That’s great Frank. Good on ya!

Lee this is not to condone Mrs. Brady but I think she went through a lot, ricochet bullet or not – don’t you remember – I think she and her husband both suffered for their unexpected lot in life. I’m not on her side but do feel compassion for that which happened to them. And yes, her husband was shot, not her, but it did change their lives forever.

libertytrain,
I have to agree with you. I wish nothing bad on Ms Brady, misguided as she is. she can not be expected to see things clearly after what happened to her husband but if she doesn’t want to have guns around her then fine don’t have any around her. The thing that she isn’t seeing is if it hadn’t been for the bravery of armed men and women, it very well could have been her as well!

One of my professors in college was a former Chicago attorney. Some of his stories even scared the former WWII Marines in the class. One made the remark he had faced Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, Okinawa and a couple of other bad places, but he would not want to live in Chicago!
A former boy-friend of mine was from Southern Chicago; he was one of the Army guys who went island-hopping in WWII, but thought Chicago’s way of doing things was fine! He was also part of the immigrant community, being from Germany. Had a lot of different ideas. He also thought Al Capone was the greatest thing since sliced bread because he would hand money out to the immigrants during the depression. I wanted to know where the money came from, but he didn’t question it.
My late husband was from the Forest Park region of Chicago. He had a completely different mindset from the boyfriend. Some of his stories of depression era Chicago were fascinating! His aunt and uncle lived right down the street from the Valentine’s Day Massacre!
It is no wonder he moved to Arizona!

Well said Geronimo, I’m in with you guys.

If a robber enters my house uninvited I will not wait for him to get of the first shot.

Exactly, fire a warning shot through his forehead…then call 911.

JC;
“A warning shot through his forehead” ha ha ha I LIKE that!!
That’s good…..Really good!!!!!!

JC,
I like the way you think!! I like it very much!!!

Joe;
That’s the second good one JCs’ come up with in two days. I saw on one of the other pages his new campaign slogan for ousting the leftist, dims, and rinos in the Nov. 2010 election.
It was “Throw the Trash Out in November” or “Take the Trash Out in November” can’t remember which it was but they both work well.
JC rocks!!

Nah, 20 gage #4 shot to the family jewels, pretend you had a hard time shucking another round in and then pop em once more in the face to stop him from hopping around. If they survive, they will never breed again!

Luckily the home owner was a better shot than the home invader.

Jim H,
He was probably a vet!!!

I like to think I’m working with basic moral action as my foundation guys…and a little humor doesn’t hurt.
I still can’t believe someone on the other thread cxalled me a Liberal…hahahaha…Me! A liberal! That’s rich.

JoeH, I don’t know why the article didn’t mention it, he is a Korean War vet. I live west of Chicago and it was mentioned in the local news.

Jim H.,
when I was in college in the mid seventies, the vets association did an ice sculpture for the winter carnival and the caption on it is one I’ll never forget. “Your best bet, a fired up vet!” Very apropriate!

Well put! Wisht I had thought to write that!

The “free” is not free. It is called slavery or government dependance. Though most don’t think of it that way – it’s there and it’s pretty obvious. Since the inception of the War on Poverty there are not 20% more people at the poverty level per capita. Nice to know it’s all working according to the enslavement plan of big government huh?

It’s an immoral law Al, and according to the Constitution should be null and void.

Vicki, You obviously missed the High Court’s Cruikshank decision, it clearly stated: “The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shalll not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.” The Bill of Rights is one document, it all applies exclusively to the federal government. If you will read your own state’s constitution, you will find a similar restriction that each state’s citizens placed upon their state government. You are viewing the Second Amendment out of its Bill of Rights context.

James: We shall soon see as the High Court is to rule on a gun control law in a state. They have already put to rest the illogical claim that the 2nd is for “militias” only in the Heller decision.

Carol: I came about my observations by reading the Constitution.
As I said the first clearly says Congress. It even uses the word Congress. The 2nd specifies no single government entity nor body. Further reading of the founding fathers makes it clear that they ment all government.

The decision in Cruikshank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank
supports my assertion that the first is a limit on the fedgov only but asserts that the 2nd is also only for the fedgov.

Interesting that we can still plead the 5th even though James would have us believe that the 5th amendment is only a restriction on the fedgov.

Of course much of The decisions in Cruikshank have been invalidated by later court decisions however with respect to the 2nd it was upheld in Presser v. Illinois which is the only Supreme Court finding on the 2nd untill the murky United States v. Miller decision which says in part that

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

Which seems to imply that the 2nd can and does affect the states. As I said it is very murky.

Further history would and has taken up books. I can not add all the links here cause there is a limit to how many links they allow in posts.

Vicki, you are confusing rights with the Bill of Rights amendents. Rights existed before that, rights are inalienable, Americans are born with rights. The First Amendment does not say: “Americans now have these five rights,” it simply says “Congress shall make no law respecting…or prohibiting…or abridging” those rights. The First Amendment is not the source of those rights, it’s a restriction on Congress to legislate concerning them. The Ninth Amendment says this restriction includes all rights whether enumerated therein or not. If that amendment is viewed separately from the Bill of Rights, it makes no sense whatever. The Tenth Amendment states “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…are reserved to the States…or to the people.” This again reminds Congress that power over rights was not delegated to the U.S. Congress.
Rights are not dependent on any document for their existence, they are inalienable. Forty-four state constitutions have similar bills of rights in them. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the federal Bill of Rights restrictions applies exclusively to the federal government. I realize that Wikipedia doesn’t agree with that, but they are wrong, the U.S. Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. The Crukshank case was an example of that, blacks had been deprived of their right to bear arms, and charged that that violated the Second Amendment, the High Court held that it did not, because the amendment does not apply to state legislatures.

James says:
“Vicki, you are confusing rights with the Bill of Rights amendents. Rights existed before that, rights are inalienable, Americans are born with rights. ”

I’m not the one that is confused. I often point out amendment 9. I point out that the Constitution is a set of limits on what powers we can give our government. I often point out that should the 2nd amendment be repealed I have not lost the right to keep and bear arms for that right was given to us by our creator not by the Constitution.

I think that about the First amendment as well which is why I am glad that the first amendment stuff has been “properly” incorporated onto the states. Now if folk would like to wake up and do the same for the 2nd we would have much less trouble protecting the rest of our rights (See amendment 9)

P.S. Amendment 9 is where the right to keep and bear arms would still be in the Constitution should the 2nd be repealed btw.

Vicki, In my above brief, the barron case (1833) stated that the Fifth Amendment restriction also applies only to federal legislation. When we plead the ‘Fifth’ so to speak, we are asserting our right not to incriminate ourselves. If the Fifth Amendment were removed, we should still have that right. The Ninth Amendment’s “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights” refers to the rights just mentioned in the preceding eight amendments, it simply states that the restrictive theme of the Bill of Rights applies to all rights whether mentioned therein or not. This amendment was suggested by Alexander Hamilton, he reasoned that if only certain rights were mentioned as being off-limits to the feds they might assume those not mentioned were fair game. The Tenth Amendment doesn’t limit the powers that the people may delegate to the federal government, it just reminds Congress that the only powers it does have are those enumerated in Article I, Section Eight.

The tenth does a little more than that.

“….nor prohibited by it (The Constitution) to the States….”

Clearly shows that the intent of the Bill of Rights is to apply prohibitions to what powers the people can grant to their state governments.

This can be clearly seen by reading the entire amendment.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So the powers that are NOT delegated to the US Government by the Constitution and are NOT prohibited by the Constitution to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people (if not delegated to the states).

Vicki, The U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8, is not a limit on what powers we can give to our government. It simply enumerates the powers that we GAVE to the federal government. And, the First Amendment has never been “incorporated onto the states,” as you put it. State constitutions preceded the U.S. Constitution, and rights preceded the state constitutions.
The Bill of Rights was added to the U.S. Constitution to preclude the possibility that Congress might misconstrue the powers that were granted to them to legislate over rights. It’ a Bill of Don’ts.
Today, almost everyone refers to their right to bear arms as a Second Amendment right, and/or as a constitutional right, and that has cconfused many into thinking that the Second Amendment IS the right. Not so. It only says the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed,” and the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that that restriction applies exclusively to the federal government.
As to ‘pleading the fifth,’ this arose in Miranda v. Arizona. The High Court, therein, simply held that criminal suspects must be advised of their right to remain silent, before any questioning may proceed. The Court said every American has this right, not “to be a witness against himself,” and must be reminded of it. It has never held that that right was granted by the Fifth Amendment. Rights, all rights, are inalienable, they are not dependent on any documents.

James.

The Bill of Rights is a list of specific rights for which we can not give our government power to infringe. That is why they are there. Now as you and I have both observed the First Amendment only restricts Congress.
However SCOTUS has disagreed with us and used the 14th to “incorporate” the first.

The following are Supreme Court decisions that “incorporated” features of the First Amendment to apply to state as well as federal action.

* Freedom of speech and press: Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925). Applied the First Amendment to a New York anti-anarchy law challenged by a Socialist who was arrested for leafleting.
* Freedom of assembly: DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937). Overturned an Oregon criminal syndicalism law used to arrest a Communist for organizing a meeting.
* Free exercise of religion: Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940). A victory for a Jehovah’s Witness member arrested for door-to-door soliciting.
* Establishment of religion: Everson v. Board of Education, 330 I.S. 1 (1947). Applied the First Amendment to a New Jersey law that allowed school boards to reimburse parents for the cost of student transportation to and from parochial schools.

The 2nd clearly restricts ALL governments as it clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. Note that, unlike the first, no specific part of government is named.

Vicki & James;
Well now I’m totally confused. Could you both expound a little bit on your cases please.

Cindy, The 14th Amendment (1868) made Blacks “citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…[and]Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Back then, that meant no State could execute, imprison or confiscate property, without due process of law, which some southern States were doing to Blacks. “Liberty” simply meant the absence of incarceration, but the Supreme Court has, since, added other meanings to it. The four cases Vicki cited (Gitlow, DeJunge, Cantwell and Everson) held that, through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, “liberty” now includes First Amendment rights. In Row v. Wade (1973) the Court added the Abortion right to “liberty” and in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) they added homosexual rights to it (they said those rights were part of the “others retained by the people” in the 9th Amendment).
This does not mean that the Bill of Rights restrictions now apply to the States, it just means the High Court has expanded on the original meaning of “liberty” in the 14th Amendment. Back then the 14th Amendment just applied to the just freed Blacks, now it applies to all Americans. But inserting rights through its liberty clause has misled many to assume the Bill of Rights now applies to the States. Not so, it is a restriction the States placed upon their new federal government. Again, the Bill of Rights is not the source of our rights, rights are inalienable.

James;
Thanks for your replies and Vickis too. You and Vicki have subsequently clarified some of the issues since I asked that que. on June 3. with your post between June 3 to June 6th, however for those of us (me) who have a difficult time understanding and following all the “legalese” the issue still remains cloudy.
If our inalienable rights are truly “inalienable” how are Chicago and other cities able to put restrictions on law abiding citizens rights
to own a gun? (Chicago, Wa.DC, etc) No 2nd amendment right/inalienable rights allowed in these cities? What is the legal loophole they are using, or are they just breaking Constitutional law to accomplish this?

Cindy, Inalienable means no state or federal government has the power to infringe on our right to bear arms. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean they can’t, or wont, try to do that. If a State has infringed on that right (like in Illinois), the proper action would be for the offended citizen to file suit in his state court system (like McDonald v. Chicago), charging that that state law has violated Art. I Sec. 22 of the Illinois Constitution. If the federal government has infringed on one’s right, he should file suit in a federal District Court, within his State, charging that such law has violated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Our rights don’t protect themselves, individuals do. The D.C. v. Heller decision (2008) held that a D.C. Ordinance had violated the Second Amendment, federal courts, there, had jurisdiction because D.C. is a federal territory. Federal courts have never held a state law violative of the Second Amendment, because the Bill of Rights restricts the federal government only, as the Supreme Court held in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875), see my above brief. When the High Court decides McDonald v. Chicago, they will uphold Cruikshank. Mr. McDonald’s beef is with Illinois, not the federal government.

Thank you James. I have learned more about the Constitution on this site from posters like you & Vicki & others, than I ever did in school.

You’re welcome Cindy. I am glad that even though we (James and I) disagree on some points that we have helped you to think more about these issues and I hope you will study them more and draw your own conclusions.

Jim, on a good day, Daley is a useful idiot. Most of the time, he’s worse. A useful idiot does he’s told. Daley could be the new poster child for useful idiots (he took over for Gore).
I’m not a great fan of Savage, but when it comes to progressives, home-grown useful idiots and ‘liberals,’ Savage knows what he’s talking about.
The Savage book should be required reading for those who are still in doubt as to how low a liberal will sink to ‘fit in’ and (somehow) be seen as a “caring, compassionate, enlightened, public-spirited,” liberal. Thank God, Daley will never be a prez.

As good as (most) cops are the truth of the matter is that the victim is ALWAYS first on the scene. Cops are the “backup” How would a cop react to being told they had to leave their guns behind and if they find a gun to be necessary to control the situation they had to call for swat who would be allowed to bring the guns.

Man, I love my Arizona gun regulations, I mean “lack” of regulations. The end of July starts our concealed with no permit time which makes us only one of three states to do so. We have always been allowed to carry loaded and in the open. Remember, former liberal commi-progressives turned libertarian conservatives did so because of crimes against them. Imagine that, liberal on liberal crime. I said for years when the debate was on machine guns, who needs a machine gun ? It’s for mass killing. I bought into their simple minded presentations. Now I see it for what it is in that if you let them control one type, they can control them all. Stand up and make our constitution gospel.

“I said for years when the debate was on machine guns, who needs a machine gun ? It’s for mass killing.”

I still feel that way to an extent but you know what, I would buy one in a minute if I could afford it just so I could shoot it. I don’t particularly like AK-47 look alikes either I think they are ugly but if you want one more power to you. Go buy it and have fun shooting it.

Some years back when our beloved AZ began the “concealed carry” permits [with the same kind of training, etc described by Howe in Texas], our state crime figures dropped, year after year after year! As already mentioned, it has always been legal to wear a gun in plain sight in Arizona, to keep it exposed. Now, soon, it will become legal for ALL people to conceal a gun. When the crooks wonder who might have a gun they are not as eager to start shooting or to invade a home. Proven. Being a huge part Texan [since 1883], I love what Howe from TX says.

We have to clean up our borders where half of the illegals come through for the entire USA! They kill our citizens and trash our desert. Many illegals die getting across, too, and are killed by the human smugglers when the smugglers [coyotes] can’t get the ransoms they ask for. GADS! Let’s make it less attractive for them to risk their lives!

ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL! Having our guns should never be illegal! Who is going to protect us if we can’t protect ourselves?

GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Florida’s had dropped 35%, 4 years after they brought in Conceal carry laws.

You are so right! My grandfather was a kid cowboy in Arizona Territory the last part of the 19th century, while he could handle either a rifle or a hand gun with equal dexterity, he preferred the long gun because he felt a man would think twice before using it.
Years later, he would laugh at the B-westerns put out by Hollywood, saying that had there been as many gun-fights in the old west as in the movies, there wouldn’t have been a cowboy left!
Nope, I want six-gun justice back! Yes, there were those who wanted to do away with guns even in the old west, but what they really wanted was called “responsibility.”

A little while back the ACLU wqas trying to get me to join them. I told them I would consider joining their organization when they started defending the second amendment. Their reply was they considered the second amendment to mean a collictive right not an individual right. Needless to say I am not a member and will not be one as long as they maintain that attitude.

Why, how dare you talk about the Atheist Communist Lawyers Underground like that!

Amen! He shouldn’t have the benefit of armed guards while everyone else is left to helpless.

Good point, 45caliber. If we read the Bible, in Matthew 23:4 and Luke 11:46, we’ll see that today’s liberal democraps are phony hypocites, and will not live with the burdens they impose on us. They forced Obummer-care onto us, but will exempt themselves from it. They want to tax us to death while the rich democraps cheat on their own taxes. They condemn succesful people, but it’s okay for liberal democraps to be rich – even in unethical ways (i.e., Al Gore earning millions with global warming fraud). The environmental fascists want us to walk and ride bicycles, while they ride in big cars, limos and private planes….. So it should be no surprise that they’d strip us of our weapons while they keep their own, nor would they disarm their own security personnel. Disarming citizens is also just a stepping stone to tyranny…..Perhaps we should form a group – maybe VOATH?? – Vote Out All The Hypocrites!!

His goons should only be allowed to carry pea shooters.

Me thinks the Daley crime syndicate sees the constitution more clearly than we give him credit for. The founders saw the right to bear arms as a method of keeping big government tyrrany in check. After all, Chicago is one of the safest cities in the world now that most of the riff-raff resides in D.C..

The Liberals know that too. They just think that they are going to be first in line at the trough when Government takes over. They think wrong. The useless people are going to be the first to go.

Y’know, I think there’s a lot of truth to that. People in favor of more powerful government seem to under the DELUSION that the gov’t is going to exercise that power as they would themselves, or in a way that directly benefits them.

Make no mistake about it though – it’s a DELUSION. Power will always be exercised to the benefit of the politicians and the money interests that finance them being in power – which will never be the common person.

Alex, The term well regulated at the time it was written, mint: Self disciplined. There was no such thing as gun registration or background checks. How uninformed are you?

…”mint”..mint?? What is it that you are trying so hard to say?

What he meant to say is your the moron who cant read or do proper research for themselve and is the dancing meat puppet of the anti fascists Alex!

I agree with Mark. You are uninformed. “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.” There is a comma after the word State and the people have the right to keep and bear arms with or without a militia. That right is well documented during that time in addition to the constitution. People not only needed guns to hunt to feed themselves, but also for protection. The peoples right to keep and bear arms were also meant as a check and balance against government power.

Alex-Anti-American Liberal
Go away little ignorant liberal. Your ignorant statements don’t hold any water. The supreme court has already defined it. I’m surprised liberals like you know when to take a breath with out one of your ignorant leaders telling you when and how.

Alex,
If ignorance is bliss, you must be one happy Liberal.

Alex – do you know what “tea-bagger” means in gay language. You are insulting normal every day concerned people – mom and dads; teachers, doctors, lawyers, elderly, etc.

Here a little thought for you:

Using such a derogatory term us used to try and dehumanizes those that disagree with you. It is childish, unintelligent, insulting and you only belittle yourself. It shows you have no class and you have no ability to engage in intelligent and rational discussions.

Ms Meteorhead–the Teabaggers christened themselves as Teabaggers–look it up! We just love calling them that because it is such a funny self-inflicted pejorative. The Fright Wing throws around words with no sense of their meanings or of their history in popular usage—thus imbeciles like Glenn Beck rail against the term “czars” even though its use in the Amerikan vernacular dates to the Repubelickin’ administration of Ronald Raygun, the second-worst war-dodgin’ president after George Bush the Smaller. Please read some History rather than suffocating on Faux news every night.

Congratulations Alex. You have set a new bar for liberals everywhere to outdo. As Ad Hominum attacks go it is however rather transparent.

Do come back sometime when you are ready to debate the ideas however.

Btw what part of “…the right of the people…” were you having trouble understanding? (<—- Thinly veiled ad hominum attack )

Alex, you obviously live in your own Liberal world where we all sing the Coca Cola song….what Obama suggested was a better choice for the National Anthem. I Suggest that you get back to reality.

Hey Meteorlady… While the term “tea bagging” does refer to a sexual act… it most certainly IS NOT a gay term. Just like kissing, ‘tea bagging’ be done by anyone.

Poor pathetic Alex, God gave him the ability to tap out letters on his keyboard, but didn’t give him a mind to think with. No rational thought processes at all. Lucky for him he falls under the “cradle to grave” program, or he’d be in a world of hurt.

Alex,
I see you haven’t seen the news out of the U.K. They have outlawed ALL handguns and some nut with an automatic went around in a cab shooting people! At least two dozen wounded and 12 dead!! Boy those regulations and outright bans sure work, don’t they???

Actually, it was a shot gun I believe.

Joe… on average about 100 people will be murdered with a gun this year in the UK, while over 11,000 Americans will be killed by a gun during the same period. (More people will die from a gun in Detroit THIS YEAR than the next THREE YEARS in the UK.) Your argument is flawed… and it plays right into the hands of those that want to disarm Americans. You found the UK’s most sensational gun crime to occur in the last 25 and twisted it into a weak argument to suit your position.
A country’s history, its culture, even its economy can be big factors in gun use, gun crimes and gun laws. The gun debate is far more complex than your overly simple and totally out of context argument. Too many Americans die from guns and I don’t think that’s right. BUT taking away MY freedom to own a gun and defend MY home isn’t right either. If you want to help me keep my rights and freedoms… please stop making such ridiculous statements.

sheldon,
It just serves to prove that no matter how many gun laws or bans you pass, the determined criminal will always get a gun! Hell, look at the Chinese guy that attacked students with a hatchet a few weeks ago. how does THAT play into their plan? I firmly believe that if you outright BAN all guns in the US then the crime rate will go up! As to all those arms they want to stop flooding Mexico from the US? Most of them come from China and Russia via a little despot leader that Obummer and crew are so fond of in South America!

Sheldon, Chicago has a gun ban. Gun crime only escalated after the ban was in effect. Your numbers don’t tell the whole story. Fact: Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against
criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every seconds. Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using firearms defensively stated that they “almost certainly” saved their lives by doing so. Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives. Fact: In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense.

Fact: The rate of defensive gun use (SGU) is six times that of criminal gun use. Fact: Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to
defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Fact: Less than 8% of the time does a citizen wound his or her attacker, and in less than one in a thousand instances is the attacker killed. Fact: Of all forms of firearm homicide, 13% are civilian legal defensive homicides. Then there are the criminals who kill each other and the ones who are killed by police. Last are the ones who commit suicide, which some years they have accounted for almost half of gun deaths.

Mark… the numbers I mentioned (11,000 gun deaths annually) were for gun homicides ONLY (suicides were a separate number). I am curious as to what your source was for the numbers you quoted? Where did you get these numbers?
Couple of thoughts… in a one-on-one situation a gun IS NOT a defensive weapon. In a one-on-one situation whoever draws first wins… that’s why the bad guys always say “hands-up”. That’s why I like concealed carry laws… it reduces the odds of one-on-one situations.
A friend of mine in Canada says their gun laws work pretty well… few people die by guns, but it’s pointless because the number of stabbings is ridiculous. He says people will kill in the heat of the moment with whatever they can use, be it a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, fists etc., etc. He says the only ban that might work is the ban of homicidal emotions, otherwise bans are a waste of time and money.
Anyway Mark… looking forward to your info source, if you’ve got the time. Thanks.

I don’t know about your stastisiks but if they are right of the 11000
they were probably killed by criminals not lawabiding citizens. if it was lawabiding citizens they were more than likely defending themselves or their homes!

Sheldon,
In a one on one the first to draw isn’t always the winner. there are a lot of crooks that can’t handle a gun worth a dam! Look at this instance the crook shot at the old man and missed! Not untill the crook shot twice did the old man shoot and kill the crook!! Most times it comes down to who has the best control, as in control to hit what they shoot at!

Why does it have to be ” White Estates of Amerika” ? What third world “Colony of Afrikan Negroes” did you get deported from? Morons ? Really ? I’ll bet you can even count with your fingers. one , two , three , four………Airhead…..EZ

Alex, you need to actually read the bill of rights and the Federalist papers and the writings of Ben Franklin and you will see that the term Militia by the founders refers to the general populace not a military militia as defined today. The first thing a communist or totalitarian regime is to check gun registration rolls and arrest them first. Inform yourself before you speak and show your ignorance.

Slaveowner drivel–most of the Floundering Fathers did not believe any of the pretty words in the constitution or the Bill of Whites–they owned people, after all. The Fright Wing lunatics need to pay attention. How many of you ever listen to, say, Rachel Maddow? Eye can see how Olberman might get your panties in a twist, but Maddow is calm and precise. The people on the Left, the educated, curious, and open-minded get their information from a variety of sources, including Faux News. This allows us to hear DIFFERENT points of view and DECIDE for OURSELVES!! I am afraid that most Faux News viewers never listen to any other point of view. I am correct, right?

We listened to yours. Discovered you did not have any. We move on.

No Alex, unlike you liberals that have to watch a news program/anchor like Rachael Madcow to tell you what “your point of view” is, we have had our “point of view” for years. We didn’t need the lame stream media to “get our point of view”
All it took was watching and listening to all you liberal socialists nutjobs for several years with your Constitution bashing, Saul Alinski following, Louis Farakann idolizing, Marxist/Stalinist loving bull sh*t to get “our point of view”
Unlike you, and your liberal/socialist brothers and sisters, we are not puppets. We can think for ourselves, and all it takes is seeing one more fool like you on here, to strengthen our resolve, and reaffirm our beliefs in a Constitutional America, and our “point of view”. Any questions Alex?

hey alex

you are not correct, im glad you brought up the subject of news sourses, myself and many others have invested into a veritas program that is a fact checking program that takes all the news that is being reported from most all news organizations and investigative journalist sites from around the world, it uses a mathmatical system that puts all the storys and subjects alike and weeds out any differences in story as add on or conspiracy, it measures the amount of lies put out ontop of a subject due to bias, it weighs the amount of lies and compares % of what is true and what is non factual bias agenda being put out, its a great program to have at your fingertips,

and alex i bet you can guess wich investigative journalist news organization is spot on above all the rest,– i will give you a hint—its the one you commies hate the most…

P.S
why are you such a racisist????
jesus still loves you and you cant stop that!!

hey alex

if you hate this country so much, then quit riding this countrys free coattails, angola awaits you, you should feel verry safe there since you share the same interests as the thugs there do, or better yet join up with some of those pirates off of the n.e african coast..
when you take the guns from the law abiding citizens in the u.s –then you will have the same situations here as you do over there, war lords armed to the hilt. dont forget the oppertunities this free country has given you and be thankful you were born here, think about this –if history hadent played out the way that it did–were would you be right now? be thankful to the lord, and look at what it could have been..

T axes E nough A lready

Yes Alex, I think you are correct 30% of the time. And out of the 30% , 28 % of “Fox Noise Addicts” are Here!

But that don’t change the notion that you are still wrong 70% on the time.

We should not speak of things and think 30% accuracy is acceptable just because others do. ????? No?

I’m a Democrat but much less Liberal and much more conservative progressive. I’ll vote for a Republican in a heartbeat that’s convinced me they are true to the spirit of their words and the words ring clear to my ears. Mc Cain failed that test as did all except Nixon, while admitting having a vested interest in Regan. Though just a “pitch man”, the better choice of the two, Cater failing to Marshall the respect and move the ball, tho he the better man.

I hate guns, I love guns, grew up with them, my first at 13, a 12 Gage goose gun, (a lesson of respect came with every trigger pull) used them in many ways and for many reasons, hence the love/hate affair.

from lighting matches with a 22 to dropping ducks flying 60 mph out of a fog bank at 75ft to men at 20ft to 400 yards in a hard run, does not make anyone a “conservative”.

So all this bias political affiliation notions don’t hold water in this discussions of rights to possess and bear arms.

All these actions or behaviors does not make me or anyone a Conservative.

For if it be so, all armed commission of a crime would be by only conservatives. ~ or do I heard debate?

Alex — With all your ranting and raving, you haven’t managed to come with anything that makes sense. Do yourself a favor — take a cold shower and sober up!!

if you want faxs look at scotland yard numbers crime rose by 350% after the gun band

alax teabaging is something you fags do we tea party members respect the law and the right to own and use a gun for self protection from stuped ass liberals like you next time you post be respectful or don,t post

You should fight for the public education that you clearly missed out on.

And YOU, poor pathetic Alex, should strive for the Constitutional education that YOU “clearly missed out on”

hey alex

are you talking about the public screw’l system that handed you all your passing grades and screw’d everybody else that worked for there grades? dude i saw your culture of corruption get a free pass all through school, while hard working students got passed over.

its ok-alex, we all saw , you can pretend you deserved your grades but deep down you know that you cheated everyone else, and if that doesent bother you than you are the marxist scum we all are starting to recognize, dont worry alex the free ride for you will be around for a long time to come, but take heed and know that at any time we can take that away from you, its a matter of when, maybe sooner than later…

ENJOY IT WHILE YOU CAN

T axed E nough A lready

hey alex

have you studied the jefferson doc’s? direct your racisist hand onto google and find the library of congress, and research the subject through the origional doc’s from jefferson, then you will have been educated enough to speak about a subject you seem to not understand. the right to own fire arms is absoulute for the american citizen, there are many commie typ’s that hate the fact that we have the right to own guns, the reason is because the commies know that they will never beable to completly take over this free country as long as law abiding citizens are allowed to own fire arms, thats why commies are always trying to convience everyone the constitution has all these different meanings, give it up dude we all know what you are about, commie obamie will never beable to fully dissarm the american citizens of this country, he may get some crap guns in a gun grab scam, but will never get the guns that count no matter how hard he tries–there for he will never beable to take this country down all the way. if the constitution meant gun registration of citizens guns–then F.D.R, CARTER, CLINOCHIO,AND COMMIE OBAMIE would have already done it. a well regulated militia refers to a standing patriot army under orders of the president–thus a army payed by the american citizens. the private citizen has always had the right to keep and bare arms as a secondary patriot, a backup if you will, kind of like the backup pistol strap’d to my leg, and by the way why are you so full of hate against people who want to protect them selves from the hords of drug dealing pimps, cons and commies running around out there who mean harm to everybody they come in contact with, people arent going to give up there rights to keep and bare arms- especially in these days of unclear agendas that we are all whitnessing. try to take the guns from law abiding citizens and you will see the patriots become activated–and i dont think even you alex wish for that typ of punishment to break open, it would be like opening up a giant can of whoopass, this country is a lot bigger than you know alex, and there will always be patriots out there waiting for the chance to run the commies out into the ocean. i suggest you look up the heritage foundation and find all the proven facts about the subject that you seem to pushing for the commie party, the heritage foundation will be the best sourse of imfo you will ever find when it comes to the constitution, until then dont wast your time trying to covience all of us with the pocket constitution at hand. and why are you so racisist? and full of hate at the folks that want to preserve the meaning of the constitution? is it because we all own fire arms and thugs like yourself wont beable to rob us due to the fact that we will protect ourselves from scumbags,commies,thugs,pimps,gangs,and the general low class low lifes that mean us all harm,as long as there are thugs like these–you wont ever beable to take our guns.

i say to you mr–GOOD LUCK
AND ALEX ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT JESUS LOVES YOU-AND YOU CANT STOP THAT EITHER!!
stay sharp alex–as we noticed you are a racisist

T ax’d–E nough–A lready

At the permission of the state? The state has no busieness, none! in gun registration. Bite me, Commie.

Alex, don’t pretend that you are intelligent. When the Constitution was written, “well regulated militia” meant the private citizens. It was never intended to mean a government force of arms. THAT was exactly what the founders were fighting against.

Alex will be giving a “teabagging” demonstration at a gay wedding sometime soon.

Alex, Back then every man was required to keep a firearm in good working condition in his home because they were all subject to being called upon to serve in their state’s militia. All Americans had the right to bear arms before they created the federal government, with its subsequent Bill of Rights. It’s true that for a while the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment’s restriction applied only to militia-type weapons, but it’s also true that the Court’s Heller decision (2008) reversed that, the court held that to deny a citizen, in the District of Columbia, the right to possess a handgun violated the Second Amenement.

Bob wire,
You say anti-gun is not a progressive position. If anti-gun is not a “progress position”, they pray tell, what is it?

Progressives in control of congress and the white house, and 5 anti-gun bills in progress. What do you call this?

Do you only include issues that the progressives admit to openly, or do you also include things that the progressives lie about, keep in the dark, arrange through back room deals, and ram down our throats no matter whether we want it or not, “because they know what’s better for us” than we do?

p.s. Bob, I expect that you will just pretend like you don’t see this question because you don’t have an answer, but that’s ok. I understand how you progressives are.