Gun Control and the 2nd Amendment

Updated on January 23, 2019
Source

After the Constitution was ratified, there was a group of Anti-federalist that were concerned that the federal government would have too much power over the states and individuals. They were instrumental in framing the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the constitution. The second amendment was drafted because people were still concerned about the following:

  • Deterring a tyrannical government.
  • Repelling invasion.
  • Suppressing insurrection.
  • Facilitating a natural right of self-defense.
  • Participating in law enforcement.
  • Enabling the people to organize a militia system.

The Second Amendment

Therefore, the second amendment reads as follows:

"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."

Now let's parse key parts of the sentence.

The dictionary defintion of A Well Regualated Militia

  • A body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
  • A body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
  • All able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
  • A body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

Firing a Flintlock

Firing a Flinlock
Firing a Flinlock | Source

Flintlock Pistol

Source

Keep and Bear Arms

Based on the reasons that I have listed above, you can see why the people of 1791 would want to have the right to keep and bear arms. But here is what the feature of those arms would be.

State of the art guns in 1791:

  • Were made by a gunsmith.
  • Had rudimentary rifling.
  • Were single-shot weapons.
  • Were loaded through the muzzle.
  • Fired by means of a flintlock.

Defintion of a Gun

  • A weapon consisting of a metal tube, with mechanical attachments, from which projectiles are shot by the force of an explosive a piece of ordnance.
  • Any portable firearm, as a rifle, shotgun or revolver.
  • A long-barreled cannon having a relatively flat trajectory.
  • Any device for shooting something under pressure: a paint gun; a staple gun.

What is a Weapon of Mass Destruction?

You notice in the above definition of a gun, the word weapon is used. But what is a weapon of mass destruction? I know just from my own knowledge, it can range anywhere from a nuclear tipped guided missile to a machine gun. I believe that auto fire assult rifles and handguns with high capacity clips are also weapons of mass destruction. I included the video below because the demonstrator seems to be reasonable, but in the wrong hands, this becomes a weapon of mass destruction.

This is a Weapon of Mass Destruction

I don't think this is what the framers of the 2nd amendment had in mind back in 1791. Tell me why any civilian would have a need for this type of armament? I have friends that are members of gun clubs and I understand they see this as a type of sport, but in the wrong hands this can very easily become an extreme weapon of mass destruction. That's why I believe the 2nd amendment needs to be modified and brought up to modern times. i'm not saying that civilians don't have the right to have guns. But there is no need to bear arms with weapons of mass destruction.

If this government wanted to take you out, there would be no way to defend yourself against the military might of this country. Yes, you have the right to protect yourself against the bad guys. (That's gun club talk.). But there is a price that we pay for that, every time innocent people are killed by crazies. We people pay a price so the gun enthusiast can keep and play with their high capacity, assault weapons..

The NRA Influence

I grew up with guns and have a healthy respect for them.. My dad was an avid hunter. I learned how to hunt with shotguns and rifles. I can understand the thrill that can come from firing high powered weapons. I'm sure there is even more of a thrill and satisfaction that comes from firing high-capacity automatic weapons.

But the NRA has one of the most powerful lobbyist groups in Washington D.C. and they will do everything in their power to protect gun rights. Why, because it's big business and they have bought congress. Just read this article as to why congress and politicians have been told to hush about the Massacre in Aurora Colorado. (After linking to this article, don't forget to come back here to finish reading this hub.)

In 1994 there was a ban placed on assault weapons, but because of "sunset laws", it expired in 2004, it was never renewed. Question: If something was ruled as being bad in 1994, why isn't it bad today. Why would they allow a law to expire?

Conclusion

After doing research on this article. I've come to the conclusion the 2nd amendment needs to be changed. Here it is again for reference:

"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."

I'm no lawyer or supreme court justice, but just plain common sense tells me, we don't need a well regulated militia and we don't need to keep and bear arms that are high-powered, automatic, high-capacity assult weapons.

I know there will be gun advocates out there that will take offense to this article, but I'm just calling it as I see it after doing the research.

After reading this hub, do you feel the 2nd amendment is appropriate for modern times?

See results

Should the law banning assault weapons for civillians be reinstated?

See results

Epilogue

I published this article in July of 2012, but since then there have been many more mass killings including the unthinkable tragedy in Newtown Connecticut. This made me think that our country is divided into two mentalities of trust.

There are those that feel they cannot trust law enforcement and the military to protect them. And if the probability of some invasion of their well being is to take place they will protect themselves, even if it against our own government. Then there are those that trust the establishment to protect them.

The price we pay for having these guns available to the public is that some unstable people also have that same access. If that access is removed, it will lessen the probability of those that are unstable to getting that access.

We are currently in a vicious cycle. When there is a a mass killing, more people buy these weapons which also makes them available to the unstable people. The gun enthusiast like to use the slippery slope argument. If you ban these weapons, then you have to ban knives,forks cars, trains planes and anything else that can be used as a weapon, but that is a very weak argument. It is part of the "what if game" that takes the control out of the person playing the game. The way they get control back is by having these weapons. The whole idea about protecting ourselves from tyranny is a "what if game" on a slippery slope. It is completely based on fear. Another argument is that there are already so many guns owned by the public, it's too late to do anything about it. That also is a weak argument propagated by the NRA. It's never too late to do something that will curtail the use of these weapons.

Questions & Answers

    Comments

      0 of 8192 characters used
      Post Comment
      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        2 months ago from Placentia California

        What is the name of the article and who wrote it?

      • lovemychris profile image

        Leslie McCowen 

        2 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

        Yes, i know Brad.

        Im just saying i dont think there is any such rule, given an article was just written to spark a discussion, and shes on it!

        I wish people here didnt spend so much time trying to shut others up, thats all.

        The irony just struck me.

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        2 months ago from Placentia California

        HI Leslie: I appreciate your concern, but she was defending me against someone who who writes super long comments and asks questions that are very difficult to answer without tons of research. His comments are better served on forums, but he refuses to participate on forums. I never checked the TOS to see if that is really covered.

      • lovemychris profile image

        Leslie McCowen 

        2 months ago from Cape Cod, USA

        Just to let u know, the person on here who told you discussions in comments sections are against the TOS, is in a discussion on a hub that was written specifically as a means to spark discussion with hubbers!!

        I would say it is your hub. If you want discussions obviously its perfectly fine. No matter who likes it or not.

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        Will: Thank you for your opinion and your Ben Franklin quote.

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        Ken: Thank you for your opinion.

      • WillStarr profile image

        WillStarr 

        3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        Sadly, Ken Burgess is quite correct. Just a few decades ago, virtually no one one in America was talking 'gun control' and almost every American household had at least one firearm.

        But a few decades later and after lots of baseless anti-gun propaganda based on false narratives, many brainwashed Americans are ready to surrender their arms, their rights, and their means of defense in exchange for a sense of security.

        "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

        -Ben Franklin

      • Ken Burgess profile image

        Ken Burgess 

        3 months ago from Florida

        Mike,

        I want to thank you for writing this article in the balanced way that you did.

        Prior to reading this, I would have been one that supported the banning of 'Assault' weapons. But this article convinced me that indeed the ability to own 'Assault' weapons needs to be preserved.

        You state: "I don't think this is what the framers of the 2nd amendment had in mind back in 1791. "

        But I think you make a great argument that it is exactly what they had in mind. Yes they only had 'one shot' rifles and pistols back then.

        And today any tyrannical governing body or oppressive force (foreign or domestic) will have a great deal more than soldiers with 'one shot' weapons at their disposal.

        Truth is, having an automatic pistol, or even an automatic rifle is nothing compared to the drones, explosives, and overall firepower that the government can bring to bear against its citizens today.

        Complete Tyranny, and complete authoritarian rule, will never take hold in America the way it has taken hold in places like Saudi Arabia so long as the populace of America is as well armed and capable as it is now.

        I wouldn't be surprised if in a generation or two, the American populace has been brainwashed to believe as you do, and are willing to give up their rights to own weapons, fortunately I am not going to see that in my lifetime... the number of Americans they would have to kill to enforce such bans and anti-gun laws today would be staggering. A great many Americans today would not turn their weapons in, they would have to be taken by force... and once the government began confiscating in earnest, their would be a growing resistance to it.

        But that is today... give it twenty years, future generations of Americans will not be willing to fight, most won't even know how to use a weapon unless they have held government jobs requiring them to do so.

      • fpherj48 profile image

        Paula 

        3 months ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

        B....I did NOT enter this thread to leave a "comment" with regard to the topic. I have stated my opinion on all of this at various times, under similar articles. I rarely repeat myself on one specific topic.

        I came on here, specifically to inform Mr. Russo that he does not have to subject himself to your continual barrage of demands, long-winded drivel, accusations and brow-beating. Many of us have watched your behavior, treatment of others (Mike in particular) and your incessant need to prove yourself correct and the "other guy," wrong! Once again, Brad.... the comment section is not meant to be a FORUM environment.

        More importantly your bizarre format in submitting your responses , has absolutely no place in this section. Numerous times, Mike R. has told you he hasn't time, interest nor desire to do battle with you, read your lengthy spiels and surely he prefers not to be ORDERED by you TO READ AND COMMENT ON LINKS YOU SEND HIM, Adolf!

        However, you continue & repeatedly harass and badger the man.

        I saw enough of it. I am not one to sit idly by while someone is being continually harassed. Mike has consistently remained a gentle man, trying to make you understand he does not appreciate your behavior. YOU, don';t give a damn. YOU are going to beat the man down until you make your point because that's so all-important. This describes BULLY behavior.

        My discussion with Mike was not at all instigating. My comments are to step in at a time when you feel the right to INSTIGATE whomever you choose for your own ego-stroking.

        This is not a matter of whether I "like you or not."This has everything to do with what I have witnessed first hand, do NOT believe is acceptable nor appropriate behavior toward our fellow-writers and absolutely to lend Mike a helping hand in his attempt to get you off his back! You do not frighten nor intimidate me, that's for damned sure! When it comes to what's right and fair vs. wrong and unfair, I will confront anyone, any time and anywhere.

        Apparently you have difficulty understanding this sort of common decency. You must be the kind of man (?) who would walk in the opposite direction while some douche bag is beating on a woman in public.......not quite the hero-type? Well, That's not who I am.

        My discussion with Mike also had nothing to do with whether I agree with you or Mike or Scott or Will or anyone here, on this particular topic. You may not accuse me of speaking out because I "don't agree with you." You have not a single F-king CLUE whether I do or I don't!. Stop assuming. It gets you in trouble every time.

        You'll get NOWHERE with me trying to state your flimsy case. Save yourself, young one. Learn to choose your battles much more wisely. You have yourself a nice night. I certainly will. I always do.

      • fpherj48 profile image

        Paula 

        3 months ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

        Brad... Do not tell me what I do or don't do . YOU are not the judge around here. I write when I damned well want to, just like most of us. Although retired for several years, I am still actively involved with work at 2 clinics in my area. I still teach workshops and am very active in 4 different charities. ( You should probably be much more concerned with what I intend to do.)

        FYI...even though much of what you demand to know is NONE of your business---HP is merely ONE of my many hobbies. I write when I damned-well please. The money is a "bonus" and for me personally, not necessary at all. I've been extremely successful in my life.

        You've proven numerous times, you have no idea about how HP is run, the basic rules and you surely ignore all TOS. Once and for ALL, get it through your head that NUMBER of articles is not the goal. What is vital is the strength, value and activity of our articles. You can have 100 articles that are all GARBAGE...and you have nothing! Yet some superb writers with only a few articles can make beyond pay-out each month. That's the fact, Brad. One you simply Fail to realize. You are totally laughable when you talk about when any of us have written articles. You blatantly prove you have no idea how this site works. LOL!! " 72 old hubs".....how ignorant can you be? Those OLD hubs of mine you point out, get thousands of hits a week! It's the same for the writers here who make hundreds of $$$ a month. It's their OLD hubs that bring them in the money. Damn, you have major issues, Brad, you poor, pathetic, nuisance!

        YOU? You have the nerve to mention "grade school" when you haven't made it out of Day Care yet! Gotta hand it to you. You ARE funny, in a sad sort of way.

        Go ahead Brad, direct ONE MORE WORD TO ME AFTER i HAVE REPEATEDLY TOLD YOU NOT TO ADDRESS ME. I DARE YOU. To quote Clint, "Make my day."

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        B: People can read but the forums and this article is proof that they can't follow a thread. The reason that I copy a person's comments is to make sure that I haven't missed something, or stated something that was not mentioned. What most people do is just ignore the comment, and cherry pick what they want to say, instead of actually discussing the content. This shouldn't be a threat to anyone that wants to support their views on the content. I take the time to make a detailed comment supporting my views, and don't think that it is a bad habit to expect the same courtesy from others. If an author only wants accolades for their hub, then I suggest they don't include a comment box, and just replace it with a poll, on how great was their article.

        M: Brad, your one reply is not one detailed comment, but an avalanche of comments in one reply that, includes questions that are time consuming to answer. They have already supported their views by writing the article. Whether you realize it or not your one “detailed comment” overwhelms most respondents. When you are writing, you have to be able to put yourself in the place of the reader and feel what they are feeling. It’s not about you; it’s about them. Your questions give a sense of cross-examinations in front of a judge and jury. And when people do answer, more than likely you discredit their answer. It is never good enough for you.

        B: The three of you act like you are back in grade school and you want to make fun of everyone else.

        M: We are not making fun of you. Your constant badgering is annoying. This article has been available for 6 years. What has your constant badgering accomplished? People have the same views now that they had 6 years ago. I am just voicing my opinion in my articles. You constant questioning is an indication that you can’t accept people’s opinions of which they are entitled to have.

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        Brad: I hate to burst your bubble, but this article is 6 years old. Will's first reply was 23 months ago. Yours was 1 year ago. You only saw the last 100 of 1,075 comments to date. You have to scroll to the bottom of the comments section and click on: "See 100 of 985 remaining comments." And you have to keep doing that for each 100 comments to be displayed. You and Will's comments have earned me pennies.

        Since we are having an opening Kimono session here. Your copying of the comments bothers me, but not as much as your constant questions that require research and complex answers, like what is the root cause of gun violence? There is no simple answer. It is a multi-faceted issue with many forces at work. I came as close as I could with my stake holder analysis article.

        With hub pages, it is not a matter of continuously writing articles, it is writing articles that are evergreen and have staying power and are worthy of being selected for niche website, like SoapBoxie.

        I would have written more articles, but your questions require so much time to answer, I don't have time left to write articles . So therefore, people ignore your questions. But for some reason you can't accept that. In my 80 years, I have learned when things are not going my way, maybe it is because of me. I learned how to do introspection...I'm just saying.

      • profile image

        brad 

        3 months ago

        Paula

        All you have done here is to add to the personal attacks, you have brought nothing to add to discussing the content of the article.

        "This is not the place to reform someone's long-held political views. "He" admits he doesn't do Forums.....of course he doesn't because the individuals in the forums wouldn't tolerate him for one second. They'd eat him alive and he knows it!

        B: Once again, I don't do forums because they don't do anything about discussing an issue, it starts out on topic and then goes off the road, and that is a provable fact for the political category. As for eating me alive, that is just another personal attack and insult, and exactly why I don't do forums. I want to discuss the topic issue.

        "The persistent bad habit of retyping a person's comments in order to respond if positive insanity! People can read and follow a thread!!!"

        "

        B: People can read but the forums and this article is proof that they can't follow a thread. The reason that I copy a person's comments is to make sure that I haven't missed something, or stated something that was not mentioned. What most people do is just ignore the comment, and cherry pick what they want to say, instead of actually discussing the content. This shouldn't be a threat to anyone that wants to support their views on the content. I take the time to make a detailed comment supporting my views, and don't think that it is a bad habit to expect the same courtesy from others. If an author only wants accolades for their hub, then I suggest they don't include a comment box, and just replace it with a poll, on how great was their article.

        The three of you act like you are back in grade school and you want to make fun of everyone else.

        Mike can do whatever he wants with his article, but you are just instigating more of what you are complaining about. For some reason, you just don't like me, and I have never done anything to you.

      • profile image

        brad 

        3 months ago

        Paula

        You have not written a single hub in 8 weeks, and after 7 years you only have 72 old hubs. And you are going to lecture someone. And Mike hasn't written any new hubs either, and you both are going to lecture about hubs? But Mike gets a 94 hubber score, and you get a 76? Forums are bad, there are no authors, just someone that writes a sentence of paragraph to voice their opinion, and then the rest of the people go off on tangent after tangent making all sorts of Scott comments, and never really discuss the topic once they get of the road.

        Scott

        You don't take any responsibility for your part? With your snide remarks, personal insults, conspiring with Mike to do what you did to another hubber that annoyed you. Your name calling, and belittling people that you don't like. I have for the most part stuck to commenting about the contents of the article but the comment history proves that you don't care about the content, you want to push down anyone that doesn't agree with you. The fact is that neither you nor the author responded to the content of the article, you focused on how you could belittle anyone that didn't agree with you.

        Mike

        It is a fact that only Will and I gave this article and comments on the content, even when it started 11 months, and 145,000 words ago. That is a fact.

        If the terms of service prevent the discussion back and forth of the contents of an article especially one in the political category, then I see little value in having a political category, or even hubs. Especially, when so many people are not writing them anymore. This could be why Maven stock declined from over $2 to 50 cents.

        del if u wish.

      • My Esoteric profile image

        Scott Belford 

        3 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

        Hell, seen it, I have been a part of it :-) Nevertheless, you have a great point.

      • fpherj48 profile image

        Paula 

        3 months ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

        Scott....Pls understand. I don't intend to upset the system here. A disagreement or opposition is certainly acceptable within our comments. We all have opinions and rights and exchange is a good thing.

        If you have followed the back and forth badgering I'm actually referring to, which is the habit of the person I commented to Mike about.....you are aware of the long, drawn out rebuffs, sending links, repeated demands.....I'm sure you've seen it. Not Mike nor any of us need be grilled and harassed and this shouldn't be happening! That's all.

        This is not the place to reform someone's long-held political views. "He" admits he doesn't do Forums.....of course he doesn't because the individuals in the forums wouldn't tolerate him for one second. They'd eat him alive and he knows it!

        The persistent bad habit of retyping a person's comments in order to respond if positive insanity! People can read and follow a thread!!!

      • My Esoteric profile image

        Scott Belford 

        3 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

        Paula - even though this is Mike's Hub, I want to thank you again for giving me the proper perspective on the Comment section of these hubs.

        In the past I have engaged with commenters trying to explain my views.when they take issue with it. As you say, that is not the point. So I will follow your suggestion and just thank the commenter for their view and answer any legitimate question they have have for clarification but not counter their point of view.

        I'll leave what happened on Mike's hub, as well as mine, to forums.

      • fpherj48 profile image

        Paula 

        3 months ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

        brad,,,,,,,I've told you before and I'll tell you just once more....(for YOUR sake young man, TAKE HEED) I did not address you. Do not address me!

        Your insane habit of simply copying another person's comments, is at best, ludicrous and at worst, proves you have serious issues. When people speak to you in person....do you echo their comments back to them? If you do, I expect by this time, you wear dentures.

        "High road??" I didn't mention a high road once. You must, however, recognize a high road when you see one. It's unfortunate you can never find your way to using a high road. Quite clearly, you're accustomed to merely taking to a twisted road WHILE HIGH. Careful boy, the Po-PO will get you one day!

        I believe you when you claim you are neither a Dem/liberal nor Repub/Conser........and thank heaven for small favors! You would give either/or, a very bad name....or worse name than they have! What you quite clearly ARE, is a loose cannon, in need of a hobby or job, or productive outlet of some source besides trolling around our writer's website looking for fights, people to prove WRONG and people you believe you can harass and intimidate into proving themselves right OR wrong! Get a grip, kid! Don't you have a friggan day job?? All you seem to do all day and night is play on a keyboard. Your fingertips must be worn down to your first knuckle!

        Come to think of it, I guess I do travel the high road...because although I am a Conservative,and appreciate some of the good work DJT has accomplished for our country, I've been very vocal regarding my lack of fondness for the man, which I had long before he became POTUS. As an individual, I disliked him years ago and I've not grown to like him. I've spent my adult life being thoroughly disgusted by guys like him. Do you know who Anna Novaro is? Well, like you tell Mike....LOOK IT UP!!

        Mike is a liberal and he has the right to be. He also has a right to his political opinions and beliefs. I don't know for sure, but I'd strongly suspect he's quite a bit your elder. Have some RESPECT, piss pot! You're like a damned spoiled toddler, stomping your feet and having a hissy fit until someone DOES WHAT YOU WANT!

        Leave Mr. Russo alone, ya punk!!

        You are looney enough to ask Mike if read your reply to me??! Really?? All it was was a COPY OF MY COMMENT..and he'd already read my comment. OK, Nigh Night Braddie...take your pills, say your prayer and go to bed......you need some sleep. Sleep tight & hug your Teddy Bear......

      • WillStarr profile image

        WillStarr 

        3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        Scott said:

        The topic he was addressing was banning assault rifles in 1995 when they did for all too short a period. Totally different context.

        ...

        But Biden said it in 1993:

        “Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.” – Associated Press, 11 November, 1993

        BTW, the so-called 'assault weapon' ban was not renewed because after ten years, it failed to reduce gun deaths in any measurable way, just as predicted.

        As the FBI tables tell us, we are three times as likely to be murdered with bare hands and feet than we are from rifles of all kinds, of which the much-demonized AR-15 is a small percentage.

        Remember when Steve Scalise was shot by a left-wing kook? That was also considered a 'mass shooting', but for some reason it did not outrage the ant-gun left.

        What does that tell us?

      • profile image

        brad 

        3 months ago

        Mike

        You are continuing to violate Toss

      • My Esoteric profile image

        Scott Belford 

        3 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

        Just as I thought Mike. I checked a few of Will's quotes and as expected, they are either out of context, incomplete, or deceptive. For example, Joe Biden's quote about banning guns. The topic he was addressing was banning assault rifles in 1995 when they did for all too short a period. Totally different context.

        Totally Trumpian misdirection at its best.

      • profile image

        Bradmasteroc 

        3 months ago

        Mike

        If it is a violation of the terms of service for Hp, then you as the moderator and author must be the one the violated the terms.

      • profile image

        bradmaster 

        3 months ago

        Mike

        I don't do forums, and did you read my reply to P?

        I write articles, what do you do?

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        Brad:

        Did you read Paula's reply? You are using articles' comment section as a forum and that is in violation of HP's Terms of Service. All of this back and forth arguing is better served in forums, not in articles' comment sections.

      • profile image

        bradmasteroccal 

        3 months ago

        Paula

        And you think this is the high road?

        "Paula

        3 hours ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

        Gentlemen: I better never hear any negative comments from any of you about women being nit-picking, cat-fighting trouble-makers!

        Take a good look at this stream of your comments.

        Such continual back & forth nonsense is at an unbearable level!

        First, for the record, due to lax moderators, Brad has not been banned! https://hubpages.com/@bradmasteroccal......He is alive and still hanging in here with a whopping score of 30.

        Mike, dear man...it's hard to have any sympathy for you when you continue to engage someone who does what you clearly feel he does to you repeatedly......over & over..again & again. Are you serious? It is a very simple matter to correct this. You know this as well as I & any other writer does. Need you be reminded this is YOUR article? You're in control. When you feel as you do (justifiably) that someone is to the point of harassing you, demanding particular responses of you, asking unacceptable questions & is a literal "exercise in futility"......use your power of control. You needn't allow a single respondent you choose not to on your own thread. Nothing more needs to be said about this.

        Should Brad ever in fact be banned, it will be because he misuses the comment thread to articles as though it is the Forums...which we all know, IT IS NOT. Back and forth discussions/debates/arguments are appropriate in the Forums ONLY. A simple review of the TOS and other basic rules will confirm this. So, Mike, by biting and arguing back ad infinitum, you're guilty of this misuse as well.

        You have said this yourself. You write excellent articles, using the information you have researched. Under no circumstances must you EXPLAIN, further support, PROVE, apologize nor defend a damned thing. Readers may agree, disagree, comment or not.....and that's the end of it.

        Just like I have no reason to apologize for this comment because I'M ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!! I don't care if you ARE a liberal. What's right is right and what's fair is fair. My belief...always has been, always will be. Hang in there mike and keep your head high."

      • profile image

        bradmasteroccal 

        3 months ago

        Mike

        B: Would you like to try and support your article or would you just like to make it the source for personal attacks, insults and avoiding the top completely?

        M: I don’t have to support my opinion to you. You are the one using my article for personal attacks and insults. You just do it using legal terminology. But your intention is the same. You are not doing it to help me. You are doing it to insult my intelligence. You attack my articles every chance you get and your comments will bear that out. Your constant questioning and comments is a form of harassment.

        B1: Your threats, personal insults, and character assassination is what you do, and comment history will show proof.

        I guess you chose the "or", "or would you just like to make it the source for personal attacks, insults and avoiding the top completely?"

        -------------------------------------------------

        Scott Belford

        15 minutes ago from Keystone Heights, FL

        Mike, methinks Brad has been banned from Hubpages again. That is why he isn't answering you and is a guest user.

        B: Scott once again, you don't provide any comments on the article, about the article. And you continue to make slurs, and personal attacks, and personal insults. And Mike thinks that Hp is sophisticated. As with Mike the comment history will verify what I just said about your comments.

        ---------------------------------------

        Mike Russo

        7 hours ago from Placentia California

        Will: I have seen many people at events carrying their guns out in the open with their AR15's slung over their shoulders. When they are questioned by the press, they say I don't want to lose my 2nd Amendment rights so I'm exercising them.

        The dumb sh*ts don't realize they don't lose their rights by not exercising them... get my point? The Bill of Right is there whether you use it or not.

        B: "Dumb sh ts" personal attacks. You don't have a point, we have already lost the right of privacy, and freedom of speech by not exercising them.

        M: Prove to me that we have lost our right to privacy and freedom of speech by not exercising them. The Bill of Rights is still intact. That is the point I am making. What your are talking about is the violation of those rights, but they are still intact.

        B: "Dumb Sh ts" is the problem.

        ---------------------------------------------

        Mike Russo

        8 hours ago from Placentia California

        M:Brad: It's a rope a dope on your part,not mine. Your comments are the only ones that put me on trial. Nobody else has comments like yours. You act as if my articles are going to be read in congress and will affect some legislative outcome causing the confiscation of everybody's guns.

        B: You are not on trial, all I am doing is trying to get you to support the contents of your articles with a meaning argument, but instead you respond as you just did with an emotional irrelevant personal attack. You don't think that your personal attacks, and insults, your diversions, distractions, Your getting of the topic of your own article, and comments like this one is not a rope a dope. While I have been dealing on the content of your article and comments. The history of your comments tells the truth, and it isn't on your side.

        M: It is not on your side either. I haven’t been banned from Hub Pages as you have.

        B1: When was I banned, and you think that making such remarks is OK? Why would think that, especially when you threaten to get me banned, as you and Scott mentioned about another hubber. Why would you say that hp is not on my side either? "While I have been dealing on the content of your article and comments."

        ----------------------------------------------

        M: Hub Pages is a sophisticated blog site, nothing more. My articles are blogs, they have no political weight. You can't hold me to any legal status, even though you state I'm a burden on 99,9% of the people.

        B: Hubpages is as biased as you about president Trump, and as far as sophisticated, people are even writing hubs anymore. Look how old your hub is here. How many times have you written a hub. Hubpages is going to be out of business as they don't have the people writing the hubs. Maven's acquisition of Hp has in the last year taken its stock price from over $2 a share to under 50 cents a share.

        M: It is still more sophisticated than most blog sites. There are many hubbers who have successfully published articles supporting Trump. You are the only one I know having problems with HP.

        B1: There are also hubbers like you that don't publish anymore and still have a 94 hubber score. Why can you get that high score without writing a hub. So, my am I the only one that is having a problem. You didn't comment when I told you the difference between my and Wilderness. Name some others and I will show you the difference.

        ------------------------------------------------------------

        B: I am not holding you to a legal status, I am holding you to making an argument in the legal sense rather than the hostile meaning of argument. You don't seem to understand that distinction. Yes, you are a burden. Your articles, what articles, you don't write articles any more.

        M: You don’t have to hold me to anything. I don’t write articles anymore because I’m too busy trying to answer your constant questioning of the articles I have already written from many years ago. What is the difference in legal status and legal sense?

        B1: No one is forcing you to answer my questions, and for all I care you could delete them. The fact that you don't delete them is a point in your favor. However, with the type responses that you give, it couldn't take you long to write them. Because you wrote hubs a long time ago, Hp gives you a free ride and a 94 hubber score. Take the site for example, why is it called HUBpages, and why are the writers called Hubbers and how does Hp get revenue when you don't write hubs?

        --------------------------------------

        M: You never answered my questions about did you pass the bar and why you are a guest user? You have ignored me several times, and yet, you badger me for answers.

        B: I don't do Soapboxie, and this is another of your diversions. I have asked you some many questions that you ignore.

        M: That is an evasive answer and does not answer the question of why you are a guest user and if you passed the bar.

        B1: You make and assumption that I have been banned, and they you asked if I had passed the bar. What makes you think that I even took the bar. And these are more of your personal attacks. You insult me for my very low hubber score, you insult me on why I am a guest on Soapboxie? You insulted me because you think Hp banned me, and what are you going to do with the bar question. Congratulate me?

        -------------------------------------------

        B: "How would you handle a home invasion?"

        M: I don’t know until it actually happened. How would you handle it?

        B1: I have a whole security system, and a plan.

        --------------------------------------------

        B: And my questions are relevant to you article, while yours a just another form of personal attack.

        M: So you think that criticizing my answers is not a personal attack on my logic and common sense. Oh that’s right, it’s all from a legal sense.

        B1: Give me an example? I don't know what you are talking about using "legal sense".

        -----------------------------------------------

        B: I did ask you one personal question, because Will and I have been the only ones lately to comment on your article. If you take out our comments, your article would be dead. So how much did we make you?

        M: That’s funny, So, you think no one else comments on my articles except you two. Isn’t that an insult to me and my articles? As far as my earnings go, it is no of your business and I find that very rude and insulting to even be asking. I sense you get some perverse enjoyment out of all of this or you wouldn’t continue to do it. Why do you constantly want to attack my articles?

        B: I asked you about this particular article, and I know Will and I are the major contributors. And that is a fact. I offered my 175 articles all of them or any of them for you to comment, but you chose to not comment. I mentioned already that your articles are still on hubpages,

      • My Esoteric profile image

        Scott Belford 

        3 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

        LOL, Paula, so true.

      • fpherj48 profile image

        Paula 

        3 months ago from Beautiful Upstate New York

        Gentlemen: I better never hear any negative comments from any of you about women being nit-picking, cat-fighting trouble-makers!

        Take a good look at this stream of your comments.

        Such continual back & forth nonsense is at an unbearable level!

        First, for the record, due to lax moderators, Brad has not been banned! https://hubpages.com/@bradmasteroccal......He is alive and still hanging in here with a whopping score of 30.

        Mike, dear man...it's hard to have any sympathy for you when you continue to engage someone who does what you clearly feel he does to you repeatedly......over & over..again & again. Are you serious? It is a very simple matter to correct this. You know this as well as I & any other writer does. Need you be reminded this is YOUR article? You're in control. When you feel as you do (justifiably) that someone is to the point of harassing you, demanding particular responses of you, asking unacceptable questions & is a literal "exercise in futility"......use your power of control. You needn't allow a single respondent you choose not to on your own thread. Nothing more needs to be said about this.

        Should Brad ever in fact be banned, it will be because he misuses the comment thread to articles as though it is the Forums...which we all know, IT IS NOT. Back and forth discussions/debates/arguments are appropriate in the Forums ONLY. A simple review of the TOS and other basic rules will confirm this. So, Mike, by biting and arguing back ad infinitum, you're guilty of this misuse as well.

        You have said this yourself. You write excellent articles, using the information you have researched. Under no circumstances must you EXPLAIN, further support, PROVE, apologize nor defend a damned thing. Readers may agree, disagree, comment or not.....and that's the end of it.

        Just like I have no reason to apologize for this comment because I'M ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!! I don't care if you ARE a liberal. What's right is right and what's fair is fair. My belief...always has been, always will be. Hang in there mike and keep your head high.

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        M: I'm almost at that point where I'm going to report him for harassment, if he continues to put us on trial.

        He is like a troll that goes back through my old articles and repeatedly questions everything In my articles. And then he has the gall to ask how much money I'm earning by "ropa doping" my comments to him."

        B: I am sure that Hp is fine when you call people Trolls. And I found the old articles because they are just laying there, complain to Hp about leaving them around.

        M: What do you call it when you look for my old articles and attack the content repeatedly? My old articles that are just laying around have 3,393 comments and 92,480 views in seven years. I wouldn’t call that just laying around…go ahead and complain to HP.

        B: I did ask you about how much money we are making you? That is not OK but saying I have been banned is OK, and calling me a Troll that is OK.

        M: Have you not been banned? Do you not troll my articles?

        B: You continue not to answer the questions about your article.

        M: What questions? I’m tired of answer any more of your questions. It is an exercise in futility.

        And Will is correct, before president Obama both the constitution and the protection of our country was held by both parties and all the presidents. In 2008, the left existed the democratic party, and now are the democrat socialist party.

        B: They are still officially the democratic party. That’s like me calling the republican party, the regressive conservative capitalistic party. They are still officially the republican party.

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        Brad:

        We don't harass other writers, you do.

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        Will:

        Australia doesn't have a 2nd amendment, we do and it is still intact, regardless of Hillary. We realize the 2nd amendment protects your rights to bear arms. That's why we want to improve existing gun laws without messing with the 2nd amendment.

        How many lives we it save? We won't know until it is actually implemented. Like I said before, Trump is not going to allow any type of new gun control laws...so it is really a moot point, until the next mass shootings occur and then the gun control people will get on their bandwagon and the administration will say, "Out thoughts and prayers are with you." And you will again worry about them coming for your guns.

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        Will: In view of the entire link, did it change the 2nd amendment? If you look at the dates on the those statements, they go clear back to 1975 and the 2nd amendment is still here without any changes.

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        1) None of the first Ten Amendments 'gives' anyone any rights. All of those rights are assumed to be natural rights and/or endowed by our creator.

        I hate to tell you this, but they were created by the framers of the Constitution. They also believed in a separation of church and state.

        2) What you and your ilk want to do is infringe on those rights with all your onerous and useless new laws and regulations, which is a direct violation of what the Second Amendment says!

        What new laws have violated the 2nd Amendment?

        3) Since you're the only one harping about 'not exercising' our rights, what's your point?

        I already told you in and even gave you examples.

        4) Once we commit a crime or become insane, we forfeit quite a few of our rights. That's a dumb statement on your part.

        But those rights are still intact for everyone else.

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        Mike

        B: Would you like to try and support your article or would you just like to make it the source for personal attacks, insults and avoiding the top completely?

        M: I don’t have to support my opinion to you. You are the one using my article for personal attacks and insults. You just do it using legal terminology. But your intention is the same. You are not doing it to help me. You are doing it to insult my intelligence. You attack my articles every chance you get and your comments will bear that out. Your constant questioning and comments is a form of harassment.

        Scott Belford

        15 minutes ago from Keystone Heights, FL

        Mike, methinks Brad has been banned from Hubpages again. That is why he isn't answering you and is a guest user.

        B: Scott once again, you don't provide any comments on the article, about the article. And you continue to make slurs, and personal attacks, and personal insults. And Mike thinks that Hp is sophisticated. As with Mike the comment history will verify what I just said about your comments.

        ---------------------------------------

        Mike Russo

        7 hours ago from Placentia California

        Will: I have seen many people at events carrying their guns out in the open with their AR15's slung over their shoulders. When they are questioned by the press, they say I don't want to lose my 2nd Amendment rights so I'm exercising them.

        The dumb sh*ts don't realize they don't lose their rights by not exercising them... get my point? The Bill of Right is there whether you use it or not.

        B: "Dumb sh ts" personal attacks. You don't have a point, we have already lost the right of privacy, and freedom of speech by not exercising them.

        M: Prove to me that we have lost our right to privacy and freedom of speech by not exercising them. The Bill of Rights is still intact. That is the point I am making. What your are talking about is the violation of those rights, but they are still intact.

        ---------------------------------------------

        Mike Russo

        8 hours ago from Placentia California

        M:Brad: It's a rope a dope on your part,not mine. Your comments are the only ones that put me on trial. Nobody else has comments like yours. You act as if my articles are going to be read in congress and will affect some legislative outcome causing the confiscation of everybody's guns.

        B: You are not on trial, all I am doing is trying to get you to support the contents of your articles with a meaning argument, but instead you respond as you just did with an emotional irrelevant personal attack. You don't think that your personal attacks, and insults, your diversions, distractions, Your getting of the topic of your own article, and comments like this one is not a rope a dope. While I have been dealing on the content of your article and comments. The history of your comments tells the truth, and it isn't on your side.

        M: It is not on your side either. I haven’t been banned from Hub Pages as you have.

        ----------------------------------------------

        M: Hub Pages is a sophisticated blog site, nothing more. My articles are blogs, they have no political weight. You can't hold me to any legal status, even though you state I'm a burden on 99,9% of the people.

        B: Hubpages is as biased as you about president Trump, and as far as sophisticated, people are even writing hubs anymore. Look how old your hub is here. How many times have you written a hub. Hubpages is going to be out of business as they don't have the people writing the hubs. Maven's acquisition of Hp has in the last year taken its stock price from over $2 a share to under 50 cents a share.

        M: It is still more sophisticated than most blog sites. There are many hubbers who have successfully published articles supporting Trump. You are the only one I know having problems with HP.

        I am not holding you to a legal status, I am holding you to making an argument in the legal sense rather than the hostile meaning of argument. You don't seem to understand that distinction. Yes, you are a burden. Your articles, what articles, you don't write articles any more.

        M: You don’t have to hold me to anything. I don’t write articles anymore because I’m too busy trying to answer your constant questioning of the articles I have already written from many years ago. What is the difference in legal status and legal sense?

        --------------------------------------

        M: You never answered my questions about did you pass the bar and why you are a guest user? You have ignored me several times, and yet, you badger me for answers.

        B: I don't do Soapboxie, and this is another of your diversions. I have asked you some many questions that you ignore.

        M: That is an evasive answer and does not answer the question of why you are a guest user and if you passed the bar.

        B: "How would you handle a home invasion?"

        M: I don’t know until it actually happened. How would you handle it?

        B: And my questions are relevant to you article, while yours a just another form of personal attack.

        M: So you think that criticizing my answers is not a personal attack on my logic and common sense. Oh that’s right, it’s all from a legal sense.

        B: I did ask you one personal question, because Will and I have been the only ones lately to comment on your article. If you take out our comments, your article would be dead. So how much did we make you?

        M: That’s funny, So, you think no one else comments on my articles except you two. Isn’t that an insult to me and my articles? As far as my earnings go, it is no of your business and I find that very rude and insulting to even be asking. I sense you get some perverse enjoyment out of all of this or you wouldn’t continue to do it. Why do you constantly want to attack my articles?

      • WillStarr profile image

        WillStarr 

        3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        Hillary Clinton wanted to bring Australian gun laws (total confiscation!) to America. She was almost elected president:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkncBHJdzxQ

      • profile image

        Bradmasteroccal 

        3 months ago

        Mike

        "Scott:

        I'm almost at that point where I'm going to report him for harassment, if he continues to put us on trial.

        He is like a troll that goes back through my old articles and repeatedly questions everything In my articles. And then he has the gall to ask how much money I'm earning by "ropa doping" my comments to him."

        B: I am sure that Hp is fine when you call people Trolls. And I found the old articles because they are just laying there, complain to Hp about leaving them around.

        I did ask you about how much money we are making you? That is not OK but saying I have been banned is OK, and calling me a Troll that is OK.

        You continue not to answer the questions about your article.

        And Will is correct, before president Obama both the constitution and the protection of our country was held by both parties and all the presidents. In 2008, the left existed the democratic party, and now are the democrat socialist party.

      • profile image

        Bradmasteroccal 

        3 months ago

        Mike

        Haven't you and Scott been hitting that report button hard already. My hubber score is way down. What you just wrote is a threat, and it isn't a comment about the article. You and Scott should be the ones reported.

      • WillStarr profile image

        WillStarr 

        3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        I think you are sincere, Mike, when you say that there is no effort by political elitists underway to take away our arms, but you are very, very wrong:

        "Why should America adopt a policy of near-zero tolerance for private gun ownership? Because it's the only alternative to the present insanity. Without both strict limits on access to new weapons and aggressive efforts to reduce the supply of existing weapons, no one can be safer. ... [W]ho can still argue compellingly that Americans can be trusted to handle guns safely? We think the time has come for America to tell the truth about guns. They are not for us. We cannot handle them."

        Editorial, Taming The Monster: Get Rid of the Guns, Los Angeles Times

        ...

        The only way to discourage the gun culture is to remove the guns from the hands and shoulders of people who are not in the law enforcement business.

        New York Times

        ...

        We are inclined to think that every firearm in the hands of anyone who is not a law enforcement officer constitutes an incitement to violence. Let's come to our senses before the whole country starts shooting itself up on all its Main Streets in a delirious kind of High Noon.

        Washington Post

        ...

        Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.

        Joseph Biden

        U.S. Senator

        ...

        We must get rid of all the guns.

        Sarah Brady

        ...

        We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that... If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime.

        Mary Ann Carlson

        State Senator (VT)

        ...

        And we should -- then every community in the country could then start doing major weapon sweeps and then destroying the weapons, not selling them.

        Bill Clinton

        ...

        If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.

        Bill Clinton

        ...

        "You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say.

        Bill Clinton

        ...

        The constitution is a radical document. It is the job of government to reign in people's rights.

        Bill Clinton

        ...

        Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe.

        Dianne Feinstein

        ...

        We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We're going to beat guns into submission!

        Charles Schumer

        ...

        Whatever right the Second Amendment protects is not as important as it was 200 years ago ... [The government should] deconstitutionalize the subject by repealing the embarrasing Amendment.

        George Will

        ...

        There are many, many more such quotes from both well-known and not well known, but very powerful people, Mike, so your stated belief that 'no one is after your guns or your rights is obviously untrue.

        I assume that you were simply unaware of the very real effort to disarm America. I don't think you are a liar...just unaware:

        https://thefiringline.com/library/quotes/antifreed...

      • WillStarr profile image

        WillStarr 

        3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        Mike said:

        "...the 2nd amendment gives everyone the right to bear arms, including terrorists, gangs, mentally ill, suicidal people, and all the bad guys whether they exercise that right or not."

        1) None of the first Ten Amendments 'gives' anyone any rights. All of those rights are assumed to be natural rights and/or endowed by our creator.

        2) What you and your ilk want to do is infringe on those rights with all your onerous and useless new laws and regulations, which is a direct violation of what the Second Amendment says!

        3) Since you're the only one harping about 'not exercising' our rights, what's your point?

        4) Once we commit a crime or become insane, we forfeit quite a few of our rights. That's a dumb statement on your part.

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        Scott:

        I'm almost at that point where I'm going to report him for harassment, if he continues to put us on trial.

        He is like a troll that goes back through my old articles and repeatedly questions everything In my articles. And then he has the gall to ask how much money I'm earning by "ropa doping" my comments to him.

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        Will: As you know the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are the Bill of Rights. You and others feel that your rights are being taken away because of gun control advocates.

        My point is the Bill of Rights will remain intact whether your rights are exercised or not. Do you lose your first amendment rights of freedom of speech, it you don't do public speaking? No, they are there whether you use them or not. By the same token, the 2nd amendment gives everyone the right to bear arms, including terrorists, gangs, mentally ill, suicidal people, and all the bad guys whether they exercise that right or not.

        The only way any of those 10 amendments can be removed or changed is by new amendments and that ain't going to happen now are in the future.

        So you can stop; worrying about losing your rights and them confiscating your guns. Who in congress and what president is going to do that? If Trump gets re-elected, you have six more worry free years of nobody coming for your guns. Even if Trump isn't re-elected, nobody is going to mess with the Bill of Rights. There may be violations of it, but those can always be challenged in a court of law.

      • My Esoteric profile image

        Scott Belford 

        3 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

        Mike, methinks Brad has been banned from Hubpages again. That is why he isn't answering you and is a guest user.

      • WillStarr profile image

        WillStarr 

        3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        Again, what are you talking about? Are you actually suggesting we should stop exercising our rights?

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        Will: I have seen many people at events carrying their guns out in the open with their AR15's slung over their shoulders. When they are questioned by the press, they say I don't want to lose my 2nd Amendment rights so I'm exercising them.

        The dumb sh*ts don't realize they don't lose their rights by not exercising them... get my point? The Bill of Right is there whether you use it or not.

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        Brad: It's a rope a dope on your part,not mine. Your comments are the only ones that put me on trial. Nobody else has comments like yours. You act as if my articles are going to be read in congress and will affect some legislative outcome causing the confiscation of everybody's guns.

        Hub Pages is a sophisticated blog site, nothing more. My articles are blogs, they have no political weight. You can't hold me to any legal status, even though you state I'm a burden on 99,9% of the people.

        You never answered my questions about did you pass the bar and why you are a guest user? You have ignored me several times, and yet, you badger me for answers.

      • WillStarr profile image

        WillStarr 

        3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        Mike:

        I am a big fan of Constitutional rights. You do realize if you don't exercise your rights, they are not taken away? You have the right to bear arms, but if you don't they are still there.

        ....

        What in the world are you talking about?

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        Will: I am a big fan of Constitutional rights. You do realize if you don't exercise your rights, they are not taken away? You have the right to bear arms, but if you don't they are still there.

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        Brad: Thanks for making my point. Everybody did nothing.

      • profile image

        bradmasteroccal 

        3 months ago

        Mike

        How much money are you making off of Will and I with this rope dope commentary?

        Just asking!

      • WillStarr profile image

        WillStarr 

        3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        "All you can think about is your rights being taken away."

        Well, that was very important to our Founding Fathers and it's just as important to me.

        Apparently you're not a big fan of Constitutional rights.

      • profile image

        bradmasteroccal 

        3 months ago

        Russo

        You say "Will: In other words you didn't even read it, did you? And of course you are going to say they are skewed. Well your sources can be skewed as well.

        You are right there is no gun crisis. That is your term. But every time there are mass killings by terrorists and the mentally ill, there is a crisis. There is also a crisis with gangs and suicides.

        You are more concerned about them coming for your guns than even trying to think about those crisis from happening again.

        All you can think about is your rights being taken away. You can care less about the tragedies created by mass killings, because your statistics show that more people are killed by hands and feet than by guns.

        I don't have to come up with specific laws and prove that how many people are going to saved by 'my laws", which you do know I don't have.

        However, that does not discredit me from realizing there is something wrong that I care about.

        ----------------------

        B: You didn't answer the question, you just gave a monologue making it personal. You don't understand that as tragic as mass shooting are the other shooting that Will and I are talking about are twenty fold and more than these shootings. And the big difference is we know who is doing the shooting. And the two big culprits are gangs, and drugs, this would account for the 90% of murders, and suicides. These are only activities that could be dealt with on a daily basis across the country. While, your mass shooting are random acts of violence, and these random acts use various weapons not just guns and you don't have them covered with gun laws. The left is using gun control and the 2nd amendment as a political weapon.

        -----------------------

        Your asking about specific laws is just a way to change the narrative because you are afraid they are coming for your guns.

        B: Seriously, change the narrative?

        ---------------------

        By the way that site I listed is former congresswomen Gabby Giffords site and her husbands. Gabby was shot in the face while campaigning for a cause in Arizona. After a long recovery, her speech and sight have been degraded as a result of a 9mm round hitting her in her temple. It is still a crisis for both of them."

        B: What did president Reagan do after he was almost assassinated about gun control? What did the democrats do after the republicans that were playing ball and got shot at do? Nothing?

        -------------------------

      • My Esoteric profile image

        Scott Belford 

        3 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

        Yeah, just like Hitler won WW II.

      • WillStarr profile image

        WillStarr 

        3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        Well there it is...if we dare question them about how all their proposed new laws and regulations will work to stop many of the suicides and gang killings that account for almost 90% of all firearms deaths, we're paranoid and dismissed.

        And of course, only their obviously biased, anti-gun sources are valid, so they ignore the CDC and FBI reports.

        Obviously, we won the debate, Brad.

      • My Esoteric profile image

        Scott Belford 

        3 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

        Mike - you can't argue against a paranoid. Their paranoia makes it impossible for them to interpret the written word correctly or think outside their own paranoia because their only frame of reference is their false beliefs. Sort of like a Jew trying to reason with Hitler about them not being a threat to him.

        Good article, but I am done here.

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        Will: In other words you didn't even read it, did you? And of course you are going to say they are skewed. Well your sources can be skewed as well.

        You are right there is no gun crisis. That is your term. But every time there are mass killings by terrorists and the mentally ill, there is a crisis. There is also a crisis with gangs and suicides.

        You are more concerned about them coming for your guns than even trying to think about those crisis from happening again.

        All you can think about is your rights being taken away. You can care less about the tragedies created by mass killings, because your statistics show that more people are killed by hands and feet than by guns.

        I don't have to come up with specific laws and prove that how many people are going to saved by 'my laws", which you do know I don't have.

        However, that does not discredit me from realizing there is something wrong that I care about.

        Your asking about specific laws is just a way to change the narrative because you are afraid they are coming for your guns.

        By the way that site I listed is former congresswomen Gabby Giffords site and her husbands. Gabby was shot in the face while campaigning for a cause in Arizona. After a long recovery, her speech and sight have been degraded as a result of a 9mm round hitting her in her temple. It is still a crisis for both of them.

      • WillStarr profile image

        WillStarr 

        3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        Mike:

        "Of course not, you are in denial because if you accepted the truth, your agenda would come crashing down like a house of cards."

        What is this 'truth' you speak of, Mike?

        The CDC tells us who is killing whom, and right at 90% of all firearms deaths are suicides or drug gangs killing each other, neither of which has anything to do with me and neither of which would be affected one whit by any of your desired new laws.

        That's why I asked you to tell exactly how your new laws, rules, and regulations would stop people from killing themselves and/or gangs from killing each other. Neither you nor Scott are willing to tell us in detail how they would work, so I reject your claims until you are willing to do so.

      • profile image

        bradmasteroccal 

        3 months ago

        Mike

        "There is no gun crisis, so let's deal with suicide prevention and going after inner-city drug gangs and leave ordinary Americans alone."

        We have given you the real target that criminally use guns and they do not represent the NRA? "Nobody wants your precious guns" is as real as " I am from the government, and I am here to help". You have proven our point, when you can't justify adding more and more gun laws and regulations, but you still want them, Why if not for the goal of taking all the guns. You keep running in circles to avoid answering my detailed questions. You spend more time avoiding them then trying to answer them. We only have to look at the history of this article's comment to prove it.

        Tell me again about this truth you keep talking about here?

      • WillStarr profile image

        WillStarr 

        3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        Mike:

        "Read everything under the Gun Laws tab and the Facts tab."

        .....

        I am well aware how the stats can be skewed to misrepresent the truth, Mike, by one of your anti-Second Amendment sources.

        A far better, and unbiased source is the CD stats:

        https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us...

        Another is the FBI tables. For instance, in FBI weapons table 8, we find that almost three times as many people are murdered by hands and feet as by rifles, of which the much-demonized AR-15 are just a small part. Look it up!

        https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in...

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        Will:

        Of course not, you are in denial because if you accepted the truth, your agenda would come crashing down like a house of cards. Nobody wants your precious guns. But you will not allow yourself to believe that, because you would rather believe the slippery slope syndrome where they start with a simple law and then they come for your guns. No you would rather believe regressive conservatives capitalist than "progressive socialists" I told you that is name calling and I hate it. It is right wing propaganda.

      • WillStarr profile image

        WillStarr 

        3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        About 40,000 people a year die in traffic accidents. Using the progressive-socialist meme that it would be worth it if we could just save some lives, why not lower the speed limit to 5 mph and drive full sized bumper cars? That would obviously save many lives, so why don't we do that? Because in reality, it seems we ARE willing to accept a certain level of risk.

        The risk incurred from the right to keep and bear arms if we are not suicidal or criminals is tiny compared to the risk of driving to 7-11.

        In fact, we are far more likely to die from a simple fall than from being shot.

        There is no gun crisis, so no, I am not willing to allow progressive-socialists to claim there is a crisis so they can infringe on my right to keep and bear arms.

        Period.

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        Will:

        Read everything under the Gun Laws tab and the Facts tab.

        https://lawcenter.giffords.org/facts/statistics/

      • WillStarr profile image

        WillStarr 

        3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        Brad,

        The entire firearm 'crisis' is based on the utterly false notion that we are all in grave danger of being shot to death at any moment. Even if we assume that all gun deaths are ordinary Americans getting shot while minding their own business, 99.991% will NOT be shot and killed this year!

        But in truth, right at 90% of all gun deaths are either suicides or drug gangs killing each other, so if we are not suicidal or gang members, we are 99.9991% safe from being shot and killed!.

        There is no gun crisis, so let's deal with suicide prevention and going after inner-city drug gangs and leave ordinary Americans alone.

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        Brad:

        Why do I have to defend my articles to you? I'm not on trial. Quit trying to play lawyer. Did you even pass the bar? And why are you logged in as a guest user? I have asked you that many times and you never answer me. How are my answers burdening 99.9% of the people?

        Here is everything that you wanted to know about each states gun laws. Now you tell me why the feds shouldn't take over the gun laws and don't say the federal government doesn't do a good job. That is just your biased opinion. How about the FAA, CDC, FDA, to just name a few.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_Unit...

        Here is Giffords Law Center it has 25 years of experience fighting for the laws, policies, and programs proven to save lives from gun violence. I knoiw what you are going to say, you want my personal opinion. Well my articles are my personal opinion, you just won't accept that.

        https://lawcenter.giffords.org/search-gun-law-by-s...

      • profile image

        bradmasteroccal 

        3 months ago

        Will

        "Scott knows that the only way to prevent gun deaths is to confiscate all firearms and that's almost certainly what he wants to do but won't admit it."

        That is exactly what he wants, but the government confiscates all the guns, then only the criminals will have them, and in my opinion, the drug cartel will have another product to walk across the border.

        Ca and NY are not taking guns away from those that have them. And there is no comparison to the crime rates in CA versus NY.

      • WillStarr profile image

        WillStarr 

        3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        Scott's brilliant answer to gun violence:

        "Less guns in the hands of those who shouldn't have them means less people killed. by GUNS"

        But when asked exactly how we would do that, he again dodges by vaguely referring us to California and New York.

        Scott knows that the only way to prevent gun deaths is to confiscate all firearms and that's almost certainly what he wants to do but won't admit it.

      • profile image

        bradmasteroccal 

        3 months ago

        Scott

        You haven't answered the questions asked of you, you just keep giving this same response that is meaningless. And check out from the past comments exactly what is asked of you.

      • My Esoteric profile image

        Scott Belford 

        3 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

        And around and around we go, Will. EXACTLY how many time do I have to repeat myself. Maybe if I yell it, you will get it.

        HAVE ALL STATES FOLLOW THE SAME LAWS AS STATES LIKE CA and NY DO.

        If you ask again you are declaring yourself incompetent to understand English.

      • WillStarr profile image

        WillStarr 

        3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        Will:

        ""I want to know exactly how they would have prevented the deaths of those 'lots of people' he said they would have saved." -

        Scott:

        It is, as I have said many times, an extremely simple answer and let me say it slowly

        - Less guns in the hands of those who shouldn't have them means less people killed. by GUNS -

        Will:

        Well of course, but exactly how do you propose to get the guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them?

        What laws do you propose that would do that?

      • profile image

        bradmasteroccal 

        3 months ago

        Scott

        ""I want to know exactly how they would have prevented the deaths of those 'lots of people' he said they would have saved." - It is, as I have said many times, an extremely simple answer and let me say it slowly

        - Less guns in the hands of those who shouldn't have them means less people killed. by GUNS -

        HOW does that not make sense to you? WHY is that so difficult for you to process? WHY do you not care about saving lives?"

        B: It didn't work for alcohol, it won't work for gun. Simple as that. You are trying to take away guns from people that wouldn't use it criminally, while doing nothing to stop gangs and criminals. Simple as that.

        --------------------------------------

        "Mike - when you and Brad and Will use such absolute terms as "elimination", "all", "stop", etc; those are code words telling me to stop paying attention to you because you are not reasonable.

        When you start using world like "reduce", "some", "slow down", you then your thoughts become worth considering."

        B: Scott you get repeating this mantra, but we have moved on but you are stuck.

        Here is the point, "B1: We go round and round because you keep on saying how much you don’t know, and yet you want those kinds of answers to burden 99.99% of the population that wants to own or owns guns, and uses them lawfully. We already have laws and deterrents when they break the law, but you want to be the thought police. Enforce the gun control laws we already have, and determine how that has caused lives. Then factor in the gang and the criminal element and what is being done to prevent them from getting guns. And, how would handle a home invasion?"

        Until you know the root cause of the problem, you can't even begin to solve it. And until you know how many lives are lost because the current laws are not being enforced you can say the current gun laws are not effective.

        If you try to take away all the guns, the remember what happened to prohibition, and where do you think the people that want and use guns for unlawful acts will bet get them. They will get them from south of the border, and it will be a multi-billion dollar Cartel industry.

        Why do you think that the death penalty is not a deterrent to people killing other people?

        Scott you are not giving answers, you are giving excuses. Just look at the history of your responses in this article alone.

        -------------------------------------

      • Readmikenow profile image

        Readmikenow 

        3 months ago

        "code words telling me to stop paying attention to you because you are not reasonable"

        I agree, not being reasonable is the reason I can't pay attention to you. In your fantasy world it criminals may obey the laws and gun laws would work. Unfortunately, I live in the real world. In this world, our criminals don't pay attention to gun laws or any other laws. They don't pay attention to illegal drug laws. Gun laws only hurt the law-abiding citizen and do nothing to stop the criminals. Just like criminals don't obey the laws about illegal drugs. It is a bit more serious here in the real world than in your fantasy world. Trust me.

      • My Esoteric profile image

        Scott Belford 

        3 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

        Mike - when you and Brad and Will use such absolute terms as "elimination", "all", "stop", etc; those are code words telling me to stop paying attention to you because you are not reasonable.

        When you start using world like "reduce", "some", "slow down", you then your thoughts become worth considering.

      • Readmikenow profile image

        Readmikenow 

        3 months ago

        Scott, you're classic.

        "- Less guns in the hands of those who shouldn't have them means less people killed. by GUNS -

        HOW does that not make sense to you? WHY is that so difficult for you to process? WHY do you not care about saving lives?"

        Yes, and sensible drug control has led to the elimination of illegal drugs...right? In the realm of reality, laws are only obeyed by the law abiding. Those who would use drugs or guns for illegal purposes do not worry about laws. That is reality. So, the only thing your fantasy of sensible gun control does is to punish honest, law-abiding people. So, gun control does not eliminate people from having guns, it takes guns away from law-abiding people and gives an advantage to those who could care less about the laws. It does nothing.

        Just like sensible drug laws have not eliminated the use of illegal drugs in our society. In the realm of reality, there are many people who just plain don't care what laws are in place.

        Why would anyone want to put an honest, law-abiding person at a disadvantage against those who could care less about the law?

        Sorry, but this is reality.

      • My Esoteric profile image

        Scott Belford 

        3 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

        "I want to know exactly how they would have prevented the deaths of those 'lots of people' he said they would have saved." - It is, as I have said many times, an extremely simple answer and let me say it slowly

        - Less guns in the hands of those who shouldn't have them means less people killed. by GUNS -

        HOW does that not make sense to you? WHY is that so difficult for you to process? WHY do you not care about saving lives?

      • profile image

        bradmasteroccal 

        3 months ago

        • Scott Belford 2 minutes ago from Keystone Heights, FL

        See Mike - Will is proving again that he can't read or think.

        • WillStarr 5 minutes ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        This is what Scott said:

        "I DO blame people like him and Brad. If not for their and their ilk's opposition to sensible gun safety laws lots of people would be alive today who aren't."

        ----------

        All I did was ask him to tell us how these "sensible gun safety laws" he said would have saved 'lots of people' would have worked, and he refuses to answer.

        I want to know exactly how they would have prevented the deaths of those 'lots of people' he said they would have saved.

        What's so unreasonable about that? He said they would have saved 'lots of people' and I want to know how.

        He refuses to answer, even though I am using his own words.

        -----------------------------------

        Mike Russo 2 hours ago from Placentia California

        Brad:

        1. Put all gun laws under the federal government to make them consistent across every state. There are currently a mishmash of gun laws from state-to-state that create loop holes for buyers to buy in states with lax gun laws and then bring them back to states with stricter gun laws. Currently when a president signs executive orders to enforce gun laws, it means nothing. Because the states have jurisdiction over those laws.

        B: What specific gun laws are you talking about?

        M: I can’t tell you about specific gun laws. If I could I would be in D.C. trying to pass legislation.

        B1: Then you don’t have a solution, if you can’t say anything but we need more and more gun control.

        -------------------------------

        B: Each gun law should have some results in reducing or stopping deadly uses of guns. Why is an EO to enforce gun laws mean nothing?

        M: Because the republican congress did not want to jeopardize their funding from the NRA and the gun manufacturer lobby groups. And the states have jurisdiction over which gun laws are passed.

        B1: Asked and answered.

        ---------------------------------------

        B: So, you want to reduce the powers of the states, and add them to the powers of the federal government. When these guns cross state lines is when the government gets involved. And how would that gun law loop hold be closed?

        M: Because there are some states that have very lax gun laws. The feds would be consistent across all states and close the loop holes.

        B1: The federal agencies have proven that they are inept at doing their job, and now you want them to have more to do. This is the United States not One State.

        --------------------------------------

        B: When you say enforce gun laws what are they and how many of them already exists.

        M: Why would you expect me to know that?

        B1: Because you are advocating for more and more gun control, and why do you do that when you don’t know what is already the base?

        ----------------------------------------

        B: Also, do you have any numbers on how this loophole has manifested itself across the country.

        M: No.

        B1: Honest answer, but you really should know when you keep talking about these loopholes, and wanting the Federal government to get involved.

        ----------------------------------------

        California already has the toughest gun laws in the country, and how many shootings do we hear about everyday on the local news?

        B: What does your solution have for the gang problem, especially big in California?

        M: It all has to do with improving the effectiveness of gun control on all fronts.

        B1: Then why can’t you articulate the answer to my comments. The gang problem is about criminals and laws and regulations of what they break to be criminals. So you just want to harness the law abiding gun owner, or buyer because you ignore the gangs and the criminals.

        ------------------------------------------

        B: Do you see the difference?

        M: See the difference in what? I’m not an expert in gun control if I was, I would be in Washington D.C. I have some ideas and opinions and done some research. I know where this is going; you are going to say my answers aren’t good enough and we are going to go around and around.

        B1: We go round and round because you keep on saying how much you don’t know, and yet you want those kinds of answers to burden 99.99% of the population that wants to own or owns guns, and uses them lawfully. We already have laws and deterrents when they break the law, but you want to be the thought police. Enforce the gun control laws we already have, and determine how that has caused lives. The factor in the gang and the criminal element and what is being done to prevent them from getting guns. And for the fourth time, how would handle a home invasion?

        -------------------------------------

        Don’t you have anything better to do? You are taking up too much of my time by trying to answer specific questions about things I can’t answer or require too much research. What does all this buy you anyway? You are expecting writers to be an expert on topics and if they are not then you will question them to the point of absurdity…Do you see the difference?

        B1: Seriously Mike, I am expecting articles like yours that keep chipping away at are Bill of Rights to at least defend their article and make some valid points to discuss. Try commenting on any of my 175 articles and see what answers I will give you.

        -------------------------------

        Scott Belford 2 hours ago from Keystone Heights, FL

        -------------------------------

        When the founders were thinking about creating the Constitution, they OFTEN talked about which powers the federal gov't ought to have vs the states. The general consensus was that that the federal gov't should have the powers where the states were found to be "incompetent" (there word, not mine). Through debate and (here is that dirty word for Conservatives) compromise, they ended up with what was signed.

        In fact, during that debate the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, argued strongly and until the end that the federal gov't should have Veto power over ALL state laws. He lost that battle, most at the convention, while in general agreement didn't want to go that far.

        The moral of those examples is that the men who created America had little confidence that the states would do right by their citizens. And for a lot of states, that has come to pass (e.g. those who wouldn't expand Medicaid)

        So, federalizing gun laws makes sense many states want to let people keep dying by having few, ineffective laws on the books. So what is the answer WITHOUT creating a single NEW law? Adopt the best laws from states were rates of death by gun are the lowest and apply it to the nation.

        Bottom line, reasonable people find that very reasonable and uncaring unreasonable people find that idea unreasonable.

        So there you have it – SIMPLE

        B1: Scott, we already have a slew of federal gun laws. Your bottom line makes no sense. The federal government cannot successfully run anything, they even failed running a whore house in Nevada. What is unreasonable for gun control is for it to keep expanding without ensuring that it is being enforced, and if it isn’t being enforced to fix it. That puts the blame on the states and the federal government for failing once again to do their job. We also don’t enforce our existing immigration laws, and why shouldn’t gun control and immigration differ in its enforcement.

        Once again, we know that violent crimes are associated with gangs, and we know that they use guns to kill people while doing their other criminal activities, and until gangs are under control, the government hasn’t been looking in the right place to stop gun deaths and violent crime. The war on drugs is a failure, yet it is part of the criminal activity that causes direct and indirect problems both criminal activity and health issues. But like San Francisco they fight illegal drug use by giving out needles. Needles that are discarded in the street.

        Actually the founders want a small central government, and that government would be the one that interfaced with the rest of the world. They would deal with the conflicts of laws between the states; they had put in the Interstate Commerce Clause to make sure that taxes on products going through states to the final destin

      • WillStarr profile image

        WillStarr 

        3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        As I said, Scott refuses to answer.

      • My Esoteric profile image

        Scott Belford 

        3 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

        See Mike - Will is proving again that he can't read or think.

      • WillStarr profile image

        WillStarr 

        3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        This is what Scott said:

        "I DO blame people like him and Brad. If not for their and their ilk's opposition to sensible gun safety laws lots of people would be alive today who aren't."

        ----------

        All I did was ask him to tell us how these "sensible gun safety laws" he said would have saved 'lots of people' would have worked, and he refuses to answer.

        I want to know exactly how they would have prevented the deaths of those 'lots of people' he said they would have saved.

        What's so unreasonable about that? He said they would have saved 'lots of people' and I want to know how.

        He refuses to answer, even though I am using his own words.

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        Brad:

        1. Put all gun laws under the federal government to make them consistent across every state. There are currently a mishmash of gun laws from state-to-state that create loop holes for buyers to buy in states with lax gun laws and then bring them back to states with stricter gun laws. Currently when a president signs executive orders to enforce gun laws, it means nothing. Because the states have jurisdiction over those laws.

        B: What specific gun laws are you talking about?

        M: I can’t tell you about specific gun laws. If I could I would be in D.C. trying to pass legislation.

        B: Each gun law should have some results in reducing or stopping deadly uses of guns. Why is an EO to enforce gun laws mean nothing?

        M: Because the republican congress did not want to jeopardize their funding from the NRA and the gun manufacturer lobby groups. And the states have jurisdiction over which gun laws are passed.

        B: So, you want to reduce the powers of the states, and add them to the powers of the federal government. When these guns cross state lines is when the government gets involved. And how would that gun law loop hold be closed?

        M: Because there are some states that have very lax gun laws. The feds would be consistent across all states and close the loop holes.

        B: When you say enforce gun laws what are they and how many of them already exists.

        M: Why would you expect me to know that?

        B: Also, do you have any numbers on how this loophole has manifested itself across the country.

        M: No.

        California already has the toughest gun laws in the country, and how many shootings do we hear about everyday on the local news?

        B: What does your solution have for the gang problem, especially big in California?

        M: It all has to do with improving the effectiveness of gun control on all fronts.

        ------------------------------------------

        B: Do you see the difference?

        M: See the difference in what? I’m not an expert in gun control if I was, I would be in Washington D.C. I have some ideas and opinions and done some research. I know where this is going; you are going to say my answers aren’t good enough and we are going to go around and around.

        Don’t you have anything better to do? You are taking up too much of my time by trying to answer specific questions about things I can’t answer or require too much research. What does all this buy you anyway? You are expecting writers to be an expert on topics and if they are not then you will question them to the point of absurdity…Do you see the difference?

      • My Esoteric profile image

        Scott Belford 

        3 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

        When the founders were thinking about creating the Constitution, they OFTEN talked about which powers the federal gov't ought to have vs the states. The general consensus was that that the federal gov't should have the powers where the states were found to be "incompetent" (there word, not mine). Through debate and (here is that dirty word for Conservatives) compromise, they ended up with what was signed.

        In fact, during that debate the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, argued strongly and until the end that the federal gov't should have Veto power over ALL state laws. He lost that battle, most at the convention, while in general agreement didn't want to go that far.

        The moral of those examples is that the men who created America had little confidence that the states would do right by their citizens. And for a lot of states, that has come to pass (e.g. those who wouldn't expand Medicaid)

        So, federalizing gun laws makes sense many states want to let people keep dying by having few, ineffective laws on the books. So what is the answer WITHOUT creating a single NEW law? Adopt the best laws from states were rates of death by gun are the lowest and apply it to the nation.

        Bottom line, reasonable people find that very reasonable and uncaring unreasonable people find that idea unreasonable.

        So there you have it - SIMPLE

      • My Esoteric profile image

        Scott Belford 

        3 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

        OK, I see how this works with your Will. You ask a question - I answer it - You ignore the answer and ask the same question again.

        YOU ASKED (maybe caps will help) - Will:

        Still waiting for that 'simple answer' as to how these magical new laws would stop gun deaths.

        I ANSWER - Will, since you use the word STOP instead of REDUCE, then there is no answer. If you INSIST it MUST be STOP, then you will be responsible for lives being lost - Period.

        IF, on the other hand, you accept REDUCE as a desirable outcome and you work to get bad states like AZ, LA, MS, etc to change their laws and adopt those of CA, NY, CT and other good states, they you will be responsible for helping to saving lives It is that simple.

        YOU IGNORE my answer and ask - Will:

        OK, so tell us how those laws would work.

        (Still no answer...he just dodges the question)

        MIKE - does he do that dance with you as well? ALSO, speaking of "guarantees". I bet Will or Brad can't guarantee he will not take his gun and murder somebody tomorrow.

        WILL - Mike didn't tell you how such common sense measures would help save people's lives because he gave you credit for you having the ability to think things through rather than jerk your knee.

      • profile image

        bradmastereoccal 

        3 months ago

        Mike

        What I have continued to ask you is for a comment that is not just a response, but one the argues your point, as making a final argument in the court. I have also asked for you to discuss as in discussion your article. Your comment about the word "comment" makes my argument about your continued failed to argue your points and discuss my points or those of other people.

        Do you really think that your comments like this one, "Every point you made is based on your opinion, not facts. And every reason for a motive is false and is based on your paranoia about gun control." are arguments much less meaningful to the issue.

        Now compare that to one of my "comments" like this one. "Mike

        1. Put all gun laws under the federal government to make them consistent across every state. There are currently a mishmash of gun laws from state-to-state that create loop holes for buyers to buy in states with lax gun laws and then bring them back to states with stricter gun laws. Currently when a president signs executive orders to enforce gun laws, it means nothing. Because the states have jurisdiction over those laws.

        B: What specific gun laws are you talking about?

        Each gun law should have some results in reducing or stopping deadly uses of guns. Why is an EO to enforce gun laws mean nothing?

        So you want to reduce the powers of the states, and add them to the powers of the federal government. When these guns cross state lines is when the government gets involved. And how would that gun law loop hold be closed? When you say enforce gun laws what are they and how many of them already exists. Also, do you have any numbers on how this loophole has manifested itself across the country. California already has the toughest gun laws in the country, and how many shootings do we hear about everyday on the local news? What does your solution have for the gang problem, especially big in California?

        ------------------------------------------

        Do you see the difference?

      • WillStarr profile image

        WillStarr 

        3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        Scott:

        "I DO blame people like him and Brad. If not for their and their ilk's opposition to sensible gun safety laws lots of people would be alive today who aren't."

        ----------

        Will:

        OK, so tell us how those laws would work.

        (Still no answer...he just dodges the question)

      • profile image

        bradmastereoccal 

        3 months ago

        Mike

        "Will:

        Every point you made is based on your opinion, not facts. And every reason for a motive is false and is based on your paranoia about gun control."

        B: Seriously, you didn't even address the points he made, or that I added, yet you continue to avoid, divert, name call, and make categorical statements that are vague, ambiguous and have no reference. "Every point" is an individual point, you can't arbitrarily concatenate them for your convenience.

        We don't have paranoia about gun control, but you and the left are paranoid about guns, and about guns in the hands of criminals, but law abiding citizens that own guns, or want to own guns for a non criminal use.

        It is like you are vegetarian and instead of just not eating meat yourself, you don't want anyone to eat meat. And once again, how would you handle a home invasion?

        --------------------------

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        Brad:

        Definition of a a comment:

        noun

        1.

        a verbal or written remark expressing an opinion or reaction.

        "you asked for comments on the new proposals"

        synonyms: remark, observation, statement, utterance, pronouncement, judgment, reflection, opinion, view, criticism

        "she was upset by their comments on her appearance"

        verb

        1.

        express (an opinion or reaction).

        "the company would not comment on the venture"

        synonyms: remark on, speak about, talk about, write about, discuss, mention, give a mention to, make mention of, make remarks about, make a comment on, express an opinion on, say something about, touch on, allude to

        "they commented on the quality of the water"

        remark, observe, reflect, say, state, declare, announce, pronounce, assert, interpose, interject;

        come out with;

        rareopine

        "“It will soon be night,” he commented"

      • profile image

        bradmastereoccal 

        3 months ago

        Mike

        you say "We are a country of laws are we not? "

        Then why don't the democrats including you want to enforce the existing and current immigration laws. The left calls illegal aliens, "undocumented", but they are still breaking the law. It is all of the laws, or none of the laws.

        -----------------------------

        Will

        "Brad:

        "If you don't know how to solve the problem, than don't start just making everything illegal or regulated and make the 99.99% of the law abiding gun owner have to pay for what the criminals do."

        Well said and my point exactly:

        B: Thanks, and they don't even acknowledge the point much less try to discuss it..

        -------------------------------------------------

        1) They want to pass a slew of new laws and regulations without having to explain in detail how they would stop gun deaths

        B: Yes, and Mike can understand that since 1972 the democrats at points till now could have made any laws about gun control and immigration because at those points in time they control congress, and even the presidency.

        --------------------------------------------------

        2) They want to nullify and demonize the NRA because it is the powerful voice of millions of law-abiding gun owners.

        B: The NRA is not the drug cartel, they are like any other organization that has members for particular things, like cars racing, AARP, AAA, and others. They are big in gun safety, and they do follow the law, but that doesn't mean that if the law doesn't make sense that they will not try and change it legally.

        ---------------------------------------------------

        3) They want to demonize the most popular rifles with the false label of 'assault weapons' so they can ban them.

        B: It is only an assault, if you use any weapon criminally. And as long as the person is lawful they should be able to own any of these guns. Their analogy is that if you have a car that can do 0 to 60 in under 4 seconds, and have a top speed of 230 mph then you are going to cause an accident at those speeds. But, if the driver does those speeds there are already laws. The left and Mike act like the thought police, they want to convict before anything is done. But when president Trump tried to vet the immigrants coming from the Middle East the left wouldn't hear of it, not even for 90 days. That makes it look like the left is OK with unvetted immigrants, but not OK with US citizens and legal immigrants.

        --------------------------------------------------

        4) They want to federalize all gun laws which requires federalizing a police force to enforce those laws.

        B: The left also wants to get rid of the 10th Amendment and makes states rights, left at the curb:)

        ----------------------------------------------------

        5) They want to increase ATF funding so they can be that new federal police force.

        B: The ATF is focus on money, they want to make sure that the Federal Government gets their taxes on A, T, and F. They should be part of the IRS.

        ----------------------------------------------------

        6) They want universal background checks which requires the universal registration that always results in confiscation.

        B: True, but don't ask their voters to support voter ID so that we can know who votes in our elections, and how many times. That is more of a threat to election influence then Russia.

        ----------------------------------------------------

        7) They want mental health evaluations for anyone who wants to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights (because anyone who wants a firearm must be crazy, right?).

        B: It would be funny, if it wasn't so true.

        ----------------------------------------------------

        Not one of these will affect criminals, drug gangs, or people who want to commit suicide, because criminals and drug gangs don't obey laws anyway, and suicidal people will just find another way.

        B: Yes, but they don't care. And those people account for 20 fold or more deaths than gun control could even hope to stop.

        ----------------------------------------------------

        All of those will obviously work to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights and several other rights Constitutional rights.

        B: They have already chilled the 1st amendment freedom of speech to make it no longer a freedom. And they don't care about the 4th amendment right of privacy, and they don't care or understand the legal wording in the 2nd amendment. Yet they will go to the vague and ambiguous preamble to the constitution and make up their idea that these unmentioned words are rights. And all men were not created equal, and the word men actually is limited to males, as it didn't include women. It didn't include black men as they were only 3/5 of a person. And both black men, and women needed a constitutional amendment to get whole.

        -------------------------------------------------------

        Mike just vaguely claims he explained how all this will stop gun deaths, when he actually has no idea why they would work and has explained nothing. Ask these guys to guarantee their laws will work and they get indignant because they can't guarantee they'll work. The goal is disarming America."

        B: The goal is to disarm America, but I don't know why they believe these ideologies of the left. They are old white males?

        My comments were more for Mike and friends, as you and I are on the same track. They don't even have a train with wheels:)

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        Will:

        Every point you made is based on your opinion, not facts. And every reason for a motive is false and is based on your paranoia about gun control.

        1) They want to pass a slew of new laws and regulations without having to explain in detail how they would stop gun deaths - What new laws and regulations?

        2) They want to nullify and demonize the NRA because it is the powerful voice of millions of law-abiding gun owners. - It is also a driving force in stopping funding for effective gun laws.

        3) They want to demonize the most popular rifles with the false label of 'assault weapons' so they can ban them. - Only the further sale of them.

        4) They want to federalize all gun laws which requires federalizing a police force to enforce those laws. - When you fly in an airplane, your safety is ensured by the FAA. When the plane crashes, it is investigated by the NTSB.

        5) They want to increase ATF funding so they can be that new federal police force. - Nothing could be further from the truth.

        6) They want universal background checks which requires the universal registration that always results in confiscation. - Prove that is what has happened in the U.S.

        7) They want mental health evaluations for anyone who wants to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights (because anyone who wants a firearm must be crazy, right?). - No, but your comment is idiotic.

        Not one of these will affect criminals, drug gangs, or people who want to commit suicide, because criminals and drug gangs don't obey laws anyway, and suicidal people will just find another way. - Sure they will find loop holes in the ineffective laws we now have.

        All of those will obviously work to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights and several other rights Constitutional rights. - How does any of that affect your rights? That is a gross generalization.

        Mike just vaguely claims he explained how all this will stop gun deaths, when he actually has no idea why they would work and has explained nothing. Ask these guys to guarantee their laws will work and they get indignant because they can

      • profile image

        bradmasteroccal 

        3 months ago

        Mike

        Why don't talk about my comment, and try and discuss its points. Once again, you avoid discussion. Your response isn't a comment, it is another distraction, avoidance, red herrings and passing the buck.

        I could easily answer your two questions, but I won't until you answer my six questions. If you want people to answer your demands, then start by answering theirs. I have explained your second question twice, please reread it and see how your response is wrong.

        And my bonus question, "BTW speaking of home invasions, how would you handle that problem?"

        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        "Brad: O.K. Brad your ideas are all wonderful and we should institute them right away. How are you going to do that? Where is the money to fund your ideas or mine? It's all about money isn't it? And who controls the money to fund those ideas? That's what this is really about. And in the mean time innocent people are killed by senseless killings.

        "Please prove to me how the democrats have been in power since 1972 and are controlling funding to improve gun control. What is their incentive for even doing that. I can understand the republicans incentive for doing that because they are being funded by the NRA and gun manufactures."

      • WillStarr profile image

        WillStarr 

        3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        Brad:

        "If you don't know how to solve the problem, than don't start just making everything illegal or regulated and make the 99.99% of the law abiding gun owner have to pay for what the criminals do."

        Well said and my point exactly:

        1) They want to pass a slew of new laws and regulations without having to explain in detail how they would stop gun deaths

        2) They want to nullify and demonize the NRA because it is the powerful voice of millions of law-abiding gun owners.

        3) They want to demonize the most popular rifles with the false label of 'assault weapons' so they can ban them.

        4) They want to federalize all gun laws which requires federalizing a police force to enforce those laws.

        5) They want to increase ATF funding so they can be that new federal police force.

        6) They want universal background checks which requires the universal registration that always results in confiscation.

        7) They want mental health evaluations for anyone who wants to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights (because anyone who wants a firearm must be crazy, right?).

        Not one of these will affect criminals, drug gangs, or people who want to commit suicide, because criminals and drug gangs don't obey laws anyway, and suicidal people will just find another way.

        All of those will obviously work to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights and several other rights Constitutional rights.

        Mike just vaguely claims he explained how all this will stop gun deaths, when he actually has no idea why they would work and has explained nothing. Ask these guys to guarantee their laws will work and they get indignant because they can't guarantee they'll work. The goal is disarming America.

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        Will: Please tell me how what I have listed is in direct violations of your rights under the Bill of Rights.

        You don't think enforcing laws would help prevent gun crimes? We are a country of laws are we not? If you can't see how what I listed would help in reducing gun crimes, then I can't help you.

        Why don't you tell me what you would do if you were given the task, so that it wouldn't violate your rights. Doing nothing doesn't solve anything, but it does allow you to sleep better at night because they haven't come for your guns yet.

        I didn't know I was being graded.

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        Brad: O.K. Brad your ideas are all wonderful and we should institute them right away. How are you going to do that? Where is the money to fund your ideas or mine? It's all about money isn't it? And who controls the money to fund those ideas? That's what this is really about. And in the mean time innocent people are killed by senseless killings.

        Please prove to me how the democrats have been in power since 1972 and are controlling funding to improve gun control. What is their incentive for even doing that. I can understand the republicans incentive for doing that because they are being funded by the NRA and gun manufactures.

      • profile image

        bradmasteroccal 

        3 months ago

        Mike

        1. Put all gun laws under the federal government to make them consistent across every state. There are currently a mishmash of gun laws from state-to-state that create loop holes for buyers to buy in states with lax gun laws and then bring them back to states with stricter gun laws. Currently when a president signs executive orders to enforce gun laws, it means nothing. Because the states have jurisdiction over those laws.

        B: What specific gun laws are you talking about?

        Each gun law should have some results in reducing or stopping deadly uses of guns. Why is an EO to enforce gun laws mean nothing?

        So you want to reduce the powers of the states, and add them to the powers of the federal government. When these guns cross state lines is when the government gets involved. And how would that gun law loop hold be closed? When you say enforce gun laws what are they and how many of them already exists. Also, do you have any numbers on how this loophole has manifested itself across the country. California already has the toughest gun laws in the country, and how many shootings do we hear about everyday on the local news? What does your solution have for the gang problem, especially big in California?

        ------------------------------------------

        2. Remove the NRA and gun manufacturers from PACs and Super PACs. Currently they fund politicians who are beholden to them for re-election campaigns. They have super PACs and lobby groups that operate as 501c3 and can’t be traced. Politicians are even graded by the NRA based on how well they respond to the NRA.

        B: So that only the democrats can use PACs and Super PACS. Why not just eliminate them.

        ----------------------------------------

        3. Increase funding to the ATF. Currently they are underfunded and understaffed because of the NRA lobbying. Therefore, they don’t have effective databases to track illegal sales in a timely manner.

        B: The democrats have since 1972 been in control of the government and they could have increased that funding but they didn't. Don't blame the NRA blame the democrats for not solving the problem when they were in control.

        ----------------------------------------

        4. Enforce the existing gun laws that prevent the parking lot sales of guns at gun shows and restrict the illegal sales of guns via the internet.

        B: What is stopping it?

        ----------------------------------------

        5. Ban any further sale of military style weapons by defining in strict detail those types of weapons that fit that category.

        B: Military Style, why should any weapon not be available to law abiding citizens. If a conservative doesn't want a gun, they just won't buy one. But if the left doesn't want to buy a gun, they don't want anyone to be able to buy a gun.

        ---------------------------------------

        6. Increase funding and awareness of how mental health affects killings of innocent people. Read this:

        https://www.preventioninstitute.org/focus-areas/pr...

        Notice that no place in my list did I say take away Will Starr's guns.

        B: What does it mean to solving the violent use of weapons?

        ----------------------------------------

        I can't guarantee anything, no more than you can guarantee a person is not going to run a red light. Therefore I'm not restricting your rights, but you are using a propaganda technique called false analogy, by saying that I am restricting your rights."

        B: If you don't know how to solve the problem, than don't start just making everything illegal or regulated and make the 99.99% of the law abiding gun owner have to pay for what the criminals do. You don't like profiling Muslims even though the majority of Muslims were terrorists. You prevented the Trump temporary ban on immigrants coming in from 6 war torn Middle Eastern States, you could give 90 days, but you want to profile all gun owners.

        My solution would be to focus on the criminals that already use the weapons on a daily basis. That would be the gangs, the robbers, thieves and those that do home invasion for a start. The next would be the drug dealers who protect their illegal drugs using guns and force, and the drug users that use both across the border illegal drugs, and the home grown domestic drugs. We can start with Hollywood and if we cracked down on enforcing drug user there we wouldn't have many people left to make films or TV shows.

        BTW speaking of home invasions, how would you handle that problem?

      • WillStarr profile image

        WillStarr 

        3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        Mike,

        1) You listed several items that are direct violations of my rights under the Bill of Rights.

        2) You haven't told us how any of that would stop criminals, drug gangs, or suicides.

        You earned an 'F'.

      • peoplepower73 profile imageAUTHOR

        Mike Russo 

        3 months ago from Placentia California

        Will: This is just for openers:

        1. Put all gun laws under the federal government to make them consistent across every state. There are currently a mishmash of gun laws from state-to-state that create loop holes for buyers to buy in states with lax gun laws and then bring them back to states with stricter gun laws. Currently when a president signs executive orders to enforce gun laws, it means nothing. Because the states have jurisdiction over those laws.

        2. Remove the NRA and gun manufacturers from PACs and Super PACs. Currently they fund politicians who are beholden to them for re-election campaigns. They have super PACs and lobby groups that operate as 501c3 and can’t be traced. Politicians are even graded by the NRA based on how well they respond to the NRA.

        3. Increase funding to the ATF. Currently they are underfunded and understaffed because of the NRA lobbying. Therefore, they don’t have effective databases to track illegal sales in a timely manner.

        4. Enforce the existing gun laws that prevent the parking lot sales of guns at gun shows and restrict the illegal sales of guns via the internet.

        5. Ban any further sale of military style weapons by defining in strict detail those types of weapons that fit that category.

        6. Increase funding and awareness of how mental health affects killings of innocent people. Read this:

        https://www.preventioninstitute.org/focus-areas/pr...

        Notice that no place in my list did I say take away Will Starr's guns.

        I can't guarantee anything, no more than you can guarantee a person is not going to run a red light. Therefore I'm not restricting your rights, but you are using a propaganda technique called false analogy, by saying that I am restricting your rights.

      • WillStarr profile image

        WillStarr 

        3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        Scott:

        "I DO blame people like him and Brad. If not for their and their ilk's opposition to sensible gun safety laws lots of people would be alive today who aren't."

        ----------

        Will:

        OK, so tell us how those laws would work.

        (Still no answer...he just dodges the question)

      • My Esoteric profile image

        Scott Belford 

        3 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

        Will, since you use the word STOP instead of REDUCE, then there is no answer. If you INSIST it MUST be STOP, then you will be responsible for lives being lost - Period.

        IF, on the other hand, you accept REDUCE as a desirable outcome and you work to get bad states like AZ, LA, MS, etc to change their laws and adopt those of CA, NY, CT and other good states, they you will be responsible for helping to saving lives It is that simple.

      • profile image

        bradmasteroccal 

        3 months ago

        WillStarr

        I agree, "sensible gun laws", what does that even mean. I agree that criminals are called criminals because they break the law, and even the death penalty doesn't stop and make them think of the consequences.

        We should get serious about enforcing the gun laws we already have, and as you pointed out a while ago, start with the gangs. The people we know that use their guns illegally and regularly. I did a 6 part article on the gangs in America and how sophisticated and organized they are and how they infiltrate police, military and other organizations so they have an early warning system to law enforcement taking them down.

        Will you asked them a very good and simple question. "OK, so tell us how those laws would work." But they don't seem to have an answer, so they attack.

      • WillStarr profile image

        WillStarr 

        3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        Scott:

        "I DO blame people like him and Brad. If not for their and their ilk's opposition to sensible gun safety laws lots of people would be alive today who aren't."

        ----------

        Will:

        OK, so tell us how those laws would work.

        ---------

        Scott:

        "When you ask a "sensible" question such as "So tell us what "sensible gun safety laws" you KNOW will REDUCE gun deaths and how that would work." - then I will answer you with a very simple answer"

        --------

        Will:

        Still waiting for that 'simple answer' as to how these magical new laws would stop gun deaths.

      • WillStarr profile image

        WillStarr 

        3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        Brad,

        When asked how their 'sensible gun safety laws' will actually work to stop gun deaths and if they will guarantee success, they get angry because they have walked into a trap. 'Sensible gun safety laws' will do nothing to stop criminals, drug gangs, or suicides and they know it.

      • WillStarr profile image

        WillStarr 

        3 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

        Will:

        Ignored:

        "And to answer Will's comment. I DO blame people like him and Brad. If not for their and their ilk's opposition to sensible gun safety laws lots of people would be alive today who aren't."

        Fine. So tell us what "sensible gun safety laws" you guarantee will stop gun deaths and how that would work.

        The floor is yours.

        ----------------------

        Scott:

        "When you ask a "sensible" question such as "So tell us what "sensible gun safety laws" you KNOW will REDUCE gun deaths and how that would work." - then I will answer you with a very simple answer Mike and I have given you dozens of times before."

        -----------------------

        Will:

        You're hedging because you know your 'sensible gun safety laws' won't stop criminals at all. Your 'sensible gun safety laws' are aimed at restricting our rights and we all know it.

        So again, tell us what "sensible gun safety laws" you have in mind AND HOW THEY WILL WORK TO REDUCE GUN DEATHS because if you can't guarantee the results you claim, then you are just restricting our rights.

      • My Esoteric profile image

        Scott Belford 

        3 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL

        When you ask a "sensible" question such as "So tell us what "sensible gun safety laws" you KNOW will REDUCE gun deaths and how that would work." - then I will answer you with a very simple answer Mike and I have given you dozens of times before.

      working

      This website uses cookies

      As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, soapboxie.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

      For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://soapboxie.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

      Show Details
      Necessary
      HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
      LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
      Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
      AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
      HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
      HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
      Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
      CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
      Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
      Features
      Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
      Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
      Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
      Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
      Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
      VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
      PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
      Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
      MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
      Marketing
      Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
      Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
      Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
      Statistics
      Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
      ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
      Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
      ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)