I too voted for Robin Kelly and I'd do it again in a heartbeat. Halverson supporters are ranting because they couldn't have their way. Halverson lost so please do yourselves and us a favor and MOVE ON.

Roxie,

Its not about ranting. Its about the very thing people that run for office and people that are a part of our military swear to up hold and defend. Our Constitution. Far to many people do not understand exactly how important that old document is. Far to many people on the heels of elections and the public's misunderstanding of Constitution, threaten to alter and change.

What is worse are the people who think that because there are 17 additional Amendments, this somehow presents a need to change. Any one that studies the Constitution understands its importance and its place with in the ideology of freedom.

So in my case I'm against Kelly not because of any other reason than:
1) she is apart of the democratic machine (Not as if I have a love for a Republican machine either.)
2) she seek to alter the Constitution to prevent murders, which are so small in comparison to the population only sensationalized news could get people to pay attention.

Any in depth study of Latin American history, AND the Constitution presents clear evidence, that the framers understood what was needed for liberty and freedom from oppression.
Even though they held slaves, they understood that slavery could not last if the Constitution was to be valid. They can be labeled hypocrites, but all supporting document especially from Thomas Jefferson's letter pertaining directly about how he thought his slaves viewed him, reinforces that they recognized slavery must cease.
A very good indicator of this is two issues about the Constitution, one being an inclusion, the other being an omission.
First the inclusion, the Constitution has a single phrase when speaking about the enumeration of the population for determining how many Representatives a State will have. it use the term "3/5 of all other persons" many have taken this statement to dishonor Black slaves, nothing could be further from the truth.
The term was use to LIMIT the amount of the population, in order to LIMIT Representative that would come from the South, effectively limiting and moving toward an end to slavery.
Now the omission, nowhere in the Constitution will you find the word slavery or slaves, ever.

Arthur, The number for total killed by firearms in the US for 2010 (31,672) comes from Table 10 of the CDC's 2010 National Vital Statistics Report, available here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/deaths_2010_release.pdf. The total number of deaths in the US during the same period (2,468,435) is given in Table 1 of the same document. Divide the first number by the second, multiply by 100, and you get that 1.3% of all deaths in the US in 2010 were caused by firearms.

Part of the issue here is that you're computing only the annual death rate, and not accounting for the fact our expected lifetimes are more than a single year in computing the aggregate risk. Part of the issue is that you're considering only murder, and not death by suicide (which is a much higher risk for gun-owners than the population at large, due to the availability of effective prompt means) or accident. And part of the issue is that you're expressing risk as a fraction rather than a percentage. So let me take your numbers and work with them:

The life expectancy of a resident of Chicago is 75.6 years, so that 0.00016 annual murder rate, multiplied by 75.6 years of expected life, multiplied by 100 (to convert to a percentage) becomes a 1.2% chance that their eventual cause of death will be murder. This does not account for the addition risks of suicide and accident, which, if accounted for, would likely place the likelihood of death by firearm somewhere around 2%.

My comment is to "Is it Democracy if we are lied to?" Excellent analogy. Robin Kelly is simply Jesse Jackson, Jr. in a dress.His supports have now transferred their allegiance to her. Your article is correct.

Anthony W. Williams

Arthur, there's no manipulation. I gave my sources, and my calculations, and explained the discrepancies. You don't like the result because it doesn't support your position.

[Minor errata: the CDC makes copying the URL a bit difficult, and I got it wrong. Here's the corrected URL: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2010_release.pdf ]

If you want to read about causes of death, go to Table 10 in that document. The deaths by firearms (32K) compare to death by drugs (40K) and death induced by alcohol (26K). The later two are the focus of considerable research and policy.

Dark Knight, This is a poor venue to argue that voting is race based. Mr. Wiggens is an African American, who I believe voted for the white candidate, Debbie Halvorson. I'm a white who voted for an African American candidate, Robin Kelly. My decision, and I believe Mr. Wiggens, was based on the candidate's positions, not on their race.

In the most recent Presidential campaign, Barack Obama won 51% of the popular vote, in an election where Blacks constituted only 11% of the electorate. Obviously, Mr. Obama got a tremendous number of votes from members of other races.

I don't believe we live in some post-racial nirvana, but it does seem to me we're well past the era in which candidate race is a primary consideration for most voters.

We cannot ignore that most of these murders happen in high poverty areas. Unfortunately by default the areas have high concentration of minorities. For decades no one cared to raise the issue, it is far beyond suspicion that it is a priority.

I believe that tragic incidents like Sandy Hook and the Denver shooting has taken advantage of our national average of murder to use to reinforce gun control. Even deliberate lies have been used eg., the rush to band "assault weapons" because of Sandy Hook when no rifle was used.

We have been lied to in the worse way...more than 99% ( estimate percentage) of all murders by firearms are committed by pistols. not any rifles of ANY type.

SK said "but it does seem to me we're well past the era in which candidate race is a primary consideration for most voters".

Research and poll data would support this statement. What is interesting when viewing voting behavior is party label (Democratic) can be more important than specific issues ( see "African American’s Political Attitudes, Party Affiliation, and Voting Behavior") for black americans. In essence, black Democrats have a stronger sense of party loyalty even if there is disagreement on position.

Thanks Dark knight for the support.

Dinkum if Black have support for Dem party and most of them are Blacks would that not be racial affiliation... I assume any type of study would include asking people if this is the case.... and I do not see any majority answering honestly.

If it walks like a duck...

Not sure of your point AWW. But mine is a kind of semi-blind Demo party acceptance we have seen in D2.

If the research, Patch posts, and observations are correct then black voters (majority in D2) appear to side with the party even if there are positional differences or unqualified candidates (Jackson).

Party loyalty is not a concept unique to black Democrats. But is seems to be more important, more prevalent, from a racial perspective.

Arthur, I missed this earlier: 'I believe that tragic incidents like Sandy Hook and the Denver shooting has taken advantage of our national average of murder to use to reinforce gun control. Even deliberate lies have been used eg., the rush to band "assault weapons" because of Sandy Hook when no rifle was used.'

The weapons used at Sandy Hook were (a) a Bushmaster XM15-ES2 rifle, (b) a 10mm Glock handgun, and (c) a 9mm SIG Sauer P226 handgun. The Bushmaster rifle was the killing weapon at the school, cf.,

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/us/lanza-used-a-popular-ar-15-style-rifle-in-newtown.html

Stuart,

I have seen uninterrupted helicopter video of police officers removing the bushmaster from the offenders car.

Sorry I cannot remember the source but I also read an article about the Bushmaster never being carried into the building.

Knowing that even amateur videographers can manipulate images... I still have reasonable doubt into the assault rifle use. Never the less, I have no problem recanting any of this once the final report is released and proves me wrong.

Arthur, I remember that video! But that said, it was shot from with a lot of zoom, and there wasn't enough resolution in the image to ID the particular weapon. What identification there was came from the sound-track, and who knows what the source of that was. I tried looking for the video on youtube, but unfortunately that source has been contaminated with Sandy Hook hoax garbage.

Stuart,

The police have listed all the weapon own by his mother. Which includes one bushmaster variant of the AR15 rifle. The rifle removed from that car was an AR15... now was it a colt AR15, or a S&W AR15, or a Rock River AR15, or a homemade AR15 ? I do not know. I do know it was an AR15. I have owned AR15s and the military has given me enough M16s to recognize that silhouette in the dimmest of light (the video was captured during daylight). Deduction or reasoning would lead us to believe that it is the one Bushmaster AR15 as reported that his mother owned.

But truthfully we do not know and will not know until a report is made public about the incident. I will refrain from debating Sandy Hook simply because of the speculation that has filled the void in the absence of fact.

I believe what I have asserted to be true about the rifle (it never entered the building), but I do not at this moment think it would be wise for me to propose that belief to be a fact.

Arthur, I don't doubt your skill at weapons recognition. The Connecticut State Police insist that the Bushmaster was found inside the school:

http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284&A=4226

I'd love to have a good, frame-by-frame look at that video...

Arthur, You should do a google image search for an Izhmash Canta-12. Depending on how it's set up, it can look a lot like an AR-15.

Stuart,

I have an apology for you and a correction.
This civility "thing" requires man to participate in rather odd behaviors at times. We try so hard to be politically correct that we unknowingly become offensive.

You have a comment above that labels me as African American. I assume you picked up on my heritage from me saying I have slave ancestry. Merely by my physical attributes most people have no clue what I am.

Before I go any further I want to clearly state I am not offended.

Do I have ancestry that is from Africa, of course I do. The problem is I also have Caucasian ancestry and others. There is nothing special about that, it is the commonality of my race. Because of this mixture, and my efforts to seek truth it is impossible for me to call myself African American..... I do realize as well that many people just do not know what to say to people of my race for fear of being politically incorrect.

Stuart If you address me as a Black American you would be addressing me correctly. <That was the correction>

In offering my statistics and debating with you, I became suspicious of your knowledge.... You commented in another post that you have a PhD in math which further my suspicion .... well not only did you settle my suspicion you corrected me on something that I have over looked for the past months, very embarrassing to say the least.

Many people use pseudonyms here, they seem to come to this news outlet to create issues rather than solve them. I knew what the correct notation was, I added the extra zero on purpose to see if you would catch it. Not only did you catch it you caught the real mistake as well, the embarrassing part of not multiplying by 100.
My apologizes , I am glad to see an educated person debating me.

I remain true to the gun issues because the numbers, percentages, or other numerated stats are still entirely to small to consider a factor beyond a part of life, liberty, and the general dangers of living in a non oppressive society.

Arthur, I am enjoying our conversation, which I consider to be civil and mutually informative, our very real difference of opinion notwithstanding.

As for the issue of race identification, I could remember a commenter who made the argument that you've just made, but I couldn't remember if it was you :-(. My apologies for my forgetfulness. For my part, I view race entirely as a social construct. There is good scientific evidence that the last common ancestor of everyone now living lived about 2000 years ago. We're all "mixed race," the only real question is whether we have to go back one generation or ten to prove it. In terms of your identification, I'll be pleased to refer to you henceforth as a Black American. If I slip up, I intend no offense, and I hope none will be taken.

For my part, I'm Northern European mongrel American, more German than anything else, but not even mostly German. There's Dutch, Irish, and Scottish that I know of, and I'm sure a lot more than I don't. My kids get to add Norwegian to the list.

I'm glad to have helped a bit with the math. I'll make errors too, and hope to receive correction in the same good and open spirit with which I've offered them and you've received them. I'm not sure what your suspicions were, but I'm no troll, and I don't perceive you as one either.

Stuart, using your novel, but well-thought out "life expectancy" tool to rank social ills, I think you and Robin Kelly would be better served using your progressive energies fighting cigarettes ... or table salt.

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic185351.files/salt_science_submission_3-01.pdf

Juvenal, I actually am involved in the fight against table salt. There's a lot of sodium sensitivity in my family. But there is a distinction here that seems relevant. If you like to salt your salads, the adverse health impact is on you personally. AFAIK, there's minimal risk associated with second-hand salt. Cigarettes, now that they're outlawed in most public places, are likewise a mostly personal risk. The same cannot be said of firearms. Here, the rights insisted on by one faction (the gun owners) impairs the rights (to life) of another.

Juvenal, BTW, I can't claim credit for the idea of quantifying the risk of firearms in society by using life expectancy. This is a technique that Michael Roizen has pushed hard using his notion of RealAge, the idea being that various lifestyle choices can be quantified in terms of their impact on life expectancy.

Thanks JJ for your support,

As much as I post, I am not part of the Patch staff.

Arthur, Thanks for giving our side an educated and informed voice!!! Our freedoms and rights are so important and we seem to so quickly and easily give them away. I'm tired of the anti-gun side using murdered children as an emotional tool to attempt to take away our rights. We need voices that will stand up and remind people that once these rights are given up, we won't get them back. The anti-gun forces believe that our nation will be a better place without the right to keep and bear arms. We still have freedom of will and does anyone believe that once the guns are gone, these same people won't then move on to the next right or freedom because we as a free-willed people continue to harm ourselves with our unregulated rights and freedoms?? Doesn't our free speech lead to violence and mayhem much too often?? Shouldn't we be willing to give up our privacy so that we can be watched and monitored to keep us from harming the children? Can you imagine how many children could be saved from harm or injury if we didn't allow groups to freely assemble and discuss the ways in which they could hurt our kids?? ITS OUR CHILDREN!!! WE HAVE TO PROTECT THEM FROM US!!!

Cheryl,

Thank you for your perspective. There is a national mis-understanding of the Constitution, which is truly a pity. Registering a firearms is the first step toward confiscating firearms. Confiscating fire arms is the first step toward oppression and tyranny.

Please read the comments below the article to get an understand of the road to tyranny. It is historical fact from around the world that unarmed people have been subjected to the worst atrocities to man. It is very naive to think that just because we are in America that these cannot happen here.

The NRA is not like other big organization, I do not know any organization that fights FOR the Constitution. They been painted in a false light. Personally I do not think they are either strong or assertive enough. The primary purpose of ownership of firearms is not hunting of self defense but the defense of liberty.

Many have said it is stupid or delusional to think that private citizens can go against our armies... the fact is that yes that would be VERY stupid, That is not the military strategy that would be used by private citizens.

Last, the reason we never attack Russia, and they never attacked us was because both countries were equally armed. The same reasoning exist when it comes to gun ownership.... but please read the last to comments I made to Stuart.

Last three not Cheryl not the last two sorry.

The more I read your post Cheryl the more I see critical mis-conceptions. We did have both law enforcement and a militia.

Right on Arthur... Registration = Confiscation. There is no other reason for it.

I am by no means inclined to minimize the injustices that occurred in the European settlement of the New World, including slavery and the oppression and genocide of various First Nations' peoples. Life isn't a zero sum game—a just society is in everyone's interest.

But there is a huge problem in estimating life expectancies of people in the past. Records weren't reliably kept of people that didn't matter, and that included slaves and Indians, and often even the infant dead of the rich and powerful. E.g., I've found published estimates for the life expectancy of American slaves in 1850 ranging from 21 to 36 years. This compares to estimates for white life expectancies that were in the range from 40 to 45 years. And these paired up in ways that are particularly troubling (e.g., the 36 year slave life expectancy was paired with the 40 year white life expectancy).

I don't question the huge potential effects of oppression, what I question is the linkage between gun-ownership and personal freedom. Again, I think it is our particular form of government, with checks and balances, and accountability to its citizens through the electoral process that is our best defense.

Stuart, What does registering a weapon gain a government? Why would they need to know who has one? For what reason would that database be searched? Is it your opinion that the best scenario would be to have all law abiding citizens give up their guns? Turn them in? Have them all destroyed so that they could not wind up in the hands of criminals? Would the act of having law abiding citizens give up their handguns and rifles and shotguns sufficiently impact the murder-by-gun rate for your satisfaction? Would enough children's lives be saved or would we need to take additional steps?? What is the end-game? Is it realistic to assume no child will ever be killed by a gun again?

Stuart, you wrote, "But I do see registration as an aid to ensuring proper training of gun owners, of limiting the types of weapons owned and the size of personal arsenals and creating accountability for proper storage, of enforcing shadow-buyer laws, and in tracing weapons used in crimes."
If you are interested in ensuring proper training of a gun owner, then you require such training prior to allowing a purchase of a gun. Your suggestions as to the value of registration seem to me to be items that should be dealt with in the background check at time of purchase. What does "tracing weapons used in crimes" gain you? Any gain (maybe you can run the numbers) are statistically insignificant I'd be willing to bet. Registration is a means for govt to know what you have when it comes time to get yours... Well and to be fair, registration will help govt to tax your guns too... To tax you when you buy your gun, to tax you when you register it, to tax you for being allowed to store it in your own home and finally to tax you when you want to sell it to your second cousin jimmy...

NotBuyingIt. There was a day when the NRA stood for firearms training and responsible firearms use. I wish it still did.

Let me suggest that automobiles are a reasonable model of a useful, but potentially dangerous regulated technology. Drivers are licensed, and the regular exams associated with the licensing process are intended to ensure that drivers are properly trained and aware of their responsibilities. Automobiles are registered, which facilitates taxing to be sure, but it also is a mechanism for ensuring that automobiles are regularly inspected, insured, etc. I believe it is reasonable to require that firearms be insured against potential liability, just as cars are. It should cost about as much to ensure a gun for liability as it does to ensure a car for liability, after all, there are about the same number of guns as cars in this country, and about the same number of fatalities are associated with each.

Registration is also a mechanism for ensuring that automobiles are in the possession of a licensed driver who is legally responsibility for that vehicle. Our current system of background checks for firearms purchases is ineffective because of straw purchasers, and the lack of record keeping via registration permits a single straw purchaser to arm many who would be excluded by the check.

Stuart,

Registering cars have not reduce car theft or the possession of stolen cars by thieves.
Understanding that registering cars IS a form of revenue then we should begin to see that registering gun will come literally with a price.

Further more understanding the fundamental need of firearms to the ability to be a free society, we have to understand that ANY infringement to ownership will drive discouragement to ownership.

We cannot ignore that speech more than likely causes more damage to people that anything else.... in such knowledge do we require insurance for speech.

firearm ownership and freedom is so intrinsic while simultaneously holistically misunderstood; the nation will not understand until these rights are infringed upon.

Although this film is biased (produced by the NRA) it remains clear the repurcussion after the fact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I

The chief difference between the U.S. and Britain is one thing.... Britain never saw firearms as a fundamental means to liberty where as since the revolutionary war firearms in the U.S. have been from an academic view THE cause of liberty.

Stuart, You are now seeking to require gun owner to carry liability insurance?? I must admit to having thrown up in my mouth a little bit when I read that. Do you own a dog or a cat? I would like to insist that you carry liability insurance on those animals at about the same rate you pay for your auto insurance. You have kids too?? I must insist that you take out an additional liability policy for each child not to exceed the cost of your automobile liability insurance plus the cost of any pet liability insurance. I believe that you should also carry a supplemental policy on your life-partner if you have one. This can be paid on a month-to-month basis. It's clear that you would love to tax and regulate guns as a means of restricting access to them. What is your end-game Stuart? If you could wave you wand, would all guns be gone?? Please enlighten me.

For those of us that are mentally stable, and not criminally-minded, a gun is a piece of sporting equipment used for target practice (yeah, it IS fun) or for hunting (morally ambiguous activity but widely accepted). You would see us gun owners burdened with additional costs so as to discourage us from pursuing our choice of legal activity. How do you think the rates of murder might change if law abiding citizens faced such added hardships? It's not the people that would pay these taxes and fees and surcharges that are killing people. You are seeking to disenfranchise us of our rights with these additional costs.

Arthur, you say that registering cars doesn't reduce theft. Do you have any evidence? Resale of vehicles requires title, vehicles have VINs that can be traced. This reduces the secondary market, and with it the incentives to steal. Does registration eliminate theft? Clearly not, but why turn your nose up at real incremental progress.

NotBuyinIt: let me suggest that a little gargle would help. In the meantime, yes. I believe that we should have and require liability insurance for gun ownership, just as we do with cars. Let the insurance industry sort out the appropriate rates for different types of weapons and different types of owners, using the profit motives its used all along. Heck, let the NRA carry insurance if it thinks it can manage the firearm liability risk of its many responsible gun owners.

And by the way, I have a dog and (now adult) children. And I've carried appropriate insurance, commensurate with my risks. That is what a responsible person does, they take responsibility for their actions, and consequences that are both foreseen and unforeseen. You're all responsible gun owners, right? If you can afford a gun, you can afford insurance for it.

Stuart, you are suggesting a tax, a fee, a penalty for owning a piece of sporting equipment (gun). I submit that you are attempting to disenfranchise gun owners of their constitutional rights by making it beyond the means of many to own their guns. Again, it it MY opinion that unless you have a separate policy covering liability of your pet you are not sufficiently indemnified. Please state your ultimate goal. Please be honest. Am I correct in assuming you don't want people to own guns?

Stuart you write, "And by the way, I have a dog and (now adult) children. And I've carried appropriate insurance, commensurate with my risks. That is what a responsible person does, they take responsibility for their actions, and consequences that are both foreseen and unforeseen." So you had children and you carried the appropriate insurance commensurate with your risks. Were you required to do so? What about those that don't? What about those folks who have children that kill people? maybe they use guns to kill others. Shouldn't we be required to carry insurance against our children who hurt, harm, kill others?? Because some people have children that harm, kill, hurt others, should we all have to carry liability insurance for them? That's ridiculous, right? But because some folks use a gun to kill others, we all have to pay for it?? Where does it end Stuart.

NotBuyingIt. You ask if I was required to purchase insurance for my dog and kids. The answer is a qualified "yes," as property insurance is generally required as a condition of having a mortgage. But I am required to have liability insurance for my car.

Here's the thing. You gun owners say that guns are safe, and that your guns endanger no one. If that's really so, you should be rated in a category with a premium that reflects that. A typical weapon costs $1000 or more, ammunition is 50 cents a cartridge and up. A weekend hunting is likely to cost at least a few hundred dollars for fuel, necessary licenses, food, and other incidental expenses, and this assumes that you're not paying much for shelter. Liability insurance would probably cost someone with a hunting rifle a couple of hundred dollars a year, which is not negligible, but which does not qualitatively change cost of gun ownership. And it's too heavy a burden? I'm not buying that, not at all.

Stuart, I'm still not buying it. Fortunately, there can be no tax or levy against gun owners as this could be considered disenfranchisement. The government can not levy taxes on our constitutionally given right to keep and bear arms. It may be easy for someone such as yourself to purchase this liability insurance, but not every American is as fortunate as you are and it comes off as quite arrogant to assume everyone with a gun could afford such insurance. Be that as it may, would you be so quick to state that we should all show an ID to vote and that everyone that can vote should be required to pay for an ID so that they may do so?? You never answer my question about your end-game Stuart. In your perfect world, would no one have a gun??

I think it is unlikely that my proposal requiring liability insurance for firearms will become the law anytime soon. I do think it is a sensible suggestion, which would lead in due course to a lower prevalence of dangerous weapons, and the more rapid adoption of technologies that will make for safer weapons (e.g., chipping them so that only the owner can fire them, and possibly even chipping ammo so that it records the time of firing, the shooter, and the weapon).

My perfect world? I'm not one who believes in perfect worlds. I've fired rifles at ranges. I haven't hunted, I have fished, and killed and eaten my catch. I've eaten venison killed by friends. I get the attraction of target shooting and hunting, and within sensible limitations (safety, sustainability) I don't have a problem with either. Nor do I believe that every activity can be made risk free. But neither do I believe that predictable, substantial, avoidable risks should be ignored.

I do not respect the argument that protecting legitimate uses and legitimate users requires the defense of illegitimate uses and illegitimate users. Handguns and urban population densities are a gratuitously dangerous mix. The notion that we have a constitutionally sanctioned right to resist the power of the government we've elected is deeply mistaken, and I'm speaking with intensional charity when I say so. Talking about treason isn't treason, but it's only one step removed from it.

Rudy, Bloomberg favors strong gun control, and he saw a chance to intervene in an election where gun control had become the primary issue. All that talk by the NRA about gaining 1/438th of a vote via Halvorson drew a challenge. It seems to me that if you think it's ok for outside organizations like the NRA to intervene in a local election, as it did, then you've got no case in claiming that Bloomberg's involvement was corruption.

Darlene, your analysis relies heavily on information that wasn't available to voters (and other potential candidates) until far too late. Yes, there were allegations of impropriety around the attempted sale of Barack Obama's Senate seat, yet these seemed unlikely to stick, and remain unestablished to this day. His absence from Congress didn't begin until June, and wasn't publicly remarked on until July, long after the Democratic Primary in March.

By the time the general election rolled around in November the choices were (a) a sick Jackson, who was rumored to be under investigation (although the widely held assumption that the investigation was about the Senate seat proved wrong), (b) Brian Woodworth, a Tea Party supported Republican who's views are deeply incompatible with the political convictions of the great majority of 2nd district voters, and (c) the Quixotic and unproven Marcus Lewis. In as much as a vote for Jesse was effectively a vote for "none of the above," and in as much as the 2nd district now has a viable Democratic candidate whose views are representative of the district, it seems that the 2nd Congressional District voters did a fine job of turning lemons into lemonade. They may not have made the choices you'd have made, but the choices were rational. As for Robin Kelly, I'm expecting a lot from her as Representative. The 2nd District needs it.

Well, SK, you and I have been down this road before. Key data available to D2 voters prior to the election were:

-Non-endorsement of Jackson by the Chicago Tribune
-Medical leave of absence and visits to Mayo
-Major newspapers reporting Jackson was under investigation for misuse of funds
-Jackson FEC spending disclosures including $276,000 of AE unspecified fees

Not too hard to connect the dots here. The Democratic party orchestrated this charade, the D2 Jackson voters bought it, and taxpayers get the bill.

Lemons? More like rotten eggs.

Dinkum, so then, I assume you're voting for Kelly in the general, instead of the ex-felon.

Read my profile. Then you will know how I vote.

And for the record, I didn't vote for the soon-to-be felon Jackson or his felon predecessor, Reynolds.

You're voting for LeAlan Jones?!

Morning Jim,

First, please understand that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The 2nd Amendment has everything to do with protecting your freedom and liberty from a government that has went astray of its duty to you.

If you read the arguments in the comments following the posted blog you will find very explicit reasoning behind the belief of liberty. I can provide academic documentation of that if further evidence is needed.

Second, why would we need a ban on "assault" type weapons? What data is there to support such a need? What information do we have that shows "assault" weapons and high capacity magazines has threaten our society with a large number of deaths?

FBI stats clearly show that "assault" type weapons and ALL other rifles combined account for less than 500 death annually. That stat includes ALL other rifles not just "assault" rifles. Of the more than 9500-plus firearms used in murders far greater than 99% of them were committed by pistols.

The ease and readiness of our population to accept the biased and wrongful reporting of mainstream media has never been more apparent than when we speak of gun control.

JIm,

The reason I put assault in quotes is again it is mainstream media's mislabeling. What is classified as a true assault weapon has not been legally available to the public as a new purchase weapon since 1986. The only entities that can own a new assault weapons are members of the police and United State Armed Forces.

What has commonly and wrongly been labeled as an assault weapon is actually a semi automatic rifle with military type accessories. These firearms fire the exact same way as a SEMI automatic pistol being that they expel ONE bullet with per pull of the trigger. Conversely a real assault weapon expels MULTIPLE rounds per pull of the trigger.

Last, but more importantly, when calling any weapon an "assault" weapon please understand the use of the word "assault" is redundant being that by the mere nature of any firearm being a deadly weapon provides that it is impossible for any firearm to be classified as a non-assault weapon.

The entire issue is pure media sensationalized reporting.

Thank you Madge,

We must continue to talk about this because some people get it and some just do not.

If we ignore the one that do not understand we risk losing American values and the American way.

There are real reasons people flock to our shores in such large numbers.

Americans that visit foreign lands, and spend time dealing with foreign governments understand explicitly the implications of gun control.

Murder is tragic, it will happen regardless of guns, is it likely it will happen less with out guns? Yes I believe so, but can we risk trusting any government to do for us altruistically? The answer is resoundingly NO!

Madge, the second amendment reads, "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." There is nothing here establishing a right to defend yourself against our government. That particular "right" is discussed in Article III, Section 3, wherein you can find the founder's actual opinion on the subject.

No, the second amendment right to bear arms is given in the context of "the security of a free state." In this case, one might ask what the perceived threat was. It was not foreign enemies—that's what the Army and Navy were for. No, the purpose of the militia was to suppress internal revolution, whether of slaves or landless whites. And that's the role militia.

In the meantime, my right to discuss the flaws of the second amendment is guaranteed by the first. And I intend to exercise that right as I think best for my country and myself.

Jason,

No offense taken, respectful criticism is always welcomed.

Art