has also not stopped violence in the UK; stabbings increased at such a rate as to have some proclaim a need for prohibition on certain kitchen knives. Ridiculous, for sure. We need to examine a tendency for too many towards violence; why the increase? Lastly, we need to consider the steps tyrannical governments make towards total control. People cannot fight a tyrannical government with knives, pitchforks, and shovels. We need to take a look at history and why several governments, the U.S. included, send/give/buy weapons and arms for “rebels” and drug cartels…and the millions of people killed when a government takes away arms and then proceeds in genocide including within its own borders.

  • Jason St Pierre

    Abby I’m a fan of your candor but respectfully, still disagree.

  • yathink2011

    Like the knee jerk reactions before a mass shooting, and the ones that will follow the next one, you told us what you think the problem is, but didn’t offer any specific solution. You don’t want to take ” all the guns”, so which ones do you want to take? The only ones that the Government is capable of taking are the ones registered by responsible owners. There is no way to take the rest. Like everything else the Government outlaws, the only ones that will suffer are the law abiding citizens who won’t be allowed to protect themselves from the ones the law doesn’t have any affect on. Unfortunately, a historic storm causing major floods, and the tragic loss of a cargo ship and 33 lives, pushed the knee jerk reactions off of the front page, where most Americans don’t feel it belongs. Take a course, arm yourself, and be responsible. It’s the only option left.

  • James Post

    There are many irritating aspects of this topic, here are two that are critical of the pro – gun control groups:
    * Enhanced background checks would have prevented these tragedies – zero proof that it the case
    *The gun control advocates act as though these “common sense proposals” would go a long way toward solving the problem of gun violence, but the evil NRA is preventing a solution. – I don’t think these proposals, if made into law, would make a material dent in gun violence.

    People who are determined to get guns will get them, and if we are not careful with our gun control legislation, we will create a violent black market that supplies guns to our criminal element. That will mean more gun deaths, not fewer.

    Go ahead, legislate away, I would even hold my nose and support most of the proposals, but try to be intellectually honest enough to admit that it is mostly emotional reactions to tragedies, and we may feel good that we are “doing something”, but the difference will be minimal.

    An important note- I don’t own a gun, don’t belong to the NRA, but I live in a world of logical reality, not a world of emotional “something has to be done” actions.

    • truther

      So what should society’s “logical” response be when a gunman walks into a school and murders people at whim? (Note how many different events I could be talking about.) This happens far more frequently in the US than in any other first world nation. Our plentiful guns and our lax regulatory framework, that enable anyone with a grudge, are the cause. So what do you do?

      If prides of ravenous lions were roaming southern Maine, occasionally eating people, we would all demand that the lions be removed. Anyone who tried to suggest that removing lions was a “mostly emotional” response would be laughed out of the country.

      And let’s be honest — the gun rights people are BY FAR the more “emotional” crowd in this debate. People who think that the lesson of Sandy Hook is to have “good guys with guns” in every school, or who think those Charleston church victims should have been armed, or who blame the Oregon victims for not attacking their killer more aggressively, are the illogical ones here.

      I don’t want to live in a society where some nutcase shoots at a fleeing shoplifter in a parking lot, or where an unarmed guy gets shot at a bee farm, or where my daughter might get murdered by the creepy kid next door because he wanted to see our dog. You’d think that the Congress that has voted 60 times to repeal Obamacare and devoted tens of thousands of hours to investigating Benghazi could find the time to maybe offer some solutions to the 30+ thousand Americans being shot to death each year.

      • James Post

        Notice you did not give the remotest refutation of my stated view that the proposals in Congress would not have prevented any of these tragedies. Thus, I ask, which proposals in Congress would have prevented Sandy Hook, Columbine, Charleston, etc? If the tragedies would still have occurred, what good are they?

        If a pride of ravenous lions were roaming Southern Maine, and the vast majority of the lions were not eating people, it is unlikely their removal would be demanded. In fact, those humans who might be in harms way would be instructed in how to defend themselves.

        I specifically addressed the gun control supporters’ emotionalism in my post, because the underlying article was from the viewpoint of a gun control supporter. While you do not know it, I have, in response to articles supporting the NRA, commented critically about that group. Yes, the NRA caters to emotion. But, the underlying reality is that virtually nothing can be done to stop someone willing to die in the act of killing others.

        We already live in a society where some nutcase can shoot a shop lifter, and have lived in one for years, and these occurrences are quite rare.The guilty party in shooting at the fleeing shoplifter needs to be prosecuted and severely punished, but punishment is not going to prevent the suicidal killers. Nor will gun control measures make more than a very minor dent.

        Places with substantial flows of people in and out of universities, need trained plainclothes security personnel who carry concealed weapons. These are not the students I am talking about having the weapons.

        That is my response to what should be done, it will only help a bit, because people willing to kill themselves while killing others are nearly impossible to stop. We did not stop Kamikazes very well in WW II, and we have to be honest about it.

        • EABeem

          Okay, let’s just do nothing and hope for the best. Meanwhile, all the evidence suggests that universal background checks would be effective in reducing gun deaths.

          Since the enactment of the Brady law on March 1, 1994, through December 31, 2012, background checks blocked more than 2.4 million prohibited purchasers like domestic abusers, convicted felons, mentally ill persons, and other dangerous individuals from purchasing a firearm or receiving a permit to purchase or carry a firearm.1

          In 2012 alone, background checks blocked 192,043 prohibited persons from gaining access to firearms,2 including 82,000 felons or roughly 225 felons every day.3

          Statistics reported by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence confirm that background checks work and have had a significant positive impact on national crime rates. Before the Brady law was enacted, America’s gun homicide rate was on a dramatic rise, increasing by 55 percent from 1984 to 1993 even as non-gun homicides were falling over this period.4 After Brady background checks were required, however, gun murders began to steadily decline and ultimately fell by 32 percent from 1993 to 2006.5 The rate of robberies and aggravated assaults committed with firearms also decreased by 42 percent over this period.6

          However, the Brady law only requires background checks by federally licensed firearms dealers. Research has found that states with more expansive background check laws experience 48 percent less gun trafficking, 38 percent fewer deaths of women shot by intimate partners, and 17 percent fewer firearms involved in aggravated assaults.7 States with universal background check requirements also have a 53 percent lower gun suicide rate, and a 31 percent lower overall suicide rate than states without these laws.8 This correlation is unchanged even after controlling for the effects of poverty, population density, age, education, and race/ethnicity.9 After controlling for these variables, universal background checks were associated with 22% fewer suicides and 35% fewer firearm suicides per capita.10

          • James Post

            I did not say do nothing. My comments have related basically to these mass killings. Additionally, I stated in my original comment that I would hold my nose and support most of the proposals, but the reduction of these horrific killings would be minimal.

            The largest benefit from waiting periods in the purchase of firearms is the compulsive person, acting on emotion, who kills a spouse, partner, or commits suicide. It allows the person to calm down and regain an element of rational thinking. Thus, the suicide and intimate partner assaults have been affected, and that is good. However, it would also be informative to find out if these people who were prohibited from purchasing firearms got guns in another manner. Nevertheless, it is useful to stop the anger laden person from getting a gun, in a rage, and using it in the fit of rage.

            It is also relevant to point out that the violent crime rate in this country, in spite of these horrific occurrences, has been going down since 1992, and the overall crime rate has been going down in that time period as well. The rate of decline has been substantial, although zero consolation for those who are victimized in 2015.

            Now, how are you going to prevent the mass killings when the killer is willing to die in the act? Don’t tell me what you would not do, since I did not propose arming kindergarten teachers or college students.

          • Guest

            Seems the majority of pro gun rights people aren’t saying “do nothing”, while on the other hand too many appear to believe the issue of dealing with gun violence is a simple one – just take guns away from everyone. I agree with comments posted that gun laws are an effort where guns will be taken predominantly from law-abiding, registered gun owners. And we’re not going to stop suicides by taking guns away. That said, I was looking at the statistics you’d posted, and wondering – how many of the homicides by use of guns were actually gang-related? A major problem is how we (or more precisely LEO) are reporting gun-related homicides. Estimates given for gang-related gun violence in New Orleans was 35% to 50%, Chicago 80%, and in Baltimore 80% drug-related (which usually also means gang-related). With that in mind, “Most of the gun laws are aimed at a segment of the population that is mostly law-abiding and outside of the gang culture and likely would do little to stop any of the violence.” In the U.S. it seems guns are the chosen means of suicide, however, the suicide rate in Japan is twice as high as the U.S. with jumping in front of trains the predominant method. Most people who are suicidal aren’t also homicidal; mass murders are rare. Generally, we don’t think of stabbings in connection with mass murders, but in China these seem to occur regularly. The U.S. is considered “gun friendly”, but most don’t mention Switzerland which arms its citizens and provides yearly qualifications, certifications and ammunition.The citizens of Switzerland are the armed militia, but we don’t see the same gun-related homicide statistics. We need to look at what causes our society and culture towards more violent tendencies, and the fact 90% of gun violence is attributed to males. We also need to question why the majority of people in the U.S. now believe the government is corrupt, and what are motivations for the federal government in disarming law-abiding citizens especially in light that several States are now allowing concealed carry without permits. Here are some interesting links and graphics:
            “The Truth About Gun Control and Mass Murder”
            And from,


          • EABeem

            If anti-gun control forces oppose any and all reasonable restrictions, gun control advocates will have no choice but to advocate for a complete ban. Thanks for the links. I’ll take a look.

          • Thadeous Plinkton

            Reasonable you say, surely Mr. Beem you jest.
            By the way September set a new record for gun sales in America. According to the FBI they process over 1.2 million applications.

            Ain’t America grand.
            The louder you cry the more we buy. And we are getting close to a Billion guns in the hands of law-abiding private citizens.

            Not sure though how many guns the criminals have though. I suspect it could be in thousands at least.

          • James Post

            As stated in previous posts, I don’t own a gun, and as stated, I would probably support most of the proposed gun access restrictions, even though I suspect they would have a very minor impact on the mass killing occurrences.

            Here is a relevant drill down on tactics employed by activist groups:

            According to many progressives, if you favor any restriction on abortion rights, even in late term abortions, you are really trying to eliminate the total right to abortion, and the restrictions are a first step. Many progressives use the same approach when someone points out the problems with elements of affirmative action: racism is at the root of the desire to alter affirmative action, and the real goal is to abolish it. If you have problems with Obamacare, many progressives will tell you that you really want to see people die due to lack of health care. We can cite other issues in which many progressives will impugn any thought about modifying social programs.

            Thus, I would suggest that many progressives use tactics that are really very similar to what the NRA uses in relation to gun control. The NRA and many progressives cite the dangers of the “first step”, and begin their scorched earth tactics toward their opponents. Of course, each side has its elements of hubris that go to great degrees to attack the motives of those who hold contrary viewpoints.

            The more you look at it, the more you realize that many progressives, and the NRA employ similar tactics, just on different issues.

            The funny thing is that in one on one personal contacts, most NRA people are quite reasonable, as are most progressives, but when you get them to writing articles and advocating their positions, it is much heat, and too little light.


      • Real cool guy

        If a pride of ravenous guns were roaming southern Maine and occasionally shooting people I might just agree. However, that’s not the case.

      • Eric

        Of those 30,000 Americans killed by guns, you fail to mention that just over half are suicides. While still tragic, a 20 story jump is just as deadly. So figure maybe 16,000 gun deaths are not suicide. Many of those are accidents, and the VAST, overwhelming majority are inflicted with handguns, many of which fall into compliance with several states draconian “assault” weapons ban. All I can suggest, is to educate yourself on these issues, rather than regurgitate what the 6 o’clock news told you to think. Pick up a dictionary and learn the definition of an assault rifle, and pick up a gun, and learn how they work. I truly believe the people who are the most anti gun, are borderline psychotic. Some one who finds it impossible to disassociate an OBJECT from death and murder, might just have a little too much death and murder on their minds. The amount of misinformation, skewed statistics and flat out lies around this discussion is absolutely astounding. If you like gums or not, learn what they actually are and how they actually work before opening your mouth. If the issue is guns, wouldn’t we have 300,000,000 shootings a year?

        • truther

          Yeah, I’m the psychotic one. Not the gunmen who murdered five Dallas police officers yesterday.

  • Harry Cline

    Hello Abby,

    As it stands today background checks will only flag if a person has a criminal record.
    There is no data base for those who have ever been to counseling for emotional/mental health issues. That falls under patient/doctor confidentiality much like the lawyer/client confidentiality.

    What has been the common denominator in most of these shootings over the last few years, people with mental health issues.
    And what happens to the person who merely goes into counseling for depression, does society automatically assume they are a danger to the public.

    Do you see where this can all lead to.
    You don’t want our guns Abby, you want the guns outlawed entirely in America, but you are smart enough to play the end around game.

    I’m an American by birth and I remain an American by choice.
    Because in America we have fundamental rights and I don’t need your clever interpretation of the Constitution to tell me what they stand for.

    You really could care less about the Constitution.
    You’ll jump on any wagon if it rings with emotion especially that emotion fueled by well funded rhetoric.

  • Just Saying

    Cigarette’s kill more people than guns. So now what?

  • Chew H Bird

    Increasing the scope (pun intended) of the black market for guns will simply make things worse. Background checks, required safety, usage, and storage training can help, but focusing on the device (in this case firearms) is a slippery and dangerous slope.

  • Jack O’Brien

    Guns are like cigarettes: if you want fewer deaths, make them less accessible. There is a 0.63 correlation between the rate of gun ownership and the rate of gun deaths by state, and a 0.71 correlation between gun ownership within developed countries (excluding South Africa) and the rate of gun deaths. (For comparison, the correlation between the smoking rate and the lung cancer rate is 0.70.) The pattern appears casual as well: restrictions on gun ownership in Australia and the UK significantly brought down their gun death rates in about a decade.

  • amainah

    Sheese Abby. Way to start a firestorm. :).

    While we’re playing “just imagine” (that sold a lot of Maine lottery tickets) just imagine that all those who were denied a permit to own a firearm actually don’t have one.

  • Pekka Paavonpera

    Often an outsider’s view point, especially when expressed in an out of the box forum, helps one look at a controversial subject in a different light :–gkj8i36nCe

  • Glenn Hamilton

    If mental health issues were addressed via a data base to eliminate someone with a mental health issue the majority of mass shootings would have been stopped. They would not have obtained a firearm. You are not addressing this or the act of home grown lone wolf terrorists that caused mass shootings. The American cities with the most violence also have the toughest gun laws. You are not addressing this. Adam Lanza’s mother had a gun collection. She failed to protect society by locking the firearms up . She knew her son was sick an let him have access. The State of CT knew he was sick and did nothing. She was the first person Adam killed. The firearm is only a tool for the sick mind. The tool of death could have been a knife or bomb.The firearm did not do anything wrong. In every case the human was the actor that used the firearm to kill. As humans we cannot control the human mind. Only God can.

  • Glenn Hamilton

    The current SCOTUS decision in Heller makes your points moot. All Americans must obey the law, regardless on how you feel about firearms. Your opinion and mine do not matter nor are your comments relevant.
    At the point of a liberal majority in the Supreme Court ruling to over-turn Heller, then this issue becomes ripe.
    A lot of States have Constitutional Amendments in State Constitutions on civilian firearm ownership. It would be years and years for any laws to require citizens to turn in firearms.
    Americans will not comply with laws that are against a protection from a ruthless government.Will the Government go door to door to search for firearms? No. There is not enough Federal agents.
    There would also be moves by states to succeed from the US.
    If the liberals push this issue you might find yourself with half the US states leaving the union.Another civil war? Great possibility.

    • Aliyah33

      Government would likely use UN forces which are already here. A large number of LEO and U.S. military wouldn’t comply with orders in violation of the Constitution. However, we’d also be told that under a martial law situation the Constitution is suspended.

      • Glenn Hamilton

        I assume the armed populous would suspend society’s laws also and drive a bad government and their {UN} army out. In all the militaries of the world there might be 10 million firearms. In the US there are 300000000 firearms with 200 million owners that believe in the 2nd amendment. What are the odds in a guerrilla war with these facts.?

  • jack bauer

    Gun control is a difficult subject as your thoughtful posters have demonstrated. There are things which can help you avoid ‘bearing witness to the murder of your children.’ For instance, keeping foreign criminals from entering the country. As you may know, there are grieving families in America today because their loved one was killed by someone that shouldn’t even be in this country. Do you support securing the borders, Ms. Diaz?

  • Glenn Hamilton

    For a person that hates guns ,that tells me you do not know too much about them, A gun is a paperweight until a human picks it up and decides what to do with it. A gun does not have legs, arms, fingers, or a brain. A human does. Let me tell you that you should fear an un-stable human more than a paperweight.Knives, axes,bombs are also paperweights until the nut job human picks them up and uses them in a negative way. Look at life through the eyes of the intelligent person I know you are.Don’t use talking points of the anti-gun crowd.

  • Real cool guy

    Hypothetical home invasion!? Are you an idiot!?

    Home invasions occure daily. Guns are used by “civilians” daily without firing a shot to protect themselves and their families.

    Shall we wait 5-10 mins for a town police officer with less experience in combat then ourselves to come to our rescue so you can sleep soundly in utopia?