Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Four Stories About Stupid Gun Laws

June 25, 2012 by  

Four Stories About Stupid Gun Laws
PHOTOS.COM
Firearms have for the past few hundred years been one of man’s most useful tools.

Humans are very distinct from other creatures in their ability to perfect the use of tools to improve quality of life. Even more remarkable of man, however, is our willingness to restrict the use of even our most valuable tools in the name of “safety.”

Firearms have for the past few hundred years been one of man’s most useful tools. America’s Founding Fathers realized this and held gun ownership in such a high regard that they opted to include it in the country’s Constitution.

“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.”

Here are four things that the men who wrote those words knew, that modern anti-gun zealots in the United States and abroad can’t seem to understand:

#1— Guns are extremely useful in deterring criminals who would otherwise steal from you and likely injure or kill you in the process. That is why Keyna Oduyoye, 30, of Randallstown, Md., brought her registered .40 caliber Beretta handgun along when she carried $4,000 to meet with a person selling a car on Craigslist. When she and her boyfriend arrived, they were robbed by the people they met.

From The Baltimore Sun:

She told police she grabbed a .40 caliber Beretta from the glove compartment of her car and fired a warning shot in the air. The gunman dropped his weapon, she told police, according to court charging documents, and then she chased the man up the street firing three times in the air.

Though she managed to keep herself from being possibly murdered by her armed assailants after having her money stolen, Oduyoye was jailed last week on $35,000 bond. She is charged with having a handgun on her person and in her car, reckless endangerment and discharging a firearm on a public street. Even though her gun was registered, because of Maryland’s restrictive carry permit laws she is a criminal in the eyes of the law.

#2— The bad guys are never going to give up their guns, and there is nothing even the most restrictive nanny governments can do about it. Case in point, New York City. Even with liberty assaulting police tactics like “stop and frisk” that allow New York cops to search just about anyone they want to on the street, gangsters still have access to guns.

From the New York Post:

Ruthless gangbangers are drawing on lessons from kindergarten — adopting policies of “share and share alike” when it comes to their illegal handguns, cops said yesterday.

“People aren’t carrying around their own guns anymore, they’re sharing them and stashing them,” said Detective Joseph Cruzado of the Queens gang squad.

“Four, five years ago, we’d see almost every gang member carrying their own gun. You don’t see that anymore.”

Now criminals in the city simply stash weapons in secret locations — such as bushes — so that other members of their organizations can retrieve the weapons when needed.

Good luck finding a weapon stash if you find yourself on the wrong end of a criminal’s barrel.

#3— Guns have uses that are in no way related to crime. This story comes from Manitoba, Canada but explains a problem that many American farmers and ranchers also deal with. Because of restrictive laws aimed at protecting wildlife from poachers, farmers in the province are unable to legally defend their cattle from predators.

The Wildlife Act, which governs hunting in Manitoba, says hunters may kill wildlife on their own land to defend property. But the following restrictions apply: can’t hunt at night or use lighting or reflecting equipment when hunting; can’t use poison to trap or kill wild animals; can’t have a loaded gun in a vehicle; and can’t fire a gun from a vehicle.

That causes real problems for farmers like Henry Hendrickson.

From Winnipeg Free Press:

In one year, the farmer raises 300 cattle and loses between 10 and 12 to predators: coyotes and wolves, mostly.

Hendrickson would like to protect his herd by hunting the predators, but the laws make it difficult. For example, coyotes are nocturnal creatures, but laws governing gun use prevent farmers from hunting at night. They also can’t legally shoot from a moving vehicle, even though vehicles are the only way to keep pace with fleet-footed coyotes and wolves.

#4 Governments are capable of doing some pretty terrible things to helpless populations. Joe Wurzelbacher, aka Joe the Plumber, who is currently running for a Senate seat in Ohio, is taking heat for releasing the following ad recently:


 
But, in a Nation where armed bureaucrats continuously raid farms because of raw milk sales, the police are becoming ever-increasingly militarized and abuse of power seeps from town halls, Congress, the Justice Department and the White House, people who want a defenseless American populace would likely do well to heed the warnings of history.

Sam Rolley

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

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Four Stories About Stupid Gun Laws”

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

  • Robert Duffy

    What is stupid is the woman running down the street shooting her gun in the air. Anyone who values guns would never do such a thing. She deserved to be arrested. The police in this instance did the right thing in arresting her.

    • Dave

      I agree with you on that charge, but nobody should be arrested for merely carrying a handgun in their car as long as they could legally own and possess one in the first place, i.e. anyone but convicted felons and those with certain mental heath issues. The reckless behavior should be a crime, not merely carrying a gun in a vehicle.

      • Jimmy The Greek

        Dave Were does it say the government can pass laws that restrict one’s rights just because They have a few felonies , That crap started in 1968 with the gun control act , Nowhere has the founders given any one in government the right to say who can and can not have the rights given to them in the bill of rights . That said some of people i would trust my life with in a jam are felons !

      • firefight

        Dave,
        That’s how these modern day prosecutors do it. They stack on as many charges as their feeble little evil minds can come up with so their chances of getting the person on at least one of them is better. I’m surprised she didn’t get charged with running in a walking zone. If it had been me, the thief would have stopped immediately after the first shot and I would have had my money back. Shooting a gun into the air is something, I’m sure, she learned by watching some dumb TV show. What the hell is a warning shot all about anyway. He just stole your money and now he believes, as he runs away, that you is a lousy shot.

        This is the kind of crap that makes good, honest citizens afraid to defend themselves. YOU are the victim until the law arrives and suddenly, YOU are the criminal. THIS is what needs to be addressed and changed in this country……..Especially in cities like New York, Chicago and Washington, DC…..(where more Americans die annually by violent crimes than all our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.) Think about that one!

      • Liberty4Me

        Dave,
        When you allow government to take away a right because you have a felony, then the tyrannical government only has to make some otherwise peaceful act a felony. One such example is in Georgia, it is illegal to live aboard your boat for more than 30 day in a calendar year and at 90 days it becomes a felony because they have decided that a person living aboard his boat that long is counter to public interests. Does that mean the person should not be allowed to own or carry a firearm?

    • http://survivingurbancrisis.wordpress.com Silas Longshot

      Lesson learned? Never fire a ‘warning shot’. You’ll generally be in less trouble shooting the perp, even if he dies. Check it out in your area, you may find it applies. Additionally, ‘registered’ doesn’t mean squat. That only tells the state who has the weapon. To have the weapon available for use, you have to have a permit to carry.
      click the name.

      • Seeker1212

        If you shoot a warnibg shot, then yout life really isn’t jeopardy, and in most cases you will be charged with Discharging a weapon. If you feel your life or safety is in jeopardy, then shoot the bastard. Only the demented cops are allowed to discharge a weapon, even in a crowded street.

      • Sanders

        In the great state of Michigan, where I live, you don’t even need a permit to carry a gun so long as it is in the open, not concealed. You merely need a permit to purchase then a safety inspection certificate is issued to you, which you have to have on you anytime you are carrying that particular weapon.

        She should have just shot the robber who had the gun, but not in the back. She would’ve spent a couple days in jail while the whole thing got sorted out by the police but in the end would not have been convicted of anything.

      • BigBadJohn

        I have always heard if you are faced with a situation like this, shoot the perp, not once but empty your gun into them. Then you can claim that you were afraid for your life and did not know what you were doing. One clean shoot through the heart shows that you are an accomplished marksmen and probably just looking for someone to shoot – go figure…..

      • JCH

        All of you seem to be reasonable people and your comments are spot on. Remember to carry only store purchase factory loads and do not cut or deface the bullet in any way, because a prosecutor will claim you made ammo to severely disfigure, maime or kill. Also, the laws so far and those in the future are designed to take your gun rights away, so be good citizens in everything you do in public.Domestic violence,public drunkenness and other petty crimes can be used to take away your gun rights.

      • CherokeeDan

        Not in Arizona. We now have permitless concealed carry. That and SB1070 have resulted in a substantial drop in the crime rate.

    • 45caliber

      Robert:

      She should have shot the criminal instead. Then she could have claimed her life was in danger. I suppose she simply didn’t want to kill him , though.

      • Jibbs

        Due to the increase in ammo price’s, there will be no warning shot.

    • http://none george

      THE MISTAKE SHE MADE WAS FIREING IN THE AIR. SHE SHOULD HAVE SHOT THE [offensive term removed] HE ALL READY PROVED HE WAS A LOST CAUSE TO SOCIETY. . AND ANY ONE WHO SEES IT DIFFERENT.INCLUDING THE DUMB ASSES IN D.C

    • http://rusureuwant2know.wordpress.com rusureuwant2know

      Anybody stop to think you never hear about police officers being charged with firing a firearm on a city street? Do police ever fire warning shots?

      • Tom Cook

        Reports regularly show that cops are so lazy that police departments can’t even get them to do their required range duty. Most of them cannot hit the broad side of a barn. The lady should have had her piece at hand and have been ready since she was suspicious of the perps–then she could have kept her money and if necessary, wasted the criminals.

      • General “Bull Shipper”

        the police in our area must qualifiy twice a year and NEVER fire a warning shot, policy forbids it

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1417763559 Beno

      True, the shells in the air will come down somewhere and that is stupid to do but, not a reason to take guns out of citizens hands.

      • Joe M

        Just a correction here, the shell is not the problem, it’s the “bullet”

    • Phil

      I don’t know much about the laws of her state but I don’t know of anywhere warning shots is legal. Even the police can’t do that. You are responsible for where your rounds go, no matter what the situation is. What goes up also comes down. If an innocent by stander had been hit she would be in even bigger trouble. It’s hard to make the case your life was in danger when the person is running away. It’s everyone’s responsibility that carries a gun to know and understand the law. This is the type of thing the anti-gunners love to see and use it to make their case for more gun control.

      • ArkansasRebel

        While it is true that a bullet fired into the air might come down on someone & cause SOME injury, it has been proven that the loss of velocity as the bullet reaches it’s apogee will reduce the effect so that any likely injury would be minor. Compare that to the possibility of a richocet where the result could be death. While firing a warning shot is dumb in most cases, a stray bullet would be more lethal.

      • firefight

        Hi Phil,
        I believe it’s less about what’s legal, in this case, firing warning shots into the air, and more about what’s effective in terminating the crime. Tha latter, firing effective shots into the perp’s backside. Some of the people on this site will say that shooting someone in the back is a cowardly act, but, not so in this case. The criminal is not going to run backwards while attempting to escape. Of course the bullets will enter his back. The point here is, you would be defending your property, in this case the money the perp stole from you. The entire act was premeditated. His plan was to lure someone to a location pretending to be selling a car for cash and then stealing the cash. What a brilliant scheme? This lady’s plan was to be preparred for such an assault by bringing her gun to the party. The only problem here though was that she didn’t know how to properly end the party. What if she had brought another individual with her, say a very large male, and he had a gun in open carry on his hip or even if she had had the gun on her hip? How do you think this could have altered this senario? This is why open carry is a good thing. See, in cities like New York where open carry has been stripped from the citizen’s rights, they have been made targets for such crimes. The politicians who strip the rights of law abiding citizens are the accomplices to these criminals. That’s how I see it.

      • CZ52

        ArkansasRebel You are partly correct. It depends on the angle the bullet is fired at. If it is fired basicly straight up then you are correct there will me no to minimal injury from the bullet. However, if it is fired at say a 45 degree angle then it will fly in an arc and the momentum lost will be minimal compared to a bullet fired parallel to the ground.

      • Bob

        What a hayday these criminals can have. “They carry the guns, not their victims”. What’s that about taking candy from a baby? If a few of these high crime perps get shot up, maybe at least, some of the others will think twice. No one has the right to take any of your posessions that you worked so hard to get, or enter the house that you are trying to keep safe for your family. The criminals know the chance they are taking, drive that point home, w/o regret.

    • Jimmy The Greek

      Robert If kind of a street thing it kinda adds insult by making them leave with caps being busted on there @ss . back in the late 70s and early 80s if some one messed up not only did they get there eye doted but there was a chance the might get there motorcycle taken away to .

    • skeeve

      i have read a lot of responses here and most of it is good advice if you find yourself in a threatening situation. however most seem to be missing the point that the only response the gun control advocates want is ‘seig heil’. there is No desire for a capable, self sufficient population. this process has followed the methods laid out in “mein Kompf” for about 20 years now. if you disagree, please read the book, a challenge due to its unorganized approach i know, and debate the issue.

  • Dave

    Why’s he getting any grief about his advertisement, all he did was tell the truth? I think he’s a breath of fresh air reminding people that gun ownership isn’t about hunting or “Sporting Purposes” although firearms can and are used for hunting and other sporting purposes, the 2nd Amendment isn’t about either of those it’s about defense, of oneself, ones family, community and state.

    As awesome and powerful as our military is, they are spread too thin to even hope to defend this great nation. Way to go Joe! He’d have my vote if he were running in my state.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1417763559 Beno

      Dave, the founders had just left a countries where the only people who had weapons were the armies and they were slaves to the king and his wishes. A armed person is a citizen, a unarmed person is a slave, the second amendment was to protect us from a out of control government. Look what happened in Europe when Hitler disarmed the citizens.

      • Pat

        Remember that the Japanese in WWII did not attack the US mainland because they knew that the citizens were well-armed and the Japanese general believed that there “would be someone with a gun behind every tree”. Our “army” of hunters and gun enthusiasts outnumbers our military and is a force no one wants to reckon with. That’s why the liberals want the guns out of our hands…

    • http://firefox wog1

      And Clinton took away the right of the military to have guns and we saw what happened in Fort Hood. More gun control and the loss of needless lives. And the Democrats say they are for helping the people. Where?

  • http://none nick beck

    like joe says—i love the america i grew up in—DONT LET THE SECOND AMENDMENT BE NEGATED IN THE SLIGHTEST WAY

  • Johnny

    i thought the constitution was written in like the 1700s, when there WERE no police departments, people didnt live in big cities where there is more protection than out in the country, and people had to worry about thieves robbing and stealing their money and cattle……I think things are a little different now than they were 250 years ago…..and the constitution should change as well, people dont need 10 or 20 weapons for protection…..that sounds more like for the use of a coup than to protect yourself….I am not against the second amendment and people should be able to buy a gun for protection or for hunting but people dont need 10 guns, ….or more….there should be limits on what you can own and the types of weapons you can buy….an individual shouldnt be better armed than their police department is

    • Jonathan

      Kind of like that oh so outdated right to privacy in an internet era? Or due process when everything is televised seconds after it happens?

      The Second Amendment protects the right of the People to overthrow a corrupt government through force of arms once all other methods of peaceful change are exhausted. It also places you as the responsible party to protect your family, home, community, state, and nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic. It has nothing to do with hunting or sport shooting.

      • BigBadJohn

        “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.”

        That basically says that you have right to own anything that the military does!!!!
        Go buy some SAM’s and anti-tank rounds, that is the ONLY way to protect your freedoms. Of course you may be fighting the kid that grew up down the street from you.

      • 45caliber

        BBJ:

        So I may be fighting the kid who grew up down the street. If he is stupid enough to attack me, then he is too stupid to be allowed to breed kids just like him. I’m not going to give up my life simply because some kid I used to like decides he needs my money worse than I do.

      • BigBadJohn

        45

        I am referring to the kid that joined the army to serve his country but now has orders to suppress your neighborhood because you are a terrorist with anti-tank weapons.

        So are you saying that anyone who joins the army is so stupid they should not be allowed to breed????

      • Johnny

        NOW, BBJ, i get the impression you were being sarcastic when you said to buy some SAMs and anti tank missiles, right??? because if you are being infringed upon by the government, that is the only way you can protect yourself…..i think some of these people on here have been watching the Walking Dead zombie apocolypse or RED DAWN too much……

      • 45caliber

        BBJ:

        I certainly didn’t mean that anyone joining the military shouldn’t be allowed to breed. I was talking about some kid in a gang. But I seriously doubt if most military members would do that.

        For one thing, they too are American. For a second reason, they are mainly conservative and therefore aren’t in favor of domination at the liberals are. For a third reason, they won’t want to attack their own family and friends. For a fourth, according to a local Commandant, one in eight soldiers are from Texas and wouldn’t allow them to attack Americans. Finally, I don’t think the present government would trust them to attack us – they will attempt to keep the military tied up in some war, preferably half a world away with no real way to get back home. They will want to use troops that are loyal to them, not America, and I doubt if most of them will be a true threat. From personal experience, I can tell you that most liberal soldiers are terrified that they might be killed. It is only when a large number of conservatives are present or when they outnumber and outgun their opponents by at least 2 to 1 that they are a problem. Kill a few and the rest panic.

    • http://www.facebook.com/virginia.robbins.35 Virginia Robbins

      COULD GET BY WITH JUST ONE PAIR OF SHOES TOO.

    • Robert Smith

      Hey Johnny,

      You posted: “people dont need 10 guns,”

      People “need” whatever they want to need when it comes to guns.

      Ever hear of a collector?

      Ever hear of someone who is serious about competition?

      Ever hear of someone who picks up a new gun every couple of years for 50 years?

      As part of the same thought are you going to limit hard drive memory because someone may use a computer for some illegal purpose?

      Are you going to limit how much food a person can buy because they may over eat?

      This is America. It’s NOT up to you what is a proper amount of anything for another.

      Rob

      • Bruce

        hurray for Robert Smith!
        couldn’t agree more.
        What if I want 10 cars?
        What would that make me?
        Someone who races?
        A car molester?
        Someone who owns more than one gun is surely suspect as a terrorist.
        Thinking like that should be illegal!.
        Immediately
        stop being stupid!
        use that brain to think ahead some……

      • TIME

        Dear Mr. Smith,

        I agree with you 100%.

        I may not be a collector of cars or swords, etc. But I have bought such collections as Investments over the years. And they did pay off quite well after holding them for a period of TIME; 5 /10 / 20 years.

        Thus I also bought a beautiful gun coleection and again it was for Investment, and yet again it also paid off very well even on a short sale.

        Thus when mindless sheep not unlike Johnnie Da Cat makes such stupid remarks it truly displays just how aggressively arogant he is but as well — what a complete and total – “CONTROL FREAK” he really is.

        Peace and Love

      • firefight

        Robert,
        Spot on, pal. What we need to see here though is that the Liberal media will always paint the picture to suit the Liberal genda to impose more and more gun control. If Jay Leno was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which he was at fault and four people in the other car were killed, would the media point out that Mr. Leno’s home was found to contain many cars of varying size and horsepower? Would they say that police confiscated the subjects cashe of vehicles upon discovery of said vehicles? NO, but every week, month and year ten times as many people are killed by cars, trucks and SUVs in this country and that’s perfectly acceptable. Who’s to say some of those killings were not premeditated?

    • Jonathan

      As far as being better armed than the police department: the militarization of the police is a problem that we are increasingly facing, or haven’t you been listening?

      • Johnny

        have you been getting scared by watching FOX again????

      • Shane

        Johnny, thanks for showing your hand. It’s not about the gun or guns, is it? Just remember when you’re getting beat on an argument, Bush is to blame. Repeat, Bush is to blame. Bush is to blame. Bush is to blame. Your wife finds you whimpy and loves another. Bush is to blame. You’re a loser and whiner. Bush is to blame.

        Or maybe Bush and Fox News.

      • Johnny

        I would say FOX news can be the only reason for all of the paranoia I am reading here from gun owners, you would think the paranoid ones would be those who DONT own guns

      • Bruce

        Seems if the people are so well armed, the police should “work with” the gun owners ( a VERY valuable resource ), for the betterment of society in cases of emergency, disaster, invasion, riot, flood, fire, natural action of nature, whatever over whelms the police. 1 in 5 (or so) people should be deputized organized and have unpaid volunteer status (as they go about their normal day) to police the worst problems (after training), especially in situations where citizens would be afraid to step in, but could help if trained in how to help the police when they were being overwhelmed, for what ever reason. Membership requirement, natural born citizen, non-criminal, no record, loyal to the country, carries personal defense weapon, knows how to use it, has a defense weapon stored in home in case of national invasion, like that European country, Switzerland……and did I say loyal?.
        What did I miss?

      • firefight

        Bruce,
        You mean like the cops did in New Orleans after Katrina? Law abiding citizens were arming themselves up to protect themselves and their property from the looters that inveriably come out during and after a disaster. What did the cops do? The went around UNLAWFULLY, AT GUN POINT, taking these guns away from the citizens. What do you do when the cops confront you and you think everything is hunky dorey because the men in blue are there to help you only to find out that THEY are only going to make things worse by making you more vulnerable to the scum of New Orleans. I think there would have been a firefight if they had tried that with me. I don’t care who you are or if you are wearing a uniform. As soon as you try to disarm me in the face of iminent danger, you and your uniform become my enemy. All law enforcement need to know that they DO NOT have the right to make the decision for me when it comes to my safety and that of my family. I do that.

    • flajim

      The cops — if and when they respond — will always be too late. Last time I called them because of a drunk trying to beat down my door, it was 20 min later and they both had powdered sugar all over their uniform shirts. Next time, I’ll handle it myself.

      • Flashy

        The 2nd Amendment isn’t about “protection” of ones self from criminals. Whoever states that the 2nd is for that purpose is high on drugs and or joshin’ ya. “Protection’ against bad guys is a side benefit and should only be within the confines of a Man’s castle…his home.

        Jeesh…ya would think as many here say they read the Constitution, sure seems as if there is a whole lotta misinformation going on …

      • Opal the Gem

        And Flushy posts another pile of feces.

      • CZ52

        ““Protection’ against bad guys is a side benefit and should only be within the confines of a Man’s castle…his home.”

        So, I guess flashy believes we should just stand there, let the criminal beat the crap out of us, give them everything we have of any value, then lie bleeding on the sidewalk until someone finaly takes pity on us and calls the police.

        Just shows flashys ignorance. The authors of the bill of rights were well aware of all legitimet uses of firearms and would expect all to be included in the Second Amendment.

        Those uses would include but not be limited to;

        1. Target shooting both in competition and for fun.
        2. Self defence at home and when traveling including moving about the local town or village while going about your business.
        3. Hunting for subsistance and for sport.
        4. The need to be armed if called to serve in the local militia.
        5. The people being armed and able to resist an out of control government.

        This list is certainly far from all inclusive but covers the primary reasons.

      • 45caliber

        Flashy:

        You are right about people posting mis-information here. You are doing a great job of it …

      • Shane

        You just have to feel sorry for Flashy. But be thankful he’s not on our team.

    • Rick

      Johnny says “that sounds more like for the use of a coup than to protect yourself” and ….”I am not against the second amendment and people should be able to buy a gun for protection or for hunting but people dont need 10 guns, ….or more….there should be limits on what you can own and the types of weapons you can buy….an individual shouldnt be better armed than their police department is”. The founders say“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.” If you ask me, a coup at this point IS protecting ourselves, so YES we should be better armed than our police depts. The police are nothing more than enforcers for a corrupt govt. It seems to me that more and more, the cops are picking on law abiding citizens because they are an easy mark. They are afraid to go after REAL criminals because they are scared of them.

      • KG

        Who regulates the “well regulated militia…”?

      • http://personallibert.com Emel Pruismann

        most criminals do not have any money or the ability to pony up with cash for huge fines so it is easier to arrest a law abiding citizen and milk his bank account before releasing him …. plus then you can restrict his ability to own a fire arm because now he is a convicted felon and his right to vote has been taken away

      • Oldshooter

        Actually, the term “regulated” as it was in use at the time they wrote the Constitution, did not have the connotation of “controlled,” or even “standardized” that it has today. At the time, “regulated” was used to mean “made regular” or “made common,” as in “to make something a regular or frequent occurrence.” The term also had the same meaning in the “commerce clause” that says the federal govt will “regulate” interstate commerce. The idea was not to control or restrict such commerce, but quite the opposite, to make it a regular or more common occurrence. This was done because the state’s (when they were colonies) had a habit of taxing each other’s goods in the same way countries do today, and that was correctly seen as detrimental to the development of a strong economy in the new country we were founding. The meaning conveyed by the term “well regulated militia” was very specific and well understood at that time, and referred to an armed citizenry that was prepared to defend the local community (think Sheriff’s posse in the old cowboy movies). This implied that they were “regularly” practicing and this was usually facilitated by local shooting matches, which were a common weekend event. For most of our country’s history, men went hunting or shooting on weekends the same way they go golfing today.

      • DG

        Rick, Your right about the police being afraid of the criminals. You may have heard that cops and robbers have the same mental state. This from psycho test prior to enrollment in cop school or employment . Mostly they live in paranoia. Cops are trained to believe that every stop is a deadly threat. They approach with hand on gun. They practice shooting paper human targets, ware bullet proof vest and have hollow point rounds. Governments of continually degrade the Constitution because they sense we (The People) are getting tired of the theft from us to them. They need crime on the streets so they can then point to stronger anti-gun laws as a way to deter crime…BULL. You want to deter crime? Make it open season on criminals.
        The cops know who are the criminals. So why not just round them up, put a tracking device on them and then if they are in the area (within 3 meters) of a crime, bring them in. A lot of people want to cry out to help the illegal immigrants. That only helps them start the life of crime on the streets of home, The USA. Notice I did not mention it as just US? Which is the corporation.

      • tome

        You say we should not have more guns than the Police! A sheriffs deputy about a mile from me owns around 75 guns. His father has over 100 guns. His father never hunts. He has never been in the Service. Probaly has not shot over 1/4 of them. They collect. Most police officers I know collect guns. I am not a officer. I own around 10 guns. Rifles Shotguns and a few pistols. I shoot most of them. I have quite a few Air rifles and pistols. Some cylinder powered . and some pump. I shoot the air ones more than the regular guns. I have Bow and arrows. I have Blow guns. I have sling shots. Am acurate with all of them. They all will kill. But I have never killed anyone exept in Viet Nam. And they were shooting at me and I shot back. I guess I was a better shot because I am alive. But not proud of it. I do not believe it is any ones buisiness what I own. How many TV. do you have? How many pairs of shoes? How many pair of under wear? It is no bodys buisiness!

    • Bill

      I have decided you should be allowed to comment with only three words… no other reason or explanation is necessary, it’s just a number I pulled from the air… just like you did on the amount of guns one chooses too own…

      Oh geese Johnny, I forgot that dusty ol’ document called the Constitution guarantees you the right too free speech and uh… oh yea that dusty ol’ document also guarantees the citizens of this county the right to keep and bear arms… without restrictions on how many one may choose to own!

      • Johnny

        yep, I pulled it out of the air, because that is my point, I could have said 20 or 50 and some dummy would have said what if I want to own 100 guns….and someone did, the point is you dont need that mahy, no one does because for one thing, if anything ever happened, you cant SHOOT that many….all you do is make yourself a target for thieves who want to STEAL your guns……you cant be home 24/7 to protect your weapons from thievesor your home, but if someone breaks in and breaks in to rob you, you want to be able to protect yourself, I would say a glock or 9 mm would be enough to defend yourself

    • Chester

      Johnny, actually there WERE police departments in the larger cities even way back then. Only thing is, most of the cops carried a nightstick at most, and were physically capable of beating down most of the crooks they caught with their bare hands. Firearms were for the military, hunters, and anyone living on the frontiers. Of course, they didn’t have any easily concealed weapons then, and they were comparatively more expensive than nowadays, so few crooks had pistols or the like. As far as limiting how many or what kind of guns people can own, you sound like a good advertisement against the NRA, I am prohibited from owning a gun, or even having a round of ammunition in my possession, but that does not mean I want all guns locked up, so only two groups of people have them. The military/police, and the crooks. Remember the saying, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns? You should, because it IS true.

    • Ron

      Johnny, it is individuals like you that would be the first to cry for help when attacked by a criminal. The police even today cannot save you! They come after the fact and investigate to make a possible arrest, but in the mean time you have suffered from that attack even to the point of death. The framers our Constitution had enough vision to understand the “we the people” must protect our selves and against all enemies both foreign and domestic. The right to bear arms has been misinterpeted by many liberal anti gun people. It is their lack of understanding that will allow government thugs to control you completely!

    • aj

      by that statement alone will infringe on the 2nd the right to keep and bear arms

    • Cannon 12pounder

      YOu are dumb. The founders realized early on that power corrupts and total power corrupts totally. They put the second amendment in the constitution to give THE PEOPLE a means of changing and protecting THE PEOPLE from a corrupt tyrannical government such as we have now.

    • Rick

      You are welcome to those thoughts. What I object to is your efforts to limit my choices in deciding what is good for me, just because you decide something different is good for you.

    • Shane

      So exactly what does Freedom mean, Johhny? Reject freedom in one area, means the means to reject freedom in all areas of our life. Your opinions and beliefs are dangerous and scary.

    • carrobin

      Too rational, Johnny. But I also believe that if the Founding Fathers could see what their “militia” amendment has mutated into, they’d be horrified.

      • Shane

        Carrobin and Johnny, would be laughed out of the Continental Army. If they knew what trash and limp wristed wimps would follow, they’ed written another ammendment to the constitution to protect against such worms.

        Shameful. What worms Carrobin and Johnny are. Embarrassing.

      • Johnny

        this is more for shane than for carrobin, I was in the military, I was trained to shoot, i was always a sharpshooter, but I live in the city, I am a law abiding citizen and live in a bad area and have never owned a gun, rifle or anything else, but yet when I was in the army, I shot better than you fools who need your gun to prove your manhood, I guess….I dont need it….I am able to fire a weapon and hold my own if ever I needed to…I am not paranoid that 10 or more guys are going to assault me or anyone I know….I dont deal in or KNOW those kinds of people…..I am not afraid the government is going to try and take control over everything so I need to arm myself for the revolt when it happens, this country has been around for over 250 years and that has never happened, and if you think it will, then you really need to stay away from fox because it is causing your blood pressure to spike unnecessarily

      • Shane

        Johnny, your last comment is………..silly. As far as your past military service, thank you. But that service does not give you a pass, nor intellegence or common sense. In fact, a vast, make that VAST majority of our forefathers would be appalled at your stance and to the group you identify and associate with politically.

        Being qualified in some way, such as your boast of superior markmanship and classified as a sniper has nothing to do with discernment and courage. Astuteness is a quality that you undeniably do not possess.

      • CZ52

        “this is more for shane than for carrobin, I was in the military, I was trained to shoot, i was always a sharpshooter,…”

        Johnny based on other comments you have made here I doubt very much you were ever in the military and I also doubt you have ever shot a firearm more than once or twice. In fact I doubt you are even old enough to be in the military.

    • Sanders

      Johnny,
      The police are armed to the hilt. They have everything short of tanks, mortars and anti aircraft guns. Back when the constitution was written, the peasants owned guns of the same caliber as the military, other than the cannons. Why should it be any different today. One of the purposes of the second amendment was to ensure the government wouldn’t run rampant over it’s citizenry. How could the citizens prevent that if they are only armed with single shots and the government with fully automatic weapons??????? As for the police:

      As the adage goes, “When seconds count, police are just minutes away.”

      • CZ52

        ” Back when the constitution was written, the peasants owned guns of the same caliber as the military, other than the cannons.”

        Actually many cannon were privately owned as well because there was no restrictions on owning them until the gun control act of 1930.

      • keng

        Good quote “when seconds count…” but also remember Police carry guns to protect THEMSELVES not citizens!!! And poor Johnney, perhaps you should watch a little FOPX news, because this country is about to implode financially, and that will lead to all kinds of new and difficult curcumstances…but you are such a man, I’m sure you can handle it all by yourself with your keen wit and strong arms.

    • http://http/yahoo jim

      Johnny, people who own legal firearms determine which gun is best suited for every situation, i.e. a certain rifle is preferred for hunting deer while another is preferred for hunting bear, we prefer a shotgun with a longer barrel for hunting geese while using shorter barreled guns for other small game, thenwe have gun collectors, should they be denied to have as many guns as they want since just like stocks, the usually increase in price and during times like this, getting the best bang for the buck (no pun intended) is what could make or break a collector financially. Finally, the anti 2nd amendment politicians begin by restricting certain guns then onec that gun is put on the cannot own group then they go after another type of gun and it snowballs until no guns are left that are legal and that is when the 2nd amendment is abolished. So if you are pro 2nd amendment like you say, think of what the anti gun politicians are doing and when you do think of it as a chess game and be 10 steps ahead of them in your mind or before you know it, the 2nd amendment is gone, then once they succeeded in abolishing one of our amendments, it will not end until our greatest document which seperates the United States from any other country in the world will be a worthless piece of paper writtren by our forefathers who had the hindsight to know the treachery of our own government officials.

    • http://gravatar.com/catman11 coal miner

      Johnny what planet are you on?I don’t care if it is one gun or three hundred guns.We got the right to bear arms.That is pure bull sh*t.

      • http://gravatar.com/catman11 coal miner

        Johnny,
        http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm
        The right to bear arms is a tradition with deep roots in American society. Thomas Jefferson proposed that “no free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms,”

    • Nicholas Sundquist

      It is my understanding that the second amendment was written to protect the states from Federal tyranny look up the word militia in a dictionary from that time and you will see that it simply means an armed population. That is why it is advisable for people to be as well armed as the police. I don’t suppose that Janet Reno would have burned 80 some innocent women and children to death if David Koresh had been as dangerous as he was made out to be.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1417763559 Beno

      We are a free country and we should be able to own as many guns as we want, I agree with rusureuwant2know, shouldn’t need a carry lic. the second amendment doesn’t say anything about it and the government shouldn’t be able to make laws against guns for any reason.

    • mike

      you wrote, “in big cities where there is more protection than out in the country, “… but the opposite is true. NOW the highest crime and danger is IN the city.

      • Johnny

        that doesnt mean that you are gonna walk around with an uzi ak47 or a glock or 9 mm with 30 round clips on the off chance you get stopped by a gang

      • Shane

        Johnny, what are you talking about? If you plan on convincing others to your point of view. Convince! But your comments are a complete embarrassment to yourself and to those that agree with your stance.

        You are a funny creature at times. But scary all the time.

    • Ken

      The constitution says nothing about what a person needs, it says the right to bear arms may not be infringed. That would include your idea about what somebody needs. BTW I don’t believe you actually need air conditioning, people survived without it for almost all of history; also, you don’t need a telephone; also you don’t need a car; also you don’t need a refrigerator. But wait – wasn’t this nation founded on the idea of liberty?

    • Tom Cook

      Oh little scared Johnny I Hope The Police Will Protect Me. If you even casually look at what police are doing when chaos develops–standing around evading personal injury for they have no responsibility to protect YOU. During Katrina they were disarming little old ladies and in many cases joining in the pillage of stores. More often than not they are busy murdering innocent citizens than engaging criminals, who are dangerous.

    • http://hotmail willie

      johnny you are an a### you say you are not against the 2nd ament. but yoy want to limit ownership of the number of guns that aperson owns. get your head back in tyhe sand and hope a pert does not shot yiour but off.

    • 45caliber

      Johnny:

      It is obvious that you don’t know a lot about guns. Guns are like any other piece of equipment. Each is made for a job like automobiles are. My wife drives a small car for fuel economy and ease of handling. She used to drive a large van due to the need to haul kids. I drive a pickup truck for hauling, etc. but it isn’t great for hauling kids. Guns are the same. A pistol is good for defense, particularly in a house, but is not the best for defending yourself if you can get hold of a shotgun or rifle. Some rifles are best for hunting long range and others are best for short range. Shotguns come in various chokes – full open is fine for birds but gets little distance – full choke can reach out much further for hunter larger game but isn’t that good for birds. A short barrelled shotgun is fine as a defensive weapon but is useless for hunting. Other guns of all types are better at competition shooting. One gun just won’t do all of these things. So there are reasons a person may have several guns.

    • froggy1944

      Go back to Russia jerk, you won’t have to worry about guns there.

      • 45caliber

        froggy:

        Actually, Russia is No. 1 in the world for gun deaths due to suicides and criminal actions. Japan is No. 2 – and they have some of the most restrictive laws in the world. The US isn’t even in the top 25, despite what the libs like to say.

    • afdbghq

      You are one ignorant a@@hole. If a person wants to own one weapon or 1000 or more they have that right afforded by the second amendment. Every state that attempts to impose any restrictive gun rights on the law abiding citizen needs to have the laws challenged in court as any attempt to restrict the second amendment which is against the law in itself. People should be able to carry concealed or unconcealed anytime, anywhere, and any place they want. Do not punish the law abiding citizen. Punish people who use firearms in the commission of a crime and not the citizen who uses a weapon to protect person and property.

    • http://personallibertydigest Ron Loustaunau

      Hey Johonny : You say you beleave in the second amendment then read the words To keep and bear arms to me that means more than one if you only want to own one gun that is up to you as for me i want to own more than one and thats what my scond amendment right means to me and you should not be saying people dont need more than one gun

    • Tobe Conued

      “live in big cities where there is more protection “Just what big city are you referring to, and WHAT protection? maybe you mean DC, the worst crime in the nation where the law-makers reside??

    • Ken

      The second ammendment doesn’t say we have the right to bear “sporting goods”. It says we have the right to bear “arms”.

    • http://startingpointfirearms.com Gary

      Sorry to inform you but it isn’t much different now in rural areas than 200 years ago. Typically there are only one or two Sheriff,s deputies available to cover entire counties. All other personell are tied up with Responsibilities operating Jail facilities and other related duties. Crime is for the most part unfettered unless physical attacks on individuals are involved. They can only come after the violence is over and attempt to clean up the mess. Police are by definition of their duty are not required to protect individuals from violent attack by their own intervention. They carry weapons for their own protection, not the publics. Get real training from serious instructors, not internet commando and wanabees. Know your local laws and more importantly- HOW THEY ARE INTERPRETTED BY THE COURTS!!!

    • ArkansasRebel

      Johnny you obviously missed the point that Joe The Plummer made in the video or you did not watch it. The police & the Government are the very ones from which we would potentially need protection. The examples given are perfect for your argument. Germany used government & the police to confiscate guns & look at the result. Wake up, the 2nd amendment was written to allow individuals to keep firearms to protect themselves from tyrannical governments & police states.

    • firefight

      Johnny,
      It’s your kind of thinking that the anti freedom liberals love. You say that you believe in the second amendment which has no restrictions on gun ownership and states that this should not be infringed and in the next statement you advocate restriction on the kind of guns and number of guns a citizen can and should own. THAT, my friend, is the kind of infringement the founding fathers were trying to eliminate. You don’t think a citizen should have better firepower than the police. There again, you go against what you said when you said you believed in the second amendmemnt. It was the plan of our founding fathers that NO ONE had fdbetter firepower than the citizens because the ultimate freedom of all people rests in the hands of the citizenry. What would have happened in WWII if the Germans had gained air superiority over us with better aircraft or the Japanese had gotten the atomic bomb before we did? The very freedom YOU enjoy today is because we had the advantage over those tyranical foreign governments. We need to make sure we can maintain our own freedom now because we are seeing such a tyranical government right here in America today. You might want to rethink your personal values and how much you enjoy your freedoms…….such as they are.

    • Liberty4Me

      Johnny says “an individual shouldn’t be better armed than their police department ” I would argue the opposite is more true. There were more than 80,000 no-knock entries into people’s homes nationwide last year alone. There are police departments stealing people’s cash and cars under the guise of asset forfeiture without ever charging the individual of a crime. The people must be protected from their protectors.

  • Bill

    I have to agree with the first posting, she is an idiot to fire three rounds into the air… they have to hit something luckily no one was hit with her careless discharge.

  • Louis Lemieux

    Gun ownership as guaranteed by the country’s Constitution had to do with guns very different from the guns we have today!

    • Congress Works For Us

      Wrong: it had to do with the people owning the same guns as the government.

      Today, the government owns some really nasty stuff, so guess what? So do we!

    • Sirian

      LL,
      LOL!! If this doesn’t prove you’re attempting to be a comedian what does? Oh, wait a sec, let’s see – liberals always say that the “Constitution Evolves” – right?? Well, guess what. . . guns do too!! Isn’t that amazing?? LOL!!! Give us another one LL, It always helps to get a good laugh each morning.

      • Louis Lemieux

        I wrote “Gun ownership as guaranteed by the country’s Constitution had to do with guns very different from the guns we have today!“ You may call me a comedian as much as you want but prove me wrong if you can! The only guns those who wrote the Constitution had in mind were the guns existing then.

      • Ted Crawford

        Sirian
        I find myself agreeing, not a comfortable feeling, with Obama and others that state that the Constitution is a ” Living, evolving ” document, it is so by DESIGN ! Hence Article Five !
        What they made sure of was that any ” evolution ” be an overwhelming National need. they prevented any haphazard changes and, understanding the ” Tyranny of the Majoriety “, they required an overwhelming Majoriety ! Very wise men!

      • CZ52

        Louis L you are wrong. Those who wrote the Constitution were well awqare of the advancements that had been made in firearm developement and would have expected that development to continue. It is true they probably did not envision the exact guns we have today but as I stated they would have expected the development and improvement of firearms to continue.

      • firefight

        Louie,
        Your not quiet thinking straight. The document did not say the right of the people to bear flint locks and muskets should not be infringed. It said very specifically “arms.” Our founding fathers knew that firearms would evolve as they had already done by 1776. How hard is that to understand? The founding fathers were not morons who thought everything was going to stay the same and never evolve. By your standard, we would have gone up against the Japs and the Germans with primitive muskets and flintlocks. Today, we have the most sophisticated weaponry on the planet and it is that weaponry that deters other countries from attacking us. As for our government, they always want to have the field advantage and destroying our second amendment would give them just that. Our guns are our deterent agains them. Try to wrap your head around that thought.

    • Shane

      Our speech as evolved considerably since the 1700′s. I guess we can modify what we say in dissent by only being allowed to speaks the language of the past? Louis Lemieux, I don’t find you funny on your stated opinion as many do. But I do find you naive in your reasoning, or a deceiver if you know the weakness of your statement.

      I ask you like I asked another on this site. What about the rights and freedoms of man, don’t you like or understand?

      • Louis Lemieux

        Relying on individual virtue to keep people from using their freedom to step on their neighbor’s freedom is just utopian and silly.

      • Shane

        Thank you Louis Lemieux for agreeing that we need our personal rights to bear arms, because we cannot count on our neighbors to be benevolent. Your comment and point is well taken, and clearly supports an individual right to protect themself and their family with firearms.

    • Ted Crawford

      Louis
      Your statement seems to indicate that our Founders were inarticulate individules. The reading of the document in question, the Federalist Papers, the many pamplets they caused to be generated and their personal correspondence, proves just the opposite to be the case . I believe they intentionaly choose the term ” Arms ” , knowing any future interpretation would use contemporary terminology, rendering the Amendment always relevant !

    • Joseph K

      Absolutely wrong. The Founders were working in the reference of the state laws and constitutions which defined the “militia” as every able-bodied male from 18 to 45 yrs old. As part of that “militia”, they were required to have a “rifle or musket of the type in use in the day”, plus powder and shot for that weapon. They were not stupid; as they convened in Philadelphia, some twenty to thirty miles away, German gunsmiths in the cities and towns of Pennsylvania were busy perfecting the “Kentucky Rifle”, cutting grooves in the rifle barrel in order to have the unburned powder and linen from previous shots find some place to get out of the way so the rifle could fire more shots before having to be cleaned. Lo and behold, the gunsmiths found that the rifles were incredibly accurate! Such rifles were employed by Gen Washington and his subordinates in such battles as Saratoga, where a rifleman shot the lead Brit General and the Brits stopped fighting. The same results were to occur time and again. To say the Constitution applies only to the guns on hand when the Constitution was written is a Progressive solution looking for a problem.

      Also, given the definition of “militia” above, no “regulation” was required. “Regulation” as you are using the word, is as we use it today. You must go back to word useage when the documents were written to properly understand what they said. When they said “regulated”, they meant “to make ordered, to define functioning in a common manner, understood by all in order to facilitate such matters as interpersonal relations, business transactions, etc”. Don’t mix up “militia” with the National Guard, which wasn’t even created until the turn of the 20th Century. In CT we have both. The formal militia is the Governor’s Horse Guard, which goes back to colonial days. They go for basic and advanced raining to federal camps, all paid for by the people of CT. But they do not come under the National Guard Act, and are not subject to call up by the President of the USA. We also have the Natl Guard, which is subject to Federal call up.

      The underlying problem here is schools stopped teaching American History many years ago, when Progressives became entrenched in the halls of the three major school tectbook publishers. All the above details have been cut out as irrelevant.

    • 45caliber

      Louis:

      You are right. They intended for the civilians to have BETTER guns than the government, just like they did at that time. The government had muskets – they had rifles. And if you believe anything else, that’s your problem.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1417763559 Beno

      yet Louis, the reason for guns are still for the same reason, to protect us from a out of control government or a oppressive government, it’s the reason for the guns, not the type of gun, that is a weak reason at best.

    • Joe M

      Louis, what does it matter what guns the founders had when they wrote the 2nd Amendment? A gun is still a gun, should free speech only be protected if we speak the same english they did? Might be an improvement there since our founding fathers spoke and wrote more eloquently than today. Your argument for what guns they had then and now is meaningless; the gun is a tool of protection that the founders knew was important enough to make it the “2nd” Amendment in the B.O.R. It is also the protector of all other Amendments. You are free to not own a gun if you so choose, but you are not free to take away my choice to own any lawful firearm(s) I may choose to own. God gave us all a life and he expects us to protect his gift. Now you may choose to wait for the police to come save you (A big mistake) or you may choose some other form of protecting yourself and loved ones ( A knife, bat, hammer or fist). You may even just cower and hope they don’t take your life (good luck with that). I hope you will never have to find out. Freedom and Liberty come with a price, they are not easy to maintain and can be lost for ever without being vigilant. How long you keep yours depends on how much you value that Freedom and Liberty our Founding Fathers gave you.

      • Ken

        The constitution did not discuss gun ownership nor the type of gun. It simple refers to the “right to bear arms” which is not to be infringed. It made no exceptions whatsoever.

      • Tundra bob

        I agree with what you say except for saying any lawfull guns. They are working very
        hard to make more and more guns unlawful.

  • Jim Clontz, USMC (Ret)

    Johnny, your history is correct but, my .45 or Glock 22 is much eaiser to carry than a police officer. And, if you look at the total population vs police departments, the criminals still out number them. There are laws on the books for different states as to what kind of weapon you can buy (legally). As far as how many ……… we don’t need anymore government restrictions. Besides, I have never seen anyone with 10 or more guns carrying them all. Guns are like silverware, each one has a special purpose. ie, self defense, hunting, sport shooting, etc. As far as being better armed than the police; What price do you put on your life.

    • tg sherman

      Also would the police or secret service need guns if they came & took ours?? If all the guns are conviscated then the police,the secret service & even the military would not need them either!! After all Obama & his corrupt cronies want a new world order. We need to dig up Charlton Heston so he can remind Obama what he can look forward to!

      Tom
      Milton, WI.

    • Johnny

      my point is this……if you own a semi automatic, you dont need an extended clip that can hold up to 30 rounds and 1 in the chamber unless you are going vigilante against gangs who have them, like in all the movies, …..when jared lauttner shot gabby giffords in arizona, the only reason they were able to subdue him was because he couldnt reload effectively….if that gun had only one standard clip with 9 rounds, he would have only been able to fire ten before reloading..I know they say guns dont kill people, people kill people, but stupid laws kill people too…and selling extended clips and not making them illegal is stupid ….people will still get them but if you violate that law, then they should have a HARSHER penalty for your dumb ass

      • Shane

        Johnny, are you still in high school?

      • Joe M

        “Stupid laws kill people” couldn’t agree with you more there Johnny. Stupid waiting period laws have kept people from protecting themselves when they needed a gun. Gee Johnny has to wait two weeks before he can buy a gun so Jeffery will wait until then to attack Johnny…….. Stupid gun laws like those here in California make zero sense and are only intended to make the politicians look like they are tough on crime. Except there is no evidence these laws have done anything, other than to deny law abiding citizens the right to own a firearm that is legal in all other states still operating under the Constitution. That idiot who tried to murder the congresswoman (1) should not have legally had access to a firearm, so those gun laws on the books would not have helped here. You people are always looking for an easy answer (which just seems to always take away a freedom from those who aren’t breaking the law). We have become the society of it’s not my fault I did it it’s someone else’s. We take no responsibility for our own actions because it’s now P.C to do so. Society has an obligation to expect its citizens to obey laws and pay the consequences when they don’t. We don’t make the law abiding suffer them by taking away their rights, freedoms and liberty’s just to make some ultra liberal feel good about themselves. If you’re unhappy with “Freedom” and “Liberty” then there are other country’s more suited to your liking in Europe. Don’t let the door hit you in the @#$ on the way out…. Johnny

    • Sanders

      Johnny,

      Who’s the dumb ass here? I might need my 30 round clips to stave off an attack from a gang of hoodlums who have decided they want to own my home or other personal belongings and kill anything in their way of doing so. My litle 10 round clips would surely get me killed as I would not be able to reload quick enough to defend myself against a large gang.

      • Johnny

        i think you watch too much tv…..either that or you need to move to a safer village….

      • Shane

        Did you cut class today? You really need to think about staying in school, and reading classic literature for understanding outside the current cultural box.

      • Shane

        Before mentioned reply was directed to Johnnie. Our high school student and son of Flashy.

      • CZ52

        “Son of Flashy” thats a good one Shane.

  • Steve

    When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!

    • Shane

      Steve can you state your opinion a little clearer. We have many that visit this site that won’t understand your comment. Like those way on the left of the bell curve. So in the nature of being a good sport, please restate your comment in a more understandable way for those that have little reasoning and cogitative power.

      • Johnny

        well, you nimrod, I am not saying people shouldnt own guns, but they dont need an automatic weapn for one thing for ANY reason, they dont need a glock or any other type with an extended clip that can hold 30 rounds because if you need that many bullets you dont have any business owning a gun in the first place or you should get out of the drug business

      • Sanders

        Johnny,
        You nimrod, those of us who know the facts of how many rounds in the heat of the battle actually hit their intended target, which isn’t many even for the highly trained police officers, know that having a few 30 round clips at hand may only be enough to disable a dozen attackers or less. You are obviously commenting on a topic you are totally ingnorant of the facts. Join the NRA and learn something useful rather than the boob tube you obviously watch routinely. Only in the westerns does it only take one round per person.

      • Shane

        Little Johnny, what is it about Freedom that you don’t understand? Are you still in high school?

      • Johnny

        a zombie apocolypse is only on TV……there wont be a zombie apocolypse…that is all made up, so you dont have to worry about having that many attackers coming at you

      • Sanders

        Johnny Boy,

        You know why a gang is called a gang, don’t you? Maybe not, your posts suggest otherwise. Gangs are made up of many, usually more than just a few. Get a clue, get educated, before your ingnorance gets you mamed or worse, killed. You must live on Sesame Street where all is beautiful.

      • Shane

        Johnny, are you in tenth or eleventh grade?

      • Johnny

        what cities do you people live in that you are worried about 4 or 5 or more armed individuals trying to attack you or are you just paranoid and if it ever happened you wouldnt have all of your stockpile of weapons with you anyways???

      • searcher4851

        Johnny
        The name of the city is Chicago, where in the last couple of years “thug mobs” have been beating and robbing people. They aren’t doing it in the “bad” neighborhoods either, they are doing it in the parks and the main shopping areas, where the people actually have things worth stealing. Electronic devices seem to be a favorite target and having one with you seems to mark you as a target.

  • http://t Gordon

    I believe our intelligent founding fathers made it perfectly clear that in no way this right
    to keep, and BARE arms be infringed. Everyone reading these blogs should watch a
    short video entitled Innocents Betrayed, as it not only tells of the Armenians , and the
    Jews, but also the Cambodians, Chinese, North Koreans, Cubans, Angolans, and others
    who have relinquished their weapons to the STATE, only to have them used against them
    You see Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, and all the rest knew that governments have a
    way of becoming overbearing, and that the people need the where-with-all to be able
    to defend against a tyrannical (read dictatorial ) government ……………

  • Flashy

    #1. OK…so someone without a permit to have the gun in the car (concealed weapons permit), with brains of being with a guy carrying $4,000 cash to meet up with a total stranger in a place where there aren’t people around, and by the story didn’t keep the cash in the car but packed it on his person, ….. runs through a neighborhood firing off a weapon she has no experience with. SHE says she fired it into the air….uh huh …picture this guys. A woman, having no regular experience with handguns, in the heat of the moment, is running down the street chasing some guy….and you honestly can say she had the awareness to fire straight up? She didn’t get nailed for having the weapon…she got nailed because she shouldn’t have had the weapon. She endangered a lot of folks that day…because she and her boyfriend were stupid. BTW…wonder what ‘weapon’ the would be robber had? All in all, it doesn’t sound as if Ms. Innocent is all that innocent.

    #2. Ummm…where to begin here. So there aren’t enough to go around and everyone have one themselves. It’s resorted to be scarce and they have to share. Share guns which are stashed…could be found by someone not “in with Flynn” so to speak…and who knows if it will be there? And such is bad…when the criminals have to share guns because there aren’t available or too expensive for each to have one. Wow….that is sooo bad. the bad guys can’t each have a toy to play with.

    #3. OK…this one i laughed ut loud. First off, growing up in the sticks…if there are wolves and coyotes, you’re kinda out there, and a passing observance of the law is the requirement. if you went further and asked the CANADIAN rancher…he’d say ‘of course i go out and night and spotlight. ” And coyotes are not unknown to be seen in dawn and twilight. Whomever decided to use this as an example…sure in the heck doesn’t know much about ranching in the far nether regions. As for shooting from a vehicle. What idiot is going to do that unless it’s with a .22 or something? Best way to crack a windshield or go deaf is fire a 30.06 or large caliber from a vehicle. And a moving one at that? yeah…back in the pre 1920′s…they could fire from a moving vehicle, if any existed ….uh huh.

    C’mon….this kind of story is told so often, it’s a running joke in rural cafes and standing around fence posts how much BS it is but it sure as heck is fun to do some funnin’ on them city folks.

    #4. I saw that commercial. This guy (Joe the Plumber, aka Joe the Carpetbagger) … is a few fries short of a Big Mac Deal if that commercial is his message..

    All in all, a scare story meant to rouse the troops over an issue that isn’t an issue. Jeesh ….

    • Searcher4851

      Flashy-
      Ok, #1 was a very poor example, and warning shots are not wise. However for GOOD examples, read the “ARMED CITIZEN” page in the American Rifleman each month for plenty of good examples.
      #2 I think you missed the point of the article. The gangbangers aren’t stashing guns due to shortage, they’re stashing them in convenient locations to avoid being caught with one on their person. Easy access is maintained, while the chances of being caught “in posession” are greatly reduced.
      #3 No one suggested firing an ’06 within the confines of a vehicle. Extending the muzzle out through an open window would be more normal. Also, hunting from the open back of a pickup truck would fall withing the moving vehicle catagory. But as you said, sure, the farmer is most likely taking care of business regardless of the restrictions, the point being, that in doing what he needs to do to protect his livestock and livelyhood, the restrictions make him a lawbreaker.
      #4 No comment since I can’t watch the video from my current location. (no sound)

    • SOS58TH

      you may have a case on the woman firing in all directions, I don’t know I don’t have the facts.I was not there.Point 2 they stashed guns so they could not be charged for carring a weapon not because they did not have enough guns.They had plenty they just hid them through out their territory so they could be available as needed.Mabe more guns than gang members.Point 3 you missed the point completely!Yes the rancher went out hunting to protect his property but he did so at risk of being put in jail or fined.Just for protecting his livelyhood

      • Flashy

        Stashing guns because not all have them or don’t want to get picked up for packin’. Either or…that;s a bad thing when a bad guy has to go search, hope it’s not missing, and proceed from there? ya really think they treat ‘em like a Hertz rent a Car and return them? And what idiot would use another’s gun not knowing what it had tagged onj it from the previous owner..

        Either way…it hampers and impedes AND makes ‘sudden impulse” crimes much less frequent. Seems to me to be working…

        As to the rancher dilemma… give me a break. Ranchers complain about the wolf and coyote kills every year. Just to bitch about environmentalists and liberals…not that it’s a major issue with them. First, the wolf range in the US is darn near miniscule these days. And what there is is wayyy out in the hinterlands. If a reintroduced wolf kills a beef (and yes, they know with reintroduced as they wear radio collars and chips)…the rancher is reimbursed, Coyotes are coyotes, Few will being down something as large as a beef. It’s a nice area for the rancher to bitch about…restrictions on his freedom and “god damn if I’m going to let go of my freedom. I don’t need no guld durn government telling me what to do ! (as he grazes on subsidized federal lands, receives subsidized pricing, takes his full fuel credits, and writes off not only his machinery on a 3 to 7 year depreciation basis, but also waters from gov’t hydro projects, has electricity due to the rural electrification programs, receives the latest from satellites put into space by the gov’t, takes special tax treament, and has high speed internet courtesy of the rural internet subsidy programs ).

        Shooting from a moving vehicle? Hunting at night? Yeah…like some city guy is gonna come in once or twice a year, pretend he’s Daniel Boone, and be knowing and aware. You don’t think the local game wardens know what’s going on and giving the locals a pass on those laws…while enforcing them against the city hunters who come out and shoot each other up every year pretending they’re Davy Crockett, Daniel Boone, and Bill Cody all wrapped into one?

        • Ken

          The constitution does not specify that guns are to be used – or not used – for hunting, target practice, hobbies, or anything up; it merely states that the right to bear arms is not to be infringed. As to the drivel you put forth regarding farmers “bitching” about infringement of their rights by government while enjoying all those perks, remember those perks were all paid for by that farmer thru taxes whether he wanted them or not. There is no conflict between asserting your rights and using what your taxes have bought.

    • Shane

      Love you “Flashy.” Just wouldn’t want to be you. Life’s too wonderful, to be this blog sites barfly.

  • Big Red

    Johnny just don’t get it. If I want and can afford 100 guns so be it. What’s the amount of guns have to do with anything?

  • http://google john p.

    Wake up America you are allowing Politicians to pass stupid law’s
    that effects your rights . and your not saying nothing about this so
    you vote the same people in office . you let the Democrats do what
    they want . this is about control of you what don’t you people understand .
    a lot of people vote and they have no idea who they voted for . these
    are the people who should not vote . there should be some kind of
    test to take in order to vote . the Second Amendment is very important
    it is your rights to own a gun if you want . you don’t let politician’s take
    away any of your rights no matter what .

    • Johnny

      if you cant put together a coherent thought, maybe you shouldnt be owning a gun slingblade

      • Shane

        Speaking of coherent thought. Are you still in high school Johnny?

    • Flashy

      John…just out of curiosity…what gun control restrictions are you specifically referring to?

  • george Moberly

    Flashy you live to put down any point that leans to the veiw of the right wing. Some day you may get a life. In the mean time maybe you could get on down to the Obama re-election headquarters where you can find someone who cares about what you have to say. Moe

    • Shane

      Flashy is a blog site barfly. A loser with nothing else to do, but sit at the bar with his computer and comment, comment and comment. No life. No experience. No family. Well actually, he may have a family, but is missing a father’s and spouse’s interaction.

      It’s sad. ;-(

  • TPP Fighter

    This article was great until you put on Joe The Plumber. This guy is a moron and never was a plumber. let’s hope that the electorate is not stupid enough to elect him.

    • Soldier of Fortune

      This article is great with hardly any mention of Barry Obama. This guy is a moron and never held a real job. Let’s hope that the electorate is not stupid enough to re-elect him.

    • Sanders

      Joe the Plumber is exactly the kind of guy I would want living next door to me. TPP Fighter, what brings you to such a stupid conclusion? The only thing I can think is you’re a Obamabot idiot, drunk on the koolaid.

    • 45caliber

      TPP:
      He can’t be any worse than Oblama … and he might be better.

    • Flashy

      Uh huh yeah…sure lol

  • Pilot

    Guns don’t kill people. Governments kill people.

    • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

      Amen.

    • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

      Don’t forget, the word “terrorism” was originally coined to describe acts of war that a government would carry out against its own citizens for the purpose of making them too afraid of their government to resist it.

      • 45caliber

        Jazz:

        You are right. The original Oxford dictionary, I think it was, defined terrorism as “government by fear”. And that is exactly what terrorism is today.

  • Don W

    Some very interesting comments here well worth reading. Here in Israel the law is changing to anti-gun and I suspect that within two years civilains will not be allowed weapons. This means that the only ones with guns will be the Terrorists and possibly Members of Knesset (Parliament).
    I was told by a Police Officer that there is one Prosecutor in the Jerusalem area who stated that if you shoot and kill somebody even in order to protect your life or a member of your family he will prosecute you for murder regardless. We had a shooting a few days ago (not in the Jerusalem area) where some people ordered a tow truck, when the truck arrived they tried to steal it and/or kidnap the driver. He shot two people dead so it will be very interesting to see what the final outcome is.

    • Sanders

      Don,
      Sorry to hear of this tragedy. Your government officials obviously have forgotten how Hitler began his tyranny and murderous run on the Jews. His first step was to disarm the public, this allowed him to do anything he wanted as the people then had no way to protect themselves.

    • 45caliber

      Don:

      That is sad to hear. I’m surprised. When you are surrounded by enemies, the government wants you to give up your protection? It makes you wonder … does becoming a politician immediately destroy their common sense?

  • SLASH

    ” The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
    Nor the right for security and personal protection shall not be denied.
    Kind of says it all.

    • http://www.politicosense.blog.com Johnnie

      The only thing it dosen’t say, is an assault rifle necessary for security and personal protection? How about hunting with one?

      • Shane

        Uncoherent analogy. Are you still in high school Johnnie or related to Flashy? I believe you may be Flashy’s son, and use the blogs to maintain a father/son relationship between the two of you.

      • CZ52

        First of all look up the meaning of “assualt Rifle” before you post about them.

        Second my semi-auto only rifle that is called an assualt rifle by those who are to lazy to find out what an assualt rifle really is and also by those who want to ban semi auto rifles is a perfect deer rifle for certain places I hunt. It is compact enough to handle in brushy areas and plenty accurate enough to make one shot kills at the close range in those areas which incidently every deer I have killed with it have been.

      • Johnny

        oh and that would be INcoherent analogy, not UNcoherent……just so you know and NO, I am nowhere near high school….just sitting here and wondering what it is you people watch that has you so scared that obama is going to try and take over the country…I have never seen or heard anything from this administration concerning gun control…..EVER not even after the trayvon debacle

      • Ed

        Johnnie just an FYI for you,and others…I have been using and still continue to use my SKS for deer hunting as well as other game. The really nice advantage it also doubles as a home defense weapon,all side by side with my other collection of weapons/tools. I am a staunch supporter of the second amendment and conceal carry.

        I do not care what your inflammatory remarks are, However it does speak reams and volumes about you.

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        Johnnie, just because you haven’t heard about it doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened.

        Obama reversed the Bush Admin’s stance against the proposed UN Small Arms Treaty 3 years ago. Negotiators are setting up a global conference for THIS YEAR to hash out the terms of the treaty. Hillary has already stated that she will push the Senate to ratify it, even though we don’t know what’s in it yet. (Sound familiar?)

      • Seanoamericano

        The term assault rifle comes from sturm gewher meaning storm gun or assault gun. It is fully automatic used by military units. The law prevents a common person from owning one, unless you can get the stamp and jump thru a bunch of hoops. The term assault rifle came about with the brady bill.It was coined to make people conjure up scarry thoughts. One of the items was a bayonet lug, I have a bolt action 5 round rifle rifle that is considered an assault rifle. Delusional thinking like the whole zimmerman story. Here is a guy, hired security in a fenced community with a history of breakins, sees a thug lurking around behind a house at 11:30 p.m. confronts him a scuffle a dead thug. Libtards seeing an opportunity edits the tapes, wont show a current picture of said thug,blows off a libtard director who s action sends more black thugs to the wrong address with intent on causing harm to an elderly couple. What about the reward posted by the panters? Sounds to me like ample justification to own more than a musket. The law did what it normally does, nothing to protect people. I am curious to know what you would do if you were that elderly couple? That b movie director apologized for sending the braindead thugs to the wrong address not for the damage it caused. That POS shouild be charged with inciting a riot, But that wont happen because he is one of the useful idiots that advances their agenda.

  • TIME

    WOW, Now the TRUTH so you can teach other,
    2010 FBI reports, about 30,000 gun related deaths in the USA for the year.
    19,000 are self inflected.
    That leaves about 11,000 that are other forms.

    Yet Monthly in the US 200,000 PLUS people die from Prescription Drugs, so that works out to about 2.6 Million DEATHS from Legal Drugs per year only in the USA, What about other nations?

    Who makes money off these Drugs again? Eli Lilly and who owns the lion share of stocks in this Monster?

    Peace and Love

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/GaryMallast Gary J. Mallast

    You forgot to bring up the farms in Michigan raided recently for having not politically approved breeds of pigs

  • Average Joe

    Gun control means…being able to hit your target…with the first shot…..

    An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
    Robert A. Heinlein

    • http://www.politicosense.blog.com Johnnie

      It’s people like you that are dangerous. You don’t have to be a criminal to be dangerous just unstable packing a gun.

      • Sanders

        Johnnie,

        And you’re a pathetic, I mean prophetic psychiatist thus able to determine that AJ is unstable. I carry everyday, much to the chagrin of any would be successful assailant against me. I pity the poor fool who comes to a gun fight with me possessing only a knife.

      • Shane

        Johnnie, are you still in high school? Your comments would then start to make sense.

      • CZ52

        Shane, where I live even the high schoolers can make a more informed intellegent post than Johnnie

      • Shane

        CZ52, you may have a point. Johnnie, may be a dropout. Or a graduate from a school district that runs their charges through the diploma mill regardless of qualification. That is the norm in many school districts.

      • Average Joe

        Johnnie,

        Your opinion has been duly read, duly noted, duly laughed at and finally…duly ignored.

        Best wWishes,
        AJ

      • Nadzieja Batki

        You are really a silly and immature child.Your handlers should be truthful and teach you that the outside world is still a big bad world and people are not evolving into better and better humans.

  • 45caliber

    Personnally, I’d like to see dueling legal again. Everyone would be a lot more polite and a lot less aggressive. Of course, the politiicans might be in trouble – after all, that was the reason they made dueling illegal in the first place.

    • http://www.politicosense.blog.com Johnnie

      You my friend are a 45caliber idiot. Dueling? What century are you living in? Maybe you fantazise you’re an old west gunslinger, Mr. Macho Man

      • Shane

        Johnnie, I believe you are actually trying to “act” behind the screen like a macho-macho man. The comment that you are unable to grasp, was mockery, with just a little real life reality in it’s charge to prove the truth behind it’s writer.

  • Johnny

    trayvon martin would be alive today if george zimmerman didnt have a gun on him when he was tracking him down……maybe george was a little more BRAVE about doing so BECAUSE he was packing than if he was just sitting in his truck observing which is what he SHOULD have been doing

    • Sanders

      WOW, you do have a lick of sense, Johnny. For a minute there I thought you were a blithering idiot. Don’t forget that Trayvon would probably be alive if he hadn’t attacked Mr. Zimmerman in the first place.

    • Shane

      Gee Johhny, are you still in high school?

  • Nick

    What irks me about overly restrictive gun laws is that they only punish the law abiding while having little effect on criminal gun users. Why should I as a sport shooter who has never had any trouble with the law have my constitutional rights trampled on because there are criminal idiots in our society? Punish the criminal not the populous. The idea that restricting law abiding citezens gun rights and access in order to rein in gun related crime perpetrated by lawless criminals is in my opinion silly if not down right un-American.

  • http://Www.bountyhunternow.com Spyder dalton

    Proper training was the tool missing from this event. She would have known running after the perp shooting in the air was illegal…

    • Average Joe

      Not only that, but common sense dictates that what goes up, must come down… somewhere. That is called reckless endangerment.

      Best Wishes,
      AJ

    • 45caliber

      Agreed. She should have simply shot him. Then she would have stopped him and known where the buillet was going at the same time.

      • Average Joe

        Heh, agreed ;)

  • http://www.politicosense.blog.com Johnnie

    #1 The Lady is lucky she wasn’t killed or shot herself or some innocent person or child firing a weapon in a populated area. Wrong…that is the Police’s job
    #2 Stop & Frisk is all about Profiling and Racism not Guns. You should be ashamed
    #3 The Farmer should use traps that are legal and humane
    #4 Idiots like ‘Joe the Plumber” (not a plumber but a loser) shouldn’t be allowed to use weapons like he advocates. He is not a stable person.

    • Sanders

      Why Johnnie, your ingnorance knows no bounds. First of all, how do you know they were in a populated area? Secondly, shooting wolves and coyotes isn’t illegal, he just needs to learn how to do so during daylight hours. Thirdly, what ever gave you the idea that trapping is more humane than shooting the animals? You would then do what with the animal, take it into the next county and drop it off so it can kill some other farmers livestock, or worse, person? Last but certainly not least, you very obviously are the idiot here, not Joe the successful Plumber. There is nothing wrong with realistic practice with your firearms, in fact, it’s the most responsible thing to do as a firearms owner. Know your weapon and be an accurate marksman so that if the time comes when you need it to defend yourself or your loved ones then you may do so while minimizing the chances of injurring and innocent bystander.

      • Shane

        Johnnie’s our future Flashy. No life outside of blogs and video games. Have to feel sorry, very sorry for those like Johnnie.

      • Johnny

        you morons DO know that Johnny, ME….and Johnnie……are TWO different people, right??? just making sure

      • Average Joe

        Sanders,

        It’s gotten to the point that when I see “Johnny”….Al I can think of is Charlie Brown in the classroom. All I can hear is,”whah whah wah wah? wah wah wah……”

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04&feature=related

        Best Wishes,
        AJ

      • Average Joe

        Johnny, my appologies for forgetting to Add “Johnnie” to my post as well. Thank you for pointing that out to me. ;)

        Best Wishes,
        AJ

      • Shane

        If you read the two, Johnny and Johnnie, there’s nary a hairs difference between the two. One may be a shad shorter and rounder in th middle, but psychologically, and politically they could be twins.

    • Ken

      Read the constitution again. I doubt anybody gives a rat’s a** what you think of Joe the Plumber but we have a bill of rights to protect us from government and from people like you.

    • 45caliber

      Johnnie:

      You are certainly a city boy and know very little of guns too. The main reason that ranchers do not end their wolf and coyote problems with traps (humane or not) is because both animals are smart enough to avoid them. It’s hard enough to find them at all when they don’t want you to do it. And the only real time you can find them is at night. Humans have lost too many of their original hunting skills. The woman shouldn’t have shot as she did, exposing her own lack of knowledge about guns. She should either have simply shown the thief the gun and let him run off or she should have shot him. Stop and Frisk is a NYC thing; Mayor Bumblehead there came up with it. It isn’t even profiling or racist. They want to get everyone one there used to a police state where the police can do whatever they want to you. And I would trust Joe the Plumber with a gun a lot quicker than I would some idiot liberal who knew nothing about them! Incidently, dueling is NOT what the old gunfighters on TV did. Dueling had strict rules, judges, etc. and in most cases was not fatal.

  • http://gravatar.com/rusureuwant2know rusureuwant2know

    Gee, are police officers ever charged with firing a firearm on a city street? Where is equality under the law in this case?

    • Jeremy Leochner

      Police have a legitimate reason to be carrying and firing a gun. Also they have the necessary training to know how to handle a gun and more importantly how to try and diffuse a situation without resorting to using it.

      • 45caliber

        Jeremy:

        You haven’t been around police all that much, have you? I’ve watched them qualify – trust me, I don’t want to be around when most of them are shooting. Further, police are no less likely to panic in a shooting emergency than anyone else. They simply are trained to arrest people; shooting is an after thought in training.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Actually I have. I admit I have never been near a shooting. However police are trained to handle weapons and they are given training in dealing with situations in a more peaceful way. I know because I know people who have gone through or want to go through the police academy. Human beings are human beings. But I would rather trust a police officer with a weapon then John or Jane Q person on the street. People can have guns for protection. But do not just grab it at the first sign of the slightest threat or perceived threat.

      • 45caliber

        Jeremy:

        Then you should inform the police that they aren’t to grab it at the first hint of danger. Most do. That’s why so many people are being shot by them in the last couple of years. I’m particularly against every small police department having their own SWAT team. The team is trained to shoot first and ask questions later. The police can’t have them sitting all the time so they send them to break into houses. Many times those people are shot while “resisting arrest” even though they have no guns and the police broke into the wrong house.

      • http://peresonallibertydigest.. gottaplenty

        Jeremy ,You should venture out of your cozy little enviroment and into the real world. I am an X marine and have never been without a rifle or hand gun since 1952, and intend to continue . it would just amaze you how many times just the fact i had them was enough to evade trouble. And that i intend to keep them at all costs…

        • James Clontz

          gotaplenty; I am a retired Marine. I wonder about you because “we” never refer to ourselves as “X”. Lee Harvey Oswald was an “X”.

    • Flashy

      Every time a cop fires his weapon, he write a report describing the entire set of circumstances. i know of no cop who who run down the street firing into the sir … anyone want to venture a guess if she knew where they (the shots) went?

      As for some mag setting forth every month circumstances which people defended themselves against bad guys…. I’ll bet they leave out the times innocents get shot or some idiot does something stupid thinking he was some reincarnation of Dirty Harry or The Duke.

      The 2nd is not, NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN, about protecting against bad guys. To quote many on this site…it’s a common sense reading of the Constitution. yet…ya’ll twist it to almost non recognition… jeesh

      • CZ52

        Flashy I will post this again just for your education.

        Just shows flashys ignorance. The authors of the bill of rights were well aware of all legitimet uses of firearms and would expect all to be included in the Second Amendment.

        Those uses would include but not be limited to;

        1. Target shooting both in competition and for fun.
        2. Self defence at home and when traveling including moving about the local town or village while going about your business.
        3. Hunting for subsistance and for sport.
        4. The need to be armed if called to serve in the local militia.
        5. The people being armed and able to resist an out of control government.

        This list is certainly far from all inclusive but covers the primary reasons.

      • Flashy

        CZ…I will state this over and over if need be to pound it into heads. The 2nd has nothing to do with any right to pack around a gun to show off the testicular levels. It has nothing to do with packing in public, in a bar, or anywhere outside the home except in one circumstance. Self defense against bad guys is not within the protections of the 2nd amendment. Having firearms in the home is.

        It is for self defense..against the State and a military coup, or a dictatorship requiring a rebellion. An armed citizenry virtually guarantees the overall vaguest protections and observances of the Rights, liberties and freedoms of our Constitution. THAT was what was fresh on the minds of when the Constitution was drafted…not whether some freak show wanted to pack around a gun in public endangering everyone but the bad guys.

      • CZ52

        “It is for self defense..against the State and a military coup, or a dictatorship requiring a rebellion. An armed citizenry virtually guarantees the overall vaguest protections and observances of the Rights, liberties and freedoms of our Constitution. THAT was what was fresh on the minds of when the Constitution was drafted…”

        Flashy to claim that the authors of the Constitution and the Second Amendment were not aware of and intended to include the points I made in the Second Amendment just shows that you are as ignorant as you are verbose.

  • http://rusureuwant2know.wordpress.com rusureuwant2know

    Oh, and you shouldn’t need a “license to carry” for something that’s a right. The gun was already registered – the license to carry is just another way of raising revenue and limits gun ownership to those that can afford to continue to renew a license. Get laid off your job and end up with fewer resources, you lose your license – that’s not right.

  • Jeremy Leochner

    I will say.

    1: I agree with the women using a gun in that situation minus the chasing and firing in the air. Perhaps the law in Maryland should be amended.

    2: With respect: we should relax gun control because bad guys wont follow it. That does not seem right.

    3: I can respect a farmers desire to protect their live stock. I will say I prefer defense to hunting. And I can understand why its dangerous to be shooting from a moving vehicle. Specifically at night.

    4: I can respect Mr the Plumbers concerns. Our government in my opinion is not coming after us. In some areas police have gone over the line and acted in a militarized way. But that does not equate to big brother coming to take your guns away. I believe the founding fathers wanted to emphasis the use of speech expression and the press as the way to counter act bad government. That is why they put it in the first amendment. I believe that as long as videos critical of the government, for that matter any form of expression against the government can be posted or presented publicly I would say the need to use guns to protect ourselves from the government has not arrived. Nor is it anywhere near.

  • Viet Nam Vet 67-68

    Own and buy as many guns possible if you haven’t heard Obamination at the time is trying a back door Bill thru the International Community to ban the sale of Guns and ammunition and gun ownership in America and if it passes the U.N. can come in with Obamionations approval and remove our weapons by passing Congress and our 2nd Amendment. I for one will dispatch anyone who trys to do so and so should every American that dosen’t include DemoRATS or Liberals, Muslims and Communists they can hand over their weapons and find out how the German people and Jews found out what would happen when a tryant like Hitler (Obamination)took their weapons and their means to fight back a Country gone MAD. We the people must remember the sacrafices that our men and women in the Armed Forces have given to protect our great Constitution our Constitutional Republic (Not a Democracy) and our way of LIFE. Also remember it is our Congress who has walked Lock Step with Obamination for the last 3 1/2 years remember them this election and reward them by voting them out of office.

    • Jeremy Leochner

      Vet. The law you are referring to I believe is a regulation on assault weapons and is a UN resolution which our country can choose to honor or not. No one is coming for anyone’s guns. I am a liberal and I neither wish to take your guns or get anyone to give up anything.Our country is not Germany in the 1930s. No one is trying to take power and oppress people.One final thing. Congress has never toed the line with Obama. If they did we would have universal healthcare and the dream act would have been passed.

    • jim

      jim says:

      June 25, 2012 at 6:06 pm

      Seems to me that yes; she shot into the air. HER BAD! but did she ever take enough responsablity to BE EDUCATED with that gun before she had a need to use it.?? CLASSES??!! We as a people have lost sight as to who we are, thanks to professional propaganda from the media heads, and that blame is in part all the way up to the “top of the HILL”. Why does man even bother to invent tools…to make life better; thats why.
      WHY? did the founders even bother bringing the peeshoter over on the boat in the first place? To make life better. I found this writen piece supposedly from a professional “peeshoter specialist”. read it all the way to the end, then thick reallly hard.
      Subject: The Gun is civilization

      Why I will defend our right to own a gun!!

      THIS IS THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER READ…

      Very good article, and of course, from a Marine!!!!

      As the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the Chicago,
      IL Gun Ban, this man offered you another stellar example of a letter
      (written by a Marine), that places the proper perspective on what
      a gun means to a civilized society.

      Interesting take and one you don’t hear much. . . . . . Read this
      eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last
      paragraph of the letter….

      “The Gun Is Civilization” by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

      Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and
      force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of
      either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding
      under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of
      those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

      In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact
      through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social
      interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is
      the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

      When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to
      use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate
      your threat or employment of force.

      The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman
      on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree
      on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single
      guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball
      bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size,
      or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

      There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of
      bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be
      more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a
      firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That,
      of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly
      disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity
      when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

      People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by
      the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite
      of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make
      a successful living in a society where the state has granted him
      a force monopoly.

      Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal
      that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is
      fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations
      are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming
      injury on the loser.

      People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute
      lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come
      out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes
      lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender,
      not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

      The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an
      octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply
      wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal
      and easily employable.

      When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight,
      but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means
      that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m
      afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit
      the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only
      the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from
      the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

      By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

      So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally
      armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
      jim says:

      June 25, 2012 at 6:06 pm

      Seems to me that yes; she shot into the air. HER BAD! but did she ever take enough responsablity to BE EDUCATED with that gun before she had a need to use it.?? CLASSES??!! We as a people have lost sight as to who we are, thanks to professional propaganda from the media heads, and that blame is in part all the way up to the “top of the HILL”. Why does man even bother to invent tools…to make life better; thats why.
      WHY? did the founders even bother bringing the peeshoter over on the boat in the first place? To make life better. I found this writen piece supposedly from a professional “peeshoter specialist”. read it all the way to the end, then thick reallly hard.
      Subject: The Gun is civilization

      Why I will defend our right to own a gun!!

      THIS IS THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER READ…

      Very good article, and of course, from a Marine!!!!

      As the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the Chicago,
      IL Gun Ban, this man offered you another stellar example of a letter
      (written by a Marine), that places the proper perspective on what
      a gun means to a civilized society.

      Interesting take and one you don’t hear much. . . . . . Read this
      eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last
      paragraph of the letter….

      “The Gun Is Civilization” by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

      Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and
      force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of
      either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding
      under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of
      those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

      In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact
      through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social
      interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is
      the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

      When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to
      use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate
      your threat or employment of force.

      The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman
      on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree
      on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single
      guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball
      bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size,
      or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

      There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of
      bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be
      more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a
      firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That,
      of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly
      disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity
      when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

      People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by
      the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite
      of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make
      a successful living in a society where the state has granted him
      a force monopoly.

      Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal
      that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is
      fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations
      are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming
      injury on the loser.

      People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute
      lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come
      out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes
      lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender,
      not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

      The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an
      octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply
      wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal
      and easily employable.

      When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight,
      but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means
      that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m
      afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit
      the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only
      the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from
      the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

      By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

      So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally
      armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

      Slaves are never armed, neither are the subjected,…. will you learn from history?

      Slaves are never armed, neither are the subjected,…. will you learn from history?

  • Smithkowitz

    What goes up must come down; Reckless Endangerment: GUILTY as charged. She should have had the gun on her person, and when the criminal activity began to go down, she pulls the gun and says; on the ground now! Sadly, depending on the state, being robbed isn’t necessarily a threat upon your life; in many states you must feel your life is in danger to shoot, it cannot just be to stop criminal activity. So if the robber made a move toward her after she pulled the gun, she would have cause, before that, no cause to fire. If he just decided to leave with the money she still had no cause to fire, there was no loss of life threat, except by her. As I stated, sad but true in many cases.

  • http://yahoo Bob

    GUN SAFETY is the up most important thing before handling a firearm . People that has never handled a firearm should take a safety class first before owning one . Teach Children never touch a firearm no matter what. WE had GUNS in our home since I can remember but n-e-v-e-r handle one without My Father’s permission He was the only one to give that permission .until I was 16 years old and knew gun safety any misuse and I was never allowed to handle one again. That was the LAW of the HOUSE. NEVER WERE ALLOWED A LOADED GUN IN THE HOUSE FOR NO REASON .

  • Smithkowitz

    I see Joe is using the older True Value Hardware logo design for his campaign . . . . brand recognition I guess. As for the schmo on: http://www.majority.fm, I guess he doesn’t know too much about guns (regarding hitting the veggies), or how to overthrow a nation (disarming the population one of the main steps).

  • Bimbam

    According to Publius Huldah when the government is suppose to uphold and keep the Constitution. That is all they are suppose to do. Thy swore an oath to.

    Thus, when they violate that oath by exceeding the delegated powers they swore to uphold it becomes a “personaly” thing or usupration territory and thus we have no obligation to obey them!

    So, examine the state laws carefully, if you think the guns laws have exceeded the Constitution rebuke your lawmakers. And if they do not change you have no obligation to OBEY THEM.

  • jim

    Seems to me that yes; she shot into the air. HER BAD! but did she ever take enough responsablity to BE EDUCATED with that gun before she had a need to use it.?? CLASSES??!! We as a people have lost sight as to who we are, thanks to professional propaganda from the media heads, and that blame is in part all the way up to the “top of the HILL”. Why does man even bother to invent tools…to make life better; thats why.
    WHY? did the founders even bother bringing the peeshoter over on the boat in the first place? To make life better. I found this writen piece supposedly from a professional “peeshoter specialist”. read it all the way to the end, then thick reallly hard.
    Subject: The Gun is civilization

    Why I will defend our right to own a gun!!

    THIS IS THE BEST WORDED PRO-GUN ARGUMENT I HAVE EVER READ…

    Very good article, and of course, from a Marine!!!!

    As the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the Chicago,
    IL Gun Ban, this man offered you another stellar example of a letter
    (written by a Marine), that places the proper perspective on what
    a gun means to a civilized society.

    Interesting take and one you don’t hear much. . . . . . Read this
    eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last
    paragraph of the letter….

    “The Gun Is Civilization” by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

    Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and
    force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of
    either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding
    under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of
    those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact
    through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social
    interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is
    the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

    When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to
    use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate
    your threat or employment of force.

    The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman
    on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree
    on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single
    guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball
    bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size,
    or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

    There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of
    bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be
    more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a
    firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That,
    of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly
    disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity
    when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

    People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by
    the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite
    of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make
    a successful living in a society where the state has granted him
    a force monopoly.

    Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal
    that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is
    fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations
    are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming
    injury on the loser.

    People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute
    lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come
    out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes
    lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender,
    not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

    The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an
    octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply
    wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal
    and easily employable.

    When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight,
    but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means
    that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m
    afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit
    the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only
    the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from
    the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

    By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

    So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally
    armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

    Slaves are never armed, neither are the subjected,…. will you learn from history?

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

    The capacity on the part of “gun-controlers” to devise outlandish policies intended to combat crime is rivaled in stupidity only by their propensity to avoid true solutions. Gun control has always been the pet panacea of those who possess neither the desire nor the backbone to confront the true and obvious cause of gun violence: criminals and a lenient justice system. Rather than confront this bane head on, gun controllers have striven to crack down on their favorite whipping boys, the guns themselves.

    Every time another maniac opens fire, as America recently revisited on the one-year anniversary of the near assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the calls go out for stricter gun control. Gun controllers, however, never quite get around to explaining how the previous 20,000 gun control laws they enthusiastically enacted failed to stop the most recent tragedies. The memorable shootings in the Los Angeles Jewish center and the Texas shooting in a Christian church were not—and could not—have been prevented by existing gun control laws. Nevertheless, the reaction was typical and predictable.

    The only effect that these ridiculous laws, and gun programs such as, “Gun-buyback program” have on criminals is that certain robberies may be delayed while the muggers try to stop laughing. The entire program is predicated on the nonsensical notion that criminals are the ones that turn in their guns. That an IQ above 10 could actually take such logic seriously is one of the great mysteries of life. But, alas, some people actually purport to believe it.

    • CZ52

      “The entire program is predicated on the nonsensical notion that criminals are the ones that turn in their guns.”

      They do turn in guns. They turn in the guns that they have fired in the comission of a crime and get paid for it instead of having to throw it away and get nothing for it. Since these gun buy backs are always “no questions asked” and “no records of who turns in what” the buy backs are the perfect way to dispose of a “hot” firearm.

      • Deerinwater

        Right ~ if they get deposed of. If a fine piece of workmanship comes in, ~ I can assure you , it does not get disposed.

        It’d be a crime if it were.

        Quality firearms hold their value like a gold bar.

  • http://BobLivingston Ivan Pistov

    Johnny says you don’t need and shouldn’t be able to own 10 guns. In case you didn’t think about it, you can’t shoot 10 of them at once. Some people like guns, like to shoot 10 different ones on occasion for many reasons. It wouldn’t be a great deal different if you said you can’t own 10 cars! Each car could be a lethal weapon, but if you have the means and a place to keep them you can own 10 cars. You might like to drive any particular one on any given day. People like you are always saying we should treat guns like cars: if that’s true, then we can own 10 (or 100 or 1000) cars or guns and cars can be taken almost any place there is room or parking for them. Therefore we ought to be able to take our gun anywhere we want and not be harassed UNTIL we do something to harm somebody else. Anything in the world that you can own, if you have the means and the place, you can have as many as you want.

  • Jim S

    I love the way someone just has to point out the “worst” for gun ownership, let me explain.
    People often complain because people own guns and has the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. More often than not you will need that kind of protection, true, however it is ALWAYS better to be prepared than, well, DEAD.
    A few persons on this blog REALLY need to retrieve more information BEFORE they post…ANYWHERE!
    With that said, I’m sure most of you will know to whom these comments are from:

    “i thought the constitution was written in like the 1700s, when there WERE no police departments, people didnt live in big cities where there is more protection than out in the country, and people had to worry about thieves robbing and stealing their money and cattle……I think things are a little different now than they were 250 years ago”….Yes it is, the 2nd Amendment is needed now more than ever..

    “the constitution should change as well, people dont need 10 or 20 weapons for protection” …actually 10 is about the right amount, at least 1 in every room and well concealed and 1 for personal carry, I would hate to have a weapon under my pillow for night and nothing in the living room, I would have to tell the thieves to come back later.

    “there should be limits on what you can own and the types of weapons you can buy….an individual shouldnt be better armed than their police department is” …actually there is limits like say, a Barrett 50 cal, you have to be licensed for that
    .
    (This one is one of my favorites)
    “I would say FOX news can be the only reason for all of the paranoia I am reading here from gun owners, you would think the paranoid ones would be those who DONT own guns”….ahhh, the “paranoia” card, nice one, however, owning a gun is not a form of paranoia but a form of… If you try to hurt my family, friends or innocent people while I am around, you better hope I don’t draw first!

    (This one as well)
    “I could have said 20 or 50 and some dummy would have said what if I want to own 100 guns….and someone did, the point is you dont need that mahy, no one does because for one thing, if anything ever happened, you cant SHOOT that many….all you do is make yourself a target for thieves who want to STEAL your guns……you cant be home 24/7 to protect your weapons from thievesor your home, but if someone breaks in and breaks in to rob you, you want to be able to protect yourself, I would say a glock or 9 mm would be enough to defend yourself” …..
    Heres the point, if I had 10, 20 or 50 guns, YOU will not know where there are, sure I cant shoot that many, but you wont know where they are, wanna try breaking in now?…didnt think so. Now heres the real fun one, you know most law enforcement carries 9mm Glocks, right….pretty much one in the same, sure there are many types, calibers, colors and hell, some even tastes different. The point is, you might want to do some reading and make yourself a bit more intellectual on the different weapons systems.

    “I was in the military, I was trained to shoot, i was always a sharpshooter, but I live in the city, I am a law abiding citizen and live in a bad area and have never owned a gun, rifle or anything else, but yet when I was in the army, I shot better than you fools who need your gun to prove your manhood, I guess….I dont need it….I am able to fire a weapon and hold my own if ever I needed to…I am not paranoid that 10 or more guys are going to assault me or anyone I know….I dont deal in or KNOW those kinds of people…..I am not afraid the government is going to try and take control over everything so I need to arm myself for the revolt when it happens, this country has been around for over 250 years and that has never happened, and if you think it will, then you really need to stay away from fox because it is causing your blood pressure to spike unnecessarily”……This one speaks in volumes
    A lot to cover on that one, so I’ll just get right into it….” I am not afraid the government is going to try and take control over everything so I need to arm myself for the revolt when it happens, this country has been around for over 250 years and that has never happened,”….ummm seriously? So the American Revolution was just a “phase” America went through, kinda like menopause?

    “that doesnt mean that you are gonna walk around with an uzi ak47 or a glock or 9 mm with 30 round clips on the off chance you get stopped by a gang”….no one can walk around with an uzi or ANY other automatic weapon in the United States, unless they are military or law enforcement and only where there could be a possible threat, and only for a threat…. and there ya go with the “glock and the 9mm” thing again.

    And these are just a few, can these people actually say they are proud to be an American? These are ones that lose on the show Repo Games.

    • Jim S

      Correction: More often than not you will NOT need that kind of protection

      • http://peresonallibertydigest.. gottaplenty

        Jim,,, more times than not you wontn need that kind of protection. It only takes one ( not ) to make you wish you could reach a gun. Brave soul!

  • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

    The US Supreme Court decided, in 2008, that the 2nd Amendment applied to private citizens.

    About #4. Joe is the ex-son-in-law of one of McCains best friends. The Joe the Plumber crap did not happen by accident, and, IMO, HE was not smart enough to come up with it.

  • http://tlgeer.wordpress.com tlgeer

    Also, firing a warning shot is strictly movie stuff. If you pull the trigger, you had better shoot to kill. Other than target shooting, there is no other reason to use it.

  • http://45ACP JERRY

    IF THE POLICE /POLICE US WHO/POLICESES/THE POLICE

  • Smithkowitz

    Flashy says:”The 2nd is not, NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN, about protecting against bad guys.” Helloooo, it is all about protecting against bad guys, where ever the bad guys come from. Whether they are Terrorists, Corrupt Governments, Murderers anyone who threatens the lives of US citizens. Believe it or Don’t, but it is the TRUTH.

  • http://NONE rmgdnnow

    It can not be emphasized too often or too much, that taking gun rights from honest citizens is a thirst for power and control, just as it was when George III’s lackeys in Boston tried to take away all the firearms of the citizens in that city. The police, honest and corrupt, or competent or not, are armed to the teeth against citizens, even with what I call “portable electronic torture devices” (“Tasers”), and the disposition to use them with weak or even false reasons. I posit that self-defense is next to food as necessities of living any sort of decent life.

  • Deerinwater

    I maintain the belief that I don’t need a reason to own or carry a weapon. I don’t need permission, I don’t need to register and I don’t need to discuss it, it’s not up for debate.

    Now can this cause me undue hardships and I be classified as a criminal? Yes, most certainly it does.

    I’ve been called worse, while standing up for what you believe has never been cheap.

    That the world I live in is broken and I can’t fix it, I learned to accept many years ago.

    I attempt to stay on the “prevention” side of life and accept the delicate line I walk.

    The Handgun in the picture looks like a Colt Bulldog .357mag . The barrel is too long for my liking while a nice working mans piece.

    • Ken

      I think Deerinwater has the Constitution right. Even requiring a permit and background check surrenders to the state the power to deny the constitutional right and is an infringement on that right.

  • Shirl

    Shirl, I’m a VETERAN and what anyone needs to know is very simple if you have to take a defensive stand against anyone including these nasty dirty COPS remember this fear is real don’t run stand your ground, take no ground, and definitely give no ground. It’s better to take a life than having any one take yours empty every round leaving just one just in case the subject moves to a threatening position then put the lights out for good. I live in the state of dirty cops FLORIDA and I made it very clear to the state as well to the Mayor and commissioners’ board that if I had to lay my life down for a just cause I would do so there are too many thugs badge and gun carrying officers who think that they are above the law what people don’t now or understand is the reason cops gets away with murder is because the legislator also are thugs and criminals they pas one simple law to protect themselves from prosecution they claim immunity from prosecution and the state is a sevrenth state. We as the people must never let that crap scare us that we will be so afraid of anyone who threatens us this includes COPS, JUDGES, NASTY DIRTY PROSECUTORS and criminals I was in jeopardy of going to prison for (16) years because of a lie of domestic violence I told a felony Judge in one proceeding to give me the death penalty or (30) years in prison because I was not going to take a plea I was innocent of the charges. To make a long story short I was incarcerated for over six months I FORCE THE STATE to blink tree felonies nolle pros I was re-reclassified has a mister minor took the case to trail and was cleared innocent by a jury. One last thing talk this with your families and children never be trusting of any POLICE officer don’t matter how sweet and nice day talk to you because everything that you say to them they will use it against you. And if they threatening incarceration to hell with it let them and if it comes to that and you are so afraid then tell them to talk to you with a attorney one last thing never, never, never take a lie detector test for any one because that crap will never see the light of day in any court in this great nation.

  • Jon

    For those of you who have guns for home and personal defense, there is insurance and information available: http://bit.ly/LllqPB. Hang in there!

  • RWH

    Gun Control? I don’t believe the government cares that much about who gets robed at gun point or who gets shot in the process? I believe the government want gun control in effect to protect themselfs from us. We Americans have the largest armed army in the world. Add all the dear permits for one year here in the USA, Thats only part of the army.
    As long as we are armed, the crooks in DC are going to have to be careful how they steal our government money. Congress has given themselfs many perks, many other senaters and polititions are gathering all the wealth possable, knowing that something unwanted is on the horizon. If they have the wealth and control of the weapons? were will that put us?
    Can you say Roman Empire?

    • Paul

      As long as it isn’t them.

  • Paul

    It’s pretty obvious the city boys don’t know what it’s like living in the country and making a living in the country.

    Wonder if they ever get out of the city limits?

  • http://LibertyAlert Mr Right

    Some years back, an FBI car was being stolen in DC. The agent shot and killed the driver as he drove away. The news reporter said, the man stole the wrong car. Nothing happened to the FBI agent.

    LA, Calif. in the 1960′s two cops went with the PG&E man so he could cut off power from a lady, who did not pay her bill. The black lady Ula Love, threw a butcher knife at the cops, and missed. They both emptied their revolvers into her. For murdering her, they were not charged for anything.

    SO YOU HAVE TO GET A LICENSE TO KILL, LIKE THE POLICE, FBI, DHS, AND ATF.

  • Steve L.

    Once again the extreme left claims that gun control means no guns. You should at least have the same requierments as driving a car. THE REASON THE ATF AGENT WAS KILLED BY GUNS FROM THE U.S IS BECAUSE ARIZONA HAS NO LAW TO PREVENT IT. THE ATF AGENTS WERE FORBIDDEN TO STOP THE GUNS THAT KILLED THE ATF AGENT.THEY WERE NOT WALKING GUNS, THEY WERE FOLLOWING THE GUNS THEY COULDN’T STOP AND STILL NO ONE LISTENS TO THESE GUYS TRYING TO DO THIS DANGEROUS JOB. THE FAST AND FURIOUS IS THE PROFITS BY GUN SALES FROM LEGAL SALES TO MEXICO. CAN YOU SAY THANK-YOU NRA

    • Jim S

      The NRA had nothing to do with it, that “sting” was the brillance of Attorney General holder

    • Ken

      Wow! What a load of BS. Now your are saying Fast and Furious was all Arizona’s fault. Even Eric Holder couldn’t think that one up. The damn fool seemed to think it was a botched operation that he is trying to distance himself from and cover up. Why didn’t he just tell Congress to go to Arizona instead of flipping them the bird?

  • http://gravatar.com/turingschild turingschild

    I don’t own a gun. I do not carry concealed. If I need to shoot a perp, I will somehow get his gun away from him and shoot him with it. Let the police prove otherwise.

    • Fred

      Hay cuz , will you be gettin that criminals gun away from him somehow befor or after your dead ! ! Another billy bad A$$ for the record books !

  • http://yahoo Bob

    Jimmy the GREEK: You hang with a bad bunch!!! I have a lot of friends and none of them are felons. YOU are KNOWN by the FRIENDS You hang with.

  • Bob

    I didn’t read all the comments; but, I got the gist of them. I don’t agree with the warning shots in the air. They should’ve been into the perps body. The perp can’t testify if he has to undergo an autopsy. Then it’s the shooters (read: Victim) word on what happened with no one to dispute it.

  • J. C. Phillips

    The right to own a gun by individuals in America is the right that the government is trying to take away. Several years ago, a study was done at 29 Palms, CA. The Marines were asked if they would shoot fellow Americans if ordered to do so. About 39% of them replied that they would. This is very alarming to me. Slowly the government is trying to herd the masses, like cattle, into a corral of total control. It is happening worldwide, not just in the United States. I’ve been to war for the government on 3 different occasions. On each occasion, I was issued a firearm to shoot someone that the government told me was an enemy of the United States, yet I was on foreign soil. The enemy within our borders is more dangerous then the enemy outside. The government is slowly trying to make everyone dependant on the government for everything. Our fore-fathers knew this from the beginning, therefore they made the 2nd Amendant. No where do they state that individual citizens can only have one weapon. No where do they state that any individual citizen should be barred from having a weapon to defend themselves, their property, their rights as Americans, their local environment, their state, their government, their country.

  • http://NONE rmgdnnow

    I haven’t owned a firearm (except an antique 32 cal. rifle, single shot ca. 1880) since the 1960′s. BUT I assert and posit I have the right to own a rifle or handgun for hunting, tar-
    get shooting or self-protection. If people have no right to self-protection against armed thugs or rabid dogs, or other dangerous beasts, then they have nothing except the law of probabilities to protect them and their loved ones from predators of all stripes, human and otherwise, and the “public spirited” and “idealistic” blabbers and activists KNOW THIS and they don’t care.

  • Fred

    I`ll say this , they can have my gun if and when they stop protecting polititians ! ! No more armed escorts no more CIA bodyguards no more airforce 1 ! No more metal detectors in the buildings where they steal from us , no more armored limo`s to ride in ! They should drive their POV`s or take a taxi or bus or subway , they should go to mcdonalds or pizza hut and the like to get their own lunch or dinner , fly the airlines and wait in line like the rest of us ! ! Absolutely no more protection and privlage than WE THE PEOPLE have ! Ahhh but lets face it , that would go over like a turd in the punch bowl ! ! They want to be the only one`s with guns ! In their minds they are special and better and more valuable than WE THE PEOPLE !! I DON`T FEAR A GOVERNMENT WITH A GUN ! I FEAR A GOVERNMENT WHO FEARS MY GUN ! ! !

  • Karen K.

    You should NEVER NEVER NEVER fire a gun into the air. Permit or no, what goes up must come down and you don’t know where that bullet is going to land, or who or what it’s gonna hit. Did she have a concealed carry permit? The article doesn’t say but in the state of Virginia you don’t need to register your guns. They are already registered when you fill out the forms for buying them. As long as you open carry you don’t need a permit to carry. But you do need a concealed carry permit it you plan on concealing it.

  • Rodney

    stupid gun laws. I just read an article where a vet was arrested in Washington DC for having loose ammo in his bag. No gun just loose ammo that he forgot was in his bag.
    Now he is a felon and had his right to own a weapon stolen by thugs.

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.