gun laws
 

if Obama gets in, be prepared for a fight and write your congressmen and women to protect our right to bear arms.
I plan to add some protection should things stray offcourse in the near future, I want to be prepared to defend myself and protect my family.





Gun Regulation

Amendment II to the U.S. Constitution

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.




A major obstacle to the completion of the American Union is the fact that we have the right to private ownership of firearms. No dictator has ever taken control of his country without first confiscating the citizens guns. The Elite know this, so they have created the organization called "The Department of Homeland Security", which was formed with the expressed purpose of defending this nation against terrorist attacks from the outside. In reality, this is the beginning of a "police state", which will be used to "handle" the militias that will protest the confiscation of firearms owned by Americans. Every time that a firearm is used in an incident, the mainstream news media, and several members of Congress, such as Senator Dianne Feinstein (BB & TC), demand that we have much more restrictive control of weapons.

Will we find out twenty years from now that the "DC-Area Sniper" was actually a member of one of the CIA's black-operations organizations, or was under CIA mind control as he shot his victims? There is no doubt that Timothy McVeigh was under CIA mind control when he (allegedly) bombed the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City.

Australia was once a penal colony for the British Empire, so most of the citizens of this nation are descendents of convicted criminals. Most U.S. citizens are not aware of the fact that Australia immediately outlawed private ownership of firearms after Martin Bryant, a so-called "mad murderer", killed 35 and wounded another eighteen people on the public streets of Port Author, Tasmania, in April 28, 1996, using an AR-15, .223 cal. assault rifle. Within twelve months after the outlawing of guns were passed by the Australian government, 640,381 guns were bought off the streets at the cost of over $500 million, Australian. Twelve months later, a study was made of the effects of such radical gun control, with the following results:

Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2%.
Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6%.
Australia-wide, armed-robberies went up 44%.
In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms went up 300%!
The steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the 12 months following the ban on weapons.
The steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the 12 months following the ban on weapons.
There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of-the-elderly.
At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm".
From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia have averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.
The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions.
The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has increased by 200% in response to the ban and in an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain why no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".

During the years 2001 and 2002, armed robberies, Australia wide, increased 34.1% over the period just before the elimination of private ownership of firearms.

Stay ahead of the curve, Slip. :btu:

I could see some restrictions, but I wouldn't worry that a regular gun owner is going to have any issues.

-spence

see that's the problem, first they call it some restrictions, eventually they take all your right to bear arms and they'll do it under the Patriot Act, homeland security or whatever, if it comes to martial law, regular gun owners will have a problem.


how about the FEMA concentration camps being built

even here on Cape Cod, Camp Edwards air force base is being converted


AMERICANS, VERY IMPORTANT IMFORMATION ABOUT MARTIAL LAW, FEMA BASE CAMPS, FEMA TRAINS, FEMA TRAILERS, FEMA OVENS, DETENTION BASES AND ITS LOCATION IN THE U.S.A AND OVERSEAS, REX 84. VIDEO SEGMENT PART 6 OF 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRvpX...eature=related


there is a lot more of this stuff on the web
don't take your freedom for granted

Personally, I don't believe punishing for something that i might do is wrong.
Besides guns work much better when they're a big surprise.

Nah, I wouldn't worry about it.

-spence

I think they wanna keep guns out of the hands of gangmembers than say moose hunters. Handgun violence and associated crime is a serious issue in big cities like DC, Baltimore & Philadelphia. I dont think people buying weapons legally over the counter at a walmart should worry too much.

Bruce, just who do you think is conspiring to cause you to have to protect your family and home? AlQaida of Middleboro?

Also, as it can be plainly seen, you have fallen victim of that small but effective organization that claims to represent all the upstanding and legal gun owners in the country, THE NRA, who actually ownly represent less than 20% of the legal gun owners in this country.

Really now, do you think the big bad Obama is coming after your shotgun or 22cal.?

No, maybe the assault weapons though like the 9mm Uzi that the kid who ripped himself open while his proud father was taking pics at that "gun show" in Westfield last week, but actual hunting weapons?

Not even on the radar screen.

nope Steve, I'm in the 80% category, not a member of NRA

I just want to be prepared is all

You never know what might happen
The government is preparing for something, why can't they inform us what all those concentration camps are being built for? I bet they use drug money profits to fund them also. don't mind me, I'm on a conspiracy kick.

Bruce;

I have a hard time taking something seriously with that many spelling and grammar mistakes in it. I'm a %$%$%$%$ty speller, but 'theses' and 'left total darkness' makes this seem like it was made by some guy living in mommy's basement.

Apparently you are on a conspiracy kick. Are you using some heavy glue in a confined cabinet space"???

oh no.
I've said to much.
Too much sarcasm.
the've come for me..





SSSSSEEEEEEENNNNNNNDDDDDD HHHHHHEEEEEELLLLLLLPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




I have to agree with flap;
I have no problem with hunting and hand-guns, and being prepared is admirable, but I think you are drinking the wrong kool-aid....

Geesh the day after Question 2 passes and the paranoia already is setting in......Now Pass the Doritos

I need a twinkee, not Koolaid


nevermind:wavey:

I can't see Camp Edwards, Devens, etc being used as concentration camps for Americans. Just like I can't see martial law going into effect.

Telling US troops they have to act against US citizens wouldn't go over well with the military. The majority wouldn't do it. There is a little thing called the posse comitatus act. It is taught in basic training, boot camp and I'm sure initial training for air force and navy.

I do know that the first thing the government did in NO was go door to door and confiscate firearms, leaving the law abiders at the mercy of looters. Didn't care for that act much, personally.

Now Obama re authorizing the AWB. I'd say that is a given and only a matter of time.

All for it here. :kewl:

Sorry I can't share your enthusiasm.

I watched one of the concentration camp you tube videos and didnt get scared. Seems to me that some are jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon. Im not a NRA member but i go along with "my cold dead hands" way of thinking. Enforce the laws that are on the books. Dont need anymore. As for the AWB, it doent matter to me in the slightest. I wont be buying a assult rifle any time soon. Sure its fun to shoot em, but i dont need one. I cant think of any legitimate uses/need for an assult weapon. Also, i cant see the police/govt going door to door confiscating guns. It would be anarchy. Maybe in massachusetts it wouldnt be that tough to get them from people. Just try doing it in michigan.

Are they being built by Krups?

Jawohl.

run for guns

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081108/pl_nm/us_usa_guns_1

Amendment II to the U.S. Constitution

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This was written in a time with no police force, national gaurd or military. I believe if you have a hunting licence should be able to own a hunting riffle. Other than that I don't think anyone not in the millitary, NG, or police force should have one. I reallize many good people only want one for protection, and I don't blame them. I also think there are other ways to protect yourself and family without have a gun. they have guns now that can shoot a dart packing an electric charge. Me personally, I have a machete. I think to many people are killed every year in violent crimes and even accidents to warrant everyone having the right to own a gun. The reason so many criminals have guns is because they are too easy to get.The link between accessibility to firearms and death rates has been suggested in a number of studies. One study which examined the link between gun ownership rates and firearm deaths within Canadian provinces, the United States, England/Wales and Australia concluded that 92% of the variance in death rates was explained by access to firearms in those areas. Another review of 13 countries showed that there was a strong correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates and suicide rates.

The 2002 edition of Injury Facts from the National Safety Council reports the following statistics [1] :

In 1999, 3,385 kids ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries.
This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by journalists.
The 3,385 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 years breaks down to:
214 unintentional
1,078 suicides
1,990 homicides
83 for which the intent could not be determined
20 due to legal intervention
Of the total firearms-related deaths:
73 were of children under five years old
416 were children 5-14 years old
2,896 were 15-19 years old

Gun-related deaths

In the top firearm-household states, homicide rates were more than double the rates found for states in the lowest firearm group. Overall, the top-gun states showed homicide rates that were 60 percent higher than all other states.

Relax - he's only a democrat. He's not converting to Islam. There won't be any Cape Cod concentration camps. You'll be able to keep your guns.

Of these 3 here....

214 unintentional ...a lot of these probably attributed to lack of knowledge in how to handle fire-arms. I had this discussion with my wife (who is Hugely Anti-Firearm) when I signed my son up for an NRA safety course and his Rifle Merit badge. I told her that at some point in his life he is going to have exposure to firearms and I would rather he knows what to do with it than to just sit there and fumble around trying to figure it out....she couldn't argue that Logic.

1,078 suicides....If somebody wants to kill themselves they are going to do it, whether it be by Gun, Pills, Jumping off a building, Hanging themselves....or sitting through an Oprah Marathon.

1,990 homicides....I would guess that 95% of these were done by people who weren't legally allowed to own a gun anyways in the 1st place...so tightening restrictions and laws will make absolutely no difference in this category because the same bad element will still get and own illegal guns. and people are also stabbed, poisoned, run down, and beaten to death.

of course criminals can get guns illegally. there are so many of them in circulation. Since 1989, manufacturers and importers introduced an average of 3.5 million new guns into the U.S. market each year. By contrast, the U.S. resident population has grown an average of 2.7 million a year. That's roughly 800,000 extra guns a year. The domestic production of pistols has doubled since 1980, while domestic production of rifles has fallen 40 percent, and shotguns 14 percent. In 1980, pistols made up less than 15 percent of total firearm production in the U.S.; by 1993, they had climbed to 40 percent. According to a 1992 review of the scientific literature, most studies find that gun density is positively associated with the murder rate.The National Institute of Justice, for example, reports a study of U.S. cities which found a positive correlation between gun ownership levels and felony gun use and felony murder.

In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in Presser vs. Illinois that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from interfering with a state's ability to maintain a militia, and does nothing to limit the states' ability to regulate firearms. Which means that states can regulate, control and even ban firearms if they so desire! In other words, the federal government is free to regulate and even ban guns so long as it does not interfere with the state's ability to run a militia. Since then, both the Supreme and lesser courts have consistently interpreted the right to bear arms as a state's right, not an individual's right. At times they have even expressed frustration with some gun advocates' misinterpretation of the Second Amendment.:whackin:

opinions vary, glad you aren't president.

I see nothing wrong with owning guns for target practice.
I have had guns all my life, I see no reason we can't own guns even assault rifles. law abiding citizens should be allowed to arm themselves legally.

Read the Heller decision. It was affirmed as an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT

Understand though that those areas with high gun crime rates have the tools to decrease criminal use of guns but choose not to.

Philadelphia is particularly absurd in that the politicians declare straw buying is a big problem but then tell the BATF to stop sending multiple purchase reports because it was getting too expensive to comply with the destruction rules. Instead of investigating actual multiple purchasers and the disposition of the guns it is far easier to just say, "let's just go with a one gun a month law . . ." and that my friend does impact the law-abiding citizen.

The calls to ban "armor piercing ammunition" sound wonderful cause after all, who's for shooting cops? . . . But when the criteria to ban a certain loading is simply its ability to defeat the Class II body armor worn by patrol officers, just about every centerfire rifle cartridge would meet that threshold; even Dad's old .30-30.

Ask a military man what an AP chambering is and you will get a much different answer than the one Ted Kennedy, Chuckie Schumer or Carolyn McCarthy gives you.

Next question, how do those fine politicians define a "sniper rifle?" Look out, an old scoped Model 70 sub MOA .300 WinMag meets all those criteria too . . .

Well then, sorry to break the news but you harbor beliefs which are diametrically opposed to the fundamental philosophical principles of this nation and thus, the very Constitution which establishes our government.

Only in agenda driven gun death stats are 19 year old's called "kids."

In 1999 the REAL total number of "kids" (up to 17 years 364 days old) that died from gunshot from all intents was 1776. That number comprises 1001 homicides, 558 suicides, 158 unintentional (accidental) deaths, 50 of undetermined cause and 9 due to legal intervention (police or justifiable homicide by a citizen).

And????

Are you arguing that by adding those millions of guns, gun murders go up? Hmmmmm, how then can the USA have over 2000 fewer gun homicides in 2005 then in 1989?

Three letters explain that . . . CCW

Absolutely an incorrect reading of Presser bordering on a dishonest misrepresentation.

And that is a dishonest misrepresentation; actually Presser states the opposite.

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect."

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

This explains a mingled dependence, in the reverse of what is called nowadays, "states rights." The states are barred from disarming the citizens because those armed citizens are also the resource upon which the security of the federal government depends.

This is interesting also because it says the mandate against states disarming citizens exists without reference to the 2nd Amendment and the protection of the right exists in two planes. It exists in the "general powers" (those laid out specifically in the Constitution) and in the "prerogative of the general government." That word, prerogative, describes a underlying principle of our Constitutional Republic.

Because the "general powers" of the Constitution promises to the states to forever provide a republican form of government, a complementary power is thus granted by inference to keep that promise, to secure the continuance of our founding principles.

The republican government that the founders embraced and established has, as one of its most fundamental components, an armed citizenry ("it is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable . . ." as SCOTUS puts it). The federal government then, in keeping that republican promise, can not allow any state to act in a un-republican fashion, such as disarming the citizens.

Understand also that the principle works both ways; the federal government can not act to disarm the citizens because the states rely on those same people for their security.

Presser makes it very clear that the protection afforded by the 2nd Amendment does not belong to the states and their militia regulation power. If it did, the Court would have applied the Amendment's scope and restriction on the two tiered federal power that binds the states from "prohibit[ing] the people from keeping and bearing arms," not a state's power to require a permit for an armed march by private citizens.

Where do you get this stuff? Before Heller this line of reasoning was just nonsensical; after Heller it is delusional.

The Supreme Court has never embraced the states right / collective right theory and in Heller the Court stated that no previous SCOTUS decisions could be read to dismiss the individual rights model.

The "state's right" theory was first introduced in the lower federal court system in 1942. And yes, since then, several lower federal courts have dismissed and ridiculed the individual right model but the unanimous statement in Heller, that the right protected by the 2nd is an individual right has exposed the "state's right" cases to challenge if not directly overruling them.

US v Tot was the genesis of the "state's right" interpretation and the famous holding was actually a legal nullity when it was written and has, since Heller, finally been rendered functionally inoperative as precedent.

"It is abundantly clear that [the 2nd Amendment], unlike those providing for protection of free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power. "

United States v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261, 266 (3d Cir. 1942)

(link is a 52kb pdf)

Yes, affirmed as an individual right by all nine Justices.

I can't believe some of you people.

They may take assault weapons but not your hunting guns?????

WTF what if they said tomorrow there will no longer be trucks , suv's, Rv's or Boats for the common people because of the cost of fuel, lack of fuel or something like that, and they came and carted off your stuff and made you drive around in friggin HYundai to do your precious beach fishing. Oh wait you won't be able to beach fish any more because of the plovers (we fight for that freedom don't we).

I don't own any assault weapons currently, but the same joy you one way Asses get from beaching a 30lb fish on the backside beaches in front of your buggies is the same joy I get at the range rocking and rolling an Ar, Mp5, or whatever I choose.

Next time you people ask us to write a letter to save a beach,or something else I will tell you all to pound sand. :wall:

Reelin Rod you are my Hero. :love:

Whoa there Bill, let's not get crazy now

banning assault rifles compared to beach access is nowhere near comparison. relax, there's always one whako in every crowd.

My brother just bought an awesome assault rifle, fun to shoot and accurate.


great post reelinrod

Accidental Shootings of Children Raising Concern

LEAD: Sensational shootings often draw more attention, but to many people here there is something deeply troubling in the numbing frequency of incidents like the one Monday that left 14-year-old Aaron Fultz critically wounded.

Aaron and a friend were playing with a .44 magnum revolver they found at the house of the friend's brother in Deer Park, a Houston suburb. The gun discharged, hitting Aaron in the head. He was still in critical condition late today and doctors said he would lose his vision, if not his life.

Five other children playing with pistols were shot over the holidays in the Houston area. Three of the youths died. Two years ago in a two-month period here, there were 13 accidental shootings involving children, six of whom died.





Priest: Slain dad taught boy, 8, to use guns
November 8th, 2008 @ 9:01pm
by Associated Press

ST. JOHNS, Ariz. - A man who police believe was shot and killed by his 8-year-old son had consulted a Roman Catholic priest about whether the boy should handle guns and had taught him how to use a rifle, the clergyman said Saturday


Boy Accidentally Kills Himself With Uzi
8-Year-Old Fired Submachine Gun Under Adult Supervision At Massachusetts Gun Fair

(AP) An 8-year-old boy died after accidentally shooting himself in the head while firing an Uzi submachine gun under adult supervision at a gun fair.


Parents Plead Not Guilty in Child's Accidental Shooting Death


NORWICH, Conn. (AP) _ A Jewett City couple entered not guilty pleas Tuesday to charges related to the death of their 2-year-old son, who accidentally shot himself with his father's gun.


Raeford — A 9-year-old fourth-grader was playing with his sister and his best friend when a handgun went off, wounding him in the head Thursday, authorities said.

The children were alone in a home at 143 Independence Drive in Raeford when the 10-year-old boy who lived there brought out a gun. His parents had tucked the .25-caliber weapon away in a drawer, Hoke County Sheriff Hubert A. Peterkin said.

I know most of you(hopefully all) are smarter than the people above. But you guys are right. this is an exceptable price to pay for the right of everyone to own a gun.:huh: You can't argue that you should have the right to own a gun but not the people above. So everyone should have the right to own one, no matter how stupid or irresponsable. and kids getting shot, well thats the price you pay.

You can't make laws to adjust for stupidity.....we'd never get anything done....we'd be in perpetual lock down.

people make bad decisions....its human nature.

The accidental deaths just go to prove my point that instead of treating firearms like the plague...you should instruct kids in resepect and proper use, so when they do get their hands on them they know to be careful, and what a safety is, and to never point a gun at someone, and always treat a gun as if it were loaded, and the biggie from the above examples Always, Always, ALWAYS keep them locked up when you have kids in the house....basic concepts of gun safety.

These aren't Gun Laws that need adjusting....its the Laws of Common Sense that need to be adhered to....and maybe some basic Parenting skills training.

But when one examines the actual numbers, accidental firearm deaths among children have been consistently trending downward.

In 1990 there were 417 unintentional deaths by firearm for children 17 and under. In 1995 the number dropped to 330, (-20%); in 2000 the number dropped to 150, (-55%) and in 2005 the number was 127 (-15%).

While every death is tragic making political capital from those deaths by decrying the "numbing frequency of incidents" is also tragic because all told, accidental gun deaths among children have dropped 70% from 1990 to 2005.

The anti-liberty side can not discuss this issue without misrepresentations and obfuscation of facts.

No rebuttal to my earlier post bssb?

Again, in 2005 127 kids died from an accidental firearm discharge . . . Also in 2005, 4509 children 17 and under died in motor vehicle accidents, 1019 died from unintentional suffocation, 979 drowned, 286 died due to unintentional poisoning and 116 died in accidental falls.

Again, obfuscation of facts permitting an emotional appeal not based in logic.

There are many consumer products that pose an unintended life threatening danger to children. Motorized garage doors kill a bunch as do plastic bags; curtain cords strangle dozens every year. Let's examine your suggestions to restrict the freedom to own spackle buckets; after all, 50 toddlers a year drown in them; surely your selfish right to own a 5 gallon bucket can't outweigh the danger to our youngest innocents can it?

Step out of the blood you are dancing in for a moment and take a minute to let the emotions subside . . .

[QUOTE=ReelinRod;637410]
There are many consumer products that pose an unintended life threatening danger to children. Motorized garage doors kill a bunch as do plastic bags; curtain cords strangle dozens every year. Let's examine your suggestions to restrict the freedom to own spackle buckets; after all, 50 toddlers a year drown in them; surely the your selfish right to own a 5 gallon bucket can't outweigh the danger to our youngest innocents can it?
QUOTE]


No more bathtubs!!! And household chemicals. Let's not forget all of the dangers of children being poisoned. While where at it, lets get rid of any animals that attack and kill innocent humans!!!! Who needs dogs anyways?

Such arguments would be laughed away but with guns, any argument is entertained if "one life can be saved." As much as we do not like the thought, human life does have a price and the availability of common items that sometimes cause death proves that we, as a society are quite willing to sacrifice a certain number of our fellow citizens to have these products readily available.

Guns are no different and the arguments otherwise are only based in a political agenda, emotion or a simple pathological fear of guns.

Certainly gun specific arguments (while ignoring other causation of unintentional death) are not products of an even examination and intellectually honest analysis of the facts.

Ok so give one kid a plastic bag and one kid a loaded gun. who dies first? comparing the lethality of a plastic bag to a gun is just stupid. An average house hold uses a garage door what? maybe 2or 3 times a day. Know anyone that uses a gun 2 or 3 times a day. If one can compare guns to buckets, than are you for legalizing drugs too? Shouldn't everyone have the right to use drugs if one can use them responsably? Sure they're dangerous, but only if you don't know what your doing.


http://hasobamatakenawayourgunsyet.com/

Nice link:yawn: What is a "moran" ? Secondly Obama isn't in office yet......

If you are such a fan of "gun control" maybe you should move to England or Australia. Better yet why not just go back to the rock you crawled out from under.:rolleyes:

Who's arguing "giving" either to children?

Well then, I'm sure glad I wasn't making any such comparison.

I was comparing your response to the different modes of death not the deaths themselves. You asked if the number of accidental gun deaths are, "an exceptable[sic] price to pay for the right of everyone to own a gun" and questioned, "So everyone should have the right to own one, no matter how stupid or irresponsable[sic].[sic] and kids getting shot, well thats[sic] the price you pay."

You are the one who wants to quantify a "price" on the preservation of (some) human life to be borne by the consumer or justify rights deprivation, so I rebutted with (and you quoted):

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReelinRod (Post 637410) There are many consumer products that pose an unintended life threatening danger to children. Motorized garage doors kill a bunch as do plastic bags; curtain cords strangle dozens every year. Let's examine your suggestions to restrict the freedom to own spackle buckets; after all, 50 toddlers a year drown in them; surely your selfish right to own a 5 gallon bucket can't outweigh the danger to our youngest innocents can it?

My point is, where is your outcry over the unintentional deaths of children caused by other items and conditions found in life? You wish to draw attention to the 100 or so kids accidentally killed by guns annually but turn a blind eye to 8000 unintentionally killed by other things . . .

So, the question must be asked; is your outrage just reserved for firearms? Of course it is . . . Because your faux moral indignation serves the greater political agenda . . .

Mr. Genius, give me your gut feeling on this; for 2005 did more kids 10 and under die from accidental suffocation or accidental gunshot?
Here's a hint . . . One manner of death killed 23 times more children 10 and under than the other.

Again, not comparing manner of death only comparing your whacked-out equivalency where the deaths of 932 kids 10 and under due to suffocation can be ignored and deaths of the 40 killed by accidental discharge of a firearm can be used as political fodder to call for the enactment of laws that directly violate the Constitution of the United States. Got it?

As a matter of fact I am for decriminalizing drugs, at least at the federal level.

No, everyone should have the right to use them even if they use them irresponsibly.

Is that link intended to stand in any fashion as informed, logical and effective rebuttal to my posts to you? And you have the audacity to assign yourself the authority to declare someone stupid?

That's akin to Helen Thomas calling somebody ugly!