Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ 

Point/Counterpoint: Your 2nd Amendment Rights

January 7, 2013 by  

Point/Counterpoint: Your 2nd Amendment Rights
UPI FILE

The other day, I received an opinion piece from one of our writers, Bailey O’Malia, that discussed the 2nd Amendment. In it, she made many of the same mistakes made by a lot of liberals, “progressives” or whatever they call themselves today to not sound bad.

I thought about how I wanted to post it and then realized I couldn’t let it go without weighing in on the issue.

Frankly, she was wrong. So I posted my response and created a point/counterpoint article. I want you to read her piece and mine and then get in on this argument. If you think she’s wrong, tell her.  If you think I’m wrong, tell me. We begin with O’Malia’s argument.

Point: The Right to Bear Arms — Within Reason

In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, Americans and politicians have spent time reflecting on gun control.

We often hear that our Founding Fathers wrote our right to bear arms into the Constitution as a way to protect ourselves from harm — that they wanted us to have that right, even today.

But that’s not something I’m so sure about.

When the Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution, their idea of a weapon was a musket — not an automatic weapon. The gun they had in mind would be used for safety or for hunting.

With this in mind, I wonder what the fathers of our Nation would have said about civilians owning military-grade weapons that can shoot 100 rounds in a minute.

Surely, there is no need for a civilian to hold that kind of power in his hand. In fact, why should anyone have that much power over another human being? Do we really trust each other’s judgment?

I’ve been thinking about this for days, and I can’t come up with one good reason that a person would need anything more than a handgun or rifle for “safety.”

So when the discussion of changing the gun laws is brought up, I think: “What a perfectly simple solution; ban all automatic weapons.” This appeases Democrats because they will have made steps toward gun reform, and it appeases Republicans because they won’t be fully losing their right to bear arms. Do you consider shooting an automatic weapon a fun hobby? They could still be available to rent at a gun range.

But this is a compromise — a concept politicians and Americans are unfamiliar with these days.

If you’re pro-guns, at this point you’re probably saying: “But it’s my right, and they’re taking away all of our rights.”

But it’s also your right to feel safe in this country. And despite the theorists who say, “Arm every person in the country; that’ll scare ’em,” the lunatics who are shooting up movie theaters and schools don’t seem to place much value on their lives or the lives of others.

Before you start spouting your Founding Fathers crap, take a second to think about the core principle that this country was supposedly built on: freedom. I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel very “free” knowing that my neighbor could be housing an AK-47 in his garage.

–Bailey O’Malia

Counterpoint: The Reason for the Right to Bear Arms

As intelligent as I think Bailey is, she’s dead wrong here. I do feel safer knowing that my neighbor could be housing an AK-47 in his garage. Why? Because I know most of my neighbors are honest, hardworking people who aren’t nutcases looking to shoot up schoolchildren.

See, what happens when these terrible tragedies occur is the media blow things out of proportion to spread their leftist views. I generally don’t yell and point fingers about how biased they are; but this time, they really have showed their hand. Somewhere in the middle of all the hype about how access to guns was the issue here, we forget what the 2nd Amendment was really about.

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they wanted to ensure that all people were equal — equal with each other and equal with the government. Yes, when this was all written, people had only muskets. But do you know who else had only muskets? The government.

We had just finished overthrowing a tyrannical government in order to become a free nation; and the Founders, who literally helped fight in that war, wanted the American people to have equal footing with whatever government took over, in order to prevent tyranny if necessary once again. These guys were smart; they weren’t thinking inside the box of their time. They were completely aware that technology would change, but they wanted Americans to be able to stand up for themselves. How does one do that? By having the same level of weaponry as the government!

The Constitution was written with revolution in mind, not the peace that we have internally had for about 150 years now. I say 150 years, because we fought ourselves with our armed militias in the Civil War; we have been lucky to have had internal peace since then. But you can’t closed-mindedly say that the 2nd Amendment was for limited weapons. It just wasn’t. It was meant to keep people on the same level as the government so that they could fight for their rights if necessary.

Sure, if my neighbors had rocket launchers, I think I’d be scared just because they could blow up my house. But if the Founders were still around, I think they’d be all right with it.

–Tim Young

Tim Young

is the Managing Editor at Absolute Rights and has been featured on Fox News, Forbes, and The London Daily Telegraph. You can see Tim's latest work by clicking here.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Point/Counterpoint: Your 2nd Amendment Rights”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Jon

    To The long winded (and left sort of fellow) Jeremy poo!(that is nice for B$)
    As to your article you are correct in thought but you did not address ether the lies or stupidity of Bailey O’Malia for all intents automatic weapons are outlawed have been for a very long time the requirements for getting one are expensive and detailed, the yearly filing and tracking is a pain. Her “feelings” based on the possible possessions of others is an emotional disorder that others should not be forced make allowances for. She apparently has not noticed that almost all such attacks have been in “gun free zones” they did not go and shoot up a gun range where they would undoubtedly be shot very quickly and she would probably have trouble explaining the 28 children lost to Knife wielding sicko in China, but hey they do not allow folks to have guns there. Hey lady a compromise with bad is NOT GOOD.

  • sandy

    please get your facts right. there was no 100 bullets a minutes used on the school. revolvers were used and the administration used this opportunity to take away are 2nd amendmemt rights. remember fast and furious? both of you need to take the gun glass for 8 hrs and learn more. please inpower yourselves.

    • eddie47d

      Thank You Sandy for reiterating that point that automatics weren’t used in any of these mass killing. They were mostly done with semi-automatics and thus the outrage against THOSE weapons of choice.

  • Brett

    Bailey couldn’t be more wrong. My Government won’t be restricted to non semi-automatic firearms therefore our Founding Fathers would not want me limited in such a way. Anyone trying to make a case for gun control should do themselves and the rest of us a favor by educating themselves before beginning their argument. First off, average citizens do not have access to military grade weopons. This is not arguable. Military grade weopons are fully automatic select fire rifles. They would be at a heavy disadvantage armed with AR-15 rifles. 100 shots per minute? While humanly possible with a semi- automatic there would be no accuracy for you average maniac. As I recall random “spraying” of bullets is not what these clowns do. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sport shooting. It was put in place to protect us from tyrany. Therefore it is obvious that they wanted to insure that the citizens had weopons on par with whay the Government had pr there would be no protection in the 2nd Amendment.

  • brabbie2002

    Our Forefathers probably knew that sooner or later money, freedom and gun grabbing goons in the senate and congress would rear their ugly heads and demand everything we own..IE oblowhole administration and their share the wealth plan. Thus, they put in the 2nd amendment to give us the right to take back our government from the tyrannical a-holes that seem determined to let America fall into a third world country! Anyone with brains, this does not include liberals, knows that the government is supposed to be by the people and for the people – NOT let’s tax them to death, give it to those that won’t work, take away their protection so the criminals will have free rein, and cheat on the voting so we will always be in office while the dictator-in-chief breaks out his magic pen and signs thousands of executive orders that we can’t even keep up with!

  • http://MSN Bearkrause

    I believe Mr. Young is correct in his rebuttal piece. From the inception of our Republic the focus has been on equality and freedom not the evolution of weaponry. The 2nd Amendment speaks to an equality of like force in the maintenance of our freedoms against any and all despots. It was never intended to create or perpetuate a disparity of balance in the ability of all Americans to protect their God-given freedoms,, as well as promote safety.
    Liberals, as usual, are quick to grab the first emotional opportunity to advance their cause and reasoning regardless of the historical facts which point to the exact polar opposite of their premise. If they need any further proof just look at the homicide rate in “Gun Free” Chicago and compare it to any other location in our country where Conceal Carry is allowed or encouraged. If you are a Liberal you won’t care much for the statistical imbalance in favor of the safety afforded when the bad guys are unable to determine who may be able to protect themselves in areas where law abiding citizens have the ability to exercise that freedom.

  • http://aol Marshall Hill

    If the guy next door legally owns Firearms,I know that he is watching
    what occurs around him and me! (WIN-WIN) Most people against that are
    against things have little or no knowledge of the subject! Fear of the
    UNKNOWN!

  • ReaperHD

    Twenty four million Americans out of work going on five years now with this regime and no bills to produce jobs. Drugs pouring accross the Mexican border and going on five years now with this regime no bills to close the border. Two months after shooting 10 bills to disarm Americans, this regime after five years cannot destroy the Constitution and the American People as long as they are armed. If you give up your arms with this anti-american muslim commie terrorist in the WH we are all in trouble, you give up the weapons that ensure your freedom and this country is third world in no time.

    • Barb L

      Don’t worry Reaper, We don’t know anyone who legally have guns who are going to GIVE them up! They all feel as we do, That they will have to pry them from our dead hands and the beauty of that is we will be taking a large bunch of Obama’s “storm troopers” from Chicago with us! Our Military AND our police officers will not do it for him, so his Black militia will have to and quite frankly, I think we would win!

      • david

        Barb L, I have said this time and time and again. Legal is not the same as Lawful. Legal is the interpretation of written rules. If the written rules are vague, they must be enforced vaguely, or in other words, no enforcement at all. Only written laws are enforceable. Legal is interpretation and insertion into law something that was not written into the law in the first place, If you are not named in the law then it does not apply to you. If the law does not describe YOU to a “T” then it does not apply to you. Are you a criminal? Then the law does not apply to you. You are who you are (Barb L or whoever you call yourself). You are not the name “criminal” are you? So how does that law apply to you? If some other law is used and says you broke it supposedly (did you harm or damage someone – if not – no crime) and names you in it, then the other law would apply. Your name has to come to the top of the list of one law or you are signed to that contracted law, for any other law at all, can apply to you!

        Until you can break into this consciousness, you will not understand!

        To understand law is not unlawful. To understand legal can be illegal for you unless you have a license to practice that. All licenses are permissions to do something that is illegal, but is not unlawful. If it is lawful, such as freedom of movement by any conveyance, [by foot, animal, or motor vehicle <- that is in the Constitution] then you do not need a license to do that.

    • eddie47d

      Its Congress who sets and enact the laws Reaper. No border closures (you implied) well then have a chat with Congress! Your loose lips about “regime,commie,Muslim,traitor” shows you are an out of control nutjob. Same goes for Barb and her black militia comment trying to turn this into a racial issue! I’m use to seeing these kinds of comments on PLD so no surprise there but you’d think you all would use a different tact in presenting yourself!

      • phideaux

        “Its Congress who sets and enact the laws Reaper.”

        Congress passes the laws then the president either accepts or rejects them (signs or vetos). If he signs them it is up to the justice department (which operates under the executive branch) So, if they are not being enforced it is certainly not the fault of congress.to enforce them.

  • Barb L

    I’m starting my point of view directed at Jeremy’s 2nd. sentence. The right to bear arms IS most definitely a liberal vs. conservative issue, has been since the late 1950′s. It’s just getting to be a major issue because of the liberal media and their “agenda”. Not to mention how this is empowering the illegal president to yet again tear down our Constitution. The term I hear more and more is Americans must turn in their weapons or their assault weapons, not guns, weapons. Well let’s see baseball bats are used to assault people everyday, cars and trucks too, then there are bricks and blocks and rocks, knives of every category, fists, feet, elbows, knees, heads, shall I go on? Certain knives and swords can kill as many children in a school as guns can. Hell one bomb could kill just about all of them. Where do we stop once this dangerous precedent is set? Almost anything could be used an “assault weapon”. Dear God save us from this idiocy!

    • eddie47d

      Apparently Barb approves of baseball bats being used to kill someone. LOL! I use a baseball bat to hit balls how about you? I use a car to drive to the store how about you? You are using lame excuses to hang onto you gun fetish with the thinking that because someone dies in a car accident you have the absolute right to kill someone with a gun. Hardly!

      • phideaux

        “Apparently Barb approves of baseball bats being used to kill someone.”

        If you honestly got that from Barb’s post eddie you need to quit posting here or anywhere else for that matter for you have NO ability to comprehend what you read. I suspect however you are up to your old tricks of deliberately miss-representating what she said so you can make an illogical argument against it.

      • eddie47d

        Maybe Barb should leave since I was only replying to her slick and devious comment!

      • Barb L

        Slick and devious comment?? Wow, Mr.Ed, I never expected such a compliment from you!!!! You just don’t like the obvious pointed out to you, tends to show everyone where you are on the intelligence scale!

  • AL CRACKER

    As the first POINT stated Jeremy..what a bunch of crap. You are a typical blind Zombie to what is really going on. Any control of our freedom of choice is a violation of liberty. American companies make these weapons and send them worldwide, with the Governments approval, did you forget Fast and Furious? Who do you think is supplying arms to Syria? We collectively export death. So by Proxy you are a murderer.
    In the days of Muskets, most carried 2 to 4 side arms as additional firepower.
    They did the killing for you so you could post your anti-freedom of choice sewage on line.
    It is ok for the Military to murder children with Drones and bombs, and when it comes home to roost it requires removing basic freedoms. This has nothing to do with the innocent children but the tyranny of a corrupt government seeking to control everyone, and a Insane drug induced person.
    Why does Obama travel with a complete war machine, his daughters have 11 CIA fully armed with Automatic weapons terrorist as do most members of Congress?
    I will give up my guns…bullets first.

    • eddie47d

      Cracker: Do you honestly challange these foreign wars under all administrations or is this just more of your smoke and mirrors? I’ve written to Congressmen/women until I’m blue in the face since the Presidency of Lyndon Johnson. That includes Nixon,Reagan,Bush and Obama,etc. I’ve also protested Fast & Furious but why did it happen ? Because of rouge DEALERS along the border who have been selling weapons to the Cartels for DECADES. F & F was a blunder but have you been equally furious with those “legal” gun dealers who originally caused these problems. If you say no then you are a hypocrite. You said another mouthful “American dealers make and send these weapons worldwide” . Something else I’ve been protesting about for 40 years. Why are we the number one arms dealer in the world and why is it still going on? Have you contacted our government under all Presidents to cease and desist these operations/gun smuggling? I have so can you be honest about it or are you playing political favorites? The number one arms supplier to the rebels in Syria is Saudi Arabia. Now that could be by way of the USA since they buy all kinds of military hardware from us. Yes this gun debate has much to do with innocent children and your not going to get away this time with writing these tragedies off as a God govern right for yourself. Your excuses are about as lame as the government using drones and “accidentally” killing children.

      • independant thinker

        “I’ve also protested Fast & Furious but why did it happen ? Because of rouge DEALERS along the border who have been selling weapons to the Cartels for DECADES.”

        You constantly make this claim eddie but you have yet to offer ANY kind of proof that there is or was a pervasive problem with gun dealers along the border knowingly selling guns to the drug cartels, gangs, or anyone else illegaly.

      • david

        eddie47d, you state that you have written your Congressmen and the like since Lyndon Johnson. Have you gotten any good responses from those? Doing protests are fine but with no follow up action to do anything about it, what good was the protest? Congressmen do not Represent you, if they changed or signed any bill that was changed from the original wording of the people. If the wording is NOT exactly as the people presented it and passed, then it is the wording and Agenda of the Congressman and he is signed to it, not the people. Those laws do not apply to the people, if they are not the words of the people as spoken and unchanged.

        What part of “that is not what I said” do you not understand?

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        January 7, 2013 at 10:11 am

        Cracker: Do you honestly challange these foreign wars under all administrations or is this just more of your smoke and mirrors? I’ve written to Congressmen/women until I’m blue in the face since the Presidency of Lyndon Johnson. That includes Nixon,Reagan,Bush and Obama,etc. I’ve also protested Fast & Furious but why did it happen ? Because of rouge DEALERS along the border who have been selling weapons to the Cartels for DECADES.
        ________________________________________________________________________

        Rouge Dealer’s? Do you mean they’re wearing make up?

        You’re already a proven liar on this point.
        The dealers REPORTED the Straw buyers to the ATF.
        Turns out the Straw Buyers were working FOR the ATF…and you know it.

      • Steve E

        The straw buyers were working for the ATF and the gun dealers were told by the ATF to sell them to straw buyers, even if it was illegal.

      • eddie47d

        That “evidence” was shown last year Independent Thinker and was out of two different Phoenix gun shops and happened before F & F. There are also 100 gun dealers within 50 miles from the border throughout the four border states. There’s alot of desolate land in those stretches and I doubt if rattlesnakes are buying their guns.

      • JC

        eddie you are so full of Sh!#.
        Operation Gunwalker was ostensibly begun under Bush…that predates your “assertion” that anything new came to light last year, which as usual come with no more backing than your say so. (you have no credibility, not even with the other communists)

        And the idea that drug cartels are getting their guns one or two at a time from
        “Fred’s Sporting Goods” in Tucson is ridiculous at best…
        These cartels have “billions”….BILLIONS at their disposal.
        They can and do get their guns brought in by the boat or plane load from all over the world, shipped into southern Mexico and the weapons trucked north. Then they burn the plane or sink the boat without even feeling the pinch.

        How absolutely ridiculous to think they would be screwing around with the border and American gun dealers when they can literally buy anything they want “wholesale”.

        No, my simple little friend….Fast and Furious was a Government sponsored program designed to instill anti-gun sentiment into the very simplest among us….that’s “you”.

    • eddie47d

      I’m still waiting for Cracker to re-appear.

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.swanson.1675 Michael Swanson

    So many claim historical justification for the Second Amendment, and so many don’t know the history BEHIND the second amendment. These are the same ones which glide over the “well-regulated militia” as if it wasn’t there or didn’t count. Here’s the real story. Don’t let the fact that it was printed in AlterNet stop you from reading it. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/real-rationale-2nd-amendment-right-wingers-are-totally-ignorant-about?paging=off

    • http://www.facebook.com/dave.weaver.7359 Dave Weaver

      The article cited is devoid of quotes, conditions, and beliefs of the founders. It is simply an opinion piece done by another gun control advocate.

      • http://www.facebook.com/michael.swanson.1675 Michael Swanson

        All the original documents are online if you care to look them up. All the documents are available on line. Some sites are available by subscription only. You’ll find some of them in the Federalist Papers, Some in the Papers of George Washington. Here’s something to get you started, assuming you really care about the historical record. http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/whiskey/index.html

      • http://www.facebook.com/dave.weaver.7359 Dave Weaver

        I am concerned – and bit perplexed as to the reason you cited the original article – and then tried to defend it with alternate information not cited in the original. Furthermore, the secondary source speaks of the rational for using a state military force to enforce compliance to a generally unpopular, but constitutionally valid law.

        I have read, understand, and most importantly believe what the founders meant when they created and ratified the Constitution. I am well versed in the Federalist Papers, the writings of Thomas Paine, and the descriptions of American style democracy by de Tocqueville.

        My original comment stands.

      • http://personalliberydigest big wyo

        DICK ACT of 1902 . . .
        CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable
        The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

        The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

        The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

    • eddie47d

      Thank You Michael for there is always another side to every story. When the Second Amendment was written there was barely a standing army if you could even call it that. The government (Founding Fathers) enacted this Amendment knowing full well the government had to be PROTECTED from internal rebellion and foreign invasion. Every eligible man had to be willing to come to the DEFENSE of this new nation thus we had civilian militias. The problem today is that we have those who use the Second Amendment as an excuse to overthrow our government not PROTECT it. Although citizens do have the right to change our government even by shedding blood we also have many other means to evoke change. “The power of the pen is mightier than the sword” is just as relevant today as when that was written too. Pro gun owners use the Second as their only and final solution for everything thus becoming rather disingenuous in thought. We have a strong standing army today to protect us from outside invasion so their “need” or excuse to have a military style weapon is mote. Their need to have a weapon for home protection is valid and a basic human right. There are FEW who have even suggested that home protection will be taken away. The right to hunt with a rifle has never been infringed upon. Maybe the territory in which to hunt has been diminished but not the legality to do so.

      • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

        Eddie, teddy 47 ways to be a commie, your comment just re-wrote real history, John Adams said a armed society is made up of citizens, unarmed people are slaves. The founders lived under governments that had all the weapons and they had no choice but, to obey their law, just or unjust. We got the first amendment which allowed us to express our feeling about government or religion and the second to defend the first. Where did you get your education, at the foot of Marx? There is no separtation of church and state anywhere in the Constitution, the Supreme Court used a document written by Jefferson where he said the wall was to protect the church from the state and not the other way around, idiot. You have distorted so many things on this site that anyone who believe’s your BS deserves to lose their freedoms, as another founder said, he who would give up freedom for safety deserves neither. Stick that in your commie pipe and smoke it.

    • Capitalist at Birth

      All of you Totalitarian anti Constitution people will send armed thugs against the true patriots who have read the writings of Franklin, Madison, Monroe, and Jefferson said about freedom and how to insure it. Constitutional law experts have also written on this subject. Why haven’t you referred to any of them, Hmmm?

      • eddie47d

        I will continue to do battle as I have in the past with Totalitarian and anti-Constitutional folks who misinterpret Amendments for their own personal gain. America is about Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for every American. Too many right wing fringe groups want to take away or not even give rights to all which is supposedly guaranteed. On this topic I don’t think either side of the Second Amendment are accurately interpreting its meaning. That is where this debate is going and that doesn’t make me anti-gun or anti Constitutional.

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        January 7, 2013 at 9:47 am

        I will continue to do battle as I have in the past with Totalitarian and anti-Constitutional folks who misinterpret Amendments for their own personal gain. America is about Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for every American.
        _____________________________________________________________________
        Well you’re obviously very conflicted then aren’t you?

    • oh oh

      The article is also narrow in its scope, ignoring the other purposes for the 2nd Amendment, which went beyond the “domestic tranquility” argument of this opinion piece. The principles of the Declaration of Independence and the statements of founders besides Jefferson would include these narrow circumstances as legitimate, but they would never have used them as a rhetorical device to limit the broad purposes intended. This is typical of the progressive left, who become strict constructionists only in manipulative and disingenuous ploys such as this.

  • Mark

    Anyone who believes that we need ANY FORM of gun control is a complete MORON! I am so bewildered by the ignorance of these people. I thank GOD everyday that I can think on my own two feet and can see through the [expletive deleted] before it comes even near me. Wake Up!

    • eddie47d

      [comment has been edited] You may be an excellent poster boy For absolute gun control. I won’t support YOUR Taliban tactics in controlling the populace anymore than I would want the government to do so.

      • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

        Your lie’s don’t fly eddie teddy the hitler of the site, the little brown shirt who thinks Marx was just great, I hope someone is paying you to be so stupid and such a out right liar.

      • JC

        For what little it’s worth, eddie’s “liberal” education seems to be complete.
        Firmly establishing him as an emotionally hysterical and generally unbalanced human being.
        Hey! has anyone else noticed that liberal men sound just like liberal women?

      • oh oh

        Whether the tyranny is imposed by the “Taliban” or the government, we would be better able to defend ourselves appropriately armed, rather than outgunned or disarmed…and the less either the “Taliban” or the government knows about our arms, the more fearful, respectful and civil they will remain.

  • Galord Smith

    Bailey O’Malia is incorrect in her statement about automatic weapons. They have already been banned in the US. It is only legal to purchase semi-automatic rifles at the present time. The partial ban of firearms will only be the beginning to a total ban on firearms for personal protection. If our government decides that they want to eliminate any opposition to socialistic ideas; then the elimination of the opposition will be much easier if we have no protection. We are already at a severe disadvantage with the gun controls already in place. Every right that is taken away just brings us closer to socialism.

    • windage

      Galord , it is legal to buy fully automatic weapons here (machine guns), just requires an NFA, class 3, $200 tax stamp, FBI B/G check and approval of your local sheriff or chief. Some areas may poo-poo.
      Where are you getting your info?

    • czman75

      Automatic weapons ARE NOT BANNED in America! They are/can be transferred to individuals provided you jump through all the hoop necessary to purchase one. People, check it out BEFORE you spout off things you nothing of! Use facts, not feelings!

      • SOMA

        You gentlemen are correct, automatic weapons are not banned in the US. However, I think it’s important to point out Bailey’s common misconception (perpetuated by the media) that automatic weapons were used in the recent mass shootings. None of the recent mass shootings used automatic weapons, yet the media constantly gets that wrong. As a matter of fact I find it very suspicious that James Holmes, the Sikh Temple shooter, the Portland Mall shooter, and Adam Lanza all used AR-15 rifles and Glock pistols: Standard FBI issue weapons, or at least of the same caliber. There are many inconsistencies and similarities between these 4 shootings that make them suspect, not least to mention is the timing of all 4. I will not go into detail at this time but I am going to prepare an essay examining these 4 shootings in greater detail soon. Best…

      • eddie47d

        Thank You SOMA whether intentional or not that is exactly what has to be addressed. Those AR-15′s and Glocks that are the favorite choice of mass killers who use guns which need to either be banned or severely controlled . There really isn’t a whole heaping lot of difference in the damage that most automatics vs semi-automatics can do so its easy for the public or media to have these misconceptions. Some automatics do have larger caliber bullets yet some have little difference over an semi-automatics.

      • GRusling

        eddie47d says: “some automatics do have larger caliber bullets yet some have little difference over an(sic) semi-automatics.”
        ___________________________________________________________________

        Not true, and not even close to being true. The largest “single operator” rifle in use these days is a .50 caliber, and all I’ve ever seen are single action or bolt action. Fire one round, eject the spent cartridge and load one more round. You can, of course, point to a “.50 caliber machine gun” but I dare you to try and CARRY that thing, much less operate it by yourself! Most of us couldn’t even LIFT one, much less transport it by man-power! They’re usually “vehicle mounted” for very good reason.

        The Glock semi-automatic pistol comes in 9mm, .357, .40 and .45. These are all common rounds. A Sig comes in the same calibers.

        The “AR-15″ fires a .223 caliber round, the same round our Military Infantry soldier uses in his M16. The difference between those two weapons is that the M16 is “select fire” (automatic or semiautomatic) while the AR-15 is semiautomatic only. The .223 round is used by our military because it is LESS likely to kill, more likely to simply injure, thus tying up MORE of the enemies resources to care for their own wounded. The caliber is VERY SMALL (.223 is just very slightly larger than a .22 rabbit gun), just enough so the round can never be chambered by any variation of our .22 caliber hunting rifles.

        Fully automatic military weapons go up to 7.62 mm (m-60 machine gun) and that round is the same as our .30-06 caliber deer rifle. The AK-47 uses a similar round, and semi-automatic hunting rifles get A LOT larger, for shooting very large game like “Grizzly Bears” and “Moose” or “Lions and Tigers.” Try out an “Elephant Gun” sometime. I DARE YOU!

        Show me the man who can fire a semi-automatic rifle at or near the same rate as an automatic weapon of the same kind and I’ll show you a “Professional” who does virtually nothing else with his time…

  • Ray Schmitz

    Are we a Republic or an Army. We do not need Army style weapons. Your neighbors aren’t the bad guys.

    • czman75

      How are American Citizens able to protect themselves if they don’t have the same fire power as the enemy…and yes, if the government is attacking us ( and they are) they are the enemy! That is what the 2nd Amendment means!

    • Jon

      some are and that is not the point

    • eddie47d

      CZMA75: Some of us don’t support the tyrants who are attempting to overthrow the government. They are arming themselves using the same laws that you portend to support. These homegrown fringe groups are dangerous and hardly friends of our nation. In other words you are to some degree arming the enemies. What do you really think organizations like Confederate Hammerskins or Northwest Front are willing to do in order to set up their “utopia”?

      • CZ52

        eddie the FBI has done studies on the militia groups and determined that only a very very few pose any kind of threat and those very few are watched closely. They have said that most of the militias are just groups of “good ol boys” that get together to do some shooting and shoot the bull then continue their law abilding lives at home.

      • eddie47d

        There are over 1,500 such groups and several are extremely dangerous in what they will do once in power. Some are indeed Nationalist and controlling in nature.I didn’t mention militias as a primary source or at all. Although the Minutemen Defense could be considered one since Shawna Ford and Chris Simcox have committed criminal acts.

      • Dennis48e

        eddie you have used the expression “These homegrown fringe groups” and militia interchangeably so many times in the past it is logical to conclude you mean them to be interchangable now as well.

      • Candyman

        Eddie47d. I think you are making a false statement here. You do support people who are trying to overthrow the gov. They do it every day with new restrictive and unconstitutional laws and presidential edicts. The groups you refer to have no hope of doing the damage that the people you support do every day 24/7.

      • GRusling

        No one knowingly supports “tyrants” and their supporters are usually fooled by what’s known as “good ideas,” until it’s too late to oppose the tyrant. Fait accompli, he’s in charge and you’re now a subject or “peasant” and no longer a free citizen! Castro came to power in Cuba in exactly that fashion, as did Hitler in Germany.

        That’s why the 2nd Amendment is important and why I maintain a full compliment of “arms” designed for various different uses, as circumstances may require…

      • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

        eddie, teddy 47 demon’s and all liar’s, needs to push his commie ways on everyone else. Like the lie about 2 armed policemen at Columbine, that is in his sick brain but not true. He hates the idea that his socialist soon to be marxist communist government might not take place. eddie teddy would shoot his own family to get his commie ways forced on all of us. a little man with little or no mind. Every post he makes is to promote his nazi idea’s and won’t ever learn because his god satan teaches him, leads him and makes him a danger to anyone who disagrees with him. A typical left wing nut job, brainless and lives on his feeling which all come from hell itself. Do the world a favor you sick commie, take to many sleeping pills, no one will miss you.

    • Bryan George

      Yes we do!! A gun society is a polite society, and yes we are a Republic, that USED to be FREE. Guns will prevent the military from attacking our Republic as they prevented the Japanese from attacking during WWII. Don’t trust your government with your LIFE!! The government will do Anything to increase it’s power, size and money to steal and ultimately create a one world government, but make no mistake that is what they stand for not the sheople! Our gun’s stand in the way of this plan, that is why they want them. If all gun’s were taken from the people do you think the president would disarm the Secret Servive?? NO!! because Criminals would still have gun’s and he knows it, but it would be OK for us to all be victims though!!

      • eddie47d

        That may make you warm and fuzzy saying that but armed societies are not always “polite societies” which is another reason we do need gun control. Not all gun owners are polite or honest (although most are). In Columbia the right wing forces and the left wing forces had more guns than the government and it wasn’t even a civil war. A few thousand died because the government didn’t have the power to control the pitched battles between these armed citizens. These extreme groups were allowed to have their automatics and semi-automatics leaving the populace and the government vulnerable. Same thing happened in Afghanistan were the populace was armed and the government was almost non existent. Those citizens who controlled the guns controlled the country and we know how they terrorized that nation and subjugated others. They like some American gun owners wanted the government to be wiped out so they could control the nation. No thanks I much rather have a civilized balance and some common sense in who gets to have power over my life. In other words these wacko militias groups vying for control in America are armed to the teeth and are willing to send America into a tail spin for their own agenda.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      You are so omniscient that you know exactly what goes in every human heart and mind.You don’t know the heart and mind of the people in your own household and you definitely don’t yourself and what evil you are capable of.

    • alpha-lemming

      So…. only the police or the military should be armed????

      I saw a movie once with this exact utopia….. I think it was called??… “Schindlers List”??…

      Take another peek at that that one and tell me how well THAT worked out for the poulace??

    • Steve E

      Ray, you are a perfect example of why the people need guns. To protect themselves from the likes of you.

  • Charlie Sewell

    Until Amercians grasp the supreme court case Barron v City of Baltimore, Americans will live and walk in deception. Justice Marshall was clear and concise:
    “The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States.
    If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States. In their several Constitutions, they have imposed such RESTRICTIONS ON THEIR RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENTS…
    We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States (Page 32 U. S. 251), and is not applicable to the legislation of the States.”
    Justice Marshall never mentions the people because our rights come from the 1776 Declaration of Independence when stating “… endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights”!
    This is confirmed in the government’s title 18 United States Code 7.3 and article 1, section 8 clause 17 of the constitution defining the specific limited jurisdiction of the constitutionally defined “United States” titled “the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States Defined”:
    “(3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.”
    So as the “United States” was defined in 1787 in the Constitution so as it is defined today in title 18 of the United States Code and many other sections of the code. As Justice Marshall says… if you are not an officer, employee or elected official of the United States government… the Constitution does not apply to YOU!

    • dalek

      “As Justice Marshall says… if you are not an officer, employee or elected official of the United States government… the Constitution does not apply to YOU!”

      Do what?! Does not apply to the people you say? Why does it say in the 2nd Amendment “of the people” then?

      I think you need to try this again. You seem to be so far off your rocker that I’m not sure if you were even on one. lol

      • JC

        “Justice” Marshall, doesn’t apply…to anything.

      • GRusling

        Simple — each and every article in our Bill of Rights confirms an already existing RESTRICTION on the federal government. The Bill of Rights simply enumerates a FEW of the things our federal government is not allowed to even touch. The entire constitution is a designation of what our federal government is ALLOWED to do, and what is NOT ALLOWED is authority retained by the “States” and/or The People, as individuals. The 10th Amendment says precisely that, in no uncertain terms.

        The constitution lays out the form of the federal government, then identifies what that federal government is authorized to do. All things NOT INCLUDED in that document and/or its Amendments are not subject to rule-making by the federal government. It’s just that simple and unambiguous.

        This all seems to me to be a simple concept, which only the terminally stupid could possibly misunderstand. The “STATES” created the federal government as an “AGENT” to do for them collectively what they could not reasonably do for themselves individually, like properly defend our borders. Such activities are the only reason for the federal government to exist. Any utopian “dream” that our Founding Fathers created a “MASTER” for themselves is totally beyond reason or logic…

      • oh oh

        Notwithstanding later developments such as the Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 government formed in 1871, Justice Marshall was correct. The federal government couldn’t compel anyone, except those federal parties he mentioned. The reason the 2nd Amendment mentioned the “people” is consistent with this. It was to restrict the federal government from exceeding its limited powers (i.e., limited to its enumerated powers and the persons under its jurisdiction). Marshall made perfect sense. It’s a shame that so many have lost touch with these fundamental concepts.

      • dalek

        Curious. Can you explain the 4th and 5th Amendment which are for the people? Maybe the others too. I understand that the 1st limits the Congress, it says so but the 2nd is to make it so the States and the individual people can bear arms, against the Government(s) if needed.

        Basically, if the States believe the Federal Government is going to far, it can rise up on behalf of its people. If the people think the Federal Government is going to far, then the people themselves can rise up, without the States if needed. Could even be against some States as well.

        Putting somethings into text and the someone get what is meant can be difficult. I’m trying to read your meaning. I read some of your other posts so I don’t think you are some liberal loon off its rocker. ROFL That said, we do have a couple around here lurking about. o_O

      • Jeff

        The 4th and 5th Amendments did not bind the States until 1961 when the Supreme Court decided that the 14th Amendment applied the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states. Mapp v. Ohio.

      • dalek

        Jeff, that question was NOT for you to answer. That question was directed at oh oh. Your answer has nothing to do with what I asked anyway. You missed the whole point. I would try to explain it but I see no point in it.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

        The Framers placed the requirement for “Oaths of Office” in the Constitution. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations.
        Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches. The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government. And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist No. 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials.

        Hope this helps. Sorry, this is actually to oh oh.

    • david

      Charlie you are correct in your assessment. The United States is NOT the United States of America, which the latter is a UNION of collective Sovereign Republics (I hate using the term States) under one agreement comprised of rules and regulations through Treaty or Compact between those Republics. Representatives are NOT speakers for the people. People speak for themselves through the referendums they create and publicly announce to all through contractual agreements and signatures. Representatives are speakers for themselves and their agendas, because the wording, provided to them from the people, has been changed to include those Representative’s agenda for which those Representatives sign for. If the wording provided by the people are not changed, even by one word, to that Representative, and he or she speaks for that wording, then it is representative of the people and the people retain their powers. BUT that does not happen and will not happen as every piece of legislation is changed or discarded in the respective committees they are assigned to.

      The Corporate state of affairs is the United States in its designation in the main body of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution after the Constitution was drawn up and signed [Both the Constitution and Bill of Rights have signatures attached] with the provision of providing protection of the people themselves with the first ten Amendments and adding the stated Rights in the Declaration of Independence as inclusive in those Bill of Rights of the people. I believe Madison, Jackson, and possibly Franklin expressed concern of adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution before submission to the formed Communities at the time. This was a good thing as the Bill of Rights, although attached to the Constitution, was signed separately from the Constitution as an independent agreement extending the powers back to the people themselves.

      • david

        As for the acquisition of lands and retaining lands, Governments took the lands by force or coerced the applying Republics out of parts of land as requisites for ratification to the Union. (Missouri admission into Union contained such clauses in its ratification) Land can not technically be owned by a dead organization because that dead organization can not maintain the land on its own, without manipulation of a human being. What is a dead organization? It is a Contract of letters and symbols on a dead piece of wood. It has no life of its own. It does not breathe, think, or consume of its own being. A dead organization requires the slavery of a human being to manipulate it into being or existence, and that human being can not escape that slavery until their death or they walk away from it, and then it is left to their heirs to keep the existence ongoing. Without human beings to control the organization, the organization has no existence.

        That is why any of the Bill of Rights is non existent until a human being makes it existent or forces it into existence. A human being is the owner of the Bill of Rights and what they do with those rights is personal to them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dave.weaver.7359 Dave Weaver

    To all gun control advocates:

    I am will to give up my means to defend myself. I have but one pre-condition.

    That all men shall be deemed to be of perfect moral quality; and that disregard for life, liberty, and personal freedom has been permanently removed from the hearts of men.

    Until then, I will remain armed and ready.

    • Capitalist at Birth

      Ditto, and I challenge all of them individually to attempt to enforce their controls over any one who follows the Constitution. I did not own a fire arm until after the election on Nov. 4th 2008. I still need two to three more and thousands more rounds of ammunition.

      • Wildturkey

        Jimmy Carter made my wife a Republican and Obama made her a gun owner. That is about the only good thing can thing of that Obama has done!!

      • Steve E

        Obama knows everybody is buying more guns now. So that is why he is trying to take them now.

  • http://www.outdor-camping-guie.com Don Wlliamson

    There is absolutely no question that the 2nd amendment was adopted based on a citizen’s righ to fight back nd dissolve the government if necessary. As more nd ore gun controls re put in lace, there will be more nd more terrorist events here he law nforcement is trgeted bcause the terrorists will now ll itizens have een tripped of heir firearms.

    • eddie47d

      Its rather unfortunate that some are calling everything and anything a “terrorist act” .Fairly soon it won’t have any meaning at all. When we had the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 all the guns in the world wouldn’t have stopped it from happening. Unless every van and every car is going to be stopped and searched every day. McVeigh still would have blown up the Murrah Building no matter how many millions of guns are out there. Maybe you ought to think about who is trying to “dissolve the government” by way of violence Don. There are also dozens of extreme groups in America using guns to “dissolve the government” and I don’t think you’d want to live under what they have to offer either.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        On what facts do you base these assertions? I double dog dare ya to prove any of your lies. Coward!!!

      • JC

        eddie’s “utopia” is a prison society. Nobody moves, nobody gets hurt…

      • http://aol Gene

        Humm FEMA camps come to mind

      • eddie47d

        Yes and we Progressives aren’t going into your FEMA camps at the point of your guns either!

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        January 7, 2013 at 2:33 pm

        Yes and we Progressives aren’t going into your FEMA camps at the point of your guns either!
        ________________________________________________________________________

        Then we are agreed….EVERYONE should be armed to the teeth because No one is putting ANYone in a FEMA Camp.

        Well said eddie. :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/christopher.coolidge1 Christopher Coolidge

    Here’s a modest proposal: either allow EVERYBODY to be armed or disarm everybody, including the government and police. As long as criminals have guns(which they will any way they can, that’s what makes them criminals) neither is going to happen, so there’ll be half measures in either direction either way. I don’t own a gun, that’s my choice, but if things go south in a hurry I’d better hope my neighbor has one and likes me.

    • Bev

      This is a totally stupid idea – arm everyone or disarm everyone. When they come for my guns they will get the ammo first.

    • SOMA

      Christopher, your mentality is that of the weak. You’re a perfect victim just waiting to be assailled. And when the crap hits the fan you’ll be a leach, a burden, looking for others to help you when they’re just trying to help themselves and their loved ones. The time to prepare is not after the catastrophe has occurred. Why do you need your neighbors to help you? Why don’t you do something right now, starting today, (like taking a gun safety course to at least get educated on the subject) to be there for your neighbors and be beneficial member of your community? Use some foresight and planning, and for Pete’s sake, take responsibility for yourself and stop looking for others to take care of you!

      • JC

        Good Idea!

      • Steve E

        No unarmed person can tell an armed person what to do. But an armed person can tell an unarmed person what to do.

      • JC

        That’s right Steve, and armed people kill unarmed people with monotonous regularity.

    • david

      Christopher it is your personal responsibility to defend yourself and not your government’s or your neighbor’s responsibility. Your choice to not own a gun and protect yourself is your decision and no one else’s. Whatever happens to you is on you, unless your enter into a treaty with someone else and name them specifically as your defender. Like I said in one of my prior posts, All of your RIGHTS are your personal Rights, not the collective RIGHTS of the people. Until you learn what your personal responsibilities are and protect those of yours and your family, then you are on your own until you personally ask for the help. You ask me for help, then I will come, but until such time, you are on your own. That is your own decision, and I can not make that for you! If you allow your government to make that decision for you, then the government is your parent, and they will take care of you as THEY see fit. You have no say in the matter. You gave that up to those others that you want to run your life.

      I would suggest to you to get right on over to your neighbor’s house and get the agreements settled between you before any inkling of anything going south happens.

    • charlie

      I understand that you are not willing to share the burden or cost of fighting for freedom, but you will be looking for ‘help’ from others, for your rescue.

      That is THE Liberal disease.

  • Bob666

    She makes a very good argument. Our founding fathers would probably have a slightly different view on many of the ammendments today as the world is very different.

    • czman75

      I doubt it. The FF were very prophetic in writing the Constitution and the Amendments. They well aware of human nature and knew that governments were very capable of tyranny.

    • Warrior

      Doubt it. Seems as though Human Nature hasn’t changed one bit.

    • Johnc

      You state the world is different, when in fact it has not changed, Cain murdered Able this has not changed since the beginning of time. It still goes on today with drug dealers murdering each other and street gangs murdering each other. Human nature has not changed one Iota. There are also those who crave power and wealth, and will keep it no matter who they murder to keep it. Stalin,Mussolini, Hitler, Saddam, the list goes on and on. The founding fathers were fully aware of tyranny and wanted the rule of law but not of tyrants or kings they envisioned a REPUBLIC where the citizens held the power and the state implemented the will of the citizens but to preserve that Republic the government had to fear the wrath of the citizens should they cross the line to tyranny. That is the soul purpose of the 2nd amendment to preserve that power the citizens have over the government. Our Current leaders want what is natural for them that is the elites feel they have the right to RULE over the masses because they are educated (indoctrinated) in college’s they feel it is their birth right to rule, that they are better than everyone else and deserve to rule and with that then comes greed to steal from the public purse to continue themselves in power they will stop at nothing including murdering a few million peasants. So you can see Man has not changed in his lust for Greed, Power, enslavement, murder, rape. and all the other sins against fellow men

      • dalek

        I don’t have a “like” button so consider this a “like” button click. :-)

      • http://aol Gene

        a theater in Colorado and a school in Newtown come to mine about stop at nothing to continue their agenda, the dark side of mind control

      • david

        Johnc, it is not only a tyrranical government that the people MUST be protected from. It is the totalitarian form of government that turns tyrranical. We have had this form of government since the inception of any form of government. Capitalistic forms of government are everywhere around us. Look at nearly every one of the corporations in existence worldwide. This is a true form of totalitarianism. It is their way or the highway. Look at every mom and pop store. Every business has its rules and regulations and this extends to our present system of government we live with.
        If you look at every rule, every regulation, and every law, you will find that these are nothing more than contracts. BUT are you personally signed to every contract there is? I really doubt it. If you are not signed to those contracts are you bound by them? I would say NO. Even if you are invited upon that company’s property to visit and tour or shop, you have your own rights and those companies can not violate them. If you violate a company policy while under invitation, you are either warned and continue or are escorted from the property. Without invitation, you have trespassed, a criminal act, [this is becoming a felony more and more every day] and are prosecuted for such.
        This above scenario extends to our own governments [Federal, State {Republic}, or Local] and although we believe we have representatives speaking for us, why is it that those laws, if they are ours, are not in our own words and not in the co-opted wording and personal agenda of the Representatives themselves? If the Representative changes the wording as we supplied to them, then the Representative is the only one that is a consideration to sign that law. If the wording is exactly as, we the people, provided, then each of us are required to be signed to that piece of paper or contract.
        People do not recognize the fact that if the Representative inserts his own agenda into our matters and we accept that, then we have accepted the fact of the Representative speaking directly for us in all matters we consider sacred and his words are our words. [each of us are sacred in our own right but his words are his words not ours unless presented exactly as we spoke them]
        Until such time as we all wake up and see this totalitarianism around us and react and control that, then all of us are trapped in that world of deceit and despotism.

        Having our 1st Amendment Right is fine, if we totally understand and present exactly what it is we are saying, publicly saying in the press [theirs or our own], expressing ourselves in our assemblies and meetings, and expressing our grievances that we have against our government and typical totalitarian societies around us, in a clear concise and personal manner. The 2nd Amendment gave us the right to defend ourselves when we feel danger coming to any of us on a personal basis. 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments concern our Jury system, and how as our direct representative of the people can not be reviewed in their decisions “BY ANY COURT OF THE LAND”, including the US Supreme Court. These courts are comprised of all officers including the POTUS, Governors, and all lower officials.[even Law Enforcement] These are rights guaranteed not granted. Other rights guaranteed were Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. These RIGHTS are INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS not the COLLECTIVE RIGHTS of the people.

        Until you understand the contents of the contract ……………… people, you are screwed.

      • Don

        in you comment you called our government our current. funny how the leaders cane from servants of the people, who did ad the people wanted them to. it don’t work that way anymore because our leaders are like royalty deciding what we have and what we can do with their approval. that is a leader. in the article at the top the author said he would feel free knowing his neighbor had a ak47. i would not give it a thought because just because they possess the gun does that mean they’ll go out and blast everything. i must be that kind of feelings in dc. if you have any gun you will blast everyone. dianne fienstien has a concealed carry permit. she’s trying to pass all kinds of bills to rob most gunowners. if everyone had the retarded mentality of antigunners she’d be a timebomb waiting to blast everyone.

    • CZ52

      While I doubt they would have a different view today if they did they would change (amend) the constitution to reflect their revised views not continualy pass more and more laws restricting rights.

      • Veteran

        The antis want to pass law after law because they KNOW they would NEVER be able to pass an amendment which would change the 2nd Amendment, so they take the easy way out. If they felt they could, they’d try what the anti-alcohol people did with Prohibition – and see how well that worked!

      • CZ52

        Veteran you miss my point. My point is if the Founding Fathers did not agree with the wording and application of the 2nd as it applies to today they would follow the constitution and amend it to make any changes they believed neccessary rather than pass laws of at best doubtful legality to do so.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      People’s nature is no different today than it was 200, 500, or 1000, or millions of years ago so get over yourself wanting gun control.

    • 2forEnglish

      WRONG! Things are no different. If anything has changed as far as megalomaniacal elitists wanting to control the world – it is simply that due to time marching on, their list of heros (tyrants of the past throughout history) from whom they draw inspiration and follow the blueprints of ………has grown.

    • Steve E

      Bob666, you stated; “Our founding fathers would probably have a slightly different view on many of the ammendments today as the world is very different.” That tells me that you believe that you know more than what the FF knew. I got news for you, you don’t. When you went to public school and they indoctrinated you to believe that you are special, you’re not.

  • Warrior

    Somehow the “elites” think it is just fine to provide “arms” to “freedom fighters” in other lands. I wonder, if the “progressives” succeed in their quest to disarm “AMERICANS”, do you think China or Russia has methods in place to “re-arm” us? Hmmm, better check out their local “consulates”.

    • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

      Yes, Obama loves to arm radical muslim “freedom fighters” but wants to disarm us. Doesn’t that tell you something.
      I’m NOT defending Assad in Syria. He is a brutal dictator.
      However, Obama is conflicted on Syria … He wants to see Assad be overthrown by his alQueda and Muslim Brotherhood allies, but he can’t help himself but to admire Assad’s brutal dictatorial tactics.
      Obama can hardly wait to employ them here on us … All that’s standing in his way is that he hasn’t been able to disarm us yet.
      Obama also admires Mao …. and the way he ruthlessly grabbed power in China. The fact that he murdered about 100 million Chinese to do it is, to them, a “feature,” not a “bug.
      “Anyone who tells you that ‘It Can’t Happen Here’ is whistling past the graveyard of history. There is no ‘house rule’ that bars tyranny coming to America. History is replete with republics whose people grew complacent and descended into imperial butchery and chaos.” — Mike Vanderboegh.

  • bluidevil

    No matter how many times one hears the anti-gunners screaming ‘why do civilians need military weapons”. The fact is the civilans have no where near the firepower the government forces both military and domestic agencies have. AR’s,AK’s are not even close to drones, full auto hardware and even more we know and don’t know about. Some leftist think tanks better realize the government is not always going to be utopian dreamers
    with these things at their disposal. Some balance of power not within government but
    with private vs government needs to be in place.

    • czman75

      Do some research. American Citizen firearm owners hold (collectively) more weapons (yes, small arms) and ammo than than entire Armed Services. There are more of us than them, and yes,they are afraid of us. They know we know what they are up to…

      • SOMA

        czman75, yes we may have more guns than the military, but do you really think a double-barrel shotgun is going to hold up against drones, night vision, satellite imagery, handheld guided rockets, smart bombs, and even the small arms that they carry??? Plus they’re listening to our conversations, tracking our movements, and using information gathering techniques and technologies that we don’t have access to. On top of all that, they’re well organized, trained, and supplied with all the tools to fight a war, anytime and anyplace. You really think the people of this country all spread out across this nation with little training or organization, with less advanced weapons could stand up to the greatest military force in the world? You better do some research.

        Note: I don’t believe the military would be used to attack the citizens of this nation. All military members take an oath to defend the Constitution from all threats foreign and domestic. I fear a quiet war against the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, and FEMA which work as the Gestapo, the SS, and the KGB.

      • JC

        SOMA says:

        January 7, 2013 at 8:21 am

        czman75, yes we may have more guns than the military, but do you really think a double-barrel shotgun is going to hold up against drones, night vision, satellite imagery, handheld guided rockets, smart bombs, and even the small arms that they carry???
        ________________________________________________________________________

        If you really think the US Military will turn on Americans then we might as well just start reporting to the camps for extermination right away don’t you think? Might as well just give up…

        I think it’s the UN boys we need to worry about. And I think we can kick their asses all over the block. How many doors do you think they will be kicking in even if there is “only” a shotgun on the other side of the door? Not to mention America has 20 or 30 million snipers….

  • CJ482
    • Rob

      I guess Ms Malia’s wishes are satisfied like Mr Moore said automatic weapons are already banned. Apparently Ms Malia didn’t know quite as much about gun control and the purpose of it as she thought she did. I bet she didn’t know it is against the law for a criminal to own a firearm and we all know they they obey the law.

      • windage

        Rob, you are misquoting Doug Moore, who said, “controlled”, not banned. They are regulated as a class 3 device under the NFA (national firearms act)…many Americans legally own and use “fully automatic” weapon…..fun too.

      • CZ52

        And, I there has been only one incedence of a legaly owned and posessed full automatic firearm being used in the commission of a crime since the 1934 NFA. That was an officer of the law using a department gun to commit the crime.

    • eddie47d

      The problem with your thinking Rob is that a gun owner is not a criminal until after he commits his crime. James Holmes (Aurora shooter) was totally legal and not a criminal. He was allowed to own and buy all the weapons he wanted from various sources and all the ammo he wanted. Saying we have to wait until a gun owner does his deadly deed to correct some of these glaring problems is ludicrous. Actually Bailey did get it right in saying gun rights “within reason”.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        Within who’s reason??? HMMMM? If you mean you have control over my rights as guaranteed in the Constitution, will you have the guts to come and disarm me yourself? I doubt it. Like all of your Totalitarian Comrades, you will send a gang of thugs. You are a coward that deserves to live in Russia or Cuba where there are plenty of people who like that type of control.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        Do you understand the meaning of “shall not be infringed”? Evidently you have a very low reading comprehension, and need to be re-educated.

      • phideaux

        As has been pointed out before eddie your idea of “within reason” is ever more restrictive gun laws.

      • JC

        Gee eddie, I never thought of it that way…
        You’re right, we should be doing something to prevent possible criminals from ever committing a crime. And sinse there’s no way of knowing who that might be…
        maybe we just build a prison society where no one has any guns, or any freedom, or any rights and just rely on our benevolent masters to feed and clothe us…and if we’re really really lucky they will let us actually live…in a cage.

        I’m very impressed with your “progressive thinking” eddie.

      • speedle

        Ed, it doesn’t matter – none of it. No tragedy involving the use of firearms changes anything with regard to the right to firearms. It doesn’t matter how many nut jobs kill how many people of whatever age, the answer to the problem is not now (nor will ever be) denying the public second amendment rights. The real nut bags (Progressives) sit around and wait for the next event to drag out the “there oughta be a law” mentality from the public sheep. Get this Ed. It’s not gonna happen with firearms. If it is tried, there will be bloodshed.

      • Chris

        One of the main points to be taken here is that James Holmes would not have chosen the venue he did if that particular theater’s management had not chosen to tell the law abiding citizen that they were not permitted to carry weapons of self defense into that establishment, establishing a “Gun Free Zone” That fact made that particular theater a prime target for a madman who wished to build up a high body count. Had there been the possibility of armed citizens in that theater, James would have most likely gone somewhere else, like to one of the local public schools where our government has declared the area to be a “Gun Free Zone” , We need to wake up and tell our government to leave our rights alone, Even further, we should tell them to remove any and all restrictions on the second amendment rights of law abiding citizens of this great country! the “Gun Free Zones” created by the governments at all levels have caused a lot of collateral damage from Cowards such as James Homes,

      • http://www.facebook.com/ronald.campbell.391 Ronald Campbell

        We the people must have the same arms that the goverment has. If we Don’t may God have mercy on our souls

      • eddie47d

        Speedle: Yes it does matter and yes everytime one of these mass killing occur you attempt to loosen the laws that allow these killers to obtain their weapons. It works both ways and there are plenty of Right Wing “nutbags” out their too. The 2nd isn’t going anywhere but I wouldn’t trust you extremists on the other end either.

      • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

        Eddie, “Shall not be infringed” doesn’t say “except within what someone else determines to be ‘within reason’” it is clear andd unambiguous.

  • Doug Moore

    Automatic weapons are already controlled. Lanza used a one shot at a time rifle, ie an semi-automatic rifle, This is how most guns work, one trigger pull, one bullet, Automatic weapons are something different.

    • Colorado Jim

      A police officer friend shared with me that the Lanza semi-automatic rifle was found in the car and NOT used in the shooting of those innocent children and school staff. How convienent of the media to not report this fact but that would not fit with their bias and desire to ban all semi-automatic rifles. The problem is the person behind the weapon, not the weapon. I concur that our forefathers wrote the Second Amendment to keep the government in check as a last resort for the people.

      • SOMA

        Jim, I thought that was true as well. I found it very interesting the first day of the shooting that the media kept saying all day that Adam Lanza used Sig Sauer and Glock handguns. That’s very specific information, but then suddenly the next day the media was all touting that he used an AR-15 rifle, which indeed is semi-automatic, not fully automatic. When the media then reported that the kindergarten children that all died in that classroom suffered from multiple bullet wounds up close by an AR-15 (5.56mm Nato) rifle, the first thing that went through my mind was a SWAT team style sweep of the room. How does 1 person enter a room and kill everyone in the room with a semi-automatic weapon up close with some children being shot between 7 and 11 times each?? How is it that not a single child can escape out the door while this lone shooter walks around the room taking the time to put 11 bullets into one individual victim? To me, there has to be more than one shooter which by definition creates a conspiracy (see the movie JFK) and someone was guarding the door to make sure no one escaped.

        Also, I remember on Friday when the shooting happened there was a news helicopter flying over head when the police opened the trunk of Adam Lanza’s car and pulled the AR-15 out into clear view. The next day the media tried to pass it off as a shotgun. Hmmmm…

      • CZ52

        Actually they did report that fact initialy. However, after most of two days had passed the story suddenly changed to the rifle being used to do all the shooting.

      • http://personalliberydigest big wyo

        The fact is we don’t know much about what really happened at Sandy Hook.
        The gun in the trunk filmed from the News Helocopter was a autoloader shotgun.
        Film of two men in the woods , one cuffed and captured.
        Boy and mother stating man cuffed prone on sidwalk and taken away in cruiser.

        check out Ben Swanns Full disclosure on you tube.

        WE DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED

    • eddie47d

      Although there is confusion on the term automatic vs semi-automatic is the difference really that great? If someone is pumping out 30 rounds in less than a minute with a semi-automatic but you can spray 40 rounds in the same time frame with a fully automatic there isn’t much difference. I think this is one of the biggest con games pulled over our eyes where you can kill just about as many people with either weapon then attempt to say semi’s are so much safer or not as deadly. Smoke and mirrors!

      • dalek

        My brother could shoot a semi-automatic so fast, it sounded like a fully automatic rifle. He had one fast finger on that thing. There would be several rounds gone before the first shell hit the ground. He may not be as fast as a fully automatic rifle but I wouldn’t want to live on the difference.

        Me, I think the 2nd Amendment means anything a man can carry. I don’t think it means tanks but I’d be open to the idea given the current path of the Government. ;-)

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        January 7, 2013 at 7:36 am

        Although there is confusion on the term automatic vs semi-automatic is the difference really that great?
        ________________________________________________________________________

        There’s no confusion there…none at all.
        Fully Automatic: Gun unloads itself in a sustained burst with one held pull of the trigger.
        Semi Automatic: Requires a pull of the trigger for each round discharged.

        How is that confusing?

        The Second Amendments says the “Right to Keep and Bear” so why the confusion over what kind of arms can be kept? I can “bear” a full auto just as easily as a semi auto.
        The distinction is irrelevant, and the choice should be mine.

        Thanks for helping put that in perspective eddie. :)

      • phideaux

        To: JC says:
        January 7, 2013 at 9:19 am

        Now JC you know eddie is always right if you don’t believe me just ask him. eddie wants and needs there to be confusion so he can use it to argue for ever more restrictive gun control.

      • Steve E

        You may want to have a 30 round magazine in case the corrupt government forces send 30 thugs to arrest you without a warrant under the NDAA act. You see, there is a justifiable and logical reason to have large capacity magazine to protect yourself.

      • eddie47d

        A speeding Volkswagen call kill as many people as a speeding Maserati even though one is considered for insurance rates much more expensive to operate. Who cares if you have to pull the trigger each time! If it can can kill as many people with either weapon then there isn’t much difference is there!

      • phideaux

        ” If it can can kill as many people with either weapon then there isn’t much difference is there!”

        It would seem you want everything but single shot rifles and pistols banned eddie. A revolver with speed loaders can be shot extremly fast and accurately with only a minimal amount of practice.

      • eddie47d

        I See no logical sense in automatics or semi-automatics in the hands of civilians. Rifles and handguns absolutely.I think I made that clear to you the other day but you keep on asking.

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        January 7, 2013 at 11:10 am

        A speeding Volkswagen call kill as many people as a speeding Maserati even though one is considered for insurance rates much more expensive to operate. Who cares if you have to pull the trigger each time! If it can can kill as many people with either weapon then there isn’t much difference is there!
        _________________________________________________________________________

        Good Point! So why are actual Assault Rifles illegal?

      • eddie47d

        Because they are bought to do maximum damage in the quickest time. That is hardly a valid reason to own one! We’re not talking about boxing gloves here but taking human flesh and blood. Sorry I won’t feed the sickness.

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        January 7, 2013 at 2:16 pm

        I See no logical sense in automatics or semi-automatics in the hands of civilians. Rifles and handguns absolutely.I think I made that clear to you the other day but you keep on asking.
        _______________________________________________________________

        Noted.
        Irrelevant, as we have laws that say differently….but “noted” . ;-)

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        January 7, 2013 at 4:17 pm

        Because they are bought to do maximum damage in the quickest time. That is hardly a valid reason to own one! We’re not talking about boxing gloves here but taking human flesh and blood. Sorry I won’t feed the sickness.
        ________________________________________________________________________

        But you yourself said there was virtually no difference between an actual Assault Rifle and a Semi-Auto….

        You’re really having trouble getting yourself established in this so called debate, aren’t you eddie?

  • The Gambler

    “Surely, there is no need for a civilian to hold that kind of power in his hand. In fact, why should anyone have that much power over another human being? Do we really trust each other’s judgment?”

    This is her quote. By stating this, she is giving the exact reason why we should have the second amendment…to keep the government from having too much power over others.

    • Capitalist at Birth

      Exactly!!! If you don’t think the Totalitarians understand that, then you are a fool.

  • Jeremy Leochner

    I appreciate Mr. Youngs use of point and counter point. I would point out first two things.

    One: The debate over gun control is not left versus right, liberal versus conservative.

    Second: His statement that “media blow things out of proportion to spread their leftist views” is one sided and incorrect. Media spouting both liberal and conservative, right and left ideologies have both equally used tragedies to their own advantage. Each side has used it to in some way or other say either “I told you so” or “This is all your fault” to those they disagree with.

    That aside I feel Mr. Young makes a compelling case. Where I take issue is the idea that the constitution was intended for revolution and that the founders wanted “Americans to be able to stand up for themselves. How does one do that? By having the same level of weaponry as the government!”. I have no doubts that the founders intended for Americans to be able to stand up for themselves. And I do not deny that the constitution and the founders who created it recognized the peoples right to amend or abolish existing institutions if the need arose. However I believe that the founders were above all men of reason and ideals. I believe that the founders put more faith in the spoken and the written word than they did in weapons of war. I believe this because the founders enshrined in the first amendment a slew of freedoms including freedom of speech, religion, expression and assembly and petition for a redress of grievances. They then put the right to keep and bear arms in the second amendment and even then only after they mentioned well regulated militias being necessary for a free state. So as far as I can tell the founders put faith first in the power of the press and of speech and second in militia units that were regulated by individual state governments and then third in the power of armed individuals. I hardly believe the founders intended the last refugee of freedom to be a lone individual armed with any sort of weapon. This does not mean the right to bear arms is meaningless or is of less virtue and importance as the freedoms expressed in the first amendment. What it does mean is the founders did not intend armed resistance to be the only true defense against tyranny. So often in discussions on gun control hyperbolic language is used on both sides. Those on one side discuss the dangers of guns and make hyperbolic statements about how groups like the NRA want everyone to have access to guns of all types regardless of age or mental health. Those on the other side tend to make the argument that gun control advocates intend to enact gun bans and thereby prevent honest Americans from protecting themselves from either criminals in the street or criminals in government. Both of these ideas are equally wrong. Aside from those calling for gun bans I believe most advocates of gun control such as myself have certain specific areas where we wish gun control was stronger. For myself its schools. However there seems to be an exaggeration of the importance of guns and as a result a great fear of the loss of guns. I believe that guns are a last resort to be taken up in times of true tyranny. I say this in regards to the argument that the second amendment protects citizens from a tyrannical government. I feel that such a government that requires its citizens to be armed in order to be safe from the government does not characterize our government at this time. I say this because it is possible for us to have an open and frank discussion of the matter and for that matter the fact that the question of whether the government is tyrannical is even brought up at all. From my study of history and countries like Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, which are often used as examples of where we are headed to, it appears that the tyranny of the government is manifest and regardless of any ones beliefs regarding the leaders it is an unmistakable fact that such basic freedoms as freedom of speech and public assembly have long since become illegal and are gone. My point is that just as when a person needs a gun to fend off an attacker they have no illusions about the danger so I believe that a government whose tyranny demands armed resistance would be one that produced such blatant and universal injustice that no one could possibly deny the tyranny. To me a government that is so tyrannical that it requires armed resistance would be as obvious to anyone, or at least any American in a country whose entire history is based on liberty and equality, as if the sun were to rise in west. It would be an undeniable and undebatable fact. And since our country has not entered or neared that point I believe it is a hyperbolic argument at this time to suggest that gun control of any kind could place the freedom of Americans at risk. The day I fear is when the government starts passing laws that control peoples ability to criticize the government or the day when the demand comes that people go through red tape to be able to vote. That is the day I fear. More than a day when people are required to go through red tape to obtain a gun. Words cannot hurt people but are our best defense against tyranny. Guns can hurt people and until they are needed they pose a threat to those who have them and to those around them.

    • windage

      “The day I fear is when the government starts passing laws that control peoples ability to criticize the government “? That day is already here. You are looking for easy to see signs of tyranny, but it doesn’t happen all at once like that. Look for the small, erosion of your rights. For me, that is my gun rights, which started with the NFA in the 30′s, (to keep agents busy after repeal of Volker). For you it is the erosion of free speach. Witness the tyranny of the imprisonment of a filmaker, who is blamed for the Bengazi attack.
      We are currently experiencing as much tyranny as they (fed gov’t) think they can get away with, but you don’t see it?

      • Jane

        Right!

      • Kate8

        Just one point, Jeremy, about both sides exploiting events. The Left uses these (government operations) events to take away rights, and the Right generally “exploits” them to defend rights. (Although, they are coming together more all the time, being the good cop/bad cop ruse that they are.)

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I do not deny that there are abuses. Nor do I deny that people need to be watchful of government. Where I feel disagreement is this idea that supporting gun control equates to giving government the power to take away our guns. I see the abuses. But we still have the power to stop it through the press and the ballot box. Its when people stop believing in the press and the ballot box that tragedy strikes.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Kate if by government operations you mean Fast and Furious I disagree. I believe that that operation demonstrated incompetence and stupidity rather than sinister scheming. I saw it more as a mistake than a calculated effort. Especially since no laws against guns came of it.
        What I meant when I talked about exploitation was the stories of things like the Newtown shooting. People on all sides of the political spectrum have used tragedies like that to get vindication of their beliefs. Whether you may agree with their beliefs or not I believe getting vindication or trying to score political points from a tragedy is wrong.

      • eddie47d

        Windage: That filmmaker was arrested on another charge not because of the video. No wonder so many of you are confused.

      • http://Aol.com CommonSense4America

        The Second Amendment is the ONLY amendment that will guarantee that we will have the First Amendment.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        But no one can take away any of the amendments unless they first take away, well the first.

      • Kate8

        Nice try, Jeremy, but I was also referring to Newtown (Sandy Hook), Aurora, AZ, Columbine and a host of others now shown to be false flags staged by OUR GOVERNMENT as an excuse to ban guns.

        All it shows is that we need to be even more heavily armed to defend ourselves and our kids against Uncle Sam.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        With respect Kate I do not believe any of those events were false flags committed by the government.

      • Kate8

        Jeremy – Of course you don’t.

        Shills are not allowed to criticize the government, anyway, so I wouldn’t expect you to.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Kate I criticize the government all the time. Examples including NDAA, Iraqi War, Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Fast and Furious, Defense of Marriage Act, Drone Program, Tarp, Guantanamo Bay and torture. Just because I do not declare the government responsible for sinister schemes does not make me a government shill.

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        January 7, 2013 at 1:43 pm

        Windage: That filmmaker was arrested on another charge not because of the video. No wonder so many of you are confused.
        ________________________________________________________________________
        Really? What was the other charge?
        Why don’t you clear that up for us?

    • Steve White

      Where does Mr. Leochner suggest we find these weapons should the governments tyranny grow to the point that we do need to use force to over-throw it? I think I am right to say that Nazi Germany use the same argument to enact gun bans and then lived in relative peace for some time before they started to destroy the “dissidents”in their country. I only wish that intelligent people like Mr. Loechner would truly study the whole history before making statements like this. He should look at more of the underlying current events if he truly wants to see what is going on in our great nation. We are seeing our rights being eroded away under the pretense of political correctness. God help this failing nation from our own stupidity!

      • Kate8

        Steve – I think I remember reading that it was a period of only 5 years from the time Hitler took charge until the mass genocide began.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        With respect Steve I have studied the history. Laws diminishing the German peoples right to bear arms were enacted during the Weimar Republic long before Hitler came to power. And the actual law that deprived the average German citizen of any sort of right to bear arms was not passed until 1938 long after Hitler had come to power. Weapons of war are necessary to fight against tyrannies like Hitler. However Hitler came to power through trickery and exploitation. The law that granted him absolute power was the Enabling Act. It was voted on. And a shining example of the power of the spoken word was when the Social Democratic Party, the second largest political party in Germany at the time, voted unanimously against the act. The only reason it passed was Hitler and his goons were able to convince the other political parties to vote in favor. It was the power of words that bring dictators into power through the democratic system. And it is words that must be used to prevent that. Weapons are needed should such dictators come to power. But it is my understanding that when people lose faith in the power of words and became enthralled by the power of weapons that dictators are able to rise. It is when people start believing that the guys with the guns make the rules that we start slipping into tyranny.

      • eddie47d

        The true socialists and democrats in Germany did not like Hitler and thanks for pointing that out Jeremy.

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        January 7, 2013 at 1:46 pm

        The true socialists and democrats in Germany did not like Hitler and thanks for pointing that out Jeremy.
        _______________________________________________________________________

        All according to eddie’s imagination….

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Well in fact JC Hitler only included the socialist in his parties name to try and appear more centrist than the party was. Hitler disagreed vehemently with those in his party who took the socialist part too seriously. He considered them little better than communists. I as a social democrat consider the social democratic party to be the true representatives of what socialists and democrats in Germany wanted.

      • JC

        All subject to interpretation Jeremy. Hitler was an elected dictator who used whatever means, political or otherwise to get where he was going. Relevant to this thread would be his approach to gun control. Which history records, was used to subjugate first the Jews of Germany, then an entire nation.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I agree JC. However I will say the historical record shows that Gun Bans were not enacted in Germany until 1938 a full four years after Hitler assumed dictatorial power and a full 3 years after the Nuremberg Race Laws deprived the Jewish German citizens of all their basic rights. Hitler did not start his subjection of his people with gun control. He did it with the burning of books and letting the SA run wild in the streets:

        http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

        http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

      • Veteran

        You are correct with the timeline, but he absolutely had to confiscate the firearms before his control could be complete – Obama and the anti-gun crowd is just starting earlier on their path to complete control.

        Remember, the Warsaw Ghetto ‘held off’ an entire German regiment for over a month with only 31 firearms – it’s just the Germans didn’t know how few guns they had. The Jews had fired a few shots and the Germans halted. It took them almost a month to gin up the courage to attack, rather than just waltz in.

        The Founding Fathers knew that many, many governments turn tyrannical, and they had just fought a war against just such a foe – England. So they put in the 2nd Amendment to make sure that wouldn’t happen again on our soil. And being a member of the Sons of the American Revolution and the NRA and a student of American history, I will do all I can to insure we keep our rights – which are just as valid today as in 1878, when our Constitution was ratified.

      • JC

        So, are you suggesting that the collection of guns by the Hitler regime had nothing whatever to do with his ability to create a dictatorship?

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Veteran The people in Obamas administration who want to have gun bans I believe are idealistic well meaning idiots. They do not want to ban guns as part of a first step on the road to dictatorship. They are doing it because like the those who supported prohibition they genuinely believe that simply banning the item will solve the problem. I disagree with them. However I also disagree with you as to their motives.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        JC Hitler did not collect guns until long after his dictatorship was established. He did not become dictator through a military take over. Nor did try and confiscate weapons before he came to power. The only way that having weapons would have prevented Hitlers rise to power is if someone had assassinated him. Sadly with the hindsight of history we know Hitler should have been arrested or assassinated. The people at the time were so preoccupied by their fear and distrust and hatred that they could not see the forest for the trees. Hitler came to power through the power of words and it is words which could have and should have stopped him. Gun bans are not the way. And I agree that banning guns or getting rid of the second amendment would place the people in serious danger. However it is my firm belief that dictators do not start confiscating the peoples weapons and depriving them of the right to bear arms until after they gain absolute power. If they attempted to take peoples guns prior to gaining absolute power it would be denied them. Basically it is my belief that they don’t start coming for peoples guns until it is already to late to stop them. By the time they come for peoples guns those individuals who happen to own a few rifles and handguns are basically on their own and have no form of legal or political recourse or defense.

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.trusty David Trusty

      OK, so basically, what you are saying is that as long as the government isn’t tyrannical, they can take your guns, but when the government becomes tyrannical, they will give guns to the people to fight them? Defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that is the oath that I took. The Japanese didn’t invade the U.S. because “There would be a gun behind every blade of grass”. The government we have today is exactly the government that the founders were talking about.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        No David. The government starts trying to take all guns away when it is tyrannical. Gun Control in the form of waiting periods and back ground checks does not equate to taking away peoples guns. Gun Bans would fall under that category but I am as much against those as you are. There are plenty of ways to fight a threat without there being a gun behind every blade of grass. We need not have that many guns to be safe. Not for nothing but I believe that our armed forces serves as a slight deterrent against any invasion.

      • eddie47d

        The US military is there in our defense today. The Founding fathers didn’t have the luxury of a standing army thus they basically “drafted” all eligible men to serve in those militias. That need is no longer necessary yet private citizens (gun owners) still attempt to say that is so.

      • Bryan George

        eddie47d WOW!! does it have any relevance that our founding fathers were in fact REVOLTING FROM A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT??? Fighting the government in power?? Not yet a Country?? Maybe that is why they didn’t have the luxury of a standing army?? Ya think??? Maybe that is why the wrote the 2nd amendment??? Ya think?? Or don’t you think???

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Well it is a complicated issue Eddie. The founders created the continental army to unify their effort. But militias still made up the back bone of the Revolution. And not for nothing militias made good showing in the fights at concord and the battles of the cowpens and kings mountain. Nowadays we have a strong armed forces to protect against threats both foreign and domestic. But I think it is a valid point that we need militias as a safe guard against tyranny. A back up plan in case tyranny should some how take over. And its always nice to think that there is some form of organized resistance to assist the national guard and the other branches of the military should an invasion ever happen. The classification of “militia” is tricky and I fully support the portion of the second amendment which talks about well regulated militias as opposed to any group of gun totters calling themselves a militia. I think we still need militias as a just in case. But I consider them to be our last resort plan.

    • GALT

      The purpose of the second article of the Bill of Rights is to kill cops, or anyone
      else in government who acts contrary to the “just powers” granted to it, “by
      the consent of the governed”.

      Articles of Confederation, Article VI

      “but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.”

      In the spirit of “stare decisis”…….the language here does NOT suffer from lack of
      clarity………everything provided by and self contained within the “in public stores”
      for the “keep up” of “a well-regulated and disciplined militia”………

      If that had been the “intent” of the Bill of Rights, regarding this issue…….”the right
      of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” would have been
      an unnecessary addition.

      Which leaves us with the rather stark and brutal statement that begins this offering.

      For better or worse, this endless and circular debate……..must be discussed in
      those terms…….anything else, is disingenuous distraction.

      REALITY, suggests that the number of people ” in government who act contrary to the “just powers” granted to it ” are growing everyday………at least in the eyes of those,
      who believe that………the constitution means what it says, and is still in effect…..
      both in terms of “enumerated powers” and ” stated rights or otherwise, retained by
      the people.”

      Government is FORCE…..and this hasn’t changed…….and it is applying this
      force in all manner of activity……..either for it’s own interest’s or the “special
      interest’s” by which it has been corrupted, not in the interests of the “people”,
      and in direct violation of the “rights” quite clearly enumerated.

      Cops can kill without fear of reprisal, while at they same time they have no
      legal requirement to protect anyone……..taken together, their badge and the law
      should be sufficient……with due process….to do their job…….no guns required.

      If they have a potential problem or anticipate one….they can request the assistance
      of that “well-regulated and disciplined militia”. ( after all the constitution does not
      say that the law enforcement officers of every state shall have the right to keep
      and bear arms……….but if they feel the need for one……..I suppose they can
      base their claim……..as being “one of the people”….and thus have the “same
      rights”. ( that cops are people too…..is a bit of a stretch, but logically consistent.)

      If nothing else, having this debate, on these terms……stark and direct…..could
      prove far more useful in any number of “areas”, including “what’s really going
      on with all this seemingly “unconstitutional” stuff……….and judging by “fat boy’s
      statement last week, dismissing this argument out of hand…….this is precisely the
      “argument” they don’t want to have. Why make it easy for them?

      “To conquer, first DIVIDE!” ( and then HANG, separately. )

    • Bryan George

      The government has already made it a felony to protest anywhere the “secret” service is deployed “Good luck with that”. This IS an attack on the first amendment!! The second is meant to insure that a tyranical government does not take the others away as they ARE doing now! I would Gladly and sooner trust my neighbors with weapons than I would my own government because the government does NOT have OUR best interests in mind and they have an army at their command. You had better wake up, the mainstream media ARE Liberal progressives “Communist” and they most certainly do NOT tell both sides of any debate!! The SEIU and the AFL-CIO both have marched in San Francisco and Washington D.C. carrying communist signs and chanting communist slogans that ended with “Communism is the solution”!! Did they cover that?? Did they cover Obama standing in front of the SEIU and saying ” your agenda is MY agenda” and “Together we will paint this country SEIU purple”?? Think Obama doesn’t know of their march’s?? Democrat’s and unions ARE communist!! I don’t say this lightly as I have been a union member (affiliated with the AFL-CIO) for years and had no idea they use our money to support such ideas. Not even the Republicans will talk about this, WHY???? Proof is there for all to see on U-Tube. Spread it until these idiots are run out on a rail!!! I didn’t see any coverage about the shooting in San Antonio 2 days after Conn where an armed person shot the shooter and saved countless lives either. They ARE BIAS!!

    • http://aol Gene

      when the president of Russia says that Obama is a communist there is no one better qualified to make that kind of a statement and Putin better than anyone should know a communist when he sees one

      • eddie47d

        Putin rules Russia with an iron fist and you still don’t want to get caught up in their prison system. If you want to quote Putin then maybe that would be a better place for yoin mother Russia.

      • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

        Gene looking at the comments by eddie, teddy 47 ways to be a commie and Jeremy is like standing on a Russian street corner and listening to two commie’s building each other up, neither have a clue about history and both have distorted it when ever they are in the mood. If they say it, you can bet it is a lie and something they made up. I have caught so many of eddie, teddy’s lie’s it would fill a book, now I get to add Jeremy and his lie’s. The fabian socialist took over our school system and it show when you read these two. Wow, talk about drinking cool ade and lying to get a cause to the forefront>

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I assure you Benjamin I am no communist. And what I believe comes less from what I learned in school and more from my curiosity about issues and my studying them. I admit school helped. However it was hardly drinking the cool aide as you suggest.

    • http://www.ucl.co.ke Wamalwa Nanjolicho

      American people, the people who are pro guns are very myopic in their thinking. I leave very far from country in a country called Kenya and we are constantly under the thread of guns from the criminals to cattle rustlers. Imagine we lost over 40 police men in one go to the hands of cruel cattle rustlers who had guns and knew the terrain well than the police officers who were trying to recover the stolen animal.
      The cattle rustlers were armed in equal measure like the policemen like some are advocating but they outnumbered the police officer. So when you talk of people being armed that is the kind of anarchy we anticipate.
      As a country we are advocating for restriction of trade in small arms to limit their access to the criminals who cause the suffering of the innocent people.
      I hope that the American people shall come to the senses and support us in coming with a treaty on small arms, this will go a long way in helping reduce the suffering being caused by these small arms.

      • dalek

        I have just one thing to say. You do what you want there including giving up your guns. If that is what you want and your Government says it is fine, so be it. Our Constitution gives the people the right to bear arms. It doesn’t say small or large so it includes them all. WE ARE NOT GIVING UP OURS. You can if you want but not me and many millions of others. We have seen what happens when the people are disarmed and we have a Constitution that gives us a way to prevent that. Actually, we have a way to prevent our guns from being taken to begin with. It is called resistance with force, deadly if needed.

      • http://aol Gene

        from Kenya, small arms treaty, sounds like someone we all know

      • Nadzieja Batki

        So you are an IDIOT plain and simple, and if you don’t know what that means look it up. We have enough human variety of trash in America, you just added yourself to the crowd. If you don’t want freedom and liberty why did you bring your sorry ass here to America, you should have been a quick learn how to get along with the thugs in your own country.

      • JC

        Wamalwa Nanjolicho says:

        January 7, 2013 at 8:28 am

        American people, the people who are pro guns are very myopic in their thinking. I leave very far from country in a country called Kenya and we are constantly under the thread of guns from the criminals to cattle rustlers.
        _____________________________________________________________________

        Another simplistic view. The desired result of Liberals in their quest for disarmament is that guns actually be “uninvented”, nothing less would give them the utopia they imagine.
        The reality is guns aren’t going away and we’re safest when the majority of those guns are in the hands of law abiding citizens.

      • Wildturkey

        Maybe if the farmers had ample weapons the cattle would not have been stolen in the first place. Did you ever think of that. Criminal will get weapons from where ever they can even if you ban them.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        wildturkey, the kenyan Wamalwa is just another human predator who found too much competition among the other predators in kenya so he had to migrate here to America.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        Who is we? You and Totalitarians like you are advocating to infringe on my right to keep an bear arms. That is a declaration of war. Do you have the courage to attempt to disarm me and those like me, yourself? Or will you have your gang of armed thugs do it for you? Makes no difference I will die a free man and never be your slave. You however, will continue to be a coward.

      • http://yahoo MilitaryMom

        Tell me how you will ban Machetes & Harpoons where they slaughter whole villages?? They never used a gun!!!

      • Kate8

        Wamalwa – With all due respect, we are not Kenya.

        Americans have always been well armed since our inception. We had our “wild west” days, but we have always (until now) been a moral people who simply want to be left to “pursue happiness” unmolested by anyone, including government.

        As someone pointed out, criminals will use whatever they have. Somehow, they are always able to get their hands on guns (probably supplied by corrupt politicians), but in the event they can’t, they’ll use whatever weapons available. Heck, anyone can MAKE a weapon.

        We’ll keep our guns, thank you very much. They’ve been the only thing which has kept us protected up until now.

      • Steve E

        Wamalwa Nanjolicho, you should leave this country. You do not believe in the Constitution. And you should always keep yourself, unarmed.

      • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

        Your dumber then a rock, who steals, crooks, who murders, crooks, so by letting them have theirs and the police who do you think will be the victim? You !!!!

      • JC

        This just in:

        Lots and Lots of Americans exercising their natural Constitutionally enshrined rights.

        LOTS of em! :)

        “Since Congress and the President may try to pass laws to make us defenseless, Americans are stocking up on weapons as insurance against thieves, rapists, and murderers. That’s why we’re seeing evidence of record gun buying from Florida to California.
        “Nearly 8,000 people attended the first day of the Florida Gun Shows’ exhibition this weekend in Orlando, according to event organizers.
        “Crowds broke records on Saturday, and organizers said it’s possible they’ll see even larger numbers of gun enthusiasts before the weekend ends.
        “Hundreds of gun buyers took vouchers that would allow them to return on Sunday because it was difficult to get into Saturday’s events.
        “‘[Gun enthusiasts] are buying and they’re buying as fast as they can get them,’ said Victor Bean, promoter for Florida Gun Shows. ‘We’ve had some exhibitors who had to cancel because they didn’t have any inventory from their gun shops.’”

        Most Americans do not trust the government. (For damned good reason too)

        Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/01/gun-shows-and-gun-buying-breaking-records/#ixzz2HLpJ7gHH

    • scott

      Re: Soviet Union, Germany, Turkey,Communist China,Uganda,Cambodia,Afghanistan, the evidence is clear. These countries are historical examples of what happens when a populace is disarmed. Genocide. It is impossible when the victims are armed and able to resist. Be aware, gun registration is always the first step to confiscation. Confiscation at some point leads to complete loss of freedom and mass killings.
      Don’t think it can happen here? Better think again. Just look at the steady erosion of our rights and freedoms in just the last decade! This gun control issue HAS to be the “line in the sand” for lovers of freedom. With guns you’re citizens – without guns you’re subjects!

      • GRusling

        Careful now… Afghanistan is not and never has been disarmed! It’s simply a tribal land where the tribes have no desire to BE DISARMED or to develop “democracy” where the vote of the majority is allowed to oppress the minority. Time after time other countries have TRIED to control those tribes, but they’ve always failed, and the U.S. will fail just as badly. Even the Soviet Union with its massive occupation could not subjugate the tribes of Afghanistan, which is nothing more than an “area” designated as a “country” by allied cartographers at the end of WWII. These United States will utterly fail as soon as our military is withdrawn to the level that it can no longer control the populace. Our “installed” central government will immediately fail and Afghanistan will revert to what it has always been — still well armed and extremely dangerous. My solution is to simply walk away, with the promise to return in force and bomb them all back into the stone age if they ever again give aid and support to an enemy which dares to attack us…

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Than why is it that the laws which disarmed German Citizens was not passed until 1938 a full 4 years after Hitler assumed dictatorial powers. And why is vast numbers of armed resistance groups sprang up through out Germany. The power of the first amendment is how dictators become powerful. They convince people that they need weapons rather than the ballot box to be safe. Its then that they start becoming all powerful and convincing people to give up their guns willingly.

      • Billy Hill

        Read carefully,the”Dick Act “of 1902.It provides unbreakable protection to the 2nd Amendment

    • nonannystate

      So what part of “shall not be infringed” do these “well-educated” gun control advocates and, for that matter, our elected representatives not understand. It seems to me that the 2nd amendment verbage does not leave any room for debate. I am certain that it was not written lightly.

    • wandamurline

      Get yourself a copy of the Declaration of Independence…it is blatantly clear that you are completely uninformed as to why we are allowed to have guns….and remember the words in the 2nd Amendement, “shall not be infringed”. These people took an oath of office to conform and uphold the Constitution….many like Feinstein and Reid are definitely not abiding by their oath and they need to resign.

      • http://aol Gene

        not resign, fired

      • Capitalist at Birth

        Executed as traitors, would be more fitting, in my mind.

    • http://yahoo Ken

      You are so full of it your eyes are brown. I would be wasting my breath trying to explain the 2nd Amendment to you and the real reason for it. People are the threat and video games for the kids. You want to keep freedom then keep the assault weapon or so they are called which is BS!

    • Capitalist at Birth

      You are a fool, if you trust the government. I am sorry you do not understand that the end is nearer than it was 150 years ago, when the constitution was repeatedly eroded. I think if you want to live in a country where arms are restricted to only the government, you should move there and leave the Constitution alone. In other words you and your type are not welcome here.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I do not trust the government. I trust the Republic and Democracy to be my safe guards. I trust my power and the power of the people to speak out against corruption and incompetence and extremism. And I never said I wanted only government to have weapons. The constitution expresses the right to keep and bear arms as one that cannot be infringed. I follow that same as all others. There is a difference between creating restrictions on how where and when a person may obtain a gun and making it impossible for a person to keep or bear a gun.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        Creating restrictions is the same as infringement. What don’t you understand about that?

      • Nadzieja Batki

        C A B, there will be a new way of infringing on gun ownership and it will be by way of home insurance. It isn’t enough that the home insurance companies have grown to be the biggest extortion rackets they will create gun control through this gambit.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Capitilist. Making it difficult for people to obtain weapons in no way violates their ability to keep them. Neither does it infringe on their right to bear them.

    • Marie M

      You make some very good points til the end where you argue that it would be easy to identify a tyranical government in time to do something about it. I think that if you were honest about your study of history you would know that most of the most tyranical of governments started out reasonably but then progressed to limiting speech and weaponry until the average person was no longer able to mount any defence even with the help of his neighbors. This is not the path I choose. Not what I spent 12 years in the military to defend. One has to always be vigilent because change for the worst while happening in plain sight is often missed or deemed to not be important enough to do anything about.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        I think our current government since around 1900 could and should be defined as tyrannical. It is only a matter of degree that should be debated.

      • Steve E

        Watch how tyrannical this government gets if it ever tries to take your arms. There will be more bloodshed than ever before in the history of man.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Marie my theories are centered on the two tyrannical governments most often used as examples of where we are headed. When people use hyperbolic language about the power of big government Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany are the go tos. However in both those cases and specifically Nazi Germany the people should have seen it coming a mile away. Sadly the people were driven to near madness by the great depression and so fearful of chaos and disorder that they decided Hitler and his goons should be given political power to restore order forgetting who it was who destroyed that order in the first place. And it was the same when the Bolsheviks over threw the government established by the February Revolution against the Czar. From Francisco Franco to Saddam Hussein, from The Terror of Maximilien Robespierre to Fidel Castro. The way these dictators came to power was through convincing and deceiving people. They tricked them into believing that the Democratic Process or that a Representational Government was not enough to protect them. That they needed a strong man to safe guard them and that he could only act through aggression and suppression. Robespierre was one of the framers of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and was a passionate opponent of the death penalty. Yet when things became difficult and France faced dangers from abroad and within Robespierre simply said times have changed and abandoned his former principles. He justified the terror by saying it was necessary. The key thing in common with all these dictators is that to start out they had to trick people and convince them. To stop dictators from rising we need people of courage and integrity in government. We need a watchful citizenry and a citizenry that participates. Above all we need a citizenry that remains faithful to the democratic system and to the power of words both spoken and printed. Its when people stop believing that they can protect themselves from tyranny through words and print that tyranny comes. Its when people stop believing in the promises of a republic and turn to the seductions of a tyrant that liberty dies. Its when people stop believing that government can be reformed and cleaned of corruption and extremism and instead take matters into their own hands that disaster occurs.

    • Bill

      Jeremy,
      It is a left vs right argument. The liberals want to disarm the public so they can control. The weak , women and seniors, needs guns to protect themselves from all of the new criminals created by the liberals anti business recession

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Bill I am a liberal and I do not want to disarm people. I do not support gun bans. So its not a generalized liberal versus conservative left versus right debate at all.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        Jeremy, That you mention Democracy in the same sentence as Republic, proves your ignorance. None of the people involved in creating a Constitutional Republic thought Democracy was a good idea for governance. As with all Totalitarians, your desire to force your majority will on the minority shows through loud and clear. Democracy cannot and has never worked. It always leads to chaos and economic collapse. You need to study a little bit more, and quit running your mouth on sites like this so much.

      • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

        Bill Jeremy and eddie, teddy 47 ways to be a commie prove your point every time they comment. They are the people who believe in what Karl Marx said and they prove it everytime they talk like him. Marx said there were 10 steps to communism and in the U.S we employ 9 of them and under people like Jeremy and eddie teddy and Obozo we will have the 10th, a dictator which is number 10 and he lives in the White House now.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Capitalist our system has a democratic underpinning. We must not allow the majority to tyrannize the minority but neither must we allow the tyranny of the minority to control the majority. Not for nothing they are the majority. I am loyal to our country which is a Republic. And I am loyal to the right of the majority to cast its vote. Whether it be for a particular candidate or a particular policy proposal. Democracy is not our system and pure true democracy cannot work. But there still needs to be a underpinning of a democratic system. Just as there is both the Senate to provide equal representation to the states regardless of population so there is the house of representatives to ensure the voice of minority.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Benjamin I am no communist. I am a social democrat. I believe in having a social conscience and applying social justice in deed not word. I do not believe in ignoring the individual for the sake of the community. But neither do I believe in ignoring the community for the sake of the individual. Its a balance that has to be maintained.

    • Texas Ride

      How naive you are, Jeremy! I bet you don’t own a gun…

      Those that became Americans were people that demanded freedom and despised tyranny. That has been a cornerstone of this Nation. Our system is failing, our elections are meaningless and compromised. Our schools are government-run indoctrination centers. Everything that has made this country great, is under attack.
      Our government no longer represents the people, nor does it believe in our constitutional rights. Bottom line, the government is broken and no longer functions as a servant to the people. The process has begun to make people the slaves to the government. There is no leverage, no representation, or Rule of Law that is recognized by the current regime.

      • http://aol Gene

        Very well said

      • GRusling

        You’re correct, but remember the “Patriot Act” was passed by the previous administration, under republican control of all three branches of our federal government, and it’s difficult to imagine a more unconstitutional act by the “elites” in Washington DC than that pile of garbage…

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Texas I do not own a gun and I admit I am young and a tad naive. What I know is this. I went through one of those government indoctrination centers as you call them. Yet my allegiance has never been to the government or to its leaders. My allegiance is to the Republic and to Democracy. And it is in my experience that when people stop believing in a Republic that a Republic dies. Its when people stop believing in the Democratic process that liberty dies and tyrants rise. I support peoples right to bear arms as I do all other rights. Perhaps I am naive but on this I am certain. I am determined to never bow or submit to any dictator or ruler of any kind. I am loyal to the Republic. Until the day that someone attempts to declare themselves a dictator I will do all in my power to prevent that. And I believe putting faith in the power of the pen rather than the sword is the best way to do that.

      • Texas Ride

        Jeremy, this post sounds like you have “promise.”

        Just hope you realize that there will come a time when “the sword is mightier than the pen.”
        We didn’t get our independence from England with the power of the pen! A lot of good patriots lost their lives.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I realize a lot of patriots lost their lives in the struggle for independence. Me belief is that they were left with no choice. They were fighting for their independence against a government that did not represent them and was made of, by and for the king. I believe that in such a situation as that armed resistance is unavoidable and necessary. But the pen is how you prevent such a system or such a situation from arising. You can’t shoot someone because they say that amendments should be abolished. You cannot shoot someone for saying America should abandon its constitution. You cannot shoot someone for threatening to ban all political parties. In this free society you have a right to say what you wish. However you also have the right to speak out against them. You have a right to do all in your power to tell people the truth and prevent the mentality that leads to tyranny. If there ever comes a day when the sword must be used I will wield it same as others. But until such a day I will use the pen and all that I have to prevent that.

    • alpha-lemming

      The ground-work for that “tyrannical Government” IS being laid…..

      The MSM won’t remind you but… recall Chairman ObaMaos’ request for a “civilian army”….. “As large and as well equipped as our conventional armed forces”. For what purposed I wonder?? The ONLY answer that makes any sense has to involve “social justice” or “redistribution” or what ever made up word/synonym they come up with to mis-identfy what’s actually “sanctioned thievery to fund the Communist utopia”.

    • Old Man

      Jeremy Leochner……Your another of the rambling “useful idiots” who doesn’t seem t want to see what is “incramentally happening in this country. Read this quote……. “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under the name of Liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist Nation without ever knowing how it happened.”
      – Norman Thomas, American Socialist

      • Steve E

        Jeremy Leochne is Flashy. They have the same IP address.

      • Kate8

        Steve E – I’ve noticed how they always seem to show up together…

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Old man I am a liberal who believes in Liberalism. I have no desire to compel anyone towards socialism and from what I have heard of socialism it does not sound all that great anyways.

        Kate and Steve I am not flashy or anyone else. Mr. Livingston and Dave were wrong when they said that I have the same address as some one else. The only way that is possible is if someone is breaking into my house and logging onto to my pc and coming on.

    • GRusling

      Mr. Leochner: You err in several ways, probably because your point-of-view is corrupted by our non-education system.

      First, the left/right paradigm is false on gun control because many of my “democratic” friends are as strongly opposed to it as my “republican” friends. In reference to the media though, the paradigm is generally true. The mainstream media has a strong leftist slant which can easily be ascertained. If you don’t see that, you simply haven’t looked. Only FoxNews moderates that view, and even then it’s a slight moderation. Their approach is “republican” which is presented as an alternative to the “far-left” but in fact, is simply a slightly moderated version of that same viewpoint. Today’s republicans are oceans apart from the Goldwater republicans of a few decades ago.

      Where the 2nd Amendment is concerned, you totally ignore reality. Our Constitution, as written included no provision for a “standing army” so “The People” in the militia were the only army that existed! Our constitution still provides that no funding for an army shall be for more than “two years” while the “Militia” is deemed to be perpetual, under command and control of the States, not the federal government. To that end, it’s necessary that “The People,” who are that militia, be properly armed to fight a war. Repeating rifles, in this day and age, are the proper arms of a soldier, so anyone who tries to disarm, or even restrict the arms of the individual members of our militia are acting at cross purpose to our constitution. Texas, for instance, has “5 Well Regulated (well trained) Militia Units” maintained by and under full command and control of our Governor. All these individuals (except the Commanding Officers) have full-time jobs outside their militia units and meet regularly for training. Each or all of these units can be called up within a matter of hours, with a full compliment of the “Weapons of War” which our U.S. armed forces have at their disposal. Texas also has the “general militia” which consists of everyone not a member of this “select militia.” There is no longer a requirement that every member own and maintain proper armament, but most still do. I know of very few men in this State who do not own and maintain proper weapons at home. Most who don’t are either newly arrived or forbidden by law to own firearms through their own actions. If you care to inquire you’ll find that “accidental shootings” in America have steadily declined since the 1940′s, and certainly not as a result of “fewer firearms” in the hands of our citizens, so I have very little fear (like none) that my neighbors might “accidentally shoot me” just because they are well armed, and they certainly are.

      For any who fear “The Police” it should be understood that they are also members of our local community, who will join us, not oppose us should revolution become necessary. That fact alone stops our federal government from attempting to abruptly interfere with our many freedoms.

      That being said, I point you to the so-called “Patriot Act” which is a direct violation of almost every single article in our Bill of Rights. It’s unconstitutional on its face in more ways than I have space here to describe. The recent “NDAA 2012″ has created its own furor, and even members of our legislature call it illegal and unconstitutional, but the fact that it hasn’t been repealed out of hand demonstrates that we cannot trust our federal government not to oppress us and/or “MURDER” our citizens at the whim of our President! If THAT doesn’t get your attention, you are hopelessly dependent on someone else to do your thinking for you…

      • Jeremy Leochner

        GRusling.

        First in regards to Fox News you and I are in great disagreement. I believe Fox News is just as radical and just as partisan as it claims the “mainstream media” is. And I use quotes because for all Fox News talks about the “mainstream media” they also cannot help but brag about how they are the most popular network and have audiences much bigger than any other. Fox News is the mainstream media. And I hardly believe anyone would suggest Fox News is in any ways liberal.

        As for the second amendment. I do not deny the importance and need for a militia. Where I disagree with you is on the issue of a standing army. The continental army was designed as a unified effort against the British long before the constitution and became the basis for our future armed forces. While the constitution recognizes the importance of militias I feel the founding fathers put more faith in having at least some central armed forces. After all during the time the articles of confederation was the law of the land the armed forces was a pathetic shadow of what it would one day be. It could not maintain domestic order and near chaos reigned. I believe that a militias primary responsibility is to be a watch dog against tyranny. Its second responsibility is to be a back up to the national guard in the event of a foreign invasion. So I recognize the importance of militias. But for me I cannot help but feel as of right now they are not needed. Perhaps I am being neglectful and I am glad to see other states take care of their militias. I just do not believe they are needed as of yet.

      • GRusling

        Jeremy Leochner: Your view of FoxNews shows that you have no idea what the “right” is, or you’d realize there is a huge distance between the “Far Right” and what FoxNews espouses. The concept of “Don’t Touch My SS and Medicare” is about as far right as those folks ever get, and that position is way LEFT from the center of the political spectrum! You can’t even tell the difference between a “Welfare State” and Marxism, and they’re radically different! How can you be expected to recognize the difference between “Democracy” and a Republic?

        The “Mainstream Media” is not defined by viewership on some “Cable News Network” and if you knew whereof you spoke you’d understand the alphabet soup networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) ARE the “Mainstream Media” and their viewership absolutely DWARFS that of ANY Cable News outfit. The New York Times and the L.A. Times lead the WORLD in “Print Journalism” with only the Wall Street Journal to challenge them, and the word is “challenge,” not overcome. Ask our host here, Bob Livingston just how “conservative” he considers “FoxNews” to be, and I think you’ll be amazed.

        When the U.S. Constitution was written and ratified, the United States had “NO” (as in none at all) standing army, and the constitution makes no provision for one in the future. If you had studied U.S. history at all you would KNOW that our Founding Fathers DISTRUSTED a standing army, and all the military men who fought the Revolutionary War were actually “Militiamen” from the various Colonies, and only “George Washington” was hired by the “Confederation” as General of the Continental Army while every other officer came from one colony or another. They were “Federal Officers” only in the sense that they were, at that time, called into “Federal Service” in unified defense of our newly formed country. Not only was that the case in our Revolutionary War, it was STILL true almost 80 years later when the so-called “Civil War” between the North and South was fought. Lincoln named U.S. Grant Commander of all union forces, while those forces were comprised ENTIRELY of the combined Militias of the remaining union States.

        All of this makes what you “feel” the Founding Fathers had faith in, utter nonsense, because it doesn’t even come CLOSE to the reality of what they actually did…

      • Jeremy Leochner

        GRusling

        1: If Fox News is not far right you would not know it by asking the people at Fox. Case in point I offer this little demonstration of fox: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-27-2011/gop—special-victims-unit

        2: I do know the difference between a Republic and Democracy. Democracy is just majority rule. A Republic is founded on the principle of checks and balances and that is what I have always supported. However just as the minority must check the majority so the majority must check the minority. The majority cannot check the minority without some form democracy or a democratic underpinning taking root.

        3: I am a history buff with a particular focus on the Civil War. With all due respect there was a regular or “standing” army during both the War of 1812 and The Civil War and every war in between. The continental army formed the basis of the regular army which was a standing army. The founders tried with the confederation to allow every state to just look after its own but it did not work. And the idea of each state taking care of itself without a standing army was further shown to not work with the confederate states of America. Every attempt by the Richmond government to centralize control struggled mightily with numerous states refusing to send units from their state to others. This contributed to the Confederacys ultimate downfall. There needs to be a United Armed Forces if there is to be a United States. The phrase is the United States is not The United States are.

    • Leftnot

      Jeremy, the entire point of your discussion is our having the freedoms provided by the First Amendment. Without the power to revolt with fisical force (the Second Amendment) the rights of the First Amendment will be meaningless. Soon after our personal weaponry is reduced to single shot arms with little power to reach out and touch something, the First Amendment Rights will be more and more infringed upon until speaking out against the government in any way will be cause for imprisonment and worse.

      You mistakenly believe we can give up our guns and still be powerful through word. I would ask how that worked out for the countries you mention. Germany under the Hitler years and Russia during Stallin are examples you provide. More recently look at what has happened in Mexico, Africa and South America. In almost every case where totalitarion government has presided, disarming the citizenry was paramount.

      Let’s get back to the cause of this discussion which is mass shootings committed by mad men. Cause and effect. These shootings have all been committed where the shooters knew there would be no resistance for some period of time. They also knew they would be imortalized by the media. Those are the causes. There is nothing we can do about the media. There is everything we can do about the mistake of creating “GUN FREE ZONES” which have been just one more loss in our personal freedoms.

      Of all the gun control laws that have been passed in the United States, none have had a positive affect in reducing violent crime. The only affect they have had is to reduce the freedoms of law abiding citizens.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Left not it is my belief that in order to come after a peoples right to bear arms a tyrant or dictator must first destroy their rights to speech and expression and assembly. I use Nazi Germany as a case in point. When Hitler became chancellor of Germany all the rights I mentioned existed. Then when the Reichstag burned Hitler declared it to be the work of the communists and convinced President Hindenburg to declare martial law. Freedom of the press, speech, expression and public assembly were all banned. However freedom to keep and bear arms still existed. In fact the right of German Citizens to have weapons was not completely taken away until 1938 more than 4 years after Hitler assumed dictatorial power:http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

        Dictators do not start confiscating weapons until after they assume power. If they attempt to do before they attain absolute power then they are driven off and their schemes exposed. In order to confiscate weapons you have to convince people to submit willingly.

        As for school shootings you and I are in disagreement on a few points. First I do not believe shooters seek out schools because they know there will be no resistance. The Columbine school had armed security guards at the time of the shooting and the shooters who were students would have known that. Second Gun Free Zones are designed to discourage children from bringing guns to school in order to show off or protect themselves from bullies. Those kinds of incidents have resulted in far more deaths and injuries than mass school shootings committed by maniacs:

        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/6000-expelled-for-taking-guns-to-school-1158180.html

        http://www.nssc1.org/guns-to-deal-with-problems.html

        http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/policy_statements/children_and_guns

  • independent thinker

    You are exactly right Mr Young. The authors of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill Of Rights were well of how firearms had progressed from the first attempts to the most modern ones available to them. they would also have been well aware of the continued attempts at improving firearms. At the time of the American Revolution single shot muzzle loading firearms were the norm but there were people working on breech loading guns and guns capable of multiple shots without reloading. those Gentleman would certainly have expected continual improvement in firearms and as you said would want the private citizen to have the same small arms as the government. In fact I believe people were allowed to own cannons without restriction until the gun control act of 1934.

    • Gary

      Ditto…..we may be required to fight against a repressive State mandate enforced by a Governor issued and directed Executive Order. I want the same weapons they have to protect my Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness!

      • DAVE

        AMAN.

      • Gordon

        Bear with me. You will love this:
        (Bork was a Supreme Court Judge 1987>)

        Arkansas Democrat Gazette newspaper, Weds. Jan 2, ’13, Editorial page 4B, Column titled, “Robert Bork, Verb”, By Pulitzer Prize winning editor, Paul Greenberg….

        “…..Scholar and logician that Robert Bork was, he wound up making an idolatrous doctrine of ORIGINAL INTENT, insisting that the intent of the Founders is all when it comes to constitutional interpretation, which gave his law a brittle and vulnerable character. For a constitution that cannot change cannot grow. And all living things must grow or die.

        Judge Bork never recognized that the Constitution lives, too, and that his suffocating literalism would not save it so much as mummify it. (‘A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation’- Edmund Burke)……”

      • Leroy

        You folks evidently do not understand the subject on which you are trying to comment. You do not and will not have the same weapons the military has even when you are talking about an AR15 that was used in the recent shooting. That was not a fully automatic weapon such as the military weapon and is not capable of firing several hundred rounds per minute. The rifle you are discussing is the version that is manufactured for the general public and is nothing more than the common semiautomatic rifle used for sport shooting or hunting that is styled cosmetically to look like the military version. It is a one shot per pull of the trigger type rifle dressed up to look like the military version, nothing more, nothing less ,besides which, guns,knives,cannons, grenades, or even school buses do not kill people. People kill people.

      • MattN

        Gordon. Robert Bork never made it to the Supreme Court ( thanks to the liar Ted Kennedy). If you can’t get that part right, I doubt the rest of your blast is faultless either.

      • grannymae1

        I wish people would just but out of my rights ! If this person doesn’t want to have a gun then so be it, don’t buy one but get out of my right to have one of any kind I wish . I have all these do gooders telling me I can’t display this because it is offensive to them or I can’t own something else because they don’t see any good reason to them as to why I should have it. It is time to back off and leave the rest of us the H— alone ! People die every day from one thing or another but but you can’t rid society of every danger. Guns is the least of our problems right now, in the next four years you will come to realize exactly what I’m talking about and then people like this O’Malia person can cry us a river over her loss of her rights ! Hope it falls on deff ears. What an idiot !

    • http://yahoo.com Robert C. Whittaker

      It probably won’t make a difference since Obama does not believe in the Constitution but if I understand it correctly in ARTICLE. V. states that: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitutio, or on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; THE NEW LAWS REGULATION SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CHANGED THE SECOND AMENDMENT BY A BILL ALONE. ARTICLE V SHOULD HAVE TO APPLY. What say you? Do you know?
      Banding certain designs, style, and shape of guns will do nothing regarding the number of fatalities from guns, as the appearance of a gun has nothjing to do with any death. The size of any magazine, “number of bullets” will have little effect on the number that will or that can be killed as it only takes 3 to 5 seconds to drop a magazxine and replace it with another. Gun free zones only keeps the honest permit conceal carry citizen out and gives protection to the crazy / criminal to do what he wants.

      • Kate8

        Robert C. – This has been my understanding, as well. Our rights cannot be infringed by the votes of Congress nor the stroke of the executive pen…

        And yet, we the people have become so ignorant of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, most of us would, no doubt, bow to either, as we have with all of the other infringements on our rights at their hands.

        It’s interesting that liberals, while feeling that we the people should be restricted (or even banned) concerning gun rights, have no problem whatsoever with government holding super high tech firepower and the usurped “authorization” to kill whomever they choose on the slightest whim.

        The truth is, we the people SHOULD have rocket launchers, tanks and even drones. Is the government to be more trusted with these things? How about nukes? Do any of you trust these clowns who’ve demonstrated nothing but contempt for the civilians of the world, including our own, and is totally blase about “collateral damage” when it comes to furthering their quest for unlimited power?

        I was thinking about the Amish, and how they are always heavily armed. They have near zero crime inside their confines, and would have no problem defending their own.

        The hard truth is, even gun registration is unlawful. No criminal registers his guns, and it is always the first step toward government control and confiscation. Government does not register their arms. We have no idea what kind, nor how many, really bad weapons they have which they can use against us (or anyone) without accountability.

        Time to get real, folks, and demand government stop putting themselves above the Law. There is only one word for that, and it’s TYRANNY.

      • Larry

        It has nothing to do with the House of Representatives or the Senate.
        The whole reason for these amendments were to restrict the Government from infringing on the rights of the citizens. Not for government allowing the Citizens to do anything. the ammendments are to prevent the government from doing these things.
        with the second amendment written as stated. what the arms are that ciizens own is what ever the individual deams they need to protect themselves from a repressive Government period. This has nothing to do with what the weapons are the size of the magazines or anything else. We the citizens need to bring this to a baseline fight, the government is prohibited from infinging on our rights to own guns, what ever they may be.
        that means 66% of the Citizens of the United States that is there is no way in this world you will get 66% of the 295 million citizens in the United States of America, the means they would have to have 194.7 million votes to change the 2nd Amendment.

      • NM Leon

        You are correct. Any part of the Constitution, includeing any ammendments can only legally be changed with an amendment. Of course if Congress allows a president to violate the Constitution, then it becomes a moot point.

        The mag change here is extremely fast, but 3-5 seconds would be exceptionally slow.
        http://www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI

      • MacBeth51

        From the Heller decision:
        [I]t has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.
        The Supreme court has ruled that the right preceded the Constitution.

      • JC

        “This year will go down in history. For the first time,
        a civilized nation has full gun registration!
        Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient,
        and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
        ~ Adolph Hitler ~

      • http://www.facebook.com/della.creighton Della Creighton

        Agreed, And what I have been saying for a very long time the legislature has been changing the constitution with out amendments which from what I understand is not legal to the contract. And seemingly just plucking things out of thin air and saying they can. As I see they have no authority out side of the document and just because it dosen’t tell them they can’t dose mean they can. they are confined by the constitution and the enumerated powers only. Any laws they makeup out side of it are not laws at all. And again what part of shall not infringe do they not understand

      • Veteran

        The only way to stop them is to sue them in state or federal court (depending on the law) and then push until you get a decision! Remember, Heller had to go all the way to the US Supreme Court to validate the 2nd Amendment – a law that had stood for 224 years! And McDonald had to do it again in Chicago – and in both cases they are still fighting to get sensible solutions, since the offenders response was ridiculous.

        Our fight is continuing.

      • Jeff

        What part of “well-regulated” do you not understand? Who’s to do the regulating – you?

      • Mark

        Jeff asks, “What part of “regulated” don’ you understand? Who is doing the regulating?”

        Well, Jeff, The “regulating” is done by me, and anyone else who wants to be part of those who hold to their 2nd amendment rights. The purpose of the 10 amendments to the Constitution was not to LIMIT our rights, but to LIMIT THE GOVERNMENT’s power over those rights.

        This means that the Federal Government was not to oversee “A well regulated Militia….” A well regulated Militia was ASSUMED to be a right that the Federal government had no power to regulate.

        You see, that’s the purpose of amendments that you Liberals just don’t get: the Federal Government has no power to regulate or control freedom to speech, or freedom to own guns.

      • Jeff

        “This means that the Federal Government was not to oversee “A well regulated Militia….” A well regulated Militia was ASSUMED to be a right that the Federal government had no power to regulate.”

        That may be, but it appears clear the “regulating” was to be done by the States. And don’t tell me that in 1790 “regulate” had a different meaning. In the Commerce Clause, Congress is specifically given the power to “regulate” interstate commerce. It didn’t mean “runs like a watch” or such other nonsense.

      • Mark

        Mark: “This means that the Federal Government was not to oversee “A well regulated Militia….” A well regulated Militia was ASSUMED to be a right that the Federal government had no power to regulate.”

        Jeff: “That may be, but it appears clear the “regulating” was to be done by the States.”

        Actually, if you follow the conceptual framework of the US Constitution, you must recognize that the “…powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.” Which means that this inherent right to arms was not to be regulated by the Federal Government, but left to the states to determine how to regulate, if at all.

        Jeff: “And don’t tell me that in 1790 “regulate” had a different meaning. In the Commerce Clause, Congress is specifically given the power to “regulate” interstate commerce. It didn’t mean “runs like a watch” or such other nonsense.”

        Liberals use “Commerce Clause” like the sugar that goes on top of a donut. It was never intended to regulate the 2nd amendment, and indeed, it is impossible that it could be used to do so.

      • Jeff

        “Jeff: “And don’t tell me that in 1790 “regulate” had a different meaning. In the Commerce Clause, Congress is specifically given the power to “regulate” interstate commerce. It didn’t mean “runs like a watch” or such other nonsense.”

        Liberals use “Commerce Clause” like the sugar that goes on top of a donut. It was never intended to regulate the 2nd amendment, and indeed, it is impossible that it could be used to do so.”

        I’ve come to expect a rather low level of reasoning from the denizens of these blogs, but really, can’t you follow a simple analogy? I was illustrating the meaning of the word “regulate.” The Commerce Clause, of course, has no bearing on interpretation of the 2nd Amendment except insofar as interstate commerce is involved (e.g. shipments across state lines).

      • Mark

        Jeff: “And don’t tell me that in 1790 “regulate” had a different meaning. In the Commerce Clause, Congress is specifically given the power to “regulate” interstate commerce. It didn’t mean “runs like a watch” or such other nonsense.”

        Mark: “Liberals use “Commerce Clause” like the sugar that goes on top of a donut. It was never intended to regulate the 2nd amendment, and indeed, it is impossible that it could be used to do so.”

        Jeff: “I’ve come to expect a rather low level of reasoning from the denizens of these blogs, but really, can’t you follow a simple analogy?

        Let me repeat: I said, “….if you follow the conceptual framework of the US Constitution, you must recognize that the “…powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.” Which means that this inherent right to arms was not to be regulated by the Federal Government, but left to the states to determine how to regulate, if at all.”

        What part of that has got you confused? Can you not follow the back and forth of a debate? Do you need further clarification? Then ask for it, but don’t try this stupid tactic that I didn’t follow your line of questioning.

        Jeff: “I was illustrating the meaning of the word “regulate.” ”

        And this is going to help explain the 2nd amendment term for “regulate”? How? Since the 2nd amendment FORBIDS the Federal Government from regulating regarding the 2nd amendment, it has no power to do so.

        In the case of the 2nd amendment, “regulation” refers to the soveriegn actions of the state and/or its citizens. The amendment clearly states that such regulations are the actions of those entitites, and that the free exercise of the right to bear arms is necessarily dependent on the ability of those citizens to regulate their militia as they see fit and proper.

        What it boils down to is what you liberals keep on ineffectually trying to establish as the real intent of the amendment: that the right to bear arms was for self-protection, and not as a power against over-reaching and tyrannical government.

        Jeff: “The Commerce Clause, of course, has no bearing on interpretation of the 2nd Amendment except insofar as interstate commerce is involved (e.g. shipments across state lines).”

        I never said it had any bearing on interpreting the 2nd amendment.

      • dalek

        Mark, you know you can’t ask a liberal to use common sense right? lol I mean, they have to revise history to make things fit. They certainly can never understand the purpose behind the Constitution. It’s the reason they can’t grasp that the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, self defense from crooks, or just target shooting. They can’t understand that the 2nd Amendment is about keeping the Government in its box. Liberals trust Government to take care of them from birth until death. What else can you expect?

        I been going back and forth with Jeff. When you prove he is wrong, he revises history. He even told me that the Democrats that were blocking the Civil Rights act were actually Republicans. Next, he’ll be saying we fought China for our independence. ROFL

        I have to admit, Jeff gives me quite a chuckle for someone who has no idea about this country. Makes me wonder if he is even American at all. lol

      • Mark

        dalek: “Mark, you know you can’t ask a liberal to use common sense right?”

        LOL Well, I know what you mean, but I always try to do the polite thing!

        dalek: “They can’t understand that the 2nd Amendment is about keeping the Government in its box. Liberals trust Government to take care of them from birth until death. What else can you expect?”

        You are absolutely correct. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

        dalek: “I been going back and forth with Jeff. When you prove he is wrong, he revises history. He even told me that the Democrats that were blocking the Civil Rights act were actually Republicans. Next, he’ll be saying we fought China for our independence. ROFL”

        Yes, i did see that exchange that you had with him. Interesting. But you are correct. One thing that Liberals love to do is to move the argument around by redefining the terms to suit what it is that they are stating, and then bashing you because you’re too ignorant to understand that they redefined everything!!! LOL

        dalek: “I have to admit, Jeff gives me quite a chuckle for someone who has no idea about this country. Makes me wonder if he is even American at all. lol”

        They think the same way that Piers Morgan and others from Great Britain do. They are outside of the Constitution, and don’t really comprehend the purpose of the Constitution other than to guarantee specific freedoms TO THE GOVERNMENT.

      • dalek

        Liberals always think they can trust Government with everything but don’t want to look at history and what Governments do to people who can’t defend themselves from that Government. That don’t want to think about the fact that if the Founders of this country were unarmed, we would never have been a country. We would have been a colony of Great Britain or any other country that could have took us. After all, they only had to show up armed and they could have taken anything they wanted.

        Some people, never learn. They just keep repeating mistakes. Me, I’m waiting for the reset.

      • Jeff

        Dalek:

        I had no idea how idiotic a person I was communicating with. There is no one who was alive at the time who does not know that the Southern Democrats were democrats because the Republicans were the Party of Lincoln. Everyone knows they were racist A*Holes who opposed not only civil rights bills but even anti-lynching bills for years. Everyone also knows that those same racist A*Holes all became Republicans within a few years of the Civil Rights Act passing in 1964. If the Act passed because of Republicans, how do you explain that shift?

        To equate the Southern Democrats of the 60s and before with the modern Democratic Party is the height of intellectual dishonesty. If you think you’ve somehow “bested” me or anyone else because George Wallace was nominally a Democrat, have a good time laughing in your beer with the other fossils.

      • dalek

        I’m not the idiot. Go check your mirror. The only change the Democrats have made is to move further to the left. The only rights they want is to control everything and everybody. You proved that in your other post.

      • Zenphamy

        Good one Mark. Read my response to Jeff. We need to talk more and try to gather others into a sensible and realistic conversation. Jeff will never get it, or maybe he does and is one of those citizens that wish to tell the rest of us how to live.

      • Donald

        What you post is correct, for adding Admendments, BUT TO NEVER CHANGE the Bill of Rights or Original Constitution. It States in the Constitution, that “We The People” are to band toghether and overthrow any Tyrannical Government that might somehow gain controll of America!

      • http://www.facebook.com/dave.avitts Dave Avitts

        Read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. It states that these rights can not be touched by the Federal government. The preamble states that the first ten amendments are a list of restrictions on government powers. These rights exist outside of the Constitution and are not dependent on it. Even if the Constitution is amended to remove any of the first ten amendments, it won’t change a thing because they are natural rights held by all granted by the Creator.
        In short, the Feds do not have the right or the power to infringe on, or restrict, or regulate or revoke any of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

        Absolutely correct.

        They are inalienable (unalienable) which is a term that exists (same meaning) today, and the framers got their meaning – which is still the same – from William Blackstone (in his “Commentaries on the Laws of England”), defined unalienable rights – “Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture.”

        Definitons today: inalienable rights: “a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred”
        Unalienable, inalienable: “Inalienable and unalienable are interchangeable for “unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.” “incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another” ; “Not capable of being violated or infringed”.

      • dalek

        Kansas Bright,

        I ran across this article. Especially the part about the courts ruling posted below. Thoughts?

        “We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State’s officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.”

      • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

        That finding was / is true.

        The only way it would not be true is if within that state’s Constitution that they agreed to abide by the federal jusrisdiction. Again, all federal laws, bills, programs, etc MUST be in “pursuance thereof” (follow) the US Constitution to be lawful. So far all state Constitutions that I have read (and I have NOT read all of them, only 15) they follow the US Constitution as the Supreme law of this land and NOT the federal government.

        There are many that are not, that are being enforced because the enforcers do NOT understand the Oath they took (hopefully misunderstanding) or are actively working to destroy our legitimate government. Either way, they are made into criminals for enforcing an unlawful law, act, bill, program, etc.

        Quick note, you would be surprised at how many governors, state AJ’s, etc are not following their state constitutions. That are actually enforcing laws that go against their state constitutions and their lawfully required state oaths (California is one – no surprise there).

        Hope this helps.

      • dalek

        Sorry Kansas, I forgot to put in the link or it didn’t take it for some reason.

        http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/02/03/sheriffs-states-and-the-supreme-court/

        That was my thinking too. It seems the Founders were trying to keep the power with the people at every turn. People just refuse to see it.

      • Jeff

        Nothing in the Bill of Rights is either self-evident nor self-enforcing. Every other such Amendment requires the Courts to interpret the limitations of the rights so enshrined. Even the 1st Amendment has limits (e.g. child pornography; inciting violence). The 4th Amendment requires constant revision to keep up with technology so that police know when they need a search warrant, what searches are reasonable, etc. The 5th Amendment’s guarantee of due process is constantly being reinterpreted to fit new situations. The 6th and 7th Amendments guarantee trial by jury but even they have limits. The 8th Amendment is applied very differently today from the way George Washington may have envisioned it.

        So why is the 2nd Amendment unique? Why is there not a rule of reasonableness in its interpretation? Why does the Constitution suddenly become a suicide pact when dealing with the issue of guns?

        It doesn’t. The Supreme has recently decided the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to a gun. As conservative as that decision is, it is a long, long way from the position of the gun people on this blog who seem to think it guarantees them the right to an arsenal that can compete with the Army. Even Justice Scalia, probably the most conservative member of the most conservative Supreme Court in 100 years, wouldn’t go that far. Even he will recognize a rule of reason. I have heard him speculate the limit may be what a person can carry “in his arms.”

        I’m constantly amused when the gun nuts jump all over me for saying the Constitution is subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court. They come up with a quote from 1820 and act like it invalidates over 200 years of jurisprudence. To you, the 2nd Amendment may “obviously” guarantee your right to your own machine gun, drone, and A-Bomb, but to the rest of us, it’s not so clear.

      • dalek

        Jeff, as I have told you before, the Supreme Court is not as final as you claim. The States created the Federal Government and they can reign it in if needed. Some States are starting to do that. Here is a little info and a link for you:

        [quote]

        Jefferson warned of a supreme court with such a power:

        “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…and their power is more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

        [/quote]

        So, as you can see, especially if you read the article and other information there, the States can dispute the Supreme Court and what the States say is truly final in the legal sense. However, as I and others have pointed out MANY times, the people have to final say. Ultimately it is “we the people” that ALLOW the Government to exist not the other way around.

        I know already you will learn nothing from this but you can only plead stupid, not ignorant. Me and others are trying our best to get you to learn.

      • Jeff

        I know you’ve said that before and in theory that may be the case. But in the real world the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means. Other than voting for a President who will appoint Justices with whom you agree, there’s not a lot you can do to “reign in” the Court. But then, you’re probably talking about extra-legal measures like Plan AR-15. That stuff I leave to the experts on this blog.

      • dalek

        Jeff, it is not theory. It is the foundation of this country and it is FACT. Where do you think the Federal Government came from? Thin air maybe? It just appeared one day out of nothing. No, it came from the States and the people. If the Federal Government keeps going, States will start passing nullification laws as some already has for NDAA and other Federal laws too. Then the Federal Government will be forced to pay attention. If it doesn’t, then the people can force it to pay attention just like was done back in the 1700′s and Great Britain. A Government is a Government. Period.

        [quote]

        Jefferson wrote:

        “Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government . . . . and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. . . . that the government created by this compact [the Constitution for the United States] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; . . . . that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; . . . and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorised by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories.”

        In effect, Jefferson believed that states should reject, or nullify, unconstitutional federal laws through state legislative declaration; and deny federal authority of enforcement within their state boundaries.

        [/quote]

        http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/01/29/state-governments-check-federal-power/

        Jeff, ask yourself this. If the States MUST follow Federal laws, how come so many states are passing laws legalizing pot? The reason is, States can nullify Federal laws. They certainly can if it is unconstitutional.

        Kansas, you may enjoy that link too. I’m sure Jeff won’t tho. lol

      • Jeff

        I think your site (hardly impartial, BTW) conflates Acts of Congress with Constitutional protections. I tend to agree that many provisions of the NDAA violate basic concepts of due process guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments and it probably violates other Constitutional protections as well (8th Amendment?). So, the first way a state can fight this is through a lawsuit in federal court. Since federal courts do not render advisory opinions, we may have to wait for a future Government to overstep before a Court will hear such a case.

        Marijuana laws are a different matter. We have concurrent federal and state jurisdiction, so we reach the anomalous conclusion that something can be legal under State law and still illegal under federal law. This situation cannot endure, and I predict the feds will soon back off and specifically allow states exclusive jurisdiction over marijuana. The feds can maintain their own laws on trafficking, etc. but they’ll have to carve out space for people to act in accordance with state law.

        The areas we’re talking about are different as they’re either matters of federal law or areas where federal law pre-empts state law. “Nullification” is a term generally reserved for juries that just don’t want to convict someone. To broaden the term to include State legislatures that want to legislate in federal waters (e.g. immigration) is to stretch the term beyond what is sensible. A jury has the power to find someone not guilty as a matter of fact regardless what the evidence shows. As a matter of law, a state legislature cannot make its own immigration policy.

      • dalek

        Jeff, once again, you missed the whole point. Maybe this link will help. I’m tired of typing so you can go read for yourself.

        http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/james-madison-rebukes-nullification-deniers/

        Good luck.

      • Jeff

        “What are the Two Conditions Precedent for Nullification?
        The deniers seem unaware of the two conditions our Framers saw must be present before nullification is proper and possible. These conditions are important – you will see why!:
        The act of the federal government must be unconstitutional – usually a usurpation of a power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution; and
        The act must be something The States or The People can “nullify”- i.e., refuse to obey: the act must order them to do something or not do something.”

        I understand. But this all presupposes a clearly unconstitutional act or directive. An assault weapon ban, if upheld by the Supreme Court, would not be unconstitutional except on this website and in your militia courts. Don’t worry. It won’t happen since the gun manufacturers’ lobby seems to own Congress, but were a sane bill to pass that you considered unconstitutional, your “nullification” would constitute open rebellion and you’d end up in federal prison.

    • wandamurline

      I elieve the American public has been pretty permissive as they have allowed the government to make you do a background check before purchase and they get a permit to purchase and a permit to carry. You are correct, if you read the Declaration of Independence, it states gives us permission to overthrow a tyranical government, it goes even further to state that it is our DUTY to do so. Our forefathers saw the government we now have in our future and they gave us the right to bear arms lest we needed to forma a militia. I can tell you right now that there are 3.5million+ gun owners in the United States, and as one I will not give up my guns, pistols or semi-automatics (don’t have any right now, but thinking about purchasing one) to this government. Diane Feinstein can stick it …. I will not conform to any more gun control and I believe that I speak for millions of like minded citizens. Enough is enough. David Gregory and BO state that armed guards in the schools are not what is needed, but both of them send their kids to a private school that has not one but eleven (11) armed guards. Diane Feinstein used to carry to protect herself before she stole American’s money to the point she now has a body guard …. the same holds true for Harry Reid…they are both on tape stating that they were permitted carriers to protect themselves. You see, they want their pansy @zzes protected, but they don’t think us “endentured servants” deserve the same rights. They can all go to H##l.

      • Larry K.

        my words exactly. i value my life and the lives of my family as much as the crooks in washington. if they don’t want us to have guns to protect our selves and our families then they sure as he** don’t need them either. our children are worth as much and loved as their’s and they don’t have body guards.

      • Kate8

        Totally agree. We should all be sick of them holding themselves to a different standard. And this goes for everything they foist on us while exempting themselves.

        We all know what those things are.

        And btw, this includes granting themselves regular pay raises while crashing our economy and receiving millions in corporate bribes and other illegal (and immoral) activities.

        We can never fix this mess without cutting off their sources of money. It seems that every politician can be bought. Sooner or later it has to cause them at least a few moments of consideration, one would think.

        Then again, maybe not.

      • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

        Comes down to one thing sure. I can load my gun and until a human picks it up it is harmless. People kill, not guns. The marxist left has really been winning all along, with every feel good idea they have we lose more rights with the idea that we are free? Distruction of the Family, no father in the home, easy divorce for no real good reason, kill babies with no problem but, we can’t figure out why humans kill other humans? Kicked God out of schools and evil was waiting at the door to take his place. That is also a problem, everyone doing what they feel good doing, well some evil people believe they have a right to kill others because they have become little gods in their own evil minds. Can I trust a government that want’s to unarm me but have every weapon known to man? Hitler got away with it, and the fabian socialist have been doing it for years. Destroy the family and the marxist school system takes over for the parent and since socialist run that system, why are we shocked? Why do homosexuals want to be able to tell kids about their life style, get them young and train them to do what you want, same sex marriage isn’t even really possible yet they want to call it that, what next a man and his dog? Convince people there is no God, then no judgement and do what ever you want, that is the reason they fight anything to do with Christmax, churches and the ten commandments anywhere someone can read them and think, if people don’t wake up the same gun control people will have you imprisoned for praying, using the name Jesus or anything else they hate.

      • http://www.facebook.com/andrea.groom.31 Andrea Groom

        I am still waiting for my gun permit to be issued in NJ. As an unarmed potential victim I can only offer verbal support – which I am. I would also like to see more women step up on this issue – it’s a woman’s world, too! Write our “representatives” Chris Smith, Frank Lautenburg and Bob Menendez and tell them we are not giving up our country without a fight. I am not a criminal and will not be treated as one! Good people of this country need to start speaking out!

      • Veteran

        Andrea, you are so right! Unlike yourself, most people don’t realize this is not an issue for just white men or hunters or target shooters – it is truly a Women’s and Minorities’ issue!

        Look at the most vulnerable people in today’s society – single women, single mothers, the elderly, minority populations and the poorer among us. The police don’t pay any special attention to the needs of these people – in fact, it’s just the opposite. The wealthy and upper middle class neighborhoods get the best protection and quickest response while the rest are truly left to fend for themselves. Police response times may be five to ten times longer and in these cases, ‘when seconds count, the police may only be 10-15 minutes away’.

        The women we see in the news calling for very strict gun control are mainly the lberal women who have the time to make the news and protest, not those who have to work and truly care for their families. But the ones who understand their vulnerability and want to take responsibility for themselves and their families are ignored and may be stopped from protecting them by the legislators reacting to the noise – and NOT approaching the situation logically. And think of the elderly who are some of the most vulnerable and easily targeted by the felons.

        I personally have helped five single women who work for a company which doesn’t allow concealed carry on the premises, and these women have to travel daily by MetroNorth train and live in a poorer section of Bridgeport, CT. They were apprehensive going to and from work daily, but now they are confident, and have been trained to be much more observant and cautious. And I now have three new and eager students; one minority and one elderly couple.

        Please pass on the concern to every single woman you know – get into the ‘discussion’ and let your legislators know just how you feel.

      • Jeff

        A woman who lives in a house with a gun is something like 12 times as likely to be killed by domestic violence as a woman who lives in a home without a gun.

      • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

        Actually, Jeff, that is a lie. You must have gotten it from the Brady website or one of the other fact-challenged rabidly anti-gun groups.
        The REAL facts, from government crime data, show that a woman who defends herself (fights back) is more than 4.5 times LESS likely to be killed, raped, or seriously injured than one who doesn’t fight back, and that a handgun is the most effective means of fighting back when faced with an attacker.
        You REALLY should read Lott’s work … The book “More Guns, Less Crime” iss rather long because it’s packed with so much data and actual facts, by put there’s a paper available for those who care to use actual facts about mass shootings (the current thing that’s being used as an excuse for more violations of our rights)

        http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161637

      • Veteran

        Jeff, don’t make that statement unless you can back it up with facts – cite your evidence, which means give me your data source, like FBI stats (it’s not there!) or national studies conducted by independent researchers.

        Remember, your domestic violence automatically assumes that there are two adults in the household, and that the male owns the gun.. I was talking about single women – so again, cite your evidence!

      • jopa

        JC;Are you just making this supposed quote by Hitler up and if not where did he write or make this speech?No proof, I didn’t think so.Would like to see facts not fiction.

      • Jeff
      • http://www.facebook.com/della.creighton Della Creighton

        Agreed I will not give up mine or any of my rights and I will continue to tell them everytime they do and I use the same term I do not give you my consent and I willnot compywith any laws created out side of your authority.

    • Capitalist at Birth

      Ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto, and ditto until the end of time. I want a tank, hand held SAM,, hand held RPG, fully automatic, and anything that the government has, I should have too. If you trust the government, you are a fool.

    • Bill

      When guns are taken away from honest citizens, then crime will soar. That will be a disaster for the weak; women and seniors. The only equalizer thay have is a good firearm.

    • Texas Ride

      Absolutely,, I can’t image the founding fathers thinking we should only be allowed “single shot muskets” when tyrants will have automatic weapons so they can “mow down their opposition.” Americans have the right to own firepower they want to protect themselves.
      I didn’t see a list of banned weapons in the Constitution. I believe it says “arms.” That is all inclusive.

      Shooting incidents have nothing to do with our right to bear arms!
      We all know that government wants its citizenry “unarmed.” Governments are always afraid of citizens that are allowed weapons, and there is a reason for that. So,never compromise on the right of gun-ownership. Our Constitution was written with revolution and the dispatching of dictators, in mind. They knew it would be inevitable that Americans would have to fight tyranny to keep their freedom.

      • Kate8

        Considering that these shootings are actually CIA operations, it seems, it shows all the more reason why the people MUST be even more heavily armed than we are now.

        Good grief. Think about it. Governments are the biggest mass murderers of all time. In fact, it’s not just guns. They have multiple genocidal operations going on ALL THE TIME.

      • http://gravatar.com/cbgard Carlucci
      • Kate8

        Carlucci – This is really chilling. The mentally disabled were among the first targeted for elimination by Stalin, Lenin, Hitler…

        I have worked with the mentally impaired, and some of them speak of things being done to them by ???? They were always thought to be just delusional….but are they? They are then drugged into compliance and apathy…

        BTW, did you see any of the articles about them using Adam Lanza to isolate an “evil gene”? This is really scary, as you can see where this is heading…

      • eddie47d

        Balderdash Kate 8! Spreading more conspiracy nonsense that you can’t prove. You want it to be true so badly that you keep telling others it is.Why don’t you use you mind for good instead of evil intentions and yes unproven rumors is evil!

      • TheTruthHurts

        Carlucci & co. While the medical community has not completely eradicated disease (mental or physical) they have been making great strides towards treating them effectivly, albeit not wholly. What would you say if a personal that is mentally deranged (intentionally not using APA DSM 4 diagnoses for this example) did those shootings & they were unmedicated? Would there not be an outcry about how that person was able to commit this act? It would be very illogical to allow people with mental disorders To purchase/own guns; I for one have seen people with mental disorders attack others, unprovoked. They (some, not all) have no psychological restraints to check their actions and thus their outcomes
        Do we stop giving people antibiotics because there is a possibility of developing resistance? Could these folks just developed a resistance to the drugs? Or perhaps misdiagnosed or medicated?

      • Kate8

        Truth – The problem with that argument is that it is based on a false premise from the get-go.

        But then, that’s a discussion for another time.

    • Charles Ashby

      There was one error both you and your writer made. Yes the government had muskets, smooth bore wepons, but a lot of the people who used their own wepons had rifles which ha groves in the bore. So in this case the people had better wepons than the government.

      • Joe Di Pietro

        Smoothbore and rifled muskets–rifling was developed by Enfield for the Union Armies during the Civil War–citizens later had them as a result of engaging in the Civil War…

      • CZ52

        Joe Di Pietro You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Rifling was in use long before the war of northern aggresion. While the military used the smooth bore musket as its primary arm during the Revolution many of not almost all private arms used were rifles. Also, Enfield was a British rifle and the use of rifling in it was developed for the use of the British. It just happened to be a commonly imported rifle by both the north and the South.

      • Veteran

        Sorry, but MOST of the Enfields used by the British in “the colonies’ in our Revolutionary war were the smooth-bore type as the majority of rifled Enfields were sent to other areas of conflict. The rifled guns were issued first to the more elite regiments, and there were very few of them in the Americas.

        It is correct that the majority of the “Kentucky” and “Pennsylvania” long guns (which are virtually the same firearm) were rifled, and since many of the colonists used them daily for survival and at smaller targets, the colonists were much better marksmen than even the professional British army soldiers. Thank goodness.

    • Sheepdog on patrol

      I totally agree. The 2nd amendment is about Revolution…..the ability of the people to defend themselves against the sort of government that, even as I write this post, wants to disarm us all. And, their agenda and their methods are exactly the same as Adolph Hitler’s. First, ban all semi-automatic weapons, initiate mandatory registration of individuals who now posess these kinds of weapons, then pass another law making it illegal to own such weapons and demand surrender of such weapons or face criminal charges for posession of such weapons. THAT is exactly how it will go down unless we stand up to them right now and let them know that their actions will start a revolution in this country. This is what our founding fathers had foreseen and this is why they wrote the 2nd amendment into our bill of rights. Why is it that every time a progressive liberal talks about gun control they talk about guns for duck hunting or deer hunting? Of course I have guns for duck hunting and guns for deer hunting but I also have guns for TYRANT hunting. That is the right that the 2nd amendment guarantees me and if you are too stupid to understand this simple fact, then you are too stupid to vote and definitely too stupid to be one of my elected officials. We now have a multitude of traitors in political offices throughout our country. Politicians who have attacked our Bill of Rights, circumvented our Constitution with outrageous and illegal laws and executive orders and mainly our Constitution’s second amendment and have marched in lockstep with this administration. Surely they must know they will have a day of reckoning.

      • Bubbie

        Not to take away from the main point of this discussion, the 2nd Amendment, but with all the talk about the intellectual brainpower, or lack there of,of our elected officials…it makes me wonder how many freedom loving individuals helped to put them back into those positions where they do nothing positive for the mass population. I know that everyone I voted for did not get elected…but some portion of our population had to have voted for those Constitutional violators…and to those who voted to retain this level of incompetency I would like to remind them that they got what they voted for. So, when is the revolution and where do I report??

    • Jane

      Amen from here too. The liberal leaning argument makes absolutely no sense to me.

    • Scott

      When our fore farthers wrote the 2nd amendment they did it with twi things in mind, First that each state is to have a milicia, and second that people had the right to keep and bear arms without being infringed. The 2nd amendment is the only one that says ” without being inringed upon”. As we all know, it is the infringed amendment in the constitution. The reason for this amendment is clear, “so that the individual person could protect him/herself from those with there own weapons.
      So with that in mind, do the bad guys out there play nice and assoult us the public with only a .22 rifle? NO, they USE WHATEVER they can get there hands on, Including rapid firing weapons. Should “we” have the right to defend ourselfs against that? YES
      Now think about this, what kills more people, adult and children then anything else that we have? IT’S NOT GUNS! It’s the CAR. Shouldn’t they be demonized more then the gun?

      • Kate8

        True, Scott.

        And yet, how many gun owners have duly registered their weapons? I dare say, nearly all of them?

        Having to register weapons is unlawful. That one act is submission to government control of this right.

        Criminals do not register guns. They are usually stolen. And they are only discovered when they use them in crimes. That should tell us something.

        The 2nd Amendment is the only authorization we need to bear arms. Whatever kind we can acquire. This is not up to the government to allow or disallow. It is our God-given right to secure our safety from the government.

        This would seem to be self-evident.

      • eddie47d

        If what Scott says is true and since cars are highly taxes and registered then why wouldn’t any other inanimate object be taxed and registered? A car only provides transportation and a gun is bought with the potential to kill. Then a weapon should be registered at a higher rate and with more restrictions. There is no free ride in owning a gun and a greater burden should be placed on them.

      • Kate8

        Actually, eddie, exactly the same goes for cars and any other thing. They are regulated by statute, not by Constitutional Law, except by the states. There is no Constitutional requirement for even a driver’s license.

        However, the 2nd Amendment does Constitutionally declare and acknowledge the Right to bear arms which CANNOT be infringed. The right to drive a car is not spelled out, is it?

        What part of CANNOT BE INFRINGED do you not understand?

      • Kate8

        Oh, and btw, the government’s power is strictly limited by enumerated powers, beyond which it has NO AUTHORITY. This means, if it’s not spelled out, they ARE NOT TO DO IT.

      • eddie47d

        The Founding Fathers wrote the laws and were the government. The government can write laws and change them if needed, (by vote) If something doesn’t serve its purpose as originally written it can indeed be infringed upon to make it right. Since I think the far right has hijacked the 2nd then they may be the ones infringing upon it.

      • phideaux

        “The right to drive a car is not spelled out, is it?’

        Nor is the right to own, posess, or use any other form of transportation such as buggy, wagon, or horse.

      • Kate8

        Rights do not have to be spelled out for us to have them. They are natural rights, and fall under the “pursuit of happiness”.

        It is government which was strictly limited, not us. And it is government which continually attempts to deceive the foolish in its voracious quest for greater power.

        I don’t recall the one who said this…I think it was one of our founders:

        NO MAN HAS THE RIGHT TO CLAIM AUTHORITY OVER ANOTHER.

        That pretty much says it all. Too bad a lot of people just don’t get it.

      • dalek

        @eddie47d, so what you are saying is that they can pass laws that violate the Constitution. You are wrong. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law that violates the Constitution is unconstitutional. Your thinking is seriously flawed. You need to rethink your thinking and make serious corrections.

      • eddie47d

        DALEK; Nothing wrong with my thinking and I will stand by what I said!

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        January 7, 2013 at 4:33 pm

        The Founding Fathers wrote the laws and were the government. The government can write laws and change them if needed, (by vote) If something doesn’t serve its purpose as originally written it can indeed be infringed upon to make it right. Since I think the far right has hijacked the 2nd then they may be the ones infringing upon it.
        _______________________________________________________________________

        Wow! Sinse you “think” the “far right” has hijacked the Second Amendment?
        How is that even possible? The Amendment is what it is…
        The freedom, right and duty to arm ourselves in order to preserve liberty and freedom.
        Dalek’s right. You’re thinking isn’t just flawed…it’s completely unhinged.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

        “The government can write laws and change them if needed”

        You are incorrect. All laws, bills treaties, etc are REQUIRED to be “in pursuance thereof” the US Constituton.

        Clause 2 of Article VI of the Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

        The Bill of Rights – none of the three branches were ever given a power to touch:
        Most, but not all, governments were established by a King, dictator, or ruling class which laid edicts upon its subjects and promised them protection for which taxes and other homage was paid, and all law came from that source. Whatever laws were created was done so at the pleasure of the ruler and without concern for their subjects.

        Here we established that God, our creator, by the very act of our creation, instilled upon us our rights (natural rights); and those rights are NOT granted by any government. Our government was to be created by the people, drawing its power from the people solely for the purpose of protecting those rights. As soon as the government turns to make unjust demands upon the people, or usurp power where it is not entitled, it is the right of the people to correct, or to abolish that government and start anew.

    • http://www.facebook.com/rhonda.reichel Rhonda Reichel

      video http://youtu.be/gS4QZC3rVdU
      Some brave soul had the courage to put this petition on the Whitehouse website. He should get a medal in my book.

      Petition is here:
      https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet…e-awb/sdKKkKJ5

      “WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
      Impeach Sen. Diane Feinstein for violating her oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, re: AWB
      Sen. Diane Feinstein has announced that she will be introducing new gun legislation in Jan 2013. The proposals of this legislation are in direct contradiction to both the spirit and letter of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Her blatant disregard for the rights of citizens, and willingness to make criminals of a large number of law abiding gun owners, needs to be addressed…”

      This would have a great effect on the other traitors in congress who spit on the constitution….and our president too. Almost none of them follow it. If they won’t keep their oath they shouldn’t be in office. I am not being represented….are you?

      Agree?

      Or do you think the constitution is just a g_d_ piece of paper like GW Bush did? Mr Obama doesn’t respect it much either. Nor did Mitt Romney. Chances are your congressman doesn’t either. We get the govt. we deserve don’t we?

      The NEW AMERICAN FREEDOM INDEX scores all congressmen and senators on how often they vote WITH the constitution. People should check that before they vote in 2014. Google it and you can download a pdf of it and check to see how your representative is sticking to it….or not. You will probably receive a shock on how LOW the scores of most are. Rand Paul at 93% but his dad was 100%. Not too many with high scores sadly….they need to go away.

    • skip

      o’mailia’s premise is totally wrong from the get-go… she has NO idea what she’s talking about… her point re weapons that’re automatic and shoot a hundred rounds in a minute, is totally wrong… automatic weapons were banned like 80 or so years ago and no one has these, legally, without permission from the ATF… and, if some crazy had one semi auto pistol with 10 mags containing 10 rounds, what’s to stop h/er from doing tons of damage, except someone with like capability… mags can be exchanged in seconds… gun free zones are a criminal’s/crazie’s candy… also, someone should get all the surviving victims and non surviving victims families, etc., together, and SUE all those who have been instrumental in the establishment of ‘gun free zones’… that should put a crimp in their style… these people are the proximate cause of all the injuries/deaths in these zones and should not get away with it… consideration should also be given to criminally prosecuting them as accessories before, during and after the fact of murder, etc…

      • eddie47d

        No her reasoning is not wrong there Skip. You need to come up with a different premise than just arming schools. At Columbine they had two police officers (yes that’s 2) yet Harris and Klebold lugged several pieces of equipment in to the school to commit their deed. Now I’m sure you will do your best to arm these schools and allow the taxpayer to foot the bill. Right! With your thinking then I say citizens should sue every gun dealer for arming our sick society.

      • Chuck S

        I believe that one of the policemen at Columbine was in the parking lot and the other was making a nearby traffic stop. I don’t think either was in the building.

        On another subject, Baily shows somewhat typical liberal media ignorance in not knowing what an automatic weapon is. Or not knowing that automatic weapons have been virtually banned for decades. An automatic continually shoots bullets as long as you’re holding the trigger back – like a machine gun. A semi-automatic shoots 1 bullet every time you pull the trigger and automatically loads the next bullet. Somebody posted to a chat room that 85% of guns sold are semi-automatic. And revolvers are sort of semi-automatic.

        I hate to improve her point, but i found that I could shoot about 4 bullets per second with a semi-auto, which is about 240/minute EXCEPT for reload time. An automatic fires at it’s own speed, but I think an M-16 will fire 600/minute (10/second) or so.

    • Jan Ferraro

      This is not just to “independent thinker” but to everyone.. We keep discussing guns as being the problem, but I read an article recently that gave facts and figures on how many of the shooters in recent years were either on phycho drugs or had just come off those drugs. We are using drugs to deal with challenges with our kids instead of working on the problems. Not every high energy child needs Ritalin or some similiar drug, not every tough time in our lives has to be dealt with with mind altering drugs. We really do need to wake up and smell the coffee burning and it isn’t gun powder that I’m smelling,

      • Chuck S

        The person controls the weapon, but the drug may be controlling the person. I heard a talk show host say that he did research a few years ago and found that 18 out of 18 shootings he looked at involved physiological drugs. I remember thagt the Columbine scumbags (I don’t want to use their names) used them.

    • http://yahoo.com Ron

      The Authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, must have known weaponry would change through out the future of this Country! They Must have, they saw changes while they were fighting the Indians (better known as Native Americans) and fighting the British (better known as the “Tax To Death” of the good people). And yes, most assuredly I would feel MUCH safer with knowning my neighbor had an AK-47 in his garage, although I would wish he would keep it closer to his vest! The garage is to far away for any real good it will do. I don’t envy many people in this World, but I envy him! What people forget is the TRUE meaning in the Constitution, the right to bear arms is many fold, to hunt, to protect ones self and family, and to do away with a Government who infringes on the Rights of the people it governs. Tyranny and taxation without representation are just a few GOOD reasons to have weapons of any catagory. The hysteria formed by the media is wrong! The real issue in this Country is Government medleing in private people’s lives, a.k.a. can’t spank a child, can’t have a statue of a little child that changed the world because some atheist dumb ass said so.etc. My Dad spanked me growing up when I did something bad, this is not child abuse, it is direction. And I grew up to love life, have a great marriage and family, served two tours in Combat in Viet Nam, was wounded, came home, and worked the best that I could, paying the bills I made with out handout from anyone, yeah I did OK and I thank my Dad for keeping me focused. I am buying a “wanna be, look-a-like assault rifle” before I can’t. Anyone with a Combat background will tell you, “that an AR-15 is NOT an M16-A1 or M-4 Military Assault rifle. They don’t really look alike, act alike, or feel alike. People should get their heads out of the purverbial ass and know what they are talking about before inserting their foot. It doesn’t taste good and not becoming to you at your next attempt at taking away someone elses rights! You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time! Maybe it is time for your writer to retire, without pay, no health insurance, these things would be more worth her time to pursue! If your writer doesn’t like the way this Country gives right to the people, the I will buy her a ticket to IRAN! I will pay for her to fly First Class, because it will be the last time she has rights, freedom, pray the way she wants, vote, work where she wants, dressing like a “well I’ll be kind”! If she sneezes the wrong way, off with her head, and as Mr. Walter Cronkite use to say, “And thats the way it is!”

    • Leroy

      There are means for change ,but there are also established guidelines for that. Any way who is Robert Burke. All he can do is offer his opinion and opinions are like A@&les everybody has one and they are worth as much as his.

    • Billy Hill

      My neighbors on either side are postal workers,the weapons they have include the AR type.As most in my quiet country neighborhood,they are well armed.Does it bother me?No,because most are trained by years in the military.Am I worried they might “go postal”.No,but those who attempt to confiscate our weapons should be worried,most of them will leave in a box

    • DS

      Ok, people. Do some research. You will find that the “laws” that the Government puts out there, only actually apply to *Government* employees and those that live inside the District of Columbia. Not a single statute (they are not laws, they are statutes) applies to a human being. Only to those that work for the Government or live inside DC. This applies to IRS, and literally millions of “laws” they want us to think we have to abide by. Truth be told, this whole gun control thing can be solved in a very simple way. Ask “them” to show you the gun control law (and others as well) that applies to you as a human being. There are. . . NONE!. Those “laws” are statutes, put out by the Corporate USA (it is a corporation, not a government, now) and therefore only applies to *Corporate* entities, which human beings are not. Let’s discuss several things here. . . Drivers license. Concealed Carry License. Hunting. . .License. . . What is the definition of “license”. According to Black’s Law (the Bible for the legal industry) license is defined as (paraphrased) “permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal”. NOT UNLAWFUL, but *illegal*. There is a difference. Who has to ask “permission”? A child has to ask permission. Not a grown, sane adult. All men are created equal. One has absolutely no more power over another but that which he allows him to have. Why does one person have to ask permission from another to do something? He. . .doesn’t. Back to the gun control “laws”. Since the “Government” is a Corporation, then everything is “Contract”. Ask to see the “Contract” that gives them the right to tell you what you can and cannot do. There is NO CONTRACT!. Everything is Contract. In order for there to be a contract, there have to be two sides, an agreement of some sort, equal consideration from both sides and two or more parties to the contract (requires a human to sign, a corporate entity cannot). Do you ever remember signing a contract with any human being that puts them above you? Why would you sign anything that makes you a subordinate to someone else anyway? You . . .wouldn’t. If they (the “Government”) can’t provide the contract that shows you to be subordinate to them (they can’t) then you are just as equal as they are. This will stand in court, just make sure it is a Court de jure! (with a jury of 12). Everything else is simply administrative. There are no “judges”. They are “Administrators”. Many will say I am crazy, here, but that is why I said at the outset to do your own research. You will find it to be surprising how much power “We The People” actually *do* have! I, personally own several guns. None are “registered” (They do not have to be.) The only record anywhere that says I have (one of) them is where I had one shipped to me and it had to be handled through the local pawn shop (background check, etc.) before it could be released to me. UTTER BULLCRAP if you ask me, (knowing what I know now) but back then I was stupid enough to go through with that. I am drafting documentation that will make that not required if it ever happens again. (Again, people, think “CONTRACT”). I will shut up now. Don’t shoot the messenger!

      • Robin

        Nice, DS! I point all of this out, especially the part where, if they were laws they would be called laws! I am sometimes called crazy for it. I cited, almost verbatim once, the tenth amendment…and was asked, “where do you come up with this crazt sh__?” I promptly produced my “crazy” US Constitution for that individual. The rest of your post is accurate, and even the simpletons should read it very carefully in order to possibly glean something from it!

    • John Illinois

      The Founding Fathers wrote the first 10 amendments not because they wanted to protect the citizens from what they might decide to do, but to protect themselves from what they feared that their political opponents would do.The exact purpose of the second amendment was for citizens to protect themselves from tyrannical government. Find an American History book from 100 or more years ago, and compare it to what today’s American History books say about the American Revolution. Today’s books are so sanitized as to make it sound like a cat fight.

    • Jacques Wibier

      To give an ecsample of what you all are trying to say, just look at Syria. The sluaghter of a people by a tyranicle government. Our own government was trying to get guns to them. (Bengazie). You realy think it can’t happen here?? Realy?? I hope you all get the point!

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      It was most definately created for us to defend ourselves from our own government if need be. From the forefathers themselves:

      “The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson

      “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.” And
      “Tyranny thrives where gov’t need not fear the wrath of an armed populace” Thomas Jefferson

      “We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln

      “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State…” Alexander Hamilton

      “… Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” Patrick Henry

      “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both”. Rawle

      {notice that he said that to disarm us they would have to pretend like they have a reason since it is our natural right to be able to defend ourselves from whatever threatens us, even those within our own government and that if they pretend that they do we are to use our weapons to change their minds.}

      “The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers… The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’” Story

      {If you are not aware of who the militaia is, they are every able-bodied person between the ages of 18 – 45.}

      “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” Tench Coxe

      “If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” George Washington, Farewell Address

    • Jeff

      Then why didn’t the founders use language at least implying such intent? The 2nd Amendment is worded in terms of a “well-regulated militia.” Is everybody with an AK-47 in his garage a militia? Well-regulated? Of course not. The 2nd Amendment was written to permit the States to regulate firearms as they saw fit – not for David Koresh to amass a private arsenal for whatever nutty purposes he may have had.

      “When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they wanted to ensure that all people were equal — equal with each other and equal with the government.”

      Where is the evidence that such was the intent of the framers? If you look at the way people lived in the 1790s versus today and if you look at the type of weapons available, it is inherently unreasonable to say the 2nd Amendment gives everyone the right to carry guns, concealable guns that can shoot dozens of times in seconds, on the city streets. You gun nuts keep talking about fighting the government with your guns. First of all, that’s insane. You can’t fight the local police with your gun, let alone the Army. Secondly, in order to have a civil society, the government needs to have a monopoly of force. Otherwise you have Afghanistan where the President is really the Mayor of Kabul.

      Your big gun is good for showing off and for killing innocent civilians. It has absolutely no other purpose.

      • DS

        “You can’t fight the local police with your gun, let alone the Army. Secondly, in order to have a civil society, the government needs to have a monopoly of force. ”
        Ok, that is just stupid and out of hand. The reason you can’t fight the police with your gun is that you are severely outgunned! Same with the army. The civil society that lives under a tyrannical government with a monopoly of force is absolutely NOT a civil society. It is nothing more than a SLAVE society. You get out of line, they shoot you. The “get out of line” could be something as simple as walking across the street in some other location except the government-decided and controlled crosswalk. Myself? I don’t want that kind of “civil society” where you live daily in fear that you will be killed for crossing the street in somewhere other than where they say you can. Or, if you wish to make love to your wife on any day except that which the government declares is “the monthly have sex with your spouse day!” I know these sound ludicrous, but the very definition of the word f*** (yeah, you would be killed for saying that, too. . .) derives from the tyrannical days of the kings and rulers where you had to only make love under the “Fornication Under Consent of the King” rules and if caught at any other time, you were likely hanged or otherwise dealt with. Sure, you just let them take your ability to defend yourself from them and then see just how “civil” society becomes. No more “choice” you will be “civil” by FORCE or you’ll be pushing up daisies! JMHO – YMMV

        DS

      • Jeff

        And if your paranoid delusions should come to fruition, then what? You and a dozen Bubbas with guns are going to change it? I don’t think so. What stops our military from taking over the country is not your stupid gun. It wouldn’t slow them down for a moment. What prevents a military coup here is that it is unthinkable to every military officer. Where it is not unthinkable, it happens regularly. Keep that in mind the next time you call for “revolution” against representative government because you disagree with something.

      • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

        Jeff,
        In the usage of the Founders’ time “we’ll regulated” meant “capable of functioning as intended.”

        “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” – Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

        “A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington

        You say, “… in order to have a civil society, the government needs to have a monopoly of force.” That’s absurd. When the government has a monopoly of force, it’s called tyrrany or a dictatorship.

        “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both”. Rawle

        {notice that he said that to disarm us they would have to pretend like they have a reason since it is our natural right to be able to defend ourselves from whatever threatens us, even those within our own government and that if they pretend that they do we are to use our weapons to change their minds.}

        “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.” And
        “Tyranny thrives where gov’t need not fear the wrath of an armed populace” Thomas Jefferson

        Since you are unwilling to accept the intent of the Founders in their own words with respect to the 2nd amendment and freedom vs, tyranny, I submit the following quote from Sam Adams as guidance for you …

        “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
        We ask not your counsels or your arms.
        Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
        May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

      • Jeff

        I don’t believe the founders intended for every citizen to have his own garrison. If they did, why not say so? Why do you guys insist on saying people who disagree with you about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment are “against” it? I am against your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment because it is crazy. More guns on the street means lots more gun deaths. And it wouldn’t help you a bit if the Government comes looking for you.

      • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

        Dear Jeff,

        You write: “If they did, why not say so?” They did.

        You write: “More guns on the street means lots more gun deaths.” FBI crime statistics do not support this claim.

        You write: “And it wouldn’t help you a bit if the Government comes looking for you.” Tell than to the Iraqis and Afghanis who fought the U.S. military to a standstill.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

      • Jeff

        Well, I see you agree with me on one point. In a post this morning, I said that if the government does not have a monopoly of force, the country essentially becomes Afghanistan. The difference is I don’t see that as an attribute. In the event you had a General who decided he could no longer serve his President and decided to stage a coup (and assuming he had the personality to get other officers to go along), what good are your guns going to do you? And on which side would you fight? Another Civil War – is that what you’re advocating? Or just a free for all with AK-47s?

      • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

        You write: “Well, I see you agree with me on one point. In a post this morning, I said that if the government does not have a monopoly of force, the country essentially becomes Afghanistan.” Please point out where I agreed with that.

        You write: “n the event you had a General who decided he could no longer serve his President and decided to stage a coup (and assuming he had the personality to get other officers to go along), what good are your guns going to do you? And on which side would you fight? Another Civil War – is that what you’re advocating? Or just a free for all with AK-47s?” Non sequitur.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

      • Jeff

        Bob:

        With all due respect, you and some of your followers on this site are the ones who keep stating you need your guns to protect you from the Government. I believe it is incumbent upon you to indicate what scenario you have in mind and exactly how your guns will protect you from the Army and the Air Force.

        I do not see my post as in any way illogical. Are you predicting or advocating a Civil War? I don’t think that’s a silly question given the attitudes I see evidenced on this site.

      • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

        Dear Jeff,

        You write: “With all due respect, you and some of your followers on this site are the ones who keep stating you need your guns to protect you from the Government.” There are many who believe as I do, that the 2nd Amendment, which is there to prohibit government from infringing on my inalienable (ie. God-given) right to own and carry a gun (not “grant” me that right, as some say) so that we can resist a tyrannical government and “alter or abolish” government if necessary, and defend ourselves from criminals, and hunt game if we choose, and shoot targets if we desire.

        You write: “I believe it is incumbent upon you to indicate what scenario you have in mind and exactly how your guns will protect you from the Army and the Air Force.” Again I direct you to the way armed militias in Iraq and Afghanistan fought the U.S. military to a standstill. However, I don’t believe it is the army, air force, marines, navy, that will be the attacking force (a few may, but not not many) on American citizens, but the increasingly militarized police force and federal agents of homeland security and/or blue helmets of the U.N. Regardless, an armed populace will give them pause. Governments killed 260 million of their own people in the 20th century. Those people were largely unarmed. Google the word “democide.”

        You write: “Are you predicting or advocating a Civil War?” Not advocating… not yet. But predicting there will be if gun confiscation starts, or the march toward tyranny doesn’t stop.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

      • dalek

        I’m with you Bob, NOT YET.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

        Exactly! Very good comment.

      • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

        Jeff,
        All of the data, including that from the FBI and DOJ, shows clearly that more guns equals less crime. The body of data is very well described in John Lott’s book with a similar name “More Guns, Less Crime”.
        Good guys (and gals) use guns about 2.5 million times per year to stop or prevent violent crimes. The most reasonable estimate is that guns save about 65 times more lives than they take each year.
        The problem with liberals is, they don’t know what they don’t know, they operate on warm fuzzy feelings instead of facts, and they look to government to solve problems that a) don’t exist and/or b) government can’t solve no monastery what they do.

      • Jeff

        Anyone can play games with statistics. But we have the most guns and the most gun deaths (by miles) of any advanced, civilized country. Are you actually saying if we didn’t have all those guns that we’d have more murders? I don’t buy it. Statistics also demonstrate that if you have a gun in your house, you are much more likely to be a victim of gun violence. This is particularly true for women.. That gun you’re so in love with is far, far more likely to be the instrument of your death than it is to rescue you from armed intruders or a tyrannical government.

      • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

        ALL OF what you have just said is patently FALSE.
        You are clearly not open to facts and reason, so there’s no point in arguing with you further.
        I’ll devote my time and energy to people who are willing to accept the truth.

      • Mark Pepin

        Very good, Carlwk3c. I’ve come to the same conclusion, and I encourage everyone to stop dialogue with this liberal wacko. He refuses to engage people on a point by point debate, instead he ignores your comments and throws out more of his bull. Good choice, Carl.

      • Jeff

        Here’s a story about how much good a gun for “protection” did for this family.

        http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/02/11/130211fa_fact_keefe?currentPage=all

      • dalek

        And Sandy Hook, Columbine, Pearl MS school and others is what happens when no one is allowed to carry a gun. Sort of renders your point stupid doesn’t it?

        I should also mention, Chicago too. ;-)

      • Jeff

        Only if you take having guns as the “norm.” I don’t know of anyone who expects there to be guns at a school. Maybe an armed guard or a police officer, but short of that, no one expects a teacher to be armed. These shootings are not crimes of opportunity like someone seeing a brand new car with the keys left in it. The shooters are essentially committing suicide, so the presence or absence of guns at the school won’t deter a potential shooter. What might stop him is the inability to get a high-capacity assault rifle in the first place. Maybe it won’t but he won’t be able to do as much damage with a shotgun.

      • dalek

        Hot off the presses Jeff:

        http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2013/02/05/woman-distracts-intruders-in-time-to-get-gun-and-shoot/

        That sort of thing happens all the time Jeff.

      • Mark Pepin

        Please, don’t feed the animals.

      • Jeff

        Well, it happens. I doubt it happens all the time or we’d hear about it a lot more than we do. And all she needed was an old-fashioned 6-shooter.

      • Jeff

        And clearly you know the TRUTH. Let’s double the number of guns on the City streets and see if violence goes down. You’ve refuted nothing. A woman living with a gun and a guy like you in the house is something like 5 times as likely to be killed during a domestic disturbance as a woman not so “protected.” It may well be that a liquor store owner needs a shotgun to lessen theft. Perhaps guns can reduce petty crime, but most people worry about gun violence on the street and not about petty crime.

      • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

        Again lies with the 5 times stuff … The facts show the opposite. The facts also show that you are more than 5 times MORE likely to be accidentally/mistakenly shot by the police than by a law-abiding citizen using his/her gun to stop a crime -DESPITE the fact that non LEO private citizens justifiably shoot many more criminals each year than the police.
        Look at the incident not long ago where the NYPD tried to stop a gun crime on the streets on NYC and the cops shot 9 innocent bystanders.
        But, I know you’ll never be persuaded by the facts. It’s your goal to spread your lies.

      • dalek

        If I recall correctly, they missed the bad guys completely. Hit 9 innocent people and hit no bad guys at all. No wonder I want to defend myself. If I wait on the cops to get here, they may shoot me instead of the bad guys. lol

        Oh Jeff, I posted a link a long time ago about schools arming teachers/staff in several states. So, you do know about it but you choose to ignore it like everything else we point out to you. You keep posting emotions as fact. We post facts and you allow your emotions to ignore them. We ALL see what you are doing.

        One thing about this conversation with Jeff is this. I have decided to buy a pistol for concealed carry and to get a permit for it. I think it is unwise of me to think that someone else would defend me or anyone else with people like Jeff in this world. So Jeff, you are responsible for putting another armed citizen on the streets. Hows that feel Jeff? Your arguments and posts have had the opposite effect you wanted.

      • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

        Actually, I believe the succeeded in killing e bad guy, but the did shoot 9 innocent bystanders.

        Nationwide, per federal statistics, you are about 6.5 times mor likely to be accidentally or mistakenly shot by the police than by an armed “civilian” who uses their gun to stop a crime. That’s despite the fact that armed citizens justifiably kill many times more bad guys than th police each year.

        Lawful gun use saves at least 65 times more lives each year than criminal use of guns takes.

      • Jeff

        I noticed you left out a cite for the study. Was that the one by LaPierre and Nugent? I always make sure to follow their advice in the conduct of my affairs.

      • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

        All of the numbers I’ve cite are from federal law enforcement (DoJ/FBI) data.

      • Jeff

        No link to the site?

      • dalek

        Just found a interesting link with a nice video about timing and people claiming you can tackle a shooter while reloading.

        http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/01/sheriff-debunks-fallacies-surrounding-gun-magazines-in-this-viral-vid-plus-his-response-to-bidens-shotgun-advice/

        Yep, trying to tackle a shooter is suicide and really stupid. Enjoy.

      • Jeff

        Argue with them:

        http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

        I’m sure you love and honor your gun, but if somebody really wants you dead, it won’t protect you.

      • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

        There is so much “research” conducted by liberals with an agenda, much of it funded by anti-gun groups.
        The facts are clear from law enforcement data.
        Here’s the story the leftist puppets in the lame steam media propaganda machine never tell the gullibles in their audinces:

        According to the statistics gathered, but hidden, by their beloved government, guns are used by law-abiding citizens in justifiable self-defense (to stop or prevent a crime) about 2.5 million times per year in the US.
        In the vast majority of cases, no shots are fired. The mere display of the means of self-defense prompts the criminal to turn tail and run.
        In the minority of cases where shots are fired, those citizens kill several times more criminals per year than the police.
        Despite the fact that citizens shoot and kill significantly more criminals than the police, you are approximately 5.5 times MORE likely to be accidentally/mistakenly shot by the police than by a citizen defending himself (unless, of course, you are actually the criminal).
        Lawful use of guns saves FAR more lives each year than the unlawful use of guns by criminals and psychopaths. (At least 65x more!)
        Every state that has enacted “shall issue” concealed carry laws, which allow citizens to carry after passing a background check, has seen crime in general, and violent crime in particular, drop dramatically.
        Places with the most prohibitions on self-defense (Chicago, LA, DC, etc.) have FAR more violent crime than areas where it’s known that citizens have the right to self-defense and the means to enforce that right.
        Those are the IRREFUTABLE FACTS that the government and its media propaganda machine don’t want the public to know.

      • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

        By the way, my wife shoots as well as I do … Glocks in .40 S&W, AR-15, 30-06, and shotgun. While I would protect her, she’d only need it if seriously outnumbered (like more than about 4:1)
        I’m sure your boyfriend wishes you shot better (in more ways than one)

      • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

        You are correct, we do have the most “gun” deaths. But we do not have the highest murder, rape, vicious crimes rate, that goes to Great Britain – where guns are banned. Once again, do a bit of research.

        By the way. Not sure if you ever read any of the TREASON laws that I have posted here and other places multiple times. If you are supporting, aiding, abetting those in the gov or in other places that are, or (Obama, Panetta, Dempesey, etc) who HAVE committed treason – YOU ARE COMMITTING TREASON.

        After the fight we are having DEFENDING our legitimate government, much like is STILL going on with those who participated in Germany, we will hunt EVERY treasonous sob down where-ever on this planet they may try to hide, and bring them back for prosecution for their crimes against the USA and her people.

        Make sure what you are doing IS your idea. Because “just doing my job” and “just following orders” have NEVER been, nor will they be, accepted as defense in a treason or murder prosecution. This is not a threat, consider this an education. It is important to know the constitutional laws – the ONLY ones lawful in the USA, so that you, and others, do not break them

      • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

        William Rawle, author of “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” which was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. Rawle was not only a respected constitutional authority; he was the only early commentator who actually voted to ratify the Bill of Rights: “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both”.
        Rawle writes: “neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens. This passage also makes it clear (“the prohibition is general”) that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the scope of the right.”

        Alexander Hamilton: “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State…”

        Patrick Henry: “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”

        Tench Coxe, “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 where he asserted that it’s the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

        Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 29: “… Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped…

        James Madison, Federalist 46: “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of…”

        ,Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves… Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people”.

        Justice Story, Supreme Court Associate Justice wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833, “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States”. Regarding the Second Amendment, he wrote of the 2nd Amendment: “The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers… The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’

        Saint George Tucker, “Blackstone’s Commentaries”, Volume 1, Appendix, Note D
        “The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;…”

        I“Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1803), Tucker, wrote of the Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.”

        This is in their own words, hope you understand the 2nd Amendment now.

      • Jeff

        Rawle writes: “neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens. This passage also makes it clear (“the prohibition is general”) that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the scope of the right.”

        Then what is the purpose of the first clause? You cannot read the amendment pretending the first clause does not exist. The Amendment appears to limit the power of the Federal Government, leaving the power to “well regulate” firearms to the States. Our problem now is transport is so easy that it doesn’t matter what laws are passed in California, Illinois, or New York so long as virtually any state has no standards. I don’t think we are prepared to have armed guards at state borders.

        At some point we as a society have to determine what is sensible with respect to guns. The 2nd Amendment will have to be interpreted with reasonableness in mind. In the 30s, machine guns were outlawed. Do you think that law is unconstitutional? If the NRA were to take that position, which is entirely consistent with its current position, the vast majority of people who don’t live in Alabama would instantly recognize just how extreme the gun nut position is. Can you have your own drone too? Anti-aircraft weapons? A-bombs? Where is the rule of reason?

      • Iwillnotbow

        Let us all hope and pray it does not come to another civil war but if it does Jeff and his ilk will be begging the “gun nuts” to protect them from Homeland Security when they show up to round up all the dissenters and stuff them into FEMA camps….

      • Jeff

        Yes, your gun will stand you in good stead when facing a drone attack. Meanwhile, while you’re waiting for Armageddon, how many kids have to die because we have too many guns on the streets? I know, while you’re on patrol, nothing bad will happen.

        And what makes you think the “well-regulated militia” in the 2nd Amendment had anything to do with fighting the Government? Doesn’t that sound like treason? They did believe in the concept of treason back then. In fact, you probably still think all the people who protested the Viet Nam War were guilty of it. What if a draftee pulled a gun on somebody serving him with a draft notice? Treason or patriotism?

      • dalek

        You do realize that criminals won’t obey gun laws right? They will certainly keep theirs and the people who give theirs up will be the ones robbed, raped and killed. Look to other countries and you can see that happens when guns are banned.

        Another thing, people who believe in the 2nd Amendment will not give up any guns. Me, I will NOT register ANY gun I own. Period. I’m not going to give up any either.

      • Jeff

        Where do you think criminals get their guns? Every gun in a criminal’s hands was either purchased by him before he became a criminal, purchased illegally (or legally at a gun show) from someone who bought the gun, or stolen. In any event, the gun did not come from ACME Guns for Crooks. It came from the same stream of commerce as your “good” gun that still imperils your family. If you live in a house with a gun, you are far more likely to be a victim of gun violence than if you do not so share your home. And it is more likely that gun will be the source of a tragedy than that you will use it to stop a “bad” guy.

      • dalek

        They are criminals, they STEAL them. They buy them on the street from other criminals. Heck, they steal them from cops when they get the chance. Heck, sometimes it is the cops that ARE the criminals. Point is, criminals will still have theirs and you want everyone BUT the criminals to give theirs up. Look at other countries that have done this and their crime rates. Getting rid of guns does NOT work.

        The guns in my home keeps me safe. For you to even think that it makes me more likely to be a victim only proves you are nuts. Since you claim it tho, provide a link that backs it up. I want a reliable source for that to, not some left wing website.

      • Jeff

        Exactly. As long as those weapons are available to be bought, they are available to be stolen by the “bad” guys. But most of these shootings aren’t done by the Al Capones of the world. Some kid gets a gun from his father who probably told him a million times not to take the gun and shoot up the school. But what if the father didn’t have the gun in the house at all?

      • dalek

        You keep missing the point. As long as the 2nd Amendment is the LAW OF THE LAND, we will NOT give up our guns. PERIOD. You will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, I can’t stress NEVER enough, get rid of guns. There are more guns than there are people in this country. It will never happen.

        I’m law abiding. I have served on jury duty, twice. One a murder trial. I don’t care what law they pass, I will NEVER give up my guns. I don’t care who is in the white house or how many laws they pass. I’m NOT giving up mine and there are MILLIONS more just like me. We will resist with deadly force if needed but we will NEVER give up our guns. There is NOTHING you can say that will change that fact. Absolutely NOTHING!

        You want to do something, try to repeal the 2nd Amendment. You will see what I mean then. It will be bloody. We will have a LOT less crooked politicians afterwards. That’s the reason liberals don’t have to balls to even try it. They know it will not end well for them.

      • Jeff

        Your hand will be cold and dead soon enough, probably the result of a gun “accident” in the home. Are you saying the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to possess all weapons? Machine guns? Surface-to-air missiles? Drones? A-bombs? If not, where do you draw the line? And where does the 2nd Amendment say anything about felons not being permitted to have guns? It doesn’t. Sometimes, reasonableness in interpretation is implied. But that would require a functioning brain.

      • dalek

        You need to recheck your thinking. I am more likely to drown in a swimming pool than to die from a firearm “accident”. Heck, the bath tub is the most dangerous thing you can have in your home and everyone has one of those. More people are injured or killed in bath tubs than from firearm accidents. You really need to put things in perspective. I’m looking at 5 guns right now, ALL of them loaded and ready. They have been in the exact same spot for decades. I have yet to see one jump up, aim itself at me or anyone else and pull its own trigger. That’s how stupid your point is.

        “Arms” Weapon(s) that you can carry. If you want to get down to the bare facts, that is what was arms is. I do believe that the weapons ban that was done back in the 30′s violates the Constitution but at the same time, I don’t think it is needed to resist the Government. As for felons, I think that violates the Constitution. I like the idea but it violates the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment does not say ‘shall not be infringed except for felons’.

        It’s not real hard to understand: “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.” The key points, “right of the people” and “shall not be infringed”. I also like “free state” too. That the reason for the 2nd Amendment to begin with, not hunting or self defense.

        Your brain is not functioning. Mine is just fine.

      • Jeff

        “Arms” Weapon(s) that you can carry. If you want to get down to the bare facts, that is what was arms is. I do believe that the weapons ban that was done back in the 30′s violates the Constitution but at the same time, I don’t think it is needed to resist the Government. As for felons, I think that violates the Constitution. I like the idea but it violates the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment does not say ‘shall not be infringed except for felons’.

        Dalek:

        You are the first “gun” person who has actually responded when I’ve asked these questions. Since you believe the “felon” restriction and the machine gun exception violate the 2nd Amendment, I assume you think any further regulation, including background checks and magazine limits, would likewise be unconstitutional. But since the existing restrictions have been upheld, explicitly or implicitly, aren’t we now just arguing about where to draw the line? Most sensible people think the line should be drawn at military-style weapons capable of firing dozens of rounds in a minute and at clips holding more than 10 rounds. I know what you think personally, but as a legal matter, I believe such a solution would be difficult to challenge since we’ve already established that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute.

      • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

        No, Jeff. Most “sensible” people do NOT think the line should be drawn at “military style” (with the emphasis on STYLE to confuse and misinform) weapons and limiting magazines to no more than 10 rounds.

        The Bushmaster AR-15 and similar civilian weapons that Feinstein et al are demonizing and want to ban are NOT assault rifles at all. Don’t give the gun banners any leeway on these lies and distortions. Their intent is to confuse and misinform those who don’t know any better. In other words, they’re lying.

        Tell people the truth … tell them that the AR-15 is not really functionally different than other rifles except that it outwardly RESEMBLES the M-16/M4 machine gun that our troops use. (For reasons of economy in manufacturing, the inherent reliability and maintainability of the underlying design, and other factors, there are a lot of common parts, but the important ones that determine function are designed to preclude illegal conversion to fully-automatic operation like the military weapons with which the gun-banners want you to confuse them.)

        The guns they want to ban are NOT machine guns, as the gun grabbers and media try to convince you. They do NOT “spray bullets” as military weapons do. However their outward appearance, combined with deliberate untruths and the use of incorrect terminology, makes it easier for the deceivers to demonize these guns as they try to build support for banning them. (Which is, of course, just a step towards further bans in the future.)

        Also impress up on people that the AR-15 and functionally similar guns are NOT “only suitable for a war zone” as the ban’s proponents and media personalities keep saying, but that they are, in fact, NOT really suitable for combat use at all because of their limitations. (Our troops would be SERIOUSLY out-gunned if they went into battle with AR-15s.)

        Further, they are not “heavy weapons” as some of the media people keep saying. Inform people of the factual reality that these weapons are actually considerably LESS powerful than most of their grandpa’s deer rifles – to the point that in many states it’s illegal to hunt game larger than groundhogs and coyotes with the .223/5.56mm round that the AR-15 fires.

        Stop feeding their misinformation campaign.

        30 round magazines for ARs and magazines in the 13-19 round capacity for pistols are STANDARD, not high capacity. (Maybe I’d grant that 100 round+ drum magazines are “high capacity,” but they tend to not feed reliably.)

        Don’t use the inaccurate, misleading terminology that the gun grabbers created in an attempt to demonize perfectly ordinary guns to deceive those who fear guns because of their brainwashing and lack of knowledge.

        “The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a “high capacity” semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families.” – Massad Ayoob, writing in Backwoods Home magazine

      • Jeff

        I understand that you, like Gordon Liddy, get off on explaining the distinctions between the killing capacities of various weapons. Undoubtedly, you know far more than I do about a subject I find quite boring. I understand that our soldiers in Afghanistan have truly automatic weapons that can fire hundreds of rounds a minute while the shooters in Aurora and at Sandy Hook could “only” fire dozens of rounds a minute with their semi-automatic weapons. To me, that is an assault rifle, regardless of the definition that may be in vogue with the gun nuts. Particularly if the weapon is equipped with a high-capacity magazine. The combination is way too deadly for our streets. If you want to argue it’s “only” semi-automatic and isn’t an “assault” rifle because an Uzi is more deadly, tell it to the parents of those kids in Connecticut.

      • Don Peterson

        Jeff is a typical liberal who “feels” bad that guns exist. His arguments are ridiculous. He obviously doesn’t have a clue that the states with the most restrictive gun control laws have the highest violent crime rates. By his argument, the states where all these evil guns come from should be way more violent and dangerous than places like say, Chicago, Detroit, or New York. He has nothing but his feelings on his side, which unfortunately is all he needs in our world today.

      • dalek

        Yep, he is that. On another article, I went back and forth with a guy for about a month. Every time he posted a fact, I posted a link that proved him wrong. Most of it was him claiming Democrats did things that Republicans did. After a bit, he figured it out. I don’t have a problem with people who can learn but some people, even when you prove they are wrong, they still argue that they are right, despite all evidence that proves they are not.

        As others have said, guns are not the problem. Outlaw guns, they will use something else. It could very well be explosives. As bad as guns are, explosives will make guns look like child’s play. Think Oklahoma City bombing. Imagine that on a school or a mall. It’s scary.

      • dalek

        Thanks for your reply Carl. I went to town for a little while.

        I might also add, in my state, you are not allowed to hunt deer or any big game animals with anything less than a .35 caliber bullet. This removes .17 .22 rimfire, .222, .223, .243, .270 all 30-xx calibers, .338-xx calibers, among several others from hunting. Any of those, do NOT have enough killing power according to the game and fish people to kill large game; deer, bear, piggy and such. You can hunt with .22 rimfire for squirrels and rabbits tho. This was changed in the last couple years. Before that, it had to be .38 caliber or larger.

        Also, let’s say they outlaw every long gun: ALL rifles and shotguns. Then someone goes into a school, mall or whatever with 4 or 5 pistols and kills a lot of people. Then what? Ban more guns?

        Same can be said for large clips/magazines. Let’s say they ban all clips/magazines that hold more than even 5 bullets. Someone goes into a school with rifles, shotguns or pistols with LOTS of clips/magazines. Then what? Ban more clips? That clip would already be less than most revolvers hold.

        Let’s then say that ALL guns are banned. Someone gets a nice large SUV or pickup and fills it with propane tanks, then drives that thing into a school, mall or some place there is a lot of people and sets it off. Are we then going to outlaw BBQ grills? Outlaw SUV’s maybe? Let’s not forget Oklahoma City and that big explosion. It was over 150 killed, including kids. Imagine that in a school. We going to ban kerosene and diesel fuel too? Fertilizer?

        At what point does this stop? For the liberals and progressives, it will not stop until the people rise up and stop it. The only end is defenseless people that the Government can make slaves of with no resistance available.

        Guns are NOT the problem. It’s the people that are the problem. Kids are raised with no value on human life, even their own. This is why people do this then kill themselves. They know going in that the LAW will have no affect on them, they will be dead in the end. Dead people get buried, not tried and convicted then punished.

        Until we get this country back on the right track morally, we will have killings like this whether there are guns or not. It’s that simple.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

        “it does not come to another civil war ”

        It is NOT a “civil war”. WE are DEFENDING our nation, our legitimate government from domestic enemies – yes, the same one all oaths require to defend the US Constitution from, and treasonous representatives.

        DEFENDING is the word.

      • Jeff

        I see. If you fire on a Federal official serving a warrant on you, then you are the legitimate government while the official sent by the elected President is illegitimate. Does it work that way even when a Republican is in office?

      • dalek

        To answer your question directly, yep, it does. Any person who is given a order that violates the Constitution is not required to follow that order. It is actually unconstitutional to do so. Example: If the FBI director gives a FBI agent a order to go beat a confession out of a suspect, that is unconstitutional. That agent has every right and legal athority to ignore that order. He also should report that order to the person above the person giving the order.

        You need to understand one thing. The Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. No law, no order from higher ups can violate the Constitution. Period. Any warrant that violates the Constitution is worthless.

        I don’t care who is in office, the Constitution is the same.

        I found this a bit ago. Seems the fearless leader may have trouble.

        http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.CON.RES.107:

      • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

        Absolutely it works that way no matter the party a traitor belongs in. I was one of those fighting to have Bush arrested and prosecuted for Treason, Murder, Mass Murders, War Crimes and various other criminal and civil offenses, and Obama (illegally – because a prez cannot pardon treasonous scum) pardoned Bush of “all”.

        All Law Enforcement, Military take a legally biding oath: : “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

        “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

        “I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

        They swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” against all enemies”, domestic enemies included. The US Constitution is what they are REQUIRED support and defend before anything else, not a president, or anyone else, The US Constitution. Notice that to obey the orders of the President is BELOW “support ad defend the US Constitution and of much fewer words, plus lumped with orders of officers above. They can, and be prosecuted for not doing so for following unlawful orders. The Supreme Law of this land is the US Constitution and ALL laws MUST be in pursuance of it to be legal. Significantly the oath is to support and defend the Constitution and not an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity.

        If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?

      • John Illinois

        The Founding Fathers were highly educated men. They knew exactly what those words meant, and worked very hard to be certain that they were clear–to people with some knowledge and background to understand those concepts, therefore, defining those phrases would have been considered redundant. What they didn’t plan on was the way other people would “lawyer” the words and simply and plainly endeavor to change the meaning of words, as the liberals have done since then.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

        Exactly!

      • auhunter

        A “well regulated militia” has nothing to do with weapons it is the military, actually the National Guard. It only takes a second to check the word in Webster’s. Then you’ll know what your talking about, at least part of it.

      • dalek

        Wrong. The first part is about the militia, the second part is about the PEOPLE. Here are some quotes from the Founders themselves:

        “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

        “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

        “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

        Note it compared the CITIZENS of other countries, not military but CITIZENS, in the quote above.

        “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States” (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution’, 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

        “…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

        “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

        You need to listen to this part about what the Constitution means and how it is to be interpreted.

        “On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

        So, you are completely wrong when you claim arms if only for the military or National Guard. It is for the PEOPLE as INDIVIDUALS to be armed. You are also trying to squeeze something out of the Constitution that is NOT there. Even back then, they warned us about people like you trying to get meaning that is NOT there.

        Got it? If you don’t, I could post MANY more quotes from the founders. Many, many more.

      • Robin

        “You can’t fight the local police with your gun, let alone the Army.”
        Why not? They do a fine job in Iraq and Afghanistan…year after year.

      • Jeff

        Robin:

        I’ve thought about it, and I think I prefer the U.S. as it is. I’d rather not see us turn into Iraq or Afghanistan.

    • grannymae1

      independent thinker, You are right on as always. To me it doesn’t even come into question today as to why they wrote it, it is there and it should stay there and we need it more today to protect our families than ever before. We know that there are countries out there that say they want to kill us and they are inside out gates plotting to do just that and I’m suppose to give up my guns because some murder went in a school and killed inocent little children. I don’t think so. All the more reason to keep my guns. As horrible as this is there is always going to be some communist thinking jerk that will actually use this or any tragidy to further their own agenda. Each time they do they cripple us a little more and weaken us a little more so we are no longer able to defend ourselves and family against those that want to harm us, and all the time it is not really with the inocent children in mind, it is for their own intentions of power. I don’t know how manytimes they will have to be exposed before others that have the bleeding hearts only on their mind , will be able to see what is really going on. I love and want our babies to be safe too. I have litle grandchildren and great grandchildren and I know how special they all are and I want them all safe but giving my gun away isn’t going to make that happen. How many countries do we see that ban guns and yet the criminal has guns and the inocent are getting killed ! I don’t feel that the government can or will keep my family safe now or ever. They can’t there are too many individuals in this country to try to keep safe and it just can’t be done. The crooks will always be there armed to the teeth thanks to our government. They can’t protect their own border patrol people so why should I expect them to take care of me or my family? When it comes down too it there will come a day when Washington will cause the military to patrol the streets and order them to fire on their own people. There will be brother shooting brother and son shooting father and all in the name of some progressive professing to be protecting us and we can’t fight back because the bleeding hearts have cried to ban the gun ! As far as an automatic weapon being banned because you don’t hunt with one! Sure you do. You hunt the guy that is trying to kill you and your family ! I would rather have an automatic when I’m protecting my family and yours than trying to come up against a tank with a stone ! If you think your country won’t come up against you with everything they have you need to remember back to Waco and how the government fired on and set fire to a compound on private property that was no threat to anyone. They killed men women and children before those people could ever do anything. Those people had done nothing wrong and still Janet Reno and the powers that be at the time in Washington didn’t like what they thought they were doing so they ploted against them and then attacked them and killed them everyone right down to the little children and we are supposed to think that Sandy Hook was so terrible ? It was but it was done by a deranged young man, Waco was done by our own government against her own citizens. I won’t trust the government any farther than I can throw them especially what is in office right now. This president stood by and watched while our own people got killed and all because he was trying to arrange a kidnapping so he could exchange the blind sheik for the ambassador but his stupid idea failed and he got people killed. Just another derranged mind ! Now we have the hostage situation setting up all over again and the blind sheik will go free. This government is so sick it isn’t even funny ! Still the idiots with no brain re-elect him now how sick is that ? I say keep your guns you will need them !

      • grannymae1

        As far as there being a debate on gun control, that is BS. There is not debaste. I want to keep my gun and it is lawful and there are people that aim to take it away from me ! That’s not a debate !

blog comments powered by Disqus
Bottom