Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Emotion, Lies And Propaganda From Anti-Gun Advocates On Capitol Hill

January 31, 2013 by  

Emotion, Lies And Propaganda From Anti-Gun Advocates On Capitol Hill
UPI
Images of former Representative Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, testifying before Congress are meant to tug at the heartstrings.

The politically charged American conversation about gun violence continued yesterday with the first Congressional hearing related to the matter since the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy. The conversation was complete with the same tired pleas to emotion and talking points that have been parroted from both sides of the debate, but the anti-gun lobby pulled all the stops.

Emotion

The image from the hearing that will undoubtedly be etched into the American psyche as it is played over and over by mainstream media will be that of the speech given before lawmakers by former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the survivor of a mass shooting carried out in 2011 by a maniacal gunman in Arizona.

“This is an important conversation, for our children, for our communities, for Democrats and Republicans,” she said with exertion stemming from brain injuries caused by her attack. “Speaking is difficult but I need to say something important. Violence is a big problem. Too many children are dying. Too many children. We must do something. It will be hard, but the time is now. You must act. Be bold. Be courageous. Americans are counting on you.”

Lies And Half Truths

Another anti-gun highlight of the day involved remarks by infamously anti-gun Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) who flipped through what appeared to be a gun catalog making such absurd (or woefully ill-informed) claims as retail AR-15s are easily modified to fire up to 800 rounds per minute and two, three or four rounds at a time. She also lamented that these firearms are capable of “tremendous velocity and tremendous killing power,” which “I suspect tears young bodies apart.”

Propaganda

Following the hearings, a number of heavily slanted news reports hit the Internet.

One such example was this vilification of National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre from CNN:

Wayne LaPierre is not a large man. He does not move with the easy assurance of a skilled fighter. His head sits low on his neck, and he seems to turn from the shoulders.

His swept-back, graying hair and rimless glasses make him look like a Central Casting accountant who sleeps with a tie on. Yet, in Washington, LaPierre is a heavyweight of the first degree, a brawler who can make even brave politicians toss in the towel at the first sign of a scuffle.

As the debate about guns continues, there are still several factors related to past mass killings that are not receiving media attention or due diligence from lawmakers. Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) pointed out the foolishness of a Senate hearing completely focused on categorically banning guns and magazines or implementing new license requirements without addressing issues of enforcement and mental health.

“I have a hard time telling my constituents in Texas that Congress is looking at passing a whole raft of new laws, when the laws that we currently have on the books are so woefully unenforced,” he said, criticizing the Justice Department.

The Senator went on to suggest that legislation incorporating mental health screenings with already existing gun laws could help Congress come to an agreement that offers comprise to individuals on both sides of the debate.

“Perhaps it’s time to consider our background checks laws to see if they need to be updated to screen out the growing number of people who are subjected to court-ordered outpatient mental health treatment,” he said. “…There are areas where Congress can come together right now, examine the nexus between gun crime, violence, and mental health care. I’m willing to listen to serious ideas, not just window dressing, to try to come up with solutions.”

As an aside, a recent Reason/Rupe poll demonstrated that 52 percent of Americans believe that politicians are joining the likes of Piers Morgan — who recently said he was “standing on the graves of dead Sandy Hook children” — in exploiting tragedy for political gain. Also, 51 percent of respondents to the same poll rejected the notion that American citizens should be barred from owning so-called assault weapons.

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 “Emotion, Lies And Propaganda From Anti-Gun Advocates On Capitol Hill”

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

  • CZ52

    ” Also, 51 percent of respondents to the same poll rejected the notion that American citizens should be barred from owning so-called assault weapons.”

    I saw a poll on, I believe, NewsMax that said between 75% and 80% of people rejected the notion of banning the so called assualt weapons.

    • Vicki

      We can end the politically charged nature of this debate by simply pointing out that
      ~300 MILLION Americans didn’t shoot ANYONE.

      Stop trying to infringe on their God given right to Keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms. Stop punishing the innocent for the acts of a few.

      STOP IT
      STOP IT NOW

      • Patriot1776

        We can also loudly point out that the same political morons that are championing government infringement on our constitutional rights based on the tragedy at Sandy Hook are the same ones who advocate the murder of children through abortion. They aren’t about saving the children as they claim, but growing government and resticting the common man.

        It is absolute insanity to believe that laws restricting the availability of guns to law abiding citizens will deter in any way criminals. If laws stopped criminals, they wouldn’t be criminals.

      • FreedomFighter

        Reports say the AR rifle was not used at Sandy Hook, it was in the trunk of the car. They lie all the way for the Marxist Agenda.

        America owes Trillions to bankssters and Red China, they want hard assets for the debt, the oil, mineral, farmland, cities and people of the United States, Our leaders are selling America for shiny beads and trinkets from China that the banksters built up to do the job.

        Its a con, snowjob, a repeat of what as done to the indians.

        Note: Date 3-23-13 —- on or around, something big is possible – rumors abound.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • TIME

        Dear FF,

        You hit the nail on the head, saddly some just: { can’t see the TREES from the Forest.}.

        Peace and Love, Shalom

        PS: You just gotta love them > 4 & 5 Shooters that shoot 4 & 5 bullets in a single shot, I question if the Military have these yet?

        These should also be noted in the “Guinness book of world records.” As the most unique gun’s ever invented.

      • Kate8

        Patriot1776 – You are so right, and it’s not just the unborn they so callously murder.

        Children are being slaughtered in the name of “freedom” every day in many countries around the globe, and have been for years. If these psychopaths don’t care about these people, what makes us think they care at all about us and our children?

        These jerks will say anything, sacrifice anyone, to move their plans forward.

        If anyone wants to learn how badly we’ve been scammed, watch this. Unless you’ve been super on the ball, you didn’t know most of this stuff about how government dupes us into compliance:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnJ1rOFK7o&feature=player_embedded

        How many know that when you register something (a gun, a car) or obtain a permit, you are actually signing over title to that thing to the government, and they can confiscate it anytime they want?

        The 2nd Amendment is the only permit we need. When we give up the right to bear arms, we give up freedom. It’s as simple as that.

        Time to know the truth. Time to stand up to these incredible *ssh*les we call politicians. None of them has the authority to deny us our right to self-defense. Not one; not all of them put together, either.

      • mark

        Patriot 1776 wrote: “It is absolute insanity to believe that laws restricting the availability of guns to law abiding citizens will deter in any way criminals. If laws stopped criminals, they wouldn’t be criminals.” Okay Patriot, but you do realize that you are making a argument here to abolish all criminal law, since many people don’t adher to it. End all laws that criminalize murder, rape, robbery, child molestation, fraud, heroin trafficking, extortion, all because many criminals simply disregard such laws? What a crazed notion you are proposing that would create even more chaos, violence, malfeasance,and horror in our society. This shows how unhinged people are becoming over this gun debate.

        Have you ever heard of the deterrent effect of criminal law? While most people obey the law because they are largely moral, decent human beings, a considerable percentage of people obey the law because they fear its awesome penalties for violating its strictures: decades spend in an 8 by 10 cell in a dangerous prison where one must often defend oneself from attack day after day, loss of all private property in legal fines while one is sitting in that prison, death in the electric chair or the gas chamber. These penalties keep a lot of shaky, not so moral people from committing crimes. They do not prevent all people from committing crimes, you are correct there. But would you abolish all criminal law just because some criminals ignore or disregard it?

      • Jana

        MARK,
        What penalties? A few years in jail or prison for taking a life? That’s not a penalty. The reason there are so many criminals out there is they actually have no fear of the law. The time hasn’t fit the crime for a long time now. Prisons in way too many cases is a place to go visit and learn how to con and become harder, then in a few years they get to leave and repeat their crimes. They have internet access in prisons and way too many luxuries.

        One man my husband used to work with had a prison record. While talking one day he told my husband that his bills were overtaking him so he might have to do something to get put back in prison. It was time for him to have a break. What in the world is the mentality of that? Tells us a lot about the harsh prison environments doesn’t it?

      • Jana

        Mark,
        Oh by the way he did. I don’t know what he did, I think it was a burglary, but he went back to prison for several years.

      • Patriot1776

        Mark, I believe you have taken my statement way beyond any reasonable intention. I would in no way advocate the abolishment of all criminal law. My statement was, and is, that additional laws placed on law abiding citizens, further government restrictions of our God given right to keep and bear arms will in no way prevent another Sandy Hook tragedy.

      • Kate8
      • Chuck S

        Mark, illegally owning a gun is truly a victimless crime, which is hard to detect, let alone enforce. If someone is murdered, it’s definitely known that a crime was committed, although it’s sometimes made to look like not a murder.

      • TIME

        Dear People,

        I would submit that { any and ALL gun laws / controls } are not in the best interest of any person who is a Law Abiding person within this nation.

        As Finestiens bill has nothing to do with “Criminals,” at all nor the ROOT factor of all of the alledged shooters who have been alledged to have commited the alledged crimes the Mass media sells.
        The ROOT of ALL ~ the noted Alledged Crimes she rants about is: {PHARMACUTICALS.}

        What this Bill does have, is has everything to do with “CONTROLLING”
        { what forms of Privet property Americans can own.}

        Thus in fact her bill is nothing more nor less than taking away your “RIGHTS” That
        are noted as: “Congress can NOT INFRINGE,” yes ~ thats in writting and is very clear, so clear that even an IDIOT can grasp its meaning.

        Thus yet again her Bill is a clear display of “manilupliation by way of defrauding” the American people with feckless arguments that are based on nothing more nor less that 100% Rhetoric.
        They all are based on a platform than is to “CONfuse and Distort ~ facts” as well gain total control of the populace of this nation by way of Outright fraud, > that is other than the CRIMINALS who do commit crimes, as they are not even noted within this absurd BILL.

        Also as its has been clearly displayed in all of the United Kingdoms lands where such absurd bans have been installed,
        The Crime Rate has grown beyond any form that the police are able to control or abate.

        When one thinks for a moment with out all the smoking BS flying about by Finestien and her other criminal cohorts ,
        Doctors kill more people per day, per month ~ per year than all GUN deaths.
        So by Finestiens admissions and or perhaps better said her claims > Doctors should be banned.
        Also Hammer’s should be banned based on Finestiens arguments. So to should anything than has a handel on it, such as cooking knifes, or base ball bats, Hair brush, tooth brush a rake, and the list just keeps on going.

        But then again the EASY target is always the first step with any form of
        “TYRANNICAL Criminal Government.”

        Of what, I have found many cases of Finestiens “criminal” behavior much of what is known as INSIDER TRADING, WOW ~,yet the NEO quasi liberals / Marxist also known as progressives seem to miss that their Pit Bulls are the very ones they keep screaming about being in that 2%.
        Look into Finestiens bills she not only written but aided in passing to gain her family great amounts of wealth.

        Of what this brings forth the question of: { Perhas her criminal activates as well all Criminal activates from these special progressives is about to be exposed. }
        Afterall ~ they don’t want YOU to be armed when these truths come out, if you think about it, that would be a compelling factor for any CRIMINAL to ensure their own safety.

        Just a few thoughts,

        Peace and Love, Shalom

      • Kate8

        TIME – Mention that doctors are the 3rd leading cause of death in America and you will get wholly ignored. It’s happened to me over and over.

        Firstly, that is the main purpose of “healthcare” in the US, other than control. And secondly, people view medicine as a sacred cow and will refuse to see anything amiss in this fact.

        Stage a shooting and the whole country is up in arms demanding removal of all guns. Yet, when we have hundreds of thousands of people dying at the hands of “medical care” every year, people simply shake their heads and say, “well, they did all they could”. They never even consider the fact that the same people who own and run the medical professions are the same ones who are poisoning us everywhere and making us sick, only to finish us off with their “medicines” and other horrors they call treatments.

        This nation is sick. Few have any commons sense at all, let alone the ability to discern. We, as a nation, are playing right into the hands of those who are determined to destroy us.

        Easy as taking candy from a baby, no?

      • TIME

        Dear Kate,

        I know alot about Doctors, my brother in law is one, every year he insist we get Flu Shots, I am never sick nor is my wife, as we have never gotten one of these damm things.

        Yet every year – year after year the BIL & his wife are sick as dogs, a few years back his wife nearly died, this year he has been so sick that he is still in bed now after 6 weeks, and its looking like he will be down for the next few if he even makes it out alive!

        Be that as it may, PEOPLE: You have to become your own Doctors, figure out whats broken and fix it. If not well your going to be in a world of trouble very soon.
        At least 45% of all Doc;’s are leaving the proffession, by years end, as in taking early RETIREMENT, or changing what they do for a proffession. I know of quite a number who are just leaving the country.

        Kate: ~ Peace and Love be with you, Allow the Holy Sprit in and walk in the Positive light, of GOOD. We are going to a higher Vibration level and leave all the real wack jobs here to hack each other to bits.

        BTW, Have you ever looked into Bill / William Copper? Great stuff, oddly its all what I have found as well.

      • Kate8

        TIME – Yes, I know what you mean about doctors. I have worked with them, and have doctors and nurses in my family. Some are realizing that it’s not about healing, others are not… or don’t dare. I have stories, as well…

        And yes, I listened to William Cooper in the ’90s, and read “Behold a Pale Horse”. What he wrote in that book has unfolded exactly the way he said. This man was a true patriot and very courageous. Many of his broadcasts are on YouTube.

        I have noticed changes in you over the past year, and have been changing myself. It is a joyous thing. I do not try to awaken people to what is going on in order to instill fear. It is imperitive that people understand the depths of evil in America and in this world, because only by knowing the truth can we awaken to the Greater Truth. Always at the end of a cosmic cycle there is a great polarizing of the people… a separating of the lambs from the goats, the wheat from the tares. It is time to choose.

        And I do feel that glorious things are ahead for us. These are the things on which I dwell most of the time. As I said, I keep doing what I can to help people to see that things are not as they seem, and that the biggest obstacle to our being is BELIEF.

        I also discovered this amazing video. There are things all around us which we do not see, because we don’t know what to look for. These are the days… I see many things, but I learned some new and very useful things from it.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wxavh18amsQ&feature=player_embedded

        Is something wonderful Coming, or is it already “at hand…closer than breathing”?

        Many blessings, TIME, and Godspeed.

      • JON

        “GOD” given right to Keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms? Please tell me where in the Bible it says anything about guns? It has absolutely NOTHING to do with God. It has to do with the laws created by humans. God didn’t create the 2nd Amendment. Humans did.

    • eddie47d

      Vickie is not only standing proudly on the graves on shooting victims she’s doing the Irish jig in making sure her right to be cold hearted is not infringed upon. Maybe the same can be said about Patriot 1776 and ALSO the pro abortionists who are doing the Polish polka just because they have that right to do so!

      • roger

        the latest anti-gun poster clown shown in the photo aint dead yet, or did you not pick up on that trivial clue. the idiocy never ends…………..

      • JeffH

        eddie, I’ll make it simple enough so that even you can understand it…you have always been a liar and a complete I-D-I-O-T.

        On your very best day you couldn’t carry water for a “d”onkey.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Vickie is not only standing proudly on the graves on shooting victims she’s doing the Irish jig in making sure her right to be cold hearted is not infringed upon.”

        That right is protected by the 1st amendment. I speak out here in protection of the 2nd. Which is the one that protects your right to mis use the first by making claims that would be libelous if you had any credibility.

        eddie47d: “Maybe the same can be said about Patriot 1776 and ALSO the pro abortionists who are doing the Polish polka just because they have that right to do so!”

        More ad hominem and attempt to demonize. Also displaying that eddie47d apparently is pro-life. Who would have guessed.

        I would like to note that eddie47d is correct that Patriot and pro-abortionists do have the right to doing the polish polka just because. Credibility increased 0.01%

    • Robert Smith

      “politicians are joining the likes of Piers Morgan — who recently said he was “standing on the graves of dead Sandy Hook children” — in exploiting tragedy for political gain. ”

      Follow the MONEY.

      The shelves are bare in many gun stores where sales are at a record level.

      Wayne and the gun manufacturers are all crying on the way to the bank.

      Rob

      • Patriot1776

        And yet if you look at the root cause of the increased gun sales it is obama and the liberals attacking the rights of citizens that are driving the gun sales. In a capitalist economy, the people who take the risks to invest their time and their money also reap the rewards. Do you feel it is wrong for individuals to earn a living through their efforts?

      • GRusling

        Your remark is foolish in the extreme. It isn’t Wayne LaPierre who’s driving this issue, and it certainly isn’t gun manufacturers, who remain totally silent except when their reputation is slimed by some two-faced, lying political activist. Obama and his turd-brain followers are driving the issue, by attempting to equate the average person to mental deviants who slaughter children and adults.

        The problem is NOT with guns. Think about how many could have been killed with a simple BOMB which can be manufactured from the contents of the average urban GARAGE! Any farmer in this country could EASILY build one without ever going to town. And for those who intend to die also (like the Sandy Hook maniac) in the midst of their carnage, delivery “on point” is as simple as driving a car or truck through some weak point (like a glass entry-way) then setting off the explosion whenever they decide they want to. Anyone who thinks that would be difficult doesn’t know SQUAT about making simple bombs.

        GUNS are just a handy tool for madmen, which could be easily replaced by Molotov cocktails should guns be difficult to obtain.

        The problem is with violent people, who do violent things, and removing “one tool” from their arsenal will just drive them to develop another. It won’t solve the problem and probably wouldn’t even affect it…

      • Walt

        Rob,

        Let’s assume for arguments sake, that your contention that the NRA is all about defending the money they make from expanding memberships, gun manufacturer sponsorships, etc. is true.

        Let’s also assume that on the other side of the fence, that the anti-gun folk’s real agenda is to disarm the American public, making it easy to implement their tyrannical agendas.

        The undeniable truth still remains that where guns have been severely restricted (Chicago) or banned outright (UK) or mostly banned (Australia), the crime rates have gone through the roof. Even the police in Australia and the UK have recognized that the Liberal’s efforts to ban gun violence by outlawing guns has been a huge mistake.

        Violent crime has increased dramatically by gun toting criminals who did not turn in their guns, home invasions have also increased significantly. In England, where the police never had to carry guns, thsy are now forced to carry guns due to a 40% increase in gun crime and assaults on the police by armed criminals. People are openly demonstrating in the streets by the thousands to express their displeasure with the increase in crime rates and most people fear going out due to the increase in violent crime that abounds in the streets.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTyCD2n6HAQ

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I

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

        Review the above videos, hear the truth directly from the people who have been already betrayed by their politicians and now suffer the consequences.

        While we may mourn the loss of 20 innocent children and 6 brave educators at Sandy Hook, are we really prepared to sacrifice our freedom from tyranny and safety from violent criminals, at the alter of cynical and hypocritical politicians like Feinstein and Schumer?

      • Motov

        @ Grusling, I could very easily make a flame thrower, all you need is a one or 2 gallon pump up sprayer, make sure you are using a metal wand , then with a lighter made for starting grills and gasoline/ alcohol in the container,… you now have a flamethrower.
        It doesn’t take much to create a weapon from common objects.

      • eddie47d

        GRusling; Anyone committing a crime will use the quickest tool to get the job done. Few criminals have the Mission Impossible capabilities and will not spend hours perfecting the perfect violent crime. (such as building a bomb) You may have a few computer hackers and cyber criminals who are just as evil but alot smarter yet never touch a gun. Those kinds of criminals do it out of greed and to enhance their own prowess and they want to live another day to do it again.On the other hand these mass killers are generally quick about what they are doing and almost always have a success rate upfront but in the end it doesn’t turn out very well for them either. Many have a death wish for themselves too so that is why there is more of an urgency to solve the high capacity gun problem let say vs the fertilizer problem.

      • mark

        Yes Robert, sad to say you are correct. The NRA has morphed, in the last several decades, into simply a special interest lobby for the gun and ammunition industry. They have also sadly associated themselves with many extremist right-wing causes. This is why many members have left the organization and other decent gunowners refuse to join it.

      • JeffH

        Rob, you can start by thanking the likes of Feinstein, Bloomberg and Obama, et al, for spearheading the run on guns, ammo and accessory purchases as well as the in stock shortages at retail outlets. They are all fully responsible for the latest gun buying “crisis”.

        MOLON LABE

      • Don 2

        How about a little truth here?

        The NRA is made up of regular American citizens who support their 2nd. Amendment right.
        The NRA membership includes Democrats, and Democrat politicians.
        The NRA increased membership by at least a quarter million members recently.
        Barack ‘Insane’ Obama is the best gun salesman ever.
        Hitler did disarm the Jews. Just ask the “Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership”

        You may think that you do not have an interest in protecting firearm ownership or the 2nd. Amendment, until it is lost, and then they come for the rest of your constitutional rights, at which time you will be incapable of protecting.

      • eddie47d

        There’s a big difference between legitamite gun ownership and mass shootings. Something the NRA is clueless about and seemingly endorses the latter as collateral damages.

      • Don 2

        The NRA is not clueless. You apparently fail to understand the ‘slippery’ slope. Let’s take New York State for example. First, the progressive liberal anti-gun politicians made it illegal to have a magazine with more than 10 rounds of ammunition for New York citizens. This month(01/2013), anti-gun Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his minions enacted new legislation making it illegal to have more than 7 rounds of ammunition in a magazine. In their rush to sneak this legislation into law overnight before anyone could debate the law, they didn’t even exempt police officers. One of the anti-gun Democrats actually proposed a reduction to 1 round of ammunition per firearm. Cuomo himself, mentioned confiscating from the citizens, any firearms on his hit list. This would include approximately one million semi-automatic AR-15′s, the most popular sport shooting rifle in America. The law also requires all these so-called assault weapons(not) to now be registered. If these falsely identified as assault style military rifles were used by our military, we wouldn’t be able to win a fight with a banana republic, because they would be using automatic AK-47′s.

        Keep in mind, that while the New York law-abiding citizens are now forbidden to have more than 7 rounds of ammunition in any firearm, the criminal element can and will carry pistols with twice as many rounds, and semi-automatic rifles with possibly 20, 30, or more rounds. The typical home invasion is committed by three criminals. How is this fair to the citizens? How is this equal?

        The new law also requires re-certification of concealed carry permits every 5 years. An admission by one NYC area Democrat who helped pass the new law, is the desire to get down to annual re-certification of concealed carry permits, with of course, new fees(taxes). The eventual intent is to make concealed carry permits too expensive to have. Cuomo exposed himself as the tyrant that he is. His popularity dropped 15 points in one month. Hopefully, he has destroyed any chance of ever becoming president.

        I say, thank God for the NRA.

      • Vicki

        Robert Smith suggests we follow the money.

        So we did and look what we found
        http://godfatherpolitics.com/9127/prominent-gun-controllers-make-money-off-the-gun-lobby/

        Not just your average liberal. Actual anti-gun politicians.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “There’s a big difference between legitamite gun ownership and mass shootings.”

        Why yes eddie, there is.
        ~100 MILLION Americans who are legitimate gun owners NEVER committed ANY mass shootings.

        Yet you and the rest of the anti-gun crowd want to punish them and the rest of the

        ~300 MILLION Americans who DIDN’T SHOOT ANYONE (mass or otherwise)

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW.

      • JUKEBOX

        I don’t remember Dianne Feinstein calling for registration of knives when Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were nearly decapited in her state of California. I Bet it may have been different if they had their brains blown out.

      • Texas Ride

        Walt, lets not forget that all the crazed shooters have been registered democrats and radical libs!!!

        The marxists fan the flames of the malevolent behavior we find in these shooters. This country must address the loss of morals in our culture, the loss of individual responsibility and the promoting of Political Correctness that prevents people being held to standards of behavior, long established.

      • eddie47d

        Don 2: New York isn’t “sneaking” anything into this debate for these gun problems have been with us at least since 1968 and more than likely alot longer. Cuomo is not sitting on his hands like the NRA who is once again ignoring the problem and hoping it will go away. The NRA had its chance and its buy more guns and feed the piggies may be working as per usual but at least there is a dent being put into their armour. The NRA looks at these killings as a popularity contest in how many more guns can be sold and totally ignores the carnage they help inflict.

      • Don 2

        BENEFITS OF GUN CONTROL -

        Concentration Camps

        Killing Fields

        Gulags

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Don 2: New York isn’t “sneaking” anything into this debate for these gun problems have been with us at least since 1968 and more than likely alot longer.”

        Interesting that the GCA was passed in 1968.

        - eddie47d: “The NRA looks at these killings as a popularity contest in how many more guns can be sold and totally ignores the carnage they help inflict.”

        Or they know that many more guns will reduce the carnage.
        http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660

        Remember, If it saves JUST ONE life…….

    • truthbeknown

      We all agree that guns make us safer not the other way around. sick people do sick things guns or no guns. Iam sorry she has gone through what she did. how ever iam not sure that she isnt reading something writen for her not by her.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        [personal attack has been removed]

      • Kate8

        truthbeknown – I’ll bet you are correct. No doubt she was offered a deal she couldn’t afford to refuse, as before the shooting she was (supposedly) a solid Constitutionalist.

        Unless… (conspiracy nut that I am)… this was the plan from the beginning.

      • mark

        Yes Kate8, you are a conspiracy nut on this and most issues. This has been proven by scores of your past posts. At least now, you are admitting it.

      • JeffH

        mark, mark, mark(I have a dog that makes that sound when he barks)is that the best you have? You’re basically calling her “nuts”…and you think you have enough credibility on this website that you can do that? Think not, there’s a big difference between vigilance, caution and crazy. Most of you liberal-progressives are the ones that are unhinged seeing boogeymen under every grain of sand.

        Unlike you, Kate8 looks way beyond the MSM for information and, unlike you, Kate8 knows that “things” are not as they appear and, ulike you, Kate8 recognizes the propaganda machine that has been spoon feeding the for decades. No, Kate8 isn’t even close to filling the “shoes” of you and your crazy ilk.

      • Jana

        JeffH,

        Amen!!

      • eddie47d

        Downloading crazy conspiracy theories that never come to fruition hardly makes for a coherent mind or rational thought. There has to be some legitimacy formulated within those theories to make them credible. That makes the sources unreliable!

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Tragedy brought out the real character of Gifford, she may have claimed to be a Constitutionalist before she ran for office because it was expedient otherwise she would not have won the election. Now she is willing to be anti guns because it is expedient.

      • Kate8

        JeffH and Jana – Hey, I appreciate the support. Thank you very much. It means a lot to me.

        Believe me, I’ve dealt with better than the likes of eddie and mark. Many who called me nuts back in the ’80s and ’90s when I talked about the coming NWO and what I saw happening… Well, let’s just say that many of them now are singing another tune.

        I’m so used to the willfully ignorant and blatantly deceptive calling me names. If I couldn’t take it I wouldn’t do what I do. And if people like these clowns weren’t so pathetic I might even feel sorry for them.

        As it is, there is little excuse for people not seeing what is in front of them these days, and the only conclusion to which one can arrive with ed and mark is that they are treasonous and deserve the same fate as those who employ them.

        Those who want truth will look for themselves and will see. Those who have another agenda will be deniers right until the end. Or until their money is cut off.

      • Kate8

        Open your eyes and look at the past two years objectively:

        •Killer drones primed to kill U.S. citizens;
        •Jailing citizens without due process;
        •Assassinations of citizens endorsed by the Obama regime;
        •Active seeking out of top military officials willing to fire on U.S. citizens;
        •Stockpiling of billions of hollow point killer rounds by the alphabet agencies;
        •Obama’s regime demanding the disarmament of America;
        •Grabbing your guns without rhyme or reason;
        •Destruction of the Constitution and the targeting of the Second Amendment

        But, hey…who’s counting.

      • Kate8

        And, in case things are crazy enough for you, check this out (all true):

        Why Convicted Felon ‘s Don ‘t/Won ‘t Have to Register Their [Illegal] Firearms

        U.S. Supreme Court’s 1968 Haynes v. U.S. decision:

        Haynes, a convicted felon, was convicted of unlawful possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. He argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law and that registration violated his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

        The court, by an 8 – 1 margin, agreed, concluding: “We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm…or for possession of an unregistered firearm.” (Summary from American Rifleman, March 2000, page 20)

        So, when these gun registration schemes are announced, be aware that only lawful gun-owners are required to register their firearms. Unlawful owners are exempted from registration laws due to their constitutional protection against self-incrimination.

        Amazing but true…

      • Jana

        Kate8,
        Good Grief! Always protect the criminal. We have some slicks (lawyers) out there who will find a way around anything including murder. That is why our laws are not enforced and why we have so many criminals because they are not afraid of the law.
        By the way I did read and pay attention to how many people die at the hands of Dr.s. Just didn’t respond but as always very informative and thought provoking.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Downloading crazy conspiracy theories that never come to fruition hardly makes for a coherent mind or rational thought. There has to be some legitimacy formulated within those theories to make them credible. That makes the sources unreliable!”

        How about the theory that government is beaming thoughts into your head?
        Is that crazy enough for you?

      • Vicki

        Kate8 writes:
        “So, when these gun registration schemes are announced, be aware that only lawful gun-owners are required to register their firearms. Unlawful owners are exempted from registration laws due to their constitutional protection against self-incrimination.”

        And when the MANY people who have already told the government they will NOT comply with the registration scheme fail to comply, THEY become felons. And THEY are now protected as well.

      • Texas Ride

        JeffH, I think you cut the looney lib down to size.

      • Kate8

        Vicki – “…and they will be protected as well.”

        Theoretically, yes… But, from what I’ve learned, it is the good people they plan to round up after making them criminals for not complying with the law. That is the dirty little secret not being talked about.

        Criminals serve a purpose to the elite. They even arm them so they can terrorize the populace. It is the good people they are after.

        I mean, hey. The elite are ALL the biggest criminals of all. Crime doesn’t bother them. They’ll use anything and everything for power and control of all the wealth. There has long been a double standard when it comes to following their “laws”.

    • Disgusted

      If I ask the right questions to the right people the right way, I can obtain any results that I want. All I really have to do is find people who think the same way I do. The shame is that everyone is missing the whole point of the controversy. It isn’t gun violence the anti-gun people want to eliminate. It’s gun ownership. The surest way to conrol a population is to remove their abilty to resist. The first move of a ” benevelant ruler ” such as Hitler, Joseph Stalin, or Fidel Castro is to get rid of guns. Once the guns are gone, what is left of the Constitution will be in jeapardy. Remember the old saying ? People who are armed are citizens; unarmed people are subjects. Are we subjects ? or citizens ?

      • Jana

        Disgusted,
        You said and you have it right.

      • Vicki

        Disgusted says:
        ” The shame is that everyone is missing the whole point of the controversy. It isn’t gun violence the anti-gun people want to eliminate. It’s gun ownership.”

        Few people in the pro-gun group have missed this point. We have mentioned it often. In the anti gun group there are 2 groups. One knows that the point of gun-control is control. The other is known as “useful idiots”.

        and both groups (pro and anti gun) are some of the

        ~300 MILLION Americans who DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE last year (nor before…..).

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

        (Vicki. The parrot proclaimed parrot)

    • Robert Smith

      From Vicki: “Stop trying to infringe on their God given right ”

      Nope.

      Whatever happened to, “We The PEOPLE?”

      Even atheists can carry guns if they are law abiding citizens.

      Rob

      • Bob666

        Robert,
        you know how this is going to end don’t you?

      • Vicki

        Robert Smith says:
        “Even atheists can carry guns if they are law abiding citizens.”

        Yes I included atheists in the

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

      • Furball

        I couldn’t agree with you more.
        I don’t know why people like Vicki have to act like such rude @*$&%*^!. I keep picturing her as a morbidly obese woman with bleach blonde hair and dark roots. Maybe she is so self-loathing that when anyone says the slightest thing that may differ from what her pea sized brain believes, she has to attack like a rabid dog.

    • no kidding screwball

      Guns don’t kill people!
      sick people and crmiminals take guns and use them to kill people.
      Those sick pricks in washington want me to take my gun and give it up so that I will be at the mercy of anyone.

      when I see all the cops walk around with no guns anymore I will also take mine and turn it in. Untill then I have a message for those gangsters that want me to be at the mercy of everyone in our society.

      That message is to live and to die, Kiss my fkng as…..

      • lancecamper835@gmail.com

        This is all pretty easy, and can be done with out all the emotional rhetoric.
        All of those afraid of guns or don’t want anything to do with guns. Just post a sign out side of you home that there are NO GUNS ALLOWED ON THE PREMISSES. This should protect them from the bad people. Isn’t that how it works in gun free zones? After all isn’t that the law? No guns in gun free zones. No drugs in drug free zones. The perfect world starts in the land of Illinois and NYC where there are no guns allowed. No one ever gets hurt by bad people, no crime no rape just wonderful bliss.
        And I bet everyone will promise not to bring a gun to your property.
        Come to think of it why not make a law that no bad people are allowed on the property of people with signs that say NO BAD PEOPLE ALLOWED. that should protect them.
        And if that does not work I am sure that moving to NYC will be the perfect solution for I HATE GUNS.

        Come to think of it that did not work out for a few people IE: Chinese communist leader Mao Tse-tung’s policies and actions led to the deaths of nearly 77 million of his countrymen, surpassing those killed by Nazi Party founder Adolf Hitler and Soviet Premier Josef Stalin.
        Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2005/11/33619/#jALFGU8lYDeBzMGZ.99

        But then its just my opinion. Backed up by facts.
        All this will come to pass as long as history STOPS REPEATING IT’S SELF!
        So keep dreaming that if good people give up there guns evil will cease to exist and no one with a knife or hammer or baseball bat or maybe just some 350 lb person will beat you to death with there bare hands.

        I prefer to live where the bad guys know that no matter how big they are my neighbor, my room mate or grandson or granddaughter has a concealed weapons permit and if they are intent to do harm, its their end not mine.

  • Dave67

    Just a couple of thoughts for the gun nuts to ponder.

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-28-2013/exclusive—bob-costas-extended-interview-pt–1?xrs=playershare_fb

    “dead on”

    Bob is 100% correct.

    Here is some questions that should be asked of that idiot Wayne LaPierre:

    1) A recent poll showed that nine in 10 Americans, and even eight in 10 NRA members, support universal background checks. Other polls have contained similar findings. Given that your organization spends huge amounts of member dues lobbying against regulations such as this, how can you credibly claim to represent your rank and file membership? Doesn’t this prove that the NRA is little more than a lobbying arm for the multi-billion-dollar gun industry?

    2) Under current law, would-be buyers of guns are widely subjected to background checks. Is it your view that these current checks are unconstitutional? If so, then how? If not, then how exactly would expanding the current background check system infringe on the rights of the law abiding?

    3) Your organization repeatedly claims that the push to expand background checks would create a national federal gun registry, with the aim of confiscating guns. But current law actually prohibits the creation of such a list, and mandates that information collected in the process of green-lighting legal transfers be destroyed. And the current proposal to expand the system doesn’t change this. So isn’t your claim simply a lie?

    4) Many law enforcement groups support the proposed assault weapons ban, the ban on high capacity magazines, and expanded background checks. Why should we take the word of the NRA over that of our brave and hard working law enforcement professionals when it comes to how best to ensure the safety of police officers on the front lines and of the American public?

    5) You recently said: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Are you willing to support any new laws of any kind to prevent the “bad guy” from getting a gun in the first place?

    I wish this scumbag would answer these questions

    • Warrior

      I learned last night that Tow Truck Drivers are twice as likely to die on the job as Police Officers. I think that calls for more driver and car registration! And obviously voters cannot be trusted either so let’s get some voter registration and id’s going as well. And while we’re at it, let’s finally deal with those “obese” people, they’re collapsing the “health care” system. Oh, I almost forgot, the “filthy rich”, yes, they are the “real” cause of all of our problems.

      • eddie47d

        Can any of you stick to the issue (guns) instead of wandering off into the la la land of the absurd! As I have noted before that Conservatives have stated at other times its a person’s right to be as fat as they want to be. Yes it costs everyone with increased hospital costs just as smokers do but gosh darn its their right. (as you all say). Now does a daily box of donuts put you into the hospital faster than a single gunshot wound? How about this riddle: If Warrior takes a gun and shoots 20 kids how many will end up in the hospital and how many will end up in the morgue? VERSES: If Warrior eats 20 buckets of deep fried chicken chicken legs every week for a year how long will it take before he ends up in the hospital or the morgue?

      • cawmun cents

        Eddie47d asking someone to stay on subject?
        Hilarious……
        -CC.

      • Texas Ride

        Warrior, you make a great point. We need to do indepth background checks on people before they can vote!!

        It is more important, to know who is voting the idiots in office that don’t like the Constitution or the Rights it guarantees our citizens. The communists in government cause more deaths than shooters. And, with that thought, just wait and see how many deaths obamacare will cause.

      • eddie47d

        T.R :Since there are a few on this site that bring up deaths by doctors under our private health care system (in the hundreds of thousands) and considering that 53 million folks are not covered by the AHCA until 2014 then the death rate may actually drop. Since at least 30 million more will be insured and will get care then more people may live longer.

    • Chuck

      One basic rule: bad folks will always be able to get guns people that obey the law will not.

      Don’t understand Gabby’s position on assault rifles she was shot with a pistol and the kid in Sandy Hook used pistols also.

      I have no issue with back ground check and I have no issue with reduced capacity magazines, however I suspect if a bad person wants one there is always the internet or e-bay

      We have enough laws on the books to take care of this and don’t need more

      We don’t see cars being banned because a drunk might drive one and kill another person

      Just need to be sensible and while keeping the 2nd amendment in mind it should be our choice to own or not own a gun, not some petty politician/ dictator.

      It is much easier for a dictator to take over a country if they disarm the populace first

      • Robert Smith

        Chuck says: “One basic rule: bad folks will always be able to get guns people that obey the law will not.”

        SOME bad folks…

        In the case of a kid stealing guns from parents or relatives (CT &Colembine) it’s much more difficult for them to get ‘em. They don’t have gang connections and it’s much more difficult for them to get a straw buyer.

        The system doesn’t need to be perfect. Just because not everyone gets into some version of heaven doesn’t mean others are going to quit trying to get themselves in and enhance their chances by trying to get others in.

        Rob

      • Patriot1776

        Robert, you say “In the case of a kid stealing guns from parents or relatives (CT &Colembine) it’s much more difficult for them to get ‘em. They don’t have gang connections and it’s much more difficult for them to get a straw buyer”. And yet in both cases, they managed to get the guns. In both cases, laws were broken in getting the guns. More laws would not have prevented either one. However, if school zones were not “gun free zones” and there had been trained armed security, the probability of either would be greatly reduced. All of the mass shootings have been at locations where guns were not allowed to be carried for protection. The shooters knew that there was no means of self defense allowed, that is why they targeted those locations.

      • eddie47d

        Patriot1776; First of all Gun Free Zones only mean that the students there are not allowed to bring weapons into the school building or onto school property which makes sense. So how do you interpret it? Has nothing to do with not allowing school security officials on school property besides Columbine had two police officers on duty on the day of the mass shooting. One was inside and the other was in the parking lot.

      • JeffH

        eddie, educate yourself for once.

        Another ill-conceived idiotic idea by hoplophobes trying to force their extreme views upon everyone. The premise of this ideologue is criminals, who by definition regularly break the law, will suddenly obey the law because a new one was just created.

        Gun free zone means the area where use or possession of firearms is considered as a crime. An example of gun free zone is a school.

        The gun free school zones act governs the use of gun in a school area. The gun free school zone makes it unlawful the procession of firearms.

      • eddie47d

        That sounded like lawyeresque talk Jeff H. LOL! Apparently YOU want kids to be able to bring weapons into schools in case another kid is in there with a weapon. Some of you are a danger to your own minds! I think it’s time Jeff educates himself and fast! Once again now pay attention… schools can have armed officials within the schools. Do I have to put it in capital letters for you next time ?

      • JeffH

        eddie, you’re a danger to your own mind…although it is questionable as to whether you even have one.

        If you couldn’t say something stupid…you wouldn’t say anything at all.

      • Texas Ride

        Eddie, “security” when standing out in the parking lot is absolutely worthless.

        Security needed to be INSIDE the school where they belonged, I am surprised these so-called security guys were not sued, since neither were in the school to stop the shootings.

      • Robert Smith

        Chuck says: “One basic rule: bad folks will always be able to get guns people that obey the law will not.”

        And by the same token if abortion is made illegal there will still be abortions.

        So, why regulate that freedom?

        In fact there is LESS incentive. Oooy gooy is what runs through my fingers with the product of early conception. It ain’t a “human being” anymore than an acorn is a tree or a bolt is a car. Some day it might be if all goes well, but the stats say that there brutal christian god “aborts” more than anyone. That’s called a miscarriage.

        But, there is NO debate about the kids an adults who are shot with bullets.

        Rob

      • Robert Smith

        Patriot says: “And yet in both cases, they managed to get the guns. ”

        Yup, the crazy kid in CT did steal the guns.

        Trigger locks or secure storage could have made a difference.

        Rob

      • eddie47d

        Texas Ride: Reading comprehension by chance? One one was in the parking lot directing student traffic and keeping the cars moving and the other was at the school entrance inside the school. The one in the school was Officer Gardner .

    • Gary

      To be honest, i don’t really care what “polls” say on the issue of the 2nd Amendment. It is pretty clear to me. If we the people really want to restrict the right to keep and bear arms, there is an existing process. It is called the Amendment Process to our Constitution.

      • Dave67

        I guess you missed the “well regulated” part.

      • Dave67

        Bob,

        I did have the pleasure of reading that.

        What kind of country were we in 1792? Would you say its different from today?

        Yes or no, were we coming off being a colony of England and before our independence had no military?

        Yes or no, did we have a say in the laws King George put over on us while we were their colony?

        So do you think that may have had some influence on the second Amendment?

        So today, the NRA believes the 2nd Amendment stands for anyone is allowed to have any weapon they want the minute they want it (assault weapon, automatics, cop-killer bullets etc), regardless of mental state.

        So today, I believe “well regulated” means background checks on all gun purchases, psych evaluations, waiting periods, national data bases and waiting periods.

        So I guess, the NRA pays to twist the 2nd Amendment for the gun lobby… Now there is push back from the sane people who wish to see a change in the culture of violence arounud guns.

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

          Dear Dave67,

          You write: “What kind of country were we in 1792? Would you say its different from today? Yes or no, were we coming off being a colony of England and before our independence had no military? Yes or no, did we have a say in the laws King George put over on us while we were their colony? So do you think that may have had some influence on the second Amendment?” Your questions are irrelevant to the law.

          You write: “So today, the NRA believes the 2nd Amendment stands for anyone is allowed to have any weapon they want the minute they want it (assault weapon, automatics, cop-killer bullets etc), regardless of mental state.” Is this a question or a statement?

          You write: “So today, I believe “well regulated” means background checks on all gun purchases, psych evaluations, waiting periods, national data bases and waiting periods.” What you “believe” is irrelevant to the law.

          You write: “So I guess, the NRA pays to twist the 2nd Amendment for the gun lobby…” If you say so. The NRA does not speak for me, nor do I speak for the NRA.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

      • John

        Dave67, now we (perhaps I use “we” too broadly?) are opposed by a colony of globalists like the Rothschilds, and the Warburgs, and our home grown Soros and Rockefellers. Nothing has changed since 1776. There will always be some bastard, jealous of your freedom, wanting to take it from you. Wake Up! Or enjoy your slavery.

      • momo

        I guess you missed the “shall not be infringed part”

      • Dave67

        Bob,

        The United States as it existed at the time of of the wrinting of the 2nd Amendment Irrelevant or inconvenient to your political leaning? I believe it is the later…

        You do not speak for the NRA? Can you tell me where your position on guns differ? Sounds like to me you go lock step with their propaganda.

        Can you tell me which of Obama’s proposals in Unconstitutional and comes in to grab a law-abiding citizen’s gun?

        Common sense needs to be injected into the culture of gun violence in this country. Its worked well for Israel, Canada and Switzerland. The problem is not the GUN its the CULTURE. That is what Obama is talking about. The only ones talking about any “gun grab” is people like you.

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

          Dear Dave67,

          You write: “I believe it is the later…” Again, what you “believe” is irrelevant.

          You write: “Can you tell me where your position on guns differ?” I have not studied the NRA’s current position, so I cannot. However, the NRA has in the past supported gun control measures that I did not agree with.

          You write: “Can you tell me which of Obama’s proposals in Unconstitutional and comes in to grab a law-abiding citizen’s gun?” Nos. 3, 4, 8, 13, 16. The danger lies in their vagueness and subjectivity.

          You write: “The problem is not the GUN its (sic) the CULTURE.” Here we agree. And as that’s the case, why the impetus to ban weapons based on cosmetic features and magazine capacities?

          You write: “The only ones talking about any “gun grab” is people like you.” Not true. http://personalliberty.com/2012/12/31/the-gun-control-debate-continues/

          Best wishes,
          Bob

      • Dave67

        Bob,

        Here is what is being proposed: Explain “Nos. 3, 4, 8, 13, 16. The danger lies in their vagueness and subjectivity.”

        Everyone who follows your attitudes says that these proposals are a definate “gun grab”, nothing about any “vagueness and subjectivity” which you allow to spread because fear is what you trade in.

        Most of what I see here is common sense. Tell me where I am wrong.

        Proposed Congressional Actions

        •Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including those by private sellers that currently are exempt.
        •Reinstating and strengthening the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004.
        •Limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
        •Banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone other than members of the military and law enforcement.
        •Increasing criminal penalties for “straw purchasers,” people who pass the required background check to buy a gun on behalf of someone else.
        •Acting on a $4 billion administration proposal to help keep 15,000 police officers on the street.
        •Confirming President Obama’s nominee for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
        •Eliminating a restriction that requires the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to allow the importation of weapons that are more than 50 years old.
        •Financing programs to train more police officers, first responders and school officials on how to respond to active armed attacks.
        •Provide additional $20 million to help expand the a system that tracks violent deaths across the nation from 18 states to 50 states.
        •Providing $30 million in grants to states to help schools develop emergency response plans.
        •Providing financing to expand mental health programs for young people.

        Executive actions
        •Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
        •Addressing unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
        •Improving incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
        •Directing the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
        •Proposing a rule making to give law enforcement authorities the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
        •Publishing a letter from the A.T.F. to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
        •Starting a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
        •Reviewing safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
        •Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
        •Releasing a report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and making it widely available to law enforcement authorities.
        •Nominating an A.T.F. director.
        •Providing law enforcement authorities, first responders and school officials with proper training for armed attacks situations.
        •Maximizing enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
        •Issuing a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research gun violence.
        •Directing the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenging the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
        •Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
        •Releasing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
        •Providing incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
        •Developing model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
        •Releasing a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
        •Finalizing regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within insurance exchanges.
        •Committing to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
        •Starting a national dialogue on mental health led by Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, and Arne Duncan, the secretary of education

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

          Dear Dave67,

          You write: “…because fear is what you trade in.” I trade in information. If it frightens you I would suggest you stop reading.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

      • Dave67

        Bob,

        Its not me who is scared, its the little conservative rabbits that think you and the others that engage in BS stories like

        “Obama Shuts Down Southern Defense Mechanism, Opens South To Attack”

        Are factual and give anything else but your slanted view on things.

        You have your warped little minions believing that what obama is proposing is a “gun grab”

        This is your time to shine. Prove the BS.

        To me, you are the same type as Sean Hannidy, Ed Helms, Rush Limbaugh. You put out sensationalistic BS, get people all fired up, then sit back and pretend to be above it all. Its basically the standard operating procedure of the GOP you copy.

        I for one am glad we have our 1st amendment rights so we know who the crazies are and who hates America. So keep going, America is running from your brand of politics as the last election illustraes.

      • GRusling

        Dave67 says: “So today, the NRA believes the 2nd Amendment stands for anyone is allowed to have any weapon they want the minute they want it (assault weapon, automatics, cop-killer bullets etc), regardless of mental state.”

        First, I’m not a member of the NRA, but the NRA has never said anything of the nature, either publicly or privately. The NRA, as a matter of fact, was closely involved in helping to create and design our current “NICS” (National Instant Check System) for gun buyers, and fully supported it at every turn. That makes your statement nothing but propaganda, since none of it is true. The NRA has complained from the inception that the system lacks any real means to identify “mental cases” and preclude such people from purchasing firearms. That’s an historical fact, and any denial of that fact simply makes you dishonest.

        Second , “Assault Weapon” is a POLITICAL term which has no meaning in the real world. Any weapon (including a baseball bat) can be used for “assault” so such a designation is meaningless! It’s nothing more or less than an attempt to “demonize” what you dislike, by making up a sinister sounding name. It may advance your cause IN YOUR MIND but to those of us who actually know something about firearms, it simply makes your rhetoric laughable by demonstrating you don’t understand what you’re trying to appear “expert” on.

        Third, “Automatic” weapons have been strictly regulated in America since the 1930′s. You need a class “C” license from the federal government to buy such a thing. That requires an extensive background check by the FBI and an approved storage facility. The COST of such weapons is also prohibitive, and they’re taxed and registered individually. The “NRA” has never challenged this process AT ALL, so like most of what you say, it’s either very ill-informed or simply more dishonest rhetoric on your part.

        Cop-Killer Bullets? That term has been kicked around for years, but it’s something which doesn’t actually exist. Using such words is nothing more than another attempt to demonize something you can’t make a logical case against. It’s another attempt at the old adage; “If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with bu!!sh!t”. Any rifle round (like a .222) will penetrate a kevlar vest due to velocity. Pistol rounds won’t because the velocity is comparatively low. No company would manufacture anything for such a purpose anyway.

        Dave67 says: “So today, I believe “well regulated” means background checks on all gun purchases, psych evaluations, waiting periods, national data bases and waiting periods.”

        You have a right to believe whatever you choose. Fortunately, for the rest of us, you have no right to demand anyone do anything simply because “You Believe”. Since most of what “you believe” in this regard appears to be very poorly informed, that’s a good thing, and just one more reason why the 2nd Amendment was created and needs to be maintained…

      • mark

        Excellent points, Dave67. I could not agree with you more. But we are obviously a minority on this site.

      • TML

        Dave67 says “So today, I believe “well regulated” means background checks on all gun purchases, psych evaluations, waiting periods, national data bases and waiting periods.”

        Not even the SCOTUS agrees with that interpretation, and the meaning of the words at its founding, as Thomas Jefferson said ““On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”… is also upheld by the same ruling. Consider:

        DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
        Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

        JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court

        “- In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.
        … …
        The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).
        … …
        From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit.
        … …
        Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.” –“

        Therefore, Dave67, as much as you would like it to; “well regulated” does not mean “background checks on all gun purchases, psych evaluations, waiting periods, national data bases and waiting periods”. It does in fact mean well-trained and well-armed. And because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state (notice the existence of the militia being also protected by these words without exception) then barring the individuals citizens the right to own even the so-called assault rifle, is considered an infringement by every sense of the word.

        Dave67 says “Common sense needs to be injected into the culture of gun violence in this country. Its worked well for Israel, Canada and Switzerland. The problem is not the GUN its the CULTURE.”

        As you say, it isn’t the gun, but the culture. Thus that common sense would be training as opposed to restricting certain firearms. I think from there, in regards to universal background checks on all gun purchases should be based on the state level rather than national. Psych evaluations are very touchy which could leads to the evaluator having too much authority to take away someone’s rights based on mere opinion of whether a person might someday commit a crime. National databases have no direct relationship with the prevention of any crimes. Waiting periods are fine.

      • RR

        What part of SHALL NOT do you not understand?

      • Dennis48e

        ” it’s either very ill-informed or simply more dishonest rhetoric on your part.”

        It is neither. His comments are bald faced lies being used in an attempt to support his obvious anti-gun bias.

      • Jana

        Dave67,
        I also have a great concern about the violence in this country. One of the reasons we have so much violence is when the perp is caught he/she is given a slap on the wrist and a few years in prison. BIG DEAL! When someone commits murder, and I do mean cold blooded murder (there is a difference between killing and murder) then they should pay with their lives. But no, we have too many out there that says oh we have to analyze their lives as children and see why their childhood brought them to this place and get all touchy feely on the poor misguided murderer or rapist. PHOOEY, what about the victim?

        We all have the same concerns, where we differ is on how to fix these problems, but making more soft targets out there for these poor misguided murders, drug addicts, mentally ill, and deranged people is not the answer.

        Instead of punishing the innocent law abiding people, lets start insisting that the perpetrators are the ones who get punished with a good decent punishment, not just a slap on the wrist and a good talking to.

      • Dave67

        Jana,

        Don’t get me wrong, if you kill someone in cold blood, you have forfeited your life.

        The point which many here miss completely is:

        1) What Obama is proposing is NOT a gun grab
        2) We need a change in the culture in this country around guns and violence and that is what Obama is trying to do and I support it.
        3) The NRA has a history of deminishing law enforncement’s ability to enforce the laws we do have.
        4) Wayne LaPierre is a propagandist and a liar (see his hiter comments from his book)

        I go camping and I shoot guns, when I went to the FBI range in DC, I got to shoot Tommy guns and they were alot of fun.

        There needs to be the proper training around a guns use AND storage.
        There needs to be mental evaluations for people trying to get guns
        There needs to be waiting periods
        Limits on the amount of ammo you can get
        National databases for ALL gun sales and no internet gun sales
        We need to stop glorifying and drawing attention to the animals that commit crimes
        We need to stop the culture of reaching for arms to solve a difference.

        Is it perfect? No Will it stop mass murder with guns? No…

        If it reduces the incidence of these crimes, isn’t it worth it to try?

      • kimo3690

        Dave67 says: “Common sense needs to be injected into the culture of gun violence in this country. Its worked well for Israel, Canada and Switzerland. The problem is not the GUN its the CULTURE. That is what Obama is talking about. The only ones talking about any “gun grab” is people like you.”

        I do believe Dave that in Switzerland it is MANDATORY to be armed…… One of the main reasons crime is non-existent.

        Please check YOUR facts! TY

      • Kate8

        Jana – Hasn’t anyone wonder why this gun violence has escalated since Obama came into office? Amazing how things just seem to happen when an excuse for taking away more rights is needed… It’s almost like it was planned that way.

      • TML

        Dave67 says “1) What Obama is proposing is NOT a gun grab”

        That is false simply out of his self-proclaimed proposal to reinstate a ban on the so-called assault rifle, all by itself. If we then consider his record of supporting bans on hand guns in Illinois, along with his statement during the Presidential debates, “…Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.” Then we can conclude that he is not opposed to doing the same on a national level. Add to that the fact that Obama has surrounded himself with anti-gun personnel, some of who have out-right stated they wish to ban all guns, and you have a reasonable concern by American citizens that just often comes across very emotional, but no less warranted.

        Dave67 says “2) We need a change in the culture in this country around guns and violence and that is what Obama is trying to do and I support it.”

        I think trying to change the culture of a country through laws, is like shooting yourself in the foot.

        Dave67 says “There needs to be the proper training around a guns use AND storage.”

        I agree wholeheartedly

        Dave67 says “There needs to be mental evaluations for people trying to get guns”

        I can agree with background checks for a recorded history of mental illness, and for felony convictions of violent crime, but mental evaluations for people who want to buy a gun isn’t reasonable. Such mental evaluations would be completely subjective by nature, with no real definitive criteria for ‘mental illness’. I’m sure, for example, many anti-gun proponents would say that anyone who even wants a gun are mentally ill. And then, of course, if we consider incidents such as that in Newtown where the criminal did not even own the guns for which he could have been evaluated, this option of mental evaluations as a precursor to owning a gun is ineffective.

        Dave67 says “There needs to be waiting periods”

        There are waiting periods.

        Dave67 says “Limits on the amount of ammo you can get”

        That would severely hamper a day at the shooting range. But if you mean, limits on magazine capacity, this too is fairly ridiculous. In most homicides, less than the 10 round limits being proposed is even used. So this would only address mass-shootings, in which, would still be ineffective since you could have 2-4 10 round clips on your side that can be switched out in less than one second. Realistically it is a completely ineffective proposal in the effort to reduce crime.

        Dave67 says “National databases for ALL gun sales and no internet gun sales”

        I’m not sure how a national database will reduce crime. If a gun is used in a crime, the thought is that it could then be traced to where it was last sold or who owned it. It’s a moot point after the fact of the crime, in which the criminal will be prosecuted for the crime, to then try and punish the seller or person the gun was stolen from. This doesn’t reduce violence or crime either.

        Dave67 says “We need to stop glorifying and drawing attention to the animals that commit crimes”

        I agree wholeheartedly

        Dave67 says “We need to stop the culture of reaching for arms to solve a difference.”

        I think most law-abiding citizens and gun owners do not have such a ‘culture’.

        Dave67 says “If it reduces the incidence of these crimes, isn’t it worth it to try?”

        The point of the matter is, that most don’t believe that such measures will actually reduce the incidence of these crimes. In the American culture such measures are likely to work as well as prohibition, and make the problem worse… which is why we often point to places like Chicago and New York, or D.C., where such crime is the worst in the nation despite some of the most notorious gun laws on the books.

        The prescribed solution is, if someone want to buy a gun, mandatory training to use it would not be an infringement of the right to bare arms, and would better serve as deterrent of these incidents. Even criminals will admit, that they fear above all else, even a police officer, his attempting to victimize an armed citizen. Do away with the restrictions, abolish the gun free zones (which are liked unto setting out lambs for slaughter), and well train the population (those who chose to possess and carry arms).

      • Jana

        Kate8,
        My husband and I were talking about that very thing just last night.

      • Mike in MI

        markie -
        “…Obviously we (markie and Davie67) are a minority on this site.”
        Not only are you minority on “this site”. You are a minority in life.
        I’ve been doing some checking in psychology into you people who are of the liberal/progressive mind set. Your mental and life traits line up amazingly closely with right brain dominant individuals who have never properly matured. Everyone is born right brain dominant and deal as immature in the world (not to be taken seriously by adults).
        At some point in life people are supposed to go through a metamorphosis which leaves them with the thinking, learning and functional traits our culture has usually expected of responsible adults.
        The final product of maturation normally leaves a person in the left brain dominant state, but still able, when needed or advantageous, to access the functional traits still resident in the right brain. So, most adults work back and forth between valuable aspects (determined by temporal benefits) of both sides of the brain.
        Liberals seem not to ever decide to grow up and metamorphose into the adult mode. There is of course the possibility that there is some major malfunction stopping the normal maturation process.
        The problem is, adults (conservatives, traditionalists), that attempting to deal logically and on “realistic” bases with the right brainers is that you can’t. They live in a perpetual lala-land where their emotional flights of fancy and intuitive habit of exploratory “creative – mindedness” can be exploited by people like the ghetto conman in the WH. Of course the conman and the people who handle him are anything but liberals and progressives. They
        merely use the Lib/prog toadstools to stand on until they achieve their goals of power and controlling cultures in the worshp of their god – the Devil.

      • Jana

        Dave67,
        TML actually answered you very well.
        However I am going to give you another answer that was posted earlier by someone else which is quite appropriate.______________

        Disgusted says:
        January 31, 2013 at 2:46 pm

        If I ask the right questions to the right people the right way, I can obtain any results that I want. All I really have to do is find people who think the same way I do. The shame is that everyone is missing the whole point of the controversy. It isn’t gun violence the anti-gun people want to eliminate. It’s gun ownership. The surest way to conrol a population is to remove their abilty to resist. The first move of a ” benevelant ruler ” such as Hitler, Joseph Stalin, or Fidel Castro is to get rid of guns. Once the guns are gone, what is left of the Constitution will be in jeapardy. Remember the old saying ? People who are armed are citizens; unarmed people are subjects. Are we subjects ? or citizens ? _____________________________________________________________

      • Mike in MI

        Oh yeah – almost forgot:
        Part of the right brain dominance, according to one person I read, seems to be a learning “disability”. Not INability but DISability. Some stuff seems not to register. So , there are undoubtedly areas of life where they have no experiential or reasoning possibility.
        They might mke good trained seals though.

      • Vicki

        Dave67 says to Bob Livingston:
        “What kind of country were we in 1792?”

        A (temporarily) freer one.

        Then the progressives came.

      • Jana

        Mike in MI,
        That was a great great post. That would fit several on this site that post from time to time.

      • Dave67

        Kimo,

        Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.

        the nature of gun ownership in Switzerland is tied to the military. Switzerland has a very small standing army, and citizens are expected to act as militiamen should the country be invaded. Every 18-30 years old Swiss male between has to do three months’ military training, and many more regular refresher courses. The majority of guns are army-issued, though rules on private gun ownership are very lax compared to other European countries.

        This is also a country with a population smaller than New York City. According to 2011 data from the IMF, Switzerland has a GDP per capita of $83,073, almost double that of the US, or other European countries like the UK or France. The CIA says 6.9 percent of the country lives below the poverty line, compared to 15.1 in the US or 14 in the UK.

        Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/switzerlands-gun-laws-are-a-red-herring-2012-12#ixzz2JagxdyCC

      • Dave67

        Kate8 says:

        January 31, 2013 at 2:39 pm

        Jana – Hasn’t anyone wonder why this gun violence has escalated since Obama came into office? Amazing how things just seem to happen when an excuse for taking away more rights is needed… It’s almost like it was planned that way.
        ———-

        People like Kate8 are so pathetic. There was more Gun violence in the mid-80′s and early 1990s than there are under Obama.

        Gun deaths by homicide, suicide or accident peaked at 37,666 in 1993 before declining to a low of 28,393 in 2000, the data shows

        But lets have another BS conspiracy theory by the right wing loons. The increase since Obama go into the WH could never be associated with any other factors could it?

        Another blind NRA follower.

      • Dave67

        Jana says:

        January 31, 2013 at 3:14 pm

        Dave67,
        TML actually answered you very well.
        However I am going to give you another answer that was posted earlier by someone else which is quite appropriate.______________

        Disgusted says:
        January 31, 2013 at 2:46 pm

        If I ask the right questions to the right people the right way, I can obtain any results that I want. All I really have to do is find people who think the same way I do. The shame is that everyone is missing the whole point of the controversy. It isn’t gun violence the anti-gun people want to eliminate. It’s gun ownership. The surest way to conrol a population is to remove their abilty to resist. The first move of a ” benevelant ruler ” such as Hitler, Joseph Stalin, or Fidel Castro is to get rid of guns. Once the guns are gone, what is left of the Constitution will be in jeapardy. Remember the old saying ? People who are armed are citizens; unarmed people are subjects. Are we subjects ? or citizens ? _____________________________________________________________

        No, its BS and an excuse to do nothing. Hitler was proven BS by Drudge.

        If only conservatives cared as much about this issue as they do about their hatred for Obama.

      • eddie47d

        Kimo: Why do so many get gun ownership in Switzerland wrong. Most weapons are government owned and always registered. In Israel weapons are only allowed in schools under certain circumstances and conditions which is mainly terrorist attacks so some teacher can be armed. I believe Israel has had only two school massacres and both were terrorist attacks not disgruntled citizens or students.

      • mark

        Vicki, we were a freer country in 1792? One fifth of all Americans were slaves in 1792. They had zero rights and could be bought and sold on auction blocks like cattle. Half of all adult Americans who were women could not vote or hold office in 1792, in many states they could not own property, none of them could serve on juries. In 1792 nearly a quarter of the white male adult population who did not own sufficient property could vote or hold office. We were a freer country in 1792? Aren’t you aware of even some basic American history?

      • mark

        Oh, one other point, Vicki. If it were not for those progressives who you insult, you could not vote, run for office, or serve on a jury today. Progressives struggled for decades to push through the 19th Amendment and other legislature to assure women full citizenship rights in our nation. Conservatives opposed them every step of way, claiming among other things, that granting women the vote would be the ruination of America.

      • Kate8

        Dave67 – Is that so?

        Okay, assuming you are correct (just for the sake of argument), and gun deaths are down from what they were in the past, then please tell me why it is suddenly so urgent that we take guns away from people?

        This does not make any sense. It would show that people are much more resonsible with weapons than ever before. It would seem pretty arbitrary, if things are as you say. So, there must be some other agenda afoot, as it certainly can’t be about escalating shooting incidents.

        You just cancelled the Left’s whole argument for disarming.

        Case dismissed.

      • Dave67

        Kate8,

        I will say it again… I do not want to see a ban on all weapons. I want to see a change in the culture. Most liberals I know agree.

        If you bother to look at the proposals, most are around getting better mental health, closing certain loopholes, allowing law enforcement to to their jobs better. That is the main focus. The proposals for the re-establishment of the assault weapons ban and not allowing large capacity magazines.

        That is far for the BS “disarmament” rhetoric that surrounds the conservatives.

        Sorry, your nonsense doesn’t fly.

      • Kate8

        No, Dave67. It’s your nonsense which doesn’t fly.

        How does one determine just who is mentally ill, and by what standard? Because the way it’s looking now, and has occurred historically, it’s whomever disagrees with the government, such as Christians, conservatives, and anyone who speaks out in opposition to them.

        There are many levels of even real mental illness. Having worked with the mentally ill, they are in need of a means of defending themselves as much as anyone else, and are not all incapable of handing a firearm. So, who determines this? They won’t. Anyone who has ever consulted a psychiatrist or psychologist will be out. That eliminates a large swath of the population right there.

        The jerks in charge plan to make it so pretty much everyone will be barred from gun ownership. That is, except for the criminals, because they couldn’t care less what the “law” says.

        You live in some fantasy land, like most liberals, Crime has been a part of life on Earth since the beginning of time, and not one communist has been able to eradicate it, no matter how many hundreds of millions they’ve slaughtered. All the more reason why we MUST have the means of defending ourselves, against common criminals and against those in high places.

        People have been owning guns in America all along and, by far, guns have saved more lives than they have taken (and always with a person’s hand on the grip!). All we have to do is to drastically restrict gun ownership, and crime will soar, just as it has been proven to do everywhere it’s been tried.

        • Grandpa Frog

          Got a great idea for the wannabe gun controllers. Right from Catch 22.

          Redefine mental illness (liberals love to redefine terms, anyhow), to include anyone wanting to buy or own a gun.

          Grandpa Frog

      • Dave67

        So again, we are back to doing nothing about the problem. Just want you wish….

        I know there are different levels of mental illness Kate, many who buy Mr Livingston’s BS show many symptoms. The level of mental illness is determined by mental health professionals.

        Yes, Kate we know the criminals will ignore laws (thats what makes them criminals don’t you know…)

        But if closing loopholes in registrations, gun purchases at gun shows, giving law enforcement better tools to do their jobs and to examine why America more than any other industrialized country has the most gun deaths, if that prevents a few deaths…

        Isn’t it worth the effort? But then you are a conservative aren’y you? Whats a few lives if you have to be inconvenienced right?

      • Kate8

        Again, Dave67, you make no sense.

        If criminals don’t purchase guns openly (in fact, they are often stolen or bought off other criminals), how does making it tougher for law-abiding people to acquire self protection solve anything? All it does is prevent good people from being able to protect themselves against criminals.

        Criminals are not attending gun shows, and criminals don’t give a rat’s behind about background checks.

        I think you know exactly what is going on here, and you are just shilling for the gun-grabbers. You come up with the usual lame arguments that don’t hold water.

        The solution is to be protected in the best way we know how. Have a gun, so if you should need it, you have it. There can’t be much worse than being accosted by someone with intent to harm and have no way to stop them.

        BTW, do you seriously trust government to possess uber-lethal weapons and not use them against us?

        Good grief.

      • Mike in MI

        Katie lady – My GOD (I don’t use the expletive often or without cause) how you have progressed in your ability to stand up to these nuts and show them the level of espect due them…….NONE.
        Though it’s late, I hope you see this. You’re a wonder not seen often in a gracious lady.
        I LOVE IT (YOU).

        God Bless You.
        Mike

      • Kate8

        Mike in MI – Thank you so much for those kind words. I appreciate them more than you know.

        I have dedicated my life to the Lord to the best of the understanding given me. I will always continue to speak truth as I understand it. I believe that the same is true of you, and that many of us are morphing into something wonderful that even we do not, at present, understand.

        As we shed the veils of illusion, the fear melts away, too. Yeshua told us that the Kingdom (Consciousness) of Heaven is Near… that it is within… that it is closer than breathing. That His Kingdom (Consciousness) is not of this world…

        As I understand it, as we raise our level of conscousness to be in alignment with the Divine Consciousness of the Heavens (where we live and move and have our being), we no longer resonate with the levels of negative forces (“what have Thee to do with me?”), and thus, they cannot touch us.

        “For those who Love Me, no weapons formed against you shall prosper”… “Though a thousand fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, yet they shall not come nigh thee”… “My people are not appointed to wrath”… “My Will for you is that you would prosper in health and provision…” “Yeah, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for Thou art with me…”

        What is expressed hundreds of times in scripture? “FEAR NOT”.

        I do believe that those who walk in absolute reverance and Love for the Divine Within… walk in peace, and have nothing to fear. The world is ILLUSION, the projection of an artificial matrix, making humanity prisoners of their own minds. When we snap out of this mind control, it vanishies…

        Mystery Babylon is ILLUSION. Babble… nonsense. IT’S ALL FAKE.

        When the grid goes down, the sky will “roll up like a scroll”… the illusion is held in place by media… It will vanish in an instant.

        You are one of my favoriey posters, Mike in MI. You always bring forward excellence.

        Blessings.

      • JeffH

        Kate8, Mike in Mi is right…you are a precious lady and we are fortunate to have several more precious ladies on this website..KUDOS to you all!
        __________________________________________________

        GRusling, kudos to you for your comment directed at Dave67.
        NOTE: Dave67 had no respone at all.

      • Vicki

        mark says:
        “Vicki, we were a freer country in 1792? One fifth of all Americans were slaves in 1792.”

        Those who were actually free were certainly freer. Now we all are slaves for the IRS.

      • Vicki

        Dave67 writes:
        “No, its BS and an excuse to do nothing. Hitler was proven BS by Drudge.”

        Odd phrasing. Do you mean that Hitler was BS?

        With respect to Hitler disarming Jews using the Gun-Control laws of Germany, that is established historical fact. This article discusses (at great length) with many cites.
        http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

        In particular you can search for “THE DISARMING OF THE JEWS” and then read above to see how the 1938 law worked and below for how the NAZI used it.

        Or, if you have the time you can read the entire article and see the similarity to what the gun-control people have done here in the US.

        And still

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

    • Dave67

      So lets see… The solutions put for by Warrior, Chuck and Kane to combat the problem of gun violence in this country:

      Warrior says: We should do nothing
      Chuck says: We should do nothing
      Kane says: We should do nothing
      NRA says: We should do nothing

      Got it…

      Trouble is, if you actually bothered to read any of Obama’s proposals on Gun Violence, most have to do with mental health, allowing the police to do their jobs better only two of his proposals have anything to do with actual guns (assualt weapons ban which we had before) and limits on magazine size.

      Don’t matter how many people have to die so you don’t get inconvenienced does it?

      • Warrior

        David, I propose you do this tomorrow, you should get out of bed and tell yourself, I’m going to mind my own business today and focus on making myself a better “individual”. Just try it.

      • Hedgehog

        The problem with most, if not all of Obama’s proposals is that they are beyond the power granted to the president by the Constitution. As a Canadian I shouldn’t have to remind you of this!

      • Robin from Arcadia, IN

        Dave67… You want to control gun violence? Doing nothing is not the solution. Purchasing your own gun and conceal carry permit is where you start.

      • one eye open

        Ill answer that…..NO!

      • Dave67

        Warrior,

        I do my part and I am doing it here to expose the NRA’s BS.

        Hedgehog,

        Go down the list of proposals that Obama has put forth and tell me what part of the Constitution it violates. Since you are canadian and you are an expert on the US Constitution.

      • Robert Smith

        “Purchasing your own gun and conceal carry permit is where you start.”

        How did that work out for Ronald Reagan? He had half a dozen guys around him, some with fully automatic weapons.

        What do you propose we do for school kids? Put seven guys around each one?

        BTW, Obama did NOT by executive order ban assault weapons, etc. That has to go through Congress.

        Please be specific: Which of his proposals do you obnect to?

        Rob

      • Dave67

        Robin,

        We have that here in AZ. Liberal gun laws and you can walk around with a concealed weapon and yet we have more gun murders here than “Liberal” MA that has less population and more people per square mile in that state than we do.

        Care to explain? If everyone has a gun like we do in AZ, we should have a “polite” society according to the gun nuts. yet its not the case. Please enlighten me on that.

      • S.C.Murf

        davie you are the one that doesn’t get it, they have all said “why doesn’t the govt. enforce the laws that are already on the books?”. The shooters all broke laws, one more law will solve nothing. Wake up.

        up the hill
        airborne

      • Dave67

        S.C.

        What has the NRA done to the existing laws on the books? Dismatled them. Look it up.

      • cawmun cents

        I will explain why you have more violence than MA.
        Arizona shares a border with Mexico dooes it not?
        That is the answer then…..the lawless come across the border and their crimes are part of your states statistics.
        Hello!McFly?
        Cheers!
        -CC.

      • eddie47d

        SMURF: Those laws can’t be enforced because the NRA keeps tying them up in court. Which in turn means the courts and sheriffs have their hands tied until there is a stronger ruling on the issues.

      • Motov

        That is because of the proven fact if the guns are taken away the crime rate goes up.
        Look at every city where “Gun control” laws are in place, the murder rates are up because the crooks know the people are unarmed. Why can’t you get the term “criminal” are people BY DEFINITION do NOT abide by the laws??? That is why we call them criminals. They will get a gun no matter what the law states. THEY WILL HAVE A GUN because they DON’T CARE ABOUT LAWS. Do you understand? So your solution is to disarm THE VICTIMS so the crooks can have a field day!

        Look at the real statistics of places where guns are outlawed, everyone of them seen an increase in gun related crimes.
        Just because of a loony toon grabs a pistol,..shoots up a school, kills himself.
        And the bed wetting retards are crying for assault rifles to be banned?

        That makes as much sense as saying matches causes fires, so we gotta ban bic lighters!

        The idea of a data base causes me concern of our 4th amendment. Who will manage these “Records” ? how will they get used? any steps on correcting errors?, What if I share a name with someone who is a crook and I’m not. will I be denied because of that?
        Our government is already too big and needs to shrink pronto!

      • Dave67

        cawmun cents,

        Do you live in AZ? See, I do… and to blame the additional violence on illegal immigration is a lie and a red herring. But conservatives will find everything to blame illegals for.

        The 3 people shot in a office complex in Glendale yesterday were not illegal and since AZ is so free with their gun laws, why wasn’t there a “good guy” with a gun to stop it like that moron LaPierre contends?

        Know what you are talking about.

      • phideaux

        “SMURF: Those laws can’t be enforced because the NRA keeps tying them up in court. Which in turn means the courts and sheriffs have their hands tied until there is a stronger ruling on the issues.”

        eddie you and Dave67 quit telling your lies. Your noses are getting so long they are distorting my monitor.

      • Jana

        Robert,
        And who was it that shot President Reagan? A MENTALLY ILL MAN. This takes us back to one of the root causes of our problems.

        Another point is today’s society says if it feels good do it. Well, they are, and obviously the punishments are not deterring them. Therefore, people need to be more aware of their surroundings and not make themselves a soft target as my husband calls it, and be prepared. Since a baseball bat isn’t something that most women can use to defend themselves with, nor even a knife as it means they have to get too close to them, having a concealed weapon with permit, and trained in how to use it sounds like the best defense.

        About that baseball bat, I don’t see a lot of men running around with those either.

      • Jana

        Dave67,

        You said____________the 3 people shot in a office complex in Glendale yesterday were not illegal and since AZ is so free with their gun laws, why wasn’t there a “good guy” with a gun to stop it like that moron LaPierre contends?________________

        Exactly, why wasn’t there someone in there with a gun? Too many people in there that believes like you? How sad, so what did they do, cower in fear.

      • Dave67

        Jana,

        A person with a gun (without training in dealing with situtations such as those) will not be an effective stop to that crime (See Columbine)

        I have no problem with guns. What I do have a problem with with is this counrty’s attitude towards guns and violence which is complately different and one that conservatives can get through their thinnk skulls.

        I posted every proposal by Obama on this board. You tell me where the “gun grab” is.

      • eddie47d

        Poor little phildeaux always in denial in how much enfluence the NRA has on our court system. Keep playing three blind mice in your mind! By the way your back flow is growing in footage! Yuck!

      • Jana

        Dave67,
        What part of my post just above did you not read or comprehend? I will repeat it for you:
        __________________
        Since a baseball bat isn’t something that most women can use to defend themselves with, nor even a knife as it means they have to get too close to them, having a concealed weapon with permit, and trained in how to use it sounds like the best defense._______________

        Did you catch the part AND TRAINED IN HOW TO USE IT. I have never advocated anyone carrying without the training and behind the training means keep practicing.

      • Dave67

        na wrote,

        Jana says:

        January 31, 2013 at 12:04 pm

        Dave67,

        You said____________the 3 people shot in a office complex in Glendale yesterday were not illegal and since AZ is so free with their gun laws, why wasn’t there a “good guy” with a gun to stop it like that moron LaPierre contends?________________

        Exactly, why wasn’t there someone in there with a gun? Too many people in there that believes like you? How sad, so what did they do, cower in fear.
        ——————-

        You are questioning my comprehension when I was responding to this post from you? Is this a different language with different meaning to these words?

      • Jana

        Dave67,
        That is what I was wondering????
        I was responding to your statement of A person with a gun (without training in dealing with situtations such as those) will not be an effective stop to that crime (See Columbine)

        I did NOT disagree with you.

      • Vicki

        Dave67 says:
        “So lets see… The solutions put forth…..
        (snip)
        Don’t matter how many people have to die so you don’t get inconvenienced does it?”

        You don’t seem to care about how many people have to die after your anti-gun agenda is enacted. Case in point Gun Free Zones.

      • Jana

        Dave67,
        That is why we need training. If someone who had been trained was at Columbine I guarantee you those inside knew who the shooters were, even though the police didn’t, and they could have stopped them.

      • Dave67

        vicki,

        Your BS doesn’t wash… I am not anti-gun. I am anti-violence, anti-treating guns as toys, pro responsibility, pro sanity when it comes to guns and gun violence.

        All you can come up with is

        STOP IT, STOP IT NOW.

        Very sad.

      • eddie47d

        Vickie and Jana : There is no such thing as a Gun Free Zone for security reasons so STOP insisting that there is. Any school in America can hire armed security if that school board approves it. Columbine had two security guards and Officer Gardner worked there for some time. I know I have told Vickie but maybe not Jana ; A gun free zone means that no student is allowed to carry any weapon of any kind into the building (even a replica of a weapon).

      • Kate8

        Dave67 – If you are “anti-violence”, then how can you defend this administration, which is arming drug gangs and their own agencies to the hilt in order to do… just what, exactly?

        Obama claims the right to kill anyone, anytime, for any or no reason, and does. How many of his opposition are being murdered each week now? And what about the innocent women and children who are being killed in other countries just for the acquisition of their natural resources?

        Anti-violence? Really? How about the police brutality going on every day? And you want us to be unarmed, while the government holds all of the weapons?

        Anyone who trusts government is a fool. That is exactly the reason why our founders made certain that our right to bear arms “SHALL NOT be infringed.

      • Dave67

        Kate8,

        You refer to Fast and Furious in your arguement as if Obama was supporting the arming of drug cartels to come into the United States and take your children away.

        Do you even know why F&F was instituted??? Because the Bush adminstration worked with the Mexican gov when they were about to do a raid on the drug cartel and guess what happened? I know this is tough for you to believe but there were leaks in the Mexican gov that tipped the cartels off and the raids failed.

        The Obama administration saw that failure and tried a different tact… They went around the Mexican Gov and guess what, they had better success against the cartel. What happened to that agent was tragic but if you think that he still would have been alive if it were not for F&F than you are a complete fool.

        Now we are back to the proposals… Only two of the multiple even touch the “gun” itself and even then its to put back a ban that Ronald Reagan supported and the reduction of magazines. The other 20 proposals have to do with better police resources, better mental health, a way to study why the US has more gun deaths than any other industrialized country in the world.

        And you still say the sky is falling and your perscription, yours, Vicki’s and many others is have more guns in people’s hands and nothing else. You won’t address the culture or the NRA dismantlement of any effective ATF enforcement of the gun laws on the books nothing.

        You and others like you are a tool of the gun lobby.

      • Kate8

        Dave67 – Yada yada yada.

        I know. Obama is a peach.

        From what I’ve heard, his favorite passtime is watching videos of his drone strikes as they take out people on his List.

      • Dave67

        facts suck don’t they Kate?

        Now drones… Different subject but I have a problem with Obama and the use of drones. It becomes too easy for the arrogant to use a remote control to rain death down upon what we think is our enemies. Its is made to look nice and neat but its not. War is never that way. There are many things I do not approve of Obama on, using drones so freely is one… Infinate detention of Americans in the name of “terrorism” is another. Since you went off on a tangent.

        But on Gun violence and dealing with our culture, I believe Obama is on the right track and most of America agrees… Just not your corner of it.

        • Frank Kahn

          Just a note, since I know you will keep spouting nonsense. You said:

          “But on Gun violence and dealing with our culture, I believe Obama is on the right track and most of America agrees… Just not your corner of it”

          There are two separate and distinct items you believe in. One might marginally be agreed too but the other is way off.

          You believe that Obama is dealing with OUR CULTURE in a good way?

          What part of OUR CULTURE, not YOURS, is he dealing in a good way?

          Are you a HOMOSEXUAL, WOMAN CARRYING AN UNWANTED BABY, MUSLIM, HOPLOPHOBIC, ENTITLEMENT SLOTH, BLACK, HISPANIC UNION MEMBER? Are you rich or employed by the government?

          I have lived here for almost 60 years and I dont remember any of those things being OUR CULTURE.

          OUR CULTURE is a strong family with good christian values. We believe in working to support ourselves. We believe that homosexual relationships are unnatural. We dont believe anyone deserves preferential treatment (minorities). We believe the Constitution (with all its amendments) is the supreme legal basis for our society. We believe that we have an UNRESTRICTED right to bear arms. We believe that the government should keep out of our personal lives.

          Now, since that is OUR CULTURE, the following policies/mandates of Obama are against it.

          1. Abortion authorization
          2. Recognizing Homosexual (gay / lesbian) marriage as legitimate
          3a. Total amnesty to criminal immigrants and giving them citizenship
          3b. SUPER PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR BLACKS (this list is too long to give here)
          3c. Decision to abrogate freedom of speech pertaining to talk about Muslims.
          4. Violations of the constitution in respect to presidential powers is enormous.
          5. Advocating the restriction and / or banning of weapons.
          6. The list of items for meddling in personal affairs closely resemble the ones for item 4, to include but not limited to AHCA (forcing the purchase of health insurance), forcing all employers to provide insurance that covers female contraception, abortion, defining marriage against the normal accepted meaning of male / female union.
          7. Claiming that we are not a Christian nation.
          8. Expanding entitlement programs to allow non productive citizens to continue to not work.
          9. Bailing out mismanaged companies with taxpayer money, and in one case what amounts to purchasing a large portion of one.

          Now, as to your assertion that MOST OF AMERICA AGREES with you. I might simply say road apples (that is horse manure), but I will give you the opportunity to provide some evidence that your statement is even marginally believable.

          On the subject of GUN VIOLENCE, yes, he has made statements to that effect. However, he does not just want to eliminate GUN VIOLENCE, he wants to restrict GUN OWNERSHIP. The two are not mutually inclusive, nor does the latter improve the former. And, what you BELIEVE has no bearing on the truth. He has no legal authority to limit (restrict) our ownership of guns.

      • Mike in MI

        Folks,
        just read down through these lists of torts-retorts and see who is throwing out pie-in-the-sky, ephemeral “what-ifs”, crazy “If we do this then I think thus MIGHT happen” and go check out Psychology – Left Brain Dominance/ Right Brain Dominance somewhere on the web and spend some time considering the ramifications and outcomes of the stupid liberal illogic and inability to comprehend “reality”.

      • Kate8

        Frank Khan – Excellent post!! Wow! Well said, indeed! Bravo!

      • Kate8

        Dave67 – In response to your adamant claims that “we have to do something!”…

        There is a saying: “do something, even if it’s wrong…”

        Passing more laws which will only tie the hands of good people is NOT the answer. That is foolishness, and will only make things worse. Much worse.

        Sometimes the best course of action is to do LESS. Even NOTHING. Because killing innocent children and adults, or even casting the illusion of doing these things, for the purpose of promoting an agenda, can only result in more misery than we can now imagine… But has been experienced by people throughout history.

        What has to happen is that each of us, individually, must strive to be better, more honest, more respectful, more loving… LESS CONTROLLING.

        Anger, striking out… all negative emotions and actions are borne of FEAR. Yet, fear is the greatest tool of governments (and anyone with power). Fear is the most effective means of control, and it’s being amped up like never before, right down to our youngest and most precious children.

        What kind of monsters do these things.

        If the psychopaths with altogether too much leverage would cease with the obsession to control us, allowing us to thrive and prosper as we naturally would without onerous restrictions and regulations, crime would drastically drop.

        If we would be taught to always strive for excellence in all we do (as we once were), and were properly educated and taught to “lay down our lives for our brothers”, we would, again, function as a cohesive society where everyone wins.

        The liberal solution to everything is to pass more laws, more restrictions, exert more control. NO! What we need is FREEDOM, to live, to move about unmolested by “authority”, to make wise choices on our own, to realize that, when we work for the good of others, we enrich ourselves many fold.

        A return to common law… the law of NO HARM. If no one is harmed, no crime is committed.

        It always starts with US, ourselves. Learn to master ourselves and we no longer need to try to control others. The happiest, most thriving people are the ones who are the most free. Control, loss of liberty… by those who set out to corrupt and destroy for their own gain… spells the end of society and civilization.

        How tight can the noose be tightened before death occurs?

        I know you are paid to post “opinions”. Know this… giving your time and energy in the advancement of evil will come back on you magnified. You cannot work against the better interests of your brethren, our freedom, and have any kind of meaningful life. Sooner or later, your actions will haunt you.

        Judas betrayed the “master” for thirty pieces of silver. He hanged himself.

        Mark my words. None of us escapes kharma.

      • Vicki

        Dave67 writes:
        “And you still say the sky is falling and your perscription, yours, Vicki’s and many others is have more guns in people’s hands and nothing else. You won’t address the culture or the NRA dismantlement of any effective ATF enforcement of the gun laws on the books nothing.”

        That is because we understand that “The Gun Is Civilization”. That solves the culture problem. The NRA can go back to training. ATF can be disbanded. All kinds of good things happen. http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/marko.htm

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        Vickie and Jana : There is no such thing as a Gun Free Zone for security reasons so STOP insisting that there is. ”

        We KNOW that eddie. Criminals prove that all the time.

        http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/01/op-ed_the_truth_about_gun-free_zones.html

        Criminals like the security of knowing they will be the only ones with guns.

    • http://Personalliberty ZED

      Dave67, [personal attack removed]
      1) Getting your stats from the likes of the Lame Stream Media Obamawhores (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN & MSLSD) is pure stupidity. None of we NRA members support anything like Universal background checks in the format proposed by the treasonous swine of the democrat party.
      2) Everything that has been proposed to date and currently law is an infringement on the Second Amendment and by definition is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! The Government does NOT have the right to infringe that is how they are unconstitutional.
      3) Feinstein’slegislation leaves open the door for just this registration and specifically does this through its registration schemes of the owners. It is the first step in confiscation. Feinstein is not dumb but a totalitarian socialist [expletive deleted]
      4) Law Enforcement carry firearms to protect themselves and do not care one whit about anyone else. When seconds count they are at best minutes away. They are also union members and liars all. They are part of the problem and want to be included in the governmant monopoly on force. Wake up moron!
      5) The bad guys already have guns and do not obey laws. They do not obey the laws on the books nor will they obey any new laws. Criminals by definition do not obey law! It is not about guns, IT IS ABOUT GOVERNMENT CONTROL AND A MONOPOLY ON FORCE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT IN SPITE OF US! I say again…WAKE UP[comment has been edited]

      • Dave67

        (Zed)

        Regarding #2, go down the list of everything Obama is proposing and tell me how they violate the US Constitution, I will wait.

      • Vicki

        Dave67 says to Zed):
        “Regarding #2, go down the list of everything Obama is proposing and tell me how they violate the US Constitution, I will wait.”

        No need to wait. Bob answered quite well here:
        http://personalliberty.com/2013/01/31/emotion-lies-and-propaganda-from-anti-gun-advocates-on-capitol-hill/#comment-825426

      • Dave67

        Ummm No Vicki. That does not state the reason why… Bob goes for definate “gun grab” to “could due to ambiguity and subjectivity in the wording.

        I am asking you Vicki, if you possess the ability for critical thought, where is the unconstitutionality of the proposals. Be specific. Can you?

        I think not.

      • Mike in MI

        davie67 -
        If you think anything the Gross(as opposed to fein)stiens are proposing or that their ultimate legal machinations will look anything like the present “proposals” you are hopelessly deluded about the designs of the despots. They propose finely crafted language that parses the primary objectives they desire. Then, the end-product they wanted all along separates you from your rights, responsibilities as an adult and freedom as an American (leaving you merely an Obamerican) and bequeaths the creamy caramel center to Obama and the other ghetto conmen, his “czars”.

      • Vicki

        Dave67 says:
        “Ummm No Vicki. That does not state the reason why… Bob goes for definate “gun grab” to “could due to ambiguity and subjectivity in the wording.

        I am asking you Vicki, if you possess the ability for critical thought, where is the unconstitutionality of the proposals. Be specific. Can you?

        I think not.”

        You think in error then. Since you specified “the proposals” and you did not specify the ones from obama or from Biden I will presume you meant the ones from obama. Not the executive orders he signed but the proposals he gave to Congress.

        They are proposals. He can propose anything he wants.

    • eddie47d

      Good point Chuck. Weapons especially handguns can be bought on the Internet and shipped fairly easily to another person. Rifles can also be broken down and disguised so loopholes are plentiful with or without the Internet. Delivery services do require a return address but who says it has to be a legitamite one. Wink Wink!

      • http://midcontent ridge runner

        eddee, sounds like you have tried this crap idea, hope you realize feds will nab you on mail fraud,and you can not ship any guns by mail, unless it is going to a licenced federal gun dealer. So again your socialist democrat BS is false and your alligator anal azz is over loading your canary brain. As democrats keep proving, the only 2 working parts on a democrat, is their mouth and their exhaust vent, both are interchangeable and their heads can take a shot and still keep moving and blabbing, just like a roach lasts for over a week if you remove the head.

        • david

          RR

          I think I saw where eddie47d might be in Australia, so the Feds here in this country don’t have jurisdiction!

        • deerinwater

          The law only applies if you get caught Ridgerunner. Eddie is not that far out of line. Enforcement is always the bottle neck to any Law. ~ and of course a law can make a criminal out of a just about anybody. ~ We’ve had a war on Drugs since the 80′s ~ and from where I presently sit, in 45 minutes I can return with 5 dimes of Crack and 2 finger bag of weed. ~ I’ve done it ~ many times to feed my Kittens ~ Thank God, ~ I quite collecting Kittens (too old for that kinda girl anymore) , but the point I make is, Laws only slow activity but they don’t stop it. ~ They never have.

          We already have more laws then can be enforced and why I say, if the law is too demanding, too restrictive, gun sales with go underground and black-markets will flourish.

          I really don’t believe that is in the best interest of America for black markets to spring up to fill demands.

          I don’t know anything about this republican /democrat bull$hit talk that Jimbo speaks of. ~ I got a family full of hillbillies just like him. They think they are republicans, I remember when they were born into this world, ~ they’ve done nothing conservative in their life, unless a Medical Disability check and just not liking fairy’s and blacks make you a Republican, then maybe they are Republicans. Such inflammatory talk is nothing new, but I will tell you right now Jim, ~ that kind of talk is not going to solve anything.

          We all have a problem we have to face, ~ this is not going away by calling each other hateful nasty names.

          I don’t like this situation one bit, ~ Jim is displaying to us all that he really don’t need a gun but for me to cutting Jim down will do nothing to solve this current dilemma as polls indicate 74% of voting age American’s believe ~ something has to change to address gun violence in this country.

          http://americablog.com/2013/01/poll-huge-support-gun-control.html

          I’m not a huge believer in polls but 74%? ~ That’s a big number.

          When any market goes underground there is no control of it, there is no taxes. Anybody can buy anything and as much of it as they want ~ any few people will be the wiser. While all the time the criminal element will prosper and grow into other things, things that we really don’t want.

          Is that what we want? ~~~ I think not. I believe any changes ~ will be moderate ~ while opposition ~ sells us a different picture ~ Gun Grabbing Democrats! ~ They want it all! They gonna dress you down to a “short arms inspection”.

          And this rough talk about Gabby ~ I will bless the day when these people reap what they sow, may your judgement be equally as harsh. Gabby had a bullet pass through her head and it has affected her motor skills. ~ If you want to be a gun owner, you need to pass that test of understanding ~ or you don’t need to own a pair of scissors.

          • JON

            Regarding your “Rough talk about Gabby” comment…
            It is very sad the way some of the people on here love to personally attack others just because they have a different opinion. To slam Gabby Gifford is so pathetic!They don’t know what it is to show respect for others or themselves.

      • Average Joe

        eddie47d ,

        As usual, you haven’t a clue.
        To buy any weapon from the internet…it must be sent to a FFL holder..where it must be transferred to the buyer…after a background check has been passed.
        It used to be that you attempted to stretch the truth…now you simply outright lie as if it were gospel.

        Prove your theory to us…have one shipped to your house….write us from your jail cell…
        Nobody here…is buying any fertilizer today eddie…time to take your truckload home …you’ve had a bit too much sun today.

        AJ

      • ibcamn

        boy Eddie,your as crooked as they come,figures!

    • Abinadi

      Can’t you IDIOTS get it through your HEADS that CRIMINALS Will not Comply with the LAWS!!! Why would passing more background checks keep Criminals from buying guns from Other Criminals!!!!! In order to buy a gun at a store you need a background check. In order to buy a Gun at a Gun Show you need a background check. Please, Please tell me how you will enforce a background check on “Private” Sales? How will you regulate “Private” Sales? The “LIE” of the so-called “Gun Show Loophole” phrase is Nothing more then another term for “Private” Sale. The BASS Ackward Liberals stared the Phrase to “SCARE” the un-informed into thinking that anyone can go to a gunshow and buy a Gun!!! It is nothing but ANOTHER Play on Words by the Idiot Gun-Grabbing LIberal!!!

      • Dave67

        So your idiot solution is to keep the status quoe is that it?

        So many loud mouths on the pro-gun violence side yet i have yet to hear of any solutions from those fools.

      • Abinadi

        @ Dave67, So your Solution is to make more of the same laws that are already there? What I am saying is Criminals DO NOT Obey the LAW!! My solution is to MAKE Criminals PAY! Don’t let them go free, Don’t send them to Jail then let them out. Taking guns away from LEGAL Citizens, or making it harder for LEGAL Citizens to get them does nothing but HELP THE CRIMINALS!!! WE are not Criminals….WHY should our Rights be Taken AWAY? If a Law-Abiding Citizen wants a Gun ( A “SEMI”-Automatic Pistol.. A Mean Looking “SEMI”-Automatic Rifle, A magazine that holds more then 10 Rounds) Then then LET US!!! If a Criminal is stopped, searched, busted, pulled over for a traffic violation and has a gun then “PUNISH” THEM Not US!!!

      • Dave67

        And so again, you would do nothing…

        The NRA paid good money to neuter the ATF and any law that could help prevent gun crime. See… they don’t care… they care about getting your membership check so they can pay LaPierre a hefty sum while people in this country continue to die.

      • Abinadi

        @Dave67 – Actually I propossed Action – PUNISH THE LAWBREAKER not the LAW-ABIDDING CITIZEN!!! You propose nothing but name calling and finger pointing!

      • Dave67

        And again, if you bothered to read obama’s proposals… law-abiding citzens are inconvenienced minimally. Most of what is being proposed is around mental health, allows the police to have better tools and info to do their jobs and trying to reduce the gun violence culture we have.

        Nothing in what is being proposed will come and take a law-abiding citizen’s gun away. Please tell me what does in those proposals.

        The NRA has spend the last 30 years trying to loosen the laws already on the books so the idea that the pro-gun violence faction cares about enforcing the laws on the books already is a laugher.

      • cawmun cents

        Dave67….the solution is simple…you should move to Great Britain.
        Here whether there are laws or not,the violence ensues.You make the law,people break the law.What if the poniticians got off their asses,and tried to stop gang violence from killing so many in our inner cities?
        Oh yeah!They have been doing that,have they passed any laws regarding making it a crime to be in a gang?No.
        Why not?
        Think of all the lives that would be saved if it was illegal to be in a gang!
        That is why you cant legislate safety,and restrict freedoom,and get peace and stability.
        Because some folks wont have peace and stability no matter how many laws you draft to the contrary.
        This topic falls under that category.
        Cheers!
        -CC.

      • phideaux

        Dave67 says (as has eddie as well):

        “The NRA has spend the last 30 years trying to loosen the laws already on the books so the idea that the pro-gun violence faction cares about enforcing the laws on the books already is a laugher.”

        Specious claim with NO proof being offered that in any way supports said claim.

      • Dave67

        Phi…Read:

        When Charlton Heston said the federal government could take his guns from his “cold, dead hands,” he was referring to the ATF. Preston Mack/ZUMAPress

        Driven to act by last month’s massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, President Barack Obama on Wednesday called on Congress to pass new laws banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and targeting gun traffickers, and he announced 23 steps his administration is taking to better enforce existing law. With Republicans threatening to block any legislation—and some extreme GOPers calling for impeachment if Obama acts alone—reform, as could be expected, will not be easy.

        But should Obama gets what he wants, he’ll face another major challenge: his own Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Over the last three decades, gun activists and lawmakers have purposefully hindered the ATF and carefully molded the agency that enforces gun laws to serve their own interests, stunting the ATF’s budget, handicapping its regulatory authority, and keeping it effectively leaderless. The bureau Obama is counting on to lead his gun control push is a disaster…by Republican design.

        The problems are obvious. The agency that Obama said “works most closely with state and local law enforcement to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals” has the same of number of agents as the Phoenix Police Department. Its budget has barely budged in decades (as the Department of Homeland Security has grown flush with post-9/11 funding). It has fewer investigators than it did in 1973. And its acting (and part-time) director, B. Todd Jones, commutes to work from Minneapolis, where he works full-time as a US attorney. It hasn’t had a permanent director for six years. The NRA blocked Obama’s earlier appointee, Andrew Traver, in part because Traver had once attended a meeting of police chiefs that focused on gun control. At the unveiling of his gun violence prevention package, Obama announced he would seek to make Jones the permanent (and presumably fulltime) chief of the ATF.

        To understand how the ATF became the weakest of law enforcement agencies, you have to go back to President Ronald Reagan’s first term.

        The 1968 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, the first major piece of gun control legislation since the Capone days, led the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Department of the Treasury to sprout a third responsibility: handguns. With the market for moonshine collapsed—due to a global spike in sugar prices—the division’s primary investigative responsibility for most of its history withered. The new mandate to regulate arms sales filled the void. It also made the bureau a natural foil for the nascent gun lobby, and the NRA, whose leadership was fast transitioning from a moderate coalition of sportsmen to a band of true believers, went to work to make the agency a pariah.
        Republicans and Democrats alike hammered the agency for years. Appearing in a 1981 NRA-produced film, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) charged, “If I were to select a jackbooted group of fascists who are perhaps as large a danger to American society as I could pick today, I would pick BATF.” A 1982 Senate report blasted the agency’s supposed “practically reprehensible” enforcement tactics.

        Leading the charge was Reagan. On the campaign trail, he’d bashed the ATF and vowed to dissolve it. Once in Washington, Reagan, with the NRA’s backing, proposed folding the ATF into the Secret Service—the two branches of the Treasury most unlike all the others. ATF agents would help the Secret Service handle its beefed-up responsibilities of campaign years and expand its investigative powers. It would have been a death sentence for the bureau.

        But then the NRA had had a change of heart. The organization’s strategists came to worry that if gun law enforcement was handed to the Secret Service, one of the few federal agencies with a reputation for competence, gun owners might actually have something to fear. And, they feared, that if the agency did become part of the Secret Service, they’d lose an easy target.

        “If it weren’t for the NRA and the liquor industry, there would be no ATF today.”

        The NRA realized, “‘Oh my God, we’re gonna lose the ATF!’” recalls William Vizzard, a professor of criminology at California State University-Sacramento, who worked for bureau at the time. “It would have been like removing the Soviets during the Cold War, for the Defense Department—there’s nobody to point to.”

        Working in conjunction with the liquor lobby (which had its own misgivings about suddenly being regulated by the Customs Service), the NRA coaxed a friendly lawmaker, Sen. James Abdnor (R-S.D.), into scuttling the merger by inserting language in a budget bill. As Vizzard puts it, “If it weren’t for the NRA and the liquor industry, there would be no ATF today, because the merger with the Secret Service would have just gone ahead.”

        Once the NRA had saved the ATF, it focused on how to neuter it. Four years after bargaining for the preservation of the ATF, the NRA helped Congress formally handcuff the agency, in the form of the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. The law, which included a handful of token regulations (such as a ban on machine guns), made it all but impossible for the government to prosecute corrupt gun dealers. It prohibited the bureau from compiling a national database of retail firearm sales, reduced the penalty for dealers who falsified sales records from a felony to a misdemeanor, and raised the threshold for prosecution for unlicensed dealing.

        Perhaps most glaringly, the ATF was explicitly prohibited from conducting more than one inspection of a single dealer in a given year, meaning that once an agent had visited a shop, that dealer was free to flout the law.

        John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, called the bureau “a jackbooted group of fascists.”

        Those restrictions haven’t changed over the last two decades. “There’s no other law enforcement entity in the country that has any restriction remotely like that,” says Jon Lowy, the director of the legal action project at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

        But the NRA wasn’t done; over the next decade-and-a-half, it worked with Congress to run up the score. Following the joint ATF and FBI raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, in 1993—which NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said was “reminiscent of the standoff at the Warsaw ghetto”—Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) launched a Firearms Legislation Task Force to hold hearings on perceived ATF abuses. His deputy, Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), called for the bureau to be disbanded. LaPierre, channeling Dingell, called ATF agents to “jackbooted thugs,” prompting former president George H.W. Bush to resign his NRA membership.

        During the George W. Bush administration, The gun lobby delivered another big blow. In 2003, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) inserted a series of amendments into a Department of Justice appropriations bill that prohibited the ATF from sharing information on weapons traces to the general public—effectively restricting researchers from detecting trends and potential loopholes in current policy. (A 1996 NRA-backed budget likewise prohibited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from studying the health effects of gun ownership.)

        The same year, Congress, backed by the NRA, split the ATF off from the Department of Treasury and stipulated that its director be confirmed by the Senate, effectively giving the gun lobby veto power over who would run the agency. Since then, the ATF has simply gone leaderless. No nominee has been confirmed by the Senate after that policy went into effect—not even President Bush’s pick. Without job security, acting ATF directors have had none of the political capital needed to reform the agency or run it at full throttle.

        And the hits have kept on coming. Last year’s “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal caused yet another interim director to resign under pressure from gun rights activists and shed light into cases of corruption and depreciating morale at the bureau. LaPierre and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) alleged a conspiracy on the part of the ATF and the White House to use Fast and Furious to push FOR massive arms confiscation. Around the same time, Fox News analyst Dick Morris typified a resurgent line of 1990s thinking when he all but justified the murder of federal agents: “Those crazies in Montana who say, ‘We’re going to kill ATF agents because the UN’s going to take over’—well, they’re beginning to have a case.”

        The ATF’s challenges haven’t gone overlooked by the White House. In his remarks Wednesday afternoon, Obama outlined the urgency of making Jones a full-time director. He’s right; the rest of his agenda just might depend on it.

      • Vicki

        It is obvious by reading Dave67′s posts that his plan is to PUNISH the innocent.

        ~300 MILLION Americans DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

      • Dave67

        Yes, Vicki, that is the point isn’t it… to punish the innocent.

        I know how you feel… I get bitter at traffic lights… I know that the person to the right has the right of way in an intersection but the GOVUMENT tells me I have to stop on red lights. What a bunch of commies right Vicki?

        And I should be able to yell “FIRE!!” in a crowded movie theater with no reprocussions… Some people just can’t take me using my first Amendment rights. SOCIALISTS!!!

        Geez, I keep talking like this and lose about 30 IQ points, I could become a conservative.

      • Mike in MI

        No doubt, davie – give up about 30 points and cease thinking of yourself as a “Stuperman” because you’ve got Mensa status! …….. Don’t mean feces, you libsqwat.
        Maybe then, you could function in life for real, instead of being a propaganda butt-banger for Obumster.

        If most of the Mensa-bums I’ve ever met were actually able to function in the culture as real humans instead of super-egoed, self-proclaimed heroes we’d have some real answers to our problems instead of human dandruff like you proposing Obamaisms for real life disturbances and catastrophes.

        If I said what I’m thinking, the ever civil and courteous Mr. Livingston would edit it. So, consider yourself squashed (cause I could).

      • Vicki

        Dave67 says:
        “Yes, Vicki, that is the point isn’t it… to punish the innocent.”

        The point is to control the innocent. The punishment is a method.”

        - Dave67: “I know how you feel… I get bitter at traffic lights…”

        Interesting. I don’t.

        - Dave67: “I know that the person to the right has the right of way in an intersection but the GOVUMENT tells me I have to stop on red lights.”

        Even more interesting as the person to the right rule is for unmarked and 4 way stop signs and not traffic light controlled intersections

        - Dave67: ” What a bunch of commies right Vicki?”

        Argument to ridicule.

        - Dave67: ” And I should be able to yell “FIRE!!” in a crowded movie theater with no reprocussions…”

        You have a VERY good point there Dave. Let us explore. We will assume that “reprocussions” means legal repercussion and will ignore the fact that possession of some arms is currently illegal in many places.

        Freedom to speak.
        Condition 1. There is a fire. You may save some lives.
        Condition 2. There is not a fire. You may cost some lives. You have the freedom to say fire but there will be repercussions of you MIS USE that freedom to speak.

        Now lets look at guns

        Freedom to keep
        Condition 1 you possess them. No repercussion.
        Condition 2 you do not possess them. No repercussion.

        Freedom to bear
        Condition 1 you bear them. No repercussion.
        Condition 2 don’t bear them. No repercussion.

        Freedom to use (this is the closest to the ACT of speaking)
        Condition 1 you use to defend yourself, family, other. You may save some lives.
        Condition 2 you use to kill someone. there is this law……..
        -
        -
        -

        So as you can see there are plenty of laws properly punishing the MIS-use of firearms. the ~20,000 that infringe on the RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR arms are un necessary, unconstitutional, and serve only to punish the

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

    • ernest

      dave67 why is it that people now days have to show their whole life history to own a gun ? BUT DON’T EVEN NEED I.D. TO VOTE

      • Dave67

        ernest, no.. they don’t… go to a private gun show and its real easy… also you can purchase arms over the internet.

        Voting and Guns are apples and oranges.

      • Abinadi

        @Dave67 – What is a “Private” Gun Show? Have you ever been to a “Public” Gun Show? You cannot just go in and Buy a Gun and Walk out!!! Try it sometime. Why not go to one and video it? Prove IT! I have gone to Gun Shows, MANY OF THEM! You want to buy a gun, you fill out paperwork, the background check is done, you are then able to get your gun. If it is in a State that requires a “Waiting” Period then you will pick up from the Seller at the Designated DATE, or it will be shipped to an FFL in your area and you will pick it up there! You are falling into the LIBERAL Media Propaganda of LIES, Deceit, Smoke and Mirrors and Phrase manipulation.

      • eddie47d

        Abinadi; Yes most have to fill out paper work and do a background check. Yet don’t you remember when that undercover crew went into a Phoenix gun show in 2011? None of the sellers required a background check and the weapon was sold. On more than one occasion the buyer said he was a felon or had a past that may keep him from buying yet he was allowed to purchase. There are still plenty who will skirt the law so yes those loopholes need to be tightened.

      • Dennis48e

        “Yet don’t you remember when that undercover crew went into a Phoenix gun show in 2011?”

        eddie all I remember is your specious claim that it happened. When you provide some proof other than your claim that it happened then it will be a belivable comment.

      • eddie47d

        It was on Dateline and on 60 Minutes. Would those dealers have acted differently if Beck was holding the camera?

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “It was on Dateline and on 60 Minutes.”

        Provide a link.

        “Would those dealers have acted differently if Beck was holding the camera?”

        Speculation.

      • eddie47d

        That’s part of your problem Vickie some of you ignore what is being said in the mainstream media so often you have no idea what is going on in the real world. Sure there are sofa surfers who never listen to Fox or even MSNBC and granted they can’t be every where. Heck I can’t either but I do try. Insisting I provide links isn’t going to happen since I have too much on my plate as it is but its not like I’m going to forget the basics of what I saw.

      • Average Joe

        Eddie,

        “Yet don’t you remember when that undercover crew went into a Phoenix gun show in 2011? None of the sellers required a background check and the weapon was sold. On more than one occasion the buyer said he was a felon or had a past that may keep him from buying yet he was allowed to purchase. ”

        As others have stated, no I don’t have anything other than your assertion of the event.
        However,let’s assume that you are correct…., let’s see..2011 you say?…Gee when was it that Fast and Furious going on?…wait, don’t tell me…that would be…2009-2012… Let’s see…..this happened in Arizona you say?…..Oh wait…wasn’t Fast and Furious going on in Arizona back in 2011?…..UH……OMG…..YES…hmmm. Wasn’t part of Fast and Furious…to get Legal Gun Dealers…to allow these guns to be sold to known criminals,gang members and cartel members….in order to track those weapons?….looks like another check mark in the YES column.
        So, we have a Govenment run program, forcing gun dealers to sell guns… illegally…to known criminals…in Arizona, during 2011 and someone sends a camera crew in to film those illegal transactions:
        Why not Fairbanks ,Alaska or some other city/state (far from where the government was allowing these guns to pass freely)?
        Why did they choose to use Arizona to do this story?
        Could it possibly be that the government actually tipped them off to the practice…and told them where to “buy”? No…that couldn’t possibly happen …could it?
        Don’t follow the evidence eddie…follow your handlers…they wouldn’t set you up for a fall….you’re too smart for that….(rolls eyes)…right?

        Dammit boy…you is dumber than a box of hairballs…

        AJ

      • Dennis48e

        Exactly Vickie, if eddie had links to provide he would do so. Since he has not after being asked it is logical to conclude he has none.

      • Mike in MI

        A.J. – BEAUTIFUL! Superlative, my man, simply superlative.

      • Average Joe

        Mike in MI ,
        Thank you.
        For most of us, what I posted would be considered obvious…for others like eddie…if it crosses their minds at all…it was probably too fast for them to grasp and just made a whoooshing sound as it went through…which distracted them from the original thought….

        “Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.”
        Douglas Adams

        AJ

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “That’s part of your problem Vickie some of you ignore what is being said in the mainstream media so often you have no idea what is going on in the real world.”

        We don’t need to see what is being said in the MSM. The few links liberals (not you) provide let us know what they are saying. As to the real world, with respect to gun-control we have the self evident truth that

        ~300 Million Americans didn’t shoot anyone.

        Stop punishing the innocent for the acts of a few

        Stop it
        Stop it NOW.

        Which is VERY easy to verify without ever reading MSM.

        To verify just google US Population. Then google FBI Crime Statistics.

    • Dennis48e

      ” Many law enforcement groups support the proposed assault weapons ban,”

      Even the feds say an AR15 is a PERSONAL DEFENCE weapon: “As the Department of Homeland Security so aptly put it in its own request for proposal for 7,000 .223 cal. select fire weapons, they are for personal defense.”. Quote from another article in todays PLD. The same information has also been posted in other places.

    • david

      Dave67, you are one of the propagators of fear in my book. The main reason for a background check is to make sure a LAWFUL citizen is qualified to own a gun. BULLCRAP! It is nothing more than a registration list, similar to the lists compiled against LAWFUL citizens of Germany during the Hitler reign. All registration does is give those who want an all out ban to know where those guns are so they can come get them.

      Are police officers and military gonna give up their guns too, when they are off duty? No need for them to have extras around either right? NO they will not give up those weapons outrightly. When they are off duty, they are no more different than any other citizen. BUT when they are on duty, they WILL have automatic firing weapons for their jobs and semi-autos included in that arsenal. If the average citizen is unarmed, why does a police force need weaponry then? It is for them to force anyone, who does not agree with THEM, to be coerced (which is a crime) to do as they are told as a slave or property.

      The problem is NOT the average citizen. The problem is the criminal element who does not register, will not register, nor will be forced to register any gun in their ARSENAL. How do you know a police officer is registered with their weapon? They can put anything they want down on paper, and you will believe it. Just even putting an admission down on paper in writing does not mean they will follow that statement to the letter. If they do not, are they prosecuted for a crime? They haven’t been, in past history, unless hordes of people push it. Criminal actions of police departments have been swept under the rug in the past. Investigations of allegations of police and military are done by their own departments and the creed is honor and protect your fellow officer. This is compared to having the fox guard the chicken house.

      When prosecutions of crimes even by police and military are handled by the people in the courts, when those criminal actions of police and military directly affect the people, Then you will find total justice being served.

      We have legislators and politicians, in essence, passing out laws to regain the property they lost (the slave people whom they own), and they will go to any length to regain that power, no matter what. The police and military are under contract to those politicians for the protection provided for the politicians and not the people. The people do not have a contract of employment with the police or military for their own protection, so they become very vulnerable. When the taxes are paid, the people are volunteering to give money so the politicians can continue to hire the police and military for their own protection. The people need to pay directly to the police and military for their own protection, if that is what they want. Otherwise, the people had better learn how to defend themselves from every adversity. Have you noticed that anytime a politician needs a police officer they are escorted? When the people need a police officer, they have to call them to bring them to a scene of a crime. A police officer is NEVER at the scene of the crime until AFTER it happens, because the people do not pay for that service directly! Pay for the service upfront, and crime will drop dramatically or take care of it yourself!

      • Dave67

        Have you met Mr “OMG Obama is the Devil!!!” Livingston yet?

        He is the real expert on spreading fear.

        What I am saying is common sense. You fools are to hopped up on false patriotism to understand when you are talking out your hind quarters.

      • Vicki

        david says:
        “Dave67, you are one of the propagators of fear in my book. The main reason for a background check is to make sure a LAWFUL citizen is qualified to own a gun. BULLCRAP! It is nothing more than a registration list, similar to the lists compiled against LAWFUL citizens of Germany during the Hitler reign.”

        Dave67 then comments about “common sense”. Well here is a common sense background check system. It is a LOT less expensive then the privacy invading one currently used and new one proposed.

        Check the background. Is it a prison (county jail etc)?

        If yes then don’t sell a gun to the inmate.
        If no then sell the gun to a free citizen.

        KEEP Criminals IN JAIL. It’s that easy.

        Extra feature. You won’t be selling a gun to someone who just broke out of jail. :)

      • Dave67

        Vicki,

        You are lying, pure and simple… Even the Drudge reports says that nonsense about Hitler is a lie.

        Sorry, try again

      • Vicki

        Dave67 says:
        “Vicki,

        You are lying, pure and simple… Even the Drudge reports says that nonsense about Hitler is a lie.”

        What would be the lie that you claim I told? It can’t be the self evident truth that

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

      • Vicki

        Dave67 writes:
        “You are lying, pure and simple… Even the Drudge reports says that nonsense about Hitler is a lie.”

        I was curious since you brought it up and accused me of lying (despite having not said anything about Hitler), so I investigated and found that with respect to Hitler disarming Jews using the Gun-Control laws of Germany, that is established historical fact. This article discusses (at great length) with many cites.
        http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

        In particular you can search for “THE DISARMING OF THE JEWS” and then read above to see how the 1938 law worked and below for how the NAZI used it IN 1938 and beyond.

        Or, if you have the time you can read the entire article and see the similarity to what the gun-control people have done here in the US.

    • JeffH

      D67, your rhetoric is worn out, you’ve failed miserably!

      Anyone engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms for profit must be federally licensed as a firearms dealer.

      Anyone purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer must pass a background check through the National Instant Check System (NICS).

      It is against Federal law to transfer a handgun between private individuals except between residents of the same state.

      The Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of state prison inmates convicted of firearms crimes found that 79% acquired their firearms from “street/illegal sources” or “friends or family.” This includes theft of firearms, black market purchases of stolen firearms, and straw purchases. The survey also found that 12 percent obtained their firearms from firearms dealers, while only 1.7% obtained firearms from anyone (dealer or non-dealer) at a gun show or flea market.

      An average of 232,400 firearms were stolen each year between 2005 and 2010 according to Bureau of Justice Statistics.

      Anyone can advertise on the internet to sell a gun but the seller who is not a dealer is prohibited from selling a firearm to a resident of another state without going through a dealer, and cannot mail or ship a firearm to another person other than an FFL dealer regardless of the state. A dealer is prohibited from transferring a firearm to a buyer who is not a dealer, unless the buyer appears in person and presents ID for purposes of signing the federal Form 4473 and running the mandatory NICS check.

      The whole arguement about banning “assult weapons” is fearmongering propaganda and pure hype…they just don’t exist except in the hands of military, law enforcement, government agencies and the rare Class III license holder.

      The Clinton assault weapons ban was proven to be ineffective and worthless and Feinstein’s latest gun grab proposal is clearly an attempt to hog tie and ultimately destroy manufacturers, retailers and legal gun owners with incremental bans that lead to full on depredation and ultimately confiscation. Under Feinstein’s proposal any semiautomatic firearm that uses a magazine — handgun, rifle or shotgun — equipped with a “pistol grip,” would be banned.

      • Dave67

        Jeffery, go play with DaveH in the mises.org playground.

        You have supported nothing that could have the effect of reducing gun violence in this country. You are all about the status quo which is what your NRA masters want.

      • JeffH

        D67, FYI…once again he government has failed to fully enforce the laws on the books. Proposing more gun control laws – while failing to enforce the thousands we already have – is not a serious solution to reducing crime.

        Punish Background Check Liars. Nearly 80,000 Americans were denied guns in 2010, according to Justice Department data, because they lied or provided inaccurate information about their criminal histories on background-check forms. Yet only 44 of those people were charged with a crime.

        The low number of prosecutions in 2010, the most recent year for which data are available, is consistent with other years.

        It is a felony to deliberately provide false information in an effort to buy a gun, and studies financed by the Justice Department show that people who do so are more likely than the average person to commit violent crimes after they are denied a firearm purchase.

        Universal background checks will never be ‘universal’ because criminals will never submit to them.

        The NRA – “It has been a longstanding frustration of the National Rifle Association that there’s no follow-through or follow-up on these cases and criminals, and those who shouldn’t be trying to buy guns have been getting away scot-free,” said Andrew Arulanandam, an N.R.A. spokesman.

        Mr. Arulanandam said that the N.R.A. has “for decades been trying to get prior administrations — Republicans and Democrats — to take action on the matter but there seems to be no will by the Justice Department to enforce existing gun laws.”

      • JeffH

        D67, what’s the matter, no valid arguement?

        Let the gvernment start enforcing the ~20,000 existing laws then we can have more discussions about what works and what doesn’t work.

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT ASSAULT ANYONE USING ANY FIREARM.

        ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT anyone AT ALL. Not even by accident.

        Join us in telling them to STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

        STOP IT

        STOP IT NOW

      • Dave67

        Yes Jeffery,

        We are not enforcing our laws in large part due to the NRA.

        You need to educate yourself about what shenanegans the NRA have been up to weakening law enforncement at the behest of the gun lobby.

        But you won’t…

        Keep on believing that what Obama is proposing is a gun grab like the good solider for the NRA you are.

      • eddie47d

        If a “criminal” can’t buy a weapon at a gun dealer naturally he won’t go back and he may attempt it at a gun show and if it fails there he’ll check the ads and Internet sales and so forth. As was shown last week on the news more criminals who break into homes these days aren’t looking for cash or valuables but guns . Once they find a gun they leave for their purpose is served. Which means gun owners are reckless in leaving their guns laying around and the criminals know how to quickly find them. That means legal gun owners are not always responsible gun owners. Another thing is that cities,states and the Feds don’t have enough personel to go after even a small portion of gun thieves let alone illegal gun sales.

      • JeffH

        D67 ignorantly says “We are not enforcing our laws in large part due to the NRA.

        You need to educate yourself about what shenanegans the NRA have been up to weakening law enforncement at the behest of the gun lobby.”

        Non sequitur

        WOW, the more you speak the more you’re beginning to sound like eddie. Shenanegans? Weakening law enforcement?

        ~20,000 laws on the books and the NRA is the reason they aren’t being enforced?

        Why don’t you just try to tell me that the criminals committing these crimes that aren’t enforced are NRA life members too.

        Sheesh, get a life…I mean a real life eddie, oops, I mean Dave67.

      • JeffH

        eddie, you haven’t a clue of what you speak and, as usual, has an excuse no matter what…excuses are for losers!

        Just once, try saying something cognizant for a change.

      • Vicki

        Dave67 says:
        “Jeffery, go play with DaveH in the mises.org playground.”

        Argument to ridicule.

        - Dave67: “You have supported nothing that could have the effect of reducing gun violence in this country.”

        He has supported the ONLY think that could have a useful effect on reducing gun violence in this country. The keeping and bearing of arms.

        - Dave67: “You are all about the status quo which is what your NRA masters want.”

        Ad hominiem.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d writes:
        “Which means gun owners are reckless in leaving their guns laying around and the criminals know how to quickly find them.”

        You just can’t avoid making the (actual) victim into the criminal.

        • JeffH

          Vicki…nor can he avoid saying something stupid.

          ~
          300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT ASSAULT ANYONE USING ANY FIREARM.

          ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT anyone AT ALL. Not even by accident.

          Join us in telling them to STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

          STOP IT

          STOP IT NOW

      • Texas Ride

        The regime wants to do stringent background checks on responsible Americans and make them undergo psych-evals, before getting a gun. Meanwhile this same regime is gun-running illegal firearms to mexico and the middle east, and giving fighter planes and tanks to our enemies in egypt. What is wrong with this picture…

        • JeffH

          Texas Ride, nothing is wrong with any of that if it to a progressive/liberal, commie anti-gun extremist.

      • eddie47d

        We know criminals are criminals but Vicki and Jeff refuse to make “law abiding” citizens responsible for their actions. Gee officer I’m sorry I left that gun lying around I won’t do it again. I’m sorry my gun was used in killing the guy at the convenience store down the block but I’ll promise to lock it up next time when I’m not home. Wink Wink!

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        January 31, 2013 at 5:16 pm

        We know criminals are criminals but Vicki and Jeff refuse to make “law abiding” citizens responsible for their actions.

        Proof by bald assertion. Where have either of us ever proposed eliminating laws against murder etc.

        - eddie47d: “Gee officer I’m sorry……”

        let’s modify eddies straw man argument to ridicule slightly

        Gee officer I’m sorry I left that kitchen knife lying around. I won’t do it again. I’m sorry my kitchen knife was used in killing the guy at the convenience store down the block but I’ll promise to lock it up next time when I’m not home. Wink Wink!

        Still can’t resist making the victims criminal and the criminals victims I see.

      • JeffH

        Well Vicki, let’s face it…where eddie is concerned Mrs. Gump was right. “Stupid is as stupid does”!

    • Frank Kahn

      The link you provided results in a 404 error page not found, so it is difficult to know if what you say is true about the interview.

      On your points, however, a response is possible.

      If we look at the mass killings that have occurred recently we see that the current background checks have not affected a reduction.

      Since there are millions of guns already in the possession of citizens, doing background checks on new sales will not decrease the ability for people to access them.

      What type of more comprehensive background checks do you advocate?

      It is already against the law for known (convicted) criminals (felons) to even go to a gun store and physically pick one up, let alone buy it.

      Do you want mental health screening for gun purchases? If so, how and when would that procedure take place? What would be the criteria used to determine the fitness of a person for gun purchases? Who would administer the psychological tests?

      Do you want a true background check, like is done for say a top secret security clearance? Again, as with mental health screening, Who, When and how would this be done.

      Although I question your statement, asserting that many police organizations support the banning of so called assault weapons, lets ask the simple question “Who cares what misguided police personnel think”? Next, we need to question the motivation behind them wanting to ban semi-automatic weapons.

      What it really boils down to is a credibility issue with anti-gun advocates. This is, as with drugs, a matter of the officials saying either ignorant or intentionally hyperbolic statements to emotionally sway the thoughts of the citizenry. They did it with pot, claiming all sorts of things like, it is a gateway drug to heroin, it causes psychotic episodes, causes hallucinations, even leads to prostitution and death. All of those things are either lies or misrepresentations that attempt to make pot more dangerous than it really is. The same is with guns, now Feinstein claims that an AR-15 can be modified to shoot 800 rounds a minute? Lets see the actual speed there, a little over 13 rounds a second? This would require modification to full auto fire and that modification is not easy. Stricter gun controls and banning weapons reduces gun violence? Statistics do not support this claim. So called Assault weapons (semi-automatic) are designed for one purpose only and that is to kill people? NOPE, my semi-automatic .308 was designed to kill elk and deer. My semi-automatic .22 was designed to kill rabbits and birds, maybe a few ground squirrels. High capacity magazines only increase the number of victims in a mass murder? Maybe, if an insane person uses it to kill that is true, but that is not the only reason for them.

      I hope you can provide a working link to the interview you were referencing.

      • Dave67

        Hi Frank,

        Here is the link.

        http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-28-2013/exclusive—bob-costas-extended-interview-pt–1

        Bob is exactly on point as is Obama. Its not the gun, its the culture. That is what needs to change.

        Obama’s proposals address the CULTURE with little emphasis on the GUN but many believers of Mr Livingston and his ilk do not get it.

        • Frank Kahn

          Thank you for providing the link so that I can say with authority and conviction that Costas has not clue one as to what he speaks. Were the CULTURE as he describes it you would already be dead. As soon as a normal rational gun owner (that is insane like Bob says) heard your opinion he would get his guns and shoot you till you were nothing but hamburger. Matter of fact if what he claimed was even remotely true, there would be about 20 less posters on this blog because all those insane pro-gun nuts would have taken them out. Some day, you and the other numbered names on this blog site that seem to think we are all crazy gun toting maniacs that want to prove we own the world, will get a clue to the true reality.

          I am not going to shoot anyone unless my life is in danger or the lives of others.

          Actually I thought he was going to get it right there, when he was talking about professional football. It has been shown, statistically, that men tend to get more violent when watching that sport. But then he drifted into lala land by making it sound like the violence in football somehow proves that our gun culture is bad.

          I wont say that there are no people with the dirty harry syndrome around here, but when they try that stupidity they get arrested, if they are lucky, if they are not lucky the get buried. Maybe where you live the laws are different, but here assault with a deadly weapon is a felony and a citizen is authorized to use deadly force in response.

      • Charlie

        Frank Kahn,,,
        Since a mass of heathens are making comments ,it’s time to point at The Bible again AND ask a few questions regarding American History… Who did The Founding Father of America call out as their “King”? while shooting at The British Red coats??? Would you believe it is King Jesus Christ??? Well,,, today when some one says “God Bless America” ,,,what most are saying is just a Flag waving routine statement,,,NOT realizing the Power that are in those words, Because, King Jesus Christ is The Owner of Planet Earth . He paid for it at The Cross with His Blood sweat and tears of humility,,,but,,,The Power of King Jesus cannot be called into play ,,,just by any ordinary flag waving American, even if they are borne in America on the 4th of July… King Jesus Christ is The same as The God Almighty and The Holy Spirit complete this One and Only Holy Trinity of Power,,,so,,. when one says God Bless America , that’s the same as saying King Jesus Christ Bless America. IF, you understand American History AND The Holy Bible…
        The Guns come into play under The Orders of King Jesus Christ at Luke 22:36 among many other Scriptures,,,Remember!!! King Jesus Christ is The same as God, so , any Scripture that is a call to Arms from God is a call to Arms from King Jesus Christ….
        When America is taken back into The Bible, it will be under The Will and Power of King Jesus Christ and His law Book known as The Holy Bible… The True Christians that are in The American Militia will have some part to that Victory in King Jesus Christ…
        Meanwhile…..Never let the anti-Christ put limits on your weapons……………….
        Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

        Charlie Freedom

      • Dave67

        Charlie,

        What is Jesus Christ’s favorite part of Capitalism?

        What is Jesus Christ’s favorite gun?

        You have no clue about God or what Jesus Christ’s believes and you certainly don’t follow his example.

        So stop acting like you are somehow more morally upright than me or anyone else.

      • Vicki

        Davd67 writes:
        “Obama’s proposals address the CULTURE with little emphasis on the GUN but many believers of Mr Livingston and his ilk do not get it.”

        Tell us, if you will, how his proposals address the culture of violence? Or if you meant a different culture can you explain?

      • Vicki

        Dave67 says:
        “What is Jesus Christ’s favorite part of Capitalism?”

        The freedom to exchange products of one’s own labor.

        - Dave67: “What is Jesus Christ’s favorite gun?”

        Illogical. Guns not invented yet. We can, however deduce from what is written that Jesus believed that the pen like object (free speech) was mightier than the sword (arms like object).

        - Dave67: “You have no clue about God or what Jesus Christ’s believes and you certainly don’t follow his example.”

        Proof by bald assertion.

        - Dave67: “So stop acting like you are somehow more morally upright than me or anyone else.”

        We have evidence that he is more morally upright than you because he is not advocating punishing

        ~300 MILLION Americans who DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

      • eddie47d

        Christians today as they always have make “bald assertions” on how others should live their lives all the time. I think that is called preaching and if Dave wants to know what Jesus would do then wouldn’t that fall into that legitamite category? Would Jesus be building furniture or houses today (carpenter)? Would He get to work in an F-250 or a Honda Hybrid? Would He serve God at the Vatican or met more people working at the 7-11?

        • Frank Kahn

          I dont see what this ranting post quoted below has to do with anything.

          “Christians today as they always have make “bald assertions” on how others should live their lives all the time. I think that is called preaching and if Dave wants to know what Jesus would do then wouldn’t that fall into that legitamite category? Would Jesus be building furniture or houses today (carpenter)? Would He get to work in an F-250 or a Honda Hybrid? Would He serve God at the Vatican or met more people working at the 7-11?”

          Broken down

          “Christians today as they always have make “bald assertions” on how others should live their lives all the time.”

          A BALD ASSERTION is something put forth without any supporting facts or proof. Whether you believe or agree with the proof as being true does not change the statement into a bald (without proof) assertion. Now, your statement does qualify as a BALD ASSERTION because A. it does not detail any supposed bald assertions made by Christians, and B. it does not give proof that the assertions of the Christians were BALD. If you were to give some example, where Christians are trying to force others to live in a certain way, which is not based on reasoning, scientific and / or historical standards, we might be able to discuss what problem you actually have with the Christian way of life.

          ” I think that is called preaching”

          By definition, many things fall under that term, in fact, you are extremely guilty of preaching on this blog site.

          “Definition of PREACH
          intransitive verb
          1: to deliver a sermon
          2: to urge acceptance or abandonment of an idea or course of action; specifically : to exhort in an officious or tiresome manner

          transitive verb
          1: to set forth in a sermon
          2: to advocate earnestly
          3: to deliver (as a sermon) publicly
          4: to bring, put, or affect by preaching <preached the … church out of debt "

          Under intransitive verb, item 2, your constant pushing of a single minded, no exceptions allowed, view of guns and gun violence is preaching. Your insistence that all right wing conservatives are incapable of reasonable thoughts is preaching, and also a bald assertion as well as ad hominem attack.

          " and if Dave wants to know what Jesus would do then wouldn’t that fall into that legitamite category?"

          Asking the question "what would Jesus have said / done " is not really preaching, it is asking you to consider the actions against what another person might have done instead. His choice of using Jesus instead of General Patton might cause you some discomfort due to its religious connotation, but it is the same concept.

          " Would Jesus be building furniture or houses today (carpenter)? Would He get to work in an F-250 or a Honda Hybrid? Would He serve God at the Vatican or met more people working at the 7-11?"

          This last part is an attempt to ridicule through absurdity. To continue with the absurdity I would say he would ride to work on the back of a democrat (donkey).

          And, he would serve God the same way he did in the past, by reaching out in person.

          As to what he would be building as a carpenter, well I suppose whatever he felt was most needed by the people who are less fortunate.

      • Dennis48e

        “Obama’s proposals address the CULTURE with little emphasis on the GUN but many believers of Mr Livingston and his ilk do not get it.”

        If he places so little emphasis on the gun itself why is he pushing for the renewal of the ban on so called “assualt weapons” and high capacity magazines?

        As far as that goes if he has so little interest in controlling guns why did he, while in Chicago, support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and posession of handguns?

      • Charlie

        Dave67,,,
        Rave on heathen ,, give some Scripture that I have violated, that you have read or seen…
        Meanwhile… Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…
        Charlie Freedom

      • Mike in MI

        Charlie – you are either a Charlietan or ignorant of The Book you claim to espouse.
        Fool!
        The Apostle Paul wrote, “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal…” (Well then, what are they?) “…but spiritual unto the…etc”
        Charlie, you’re worse than Dave67 in presenting lies about the most important subject in this whole debate – God. And you desecrate the impact he could have in these proceedings because you don’t know nor understand His Word. Keep quiet, please.

      • Kate8

        Mike in MI – I am amazed at how some people call themselves Christians, and then rave on against someone, becoming the same as the one they’re railing against.

        Anger, blasting, name-calling, condemnation… where do people get this stuff? Who among us is so pure that we have the right to condemn another? (“Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone”).

        Yeshua moved about, teaching… he spoke TRUTH, for those with ears to hear. He understood that, by far, most would not be capable of hearing his Message. He did not condemn the crowds; he did not yell at and blast them for being heathens… He simply spoke Truth, which often put them in their places, being judged by their own error…

        Yeshua came for sinners. Saints to not need saving. He came to gather the sheep, to fetch the stray…

        Hate only begets more hate. Yeshua was Love (and yes, he did get angry at the money-changers… the children of nephilim who were set out to enslave the peoples… but his anger was righteous, and he was WORTHY)…

        Love speaks softly, and those in whom the spark of truth dwells will begin to resonate. If not, then they may go their way to their own judgment. (“Judgment is MINE, sayeth the Lord.) This, btw, is the Lord Within each being, whether acknowledged or not… as we are all part of the One Creation…

        If they refuse to hear, then shake them off, as dust from our feet… There is no point in casting pearls before swine…

        We must be careful speaking haughty words in Christ’s Name. This WILL come back on US, we will held accountable.

        For those who would argue about the Lord’s Wrath… All I can say is, who among us speaks for the Lord? Who among us would count ourselves equal in worthiness to Him to condemn another? Only God knows men’s hearts…

        Peace.

    • Don 2

      Dave 67 – Yes, take the word of our brave and hard working law enforcement officials, like the 28 out of 29 Sheriff’s in the State of Utah, who have told Barack ‘Insane’ Obama that they will not enforce Obama’s unconstitutional 2nd. Amendment executive orders, and that they will protect the rights of the citizens of Utah.

      • Dave67

        Where is what Obama is proposing Unconstitutional? Be specific please.

      • Jana

        Dave67,
        It is his orders, and it has not been voted on. Obama is NOT the maker of laws. What he has done is for show.

      • Charlie

        Dave67,,.
        Are you really that ignorant of Obama’s anti-American , anti-Christ status ???

      • Dave67

        Go ahead Charlie and Jana,

        Lay it out… Some of the proposals were for Congressional approval, some were executive order (Obama has yet to surpass, Coolidge, Reagan, George H and W Bush for number of executive orders so I guess he isn’t as Anti-American as those jerks yet)

        Tell me exactly which ones are Unconstitutional. Can you?

      • Don 2

        Dave 67,

        The Sheriff’s Assoc. was putting Obama on notice. You may remember that Obama has threatened to act on his own if congress does not. This would be by executive order.

      • Vicki
    • no kidding screwball

      Mr Dave67
      I hve to feel for you. Do you realy believe that the bad guys will turn in their guns or the laws are going to prevent them from getting guns. “HOW NAIVE CAN YOU GET” Have you not have noticed how the war on drugs that has been going on for years has prevented everyone from getting their drugs? And yes they arrest them everyday, yet there is more drugs on the streets than it ever was.

      There is only one solution and washington can’t handle it. His name is Jesus.

      “OH WAKE UP OH THOUGH THAT SLEEPEST”

    • no kidding screwball

      Mr Dave67

      you can’t stop the bad guy from getting a gun. No more than the law can stop a drug atic from getting his drugs. Have you not notice how successful the war on drugs was?
      there is only one solution. His name is Jesus……….

      • Joe America

        I love the way folks come to this country and try to force their liberal ideas down our throats. John Stewart is Canadian, and his nation bows to a queen. Canada is a product of the UK, which is a police state. Her highnass has disarmed her citizens in every nation affiliated with her. Johnny’s just supporting his queen, a monarchy, which we dumped over 200 years ago. Let him and every other Anglophile have their queen and their police state. We’ll have none of it. Americans seeking the destruction of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, have a place to go and a queen o bow down to. Liberals are welcome to leave the USA with my blessings. You want a police state, a welfare state, the go where one is already established. You’ll feel right at home.

  • Chris Condon

    What was Gabrielle Gifford’s voting record on abortion while she was in Congress?

    • http://TheMiracleofSelfPower Iris D. Lynch

      It seems to me that Gabby Giffords isn’t with us anymore, she has been turned into a very pretty live robot. What a shame she is being used that way.

      • mark

        Right, Iris, why would Gabby ever want restrictions on high capacity magazines and stricter background checks on criminals and the mentally unstable? Just becaue she was shot in the head by a mentally unstable individual who disabled her for life, using a high capacity magazine? You’re right, Iris. This makes no sense. She is obviously a robot being manipulated by others. Wow.

    • Robert Smith

      Abortion:

      She is Pro-Choice, with a 100% NARAL rating.

      A position I agree with, Chris. It supports freedom for women and how their very bodies are used.

      Rob

      • Nan

        RobertSmith: ‘Freedom for women & how their bodies are used’? Gosh, you mean they didn’t have the ‘freedom’ to keep their legs together or use birth control to prevent pregnancy–or are you advocating their ‘freedom’ to do as they darn well please, then murder the evidence…just wonderin’

      • eddie47d

        Yet Nan although you are getting us off subject there are 31 states who say that a woman who is raped and gets an abortion is a murderer. Which means that the act of rape can be considered legal if the woman chooses to abort the fetus. The woman didn’t chose to be raped yet the laws make it hard for her to report it and she has to live with the consequences. There are losers on both sides of the abortion issue just like with the murder issue.

      • phideaux

        ‘Yet Nan although you are getting us off subject…”

        Yet another LIE from eddie. Nan did NOT get the discussion off subject she was replying to a comment from RS.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Yet Nan although you are getting us off subject ”

        She is responding to the subject in this sub-thread so no she is not getting you off subject.
        Robert was also responding to the subject of this sub thread.

  • http://none Susan

    This is of course an attack on our God Given.Constitutional rights, but the disarming of Americans is a way to get total control. First you disarm them, so they have no way to defend themselves, Thomas, said that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it is to protect us from the tyranny of the Government, Also look up Chemtrails see what your progressive Government is doing to our weather. And the stuff they are spraying on the American.People. I can tell you it is harmful to your health and your children’s health
    I beg you look it up. Obama is a tyrant he wants to be a leader in the New World Order, this is in the bible, but Jesus gave us the signs, lots of wars and rumors of wars, Israel plays a key part in the end times, Pray Pray Pray

    • eddie47d

      I doubt if God approves of mass killings by anyone by any method and that is the main thrust of this issue. Ronald Reagan supported the assault weapons ban years before it was written into law so does that make him a tyrant or are you strictly selective because you hate Obama?

      • S.C.Murf

        Fast Eddie good morning, hope it isn’t as cold there as it is here (fireplace weather). You should get with nc he’s always talking about Noah and the great flood, you know where God killed everyone off except Noah and the in-laws. I don’t think He calls it mass murder thou, I believe it’s more like getting rid of the evil element.

        up the hill
        airborne

      • eddie47d

        Well Murf you got me on that one and yes God can be a little punchy. Armageddon will be a whopper too!

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “I doubt if God approves of mass killings by anyone by any method and that is the main thrust of this issue.”

        The main thrust of this issue is our defense of the right of the

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS WHO DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few (that God will also punish in due time).

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

        - eddie47d: “Ronald Reagan supported the assault weapons ban years before it was written into law so does that make him a tyrant or are you strictly selective because you hate Obama?”

        We don’t hate obama. We disapprove of unconstitutional laws. Laws like the Patriot Act, NDAA 2012. The war on (some) guns. The war on (some) drugs. etc.

      • Dave67

        Vicki once again lies through her teeth..

        first she says she has proposed solution to the gun violence culture in America (lie)

        Then she says Hitler disarmed the German population in 1938 (another lie)

        Now she says that her and her conservative friends don’t hate Obama (king of all lies)

        Are you ever going to tell the truth???

      • Vicki

        Dave67 says:
        “Vicki once again lies through her teeth..
        first she says she has proposed solution to the gun violence culture in America (lie)”

        Provably false. Here let me give you the proposed solution again. I will make it in big print for you.
        ——————————————————
        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW
        ——————————————————

        - Dave67: “Then she says Hitler disarmed the German population in 1938 (another lie)”

        Proof by bald assertion. Provably false. (I even looked thru this thread to see if I mentioned that)

        - Dave67: “Now she says that her and her conservative friends don’t hate Obama (king of all lies)”

        Proof by bald assertion and unless you ARE God you can not possibly know. I’m feeling nice so I will give you a clue. I have never met obama.

        - Dave67: “Are you ever going to tell the truth???”

        Did you plan on taking your own advice?

      • Vicki

        Dave67 says:
        “Then she says Hitler disarmed the German population in 1938 (another lie)”

        If I had brought it up at all I would have said that Hitler or Hitler’s regim or NAZI’s disarmed the Jews in 1938. This is established historical fact.
        http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

        In particular you can search for “THE DISARMING OF THE JEWS” and then read above to see how the 1938 law worked and below for how the NAZI used it.

        Or, if you have the time you can read the entire article and see the similarity to what the gun-control people have done here in the US.

    • Robert Smith

      Awwwwww Susan! Really???? “Obama is a tyrant he wants to be a leader in the New World Order, this is in the bible, ”

      Tell us, which chapter and verse does Obama show up in.

      Rob

      • Vicki

        If obama is the anti-christ then you know where. If not then would he be one of the false prophets?

        Why do you even care?

      • Bob666

        Yo Robert,
        long story and it changes along the way,

    • Larry K.

      I’ve been telling people for several years about those chem-trails but they don’t believe what i tell them and they think i’m nuts. they spread those chem. all over the world most of it anyway. don’t the people know that they experience more bad weather a couple of days after they spray? what are they really spraying? they could kill off a lot of people for population control. I’m beginning to think that something they spray could be making some people crazy. who knows???? they have been spraying chem-trails for 40 years or more and our seasons have been changing and we are constantly having thunderstorms and hundreds of tornadoes. Go ahead people –call me crazy if you want, but do some hard thinking on what’s been going on.

    • Charlie

      Susan,,,
      The Constitution is not a God given document,,,it barley refers to The Almighty God and never refers to King Jesus Christ… The Constitution is a man made “Commercial” document,,,it tells you that when it states it is the highest law of “””Land”””, land means commerce,, land means “dirt”, ALL commerce comes from “the dirt”… Your comment otherwise is ok , don’t let that heathen RS bother you,,, the Scripture he wanted is at Deuteronomy 17:15,,, thanks for your comment………………….Meanwhile…………
      Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

      Charlie Freeom

    • no kidding screwball

      Dear Susan
      your obviously wise but some of these I don’t know that they well take your advice, yes they slhould.

      Bu now I hope to also have some fun with these idiot liberals and I would like them to respond to this statement.

      OK. lets say for a moment that everyone turns in their guns so there is no more guns, the gov. got them all put away. So now, since there are no guns the police will also have to turn in theirs after all if we have no guns the only way the police can use theirs on the public is if they commit murder.So now, the people have no guns and the people have no guns so all is ok. but while everyone is turning in their guns there is a group that gotten together and decided they will wait till there is no guns and then they will bring theirs out and go and rob all the banks till they have a bunch of loot and then take off and disappear.

      Now Mr. lliberal, how will you stop that gang from succeeding with their plot.
      I’m waiting your answer!!

  • TPM

    4 years ago, the NRA suggested two things regarding the expansion of background checks. They suggested that ATF set up background check booths at gun shows, so that buyers would be checked. The NRA also suggested that mental health records be shared and integrated into background checks. The Obama administration said NO to both measures. WHY?

    NOW, the NRA is villianized. NOW, Obama says we need these things and more. BUT, when offered to chance to implement these changes 4 years ago, he declined. Liberals and the main stream media have short (and selective) memories.

    For every tragic shooting that the media overcovers, there are a thousand instances where someone prevents a violent crime, with a gun. When are we going to see fair and balanced coverage on guns. They do more good than bad.

    Most of the shooters (including Gifford’s) have been crazy, liberal democrats. Maybe we need to outlaw them.

    • Dave67

      Please read:

      Flashback: How Republicans and the NRA Kneecapped the ATF

      Thirty years ago, the National Rifle Association saved its biggest adversary from extinction. It got just what it wanted.

      —By Tim Murphy

      | Thu Jan. 17, 2013 3:11 AM PST

      160

      .

      When Charlton Heston said the federal government could take his guns from his “cold, dead hands,” he was referring to the ATF. Preston Mack/ZUMAPress

      Driven to act by last month’s massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, President Barack Obama on Wednesday called on Congress to pass new laws banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and targeting gun traffickers, and he announced 23 steps his administration is taking to better enforce existing law. With Republicans threatening to block any legislation—and some extreme GOPers calling for impeachment if Obama acts alone—reform, as could be expected, will not be easy.

      But should Obama gets what he wants, he’ll face another major challenge: his own Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Over the last three decades, gun activists and lawmakers have purposefully hindered the ATF and carefully molded the agency that enforces gun laws to serve their own interests, stunting the ATF’s budget, handicapping its regulatory authority, and keeping it effectively leaderless. The bureau Obama is counting on to lead his gun control push is a disaster…by Republican design.

      EXCLUSIVE: Unmasking the NRA’s Inner Circle
      Meet the NRA’s Board of Directors
      The NRA Myth of Arming the Good Guys
      Does the NRA Really Have 4 Million Members?
      How the NRA and Its Allies Helped Spread a Radical Gun Law Nationwide

      See our full special report on gun laws and the rise of mass shootings in America.

      The problems are obvious. The agency that Obama said “works most closely with state and local law enforcement to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals” has the same of number of agents as the Phoenix Police Department. Its budget has barely budged in decades (as the Department of Homeland Security has grown flush with post-9/11 funding). It has fewer investigators than it did in 1973. And its acting (and part-time) director, B. Todd Jones, commutes to work from Minneapolis, where he works full-time as a US attorney. It hasn’t had a permanent director for six years. The NRA blocked Obama’s earlier appointee, Andrew Traver, in part because Traver had once attended a meeting of police chiefs that focused on gun control. At the unveiling of his gun violence prevention package, Obama announced he would seek to make Jones the permanent (and presumably fulltime) chief of the ATF.

      To understand how the ATF became the weakest of law enforcement agencies, you have to go back to President Ronald Reagan’s first term.

      The 1968 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, the first major piece of gun control legislation since the Capone days, led the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Department of the Treasury to sprout a third responsibility: handguns. With the market for moonshine collapsed—due to a global spike in sugar prices—the division’s primary investigative responsibility for most of its history withered. The new mandate to regulate arms sales filled the void. It also made the bureau a natural foil for the nascent gun lobby, and the NRA, whose leadership was fast transitioning from a moderate coalition of sportsmen to a band of true believers, went to work to make the agency a pariah.
      Republicans and Democrats alike hammered the agency for years. Appearing in a 1981 NRA-produced film, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) charged, “If I were to select a jackbooted group of fascists who are perhaps as large a danger to American society as I could pick today, I would pick BATF.” A 1982 Senate report blasted the agency’s supposed “practically reprehensible” enforcement tactics.

      Leading the charge was Reagan. On the campaign trail, he’d bashed the ATF and vowed to dissolve it. Once in Washington, Reagan, with the NRA’s backing, proposed folding the ATF into the Secret Service—the two branches of the Treasury most unlike all the others. ATF agents would help the Secret Service handle its beefed-up responsibilities of campaign years and expand its investigative powers. It would have been a death sentence for the bureau.

      But then the NRA had had a change of heart. The organization’s strategists came to worry that if gun law enforcement was handed to the Secret Service, one of the few federal agencies with a reputation for competence, gun owners might actually have something to fear. And, they feared, that if the agency did become part of the Secret Service, they’d lose an easy target.

      “If it weren’t for the NRA and the liquor industry, there would be no ATF today.”

      The NRA realized, “‘Oh my God, we’re gonna lose the ATF!’” recalls William Vizzard, a professor of criminology at California State University-Sacramento, who worked for bureau at the time. “It would have been like removing the Soviets during the Cold War, for the Defense Department—there’s nobody to point to.”

      Working in conjunction with the liquor lobby (which had its own misgivings about suddenly being regulated by the Customs Service), the NRA coaxed a friendly lawmaker, Sen. James Abdnor (R-S.D.), into scuttling the merger by inserting language in a budget bill. As Vizzard puts it, “If it weren’t for the NRA and the liquor industry, there would be no ATF today, because the merger with the Secret Service would have just gone ahead.”

      Once the NRA had saved the ATF, it focused on how to neuter it. Four years after bargaining for the preservation of the ATF, the NRA helped Congress formally handcuff the agency, in the form of the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. The law, which included a handful of token regulations (such as a ban on machine guns), made it all but impossible for the government to prosecute corrupt gun dealers. It prohibited the bureau from compiling a national database of retail firearm sales, reduced the penalty for dealers who falsified sales records from a felony to a misdemeanor, and raised the threshold for prosecution for unlicensed dealing.

      Perhaps most glaringly, the ATF was explicitly prohibited from conducting more than one inspection of a single dealer in a given year, meaning that once an agent had visited a shop, that dealer was free to flout the law.

      John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, called the bureau “a jackbooted group of fascists.”

      Those restrictions haven’t changed over the last two decades. “There’s no other law enforcement entity in the country that has any restriction remotely like that,” says Jon Lowy, the director of the legal action project at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

      But the NRA wasn’t done; over the next decade-and-a-half, it worked with Congress to run up the score. Following the joint ATF and FBI raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, in 1993—which NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said was “reminiscent of the standoff at the Warsaw ghetto”—Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) launched a Firearms Legislation Task Force to hold hearings on perceived ATF abuses. His deputy, Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), called for the bureau to be disbanded. LaPierre, channeling Dingell, called ATF agents to “jackbooted thugs,” prompting former president George H.W. Bush to resign his NRA membership.

      During the George W. Bush administration, The gun lobby delivered another big blow. In 2003, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) inserted a series of amendments into a Department of Justice appropriations bill that prohibited the ATF from sharing information on weapons traces to the general public—effectively restricting researchers from detecting trends and potential loopholes in current policy. (A 1996 NRA-backed budget likewise prohibited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from studying the health effects of gun ownership.)

      The same year, Congress, backed by the NRA, split the ATF off from the Department of Treasury and stipulated that its director be confirmed by the Senate, effectively giving the gun lobby veto power over who would run the agency. Since then, the ATF has simply gone leaderless. No nominee has been confirmed by the Senate after that policy went into effect—not even President Bush’s pick. Without job security, acting ATF directors have had none of the political capital needed to reform the agency or run it at full throttle.

      And the hits have kept on coming. Last year’s “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal caused yet another interim director to resign under pressure from gun rights activists and shed light into cases of corruption and depreciating morale at the bureau. LaPierre and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) alleged a conspiracy on the part of the ATF and the White House to use Fast and Furious to push FOR massive arms confiscation. Around the same time, Fox News analyst Dick Morris typified a resurgent line of 1990s thinking when he all but justified the murder of federal agents: “Those crazies in Montana who say, ‘We’re going to kill ATF agents because the UN’s going to take over’—well, they’re beginning to have a case.”

      The ATF’s challenges haven’t gone overlooked by the White House. In his remarks Wednesday afternoon, Obama outlined the urgency of making Jones a full-time director. He’s right; the rest of his agenda just might depend on it.

      • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

        The GCA68 was derived virtually word for word from a translation. From Hitler’s gun laws by Thomas Dodd, Chris Dodd’s father, when Thomas was in the senate.

      • eddie47d

        Good morning Carlwk3c; One of the biggest excuses that gun owners use in not accepting new gun laws is that “there are too many laws on the books now as it is”. (22,000).Okay that sounds fair enough as an argument yet the problem is the NRA and the GOA lobby in Congress to rid the country of each and every one of those laws. You may say hooray yet when those laws are watered down it renders them ineffective and worthless so it wouldn’t matter if there were double that number. Too me the problem is the NRA who won’t allow those laws to be enforced so that means the sheriff’s are handicapped in court. If the NRA wants to play hardball then I say do away with those 22,000 laws and enact a half a dozen national laws so each jurisdiction is on the same page. Stop pussy footing around with gun runners in North Carolina slipping their weapons into NYC or the sheriff in Colorado can’t control gun crime in this state because of less restrictive laws in Wyoming. The pro gun activists are correct in saying gun control laws haven’t worked because they are such a hodgepodge of scattered laws enacted in too many places. Its time for a more coherent one on the national level so the NRA won’t have that excuse anymore.

      • S.C.Murf

        davie, obama wants to target gun traffickers? Maybe he should go after himself and his minion holder (remember fast & furious?) But all of that doesn’t help with your view on the subject now does it so we’ll just leave that out of the equation, NOT. Wake up you need to cash your troll checks from holder

        up the hill
        airborne

      • eddie47d

        S C Murf; There is no excuse for fast and furious in the way it was handled yet there was also no excuse for the way gun dealers in border states were illegally selling or transferring guns to the cartels either. Don’t be so naive to the original problem that put fast and furious into motion.

      • Hedgehog

        Dave67:

        I give you a quote from Thomas Jefferson: “To argue with those who have renounced the use of reason is as futile as administering medicine to the dead.” The shoe fits you without pinching!

      • phideaux

        ” yet there was also no excuse for the way gun dealers in border states were illegally selling or transferring guns to the cartels either. Don’t be so naive to the original problem that put fast and furious into motion.”

        eddie no matter how many times your repeat that lie it will not make it true. You have been asked many times to provide proof of your statement and have yet to do so.

      • eddie47d

        Look it up phildeaux I’m not your babysitter. Hint; X-Caliber Guns in Phoenix for one!

      • JeffH

        eddie says “the problem is the NRA and the GOA lobby in Congress to rid the country of each and every one of those(22,000) laws.”

        You are again lying eddie. Other than your opinion, what proof can you present to support that stupid statement.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Good morning Carlwk3c; One of the biggest excuses that gun owners use in not accepting new gun laws is that “there are too many laws on the books now as it is”. (22,000).”

        Well there are. And most of them only punish the law abiding citizen when they plan on exercising their RIGHT to KEEP (posses) and BEAR (carry) arms. This has a “chilling effect” on the right and therefor obvious infringement.
        http://law.yourdictionary.com/chilling-effect

        We need in reality only a few laws. ALL of them were enacted way way before even NFA-1934 let alone GCA-1968.

        So we can reduce government size by eliminating the no longer necessary BATFE.

      • eddie47d

        You did get part of that right Jeff H but got the wording backasswords. Should have said “Jeff is lying about eddie again”!. Didn’t you get the memo that the NRA along with ALEC work hand in hand in passing legislation in various state jurisdictions. (actually write the laws) I thought a smart fellow like you would have known that.

      • phideaux

        eddie eddie.
        First one case in one town does NOT indicate a wide spread problem as you claim there is.
        Second you made the claim it is up to you to provide the proof.
        Third you should look up your claims before making a fool of yourself by postiong them. The referenced case was thrown out of court and the dealer declaired NOT GUILTY by the judge. http://www.crimefilenews.com/2009/03/huge-phoenix-arizona-straw-man-gun-case.html

      • eddie47d

        Of coarse he’s not guilty for he sold those 700 weapons to straw buyers who then sold them to the cartels. Oh yes we know how that game is played.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Of coarse he’s not guilty for he sold those 700 weapons to straw buyers who then sold them to the cartels. Oh yes we know how that game is played.”

        This explains why eddie isn’t upset with eric.

  • Grandpa Frog

    To Dave67

    People might take you more seriously if you would avoid using terms such as “nuts”, “idiot” and “scumbag”. And also get some unbiased (non-leftist) polls for your talking points.

    If you would read what that “scumbag” “idiot” LaPierre has said on record, you’ll find your answers have already been answered.

    • Dave67

      Sorry grandpa,

      I call them like I see them. (Not very PC I know) by LaPierre only cares about power on Capitol Hill and keeping is lavish 6 figure lifestyle on the dead bodies of men women and children. His record shows that any common sense laws around the gun culture we have in this country and the attitudes on violence will be met with extreme opposition. That is their record.

      • Robin from Arcadia, IN

        Dave67… Name one person in Washington that isn’t addicted to a lavish lifestyle and high salary. Our government is now so corrupt that trying to turn it back to the way the Founding Fathers envisioned it may not even be possible. Taxpayers are looked at as ‘peasants’ and only good for one thing…. keeping the elite in their high status. Anyone in any position of power is only going to be looking out for themselves. Others don’t matter. I have my hand gun and conceal carry permit. I won’t give up my gun.

      • Robert Smith

        “Name one person in Washington that isn’t addicted to a lavish lifestyle and high salary.”

        Ralph Nader.

        Rob

    • Vicki

      Grandpa Frog says:
      “People might take you more seriously if you would avoid using terms such as “nuts”, “idiot” and “scumbag”. And also get some unbiased (non-leftist) polls for your talking points.”

      It’s ok with me for him to use Ad hominem. Let’s us know he has run out of useful debate points.

  • Tommy

    Why did’nt Gabby or the media point out that a concealed weapons permit holder stopped the shooter that shot her. I heard this mentioned ONCE since that day. Way to bury the truth AGAIN, MSM. Like Ted Nugent said in the interview at SHOT show this year. Lanza broke 41 laws that day. It takes a special kind of stupid to think that a 42nd law would have stopped him. Ask Barry about the 178 CHILDREN HE’s KILLED with his drone strikes and the unborn babies ( and live birth abortions) that he voted against 4 times. Lanza ONLY killed 20 children, take away Barry’s guns too…

    • Robert Smith

      No need to lie, Tommy.

      Here are the facts: “Woman Wrestled Fresh Ammo Clip From Tucson Shooter as He Tried to Reload
      By KEVIN DOLAK (@kdolak) and JUSTIN WEAVER
      TUCSON, Ariz. Jan. 9, 2011
      Patricia Maisch looks like a grandmother, but she is being hailed as a hero today for helping to stop alleged Tucson shooter Jared Loughner by wrestling away a fresh magazine of bullets as he tried to reload.

      Maisch, 61, effectively disarmed the shooter as several men pounced on him and threw him to ground. As they struggled to hold him down, Maisch joined the scrum on the ground, clinging to the gunman’s ankles.”

      That’s from: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/patricia-maisch-describes-stopping-gunman-reloading/story?id=12577933

      Rob

    • Larry K.

      those anti-gun people never think of that or the hundreds of people that were saved by guns held by law abiding people. btw, i’m going to call nra and join up.

    • Vicki

      Cause the permit holder was not close enough for threat identification. When he was he found that the threat had been neutralized so he did not draw his gun. Hence not much blood for the news to lead with. He did continue forward and assisted in restraining the shooter.
      http://1withabullet.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/concealed-carry-permit-holder-helped-subdue-giffords-shooter/

      The importance of CC is that there were WAY to few of them in the crowd near the shooter.

  • Jeff

    Dave, I can tell you have your partisan glasses on and are observing events and responses objectively.

    I’ll state this first. I live in CT. Are you aware that we have an assault weapons ban that mirrors the 1994 act? Adam Lanza broke over 20 laws before he even got to the school! What will passing any new FIAT law do to change a deranged lunatic with murder on his mind. We have 300+ million firearms and I don’t even want to guess at the amount of magazines that are over 10 rounds that are out there.

    1) Please define a Universal Background Check. I don’t know about you, but I have to go through a check before I buy ANY new gun and any pistol.

    2) Please see number one, another problem: those that are falsely filling out the forms are never prosecuted. I heard that in one of the recent hearings in this state come directly from law enforcement personnel.

    3) Look at history. Gun registration always leads to confiscation. You are incredibly naive if you don’t believe this. Look into Russia, Germany, China, Zimbabwe, etc there are examples after examples. Thinking if cannot happen here is grossly naive. Politicians will try to exploit anything they can use!

    4) Your statement about law enforcement supporting a ban on “standard capacity magazines” (over 10 rounds) is false. Even New York’s Sheriff association stated they do not believe reducing magazine capacity will promote the safety of New Yorkers and the communities they reside in. New York stated this, it doesn’t get much more progressive than that. But keep in mind, Sheriff’s are the highest elected law enforcement officials in the country. They answer to their communities. Read this: http://www.nysheriffs.org/articles/sheriffs%E2%80%99-response-ny-safe-act

    5) I would love to disarm bad guys. But once again, this shows how naive liberals are. How do you prevent bad guys from stealing guns and selling them on the streets? There are over 300 million out there. The Journal news in New York even helped some criminals obtain more after they published the names and addresses of permit holders in 2 NY counties. You do understand though that theft is a crime already. That didn’t stop their behavior.

    Now, the NRA is made up of 4.5 million men and women. Do they have deep pockets? That is debatable. Consider this, one of the biggest advocates of gun control, Michael Bloomberg is worth $25 Billion. Olin – they own Winchester – market cap $2.36 Billion, S&W – $575 Million, and Ruger is worth – $890 Million. These are three of the largest publicly traded companies in the US. But keep in mind, these are the filthy rich companies that support the NRA.

    Nice try Dave, I can only hope others see through your BS!

    -Jeff

    • Dave67

      Jeff,

      Are their check points that everyone stops at to get into CT? No… so the “gun free” zones do not work and they cannot work and that is not what is being put forth by anyone. Obama is not trying to take people’s guns if you read the proposals.

      At Gun shows, you do not have to be subject to background checks and that is where 40% of gun sales happen. The NRA has successfully neutered the ATF and they are lying when they say they want the ATF to enforce anything.

      The main issue is the attitudes on guns and gun violence, not the GUN itself.

      Israel has plenty of guns, more per capita than we do yet they do not have nowhere near the violence we do, same with Switzerland and Canada and they all have the same video games, TV shows we do… What Israel does have is a 60 day waiting period, a national gun registry on ALL gun sales, limits on the amount of ammo you can have and a psych evaluation to see if you should have arms as well as proper training in the use and storage of firearms.

      The NRA will have none of these commonm sense ideas because they are whores for the gun industry and they keep people like the gun nuts in fear. In Germany, people were NOT disarmed. Sorry that is BS.

      I can see clearly through your BS.

      • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

        Wrong. The vast majority of guns sold at gun shows are FFLMAND dealer sales and they ARE subject to the background check.
        Wrong. The 40% number is total BS.
        The ONLY sales that aren’t subject to a background check are privat party, non dealer sales which are a very small minority.
        Most criminals buy their guns on the black market, get them from other criminals, or steal them. Less than 2% of crime guns are from gun shows.
        The government is lying to and misleading the people in its quest to disarm the citizens so they can be more easily controlled as the government becomes m ore and more tyrannical.

      • Dave67

        So carl,

        Why do you oppose any measure that is aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of the menatlly ill or the criminal?

        What is your solution to the gun culture that leads to more gun violence than any other country in the industialized world?

        Give me some solutions instead of yelling “TYRANNY” every time you are inconvenienced.

      • david

        So Dave67, are you saying the 100′s of thousands of Jews that Hitler killed were armed when the got led to the gas chambers? Registration leads directly to confiscation. Obummer has not done it …. YET, but given time it WILL happen.

      • Dave67

        David,

        Your example of Hitler is a huge lie

        From the Drudge Report:

        University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

        The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.

        Try again

      • Vicki

        Dave67 says:
        “What is your solution to the gun culture that leads to more gun violence than any other country in the industialized world?”

        Irrelevant.

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE (~99.99% of population).

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few (~0.01% of population)

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

        - Dave67: “Give me some solutions instead of yelling “TYRANNY” every time you are inconvenienced.”

        We have. Many times. You are ignoring us.

      • eddie47d

        It all matters Vicki so STOP running from it all. Fix it or you will still be the problem!

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “It all matters Vicki so STOP running from it all.”

        Last week you wanted me to run and this week you want me to stop?

        Could you make up your mind already.

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

      • Vicki

        david says:
        “So Dave67, are you saying the 100′s of thousands of Jews that Hitler killed were armed when the got led to the gas chambers?”

        Dave67 responds:
        David,

        Your example of Hitler is a huge lie”

        What example? Hitler did disarm the Jewish people. This is established history.
        http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

        In particular you can search for “THE DISARMING OF THE JEWS” and then read above to see how the 1938 law worked and below for how the NAZI used it.

        Or, if you have the time you can read the entire article and see the similarity to what the gun-control people have done here in the US.

    • Bob666

      Jeff,
      Good post

  • Jeff

    If Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly were serious about gun control, they should sell their own firearms LEGALLY and disarm themselves!

    Till then, they are hypocrites!

    • eddie47d

      First of all they have a right to protect themselves like all Americans and probably more so since they are in the public eye. So do you Jeff but for different reasons and yes the capacity of a weapon does make a big difference in the harm that can be done.

      • david

        Eddy47d,

        Gabby and others like her pay for that service from the tax money paid in from voluntary contributions. If I remember right Gabby had protection surrounding her when she got shot, although they were slow to respond even being on the scene. The confusion got even worse when others got targeted too.

        Again the private public does not pay for that service directly. That is why police HAVE TO BE CALLED when a criminal action in the private neighborhoods happen. Police are not on contract to babysit neighborhoods from crime. If they were contracted and paid upfront, criminal actions would dramatically drop as police would be on hand protecting what they are paid to protect.

        Again politicians create laws to try and get the average citizen to commit a crime so the politician can regain the property they lost. (a slave and claimed property to their laws)

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “First of all they have a right to protect themselves like all Americans and probably more so since they are in the public eye.”

        There can be no more or less. They may have more opportunity to use the right because of their public position but they do NOT have more right.

        - eddie47d: “So do you Jeff but for different reasons and yes the capacity of a weapon does make a big difference in the harm that can be done.”

        So if think Jeff has the right why do you insist on preventing him the tools? Is he not one of the

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

      • eddie47d

        You know few Americans have their lives physically threatened Vicki like public figures do. Is that your goal to make them sitting ducks for your advantage? Because you can’t defeat them at the polls you want to be able to “take them out ” elsewhere!

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Is that your goal to make them sitting ducks for your advantage?”

        I’m not the one trying to argue for taking away the power of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

        (Or did you mean to imply that politicians are not people?)

    • mark

      Not at all, Jeff, they are not hypocrites. Since the proposed legislation that Gabby and Mark support, will allow all Americans to keep 99% of the types of guns they already own – and will ban the manufacture of about 1% of those guns – as they stated over and over again. Of the 300 million firearms currently owned by Americans an estimated 3,261,725 are assault-type weapons – or a little more than 1% of the total.

      http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html

      Neither Gabby or Mark own a semi-automatic assault-style weapon, so they are NOT advocating the Americans give up a type of weapon that they themselves own. If they did call for Americans to give up a type of weapon that they themselves own, then you would be right, Jeff, they are hypocrites. But they do NOT, and they are NOT.

      • david

        Mark,

        You need to talk to gun dealers to find out what an assault rifle is. An assault rifle is an automatic firing weapon, not semi automatic. Show me (since I am from Missouri) in the law where Assault rifle is defined. (i really don’t want to see vaguely defined definitions. PLEASE be specific in defining)

        The gun dealers, as was publicly announced on the local news here during a gun show this month stated, and there were assault looking rifles on display in the news story, assault rifles ARE AUTOMATIC FIRING WEAPONS, and the shown weapons on the news story were semi-automatic and was not covered in the legislation. The gun show was a 3 day event, and guns were not confiscated, even though they look a lot like what is being portrayed by gun control lobbyists.

      • Dennis48e

        “…an estimated 3,261,725 are assault-type weapons …”

        A very concervative estimate of only the AR-15 platform rifles in private hands is 5,000,000 and some estimates go as high as 10 million. that is ONLY the AR-15 platform rifles it does not include the millions of semi-auto only AK-47 rifles, the millions of SKS rifles, the Millions of M-1 carbines, or the many other rifles that are called “assualt type” rifles.

  • Frank

    I am glad to see that Senator Cornyn admits we may have to update the screening of gun buyers. Although the N.R.A. is solidly against this proposal, every poll shows that over 80% of the public, gun owner, liberals, independents and conservatives, are in favor of this proposal. These hearing may result in some things that the majority of Americans agree on. That is what gun controll is about, considering the merits of each individual proposal. It is not about broad philosophical issues. After all the second amendment does provide for “well regulated” gun ownership.

    • ? Chocopot

      If you would bother looking into it, you would find that the term “well regulated” in the Second Amendment means “well trained.” The meaning of certain terms in English has changed over the centuries. In point of fact, the Second Amendment does not indicate that any restrictions whatsoever be placed on firearm ownership.

      • Dave67

        Chocopot,

        If that is your interpretation fine…

        Then my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is valid also. The Founding fathers had muskets and were also under the control of a King in England that they had no say over the laws. Also, the Founding fathers did not see semi-automatics with cop-killer bullets or automatic weapons coming and since they also offered George Washington the power of “King” but he turned it down so the country went the way of elected Gov the 2nd Amendement is no longer relevant.

        Could that also be true?

        We should not have a country where anyone including the mentally disturbed should be able to have any gun, the minute that they want one. There needs to be common sense.

        What is MOST important that the gun nuts miss everytime, the issue is not the gun, its the attitude in this country towards guns and gun violence that needs to change. That is what Obama is trying to address.

      • ? Chocopot

        Dave -

        Perhaps you should look at the historical record before you spout off nonsense. The Federalist papers clearly state the beliefs and intents of the Founding Fathers, and you could not be more wrong (no, I will not find the web connections for you). In addition, 230+ years of Supreme Court decisions also prove you wrong. In addition, most constitutional scholars will tell you that you are wrong. And I do not have time to prolong this any more – i have a job.

      • Vicki

        Dave67d writes:
        “Chocopot,

        If that is your interpretation fine…

        Then my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is valid also. ”

        You can have all the “valid” interpretation you want. You do NOT have the right to FORCE your interpretation on the

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS WHO DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

      • eddie47d

        Neither does the NRA!

    • Hedgehog

      Sorry Frank, the Constitution does not provide for “well regulated” gun ownership, but for a well regulated militia. The Constitution does say that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      • eddie47d

        That would be our US Armed Forced these days Hedgehog. We don’t have wagon train masters anymore either! The actual need for a militia is probably zero these days and if needed the draft would probably be reinstated.

      • Chocopot

        Sorry, Eddie, the vast majority of constitutional scholars disagree with you: the people are the militia and we are the people. And the entire idea behind the Second Amendment had nothing to do with hunting, target practice, or self-defense – it had to do with defense from government tyranny. That has been stated over and over in recent weeks, but I guess it is just not getting through to you.

      • eddie47d

        I’m glad you’re the one to say that Chocopot that the Second has nothing to do with “hunting,target shooting or self defense” because I sure didn’t in my comment. Although 75% of the commentors always say that their right to self defense would be taken away by any gun measure or the abolishing of the Second. We hear that every day right here! For the last 200 years our standing army has been the “we the people” and for the last 70 years people from all walks of life protect and serve this country as the militias once did. When our Founding Fathers created this nation the militias were an integral part of our nations defense. If our nation was attacked they were expected to serve and if our government was attacked by internal forces they were also expected to come to the defense of our Founding Fathers to repel local troublemakers too. You know those who were trying to overthrow our newly formed government. Today we have too many troublemaker militias trying to overthrow our government and not defending it. (aka Alaskan Peacekeepers Militias and Militia of Montana as two examples)

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “That would be our US Armed Forced these days Hedgehog. ”

        Oops. Eddie should actually read some of the cites we provide. Like this one.
        10 U.S.C. § 311

        And here is even a link to the cite
        http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/I/13/311

      • eddie47d

        Thank You Vickie; Navy and National Guard authorized by the government. You really are clueless about these rouge militias running around in America plotting assassination attempts against local and national official aren’t you? Huge difference!

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Thank You Vickie; Navy and National Guard authorized by the government.”

        Welcome. Always glad to help your education.

        - eddie47d: “You really are clueless about these rouge militias running around in America plotting assassination attempts against local and national official aren’t you? Huge difference!”

        Haven’t seen any news about assassination attempts. You got a link?

    • david

      Chocopot is right Dave67:

      The second Amendment states quite clearly that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. If you go back to the 1st Amendment you will find that infringement includes creating any law to restrict or do away with. So the 2nd Amendment does not allow restrictions, and every gun control law is contrary to the 2nd Amendment and thus unconstitutional.

      • Dave67

        Again, not what Obama is proposing or what I am saying. Now the gun nuts are trying to make excuses around what “well regulated” means while we are told the rest of the second amendment should be taken literally and with no exceptions.

      • Vicki

        Dave67 says:
        “Now the gun nuts are trying to make excuses….”

        Argument to ridicule.

        - Dave67: “around what “well regulated” means while we are told the rest of the second amendment should be taken literally and with no exceptions”

        No exception found in either the amendment nor in the intent supplied by the founders.
        http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html

  • Jim B

    Isn’t it a terrorist ploy to surround themselves with innocent women and children, and did our POTUS just do that, really! Our POTUS has brought disgrace to the presidency, the constitution, and the rule of law and we will have to endure this for four more years. The damage to the country will be humongous when it is all over.

    • eddie47d

      Hasn’t Wayne La Pierre brought disgrace to the once beloved NRA. Why is HE using dead children to promote gun ownership and weapons sales ? Why is he making money off the American Silencer Corporation and ENCOURAGING gun owners to own silencers? They have become a shadowy organization onto themselves with questionable results.

      • Wellarmed

        The only error Mr. LaPierre has made was in endorsing Mitt Romney for President. If you do not like silencers eddie47d do not buy one. That sir is freedom.

        DO yourself a favor and please turn your television off, as I believe that all of the violence you are witnessing ( Hollywood gun culture ) is having a detrimental effect on your ability to process information in a logical manner.

  • Joe America

    Poor Gabby has been used by the NWO/UN to push their gun grabbing agenda. I really hate what happened to Gabby, as she is a great and lovable person. However, taking guns away from average, law abiding citizens will not stop gun violence. If you take all the guns from citizens, you’ll result in two classes of oppressors, the government and criminals and citizens will be caught in between the violence of the two. People need to remember that the second amendment has everything to do with preventing a tryannt from taking over the nation. Our polititians have been coopted by the masters and shills of the NWO, who want to disarm America. We’re a thorn in their side and they intend to get us “under control.” Sadly, they are succeeding, because we have too many stupid citizens, people who’ve never known true poverty, hunger, abuse or tyranny. Like the Jews in Germany, Americans won’t know what hit them, until they smell the stench of bodies burning in the ovens as they’re being marched into the gas chambers. Of course, by then, there will be no “ah ha” moment and no chance of escape. It will be over, for them, for their families. The last thing they’ll hear is the screaming of men, women and children, as the gas chokes the last breath of life from them. This is the end game of gun control.

    • ? Chocopot

      Unfortunately, Joe, you are precisely correct. Nevertheless, all the Leftist wackos who troll this site will be all over you in short order, calling you a right-wing nut and a conspiracy theorist. It won’t be long now…

      • Vicki

        When they come offer them this self evident truth:

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

        Then tell them to
        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

    • eddie47d

      That’s right Crackpot oh excuse me Chocopot! Another urban myth being pushed by “right wing conspiracy theorists” that “all guns will be taken away”. I hardly doubt it but you and Joe keep playing it forward. The right to defend yourself I would say never! The ability to kill dozens of people within seconds now not could be a real possibility. Since you continually endorse that ability to kill those dozens within seconds then maybe you are the “wacko”. Not all Americans believe you need your Arnold Schwarzenegger moment in life and don’t need that ability. I tend to agree.

      • Chocopot

        Hey, Eddie.

        I hit the nail on the head with my labels, didn’t I, knowing full well you would be one of those to respond.

      • eddie47d

        Your just to easy to ignore Crackopot so you might as well paint a yellow bulls eye on your butt! LOL!

      • david

        eddie47d:

        So lawful owners of assault rifle guns will convert over to being crazy lunatics in the blink of an eye. Is that what you are saying? Are you a registered psychiatrist and know this for a fact?

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        That’s right Crackpot oh excuse me Chocopot!”

        Ad hominem

        - eddie47d: “Another urban myth being pushed by “right wing conspiracy theorists” that “all guns will be taken away”. ”

        http://godfatherpolitics.com/9248/the-total-gun-ban-hidden-in-feinstein-bill/

        And considering Feinstein’s well known comment from the 1990′s this makes even more sense.

      • Dave67

        Vicki you are a trypical conservative… You attack people you disagree with and then get yourself all tied up in knotts when the same crap is done to you.

        You need a tissue?

        Let me know when you have ANY solution worth discussing about the culture of gun violence in America won’t you?

      • Vicki

        Dave67 says:
        “Vicki you are a trypical conservative… You attack people you disagree with and then get yourself all tied up in knotts when the same crap is done to you.”

        Proof by bald assertion.

        - Dave67: “You need a tissue?”

        Argument to ridicule.

        - Dave67: “Let me know when you have ANY solution worth discussing about the culture of gun violence in America won’t you?”

        Argumentative. Solution worth discussing already offered and rejected by you (and other liberals).

        Here it is again for others who may have missed your education.

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

    • mark

      Not at all, Joe. Yours is a totally exaggerated reaction to what is going on. President Obama and his allies are proposing banning semi-automatic assault weapons. These guns constitute a little over 3 million of the 300 million guns now privately owned in America. That’s 1%. 99% of guns owned by Americans will not be affected at all by Obama’s proposals.

      • Vicki

        And yet those ~3 million people are a part of the innocent

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS WHO DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few (~0.01%).

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

      • eddie47d

        Some are part of the lunatic fringe Vicki and since you are still shouting maybe you are on the fringe yourself!

      • Joe America

        Let’s get this straight, once and for all, the second amendment is about Americans being able to thwart tyranny, period. In order to do that, you can’t be hobbled, you must be able to respond. Ask the millions of people who were murdered in German concentrations camps. Oh! You can’t, because they’re all dead. And, what do you consider to be an “assault weapon?” Fools, such as yourself, and Boxer and Feinstein, as well as the rest of the NWO shills on Capitol hill, and all of the Democrats, who are traitors to this nation, only know one looks scarry and the other doesn’t. Both are “semi-automatic” not fully automatic. It’s a mear illusion of the stock design that makes one look scarrier than the other. All this rhetoric about gun control is nothing more than an attempt to chip away at the 2nd amendment, which is exactly what the one world government/UN scum want. If you look at the bronze of the gun in front of the UN, it’s a revolver with the barrel tied in a knot, not an “assualt weapon.” Mark, pukes like you are killing this nation and will bring it down from the inside. You’re a traitor to the American people, our Constition and our Bill of Rights. Sadly, scum like you are growning in numbers, oblivious and stupid to what you’re doing, how you’re harming your nation, and actively participating in it’s destruction. Believe me, you’ll have a place in the FEMA camps, using cattle prods to keep decenting fellow Americans in line as you march them into the gas chambers. However, once the NWO is through with you, you’ll be marched in, last. You’ll be standing there, in the gas chamber, pooping and peeing on yourself as you try to scream, but can get enough breath to do that. Then, it will be the oven for you.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Some are part of the lunatic fringe”

        Argument to ridicule

        (Ad hominem that followed ignored)

  • dan

    just to point out something obvious….
    It’s STUPID to make me go through ANOTHER background check when I already
    have a Concealed Carry permit and having to got through another WAITING PERIOD
    when I am probably packing heat while I’m trying to buy something…
    it’s like having to take a drivers test every time you get a parking ticket

    • ? Chocopot

      Don’t try to use logic on Leftists. Remember: Liberalism is a mental illness.

    • Vicki

      Don’t forget the waiting period after you buy a car.

  • mark

    “I have a hard time telling my constituents in Texas that Congress is looking at passing a whole raft of new laws, when the laws that we currently have on the books are so woefully unenforced,” said Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas). This from a man who along with so many of his Republican colleagues has voted again and again to cut the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Department budget, the very agency charged to enforce so many of these laws. The hypocrisy of so many of these senators is astounding but typical. Meanwhile Wayne LaPierre no longer even supports background checks as he had for so many years in the past. Right, Wayne, just let anyone who wants to buy a gun, regardless of their criminal or mental health background, do so at every available venue. That will help matters tremendously

    • David169

      The BATFE is such a trustworthy group why not give them more money. After all they used the enforcement money to give us Waco, Ruby Ridge and Fast and Furious (a small part of the entire Gunrunner scheme). An organization like the BATFE is rotten to the core when a senior official tells his quotes Mao and says “eggs have to be broken if you want to make an omlet”. Translated: “Murder is justified if it accomplishes the end goal.”

  • ra

    More than 200 killed in a night club fire! We MUST ban night clubs!!

    • eddie47d

      Non-Sequitur!

    • Jim B

      No… we must ban fire!

    • mark

      No, ra, not at all. Because the sole purpose of a nighclub is not to kill people or animals, it is to provide music, entertainment, a dance venue, and alcohol to people. While in contrast, the sole purpose of a firearm is to kill people and animals.

      For instance when we send our combat troops over to Afghanistan to kill Al Qaeda terrorists, we make sure that each and every one of them has an M-16 assault rifle. We do not give each and everyone of them a nightclub. If an armed burglar is breaking into your home to rob you, ra, and perhaps harm your family, you don’t think to yourself: ” My God, I have to get a nightclub!” Or ” I have to get a car to stop this guy!” No, you think to yourself “I have to get my gun.” Do you understand this?

      • Hedgehog

        I hear you Mark, but up here in Canada, having a loaded gun around the house is a no no! But that doesn’t mean I’m unarmed. A hand and a half or two handed sword works just as well. A bit messy perhaps but it doesn’t disturb the neighbors.

      • Dave67

        hedgehog,

        Does the Canadian Culture put forth the idea that you need to leave your house armed?
        How about the idea that every disargreement must be solved through the gun?
        How does the canadian culture feel about the proper training and storage of guns? See in America, we view them as much a toy as a tool.

        Do you think there might be an issue with the culture in America around guns?

      • Vicki

        mark writes:
        “While in contrast, the sole purpose of a firearm is to kill people and animals. ”

        False. The sole purpose of a firearm is to efficiently throw a rock (usually made of 1 or 2 elements).
        How this tool is used includes scaring away a certain class of predator.

      • eddie47d

        Mark got it right the first time . “the main reason”

      • Vicki

        The main reason is a free state. See Amendment 2, US Constitution.

  • Bill Henry

    Forty-four states have chosen to explicitly embody a right to bear arms into its state constitution.

  • Bill Henry

    What don’t you get about the Second Amendment?

    Shall: ——–Expresses obligation in legalese.

    Not:———-Negation of a word or group of words.

    Be:———–To remain unmolested, undisturbed, or uninterrupted — used only in infinitive form.

    Infringed: —Go against, as of rules and laws.

    Last phrase of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Forty-four states have chosen to explicitly embody a right to bear arms into its state constitution.

    So what is the problem? If a person commits a crime, then the law should arrest that person and punish them accordingly. There are enough laws on the books to take care of any gun law violations. If they are broken then punish the perpetrator. These new laws being proposed are just one more step toward confiscation. If you don’t believe that then, that is your problem not the problem of the legal, law abiding gun owners, and there is no other reason for the new laws than finding out who owns guns and what guns they own and how can we take them away. If you want law, pass a repeal of the Second Amendment and see if that flies. It won’t and people like Feinstein know it won’t. You can figure out why if your so intelligent. I hope you know who you is, if not post another gun grabber friendly comment, and I will let you know.Forty-four states have chosen to explicitly embody a right to bear arms into its state constitution.

    • mark

      Yes, Bill, but analyze the entire Amendment not just part of it. Break down what: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” means word-by-word as you do with the latter part of the Amendment. Because Constitutional scholars have long argued over what that exactly means, some, an admitted minority, concluding that since we now have a National Guard in every state, a state police, and lots of large, highly organized local police forces (which did not exist in the late 1780s), this fulfills the need for a militia, making private gun ownership unnecessary. The term “a well regulated Militia,” also appears to give an opening to “regulation” regarding arms.

      It can be a mistake, in many cases, to take a too literal interpretation of the Constitution. Strict constructionist would decry my last statement as treason. But for instance, the Second Amendment says zero about ammunition. So if you take an absolutist literal interpretation of the Second Amendment, there is absolutely no prohibition on any federal law that would regulate ammunition whatsoever in any of its 27 words. Holding to this extreme literal interpretation, means there is no Constitutional prohibition on the federal government limiting types of ammunition or banning the production and sale of ammunition altogether in the United States, making firearms, after current ammo supplies run out, totally impotent.

      • Vicki

        mark says:
        “Yes, Bill, but analyze the entire Amendment not just part of it. ”

        Since you asked.
        http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

        And of course SCOTUS has taken judicial notice that the right to keep and bear arms is a right of “the people” and not a subcategory.

      • Frank Kahn

        It would take an extreme twisting of the statement discussed to say that “well regulated militia” can be construed as meaning “regulated arms”. I have yet to see any constitutional scholars attempting to claim such nonsense.

        Your constant statements concerning GUN CONTROL AND CONFISCATION are pure delusional.

        You are only slightly less obtuse than David67 in your ideas about guns.

        Your fantasy interpretation of and beliefs in the second amendment have no basis in reality and, thankfully, have no power of authority over the real knowledgeable people in this country.

        WHY guns are made has no bearing on the issue, the second amendment says the government has NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to limit access to and use of arms in this country. If the possession and use of arms has a direct detrimental effect on someone elses person or property then it is proper to limit or halt that action. Just because someone wets their pants because someone else owns guns is not a valid reason to limit the gun owners rights. Just because 1/10,000 of a percent of our population goes “postal” is not a reason to limit anyones right to bear arms.

        And, was it you that made the insane statement that the standing army (not approved by the constitution) is in some way our militia? Do you seriously think that the police are a militia? Maybe that was Eddie47 or Dave67, I get the weird comments by all of you mixed up.

        And, whoever it was that claims that our citizens think it is okay to solve an argument with guns was way off base. I have seen a troubling trend towards our YOUNGER generation thinking this way but I have never seen this attitude in the older people. In the recent mass murders, how many were over the age of 30 and how many were middle school to college aged?

        Violence (gun or otherwise) is against the law and needs to be addressed in the proper manner. It is not the guns that are responsible, especially so called assault weapons, it is the people who have a problem living in a civilized society.

      • Dave67

        So Frank,

        You claim well regulated means well trained like Switzerland?

        They are a small country just like we were back in the 1700′s… Today, all males between 18-30 are REQUIRED to serve in their military… Kinda like how we needed an army when we had none after we faught independence. That means they go to 3 months training on the use of weapons.

        So should we institute a mandatory draft so we can protect your version of the 2nd Admendment?

        Since the 2nd Amendment is the only amendment that conservatives demand to take literally. I should be able to have a Nuke or a Sarin Gas bomb… I am a collector.

        Nobody in their right mind (I realize I am in a den of conservatives so that is a loaded statement) would agree with that but if you are a strict constitutionalist, I should be able to have a nuke or chem weapon.

      • Vicki

        Dave67 writes:
        “Nobody in their right mind (I realize I am in a den of conservatives so that is a loaded statement) would agree with that but if you are a strict constitutionalist, I should be able to have a nuke or chem weapon.”

        Though the founders did not know of nukes they most certainly knew of chemical and biological weapons. They also knew such were not easy to control so did not think anyone would be stupid enough to suggest their use. Obviously they were wrong.
        http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-armes/non_nuclear-non_nucleaire/history-historique.aspx?lang=eng&view=d

        A nuke is actually just a big bomb and big bombs were well known to the founders.

    • mark

      Bill, you also make the point that there are enough laws on the books regarding gun regulation and they should simply be enforced instead of creating new ones. But conservatives in the House and in the Senate have repeatedly cut the ATF budget, the agency charged with enforcing many of these laws. Enforcement costs money – and this is the backdoor way that conservatives use to take the teeth out of all gun legislation.

  • JD

    Point one: If this is about the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy. Why aren’t they talking about why there are so many conflicting stories coming out of that incident. Including the second shooter that actually did the shooting? Or the laughing medical examiner who said the “Long gun” did all the shooting. Or the “magic” AR15 that found it’s own way back to the kid’s car after he was dead, and then turned into the sporting shotgun the police recovered from the car. (watch the video people, it’s out there)
    Point two: Even if this was really what happened At Sand Hook. (And many people think it was not) What law they are proposing would have stopped it? Anything else is off the subject, and is just a power grab by our already over powered Federal Government.
    Last point: I do not know why a man who swears to uphold the the constitution in front of millions of witnesses, (and reads teleprompters so well) would not understand the part about “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Anyone else not get that part about shall not be infringed? Even with unnamed drones that kill more children than the whole Sandy Hook school had in it. (sorry had to throw that last one in there)

    • eddie47d

      “Why aren’t they talking about the second shooter” Because that is one of those conflicting stories without any proof to back it up !

      • david

        eddie47d:

        Why do all of these gun control nuts always bring up the ideology of an assault rifle being used at Sandy Hook (Piers Morgan, etc.) when it was literally found in the trunk of the car, after the event was over?

        Did it get planted there?

        Where was the assault rifle at that was supposedly used to fire round after round at approximately 10-11 per children inside the school after the shooter took his own life? Was the supposed shooter dead and someone else carry on the assault and place the shooter strategically in a location to be found in the school. Or was the shooter shot by another shooter in the school to cover up the idea there might have been a second shooter?

        Maybe there was a suicide pact with both of the shooters (if there was two of them) and one of them backed out of killing themselves and escaped after the one shooter took his own life?

        Are there concrete answers to all of these questions? Not to my knowledge.

      • eddie47d

        Your making even more assumptions to muddle the waters.

  • http://midcontent ridge runner

    Look at all the idoits who think they can stop violence by banning and confisacating firearms, why don’t these same butt weeds, go and talk to gang bangers who never have a background check and the firearms they play with, the law abiding citizens could never own or possess. Again look at the skin hue, the mind set, the education level, and how much government programs them and how many generations have been government raised. USA has so damn many worthless gangs , because the mealy mouth, feely meely socialology theorists have claimed the only thing this worthless piece of s–t needed was more codling understanding and definitely no jail time or personal responsiblity. When these s–tbirds are arrested for destroying property of even jay walking as a gang. Send these pukes out in to all of our federal property and count snakes, sqyirrels and cut dead wood and put it in piles. Also mix dirt bag gangs in equal amounts,and drop off some food and leave thm alone for a month at time before showing up supplies of food Cure the illagitamate offspring for a couple of years. Everyones win., They can bring their heat but only ammo they can carry as thhey hike in 60 miles with water bottle and ruksacks and bedroll. Females can paint and restore the government housing and clean up the neighbor hoods, they learn a skill by working 7 days a week.

    • Dave67

      RR,

      That is NOT what is being proposed, please educate yourself, read and COMPREHEND the proposals!!!

      • Vicki

        Yes, Lets talk about those proposals

        http://godfatherpolitics.com/9248/the-total-gun-ban-hidden-in-feinstein-bill/

        Banning guns. Clearly unconstitutional.

      • Kate8

        Vicki – So, yet another school shooting today. How convenient for the Left.

        Then we’re hearing about all of the shooting drills being conducted in schools, scaring the liver out of the kids since they are actually shooting… Using blanks, but the kids don’t know that.

        I heard that these drills were going on in local schools, which is concerning since they seem to have live action in places that have these “drills”.

        It dawned on me what these psychos are up to.

        Call to mind the politician from SoCal who recently said that “we’ll have them disarmed in one generation”.

        So, how are they going to go about this? By terrorizing school children, making them so fearful of firearms that they will gladly want them taken. Traumatize little kids… Isn’t this the Progressive way?

        We really have to counter all of this idiocy very LOUDLY. We need to teach our kids that it’s all twisted, this attempt to disarm must be resisted and refused no matter what.

        Absolutely despicable, lowest possible life forms, these politicians. I do hope one day we live to see them strung up by their toes.

      • Vicki

        Kate8 says:
        “Vicki – So, yet another school shooting today. How convenient for the Left.
        (snip)
        So, how are they going to go about this? By terrorizing school children, making them so fearful of firearms that they will gladly want them taken. Traumatize little kids… Isn’t this the Progressive way?

        We really have to counter all of this idiocy very LOUDLY.”

        That is why I came up with (with God’s help. I did pray on it)

        —————————————————
        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW
        ————————————————–

        (For those of you who do not believe in God then fine. I came up with it myself.)

        • Motov

          If passed, Feinstein’s Gun Ban would:
          *** Ban the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of 120 specifically named rifles, shotguns and handguns!

          *** Ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of ALL firearms with a detachable magazine and at least one “military characteristic” — which could mean just about anything that makes a gun “look scary;”

          *** Ban the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of magazines holding more than 10 rounds;

          *** Force owners of ALL “grandfathered” weapons to undergo an intrusive background check and fingerprinting — treating law-abiding citizens like criminals;

          *** Force owners of ALL “grandfathered” weapons to federally register their guns after obtaining a permission slip from local law enforcement showing their guns are not in violation of state or local law.

          That’s right. If you own a $10 magazine that’s more than 10 rounds, you’ll have to register it with the BATFE in their National Firearms Registry.

          The ban on “transfers” means you and I can forget about ever handing down one of these guns to our kids and grandkids.

          Worse, it could mean widows become instant felons if their husbands owned one of these banned magazines or firearms!

          And make no mistake, the gun-grabbers’ TRUE motives behind gun registration is always the same — outright gun CONFISCATION, and to do that they must first register every gun and gun owner.

          Then Senator Feinstein will be able to achieve her publicly stated goal:

          “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

          I can hardly even think about what a DISASTER for our country it would be should President Obama, Senator Feinstein and their anti-gun pals succeed in ramming this monstrosity down our throats.

          This is exactly the WRONG move for our country — for our liberties and for our safety.

          Now I know THAT’S something you’re not hearing from the anti-gun propagandists in the national media.

          But the truth is, increasing gun sales in America in recent years has led to lower crime rates.

          The same is true all over the world.

          Studies show countries with low rates of civilian firearms ownership are the most violent. Countries with high rates of civilian firearms ownership are the safest.

          Just look to nearby Mexico if you want to see an example of the gun-grabbers’ idea of utopia. Effectively ruled by violent drug gangs in many areas, parts of Mexico are cesspools of rape, violence and murder.

          That is what the bill is all about folks

    • david

      The gang bangers would probably shoot the ones coming to ask questions because they are trespassing on the gang’s territory!

  • http://www.facebook.com/tony.ruiz.3701779 Tony Ruiz

    I wish they’d just go home…to another state i.e. Californication. They don’t belong in AZ after all. They’re both dummies for obama’s evil motives. I thought one needed to be smart to be a wise-asstronaut

  • http://yahoo Charles

    dave, I supect that you are working from the white house,in the gobbels room,so with that in mind I suggest that you keep the kool-aid cold and your knee pads warm.

  • roger

    to Dave67,
    on the constitution, if the president writes an executive order it violates the constitution. that power is not delegated to the president. I’m not Canadian nor an expert on the constitution, I just know how to read the English language.

    • Dave67

      Here… looks like many presidents violated the constitution and Obama has done the least.

      With President Obama now contemplating up to nineteen executive orders to combat gun violence, conservatives have started to flip out in characteristic form. Kentucky senator Rand Paul has accused Obama of acting “like a king or a monarch.” South Carolina congressman Jeff Duncan declared last week, “We live in a republic, not a dictatorship.” Mike Huckabee proclaimed that the White House has “nothing but contempt for the Constitution” and seeks to “trump … the checks and balances of power in which no branch could act unilaterally.” Texas congressman Steve Stockman has already threatened impeachment.

      Obviously, gun rights are a pretty sensitive issue for many people, but a little perspective is in order. First of all, President Obama has no intention of banning assault weapons, or any other kind of gun, through executive order. Instead, according to the Times, he’s considering some pretty mundane tweaks that would seem to leave the “right to bear arms” fully intact:

      Actions the president could take on his own are likely to include imposing new limits on guns imported from overseas, compelling federal agencies to improve sharing of mental health records and directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct research on gun violence, according to those briefed on the effort.

      If it’s the use of executive orders in particular that’s getting critics all riled up, though, then it’s worth noting that Obama has used this lever of presidential power less frequently than every other president in modern times.

      We’ve crunched the numbers, and as you can see in our handy graph, above, Obama has issued fewer executive orders per day in office than conservative heroes like George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Calvin Coolidge. In fact, you have to go all the way back to Grover Cleveland in the nineteenth century to find a president who has issued executive orders at a lower rate than Obama.

      This isn’t to say that Obama hasn’t, in some cases, assumed a questionable amount of power as president (a “kill list” that includes American citizens, anyone?). But his use of executive orders is not one of those cases.

  • Elevenarrows

    Eddie, I have to ask, do you have a wife or daughters? A mother perhaps? Have you watched what has unfolded in Australia after the gov’t seized only semi-automatics? Of course, they’ve stated that is only phase one for them. After only phase one has been implemented, crime has risen exponentially. Home invasions increased dramatically. Why? On the surface, one might think that criminals felt safer invading “gun-less” homes, but let’s not forget: only the semi automatics were seized in phase one.

    It begs the question, what did the Australian gov’t accomplish by seizing semi automatics? A lot. They managed to weaken the safety of their citizens and they even decreased their police force. Members of the police force became so discouraged that they have quit in dramatic numbers.

    Personally, I believe that the Constitution is still the law of the land despite activist judges and the unconstitutional acts of BOTH parties represented in Congress. I also believe that the words “shall not be infringed upon” are self-explanatory. Just a quick glance in Webster’s will tell you all you need to know about what that means. However, even removing the entire question as to whether or not Congress (or the executive or judicial branches) has the right to make any laws concerning our right to carry a gun–I ask you, if a couple of men were to break into your home in the middle of the night and drag your family to your living room… If they then proceeded to torture your son and rape your wife and daughters… If they tied you up and forced you to watch helplessly…would you find yourself wishing you had a gun? Would you think, as you watched in horror, of how truly helpless you were? What if a neighbor heard something suspicious and called your house to check on you and when he didn’t receive an answer, knowing that you were surely home in the middle of the night, he came over (with his gun) to see what was going on…

    Would you be thankful that a gun-toting neighbor was here to save the day? Or would you be desperately hoping that your pesky, Constitution-loving neighbor would NOT show up with one of those “evil” guns?!

    Or, if society had degenerated to a completely gun-less society (as Feinstein hopes to accomplish) would you lie there in shock and horror, listening to the screams of your family and feeling like something less than a man?

    Thank God that I can go to sleep each night knowing that my sons and husband would die defending us…and yes, with guns.

    • eddie47d

      Elevennarrows; Yes I do have a mother and a wife and a daughter and two sons and four grand kids. Thanks for asking. My daughter and son both have a handgun in their home. Australians still have a right to self defense and can own guns so there has to be a better explanation. There is more organized crime in Australia now than there was in 1996 when some weapons were banned so that increased the murder rate. I doubt if Australia will enact phase two and they may even loosen the home defense laws to give easier access to their own handguns or rifle (which were never banned).

  • Motov

    Why is it Liberals think “We gotta get the guns,…We gotta get the guns”
    Instead of “We gotta get the criminal”?
    What part of “Guns do not kill people” have they failed to understand? someone has to pull the trigger!
    Then they get all huffy and start all over again about the Effing guns when it is the effing criminals that are doing it! Once again the EFFING GUNS do not go around killing people!
    PEOPLE who are CRIMINALS go around killing people.
    GUNS are inanimate objects, they possess no mystical power that causes people to kill people. If there were no GUNS, People would find other means to kill people,… and they will be just as dead!

    • eddie47d

      Hold on to your horses sonny. We have to “get the criminals” too who happen to posses those guns who are easily obtainable because of lax US laws. It’s not an either or proposition as you seem to be assuming Motov. Quite arming the criminals with your “effing” easier than thou laws!

      • Motov

        Eddie by definition the criminals broken the laws by possessing a gun, We simply cannot enforce the laws until the criminal commits a crime. only the criminal knows before hand where and when the crime will be committed. So by adding laws will NOT change that fact!

    • Vicki

      Motov says:
      “Why is it Liberals think “We gotta get the guns,…We gotta get the guns”
      Instead of “We gotta get the criminal”?”

      Because guns don’t shoot at the liberals. Criminals do.
      Here’s evidence that guns don’t shoot.
      http://personalliberty.com/2013/01/23/do-guns-kill-people-pistol-shotgun-assault-rifle-put-to-the-test/

  • Elevenarrows

    One more thing, I wonder if Gabby’s tragedy had ended differently, if she would be rooting for more gun freedom? For example, had a couple of concealed weapon carriers been on site and had immediately taken the shooter out, would she be soooo thankful for their heroic efforts and the lives that were saved? I think so. On the other hand, had the shooter known that he lived in a society where chances were very high that most of the crowd would be packing heat, he probably would have looked for other ways to express his rage/anger/hurt/etc. It is a win-win when guns are in the hands of the citizens. Most citizens are NOT going to go on rampages and those who would consider it, would be meet with equal force rather than innocent victims.

    I seriously doubt Gabby would’ve made speeches ranting about being saved by a well-armed citizen.

    • eddie47d

      There probably would have been an equal amount of casualties since everyone had their backs turned Elevenarrows except for Gifford. Jared probably would have been killed instead of captured in the end but that’s an assumption just like yours. Besides there was a guy with a concealed carry permit and he was ready to shoot and almost killed the guy restraining Jared Loughner who he thought was the shooter. In other words more guns in the mix could have created another death of an innocent person.

    • Wellarmed

      Thank you Elevenarrows for your comments. I cannot agree with you more. It is incredible what happened in Tucson as the the great people of the state of Arizona have done everything they can to empower the citizenry ( constitutional carry ), and many have refused to accept their responsibility as citizens of a free state to protect those which we limit access to firearms.

      I believe that Americans have a right to accept cowardice if they so choose, but I cannot and will not go down that paved path to hell with them.

      Regardless of your position on this subject, be it left or right, YOU have a responsibility to travel Well-armed in your pursuits in life. Victim and American are two words that are not congruous with one another.

      Good day

  • Ken Okko

    Congratulations to JD—–most common sense of all contributors in this debate.
    He must be one of us R P Libertarians. IMO U No Who

  • snowblind

    what really impresses me we are all quik to judge each other on where we stand on constitution or what we believe , what we type , how we type the words we misspell ,
    think for a minute … what keeps the elite , the foreign powers , from stepping in and doing what ever whenever they want ? what guarantees the 1st amendment ?to post on here what YOU believe in ?
    is it our military might ?…NO we just cut another 160000 jobs from that dept ,,,budget cuts
    is it our weapons cache?… NO we just made a deal with the rest of the world we would all be equal and not have any inter ballistic missiles
    It is because they do not know how many weapons , bows , knives, clubs , musketts,
    Pitchforks , that the 1% are willing to use to protect the masses from Tyranny

  • Antonio

    If you people are really concerned about peoples lives then maybe we need to ban the “pigs” who terrorize our streets, but don’t stop there; we must also ban the “dumb stupid animals” who terrorize and kill innocent people all across the globe in the name of “foreign policy”
    Then to make the U.S. a safer place lets ban the enslavement document AKA constitution and get back to the original founding documents that which we can be free from a tyrannical national government.

  • Robert Kenney

    Guns are flying off the shelves,Patriots are organizing ,educating and arming themselves.The second amendment is working like it was supposed to.As the Government becomes more illegal and oppressive the Tea Party and citizen Patriots are banding together; becoming involved in local politics.My state Ms. is pushing through Nullification laws to proclaim and assert their Sovereign States Rights.Texas is doing their part and Jindal in La. is also. Utah is strong in it’s voice and leadership,Rand Paul is sounding the alarm and naming names, and identifying corruption and tyranny.Now it comes down to you reader.Are you an observer who hopes others save you from certain oppression under a totalitarian regime that you are watching as it is being built.Or are you willing to partner with your neighbors and friends to work,contribute,recruit,and plan with others probably a Tea Party group since they are already ahead of the curve.When it comes all amenities,fuel,food,water,and electricity and communications will just stop.If you are working with others you will have options and things to do,you will be prepared .If you are an observer you will be like the poor souls in New Orleans at Katrina.Dying in to large numbers waiting for the Government to come save and disarm you.Regular citizens started the Tea parties, some groups are better then others if yours is strong good for you join and be part of that,if yours is weak and disjointed ,take a breath focus your energy and get to work helping effect positive change.We have faith the Lord will lead us through this ,but as always the Lord helps those who help themselves.God Bless and Save America.Good Luck my Friends.

    • David169

      I saw a great quote from an unknown author; i read as follows: “If you believe the US Federal Government is capable of taking care of you from cradle to grave, ask an American Indian how it has worked for them”.

  • dark angel

    This debate is re-dick. In this country you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law judged by your peers. The OVERWHELMING majority of Americans are law abiding citizens. So, what “charge” exactly is being levied against the whole nation that requires the suspension of our god given rights?! Exactly what crime have we collectively committed?

    Perhaps they’re attempting to prevent future crimes? Is there something they’re not telling us that would make otherwise law abiding citizens take up their arms in an “unlawful” (according to who) manor? Hmmm…

    To infringe upon our god given rights is tantamount to treason (oath breaking), a breech of the rule of law (unconstitutional), and a sin against natural law (the right to exist). Why should everyone/anyone have to give up their best means of defense?

    I can hear the gun grabbers scream, “we need reasonable gun control laws dang it!” But don’t we already have those? I can’t get a tank, an RPG, an IED, an F-18, an Apache gunship, a stinger missile, a fully automatic machine gun, mortars, claymores or a nuclear bomb. i think we can all agree that these restrictions make for “sensible” gun laws.

    “Well what about the crazies and criminals? How are we going to stop them?!” So, you want to outlaw crazy and criminality huh? Haven’t we been working on that since Cain and Abel? Good luck with that.

    Restriction/prohibition doesn’t work. If you put your mind to it, you could acquire all manor of restricted goods and services (music, movies, drugs, guns, prostitutes, etc.), not to mention the black market/criminality it breeds. Threat of incarceration doesn’t work either. If it did, our prisons would be empty out of fear. Instead they’re overflowing. That leaves only two logical options: a background check and the elimination of every restriction on gun carrying by law abiding citizens (i.e. no more gun free zones). “Well that’s outright crazy talk,” so say the gun grabbers. Is it?

    Here’s a premise: a criminal is going break into your home to steal anything of value. He goes in armed because he may have to shoot the dog and maybe you if you don’t comply. If you have no weapon, you’ll consider yourself lucky to have only lost your personal property and escaped alive. Solution: racking a shot gun shell might be enough to scare of this intruder by sound alone. If not, you counter his actions with superior fire power. Thus you’ve protected you, your family and your property. Yea for shotguns!

    Another premise: You’re walking home with your significant other after a night of revelry. From the shadows comes a man with a weapon demanding your purse and wallet. Unarmed, you comply and pray you’re not shot for the lousy $40 in your pocket or that you’ll have to watch your girl raped in front of you. Solution: both of you draw your pistols and shoot him. You have protected yourselves and your property. Yea for concealed carry pistols!

    Another premise: a deranged drug addled psychopath enters a public place (school, mall, sporting event, etc.) armed to the teeth and hell bent on committing mayhem. He screams to everyone, “Say hello to my little friend!” and open fires. Everyone goes running and screaming as a hail of bullets is sent their way. Survival of the fittest is on display as people run for their lives. Solution: everybody has a concealed firearm on their person and returns fire before the psychopath can complete his sentence. Every innocent survives. Yea for no gun free zones!

    The last premise: the 2012 drought has brought a worldwide food shortage, the last bond issuance has failed and we can no longer borrow money. Our credit is downgraded to BBB and the social safety net programs (medicare, medicaid, social security, Obamacare, and food stamps) are no longer funded-no checks are sent. The DOW plunges 8000 points and gas skyrockets to $300/barrel. Immediately the government declares a bank holiday and no one can get any of their of cash or assets out of the system. With horror the nation watches the collapse of the financial sector wiping out all of their savings and pensions. This has a domino effect on Europe and China and the planet goes into a depression the like never before seen. The fallout is all businesses (except cash and barter) collapse. No food on the shelves, and chaos reigns. The government orders martial law to protect key infrastructure (water, sewage, communications, power, nuclear sites, etc.), sets up food depots and triage centers. Due to the lack of “government” forces relative to the size of the general population, urban centers become war zones and the countryside is ravaged by looters and all resources run scarce. Because it is a planet wide depression, no one is coming to save you-not even Jesus. If you have not prepared by having food and water stored and the means to defend it, you and your family are going to die. Solution: store food and water and have your AR-15 locked and loaded. it’s there to protect your life and can be used as a means to feed your family as a last resort. Yea for the 2nd amendment and “assault weapons”!

    • Vicki

      dark angel says:
      “In this country you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law judged by your peers. The OVERWHELMING majority of Americans are law abiding citizens.”

      Hence I use the number ~300 million Americans.

      - dark angel: “So, what “charge” exactly is being levied against the whole nation that requires the suspension of our god given rights?!”

      Hence the demand that government STOP punishing the innocent.

      - dark angel: “Exactly what crime have we collectively committed?

      Daring to resist their “common sense” gun-control laws? :)

      • Antonio

        Vicki,
        The enslavement documents AKA constitution allows for the “suspension of your rights”. If you do not like this, then I would suggest you stop supporting the enslavement documents and fight to get back to the original founding documents that really gave us our freedoms…

        The “crime” is just as simple as being “terrorist” under NDAA. Since you may have weapons you are considered a “rebel” as stated in the enslavement documents…Gotta love the constitution eh?

      • Vicki

        Do please to explain which are the “original founding documents that really gave us our freedoms…” which you are referring to.

  • David169

    I think the proponents of this new assault on our Constitutional Rights should have to express some measure of reality. Every time the the anti gun crowd says “assault rifle” they should be asked if they mean real “assault rifles” or semi-automatic rifles that look like “assault rifles” that Diane feinstein mistakenly calls “assault rifles”. Their entire thrust is to demonize and villify every semi-automatic sporting rifle and target rifles used for CMP competitions as “assault rifles”. There are no zombies, there are no AR-15 “assault rifles” and there are no boogie men under the bed. Feinstein now is villifying “assault pistols” a term that exists only in her mind; and she has also coined “assault shotgun” another nonsensical term to villify those shotguns she doesn’t like.

  • 45caliber

    She also lamented that these firearms are capable of “tremendous velocity and tremendous killing power,” which “I suspect tears young bodies apart.”
    ———————–
    The standard bullets for AR-15s is a .223 (they use .22 bullets). These are designed to wound – not kill. The .223 simply means they have more gunpowder which gives them a higher speed upon firing. In fact there is so much speed that the very light bullet will glance even if it hits a blade of grass. Unless you are firing fully automatic and send a dozen bullets at once downrange, you are most likely to miss in combat when you are hiding behind a piece of gravel or a twig.

    Machine guns use a .30 round bullet which is about 3 times the size (weight) as the .223. It does do some damage when it hits – but they don’t talk about that since no one can buy a machine gun without LOTS of paperwork and money.

    And she “Suspects” what the damage is – so why are we supposed to pass a law based on what she “suspects”? If she hasn’t bothered to find out then anything she proposes should be ignored.

    • Vicki

      45caliber writes:
      “….you are most likely to miss in combat when you are hiding behind a piece of gravel or a twig. ”

      I hope you are not using the common definition sized objects for cover or concealment :):):)

  • FreedomFighter

    Note: 3-23-13 on or around possible event-rumors only so far nothing concrete – keep your eyes open.

    Obama Administration Repositioning Homeland Security Ammunition Containers
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/obama-administration-repositioning-homeland-security-ammunition-containers/

    Usually when you see movements of large quanitys of military ammo, vehicals, something is in the works…

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

  • Average Joe

    I don’t have much to say in the gun debate any longer. Those who understand why gun control doesn’t work… need no explanation. For those who don’t understand, as it has become apparent; no amount of explaining will be enough to desuade them from their misconceptions.
    So, instead of arguing with those folks, I’ll offer this video for those of us that understand.If a “Legal Immigrant” gets it…..and many of our people don’t…it says much about the inabilty for human beings in this country to embrace the concept of…. logic.

    http://conservativevideos.com/2013/01/immigrants-amazing-testimony-against-gun-control-few-saw-the-third-reich-coming-until-it-was-too-late/

    AJ

    (yes libtards, it is a “conservative” source ( I am after all conservative). Please don’t let the word conservative get your panties in a wad….just don’t watch the video…I won’t have to ignore your ignorant rants…and you won’t break out in diaper rash).

    • Vicki

      Average Joe says:
      “I don’t have much to say in the gun debate any longer. Those who understand why gun control doesn’t work… need no explanation. For those who don’t understand, as it has become apparent; no amount of explaining will be enough to desuade them from their misconceptions.”

      AJ. We don’t speak out here to change the minds of those who are willfully ignorant nor of the shills. We speak here to help the people who mostly are reading to learn.

      • Average Joe

        My comment was in reference to the same 3-5 liberals amongst us us repeat the same mantra, day in and day out ( no matter what evidence is placed before them).
        Most of the people here DO understand and there really is nothing to explain. Yes there are some new people who need to know the facts and I agree we need to “Inform” people of the facts. I believe that my video did just that…inform.
        As to my tone in my above post…the last part shoud tell you, that I am refusing to argue with those 3-5 liberals who refuse to be disuaded…they are not worth my… time…a valuable commodity…which, once gone; can never be replaced.
        I willbe happy to “debate” this issues in a rational fashion with anyone. I will not however, argue with obvious…intentional stupidity.

        It’s not that I am not a people person; I am just not a “stupid people”…. person

        AJ

      • Vicki

        Understood. I counter their arguments specifically to help new readers avoid being entrapped by their own “pubic education and media bias”.

  • Barn E Fraynk, leading from behind

    When they are gone, look for: 1). Reinstitution of the draft, 2). Total economic collapse, 3). Confiscation of your property, 4). Martial law, 5). Imprisonment of dissenters, 6). State sanctioned MURDER, Kenyan style.

  • Hedgehog

    I have a few questions, now things have calmed down a bit. First one is, how many government gunsels have you got in the US? You know, armed gun grabbing thugs. Second question is how many armed households are there that are willing to resist? From these two figures you should be able to calculate the relative size of the opposing forces. Then you have to figure out (guesstimate) how many gunsels will be needed to reduce an average household and how many of these gunsels are going to survive the attempt. Then you can take a guess at how many armed people there will be to start catching, trying and executing the traitors that are left. I’ve got a gut feeling that the traitors are going to be heavily outnumbered. I know that there’s a lot of guesswork involved here and I haven’t even mentioned government use of nukes, gas and biologicals. Make no mistake they will use them when their back is to the wall. Remember, I’m a Canadian, so I can contemplate all this blood, guts and slaughter with a certain degree of attachment.

    • Vicki

      You should indeed be watching carefully. CBR weapons don’t pay much attention to political boundaries.

      • Hedgehog

        You’re certainly right about that Vicki. I’ll have dig out the old radiation meter and pack it in the RV. I plan on being a mobile target Sniping is definitely my cup of tea.

      • deerinwater

        I’m not sure if that’s welcome news even in Afghanistan, much less the US.

        Whatever you pull, ~ there is always someone out there with something Bigger and Badder. ~ Making yourself a target that must be addressed has a hazard associated with it. ~ You with end up living in the ground and eventually that is where you will stay.

        Stealth and concealment in a big part of staying on top of the ground.

  • Dave67
    • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

      “Ideology deludes, inspires dishonesty, and breeds fanaticism. Facts, experience, and logic are much better at leading you to the truth.”

      “Despite the conviction and seeming depth of knowledge with which ideologues speak, they are intellectual weaklings–joiners–who defer to systems of belief and charismatic
      gurus for their ideas.” — Daniel J. Flynn

      • Dave67

        And once again, a conservative can’t deal with sanity.

        • Motov

          And you (Dave67) cannot deal with reality

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    Guns are the least of our problems. In fact, it’s not even a problem…Why are the “anti-gun idiots” wasting our time on such a “none-issue”??? The answer: to take the focus off of the real issues; unemployment, the deficit, the gargantuan-debt, the fact that Obama is a “dud”, and the incompetence that is the present-administration, that’s why!!! 30,000 deaths as the result of gun-violence, and the majority of which are perpetrated by criminals, is an easy fix; big whooped-dee-doo!!! What a joke!

    • Dave67

      Illegal immigration is a “non-issue” but that doesn’t stop the idiots on your side does it?

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        My side? Don’t you mean your side?

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

        Stop the gun discussion and focus on the things that actually matter. If our economy fails, then none of the social arguments matter. Capish?

      • Dave67

        LOL… maybe Jay you should tell Bob Livingston, Crystal that. Focus on the economy.

        They are the ones who wrote this BS piece.

        I was listening to the testimony and this one gun nut woman talks about when she is home alone with her baby, and 5-6 violent invade (happens every day in conservativeland I guess) she is glad she has a “big scray gun” to protect herself with.

        Pathetic

        The Wayne LaPierre gets up there and says he is against background checks… its one step to tyranny… Funny Wayne in 1999 you told Congress the exact opposite.

        Such snakes and liars on the gun nut side.

      • Vicki

        Dave67 writes:
        “The Wayne LaPierre gets up there and says he is against background checks… its one step to tyranny… Funny Wayne in 1999 you told Congress the exact opposite.

        Such snakes and liars on the gun nut side.”

        Or he is capable of learning.

      • Dave67

        No Vickie,

        He is a liar and a prostitute for the gun industry. Its been exposed time and time again.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    Make no mistake: all politicians — even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership — hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it’s an X-ray machine. It’s a Vulcan mind-meld. It’s the ultimate test to which any politician — or political philosophy — can be put.

    If a politician isn’t perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash — for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything — without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn’t your friend no matter what he tells you.

    If he isn’t genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody’s permission, he’s a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

    What his attitude — toward your ownership and use of weapons — conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn’t trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

    If he doesn’t want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

    If he makes excuses about obeying a law he’s sworn to uphold and defend — the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights — do you want to entrust him with anything?

    If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil — like “Constitutionalist” — when you insist that he account for himself, hasn’t he betrayed his oath, isn’t he unfit to hold office, and doesn’t he really belong in jail?

    Sure, these are all leading questions. They’re the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician — or political philosophy — is really made of.

    He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn’t have a gun — but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn’t you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school — or the military? Isn’t it an essentially European notion, anyway — Prussian, maybe — and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

    And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

    Try it yourself: if a politician won’t trust you, why should you trust him? If he’s a man — and you’re not — what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If “he” happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she’s eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn’t want you to have?

    On the other hand — or the other party — should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

    Makes voting simpler, doesn’t it? You don’t have to study every issue — health care, international trade — all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

    http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html

    • Warrior

      Jay, now you have gotten to the crux! Congrats.

  • Rennie

    “TV news ratings and political careers blossom on fresh graves.” Charlton Heston 1 May 1999
    Never underestimate the tendency of politicians to trade our lives cheaply for more power or glory to themselves!

  • rmgdnnow

    Has anyone heard of the “right to self-defense?” Or the Second Amendment (right after the vital fires)?

  • ibcamn

    i thought maybe since she was shot in the head, that no one could rely or take what she’s saying as her own words,and since she is now handicapped,don’t all the liberals tell the republicans you can’t have someone of unsound mind testify or swear an oath because of that(which i’m sure half sounds a lot like the hubbies words)she just wants to follow through on the progressive movement,i think!they used her like a pawn and she don’t even know it!it’s all about control,and for them to use her like that is a discrace and all this should be tossed for the scam(or scheme)that it is!!…a way to get control of all of us!

  • deerinwater

    Wherever you land on this issue, ~ We need to discouraging gun violence in this country. ~ I would prefer to see a more targeted effort.

    Like in punishment and retribution for gun violence, make an example out of the guilty that would discourage anyone for even considering foul gun play.

    A penalty so hash only the insane would consider acting out their hate and rage with a gun.

    While I’m not sure that even this would slow, much less stop it, ~ for I do feel the most heinous gun crimes are acted out by the demented and insane.

    Until our society is willing to police it’s self for the criminally insane before they commit a crime, ~ restricting what gun owners may own and who may own them seems to be the only option available.

    IGun ownership is much like owning a horse, ~ the fly’s and smell come with ownership that you must accept and deal with ~ the best you can. There is limitation to what you can endure and then you must act.

    At the moment, ~ Gun sales are off the chart! ~ You could sell a 495.00 quality weapon today for 800.00 “if you had one to sell” ~~ so there is forces in play that have much to gain by stirring the pot of contention and opposition.

    I personally believe that the 2nd Amendment is safe, ~ but it’s going to become harder to own weapons that will enable us to defend ourselves against in a target rich situation.

    This restriction will create black markets , underground and criminal activity.

    As for myself, ~ I accepted this as a fact years ago ~ and for record, ~ I own no guns. I have no need of one, ~ but that could change in a heart beat.

    • Vicki

      deerinwater says:
      “Wherever you land on this issue, ~ We need to discouraging gun violence in this country. ~ I would prefer to see a more targeted effort.”

      We do too. Stop punishing the innocent for the acts of a few and let everyone who is not in jail carry whatever firearm they choose and in whatever manner. I.E. follow the “…shall NOT be infringed…) 2nd Amendment.

      - deerinwater: “Like in punishment and retribution for gun violence, make an example out of the guilty that would discourage anyone for even considering foul gun play.”

      Been done for years and years. And it must be working cause ~300 MILLION Americans did not misuse a gun. Just check out all the enhanced penalties for committing violence where tool=gun or even where gun is present not used.

      - deerinwater: “Until our society is willing to police it’s self for the criminally insane before they commit a crime, ~ restricting what gun owners may own and who may own them seems to be the only option available.”

      Prior restraint is what a parent does with a child. STOP advocating the treatment of adults that way. Prior restraint is also specifically ILLEGAL. Though most often applied to infringements of the 1st amendment it clearly covers the 2nd as well.
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prior_restraint
      (there is of course the “clear and present danger exception and the elite most certainly consider the 2nd Amendment protection a clear and present danger to their plans)

      ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

      STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few.

      STOP IT
      STOP IT NOW

    • Vicki

      deerinwater says:
      “Gun ownership is much like owning a horse, ~ the fly’s and smell come with ownership that you must accept and deal with ~ the best you can. There is limitation to what you can endure and then you must act.”

      Guns are INANIMATE objects. Much like knives, cars, computers. All the limitations are INFRINGEMENTS and many of them cause a “chilling effect”. All of them are unconstitutional. http://law.yourdictionary.com/chilling-effect

    • Vicki

      deerinwater writes:
      “At the moment, ~ Gun sales are off the chart! ~ You could sell a 495.00 quality weapon today for 800.00 “if you had one to sell” ~~ so there is forces in play that have much to gain by stirring the pot of contention and opposition.”

      And amusingly some are anti-gun politicians. http://godfatherpolitics.com/9127/prominent-gun-controllers-make-money-off-the-gun-lobby/

      - deerinwater: “I personally believe that the 2nd Amendment is safe, ~ but it’s going to become harder to own weapons that will enable us to defend ourselves against in a target rich situation.”

      So by definition it is NOT safe. The 2nd is an order for government to PROTECT our right to keep and bear arms. If it is to become harder to own firearms (scary looking gun ban) then it is already being seriously infringed. (Ignoring for the moment NFA 1934…..)

      - deerinwater: “This restriction will create black markets , underground and criminal activity.”

      Will? the verb you want is “did”

      - deerinwater: As for myself, ~ I accepted this as a fact years ago ~ and for record, ~ I own no guns. I have no need of one, ~ but that could change in a heart beat.”

      And what will you do when you find out that MLK was entirely correct? A right delayed is a right DENIED?

      • Motov

        Don’t forget to grind off serial #’s

  • Jimbo

    Here’s what it means to be a liberal democrat… Never let logic get in the way of an emotional, knee jerk response to every crisis. There is no sin, no God, no Hell. People are not responsible for their actions. Force your beliefs on everyone else, because you are “superior”. Never pay for anything with your own money or effort. Think of no one but yourself.

    • Bob666

      Yo Jimbo,
      I could take out the term “liberal democrat” and insert “conservative republican” and the meaning would not change.

  • against-liberal-ideas

    How about instead of new GUN laws, we instead enact tougher laws/penalties on criminals…. like… if you are found molesting a child or killing someone with ANY KIND OF WEAPON…. you don’t just go to jail… upon capture, you actually get tortured in a severe manner that would be worse than what you did to the innocent, and then rot in jail for the rest of your life…. no pardons, no get out of jail free card… serious consequences…. a tazer to your privates every other day…. something that would make ANY criminal just about kill themselves rather than do the crime.

    Who cares what kind of weapon you use… or how many people are wounded or slain in these situations if we don’t actually try to curb the notion that death of any number of people for any reason is acceptable.

    Why are we letting people out of prison? too crowded…. if they did the crime, and it left holes in the lives of others… uncrowd the prizons by euthanization of the evil.

    I know that sounds harsh… but if you already have someone in custody that has proven capable of killing and not for military purposes… do you really want to let them go?

    • Bob666

      Yo ALI,
      While I may not agree with every thing that you have written, it is a fact that punishment has gone by the wayside in our society. We do need to enforce the existing laws to thier full extent and I have no problem with capital punishment for the most hanus of crimes.

      Their are many incarcerated people that are not worth the price of the bullet and the world would be better off with out them.

    • Motov

      “I know that sounds harsh… but if you already have someone in custody that has proven capable of killing and not for military purposes… do you really want to let them go?”

      Or be a burden on us taxpayers to house, feed, and guard such people ? Rather pay for the pine box plus 6 feet underground.

    • http://personalliberty.com J R

      They should make every criminal be on a chain gang working in that state as part of their punishment.Working from sunrise to sunset shoveling,digging,etc.The state and counties would save money and after 20 or 30 years of that I bet their spirits would be broken.

  • jopa

    I have read somewhere the AR 15 wasn’t used in Sandy Hook and just a couple of pistols were used.If thats the case we may have to take the pistols away and not the ARs if some one can kill twenty kids with a couple of pistols and shoot each one three to eleven times , turn them into hamburger just in a matter of minutes.The author of the post I read may just have been blowing smoke and acting stupid but you know what they say about lies and ships.

  • jopa

    Because of a loophole in the terminology or definition of the AR 15 used in the school shooting in Ct. the gun is not considered an assault rifle.In an agreement with the NRA and Ct. if there were no provisions for a bayonet or a grenade launcher on any particular weapon it was not considered an assault rifle.The AR 15 is more fitting to be called a WMD and if that were the new term they would be easier to get rid of.All guns used for hunting game and pistols need not be sacrificed.

  • Furball

    Why does Vicki and JeffH have to be the rudest a**holes on the page? They really need to get a life and take some classes in how to respect others!

  • I HATE GUNS

    MELT DOWN EVERY LAST [expletive deleted] GUN!
    I DON’T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE 2ND AMENDMENT AND WHAT SELF-CENTERED GUN OWNERS WHAT!

    • Joe America

      “I Hate Guns” is in the wrong country. If you want to get away from citizen gun owners, just go to any other nation on earth, where only the government and criminals have them. The purpose of the second amendment is to provide citizens their last bail out card, should our government turn into a tyrannical police state. It’s clear that the founding fathers realized that absolute power, corrupts, absolutely. The NWO, which is really just the old world order, wants no citizens to have guns. That way, they have absolute power to do with you as they will. It’s human nature for more Hitlers or Stalins and Maos to arrive on the horizon. Why? Because there are humans who want absolute control over others, and when I say absolute, I’m talking about life and death power. “I Hate Guns” may hate guns, but that’s not going to stop evil people from getting them and using them against him/her and his/her family. How about raising the morals of this nation? How about ethics? How about men and women really committing to marriage and raising children in healthly environments, instead of one parent situations? How about minority communities focusing on hard work and raising families, instead of affirmative action and entitlement? How about controlling your kids, instead of letting them run the streets. No, what “I Hate Guns” wants is George Orwell’s 1984. He/she/it wants to support the rise of more Hitlers. He/she/it, sadly, is disconnected from reality and sadly ill informed concerning the history of humanity. You see, we don’t live very long lives, and even our so called “empires” are only a hiccup compared to our measley human existence. It’s for this reason we keep repeating and allowing tyrannical leadership, over and over, again. These United States, this great nation, is the only time in recorded history that the average man/woman, has had the opportunity to rise to their full potential. However, with absolute freedom, you have the choice to throw it all away, too. I was very proud of Doctor Ben Carson, who laid the reality of what this great nation really means to Obama and Biden. When Ceasar built the colisseum in Rome, it was used, primarily, to entertain the masses and take their minds off what was really happening within the Roman Empire. The rabble attended and cheered with glee as human beings were torn apart by each other, and animals. You see, they were given free bread and free grossly exciting entertainment. Because of Roman slavery, there were no jobs, so the average man/woman had allot of free time on their hands. Well, we have our own colosseums, our dirt, our filth and the same scum pushing that upon our youth are the same scum screaming and crying to take our guns. They could care less about children, unless they can steal their organs to lengthen their own lives, or have sex with them. This is what “I Hate Guns” loves and wants. So, go to the UK, or Austrailia. [comment has been edited]

    • WagTheDog

      Dear I HATE GUNS, VICKY, et. al., on both sides of this issue: Pretty much everybody that’s posted here so far has missed the point– Our oh-so-collectively-wise Founding Fathers may not have been able to predict “assault weapons”, but they certainly knew of the defects of Human Nature, and they were very careful about their word selection. Thus, they made sure to enumerate a list of God-given (note: They’re not “Government-granted”) human rights in the Constitution, specifically to LIMIT the powers of government, and thus have it interfere as little as possible with an individual’s freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness. The well-worn “militia” clause of the 2nd Amendment was inserted because at the time (read your copy of The Federalist Papers, and if you don’t have one, get one, as well as letters back & forth by Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, et. al.) ALL able-bodied males were considered to constituted “the militia” in times of trouble (bandits, violent mobs, Indian raids, war with Britain, Spain, or France, or whatever– including ESPECIALLY their very own government). E.g., “The object is that every man be armed…” (read it, dudes). The 2nd Amendment isn’t about “sporting uses” or “hunting”, it’s about own individual and collective ability to resist a big, nasty, and well-armed & organized group, especially our own government. That some bozos facetiously call for arms to be limited to flintlock muskets and rifles of the 1780s as in the Founding Fathers’ day misses the point entirely– those were the common military firearms of the day, used by all the world’s most-advanced armies, thus it was deemed important that we, individually and collectively be able to resist the same with equal weaponry. There’s also those specious idiots that say: Well, then that means somebody could keep a thermonuclear weapon, a howitzer, or nerve gas bombs in my basement– but NO, it doesn’t. The 2nd Amendment applies to THE PEOPLE’S right “…to keep and bear arms…” I may be theoretically able to somehow “keep” a 50 megaton ICBM (though they need constant checking and very high-tech, specialized maintenance) in my own personal launch sile, or a 155mm self-propelled howitzer in my garage, but I can’t “bear” any such weapons on my person. “Infringed” is just that– you’re not supposed to even go a little bit over the line (e.g., as in a neighbor infringing on someone else’s property by building a fence a few inches beyond his own property line). The government is not allowed to “infringe” at all on the people’s right to keep and bear arms, pure and simple — and yes, arms fully equal to the military arms of the day, because the entire purpose of the US Constitution is to RESTRICT and LIMIT what the government can legally do. (VICKY’s comments on the FFA of 1934 we’ll have to take up another time, and don’t get me started on that pesky 10th Amendment, that states that unless a power is specifically assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution, that power belongs to the states, alone. Our Federal Government derives its power from the STATES, not vice-versa. (Yup. — Read about that, too.) We currently have well over 20,000 gun laws on the books in the US (….and Obama & Holder’s Operation Fast & Furious broke pretty much all of ‘em, including a few international treaties, but alas, I digress…). So, which new, highly restrictive gun laws with criminals and murderous loonies decide they’ll obey, this time? Logically, (and overall statistics bear this out, big-time) “More Guns = Less Crime”, i.e., in places where criminals (and murderous wackos) are likely to find themselves confronted by an armed citizen, they choose to go elsewhere. Check it out– which of the infamous mass shootings in recent history would ANY gun law, new, or the 20,000 already on the books, have deterred? Did ya’ notices that they invariably occur in so-called “Gun-Free Zones”? (Yes, even the “Batman Movie” incident occurred in a theater that didn’t allow concealed carry.) Did you also notice that whenever somebody that IS armed shows up to confront him, the wacko either immediately blows his own brains out, or waits to be gunned-down by police (otherwise known as “suicide-by-cop”) — they’re nothing if not cowardly. Currently, there are something on the order of 300 million guns in the US, and at least 80 million (and old figure) gun owners, as well as several newly-minted concealed-carry holders, which as a group, are statistically about the most law-abiding one can find. Note also that violent felons don’t apply for (and can’t get) concealed-carry permits. And worst of all, even as gun sales began to skyrocket under the Clinton Administration, and have skyrocketed even higher since, violent crime rates in the US have been dropping for years– everywhere except Chicago, which won’t allow its citizens to own handguns, or have a concealed carry permit (unless you’re a member of, or serving a member of the “local elite”, of course– Rahm Emmanuel has his armed bodyguards, and Obama’s daughters have armed security guards at Sidwell Friends private school where his daughters go (not to mention Secret Service protection, but somehow the idea of putting an armed security guard in schools that OUR children attend is too horrid to even contemplate, apparently only because some NRA big wig suggested it). Before this rant gets beyond the attention span of most sheeple, might I suggest a quick READING of the US Constitution, and The Federalist Papers– take your time, just a chapter or a few pages at a time. You’ll quickly discover that the MAIN “threat” to life & liberty that the Founding Fathers were concerned with our being able to defend ourselves against was the “threat” that could possibly be posed by our very own government. (!!!) There’s an eye-opener, folks, all you have to do is open your eyes. —WagTheDog

    • Gene Moore

      To I hate guns,you should just leave this country.Because are not wanted here in the USA.Anyone who dislikes the 2nd amendment as you do are not wanted here.You are a commie so go to a nation of commies,Oh lets say russia or some place like that.This is or at least was a free country that our founden fathers fought and died for.To keep us free from guys like you.

      • Bob666

        Yo Gene,
        I was not aware that you are the gate keeper for the good old US of A? Should we take away “I hate guns” first amendment rights as well before we ship him off?

    • Gron

      I wish they were not needed but in reality they are. Rather than shove YOUR BELIEFS down OUR THROATS how about YOU LEAVE T, and go somewhere you cant own A gun. I promise we wont stop you, Hell we might help you pack.

  • WagTheDog

    Dear I HATE GUNS, VICKY, et. al., on both sides of this issue: Pretty much everybody that’s posted here so far has missed the point– Our oh-so-collectively-wise Founding Fathers may not have been able to predict “assault weapons”, but they certainly knew of the defects of Human Nature, and they were very careful about their word selection. Thus, they made sure to enumerate a list of God-given (note: They’re not “Government-granted”) human rights in the Constitution, specifically to LIMIT the powers of government, and thus have it interfere as little as possible with an individual’s freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness. The well-worn “militia” clause of the 2nd Amendment was inserted because at the time (read your copy of The Federalist Papers, and if you don’t have one, get one, as well as letters back & forth by Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, et. al.) ALL able-bodied males were considered to constituted “the militia” in times of trouble (bandits, violent mobs, Indian raids, war with Britain, Spain, or France, or whatever– including ESPECIALLY their very own government). E.g., “The object is that every man be armed…” (read it, dudes). The 2nd Amendment isn’t about “sporting uses” or “hunting”, it’s about own individual and collective ability to resist a big, nasty, and well-armed & organized group, especially our own government. That some bozos facetiously call for arms to be limited to flintlock muskets and rifles of the 1780s as in the Founding Fathers’ day misses the point entirely– those were the common military firearms of the day, used by all the world’s most-advanced armies, thus it was deemed important that we, individually and collectively be able to resist the same with equal weaponry, and the same applies today. Today’s criminals/loonies/bandits/tyrant’s thugs don’t use flintlocks anymore, although I find it oddly humorous that Feinstein would ban, among myriad other features, guns that have “bayonet lugs”– yep, that’s to take care of all those [non-existent] drive-by bayonettings down in East L.A… BTW: Were you aware that annually, simple assault & battery (i.e., bare fists) kills roughly 8.5 times more victims in the US than all those lost to rifles of ANY kind, of which eeeevilll “assault rifles” are only a small subset? There’s also those specious idiots that say: Well, then that means somebody could keep a thermonuclear weapon, a howitzer, or nerve gas bombs in my basement– but NO, it doesn’t. The 2nd Amendment applies to THE PEOPLE’S right “…to keep and bear arms…” I may be theoretically able to somehow “keep” a 50 megaton ICBM (though they need constant checking and very high-tech, specialized maintenance) in my own personal launch sile, or a 155mm self-propelled howitzer in my garage, but I can’t “bear” any such weapons on my person. “Infringed” is just that– you’re not supposed to even go a little bit over the line (e.g., as in a neighbor infringing on someone else’s property by building a fence a few inches beyond his own property line). The government is not allowed to “infringe” at all on the people’s right to keep and bear arms, pure and simple — and yes, arms fully equal to the military arms of the day, because the entire purpose of the US Constitution is to RESTRICT and LIMIT what the government can legally do. (VICKY’s comments on the FFA of 1934 we’ll have to take up another time, and don’t get me started on that pesky 10th Amendment, that states that unless a power is specifically assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution, that power belongs to the states, alone. Our Federal Government derives its power from the STATES, not vice-versa. (Yup. — Read about that, too.) We currently have well over 20,000 gun laws on the books in the US (….and Obama & Holder’s Operation Fast & Furious broke pretty much all of ‘em, including a few international treaties, but alas, I digress…). So, which new, highly restrictive gun laws with criminals and murderous loonies decide they’ll obey, this time? Logically, (and overall statistics bear this out, big-time) “More Guns = Less Crime”, i.e., in places where criminals (and murderous wackos) are likely to find themselves confronted by an armed citizen, they choose to go elsewhere. Check it out– which of the infamous mass shootings in recent history would ANY gun law, new, or the 20,000 already on the books, have deterred? Did ya’ notices that they invariably occur in so-called “Gun-Free Zones”? (Yes, even the “Batman Movie” incident occurred in a theater that didn’t allow concealed carry.) Did you also notice that whenever somebody that IS armed shows up to confront him, the wacko either immediately blows his own brains out, or waits to be gunned-down by police (otherwise known as “suicide-by-cop”) — they’re nothing if not cowardly. Currently, there are something on the order of 300 million guns in the US, and at least 80 million (and old figure) gun owners, as well as several newly-minted concealed-carry holders, which as a group, are statistically about the most law-abiding one can find. Note also that violent felons don’t apply for (and can’t get) concealed-carry permits. And worst of all, even as gun sales began to skyrocket under the Clinton Administration, and have skyrocketed even higher since, violent crime rates in the US have been dropping for years– everywhere except Chicago, which won’t allow its citizens to own handguns, or have a concealed carry permit (unless you’re a member of, or serving a member of the “local elite”, of course– Rahm Emmanuel has his armed bodyguards, and Obama’s daughters have armed security guards at Sidwell Friends private school where his daughters go (not to mention Secret Service protection, but somehow the idea of putting an armed security guard in schools that OUR children attend is too horrid to even contemplate, apparently only because some NRA big wig suggested it). Before this rant gets beyond the attention span of most sheeple, might I suggest a quick READING of the US Constitution, and The Federalist Papers– take your time, just a chapter or a few pages at a time. You’ll quickly discover that the MAIN “threat” to life & liberty that the Founding Fathers were concerned with our being able to defend ourselves against was the “threat” that could possibly be posed by our very own government…and with personally kept & borne weapons equal to the task. (!!!) There’s an eye-opener, folks, all you have to do is open your eyes. —WagTheDog

    • http://personalliberty.com J R

      AMEN BROTHER

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.