Previous Post
Next Post

“Guns aren’t also used for transportation. So do not tell me how cars kill as well. Knives, rope, even baseball bats. All have other primary purposes. Except guns. They have one goal. To kill. Or pretend to kill. And yes, I know many people have guns and they don’t want to kill anyone. They have a gun for sport, or a hobby, or protection. And that is why I say we have to have gun regulation, not to regulate the guns, but to regulate the people who own the guns.” – Lisa Longo, Yes Virginia, Guns Do Kill People [at]

Previous Post
Next Post


      • True; guns in the hands of people do kill people; so is it an epidemic?
        Let us count the ways that people end up dying each year, according the CDC stats for 2010.

        1. Cardiac- 780,213
        2. Cancer- 574,743
        3. Chronic lower respiratory- 138,680
        4.Diabetes- 69,071
        5. Flu and pneumonia- 50,097
        6. Drug induced death- 40,393
        7. Suicide- 38,364
        A- By gun-19,397
        B. 14 Y/O and younger by all means- 274
        a. By gun- 14 Y/O and younger- 81
        8.-MVA’s- 35,332
        9. Falls- 26,009
        10. Alcohol- 25,692
        11. Homicide by all means- 16,259
        A. By gun, all ages- 11,078
        B. 14 Y/O and younger by all means- 857
        b. 14 Y/O and younger By gun- 269
        12. Congenital birth issues or problems during pregnancy- Under 1 year old- 17,115
        13. Accidental deaths by all means and all ages- 120,859
        13a. Accidental death 14 Y/O and younger by all means- 4147
        b. MVA- 1418
        c. Drowning-726
        d. Smoke and fire- 303
        e. poisoning- 94
        f. Accidental death by firearm- 62

        I was surprised at the number of total suicides: I had always heard there being closer to 18,000 suicides a year, not over 38,000. But this the CDC; it supposed to a non-partisan agency.

        So when looking at the many ways listed that people end up dying each year; I wouldn’t say that death by gun is an “epidemic”.

        Death by gun; whether by accident or by intent, is still one of the least likely ways for a person to die in the USA; especially for our children. ( I don’t include suicide by gun in this equation; because those that choose suicide will use other means if a gun is not available; that is shown by scientific study. The same with homicide by gun; most of the murders are committed by criminals that already ignore the law when it comes to possessing a gun; Chicago anyone?)

        • China’s last reported suicide rate was at 300,000/yr…. 300,000 suicides! Let’s look at their lives and the way they view the individual within society and the freedoms and Rights that individual has versus our society. Yeah, we may have a problem, but generally the anti-2a groups only compare our problems with countries the size of Washington State and that are extremely homogeneous. Guns are not the issue, they are simply scapegoated, our society and government ignores the real issues, better to be blind than face them I guess. And if government attempts to address an issue with legislation, it ends up being a cluster#$*@ so it’s probably better they don’t!

          BTW, let’s look at China’s school attacks too. Usually all are committed by disillusioned young men. What do they “lash out” at? They attack the most sacred thing, the most innocent thing in society, children.

        • Very interesting breakdown, Tom, but where is the number for “Medical Misadventure”? That is death by doctor screw-up.

        • Hey CliffH; the CDC web site didn’t have an individual break down of deaths by medical mistakes that I could see; it might have been on a different table or graph I didn’t run across.

        • RobGR – not to mention, these people are still able to carry out attacks in schools in China without firearms. They just use knives instead. I hate to say it, but a 5 year old kid going hand to hand with a 25 year old man swinging a kitchen knife or machete doesn’t stand much of a chance.
          So restricting access to guns won’t stop the attacks.

          I wish to God I knew what would, but I don’t. But it’s a good bet that there are ways we can make schools harder targets or minimize the damage.

        • H.R. – You may well be aware of this, but it stands to be repeated as much as possible, the worst US school attack & massacre occurred in 1927 when a school treasure blew up half a school, the only reason the whole school didn’t blow up was because the second timing device failed. It happened in Bath Township, MI. 44 total deaths, not including the murderer’s suicide… suicide, characteristic of most school attackers. You are indeed correct, “So restricting access to guns won’t stop the attacks.” People are batshit crazy and they will find a way to commit their heinous crimes, the tool is irrelevant. Hell, have we banned pressure cookers or box knives yet? No, why the hell would we…. interesting though, FBI/CIA interacted with several of the 9/11 hijackers as well as those bastard brothers, yet they still accomplished their infamous “missions”……

    • I agree, especially when you consider that upwards of gunshot victims survive the injury (excluding intentionally self-inflicted.) Granted, many of those weren’t trying to kill anyone, many are in inexperienced hands, and many receive prompt medical attention. Still, for so-called killing machines, the overall batting average doesn’t look so great.

      • Sadly the namesake didn’t carry that part thru, least ways not in my area. Used almost exclusively to express disdain for someone’s lack of intellect.

    • “Bugs Bunny fun fact #2:
      “In the cartoons, Bugs Bunny continuously[sic] calls Elmer, ‘Nimrod’.[sic]
      Nimrod is actually a mighty hunter in the Bible. However, no one got this
      joke and the word ‘Nimrod’ was transformed into a synonym for ‘idiot’![sic]” approx. 1:55

      < note > I’ve used ‘sic’ here because they mean ‘continually,’ and by rule punctuation always goes inside the ending quotation mark. < /note >

  1. Is she done talking out her ass? The point is that guns only kill people who don’t need killing when misused. Just like cars only kill people when misused. In fact, the rate of such misuse for cars is several times that for guns. (We have far more guns than cars and only 8,500 or so misuses of them as opposed to tens of thousands for cars.)

    I’m actually rather sick an tired of these shills acting like they have any authority to restrict my rights.

  2. Another person who has never read anything about guns or gun stats other than a casual glance at something from a biased and/or uninformed journalist. Nothing to see here.

    • Judging from the the rest of the article (and a few of her others)
      I think you could have stopped at “never read anything”.

    • There is one paragraph that is absolutely true:

      “Tomorrow morning, I want you to call your member of Congress. And today, I want you to email or fax him or her. And I want you to do that every week. It doesn’t have to be about gun control every time, pick your policy, and let your voice be heard. Because here is one thing I can guarantee, you being silent is part of the problem.”

      I do believe I will take her up on her call to action, it just may not be in the direction she intended….

      • Agreed! After reading the many comments attempting to refute her gobbledygook point by point, I wonder why someone doesn’t simply say to her: I strongly disagree, you are my opponent, and the fight is joined and in progress. No gun owner will ever agree with any of your suggestions, and the only people who will are your fellow travelers, so quit wasting your breath.

        An aside: I would have said the above myself, but apparently you cannot comment on the H.P. without a Facebook account, which I neither have nor want. Does anyone know of a workaround on their exclusionary policy?

        • No workaround except to have some of us with the appropriate accounts to say it on your behalf.

        • I second your appeal for an alternative to Facebook.
          It seems to me there are several instances where a Facebook account is required to post a comment, and I refuse to open a Facebook account.

        • @Chip
          Hmmmm. Would you, or any other TTAG poster, care to re-post comments from here to the Hufflepuff site?
          It might be nice to mention that is a re-post of a TTAG comment.

        • “..@Chip
          Hmmmm. Would you care to re-post comments from here to the Hufflepuff site?”

          I am willing…except I am on their known rabble-rouser list so their system won’t let me do anything other than respond to an existing comment. I can’t ‘start’ new comments into their system.

          So I guess the question still stands….. anybody else willing to cross post comments?

        • HuffPost just changed their commenting policy to require you to use your real name, and also require that you “verify” your account by linking it to a Facebook account that has ALSO been “verified” by giving your phone number to Facebook and entering in a text messaging code from FB.

          In other words, someone at HuffPo probably works at Facebook.

          HuffPost is currently hemorrhaging a ton of users and contributors because of this, which is why they seem to be suddenly posting any crap fluff user-submitted article they can get their hands on.

        • WRT the telephone number –

          The CO number 555 is reserved for the telephone company, so any number containing it will be verified as real. Example: 212-555-1234.

          Have fun kids…

        • Bill, that’s not quite how it works. The phone number verification only works if it’s YOUR number – Facebook either sends you a text message or a robo-voice call after you enter your phone number. You have to enter a unique code contained within that text message to complete the verification process. Needless to say, if it’s not your phone, you won’t have that unique code.

        • There are apps that assign you a real phone number for texting purposes. You don’t even need to enter any information into them either besides an email addy.

      • I don’t think mine do even that much. Every time I go downstairs to check on them, it’s like they haven’t even moved.

        • I know. I’ve told them they need to have goals, they need to go out and do more. that they need to have independent activities and not be so dependent on me. They just sit there and don’t do a damned thing unless I literally drag them out and force them to.

  3. “It is time people for us to insist on OUR rights”

    Why is it always when an anti-constitutionalist insists on protecting their rights, it inherently means violating mine?

    • Two things,

      First, people like her have no idea what a “right” happens to be but simply use the word as a emotionally overloaded sense as a form righteous indignation.

      Second, these people believe they have more rights than everyone else.

      Finally, this is Huffpo piece so she is playing to the crowd.

      • Exactly. What they call a “right” is just something they want. They have a “right” to not wait in line for their latte. They have a “right” to drive their kids to soccer practice without hitting any traffic. They have a “right” to not hear lawnmowers or snowblowers when they sleep in. It has nothing to do with real rights.

        To me this piece looks like another padder piece because the author had to submit something and didn’t have any real material. It’s close on the heels of the last wave of anti-gun activity as well. If this piece was actually planned it means she didn’t finish it on time, but it’s more likely it’s just a fluff piece to appease the editor with something.

        • “They have a “right” to not hear lawnmowers or snowblowers when they sleep in”

          Well, we do kinda have a right to not be disturbed by intrusive noises, that’s why there are some ordinances. These ordinances are not expressly forbidden by the Constitution, but they’re local issues and just like everything else, it’s best to resolve them at the personal level. “Howdy, neighbor. I work nights. Would you mind not mowing your lawn in the middle of my sleepy time? Thanks! :-)”

      • Because if you are a Progressive (ugh), here are the sort of things YOU believe are rights:

        Excerpt from President Roosevelt’s January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union:

        “It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

        This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty. [edit ad – notice he does NOT list the RKBA!]
        As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
        We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
        In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
        Among these are:
        1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
        2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
        3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
        4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
        5. The right of every family to a decent home;
        6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
        7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
        8. The right to a good education.
        All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
        America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.
        For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

        • “The evil that men do lives after them – the good is oft interred with their bones.”
          — Shakespeare, Julius Caesar Act 3, Scene 2, Marc Antony giving Caesar’s eulogy.

        • Funny (or sad, or both) part is with #3, this is the same president who stacked the court, which then ruled against Filburn on his infamous Commerce Clause lawsuit. Freaking statists.

  4. Guns kill people (so says she) so we need to regulate the people?

    The anti’s are stumbling over themselves with greater frequency and fanfare than ever before. Sadly, as much like patients in an asylum as they appear they still have an audience.

    • The problem is they are trying to nail a rain drop to a barn door and while futile they believe if they keep trying they will eventually do so.

    • Well they have perhaps come to the conclusion that it will never be possible to actual enact or enforce “gun control” and are now forced to admit their agenda all along which is to totally ignore or destroy the Bill of Rights and go straight to Statist control of the individual people.

      I cannot see any possible way they could achieve any of the things they want with the Bill of Rights still intact.

  5. Well hell, at least she’s being honest about it. It’s about control, not about guns.

    As for the logic that gets her there… well, there are between 200 and 300 million guns in the US, and about 62 million registered cars, according to the DOT. Cars still cause more deaths. Whether they have another purpose or not, and whether those deaths are accidental or not, two things are clear- cars are several times more dangerous and she’s an idiot political shill.

    • I agree with your first point. She is honest in saying she wants to control people. To your second point, the car argument is not working and never did. Statistically speaking, most of us will die fromm heart disease or cancer. The whole message needs to change to freedom of choice (outside of criminal intent) and repeal of “pre-crime” and victimless crime laws.

      • Pre-crime and victimless crime laws that are unenforceable or are not supported by independent LEOs like Sheriffs. Don’t forget that part. Even if they pass their suite of “common sense” gun laws they are unenforceable. The only way they can be sure is a complete ban and confiscation, that’s their ultimate goal. Everything else is just a stepping stone to enact and say, “look it didn’t help, we need the next step”.

      • @Fred
        You’re absolutely right, and that’s sort of the point I didn’t make very well – they don’t work as the basis for any of the argument because no one thinks cars are dangerous, even if you can make up statistics to show that they are.

        The truth is, we don’t need thin metaphors comparing guns to some other common object to win the argument. It’s a form of rhetorical compromise that says ‘I know you can’t see it my way, so let’s make an analogy that leads me away from my meaning so that you can understand basic concepts of liberty.’
        Simply put, it’s a fight being waged by people with the worst possible intentions, and their drone army, against normal people doing normal things.
        As for the laws that don’t work – our legislators would be a hell of a lot more popular if they spent their time repealing about 90% of our code of federal law.

    • Yeah, with only a few thousand non-suicide homicides committed by guns, it’s clear that the overwhelming majority (99,999/100,000ths or so) of all guns are falling down on the job, and the others only average doing their job once a year. Slackers!

    • We see all these numbers of how many guns are in the country and that it correlates with the number of gun deaths.

      I wish I had the ambition to do it myself, but what I’d like to see is a comparison of gun ownership rates vs how many guns did NOT kill anybody. I’m surmising that the numbers would be enlightening.

      Like, there are 200,000 guns and 8,000 deaths. That means that 192,000 guns did NOT kill anybody!
      Does anybody know if anyone’s ever looked at that, or if somebody with more ambition than I have want to bother to look into it?

  6. Lisa Longo, how does it feel to talk out of both sides of your mouth? Please turn to stone, you bridge troll.

    • So you have killed someone with your gun? Or half of someone? “Twice as many” implies a multiple of something lesser. To get to the larger number, you have to apply the multiple to the smaller number. If you haven’t killed anyone with your gun, then nobody has killed twice as many people with their car because 0 x 2 = 0. It is a nonexistent concept. You can’t have a multiple of zero.

        • Zero is a concept. Just like infinity. Or just like cold, which is just the absence of heat. Zero is the absence of definitization and value. You can’t multiply something by nothing and get something. Also, are you implying that because zero isn’t a number, my math is wrong and the original post above about Ted Kennedy is in fact right?

        • From wikipedia:

          A number is a mathematical object used to count, label, and measure. In mathematics, the definition of number has been extended over the years to include such numbers as 0, negative numbers, rational numbers, irrational numbers, and complex numbers.

        • Of course it’s a number.
          If you have three apples and you give me two, how many apples do you have?
          If you have three apples and you give me all three, then how many apples do you have?

  7. A penis in a vagina is for a primary purpose also so we should have had regulations in place for her parents’ behavior to save us from this douche.

    Conservatives see an activity they don’t like and say “I am not going to do that”. Liberals see something activity they don’t like and say “I don’t like that and you’re not going to that”.

        • Why would they not support the rights of the most venerable Americans including the right to life?

          DNA can put you in jail because everyone has their own unique DNA. People have been put to death or free from imprisonment because their DNA was their’s alone. A child’s DNA is separate from it’s mothers even when they are in the womb.

          If your DNA is a marker showing that you are a specific individual then how can it be legal for another to decide without due process that you should be put to death?

      • Quite so. Just before I was banned on Free Republic (a far right message board), I was attacked for pointing out just that. The posters there kept trying to tell me that it’s only the Left that wants to control people…no one does that on the Right!

        Then they called for a Christian Authoritarian State. As such.

      • I’d be open to debate on civil unions, despite strong personal feelings about that matter.

        However, the issue of abortion seems pretty cut and dry – I thought it was one of the legitimate duties of government to protect its citizenry. I’m continually amazed that that principe isn’t applied to unborn children.

        • While I’m open to restrictions on late-term abortions, I have a hard time defining a 4-week old embryo as a “child”.

        • Sorry, but I probably mis-remember this from my HS gov’t class, but I don’t remember you being a legal US Citizen until the age of majority (18)? Until then you are property of your parents or the state… If you don’t believe this, check out child visitation/support/custody laws.. .possession is indeed 9/10ths of the law there.??

        • Well, it’s good to know that your parents can legally off you at the age of 17 without consequence, then. Sorry, dude, that train of thought doesn’t stay on the tracks.

        • Er….not so much.

          U.S. citizens are:

          • individuals born in the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, or Swain’s Island;

          • foreign-born children, under age 18, residing in the U.S. with their birth or adoptive parents, at least one of whom is a U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization; and

          • individuals granted citizenship status by Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS).

          So no…a 17 year old girl is not the property of her parents!

        • According to Genesis 2:7, “Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”

          Breath of Life => Living Being.

          Or are you saying that God is wrong?

  8. Just shut up bitch. Man these antis are annoying. Sorry about that, woke up this morning with a toothache.

  9. I’ve had it up to here with liberals telling me what people should do. This is as applicable to guns as well as anything else liberals tend to have opinions on. Rather than defaulting to freedom and letting individuals make the choice, they hyperventilate and want to make rules. This is in essence the same type of meddling attitude that lead to the prohibition.

    • “Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”

      —Robert A. Heinlein

        • I recently realized that I wasn’t as familiar with Heinlein’s later works as I was with his juveniles, so I’ve decided to re-read all of it starting with “Stranger in a Strange Land” (1961).

      • I’m awfully young to be a curmudgeon. I don’t know how things were back in the day but I would question the motives of those do-gooders, additionally the “altruism” bit seems to be off the mark if you look at studies of giving of lefties vs. righties. I guess that comes from a world view that paying the government to help people is charity vs actual charities and charitable giving at the individual level. Without fail in any election of D v R where financial statements are disclosed, the D usually gives far less of their income as a percentage than does the R.

  10. Its hard to believe that the Huffington Post thought that this article was good enough to print. Her position was nebulous and unsupported by anything but her own feelings, her writing style was immature and her repetitive abortion rants were a little baffling. It seems to me that maybe one of HuffPo’s editors lost a bar bet or something for this to make it into their paper.

  11. In her article she confuses design with purpose. Guns aren’t designed to kill, they are designed to launch projectiles in an aimed fashion. Purpose depends on the user and may be lawful or not: usually lawful in this country and doesn’t involve killing. Subtle, but important difference as it torpedoes her argument.

    • Not only that, she’s extremely ignorant about the original purpose as well. Early firearms primary purpose was for sporting for royalty. Early firearms were terribly inaccurate, were logistical failures for power movement (powder got damp easy or settled making it useless and was dangerous to transport in any battle meaningful volume), took too long to reload, etc. They were ditched for quite a while. Royalty used them for hunting purposes. When technology started to catch up and commoners could begin to make them or get hold of them, Royalty made them illegal for commoners to use (for a variety of reasons).

      tl;dr; This lady is an idiot that pretends to understand history. The first firearms were so bad they were given up on. She needs to go back and writing about birkenstocks and rating patchouli products.

  12. I rode my AK into work today. I don’t know what she’s talking about. When I got here I tied him to a hitching post and gave him a pile of feed, and I’ll be ready to ride my AK home in a few hours.

      • Being demented seems to be a requirement for HuffPo contributors. Notice that I did not call them writers – there’s a mastery of the craft that comes with that cachet.

  13. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that far more guns are used for target practice than are used in homicides, making target practice the primary use for guns.

    • Every year, several million people go afield with firearms to hunt as well. That could also be argued to be a primary use.

  14. “And that is why I say we have to have gun regulation, not to regulate the guns, but to regulate the people who own the guns.” – Lisa Longo

    Newsflash Lisa: we already regulate people — that is why we have assault, battery, and murder laws. Which implement a violent criminal uses to harm a citizen is irrelevant.

  15. “The point of gun regulation is that it is not about the gun, it is
    about the person with the gun.”

    This was written by Longo responding to a commenter at HuffPo.
    It can’t be made any clearer than this. The icing on the cake is
    that I truly doubt Longo realizes that this statement vindicates
    every single pro-rights group’s view of gun-control. .

    • you assume she has bother to read the opposing view. People like this only have one view, their view and nothing else matters. Hey, at least you are correct. She is making our point for us and we use this against them over and over again.

  16. So much fail in one article. How do these pieces even get published? I guess if this was the writing of a 12 year old it would be considered acceptable, but not for a grown woman. She condradicts her own “logic” so many times it’s laughable. I won’t go line by line, but here are a few with the same theme:

    “…. any gun regulation is infringing. No, it is not. Infringing is infringing. Me putting barriers to ownership is infringing. But let me ask this, how is it not infringing to close health clinics to prevent access to abortion? How is it not infringing to defund health services to deny women access to reproductive health care? You cannot on the one hand insist on inspection of a woman’s vagina via a trans-vaginal probe and counseling for women before an abortion and then tell me that an annual inspection of your weapon and a few questions about your fitness to own a weapon is infringing.”

    So those barriers to entry she said she wasn’t asking for are as follows:

    “Annual fitness training and testing at the gun shop or gun club of your choice
    Annual inspection of all weapons at a gun shop or gun club of your choice
    Proof of ownership of an approved gun safe”

    And she actually thinks that:

    “These three things will change everything. This is not infringing.”

    Both statements are a pipe dream. Then, she doesn’t see that she is essentially calling herself “a loon” here:

    “Here is the thing people, if a few loons on the far right wing can insist it is okay to stick a probe into my body I can damn well insist we inspect their guns.”

    Then, she destroys her own argument on why it is acceptable to infringe on gun rights because reproduction rights are infringed here:

    “So let’s dispel this myth that guns don’t kill people. Yes, they do. They absolutely do. And you know what is really infringing, insisting you can stick a probe inside me because your religion disagrees with my rights. Now that is infringing, and we really have to deal with that too. It really is time to insist legislators stop using our bodies to pander to their base. We have sat back and allowed the extremists to take over.”

    I guess I would expect nothing less from the HuffPo and it’s “enlightened readership”.

      • If that’s the case, she must have paid a small fortune to get this illogical emo puff piece published.

    • Just as a matter of logic this is…not good. It’s all over the place! Is she irritated with being argued with about guns? Trying to make a case that the courts are wrong about the 2nd ammendment? Who knows? It is just a jumble. The only thing that is clear is that she wants to infringe of the 2nd ammendent. This is not coherent either.

      Paraphrasing, her position on infringing on firearms rights is that we should infringe on firearms rights, because in another unrelated field (abortion) there is another infringement.

      1. Abortion isn’t even in the same legal category because it isn’t directly addressed in the American constitution. It is at best found in the hazy “penumbra” of the law. I guess we can agree to an infringement of moral or human rights, but the American constitution is quite emphatic on what is clearly a right and if it should infringed.

      2. Isnt less infringement the desired end point? If firearms owners are willing to give up mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds for women seeking abortions, would the writer’s position change? We have no way of knowing but this seems unlikely. I for one, am willing to give up mandatory ultrasounds, if this women would go away. If this isn’t a bargain the Writer wants to propose, what is the point?

      In short, I gained nothing from the article, and am willing to donate 5 Canadian dollars to a “hire an editor” fund for the Huffington Post.

    • How about her admission that guns have a primary purpose other than killing included in her claim that they don’t?

      • How about the whole incoherent piece? That’s why I just picked a couple of parts. The whole thing can be torn apart with ease.

  17. >>sees it is huffington post

    I’m going to go write for scientific American, now. Turns out you DONT have to be an expert in the subject matter to write for a publication anymore.

    GG, America.

  18. But Lisa, we do have gun regulation. It starts off with “We the People….”, it’s bedrock is the 2nd Amendment, and most recently reenforced with District of Columbia vs Heller. I’ve got mine. How come you do not have yours?

  19. It’s laughable that she has to acknowledge that she “know[s] many people have guns and don’t want to kill anyone”. Sounds as if she’s portraying a small majority of gun owners who don’t want to kill anyone. Imagine if even 1% of gun owners wanted to kill someone and acted on it. That would equate to about 1 – 1.5 million gun murders every year. Actually, that number is closer to 8,000 to 12,000. Quite a difference between her perception and reality.

  20. That woman is really, really hung up on the whole probe-in-the-vagina thing. Apparently that is our fault. Hmm… I’m pretty sure that would be something I’d remember, but perhaps not. I suspect it is nothing more than most gun owners are white men, raging sacks of white guilt and oppression, penises in tow. I do not think she likes us much, for whatever reason.

    “Why are we allowing a few extreme lunatics to push their fanatic agenda on the rest of us?” – Lisa Longo

    Well, Lisa, that is a very, very good question. Your screech almost pushes me into forced-gagging territory, but then I remember the First Amendment and I force myself to calm down, to remember that no matter what else I support your right to free speech. But you really, really push it. I think I’d rather engage an Illinois Nazi in debate than listen to a single minute of your diatribe. Thank God as a gun owner I have lots of options in hearing protection.

    Imagine what the world would be like if people like her made all the decisions. That is the failure of democracy. Of mob rule. Thankfully America is not there yet, though she wants it so, so badly. I think she needs to do some yoga or something – maybe a creative hobby – to get a bit more balanced in her personal life. She’s just a bit overboard on the whole shrill-and-angry-poor-poor-persecuted-me thing.

  21. This person, and many or most other anti Second Amendment Rights persons, conflates her fear of being harmed or killed by a person using a gun with the right to defend oneself, and mistakenly concludes her right to live in fear and victimization is has priority over everyone’s right to self-defense. This is why the conclusion she advocates appears so nonsensical to those of us who recognize that the right to self-defense IS the primal right NOT the right to live in fear and victimization as she believes. It is also why it is impossible to have rational discussions with these people because the conclusion they have chosen to follow is fundamentally insane.
    To wit, they consistently ignore hard facts about major causes of death and injury. They consistently advocate for regulation of other Liberties and Rights which would subject rational people to controls inspired by their paranoid delusions and victimization syndromes. Yes, it is about Control of People. It is about insane cowards believing the only proper course for Society is to reduce everyone to their level of irrational, craven victimization. No, thank-you!
    I would rather suffer injury or death than do nothing to defend myself and my loved ones or innocent strangers. This woman would allow herself, her loved ones or other innocents to be harmed or killed rather than risk injury to herself, and wants Laws that would make her cowardice the approved behavior…seriously!!???

  22. Heres the thing, Im told I can have a shotgun from the 1800s because thats all I “NEED” but I can not have a SAIGA 12 because who really needs that right? well who the F–K “needs” a Hummer? and why is it that there are so many damn guns and gun owners, yet cars and IDIOT car owners STILL manage to out body count Guns? tell me that. our current “regulation” of cars doesnt stop people from driving drunk and killing thousands of innocent people.

    Dead is still Dead I don’t care if it was from something invented to kill or something invented to transport lazy ass hypocrite liberals around (by the way hypocrite liberals you are just as guilty of destroying the environment……something guns don’t and Were not invented to do. )

  23. well who the F–K “needs” a Hummer?

    In the dream world of most Leftists, Hummers would be illegal to own.

  24. After reading the article and looking at a few of the comments, it made me wonder….. How many cats does she own?(I am sure it is in the double digit territory.) Who threatened her cats?

  25. This person highlights a stat we should confront antis with.

    Firearm homicides 2010 – 11,078
    Abortions 2012 – 333,964

    No matter were YOU may sit on the abortion topic, MOST liberals support the right to privacy and the right for women at most ages to have the choice. So next time you get in a debate with a anti, ask them why they support ending life before conception by a factor of 30+ Without restriction, but want to restrict the right to protect life after birth.

    For the children…. Right?

  26. me thinks she is angry because so many lust after Shannon Watts and this one, with her bridge troll features, is upset she can’t even convince the ex-con down the street who just go out after a 30 yr stint, to come to her place to lay some pipe, even if she is offering a fifth of Jim Beam, a pack of Newports, and a pizza. just saying

  27. Guns kill people? All by themselves? Mine are apparently all defective. Damn things don’t even load themselves.

    • I too wonder what the return policy is for these things… mine seem to be as equally defective as yours seeing as the only thing they have ever killed was time at the range.

  28. She’s a regular at HuffPo. Here are the subjects of her last 10 articles there, previous to this inanity:

    1. Describing the utopia called America had JFK & RFK not been assassinated (zero unemployment, the strongest gun control on earth, and the eradication of poverty).

    2. A call for more funding for education, more regulations, and a “living” wage.

    3. An expression of outrage at Republicans for daring to defy the Leftist agenda…after all, it’s those on the Left who are the real patriots.

    4. A call for more spending on education and the environment, and less spending on prisons.

    5. Public schools should stop using and power generated by fossil fuels, and instead generate their own power via “Green” energy, and use the surplus power to provide electricity for the rest of us. Oh, and equalize the funding for every school while we’re at it.

    6. The Founding Fathers were Leftists who wanted high taxes to support public education.

    7. We need higher taxes for education, and Ann Coulter’s a racist.

    8. Zimmerman’s a murderer, and the NRA is anti-American.

    9. Those who vote Republican are literally insane.

    10. We should stop using fossil fuels. And guns are bad.

  29. I notice that she, like me, finds that having balls is something that is needed in this epic battle for our rights.

  30. I dont dabble too much in American politics but from what I understand its called the HuffingtonPost because they huff something strong?

  31. You know what the biggest problem with anti-gun media zealots is, of course, other than being anti gun?

    Too much confirmation of beliefs from like minded people, spending all your time with people who echo your sentiments gives you a false sense of everyone agreeing with you.

    I have a lot of friends with a lot of different backgrounds, between the military, college, and traveling for an international company, I’ve become friends with all different kinds of people, from all different places.

    I’ve met very few people that were as staunchly anti-gun as Ms. Longo and her friends at the HuffPost. In fact the majority are quitr pro gun, even people that don’t own them, or have liberal views.

    I think Preacher Lisa Longo is mistaking the HuffPost Choir singing louder for the anti-gun congregation getting bigger.

    • Maybe her friends are nodding in agreement while one of them quietly calls 911 for her free ride to the psych ward. Again.

    • You bring up an interesting tangent. I’ve enver been able to maintain friendships with the crimianlly insane/stupid. Those who maintain an opinion that defies fact and reality are insane/stupid. When their insane/stuipid opinion gets people (children!) killed, it’s gone too far. How can you be friends with people who condone killing children for their agenda when the facts are very clear?

  32. Her comments below the story (user Li Longo) are hilarious. She’s woefully unprepared to defend her positions.

    • That tends to happen with an indefensible position. Remember, we’re not fighting logical people here. We’re in a battle against ideologues.

  33. I’m constantly floored by the idea that a product that kills tens of thousands of people as an unintentional side effect of its intended purpose is somehow less dangerous than a product that kills people when used for its intended purpose.

    To me that’s like saying you’re OK with arsenic as wig powder but not as rat poison.

  34. So, in order to justify a “right”, that right must have a “legitimate” use?

    Then what about alcoholic beverages? Which have even FEWER legitimate uses (ever see a cop or security guard or soldier drinking beer as a part of their duty?) and GREATER downside (80,000 deaths per year, according to the CDC, way more than guns)?

    I doubt that she wants to ban alcohol, though. From the looks of her, that’s her only hope for getting a date.

    • yup. And this lady is clearly disturbed and that tells one all you need to know about PuffHo’s editors’ poor judgement. Its borderline exploitation. They must be really desperate for content.

  35. Why do anti-gun people think it is a good argument to say “these things that aren’t supposed to kill people kill more or as much as this thing that is supposed to kill people!”

  36. “Except guns. They have one goal. To kill.”

    No, Lisa, I’m afraid you’re flat wrong. Their primary purpose is to protect YOUR unalienable right to be an insufferable fool.

  37. I’m entirely opposed to the idea of “regulating people.”
    And regulating guns… that is kind of pointless too.

  38. If people have guns for sport, doesn’t that mean they too have primary purposes other than murdering? Lets face it, when she says killing she means murder.

  39. I thought we already had people control laws, like for assault, kidnapping, robbery, regicide, and so forth. Why do we need new laws regulating things that are not people when we already have laws regulating people?

    That’s like looking for your lost keys beneath the street lamp, not because that’s where you lost them, but because that’s where the lighting is better.

  40. -Annual fitness training and testing at the gun shop or gun club of your choice
    Do you feel that law-abiding gun owners are committing violent crimes that could be prevented with additional training and certification?

    -Annual inspection of all weapons at a gun shop or gun club of your choice
    Do you feel that malfunctioning firearms are causing many deaths or contributing to violent crime?

    -Proof of ownership of an approved gun safe
    If use of a gun safe didn’t prevent Newton, why would it help anywhere else?

    These three things seem to be chosen to place the maximum burden possible on lawful firearms owners, but would do exactly nothing to stop violent crime.

Comments are closed.