And this sums up what the world thinks.

From a discussion about gun nuts teasing a Veteran.

"God you're a babyish nation. 

All the macho gun waving in the world won't protect you if your government sends the police or the army after you. And it certainly won't protect your children when some pissed off teenager picks up his parents legally and 'responsibly' owned fire arm and shoots up their school. Or when you're sitting in a cinema and your gun is safely locked up at home, how does that help you when someone walks in and sprays the room.

Gun control means less guns. Less guns means less shootings. Less shootings means less deaths. It's obvious to every nation but America. Look around the world, where there are less guns there are less shootings.

The world is laughing at you, grow up!"

The incident that prompted the response about our failing nation. "Brave" men with guns harrassing and insulting a Veteran. These are the people that should not have guns!

http://aattp.org/watch-right-wing-patriots-with-assault-rifles-mock-marine-vet-on-memorial-day-video/

How many dead will it take?

I've made it clear that we have gone way, way too far in support of guns. There is no moderation, there is no sanity. People are literally walking the streets with guns, more carrying now than in the Wild West. More in high population centers. More than ever in our history. All for a lot of lies.

This is a great article about one man's grief over the murder of his son due to a LEGALLY gun owning, mentally ill, person. Who had not one, but three legal guns.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/05/christopher-michael-martinezs-father-gets-it-right.html

But the best part is this, exposing all the lies of gun nuts, the NRA, and our radical politicians.

"Speaking clearly also lets us examine the elements of a proposition plainly. We know that slogans masquerading as plain speech are mere rhetoric because, on a moment’s inspection, they reveal themselves to be absurd. “The best answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” reveals itself to be a lie on a single inspection: the best answer is to not let the bad guy have a gun. “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” No: obviously, people with guns kill more people than people without them. Why not ban knives or cars, which can be instruments of death, too? Because these things were designed to help people do things other than kill people. “Gun control” means controlling those things whose first purpose is to help people kill other people. (I’ve written at length about farmers and hunting rifles, and of how they’re properly controlled in Canada. In any case, if guns were controlled merely as well as cars and alcohol, we’d be a long way along.) And the idea that you can be pro-life and still be pro-gun: if your primary concern is actually with the sacredness of life, then you have to stand with Richard Martinez, in memory of his son."

Nobody I know is saying to get rid of all guns, that is the opposite side of the fanatical thinking. But we do not need a buffet of 300,000,000 guns, now many being carried on the streets, in crowded events, amongst children. We do not need all those legal gun owners, such as this man's son's murderer, who are untested psychologically, who do not have to have strict controls over ownership of a device designed to kill. We do not need every other car or home with guns for the criminals to find and use.

We are supposed to be the leader in the world. We are supposed to be the most advanced, most progressive, most educated, and most innovative nation in the world. Why then are we regressing so far that we are even worse than our youngest and most turbulent days? Why then are other nations far, far more advanced than us in properly restricting guns?

Because it's all based on greed. The NRA makes millions through their lies and hypocrisy. They pay off our politicians and media. And people buy into the fear, they buy into the rhetoric, and those same paranoid, delusional, fearful people are walking around with a gun under their belt. Meanwhile the NRA and gun manufacturers are making billions while more people die. 

All the guns used at Newton were legally owned and accessible. All the guns used a Columbine were legally owned and accessible. All the guns used at NIU and Virginia Tech were legally owned and accessible.

How many dead will it take?

They won't get MY guns!

The most perfect response to a typical "government won't come to get my guns" gun lover who said this:

"Joe Clark - There are about 80 million people who might disagree with the "new aristocracy" if the "new aristocracy" gets the Second Amendment repealed........"

And the response....

"Fans of J. Michael Straczynski - And what, pray tell, are you defending with that second amendment, Joe? Is it a goal unto itself? Or is there a reason for it? Because the other provisions under the Bill of Rights provide for safety against breaches of privacy, which the right gave away for safety after 9/11...it prohibits being held without trial, which the right also gave freely away in fear of terrorists (Jose Padilla among others)...it provides for free expression and the right to assemble, which the right allowed police and the government to extinguish during the occupy movement, which whether you agreed with them or not were still legal until suddenly the government decided that there were free speech zones, and I don't remember you or anybody else on the right complaining about that... the freedom of an unencumbered press has been destroyed by whistleblower prosecutions and you folks on the right seemed okay with that...and we won't even get into the extent to which the Bill of Right's separation of church and state have been savagely attacked by the right, which seems totally okay with that as well.

I could go on and on and on...and mind you I'm not saying one thing for or against the gun issue, I'm just asking the question: what are you keeping them for since you freely and almost gleefully gave away everything you're supposed to be using them to protect? You're guarding a house that has burned down behind you."

A follow up:

"Colin Haywood - JMS, I'm with you on most of this but it's not quite fair to lay the erosion of civil rights entirely at the feet of the right. As you say in your poem, both parties have been culpable; indeed, we all of us are culpable."

And the excellent response once again:

"Fans of J. Michael Straczynski - Colin: I don't disagree. Nor did I mean the right to the exclusion of the left. Both sides did it. But the hypocrisy, for me, is to see the right screaming bloody murder in defense of one right when they've happily, willingly and in some cases even gleefully given away the rest. Joe stands among that august company.

And though both parties acquiesced, it was the right that led this, make no mistake. Lots of folks on the left said, when warrantless wiretapping was discovered, "you can't do this, the Bill of Rights prohibits illegal search and seizure." And the right said "shut up, we need to be safe!"

When the left complained about American citizens being arrested without warrant and held without charges, it was the right, far more than the left, who said "shut up, we need to be safe!"

Time after time, the right led the battle to surrender the rights that the guns are supposedly there to protect.
Which is why there's no need in the long run for anyone to come for the guns...and why this won't happen (needless to say there is no one in congress actually saying "let's repeal the second amendment," that hasn't happened, let's not get into the gun discussion per se, that's another topic for another time).

The point is that there's no need to come for the guns to get our freedoms...because they've already been given away."