Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Forearmed, For Now

July 1, 2010 by  

Forearmed, For Now

The vote was 5-4. It should have been 9-0, but the nation’s most powerful jurists are going to straighten themselves out the same day Rebecca DeMornay knocks on my door with a bottle of Johnny Blue and Risky Business on Blu-ray. Two years after the Court ruled in favor of the Bill of Rights in D.C. v Heller, the majority again stood up for the Republic in McDonald v Chicago.

With the nomination of Elena Kagan looming—and likely—I’m not holding my breath for a more sensible Supreme Court. Nonetheless, five of the Big Nine managed to get it right late Monday morning, wrapping up their 2009-2010 calendar with an affirmation of the right of Americans to keep and bear arms.

Justice Alito, writing for the majority, pointed out that the 2nd Amendment serves as a guarantee of individual—as opposed to community—liberty, and its authority is bolstered by the 14th Amendment’s guarantees of due process. Simply put: Chicago, Oak Brook, Ill. and Washington, D.C., may not pass laws which abrogate the Bill of Rights.

Before anyone Outside the Asylum starts shopping for two-gun rigs, be advised: the other side isn’t giving up this firefight just yet. Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (victims of knife, bat and/or legislative violence—you’re on your own) President Paul Helmke said in the aftermath of the decision: “lawsuits are never bad.” Translation: “This means war!” (Although one presumes it would be a “progressive,” firearm-free kind.)

But the Dems have not kept their proverbial powder dry. When Justice Stevens, in what will thankfully be one of his final acts from the top bench, dissented thus: “..the ability of militiamen to keep muskets available..” he said: “the Founding Fathers were talking about flintlocks.” As if one of the most esteemed assemblages of intellect in human history wouldn’t have considered the possibility of technological advancement.

Don’t bother to ask Stevens about other progress unforeseen by the Founding Fellas. Try to imagine his honor explaining Constitutional protections for partial-birth abortion to Thomas Jefferson. When Stevens suggested “..(gun rights as envisioned by the Framers) have only a limited bearing on the question that confronts the homeowner in a crime-infested metropolis today..” he was intimating: “Too bad you weren’t born in the 1760s.”

Tell that to someone who just watched the Crips unload a U-Haul across the street. Better yet, mention it to the Idahoan who just watched FBI snipers gun down his wife and child.

The fundamental flaw in the liberal argument against firearm ownership rights stems from their basic mistrust of everyone who isn’t them. Their ideology stands on the concept of governmental dominance of the people.

People who deny that ideology represent a threat. Armed people who deny their ideology represent something much worse: the indomitable citizen. But the indomitable citizen isn’t a threat; someone who’s a threat is a threat. And we already have laws to protect us from such threats.

We don’t bar Microcephalic Marvin down the street from owning a .50 cal. because the weapon might be inherently dangerous. We keep Marvin from owning the aforementioned hand cannon because he has an 850 cc cranium and wears a tinfoil hat. Perhaps if all the high-priced, self-important lawyers and politicians at the Brady Campaign helped to book Marv some quality time at a state-owned bed and breakfast, they wouldn’t have to worry as much about Marv opening fire on the space aliens in the duplex next door.

Because gun-ban proponents are guided by fear and emotion, not logic and reason, they react like teenage girls in a slasher flick—”Mr. LaPierre, is that you?” That visceral fear inevitably leads to: “Why do you NEED (big scary gun of choice)?” The question is moot. One might as well ask a woman why she needs 25 pairs of black shoes, or ask the DNC why they need Joe Biden.

When The Framers offered “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” They were offering neither suggestion nor caveat. They were admonishing us all.

Tyranny is tyranny, whether it takes the form of the madness of King George or the obtuseness of President Obama. Forewarned is forearmed. Thanks to the Framers of the Constitution—and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court—we are both.

Ben Crystal

is a 1993 graduate of Davidson College and has burned the better part of the last two decades getting over the damage done by modern-day higher education. He now lives in Savannah, Ga., where he has hosted an award-winning radio talk show and been featured as a political analyst for television. Currently a principal at Saltymoss Productions—a media company specializing in concept television and campaign production, speechwriting and media strategy—Ben has written numerous articles on the subjects of municipal authoritarianism, the economic fallacy of sin taxes and analyses of congressional abuses of power.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Forearmed, For Now”

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

  • s c

    Thank God, Justice Stevens and his negative influences are about to be part of judicial history. Sadly, there are others waiting in line who will be worse than him. It is beyond AMAZING that America can have people who DO NOT love freedom or justice or have an appreciation of how precious freedom and justice really are.
    Rather than waste my time relating what I think of that man (or those like him), it is enough for me to say that those people would do better to live in a country where freedom is but a word. It would make America better, and those of us who DO cherish freedom and justice would know that people like Stevens are where they belong.
    God bless and protect the Supreme Court. May America never suffer slavery via engineered infamy in the guise of false illumination and ‘social justice.’

    • 45caliber

      They do love freedom – their own.

      There are two ways to have freedom. Only two.

      First, you can have freedom by taking all freedom away from everyone else. And we have a number of politicians working diligently on that one.

      Second, you can have freedom by giving freedom to everyone else on the condition they do the same. That was what America was founded under – and what is now going away.

      Every time someone says, “You are offending me and you can’t do that,” they are depriving you of freedom so they can have more of it.

      • Scott, Missouri

        Right on!!!!!!

      • Darrell Russell

        Unfortunately there are people that are willing to eliminate your and my freedom and doing a fair job to date.
        The basic problem is the small majority(the welfare dependent)are willing to give up freedom for there existing.
        We have two major conflicts on going that we see in the news and read in the press are very serious (Iraq & Afghanistan), but not nearly as serious as the conflict that is on going as I write this.
        There are Two major movements taking place in this country that we as patriotic peace loving people are trying to defend and those that are trying to dismantle all that has been in place since our founding.
        The progressive left ha an upper hand as they are in power and can implement action and policies that will make this patriotic movement difficult in the name of national security. This will be a very desperate move on the left but necessary to maintain control of what they have and are not willing to lose this hard fought ground.
        Things will begin to happen the closer we get to the November mid term elections and as the results begin to emerge things will get ratcheted up.
        God Bless America

      • pkdavis

        Your comment on the two types of freedom is, to me, quite profound. I teach high school and a copy of your observation is going on my office door.

      • ONTIME

        Hippies always suck, communist always lie and a terrorist will kill anyone, anytime, anywhere just because…..axiom

      • charles

        i wondered how long it would take before someone would notice that they were losing their rights! takes too long for reality to sink in! i think it is far too late to change it.the gop certainly want only your money. the two party system failed decades ago.two sides of the same coin. their all in it together.that should be obvious at this late date! thanks.chuck.

      • charlie

        Death is another freedom.. that is what they are trying to do to everyone that has freedom.. kill kill kill.. they don’t want freedom,they want everything for themselves..they will never be right with their minds,as hollow as they may be

      • http://none Common sence

        you’re a goofball.
        Even your name yells it.

      • Joyce from Loris

        The Civil Rights Act did that for us. We need to abolish this foolish law. It has given more rights to the terrorist that to the citizens of our nation and the victims of terrorism. All the PC crap comes from the Civil Rights Act. That act covers everyone except white people.

      • rons321

        45 Calibre hit the nail right on the head. I agree with him all the way.

    • Dave

      I have the highest respect for the constitution but I love how you feel like it’s writers were the wisest of wise men ever to grace this earth. They were falable like anyone else in the world. The constitution wasn’t created with total consensus between all of it’s writers either. They disagreed about things and some were not happy with things that did or not make it in. They knew they couldn’t account for everything and that is why they allowed for amendments. They knew the document would need to be interpreted and changed. Some of them may be completed offended how some of you people use the constitution to your own ends in the same way that God mus be furious how some people commit atrocities in his name. Any fundamentalist of any kind is hiding behind their interpretation of an esteemed document. In Chicago you can own a rifle so people can defend themselves if the government decides to turn on them or if a war breaks out which is the real spirit of the 2nd ammendment. I don’t think the founding fathers would have a problem with a single city not allowing hand guns in particular when it’s in the best interest of the city.

      • 45caliber

        Is it in the best interests of the city to have a handgun ban? Or is it in the best interests of those in charge of the city?

        • Steve

          EVERYONE THINK ABOUT THIS !!!

          Attorney General Eric Holder testified under oath, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, that neither he nor the President were going to institute any form of gun control. HE LIED UNDER OATH !!!

          Justice Sotomayor testified under oath, in front of that same Senate Panel, that she believed in the right of individuals to own a firearm.
          She was one of the dissenters in the minority opinion in MacDonald vs Chigago. SHE LIED UNDER OATH !!!

          Elana Kagan is now lying just the same as Obama, Holder and Sotomayor all did. They are all LIARS UNDER OATH and we have the videos to prove it. The Constitution provides for their removal from office in the impeachment clause. Where the hell is the only good lawyer out there who would take this on pro bono.

          • Denniso

            You’re dreaming….

          • Todd

            Remember, these are lawyers we are talking about. Word smiths, people who earn a living by using any means necessary to win. Sotomayor will certainly defend herself by saying she wasn’t pro gun control, she was rather, pro government in that she feels governments should be able to abrogate the rights of citizens for whatever reason gov’t deems appropriate. Now, you and I think that she lied to get her position of influence. We are right. People like this discuss those of us with our eyes open. But, in her mind (and her ilk) she probably honestly feels that she didn’t lie. This is why these people are so dangerous, they believe the lies, both those they are told and the ones they themselves tell.

      • DaveH

        So what’s your point, Dave? The Constitution can be amended. I think we all know that. But until then our leaders must obey the existing law of the land which they swear to uphold. Whether you Liberals like it or not.

        • Scott, Missouri

          Well, the Liberals don’t like it and they are not obeying the laws and as long as they are in charge, who is going to do any thing about it. The majority of the country wanted change and now they’ve got it. Maybe it’s not quite what they had in mind, but they got it.

      • Steve

        AMERICA: AT THE CROSSROADS

        In times such as these, we need only to look at world history. The ancient civilizations of Persia and Greece come to mind. One might consider the history of the British or Roman Empires; Napoleonic France or Spain; also the dynasties of the Chinese and Japanese Emperors, along with the Egyptian Pharos, or the Mayans and Aztecs. All of these republics, empires and dynasties have fallen upon the dust heap of history. Do these once great societies have any meaning in our present day? Oh yes! Big time!

        The study of these civilizations was the basis and foundation for our Constitutional Republic. Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams and all our founding fathers studied how these civilizations emerged, evolved and eventually failed. Our founders answered these rises and collapses of past civilizations with the Great American Experiment; The Constitution of the United States of America; our map for continuing success.

        Our grand document is based on the creation, evolvement and failure of every civilization in history. It was conceived through the wisdom of all the grand thinkers in world history. (Thinkers and philosophers who knew that their history would be important to some future civilization and they were intelligent enough to write it down or carve it in stone) Our Constitution is a document written to preserve individual liberty and to organize a union of separate states, into a Federal Union; The United States of America.

        Why do we now fail our Constitution? Why don’t we teach more of it in public and private schools? Why do politicians and judges say it’s outdated? The reality is that we are at the crossroads between the success or failure of our Constitutional Republic. This Great Document needs to be honored and cherished dearly.

        Our Congress; the Senate and House of Representatives, is now failing us by passing legislation that they do not read before they vote on it’s passage. Our President is failing our country by signing this unread legislation into law. We might call this a failure of their Oath of Office. Or we might call it a failure of our national identity. Either way, we can not continue to exist as a nation under these failures in government.

        Ancient Rome is a prime example. Senators of the Roman Republic sat in their Coliseum seats, along with the Roman Emperors. They watched as slaves fought gladiators and cheered for blood. They watched as Christians were eaten by lions while the minions screamed for more blood. Those Senators allowed the decline of the Roman Republic by their lack of concern, accession and decadence. Eventually, their appeasements to the Caesars contributed to the decline of the Republic and the Empire. All was lost as hoards of barbarians over-ran a militarily-over-extended, over-taxed, Roman Empire.

        That barbarism was unmatched until the 20th century, when Marxist/Socialist/Communism overtook Russia and Eastern Europe, culminating in the deaths of 50 million human beings. All of them murdered and starved by a mentally ill, psychotic-paranoid, Joseph Stalin; along with his secret police.

        Adolph Hitler murdered 6 million Jews. Joseph Stalin murdered 50 million of his own Soviet people. The German people were compliant with Hitler and the Soviets with Stalin. They followed those leaders to their graves. The Roman Senators were compliant with the Caesars. Rome fell, as all great civilizations did in time. None of those civilizations had a living Constitution: a map for success throughout the ages. Our nation has one and it’s high time our Congress and our President start abiding by it.

        The failure to follow our Founding Fathers’ map has lead America down the wrong road; to the crossroads we find ourselves looking upon. A “fundamental change in America”, we do not need. What we do need, is to return to a “foundation based on our Constitution”. We should command the respect due to us and their Oath of Office, from all our elected officials in city, county, state and federal government. Only that respect to their Constitutional Oaths and to the People, will save this country from the dust heap of history. We, as a free Nation, still have the right to demand that of our elected representatives. This is the duty and the responsibility of every citizen in a Constitutional Republic. Demand it! Vote for it! Pass it on to everyone!!

        If you are an American Patriot, then please, remember this on November 2, 2010. God’s Speed America!

        • JC

          “The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”
          ~ Marcus Tullius Cicero , 55 B.C.

        • libertytrain

          Excellent read – thanks.

      • Todd

        Dude, we all know that the founders were not perfect. Their creator however is. The Constitution is a living document, in content, but not purpose. The purpose was to codify our individual, inalienable rights, as granted by our Creator. This individual liberty is what sets the US apart from every other country on the planet. Nothing in our Constitution says “go ahead, make laws to remove rights from our citizens”, even though that is what so many of our local, state and federal laws have done under various guises. It is interesting that no one seems to think other rights/amendments require restrictions so much as the second. Why do you suppose that is? Well, the 2nd is there to support the 1st for one. the 2nd is why we are citizens of the US instead of subjects of another country. The lack of logic is startling in these non liberty types. Use tyranny to remove your rights to defend yourself in the name of community safety? If “safety” is the goal, why is smoking, driving, flying private planes, skydiving, being in the military, etc… still ok? Way more people die from those activities. There needs to be some rules in place, if only because we have a nation afflicted w/ a high percentage of the selfish. But, these rules should be minimal and geared towards keeping the miscreants from possessing weapons, not limit the rights of law abiding citizens. Make it illegal for felons to have weapons. Make it a life sentence to use a weapon in the commission of a crime. Make it illegal for the mentally defective to have a weapon.

  • J.M.R.

    with another bought and paid for hack like the last one we will not get a fair shake from the supreme court. the hack said one thing in her hearings and did just the opposite when she heard her first case. the corruption is off to a great start under this ass hole dick-tater

    • Dave

      Yes, very profound.

  • Gene Volz

    there are too many people who are too irresponsible to have guns at their dispoal. 60,000 people a year killed or injured is too much. We need sensible laws which make people think before pulling the trigger. The constitution was written for the late 1700′s, and needs updating.

    • slickporsche

      You sir are part of the problem and not the solution. Freedom cannot be updated and is never outdated.

      • independant thinker

        Hey Gene, the only sensable gun law we need is convicted felons cannot purchase, handle, or otherwise posess firearms. The only other gun control needed is a sure grip and hit your intended target.

      • Dave

        Why is he part of the problem. He;s not saying you shouldn’t be free. He’s saying I have a right not to be shot by a mental patient who bought a handgun because the constitution said he could have one.

        • DaveH

          And we have a right to protect ourselves from the Liberal thieves who could rationalize taking everything we have worked for.

        • vicki

          Dave writes:
          “He’s saying I have a right not to be shot by a mental patient who bought a handgun because the constitution said he could have one.”

          Correct you have a right not to be shot in general. However like Gene you must be new to this timeline. We have laws against shooting someone without just cause. This would be and is a sensible law.

          Laws that prevent a person from possessing a gun because you are afraid he MIGHT shoot you violate his rights to possession of the best tools for self defense. This would be an insensible and unconstitutional law.

          it is also punishing someone for what they MIGHT do which is a prior restraint and unconstitional.

    • slickporsche

      You sir are part of the problem and not the solution. Freedom cannot be updated and is never outdated. If you want to continue to update a constitution, then you really do not ever have one. I think you are too dumb and scared to understand my meaning.

    • Brad

      Gene,

      I have to agree, there are thousands of American’s who shouldn’t posses fire arms. Where do you get 60,000 American deaths and from what source, because today the vast majority of gun related deaths are attributed to gang violence, check each cities statistics and you’ll find the truth, the FBI tracks each major cities statistics for gun violence. Today more Americans die on our nation’s roads then from gun violence, that’s a fact. Today we have so many gun laws that law abiding citizens follow, it’s the criminal element that won’t follow the law, and case in point look at Australia since the gov took away everybody’s guns, except the criminal? Violent crime is up over 30% across the board, i.e. home invasion, rape, murder, muggings just to name a few. So, when will the federal government start enforcing current law and take down the criminal element and their possession of illegal fire arms. Yes I do own fire arms and I will protect my family with said fire arms if need be, but I will also abide by all federal, state and local laws. When will the federal government stop the flow of illegal aliens crossing into our country, who bring the drugs and murder our citizens, please tell me, when will they? The constitution is a frame work that guides our nation and its people; there have been amendments to the bill of rights to keep our constitution current. It’s you and the entire left demigods’ who think the constitution should be scrapped for something new and modern, not this kid, I support and will defend our country and our constitution until the day I die! May GOD Bless America!

      • Dave

        I would defend my country too. I would even defend it from someone like you if I had to. Just because more people die in auto accidents does that really mean that guns aren’t a problem. Maybe there are fewer gun deaths precisely because of the gun laws that are on the books. Don’t you think the gun laws we have were put in place for a reason? Was the wild west really more “civilized.” What price do we have to pay as a society just because we’re afraid of limiting someone’s right to buy whatever gun they want. Why is someone less free if they have to wait 2 weeks to buy their gun? Why are you less free if you’re forced to be a rifle instead of a handgun? You seem to have plenty of guns so what is your problem? Do you think arming everyone will really make us all safer? Will you be a police officer then in Chicago when anyone can carry a hidden handgun without a permit? I saw someone say why don’t they enforce gun laws. They do enforce them but it’s hard to get all of the guns. Even with the laws they have now they only get a small percentage of them off the street but at least they know anytime they find a potential gang member with a handgun it’s illegal and they can be sent to jail for a long time just for possesing it. What happens when that gang member is legally allowed to carry a gun? What happens then? Then they have to wait until the criminal shoots at them to do anything.

        • independant thinker

          “Was the wild west really more “civilized.””

          Actualy Dave, it was. There was actualy very little one on one violence compared to what the TV shows and movies portray.

        • DaveH

          Why is someone less free if they have to wait 2 weeks to buy their gun? Tell that to this lady, Dave:
          http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1645

          As far as I’m concerned you do-gooder Liberals are accessories to murder for every victim such as her.

          • DaveH
          • vicki

            Making a person wait 2 weeks to exercise a right is a clear violation of that right. “a right delayed is a right denied” -MLK? Besides why would someone intent on breaking the law care about another little law in their way?

            Also if someone already has a (legal) gun why do they have to wait 2 weeks to by another. They already have one so what does THAT law accomplish?

          • vicki

            And there is this little bit of illogic from a democrat.
            “Sen. Robert Torricelli (D–NJ) stated, “Even if we perfect the technology of an instant background check to assure that people with mental illness or felony convictions do not buy guns, a cooling off period is still valuable. In this nation, the most likely person to shoot another citizen is a member of his or her own family in a crime of passion or rage. A cooling off period to separate the rage from the purchase of the gun and the act could save thousands of lives.”

            So let me see. A guy has a fight with his wife and in the heat of passion goes out and places an order for a gun. Really. What really happens if he were to get mad enough to want to do what a gun is good for is to beat her to death. Lot of bloody good that law was.

            Even worse let us suppose he did go and buy a gun cause he didn’t want to bruise his hands. After a few days and he has calmed down he and she kiss and make up. The gun arrives and goes in a drawer. A few days later they fight again. In the heat of passion he gets the gun and shoots her. Now tell me again how this stupid law protected her? We already see by the article DaveH posted how the law FAILED to protect the woman in the article.

            The more I read about liberal plans and laws the more I worry that liberalism really is a mental disorder.

          • Jim H.

            DaveH, I agree the “cooling off period” is invalid. If some one is so enraged they are going to kill you, they aren’t going to run down to the sporting good store and buy a gun. They will find the closest weapon (knife, club, brick or bare hands) and attack. Just another pseudo-intellectual, Thinking they’re cleaver making another useless law to say they did something to help. The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. 2 weeks waiting sounds like a form infringing to me.

          • DaveH

            I had a friend who was being ripped off severely in the courts by his lying wife and the lying guy who she was having an affair with. My friend had plenty of guns, but he wanted to beat them to death with a lead pipe, as a gun would be too quick. Fortunately, he realized that it would hurt him and his children to pursue that course.
            My point? When somebody is enraged all bets are off.

        • vicki

          The “wild wild west” is fiction. Drama. Intense emotion played out for the entertainment of the audience. The real west was a very well behaved quiet place cause most people had guns and knew how to use them.

          • DaveH

            And many of the famous outlaws just got on the wrong side of the Government and their evil cronys.

        • DaveH

          By the way, did anybody else catch the Liberal Dave revealing his true nature with a veiled threat to Brad?
          Said Dave “I would even defend it from someone like you if I had to.”
          I love it when Liberals out themselves.
          And why should that surprise anybody? People that can callously help themselves to our money, can callously take our lives.

        • Allan

          According to your logic then, we should take away automobiles because there are more auto-related deaths than gun-related. It would certainly help to achieve another liberal goal of not using oil, wouldn’t it? Do you truly live in fear of being shot, or do you just want to restrict others because you know what’s best for them? Or do you take the long term view, that citizen control will be easier?

        • Todd

          Guns aren’t the problem. A gun has never hurt anyone without human intervention.Your thinking is illogical and dangerous. It is already illegal to kill another human for no reason, so regardless of whether guns are allowed or not, there are already laws to say that someone can’t kill you, so….how is another law going to help? Perhaps after guns you go after kitchen knives, or power drills, as I’m sure someone, somewhere was hurt by those things. Simple logic ought to tell you that stealing rights to protect one’s self don’t work. Look at Chicago. Illegal to own a gun, yet people die (quite a lot recently) of gunshots. Every place else w/ restrictions on protecting ones self still have people dying of gunshot wounds, or victims of theft, rape, etc…. Look at DC for crying out loud. That is a city totally run by Congress. Do you want that model coming to a town near you? Logic would tell you that handgun restrictions don’t make people safer. Looking a little more closely at facts would tell you that places w/ high levels of gun ownership have LESS incidences of the problems you attribute to the gun, rather than the CRIMINALS. Of course, I realize, it is easier to control the law abiding than controlling the criminal element, which our elected leadership seems absolutely loathe to do save a few local exceptions. But, taking the easy road, especially when it is so obviously the wrong road just pisses the rest of us off who actually get it. We don’t need the government to protect us from ourselves, we need to be left alone in this case and stop trying to make us dependent on an incompetent government for everything. Liberty is a difficult concept for those who don’t get it. It is hard to learn, especially when you’ve been indoctrinated that gov’t is always right.

    • Al Sieber

      Hey Gene, what more sensible laws do we need? so you think the constitution is out dated? the bible was written long ago too, is it out dated also?

      • john

        BIG TIME!!

      • DaveH

        Al,
        You must be kidding. Liberals don’t even learn from history. If they did they wouldn’t be so quick to embrace policies that have failed miserably in the past.

        • Al Sieber

          DaveH, I know, I just don’t understand their way of thinking.

          • DaveH

            In a nutshell – they want what you have.

    • CJ

      Gene,

      Re-read your own words for the answer. “too many people who are too irresponsible…” and “need sensible laws which make people think…” will never be compatable. All your statistics are about people who INTENDED on doing harm. They DON’T CARE about laws. Making new ones only help the bad guy. Grow up and face reality. Quit expecting the governement to take care of you. They can’t. As for me, I’d rather be paying a lawyer’s bill than a doctor’s… or funeral! And people who think like you are the ones who give us only these choices.

      • 45caliber

        The statistic that Gene quotes (60,000 deaths) includes ALL gun deaths. In other words, it includes everyone murdered, everyone killed by accident, every criminal killed by a homeowner, and every criminal killed by a policeman. I don’t tend to cringe in the later two cases.

        • armed and dangerous

          And let’s not forget gang members killing gang members. They lump those on the “children killed by guns” numbers too. Those aren’t “children”, they are teenage thugs that have NO regard for life and would shoot you and your family as an initiation into their gang or shoot another “child” (gang member under 18) just for the fun of it. The FACT is; more children drown in their own swimming pools each and every year than are actually killed by guns. See anyone trying to ban swimming pools? They twist the facts and lump the numbers to make guns seem more sinister. The brainless liberals never look at the FACTS. They just look at the numbers and make their rediculous opinions and decisions from there. Kids are killed and injured in car accidents every day too, but do you see liberals trying to ban kids from riding in cars? Hell no! They get run over in the streets when crossing roads, when riding their bikes, etc., but again, do you see any of them trying to ban cars? No! But guns are bad and scary (in their irrational minds) so they go after them. het liberals, there are MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of armed and pissed off Americans. Just TRY to ban guns and see what happens! Ever hear of the 2nd Amendment? You’re going to find out why it was put there and how it gets enforced!!

          • 45caliber

            I included those in murder but you did a good job of pulling them out. What annoys me even more is when the MSM includes all gang members as “youth” or “teens” up to age 25 or so but considers the 18 year old soldiers as “men”.

          • Dave

            Actually, smart guy, there are rules now that you have to fence in pools and the such to protect kids from drowning. What all of miss is that those statistics look the way they do because of gun laws. Also, if there were stricter gun laws then fewer guns would make it into the hands of gang members. Our gun culture even feeds the Mexican cartels in Mexico. If we just scrap all gun laws then more kids will be shot by accident when they play with their parent’s guns, more innocent people will be killed over stupid arguments, more people would die because they walked through the wrong yard by mistake. Not to mention most people shot during a home robbery are shot with their own guns. How many more of those will there be? These regulation did not come about because of some conspiracy to enslave white men and ruin this country. They came about because people were appaled by gun violence and vigilante justice. They came about because something had to be done. Now you all talk about how successful these regulations were when you talk about the supposedly low rate of gun violence. So now that it worked you want to remove those regulations and go back to the wild west. Not in my country that I love. I love my country and my fellow countrymen enough that I’d like to keep them both safe.

          • 45caliber

            Dave:

            “Also, if there were stricter gun laws then fewer guns would make it into the hands of gang members.”

            Really? How do you know? A cop friend of mine said that many of what he sees have been smuggled in from out of country. This is in Houston, of course. (And I don’t live there, thank God!)

            You also said that the cartels use guns from here. Now, I know that is basically wrong. The guns they get from here are M-16s that our government gives the Mexican army. The few guns they have found and identified from here are mostly in the hands of innocent family members of people living here. They buy the guns so their families in Mexico can have some sort of protection. But that is illegal there.

            In fact the numbers you hear bandied about in the press only show about 5% of the guns they do capture. Most of the rest are AK-47s or SKF’s that come from Russia. They also have machine guns, RPGs, etc. that cannot be bought in the US except under very special conditions. Some handguns are bought here but most aren’t that the gangs use. Those that are bought here are generally bought by someone in the gang as a one-time purchase and then traded with those across the border so the person here can have an untraceable gun.

          • 45caliber

            Dave:

            “If we just scrap all gun laws then more kids will be shot by accident when they play with their parent’s guns, more innocent people will be killed over stupid arguments, more people would die because they walked through the wrong yard by mistake. Not to mention most people shot during a home robbery are shot with their own guns.”

            Most of this is anti-gun people hype. Are you one or do you just believe what they tell you?

            I seriously doubt if more kids would be shot by accident. Most people who want a gun has one, legal or not. And most people are safety conscious about their kids.

            More innocent people killed over stupid arguments? I seriously doubt that too. If you are carrying a gun you are a lot more careful about what you take objection to. If you know the other person is also carrying, you are even more careful. The stories about the Old West shootouts are basically just that – stories.

            Most people are shot by their own guns during home robberies? Not according to the FBI data I saw but perhaps someone doctored it before I saw it. Most people shot by their own guns are involved in an argument with their spouse or someone else in their family – and again that is unlikely to change since it is doubtful that most who don’t have a gun will get one.

            Walking through the wrong yard by mistake? That very seldom happens – and when it does it is usually because the person has been warned many times and does it just to P off the owner.

            None of these are major problems now and probably never will be regardless of what the laws say. The real cause of most murders now is drug related problems. Two gangs get into a fight over turf. Someone takes a lot of drugs and then doesn’t pay off. That sort of thing.

          • DaveH

            As usual, Dave is fabricating facts. If anybody wants to learn the truth read John Lott’s book “More Guns Less Crime”:
            http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278021972&sr=8-1

          • DaveH

            And the children, who Liberals love to cite for their gun-control justification, would be much safer if they had gun-safety courses in School. But Liberals don’t really want the children to be safer, they just want to use them to promote their politics.

          • independant thinker

            “Actually, smart guy, there are rules now that you have to fence in pools and the such to protect kids from drowning. ”

            Dave there are still more kids drowned in swimming pools than shot by guns. There are also more people killed by doctors mistakes than are killed by guns and I do not see you calling for stricter controls on doctors or even the elimination of whole classes of doctors.

        • DaveH

          Whatever his statistics include, the 60,000 is flat wrong. He must have gotten the stats for another country.

    • CJ

      And as far as your comment about updating the Constitution… maybe we ought to take away the right to free speach from people who make idiotic statments… like you!

    • Dagney

      Liberalism is a mental illness. It’s is completely based on evil, lies, and half truths. If you are perpetuating the lies and wish to have power over people, you are a Megalomanic (for a shining example of a Megolomaniac in charge, see Barak Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, et. al.). If you believe the lies and help the megalomanic (see the main stream media), you are delusional. So, which are you?

      • Dave

        I’m one of the people in the real world not your right wing nightmare.

    • particlewoman

      So, Gene, do you also think that there are too many irresponsible women that have tax payer funded Planned Parenthood at their disposal? More future Americans are killed by abortion than by guns in this country every year (1,210,880). Maybe the constitution needs to be amended to protect the inherant birth right to LIFE. Oh, wait, it already does….focus on the REAL killer in this country. It isn’t guns.

    • 45caliber

      One of the main reasons that 60,000 people a year are killed by guns is that someone is trying to commit a crime. A cop kills a criminal and you shout “That is terrible! He shouldn’t have shot him! Murder!”

      The real problem is that not enough people carry guns. If all of us carried you would see a lot less crime and a lot more polite conversations.

      • blamesomeoneelse

        Check out how crime goes down when gun ownership goes up. Florida had 1st right to carry, then Texas and beleive it or not when guns were allowed in washington DC by court order crime went down. You will find these and more on the internet. Ask people on campus, schools, resturants, post office, military bases or other places where a nut starts shotting and everyone can only run…

        • 45caliber

          Back about 1965 or so, Reader’s Digest was very anti-gun. They hired a group to prove that the places with the most guns had the most crime.

          They found the exact opposite so RD refused to pay for the study. The group then sold the rights to the story to a newspaper chain and RD sued on the grounds that it was their data. But the court ruled that the group had a right to sell it since RD didn’t pay.

          The number one place in the country for guns was the Ozark Mountains in Arkansas – hillbilly country. There was an average of 2.5 guns per person – regardless of age or sex. And that is where I grew up.

          • Dave

            If you take the fact that the Ozarks have the lowest murder rates and attribute it to them having more guns than the average then you have violated every scientific principle in the book. It just so happens that the places that have the most crime are the ones with the toughest gun laws and it’s obvious why. That study is meaningless and that’s probably why the Reader’s Digest wanted nothing to do with it. That’s completely flawed logic.

          • 45caliber

            Dave:

            The places with the most crime have the toughest gun laws. And you are right. The meaning is obvious. The victims can’t protect themselves.

          • independant thinker

            “It just so happens that the places that have the most crime are the ones with the toughest gun laws and it’s obvious why.”

            Yup, Just what we have been saying all along. More restrictive gun laws = more crime. The violent crime rate in England is 2,000 per 100,000 population the violent crime rate in the US is about 450 per 100,000 population. This is from a study by a newspaper in England (Telegraph, UK)and was done some time after the last ban on firearms was put into effect that essentialy disarmed the british.

          • DaveH

            Listen to Dave talking to us about “flawed logic”. That from a Liberal who constantly throws out unsupported fabricated facts to bolster his positions.
            Even gun control supporters in Australia have to admit that the violent crime rate has gone up dramatically after the gun laws were instituted. But, like Dave, they will not throw in the towel. Their argument is that the assault rates were already growing before the gun laws were invoked. My question “Weren’t the gun laws created to decrease the assault rates?”. Obviously that didn’t work.
            Trying to pin down a Liberal is like trying to get a hold on a slippery fish with your bare hands.

      • Dave

        Really? I mean do you really mean that? Really?

        • 45caliber

          Yes, I do mean it. If you KNEW that the other person was armed would you flip him off if he cut in front of you in traffic? If you KNEW that the other person was armed would you attempt to rob him? If you KNEW the people around you were armed would you pull your gun? If you KNEW the other person was armed would you insult him?

          Incidently, I saw a breakdown of countries vs. crime not long ago. Do you know what the three countries with the least crime are? Switzerland where every adult male is issued a gun he must keep until he retires – and he has the option of keeping it them. Checkoslavacia (which I can’t spell) where the police will GIVE you a gun if you ask. And Israel where every group of 8 or more people MUST have at least one armed person. They give you guns there too. (Israel did surprise me due to all the terrorist attacks there but most of that is explosives.)

          And despite the liberal rant that the US has more crime and murders than any other country in the world, actually we aren’t even in the top 25. The top is Russia. And if you include suicide as murder as the liberals do here in the US, Japan is no. 2.

          • JC

            I lived in Phoenix before the illegal immigration got completely out of hand. It was an open cary city then and one of the most polite societies I had ever seen.

    • JC

      Where are you getting your numbers?

      • 45caliber

        Probably from the ‘statistics’ that were put together during the Clinton years. But they included ALL gun deaths and then compared them only against the admitted murders of other countries. When compared as murders to population or all deaths to population, we aren’t at the top by any means.

        In fact, in Houston they have about 3 murders a day – not all guns of course. According to a police friend, about 90% of them are gang related.

    • Vicki

      Gene is apparently new here to this timeline. We HAVE sensible laws to make people think before they pull the trigger. It is and has been for a LONG time a crime to shoot someone without cause. Stabbing them is not allowed either. Fortunately those who wrote the sensible laws realized the action of attacking someone was to be the focus of sensible laws as it is the action of attacking not the tool used that is important.

      What we also have is lots of insensible laws that try to forbid a free people from possessing the most effective tools for self and community defense.

      Now, Gene, Tell me why, a criminal who is intent on disobeying one of the already sensible laws above is going to care about your insensible laws?

      • Dave

        For someone to stab someone they have to be a certain kind of person. You have to get close to someone and feel the knife enter their body. It’s not easy to do. It makes you think more than twice about using that weapon except when you think it’s absolutely necessary. A gun allows you to just point something at someone and squeeze the trigger. YOu can also miss and hit someone who wasn’t even involved. With a knife you don’t get as many people caught in the crossfire. It’s obvious why guns are treated differently. Also, there are a lot fewer cases of a kid accidentily stabbing themself with a knife and dying then kids accidentily shooting themsef or a friend.

        • 45caliber

          Have you ever stabbed someone? If you haven’t then you are either taking someone’s word for it or are putting yourself into their shoes – or trying to.

          It doesn’t matter whether you are a nice person or not, if you MUST do it to protect yourself or others, you will if you are any kind of man at all. And you will do it again if needed.

          The real problem is that most liberal “knowledge” of something like this comes from tv and movies or from what they THINK someone might feel. Both are wrong.

          The same is true for guns. It is possible to kill someone with a single shot but it is very unlikely. The same with knives. In fact, when someone is killed by a knife, they generally have 20+ stab wounds.

          • Todd

            45, your on target. Unfortunately most liberal “knowledge” comes from what they are told to think. Dave is a good example. Even confronted w/ copious discussions that refute his facts, he slavishly sticks to what he has heard, while simultaneously dismissing what you (and the rest of us) have heard. He’s thick enough he won’t see the irony, thus he’s like arguing w/ a wall. I wish someone could get it through their thick skull that liberty is the single most important thing in our country. It’s what sets us apart. Its what drives people to come here. If people die because we have this level of freedom and liberty, so be it. We don’t have to like it, but we can live in the real world and admit that it is happening. There is no way to put that number of deaths by criminal to zero as there will always be those who operate outside the law. That criminal element increases when you take away the ability of the average citizen to defend themselves. It lowers the bar (the risk v reward equation everyone uses to decide on their actions, good or bad). Criminals in an society prepared to defend itself will realize that the risks of a break in are very high (injury, pain, loss of life) and quickly decide it isn’t worth it for the most part. Remove the citizens ability to defend ourselves and that risk drops, letting more miscreants decide the risk is worth it, thus more crime. Simple logic.

        • vicki

          Dave writes:
          “For someone to stab someone they have to be a certain kind of person. You have to get close to someone and feel the knife enter their body.”

          That is exactly why a gun is good for self defense whereas a knife is not. I can stop a rapist (usually larger and stronger then me) with a gun long before he can get “close enough” to use his knife.

          • independant thinker

            I love knives I have carried a knife every day of my life since I was 8-10 years old and sometimes more than one depending on what I am doing. I feel I could do a credible job of defending myself against an unarmed attacker with one but like you Vicki a handgun is the prefered means for it eaqulizes differences in height, weight,etc.

          • 45caliber

            Thinker:

            I agree. In fact the press would absolutely love to visit my home. I collect swords, knives, etc. and probably have about a hundred fifty heavy weapons – not counting knives. And I’ve carried a knife all my life – more on occasion.

            The nice thing is that, as a member of the Society for Creative Anachronism, I know how to use every one of them too.

          • independant thinker

            45, I wonder if anyone else on here esp. those who spew the liberal stuff have any idea what the Society is?

    • Gray Ryder

      You sir, do not live in a location of high crime. Please, take the time to research the criminal statistics in areas and/or locations, schools, government building, churches, court roon and etc., where carrying of firearms is restricted. Also, do you know, that traveling citizens with license plates of states, that prohibit the carry of concealed firearms are a neon sign and/or a prime target in the possibility of becoming a victim of attack. There are never winners in such situations. The are only victims and survivers. I, Sir, personally elect to be a surviver.

      Then, compare the your findings to the locations as to where to the carrying of concealed weapons is legal for the citizens there of.

      I do not know your marital status, age or gender. However, would you drive through any large city,in Illinois,with your family members, where the possibilty of being attacked after Sundown ???? Yes I realise, that an assualt on anyone can occur anytime, but the percentage is far greater where the criminal thinks that the advantage is his/her favor.

      Please bear in mind, that when seconds count, the police are minutes away. Also, bear in mind that the police are not obligated to provide you personal individual protection. They are only obligated to act when an infraction of the law is in progress or (AFTER)a crime has been committed. Gray Ryder

      • 45caliber

        They aren’t truly required to act while the crime is in progress. A man in Houston (Tom Horn) confronted two burglars who had robbed a neighbor. They decided the old man would NEVER actually shoot and entered his yard to teach him a lesson. He killed both of them.

        The interesting thing is that a cop was sitting in his car less than a block away and watched the entire thing. He didn’t even get involved AFTER the fact; he called it in for others to handle.

        I will admit that MOST cops will try to get involved during the crime. And I better respect them.

      • Steve

        Steve says:
        July 1, 2010 at 7:24 pm
        EVERYONE THINK ABOUT THIS !!!

        Attorney General Eric Holder testified under oath, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, that neither he nor the President were going to institute any form of gun control. HE LIED UNDER OATH !!!

        Justice Sotomayor testified under oath, in front of that same Senate Panel, that she believed in the right of individuals to own a firearm.
        She was one of the dissenters in the minority opinion in MacDonald vs Chigago. SHE LIED UNDER OATH !!!

        Elana Kagan is now lying just the same as Obama, Holder and Sotomayor all did. They are all LIARS UNDER OATH and we have the videos to prove it. The Constitution provides for their removal from office in the impeachment clause. Where the hell is the only good lawyer out there who would take this on pro bono.

        Reply

    • jimminety bop

      Most of those 60,000 that were killed were more than likely killed by those too irresponsible to have a gun and also more than likely those irresponsiblesdid not have a license to carry, nor did they have did legally obtained gun. Most of those 60,000 were probably involved in drug use and/or dealing as were those that shot them. That’s a two-’fer’. The scum that was shot is not going to cost the taxpayerany money to compensate innocent victim that were robbed or mugged or for others to put him up in some plus jail and the twwo fer part is that the one that shot him, with any luck, will be gunned down by law enforcement.
      Some of the ones that were not in to drugs maybe lost their life to a citizen that was defending his property. Horray fir legally owned guns being used in the right way.
      The say that when guns become criminal only criminals guns is true. So, before any court or government entity decides to save us from ourselves by taking the guns away they had better do a study and discover that hardly any of those victims of guns were guilty of nothing and even more were not killed by a responsible gun owner!
      If they want mine they will have to come and take it and I have lived long enough to making dying for an ideal a pretty good way to go.
      Anyway, with the U.S.A that Ali Obama is going to create – who wants to be around!

      • Dave

        You’re an idiot. Any state that has gun laws still allows you to have a shotgun. I live in Maryland and there stricter gun laws here but I can walk into Walmart and buy a shotgun today. I actually do own a shotgun. So if a criminal comes into my house he’s not going to make it out and I’ll feel safe even with all of these scary gun laws around. Obama does not want to enslave you all. GET OVER IT!

        • 45caliber

          Prove it. His actions dictate otherwise as far as I’m concerned.

        • independant thinker

          Before he started running Obama supported banning the manufacture, sale, and posession of handguns. Before Obama started running for president he called for the re-institution of the ban on so called assualt weapons with expanded definitions that would include semi-auto shotguns, 22 rifles, and other semi-auto rifles. Even the ones that are called assualt weapons are not true assualt rifles but semi-auto only look-a-likes. After he was elected president Obama said he was not calling for the ban of any firearms because he did not have the votes to assure its passage. These are not the positions of someone who is not interested in taking guns away from the private citizen.

        • DaveH

          Shame on you, Dave, for considering to use such a gruesome weapon to stop an intruder who is probably not going to take as much from you as the Democrats take from people every month.

        • DaveH

          Isn’t it rich? A Liberal who bases his opinions on Hopes and Dreams has the nerve to call others “idiot”.
          It really gets under your skin, doesn’t it Liberal, that people are getting fed up with being pushed around by name-calling, ridiculing, controlling Liberals?

        • JC

          The Kenyan works for the Globalists, not America…ergo: He does want to enslave us, and no I won’t be getting over it. There’s a criminal and an imposter in the White House. It’s Treason.

    • DaveH

      Gene,
      The figures I have seen are about 30,000 (less than the 40,000 for automobiles) and 40% of those are suicides. Could you provide a reference for the 60,000 you stated?
      If you really want to learn the facts about guns, see this:
      http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.0/GunFacts4-0-Screen.pdf

      • 45caliber

        The statistics the liberals like to quote include EVERY gun death in the US. Suicides? That’ murder of oneself. Self defense? You killed someone: murder. The police shoot someone shooting at them? That’s murder too.

        Then they compare it to the murder rates as reported in other countries. So suddenly we are the murder capitol of the world.

        However … the number one country for murders in the world is Russia. If you include ALL gun deaths, number two is Japan due to suicides. The US isn’t even in the top 25.

        • DaveH

          The number of homicides by firearms is about 12,000 per year, which incidentally is less than the number of people killed by accidental falls (about 15,000 per year). I suppose next the Liberals will be mandating walkers for all of us.

    • JM

      The fact that you apparently don’t grasp is that people have not changed since the 1700′s. As a matter of fact people haven’t changed in at least 4000 years. Read the Bible to find out how much we are the same today. Of course you understand that people are the issue not firearms. There have been more people killed by falling trees along the road than by firearm accident in my state.The thing that has changed currently is our apathy toward corrupt polititions that are ruining this country.

    • rons321

      Gene. You might be right in what you say, however, if the dam court system in this country would the job correctly and put the criminals that use guns where there belong,(and I don’t mean prisons) maybe we would have less crime with guns. I am a gun owner, and proud to be one, however, I have respect for my firearms and I use them for my pleasure. I am sure you are NOT a gun owner, and if so, I do understand your feeling about guns. So, as an abiding American, I would like to keep my guns and continue to use them as I see fit.

  • chucky

    THE REAL SCARY PART OF THIS DECISION IS THAT PERSONAL OPINION IS EXPRESSED BY THE 4 JUSTICES WHO VOTED AGAINST IT. NOT THE CONSTITUTION (WHICH THEY PLACED THEIR HANDS ON THE BIBLE AND SWORE TO PROTECT AND UPHOLD) WHEN THE LETTER OF THE LAW IS NOT FOLLOWED IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND PERSONAL OPINION IS INVOLVED. IT PUTS OUR U.S. CONSTITUTION IN GRAVE DANGER. IT IS JUST AS DANGEROUS AS AN ADMINISTRATION THAT WANTS TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT LAWS IT WILL ENFORCE,AND WHAT LAWS THEY WILL IGNORE AND NOT ENFORCE(ILLEGALS) ALL LAWS MUST BE ENFORCED(MARTHA STEWART IS THE ONLY INSIDE TRADER ON WALL STREET? LOL) NOBODY TOOK BRIBES IN THE MMS? I COULD GO ON ALL DAY BUT THERE ARE 2 EXAMPLES. THE SYSTEM IS NOT BROKEN THERE ARE LAWS TO PROTECT THE SYSTEM, BUT NOBODY IS ENFORCING THEM. WELCOME TO ROME 2010.

    • 45caliber

      You are correct. One of the biggest laughs I’ve gotten was when Virginia started enforcing the federal gun laws on criminals. The feds were agaust at the very idea! Instead they wanted more laws, not enforcement of the ones they had.

      • independant thinker

        Hoe true and it has brought about a reduction in crime in Va.

        • independant thinker

          oops……….shoud be how true

    • Dave

      Yes, the president should be held responsible if anyone breaks ANY law without getting caught. He should be more on top of that. The opinions expressed by the justices is their opinion of how the constitution should be interpreted. That’s why they’re there.

      • 45caliber

        No, that is the liberal idea of judges.

        The reason they are there is to state whether or not a law passed by Congress is legal based on what the Constitution says.

        If you allow judges to use their own opinion on every law then no law can be enforced since judges would likely change their opinions as time passes or depending upon who is in front of them.

  • BILL

    Anyone who dosen’t belive in personal freedom needs to relocate to China, This is where they live the lifestyle the liberals want here.Guess what , WE AMERICANS ain”t buying into the libs BS.Stock up on weapons and ammo while you can because the time is near when we will need it to protect our freedoms and ourselves.

    • Dave

      Yes, Liberal love restrictive Dictatorial communist regimes. That’s’ exactly right. You’re so smart. Kill Commies!!!! Do you actually think before you right something? Communists and Liberals are not the same thing. TURN OFF FOX!!!!!!!

      • 45caliber

        They may not be the same thing but it certainly seems as if they have the same goals.

        If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, then it is very likely it is a duck.

      • DaveH

        So funny.
        Liberal Dave says “Do you actually think before you right something?”.

        My apologies if you were talking about boxing Dave.

  • Angel-Wanna-Be

    Gun control only controls the portion of the population that actually abide by the laws. It does nothing to the criminals!!__ Even when criminals are caught, procecuted and sentenced, they go to PRISON RESORTS!__What happened to stripped jumpsuits, chain gangs and breaking rock??__Oh, I forgot, that’s not polically correct. God forbid we torture those who rob, kill and/or mame our families.
    Washington Corruption at it’s finest. We gotta keep on our toes and do what Chip Wood always says, Keep Some Powder Dry!!

    • 45caliber

      There is an interesting federal prison in Missouri. It is meant for politicians and their friends.

      Each prisoner is given his own house. His family lives with him. Instead of prison meals, he makes up a list of food to get and the prison provides it. (Want lobster? Just say so!) Each inmate gets his own car. There is a country club where they can go with family to get a nice dinner and drinks. They are allowed to check out of the prison each morning and back in each evening so they can go to the nearest town and find a job if they wish. Most have law offices there.

      That’s why the guy who was sent to prison over Enron wanted to pick his own prison.

      • Angel-Wanna-Be

        45caliber, Oh well hell then, it’s no wonder Washington politicians are corrupt, why should they be made to toe the line. If they break the law and go to prison, they’ll get the same damn amenities there, they can get at home!!__BTW___I think it would be interesting to see, just how much the Atheists and the Progressives, DON’T LIKE or believe in the phrase, God given Inalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, If they were taken from them?__Do you think they’d be smart enough to realize they were gone or would they need a Government informant??

        • 45caliber

          They don’t like to advertise the prison. They are afraid that people might object. But I’ll bet it’s the same prison they are sending that Congressman from LA who was caught with $90,000 in the freezer.

        • 45caliber

          As for the athiests, etc. they all believe that the government gives you rights. Why do you think they keep talking about rights when they talk about healthcare, etc.?

          But anything that gives you rights also has the right to take rights away from you. So they want to do that too. Such as your right (from God) to protect yoursel or your right (from God) to worship. That might “offend” them. And we can’t have that.

      • john

        WHERE IS THIS PLACE? AND A NAME.

        • 45caliber

          Look it up.

    • Dave

      Have you ever been to prison?

      • 45caliber

        I worked in one for 4 months one time. She’s pretty close to what they are. Have you ever been in prison?

  • slickporsche

    I really think that you people, that do not like the constitution of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, should then get the hell out of our country before we need to start shooting you for breathing our oxygen and occupying space. When the shooting begins I will then know the saving of America has begun and will succede. I can clearly see that it will take a revolution to make America whole again.

  • slickporsche

    We need to start to build a malitia now! Time is wasting and we are getting no where. Once we have a well regulated malitia, we then nominate people to run a new government in D.C., Who will be put in place when the current administration is thrown out. This country is in such bad shape, that I could be arrested for this very post. Are you afraid America? I’m not! Which side do you think the military will be on?? WE also need to disconnect ourselves from both parties and the government as a whole. Tell them, you are no longer recognized as our government. Truth! Foreigners have come here to work and obtain legal status, but decided to return to their country,because they say they felt like they were being choked to death by all the laws. TOO STRICK is what I have heard many times.

    • 45caliber

      The United States has 3% of the world’s population.

      However we have over 50% of the world’s population of lawyers.

    • TIghtjaws

      I have been ready for many years,but as a sidebar,it’s spelled “militia” and “too strict”.

    • Dave

      You probably do hear that because no one you know is well educated.

      • DaveH

        Well educated? You are just further evidence of the failure of our public schools.

        • JC

          Whic have been producing narcissistic socialists for a while now.
          A very toxic and obnoxious combination.

  • slickporsche

    Hmmm All show and no go huh? That is why this country is in such bad shape and you will lose all of your freedom. Most of you won’t even get your lazy asses of the couch to go vote, and then you wonder why you have lunatic for president, vice president and speaker of the house. I am beginning to think you love this situation as it is like,as it is like a soap opera.

    • independant thinker

      I assure you I vote. I am an independent and do not vote a party line. I vote for the person I believe will best represent my positions. There are far too many who “vote democratic because that is what daddy did, what I have always done, and I ain’t gonna change now”. I do not know how many times I have heard that. I am also sure the reverse is true in strong republican areas.

      • 45caliber

        Actally some of the strongest GOP areas are now in the South. But when I was growing up, the DEMS were the only real party here. In fact the only people the GOP ran for office was the national offices and the governor. Now it is the other way here. But there are still a lot of Dems who “vote like daddy did.”

        In fact, I’m a registered DEMOCRAT voter – but I haven’t voted Democrat since I was a kid. I vote for the person I think might do the best job or against a person (like Oblama) who I think would absolutely ruin everything.

  • Pete

    slickporsche says:
    July 1, 2010 at 7:14 am
    Hmmm All show and no go huh? That is why this country is in such bad shape and you will lose all of your freedom. Most of you won’t even get your lazy asses of the couch to go vote, and then you wonder why you have lunatic for president, vice president and speaker of the house. I am beginning to think you love this situation as it is like,as it is like a soap opera.
    ———————
    The lunatics in DC rely on the people’s ignorance and laziness to further their agenda. I admit, I was one of the sheep following the herd as well. But Somewhere along the trail I woke up. everything happening around us now is at the forefront of my mind. When will the rest of them wake up ?

    • slickporsche

      Very soon I hope! We do not have time to waste.

    • Vicki

      One of the few blessings in the election of 2008 and the near total control of the Congress and a Democrat president is that they have no patience and will move too fast.

      By doing so they wake many many people to the evil that they do. I hope and pray to my Creator that it is in time to save our country.

  • For-Life-Liberty-Family

    Presidents and Congressmen come and go. But, if we lose our freedoms it will be at the hand of our judges. Over the years corrupt judges have been appointed in the district courts and supreme court,legislating (making their own laws),using International law and their own opinions rather than upholding the laws,the constitution, and individual rights. Our judges are our last line of defense against an over stepping and or corrupt executive and legislative branches of gov’t. Our country is based on the rule of law but when all three branches of gov’t start to circumvent the laws and the constitution the people will be required to step in and save it. People may justify Kagan’s appointment in maintaining the status qou because she is only replacing another liberal judge. That is dangerous reasoning.

  • http://gmail i41

    Yes the ignorance of the beltway boobs shine on again. Of course the idoits were put there by by the idoit citizens. Have you ever seen or meet a conservative democraP, THERE ISN’T ONE.

    • john

      AND THE EVEN WORSE IDIOT CITIZENS DID THE SAME THING IN 1980, 1984, 2001, 2004.

  • http://none gary

    People might wake up when they see the tax burden of Obummer
    in 2011. Obummer can not hide his bs lies once the results of his idiotic plans take place in 2011.

  • FreedomFighter

    4 on high, bringing all down low. can the republic survive just one more fool on the hill.

    FF

  • For-Life-Liberty-Family

    Making a new bumper sticker; “Please, no more Democrates! I can’t afford them!

    • Angel-Wanna-Be

      Forlifelibertyandfamily__At’s a good one!

  • For-Life-Liberty-Family

    Obama and the leftist say the Constitution is a flawed and outdated document.That tops the “Most Stupid Comments of the Century” list. So when does one’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,… ect., GOD GIVEN RIGHTS, become flawed and out dated?

    • john

      ACTUALLY GOD HAS GIVEN MAN ONLY TWO RIGHTS. THE RIGHT OF A FREE WILL( WHETHER YOU ACTUALLY GET TO USE OR NOT USE, IS STRICTLY A RESULT OF HOW HUMANS DEAL WITH EACH OTHER. GOD DOES NOT INTERFERE.) SECOND-THE RIGHT TO DIE. IF THESE RIGHTS YOU SPEAK OF WERE “GOD GIVEN”, WE WOULDN’T HAVE TO FIGHT TO KEEP THEM.

      • vicki

        The power of free will is THE fundamental gift from which all rights spring. The fact that humans have to fight to protect fundamental rights that spring from free will is because some humans don’t want to allow others to exercise their free will.

        SOME of those fundamental rights are listed in the Declaration of Independence. They include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (note pursuit of not just happiness)

        These rights are self evident to most of us as they were to our founding fathers. Regrettably due to poor or planned public education the ability to see these self evident rights seems to have been severely restricted in many people.

  • slickporsche

    http://atlah.org/atlahworldwide/?p=8723 PLEASE CHECK THIS OUT NOW!

    • JeffH

      Isn’t Manning a great speaker…he’s got it right…

      • WarriorH

        I don’t believe Manning has much use for the Demigod! Good for him, he sees the light.

      • Angel-Wanna-Be

        JeffH, Herman Cain’s pretty good too, a down to earth Conservative!

        • independant thinker

          How many of you read Thomas Sowel’s column in the paper? He has some interesting thoughts and opinions about Obama.

  • http://mac.com Stutz

    The courts are our last line of defense for freedom. O’buma and his pals know this. Who would have ever thought that such an unqualified, biased radical such as Kagan would ever be considered to the highest court. Never mind being so easily confirmed. One more nomination after her by this President (which is likely to come next year) and whatever is left of your freedoms will be gone, including your guns! WE GET WHAT WE VOTE FOR. Shame on the people for not educating themselves and paying attention to the issues and thinking about THE COUNTRY rather than their own pocketbooks. There is little time to smarten up, let’s pray that enough of the people do so we can have a shot a saving freedom in this country. Once lost, freedom is rarely regained. Every Senator and Representative who “goes along” with this confirmation should be “dethroned” come November.

    • Dave

      It’s the anti tax people that are looking at their pocket books. They want everything but not to pay for it. The people spoke because they were afraid of letting the radical right get their agenda accomplished because it will ruin this country. Let’s see what happens after the Republicans take back the House. Let’s see what happens if the unwise masses vote a Republican in as President. This country will go to [offensive word removed] and you will all sit their with a confused look on your face because you thought everything bad came from Obama and Pelosi. I still have yet to hear from anyone here when the Good Old Days were when America was perfect.

      • 45caliber

        “It’s the anti tax people that are looking at their pocket books. They want everything but not to pay for it.”

        Actually … we anti tax people don’t want everything. We want roads. We want military. And that is about all. And we’re willing to pay for that. It’s the ones who want things like “free” healthcare, “free” money from the government, “free” food, etc. that are the problem, particularly since they want US to pay for it instead of them.

      • DaveH

        When we were in our 20s (30+ years ago), we were able to buy a 1300 sq. ft. house with 5 years of mine and my wife’s leftover wages.
        Our first child was delivered Caesarean for $400 cash. That’s right, $400 cash (one months savings). We had no medical insurance.
        Sure there were problems. There always will be, no matter how much Government tries to protect us (are they really trying?). But things were a lot simpler then.
        About that same time, the loopy Liberal Jimmy Carter came along (with help from Congress of course) and blew the hell out of the economy.

      • Allan

        Between 2000 and 2008, what made matters worse was constant histrionics by liberals, as well as intentional straining of the system by groups like ACORN. Obama is steeped in these traditions.

  • http://mac.com Stutz

    If we don’t move quickly and decisively, the next vote for gun rights (or any other constitutional right we think we still have) will go down down 5-4 and if this nonsense continues, eventually the vote will be 9-0 against the people and then we’re done folks!

  • http://yahoo Bob Belcher

    The SUPREME COURT IS A BODY TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS FORMOST. A CONSTITUTIONAL VOTE SHOULD ALWAYS BE A 9 TO 0 VOTE IF THEY ARE DOING WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOST TO DO.POLITICES SHOULD NEVER BE INVOLVED IN THE LAW.EVERYONE IN WASHINGTON THAT IS SWOREN IN OFFICE HAS SWOREN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS THE ONES THAT DON’T SHOULD BE KICKED OUT OF OFFICE BY LAW.

    • john

      MY POSITION IS THAT NEITHER THE PRESIDENT NOR ANY ONE ASSOCIATED IN ANY WAY WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTY SHOULD CHOOSE SUPREME COURT, OR MAYBE ANY COURT, JUDGES.

  • Lou

    I think enough people are ready to throw the “vermin” out. What we need is a leader with the magnetic charisma to get us all pulling in the same direction. Historically when things seem darkest a new leader emerges. In just wish he/she would hurry up. Its looking very dark around here.

    • 45caliber

      The trouble is that several leaders HAVE shown up. The MSM on the other hand, immediately starts tearing them apart.

      Take Palin, for example. She got more vetting in the first two weeks after McClain nominated her than Oblama has gotten yet. Every chance of a little blemish was exposed and ridiculed over and over.

      I think the first thing we need to do is return journalism to the reporting of facts, not opinions. Then we might be able to get the rest of the nation straight.

      • Vicki

        Social networking (not Social Justice ;) ) is how we bypass MSM. Get good candidates and talk them up on twitter, facebook etc. Make an account on those sites and follow your favorites like Sarah Palin.

        MSM knows it is doomed. Politicians are beginning to catch on which is why the attempts to neutralize (net neutrality :) ) the effectiveness of the internet.

      • DaveH

        The problem is that there can be no viable candidates because Government is just into too much of our personal lives. No man knows what’s best for all the citizens. So, no matter who we elect, he will fail. The only solution is to shrink our Government back to the Constitutional size that it was intended to be. And the individuals need to get back to being responsible for themselves. They need to quit foolishly thinking, even though they won’t make the effort to take care of themselves, that somebody else is going to make that effort for them. Dream on.

    • john

      NO MATTER WHO IS IN OFFICE, I THINK SOMEONE ALWAYS WANTS TO THROW THE VERMIN OUT.

      • 45caliber

        You are correct. The real problem is that most of them really ARE vermin. From both parties.

  • bp

    How do you impeach a Supreme Court Justice? The minority 4 failed to keep their oath of office, yes?! Anyone?

    • 45caliber

      There is no present method of replacing a Supreme Court Justice EXCEPT if they retire or they die. We could probably get by on impeachment since a few federal judges have been impeached. Personally I think we need term limits on all federal judges instead of getting their position for life.

    • TIghtjaws

      How? Call your Senators and raise holy hell.

  • bp

    Ben; Thank you for a richly written column. Excellent.

  • grandpa frog

    The rights of the government are clearly written out in the Constitution, the reasoning given by the Declaration of Independence. All other rights belong to the people. The Second amendment was written so the people could forceably eject a government that refused the people these rights. The Supreme Court’s responsibility is to make sure that the rights and responsibilities as detailed in the Constitution are maintained. However, the Court has become so subverted that too many of the judges do not interprete court cases in respect to the Constitution, but in accordance to their personal wishes. The question is, how do the people replace these judges?

    • Vicki

      There are no rights of government in the Constitution because government can not have rights.

      The Constitution lists a specific set of powers and responsibilities that the Fedgov has. It list a specific set of rights that PEOPLE have that must never be abridged/infringed etc.

      Amendment 9 reminds us that people have many more rights then listed in the bill of rights

      Amendment 10 reminds us that the people can only delegate to the States powers that are not reserved for FedGov (coining money for instance) and powers that are not forbidden to government in general (2nd amendment etc).

  • Ellet Wilson

    Gene….”But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and lawless, and the the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow… For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminal. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.” Jeff Snyder October 1994

    Gene, I suspect you get your information from the “Brady Bunch”, the harbingers of misinformation. There are 80 million law-abiding “gun” owners in this country. “gun” deaths are down even with the gangs and illegal drug groups being on a murder binge.
    Gun laws only affect the law abiding. CCW holders have a better safety record than law enforcement. Statistics have show another side affect of more CCW holders is fewer law enforcement officers have been murdered. Every state that has increased their number of CCW holders has had a dramatic drop in all criminal activity.

    • 45caliber

      One interesting fact – at least to me -

      Houston has about 3 murders a day. 90+% of them are gang related.

      As one cop told me, “If they would only shoot each other, I’d give them the ammo.”

  • armed and dangerous

    WE are the armed majority! When is it going to be time to tell those leftist losers that if they try to ban one more of our Constitutional rights we will gather-up about 130 – 150 million law abiding, gun owning citizens and enact the 2nd Amendment for it’s literal meaning?!!

    They say there are about 44 million “registered” gun owners. That number doesn’t take into account the owners of guns before the national registry, nor does it take into account the sons, daughters, wives, etc OF those registered owners that also “own & use” guns but aren’t listed as the “registered” owners. That takes the 44 million number and multiplies it by a factor of about 3 or more. That comes out to about half the US population as being some sort of a freedom loving gun owner. When are WE going to say enough is enough and tell THEM what they are going to stop this constant attack on our rights? The 2nd Amendment was put there for this very reason! Tell them we WILL enact it and enforce it if we have to, and tell them if they don’t stop CONSTANTLY challenging and trying to take away our rights they will see the other ends of the barrels of 130 or so million angry, armed citizens that WILL see to it that these attacks STOP once and for all! Again, that’s why the 2nd amendment was put there in the first place, so just when IS it time to use it?

    • 45caliber

      Also keep in mind that the total population of the US includes about 20% kids who can’t use guns. If you subtract them, there is a huge number of gun owners.

      Both a Japanese admiral in WWII and Krueschef’s son stated that the only reason no attack was made on the US by them was because nearly every adult had their own guns available.

  • Airangel

    You know this is so troublesome at how our Freedom “almost wasn’t in regards to Arms”…this article is somewhat related to our future freedoms if Kagan is nominated today!

    *Kagan’s administration forced Blue-Cross, Blue-Shield to pay for sex-change operations as a benefit for students as Dean of Harvard Law

    *The Harvard Crimson reports prove Elena Kagan teamed up with the Lambda “Trans-gender Task Force” as Harvard Law Dean overseeing the administrative team that forced Blue-Cross, Blue-Shield to provide sex-change operations as a paid benefit, including breast enhancement or breast-removal (but not yet genital mutilation) for students or faculty who suffer from “gender identity disorder.” The partial sex-change operations must be fully covered by insurance premiums, as Kagan’s administrators demanded they be funded as an “equal right.”

    *Kagan also discussed allowing cross-dressing men to use ladies bathrooms at Harvard, after sympathetically hearing that demand by the Lambda community of homosexual students. (sympathetically)!

    *”Cross-dressing must be allowed without comment or reaction,” the report reads. Kagan’s administration thus pressured censorship of critical opinion (hmmm freedom of speech anyone?)

    To rule sympathetically, make HUGE changes according to emotion and make it so that anyone disagreeing with this thought process is the enemy if you disagree…most disturbing for someone of this mindset to sit as a lifetime judge on the SC. (I certainly would not want to be in a public bathroom and have a man, “professing to be a woman” in there with me…what about my rights of being super uncomfortable with it all? Do we need 3 bathrooms then? Male,Female and ???

    http://sn119w.snt119.mail.live.com/default.aspx?wa=wsignin1.0

    You don’t have to be religious to sign the petition but this will be the worst injustice for her to hold this seat! Based on her actions as Dean, she will NOT support or uphold the contitution!

    • Angel-Wanna-Be

      Airangel__Ah, yes the Political Correctiveness strikes agiain!._-I think 45 Caliber said in another post(correct me If the name is wrong, anyone)__Political Correctiveness is a form of mind control, because it truley does force you, not to say what’s truley on your mind!__

    • vicki

      Airangel writes:
      “what about my rights of being super uncomfortable with it all?”

      How is that any different than a liberal who doesn’t want you to sit next to them because you have a gun? Liberals often says they feel super uncomfortable with it all.?

      Is it proper for you to suppress their right to express themselves but not for them to suppress your right to defend yourself?

      • Airangel

        Vicki, unless it’s law enforcement or a criminal, most people wouldn’t have a clue someone sitting or standing next to them even had a gun, (it’s in a purse or concealed so there’s nothing to be uncomfortalbe with) it’s not like they go waving it around…unless it’s the criminal…which they’ve always been that way, nothing new there! I’d feel more comfortable sitting next to a law abiding citizen with a gun then coming out of the ladies bathroom stall only to see a man in there claiming to be a woman while shoving his privates into panties! Ughh! That is forcing an obscenity on me…I would never send any decent, dignified, respectful student to Harvard! It’s morals are disintegrating…sorry, I’m not going to be politically correct, it’s my opinion about allowing men into women’s public restrooms, just because they say they are more woman than man! The very idea that Kagan forced Insurance companies to pay for sex changes is apalling!

        • Airangel

          I know Kagan ruling for Insurance companies to PAY for transgender sex changes is off the subject but it went to her character and her way of judging with sympathy and enforcing policy according to “how she feels”…this is an added check mark to her character and in my opinion, quailifications to be nominated as a lifetime judge because we know this gun law will be challenged again! She’ll get nominated because we have spineless, gutless wonders in office!

        • vicki

          I made it clear in my example that the liberal knew that you had a gun with you. He/she will claim that he/she is uncomfortable. How does that give them the right to give government the power to force you to give up your right to carry that gun.

          You also evaded my question of how do you have the right to force someone else to give up their right to self expression?

          If you do not grant explicitly protected freedom to others why do you expect them to honor your explicitly protected freedoms?

          Please do not answer about private parts as it would be just as improper for a woman to expose her genitals to you.

          • independant thinker

            Vicki, Airangel………….From what I have read if they are cross dressers they are most likely hetrosexual and as such would be hoping for a free “peek”.

  • Stewart

    If I’m not mistaken, the supreme court does not have the constitutional authority to circumvent the bill of rights. I could be mistaken on this, It would be great if someone presented the facts concerning their constitutional authority. I believe the only reason you’re being exposed to this is because they want you to believe they have such authority. I’m not sure, but I think it would take a constitutional convention to make that happen. Quit blaming the children for their inept stupidity. They can’t even begin to understand the consequences of their position. Their only concern is that they’re part of the club. Those poor people have been completely brain washed by some serious experts. The only thing that’s going to save this country is the truth. The nature of the real threat is in their ability divide and conquer. Haven’t you noticed all these little insane factions running around taking advantage of the weak minded who would do anything for attention. The only thing that’s going to save this country is lots of love, attention and caring for one another. The insane criminal behavior we’ve unfortunately grown accustomed to can not survive the light of truth. I’m not talking about supposition, opinion or conjecture here. I’m talking about real facts,like, let’s see…When I was taking a class to qualify for my concealed weapons permit, A retired U.S. Marine Corps Sergeant Major who was teaching the class stated, It’s a fact that between 22 & 24 times more people are bludgeoned to death with hands and feet than are shot and killed with guns. Oh, and by the way, he is also an instructor for the police academy in that state. He also stated, oh, and by the way, that’s something that a lot of people don’t want you to know. A great source of information is John R.Lott. If I’m not mistaken, he holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA. Dr. Lott was an advocate for gun control like the rest of the unholy unwashed brain dead educated few drowning in political correctness. It is my understanding that he decided that he would put this issue to rest once and for all, doing an exhaustive study on the effects of guns in society. He is now one of the leading pro-gun advocates in the country. Oh, and by the way, his decision to change his position on the gun issue was based on an extensive study that he personally lead. He’s a great man, very intelligent and well educated. Oh and by the way, on his website is an editorial about “Overheated Democrat rhetoric?”
    excerpt: “Comparing GOP tactics to the fast-striking forces of Nazi Germany, Biden warns in a message sent by the DCCC today:”

    This is a perfect example of the lies and stupidity the American people are being exposed to. Remember we were talking about this thing called truth and how it would expose those with less than honorable intentions. I know, why don’t we take a little historical excursion. Oh, that’s right, it was the Nazis that were all about gun control. Wow, imagine that. Da…..

    Please everyone, forget your petty differences. Wake up and look at the facts. You could blink and find yourself in a different country tomorrow. Do you like having the ability to say what’s on your mind without fear of persecution or should I say prosecution.

    May God bless us all, I’s afraid we’re really going to need it.

    • 45caliber

      “If I’m not mistaken, the supreme court does not have the constitutional authority to circumvent the bill of rights.”

      You are correct. There is NOTHING that gives them that right in the Constitution. The ONLY way that the Constitution gives to change it is to make a new amendment. Congress nor the President can change any of the bill of rights either.

      However, they do because either the people don’t know what is in the Constitution any more (it isn’t taught in schools now) or because the people don’t pay any attention. As for the liberals, they are so focused on getting more freebees that they don’t care what it might say.

      • vicki

        POWER not right. The Supreme Court has powers. They have a job to do and that is to interpret the law and judge its constitutionality.
        They are delegated the POWER to decide if a law should exist based on their finding.

        • 45caliber

          vicki:
          You are correct. They are to determine if a law is Constitutional. They are NOT to determine who is right or wrong or who is innocent or guilty. But too many times they do.

  • chuck b

    bringing our country back to a constitutional government is going to take more than talking. we have allowed the education system to overthrow our principles in order for them to install a marxist type of thinking and have erased our history in order to encompass a multi-culture society. we have been cowed down by words such as racism, bigot and other names, i know a lot of people of different color who are great americans and they believe in our country as i do, however, there are a majority of them that do not. we have allowed this to happen over the years and now we have reached the pinnacle of liberalism. our sup. ct. is just one vote away from throwing the constitution out the window. the republicans that sat on the hearing for kagan should be voted out of office. they showed their true republican colors, “wimps” the republican party is just that. we should muster the last of our true americans and put a stop to barry soetoro and these communist legislators that are running this country,

    • vicki

      Any culture but ours :)

    • 45caliber

      For many many years it was customary for the opposition party to agree to a candidate for the Supreme Court if nothing was found that obviously disqualified them – such as committing a crime.

      The Republicans still tend to do this. The Democrats, however, insist that all judges MUST be just like them. I think it is time that the Republicans did the same as long as the Democrats refuse to cooperate.

      • WarriorH

        Kagan admitted in the hearings she is a “progressive” I sent messages to Republican Senators yesterday imploring them to NOT allow this travestry to take place with whatever means are at their disposal. I would have sent the same message to the two democrap bumpkins in Illinois but one of the bozo’s is too busy attempting to get the fraud in chief to name an Asian Carp Czar. No BS , can you believe this foolishness? Anyone got room for a conservative Illinoisan? This place is a loony bin.

      • Allan

        You’re right, because they’re going to be called obstructionists regardless.

  • BrotherPatriot

    I am a firm believer in the concept of ROOT level thinking. Here is a few examples of ROOT level thinking.

    A vote NEVER should have taken place to begin with in regards to the American peoples right to own guns. Our rights to keep and bear arms can NEVER be brought into question. EVER. We the people are the final check valve regarding the integrity of America. The Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution are written with this in mind. Anyone who supports disarming the American people should immediately be removed from office. PERIOD.

    We the people need to be rid of Central Banking. Yes, I’m saying it…the Federal Reserve needs to be abolished, removed, phased out…it’s existance needs to come to an END. The Federal reserve is a privately owned entity that doesn’t have to report to anyone. To my knowledge they have yet to ever divulged their financial information to WE the people like other business’, etc. Money is their control over us. Shed that (and investigate all the people connected) and perhaps we actually might be able to get back to being the REPUBlIC that we are at the ROOT level! The real power is with the money and the influence it holds. There are 0 reasons why our Government can’t make the fake money themselves without having to borrow it (make the people go in debt) from a private entity…LoL. President Abraham Lincoln had began printing money that was legal tender and owned by the american people. JFK said that he intended to get rid of the Federal (not) Reserve and these are the KEY ROOT level reasons they were killed. It threatened their ROOT level control.

    We now have proven that a secretive group has been meeting once a year and they have been setting their policy upon the rest of the world against our wills. There is much talk saying that they don’t set policy. The ROOT truth is that they themselves said they created the EU and the Euro. That’s setting policy, people. When they gather the top 40-50 corporations in the worlds leading CEO’s/Presidents, royalty from nations, congressman and senators (<— Direct violation of the Logan Act if American officials go behind closed doors) and then tell them what to do…this shows that who we think are the leaders in the world are but puppets themselves. This shadow government is currently named the Bilderberg Group and attached to them are organizations that carry out their agenda. (I recommend you investigate who the people are that make up this group and then research what history is attached to those people. I'll leave it as a surprise as to who those people are…just for fun, but I will tell you that their organization most likely has a building or two in your very own city! These people MUST be stopped, investigated, arrested and removed from the world stage. The VIRUS that they are has infected us for a long time. I think perhaps it's time to administer the cure and that my friends, is ROOT level thinking.

    God bless and unfortunately, keep your powder dry.

    Yol Bolsun.

    • 45caliber

      In 1933 FDR has an “emergency” called Congress about Christmas. They declared bankruptcy and turned the banking industry over to four families to run. One of course was the Roosevelts. Another was the Rothchilds in the Netherlands. The Rothchilds bought out the rest and now own it alone.

      For many decades they floated all the rest of the world’s money against the dollar. That meant that they made an effort to control inflation of the dollar and let everyone else’s money do whatever it wanted. They make their money by “buying” and “selling” money. When the yen, for example, is low, they buy it and then use their money to get the price raised again.

      Only Russia, to my knowledge, refuses to allow them to do this. As a result, the only way Russia can buy from other countries is with rubles or by acquiring money from sale of items.

      About ten or fifteen years ago, the Rothchilds changed to using the Euro as the base so our dollar has been allowed to float. This is part of the reason that we have the economic problems we do. But the euro is in poor condition so we may go back.

      The reason the original Founding Fathers did NOT want a government-controlled bank was because they could print whatever money they wanted to spend, making the real money worthless – just as they are doing today. They wanted the government to be forced to live within its means, just like we have to do.

    • 45caliber

      Oh, and the Federal Reserve the Rothchilds still owns has NEVER been audited. That is one thing Ron Paul is trying to do. He has more than half the Congress signed on but they keep adding amendments to limit what the audit can cover. Since the Federal Reserve both prints our money and controls it, no one knows what the Rothchilds may have done. Such as keep half the money printed for themselves or some such thing. That’s why he wants an audit – and why they don’t.

  • croat46

    Right on Brother patriot. Besides getting rid of the Federal Reserve I also think we should get rid of the income tax, and while we’re at it the IRS too. By the way both the income tax and the federal reserve act were both passed in the dead of night. Its past time to enact a fair or consumption tax and let everyone keep all of his or her paycheck. Now thats what I would call a stimulus! Let the people decide how much tax they will pay based upon what they buy. One last thing I think its time to divest ourselves of the U.N. too. Kick the headquarters out of our country along with all those pampered diplomats. God bless us.

    • 45caliber

      I agree that the UN should be kicked out. I suspect half of their “diplomats” are actually spies. I think some island somewhere could be found for the UN headquarters. The US still owns many of the Virgin Islands – give them one.

      I do feel that we should stay involved just to see what they are up to. But I don’t think we should be the one paying all their bills. And I also think we should exercise our veto rights as Russia and China do. If something is bad for our country we should veto it, not try to pretend that we should go along since the majority want it.

  • DaveH

    What did I tell you? Daley has already issued new gun-control rules. These power-hungry leaders don’t give a damn about the Supreme Court or the Constitution. We need to put them back on the streets where they belong:
    http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/news_details/article/116/2010/july/01/chicago-not-done-fighting-if-court-strikes-gun-ban.html

    • WarriorH

      And his new ordinance mandates a gun must be kept under lock and key INSIDE your house. Maybe he can have the census takers add this to their checklist when they come a visiting!

    • armed and dangerous

      Well, stand strong, stay armed and do what they do about our federal immigration laws… just ignore them. Let them pass all the laws they want. Let them “regulate” all they want and just ignore the idiots. I know it sounds crazy but so is all of the talk they do about which of those rights we get to keep and are for “the people” or not. The Constitution speaks of one batch of “people” when it referrs to “We the people” or ‘the people”. They don’t change meaning from Amendment to Amendment as “they” see fit or how “they” deem to “interpret” it. Twice now the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals (and rightfully so, as are all of the other Amendments), so it’s time to band together and tell them that this is as far as we (the ARMED citizens) and willing to go, and in fact, we now want many of the gun restrictions, bans and regulations lifted and reversed because that IS “infringing” on what is now ruled our individual rights. If they don’t want to acknowledge their own federal laws on things such as immigration, and even this new dyke Kagan says if they ban books the government won’t enforce it, then lets tell them that we are taking them at ther word and we too are ignoring those laws. What are they going to do… round up 150 or so million ARMED citizens and put us all in jail? LOL Yah, right. Good luck. They’ll die trying and the 2nd amendment guarantees us of that right!!!! Unfortunately I see this as a never ending battle. I honestly believe it’s going to take some sort of all out revolution or nation wide civil war to send the message to them LOUD and CLEAR that we want laws and we want what the Constitution guarantees us, and if they won’t make sure that happens farly… then we, the armed and free citizens will!! We ARE the tax payers, the business owners, the school teachers, the bus drivers, the construction workers, the lawyers, etc. Everyone should band together and simply tell them we will NOT pay any taxes and we will NOT obey any of their so called “laws” or restrictions on ANY of our Constitutional rights. Again, what are they going to do, round us all up? EVERY cop I know says the day that comes where they are ordered againts the people is the day they not only quit, but go against they system. Go “Oath-Keepers.org”!!

      • DaveH

        I wish all the like-minded Constitution lovers would move to the Conservative States and secede. Let the Liberals support themselves for a while. They would be crying some major blues.

    • JeffH

      Daley and Bloomberg will do everything they can to challenge and ignore this ruling. I received an email from the Calif Rifle and Pistol Association in partnership with the NRA are seeking to resolve:

      1. Resolve the incorporation issue
      2. Attack pre-empted local ordinances
      3. Identify appropriate cases to advance our right to keep and bear arms

      To implement that litigation plan, CRPA Foundation and the NRA have formed the California Legal Action Project (LAP),

      Read the NRA/CRPA strategic litigation plan letter from Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox. Now the ruling in the hard fought McDonald case opens the door for more legal challenges to state and local gun laws in California.
      http://calgunlaws.com/images/stories/Docs/McDonald/nra%20foundation%20first%20campaign%20letter.pdf

  • mehoward

    the 4 that voted against the right to bear arms, what
    do they think? They are there to uphold the constitution what part of the second amendment don’t they understand. Seems to me that they
    let the constitution down. Not a one of them are smart enough to revise
    our constitution so they have failed to do their job.
    There should be some way to fire them for breaking their oath. mehpensacola,fl

    • DaveH

      It’s called “judicial activism”. And they love to refer to the Constitution as a “living document” which means they should be able to judge whether something (in their opinion) is good for modern society rather than “is it Constitutional?”.
      Since the Judges are appointed rather than elected, such a system would be stepping all over our voting rights. But then, since when have Liberals cared about the rights of others?

  • ABinGA

    Hey Dave, @ 12:47pm you posted “if there were sticter gun laws then fewer guns would make it into the hands of gang members.” Who in the heck have you been listening to? Look at Chicago. A criminal has ways of picking up a gun almost anywhere. They know where to go. If they can’t buy one from a buddie then they go somewhere and steal it. Gun control hurts the honest people. Pass laws requiring eligible citizens to own a firearm and the crime rate will drop. I don’t remember which town in GA did this but crime actually did drop. If the criminal thinks he has a chance of getting shot he’ll have second thoughts.

    • JC

      It’s moronic isn’t it?

      • Denniso

        We have more and more guns in the entire country and we still have horrific crimes…what gives? You people all make the same silly lapse in logic,thinking that hardened criminals or guys high on meth will stop and think before they assault someone or invade a home. You think that criminals think exactly like law abiding people?

    • independant thinker

      Kennesaw Georgia if I remember correctly.

  • ABinGA

    DaveH @ 6:41 pm. I don’t think the Liberals could support themselves for very long.

  • ABinGA

    DaveH and 45Cal-Keep giving them hell! From what I see the libs could truly learn from folks like ya’ll if they would only listen. Truth may be crushed to the earth but crushed or not truth is still truth. Can’t remember who that came from but I like it.

  • http://www.americansoldierswife.com Ann Lindholm

    “-That when any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”

    I will remain armed to my dying day. For it is the government I fear, especially in these days. Great article once again Ben.

  • ABinGA

    Agreed JC—independant thinker, I believe you’re correct with Kennesaw. Ya’ll have a good morning. 2:00am and time to go.

  • James

    For the record: The Court didn’t enforce the Bill of Rights in a State, the Bill of Rights are restrictions the Founders placed upon the federal government. The Court stated: “We therfore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right in Heller. The judgement of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further procedings. It is so ordered.”
    The Court held that the “liberty” of the Fourteenth Amendment now includes the individual right to bear arms, as the Court held in D.C. v. Heller. It said the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause now means what the High Court deems to be acceptable process of law, rather than what any state deems it to be. While that may seem moot, it means Congress now has the power to regulate arms within the States.

  • bedbug

    It is not up to Congress to protect you! The Cops cant either, or wont. If you live in or near any of the ghettos, you are in danger. I love guns for self protection against THOSE CRIMINALS you folks JUDGE SHOULDN’T HAVE THEM, YET THEY STILL DO. SO WHEN ARE YOU BIG TIME FAT-MOUTHS GOING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT TAKING THEM FROM ALL OF THE NEIGHBOR-HOOD GANGSTERS THAT HAVE THEM?? It is one thing to sit on your fat asses and pontificate about it, but are too cowardly to put your own asses on the line to do something about it. When you come down to my neighborhood in you flowerdy dress or nice shark-skin suit to protect me and my family, Ill throw in with you. So, there is only one alternative, since you dont like guns….vote them out of office? HELL NO, GET A ROPE!!!

  • ABinGA

    They didn’t wait long, did they? This is from NewsMax

    The Chicago City Council on Friday approved what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the nation, but not before lashing out at the Supreme Court ruling they contend makes the city more dangerous because it will put more guns in people’s hands.

    The new ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or in their garages, with a handgun. It becomes law in 10 days, Corporation Counsel Mara Georges said.

    The vote comes just four days after the high court ruled Americans have the right to have handguns anywhere for self-defense — a ruling that makes the city’s 28-year-old ban on such weapons unenforceable.

    “I wish that we weren’t in the position where we’re struggling to figure out a way in which we can limit the guns on our streets and still meet the test that our Supreme Court has set for us,” said Alderman Toni Preckwinkle, minutes before the council voted 45-0 to approve the ordinance.

    • Denniso

      Good for the City Council and Chicago….

  • ABinGA

    Should’ve known it would be someone like Denniso who has their head stuck so far up their ___ they are oblivious to the real world!

  • mehoward

    The republicans in congress should filibuster ms Kagan. She is too self assured that she is going to be confirmed. They ought to rattle her cage to see how she will handle it. They didn’t ruffle Sotomeyer
    feathers, she said she was for the 2nd ammendment but when it came up for her to rule on it she ruled against it. These 2 women are very young they will be on the Supreme Court a long time unless God sees fit to remove them. This is too important for the republicans to just
    lay down and play the puppy dog. mehpensacola,fl

    • James

      Mehoward, when judge Sotomayor ruled that the Second Amendment’s restriction did not apply to New York State law, she was correct. Technically, that’s still correct. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court held: “We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller” (p. 50). The “Second Amendment RIGHT” (the right to bear arms) was incorporated, not the Second Amendment. You are confusing the right with the amendment. The Second Amendment is not the right, its “shall not be infringed” restriction still applies exclusively to the federal government. The McDonald Court just held that “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment, now includes the right to bear arms as held in Heller (2008). Rights are inalienable, they are not dependent on any constitution for their existence, they existed before the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Randy

    The Second Amendment does not provide us freedom, but implies a responsibility for all citizens of the U.S.A., just as voting is. The one thing that guarantees our freedom is our ‘Constitution’, and it could do so without the amendments, though they make it easier to maintain. The biggest threat to our freedom is the destruction of that ‘Constitution’ and it is under seige constantly by liberals and sadly by the ‘Democratic Party’ of today. The most omnimous attack on it, from its inception till today, has been made by Barrack Hussein Obama and his ‘Democratic’ cohorts. The unanswered question and proof thereof, of Obama’s status as a natural born citizen to be eligble to hold the office of ‘President’ as put forth by that ‘Constitution’ is a potential breaking of a mandate of that document, and in doing so sets a precedent of that mandate as well as others to be broken again, thereby destroying that document by a domino effect. If you think this sounds crazy, then you don’t really understand our system of laws and how they work. Nearly half of our ‘Supreme Court’ doesn’t uphold the ‘Consitution as it is and would like to change some of it if they could, and setting this precedent could give them the power to do so through judicial rulings. The ‘Supreme Court’ was set up to protect the rights of its citizens by insuring that no law violates the ‘Constitution’ as had some done in the past and were ruled against by this court. Today this ‘Congress’ wants its mandates to over-rule those of the ‘Constitution’ and with this precedent being set by Obama, may give the ‘Justices’ of this court the tool to enjoin ‘Congress’ will and do so, especially with nearly half of them wanting to anyway. The only way to stop this from happening is to address all the inuendos and proven uncertainties with proof for the public to see and examine, and this needs to be done before the completion of his term of office, for at that time a precedent would be set. The truth will eventually prevail, but if the precent is set, then he will be allowed to run again (this I believe is the reason he has spent over 2 million dollars in attorney’s fees to stall long enough and keep the truth hidden) and the ‘Constitution’ will be in trouble. If it is proven that he is not eligible to hold the office, then the only thing that will save the ‘Constitution’ is that he and those who abbrogated their responsibility and duty to ensure this would not happen be punished harshly to the last person involved in any way. This would make the ‘Constitution’ as strong as the founding fathers intended it to be to protect their and our rights as citizens of the U.S.A. Also do not believe the propaganda that the ‘Constitution’ is a living and breathing document, for that only means you may have had a right from its inception, but lose that right or any right in the future to the discretion of those in power. May the ‘Constitution’ stand forever along with our freedom, but citizens must stand up and protect it for it to do so.

    • independant thinker

      One of the justices (do not remember which but most likely one of the liberals) said world opinion should be used in deciding cases brought before the SC.

  • meteorlady

    So Chicago just writes another one that says you can only have the gun in your home. Like criminals won’t attack you outside your home or in your yard or on the street. If you live in a border state you need a gun as it’s getting increasingly violent and you are probably not real safe on the streets after dark or in your own home if you live in the country. Our society in the cities are getting more and more violent and I want to be able to protect myself.

    I just can’t fathom why law abiding citizens are not allowed to carry a weapon to protect themselves. It’s just common sense and a right we have always had. I guess my argument is that when was the last time the police showed up in the middle of a mugging, burglary, murder or rape?

  • http://internetexplorer Dave288

    Its our God given right to go armed. When the armed soldiers came to arrest Jesus in the night, Peter drew a sword and started to defend them. How could Peter have done this if he didn’t go armed? We do have a right in America to keep and bear arms. However we have those that will do what ever they can to oppose freedom within our own government. We need to weed these out through peaceful means, elections! They should be exposed for being un-american. If they don’t like this country they have a right to leave. What happened to the men in our country? They have become weak. History has proven a divided nation can’t stand. May God have nercy on our nation for the wickedness our leaders our doing.

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.