Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live BlazeCast at 2pm ET: All the fireworks from the IRS Hearing!

Media

Rick Santorum Slams ‘Pointing to the Gun Instead of Pointing to Society’ on ABC Panel

Jan. 20, 2013 9:20pm Mytheos Holt

Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum (R-PA) took on the issue of gun violence on ABC’s “This Week” panel today, slamming the idea that guns are the reason why violence is increasing.

“50 years ago, you could go on a catalog and buy a gun. There were no restrictions on gun ownership, there were no restrictions on magazines, there were no restrictions on anything, and we had a lot less violence in society than we do today,” Santorum said. “Why do you need to protect Hollywood putting films in front of us that glorify [violence]?”

Crosstalk ensued with former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm around this point, during which Granholm pressed Santorum repeatedly on why an American citizen might “need” particular forms of ammunition, or guns. Santorum responded that criminals might have these weapons, even if civilians didn’t.

Watch the segment below:

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (145)

honeydijon13
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:28pm
Rick doesn’t work no mo’.
Lives off his PAC money.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Git-R-Done
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:02am
  At least it’s private wealth and not off of the taxpayers, pinko. Nor is he scolding people for being wealthy or wanting to become wealthy.
  
  Report this comment
- Silent-No-More
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:48am
  Maybe we should think about a different situation, what if Santorum, and not Romney, ran against Obama. The citizen of the USA spoke and picked Mr. (I want to be nice) Romney. Santorum have a lot more spine that the rest of the Republican Party at this point. Maybe we should go for a Third Party Option. Any thought?
  
  Report this comment
- Penn
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 7:14am
  Rick Santorum is a good man who says what he believes. He is not perfect but I would venture to say he is the type of statesman that this country would be better off having in office. I have supported him in every election he has run in and think he is in excellent candidate for 2016.
  
  Report this comment
- JESSEBEGATDAVID
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 9:16am
  silentnomore you are exactly right. I knew this election was over the minute romney was nominated. Rick was the only fighter. I still pushed for romney, but i knew…
  
  Report this comment
- honeydijon13
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 10:36am
  It’s UNEARNED wealth.
  It from confused poor right wingers
  
  Report this comment
- kenboo1
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 9:09pm
  Rick should have pointed out that Ice t (THATS RIGHT THE RAPPER) knows more about the second amendment… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItxXieu0hJw
  Also, ask a liberal why police need fully automatic weapons if citizens don’t need them… And you could point out that the bank robbery in LA when police were out gunned by armor clad robbers and they had to go to a gun store to procure more effective weapons… That’s why citizens and police need armor piercing rounds… Its good to know that when the shooting starts, liberals will be unarmed and expecting the police to protect them… Maybe when the shooting stops, they will understand why the second amendment is there…
  
  Report this comment
- A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE
  Posted on January 22, 2013 at 11:24am
  Ricky wouldn’t have done anything about the FED, seemed too crazy far right conservative, wanted to make porn illegal (I mean…seriously), and thought that if a woman was raped she should be forced to have the baby. I can tell you now he wouldn’t have won, and chances of him winning in 2016 aren’t looking any better.
  
  Report this comment
- edmundburk
  Posted on January 22, 2013 at 4:25pm
  this why I voted for this man in the primaries……..
  
  Report this comment
Sr Newk
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:26pm
She gets upset about guns and bullets with the killing of children,but she isn’t upset with thousand young unborn babies being sucked out of the womb in pieces in a single day. Isn’t it something how these journalist seem to comfortably overlook the actual killing young babies who were within 6 months of being born into the world. No the media cats never get upset about this going on every day of the year.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Advection
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:39pm
  There is another Sandy Hook of dead children every few minutes in America, and liberals demand that it continues.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:42pm
  If you think shooting children is morally equivalent to destroying an unaware fetus (which is unconscious for AT LEAST roughly the first half of pregnancy, having NO operating CNS to speak of) then there’s something wrong with you.
  
  Report this comment
- Advection
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:53pm
  @ARCHON
  
  It’s not about pain or suffering. It’s about the fundamental human right to life.
  
  And if you think that a human has no right to life if they’re too young to defend themselves, then there’s something wrong with you.
  
  Report this comment
- lbouldin
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 11:02pm
  To the Third archon, there is not one bit of difference except age between those school children and unborn babies. You are pathetic sick twisted immoral person.
  
  Report this comment
- SUNTZU
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 11:09pm
  Third
  You have no operating CNS to speak of.
  However you do have the right to life
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 11:14pm
  yes, government should not interfere with a person’s natural right to defend themselves….or care for themselves (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/17/iran-sanctions-lives-at-risk)
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 11:35pm
  @AD
  The debate is precisely over what constitutes a “human” (or more accurately what constitutes a “being” or “subject” to which moral rights can be ascribed). We do not ascribe moral rights to a rock, but we do ascribe them to humans, and to a lesser extent many non-human mammals (such as the legal prohibitions against the gratuitous torture of animals). Why? Well in my analysis the common link, and the ONLY physical difference between a rock and the things we grant rights, is that the latter are aware of their surroundings and are able to form intentionality towards the same in a way that rocks and the like cannot. I never said moral status had anything to do with capacity for suffering–you assumed I did and argued against a straw man. But fetuses that lack a developed CNS are cannot be aware of their surroundings, nor form intentions thereabout (as a CNS is required, insofar as we can tell, to do these things). A fetus is therefore not a being, and has not claim to rights. However, even if it DID, you would have to FURTHER prove that it had some grounds to assert a categorical right to the use of the bodily resources of the woman that carries it against her will in order for a proper moral argument against abortion to stand. As it is, conservatives have not persuasively made the case on either threshold issue.
  @LB
  Time makes a tremendous developmental difference–asserting the contrary does not make it so.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 11:38pm
  @SUN
  If I did not have a CNS (or equivalent physical system) I could not be conscious, i.e. aware of my surroundings, and could not form intentions towards the same. I therefore would have no grounds for moral rights, as there would be no “I” that could be affected by actions, and no “I” that could be a locus of agency for performing moral actions. Thus, morality would be quite irrelevant to me as there would BE no “me.”
  
  Report this comment
- honeydijon13
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 11:58pm
  You are clearly deranged.
  Step away from the keyboard.
  
  Report this comment
- Clegg72
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:00am
  Third Archon: According to your criteria necessary for having rights, a comatose person, a severe stroke or brain injured person, or a severely demented person would not be entitled to life or any rights. Please don’t go into any health profession.
  
  Report this comment
- Advection
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:10am
  @ARCHON
  
  Straw man? I don’t think so.
  
  Humanistic morality is based on the proposition that’s its better to prevent suffering than to allow it, and that idea guides their judgement on things like, does a very young human being have a right to life. They’ve concluded that, since they don’t have a CNS, they can’t suffer pain, so it’s ok to kill them.
  
  I wonder how you can use the same argument without knowing the source.
  
  And your death sentence against the human fetus can also logically apply to everyone who’s heavily sedated. All you have to do is knock someone out, and BAM! they’re not human!
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:17am
  @CLEGG
  (1) A comatose person (where they are not brain-dead) still possess awareness. By awareness I do not simplistically mean “are they awake” (otherwise you would lose all rights when you fell asleep, which would OBVIOUSLY be absurd). By “awareness” I mean the broader sense of “consciousness”–do they have a stream of consciousness, a conscious experience. If a being does not, then it is not a being at all–it is functionally indistinguishable from a robot or a rock.
  
  (2) A person suffering a “severe stroke” or a “brain injured person” may or may not constitute a “being” having rights–it would depend upon whether or not they still had a stream of consciousness (i.e. “awareness”). If their injury made them brain-dead, however, then they are already “dead” in the most meaningful sense–i.e. that their PERSONHOOD has been destroyed, whether or not what remains of “their” body can continue to be artificially sustained.
  
  Define “a severely demented person.” If I take you to mean “someone who is mentally ill,” then they clearly have a stream of consciousness, although it may be different than the typical person’s, and we grant rights to beings that don’t have identical kind of conscious experience’s as humans already so I don’t see the problem. But the threshold moral inquiry remains the same–is there ANY stream of consciousness present. If not, there cannot meaningfully said to BE any “being” present to which rights may be ascribed.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:26am
  @AD
  “Straw man? I don’t think so.”
  I do think so–you presumed my moral analysis was about whether the being could feel pleasure/pain, whereas I never even mentioned pleasure/pain capacity as the threshold issue, and did not and would not put forward so simplistic an analysis of what constitutes a morally relevant “being.”
  
  “Humanistic morality is based on the proposition that’s its better to prevent suffering than to allow it, …to kill them.”
  Yes that is ONE kind of humanistic moral philosophy, and while I do agree suffering is a RELEVANT moral consideration, I do not, and DID NOT, base my determination of personhood on that capacity’s presence or absence. What I DID base it on is whether or not the entity in question has “awareness,” i.e. a stream of consciousness. Things without sufficiently developed brains or the physical equivalent cannot have this property insofar as we can tell. It is therefore meaningless to talk of them as “persons” or ascribe rights to them.
  
  “I wonder how you can use the same argument without knowing the source.”
  But I’m not using the same argument and that’s the point that seems beyond you.
  
  “And your death sentence against the human fetus can also logically apply to everyone who’s heavily sedated.”
  Still arguing against a straw man. Sedated, unconscious, or sleeping beings still have a stream of consciousness unless sedated to the point of death.
  
  Report this comment
- TreeTrimmerJim
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:27am
  @ THE THIRD ARCHON,,,,
  
  If your knocked unconscious would you be aware of being shot? Is that the same as taking the life of a fetus?
  
  You have got to be a victim of a government funded mandatory attendance public education.
  
  Report this comment
- Advection
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:49am
  @ARCHON
  
  That’s a distinction without a difference unless you’re a Buddhist who literally can’t harm a fly. If you took your philosphy one step further, you’d see that PAIN is the problem. What does it matter if a creature has a CNS and you kill It? Where is the sacredness in consciousness? There is none. It’s what HAPPENS to the conscious being that matters and whether what happens is deemed good or bad.
  
  Where is the sacredness in consciousness?
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:53am
  @TREE
  You clearly didn’t read ANY of what I wrote–either that or you have no reading comprehension whatsoever. What I said was “awareness” in a general sense, that is having powers of awareness (i.e. a “stream of consciousness”) is what separates “beings” (things with moral rights) from “non-beings.”
  
  Not only would you BECOME aware (in a more literal sense, DIFFERENT than the broad sense of “awareness” I used) of being shot, but being shot would substantially harm you and you have an AWARENESS that allows you to UNDERSTAND that and DESIRE not to be shot–a fetus lacks ALL of those things for much of its existence, INCLUDING the capacity to FEEL or be AWARE that it has been shot (which is not what I based my definition of personhood upon, but it is one more thing a person generally has that fetuses lack for about half of their gestation), nor does it have a “stream of consciousness” to be injured or destroyed (or to even CARE whether or not it is shot) for at least half if not the better part of its gestation.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 1:22am
  @AD
  (1) There is no sacredness in consciousness anymore than there is any sacredness in anything. Nothing is essentially a certain way–everything is dependent, i.e. contingent, upon the forces that constitute its being to be what it is. Therefore everything is dynamic, will always change, and has no inherent nature, for it could be different where what constitutes it, makes it what it is, and causes it, different. But we’re veering way off into metaphysics here.
  (2) I did not, and would not, say that “awareness” or “a stream of conscious experience” (I use the two synonymously) means that anything having these has an automatic claims to EQUAL moral consideration and rights–not all consciousness IS equal. What I DID say was that possessing awareness was a NECESSARY precondition (i.e. a threshold issue) for being an entity which can be ascribed ANY rights. The specific contents and extent of those rights would depend upon the being’s CAPACITIES (such as for morality, suffering, etc.).
  (3) The REASON why I place the threshold at awareness is because awareness is a prerequisite for morality, i.e. the ability to (a) act as a locus of power (i.e. direct causal effects), (b) to assign value what one’s controlled power acts upon (i.e. intentionality), and (c) to appreciate and exercise one’s controlled power in consideration of the aforementioned assigned values with the purpose of maximizing a perceived balance of the values.
  
  Report this comment
- shorelineliz
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 2:18am
  Exactly. The Liberal Media freaks out over Gun Control while 55 million babies have been slaughtered. Where is the outrage over that slaughter? This Gun Control outrage by Obama and his thugs, HOllywood, and the Liberal Media is all Fabricated Outrage! HOllywood would dry up in a New YOrk minute if they could not have gun violence portrayed in their movies they would go bankrupt! Piers MOrgan is the SAMe. He doesn’t give a d@m about this issue. But it sure does keep his show on the air. English people despise this toady. Why do you think he is in the USA? Cause the British hate his stinking guts! Somebody put him on Al-Jazeera TV cause his country is almost all under the burqa anyway they are a bunch of sissy cowards being taken over.
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 2:21am
  @Third Human, human being and person are not the same. You fail to understand the difference between persons, humans, subjects, beings and entities, and whether they’re natural, flesh and blood, or artificial, created or recognized (afforded a certain status) by Law. The Government may grant or attribute rights and privileges to a “person”, but it can’t endow “man” with any Rights, for its not the Creator of Man. (In contrast, Man created Governments, and is master over it). A fetus is human, but in respect to the Law, is not recognized as a “person” or “being” until live birth, when citizenship and Rights are ‘partially’ affirmed (– not bestowed!). Even then, the Government doesn’t recognize a child as a full legal person but until a certain age. A fetus is already in a certain stage of Life, wherefore the Government may not deny its humanity and act contrary to its existence and survival. Man has no inherent right or power whatsoever to make arbitrary laws intent on killing members of the species **** sapiens. Man is not the Creator nor originator of Mankind, nor of the Universe, wherefore he may not govern supreme but must also be himself subject to the course of the Natural Law evident therein. (Order!) A fetus, being the result of human generation, has every right to exist and be nurtured by its human mother, especially within the womb, for it didn’t inquire nor arrive of its own volition, but was knowingly brought forth into this world.
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 2:50am
  @ThirdRulerOfEvil All your mumbo jumbo doesn’t align itself with the foundations of the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is not merely man made law, but is perpetually bound to the Common Law.
  
  “The Constitution is to be interpreted according to Common Law Rules.” – Schick vs. U.S., 195 US 65, 24 Sup. Ct. 826, 49 L. Ed. 99
  
  “The Constitution is to be construed with respect to the law existing at the time of it’s adoption and as securing to the individual citizen the rights inherited by him under English Law, and not with reference to new guarantees.” – Mattox vs. U.S., 156 US 237, 15 Sup Ct. 337, 39 L. Ed. 409
  
  “It [U.S. Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of Common Law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. The language of the Constitution could not be understood without reference to the Common Law.” – U.S. vs. Wong Kim, Ark, 169 US 649, 18 S. Ct. 456
  
  “All that government does and provides legitimately is in pursuit of it’s duty to provide protection for private rights (Wynhammer v. People, 13 NY 378), which duty is a debt owed to it’s creator, WE THE PEOPLE and the private unenfranchised individual; which debt and duty is never extinguished nor discharged, and is perpetual. No matter what the government/state provides for us in manner of convenience and safety, the unenfranchised individual owes nothing to the government.” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 2:59am
  @VAL
  “human being and person are not the same.”
  You are correct and I never said the two were the same–a person is a legal and moral entity with a certain degree of power making it relevant to those considerations, whereas a human being is a specific subset of persons of the species “**** sapiens.”
  “The Government…it).”
  You make an arbitrary distinction based upon natural law which requires proof of a theistic worldview that has never been made. We has humans, and therefore persons, create the institution of law so as to express and enforce our social relations and purposes and we govern the law by creating political institutions.
  “A fetus…age.”
  More or less. Indeed a fetus is a human at a certain stage of development–and not a person, a crucial moral difference which predicates a legal one.
  “A fetus…survival.”
  It’s rights are not based upon humanity, they are based upon personhood, which it lacks. Not all life is granted ANY rights (bacteria), or equal rights (animals). Clearly, being alive, nor human in the biological sense, is sufficient to have rights. One must have the additional quality of being a “being” (or being comprised thereof in the case of corporate entities), a conscious entity, in order to be ascribed rights. And then, one’s capacities are relevant to the specific rights to which one is ascribed (as animals are conscious and granted some rights, but not all the rights as humans, who have greater moral capacity).
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 3:11am
  @VAL (cont.)
  “Man…therein.”
  (1) Humans are the originator of other humans.
  (2) Humans do have the power, and exercise the power, to make and enforce all laws and rights (which are solely a creation thereof). The question is the desirability of each particular law and act, and from that the moral responsibility therefor.
  (3) There is no such thing as natural law, there is no proof for such a thing, and it is nothing more than an excuse to arbitrarily declare one’s own moral judgment categorically superior to all others’ without actually doing any philosophical work to demonstrate such. Humans are accountable only to themselves and the limits of physical law (which is natural law, but not in the philosophical sense you are invoking. They are merely descriptive reality’s imposition upon our actions, and from that no moral absolutes can be drawn–that is what is called the naturalistic fallacy). That is the terrifying yet liberating reality of our existence. And it empowers us a measure of control, but also renders us at the mercy of, our own actions and their consequences.
  (4) We have no evidence and reason to believe that we have anything but us to rely upon to make moral determinations as best we can, to exercise what power we have to act according to those determinations, and to enjoy or suffer the consequences of our exercise of power. God is not coming to save us, and there is no “higher law” to appeal to or bind us by–THAT is self-evident.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 3:20am
  @VAL (cont.)
  ” A fetus, being the result of human generation, has every right to exist and be nurtured by its human mother, especially within the womb, for it didn’t inquire nor arrive of its own volition, but was knowingly brought forth into this world.”
  (1) Many things are the product of human generation that cannot be said to have any “right” to exist or continued existence–buildings, political institutions, and property all exist at the whims of persons who DO hold rights.
  (2) Fetuses do not HAVE volition (at least until a certain gestational point) and that is largely the POINT and why they cannot be ascribed ANY rights PRIOR to the point at which we can demonstrate that they possess awareness (i.e. a stream of conscious experience).
  (3) Many fetuses (in fact probably ALL) can HARDLY be said to have been “knowingly” brought into the world since even without ANY contraception the human reproductive system is so inefficient that a single act of copulation is far lower than half (somewhere around 30% averaged out for differences in timing and sperm count) and varies greatly depending primarily upon the time the intercourse takes place with respect to the woman’s menstrual cycle.
  (4) Even if/when the fetus becomes a person with rights, the second threshold issue, justifying the fetus’ right to categorically demand use of the woman’s bodily resources, needs to be made and has not been given a persuasive philosophical justification for the right.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 3:51am
  @VAL
  The Constitution IS wholly man-made law (and indeed, in this case it WAS exclusively made by MEN), and the common law is not the same thing as “natural law” as you’ve been referencing it. The common law is the corpus of judicial decisions holding what the law is, nothing more. To some degree it also incorporates the decisions of English courts made prior to the independence of this country, but they are considered for the most part for historical reference as persuasive rather than binding precedent. It reflects humans doing what humans due–deliberating and deciding. It is not magical, it was not created by supernatural means, and the decision-making process it records is not inexorably bound by an ancient, particular, and ALSO human created, philosophical theory about metaphysics, politics, and morality.
  
  Report this comment
- Advection
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 8:06am
  @ARCHON
  
  1) I don’t think we veered off into metaphysics. This whole discussion is metaphysical, and I believe that you and I would define objective moral reality very differently. I believe morality is defined by a righteous, perfect, changeless Supreme Being. If that is not so, then “morality” doesn’t really exist. It’s a cheap garment, temporarily worn by accident (Evolution), and it will change with the wind (mutation).
  
  2) You finally swerved into the issue of pain. Has anyone ever accused you of prevaricating?
  
  3) You said “…awareness is a prerequisite for morality..”. Speculative reductionism.
  
  I believe it’s “wrong” to crush a child but not a rock, and I can point the Supreme Being as justification. You can only cite pop philosophy. You may as well get your morality from a Broadway play. At least that might be briefly entertaining.
  
  Report this comment
- Nevertakecandyfromsocialists
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 8:57am
  @3rd Archon
  Scientific research using ultrasound demonstrates that a fetus will recoil from surgical instruments at 20 weeks. Now, they certainly can’t see it or have any understanding of what that instrument is. So why do they recoil? Because they sense it or feel it. So any fetus aborted around or after 20 weeks is definitely capable of feeling pain.
  
  Report this comment
- JacquesChirac
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:15pm
  3rd Archie – “Thou shalt not kill”. And since life begins at conception, you, my friend, are trying to justify murder.
  
  Congratulations, Lucifer – another soul to spend eternity with you!!!
  
  Wow, Archie…your trial on your Judgment Day is going to be Q-U-I-C-K! But since you obviously have no fear whatsoever of the Lord, why should you care??? We all make choices in this life, and you have made yours…
  
  Enjoy it while you can, Archie. Eternity is a really, really long time…
  
  Report this comment
- techengineer11
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 8:56pm
  Well I was gonna just drop a line and say that Rick would be my man if not for his Israel first policy; however, I find a deep debate going on here.. One I’m not prepared to enter this evening but interesting nonetheless..
  
  When I first read The Third Archon’s first response I thought that makes sense and has an appeal without thinking too much about it but when I read the 2nd I was offended. I’m offended because I believe God has given life to that fetus and I view that fetus as a human being just like countless generations before me have believe up until 1973.
  
  That being said The Third Archon’s reasoning deserves attetnion and will certainly sway the multitudes of Godless across this nation.. The truth is as horrible as abortion is it is just not my primary concern today.
  
  Today I just want liberty for myself and for generations to come.. It appears that the abortion issue has been lost until we decide to form a New nation. No one will ever convince 150 million Godless heathen that life is sacred and from God. hard enough persuading the Churched.
  
  Report this comment
honeydijon13
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:21pm
As usual right wingers never answert questions, make things up and just try to talk over everyone else.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Advection
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:34pm
  It’s a complex question fallacy, which is a trick to avoid an argument.
  
  Report this comment
honeydijon13
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:19pm
Is Rick Santorum still living? What about Palin?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Git-R-Done
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:03am
  They’re more alive than you Marxists are.
  
  Report this comment
- flipper1073
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 9:18am
  I’m sure Gov. Palin is just Fine.
  In fact I bet She still has that Beautiful Bus
  You remember the one with the Flag all over it ?
  Waiting an ready to Go.
  
  That’s what keeps You awake at Night Right?
  She lives in the Left’s Heads Rent Free.
  
  Report this comment
- honeydijon13
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 10:39am
  Oh Flipper.
  Palin is dead meat politically – as is Santorum.
  
  Report this comment
I_AM_HARRISON_BERGERON
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:16pm
Ricky, Ricky, Ricky… I’m sorry, but you need to know that you have completely wasted your time and breath. Those people will never understand what you are trying to tell them. Even if you presented them with absolute truth and irrefutable facts (which you pretty much did) it won’t matter. Liberals live in a very special little world where everything must fit within a very special tidy order. You see, guns are evil because they only have one purpose, and that is to kill. Therefore it is not possible for good people to own them responsibly. Only by having a badge could you possibly be trained sufficiently to manage the inherent evil that lies within a gun. Only one with a badge could possibly have the wisdom and knowledge to determine whether or not a bad guy has to die in order to protect you or your family. Just as only a democrat public official could possibly know what is best for your life, family, finances, or how to raise your children. You see, you are simply not welcome in their reality, therefore your facts are irrelevant. There is really only one way to deal with them, and that is to let them know in no uncertain terms that any effort to diminish the Second Amendment or any other part of the Bill of Rights will be met with filing for impeachment. Don’t explain why, just leave them to deal with the facts of the real world on their own terms. Then have fun watching them implode.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- I_AM_HARRISON_BERGERON
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:42pm
  Here’s a fun exercise… Try to explain to an anti-gun liberal why a gun designed with the sole purpose of killing is exactly the weapon that one would want to choose as their means of home defense.
  
  Report this comment
- John1-1-5
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:51pm
  We don’t need no stinking badges
  
  Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:13pm
Here is another possible answer:
“Alcohol and drug prohibition has been a complete failure – what makes you think gun prohibition would be any different”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:25pm
  The analogy is not really a good one–it is FAR easier to illicitly and privately manufacture drugs and alcohol from scratch than guns and ammunition.
  
  Which is not to say that prohibition and confiscation of guns is the “correct” or most socially beneficial policy (that depends upon what we as a society decide is valuable and how it is objectively most efficient to attain our desired ends), merely to say that gun prohibition would be different, and would not have the same solvency concerns, as drug and alcohol prohibition.
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:38pm
  @Third WTF? Can you ever write one coherent sentence without dancing around one simple subject?
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:08am
  @VAL
  My response was not that complicated for someone with intelligence, reading comprehension, and a knowledge of history to understand.
  
  Prohibition of drugs and alcohol presents very different enforcement problems that undermined the efficacy of those policies, than would be case if a policy of prohibition were pursued with respect to firearms. That was my point, and that was my ONLY point.
  
  I am not in the habit, as the mass of simplistic conservative and liberal American politics if fond of, of muddying the issue up for debate with ancillary issues.
  
  Report this comment
- aproudinfidel
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:14am
  I don’t often agree with you, but today I do with no reservations.
  
  Report this comment
- drs1969
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:52am
  Gun prohibition is a Declaration of War, by the gov., against your freedom. Pay no attention to tortured explanations from over-educated morons.
  From my Cold, Dead Hands!
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 2:08am
  @DR
  And if an amendment was lawfully passed that repealed the second amendment, banned the private ownership of guns, and authorized the government to take possession of all guns and remunerate the owners–what then?
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 2:40am
  @TheThirdArchon The Bill of Rights doesn’t grant any Rights but only declares those natural Rights already in the possession of the people. All power is inherent in the people. The Constitution can only protect, secure and guarantee Rights, but it may not bestow or grant Rights to Man. Government is not naturally in possession of any Rights or Powers. We the People tell the Government what it can’t and can’t do. The Government didn’t create Man! My Right to keep and bear Arms is based on my natural Right to self defense and self preservation.
  
  “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.” – Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright
  
  “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the
  fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” – Frederic Bastiat
  
  Report this comment
BODYBAG
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:11pm
“Granholm pressed Santorum repeatedly on why an American citizen might “need” particular forms of ammunition, or guns.”

American citizens are not required to justify the “need” for anything. The RIGHT is inherent

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Clegg72
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 1:00am
  ThAr: Gun ownership is not a matter of public policy, it is a right guaranteed by our Constitution. We also have a right to a jury of our peers. If the financial cost is considered too much to provide this, do we just do away with juries or limit the right to meet our threshold of acceptable cost. I guess we can just interpret all of our constitutional rights according to sentiment of the day.
  
  Report this comment
The Third Archon
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:04pm
” why an American citizen might “need” particular forms of ammunition, or guns. Santorum responded that criminals might have these weapons, even if civilians didn’t.”
Well yeah, because the patchwork way in which gun control is approached means you can travel a few miles and buy a gun legally, or buy a gun legally through a different vendor than a store, or a buy a gun off a private citizen legally or not, all with relative impunity and little cost. So of COURSE criminals can access guns where they are illegal–because it so EASY with a nationally widespread and longstanding culture of private gun ownership to acquire guns anywhere REGARDLESS of the local laws.

That is why the debate should not be about minor half-measures, but a serious and broad look at what we as a society value, and a wide-scale restructuring of public policy to reflect whatever we decide. A culture of private gun ownership comes with costs and this is something conservatives must admit–however, ALL public policies comes with costs, and private gun ownership is not special in this regard, something liberals must admit. Therefore, the debate should not be whether or not private gun ownership incurs costs, but rather about whether the costs it DOES incur are worth the values we assign to private gun ownership–and that is a determination only WE can make.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:28pm
  Therefore, if we decide a culture of private gun ownership is not worth the costs then we should move to ban all private ownership of guns and to remove all privately owned guns and remunerate the owners.
  
  Alternatively, if we decide a culture of private gun ownership is worth the costs, then we should move to supply EVERY able-bodied adult citizen with a firearm, to provide some mandatory training in the proper and safe use and maintenance of the firearm, proper marksmanship, the importance of using ammunition the firearm is designed for, etc., and to have a SINGLE national set of regulations on lawful action-types, clip sizes, and carrying requisites (which I would imagine would be licensed upon completion of the aforementioned training) to avoid the status quo confusing and entrapping patchwork quilt of variation between state, local, and federal regulations of what is ultimately a FEDERAL right applicable to ALL citizens (as SHOULD be the case with EVERY right in the U.S. Constitution–to interpret otherwise is to reduce the rights to a contradictory absurdity because NO citizen, save the small number living in D.C., is DIRECTLY subjected to federal jurisdiction. Therefore, if the NATIONAL rights aren’t every bit as good against the state government, as against the federal, then they might as well not exist).
  
  Which is better I do not know, but the status quo fence-straddling leaves us with the WORST of both worlds.
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:33pm
  Huh? What the heck are you babbling about this time? Never mind. I don’t care to read you unnecessarily outstretched comments to make just one insignificant point.
  
  Maybe we really should emulate gun-free Great Britain. Nah.
  
  “Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since the Labour Party came to power…
  
  The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa…
  
  The UK had a greater number of murders in 2007 than any other EU country – 927 – and at a relative rate higher than most western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain…
  
  Overall, 5.4 million crimes were recorded in the UK in 2007 – more than 10 a minute – second only to Sweden…
  
  It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.”
  
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 11:27pm
  @VAL
  (1) The U.K. policy of generally limiting private access to guns is a lot older than the previous Labor administration (who are no longer in power by the by). Moreover without more evidence mere correlation of events is not proof of a causal link between them.
  (2) The U.K.’s rate of intentional homicide by firearm is about 0.07 per 100,000 compared to America’s 3.0 per 100,000 (a difference of a factor of ~42.857). The difference between the intentional homicide rate WRIT LARGE (whether guns or no) is still much larger for American (4.8 per 100,000) than either the U.K. (1.2 per 100,000) or Europe writ large (3.5 per 100,000).
  (3) Strict gun control policy is not unique to the U.K. and is typical of most of Western, Southern, and Northern Europe. Germany for example has what is considered one of the strictest gun control laws in the world (see the “German Weapons Act”). In fact America (and Israel) are pretty much unique among liberal democracies in their public policy of widespread private gun ownership. So I do not know what you think you are proving by making a comparison between the U.K. and other European countries who ALSO have gun control laws at least as strict as the U.K.’s.
  (4) Even assuming all those statistics are accurate, there’s no evidence it has anything to do with gun policy–particularly because European states, as you NOTE, have a wide range of crime rates despite gun controls as strict if not stricter than the U.K.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 11:39pm
  “Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
  - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 11:51pm
  @VAL (cont.)
  At WORST, you’ve shown only that the U.K. has more crime in general, but less murder (with or without a gun), in the U.K. than in the U.S. specifically. Not only is this not patently a worse situation than the U.S. (I PERSONALLY would MUCH prefer a higher chance of being robbed and a lower chance of being murdered than the reverse situation), but more to the point it has not in any way been causally linked, based upon what you’ve presented, to gun policy. In fact, if anything your information argues the OPPOSITE, not only because murder rates are lower in the U.K. than in the U.S., but ALSO because (as your own presentation of statistics shows) crime rates are LOWER in other European countries, despite having gun control as strict or stricter than the U.K.’s policies.
  
  Now, if you had actually read anything I wrote you would already know that I am not arguing that a categorical ban on private ownership of policies is necessarily the superior strategy. I am not sure which policy would be more valuable to the interests of the American People, and frankly I’m ambivalent toward either. But I AM tired of the superficial and childish level of debate that goes on in this country not just on this issue, but on pretty much everything political. Being obstinate, ignorant, and reactionary doesn’t do anyone any favors, including oneself.
  
  We need a unified national gun policy, whether it be a categorical ban or required provision and training.
  
  Report this comment
- chicago76
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 11:54pm
  You really say alot for a Zombie who has nothing to say. Go away and eat yourself zombie. You are brain dead and there is really only one thing that can be done with you to stop you from eating someone else too.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:01am
  @SOY
  That does not seem to have turned out to be true considering that India retains restrictive gun controls.
  
  Report this comment
- woodyee
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:02am
  @ Archon and whom it may concern –
  
  FK statistics. Liars figure. My Rights are irrefutably non-negotiable. Why I might need or not need something is none of your business, anymore than it is mine to decide you only need 100 cubic feet of air to breath per day, a two-door pedal-pusher over a 4-door sedan or 200square feet of space to reside in.
  
  I find more interest in the fact that we’re being told by countries around the world NOT to surrender our rights, not that I’d give a dang what they thought about my rights – it’s just curious that Pravda and the Australians would be vocal about opposing Gaybama – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGaDAThOHhA
  
  and here – http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/
  
  Stupid ignorant self-defeating morons are not to be suffered. Best to leave them alone to wallow in their ignorance.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:46am
  @WOOD
  Except your simplistic absolutist conception of rights is not at all accurate to the way in which they function in reality.
  (1) The delineation of rights between individuals actually DOES matter (if it DIDN’T, i.e. if your rights made no difference to your relations to others, you wouldn’t value them as they’d serve no purpose). It effects what they can and cannot do legally with respect to you, and what you can, and cannot, do legally effects both your welfare and the welfare of everyone else.
  (2) Rights not only change with the law and legal interpretation, but also with the availability of remedy. If there is no power to back up a remedy for the right (i.e. if you cannot shoot an aggressor, or if the courts will not grant you remuneration when you are illegally deprived of property) then there IS no right de facto in that instance.
  (3) As such, the distribution of rights is wholly a human convention, is not fixed (look at history), and is done solely for the individual and collective benefits from the distribution.
  
  “I find more…opposing Gaybama”
  I don’t care, and it is wholly irrelevant, what the state-controlled news of a country further to the Right than America (i.e. Russia) has to say about our gun policy. Nor are the views of a Rightist minority of Australians (and I say “minority” because there views are by far at odds with the policies of their state which has stricter gun controls than the U.S.).
  
  Report this comment
- Clegg72
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 1:22am
  ThAr: Gun ownership is not a matter of public policy, it is a right guaranteed by our Constitution. We also have a right to a jury of our peers. If the financial cost is considered too much to provide this, do we just do away with juries or limit the right to meet our threshold of acceptable cost. I guess we can just interpret all of our constitutional rights according to sentiment of the day.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 1:49am
  @CLEGG
  (1) Public policy (and more to the point public interests) IS highly relevant to what the law SHOULD be and the Constitution is nothing more than law–particularly difficult to change law, but law nonetheless, and law that CAN be changed.
  (2) The Second Amendment, like the Sixth and Seventh, is (legally) what the U.S. Supreme Court interprets them to be. Like the right to a jury trial (which the Supreme Court has interpreted you to have only in civil cases where the remedy is legal not equitable, and only when you ask for it; and in criminal cases only when you are charged with an offense whose possible sentence does not exceed six months), the right to bear arms has been interpreted as being a little more complicated than “I always have the right to any guns, anywhere, at all times.” It is currently pretty much only interpreted to mean you have a right to SOME kind of firearm (not clear what extent), in and for your defense in your home, IF and only IF you are a law-abiding responsible citizen. (see District of Columbia v. Heller). Whether or not you think that is correct, or what it SHOULD be, is irrelevant to what the law currently IS–and that currently leaves a wide latitude for legislation.
  
  Therefore, even without constitutional amendment, gun ownership is negotiable and we as a society can change the entitlement, its extent, and if we grant it at all, depending upon our view of its value and purpose.
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 2:52am
  U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
  
  The Supreme Court decision reads, “The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia – civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion… The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time…”
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 2:57am
  “…’In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.’ ‘The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.’ ‘A year later (1632) it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation of the colony (Massachusetts).’ ”
  
  http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/b…lusvmiller.htm
  
  “Government does not exist, in a personal sense, for the purpose of acquiring, protecting and enjoying property. It exists primarily for the protection of the people in their individual rights, and holds property not primarily for the enjoyment of property accmulations, but as an incident to the purpose for which it exists – that of serving the people and protecting them in their rights.” – Curley vs U.S., 130 F. 1, 8, 64 C.C.A. 369
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 3:00am
  @ThirdRulerOfEvil All your mumbo jumbo doesn’t align itself with the foundations of the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is not merely man made law, but is perpetually bound to the Common Law.
  
  “The Constitution is to be interpreted according to Common Law Rules.” – Schick vs. U.S., 195 US 65, 24 Sup. Ct. 826, 49 L. Ed. 99
  
  “The Constitution is to be construed with respect to the law existing at the time of it’s adoption and as securing to the individual citizen the rights inherited by him under English Law, and not with reference to new guarantees.” – Mattox vs. U.S., 156 US 237, 15 Sup Ct. 337, 39 L. Ed. 409
  
  “It [U.S. Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of Common Law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. The language of the Constitution could not be understood without reference to the Common Law.” – U.S. vs. Wong Kim, Ark, 169 US 649, 18 S. Ct. 456
  
  “All that government does and provides legitimately is in pursuit of it’s duty to provide protection for private rights (Wynhammer v. People, 13 NY 378), which duty is a debt owed to it’s creator, WE THE PEOPLE and the private unenfranchised individual; which debt and duty is never extinguished nor discharged, and is perpetual. No matter what the government/state provides for us in manner of convenience and safety, the unenfranchised individual owes nothing to the government.” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43
  
  Report this comment
Advection
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:02pm
According to CBS News, we could cut the murder rate in half by simply disarming black men.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-3153497.html

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 1TrueOne55
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:23pm
  And this is the major problem with “Gun Violence” its racist to do anything about it except for taking Guns from “Legal Gun Owners” majority of whom are Caucasian, they don’t use guns for a life of crime. They have them mostly for Hunting and Staying prepared for whatever might happen in a violent future. And that’s what the founding Fathers knew would happen, before they gave us a Representative Republican Constitution they had studied the History books of their time and saw what had happened in their near past. And they knew that it would happen in our Country’s future also, how we are as human as they were and those farther back were also. Nothing has changed the Human Spirit, it yearned to be free in the Garden of Eden and took the fast way out. But God had a different plan but he gave us the yearning to decide our own path, that is the essence of FREEDOM. To make our own decision about our own future.
  The Second Amendment gives us the choice to be armed or not armed and if we chose to arm our selves the Gov’t had no right to stop us.
  
  Because when the Gov’t fears the people there is Freedom and when the People Fear the Gov’t there is Tyranny.
  
  Report this comment
- Advection
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:37pm
  @1TRUEONE55
  
  Well said. You’d never make it in politics.
  
  Report this comment
mtsnj
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:02pm
Some of the violent nature, is stemming from our government who is out of control, is leading this nation by a very poor example on how to conduct your everyday affairs. Obama has polarized this nation, for the first time ever are Americans actually afraid of tyrannical attempts of our government to alter the second Amendment rights.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
soybomb315_II
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:01pm
Santorum is only half right. Violent crime is going down relative to previous decades and if you take away the war on drugs, violent crime is very very low. We dont need more government laws banning video games or whatever….This is the fatal flaw of “conservatives”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- stopprintn
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:22pm
  How about you go watch a Jimmy Stewart movie or something. The culture is in decay and the results are detrimental to our future. Leagalize drugs and expediate the problems. Is that your fix.
  
  Report this comment
- Advection
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:31pm
  A FPS video game is a highly realistic murder simulator. You can even get sensory feedback where the game controller lets you feel the act of bashing someone’s head in or blowing their brains out. In some games, the characters beg for their lives while players butcher them.
  
  In the GTA game, you score extra points for murdering a prostitute instead of paying her for sex. The act of murdering the woman is simulated in detail, but the sex is CENSORED by law.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:32pm
  You know, when jimmy stewart was around, there was no war on drugs – but the people were more moral.
  
  Keeping the drugs illegal does not make this country more moral….It actually makes it less moral because of the gangs, prison population, and loss of freedom. Government laws will not bring back morality – that is the fatal flaw of “conservative” thinking
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:37pm
  @Advection
  Why blame the video games but you SHOULD be blaming the parents….Why dont you just jail the parents, or better yet – have the government take the kids away from them?
  
  Obamacare is simply the liberal version of social justice – and you hate it…..But then you advocate for your own version of social justice.
  
  Report this comment
- Advection
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:44pm
  You’re right about the drug war. It has made every problem worse and created new problems.
  
  Report this comment
- Advection
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:49pm
  @SOY
  
  I don’t believe in anarchy. Humans are too flawed for that to work.
  
  Why ban simulated sex in the game and not murders? Or don’t you think any simulation in bames should be banned?
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 11:01pm
  i dont think it is any of the federal government business….That does not make me an anarchist, it makes me a constitutionalist
  
  Report this comment
Advection
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 9:55pm
“Why do you NEED” is a trick question designed to change the argument completely.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Advection
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:15pm
  Apply their question to everything else.
  
  “Why do you need:
  A car
  Your own home
  French fries
  Meat
  Any particular food
  So much food
  More than one Bible
  Two suits
  Better clothes than anyone else
  Cigarettes
  Pain medication
  So much water
  
  The list is endless because there’s no end to the control these communists want over other people’s lives. Likewise, there is no end to the misery and death they cause the more control they take.
  
  Report this comment
- stopprintn
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:34pm
  Stopprintn, says hear hear!
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 11:05pm
  “The list is endless because there’s no end to the control these communists want over other people’s lives.”
  
  You forgot to add ‘violent games’ (see your statements above)….hypocrite
  
  Report this comment
- Advection
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 11:37pm
  @SOY
  
  It’s not hypocritical unless the Constitution was meant to be a suicide pact.
  
  Concerning violent video games, the developers will make ANYTHING that sells and sell to anyone with money, if they’re allowed. Prohibiton was a bad idea, but so was selling alcohol to children.
  
  Also, in most cases, such regulations are best handled at the state level.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 11:42pm
  yes, it is a state issue not a federal issue
  
  Report this comment
- Advection
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:14am
  @SOY
  
  We agree on that. I’d hate to see Obama ban video games. However, it’s good for the federal government to facilitate discussion and rule making between states.
  
  Report this comment
texanpatriot
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 9:52pm
I think that Rick Santorum missed the point. We have a constitutional right to have guns, magazines and ammo because we can. We do not need to justify this to anyone including and especially the Kingdom of DC. We have a right to protect ourselves from those who would give us no rights if they could.

I believe that the Founders put gun ownership (all guns) in as only the second amendment specifically to protect us from the government, much as they needed protection from the king before the revolution. They understood what it meant to be helpless under heavy handed governance.

The biggest open question is whether the local and state police as well as the state national guard and military will cooperate with the citizens (refusal to enforce an unconstitutional law) or move on citizens to disarm us and create a police state.

With this President only time will tell but it is clear to me that we need protection from an overreaching federal government, today more than ever.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:06pm
  America has a higher inmate population (and that’s ONLY inmates, not probationers or parolees) than any country ON EARTH–we are ALREADY living in a police state whether you’ve woken up to that fact or not.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:28pm
  when the Constitution was ratified, the american people had the same weapons as the government…The only thing the people did not have were cannons, and that was because of cost not law.
  
  Report this comment
stoptyranny
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 9:51pm
Santorum,I’m glad you’re making the argument but, please have the facts. Armor piercing rounds are only legally available to law enforcement and the military.

http://www.guncite.com

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- currentdesigns
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:42pm
  The gun grabbers are referring to the green tip M855 ammo that is available. That will pierce body armor.
  
  I have 800 rounds, can’t shoot it at the range but it’s good to have. Just in case. ;) (wish i had more)
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 11:33pm
  if the government has it, we should be allowed to have it
  
  Report this comment
- stoptyranny
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 11:52pm
  I should have clarified armor piercing handgun ammo as most rifle ammo will penetrate a common ballistic vest.
  
  Report this comment
BlackChinook
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 9:45pm
Wow a politician that gets it! There still might be hope!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 9:34pm
So if guns are responsible for murders, the Miniskirt, low-cut blouse and make up are responsible for rapes. Maybe we need to adapt sharia law for women?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TotallyNotATroll
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 9:41pm
  Shocking, a ridiculous comment from a guy who’s name is based on only being able to understand analogy or pop culture references, so let me make this simple. Boston at the tea party.
  BTW: most ridiculous TNG race/episode ever…
  
  Report this comment
- ModerationIsBest
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 9:50pm
  Didn’t you get the GOP memo?
  
  Stop talking about rape!
  
  Lol
  
  Report this comment
- Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 9:53pm
  Totally a Troll: Shhhhhhhhhhhhh.
  
  Report this comment
rjtaurus605
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 9:34pm
Lets just make more and more laws, more and more restrictions, things will only get better with more regulations… how long do we have to go down this road before people realize that more is not the answer, that taking a little responsibility for our own safety will keep us safe. Parents do not want to take the time to share their values with their children, they want the schools,the internet, and tv to do it.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
KingCanon
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 9:34pm
STARTING WITH COLUMBINE, AGAIN I SAY!

Raise a statue to each of the killers on the campuses of these
school shootings. The statues will honor the Godless liberal garbage
our government feeds the kids for 8 hours a day! Oh yeah, and don’t
forget to place a condom vendor at the granite base for the pre-teens.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Git-R-Done
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:19am
  And the assault weapons ban existed during the Columbine shootings. So much for that law working.
  
  Report this comment
- honeydijon13
  Posted on January 21, 2013 at 12:39pm
  @ Get R Donkeybutt
  And Columbine had TWO armed security guards
  
  Report this comment
justangry
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 9:32pm
“50 years ago, you could go on a catalog and buy a gun. There were no restrictions on gun ownership, there were no restrictions on magazines, there were no restrictions on anything, and we had a lot less violence in society than we do today,” Santorum said. “Why do you need to protect Hollywood putting films in front of us that glorify [violence]?”

So the 60′s had less violence than today? Yeah right, I’d like to some statistics to back this claim up.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 9:52pm
  i’m no expert but it looks like violent crime peaked around the 80s. Let’s not even play the liberal game by acting like there is a big problem that requires a big solution…..
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
  
  Report this comment
- valiant1776
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 10:29pm
  Here’s the statement form an older gentleman from another site. “In my humble opinion I would say YES! I was in my early teens and I know it was safe to walk the streets even at night. As for knives, hoodies and muggings can’t remember anything like that being a problem whatsoever. If a murder was committed it would be reported in the press and everyone would read and take interest. Unlike today when there are so many offences committed it’s hard to keep up. Respect for your elders was the order of the day and that is what is missing from today’s youth. There’s no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the old days were the best.”
  
  Report this comment
Shav001
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 9:31pm
Shoot a ******* and it’s all over the news. Over 8000 gang and black on black gun murders every year…no national coverage. Please take their guns Obama so I can rob their white a$$ and not have to worry about getting shot.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
TheseusBeck
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 9:29pm
Granholm practices ‘rules for radicals’. Cokie, STFU,

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
BlackCrow
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 9:29pm
Come on down to Texas. We’ll go hog hunting, I’ll let you have a single shot and you will find out why I’m carrying an AR-15 with 2 thirty round mags taped together.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- rjtaurus605
  Posted on January 20, 2013 at 9:51pm
  I would love to get that butt-head Cuomo on a hog hunt, and watch him pi$$ his pants when his 7 rounds are gone and that boar is still comin’ in on him!
  
  Report this comment
civilwarcometh
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 9:28pm
Hey Rick it’s called Communism and a take over by Chicago radical communist. No God No gun’s No America……

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
John 1776
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 9:28pm
What… How… and Why…..
The media focuses on the “How” because it is the only one of the three that helps with the Liberal agenda to disarm the public so the government can “Progress” without fear.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Victoriaautmors
Posted on January 20, 2013 at 9:25pm
The coming police state . We need to be disarmed for it to happen eatgrueldog.wordpress.com/

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.