Meanwhile, At The Huffington Post:

In response to the almost daily mass shootings in the United States -- which could be expected to rise now that they are also promoted by ISIS -- good progressive persons are calling for some measure of gun control. They may well know, in their heart of hearts, that even if these measures are enacted, they will do little to reduce gun violence.

Universal background checks of gun buyers is a fine idea, but of limited value in a nation in which citizens already own 250 million guns, more than one for every adult. Providing more mental health treatment is always a good idea. But if you believe that one can tell which mental patients will resort to mass shootings, and that most of these can be stopped by therapists, there are several bridges in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.

Slowing the speed by which magazines can be reloaded (by requiring a tool to reload) would help, but gun manufactures already found a way to circumvent this regulation -- by declaring that a bottom on the gun is a tool.

Good progressive people may well respond that they must start with small, incremental measures, because the really big, effective ones do not have a prayer. But neither do the tiny ones, at least on the national level. The NRA will not yield an inch.

One needs no better evidence than to note that Congress just refused to ban people on the no fly list, those strongly suspected of being terrorists, from buying guns legally in the U.S.! Moreover, the NRA is moving the needle in the opposite direction, getting more and more states to allow people to carry concealed weapons, in more and more places.

Most progressives seem unaware that whatever laws are finally enacted will have very little effect because the NRA and its allies in Congress have found powerful ways to prevent their enforcement. The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 bans the ATF from inspecting gun dealers more than once in any 12-month period, even if violations are uncovered, and it reduces record-keeping violations from a felony to a misdemeanor offense, the result being that gun dealers are very rarely prosecuted.

The 2003 and 2004 Tiahrt amendments, named for their sponsor Rep. Todd Tiahrt, require that records from the background checks of gun buyers be destroyed within 24 hours, bar requiring gun dealers to conduct inventory checks to monitor gun thefts, and prevent crime gun trace data from being used in court, even when a dealer has broken the law. In addition, Congress has barred the ATF repeatedly from creating a computerized database, so when a gun is recovered at a crime scene, agents must manually search through boxes of paper records to trace the firearm to dealer or purchaser.

Advocates of gun control frequently cite the much lower levels of gun violence in other developed nations -- such as Canada and the UK -- in support of the measures they promote. However, these very low levels of gun violence have not been achieved by gun control but -- by domestic disarmament.

Most people have no guns in these fully democratic nations and have no way of getting them, legally or otherwise. It is hence at best naïve, sometimes disingenuous, to imply that if several gun control measure would be enacted -- and somehow enforced -- the U.S. would gain what these other nations take for granted. (By the way, Black Lives Matters may wish to take note: In these blessed nations most cops, most of the time, have no guns either.)

Given that even micro gun control measures will be effectively blocked by the NRA and its allies, and that promoting mini measures as potentially effective is misleading, progressives may as well go for the big enchilada: Call for domestic disarmament.

One may say that the Supreme Court, after 250 years in which the Second Amendment was read as allowing only a well-regulated militia to have guns, recently reinterpreted it to mean that there is an individualized right to own guns. This suggests that we may have to get to domestic disarmament through the back door.

Make the gun manufacturers liable for harm done with their products. Ban the sale of ammunition. And vote for a president that will add to the Supreme Court those who will read the Second Amendment as written.

Above all, domestic disarmament is a true, compelling vision which cannot be said about the small gun control measures that are currently promoted by some of the most enlightened people among us.

It seems to be the majority of comments on Yahoo, with something thrown in about Obama every 7-10 comments too.

EDIT: I should start analyzing Huff Post comments on news stories.

So far the H. Post comments are all over the places, from supporting total disarmament, to saying it will never happen, to suspecting UN troops are being brought in to take away your guns. Arguments over no fly lists range widely too.

Nothing about the Jews though.

If they try for domestic disarmament

One thing: outright war.

Hence the need for cameras so the rest of us can watch the action.

Lucky me I live in a country where refugees camp out for a night or two and then the cops tell them to move on to Western Europe.

They were offered land in remote, abandoned towns, but they had to live off the land. Very few takers.

I don't know the gun laws here. From what I heard people can own guns, but they have to obtain a license.

Crime is virtually non-existent though. Somebody got shot last year and people still talk about it, because it was the crime of the year, lol.

I used to live in a country similar to that.

Feel free to take your massive contribution to the economy and go be Chaos' neighbor.

Democracy run by a dictator who wants to rewrite the constitution

Canada?

Please seek help. You are having a psychotic episode.

We all know Canada isn't really a country..

Coming from the guy who seems to have them all the time.

I have delusions

(I mean, that I know of. Not that I'd really know, I guess).

Crime is virtually non-existent though. Somebody got shot last year and people still talk about it, because it was the crime of the year, lol.

Most places that have "very little crime" should be saying "very little uncontrolled crime". There is most certainly crime, and quite a lot of it, it's just tightly controlled by organized leadership so as to not create a problem for the ruling elite.

I still say one of the USA's biggest mistakes was to go after organized crime as hard as we did. All that succeeded in doing was scattering it into dozens of smaller groups that run unchecked and are an order of magnitude harder to control. Central leadership does a better job of policing their own and ensuring it's kept off the streets and out of public view.

A peaceful protest Saturday in support of an eastern Oregon ranching family facing jail time for arson was followed shortly afterward by an occupation of a building at a national wildlife refuge.

Ammon Bundy, the son of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, who was involved in a standoff with the government over grazing rights, told The Oregonian he and two of his brothers were among a group of dozens of people occupying the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Bundy posted a video on his Facebook page asking for people to come help him. Below the video is this statement: "**ALL PATRIOTS ITS TIME TO STAND UP NOT STAND DOWN!!! WE NEED YOUR HELP!!! COME PREPARED."

Ammon Bundy said the group planned to stay at the refuge indefinitely.

"We're planning on staying here for years, absolutely," Ammon Bundy said. "This is not a decision we've made at the last minute."

An Idaho militia leader who helped organize the earlier march said he knew nothing about activities after a parade of militia members and local residents in Burns walked past the sheriff's office and the home of Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son Steven.

Beth Anne Steele, an FBI spokeswoman in Portland, told The Associated Press the agency was aware of the situation at the national wildlife refuge. She made no further comment.

Some local residents feared the Saturday rally would involve more than speeches, flags and marching. But the only real additions to that list seemed to be songs, flowers and pennies.

As marchers reached the courthouse, they tossed hundreds of pennies at the locked door. Their message: civilians were buying back their government. After the march passed, two girls swooped in to scavenge the pennies.

A few blocks away, Hammond and his wife Susan greeted marchers, who planted flower bouquets in the snow. They sang some songs, Hammond said a few words, and the protesters marched back to their cars.

Dwight Hammond has said he and his son plan to peacefully report to prison Jan. 4 as ordered by the judge.

Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, said they lit the fires in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires.

The two were convicted of the arsons three years ago and served time — the father three months, the son one year. But a judge ruled their terms were too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison for about four years each.

The decision has generated controversy in a remote part of the state.

In particular, the Hammonds' new sentences touched a nerve with far right groups who repudiate federal authority.

Ammon Bundy and a handful of militiamen from other states arrived last month in Burns, some 60 miles from the Hammond ranch.

In an email to supporters, Ammon Bundy criticized the U.S. government for a failed legal process.