Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

America’s Mainstream Personal Fable

January 4, 2013 by  

America’s Mainstream Personal Fable
PHOTOS.COM

As political idiocy and economic folly continue to become more the norm in the United States than reason, logic and freedom, one question continues to get harder and harder to answer: What makes us so special in America?

At some point in the Nation’s early history, revolutionary spirit would have been a sound answer. Later — around the time of Alexis de Tocqueville’s visit to the country — laws, freedoms, overwhelming civic responsibility and entrepreneurial vigor were all good answers.

The Nation has been through many hard times, tragedies and embarrassments over the past 237 years. There were times when the Nation seemed doomed and pulled through, and there were times of great prosperity. Much of the Nation’s success — despite some recent opinions to the contrary — can be attributed to its revolutionary roots and the foresight ingrained in its founding documents.

But the Nation is young. Perhaps it could even be correctly personified as adolescent in the grand historical scheme. As anyone with teenage children or who has ever looked back on their own adolescence with the wisdom of a few more years will tell you, adolescence is often a time of reckless abandon and great change.

There is a psychological term associated with adolescence that applies nicely to the mindset of mainstream America today. “Personal fable” is a common teen belief that arises from adolescent egocentrism. It is the adolescent’s belief that he or she is highly special and unlike anyone else who has ever walked the Earth. The adolescent living out a personal fable believes others are so obviously fascinated by him (adolescent egocentrism) that he must be a unique individual (the personal fable).

One great example of America’s collective personal fable arises in the recently feverish debate over gun control in the United States. After a bloody Revolution against a tyrannical ruling force, America’s Founding Fathers felt it proper to include in the Nation’s supreme law a provision allowing every American citizen to arm himself. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about hunting, self-defense, sport shooting or muskets. But it states its purpose quite expressly:

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.

Gun control advocates never mention the necessity of firearms to the security of a free state. They argue that Americans have a standing army, police, civilized society and courts to ensure the state of freedom. But they fail to realize that the right to bear arms is not an outdated addendum to those previously mentioned markers of our modern civil society, but rather a last line of defense should they fail — or, worse, should they be used with malevolent intent by those in charge.

Slate magazine crime blogger Justin Peters outlined the mindset of the common anti-assault weapon crusader in a recent piece about the usefulness of the AR-15 as a hunting or home defense weapon:

But the guns also appeal to another demographic that doesn’t get nearly as much press—paranoid survivalists who worry about having to fend off thieves and trespassers in the event of disaster. Online shooting message boards are rife with references to potential “SHTF scenarios,” where SHTF stands for “shit hits the fan”—governmental collapse, societal breakdown. (Adam Lanza’s mother, Nancy Lanza, has been described as “a gun-hoarding survivalist who was stockpiling weapons in preparation for an economic collapse.”) An article on ar15.com titled “The Ideal Rifle” notes that “the threats from crime, terrorism, natural disaster, and weapons of mass destruction are real. If something were to happen today, you would need to have made a decision about the rifle you would select and be prepared for such an event. So the need to select a ‘survival’ rifle is real. Selecting a single ‘ideal rifle’ is not easy. The AR-15 series of rifles comes out ahead when compared to everything else.” Depending on where you live, it’s perfectly legal to stockpile weapons to use in the event of Armageddon. But that’s a far different argument than the ones firearms advocates have been using since the Newtown shootings.

Peters is right when he writes that firearms advocates haven’t made the proper case for the vitality of American assault weapon ownership. The National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups have stuck to the argument that assault weapons are good for hunting and home defense, with hardly a mention of the 2nd Amendment. They can’t make the proper case for the 2nd Amendment, because the personal fable mindset of a majority of the population simply won’t have it.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” — George Santayana

While madmen in the United States may have taken a few hundred lives with guns in America over the past century, the world’s rulers — which some lawmakers say have the monopoly on legitimate violence — were splattered with the blood of 260 million human beings in the 20th century alone. They are poised to murder billions more in the 21st century.

Here are three infamous mass killers of the last century:

Adolf Hitler — Death Toll: Nearly 20 Million 

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”

Nazi Germany established gun control in 1938.

Joseph Stalin — Death Toll: 61,911,000

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.

Mao Tze Tung — Death Toll: 35,236,000

“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”

China established gun control in 1935.

The American condition is fragile and changing all too rapidly. The “it could never happen here” mindset has, quite unfortunately, led many Americans to mistake patriotism and citizenship for all out support of the ruling class. And government in the United States has repaid its citizenry by installing a massive surveillance/police apparatus, methods by which it may circumvent courts and prosecute or kill citizens, and virtually all of the power it needs to do anything it wishes. Americans have gleefully allowed this to happen with hopes of becoming safer and more comfortable. If it weren’t for the adolescence of our Nation and the personal fable mindset to which we subscribe, we might recognize that these things have happened before and it is our Constitution which has protected the Nation from the same events thus far.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “America’s Mainstream Personal Fable”

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

  • Dennis48e

    Very insightful Mr Rolley. Too bad most of those who need to read the article will never see it.

    • Vicki

      One small but critical correction to the OP Post.

      Sam Rolley writes:
      “After a bloody Revolution against a tyrannical ruling force, America’s Founding Fathers felt it proper to include in the Nation’s supreme law a provision allowing every American citizen to arm himself. ”

      …Nation’s supreme law a provision PROTECTING the right of every American citizen to arm himself.

      • Vicki

        I should go into more detail. The 2nd Amendment PROTECTS our right to keep and bear arms by explicitly FORBIDDING government from infringing on the right. At all. Period.

        Because the restriction is so broad and so firm, the founders chose to give a reason for the restriction. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, …”

        For those who may not remember their English lessons (I didn’t :) )here is an explanation of the grammar used in the 2nd Amendment.
        http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

      • Robert Smith

        From the article: “Americans to mistake patriotism and citizenship for all out support of the ruling class.”

        BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Why support the 1% when all they are doing is extracting wealth from the rest of us?

        Wake up America!

        Rob

      • eddie47d

        When the Second Amendment was written we did not have a standing army but various community groups/militias who volunteered to form the Continental Army. When the Revolution was over there was still a need for the militias so they had to be armed and ready to defend against outside aggression. The Continental Army was bare boned and hardly capable of repelling such aggression on its own. It all made sense that the rights of the militias should not be infringed upon for they were the fighting forces of the time. The British knew the Continental Army was still weak thus their attempt to regain lost territory in the War of 1812. We won that war and the urgent need for a standing army was established and has been the normal ever since. The necessity of militias was no longer there thus making them mote and possibly the whole Second Amendment as written. It was written for a different time and for very good reasons. We no longer have legitimate militias and some that do exist are downright dangerous and they INFRINGE on the rights of others. So this debate on whether they should be allowed to run the show and forcing their beliefs on who ever they want is just as extreme and dangerous as fearing government control of our personal lives. In other words our Constitution can change and does change over time. The Second Amendment is still important and I don’t want it abolished but I’m not buying these extremists tying it into these militias for their own political purposes. The ability of this nation to defend itself has long ago been established and the need for outside militias are long gone. Thus no rights are being infringed upon.

      • http://dwfields.com D. Fields

        So you’re ok with criminals and those with psych problems arming themselves and randomly killing not only other adults, but innocent children–like the 10-year-old girl in Maryland who was killed by a random “celebratory shot” on New Year’s Eve and the 20 children killed in Newtown. Neither I nor our government are trying to ban all weapons, only find a way to control what types of weapons are available (I personally don’t believe modern military rifles–i.e. modified fully-automatic assault rifles) belong in the hands of irresponsible people who fire wildly into the sky in celebration or seek to make a name for themselves through some kind of mass murder. These people do not deserve the RIGHT to bear arms because it is these people who will use force to get their way.

        I do agree that weapons ownership is a right. The ownership of those weapons is a responsibility TO PROTECT yourself and others, not make yourself ‘king of the hill’. I enjoy shooting as much as any hard-core gun proponent–all types of guns–but I’m NOT the type to boast about the types or numbers of firearms I own. I take my responsibility in gun ownership seriously.

      • momo
      • JC

        Sorry eddie, nice try and almost coherent…
        But the need for an armed poulation exists today just as it did in the 1700′s.
        I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but our standing army is presently engaged in acts of Imperialism in way too many locations…this is yet another area where the Constitution as it was written is still pertinent. “Avoiding foreign entanglements”.
        Any way, since most of our military is overseas at any given time, we need an armed populace to protect America now and always.

      • Bill

        Rob,
        The 1% you are talking about are the ruling elite in our government

      • Robert Smith

        When you cite something like this I have to ask D Fields: “like the 10-year-old girl in Maryland who was killed by a random “celebratory shot” on New Year’s Eve”

        How would the type of firearm made any difference at all?

        Look at this case: “FREDERICKSBURG, Ohio — A man cleaning his muzzle-loading rifle shot the gun into the air, accidentally killing a 15-year-old Amish girl driving a horse-drawn buggy more than a mile away, a sheriff said Tuesday.” From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/21/amish-girl-shooting-gun-cleaning_n_1162704.html

        We can’t legislate against stupidity. These accidents certainly wren’t the fault of the gun in any way.

        With dumb people on the planet poo poo occurs. It’s sad, but sometimes that’s just the way it is.

        Rob

      • eddie47d

        JC: I am almost 100% against any foreign entanglements from Vietnam,Central America,the Iraq War,Libya so lets get that out of the way. Indeed our forces should be on our soil defending our immediate territory not parading around the world. I also believe we have an abundance of military still in US so I will still kindly decline the need for any civilian militias.

      • eddie47d

        Yes momo even Chuck has a right to his opinion and I don’t agree with all his opinions.

      • CZ52

        ” (I personally don’t believe modern military rifles–i.e. modified fully-automatic assault rifles) belong in the hands of irresponsible people who fire wildly into the sky in …”

        Cite one instance of a legally fully auto assualt rifle being used in a crime of any kind.

      • Chester

        D. Fields, Not sure what weapon you are talking about, as there is NO fully automatic weapon sold to the general public. If you are referring to the AR-15, it is not, and never has been, designed to be used as a fully automatic weapon. As far as that goes, why should the general public NOT be allowed fully automatic weapons? Guaranteed not many will have them, and even fewer will keep them well fed and exercised. Ammunition is NOT free, or even cheap. Thus, it not only costs considerable money to buy the weapon, but bunches more if you actually expect to exercise it and make sure it is capable of working when you need it to work. Semi autos aren’t cheap, nor cheap to feed, but they are a LOT cheaper than full autos. I assume you want to be at least as well armed as the man who enters without a knock and expects you to hand him all you have just because he has a big stick. Why should we deny the majority of our citizens the right to protect themselves however they see fit simply because a minority don’t play fair, for whatever reason? That is the big reason guns have gotten so hard to own, people who should NOT have access to guns, or who SHOULD be receiving extreme mental help, are getting guns and doing whatever they want with them. Bad thing is, if guns aren’t available, baseball bats, two by four lumber and nails, or any number of other things are out there to be used to commit mass murder and mayhem with.

      • Average Joe

        D.Fields,
        “(I personally don’t believe modern military rifles–i.e. modified fully-automatic assault rifles) belong in the hands of irresponsible people who fire wildly into the sky in celebration or seek to make a name for themselves through some kind of mass murder. These people do not deserve the RIGHT to bear arms because it is these people who will use force to get their way.”

        You do realize that full automatic weapons are not available to the general public in the United States, right?
        You also realize to obtain “military rifles”, you must either be in the military, law enforcement or specially licensed to own such firearms, right?
        Also, you may want to know that little if any semi-automatic weapons have ever been modified to full auto for the purposes of commiting crimes….as this police officer shows.
        If you are truly a firearms advocate…you would know these things…and would not be perpetuating the myths…that you just spewed out as if they were facts….they were not.

        Watch the video…and learn.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti5GmI8

      • CZ52

        eddie if you think the 2nd amendment is outdated then get the Constitution amended to eliminate it. Until that is done the 2nd stands as written not as you anti-gun people wish it was.

      • eddie47d

        CZ52; Why would I want to eliminate something that I say I am in favor of? I believe it has different meaning today and the pro gun folks are the ones abusing it. I would say you are the ones interpreting it to suit your own needs.

      • Steve E

        eddy, you make a good argument on why citizens should posses firearms. To protect us from people that believe like you do.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        D Fields, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. What part of the Second Amendment don’t you understand? Let us know so it can be explained to you. All your questions on all the rest of your comments have been rhetorical horse manure.

      • Average Joe

        eddie47d,

        The media and you liberals are quick to talk to us about what you percieve to be “assault weapons”, something that I can’t seem to define ( Since I’ve never known a weapon to assault anyone). So, please explain to us what exactly an “assault weapon” is.

        Once you have defined for us what an “assault weapon” is, you may proceed to define for us…what exactly is a “defense weapon”? Should a defense weapon look as menacing as an assault weapon? Should it be equal in power to an assault weapon…or more…or less so? I’m just trying to allow you liberals to set the “rules for engagement” here…this is your opportunity. Start defining eddie…
        You say that you don’t want to abolish the 2nd. Amenedment…so what are your ideal limits? (Bear in mind that just because you change a law…the criminals aren’t likely to abide by those laws). So, If the criminals keep their weapons, how are we (the average Joe’s of the country) supposed to defend ourselves from these criminals? Now’s your chance eddie…tell us about your perfect world…we’re all ears…..

        AJ

      • eddie47d

        I told you that the other day Joe Average. Apparently you can’t keep up or choose to ignore but don’t come back crying about what I said or didn’t say. Yes I’m very aware that Assault weapons are banned. That is why I refer to Semi-automatics as assault TYPE weapons to make my distinction. What is your fetish with criminals? They commit a crime they do the time. If they break into your home shoot them. If they attack your wife shoot them so what’s the problem? You don’t need more than a handgun to do that and probably safer in not hitting other family member. You’ve never known a assault weapon to “assault” someone. What does than have to do with the price of tea in China? I don’t know of any car that assaults anyone either but I sure do want lots of restrictions on who can drive one or even own one.

      • TML

        Eddie47

        I find this idea that the 2nd Amendment was to alleviate short comings at a time and condition that no longer applies to today, to be utter folly. Jefferson wrote, “”Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia.” Further he stated, “”A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration.”

        In every instance that we hear from the founders regarding the 2nd Amendment, never is it presumed to be a right that would, at any time, no longer be needed or as the mere answer to their problems at the time being without a substantial army, but instead, stressed the need for militia in addition to the army at every turn. This idea that the need for militia is long gone seems nothing more than a false sense of security and confidence to me. Is preparedness and the ability to defend against threats from both foreign enemies as well as a rogue domestic government such as this really extremism? I think not.

        It seems to me you are only against the militia because it justifies, in the context of defending the country, the ownership of ‘assault’ rifles by the citizenry.

        There are very legitimate uses for such weapons as defense from foreign invasion (anyone would be stupid to invade the U.S.), rogue government (which is already poised with the NDAA and Patriot Act), to defending ones home against mobs and riots in the event of social upheaval. These are not extremist concepts nor are they completely paranoid possibilities. To say so, seems likened unto the dubious belief that, “it could never happen to me”.

        If anything, as I’ve mentioned many times, banning any type of firearm is an infringement upon the right to bear arms, whereas a requirement of training is not. As Jefferson said, “We must train and classify the whole of our… …citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done.”

      • Robert Smith

        CZ52 asks: “Cite one instance of a legally fully auto assualt rifle being used in a crime of any kind.”

        St. Valentine’s Day massacre of 1929. Because of that the restrictions were put on fully auto weapons.

        Can’t think of anything since.

        Rob

      • Average Joe

        eddie47d,

        “That is why I refer to Semi-automatics as assault TYPE weapons to make my distinction.”

        Semi automatics are NOT assault TYPE weapons…Assault Type weapons are fully automatic. If you have a double action revover, it is a semi-automatic (as well as a revolver) Why? becase every time you pull the trigger…ir fires a round and advances to the next chamber…the exact same thing that a semi-automatic rifle does…just in a different fashion. Face it eddie…they look scary to you…therefore they must be bad. Newsflash….if it looks scary to you…then hopefully it will look scary to the bad guys…and if it looks scary enough..I may not even have to fire it to scare them away…..
        You base all of your decisions on heartstrings…rather than using your head for something other than a hatrack.

        “What is your fetish with criminals? ”

        It’s not a fetish eddie ol’ boy…I am villifying the criminals… while you are villifying an inanimate object. You are putting the blame on firearms…rather than on the PERSON who commits acts of violence….it isn’t the firearm’s fault that an idiot picked it up and used it for less than moral purposes…it is the fault of that individual …and that individual alone. Cars don’t have accidents…the driver has an accident. in the past two years, we have had 52 people killed in “mass shootings” in the US…while last year in Norway, there were 67 in one single shooting spree ( and their gun restrictions make ours look like a trip to the corner store for soda and a bag of chips)..How did those bans work out for them?
        Let’s see, drugs are outlawed and banned in the US…how’s that working out?…Alcohol was once illegal to make, possess or drink…how did that turn out?
        Where is your outrage at the medical community…who kill approximately 300k people per year? 100k per year from perscrp[tion drug overdoses and another 200k per year due to medical malpratice,medical malfeasance and piss poor care. And that doesn’t even take into accout all of the aborted fetus’ ( which would probably double those numbers) (Don’t believe me? Look it up.
        BTW, you still didn’t do what I asked….but you danced a good jig around it.

        AJ

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        January 4, 2013 at 9:59 am

        JC: I am almost 100% against any foreign entanglements from Vietnam,Central America,the Iraq War,Libya so lets get that out of the way. Indeed our forces should be on our soil defending our immediate territory not parading around the world. I also believe we have an abundance of military still in US so I will still kindly decline the need for any civilian militias.
        ________________________________________________________________________

        You may decline whatever you like, that’s your choice.
        The law ( a very sensible law at that) says differently and I will continue my right and duty to be ready to defend. (some of us have the stones for it and some of us don’t)

      • eddie47d

        You are naive Joe Average if you think an semi-automatic can’t be used as an assault weapon. That is just duck and CYA with those who try to make clear distinctions. Not much difference between the M-16 and Ar-15 and they both pump out alot of bullets. So who cares if you can kill 20 with one and only 18 with the other. That is what the Average citizen grasps so who cares if they are not Gatling Guns! Its called common sense Joe and I have plenty of hair on top so I seldom use a hat thank you. By the way Anders Breivik the Norway killer bought his ammo by way of an arms dealer in USA. So how did that work out? Oh yes abortion and cars or doctors death is not the issue here so nice try!

      • CZ52

        eddie says: “The necessity of militias was no longer there thus making them mote and possibly the whole Second Amendment as written. It was written for a different time and for very good reasons.”

        Like I said eddie if you do not like it as it stands then get it repealed. If you want it restated then get a new amendment passed that you agree with. Until such time as that is done the 2nd STANDS AS WRITTEN.

      • JC

        D. Fields says:
        January 4, 2013 at 8:16 am
        So you’re ok with criminals and those with psych problems arming themselves and randomly killing not only other adults, but innocent children–like the 10-year-old girl in Maryland who was killed by a random “celebratory shot” on New Year’s Eve and the 20 children killed in Newtown.
        ______________________________________________________________

        Now there’s a hysterical leap if ever there was one.
        Vicki said nothing of the kind.

      • eddie47d

        CZ52 of coarse its going to stand as written but I don’t agree with your interpretation.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “CZ52; Why would I want to eliminate something that I say I am in favor of? I believe it has different meaning today and the pro gun folks are the ones abusing it.

        You claim to be in favor of it but then claim it does not mean what it says it means. So to clarify, what is the meaning today according to eddie47d?

      • Vicki

        D. Fields says (to me):
        “So you’re ok with criminals and those with psych problems arming themselves and randomly killing not only other adults, but innocent children”

        No but they don’t listen to me any more than they listen to the law.

        What disturbs me is that YOU and your kind seem quite ok keeping the intended victims from being able to protect themselves with something more efficient then waiving their hands at the killer. The very things that both our police and our military use to protect themselves when they are attacked.

        D, Fields: “I personally don’t believe modern military rifles–i.e. modified fully-automatic assault rifles) belong in the hands of irresponsible people who fire wildly into the sky in celebration or seek to make a name for themselves through some kind of mass murder.”

        Nor do we. Than again we aren’t the ones that keep releasing criminals back into society.

        D, Fields: “These people do not deserve the RIGHT to bear arms because it is these people who will use force to get their way.”

        Yet you continue to advocate depriving their intended victims of the very tools that are best suited to holding off “those people”.

        D, Fields: “I do agree that weapons ownership is a right. The ownership of those weapons is a responsibility TO PROTECT yourself and others, not make yourself ‘king of the hill’”

        Yet you continue to advocate depriving people of their right to keep and bear guns, who have not tried to commit crimes with them or, for that matter, commit crimes at all.

        D, Fields: ” I enjoy shooting as much as any hard-core gun proponent–all types of guns–but I’m NOT the type to boast about the types or numbers of firearms I own. I take my responsibility in gun ownership seriously.”

        To bad you don’t take your responsibility to protect your fellow citizens rights seriously.

      • eddie47d

        Maybe you are blind and ignorant in your interpretation! Don’t be telling me who I will defend and won’t defend for it may surprise you!!!

      • Average Joe

        eddie47d says:

        January 4, 2013 at 4:36 pm

        You are naive Joe Average if you think an semi-automatic can’t be used as an assault weapon.

        You may want to cover yourself eddiot…your ignorance is showing…still.

        as·sault
        [uh-sawlt] Show IPA

        noun
        1.
        a sudden, violent attack; onslaught: an assault on tradition.

        2.
        Law. an unlawful physical attack upon another; an attempt or offer to do violence to another, with or without battery, as by holding a stone or club in a threatening manner.

        Now, eddie, by the very definition of assault, anything can be turned into an assault weapon….if it is being used….to commit…an assault. If I stab you in the face with an ink pen…guess wht eddie?….I’ve just turned a pen into an assault weapon. The pen by itself…is just a pen…until someone ( key concept here: the person) uses it for purposes other than the intended use. People assault other people…inanimate objects do not….learn this simple concept eddie……

        “Not much difference between the M-16 and Ar-15 and they both pump out alot of bullets. So who cares if you can kill 20 with one and only 18 with the other.”

        Not much difference?…lmao…nice try eddiot…..or not. The reason that you don’t understand the differences, is that you only “See” the similarities…ie…they both look scary to you…and that is all that matters…they look scary and similar, therefore they must be the same…you sir…are seriouly defective in thought.

        Yes, eddie…I know that I am wasting my time explaining anything to you…you are after all “A legend in your own mind”.

      • Harvey Jones

        ( Suzanne Gratia-Hupp on the 2nd Amendmentby operationitchdotcom14,039 views ) You may have to copy and paste to see this short video but every one of Americas Citizens should.

      • woodbutcher

        I think I’ll grab the Ole Dog and see if he can kick up some Rabbit’s ! He might kick up more than 1 at a time, I better bring my AR-15 ! I sure hope I don’t shoot Ole Dog by mistake !

      • APN

        The dumb Progressive GOD hating Rob Smith said: From the article: “Americans to mistake patriotism and citizenship for all out support of the ruling class.”

        BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        ______________________________________________________________________

        The REAL problem in “America” my little stupid GOD hating AMERICA hating Progressive Communist THUG is DOPE SMOKERS Like YOU and people like you.

        Let’s see here, simple analysis of “progressive behavior”, let us all smoke a little DOPE, BE LAZY AND STUPID, then have sex with a 100 different STRANG partners and create a bunch of BASTARD children for the rest of us HARD WORKING Americans to pay for.

        Let’s give’m FREE HEALTHCARE under the DUMB SOCIALIST VERY UNCONSTITUTIONAL OBAMACARE act, AND, a FREE MEAL TICKET, FREE HOUSING, FREE CONDUMS,FREE DRUGS, FREE THIS AND FREE THAT, etc etc etc, so we can further destroy the America dream by adding TRILLIONS of unfunded LIABILITIES to those of us who work for a living, not to mention those who are unborn who will be BORN into this “Progressive COMMUNIST MOUNTAIN OF DEBT Nightmare”.

        You are a sick PUP LITTLE BOY and the day will come that you will be REQUIRED to defend your FOOLISH behavior and your hatred of AMERICA.

        Move to RUSSIA BOY! I’m sure you will have all the FREEDOM to do whatever your little DOPE mind can imagine!

    • http://n/a Jana

      Amen to all! Guns terrify me, which why I am such a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. Thank you all, conscientious legal gun owners. BTW, I think the time may be coming to own guns sub rosa. So those of you who are not under the gov. purview and not criminals, God bless you too.

      • Jana

        Hmm,
        This is a different Jana. I agree with her on everything she says except for the fact that I am not afraid of guns. I pray I never have to use one, but if I do to protect my family or myself, I will!
        Hey Jana, Nice to meet you.

      • http://www.facebook.com/thomas.sherman.589 tgsherman

        Yes guns scare me to, especially when I am looking at the muzzle end & mine is left at home!!!

      • JC

        Here’s someone who agrees with you.

        Sheriff Pulls Business From Dana Safety Supply Because They Stopped Selling Semi-Automatic Rifles To Civilians

        http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/sheriff-pulls-business-from-dana-safety-supply-because-they-stopped-selling-semi-automatic-rifles-to-civilians/

        Good for Sheriff Berry… a man of principle.

    • Flashy

      Rolley may be seen as “insightful’ to some…but to the mainstream majority sane people he comes across as totally off base, incorrect, and a rabble rouser with inane commentary calculated to hit “hot buttons’ to rile the ignorant.

      For instance “Gun control advocates never mention the necessity of firearms to the security of a free state.’ About as false as one may state. Such is THE reason for the 2nd.

      What the 2nd does not forbid is common sense. gun freaks who insist the 2nd is absolute and their “right’ overrides all other rights of everyone else is not common sense. The 2nd may be burdened. it is today. It is burdened to allow the excercise of other rights. Regulating and controlling time, place, manner … all are allowable under the 2nd.

      It is not absolute. We ban felons from owning and packin’ iron. fact is…even the NRA is calling for a burden on the 2nd…by restricting mentally ill from owning guns. We have gun free zones and places which carrying firearms is banned. We have types of weapons banned unless special licensing obtained.

      Common sense.

      The insanity of arming as many as possible is plain in showing all that does is create a society where a gun death, an instance of gun violence, is passed over by a numbed society. only when murder comes in mass numbers does the numbness fade to the outrage which has been…until now…not been openly voiced.

      The insanity of extremism is dying. And it won’t be missed by the vast majority. Common sense gun control is needed and demanded. one has a choice…insist on policies which continue the insanity…and that will get you marginalized and tossed into a corner and ignored. or use common sense and join the reasoned debate.

      The insanity has got to end.

      • momo

        Common sense gun control is not going to stop a nut case from getting a weapon and wreaking havoc, as demonstrated in Conneticut, which has the fourth toughest gun laws in the country. Common sense gun control is not going to stop a criminal from getting a weapon and committing a crime.

      • Bill

        Yes, the insanity has to end
        The insanity of taking away our right to defend ourselves from all of the new criminals created by the liberals failed economic policies.

        We also have the entitlement crowd to worry about too. When their public tit runs out they will come stealing from you.

        We are creating more takers than makers and the results will be like Greece

      • Flashy

        “Common sense gun control is not going to stop a nut case from getting a weapon and wreaking havoc” <— Momo

        Momo..where do these guys get their guns? they steal them or buy them right? Don't you think a common sense approach is being able to trace back who they got the gun from/ Don't you think in a short time hindering the supply to the nutcases and criminals will drive up price to them (ever meet a rich robber?) and start reducing their suppliers ?

        Do you really think an AK is something every American should be able to own?

      • Flashy

        “We are creating more takers than makers and the results will be like Greece”

        bill..as i explained in detail yesterday in reply to one of your posts where you made a similar claim…you have no clue what you speak about. Spouting BS is an apt description of your post …

      • Robert Smith

        Availability of firearms has NOTHING to do with how they are used for evil.

        “Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, military police, medical and postal personnel) at home. ”

        From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

        It ain’t guns that are the problem.

        Rob

      • JC

        Flashy says:

        January 4, 2013 at 9:17 am

        “Common sense gun control is not going to stop a nut case from getting a weapon and wreaking havoc” <— Momo

        Momo..where do these guys get their guns? they steal them or buy them right? Don't you think a common sense approach is being able to trace back who they got the gun from/ Don't you think in a short time hindering the supply to the nutcases and criminals will drive up price to them (ever meet a rich robber?) and start reducing their suppliers ?

        Do you really think an AK is something every American should be able to own?
        _______________________________________________________________________

        I can appreciate the sentiment of your post….
        The problem is that it is exactly that…"sentiment".
        Reducing the availability either by cutting down supply, or by rasing the cost also hurts the average law abiding American and is thereofre an infringement on our rights.

      • Flashy

        JC…let’s flush this out. I’m saying by being able to backtrack who supplies the bad guys with weapons will create a higher risk to suppliers to the bad guys. higher the risk, the more cost it will be for a bad guy to obtain a weapon. As well, if the bad guy stels the weapon, then it increases the likelihood of a) gun owners ensuring their weapons are more secure from theft; and b) having to steal a gun means higher risk to the bad guy.

        Now…how does that infringe the Right you claim under 2nd?

        As for AK’s….it’s a weapon for killing human beings. it has no other purpose. For the general populace, all it does is ensure availability of more firepower by the bad guys. it’s not a hunting rifle…and those that claim it is are lyin’…and they know they’re lyin’ … or they’re making themselves out to be fools and should be banned from hunting (if it take more than two shots…you shouldn’t be hunting. And yes, I have hunted in my youth)

      • eddie47d

        MOMO: I would say the Connecticut shooting proves that there are more than a few irresponsible gun owners out there. Guns have become like the latest I-Pad ever changing where everyone has to have the latest. The difference is what the product is used for and the reckless behavior of those who buy. I would say Lanza’s mother was very careless or at least not very cautious about what she taught her son. If she had left her I-Pad on the table and her son picked it up then few problems arise except for a irritated mother. Leaving her weapons laying around with easy access is another problem with deadly consequences. We all know criminals commit crimes that is why they are called criminals. James Holmes was not a criminal and had extremely easy access to all kinds of weapons and ammunition. That easy access is what you don’t want to control and groups like the NRA want to make it even easier. That means there is a disconnect where everything and anything is allowed and these killings have to happen because the means are readily available. (guns are Americas problem solver,quick and easy) There are legitimate reasons to arm school administrators and have elaborate alarm systems but also to have stringent controls over any assault type weapon. The rights of the dead are also important.

      • momo

        Flashy says:”As for AK’s….it’s a weapon for killing human beings”

        You could say that about any rifle. Why did they design the M1 Garand, the 98K Mauser or the Enfield SMLE?

      • CZ52

        Flashy and eddie, your “evil wicked assualt weapons” are used in less than 3% of homicides committed in 2010 (the latest year I found numbers for). ALL rifles including “assualt weapons” were used in 358 homocides out of 12996 total homicides. Hands, feet, and fists were used twice as often 745 times. Knives and other blades were used over 4 times as often. Other weapons (hammers, screwdrivers, golf clubs, etc.) were used nearly 5 times more often 1772 times. So, if we need any kind of weapon registration it needs to be on those items used more often not an your so called “assualt weapons”.

      • eddie47d

        Back to the silly season with CZ52 . There are 34,593 gun deaths per year and eleven thousand of those are are suicides. With your conclusion maybe we should ban handguns too because of the suicide rates or golf clubs or knives. A falling building kills people too but we aren’t going to ban buildings. A burning house kills people too but were not going to ban houses or matches. We corrected at least for awhile the ability of planes crashing into buildings with severe restrictions on anyone hijacking them. Since assault type weapons do far more damage than most pistols/handguns let say then they are part of the problem. That problem needs to be addressed because of those mass killings just like restrictions on who gets to board a plane. Everyone in America who wants to will still be able to defend themselves but not necessarily by the weapons that mass murderers like to use. .

      • Flashy

        CZ…Common sense. A guy comes at you with a bat or a knife. What’s the ‘danger zone’….answer, where the knife or bat can reach. Pretty much a small area…and if confronted, fairly easy to remove oneself from that danger zone (at least avoid it long enough for someone to come help) and fair to middlin’ odds it’s non-lethal confrontation. A gun? Wide danger zone and pretty fair odds someone’s gonna get killed.

        the goal is limiting the access to easy guns by the bad guys. Registering each sale and being able to backtrack to the suppliers infringes not the right to own a gun and allows backtracking to suppliers.

        AKs….yes, rifle are rarely used in one on one crime…but are the favorite weapon for mass murders. Why is that? because they are an efficient, effective killing machine. Why does anyone need large capacity magazines? (I’d like someone to explain why anything over 10 is needed). The “look’ gives the madman that “I’m cool and i’m Clint Eastwood” self image…remember, they think they are some sort of hero in their own eyes…going out with style so to speak.

        Ban the manufacture and sale of the AK…and those currently owned? A collectors item. Require a colllector license. And ensure they are non working unless they are being used for target practice etc. if one is attacked in the home, i doubt the AK will be grabbed…it’d be the pistol for the close in quick defense.

        If I had my druthers…ban AKs from hunting as they are in no way a decent hunting rifle unless human is the prey. .

        So…those aren’t common sense?

      • JC

        Flashy says:

        January 4, 2013 at 10:12 am

        JC…let’s flush this out. I’m saying by being able to backtrack who supplies the bad guys with weapons will create a higher risk to suppliers to the bad guys. higher the risk, the more cost it will be for a bad guy to obtain a weapon. As well, if the bad guy stels the weapon, then it increases the likelihood of a) gun owners ensuring their weapons are more secure from theft; and b) having to steal a gun means higher risk to the bad guy.

        Now…how does that infringe the Right you claim under 2nd?

        As for AK’s….it’s a weapon for killing human beings. it has no other purpose. For the general populace, all it does is ensure availability of more firepower by the bad guys. it’s not a hunting rifle…and those that claim it is are lyin’…and they know they’re lyin’ … or they’re making themselves out to be fools and should be banned from hunting (if it take more than two shots…you shouldn’t be hunting. And yes, I have hunted in my youth)
        __________________________________________________________________________

        Ok,
        First, in what way are you proposing that the government be able to track weapons?
        A Registry perhaps? That doesn’t work for anything other than confiscating guns and history bears that out. This is an infringement of my right to privacy and security from search and seizure.

        Further to that, a registry in this age would be an electronic data base. Data bases can and will be hacked providing criminals with “shopping list” addresses.

        And if my guns are completely secure they are of little or no use to me should I need them very quickly. That’s what may be required for home defense, and any intrusion of my right to do so by a government that sees me as nothing more than tax revenue is an infringement of my rights to self defense and castle doctrine.

        As for AK’s…I’m sorry, but ALL weapons can be used to kill…anything.
        Just because an AK happens to scare you doesn’t make it any different than any other firearm out there. Besides, if I need to form a militia with others in my area to defend that part of America…I wouldn’t mind having some heavy firepower available.

        On a side note, if we all took gun ownership seriously and responsibly and combined that with a system of justice (we don’t have a system of justice), the crime rate would drop very quickly as criminals came to understand that they might be dropped in their tracks for committing a crime against people and property.

        You can’t have a “law” system that is basically a set of turnstile doors putting these guys back on the street and expect people to give up any of their right to defend themselves.

        You can’t have UN treaties that allow for foreign troops to be at arms on American soil and expect people to give up their semi-automatic rifles when the idea that they might need them gets a little more real every day.

        The anti-gun side of this useless argument has run it’s course and as always it’s reliance on making gun ownership an emotional issue has gotten it no where.

      • Vicki

        JC writes:
        “I can appreciate the sentiment of your post….
        The problem is that it is exactly that…”sentiment”.
        Reducing the availability either by cutting down supply, or by rasing the cost also hurts the average law abiding American and is thereofre an infringement on our rights.”

        Ummm… reducing the availability of (some) drugs and raising the cost does not seem to have ACTUALLY reduced the drugs and the cost is irrelevant as the criminal just steals the drugs or steals the money to buy the drugs.

        Would flashy please explain by what method “reducing” the availability of guns will have a different effect?

      • Flashy

        “It ain’t guns that are the problem. Rob”

        Rob…you have a bad guy or lunatic. You have a gun. Put them together and you have a bad guy/lunatic with a gun.

        There are three options.

        1. Do nothing, wait until they obtain a gun (easily done), use it..then we snuff them after a few crimes and scores dead (either case).

        2. Create a national database where anyone who has any mental treatment 9therpists etc) or reported by neighbors/relatives as being half loose .. then deny them buying a gun at the places required to conduct background checks. Problem is…about 50% of gun sales don’t require background checks and it is very easy to buy a gun no matter how looney or how crooked one is.

        3. Ban AKs from being sold and manufactured unless to a specially licensed collector. Ensure those now owned are not in working condition when stored, and register every sale allowing backtracking to suppliers.

        What other options are there?

        What burdens least the 2nd while injecting common sense into gun ownership ?

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “JC…let’s flush this out. I’m saying by being able to backtrack who supplies the bad guys with weapons will create a higher risk to suppliers to the bad guys.”

        We know who is supplying guns to the bad guys.
        http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/

        I don’t see them chasing themselves though.

        Flashy: “(the) higher the risk, the more cost it will be for a bad guy to obtain a weapon.”

        Nah they will just steal their weapons since you foolishly let the government keep it’s guns.
        http://www.theblaze.com/stories/27-rifles-stolen-from-california-military-base-atf-didnt-tell-public-for-two-weeks/

      • Vicki

        JC writes to Flashy:
        “First, in what way are you proposing that the government be able to track weapons?
        A Registry perhaps? That doesn’t work for anything other than confiscating guns and history bears that out.”

        Though with our governments ability to track weapons they probably would have trouble with confiscation too. :)
        http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/

        -JC: “This is an infringement of my right to privacy and security from search and seizure.”

        I don’t think they care. They aren’t in the registry cause either they are liberals who are afraid of inanimate objects thus would not have one to track or they are criminals who don’t bother with buying guns legally and have already shown how to loose the tracker (see fast and furious and the previous administrations operation).

      • JC

        Flashy says:

        January 4, 2013 at 11:47 am

        CZ…Common sense. A guy comes at you with a bat or a knife. What’s the ‘danger zone’….answer, where the knife or bat can reach. Pretty much a small area…and if confronted, fairly easy to remove oneself from that danger zone (at least avoid it long enough for someone to come help) and fair to middlin’ odds it’s non-lethal confrontation. A gun? Wide danger zone and pretty fair odds someone’s gonna get killed.
        _____________________________________________________________________

        Common Sense?

        A group of thugs comes at a 60 year old woman…is she supposed to ‘easily remove herself” from the danger zone? And if she draws a .45 and kills one or more of them, that’s a tragedy? I don’t think so…that’s justice served.

        Good Lord but you have a wild imagination Flashy.
        Your one size fits all analogies are a joke at best.

      • Frank Kahn

        As usual, Flashy, you state percentages in a form such as majority or vast majority. I would question the efficacy of such a statement about this issue.

        Statistically there is almost 50% of the nations households that posses at least 1 gun, we can assume that all of those believe in the right to bear arms.

        “Number of guns and gun owners in USA.
        Most estimates range between 39% and 50% of US households having at least one gun (that’s about 43-55 million households). The estimates for the number of privately owned guns range from 190 million to 300 million. Removed those that skew the stats for their own purposes the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of American households owning 260 million guns). ”

        http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_owners_are_there_in_the_United_States_of_America

        Since it mentions “households” we can also assume that there is more than 1 American citizen in each one.

        It is also not too extreme to believe that not all who believe in the right to bear arms, actually own a gun.

        Now, if just 5% of the “non gun owning” population believe in the right to bear arms, we dont have a majority either way. If just 4% are on our side, you dont have a VAST MAJORITY.

        I have yet to see you demonstrate what RIGHT you lose by our exercising of our RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. Freedom of a personal FEAR of GUNS is not a right. And, more importantly, any individual RIGHT cannot infringe on the RIGHTS of other individuals. You might suggest that you have the right to the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, and that encountering someone carrying a gun makes you UNHAPPY (BECAUSE OF YOUR IRRATIONAL FEAR), thereby infringing on your RIGHT.

        Well, I will agree to some extent, if the person carrying the GUN INTENTIONALLY does something that would cause you LEGITIMATE FEAR. Say that person drew his/her gun (brandishing a firearm) and pointed it at you (assault with a deadly weapon), then your RIGHTS have been infringed. However, the person mentioned has also committed two crimes (felonies I might add), and is subject to arrest and imprisonment (and loss of his/her right to bear arms). This scenario does not bring into question the crime committed by the GUN itself, because the GUN has not committed a crime, you might call it an innocent bystander.

        Now, in the a fore mentioned scenario, the person is threatening your life, this is grounds (in most states) for the use of DEADLY FORCE to stop him/her. Assume there is no POLICE present at the time. There is, however, an armed, law abiding, citizen 20 feet away who sees the threat to your life. This other person draws his/her weapon and confronts the criminal. A warning is given, the criminal does not disarm. The other citizen fires and disables/kills the criminal. One person (the criminal) infringed on your right to THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, another citizen (bearing arms) restored your RIGHT TO THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. I would assume that you are thankful to the savior of the moment. I am also sure that you wanted the criminal to not have his/her gun, but you are happy the other citizen had his/her gun.

        This is all reasonable and rational, the law abiding citizen was not insane to have his weapon, right? Well, let us describe the two weapons. The criminal was holding a .357 magnum revolver (not a gun you are against), and the other citizen was carrying a GLOK 9mm with a 33 round magazine (a weapon you would call an assault weapon). Will you now say that the citizen who saved your life is INSANE? Did the person carrying the GLOK 9mm pistol infringe on your RIGHTS?

        LETS GET REAL, FLASHY, THE FACT THAT YOU CALL OUR DESIRE TO KEEP OUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS FROM INFRINGEMENT INSANE DOES NOT MAKE IT INSANE. THERE ARE MANY VERY CLEAR AND PROVABLY RATIONAL AND SANE REASONS FOR OUR OWNING FIREARMS. AND, IF YOU HAVE NOT LET IT SINK IN YET, SEMI-AUTOMATIC VERSIONS OF WEAPONS THAT LOOK LIKE MILITARY WEAPONS ARE NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS. HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES IN SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS DOES NOT MAKE THEM ASSAULT WEAPONS.

        MURDER IS BOTH TRAGIC AND ILLEGAL IN EVERY STATE, EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. IT DOES NOT TAKE MASS MURDER OR THE KILLING OF LITTLE KIDS TO MAKE US SAD AND EVEN ANGRY. MASS MURDER OR THE KILLING OF LITTLE KIDS DOES NOT SUDDENLY MAKE IT THE GUNS FAULT.

        IF THE PRINCIPAL OF THE SANDY HOOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HAD POSSESSED A GUN, IT WOULD HAVE POSSIBLY PREVENTED THE DEATH OF 20 LITTLE KIDS. WE DONT NEED TO LOOK AT STATISTICS, OR (AS EDDIE47D WOULD SUGGEST) LOOK FOR A PAST SITUATION WHERE A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN STOPPED A MASS MURDER BY BEING ARMED. FIRST OF ALL, IF IT HAD BEEN PREVENTED THERE WOULD BE NO WAY TO SAY HOW MANY LIVES WERE SAVED. BUT SIMPLE LOGIC AND REASON WILL TELL YOU THAT THE PRINCIPAL WOULD HAVE HAD A MUCH BETTER CHANCE OF SURVIVAL IF SHE HAD BEEN ARMED.

        ALSO ON THE SUBJECT OF HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES. I HAD A S&W .45 AUTOMATIC PISTOL (SEMI-AUTOMATIC), WHICH HAD A 9 ROUND MAGAZINE. I OWNED 6 MAGAZINES, TOTAL CAPACITY 54 ROUNDS. IT TAKES ABOUT 1 TO 2 SECONDS TO EJECT AND RE-INSERT A NEW MAG INTO THAT WEAPON. FIRING 9 ROUNDS ABOUT 15 SECONDS SO WITHIN 3 MINUTES I HAVE FIRED 54 ROUNDS. IF MY AIM IS EVEN MARGINALLY ACCURATE 20 KIDS ARE DEAD IN 3 MINUTES WITHOUT A HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINE. HELL EVEN A REVOLVER CAN BE RE-LOADED FAST IF YOU HAVE A 6 ROUND AMMUNITION CLIP FOR INSERTING THEM INTO A FLIP OUT CHAMBER.

        If, by chance, you want to discuss this gun control issue with facts and rational thought, lets do it. You calling us insane is ignorant and non conducive of a reasonable discussion.

      • eddie47d

        Genghis Khan nice of you to blow off a little steam. Sorry I couldn’t be around earlier to entertain you. You seem to throw alot of IF’s around and for someone who “doesn’t like statistics” you sure through plenty around.

      • Robert Smith

        Flashy asks: “What burdens least the 2nd while injecting common sense into gun ownership ?”

        There is no gun law that could have stopped any of the rampage shootings of late. We have to admit that first. There are many laws on the books and not one stopped the horror. In a world where things like this go on: “the Taliban frequently target female schools with poison and acid attacks in an effort to close them down,” guns by themselves simply aren’t the problem.

        We need far better tracking of those who have mental illness. The VA shooter, the theater shooter, and the school shooter were all known to shrinks.

        We need a system where folks can get treatment for mental illness.

        That’s what we can do immediately.

        Eventually we are going to have to turn around the bullying, etc. that can impact kids in school. That seems to have been a key factor in Colembine. Most bullying acts out such that a, “you are inferior to me,” projection occurs.

        How many times around here have you seen proclamations of demonetization of others? One can talk about violence in video games and on TV, but when they hear some of the stuff we’ve seen on this forum at home…

        Rob

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “Rob…you have a bad guy or lunatic. You have a gun. Put them together and you have a bad guy/lunatic with a gun.

        There are three options.

        1. Do nothing, wait until they obtain a gun (easily done), use it..then we snuff them after a few crimes and scores dead (either case).”

        Option one is in error.
        The correct option is: The lunatic with a gun is neutralized in his very first attempt. few crimes, few or none dead.
        http://fishgame.com/deblog.php?p=902#.UOd173fhfuw

        Corrected option 1 has the least burden on the 2nd amendment.

        NO impact on the rights of others including the right to survive by not being placed in a gun-free zone as is done to our kids every day.

      • JUKEBOX

        I am glad that Flashy realizes that the insanity of the Obama administration has to end. I wonder if he realizes how many of the Obama myrmidons have quoted Mao, and all of the killer dictators who confiscated all of the guns in their countries, saying that they believe the same philosophy as these dead nut cases.

      • CZ52

        ” There are 34,593 gun deaths per year and eleven thousand of those are are suicides.”

        Once again you lie eddie. If you take the 11,000 from 34,593 you have 24,593 gun homicides. The FBI uniform crime report shows 12,644 TOTAL homicides for 2011. In 2010 the total homicides by all methods was 13,164. Even the highest year listed (2007) shows 14916 TOTAL homicides. All are far below your 34,593 figure.

      • CZ52

        “CZ…Common sense. A guy comes at you with a bat or a knife. What’s the ‘danger zone’….answer, where the knife or bat can reach. Pretty much a small area…and if confronted, fairly easy to remove oneself from that danger zone (at least avoid it long enough for someone to come help) and fair to middlin’ odds it’s non-lethal confrontation.”

        Wrong. I and many others my age and older can no longer move quickly and speedily because of joint damage especially in our knees.

        ” AKs….yes, rifle are rarely used in one on one crime…but are the favorite weapon for mass murders.”

        Moot point because they are so rarely used for ANY type of crime.

        “If I had my druthers…ban AKs from hunting as they are in no way a decent hunting rifle unless human is the prey. .”

        If it is accurate enough to kill a human it is certainly accurate enough to kill a deer. If you do not believe it ask the many thousands of deer that have been killed by civilian legal AKs.

      • eddie47d

        CZ52: I won’t call you a liar like you did to me but I was referring to gun deaths and you are talking about homicides. Not all gun deaths are homicides! In 2000 75,684 people where injured in All shootings. That’s a number few want to talk about which means there is much more violence with weapons than just reporting gun deaths. In 2007 there were 31,224 gun deaths and 12,632 of those were homicides. In 2010 there were 31,347 gun deaths. So your homicide number isn’t wrong but that isn’t the total in gun deaths.

      • http://www.paltalk.comPatrioticconservativeamericans Charles O. McVey Sr. SFC E7 US Army (Retired)

        Up until 1995 when Congress enacted the “Gun Free Zone” statute this nation had never experienced a mass shooting at a School or a Shopping Mall. Since 1995 these have became a target rich environment for Criminal and lunatics. Eliminate the “Gun Free Zone” statutes in every state and see how fast the mass killings at schools and shopping malls, and movie theaters come to an end. Criminals and in some instances lunatics fear coming upon an intended victim who may be armed. The original Amendment as written by James Madison and submitted to the first session of the first congress on June 8 1789 said: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; al well regulated and armed militia being the best security of a free nation.” Please note that the Right of the People came first. The Supreme Court chose to look at the original intent of the framers, in this case James Madison, for a clear understanding of just what the men who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights meant So understand that The Right of the People to keep and bear arms is the true purpose and intent of the 2d Amendment..

      • JC

        Flashy says:
        January 4, 2013 at 10:12 am
        JC…let’s flush this out.
        _____________________________________________________________________

        Still waiting…apparently you have nothing to respond with….

      • Vicki

        JC says:
        “Flashy says:
        January 4, 2013 at 10:12 am
        JC…let’s flush this out.
        _____________________________________________________________________

        Still waiting…apparently you have nothing to respond with….”

        I suspect you are not holding your breath for flashy to respond. He hasn’t even responded to this simple question I asked him a day or so ago.

        http://personalliberty.com/2013/01/01/obama-opens-fire/#comment-797588

  • Jeff

    Make note that the 2nd amendment doesn’t grant the right to arm ourselves, it protects a right they perceived as being a natural right of man. Law abiding citizens should not have to ask permission of the government for the privilege of exercising their rights and should not have to show a need to exercise that right.

    • czman75

      Allow me to correct your statement: “it protects a right they KNOW is a natural right of man”.

    • eddie47d

      The right to protect ones self is a natural right without a doubt with or without the Second Amendment. That’s a fairly easy concept to understand although there can be restrictions on everything in life without taking away your basic need to defend yourself or even to feed yourself.

      • JC

        No there can’t be restrictions. The governments job is to protect out rights…not define or dictate them…on any level.

      • GRusling

        There can be no restriction, imposed by government, on a RIGHT since to do so would change it from a right into a PRIVILEGE! Our government already does a PLETHORA of things it is nowhere granted ANY authority to do, which is why I plan on keeping my guns handy and loaded at all times.

        Try reading and understanding the ENTIRE constitution rather just parts and pieces of it, and you’ll discover that we should have, long ago, taken up arms and marched on our seats of government in all 50 states plus Washington DC to remove the snakes and other slimy creeping things residing there.

        Invoke the 10th Amendment, enforce it, and Washington DC would shrink back to a small village, while federal politicians would have nothing at all to there for ten months out of every year…

      • Flashy

        “There can be no restriction, imposed by government, on a RIGHT” <—-GRusling

        you are so wrong. pick any of the Rights in the Constitution (bet you have no clue how many are recognized in the Bill of Rights. Safe bet on my part from reading your post), every one of them carries a burden upon it. Usually when it conflicts with another Right.

        As far as your comment concerning the Constitution….instead of just reading it and coming up with some fantasized interpretation….try understanding it.

      • eddie47d

        Our Founding Fathers were the government of the day so the government did and can set up laws. They defined and dictated what we think and believe as every government official since then has done.

      • momo

        Flashy says: “you are so wrong. pick any of the Rights in the Constitution (bet you have no clue how many are recognized in the Bill of Rights. Safe bet on my part from reading your post), ”

        For your edification the Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which this administration and the previous one seem hell bent on getting rid of. And quit with your frigging condescending attitude you arrogant twit.

      • rocketride

        As are all of those rights mentioned in those first ten pesky amendments.

      • Flashy

        Momo…didn’t know how many eh? LOL …

        Which is the hilarious part of every conversation where you guys start mouthing off on the Constitution. you have no frippin’ clue as to what it means nor what it says. none. hilarious…

      • momo

        Flashman, your reading comprehension leaves alot to be desired.

      • JC

        Flashy says:

        January 4, 2013 at 10:30 am

        “There can be no restriction, imposed by government, on a RIGHT” <—-GRusling

        you are so wrong. pick any of the Rights in the Constitution (bet you have no clue how many are recognized in the Bill of Rights.
        ________________________________________________________________

        Sorry, my statement stands. Yours doesn't.
        My Rights are MINE and not for the government to determine. Period!
        The Bill of Rights is an enshrinement of rights….not a "granting" of rights.

      • Flashy

        “My Rights are MINE and not for the government to determine. Period!” JC

        OK..and when your “Right” pushes against mine? Just as the exercise cannot wipe out your Right, neither can yours. Both have to bear a burden to allow the other to exist.

        The 2nd is the ONLY right to be explained/qualified in the language (” being necessary to the security of a free State”). The other Rights explicitly mentioned have no quaifications and yet are burdened to some extent.

        The 2nd is burdened and the burden is accepted. there are exceptions for time, place, manner, groups, etc. now..what do you suppose is the overall Right that the 2nd takes second place to?

        Think it through…

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “The right to protect ones self is a natural right without a doubt with or without the Second Amendment.”

        True statement. Attempting to lull the reader into believing that eddie47d supports your rights.

        eddie47d: “That’s a fairly easy concept to understand although there can be restrictions on everything in life without taking away your basic need to defend yourself or even to feed yourself.”

        True but overly broad statement designed to make you believe that eddie47d supports your rights. Now like “hope and change” you have to ask eddie what restrictions he had in mind. If you pose examples to him he will refuse to answer.
        http://personalliberty.com/2013/01/03/anti-gun-newspaper-hires-armed-security/#comment-799706

        For instance if he were to put you in a cell and provided you with food and water he will not have taken away your basic need to defend yourself or even to feed yourself.

        Let’s try putting you out in the wild. You can defend yourself. You can even feed yourself.
        Let’s put you in New York Central Park at 1:33 am. You can defend yourself. You can even feed yourself.

        Now ask eddie if you can carry a rifle that he or flashy claims is the weapon of choice for mass murderers and he will promptly say no.

        So according to eddie you DO have the right but you can’t have the tools.
        Such a nice guy.

      • JC

        Flashy says:

        January 4, 2013 at 1:29 pm

        “My Rights are MINE and not for the government to determine. Period!” JC

        OK..and when your “Right” pushes against mine? Just as the exercise cannot wipe out your Right, neither can yours. Both have to bear a burden to allow the other to exist.
        _________________________________________________________________________

        Rights are individual and pertain to each individual.
        As a Constitutional Libertarian I recognize this and respect and defend the rights of
        others as I expect them to respect and defend mine.

        That is not a “burden”, it is coexistence.

      • Vicki

        Flashy has yet to answer a very simple question on rights. How does Momo carrying a gun outside her home affect his rights and which ones? Bonus points for describing the effect.

        Flashy has not the guts to answer. Maybe Eddy47d will volunteer to answer for him. Eddie does claim to be willing to answer (some) questions.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        ” They defined and dictated what we think and believe as every government official since then has done.”

        They no more dictated what people think and believe than you do. No government official has ever successfully dictated what people think and believe. That you would even try to make such a claim would ruin your credibility if you had any.

      • eddie47d

        Why do you and others bother to quote what our Founding Fathers say if they don’t enfluence your thinking Vickie? Those politicians absolutely dictate your thinking! Even today every time a politician blows his nose or passes a bill you jump right on it and there again they enfluence your thinking.

      • JC

        eddie47d says:
        January 5, 2013 at 8:12 am
        Why do you and others bother to quote what our Founding Fathers say if they don’t enfluence your thinking Vickie? Those politicians absolutely dictate your thinking! Even today every time a politician blows his nose or passes a bill you jump right on it and there again they enfluence your thinking.
        ______________________________________________________________________

        Absolutely “everything” of which you become aware “influences” your thinking…

        Ergo: Another irrelevant statement from another irrelevant Liberal.

  • John W. Howard

    Mr Sam Rolley I posted a petition on the White House Petition site that were charges against any politician who brought gun control to the congress or senate. It had to do with invasion and the reason no nation past the war of 1812 has tried to invade the US. We call this the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Any politician trying to disarm the common citizen of the US is commiting TREASON by weakening our defenses. This is what I wrote.

    “To charges any official or politician who brings gun control to the congress or senate on the grounds of treason.
    Under Article III Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution by definition gun control would weaken the United States of America to invasion potentially. While not an enemy China does pose a potential, they were the first nation to call for strict gun control.

    December 15, 2012, 11:31 pm

    China Calls for ‘No Delay’ on Gun Controls in U.S.

    By MARK MCDONALD

    HONG KONG — The state news agency in China, the official voice of the government, has called for the United States to quickly adopt stricter gun controls in the aftermath of the shooting rampage in Connecticut that left 28 people dead, including 20 schoolchildren.

    Any call for gun control would be criminally giving aid and comfort to any potential enemy. and a violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution.”

    Created: Jan 01, 2013
    Issues: Civil Rights and Liberties, Firearms, Homeland Security and Disaster Relief

    You can sign the petition at

    URL: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/charges-any-official-or-politician-who-brings-gun-control-congress-or-senate-grounds-treason/gsQyfMCW

    • JustMe

      Mr. Howard, you are incorrect. This nation has been invaded and territory captured and held for a time. The Japanese invaded and held territory in Alaska during WWII.

      The territory they took was sparsely populated, but almost all the residents were armed. Only through a massive armed campaign did we evict the invaders.

      • John W. Howard

        Just Me our nation waas not invaded. A territory of the United States was invaded not the nation. Now infiltration has been continual from the 1920′s by the Soviets, Germans, Japanese, Chinese, etc….. which brings us to today. Our politicians seem to be destroying our constitutional Republic.

        Now to what your referring to is Alaska which did not become a state till January 3, 1959, long after World War 2. So what I wrote is true.

        “The Alaska Statehood Act was signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on July 7, 1958, allowing Alaska to become the 49th U.S. state on January 3, 1959.”

        Now as to the armed people have you ever heard of resistence fighters?? Those people didn’t sit on there asses and watch football. Resistence needs weapons to use. The Second Amendment!!!

        John W Howard

    • http://dwfields.com D. Fields

      Our land has been invaded far more times than zero since the war of 1812 and in one case more Americans were killed by other Americans than any war before or since. All you have to do is look at other countries where gun ownership is totally unrestricted and you see conditions far worse than what we now enjoy here in the States both in their lawlessness and continuing internal strife. We were there ourselves as recently as 100 years ago–only three generations.

      • John

        What are you talking about? The War of Northern Aggression was fought “in house”. Switzerland is a good example of no gun control, crime rate near zero, everybody is required by law to own a machine gun. They have a yearly national holiday called schutzfest where everybody goes to the rifle range and re-qualifies. Name one country where all firearms are legal where the people also live in chaos.

      • eddie47d

        John; Not necessarily true! Only Swiss citizens ages 18-30 are required to have assault weapons in their home and they are strictly for National Defense. Naturally they are allowed to train each year because as our Revolutionary Patriots they are the standing army for their country. We don’t have that reasoning today. Besides all weapons in Switzerland are registered with the Swiss government as is the ammunition.When their duty is over those citizen have to turn those weapons in or if they are kept they remain registered. Weapons are legal in Afghanistan and they are beyond chaotic.(even before the US invasion). Strictly as a side note just yesterday a 33 year old Swiss citizen went on a rampage by using his “retired” military weapon. Killed 3 and wounded two in the city of Daillon. All those armed citizens didn’t stop him and the police were called and wounded him.

      • Steve E

        D. Fields, If you don’t believe in the Constitution, then please leave the country. We don’t need people like you here.

      • eddie47d

        Actually Steve E he may love and respect it more than you do! Just from a different perspective.

      • Flashy

        “D. Fields, If you don’t believe in the Constitution, then please leave the country. We don’t need people like you here.” Steve E

        LOL…this from a guy who couldn’t quote correctly from the Constitution yesterday. LOL

      • Vicki

        D. Fields
        “All you have to do is look at other countries where gun ownership is totally unrestricted and you see conditions far worse than what we now enjoy here in the States both in their lawlessness and continuing internal strife.”

        Proof by bald assertion. Name the countries. For amusement just 1 will do.
        Here is a site that might help you find your example http://www.gunpolicy.org/

      • eddie47d

        That would be Afghanistan!

  • WhiteFalcon

    Our current muslim in chief is trying to push us into a fascist state. Muslims were supportive of Hitler during WWII and even now they still are. Ovomit is a muslim. He has very little black blood. He is almost 1/2 Arab, not African black. Negroes in this country think he is our first black president, but our first Arab president is closer to the truth. He is also our first muslim president. Had Romney been elected, we would already be on our way out of this economic mess, but since our current idiot in chief was re elected, we will continue to get worse and worse until we get someone in place that is interested in the United States of America. Ovomit is not, and neither is the entire Commieonazicrat party.

    • WhiteFalcon

      The commieonazicrats want to disarm the American population so they can get total control over the people and we will not be able to resist. This is very obvious. As was brought out above, it is governments that are responsible for the murdering of hondreds of millions of people, not private citizens. This current Government wants to join past and present governments in the mass murdering of millions of people, just like Hitler, Stalin and others that followed him, Mao, Idi Amin, Pot Pol, and the list goes on and on. Until now the United States of America has not been among those tyrants, but Ovomit wants to be, and taking our means to defend ourselves away from us is a huge step in that direction. Everyone must bombard your Congressmen and Senators with communication opposing what Feinstine, a good nazi name, is trying to do. They must know that they can and will be replaced.

      • http://dwfields.com D. Fields

        Ok, you’ve expressed your opinion. Now, can you please tell me what evidence you have that supports any of it? What evidence do you have that Obama is or ever was Muslim? What evidence do you have that Obama want to turn the US into a World Dictatorship? What evidence do you have that he wants to make our country Facist (far right) or Communist (far left)?

        Public records have demonstrated that Obama has attended Christian churches for at least 30 of his 50 years.
        Public records have demonstrated that Obama has been Centrist in political leanings, resisting both extremes.
        Public records have demonstrated that not once in his administration has Obama promoted any form of gun control and even after Newtown clearly stated that knee-jerk reactions would NOT resolve the real issue of the wrong people getting their hands on too-powerful weapons.

        Here’s the problem: Banning guns will NOT prevent these kinds of assaults; a clear example of this is the fact that a man wielding nothing more than a knife assaulted a school in China, injuring several children. What we don’t know is if he managed to kill any of them. I am certain Obama is quite aware of this and is working more towards how to keep guns out of the hands of the IRRESPONSIBLE, not out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

        Just because YOU hate Obama doesn’t mean he’s done or promotes any of the things you claim.

      • http://www.facebook.com/thomas.sherman.589 tgsherman

        What happens when our guns are gone? Our military will be left overseas in foreign countries & Obama’s Secret Army of Brown coats along with the Drug Cartels of Mexico will walk across our Southern Border completely armed with no resistance. They can’t stop them now at the border & I know that fence won’t slow them down either!

      • rocketride

        @ DFields (or should I say DFective?)

        There you go with the old Stalinist saw that Fascists are somehow “right wing”. If by “right wing”, you mean “anti-socialist”, then you and everyone who equates the two are just plain wrong. “Nazi” is the mercifully shortened version of the name of the “National SOCIALIST German Workers’ Party” (to use the English translation) that ran Germany into the ground. The early fascists explicitly presented their system as a kind of “Marxism 2.0″. (And this country’s Wilson administration was its first real test – complete with a corps of thugs loyal to the supreme leader.)

        Those of us who know our history and understand it frankly have trouble keeping a straight face when trying to deal with the likes of yourself as if you were as intelligent and/or well informed as you think you are.

      • Vicki

        rocketride says:
        “@ DFields

        There you go with the old Stalinist saw that Fascists are somehow “right wing”. ”

        That is a common tactic used intentionally to distract and deceive. Here is the proper paradigm to discuss. It covers the important part of the political spectrum.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

      • Flashy

        “That is a common tactic used intentionally to distract and deceive. ” <— Vicki

        no…it's reality and recognized political theory. one example which is widely recognized, and has been for decades, is the Peterson Test…

        Only of late in an effort to divert being labeled 'extremist' has the far Right used "paradigm' as a new catch word/description.

        Doesn't matter what term is used…you can label it anything you want, it won't change science and it won't change what it is. Far right extremism….

      • eddie47d

        If you knew you history Rocketride you would know that Stalin was an extreme communist or extreme left and Hitler was an extreme fascist or extreme right. Stalin was against capitalism but more to the point he didn’t like the way the old Czars ran things. The Czars were more a power of prestige rather than bringing much capitalism to Russia. Hitler on the other hand used capitalism all over Europe to extend his goals and build his empire. He also held far right views in exterminating gays,Jehovah Witnesses,Jews,Catholics,union workers and the old true socialists. Don’t be fooled by the socialist name because he was anything but.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “If you knew you history Rocketride you would know that Stalin was an extreme communist or extreme left and Hitler was an extreme fascist or extreme right. ”

        If eddie where to consider following his own sage advice he would know that what is relevant is the amount of government power.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

      • eddie47d

        You have brought up that video several times Vickie and I’ll guarantee you it is not God given just like most information on the Internet. You do hear the latest that Obama is an “official fascist” now. Nothing more than one side throwing labels around to demonize the other side!

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        ““That is a common tactic used intentionally to distract and deceive. ” <— Vicki

        no…it's reality and recognized political theory. one example which is widely recognized, and has been for decades, is the Peterson Test…"

        Which is so widely recognized that it doesn't appear on google (first few pages) when you search for

        "Peterson test" nor " "Peterson test" "

        The 2nd form DID find tests. A whole bunch of them. Often called ACT and SAT The website has pages for both.
        http://www.petersons.com/

        Who knows. Maybe somewhere in there is Flashy's "widely recognized Peterson Test".

        Left vs right is a distraction from what is really important.
        The important (political) scale (Flashy didn't seem to like paradigm) is 100%-limited-0% government as explained in the video linked above. Linked again here so you don't have to search for it.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

        With 100% government power it matters not if the "left" nor the "right" nor the "moderate" is running the government. 100% government is a dictatorship.
        __________________
        3a : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique
        b : a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated
        __________________
        Websters Dictionary.

      • John R. Howell

        The idea that left is communist and right is fascist is misleading because there is no place to put anarchyon that scale. A better scale is to put anarchy (no government) on one end, and total government on the other end. Examples of total government are communism, Nazism, fascism, absolute monarchy, and Pharoism. Constitutional republics with limited powers are in between. John R. Howell

      • Chester

        I have seen some of the statistics on Australia’s crime rate since disarmament, and they are NOT nice, at all. Seems like a lot more citizens are being smacked with billies or stuck with shivs, with far more permanent damage than having a gun aimed at them, and usually, no way to fight back. Actually, is very hard to resist when you are already down on the pavement and unconscious from being smacked in the back of the head with a sap.

      • marcjeric32

        Nobody here mentions the role of the ACLU in “liberating” the insane from their asylums.

      • k

        I borrowed this from someone who posted as an email. Hope this helps explain.

        ——————————————————————————–

        The Origin of Left and Right

        I have often wondered why it is that Conservatives are called the “right”
        and Liberals are called the “left.” By chance I stumbled upon this verse in the Bible:

        “The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
        but the heart of the fool to the left.”
        Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

        Thus sayeth the Lord. Amen.

        Can’t get any simpler than that.

        Spelling Lesson

        The last four letters in American……….I Can
        The last four letters in Republican…….I Can
        The last four letters in Democrats………Rats

        • rocketride

          Actually, as cool as the Ecclesiastes reference is, the term “Left Wing” referred to where the more “hair-on-fire” members of the French Constituent Assembly sat in a group– in the left wing of the concert hall the assembly met in. “Right Wing” came about later in simple counterpoint to their ideological opponents.

      • http://GOOGLE PERRY HOLMES

        I you are right the fed. gov. is up to NO GOOD THE LAWMAKERS ARE INTO THIS OVER THERE HEADS AND CAN NOT STOP IT SO THAT NOW THEY ARE TRYING TO HIDE WHAT THEY HAVE DONE.SOME OF THE LONG TERM MEMBERS FORGET THEY ARE THE CAUSE OF OUR COUNTRYS MONEY PROBLEMS NOW THEY WANT THE POOR PEOPLE TO BAIL THEM OUT WE DIDN’T CAUSE THEM TO OVER SPEND

      • mark

        Actually, NAZI is a contraction of Nationalist ZIONIST party not Socialist. Zionism is another form of socialism as well!

      • Harvey Jones

        My uncle moved from Germany to America before ww11 his father brought a trunk of German marks with them thinking they would be worth something. In those days it took a basket full to purchase a loaf of bread.

      • chris

        Please post this on your website we need to get the word out. I know this has nothing to do with the gun control laws, sorry, but I feel this important for all of us to know. Thank you.

        This, like many things, is just not the way it is supposed to be. Children of congress members do not have to pay back their college student loans. How nice! Monday on Fox news they learned that the staffers of Congress family members are exempt from having to pay back student loans.

        This will get national attention if other news networks will broadcast it. When you add this to the below, just where will all of it stop? . Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.

        This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on. This is an idea that we should address.

        For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws.

        The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform… in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn’t seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don’t care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

        If each person that receives this will forward it on to 20 people, in three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.

        Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States .

    • eddie47d

      [comment has been edited] W.F. is about as bad Tgsherman in his implying our Border Patrol is worthless. Don’t take every little incident as a “invasion” besides military personal from Ft Hood are right there on the border if there was a real invasion.

      • momo

        Fort Hood is in central Texas, north of Austin, its not on the border.

      • Vicki

        About that “non-invasion”
        http://borderinvasionpics.com/

      • eddie47d

        You are correct MOMO I should have said Ft Bliss although Ft Hood is fairly close.

      • JC

        Yeah right eddie,
        A US national park on the Mex / Az. border has all but been closed to Americans as being too dangerous for “Americans”. Young girls being gang raped by some of our friendly neighbors to the south. Human trafficking, drug trafficking. The Border Patrol is doing just swell…

      • eddie47d

        JC: Are you going to stop your neighbor from raping someone? I doubt it because you can’t be everywhere at the same time either.

      • JC

        eddie47d says:
        January 5, 2013 at 8:21 am
        JC: Are you going to stop your neighbor from raping someone? I doubt it because you can’t be everywhere at the same time either.
        ____________________________________________________________________

        Are ya Nuts?

        Is that supposed to be some sort of twisted logic that would stand any kind of a test?
        First of all your statement isn’t even related to my Border Patrol comment, then you seem to allude that I should be following my neighbor around to stop him from committing a crime? Do you nut jobs ever think in terms of genuine everyday human behavior?

        So anyway, I guess the connection is supposed to be that the Border Patrol can’t be
        everywhere at once?

        Hmmm, let’s examine some facts….
        First of all, you are correct in that no one individual or even a large well organized group can be “everywhere at once”. Goes without saying and a 7 year old could have put that one together.

        Second, let’s pinpoint the idea that the Border Patrol, ICE, the DHS, the FBI and all the other police agencies out there are completely and utterly aware of the exact routes used by smugglers and other invaders … and are doing no more than putting on a good show of guarding the border. It’s a sick joke and if I lived along that border I would want every member of my family trained and armed with high caliber semi-automatics if and when they need them.

        And yes, I would save ANY woman from being raped given the circumstances.
        I would stop an armed robbery in progress given the circumstances.
        I would stop a nut case with a semi-auto at risk to my own life, given the circumstances.
        It’s called civic duty and it’s much easier to administer when armed.

        There are 3 kinds of crime that deserve the death penalty…no, make that 4…

        Murder
        Child Molestation
        Rape
        Treason

        After a speedy first class trial of course, ;-)

    • JUKEBOX

      I would like to see how long Eddie & Flashy would survive on the street in Rahm & Barak’s Chicago without any form of protection, and how they would convince the illegal gun owners that they should be nice and turn their guns in to the police.

      • eddie47d

        Jukebox! Jukebox! JUKEBOX! Can YOU hear me now??? Who says we don’t have protection? Who says we don’t support your right to defend yourself. I have stated that dozens of times! Now do you get it or anyone else that brings up that same ignorant BS!!!

      • phideaux

        ” Who says we don’t support your right to defend yourself. I have stated that dozens of times!”

        Words eddie simply words. You and the rest of “we” give lip service to that right while constantly calling for ever more restrictive gun regulations on the law abiding gun owner.

      • APN

        Eddidumbo……I’ve read your posts and you seem to be hung up on “Semi-automatic” weapons correct? Let’s see now, how many shots did Oswald get off in the assassination of President Kennedy? How many rounds and how long did it take him to get them capped off? VERY ACCCURATELY if I might add.

        He used a bolt action just in case you are too stupid to know the difference. And by the way, Kennedy is still JUST AS DEAD now as he was when that 1st bullet struck his head.

        You see DUMBO, people who can really shoot a weapon, can shoot a bolt action VERY quickly and VERY accurately. They can also modify a bolt gun with a VERY HIGH CAPACITY magazine. It’s liberal idiots like you that have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Unfortunately however, many of the same progressive IDIOTS are in power in Washington.

        So let us all simpletons get this straight, all the law abiding deer hunters that own a Remington 7400 or the older model 742 semi-automatic DEER RIFLE should be banned from owning one? How about semi-automatic shotguns??? I guess you in all your omnipotence are going to require we hunters to use a PUMP SHOTGUN or a PUMP RIFLE or BOLT ACTION rifle??? Do you understand how quickly a PUMP shotgun can be fired off or a bolt action?

        Has it every occured to you progressive FOOLS that the problem may be something other than a legal citizen owning a gun ????? DUH BUDDY???!! Too hard for ya?????
        SHUCKS!!!!

        Have you ever stopped to think it may have something to do with the lack of morals and values that you progressive perverts have forced on America? You think maybe it has anything to do with violent Video games, Hollywood, dope smoking, broken families and the lack of GOD in our society? How about the lack of FATHERS in the family?

        Where was this kid’s dad who killed all those innocent children? DUH, let me see here, broken family,DUH DUH DUH, says EDDIDUH, wonder if that had anything to do with it????? What kind of negative perverted influences did this kid have placed on him through the aforesaid video games and DUMB Hollywood movies??? DUH, EDDIEDUH says, I don;t know man, Duh, Duh, Duh, I just want them “Semi-automatic” weapons banned.

        Boy that’ll fix it Eddidum!

        In closing, I would call you DUMB but that would be an compliment Eddie. STUPID is the only word that I can come up with that fits you and most of the pervert progressives in Washington.

        By the way, any gun law passed is unconstitutional based upon the 2nd Amendment so pass all the laws you want, it will be about as effective as the current drug and alcohol laws. Hope you have a lot of jail cells for all the law abiding citizens and the balls to put them there, El Stupido!

  • By George

    The power of suggestion is so manifest in our society, especially in advertising, and so successful in its impact, that liberals use it constantly to advance their agenda. As an example, it has not a secret that the animated heros in computer war games, even some of the new movies coming out now, face corporate and capitalistic villains that are spoiling the sacred mother earth, instead of government villains who are actually enslaving the people. This fits right in with the Progressive agenda. Government is good and therefore only government should have guns to protects itself; and capitalism is bad and so, therefore anybody with is gun is automatically bad as well. The only problem they face now is the 2nd amendment. With it, government cannot succeed with its enslavement program. The inmates are running the institution now

    Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/articles/a-view-of-the-newtown-tragedy/#ixzz2H17XNWMh

    • http://dwfields.com D. Fields

      Pardon me but… Can you tell me factually WHO in our government is saying, “Only government should have guns”?

      I have yet to hear that from either side.

      • Flashy

        DF…careful. you keep expressing common sense on this site and you’ll soon be called every name in the book, claimed to be a paid plant to spread subversive material or claimed you are me posting under another name. likely all three.

        You’ll hit it big time when DaveH starts denigrating you constantly and posting links to Mises … links to material he’s never read but it has catchy title.

      • John

        You need only look at your wonderful Dianne Feinstein and her interview from twenty five years ago where she says she wants all the weapons turned in. No guns for the people, only for the ruling class.

      • eddie47d

        John: She never said that! “the people can’t have guns only the ruling class”. By George: There are many villains in modern movies even Orks but all good guys want to get rid of the bad guys. If Corporate polluters want to keep polluting and slowly destroying other peoples lives then they are a villain. If they do good then they will be portrayed as the good guy. By the way I don’t like the violence in most movies and think its far worse in video games these days.

      • John

        Eddie, she said she wanted all the guns taken from the populace. She has a license to carry a concealed weapon. I’d call her a hypocrit and part of the ruling class as we can’t vote her ass out of office.

      • eddie47d

        Okay John if that is true then there are also politicians who support anyone having a weapon even terrorists. I think they should be voted out of office so there are extreme views from lots of politicians

      • JUKEBOX

        That woman in Obama’s administration who said that she admired Mao, and quoted him.

  • mark

    This argument that guns keep up safe from possible domestic tyrants who will slaughter tens of millions of our own people once they seize power is totally ludicrous and ahistorical. The U.S. has never had a political dictatorship in its history and never will and this has zero to do with the 2nd Amendement but lots to do with our entire constitutional system of which the 2nd Amendment is a very small and largely irrelevant part. Also these ridiculous allusions to anti-gun laws in Germany, Russia, and China, nations that had very tiny gun ownership rates historically, virtually no private citizens owned guns in these societies, and where the state security forces had all the power and no compunction about taking on the tiny handful of gun owners. The fact that ruthless dictators came to power in Russia, China, and Germany had a huge amount to do with the fact that none of these countries had any democratic traditions with a long history of respect for free elections, individual rights, and personal freedoms – and virtually nothing to do with private citizens owning or not owning guns.

    And then the final ridiculous arguments that Mr. Rolley makes is that guns were outlawed in China in 1935. Of course the Communist government of China did not come to power until 1949, fourteen years later and lack of private gun ownership was a total non-factor here as well compared to the dictatorial, U.S.-backed, and totally corrupt Nationalist government of Jiang Jieshi (Chiang Kai-Shek) who failed to supply the Chinese people with any reasonable program of reform, landlord-free farming, clean government, or an end to foreign domination and the drug/prostitution trade. That is why the Nationalist lost to the Communists not because individual Chinese citizens didn’t own guns. They never had for centuries – and ironically the tiny few among the Chinese who did own guns mostly fought on the side of the Communists.

    Mr. Rolley also says that gun control legislation was enacted in 1938 actually a mild gun act designed to restrict guns to law abiding citizens was passed in 1928 five years before Hitler’s govenment gained power. German anger and frustration over the Great Depression, the 1919 Versailles treaty, earlier runaway inflation, anti-semitism plus the lack of democratic rights and traditions were the overwhelming reasons that the Nazis came to power as anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge knows – not some inconsequential gun law passed five years before Hitler even came to power.

    • John W. Howard

      “The U.S. has never had a political dictatorship in its history and never will ”
      Abe Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Regan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama to name just a few. President Kennedy was the last to NOT be a dictator, almost but not.

      John W. Howard

      • mark

        The gentlemen you mention were all constitutionally elected to the presidency and in several cases reelected as well. Certainly a few of them committed constitutional violations. Nixon was forced resign over his abuses of power. None of them exercised the kind of dictatorial power that Stalin, Hitler, and Mao did murdering tens of millions of their own citizens and just as importantly cancelling all elections, closing down places of worship, shutting down all private newspapers and media outlets, outlawing all opposition political parties, forbidding the right to assembly, and in the case of Mao and Stalin abolishing all private property. None of the presidents you call dictators, John, did any of these things which all dictators commonly commit.

        • John W. Howard

          Ok Obama my example NDAA, FISA, the recent tax deal. Shall I continue.

          John W Howard

        • John W. Howard

          btw Hitler was elected, as was Stalin

          John W Howard

      • mark

        John, FISA was passed in 2008 under President Bush/Cheney not President Obama. Bush/Cheney was also responsible for the Patriot Act and the “extraordinary renditions,” “enhanced interrogations” i.e. torture at Guantanamo and numerous other sites. But as bad as those guys were they don’t measure up in any manner with living under a real dictatorship: Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Pinochet, the Guatemalan, Argentine, or Brazilian generals, Saddam Hussein, the Ayatollah Khomeni. These guys make the American presidents that you call dictators look like french poodles, boy scouts, Pee Wee Hermans. There are no opposition websites, not to mention oppostion parties or political movements with those guys. Their security forces hunt down your email address, torture and kill you and your entire familiy and then hang your bloody, rotting bodies outside of your home for several weeks as an example. That’s a political dictatorship. Ask the people of Chile, Argentina,Guatemala, the Congo, El Salvador, Paraguay, Kampuchea. These folks lived under real dictatorships – and their one desperate hope and dream was to escape to the United States as they did in the thousands, a country you call a dictatorship just like the ones they fled from! But those who have actually lived under a real dictatorship know better. They are not just on-line, libertarian paranoids. These are people who have actually lived this reality and understand what a true dictatorship is. Everyday they thank God that today they live here in the United States, a nation whose government so many posters on this website despise.

        • John W. Howard

          Mark

          Property tax make any property you own the governments. Just try not paying property tax. Your property is sold for the tax.

          Can you be a drunk in this country with out going to jail??? No it’s a mental illiness.

          As far as voteing you have to be a Democript or a Rebloodlican and you get the same results. A politician who does what his biggest contributer says, not what the people sent him to do.

          Free speech today does not exist.

          Before it gets to the Pol Pot style of government we need to stop the process because “Government” is the greatest mass murders in the world. We the people need to excert control of our country before it’s to late.

          John W Howard

      • eddie47d

        The Chinese people throughout their history had few guns including Mao and his revolutionaries. The government had the weapons and people with out weapons (or few of them) won the revolution. Guns didn’t save China from either perspective and one badly run government was replaced with another one albeit far worse. Too say the Communist revolutionaries (the citizens) should have had guns to overthrow the tyrannical government is absurd. That’s like saying if all Americans are armed we’ll be safe from our government. The people rebelling such as the Chinese citizens created a false utopia for China. Once they took over the old government they ruled by the barrel of a gun (which they now had). That is why I don’t want EITHER a tyrannical government or a tyranical citizenry.

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “John, FISA was passed in 2008 under President Bush/Cheney not President Obama. Bush/Cheney was also responsible for the Patriot Act…”

        While it is true they were passed originaly under Bush obama has done NOTHING to get them repealed. He has in fact signed expanded and stregthened (sp) versions of them. And don’t give us that BS about Republicans blocking it. He had two years of total democrat control to get them repealed and even after the Repubolicans re-took control of the house he could have vetoed any bills renewing them.

    • John

      Mark, I became nauseous reading your post. Your family must have immigrated to the USA from Russia or some other eastern yourapeon country. Freedom is not inherited. It is earned. My ancestors earned theirs on the plains at Runnymeade using the point of a spear on the throat of a weak king. My freedom was re-inforced with muskets during the Revolutionary war. From that we got a constitution you hide behind. There is no “tradition” of liberty anywhere in the world. Your comments prove you have done nothing to have earned yours.

      • eddie47d

        Sounds like Mark is well aware of what is going on in the world and how people can lose their liberties. The cowboy mentality of some Americans is a false sense of patriotism and bravado. Through out our history people with guns held down others to keep them in their place and that attitude still exists.

      • mark

        No, John, we in the United States do, in fact, have quite a powerful tradition of liberty that is the envy of the world. From 1788 to 2012, despite wars, economic downturns, and internal rebellions, we the citizens of the United States have a 224 year unbroken tradition of Congressional, Senatorial, and Presidential elections. We have an unbroken tradition of oppositional political parties participating in these elections. We have an unbroken tradition of oppositional politcal parties and officeholders ceding to the power of the electorate and stepping down when they lost the ballot. We have a 224 unbroken tradition of civilian control of the government with zero, count’em zero, military coups in our history. We have an unbroken tradition of vigorous political dissent that this website is a perfect example of. We have an unbroken tradition of freedom of assembly which the Tea Party activists recently exercised. We have an unbroken tradition of religious freedom, in which all sorts of faiths worship in safety and live together in peace, the envy of the world really. We have an unbroken tradition of trial by a jury of one’s peers with the right to an attorney, we have an unbroken tradition of a free press.

        Yes there have been violations of some of these traditions. The Alien and Sedition Act 1798-1800; the internment of Japanese-American citizens 1942-1944 (overwhelmingly and racistly supported by the vast majority of the white population as was slavery from 1787 to 1865), infringements on individual rights during the first and second Red Scares (1919 and 1950-1954), and some recent poor decisions by politicians and U.S. citizens caught up in the recent Islamic Scare following 9/11. But for the overwhelming percentage of people for the overwhelming scope of time, we do indeed possess a strong tradition of liberty thanks to our Constitution and democratic institutions that still hold sufficient support to maintain the equilibrium of freedom after occasional diversions due to national and international crises. But our Union is still strong, our people are still free, our tradition of liberty endures.

        There are of course always those who say all this will end tomorrow. They have said so for every single year of our 225 and a half years since 1787. They have been wrong for 225 and a a half years. And our traditon of liberty has been right.

      • John

        Mark, you never answered my retort. You went on an extended blather of B.S. I know you are a gutless S.O.B., never fought for freedom and never will. I suspect you are paid to confront conservatives and libertarians on websites such as this one. Why don’t you stick to the globalist loving websites like daily kos etc. and take eddie and the rest of the dbags with you.

      • eddie47d

        John: Maybe you are the one who needs to take a hike for you asked and were answered. Does that make you an Rbag?

  • michael g allred

    a good quote addition to this article might be: ‘Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.’ attributed to Benjamin Franklin. Very well written and thoughtful article.

    • Flashy

      And you were in the streets protesting the Iraq War and against the unpatriotic Act when/ or were you amongst those yelling and denigrating those of us who were ?

  • Liberterian

    The 2nd amendment is the shining beacon that continues to support our freedom in a world where tyrants are plentiful and masses are enslaved. Let us not give to them (Gun Control Freaks) the power to make us slaves unto the government. When they come for our guns they will be the foe of freedom. Your vote is your power to take down the neigh sayers.

    • eddie47d

      How is the Second Amendment supporting freedom in the world? Certainly not in our numerous false flag wars and other foreign intrusions. In this country the “new” militias who are well armed are also dangerous and have their own agenda in taking over this country. Yes they have their guns and are telling people to follow them in their false utopia. Some have nice sounding names like The Council of Conservative Citizens or American Front. That is why I say there is more than the government to battle!

      • JUKEBOX

        Eddie, you need to arm yourself, and be vigilant of those leaders you admire so much.

      • eddie47d

        Hell I may have to fear you with all your silly babble Jukebox!

      • JC

        Right eddie…it’s “silly” for us to keep our Government in check or exercise any vigilance.
        Well, I guess if you’re nothing more than a statist automoton…it is!

  • Sheepdog on patrol

    Just like the Bible, everyone has their interpretation of our second amendment for whatever reason. For me, it is so simple that it is rediculous that there should be any kind of arguement at all. The founding fathers meant for ALL Americans to be armed and preparred to defend all freedoms that are God given……not government given. Too many Americans have been duped into thinking that the government IS God and that is where their freedoms come from and the belief that our founding fathers originated the concept of all of these freedoms is just as rediculous. OUR FREEDOMS ARE GOD GIVEN! The founding fathers merely defined and confirmed them in a written document as a foundation and basic set of laws for this Nation. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to a free State.” Listen to the words as you read them. It is true that we have a military in this country…….a military dedicated to the protection of this entire nation against any foreign threat but not dedicated to ever turn against its own people. The essential need for “a well regulated militia” is the people of this nation. And, our responsibility is to see that this government does not turn against the people. That is what the armed citizen is all about and that is our responsibility and our purpose. At this time, we clearly have a tyrannical government that is shackeling us with more and more laws, restrictions and taxes. We have a government with an agenda to disarm the citizens of America being led by Diane Feinstein and Hillary Clinton and if you are any kind of student of history, you know good and well what happens after the disarming of the citizens. To deny this simple fact is to admit ignorance. One very simple thing to understand here is that there are over 90 million firearms owners in this country……the largest standing army on the planet and they will not allow some 546 politicians to disarm them.

    • GRusling

      CORRECT! 90 million armed citizens with more than 300 million firearms! Now, just exactly what ARMY would like to try to come and take away our weapons???

    • eddie47d

      Even if there was an assault type weapons ban Most Americans would still be well armed and have the ability to repel almost any intruder foreign or domestic. So enough of this overkill!

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Even if there was an assault type weapons ban Most Americans would still be well armed and have the ability to repel almost any intruder foreign or domestic. So enough of this overkill!”

        Eddie47d continues to claim to support your rights but only with the least efficient tools he can’t justify taking from you.

        Tell us eddie. Did you plan on removing assault type weapons from our standing army?
        (Bet he hasn’t the courage to answer)

      • eddie47d

        Now I know Vickie is off her rocker! LOL! Whether Switzerland the USA or any other country that fears invasion have every right to have weapons to defend against that assault. That means that the USA military and those service members who do the fighting should have that equipment at their disposal. That would include assault weapons, semi-automatics and even nuclear weapons for that matter. I assume you are baiting me but I will answer unlike 95% of the posters here when I ask a question. So you lose! Now when it comes to the big toys like nukes I wish they would be abolished but until they do then countries like Iran should also have them to protect themselves from invasion from the USA or Israel…. But of course with extreme restrictions and monitoring. Now when it comes to assault weapons or semi-automatics they aren’t needed and if attacked the government would probably hand them out like cotton candy to save the country. (by way of a draft) (If that’s what you are worried about).

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Now I know Vickie is off her rocker! LOL!”

        I love how consistent eddie is in avoiding questions but attacking the person asking the question. It does make it easier to see the state of his arguments.

      • JC

        eddie47d says:
        January 4, 2013 at 12:32 pm
        Even if there was an assault type weapons ban Most Americans would still be well armed and have the ability to repel almost any intruder foreign or domestic. So enough of this overkill!

        ____________________________________________________________________

        Feel free to to disarm yourself or whatever it is you want to do eddie.
        You don’t get to make that decision for others.
        Our rights are “enshrined” period.
        And should the Government create laws infringing those rights, then they are openly treasonous.

      • eddie47d

        You don’t have to worry about me answering questions Vickie although most of yours should be ignored . I would absolutely love for the majority of responders to even answer the simplest of questions. Is the sky blue today? If it is you say yes if it is not you don’t start rambling on about the dirt being brown. Most on this site play that game if they respond at all. By the way Vickie I answered both your questions on the Standing Army and do I approve of Assault Weapons. I’ve even stated several times what I think of semi-automatics. I reckon nothing satisfies the queen!

        • Frank Kahn

          Actually there is a dark grey overcast today here eddie. I would agree that it is usually blue when there are no clouds.

  • Progressives-R-Cancer

    I carry a gun for emergency protection because I can’t carry a cop.

  • Wayne

    Pancho Villa invaded the United States on 1915. This took place in a small New Mexico town of Columbus. Sergant Scott of the US Army was killed with several other army and
    civilian personal. The locals came to arms to help in the protection of the town and help the US Army. In remote areas sometime a well armed civilian population is necessary.
    The Mexican Drug Mafia carries M16 s, M4s and other automatic weapons. Should we only carry single shot rifles and pistols??

    • mark

      You forgot to mention that the United States invaded Mexico in 1914 at Veracruz. Villa actually invaded the United States in 1916 – not 1915. Of course, the United States invaded and occupied so many Latin American countries it is almost impossible to keep track of them all but here are a few: Mexico 1846-1848,1850,1853, 1914-1915, 1916-1917 Cuba 1850, 1851, 1898, 1906, 1912, 1917-1922, still there in Guantanamo 1903-2013, Panama 1903, 1904, 1918-20, 1925, 1964, 1989, Honduras 1926-1927, Nicaragua, 1855-1857,1909-1933,1980-1990, Haiti, 1915-1934, 1994, Dominican Republic, 1916-1924, 1965, Guatemala 1954, 1967-1968. You get the picture. Latin Americans certainly do. They are more heavily armed than ever with good reason. The existence of the U.S. military with its record and future designs should require the citizenry of every nation on earth to be heavily armed for their own safety and right to national sovereignty. After all the gravest threat to national sovereignty around the world is not the UN. It is the United States. Just ask the people of Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan.

    • Vicki

      Wayne writes:
      “The Mexican Drug Mafia carries M16 s, M4s and other automatic weapons. Should we only carry single shot rifles and pistols??”

      The common soundbyte used by gun grabbers is that we should only carry muskets.

      • eddie47d

        Vickie has really fallen off the banana wagon! LOL again! I don’t think any border patrol agent has a musket sweetie so better luck next time! That is like your invasion comment where illegals were coming across. Now I know you are far right wing when you know darn well a military invasion was meant.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d demonstrates why his credibility is now equal to that of flashy by writing:
        “Vickie has really fallen off the banana wagon!”

        Ad hominem attack.

        -eddie47d: “I don’t think any border patrol agent has a musket sweetie so better luck next time!”

        They have bean bags. They would have been better off with muskets.
        http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-baja-arizona/2011/03/03/bean-bag-rounds-were-used-by-border-patrol-before-agent-terrys-murder-feds-admit/

      • Vicki

        -eddie47d: “That is like your invasion comment where illegals were coming across. Now I know you are far right wing when you know darn well a military invasion was meant.”

        You mean like this one?
        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11226144/ns/us_news-security/t/mexican-incursions-inflame-border-situation/#.UOdtC3fhfuw

      • JC

        eddie47d says:
        January 4, 2013 at 3:29 pm
        Vickie has really fallen off the banana wagon! LOL again! I don’t think any border patrol agent has a musket sweetie so better luck next time!
        __________________________________________________________________

        Vicki was referring to the civilian population, not the border patrol “sweetie”. I’ll ask again…do you even know what day it is?

      • eddie47d

        She was talking about the Mexican Drug cartels who for most intelligent folks do work along the border! [comment has been edited]

      • eddie47d

        Vickie: If you put on the uniform of a Mexican person of authority does that make you an official officer? I think not?

      • JC

        Vicki says:
        January 4, 2013 at 2:17 pm
        Wayne writes:
        “The Mexican Drug Mafia carries M16 s, M4s and other automatic weapons. Should we only carry single shot rifles and pistols??”

        The common soundbyte used by gun grabbers is that we should only carry muskets
        ______________________________________________________________________

        eddie47d says:
        January 5, 2013 at 8:46 am
        She was talking about the Mexican Drug cartels who for most intelligent folks do work along the border! [comment has been edited]
        _______________________________________________________________________

        She was referring to our right to keep and bear…on an equal par with the evil elements around us, in this case elements the Border Patrol is unable or unwilling to protect us from, as you’ve so succinctly pointed out.

        Shall not be infringed…get it? LOL

    • http://www.facebook.com/thomas.sherman.589 tgsherman

      And by the way those Mexican M-16 rifles are compliments of Obama & Holder!!

      • JC

        Yep…murdering bastards

  • adrianvance

    The issue is not “the gun.” The issue is that 89% of the people do not trust our government. If you have been audited by the IRS, dealt with Selective Service or the EPA then you know what I mean.

    Come see us at The Two Minute Conservative, http://tinyurl.com/7jgh7wv and when you speak ladies will swoon and liberal gentlemen will weep.

    • JUKEBOX

      Look at the armed Federal agents who Raided Kein Trudeau’s vitamin operation, and practically destroyed his warehouse, for some technical violation. If he had protection, this raid could have ended like Waco.

  • rocketride

    As a matter of fact, it HAS happened here. During his administration, Woodrow Wilson had a paramilitary organization which he used to lean on newspapers, companies, etc. which refused to toe the party line. It was quietly disbanded when he left office and disappeared into what I’d call well deserved obscurity* except that it is vitally important that people know about $#|+ like this.

    * Obscure enough that I’d never heard of it until I read Jonah Goldberg’s _Liberal Fascism_.

  • rocketride

    They come for our Gold, they come for our Steel, let’s give them our Lead! (Suitably accelerated, of course.)

  • hunter

    So those that would like an unarmed citizenry are content to fend off an intruder by dialing 911 and being told to “press one for English”.

  • Brent black

    If i could give this article 1000 stars, i would

  • Capitalist at Birth

    For those of you who tout “common sense” gun control, you do not understand the term “shall not be infringed”, do you? Do you have the courage to try to disarm me, yourself? Or will you send an armed thug in your place. You are cowards that try to twist and turn what is plain simple language to confuse the issue. Just like a lawyer. We need to eliminate ALL attorneys as they are the problem not a solution.

    • Vicki

      Capitalist at birth writes (to gun grabbers):
      ” Do you have the courage to try to disarm me, yourself? Or will you send an armed thug in your place.”

      They will most certainly send a thug armed with a “assault type” weapon. The same kinds that they say you will not “need” and are only used by mass murderers.

      (interesting. hmmmmm).

      Fortunately you are not that gullible.

    • eddie47d

      Talk about confusing an issue and Vickie takes center stage in her newest song and dance! Oh my those terrible Liberals! Maybe you could join forces with Mr Birth and kill all the lawyers while you are at it. I love when you all bark that those you don’t agree with have these “grand plans” to take away all your weapons, stick you in FEMA camps, and open the borders for more Democrat voters. The insanity never ceases. No different than how some of you on the right say blacks who are walking through your neighborhood are out to rape and kill your wife or kids. H Bush used that fear to the fullest extent in his Willie Horton ads. How about that gays will indoctrinate your kids and turn everyone into homosexuals. Not even close to being the truth but I hear it quit often around here.

  • Chuck S

    To those who say the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets – you would also have to say the the first amendment doesn’t apply to radio, TV, movies, internet, since they weren’t in existence when the first amendment was adopted.

    If you think the 2nd amendment causes more crime, maybe you don’t like the 4th either. The police could solve a lot more crimes if the didn’t need warrants to search anything. We don’t want to give up our rights – either amendment.

    • Vicki

      Chuck S writes:
      “To those who say the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets – you would also have to say the the first amendment doesn’t apply to radio, TV, movies, internet, since they weren’t in existence when the first amendment was adopted. ”

      That has been used buy some of the same kinds of people to try and censor those forms of “the press”. So yes they do make that consistent claim.

    • eddie47d

      Once again Vickie bites into the apple of deceit (Chuck too).Who is this person who says only muskets are allowed in the Second Amendment? Who says you can’t have a Colt .45 to defend yourself? Who says that the First Amendment wouldn’t include TV or radio? Is that one of those “bald assertions” you ACCUSE OTHERS OF MAKING? Now if I develop a book size nuke is it going to be legal simply because I can carry it and I MIGHT need it against our mean old government. I don’t want anyone infringing on my right to have that mini nuke and they can pry my cold dead hands from it. I promise I won’t harm anyone with it I want to have it JUST IN CASE!

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “Who is this person who says only muskets are allowed in the Second Amendment? ”

        That has been said many times by many different posters on this site as well as in discussions about firearms on other sites.

  • Rick

    The Police are never there during a crime and always late. Had only one person been at Newtown, Virginia Tech, Colombine,,,etc etc,,,then there is a possiblity that the criminal would have been held back for that fatal few minutes of response time.
    Maybe not,,but I would rather have a gun and not need it,,then need a gun and not have it.

  • ONTIME

    I for one am glad to see so many speaking out and accurately projecting the rightful arguments of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and historical evidence of the necessity of having a armed citizenship to keep the government in check…. It may be a lot more useful than you think.

    Ours(government) is now demonstrating the reasons the founding fathers gave for why this was necessary, they are intrusive, overly large and inept, no longer benign in many ways and exhibiting a need to control our daily lives and futures. The arming of politicized government agencies that were never in our history in need of lethal training and armament is more than worrisome and the paranoia this government is displaying under a uncredentialed, uncertified Faker in the WH looks very despotic.

    The recent passing of legislation for increased taxation was one sided, the government is still growing by leaps and bounds and emasculating the private sector with government controls, fees, penalties and cronyism , WTP are simply giving our time,labor and monies we earn to a despicable bureacracy we have little to no control over because our representation is moot…I am guessing that this last election is indicative of another loss of freedom and privilege, our one man one vote is now in the hands of HE who counts the votes….

    • eddie47d

      There are more Republican Governors and more Republican Secretary of States so who controls the vote? If you want change then abolish the voting process and declare your own dictatorship because that is essentially what you are saying. Even Republican states vote for pork barrell projects,have drug problems,businesses who pollute,welfare recipiants and so forth. Its like you are saying if only there were more guns then politicians would stop being politicians or voters would vote the way you want them too! I see no truth to that at all and because you didn’t win the Presidency there is no hope for America. The Second Amendment wouldn’t help or hinder what you are saying.

  • Alan

    As for the assertion by some that guns can somehow be made easier to track, well that’s just pure fallaciousness at it’s finest. Why do you think it is a crime to remove a serial number from a gun or run an abrasive object through the bore in order to alter a ballistics match? It’s because that’s what criminals do in order to make them untraceable. There’s simply no way to ensure a gun can be tracked. A thinking criminal will always find a way to overcome the obstacles.

    • eddie47d

      How many criminals after shooting someone will stop and clean out the barrel with an abrasive object? Most won’t do it or simply throw the weapon away. Isn’t that the hallmark of “legal” gun owners who say there should be no trace of a weapon bought and there usually isn’t. Everybody has something to hide!

  • http://BobLivingston Goodsteve

    If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns. When some thug is
    breaking into your home with the intent to harm or worse, then a handgun in
    your hand can make all of the difference as to wheather lawmen arrive at
    your home to find your house ransacked, and you and your family all cashed
    in, and you and your family all living to see many more sunrises. An armed
    person is a citizen. An unarmed person is a subject.

    • eddie47d

      Guns are not going to be outlawed and you as a homeowner or citizen will still be able to defend yourself. You’ll be able to sleep tight tonight with that handgun in your hand or by your bedside.

  • alex

    Actually, August 1945 shows that a populace, armed to the teeth and set on defending each square inch of its (in this case Japanese) motherland, was not an impediment for the US to conquer and occupy the Japanese Islands by simply dropping two single bombs on two single cities. The notion that arming every American (with automatic assault rifles in well-regulated militia’s?) would be necessary for the security of a free state seems rather outdated and lacking historical perspective.The argument that mass killings were avoided on US soil because of an armed populace as in contrast to mass killing events elsewhere: Two studies have been conducted that attempt to number the natives killed by the United States. The first of these was sponsored by the United States government, and while official does not stand up to scrutiny and is therefore discounted (generally); this estimate shows between 1 million to 4 million killed. The second study was not sponsored by the US Government but was done from independent researchers. This study estimated populations and population reductions using later census data. Two figures are given, both low and high, at: between 10 million and 114 million Indians as a direct result of US actions. Or the largest mass murder of a class of people in human history.The article also reports: “While madmen in the United States may have taken a few hundred lives with guns in America over the past century, the world’s rulers the world’s rulers — which some lawmakers say have the monopoly on legitimate violence — were splattered with the blood of 260 million human beings in the 20th century alone. They are poised to murder billions more in the 21st century.” …Really, a “few hundred lives??” With 11,000 gun related murders per year in the US, 500 alone in Chicago, it is a little bit more than a few hundred. A murder rate 4 to 5 times higher than most Western European countries is not easily explained either. Either Americans are just more homicidal than other nationalities or they have just far easier access to all sorts of guns. Having taken care of my American wife, kids and grandkids and having lived and worked here for 10 years, I simply refuse to believe the former reason for these high murder/gun crime rates and am convinced that the latter reason is the key to this issue. My motive to become American citizen this year is very much so to address these injustices upon American society, my American children and grandchildren. That way I can exercise my rights to fight the excessive violence and excessive poverty in this great country :). One quote I do agree with though in the article:“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” — George Santayana. The author and I just come to two opposite conclusions on explaining the same 2nd Amendment with the quote. For the sake of my American children and grandchildren, it is indeed time to address the adolescent behavior as mentioned in the article, including the gun-toting and boy-toy defending argument of the far right.

    • Frank Kahn

      Actually, you number is incorrect, there were less than 9,000 gun related murders in the US in 2011. And I dont consider Europe to be a part of Western Civilization so we will consider the Americas continents only in this evaluation. The US only has a higher per capita murder rate, by gun, than Canada. All other countries in this part of the world are much higher than ours.

      With all due respect to your FOREIGN ideas and opinions, bug off. We dont need nor want your pathetic ideas about what you think is reasonable in our country. It is not a matter for discussion with US citizens, let alone someone who is not one.

      If you want to be a citizen of this GREAT NATION then you will be FORCED to accept the RULE OF LAW, which is our CONSTITUTION that supports the LAW OF GOD.

      I dont care if the military can bomb me out of existence, that is not the point. If the government tries to take my RIGHTS away, I will take as many of them with me as possible. And dont try your pathetic game of we beat Japan when they were heavily armed by Nuking them. We (our military) fought in Vietnam for years against an inferior equipped adversary and we did not win. The will of the people, the patriotism, the nationalism and the pride is impossible to defeat.

      And back off with your right wing BS, unless you are a foreign leftist, socialist, the idea of right and left have nothing to do with protecting our God given RIGHT to protect ourselves from tyranny and in your case stupidity.

    • JC

      alex says:
      January 4, 2013 at 5:44 pm
      Actually, August 1945 shows that a populace, armed to the teeth and set on defending each square inch of its (in this case Japanese) motherland, was not an impediment for the US to conquer and occupy the Japanese Islands by simply dropping two single bombs on two single cities. The notion that arming every American (with automatic assault rifles in well-regulated militia’s?) would be necessary for the security of a free state seems rather outdated and lacking historical perspective.
      ___________________________________________________________________

      So because someone “might” bomb us we should just throw down our guns and give up all hope is that it? You’re one prize winning moron you know that?

      • Alex

        Lol @ moron, empty head and foreign leftist. Profanity is the refuge of the illiterate. No 1st or 2nd amendment will be of help there. You all just made my point that a well-educated populace is necessary to the security of a free nation. Talk about whizzing past your heads, lol. Not considering Western-Europe as Western civilization?? Lol, that one is too silly to respond to, except for maybe wishing that person a basic history book and atlas for next Christmas. The article mentions that many more billions will die in this century by overseas governments or dictatorships after explaining that 260 million were killed in the last, and someone points out that my number of 11,000 is off 2,000? Talk about inflating numbers, lol. Seems more than guns, America needs a better educational system, so we can actually debate on equal level. I rest my case.

        • Frank Kahn

          Dont rest too quickly, you were off by over 2,000 on the gun related murders in this country in 2011. I can give you my source if you want but it is easy to find.

          I dont consider Europe as a part of the equation, sorry that upsets your pride. Europe has its own problems, I wont go there and try to fix them and I dont want you coming here and trying to fix what you think is ours.

          Your logic is flawed, your statement is based on your personal opinion (which has no authority here) and quite frankly I dont care. And dont go pissin in the wind about intelligent, your intelligence is nothing more than paranoia wrapped in a frustrated ego-centric personality. Your american kids, whatever that is supposed to mean, are in no imminent danger just because we have lots of guns. You however might be if you try to force your simple minded ideas on a heavily armed citizenry. If you are so scared for your safety, you should just pack up your children and run back to your home country and hide there.

          Take it very seriously, when we say you will get our guns when you pry them out of our cold dead hands it is a warning of intent to defend our right to the death (yours not ours).

      • JC

        Alex says:
        January 5, 2013 at 11:28 pm
        Lol @ moron, empty head and foreign leftist. Profanity is the refuge of the illiterate. No 1st or 2nd amendment will be of help there.
        ___________________________________________________________________

        That was one of the most inane rants I’ve ever seen…WTF are you even trying to say?

    • JC

      Total crime victims : http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims

      DEFINITION: People victimized by crime (as a % of the total population). Data refer to people victimized by one or more of 11 crimes recorded in the survey: robbery, burglary, attempted burglary, car theft, car vandalism, bicycle theft, sexual assault, theft from car, theft of personal property, assault and threats. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.

      Total crime victims USA: 21.1%

      Total crime victims Holland: 25.2%

      Total crime victims Denmark: 23%

      Total crime victims United Kingdom: 26.4%

      Total crime victims Australia: 30.1%

      Total crime victims Netherlands: 25.2%

      Kind of shoots the S%!# out of your theory, doesn’t it Alex?

  • alex

    And yes, I’m a Western-European, Dutchman, living in the US for the past 10 years, no not a socialist nor intent to take away handguns or hunting rifles from my American colleagues and friends, but the overkill in guns has resulted in by far the most crime-ridden and gun-violent society in the western world. Next to the appalling poverty in this country, the violence is a great injustice upon all those victims (children and adults alike). You can still live in a free-market, democratic, rich society, proud of its centuries-old principles of liberty, yet without the excesses in violence, poverty and lack of accessible education or health care that you find in the US. I should know, because I come from Holland and I’m not even talking about other liberties (gay marriage is legal since 2000 as first country in the world, liberal drug policy with lower addiction rates than in the US, no govermnment censorship on TV/Film like the FCC here in the US, religious liberties for centuries, etc. One thing Dutch people are known for is to always question authority or our government, but we realize our words are stronger than our swords/guns, as much as we see the need for guns in proper circumstances. A well-educated populace is just as necessary for the security of a free state, as is the right to bear arms in well-regulated militias (or what we nowadays call authorities like the army and law enforcement), not every single citizen by him/her self. In high regards,

    • JC

      alex says:
      January 4, 2013 at 6:10 pm
      And yes, I’m a Western-European, Dutchman, living in the US for the past 10 years, no not a socialist nor intent to take away handguns or hunting rifles from my American colleagues and friends, but the overkill in guns has resulted in by far the most crime-ridden and gun-violent society in the western world.
      ___________________________________________________________________

      I see, so actually believe that the real crime rates in Europe are being reported?
      How about Australia? Heard anything about what a disarmed society is going through there?

      Go back to Holland. And the next time some dictator overruns your nation…
      YOU deal with it.

    • cawmun cents

      Yes but wouldnt that depend upon whether being indoctrinated in the first place,was an actual mark of intellingence?
      An intelligent person would not be indoctrinated,wouldnt you agree?
      If you see someone going along to get along,does that scream intelligence to you?
      Education implies that knowledge is being imparted.
      Indoctrination implies that you have so little knowledge as to be easily fooled into accepting the “education”,that your indoctrinators have given you.
      If that then leads to less knowledge,it should be a clear indication that they do not intend to educate,but rather indoctrinate.
      Hence the reason progressive liberals cannot deduce reality from what has been placed in their minds,by their indoctrinators.
      But what do I know?
      Apparently very little….
      Cheers!
      -CC.

      • Harvey Jones

        Our children are taught by TV. Now look at what is going on around this Nation.

  • Average Joe

    Ladies and gentlemen, for your viewing pleasure….Hypocrisy at it’s finest. Please watch carefully…I wouldn’t anyone to miss the hypocrisy of these stars…..

    Warning, language:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1SZurGArxE&feature=player_embedded

    AJ

    • Alex

      Sorry AJ, but those film stars know the difference -as most common -sense People- between fiction/ the movies and the real world. Europeans and especially japanese watch the same violent movies, play the same violent video games, read the same or even more violent literature (ever read some of the Japanese manga’s/ cartoons?), yet the gun crimes and deaths are many multiple factors lower than the incredible numbers in the US. It’s not hypocrisy, just knowing that no one is really killed in the movies. At least Europeans n Japanese know that guns kill people, so we restrict the access to them with great success. I have not heard one good reason why the gun deaths in the US are so much higher in number than in any other Western country? If not for the same movies, video games, the only difference is the easy access in the US. Either that or Americans are just many times more homicidal/criminal than there European n Japanese counterparts. That, I just refuse to believe, having Lived in the US for 10 years now. Your second Amendment right should not trump the right of your fellow Americans(including my American grandkids at the same age as the Newtown victims) to live in a safe environment.

      • Average Joe

        Alex ,

        I love logic…I love the way it sounds …as it whizzes past your empty head….. I know, some of you half-wits don’t understand the correlation between stars who glorify guns…to sell a product and then villify the same product for political expediency…Yes…that is the very definition of hypocrisy…..Buy a few brain cells…maroon!

        BTW, we don’t care how you do it in Europe or Japan…or any place else for that matter…this is America…and our “Natural rights” are protected under the Constitution. Amongst those natural rights…is the right to defend one’s life or property..by any means nessesary.
        If, as I suspect, that you are one of those panty waste losers that are afraid of guns…by all means, don’t buy one, don’t touch one…folks like you are truly too fragile to be entrusted with a firearm…you are a danger to others….and yourself. Be careful with that stick…you’ll put someones eye out….Pansy…..

        AJ

      • Average Joe

        “Your second Amendment right should not trump the right of your fellow Americans(including my American grandkids at the same age as the Newtown victims) to live in a safe environment.”

        How does someone owning firearms trump someone elses rights? Please explain….this should be a real brainfart…..

        If someone commits an act of violence against another person, there are already laws on the books to deal with it. I’m oretty sure that there are laws on the books that deal with, murder, rape, assault, theft and about a million other things…has that stopped it from happening? There are all kinds of laws and hoops to jump throug…just to purchase a firearm…however, criminals don’t tend to go into a gun storet5o purchase their firearms…nope, they tend to buy them from the trunk of a car…thereby doing what criminals tend to do…skirt the laws. So, you think adding more laws or banning firearms will change that? If so, you are simply…brain dead.
        You place children in a school, you put signs up all over the place saying “Gun Free Zone” and then you wonder why your children become victim of these assaults….duh…no resistance….
        You put up “Gun Free Zone signs at theaters, Malls,Hospitals etc….and then you wonder why someone would target these places…duh…no resistance.
        If you were a criminal, would you be more or less apt to attempt an armed robbery…if you didn’t know whether or not you victim was armed?
        Would you be more or less likely to hold up a convenience store…if everyone in the store may be armed? Use that thing on your shoulders for something other than a hatrack….

        AJ

      • Harvey Jones

        They also use the board of education as we used to.

  • Average Joe

    Gun Control is BS

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XrNzE39J8E&feature=youtu.be

    Gun control means……… being able to hit your target!

    AJ

    • Alex

      Gun control is several 1000′s of lives saved…..or maybe even the 26 lives lost in Newtown…..In one year, more Americans lose their lives by gun violence than in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined. in 5 years more American lives are lost than in the entire Vietnam war, and those who make the silly argument that more lives are killed by cars, forget that cars are not designed to kill people, quite the opposite. Guns are designed to kill/maim/damage people. Even if you had proper accessible healthcare in this country, even excluding the mentally ill, would still not help much to lower the numbers significantly. So much for BS. Human lives trump boy toys.

      • JC

        Alex says:
        January 4, 2013 at 10:25 pm
        Gun control is several 1000′s of lives saved…..
        __________________________________________________________________

        Criminals are stopped by gun carrying, law abiding citizens over 2 million times a year. Pack up your crap and sell it down the road.

      • Average Joe

        Alex ,

        I love logic…I love the way it sounds …as it whizzes past your empty head…

  • Jimbo

    So Eddie47, is the right to free speech, and the right to assemble also outmoded? Who are you to decide it is outmoded? If you don’t like the amendment, the Constitution spells out how to change it!

    • eddie47d

      That’s already been asked and answered Jimbo.

  • Dad

    “… should they fail…”
    They are failing… nuff said.

  • rocketride

    >> mark says:
    >> January 7, 2013 at 1:58 pm

    >> Actually, NAZI is a contraction of Nationalist ZIONIST party not Socialist.
    >> Zionism is another form of socialism as well!

    [comment has been edited] Whose propaganda did you get THAT from? “Nazi” is an ubiquitously used nickname of the “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei”, which was abbreviated “NSDAP”– Or in English “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”.

    The NSDAP had no connection with Zionism (which was and is a socialist movement– even a stopped clock like you manages to tell the right time twice a day) save for trying to kill it off along with everything else Jewish. And as bad as Hitler and his merry band of [expletive deleted] were, they couldn’t manage better than third place (behind Stalin and Mao) for sheer pointless carnage.

  • Harvey Jones

    Any person who believes gun control will help has NO knowledge of history to present!

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.