Thursday, February 24, 2011

"Manhattan jury finds man who had loaded gun in his car not guilty"

"Manhattan jury finds man who had loaded gun in his car not guilty"
Last Updated: 7:04 PM, February 24, 2011
Posted: 11:41 AM, February 24, 2011

AVT's thoughts/comment on this matter:
While I was always inclined to be on his side as the gun-control laws in NYC seem ridiculous, the repeated level of cluelessness on nearly every front by Mr. Ryan couldn’t help but to raise eyebrows. For starters, if he planned to leave the pistol in such a conspicuous place in his vehicle, upon any vandal’s efforts the pistol could have easily found its way to any potentially violent creep. And, regardless if such is posted for all tourists to see or not, everyone knows it is currently illegal to take a right turn on red in Manhattan. In the end, as we all know, other than police officers and a select few others, only criminals who don’t care about laws can have continued and easy access to guns in Gotham. So Mr. Ryan apparently was traveling quite oblivious to the reality of his situation – which is some cause for alarm in and of itself.

I would be interested to know more of the circumstances of the police-stop and why the police wanted to search the vehicle, and for that matter, why the driver/Ryan agreed to let them search the vehicle. Because, of late, many of the police in the greater NYC/Gotham area surely seem quick to stop vehicles/molest drivers and to ask the driver for his/her ‘travel papers’ – like don’t sit in a car in a NYC area parking lot and talk on the cell phone without expecting a visit from any authorities that happen by, regardless if it is now a major traffic violation in NY State to move a vehicle while talking on a cell phone.

But the 'race-card' people in this matter might have a point, I think. If Ryan had been a ‘home-boy’ from the Bronx (or wherever) as opposed to a ‘yahoo’ from Florida, would he have been privy to the same benefit of the doubt? Then again, if Ryan had been a local homeboy without the common sense to hide his heater/pistol in a less conspicuous place, then maybe he would not have deserved any benefit of the doubt – particularly so, given the well-known yet apparently misguided outlook on guns by the current administration of Gotham City.

Nevertheless, since Ryan apparently had the pistol with no ill-intent, it would seem the District Attorney of New York could better spend tax-dollars pursuing true criminals and not attempting to bolster the absurd gun-control laws of Gotham – gun laws which generally appear to perpetuate the violent crime levels in NYC. As a testament to the absurdity of Gotham’s gun laws, it reportedly only took thirty minutes of deliberations for the jury to acquit Ryan of the felony weapons charges.

In the end, I am glad Ryan did not have his life ruined as another martyr to the absurd NYC gun-control laws – again, laws which only seem to perpetuate crime in Gotham. I have posted a few blogs on my on-going ‘unofficial debate’ with Mayor Bloomberg on this subject. You can search me and the subject, if interested.

See also:
"Out-of-town driver faces jail for 'forgotten' pistol"
Last Updated: 7:39 AM, February 24, 2011
Posted: 3:42 AM, February 23, 2011


Definition of Terms: "Shred The Fed"

When I write/state ‘Shred The Fed’ or anything to a similar extent, I mean for one to do so in a Court of Law. By 'Shredding The Fed' in a Court of Law, one would thereby be removing any unconstitutional delegation/enumeration of power concerning control of the American Nation's money supply from the Federal Reserve System and returning control of the Nation's money supply to a government entity that would claim a fiduciary responsibility to the American People.

I could make that legal argument to remove this enumeration of power from the Fed, however. Just ask me how, should you be interested to know.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Inflation Pressures Somewhat Rise for No Apparent Reason other than the Efforts of the Federal Reserve. ‘SHRED THE FED’!!!

February 17th, 2011

As reported early this morning by WYNS (1010 "WINS" AM Radio) in New York City, inflation pressures are apparently on the rise - with the radio station reporting that prices had risen 0.8% (though I am not for what period or who they were quoting). Today, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) economic indicator was released and it also seems to confirm that prices are on the rise as well (0.4% increase since the previous month).

Anyone that knows anything of economics surely knows that, during the ‘normal’ course of economic events, inflation typically only rises when much of the workforce is gainfully employed and therefore competition surfaces between consumers for the available goods – which in turn causes prices to rise and inflation to occur. Of course, we are not in any ‘normal’ times and, in reality, the American Nation is still in the throws of a major depression with unemployment staying at near record high levels.

So, given this basic knowledge of economics and the current realities of the American economy, what then has caused this latest round of inflation to arise?

Clearly, this latest rise in inflation appears as the result of no other reason than that of the concerted efforts of the Federal Reserve System and its continued and never-ending devaluation of the dollar – of which I have long blogged. Of course, the Fed and others may argue that the continued devaluation of the dollar (Federal Reserve Note) is to the benefit of the American populace and Nation. I would merely respond with telling those that may believe that logic to go and ask the average citizen if the devalued dollar is of any benefit to the typical homeowner/consumer - who now may have to make a choice between buying milk and bread or rather to buy gasoline because of rising prices the average homeowner/consumer may no longer afford to buy both! Of course, the argument could be made that increased fuel costs are adding to any inflationary pressures. However, I would counter any such assertions with the apparent fact that much of the increased fuel costs are a direct result of the devalued dollar - a fact that I am confident I could easily verify/prove.

In reality, however, there could be any number of other reasons why the apparently self-serving/inept/nearly-criminal Federal Reserve System continues to devalue the dollar/Federal Reserve Note. One such reason would be merely that the Fed desires to forever increase the value of its gold holdings. Another reason, of course, is that the nation is again approaching another national election and therefore the Fed has decided to artificially increase prices (by devaluing the dollar) and therefore try to also artificially increase the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) which, by definition, would mean that the depression/recession has officially ended. By artificially ending the current depression/recession, the Fed would be coming to the rescue of its apparent errand-boys and lackeys in elected positions – with these individuals forever holding positions of power such as the White House and Congress.

What hold does the Federal Reserve System have on our government which allows the Fed to remain in power and to control our government as well as our Nation? What hold does the Fed maintain, in deed, as such a hold was clearly against the wishes/intent (and warned against) by the Founding Fathers of our American Nation – if not blatantly against the U.S. Federal Constitution? How is it that the Fed stays in control when our Founding Fathers expressly seemed to state in the U.S. Federal Constitution that no outside entities should ever control the money supply of our Nation?

Therefore, as such, I would surmise that the time is approaching to ‘SHRED THE FED’!!! It would appear that the only way to effect any ‘shredding of the Fed’/discontinuation of the Federal Reserve System is to elect politicians who care more for the well being of the American populace than the politician would care for the purse-strings of the wealthy bankers of our nation and the world. Does such a politician exist? Will I have to run for Congress to this end? Or, would the bankers and the Fed [and its cronies and lawyers/judges throughout our governments and legal establishments] act in accordance with the long list of tyrants throughout world history and merely extinguish any such politician for making such a suggestion as ‘shredding the Fed,’ I have to wonder – as typically the bankers apparently care for nothing above money which then seem to include the disregard of any laws governing the conduct of decent human beings as well? I would be happy to expand on these thoughts, should anyone ask – by the way. Am I only one of a few that is willing to put forth these thoughts for all to hear?

Adam Vernon Trotter / AVT

U.S. core CPI rises more-than-expected in January

Latest Data Show Percolating Prices

Economic News Release

Daily Outlook:

The following seems to somewhat disagree with my logic – if one removes food and energy from index (?!?), but probably a banker/wall street type:
(…deflation must be stopped by the Fed at all costs…). This author must be wealthy and have gold holdings too.

Core CPI Up, but Still Tame,+but+Still+Tame

See also:

Armed Jewelry Store Robbers Sent Fleeing By Armed Store Owner In the Bronx. My On-Going ‘Unofficial’ Gun-Control ‘Debate’ with NYC Mayor Bloomberg.

February 17th, 2011

As reported early this morning by WYNS (1010 "WINS" AM Radio) in New York City, yesterday armed robbers entered a Bronx (New York City) jewelry store dressed as upscale potential clients. Upon allowing the would-be robbers entry into the store, the store owner soon had a gun placed next to his head during an attempted robbery. However, the store owner then brandished his own licensed pistol and began shooting at the robbers. The would-be robbers were then sent fleeing out of the store. The two robbers who entered the store got away but a third [look-out] accomplice was wounded in the leg and eventually arrested. The other two would-be robbers are presumed to be still on the loose and at-large in the New York City area with a possible unreported amount of stolen valuables.

Does anyone believe that the robbers would have fled the scene in such a fashion had the store owner not been armed? What do you think Mayor Bloomberg? What does your anti-gun/gun-control group think? Would the robbers have fled had the store owner not been armed with an adequate defensive weapon? I will take the liberty to answer for you, Mayor Bloomberg, and say, surely the robbers would not have fled the Bronx jewelry store as they did had the store owner not been armed. What’s more, it’s unlikely that any of the would-be robbers would have been caught, had the store owner not been armed.

Does anyone foolishly believe the jewelry store owner was not in mortal danger during this robbery and likely may have been killed during the course of this robbery – had he not been armed with an adequate defensive weapon? Given the circumstances of this would-be robbery, would anything other than the store owner’s licensed pistol have saved his life? What do you think Mayor Bloomberg? What does your anti-gun/gun-control group think? Again, I will take the liberty to answer for you, Mayor Bloomberg, and say this store owner just as likely would have been killed during the course of this robbery had he not been armed with his defensive weapon, his licensed pistol.

Well, Mayor Bloomberg, as you and I seem to be having an ‘unofficial debate’ on the subject of whether guns provide the only adequate defense to law-abiders (as I claim) or if all gun-owners should be criminals (as you seem to claim), it’s now your turn to move in response to my stated facts with this blog. Of course, during this ‘unofficial debate,’ I am merely armed with my words, my thoughts, my logic, my blog and my computer; you, on the other hand, additionally have your battery of billions of dollars, the entire workforce of a major urban city, and the minions in your anti-gun/gun-control group as well.

Since it’s your turn to respond, Mayor Bloomberg, what will you do this time? Will you ‘gruff-up’ your ‘agents’ and have them pose as would-be violent creeps and send them to buy guns in places such as Nevada, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Georgia, or maybe Delaware – as you did previously in Arizona about a month ago? I would hereby suggest that you spare any other state your assertions and implications that any other state may have some culpability regarding the amount of crime in New York City/Gotham City – for no other state has any responsibility for what happens in New York. Might I hereby suggest that you save us all the time and surely make one of my debate points for me – and possibly make one of you own points as well, and thereby send your ‘agents’ to any unnamed borough of Gotham City and have them buy illegal weapons there? Such would surely show, no matter what spin you were to put on it as to the original origin of any illegally purchased weapon in your city, that violent creeps will always be able to get guns should they have the desire to do so. The only proper response to such a reality is for law-abiders to also have adequate defensive weapons such as pistols to allow law-abiders to defend themselves against would-be robbers and violent creeps. Then again, maybe that is another of your points in that you do not desire the law-abiding citizenry to maintain the ability to defend themselves against would-be violent creeps?

Mayor Bloomberg, should you be willing to discuss or debate the matters herein in-person or via the telephone, I would be honored to hear from you and would relish the opportunity to debate you on these issues as well.

Adam Trotter / AVT


See also:

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Our City Streets Are In Horrific Condition!!! To the Government Entities of our Nation: Please Rebuild Our Streets and Our Infrastructure!

Please see:


Yet Another Congressman/Politician Can’t Keep “It” in His Pants – Or, Apparently Was Hoping Not To. This Story Has Extra Irony Too.

February 12th, 2011

Yet another Congressman/politician has gone down in flames due to his seeking an extramarital affair. This time, Representative Christopher Lee of the Buffalo/Amherst, New York area, was exposed as a result of his own efforts of trolling the internet for prospective dates. Congressman Lee used his real name, normal email address, informed the woman that he worked on Capitol Hill, and forwarded pictures of himself to the prospective date, and additionally complained of dates that he had met in the past off-line of CraigsList ( The woman searched his name and realized who he was and forwarded his shirtless picture to some other website that promptly posted the photo for the world to see.

But, I mean..., really…, the arrogance and stupidity shown by our would-be philandering politicians never ceases to boggle the mind. I may not really be one to judge and we all surely make mistakes, but to risk his career as well as his marriage and family just to ‘hook-up’ with a stranger on the internet would surely seem absurd – and, unfortunately, in keeping with so many other politicians that have gone down a similar road in the past.

Ironically, ex-Representative Lee had championed the Student Internet Safety Act and had previously “…warned kids of the dangers of the Internet… ‘Responding to what may seem like a friendly email …can have serious consequences,’ he wrote. ‘Private information and images can so easily be transmitted to friends and strangers alike;’” (according to the New York Post, Page 3, February 10, 2011).

Funny how we as humans can be so prophetic and quick to give good advice to others and yet, at the same time, we are just as quick to disregard and unable to apply the same good advice in our own dealings. (

The bottom line is: If any politician is unwilling to honor any sacred vow to a spouse while they are in office, what other vows might they decide not to honor? Adding to any unseemly disregard of vows is the level of trust with which any politician has been instilled by his supporters and constituents, well… I think we – as Americans – often still seem to be electing the wrong types of people – at least if this case is any indicator. (

At least ex-Rep. Lee had the decency to resign to spare us all the ensuing grief as well as sparing his constituents the humiliation – unlike many others of his lot of which I may or may not have blogged previously. I hope he is able to find peace with himself and his family in the years to come.

Adam Trotter / AVT

Amusing article that only hurts when you laugh about it:
Semi-Naked Came the Congressman

See also:

Saturday, February 12, 2011

REPEAL THE ELEVENTH (11TH) AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. FEDERAL CONSTITUTION!! Fix Our Dysfunctional Governments and Make Them Liable!

February 11th, 2011

On the eleventh (11th) day of the second month of the eleventh (11th) year of the second millennium, I have had a revelation: To repair the apparently dysfunctional and inept entities which seemingly comprise most of the governments across our Nation of the United States of America, it would seem WE merely need to repeal the Eleventh (11th) Amendment to the U.S. Federal Constitution!

And to clarify the matter for posterity, maybe a new Amendment should be ratified to clearly state something to the extent that governments have no sovereign immunity in the U.S. of A.


In response to the continuing colossal natural gas main explosions and water main breaks throughout our Nation – of which I have long discussed in another blog (see below), our governments and government-blessed monopolies WE all know as our utility companies seem essentially ineffectual at proactive efforts to stop the never ending supply of massive catastrophes. As such, I began to ponder how the American populace could get our governments to act to protect us from these continued disasters. To this end, today I had a revelation:


The Eleventh (11th) Amendment is what is claimed to give immunity to the seemingly inept governments and government officials throughout our Nation. Given such immunity from suit, our governments often seem to have no culpability in their neglect of our crumbling infrastructure systems or any culpability in any other government negligence. To repeal this Amendment would then clear the way for any numbers of the populace to pursue legal action against the governments and government officials and entities for their negligence of our Nation’s infrastructure as well as any politicians' or government officials' neglect of their elected mandate or duty to their office or duty to the People. Though, with no doubt, the original Chief Justice Marshall ruled that individuals could - in fact - legally sue government entities (circa 1810/1820). However, since that time, his ruling has been all but ignored by the legal establishments and jurisdictions of our lands. Again, maybe a new Amendment should be ratified to clearly state something to the extent that governments have no sovereign immunity in the U.S. of A.

Any such proposed changes to our sacred Federal Constitution are not put forth in this blog in any light-hearted manner, btw. And, any such changes to the Amendments thereof are not intended to open any proverbial ‘can of worms’ to any potential money-grubbers and ambulance-chasing type attorneys amongst us either. Maybe to prevent any frivolous/capricious law suits from ensuing – once our inept governments were to become liable for their actions or in-actions by repealing the Eleventh (11th) Amendment, some sort of swift, just, and potentially severe financial penalties and court costs could be levied against any individuals who were to bring forth any subsequent trivial or frivolous law suits under any new revisions to the Federal Constitution – as proposed herein.

Adam Vernon Trotter / AVT


Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

Follow-on post.
See also:
11-11-11 Day, Repeal the Eleventh Amendment, I say!

Sunday, February 6, 2011

Is London Calling? US to Provide British/UK Nuclear Secrets to Russia for Arms Treaty!?! Did Our Ally Agree to These Terms? (Reportedly WikiLeaks)

February 5, 2011

Last night during a talk show on Boston Radio (WBZ 1030 AM @ 2300 hours EST, approx.), the host was speaking about the latest round of information released from internet-based and tattle-tale group WikiLeaks. The following story/information was also reported by New York news radio this evening (WYNS, 1010 "WINS" AM Radio) – quoting another newspaper (London Telegraph, Author: Nile Gardiner) as its source. ( See: According to these sources:

WikiLeaks is claming/reporting that the U.S. government has agreed to provide nuclear secrets of our long-time ally Great Britain/United Kingdom to Russia in exchange for the Russians ratification of the latest strategic arms limitation/reduction treaty (“New START” between the U.S.A. and the country of Russia). As the U.S. apparently produces missiles for the British nuclear arsenal, it is reported/claimed that the U.S. government would then also provide Russia with quantities and serial numbers of all missiles sold/provided to our British/U.K. allies. Assuming such an agreement has not been blessed by the British/U.K., to provide such information to the Russians would appear as nearly traitorous, in my opinion. The provision of British/U.K. nuclear secrets to the Russians is reported to be a condition of the proposed arms reduction treaty and the provision of such information was required by the Russians in order to agree to any nuclear arms reduction treaty.

Two main issues seem to be at hand. First, quite simply, why is the United States always the one to bend-over-backwards to accommodate and appease the seemingly disinterested Russians? If they don’t also want the treaty or see the treaty to be to their benefit: to hell with them! Then, let there be no treaty! Are our negotiators merely inept and therefore in keeping with the rest of our Federal government? Second, if such reports and claims are true: Regardless of the debatable topics of whether the U.S. has kissed the British backside for too long, regardless of whether the British [or U.K.] Government / crown / bankers have long deceived and possibly denigrated the free peoples of the world, regardless of whether the current U.S. Presidential Administration has a personal axe to grind or family vendetta against the British, and regardless of whether the U.S. wants access to the vast natural resources in Russia as part of this treaty effort, (assuming the U.K. has not blessed such a move to provide such information to the Russians,) to sell-out our long-time and staunch allies in the United Kingdom to effect an arms treaty with Russia seems preposterous and absurd!

The point of this blog, of course, is based on the assumption that the Brits/U.K. government has not approved this offer of information to the Russians to bring the Russians to the bargaining table. However, it would appear doubtful that the Brits/U.K. would bless such a release of nuclear weapons related information to the Russians, either. For if they had, simply, such a leaked story would then be of no real interest to WikiLeaks folks – if WikiLeaks knew one way or the other concerning such a blessing from the Brits.

I understand why the Russians would want information about the British/U.K. stockpile of nuclear weaponry when the Russians are considering agreeing to reductions. However, regarding the apparent sell-out of our long-time allies to our long-time adversaries, I must ask: has the simplistic U.S. government now lost all common sense? Barring British approval, do I really need to explain the apparent implications of selling-out our allies and throwing loyalty to the wind, irrespective of whether such a loyalty possibly has been given too much heed during recent decades? Nevertheless, unless the Brits have already agreed to such terms, to essentially turn on our long time ally would appear unethical, immoral, and surely would reflect a lack of integrity and also display the poor judgment of our American politicians and government agencies – regardless of any noble motivations. Anyone who would look to sell-out our allies and provide British nuclear secrets to the Russians would essentially appear traitorous to the cause of freedom and decency in the world, in my opinion. For example, what does the Russian government historically know or care of any Freedoms?

Furthermore, has the U.S. not always professed its willingness to execute any individual as treasonous for providing secret information to other nations, let alone if such nations were adversarial nations? Is this merely another instance of the U.S. government ‘leading by example’ (sarcasm) and saying “do as I say, not as I do?” As Americans, clearly we seem to be always having to wonder if our politicians and government officials even know the meaning of the words “truthful,” “loyalty,” and “decency” or if they simply don’t care about the meaning of these words (especially the Defense Department and the State Department). If this reportedly leaked story is true, it would appear WikiLeaks is the true hero and maybe we should have WikiLeaks members as our national politicians – at least they appear to be truthful regardless of all else, as WikiLeaks was created in response to an air of deceit continually proliferated by our governments*.

Of course, I have no personal knowledge of whether this story is actually true, or whether there is more to the story than what is currently known to the public or more than what has been surmised by AM Talk Radio personalities in the U.S. (such additional unknown information as the British Government agreeing to these terms and the release of information regarding its nuclear arsenal to the Russians)**. Again, this story is apparently based on the latest/upcoming round of information from internet-based WikiLeaks. If the story is true, thank you to WikiLeaks for providing the populace with truth concerning the actions of our government. If true, WikiLeaks appears to continually reveal the arrogance and simplistic nature of the U.S. government. Currently, I am inclined to believe any information WikiLeaks unearths. If such information is false or WikiLeaks has been intentionally untruthful, well . . ., time will tell.

At this point in time, the only thing I know for sure, and what appears to ring true, is we can’t count on the U.S. government to tell the truth about anything. Now, assuming this story is true, our government would again appear as not truthful to its own allies either. One has to wonder, how long will these same politicians be reelected to ruin everything that was once decent about our nation? If our government officials have unilaterally taken it upon themselves to sell-out our ally, I say, vote all these politicians out of office and dissolve any Federal agencies that would agree to these unilateral terms of screwing our allies – regardless of their motivations!!

Adam Trotter / AVT

* Surely it appears that WikiLeaks always would be advocates for Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, and Freedom of the Press and apparently would be bigger champions for these Rights and Causes than any/most national U.S. politicians of recent decades! WikiLeaks’s founder, in an interview on CBS’s “60 Minutes” last Sunday, professed that his only additional care was to be truthful. I believed him.

Our politicians, on the other hand, only appear as advocates for any cause when it suits their political need or when such advocacy appears to be of personal benefit to the politician. And, clearly, providing any truth to the American people typically and repeatedly appears as not warranted and inconsequential to our inept national leaders and arrogant government officials!

** Additionally, the majority [but not necessarily all] of the U.S. network broadcast media/press no longer seem to report anything of any real substance to the American people for fear that the American populace will change the television channel or turn off the television once the undesired news is broadcast. Such a mindset seems to reflect the true lack of integrity and arrogance [and/or political leanings] of much of our mainstream press/media: that is, they only really care about making money and do not care about informing the American public of any truth.

Regarding this latest WikiLeaks matter, either the majority of the mainstream American press/media doesn’t believe, doesn’t know, or doesn’t want to inform the populace that our government would apparently sell-out and turn on one of its closest allies.

See also:

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Mayor Bloomberg sends NYC cops to easily buy guns in Phoenix, AZ. I respond with....

February 1, 2011

It has been widely reported today that Mayor Bloomberg sent NYC (?) agents/cops to easily buy guns at a private gun show in Phoenix, AZ. As no one wants to see mentally unbalanced/unstable or potentially violent individuals brandishing firearms, it appears that the Mayor raises a valid concern. However, to make it anymore difficult for law-abiding citizens to acquire/bear defensive weapons which they may require does not appear as the solution to end the proliferation of violent creeps attacking innocents in our society. Although, in the end, if these purchasers of the fire arms were in fact agents for Mayor Bloomberg, we likely can be sure that they were not mentally unbalanced/unstable or potentially violent individuals. For that matter, maybe the individual selling the items in question knew these individuals were acting for Bloomberg and wanted the sale nevertheless. I don’t know as I wasn’t there.

“Undercover at an Arizona Gun Show,” by Michael R. Bloomberg, May of NYC
108th Mayor of the City of New York
Posted: January 31, 2011 12:47 PM

“...The investigation sought to answer two simple questions:

First, how easy is it to buy a gun without a background check?

It's easy. At the gun show, an investigator bought - with no background check - a Glock… Unfortunately, under current federal laws, that sale was legal.

The second question we ask was would private sellers sell guns to people who said they probably couldn't pass a background check?

Again, the answer was yes. An investigator bought two handguns from two different private sellers, even after they said they probably couldn't pass a background check.
This fits the pattern of illegal activity at gun shows that we uncovered in 2009 - and it's all the more frustrating that it's happening just a little more than a hundred miles away from Tucson. …

…As I said after our first investigation in 2009, the vast majority of gun buyers at gun shows are law abiding citizens. Requiring background checks on all gun sales will not detract from anyone's Second Amendment rights. What it will do is send the message that we're no longer going to make it easy for criminals to get around the law.”


I would merely respond with:

What would have surely ended with the beating of another citizen by violent creeps, had he not been armed:

Man, 72, fights back, shoots teens in home invasion

Look..., to be sure..., I would not prefer “…criminals, the mentally ill, and drug abusers to buy guns…” either. In fact, I would prefer no one ever need to turn a gun against another human being. However, it doesn’t appear as though such an idealized world will ever come to fruition in our times. Criminals will always get guns if they so desire. I mean…, merely look at the ‘drug war’ as an example of making something illegal to keep it beyond the reach of the citizenry.  We have seen how poorly that worked in end. Therefore, I say to make things more difficult for law-abiding citizens to acquire/bear defensive weapons does not sound like the solution to diminish the number/level of violent creeps/attacks in our society.

Also possibly worth noting:

See also: