It has now been shown that Sandy Hook was a fake event.
His other big-time hoax was the Boston Marathon bombing fake event.

Yeah, there were plenty of Lefty celebs jumping on the Sandy Hook bandwagon. It has now been shown that Sandy Hook was a fake event. A hoax meant to disarm us. But people still harp on gun grabbing and mention SH. In truth, it was one of Obama's attempts to get the populace on board with his gun-control agenda. It backfired and more guns were sold than before. His other big-time hoax was the Boston Marathon bombing fake event. That one was so theatrical and badly executed, I am surprised more people don't realize how fake it is. But, anyway, boycotting those shows that star celebs who are anti-American would require not watching much of anything. Sadly.

This message has been deleted.

Only adding fact to the long held stereotype that 2nd amendment humping gun-nuts are also small minded morons.
Narrator: Modern speech had degraded down to a mixture of slang, hillbilly, and grunts. - Idiocracy

The blood of children is on YOUR hands, 2nd amendment psychos.

This message has been deleted.

That's very disappointing and I did reD the whole quote. She, like most people in Hollywood, needs a lesson in the 2nd amendment. If she doesn't agree with it work to change it and don't spout nonsense. I've lost what respect I had for her.

LDS. Little Dlck Syndorme.

On your almighty BRILLIANCE,I suppose you've encountered SO MANY subjective and pejorative thoughts on this topic,that you've forgotten that many people have the focus and good will of other humans in mind.
The police over-use their weaponsTHAT much has been made clear to us,time and time again.
I honour my teachers by admitting that weaponry must be the LAST resortTHE LAST RESORT!
All too often,it is police FIRST ACTION. IT SEEMSas though it's first,because it's easiest. I know,FULLY WELL,what a dangerous job they have. I wouldn't want it. But how well is their psychology examined? To carry a dangerous,life-taking weapon about is no joke. One second of fear could take a lifeno joking matter.
Don't presume to lecture ANYONE about firearms,danger and ignorance.

You are TRULY ridiculous. I AM armed.licensed AND toting. How well you exhibit your your challenged brain.
I do,however,take much careful thought,BEFORE deciding to draw. Unfortunately,there doesn't appear to be mangy who DO apply careful thought,which is why FAR too many innocents are killed.
The rules and laws pertaining to the use and ownership Of firearms is all too often ignored and overlooked,thence resulting in the wounding OR killing of innocents.
BAH!::

@ psalmverse6-844-865746do you seriously not know the answer to that question? An armed police force and an unarmed public were EXACTLY why the Constitution was written to allow for citizens to own guns. Arm the cops and take guns away from the people? No thank you!! We are already far too close to a police stateour freedoms are eroded and we the idiot people have allowed it to happen. And people like yourself, who don't have any perspective on history, are the kind who are leading the way.

I'm with you. Let people keep their hunting rifles but get rid of the automatic weapons. Only the military needs those. I liked Marg before. Now I love her.

Except the stats don't agree with you. More people are defended by armed citizens each day than are harmed.

More people, especially women and children, are killed in the home with a gun owned by someone in their home" is nonsensical. More what than what? More people are killed than household pets are killed? More people are killed than wounded? More people are killed with a gun than not with a gun? More people are killed by someone in their home than by someone not in their home?
Seems like it is the simple truth that more women and children get killed in homes with guns then women and children get killed in homes without guns.
It isn't rocket science,don't try to make it rocket science.
No guns=less killing=less women and children killed.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

Excellent post.

Good job, noting the need for evidence. Unfortunately, gun control is such a polarizing issue in the US that both sides tend to stake out a position and then defend that position with no evidence, bad evidence, or biased evidence.
Your statement as written, "More people, especially women and children, are killed in the home with a gun owned by someone in their home" is nonsensical. More what than what? More people are killed than household pets are killed? More people are killed than wounded? More people are killed with a gun than not with a gun? More people are killed by someone in their home than by someone not in their home?
This is a case in which evidence is generally presented selectively, with a bias. One problem is that the number of people "killed in the home" may include suicides. Suicide is worthy of attention, but morally, legally, and psychologically suicide is different from assault by another person. Another problem is the omission of significant correlations, such as that a large fraction of murder victims (around 50%) and murderers (over 80%) have criminal records. In other words, being a criminal is a risk factor for violence, which should not be surprising.
There is also selection bias in that law enforcement organizations collect statistics on assaults, including gun violence, but the statistics on defensive uses of guns are poor. Estimates of the number of defensive gun uses per year, in the US, range from a low of a few hundred up to several million. This selection bias includes the news media, who report on gun violence but rarely on defensive gun use. By analogy, if someone didn't have a car or know anyone who had a car, and all they knew about cars was news media reports of crashes, they'd probably believe that cars are dangerous and should be restricted.

This message has been deleted.

Many police officers support gun rights, because they know that armed, law-abiding citizens are the best crime deterrent. When a criminal doesn't know if his intended victim has a gun, he is much less likely to try anything. Think about how fast the number of rapes would drop if we started hearing news reports of women pulling guns and shooting theyr attackers. That's an effective way to make a rapist's resolve go limp.
It was a cop from whom I heard a quote that went something like this: "I carry a gun because a cop would be too heavy."

SHUT THE Front doorCan't we just see the "system" through? It's that Law Enforcement needs weapons. Why must everyone ELSE arm up? I don't get itnot at allwhy must we feel we HAVE to arm ourselves against our fellow man? WHY?

They ALL do, huh? Care to share your source? Same with your claim that "the places with the strictest gun laws have the most shootings".
Why don't you start here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-study-idUSBRE92617D20130308
Turn off the AM (shortwave?) radio, switch from FAUX "News" and delete the Blaze from your bookmarks, you'll be the smarter for it.

Yet all the shootings occur in gun free zones, lefties' want more of those so there's that. If only we had more laws passed to restrict guns right? Yet the places that have the strictest gun laws have the most shootings. And we all know criminals will follow laws.
Y'know, I could eat a peach for hours