This week, 12 kids were shot, and children as young as 7 years old took guns to school.


gun boy child smaller

My old pal @KagroX (David Waldman) wrote up a stomach-turning post at Daily Kos. Here's an excerpt:

Twelve [kids] were accidentally shot this week, including four three-year-olds, three five-year-olds, and kids aged eight, 10, 11, 14 and 16. In addition, one college student was accidentally shot by another (who was, of course, just trying to make his gun "safe" at the time), and another found herself the uninjured victim of a home invasion shooting (of which there were a total of six). Ten guns were found in schools this week as well, in Kansas City, MO; Clarksburg, WV; Shreveport, LA; Chattanooga, TN; Knoxville, TN; Mobile, AL; Nashville, NC; Paramus, NJ; Providence, RI, and; Hawthorne, FL. That's a rough week.

Read that again: At elementary, middle and high schools, ten guns were found. This was during the same week, by the way, that yet another gun massacre took place at the Washington D.C. Navy yard. And let's not forget this WTF Moment: Republican staffer reportedly left loaded gun in Missouri state Capitol public restroom. Welcome to GunFAIL XXXVI.

You may recall that the brilliant KagroX has also been documenting shooting after shooting and was the one who brought us the following Twitter hashtags:








  • Rdzkz

    And you did not bag anything during bow season! Actually the sequence of hunting seasons reveres the most efficient weapon is the gun/rifle.

  • Rdzkz

    Guns are a tool of death. When you want to kill efficiently, effortlessly, you get a gun.

  • Rdzkz

    What militia are you a member of?

  • Rdzkz

    Good points. Probably because the gun threat is immediate. And it was intended for a 'well regulated militia' not helter-skelter.

  • Rdzkz

    These kids are just doing what their parents do, obsessing about guns that will make them important and/or safe. They did not get these from non-owning gun households. Sen Cruz may not like the AFFORDABLE Care Act but he needs to at least accept that these kids can get care.

  • Hmm.

    Condescend much, ddearborn? Enjoy baiting and spreading misinformation? Like dropping into liberal blogs to do your best tea bagger routine?

    And yes, there is a limitation on the type of weapons allowed. Via

    "There are federal laws making it illegal to make or possess a destructive device. This covers practically everything from the pipe bombs you hear about frequently to "molotov cocktails" - bottles filled with gas or other fluid that are thrown after lighting a rag wick. Many states have similar laws making it illegal to make or possess bombs."

    And this:

    "Federal Appeals Court Holds Second Amendment Does Not Allow People To Own Machine Guns"

    I could go on, but you're not worth the time or effort. Unlike you, I have constructive work to do here.

    Now let's get into the guidelines for this site. You failed to read or adhere to them. You're ignorance is only surpassed by your inability to spew anything but right wing talking points, despite your unjustified sense of self-importance and entertaining air of authority.

    So, because you broke a rule or two, you have been banned.

    Nice try.

  • ddearborn


    Suffice to say you have your information and opinions and I have mine. Just to be clear mine do not include Fox News. Funny thing though, despite your claims about all the wailing and hand holding on the left, it has not manifested itself in any meaningful way in Congress on these issues IMHO. Regardless I won't bother debating you point by point. However I will debunk one specific assertion you made regarding the 2nd amendment. Your laughable suggestion that the phrase "a well regulated militia" when take completely out of context of the amendment is somehow a definitive limitation on owning guns is patently dishonest. Your quote is a subordinate clause referring to the militia NOT the people. That is not just my opinion it is the opinion of the Supreme Court and the founding fathers that wrote it. There are NOT ANY LIMITATIONS regarding the number or type of weapons allowed by citizens in the 2nd amendment Gottalaff. And that includes the unconstitutional laws prohibiting felons, and now practically everybody else for things as trivial as some moving violations. Obama is attempting to seize guns from people taking various prescription drugs as well. None of these are Constitutional. I am not arguing whether they should or should not be allowed. I am merely stating the FACT that the 2nd amendment specifically states the following: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" Just what part of that confuses you? I know that Congress is not confused in the least. They are in fact choosing to ignore the 2nd amendment in the hope that the citizens will be bamboozled and/or bullied into accepting this crap from people like you.

    SO I will once again provide the entire amendment:

    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.

  • Hmmm, apparently you're not getting the emails and petitions I've been getting regarding drone use. There have been thousands, probably millions of voices screaming to ban drones, many of them from the left. Do some reading, you may discover that for yourself.

    Same with drugs. A huge anti-Big Pharma uproar from the left.

    Cars are not intended to be used as weapons with which to kill people. Guns are designed to do just that. Apples, oranges, old tired argument that I've debunked in past posts. And cars require registration and are well regulated. Again, you need to do more reading.

    Nobody is trying to infringe on anybody's constitutional rights. The Second Amendment also includes the words "well regulated." So, you can legally own weapons, but not EVERY kind of weapon. Again, try reading more.

    Also, I'd check some stats if I were you:

    Maybe Fox shouldn't be your only source of (mis)information. And if you're not a Fox watcher, then perhaps you should expand your choice of sources to include some that are factual, because so far, it's been way too easy to challenge the accuracy of the ones you apparently depend on.

  • southtpa

    they do work pretty well if you want to eat venison, pork or duck.

  • ddearborn


    How many innocent women and children has Obama killed with drones in the last 2 years. And yet I hear no cries to ban drones. Hundreds of thousands are killed by cigarettes and alcohol every year. And yet, I hear no cries for banning either. Prescription drugs kill 10's of thousands every year. And yet, I hear no cry to ban them. Car accidents kill many times more people than guns. And yet I hear no cry to ban them. None of these are protected by the Constitution.

    Nearly half of the deaths each year by guns are committed by our law enforcement agencies. More people are saved from bodily harm through the use of fire arms than are injured by them. (check out the gun study ordered by Obama which he refused to publicize) The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. People if you don't like it, I suggest you change the Constitution. In the mean time it might behoove you stop attempting to violate the Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens. That is a crime in this country. And if you really do care about the loss of life than focus your attention and efforts on the big killers. Gun related deaths are way down on the list.

  • paullwolborsky

    Guns are not a tool. You can't hammer a nail with it, or dig a hole, or paint a wall, or slice a melon, clean the carpet, walk the dog & pick up his poop, bake a cake, find planets around a distant sun, or take an image of the Higgs Boson. Or write a computer program. I know, I tried it, it didn't work. ;D