"You are an imbecile nonetheless."

keep it civil for crying out loud!

Humm...well, I happen to be a gun toting liberal, but did you even watch the video? What do guns have to do with the waste, no accountability, lies and on and on about the occupation of Iraq. Support our troops by no body armor, no bennies and paying contractors way more...yeah, that is supporting our troops all right. Just like a conservative to change the subject when he has no argument.

Your "logic" is as flawed as the 2000 and 2004 election voting results..GUNS don't make us safe. Laws do, and electing honest American's to officer that REALLY LOVE our COUNTRY, and not CORP $$$$ as our current officials do will make us safer w/o guns. Idiots with guns do not make us safe. These cartoons make people think..guess it didn't work for you?

Uh... yeah. That's exactly how history was. Exactly.

Tard.

Wow someone obviously fully takes everything Michael Moore says at face value. How about you actually read the texts of the time period instead of making generalizations about that time. Actually learn your history and read it with open eyes. Yeah we currently live in a culture of fear as an off shoot of the cold war (legitimately scary times. Just because we currently live in this culture does not mean our entire history is based upon it. Please learn your history, and quit spouting ignorant -------.

Wasn't "Valdamir" a character from Harry Potter?

p.s. you sound deranged.

The main reason for the first amendment, was not for hunting, or even really for self-protection, it's purpose was to give the people a way to rise up against a government that strayed from the will of the people. Governments, as a rule do NOT oppress an armed populous. The first battle in the Revolutionary war (Lexington/Concord)was fought because the King's army was sent to occupy the militia arsenal at Lexington.

Not only are the later parts of this nonsensical but I object to Lenin being listed among the others. And it can be said that before Chairman Mao lost his mind, he was far better than Chiang Kai-shek, who was a brutal fascist.
Casey?

Terrorism isn't on that list, does that mean it is not a threat that should be dealt with?

You are absolutely, totally retarded. Go away.

Two answers. 1) The logic is deeply flawed because of the intent factor. Guns don't happen, cancer does, for example. Guns are manufactured, marketed, and lobbied for. The other arguments on the page in favor of guns are also deeply flawed. I do not think anyone truly believes that all guns can or should go, but rather that serious regulation is needed. The idea that the people will rise against a tyrannical government is nonsense. GWB and his cronies have virtually opposed every Amendment of the Bill of Rights except the 2nd Amendment. So: Where are all the patriotic gunholders.... ?Sitting home and cheering. I am sorry to say, but most rabid gun supporters have been totally brainwashed, just as a bunch of Germans were in the early '30s. You fellows just repeat the same nonsense that is promulgated by the NRA without thinking. And it really sounds very silly.

2) Actually, there is an attempt to indirectly regulate a lot of those diseases. The way you eat can be a cause of heart disease. People are trying to lobby against fast food, for that reason. Not the government, of course. Smoking is also a cause of heart disease, respiratory syndromes and cancer as well. And countless research labs are doing work trying to find cures for many of the illnesses and conditions you mention. So there is a real opposition there and in some cases the government is involved. The EPA regulates a variety of things and even --occasiobnally, when not in the hands of industry shills -- asks that industries clean up their poisonous messes (the gun industry just washes its hands of the victims). As for accidents: Why do you think, for example, there are speed limits? Answer: To reduce the number of accidents. So there is regulation in place. A lot of it, and rightly so.

We do have to die of something. But it is different if your kid is killed by some wanker with a gun. There is will and intent there. I know some people who have been through it, and it is a lifelong trauma. You can all cackle away for the gun lobby here protected behind the barrier of Internet anonymity. But you will look like idiots facing a parent who has lost a child to the gunfire of some creep. And I don't only mean the nutcases, but the upstanding and completely paranoid citizens who pull a gun on someone knocking on their door.

Lastly:
The figure of gun victims only speaks of the people who have died from gunshot. It does not include the number of crimes committed by people holding guns, from robbery to rape. Nor does it include the the number of injuries, some severe, caused by guns. But WTF. You don't convince Moonies, Scientologists or old Nazis either. Once the brain has been washed, it pretty much stays that way I have found. A kind of Stockholm Syndrome. Or like smokers say (and I was one): I just like smoking. Actually, smokers are mostly just addicted.

Just a question: Does 'accidents' include accidental shootings? My suspicion is that the Cheney quail-hunting episode would be classified as an 'accident' rather than as 'homicide' if his lawyer pal hadn't pulled through.

Yeesh. I'm the worst kinda-pro-gun advocate around.

You just don't read far enough. Homicides are at place 15 in the list...

You know, I'm not for banning all guns. Guns do have a purpose for hunting and home protection. But the weapons that I'm referring to are rifles and shotguns. I used to hunt and never came into a hunting situation where I needed an assault rifle. I never came into a situation where I needed an automatic handgun, either. I did learn to use an assault rifle and an automatic hand gun in the Marine Corps. They had uses there. But I also learned how to only fire at what I intend to kill, to only point the weapon at something that I intend to fire upon and I also learned how to hit what I aimed at, unlike many people with guns. It's one thing to have an assault rifle in a fire fight with multiple enemies. It's another thing to have an assault rifle to "hunt". One other question comes to mind. If only law abiding, background-checked citizens are able to obtain guns, then there is a disconnect in the ability of criminals to obtain them. If they are getting them then maybe some of those law abiding folks aren't so law abiding. And the argument that those weapons may have been stolen from a registered gun owner kind of defeats the argument for home protection and tells me that they weren't secured in a safe manner, which tells me that they could have been reached and used by a child. I support the right to keep and bear arms, but I also support the revokation of that right from folks who have questionable or criminal backgrounds. And I support a long waiting period. I can't imagine a situation where not being able to purchase a gun the same day would cause me to miss out on hunting or cause me to be threatened in my home while I wait for the proper paperwork to go through. These argument for looser gun control don't stand up to logic.

And another illogical argument. "Guns kill less than heart disease, cancer, stroke, etc..." So, by that way of thinking we should just forget about working on curing all diseases except heart disease until that's cured, then we can worry about the others? Do you see the flaw in this way of thinking? And I can't remember the last time I've heard of someone attacking a school with heart disease.

I'll refrain from mentioning the old adage of "the bigger the gun, the smaller the..."

The thing is, almost all of the causes up here are diseases. No one's gonna argue that guns kill more people than cancer. But diseases have to be cured not illegalized.

Guns have killed many many people lately. People are getting guns very easily and then using them on people. Just owning a gun actually INCREASES the likelihood that you will use it on someone.

How are a private transaction with your grandfather and no background checks at gun shows related? Unless your grandfather gives you his gun at a gun show...?

It suppose what I'm interested in knowing is: can I go to a gun show, meet some guy there that I've never seen before, and have him sell me a semiautomatic weapon or an assault rifle without any kind of a background check?

Also, 2,000,000 defensive uses per year seems ludicrously high. In an average lifespan of 80 years, that would mean 160 million Americans (more than half) would use a gun for defensive purposes at least once in their lifetime. Some basic probability crunching with those statistics indicates that it would be highly unlikely for any 25-year-old to know fewer than 40 people who pulled a gun on a criminal. And yet I know thousands of people and none have ever had to defend themselves with a gun. I've spoken with quite a few law enforcement officers over the years, and many of them make it 50 years in the force without having to draw their weapon.

Not that I'm against guns (I see good points either way), but you really can't hope to bring people on-side by dregding up flawed statistics.

Wow, you're even worse than Bush. He invaded two countries illegally with his bs of WMDs, mushroom clouds, and threat to the US. Now you want us to believe that we need to arm ourselves to the teeth in anticipation of "they could amass an army of about 200-300 MILLION people. How are we supposed to fight that?"

You need to slow down on your meds. They are seriously affecting your ability to think rationally. China has no plans to invade the US, no intelligence agency anywhere in the world has even hinted at that possibility, especially the row boat part. :) You are totally dilusional.

What next?? Will the evil doers of DC Comics suddenly appear in the US to take us over? How about the Lizard people from the star Sirius?? Are they planning an attack too?? That has just as much a chance to happen as 300 million Chinese in row boats crossing the Pacific Ocean to invade the US. I guess our satellites can't detect anyone crossing the Pacific Ocean in row boats, right??

Actually, Prohibition worked pretty well. The number of people who abstained from alcohol use went up. After Prohibition, we can now definitively state that most crime is committed while perpetrators are under the influence of alcohol.

As to your comment about Chinese people in rowboats, I think its logic (or lack thereof) stands on its own.