Why are either of these people employed by Fox? Were there no job openings at the Huffington Post?

Yes, it might have. and maybe not.

For every story like this, there are many others that tell a different story. If a person is bent on killing someone, they are going to do it with a gun or not. What about the kid that walked into his dads college class and shot him with a bow. Should bows be outlawed now? And what about all of the people that are murdered by cars? People get run over all the time.

It's really a stupid argument. 99.9% of all guns are never used to kill anyone. Get to the real root of the problem and quit trying to place the blame on the gun.

@North Georgia Weather - I agree if someone is intent to kill he/she is going to do it with a gun or not. I don't blame the gun. But you are naive if you honestly believe that the overwhelming proliferation of guns does not correlate to more killings. And I believe your 99.9% is a made up statistic.

I don't advocate outlawing guns and I don't object to you owning them for protection and sporting purposes so long as you pass a background check. And there should not be loopholes in the process background check process.

The NRA is a responsible advocacy group in many ways. At the same time the NRA is irresponsible when it does not support issues that are contrary to a responsible, law-abiding membership. For example the NRA fought a ban on cop-killer bullets. They fought an effort to micro-stamp bullets.

There should be a public debate. Deaths resulting from guns is a problem. The guns aren't the only problem that is for sure but it is naive to think they are no part of the problem.

There are no 'cop-killer' bullets. Somebody passed along the idea that Black Talon bullets were able to pierce body armor. They can't. But Winchester pulled them off the market anyway, making the whole point moot.

Micro stamping bullets is nothing more than a way to control guns by making ammunition prohibitively expensive. No benefits here, but lots of extra costs. This was the right decision they made here, as well.

My level of respect for you just grew significantly.

Why are you anti-NRA? They are the foremost source of firearms safety training in the US. They are the oldest civil rights organization in the US. You probably never considered this topic from that perspective, but having the practical means (a firearm) to protect yourself is your civil right. Whether you choose to exercise that right is your perogative, but why would any citizen give up their right to make that choice? Circumstances change, you may not want to exercise your right now, but you may in the future. And since you are black, if you research gun control laws (Google) you will find that many of these laws were originally passed to keep minority groups from having access to arms for self-defense. Even more of a reason why it is ridiculous to label the NRA as the new KKK. That is just a stupid comment, and I resent it and will not let it go unchallenged.

Do you know anything about either organization, Amy?

On what grounds? Name one policy they have that actively promotes the killing of blacks. Or any statement they've made that indicates any level of discrimination of racism. The statement was blatantly ignorant. Nothing more than an attempt to inflame.

I still can't see the connection. How can the NRA (which I will grant is a seriously pro-gun at any cost organization) even be remotely referred to as the KKK. I am old enough to remember the klan and the outrageous, illegal, insensitive to say the least things they did. I'm not just talking about marching in protest of integration, burning crosses, etc. but things like tarring and feathering a white man that dated a black woman. Those were insane days. Trying to blame black on black violence on an organization that pushes for LEGAL gun ownership is ridiculous.

It’s curious how some people can be so passionate about the Second Amendment and so utterly opposed to the First.

You like this line. I still don't understand the reference. Please explain what you mean by this...

"I'll pay my way...you pay yours." That sounds like you're for a tax increase on the poor. Watch what you say around here, someone might accuse you of fairness.

Wrong topic Gramps. But if you want to post about taxes, please Research (Google will work) two topics. "Progressive tax rate". That is what we already have in the US Gramps, higher earners pay a higher income tax % than lower earners, and about 47% of US citizens pay zero income tax Gramps. I do not think it is healthy when folks vote but have no "skin in the game". Next Google "Earned Income Tax Credit" to learn how millions of Americans pay zero income taxes but get a tax refund back. I will vote for whichever candidate, regardless of party, will cut this insane level of government spending that will bankrupt our children and grandchildren Gramps.

@Phillip - If you want to post about taxes, please Research (Google will work) capital gains taxes. High earners do not necessarily pay higher income tax % than lower earners. In many cases high earners pay lower income tax % than lower earners because those higher earners are earning their income in the form of capital gains rather than salary.

And the 47% who pay no federal income tax, pay a much higher percentage of their income as taxes than higher earners. It may not be federal income tax, but rather payroll taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, local property taxes, taxes that are hidden as fees for licenses, phones, cable, their childrens' public school extracurricular activities, etc...

Ronald Reagan:“The Earned Income Tax Credit is the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.” The EITC was started under the Nixon admin. and expanded under Reagan. It's purpose was to get people off welfare by taking low-wage jobs without also working for the tax man.
http://cjonline.com/news/2012-01-21/best-anti-poverty-tax-measure-chopping-block: “(The EITC) successfully meets its explicit goal of encouraging low-income parents to go to work by, in effect, lowering their tax rate and providing a financial bonus for that work effort,” the study found. “It has been especially effective in encouraging single parents, particularly women, to obtain employment.”

You might argue that you're swapping welfare payments for reduced taxes, but the working person has more to spend in the economy and a basis to improve their station in life. Isn't that better for all? Not to mention, more children are less hungry because of the EITC.

@Michael K, I know about capital gains taxes, I said income taxes. However, you do make an excellent point about lower earners paying a higher percentage of their income for other taxes such as FICA and HI (what you call payroll taxes), gasoline taxes, taxes labeled fees such as phone regulatory fees, etc. I encourage you to examine the Fair Tax proposal to see if you do not agree that it would be a much fairer tax system for lower earners, as well as having the potential to boosting US competitiveness and the US ecomonmy. To date, (in my opinion) lobbyists have kept the Fair Tax from gaining any traction in Congress. Thank you for your comment and perspective.

economy

Way wrong topic, but at least you have your facts completely wrong...

The rich do pay more. They pay a higher percentage AND a higher $ amount. When Romney pays 15%, that's still more than you or I pay. The GOP just doesn't want that percentage to go up even more. And why should it? To say they don't pay their fair share is disengenuous at best...

I consider the right to self-defense as a civil right (in addition to being a natural right) and the NRA was founded in 1871 so it is an older civil rights organization than the NAACP. I am just pointing out another perspective, but to call the NRA the new KKK is ignorant. I am an NRA member. Do we have black members? Yes, however, I don't know the number or percentage but I believe it is small. Should we have more? Yes, and I invite anyone (regardless of race) interested in preserving their civil rights to join and get involved. That is hardly an invitation that a member of the KKK would extend.

The Southern Democratic Party before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is now the Southern Republican Party.

"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 don't believe Jefferson was talking about human arms, so it does mention guns.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia.

Canada has fewer people too. Did you take that into account?

BStein,

I can't believe that you claim the second amendment was created to protect us from foreign invasion! Where did you study history? The MILITARY is in place to defend us from foreign invasion. The second amendment was included in the constitution to insure that the citizens were able to defend themselves against a TYRANNICAL government....namely our own, in the event that should happen...and guess what.....it has!

I think guns are covered in the language of the Second Amendment under the word "arms". And the British were not "invaders", at the time of the Revolution (War for Independence) they were our own government.